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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Beerling, Nelson-Gracie, Ross, Thick and Vizzard.

It was noted that Councillors English and Hinder were substituting for Councillors Vizzard and Nelson-Gracie respectively.

There were none.

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.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2010 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

·  Interview with the Economic Development Manager, John Foster.

The Chairman welcomed the Economic Development Manger, John Foster and the Economic Development Officer, Keith Grimley to the meeting to discuss the progress of the Economic Development Strategy that had been published in November 2008.

Mr Foster stated that the economy was fundamentally sound and that companies had shown a continued interest through Locate in Kent in Maidstone as a place to invest.  However demand following initial inquiries had not been significant given the current state of the economy.  Mr Foster highlighted that employment rates in Maidstone remained relatively low in comparison to South East averages, despite rising from 1.3% in 2008/09 to 2.8% in 2009/10.  Employees in Maidstone continued to receive low wages and were predominately low skilled, with significant proportions of Maidstone’s highly skilled residents commuting out of the borough for work.  Mr Foster then outlined the progress made against the Economic Development Action Plan, highlighting the following:

·  A report was being presented to the Local Development Document Advisory Group (LDDAG) as part of the Local Development Framework process to define a town centre boundary and to split the town centre into five sectors;

·  A Local Strategic Plan sub group had been set up to monitor and review the Economic Development Strategy and the Sustainable Communities Strategy;

·  The Media Tree network continued to be funded by Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) and Kent County Council (KCC).  ASB Law had recently joined the Media Tree Steering Group and this had given a new perspective on their work;

·  A number of rural Maidstone businesses had received a total of £80–100,000 in grant funding;

·  The implementation of the Tourism Strategy had been delayed pending the results of the Heart of Kent review because it had a significant role in the strategy;

·  Maidstone was part of the Kent 2012 Olympics Working Group.  The Maidstone Dream project to support local athletes continued to be successful, and Leeds Castle was supporting this by hosting a dinner party;

·  A memorandum of understanding had been signed with Business Link, and a programme of tailored training opportunities relevant to the Maidstone economy had been agreed.  This included topics such as licensing, planning and business rates;

·  Mr Foster had been invited on to a Mid Kent College panel to help develop the Oakwood Park adult education curriculum;

·  Locate in Kent was working with MBC to determine how to promote Maidstone’s offer to businesses;

·  A directory of businesses in Maidstone had been produced; and

·  The vocational skills centre in Senacre Community Hall was larger than originally planned and would provide evening classes and youth activities.  The vocational skills training was planned to correlate to job opportunities in Kent.

There was a policy in the regional plan to locate further education and investment opportunities together on a university campus.  This was intended to enable opportunities to share knowledge between the two sectors.  The old Springfield site had been identified as a possible location given its proximity to local amenities and its accessibility.  A number of Members were concerned that too much  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

The Committee noted its future work programme and the Chairman highlighted that the gypsy and traveller site update would be brought to the meeting on 27 April 2010.

The Committee considered the draft junk mail scoping document (attached at Appendix A) and agreed to contact the Overview and Scrutiny Officer with any suggestions or amendments.  Members agreed it would be useful to visit the take away companies that posted menus to discuss the Committee’s review and any possible alternatives.  Furthermore, the Committee agreed it may be more appropriate to hold an informal workshop style meeting to undertake its review and that an additional daytime meeting may be required in order to cater for all possible witnesses.

Resolved:  That

a)  The future work programme be noted; and

b)  Committee Members contact the Overview and Scrutiny Officer with suggestions and amendments to the draft junk mail scoping document.

6.30 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.