The Cabinet Member for Regeneration, the Director of Regeneration and the Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, the Director of Regeneration, the Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager, and Huw Evans and Richard Blackwell from Spirit of Sittingbourne (SoS), to the meeting.  He reminded Members that updates on this item, from the Cabinet Member and officers alternated between verbal and written updates.  Members agreed that they were happy to continue with this approach.

The Cabinet Member introduced the update report which included key updates and photographs, which had been tabled.  He explained that since the agenda had been published, there were further updates and these could be addressed as the report was considered.

The Chairman reiterated the request for risk register assessment information and a project plan of the scheme.  This was noted by the Director of Regeneration.

Members were invited to comment and ask questions on the report.

Construction

The following points were made and responded to by the Cabinet Member, officers and the representatives from SoS.

·         The Forum car park did not re-open on 28 May 2018, when would it be re-opened?

·         What sort of contamination was present in the top layers of excavation?

The Director of Regeneration advised that the car park was ready, except for finalising the lighting, and so it could re-open in the next couple of weeks at the latest.  Permanent lighting was being installed within the next four weeks.

The Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager explained that the contamination was nothing too alarming.  He agreed to forward further information to the Committee.

·         There must have been a random site investigation, prior to construction?

The Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager explained that borehole samples had been taken, but these could not fully provide confirmation of ground conditions throughout the site.  The remediation measures would be discussed with the Planning Team.

The Director of Regeneration agreed to forward information on costs of the contamination work, and who would bear the costs, to Members.

·         Had there been any changes to the Section 278 Agreements, prior to signing them?

The Director of Regeneration explained that the solicitors were in regular dialogue with all parties to clarify what was required.

·         There was a lack of connectivity between the Princes Street site and the town, with the Princes Street site being more connected to the retail park, rather than the town, would this change? 

The Cabinet Member explained that there were other developments nearby and he expected that people would walk between the sites.

The Member considered that very different retail areas were being created, and that people would not walk between them.  He explained that connectivity had been a focus initially on the scheme and he questioned whether the lack of connectivity was good for the town?

The Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager explained that the configuration of the main square would enable more connectivity to different areas.

·         There were two disabled bays in The Forum car park, but there was no step-free access to the toilets, or a signed footway to The Forum.

The Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager agreed to look into this matter further.

·         Connectivity could be improved with a northern exit from the railway station, could talks be had with Network Rail?

The Cabinet Member stated that this could perhaps be considered in the future.

·         What were the opening dates of the retail sites?

The Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager explained the opening dates, as below:

Food Warehouse – 15 May 2018

Home Bargains – 30 June 2018

Costa – beginning of July 2018 (subject to fitting-out being completed)

·         And the cinema, hotel and leisure elements?

Huw Evans explained that the Section 278 work had to be completed first, and these units were expected to open one year after the completion of the highway works.

There was some discussion on the housing element of the scheme.  Huw Evans explained that this was market-driven.  Other aspects of the scheme would be completed first.

Planning

A Member considered that if the housing element was not built, this would undermine the Local Plan, and other sites would become more vulnerable, if the predicted housing numbers did not come forward.

The Director of Regeneration explained that the Council was aware of the housing numbers and the timetable, and explained that the leisure aspect of the scheme would be concentrated on initially.  Huw Evans stated that in terms of planning and design, the residential sites were very well advanced, and so could be completed very quickly, once started.

Utility Services

·         Were any difficulties with the utility services envisaged in the future in terms of provision of services?

Huw Evans explained that utilities were not an easy part of the development.  Richard Blackwell outlined some of the work that had been carried out.  The Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager advised that the asbestos had been now been removed from the multi storey car park site.

Risks

·         Why was it only now that the significant risk had been identified?

Huw Evans explained that information passed to Kent County Council (KCC) from SoS, had been looked at by KCC and points of concern had been identified in relation to the modelling of the traffic management. This had meant the risk had to be explained in more detail to KCC, and had resulted in re-modelling of the traffic management.

·         Why had KCC not identified this issue sooner?

Huw Evans explained that KCC were extremely busy, and that although he had not agreed with the KCC interpretation of the data, SoS had to ‘go with’ the higher authority.  He apologised for the delay.

The Cabinet Member stated that it was not about blame and explained that KCC had been very helpful.  There had been a balance of assurance of the matter from KCC, and the risk of delays from a SBC point of view.

Discussion ensued on the delays to the scheme and a Member suggested that a representative from KCC Highways and Transportation be invited to attend a future meeting.

Huw Evans stated that there were time-sensitive issues, but that it was important to look at the bigger picture, and he acknowledged the work KCC had carried out.

A Member raised concern that this could happen again and that talking to KCC about their processes could help towards preventing delays in the future.

The Cabinet Member advised that it was important to invite the right person, to get an overall picture, rather than just the modelling element.

Communications

·         It appeared that SoS had lost interest in the housing element of the scheme, were they interested and when would it happen?

Huw Evans explained that SoS were interested in bringing forward the housing element of the scheme.  He stated that the project was designed around all aspects coming forward, and as soon as it was viable, the housing element would come forward.  Utilities and infrastructure were important aspects to enable the housing to be built.

·         Could SoS have a Facebook page to publicise progress on the regeneration scheme, with an opportunity for questions to be submitted?

·         Were all six restaurant units signed up?

The Director of Regeneration advised that Kevin McKeever (Lowick Communications) had been unable to attend the meeting.  She explained that Kevin managed SoS communications with SBC communications, and that she would feedback the Committee’s comments.  She advised that negotiations were ongoing with other tenants for the restaurant units.

·         The SoS website was not updated very often.

Huw Evans advised that this was being worked on.

·         There needed to be a communication strategy, using Facebook, Twitter etc.

·         Diversion signs needed to be clear and concise, and to include signs to divert road users away from Sittingbourne whilst the works were on-going.

·         Needed to look at congestion on Crown Quay Lane.

·         How could we ensure that HGVs did not get stuck under the railway bridge?

Huw Evans explained that they wanted as small an amount of disruption as possible.  SoS had to submit their proposed signs to KCC for their approval.

Richard Blackwell advised that a contingency plan was being drawn up in relation to the Crown Quay Lane junction, and marshalls would be monitoring the traffic, and to look at alternative routes to be used instead.  HGV signage would be installed at key locations, with advice being given to local haulage companies and clearly signed from the A249.

·         There were SatNav issues with HGVs.

·         Residents wanted to know the alternative routes, where bus pick-up and drop-off stops were.

·         It was confident to say works would be completed by the time schools returned in September 2018.

Huw Evans was confident that the works would be complete by this time, and advised that the A2 would not be closed again.

·         Would the roads in Sittingbourne cope if there was an accident on the M2, with diversions through Sittingbourne?

Richard Blackwell explained that he had met with Highways England and that no part of the area of road closures formed part of diversions from the M2, and Highways England were happy to display signs on the A249, M2 and M20 to say to avoid Sittingbourne.

·         How would taxis get to the station when the road was blocked?

Richard Blackwell explained that the route would be along Milton Road (closed for general road users), and a pick-up/drop-off point would be the new entrance in St. Michael’s car park.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, the Director of Regeneration, the Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Manager, Huw Evans and Richard Blackwell from SoS for attending the meeting for this item. 

Resolved:

(1)      That the KCC Cabinet Member be invited to attend the Scrutiny Committee on 29 August 2018, and Members to email their questions, for the Cabinet Member, to the Chairman by 21 June 2018.