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

There were no apologies.

There were no substitute Members.

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 be taken in public as proposed.

a)  26 August 2009; and

b)  22 September 2009.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 26 August 2009 and 22 September 2009 be agreed as correct records and duly signed by the Chairman.

Resolved:  That the notes of the informal meeting held on 20 October 2009 be agreed as a correct record.

·  Interview with the Museums and Heritage Manager, Simon Lace.

The Museums and Heritage Manager, Simon Lace, provided Members with an update on Maidstone Museum, highlighting a number of key points around increasing visitor numbers and the progress on the East Wing extension project.  The Committee then discussed the following:

·  During the building of the East Wing extension, artefacts would be moved to external storage.  The move would cost £30,000 and storage £40,000; this had been budgeted for;

·  As artefacts were being packed for storage they were being catalogued and digitised so that they could be made more accessible physically, interactively and online;

·  Construction of the East Wing extension was expected to begin in March 2010 for completion by July 2011.  52 weeks had been allowed for construction and a further 16 weeks for fitting out.  It was important to open before the 2011 summer holidays;

·  The East Wing extension dealt with the major problems at the museum, however more display space was still needed as well as a new café and wheelchair access to the upper floors of the museum;

·  A new fundraiser had been appointed to take a more proactive approach to funding the scheme.  £400,000 was needed by July 2011 and the rest needed to be secured by 2013.  The new fundraiser was working closely with a small number of vice-patrons and meeting with companies and trusts;

·  Collections could be used for raising money, for example a ‘touring collection’ had been created from the Japanese collection which had raised around £12,000 in 2 years both through hiring costs and fees to allow the sale of reproduction prints.  The Touring Exhibitions Group was used to help with organising and touring exhibitions.  A Councillor suggested looking for sponsors for touring exhibitions and Mr Lace agreed that diversifying sources of funding was important as the museum was a discretionary service;

·  The biggest boost to visitor numbers had been the dinosaur exhibition which had boosted figures from 44,000 to 83,000.  The 9 week exhibition had cost the equivalent of three years’ exhibitions budget, however visitor numbers now averaged 70,000 a year so it had been a worthwhile investment;

·  40% of school visits were from local schools, with others coming from elsewhere in Kent, East Sussex and South East London.  Outreach work was becoming more popular as it was cheaper for the school.  The option of getting a local bus company to subsidise school trips had been discussed;

·  The museum website address, www.museum.maidstone.gov.uk was on all publicity.  Museum event programmes were sent to all local schools immediately prior to holidays;

·  There were two bus stops outside the museum and it was hoped that when the Visitor Information Centre moved to the museum, the coach stop would move there also.  Road and pedestrian signage needed to be improved;

·  Three years ago, a survey had shown that 27% of the Borough’s residents were unaware of the museum, however the 2008 Place Survey had shown that now approximately 17% of residents were unaware of the museum which was a significant improvement.  Maidstone recorded the highest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

·  Interview with the Parking Services Manager, Jeff Kitson.

The Parking Services Manager, Jeff Kitson, outlined several key points with regard to parking on grass verges:

·  If a car was parked with 2 wheels on the footway, this was an obstruction and the responsibility of Kent Police;

·  Where signs existed stating that verge parking was enforceable under the County of Kent Act, this was the responsibility of Kent County Council enforcement officers;

·  If a car was parked on a verge adjacent to single or double yellow lines, Maidstone Borough Council had powers under the Traffic Management Act (TMA) to issue a penalty charge notice;

·  Changes in legislation has enabled orders to be introduced specifically to restrict verge parking, provided there was clear signage.  Following a public consultation, which received one objection, an order of this sort was introduced in three roads in Parkwood on 28 November 2008.  The trial had been extremely successful in changing driver behaviour. 70 penalty charge notices (PCNs) had been issued to date.  There had been a peak in PCNs initially which had reduced and was now rising again – this was a normal trend.  The area was visited at least three times a week by enforcement officers.  The trial had changed driver attitudes and compliance within the area, which was the aim.  The grass verges had also recovered; and

·  Of the PCNs issued, 61% had been paid, 18% had been cancelled through the appeals process, 12% had had formal notices issued and 5% were outstanding appeals.  The rest were awaiting identification of the registered keeper with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

The Committee then discussed the following issues:

·  Verge parking orders did not prevent people from parking on the highway.  This meant that there were ‘pinch points’ on some roads when cars parked with all four wheels on the highway, however this slowed traffic which was positive.  If cars parking on the highway caused problems for buses or emergency vehicles, this was an obstruction and would be dealt with by Kent Police.  On-street parking restrictions could be strengthened if necessary;

·  Consultation for the trial had included public notices every 30 metres along affected streets, advertisements in the press and letters to residents.  It was not unusual to only receive one objection as people tended to complain after the order was put in place;

·  Partnership working between MBC, KCC and the Police had improved.  Parking Services would work with other partners, such as Maidstone Housing Trust, where relevant and provided this addressed specific issues;

·  Requests for traffic orders were normally received directly from residents;

·  The success of a traffic order was considered in terms of changing driver behaviour, not income.  The 70 PCNs issued in the Parkwood trial had generated only £1,160, which did not cover the enforcement costs over the same period;

·  In enforcement areas, posts with signage needed to be displayed every 30 metres which was unsightly.  One option was to create controlled park zones whereby all entrances into a problem area identified the restriction through signs so that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Members felt that the 15 December 2009 meeting of the Committee was too busy to give each item a fair hearing and therefore agreed to move the “Litter Enforcement” and “Leisure Centre” items to the 19 January 2010 meeting.

A Member also noted that a visit to the Allington Incinerator had previously been requested and asked that this be followed up.

Resolved:  That

a)  litter enforcement and the leisure centre be considered at the 19 January 2010 meeting; and

b)  A visit to the Allington Incinerator be arranged.

6:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.