Report to follow.

Documents added 13 March 2017.

Tabled papers added 23 March 2017.

The Chairman introduced the item and drew Members’ attention to the to-follow papers and the tabled papers which, had been provided in response to the questions submitted by the Chairman on behalf of the Committee.  He reminded Members that the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and officers from the Regeneration Team would be attending the next Scrutiny Committee meeting to give a further update.

Discussion ensued which included the following points:

·         When was the cinema expected to take-on the site?;

·         clarification was needed on parking numbers as they were varied throughout the document;

·         Light cinema appeared reluctant to ‘get going’;

·         if Light left the project, was there an alternative?

·         losing confidence in cinema going forward, was there an alternative option?

·         the Critical Path document was out of date;

·         the car parking was not enough to sustain the present footfall, plus the expected increased footfall (it was noted that the document provided was a copy of a delegated decision that had been taken some years previously);

·         there was no allowance to enable cars parked in private streets to get them off the street and into a car park;

·         the documents submitted have been ‘thrown together’;

·         there were ways of updating Members without having to print off plans;

·         hours and hours spent on this, it was not going forward;

·         the risks to the scheme needed further consideration;

·         a suggestion that a Project Steering Group should be formed (to include Cabinet Member/officers/Scrutiny Committee);

·         the scheme needed a Project Manager and a Project Team was needed with appropriate staff resources;

·         had not seen a full cost analysis;

·         unclear on who was monitoring this on a monthly basis;

·         a business plan was needed;

·         the Council needed to think about reviewing its staff resources, to include business experience skills;

·         suggest an independent review of the regeneration project;

·         so far information has only been requested from the Council, suggest Spirit be invited to attend Scrutiny Committee;

·         difficult to get answers this evening as no one here to answer the questions;

·         there were technical, tactical and strategic matters that needed to be responded to;

·         good technical information had been provided from the Regeneration Project Support Officer;

·         up-to-date information was critical;

·         the Critical Path document needed to be in a readable format;

·         in case the cinema provider did not go forward, suggest that the building has the facility to be able to be converted to another use in the future;

·         concern with the housing to be built on the existing car parks, and who will go ahead with the development?  If this was the Council, there could be more options re affordable housing, and income;

·         extraordinary that the Council was borrowing the money to fund specific works associated with the Sittingbourne Town Centre regeneration scheme, but had no role in the design  or development;

·         there was a lack of appreciation of the expertise of the Scrutiny Committee;

·         the definition of ‘client’ in the document needed to be re-defined;

·         more clarification needed on the silent partner;

·         invite Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Deputy Cabinet Member for Regeneration, the Leader, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Chief Executive, the Interim Director of Regeneration, the Chief Finance Officer and the Regeneration Project Support Officer to the next meeting, with Spirit and other partners at the following meeting;

·         answers so far are causing more questions, sea change was needed to move forward; and

·         a list of broad themes for discussion would be drawn up and sent to the Cabinet Member and officers in advance of the meeting.

The Policy and Performance Officer advised that there was a more up-to-date Critical Path document available.

Members agreed that the to-follow and tabled papers provided a lot of information in response to the Committee’s questions.

Members were disappointed that the Deputy Cabinet Member for Regeneration had left the meeting.  The Chairman suggested any further questions be sent to the Policy and Performance Officer.

The Policy and Performance Officer reminded Members that it had been agreed that the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, plus relevant officers would attend alternate meetings of the Scrutiny Committee.

Resolved:

(1)      That the points raised above be noted.