Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Mayor outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

To follow report and appendices added 14 March 2025

The Mayor advised that a briefing on the Local Government Review (LGR) had taken place directly prior to the Extraordinary Council meeting, and this had given Members the opportunity to ask questions. He confirmed with Members that they had all seen the to follow report and appendices.

The Leader of the Council introduced the report which set out and explained the contents of the Government’s Devolution White Paper and was an invitation to submit a proposal for Local Government Reorganisation. He proposed the recommendations.

In seconding the recommendations, the Deputy Leader reserved his right to speak.

The Leader of the Conservative group referred to the uncertainty of proposals and said the big debate was over how many unitary authorities there should be. He listed the benefits and drawbacks of different size unitary authorities, and the costs and the logistics of integrating services. The Leader of the Conservative group said staying engaged with the process was crucial.

The Leader of the Swale Independent Alliance group said the proposals were undemocratic and would destroy the link between local communities and their local Council. He considered the proposals were rushed and said Swale Borough Council (SBC) should wait to see what happened with the first tranche of Councils that go forward, and learn from their experiences. The Leader of the SIA group said consideration should be made to submit a side letter indicating SBC’s preferred option. He said his personal preference was for four authorities as he considered this put SBC in a better position with partner authorities.

The Leader of the Reform UK group expressed his concern over the proposals as he said it was being rushed. He acknowledged the briefing that took place prior to the meeting had clarified issues but said that the devil was in the detail which was not yet known. He added that SBC did need to progress and had to be included. The Leader of the Reform UK party said there had been a missed opportunity by Government to reorganise combined social services and health.

The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat group said the proposal should be supported to ensure SBC had a voice. He referred to the seven authorities that had already shown their support and said that whilst SBC might not yet agree with the geographies, they were the current proposals that were under discussion. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat group supported signing the letter.

The Leader of the Green group referred to the lack of detail from Government.  He said that the U-Gov survey undertaken in December 2024 showed that 49% of voters in the south of England considered their local Councils to be the right size, with 6% considering their Council was too small. The Leader of the Green group said the proposal weakened local decision-making and stripped communities of their voice and he was critical of the Government’s proposals.

Other Members made points including:

·         This was the right approach;

·         did not think it was being rushed;

·         more work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 740.

Report and appendices added 18.3.25

The Mayor confirmed with Members they had all received the to-follow report and appendices. He advised that prior to the meeting, the Liberal Democrat group and the Reform UK group had drawn lots to decide which group would give up an additional seat, and the Liberal Democrat group had lost the draw and given up a seat on the Economy and Property Committee.

The Leader of the Council proposed the recommendations which were seconded by the Leader of the Conservative group.

The Leader of the Conservative group thanked officers for their work on a complex and technical procedure.

Resolved:

(1)  That the political balance calculation as set out at in Appendix II be agreed.

(2)  That Group Leaders allocate seats to Committees in accordance with the agreed political balance.