Audio Recording

The Mayor explained that the Cabinet meeting would be conducted in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panel (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 No 392.

In welcoming all Members and members of the public, the Mayor explained which Swale Borough Council officers were in attendance.

The Mayor’s Chaplain said prayers, including prayers for recently departed Members and staff.

The Leader paid tribute to the Chief Executive of Swale Borough Council (SBC), Mark Radford, who sadly passed away recently.  He gave a history of Mark’s thirty-three year career at SBC and spoke of the many tributes received from other Kent authorities, the Local Government Association and from the local community.    The Leader said that if there was ever a history of SBCl, Mark would feature as a major influence over several decades.

The Leader of the Conservative group also paid tribute and spoke of Mark’s dedication to public service, his commitment to residents and to staff and Members and said he would be missed by all.

The Leader paid tribute to Human Resources Assistant Carol Thomason who sadly passed away in May 2020. The Leader said that everyone would remember Carol as a lovely colleague who was always ready to go out of her way to be helpful, and she would be sorely missed.

The Mayor paid tribute to former SBC Director of Development Services, Dick Harman who sadly passed away in April 2020.  He said that Dick was well respected and was responsible for Swale’s development plan which helped to re-build the area after the loss of its major industries.  The Mayor said that Dick had helped shaped Swale into the fastest improving economy in Kent.

Councillor Angela Harrison paid tribute to Honorary. Alderwoman Val Dane who sadly passed away recently.  She said that she was known to be a real character and a ‘community Councillor’ who always did the best for the people she represented, regardless of the politics. Councillor Harrison said that Hon. Alderwoman Dane would be very sadly missed.

Councillor Ben J Martin paid tribute to Honorary Alderman Bernie Lowe who sadly passed away recently.  He said he was a kind-hearted person who was always  ready, willing and able to help anyone, was an influential member who still had a keen interest in Swale, despite moving out of the area, and he would be sadly missed.

Councillor David Simmons paid tribute to Honorary Alderman Bryan Mulhern who sadly passed away recently.  He gave a history of his political career in Swale including his term as Mayor of Faversham and of Swale and said that it was cruel that he was not able to enjoy a long retirement after working so hard for so many years.

Councillor Mike Baldock paid tribute to Honorary Alderman Brian Woodland who sadly passed away recently.  He gave a history of his political career and his encouragement of others, and said that the parish of Borden would have been a ‘lesser place’ if it had not been for his influence.

The Mayor led the silence in memory of those who had passed.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 February 2020 (Minute Nos. 548 - 569) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 February 2020 (Minute Nos. 548 – 569) 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 Mayor 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.

The Monitoring Officer advised that he was of the view that consideration of Members’ remuneration did not amount to a disclosable pecuniary interest in this case.  However, there were some arguments that it might be so he had issued a dispensation to all Members in respect of Item 11 – Review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

The Mayor thanked all staff for adapting to the new ways of working from home since lockdown and said that for many staff work loads had escalated.  He said that his own engagements had ceased but that work, emails and meetings had continued remotely. 

The Mayor thanked the many volunteers who had continued their work and assisted others and he also thanked essential workers who had ensured that the public had all the services they required including health and food supplies.

He concluded by saying that in future there would be changes to working  lives and interaction with each other, and a new normal would evolve.

This council agrees to extend its Smoking at Work Policy so that it also applies to Members and to amend paragraph 3.1 of the Policy to read as follows:

"3.1  This policy applies to all Members, employees and agency staff.  It also applies to consultants and contractors whilst they are working for the Council.  It also applies to visitors and members of the public whilst they are in Council buildings or Council vehicles. "

Proposed by Cllr Mike Whiting

Seconded by Cllr Alan Horton

Councillor Mike Whiting proposed the following motion:

“That this Council agrees to extend its Smoking at Work Policy so that it also applies to Members and to amend paragraph 3.1 of the Policy to read as follows:

3.1       This policy applies to all Members, employees and agency staff.  It also applies to consultants and contractors whilst they are working for the Council.  It also applies to visitors and members of the public whilst are in Council buildings or Council vehicles.”

In proposing the motion Councillor Whiting said the current policy which excluded Members was an oversight that should be corrected, Members were not more important than staff and the electorate, and that Members should be governed by the same rules.

Councillor Alan Horton seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.

The Leader spoke against the motion and said that as this was the first Full Council meeting in a crisis, it should not be debated at the current time.

Referring to Council Procedure Rule 16 (19)(b), Councillor Richard Palmer moved that the motion be put to the vote.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote, this was agreed.

The mover of the original motion was invited to speak.  Councillor Mike Whiting explained that the motion had been carried over from the previous Full Council meeting had been cancelled.  He said that no elected Member should give themselves privileges over and above public and staff and the proposed motion was to ensure parity, not for any political gain.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19 (2) five Members requested a recorded vote, and voting was as follows:

For:  Beart, Bowen, R Clark, Darby, Dendor, Ellen, Fowle, A Hampshire, N Hampshire, Horton, Hunt, Marchington, McCall, Neal, Pugh, Simmons, Whiting. Total equals 17.

Against: Baldock, Bonney, Carnell, S Clark, Davey, Gibson, Harrison, Jackson, Knights, Benjamin A Martin, Ben J Martin, Nissanga, Palmer, Perkin, Rowles, Saunders, P Stephen, S Stephen, Tatton, Thomas, Truelove, Whelan, Winckless, Woodford. Total equals 24.

Abstain: Gould, Hall, Ingleton, Jayes, Valentine. Total equals 5.

The Mayor advised that the vote was lost.

As the district in Kent which suffers by far the greatest impacts from unofficial lorry parking in the County, Swale Borough Council asks that the Department for Transport places a high priority on working with the Highway Authorities and other relevant Stakeholders to develop a County wide/South East England strategy which helps tackle the issue in a co-ordinated way, not just in Swale but for the whole county. This strategy must include an appropriately robust and resourced enforcement regime, which does not place additional pressure on already stretched local authorities and their local partners. Swale Borough Council cannot support ad-hoc proposals, for new lorry parking facilities such those at Brenley Corner (Junction 7 M2), without understanding how this fits in with a Kent wide strategy and any planned future investment in the strategic road network.

Proposed by: Councillor Monique Bonney

Seconded by: Councillor Mike Baldock

Councillor Monique Bonney proposed the following motion:

“As the district in Kent which suffers by far the greatest impacts from unofficial lorry parking in the County, Swale Borough council asks that the Department for Transport places a high priority on working with the Highway Authorities and other relevant Stakeholders to develop a County wide/South East England strategy which helps tackle the issue in a co-ordinated way, not just in Swale but for the whole county.  This strategy must include an appropriately robust and resourced enforcement regime, which does not place additional pressure on already stretched local authorities and their local partners.  Swale Borough Council cannot support ad-hoc proposals, for new lorry parking facilities such as those at Brenley Corner (Junction 7 M2) without understanding how this fits in with a Kent strategy and any planned future investment in the strategic road network”

In proposing the motion, Council Bonney said that an urgent upgrade of much of Kent’s highway infrastructure was required, and she said that it was premature to consider a lorry park at junction 7 when significant junction improvements were required. She referred to the enforcement of lorry parking in the Borough and said that the £25 fine imposed, the same approximate cost of staying overnight at a lorry park, was not a deterrent and she highlighted the issues around collecting fines from foreign lorry drivers.  Councillor Bonney highlighted the success of an experimental Traffic Regulation Order in Ashford and said that there needed to be more lorry parks, with better facilities.  She said that the current regime was not fair or equitable and was harmful to communities.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Mike Baldock reserved his right to speak.

The Leader said that he supported the motion and said that a Swale-wide approach was a better approach than ad-hoc solutions.

The Leader of the Conservative group advised that he had not heard a significant amount of the proposer’s speech and would therefore abstain from the vote, but added he would have voted against the proposal as SBC were responsible for assisting residents whose lives were affected by fly lorry parking, and SBC could assist in addressing the issue.  He went on to say that he did not believe the motion was about lorry parking but about the administration’s desire to generate housing, and he referred to the proposed development land opposite the proposed lorry park, and made an allegation of probable improper practices regarding private discussions about this land.

The Leader asked the Leader of the Conservative group to withdraw his allegation of improper practices.  The Leader of the Conservative group said that similar language had been used by the opposition to describe the work of his own group. In response, the Leader said that he personally had never used such language.

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed a motion that Councillor Alan Horton be ejected from the meeting for his comments.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer who reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Mike Baldock said that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 704.

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

There were no questions from the public.

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

Council questions added 17 June 2020

The Mayor advised that 11 questions had been received from Members.  Each Member was invited to put their question which was responded to by the relevant Cabinet Member.  The questioner was then invited to ask a supplementary question.  The Mayor advised that any questions not asked within the thirty minute time limited would receive a written response.

Details of the questions and response are set out below:

Question 1 – Councillor Mike Whiting

Would the leader join me in congratulating the Government on the unprecedented level of support it has provided in grants and business rate relief to local businesses here in Swale, and also to congratulate our officers for the magnificent job they have done in getting that financial help out the door to the businesses that need it during this coronavirus pandemic crisis?”

Response – Leader

Thank you for this question and the opportunity to acknowledge both the support from Government and the sterling work, with limited resources, by our officers.

If a global pandemic forces governments to lock down large parts of their economies for several months then they have little option but to make an enormous fiscal leap. Cllr Whiting properly cites grants and business rate relief to local businesses but I would add in too, the value of funding the furloughing of employees across the economy and the hardship fund to help less well-off council taxpayers.

Having said the government was driven down a path that does not fit into their usual ideological assumptions, I have to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted swiftly, clearly and with conviction and it is not surprising that opinion polls indicate that he enjoys much greater confidence with the general public than the rest of the cabinet

Our officers likewise acted swiftly and decisively, notwithstanding the considerable logistical difficulties of locating all the qualifying businesses. We have now distributed £25,978,000 of grants and are well set to distribute the second wave of discretionary grants.

I am sure the challenge of trying to sustain the economy is not over for either the Chancellor or this Council.

Supplementary question

Councillor Whiting thanked the Leader for his response and asked whether he was satisfied that the criteria SBC had set for discretionary grants was adequate or whether there would be new criteria, and whether he expected all the funding from the first round to be allocated?

In response the Leader said that the criteria were mostly set by Government and he was satisfied that it was correct and he would give a follow-up response with more details on discretionary grants.

Question 2 – Councillor Alan Horton

Given that the country is in what has been described as the worse crisis since the Second World War, would the Leader explain to the thousands of Conservative voters throughout the Borough why he has chosen not to formally include the views of their representatives in his planning and preparation for delivery of services in this challenging time, despite being reminded on several occasions that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 706.

The Leader said that because he had kept Members regularly updated and there was such a detailed agenda, his statement would be concise.

He said that the previous Monday saw the reopening of non-essential retail in the high streets. SBC would receive £134,000 of European Funding and officers had been putting plans in place.  He added that, for now, SBC would be focusing on the high streets in:

Sittingbourne;

Sheerness; and

Faversham;

as well as including Leysdown to ensure the increase in population over the Summer months was taken into consideration and managed effectively.

The Leader said that immediate actions had included:

Engagement with businesses and other stakeholders;

daily sanitising of assets in high streets, including car park ticket machines;

signage, banners and notices;

temporary one-way systems using floor stencils and other markings for social distancing; and

removing street clutter.

He added that SBC’s communications and messaging centred on 3 key themes – stay safe, be kind, take your time, and that SBC were working in partnership with the Police, KCC and parish and town councils to ensure a joined-up approach and collective effort.

The Leader said that impact of opening would be assessed, and preparations made for the wider opening of pubs and restaurants outdoors from the 22^nd June 2020. So far reports in the main had been positive and shops were managing social distancing and were happy with efforts being made.

The Leader said that linked to this was work done at short notice to respond to KCC’s ask for project ideas towards the Active Travel Project.   He said that they had received a first tranche of £1.6 million from the Department of Transport for temporary/ trial projects that enhanced safe cycling and walking, and that SBC’s bid amounted to just over £100,000 for schemes such as pedestrianising the high streets, a 20mph zone in Faversham and realigning traffic crossing timings at pinch points.

The Leader said that SBC were waiting to see if it was successful in its bid and looking at alternative ways to fund and implement these ideas as part of its wider recovery, and reopening the high street project. This included using Emergency Road Traffic Orders to pedestrianise Sittingbourne, Sheerness and Faversham high streets between 10am - 4pm, Monday – Thursday, starting on the 25^th  June 2020, on a trial basis.

Referring to the Council’s considerable response to the Pandemic Crisis, he said that there would be much more to do, and he was determined that SBC should have a robust Recovery Plan that all could buy into. The Leader said that central to any plan must be steps to give the local economy all the support it could muster, and that practical completion of the Spirit of Sittingbourne Phase 1 would give a stimulus to the Sittingbourne Town Centre.

The Leader said that the Council had responded very well to the demands made by government, whether through the community support hub, the support to businesses or in reinforcing social distancing and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 707.

The Leader introduced the report and proposed that Members agreed to review the scheme of Members’ allowances according to the recommendations made by the independent panel.

In seconding the recommendation, the Leader of the opposition reserved his right to speak.

In the debate that followed Members made points including:

·         The review should be carried out in the Spring before an election and be static for the 4-year term unless there were major changes to a Council structure;

·         Area Committee Chairman should be awarded one-tenth of the Council’s Leader’s allowance;

·         the allowance for the Leader of the largest opposition group was inadequate and should match a Cabinet Member allowance ;

·         could not support an increase in allowance in the current economic climate;

·         support for improving diversity within the Council, in accordance with the principle of fair remuneration as at paragraph 4.15 of the report;

·         welcomed the update to the Dependents’ Carers’ Allowance as at paragraph 4.40;

·         acknowledgement of the panel’s reference to how the IT allowance might be further considered as remote and flexible working evolved in the future;

·         acknowledged that the recommendations offered solutions to some of the barriers to a diverse and representative local democracy;

·         Members should accept the report or not, not cherry pick from within it;

·         Members could choose to donate the allowance when received;

·         supported the panel’s recommendations which were fair and independent;

·         a review at Spring before an election could politicise it; and

·         needed to ensure that the scheme encouraged a wide range of candidates, not just for the wealthy.

The Leader of the opposition spoke in support.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19 (2), five Members requested a recorded vote, and voting was as follows:

For: Beart, Bonney, Bowen, Carnell, R Clark, S Clark, Davey, Dendor, Ellen, Fowle, Gibson, Gould, Hall, A Hampshire, N Hampshire,  Harrison, Horton, Hunt,  Jackson, Knights, Marchington, Ben J Martin, McCall, Neal, Perkin, Pugh, Rowles, Saunders, Simmons, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thomas, Truelove, Valentine, Whelan, Whiting and Winckless. Total equals 37.

Against:  Baldock, Darby, Jayes, Benjamin A Martin, Palmer, Tatton and Woodford. Total equals 7.

Abstain:  Ingleton. Total equals 1.

Resolved:

(1)  That Members agree to review the scheme of Members’ allowance according to the recommendations made by the independent panel, as set out in the report.

The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report and proposed the recommendation which sought changes to the constitution in order to enable the establishment of four Area Committees.

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Eddie Thomas said the Area Committees were long over-due and would give residents a greater say in decisions in their area.

The Leader gave his support.

The Leader of the opposition group was critical of the consultation and said that similar Committees had not worked well in the past, but he would not stand in the way of progressing the proposal.

In the debate that followed, Members raised points including:

·         The recommendations from the Policy Development and Review Committee (PDRC)were not included;

·         an additional Area Committee had been added, without consultation of the public;

·         Councillors should be engaging with the public anyway;

·         clarification on funding  - was it allocated in addition to Member grants?; and

·         why was Bapchild, located in the east of Swale, included in the Western Area Committee?

Councillor Mike Whiting proposed that West Downs be moved into the Sittingbourne Area Committee from the Western Area Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

Councillors Monique Bonney and Councillor Mike Baldock spoke against the amendment.  Councillor Baldock said that putting West Downs into the Sittingbourne area Committee would be a highly inappropriate match.

In debating the amendment, other Members  raised points that included:

·         Concern that decisions on an area would be made by a Member out of the area;

·         needed clear, set boundary areas;

·         the areas were not set at PDRC;

·         it made no sense to include Bapchild in the Western Area Committee; and

·         The Meads should be included in the Sittingbourne Area Committee.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

Members debated the substantive proposal and raised points including:

·         Publicity of the proposed Area Committees was vital to encourage attendance by public, as previous similar Committees had low attendance;

·         Sheppey Area Committees had previously been successful but had become too political;

·         funding for Area Committees was in addition to Member grants;

·         there should be a review after Area Committees were established and implement necessary changes;

·         there should be bigger priorities for the administration than proposals for Area Committees;

·         support for Area Committees;

·         supported the principle of Area Committees but could not support the current proposal;

·         supported more effective engagement of the public which Area Committees promoted;

·         suggested parishing currently unparished areas would work better than Area Committees;

·         the purpose of the Area Committees was to consider key strategic issues which had a stronger area focus than the whole Borough; and

·         many parished areas might make the perspective too narrow.

In response, Councillor Mike Baldock referred to the Area Committee’s Terms of Reference and clarified that Area Committees would consider strategic issues and have some financial powers.  He confirmed that funding was in addition to Member Grants and a review would take place at the end of the year.  Councillor Baldock said that in consulting the public, the preferred option was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 709.

To agree an interim planning policy statement to support the use of park homes  in appropriate locations as set out in the proposed policy’s criteria.

The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report which sought to provide the Council with a policy on park home sites should planning applications come forward in the future.  He reminded Members that there was no policy in the current Local Plan and the policy would enable officers to set conditions and guidelines. He proposed the recommendation.

In seconding the proposal, Councillor Alastair Gould reserved his right to speak.

The Leader reminded Members that the policy was Borough-wide, would meet a need and diversify the Council’s housing supply.

The Leader of the opposition expressed his concerns over the policy which he said was poorly thought through and had been rushed, with variations to the policy in a short space of time.  He warned of unforeseen and unexpected consequences further down the line.  The Leader of the opposition had concerns that significant support came from those that would benefit financially, and he drew attention to those who objected to the policy, mostly from the Isle of Sheppey, whose residents were not being listened to.  He added that if a policy was to be introduced it needed to be properly thought through and properly examined by the PDRC.

In the debate that followed, Members raised points including:

·         Supported the principle of a policy but had concerns over the wording in the policy and that existing holiday park owners would convert their sites to park homes sites;

·         there was a desperate need for park homes for the elderly;

·         the criteria to be met was strong;

·         why did the original consultation only refer to holiday parks on the Isle of Sheppey if it was a Borough-wide policy?

·         five out of six Parish Councils objected but were ignored;

·         concerns it would open the floodgates;

·         locations were not sustainable – retired people needed access to better infrastructure and facilities;

·         concerns on the impact on tourism;

·         this policy conflicted with other policies;

·         more detail was required;

·         concern that developers would take advantage of sites that would become sustainable, and apply for permanent housing;

·         the policy did not remove the requirement to go through the usual planning process;

·         the policy would not fill the 5-year housing supply gap;

·         the policy should be considered as part of the Local Plan process; and

·         suggested the policy should be referred to the PDRC.

Discussion ensued and Members were advised that a planning policy should not be considered at the PDRC but might be considered by the Local Plan Panel (LPP) again.

Councillor Mike Whiting proposed an amendment, that the Policy be re-considered by the LPP before being brought back to Full Council.  Councillor Mike Dendor seconded the proposal.

Councillor Mike Baldock spoke against the amendment, and said that the policy had already been considered by the LPP.

In speaking to the amendment, Members raised points which included:

·         The criteria set out in the Local Plan still needed to be met and was subject to Section 106 requirements for infrastructure;

·         concerns were already raised at the LPP that there was not enough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 710.

Council is asked to note the recommendations from the following meetings:

General Purposes Committee meeting held on 18 March 2020 (Minute No. 633) which is the subject of a separate report on the Agenda.

Cabinet meeting held on 3 June 2020 (Minute No. TBC) which is the subject of a separate report on the Agenda.

Recommendations added 17 June 2020

Resolved:

(1)  That Minute No. 633 from the General Purposes Committee held on 18 March 2020 be noted.

(2)  That Minute No. 690 from the Cabinet Meeting held on 3 June 2020 be noted.

The meeting was adjourned from 8:57pm to 9:10pm.

At 10pm, 10.30pm, 11pm and 11.30pm Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that Council could complete its business.