Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs Hinder was substituting for Councillor Butler.

There were no visiting Members.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

There were no disclosures.

Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

Members noted that they had requested copies of the first and second quartile Performance Indicators with regard to the Leisure Centre’s footfall for 2008/09 and 2009/10 and comparative data to assist the Committee in reviewing Maidstone’s Leisure Centre.  A Member requested that it be noted that this information should be distributed at the earliest opportunity prior to the Committee’s meeting on 15 December 2009.

Resolved:  That

a)  The first and second quartile Performance Indicators with regard to the Leisure Centre’s footfall for 2008/09 and 2009/10 and comparative data be distributed to the Committee at the earliest opportunity prior to its meeting on 15 December 2009; and

b)  The minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interview with Ian Park, Community Development and Social Inclusion Manager, and Chris Finch, Corporate Property Manager.

The Chairman welcomed the Community Development and Social Inclusion Manager, Ian Park and the Corporate Property Manager, Chris Finch to the meeting.  Following an introduction from Mr Park outlining the contents of the draft Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Strategy, the Committee discussed the following:

·  The CAT Strategy related to transfer of assets to third sector voluntary groups.  It was not designed for CAT to other branches of government such as Parish Councils, but could potentially be adapted for this purpose;

·  The document was a draft and required the Cabinet’s agreement to the principle and process of CAT;

·  There was uncertainty whether further money for CAT would be made available to Local Authorities from Government to support CAT, particularly in the current economic climate; however alternative approaches could be considered by the Council to facilitate CAT opportunities where appropriate in the Borough;

·  Money may be exchanged for the CAT, but restrictions may exist if a Section 106 Agreement applied which precluded the disposal of a site for monetary gain.  The objective of CATs was, however, to empower the community and to revitalise under-used assets;

·  The document was applicable to all Maidstone Borough Council assets, but was written with the transfer of Community Halls in mind.  The transfer of community assets could be considered on a case by case basis by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services; this document outlined how the CAT would be considered.  No assets had currently been transferred under the CAT process as the document was only a draft;

·  Communities would be made fully aware if a transfer was being proposed; and

·  Transferring assets as a freehold rather than long-term leasehold could generate more interest from third sector groups.  Mr Finch was however in favour of long-term leases ensuring the Council retained a level of control if needed.  Members were concerned that CATs as freeholds could potentially put the asset at risk if the Community Group’s intentions for the land changed.  Members were advised that an Overage could be attached to a CAT to ensure the Council obtained a proportion of financial benefit if the land was later sold.  Members agreed that this should be pursued if the Council transferred assets as freeholds.

The web cast from this session is available at http://clients.westminsterdigital.co.uk/maidstone/archive.aspx.

Resolved:That an Overage be attached to any freehold community asset transfers.

Interview with Ian Park, Community Development and Social Inclusion Manager, and Chris Finch, Corporate Property Manager.

The Community Development and Social Inclusion Manager, Ian Park and the Corporate Property Manager, Chris Finch outlined the contents of the Community Halls report produced by Action with Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) and discussed the following with the Committee:

·  ACRK’s report identified Maidstone’s community halls and lease arrangements and sought examples of best practice;

·  The Committee noted that Ringlestone Community Hall was owned by Maidstone Housing Trust and was a temporary loan to the community association, initially expected to last 12 months.  It was agreed that this should be noted in the report;

·  Community Halls not identified in ACRK’s report would be included in it at a later date.  Work was required on what defined a ‘community hall’, as the list of halls could be extensive without such criteria;

·  The draft Community Asset Transfer (CAT) strategy referred to the need to audit existing community buildings.  ACRK’s report also recommended that a full audit and review of all community halls in the borough be carried out, to assist in developing a set of consistent standards.  The Committee agreed to consider this report prior to its submission to Cabinet in spring 2010; and

·  Section 106 Agreement money could be used to build community halls in Maidstone.  The report could be used to support the need for and requirements of a community hall.  The report would also assist in decision making regarding the future of community halls.

The Committee thanked Mr Park and Mr Finch for an informative presentation.

The web cast from this session is available at http://clients.westminsterdigital.co.uk/maidstone/archive.aspx.

Resolved:  That

a)  The fact Ringlestone Community Hall was owned by Maidstone Housing Trust and was a temporary loan to the community association be noted in the report; and

b)  The Committee consider the draft Community Halls report including the set of standards prior to its submission to Cabinet in Spring 2010.

The Committee agreed to remove the in-depth review of Community Halls from its work programme as extensive work was currently being undertaken by the Community Development and Social Inclusion Manager.

A number of Members highlighted that there continued to be problems with regard to vehicles parking on verges and footpaths across the Borough.  The Committee requested that the Parking Services Manager be invited to attend a Committee meeting to discuss what had happened, and what action was proposed, since the conclusion of the parking on grass verges trial in Parkwood.  Members noted the Joint Transportation Board’s previous concern with regard to this and given that the majority of verges were the responsibility of Kent County Council, agreed to write to the Joint Transportation Board’s Chairman to request that the issue of parking on verges and footpaths be added to its agenda.  The Committee felt this was particularly important as this may be a problem County-wide.

Members considered the Athletics Track update (attached at Appendix A) and expressed their disappointment that there had been problems concerning the sub-lease.  The Committee queried how the Green Travel Plan was being adhered to as required in the planning conditions and agreed to continue receiving further updates on the athletics track.

The Committee noted the sections of the Forward Plan that were relevant to the Committee’s remit and were informed that the draft Fees and Charges Market and Bereavement Services information would be circulated to the Committee by e-mail for comment.  The Overview and Scrutiny Officer also updated the Committee on the progress of the Tourism Strategy.  This decision had been delayed as the Tourism Strategy would be influenced by the outcome of the Heart of Kent Consortium Review.  The outcome of this review had been significantly delayed and had consequently delayed the Tourism Strategy Decision.  Consultation on the draft Tourism Strategy had taken place in June to September 2008.  The draft strategy had been circulated to the Committee by e-mail and Members agreed to return any comments to the Overview and Scrutiny Officer.  A number of Members requested hard copies of the strategy.

Resolved:   That

a)  The in-depth Community Halls Review be removed from the work programme;

b)  Information regarding how the Green Travel Plan was being adhered to as stipulated by the Athletics Track planning conditions be circulated to the Committee;

c)  Further Athletics Track update be provided to the Committee;

d)  The Parking Services Manager be invited to attend a Committee meeting to discuss the outcome of the Parking on Grass Verges Trial in Parkwood;

e)  The Chairman write to the Joint Transportation Board to request that the issue of parking on verges and footpaths be added to its agenda;

f)  The Forward Plan be noted; and

g)  Members contact the Overview and Scrutiny Officer if they required a hard copy of the draft Tourism Strategy.

6.30 p.m. to 8.40 p.m.