The Portfolio Holder for Economic and Community Development gave a brief overview of his areas of responsibility and work programme. 

The Chairman asked whether the various areas worked together well as a Portfolio area and whether any area/issue kept him awake at night.  He replied that as a big picture it did make sense, though was quite complex.  However the Advisory Committee membership was well structured to cope.  The only particular concern he had was that the current pace was not fast enough, every item needed to be urgently pushed and prioritised.  The work programme presented to the first meeting of the advisory committee had had only two items on it, he wanted to see an overpopulated work programme with at least five items from each area and the top three prioritised and being worked on.

The Vice Chairman asked whether: there were plans to actively encourage and generate more local economic activity, for example parking measures; when the rates being charged by SENCIO were almost as much as commercial rates, what was the argument to consider providing a subsidy to SENCIO; and, as he had street naming, when was there going to be an Andy Murray Avenue?  He replied that with regards to the last question he could not promise anything.  With regards to economic activity within retail, this was an unfolding story.  He saw that a need for people to come and enjoy town centres would not diminish.  Sevenoaks did well for food outlets/coffee shops and hairdressers, these enterprises were market driven.  There were signs of neglect and he would be attempting to tackle ‘grot spots’.  He intended to work with local communities to remove the negative impact these areas created.   The Chief Finance Officer had provided a business rate analysis and the Council was constrained with the revenue that could be raised this way.  The Council was already at the support level, which meant any losses had to be made up.  He did not see Bluewater as a competitor but as a choice.  With reference to SENCIO, as an organisation had had to adapt a lot over the past few years and was working on a viable programme into the future.  He personally welcomed any competition.  At this stage there was a lot to be discussed and considered.  A Member expressed concern about delays to the need for redevelopment of the White Oak Leisure Centre in Swanley. 

A Member commented on the improvement made to a ‘grot spot’ in Hartley which looked a 100% better with the work of the Community Safety Manager and an EVA, and asked what legacy had been left by hosting the Paralympics.  The Portfolio Holder for Economic and Community Development advised that one legacy was demonstrated by him handing out NVQ Level 2 certificates to volunteers that Saturday and there seemed to be more cyclists.

The Portfolio Holder for Economic and Community Development was asked how the issue of planning and opportunity for agricultural growth could be addressed especially in light of agricultural growth, and how he would support agricultural developments support to overcome these barriers.  He replied that agricultural was a large part of the district’s local economy.  A recent food festival selling local produce had sold out within three hours, which demonstrated its popularity.  Globally there was also the issue of food security.  Capital investment was needed and he wanted to see the Council facilitate agricultural development as much as possible.  He was still on a learning curve with regards to planning issues but would be in defence of keeping agricultural land.  With regards to a question on Local Enterprise Partnerships, he had attended a workshop in London the day before and it was clear to him that the Council needed some direct membership on the LLEP and that we should be conforming to the LLEPs overarching strategy document if we were to achieve any potential finding, as if any bid did not full conform it would fail. 

A Member stated that in that day’s publication of The Times newspaper, there was a report which stated that one in three Councils raised more money via car parking charges than through Council Tax, and asked whether the District was one of them.  The Portfolio Holder for Economic and Community Development did not know and requested to answer by return email.

A Member asked whether the Council was still supporting grass roots organisations through the Big Community Fund, and expressed concern at STAG cinema sales.   The Portfolio Holder advised that there was still money to be bid for, and that weekly ticket sale figures were well above this time last year.

A Member asked what the cost of tourism was, and how the benefits were measured against the cost.  The Portfolio Holder replied that he was not happy and was trying to get to grips with why the Council gave contributions and would be holding meetings with relevant officers as he felt that they could be doing more for this area but emphasis seemed to be mainly on east Kent.  Westerham had many attractions but limited parking so was looking into ways of helping.  With regards to cost the external contribution would be looked at in order to gain better value for money.

A Member expressed interest on what could be done at White Oak Leisure Centre and was anxious to know what would be done.  The reply was that a more in depth report would be coning to Cabinet and that at some point soon there would be a more comprehensive study on leisure provision that was viable and sustainable within the cost frame available.  In answering another Members question on the plans for White Oak Leisure Centre he added that the study would be on the broader leisure aspect and how SENCIO fitted into this, the capital side of Whiteoak Leisure was not in his portfolio.  Clarification was sought that the briefing sheet provided implied refurbishment yet no formal decision had yet been made.  He responded that there were two options available, refurbishment or replacement.

In response to a question on when decisions were taken on the disposal of non performing assets he advised that it was officer level and Cabinet.

A Member asked what ‘supporting the Executive local action group working  with members of rural organisations’ entailed as he was currently the Council representative on Action with Communities in Rural Kent and the LGA: Rural Commission.  The Portfolio Holder replied that interaction with all members with relative knowledge and connections was essential and he would be in touch!  The Member congratulated the Chief Officer for Communities and Business and staff for the initiatives being put in place within New Ash Green and hoped the resources would be made available to carry out the work proposed.  He extended and invitation for the Portfolio Holder to visit which was accepted.