The Leader read out the following statement to Members:

“Swale Borough Council does not act alone.  We are part of a wide network of governing bodies. The basic principle behind our engagement with others is to pursue the best interests of our communities, whatever the politics of those we work with. For example, Kent Leaders at County, Unitary and District level meet on a regular basis, with productive outcomes, especially during the height of the pandemic.

Leaders of the North Kent Councils also meet regularly, that is Dartford, Gravesham, Medway, Maidstone and ourselves, where the focus of our discussions over the last year have been very much about the quality of primary health care services and of the skills gap across North Kent. We also continue to work with Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells through our joint Mid Kent services.

Over the last two difficult years, it has been helpful to have the support of the District Council Network, which has been very effective in getting government to understand the financial difficulties of District Councils. It was significant that whilst the first tranche of Covid support went principally to Upper tier Councils, the balance was addressed in subsequent funding.

We are also members of the South East Councils network; we meet with the Thames Estuary Economic Partnership; Medway NHS Trust and I have monthly meetings with the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

Inevitably our relationships with Kent County Council and Central Government can be both positive and negative.  We have very productive discussions with Kent County Council (and the local MP) about the provision of Secondary education in Swale, the concerns being about places but also outcomes for young people. I am disappointed by the decision of KCC to cut the funding of homelessness support but this and another KCC budget provision are the subject of member questions, so I will not expand on that. Like all of local government KCC has difficult decisions to make. I understand that.

What about the impact of Central Government on Swale? There are positives. We can all see the progress being made at Junction 5. This is of major importance to those who have to get to work from the north of the borough via the A249.

I also welcome the interest shown in our approach to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping. We have recently had a review of our service by the Government. The report highlighted the good work being done, and commended the “strong leadership at all levels of management within the housing team, with the Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member fully engaged and having a good understanding of the services and the challenges”. The report referred to a clear structure and positive and informed staff. I would like us to acknowledge the progress made by our excellent staff and the leadership provided by the portfolio holders.

We also hope that the Government supports our bid for levelling up on the Isle of Sheppey. Public support is vital, including that of our MP, which we have.

Online consultation has been live since February 4^th and is continuing for 2 more days. We are pleased that 312 people have taken the time to respond so far. That is a very high response.  To date over three quarters of responsdents support every aspect of the proposal. We are pleased that 85% support our proposals for wider placemaking and connectivity, 79% for expansion of Sheppey College, 75% for further investment in Master’s House and 75% for the Beachfields leisure and health regeneration scheme. Ideas coming back from the consultation which we are particularly keen to explore include soft play inside the leisure centre, boosting the emphasis on the area’s history, heritage and natural environment and a focus on arts and culture at the Master’s House studio.

There are areas of concern.  The Government, and in particular Mr Gove, has recently published a White Paper that includes a number of positive missions, including improvements to pride in place, a priority of this Council. But it is Mission 12 that should exercise our thinking. In delivering levelling up infrastructure and funding in general, local government is offered three alternative “County deals”: one with a County Mayor elected; two, a county structure led by the County Council with districts relegated to a consultee status; and three, where County, Unitary and district authorities form a confederation to manage investment. The snag with these choices is that, whilst the Government says top-down reorganisation is not intended, the first option allows for powers across the whole levelling up agenda, the second allows for some and the third practically none at all. It’s not a very generous offer. We do need to address the implications of this as a Council and we will hold an initial member briefing before the next Full Council meeting on March 30^th.

Another disappointment I have with Central Government is the increasing tendency to make sudden demands of district councils, without sufficient warning, with inadequate briefing as to what is required and with an apparent unawareness that we have our own work to do.

The latest example is the instruction to make the one-off £150 energy payments to local residents. This was announced without details and consultation. It started by being a Council tax rebate and morphed into a household payment. Of the 55,000 prospective recipients we have no bank details for about 20,000 whilst some are Council taxpayers and not the energy bill payers.  It will put enormous pressure on our staff and our payments system. We will of course do our very best though we know these payments will not meet the need of so many with these energy bills.

Finally, the Government continues to expect us to achieve housing allocation targets which we all know are unrealistic.”

The Leader of the main opposition group spoke about the situation in Ukraine and gave his support for its people.  In response to the Leader’s Statement, he spoke optimistically on Levelling Up and said it was long overdue but was critical in how the funding was allocated.  He said funding needed to be allocated to where the community needed it most.  The Leader of the main opposition group referred to the White Paper proposals and acknowledged it was a difficult task.

The Mayor invited other Members to respond and comments made included:

·         There was a positive response to levelling up but was the Leader disappointed in the lack of support?;

·         highlighted the difficulties in allocating the £150 per household in Council Tax D and below;

·         concerned that the South East would not receive as much funding as areas in the north yet some areas in the South East had high deprivation;

·         the scheme to allocate £150 was poorly thought through, a lower energy cap or reducing VAT would have been more efficient;

·         highlighted the negative impact the works at Junction 5 Stockbury were currently having on residents at Danaway, Borden; and

·         was it a mistake to cease High Speed 2 with increased housing numbers set by Central Government?

In response, the Leader supported the comments made by the Group Leader of the main opposition group in relation to the situation in Ukraine, and he added that the world needed Leaders of great quality and integrity which it did not always have. He said he believed Michael Gove would progress the White Paper.  The Leader said that it was unfortunate if the press had promoted negativity in levelling up proposals.  He said the allocation of levelling up funding should be considered differently and agreed that areas in the South East had deprived areas that should be allocated funding.