Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, ME10 3HT. View directions
Contact: Email: democraticservices@swale.gov.uk
Media
No. | Item |
---|---|
Emergency Evacuation Procedure 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.
Minutes: The Mayor outlined the emergency evacuation procedure. |
|
Minutes To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2024 (Minute Nos. 451 – 467) as a correct record. Minutes: The Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 December 2024 (Minute Nos. 451 – 467) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Mayor as a correct record. |
|
Declarations of Interest 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.
Minutes: No interests were declared. |
|
Mayor's Announcements Minutes: The Mayor reported that the Senior Democratic Services Officer was unwell and wished him a speedy recovery.
The Mayor advised that he had attended events inside and outside of the borough and had attended the Mayor of Maidstone’s fundraiser at the Gurkha Kitchen. The Mayor reported that he had also attended the Sheppey Ladies Rugby Club team match and their Christmas party. He referred to the step-down of the various carnival courts across the borough during the festive period, and that it had been a privilege to watch the young ladies confidence levels develop over the year and wished them well for the future. The Mayor reported that his quiz night was now fully booked.
The Mayor welcomed Councillor Kieran Mishchuk to his first Full Council meeting following his election as ward member for Milton Regis in December 2024. |
|
Questions submitted by the Public To consider any questions submitted by the public. (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm on the Wednesday before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330).
Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|
Questions submitted by Members 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).
Minutes: The Mayor advised that four questions had been submitted by Members.
Question 1 – Councillor Mike Whiting
Councillor Whiting, who submitted question one was not in attendance and a written response would be provided.
Question 2 – Councillor Mike Baldock
Does the Leader agree that the decision on the Highsted Valley Planning Application 21/503914/EIOUT was unreasonably delayed by this Council?
Response – Leader
Thank you for your question Cllr Baldock, no I do not believe that the decision on the Highsted application was unreasonably delayed by this Council.
As Chair of Planning Committee, I am sure that you will be well aware, that at the point at which Swale Borough Council was set to make its decision, despite several months of effort to secure the required information from the potential developer, the application still required additional information to be submitted, such that legal advice confirmed our view that it could not lawfully have been approved.
Applications of all scales must be appropriately assessed against national and local policies, and evidence needs to be provided to allow those assessments to be consistent and robust. In the case of a planning application of this magnitude, the quantity of evidence to assess of course is vast. Likewise, applications need appropriate and commensurate consultation with the public and stakeholders. For the Highsted application this meant considerable time dedicated to engagement and review of representations received.
Throughout the process Officers maintained dialogue with the applicants representatives and I am confident that due process was followed as expediently as possible.
Supplementary Question:
As the statement regarding the Highsted applications being unreasonably delayed was a direct quote from Kevin McKenna, Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey in his request to the Secretary of State to call-in the applications, would he now agree to write to Kevin McKenna outlining why his comments were so long?
Response:
I think the term that was used by the MP Kevin McKenna was that it ‘may’ have been unreasonably delayed. In terms of writing to him I really don’t understand what that would gain us, we have said this in a public meeting here, and what I have written is a matter of public record and I intend to do nothing further.
Councillor Lloyd Bowen raised a point of order, that the decision at the last Council meeting in December 2024 was binding for six months, so writing the letter would not have been able to be actioned under the Council’s Constitution.
The Monitoring Officer said that given the Leader’s response, he did not consider there was any need to debate this but took the Member’s point.
Councillor Mike Baldock raised a point of order, that new information had come to light since that meeting, and the content of the letter was unknown so it would have been in response to the letter and not the alleged comments in the Press Release.
Question 3 – Councillor Hannah Perkin
Following multiple consecutive years of parking charge increases, combined with issues of large puddles, ... view the full minutes text for item 582. |
|
Leader's Statement Minutes: The Leader said:
“Thank you Mr Mayor and good evening, one and all I will commence this evening by echoing Mr Mayors words and offering my congratulations and welcome to Councillor Kieran Mishchuk who was successful in being elected at the recent Milton Regis by-election.
Can I now beg your indulgence whilst I turn to Mr Mayor and wish him a very happy birthday indeed, what better way to spend it than chairing a Swale Full Council meeting.
As you will all be aware the Council coalition administration has ceased and it would be remiss of me not to thank all of those colleagues who were a part of it for the valuable contribution that they all gave to it. And to that end I am hoping that going forward the representation of those that we serve will be framed in an even more inclusive way through a wider participation and collaboration of all groups and members.
This is of particular significance as, we as a council face interesting times ahead with emerging issues like devolution and local government reform on the horizon and one thing that is certain is that this will present a range of challenges for us all. But so often it’s the challenges in life that provide the opportunities and it is important that where there are opportunities that we cease them when we can.
What I will say is, that going forward it is imperative that we have clarity on the Government’s proposed devolution and reorganisation timelines, in both the short and longer term to assist in shaping and informing our direction and decision making. I am of course anticipating that much of this will be resolved in writing by the Government later this week together with the decision on whether Kent will be on the Devolution priority programme.
Furthermore it would also be helpful for us to have firm assurances amid genuine concerns on some of the proposals, but more specifically around local government reorganisation, which will undoubtedly be an emotive and polarising issue for many members and Towns, Parishes and residents.
From a personal perspective I would want to see decisions being made based on robust data and evidence and whilst there are diverging views on some of the many questions that are evolving, our collective weight and voice remain our most powerful tool in seeking positive change for our residents and ensuring that proposed reforms will bring benefits for our all of our communities across Swale.
That is why I have committed to setting up regular meetings with all group leaders specifically to provide a collaborative and consensual approach to our aspirations. As we strive to ensure that this council has the foundation to secure the devolution and reorganisation deal that works best for our local economies and of course our residents. Whilst clearly the group leaders will be bringing forward their respective views it is equally important that all 47 councillors are afforded the opportunity to feed into that discussion in ... view the full minutes text for item 583. |
|
Motion - Highsted Park planning applications Proposed by: Councillor Bowen Seconded by: Councillor Speed Minutes: In proposing the motion, as set out on the Agenda, Councillor Lloyd Bowen reported that the application site was not within the constituency of the MP who had called-in the application, nor was it within the built-up area of Sittingbourne. The Secretary of State (SoS) needed to visit the Highsted Park application area and engage with ward members, members of the Planning Committee, local representatives and local residents to demonstrate that the government was being fair and transparent and to restore public confidence. He also thanked officers for their hard work on the application.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Julien Speed reserved his right to speak.
In the debate that followed, Members made points which included:
· Supported the motion and said there was lots of evidence that the applicants had not previously submitted that the SoS needed to see;
· this was a very important motion as the majority of Swale were concerned about the application;
· concerned that developers would be able to go straight to the SoS for them to decide large applications; and
· hoped that by seeing the application site, the SoS might understand the impact it would have on the local community.
Councillor Speed said that the Highsted Park applications would be a ‘blight’ on the countryside. The loss of arable land was contrary to national and local policy. This was the largest application nationally and it was imperative that the SoS visited the site to view the harm to Swale’s heritage assets and wildlife areas. Councillor Speed was concerned that the MP that called-in the application had not consulted the MP for the area.
In summing up, Councillor Bowen said the Planning Inspector could visit the site, but they would not be able to consider the strength of feeling against the application.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:
For: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Bowen, Carnell, Cavanagh, Chapman, Cheesman, Eyre, C Gibson, T Gibson, Gould, Hunt, Jackson, Jayes, Lehmann, Marchington, B Martin, C Martin, Mishchuk, Moore, Neal, Noe, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Perkin, Speed, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson, Tucker, Watson, Whiting, Winckless and Wise. Total equals 35.
Against: Councillors Brawn, Harrison and Miller. Total equals 3.
Abstain: Councillors S Clark, Last and Wooster. Total equals 3.
The Mayor announced the Motion had been agreed.
Resolved:
This Council notes the call in decision regarding the Highsted Park planning applications, following a request by the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and others. This Council believes that a visit to Swale by the Secretary of State prior to the release of the Planning Inspector’s report would provide invaluable first-hand insight into the local context of the development. Such a visit would enable the Secretary of State to engage directly with ward members and other local representatives - ensuring their voices and concerns are understood and considered. Demonstrating proactive engagement by senior government officials will strengthen public confidence in the transparency and fairness of the planning process which ... view the full minutes text for item 584. |
|
Motion - Support for a More Democratic Process for Kent Proposer: Councillor Rich Lehmann Seconder: Councillor Alastair Gould Minutes: The Mayor announced that an alteration to change DLUHC to MCHLG, due to a name change of the organisation, had been put forward by the proposer and seconder of the motion. On being put to the vote the alteration was agreed.
In proposing the motion, as set out on the Agenda, Councillor Rich Lehmann spoke about the risks of centralisation of power and to rural areas.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Alastair Gould reserved his right to speak.
The Mayor invited Members to speak and points raised included:
· Had some sympathy with the motion, but could not support the Supplementary Vote system; · electoral reform was needed; · the proposal would not benefit the smaller groups; · the motion needed to ensure engagement with KCC and government happened; · concerned regarding the proposal to establishment of a democratically elected assembly; · it was clear that devolution would happen irrespective of what Members wanted; · the government were trying to manipulate democracy for their own purposes; · creating interest and encouraging residents to vote was the way forward; · the current costs to stand as a councillor did not allow for diversity; · the Local Government Association should look at a system; · there was an important reason why the mayoral system was being brought back in; · the government should not rush devolution through; · cancelling the county elections due in May 2025 was very undemocratic and demonstrated a lack of engagement by the government; · appreciated the intent of the motion, but could not support it; · agreed that the £5,000 deposit and £5,000 contribution for inclusion in a candidate booklet was too much money; · the motion raised more risks than it resolved; and · needed to be cautious as there were a lot of unknowns with devolution.
Councillor Gould said it was a complicated area and whilst they did not have all the facts regarding the devolution proposals they had highlighted the principle areas. He considered the motion would increase the democratic process and that scrutiny was much needed.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:
For: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Carnell, Chapman, Eyre, Gould, Jayes, Lehmann, B Martin, C Martin, Mishchuk, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Perkin, P Stephen, S Stephen and Thompson. Total equals 18.
Against: Councillors Bowen, Brawn, Cavanagh, Cheesman, Clark, T Gibson, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, Last, Marchington, Miller, Moore, Neal, Noe, Speed, Tucker, Watson, Wooster, Whiting, Winckless and Wise. Total equals 22.
Abstain: Councillor C Gibson. Total equals 1.
The Mayor announced the Motion had fallen. |
|
Annual Climate and Ecological Emergency Progress report Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, Councillor Lehmann, introduced the report and proposed the recommendation. He said that the Council was doing good work to combat climate change.
Councillor Dolley Wooster, Vice-Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, seconded the recommendation and reserved her right to speak.
The Leader of the SIA Group welcomed the report and asked that future reports highlighted what the Council could realistically achieve.
The Leader of the Conservative Group said that whilst the Council was not likely to achieve net zero carbon it should continue to try to. He was concerned that only 1% of parking provided electric vehicle charging points. He raised concern regarding proper waste recycling and that education was key to achieve this. The Leader of the Conservative Group was not convinced that the car share scheme was of any benefit and queried how much it cost to implement.
The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group spoke about the importance of ensuring the Council had a Local Plan as it impacted a lot of what was included with the report. She referred to the emergency planning section of the report and considered there had been some missed opportunities and that the Council should be encouraging residents to sign-up to the Flood Line and looking at the effects of extreme heat on residents. She asked that communication with local businesses on reducing their carbon footprint be improved moving forward.
Other Members were invited to speak, and points raised included:
· The Council should provide compost bins; · the Council should invest in services for local people rather than climate change; · this would have no impact on climate change; · just because the Council could not do everything to reduce carbon globally that was not a reason to do nothing; · the longer the Council did nothing to reduce its carbon footprint the more radical the changes would need to be in the future; · contaminated recycling waste bins was not just about education, as some residents just could not be bothered to recycle; · referred to the savings made by the Council due to work carried out to reduce the Council’s carbon footprint as set out in the report; · America and China needed to do better in relation to climate change; and · requested that more detail be included on wetlands as Swale was a coastal borough.
The Mayor welcomed the report and requested that as a coastal borough more work be included on the borough’s wetlands. He said he was disappointed that no schools from Swale had been nominated at the Green School Awards 2024. He was aware that schools in Swale were doing good work in this respect, and he encouraged Members to raise awareness of the awards in their areas.
Councillor Wooster reminded Members that the Council had declared two emergencies, housing as well as climate change and hoped that before devolution happened, they would both be a priority of the Council. She said that climate change affected every resident in the borough ... view the full minutes text for item 586. |
|
Housing Historic Delivery & Local Plan Review Housing Target Additional documents:
Minutes: The Leader introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.
In seconding the recommendations, Councillor Monique Bonney, Vice-Chair of the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group reserved her right to speak.
The Leader of the Conservative Group said this was another example of the impact of the Highsted Valley applications and that the Council’s hands were effectively ‘tied’. He said that were a lot of unknowns at the moment. This was not in the best interests of residents and left the Council open to similar applications.
The Leader of the Green Group, deferred to Councillor Gould who said it was important to note that the housing targets the Council were agreeing had been imposed by the Government. He said that the Local Plan process was very constrained and that a lot was not decided locally, and the Council had to follow the National Planning Policy Framework which did not consider important local factors such as best and most versatile agricultural land.
The Leader of the SIA Group, did not consider the recommendations were exactly what had been agreed by the Policy and Resources Committee (P&R) who had considered challenging the housing targets. He referred to paragraph 2.9 on page 67 of the report and said that was an essential part of what had been discussed by P&R. He then referred to the final sentence of paragraph 4.2 on page 68 of the report, which he considered should not be under ‘Alternative Options Considered and Rejected’, it was what the Council should be doing.
Councillor Baldock referred to recommendation (4) in the report to P&R and referred to Appendix III of the report, Housing Targets Exceptional Circumstances Study, that indicated there might be problems in delivering the proposed housing targets and may need further work as evidence comes forward as agreed at P&R but missing from the report and should be reinstated.
Councillor Baldock moved the following motion without notice. That the following be included as a recommendation. That further work be carried out on the Housing Targets Exceptional Circumstances Study. This was seconded by Councillor Bonney.
The Mayor said he would not accept the motion and suggested the item be deferred, and he considered the options with the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer.
Councillor Baldock raised a point of information, that the recommendations at P&R supported the additional work so it did not need to come to Full Council for decision. The Monitoring Officer advised that the recommendations being considered by Full Council were the ‘verbatim’ recommendations agreed by P&R, but the content of the report was different.
The Chief Executive clarified that P&R had not agreed the additional funding for modelling, but had agreed work on unsustainable commuting patterns, and it was not a recommendation to Full Council.
A Member referred to recommendation (2) and whilst he had no issues with the proposed delegations, he was aware of large developments coming through which he felt should be considered by the Planning and Transportation ... view the full minutes text for item 587. |
|
Local Government Boundary Review - Council size submission Additional documents: Minutes: In proposing the recommendations, Councillor Baldock thanked the Policy & Engagement Officer for her hard work in producing a good report. He said that based on the response of Members and work undertaken, the Council had made the case that the Council size should be increased to 55. Councillor Baldock added that it was a shame that due to devolution it would probably never happen.
The Leader seconded the recommendations and reserved his right to speak.
The Leader of the Conservative Group said that the financial implications of the additional Members needed to be considered and was it the most efficient use of the Council’s resources? He said that whilst the Committee system allowed broader participation, it could lead to longer processes and potential inefficiencies compared to the Cabinet model. The Leader of the Conservative Group said that the balance between inclusivity and streamlined governance needed to be carefully managed. He considered that whilst the increase in Members might help to distribute workload, it would not assist with case working efficiencies, digital engagement demands or support for councillors and that improved technological tools, increased officer support, or processed streamlining should be explored.
The Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group said that she fully supported increasing the size of the Council as there had been good cross-party input to the report and also because case work was far more complex than it previously had been. She referred to the diversity and equality section of the report, and said it was important that people with different life experiences were able to speak in the chamber and to allow greater accessibility to enable people to represent their residents effectively.
The Leader of the Green Group noted the cost of the additional Members and considered that the value for money they would bring would be ‘enormous’. Members were very stretched and decreasing the workload would help to make the councillor role more accessible to those in employment, on low incomes and from diverse backgrounds.
In response to a question from a Member, the Chief Executive advised that officers had asked the Local Government Boundary Commission whether they should continue with the review in light of devolution. They had responded to say they were in discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and central government about this, and until those discussions were concluded the Council should continue with the review.
The Mayor opened the debate to other Members, and points raised included:
· Disagreed that 55 councillors would spread the workload and the calculations were ‘flawed’; · workloads were determined by issues, so extra councillors would not reduce workloads; · the proposal would increase costs to the Council and officer time; · considered that some wards would benefit additional councillors; · considered that there was already a diverse mix of councillors; · supported more councillors that worked to really represent their area; and · Parish and Town Councils were an important ‘voice’ for residents especially with devolution, suggested another governance review to ensure all areas of Swale had such representation. ... view the full minutes text for item 588. |
|
Review of Polling Districts and Places Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader introduced the report and proposed the recommendations. The Deputy Leader, Councillor Ashley Wise, seconded the recommendations.
A Member welcomed the review of polling stations and said that it was easier for residents if they were more centrally located within the wards.
Resolved:
(1) That the consultation responses to the Polling District and Place review as set out in Appendix 1 of the report be noted.
(2) That, subject to the outcome of the Boundary Review, recommendations of proposed changes to polling districts and places be considered by Council at a future date. |
|
Political Balance - Allocation of Committee Seats Additional documents:
Minutes: The Mayor confirmed that all Members had received the to-follow appendix.
The Leader introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.
In seconding the recommendations Councillor Baldock reported that it had been agreed that the rounding-up on the political calculations was incorrect and that the Labour Group had agreed to gift a seat on the Licensing Committee to the SIA group.
Resolved:
(1) That the political balance calculation as set out in Appendix II of the report be agreed, subject to the amendments to the Licensing Committee as minuted. (2) That seats to those Committees and appointment of Members to those Committees, in accordance with the wishes of Group Leaders, as set out in Appendix III be allocated and agreed subject to the amendments to the Licensing Committee as minuted. |
|
Recommendations for Approval Council is asked to note the recommendations from the following meeting:
Environment and Climate Change Committee (Link to meeting: Agenda for Environment and Climate Change Committee on Wednesday, 15 January 2025, 7.00 pm)
Recommendations: (1) That the content of the Waste and Street Cleansing Scrutiny Review report be noted. (2) That the conclusions and recommendations proposed by the Waste and Street Cleansing Scrutiny Review Member Panel as set out in Appendix I, subject to the amendment to recommendation (13) as minuted. (3) That a waste contract update report will be considered twice a year by the Environment and Climate Change Committee with the first one in July 2025. (4) That the Waste and Street Cleansing Contract Scrutiny Review Report be considered by Full Council.
Link to Waste Contract information: Campaigns - Waste Contract
Minutes: Resolved:
(1) That the recommendations from the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 15 January 2025 in respect of Minute No. 548 Waste and Street Cleansing Contract Scrutiny Review report be noted. |
|
Adjournment of Meeting Minutes: There was an adjournment from 8.35 pm until 8.50 pm. |
|
Extension of Standing Orders Minutes: At 10 pm, Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Committee could complete its business. |