Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Mr M J Whiting, Member for Swale Central, was present for this item and spoke on it with the permission of the Chairman.

Mr M Bodkin, Head of Urban Regeneration, Mrs T Bruton, Head of Regeneration Projects, Mr P Campion, Development Contributions Manager, Mrs H Coleman, Economic Development Manager, Mr R Hancock, Regeneration and Projects Manager, Mr D Hughes, Regeneration and Projects Manager, Mr I Lewis, Growth Areas Manager, and Mr K Mackenney, Regeneration and Projects Manager, were in attendance for this item.

The Chairman, Mr M C Dance, declared an interest as a Trustee of Sheppey Academy, having previously served as an elected Member of Swale Borough Council, and Mrs J A Rook declared an interest as her family business has retail premises in a number of Kent towns.

Mr K A Ferrin declared a prejudicial interest due to his involvement with Kent Science Park in Sittingbourne, although, as this site was not referred to specifically during the discussion, he was able to remain in the room and take part in the general discussion on the item.

1.         Mr N Smith introduced the report and explained the criteria against which the priorities arising from each district visit had been assessed and awarded a provisional rating of High, Medium or Low.  He emphasised that the exercise had been an independent assessment, and assured Members that the criteria had been applied consistently across all districts. Priorities listed were those which had been identified at the visit, within the context of the Regeneration Framework. The report also included an update on any change to the projects in the time since the visit.

2.         Members were asked to consider the priorities listed, identify any priority which they thought had been omitted from the list, and decide if they agreed the rating awarded to each priority.  Members discussed what they had seen and heard at each visit, and the officer team answered questions of detail.  Points highlighted by questions and comments were as follows:-

General Comments on the assessment process:-

• Members would need to consider how each District’s priorities link with the KCC’s priorities;
• The priorities listed must be achievable;
• Members would need to consider the likely county-wide effects of the new Local Enterprise Partnerships; and
• KCC should stimulate economic growth as an underlying theme, in all areas.

ASHFORD

• the town centre is a joint priority with the Borough and County Councils;
• it is right that Ashford’s status as a growth point has a High rating. The Regional Spatial Strategy will set ambitious growth targets;

• there was a difference of view locally over the value of ‘Ashford’s Future’. Some Members expressed the view that it is a good driving force and a big advantage for Ashford, which, if it were to be discontinued, would need to be replaced with something as dynamic.  Other Members, however, did not share this view;  

• Local Development Framework assumptions made in 2008 were driven by Ashford’s status as a growth point; if one thing were to change,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Mr R Gill, Economic Strategy and Policy Manager, was in attendance for this item.

1.         Mr Gill introduced the report and explained that an interim board would be established in early December and would meet several times before April 2011.  The role and operation of the LEP were not yet clear, and views and proposals were being sought from each area so its local LEP would be individually tailored. The aim was that each LEP would be run with minimal bureaucracy, although a core work programme document would probably be needed to set out the priorities for each new LEP. The Government has also launched a new Regional Growth Fund (RGF), worth £1.4 billion over three years. This is significantly less than the funds previously available via the Regional Development Agencies and other Government bodies, and competition for funding will be high.

2.         Mr Gill answered questions from Members, and points arising from Members’ questions and comments were as follows:-

a)         the LEP board would potentially be very large, if other areas matched Kent’s 14 representatives. The interim board would need to decide if it felt this size was right;

b)         bids to the RGF could be made by private concerns and private/public concerns (but not public sector-only);

c)         Medway Council had not formally signed up to the LEP, but the LEP catchment area did include the geographical areas of Medway and the Essex Unitary Authorities;

d)         the LEP would have to decide on its unique selling point, and this could be ‘Gateway to England’, emphasising its ports and transport infrastructure.  The LEP area’s growth potential is also highly significant, especially in Kent and Essex;

e)         District representation on the LEP board will be determined by the Kent Forum. It is envisaged that business representation on the interim board will be determined by the Business Advisory Board of the Kent Economic Board, although once established, the LEP board could develop a different mechanism for identifying its membership; and

f)          the political mix of the LEP’s membership had not yet been decided.

3.         RESOLVED that the information given in the report and in response to Members’ questions be noted, with thanks.

1.         Mr Smith and Mrs Bruton introduced the report and updated Members on changes which had emerged since writing the report, as follows:-

a)         the Ashford Station forecourt project was now under review and was unlikely to proceed in the near future;

b)         landscaping at the Dover Priory Station project was mostly complete, and the project was ready to hand to Network Rail to run;

c)         discussions were underway with project partners on possible uses of the Rendezvous/Winter Gardens site in Margate; and

d)         the ‘No Use Empty’ initiative had recently celebrated its 5^th anniversary and had been commended nationally, having exceeded its targets.  More District Councils were now on board.

2.         Points highlighted by questions and comments were as follows:-

a)         cross-Directorate work was always to be encouraged, and Members were assured that links would be made where appropriate; and

b)         KCC still had links with Business Support Kent, a Community Interest Company, which had previously run Business Link Kent.  Although the company had subsequently lost the Business Link contract, it had continued its other areas of work.

 3.        The Cabinet Member, Mr Lynes, commented that the offshore wind power industry needed to appear welcoming to potential new trainees, and the KCC could influence the skills agenda in this very lucrative industry.  Swale Skills Centre had commenced training a first intake of thirty young people in the specialist skills required.

4.         RESOLVED that the information given in the report and in response to Members’ questions be noted, with thanks.

Mr D Shipton, Finance Strategy Manager, was in attendance for this and the following item.

1.         Mr Shipton introduced the report and explained that the only change which had arisen since last reporting to the POSC was that two extra posts had become vacant.

2.         RESOLVED that the information given in the report be noted, with thanks.

1.         Mr Shipton introduced the report and reminded Members that, as he had reported to the September meeting, the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme (LABGI) grant had been removed this year and the impact accommodated, so no reduction in income would yet be apparent.

2.         RESOLVED that the information given in the report be noted, with thanks.

Members did not offer priorities for delivering the indicative cash limits as the picture of available funding was not yet clear enough for Members to be able to make an informed judgement. 

Mr J Hawkins, Transformation Project Manager, was in attendance for this item.

1.         Mr Hawkins introduced the report and set out the process, explaining that consultation on the proposals would end on 1 December.  Thereafter, the Group Managing Director would make a recommendation on the new structure to the County Council on 16 December. Mr Hawkins answered questions from Members, and the points highlighted by questions and comments were as follows:-

a)         in the current proposals, the delivery of regeneration projects had been placed within the Enterprise Directorate; and

b)         Members expressed a range of views about the value and timing of the restructuring exercise, and, on balance, the prevailing mood of the meeting was that this was the right thing to do and the right time to do it. Members commended the savings to be made.

2.         The Cabinet Member, Mr Lynes, paid tribute to the commitment and passion of KCC Members and officers and said that KCC was a very good local authority.

3.         Mr Hawkins responded to Members’ comments by explaining that the aim of the restructuring was to start at the top to set out the framework of a smaller organisation, to better handle future change. He said that the savings would be around £800,000 initially, and, as each of the new Directorates shaped its services, there would be further savings.  The existing Managing Directors had been fully involved in the design principles.

4.         RESOLVED that the information given in the report and in response to Members’ questions be noted, with thanks.

1.         The Chairman and Mr K Smith referred to the Select Committee on the Student Journey and said that this would be a good example of cross-Directorate working, as the project would bring together Regeneration, Learning and Development and Communities.

2.         RESOLVED that the information set out in the report be noted, with thanks.