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 drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 June 2017 (Minute Nos. 77 - 89) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 June 2017 (Minute Nos. 77 – 89) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman 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 advised Members that former Councillor Tom Brown, Ward Member for Teynham and Lynsted from 1983 – 1991, had sadly passed away.  The Leader paid tribute and said he would be missed.

The Mayor drew attention to the tabled update which had been circulated to all Members.

“We call on Swale Borough Council to offer more help to refugees living in awful conditions on our doorstop in Calais and Dunkirk.  We believe that Swale’s current offer to help only 10 Syrian refugee families in five years is totally inadequate”.  

Janice Lowe, Chair of the Faversham and Villages Refugee Solidarity Group, spoke in support of the petition which had been signed by over 1500 people, and urged the Council to act on its commitment and to bring more than 10 families to Swale to comfort and safety.  The petition said “We call on Swale Borough Council to offer more help to refugees living in awful conditions on our doorstop in Calais and Dunkirk.  We believe that Swale’s current offer to help only 10 Syrian refugee families in five years is totally inadequate”.   

Janice Lowe asked the Council to do more, and in doing so, she referred to the Council’s commitment to house 10 families, and that only two families had been housed so far. She read out a letter from the Syrian Fire Brigade to the London Fire Brigade.

The Leader responded by thanking Janice Lowe for her petition and for continuing to highlight the problem.  It was unfortunately proving difficult to house 10 families, but he was determined that the figure would be achieved.  The Government had many different schemes, and Kent had housed the highest number, which was a strain on resources but a solution needed to be found.

The Leader of the UKIP Group drew attention to the wording of the petition, and advised that he had agreed with Government policy of going to camps in Syria, Iraq and Turkey, etc. to collect refugees, but not France.

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the wording of the petition to help Syrian refugees, and referred to the UK’s reputation of tolerance and helping people who were suffering.  He appreciated it was difficult to find housing, but advised that 13 families had been housed in Ashford, and the Council should do more in terms of publicity and communication with estate agents and private sector landlords.

The Leader of the Independent Group spoke in support of the petition, referring to the 2 million Syrians that had been displaced and encouraged the Council to do more to help.  He proposed  “That we ask the Council Leader for the strongest leadership possible to promote fully and widely, right around Swale, to seek suitable housing for at least 10 households, and to provide any modest additional funding”.  This was seconded by the Leader of the Labour Group.

The Cabinet Member advised that they had been working hard to house 10 families, and so far two families had been housed.  He suggested that concerned residents should contact Kent County Council fostering direct if they were able to help.

The Leader spoke to the motion, referring to the difficulty he would have in supporting it given the proposed budget commitment, when there had been no consideration of the financial implications, and questioned where this amount would be found within the budget.  He referred to comments made about lack of awareness from landlords etc. and welcomed feedback from Members on this, as much work had been undertaken to engage with them.

The Leader  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

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).

Question 10 added 26 July 2017.

The Mayor advised that ten questions had been received.  Written answers had been provided, which had been circulated, published on the Council’s website, and attached as Appendix I to these Minutes.  The Mayor invited members of the public present to ask a supplementary question.

Question One

Mr Greenhill referred to the answer given, saying he did not believe he had been provided with an answer to the question he had put, and asked the Leader if he would dignify the people of Sittingbourne by considering his position and retiring?

The Leader responded by saying he had taken the advice of statutory officers; he had already said he would make sure the situation would not happen again and said he would retire when the people of his Ward did not elect him.

Question Two

Mr Blackwell advised that he understood that a bid would be made in September 2017 and asked the Leader if he could confirm that he would not miss the opportunity to improve Swale’s infrastructure?  The Leader responded by saying yes and yes.

Question Four

Mr Winckless asked the Cabinet Member, was he not embarrassed about how slow things had moved forward over the last three years?

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs said that it was regrettable that some things took time, but it was important to get the consultation right.  A report would be coming forward to Cabinet this year, and there would be consultation prior to a decision being made in Spring 2018.  He clarified that there was a lot of work going on with open and green spaces.

Question Seven

Ms Aspin asked if she could have a yes or no answer to the first part of her original question regarding the statement from Sajid Javid MP about infrastructure being complete before houses were built? She asked, given that the Council did not have a strategic transport infrastructure plan, what demonstrably, proven and precise mitigation would start before any development took place in Wises Lane, referring to the impact on the A249/M2 corridor and surrounding villages, and the detrimental impact on the local economy, investment, air pollution, lives and health of electors?

The Cabinet Member for Planning acknowledged the statement from the Minister, and said if it became policy it would affect planning.  He drew attention to question ten, and said that mitigation would be considered as part of the planning application process.  The Local Plan was supported by a Sustainability Appraisal and an Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Local Plan Inspector had found the Plan “sound”.

Question Eight

Ms Butlin asked for clarification on the fourth sentence of the response, referring to needs arising from Wises Lane, and said that the London Medical Centre was now in special measures.  She referred to the needs of 10,000 patients (which had significantly increased since the Examination in Public), and asked if it was right that Swale Borough Council could not give any commitment to the health provision for residents? She asked that health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

The Mayor advised of a change in the order of business, in that Item 12 – Bearing Fruits: The Swale Borough Local Plan 2031: Inspector’s Final Report and Adoption – would be considered next.

Please note Appendix I will be sent separately to the agenda, due to its size.

The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report, which set out the background to the process; the Inspector’s main findings and modifications; key findings of the Inspector’s report and detailed the adoption process.  In doing so, he referred to the housing allocation, in particular that the Inspector had increased the requirement to 776 and an increase in employment provision and other matters.  He referred to the Examination in Public that had reopened in January and February 2017, and the attempts by developers to increase housing allocation further, but the Inspector had not been persuaded.  The Inspector had found the plan “sound” to adopt, but had asked for an early review partly as a result of KCC Highways concerns about the highway network and an indication that the Government would be making it a requirement to review the Plan every five years. 

The Cabinet Member referred to opportunities for Members to give their views at Local Development Framework Panel meetings, briefings and the Examination in Public, but the issue now was for the Council to consider whether to adopt the Plan or not.  He advised that the Plan gave policy structure and whilst Members may have concerns about certain aspects, it was important to weigh that up against the overall benefit of the Plan in terms of agreed policies (site policy, good design, community provision, infrastructure etc.).  If the Plan was not adopted, the Council would have no basis to resist development and it would become open season for developers, with many applications likely to receive planning permission via appeal.  The cost of appeals would be a burden to the Council and the Secretary of State could consider exercising his/her powers.  He concluded by thanking the LDF Panel for their work and support, including visiting Members, and praised the Head of Planning and the Local Plans Team for their hard work, which had been recognised by winning Team of the Year in 2016.  He moved the recommendations in the report.

The Leader seconded the recommendations and reserved his right to speak.

The Leader of the UKIP Group spoke against the Local Plan referring to roads being gridlocked, increasing air pollution and loss of the best and most versatile farming land.  The housing targets had never been met, and never would be met, so he did not see how the Council could be advised that it had no choice; and he did not agree that if the Plan was not agreed, then developers could choose where they built and would win on appeal.  He considered that if the Plan was accepted, it would not increase housing numbers.

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the dual responsibility of elected Members to the corporate aims of the Council and as community champions for their ward, and advised that he could not support the plan due to the housing allocation in Cryalls Lane and Wises Lane, Borden, which was unsustainable, and would add to transport problems.  He referred to the crisis of homelessness  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

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).

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

The Mayor invited Members to ask a supplementary question.

Question One

Councillor Roger Truelove thanked the Cabinet Member for his answer and asked if he could share any information with him?

The Cabinet Member responded by saying it would be lovely to acquire the land, and referred to the different responsibilities the Council had in terms of on-street and off-street parking. 

Question Two

Councillor Roger Truelove asked the Cabinet Member if he would share the information?  The Cabinet Member responded by saying he was sure it would appear on an agenda.

Question Four

Councillor Ghlin Whelan asked if the Cabinet Member could tell him what permissions were outstanding, and if any would prevent the start of the project this year or next year?

The Cabinet Member advised that a written answer would be provided, but work would start before the end of this year, and works would be completed by Spring 2018.

Question Five

Councillor Nigel Kay advised that Faversham was looking better after the deep-clean, and asked if the deep-clean would be repeated, and whether there was an annual commitment to a deep-clean in Faversham, Sittingbourne and Sheerness and, if considered appropriate, for the larger villages?

The Cabinet Member advised of progress with the deep-cleans in the main towns, and asked for the public’s help to dispose of their rubbish responsibly, in particular chewing gum.  The cost was in addition to the street cleaning contract, and so he could not give assurance regarding an annual deep-clean due to budget implications.  He encouraged community groups and organisations to help, referring to the excellent work with schools and community groups being undertaken.

Question Six

Councillor Mike Baldock referred to the heritage strategy that was being prepared, and asked if there would be an opportunity for local heritage groups to get involved?  He asked what opportunity there would be for local groups to contribute to the strategy?

The Cabinet Member advised that he would ask officers to develop a project plan which would be shared with Members.  There would be wide consultation.

Question Seven

Councillor Mike Baldock referred to the answer given and advised that it had been a serious question, referring to air quality; and said that in view of the response given, he would not be asking a supplementary question.

The Leader advised that the answer to the question would have been zero, however, the question submitted had not referred to air quality, and he suggested there were better ways of asking a question.  He acknowledged that there was a danger to health in developments, but there was also a danger in leaving people to sleep on the streets.

Question Eight

Councillor Cameron Beart advised that he could not claim credit for the hard work, referring to Mr Wilcock, and asked if the Cabinet Member would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement added 25.7.17).

The Leader introduced his Statement, which gave an update on the Local Government Association Annual Conference and Exhibition 2017, and the Thames Estuary Growth Commission.

LGA Annual Conference and Exhibition 2017

A Member referred to the Grenfell Tower disaster, and asked the Leader what he intended to do regarding the crisis in housing?  The Leader advised that he would ignore no possible solutions to the crisis that was looming.

Thames Estuary Growth Commission

The Leader of the UKIP Group asked what progress had been made with the Hesseltine Initiative?  The Leader advised that he had no update, but he would be attending a meeting in Autumn 2017.

A Member asked the Leader if he would agree to go back to the Thames Estuary Growth Commission and suggest that a ferry service between Swale and Essex might be a good solution?  The Leader agreed to take this forward at the meeting, and to raise the issue at the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership and the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership.

“With the Government proposing to allocate some of the £6 billion a year raised from Vehicle Excise into upgrading our A road system, this Council urges the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey to press both the Government and the Kent County Council to see that funding is belatedly dedicated to the completion of the Northern Relief Road, from East Hall to Bapchild.”

Proposed by Councillor Roger Truelove

Seconded by Councillor Ghlin Whelan

Councillor Roger Truelove proposed: “With the Government proposing to allocate some of the £6 billion a year raised from Vehicle Excise into upgrading our A road system, this Council urges the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey to press both the Government and the Kent County Council to see that funding is belatedly dedicated to the completion of the Northern Relief Road (NRR), from East Hall to Bapchild.”

In proposing the motion, Councillor Roger Truelove advised that there was a compelling case for the Northern Relief Road, and  referred to the lack of access to the Easthall Estate; the fact that there was one way in to Sittingbourne; and that alternative routes were needed around Sittingbourne if the Council was serious about regeneration.  He understood that there were political pressures to avoid additional traffic on the A2, and disagreed with the Highways report that had said the NRR was not necessary.  Whilst it was a financial challenge, the Council must be proactive in getting the money, and he encouraged Members to support the Motion.

This was seconded by Councillor Ghlin Whelan, who reserved his right to speak.

The Leader responded and indicated that there may be an amendment to the Motion.

The Leader of the UKIP Group referred to the road access for the community of the Great Easthall Estate, and advised that there were other areas that needed to be upgraded before he could support the NRR, such as the Grovehurst Road roundabout.  In addition, he considered the NRR would lead to a series of housing developments in Rodmersham and Bapchild, and so he could not support it.

During the debate, Councillor Roger Truelove clarified that the Motion was about investment in A roads.

Councillor Mark Ellen proposed an amendment to the Motion, to add the words “and the Lower Road on the Isle of Sheppey”.  This was seconded by Councillor Harrison.  In seconding the amendment, she referred to the efforts that had resulted in the Rushenden Relief Road being built.

A discussion ensued on the amendment, during which other options were suggested such as improvements to the A2, A251, and Brenley Corner; and to include reference in the Motion to the MP for Faversham and Mid Kent.  Another Member advised that the suggestion to include Lower Road, Sheppey was not necessary, as this was being progressed by KCC already with funding in place.

The Mayor referred to the thirty minute time limit for debate on a Motion, and a vote was taken on the amendment, which was lost.

Councillor Mike Cosgrove proposed an amendment to add the words “this Council welcomes the MPs for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and Faversham and Mid Kent pressing Government and KCC to secure funding to the strategic highway network across Swale including the completion of the Northern Relief Road and Southern Link, Brenley Corner, and A249 improvements to the M2 thus significantly improving air quality and traffic flows” and to remove the words of the original motion from “this Council urges ….”.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee introduced the report, referring to the reviews that had been undertaken and those in progress.  He thanked the Committee for their work, and the Officers for their support, in particular Bob Pullen, David Clifford, Nick Vickers, Phil Wilson and the rest of the finance team.  He also thanked the Vice-Chairman for his strong support and proposed the recommendation in the report.  This was seconded by the Vice-Chairman. 

The Leader thanked the Scrutiny Committee, which was well supported by Bob Pullen, and for their positive work in holding the Cabinet to account. 

Resolved:

(1) That the report be noted.

Prior to the start of the debate, the Mayor asked Councillor Mike Baldock if he had received advice from the Monitoring Officer.  He confirmed that advice had been received.

The Leader introduced the report, proposing the recommendations and correcting a typographical error in the second recommendation.  He spoke regarding the lack of sanctions available to the Committee, and his concerns about the individual Member’s disrespect for confidentiality referring to social media posts.

The Chairman of the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee gave some background to the report, advising that the hearing had been conducted fairly.  He set out the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, and advised he was disappointed at the individual Member’s public social media response, and considered he had been disrespectful to the Sub-Committee and the Council.  He seconded the recommendations in the report.

A debate ensued during which comments were made regarding the individual Member’s behaviour as being ‘stroppy’; the costs of the process in terms of money and time; the impact of the sanction suggested; that the action taken had been disproportionate; and that Members should be trusted to keep confidential documents.  Some Members also questioned whether the report had been confidential. 

Councillor Mike Baldock clarified that he respected client/resident confidentiality, but he did not agree in giving the report back, questioning the right of unelected officers to issue orders to Members.  He asked the Leader to see written evidence as to where he had said he disrespected confidentiality and asked for a response within the next seven days.

Further discussion ensued, during which Members expressed disappointment about the attitude the individual had shown, referring to the Code of Conduct every Member had signed up to, and the level of sanctions recommended.  The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee advised that he had asked for the blue papers to be handed back in at the meeting.  In response, Councillor Mike Baldock advised that there was nothing within the Code or Constitution or legally to require him to give the blue papers back.

In summing up, the Leader advised there had been several occasions when Members had been asked to give blue papers back, and advised that the S151 Officer had confirmed that there was commercially sensitive information within the report. 

During the debate, Council agreed to suspend standing orders to allow the meeting to continue its business.

Resolved:

(1) That the Council notes the findings of the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee.

(2) That Council agrees with the recommendation from the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee that Councillor Baldock is removed from the Scrutiny Committee, as a Member or Substitute Member, for a period of three months.