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).

Topics republished 02.10.19

The Mayor advised that seven questions had been received from Members.  Each Member was invited to put his/her question, which was responded to by the relevant Cabinet Member.  The questioner was then invited to ask a supplementary question.

Details of the questions and responses are set out below:

Question 1 – Councillor Alan Horton

“Would the leader inform the Council of the meetings he has attended or undertaken since the last Council meeting, in particular with external bodies and inform Council of the outcome of those meetings?”

Response – Leader

“Thank you for the question.

It is a very open-ended question and I could seriously spend the whole half hour allocated answering it, but I will try to summarise as best I can, out of regard for the patience of the Council and the other questions to be asked. However, I hope the Council will appreciate my including some major correspondence in the answer. I have also used the Leader’s Statement later in the meeting to expand on a few of the issues covered.

Soon after our last meeting I had a regular meeting with Gordon Henderson the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, where we discussed Homelessness, the Council’s Biffa contract, Sittingbourne Town centre, education, the Frank Lloyd Unit closure and poverty locally. I have seen Gordon several times since May and I have also indicated a wish to meet the MP for Faversham and Mid Kent but there has been no response, though I have written to her on preparations for Brexit and on homelessness, rough sleeping and the need for social housing. I have also written to Ms Whateley on the Council’s behalf, reporting our declaration on the Climate Change and Ecological emergency and calling for Government to make carbon reduction central to the planning system, empowering councils to set higher standards for new buildings, improving standards in private rented accommodation, supporting on-shore wind energy(in appropriate locations) the deployment of solar panels, community energy and other environmental improvements. Letters have also been sent to Gordon Henderson and to the Prime Minister, which has been acknowledged.

With others, I have been involved in a series of meetings to try to take forward the Sittingbourne Town Centre scheme and to divine more clarity for the future. These meetings have been with the Chief Executive of U and I, with various parties to move forward on lettings in the Leisure area, and with Light Cinema. I will expand a little on these matters in the Leader statement, later in the meeting.

Tackling homelessness and bringing forward more affordable housing, in particular genuine social housing, is an urgent priority for the administration. I had a helpful meeting with two staff members from the Quays. We have also met with Moat Housing and Optivo since the last meeting to move further forward with the notion of partnership working and to specifically consider known sites. These were very productive meetings but the Council will understand that at this stage I cannot detail what the emerging ideas might be.

Since the last Council I have had meetings with KCC officers in advance of county-wide meetings. I was represented by Cllr Bonney at the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership as I thought it more appropriate to attend our own PDRC meeting where the Corporate Plan and proposals for Area Committees were on the agenda. There was a presentation on Local Industrial Strategy for the South East which is largely platitudinous. It will be more productive for us to look at our own district economy rather than trying to think regionally. There was some discussion on the Open Golf at Sandwich next July. There is potential for us in this and Cllr Bonney is already aware of bookings being made in Swale.

I have also attended meetings of the Greater North Kent Leaders and the meeting of all Leaders across Kent, including KCC and Medway. At the former I was most interested to hear how much funding is still available in the TIGER fund that helps new start up businesses. It was to the credit of the previous administration that Swale made a number of successful bids for this funding in the past and it is a source of small-scale investment that we should explore.

At the Kent Leaders meeting there was an upbeat report from the current Police and Crime Commissioner and I have suggested to him that he should come and meet us in Swale in the not too distant future and before election campaigns for that post start in earnest. However, the overwhelming focus of that meeting was a discussion on a KCC proposal to put an Infrastructure First proposition to Government. This is not the same thing as the Kent and Medway Housing Strategy. Most Leaders, including myself, expressed reservations and concerns and so the Chair, the then Leader of KCC, with some insouciance concluded that we should go ahead with an approach to Government. I will explain a little more in the Leader’s statement. I will also report on my attendance at the South East LEP meeting last Friday.

Of course, through the last month I have had a plethora of in-house meetings. I hope it is not required of this question that I list them all or all my activities as a ward councillor. Three internal communications I would like to mention. Firstly, I keep in regular contact with our Chief Executive, who is on sick leave but offers me valued informal guidance.  I also had a most productive and enjoyable meeting with our in- house Swale Managers. We have also had the first of monthly meetings of the Delivery Board, where Senior Managers update the Deputy Leader and myself on progress on some of key and urgent priorities. The first meeting focussed on the Special Project Fund, the Waste contract with Biffa, Community Projects, Homelessness and the plan to increase our resources for planning and in particular the delivery of affordable housing.

During the month, I was also invited by a local developer applicant to attend a meeting along with the Cabinet Member for planning. Such requests can only be made on the assumption that the Leader of the Council might want to influence planning applications, other than those in the ward he or she represents. I have no intention of fostering such a delusion and rely instead on the appropriate Cabinet members to respond. I have not attended any such meetings and will not do so unless this Council is likely to be a partner in bringing forward a development and has a financial stake.

I apologise for the length of this answer. I have been as succinct as the question allowed”.

Supplementary Question and Response

There was no supplementary question.

Question 2 – Councillor Alan Horton

“Last year Swale Borough Council conducted a review of the deployment of CCTV cameras throughout the Borough as required by the regulations and the surveillance code of practice. The review highlighted that in two cases there was no longer a justification for the continued deployments and the cameras were decommissioned. Members of the then minor opposition party challenged the decision both in members questions and also at Policy Development and Review Committee, with a clear message that they did not accept the Cabinet member's interpretation of the code of practice. Can the Cabinet Member advise the Council how many requests for a review of that interpretation and reinstatement of the cameras he has received since May and if appropriate the outcome of his review and the decisions made, in particular whether he has reinstated a camera or not?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Community

“I can confirm that I have not received any requests to review your (Cllr Hortons) interpretation of the code of practice.

I have not received directly any request for the reintroduction of any CCTV however I know that

1) Howard Avenue residents have sought the return of a CCTV camera

2) I have been approached by a Councillor on behalf of the Parish Council in Leysdown re the reintroduction of CCTV in Leysdown, but no formal request has been made via the Parish Council.

No cameras have been reinstated.

I have reviewed the Council’s procedure for decommissioning cameras and I feel this is a sound well-constructed process which complies with current guidance.

I can confirm that the Council adheres to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and follows Home Office and the Information Commissioners Office guidance in relation to CCTV. All request for new or replacement/reintroduction of CCTV will be based on the guidance and facts prevailing at the time any such request is received”.

Supplementary Question and Response

There was no supplementary question.

Question 3 – Councillor Tim Gibson

“If I can take you back to your leader's statement to council on 11 September. You referred to the Council's obvious interest in the Sittingbourne town centre project as the chief provider of funds with the greatest risk.  Can you explain how Swale Borough Council finds itself in this position?” 

Response – Leader

“Thank you for your question and I will try and summarise my understanding of how the Council got where it is. Given that there are so many new Councillors who were only elected in May, I think it helpful to clarify the background.

In 2012 the Council signed a development agreement for an ambitious redevelopment of parts of the town centre. We then got 4 years of updates trumpeting lots of activity but no progress whatsoever was made in delivering anything.

The principal reason nothing happened was that there wasn’t financial viability for a commercial funder in the development-so the people who Spirit approached would not provide the capital funding. 

There was clearly a point in 2016 when the whole project could have been aborted. However, the then Cabinet decided to some opposition surprise that the Council would become the investor and owner of the Retail and Leisure development.

It was a period when many local authorities were attempting property investments as a provision against future budgetary challenges. As the opposition pointed out at the time, some of these investments were fraught with risk and indeed outcomes have not always been to the benefit of councils and their communities.

However, there was a financial case for doing it that was signed off by the section 151 Officer. There were expectations of a potential return of more than 6% if all went well. But although the maths could work out, there was clearly risk involved if market expectations proved too optimistic.  We could argue that risk was not sufficiently balanced against possible gains. It can be further argued that the reputational risk of delivering nothing geared the argument towards taking the risk.

Having said this, it is in the interest of everyone on this Council to take a positive view of this project and to work to make it successful. It is a major property investment, where very little such investment has taken place before.  It has the potential to be a success and to add to the cultural lives of people in the Borough”.

Supplementary Question and Response

There was no supplementary question.

Question 4 – Councillor Steve Davey

“Can the cabinet member for housing explain the current procedures for assessing a priority case for homelessness, and give details of the officers that make that assessment?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Housing

“Prevention and Homelessness services provided by the Housing Options team is regulated by many statutory duties that prescribes those households who are entitled to local authority assistance, including what type of accommodation has to be provided and for how long. 

Priority need is one of the tests which a homeless person needs to pass for the Council to decide what help with housing that they might be entitled to. Others include whether the person is eligible for homeless assistance in terms of their immigration status, actually homeless, homeless through no fault of their own or intentionally homeless and has a local connection with the local authority where they are making their application.

A homeless person with children (or pregnant) will automatically be in priority need.

A single, homeless person aged 16 or 17 (or under 21 and have been looked after at any time when between the ages of 16 and 18) will be in priority need, unless assessed as a looked after child.

In every other situation a single person will have to be assessed as 'vulnerable' in order to be in priority need.

Each assessment must focus on the impact of homelessness on the client when compared to a `robust and healthy' ordinary person if rendered homeless i.e. how they are more at risk.  This is by no means an easy job, the staff in the housing options team do their best to help people in what are stressful and emotional times for the individuals concerned. I think it important that we thank those in the housing option team & the partner agencies for the work they do.”

Supplementary Question and Response

In response to a question regarding the timescale, the Cabinet Member advised that the new Prevent Team should be active this month.

Question 5 – Councillor Ken Rowles

“What happened to Arriva Click?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property

“The Company has stated that it is currently reviewing the ArrivaClick Sittingbourne pilot that has been operating since March 2017.  As part of that review it is speaking with staff and analysing customer journeys and against the wider fixed bus network to look at overlaps.  The company is also using customer insight that it has gained through regular engagement over the course of the pilot.  As soon as the company has completed this review, which is anticipated to be by mid-October, ArrivaClick has confirmed that the position will be clarified.  The company has indicated that it will write to the Council when the outcome of the review is confirmed and would be happy to answer any Member queries at that stage.  We will, of course, remain in touch with the management at ArrivaClick and update Members as more information becomes available”. 

Supplementary Question and Response

There was no supplementary question.

Question 6 – Councillor Benjamin Martin

“In July the Council asked the cabinet to consider the best way of encouraging trade and festive good will. Has the cabinet considered this and if so what action will the cabinet be taking and why?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

Response:

“Cabinet have considered this matter carefully and received full information on the evaluations of the previous Christmas parking concessions. The evaluations identified that the cost of free parking, park and ride schemes and shuttle buses were not good value for money. Moreover, these measures did not achieve their intended aim of increasing footfall to the high streets.

The park and ride service cost about £63 per person per journey, for 111 passengers in 2017.  The shuttle buses cost about £35 per person, for 371 passengers in 2017.

Although we acknowledge the matter of free parking is a well-received message by residents, there has never been any evidence from our surveys, or from retailer feedback, that the schemes have worked in their objective of increasing footfall, and of course spend, in the local economy. All day free parking provides a free parking option for those working in the high streets or residents living close by. This often led to car parks being full prior to the start of shoppers arriving.

Furthermore, surveys showed that over 99% of those asked said they would have come to the town regardless of the concession. Many respondents did not know about the concession before they arrived, despite expansive marketing efforts.

82% of customers said they would have driven and parked in the town centre and paid if the free parking concession had not been made available. The highest percentage in this category was 92% at Faversham. 16% of visitors responded that they would have travelled into the town centres by bus with a further 1% walking or cycling. This equates to a total of 99% of visitors coming into the towns regardless of any concession being applied. Furthermore, providing incentives for people to use their car to drive into town, rather than use a bus, walk or cycle is contrary to objective of the Climate and Ecological Emergency motion that Council recently passed.

The motion proposed by Cllr Hampshire would result in a projected loss of income of £80,000 plus an estimated additional cost of £20,000 for the provision of buses between the towns. This is clearly not a wise use of public money as the evidence shows the measures are entirely ineffective in achieving the stated aim. No doubt, that is why the previous administration did not offer any parking concessions in 2018.

In light of the Council’s Climate and Ecological Emergency motion, Cabinet did consider supporting buses from the rural areas rather than encouraging more cars into the town centres. However, the evidence I have already described suggests that ad-hoc provision of services is not cost effective. It takes time to establish the routes, and enable residents to form the habit of using bus services regularly. This is something we will be researching further for the future. 

The cabinet do wish support attendance at ceremonies and services on Remembrance Sunday. To that end we have resolved to provide free parking in council car parks on 10^th November.

Cabinet have decided to return to the Festive Grants scheme for 2019 and have recently launched the application process. £25,000 will be available to town and parish councils, retailer groups or resident organisations, in order to plan and prepare Christmas events, late night shopping events, or for the purchase of Christmas lighting and decorations. We feel that involving the retailers and community in the use of this funding will be much more effective in bringing trade to our shopping locations than token offers of free parking. Events can be planned when parking is already free in the evenings and where the benefits of Christmas lights and decorations can be seen. 

We acknowledge the need to support our local traders and my Cabinet colleague for Economy and Property is working on plans for the high streets. Our special projects fund is also looking to improve the public realm and facilities that will encourage further people into our towns”.

Supplementary Question and Response

There was no supplementary question.

Question 7 – Councillor Cameron Beart

“The Council Beach Hut Policy went before the Policy Development and Review Committee on the 6th November 2018 and received positive cross-party support. It was subsequently added to the Cabinet Forward Plan on the 1st March 2019. Could the Cabinet Member for Communities please explain why this item has not been taken forward and is now not due before Cabinet for determination in this civic year?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property

“Cllr Beart is correct in the timescales and that the draft principles ‘document’ (not policy) gained good support from PDRC. These principles needed to be turned into a sound policy and action plan and whilst this work was undertaken in draft, it was agreed with the previous Cabinet Members that the policy would be taken for formal adoption after the elections.

With key projects in the leisure department of Faversham Recreation Ground and leisure centre refurbishments taking up staff resource, combined with the wide scale change in the Council’s administration, the policy has not been bought forward at the current time.

Work however continues and key officers recently attended a Minster Parish Council meeting as part of the administration’s new approach of consulting wider with the community. This included draft plans for a new toilet block at Minster Leas which will be going for planning permission in the coming months.

Informal Cabinet will be receiving further information in the coming months and will then decide when it is appropriate to bring the policy forward.

We have noted recent press articles which contain some misinformation, and this is exactly why the policy needs to come forward. It is vital that these seafront assets are available and enjoyed by residents and tourists alike”.

Supplementary Question and Response

The Member clarified that he did not own a beach hut, and asked the Cabinet Member if she condemned the vandalism of the beach huts at Minster Leas, and asked whether the new toilet block would be ready in time for the 2020 tourist season?

The Cabinet Member condemned and shared her frustration regarding the vandalism.  In respect of the new toilet block she was aware of some concerns raised and advised that it was high on her priority list.