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).

The Mayor advised 13 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.  The Mayor advised that any questions not asked within the thirty minute time limit would receive a written response.

Details of the questions and response are set out below

Question 1 – Councillor Cameron Beart

“Following the decision not to progress with exploring potential options for lorry parking in the borough at the Cabinet meeting in December 2019, the Cabinet Member for Property and Economy claimed that until capacity at M2 J5 and M2 J7 were resolved, this Council would not support any new lorry parks in the area.

As Swale regularly tops the table for the most unofficial and illegal lorry parking in Kent already, is it an acceptable stance to ignore a pre-existing condition for fear of what may or may not happen in the future? And can the Cabinet Member please explain what she is proposing instead to address the large number of lorries having to park illegally on the streets of my Ward every night if she is ruling out providing them a safe place to stop?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property

“Thank you Councillor Beart for your question.

The decision not to pursue a lorry park at Brenley Corner at this time was based largely on concerns regarding the identification of a site in proximity to Junction 7 of the M2, when the nature of long-hoped for improvements to the junction itself were not understood.  To properly tackle the issue of “Fly” lorry parking it must be dealt with comprehensively, rather than on the current piecemeal approach. We must have a carefully coordinated network of lorry parks throughout Kent and the south-east backed with the requisite enforcement powers on a Kent wide/nationwide basis. The Brenley Corner lorry park would not have solved the fly parking in Councillor Beart’s ward nor for that matter across whole borough because of the set up of the current enforcement regime in the UK.  I have written to both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Head of Highways England and KCC on this matter.”

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 2 – Councillor Cameron Beart

“At the Local Plan Panel meeting on the 27th November 2019, following an urgent tabled item and legal letters received by this Council, the impartiality of the Cabinet Member for Economy and Property to make decisions on aspects of the Local Plan was called into question given her chairmanship of the Five Parishes Opposition Group which would be considered a conflict of interest.

At the meeting, it was minuted that "Councillor Monique Bonney stated that she was not the Chairman of the Five Parishes Group and had resigned from the group in May 2019" and the Cabinet Member's register of interests were subsequently updated the following day to reflect this and to remove the earlier declaration she made back in May. 

Could the Cabinet Member please confirm that this statement is a true and correct record of what she said and is accurate? As currently she is still listed as chairman on the Five Parishes Opposition Group website which has been recently updated and is now dated 2020.”

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property:

“I am happy to confirm that the statement in the Local Plan Panel minutes is a true and correct record of what I said and is accurate. I have asked the clerk to the Five Parishes Opposition Group to update the relevant details on the website.”

Supplementary question

Councillor Cameron Beart thanked the Cabinet Member for her response but asked why she had continued to declare an interest as Chairman of the Five Parishes Opposition Group in a further four meetings at the Council, after May 2019, if she had resigned?

In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy and Property advised that she had not participated as Chairman of the Group since May 2019 and apologised for providing an incorrect disclosure at those meetings.

Question 3 – Councillor James Hunt:

“Could the Cabinet Member for Environment please give an update on what changes there have been with regards to the restructure to staff in the Cleansing, Environmental Response and Leisure Teams?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment:

“Senior Management recently approved a restructure of the Commissioning, Environment and Leisure service. The restructure was implemented fully by mid-January 2020 and is still bedding in. Generally speaking, the service can be split into three broad functions i) to manage the Council’s outdoor assets and enforce against misuse, ii) to manage and deliver the Council’s major contracts, and iii) monitor and assist the rest of the Council in commissioning the services they require.

Whilst it is not fair to comment on individual role changes, the aim of the restructure was to replace long term vacancies, move functions that have common practices and skills requirements together, to ensure work is completed at the right levels of responsibility and respond to the changing political priorities. The restructure has resulted in no redundancies and the head count was changed from 49 officers to 50 officers.   The restructure has created the following teams:

Environmental Services – this new team picks up the existing environmental response functions and combines it with the Contracts Section managing the waste, recycling and street cleansing contract and public conveniences. The key objective of this team will be the management of the major environmental contracts and the investigation/enforcement of all the statutory and environmental legislation.

Leisure and Technical Services – the function of this team remains broadly the same with the objective of managing our outdoor and built assets in green spaces, cemeteries, seafronts, sport and leisure facilities, playgrounds and highway infrastructure. The biggest change here is that management of the ground’s maintenance contract moves back to this team and the operational management of the cemeteries and churchyards moves into the greenspaces team.

Service Delivery - this is a newly formed team that will be responsible for dealing with all customer interaction across the departments, driving workloads and measuring outcomes.  They will be supporting each of the teams through provision of administration assistance particularly on high volume areas such as burials, beach huts, disabled bay applications, central tasking and coordination of work for mobile officers, collating responses to Freedom of Information requests, complaints, compliments and comments, purchasing, contracts finance and performance.

Parking services – remains the same in terms of partnership with Maidstone.

Commissioning - this section will remain broadly the same being responsible for monitoring compliance with national procurement legislation and Swale’s own internal contract standing orders. The focus however will be on supporting Council departments to adopt the sound principles of commissioning at an early stage helping to deliver high quality tender specifications and ensuring that all possible models of delivery are considered. They will also provide corporate advice to other departments on contract management.” 

Supplementary question:

Councillor James Hunt asked that when changes are made to staff roles, Members were kept informed.

The Cabinet Member for Environment advised that the changes had only recently been confirmed and Members would be kept informed.

Question 4 – Councillor Roger Clark

“There is a lot of rumour and speculation in my Ward regarding a new garden Village to the West of Bobbing, which is upsetting many people.

Can the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning  please reassure my residents that planning permission has not been granted to 2,000 homes on the land north of the A2, and that the site will not feature in his new Local Plan?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning

“I would like to thank Cllr Clark for asking this question, and I can understand the concerns that have been raised.

First, let me be clear - planning permission has NOT been granted to the site to which he refers.

However, I would also like to remind him that it was his Party which introduced the concept of Garden Villages to Swale, and it was his party that ran on a manifesto of support for Garden Villages last May, when the Garden Village he refers to was very much under consideration.

The rest of us ran on a platform of opposing the concept of Garden Villages, considering them undemocratic and not the best model for addressing Swale’s housing plans. However, as the previous administration had invited submissions for Garden Villages, the current administration have had to keep them under review or face legal challenges.

All 4 Garden Village proposals have been submitted as sites in the Strategic Local Housing Assessment, along with some 200 other sites, and as we go forward with a preferred option for the Local Plan, we will be selecting from these 200+ sites. Obviously at this stage we cannot legally rule anything out and have to treat all 200+ potential sites fairly.

We appreciate the concern local people and local communities have about this process, but it is one required by your Government, and since they introduced compulsory 5 yearly reviews of Local Plans, it is something that unfortunately will from now on be a constant cause of concern to all communities.

I can especially understand the concerns of the residents of his ward, as his party’s continued support for the Housing Infrastructure Funding that will see Grovehurst Roundabout improved, potentially opens that area up to an amount of housing that could make the current Village Green proposals seem like a large hamlet.

He can be assured, however, that the current administration is determined not to allow the Government to force more dormitory estates on our Borough, that we will fight for sustainable developments, that do not rely on commuting many miles to work, but which will provide onsite employment, and which will address our local needs rather than developers’ needs and which will be spread fairly around the Borough. We will fight for a manageable housing number, and not simply roll over to Government diktat, or chase the money simply to agree even more development.  

I hope the Councillor can step aside from Party politics on this issue and support us in resisting this kind of top-down over-development as much as possible.”

Supplementary question:

Councillor Roger Clark asked the Cabinet Member to confirm the area had been ruled out of the Local Plan?

In response, the Cabinet Member for Planning drew attention to and repeated the fifth paragraph of his original response.

Question 5 – Councillor Paul Stephen:

“Due to the ever increasing problem of vehicles parking on yellow lines near schools in Swale, does the Council have enough enforcement officers to ensure the problem can be resolved?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

“Unfortunately, inconsiderate and dangerous parking can be seen outside almost every school at the same time each day. With over 50 schools in Swale (where restrictions are placed) patrols place a significant burden on the enforcement team, requiring the team to focus resources on priority locations and move the teams from school to school to help improve levels of driver compliance to the regulations.

Over the last 12 months 1,258 school patrols have taken place and 2,950 vehicles moved from restrictions. This has resulted in 164 Penalty Charge Notices being issued. Our existing enforcement contract provides us with 15,000 deployed hours a year and provides a balanced approach to prevention, education and enforcement. 

Civil Parking Enforcement legislation allows enforcement of active yellow line restrictions and school keep clear markings. However, inconsiderate and dangerous parking is also prevalent where drivers obstruct property and place vehicles causing highway and footway obstruction. In such cases, Civil Parking Enforcement teams have no delegated power in law to deal with these offences as highway obstruction remains the responsibility of Kent Police. If a vehicle is causing a significant obstruction to the carriageway or footway, then the police can act through the issue of a fixed penalty (under their highway obstruction powers). However, perhaps understandably, we find that the police consider these cases to be a low priority and have only limited resources to respond to such complaints.”

Supplementary question

Councillor Paul Stephen asked whether Enforcement Officers encountered vehicles that were idling and if so, what action could they take?

In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment advised that currently no action was being taken but the legislation existed to require any vehicle idling for more than a minute to switch their engine off and he advised that a report on anti-idling was due to be considered by Cabinet, in order to enforce the anti-idling legislation.

Question 6 – Councillor Tim Gibson

“Following recent press and social media coverage suggesting that this Council has jeopardised the M2 junction 5 improvements by pulling financial support from the project, could you provide a factual and definitive statement on the Council’s position on this matter please?”

Response – The Leader:

“It is not my view that Borough Councils should be liable for funding a major National infrastructure project. Last June I asked the appropriate Kent County Council Officer to provide me with evidence of a formal offer of funding from this Council to Kent County Council. I received no answer.”

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 7- Councillor Bill Tatton

“What steps are being taken in the review of the Local Plan to ensure that in future more people who live in Swale are able to work in Swale?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning

“I would like to thank Councillor Tatton for his question.

He is quite right to highlight this issue. Far too much of the previous Local Plan was of the failed dormitory estate design, which did very little to enable people to live and work locally.

Whilst Swale has seen a growth in overall employment over recent years, this can be largely attributed to the fast growing population resultant from the previous house building strategy, and it remains the case that like most Kent Local Authority areas Swale is a net exporter of labour. 

This is not green, it is not sustainable, and it is not good for peoples’ health. Whilst commuting may suit some people, it cannot be the role of a responsible Local Authority to base its entire housing delivery on such a model. We have to start looking at ways we can deliver more good quality jobs locally and enable people to get those jobs.

We also, of course, need to start thinking about how local people can actually afford the housing that is being built and ask ourselves whether having estates where over 50% of the housing is 4 & 5 bedrooms on top quality agricultural land is really the responsible way to approach this issue.  

Thorough the process of the Local Plan the Council will seek to identify new employment land, to help to deliver sustainable growth. We expect new developments to come through with local employment opportunities.

We wish to place a focus on helping local, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to prosper, whilst also addressing areas of the local economy that are under-developed.  This will extend the breadth and quality of jobs available locally and provide a greater choice of opportunities for residents that currently out-commute. 

Where larger scale mixed use allocations may be considered within the Local Plan review, the Council will be looking to secure as far as possible a 1 to 1 ratio of households to jobs.”

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question

Question 8 – Councillor Tony Winckless

“Can the Cabinet Member tell me when the  Dog/Litter bins are going to be delivered and installed at various Litter and Dog Fouling Black Spots in Milton Regis? I have been requesting these for some months and residents are rightfully being fined for dropping litter.” 

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

“We currently have 26 litter bins and 6 dog bins in the Milton Regis area, excluding the litter and dog bins in Milton Creek Country Park and Milton Recreation Ground. 

Councillor Winckless requested bins in various places in the area which have been monitored by the Cleansing Team as per the litter bin request procedure. One additional bin has been agreed in Attlee Way, which has now been installed. In addition, a bin from a disused play area will be re-sited.

Having undertaken a full audit of the number and quality of our bins in 2019 and replacing them in the high priority areas such as the high streets, the next phase of the litter bin project is underway and the team are using the information gained from the audit to prioritise replacements and identify bins that can be re-sited or removed, and locations where additional bins are needed. 

The next bins we are looking to replace are the litter bins on the promenade in Leysdown before the summer season, along with the litter bins in Queenborough as these are all open top admiral bins and in need of repair.”

Supplementary question

Councillor Tony Winckless said that there were a few other blackspots in Milton Regis that needed to be looked at.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment ask for more details so that officers could investigate.

Question 9 – Councillor Steve Davey

“What powers does the Council have to put pressure on social housing providers to bring properties that have need of repairs, following evictions, vandalism or other forms of damage, back into their housing stock at the earliest opportunity?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Housing

“Unfortunately, the Council does not have any legal powers in relation to void housing association properties.  However, Housing Associations have very stringent targets on voids as obviously void properties affect their income. I am aware of some issues with void turnaround times in the Borough and have followed this up with the relevant Housing Association who are taking steps to improve the situation.” 

Supplementary question

Councillor Steve Davey asked what power the Council had to scrutinise temporary housing and gave an example of a poor standard property residents had been moved to out of Borough.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Housing said temporary accommodation was inspected regularly, and was mostly in the Borough.  He said all temporary accommodation should be fit for purpose, there were over 200 households in temporary accommodation and he would look into the particular case raised.