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 3 questions had been submitted by members.

Question 1 – Councillor Mike Whiting

While the Council provides lots of services on behalf of council tax payers, the only tangible service the vast majority of our residents receive directly for their council tax is the bin collection service. 

Since we last met, there have been further issues with collections, with some not having bins collected for four weeks, and others forced to leave bins out on pavements for days waiting for collection.

Is the Chairman of the Environment committee happy that this is under control, and that the service can be guaranteed moving forward?

Response – Councillor Julian Saunders, Chair of Environment Committee

Thank you for your question Cllr Whiting. I agree with you that the waste collection service is an important service and that its reliability is a key issue for residents. As Chair of the Environment Committee, I am committed to supporting officers as much as I can in ensuring the reliability of the service.     

Although there are occasional exceptions to consistent bin collection, it is worth emphasising that the overall volume of missed bins is extremely small and that we set a very stringent target for missed bins. The Council contractor makes approximately 90,000 bin collections a week in Swale and across June, July, August and September, figures show that on average just 57 bins were missed per week, fewer than one in a 1,000 weekly. It is also worth emphasising that it costs just under £50 a year to provide the standard waste collection services that a household receives, which I hope you will agree is good value.  

The post pandemic economic environment is challenging for delivering a wide range of public services with particular problems in the waste sector related to staff recruitment, vehicle supply and increasing costs. Weather conditions can also impact, so for example vehicles were more prone to breakdown in the hot weather we had during the summer.  

I am pleased to say that we have had fewer problems in waste collection than many other local authorities. I am also clear that our Officers work hard to ensure that risks to collection are controlled and are very focused on minimising negative impacts on residents. They often have to take tough decisions on whether our contractor should try and return for missed bins or residents be asked to hold onto waste until the next collection. Wherever possible we will opt for a collection a few days later rather than cancel the collection completely, but there are a few occasions where staff resources or vehicle availability don’t allow this. During the current waste contract tendering process officers are also looking at all options to try and increase resilience in the service.  

In conclusion, while I am not complacent about the quality of our waste collection environmental services and do my best to support officers in maintaining services standards in a difficult environment I believe there is plenty to be positive about based on our achievements in maintaining the service, the costs involved and the positive feedback we got from the public in the waste survey last year.  

Supplementary Question:

Is the Chair looking at hydrogen vehicles to replace current diesel vehicles?

Response:

As the Council is in the middle of a tender process and various providers may put in proposals, I would direct you to the tender documents which the Head of Environment and Leisure can share with you.

Question 2 – Councillor Mike Whiting

The Council's recently adopted Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy says that the provision of charging for residents who do not have off-street parking at their homes is a short-term aim of his administration.  Can the chairman of the Environment Committee give my residents in Teynham and Lynsted his timeframe for providing them with local charging points?

Response – Councillor Julian Saunders, Chair of Environment Committee

The Strategy is clear that Swale Borough Council is only part of the solution to achieving a charging network suitable for all. The best solution for all where residents have the ability, is for residential charging. However, in the strategy we acknowledge that not all residential areas are feasible for this. In it we recognise that KCC, as the highways authority, will be the key driver in developing on-street parking, but in the meantime, Swale will continue with its policy of installing EV charging units in its public car parks, with a focus on sites within close walking distance of areas with a high proportion on homes without off-street parking.

We already have charging units at Central car park Faversham, Swallows car park and the multi-storey car park in Sittingbourne and Rose Street in Sheerness. The Environment committee agreed the next wave of installations back in June, part funded by Swale Borough Council with funding support from Government, which should be starting this side of Christmas at Queens Hall car park Faversham, Albany Road car park Sittingbourne and further units at Rose Street Sheerness.

Officers are now working on further bids for funding to continue this progress. Unfortunately, with Teynham and Lynsted, Swale does not own the public car parks, nor suitable land. We understand that the sites in the area are owned by the Parish Council and would therefore recommend that they look at the funding grants available. We would be happy to provide advice from officers on where to start.

Finally on a wider basis we are continuously monitoring the demand for EV charging across the borough. Locations for electric vehicle charge points can be suggested on our website, as we collect data on this issue to support future funding bids and continue conversations with KCC to encourage the adoption of new EV charging solutions and submissions to the upcoming Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure fund.

Supplementary:

As there are no plans to provide residents in my ward with charging facilities, are you discussing the relaxing of rules for trailing cables on pavements with KCC and if so, what is their response?

Response:

Officers are having discussions with KCC, but the whole strategy is to focus on areas with the most need and we will get to other areas.

Question 3 – Councillor Alan Horton

The Chair of a Parish Council has sought clarification about the assertion made to Parish Councillors at the recent LCLF meeting that a six-week consultation period on the forthcoming Regulation 19 consultation had been agreed.   He has been informed that it was agreed at the P&R meeting on 13 July which you chaired.  I believe that assertion is unfounded.

I recall that an indicative timetable was recommended and agreed. I do not recall a recommendation regarding the length of consultation or a clear statement of a six-week consultation within the report. 

Given that confusion would the Chair highlight where in the meeting the members of P&R specifically approved a six-week consultation period for the revised Regulation 19.  

Response – Councillor Mike Baldock, Leader

I’d like to thank Councillor Horton for his question, and indeed the variations of it he submitted at various points.  In the first question, a chair of an unspecified Parish Council allegedly asked me at a date and place unspecified about an assertion I had allegedly made with no evidence to specify where this alleged assertion was made, about an agreement at a meeting where you don’t recall such an agreement being made.  You then asked me to highlight where in that meeting an agreement you don’t believe was made, was in fact made. At some point the question was then changed that the chair of the Parish Council sought clarification on the aspersion. No wonder you find it confusing.  The simple answer is there was no such agreement and none had been sought. There was a recommendation at Policy and Resources Committee where the LDS was discussed and approved and which identified that the Reg 19 consultation period would run through October, November and December.  This included the time the documents and reports would be taken to the Planning and Transportation Working Group, Policy and Resources and then to Full Council.

Officers indicated that the 6-week consultation was the norm in such circumstances. Beyond that I cannot recall there being any specifics regarding the period of time and at that point no specific period of time had been agreed and a number of options were being considered including a full 12 week period which would run over the yuletide break, an option that I personally favoured.  These matters might soon be somewhat academic and it is always interesting to note that some members of the Conservative opposition seek to engage in issues that have little current relevance. The reason this is now hopefully academic is that the Planning and Transportation Working Group are recommending that the Policy and Resources Committee delays submission of the Reg 19 until this Government decides what it is up to next.  It is ironic that Conservatives frequently warn about coalitions of chaos when they have managed so much chaos within one governing party – three housing ministers within a single year, statements about protecting green fields one minute then slashing planning regulations the next, levelling up here there but nowhere, withdrawal of 300k pledge from one speaker refuted by another, u-turns that are not u-turns but everyone knows they are, development zones one week and protecting our countryside the next. It would be madness to continue before the Government gets its house in order so no, there is no 6-week consultation or indeed any other length of consultation.

Supplementary:

Are we now moving to a point where it is acceptable that when somebody changes a motion or a question, we ridicule them over the fact they worked to get it accurate?

Response:

When a question is submitted, it requires an answer. I was given 3 different versions of your question and had written a response to an earlier version.  We do need to ensure that when people are asking a question, we know what it is they are asking as the answer is specific to the question.