Agenda and minutes
Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone
Contact: Caroline Matthews 01622 602743
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence was received by Councillor Powell.
Notification of Substitute Members
There were no Substitute Members.
There were no urgent items.
Notification of Visiting Members
There were no visiting Members.
Disclosures by Members and Officers
There were no disclosures by Members and Officers.
Disclosures of Lobbying
There were no disclosures of lobbying.
response to a request by a Member to take Agenda Item 16 –
Provision of a Replacement CCTV System in public, the Director of
Regeneration and Place advised that the Proper Officer had agreed
that the report should be taken in private as the information
contained within it, if made public, could prejudice the future
Councillors M Burton, Purle and Rose requested that their dissent be noted.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2018 be agreed as a correct record and signed.
Presentation of Petitions
There were no petitions.
Questions and answer session for members of the public
There were no questions from the public.
The Committee considered the Work Programme.
It was noted that the Update on Heather House would come back in October.
Members requested that the results of the structural survey should be circulated to the Committee as soon as they are received rather than waiting for it to be included in the report for October.
RESOLVED: That the Committee Work Programme be noted.
Mr Mark Green, the Director of Finance and Business Improvement introduced his report on the Revenue Outturn 2017/18 – Allocation of Underspend in which he advised that Policy and Resources Committee had invited all the Service Committees to submit a proposal as to the allocation of the underspend to be spent on specific projects.
Mr Duncan Haynes, the Mid-Kent Environmental Protect Team Leader was invited by the Chairman to inform the Committee of a potential use for the underspend to carry out a feasibility study into a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) or Low Emission Zone (LEZ) in Maidstone.
Committee was advised that the actions in the Council’s Air
Quality Action Plan/Low Emission Strategy had been divided into a
number of themes, the most important being Transport. One of the actions was to undertake a feasibility
study into a Clean Air Zone or Low Emission Zone in Maidstone and
focus on the areas around the High Street. However, since that action was formulated,
Officers had obtained data that showed pollution levels around
Upper Stone Street were much higher so this would be the area
concentrated on should a feasibility study be funded.
It was noted that the action plan was clear in that it stated that the feasibility study could only be carried out if the required funding was found. A quotation was obtained and an application to Defra for funding had been made but proved unsuccessful.
In the absence of any funding, it was proposed that £30k be requested from the underspend to enable Officers to commission the feasibility study.
In response to
questions from Members, Mr Haynes responded that:-
He would circulate to Members the data regarding air quality which
related to Stone Street and the Wheatsheaf junction.
The low emissions zone would focus firstly on vehicles that emitted
the highest emissions, for example buses and then move onto the
next most polluting sector.
That it was mainly Metropolitan Borough Councils that were
successful in their bid for funding from Defra and the fact that
they had success was probably due to the fact that the low
emissions sanctions had been forced upon them.
That the feasibility study would take in all the one way system,
not just Stone Street.
In response to a
question from a Member, the Head of Housing and Community Services
confirmed that the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and
Transportation Committee looks at the policy for low emissions but
the Communities, Housing and Environment Committee looked after the
monitoring and implementation.
The Committee made the following comments:-
That the health of residents in the borough was their first concern
and the underspend should be used to ensure the health of residents
· That a decision on the underspend should be dealt with by full Council, not just Policy and Resources Committee ... view the full minutes text for item 34.
Mr John Littlemore, the Head of Housing and Community Services presented a report which outlined a proposal to create a policy that allowed (where possible) pets to reside with families whilst in temporary accommodation supplied by the Council.
Mr Littlemore drew Members’ attention to a small typo in the report on Page 14 under ‘Crime and Disorder’, would should have read that the recommendation would have nil impact on crime and disorder.
It was noted that it was not previously in the Council’s gift to allow pets in temporary accommodation. However now that the Council had acquired their own temporary accommodation; it could adopt a more considerate approach to the issue.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Littlemore responded that:-
tenant would be given a copy of both documents, i.e.
the Pet Policy and the Agreement.
· the agreement could not be transferred to another social housing provider should the tenant move out. However, it was hoped that other providers would adopt a similar policy in the future.
Members of the Committee made the following comments:-
That keeping a cat indoors who was used to going out may cause its own issues
such as behavioural or pet smells.
That the list of pets
were unnecessary and should be taken out.
· That should a person have a job that means they are away from home for long periods of time, could some discretion be given in these circumstances.
In response to all the issues raised by Members, Mr Littlemore advised that his Officers would take a pragmatic view on each individual case.
RESOLVED: That the Committee approve the Pet Policy 2018 and Agreement attached as Appendices A and B to the report and gives delegated authority to the Head of Housing and Community Services to amend the Policy and Agreement as discussed.
Voting: For: Unanimous
Mrs Jennifer Shepherd, the Head of Environment and Public Realm introduced her report on the Waste and Recycling Strategy 2018-2023.
The Committee noted that following previous consultation with the Committee and a workshop with Members, a new Waste and Recycling Strategy had been drafted.
Mrs Shepherd also advised that the issue of recycling had recently been in the news regarding single use plastics. As a result of this central government had proposed a number of changes to policies and legislation, including putting a tax on coffee cups.
In response to questions from Members, Mrs Shepherd advised that:-
The satisfaction target for customers on recycling
was taken out as it was almost a given that the rate would be high.
There would not be any policing of bins, just
working with residents to get it right.
The last resort would be to take the bin away.
The Council had adopted a hard line with housing
providers and management companies on their communal areas which
had been successful.
· Roadshows and face to face engagement are targeted to areas where recycling rates are low.
RESOLVED: That the draft Waste and Recycling Strategy 2018-2023 as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be adopted and the actions contained within it are implemented.
Voting: For: unanimous
The Committee considered the report of Mrs Shepherd which related to town centre public convenience provision.
It was noted that the Committee received an update report earlier in the year on the toilet community scheme and it was recommended that fully costed options be brought back to enable an informed decision on the provision of town centre public conveniences.
The Committee noted that there was some key considerations which needed to be taken into account when designing a new Town Centre public convenience, which were:-
Location – the
location needed to consider footfall, impact on local businesses,
utilities, visual appearance and security.
Usage – the
likely usage would impact on the size of the facility needed, the
cleaning and maintenance regime.
Cost – the split between capital and revenue costs for providing the facility needed to be considered.
Mrs Shepherd detailed the various options available and the likely costs.
In response to questions from Members, Mr John Edwards, the Street Scene Operations Manager advised that:-
conveniences in the Market Buildings were in a very bad state and
it would take a lot of investment to get them open again.
· to put in a public convenience facility in Palace Avenue would create a loss of income for the car park and would incur additional resources to maintain the facility.
Members made the following comments:-
That the costs were prohibitive and should not be
That the Council should wait and see what happened
with the developments at Maidstone East, the Mall and the Bus
That the Community Toilet Scheme should be continued
and Officers should try to get more businesses on board.
That it seemed a lot of money for a facility to be
built and then vandalised.
That the Council spent millions on the granite all
the way through the town centre to improve the environment so there
should be toilet facilities to help boost the town
· That a changing places facility was still needed in the town.
RESOLVED: That the Committee agree to deliver and improve
the Community Toilet Scheme and in future consider the possibility
of public conveniences in any further town centre
Councillor Mrs Ring left the meeting at 8.30 p.m. at the conclusion of this item.
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC FROM THE MEETING
RESOLVED: That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information for the reason specified, having applied the public interest test:-
Head of Schedule 12 A and
RESOLVED: That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information.
Provision of a Replacement CCTV System
The Committee considered the exempt report of Mr Matt Roberts, the Community Partnerships and Resilience Manager which detailed the need to relocate the CCTV system out of the Town Hall to a new location in order to protect the system from further flood damage and enable the repairs to the basement to take place.
Mr Roberts outlined the options available and emphasised that Option 3 would provide cameras which would improve the quality of evidence gathered but Option 2 provided a balance of cost and system improvement and was therefore the recommended option.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Roberts responded that:-
CCTV was used by the Police in their evidence
gathering and to respond to situations identified via
CCTV. However, it was also used by
other agencies, such as Maidsafe and
That there was potential to improve the quality of
the images from obtaining new or upgraded video over IP
That the Police do not make a contribution towards
the CCTV equipment but neither do they make a contribution towards
any other Authority’s equipment.
That he would supply any new Members to the
Committee with a copy of the review of CCTV provision that came to
the Committee last year.
That it was impossible to establish the amount of
crime prevented by CCTV.
· That by using the Wi-fi network proposed cameras could be deployed in areas in the town centre not currently covered by CCTV where there had been high rates of crime which was much more cost effective than installing a camera using fibre link.
RESOLVED: That the Communities, Housing and Environment Committee recommends to the Policy and Resources Committee that funds are made available to enable Option 2 at paragraph 3.2 of the report be implemented.
Voting: For: unanimous
Duration of Meeting
6.30 p.m. to 8.50 p.m.