Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (To follow).

Leader’s Statement added 15 June 2015.

The Leader presented the Leader’s Statement which included sections on the Queen’s Speech; Finance Update; Best Council Results for Swale; Housing Enforcers Programme; Faversham Minor Injuries Unit Update and Magna Carter Rediscovered Exhibition.  Members were invited to ask questions.  The following is a summary of the questions and answers.

The Leader of UKIP commended the news regarding the Faversham Minor Injuries Unit.  Referring to the Queen’s Speech, he welcomed the devolution of power providing it meant more influence for Faversham,  Sittingbourne and Sheppey; whilst the Government strived for full employment, he asked would the Leader join with him in saying that more jobs in Swale must be well paid, skilled and lead to full careers and that we must do what we can to upskill our people to take advantage of those vacancies?; regarding the changes to planning law, he questioned if this meant loss of control for residents with the encroaching concrete fields in the garden of England becoming the ‘urban back yard of London’.  He asked, given that the Council had not increased the Council Tax in the last five years, was that the reason why there was not a skateboard park; or why car parks were being sold for housing?  Or why shoppers shopped elsewhere because of the high car parking charges?  With more cuts on the way, could we be sure that Swale was really ready for more unforeseen and unpredicted cuts?

The Leader responded by saying he was always happy to look at devolving powers, the Council was seen as a leader in terms of transfer of buildings and assets.  He would be attending an event at the Local Government Association the next day and would find out how the proposals could affect the borough. Skills were always at the forefront, and this was the subject of discussion at the Thames Gateway Partnership Meeting held earlier that day; he would be looking at this further in terms of the skills agenda, and local skills for local people. In respect of planning, he shared the hope that the future changes would be more favourable to the ‘man on the street’ rather than big builders.  He did not agree that the Garden of England was disappearing, although on occasions it could feel like it, but agreed that there needed to be a limit. The Leader said that car parks had not been given away; this was part of a cumulative deal for the regeneration of the town that businesses and residents had been demanding for years. This would include a cinema, development, a bigger footfall for the town centre which would lead to cultural development.  The Council was prepared for cuts, and had been doing so for many years with very little effect on front line services and staff, which was a tremendous achievement.  The Council would become more self-sufficient and independent to reduce the effect of the reduction in Government grant.

The Leader of the Labour Group welcomed the Devolution Bill in the hope it would make the borough more prosperous for individuals and social value. He hoped that there would be levers to achieve those aims.  He asked did the Leader agree with him that it was vital, if powers are devolved, that it must be done properly; not a loose arrangement but real, proper, united decision making locally?

The Leader advised that more would feature on devolution in the next Leader’s Statement to Council, and agreed that there needed to be proper, meaningful devolution that was transparent and clear for councillors, business and the public to understand.

The Leader of the Independent Group referred to the Planning Inspectorate and advised that the Council was suffering from the Inspector’s decisions on planning applications that went to appeal.  He asked whether the Leader would be talking to other districts, to press for local decision making to be made at local level?  He understood that the Council would be told how many houses to build, but it was a matter for local decision making as to where they were built.

The Leader advised that he agreed that the National Planning Policy Framework had been a disaster and gave credit to Cllr Lewin, James Freeman and Gill Harris for their work, with the local plan receiving positive comments.  He agreed that planning decisions should be made locally.

A Member congratulated all on the success of the campaign to keep the Faversham Minor Injuries Unit, and asked if the Leader would provide as much support in respect of ensuring the Sheppey Hospital was used to full capacity, for the benefit of Sheppey residents.  The Leader gave assurance, advising that pressure was already being applied and support would continue to be given.

In respect of the Faversham Minor Injuries Unit, a Member asked if as much effort would be made to ensure that the Sheppey Community Hospital was fully utilised to its maximum capacity for residents of Sheppey; would it now become a high priority?

The Leader advised he was happy to give assurance, although it was already a priority.  The Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs spoke about the importance of the community effort in the success at Faversham, in particular the League of Friends, and that this work would continue.

With regard to the planning legislation, a Member asked whether the Leader would agree with him that the setting-up of registers of brownfield sites and giving the Council powers to enable self-builders was all well and good, but that levers were needed to be able to make things happen.  The Council needed to make sure brownfield sites were put into use before greenfield sites.

The Leader agreed with this, and said that central government needed to be aware that funding needed to be made available for this and he would be raising this point at meetings. 

A Member suggested a way to resolve all the problems mentioned, in particular planning legislation; difficulties caused by the planning system; and the planning inspectorate.  In respect of Troubled Families, she asked whether the Leader would arrange a briefing paper for Members on this subject, and asked whether having turned families around, were there any ongoing costs? 

A Member referred to Housing Enforcers programme, and asked whether the Council recorded it as she was interested to see it.  (It was confirmed later in the meeting that this was available to view on the i-player).  In respect of the Faversham Minor Injuries Unit, she was very glad that working together had resulted in this success, but it was important not to be complacent.  She asked if the Leader could make sure that communities used the facility.  She was hopeful that the Sheppey Community Hospital would be discussed in the near future.

The Leader agreed it was important for people to use the public services that were available.  He agreed to arrange for a briefing note on Troubled Families, which would include whether there were any ongoing costs. 

A Member asked if the Leader would join him in congratulating staff that took part in the Housing Enforcers programme, particularly the way staff came across and for educational reasons.  He also referred to his attendance at the Kent Waste and Minerals Inspectorate plan and commented that there were very few members of the public or other authorities there.  He asked the Leader, did he agree that this was an area where people needed to engage? 

The Leader confirmed that he had received positive reports on the Housing Enforcers programme, and passed on congratulations to staff involved.  Regarding the Waste and Minerals Plan, he acknowledged that it was sometimes difficult to encourage responses to consultation.