The Mayor’s Chaplain said Prayers.

The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park.  Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Mayor outlined the emergency evacuation procedures.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 January 2017 (Minute Nos. 1075 - 1089) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 January 2017 (Minute Nos. 1126 – 1140) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Mayor reported that two nominations had been received for Deputy Mayor, namely Councillors Samuel Koffie-Williams and Ghlin Whelan, and outlined the arrangements for the secret ballot.  (See Minute No. 1201).

The Mayor advised that she had sent a civic card of condolence to Councillor Harrison, following the passing of her father.

The Mayor was honoured to have presented the French Legion d’honneur medal to 92 year old D-Day Veteran Ernest Townsend, formerly of Bomber Command.  The Mayor would be attending the funeral for the late Chris Ewell from Milton Regis and advised that details of the funeral would be sent to Members when known.

The Mayor reminded Members of her ‘Sparkle Ball’ being held on Saturday 11 March 2017, and encouraged Members to purchase tickets.

The Mayor advised that this would be Abdool Kara’s last Council meeting, and thanked him for all his help and support, and wished him the best for the future.  Mr Kara thanked the Mayor and paid tribute to all the Mayor’s he had worked with, and wished all Members the best for the future.

To consider any questions submitted by the public.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm the Friday before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330). (Questions and answers added 14.2.17)

The Mayor advised that two questions had been submitted by members of the public, the answers to which have been provided, and can be viewed on the Council’s website and are attached as Appendix I to these minutes. The Mayor invited the members of the public to ask a supplementary question.

Question One

Mr Simon Clark asked the Leader did he not agree that the money being borrowed would be better used to encourage retailers to occupy the 21 empty properties in Sittingbourne High Street and build Council housing on Council-owned land?  Did the Leader not agree that the suggestions had merit and would be more readily accepted by residents in the Borough?

The Leader responded by saying that the suggestions would not put the Council in a better financial position. He referred to the assurances given by the Section 151 Officer, internal audit and external audit regarding the option of borrowing; that smarter shops on Sittingbourne High Street would not attract retailers as they had a corporate idea of floorspace, etc; and whilst he would love to build housing, it would not generate income for the Borough.

Question Two

Mr Vic Wintergreen thanked the Leader for his reply, but clarified that he was concerned about the narrowness of the pavement by the bridge, for people walking from the Box retail units north of the railway.  He also referred to the Local Plan examination and the report from Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation team, and their request for a ‘stay of execution’, and asked the Leader what improvements would he like to see in the future?

The Leader apologised for misinterpreting his question.  He agreed that the road under the bridge was not moveable, and whilst he did not see it would be a problem, it was not perfect.    In respect of the Local Plan, he did not agree with the terminology ‘stay of execution’ but said it was regrettable that Highways England and KCC Highways and Transportation had changed their position 24 hours before the examination.

To consider any questions submitted by Members.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm the Wednesday before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330). 

(Questions and answers added 14.2.17).

The Mayor advised that three questions had been submitted by Members, the answers to which had been provided, and can be viewed on the Council’s website and are attached as Appendix II to these minutes.

Question One

Councillor John Wright thanked the Cabinet Member for his response.  He referred to the proposals being developed with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and asked if this would be widely advertised so that local groups within the community-led housing sector could take advantage of it?  In response, the Cabinet Member agreed and said that they were working closely with social landlords and housing associations, and were trying to help encourage small builders to build on small pieces of land.  It was possible that more funding would be available next year.

Question Two

Councillor Roger Truelove thanked the Cabinet Member for his response, and advised that the Labour Government had exceeded their target for extra GPs but the problem was a generation gap due to the time it took to train doctors and the volume retiring.  He reiterated that the Swale NHS Clinical Commissioning Group’s (CCG) funding gap was £6m, and asked the Cabinet Member if he agreed that more money was needed for the local health service?

The Cabinet Member disagreed that the funding gap was £6m; it was £2.4m and would break-even by the end of the financial year.  From the research that he had undertaken, little had been done to resolve the problem 10 years ago, and he was pleased that the criteria for funding had been changed which had resulted in an uplift in funding for the Swale CCG.

Question Three

Councillor Ghlin Whelan thanked the Cabinet Member for his response.

Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement added 13.2.17).

The Leader presented his Statement, which gave updates on the Swale Borough Local Plan; LG Challenge; Rural Policing; and HGV Fly Parking.  The Leader invited Members to ask questions.

Swale Borough Local Plan

The Leader of the UKIP Group referred to the latest hearing on the Local Plan and the early revision date of 2022, and asked the Leader if he agreed that it was necessary to go back to the drawing board, and that the Borough should be treated as one place?

The Leader explained the reason why the area had been split, to reflect that two thirds of the Borough were in the Thames Gateway area and so had benefited from improved infrastructure.  This may change in the future but only after there was investment in infrastructure in the east of the Borough.  In terms of starting again, he advised that this would be done if the Inspector requested it, but the Local Plan offered some protection and so he did not understand why he argued that point. 

The Leader of the Labour Group paid tribute to the work of the Local Plans team.  He referred to the hearing and shared disquiet that it appeared an objection from a developer (in his ward) had been treated with credence, and said that the increase in housing numbers proposed was not deliverable because of the road network.  He expressed concern that KCC  Highways and Transportation’s view on this had changed.  He considered that the number of new houses would be nearer to 540 than 760 but expressed concern that developers would want to cherry-pick.  He asked the Leader for his view on this?

The Leader considered that 540 houses was most deliverable and expressed his great disappointment that the Council had been asked to increase this.  A change of view by Highways England had put KCC Highways and Transportation in that position.  He did not want more than 540 houses to be built and referred to the planning policy system.  He did not have the same impression regarding the Inspector’s consideration of the objection, and they awaited the result of the Inspector’s report.

The Leader of the Independent Group added his thanks to the Local Plans team, and asked if the Local Plan was in place by middle of June 2017, would the Council be ‘under the cosh’ to make its own decisions on planning applications.  Could the Council start to demand better houses, in terms of design, quality and reducing the carbon footprint,  from developers?

The Leader advised that they had been previously overruled by the Planning Inspectorate regarding requiring ‘better’ development, but he would love to see better quality housing for sale and rent.  He wished he shared the Member’s optimism regarding not being ‘under the cosh’, but only if they were not required to build more than 540 houses.  In terms of cherry-picking, which was mentioned in an earlier question, he referred to the Compulsory Purchase Order powers available, and a recent report to the Cabinet.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1196.

Amendments proposed to the budget added 14.2.17

The Director of Corporate Services outlined the procedure for the debate on the budget and that there was a need for an additional recommendation, due to the lateness of the final Local Government Finance Settlement.  He also advised that amendment no. 2, as tabled at the meeting, had been withdrawn.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced his report by paying tribute to those who ensured that the Council maintained its sound financial position.  In particular, he referred to the Members who had attended the finance meeting held in April 2016 and their sensible suggestions, some of which had been included in the budget; the work of the Budget Task Force and officers who attended those meetings.  He also thanked officers and staff for ensuring efficiencies, and gave special thanks to Mr Kara, Mr Radford, Miss Wiggins, Mr Vickers and his finance team; his Deputy Cabinet Member and his Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet colleagues. 

The Cabinet Member said that every penny that was spent as a local authority was someone else’s money, whether it came from Council tax, rent, business rates or fees and charges.  He was pleased to advise that Swale Borough Council was in a sound and secure financial position, which had been confirmed by the External Auditors.  He referred to the nationwide issue of homelessness, and welcomed the presentation of any project that would help with this and allow repayment of the principal, interest and expenditure.  He referred to the requirement for the Chief Financial Officer to report on the adequacy of reserves, which were at a reasonable level, and the key principles for the management of reserves moving forward.  The Council was efficient and had been for some time; referring to the fact that Council Tax had been frozen for six years.  Assuming that Council Tax would have increased by 2% per year, this represented a real term tax cut of £140k per year amounting to £840k over six years.

The Cabinet Member referred to the Medium Term Financial Plan, which in the words of the External Auditors, demonstrated sound financial management, and enabled the Council to plan for the future and to identify and to meet the challenges faced as a result of, for example, the reduction in the Revenue Support Grant.  He was pleased to present a balanced budget for 2017/18, which offered the same high quality service.  For the first time in seven years, an increase in Council Tax of £4.95 in Band D was proposed.  This increased tax to £164.88 per annum just £3.17 per week, which he considered to be excellent value for the range of services provided, and would help towards securing this council’s immediate future.

The Cabinet Member warned, however, that there were dark days ahead.  In recent years, the Council had benefited from increased income in its major income streams such as new homes bonus (NHB), National Non Domestic Rates (business rates), and, local fees and charges.  The reduction without consultation in the total funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1197.

The Chairman of the Audit Committee proposed the recommendation in the report, which was seconded by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance.

Resolved:

(1) That the Treasury Strategy 2017/18 and the Prudential and Treasury Management indicators be approved.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3, the Review Co-ordinator will be invited to summarise the findings of the Scrutiny Committee's report on their review of Leisure and Tourism. The Leader will be invited to give the Cabinet's response.  The action plan, which sets out the recommendations of the Committee and the Cabinet's response, is attached.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee spoke in support of the relationship between the Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committee, but expressed disappointment with the Cabinet’s response to the review.

The Leader of the Independent Group, who had been the review co-ordinator, referred to the work undertaken for the review, and his disappointment that there was still not a proper response from the Cabinet, given that the report had been submitted to them in October 2016.

The Leader expressed his disappointment that Scrutiny Members were dissatisfied.  There had been a response, and he hoped that when the Visitor Economy Strategy came forward, Members of the Scrutiny Committee would realise that their work was appreciated and that they played a vital role.

Resolved:

(1) That the report be noted.

The Leader proposed, and the Deputy Leader seconded, the recommendation in the report which set out a draft programme of meetings for 2017/18.

The Leader thanked the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager and her team for their work in producing this.

Resolved:

(1) That the timetable of meetings for 2017/18, as set out in Appendix I to the report, be agreed.

If more than one nomination is received for either position a secret ballot will be taken at the start of the meeting and the Mayor will declare at this point in the meeting who has been elected Mayor and Deputy Mayor elect for 2017/18.

If one nomination is received for either position the Mayor will announce the nomination and Council will be asked to approve the appointment.

The Mayor advised that one nomination had been received for Mayor, namely Councillor Prescott, which had been proposed by Councillor Andy Booth and seconded by Councillor Alan Horton.

The Mayor advised that two nominations had been received for Deputy Mayor. Councillor Ghlin Whelan had been proposed by Councillor Roger Truelove and seconded by Councillor Harrison; and Councillor Samuel Koffie-Williams had been proposed by Councillor Mike Dendor and seconded by Councillor Mike Whiting. The Mayor reported that 24 votes had been cast in favour of Councillor Samuel Koffie-Williams and 12 votes cast in favour of Councillor Ghlin Whelan.  There were two spoilt ballot papers.

Resolved:

(1) That the Mayor elect for the civic year 2017/18 is Councillor Prescott

(2) That the Deputy Mayor elect for the civic year 2017/18 is Councillor Samuel Koffie-Williams.

Council is asked to note the recommendations from the Cabinet Meeting held on 1 February 2017.

The Council was asked to note the recommendations, as separate reports on the items had been considered earlier in the meeting.

Resolved:

(1) That Minute Nos. 1162 and 1163 of the Cabinet Meeting held on 1 February 2017 be noted.

Audio Recording

Audio Recording