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).

Council questions added 17 June 2020

The Mayor advised that 11 questions had been received from Members.  Each Member was invited to put their 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 limited would receive a written response.

Details of the questions and response are set out below:

Question 1 – Councillor Mike Whiting

Would the leader join me in congratulating the Government on the unprecedented level of support it has provided in grants and business rate relief to local businesses here in Swale, and also to congratulate our officers for the magnificent job they have done in getting that financial help out the door to the businesses that need it during this coronavirus pandemic crisis?”

Response – Leader

Thank you for this question and the opportunity to acknowledge both the support from Government and the sterling work, with limited resources, by our officers.

If a global pandemic forces governments to lock down large parts of their economies for several months then they have little option but to make an enormous fiscal leap. Cllr Whiting properly cites grants and business rate relief to local businesses but I would add in too, the value of funding the furloughing of employees across the economy and the hardship fund to help less well-off council taxpayers.

Having said the government was driven down a path that does not fit into their usual ideological assumptions, I have to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted swiftly, clearly and with conviction and it is not surprising that opinion polls indicate that he enjoys much greater confidence with the general public than the rest of the cabinet

Our officers likewise acted swiftly and decisively, notwithstanding the considerable logistical difficulties of locating all the qualifying businesses. We have now distributed £25,978,000 of grants and are well set to distribute the second wave of discretionary grants.

I am sure the challenge of trying to sustain the economy is not over for either the Chancellor or this Council.

Supplementary question

Councillor Whiting thanked the Leader for his response and asked whether he was satisfied that the criteria SBC had set for discretionary grants was adequate or whether there would be new criteria, and whether he expected all the funding from the first round to be allocated?

In response the Leader said that the criteria were mostly set by Government and he was satisfied that it was correct and he would give a follow-up response with more details on discretionary grants.

Question 2 – Councillor Alan Horton

Given that the country is in what has been described as the worse crisis since the Second World War, would the Leader explain to the thousands of Conservative voters throughout the Borough why he has chosen not to formally include the views of their representatives in his planning and preparation for delivery of services in this challenging time, despite being reminded on several occasions that the Emergency Committee is within the constitution for exactly that purpose.

?It is clear that the Leader has chosen to work solely with his coalition partners and as he has done previously, restrict the opposition's involvement in the effective and efficient running of the council. Many residents will struggle to understand how his continued denial of a voice to the representatives of the largest party in the Borough is consistent with the coalitions corporate plan objective to 'diffuse decision-making power more widely among elected members and improve the transparency, responsiveness and public accountability of that decision-making'.

Response – Leader

Thank you for this question which raises an important point though I have to say I am disappointed by the tone of it.

All members will know that throughout the pandemic crisis I have regularly, twice a week initially, updated them on progress, because I deemed it important to do so during this period of isolation. Conservative members were free to respond to these updates and a few members did so; Cllr Hunt offering the sensible suggestion that we should bring forward the members grants, which we did and for which I thanked him publicly. I was also e mailed by Cllr Whiting on a Saturday night asking me to avoid making partisan political points in my updates, notwithstanding I was only reflecting the views of other, mostly Conservative, leaders, across Kent, on funding support from Government to local authorities. I also received comments from Cllr Beart about ice cream vans, views I profoundly agreed with. Cllr Horton would also want to acknowledge that with my support he has regular briefings from the Director of Regeneration and that I had a one hour plus meeting with him and Cllr Simmons outlining a number of points and asking for feedback. Over the year I think I have had four such constructive meetings with both of them. I would just like to point out that in the previous 17 years, as an opposition Leader, I can only recall one attempt to consult with me, in a corridor and about the award of Freeman of the Borough to a relative of Cllr Whiting.

But I understand the Leader of the Opposition might feel that his party might have been involved in strategic planning. The reality is that all the strategic direction was handed down from Government and the role of this Council has been largely operational and significantly dependent on officers who have been outstanding in the crisis. Until very recently the Senior Management team has met every day. The role of the Cabinet has been to monitor operations which has been done on a daily basis and at weekly informal cabinet meetings. The Cabinet is the appropriate place to do that and if there was a Conservative Cabinet I would recognise that as the appropriate course of action.

He is right that he has mentioned the use of the Emergency Committee and I pursued that with officers. The advice I am given is that the Emergency Committee is there to deal with immediate emergencies where normal committee structures cannot be instantly summoned take decisions that only Council could otherwise take at times when Council cannot meet, but the need for this in an emergency situation is limited because in the immediate response phase most decisions will be executive ones. Having said this, this Emergency is not an instant one like a sudden fire or flood. It is sadly a long ongoing one, the recovery phase of which has to be managed by the elected administration with, I hope, the optimum degree of involvement from the whole Council. We will now be moving into this recovery stage and I hope the Conservative group will engage fully in this as we have a responsibility to all our communities to lead on this.

Supplementary Question

Councillor Horton thanked the Leader for his response and his acknowledgement of the contributions made by members of the Conservative group.  He asked the Leader if he would accept an invitation from his group to work with the Leader as previous coalitions and partnerships at SBC had?

In response, the Leader said he would work with all members of the Council but said that under the Cabinet system, it had to lead.

Question 3 – Councillor David Simmons

Outline planning permission for 250 houses at Preston Fields (16/508602), Faversham, was granted by the Planning Committee on 5th March 2018, subject to a suitably-worded Section 106 agreement following consultation with the Ward Members and the Planning Committee Chairman.  By May last year the agreement was almost completed.  Following the election this Administration took over and in July, the Cabinet appear to have instructed the Planning Department not to sign the agreement.  Will the Cabinet Member for Planning explain why after more than a year into their administration it has still not been completed?"

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning

I would like to thank Cllr Simmons for his question, although I am a little surprised that he shares his colleagues eagerness to see housing spring up all over Swale as quickly as possible.

Firstly, I have to make it clear that there has been no Cabinet decision to withhold the signing of the S.106 agreement. I am not sure where he gets his information from, but this is simply nonsense. However, he is correct that this administration cares more about resident’s need -both existing residents and those for whom the houses are being built - than perhaps was the case previously.

It is my understanding that following consultation with the Ward Members and the Planning Committee Chair and noting that proposals had started to progress regarding the potential development to the south east of Faversham, that the issue of a potential link road between Salters Lane and Ashford Road was raised as part of the S.106 planning obligations consideration given the wider benefits it would potentially deliver for the south eastern part of Faversham including:

·     longer term improved transport connections with beneficial outcomes between the proposed urban extension at SE Faversham, Preston Fields, Perry Court and beyond;

·     relief of traffic congestion at the A2/Ashford Road junction, which currently is under significant stress particularly for traffic attempting to enter onto the A2;

·     an east-west link south of the A2 for pedestrians, cycles, public transport and private vehicles to promote permeability between developments south of the A2, all of which would otherwise rely totally on their own access points directly onto the A2;

·     promote sustainable development that will help achieve the highest standards of master planning and placemaking, and which will help to revitalise the town as a whole;

·     a valuable contribution to the future permeability of the southern extents of Faversham, enabling people to move easily between different places of residence and work, and social and community facilities; and

significant benefits for the future residents of the Preston Fields site and to the attractiveness of other possible new housing coming forward in the area.

Given these circumstances, it was considered that the Council would not wish for this opportunity to be foregone through the determination of the current planning application, which currently includes no provision for a future link road across the site.  Discussions and negotiations have been ongoing with the applicant to consider whether there is an opportunity either for the safeguarding of the land and/or the provision of the link road to be included within the proposals and associated S.106 agreement.    These discussions have involved the ward members and the Planning Committee Chair and I have also been involved given my responsibilities regarding progress of the Local Plan review.  We are currently awaiting proposals from the applicant on how they wish to proceed.

Supplementary Question

Councillor Simmons thanked the Cabinet Member for Planning for his response and asked him to confirm that senior Councillors in the administration had not been seeking to do deals with developers behind closed doors?

In response, the Cabinet Member for Planning confirmed that there were no such deals but that ongoing discussions were taking place with developers in order to progress negotiations.

Question 4 – Councillor Simon Clark

Can the Cabinet member tell me how many contacts we have made through the Community support hub and how this Council has supported voluntary and charitable groups in helping those most in need during the current crisis?

Response – Cabinet Member for Community

As at the end of last week we have dealt with 1,511 requests through our community support hub.  These requests range from sourcing food, collecting prescriptions to wider support during these difficult times.  We have worked with a huge number of established and newly created voluntary and community groups to help us respond to these requests and the great number of residents who have come forward to volunteer.  We have directly funded those organisations who ran the food distribution hubs and we opened our Member Grant schemes early this year to enable organisations to apply for funding to support their services and promoted other funds available to them.  A list of performance statistics and grants will be issued through members despatch.

Supplementary Question

Councillor Clark thanked the Cabinet Member for Community for his response and asked whether the public needed to be better informed that money was available via the Members’ grant scheme as he had only been contacted by one organisation?

In response, the Cabinet Member for Community said that the scheme was well publicised but suggested that Members could contact organisations directly to inform that money was available.

Question 5 – Councillor Steve Davey

Can the Leader outline the part that our Council has played in trying to enforce the original instruction to people to "Stay at Home"?

Response – Leader

The Council responded quickly to follow the Government requirements and whilst not exhaustive, below is a list of some of the changes we made;

·         Staff were required to work from home from 17 March;

·         Council run facilities were closed;

·         Adaptations were made to our burial service;

·         We closed car parks to our major open spaces;

·         We monitored the use of our green spaces and seafronts.

·         We relaxed parking restrictions across the Borough. 

·         We set up the ‘community hub’ team with Council staff.

·         Cabinet and Senior Management have reviewed each of these changes and their impacts throughout the period of the pandemic and worked closely with the Police particularly on weekends to ensure that social distancing was not an issue.

The Leader advised that more information was contained in the Leader’s Statement.

Supplementary Question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 6 – Councillor Steve Davey

Does the Leader think that the widely reported journey to Durham of the Prime Minister's adviser, Dominic Cummings, will have weakened public resolve to continue social distancing? ?

Response – Leader

Thank you for this question. The short answer is that we cannot tell but we can speculate in a reasonable way. To help me with this I would like to quote the MP for Maidenhead and Bray, the former Prime Minister Theresa May. In a letter to her local party she says

“In the circumstances I do not feel that Mr Cummings followed the spirit of the guidance”.

This is the nub of your question. Despite casuistic and legalistic attempts to excuse Mr Cummings, the majority of people including a large section of the Parliamentary Conservative believe that Mr Cummings did break the spirit of the guidance, that it caused offence to millions of people and ran the risk that some people would say that if he can do that, so will I. I sincerely hope people will continue to do what we all know needs to be done and that they can dismiss the thought that Mr Cummings can be regarded as any kind of role model.

Supplementary Question

There was no supplementary question.

Question 7 – Councillor Corrie Woodford

Can the Cabinet Member give us his response to the Cleve Hill Solar Farm Appeal and outline what steps the council is planning to take in response?

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

Thank you for your question. On 28th May the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy granted a Development Consent Order to Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd to construct a 350MW Solar power station with battery storage on Graveney marshes. The application was processed under the procedure for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Public hearings were conducted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspector submitted a report to the Secretary of State who made the final decision. Swale Borough Council submitted representations and an impact assessment report but was not involved in the decision-making process.

The decision is extremely disappointing and a great shock to local residents. The development will industrialise a site the size of Faversham which is in a very sensitive location. It is in an area of high landscape value noted for its long-distance views and is adjacent to protected wildlife life sites of international significance. The site is used by wild birds including Marsh Harriers, lapwing, golden plover, curlew and brent geese. It is accepted that construction of the site will disturb these birds, but a mitigation area is to be provided. The proposal was opposed by local residents and many organisations including Graveney Rural Environment Action Team, Kent Wildlife Trust, the Campaign for Rural England and the Faversham Society.

In June 2019 Swale Borough Council declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency. We understand the need to generate renewable energy at scale. However we cannot address the climate emergency by continuing to advance the extinction of our natural flora and fauna, and by failing to protect our wild places. We believe that solar energy is best developed at a local and community scale. Solar panels belong on roofs of houses, commercial and industrial buildings, not in a local beauty spot.

Local residents have justifiable concerns about the safety of building the world’s largest lithium battery storage facility in such close proximity to people’s homes. There have been a number of fires in battery storage facilities around the world. A fire in a very large battery will be difficult to extinguish and will produce toxic fumes.

There is no appeal process. The only way to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision is seek judicial review. To overturn the decision, it would be necessary to show that the decision was unlawful. We are currently seeking legal advice on the prospects of a successful judicial review, and are liaising with community groups about this process.

Supplementary question

There was no supplementary question

Question 8 – Councillor Cameron Beart (due to technical issues, Councillor Simmons read out Councillor Beart’s question)

Since the current administration took office, the Local Plan Panel has been poorly balanced, both politically and geographically. The largest party on the council only holds one seat and there are no members from Sheppey on the panel. This has been described to the local press by a member of the coalition as "an oversight" that "hopefully will be rectified in the near future".

Could the Cabinet Member for Planning please explain how this "oversight" has occurred and confirm when and how he plans to rectify the situation?

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning

Obviously I cannot speak on behalf of unnamed and unreferenced comments alleged to have been made to the press, lacking in any detail or context, and consequently cannot comment on the premise of his question in the respect of any ‘oversight’ or future ‘rectification’, but I would like to make a number of points.

The Local Plan Panel is not a Committee subject to proportionality - it is an advisory Panel to offer advice to the Cabinet in formulating the Local Plan and places are appointed by The Leader. As the Conservative Party have demonstrated on many occasions that they are wedded to a Local Plan that will impose up to 15,000 houses in Swale, delivered largely by reliance on huge Garden Village proposals - a Local Plan approach that was comprehensively rejected by local people in the local elections last year but one which they continue to try and impose on local people through their connections in Government and KCC and in their public comments - it is difficult to see how they will be able to contribute much to the Administration’s attempts to deliver a very different Local Plan with a totally different emphasis. However, The Leader still agreed to ask the Conservative Group to nominate a Conservative Councillor to this advisory Panel in order that they can be represented. I would remind you that all Councillors are entitled to attend the Local Plan Panels, offer their input and ask questions. It is only the voting that is limited to Panel members.

Cllr Beart claims the Panel is poorly balanced geographically, yet his own party - with 7 Councillors from Sheppey - would seem not to support his concerns as they nominated a Councillor from the mainland to represent them, rather than one of their Island members. Indeed just last week, at the most recent Local Plan Panel, when their representative was unable to make the meeting, they substituted him with yet another mainland Councillor rather than an Island member.

However, as we get closer to the submission of the Local Plan itself, I believe there is a need to look again at the make-up of the panel, and to allow a greater degree of back-bench input into the Panel’s deliberations for the Cabinet to consider. Consequently I have recently secured the agreement of the Leader to replace one of the Cabinet Members on the Panel with a non-Cabinet member of my group, and as it happens that member is from the Island.

However, I would remind Cllr Beart that Councillors when in Committee or on advisory panels have a duty to consider issues from a Borough-wide perspective. I am confident from the contributions made by all members of the Panel, including those from his Party colleague, that those currently on the Panel do exactly that. His question, however, casts some doubt on his own understanding of the responsibilities of Councillors and I would hope that he takes time to reflect on that.

Supplementary question

Councillor Beart reiterated that the Local Plan Panel was unbalanced and asked for more clarification on how this would be rectified?

The Cabinet Member for Planning drew attention to the response and suggested that the Conservative Group Leader needed to consider whether a representative from the Isle of Sheppey should replace a member on the panel.