Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement added 26.7.16).

The Leader presented his Statement, which focused on Brexit implications, and new Central Government Changes; the Local Growth Fund (LGF) bidding process; the Director of Regeneration; and Swale Stars.

Brexit implications and new Central Government Changes

The Leader of the UKIP Group asked the Leader if he could make sure that any new schemes were more responsive to local demands, without a convoluted bidding process?  He suggested it would be better if an idea was given of the amount of money available, so that schemes could be constructed around that level before being submitted.  The Leader advised that this point would be made.

The Leader of the Labour Group suggested that it was possible that income for local government would reduce following the Brexit decision, as London would no longer be the financial centre of the European market.  He asked how will local government fare, given the approach in recent years?  The Leader responded by saying this would depend on the ability of local government to negotiate.  Whilst funding for local government was not ring-fenced, there would be a larger pot of money available for spending on Britain’s priorities rather than in Europe.

The Leader of the Independent Group asked for the Leader to take up the issue of planning with the Local Government Association, and asked him to fight for the greatest possible independence so that decisions around development in the Borough were taken at a local level, not by the Planning Inspectorate or Central Government.  The Leader agreed that decisions on planning should be taken by the Council, and advised that he was pleased that the new Planning Minister of State, Mr Gavin Barwell, was an ex-councillor.

In response to a question as to whether it was realistic to think that there would be additional funding available as a result of the Brexit decision, the Leader advised that more money was sent by Britain to the EU than Britain received back.

LGF bidding process

The Leader of the UKIP Group asked whether there was a realistic figure on how much the scheme to improve the junction between Barton Hill Drive and the Lower Road, Minster would cost, and how much would come from developer contributions and where the contributions would come from?  The Leader advised that the latest figure was in the update, but he would keep a close watch. 

The Leader of the Labour Group welcomed the project, but considered it did not go far enough and should include the expansion of the Lower Road, Minster.  He asked the Leader how that could be funded? The Leader considered it was important to take the first step in the right direction.

Questions were asked by other Members, in terms of what could be done now to stop the traffic queues which crippled the Island’s economy, and what Kent County Council (KCC) were doing about this; and whether the traffic lights at the junction could be switched off, as it appeared to improve traffic flow.  The Leader responded by saying that KCC were considering options, and that it was not as simple as turning off the traffic lights.

In response to a question as to whether the Leader would write to the Secretary of State to support the LGF bid, the Leader advised that this had already been acted on.  He agreed it was dangerous for traffic to back up on the A249, and advised lobbying would continue for improvements to be made.  A Member acknowledged that the congestion not only affected tourism, but people who lived there and worked off the Island. 

Director of Regeneration

The Leader advised that since the Statement had been prepared, there was additional news to report.  Two planning applications had been submitted that day by the Spirit of Sittingbourne; one for two retail units and a drive-thru restaurant with associated parking on the Princes Street Depot site; the other for the inclusion of a hotel on the site of the cinema and restaurants.  Whilst he did not wish to pre-judge the outcome of the Planning Committee, subject to planning approval and negotiations regarding the Section 106 Agreement, he could not see why work could not start in around 13 to 16 weeks.

The Leader of the UKIP Group asked why it was, when groups such as the Kent Community Rail Partnership had been told there was no money, that £4,000 had been allocated from the Regeneration Fund for the Faversham Hop Festival?  He also asked about the highway works due to start in St. Michaels Way, Sittingbourne, and asked for assurance that it would not clash with the run up to Christmas, given the impact this would have on retailers.  The Leader advised that he could not respond on matters that were not part of his Leader’s Statement.

The Leader of the Labour Group advised that Major Works funding was available, and that a priority was for works at Brenley Corner, Faversham and asked the Leader if he agreed that this was good?  The Leader responded by agreeing that this was good as, given the new Thames Crossing, there was a need for improvements to divide the traffic flow between the A2/M2 and M20 corridor.  Junction 5 of the M2 was already in the programme.  He also referred to a Kent Association of Local Councils meeting where improvements to Junction 7 had been discussed, and the Chairman had agreed to support efforts to ensure this remained a priority for large scale funding. 

The Leader of the Independent Group referred to the post of Director of Regeneration, and asked, given that the post was strategic and also responsible for planning, economic development, tourism, community safety and housing, how much spare time there was to be a Strategic Director for Regeneration?  The Leader considered that leadership of regeneration, planning and housing should be joined up.  However, there was time for options on the way forward to be considered, and he welcomed input from Members.

Other Members then asked questions.  In response to a question concerning the Council’s communication strategy for reporting the news about the Regeneration Director to Members, the Leader apologised for any part he had played in Members not receiving notification about the Regeneration Director, as he believed that all Members received copies of press releases.

Discussion then ensued regarding regeneration updates for Members; and the scheduled meetings for opposition Members to meet with the Regeneration Director.  The Chief Executive clarified that regular meetings would be reinstated, and in response to a question concerning the resignation of the Head of Legal Services, he emphasised that the postholder’s decision was in no way connected with this, and that he had been coveted by a London Authority.  During the discussion on this item, Members conveyed their best wishes to the former Director of Regeneration and wished her well. 

Swale Stars

The Leader reported that he had received a thank-you note from Tony Henley, which he would display in the Members’ Room.

The Leader of the UKIP Group considered it was nice to see staff recognised in this way, but suggested that more councillors would like to have been invited to also show their appreciation.  The Leader agreed to think about this suggestion, but emphasised it was a night for Council staff. 

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the recognition of those outside the Council, and referred to the passing of Mr John Clancy and suggested he should be recognised for his work.

The Leader of the Independent Group considered that the scheme was a good idea, and he congratulated the winners.

A discussion ensued during which Vicky Sedgewick was congratulated on her achievement of being employee of the year, as were the Local Plans Team for winning Team of the Year.