Agenda and minutes

Venue: Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3HT

Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

546.

Prayers

Minutes:

The Mayor’s Chaplain said Prayers.

547.

Emergency Evacuation Procedure

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.

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Mayor outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

548.

Minutes

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 February 2018 (Minute Nos. 498 - 512) as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 February 2018 (Minute Nos. 498 – 512) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Mayor as a correct record, subject to an amendment to page 508, second paragraph, to replace the words ‘did not understand’ with the following text (shown in bold).

 

“The Leader of the Labour Group said that many residents looked at the overall total of their Council Tax bill and did not disaggregate the amounts….”

549.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillor John Wright declared a disclosable non pecuniary interest in respect of the urgent motion, as he was appointed by Kent County Council as a Governor at the Medway Hospital.

550.

Mayor's Announcements

Minutes:

The Mayor drew attention to the tabled paper which advised that he had attended 20 engagements since the last Council meeting.  He gave an update on the Carnival Court selections; an evening with St John’s Ambulance; promoting the borough; and details of fundraising for his charities.

 

The Mayor advised that he had accepted a late motion, to enable the Council to respond to the consultation before the deadline.

551.

Questions submitted by the Public pdf icon PDF 49 KB

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 added 19 March 2018; Answers added 20.3.18

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Mayor advised that four questions had been submitted by members of the public, the answers to which had been provided, 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 who were present to ask a supplementary question.  There was no supplementary question to Question Three.

 

Question One

 

Mr Richard Palmer asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration if it was usual for Councils to bid for government funding for schemes yet to be consulted on, and whether any other theoretical schemes had been subject to similar pre-consultation discussions and funding options?

 

The Cabinet Member responded by saying that Councils had no control over the bidding mechanism and the timing of government funding grants, and so Councils had to bid when funds opened and before they closed, if it was for the benefit of the Borough and other local authorities.  The timing was in the hands of the Government.

 

Question Two

 

Mr Kane Blackwell welcomed the recent announcements regarding improvements to play equipment, the Swallows Leisure Centre, and the new cinema and shops in Sittingbourne, and asked the Leader if he could explain the benefits of such investment, especially for young people?  And asked if he agreed that those who disagreed were out of touch and were betraying the vision for the future?

 

The Leader agreed that the improvements and development referred to would bring a tremendous boost to the economy of the Borough and would provide job opportunities.  He considered that it was a game-changer for Swale, and would especially be of benefit for the younger generation.

 

Question Four

 

Mr John Greenhill referred to a recent decision by the Local Government Ombudsman that cast questions on the credibility of members of the authority, and asked the Leader if relevant information had failed to be disclosed in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, and would he make a public statement about this after an internal inquiry had taken place?  He asked the Leader whether he knew that Quinn Estates had been involved in drafting the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid, about any involvement of Council officers in that process, and if he did, whether he had acquiesced or played any role in that? And what the truth was as there appeared to be a conflict between the Leader and the Council’s press office?

 

The Leader advised that he was not aware of any Local Government Ombudsman reports making any queries regarding the conduct of officers or Members, and so would not answer this question until he had spoken with the Legal Team (a written response would be sent).  In respect of the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid, the bid had been put together by Kent County Council (KCC) officers; Swale officers had also been involved in the draft and representatives of developers had also been asked by KCC to contribute to the final draft. He was delighted that the bid had got through the first round and he sincerely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 551.

552.

Questions submitted by Members pdf icon PDF 59 KB

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 added 15 March 2018.  Answers added 20.3.18

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 present to ask a supplementary question.

 

Question One

 

Councillor Mike Cosgrove responded to a question from Councillor Roger Truelove about whether young people would prefer to “hang out” in the multi-story car park or outside the Travelodge.

 

Question Two

 

Councillor Roger Truelove asked who determined what the ‘local economic need’ was and what part did the Council play?  He emphasised that it should not be what the colleges wanted to provide, irrespective of local economic need.

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration advised that the Council would work with a range of commercial companies across the Borough and had strong linkes with a range of organisations including KCC, South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) and other quasi government departments.  He referred to the constraints for young people in terms of access to further education and travel time/cost and it had recently been recognised in a further education area review that there was not reasonable provision for all in Swale.  He welcomed the cooperation of Members across the Council to help address this issue for young people.

 

Question Three

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

Question Four

 

Councillor Mike Baldock referred to the response given, and asked if the Cabinet Member could explain why in August 2017, when discussing the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid, a senior officer had said in an email to KCC and Swale’s Head of Planning “I have tried to introduce some words about progressing the Kent Science Park site in parallel with the Local Plan as a major opportunity” and asked if it was usual for a Council to try to aid a private company to get Government money for a site not in the Local Plan and not submitted?

 

The Cabinet Member for Planning advised that this was fresh evidence and agreed to provide a written response.

 

Question Five

 

Councillor Ghlin Whelan advised that he had checked records at Companies House and said that Mark Quinn had a significant controlling interest in the Spirit of Sittingbourne partnership.  He asked the Cabinet Member, did he not realise that his own administration was of public concern?

 

The Cabinet Member for Planning clarified his response in that Quinn Estates was not part of the original partnership, but had been brought in by the two original partners (U & I and Essential Land).

 

Question Six

 

Councillor Monique Bonney asked the Leader if there had been any written agreement between officers and members with Mark Quinn to work on the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid?

 

The Leader said ‘no’.

 

Question Seven

 

Councillor Monique Bonney referred to transport modelling, and asked the Cabinet Member if he agreed that it was unfair that a major developer had such a significant influence on the core data for the Local Development Plan?

 

The Cabinet Member for Planning advised that it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 552.

553.

Motions submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 15

This Council supports the principle of extending the franchise to vote in key national and local elections to 16 year olds.

 

Proposer – Roger Truelove

Seconder – Ghlin Whelan

 

Minutes:

A – Motion re Voting Age

 

Councillor Roger Truelove proposed the following Motion:

 

“This Council supports the principle of extending the franchise to vote in key national and local elections to 16 year olds.”

 

In proposing the motion, Councillor Roger Truelove referred to the history of democracy in the 19th century, which had first focussed on property and wealth before health, poverty and education.  He emphasised the importance for 16 and 17 year olds to have a vote so that their interests were protected, and anticipated that others might say that young people were not sufficiently well informed or interested or mature enough to have a vote.  He considered that liberal democracy was at risk and there was a need for proper information and for more education about democracy in schools.  He believed that it would help democracy if young people could vote.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Ghlin Whelan.

 

A debate ensued, which centred on the following themes:

 

That young people’s opinions should be trusted and valued; the positive experience of changing the voting age in Scotland for the Scottish Independence Referendum; that it was wrong that 16 and 17 year olds could join the army, get married, reproduce and pay tax but could not vote; that it would be a leap forward and a key milestone in history to lower the voting age; the impact of social media on democracy and results of social medial polls undertaken by a Member; that 16 and 17 year olds did not have a separate legal status from their parents; that young people were keen to be involved; that there were opportunities for young people to be involved in political organisations from a young age, such as animal rights groups and trade unions; that young people were affected by decisions made by the Council; that there was a need for better education in schools, colleges, further education and universities about democracy; and that the voting age should not be lowered referring to the fact that the voting age had been 21.

 

In summing up, Councillor Roger Truelove welcomed comments from Members in support of the Motion.

 

During the debate, a recorded vote was requested and voting was as follows:

 

For = Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Richard Darby, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, James Hall, Nicholas Hampshire, Harrison, Mike Henderson, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.  Total = 13.

 

Against = Councillors George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Tina Booth, Lloyd Bowen, Bowles, Roger Clark, Mike Cosgrove, Mike Dendor, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Paul Fleming, Sue Gent, Alan Horton, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Gerry Lewin, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Mini Nissanga, Prescott, Ken Pugh, David Simmons, Ben Stokes, Anita Walker and Ted Wilcox.  Total = 26.

 

Abstain = Councillors Mike Whiting and John Wright.  Total = 2.

 

The Mayor advised that the Motion was lost.

 

B – Urgent Motion re Acute Stroke Services

 

The Mayor drew attention  ...  view the full minutes text for item 553.

554.

Leader's Statement pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement. 

 

Leader’s Statement added 19 March 2018

Minutes:

The Leader gave a verbal update on the Housing Infrastructure Fund Forward Funding Bid and the funding announced for a medical school in Canterbury, before answering questions on the Leader’s Statement.

 

Housing Infrastructure Fund Forward Funding Bid

 

The Leader advised that he was pleased to announce that the Housing Infrastructure Fund Forward Funding Bid had got through to the second round.  The £31m was for Grovehurst Junction improvements, £6m for Key Street junction improvements and £3m for feasibility and design work for the Northern Relief Road and possibly the Southern Relief Road.  Members welcomed the news and asked questions.

 

A Member referred to the increasing costs of the improvement works to Key Street and the impact of a planning application in Wises Lane, and asked if the Leader would be having a glass of champagne with Mr Quinn?

 

Another Member advised that the funding would concentrate on weaknesses in highway infrastructure identified by the Local Plan Inspector, and asked if the Leader agreed?

 

The Leader responded by saying that he hoped all Members welcomed the news, and that he would be having a cup of tea at home.

 

Queenborough and Rushenden – Housing Infrastructure Viability Fund

 

A Member asked if the Leader knew that the announcement of funding had sped up work, and that as a result of this 60 residents were now facing eviction from their moorings until 2022?  He asked if the Leader would speak to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to see if there was a possibility for them to stay there?

 

In response to the questions, he agreed to raise the matter regarding moorings with the HCA in his next contact with them.

 

Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration Scheme Update

 

Questions were asked regarding how much the ribbon-cutting event would cost; did the Leader applaud that this was good news to shout about and would result in long term jobs; what the Leader’s view was on recent media coverage and what financial diligence had been done regarding the new party; and how did the Council intend to manage the retail units?

 

The Leader responded by saying that his understanding was that partners changed their name when they amalgamated with another company but he would come back on that point; that he had no details regarding the ribbon-cutting event but that it was usual for the Mayor to attend such ceremonies throughout the Borough; and emphasised the importance of attracting more money into the economy and more jobs in the Borough.

 

Health Update

 

The Leader gave a verbal update regarding the announcement of funding for a medical school in Canterbury and welcomed the benefits that this would bring to the area.  He paid credit to the MP for Faversham and Mid Kent and the former MP for Canterbury. 

 

Members welcomed the news in the updates, and also thanked others involved in respect of the campaign for a medical school in Canterbury, including the former MP for Canterbury and Mr Ken Rogers.

 

Recent bad weather

 

A Member praised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 554.

555.

Sheerness Community Governance Review - Feedback from Consultation and Next Steps pdf icon PDF 84 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Leader introduced the report; congratulated residents of Sheerness in having their say on local governance; and proposed the recommendations in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Gerry Lewin.

 

The Leader of The Swale Group spoke in support of the report, praised all those involved in the review, but questioned whether there should be more than nine councillors on any new town council.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group advised that he was happy to go to the next stage of the consultation; and asked for clarification on the next stage of the process, asking whether Sheerness residents would be asked to vote on it?

 

The Leader of the Independent Group said he was surprised and delighted with the level of consultation response, given the low response in the previous community governance review.

 

Discussion ensued during which Members referred to the high volume of consultation responses; referred to Appendix I and expressed concern that some people might not understand that the town council would not replace Swale Borough Council, and that there may be misapprehensions and misunderstandings; asked whether the next stage of consultation would be a full postal ballot; that further consultation should be clear and should correct misunderstandings; and that Members should make sure that residents were aware of the facts.

 

The Leader referred to the previous report to Council which contained the timetable for the Community Governance Review; drew attention to paragraph 5.7 of the report that set out details of the next phase of consultation; and considered that nine Members would be the correct number of Members for a new town council as it would allow for a contested election.  

 

Resolved:

 

(1) That Council notes the consultation response to the Community Governance Review.

 

(2) That given the consultation responses, the following draft recommendations be agreed for further consultation:

(a) that a new parish area is created for Sheerness (this is to be the same areas as the Borough Ward of Sheerness);

(b) that the new parish area should have a parish council;

(c) that the new parish council should be an alternative style and be known as Sheerness Town Council;

(d) that Sheerness Town Council comprises of 9 Members, with the first elections to take place in May 2019.

 

(3) That in making draft recommendations, the Council considers that the establishment of the Town Council would meet the criteria in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, in that it will be reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area, and effective and convenient, and will have a positive impact on community cohesion.

556.

Statement of Community Involvement - Results of Consultation pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Gerry Lewin introduced the report which had been considered by the Local Development Framework Panel and Cabinet prior to coming forward to Council, and proposed the recommendations in  the report.

 

This was seconded by the Leader, who reserved his right to speak.

 

The Leader of The Swale Group drew attention to the low number of consultation responses and asked that the exercise was repeated so that there was proper engagement with communities.

 

The Leader of the Independent Group considered that the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) said the right things, but the level of response to the consultation was ‘miserable’ and further work was needed to make the consultation successful.  Whilst he could support the SCI, he could not support the Council responses to the consultation.  He proposed that the two recommendations in the report were taken separately. 

 

This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  In seconding the amendment, Councillor Monique Bonney referred to the low number of responses and that many had been dismissed by officers, and considered the SCI should be looked at again. 

 

During the discussion a Member clarified that the SCI was a consultation about a consultation and that Members could have responded to the consultation.

 

The Leader advised that he did not see how the two recommendations could be voted on separately, and the Leader of the Independent Group clarified that he was not objecting to the responses, but the Council’s response to the responses.

 

The amendment to take the recommendations separately was put to the vote but was lost.

 

The original proposal was then put to the vote and agreed.

 

Resolved:

 

(1) That the Council’s draft responses to the consultation in Appendix I be agreed.

 

(2) That the Statement of Community Involvement be adopted.

557.

Adjournment of Meeting

Minutes:

The Mayor adjourned the meeting for five minutes at 9.45pm, following consideration of the Statement of Community Involvement report.

558.

Constitution Review pdf icon PDF 65 KB

Appendices V, VI and VII added 20.3.18

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council was asked to agree changes to the Constitution, which had been considered by the General Purposes Committee.  The Mayor drew attention to the working papers and the index sheet which set out where the appropriate working papers could be located for each recommendation.

 

The Leader drew attention to an amendment to the wording on page 149 of the agenda, to reflect the recommendation of the General Purposes Committee, and another Member advised of some minor amendments to the Standards Committee Procedure Rules.

 

Resolved:

 

(1) That the revised scheme of officer delegation, as set out in the revised working paper be agreed.

 

(2) That the proposed amendments to the procedure rules for the Standards Committee as set out in the revised working paper be agreed.

 

(3) That the proposed clarification of the arrangements relating to exempt reports in exceptional circumstances, as set out in the revised working paper, subject to an amendment to change the words ‘but not limited to’ to ‘and limited to’, be agreed.

 

(4) That the proposed revisions to Contract Standing Orders be adopted.

 

(5) That the Local Development Framework Panel be renamed the Local Plan Panel.

 

(6) That the revisions to the Council Procedure Rules, as set out in the working paper, be adopted.

 

(7) That the Officer Employment Procedure Rules, as set out in the working paper, be adopted.

 

(8) That the Code of Conduct complaint assessment criteria, as set out in the working paper, be adopted.

559.

Pay Policy Statement pdf icon PDF 67 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council was asked to agree an updated Pay Policy Statement.  Key changes to the document compared with that published in 2017 were set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report.

 

Resolved:

 

(1) That the Pay Policy Statement be agreed for publication on the Council’s website.

 

(2) That the information within the Pay Policy Statement is updated with actual year-end figures before final publication.

 

560.

Recommendations for Noting pdf icon PDF 37 KB

Council is asked to note the recommendations from the following meetings, which are the subject of separate reports on the agenda:

·         Cabinet 7 March 2018

·         General Purposes Committee 8 March 2018 and reconvened meeting 14 March 2018 (to follow).

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved:

 

(1) That recommendations in Minute No. 525 of the Cabinet held on 7 March 2018 be noted.

 

(2) That recommendations in Minute Nos. 532 - 536 of the General Purposes Committee held on 8 and 14 March 2018 be noted.