The Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Mayor outined the Emergency Evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 June 2022 (Minute Nos. 87 - 96) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Full Council meeting held on 15 June 2022 (Minute Nos. 87 - 96) 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 Interests (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.

Councillor Peter MacDonald declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in item 9 – Motion concerning loss of water supply on the Isle of Sheppey – as he sat on Sheerness Town Council.

The Mayor had attended a number of events since the last Full Council meeting including:

·         Open Day at the Criterian Theatre, Bluetown, Sheerness where he had opened a new lift;

·         Armed Forces Flag raising ceremony at County Hall, Maidstone;

·         Afternoon tea at the Royal Society of St. George, Sittingbourne;

·         Sister Act Musical performed by students at Highsted School, Sittingbourne;

·         Commonwealth Batton relay event at Abbey School, Faversham;

·         Challenger Troup Award ceremony at Meadowfields School, Sittingbourne;

·         Mayor of Faversham’s Civic Service;

·         Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Swale Garden party with former Mayor which raised £700 in total and included a donation of £436 from the former Mayor’s charity fund raising.

Referring to his attendance at the recent Swale Youth Forum, the Mayor praised the young people in attendance for their engagement and questions with Matthew Scott, the Kent Police Crime Commissioner.

The Mayor advised that as there was a lot of public interest in Item 11 – Community Governance Review – and public were in attendance in the Chamber for that item, he would bring forward the item for discussion after the Leader’s Statement.

The Mayor altered the order of business as minuted.

The Leader opened his statement by speaking about the recent failure of the water infrastructure on the Isle of Sheppey, and the declaration by Swale Borough Council (SBC) to declare a water emergency.  He said he had major reservations in the role that Southern Water (SW) played and pointed out that the company had not learnt any lessons from the previous incident in 2016.  The Leader said that Members and Officers had expressed their concerns to SW and impressed upon them the priority need for a second pipeline onto the Isle of Sheppey.

The Leader said that SBC were seeking compensation from SW for losses the Council had suffered, and he said that the process on how others who were impacted could be compensated would be advertised.

The Leader thanked SBC staff who he said responded magnificently to the emergency, along with staff from Maidstone Borough Council and volunteers from the Borough.

The Leader then referred to the second water emergency in the Borough which occurred at Dunkirk and the surrounding villages, and he again thanked staff and volunteers for their assistance.  He also drew attention to the fire at Barton’s Point, Minster, paid tribute to staff in all incidents, and said their response was immediate.

Referring to the £20 million Levelling-Up Fund bid that would shortly be submitted, the Leader outlined the planned projects known as the Sheerness Revival, that, if successful, would benefit residents including an upgrade of the community, visitor and leisure facilities around Beachfields, Sheppey College extension, and an upgrade of Master’s House, Sheerness. He spoke about the creation of jobs as part of the proposals.  The Leader said that Swale had been awarded Priority 1 status in the bidding and the outcome of the bid would be known in autumn 2022.

The Leader said that SBC would shortly be submitting its Investment Plan which would allow the Council to drawdown on £1.17 million UK Shared Prosperity Funding.  He said a cross party working group had met to agree priorities and suggest projects following recommendations made by the Regeneration and Property Committee on 7 July 2022. 

Referring to the hot weather, the Leader said that it was important during the summer season that tourism and visitor centres were able to recover from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.  He said that Members could all play their part in supporting community events across the Borough and he was delighted to announce that both Oare Country Park and Church Milton Country Park had been awarded a Green Flag.  The Leader also gave an update on the restoration of the Sheerness Clock Tower.  He described Swale’s rich heritage and explained that the character Jack Sparrow was in part based on local pirate John Jack Ward who was born in Faversham in 1553.  The Leader said that it was national Talk Like a Pirate Day on 19 September 2022 and he encouraged Members to research the history of John Jack Ward.

Finally, the Leader said he was delighted to attend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 224.

Proposed Amendment to Recommendation 2a added 26 July 2022

The Leader introduced the report which set out details of the recent consultation that took place as part of the Community Governance Reviews agreed by Council in April 2022.  He proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Ken Ingleton who reserved his right to speak.

Councillor James Hall proposed an amendment to Recommendation 2(a) which had been published on the website and tabled:

“To continue to a 2^nd stage consultation with respect of the Murston Ward Boundary, setting out the different boundary options for residents.  This should include any cost changes include parish precepts for the different opinions.

This will ensure that residents have all the information to enable them to make an informed decision.”

The amendment was seconded by the Leader who said that a second consultation would seek residents’ views on whether they agreed with the proposed changes.

In the debate that followed, Members made points including:

·         The response rate of 26.5% of 637 residents consulted was likely higher as only one person would generally respond on behalf of a household;

·         the results were very clear, only 8.8% of those who responded were in favour of a boundary review at Great Easthall, Murston;

·         a second consultation was not necessary;

·         the public had already been consulted and given their views and the Council should listen to those views;

·         the Officer’s recommendation was very clear;

·         it was unjust to keep running a process to change the outcome;

·         another consultation was a waste of resources;

·         91% against a boundary change was a very large margin;

·         it was good news that so many that were consulted supported their Parish Council;

·         the amendment was insulting to public who had responded to the consultation;

·         there may be minor changes to the boundary necessary in the future; and

·         ignoring the views of those who had responded sent out the wrong message.

The Leader said he welcomed comments about democracy but referred to paragraph 3.7 of the report in which the majority did not support a review, and said there was inconsistency in the process.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost. Members then debated the substantive recommendation and made points including:

·         Support for the boundary change at Lucas Close, Queenborough; and

·         support for the boundary to include land at Brielle Way, Sheerness in case of further development in the future.

On being put to the vote, Members voted in favour of the recommendations set out in the report.

Resolved:

(1)  To note the results of the initial stage consultations for the Community Governance Reviews conducted at:

a)    Great Easthall Estate – Tonge Parish Area

b)   Lucas Close – Sheerness Town Council area

(2)  That having considered the results of the initial consultations, the Council agrees the following:

a)    Great Easthall (Tonge Parish area) – no further action is taken and the review is concluded.

b)   Lucas Close (Sheerness Town Council area) – a second stage consultation is conducted with residents and interested parties, recommending the Town Council boundary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 225.

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).

No questions were submitted by Members of 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).

The Mayor advised that four questions had been submitted from Members.  As Councillor Whiting was not in attendance in the Chamber, his question (2) would be rolled over to the next Full Council meeting.

Question 1 – Councillor Bill Tatton

There have been two well attended Sheppey Area Committee meetings with the main conclusion that if Swale Borough Council (SBC) gets its £20M Government Levelling up fund it should be spent on the proposed swimming pool re-build, expansion of the health centre and canvassing to local employers to find out what skill sets are needed by students that are attending Sheppey College.

There had been no mention of a soft play & adventure golf putting area or indeed a further eatery.

There are more than enough eateries in the adjacent High Street, there is no need to approve the appearance on the exit from the railway station, the present scheme designers stated it would be good for tourism under the belief tourists would arrive via train. Had research been carried out, very few tourists arrive by train, these trains normally comprise of 2 carriages so may be of interest to day trippers but not tourists.

Adventure golf putting is dependent on weather conditions and once Sheerness residents have had a go, how do the remote conurbations residents’ benefit? With possible Anti-Social Behaviour attacks, maintenance costs, golf club and ball hire, I cannot see how golf putting would offer the same benefit as swimming.

In a press release dated 7^th June 2022 by the Chair of Regeneration and Property Committee it stated that the swimming pool preferred suggestions were not feasible and would not be possible in the timescales the government have set.

Why can’t £60m be found as it was for the Sittingbourne town centre regeneration?

Response – Vice-Chair of Regeneration and Property

Wrapped around the Area Committee meeting, Swale Borough Council undertook wide-ranging consultation in early 2022 to seek people’s views on the proposed Levelling-Up Fund bid, with questions including ‘what would you like to see inside a new swimming pool building / refurbished leisure centre’ and ‘what would you like to see in the wider Beachfields footprint’. 

Responses showed support for a café, soft play and adventure golf, and these were tested against current and future demand as part of the business case preparation, with evidence showing there would be a strong market for these facilities. 

A key aim of the bid is to increase visitation from outside of Sheerness, to support the regeneration of the sea front, High Street and wider town centre.

In line with Council policy, we are keen to encourage public transport and active travel as primary transport means. The improvement of the pedestrian route from the station will benefit more users than just those arriving by train.

We share everyone’s disappointment that it has not been possible to include a new swimming pool in the Levelling-Up Fund bid, and that the fund does not support revenue investment, which would be required to deliver  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

Following the major emergency declared on the Isle of Sheppey on the 13th July 2022, resulting from the loss of water supply islandwide, and similar incidents in January 2016 and September 2017, this council resolves;

1) To undertake urgent investigations to ascertain whether legislation exists to enable the introduction of an emergency moratorium on determining planning applications for new housing on the Isle of Sheppey;

2) To ask the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group to consider commissioning an independent study into the sustainability of water infrastructure to form part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Local Plan Review and;

3) For the Chief Executive to make a formal complaint to the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) over the recent outage.  

The Chief Executive is asked to write to the CEO of Southern Water to notify them of this decision. A copy of this complaint should also be issued to the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and the Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Proposer: Cllr Cameron Beart

Seconder: Cllr Oliver Eakin

In accordance with section 3.1.14.3 of the Constitution, the Chief Executive read out an implications note in response to the amendments submitted against the motion concerning the loss of water supply on the Isle of Sheppey.

Before he proposed the motion, Councillor Cameron Beart spoke of the three occasions in recent years that the Isle of Sheppey had been without a water supply, and he said that lessons had not been learnt.  Councillor Beart said that the motion had been submitted to highlight the misery caused to residents and to find practical solutions to help in the future but as he considered that the amendments submitted by the Administration were being used as a political point-scoring platform, he chose to withdraw the motion.  Councillor Oliver Eakin, as the proposed seconder gave his support to the withdrawal of the motion. 

As the motion had not been proposed, the Mayor confirmed the motion had been withdrawn and there would be no further discussion on it at the meeting.

The Leader introduced the report which sought agreement to constitutional changes recommended by the Policy and Resources Committee.  He proposed the recommendations which were seconded by the Deputy Leader of the main opposition group, who reserved his right to speak.

Members raised points including:

·         Considered that it was unnecessary to include the change at paragraph 3.1.17;

·         supported Parish Councils giving a reason for calling in a planning application but said that Members should also be required to have a reason for calling an application in;

·         submitting amendments in advance encouraged inclusivity;

·         Members should give valid planning grounds to call in a planning application; and

·         highlighted the recommendation should include reference to paragraph 3.12 as well as 3.11.

The Chair of the Planning Committee explained that Members did usually give a planning reason when calling a planning application in and it was not an issue.

The Deputy Leader of the main opposition group spoke in support of the changes saying that the issues had been discussed at the Policy and Resources Committee and at the Working Group and he highlighted the differences when a Member who was not a Member of the Planning Committee, called an item into Planning Committee.

The Leader referred to the long debate that took place at the Policy and Resources Committee on 13 July 2022, which was available to view on line.  He said the changes had been well worked through and Members needed to work together.

Resolved:

(1)  That the constitutional changes set out in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.6 of the report be agreed.

(2)  That the constitutional changes set out in paragraph 3.11 and 3.12 of the report be agreed.