To consider any questions submitted by Members.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm on the Monday the week before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330).

The Deputy Mayor advised that five questions had been received from Members.  Each Member was invited to put their question which was responded to by the relevant Cabinet Member. The questioner was then invited to ask a supplementary question:

Question 1 – Cllr Cameron Beart

Following the Leaders announcement at Full Council in June 2021 that he was to create yet another two paid cabinet positions, adding £18.5k a year to the allowances budget and bringing the total SRA spend to nearly £200k a year, could the Leader please explain to the local electorate how his ever growing allowances budget burden on the taxpayer is justified?

Despite his own election manifesto pledge of cutting the number of special responsibility allowances paid, in two years he has increased the annual spend by nearly £45k. Is this the real cost of loyalty in this coalition?

Response – Leader

I would like to thank the Member for his question and the opportunity to demonstrate how parsimonious we have been over the last two and a half years.

Under section 9c of the Local Government Act of 2000 our Cabinet can consist of 10 members, including the Leader. That we have worked so successfully with 7 Cabinet Members, during a period when we had no Chief Executive,  of unmitigated challenge due to a pandemic and, frankly, when we felt there were changes needed after years of Conservative rule, will be appreciated by fair minded members of the public. It was our view when taking office that SBC needed to expand its vision, to recognise the significance of climate change, to do a lot more about the homelessness crisis, to be more engaged with the community, to show greater concern for our public environment and to broaden the meaning of supporting the local economy. For 27 months we have followed these aims with only 7 Cabinet Members. They have been well supported by deputies, who it was clear played a key role in expanding the vision of this Council.

The total saving by having 7 Portfolios rather than 10 over the last 27months is just under £125,000

We have been able to limit Cabinet posts to just 7 in part because I personally have looked after two portfolios, those of the Leader and those of Cabinet Member for Finance. Councillor Mike Baldock had combined being Deputy Leader, with responsibility for Planning and Constitutional change. He was also chairing the Western Area Committee, for which he receives no SRA. Other administration members have taken on other key roles without SRA recognition, Councillor Gould as Chair of Policy Development Review Committee for two years and Councillor Carnell as Licensing Committee Chair. These selfless commitments add a further £19,045.22 to the savings made on SRAs by this administration

It may be protested that 10 portfolios were not necessary for a Council of our size. Well, they were in 2010 and 2011 and it was thought necessary to have 9 from 2013-2016. As my memory serves me, these were not times of progressive growth in the activities of this Council, so taking on board part of the question, perhaps it was a time for loyalty rewards.

Now we have added an 8^th portfolio. I explained the thinking behind this at the last meeting when the whole Council supported a motion in favour of Climate Change legislation in Parliament. Since that meeting, we have had yet more demonstrations around the World of the threat of climate change from global warming. Given the all-party concern expressed at the last meeting, I would not expect any members to quibble about Swale’s determination to lead the way by establishing a portfolio exclusively focussed on this topic.

I am sure it was important to the public to know too the qualities that Cabinet Members and their Deputies bring to the Council’s administration. It was clear to me that we have some outstanding Cabinet Members. Without making comparisons with former office holders, not all here to defend themselves, it strikes me how committed and well prepared the current Members were, quite obviously on top of their brief when asked to speak at meetings with scrutiny, area committees and now Cabinet Advisory Committees.

Finally, I am glad that the Member noted the level of loyalty in the current administration but in this instance this did not come from Leader patronage but from the commitment that was shared, by the degree to which each portfolio was allowed to develop its agenda, by the obvious fact that influence and recognition is shared, without the restrictions, evidenced in some places, of a single Member, the Leader, wanting excessive control and attention at the inevitable expense of loyalty.

Supplementary question:

In accordance with the Local Authorities Members Allowance England 2003 & paragraph 72 of the Guidance on Regulations for Local Authorities Allowances 2003, the Swale Independent Remuneration Panel recommended in March 2020 that no more than 50% of Council Members should receive an SRA at any one time. This report was supported and endorsed by the Leader and administration at Full Council.  Given that the Leader has created these 2 new positions, we now have 28 SRA’s, 24 of which are currently being paid out.  Could the Leader further explain why he has ignored the adopted advice of the Independent Remuneration Panel and created paid jobs for 21 of his 27 coalition?

Response:

We are on a mission to make Swale a much more effective Council.  The kind of dynamism we have now embraced is very different to how it was before.  I am convinced that the appointments made were appropriate for the needs of this Council.  By having a Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency the Council had moved right up the agenda in both national and county recognition and the outcome of that was other environmental groups wanted to work with Swale, to the benefit of all of the people of Swale.  I expect Swale to loom very large in Government funding that comes in to support the environment.  I think those gains in support for a lot more tree-planting, for example, and other environmental measures was well worth the one extra Cabinet post for someone who, like the rest of Cabinet was very effective.

Question 2 – Councillor Cameron Beart

In June 2020, this council adopted the 'interim planning "policy" for park home residences'. 

Could the Cabinet Member for Planning please tell Full Council;

• ?how many applications have been submitted using this "policy" as a basis?;
• how many new homes those applications would potentially yield if they were all approved;

and the outcome of those applications?

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning

Despite some hugely misleading, and quite frankly scaremongering, claims at the time that up to 7000 applications might be submitted, since the Interim Planning Policy was adopted in June 2020 there had been just one planning application for Park Home residences - which resulted in the planning approval of an additional 36 park home units at Beckenham Park, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch.

?A further 9 planning applications were submitted for the relaxation of holiday park occupancy conditions rather than a change of use planning applications for Park Home use.  Of those 9 planning applications, 7 were refused and 2 were withdrawn.

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 3 – Councillor Ghlin Whelan

Council agreed at its last meeting to support the Climate Emergency Bill before Parliament and also called on our constituency MPs to do likewise.

What response have we had from them?

Response – Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency

At Full Council on 23 June 2021 a motion to support the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill was unanimously passed. Letters were sent to both Gordon Henderson MP and Helen Whately MP on behalf of the Council to ask that they add their support.

Gordon Henderson had responded to say he would not be supporting the bill, as it “has zero chance of ever being enacted without Government support”. He believes this support was unlikely due to the “unachievable 2030 net zero target”, compared to the Government’s 2050 target. The Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill did not set a 2030 net zero target. It required the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a strategy to reduce the UK’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions at a rate consistent with limiting the rise in global mean temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The target is science-based. However, the science did require rapid, deep cuts in the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.

In her response Helen Whately said: “I am not convinced that the provisions in the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill are needed or helpful in our efforts to reduce emissions.”  She would welcome suggestions as to how the Government can help Swale Borough Council achieve our targets.

It is regrettable that our Parliamentary representatives did not think it necessary to set out a clear strategy that would achieve the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions necessary to limit the catastrophic effects for humanity. As we approach the UN climate talks in Glasgow, it’s clear that our members of Parliament were not taking heed of the IPCC’s ‘code red warning for humanity’. Although the Conservative group on the Council supported the Council motion, Conservative members of Parliament clearly do not agree.

There were many ways in which the Government could help Swale Borough Council achieve our targets. We need a strategy to insulate all the energy-inefficient housing in Swale. Funding of a suitable scale is required to replace the failed Green Homes Grant and the Renewable Heat Incentive which ends in the spring. Insulating homes, especially for poorer families, was a top priority to reduce poverty, improve health and address the climate emergency. We needed more flexible funding to make public buildings more energy efficient. Much more substantial funding was required for public transport, and for walking and cycling facilities. Work to address the climate and ecological emergency was a new workstream for local government and it was an essential that adequate core funding for local government is provided to enable us to meet the challenge.

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 4 – Councillor Steve Davey

What impact has the Council had on rough sleeping over the last 27 months?

Response – Cabinet Member for Housing

Thank you for your question.

I’d like to start by thanking the whole Housing team for their work in this area. They have dealt with exceptionally high demand for our services over the past 27 months, and in particularly difficult circumstances during the pandemic.

Rough sleeper numbers had reduced 93.75% since the change in administration. At the annual count in 2018 there were 32 rough sleepers in Swale. Following the change in administration in 2019 we set up the Rough Sleeping team and the prevention team. By the annual count in Autumn 2019, we had already reduced the number of rough sleepers in Swale to ten. This was a 69% reduction and the second largest reduction in the country. In 2020 we had 2 rough sleepers, another significant reduction. We have supported 110 rough sleepers since May 2019.

We currently have 24 former rough sleepers housed in temporary accommodation under the Rough Sleeping Initiative and 8 housed at the Quays. We have successfully supported 35 former rough sleepers into permanent accommodation and 2 into Next Steps accommodation programme.

The team have supported these people with more than just housing. We ensured that they received their COVID-19 vaccinations, have assisted with drug and alcohol rehabilitation, helped them manage finances and learn new skills, even things as simple as cooking for themselves. We have assisted in getting them health care provision and in applying for benefit payments. In short we have helped them to rebuild their lives.

On top of all this, through the work of the prevention team we have we have helped 462  households avoid becoming homeless since 2019 and housed 295 families who had been made homeless.

This Council and all parts of it’s housing team, especially it’s rough sleeper team, prevention team and housing options team could be proud of what we had achieved so far, despite having to bid for funding for rough sleeper services on an annual basis when the LGA had lobbied consistently for a multi-year funding programme to enable us to better plan our services. Local Government, and this Council in particularly had stepped up, we must demand better from central government so that we could continue to work to eradicate rough sleeping. The time for empty words and broken promises from central government is long over, it is time for action. With that in mind I would like to remind members that the Annual Rough Sleeper count is due to take place on the night of  16 November 2021 from 10pm, and should Members wish to volunteer to assist to please contact Sue Davis.

Supplementary question

Could the Council provide better contact information and include information on out of hours contact and procedures?

Response

The out of hours service provider has recently changed and the contact number was now a Swale number.

We are happy to work with officers and Members to develop guidelines.

Question 5 – Councillor Lloyd Bowen

The problems surrounding fuel and food deliveries highlight (amongst many other things) the working conditions of lorry drivers. The provisions of civilised parking facilities was lacking in this borough, county and country.

In 2019 the new coalition at Swale Borough Council refused to co-operate in building a lorry park. Did the Cabinet Member think we, Swale Borough Council, could do more to and maybe review that decision to help for this essential service? If she did, would she start talks with other local authorities near to us who might be able to help?  Or was she still content to allow drivers to park all over the Borough without facilities available to them?

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property

In December 2019 Cabinet resolved that the Council would engage with the Highway Authorities and other relevant stakeholders to help develop a set of actions to help address lorry parking in the Borough, but would wish to see this come forward as part of a wider strategy for Kent, if not the country.  This remained the case and a subsequent letter to the Secretary of State made clear our wish to work with others but also the need for Government leadership on the issue. 

Post-pandemic, the lack of facilities nationally for lorry drivers was beginning to be more widely acknowledged and I will work with all stakeholders who could help address the problem the Borough faces with fly-lorry parking and the need for provision.  However, I also believe that the pursuit of a site at Brenley Corner in isolation was not appropriate at this time.  The junction was already over capacity, landowners had not shown an interest and improvements to the junction are being considered by National Highways (formerly Highways England) as a potential pipeline scheme for Road Investment Strategy 3 (RIS3), post 2025.  This work was in its infancy and land required to deliver any improvements uncertain.  Given this, I believe that a proposal for lorry parking should only be considered in the context of any such improvements, as they come forward.

Supplementary question

Change has to start somewhere.  Can the Cabinet Member show leadership to make it happen?

Response

SBC were a small fish in a big pond.  Proper coordinated lorry parks were needed in the south east, like the set up on the continent.  There was a flaw in the system and Central Government and the Highways Agency need to be pushed.  It should not fall to small districts and political leadership was needed from Government.