minutes

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 May 2013 (Minute Nos. 26 - 37) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

public session

Provision for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in mainstream housing allocations

Mr Ian Davison, a resident of Sittingbourne, raised concern about Council policy to put gypsy sites within mainstream housing estates. He raised concern that developers could be taken to court if they did not provide them and why could the pitches not be provided around the Borough.

Councillor Lewin (Cabinet Member for Planning) stated that the proposals were included in the draft Core Strategy: Bearing Fruits document which was currently out for consultation until 30 September 2013. Councillor Lewin stated that views on the proposals should be sent to bearingfruits@swale.gov.uk. The plan can be viewed here: http://swale-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/

Councillor John Wright considered that it would be no different than providing affordable housing within mainstream housing which developers often appealed against.

Parish Councillor Baldock requested examples of where pitches in mainstream housing estates had worked.

Police Update

The Chairman welcomed Inspector Gavin Wade, Faversham District Inspector, Kent Police, to the meeting.

Inspector Wade gave an update on Operation Nonagon 6. Inspector Wade reported that 25 officers had been deployed from Swale, Ashford and Tunbridge Wells. Road checks had stopped two vehicles which had red diesel and a total of 10,000 litres of red diesel was seized. A warrant was served on a property on the outskirts of Sittingbourne and three arrests for drug possession and stolen goods had been made.

Inspector Wade also spoke about the mini mobile contact points which would operate every other week in 15 locations within Swale.

In response to a query from a resident of Iwade, Inspector Wade agreed to establish who the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) was for Iwade.

Post Meeting Note:

The PCSO for Iwade is Matthew Link.

In response to queries Inspector Wade stated that there were a number of PCSOs in training so cover on the eastern end of the Isle of Sheppey would be provided. He advised that the gentleman who set himself alight outside the Teynham Co-op was receiving support from the combined Police Safety Team and that a person was in custody for indecently exposing himself near the community hall in Teynham. The following further points were raised: what was the Police helicopter activity recently over Newington and towards Upchurch?; concern that there was insufficient cover in Swale if a major incident occurred; and a scheme by Kent Police to ensure young people were motivated should be rolled-out to rural areas.

Inspector Wade would provide an update to the queries raised by contacting the relevant Member directly.

Inspector Gavin Wade

part a minutes for recommendation to cabinet

appointment of representative to sit on the swale rural forum

Some Members were concerned that County Councillor Gates may not always be able to attend the Forum and it was agreed that if this was the case then a replacement representative must be sought.

community governance review

The Chairman welcomed Louise Matthews (Head of Corporate Governance & Communications) and Dominique Lescott (Community Governance Review Project Officer) to the meeting.

Miss Matthews explained that Community Governance was how communities were represented and governed at local level and how groups within the community are listened to and able to influence decisions that affect them. Miss Matthews explained that the review would focus on the unparished areas of Swale, the arrangements for the existing parish councils that adjoin the unparished areas of Swale, and also respond to any other requests from existing town or parish councils who may wish to review their arrangements.

Miss Matthews advised that the Terms of Reference, which set out how the review would be undertaken, were agreed on 19 June 2013 and Officers had one year from that date to complete the review. Miss Matthews outlined the reasons for the review and why parish or town councils were important. Miss Matthews explained that leaflets had been distributed to the affected areas.

Miss Matthews explained that the consultation would be carried out in stages with stage one seeking views on: existing arrangements; setting up parish and town councils; and positive or negative impacts. Reports would then be considered by Council on 27 November 2013 and then stage two consultation early 2014 with households balloted on specific proposals/changes before final Council decision before 19 June 2014.

Members considered the proposals and raised the following points: concern that Gadby Road and the New Zealand estate, Sittingbourne had not been consulted; what were the financial implications?; would the proposals be socially inclusive; consider that if people want to get involved in community issues they will give their time for free because they care about their community; concern that local press coverage has implied that Parish Councils are a waste of time so there was a danger that the survey could taint the impression of Parish Councils; welcomed the initiative but felt there was confusion given the proposed new borough wards to be implemented at the May 2015 elections; consider Sittingbourne and Sheerness would benefit from having Town Councils; consider Halfway identifies more with Sheerness than Queenborough; unfair that parishes have a precept but are still responsible for footpaths etc., so public perception may be that this was just an opportunity for Swale Borough Council to offload responsibility; and concern parishes would be able to set-up Neighbourhood Plans that could be at odds to the Swale Local Plan.

Miss Matthews asked that people responded to the consultation as follows:

Complete an on-line form http://www.swale.gov.uk/CGR/

Email: cgrconsultation@swale.gov.uk

Freepost your comments to: Freepost SX20, Swale Borough Council, Swale House,
East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3HT, FAO Policy Team

Tweet what you think @SwaleCouncil or coment on Facebook, search Swale

The Chairman thanked Miss Matthews and Miss Lescott for attending.

help shape the future of children's centres in kent

The Chairman welcomed Mr Steve Charman (Head of Consultation and Engagement, Kent County Council (KCC)).

Mr Charman explained that KCC were reviewing the way in which their Children's Centres operated and had put together a proposal for how Kent's Children's Centres could work sustainably in the future. Mr Charman stated that a consultation on the proposals had commenced on 4 July 2013 and would conclude 4 October 2013.

Mr Charman advised that their priorities were to protect services which improved health, education and social care for families who needed it most within the resources available; and improve co-ordination and access to a range of service for families and children aged 0-11 where at last one child in the family was under five years old (new model of delivery using Children's Centre Plus). This was because significant savings of £1.5 million were needed because of a reduction in public funding.

Mr Charman explained that proposals included: reducing the number of Children's Centres; linking children's centres to reduce management and administrative costs; and reduce hours at some Children's Centres. Mr Charman stated that Swale currently had ten children's centres: Seashells, Sheerness; Lilypad, Minster; Beaches, Leysdown; Milton Court, Sittingbourne; Grove Park, Sittingbourne; Murston, Sittingbourne; Woodgrove, Sittingbourne; Bysing Wood Road, Faversham; and St Mary's, Faversham.

Mr Charman advised that it was proposed to close St Mary's Faversham and Woodgrove, Sittingbourne and outlined the reasons why. Mr Charman explained the reasons for closing some centres or reducing their hours and why some Districts had more proposed Centre closures than others.

Mr Charman stated that based on the proposals the following access figures had been calculated: 99 per cent of 0-4 year old KCC population were within a 15 minute drive time of a Centre; 97 per cent of 0-4 year old KCC population were within 0-90 minute of a Centre by public transport; and 78 per cent of 0-4 year old KCC population were within 0-20 minute of a Centre by public transport.

Mr Charman advised that the consultation concluded on 4 October 2013 and the results would be analysed and a decision taken by KCC in December 2013. Responses to the consultation could be provided by the following means:

Website: www.kent.gov.uk/childrenscentres
Email: cc.consultation@kent.gov.uk
Phone: 0300 333 5540
Post: Freepost RTER-RZXC-HCJH Children's Centres, Facts international, Ashford, TN24 8FL.

Members considered the proposals and the following points were raised: the consultation document was incorrect as Beaches was in Leysdown not Minster; mothers most likely to become isolated and therefore vulnerable lived in rural villages; Beaches, Leysdown had been operated by temporary staff for the last year, surely permanent staff would make a saving; the new primary school in Leysdown was already oversubscribed an indication that there were many young families in the vicinity, had this been taken into account?; proposals had not been publicised properly; buses were only every 1/2 hour on the eastern end of the Isle of Sheppey; Wood Grove, Sittingbourne was not close to the library; need to ensure any redundant buildings following the consultation are used sensibly for local communities; expecting parents to travel a three mile trip with young children was not realistic; proposals were very short-sighted of KCC given the housing targets proposed over the next few years; and was this the right time to be looking to cut this service given the expected increase in population over the next five years.

The Chairman thanked Mr Charman for attending.

storage requirements of animal and human waste in the countryside and farmers spreading organic manures

The Chairman introduced the report which provided details on storage requirements of animal and human waste in the countryside and farmers spreading organic manures.

Parish Councillor Baldock welcomed the report and requested that the Code of Good Agricultural Practice (COGAP) legislation be forwarded to Parish Clerks for reference.

Democratic Services Officer

Mr Burke (Representative to Gordon Henderson MP) asked for an update on the perfume pallets which were to be distributed to farmers to counteract the bad odours.

Mrs Smith-Kearney stated that it was outrageous that huge piles of fertilisers were deposited sometimes next to residential properties. Mrs Smith-Kearney stated that the smells associated with the activity often made it impossible to have windows open during the summer period and the issue should be treated as a priority by Swale Borough Council.

The Chairman advised that responses to the queries raised would be circulated.

Post Meeting Note

Alister Andrews (Environmental Response Manager, SBC) has advised that he has not been involved in any conversations about distributing perfume pallets. He considered that the effectiveness of them was subjective and found it far more effective to focus on getting the material incorporated quickly and effectively.

planning enforcement - action against longstanding eyesores within rural communities

The Chairman drew attention to the report from Mr Hinckesman (Planning Enforcement Team Leader - Swale Borough Council) which provided information on the options available under current planning legislation for communities to tackle eyesores within rural and Conservation Areas.

Councillor Pat Sandle stated that they had an issue at a specific site on the eastern end of the Isle of Sheppey with rubbish, but as it had been dumped on private land Swale Borough Council's Environmental Health Officers were powerless to act. Councillor Sandle queried whether Environmental Health could seek powers to act under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 legislation.

Parish Councillor Baldock raised concern that Swale Borough Council seemed reluctant to pursue Section 215 legislation. Councillor Baldock stated that there were a number of eyesores in Swale that had not been dealt with, such as Newington Working Men's Club, Newington.

Discussions ensued and it was asked whether Officers could provide a definition for "eyesore" and "amenity".

The Chairman stated that responses to the queries raised would be provided.

Post Meeting Note

With regard to definitions of "eyesore" and "amenity" Peter Hinckesman (Planning Enforcement Team Leader - Swale Borough Council) has responded as follows:

"Any “eyesore” is going to be subjective in nature, and I could not provide a definition as to what it means. I suggest it is really down to a realistic look at what the “eyesore” might be, remembering that if a notice is served, and we go to Court, we will have to persuade the Magistrates that the item(s) complained about actually do adversely affect the “amenity” of the area. “Amenity” is not a defined term, but generally means the “pleasantness of an area or location”.

rural buses

The Chairman drew attention to the question raised by Upchurch Parish Council and stated that a response had been provided by Transport Integration, Kent County Council which was tabled.

Parish Councillor New advised that the main problems were about not being consulted about a new bus stop which was within a conservation area. She explained that they felt that Chalkwell did not seem to appreciate issues in rural areas.

Councillor Lewin suggested that Upchurch Parish Council write further to Chalkwell to ask why they had not consulted in the proper manner and if an adequate response was not provided then a further letter be sent to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment at KCC.

local government association (lga) rural policy review group

The Chairman introduced the report for LGA Rural Policy Review Group.

Mr Harrison (Kent Rural Community Council) spoke about the Village Agents scheme in Gloucestershire which was devised, and still run, by the Gloucestershire Rural Community Council. Mr Harrison explained that various attempts to attract investment to set up a Kent scheme had been made but to little avail as yet, however Village Agents schemes were now running in Wiltshire, Somerset, Staffordshire and Essex.

Mr Harrison reported that Gloucestershire had offered to demonstrate the benefits, including savings for the taxpayer to interested parties from Kent. Mr Harrison agreed to forward links for the videos on Gloucestershire Village Agents, and negotiate an opportunity to hear from Gloucestershire on how the scheme works there.

Post Meeting Note

Link for the videos on Gloucestershire Village Agents:
http://vimeo.com/12293162

Please also see a wider collection of older person's support services in rural areas called 'Over the Hill?':
http://vimeo.com/22020198

rural business opportunities

The Chairman introduced the Rural E-Bulletin. Members welcomed the new format.

At this point the Chairman advised that, with regard to the issue raised at the last meeting regarding inappropriate parking outside village schools and speeding in rural areas, a response had now been received from Kent County Council. However it had been received too late for consideration at this meeting but would be included as an agenda item at the next meeting on 19 November 2013.

Parish Councillor Baldock stated that he had attended a meeting about this issue as a County Councillor and a Swale District Challenge to encourage young people to walk to schools was being rolled-out.

The Chairman also spoke about a Rural Youth group created which had been successful in both Hernhill and Newnham and that a report on their progress would be provided at a future meeting.

venue for next meeting

It was suggested that Officers explore the possibility of holding the next meeting at Thistle Hill Community Centre, Minster.

Democratic Services Officer