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

Questions added 15 March 2018.  Answers added 20.3.18

The Mayor advised that eight questions had been submitted by Members, the answers to which had been provided, can be viewed on the Council’s website and are attached as Appendix II to these minutes. The Mayor invited Members present to ask a supplementary question.

Question One

Councillor Mike Cosgrove responded to a question from Councillor Roger Truelove about whether young people would prefer to “hang out” in the multi-story car park or outside the Travelodge.

Question Two

Councillor Roger Truelove asked who determined what the ‘local economic need’ was and what part did the Council play?  He emphasised that it should not be what the colleges wanted to provide, irrespective of local economic need.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration advised that the Council would work with a range of commercial companies across the Borough and had strong linkes with a range of organisations including KCC, South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) and other quasi government departments.  He referred to the constraints for young people in terms of access to further education and travel time/cost and it had recently been recognised in a further education area review that there was not reasonable provision for all in Swale.  He welcomed the cooperation of Members across the Council to help address this issue for young people.

Question Three

There was no supplementary question.

Question Four

Councillor Mike Baldock referred to the response given, and asked if the Cabinet Member could explain why in August 2017, when discussing the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid, a senior officer had said in an email to KCC and Swale’s Head of Planning “I have tried to introduce some words about progressing the Kent Science Park site in parallel with the Local Plan as a major opportunity” and asked if it was usual for a Council to try to aid a private company to get Government money for a site not in the Local Plan and not submitted?

The Cabinet Member for Planning advised that this was fresh evidence and agreed to provide a written response.

Question Five

Councillor Ghlin Whelan advised that he had checked records at Companies House and said that Mark Quinn had a significant controlling interest in the Spirit of Sittingbourne partnership.  He asked the Cabinet Member, did he not realise that his own administration was of public concern?

The Cabinet Member for Planning clarified his response in that Quinn Estates was not part of the original partnership, but had been brought in by the two original partners (U & I and Essential Land).

Question Six

Councillor Monique Bonney asked the Leader if there had been any written agreement between officers and members with Mark Quinn to work on the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid?

The Leader said ‘no’.

Question Seven

Councillor Monique Bonney referred to transport modelling, and asked the Cabinet Member if he agreed that it was unfair that a major developer had such a significant influence on the core data for the Local Development Plan?

The Cabinet Member for Planning advised that it was common practice for developers to support transport modelling.  There was a due process and the information it produced was public information.  He understood that there had been more than one developer involved.

Question Eight

Councillor Mike Henderson asked the Cabinet Member if he considered if the target number of housing 10 Syrian families should be increased, as other Councils had housed more?  He also asked when he would get a written answer to a question that he had asked two meetings ago?

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Wellbeing advised that they had housed six Syrian families on the Isle of Sheppey and were seeking to house another four, which was what the Council had agreed to do.  He encouraged support from people in Faversham.  In respect of his second question, a written response would be sent.