Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that Mr M J Angell had replaced Mr J B O Fullerton be noted.

(1)       Members of the Committee received a report on the progress for finalising the “Towards 2010” annual report that included an early draft of the report and the targets which the Environment and Regeneration Directorate contribute prior to its approval by the County Council on 18 October.

(2)       The Committee agreed to take all the targets with in Mr Gough’s Portfolio first.  Members made comments and asked questions which were as follows:-

(3)       Target 1: Substantially increase the number of new jobs by increasing the number of companies investing in Kent and the number of businesses starting up or expanding.

·        How is KCC helping to create new jobs, highly valued jobs with aspirations?

·        What is KCC doing regarding two-tier working with the District Councils?

·        Do we track companies that leave Kent?

·        What is the balance on employment and building land?

·        There was concern raised that business parks had become unofficial depots for lorries which could hinder selling the sites.

(4)       Target 2: Concentrate on the Regeneration of Kent’s deprived areas and support business growth in these areas, seeking maximum funding from Government and the EU to support the necessary infrastructure, including roads, utilities, telecoms and other services.

·        Target 6 has some influence in Target 2.

·        To attract businesses, Kent needs to have people with sound skills who are reliable and self-disciplined.

·        The infrastructure alone does not create jobs.

·        Targets for 2007/08 could be broken down district by district.

·        The issues of 30-50 year olds quality of training needs to be addressed as some areas receive better training than others.

·        It was felt that too many targets would be difficult to monitor and become spurious.

·        The measurable indicators and targets for 2007/08 needed to be reviewed.

·        The targets needed to be within the County Council’s control.

·        Did the bid for INTERREG funding include Folkestone?

·        There was a clear push to regenerate coastal areas putting in new industry but there seemed to be no aim to give support to existing businesses.

·        Has the new Sheppey bridge provided opportunities?

·        The new infrastructure on the Isle of Sheppey on its own did mean that regeneration would follow; there needed to be improvement in the education, especially in secondary schools on the island.

(5)       Target 3: Support a programme of town centre regeneration.

·        What progress has been made on the Turner Contemporary Gallery, Margate?

·        It was suggested that there needed to be clarity on what the Turner Contemporary Gallery was, to give justification for the County Council’s capital investment.  Was this a cultural or a regeneration project?
(Mr Gough advised that it was both and that SEEDA, who are providing substantial funding for the project, recognised this.)

·        As a regeneration project was it more a Margate issue and not a Thanet issue?

(6)       Target 4: Support rural businesses and communities to build a strong entrepreneurial culture.

·        There is no mention of Sittingbourne in this target.  Will it be included next year?

·        It was felt that this was a broad  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

(1)       The Committee considered the response by the Leader of the County Council to a questionnaire, he commissioned in July 2007 on all the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees (POCs).

(2)       Members of the Committee were given the opportunity to make comments which were as follows:-

·        Members needed to be reminded that they should be contributing to the agendas.

·        The POCs are a Member and not Officer Committee.

·        The POCs are not a decision-making Committee.

·        It needed to be clear when a decision was being made in the meetings.

·        It was considered that too much meeting time was taken listening to progress reports.

·        Members requested written reports before the meetings.

·        Members of the Committee felt that the Cabinet Members should be in attendance at all POC meetings although this was not always the case. 

·        Site visits should be arranged only when necessary.

(3)       RESOLVED that the report and comments in paragraph (2) above be noted.