Minutes:
(Item B2 – report by Mr A Wilkinson, Managing Director, Environment and Regeneration)
(1) Mr Wilkinson advised that Mr Gough and Mr Ferrin both sent their apologies for not being able to attend the meeting today. Mr Gough was attending a seminar in Glasgow and Mr Ferrin was meeting with Essex County Council and he would be reporting back on their behalf.
Portfolio for Regeneration and Supporting Independence
London Array
(2) Mr Wilkinson advised that this was a very complex matter and the County Council was still in talks with the Thanet District Council. There had been a meeting of interested parties in January 2008. If the project goes forward the prospects were felt to be very encouraging for the East Kent area becoming a ‘hub’ for engineering activities related to the windfarm proposals.
Ashford Future – Special Performance Vehicles (SPV)
(3) Mr Wilkinson advised that the setting up of the SPV’s had been agreed in principle and the County Council was now on board. Ashford Future Board would set out the direction for the delivery of the SPV.
Manston
(4) Mr Wilkinson advised that this was a joint venture project which was out for consultation this week to seek to develop the airport using the opportunities that already existed. Roger Gough was attending meetings in China for this purpose.
Turner Contemporary
(5) The Committee was advised that the Rendezvous Car park site would be regenerated as part of the work being planned and undertaken by the Consultants Glebesons. They will be looking at the many projects for the site and ensure that they compliment one another.
Post Offices
(6) The Committee was advised that the Post Office held a community summit for Kent on 6 March 2008 at Oakwood House, Maidstone and that an extension of the “No Use Empty” project was being piloted.
(7) The Committee were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments which included the following:-
· A request was made for an update on Dover Pride on its challenges for the future and the number of people employed by the company was requested for the next meeting of the POCC
· Details of the outcome of the Post Office meeting was requested, it was suggested that the County Council should lead on this issue and the suggestion of the Library buses being used to provide Post Office services. Mr Wilkinson agreed to bring back a summary of the outcomes of the Post Office meeting to the next POC. He advised that the County Council was attempting to influence Government on the Post Office closures and agreed to report back on the current lobbying to stop any further potential closures. It was suggested that using the words “support” gave a false premise. Mr Long as Lead Member advised that at the summit a number of people representing people affected by the Post Office closures were in attendance. The County Council had concluded that it would not be able to stop all 58 closures planned in the current round but that the work done would prove valuable in lobbying against any future review of the network. Mr Wilkinson advised that Essex County Council was contributing £4m to Post Offices to stop them closing. Mr Long felt that in his opinion Kent could be criticised if it used tax payers’ money in this way.
· A Member of the Committee advised that the criteria set down by the Government on Post Office Closures was very strict that unless you can get through the criteria, the only option is to provide subsidy.
· A Member of the Committee disagreed with the comments that taxpayers would not be happy to use money to pay for the post offices. If the Post Office was a community hub and socially desirable, there should be no objection, but there was a challenge. It was suggested that the County Council could run post offices where there was a need. The County Council could ask the Government to make them a charity and reduce their tax.
· Mr Long, Lead Member agreed that the Post Office as a publicly owned company owned by the Government. It was pointed out that the Post Office appeared to be protecting Crown Post Offices and the costs associated with the closure of the franchised offices was considerably lower. Mr Long advised that he was not saying public subsidy was ruled out completely, but at present the business model for post offices was completely floored. The “retail arm and the post office arm had no leg to stand on”.
· It was suggested that the County Council could look at other ways of working with the post offices. It was suggested that the Libraries, area offices and other buildings could be used.
· There was concern that Glebe Hill and Whistable Harbour were not mentioned in the update and a request was made for a report regarding pylons and the potential for £4m to Thanet Link to Dover Town.
· Regarding the London Array proposals it was stated that Port facilities in Ramsgate and Margate are both subject to high tide variations. Ramsgate would be locked and Margate had a pier that for six to eight hours had no water. There needed to be water to have shipping. It was suggested that Dover was the only port which was 20 miles away by road, it was felt that the practicalities would cost £m to make Margate a port. Mr Wilkinson advised that the London Array and Siemens were looking to see what was available in the ports. In response to a question regarding Lowestoft and Dunkirk, Mr Wilkinson felt they did not offer what Margate did with a longer regeneration potential.
· A request was made for the identification of the officer responsible for Manston Airport as there were concerns about the increase of lorries parking in the area.
· A Member of the Committee had concerns about feeling cajoled into regeneration schemes in areas such as Ashford that did not offer practicality. It needed to be borne in mind that the community would inherit maintenance problems for the future with ideas of one off specialist items, which would be difficult and costly to replace like for like in the future.
Portfolio for Environment, Highways and Waste
Lower Thames Crossing
(8) Kent and Essex County Councils have stated their joint intent to conduct a feasibility study into constructing a Lower Thames Crossing providing urgent transport relief for the South East, this will include the Terms of Reference and specification. Mr Ferrin, Mr P Carter, Leader of the County Council and Lord Hanningfield and the Leader of Essex County Council were looking at sites for the crossing.
· In response to a question, Mr Wilkinson advised that this study would include issues on rail, a bridge and a barrier.
Project Pothole
(9) The Committee were advised that due to the recent bad weather, the Kent Highways Services were blitzing the problems of potholes in the Kent roads. This challenge was being met by 24 crews tackling the potholes during April 2008. 1,800 potholes had already received attention. An action plan would be drawn up for 2009.
Operation Stack
(10) Mr Wilkinson advised that there were ongoing discussions with the Highways Agency, Kent Police, Fire and Ashford Borough Council and neighbouring District Councils looking at sites, cost and details for a truck stop with overnight stay facilities. The meetings had been positive.
Allington Incinerator
(11) The Waste Recycling Group was developing an integrated waste management facility at Allington Quarry and this would be fully operational for the beginning of the next financial year. Mr Wilkinson confirmed that the right amount of waste was being transferred at present.
Operation Stack
· There was concern from a Member regarding the number of negative meetings she had attended regarding Operation Stack as no-one had taken the time to speak with local people regarding the plans and ideas about the proposed site for the lorry park. Mr Wilkinson advised that the possible solutions were being discussed with relevant agencies in terms of the cost and maintenance and the practicalities of a site only when these issues were resolved would the local communities be engaged. The Member responded saying that this information could be shared with the local communities so they were aware.
· It was suggested by a Member that when Operation Stack was working, some ferries were not working. Ferries were capable of taking approximately 450 trucks. If ferries were not operating was there a reason why the lorries could not sit on the ferries? Was this a health and safety issue or was there another reason? Mr Wilkinson said he would seek a response.
RESOLVED that:-
(a) the Members questions and responses be noted and any necessary action be taken; and
(b) the oral report be received.