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).

The Mayor advised four questions had been received from Members.

Question 1 – Councillor Chris Williams

What response has the Leader had to his letter to KCC regarding the closure of Faversham tip?  What else does he think Swale Borough Council can do to encourage KCC to change their mind and keep Faversham Tip open and running? 

Response – Leader

I can confirm that at the time of writing, I have not received a response from Cllr Gough.

The Environment committee discussed the issue briefly at their last meeting and agreed for the Chair, Cllr Rich Lehmann to write to KCC’s Cabinet Member for Environment. This letter has been sent but has also currently not been responded to.

There have been two reports to KCC’s committees so far which have outlined a number of options. The latest report has removed the potential impact to Sheerness and Sittingbourne HWRCs but remains with the Faversham closure in all options. Having expressed our opposition publicly and to those making the decisions, we feel it is best to await the detail of the formal consultation which we expect in the coming weeks.

In terms of what more Swale Borough Council can do to assist, we will continue to look at ways in which we can support the campaign to oppose the closure and of course ensure engagement in the KCC consultation process.

Question 2 – Councillor Ben J Martin

It was recently revealed that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP, has returned £1.9 Billion of funding meant to tackle the housing crisis in England to the treasury due to “struggling to find projects to spend it on”. There are 295 District and Unitary Council’s in England responsible for Housing. Had the £1.9 billion been shared out equally between those local housing authorities, each would have received just shy of £6.5 million. This would have been sufficient to purchase 20-50 homes in Swale, based on current averages prices across the borough. Does the leader agree with me that the decision to return the funds was at best short sighted and that such funding for affordable homes in this borough would have not only been welcomed, but would have had a significant benefit for our residents?

Response – Leader

With the country in a housing crisis and more and more families finding themselves unable to find secure affordable and permanent accommodation, we and the government should be doing everything we can to maximise affordable housing delivery.  I would have absolutely welcomed the funding in the borough, and it is disappointing to see this level of much needed investment being returned to the treasury.  This demonstrates that the mechanisms and criteria that the government have attached to this funding are not fit for purpose.  Last week the government launched a call for evidence to gather views and experiences of working with Homes England.  I have asked officers to respond highlighting these issues.

Supplementary Question

As homelessness was on the increase, would you commit to responding robustly?

Response – Leader

Yes, we will respond robustly.

Question 3 – Councillor Ben J Martin

At the meeting of the Housing & Health Committee held on January 17^th the committee approved the use of £11million to purchase up to 50 homes for use as Temporary Accommodation with 4 of those properties to be used as part of the Ukrainian resettlement scheme and for a number of large properties to be used as part of the bridging programme for refugees. Could the chair of the housing and health committee provide a brief update on the progress of the bid for government funding that formed part of that decision and on the purchase of homes for use as temporary accommodation within the borough, particularly if any properties have yet been purchased, and if so how many and of what size?

Response – Chair of Housing and Health Committee

Since the decision taken at January Committee, Officers have been putting the foundations of the project and scheme in place.   We are yet to purchase any properties; as we are assessing properties available and will make appropriate purchases when the right properties come along. In terms of the bridging scheme, we are working with a local registered provider on a new build site, there have been some delays onsite, but the build is progressing. 

Supplementary

Since the decision was made in January, the Government have once again moved the goalposts and offered a ‘sweetheart deal’ to a commercial entity.  Will this have any impact on the ability to deliver?

Response – Chair of Housing and Health Committee

We are struggling to provide homes for the people in this Borough and sweeteners are being offered to landlords who require funding up front from tenants who then have to pay the rent.  We all need to sort this problem together.

Question 4 – Councillor Mike Whiting

Swale Borough Council Seafront Services has been running a memorial bench scheme along the seafronts for many years now.  In 2017 it was decided no more benches would be allowed in Minster. My resident wishes to commemorate his late wife, who died at the age of just 42 years old. Minster beach, east of the beach huts, was a place where he, his wife and young family regularly visited, and is a place where he feels she can be best remembered. Would the Chairman of Regeneration and Property agree to bringing the 2017 decision back to committee for review?

Response – Chair of Regeneration and Property Committee

Following consultation in 2014 and a consensus that supported the number of benches should be capped, the scheme was finally closed in 2017, by the previous Conservative administration. There are currently 150 benches in a fairly short space along the seafront at Minster Leas from the White House end to Seathorpe car park. Particularly in the area of promenade in front of the beach huts, the benches are very close together and generate different views from the public, with some liking the idea of offering memorials and others feeling that too many impact the visual appearance and feel of the area.

The existing benches do create an on-going liability for the Council in terms of cleansing, repairing or replacing if subject to vandalism. The impact of this is mitigated somewhat by selecting hard wearing benches suitable for the location, but it remains is a consideration.

The scheme is still available at other locations. The scheme remains open along Sheerness Seafront where is currently a substantial amount of space for more memorial benches whilst balancing the needs of all beach users, from Garrison Point through to opposite Barton’s Point entrance, and this area continues to remain popular with applicants.

So, in conclusion yes, I am happy for the issue to be debated at the Regeneration and Property committee.