Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (To follow).

The Leader introduced his statement.  He advised that the Council was currently displaying a plaque, commemorating the deaths of Bowaters Paper Mill workers during the First World War, outside the Council Chamber.  The plaque had been collected by Council officers from the former Kemsley Arms Public House, and a more permanent location was being investigated with the Royal British Legion.  He considered that the plaque was an important part of the heritage of the Borough, and paid credit to officers for their efforts in safeguarding it for the future.

The Leader of the Labour Group welcomed the update on Thamesteel and asked if the Leader could provide any more detail from Peel Ports on the potential use of the land?  He also welcomed the announcement in the Autumn Statement regarding Junction 5 of the M2, but raised concern that it may take many years to be delivered, if at all.

The Leader agreed that improvements to Junction 5 of the M2 were vital for the future prosperity and regeneration of the Borough, and agreed that it was important to continue pressing for this to happen as soon as possible.  He advised that  Government officials had already attended meetings with Kent County Council and Swale Borough Council (SBC) officers, which he considered demonstrated a commitment from Government to push ahead with this project.

With regard to Thamesteel, the Leader advised that Peel Ports hoped to re-establish the rail head, which the Leader endorsed as it would move freight traffic away from the roads onto the railway.  He advised that the future of the site was a delicate situation, and much of the information was confidential, but he could confirm that the site would be used for industry and job creation, and when further information was available he would brief Members.

The Leader of the Independent Group asked which bodies within the Canterbury and Coastal Clinical Commissioning Group were Councillors able either to attend or participate in?

The Leader advised that he attended the main Board meetings with the Cabinet Member for Health and an SBC officer; he undertook to confirm if the meetings were public and advise the Member.

A Member asked if the Highways Agency’s holding order on the Spirit of Sittingbourne planning application had been removed, or was about to be removed, as the time limit for further information from the applicant was Friday 20 February?  The deadline for public responses to the planning application had now closed and the responses were overwhelmingly negative about the application on planning grounds; would the Leader provide an assurance that no Council officer has subsequently been involved in trying to drum-up support post this deadline to mitigate these responses?

The Leader advised that he had no knowledge of any such action.  He considered that it was not appropriate to comment on a planning application as this would be considered by the Planning Committee.  The holding order was expected to be removed in the near future.

A Member asked the following questions: whose responsibility was it to check whether there was any contamination at the Thamesteel site, and to deal with it?; and will the new Children’s Operational Groups being established have an impact on the child poverty rates in the Borough, especially Sheerness?

The Leader advised that the new Children’s Operational Groups were still being developed.  With regard to Thamesteel, it was likely to be the role of the Environment Agency to deal with any contamination issues, but this would be addressed through the current discussions taking place on the future of the site.

A Member asked if the 200 residential apartments in Phase 1 of the Sittingbourne Regeneration Project would include 30% social housing?  She also commented on the importance of the Council working together to support the Minor Injuries Unit (MIU) at Faversham, and to represent the interests of the community regarding the outcome of the DMC Healthcare consultation.

The Leader agreed that it was important for all Members to work together to push for health improvements for residents and that it had resulted in previous successes.  With regard to social housing figures, he advised that he was not keen on artificial targets and each site should be considered on its merit.

A Member advised that responses to the notice for providers to run the MIU at Faversham were being considered and it was hoped that a new provider would be in place from April 2015, with an x-ray unit from October 2015.

A Member asked if the Leader would agree for the need to campaign for the Southern Relief Road, to ease congestion and protect towns and villages in Swale?

The Leader agreed with this and considered that it was becomingly increasingly important to secure a long-term plan to complete the Northern Relief Road and Southern Relief Road.

A Member asked if the Leader agreed that the Labour Party’s opposition to the regeneration plans for Sittingbourne made no sense without some coherent alternative plans?

The Leader agreed with this and spoke of the potential benefits of the regeneration proposals.