Amendment added 4.12.24

The Mayor advised that a motion concerning sending a letter to Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP Kevin McKenna, proposed by Councillor Monique Bonney and seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock was received outside of the deadline but he had used his discretion and allowed it to be debated.

Councillor Bonney read out the motion, as set out on the Agenda, with a replacement of the word ‘instructs’ to ‘requests’ in the final paragraph.  She advised that Councillor Baldock had circulated a copy of the newspaper article referred to in the motion that afternoon for Members to read. Councillor Bonney said that the article underlined that whilst Mr McKenna was newly-elected, he did not understand the system, economics or the area’s local problems. She said he needed to get to know the area and she had requested to meet him but that had not yet materialised. Councillor Bonney said his comments did not correlate with Labour’s plans for the devolution of power away from Central Government, were naïve and demonstrated a lack of understanding about the planning system.

Councillor Bonney questioned why £30million of tax-payers’ money had been paid out on levelling-up Queenborough and Rushenden, and on infrastructure works yet little housing had been delivered as Government had not delivered on its own sites. Finally Councillor Bonney requested Members’ support for the motion.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Baldock reserved his right to speak.

The Mayor announced that an amendment had been received, proposed by Councillor Perkin and seconded by Councillor Charles Gibson and this had been published on the Council’s website and circulated to Members. He invited Councillor Perkin to propose the amendment.

Councillor Perkin explained that the amendment changed the intention of the motion and, with support from the seconder, she withdrew the amendment.

Members were invited to debate the motion and made points including:

·         Was appalled by the article, considered it patronising and gave examples of inaccuracies within it;

·         referred to the call-in of the Highsted Park planning applications and said it was not clear why the applications were called in or who had drawn attention to them;

·         quoted from the MP’s election pledge and said his comments on Highsted Park went against his pledge;

·         although agreed with the sentiment of the motion, it did not get to the point of the issue;

·         it was not the Council’s business to character assassinate an MP;

·         wanted to see a motion on the call-in and this was an assault on democracy;

·         there was a lack of association with local Labour;

·         the MP’s comments were inaccurate;

·         should not be attacking an individual;

·         there should be a grown up debate;

·         would support but considered the motion had lost sight of what motions should be about;

·         the motion was disrespectful and expected better from Members;

·         could not support;

·         reflected on a Member not part of SBC;

·         Members should be reminded of the need for inclusivity, respect and dignity and freedom of speech;

·         housing was needed and the reason for challenge was an out of date Local Plan;

·         motions were a vehicle for bringing about change and this motion would not achieve that;

·         this was not the place for mudslinging;

·         had support for what the motion was trying to do, but this was not the forum for what needed to be said and the MP was not at the meeting to respond;

·         the MP had not acted against the process;

·         needed to be respectful;

·         the MP was not determining the application but expressing a view; and

·         the MP was new and needed to listen to his community rather than developers.

Councillor Baldock said it was common to write to MPs with SBC’s views and it was respectful to listen. He said many hours had been spent on the application by professional officers who had put forward many solid planning grounds for refusal, and he did not believe the MP had the knowledge to brush this aside. Councillor Baldock said it needed to be explained to the MP the reasons the application should not be supported and ask why he was not fighting for housing for local people. Finally, Councillor Baldock said the MP should be challenging why democracy was not being returned to local people and local Councillors to make good choices.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For:  Baldock, Bonney, Bowen, Carnell, Chapman, Lehmann, MacDonald, Marchington, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Pollard, Speed, P Stephen, S Stephen Thompson and Tucker. Total equals 17.

Against: Brawn, Cavanagh, Cheesman, S Clark, Eyre, C Gibson, T Gibson, Harrison, Last, B Martin, C Martin, Miller, Perkin, Watson, Wooster, Winckless and Wise. Total equals 17.

Abstain: Gould, Moore, Neal and Noe. Total equals 4.

As the vote was tied, the Mayor used his casting vote and voted against the motion.

The mayor announced the motion had fallen.