The Chair advised that Councillor Kieran Mishchuk had replaced Councillor Chris Palmer on the Committee.

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 Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 March 2025 (Minute Nos. 749 – 755) and the Meeting held on 14 May 2025 (Minute Nos. 24 – 25) as correct records.

The Minutes of the Meetings held on 18 March 2025 (Minute Nos. 749 – 755) and 14 May 2025 (Minute Nos. 24 – 25) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct records.

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.

Councillor Elliott Jayes declared a disclosable non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 6 Swale Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan as he was a volunteer on the Sheppey Light Railway Greenway (SLRG) Group.

The Environmental Services Manager introduced James Farquhar - Regional Manager for South East (Suez) and James Goodwin – Contract General Manager for Mid Kent (Suez).  He introduced the covering report which included two appendices: the Annual Performance Report for the Waste Collection & Street Cleansing Service; and the Suez Mid Kent Annual Report. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments and ask questions, and these included:

·         Welcomed the report;

·         it was important to add additional street cleansing coverage for events such as the Hop Festival in Faversham;

·         clarification sought on the health and safety data as some figures across the two reports did not add up;

·         considered the four-week wait for collection of bulky waste was unacceptable, this needed to be looked into as bulky waste was an income generator;

·         some streets were in a poor state; the street cleansing system in place appeared to be very random;

·         a better picture should be put on the front of the report;

·         the Waste Member Working Group should not be disbanded, but should remain for a further year;

·         suggested the colour of the food waste transfer bin on the refuse vehicles be changed so that the public’s perception of where the food waste ended up was clearer;

·         there were numerous charts within the report and some needed to be given clearer labelling, and the map at Figure 1.12 needed a key to the colours; and

·         broken bin lids were abundant and this could contribute to contamination levels.

In response, the Environmental Services Manager said he would look into the health and safety data across both reports and amend prior to publishing the report; conversations were being had with Suez as to how the bulky waste facility could be expanded with some changes already implemented, the residents booking system for bulky waste collection slots was being looked into as some residents were saying that slots were not available and recent changes in legislation meant the Council had to collect some items separately which had caused issues with the service; black transfer bins were primarily used on the vehicles to make the process clearly identifiable.  The Head of Leisure and Environment explained that the wording in the joint contract between Ashford and Maidstone Borough Councils was that the transfer bin be clearly marked so that it could be identified as being different from the bins being collected.

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved the following motion:  That all food waste transferable bins be any colour apart from blue or green, so that residents were able to see that the food waste was kept separate.  This was seconded by Councillor Sarah Stephen.

Members made the following comments on the motion:

·         Acknowledged the confusion that food waste being transferred into the vehicle in a blue or green bin could bring, however it was already in the contract that the transfer bin would be visibly different;

·         concerned that there could be implications in changing the colour of the bin and was not convinced that this would resolve the issue; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

The Active Travel Officer introduced the report which explained the methodology used to create the draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) and showed the advantages of having all areas of the Borough in one place.

The Chair invited a visiting Member to speak.  The visiting Member considered the report did not go far enough.  He drew attention to the walking and cycling opportunities in the west of the Isle of Sheppey and considered these should be expanded to the east of the Island in terms of increasing options so that more people could cycle or walk, both to work or for leisure.  He considered the SLRG route should be a positive option going forward, as it linked schools and employment sites, as well as being accessible, safe, and deliverable.  The visiting Member said that Kent County Council (KCC) had awarded Swale Borough Council (SBC) a ring fenced grant for the SLRG, and he said that even though it was supported by KCC, it was not a proposed route in Swale’s LCWIP.  He asked the committee that the proposed consultation included an extension of footpath CWR7 to include the SLRG and Leysdown.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and make comments, and these included:

·         Agreed that the consultation included an extension of footpath CWR7 to include the SLRG and Leysdown;

·         Parish to Towns connections, as discussed at the Eastern Area Committee should be incorporated into the report; and

·         route CR9 in Faversham did not include part of a cycle route already in existence.

The Active Travel Officer said that the main criteria for any routes was deliverability which included permission from landowners along the route. The KCC grant was for the highways element only, not for use on private land.  CWR7 had not been included as a route following detailed analysis with the consultant.  She confirmed that she would look into the Parish to Towns connections initiative.

The Head of Environment and Leisure explained that the Council would be going against the guidance/methodology of Active Travel England if unsecured routes were added to those already in the Plan.

Councillor Jayes moved the following motion:  That, as the consultation already included sections of the SLRG at Queenborough Road, Queenborough and Power Station Road, Minster-on-Sea, it should also include an extension of footpath CWR7 to include the remainder of the route to Leysdown.  This was seconded by Councillor Peter Marchington.

Members discussed the motion and the following points were raised:

A Member raised concern that if these additions be included within the consultation and they were not seen as deliverable, that this could then have an impact on grant funding opportunities.

In response, the Active Travel Officer explained that the suggested SLRG route could be added in sections, as permissions were given by landlords.  The Head of Environment and Leisure confirmed that any additions would not impact funding as funding was generally achieved for ‘sections’ of routes rather than whole systems.

On being put to the vote, the motion was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 169.

The Team Leader (Environmental Protection – Swale) introduced the report which reviewed the Council’s air quality data and advice provided by Defra in the last three Annual Status Reports and data prepared for the 2025 ASR relating to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) 3 (East Street) and 5 (Teynham).

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and make comments, and these included:

·         The AQMAs should not be revoked;

·         the additional potential houses in the Teynham area had not been taken into account;

·         caution should be exercised;

·         the report did not contain up to date 2025 data;

·         the pollutants figure already for half of 2025 was on the edge of the 10% margin of error and pollution would only get worse;

·         clarification sought on whether further AQMAs could be added if these ones were not revoked;

·         would the revoked AQMAs continue to be monitored?; and

·         noted paragraphs 1.11 and 2.8 in the report and considered the AQMAs should be revoked.

The Team Leader (Environmental Protection – Swale) said that the Council had followed the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs guidelines and that the AQMAs should be revoked.  The Highsted applications had not been included in the modelled report.  Data references needed to be taken from a complete year, and so could not yet include the whole of 2025 data.  Figures were taken on an annual average, not monthly average.  She confirmed that any further areas could not become AQMAs if these two areas were not revoked and she added that when an AQMA was revoked, the area would still be monitored.

Councillor Jayes proposed the recommendation as set out in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Carole Jackson.

Resolved:

(1)      That the revocation of AQMA 3 and AQMA 5 be approved.

The Head of Environment and Leisure introduced the report which provided an update on the current position regarding the Open Spaces Strategy and the different typologies.  The initial audit phase had been completed and showed a reduction in the hectares per 1000 population since the last audit in 2017.  The pending planning inquiry needed to be considered before finalizing the strategy section of the project, so it was proposed to come back to committee when that had been resolved.

Members welcomed the report.

Councillor Jayes proposed the recommendation as set out in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Carole Jackson.

Resolved:

(1)      That the update report be noted.

The Greenspace Technical Officer introduced the report which set out the proposals after the Grounds Maintenance Contract was identified for sustained reduction to annual costs over the remaining contract period.  Whilst this would require a reduction in activity taken by the contractor across the Borough, it needed to be tolerated for the required savings.  In order to deliver the savings, a two-year extension was required but this benefitted the Council as it would take it beyond the proposed local government reorganisation timeframes.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and make comments, and these included:

·         Suggested that instead of being mowed, road side verges be planted with wild seeds;

·         clarification as to whether memorial sites would be cleared of leaves, prior to commemoration events;

·         suggested savings could be made to concessions that were rented out where the Council still cut the grass;

·         happy to see the contract extended;

·         there were other areas where the grass could not be cut;

·         clarification sort on terms such as ‘amenity cuts’; and

·         noted that some areas were being taken over by community groups and this would further reduce costs.

The Greenspace Technical Officer responded to the points raised: he acknowledged that road verges could be given over to wild flowers, however he said there were still maintenance costs involved with this; memorial sites would still be cleared of leaves prior to any commemorative events; and amenity cuts were cuts on open spaces used by members of the public.

The Head of Environment and Leisure advised that a monitoring officer was employed who was looking at sites where circumstances had changed and therefore sites no longer requiring grounds maintenance were being removed from the contract.  However, it was a constant flow with new sites coming on board from time to time as well.

Following discussion of the financial information in private session, the meeting returned to open session for consideration of the recommendation.

Councillor Stephen proposed the recommendation as set out in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Shelly Cheesman.

Resolved:

(1)      That the proposed savings and extension of the current Grounds Maintenance Contract between 14 January 2027 and 14 January 2029 be approved.

The Service Improvement & Project Officer introduced the report which set out the details of a full review and the formulation of the recommendations.

A visiting Member was invited to speak.  He spoke on the public conveniences (PCs) on Milton Regis High Street, asking how usage was determined and why they were currently closed.  Officers responded to the points that were raised.  The PCs at this location had been closed due to maintenance works resulting from vandalism and officers were awaiting the outcome of this meeting’s discussion to consider reopening; usage of the PCs was carried out by electronic counters and water usage data was also used; and if Members decided that the toilets were to be permanently closed at this location, discussions would be held with the owner of the building on its use going forward.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and make comments, and these included:

·         Clarification sought on how much ‘appetite’ there was from parish councils to take on the PCs;

·         how would it be determined which PCs would close?; and

·         the PCs which were transferred to parish/town councils needed to be free at point of use.

In response, the Service Improvement & Project Officer explained that an initial survey had been carried out with parishes and officers were now seeking Member support to further explore the opportunities of transferring the PCs to parish/town councils.  It was hoped that public response to the consultation would indicate which PCs should be closed.  The Head of Environment and Leisure confirmed that contrary to the reports in the press, it was not the intention to close both toilets in Sittingbourne, just one or the other.  Members welcomed that clarification.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen moved the following motion:  That the transferred public conveniences be retained as toilets and free at the point of use.  This was seconded by Councillor Ashley Shiel.

In response to a question, the Monitoring Officer explained that whether the facility would remain free after transferring would be subject to negotiation and that restrictions like this might deter parishes from considering them.

Councillor Bowen made an amendment to his proposal:  That for as long as the transferred building was being used as a public convenience, it remained free at the point of use.  Councillor Shiel, as seconder, was happy with the amendment and on being put to the vote it was agreed.

Members continued to speak on the substantive motions and the following points were raised:

·         It was important to have accessible for all toilets;

·         this seemed as though a decision was being made before it was known whether any parish/town councils wanted to take these assets on;

·         it was important to consider the equality impact assessment and it was difficult to capture how impacted the most vulnerable people would be;

·         clarification sought on the Community Toilet Scheme;

·         suggested question (2) in the consultation needed to be looked at again;

·         some toilets had showers attached and so could be difficult to separate out the water usage of the toilets;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

There were no items for noting.

The Head of Environment and Leisure explained that the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan consultation outcome would be added to the Forward Decisions Plan.  He added that the Climate and Ecological Emergency Action Plan Annual Report would now be submitted to the Committee at the January 2026 meeting, rather that the November 2025 meeting.

Resolved:

(1)      That the Forward Decisions Plan be noted.

Resolved:

(1)      That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3.

3.         Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

The Greenspace Technical Officer responded to Members’ questions.

This agenda item was not discussed.

The meeting was adjourned from 8.19 pm until 8.26 pm.