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.

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 Parking Service Manager introduced the report which outlined the extension to the Civil Parking Enforcement Contract with APCOA Parking (UK).

The Chair invited Members to make comments, which included:

·           Congratulations to the Civil Parking Enforcement Team for their hard work in making the current contract so successful;

·           how much would it cost to bring the service in-house?;

·           did the contract allow an option to vary the hours and could the contractors go to extra sites they did not currently visit?;

·           paragraph 3.3 in the report showed a 90% success rate in pay unit attendance so could not see a reason to change the contract provider;

·           what services could be offered to enforce against idling vehicles outside schools?;

·           could Members suggest areas that the Civil Parking team should investigate?; and

·           what was the best way for Members to contact the Civil Parking team to raise issues?

The Parking Services Manager responded to questions raised about the hours and deployment of the team by explaining that 15,000 hours per annum were available to the Council to use for civil parking enforcement. This meant that the team could be moved around the borough to work in problem areas, then move on once those areas stopped becoming an issue. He added that 12 civil enforcement officers were currently working under the contract and the contract was considered to be very good for value for money.

With regard to the idling problems outside schools, the Parking Services Manager said that under Civil Parking Enforcement legislation, evidence of idling was required in order to enforce against it. Currently, no technology existed for the enforcement team to gather this evidence, so it was not something they could do outside schools.

The Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods responded to the possibility of an in-house service and said officers were seeking an extension to the contract to give them time to consider a business case analysis and understand what the Civil Parking Enforcement contract would look like in the future.

The Parking Services Manager said that if Members had areas which showed consistent parking issues they could email parking@swale.gov.uk and the team would be able to investigate those issues to understand if any measures could be put into place.

Resolved:

(1)   That the Civil Parking Enforcement Contract with APCOA Parking (UK) be extended in accordance with the contract terms for a period of three years from 1 June 2025 to 31 May 2028.

The Director or Regeneration and Neighbourhoods introduced the report which detailed the number of issues in relation to overnight parking across the Isle of Sheppey.

The Chair invited Members to make comments which included:

·           Over the last few years numerous complaints had been received about the shingle bank as well as good news about people being happy with the current situation;

·           disappointed that the Committee did not have the chance to review the situation earlier;

·           thanked the officers for the hard work put into the questions shown in the public consultation as they accurately reflected the issues that the public raised at the Sheppey Area Committee;

·           requested that the consultation lasted for at least six to eight weeks;

·           thought the consultation needed more context on the price of parking for camper vans so it was understood what facilities would be available?;

·           was the pricing based on similar areas in the country?;

·           strongly supported the use of CCTV as the areas were in remote locations;

·           the residents of the affected areas needed to be contacted directly about the consultation;

·           the welfare of those people taking residency at Shingle Bank needed to be considered;

·           parish and town councils need to be consulted;

·           who owned the Shingle Bank?;

·           could officers look at placing consultation flyers on the community bus and in local businesses on the Isle of Sheppey?;

·           to engage the communities’ ideas on the Shingle Bank, youth clubs should be included in the consultation;

·           it was difficult to find the right balance to ensure residents and visitors could enjoy the area; and

·           the use of CCTV needed to be carefully considered and outline what the CCTV would be used for and what the public could expect from it.

The Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods said that the consultation would run for a minimum of six weeks and that officers would investigate how they could reach all the residents on the Isle of Sheppey. She added that officers were aware of the vulnerable situation of those individuals that took residency on the Shingle Bank and the Council would explore what possible support may be available.

The Head of Environment and Leisure responded to say that there were no facilities on the Shingle Bank as it would not be viable with the current resources. He added that ownership of the Shingle Banks was not clear, but it was custom practice that Swale Borough Council owned the land the shingle bank sat on, and the Environment Agency were responsible for the shingle bank as it was a sea defence.

The Head of Environment and Leisure assured Members that a full business case of how the shingle bank would operate in the future would be presented at the March 2025 Community and Leisure Committee.

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved the following motion: That recommendation (2) be changed to read ‘That all Town/Parish Councils on the Isle of Sheppey be included in the public consultation’. This was seconded by Councillor Tom Nundy and on being put to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 496.

A Member asked if officers could look at organising a presentation from the CCTV staff to show how the team operated and the good work they undertook.

Resolved:

(1)   That the Forward Decisions Plan be noted.