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 six questions had been received from Members.  Two of the questions (2 and 3) had since been withdrawn.

Question 1 – Councillor Lloyd Bowen

At the Planning Committee 12^th Oct I commented regarding legal services attendance at Planning Committee, ‘I note that legal services are not present this evening. I’m trying to understand why that is? Was that decision made by this committee and what the rationale was behind this?’

The chairman said he would send me a formal position statement and share that to the other planning committee members.  I have yet to receive the response so I ask again.

Did the Planning Committee agree not to have legal services at all Planning Committee meetings and what rationale was presented to inform that decision?

This is after several meetings of the Planning Committee have taken place without legal services or advice being available if required.

Response – Councillor Mike Baldock, Chair of Planning Committee – response read out by the Mayor

Thank you for your question. It is standard and best practice for any organisation to make sure that it is using its resources effectively, and Swale Borough Council is no different. It is not the case that Legal no longer attend Planning Committee, but that representatives attend when agenda items may specifically benefit from their input. 

In advance of each Committee meeting, Planning and Legal officers share with me as Chair their view as to whether Legal input may be of benefit, and together we agree which, if any, items merit Legal attendance. When Legal do attend, it is now for select items on an agenda, and not necessarily a whole meeting, with the underpinning rationale of making good use of valuable officer time.

Supplementary question

Constitutionally, could the Chair of the Planning Committee make that decision? 

A written response would be sent.

Question 4 – Councillor Ashley Shiel

In the last year or so there’s been some welcome commitments from government on biodiversity and nature restoration, something the Coalition Administration is supportive of. However, those announcements have come with scant, one-off funding. Can you write to the Government and state the need for a funding commitment to 2030 so local authorities can deliver in support of government biodiversity objectives?

Response – Councillor Rich Lehmann, Chair of Environment Committee - response read out by the Mayor

Thank you, Cllr Shiel. The Environment Committee discussed this issue late last year and has identified areas in which to bolster our wide-ranging strategies and policies relating to biodiversity and the ecological emergency. 

In my position as Chair of the committee, I would be happy to write to Government to highlight the work we are planning, to stress our inability to commit to long term investment at a time when local government funding remains in a state of uncertainty, and also to request specific funding streams that can be used by authorities for this purpose.

Question 5 – Councillor Hayden Brawn

Following yet another government funding settlement which leaves councils adrift across the country, and which once more lasts just one year, will the Leader write to Swale’s MPs with the support of all service committee chairs, asking them to call for multi-year future funding settlements to provide clarity and allow councils to properly plan ahead?

Response – Leader, Councillor Tim Gibson

It is once again disappointing that we have a one-year settlement as the provisional local government settlement falls well short of stemming the acute financial pressures resulting from the spending squeeze since 2015 coupled with rapid growth in demand for statutory services such as homelessness and the prolonged period of steep cost and inflation. The short-term nature of the funding settlement for district councils makes future budget planning incredibly difficult and this is heightened by the uncertainty on the reset of the localisation of business rates which forms a significant element of our funding.

The District Councils Network have lobbied on our behalf and members of the network were encouraged to write to our MPs to make representations to the secretary of state on the inadequacy of the provisional statement to inform the consultation on the provisional settlement. In my capacity as leader, I wrote to both our MPS to call for:

An increase in our core spending power to be achieved by either additional grant funding or an increase in the council tax referendum limit above 2099% or £5.

Great freedoms and flexibilities around centrally set fees and charges such as planning application and licensing.

Additional targeted support for immediate homelessness pressures.

Additional funding for and a long-term solution to the impact of the steep increase in the Internal Drainage Boar Levies.

Question 6 – Councillor Ann Cavanagh

£8.74 million was the amount awarded to Swale by government in their funding settlement for 2015/16. By 2023/24 this had been cut in real terms by 45.4% to £4.77m. The settlement from government in December, given inflation over the previous year, barely stays steady. Does the Leader agree that it’s time for Government to finally develop Fair Funding for councils?

Response – Leader, Councillor Tim Gibson

The fair funding review for local authorities is long overdue and is desperately needed to enable councils to prepare meaningful financial plans beyond the funding settlement period. The short-term nature of the current funding settlement means that the future financial planning position is based on estimated assumptions beyond the next financial year. The scale of the uncertainty is higher for district councils as many of the headline announcements are for councils that have a social care responsibility.  Progression on the development of fair funding would be most welcome.