Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor J M Heron.

It was noted that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor B Gardner had been appointed as substitute member for Councillor J M Heron.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 July 2015 (attached), 12 July 2016 and 2 August 2016 (to follow).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Please note that in accordance with the agreed Protocol for Public Speaking at Overview and Scrutiny, the right of members of the public to speak in respect of a report applies to agenda item 11.

Members of the public wishing to speak in respect of agenda item 11 must register to do so by no later than 2.00 pm on the second working day before the meeting.

The Chairman, Councillor K Mills, advised that with the consent of the Committee he would permit members of the public present at the meeting to speak in respect of Minute No. 47.

No members of the public had registered to speak on items on the agenda to which the public speaking protocol applied.

There were no decisions taken by the Cabinet at its meeting held on 5 September 2016 in respect of recommendations from the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee.

There were no decisions taken by the Cabinet at its meeting held on 5 September 2016 in respect of recommendations from the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee.

There were no items of business for consideration.

(a)    Items placed on the agenda by a Member of the Committee or any individual Non-Executive Member

       Any individual Councillor may request that a matter is placed on the agenda of one of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committees by providing Democratic Support with notice of the matter prior to the agenda being published.

       There are no items for consideration.

(b)    Items the subject of Call-In

       Executive Decisions may be called-in by the Chairman or Spokesperson of the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee or any three non-executive members.

       There are no items for consideration.

(c)    Public Petition

(i)    Reopen the Regent Petition

To receive a petition on the following matter:

“I/we, the undersigned, want to see the former Regent Cinema in Deal reopened as a cinema for the benefit of the residents and visitors, as was intended when Dover District Council originally sold the building, and call on Dover District Council to use the legal powers available to it to reopen the Regent as a cinema and community venue.”

The supporting information for the petition is as follows:

“This important building is rotting, its building use restrictions are being flouted, and many local people are keen to see a cinema open in Deal once more. The building was purposefully sold at a low price with the proviso it would be made into a cinema - not flats or a restaurant as per the current plans (not yet officially submitted).”

A paper petition will be presented at the meeting and, at the time that this agenda was published, this is supported by a further 1,948 on-line signatures on the 38 Degrees website.

The Committee is requested to consider the petition and determine in accordance with the provisions of the Petition Scheme what steps, if any, need to be taken. This may include one or more of the following:

(a)    To recommend to the relevant decision maker that they take the action requested in the petition;

(b)    To hold an inquiry into the matter, including meeting with any parties the committee is of the view would be appropriate to consult;

(c)    Requesting officers undertake research into the matter and report to a future meeting;

(d)    Request the Leader, Portfolio Holder or an officer to provide a written response to the petition organiser setting out the Council’s views about the request in the petition; and/or

(e)    Take any other action that it considers appropriate.

(f)     Take no further action.

(a)  Public Petition – Reopen the Regent

The Chairman, Councillor K Mills, introduced the item and welcomed the members of the public in attendance at the meeting.

A representative for the Reopen the Regent group addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners and suggested that as a first step the Committee should consider holding an inquiry into the matter. The objectives of the petition were:

·         To see the Regent building preserved and restored as soon as possible; and

·         To see the restored Regent building leased to a ‘bona fide’ cinema operator and reopened as a cinema for the people of Deal and beyond. 

The petitioners then asked a number of questions of the Committee in respect of the objectives of the petition.

The Director of Environment and Corporate Assets and the Planning Delivery Manager were present to provide answers concerning the sale of the Regent Cinema and planning enforcement matters.

Q1.    Given that you sold this public asset to developers to turn into a cinema over five years ago, why hasn’t this happened?

The lease for the Regent Bingo Hall had been handed back to the Council in 2009 and the Council marketed the Regent for disposal as a surplus asset. Although it had last been used as a cinema in 1963, the Cabinet had accepted recommendations from the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee and placed a restrictive covenant on the sale of the Regent limiting its use to a cinema. The Committee was advised that the covenant applied to the site and not just the Regent building.

Silver Screen Cinemas had been the highest bidder initially and after a survey of the building had been conducted the revised bid received from Silver Screen had still been higher than those of the other 5 bidders.

There had been a number of discussions with the owners of the Regent since then with the last taking place as recently as July 2016. The Council was keen to see the owners submit a planning application for the Regent and had provided pre-application advice (at a fee) to them as part of their development plans. The Council had also included the property on the published list as an Asset of Community Value in November 2015 in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 following a nomination from the Reopen the Regent group.

The confidentiality of the pre-application advice was controlled by those purchasing it rather than the Council but the Planning Delivery Manager believed that the advice that could be provided had now been exhausted.

Q2.    What due diligence was undertaken to ensure ‘Silver Screens’ or those calling themselves this had the experience and wherewithal to make this happen? What guarantees were sought from ‘Silver Screens’?

The disposal of the asset was conducted in accordance with the Council’s policies and procedures and there was no requirement to undertake due diligence that the purchasers had experience of operating a cinema.

Q3.    When the price was dropped, why weren’t the other bidders notified?  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Team Leader – Democratic Support presented the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions to the Committee for its consideration.

RESOLVED:   That the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions be noted.

The Team Leader – Democratic Support presented the Scrutiny Work Programme to the Committee for its consideration.

Members were advised that the site visit to the Dover Town Investment Zone (DTIZ) originally scheduled for 29 September 2016 had been rescheduled and would now take place on a date to be confirmed in October 2016.

RESOLVED: That the work programme be noted.

To consider the report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The Director of Environment and Corporate Assets presented the report on Parking Strategies for Dover, Deal and Sandwich.

Members were informed that a total of 23 comments had been received to the consultation and the report set out the proposed response to each comment. The Cabinet at its meeting held on 5 September 2016 had agreed to adopt the proposed strategies for each of the towns.

The Committee was advised that each town had its own strategy as each had its own set of issues in respect of parking. In respect of Deal, this was partly due to the constraints of the built environment and the pressures of managing the needs of the local economy for parking.

Councillor B Gardner raised concerns over parking on double yellow lines as this was causing problems for buses operating in the town. He also highlighted the need for yellow lines to be properly maintained so that they could be enforced. The Director of Environment and Corporate Assets confirmed that £20,000 had been included in this year’s budget to enable relining work to be undertaken to the district’s yellow lines and this was being undertaken on a priority basis.

Councillor R J Frost cited the proposals in the book ‘The High Cost of Free Parking’ by Donald Shoup as a potential solution to the parking issues facing the district which included the use of smart technology and differential parking charges.

Councillor M I Cosin identified specific issues relating to a need for additional signage and enforcement in respect of the underutilisation of available parking at the Tesco store in Mill Hill in favour of unsuitable alternative street parking.

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended to Cabinet that Decision CAB39 be endorsed as follows:

(a)  That agreement to the proposed actions with regard to the consultation responses be confirmed.

(b)  That the final draft parking strategies for Dover, Deal and Sandwich be approved.