The Mayor’s Chaplain said Prayers.

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.

The Mayor outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27 July 2016 (Minute Nos. 808 - 818) as a correct record, subject to an amendment to reflect that Councillor Anita Walker was present at the meeting.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 27 July 2016 (Minute Nos. 808 – 818) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Mayor as a correct record, subject to an amendment to reflect that Councillor Anita Walker was present at the meeting.

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 Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern declared a disclosable non-pecuniary interest as he was employed by Shepherd Neame, but confirmed that he was not involved in any way with the Hop Festival (which was an item within the Leader’s Statement).

In answering questions in Minute No. 892, Councillor Gerry Lewin declared disclosable non-pecuniary interests as he was Chairman of a charity that sought to maintain a 700-year old building in Upchurch, and was a lifelong member of Court Hall, Sittingbourne.

The Mayor advised of the success of the Sheppey Summer Carnival, where they had hosted the Mayor of Bromley, the Deputy Mayor from Neuwied, Germany (which was twinned with Bromley) and their carnival court, who had presented her with a carnival medallion.  

The Mayor had opened the new development centre at Aesica Pharmaceuticals in Queenborough, which would bring more jobs to the area. 

The Mayor congratulated Councillor Samuel Koffie-Williams, who had been awarded the title of Freeman of the City of London, which all Members applauded.

The Mayor advised that the Oasis Academy’s Dementia Cafe would be hosting a delegation of Chinese doctors at their Dementia Cafe on Friday, which was a great coup for the Borough and for the Academy.

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).

The Mayor advised that no questions had been received from members of the public.

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 with answers added 20.09.16

The Mayor advised that five questions had been submitted by Members, the answers to which had been provided and are attached as Appendix II.  The Mayor reminded Members that there was a three minute time limit for supplementary questions and their answers, and invited relevant Members to ask a supplementary question.

Question One

Councillor Mike Baldock thanked the Cabinet Member for his answer, and expressed disappointment that he appeared to have little interest in heritage.  He asked whether the Cabinet Member realised that a good heritage strategy would help to promote the Borough, boost visitors and provide jobs?  Had he seen Dover’s heritage strategy, and would he reconsider producing a strategy for Swale?

The Cabinet Member for Planning responded by saying that he disagreed that he was not interested.  After declaring interests, he advised that there were many heritage associations/trusts in the Borough, such as the Museums Group, which Swale provided support to.  He reminded Members that there was a heritage grant available that Members could apply to, and to-date 10 local groups had applied for funding.

Question Two

Councillor Roger Truelove advised that he was disappointed with the answer and asked if the Leader would consider the residents and be more flexible.  Did he really expect staff to walk from Cockleshell Walk, Sittingbourne, which would be developed in the future.  He asked the Cabinet Member, if the Council was minded to acquire land near to the Council Offices and it was developed in some way, would he consider including staff parking, which would delight local people and staff?

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance agreed to the talk to the Member outside of the meeting regarding the land in question.

Question Three

Councillor Mark Ellen thanked the Cabinet Member for his response and asked whether the mountain bike trail would be included within the consultation and asked what other bodies would be approached for funding, and whether the Council would consider financing improvements?

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs advised that he was delighted with the increase in use and acknowledged that the owner had put a lot of effort into making improvements.  He welcomed suggestions for funding, and reminded Members about the funding opportunities via their Localism Grants.

Question Four

Councillor John Wright thanked the Leader for his response and asked: if the Leader and Officers could investigate whether other sites had been indicated and given to the occupants? And if the Leader would keep track of costs that would be/had been incurred as a result of the judge’s decision?  He was concerned that the decision gave residents no confidence in the planning system and said that the Council should appeal the decision.

The Leader advised that he shared the Member’s frustration with the system that allowed one person (the judge) to overrule the Planning Committee’s decision, which complied with planning rules, and referred to a meeting that was taking place the following week to discuss this further. 

Question Five

Councillor Cameron Beart thanked the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 892.

1) This Council agrees that all Parish Councils that register to speak on a Planning Application should be allowed to speak on that Planning Application, regardless of whether the site in question falls within their boundary or not.

2) This Council agrees that any organisation that registers to speak on a Planning Application be allowed to speak, and not be counted as a Residents' spokesman – i.e. that residents are still allowed to speak on the application as well.

Proposer: Councillor Mike Baldock

Seconder: Councillor Monique Bonney

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed, and Councillor Monique Bonney seconded, the following Motions.

1) This Council agrees that all Parish Councils that register to speak on a Planning Application, regardless of whether the site in question falls within their boundary or not.

2) This Council agrees that any organisation that registers to speak on a Planning Application be allowed to speak, and not be counted as a resident’s spokesman – i.e. that residents are still allowed to speak on the application as well.

The Mayor advised that in accordance with Procedure Rule No. 15, as the subject of the Motions fell within the remit of another committee, they would be referred without discussion to the General Purposes Committee, which would be meeting at 5pm on 29 September 2016.  The Committee would report back to the full Council on 19 October 2016.

Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement. 

Uploaded 20.09.16

The Leader presented his Statement, which focused on the Thames Estuary Commission; Christmas ‘Special’ Park and Ride; Faversham Hop Festival and Aspire Free School.

Thames Estuary Commission

The Leader of the UKIP Group asked to what extent would future policies reflect new development, rather than an out-of-date policy?  The Leader responded by saying that he would be mindful of this and would continue to represent the Borough, and clarified that the Commission did not replace the Thames Gateway Partnership or the Strategic Group.  The Government had appointed a Cabinet Member for the Thames Gateway. 

The Leader of the Labour Group considered it was an exciting opportunity to be part of the Commission, and asked the Leader if he agreed if it was important to get investment for infrastructure in Swale?  The Leader agreed, and referred to the additional funds that could be borrowed to take advantage of any offers that became available.

The Leader of the Independent Group advised that the Thames Gateway boundary stopped at Teynham, and asked if that was the same for the Commission?  He also asked if the submission could be made available to all Members?  He referred to the debate at the last Swale Joint Transportation Board and suggested that if funding was available for infrastructure, the bulk should be spent on road improvements rather than the rail network.

The Leader confirmed that the Commission’s boundary finished at Thanet, and so included Canterbury too.  In terms of infrastructure improvements, he did not agree that there was an adequate rail system, referring to the capacity for freight and restrictions at the Medway Tunnel, and the reduction in rail service for residents in  some areas such as Teynham, Selling and Newington.  There was a lot that could be done and the Council must grasp the nettle and invest for future growth.

A Member referred to discussion the Swale Joint Transportation Board regarding rail freight, and asked if it had been possible for an additional submission to be made regarding this?  The Leader advised that there had been a good debate on this.  Due to the volume of submissions it would not be possible to put in additional representations, however, there would be further opportunities to input and he would continue to make those points known.  He also undertook to find out if it was possible for a copy of the submission to be provided to all Members, as asked for by the Leader of the Independent Group.

Christmas ‘Special’ Park and Ride

The Leader of the UKIP Group congratulated the Leader on this initiative, and asked where the car parks would be located?  The Leader advised that the detail would be available soon, and confirmed that three sites had been confirmed in the last few days.  He gave credit to the Cabinet Member for Families and Safer Communities, and his Deputy, for their work on this.

The Leader of the Labour Group also welcomed this initiative, as did his Group.  He asked if there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 894.