Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 July 2024 (Minute Nos. 75 – 91) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 July 2024 (Minute Nos. 75 – 91) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods introduced the report which set out the Annual Delivery Plan (ADP), at Appendix I of the report, and associated performance targets at, Appendix II to the report. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

·         There were some typographical errors on the ADP: page 10 Action No. PTP80, bullet point 7 should read ‘Undertaking a draft Reg 18 consultation’ and bullet point 8 should read ‘Undertaking a draft Reg 19 consultation; page 9 Action No. EP2 bullet point 7 should read ‘Great East Hall’;

·         under Action No. EP2 the Duchy planning application had not yet been considered, would the land swap leave the Council open to pre-determination?; and

·         in terms of the targets why were temporary accommodation and affordable homes were marked as not applicable?

In response the Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods advised that the land swap was a separate piece of work under a different department but officers were mindful of the crossover.  The Head of Housing and Communities explained that the temporary accommodation and affordable homes were more of a monitoring indicator at this stage, and the current affordable housing had already been granted permission.

Councillor Angela Harrison proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by the Vice-Chair.

Resolved:

(1)   That the Annual Delivery Plan, set out at Appendix I of the report, be agreed.

(2)   That the performance targets that support the Annual Delivery Plan, set out at Appendix II of the report, be agreed.

The Community Services Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda pack, which informed Members of the steps taken in reviewing the current Swale Scrap Metal Dealers Licensing Policy 2021 – 2024 including the public consultation.  Members were asked to agree the revised Swale Scrap Metal Dealers Licensing Policy 2024 – 2027, set out at Appendix I to the report.

In response to questions from a Member, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that ward councillors and Parish and Town Councils had been consulted on the document.  She explained that due to theft of scrap metal the Government had ruled that payments for scrap metal could not be made by cash, only by cheque or electronic transfer.  That would ensure there was an audit trail of where the scrap metal had come from.   A Member said that cheque and electronic transfer payments were traceable.

The Vice-Chair proposed the recommendation, and this was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.

Resolved:

(1)   That the Swale Statement of Licensing Policy for Scrap Metal Dealers 2024 – 2027 be adopted and published on the Council’s website on 1 October 2024. 

The Community Services Manager introduced the report which informed Members of the steps taken in reviewing the current Swale Borough Council (SBC) Pavement Licensing Policy 2023 – 2026 brought about by changes to current legislation contained within the Levelling up and Regeneration Act 2024.  Members were asked to approve the revised Policy set out at Appendix I to the report.

The Chair invited comments from Members, and points raised included:

·         Were officers confident that there would be sufficient resource in respect of the 14 day consultation period for the licences, particularly during the holiday periods?;

·         how would the licensee deal with any damage caused to their street furniture by anti-social behaviour (ASB)?;

·         did the Council have control over the quality of any proposed street furniture?;

·         were officers confident that there was sufficient resource to deal with enforcement and could any monies secured via enforcement be ring-fenced?; and

·         in terms of paragraph 2.4 (Type of furniture permitted) of the draft Pavement Licensing Policy, on page 55 of the report, considered the wording ‘to our satisfaction’ should be included.

In response the Community Services Manager said that there were several pieces of legislation requiring a very quick turnaround, so the Licensing Team were very attuned to tight deadlines and processes were in place to ensure those were met during holiday periods.  The Licensing Team Manager clarified that whilst the consultation was for 14-days, officers then had a further 14 days in which to make a decision.

The Community Services Manager said that if licensees were experiencing ASB issues, then officers would discuss those with them, and most pavement licences required that street furniture was put away at night.  If there were issues during the day officers would seek to liaise with key partners such as Kent Police.  The Licensing Officer explained that photos of any proposed street furniture needed to be included with any application.  If officers had any concerns they would speak to the applicants or refuse the application.

The Community Services Manager reported that once the policy was in place, officers would monitor how much it cost the Council to put a pavement licence in place.  The fee was for the application and the Council could not charge extra for enforcement.  Officers were confident that there was capacity within the Licensing Team to deal with enforcing the policy. 

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following amendment:  That delegated authority be given to the Community Services Manager to insert appropriate wording within paragraph 2.4 (Type of furniture permitted) to ensure that if the street furniture proposed was not to the satisfaction of the Council, then the application be refused.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed by Members.

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed the recommendation, as amended, and this was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes.

Resolved:

(1)   That the amended Pavement Licensing Policy 2023-2026, as set out in Appendix I of the report, be agreed and delegated authority be given to the Community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

The Community Services Manager introduced the report which asked Members to ratify the draft Statement of Principles under the Gambling Act 2005, following the 6-week consultation, so that it could be presented to Full Council for formal adoption on 2 October 2024. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments, points raised included:

·         Reference to the European Parliament needed to be removed from page 8 of the document;

·         the map on page 52 of the document was blurry and needed to be replaced;

·         the deprivation map on page 57 of the document was for Kent not the Borough as stated so needed to be replaced; and

·         considered the list of persons vulnerable to gambling on page 61 of the document, should refer to ex-prisoners rather than prisoners, and unsure what ‘women potentially vulnerable to harm’ meant?

In response the Community Services Manager said officers would check the document and review the list of, persons vulnerable to gambling and update the wording where necessary.

A Member asked that any amendments be highlighted when the document was considered by Full Council.  This was agreed by Members.

The Vice-Chair proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Lloyd Bowen.

Resolved:

(1)   That the response to the public consultation on the draft statement of Principles under the Gambling Act 2005 be noted.

(2)   That the draft Statement of Principles be amended as minuted and endorsed and referred to Full Council on 2 October 2024 for formal adoption.

The Head of Housing and Communities introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  The report provided an update on the current controls in place to manage the Temporary Accommodation (TA) budget, and proposals for investment in resources within the Housing Options team, funded from the existing TA budget.  Members were asked to approve a virement of £421k from the TA Budget to the Housing Salary Budget.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

• Had some concerns but was satisfied that the Housing and Health Committee had considered the proposals in detail and was happy to recommend approval;
• referred to paragraph 2.10 of the report and queried what benefits there were to increasing monitoring from six monthly to quarterly?;
• there was a risk that inaction on this could result in an even higher financial pressure in this area in the future;
• important to approve this virement to enable the good work already achieved within the Housing Options team to continue;
• this was a significant virement and it was important that it was closely monitored;
• had no hesitation in supporting the virement as the Housing Options team were consistently looking at ways to improve the service and confident that if there were any issues officers would alert Members early on;
• would the funding secure the five existing posts within the team?; and
• had officers explored whether less staff could manage the project so less funding was required?

In response, the Head of Housing and Communities explained that increased monitoring would ensure transparency and that the proposals had been scrutinised by the Housing and Health Committee.  She confirmed that the proposals would secure the five existing posts and allow additional posts to be secured where required within the service.  Officers had undertaken extensive research on all available options.  The staff restructure consultation, which would feed-into the proposals, had recently concluded and there were still areas where she had concerns about resources.  The Head of Housing and Communities considered the proposals allowed enough resource to make a difference but warned anything less would create blockages within the flow of clients through the service. 

The Head of Finance and Procurement added that regular monitoring would allow the council to make judgements around whether the best option had been put forward.

Councillor Angela Harrison proposed the recommendation, and this was seconded by Councillor Ashley Wise.

Resolved:

(1)   That the virement of £421k from the Temporary Accommodation Budget to the Housing Salary Budget be approved.

The Project Manager (Policy) introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  The report sought recommendation to Full Council that the proposed Vision and objectives, and Growth Option 6 be taken forward for consultation to enable the drafting of the Local Plan Review Regulation 18 Report.  He said the report had been considered by the Planning and Transportation Working Group (PTPWG) on 8 August 2024.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

• Referred to Figure 2 on page 174 of the report and said that the PTPWG had made it clear that they were not happy with the phrasing ‘meeting local needs’ within the Revised Draft Vision;
• this was not local needs it was government targets and that should be made clear in the document;
• the proposed housing levels were unsustainable and beyond anything that the residents of the borough needed;
• would like the Faversham Community Land Trust document included within the minutes as it made it clear that Faversham would be taking a disproportionate amount of housing compared to the rest of Swale;
• considered the sentence “sympathetic and symbiotic” to be a nonsense sentence and Option 6 was neither of those things;
• the removal of reference to the A2 specifically in terms of air quality would result in a devasting failure on the Council’s air quality commitment to the A2, and have “catastrophic consequences” for  residents living along the A2 at Ospringe, Faversham, Dunkirk and Boughton;
• Faversham would not be a “thriving small historic market town” if it grew by 80% in 20 years;
• Sittingbourne could not regenerate and do all the work it wanted to do on connectivity if it took no development and received no Section 106 funding;
• the Isle of Sheppey could not meet its goals if took no development and received no Section 106 funding;
• this was a plan letting down all the residents of Swale in its lack of ambition;
• building thousands of new houses in Faversham would not secure funding to upgrade the Brenley Corner junction;
• Faversham’s other problem motorway junction was running over capacity and dangerous, there was no mention of it for improvement in the document;
• the dwellings proposed for Faversham would have to be towards Graveney and the solar farm located there.  The Council had already deemed that site to be dangerous to residents in Faversham so how would the council’s Planning officers be able to support housing applications closer to it;
• the Faversham Community Land Trust, Faversham’s Future, Faversham Society, and Faversham Town Council were already discussing how they could oppose the Local Plan;
• it would not be appropriate to attach the Faversham Community Land Trust document to the minutes as this could set a precedent;
• the areas of Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey had taken 85% of the housing in previous years and this proposal would be a rebalance of the distribution of housing across Swale;
• the PTPWG had considered the document thoroughly and supported their recommendation;
• putting 4,000 dwellings in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

The Head of Place introduced the report which set out the discussion had at the PTPWG meeting on 8 August 2024.  Members were asked to discuss, and set out their preferences for, employment sites for allocation.  The PTPWG discussion paper set out the evidenced need figure for employment allocations (73ha of industrial land and 1.1ha of office space) through the Local Plan, and the available sites to meet that figure.  

The Chair invited comments from Members, and points raised included:

·         Supported all three recommendations which were thoroughly discussed by the PTPWG;

·         clarified that the PTPWG had made it clear that some sites would not be suitable for HGV type employment due to their location, and hoped that would be included;

·         considered that site CSF50 was not sustainable as an employment site; and

·         recommendation (3) could be agreed by the Policy and Resources Committee, it did not require a motion to Full Council.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen moved the following amendment:  That recommendation (3) in the report, be amended to read: That Members agree that the Leader of the Council write a letter to the Local Government Authority (LGA) seeking to persuade the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Deputy Prime Minister to include education and health as employment land, in the employment land calculations.  This was seconded by the Vice-Chair.  The amendment was agreed by Members.

The Chair proposed the recommendations, as amended, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

Resolved:

(1)  That the potential employment sites available for allocation through the Local Plan be noted.

(2)  That the Leader of the Council wrote a letter to the Local Government Authority (LGA) seeking to persuade the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Deputy Prime Minster to include education and health as employment land, in the employment land calculations.

Recommendation to Council:

(3)   That the preferred sites set out in the PTPWG report, with the exclusion of sites CSF30, CSF47, and CSF50, if no housing development be put forward to the site, for consultation through the Regulation 18 Local Plan.

The Project Manager (Policy) introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  He said that recommendation to Full Council on the proposed housing target was required, as reported to the PTPWG on 8 August 2024.  The report set out two main issues: Housing historic delivery up to 1 April 2024; and, Local Plan Review Housing target and balance of housing need.  He referred Members to the recommendations for approval.

The Chair invited comments from Members, and points raised included:

·         Could not support as Members had not had sight of the Exceptional Circumstances report;

·         considered there were grounds to challenge the housing targets on a unsustainable transport basis;

·         should defer the item until Members had read the Exceptional Circumstances report;

·         referred to Table 4, on page 220 of the report, which stated that 231 houses were required under Neighbourhood Plan allocations, and said that the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan was expected to be passed within the next couple of weeks that figure would rise thus helping the wider targets;

·         the proposed numbers were ‘astonishing’ and the number of planning permissions currently not built-out were ‘significant’;

·         this was putting the current population at such a disadvantage that it was having a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing;

·         it would be remiss of the Committee to consider this item until they had received all the information required to make a decision;

·         to build 17,000 houses and to get 3,000 in preferred areas, as viability dictated, they needed to be built in the most profitable areas, ie. rural areas, was extremely short sighted and utterly flawed by the Government; and

·         what were the implications of this not going through to Full Council?

In response, the Project Manager (Policy) clarified that the Exceptional Circumstances report was almost complete, and available for consideration by the PTPWG.  He referred to the Local Development Scheme (LDS) Autumn 2024 update report which would be considered by the PTPWG on 17 September 2024, which proposed a six month extension before the Regulation 18 consultation, so deferring the item would not delay the overall schedule. 

Officers considered when the item could next be considered by the Policy & Resources Committee.  The Chair confirmed that it was likely that the item would next be considered by the Vice-Chaird Resources Committee at their meeting on 27 November 2024.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen moved the following motion:  That the item be deferred until Members had been able to consider the Exceptional Circumstances report.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed by Members.

Resolved:

(1)  That the report be deferred until Members had been able to view the Exceptional Circumstances report.

The Chair invited comments from Members which included:

·         To review and scrutinise the Council’s policies should be added to the list;

·         the Sheerness Dockyard Conservation Review needs to be included; and

·         there could be other things that would need adding to the list such as any proposal to scrap the single person council tax discount which could impact on the Council Tax Reduction Scheme.

The Head of Place agreed to find out when the Sheerness Dockyard Conservation Review was scheduled and advise the Member in question. 

Resolved:

(1)   That the forward decisions plan be noted.

The meeting was adjourned at 9 pm until 9.10 pm.