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.  A Member queried the fire escape route, which was clarified.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 October 2016 (Minute Nos. 947 - 959) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 October 2016 (Minute Nos. 947 – 959) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

A Member questioned why there was no recorded vote listed in Minute No. 955.  The Chief Executive advised that votes were only recorded if it was requested or required by legislation.

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 Ken Ingleton declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Minute No.1024 as he was on a committee for licensed premises.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Minute No. 1024 as he lived in a parking permit area zone.

In response to a question, the Director of Corporate Services confirmed that all Members had been given a dispensation regarding Minute No. 1026.

The Mayor advised that she had been to Ypres on Armistice Day, with children from across the Borough. 

The Mayor thanked Members for laying wreaths at Remembrance Services on her behalf.

The Mayor had presented the French Government’s Legion De’Honneur Medal to Mr Roy Smith, a local D-Day veteran, on 20 October 2016.  She was sad to announce that Mr Larry Smithers, who had also been presented with this award earlier in the year, had passed away.

The Mayor referred to the ‘Dementia Friendly Kent’ Awards Ceremony held at the Oasis Academy on 24 October 2016, and was pleased that Mr Paul Murray had been presented with an award.

Lastly, the Mayor advised that the 1^st Teynham Scout Troop had visited the Council on 17 November 2016, which had been very enjoyable.

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 there were no questions from 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 and Answers added 22.11.16)

The Mayor advised that six questions had been submitted by Members, the answers to which had been provided and are attached as Appendix I 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

Councillor James Hunt thanked the Cabinet Member for his response, and asked if the Deputy Cabinet Member could give more information about what the notices were, whether there were concerns about how many were issued, and whether there were similar numbers across Swale or if there was just a problem in his Ward?

The Deputy Cabinet Member gave a detailed response, advising that the performance mechanism applied to all aspects of the contract, including both waste collection and street cleaning.  Occasionally there were hot-spot areas which were addressed directly with the contractor, or sometimes it was a localised issue with public misuse of the service, or sometimes a contractor issue who might not be familiar with the round.  She outlined details of the rectification notices, non-rectifiable defaults, and serious non-rectifiable defaults and the penalty charges.  They had issued 211 rectification notices and 87 rectifiable defaults, totaling £4,350; four non-rectifiable defaults, totaling £400; and three serious non-rectifiable defaults, totaling £3,000.

Question Two

Councillor Harrison thanked the Cabinet Member for his response.  She referred to the number of reports, frameworks, strategies and consultations for Sheerness Town Centre, and asked when they would do something to improve the environment in Sheerness Town Centre?

The Cabinet Member responded, referring to the Section 106 monies set aside and the recent announcement about the £50k Council funding towards a townscape heritage bid, with the involvement of partners and local Members.  Unfortunately, lottery funding bids had not succeeded, but they were trying again.

Question Three

Councillor Roger Truelove thanked the Cabinet Member for his response, and said that he had a list of play areas where he would like money to be spent, and asked the Deputy Cabinet Member what were her priorities for spending on play areas?

The Deputy Cabinet Member responded by saying that all play areas were important.

Question Four

Councillor Ghlin Whelan asked how the Council would help local needs via affordable housing, when the Town Centre and Mill Site had no provision for affordable housing?

The Cabinet Member advised that there were a number of other sites within the Sittingbourne area where there would be affordable housing, and the costs were factored into all development schemes.

Question Five

Councillor Mark Ellen asked the Cabinet Member, if not all of the £28m was spent on Sittingbourne Town Centre regeneration, could the rest be spent on the Isle of Sheppey?

The Cabinet Member clarified that the £250,000 referred to in the answer should read £205,000, and acknowledged that all parts of the Borough should be treated fairly based on many issues including deprivation, local need, local planning processes and priorities.  There were many underlying issues in the Isle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1022.

Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement added 22.11.16).

The Leader presented his Statement, which gave updates on the Spirit of Sittingbourne, Mid Kent Services, and recent District Council Network meetings.  The Mayor invited Members to ask questions on each topic.

Spirit of Sittingbourne Update

The Leader of the UKIP Group welcomed the news of the Artisan Market and asked if proper measures would be put in place to ensure that that was no clash between the market and festivals, such as the MOPS festival and St. George’s Day, so that they complemented each other?

The Leader advised that he would make every effort to take this on board.

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the extraordinary meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on 29 November 2016 to consider the call-in of the Cabinet’s decision on financing and investment, and asked if the Leader agreed if it was right for every Member of the Council to be at that meeting to satisfy themselves and their public?

The Leader advised that it was important not to pre-judge decisions, and that if Members wished to learn more then they should attend.  Due to previous commitments it was not possible for him to attend the meeting.

The Leader of the Independent Group suggested that the investment was being considered because the Spirit of Sittingbourne scheme was not financially viable, and expressed concern that the Conservative Group held the most seats on the Scrutiny Committee.  He asked the Leader to ensure that the Cabinet took account of the Scrutiny Committee’s comments and recommendations.

The Leader referred to the statutory rules regarding allocation of seats on committees, and that he could not pre-judge what the Scrutiny Committee would recommend.  The Spirit of Sittingbourne had not said that the scheme was not viable; they had been preparing to take the investment opportunity to the money market when the Council had intervened to consider the opportunity to invest, to safeguard the Council’s financial future.

A Member referred to the Artisan Market and praised Officers for their work and commitment to ensuring it was a success.  He asked the Leader if he agreed that the Artisan Market was a further example of how Swale Borough Council was open for business and match-fit?

The Leader welcomed the feedback regarding officers and added his congratulations, and thanked the Member for his comments.

A Member asked if there would be a strategy for Sittingbourne High Street, to ensure the Council could take advantage of opportunities?  She also asked if the Artisan Market would be better publicised in the future?

The Leader advised that the Market had been well publicised.  In respect of a strategy for Sittingbourne High Street, there was a strategy document years ago, but he considered that any strategy should be light-touch as officer time was better spent on action and delivery rather than writing strategies.

Mid Kent Services (MKS) Update

The Leader of the Independent Group expressed concern that there was difficulty in retaining senior managers, and questioned the impact of the secondment of the Head  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1023.

The Mayor drew attention to the Cabinet’s response to the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee, which were included in the tabled papers for the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced the report, referring to the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations and the Cabinet’s response, and said that the fees and charges generated around £4m each year.  He drew attention to the charges for burial services and hackney carriage charges, which had been subject to a detailed review, and proposed the recommendation, which was seconded by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance.

The Leaders of the UKIP Group and Labour Group both advised that the fees and charges had been through the proper processes, but they would be voting against the proposals as they were not happy with the proposed increase in resident parking charges.

The Leader of the Independent Group referred to the new charge of £500 for a licence for events with more than 10,000 people, and the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation that this should be deleted.  He questioned the impact of this on the Faversham Hop Festival, and proposed an amendment ‘that the £500 charge be deleted’.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney. 

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities explained that the £500 charge was less than that charged when this was previously within the remit of another Council department, and outlined the support given to the Festival.  Furthermore, the Hop Festival Committee were happy with the charge.  Following further debate, during which Members expressed concern that this information had not been available at the Scrutiny Committee, the proposer and seconder withdrew the amendment.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen proposed an amendment to the bootcamp licence fees, to amend it to apply from five people and not from one person.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5), a recorded vote was taken on the amendment, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Sarah Aldridge, Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, George Bobbin, Monique Bonney, Andy Booth, Tina Booth, Lloyd Bowen, Bowles, Roger Clark, Katy Coleman, Derek Conway, Mike Cosgrove, Adrian Crowther, Mike Dendor, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mark Ellen, Mick Galvin, Sue Gent, James Hall, Nicholas Hampshire, Mike Henderson, Alan Horton, James Hunt, Lesley Ingham, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Gerry Lewin, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Padmini Nissanga, Prescott, Ken Pugh, George Samuel, Ben Stokes, Anita Walker, Ghlin Whelan and Ted Wilcox.  Total equals 39.

Against: Councillors Harrison and Roger Truelove.  Total equals 2.

Abstain: Councillors Richard Darby and Paul Fleming.  Total equals 2.

The amendment was therefore agreed.

During the debate, the Director of Corporate Services clarified that the tabled paper of Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations also contained responses from the Cabinet, which had agreed to some of the  recommendations.  For clarity, the changes agreed by Cabinet which were recommended for Council to approve, were drawn to Members attention, as set out below:

·        Sports Facilities – no changes to the charges for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1024.

The Director of Corporate Services drew attention to the reminder at the beginning of the report regarding the need for Members to have had regard to all of the supporting papers, in particular the Community Impact Assessment, and to have taken them into account before reaching their individual decision.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced the report, advising of an amendment to recommendation 2 in the report to read paragraph 3.7 and not 3.6.  The Council was required to approve the scheme by 31 January each year, and he referred to the public consultation that had been undertaken and evaluated, and the Community Impact Assessment.  The Policy Development and Review Committee had considered the proposed Scheme at its meeting on 28 October 2016, and the Cabinet had accepted the recommendation it had made at its meeting on 9 November 2016. The Cabinet Member proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance.

During the debate, the Director of Corporate Services clarified that the recommendation in Minute No. 994(4) of the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 9 November 2016 also needed to be included in the proposal, which the Cabinet Member had referred to in his introduction.

Members gave their views on the Scheme, during which a Member thanked theRevenues and Benefits Manager - Technical & Financial for answering his questions outside of the meeting.  A Member expressed concern at the low response to the public consultation, and the Deputy Cabinet Member advised that they had tried a different way to encourage responses.  The Chief Executive confirmed that there was no requirement for sufficient responses to be statistically significant, but that Members must have due regard to the consultation responses.

Resolved:

(1) That the outcome of the public consultation, having taken consideration of the potential impact of the proposed changes on working age claimants with the protected characteristics of disability, age and sex under the Equalities Act 2010, be noted.

(2) That changes be made to the current scheme as set out in paragraph 3.7 of the report.

(3) That the new funding model from the major preceptors for the collection of Council Tax from Council Tax Support claimants during 2017/18 be agreed.

(4) That as per paragraph 3.7 table 2, option 11 and paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 of the report, if Central Government does not change the Housing Benefit regulations to limit the number of dependent children within the calculation of Housing Benefit to two, the Council will only use paragraph 3.9 for option 10 – to remove the Work Related Activity component in the calculation of Council Tax Support, and will recommend that Option 11 is still applied. 

The Leader of the UKIP Group expressed concern that the tabled paper contained an additional recommendation.  The Chief Executive clarified that the report from the Panel was not clear regarding whether, if agreed, Deputy Cabinet Member allowances should be backdated, and so the Chairman of the Panel had been asked to clarify their intention.  The additional recommendation related to the start date of the proposed Deputy Cabinet Member allowance, not the introduction of a new allowance.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced the report, referring to the updated summary of recommendations from the Panel that had been tabled at the meeting.  He emphasised the importance of setting allowances that would enable people to take up the position of councillor without being in financial difficulty as a result.  He proposed the recommendations, as tabled, and proposed that the allowance for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be increased to 70% and 30% of the basic allowance.  These were seconded by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance.

The Leader of the UKIP Group considered it was undesirable that Councillors decided on their own pay, referring to the recommendations made by the Panel in 2013, which the Council had chosen not to accept.  He did not consider that the Council should keep increasing the amounts, in-line with staff pay rises, and questioned why Members did not receive the same mileage rate as staff?  He also questioned why Special Responsibility allowances (SRAs) were required for Deputy Cabinet Members, and why more posts were required to do what nine Cabinet Members used to do?  He questioned how the Council could find the money to finance an increase when it could not afford to support other events, such as the Mops Festival and the Kent Community Rail Partnership?  He considered it was not good to increase allowances at a time of austerity, and said he would be happy to take the £4,000 pay cut that was proposed for the SRA for the Group Leader of the largest opposition party.

The Leader of the Labour Group advised that the view of his Group was that the Council should accept the recommendations of the Panel, referring to the proposed introduction of a requirement for Leaders of smaller minority groups to have 4.7 members before they could claim an SRA as Group Leader.

The Deputy Leader of the Independent Group advised that they did not agree that the post of Deputy Cabinet Member should attract an SRA, and asked for clarification regarding the criteria for claiming mileage for attendance at meetings with officers.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposals, during which the following comments were made:  the proposals would bring the mileage rate in-line with those of officers;  the role of Deputy Cabinet Member should be cost-neutral, in that the allowance for Deputy Cabinet Members should be the equivalent of the SRA saved as a result of the reduction in the number of Cabinet Members;  the role of Chairman of the Licensing Committee should not attract an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1026.

Council is asked to note the recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 9 November 2016 (Minute Nos. TBC), which are the subject of separate reports on the agenda.

Resolved:

That the recommendations in Minute Nos. 993 and 994 of the Cabinet Meeting held on 9 November 2016 be noted, as they have been subject to separate reports on the agenda, approved earlier in the meeting.