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 Mayor advised that four 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 – Councillor Mike Whiting

I was grateful for the Cabinet Member’s previously well-publicised opposition to the proposal for an Area of Opportunity for Teynham that, if agreed, would likely result in over 1,000 additional homes in Teynham and the creation of a Teynham bypass that would see the road traffic from those additional homes further increase traffic and pollution through the Air Quality Management Areas in Ospringe and Sittingbourne.

Given the ecological damage that would result should such a development take place, does he still oppose it?

Response – Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency

Mitigation of climate change, improvement in air quality and restoration of ecology are major challenges in meeting the Government’s standard calculation for housing need in the local plan review. The high number of new dwellings required and the fact that the zero carbon homes standard, which was due to come into effect in 2016, was abandoned by Government make the challenges all the greater.

As Councillors are aware the Council acted on the responses received during the original Regulation 19 consultation in Spring 2021 and made a decision to conduct a further Regulation 18 consultation at the end of 2021.  The results of the consultation are due to be reported to the Local Plan Panel at its meeting on 24 March 2022.  The Council will then progress towards a further Regulation 19 consultation which will consider the appropriateness of meeting the Governments current standard calculation for housing need, and which sites should come forward to meet the evidence which is being drawn together.  Whilst I hold reservations about some of the sites being promoted, it will be necessary for all Councillors to review the evidence being presented as the Council moves forward on identifying new sites for development. I would expect issues surrounding transport, air quality and ecology to be important influences on such decisions.

Whichever sites are selected, a ‘modal shift’ in transport will be required to address the issues you raise. Walking, cycling and use of public transport must be used for many more journeys and, the private motor car must be used many fewer. Therefore, I was dismayed to learn that Kent County Council are proposing to remove local bus services including: the No 8 Sittingbourne to Conyer via Bapchild and Teyham, the 343, 344 and 345 covering Newnham, Doddington, Lynsted, Conyer, Teynham, Bapchild, Rodmersham, Bredgar and Sittingbourne schools and town; the 662 Teynham to Lynsted and Norton School, and then on to Doddington, Newnham, Ospringe and Faversham; the 664 Conyer to Teynham and Lynsted School; the 666 Faversham to Sheldwich and finally the No 9 service in Sittingbourne. Instead of cutting bus services, forcing many more journeys, especially to and from school, to be made by the private motor car, KCC should be engaging with Swale Borough Council to develop an innovative approach which will enable many more journeys to made by public transport. I hope you will join me in encouraging residents to strongly object to these cuts to public bus services in the forthcoming consultation.

Supplementary question

Thank you for your answer, but do you still oppose it?

Response

I await Reg 19 and once known what is in it, I will advise.

Question 2 – Councillor Steve Davey

Could I ask the Cabinet Member for Housing what impact the ending of the support for the Kent Homeless Connect Service will have on the services provided by Swale Borough Council for the homeless and rough sleepers?

Response – Cabinet Member for Housing

Thank you Cllr. Davey for your question, I have to say that I was shocked and disappointed by KCC continuing to cut support for some of the most vulnerable in our society at a time when many of them are facing significant additional challenges as a result of the pandemic. As part of the Kent Homeless Connect contract, those with additional needs are given supported accommodation, including at the Quays in Sittingbourne, which is one of the largest facilities utilised in the county. This service literally acts as a lifeline to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

I am extremely concerned about the financial implications for the Council in particular. District councils have been hugely impacted by the pandemic.   We need to be clear that this is not a saving for KCC, but a cost shunt to this Council. Whilst the contract might have ‘homelessness’ in the title, homelessness is evidently the symptom not the cause of the issues being faced by vulnerable people and we estimate that this decision might push up costs to Swale Borough Council of approximately £0.5million per annum. Whilst this might be a small proportion of KCC’s annual budget, it would increase our projected deficit significantly.

Swale could be amongst the hardest hit areas by the cut, not only due to the Quays, but also because we are host to Kent’s remand prison. Currently half of those released from the prisons in Swale have no fixed abode, many of whom end up being referred to Kent Homeless Connect.

Our rough sleeping service has grown from strength to strength over the past 3 years, yet we are continually seeing new individuals rough sleeping every week, the loss of this service will no doubt increase demand for the RSI team.  Officers are actively working with KCC around the transition arrangements and are proactively working with Riverside (who run the Quays) to look at alternative delivery models that we are also seeking to include in our next rough sleeping initiative bid to DLHUC due this week.   

Supplementary Question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 3 – Councillor Steve Davey

Can the appropriate cabinet member explain the reasoning behind the wording of para 4 of the guidance notes regarding the application for a disabled parking bay, more particularly the requirement that the applicant should be in receipt of DLA or an equivalent.  I am copying the para below for your reference.

4. Before a bay is granted, checks are made to confirm that it is justified:

· You must have a current and valid blue badge and you should receive the higher rate of mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance or an equivalent benefit.

Response – Cabinet Member for Community

Thank you, Councillor Davy, for your question.

The Blue Badge (Disabled Persons’ Parking) Scheme was introduced in 1971 under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which sets out the requirements to be met to obtain a Blue Badge, which for Swale residents are issued by KCC. The KCC website sets the criteria and can be seen at https://www.kent.gov.uk/social-care-and-health/care-and-support/disability/apply-for-a-blue-badge#tab-1.

SBC, however, install disabled bays on behalf of KCC (the highways authority) and the criteria is therefore set by them. Guidance notes can be seen at https://swale.gov.uk/parking-and-streets/parking/disabled-parking-bays/request-a-bay#h2. The application form and guidance notes were drafted by KCC for the Local Authorities to use. I have asked for the latest guidance from the Parking Manager at KCC just to make sure our guidelines document is still in line with the current KCC criteria.

It is my understanding that KCC ask for proof of the DLA (now the Personal Independence Payment) and attendance allowance for over 65’s, as a way of assessing the applicant’s mobility status through professional health care assessors.

It should also be noted that in para 4 on Swale Council’s website it is stated in bold red text that ‘Any exceptions to these circumstances should be stated, in writing and accompany this form’. If the application is refused for not meeting the criteria, residents can appeal to KCC for decision.   I hope you find this helpful.

Supplementary Question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 4 – Councillor Tony Winckless

Would the Cabinet Member for Planning explain what he thinks could be the impact on Swale Residents from the reduction in subsidy to Bus operators from Kent County Council?

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning

I would like to thank Cllr Winckless for this very pertinent question.

This savage slashing of the bus subsidies by Kent County Council of almost a third is a terrible blow to many sections of our community. It will particularly hit those who are the most vulnerable, such as our pensioners and disabled who may not have access to a car and for whom the price of taxis is prohibitive.  It also hits at our young people, leaving them ever more reliant on their parents for transport. 

Socially, it is yet another nail in the coffin for sustainable rural communities. 

It is a decision that runs counter to all progressive policies, including KCC's own policies. It undermines their commitment to supporting alternative transport to the car, it undermines their commitment to active travel, and with the knock-on increase in car usage that will result, it runs counter to their claims of wanting to improve air quality and improving the environment. It also means more wear and tear on our highways - highways which are already severely over-congested, underfunded, and in desperate need of dramatic investment.

Whilst this Conservative Government is imposing ridiculous housing targets across Kent, there is a huge need to achieve a modal shift in transport usage away from the car - again, this short-sighted, counterproductive decision by KCC makes such a shift even harder to achieve.

The results for all our residents is overwhelmingly negative and counter-productive. It diminishes the vulnerable by further removing their self-reliance, it undercuts once more the fabric of rural communities, and it means more congestion on the roads for everyone else. 

It is incumbent on all of us who support the vulnerable, who support rural communities or who support the maintenance of an ever-deteriorating highway network to oppose these cuts and to ensure that when public consultations are carried out we help as many people as we can to respond, letting those at KCC who voted this cut through to be fully aware of the pernicious impacts of their voting when setting this year’s budget.

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question.