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 meeting room are located at each end of the room 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.

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 Julien Speed declared an interest as he was involved with the Teynham and Highsted Community Action Group which was a Rule 6 party at the Inquiry.  Councillor Speed did not consider he had a conflict of interest.

Report published 20 June 2025.

At the start of the meeting there was some discussion as to whether the decision could be made without going into private session.  A Member said that he had questions to ask on the exempt appendix.  The Chief Executive advised that Members should ask any questions relevant to the open report, in the ‘open session’ and any relevant to the exempt appendix, in the ‘exempt session’.

The Head of Place introduced the report which set out the additional costs likely to be incurred by Swale Borough Council following what was expected to be a twelve-day extension of the Highsted Inquiry.  The extension was necessary mainly to allow robust examination of highway issues and related viability matters, and the Inquiry was now due to conclude on 31 October 2025.

Members were invited to make comments, and these included:

·         It was unfortunate that the Inquiry needed to be extended, but it would be ‘reckless’ of the Council not to continue;

·         acknowledged budget constraints and pressures, however the Council had a duty to residents to continue with the Inquiry;

·         public perception might be that this had already cost a lot of money and that it was a ‘done deal’, but it would be wrong to stop now;

·         residents should be assured that the Council had their best interests in mind;

·         concerned that the Inquiry might go beyond the revised conclusion date;

·         considered this decision was being made quickly;

·         funding the Inquiry extension would reduce service provision across the Council;

·         this was a vast sum of money that was being requested;

·         it was unfortunate that the Inquiry process had resulted in the need for more time, which had also meant other parties, not just the Council, were having to increase their budgets;

·         officers should be congratulated on the accurate budget so far in the process;

·         clarification sought on why the Section 106 Agreement was discussed so far into the process;

·         considered the Secretary of State had called in an application that was not fit for purpose, this should be challenged and a judicial review should be held, and the Council should receive compensation; and

·         legal advice should be sought on the above.

In response, the Planning Manager (Applications) explained that Section 106 Agreements were considered so far into the Inquiry process because their content stemmed from earlier discussions and this formed a logical order.  He explained that it was the gift of the Secretary of State to call-in an application at any point.  The Chief Executive confirmed that it was unlikely that a judicial review could be held in this scenario, as the Secretary of State using her gift to call-in an application was not grounds for a judicial review.

Councillor Julien Speed moved the following motion:  That legal opinion be sought on the process of the Secretary of State calling-in the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Following discussion in private session, the meeting returned to open session for consideration  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following items:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve 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).

Resolved:

That under Section 100 (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 involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of the Schedule 12A of the Act:

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

The Chief Executive, the Director of Resources, the Head of Place and the Planning Manager (Applications) responded to questions and points raised by Members.  A Member considered that to allow for any contingency, the additional cost figure should be increased.  There was some discussion as to whether any further increases be delegated to officers or brought back to the Urgent Decisions Committee to decide.

The meeting returned to open session for the resolution.