Agenda and minutes

Venue: The Guildhall, St Peter's Place, Canterbury

Contact: Josie Newman  01227 862 009

Items
No. Item

237.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Wimble.

238.

Declaration of any interests

TO RECEIVE any declarations for the following in so far as they relate to the business for the meeting:-

 

a.       Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

b.       Other Significant Interests (what were previously thought of as non-pecuniary Prejudicial interests)

c.       Voluntary Announcements of Other Interests

 

Voluntary Announcements of Other Interests not required to be disclosed as DPI’s or OSI’s, ie announcements made for transparency reasons alone, such as:

         Membership of outside bodies that have made representations on agenda items, or

         Where a Councillor knows a person involved, but does not have a close association with that person, or

         Where an item would affect the well-being of a Councillor, relative, close associate, employer, etc but not his/her financial position.

 

[Note: an effect on the financial position of a Councillor, relative, close associate, employer, etc; OR an application made by a Councillor, relative, close associate, employer, etc, would both probably constitute either an OSI or in some cases a DPI].

 

Minutes:

During the meeting Councillor I Thomas made a voluntary declaration that he was a Kent County Councillor.

239.

Public participation

The Chairman to report any requests from members of the public who have given notice that they wish to speak on any item on the agenda.  The public must give notice to Democratic Services by 12.30pm on the working day before the meeting.

Minutes:

There was one public speaker for the meeting he was heard immediately prior to the consideration of the Tankerton Football Club Lease item.

240.

Minutes of meeting Thursday, 29 June 2017 of Regeneration and Property Committee pdf icon PDF 130 KB

To confirm as a true record.

Minutes:

The minutes were agreed as a true record by general assent.

 

 

241.

Public Realm Improvements - Canterbury pdf icon PDF 158 KB

TO CONSIDER the report of the Assistant Director of Planning and Regeneration.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Transport and Environment Manager introduced the report which formally presented the consultation results on a public realm improvement in St Georges Street and proposed a new scheme of improvements in Orange Street, Best Lane and the Friars. He added that:

 

St George’s proposals:

 

  1. The public had been concerned about the proposed loss of trees and about the street market. Both issues needed to be looked at again before anything would happen there.

 

  1. The council were in discussion with the Heritage Lottery Fund about doing a wider scheme of improvements.

 

  1. Given the complexities and the involvement of external partners it was likely that it would be some time before a new proposal would be ready for consideration.

 

New proposals Orange Street, Best Lane and the Friars:

 

  1. The proposals sought to provide a better link between the Beaney and the Marlowe.

 

  1. More detail would be add to the plans before it was release for consultation.

 

The Chairman added that given the strength of feeling in the consultation regarding St George’s it was important to take the time to look again at the plans for that area. He proposed the recommendations set out in the report and these were seconded. When they were put to a vote they were unanimously agreed.

 

Councillors were invited to debate and the Transport and Environment Manager gave points of clarification where needed. Points including the following were included:

 

  1. Income from the increased parking charges was earmarked for public realm improvements.

 

  1. The pavements and other surfaces were sometimes in a poor state of repair for a long time, this discouraged people from travelling on foot, general maintenance should be the priority.

 

  1. Kent County Council (KCC) were the responsible authority for undertaking repairs to the highways, including pavements.

 

  1. It was frustrating that this council was investing in the public realm by using material sympathetic to their surroundings but that when repairs were undertaken basic tarmac was used. This had been raised with KCC repeatedly at an officer level without any success.

 

  1. The tree roots in St George’s Street caused accidents as they raised the pavements causing people to trip over.

 

  1. It was important to be responsive to the views of the public.

 

  1. Orange Street was currently a difficult area for those with prams.

 

  1. Any counter terrorism measures would not be delayed by the St George’s public realm improvements being put on hold.

 

RESOLVED:

(a)   That the St George’s Street consultation results are noted and, although that specific scheme will not proceed, the comments will be borne in mind whilst further work is carried out to consider options for the street market and the potential for a wider HLF bid. Once this work has been completed a further report will be brought to this committee.

 

(b)   That public consultation is undertaken on the proposed improvements in Orange Street, Best Lane and the Friars.

 

Reasons for the decision: Funding has been set aside in the capital programme for a number of public realm improvements in Canterbury as part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241.

242.

Mortimer Street, Herne Bay: Extended pedestrian times pdf icon PDF 97 KB

TO CONSIDER the report of the Assistant Director of Planning and Regeneration.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Transport and Environment Manager introduced the initiative started by the Herne Bay Area Member Panel. An experimental traffic had been made a year previously to help to prevent unauthorised access to the pedestrian zone in Mortimer Street. The only concerns raised during the trial was that some unauthorised traffic had been displaced elsewhere so it was now proposed to make the order permanent and to install an additional gate to mitigate for the issue raised. He drew attention to the revenue implications of the scheme (£3,000 per year)

 

The Chairman proposed the recommendations set out in the report and added that it was a good example of an area member panel coming up with practical solutions to issues in their area. The proposals were seconded. The Chairman also added that the cheapest option at the present time was the manual opening and closing of the gates but there may be other technical solutions in the future.

 

The following options were set out in the report:

 

  1. make permanent the experimental traffic order and make provision for a further gate to be installed at William Street;
  2. make permanent the experimental traffic order without further measures at William Street;
  3. abandon the experimental traffic order.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)   That the Kent County Council (Pedestrian Zone, Herne Bay) (Experimental Traffic Regulation) Order 2016 is made permanent.

 

(b)   That an additional gate is installed at the junction of Mortimer Street and William Street

 

Reasons for the decision: The experimental traffic order in the Mortimer Street area has been reasonably well received and has generated very few objections. It has provoked some observations that William Street needs to be protected by a gate in the same way as Mortimer Street.

 

Record of voting

For the proposal (10): A Baker, Eden-Green, Fisher, Fitter-Harding, Spooner, I Stockley, J Stockley, I Thomas, R Thomas and Waters.

 

Against or abstaining from the proposal: None.

243.

Lease for Tankerton Football Club pdf icon PDF 240 KB

TO CONSIDER the Director of Resources.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Prior to the consideration of the item a member of the public, Tim Elgar on behalf of the football club, spoke to the Committee.)

 

Principal Property Asset Surveyor introduced the report which updated the committee on the matter which it had previously considered in June 2017. The proposal was to lease an area of land to Tankerton Football Club. He drew attention to the minutes of the coastal area panels, architects drawings and other additional points which had been added to the documents since the committee had considered the matter.

 

The Chairman explained that a number of the councillors had not been aware of the scheme when the scheme first came to the committee. Given the scale and sensitivity of the proposal, which was to in install football pitches and a clubhouse in the green gap, the committee had referred it to the coastal area panels for consultation.

 

Chairman drew attention to the supplements for the meeting and proposed the recommendations in the report. The proposals were seconded.

 

The Committee made comments and asked questions and the Assistant Director of Direct Service and Chief Executive gave points of clarification. Points were covered including the following:

 

  1. Matters to do with the sale of alcohol would be dealt with by the licensing officers and/or committee.

 

  1. The lease should be drafted, so far as it was legally possible, in such a way to ensure that if club wishes to propose buildings for which they currently do not have planning permission, the committee would need to give its consent before this could happen.

 

  1. When the planning application relating to the current scheme was out for consultation it was considered a major application and so was duly advertised in the press. However, only one objection was received.

 

  1. Some councillors felt that any development in the green gap was a political issue and should go to committee.

 

  1. It was difficult to ask officers to decide what was controversial this was why the list of all planning applications was shared with all councillors to allow them to flag up issues, and if they wished, to ask an application to come to committee.

 

  1. The area was designated in the 2014 Local Plan as junior football pitches despite it being in the green gap. This was because the area would largely be retained as open space.

 

  1. The proposal was a good one, was in accordance with planning policy and received only one objection. This meant that the planning officer was able to grant it as delegated decision and they did so as they were not aware it would be a controversial application.

 

  1. Normally an officer would refuse development in the green gap but the proposal was good and acceptable under the planning policy.

 

  1. The report did not make specific reference the ecological impacts except to say that a large nature conservation area had been included with the proposals.

 

  1. There would be a degree of public access to the nature conservation area.

 

  1. Additional facilities would be welcomed by those that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 243.

244.

Riverside Compulsory Purchase Order pdf icon PDF 149 KB

TO CONSIDER the report of the Assistant Director of Planning and Regeneration.

 

(Please note the information contained at later in this agenda).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Head of Business and Regeneration introduced the report which set out the background to a proposal to make a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in relation to the Canterbury Riverside development site. She drew attention to the information on the negotiations which had been set out in part of the agenda exempt from publication.

 

The Chairman added that the council took its CPO powers very seriously and in this case instigating the process should allow the negotiations to come a conclusion. He proposed the recommendations set out in the report. These were seconded and the vote took place at minute 247.

 

Councillors commented that it was good to see the wider scheme nearer its conclusion as local residents we looking forward the area being regenerated.

 

A councillor asked to discuss some of the matters contained in the information which was exempt from publication so the debate was continued at minute 247 following the exclusion of the public.

245.

Date of next meeting

7pm Thursday 30 November 2017, the Guildhall, St Peter’s Place, Canterbury.

Minutes:

7pm Thursday 30 November 2017 in the Guildhall, St Peter’s Place.

246.

Exclusion of the press and public

TO RESOLVE – That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act or the Freedom of Information Act or both.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act or the Freedom of Information Act or both.

 

247.

Riverside Compulsory Purchase Order - Annex exempt from publication

(The information contained here is exempt from being published because its disclosure is likely to prejudice the commercial interest of both the Council and other bodies (s. 43 Freedom of Information Act 2000). The Council considers that at present the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. Paragraph 3 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 also applies.)

 

TO NOTE

 

(Please note the information contained at the earlier agenda item).

Minutes:

(The information contained here was exempt from being published because it’s disclosure was likely to prejudice the commercial interest of both the Council and other bodies (s. 43 Freedom of Information Act 2000). The Council considers that at present the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. Paragraph 3 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 also applies.)

 

The councillors asked further points of clarification regarding process and the situation in regards to the Kingsmead development.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)     That the Head of Legal Services in consultation with the Head of Property be authorised to use compulsory purchase powers for the purpose of the acquisition of the Order Lands as shown in Appendix 1 under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 226(1)(a), and to:

 

i. take all necessary steps to secure the making, confirmation (where permitted) and implementation of the compulsory purchase order, including the publication and service of all notices and the presentation of the Council's case at any Public Inquiry; and

 

ii. take all necessary steps to negotiate and approve agreements with landowners and owners of affected interests setting out the terms for the withdrawal of objections to the compulsory purchase order, including where appropriate seeking exclusion of land from the compulsory purchase order;

 

iii. Agree the Statement of Reasons to properly reflect the Council's reasoning regarding the proposed CPO so as to properly present the Council's case at inquiry;

 

iv. take all necessary steps to negotiate the acquisition of any qualifying interests in the Order Lands in advance of making the compulsory purchase order.

 

v. to invite the Secretary of State to modify the Order or to undertake not to implement the confirmed Order in circumstances where it is no longer necessary to acquire compulsorily.

 

vi. to make one or more general vesting declarations or serve notices to treat (as appropriate) should the Order be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

 

(b)     That the Head of Property Services be authorised to settle any further incidental matters necessary to bring the matter to completion.  

 

Reason for the decisions: The approach offers the best opportunity for the regeneration of the Kingsmead area of Canterbury and to bring forward a scheme which will bring significant public benefit to both the immediate area and the wider district.

 

Record of voting

For the proposal (10): A Baker, Eden-Green, Fisher, Fitter-Harding, Spooner, I Stockley, J Stockley, I Thomas, R Thomas and Waters.

 

Against or abstaining from the proposal: None.

248.

Lease for Tankerton Football Club - annex exempt from publication

(The information contained here is exempt from being published because its disclosure is likely to prejudice the commercial interest of both the Council and other bodies (s. 43 Freedom of Information Act 2000). The Council considers that at present the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. Paragraph 3 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 also applies.)

 

TO NOTE the supplementary information

 

(Please note the information contained at the earlier agenda item).

Minutes:

(The information contained here was exempt from being published because it’s disclosure was likely to prejudice the commercial interest of both the Council and other bodies (s. 43 Freedom of Information Act 2000). The Council considers that at present the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. Paragraph 3 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 also applies.)

 

This was borne in mind by the Committee when they considered the matter at minute 243.