To consider any questions submitted by Members.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30pm 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 that 7 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.  Details of the questions and responses are set out below:

Question 1 – Councillor David Simmons

At a Scrutiny Committee meeting earlier this year the Leader of the Council described the 2013 joint mid Kent waste contract as a bad contract.  Please could the cabinet member tell me what is bad about the contract and for whom is it bad?

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Tim Valentine

The Mid Kent Waste contract was let in 2013 and saw the forming of a partnership with neighbouring authorities Maidstone and Ashford. There are benefits in this arrangement including economies of scale and a collegiate approach with officers managing the contracts across the boroughs. This did indeed lead to a much-reduced cost of contract at tender stage, but this has meant the contractor has not always had the resources required to deliver the resilience, and therefore quality of service we would like to see.

The length of contract is also a problem. A 10-year contract reduced costs by enabling the cost of vehicles to be written down over a longer period. However, the view within the industry is that the useful life of the vehicles is approximately 8 years. Therefore, we are now experiencing a high level of vehicle breakdowns, including problems with the hydraulic lifting equipment. This lack of reliability has led to the poor level of bin collection service that was suffered over last year. Council officers have worked with the contractor to make improvements in recent months, including a full rescheduling of garden waste collections.

Furthermore, the zoning of the streets which determines their level of cleansing were, in the administration’s opinion, lower than we would have liked. This results in complaints from the public about the amount of litter in Swale.

We are working with officers ahead of a new contract to address these issues.

Supplementary Question:

How could the Cabinet Member improve on the contract and still show good value for money and service quality for local residents?

Response – Cabinet Member for Environment

There is a working group looking at the new contract and the arrangements that will be made for that.  Things are moving on quickly in the industry, there are changes in the technology available and there is considerable scope to improve the service from the current contract we have.

Question 2 – Councillor Carole Jackson

Would the Cabinet Member for Planning comment on the published view of the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, that in our Local Plan review we should allocate all new housing to the Faversham end of the Borough, and failing that land to the south of Sittingbourne should come first?

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Mike Baldock

I would like to thank the Councillor for her very pertinent question.

It is a shame that we have such seemingly ill-informed and unhelpful contributions from an MP to what is a very serious debate.

Firstly we have to be clear that Swale has faced ever increasing, and ever-unrealistic housing numbers imposed by the Conservative Government  for the past decade - a Government which Mr Henderson, and his Faversham & Mid Kent colleague, Helen Whately are supporters of, and numbers which they have consistently failed to challenge in any effective or meaningful way. 

I would underline that word effective, because whilst Mr Henderson goes around referring to havingthis meeting or written that letter the position remains very clear - over the past decade housing targets in Swale have already doubled and are set to treble. Whatever he has been doing it cannot be said to have been ‘effective’ in any way in reducing those targets.

His statement, and for context I will quote it, “In my view, Swale Borough Council should now allocate all new developments to the Faversham end of the borough” shows an apparent lack of understanding in how either the Local Plan process or indeed market forces work.

Let me make this clear. 10,000 houses around Faversham would be neither deliverable nor desirable. The Brenley Roundabout / M2 J7 is already near capacity and there are no commitments as of yet to bring forward any improvements.

In short, Mr Henderson seems to be suggesting that this Council should propose a Local Plan that his own Government would reject. This is hardly a proposal one would expect from anyone who understands how the Local Planning process actually works. At one point he even declared that 10,000 houses could be built in Faversham to pay for a southern link-road from the A2 to the M2 in Sittingbourne. These are the suggestions of someone who would appear to understand nothing about how Planning works and about how infrastructure and development should be linked.

Mr Henderson then goes on to suggest if all the housing target is not allocated to Faversham then the land South of Sittingbourne - I would not like to hazard a guess at which particular site he may or may not have in mind - apparently implying that those communities, unlike those on Sheppey or the north of Sittingbourne, do not suffer from “pressure on an infrastructure that is already overstretched”.

The reality is that all our communities suffer from a lack of infrastructure across the whole Borough.

We have a chronic shortage of GPs and general health facilities, educational opportunities, a real lack of affordable housing, and seriously over-congested roads. These are the legacy of a decade of under-investment by both his Conservative Government and the previous Conservative administration on Swale, both of whom championed mass house-building whilst failing to deliver on the necessary infrastructure.

Rather than allocate housing on this, to my mind, irresponsible ‘throw them all here’ approach, Swale Borough Council is working on a Local Plan that seeks to deliver regeneration of the Town Centres, provide greater affordable housing numbers, generate more local employment, provides opportunities for local SME builders, and to provide housing for our growing elderly population who have been seriously over-looked in the past.

The Government’s housing demands on Swale are unrealistic and wholly damaging to our local communities. This Swale administration is on course to deliver less housing than the numbers the Conservatives intended, but it is still too much. However, we have faced this challenge in a responsible and constructive way that seeks to limit the potential damage.

If Mr Henderson wants to play a sensible role in opposing these government housing targets he should stop trying to play party politics with the issue, stop making apparently ill-informed statements, and start engaging with the Local Council in a constructive and positive way.?

Supplementary question:

Has there been any response from Helen Whately MP?

Response – Cabinet Member for Planning Councillor Mike Baldock

No, no response.

Question 3 – Councillor Tony Winckless

What plans are there for the future use of the land at the end of Denbigh Close in Milton Regis. Where the disused play area has been removed?                                                           

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property Councillor Monique Bonney

This site was included in a review undertaken by the Property Department of a number of small difficult to develop sites. Optivo confirmed that they did not want to develop the site and advice has been received that the site has limited potential for private development. As such the spaces are being considered for biodiversity and tree planting improvements with the aim of assisting with the response to the Climate & Ecological Emergency Action Plan.   

Supplementary:

Why could 3 or 4 units not be built on this land?

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property

It’s about profitability of the site.  For Optivo, the site might be too small but if an interest is shown by others, it could be considered.

Question 4 – Councillor James Hunt

At the February Full Council the Cabinet Member for Economy and Property, in response to a question by Mr Jack Connor, said that the "new Administration has ambitious plans for Sittingbourne Town Centre and its historic High Street." The question was in relation to work that the Swale Youth Forum had done alongside the Regeneration Officer for Town Centres. 

Could the Cabinet Member update me on the work that the Regeneration Officer for Town Centres has done over the last six months please? 

Response – Cabinet Member for Economy and Property

The Regeneration Officer for Town Centres role was a fixed-term post and ended on the 14^th May 2020.  It remains the case that the Council has ambitious plans for Sittingbourne Town Centre, and reflecting this, a wider set of Officers are now working on Sittingbourne, Sheerness and Faversham Town Centres.  For much of the past 6 months, this work has been shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need to balance public health concerns and the reopening of our High Streets.  Set against what has been a challenging context, the Council has also been putting in place the officer and financial resource to make significant improvements to the public realm in our town centres, with a view to addressing many of the issues that were identified by the Youth Forum Members who took part in the town centre audit in Sittingbourne.  Further audit work will continue to ensure the range of issues that impact on the public realm are picked up and addressed, incorporating not just our own assets, such as bins or improving wayfinding signage,  but also those of other organisations, be that KCC or the private sector.

As we work to complete the current regeneration scheme in Sittingbourne Town Centre, we have also been working to develop a broader vision and policy framework.  We are identifying a range of opportunities, and speaking with landowners to bring a more comprehensive package of improvement and the necessary, positive change across all of Sittingbourne Town Centre.

Supplementary question

It’s good to hear that work is continuing but would you agree that losing an experienced officer was a real shame?

Response

There was a reorganisation and reallocation of positions and posts so we had to affect that to move forward.

Question 5 – Councillor James Hunt

Does the Cabinet Member agree with me that the council should do what it can to support local businesses and have the local economy as a high priority when making decisions, and that when this council awards contracts being a local company should be given equal consideration to that of quality, rather than greater weighting being given to quality.

Response – Cabinet Member for Property and Economy Councillor Monique Bonney

The Council does have supporting local businesses as a high priority and the administration has set this out in its recently adopted Economic Improvement Plan. 

Whilst I would very much welcome as much of the Council’s spend going to local businesses as possible (and the current Procurement Strategy encourages this), the Council does need to follow the Public Procurement Regulations. The regulations cover ‘spend’ above a certain threshold and do not allow us to favour local companies as all public procurement is subject to a number of principles including non-discrimination and equality of treatment.

For purchases under the regulation thresholds, low level spend only requires quotes to be obtained and officers can go direct to local companies. For tenders, whilst we cannot add a direct priority by location, the tender process includes a Social Value question which makes up 20% of the quality evaluation. This asks tenderers to list the social value measures applicable to their tender. This can include allow local companies to gain points such as the number of local jobs created and sustained, carbon footprint etc.

The administration is currently reviewing the Commissioning Framework and Procurement Strategy and will be amending our Contract Standing Orders shortly. This will increase the tender threshold meaning more opportunities go out using the quotes system which is less onerous and therefore favours smaller local companies more than a full tender process.

I actively encourage officers and Members to identify potential local suppliers and make them aware of opportunities as they come forward.  Our procurement team have attended past business events and held specific ‘tender training’ to advise local businesses about our procurement processes and how opportunities are advertised.  By providing this and additional business advice, we can help businesses bid more effectively for work, not just from Swale Borough Council but also from other public bodies, bound by similar rules to our own.

There was no supplementary question.

Question 6 – Councillor Mini Nissanga

Can the leader explain why a figure of £27,000 was allocated to the Leysdown village hall but in fact that is untrue, this concerns me as I have for the last 2 years attempted to get funds for the kitchen.  Can the leader show evidence of this transaction and explain why such a high figure was placed for such a tiny kitchen.    If you tell me this was a mistake as I am expecting you to say this, then tell me why such a serious financial mistake was made, please a full explanation.

Response – Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance Councillor Roger Truelove

Thank you for your question.

You approached Cllr Palmer before lockdown in March about this project and he saw it as a good project for the Special Project Fund to support and it was submitted into the approval process. Leysdown Village Hall were looking to replace the kitchen which was felt not to be fit for purpose and was becoming quite dangerous for the people that volunteer. Initial discussions were for works totalling around the £27,000 although Cllr Palmer was passed detailed quotations for a higher figure in June. Cllr Palmer did offer to meet you on site but he did not receive a reply

The Special Project Fund then had a provisional estimate of £27,000 committed but no money was paid.

Cllr Palmer was contacted by Cllr Tatton in September and the works required have been substantially reduced and now total £3,843. The Special Project Fund commitment will now be reduced to this sum.

There was no supplementary question.

Question 7 – Councillor Elliott Jayes

Given today’s important anniversary of remembrance, could the Leader please update the Council on the funding for the important improvements to Sheppey’s War Memorial as referred to the Cabinet by the Sheppey Area Committee?

Response – Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance Councillor Roger Truelove

Thank you for your question. It is very appropriate on a day when we remember the loss of life in war, and especially in this question the loss of life on the Isle of Sheppey. I am assured by the Chair of the Area Committee that this project will be much appreciated on the Island.

We are establishing a Sheppey improvement fund, for small capital projects on Sheppey. The fund will be for £250,000 and I would ask the Area Committee through its Chair to bid against that fund for the Memorial.

This will enable the project to proceed without Island members having recourse to either their members grant or the Special Projects funding for the Area Committee.

Apart from the Sheppey Improvement fund, further funding will be allocated to Sheerness Town Centre improvements and the administration is planning other larger capital investments on the Island.

We are confident that this is the right thing to do considering our determination overall to improve the public realm in Swale, the need to equalise for Sheppey on the funding we have recently devoted to other areas of Swale and because Sheppey is acknowledged to have areas of deprivation in need of more public investment, not just from Swale Borough Council.

There was no supplementary question.