Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement published 8 October 2018).

The Leader presented his Statement, which gave an update regarding the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) review, homelessness, preferred option for the location of hyper acute stroke units (HASU) in Kent, and the revised senior management structure at Swale Borough Council.

LEP Review

The Leader of the Labour Group asked the Leader what did he think an Industrial Plan (Strategy) would look like for Swale?  The Leader advised that the Council would do its best to influence what it would look like, but he envisaged that this would include the highway network/infrastructure and air quality.

The Deputy Leader of the Independent Group asked what accountability did the LEP have to the Council?  The Leader advised that the Council could attempt to persuade and influence, but it had no seat on the LEP.

A Member asked the Leader where he envisaged that private sector members of the LEP would have obtained experience/expertise in terms of building communities and place making?  The Leader advised that it was unlikely that they would have such experience, given that the members of the LEP were not democratically elected.

Homelessness

The Leader of The Swale Group referred to the possibility of the Council providing its own housing, and asked the Leader if he had any thoughts on the Prime Minister’s announcement to let Council’s borrow money to build more Council houses?  He also welcomed the review of the housing team and asked for additional information on timing, who was undertaking the review and whether councillors would have an opportunity to input?

The Leader welcomed input on the review.  In respect of the Prime Minister’s announcement, he advised that he had asked the Chief Financial Officer to look at this further, and further information would be provided to Members in due course.

The Leader of the Labour Group asked the Leader if he wished to amend the wording of his answer to refer to the misery of homelessness of the individuals concerned?  The Leader agreed that there was a horrendous impact on the individuals concerned and that one case was too many, however, it did not make the answer to homelessness any easier to find.

A Member asked what was the Leader going to do in the next 12 months to offset the expected rise in homelessness?  The Leader advised that they would continue to explore every option, referring to the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that was being investigated, but for the Council to build housing it had to be financially viable.  He emphasised that the Cabinet Member was exploring all options available.

A Member referred to the impact of homelessness on mental health, and asked the Leader why there was not more temporary accommodation?  The Leader did not accept that every homeless person had mental health issues, and said that there were wider issues to be considered too by Social Services, NHS etc.

A Member asked why developers did not have to provide affordable housing and whether the Council could force developers to build affordable housing?  The Leader said that the Council did seek to ensure that there was affordable housing and referred to occasions when applications had been referred back to developers.  However, he referred to issues when developers sat on land and did not develop it as they said it was not profitable, and therefore in those circumstances no social housing was built.  He also referred to examples where decisions were appealed and the Planning Inspectorate decided to grant permission, which was then out of the Council’s hands.

A Member referred to private sector houses for rent, and asked if London Boroughs were taking advantage of this?  She referred to cuts in budgets and the Homelessness Reduction Act, and asked if the Minister had been asked to provide more money?  She also referred to the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol overturning decisions made by the Planning Committee, and asked what was being done about it? 

A Member referred to the selling-off of housing stock and said that it did not stop the Council being innovative with the resources it did have, and asked whether it would be possible to borrow money to build houses, in particular with reference to the need for young people to be able to stay in the Borough?

The Leader referred to the work of the Cabinet Member and hoped to have good news in the future.  He considered that selling off housing stock had given people a position to have afinancial stake in society.  He referred to London Boroughs buying up housing in other parts of the county, and his frustration that the housing was not being used to house those who needed it in the area; and the impact of people in London being housed out of their area.

In response to a question which was taken to be a criticism of the housing staff, the Leader agreed that he did not agree with this criticism.  The Leader of the Labour Group confirmed that he had meant no criticism of staff, but the concerns were with the work of the Cabinet to address the issue. 

A Member referred to a recent member briefing regarding housing, and referred to a court case in the High Court regarding Islington Council, which supported the provision of affordable housing, and asked if this had been looked into?  The Leader agreed to find out whether this had been looked into.

HASU in Kent

The Leader of the Swale Group said that he had every confidence in the steps that Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council would take, and asked if the Leader agreed?  The Leader agreed.

The Leader of the Labour Group asked the Leader if he agreed that as well as being a bad decision, did he agree that there was a morale problem as in reality it appeared that those in the poorest parts of Kent that got left behind, referring to the fact that two of the proposals involved Ashford and Maidstone hospitals and both were only 25 minutes apart?  The Leader referred to the work undertaken in lobbying, and considered that there was an issue with some people ‘talking down’ the Borough rather than ‘talking up’. 

A Member referred to the text of the statement which said ‘this is not the final decision’ and asked the Leader what did he know, and was it not about time that healthcare was prioritised for the Borough?  The Leader advised that the correspondence on this subject had said that it was not the final decision, and referred to actions being taken by Medway and Canterbury hospitals and discussions being held between the MP for Faversham and Mid Kent and the Secretary of State.

A Member asked the Leader what was the point of the consultation, and if he could follow this question up, and asked if he could keep an eye on the standards at the Vascular Unit at Kent and Canterbury Hospital?  The Leader advised that he had been instrumental in adding the item to the KCC Scrutiny Committee, and advised that the Cabinet Member had asked for information as to how the decision/conclusions had been reached. 

A Member asked if the Leader agreed that every Member should write to the Clinical Commissioning Group and their local MP regarding the outcome of the consultation, and asked whether the Council would consider, after due diligence, joining in any possible action being taken?  The Leader said yes.

Revised Senior Management Structure

In response to a question as to whether there had been any resignations or redundancies, the Leader advised that there had been two posts created of which three members of staff had been qualified for, and one member of staff had chosen not to apply.