To consider any questions submitted by the public.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm the Friday before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330).

Questions added 19 March 2018; Answers added 20.3.18

The Mayor advised that four questions had been submitted by members of the public, the answers to which had been provided, can be viewed on the Council’s website and are attached as Appendix I to these minutes. The Mayor invited the members of the public who were present to ask a supplementary question.  There was no supplementary question to Question Three.

Question One

Mr Richard Palmer asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration if it was usual for Councils to bid for government funding for schemes yet to be consulted on, and whether any other theoretical schemes had been subject to similar pre-consultation discussions and funding options?

The Cabinet Member responded by saying that Councils had no control over the bidding mechanism and the timing of government funding grants, and so Councils had to bid when funds opened and before they closed, if it was for the benefit of the Borough and other local authorities.  The timing was in the hands of the Government.

Question Two

Mr Kane Blackwell welcomed the recent announcements regarding improvements to play equipment, the Swallows Leisure Centre, and the new cinema and shops in Sittingbourne, and asked the Leader if he could explain the benefits of such investment, especially for young people?  And asked if he agreed that those who disagreed were out of touch and were betraying the vision for the future?

The Leader agreed that the improvements and development referred to would bring a tremendous boost to the economy of the Borough and would provide job opportunities.  He considered that it was a game-changer for Swale, and would especially be of benefit for the younger generation.

Question Four

Mr John Greenhill referred to a recent decision by the Local Government Ombudsman that cast questions on the credibility of members of the authority, and asked the Leader if relevant information had failed to be disclosed in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, and would he make a public statement about this after an internal inquiry had taken place?  He asked the Leader whether he knew that Quinn Estates had been involved in drafting the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid, about any involvement of Council officers in that process, and if he did, whether he had acquiesced or played any role in that? And what the truth was as there appeared to be a conflict between the Leader and the Council’s press office?

The Leader advised that he was not aware of any Local Government Ombudsman reports making any queries regarding the conduct of officers or Members, and so would not answer this question until he had spoken with the Legal Team (a written response would be sent).  In respect of the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid, the bid had been put together by Kent County Council (KCC) officers; Swale officers had also been involved in the draft and representatives of developers had also been asked by KCC to contribute to the final draft. He was delighted that the bid had got through the first round and he sincerely hoped that it would also get through the second round.  He refuted any personal knowledge that officers were under investigation.  There would be a review of how FOI requests were dealt with, however, he drew attention to the time being spent by officers in regeneration and planning on responding to FOIs.