AGENDA
EXTERNAL OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEETING
Date: Tuesday 11 August 2009 Time: 6.30 pm Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone
Councillors Hotson (Chairman), Marchant, Mrs Gibson, Mrs Parvin (Vice- Chairman), Paterson, Sherreard, Batt and Yates
Page No .
1. The Committee to consider whether all items on the agenda should be web-cast.
2. Apologies.
3. Notification of Substitute Members.
4. Notification of Visiting Members.
Continued Over/: Issued on 30 July 2009
The reports inc luded in Part I of this agenda can be made available in alternative formats . For further information about this service, or to arrange for special facilities to be provided at the meeting, please contact Louise Smith on 01622 602524 . To find out more about the work of the Committee, please visit www.digitalmaidstone.co.uk
David Petford, Chief Executive, Maidstone Borough Council, Maidstone House, King Street, Maidstone Kent ME15 6JQ
5. Disclosures by Members and Officers: a) Disclosures of interest. b) Disclosures of lobbying. c) Disclosures of whipping.
6. To consider whether any items should be taken in private because of the possible disclosure of exempt information.
7. Minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2009. 1 - 12
8. Maidstone Rail Services Review : An Officer's Perspective. 13 - 26 Interview with Brian Morgan, the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy; and Clive Cheeseman, the Public Transport Officer.
9. Maidstone Rail Services Review: A Member's Perspective. 27 - 28 Interview with Councillor Robertson, the Council’s Railway Champion.
10. Maidstone Railways Review: Scoping. 29 - 32
11. Future Wo rk Programme and Forward Plan of Key 33 - 42 Decisions.
Agenda Item 7
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE EXTERNAL OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 14 JULY 2009
PRESENT: Councillor Hotson (Chairman) Councillors Marchant, Paterson, Sherreard, Batt, Yates, Butler and Nelson-Gracie
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence was received from Councillors Gibson and Mrs Parvin.
22. Web-casting
Resolved:
That all items on the agenda be web-cast.
23. Notification of Substitute Members.
It was noted that Councillors Butler and Nelson-Gracie were substituting for Councillors Mrs Gibson and Mrs Parvin respectively.
24. Notification of Visiting Members.
Councillors FitzGerald and Warner were present as visiting members. Councillor FitzGerald requested to speak on Agenda Item 9, “Railway Services Review”.
25. Disclosures by Members and Officers:
There were no disclosures.
26. To consider whether any items should be taken in private because of the possible disclosure of exempt information.
Resolved:
That all items be taken in public as proposed.
27. Minutes of the Meeting Held on 16 June 2009.
With regard to the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2009 it was requested that the second paragraph of page five be clarified to read ‘In response to a question regarding the potential loss of the Council’s ‘golden share’ of Maidstone Housing Trust shares, Councillor Garland explained…’
A Member enquired as to the progress of minute number 18, resolution (a). The Chairman informed the Committee that a letter had been written to the Chief Executive outlining the Committee’s concerns with regard to
1 1 resources for Overview and Scrutiny. The Chairman had been informed that officers had produced a work schedule, which showed that subject to no additional work load, resources would be adequate until the end of 2009. Further information would be provided with regard to this matter at the Committee’s next meeting.
Resolved:
That; a. The minutes of the meeting of 16 June be agreed, subject to the amendment of the second paragraph of page five, to read;
‘In response to a question regarding the potential loss of the Council’s ‘golden share’ of Maidstone Housing Trust shares, Councillor Garland explained…’
b. The Committee be provided with an update as to resources for overview and scrutiny at its next meeting.
28. Sustainable Community Strategy Consultation.
The Chairman introduced Dr Speight to the Committee and reminded Members that Dr Speight had written to the Council identifying concerns with regard to the production, and particularly the consultation process, of the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). Members were informed that at their last meeting the Leader of the Council had informed Dr Speight that the development of the SCS was an ongoing process and his opinions would be considered during revision of the Strategy.
Dr Speight informed Members that he had submitted a 25 page response to the SCS consultation which had been received by the Council on the last day of public consultation. He was of the impression that inappropriate haste and pressure to deliver the Strategy had resulted in a number of errors and omissions. Appendix A outlines the argument presented to the Committee by Dr Speight.
The Community Planning Co-ordinator, Jim Boot, introduced himself to the Committee as the editor and substantial author of the Strategy. He informed Members that due to the complexity of the Strategy he had worked closely with a number of officers, in particular the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy, Brian Morgan to facilitate its development. Members were informed that government guidance for the production of the Strategy had not been released until July 2008 and had not been tested by other authorities.
Mr Boot identified that 81% of people who responded to the final public consultation on the draft SCS were supportive of the vision and objectives outlined in the Strategy. Nevertheless, he thanked Mr Speight for his comments and recognised the benefit of robust debate and having a member of the public acting as a ‘critical friend.’
22 In response to a question concerning the time scales of the final consultation process, Mr Boot informed the Committee that producing a consultation summary of the draft SCS, following its agreement at Cabinet on 11 th February, took longer than expected. Therefore public Consultation was only able take place over three weeks. However, the Committee was informed that Parish Councils and voluntary organisations, of which there were approximately 250, had been invited to view the papers online as soon as they were put on deposit in February, therefore these groups had roughly eight weeks to consider the SCS. Additionally, consultation with the public had been carried out over a protracted period of 15 months throughout the development of the document. For example, two focus groups had been run by IPSOS MORI in December 2007 and March 2009, and all the Parish plans published in the last five years had been drawn upon. An initial ‘Stick up for Maidstone’ consultation had been carried out throughout the previous summer, at a wide range of locations, including the Chequers shopping centre, the River festival, Maidstone Mela, Kent County Show and Peace One Day. The police’s Partnerships and Communities Together consultation and Place Survey had also been utilised. In addition numerous workshops had taken place with interested groups.
Dr Speight identified that the final consultation covered a period of 18 days. He questioned whether the timing of the consultation had been selected to avoid the newly legislated ‘Duty to Involve’ which came into force from 1 April 2009, and which would have involved Maidstone Borough Council in dealing with local representatives and perhaps even setting up a panel of citizens. He expressed a belief that not only his own, but also a number of responses from others obtained throughout the consultation period, did not receive the consideration.
Mr Boot responded by informing the Committee that the Duty to Involve had not been a factor in the shortened consultation period. However, there had been a requirement to meet deadlines within the Council’s Forward Plan which had already been the subject of delay. He noted further that there would be scope for the Strategy to be refreshed annually. It was also stated that the Strategy should be seen as an evolving process, as opposed to a fixed document. In the meantime any essential corrections could be included in a summary of the Strategy which was to be published within the Downs Mail in September. A Plain English version of the full strategy was also to be published at approximately the same time. The overwhelming public response to the document had been positive.
A Member commented that the Committee should have noticed the changes to the proposed and actual consultation dates in addition to checking that the amendments suggested by the Committee had been added to the document. A Member also commented that this raised concern with regard to the amount of time given to Members and the general public to consider such documents. It was requested that at the revision of the SCS, the comments of Dr Speight be used to amend the document, and Dr Speight be invited to present any further comments to Mr Boot. A Councillor identified the importance of ensuring comments
3 3 such as Mr Speight’s were taken into account to increase good public relations.
A Member recommended that Dr Speight’s letter be sent to the Committee, Cabinet and Corporate Management Team to raise their awareness of potential problems with the consultation process.
With regard to consultation, Members considered that consultation deadlines should not be shortened in order to meet deadlines, and that there should be a clear gap between the end of the consultation period and the publication of the document to allow time to work consultation responses into the document. The Chairman informed Members that the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be looking at the Council’s consultation protocols later in the year, and recommended that these comments be referred to that committee to inform its review.
Resolved:
That
a) Dr Speight’s presentation be forwarded to the Committee, Cabinet and Corporate Management Team for information; and b) the Committee recommends that the Corporate Services OSC, as part of its review of the Council’s consultation mechanisms, considers: i. Enforcing a delay between the end of the consultation period and the publication of the report; and ii. That adhering to stated consultation periods should take precedence over meeting stated deadlines for reports.
29. Railway Services Review.
The Chairman introduced Laura Cloke, the Chair of Maidstone and Bearsted Rail Users Association; and Mathew Nash, of Keep Our Trains, to the Committee. He outlined that the Committee would be investigating Maidstone’s rail services as a whole and would not only be focusing on the removal of the fast service from Maidstone East to Cannon Street but would also consider the efficiency of services more generally.
Mr Nash informed the Committee that there were two main services into London via Maidstone; the first was to west London, via London Victoria and the second was to Charing Cross via Cannon Street and London Bridge. The fast service to Cannon Street ran from Maidstone during the off peak and ‘shoulder peak’ times. He informed Members that the average journey between Maidstone and London Bridge took approximately 48 minutes. To travel via London Victoria, however would increase this journey time to between an hour and a half and two hours, which was particularly difficult for commuters to London, who would typically work until 7pm. Mr Nash stressed the likelihood that this would discourage businesses and people from locating in the Maidstone area,
44 and may force existing residents and business to relocate to areas with more efficient rail services.
Members were told by Mr Nash that he did not find out about the removal of the service from Southeastern, who he considered to have been secretive about the proposal, but rather from a member of the West Malling Rail Users Association. Once he knew of the proposals he sought to begin a petition with regard to the service cuts. Over 1,200 signatures had been collected. He met with Ann Widdecombe MP who suggested lobbying the Secretary of Transport, which had been done. A meeting had been held with Ann Widdecombe, the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy and representatives of Southeastern. The most likely chance of success was to ensure the Department for Transport (DfT) was aware of the opposition towards the proposal. Members were also informed that a list of email contacts had been collated.
The Committee was informed that the DfT outlined minimum standards which rail operators were required to meet, including particular service requirements. The fast service to Cannon Street via Maidstone was not required by the DfT, nor was the High Speed 1 service which was to operate from Kent into London. No subsidy was available from the DfT to Southeastern for these services. A Member requested that the Committee be provided with details of the requirements the DfT made for services which ran through Maidstone.
Mr Nash informed Members that Keep Our Trains was of the impression that service usage figures produced by Southeastern were misrepresentative. He noted that a significant proportion of commuters drove to stations such as Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Paddock Wood because services were often more frequent, faster and more cost effective. Nevertheless, had services from Maidstone been more efficient, commuters would wish to travel from there. Keep Our Trains and the Rail Users Association for the area were undertaking a user survey in attempt to demonstrate this.
Ms Cloke identified that Maidstone had not previously had a rail users association, allowing Southeastern more opportunity to ignore concerns of the local commuters. The Maidstone and Bearsted Rail Users Association had been running for approximately six weeks. The Association was to continue running permanently and was to allow passenger to express views regarding all areas of rail services.
The Committee was reminded that the closing date of consultations for both the removal of the fast service to Cannon Street and all other proposals outlined within the Kent Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) was the 23 July 2009. Keep Our Trains had already submitted its response with regard to its opposition to the removal of the fast Cannon Street service. The Chairman informed the Committee that the Council had responded to the RUS through Ann Widdecombe and had also submitted a response to the DfT from the Council itself. A Councillor suggested that Hugh Robertson MP and members of the European Parliament should also be involved.
5 5
Councillor FitzGerald, who belonged to the Kent Rail Community Partnership, outlined how these proposals may also impact upon the Medway Valley Line. These are set out within Appendix B. It was requested that this information be forwarded to the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy to be incorporated into the Council’s response to the Kent Rail Utilisation Strategy.
Mr Nash identified that it was possible that the expansion of the rail service to Blackfriars would enable additional services into London via Maidstone, however he was of the opinion that this service would not be frequent enough and was not particularly convenient as there was no underground service from Blackfriars. The Committee raised concern that there appeared to be a lack of a strategic plan with regard to integrated transport for Maidstone and suggested that this be looked into.
The Committee requested that contact be maintained with Keep Our Trains and the Rail Users Association and that a letter be sent to them indicating the Committee’s support for its work.
Resolved:
That;
a) The information provided by Councillor Mike FitzGerald and gathered during the interview be forwarded to the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy to be incorporated into the Council’s response to the Kent Rail Utilisation Strategy; b) Keep Our Trains be kept informed of the Committee’s work on rail services in Maidstone; c) The Department for Transport’s minimum standards for rail services serving Maidstone be obtained; d) The Committee supports the campaign to keep services between Maidstone East and Cannon Street, and a letter stating this be sent to Keep Our Trains.
30. Sustainable Communities Act.
The Director of Prosperity and Regeneration, Alison Broom, informed the Committee that the Sustainable Communities Act (SCA) had been introduced in 2007, but had received considerable attention within the Council in April 2009. On 21 May 2009, the Cabinet had made decisions as to how it would respond to the legislation. The purpose of the Act was to allow for amendment of who holds power over various issues, or in order to enable the amendment or enactment of legislation so as to enable a request to be carried out.
Three routes were devised by Council via which the SCA could be used. The first was where an outcome or objective of the Sustainable
66 Community Strategy would not be achievable using current legislation. The second was where an individual or group of residents put forward a proposal, and the final arose if an issue was already being pursued by another Council. An application would then be subject to two conditions. The first was that the Council must consult on the issue. The second was that it must be demonstrated that the application was an efficient use of resources, because promoting change through the SCA was an onerous process and would be resource-intensive, therefore the outcome needed to be very strong.
Members were informed that a consultation panel was to be established in conjunction with the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP). The Act was to be publicised in the August edition of the Borough Update and the Regeneration and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee was to be invited to consider proposals as part of their future work programme. A Member raised concern that consultation with the LSP would not necessarily be appropriate, as the extent to which they represented the general public was questionable. Mrs Broom responded by stating that it was not the LSP board that would be consulted, but rather the wider LSP membership. In response to a question the Committee was informed that a member of the Communications Team would produce the Borough Update and it would be written in Plain English. It was requested that the Committee be provided with a copy of the article prior to its publication.
Mrs Broom informed the Committee that the SCA was only one method of ensuring that community involvement was satisfied. The Council’s culture and attitude towards involvement, in response to the white paper ‘Communities in Control’, had been reviewed to ensure the Council consulted adequately and that sufficient information was provided to the general public. The SCA provided only one possible solution for increasing involvement. The Local Government Act 2000, for example, outlined that wel-lbeing powers could be used to carry out objectives outlined within the SCS. A Member identified that Neighbourhood forums, for example, could also be used to encourage community involvement.
Mrs Broom informed the Committee that no applications under the Act would be made by the July 2009 deadline. It was unknown whether a new deadline would become available in October, but it was suspected that an annual deadline was to be established. Members were told that all Parish Councils had been made aware of the legislation but had not made any proposals for its use. It was requested that a letter be sent on behalf of the Committee to Councillors J A Wilson and English, in their roles as Chairman and Secretary of the Kent Association of Local Councils, to encourage parish councils to come forward with proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act.
A Member questioned whether the legislation could be used in order to allow the Council to have powers to build the Leeds and Langley bypass, and whether the Council could obtain the power to set the minimum requirements that the DfT currently set with regard to rail services within Maidstone. Mrs Broom identified that the powers already existed within
7 7 highways and planning legislation to build new infrastructure, however the support of Kent County Council was critical, particularly with regard to funding the project. She was, however, unsure as to the extent of power outlined within legislation with regard to rail services and would gather further information about this issue and report back to the Committee. It was also questioned whether the Act could be utilised to address concerns which had been raised with regard to the new Pembury hospital and access to it, via Colts Hill. Mrs Broom clarified that the legislation was not a tool for amending decisions which the public thought were inappropriate.
The Committee recommended that an update of the Council’s use of the SCA be provided in six months.
Resolved:
That;
a) The Director of Prosperity and Regeneration be invited to provide a further update in 6 months; b) The Director of Prosperity and Regeneration report back to the Committee on whether the Sustainable Communities Act could be used to establish minimum standards for rail services in place of those set by the Department for Transport; c) The Borough Update entry with regard to the Sustainable Communities Act be sent to the Committee prior to publication; and d) A letter be sent on behalf of the Committee to Councillor J A Wilson and English, in their roles as Chairman and Secretary of the Kent Association of Local Councils, to encourage parish councils to come forward with proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act.
31. Community Safety Statistics.
Resolved:
That the Committee note the Community Safety statistics.
32. Future Work Programme and Forward Plan of Key Decisions.
The Committee was provided with a written update on the mental health review. Members were informed that the group had met with a representative of the Kent Local Involvement Network (LINk) at its last meeting, with whom they intended to keep in close contact. It was requested that an update of the review be given at each Committee meeting. A Member informed the Committee that Age Concern was in the process of introducing a day centre in which elderly people with mental health problems could receive care to enable careers to have a rest period.
88 The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager informed the Committee that she had met with Chief Superintendent Hope to discuss scrutiny of the Safer Maidstone Partnership (SMP). He had been keen to have two meetings a year with the Committee although requested that one of these be during the day. The Committee agreed, provided that adequate notice be given with regard to day time meetings. The Committee was informed that the first SMP scrutiny meeting would be on 7 th September and that this would replace the Committee’s meeting which was originally scheduled for the 15 th September.
It was questioned whether the Committee wished to co-opt a Member or an Officer from Kent Police Authority (KPA) onto the Committee. It was agreed that the Committee be provided with further information on the KPA and provide the Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager with a response by Friday 24 th July.
Resolved
That;
a) An update on the progress of the Mental Health Services review be provided at each meeting; b) A representative of the Kent Police Authority be co-opted onto the Committee when scrutiny of the Safer Maidstone Partnership is carried out; c) The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager send information on membership of the Kent Police Authority to the Committee, and that Members respond by 24 July 2009 as to whether they consider an officer or member of the KPA to be the most appropriate co-optee for scrutiny of the Safer Maidstone Partnership; and d) One of the meetings each year to scrutinise the Safer Maidstone Partnership be held during office hours.
33. Appendix A
Presentation to meeting of External OSC, 14th July 2009 – Dr. J.M. Speight
I don’t intend to go into the detail of my 25-page submission. That’s not the issue. In any case, Members may recall – Councillor Garland, at the last meeting of this committee, not only remarked on the worth of my contribution, but also indicated that much of what I have had to say may well find its way into subsequent versions of what he described as an evolving document. This is some, albeit small, measure of a consolation. Mr. Boot had previously said something along similar lines, though perhaps not quite as definitive.
My letter spells out the nub of my complaint, outlining the history and other details of the foreshortening of the public consultation.
9 9 Unquestionably, in the later dealings, pressure to deliver the Strategy was brought to bear, resulting in inappropriate haste. Haste is the key-word. It’s vitally important to recognise the consequences of the rush to get the Sustainable Community Strategy onwards to acceptance by Full Council.
The unhealthy rapid progression to approval by Cabinet involved a substantial number of omissions – not only regard for my contribution, but also amendments agreed by Cabinet on 11th February and/or External Scrutiny on 17th February. Very briefly these were:
• targets for affordable homes, • the target for bringing empty properties back into use, • the number of houses built since 2004, • assessment of Maidstone and Tonbridge wells NHS Trust’s management of its finances, • the phrase ‘smaller market towns’, • removal of a reference to the Leeds and Langley bypass.
None of these was undertaken in the Consultation Draft. And , despite most being marked for correction in the Track Changes version of the Strategy presented to Cabinet on 8th April, they were not implemented in the final version. So there they are – minor though some may be, still slip-ups.
There was a number of other premature amendments to the document, dating as far back as 25th March. Unfortunately, I have not the time to delve into these here. I say premature because it is hardly right and proper that alterations are made before the import of the total consultative process is assessed. Time was needed for this.
Time was also a factor as regards analysis of responses to the twelve – very important – key actions . These were ranked in order of preference as early as 1st April. I am led to believe that the input from 20 respondents, who used the online toolkit (and possibly another 4 who used other means), was not included. Although an updated version of the results incorporating these was presented to Cabinet, this did not make it to the final document. And so, it appears that I am not the only one whose views were left out.
Turning now to dealings by Full Council. The fact that Councillor Horne’s comment regarding the absence of appendices fell on so many deaf ears is only part of the story. All fifty Councillors, who attended the meeting of Full Council on 22nd April, missed glaring errors and failings in what little background material was put before them. If they had digested the Report from Cabinet they would have spotted, for example, the statement [I quote]:
• “Maidstone Borough Council adopted the draft SCS for consultation purposes on 11th February.”
1010 On 11th February, the consultation draft was approved by Cabinet, not Council. This was a regurgitation of what was presented equally incorrectly to Cabinet on 8th April. I leave you to come to your own conclusions.
It was by far and away the worst of a number of flawed statements, others of which were unintelligible transcriptions of what had earlier been reported to Cabinet. No Councillor queried what, in parts, was the nonsense presented to them.
With dismay, then, I have to say that, throughout, not a lot of attention was given by individuals or groups or partners to ensure that things were handled properly. This does not augur well for the efficacy of engagement generally.
If more time had been allowed for people like myself to unearth omissions in the draft strategy (that is to say the full 6 weeks), and if more time had been taken by all concerned post-consultation to comprehensively assess all the input, then quite possibly a lot of the shortcomings would not have occurred.
More haste, less fulfilment, less accuracy, and less accountability, I would say. Where partnerships are involved, MBC should be very concerned on its own behalf. Acting as lead means that, for all participants, it must be beyond reproach.
34. Appendix B
Presentation by Councillor Mike FitzGerald – Kent Rail Community Partnership
Medway Valley Line We accept that there is at present insufficient demand to justify 2 trains per hour (Option 7.3) between Maidstone West and Paddock Wood/Tonbridge during the off peak although we believe that current peak hour service levels are too low. However, we are also conscious that possible housing and industrial development of the old Syngenta site adjacent to Yalding Station would boost traffic to some degree. We also wonder what demand might be created for passengers to access HS1 services at Strood or even Maidstone West in future. We believe this option should be kept under review. (Please note that extension of services from Paddock Wood to Tonbridge in December will only apply off- peak).
We are disappointed that you have not fully investigated Option 8.4. We understand the view that a Strood to London Bridge service via Tonbridge and Redhill would be fragile, but we wonder what the demand for a through service to London Bridge from stations between Tonbridge and Redhill actually is? Passengers at Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Redhill have frequent trains to London on other routes. A through service from Strood to Redhill would provide improved connections to Gatwick from Kent and opportunities from Tonbridge and beyond to access HS1 services with
11 11 fewer connections. Is there any evidence to say which market would be greater? There would be a further benefit in that such a service pattern would reduce platform occupancy at Tonbridge Station.
The Kent CRP strongly supports proposals to extend St Pancras – Ebbsfleet services to Maidstone West. As the County Town and main administrative Centre of Kent, Maidstone does not benefit from HS1 services currently being implemented and is also losing direct services on classic routes to London. Direct services to St Pancras would go a long way to correcting this anomaly. We do not agree that Aylesford should be the intermediate stop for any such services. Although there has certainly been a good deal of new housing in the area, there has been more in the New Hythe area and we would recommend that if HS1 services were to have an intermediate stop between Maidstone West and Strood it should be at Snodland. Snodland is already the busiest intermediate station between Maidstone and Strood and may benefit from additional car parking in the near future. By contrast, there is almost no car parking at Aylesford.
Journey Opportunities Para 7.3.15 (4 th bullet point). We wish to see improved connections from Kent to and from Gatwick (see above) and there is strong community support for this, but we also recognise that shift patterns of airport staff and flight schedules mean that in order to really compete with cars and taxis, rail services would need to operate almost 24 hours a day and we accept that this is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Never-the-less, there is a need to develop routes and journey opportunities other than those radiating from London both for their own sake and also to relieve the pressure on the London Terminals and their approaches.
35. Duration of the Meeting.
6:30 p.m. to 8:58 p.m.
1212 Agenda Item 8
Maidstone Borough Council
External Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday 11 August 2009
Maidstone Rail Services Review
Report of: Overview and Scrutiny Officer
1. Introduction
1.1 At its meeting on 16 June, the External OSC agreed to carry out a review of rail services within the Maidstone Borough area. The relevant extract from the minutes is as follows:
‘The Committee agreed to carry out a review of rail services to London, noting that these were being cut and residents were being forced to use alternative train stations to access services. Additionally, Maidstone was a Growth Point and appropriate public transport for the growing population was therefore vital. It was agreed that parish councils should be consulted as part of this review.’
1.2 At its previous meeting the Committee noted that the review would include all aspects of the rail services, such as the adequacy of station facilities and the provision of services within the rural areas.
1.3 At the last meeting of the Committee, Members discussed the Kent Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) Consultation, in particular proposals to:
• Cut services via London Bridge (due to the withdrawal of the off-peak one train per hour fast Cannon Street services, in the current off-peak timetable); • Cut direct trains between Maidstone and Canterbury, from December 2009; • Not provide adequate connection between Maidstone and Ebbsfleet International; and • Not improve the Medway valley in order to improve the journey time between Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells.
The Council has now submitted its response to the RUS (attached at Appendix A), and has identified that the proposals of Network Rail are insufficient for Maidstone. Kent County Council also responded to the RUS Consultation; the response is attached at Appendix B. KCC’s response outlines that Maidstone is the only major town within Kent that is to experience cuts to its rail service.
1.4 The Committee will be interviewing Brian Morgan, the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy; and Clive Cheeseman, the Public Transport Officer, who led on the Council’s
13 response to Network Rail’s RUS consultation. Mr Morgan and Mr Cheeseman are also the Council’s key officers involved in rail services issues for Maidstone Borough.
2. Recommended :
2.1 The Committee should consider the work that has been carried out so far, and future work that has been planned by the Council, with regard to raising the standard of the rail services for the Borough. The Committee should identify where it will be able to add value to the work of the Council whilst carrying out its review of rail services.
14
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
G
159
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
1610
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
1711
- ++ - " .*+ 2 +++ - " +, " , 2 + -""-- 0 , + ./+- , 0 ++ " 0 "2"7 " "2 +" 1 . + , " 0 - +" ; + , - " +7 . +, " - + ++ + 0 - + + +./ + , + 3 - 0 -+ . / "+,0 -++"0 -+ + " , - + + 0 "-- .*+O - P - 0 ,"" " 0+. + 0 0 ++ " - + + + + 0 - +" , - .+ 0 " . *+ ++" 1 + -+ G- + + * + -+ , ./- , 0 " + 0 + + --+" , 0" " ,0 "./ +- + " + , "+ , 0 " ++ 0 " 0 . /, " "+ -- ,
, "- 20 + +" " +3 " , ,+ ./+ 3/ " + + + " , +.+ " + , 0 " - ,"" 2 "--" 2 " "" " . 2 ( 0* ! #8))8 3333 M" . ,.
G
1812 Appendix B
Kent RUS Consultation Response Environment, Highways and Waste RUS Programme Manager Directorate Network Rail, Floor 4 Integrated Strategy and Planning Division Kings Place Invicta House 90 York Way County Hall London N1 9AG Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX Tel: 01622 221612 Fax: 01622 221635 Email: [email protected] Ask for: Mick Sutch Your Ref: Our Ref: Date: 23 July 2009
Dear Sir
Kent RUS: Response from Kent County Council
Thank you for the opportunity for the County Council to respond to the draft RUS and for the extensive consultation we have been offered over the development of the RUS to date. We also welcome the inclusion of the recommendations of the County Council’s Select Committee in the RUS document.
The County Council welcomes the publication of the draft RUS – particularly the early chapters and the comprehensive information given in the Current Demand, Capability and Delivery chapter. However, it is considered that the Planning Context chapter should be brought up to date with inclusion of the household growth figures from the South East Plan for the whole of Kent and with mention of Maidstone and Dover being designated Growth Points and Ebbsfleet and Dover as regional transport hubs (para 5.2.4 and first bullet point of Figure 5.5). These latest projections should be used for modelling future passenger demand.
We note that it is intended to publish the final Kent RUS early next year and to produce a broader London and the South East RUS later in 2010. It is essential that these documents fully reflect the impact of the changed timetable from this December and in particular the performance of the High Speed domestic trains. There is also a need to keep the RUS’s refreshed to take into account not only the changing timetable but also the objectives of the Government’s High Level Output Statement which will lead up to the Transport White Paper at the end of 2012.
The current financial climate is uncertain but high levels of funding rail enhancements are essential to attract people out of the private car. It is therefore necessary for franchise periods to be increased
19 so that the Train Operating Companies can contribute more to infrastructure improvements on the rail network and see a return of their investments.
Although the RUS mainly concentrates on proposals beyond 2014, early developments are mentioned in the document and comments on these proposals are made below:
December 2009 Timetable
Overall, the County Council recognises that the timetable proposals from December represents a significant improvement with more trains running in the peak periods, reduced journey times from east and north Kent and a reversal of many of the cuts in classic services which were proposed by the SRA/DfT in 2005. We particularly welcome that journey times on the High Speed services to and from Canterbury and Folkestone will be under an hour and hope and expect that the new high speed services will be successful.
However, the proposed cuts in services between London and Maidstone and West Malling/Kings Hill are very hard to accept. The Maidstone East Route has long been the Cinderella service on the South Eastern network – slow, infrequent and often with inappropriate rolling stock. With the renaissance of rail in the rest of the County the service to Maidstone should be made better and not worse. Maidstone is the only major town in the County to have a proposed reduction in services, yet is the County Town, a regional transport hub and a Growth Point. Kings Hill is a very successful business park containing many multi-national companies which need good links to the City and also has many residents who also wish to travel to the London Bridge/Blackfriars/Cannon Street area.
Yet, from December, the proposals are to cut the services to Cannon Street/Charing Cross leaving only two trains up to Blackfriars in the am peak and one back in the evening with all others trains going to and from Victoria. We are aware of discussions being held between the Department for Transport and Southeastern and hope and expect that the restoration of at least the most popular trains can be achieved.
Control Period 4 (CP4) to March 2014
Beyond the changes mentioned above, the RUS outlines the expected improvements for the end of CP4 including the introduction of more longer trains to Sevenoaks/Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone so that most of the peak hour trains serving those stations will be extended to 12 and 8 carriages respectively. This development is welcomed to contain overcrowding levels, but it is noted that the average volume to seat ratio on services between Tunbridge Wells and London via Tonbridge and Sevenoaks remains far in excess of 80% in 2019 despite these measures.
The inclusion of a scheme for the improvement of Gravesend Station to enable it to handle 12 car trains and to accommodate a possible extension of Crossrail to Kent is welcomed, but there is a
20 need for this scheme to progress quickly to enable integration with the proposals for the Gravesend Transport Quarter.
Control Period 5 (CP5) April 2014 – March 2019
Overall, it is disappointing that, beyond the known commitment of the Thameslink service, the proposed schemes recommended for implementation or for further development are so limited in scope. These proposals are for either train lengthening or extending the reach of the High Speed services and there are no significant infrastructure works to increase capacity in Kent, such as the four-tracking of the section of railway between Dartford and Slade Green or the Rochester Bridge Junction.
Longer Trains
The only new recommendation for implementation is for all peak hour trains on the Chatham and Maidstone lines to be 12 and 8 cars long during CP5, with the possibility of extending train lengths in the shoulder peak (ie the other two hours in the total three hour peak period) to the maximum length allowable. This is welcomed as a way to reduce overcrowding levels and would require the use of more Class 375 trains (with Selected Door Opening) for the Maidstone services which are much preferred to the alternative Networker trains.
Extended Services
Other proposals which are recommended for further development are mainly consideration of extending existing services, mostly the High Speed Domestic services. The County Council supports the extension of such services to Maidstone West to provide a direct link from the County Town to St. Pancras, Stratford for Docklands, Kent Thameside and Eurostar services at Ebbsfleet and would be preferable to the alternative extension of the Ebbsfleet shuttles to Ashford, which is problematic because of lack of platform capacity. Ashford already enjoys a high level of services to a variety of London destinations, including St. Pancras/Stratford, and the possible use of one or both of the international platforms to provide capacity for additional services would greatly concern the Council due to the threat to Eurostar services. As additional capacity at Ashford will be required in the future, the County Council would prefer extending the terminating services from and to Maidstone to Canterbury West instead.
The County Council would also support in principle the extension of the Rochester – St. Pancras services to Faversham but would want to know the full operational consequences on such services from Faversham and Sittingbourne.
Of the two options put forward to reduce overcrowding on services between Bromley South and London, the County Council would prefer to see longer trains from and to Maidstone utilising Selected Door Opening.
21
Thameslink
The County Council welcomes the current assumed Thameslink routes from 2015 – additional, all day services to/from Maidstone; substitutional peak hour services to/from Tunbridge Wells and Paddock Wood; as well as the current service between Sevenoaks via Swanley. This proposal illustrates the error in cutting services to the City from this December and the County Council would like to see the option of introducing Thameslink services to and from Maidstone after Phase 1 of the Thameslink works investigated when they are completed in 2012. Coupled with the possible extension of High Speed domestic services to Maidstone East, this proposal would give Maidstone, in its role as a regional transport hub and Growth Point, an appropriate level of service.
In principle, the County Council would welcome increasing the number of peak period destinations in London from West Kent, but would want to know the full consequences of the resultant service offer before committing itself fully.
The RUS mentions the significant disruption to Kent’s rail services which will be caused by the Thameslink works, particularly from 2012 onwards. The County Council would like to know the proposed adjustments to services as soon as possible.
Journey Time Improvements
The County Council would welcome journey time improvements – particularly between Maidstone and London and between Ashford and Thanet. It is disappointing that the draft RUS only states the potential financial benefits which could be reaped if speeds were increased, which are meaningless without the potential costs of measures to achieve the increase being known. The document says that Network Rail will identify potential schemes for the full RUS next year but the County Council would want to be informed of viable proposals as and when they are identified.
Parkway Stations
The attitude of the RUS to potential parkways stations is particularly disappointing when it dismisses a new station which could serve the Thanet Towns, Kent International Airport, Thanet Earth, China Gateway, Westwood Cross and Pfizer with onward direct bus links. The County Council would like to discuss the potential for a Thanet Parkway with Network Rail.
It is also unfortunate that the RUS states that consideration of a Maidstone Parkway on High Speed 1 is outside of the scope of the RUS. The RUS should consider all aspects of rail irrespective of the ownership of the particular line, and whereas the RUS looks at services on HS1, it ignores the potential that additional infrastructure could bring. Although there are proposals to improve services to Maidstone by extending High Speed Domestic Services down the Medway Valley Line and by linking Maidstone into the Thameslink network, these are by no means guaranteed and the
22 opportunity and practically of providing a parkway station for Maidstone should be addressed in the RUS.
The opportunity that improved car parking at Appledore could offer should also be included in the RUS. It would be attractive to residents of Romney Marsh as well as those in Tenterden who currently drive to Headcorn. There is a danger that those people could be tempted to drive to Ashford when the full High Speed services start. If the services between Hastings and Ashford were adjusted to offer a good connection with the High Speed services, the potential at Appledore would be increased. The future potential for running Ashford – Hastings trains directly onto HS1 should also be investigated.
Existing stations
The statement that the Ebbsfleet –Northfleet pedestrian link is recommended for further development is welcomed and it is hoped that this can be established soon in conjunction with the complete rebuilding of Northfleet Station.
The stated intention to review car parking provision at stations to be served by High Speed services is welcomed as it is anticipated that there will be a very strong demand for expansion at Canterbury West, Dover Priory and Ramsgate. Provisions at stations already under pressure should also be expanded – many have very long waiting lists for season tickets and, although the RUS states that schemes exist at Sevenoaks and Sittingbourne stations, these need to be realised as soon as possible. There are other stations where the available spaces are full before 8am which prevents off-peak passengers from using rail at a time when the trains are more empty.
The County Council has been frustrated by the legal arguments concerning Dover Priory Station and the insistence on the County Council underwriting any risk for the construction costs rising above budget. It is considered that where partners are fully or part funding improvement to the assets of Network Rail and the proposals are agreed by the company, it should be for Network Rail to pick up any risk on an approved budget.
There are station improvements funded by the Access for All programme and the national Stations Improvement Programme (NSIP). These funding streams are time-limited and it would be very useful if Network Rail could map out which station improvements are to be prioritised for the CP5 period.
There is a need to improve interchange between modes at stations with improved parking, access by buses, cyclists and pedestrians. The County Council would be pleased to work together with Network Rail to make the necessary improvements.
Services to Gatwick
The severing of the direct link between Kent and Gatwick Airport and the reduction of trains between Tonbridge and Redhill to one per hour are of concern to the County Council and it is
23 particularly disappointing that the RUS does not recommend their reinstatement because of insufficient demand. These actions are contrary to regional and national policy with reducing rail accessibility between regional transport hubs and it forces Kent residents to either have to access Gatwick, Guildford etc by travelling by rail via London or, far more likely, by car.
Ashford - Hastings
It is most disappointing to see that the infill electrification scheme between Ashford and Ore is dismissed in the RUS. It would be useful to know the cost of the scheme as infill electrification schemes, particularly DC, would be far more affordable than whole-line schemes which currently enjoy higher priority. The Ashford – Ore section is a relatively small section of a route linking through to Brighton (a designated Diamond for Investment and Growth), Hastings (a priority area for generation) and Ashford (a Growth Area). Demands on this line will increase with the significant growth in housing and employment at Ashford and the attraction of the High Speed services to St. Pancras which will dramatically reduce journey times to London. With the right connection times at Ashford, journeys from Rye and Hastings to St. Pancras and Stratford (Docklands) would be attracted and ultimately a seamless service, not terminating at Ashford, would become very attractive from these towns.
Medway Valley Line
The option to extend High Speed domestic services to Maidstone West via the Medway Valley Line is supported but its inclusion begs the question why existing services could not be extended to Ebbsfleet sooner than 2015 in the same way that Medway Valley Line trains will run through to Tonbridge from this December. This would give Maidstone direct access to Bluewater and Eurostar services as well as linking up with more St. Pancras/Stratford trains than will be available at Strood.
Freight
The County Council wants railfreight flows to be significantly increased and the RUS rightly points out that the extent to which Channel Tunnel railfreight uses the High Speed Line in the future is a key consideration. There is concern that high track access charges will mean that the take up of train paths on the new line will not be as high as the County Council would like and so increasing the loading gauge on the existing lines from the Channel Tunnel to the West Coast Main Line would be necessary.
Longer term Issues
Crossrail extension to Gravesend
The County Council supports the extension of Crossrail to Gravesend, including the capacity improvement between Dartford and Slade Green. The County Council is a partner in the Kent
24 Thameside Delivery Partnership which has recently commissioned consultants to look at the economic case for the scheme.
Dover – Folkestone section
The County Council is concerned that there is a long-term threat to the section of railway between Dover and Folkestone and seeks more clarity from Network Rail of this threat and reassurance that it will continue to maintain the line to prevent its closure in the foreseeable future.
Conversion of the Hayes Branch
It is of concern that relief of overcrowding on the line between London and the West Kent towns is forecast to be relatively small by 2019 and this is partially predicated on a fall in demand of passengers from Ashford using services via Tonbridge and Sevenoaks and switching to the High Speed services. More should be done to make other services such as those from Maidstone more attractive, so reducing the degree of railheading to Sevenoaks.
The County Council supports the conversion of the Hayes Branch to free up more capacity in London for the services from West Kent and would like Network Rail to consider bringing this scheme forward.
Yours faithfully
Geoff Mee Director of Integrated Strategy & Planning
25 This page is intentionally left blank
26 Agenda Item 9
Maidstone Borough Council
External Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday 11 August 2009
Maidstone Rail Services Review
Report of: Overview and Scrutiny Officer
1. Introduction
1.1 At its meeting on 16 June, the External OSC agreed to carry out a review of rail services within the Maidstone Borough area. The relevant extract from the minutes is as follows:
‘The Committee agreed to carry out a review of rail services to London, noting that these were being cut and residents were being forced to use alternative train stations to access services. Additionally, Maidstone was a Growth Point and appropriate public transport for the growing population was therefore vital. It was agreed that parish councils should be consulted as part of this review.’
1.2 At its previous meeting the Committee noted that the review would include all aspects of the rail services, such as the adequacy of station facilities and the provision of services within the rural areas.
1.3 The Committee will be interviewing Councill or Robertson, as the Council’s Railway Champion, who has been involved with the Council’s activities to date with regard to the provision of rail services for Maidstone.
2. Recommended :
2.1 That the Committee considers the work in which Members have been involved in with regard to possible improvements of the rail services serving the Borough.
27 This page is intentionally left blank
28 Agenda Item 10
Maidstone Borough Council
External Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday 11 August 2009
Maidstone Rail Services Review – Terms of Reference
Report of: Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager
1. Issue for Decision
1.1 To consider the attached scoping document for the Maidstone Rail Services Review and agree the terms of reference for the review.
2. Recommendation of the Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager
2.1 The Committee is recommended to consider the attached scoping document and consider whether any amendments or additions need to be made, particularly in light of the interviews with Councillor Robertson, the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy, and the Public Transport Officer.
2.2 The Committee is then recommended to approve the attached scoping document outlining the parameters of the Maidstone Rail Services Review.
3. Reason for Recommendation
3.1 The External Overview and Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting on 16 June 2009, agreed to carry out a review of rail services in Maidstone.
3.2 Issues raised at that meeting, along with key points from the meeting on 14 July 2009 with the “Keep Our Trains” campaign group, have been used to inform the scoping document.
3.3 Establishing clear terms of reference prior to beginning the review will help to ensure that the review stays focussed and covers all areas that Members feel need to be taken into account.
29 This page is intentionally left blank
30 Name of Review: Railways
What are the objectives and desired outcomes of the review
• To investigate what level of service would be best for Maidstone. • Look at quality of rolling stock on Maidstone services. • Look at the quality of stations and car parking facilities. • Look into whether commuters travel out of Maidstone to access rail services from a location offering more efficient services, in particular rural stations in the Borough. • Identify reasons for service cuts. • Identify to what extent there are problems with the service, and to what extent there is an issue with perception. • Provide evidence to support lobbying.
What equality issues will need to be considered as part of the review – giving consideration to the 6 strands: Age Gender Race Sexual orientation Faith Disability
• Accessibility and suitability of rail services for disabled residents, the elderly and people with young children.
Which witnesses are required?
• Cabinet Member for Environment. • Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy. • Councillor Malcolm Robertson, Member Transport Champion for the Council • South Eastern Trains • “Keep Our Trains” campaign group ( www.keepourtrains.com ) • MPs • Nigel Whitburn, Community Development Manager, Actions with Communities in Rural Kent.
Other ways to seek evidence? E.g. site visits, involving members of the public, consultation. *
• Responses to the Kent Messenger “Trains: Maidstone Deserves Better” campaign • Take a train journey between Maidstone and London and speak with service users.
What information/training is needed?
• Usage statistics for services to be cut.
Suggested time for review and report completion date
2-3 months
How does the review link to council priorities?
31 A place to achie ve, prosper and thrive.
How does this item deliver CfPS effective scrutiny principles? 1 Provides ‘critical friend’ challenge to executive policy-makers and decision- makers 2 Enables the voice and concerns of the public 3 Is carried out by ‘independent minded governors’ who lead and own the scrutiny role 4 Drives improvement in public services
2 – Response to public concern over service cuts. 4 – Lobby provider to improve service.
Any co -optees or expert witnesses?
* What do you know about the equality groups and the make-up of the people using the service or in the area? Qualitative and quantitative information
Think of the wider ‘community’ including people who possibly do not currently use the service but could or should.
32 Agenda Item 11
Maidstone Borough Council
External Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday 11 August 2009
Future Work Programme and Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Report of: Overview and Scrutiny Officer
1. Future Work Programme
1.1 The Future Work Programme for the Committee is attached at Appendix A; Members are requested to consider this to ensure that it is appropriate and covers all issues Members currently wish to consider within the Committee’s remit.
2. Forward Plan
2.1 At the meeting of the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 February 2009, Members considered the Forward Plan of Key Decisions and agreed that “this should be a standing item on the agenda to ensure important issues were dealt with in a proactive, rather than reactive, manner.” Those sections of the Forward Plan relevant to each Committee will therefore now be included on each Committee agenda under the “Future Work Programme” item.
2.2 The Forward Plan for 1 August 2009 – 30 November 2009 contains the following decision relevant to the External Overview and Scrutiny Committee:
• Sustainable Community Strategy 2009-2020 Action Plan Implementation and Performance Management.
A report with further details on this is attached at Appendix B .
2.3 Members are recommended to consider the section of the Forward Plan relevant to the Committee and discuss whether this item requires further investigation or monitoring by the Committee.
33 This page is intentionally left blank
34 Appendix A
External Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Future Work Programme 2009-2010
Date Items to be considered 27 May • Election of Chairman and Vice -Chairman 2009 16 June • Interview with Leader and Cabinet Member for 2009 Community Services – priorities for the year 14 July 200 9 • SCS Consultation • Sustainable Communities Act update • Railways – interview with Keep our Trains 11 August • Railways – interview with Cllr Robertson 2009
7September • Crime Rates in the Borough 2009 • Update on KCC’s involvement in the Council’s youth services (rec. 16/06/09) • Update on Diverse Communities Report (rec. 16/06/09) 13 October • Local Children’s Services Partnerships written u pdate 2009 • Health Services in Maidstone
10 November 2009 8 December 2009
12 January • Holiday p lay schemes (provisional date) 2010 • Update on Sustainable Communities Act (14/7/09)
9 February • Holiday play schemes (provisional date) 2010
9 March 2010
13 April • Interview with Leader and Cabinet Member for 2010 Community Services – Progress Over the Year
35 This page is intentionally left blank
36 MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
FORWARD PLAN OF
KEY DECISIONS
1 August 2009 – 30 November 2009
Councillor Christopher Garland Leader of the Council
37
INTRODUCTION
This is the Forward Plan which the Leader of the Council is required to prepare. Its purpose is to give advance notice of all the “key decisions” which the Executive is likely to take over the next 4 month period. The Plan will be up-dated monthly.
Each “key decision” is the subject of a separate entry in the Plan. The entries are arranged in date order – i.e. the “key decisions” likely to be taken during the first month of the 4 month period covered by the Plan appear first.
Each entry identifies, for that “key decision” –
• the subject matter of the decision
• a brief explanation of why it will be a “key decision”
• the date on which the decision is due to be taken
• who will be consulted before the decision is taken and the method of the consultation
• how and to whom representations (about the decision) can be made
• what reports/papers are, or will be, available for public inspection
• the wards to be affected by this decision
DEFINITION OF A KEY DECISION
A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to:
• Result in the Maidstone Borough Council incurring expenditure or making savings which is equal to the value of £250,000 or more; or
• Have significant effect on communities living or working in an area comprising one or more wards in Maidstone.
WHO MAKES DECISIONS?
The Cabinet collectively makes some of the decisions at a public meeting and individual portfolio holders make decisions following consultation with every member of the Council. In addition, Officers can make key decisions and an entry for each of these will be included in the Forward Plan.
WHO ARE THE CABINET?
Councillor Christopher Garland Leader of the Council [email protected] Tel: 01622 602683
38
Councillor Marion Ring Cabinet Member for Community Services [email protected] Tel: 01622 686492
Councillor Richard Ash Cabinet Member for Corporate Services [email protected] Tel: 01622 730151
Councillor Mark Wooding Cabinet Member for Environment [email protected] Tel: 07932 830888
Councillor Brian Moss Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture [email protected] Tel: 01622 761998
Councillor Malcolm Greer Cabinet Member for Regeneration [email protected] Tel: 01634 862876
HOW CAN I CONTRIBUTE TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS?
The Council encourages and welcomes anyone wishing to express his or her views about decisions the Cabinet plans to make. This can be done by writing directly to the appropriate Officer or Cabinet Member (the details of which are shown for each decision to be made).
Alternatively, the Cabinet are contactable via our website where you can submit a question to the Leader of the Council or any Cabinet Member on-line. There is also the opportunity to invite the Leader of the Council to speak at a function you may be organising.
Cabinet Roadshows are held 3 times a year in different wards. This is an opportunity for you to meet the Cabinet Members direct and discuss any issues that may concern you.
39 Title: Sustainable Community Strategy 2009 -2020 Action Plan Implementation and Performance Management
Portfolio: Leader of the Coun cil
This will be a “Key The SCS is a policy framework document Decision” because:
Purpose: To agree as a corporate project the future implementation and performance management of the SCS Action Plan.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Proposed Date of 12 August 2009 Decision:
Consultation and The Sustainable Community Strategy was extensively Method: consulted upon including workshops with stakeholders such as voluntary and community sector organisations, faith groups and minorities, a community road-show and on-line consultation toolkit.
Representations Jim Boot, Community Planning co -ordinator should be made [email protected] to:
Representations 15 July 2009 should be made by:
Relevant The Sustainable Community Strategy 2009 -2020 is documents: available on-line at: http://www.digitalmaidstone.co.uk/community/community _strategy.aspx
Wards affected: All Wards;
Other Information:
Director: Alison Broom
Head of Servic e: Brian Morgan
Report Author: Jim Boot
40
41 This page is intentionally left blank
42