Audio Recording

The Mayor explained that the Council 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.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 October 2020 (Minute Nos. 157 - 178) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 October 2020 (Minute No. 157-178) 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 meeting 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 thanked those Members who had laid a wreath on Remembrance Day and those that had volunteered but were unable to participate due to the pandemic.

The Mayor said that he and the Mayoress had laid a wreath at the War Memorial in Central Avenue, Sittingbourne and were moved by others attending, socially-distanced, including a local motorcycle club.

The Mayor and Mayoress attended a short service of remembrance at the Sacrificial Cross at Sheerness cemetery that morning where he laid a wreath.

The Mayor and Mayoress had also attended the formal launch of the poppy appeal 2020 by the Royal British Legion in the Forum in Sittingbourne High Street.

Finally, the Mayor said that he had been filmed reciting a poem by the Wisdom Hospice for their Lights of Love Appeal Service which would be broadcast at 6pm on Friday 4 December 2020.

This Council agrees:

1) that Swale KALC be asked on an annual basis to nominate two Parish Representative Members to sit on each of the four Area Committees, with the condition that those representative members are members of a Parish or Town Council within the relevant Area Committee geography
2) that properly nominated Parish Representative Members of the Area Committees, with one exception detailed below, be full members of the Area Committee, enjoying the same rights to debate, propose and vote for recommendations made by the Area Committee to Swale’s Cabinet
3) that Parish Representative Members of the Area Committees not be permitted to vote on spending decision made under delegated powers by the Area Committee
4) that officers be tasked with drafting the necessary changes to the Constitution to allow recommendations 1 to 3 above.

Proposed by Cllr Mike Whiting
Seconded by Cllr Alan Horton

Prior to Councillor Whiting proposing the motion, Councillor Richard Palmer, referring to Part 4.1, paragraph 15 in the Council Procedure Rules raised a point of order that the motion be referred to the Policy Development Review Committee (PDRC) without debate.  He explained that the subject of Area Committees had previously been discussed at PDRC and Full Council. In the discussion that followed, the Monitoring Officer said that, in this case PDRC might not be appropriate, the proposer considered it should be discussed and in his view it was reasonable that Council debated the motion.  He added that the substantive motion should be proposed and seconded prior to any voting on Councillor Palmer’s point.  Councillor Palmer clarified that PDRC had looked at this matter previously and the motion could rescind a recent decision.

Councillor Mike Whiting then proposed an alteration to the motion as set out on the Agenda with changes at paragraphs 2 and 4:

(2) That properly nominated Parish Representatives of the Area Committees, with the one exception detailed in (3) below, enjoy the same rights as Borough Members to debate, propose and vote for recommendations made by the Area Committees to Swale’s Cabinet.

(4)  That Officers be instructed with drafting the necessary changes to the Constitution to allow recommendations 1 to 3 above and to present their report to the General Purposes Committee in accordance with the Constitution.

On being put to the vote Members agreed to allow the alteration.

In proposing the altered motion, Councillor Whiting said that whilst he was still sceptical of Area Committees, in order for them to be successful, Parish and Town Council formal involvement was vital.  He referred to the letter sent by the Cabinet Member for Planning to all Parish and Town Councils to increase their participation at the Area Committees and was critical that all Members were not informed of the letter in advance. Councillor Whiting compared the formal role that Parish and Town Councils had at the Swale Joint Transportation Board meetings and he read out representations from Parish Councils that wished to propose, speak and vote at Area Committee meetings.   He criticised the current administration and said they preferred to limit the role of Parish and Town Councils in the Area Committees, and concluded by saying that better informed debates led to better informed actions.

The Cabinet Member for Planning said that Councillor Whiting was mis-informed, and every Parish and Town Council had been asked to raise a delegate to sit on their relevant Area Committee.

In seconding the altered motion, Councillor Alan Horton said that the purpose of the motion was to seek Council’s support for the work required to make the necessary changes to Area Committees.  He discussed the process the forming of Area Committees had taken, and their function, and drew attention that there was no specific provision within the Constitution for the third tier of Local Government, whilst highlighting the high number of parished areas in Swale.

In accordance with Part 4.1 (15) of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

In view of impact of climate change accelerating the rate of the erosion of the Sheppey cliffs, this Council wishes to change Government policy to prevent further unsustainable erosion, thereby protect the existing, expanding, & future population of Sheppey. Swale Borough Council undertakes to seek the removal of the government coastal policy of non intervention, with its serious social & commercial implications, and replace that policy with a policy of protection of the coastline.

Proposed by Cllr MacDonald

Seconded by Cllr Ingleton

Councillor Peter MacDonald proposed the motion as set out on the Agenda.  He said that policies could be changed and described a previous occasion where the Environment Agency (EA) had proposed to abandon sea defences from Leysdown to Rushenden but changed that policy.  He highlighted the increase in coastal erosion.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Ken Ingleton gave a history and technical explanation of the erosion of the Sheppey coastline.   He also suggested measures of how to address the erosion and referred to the decision taken by the EA, Medway Estuary and Swale Flood Coastal Management Strategy in September 2019 to take no active intervention to prevent further loss of property.  He said that a change in policy to active intervention could start a long term process to protect what would remain of the Isle of Sheppey cliffs.

The Cabinet Member for Environment said there were two approaches that could be taken, to either stop the erosion or to manage the retreat from the cliff edge.  He referred to the Shoreline Management Plans from 1996 and 2008 and said that the previous administration chose not to challenge the policy of no active intervention for the Eastchurch area.  The Cabinet Member for Environment said that there had been meetings between officers, residents, and Members in March 2020, before the cliff collapse, and in September 2020 and an expert report of the erosion was commissioned.  The EA had advised that the policy of no active intervention was founded on good evidence.  The Cabinet Member for Environment outlined that in order for the policy to be changed, detailed evidence would have to be submitted via the South East Coastal Group and SBC officers did not have the required expertise.  He concluded by saying that the EA had advised that the scheme proposed by Councillor MacDonald would not be successful and that a total of 21 properties were affected by the erosion of the cliffs.

In the debate that followed, Members raised points including:

·       Disappointed with the response from the Cabinet Member for Environment;

·       the proposal was not about SBC doing the work but for a change in policy;

·       residents were victims of a national policy;

·       should do the best for the residents and not just accept the policy;

·       referred to previous press release from administration expressing opposition to the Shoreline Management Plan;

·       should call on support from the Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP;

·       welcomed the motion;

·       had sympathy, but needed to consider the larger area - if policy was changed to prevent coastal erosion, it would impact elsewhere;

·       needed to look at the whole management plan;

·       should not be a priority during the current Covid-19 pandemic;

·       changes to the Site of Special Scientific Interest were necessary to allow interventions to happen;

·       should support the residents;

·       erosion over the past 50 years was well known and documented;

·       non-intervention by the EA was the correct policy;

·       owners in the area were aware of the erosion when properties were purchased and many were un-insurable;

·       motion was divorced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

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

The Mayor advised that there were no questions from the public.

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

The Mayor advised that 7 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.  Details of the questions and responses are set out below:

Question 1 – Councillor David Simmons

At a Scrutiny Committee meeting earlier this year the Leader of the Council described the 2013 joint mid Kent waste contract as a bad contract.  Please could the cabinet member tell me what is bad about the contract and for whom is it bad?

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Tim Valentine

The Mid Kent Waste contract was let in 2013 and saw the forming of a partnership with neighbouring authorities Maidstone and Ashford. There are benefits in this arrangement including economies of scale and a collegiate approach with officers managing the contracts across the boroughs. This did indeed lead to a much-reduced cost of contract at tender stage, but this has meant the contractor has not always had the resources required to deliver the resilience, and therefore quality of service we would like to see.

The length of contract is also a problem. A 10-year contract reduced costs by enabling the cost of vehicles to be written down over a longer period. However, the view within the industry is that the useful life of the vehicles is approximately 8 years. Therefore, we are now experiencing a high level of vehicle breakdowns, including problems with the hydraulic lifting equipment. This lack of reliability has led to the poor level of bin collection service that was suffered over last year. Council officers have worked with the contractor to make improvements in recent months, including a full rescheduling of garden waste collections.

Furthermore, the zoning of the streets which determines their level of cleansing were, in the administration’s opinion, lower than we would have liked. This results in complaints from the public about the amount of litter in Swale.

We are working with officers ahead of a new contract to address these issues.

Supplementary Question:

How could the Cabinet Member improve on the contract and still show good value for money and service quality for local residents?

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

There is a working group looking at the new contract and the arrangements that will be made for that.  Things are moving on quickly in the industry, there are changes in the technology available and there is considerable scope to improve the service from the current contract we have.

Question 2 – Councillor Carole Jackson

Would the Cabinet Member for Planning comment on the published view of the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, that in our Local Plan review we should allocate all new housing to the Faversham end of the Borough, and failing that land to the south of Sittingbourne should come first?

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Mike Baldock

I would like to thank the Councillor for her very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231.

The Leader began his statement by saying he would concentrate on the Covid situation. He advised that he had sent a message out to Members last Thursday and would endeavour to keep Members up to date, as much as he could.

He referred to the reasons why the Government had introduced the 28-day emergency measures saying that it was not about absolute numbers, because they varied so much across the country. The Leader said it had become necessary because of the sharp rise in infection rates through October 2000 which, unless a break was applied, would lead to serious consequences, for public health, the NHS and the economy if large numbers of people became infected. He said that during this restrictive period, it was important that a more efficient track and trace system was put in place and we needed to wait to see what part local government might play in this.

The Leader said that these measures were in many ways different to the spring lockdown and might better be described as Tier 3 plus for all. He said the economy, though severely restricted, was more open, and there was support for business that would have to be managed and the extension of the furlough scheme.

Referring to the end of the emergency measures, the Leader said that what might happen after December 2^nd 2000 was uncertain, but it would be unwise not to anticipate a continuation of restrictions of some kind throughout the winter, and until a vaccine was available for all.

The Leader said that Ministerial responses suggested a probable resumption of the tier system but with the probability that an assessment of where each council lies within that system being based on the data towards the end of this emergency break.

In highlighting the situation in Swale, the Leader said that at the end of September 2000 we had comfortably low levels of infection and now we were at a rate of 271 per 100K. He added that the reality was that the day before the present measures were introduced, Public Health England and KCC were pressing for Swale, along with two other districts in Kent, to go into tier 2, the discussions around this being abandoned once the nationwide measures were announced. The Leader said that data since would suggest that if Swale were to be put into Tier 2 then so should other districts of Kent, and plausibly the whole of Kent.

The Leader said that we had a very powerful incentive over these weeks to demonstrate a levelling off of the rate of growth in Swale, to slow down the momentum.  He added that the virus spread virulently through close personal contact and the measures introduced by the Government were to reduce considerably that contact. The Leader said that we could only tackle the issue here in Swale if we all complied and it was our duty to encourage and exhort that compliance and in particular to monitor compliance in the business  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232.

The Chairman of the Audit Committee, Councillor Simon Clark, introduced the report, proposed the recommendation to agree the report and thanked the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Accountant, Head of Audit Partnership and the external Auditors Grant Thornton.  The proposal was seconded by Councillor James Hall, the Vice-Chairman of the Audit Committee.

The Leader joined the Audit Committee Chairman in his thanks and stressed the importance of the Audit Committee in ensuring that the Council were not taking risks and had a clear idea of resources when delivering policies.

The Leader of the opposition drew attention to page 14 of the report, and spoke positively that the Council had received an unqualified Annual Opinion from the Head of Audit Partnership and that the External Auditors presented an unqualified opinion for the Council’s financial statements and value for money conclusion for 2018/19.  He praised the Chairman of the Audit Committee for his chairing of the meetings and also praised the Audit partners, the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Accountant.  He said it was an outstanding year of Audit.

Members noted the report.

Resolved:

(1)  That the Audit Committee Annual Report for 2019/20 (Appendix I) be noted.

The Leader introduced the report which had been considered by the Audit Committee on 30 September 2020.  He reported that borrowing rates remained low, as were returns on investment, and the 6 month review would be reported to the next Audit Committee on 25 November 2020 and subsequently to Full Council on 6 January 2021.   He thanked the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accountant and proposed the recommendations in the report.  This was seconded by the Deputy Leader.

The Leader of the opposition spoke positively on the additional income of £214k received as outlined at paragraph 2.6 on page 19 of the report and endorsed the praise of the financial team including the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accountant and Management Accountant.

On being put to the vote, Members agreed the recommendations.

Resolved:

(1)  That the Treasury Management stewardship report for 2019/20 be approved.

(2)  That the Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators within the report be approved.

The Leader introduced the report and advised that 2020/21 Council Tax support rose from 75% to 80% and the proposal was to keep the same rate for 2021/22 in order to assist those in hardship whilst also protecting the Council’s finances.  He proposed the recommendations which were seconded by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance.

The Leader of the opposition gave his full support.

In accordance with SI 2014 No. 165, a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Baldock, Beart, Bonney, Bowen, Carnell, R Clark, S Clark, Darby, Davey, Dendor, Ellen, Fowle, Gibson, Gould, Hall, A Hampshire, N Hampshire, Harrison, Horton, Hunt, Ingleton, Jackson, Jayes, Knights, MacDonald, Marchington, Ben J Martin, McCall, Palmer, Perkin, Rowles, Saunders, Simmons, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thomas, Truelove, Valentine, Whelan, Whiting, Winckless and Woodford. Total equals = 42.

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Resolved:

(1)  That the Council Tax Support scheme for 2021/22 is kept the same as 2020/21 and the Council Tax support continues as a maximum award of 80%

The Leader introduced the report, drawing attention to the benefits of a new polling district for local residents.  He proposed the recommendation which was seconded by the Deputy Leader.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen, Ward Member, welcomed and gave his full support for the proposal.

Councillor James Hall thanked the Electoral Services Officer for his work on progressing the proposal.

On being put to the vote, the recommendation was agreed.

Resolved:

(1)  That a new polling district is set up in the Teynham & Lynsted ward (Tonge Parish area) to allow electors to vote at Lakeview Village Hall on the Great Easthall Estate, Marston.

Three to-follow documents added 10 November 2020.

The appendices below are to-follow:

·         Appendix III: Membership of Committees

·         Appendix IV: Appointment of Chairman and Vice-Chairman

Appendix III and IV added 11 November 2020.

Members confirmed they had all received copies of updated Appendices III and IV, circulated earlier in the evening and added to the website.

The Leader introduced the report and gave an update, advising that Councillor Denise Knights would replace Councillor Lee McCall on the Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Ben A Martin would replace Councillor Lee McCall on the Swale Joint Transportation Board and Councillor Elliott Jayes would replace Councillor Ben A Martin as Vice-Chairman on Planning Committee as set out in Appendix IV.  He proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

The Monitoring Officer clarified the gifting of seats to ensure political balance.

The Chairman of the Planning Committee recorded his thanks to the former Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Ben A Martin.

On being put to the vote the recommendations were agreed.

Resolved:

(1)  That the political balance be agreed as set out in Appendix II, as amended to allocate the unallocated seats on Audit, Emergency and General Licensing Committee.

(2)  That the allocation of seats and appointment of Members to those Committees, in accordance with the wishes of Group Leaders, as set out in Appendix I to these minutes be agreed.

(3)  That the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of those Committees be agreed, as set out in Appendix IV.

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

General Purposes Committee – 28 September 2020

Cabinet – 28 September 2020

Recommendations added 10 November 2020

The Council was asked to note the recommendations from the General Purposes Committee meeting and Cabinet meetings, both held on 28 October 2020, as separate reports on the items had been considered earlier in the meeting.

Resolved:

(1)  That Minute No. 206 from the General Purposes Committee meeting held on 28 October 2020 be noted.

(2)  That Minute Nos. 209 and 210 from the Cabinet meeting held on 28 October 2020 be noted.