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 21 September 2016 (Minute Nos. 886 - 894) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 September 2016 (Minute Nos. 886 – 994) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

In respect of Minute No. 889, a Member asked for it to be noted that he was a “life” member and not a “lifelong” member of Court Hall, Sittingbourne.

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.

No interests were declared.

The Mayor advised that there had been a very high standard in the South/South East in Bloom awards and congratulated everyone involved. 

The Mayor had attended the Swale Business Awards Gala Evening where there had been some very deserving winners.

The Mayor reminded Members to respond to the email from the Mayor’s Personal Assistant about their availability on Remembrance Sunday.

The Mayor congratulated Councillor Peter Marchington and his wife, Lynne, on their Golden Wedding Anniversary.

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 one question had been received from a member of the public. As Mr Greenhill was not present at the meeting, the Mayor drew attention to the question and answer that had been circulated. This is attached as Appendix I to these Minutes.

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).

The Mayor advised that five questions had been submitted by Members, the answers to which had been provided and are attached as Appendix II to these Minutes. 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

Before a supplementary question was asked, the Leader advised that he anticipated that the Council had spent around £39,000 on this, based on the number of hours spent by Planning and Legal officers.

Councillor John Wright thanked the Leader for his response, and suggested that Housing officers would also have spent time on this.  He asked the Leader if the new Local Plan would be robust in stopping speculative development?

The Leader responded by saying that the Plan would be as robust as the Council could make it, subject to the Inspector’s decision and legislation.

Question Two

Councillor Roger Truelove thanked the Leader for his response, but expressed disappointment that Sittingbourne and Sheppey’s allocation appeared very small when compared with other districts.  He asked if the Leader agreed that they needed more political pressure at Westminster, and more pressure from the Kent County Councillor for Sheppey?

The Leader responded by saying that he would not be drawn into discussion about Kent County Council elections, and that he did not consider more political pressure was required, but more “spade ready” schemes were needed, that could go forward when the opportunity arose.

Question Three

Councillor Roger Truelove asked if the Cabinet Member for Planning agreed that the Planning Committee Members may wish to see a more robust response?

The Cabinet Member for Planning said “No”.

Question Four

Councillor Cameron Beart referred to the temporary traffic flows in place, that were currently due to end on 31 October 2016.  He asked the Leader if he could give an assurance that these would remain in place, and acknowledge that they were not a permanent solution to the problem, in particular given that the Planning Committee had given planning permission for 500 houses in the area, and the fact that KCC Highways had not raised a single objection on highway grounds?

The Leader advised that KCC would say that there was already an allowance for future growth.

Question Five

Councillor Cameron Beart expressed his disappointment that a democratic decision had been overturned when the development was wrong, and asked if the Council’s disappointment could be made clear to Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government, referring to the answer to question one?

The Cabinet Member for Planning undertook to take this forward with Ministers, and expressed disappointment regarding the lack of grounds to take forward on appeal, as set out in the answer he had given to question one.

Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement added 17.10.16).

The Leader presented his Statement, which focused on an update on Mid Kent Services; the Conservative Party Conference; and the Thames Gateway Strategic Group.  The Mayor invited Members to ask questions on each topic.

The Leader of the UKIP Group advised he was disappointed that there was no mention of the Medieval Mops Festival, and asked the Leader if he had attended?  The Leader advised that he had spent the day on ward case work.

The Leader of the Independent Group referred to the fact that the Thames Gateway Steering Group did not include Faversham, but that the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission did include Faversham, and asked the Leader how that would work?  The Leader undertook to provide the Member with contact details of the office of Lord Heseltine, who was the Chairman of the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission.

The Leader introduced the report, and proposed the recommendations, referring to the full debate on the Motions that had taken place at the General Purposes Committee meeting. The recommendations were seconded by the Deputy Leader.

The Leader of the UKIP Group asked for the recommendations to be taken separately, and spoke in relation to recommendation 1, asking the Council to support an amendment to the public participation scheme to give adjacent parish councils an opportunity to speak.  He proposed the following amendment: “That the Council amend the constitution to allow adjacent parish/town councils to speak at the Planning Committee on items with adjacent parish/town council areas”.  This was seconded by Councillor Adrian Crowther.

The Leader encouraged Members not to vote for the amendment, given that parish councils had ample opportunities to bring forward their views on planning applications, and that extended time at Planning Committee meetings might lead to more pressure for allowing increased officer delegations.

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the current public participation scheme, and the fact that the Chairman could use his discretion to allow more than one parish council representative in certain circumstances.  The Leader of the Independent Group spoke in support of the amendment.

Other Members gave their views on the amendment, suggesting that it would make the democratic process unwieldly; that there were plenty of opportunities for parish councils to put forward their views, such as written representations or via their Ward Member; and that the Chairman could already use his discretion to allow more than one parish councillor to speak.

The Deputy Leader, as seconder of the original motion, spoke against the amendment, referring to the opportunities already available.  In summing up, the Leader referred to the interpretation of the word ‘adjacent’, and urged Members to vote against the amendment.  The amendment was put to the vote and was lost.

The Council then voted on the original motion (recommendation one), which was agreed.

The Leader of the UKIP Group referred to recommendation 2 in the report, and advised that his intention was to make sure that members of the public had an opportunity to speak.  He advised that officers had said they would look at alternative options, and so he asked the Council to agree the recommendation in the report.

The Council then voted on recommendation two, which was agreed.

Resolved:

(1) That the Council does not update the constitution to allow adjacent parish/town councils to speak at Planning Committee on items with adjacent parish/town council areas.

(2) That the Council does not amend the constitution with regard to allowing additional speaking from any organisation that wishes to speak on a planning application presented.

The Leader introduced the report, and proposed the recommendations, suggesting an amendment to recommendation three to give an effective start date.  This was seconded by the Deputy Leader.

Resolved:

(1) That the Director of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Leader, be given the delegation to incorporate the revised national model procedure relating to the dismissal of statutory officers into Part 4.8 of the Officer Employment Procedure Rules within the Constitution.

(2) That the revised Scheme of Officer Delegation to the Head of Planning, as set out in the revised working paper attached to the report, be adopted.

(3) That the proposed amendments to the Contract Standing Orders, as set out in the working papers attached to the report, be adopted as part of the Constitution with effect from 1 January 2017.

The Leader thanked the General Purposes Committee and Ward Members for their input, and proposed the recommendations within the report.  This was seconded by the Deputy Leader.

Resolved:

(1) That the proposed changes to polling districts and the polling place for the Sheerness Ward be approved.

(2) That the proposed change to the polling place for the Woodstock Ward be approved.

The Chairman of the Audit Committee introduced the report, which had been considered by the Audit Committee (Minute No. 875 refers), and asked Members to approve the recommendations.  This was seconded by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance.

A Member referred to the discussion at the Audit Committee and congratulated officers on the report.

Resolved:

(1) That the Treasury Management stewardship report for 2015/16 be approved.

(2) That the prudential and treasury management indicators within the report be approved.

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

·         Audit Committee - 14 September 2016 - Minute No. 875

·         General Purposes Committee - 29 September 2016 - Minute Nos. 903, 904(a), (b), (d), (e).

(b) Council is asked to agree the recommendation from the General Purposes Committee -29 September 2016 - Minute No. 904(c).

Resolved:

(1)  That the following recommendations be noted, as they have been subject to separate reports approved earlier in the meeting:  Minute Nos. 875, 903, 904(a), 904(b), 904(d) and 904(e)

(2)  That recommendation 904(c) be approved.