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).

Question topics added 11 November 2019.

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 Steve Davey

“Are there any more plans to install public and or private charging points for electric cars (EV Charge Points) in the Borough?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

Thank you for your question. Electric vehicle (EV) charging points are a very topical issue at the moment and I can confirm the Council is working to be at the forefront of the changes. The recent Department for Transport figures show that Swale has 16 charging units per 100,000 population. This puts us slightly below the national average and mid table across Kent.

There are already a number of additional units in the pipeline that will improve this position.  Swale Borough Council itself will be installing another 4 bays in Faversham Central car park and two further in Rose Street, Sheerness. These will be in place by the early summer 2020.

Through continuous analysis, Parking Services monitor environmental performance data from each EV unit which includes energy used, number of charging sessions, average charge time and estimates of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions saved. As the EV units demonstrate good usage, targeted growth of the EV charge point offer will keep pace with demand within each town centre location, further supporting clean air and greener transport in Swale. All of these points have been funded by Swale Borough Council (SBC).

We are also supporting others to follow our lead. Just recently the Planning Committee considered and approved permission for a care home, hotel and supermarket at Perry Court, Faversham on the A251. This is just off the M2 Junction 6 so is in a strategic location. The hotel will have 2 x 50Kw rapid chargers and 6 x 7Kw chargers. The supermarket will have 2 x 22Kw chargers. There will be car chargers at the care home as well. So, when this development is built, the Borough will be well served.

Finally, we are considering how we can encourage major employers in the Borough to provide workplace chargers for electric vehicles, and adopt EVs in their own fleet. Currently the Office for Low Emission Vehicles offers a grant scheme for workplace chargers. The Council is looking to set the standard by converting the majority of its vehicle fleet over to EV and therefore, we will also be providing further chargers for our staff to use.

Supplementary question and response

“Is there any feasibility in fitting extra charging points in more locations such as on streets?”

The Cabinet Member advised that there would need to be liaison with Kent County Council (KCC) as they were responsible for highways and he was due to have a meeting to discuss this with them. He advised that there were funding grants available and also that some overnight car parks with charging points would not charge a parking fee overnight.

Question 2 – Councillor David Simmons

“Does the Chairman of the Planning Committee think that the Committee is conducting its business as well as it could, and if not are there any proposals to make improvements?”

Response – Chairman of Planning Committee

I am aware that the Planning Committee procedures were amended over a year ago to enable questioning of the facts relating to planning applications in advance of opening the Committee to debating an item.  Whilst I believe that approach has enabled the Planning Committee to thoroughly review such applications, I acknowledge and accept that on occasions extended, repetitious discourse has ensued, particularly in respect of significant major planning applications.

To that end I intend to undertake a review of the Planning Committee procedures in discussion with other Members, to consider how improvements can be made and to ensure that planning applications continue to be considered fully, fairly and expediently.

Supplementary question and response

In response to Councillor’s Simmons’s suggestions of scheduling more Planning Committee meetings in advance and providing more planning training sessions for Members, the Chairman of Planning Committee confirmed that all Planning Committee procedures would be reviewed.

Question 3 – Councillor Denise Knights

“Can the Cabinet Member for the Environment explain the reason why the ornamental cherry tree in front of the lodge on Faversham recreation ground is ear marked to be felled?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

Thank you for your question. The tree is a large mature flowering cherry, located on the side of the path around the front of the Lodge which links the diagonal Longbridge path with the eastern promenade path. The tree is located approximately halfway along the footway and if viewed from the Whitstable Road boundary or generally anywhere to the north it is pretty much right in the centre, obscuring the view of the Lodge.

The strategy for tree removals and replanting was developed as part of the Heritage Lottery Fund project that is investing approximately £1.9m into the recreation ground. The main focus of the strategy is safety along with providing a sustainable tree stock into the future with trees of various ages and species. It identifies trees in decline and those of low vitality and seeks to replace with new specimens along with replacing trees where there are planting opportunities that have been lost over the years from disease.

We fully recognise that this particular tree is not in decline and does not fit with these general principals. In the case of this particular tree, the decision was based on maintaining a historical aspect and view of the lodge from within the recreation ground and from Whitstable Road. The lodge was constructed on a raised mound and is the main and most significant heritage asset. It is subject to a considerable amount of investment as part of this project. Historical photos and plans identify that the Lodge was open and visible to the park and on balance we believed it important to maintain the visibility of this significant historical feature.

However, we are aware of the opposition to the removal of the tree and have engaged in many conversations with people around the merits of the decision. It certainly wasn’t an easy decision, and in view of the engagement, the Project Board discussed the matter at its meeting earlier today.

I am pleased to report, the board decided to listen to the views of the community and have opted to keep the tree. This has always been a project about helping local residents to re-engage with the Rec and it shows that this administration is prepared to listen to the views of residents and consider all options.

As a compromise we are proposing to undertake some pruning works to lift the crown in orderto provide a little more visibility, but also raise it from the footpath and a small amount of crown reduction to take it away from the nearby lighting. I hope this will achieve a consensus that all parties are happy with.

Supplementary Question and Response

There was no supplementary question.

Question 4 – Councillor Steve Davey

“What provisions are in place to house vulnerable young people (17/18) and recently released offenders or those on probation within the Borough?”

Response – Cabinet Member for Housing

These specialist services are commissioned by KCC, however in the recent recommissioning of services from April 2019 services for young people and offender accommodation has been changed. 

We can no longer access supported accommodation for young people directly.  We do have a protocol with KCC regarding homeless 16 and 17 year olds which involves joint working to try to encourage them to work with social services who can then refer them to a specialist housing scheme.  However, if the young person does not want to work with social services, the duty to accommodate them falls with the Borough Council, and the most suitable temporary accommodation will be sought. 

Prior to the KCC recommissioning there were some services offering specialist accommodation for some ex-offenders, however these services were not recommissioned by KCC in April.  Anyone that is homeless in the Borough will be entitled to make a homeless application but not all ex-offenders will pass the tests prescribed in legislation, for example, have a priority need for temporary accommodation, and a vast majority will be determined as intentionally homeless.  Pre- April, some of these ex-offenders would have been accommodated at the KCC supported schemes but some would have ended up rough sleeping.

With the additional funding secured from MHCLG for rough sleeping, anyone that falls outside of Housing legislation will be given support and most will be offered accommodation (those without recourse to public funding will not be offered although in periods of extreme weather they will be).

Supplementary question and response

Councillor Davey paid tribute to the work of Housing Services, in particular, the Housing Options Manager and Housing Options Officer.  He asked whether SBC would consider putting extra funding in the budget to plug the gap that KCC were no longer providing?

The Cabinet Member for Housing agreed to give a follow up response.

Question 5 – Councillor Cameron Beart

Given the recent news that Queenborough has been rated 'the best place to buy property in the south east', does the Cabinet Member for Economy and Property believe that now is the right time to revisit the viability assessments on the Queenborough and Rushenden regeneration scheme?

Response

There are currently no viability issues with the Queenborough & Rushenden regeneration scheme as the financial gaps previously identified have been bridged through the securing of additional funds such as the Housing Infrastructure Fund grant of £5.1million recently finalised. The methodology utilised by PropCast in the Kent Online article is a calculation based on properties that are ‘Sold STC’ and ‘Under Offer’ as a percentage of ‘total stock’ for sale, down to postcode district level. There is no reference to or emphasis placed on how much those properties sell for either directly within an area or comparatively with another area. Viability assessments are carried out based on the expected values achievable for the properties being built. For the Queenborough & Rushenden  viability assessment, the figures used are comparable to the values achieved in the sale of the properties in phase 1 and are still significantly less than those being achieved in almost all other areas of Kent. The phase 1 sales values are still recent and appropriate for the area so it is not considered necessary to carry out any further assessments at this point.

Supplementary question and response

Councillor Cameron Beart referred to the significant changes from the original masterplan for the area carried out in 2007 and to the review carried out in 2017 which had removed the focal point marina and significantly reduced housing units.  He asked whether a more current review was now required?

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Property agreed to provide a follow up response.

Question 6 – Councillor Mike Whiting

“Can the cabinet member reassure my residents that he will get their bins collected on time?”

Response

Thank you for your question. Councillor Whiting will be aware that the waste collection contract was commissioned 5 years ago by the last administration, and that we are tied into it for another 5 years ending on March 2023. As with any major contract, there will be periods of reduced service whether that be in situations outside of people’s control e.g. inclement weather or emergency roadworks or due to a host of reasons that can and need to be managed accordingly.  It is fair to say that we have inherited some legacy issues from the contract, that have needed close management. We are working with the contractor to overcome the elements that are within our control. There were similar periods last summer and it is regrettable that these have re-occurred again this year.

In terms of your residents however, we are aware that many roads in your ward are serviced by one of the narrow vehicles and this is one of the legacy areas on which we are working due to vehicle reliability issues. We have received assurances form the contractor that prevention plans are being put in place and that service delivery over the last week has been back to expected levels. We are using all available means under the terms of the contract to ensure service delivery.

Our advice to all residents is exactly the same. To leave your wheeled bins out on the requested day and if missed, then to keep them there, as our crews will get to them as soon as possible. Crews work Saturdays and Sundays to catch up collections when necessary.

Supplementary question and response

Councillor Whiting sought reassurance that that contractors would deliver on the contract.

The Cabinet Member for Environment referred to the incompatibility between the ten-year contract and the six-year average vehicle life. He said that everything was being done within the current contract to provide the best service.

Question 7 – Councillor Paul Stephen

“In view of the recent reports in the media of sub-standard new housing developments, has the Council got any monitoring in place to check the quality and safety of new builds on all development sites across Swale Borough?”

Response – Chairman of Planning Committee

There is clearly something broken with the housing market whereby developers are being able to develop housing to sub standard build quality and that these issues are not being detected until very late on the build process, often at completion when transferred to a buyer.

SBC does have procedures in place to monitor the quality and safety of new builds.  We adhere to current legislative requirements in terms of how sites are inspected and it may be helpful for me to provide an outline of the processes involved.

Anyone wishing to build has two choices, they can use Local Authority Building Control (LABC) who provide an independent, publicly accountable service operating on a cost recovery basis.  Alternatively they can use a private company (Approved Inspector) who operate in competition with the LABC on a profit making basis. The Building Regulations, do not cover all aspects of quality, but do set minimum standards for things like structural stability, fire safety, energy efficiency and acoustic performance. The primary responsibility for compliance with the Regulations rests with the builder, but the role played by building control bodies provides an important check for compliance.

Where a site is being overseen by an approved inspector the LABC are not permitted, under the legislation, to become involved and any issues that may arise have to be resolved directly with the inspecting body.  If an approved inspector is unable to complete the work, legislation permits reversion of  the work to the LABC to endeavour rectification.

This has happened on an unprecedented scale this year with seven approved inspectors, being unable to secure the required insurance to operate, for reasons unknown.  This means that where work has commenced on site the Approved Inspector is unable to issue a Final Certificate as they are effectively uninsured.  Legislatively that work now has to revert to the local authority (as a reversion application), as the Approved Inspector is unable to carry out their function. Unfortunately, under the legislation there is no requirement for the Approved Inspector to provide any of their information to the local authority which means the LABC need to inspect to ascertain the status of the build in terms of what site inspection records (if any) are available, plans, calculations etc and what may have already been covered over and require exposing in order to confirm compliance.  

The LABC always endeavour to keep what they require to expose to a minimum and only request information that is needed, however, they have to be able to satisfy themselves that the build meets the requirements, as if they are unable to then they will not be in a position to issue a completion certificate.

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question.