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; 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 Leader outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 October 2016 (Minute Nos. 919 – 928) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 October 2016 (Minute Nos. 919 – 928) 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 Director of Corporate Services as 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 Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance

Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Finance and the above Cabinet Member, which set out the proposals for the level of fees and charges to be levied for the next financial year 2017/2018.  The charges would take effect from 1 April 2017.

The Cabinet Member introduced the report and proposed the recommendations, explaining that it was crucial to generate income to support the budget.  This year there had been a specific focus on burial fees and hackney carriage charges.  The Council was currently making a loss on burials and research had shown that Swale had the lowest charges in Kent, therefore it was proposed that charges should be increased.  In respect of hackney carriage charges, he explained that these were being reviewed as there a range of areas where no charges were made, or Swale was below the County average, and the proposals would be subject to full consultation.  The Cabinet Member also drew attention to an update that had been tabled regarding the fee for land charges (CON29), and advised that this was still under discussion.  The recommendations were seconded by the Leader.

Other Members present gave their views on the proposals, in particular regarding the increase in the charge for residents’ parking permits from £40 to £45, when there was a shortage of parking spaces; the small increase in the charge for visitor parking permits and whether it should be more; and whether comparison with other authorities in Kent was a good principle to use.  A Member also asked how much the Council was losing on burials as this was not reflected in the report; and expressed concern about the impact of increasing parking permit fees on those who could not afford it.  During the debate, Members were reminded that fees and charges would be considered at the next Scrutiny Committee, prior to being considered at the Council meeting on 23 November 2016.

Recommended:

(1) That the proposed fees and charges for 2017/2018 as set out in the report for submission to Council be approved.

Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance

Cabinet considered the report of the Interim Director of Regeneration and the Head of Finance, and the above Cabinet Member.  The Cabinet Member introduced the report, drawing particular attention to the consultation that had taken place, the Community Impact Assessment (CIA), and the options as set out in the report.  He emphasised the importance for all Members to have read the supporting papers, in particular the CIA, prior to consideration of the Scheme at the November Council meeting.  He also drew attention to the new funding model for assistance towards the administration costs of the scheme.  In moving the recommendations in the report, he drew attention to the tabled paper which set out an additional recommendation from the Policy Development and Review Committee.  These were seconded by the Leader.

A Member referred to discussion at the Policy Development and Review Committee on this matter, and asked the Cabinet to reconsider Option 7 on page 35 of the report, as he considered this to be unfair.  The Chairman thanked the Committee for their feedback on this, referring to advice received and the results of the public consultation.  The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance emphasised that the consultation results had been taken very seriously.

Recommended:

(1) That the outcome of the public consultation, having taken consideration of the potential impact of the proposed changes on working age claimants with the protected characteristics of disability, age and sex under the Equalities Act 2010, be noted.

(2) That changes to the current scheme as listed in paragraph 3.6 of the report be recommended to Council, subject to recommendation (4) below.

(3) That the new funding model from the major preceptors for the collection of Council Tax from Council Tax Support claimants during 2017/18 be agreed.

(4) That as per paragraph 3.6 table 2, option 11 and paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of the report, if Central Government does not change the Housing Benefit regulations to limit the number of dependent children within the calculation of Housing Benefit to two, the Council will only use paragraph 3.8 for option 10 – to remove the Work Related Activity component in the calculation of Council Tax Support, and will recommend that Option 11 is still applied.

Cabinet Member for Environmental and Rural Affairs

Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact and the above Cabinet Member, which advised that the Council had been awarded external funding from the Environment Agency to re-surface the promenade along the coastal defences at The Leas, Minster on the Isle of Sheppey.  The Cabinet Member introduced the report, which set out details of the tender process undertaken and requested authority to award the contract, and moved the recommendations.  The Cabinet Member advised that the works would be entirely funded by the Environment Agency, and that the contract would be carefully managed.  Whilst there would be some disruption during the works, access would continue to be made available where possible.  The memorial benches would be removed prior to the works and returned after the works were complete.  A Member endorsed the sensitive approach regarding the memorial benches.  The Chairman seconded the recommendations.

Resolved:

(1) That the award of the works to Ovenden Allworks Limited be approved.

(2) That the Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact, and the Head of Legal, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environmental and Rural Affairs, be given delegated authority to complete the contract award.

Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance

The Chairman drew attention to the confidential appendices set out later in the agenda, and reminded Members that they would need to exclude the press and public should they wish to discuss the content of those papers.

Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Finance and the above Cabinet Member which set out a business case for borrowing up to £28m (of the £30m approved) and sought agreement to the funding of some specific works associated with Sittingbourne Town Centre redevelopment.  In introducing the report, the Cabinet Member emphasised the importance of the scheme for the financial future of the Council, referring to the need for the Council to generate income to become self-sufficient, and the decision taken by the Council in March to give authorisation to borrow up to £30m.  The Cabinet Member referred to the reduction in government grant since 2010 from £12m to £2m, and that this would be zero in 2020; acknowledging that there would be business rates generated of £6.5m but these were subject to appeal; and said that whilst the Council had built up reserves, the interest rate return was now 0.63%.  He referred to schemes by other local authorities to invest in property in the local area, such as Canterbury and Spelthorne Councils, for financial return.

In proposing the recommendations, the Cabinet Member emphasised that the proposal was for financial return, so that income was generated from the tenants and not by the Council Tax payer; and that there was clear viability for the scheme referring to economic conditions nationally and market conditions in Sittingbourne.  In the Autumn, the Spirit of Sittingbourne had made progress on lettings and the Interim Director of Regeneration had held discussions as to whether the Council could become a funder.  The proposal was a good financial investment and external financial advice had been sought.  Even with prudent assumptions, the investment would generate an average of £2.8m per annum over the lifetime of the project, a return of 7.8% which was much better than the current level of interest on the Council’s investment.  The Cabinet Member considered this was an excellent opportunity to use the returns to help safeguard public services.  The Leader seconded the recommendations.

A Member spoke against the proposal, saying that the Council had no mandate to invest, and suggested that there should be full public consultation with the people of Swale to ask if they supported the level of borrowing, and whether what to spend it on reflected their priorities, suggesting that this could be better spent on the Lower Road, Isle of Sheppey.  He suggested that if the Council was looking at investing, it should invest in housing which had the potential to make a profit, and could be used for some council housing.  He did not consider that the investments being made by Canterbury and others were comparable, and expressed caution that the expected return would only be if all units were rented out.

Another Member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 996.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following items:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:

3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

5.  Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Resolved:

(1) That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions on the exempt appendices, which set out the draft Turnberry Real Estate financial evaluation and the draft Pinsent Mason legal opinion.

A Member gave feedback on the financial evaluation and asked Officers to obtain more information before the Scrutiny Committee considered the matter, in particular regarding implications if some units were empty or became empty; property management; the terms of the lease, in particular rental incentives and whether there were restrictions on use; advice on how the project compared with other town centres in terms of retail and restaurant rents; and whether there were alternative investment options to consider.  Another Member asked for more information about risk.

The Leader thanked Members for their input and referred to the Scrutiny timetable for call-in.