CABINET Thursday 13 September 2012

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest Members may wish to make including the term(s) of any dispensations that have been granted to Members.

3. Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 July 2012 (Pages 1 - 8)

4. Urgent Items The Chairman will announce his decision as to whether there are any urgent items and their position on the agenda.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION IN PUBLIC

5. To receive the Minutes of the Cabinet Advisory Panel held on 10 September 2012 To follow

6. Ref erences from Committees None at this stage.

A - Strategies, Policies, Key Decisions, Consultations

7. Renegotiation of Section 106 Agreements: Government RD Consultation (Pages 9 - 12) Summary:

The Government is consulting on a proposal that allows for formal renegotiation of Section 106 Agreements within a shorter time period than the current five year threshold. Section 4 of this report sets out a proposed response to this consultation.

Recommendation:

That the proposed response, set out in Section 4 of this report, be agreed for submission to government.

8. 2012 DFT Rail Franchise Consultations (Pages 13 - 88) RD

1 Summary:

1. The Department for Transport (DfT) is consulting on rail franchise operations that affect the Borough and the County. The consultation is of a general nature, and does not make specific recommendations in relation to service changes.

2. This report appends the responses of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership and the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership, and suggests that the Council endorse these, and make an additional response as set out in the report.

Recommendations:

1. That DfT be informed that the Council endorses the comments of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership and the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership.

2. That DfT be informed of the Council’s specific points in paragraph 3.9 of this report.

B - Non-Key Decisions, Monitoring Reports

9. Windfall Housing Sites (Pages 89 - 102) RD Summary:

Windfall sites are housing sites that come forward unexpectedly, outside of the plan preparation process. The ‘Windfall Site Practice Note’ at Appendix A, sets out an assessment process based on existing local and national policy, which will allow for a consistent approach in the determination of planning applications on windfall sites.

Recommendation:

To agree the ‘Windfall Site Practice Note’ at Appendix A for use in the determination of planning applications for windfall sites.

10. Darenth Valley Park: Parking Permit Scheme (Pages 103 - 108) SD Summary:

1. Some of the residents of Darenth Valley Park report numerous and increasing parking related issues as a result of parking management at Darent Valley Hospital.

2. This report summarises discussions that have taken place and seeks approval to commence the statutory process for the

2 introduction of a traffic regulation order (TRO) for a permit parking scheme.

Recommendations:

1. That Cabinet note the contents of this report.

2. That Cabinet approve the commencement of the statutory process for the introduction of a traffic regulation order for a permit parking scheme at Darenth Valley Park and surrounds.

11. Greenhithe Parking Review (Pages 109 - 112) SD Summary:

At its meeting on 23 February 2012 (Min. No. 145) Cabinet authorised the undertaking of the statutory process for a traffic regulation order (TRO) reflecting the feedback from an earlier review of the effectiveness of the Greenhithe area parking schemes.

This report summarises the feedback of the consultation and makes recommendations for amendments to some parking controls.

Recommendation:

1. That Cabinet notes the outcome of the consultation as set out in this report.

2. That Cabinet approves the recommendations in this report at paragraphs 3.6 to 3.9.

3. That Cabinet authorises the completion of the statutory process with the ‘authorisation’ of the TRO effecting changes to the on-street parking management regulations as set out in paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of this report.

12. Establishing a Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway DfIE (Pages 113 - 134) Summary:

To present a report received from Kent County Council inviting Dartford Borough Council to approve the establishment of a Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway, including the terms of reference, panel arrangements and rules of procedure.

3

Recommendations:

1. That the arrangements and rules proposed in Appendix A to the report, which will enable the Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway to be formally constituted by November 2012, be agreed.

2. That the Deputy Leader, Councillor A R Martin, be nominated to the Police and Crime Panel be agreed and that the Head of Democratic Services at Kent County Council be notified of that nomination

13. Petition from Businesses in Longfield Requesting the Provision SD of Monitored CCTV (Pages 135 - 140) Summary:

1. The Council has received a petition from Businesses in Longfield requesting the installation of monitored CCTV Cameras within Station Road.

2. This report is to advise Members of the petition in accordance with the Council’s Rules for dealing with Petitions, and to seek Members’ views for a proposed response.

Recommendation:

That Members note the content of the report and consider the response from the Council to the petition.

14. Petition from Residents regarding KCC's Proposal for a SD Footpath on Dartford Heath (Pages 141 - 150) Summary:

1. The Council has received a petition from some of the residents of Heathclose Road objecting to the proposed construction by Kent County Council of a new footpath on Dartford Heath. The covering letter to the petition is attached as Appendix C.

2. This report is to advise Members of the petition in accordance with the Council’s rules for dealing with Petitions, and to seek a decision by Members as to whether this Council will give consent for the construction of the proposed new footpath.

Recommendations:

1. That Members note the content of the report and decide

4 whether to give consent for the construction of the new footpath on Dartford Heath.

2. That should Members decide not to give consent for the construction of the new footpath as proposed, consideration is given to whether any lesser or alternative works could be supported instead.

15. Proposal to Convert Part of Elizabeth Court Supported Housing RD Scheme for General Needs Accomodation (Pages 151 - 154) Summary:

1. This report sets out proposals to de-designate one wing of Elizabeth Court, Darenth and convert the current 16 x 1 bedroom supported housing units into a mix of family sized and single person units. These units will then be let to tenants from the Housing transfer list which will both create movement in the transfer list and make better use of existing stock.

2. The proposal will involve rehousing, and offering a statutory home loss payment, to each current tenant who will then be offered a DBC supported housing unit of their choice elsewhere in the Borough.

3. The proposed general needs wing of Elizabeth Court will be permanently separated from the remaining supported housing flats and communal facilities on site, and the conversion costs are expected to be in the region of £250,000.

Recommendation:

1. That Cabinet approve the de-designation of one wing of Elizabeth Court, Darenth and conversion of the current 16 x 1 bedroom units into a mix of family sized and single person units.

2. That Cabinet approve the following virement to meet the cost of the works and other associated costs:

Increased Decreased Expenditure/ Expenditure/ Reduced Increased Income Income

£’000s

5 £’000s Major Repairs (150,000) Elizabeth Court 150,000 Powerline Compensation (100,000) Elizabeth Court decant process 100,000

C - Items for Information, noting, endorsing

16. Private Sector Empty Homes Financial Assistance Proposal: RD Update (Pages 155 - 158) Summary:

1. On 5 April 2012 Cabinet approved a proposal to offer financial assistance to enable owners of empty properties to bring their property back into use, in order to house families from the Council’s temporary accommodation waiting list.

2. This report updates members on progress and provides further detail on the loan process and the legal implications for both applicants and the Council.

Recommendation:

1. That Cabinet note the contents of this report and the progress made in implementing the scheme.

17. Update on Homelessness (Pages 159 - 164) RD Summary:

1. On 28 June 2012, Cabinet noted the 2011/12 outturn for the General Fund, Housing Revenue Account and the Identified Initiatives Reserve, and the reasons for significant variances compared to probable outturn in the Revenue Budget Monitoring report [Minute No. 36 refers].

2. On 26 July Cabinet noted the Revenue Budget Monitoring report 2012/2013 including the expenditure on homeless prevention and t he provision of temporary accommodation. The costs of both are projected to be significantly higher than budget and, if trends continue, a budget overspend of approximately £350,000 is likely [Minute No. 50 refers].

3. This report provides an update on homelessness, as described in the report presented to Cabinet on 26 July; the use of temporary accommodation and proposals to mitigate

6 further increases in General Fund expenditure.

Recommendation:

That Cabinet note the contents of this report.

18. Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre Annual Report 2011 (Pages RD 165 - 178) Summary

This report presents the Annual Report for 2011 from the management company of Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre, Parkwood Leisure Limited.

Recommendation:

The 2011 Annual Report from Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre be noted.

19. The Orchard Theatre Annual Report 2011/12 (Pages 179 - 192) RD Summary

This report presents the Annual Report for 2011/12 from the management company of The Orchard Theatre, HQ Theatres Ltd.

Recommendation:

The 2011/12 Annual Report for The Orchard Theatre be noted.

20. Meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town DfIE Councils held on 10 July 2012 (Pages 193 - 202) Summary:

To present to Cabinet the notes of the meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils held on 10 July 2012, attached at Appendix A to the report.

Recommendation:

That the notes of the meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils, held on 10 July 2012, be considered and noted.

7 This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 3

DARTFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET

MINUTES of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Thursday 26 July 2012 at 7.00 pm

PRESENT: Councillor J A Kite, MBE (Chairman) Councillor A R Martin (Vice-Chairman) Councillor P F Coleman Councillor A R Lloyd Councillor C J Shippam

ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Mrs A D Allen (Lead Member) Councillor S H Brown (Lead Member) Councillor D A Hammock (Lead Member) Councillor E J Lampkin (Lead Member) Councillor B E Read (Lead Member)

38. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors A R Martin and A R Lloyd.

39. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

40. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28 JUNE 2012

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 28 June 2012 be confirmed.

41. URGENT ITEMS

There were no urgent items.

42. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE CABINET ADVISORY PANEL HELD ON 23 JULY 2012

The Cabinet received the minutes of the Cabinet Advisory Panel held on 23 July 2012 and took note of the Panel’s views throughout the meeting.

43. REFERENCE FROM POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE: POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2011-2012

This report asked Members to consider the Annual Report of the Policy Overview Committee for the 2011 - 2012 municipal year.

Members noted the report and thanked the Policy Overview Committee’s chairman, Councillor E J Lampkin, for the work that had been carried out by the Committee. 1 Agenda Item 3 Page 2 CABINET THURSDAY 26 JULY 2012

RESOLVED:

That the Annual Report of the Policy Overview Committee be noted.

44. DRAFT GAMBLING POLICY

This report proposed a draft Gambling Policy for consultation purposes.

The Strategic Director explained that legislation required that the Gambling Policy be reviewed and readopted every three years and that, as there had been no changes to the Gambling Act since the original version had been prepared, this version of the Policy was identical to the version that had been adopted in January 2010.

The Strategic Director also advised that the report had incorrectly stated that the Policy would be considered by the Licensing Committee and said that, although the Policy would not be explicitly considered at a Licensing Committee meeting, all Councillors would be involved in the consultation process and be given an opportunity to submit comments.

RESOLVED:

1. That the draft Gambling Policy, attached at Appendix A to the report, be approved for the purposes of consultation.

2. That the method of consultation, in accordance with national guidance, be delegated to the Strategic Director.

3. That, following consultation, Cabinet receives a further report, at its meeting on 25 October 2012, to consider any comments and/or representations.

45. PARKING STANDARDS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT ADOPTION

This report presented the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to Members for adoption following a period of public consultation.

The Regeneration Director noted that this document would be replacing Kent County Council’s Parking Standards Guidance document and would, if adopted, be used when assessing future new development parking requirements. He said that all comments received during the consultation had been assessed and changes made to the SPD where necessary and that, as had been requested at the last Cabinet meeting, the definition of those rooms that can be classified as ‘bedrooms’ had also been clarified.

Members referred to the discussions that had taken place at the Cabinet Advisory Panel and noted the reassurance that had been given to the

2 Page 3 Agenda Item 3 CABINET THURSDAY 26 JULY 2012

concerns that had been raised. Members then approved the Parking Standards SPD for adoption.

RESOLVED:

1. That the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document, as attached at Appendix A to the report, be agreed for adoption by the Council.

2. That approval for minor editorial and visual image changes be delegated to the Regeneration Director.

46. ACACIA: PROPOSALS FOR FACILITY MANAGEMENT

This report provided Cabinet with an update on the Acacia site, made new proposals for the future management of the facilities, and sought endorsement of urgent action that had been taken by the Managing Director under Standing Order 38 in order to secure timely management arrangements for the Mansion House, Marquee, Gazebo, Ballroom and Bar.

The Regeneration Director explained how it had become necessary to seek new operators for the various parts of the Acacia facility following the failure to reach agreement with Goodman Dance Studio for the use of the Ballroom, former Members Bar and Darent Suite, and the fact that the short term temporary arrangements that have been put in place to honour existing bookings would come to an end on 30 November 2012. He said that the proposals would offer a new start for the facility and could provide an attractive profit making opportunity for an operator with entrepreneurial flair. He noted that a previous attempt to seek suitable operators had failed, but said that the management contracts had been made more attractive by extending their duration to 6 years 364 days and including limited break clauses. He then noted that, following the use of urgent delegated authority, the tendering process had already begun.

Members recognised the ongoing problems that had been experienced, but felt that these proposals offered the best opportunity to define a way forward for the facility. Members asked that the contracts be advertised widely and suggested that they also be placed in publications such as ‘Caterer and Hotelkeeper’ and ‘The Grocer’ in order to reach as many wedding/event service providers as possible. Members also asked that adverts be placed locally so that Dartford residents are reassured that action is being taken to secure the future of the facility. Members also suggested that prospective bidders be encouraged to visit the site in order that they may gauge the business potential offered by the site. The Regeneration Director said that all those that had shown interest in the past had been notified of these revised opportunities, and that trade journals and London agents were being used to publicise the contracts on offer.

The Regeneration Director confirmed that the lease on the Sports Hall was also being offered for up to 6 years 364 days after it was suggested that, by

3 Agenda Item 3 Page 4 CABINET THURSDAY 26 JULY 2012

having a long lease, potential operators would be more inclined to invest in new equipment and carry out other improvements to the sporting facilities.

Members asked whether the Darent Suite could also be included as part of the overall contract as it would be an ideal location for holding smaller events. The Regeneration Manager replied that the option to include the Darent Suite as part of a bid was open to those tendering, but confirmed that it had not been included as part of core package of buildings. He hoped that this would provide tenderers with more flexibility when preparing their bids.

In response to a question the Regeneration Director confirmed that the current arrangements that had been put in place to honour existing bookings did allow the Darent Suite to be used for other events, but added that, since the site was no longer permanently staffed, the costs associated with providing resources to support use by small groups or clubs made such use financially unattractive.

Members discussed the Funding Agreement under which the Government provided grant assistance for the purchase of the site and noted that, in order to comply with the capital clawback provisions, the lease terms could not exceed 6 years and 364 days. However, Members were advised that the contract could be renewed and that a mid-term renewal may be preferable in order to ensure continued bookings into the future. It was also noted that uses of the site currently had to comply with the overage provisions of the land purchase agreement between the Council and the Wellcome Trust.

Members hoped that the exercise to find suitable operators would be successful and that the site would grow into a commercial self-funding concern.

RESOLVED:

1. That the current position in relation to the management of various parts of the Acacia facility be noted.

2. That authority be delegated to the Managing Director, in consultation with the Regeneration Director, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Member for Leisure, to award a concession contract for the operation of weddings, functions, entertainments and related activities in the Mansion House, Marquee, Gazebo, Ballroom and former Members Bar on the basis of a competitive tendering exercise.

3. That the urgent action taken by the Managing Director under Standing Order 38 to agree a specification and invite tenders for the Mansion House, Marquee, Gazebo, Ballroom and former Members Bar, as set out in Appendix A to the report, be noted.

4. That authority be delegated to the Regeneration Director, in consultation with the Portfolio Member for Leisure, to agree a specification and selection criteria, invite tenders and award a service

4 Page 5 Agenda Item 3 CABINET THURSDAY 26 JULY 2012

management contract for the operation of the Sports Hall and Coach House, and optionally also for the Dance Studio, for a period not exceeding 6 years and 364 days.

5. That authority be delegated to the Managing Director, in consultation with the Project Director and the Head of Legal Services, to grant leases of the Mansion House, Marquee, Gazebo, Ballroom and former Members Bar, and separately for the Sports Hall, Coach House and Dance Studio, for a period not exceeding 6 years and 364 days, to the successful tenderers for each of these groups of facilities.

47. LAND AT LITTLEBROOK MANOR WAY

This report set out proposals for the development of land at Littlebrook Manor Way for affordable housing to assist in meeting the housing needs of the Borough. The report noted that Hyde Housing Association had carried out an initial appraisal of the site and had prepared a suitable housing scheme, taking account of housing need, including the provision of a wheelchair accessible unit and a mix of family houses and apartments for which the Council will receive 100% nomination rights to all units.

The Regeneration Director explained how the Council’s Housing Association partners had been approached, but that only Hyde Housing Association had submitted development proposals. He said that, although the purchase price being offered was less than the independently assessed market value of the site, it could be accepted because the scheme would help a Housing Association to meet local housing needs. He also noted that the proposed offer is subject to planning permission being obtained for the scheme.

Members welcomed the proposed scheme and that fact that it made use of an unused area of land and would also provide additional social housing which could be let at an affordable rent.

Members noted the request that had been made by a Member at the Cabinet Advisory Panel in relation to future regeneration investment in Littlebrook, and the suggestion that the funds received from this land disposal could be used for this purpose, but agreed that this way of funding projects was inappropriate.

RESOLVED:

1. That the contents of the report, particularly in relation to Exempt Appendix A to the report regarding the proposed sale price and the valuation, be noted.

2. That the disposal of the land at Littlebrook Manor Way, shown [edged in red] on the plan included at Appendix C to the report, to Hyde Housing Association, for the price as detailed in Exempt Appendix A to the report, for the provision of affordable housing, and on such other

5 Agenda Item 3 Page 6 CABINET THURSDAY 26 JULY 2012

terms and conditions as may be agreed by the Project Director and the Head of Legal Services, be approved.

48. STREET NAMING AND NUMBERING

This report asked Members to approve three new road names for Phase 3 of The Bridge development.

Members were advised that the names that were being proposed had been revised during the report’s preparation because Members had voiced concern over the original suggestions.

Following discussion, Members agreed that the three new roads should be named Tumbling Dice Mews, Silver Train Gardens and Rambler Lane.

RESOLVED:

That Tumbling Dice Mews, Silver Train Gardens and Rambler Lane be approved as the three new road names for Phase 3 of The Bridge development.

49. CAPITAL PROGRAMME - MONITORING 2012/2013

This report informed Cabinet of the progress to date on the schemes in the approved Capital Programme, sought approval for new projects and reported the latest position on capital resources.

RESOLVED:

1. That the progress made to date on the 2012/13 Capital Programme be noted.

2. That the revised Housing Revenue Account Capital Programme as set out in Appendix A to the report be agreed.

3. That the following virement, in respect of the redevelopment of the Co- op site, be approved:

Increased Decreased Expenditure Expenditure £’000s £’000s

Opportunity Land Purchase (900) Co-op Site Redevelopment 900

4. That the budget be increased by £65,000, for the carry forward of the Private Sector Renewal Scheme, which is 100% externally funded, and that this be referred to the next meeting of the GAC for approval.

6 Page 7 Agenda Item 3 CABINET THURSDAY 26 JULY 2012

50. REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13

This report updated Members on financial performance against budget to date for 2012/13 for the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account.

Members discussed whether the practice of awarding contracts containing inflation allowances should be continued since it was no longer acceptable to apply similar increases to Council Tax bills. The Head of Finance and Resources said that if it were not explicitly included then tenderers would still factor it into their quotation and that the inclusion of an inflation allowance gave them the certainty that they would have the necessary funds to deliver services throughout the duration of the contract. Members suggested that this practice be reviewed, especially for shorter term contracts. The Head of Finance and Resources agreed to discuss this proposal further with Members and noted that the recent fall in RPI had meant that it was unlikely that the full budget that had been allocated for inflation allowance on contracts would be required.

The Managing Director noted that if it was decided to continue to include an inflation allowance then the Consumer Price Index (CPI) should be used rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI) as housing costs should have no impact on a contractor’s ability to deliver a service.

Members referred to the costs relating to homelessness and asked whether those landlords who were making use of Dartford’s Private Leasing Scheme were continuing to renew their leases with the Council given that it was thought that they might be able to achieve a higher return if they rented privately. The Head of Finance and Resources confirmed that the number of properties covered by this scheme continued to remain at about 60. The Regeneration Director said that a report on homelessness was to be submitted for consideration at the next Cabinet meeting and an update on Dartford’s Private Leasing Scheme would be included in this report. The Managing Director suggested that an update on empty property initiatives also be provided to Members.

Members welcomed the fact that, by securing additional sponsorship and controlling costs, the predicted overspend on the Dartford Festival had been reduced to £5,000, and that, with careful planning, it had been possible to hold the event despite the adverse weather conditions.

RESOLVED:

1. That the potential significant variances on individual budgets in the General Fund for 2012/13 be noted.

2. That a report on homelessness be produced by the Head of Housing for consideration at the next meeting of Cabinet.

3. That it be noted that the only significant variance to report on the HRA for 2012/13 is the additional rental income of approximately £300,000.

7 Agenda Item 3 Page 8 CABINET THURSDAY 26 JULY 2012

4. That the following virement be approved:

Increased Decrease Expenditure/ Expenditure/ Reduced Increased Income Income £’000s £’000s

Planned Maintenance 40 Powerline compensation 40

51. OMBUDSMAN - ANNUAL REVIEW 2011/2012

This report informed Cabinet of the Ombudsman’s Annual Review 2011//2012.

Members welcomed the low number of referrals that had been made to the Ombudsman and said that this showed how well the Council was performing.

RESOLVED:

That the Ombudsman’s Annual Review 2011/2012, attached at Appendix A to the report, be noted.

52. MINUTES OF THE POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 20 JUNE 2012

This report presented the minutes of the meeting of the Policy Overview Committee held on 20 June 2012.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Policy Overview Committee held on 20 June 2012 be noted.

53. LAND AT LITTLEBROOK MANOR WAY - APPENDIX A (EXEMPT CATEGORY SO 46 (1) (B) ANNEX 1 PARAGRAPH 3)

RESOLVED:

That, following discussion of the main report (minute 47), the appendix be noted.

The meeting closed at 7.52 pm

Councillor J A Kite, MBE CHAIRMAN

8 Page 9 Agenda Item 7

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

RENEGOTIATION OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS : GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

1. Summary

1.1 The Government is consulting on a proposal that allows for formal renegotiation of Section 106 Agreements within a shorter time period than the current five year threshold. Section 4 of this report sets out a proposed response to this consultation.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the proposed response, set out in Section 4 of this report, be agreed for submission to government.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) allows a local planning authority to enter into a legal agreement with a landowner or developer as part of the grant of planning permission, so as to deliver or address matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. These can include financial contributions to infrastructure, provision of affordable housing and other planning obligations. 3.2. Under the Act, voluntary renegotiation of a S106 can take place at any time. Where voluntary agreement cannot be reached, a formal application for renegotiation can be made when the S106 is 5 years old. There is a right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate at this point if an agreement cannot be reached on revised terms. 3.3. The Government is concerned that there are currently a high number of development schemes that are stalled. It is their view that S106 planning obligations negotiated in different economic conditions are making sites unviable and that effective renegotiation of such schemes will help unlock stalled development. 3.4. The Government, therefore, proposes to dispense with the five year restriction in relation to S106 agreements made on or before 6 April 2010, so that there is an immediate right of application to renegotiate the terms of these agreements, effective one month after the introduction of the new regulations. Effectively, these regulations would only impact on S106’s agreed at or after the end of 2007, since any earlier S106’s will have passed the five year mark. 3.5. The regulations will not impact on S106’s agreed since 6 April 2010. The Government considers that new statutory tests introduced at that date ensure that any obligations subsequently agreed cover only what is necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to the development and reasonable in scale and kind. In addition, such Agenda Item 7 Page 10

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

agreements will have been negotiated with regard to present day viability constraints, rather than those prevailing before 2010. 3.6. The consultation document emphasises that even with renegotiation, the S106 must still be sufficient to make the development acceptable in planning terms. In the case of affordable housing, it is suggested that it is provided in different ways or that the phasing of delivery is changed. 3.7. The proposals are unlikely to make a significant difference to the progress of development schemes in Dartford. The Council has always applied its planning policies with due regard to the viability of development, and where a genuine case can be made for renegotiation this has been accepted through voluntary agreement. A notable example of this is the Eastern Quarry development, where the Council has recently agreed a revised S106, whilst at the same time maintaining a requirement for all the necessary community facilities and supporting infrastructure considered essential to support the development. 3.8. However, the proposed regulations may assist in unlocking stalled development in areas where local planning authorities are less willing to voluntarily enter into such negotiations.

4. Proposed Response 4.1 The Government consultation questions and proposed response from Dartford Council are as follows:

Question 1 - is the Government objective to encourage formal reconsideration of Section 106’s on stalled development supported by the shortened relevant period given in the draft regulation?

Answer – the Council already applies its planning policies with due regard to the viability of development, and has voluntarily renegotiated S106 agreements where appropriate, for example at Eastern Quarry. However, where authorities are less willing to accept voluntary renegotiation, it is likely that formal renegotiation would be supported by the shortened period.

Question 2 - does 6 April 2010 represent a reasonable cut off for the proposed change?

Answer - the date is a reasonable cut off date in that S106’s negotiated since that date are likely to have taken into account the changed economic circumstances.

Question 3 – what approaches could be taken to secure acceptable affordable housing delivery through revised obligations?

Page 11 Agenda Item 7

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Answer – the Council has been active in negotiating viable S106 Agreements before and after April 2010. Some of the approaches negotiated in respect of affordable housing include:

i) a requirement for viability assessment at each phase of the development, with the level of affordable housing linked to the viability of each phase; ii) a cascade approach which determines the form of affordable housing to be provided according to viability; iii) whole or part commuted payments, with options for the use of the commuted payment including improvement of poor quality housing stock.

5. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

Not applicable

6. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications None Legal Implications As set out in the report Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment The proposed regulations will only affect planning consents granted between the end of 2007 and 6 April 2010 and which have resulted in stalled development. It is not considered that there are any such applicable schemes in Dartford. In these circumstances, there is no identified risk for Dartford.

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Directorate Information Ref Category

Renegotiation of Section 106 Teresa Ryszkowska Planning N/A Planning Obligations Planning Policy Manager Policy, Consultation, DCLG, Aug (01322) 343631 Regenerati- 2012 on Agenda Item 7 Page 12

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Page 13 Agenda Item 8

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

2012 DFT RAIL FRANCHISE CONSULTATIONS

1. Summary

1.1 The Department for Transport (DfT) is consulting on rail franchise operations that affect the Borough and the County. The consultation is of a general nature, and does not make specific recommendations in relation to service changes. 1.2 This report appends the responses of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership and the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership, and suggests that the Council endorse these, and make an additional response as set out in the report.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That DfT be informed that the Council endorses the comments of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership and the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership. 2.2 That DfT be informed of the Council’s specific points in paragraph 3.9 of this report.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. The DfT is consulting on two rail franchise operations that provide rail services in North Kent; the South Eastern and the Combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Services. The new South Eastern franchise will commence 1 April 2014 and will run for six years and 5 months with the potential for the contract to be extended by two years. The new Combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise will start in September 2013 and will run for a minimum of seven years. 3.2. The South Eastern franchise includes operations under the brand name ‘Southeastern’ including, in Dartford, the North Kent Line as well as services to Victoria via Longfield and Farningham Road. It also includes longer distance services to Kent and East Sussex and High Speed 1 services to/from St. Pancras via Ebbsfleet International station. 3.3. The consultation does not make specific timetabling proposals. It is envisaged that when Train Operating Companies (TOCs) bid for the franchises they will propose service patterns and frequencies to meet a general specification provided by the DfT. 3.4. The consultation invites views on a series of general issues relating to rail service specification, and it is envisaged that the responses will be published in a report, together with the DfT’s comments on the responses, and that this will provide a reference document for TOCs when they prepare their tenders for the franchises. In this way, the TOCs will be encouraged to develop bids which take account of Agenda Item 8 Page 14

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

stakeholders’ views on rail services. The full consultation document is available in the Members Room or online at http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-29/ . 3.5. The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) has produced comprehensive responses to the consultations which are intended to incorporate the views of local authorities as well as other interests in their area. These are attached at Appendices A and B. 3.6. There are many generic points raised within the SELEP response to the South Eastern Franchise Consultation that are relevant to services operating in the Borough. The response notes, district by district, the level of development envisaged and advocates that the transport demands generated by this development be taken into account as the rail specification is developed. This would be of particular relevance in Dartford, where the level of development is high and there are good opportunities for the resultant demands to be met through improved rail services. The response also notes the need for TOCs to provide for the car parking requirements of commuters, which is a particular issue in Dartford. 3.7. The Thames Gateway Kent Partnership (TGKP) has responded to the Combined Franchise Consultation with a high level strategic context that conveys key messages (Appendix C). The South Eastern Franchise Consultation response will be largely the same and will include additional points supporting changes to the rail services along the North Kent to Cannon Street/Victoria line which are advocated by KCC and the SELEP. 3.8. It is recommended that DfT be informed that Dartford Borough Council endorse the responses of the SELEP and TGKP. 3.9. Although these responses, which focus on strategic rail planning issues, can be supported, it will be important to ensure that equal consideration is given to the requirements of rural communities which are particularly dependent on limited rail services. For example, in Dartford service levels at Longfield and Farningham Road should be maintained or improved under the new South Eastern Franchise for the benefit of the communities that depend upon them. 4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

4.1. Not applicable. 5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Page 15 Agenda Item 8

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

Appendix A: SELEP’s response to the DfT’s South Eastern Franchise Consultation

Appendix B: SELEP’s response to the DfT’s Combined Franchise Consultation

Appendix C: TGKP response to the DfT’s Combined Franchise Consultation

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

2012 DfT rail franchise 13 Sept. Lewis Boudville Enforcement N/A consultations 2012 (01322) 343410 and Regulatory Services

Page 16

This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 Agenda Item 8

APPENDIX A

SOUTH EAST LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP’S

RESPONSE TO THE

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT’S

SOUTH EASTERN FRANCHISE CONSULTATION

17 August 2012

Prepared by Kent County Council

on behalf of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership

Agenda Item 8 Page 18

INTRODUCTION

1 The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) welcomes the opportunity to provide a comprehensive response to the Department for Transport’s (DfT) South Eastern franchise consultation.

2 In devising this response, the SELEP has drawn substantially on the evidence base provided in Kent County Council’s (KCC) Rail Action Plan for Kent : https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/council-and- democracy/have%20your%20say/rail-action-plan-for-kent.pdf The Rail Action Plan encapsulates all the consultation responses received by KCC from their stakeholders at every level of governance in Kent, including Rail User Groups and interested individuals, and through the KCC Rail Summits held annually with key stakeholders and rail users.

3 This document also incorporates responses from East Sussex County Council and Medway Council, which are referenced in the text. The other authorities within SELEP, Essex County Council, Southend Council and Thurrock Council, were content with KCC’s initial draft response and had no further observations to make.

4 The vision supporting KCC’s Rail Action Plan for Kent is encapsulated in Chapter 5 – Towards the New Franchise: 2014+:

“This Rail Action Plan for Kent (RAPK) therefore sets out the objectives that KCC wishes to see incorporated in the new franchise. In doing so KCC does not profess to be expert in the operation of the rail network, nor proficient in the most economic allocation of rolling-stock and crew resources. Rather we seek to represent the aspirations of the people of Kent for a new rail service which reflects the needs of our county, drives economic growth, meets the targets of our Growth Areas at Ashford and Thames Gateway (Kent) and of our Growth Points at Dover and Maidstone, and ensures the provision of a reliable, useful, safe, clean and punctual railway which meets the current and future business, education, employment and leisure needs of the people of Kent.”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.2

5 The Rail Action Plan for Kent has been adopted by KCC as a key part of their broader transport policy, and builds on KCC’s transport delivery plan Growth without Gridlock, Kent County Council, December 2010: http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/priorities,_policies_and_plans/pri orities_and_plans/growth_without_gridlock.aspx

Page 19 Agenda Item 8

SOUTH EAST LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP CONTACT OFFICER

David Freestone Transportation Manager Planning & Transportation Thurrock Council Civic Offices New Road Grays Essex RM17 6SL

T: 01375 652091 E: [email protected] W: www.thurrock.gov.uk

Agenda Item 8 Page 20

Page 21 Agenda Item 8

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

The Department for Transport (DfT) consultation questions are shown in bold throughout

The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) responses are shown in normal font throughout

The Rail Action Plan for Kent quotations are shown in italics throughout

Q1 What improvements do stakeholders believe could be made on the [South Eastern] franchise through partnership working between Network Rail and the new operator?

The new operator will need to build on the partnership working which has already commenced between the incumbent operator and Network Rail. The Control Centre, jointly managed by both parties, should continue to function as a joint enterprise.

There is also a need to ensure the delivery of route enhancement schemes such as Ashford to Thanet, phase 1 of which is scheduled for Spring 2013. The new operator will need to commit to the delivery of an improved timetable with reduced scheduled times on this route.

East Sussex County Council (ESCC) has made the following observations:

Potential improvements which could be made through partnership working, including providing information and evidence to retain, reduce or increase services, and upgrading and improving the Hastings- London line, include:

• Upgrading the power supply of the line south of Tunbridge Wells to Hastings to enable a 12-car train to operate on a regular basis. This will help to alleviate overcrowding in the shoulder peaks.

• Improve journey time reliability.

• Configuring works and sharing of information to ensure conflict is avoided wherever possible to minimise potential impacts on passengers.

• Co-ordinating information effectively to inform and update passengers of disruption to services at the earliest opportunity.

Agenda Item 8 Page 22

• Improving rail services on key holiday dates where a clear need can be identified (in conjunction with Network Rail to ensure there is no conflict with engineering works), such as Boxing Day.

• Revisiting Sunday timetabling (in conjunction with Network Rail to ensure there is no conflict with engineering works) to provide a service similar to Saturdays.

• Retention / reinstatement of services to/from Cannon Street.

• Introducing a faster Hastings-London service by joining and dividing 12-car trains at Tunbridge Wells between fast and slow portions

Q2 What, if any, changes to South Eastern services need to be made given the likely changes in demand?

KCC’s Rail Action Plan for Kent proposes 15 key recommendations (paragraph 5.4) for the new franchises in Kent. These recommendations are included specifically in our responses to Q4 & Q7 (High Speed), Q6 (Mainline), Q10 (Thameslink), and Q11 (Community Rail Partnership lines).

The new operator will also need to respond to future growth in demand in Kent, especially from stations serving the planned Growth Areas at Ashford and Thames Gateway (Kent) and Growth Points at Dover and Maidstone.

Q3 Are consultees aware of any other rail or non-rail development schemes that might affect the new franchise?

Ashford via Canterbury to Ramsgate

“Network Rail has engaged with KCC in funding GRIP (Governance of Rail Investment Process) 1-2 studies into route enhancement schemes for Ashford-Thanet with the potential of saving up to eight minutes journey time between Ashford and the proposed Thanet Parkway, which would support opportunities for growth by reducing journey times on High Speed and Mainline between London and Thanet;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (vi)

KCC is about to engage consultants to develop a business case for a Thanet Parkway station. The aspiration of the Council is for a station which would have a two-fold purpose: to serve a revitalised Kent International Airport (KIA) at Manston; and to serve the wider economy of Thanet District in order to stimulate growth and widen opportunity for education, employment and leisure travel. The delivery of a Thanet Parkway station would be dependent on a combination of funding from Manston Airport, local developers and KCC, and together with the Page 23 Agenda Item 8

planned Journey Time Improvement (JTI) scheme between Ashford and Ramsgate would deliver a journey time to London City (Stratford) of about one hour from Thanet.

Both these projects would have a significant effect on the rail service to be operated by the new incumbent. The new franchisee should be required, as a condition of the franchise specification, to serve the Parkway station with both High Speed and Mainline services, and also to deliver the reduced journey times between Ashford and Thanet following the planned delivery of both phases of the JTI scheme by 2016/17.

SELEP is also aware of the aspiration of Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London to transfer the existing Metro services (which form part of the present franchise) to their London Overground franchise. These services operate either wholly within Greater London or as cross-boundary services (e.g. to Dartford and to Sevenoaks) between Greater London and Kent.

KCC has met with TfL and has formulated a clear policy in respect of this proposal. KCC intends to ensure that:

(i) The new South Eastern franchise without the existing Greater London suburban services would continue to be a sustainable concern in terms of operational viability; (ii) The removal of the suburban services from the franchise would not result in any greater increase in Kent rail fares than the national annual increase determined by the Secretary of State; (iii) The DfT would support KCC’s requirement for the retention of all the existing (and where available additional) paths by Network Rail for Kent's rail services between the Kent / Greater London boundary and the London termini.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Medway Council also supports the proposed movement of Rochester Station, alterations to Strood station, the large development proposals at Rochester Riverside and Lodge Hill, Chattenden.

Medway Council is aware that the Government will be consulting in detail on the future aviation policy. It is essential that the changes to any rail franchises have flexibility to accommodate any changes to aviation policy.

Agenda Item 8 Page 24

Q4 What increments or decrements to the specification would stakeholders wish to see and how would these be funded?

The Rail Action Plan for Kent makes a specific recommendation for an increment to the specification:

“… also proposed for delivery during the course of the new franchise is an increase in off-peak High Speed service from 1tph to 2tph (divide/join at Ashford) to Canterbury West, Folkestone West, Folkestone Central and Dover Priory;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xiv)

SELEP is not able at this stage to identify specific funding for this increment to the franchise specification, but we regard it as an essential next step in developing the present High Speed service via Ashford in order to meet the expected growth in leisure and tourism traffic to these East Kent towns, especially to Canterbury. It should therefore be included as an optional future increment for delivery during the period of the new franchise between April 2014 and September 2020.

ESCC has made the following observations:

A stopping service at Orpington on one of the 2tph off peak trains on the Hastings service should be omitted from the current timetable. The existing timetable appears to provide this station with other fast services to and from London, and as a consequence there is no rationale on the need for trains to stop here, as they do not stop here in the peak. Consequently, this decrement would reduce the journey times to / from London from the coast.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Medway Council will be emphasising the need to retain existing services along with HS1 services in Medway. The Council will make reference to the Passenger Focus reports that support ticket offices and manning of stations as an important factor that was evident in recent passenger surveys results carried out by Passenger Focus.

Q5 Which aspects of the specification, other than those services operating on the HS1 network, would stakeholders wish to see mandated and which aspects of the specification could be left to the discretion of the operator?

The service level on all the Mainline routes in Kent should be mandated for both peak and off-peak operation. The level of passenger demand, even in the off-peak periods, is now at such a level that to do otherwise would risk a serious loss of service for the off-peak passenger were any of these services to be discretionary. It may however be Page 25 Agenda Item 8

reasonable to make discretionary some of the off-peak services on some of the Community Rail Partnership (CRP) lines where the Rail Action Plan proposes an increment to the present off-peak service, but these routes will form part of the Combined Franchise and will be treated in our response to that consultation.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Train services should be specified by individual routes. Aspects of the specification which we believe should be mandatory include:

• Earliest and latest services.

• Frequency of train services on individual routes – as trains per hour (would differ depending on the particular hour, i.e. peak or off-peak).

• Number of stations calls per day and the frequency between calls.

• Number of vehicle arrivals accommodated at London terminals during peak hours.

Medway Council has made the following observation:

The Council fully support these objectives, with the proviso that there would be no detrimental changes to train services in Medway.

Q6 What changes to services would stakeholders propose, why and would these provide economic benefit?

Economic Basis of Proposals for Enhancements to Services

KCC is cognisant of the proposed housing growth allocations in the Local Development Frameworks (LDF) in each of the twelve district councils in Kent. These indicative allocations, together with those provided by Medway Council as the unitary authority for the Medway Towns, provide a total presumed housing growth figure of 117,903 in Kent & Medway by 2026.

The provision of an enhanced rail network in Kent & Medway will be crucial to meet the needs of this housing growth, to ensure that it is matched by economic development, together with wider education and employment opportunities, for the new population of this region by the end of the first quarter of the 21 st century.

The table below sets out details of these indicative housing allocations, all of which will be dependent on planning permissions matching planned LDF growth.

Agenda Item 8 Page 26

TABLE OF PLANNED HOUSING GROWTH IN KENT AND MEDWAY: 2010-2026

DISTRICT HOUSING ALLOCATION Ashford 21,970 Canterbury 7,009 Dartford 15,280 Dover 12,798 Gravesham 5,200 Maidstone 7,357 Sevenoaks 2,400 Shepway 6,695 Swale 10,800 Thanet 4,971 Tonbridge & Malling 5,919 Tunbridge Wells 4,448

Kent Total 104,847

Medway Unitary Authority 13,056

Kent & Medway Total 117,9 03

Source: The Local Development Frameworks of the 12 District Councils in Kent and of Medway Council

General Principle of Access to London Termini

The Rail Action Plan for Kent establishes an important principle at the start of its list of key requirements for the new franchise:

“There should be a regular peak-period Mainline service to designated West End and City stations on each principal rail route in Kent. By West End is meant Charing Cross or Victoria; by City is meant Blackfriars or Cannon Street. There should also be a regular off-peak period service to a designated West End station from each major town in Kent. In addition there should be a regular peak and off-peak service to Stratford and St Pancras from stations served by High Speed;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (i)

The principal changes proposed by KCC to the Mainline service specification are set out below. These are presented not simply as a Page 27 Agenda Item 8

‘wish-list’ of rail services that KCC would like to have; they are rather a consistent response to the many demands from their stakeholders at every level of governance in Kent, as well as from Rail User Groups and interested and informed individuals.

SELEP believes that each of these measures, in their different ways on different routes, would provide economic benefit to the county - by maintaining existing or creating new links to the City to widen employment opportunity and stimulate growth; or by encouraging off- peak leisure travel and increasing opportunities for higher education and leisure travel.

Medway Council fully supports these objectives.

North Kent Line via Sittingbourne and Faversham to Ramsgate

“Journey times on Mainline between stations on the North Kent line and Victoria / Cannon Street have been greatly increased with the new timetable – there needs to be a realignment of the station stopping pattern to reduce these journey times;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (v)

SELEP would want the new franchise specification to require this change, but would leave the decision as to how this reduction in journey times was achieved to the Department for Transport (DfT). The new franchise operator would then be required to deliver a faster off- peak service on this route in accordance with the DfT's franchise specification.

Medway Council fully supports this objective.

“Connectivity at Sittingbourne between the Sheerness branch and High Speed / Mainline services needs to be improved, removing the existing long connection periods;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (iv)

The proposed re-alignment of the North Kent service during the off- peak period should also facilitate an improvement in connectivity at Sittingbourne between the Sheerness branch and High Speed / Mainline services. This should also be eased by changes to the track layout recently delivered by Network Rail between Sittingbourne and the junction for the Swale branch, which will permit two-way working on the down line along this section of route.

Medway Council fully supports this objective as previous surveys have indicated levels of movement between Medway and the Isle of Sheppey.

Agenda Item 8 Page 28

Maidstone East via Ashford and connections to East Kent & Hastings

“Connectivity at Ashford between Mainline from Dover / Folkestone and Mainline via Maidstone East has already been improved off-peak towards London from the December 2010 timetable change – this principle should now be applied to peak periods in both directions;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (iii)

“The present level of service provided on the Maidstone East line is completely unacceptable, and the new franchise must address this omission above all else – initially there should be an hourly service all day between Maidstone East and Blackfriars (using paths currently allocated to half of the First Capital Connect service from Sevenoaks via Otford) so as to provide a direct service all day to the City; this should be replaced by an all day half-hourly Thameslink (Key Output 2) service to Blackfriars, Farringdon, St Pancras and north from 2018, with the Maidstone East line becoming the principal Kent route for the full Thameslink service south of the Thames;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (viii)

The realignment of the paths used by the service on the Maidstone East line should be introduced in tandem with the proposed changes to the North Kent line, which would facilitate this change by exchanging train paths between Swanley and Victoria. This would then deliver one of the key recommendations of the Rail Action Plan: to improve connections between the Maidstone East line and all routes beyond Ashford, which are currently very poor and the cause of long delays for passengers.

At the same time as this realignment, SELEP would want to see the new franchise specification require the new incumbent to provide an all-day City service between Maidstone East and Blackfriars from 2014, using paths currently allocated to half of the Thameslink service from Sevenoaks via Otford. This would be replaced by the full Thameslink service in December 2018.

The reason that SELEP is determined to see this temporary change in 2014 is that stations on the Maidstone East line have suffered through their loss of direct services to the City since the December 2009 timetable change. Maidstone, the county town of Kent, West Malling, the large commercial and residential development of Kings Hill and Borough Green are all significant locations which require a direct service to City stations, and the Council’s proposals would deliver this outcome from 2014 if this requirement were to be included in the new Combined franchise specification (this outcome is also referred to in our response to the Combined consultation). Page 29 Agenda Item 8

Sevenoaks via Tonbridge & Tunbridge Wells to Hastings

“The Cannon Street service from Hastings via Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Sevenoaks should be retained and not replaced by new Thameslink (Key Output 2) service in 2018 which would anyway only operate as far south as Tunbridge Wells ; the planned reduction in paths to Cannon Street post-2018 from 25tph to 22tph should be met by an equitable reduction in Cannon Street services between Metro and all Mainline Kent / Hastings services;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (x)

SELEP agrees with the strong representations that KCC has received from the MPs, Councils and Rail User Groups representing these important commuter stations in West Kent. There have also been strong representations from East Sussex County Council and from many stakeholders in Hastings. The original proposal contained in the Kent RUS, to partly replace the existing Cannon Street service with a branch of the Thameslink service as far as Tunbridge Wells, now appears to have been withdrawn.

SELEP welcomes this apparent change of heart, and recognises especially the importance of a direct link between these stations and Cannon Street near where many commuters have their offices. SELEP would therefore expect the franchise specification to retain a requirement for a full Cannon Street service at these locations.

Equally important is the principle set out in the Rail Action Plan that the necessary reduction in paths to Cannon Street during and following the re-building of London Bridge should be equitably distributed between all Metro and Mainline routes, and not imposed on just one route as was originally envisaged.

ESCC has made the following observations:

We request that the new franchise specification includes:

• Cannon Street services from Hastings (via Tunbridge Wells) to be retained.

• Power supply of the railway line south of Tunbridge Wells to be upgraded to enable 12-car trains to run to Hastings.

As highlighted in our responses to Network Rail’s Kent and London & South East RUS consultations, we object to the proposed cessation of the direct Cannon Street service on the Hastings-London line, and we wish this service to be retained.

Agenda Item 8 Page 30

We strongly object to this proposal centred around the impact that removing this service would have on the local economy for the following reasons:

• The service to Cannon Street provides a direct link between London and Hastings, Battle, and the surrounding areas. In the absence of strong transport links between London and the South Coast, prospective employers will be reluctant to locate businesses in the Hastings/Bexhill area.

• Without this service, East Sussex residents currently commuting to London may prefer to relocate away from rural locations in East Sussex (such as Wadhurst, Etchingham and Stonegate) to locations which have a better service into London. This, in turn, would affect the viability of our communities and the wider social infrastructure in our villages.

• Commuters may choose to ‘rail head’ by driving to stations further away from where they live, thereby increasing the number of car journeys on our roads, increasing road congestion and carbon emissions.

• The scale of development proposed at / around stations along this route will increase demand for services, and further exacerbate existing capacity problems on this line.

As highlighted in our response to Question 4, we request that a stopping service at Orpington be omitted on one of the 2tph off peak trains on the Hastings service. There are low numbers of passengers using this station, and trains do not stop here in the peak. Therefore, there seems little justification for continuing to serve these stations. Removing these services would reduce journey times, thereby providing a faster service for those travelling between London and Hastings and those stations in between.

The rail industry (including the DfT, Network Rail and the train operating companies) should work in conjunction with the local authorities and other transport providers to improve local bus/rail services / train-taxi services to meet travel demand; for example, for tourism and recreation purposes, and to improve access to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Good connections should be provided at Ashford between the East Coastway services and the High Speed and European services, especially with early and late trains between Ashford and London. There should be appropriate levels of co-operation between staff of different train operating companies at connecting stations e.g. at Hastings Station – this station will be the responsibility of the South Eastern franchise, but will also be utilised by passengers using the Thameslink franchise service. Page 31 Agenda Item 8 Agenda Item 8 Page 32

Q7 Do respondents feel that there are other destinations that domestic high speed services could serve that would support regional and national economic growth?

High Speed via Folkestone, Dover, Deal & Sandwich

“The extension of High Speed from Dover Priory to Ramsgate via Deal / Sandwich should also be included in the new franchise specification as this can be delivered within existing rolling-stock resources;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (ii)

KCC entered a funding agreement with the incumbent operator to finance the extension of three up peak High Speed services and two down peak High Speed services from September 2011. This agreement has now been extended to the end of the current franchise period, 31 March 2014, with three trains in each direction and a reduction in revenue subsidy to reflect the higher than expected revenue from increased passenger use of the new service. The present operator will also provide a fourth AM peak service at no additional charge from September 2012.

SELEP, in response to representations from the local Rail User Group and other stakeholders, now proposes that the new franchise specification should include a requirement for this High Speed service to operate all day. This would undoubtedly support the regional economic growth so urgently needed in this part of Kent, where unemployment is among the highest level in the county. The provision of an all-day High Speed service between London St Pancras, Folkestone, Dover, Deal and Sandwich should encourage access to London employment and education opportunities for residents from East Kent, and also the location by businesses in this part of Kent bringing new local employment opportunities.

High Speed from Maidstone West

“ High Speed peak period services along the Medway Valley line from St Pancras via Stratford, Gravesend and Strood to Maidstone West [commenced] from May 2011 – the new franchise should include this service all day, with additional stops at Maidstone Barracks and Snodland to fill the serious gap that exists in rail provision for the county town of Kent;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (ix)

SELEP welcomes the introduction by the present operator of High Speed services from Maidstone West to Stratford and St Pancras. SELEP now proposes that the new franchise specification requires this Page 33 Agenda Item 8

service to operate all day, in order to provide a much faster rail link to London than exists now on the Maidstone East line.

SELEP also accepts that it may not prove possible to deliver both this enhancement of the High Speed service from the West station and the earlier than planned City service from the East station at the same time (2014). If a choice has to be made between them, the Council’s overriding priority is for the Maidstone East line to be linked to the City all day as early as possible. SELEP believes that this is the most essential service to be delivered in order to stimulate growth in the local economies of Maidstone and Kings Hill by widening employment opportunities in these locations.

ESCC has made the following observation:

Better connectivity between the High Speed services at Ashford and the East Coastway service would support economic growth by encouraging an increase in rail use, drawing businesses to East Sussex through improved connections. Improved access to High Speed services would also encourage people to move to the county who work in London or at other towns along the route. It would also improve access for existing residents to a wider range of employment opportunities outside the county, reducing unemployment figures and addressing social exclusion which is prevalent in this part of the county, including Hastings.

Medway Council has made the following observation:

Medway Council believes that there should be no detrimental change to High Speed services for the Medway towns due to the major regeneration being delivered in the area.

Q8 How might better use be made of the capacity currently available?

The existing capacity of Kent’s rail routes to the London termini is fully utilised at peak periods, with the exception of some limited spare capacity on the approach to the south-east side of London Victoria. It would be possible to redistribute existing paths, e.g. by exchanging paths between Mainline services from Victoria to the North Kent line and those from Victoria to the Maidstone East line.

SELEP has also stated that we would expect a re-alignment of Cannon Street services, so that all Metro and Mainline services shared equitably the necessary reduction in paths into Cannon Street from 25tph to 22tph once London Bridge station has been re-built.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Capacity can be improved on the line by making better use of what is currently available. However, these opportunities are limited, and this Agenda Item 8 Page 34

list provides a combination of suggestions for making best use of capacity currently available, as well as for making improvements to the railway line to enable capacity to be further improved.

• Upgrading power supply south of Tunbridge Wells to Hastings to enable 12-car trains to operate on a regular basis.

• Increasing frequency of trains including providing earlier and later trains.

• Looking at where timetable opportunities exist to reduce journey times, including providing faster services north of Tunbridge Wells, such as by omitting one of the two off-peak stops at Orpington.

• Connections between inbound services arriving at Hastings stations, and onward services to Bexhill/Eastbourne at St Leonards Warrior Square should be improved. Consideration should be given to holding trains for one or two minutes late at night if the connecting service is on the platform so passengers can make the connection.

Medway Council has indicted their wish to retain Cannon Street services to stations in Medway.

Q9 What steps might bidders be expected to take to meet passenger demand and what might be the most appropriate mechanisms for managing demand?

High Speed Off-Peak via Ashford to Canterbury, Folkestone & Dover

SELEP would expect bidders to be cognisant of predicted growth in demand at specific locations on the network. For example, our response refers to the future need to increase the off-peak High Speed service to Canterbury (as well as to Folkestone and Dover), specifically to meet the anticipated continued growth in leisure and tourism travel. SELEP would expect bidders to employ demand forecasting models used elsewhere in the rail industry, and to specify their intended level of service to meet future growth.

One of the most effective mechanisms for managing growth in demand would be the use of shoulder-peak pricing. This would require the delivery of a new fares structure, which divided the operating day on Monday to Friday into three periods: high-peak, shoulder-peak, and off-peak. Such a fares policy should encourage a shift in travel patterns from high-peak (arriving in London before 1000) to shoulder-peak (arriving in London between 1000 and 1100) for those commuters who can vary their start and finish times at work.

It should also encourage a shift in off-peak leisure and shopping travel from the current earliest off-peak journeys (arriving in London just after Page 35 Agenda Item 8

1000) to a new later off-peak arrival of after 1100. In other words, passengers would pay not according to their income but according to their chosen time of travel, and the new fares structure would redistribute travel so that the demand for peak travel was more accurately matched by the supply of peak train capacity.

ESCC has made the following observations:

An increase in passenger demand could be met by:

• Increasing number of carriages on the line – increase services to 12-car on the Hastings-London line.

• Increase platform length to 12-car at main stations, rolling out to platform lengthening at rural stations in the longer term.

• An increase in train services along the route.

• An additional faster train service calling at main stations along this line only.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Greater information on passenger destination and loading should have been made available in order for a more informed comment on this question. In Medway at present Rochester and Gillingham stations are already terminus points. The Council will be suggesting that turnback facilities are considered to the east of Rainham station to help avoid blocking the mainline.

There should be no detrimental change to Mainline and High Speed services for the Medway towns. Medway Council will propose that if a shoulder peak is considered this should finish at 10.00, with the peak time to stay at 09.30.

Q10 What destinations on the current South Eastern network do respondents think should be served by Thameslink core services and what is the rationale for those services?

Thameslink to Maidstone East; and to Sevenoaks via Swanley

“ initially there should be an hourly service all day between Maidstone East and Blackfriars (using paths currently allocated to half of the First Capital Connect service from Sevenoaks via Otford) so as to provide a direct service all day to the City; this should be replaced by an all day half-hourly Thameslink (Key Output 2) service to Blackfriars, Farringdon, St Pancras and north from 2018, with the Maidstone East line becoming the principal Kent route for the full Thameslink service south of the Thames;” Agenda Item 8 Page 36

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (viii)

KCC has argued in the Rail Action Plan for Kent that from the start of the new South Eastern franchise, or in practice at some point between April and December 2014, half of the present jointly operated First Capital Connect (Thameslink) / Southeastern Railway service from Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via Bat & Ball should be diverted to Maidstone East. While this would cause a reduction in frequency between Swanley and Sevenoaks, it would introduce a long awaited City service to Maidstone, West Malling, Kings Hill (via bus link) and Borough Green. SELEP supports this initiative from KCC.

This service would then be replaced by the planned full Thameslink service in December 2018 and would revert to Sevenoaks. SELEP also supports the inclusion of this service via Bat & Ball as a full part of the Thameslink franchise, to be transferred from joint operation with Southeastern Railway between April and December 2014.

Maidstone East is the most important destination for Thameslink in Kent, but operationally it may be deemed appropriate to transfer the whole of the Maidstone East line service to the new Thameslink franchise from December 2018. If it were to be transferred, the retention of part of this service to Victoria would be essential, as this is still the preferred London terminal for the majority of the Maidstone East line’s passengers.

The rationale for serving Maidstone East by Thameslink services is that the stations on this line need to be connected again to City stations, and a through Thameslink service would link this line with Blackfriars, City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras (low level) stations. It would also facilitate a natural approach to Blackfriars from the south via the Catford loop and Loughborough Junction rather than via London Bridge, which would ease the pressure on the demand for Thameslink paths via London Bridge following the re-building of this busy London station.

SELEP will also include the question of which rail services in Kent should become part of the Thameslink franchise in the Council’s response to that franchise consultation.

Q11 What improvements would respondents like to see made to other South Eastern services, what is the rationale for them and would these provide economic benefit?

Ashford via Tonbridge and Edenbridge to Gatwick Airport

“Through Gatwick – Tonbridge – Ashford hourly all day service in partnership with Gatwick Airport Ltd and operator of new franchise for Southern operating area could commence in 2015 – not part of IKF but would affect route between Page 37 Agenda Item 8

Tonbridge and Ashford; KCC will continue to work with Gatwick Airport Ltd, Network Rail and existing franchisee to deliver this objective;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xi)

SELEP strongly supports the delivery of a through rail service between Kent and Gatwick Airport. SELEP believes that this is an essential requirement of the new Kent rail map from 2015 onwards. It should be included as a service requirement in the new South Eastern franchise specification; it is also included in our response for the Thameslink franchise consultation as the service could be operated by either franchisee.

This is one of the 5 most important key recommendations in the Rail Acton Plan, as SELEP regards a direct rail link to Gatwick as an essential prerequisite to stimulate the economy by improving airport access for employment and leisure.

At least initially SELEP would want to have an hourly frequency at the same minutes past each hour all week. The service would serve Ashford International (for connections with all East Kent stations and with the potential for links to Manston Airport via a future Thanet Parkway station, and also with international services to the continent); Tonbridge (for connections with all West Kent stations); Edenbridge; Redhill (utilising the new platform to be constructed on the west side of this station as part of Network Rail’s High Level Output Specification (HLOS) for Control Period 5 (CP 5) where the trains would reverse); and Gatwick Airport (which will have gained an additional platform 7 to alleviate capacity constraints).

From 2015 onwards Class 377 rolling stock, in the form of 4-car electrical multiple units (EMUs), will start to be released from service on the existing Thameslink franchise as new Siemens built Thameslink stock is brought into service. Three of these sets would be required to provide the initial service, operating an hourly frequency with a round running time of about 150 minutes and with about 30 minutes combined layover at both termini.

SELEP cannot emphasise too strongly the critical importance of this rail link, which has the full support of Gatwick Airport Ltd’s Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS), their consultants ARUP, the Gatwick Diamond Business Association, British Airways, and GATCOM. To connect both the key stations of Ashford in the east of the county and Tonbridge in the west of the county with Gatwick would transform Kent’s accessibility to and from London’s second airport, which has itself identified its capacity to grow its market share of the south-east’s air passenger traffic within the airport’s existing terminal and runway capacity. SELEP is determined not to lose this once in a generation opportunity. Agenda Item 8 Page 38

Community Rail Partnership

“KCC also calls on the DfT to require the new franchisees for the Southeastern and Southern operating areas to be required as part of the new franchise agreements to work with their respective CRPs, in order to ensure the development of these rural lines in Kent and their continued increase in patronage.”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 2.11

The other area in which SELEP would wish the new franchise operator to improve the county’s rail services is along the rural railway lines which are supported by the Kent Community Rail Partnership (CRP). The new franchisee should be required to work with the existing Kent CRP, which is effectively supported and managed by Action with Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK), and to invest in the partnership to grow demand on the both the Medway Valley and Swale lines.

Medway Council also supports the Medway Valley Line, which is part of the Kent CRP, as this has been very successful since its formation in 2005.

There remains scope for substantial improvement in the quality and appearance of the stations on these lines, in the cleanliness of the trains, and in the presence of staff to check tickets and charge fares for passengers who board at the majority of unstaffed stations along both CRP routes. The new franchisee should be required to engage positively with the existing CRP, and to build on the partnership work already started by further improving these essential rural rail services.

ESCC has made the following observations:

The bullet points below highlight key improvements that the Council would like to see made to South Eastern services:

• Introduce a faster Hastings-London service, by means of an additional hourly train.

• Upgrade power supply between Hastings and Tunbridge Wells to enable a 12-car train to operate on a more regular basis.

• Improve rail services on key holiday dates where a clear need can be identified, e.g. Boxing Day.

• Revisit Sunday timetabling (in conjunction with Network Rail to ensure there is no conflict with engineering works) to provide a service similar to Saturdays.

The condition of stations should be monitored, and they should be refreshed (e.g. painted, repaired) where appropriate; not neglected and Page 39 Agenda Item 8

repaired on an ad hoc basis when the appearance of the station has deteriorated to such an extent that it impacts on passengers’ perception of safety and security.

Ashford - Gatwick Airport in 2015?

Agenda Item 8 Page 40

Q12 Do respondents feel that Folkestone Harbour branch line and station should be kept open and maintained or would the rail industry be better investing the monies in other rail schemes?

There is no realistic prospect of regular passenger services operating again on the Folkestone Harbour branch. The transfer facilities for passengers travelling on the Venice Simplon Orient Express (VSOE) are now well established at Folkestone West station, and it would not be feasible to operate a heritage railway between the Harbour station and the old Folkestone East sidings as there is no public access at this location.

SELEP supports the objective of Shepway DC that is seeking to achieve the implementation of a deliverable, high quality proposal for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Folkestone Harbour and Seafront area. Policy SS6 of the Shepway Core Strategy supports a mix of commercial, residential and leisure uses on the harbour site, including the land currently leased by Network Rail on which the Harbour branch line is located. Network Rail should therefore submit a formal closure notice for the branch line including Folkestone Harbour station so that the planned development of this part of Folkestone can realise its full potential.

Q13 How would you like to see performance information published?

SELEP would expect performance information to be provided separately for each sector of the new franchise operation, i.e. High Speed, Mainline and Metro services. The information should show train service punctuality and train service reliability separately for each of these three sectors, and measure performance in each category against agreed targets for the period reported. The incumbent operator groups High Speed and Mainline performance together, and only separates out the performance of Metro services. The format is shown below: Page 41 Agenda Item 8

Source: Southeastern Railway Performance tables, March 2012

Medway Council would prefer existing arrangements to continue 4 weekly x 13, but to include all Mainline stations. Reports should be presented in a user friendly manner as this would assist passengers in their ability to assess value for money.

Q14 How frequent should its publication be?

The quarterly reporting of performance information is appropriate and meets the needs of stakeholders. It is also a reasonable reflection of varying performance according to seasons.

Q15 What level of disaggregation of performance do you believe is reasonable?

Please see response to question 13 above.

Q16 What are the priorities that respondents consider should be taken into account with providing passenger experience of using these services?

Passenger feedback has consistently raised the need for improvement to customer information and customer service at stations. These issues must be priorities for the new franchisee, offering a better customer experience of train departure information and delays, and also offering reassurance through the presence of uniformed station staff.

The new franchisee must also focus on the equally important issues of reliability, frequency, cleanliness of trains and stations, value for money off-peak fares and security. Passengers should feel safe and informed, Agenda Item 8 Page 42

and all these priorities should contribute positively to the overall customer experience of travel by train.

ESCC has made the following observations:

The following are priorities that need to be addressed to improve passenger experience:

• Overcrowding - a priority for passengers is being able to get a seat.

• Service reliability, i.e. trains arriving on time.

• Provision of information – improve communication between railway staff and passengers, e.g. communicate when there is a delay, the anticipated length of delay, and the reason for the delay. Alternatively, inform passengers there is a delay, but that no further information is available at the time of the announcement.

• At stations cycle parking facilities should be provided.

• Staff presence gives passengers a sense of safety and security, especially at night.

• Tickets options should be clear, and staff should have a good understanding of, and be able to advise on, the best value ticket for passengers’ journeys.

Q17 What do stakeholders see as the most important factors in improving security (actual or perceived) and addressing any gap between the two?

The presence of CCTV cameras that work is one of the most effective deterrents to crime. Equally important is the presence of staff on board trains, both to check tickets and to reassure passengers with a uniformed presence. The new franchise operator would be expected to enhance the provision of CCTV on all trains operating on the South Eastern franchise, and to increase the level of on-board ticket checking and revenue protection officers to combat fraudulent travel.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Perception of an acceptable level of security and safety is most commonly achieved by the presence of railway staff at stations. However, CCTV at stations also contributes to improving security.

In respect of cycling, covered, secure and CCTV monitored cycle parking contributes to improving security (actual and perceived).

Page 43 Agenda Item 8

It is recognised that the rail industry are seeking to save costs by reducing staff presence at stations. Due consideration should be given to assessing whether this is the most appropriate course of action to take. Passengers’ perceived sense of safety and security is an important issue that should not be detrimentally affected, and may impact on rail passenger usage.

Q18 What is important to stakeholders in the future use and improvements in stations?

“The County Council would also expect to see ongoing improvements to the station environment (cleanliness, comfort, security, information, customer service etc) and to integration with other modes of transport (i.e. the whole journey experience);”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xiii)

KCC has set out its expectations of the whole station environment in the Rail Action Plan. The important point here is that the station environment should contribute positively to the whole journey experience. Stations should be clean, comfortable and secure, with good public transport and other local information and with timetables available for local connecting bus services.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Improvements that could be made at stations include:

• Access to the station – by walking, cycling, bus and car.

• Support (including financially) for community rail partnership(s) who undertake an important role in raising local awareness, increasing local passenger use of, and improvements to, stations.

• Continued support by the franchisee for station adoption and station partnerships.

• Greater liaison with stakeholders in relation to Station Travel Plans (STP) – including updated on actions, and partnership working to prevent duplication of efforts in respect of schemes in and around stations.

• Develop and introduce STPs at Hastings and other key stations in East Sussex.

• Sufficient spaces and appropriate charges for car parking spaces, particularly in more rural locations where rail passengers have no alternative but to access the station by car. Agenda Item 8 Page 44

Also, to reduce the impact of on-street parking in residential areas in the vicinity of stations.

• Cycle and moped parking facilities.

• Waiting area improvements, including seating, toilets etc.

Medway Council also supports the use of STPs.

Q19 What priorities would respondents give to car parking and cycling facilities at locations where these are fully used?

“ there is also a pressing need for increased parking capacity at many stations, coupled with on-street parking controls by local authorities on roads in immediate vicinity of stations;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xiii)

KCC has argued for increased parking capacity at stations where demand already exceeds supply, but there is often no more railway land available for additional parking at these locations. At stations where existing capacity for car parking and cycling facilities are fully utilised, SELEP would expect the franchise operator to promote access by bus and on foot, and also by better provision for ‘kiss and ride’.

SELEP also expects special consideration to be given to car parking arrangements at rural stations. There are several locations in Kent, of which Charing and Pluckley are but two examples, where charges are so high that the car parks are under used and the surrounding roads in the villages are full of parked cars all day. At these stations the new franchisee should reduce changes to a minimum level, reflecting the rural nature of the location and the need to bring rail passengers’ cars off the surrounding roads and into the mainly empty station car parks.

The new franchise operator should be encouraged to carry cycles on trains. This is an increasingly popular mode of travel and must be preferential in many ways to car parking at the station. However, on most trains the spaces in which cycles can be stored is very limited and often in the way of other passengers. On some trains with disabled toilets there is good space available for cycles, but otherwise they are often left by the doors and interfere with access and egress by other passengers.

While space on board trains is at a premium, ideally trains should have greater capacity to carry cycles, provided that other passengers were not inconvenienced. There is also a need for increased cycle storage capacity at stations by more intelligent storage options, such as double deck cycle racks.

Page 45 Agenda Item 8

ESCC has made the following observations:

Car parking causes a number of problems at stations in East Sussex. Car parks are often full, and there is insufficient land to extend and provide additional spaces. This often creates problems on adjoining roads where rail passengers park – either because the station car park is full, or because it is free to park outside of the car park.

This affects residential parking, as well as impacting on traffic flow along the public highway.

This situation needs to be looked at and resolved in a holistic manner, so that by addressing a problem at one station, this does not create issues at another station further down the line.

Cycle parking improvements have been made at a number of East Sussex stations over the last few years. However, there is still an opportunity to further improve these parking facilities, which would need to be covered and monitored by CCTV.

The Council would wish to see the 24 hour staff monitoring of CCTV at rail stations to be retained - as currently undertaken by Southern.

Medway Council has made the following observations: The Council does not wish to increase parking at some stations due to the impact on congestion and regeneration sites. The Council would rather support more links to the bus network and Park & Ride facilities.

Medway Council also supports better facilities for cycles to be carried on trains.

Q20 What sort of ticketing products and services would you expect to see delivered through ‘smart’ technology on this franchise?

“KCC intends to lobby Government to ensure that a requirement to introduce Smartcard ticketing is included in the new IKF. This would provide the potential for integrated bus/rail ticketing;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xii)

The Rail Action Plan sets out KCC’s expectations for Smartcard ticketing in the new franchise, which is supported by SELEP. There should be a requirement for the new operator to develop the use of Smartcard ticketing for its own rail services, and also to ensure that Smartcard technology is used to develop inter-modal Smartcard ticketing for joint bus and rail travel within the South Eastern franchise area, and eventually for rail travel between franchise operators.

Agenda Item 8 Page 46

SELEP would also expect there to be a requirement in the new franchise specification for the franchisee to provide free tickets on South Eastern services for passengers travelling to or from either Ebbsfleet International or Ashford International for travel on Eurostar services on that date. This facility used to be paid for by Eurostar but was withdrawn when the international rail operator withdrew the funding; the new franchise should require restoration of this facility to be funded by the new franchisee.

ESCC has made the following observations:

The following list comprises rail ticket characteristics we would wish to see integrated in to the requirements for bidders as part of the new franchise:

• Clear ticket options so passengers are fully aware of what choices are available to them, and what ticket is best value for money.

• Introduce and promote Smartcard and other integrated ticketing opportunities.

• The adoption of ‘The Key’ system (or similar and compatible) currently operating in East Sussex within the Southeastern franchise area.

• Ensure future value for money by:

§ Supporting young people and access to education e.g. extend UniZone schemes to enable discounted travel for students to school/college/university sites in the Southeastern franchise area. § Supporting season ticket discounts for employers to encourage sustainable access to employment. § Continuing providing incentives for people to travel by rail, including 4for2 rail travel, as well as promoting such initiatives.

• Retain Delay-Repay regime.

• Consider for a multi-journey carnet ticket – or electronic equivalent – to keep down costs for passengers.

Medway Council also supports the delivery of SMART ticketing in the new franchise.

Page 47 Agenda Item 8

Q21 What local accessibility and mobility issues do stakeholders see and how they might be addressed?

SELEP would expect the new incumbent to work closely with Network Rail to ensure the delivery of a more accessible railway network in Kent. This would involve continued improvement to, and greater public awareness of, the accessibility of High Speed and Mainline trains to people whose mobility is impaired.

A programme of continued improvement of on-board facilities needs to be matched by further delivery of the ‘Access for All’ programme by Network Rail, which has already seen the installation of a fully accessible station bridge at Staplehurst and elsewhere, and which should be extended to other Kent stations as funding in Network Rail’s CP5 permits.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Stations should be accessible for people with mobility issues. Appropriate changes should be made to accommodate and improve accessibility for people with mobility issues at stations. This includes the provision of lifts, railings, surface materials changes, ramps etc.

At stations where there is a gap between the train and the platform staff should be available to assist passengers with mobility issues, such as by providing a ramp on/off the train.

Wherever possible, appropriate processes should be in place to cater for passengers with mobility issues at stations which are not accessible e.g. provision of a taxi to the non-accessible station.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

The Council fully supports these aspirations but would also, in response to a request from the deaf community, want to have more visual maps on trains and displays (similar to the Underground), so that when trains stop at stations deaf people have a better awareness of the station at which they have arrived.

Q22 What environmental targets would stakeholders like to see within the franchise specification?

“KCC also intends to seek assurances from the DfT and the rail industry that all available options to acquire modern rolling stock, both electric and diesel, are explored, so as to provide the new Integrated Kent Franchise, and other franchises serving the county, with sufficient resources which will enable it to deliver the enhanced rail service for Kent set out in this Action Plan.”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xv) Agenda Item 8 Page 48

SELEP would expect to see a target for the reduction of energy consumption at stations and other railway buildings. The Rail Action Plan sets out KCC’s aspirations for the delivery of new rolling stock, or of newly acquired stock (e.g. class 377 from Thameslink), which should reduce the amount of electricity consumed per train mile, and so contribute to a reduction in energy used by the new franchisee.

APPENDIX: Tables of Proposed Rail Service Specification

(Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, Appendix 2)

Page 49 Agenda Item 8

APPENDIX B

SOUTH EAST LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP’S

RESPONSE TO THE

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT’S

COMBINED FRANCHISE CONSULTATION

17 August 2012

Prepared by Kent County Council

on behalf of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership

Agenda Item 8 Page 50

INTRODUCTION

1 The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) welcomes the opportunity to provide a comprehensive response to the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Combined franchise consultation.

2 In devising this response, the SELEP has drawn substantially on the evidence base provided in Kent County Council’s (KCC) Rail Action Plan for Kent : https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/council-and- democracy/have%20your%20say/rail-action-plan-for-kent.pdf The Rail Action Plan encapsulates all the consultation responses received by KCC from their stakeholders at every level of governance in Kent, including Rail User Groups and interested individuals, and through the KCC Rail Summits held annually with key stakeholders and rail users.

3 This document also incorporates responses from East Sussex County Council (ESCC) and Medway Council, which are referenced in the text. The other authorities within SELEP, Essex County Council, Southend Council and Thurrock Council, were content with KCC’s initial draft response and had no further observations to make.

4 The vision supporting KCC’s Rail Action Plan for Kent is encapsulated in Chapter 5 – Towards the New Franchise: 2014+:

“This Rail Action Plan for Kent (RAPK) therefore sets out the objectives that KCC wishes to see incorporated in the new franchise. In doing so KCC does not profess to be expert in the operation of the rail network, nor proficient in the most economic allocation of rolling-stock and crew resources. Rather we seek to represent the aspirations of the people of Kent for a new rail service which reflects the needs of our county, drives economic growth, meets the targets of our Growth Areas at Ashford and Thames Gateway (Kent) and of our Growth Points at Dover and Maidstone, and ensures the provision of a reliable, useful, safe, clean and punctual railway which meets the current and future business, education, employment and leisure needs of the people of Kent.”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.2

5 The Rail Action Plan for Kent has been adopted by KCC as a key part of their broader transport policy, and builds on KCC’s transport delivery plan Growth without Gridlock, Kent County Council, December 2010: http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/priorities,_policies_and_plans/pri orities_and_plans/growth_without_gridlock.aspx

Page 51 Agenda Item 8

SOUTH EAST LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP CONTACT OFFICER

David Freestone Transportation Manager Planning & Transportation Thurrock Council Civic Offices New Road Grays Essex RM17 6SL

T: 01375 652091 E: [email protected] W: www.thurrock.gov.uk

Agenda Item 8 Page 52

Page 53 Agenda Item 8

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

The Department for Transport (DfT) consultation questions are shown in bold throughout

The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) responses are shown in normal font throughout

The Rail Action Plan for Kent quotations are shown in italics throughout

Q1 What improvements do stakeholders believe could be made on the Combined franchise through partnership working between Network Rail and the new operator?

The new operator of the Combined franchise will need to develop a high degree of partnership working with Network Rail. The new franchisee will operate rail services over several designated Network Rail route areas, only one of which will be the Kent area. Closer partnership working is necessary to deliver a more reliable, co- ordinated rail network, especially given the constraints that will be imposed by the re-building of London Bridge station between 2015 and 2018 and by the operation of 24tph through the central core from 2018 onwards.

Q2 Do consultees have any specific aspirations for the new franchise that they wish to bring to the Department’s attention?

KCC’s Rail Action Plan for Kent proposes 15 key recommendations (paragraph 5.4) for the new franchises in Kent. These recommendations are included specifically in our responses to Q4 (Community Rail Partnership routes), Q7 (Mainline Services), Q10 (Jointly Operated Services) and Q16 (Airport Services).

Q3 Are consultees aware of any other rail or non-rail development schemes that might affect the new franchise?

SELEP is aware of the aspiration of Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London to transfer the existing Metro services (which form part of the South Eastern franchise) to their London Overground franchise. These services operate either wholly within Greater London or as cross-boundary services (e.g. to Dartford and to Sevenoaks) between Greater London and Kent.

While the TfL Metro proposals do not have any direct bearing on the planned Combined franchise operation, it would be important for any expansion of the Combined franchise (by taking over some of the Agenda Item 8 Page 54

existing South Eastern franchise services) to take account of the TfL Metro proposals in any final decision.

ESCC has made the following observations:

There are concerns that the Mayor of London / Transport for London (TfL) proposal to take control of other suburban services coming into London from north Kent and north Surrey would have a detrimental impact on East Sussex rail services coming into London, The County Council would not wish for additional stopping services in the London area to be made on services from East Sussex (namely the Uckfield line and Hastings-Tonbridge line) as this will increase journey times and exacerbate existing congestion on these services.

Medway Council will be mentioning the existing Rochester to Bedford service in their individual response as the service crosses several franchise areas.

Q4 What increments or decrements to the specification would stakeholders wish to see and how would these be funded?

“KCC also calls on the DfT to require the new franchisees for the Southeastern and Southern operating areas to be required as part of the new franchise agreements to work with their respective CRPs, in order to ensure the development of these rural lines in Kent and their continued increase in patronage.”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 2.11

SELEP supports the Rail Action Plan for Kent’s specific recommendations for increments to the specification for two of its Community Rail Partnership (CRP) lines which would be operated by the Combined franchise from 2015. The delivery of these increments would be dependent either on their inclusion in the new Combined franchise specification, or by external funding which is not identified at present.

The Ashford-Hastings line, which is part of the Sussex CRP supported by KCC, would have an increase to 2tph during peak periods between these towns if some of the smaller stations were removed from peak services and if there were further easement of some speed restrictions.

The reason for these proposed increases in service is that there has been a significant rise in travel during the peaks on the Ashford – Hastings line, largely driven by further education travel between colleges in Ashford, Ore and Hastings. This line is used extensively by school and college pupils resident in Kent, and by commuters and Page 55 Agenda Item 8

leisure travellers needing to reach Ashford for access to employment or onward travel via High Speed services to London.

The Tonbridge-Redhill line, which is also part of the Sussex CRP, would have an increase to 2tph in the off-peak periods, in addition to the proposed hourly Gatwick service.

The proposed increase on this service between Tonbridge and Redhill is made in response to the request from Rail User Groups and local authorities for an improvement in this off-peak service, which is currently only hourly, so as to improve east-west connectivity between West Kent and Surrey for all travellers during the off-peak periods.

The tables below, extracted from the Rail Action Plan, set out the proposed increments to the service specifications for these two CRP lines serving south-east and west Kent.

TRAINS PER HOUR (tph) PEAK PERIODS Ashford-Hastings line (PEAK DIRECTION)

Terminus / Via: Ashford Rye Hastings Brighton Departure Station

Ham Street 2 2 2* 1 Appledore 2 2 2* 1

* 2tph to/from Hastings would be dependent on removal of stops at some of the smaller stations and further easing of some speed restrictions

TRAINS PER HOUR (tph) OFF-PEAK PERIODS Tonbridge-Redhill line

London East Terminus / Via: Bridge Croydon Redhill Gatwick** Departure Station Ashford 1 1 Tonbridge 2 2 3 1 Leigh 2 2 2 Penshurst 2 2 2 Edenbridge 2 2 2 1

** Gatwick service is key requirement in Rail Action Plan for new franchise

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, Appendix 2, Kent County Council

Agenda Item 8 Page 56

ESCC has made the following observations:

o A suggested decrement to the Hastings-London (via Tunbridge Wells) service is to omit stopping services at Orpington and Sevenoaks on one of the existing 2tph off-peak service. o Provide an additional fast train per hour on the East Coastway calling at main stations only: Brighton, Lewes, Polegate, Eastbourne, Bexhill, Hastings and Ashford. o These changes would be funded by the DfT and/or the TOC.

Medway Council will also ask that Medway is considered as a terminus for Thameslink.

Q5 Which aspects of the specification, other than those services operating through the Thameslink core route, would stakeholders wish to see mandated and which aspects of the specification could be left to the discretion of the operator?

The service level on all the trunk Thameslink routes in Kent should be mandated for both peak and off-peak operation. The level of passenger demand, even in the off-peak periods, is now at such a level that to do otherwise would risk a serious loss of service for the off-peak passenger were any of these services to be discretionary. However, the additional services proposed above in the response to Q4 could be provided on a discretionary basis.

ESCC has made the following observations:

The DfT should specify services which the appointed TOC should operate, and these should reflect the aspirations of stakeholders and commuters. However, there should be some flexibility for the TOC to work with stakeholders to bring forward and implement rail service improvements at a later date, which may not be included in the original specification, as opportunities arise.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Medway Council will be suggesting that greater information on passenger destination and loading should have been made available in order for a more informed comment on this question. In Medway at present Rochester and Gillingham stations are already terminus points. The Council will be suggesting that turnback facilities are considered to the east of Rainham station to help avoid blocking the mainline.

Q6 Are there other approaches to train service specification which you would prefer?

No, the distinction between mandated and discretionary services is a rational approach to the specification for the Combined franchise.

Page 57 Agenda Item 8

Q7 What changes to services would stakeholders propose, what is the rationale for them and would these provide economic benefit?

Economic Basis of Proposals for Enhancements to Services

SELEP is cognisant of the proposed housing growth allocations in the Local Development Frameworks (LDF) in each of the twelve district councils in Kent. These indicative allocations, together with those provided by Medway Council as the unitary authority for the Medway Towns, provide a total presumed housing growth figure of 117,903 in Kent & Medway by 2026.

The provision of an enhanced rail network in Kent & Medway will be crucial to meet the needs of this housing growth, to ensure that it is matched by economic development, together with wider education and employment opportunities, for the new population of this region by the end of the first quarter of the 21 st century.

The table below sets out details of these indicative housing allocations, all of which will be dependent on planning permissions matching planned LDF growth.

TABLE OF PLANNED HOUSING GROWTH IN KENT AND MEDWAY: 2010-2026

DISTRICT HOUSING ALLOCATION Ashford 21,970 Canterbury 7,009 Dartford 15,280 Dover 12,798 Gravesham 5,200 Maidstone 7,357 Sevenoaks 2,400 Shepway 6,695 Swale 10,800 Thanet 4,971 Tonbridge & Malling 5,919 Tunbridge Wells 4,448

Kent Total 104,847

Medway Unitary Authority 13,056

Kent & Medway Total 117,903

Source: The Local Development Frameworks of the 12 District Councils in Kent and of Medway Council

ESCC has made the following observations in support of the economic basis for the provision of services Page58 Agenda Item8

Summary of Allocations and Distributions of Housing and Employment planned for East Sussex (at February 2012).

Detail: Eastbourne Hastings Lewes Rother Wealden Local Plan 2006 – 2027 Up to 2028 Up to 2030 (starts Up to 2028 2006 - 2030 or Core (Employment at 2010) (Housing from Strategy starts at 2008, and April 2011) period: Housing at 2011)

Plan length: 21 Years 17 Years 20 Years 17 Years 24 Years Stage of Regulation 27 Regulation 27 Regulation 27 Regulation 27 EiP ran from 17 Plan Publication: 16 Publication: May Publication: July / Publication 19 January to 2 preparation September – 9 to July 2012. August 2012, August 11 February 2012. December. Document will be Submission November 2011. Inspector’s Document now going to Hastings November 2012. Awaiting final link report expected submitted to SoS. Cabinet in March The EiP is expected road decision Spring. EiP expected in 2012. Awaiting to take place in before submitting Spring 2012. final link road February 2012, with to SoS. If positive Adoption is decision until adoption June decision, expected at the proposing final 2013. submission will be end of 2012. regulation 27 end of April / May. dates.

General Information General Information Reference: Pages 75, 76 and Pages 34 and 37 Page 38 of the Pages 30 and 31 Pages 26 and 28 83 of the of the Hastings Lewes Core of the Rother Core of the Wealden Eastbourne Plan / Spatial Strategy. Strategy. Strategy. Core Strategy. Core Strategy. Table 5 page 42 for housing sites. Number of 222 200 208 218 – 241 400 new dwellings to be delivered annually : Total 5,022 3,400 4,150 3,700 – 4,100 9574 number of new dwellings to Page 59 be delivered over the

Housing Allocation and Housing Allocation and Distribution plan period: Amount of 55,430 m2 of 70,000m2 of Between 2010 - 100,000m2 Net Square new extra employment employment 2026, 50,000 to business metres employment space to be floorspace will be 64,000 m2 of floorspace is an (B1/B2/B8) space / delivered. 4 sites developed employment appropriate target. 38,190 (A1) retail for densification between 2008 and floorspace (b1, B2 Retail = 16,937 Total = Agenda Item8 allocation to and 1 site new. 2028 (Start date is and B8) will be 9,150sqm. 55,127

be delivered Totalling 63,600 = subject to provided in the plan over Plan 8,170 over supply. change). Target area. Between period: primarily relates to 30,000 and NO RETAIL B1, B2 and B8 40,000m2 of this PROVISION uses). floorspace will be

Employment / Retail Allocation and Distribution AVAILABLE AT as industrial space THIS TIME! 20,500m2 (B1c, B2 and B8), Page60 Agenda Item8 additional and between comparison goods 20,000 and 24,000 floorspace m2 will be as office between 2014 - space (B1a). 2028 – primarily within Hastings Town Centre.

2,800m2 of retail warehousing needed between 2014 - 2028.

Page 61 Agenda Item 8

General Principle of Access to London Termini

KCC’s Rail Action Plan for Kent establishes an important principle at the start of its list of key requirements for the new franchise:

“There should be a regular peak-period Mainline service to designated West End and City stations on each principal rail route in Kent. By West End is meant Charing Cross or Victoria; by City is meant Blackfriars or Cannon Street;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (i)

The changes proposed by KCC to the Thameslink service specification are set out below. These are in response to the many demands from our stakeholders at every level of governance on the affected rail routes in Kent, as well as from Rail User Groups and interested and informed individuals.

SELEP believes that these measures would provide economic benefit to the county - by maintaining existing or creating new links to the City to widen employment opportunity and stimulate growth; or by encouraging off-peak leisure travel and increasing opportunities for higher education and leisure travel.

Thameslink to Maidstone East; and to Sevenoaks via Swanley

“ initially there should be an hourly service all day between Maidstone East and Blackfriars (using paths currently allocated to half of the First Capital Connect service from Sevenoaks via Otford) so as to provide a direct service all day to the City; this should be replaced by an all day half-hourly Thameslink (Key Output 2) service to Blackfriars, Farringdon, St Pancras and north from 2018, with the Maidstone East line becoming the principal Kent route for the full Thameslink service south of the Thames;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (viii)

KCC has argued in the Rail Action Plan for Kent that from the start of the new South Eastern franchise, or in practice at some point between April and December 2014, half of the present jointly operated First Capital Connect (Thameslink) / Southeastern Railway service from Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via Bat & Ball should be diverted to Maidstone East. While this would cause a reduction in frequency between Swanley and Sevenoaks, it would introduce a long awaited City service to Maidstone, West Malling, Kings Hill (via bus link) and Borough Green.

SELEP supports this aspiration to deliver this temporary change in 2014 as the stations on the Maidstone East line have suffered through Agenda Item 8 Page 62

their loss of direct services to the City since the December 2009 timetable change. Maidstone, the county town of Kent, West Malling, the large commercial and residential development of Kings Hill and Borough Green are all significant locations which require a direct service to City stations, and these proposals would deliver this outcome from 2014 if this requirement were to be included in the new Combined franchise specification (this outcome is also referred to in our response to the South Eastern consultation).

This service would then be replaced by the planned full Thameslink service in December 2018 and would revert to Sevenoaks. SELEP also supports the inclusion of this service via Bat & Ball as a full part of the Thameslink franchise, to be transferred from joint operation with Southeastern Railway between April and December 2014.

The rationale for serving Maidstone East by Thameslink services is that the stations on this line need to be connected again to City stations, and a through Thameslink service would link this line with Blackfriars, City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras (low level) stations. It would also facilitate a natural approach to Blackfriars from the south via the Catford loop and Loughborough Junction rather than via London Bridge, which would ease the pressure on the demand for Thameslink paths via London Bridge following the re-building of this busy London station.

SELEP will also include the question of which rail services in Kent should become part of the Thameslink franchise in the Partnership’s response to the South Eastern franchise consultation.

Cannon Street to be retained for Sevenoaks via Tonbridge & Tunbridge Wells to Hastings

“The Cannon Street service from Hastings via Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Sevenoaks should be retained and not replaced by new Thameslink (Key Output 2) service in 2018 which would anyway only operate as far south as Tunbridge Wells ; the planned reduction in paths to Cannon Street post-2018 from 25tph to 22tph should be met by an equitable reduction in Cannon Street services between Metro and all Mainline Kent / Hastings services;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (x)

SELEP agrees with the strong representations that KCC has received from the MPs, Councils and Rail User Groups representing these important commuter stations in West Kent. There have also been strong representations from East Sussex County Council and from many stakeholders in Hastings. The original proposal contained in the Kent RUS, to partly replace the existing Cannon Street service with a Page 63 Agenda Item 8

branch of the Thameslink service as far as Tunbridge Wells, now appears to have been withdrawn.

SELEP welcomes this apparent change of heart, and recognises especially the importance of a direct link between these stations and Cannon Street near where many commuters have their offices. SELEP therefore expects the Combined franchise specification NOT to include Thameslink services via the mainline route to Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Services

As a general point for all services, there should be sufficient room for all passengers to sit or stand – this is not the case for rail services in East Sussex, most notably at peak times.

Note: The Hastings-London (via Tunbridge Wells) aspirations have not been included in this note as DfT has informed us that these form part of the South Eastern Franchise consultation. Should this change, we request the DfT take into consideration the issues raised in the County Council’s response to their current South Eastern franchise consultation.

Brighton-Ashford

• We would like to see improvements to rail services on the existing East Coastway Brighton-Ashford through route by introducing (at the very least) an additional train per hour, therefore comprising:

o A fast hourly fast service along the East Coastway route calling at main stations. o An hourly service calling at all stations (consideration should be given as to how best such a service would operate i.e. as a split service - between Brighton and Eastbourne/Hastings, and Hastings/Eastbourne and Ashford – whichever releases the most capacity to the benefit of commuters).

• The Lewes-Brighton shuttle should be extended to Eastbourne. • Current low number of rolling stock on the line needs to be addressed as this leads to overcrowding during peak times and at school arrival/departure times. For example the two-car Brighton-Ashford trains are frequently announced as ‘full and standing’. • The Brighton-Ashford line is a strategic rail route and should be a through route:

o Exploit opportunities for reducing journey times through line speed improvements being made along this route. o The service forms part of the County’s strategic transport network and the Trans European Network – Transport (TEN-T) network, Agenda Item 8 Page 64

which links key towns along the East Coastway including Brighton, Lewes, Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford and beyond, i.e. London the continent, o It supports and strengthens the economic development and regeneration initiatives taking place along the East Coastway route; a split in this service in the longer term could affect this, o It is important that direct links to Ashford International are available (without having to change trains if this can be avoided) for trains to the continent, o There is potential for European funding towards dual tracking and electrification, as this line forms part of the TEN-T network, and o Passengers travelling to Brighton from stations such as Hastings, Rye and Ashford would have to change trains, and this could lengthen their journey by approximately 20 minutes. This could discourage existing and potential rail users from utilising this service.

• However, the capacity issues experienced on this line need addressing in the short term, and we recognise that this may mean a split service until the capacity issues are alleviated by either additional diesel carriages cascaded down from where a line is electrified elsewhere on the network, or electrification of the line. • With no certainty on when diesel units may be redeployed, and the need for to resolve these continuing capacity issues, the option of splitting the existing service at Hastings, or running one direct and one split service an hour in the short term, should be reconsidered. This is on the proviso that should additional diesel units become available, or the line be electrified, then the direct rail service between Brighton and Ashford be reinstated. • Trains should run an hour later on the Marshlink line in both directions i.e. at approximately 22.34 from Hastings-Ashford and 23.30 back from Ashford. The latter would provide a connection to the 22.42 from St Pancras. Note: currently the last connecting service from London leaves St Pancras at 21.42 (21.00 from Charing Cross via Ashford). • Services should complement timetables along other lines e.g. Ashford (High Speed line) and Brighton Main Line as well as provide timely connections to continental services.

Uckfield line

• There is a need for improved early morning commuter services into London. • We request that later trains from London to Uckfield be introduced. • There should be a fuller service (early and late) at weekends, including earlier trains on Sunday morning. • There is a need to address overcrowding on peak hour services to/from London:

Page 65 Agenda Item 8

o Short term - additional carriages (ideally deployed from lines which have been or will soon become electrified; we are aware no new diesel rolling stock will be manufactured). o Medium to longer term – dual tracking and electrification between Uckfield-Hurst Green. o Medium to longer term – additional services during peak hours, which becomes possible further to dual tracking.

• We support a franchise commitment towards the longer term aspiration to reinstate the Lewes-Uckfield and Eridge-Tunbridge Wells lines (the latter for a commuter service, as we are aware of the heritage line operating, which is supported). • We support continued partnership working with the rail industry and other councils towards a car park on the old station site – however, we would hope this would have been introduced by the time the South Central franchise is encapsulated within the Thameslink franchise. • Bus/rail integration at Uckfield Station needs improving e.g. signage to the bus station. • Existing service levels to London Bridge should be retained

East Coastway-Victoria

• Early morning commuter services into London, later trains from London, and a fuller service (early and late) at weekends need to be improved. • Reconsideration should be given to ending the splitting/joining of trains at Haywards Heath, reducing journey times for passengers, whilst retaining existing service levels. • Consideration needs to be given to reducing journey times on the East Coastway services to London, for example, Eastbourne to Victoria, by other means, e.g. signalling improvements, faster line speeds etc. • Thameslink trains should run to Eastbourne as originally planned.

Smaller stations

• Monday-Saturday alternate hourly stopping services at smaller stations e.g. Winchelsea, Three Oaks and Doleham should be retained. • Until a twice hourly service is available on the Marshlink, the present service to Three Oaks and Winchelsea should be maintained, and consideration given to introducing a Sunday service when improved line speeds allow. • Consideration should be given to an hourly service (notably during peak hours) which caters for work, educational and other needs. Any proposals for change should be discussed with the County, District/Borough/Parish Councils and local commuter groups ahead of any changes being made. • Retaining services to smaller stations is important – e.g. for access to the South Downs National Park (SDNP) from stations such as Southease, Glynde and Plumpton. Agenda Item 8 Page 66

• Regular Saturday and Sunday services should be provided to cater for commuters, for local social and educational journeys, and for the tourist trade.

Rolling stock

• As highlighted earlier in this note, there is a general need for additional rolling stock on the East Coastway route and the Uckfield line either by providing new carriages or deploying rolling stock from elsewhere, i.e. where other train lines have (or will become) electrified. • Additional rolling stock should have a standard of comfort with facilities currently enjoyed on the majority of services – toilet facilities, air conditioning etc. • Replace outdated ‘313’ train units currently used on the Seaford – Brighton line.

Journey times

• All train services should be punctual and reliable. A reduction in journey time can be achieved in a number of ways:

o Providing an additional hourly service calling at main stations only. o Improving signalling works on the line and removing obstructions which contribute towards delays. o Removing splitting/joining of trains at Haywards Heath, and provide separate half hourly services to the east and west Coastway should be provided to deliver a 75 minute journey time. o Increasing line speed capabilities through other mechanisms. o Identify more innovative approaches to reducing journey times, such as through identifying alternative routes.

Branding

• Minimise costs for rebranding existing services/stations, as a significant amount of money has been spent by the existing operating company (Southern) on cleaning/painting/branding stations and train units. This will ensure all available funding is attributed to improving the service and the station environment for passengers.

Meeting future growth

• Plans should be considered to cater for capacity pressures, during and beyond the Thameslink programme’s completion, particularly on the Uckfield line and East Coastway line. • Plans should be considered to provide capacity to accommodate the demand generated by future development and economic growth coming forward over the next 15 – 20 years through the Local Development Frameworks/Local Plans on routes away from the central London core e.g. Hastings, Bexhill, Uckfield, Polegate. This can be achieved through the upcoming review by Network Rail of their Route Page 67 Agenda Item 8

Utilisation Strategies (Long term planning process) which will require a more robust evidence base.

Later evening / early morning, and Sunday services

• Enhance Sunday services for tourism and leisure, including to the South Downs National Park, on all lines.

Managing franchise disruption

• There is a need to plan for improvements to unscheduled disruption and to make improvements to ensure reliability. • There is a need to identify a clear approach to managing the Thameslink programme, e.g. impact on the Uckfield line (effects on services to London Bridge). • There is a need to identify a suitable approach to combining Thameslink / South Central / Southeastern franchise services. • Appropriate liaison with stakeholders and communities will be paramount during disruptive times, with clear and available information on replacement services etc provided.

Q8 How might better use be made of the capacity currently available?

There is going to be excess demand for the available supply of train paths for Thameslink services operating via London Bridge before entering / leaving the central core via Blackfriars and City Thameslink to Farringdon. KCC accepts that the most logical route for Thameslink services via Swanley, whether emanating from Maidstone, Medway or Sevenoaks, would be via the Catford Loop and Loughborough Junction so that they approach the central core via Elephant & Castle station rather than via London Bridge station, especially while major construction works take place.

ESCC has made the following observations:

• The franchisee should be aware of, support in terms of provision of information/data, progress where possible, and be involved in discussions with the local transport authority, on our key rail infrastructure aspirations. These are:

o Rail capacity improvements, including raising the line speed and dual tracking of parts of, the Ashford-Hastings railway line. o Electrification of the Marshlink line and Lewes to Oxted line. o Redoubling the track and improving signalling on the Uckfield to Oxted line. o Reinstatement of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line and the Eridge- Tunbridge Wells line (the latter for a commercial passenger service). o Reinstatement of the Willingdon Chord north of Eastbourne. o Proposed new station at Glyne Gap. Agenda Item 8 Page 68

o Proposed new station in the Polegate / Stone Cross locality. o Longer platforms where required to enable longer trains to operate without the need for SDO.

Consideration should be given to deploying additional diesel rolling stock onto the Uckfield line and East Coastway (Hastings-Ashford) line.

Line speed improvements may enable a more frequent service to operate. However, this suggestion would need assessing in greater detail to identify whether or not this is a feasible solution.

Q9 What steps might bidders be expected to take to meet passenger demand and what might be the most appropriate mechanisms for managing demand?

SELEP would expect bidders for the Combined franchise to employ demand forecasting models used elsewhere in the rail industry, and to specify their intended level of service to meet future growth.

One of the most effective mechanisms for managing growth in demand would be the use of shoulder-peak pricing. This would require the delivery of a new fares structure, which divided the operating day on Monday to Friday into three periods: high-peak, shoulder-peak, and off-peak. Such a fares policy should encourage a shift in travel patterns from high-peak (arriving in London City stations before 1000) to shoulder-peak (arriving in London between 1000 and 1100) for those commuters who can vary their start and finish times at work.

It should also encourage a shift in off-peak leisure and shopping travel from the current earliest off-peak journeys (arriving in London just after 1000) to a new later off-peak arrival of after 1100. In other words, passengers would pay not according to their income but according to their chosen time of travel, and the new fares structure would redistribute travel so that the demand for peak travel was more accurately matched by the supply of peak train capacity.

ESCC has made the following observations:

The bidders should consider how capacity constraints on the network arising from a lack of diesel rolling stock can be addressed. This could be through securing additional diesel units to increase carriage length, or supporting/progressing proposals for infill electrification of the Uckfield-Hurst Green and/or the Ashford-Hastings routes.

If one of these routes becomes fully electrified, the diesel rolling stock arising could be redeployed on the non-electrified route, thus one electrification project would address capacity issues on both lines. In the longer term we would want to see the electrification of the other route so that all of the East Sussex rail routes are electrified. Page 69 Agenda Item 8

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Medway will be suggesting that if a shoulder peak is considered this should finish at 10.00am with the peak time to stay at 9.30am. The Council would also support a requirement for SMART ticketing in the franchise specification.

Q10 What destinations on the current Southeastern network do respondents think should be served by the Combined franchise’s services and what is the rationale for such proposals?

Maidstone East is the most important destination for Thameslink in Kent, but operationally it may be deemed appropriate to transfer the whole of the Maidstone East line service to the new Thameslink franchise from December 2018.

The rationale for this proposal would be that all the services from Swanley via Otford, either to Maidstone East and Ashford, or to Sevenoaks via Bat & Ball, would be operated by the same franchisee. Such a transfer of services would assist operational viability and would offer a combined regular service all day to the City stations on the Thameslink core.

However, the retention of part of this service to Victoria would still be essential, as this is still the preferred London terminal for the majority of the Maidstone East line’s passengers. There is no reason why a part of the Maidstone East line service, operated by the Thameslink franchise, could not operate to and from Victoria via Bromley South, using the same paths as those which would be allocated to the new South Eastern franchise.

ESCC has made the following observations:

As at present, St Leonard’s Warrior Square and Hastings should be served by combined franchise services. This will continue to provide the linkages to the south coast between Brighton, Eastbourne, Bexhill, Hastings and Ashford. The link to Hastings will also provide connections to the Hastings-London (via Tunbridge Wells) line service which falls within the South Eastern franchise. However, we would like to take this opportunity to highlight our wish for the continuation of a direct service from Hastings to Cannon Street. We objected to the proposed cutting of this service as part of the Thameslink project, as initially highlighted in the Kent RUS, for the following reasons:

• Prospective employers will be reluctant to locate businesses in the Hastings/Bexhill area. • East Sussex residents who currently commute to London may choose to relocate away from rural locations in East Sussex (such Agenda Item 8 Page 70

as Wadhurst, Etchingham and Stonegate) to locations which will have a better service into London. • Journey times would be less frequent, and passengers may be unable to find a seat, or, at worst, be able to get on a train at all thereby, adversely affecting rail passengers travelling between East Sussex and London via Tunbridge Wells. The scale of development proposed at / around stations along this route will increase demand for services, and further exacerbate existing capacity problems on this line (see Appendix 2 for further details). • Commuters may choose to ‘rail head’ by driving to stations further away from where they live, thereby increasing the number of car journeys on our roads, increasing road congestion and carbon emissions.

All these issues would have a negative impact on our economy, as well as affect the viability of our communities and the wider social infrastructure.

Medway Council will be indicating that the London stations of Victoria and Cannon Street are major commuter destinations.

Q11 How might better use be made of the capacity available on the Brighton Main Line?

SELEP strongly supports the aspiration of KCC, set out in their Rail Action Plan, for a through Kent – Gatwick rail service. This service would require at least one train path each hour in each direction between Redhill and Gatwick, and provision should be made for this service within the planned timetable changes for the Brighton Main Line (BML) in the new Combined franchise service specification.

The additional capacity now approved for Network Rail’s Control Period 5 (CP5) at Redhill station through the delivery of an additional platform on the west side of that station will facilitate the reversing movement required for this service, as well as enabling a doubling of the Reading- Gatwick service which makes a similar movement. Also, Gatwick Airport station now has an additional platform 7, which should also provide the additional capacity required for an hourly service from Kent.

(See response to Q16 below re Ashford-Gatwick service proposal)

ESCC has made the following observations:

The allocation of 4 BML train paths an hour in each direction impacts on potential improvements to Coastway-Victoria services. Consideration, therefore, should be given to how these paths should be allocated to the greatest benefit to passengers. Services from coastal destinations to Gatwick Airport should be improved. Further detail is provided on page 3 of Appendix 1 of this consultation response. Page 71 Agenda Item 8

Medway council has made the following observations:

Medway supports the redevelopment of Redhill so that Medway / Gatwick links can be established via Tonbridge. These links would need to cross the Brighton Mainline at a different level. Redevelopment of Redhill is already identified in the area RUS document.

Q12 What steps should bidders be expected to take to improve performance on this route?

The new Combined franchisee should work in close partnership with Network Rail to ensure the most efficient utilisation of train paths by all train operators using the BML. Priority would need to be given to the dedicated Victoria-Gatwick Express, which would form the principal rail link to the airport, but all other operators should be treated equitably in respect of their access rights to the BML.

The inclusion of the proposed Ashford - Gatwick service should not be regarded as an inconvenient addition to the main BML service, but rather as an integral part of the Gatwick Airport Surface Access Strategy which fully supports its inclusion in the Combined franchise specification.

ESCC has made the following observations:

The bidders should ensure units are adequately maintained and repaired to maximise performance.

There should be incentives for the appointed operator to maximise performance, e.g. financial penalties incurred for not meeting targets such as journey times etc. Operators must not add unnecessary time to journeys to ensure they do not incur penalties; there should be appropriate measures in place to prohibit this from taking place.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Medway Council will be suggesting as discussed at the DfT meeting at Passenger Focus offices on 25/7/12 that lateness times should be reduced from 5 mins to 3 mins with further consideration to real time at some point in the future.

Q13 What destinations on the Great Northern route do respondents consider would be appropriate to become destinations for trains which serve the core Thameslink route?

The introduction of Great Northern destinations to Thameslink services from south of the Thames will be a great addition to the range of single journey or one change travel options once the full Thameslink service is delivered in December 2018. For Thameslink services from Kent, Agenda Item 8 Page 72

SELEP would support the indicative allocation for the Maidstone East service to operate north of St Pancras (low level) via the refurbished tunnels to the East Coast Main Line (ECML), and then north to Welwyn Garden City.

This is a significant town in the centre of Hertfordshire, a similar distance from Central London as Maidstone, and could generate sufficient passenger journeys to support a regular stopping service to and from Maidstone East all day.

The other stations on the Great Northern route which are proposed as termini for the Thameslink service are Peterborough and Cambridge, but these would most logically be served by the proposed semi-fast Thameslink services from Three Bridges and Horsham respectively.

The important point here is that passengers from Kent would be able to make one simple change at Blackfriars on to the following service of their choice, without the need either to transfer to the Underground or to change platforms. SELEP therefore supports the proposed pattern of Thameslink operation, as it would deliver a far better connected railway network for Kent’s residents and visitors alike.

Medway Council will mention the Bedford / Rochester link in their response.

Q14 Do respondents believe Great Northern trains which do not serve the Thameslink core route should remain as part of this franchise or be transferred to the new Inter City East Coast franchise?

The Great Northern trains which would remain outside the Thameslink core route are those which currently operate from Peterborough, Stevenage and Hertford, and also from Kings Lynn and Cambridge, and which would continue to serve either Kings Cross or Moorgate.

While the decision as to whether or not these services were transferred to the new Inter City East Coast franchise would not have any bearing on the Thameslink services to and from Kent, the most logical decision would be to retain these services as part of the Thameslink network. The rationale is that these services are quite separate from the Inter City services on the ECML, and would be better placed as part of the wider Combined Thameslink franchise.

Q15 What improvements would respondents like to see made to Great Northern services as part of the Combined franchise and what is the rationale for this?

The provision of a regular interval service on each branch of the existing Great Northern network, with good interworking between trains destined for the Thameslink core and those destined for Kings Cross or Moorgate. Page 73 Agenda Item 8

Q16 What services would be appropriate to serve the Airport market?

Ashford via Tonbridge and Edenbridge to Gatwick Airport

“Through Gatwick – Tonbridge – Ashford hourly all day service in partnership with Gatwick Airport Ltd and operator of new franchise for Southern operating area could commence in 2015 – not part of IKF but would affect route between Tonbridge and Ashford; KCC will continue to work with Gatwick Airport Ltd, Network Rail and existing franchisee to deliver this objective;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xi)

SELEP strongly supports the delivery of a through rail service between Kent and Gatwick Airport. The Partnership believes that this is an essential requirement of the new Kent rail map from 2015 onwards. It should be included as a service requirement in the new Combined franchise specification; it is also included in our response for the South Eastern franchise consultation as the service could be operated by either franchisee.

This is one of the 5 most important key recommendations in KCC’s Rail Acton Plan, as that Council regards a direct rail link to Gatwick as an essential prerequisite to stimulate their economy by improving airport access for employment and leisure.

At least initially SELEP would want to have an hourly frequency at the same minutes past each hour all week. The service would serve Ashford International (for connections with all East Kent stations and with the potential for links to Manston Airport via a future Thanet Parkway station, and also with international services to the continent); Tonbridge (for connections with all West Kent stations); Edenbridge; Redhill (utilising the new platform to be constructed on the west side of this station as part of Network Rail’s High Level Output Specification (HLOS) for Control Period 5 (CP 5) where the trains would reverse); and Gatwick Airport (which will have gained an additional platform 7 to alleviate capacity constraints).

From 2015 onwards Class 377 rolling stock, in the form of 4-car electrical multiple units (EMUs), will start to be released from service on the existing Thameslink franchise as new Siemens built Thameslink stock is brought into service. Three of these sets would be required to provide the initial service, operating an hourly frequency with a round running time of about 150 minutes and with about 30 minutes combined layover at both termini.

SELEP cannot emphasise too strongly the critical importance of this rail link, which has the full support of Gatwick Airport Ltd’s Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS), their consultants ARUP, the Gatwick Agenda Item 8 Page 74

Diamond Business Association, British Airways, and GATCOM. To connect both the key stations of Ashford in the east of the county and Tonbridge in the west of the county with Gatwick would transform Kent’s accessibility to and from London’s second airport, which has itself identified its capacity to grow its market share of the south-east’s air passenger traffic within the airport’s existing terminal and runway capacity. SELEP is determined not to lose this once in a generation opportunity. Ashford - Gatwick Airport in 2015?

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Medway Council supports KCC’s aspirations, but will also be making a case for Medway to be considered as a terminus point for a Gatwick / Medway train service. There is also a need to consider what additional services can be provided for Medway.

The Council is aware that the Government will be consulting in detail on the future aviation policy. It is essential that the changes to any rail franchises have flexibility to accommodate any changes to aviation policy. Page 75 Agenda Item 8

Medway Council also recommends a comment on use of 4 car units joined together for use in 8 or 12 car formation with a driving cab at both ends to assist in case of train failure. From other experience SET formations were tried and failed in the 1980’s with class 421 CIGs / 4VEPs used on the Brighton mainline and South West. If a door or unit failed it would then mean you only loose the 4 car unit. This issue was discussed / raised with DfT at the Passenger Focus meeting on 25/7/12.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Gatwick Airport / Gatwick Express

o The existing Gatwick Express service is expensive, and as a result passengers are displaced onto Coastway services resulting in overcrowding. o The allocation of 4 Brighton Main Line (BML) paths an hour in each direction impacts on potential improvements to Coastway-Victoria services. Consideration should be given to how these paths should be allocated, to the greatest benefit to passengers. o Service access to Gatwick airport should be improved including services to coastal destinations. o The Gatwick Express is appropriate to serve the airport market, however, this is expensive in comparison to parallel FCC and Southern services and is comparable in journey length. As a result passengers are displaced onto Coastway services resulting in overcrowding on these services. o Services to Gatwick from coastal destinations need improving, and consideration should be given to how the BML paths can best be allocated to provide the greatest benefit for passengers, not only for those travelling from and north of Brighton, but also for from the coastal towns.

Q17 What improvements could be made without adversely affecting the service provision on the remainder of the franchise?

Please see responses to Q4 above.

Q18 What services that run via Elephant & Castle do respondents think should run via the Thameslink core route?

SELEP believes that all the Thameslink services from Kent which will operate via Elephant & Castle should run north of Blackfriars via the core route. The trains which serve the Wimbledon Loop and also operate via Elephant & Castle should terminate in the bay platforms on the west side of the newly re-built Blackfriars station, as this would avoid conflicting movements on the four-track approach to Blackfriars between these services and the through trains from Kent. Agenda Item 8 Page 76

These though trains would continue via the core route to St Pancras (low level) and beyond, and this arrangement would also make the core service of 24tph more operationally robust, assisting reliability of the Thameslink network.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Bedford / Rochester train service to be retained and become part of the core Thameslink north / south service. The intention to relocate Rochester station to Corporation Street area should also be noted. This will retain an additional platform to maintain existing storage of trains.

Q19 Recognising that not all of these services can run via the Thameslink core route, what would be the most satisfactory way of managing the interchange at Blackfriars?

Clear signage and electronic destination displays would be essential, assisted by a significant staff presence on the platforms. There would also need to be access for all, with lifts for transfers between the bay platforms and the down through platform. The new Blackfriars station meets all these requirements and interchange between services here should be accessible and easy to understand.

Q20 What improvements would respondents like to see made to Coastway East and West services, the rationale for such proposals and the economic benefit expected to be delivered from these changes?

Please see response to Q4 above in respect of the Ashford – Hastings section of the Coastway East service, and response to Q7 in respect of aspirations of ESCC for other sections of Coastway routes.

Q21 What improvements would respondents like to see made to other Southern services as part of the Combined franchise from 2015, what is the rationale for such proposals and the economic benefit expected to be delivered from these changes?

Please see response to Q4 above in respect of the Tonbridge – Redhill service in the current Southern franchise, and response to Q7 in respect of aspirations of ESCC for other routes in the present Southern network.

Medway Council supports a Medway – Gatwick link.

Q22 What are respondents’ views on the practice of splitting trains at stations such as Haywards Heath?

While this practice has no bearing on the Combined franchise’s services operating in Kent, the county does have experience of the splitting and joining of trains at Ashford and Faversham. Once Page 77 Agenda Item 8

passengers are used to the concept, it has the benefit of delivering a more frequent service on each of the branches served, as it utilises the available paths between Ashford or Faversham and London more effectively than would be the case if each train had to operate without splitting or joining.

Provided that clear and concise announcements and information were available for passengers, it is a practice that SELEP would continue to support, both in Kent and elsewhere on the network.

ESCC has made the following observations:

The County Council would support any proposals to remove the practice of splitting and joining trains at Haywards Heath which would reduce journey times for passengers. We would not wish for there to be any reduction in existing services to the East Coastway should this proposal be taken forward.

Separate half hourly services to the east and west Coastway should be provided to deliver a 75 minute journey time.

Q23 Do respondents feel that the Newhaven Marine branch line and station should be kept open and maintained or should the rail industry deploy the relevant funding elsewhere on the rail network?

If the use of Newhaven Marine branch line and station is as nominal as was the Folkestone Harbour branch and station before the VSOE services were withdrawn, SELEP would agree with any proposal to close the branch and station and have Network Rail use the funding elsewhere on the network.

ESCC has made the following observations:

There are currently three railway stations in Newhaven: Newhaven Town, Newhaven Harbour, and Newhaven Marine stations, albeit passenger services only serve the Town and Harbour stations. It is not considered that there is a need for another passenger station in Newhaven, however, Newhaven Marine has potential rail freight benefits in respect of its location next to Newhaven port, and therefore this should be looked at in greater detail prior to consideration of full closure of this station.

Q24 How would you like to see performance information published?

SELEP would expect performance information to be provided separately for each sector of the new franchise operation, i.e. Thameslink core route services, ex-Great Northern to London services, Gatwick Express service, ex-Southern to London services, Coastway services, CRP services and Metro services. Agenda Item 8 Page 78

The information should show train service punctuality and train service reliability separately for each of these sectors, and measure performance in each category against agreed targets for the period reported.

ESCC agrees that information should be easy to understand and easily accessible.

Medway Council will be requesting existing arrangements continue 4 weekly x 13 but include mainline stations.

Q25 How frequent should its publication be?

The quarterly reporting of performance information is appropriate and meets the needs of stakeholders. It is also a reasonable reflection of varying performance according to seasons.

ESCC agrees that information should be made available on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Q26 What level of disaggregation of performance do you believe is reasonable?

Please see response to question 24 above.

Medway Council will mention better communication with Network Rail and the Train Operating Company along with the Local Authority. This is covered in the Rail Devolution consultation.

Q27 What are the priorities that respondents consider should be taken into account to improve the passenger experience of using these services?

Passenger feedback has consistently raised the need for improvement to customer information and customer service at stations. These issues must be priorities for the new franchisee, offering a better customer experience of train departure information and delays, and also offering reassurance through the presence of uniformed station staff.

The new franchisee must also focus on the equally important issues of reliability, frequency, cleanliness of trains and stations, value for money off-peak fares and security. Passengers should feel safe and informed, and all these priorities should contribute positively to the overall customer experience of travel by train. Improved communication is especially required in periods of disruption, such as those caused by bad weather.

Page 79 Agenda Item 8

ESCC has made the following observations:

o A priority is passengers being able to get a seat. This is a significant issue on the Uckfield line and the East Coastway line where overcrowding is a regular occurrence. Service reliability is also an issue, as well as the insufficient provision of information when trains are delayed. o Toilets on trains should be provided (these are not featured on the Seaford line) and air conditioning wherever possible. o At stations cycle parking facilities should be provided, and the presence of staff which gives passengers a sense of safety and security, especially at night or after sundown. o Tickets options should be clear, and staff should have good understanding, and be able to advise on, the best value ticket for passengers journeys.

Q28 What do stakeholders see as the most important factors in improving security (actual or perceived) and addressing any gap between the two?

The presence of CCTV cameras that work is one of the most effective deterrents to crime. Equally important is the presence of staff on board trains, both to check tickets and to reassure passengers with a uniformed presence. The new franchise operator would be expected to enhance the provision of CCTV on all trains operating on the Combined franchise, and to increase the level of on-board ticket checking and revenue protection officers to combat fraudulent travel.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Perception of an acceptable level of security and safety is most commonly achieved by the presence of railway staff at stations. However, CCTV at stations, including covering cycle storage, also contributes to improving security.

It is recognised that the rail industry are seeking to save costs by reducing staff presence at stations. Due consideration should be given to assessing whether this is the most appropriate course of action to take, as passengers perceived sense of safety and security is an important issue that should not be detrimentally affected.

Medway Council supports these objectives, which are also supported by recent results from Passenger Focus surveys indicating passengers’ views.

Agenda Item 8 Page 80

Q29 What is important to stakeholders in the future use and improvements in stations?

“The County Council would also expect to see ongoing improvements to the station environment (cleanliness, comfort, security, information, customer service etc) and to integration with other modes of transport (i.e. the whole journey experience);”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xiii)

SELEP supports the expectations of the whole station environment which KCC has set out in their Rail Action Plan. The important point here is that the station environment should contribute positively to the whole journey experience. Stations should be clean, comfortable and secure, with good public transport and other local information and with timetables available for local connecting bus services.

ESCC has made the following observations:

• Improved accessibility to the station – by walking, cycling, bus and car. • Continued support by the franchisee for station adoption and station partnerships. • Supporting (including financially) community rail partnerships who undertake an important role in raising local awareness, increasing local passenger use of, and improvements to, stations. • Greater liaison with stakeholders in relation to Station Travel Plans (STP) – including updated on actions, and partnership working to prevent duplication of efforts in respect of schemes in and around stations. • Introduce STPs at other key stations in East Sussex, including at Bexhill, Uckfield, Newhaven Town, Crowborough, Seaford, Rye and Eridge. • Make funding available to deliver station improvements, including:

o Improved accessibility to the station – by walking, cycling, bus and car. o Cycle and moped parking facilities. o Waiting area improvements, including seating, toilets etc. o Sufficient and appropriate charges for car parking spaces are available to passengers to use station car parks, particularly in more rural locations. Also, to reduce the impact of on-street parking in residential areas in the vicinity of stations.

Medway Council also notes that improving staffing on the Medway Valley Line would lead to better revenue and compliance. Page 81 Agenda Item 8

Q30 What priorities would respondents give to car parking and cycling facilities at locations where these are fully used?

“ there is also a pressing need for increased parking capacity at many stations, coupled with on-street parking controls by local authorities on roads in immediate vicinity of stations;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xiii)

SELEP supports KCC’s call for increased parking capacity at stations where demand already exceeds supply, but there is often no more railway land available for additional parking at these locations. At stations where existing capacity for car parking and cycling facilities are fully utilised, SELEP would expect the franchise operator to promote access by bus and on foot, and also by better provision for ‘kiss and ride’.

SELEP also expects special consideration to be given to car parking arrangements at rural stations. There are several locations in Kent, of which Charing and Pluckley are but two examples, where charges are so high that the car parks are under used and the surrounding roads in the villages are full of parked cars all day. At these stations the new franchisee should reduce changes to a minimum level, reflecting the rural nature of the location and the need to bring rail passengers’ cars off the surrounding roads and into the mainly empty station car parks.

The new franchise operator should be encouraged to carry cycles on trains. This is an increasingly popular mode of travel and must be preferential in many ways to car parking at the station. However, on most trains the spaces in which cycles can be stored is very limited and often in the way of other passengers. On some trains with disabled toilets there is good space available for cycles, but otherwise they are often left by the doors and interfere with access and egress by other passengers.

While space on board trains is at a premium, ideally trains should have greater capacity to carry cycles, provided that other passengers were not inconvenienced. There is also a need for increased cycle storage capacity at stations by more intelligent storage options, such as double deck cycle racks.

ESCC has made the following observations:

Parking at Stations

• In some locations insufficient parking provision causes problems elsewhere, e.g. nearby residential streets and grass verges, and also results in inappropriate parking creating accessibility problems for other road users. Agenda Item 8 Page 82

• Rising car parking prices at stations has exacerbated on-street parking conditions in areas surrounding stations, with commuters trying to avoid costly car parking fees. • The whole cost price of using the rail network needs to be taken into account in assessing potential improvements and changes to services, including rail fares and car parking cost/bus travel costs. • The level of secure cycle parking should be increased where spaces are currently full. Consideration should be given to cycle hire at main stations e.g. Eastbourne.

Cycles on trains

• All off-peak services should allow for cycles to be carried on trains. For example, for those wishing to access the South Downs National Park. • Cycle parking improvements have been made at a number of East Sussex stations over the last few years. However, there is still an opportunity to further improve these parking facilities, which would need to be covered and monitored by CCTV. We would wish to see the 24 hour staff monitoring of CCTV at rail stations to be retained - as currently undertaken by Southern.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Medway Council does not wish to increase parking at some stations due to the impact on congestion and regeneration sites. The Council would rather support more links to the bus network / Park and Ride facilities.

Q31 What sort of ticketing products and services would you expect to see delivered through ‘smart’ technology on this franchise?

“KCC intends to lobby Government to ensure that a requirement to introduce Smartcard ticketing is included in the new [franchises]. This would provide the potential for integrated bus/rail ticketing;”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xii)

KCC’s Rail Action Plan sets out that Council’s expectations for Smartcard ticketing in both the new franchises. There should be a requirement for the new operator to develop the use of Smartcard ticketing for its own rail services, and also to ensure that Smartcard technology is used to develop inter-modal Smartcard ticketing for joint bus and rail travel within the Combined franchise area, and eventually for rail travel between franchise operators.

Page 83 Agenda Item 8

ESCC has made the following observations:

The following list comprises rail ticket characteristics we would wish to see integrated in requirements for bidders as part of the new combined franchise:

• Clear ticket options so passengers are fully aware of what choices are available to them, and what ticket is best value for money. • Introduce and promote Smartcard and other integrated ticketing opportunities. • Continuation and extension of ‘The Key’ system currently operating in East Sussex. • Ensure future value for money by:

o Supporting young people and access to education e.g. extend UniZone – discounted travel for students to school/college/university sites which currently operates between Falmer-Brighton-Lancing – along the East Coastway to Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings. o Supporting season ticket discounts for employers to encourage sustainable access to employment. o Continuing providing incentives for people to travel by rail, including 4for2 rail travel, as well as promoting such initiatives.

• Retain Delay-Repay regime. • Giving consideration for a multi-journey carnet ticket – or electronic equivalent – to keep down costs for passengers.

Q32 What local accessibility and mobility issues do stakeholders see and how they might be addressed?

SELEP would expect the new Combined franchise operator to work closely with Network Rail to ensure the delivery of a more accessible railway network on the routes it operates in Kent. This would involve continued improvement to, and greater public awareness of, the accessibility of Thameslink trains to people whose mobility is impaired.

A programme of continued improvement of on-board facilities needs to be matched by further delivery of the ‘Access for All’ programme by Network Rail, which has already seen the installation of some fully accessible station bridges in Kent, and which should be extended to other Kent stations on the Thameslink network as funding in Network Rail’s CP5 permits.

ESCC has made the following observations:

All stations should be accessible for people with mobility issues. Operators should have appropriate processes in place for stations Agenda Item 8 Page 84

which are not accessible by people with mobility issues. For example, Glynde station in East Sussex is not accessible for people with mobility issues, and Southern operate a service whereby the passenger is taken to the nearest accessible station (Lewes), and a taxi is provided to take them to the inaccessible station (Glynde).

Appropriate changes should be made to accommodate and improve accessibility for people with mobility issues at stations. This includes the provision of lifts, railings, surface materials changes, ramps etc. At stations where there is a gap between the train and the platform, staff should be available to assist passengers with mobility issues by providing a ramp on/off the train.

Medway Council has made the following observations:

Through our partnership working, a comment was received from the deaf community to have more visual maps on trains and displays (similar to the Underground) so when trains stop at stations deaf people have a better awareness of the station at which they have arrived.

Q33 What environmental targets would stakeholders like to see within the franchise specification?

“KCC also intends to seek assurances from the DfT and the rail industry that all available options to acquire modern rolling stock, both electric and diesel, are explored, so as to provide the new franchises serving the county with sufficient resources which will enable [them] to deliver the enhanced rail service for Kent set out in this Action Plan.”

Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, paragraph 5.4 (xv)

SELEP would expect to see a target for the reduction of energy consumption at stations and other railway buildings. KCC’s Rail Action Plan sets out that Council’s aspirations for the delivery of new rolling stock, or of newly acquired stock (e.g. class 377 from Thameslink), which should reduce the amount of electricity consumed per train mile, and so contribute to a reduction in energy used by the new franchisee.

SELEP would also welcome the electrification of the lines between Oxted and Uckfield and between Ashford and Ore, as this would remove the need for the use of a separate diesel fleet for these lines and enable them to be served by electric trains with consequent reduced CO2 emissions. While these schemes are not included in the current London and South-East RUS, they should be kept live as future options when and if funding permits their delivery. Page 85 Agenda Item 8

ESCC has made the following observations:

To work in partnership with stakeholders towards securing improvements on railway lines, including electrification of the Uckfield-Hurst Green line and the line between Ashford-Hastings. This will reduce carbon emissions. Also, we would want to see the use of units with regenerative braking to be introduced on these routes.

Reduce, reuse and recycle wherever possible, and to introduce new ways of working as well as giving consideration to use of appropriate materials which will enable this to take place.

Identify ways to reduce waste going to landfill in every aspect of the franchise– from office staff to services.

APPENDIX: Tables of Proposed Rail Service Specification

(Source: Rail Action Plan for Kent, Appendix 2)

Page 86

This page is intentionally left blank Page 87 Agenda Item 8

APPENDIX C 22 August 2012

www.thamesgateway-kent.org.uk

The Combined Franchise Replacement Sponsor TGKP Office: Department for Transport Innovation Centre Medway Zone 3/15 1st Floor (F33) Great Minster House Maidstone Road 33 Horseferry Road Chatham, Kent London ME5 9FD

SW1P 4DR Tel : 01634 338148

Dear Sir/Madam

The Thames Gateway Kent Partnership is a private and public sector partnership that champions sustainable economic growth in North Kent and aims to create the best conditions possible to attract investment and deliver sustainable, private sector-led economic growth.

The Partnership has recently published a Growth Plan which sets out our ambitions to accelerate sustainable economic growth in North Kent and outlines our strategy to help deliver these ambitions. This recognises that "investment in transport and infrastructure is key to unlocking the new employment and residential sites across Thames Gateway Kent". We therefore welcome this opportunity to respond to the Department for Transport’s (DfT) consultation on the Combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise.

The Thames Gateway Kent Partnership views the provision of an enhanced, efficient and effective rail network across the Thames Gateway Kent growth area as crucial for delivering economic growth, meeting housing growth targets and ensuring that there are greater education and employment opportunities for all residents. We therefore advocate that the new Combined Rail Franchise specification:

• Does not introduce changes that adversely affect the current level of rail service provision across North Kent. We are aware that Kent County Council (KCC), Medway Council and the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) responses to the consultation propose a number of changes to the existing rail service. The Partnership is supportive of these proposals, but only on the basis that their introduction would not impact negatively on the current rail service provided across Thames Gateway Kent.

• Provides a service that responds effectively to growth in demand arising from the housing and employment growth that the Partnership aspires to in Thames Gateway Kent. Our aspirational targets that are particularly relevant here are the creation of at least 58,000 jobs between 2006 and 2026, particularly in high-value sectors and the delivery the delivery of up to 52,000 new homes, between 2006 and 2026.

Agenda Item 8 Page 88

• Delivers a fast and regular train service that links North Kent to Gatwick airport. Improving access to international aviation routes is important for attracting inward investment and supporting the economic growth aspirations for Thames Gateway Kent.

Yours faithfully

David Liston-Jones

Chief Executive Thames Gateway Kent Partnership

Page 89 Agenda Item 9

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

WINDFALL HOUSING SITES

1. Summary

1.1 Windfall sites are housing sites that come forward unexpectedly, outside of the plan preparation process. The ‘Windfall Site Practice Note’ at Appendix A, sets out an assessment process based on existing local and national policy, which will allow for a consistent approach in the determination of planning applications on windfall sites. 2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 To agree the ‘Windfall Site Practice Note’ at Appendix A for use in the determination of planning applications for windfall sites.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. The Cabinet report of May 2012 noted the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF) and the implications of this for the Council’s planning decision-making. It was reported that the NPPF includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development where there is no up-to-date local policy. This results in risks for the Council in those areas where the Core Strategy by itself does not provide sufficient detail to guide decisions on planning applications. One such area of risk is in relation to windfall sites, where the Core Strategy sets out the policy tests in general terms, but where additional guidance is needed to make clear how this policy will be applied. 3.2. Windfall sites are ones that have come forward unexpectedly and have not been identified for housing through the plan preparation process. The majority of these tend to be small infill sites within the urban area, often backland or garden sites. Larger windfall sites occasionally come forward. Some of these may have been assessed as part of plan preparation but were considered unsuitable and, therefore, they did not form part of the identified housing supply. Nonetheless, landowners may wish to bring them forward through planning applications as windfall sites. 3.3. Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy sets out the Council’s general criteria for how such applications will be determined, including sustainability of the site, the capacity of infrastructure to serve the development and the balance of benefits and disbenefits of the proposal. 3.4. The Practice Note, attached at Appendix A, has been prepared in order to provide guidance on how this policy will be interpreted. It is intended to promote consistency in decision-making by the Council, to help applicants understand how the Council is making its decisions, as well as to provide clarity for appeal Inspectors as to what the Council considers to be sustainable in the local context. The sustainability assessment requires that in order for a site to be considered Agenda Item 9 Page 90

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

acceptable for housing, it should normally be a brownfield site (that is, previously used) rather than a greenfield site, with a good range of transport options from the location, a range of local community facilities and have a positive relationship with the local landscape, residential amenity, townscape and heritage. 3.5. The guidance note does not develop new policy. It is based on the same criteria which were used to assess sites which were identified through the planning process when the Core Strategy was prepared. 3.6. It is proposed that the guidance will be made available on the Council’s website for the use of planning applicants and interested members of the public. The Council will request that applications for windfall sites are supported by the Windfall Site Questionnaire, Appendix 1 of the guidance note, although this will not be mandatory. The questionnaire has been trialled by applicants on a voluntary basis and found to be helpful in determining applications. 3.7. The assessment process will be used by Development Control Officers to ensure consistent decision-making. It will also be a useful document to support the Council’s case at appeal. Members are asked to endorse the Practice Note for use in the determination of planning applications. 4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

Strategic Objective ET2 : Ensure that development in Dartford is sustainable

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment Lack of clarity on what constitutes ‘sustainable development’ leaves the Council open to the risk that the term ‘sustainable development’ will be inconsistently applied at appeal and without due regard to the local context. The practice note seeks to reduce that risk by clarifying what the Council considers to be sustainable in the local context, as developed through the Core Strategy plan preparation process.

Page 91 Agenda Item 9

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

Appendix A – Windfall Site Practice Note

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

Report to Cabinet : Update on 24 May Teresa Ryszkowska Planning N/A National Planning Guidance 2012 Planning Policy Policy, Manager Regenerati Dartford Core Strategy Sept (01322) 343631 on 2012 Directorate

Page 92

This page is intentionally left blank Page 93 Agenda Item 9

APPENDIX A

Windfall Site Practice Note

September 2012 Dartford Borough Council

Agenda Item 9 Page 94

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This practice note sets out the Council’s approach to windfall sites and how Policy CS10 (4) of the Core Strategy 1 is to be applied in the assessment of these sites. The note is intended to provide consistency in the application of the policy, help applicants understand what information is used in the assessment and understand how the decision is made.

1.2 The information to be used in assessing a site is set out in the Windfall Site Questionnaire at Appendix 1. Appendix 2 is a flow diagram showing the steps the Council will go through in determining windfall sites. Appendix 3 provides the policy context.

1.3 Applicants of windfall sites are requested to complete the Windfall Site Questionnaire (Appendix 1) as far as they are able and submit it as part of the planning application, together with any relevant supporting material. Alternatively, the form can be completed subsequently, on the request of the Council. The information provided will be the starting point for an assessment of sustainability to be undertaken in accordance with Dartford Core Strategy Policy CS10 (4). Completion of the form is not mandatory but provision of the information will assist the Council in determining the application speedily and fairly.

2. WHAT IS A WINDFALL SITE? 2.1 A windfall site is one which has not previously been identified by the Council as having development potential. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2 defines windfall sites as ‘ Sites which have not been specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously-developed sites that have unexpectedly become available.’ In the Dartford context, any site which has not been identified through the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)3 will be considered a windfall site. Additionally, the Core Strategy explains that sites categorised as ‘ currently not developable ’ or ‘ not developable’ are considered to be windfall sites, since they have not been identified for development through the Local Plan process.

3. ASSESSMENT PROCESS 3.1 This assessment process is based on local and national policy. The policy context and the full text of Core Strategy Policy CS10 (4) are set out in Appendix 3.

Assessment of Sustainability 3.2 In accordance with Policy CS10 (4) of the Core Strategy, windfall sites are to be assessed on the same basis as planned development. The level of planned development set out in the Core Strategy is based on SHLAA identified sites which have been tested for sustainability. This testing used criteria developed as part of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Core Strategy. This process has been adapted to

1 Dartford Core Strategy, adopted September 2011 2 National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012 3 Dartford Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, Dartford Borough Council, 2010 Page 95 Agenda Item 9

make it more relevant to the sustainability issues of windfall sites. The Windfall Site Questionnaire at Appendix 1 sets out the information required to make the assessment. Additionally, it has drawn on sustainability issues identified in the NPPF.

3.3 As with the Core Strategy testing, an equal weighting for each of the issues is not appropriate as some objectives have greater importance and significance than others. To be considered acceptable in principle, a proposed windfall site will be required to meet the following tests in the evaluation:

• Brownfield land is normally a requirement; • High weighting in the assessment will be attached to : availability of local public transport services with a useful range of destinations; availability of local community services; and a positive relationship with local landscape, townscape and heritage characteristics; • There should be no overriding sustainability constraints that cannot be mitigated.

Capacity of Current and Proposed Infrastructure 3.4 Many elements of Dartford’s physical infrastructure are operating at full capacity or beyond. The level of growth proposed in the Core Strategy requires significant levels of new or improved infrastructure to support that growth. Dartford’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and Background Paper 4 provides information on existing deficiencies.

3.5 Infrastructure deficiencies which are most likely to have a negative impact on existing and future residents in the Dartford context are currently primary school capacity, highway capacity, GP/primary health facilities and secondary school capacity. Additionally other elements of infrastructure, such as sewage capacity and open space provision may be critical in some locations and may also be taken into consideration.

3.6 In assessing a windfall proposal, existing capacity in the immediate locality will be considered, alongside any long-term and cumulative impacts. Advice will be taken from service providers in determining whether the proposed development will be adequately supported by existing and/or proposed infrastructure, taking into account the capacity needed for Core Strategy planned development/ the SHLAA identified sites. The impact on existing residents in the event that the development proceeds will be taken into consideration.

3.7 In the case of large windfall sites, there may be potential for the site to provide or substantially contribute towards infrastructure which is lacking. This will be taken into account in the assessment.

Weighing up Benefits and Disbenefits 3.8 The outcomes of the site sustainability and infrastructure assessments will help weigh up the balance of benefits and disbenefits in the determination of an application.

4 This is a Living Document. Currently, the latest version is Feb 2011 (Vs 2) Agenda Item 9 Page 96

These will determine whether the site is ‘in principle’ appropriate for housing development. Where a site is not acceptable ‘in principle’, other factors will not normally override this.

3.9 Site specific considerations including design, layout, parking and other considerations relevant to planning will also be taken into account. Any proposal will need to be consistent with other Local Plan policies and the NPPF, with no other significant considerations weighing against the proposal. Taking all these factors into account, a balanced conclusion will be reached as to whether the windfall site is acceptable for housing development.

Page 97 Agenda Item 9

APPENDIX 1 : Windfall Site Questionnaire

Site Name /Address

Sustainability Objective Please answer as many of the Relevant Local P lan Assessment Questions questions as you are able to. You may policy and National refer to other supporting documents, if Planning Policy appropriate. Framework paragraph Site Characteristics 1. Is the site brownfield/ previously used or a THIS OBJECTIVE NORMALLY NEEDS TO CS Key principles greenfield site BE MET FOR THE SITE TO BE 1&2,p23 CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE IN PRINCIPLE NPPF 17 Core Principle

Accessibility 2. What is the walking distance to: HIGH WEIGHTING ATTACHED CS15 , i) a bus stop with at least two buses an hour NPPF 17 Core during peak hours Principle,111 ii) a railway station 3. Which main shopping, leisure and work HIGH WEIGHTING ATTACHED CS1 5, destinations are served by public transport, e.g NPPF 17 Core Dartford town centre, Bluewater, C. London? principle, 30,35 4. Do the proposals include any transport CS15, CS16 improvements, including public transport, highway improvements, new footpaths or cycleways? Balanced and Integrated Communities 5. What is the walking distance to the closest local HIGH WEIGHTING ATTACHED CS15, CS21 community services: NPPF 17 Core i)primary school principle, 70 ii)GP or health centre iii)local shops iv)children’s playground v)local park or (higher level park) Are any new facilities proposed as part of the development? 6. How much and what type of affordable housing CS18,19 is proposed as part of the development? NPPF 17 Core What is the proposed mix of sizes of homes? Principle,50 7. Is the site in an identified area of deficiency for CS14,CS15, open space or children’s playspace? * NPPF 73 Does the proposal provide any new provision? 8. Does the proposal provide for any uses other CS 11,15 than residential? What are these? NPPF 17 Core Principle, 28, 37,38, 58,70 Agenda Item 9 Page 98

Environmental Health 9. Is the site affected by any of the following: CS 24, 25 (and para i) Air Quality Management Area* PROPOSALS WILL NORMALLY NEED TO 5.17) ii) High noise levels DEMONSTRATE HOW ANY LP DL4 iii) Contamination CONSTRAINTS ARE TO BE MITIGATED. NPPF 17 Core iv) Flood risk level 2 or 3* Principle, v) HSE 5 consultation zone 69,103,121,122,123, vi) Water source protection zone 124 vii) Poor on-street parking availability Please provide details. Does the proposal include measures to mitigate any of these? Environment 10. What level of the Code for Sustainable Homes CS23,24,25 will the proposal meet? NPPF 17 Core What, if any, proposals are there for energy and Principle, 96, water efficiency measures or renewable energy? Are any other forms of low or zero carbon energy proposed either on or off-site, eg CHP 6 scheme? 11. Will the proposal have a positive or negative CS14 effect on biodiversity on the site or adjoining NPPF 17 Core sites? (Please provide details of species affected Principle, 118 or reference to any studies carried out) LP: C13, C14 C16 Is the proposal site within an area of nature conservation value or a BOA 7 area* ? Landscape, Townscape and Heritage HIGH WEIGHTING ATTACHED 12. How does the proposal impact on : NPPF 17 Core i) the local landscape principles, 56-61 ii) the local townscape/built environment LP H9,V2,B1, iii) local character and distinctiveness B8,B10,B11 iv) residential amenity For example, will it result in net gain or loss of trees, shrubs, open land or garden land? Will it add or detract from the integrity of the street scene? Does it reinforce local distinctiveness ? 13. Is the proposal in a nationally or locally NPPF Core Principles, designated area of historic, architectural or 128-140 archaeological value, such as a Conservation LP: B6, B8, B10, B11 Area or Area of Special Residential Character* or and B12 does it impact on heritage assets such as Listed Buildings? How does the proposal respond to or maintain the valued characteristics of the area or heritage assets?

5 Health and Safety Executive 6 Combined Heat and Power 7 Biodiversity Opportunity Area Page 99 Agenda Item 9

Notes CS - Core Strategy LP – Local Plan 1995 ‘saved’ policies NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework

* Indicates information available in Local Plan evidence base

Agenda Item 9 Page 100

APPENDIX 2 : Determination of a Windfall Site Proposal

Is the site a windfall ? If the site is not identified as deliverable or developable in the SHLAA, it is a windfall site and requires assessment under Policy CS10(4) of the Core Strategy

Windfall Site Assessment : Policy CS10 (4) (i) Is the site sustainable (see Appendix 1)? (ii) Are there any infrastructure capacity issues? This determines acceptability for housing ‘in principle’

Other Considerations (i) Are design, layout, parking and other considerations acceptable? (ii) Does the proposal meet other Local Plan and NPPF policy requirements?

Do the benefits of development of the site outweigh

the disbenefits?

Taking the windfall site assessment and other

considerations into account, do the benefits of

development on the site outweigh the disbenefits?

Where the site is not acceptable ‘in principle’, other

considerations will not normally outweigh this

Page 101 Agenda Item 9

APPENDIX 3 : Policy Context

Core Strategy (adopted Sept 2011) The Core Strategy is the statutory development plan for the Borough (currently, alongside the South East Plan and saved policies from the Dartford’s Local Plan 1995). It is the starting point for determining planning applications, which should be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy CS10 (4) of the Core Strategy is most relevant to the determination of windfall sites, although other policies may also apply:

Windfall Sites 4. Planning applications for sites not identified as deliverable or developable in the SHLAA will be assessed in the same way as planned development by consideration of: a) The sustainability of the site for housing development; b) Whether benefits of development outweigh disbenefits; c) The capacity of the current and proposed infrastructure to serve the development taking into account committed and planned housing development; d) Where spare capacity is not available, the ability of the site to provide for the requirements it generates.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2012) The NPPF provides the most recent government planning policy framework and is a material consideration in decision-making. Where the statutory development plan is not consistent with this framework, the weight to be attached to the plan is diminished. Para 12 of the NPPF states:

Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. …

The Council is of the view that it has an up-to-date Core Strategy (the statutory development plan) which contains a relevant policy and that there is no conflict between this policy and the NPPF.

Saved Policies Dartford Local Plan 1995 The following ‘Saved Policy’ 8 from the 1995 Local Plan is relevant to windfall sites:

B1 - Standards of design in new development

The 1995 Local Plan saved policies are part of the statutory development plan and, as required by law, are the starting-point for decision-making. The Council is of the view that the relevant saved policy is consistent with the NPPF and, in advance of being replaced by policies in the emerging Development Management DPD, carries significant weight.

8 Direction under Paragraph 1(3) of Schedules to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 25 September 2007 Agenda Item 9 Page 102

Local Plan Review Amended Second Deposit Draft 2004 The following policy in the Local Plan Review is particularly relevant to windfall sites:

H4 - Windfall Sites

The Local Plan Review is not adopted and does not form part of the statutory development plan. However, Dartford Council resolved in January 2004 9 to use the policies as a material consideration in development control decisions. Policy H4 is the Council’s most recent statement on the issue of backland development (development behind the main frontage) and is, therefore, a material consideration. The Council is of the view that this policy is consistent with the NPPF. However, owing to the fact that the plan has no statutory status, its policies carry more limited weight than the ‘saved’ development plan policies.

Development Management DPD The Council has commenced work on a Development Management DPD which will contain policies on matters such as development on residential garden land. This is likely to be adopted end 2014/beginning 2015.

9 General Assembly of the Council 26 January 2004 Page 103 Agenda Item 10

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

DARENTH VALLEY PARK: PERMIT PARKING SCHEME

1. Summary

1.1 Some of the residents of Darenth Valley Park report numerous and increasing parking related issues as a result of parking management at Darent Valley Hospital. 1.2 This report summarises discussions that have taken place and seeks approval to commence the statutory process for the introduction of a traffic regulation order (TRO) for a permit parking scheme.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That Cabinet note the contents of this report. 2.2 That Cabinet approve the commencement of the statutory process for the introduction of a traffic regulation order for a permit parking scheme at Darenth Valley Park and surrounds.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. Some residents of Darenth Valley Park and surrounding neighbourhoods, especially those living in Powell Avenue, have reported inconsiderate parking that negatively impacts on their quality of life. Additionally, the parking practices now observed affect the Council’s waste collection duties (suggesting larger emergency service vehicles would have difficulty attending any incident) and are incompatible with the design and lifestyle principles laid down when the neighbourhood was planned. During the planning phase, the Council worked closely with developers to ensure that this estate was well designed and adopted many features normally associated with rural and semi-rural neighbourhoods. The estate is successful and community-cohesion is high, but inconsiderate parking is considered a threat to the character and life of the neighbourhood. 3.2. The parking issues are associated with the nearby Darent Valley Hospital which has increasing demands for parking by patients, visitors and staff. All parking on the hospital site is managed under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which determines capacity requirements and sets charging levels. Parking charges are considered expensive and members of staff are subject to a travel planning policy that denies Staff Permit eligibility to those living within 1½ miles of the hospital. Both staff and visitors, but particularly staff and contractors, have taken to using Powell Avenue and nearby roads for ‘free parking’. 3.3. The matter has been raised by local ward Members, discussed at Quality Services, Policy and Overview Committees and the Dartford Association of Town and Parish Councils, and the Leader of the Agenda Item 10 Page 104

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Council has taken an active role in seeking to resolve the issue. The Leader and Members met with a delegation of local residents and the Leader also met twice with the Hospital Chief Executive, which lead to a modest change in Hospital parking policy. 3.4. Currently, the Council has a policy (February 2012 Min. 144) of not proposing further residents’ parking management schemes because the Council’s experience has been that where schemes have been consulted on, consensus among residents has been difficult to reach. 3.5. In the Leader’s discussion with residents, he undertook to consider a revision to the Council’s position if he could make no headway in his discussion with the Hospital’s management. 3.6. The Leader’s last communication with the Hospital, on 26 June 2012, elicited a response from the Hospital’s Chief Executive received on 3 July 2012. The Leader has accepted that this communication probably represents the Trust’s final position and whilst some positive concessions and policy revisions have been delivered, it is clear that they are unlikely, alone, to deliver a return to the quiet lifestyle previously enjoyed by residents. In discussion with the relevant Portfolio Member, the Leader has accepted that a limited revision to the Council’s policy may be required in Powell Avenue, and in a small number of other locations, where schemes have high levels of support and may be delivered without controversy. 3.7. It is proposed to consult on the introduction of the Borough’s Resident Permit scheme that can be installed using a recently ‘prescribed’ entry signs (example in Appendix A) only at the start of each cul-de-sac; no lining is required. A summary of the Council’s scheme rules include:

• Vehicles parked on-street during the scheme’s effective hours of 9:30am to 4pm must display a permit issued by the Council; • Resident Permits cost £50 per year and their issue is restricted to one per household; • Visitor Permits cost £1 per day and their issue is restricted to twenty-five per month per household; • Only those living in the street with their vehicle registered there may purchase a Resident Permit and proof of residency and vehicle ownership must be submitted on application; however • Households may not need to purchase Resident Permits because all have driveways and garages; and • Households may not need to purchase Visitors Permits if their driveways and garages can accommodate their visitors’ vehicles too. 3.8. It is proposed to consult on the introduction of ‘no waiting’ regulations that must be installed using yellow lines and signs along the length of the Darenth Park Avenue from its junction with Darenth Wood Road to Page 105 Agenda Item 10

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

just past the turning down to Arrow Riding Centre. A summary of the effects include:

• Double yellow lines must not be parked on at any time; • A single yellow line on the houses’ side must not be parked on from Monday to Friday between 11am and noon; • A single yellow line on the field side must not be parked on Monday to Saturday between 8am and 6pm; • No vehicles, including those belonging to residents will be able to park on-street during the effective hours; however • Loading and unloading to properties is permitted as long as the activity is obviously taking place. 3.9. It is recommended that Cabinet approve the commencement of the statutory process for the introduction of a traffic regulation order (TRO) for the introduction of parking management as outlined in paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of this report.

4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

4.1. Not applicable.

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications Consultation costs are estimated at £100, and can be accommodated within the existing Transport Promotion budget (Budget Report page 42). Implementation costs will be dependent upon consultation feedback, but the maximum cost for signs and lines is approximately £2,800 if the proposals are delivered to all of the cul-de-sacs. It is unlikely that all lines and signs will be required on all cul-de-sacs so the cost should be much less. Costs will be met from the Parking Services operating budget (Budget Report page 57). Legal Implications The introduction of a traffic regulation order is a statutory process with any resultant Order authorised by Kent County Council. Staffing Implications Consultation can be accommodated by existing Council officers. Administrative Implications Any resultant scheme can be accommodated by Agenda Item 10 Page 106

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

existing Council processes. Risk Assessment The statutory consultation may generate negative feedback and petitions from some residents, but consultation letters will endeavour to provide sufficient guidance and instruction to minimise this.

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable 7. Appendices

Appendix A: Recently ‘prescribed’ entry sign for permit parking schemes

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

Darenth Valley Park: Permit 13 Sept. Lewis Boudville Enforcement N/A parking scheme 2012 (01322) 343410 and Regulatory Services

Page 107 Agenda Item 10

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Appendix A

Recently ‘prescribed’ entry sign for permit parking schemes

Page 108

This page is intentionally left blank Page 109 Agenda Item 11

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

GREENHITHE PARKING REVIEW

Castle and Greenhithe.

1. Summary

1.1 At its meeting on 23 February 2012 (Min. No. 145) Cabinet authorised the undertaking of the statutory process for a traffic regulation order (TRO) reflecting the feedback from an earlier review of the effectiveness of the Greenhithe area parking schemes. 1.2 This report summarises the feedback of the consultation and makes recommendations for amendments to some parking controls.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That Cabinet notes the outcome of the consultation as set out in this report. 2.2 That Cabinet approves the recommendations in this report at paragraphs 3.6 to 3.9. 2.3 That Cabinet authorises the completion of the statutory process with the ‘authorisation’ of the TRO effecting changes to the on-street parking management regulations as set out in paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of this report.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. The Council introduced resident supported on-street parking controls (CPZs) in Greenhithe during summer 2010 to reduce parking related conflicts between residents and commuters. It was agreed that the schemes should be reviewed once bedded in so that any problems in operation could be addressed. 3.2. At its meeting on 23 February 2012 (Min. No. 145) Cabinet authorised the undertaking of the statutory process for a traffic regulation order reflecting the feedback from an earlier review of the effectiveness of the Greenhithe CPZs. 3.3. The consultation responses are detailed below together with recommendations for action. Pier Road and High Street 3.4. The statutory consultation proposed a permit parking scheme for the benefit of seven households without off-street parking provision in Pier Road (Nos. 1 and 3) and High Street (Nos. 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14). The consultation analysis is as follows:

• There are 25 households in the two streets and 1 pub that will be directly affected by the proposals. Agenda Item 11 Page 110

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

• 7 households do not have private parking provision and of these 4 responded to the consultation stating their support and 1 objected to the permit parking scheme proposal. • 19 households and the pub have private parking provision and of these 2 responded to the consultation stating their support and 11 objected to the proposal. • In addition, 2 households further down High Street replied to the consultation with one stating its support and the other not stating a preference, and there was also an objection from the pub’s brewery.

• Of the 26 properties directly affected by the proposal, the 77.8% response rate was split 48.1% objecting to and 25.9% supporting the permit parking scheme proposal.

• The consultation responses suggest conflict between those households without parking provision and those with. 3.5. The original CPZ leaves only eight ‘parking spaces’ uncontrolled in the ‘block-paved’ area of High Street and Pier Road. Many of the consultation respondents suggest that there is no problem parking there. It is also reported that the proposed permit parking scheme will leave the area empty for much of the day as it will be protected for the use of so few, whilst their visitors would have to park elsewhere and walk to them. Responses from the Pier Hotel and its brewery suggest the same. 3.6. Given that the permit parking scheme proposal will benefit only 7 of the 26 households/pub, and only 4 of those expressed their support (1 of whom does not own a car), whilst 12 stated objections to the permit parking scheme proposal, it is recommended that the proposal not be progressed further and that the households and pub be informed of this. Beaton Close 3.7. Only one response was received regarding the shortening of a 4 hour limited waiting bay by approximately two car lengths and the respondent did not object to the proposal. It is recommended that the traffic regulation order amendment be progressed to effect this change. Ivy Bower Close 3.8. The statutory consultation proposed the removal of the one hour single yellow line which is effective between 11am and noon Monday to Friday. The 57.1% response rate of the 14 households and doctors surgery comprised 7 supporting and 1 objecting to the proposal. It is recommended that the traffic regulation order amendment be progressed to effect this change and that the households and doctors be informed of this.

Page 111 Agenda Item 11

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Steele Avenue 3.9. The statutory consultation proposed the removal of a four hour limited waiting bay because three households opposite it reported that it makes access to and from their driveways difficult. None of the three households expressed their support for its removal during the statutory consultation, but one objection was received from a household nearby citing that it is well used and that its removal would result in longer walks to the next nearest bays for visitors and residents. Given that this bay is no different to the other sixteen bays sited in the same way on Worcester Park, is recommended that the proposal not be progressed further. 3.10. Cabinet is asked to approve the recommendations in this report at paragraphs 3.6 to 3.9 above.

4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

4.1. ET3: Manage transport demand in a sustainable way and increase travel options. 5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications The cost for advertising Traffic Regulation Order amendments in the local press will be £70. The amending of lines and signs will be approximately £600. Expenditure can be met from existing resources within the Transport Promotion budget (Budget Book page 42). Legal Implications Traffic Regulation Order ‘has made’ notices will be advertised in a local newspaper and the TRO amendment ‘sealed’ by Kent County Council. Staffing Implications None. Administrative Implications None. Risk Assessment Informing the residents of the outcomes may generate negative feedback from some residents, but the Council’s correspondence will endeavour to provide sufficient information to minimise this.

Agenda Item 11 Page 112

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

None.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

Greenhithe Parking 13 September 2012 Lewis Boudville Parking N/A Review Services, Enforcement and Regulatory Services Greenhithe Parking 23 February 2012 Lewis Boudville Parking N/A Review Services, Enforcement and Regulatory Services Parking Management - 08 December 2009 Lewis Boudville Project Delivery N/A Greenhithe - Regeneration Parking Demand and 26 February 2009 Lewis Boudville Project Delivery N/A Management - Regeneration Parking Demand and 22 January 2009 Lewis Boudville Project Delivery N/A Management - Regeneration Parking Demand and 23 October 2008 Lewis Boudville Project Delivery N/A Management - Regeneration Parking Demand and 20 March 2008 Lewis Boudville Project Delivery N/A Management - Regeneration Parking Demand and 28 June 2007 Lewis Boudville Project Delivery N/A Management - Regeneration

Page 113 Agenda Item 12

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

ESTABLISHING A POLICE AND CRIME PANEL FOR KENT AND MEDWAY

1. Summary

To present a report received from Kent County Council inviting Dartford Borough Council to approve the establishment of a Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway, including the terms of reference, panel arrangements and rules of procedure.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the arrangements and rules proposed in Appendix A to the report, which will enable the Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway to be formally constituted by November 2012, be agreed.

2.2 That the Deputy Leader, Councillor A R Martin, be nominated to the Police and Crime Panel be agreed and that the Head of Democratic Services at Kent County Council be notified of that nomination.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. The report attached at Appendix A asking Dartford Borough Council to agree the arrangements and rules for the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel has been received from Kent County Council. 3.2. The report also asks for a Councillor nomination to represent the Dartford Borough Council on the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel. 3.3. A Shadow Police and Crime Panel has been in operation for several months and the Council has been represented on that Panel by the Leader of the Council. 4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

To create a safer Borough in which to live, work and socialise.

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints

Agenda Item 12 Page 114

6. Appendices

Appendix A – Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel report provided by Kent County Council

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents Date File Report Section and Exempt consulted Ref Author Directorate Information Category

Alan Stoneham Member Services, N/A (01322 343330) Monitoring Officer Page 115 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A From: XXXXXXXXXX

To: XXXXXXXXX

Subject: Establishing a Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway

Summary: This report invites XXXX to approve the establishment of a Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway, including the terms of reference, panel arrangements and rules of procedure.

Unrestricted

1. Background

1.1 The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 places a statutory duty on local authorities to collectively establish a Police and Crime Panel for their force area. It also introduced the new role of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Police and Crime Commissioners will be directly elected by the public, with the elections taking place in November 2012.

1.2 At its meeting on 8 February 2012, the Kent Forum agreed to ask Kent County Council (KCC) to act as the host authority for the Shadow Police and Crime Panel for the purposes of planning and delivering the Panel’s work programme and to provide administrative and other support for Panel meetings. There have been two meetings of the Shadow Police and Crime Panel for Kent and Medway (on 10 May and 24 July 2012), which have discussed and agreed to recommend the attached terms of reference/panel arrangements and procedure rules.

1.3 KCC, Medway Council and all Borough/District Councils in Kent are now being asked to obtain agreement to these arrangements and rules (attached as appendices) to enable the Police and Crime Panel to be formally constituted by November 2012; it being noted that, in the absence of any specific regulation to the contrary, the establishment of the panel is deemed to be a function of the executive under the Localism Act 2011.

2. Membership of the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel

2.1 The Shadow Police and Crime Panel agreed to recommend that the membership of the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel would be an elected member from each of the local authorities (14 leader appointments) with four additional councillor co-optees and two compulsory independent persons. The two independent persons will be appointed by the Panel following a public recruitment process.

2.2 One co-opted councillor will be from Medway Council to meet the requirements of geographical balance (mid 2010 estimates produced by the Office for National Statistics give an overall population of 1,434,044 Agenda Item 12 Page 116

APPENDIX A for the 12 Kent Districts and a population of 259,895 for Medway). The three remaining co-opted councillor seats will meet the political balance objective. Following leader appointments to 15 seats of the Police and Crime Panel (including 2 seats from Medway Council), the three additional councillor co-optees will aim to meet the 13 (cons): 3 (labour): 2 (lib dem) political balance of the fourteen authorities in Kent when taken together. It is expected that the leader of each authority will nominate the 1 or 2 panel members from their ruling group (where a single ruling group exists) and in that case the three co-optees will be one labour nomination and 2 lib dem nominations which will be sought from the relevant Councils once the relevant county political associations have agreed the Councils to which these additional Labour and Liberal Democrat seats are to be allocated. However, the Leader nominations are required in the first instance before the additional 3 co-opted councillor seats can be filled

2.3 The leaders of KCC, and each Borough/District in Kent should be asked to nominate one member (and Medway Council 2 members) onto the Police and Crime Panel. Following this the remaining three co-opted members will be sought from relevant Councils following discussion with and agreement by the relevant county political associations to the Councils to be invited to make these nominations.

3. Legal and financial implications

3.1 The Home Office is expected to provide £53,330 plus up to £920 towards expenses per panel member, for at least the first year and thereafter, if no funds are provided by the Home Office, or if those funds are insufficient to cover the costs of running the Police and Crime Panel, all councils will be invited to contribute equally towards the actual costs incurred by the Host Authority. The budget for the panel will be agreed annually and the Police and Crime Panel will operate within the allocated budget.

3.2 In the absence of any specific regulation to the contrary, the establishment of the panel is deemed to be a function of the executive under the Localism Act 2011.

4 Recommendations

4.1 KCC, Medway Council and all Borough/District Councils in Kent be asked to obtain agreement to these arrangements and rules to enable the Police and Crime Panel to be formally constituted by November 2012;

4.2 The leader of XXXXX be asked to notify the Head of Democratic Services at KCC ( [email protected] ) of their nomination XXXXX (one from KCC and each borough/district or two in case of Medway Council) to the Police and Crime Panel.

Page 117 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A

Appendices: Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference Appendix 2 – Panel Arrangements Appendix 3 – Procedure Rules

Background Documents Report to Kent Forum – Police and Crime Panel in Kent – 8 February 2012 Report to Shadow Police and Crime Panel – 10 May 2012 Report to Shadow Police and Crime Panel – 24 July 2012

Agenda Item 12 Page 118

APPENDIX A Appendix 1 Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel

Terms of Reference

Role

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 will replace the Police Authority with a directly elected Police and Crime Commissioner, with the aim of improving police accountability. The Police and Crime Commissioner will be elected in November 2012.

Each police force area will set up a Police and Crime Panel (Police and Crime Panel) to scrutinise and maintain a check and balance on the new Police and Crime Commissioner, although the Panel will not have direct control over the Police and Crime Commissioner’s decisions. The Police and Crime Panel will have similar powers to an overview and scrutiny committee established in accordance with section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000, in that it will be able to require the Police and Crime Commissioner to attend public meetings; require information in the possession of the Police and Crime Commissioner; and make recommendations on the draft Police and Crime Plan (for which it is a statutory consultee) and expenditure proposals. The Police and Crime Panel will also have the ability to:

(a) review and veto the proposed precept (b) review and veto the decision to appoint a Chief Constable (c) review but not veto the appointment of various other senior staff.

Status

The Police and Crime Panel will be established as a formal joint committee of KCC, Medway Council and all 12 District Councils in Kent. It will also include two independent members. The Police and Crime Panel will be bound by Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, in relation to the publication of agendas, minutes and reports.

In terms of the composition of the Police and Crime Panel, the guidance issued by the Local Government Association (LGA) on the role and composition of Police and Crime Panel s states that there is no single, right approach to composition. In particular, it states that it would be possible to take a mixed approach, with the Police and Crime Panel comprising both executive and non- executive members. In addition, the Home Office and LGA guidance states that the councillor membership of Police and Crime Panels should reflect the geography, population size and political balance of the force area.. This is consistent with the legal requirement to meet the balanced appointment objective in the Police and Social Responsibility Act

Members of the Police and Crime Panel are expected to subscribe to and comply with the Code of Conduct adopted by their own authority. No code of conduct will have precedence over another. The Independent members will be required to comply with a Code of Conduct selected by the Panel from among those adopted by local authorities in Kent and Medway. Page 119 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A

Terms of Reference:

Italics refer to Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and/or recommendation by Shadow Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel

1. To review and make a report or recommendation on the draft Police and Crime Plan, or draft variation. s28 (3)(a) & (3)(b)

2. To hold a public meeting, question the Police and Crime Commissioner and make a report or recommendation on the annual report of the Police and Crime Commissioner. s28 (4)

3. To hold a confirmation hearing and review, make a report, and recommendation (as necessary) in respect of proposed senior appointments made by the Police and Crime Commissioner. s28 (5)

4. To review and make a report and/or recommendation on the proposed appointment of the Chief Constable (the panel can veto the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals on this with a two thirds majority vote). s28 (5) and sch8

5. To review and make a report and/or recommendation on the proposed precept (the panel can veto the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals on this with a two thirds majority vote). s28(5) and sch5

6. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, by the Police and Crime Commissioner in connection with the discharge of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s functions. s28(6)

7. To make reports or recommendations to the Police and Crime Commissioner with respect to the discharge of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s functions. s28(7) to (9)

8. To support the effective exercise of the functions of the Police and Crime Commissioner. s28(2)

9. To fulfil functions in relation to complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner, in accordance with the responsibilities accorded to the Police and Crime Panel by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012. sch7 para3 (regs)

10. To appoint an Acting Police and Crime Commissioner if necessary. s62

11. To suspend the Police and Crime Commissioner if it appears to the Panel that the Police and Crime Commissioner has been charged in the United Kingdom or Isle of Man with an offence which carries a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding two years. s30

Agenda Item 12 Page 120

APPENDIX A Appendix 2 Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel

Panel Arrangements

1. Operating Arrangements

1.1 Kent County Council shall act as the host authority for the Police and Crime Panel for the purposes of planning and delivery of the Police and Crime Panel’s work programme, the provision of accommodation and officer support. Agreed by Kent Forum 08.02.12 and sch6 para 24

1.2 The host authority will provide such administrative and other support as will be necessary to enable the Panel to undertake its functions. Home Office funding is expected for at least the first year (Panel Arrangements 6.2). Thereafter, if no funds are provided by the Home Office, or if those funds are insufficient to cover the costs of running the Police and Crime Panel, the Host Authority will defray and recover from the other members the costs of administrative support. The budget for the Police and Crime Panel will be agreed annually and the Police and Crime Panel will operate within the allocated budget. (to be agreed by Shadow Police and Crime Panel )

1.3 The Police and Crime Panel will comprise 14 local councillors (one representative from each council within the force area) and two independent members. sch6 para 4

1.4 Four additional Councilllors will be co-opted onto the Police and Crime Panel with the agreement of the Secretary of State. One co-opted councillor will be from Medway Council to meet the requirements of geographical balance. The three remaining co-opted councillor seats will meet the political balance objective.

2. Membership

2.1 All county, unitary and district councillors are eligible to be members of the Police and Crime Panel. sch6 para 5

2.2 The Police Crime Commissioner and their deputy cannot be a member of the Police and Crime Panel. sch6 para 21-23

2.3 Sitting MPs, MEPs, staff of the Police and Crime Commissioner and civilian police staff may not be co-opted onto the Police and Crime Panel. sch6 para 21-23

2.4 All members of the Police and Crime Panel may vote in proceedings of the Police and Crime Panel sch6 para 26

2.5 Appointments of elected Members to the Police and Crime Panel shall be made by each of the councils in accordance with their own procedures provided that the balanced appointment objective is met. The balanced appointment objective requires that the local authority members of the Police and Crime Panel should: Page 121 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A

a) represent all parts of the police force area; b) represent the political make-up of the councils taken together; and c) have the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for the Police and Crime Panel to discharge its functions effectively sch6 para 31-32

2.6 The Police and Crime Panel shall also include two independent Members appointed by the Police and Crime Panel. The Police and Crime Panel might decide to seek independent members from specific organisations to address any skills/knowledge/experience gaps, or following a public advertisement. sch6 para 7

2.7 The Police and Crime Panel will co-opt four further members with the agreement of the Secretary of State One co-opted councillor will be from Medway Council to meet the requirements of geographical balance. Following Leader appointments to 15 seats of the Police and Crime Panel (including 2 seats from Medway Council), the appointment of three additional councillor co-optees will seek to top up the membership of the PCP to reflect the overall political balance of the membership of KCC, Medway and the 12 District Councils in Kent when taken together, insofar as this is possible. Only formally constituted political groups will be taken into account for the purposes of this calculation. The three top up seats will be sought from the relevant Councils once the Kent and Medway political associations have agreed the Councils to which these additional seats are to be allocated. However, the Leader nominations are required in the first instance before the additional 3 co-opted councillor seats can be filled

3. Casual Vacancies

3.1 A vacancy arises when a member resigns from the Police and Crime Panel.

3.2 Each council will fill vacancies in accordance with the arrangements in their Constitution. Vacancies for independent members will be filled in accordance with the selection process outlined in section 4. (Shadow Panel)

4. Independent Members sch 6 para 4

4.1 The Police and Crime Panel shall appoint two independent Members for a term of four years starting in November 2012. Sch 6 para 4. Term for Shadow Panel)

4.2 Information packs should be prepared and sent to those requesting application forms.

4.3 The applications will be considered against eligibility criteria agreed by the Police and Crime Panel and an Appointments Sub Committee will be established to consider applications and interview candidates.

4.4 Following the interviews, the Appointments Sub Committee will make recommendations to the Police and Crime Panel about membership. Agenda Item 12 Page 122

APPENDIX A

4.5 The Police and Crime Panel may decide to recommend a change to either Independent Member at any point and on doing so shall give notice to the Head of Democratic Services (KCC).

5. Appointment of Members sch6 para 4

5.1 The councils shall each appoint an elected Member to be a Member of the Panel. Additional nominations will be invited to positions for co-opted members in line with the membership composition agreed by the Police and Crime Panel and each of the councils and subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Named substitutes may also be appointed and notified to the Head of Democratic Services (HDS) at KCC.

5.2 In the event that a council does not appoint a Member in accordance with these requirements, the Secretary of State must appoint a member to the Police and Crime Panel from the defaulting council in accordance with the provisions in the Act. sch6 para 4

5.3 Police and Crime Panel member term of office should be one year but renewable and independent co-opted members should be 4 years. (Shadow Panel 10.05.12)

5.4 A council may decide in accordance with its procedures to remove their appointed member from the Police and Crime Panel at any point and on doing so shall give notice to the Head of Democratic Services (KCC). (Shadow Panel)

5.5 An appointed member may resign from the Police and Crime Panel by giving written notice the Head of Democratic Services (KCC) and to their council. (Shadow Panel)

5.6 In the event that any appointed member resigns from the Police and Crime Panel, or is removed by a council, the council shall immediately take steps to nominate and appoint an alternative member to the Police and Crime Panel. Each Council should give notice that their member has been changed. (Shadow Panel)

5.7 Members appointed to the Police and Crime Panel may be re-appointed for a further term provided that the balanced appointment objective is met by that re-appointment. (Shadow Panel)

6. Support for the Panel

6.1 Any dedicated staff employed to support the Police and Crime Panel will be employed by the Host Authority, and their terms and conditions will be that of the Host Authority. (Shadow Panel)

6.2 The Home Office is expected to provide £53,330 plus up to £920 towards expenses per panel member, for at least the first year and thereafter, if no funds are provided by the Home Office, or if those funds are insufficient to cover the costs of running the Police and Crime Panel, all councils will be Page 123 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A invited to contribute equally towards the actual costs incurred by the Host Authority. The budget for the panel will be agreed annually and the Police and Crime Panel will operate within the allocated budget. Sch 6 para11(2b)

6.3 In the event of the Police and Crime Panel being wound up the Host Authority will be invited to defray and recover from the other members any associated costs exceeding the funding provided by the Home Office. (Shadow Panel)

7. Allowances sch6 para 28 (must make provision about payment of allowances – for local determination)

7.1 Each council has the discretion to pay allowances to its representatives on the Police and Crime Panel. Any allowances payable to elected Members shall be determined and borne by the appointing councils.

7.2 The Host Authority, on behalf of the Police and Crime Panel, may pay an allowance to co-optees if this is agreed as part of the annual budget approved by the Police and Crime Panel.

8. Promotion of, and support for, the panel sch6 para 29

8.1 The Panel shall be promoted and supported by the Host Authority through:

(a) the issuing of regular press releases about the Police and Crime Panel and its work; (b) the inclusion of dedicated web pages on the work of the Police and Crime Panel, with the publication of meeting agendas and minutes. All reports and recommendations made, with responses from the Police and Crime Commissioner will be published. Information on member attendance will be included.

8.2 Support and guidance shall be provided to Executive and non-Executive Members and officers of the councils in relation to the functions of the Police and Crime Panel by the provision of initial briefing sessions before the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner, and the provision of annual briefing sessions thereafter.

8.3 The Shadow Police and Crime Panel developed and agreed a communications protocol which the Police and Crime Panel may wish to adopt.

9. Validity of proceedings sch6 para 30

9.1 The validity of the proceedings of the Police and Crime Panel is not affected by a vacancy in the membership or a defect in the appointment of a member.

10 Amendments to Terms of Reference and Procedure Rules

10.1 Any proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference or the Procedure Rules of the Police and Crime Panel should be submitted to the Police and Agenda Item 12 Page 124

APPENDIX A Crime Panel and each authority for approval. The Police and Crime Panel will review and re-confirm the Terms of Reference and Procedure Rules annually. (Shadow Panel)

Appendix 3

Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel

Procedure Rules (sch 6 para 25 (1))

1. Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel

1.1 The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel will be elected from its membership at the first meeting and thereafter annually immediately following the Annual Council meetings of each of the fourteen local authorities. sch6 para 25 (2) (Shadow Panel decision to elect annually)

1.2 The Chairman and Vice-Chairman remain in office until the election of their successors, they resign or the Police and Crime Panel votes their removal (in cases of misconduct or that the Chairman or Vice-Chairman do not allow the Police and Crime Panel to effectively deliver its functions as set out in the Terms of Reference). In the latter two cases, an election for their successor should be held as soon as possible. (Shadow Panel)

1.3 In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman will preside, in the absence of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, the meeting will elect a chairman for that meeting only. (Shadow Panel)

2. Meetings (Shadow Panel)

2.1 The Police and Crime Panel will meet in public at least four times per year to carry out its functions.

2.2 Extraordinary meetings may also be called from time to time as the Police and Crime Panel considers is necessary.

2.3 An extraordinary meeting may be called by the Chairman or by four members of the Police and Crime Panel.

2.4 In exceptional circumstances, the Chairman may cancel or rearrange a meeting of the Police and Crime Panel.

3. Quorum

3.1 The quorum for a meeting of the Police and Crime Panel is one third of its total membership. (Shadow Panel)

4. Voting

4.1 All members of the Police and Crime Panel may vote in proceedings of the Police and Crime Panel subject to Code of Conduct and rules on declarations of interest sch6 para 26 Page 125 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A

4.2 One-third of the voting members present may require that the way all members cast their vote or against or to abstain shall be recorded in the Minutes; such a request must be made before the vote is taken. (Shadow Panel)

5. Work Programme (Shadow Panel)

5.1 The Police and Crime Panel will be responsible for setting its own work programme, taking into account the priorities defined by the Police and Crime Commissioner. In setting the work programme, the Police and Crime Panel will also take into account the wishes of its members.

5.2 The work programme must include the functions described in the terms of reference for the Police and Crime Panel.

6. Agenda Items (Shadow Panel)

6.1 Any member of the Police and Crime Panel shall be entitled to give 9 clear working days notice to the Head of Democratic Services (KCC) that they wish an item relevant to the functions of the Police and Crime Panel to be included on the agenda for the next available meeting. This shall then be discussed with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

6.2 The Police and Crime Panel agenda will be issued to members at least 5 clear working days before the meeting. It will also be published on each council’s website and by any other means the Police and Crime Panel considers appropriate.

7. Sub-Committees and Task Groups sch6 para 25

7.1 The Police and Crime Panel may establish sub-committees or task groups to undertake specific task based work.

7.2 The sub-committees and task groups may not undertake the Special Functions of the Police and Crime Panel referred to at paragraph 11.2 below. sch6 para 27 (1)

7.3 A sub-committee of the Police and Crime Panel may not co-opt members. sch6 para 25(4)

7.4 The work undertaken by a sub-committee or task group will be scoped and defined beforehand, together with the timeframe within which the work is to be completed and the reporting time for the outcome of the work. (Shadow Panel)

8. Reports

8.1 Where the Police and Crime Panel makes a report to the Police and Crime Commissioner, it may publish the report or recommendations by sending copies to each of the councils, and by any other means the Police and Crime Panel considers appropriate. s28 (7) Agenda Item 12 Page 126

APPENDIX A

8.2 The Police and Crime Panel must, by notice in writing, require the Police and Crime Commissioner within one month of the date on which they receive the report or recommendations to:

a) consider the report or recommendations; b) respond to the Police and Crime Panel in writing indicating what (if any) action the Police and Crime Commissioner proposes to take; c) where the Police and Crime Panel has published the report or recommendations, publish the response from the Police and Crime Commissioner in the same manner d) where the Police and Crime Panel has provided a copy of the report or recommendations to a Police and Crime Panel member, provide a copy of the responses to the Police and Crime Panel member. s29 although decision of Shadow panel

8.3 The publication of reports or recommendations is subject to the exclusion of any exempt or confidential information as defined in the rules on access to information in the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

8.4 If the Police and Crime Panel cannot unanimously agree on one single final report to the Police and Crime Commissioner, then separate reports may be prepared and submitted for consideration along with the majority report. (Shadow Panel)

9. Police and Crime Commissioner and Officers giving account s29

9.1 The Police and Crime Panel may scrutinise and review decisions made or actions taken in the discharge of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s duties and make reports or recommendations to the Police and Crime Commissioner with respect to the discharge of those duties.

9.2 As well as reviewing documentation, in fulfilling its scrutiny role the Police and Crime Panel may require the Police and Crime Commissioner, and members of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s staff, to attend before it (at reasonable notice) to answer questions which appear to the Police and Crime Panel to be necessary in order to carry out its functions.

9.3 Where the Police and Crime Commissioner, or a member of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s staff, is required to attend the Police and Crime Panel in accordance with this provision, the Police and Crime Commissioner will be given, where practical, 15 working days notice of the requirement to attend. The notice will state the nature of the item on which they are required to attend to give account and whether any papers are required for production for the Police and Crime Panel.

9.4 Where, in exceptional circumstances, the Police and Crime Commissioner is unable to attend on the required date, then an alternative date for attendance shall be arranged following consultation with the Chairman.

Page 127 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A 9.5 If the Police and Crime Panel requires the Police and Crime Commissioner to attend before it, the Police and Crime Panel may also (at reasonable notice) request the Chief Constable to attend the Police and Crime Panel in order for it to carry out its functions.

10. Attendance by others s29

10.1 The Police and Crime Panel may invite but not require persons other than those referred to above to address it, discuss issues of local concern and/or answer questions. This may include, for example, residents, stakeholders, councillors who are not members of the Police and Crime Panel and officers from other parts of the public sector.

11. Special functions sch6 para 27

11.1 The special functions of a Police and Crime Panel may not be discharged by a committee or sub-committee of the Police and Crime Panel.

11.2 The Special Functions of the Police and Crime Panel are those functions conferred by:

a) Section 28(3) (scrutiny of police and crime plan); b) Section 28(4) (scrutiny of annual report); c) Paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 1 (scrutiny of senior appointments); d) Schedule 5 (issuing precepts); e) Part 1 of Schedule 8 (scrutiny of appointment of Chief Constables).

11.3 Reports and recommendations made in relation to the functions outlined in the terms of reference will be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined at paragraph 8 – Panel Reports.

12. Police and Crime Plan s28 (3)

12.1 The Police and Crime Panel is a statutory consultee on the development of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Police and Crime Plan and will receive a copy of the draft Plan, or a draft of any variation to it, from the Police and Crime Commissioner.

12.2 The Police and Crime Panel must:

a) hold a public meeting to review the draft Police and Crime Plan (or a variation to it), and b) report or make recommendations on the draft Plan which the Police and Crime Commissioner must take into account.

13. Annual Report s28 (4)

13.1 The Police and Crime Commissioner must produce an Annual Report about the exercise of their functions in the financial year and progress in Agenda Item 12 Page 128

APPENDIX A meeting police and crime objectives in the year. The report must be sent to the Police and Crime Panel for consideration.

13.2 The Police and Crime Panel must comment upon the Annual Report of the Police and Crime Commissioner, and for that purpose must:

a) arrange for a public meeting of the Police and Crime Panel to be held as soon as practicable after the Police and Crime Panel receives the Annual Report; b) require the Police and Crime Commissioner to attend the meeting to present the Annual Report and answer questions about the Annual Report as the Members of the Police and Crime Panel think appropriate; c) make a report or recommendations on the Annual Report to the Police and Crime Commissioner.

14. Appointment of the Chief Constable s28 (5) and sch8

14.1 The Police and Crime Panel must review the proposed appointment by the Police and Crime Commissioner of the Chief Constable. sch8 (4)(2)

14.2 The Police and Crime Panel will receive notification of the proposed appointment from the Police and Crime Commissioner, which will include: sch8 (3)(1-2)

(a) the name of the candidate; (b) the criteria used to assess the suitability of the candidate for the appointment; (c) why the candidate satisfies those criteria; and (d) the terms and conditions on which the candidate is to be appointed.

14.3 Within three weeks of the receipt of notification the Police and Crime Panel must consider and review the proposed appointment, and report to the Police and Crime Commissioner with a recommendation as to whether the candidate should be appointed. The three week period shall not include the ‘post election period’, being any period between the date of poll at the ordinary election of the Police and Crime Commissioner, and the date of declaration of acceptance of office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. sch8 (4)

14.4 Before reporting and recommending on the proposed appointment, the Police and Crime Panel must convene a public meeting (‘confirmation hearing’) of the Police and Crime Panel where the candidate must attend for the purposes of answering questions relating to the appointment. sch8, (6)

14.5 The Police and Crime Panel must publish the report by sending copies to each of the councils, and by any other means the Police and Crime Panel considers appropriate. sch8, (4)(7)

Page 129 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A 14.6 The Police and Crime Commissioner may accept or reject the Police and Crime Panel’s recommendation and must notify the Police and Crime Panel accordingly. sch8 (7)(10)

14.7 In relation to the appointment of a candidate for the position of Chief Constable, the Police and Crime Panel also has the power to veto the appointment by the required majority of at least two thirds of the persons who are members of the Police and Crime Panel at the time when the decision is made. sch8 (5)

14.8 A confirmation hearing as in paragraph 14.4 must be held before an appointment is vetoed. sch8 (6)

14.9 If the Police and Crime Panel vetoes the appointment under paragraph 14.7, the report referred to at paragraph 14.3 above must include a statement to that effect. sch8 (5)(2)

14.10 If the Police and Crime Panel vetoes an appointment, the Police and Crime Commissioner must not appoint that candidate as Chief Constable. sch8 (8)(2)

15. Senior Appointments sch1 para9-11

15.1 The Police and Crime Panel must review the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposed appointments of Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer and Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.

15.2 The Police and Crime Panel shall receive notification of the proposed appointments from the Police and Crime Commissioner including:

(a) the name of the candidate; (b) the criteria used to assess the suitability of the candidate for the appointment; (c) why the candidate satisfies those criteria; and (d) the terms and conditions on which the candidate is to be appointed.

15.3 Within three weeks of the receipt of notification, the Police and Crime Panel must consider and review the proposed appointment and report to the Police and Crime Commissioner with a recommendation as to whether the candidate should be appointed. The three week period shall not include the ‘post election period’.

15.4 Before reporting and recommending on the proposed appointment, the Police and Crime Panel must convene a public confirmation hearing where the candidate must attend for the purposes of answering questions relating to the appointment.

15.5 The Police and Crime Panel must publish the report by sending copies to each of the councils, and by any other means the Police and Crime Panel considers appropriate.

Agenda Item 12 Page 130

APPENDIX A 15.6 The Police and Crime Commissioner may accept or reject the Police and Crime Panel’s recommendation and must notify the Police and Crime Panel accordingly.

16. Proposed Precept sch 5

16.1 The Police and Crime Commissioner must notify the Police and Crime Panel of the precept which the Police and Crime Commissioner is proposing to issue for the financial year. The Police and Crime Panel must review the proposed precept and make a report which may include recommendations.

16.2 Having considered the precept, the Police and Crime Panel must:

(a) support the precept without qualification or comment; or (b) support the precept and make recommendations; or (c) veto the proposed precept (by the required majority of at least two thirds of the persons who are members of the Police and Crime Panel at the time when the decision is made).

16.3 If the Police and Crime Panel vetoes the proposed precept, the report to the Police and Crime Commissioner must include a statement that gives the Police and Crime Panel’s reasons and requires a response from the Police and Crime Commissioner to the report and any such recommendations.

17. Appointment of an Acting Police and Crime Commissioner s62

17.1 The Police and Crime Panel must appoint a person to act as Police and Crime Commissioner if:

(a) no person holds the office of Police and Crime Commissioner (b) the Police and Crime Commissioner is incapacitated (c) the Police and Crime Commissioner is suspended s62 (1)

17.2 The Police and Crime Panel may appoint a person as acting Police and Crime Commissioner only if the person is a member of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s staff at the time of appointment. s62 (2)

17.3 In appointing a person as acting Police and Crime Commissioner in a case where the Police and Crime Commissioner is incapacitated, the Police and Crime Panel must have regard to any representations made by the Police and Crime Commissioner in relation to the appointment. s62 (3)

17.4 The appointment of an acting Police and Crime Commissioner ceases to have effect upon the occurrence of the earliest of these events: s62 (6)

(a) the election of a person a Police and Crime Commissioner; (b) the termination by the Police and Crime Panel, or by the acting Police and Crime Commissioner, of the appointment of the acting Police and Crime Commissioner; Page 131 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A (c) in a case where the acting Police and Crime Commissioner is appointed because the Police and Crime Commissioner is incapacitated, the Police and Crime Commissioner ceasing to be incapacitated, or (d) in a case where the acting Police and Crime Commissioner is appointed because the Police and Crime Commissioner is suspended, the Police and Crime Commissioner ceasing to be suspended

17.5 Where the acting Police and Crime Commissioner is appointed because the Police and Crime Commissioner is incapacitated or suspended, the acting Police and Crime Commissioner’s appointment does not terminate because a vacancy occurs in the office of Police and Crime Commissioner. s62 (7)

18. Complaints and suspension of the Police and Crime Commissioner sch 7 18.1 Serious complaints which involve allegations which may amount to a criminal offence by the Police and Crime Commissioner or senior office holders are dealt with by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the ‘IPCC’).

18.2 Non-criminal complaints in relation to the Police and Crime Commissioner or other office holder can be considered by the Police and Crime Panel through a hearing. The Police and Crime Panel can examine this through a sub-committee following Procedure Rule 7.

18.3 The Police and Crime Panel may suspend the Police and Crime Commissioner if it appears to the Police and Crime Panel that

(a) the Police and Crime Commissioner has been charged in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man with an offence, and (b) the offence is one which carries a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding two years.

18.4 The suspension of the Police and Crime Commissioner ceases to have effect upon the occurrence of the earlier of these events:

(a) the charge being dropped (b) the Police and Crime Commissioner being acquitted of the offence (c) the Police and Crime Commissioner being convicted of the offence but not being disqualified under Section 66 of the PR&SR Act by virtue of the conviction of (d) the termination of the suspension by the Police and Crime Panel

18.5 In this section reference to an offence which carries a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding two years are reference to:

(a) an offence which carries such a maximum term in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18 years, or Agenda Item 12 Page 132

APPENDIX A (b) an offence for which, in the case of such a person, the sentence is fixed by law as life imprisonment

18.6 Bankruptcy in itself is not a disqualification. If the Police and Crime Commissioner has been bankrupt he/she is not disqualified from standing for election or remaining a Police and Crime Commissioner on that basis. Only those who are subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or interim order, a debt relief order or interim order, or a debt relief restrictions undertaking are disqualified from standing for election or remaining as a Police and Crime Commissioner.

19. Suspension and Removal of the Chief Constable sch 8 (11)

19.1 If a Police and Crime Commissioner suspends a Chief Constable from duty the Police and Crime Commissioner must notify the relevant Police and Crime Panel of the suspension

19.2 A Police and Crime Commissioner must not call upon a Chief Constable to retire until the end of the scrutiny process which will occur:

(a) at the end of six weeks from the Police and Crime Panel having received notification if the Police and Crime Panel has not by then given the Police and Crime Commissioner a recommendation as to whether or not they should call for the retirement or resignation; or (b) the Police and Crime Commissioner notifies the Police and Crime Panel of a decision about whether they accept the Police and Crime Panel’s recommendations in relation to resignation or retirement.

19.3 The Police and Crime Commissioner must also notify the Police and Crime Panel in writing of their proposal to call upon the Chief Constable to retire or resign together with a copy of the reasons given to the Chief Constable and any representation from the Chief Constable in relation to that proposal.

19.4 If the Police and Crime Commissioner is still proposing to call upon the Chief Constable to resign, they must notify the Police and Crime Panel accordingly (the ‘further notification’).

19.5 Within six weeks from the date of receiving the further notification, the Police and Crime Panel must make a recommendation in writing to the Police and Crime Commissioner as to whether or not they should call for the retirement or resignation. Before making any recommendation, the Police and Crime Panel may consult the chief inspector of constabulary, and must hold a scrutiny meeting.

19.6 The scrutiny hearing which must be held by the Police and Crime Panel is a Police and Crime Panel meeting in private to which the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable are entitled to attend to make representations in relation to the proposal to call upon the Chief Constable Page 133 Agenda Item 12

APPENDIX A to retire or resign. Appearance at the scrutiny hearing can be by attending in person, or participating by telephone or video link.

19.7 The Police and Crime Panel must publish the recommendation it makes by sending copies to each of the councils, and by any other means the Police and Crime Panel considers appropriate.

19.8 The Police and Crime Commissioner must consider the Police and Crime Panel’s recommendation and may accept or reject it, notifying the Police and Crime Panel accordingly.

19.9 In calculating the six week period, the post election period is ignored. The post election period begins with the day of the poll at an ordinary election of a Police and Crime Commissioner under section 50 of the PR & SR Act 2011 and ends with the day on which the person elected as Police and Crime Commissioner delivers a declaration of acceptance of office under section 70 of the PR & SR Act 2011.

20 Any proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference or the Procedure Rules of the Police and Crime Panel should be submitted to the Police and Crime Panel for its approval. If an amendment is proposed the Head of Democratic Services would bring a report to the next meeting of the Police and Crime Panel for consideration. The Police and Crime Panel will review and re-confirm the Terms of Reference and Procedure Rules annually.

Page 134

This page is intentionally left blank Page 135 Agenda Item 13

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

PETITION FROM BUSINESSES IN LONGFIELD REQUESTING THE PROVISION OF MONITORED CCTV.

1. Summary

1.1 The Council has received a petition from Businesses in Longfield requesting the installation of monitored CCTV Cameras within Station Road.

1.2 This report is to advise Members of the petition in accordance with the Council’s Rules for dealing with Petitions, and to seek Members’ views for a proposed response.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That Members note the content of the report and consider the response from the Council to the petition.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1 The Council has received a petition from Businesses in Longfield requesting the installation of monitored CCTV Cameras within the town centre.

3.2 The Lead Petitioner, Mr Robert Bourne of Bourne & Kemp Jewellers in Station Road, had the misfortune of being the victim of a burglary followed shortly afterwards by an armed robbery; in both incidences arrests were made. The presence of CCTV in the street may not have prevented the crimes, but may have assisted in subsequently identifying the offenders, had they not been apprehended. CCTV within the premises would have had similar effect. 3.3 The petition requests that monitored CCTV Cameras be installed along the length of Station Road. The Council’s CCTV Manager has advised that a minimum of three (3) CCTV Cameras would be required to provide adequate coverage of the Station Road area. 3.4 A quotation for the installation has been obtained from our approved contractor and is attached to this report at Appendix B. This gives a cost of £20,008.55 per CCTV Camera and there will be an additional cost of approximately £5,000 incurred within the CCTV Control Room for an additional Digital Video Recorder (DVR) to provide the extra capacity required for monitoring and recording. The total installation cost would therefore be £65,026. On-going maintenance and fibre rental costs would be in the order of an additional £3-5,000 per annum. There may also be a need for additional staff resource to monitor the Agenda Item 13 Page 136

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

cameras and radio network during peak times alongside the existing requirements, but that is not quantified at this stage.

3.5 It has been shown that the existence of a Business Crime Reduction Scheme and radio network has a beneficial impact on retail crime and improves the safety of town centres for businesses and the public and these are generally recommended by crime reduction officers where there is a concentration of retail/commercial businesses. 3.6 In February 2011 the Dartford Community Safety Unit (CSU) identified over 50 businesses in the Longfield area which it was felt would benefit from being members of a Business Crime Reduction Scheme, similar to the Dartford Town Against Crime (D-TAC) partnership which operates successfully within Dartford Town Centre. 3.7 The CSU proposed that SiteLink Communications Ltd, the Council’s provider, introduce a scheme on behalf of the Council having secured agreement from Waitrose in Longfield to accommodate radio transmission equipment on the roof of their premises. The identified businesses were sent information regarding the scheme, endorsed by SiteLink, Dartford Borough Council CSU and Kent Police. The scheme provided a fully supported ‘shopsafe’ radio, access to intelligence sharing and the establishment of regular meetings with the services of the Council’s Intelligence Manager, who currently operates the D-TAC scheme in Dartford. The cost to each business was set at £20 per month, including VAT. 3.8 An invitation was hand delivered to all 50 businesses for an inaugural meeting scheduled for 30 March 2011 at Waitrose. The 50 invitees included the 34 businesses represented by the signatories to the petition. The meeting was attended by CSU Officers, Neighbourhood Police Officers but by only 4 businesses, insufficient to launch a scheme. The level of crime and disorder affecting the business community in Longfield is relatively low, as can be seen from the table below which shows crime statistics for both Longfield and Dartford for the 12 months to August 2012. It is possible that businesses felt a scheme was not warranted.

Offence Longfield Centre Dartford Town Centre

Burglary Dwelling 0 7

Burglary Other 4 25

Criminal Damage Offences 5 71

Drug Offences 1 17 Page 137 Agenda Item 13

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Fraud and Forgery 4 20

Robbery 1 13

Sexual Offences 0 7

Shoplifting 35 163

Theft From Motor Vehicle 4 5

Theft Of Motor Vehicle 0 5

Theft Of Pedal Cycle 1 11

Theft Offences 18 140

Vehicle Interference 0 1

Violence Against The Person 5 210

Other 0 9

Total 78 704

3.9 The Community Safety Unit (which includes Kent Police) would still recommend and support the establishment of a Business Crime Reduction Scheme in the Longfield area. It is considered that this would encourage mutual support within the business community, reduce retail crime and anti-social behaviour, introduce an ‘Exclusion Scheme’ for persistent offenders and give instant radio communication between the business operators, Council Officers and the Police. 3.10 Without a radio network in place the installation of street based CCTV cameras would have little advantage as there would be no means of instant contact between the businesses, or between the businesses and the CCTV Control Room Operator in order to proactively monitor any incidents or direct responding Police resources. 3.11 If a Business Crime Reduction Scheme can be established in the vicinity, obtains critical mass, is stable and the benefits have been evaluated, it may then be appropriate to consider installation of CCTV Cameras as an adjunct to the continued success of the scheme. However, the problem of how to fund CCTV installation would remain unless external funding was available. 4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

Safer Communities.

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Agenda Item 13 Page 138

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Financial Implications An estimate of both the initial cost and on-going cost of the request is shown in paragraph 3.4. There is no budget provision for this expenditure. Similarly there is no budget provision for any additional staffing resources that may be required. Any request for additional funding would have to be considered as part of the 2013/14 budget. Legal Implications None Staffing Implications Possible increase in Operator resources Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

Appendix A – Letter from Lead Petitioner.

Appendix B – Quotation for Installation CCTV Cameras.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

Longfield & New Barn July 2012 David Court EARS N/A Shopsafe Scheme (01322) 343339 Strategic Information documentation..

Page 139 Agenda Item 13 APPENDIX A Agenda Item 13 Page 140 APPENDIX B Page 141 Agenda Item 14

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

PETITION FROM RESI DENTS REGARDING KCC’S PROPOSAL FOR A FOOTPATH ON DARTFORD HEATH

Heath

1. Summary

1.1 The Council has received a petition from some of the residents of Heathclose Road objecting to the proposed construction by Kent County Council of a new footpath on Dartford Heath. The covering letter to the petition is attached as Appendix C.

1.2 This report is to advise Members of the petition in accordance with the Council’s rules for dealing with Petitions, and to seek a decision by Members as to whether this Council will give consent for the construction of the proposed new footpath.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That Members note the content of the report and decide whether to give consent for the construction of the new footpath on Dartford Heath. 2.2 That should Members decide not to give consent for the construction of the new footpath as proposed, consideration is given to whether any lesser or alternative works could be supported instead.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. Kent County Council is proposing to construct a new footpath and cycleway along one of the edges of Dartford Heath, specifically the south side of Heathclose Road. The primary reason for doing this is to provide a safer route for children walking and cycling to school in this area. The plan shown as Appendix A shows the extent and layout of the proposed footpath and cycleway and the specification is given as Appendix B. The works are to be paid for entirely from the KCC Members Fund. 3.2. Before commencing any works, KCC must first obtain permission from this Council, as the owner of the land. In addition, as Dartford Heath is registered as Common Land under the Commons Registration Act 1965, consent from the Secretary of State, via the Planning Inspectorate, is also required before the works could be carried out. The application to the Planning Inspectorate for consent requires that informal consultation is carried out first with local residents and other relevant parties and that any issues or objections raised are addressed before the subsequent formal application is submitted. 3.3. The Council’s Waste and Parks department has responsibility for the day to day management of Dartford Heath. Because of this, it was agreed that the Waste and Parks team would carry out the informal Agenda Item 14 Page 142

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

consultation on behalf of KCC. A consultation letter detailing the proposed works was sent to all of the residents of Heathclose Road, the members of the Friends of Dartford Heath group, the Open Spaces Society and Natural England on Monday 9 July 2012. The letter asked for written responses by 27 July 2012 at the latest. 3.4. From the initial sixty letters that were sent out, fifteen responses were received to the informal consultation – one supporting the proposal, two not commenting and the remaining twelve all objecting. The main reasons for the objections were that (a) there was insufficient current use by children walking and cycling to school (b) there has been no accidents or incidents (c) the proposed footpath was excessively wide (d) the damage to existing vegetation would be considerable (e) the design was wrong (f) the bollards were not needed and (g) the whole proposal was a waste of money. 3.5. The petition was received by the Council on Friday 27 July 2012. It contains 45 valid signatures and states that “We, the undersigned object to the construction of a new footpath 2.5 metres wide, and the installation of bollards upon the verge of Heathclose Road to the extent of 187 meters, as proposed and described in Dartford Borough Council’s consultation letter reference HCR/050712.” The petition does not state any reasons for the objection or suggest any alternatives to the proposal, however, the majority of the residents who sent the 12 letters of objection have signed the petition as well, so it would be reasonable to assume the reasons for objection to be the same. A copy of the petition’s covering letter is attached as Appendix C. 3.6. The Kent County Council officer managing the proposal has been informed of the consultation results and petition. She considers that a footpath of some description is needed and should still be provided, based on previous requests from Residents in Heathclose Road, other local residents and also written requests and calls received over the past two to three years from parents of children attending the schools local to the area. In addition to this there is evidence that the route is used regularly in that there is a clear worn path in the area concerned. Should Members not give consent to the original proposal, she has asked that two alternatives be considered instead; a) that the extent of the footpath could be reduced and the bollards removed or b) that just the vegetation could be cut back. She has also said that she is willing to manage the entire project herself, including managing the objections. Whatever alternative may be proposed, consent from this Council would still be needed for any works as a minimum and approval from the Secretary of State may still be needed as well.

4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

The Council’s Corporate Plan 2009-2012, within the Health and Wellbeing theme, makes reference to the Council’s aim to create new footpaths and cycleways and to encourage walking and cycling. Page 143 Agenda Item 14

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications None for this Council Legal Implications None for this Council Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

Appendix A – Plan of proposed footpath Appendix B – Specification for proposed footpath Appendix C – The Petition’s covering letter

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

Dave Thomas Waste and N/A (01322) 343273 Parks, Strategic

Page 144

This page is intentionally left blank Page 145 Agenda Item 14 Page 146

This page is intentionally left blank Page 147 Agenda Item 14

APPENDIX B

Heathclose Road Proposed Pathway

Specification

To supply and install new footpath

Dig out to 2.5m wide x 200mm deep, 1.5 M back from kerb,

Install membrane,

Install new treated timber edging to both sides of path 100x50mm,

Supply type 1 base, roll in followed by installing granite dust to 30mm deep and compact,

Install bollards approx. 450mm back from kerb, 1.2m apart (to be supplied by Dartford Borough Council),

Remove roots and level 1m beside new path on the Heath side, to help with maintenance.

Leave areas clean and tidy on completion.

Page 148

This page is intentionally left blank Page 149 Agenda Item 14

$33(1',;& Page 150

This page is intentionally left blank Page 151 Agenda Item 15 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

PROPOSAL TO CONVERT PART OF ELIZABETH COURT SUPPORTED HOUSING SCHEME FOR GENERAL NEEDS ACCOMMODATION

1 Summary

1.1 This report sets out proposals to de-designate one wing of Elizabeth Court, Darenth and convert the current 16 x 1 bedroom supported housing units into a mix of family sized and single person units. These units will then be let to tenants from the Housing transfer list which will both create movement in the transfer list and make better use of existing stock.

1.2 The proposal will involve rehousing, and offering a statutory home loss payment, to each current tenant who will then be offered a DBC supported housing unit of their choice elsewhere in the Borough.

1.3 The proposed general needs wing of Elizabeth Court will be permanently separated from the remaining supported housing flats and communal facilities on site, and the conversion costs are expected to be in the region of £250,000.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That Cabinet approve the de-designation of one wing of Elizabeth Court, Darenth and conversion of the current 16 x 1 bedroom units into a mix of family sized and single person units.

2.2 That Cabinet approve the following virement to meet the cost of the works and other associated costs:

Increased Decreased Expenditure/ Expenditure/ Reduced Increased Income Income

£’000s £’000s Major Repairs (150,000) Elizabeth Court 150,000 Powerline Compensation (100,000) Elizabeth Court decant process 100,000

3. Background and Discussion.

3.1 Dartford owns and manages fourteen Supported Housing (SH) schemes containing 581 units situated in various locations across the borough. According to demographic data from KCC, Dartford has an oversupply of units compared with the rest of Kent; Dartford having 38.4 units per thousand population over 65 compared with an average of 19.5 units for Kent. Agenda Item 15 Page 152 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

3.2 Further evidence of this oversupply can be found not only in the number of persistent voids in some schemes but also the length of time they are empty. In some cases, units have been void for up to 51 days despite multiple offers and refusals. The average void time in July 2012 was 20.17 calendar days for supported housing units, compared to 17.89 calendar days for general needs units with the length of time each was empty ranging from 8 to 51 days.

3.3 There does not appear to be any obvious pattern for refusal of SH units apart from the size of the accommodation or the lack of additional bedrooms; however, it is apparent that some schemes could be less attractive to residents than others for any number of personal reasons including location and layout. Elizabeth Court is not a popular choice for SH accommodation, being of an overall design which is not well suited to SH use.

3.4 As part of the housing review process, and to update the HRA Business Plan, an external consultant was appointed to undertake a desktop survey of the SH stock which examined the condition and potential of each scheme. Although the report had some limitations due to the tight timescales involved, it supported the view that there is an oversupply of units in the borough and raised concerns in respect of whether Elizabeth Courts was fit for purpose for this client group.

3.5 This over supply of SH units contrasts with the situation for general needs housing, where the normal high demand for social rented accommodation is being exacerbated by factors in other sectors of the housing market, including lack of mortgage availability for prospective owner-occupiers and demand for private rented accommodation, which is inflating rent levels. Elsewhere on this agenda, the report on homelessness and temporary accommodation explains how these factors have led to difficulties for the Council in obtaining private sector move-on accommodation for clients accessing the homeless service.

3.6 Therefore in recognition of the unpopularity of some of the Council’s SH stock, and the need to meet the demand for general needs housing in the Borough, this report proposes the conversion of part of Elizabeth Court from SH to general needs housing.

4.0 The Proposal

4.1 The proposal is to decant existing tenants and de-designate one wing of Elizabeth Court and convert the current 16 x 1 SH bedroom units into a mix of family sized and single person units. These units will then be let to tenants from the housing transfer list which will both create movement in the transfer list and make better use of existing stock. Final designs are yet to be completed but it is envisaged that at least 10 family sized flats could be provided and some single person units retained within the confines of the exiting building plus some single person units.

Page 153 Agenda Item 15 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 4.2 The proposed general needs wing of Elizabeth Court will be permanently separated from the remaining supported housing flats and communal facilities on site.

4.3 The cost of the works is estimated at approximately £250,000, with all conversion works being subject to planning and building control approval.

5 Consultation

5.1 Clearly, as each tenant involved in the process is over 55, the process of finding new homes for each tenant will need to be handled in a sensitive manner so staff resources will be allocated to supporting and facilitating the actual moves. Each tenant is entitled to a statutory home loss payment of £4,700, plus reasonable moving expenses, and will be given a choice of alternative accommodation with Housing staff fully supporting each tenant through the moving process.

5.2 Initial conversations with the affected residents have been positive and each tenant has indicated a desire to move either to the retained part of the SH units at Elizabeth Court or to one of the other SH units in the Borough. Residents’ families have also been consulted and involved in the consultation where appropriate.

5.3 If Cabinet approve the proposal then a meeting will be held with the residents on the retained part of the unit to discuss the process and deal with any concerns they may have. Once the works have been completed the new general needs flats will be completely separated from the SH part of the unit and there will be no general access to the SH flats or the communal areas.

6. Filling the new general needs flats at Elizabeth Court

6.1 Once the new general needs flats have been provided they would be offered, via Choice Based Lettings, to current tenants on the housing transfer list. At the beginning of August 2012 there were in excess of 500 current tenants registered and waiting for a move into two or three bedroom accommodation, with around 1400 on the housing register awaiting single person accommodation so it is envisage that filling the units will not be problematic.

7. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

7.1. The report relates to the strategic aim “to facilitate quality, choice and diversity in the housing market and to create strong and self-reliant communities”.

8. Financial, legal, staffing, other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications The costs associated with the conversion works fall into two main areas – the decant process and the work itself. The decant process is expected to cost up to £100,000, which can be Agenda Item 15 Page 154 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 met from the second tranche of Powerline compensation monies.

The conversion works are expected to cost Financial Implications £150,000, which can be met by way of a virement from the Major Works capital budget.

The conversion of the wing from 20 x 1

bedroom flats to a mix of larger general needs units will increase the rental income into the HRA by an estimated £2k pa however, consideration will be given, at the time of letting the new units, to converting to affordable rent outside of the HRA.

The additional general needs accommodation provided by these proposals will enable the Council to respond to housing needs more promptly and will indirectly ease pressure on the homelessness budget. Legal Implications The proposal to reconfigure the units will be subject to planning and building control approval. Staffing Implication All activity detailed in the proposal will be met from within existing staff resources. Administrative Implications None specifically as a result of this report.

9. Details of Exempt Information Category Not applicable.

10. Appendices None.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Documents consulted Date / Report Section & Exempt File Author Directorate Informatio Ref n Category Peter Housing, N/A Dosad Regeneration

Page 155 Agenda Item 16 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

PRIVATE SECTOR EMPTY HOMES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL: UPDATE

1. Summary

1.1 On 5 April 2012 Cabinet approved a proposal to offer financial assistance to enable owners of empty properties to bring their property back into use, in order to house families from the Council’s temporary accommodation waiting list.

1.2 This report updates members on progress and provides further detail on the loan process and the legal implications for both applicants and the Council.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That Cabinet note the contents of this report and the progress made in implementing the scheme.

3. Background

3.1 On 5 April 2012 [Min. no. 174] Cabinet approved a proposal to offer financial assistance to enable owners of empty properties to bring their property back into use. Assistance is by way of an interest free loan, conditional upon the owner agreeing to lease the property to the Council for a minimum of three years, in order to house families from the Council’s temporary accommodation waiting list. The scheme details have now been developed and the scheme has been launched. This report updates Members on the final scheme and its implications.

Financial Management

3.2 The Council will secure the repayment of the loan by deducting the repayments from the rent payable by the Council to the owner of the property when the property is leased to the Council for temporary housing accommodation. However, it is not possible to guarantee that the property will remain available to the Council to use for the full three year period as the owner will have the ability to terminate the lease during that time. This is because the Housing Act 1985 requires that leases of properties to housing authorities for short term arrangements must contain a provision entitling the owner to bring the lease to an end before the expiry of the full term of the lease.

3.3 The possibility of registering a Legal Charge on the property at the Land Registry, to ensure that the Council is able to recover any outstanding loan in the event that the owner terminates the lease before the expiry of the three year period, has therefore been considered. However, it was felt that this would make the scheme less attractive to applicants (Members may recall from the previous report that Kent County Council operates a similar scheme, which involves a Legal Charge on the property, but that this requirement is reported to deter owners from applying).

3.4 It is therefore proposed that no Legal Charge will be registered by the Council against the property. In effect this means that the loan will be unsecured. Repayment of the loan is still to be achieved by making deductions from rent payable under the lease. In the event that an owner terminates the lease

Agenda Item 16 PageCABINET 156 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

before the end of the three year period, the Council will seek repayment of the balance of the loan by virtue of conditions imposed in the grant application which require that the balance of the loan is repayable on demand in those circumstances. The condition requiring repayment is legally binding on the owner of the property and can be enforced through the Courts.

3.5 The loan is repaid each quarter through a deduction from the rental income, thus each quarter the loan amount outstanding, and therefore the risk exposure, is reduced. It is considered that the financial risk to the Council arising from potential unrecovered repayment defaults is offset by the savings to be achieved through the use of leased properties in place of nightly paid accommodation, which are estimated at £25,000 per unit over the three year lease term.

Scheme Implementation

3.6 Promotion of the scheme has commenced; a targeted mailing has been sent to approximately 90 empty property owners who it is felt are likely to meet the criteria for the scheme. The Empty Property Officer is following up these mailings with telephone calls to the individuals to discuss this option further and encourage uptake. The scheme is also being promoted via the Council’s website and press release and the scheme will also be highlighted at the next Dartford Private Sector Housing Landlords’ Forum on 27 September 2012. The Housing Options and Private Sector Housing Teams are also actively promoting the loan scheme in their daily contact with owners and landlords.

3.7 To date, one loan application has been agreed with another six applications anticipated shortly. These cases are likely to use approximately £45,000 of the £150,000 budget. Looking ahead there are a further 6 cases that the Housing team hope to complete by the end of the financial year utilising a further £50,000 of the total budget and the team remain focussed on fully utilising the budget by the end of the financial year.

3.8 Based on experience gained in operating the scheme, and the feedback from applicants, Officers will review the package offered to property owners as the year progresses and will look at new opportunities that both meet the Council’s requirements and make the scheme more attractive to Landlords. Options which may be considered include increasing the loan amount or adjusting the terms of the lease but Cabinet approval will be sought before any such changes are implemented.

3.9 The Council has recently written to all owners of empty properties in Dartford to advise them of changes to council tax legislation from 1 April 2013 allowing the Council to charge 150% of council tax on properties which have been empty for two years or more. It is anticipated that this news may act as a further incentive for empty property owners to apply for this scheme.

3.10 Changes in the Private Rented Market. Elsewhere on the Cabinet agenda is a report that details the difficulty in obtaining private sector rental properties for homeless applicants that approach the Council for assistance and the additional pressure this is placing on the General Fund TA budget. As private landlords can now charge much higher rents and properties become easier to let on the open market, there is

CABINETPage 157 Agenda Item 16 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

less incentive for landlords to participate in schemes operated by the Council. Some former DPLS landlords are not renewing their leases with the Council which could impact on the Council’s empty property assistance plan.

Year Number of DPLS Properties 2010/11 67 2011/12 76 2012/13 66

3.11 In the 5 April report a target of 19 properties was estimated as being achievable. However, in the current market conditions this estimate now appears optimistic. Although there remains no guarantee that the scheme will prove attractive to owners, it is hoped that the incentive of an interest free loan to assist owners to bring an empty property back into use and provide guaranteed income for a set period of time, will boost the number of DPLS properties and thus ease the burden of cost for providing homeless families with alternative TA. On that basis Officers hope to complete at least 12 lease agreements this financial year.

4 Relationship to the Corporate Plan

HS1: To meet the housing needs of the Borough

5 Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial £150,000 has been allocated in the 2012/13 budget for Implications this scheme, to facilitate the return to use of long term private sector empty properties. This was agreed by the General Assembly of the Council on 27 February 2012, funded from the New Homes Bonus. Legal Implications None other than as set out in the body of this report. Staffing This project can be delivered within existing staff Implications resources Admin Implications None as a specific result of the report. Risk Assessment There is a risk that take up of the scheme will be lower than expected. The report refers to changes in the private rent market which may reduce the incentive for landlords to participate in the scheme. The report comments on the target of 19 properties. Loans provided under the scheme will be unsecured. The risk of defaulted payments not being recovered is dealt with in the report. However, this is outweighed by the likely savings to the GF budget relating to TA provision for the homeless.

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

6 Appendices

Agenda Item 16 PageCABINET 158 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

None

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents Date / Report Author Section & Exempt consulted File Ref Directorate Information Category

Peter Dosad Housing, N/A Regeneration

Page 159 Agenda Item 17 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

UPDATE ON HOMELESSNESS

1. Summary

1.1 On 28 June 2012, Cabinet noted the 2011/12 outturn for the General Fund, Housing Revenue Account and the Identified Initiatives Reserve, and the reasons for significant variances compared to probable outturn in the Revenue Budget Monitoring report [Minute No. 36 refers].

1.2 On 26 July Cabinet noted the Revenue Budget Monitoring report 2012/2013 including the expenditure on homeless prevention and the provision of temporary accommodation. The costs of both are projected to be significantly higher than budget and, if trends continue, a budget overspend of approximately £350,000 is likely [Minute No. 50 refers].

1.3 This report provides an update on homelessness, as described in the report presented to Cabinet on 26 July; the use of temporary accommodation and proposals to mitigate further increases in General Fund expenditure.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That Cabinet note the contents of this report.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. On 28 June 2012 and 26 July 2012 Cabinet noted that the expenditure on homeless prevention and the provision of temporary accommodation (TA) is significantly higher than budget and, if trends continue, a budget overspend of approximately £350,000 is likely [Minute No. 36 & 50 refers]. Cabinet also noted that a report on homelessness be considered at the next meeting of Cabinet and this report looks to provide some explanation, context and options on mitigating the pressure on the budget. 3.2. Under the Housing Act 1996 (Part VII), the authority (in this case the Council) has a statutory duty to provide qualifying persons with temporary accommodation until a more permanent solution to re-house them can be found. This duty comes into effect where the person applying for assistance:

• is homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 28 days • is eligible for assistance • is in priority need • in not intentionally homeless • has a local connection 3.3. The Council has an immediate interim duty to accommodate prior to considering a formal homeless application where there is reason to believe that a person making an application may be homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need for accommodation which means that temporary accommodation must be secured for all eligible persons.

Agenda Item 17 Page 160 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

3.4. Once the process has begun Housing Options team will initially try to prevent the homelessness occurring and will put the onus on applicants to provide evidence that supports their applications and circumstances. If a homeless duty is accepted then staff will always look to find alternative accommodation solutions to TA. 4. Statistics 4.1. The numbers of households who will present as homeless is difficult to predict and is, to some extent, dictated by economic and market forces. The statistics below show that whilst the number of people approaching the Council as homeless has increased over the last two years, the number where the Council has accepted a duty to provide accommodation has reduced. Homeless approaches for the first quarter of each year:

• 2010/11 120 • 2011/12 152 • 2012/13 184

Homeless acceptances for the first quarter of each year:

• 2010/11 42 • 2011/12 28 • 2012/13 22

4.2 However the current number of households (not individuals) in TA, compared to the same point for the last 2 years, has increased considerably:

• 2010/11 20 • 2011/12 45 • 2012/13 82

For context the following table shows the number of properties, by bedroom size, that would be required to re-house all those household currently in TA:

15 1 Bedroom Households 32 2 Bedroom Households 28 3 Bedroom Households 7 4 Bedroom Households

In terms of monitoring the situation the Housing team assesses each case on a daily basis in an attempt to move households out of TA and into affordable properties but this can only be done as and when alternative accommodation becomes available.

4.3 All 82 households are placed in Band A2; a priority band for rehousing under the Council’s Choice Based Lettings Scheme. The A2 banding is the second highest band within the Council’s allocation policy with the second deciding factor on which offers are made to which specific applicants being based on waiting time.

Page 161 Agenda Item 17 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

4.4 The most telling statistic is length of time households are staying in TA. The Length of stay in TA, (i.e those in and out of TA) during the first 3 months of 2012/13 when compared to same period for the last 2 years was as follows:

• 10/11 68.3 days • 11/12 57.8 days • 12/13 105.8 days

However this has changed with a considerable increase in stay for those currently in TA, when compared to for the same period for the last 2 years:

• 10/11 98.3 days • 11/12 58.4 days • 12/13 135.9 days

4.5 The impact of this elongated stay in TA is the main factor that is causing the projected overspend on the budget referred to in paragraph 3.2. 5. Causes 5.1. The difficulty in moving applicants out of TA has been caused by a significant reduction in the availability of rehousing options in the private sector, whether through the Dartford Private Sector Leasing Scheme (DPLS) or by direct placement with a private sector landlord. This is mainly due to an unprecedented increase in demand for private rented accommodation locally which has driven rents up, to the point where there is little incentive for private sector landlords to let properties through the DPLS or accept housing benefit cases. This demand has been fuelled by a combination of lack of mortgage availability, our close proximity to London and other recession factors. 5.2. These factors have made it extremely difficult for the Council to access enough housing for homeless clients. When a housing unit is obtained for rent the fact that less housing benefit is now available means that the gap between Local Housing Allowance (LHA) and market rent levels becomes wider. The Council is obliged to meet the majority of this shortfall from the TA budget within the General Fund. 5.3. This situation has meant that, where the Council has a duty to accommodate, a significant number of households have had to be placed in expensive nightly paid accommodation and have stayed in that accommodation longer than we would normally expect because of the lack of suitable move-on accommodation in the private sector. 5.4 In extreme cases the Housing team have had no option but to place emergency homeless cases into hotel accommodation where any costs, over housing benefit levels, cannot be recouped adding more pressure on the budget.

Agenda Item 17 Page 162 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 6. Action to mitigate impact on General Fund budget

6.1 The Housing Options team will continue to provide a service where the priority is to prevent homelessness, and where the provision of Temporary Accommodation is a last resort. A thorough investigation into a household’s circumstances and their need for accommodation under current homeless legislation will always be carried out.

6.2 A proportion of direct offers will be made to homeless applicants where it is felt that this would be the best option for both the applicant and the Council. The direct offers will be made in line with the Council’s current Allocations Policy, but will effectively suspend the waiting time element of the Allocation Policy for suitable applicants. The Head of Housing Services has delegated authority to approve such allocations. This will reduce, but not eliminate, the number of households in TA. However, by reducing the overall numbers in TA, it will be possible to reduce the number of occasions when the Council has to resort to the most expensive TA solutions such as hotel accommodation. In order to stabilise the budget position the Housing team will strive to reduce the number of households in TA by 50% by April 2013 notwithstanding the significant external factors that will affect this aim and that are outside the Councils direct control.

6.3 In the long term, the situation will be helped by increasing the amount of stock available through Choice Based Lettings, because movement in the stock creates more opportunities for tenancy offers. Elsewhere in this agenda there are proposals to create additional general needs units through the conversion of Elizabeth Court, and an update on the private sector empty property financial assistance package, which is also capable of generating accommodation for general needs.

Members should note that both the private sector empty property financial assistance package and the existing DPLS are adversely affected by the currently overheated private sector rental market, as explained in paragraph 5.1 above. This has reduced the incentive for private sector landlords to participate in these schemes. However, some of the factors affecting this sector may be short-term; in particular, a number of households are choosing private rent as a second-best option while mortgages for owner occupation are difficult to obtain. If and when this situation eases, pressure on the private rented sector may reduce and rents may adjust.

6.4 It is expected that, with these proposals in place, the number of people in TA can be significantly reduced. A further report will be presented to Cabinet in the New Year to provide an update on progress in attempting to reduce the cost of providing TA and limit the overspend predicted.

7 Relationship to the Corporate Plan

7.1 The report relates to the strategic aim “to facilitate quality, choice and diversity in the housing market and to create strong and self-reliant communities”.

Page 163 Agenda Item 17 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

8 Financial, legal, staffing, other administrative implications & risk assessments

Financial Implications The 2011/12 budget for Homelessness is £267,140, net of income. (Budget Book page 63). Of this sum, the budget for Nightly Paid temporary accommodation is £337,020. The expenditure to the end of July stood at £366,996, i.e. in four months the budget for the year had been exceeded. Although a high percentage of the cost is recovered in Housing Benefit, there is still a gap to be funded.

The Revenue Budget Monitoring report of 26 July projected a potential overspend on TA and on preventative measures of £350,000. The latest figures suggest a figure of £400,000 is likely if current trends continue.

The budget report to the October meeting will recommend budget virements to correct this.

The proposals mentioned in this report are aimed at mitigating this position. The works to the properties at Elizabeth Court are likely to incur costs; this is addressed in the separate Cabinet report. Legal Implications None specifically as a direct result of the report. Staffing Implications All staff implications will be met form within existing staff resources. Admin Implications None specifically Risk Assessment There is a clear risk that failure to attempt to mitigate the financial impact of the changes being experienced in the local private rented market will severely impact on the General fund. However as the Council has no direct control over the flow of homeless cases that it has a duty to assist, the number of properties available to meet the need and the rent levels charged by private landlords it is possible that any action taken by the Council could have minimal impact.

6. Details of Exempt Information Category Not applicable.

7. Appendices None

Agenda Item 17 Page 164 CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Section & Exempt File Ref Author Directorate Info Cat

Peter Housing/ N/A Dosad Regeneration

Page 165 Agenda Item 18

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

FAIRFIELD POOL AND LEISURE CENTRE ANNUAL REPORT 2011

1. Summary

1.1 This report presents the Annual Report for 2011 from the management company of Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre, Parkwood Leisure Limited.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 The 2011 Annual Report from Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre be noted.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre is operated by Parkwood Leisure under a lease. The lease is monitored by way of monthly meetings with the management of the pool, and through the Friends of Fairfield Pool. Parkwood Leisure also submit an Annual Report. The Annual Report for 2011 is attached as Appendix A. The Annual Report gives detail on the work carried out by Parkwood Leisure to continue growth in participation and investment in the facility. 3.2. The report covers from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011. The Council funded and supervised a major refurbishment of the changing rooms during the year, at a cost of approximately £150,000. The changing rooms were opened by Councillor Mrs Thurlow in August 2011. 3.3. The Annual Report notes the following:

• 245,654 visits were made to the Leisure Centre in 2011. This was an increase of 2,073 people from the previous year 2010. • Fairfield Pool & Leisure Centre sponsored the Dance stage at the Dartford Festival 2011 as well as having a stand to promote the centre. • The refurbishment of the changing rooms, which was opened by Councillor Thurlow cost in the region of £150,000 and was funded by Dartford Borough Council. • Redecoration work was undertaken throughout the Centre, in particular the corridors on the upper floor leading to the Dance Studio and the lower corridors leading to the changing rooms. This has included painting and general maintenance which has been funded by Parkwood Leisure. • During the bad weather in January, February and March the Centre remained open. • The Centre took part in the Marie Curie Swimathon raising funds Agenda Item 18 Page 166

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

for Cancer research. The centre raised £4,490 and was the 17th best Swimathon for fundraising, out of 650 pools in England. • Boccia classes were introduced for people with learning and/or physical difficulties. Extra activities are planned for the upcoming year. • The national £20.12 swimming membership was introduced, which has seen over 100 members now join the scheme. The £20.12 membership is aimed at over 16's and allows members unlimited use of the swimming pool during public swim time. • Sway and Zumba have been introduced within the class timetable, Sway is the Parkwood Leisure dance brand and includes Street Dance and Cheerleading for 5 to 13 year olds, which has proved very popular, Zumba is the new dance craze and all classes are being well attended.

3 .4. The report refers to Parkwood’s annual Sports Development and Marketing Plan. The Plan is aimed at increasing usage from six key groups, which are as follows • 11-19 year olds has increased by 5% • Users with a Disability (Over 60's & Under 60's) has increased by 33% • 60 Plus has increased by 8% • BME groups has increased by 11 % • Social Groups 6 & 7 has increased by 3%

4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

HW2 Increase the opportunities for participating in sporting, cultural and leisure opportunities.

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications The annual cost to the Council in meeting its obligations under the lease is approximately £80,000 (Budget Report page 53). In addition, the Council has obligations to fund certain building repairs and improvements. The annual cost is estimated at approximately £150,000 (Budget Report page 177). Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints

Page 167 Agenda Item 18

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

Appendix A – Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre Annual Report 2011

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

Stephen Jefferson Policy & N/A (01322) 343524 Corporate Support

Page 168

This page is intentionally left blank Page 169 Agenda Item18

FAIRFIELD POOL & LEISURE CENTRE FAIRFIELD POOL & LEISURE CENTRE LOWFIELD STREET | DARTFORD KENT | DA1 1JB ANNUAL SERVICES REPORT TEL: 01322 224400 EMAIL: [email protected] 1 January 2011 - 31 December 2011 www.leisurecentre.com

This report has been printed on recycled paper Working in Partnership with CONTENTS FOREWARD gnaIe 8Page170 Agenda Item18 1.0 INTRODUCTION Welcome to the 2011 Annual Services Report detailing the activities and performance of Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre. This is the eighth year of Parkwood Leisure's leisure management contract, during 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY which we have seen further growth to participation and continued investment in the facilities. The results demonstrate once again that Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre remains at the heart of the 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS community. 3.1 Participation Throughput 3.2 Target Group – Participation Throughput During the past year Parkwood Leisure has worked particularly close with Dartford Borough Council to 3.3 Customer Satisfaction deliver improvements to the facility and to the health and wellbeing of the local community. 3.3.1 Customer Satisfaction Survey This was achieved through the refurbishment of the changing rooms and initiatives such as Sway Dance 3.3.2 Direct Internal Customer Feedback and the £20.12 Swimming Membership. 3.3.3 Managers Question Time and Customer Forums With the 2012 Olympics just around the corner Parkwood Leisure has continued to build on its 3.3.4 Customer Surveys programme for competitive athletes whilst also introducing new taster sessions for sport, cultural activities and social events for all ages and sections of the Dartford community. 4.0 MONITORING 4.1 Monitoring System Finally, the success in 2011 was only possible through the hard work and efforts of our committed team 4.2 Quest of Managers, Coaches, Attendants, Cleaners and Technicians who, with the support of Council officers 4.2.1 Mystery Shopper Reports and have maintained the leisure services through thick and thin, rain, snow and sunshine, during the day and Internal Audits the night. For this Parkwood Leisure would like to thank you.

5.0 FEES AND CHARGES On behalf of Parkwood Leisure

6.0 PROGRAMMING

7.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

8.0 ANNUAL SERVICES IMPROVEMENT PLAN

This document is available in large print if required 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Annual Services Report and subsequent Improvement Plan will provide information on Fairfield Pool This report covers the Annual Service Period from the 1 January to 31 December 2011. and Leisure Centre operated by Parkwood Leisure within the Dartford Lease. Throughout the year of operation there have been many achievements for Fairfield Pool and Leisure Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre Centre, which have included: · 25 metre, 6 lane Swimming Pool with a capacity for 50 seated spectators · 1 metre springboard · During the report period 245,654 visits were made to the Leisure Centre. This was an increase of 2,073 · 12.5 metre Teaching Pool people visiting the site from the previous year 2010. · 2 Squash Courts · 50 station Fitness Studio · Fairfield Pool & Leisure Centre sponsored the Dance stage at the Dartford Show as well as having a · Dance Studio and Committee Room stand to promote the centre. · Crèche/ Bumpers Backyard Soft Play · Health Suite · The refurbishment of the changing rooms, which was opened by Councillor Thurlow cost in the region · Physiotherapy Treatment Rooms. of £150,000 and was funded by Dartford Borough Council.

This report will review the annual performance of the Centre for the period of 1 January to the · Throughout this period there has seen redecoration work take place throughout the Centre, in particular 31 December 2011. This review will encompass: the corridors on the upper floor leading to the Dance Studio and the lower corridors leading to the changing rooms. This has included painting and general maintenance which has been funded by · The annual performance standards Parkwood Leisure. · Trends within these results · Actions to address key issues. · During the bad weather in January, February and March the Centre remained open allowing Dartford

residents to maintain their healthy lifestyles. Page 171 The areas of performance that will be covered are as follows: · The Centre was proud to take part in the Marie Curie Swimathon raising funds for Cancer research, · Participation rates as a year on year analysis the centre raised £4,490 and was the 17th best participated Swimathon for fundraising, out of 650 · Target group participation rates pools in England. · Customer Satisfaction - Customer Comment Forms, Customer Forum and the Friends of Fairfield Committee. · Starting Boccia classes for people with learning and/or physical difficulties, which proved to be so successful and extra activities are planned for the upcoming year. In addition to the identified indicators, the following topics will also be reviewed as a - Introducing the national £20.12 swimming membership, which has seen over 100 members now join the means of measuring continuous improvement. scheme. The £20.12 membership is aimed at over 16's, the membership allows members to unlimited So the topics are as follows: use of the swimming pool during public swim time.

· Monitoring of Performance - Sway and Zumba have been introduced within the class timetable, Sway is the Parkwood Leisure dance · Fees and Charges brand and includes Street Dance and Cheerleading for 5 to 13 year olds, which has proved very popular, Agenda Item18 · Programming Zumba is the new dance craze and all classes are being well participated.

Finally, the report will also detail an Annual During the service period the Centre has not only implemented, but also exceeded the action plan from Services Improvement Plan, which will the annual Sports Development & Marketing Plan. The Plan is aimed at increasing usage from six key provide an overview of how our service is groups, which are as follows: to be developed over the forthcoming year. · 11 - 19 year olds has increased by 5% · Users with a Disability (Over 60's & Under 60's) has increased by 33% · 60 Plus has increased by 8% · BME groups has increased by 11% · Social Groups 6 & 7 has increased by 3%

The implementation of this Plan has resulted in a direct increase in usage from all target groups. The Centre has launched many new initiatives or expanded current programmes to encourage participation.

1. 2. 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS gnaIe 8Page172 Agenda Item18 3.1 Participation / Throughput 3.2 Target Group - Participation Throughput

During the report period 245,654 visits were made to the Leisure Centre. This is an increase of 2,073 Parkwood Leisure positively works to increase the participation levels of groups that have traditionally visitors on 2010. been under represented in the use of leisure facilities; these groups are as follows:

Year on Year Comparison · 11 - 19 year olds · Disabled users The following graph identifies the comparable throughput for Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre. · 60 plus users · BME groups Fairfield Pool & Leisure Centre - Throughput 2011 · Social groups 6 and 7 users.

The usage by these groups is monitored on both a monthly and annual basis via the MRM database.

Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centres 30000 Within Dartford, the Leisure Centres work towards the completion of six-target group Development 25000 Plans. A Sports Development and Marketing Manager is employed to supervise the completion of these plans. The role of the Sports Development and Marketing Manager is to facilitate discussions between 20000 the Centre and representatives from the target groups with a view to increasing access to existing programmes and establishing new initiatives that will ultimately result in an increased and sustained 15000 usage levels. 10000 Throughout the service period an extensive variety of initiatives have been implemented, with the following examples: 5000 · Development Plans – the Centre has successfully completed and exceeded all initiatives detailed in the 0 2011 Development Plan. The 2012 Development Plan, which commenced from January 2012, is

Jul currently being implemented. The main developments were to increase usage by 3% in the Fitness Suite Jan Jun Feb Apr Oct Sep Dec Mar Aug Nov May within the six target groups. The set up of Expressions Pump increased the 11-19 target groups and the Centre also sustained the disabled usage, which has now increased due to the Boccia classes being Total 2007 Total 2008 Total 2009 Total 2010 Total 2011 introduced, as well as a new program for disability groups planned for 2012.

· Water Safety – Get Safe for summer commenced in June 2011. Primary schools within the Dartford area were contacted and invited to host the water safety presentation at their schools provided by The following is a summary of key year on year comparable performance for the Centre. There was a Parkwood Leisure staff. higher attendance in July, August, October and December due to the refurbishment program in the wet side changing rooms and we look forward to this continuing in 2012. · Swim £20.12 – Over 100 members now on this scheme which offers swimming only membership aimed at everyone over 16. The membership allows customers unlimited use of the swimming pool during Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre public swim times.

· Swimming overall increased on 2010 by 12% (11,160 visits) · Sway and Zumba have been introduced within the class timetable, Sway is the Parkwood Leisure dance · Adult swimming increased by 14% (4,441 visits) brand and includes Street Dance and Cheerleading for 5 to 13 year olds, which has proved very popular. · Child swimming increased by 54% (3,475 visits) Zumba is the new dance fitness craze with all classes being well participated. · Swimming lessons increased by 22% (8,513 visits) · Senior swiming increased by 21% (735 visits)

3. 4. 3.3 Customer Satisfaction Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre received 508 comments within the report period, of these the most common were: In order to ensure that the Centre continues to meet and surpass the expectations of our customers, we monitor the comments we receive on a regular basis. · Maintenance 34% - the maintenance issues mainly surrounded the Swimming Pool temperature and pool water quality as well as many varied items such as shower temperature and benches. This resulted As an ongoing means of measuring customer satisfaction, the Centre actively encourages direct internal in a refurbishment of the aging changing rooms and the heating pumps to be maintained on a more customer feedback through the following means: regular basis.

· Customer Comment Forms - forms available in different areas of the building for customers to complete. · Programming 22% - the key themes included availability of classes and courses the majority of these comments were made at the beginning and end of the year. The action was to introduce a more varied · Customer Forums - these forums are held on a quarterly basis and all customers are invited to speak program to include new classes such as Zumba and Boxercise. raising any views they have regarding the Centre with Management Team. · Cleanliness 19% - The majority of negative comments were before the refurbishment of the changing · Friends of Fairfield Committee - the Committee was established in 2008 and consists of customers from rooms, since then there has been a shift to very positive comments raised. a variety of areas. Dartford Borough Council and the Centre Manager also attend to understand the opportunities or problems that exist and continually move Fairfield Pool & Leisure Centre forwards. · Staffing 17% - comments were received on the quality of the aerobic instructors, lifeguards and swimming teachers. There were some comments about timekeeping of staff in relation to opening the · Manager's Question Time - these are held monthly and customers can book an appointment to speak to building, which were reviewed and action taken. the Centre Manager on a one-to-one basis to raise any queries regarding the Centre informally. 3.3.3 Managers Question Time and Customer Forums

3.3.2 Direct Internal Customer Feedback Page 173 Managers Question Time is scheduled once a month and allows individual customers the opportunity to The graph below demonstrates that the most frequent subjects, which are referenced by customers via arrange a session direct with the Centre Manager to discuss any issues and concerns. the Customer Comment Forms, are programming and cleanliness. Customer Forums allow the customers to form part of the decision making process in continuous improvement to the Centres operation. This process involves the Customer Forum meeting on a quarterly basis to discuss issues facing the Centres operations and to review any new opportunities that are proposed for the future. The Forums consist of a varied mix of customers, who reflect the diversity of the local community.

3.3.4 Customer Surveys

Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre continue to provide regular customer satisfaction surveys. The surveys give four areas within Agenda Item18 the Centre for customers to comment on. These are:

· Swimming Pool · Fitness Studio · Dance Studio · Changing Areas Maintenance Cleanliness Health & Safety The Centre performed well in the 2011 survey. Programme Staffing Other With the refurbishment of the changing rooms being well received by all members.

5. 6. 4.0 MONITORING 5.0 FEES & CHARGES gnaIe 8Page174 Agenda Item18 As well as customer feedback, the Centre has committed to undertaking the Quest Accreditation. To ensure that the Centre pricing policies are in line with other leisure providers we regularly complete pricing comparisons to ensure that the activity charge is not limiting sections of the community from 4.1 Quest participating in activities.

The Quest Initiative helps to set a standard within the industry and forms the basis of Parkwood Leisure’s In comparison with six neighbouring boroughs Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Bromley, Gravesend and internal quality standards. Therefore Quest is intergrated into internal policies and procedures creating a Havering the pricing schedule for Dartford is comparative on most activities, except where local service standard of continuous improvement. authority policy subsidises specific target groups.

Quest is a UK Scheme for quality in the leisure sector. The Quest accreditation process is an intensive Within Dartford, a policy of targeting disadvantaged groups through concessionary pricing has been assessment covering a Mystery Visitor and a two day External Assessment covering all aspects of facility introduced that will allow customers discounted activity fees on: operations, for example, · Public Swimming · Customer Care · Swimming Lessons · Staffing · Fitness Studio · Building Presentation and Housekeeping · Group Exercise Classes · Marketing and Promotions · Sports Development and Community Initiatives. This disadvantaged groups include unemployed, people with learning difficulties and disabilities, and the elderly. 4.2 Monitoring System

These faults are obtained via the following means: 6.0 PROGRAMMING · Parkwood Leisure personnel via Centre inspections · Customer comments · Monitoring visits · Contractor's reports and inspections. Parkwood Leisure is committed to offering a wide and varied programme to ensure that the commercial and social objectives of the contract are met. The programme maximises usage of all facilities within the 4.2.1 Mystery Shopper Reports and Internal Audits scope of the contract, operates flexible, imaginative and varied programmes with easy access to equipment for all sections of the community. A few examples are listed below: Internal Audits are conducted in each Centre on a monthly basis. These audits are completed by Centre staff and use the Quest assessment format to judge specific areas of the operations or service provided. · 50+ Swimming All areas covered by a full Quest assessment are audited within a 12-month period. · Ladies Only Swimming · Public Swimming External mystery shopper visits also take · Swimming Lessons (All delivered in place in the form of the Quest assessment. conjunction with the NPTS-ASA) Quest mystery visits identify the areas in · Aquafit which the Centre needs to improve and · Teen Fit forms the basis of the Quest Action Plan. · Aerotone

7.7. 8. 8. 7.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 8.0 ANNUAL SERVICES IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Health and Safety The plan outlines the actions that will be implemented as a result of the findings from this report.

Parkwood Leisure's number one priority is Health and Safety, Centres are required to undertake an The report clearly demonstrates a very successful year; the following actions will build on the previous Annual Health and Safety audits and action plans to ensure that all legal requirements and best practices achievements and will ensure that out customers experiences continue to improve. are completed. Items that have been completed in 2011 are as follows:

· Sub Group Health and Safety Meetings. · Fire Drills · Equipment Inspections PARTICIPATION: · Risk Assessment Reviews Throughout the next service period the following participation objectives will be achieved: · COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) Reviews · Fixed Electrical Testing To maintain the current levels of usage within the Centre Monthly Review · RoSPA Inspection (Soft Play Area) · Throughput to be sustained at the current level. The Centre also has a comprehensive PPM (Planned, Preventative Maintenance) Schedule to cover the following: To obtain feedback via non-users as to their reasons for not participating July 2012 in theCentres activities · Showerhead descaling and sentinel tap testing (L8-Legionella Regulations) · A survey to be undertaken on 100 non-users. · Visual inspections of staircases, ceilings, changing room cubicles and lighting · Greasing of pumps

· External contractor inspections for Boilers, Pump servicing and Calorifiers Page 175

ISO 14001: TARGET GROUP PARTICIPATION: Throughout the next service period we will look to build upon the excellent work that has already Parkwood Leisure including Fairfield Pool and Leisure Centre are accredited with ISO 14001 standard. been completed. The aim being to further increase the usage of these target groups through the This accreditation has been achieved thru rigouris auditing that requires high standards of Environmental Management Systems (EMS). Parkwood Leisure is currently the only Leisure Company to hold ISO 14001 following objectives: accreditation. Implement 2012 Development Plan for the Centre. January 2012 Staff are trained on an annually · Links with Dartford Borough Council and local organisations to be by EMS auditors to ensure compliance further strengthened. of components of ISO 14001. The Centre has an annual Internal audit Agreed Development Plans in place for: linternal that awards a pass 1. 11 - 19 Year Olds non-conformance or observation, 2. 60 Plus Agenda Item18 which must be rectified within a 3. Disabled specified time period. The Health and 4. Ethnic Minorities Safety Audit that took place in 2011 did not include any non compliances. 5. Social Groups 6 & 7

7.9. 10.8. gnaIe 8Page176 Agenda Item18

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: Fees and Charges: Throughout the next service period the following objectives will be introduced as a result of the A proposed pricing schedule for 2013 will be submitted to Dartford Borough Council in October findings identified in relation to cleanliness, from the Customer Comment Forms, Managers 2012. The following objectives will be considered when proposing this schedule: Question Times and Customer Forums: 1. Proposed pricing to be comparative to that of neighbouring boroughs. November 2012. 1. Cleaning schedules to be continually reviewed within the Centres. Monthly Review · Pricing comparison to be completed. Pricing schedule to be · Frequency of cleaning to be reviewed. Actions to be completed agreed with Dartford · Additional training to be conducted. inline with the Borough Council for · Continuation of the No shoe policy. performance standards. implementation January 2013. 2. Customer satisfaction to be monitored internally on an ongoing basis. Monthly Review

· Monthly Customer Comment Form analysis Customer Comment · Area customer satisfaction survey to be conducted, to include: Forms to be monitored Programming: monthly and trends The following objectives will be implemented to expand the Centre programme: 1. Swimming Pool. identified. 2. Fitness Studio. 1. Ongoing support of events relevant to the target groups. Ongoing. 3. Dance Studio. Jan, Apr, July, Oct 4. Changing Rooms. area based customer Events to be implemented and supported through discounted hire rates. satisfaction surveys to be completed.

3. Quest Improvement Plans to be implemented. Monthly Review. 2. Continue to promote the Online Booking facilities Ongoing. · Review actions Monthly. at www.leisurecentre.com

4. Completion of Mystery Shopper Reports. Bimonthly. · Investigate opportunities to increase customer online booking at www.leisurecentre.com 5. Completion of Internal Audit schedule. Monthly. · Encourage existing customers to use facilities on www.leisurecentre.com to book and pay for classes and sessions. 6. Friends of Fairfield quarterly meetings. Quarterly.

7.11. 12.8.12. OUR PARTNERS PARTNER ORGANISATIONS

We are pleased to acknowledge the partners below that we have been working with during the The Dartford Borough Council past 12 months, and we hope to continue these relationships over the coming year. Dartford Sure Start Dartford District Swimming Club ASA The IOS ISRM (IMSPA) KCC Sports Development Unit Kent Schools Partnership London swimming

Schools

Dartford Bridge Community Primary School Fleetdown Junior School Gateway Primary School Knockhall Primary School Leigh Technology College Manor Community Primary School Oakwood Primary School Oakfield Lane Community School

Our Ladies Catholic Primary School Page 177 St Anselm’s Primary School Stone St Mary’s C.E Primary School Temple Hill Primary School Wentworth Primary School Westgate Primary School West Hill Primary School York Road Primary School Agenda Item18

7.13. 14.12.8. Notes. Notes. gnaIe 8Page178 Agenda Item18

7.15. 16.12.8. Page 179 Agenda Item 19

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

THE ORCHARD THEATRE ANNUAL REPORT 2011/12

1. Summary

1.1 This report presents the Annual Report for 2011/12 from the management company of The Orchard Theatre, HQ Theatres Ltd.

2. RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 The 2011/12 Annual Report for The Orchard Theatre be noted.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. The Orchard Theatre is managed by HQ Theatres Ltd under a management contract with the Council. The contract requires HQ Theatres Ltd to submit an Annual Report setting out the performance of the theatre in relation to a series of performance indicators which are specified in the contract. 3.2. The Orchard Theatre Annual Report 2011/12 has been considered at Scrutiny Committee 25 July 2012. 3.3. The Annual Report for 2011/12 is attached as Appendix A. 3.4. The Annual Report gives detail on the work carried out by HQ Theatres to develop the content of the theatre programme and market strategies, which appears to have been successful, to increase the number of people accessing the theatre performances. 3.5. The Annual Report shows that in 2011/12, the Theatre exceeded the target for the number of performances in the year, with 318 shows being delivered against a target of 292. 3.6. The balance of programming is set out in table 1 of the Annual Report. The table shows that in many of the genres including music, children’s entertainment, dance, the theatre has delivered more shows than targeted in the contract. In the other areas, notably comedy, variety, musical, there have been fewer performances than envisaged. The report explains that this is partly due to availability of product. 3.7. The average attendance has risen from previous years and has exceeded the target set, with 58.1% being delivered against a target of 57%. The increase has followed on from a focused local marketing strategy implemented by the theatre management. 3.8. The Theatre has opened its doors 33 times for local use. Included, the Summer Youth Project, coinciding the theatres open days with the Council’s Heritage Open Days project and Shakespeare’s Schools Festival. Agenda Item 19 Page 180

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

3.9. The Orchard Theatre continues to develop their catering offer and have had a number of successful events such as their Casino Royale evening. 3.10. The Annual Accounts are awaited. Members will be notified when they are received. 4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

HW2 Increase the opportunities for participating in sporting, cultural and leisure opportunities.

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications The contract for the management of The Orchard Theatre is based on the council paying the contractor a set management fee each year, and receiving a small share of any net profit. When the Annual Accounts for 2011/12 have been received, it will be possible to determine the overall net cost to the Council of The Orchard Theatre in the year. The estimated annual cost to the Council in meeting its obligations under the lease is approximately £365,000 (Budget Report page 52). In addition the Council has certain obligations for the repair and improvement of the building and this is estimated annually at £120,000 (Budget Report page 177). Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment The transfer of the Theatre management to a private operator has significantly reduced the commercial risk to the Council, without compromising the quality of the Theatre or its important role in the community. The benefits of the transfer are particularly valuable to the Council in the current economic conditions.

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices Page 181 Agenda Item 19

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

Appendix A - The Orchard Annual Report 2011/12

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information Category

Contract for Theatre Stephen Jefferson Policy & N/A Management Services 16 (01322) 343524 Corporate March 2010. Support

Page 182

This page is intentionally left blank Page 183 Agenda Item 19

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk Annual Report - Year end 31 March 2012

Report Compiled on 27th April 2012 by Andrew Hill – Theatre Director

Introduction The third year of HQ Theatres’ operation of The Orchard Theatre has seen audiences and return visits in excess of our predicted position. This improvement is all the more impressive when taking into consideration the tightening of our patrons’ budgets. Our diverse programme of activities and offer has appealed to Dartford residents and resulted in a thriving Theatre.

Premises and Maintenance In February 2012 the capital programme of works, agreed at the beginning of the contract, began in earnest. This included Electrics, Boiler and Duct Cleaning/Air Handling Refurbishment. This is in the most part complete and has been, with the co-operation of all contractors, conducted in a way that has not affected the programme.

Two other key areas, Automatic Front Doors and a ‘Man-safe’ System to avoid falls from the roof areas, are due for completion by the end of the year (2012) but have not yet begun.

DBC have been the client on all these works and Paul Costa and Andrew Hall have been very supportive and efficient in the way that they ensured the contractors’ work with ourselves maintained the full, daily operation of the Theatre.

Our planned preventative maintenance programme continues to keep the building in a good condition across all other areas.

Hospitality The year 2011/2012 has seen our hospitality offer and our team grow. This growth has been through the steady growth of restaurant attendance, popular uptake on our bistro bar snacks and unprecedented sales for our events. These have included flat-floor auditorium events such as our popular Casino Royale Evening with entertainment and a ‘fun’ casino.

Our current pre-show menu is in Appendix One (attached for reference). This menu is still being run and a new version will be launched in May 12.

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Agenda Item 19 Page 184

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk

Performance Data Requirements under Schedule 3 of the Management Contract Table 1 – Balance of Programme

Genre Target Delivered Delivered Delivered Variance 09/10 10/11 11/12 to target Music 40 32 63 74 34 Comedy 30 26 23 18 (12) Variety 40 66 23 13 (27) Children’s Entertainment 18 54 39 48 30 Musical 48 39 48 34 (14) Ballet 8 3 7 6 (2) Opera 8 3 0 3 (5) Spoken Word 8 3 5 2 (6) Drama 24 25 33 22 (2) Dance 6 0 14 14 8 Orchestral Concerts 4 4 1 2 (2) New and World Music 4 0 0 0 (4) Pantomime 54 62 61 49 (5) Local Use No Target 30 42 33 N/A

Table 2 – Audience Data and Performances

Indicator Target Outcome Outcome Outcome Variance 09/10 10/11 11/12 to target Total performances 292 347 359 318 +26 Number of tickets sold to DBC 40% of 53236 55103 59068 +0.5% residents bookers (33.4%) (30.9%) (40.5%) Average attendance per 57% 49.78% 52.6% 58.1% 1.1% performances

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Page 185 Agenda Item 19

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk Analysis - As in our previous years, the balance continues to alter depending on the availability of product. Music is a strong genre that is supported, in part, by this description encompassing a large proportion of our regular programme. Also as a result of product availability, the core number of events that we present has been its lowest in three years; however, we are still exceeding our minimum number of events . It can be noted that both the breakdown of events and the overall number of events that we are achieving have now reached enhanced levels, accompanied by an increase in performance occupancy. Our challenge must now be to continue to grow the occupancy whilst maintaining between 300-320 events. Whilst this would be the ideal position, external factors regarding production availability will always have a bearing over the programme offered. Of course availability of product can improve as well as decline - but is always unpredictable; so that it would be potentially at the sacrifice of quality that precise genre targets were hit each year.

This year has seen a strong rise in DBC residents buying tickets, following last year’s more modest results. We are delighted that we have managed to beat the target this year. We have followed a heavy local marketing strategy that has focused on recapturing lapsed attendees and, in response to this, this year we will hold our first two local focus groups with both regular and lapsed bookers. We hope this tool will be useful in shaping the service, as we go forward, to attract the strongest audience possible.

Customer Service This year we have worked with Learn Purple (an external training and customer services solution provider) to conduct training for staff, revise our core standards for the venue and complete two mystery visits. These two visits were scored at satisfaction rates of 79% and 87% and were conducted during July 11 and March 12 respectively. We are pleased with this improvement but Learn Purple has recommended areas that they feel could be improved. Our internal target is a score of over 90% and we are aiming to put the measures in place during the coming year to achieve this.

We received 107 complaints this year (111 year 10/11) - the consistency of which demonstrates that our service has not declined. We, of course, try and minimise these throughout all business activities but accept that at times we will not meet all patrons’ expectations. This figure represents less than 0.06% of our total attendance and, although we would like to reduce this, we are enormously proud of the strong consistent service that is fully appreciated by nearly the whole of The Orchard’s audiences.

We are currently awaiting the results from our annual survey. This has been sent out to our 22,000 email list and for the first time will also be sent to selected patrons that receive our postal information. Once

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Agenda Item 19 Page 186

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk this information has been received we will pass this to our monitoring contact at DBC – Mr Steve Jefferson.

Community Access Programme – Creative Learning The centre of our community involvement work for this year focused around the staging of our second annual Summer Youth Project – ‘High School Musical’ . This was well received and played to over 1300 people in August 11. 111 local young people took part in the project under the guidance of our professional creative team, lead by Rodney Howard.

Our Youth Theatre paused in September but our offer continued with our new youth musical theatre company (YoungStars) in association with ‘In the Wings Productions’, and began with rehearsals and the production of Oliver! Plans are underway for the re-launch of the Youth Theatre in association with Reynolds Academy in September 2012. This has established our working relationship with two key local companies for the presentation of youth activity for those wishing to be involved in youth theatre and/or youth musical theatre.

Programming Overview for the Year April (2011) – The first day of this financial year saw us begin our three concert series with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO) with their presentation of an English Rhapsody. ‘Spamalot’ and ‘Goodnight Mr Tom’ were national highlights for the month. The visit of ‘Goodnight Mr Tom’ was complemented by a range of community activities/workshops, provided in association with KCC Libraries and Archives, Dartford Amateur Operatic and Dramatic Society, Dartford Museum and the Dartford Reporter. April also saw DAODS’ first visit of the year with a revival of ‘Calamity Jane’ .

May – ‘Horrible Histories’ and ‘Five Blue Haired Ladies sitting on a Green Park Bench’ played for a week each. Sadly although ‘Five Blue Haired Ladies’ was well cast with a total of seven stars, this new drama failed to capture attention across our catchment and achieved only modest audiences. This sad decline in interest in drama is a nation-wide phenomenon. Other popular concerts in the month included Joe Longthorne , Dennis Locorriere , Gervase Phinn and Marty Wilde .

June – This was a relatively quiet month with ‘ Peter Pan on Ice’ and ‘Mr Benn’ cancelling due to changes in touring plans and low sales respectively. This month presented the first visit ‘In the Wings Productions’ show, staging ‘Billy Elliot’ . This weekly group, who meet at the theatre, staged two sell-

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Page 187 Agenda Item 19

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk out performances of this musical. June also saw the Choral Outreach Project return for another two concerts. RPO visited for their second concert in the series with ‘Last Night of the Proms’ .

July – This was largely local companies and societies. This year we hosted performances from; Bird College , The Edge Dance and Theatre School , Try-Angle Awards , Jack Petchy Foundation , Sylvera School of Dance , Gillham School of Performing Arts , Honeyz School of Dance and also included a summer showcase from our Youth Theatre.

August – We presented ’High School Musical ’ as our second annual Summer Youth Project.

September – Began with a visit from comedian Stephen Merchant in his first-ever UK tour. We also held our annual Open Day to coincide with the Heritage Open days . This offered residents the chance to see backstage, try tastings in our Kitchen, look over the archive and also enjoy our bouncy castle, fancy painting and competitions. The month closed with a visit from Rifco Arts with their Bhangra inspired Musical ‘ Britain’s Got Bhangra ’. This nationally touring production played for a week, offering diversity to the programme and an alternative to our regular musical offering.

October – DAODS returned with ‘Guys and Dolls’ for their second visit of the year. We also welcomed Shakespeare’s Schools Festival for their first two-day visit, which saw local schools present re-workings of Shakespearian classics.

November – A Tea Dance began the month which was well received with an attendance of over 100. The month saw David Essex visit for the second time in his musical ‘All the Fun of the Fair’. This visit was even more successful than the last and saw 5000 people attend the week’s eight performances.

December – Throughout the year we had a great deal of interest in our Pantomime ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ . This interest matured into full houses and an extra week being added to the run. Craig Revel Horwood and Ann Widdecombe certainly provided a great show and much media interest. Four national reviews followed, audiences were delighted and the building buzzed for the whole of the month. One national reviewer also commented on the theatre itself, stating ‘The Orchard Theatre, an informal, modern venue whose neon-light auditorium looks like a cross between an old-time musical hall and Studio 54, was packed to the rafters.’ - David Thomas, Sunday Telegraph review 11 Dec 2011.

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Agenda Item 19 Page 188

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk December also saw us stage our first-ever flat-floor banquet in the form of a ‘Casino Royale’ evening. This event sold out and consequently an additional date was booked for January 2012 which also sold out. Both events were well received and subsequent evenings have been planned.

January – With pantomime completed we went straight into our annual visit of the Russian State Ballet of Siberia with a new repertoire of ‘Giselle’ and ‘Swan Lake’ . At the end of the month we welcomed ‘Bellow Head’ for one night. This visit from such a popular folk group quickly sold-out and was well received by all who attended.

February – Premiere Stage Productions returned to us to open the British leg of their tour ‘Sesame Street’. This played for four shows featuring everyone’s favourite characters from the smash-hit TV series. The end of the month saw another children’s favourite return to us for a second visit - this time ‘Peppa Pig’ sold-out across five shows, proving she is still popular with Dartford audiences.

March – The year closed with a month comprising over 20 concerts from Flamenco Dance to the chart- topping ‘Gilbert O’Sulivan’. However this month’s highlight was undoubtedly the fist visit to The Orchard Theatre by ‘English Youth Ballet , led by Miss Janet Lewis MBE. This saw over 100 young dancers take part in a professional ballet. This was also the premiere of a new production for the company of ‘Swan Lake’ and a great way to finish the artistic programme for 2011/12.

Forthcoming - Into 2012/13, we have already hosted a second visit by ‘Youngstars’ (a co-produciton between ourselves and ‘In the Wings Youth Productions’) of ‘Oliver!’ and a week-long visit of ‘Dancing in the Streets’. Thoughts now turn to our sell-out week of ‘Calendar Girls’ and our first of two concerts from Alfie Boe at the end of May. Beyond the advertised highlights of ‘Grease’ , ‘Ben and Holly’s Little Kingdom’ and ‘Little Voice’, this year’s pantomime ‘Aladdin’ will star TV Villain Steve McFadden . I am currently working on two large productions to open here in 2013 and both these shows would be unexpected highlights for The Orchard Theatre and continue to raise our profile locally, whilst promoting the Theatre’s quality offerings beyond our immediate catchment and within the theatre industry.

Human Resources Staff List • Theatre Director - Andrew Hill and Theatre Administrator – Anna Marie Lambert

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Page 189 Agenda Item 19

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk • Marketing Manager - Suzannah Bowles, Press & Publicity Officer – Vicki Foster, Marketing & Promotion Officer Nicholas Greatrex and Distribution Officer – Marlene Hewson. • Deputy Hospitality Manager – Kendra Allen, Head Chef – Lazslo Csorba and Team Leaders Pippa Horton and Kane Hoad. • Customer Services Manager - Zelda Kitto • Ticket Office Manager - Janet Rogers, Ticket Office Assistants – Lorna Carter, Kay Hadley, Carol Loveday, Pat Sargent and Rona Spaull. • Technical & Buildings Manager - Will West, Senior Technician – Simon Lambert and Theatre Technicians – Peter Larkin, Colin Rayment and Mathew Simmonds. • Stage Door Keepers - David Wood, Andrew John and Sinead Manning. • Housekeeping Team - Sylvia Sherwood, Nina Tarrant and Steven Warner. • Maintenance Assistant – Christopher Coe • Community and Creative Learning Officer – Kelly Reynolds • Over 50 casual workers • Over 100 Volunteers, assisting with performances, marketing, archiving and educational work.

TUPE Monitoring Information • All contributions to all KCC LGPS continue for all employees in the scheme. • Any new staff continue to be offered terms which meet the ‘Code of Practice’ which are comparable to those on TUPE contracts transferred from DBC. • All staff who took part in the TUPE transfer have their terms and conditions of their employment upheld.

Health and Safety We operate a Risk Manager system provided by a specialist contractor. Alongside this, monthly Health and Safety meetings are held.

37 Accident Report Forms have been completed for the year ending 31 March 2012. Three of these reports were the subject of RIDDOR returns. Mr Grahame Masterman (Health and Safety - DBC) received copies of these ‘Riddor’ reports. Coincidentally, this is the exact same number of report and accidents as the prior year.

Financial

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Agenda Item 19 Page 190

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk As per Schedule Two, a full set of Management Accounts is to be issued. These will be issued as an addendum to this report.

Capital Investment In year three we purchased the following capital items • Office and Dressing Room Furniture • Improved CCTV network inside the theatre • PC and Server Hardware • New lighting console for performances

Disability Access

Our Access Forum continues and is led by our Customer Services Manager. I attended the last forum and concerns regarding access to the Upper Foyer remain – it is hoped this situation can be eased once any saving made on the capital works are known. Another area of concern for the group is the size and number of the accessible toilets. A review of the Access Policy has taken place and is now available online.

Note If you have any enquires regarding any element of this report please do not hesitate to contact Andrew Hill – Theatre Director on 01322 282060 or email [email protected].

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Page 191 Agenda Item 19

The Orchard Theatre Home Gardens Dartford Kent DA1 1ED Admin: 01322 220099 Ticket Office: 01322 220000 [email protected] www.orchardtheatre.co.uk

Attachment

The Restaurant Menu

The Restaurant’s new season menu has been launched offering a range of delicious, unique and memorable dishes, using the freshest local produce and prepared daily by the Head Chef.

The Restaurant is situated just a few footsteps away from the main auditorium and is open two and a half hours before the evening’s performance commences.

Reserve your table in The Restaurant by calling the Ticket Office on 01322 220000.

Menu

Two courses £16.95 Three Courses (including tea or coffee) £20.95

Starters Soup of the day with rustic bread (v) Hand carved ‘Scottish’ smoked salmon with potato & horseradish salad & pickled beetroot Homemade chicken pate with apple chutney & toasted sourdough bread Asparagus salad with a soft boiled hen’s egg & ‘Italian’ hard cheese shavings (v)

Mains Poached fillet of salmon with fennel, tomato & salsa verde ‘Suffolk’ chicken breast with peas, white wine & pancetta Slow cooked lamb shank with a redcurrant & mint sauce & sweet potato crisps Oven baked ‘Somerset’ brie & beetroot tart with apple chutney (v) All main courses are served with chef’s selection of seasonal vegetables & potatoes

Dessert Strawberry Charlotte with pistachio & ‘Cornish’ clotted cream Iced hazelnut & honey parfait with pineapple carpaccio Raspberry & white chocolate bavarois

Menu may vary from the above with daily specials. Food described within this menu may contain nuts, derivatives of nuts or other allergens. If you suffer from an allergy or food intolerance please notify a member of management who will be pleased to discuss your needs with the Head Chef.

HQ Theatres Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 05637233 Registered Office: Qdos House, Queen Margaret’s Road, Scarborough YO11 2YH Page 192

This page is intentionally left blank Page 193 Agenda Item 20

CABINET 13 SEPTEMBER 2012

MEETING OF THE DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS HELD ON 10 JULY 2012

1. Summary

To present to Cabinet the notes of the meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils held on 10 July 2012, attached at Appendix A to the report.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That the notes of the meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils, held on 10 July 2012, be considered and noted.

3. Background and Discussion

This report presents the cleared notes from the 10 July 2012 meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils to Cabinet for consideration and noting.

4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan

Not applicable.

5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints

6. Appendices

Appendix A - Notes of the 10 July 2012 meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents Date File Report Section and Exempt consulted Ref Author Directorate Information Category

Meeting 10 July 2012 Alan Stoneham Member Services, N/A notes (01322 343330) Monitoring Officer Page 194

This page is intentionally left blank Page 195 Agenda Item 20 APPENDIX A DARTFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

NOTE of the meeting of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils held on Tuesday 10 July 2012.

PRESENT:

Borough Councillors: Councillor A R Martin Councillor Mrs A D Allen (Vice-Chairman) Councillor E J Lampkin Councillor M I Peters

Parish Councillors: Councillor A J Sakellariou Councillor Mrs I M Gutteridge (Chairman) Councillor J Burrell

Parish Clerks: Mrs J S Becket Mrs J Thomas Graham Blew

Dartford Borough Council Officers: Steve Brooks - Head of Finance and Resources Ken Follett - Civil Protection Manager Andrew Nichols – Building Control Manager David Hook – Member Services

Also Attending:

ABSENT: Councillor J A Kite, MBE Councillor V Openshaw Councillor Mrs J A Rickwood (Wilmington Parish) Councillor D Baker (JTB Rep.) Councillor B E Read (DBC) Mr Keith Holmes Mrs Tina Russell Mrs Kathryn Gale Mr Ian Armitt JP (Wilmington Parish Clerk)

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors: B E Read (DBC), J A Kite MBE (Longfield and New Barn Parish), V Openshaw (S>C), Mrs J A Rickwood (Wilmington Parish) and D Baker (JTB Rep.)

Apologies were also received from the Parish Clerks for: Darenth, Longfield and New Barn, Sutton-at-Hone & Hawley and Wilmington. 1 Agenda Item 20 Page 196 DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

TUESDAY 10 JULY 2012

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members received printed guidance detailing the categories of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Members should declare with effect from 1 July 2012, following legislative changes under the Localism Act.

Members also received printed guidance on prejudicial interests (other than a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest) pending adoption by the Council of a revised Member Code of Conduct.

No declarations were made.

3. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN FOR 2012/13 MUNICIPAL YEAR

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Ann Allen (DBC), nominated Councillor Mrs Iris Gutteridge (Darenth Parish Council) for election as Chairman of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils (the Association) for the ensuing 2012/13 municipal year. The nomination was seconded by Councillor Tony Martin (DBC).

There being no other nominations, Councillor Mrs Iris Gutteridge was duly elected Chairman of the Association for the ensuing municipal year.

Councillor Allen expressed her thanks to Councillor Gutteridge for her support as Vice-Chairman of the Association during the preceding municipal year (2011/12).

4. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2012/13 MUNICIPAL YEAR

Councillor Mrs Iris Gutteridge (Darenth Parish) assumed the Chairmanship and nominated Councillor Mrs Ann Allen (DBC) for election as Vice-Chairman of the Association for the ensuing 2012/13 municipal year. Councillor John Burrell (Stone Parish) seconded the nomination.

There being no other nominations, Councillor Mrs Ann Allen (DBC) was duly elected Vice-Chairman of the Association for the ensuing 2012/13 municipal year.

5. NOTE OF THE LAST MEETING

AGREED:

That the Note of the Dartford Association of Parish and Town Councils’ meeting held on 3 April 2012 be confirmed as accurate.

6. MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising from the Note of the Association meeting held on 3 April 2012. 2 Page 197 Agenda Item 20 DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

TUESDAY 10 JULY 2012

7. ADOPTION OF UPDATED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ASSOCIATION

Councillor Tony Martin (DBC) advised the meeting that following the recent resignation of Councillor De Winton as Chairman of Sutton-at-Hone & Hawley Parish Council, he was acting as Chairman of the Parish. The Parish Council was due to elect a new Chairman at their meeting on 19 July 2012. Following that election process, Councillor Martin said that the Parish Clerk would advise Member Services (DBC) of the Parish’s new representative to the Association.

In substantive debate of the draft Terms of Reference document (Item 7 Appendix A dated 10 July 2012); Councillor Ms Alison Sakellariou (Bean Parish) sought clarification over the proposal to award 2 (two) votes to the Borough Council. She noted that individual Parish Councils only received 1 (one) vote each under the draft ToRs.

Councillor Martin referred Members to para 3.5 of the covering report (Agenda p 9), which recorded the Leader of the Borough Council’s appreciation of Parish sensitivities on the matter of voting rights. He emphasised that what was proposed was in fact a reduction in the Borough Council’s voting powers to the Leader, Deputy Leader [or their nominees]. Under the new proposals the Parishes would obtain a majority voting position. However, he expressed the hope that voting on issues before the Association would continue to be rare, with matters being decided by discussion and common consensus.

Councillor Iris Gutteridge (Chairman, Darenth Parish) supported Councillor Martin in these views adding that, from its inception, the aim of the Association was to provide a forum for the discussion of common issues.

Following further discussion, the Chairman offered Parish Members the opportunity to defer a vote on the adoption of the draft ToR’s document, to enable further discussion of the proposals at individual Parish Council meetings. The consensus of the meeting was that adoption of the revised draft ToRs be put to the vote.

Upon being put to the vote the revised draft Terms of Reference for the Association dated 10 July 2012 were duly ADOPTED.

In response to a subsequent query from the Bean Parish Clerk; and in view of Councillor Allen’s election as Vice-Chairman of the DAPTC for the 2012/13 municipal year; Councillor Martin said that the responsibilities of Borough Members of the Association, together with their voting rights under the Association’s newly adopted ToRs (10 July 2012), would be clarified.

8. REFERENCE FROM CABINET - LOCALISING SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL TAX IN ENGLAND

The Head of Finance and Resources distributed an additional paper illustrating the calculation of the Council Tax Base for properties in 3 Agenda Item 20 Page 198 DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

TUESDAY 10 JULY 2012

Swanscombe & Greenhithe, including highlighted categories that would be subject to change under a Localisation of Support for Council Tax scheme.

He proposed that the meeting focus on the illustrative paper, rather than the fuller agenda papers (p 13–29); to better appreciate the impact on Parishes of the Government’s proposals. Principle points to note were:

• The current national scheme from Government to meet claims for council tax benefit will cease from 31 March 2013, to be replaced by a local scheme(s) from 1 April 2013; • Under current arrangements District Councils as billing authorities made “payments” to eligible council tax benefit claimants and recovered the full amount from Government by way of grant. This IN/OUT financial exercise posed no financial ‘risk’ [expenditure exceeding grant] for local authorities. Under the new arrangements the ‘risk’ of meeting council tax benefit claims would transfer to District Councils, major precepting authorities (e.g. KCC) and Parishes. Eligible claimants for council tax benefit under the new scheme would receive a “discount” on their council tax bill [rather than attracting a “payment” through grant to the council tax account]. This revision would effectively reduce the council tax base across all tiers of local authorities; • From 1 April 2013 the specific grant from Government to local authorities for council tax benefit would reduce by 10%, in addition to the cuts to general grant announced in the 2010 Spending Review; • The new local scheme for Dartford when agreed would be administered by the Council.

It was hoped to finalise a Scheme for consultation in the next few weeks. Further specific Government guidance was awaited from the DCLG and the agreed elements of a software package to model and run the new scheme was also awaited.

The Head of Finance and Resources undertook to return to update the DAPTC at their meeting on 9 October, before final proposals for a new Scheme were presented to Cabinet later that month.

9. LONDON 2012

Members received a verbal update from the Civil Protection Manager on Kent’s preparedness for the London 2012 Olympics, with particular emphasis for Dartford and the Town/Parishes.

Members were reminded of the following key dates for the Olympic and Paralympic Games:

• Olympics opening ceremony Friday 27 June 2012; • Olympics conclude on 12 August;

4 Page 199 Agenda Item 20 DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

TUESDAY 10 JULY 2012

• Paralympics would commence 29 August and conclude on 9 September 2012.

It was noted that the Olympic opening ceremony coincided with the week that schools broke up for the summer and where scheduled to continue during the second and third weeks of the school holiday period. The second week of the Paralympics being the week that pupils would be returning to school. Both periods had the potential to seriously impact on road congestion levels with increased holiday traffic and the resumption of ‘school-run’ activity respectively.

Members were advised that the Council’s civil contingency planning had concentrated on business continuity; i.e. trying to maintain ‘business as usual’ throughout both Games periods for both the private and public sectors. Principal factors affecting business continuity included:

• Depleted staffing levels through staff; attending the Games, helping at the Games, watching the Games at home or generally on A/L during the Summer holiday period; • Travelling times for staff (and customers) and the need to review business opening hours and increased working from home where IT constraints permitted; • The visitor impact for businesses in North Kent.

Olympic visitor impact on North West Kent was expected to “peak” in the middle weekend of the Olympic programme. For working residents in particular, the Thursday/Friday and Monday/Tuesday periods of the middle week had the potential to be particularly busy in terms of traffic congestion and disruption. Identified traffic hotspots in the Dartford locality were the Pepperhill / Ebbsfleet interchange and the A2 corridor (London – bound) during the morning peak period.

Traffic and parking arrangements at Ebbsfleet Station were the combined responsibility of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), National Car Parks (NCP), HighSpeed1 and South East Trains.

NCP was responsible for parking arrangements at Ebbsfleet International (the designated station for Olympic events at Stratford). Specific parking measures being deployed for the Olympic period included: • a guaranteed place for SE Trains season ticket holders working during the Games period; • 4,000 parking spaces in total with 3,500 spaces for games ticket- holders on a pre-book basis; • Within the 3,500 spaces a further reserve of 500 places for p.m. / evening parking, to help alleviate any traffic tail-back to the Pepperhill / Ebbsfleet interchange; • The Ebbsfleet car park would be monitored on a continuous daily basis, given the expectation that Games ticket-holders arriving in the

5 Agenda Item 20 Page 200 DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

TUESDAY 10 JULY 2012

morning would park for the day and attend further attractions in London after attending the Games; • Additional parking had now been identified at the former AEI Cables site in Gravesend for a further 3,500 cars and 200 coaches. Customers using the former AEI site would be provided with a shuttle- bus service to Ebbsfleet International, for their onward journey to Games venues in Stratford and elsewhere.

Further specific points noted in subsequent discussion included:

• 1 of the 3 lanes on the A2 approach to the Blackwall tunnel would be dedicated to Olympic traffic from 6 am to Midnight on a daily basis during the Games period; • The Dartford MP, KCC and DBC were all lobbying Government for the suspension of tolls at the Dartford River Crossing during the Games; • Tolls for the Dartford Bridge / Tunnel remained in place at the moment despite similar lobbying. However, it had been agreed to reduce the queue length criteria on both sides of the river which triggered free tolls i.e. Junction 28 out to 29 on the North and Junction 4 to 3 on the South side; • KCC Highways were installing a yellow box-junction at the Princes Park roundabout exit at Junction 1B from the M25, to aid traffic flow for Darenth Hospital and other through traffic exiting the M25 for Ebbsfleet; • Selected residential streets in Dartford would be sign-posted as vehicle tow-away zones, attracting £200 fines under the Olympic Act; • Preferential rail travel to Olympics’ ticket holders would extend as far as Crayford station, impacting on local commuters;

Members were advised that the Council’s Emergency Centre would be operational for the duration of the Games between 27 July and 12 August. All relevant staff had been trained and the Emergency Plan deemed ‘fit for purpose’. DBC staff would report twice-daily to KCC colleagues who would report in turn to the Cabinet Office structure within central government. The operational ‘Gold Command’ for the Games would reside with the Metropolitan Police, with the Government’s Cobra Committee convened as appropriate and the Council Leader briefed as required.

In concluding his remarks, the Civil Protection Manager advised Members that; with the exception of the tolls issue at the Dartford River Crossing which remained at Red alert status; all other civil contingency measures within his control for Ebbsfleet parking, traffic congestion and illegal parking in Dartford and the Town/Parishes, had now reached a satisfactory Amber/Green operating status. He added that access to Kent from the Estuary from an armada of sailing and other small craft (particularly from Holland), would be policed comprehensively by the Port of London Authority, the Metropolitan Police and the Armed Forces. Following a NW Europe advertising campaign, visitors had been warned that all moorings must be pre-booked with daily patrols of the Kent fore-shore (Amber status) being undertaken to enforce measures.

6 Page 201 Agenda Item 20 DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

TUESDAY 10 JULY 2012

The Chairman thanked the Civil Protection Manager for his further update to Members and for all his advice and help to the Parishes in the past. On behalf of the Association, Councillor Gutteridge wished Ken Follett every success for the future in anticipation of his retirement from the Council, at the conclusion of the London Games.

10. BUILDING CONTROL REGULATIONS

Members received a presentation from the Building Control Manager (DBC), covering the nine essential functions of building control:

• Encourage innovation to produce energy efficient and sustainable building: • Support local, regional and national business; • Educate and inform building professionals, contractors and trades people; • Defend vulnerable communities and householders; • Drive out dangerous cheats and rogue traders; • Safeguard the investments of individuals and companies; • Enhance access for disabled, sick, young and old people; • Protect the community from dangerous structures; • Ensure sports grounds and public venues are safe for crowds.

Members also received a hard copy of the presentation.

The Chairman thanked the Building Control Manager for a comprehensive and enlightening presentation on an important element of the Council’s operations.

11. "SHORT BURST" ITEMS

No “Short Burst” items were proposed for discussion.

12. WORK PLAN 2012/13

Members were invited to suggest items for consideration, at future meetings of the Association.

9 October 2012

The Deputy Leader proposed that in preference to the published items; given the implications for Parish finances and their budget setting; Members instead receive a further update from the Head of Finance and Resources on:

a) Localising Support for Council Tax in England; b) The early results of a review into the method of distributing Section 136 contributions to Parishes.

7 Agenda Item 20 Page 202 DARTFORD ASSOCIATION OF PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS

TUESDAY 10 JULY 2012

Councillor Martin confirmed that DBC Officers were currently looking at the options and implications for the above following the implementation of the Government’s Localising Support for Council Tax legislation and would be undertaking modelling exercises on the various fiscal scenarios possible and their implications for Parish/Town finances. He said that he was anxious that any review on S136 monies was shared with Parishes at an early stage in their budget making process. He also mentioned that there may be some role for the DAPTC acting in an advisory capacity to the Council suggesting areas in which some S136 money may be spent and wanted to explore this further with the group before any decisions are made.

AGREED:

1. That Members receive a further update from the Head of Finance and Resources at the next DAPTC meeting on 9 October 2012 concerning: • Localising Support for Council Tax in England • Reduction in Section 136 Monies to Parishes.

The Member Services Officer was asked to re-schedule the published Work Programme accordingly.

13. DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS

AGREED:

1. That the next meeting of the Association would take place at 7:00pm on 9 October 2012 ;

2. That future meetings be held on:-

Tuesday 15 January 2013 Tuesday 9 April 2013

The meeting closed at 8.59 pm

Councillor Mrs I Gutteridge CHAIRMAN

8