Agenda item

Question A – Tim Johnston, of Rochester, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne:

 

“There has been a rise in shops dedicated to vaping as well as other shops - even takeaways - selling vape products. This is a problem for public health as well as a blight on the high street, particularly in conservation areas such as Rochester High Street.

 

What powers are already available to close vape shops or restrict the display and advertisement of vapes in Medway?”

 

Councillor Osborne thanked Tim Johnston for the question. He said that the Council had powers to regulate certain types of advertisement under the town and country planning regulations of 2007 and to control the sale of products such as vapes where there were age restrictions through trading standards legislation. Unlike for tobacco, alcohol and other products there was no formal licensing regime.

 

Councillor Osborne believed that this needed to change and that an incoming national Labour government would be committed to banning the marketing, promotion and the sale of vapes to children. There was a focus on regulating the vaping industry. As a teacher, he was aware of the significant impacts of vapes in the education space. He considered that retailers who sold vapes to young people under the age of 18 should be subject to review to prevent sellers from operating near schools in that way.

 

Councillor Osborne was hopeful that the Council could engage with the government to see if this issue could be further reviewed.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Tim Johnston was not present.

 

Question B – Chris Webb, of Rochester, asked the Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards, the following:

 

“Lloyds Bank branch in Strood is closing on 4 April. Lloyds’ Chatham branch will then be its only branch serving Medway, which currently has a population of approximately 280,000. The Strood branch closure will result in severe inconvenience and loss of an essential face to face, in person service, particularly to those customers without the internet who currently rely on this branch for their banking needs.

 

Will the Council make strong representations to Lloyds Bank, at a senior level, to oppose this unjustified closure?”

 

Councillor Edwards thanked Chris Webb for the question. She said that, unfortunately, the closure of bank branches was a national trend, with a third of bank branches across the UK shutting since 2010. Not everyone was comfortable using online or telephone banking and local small businesses needed safe access to banks for their deposits. The Strood branch was relied upon by residents in Strood and by those living in Cuxton, Halling, Rochester and on the Hoo Peninsula, for whom the next nearest branch in Chatham was some distance for them to travel.

 

Councillor Edwards had written to Lloyds Bank to oppose the closure and said that she would do her utmost to ensure the retention of face-to-face banking facilities in Medway town centres. This also included pursuing a plan B to save face-to-face banking by speaking with Link, the UK’s cash access and ATM network, to encourage them to introduce a banking hub in the area.

 

Chris Webb asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Does the Council not consider it particularly strange, as it’s a democratically elected body, that Lloyds and other banks don’t consult the people that use it? Is it perhaps that they know the answer?”

 

Councillor Edwards said that although banks were commercial entities, they needed to engage properly with the people using them to have a true understanding of need. While there had been a consultation or public notices about the matter, she agreed that there was much more that could have been done to understand the impact that such closures would have in view of the significant implications for communities. Councillor Edwards encouraged banks to do more to consult people who would be most affected by such changes.

 

Question C – Paul Khera, of Chatham, submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“How does the Labour administration in Medway plan to safeguard Chatham Docks as a functional industrial facility, emphasising the need to protect long-term employment opportunities for local residents and preserving the historical significance of one of the last working docks in Chatham, particularly in the face of potential future redevelopment proposals for housing projects?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Curry, Councillor Maple thanked Paul Khera for the question. He said that the Council was currently working on its Local Plan. As part of that work, there had been a call for sites and a Regulation 18 consultation had been undertaken on options for a spatial strategy, as well as re-setting the vision and objectives of the Local Plan. That work was currently being considered by officers.

 

Chatham Docks had been promoted through the call for sites and was the subject of responses to the recent consultation. The Council was now working through the responses and the evidence base to support the Plan moving forward. It was, therefore, not appropriate to comment directly on Chatham Docks or any other site at present as this would be premature and potentially risk challenge to the Plan. It was a priority for the Council’s administration to move forward and deliver a sound Local Plan.

 

Councillor Maple had previously committed to a meeting with both Peel and Mittal together, this had taken place on the day before the Council meeting. This had been a positive, constructive meeting and dialogue would continue. Councillor Maple considered that this was a very different approach to that taken by the previous Council administration.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Paul Khera was not present.

 

Question D – Michael Evans, of Rochester, asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Medway Foodbank is troubled by the absence of confirmation in the Government’s Autumn Statement there will be a continuation of the Household Support Fund beyond March 2024. The fund plays a vital role providing emergency support to vulnerable Medway households with expenses such as food, school uniforms and utilities, which is all the more important during the Cost-of-Living crisis. We expect to see a spike in foodbank use if it is discontinued.

 

Will Medway Council seek an urgent assurance from the Department for Work and Pensions that the Household Support Fund will remain in place beyond 31 March 2024?”

 

Councillor Maple thanked Michael Evans for the question. He said that he was grateful for the work that Medway Foodbank and many other organisations did across Medway but that he wished such organisations did not need to exist. Council officers worked closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and were making appropriate representations regarding the future of the Household Support Fund. Answers given in parliament had led to there being concerns.

 

A motion submitted to this meeting of the Council, which was expected to have cross-party support, recognised the importance of the Fund and called on the Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to confirm the future of the Fund at the spring Budget.

 

Councillor Maple had recently received an email, seeking his signature on a cross party letter from the Local Government Association political groups, which he would be signing.

 

Michael Evans asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Often we hear at the food bank that our clients don’t know about the Household Support Fund. So, will the Council explore all avenues to maximise publicity for the fund?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that since May 2023, the new administration had brought forward a Cost of Living Plan, which had amplified those messages, although there was more to be done. Work would be undertaken with the Finance and Communications teams to look at what more could be done with the hope being that the Household Support Fund would continue into the next financial year.

 

Question E – Andrew James, of Rainham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“The response to the initial consultation on the Red Route proposal for Rainham has resulted in the creation of three additional loading bays, two of which are at the front tip of existing bus stops (one outside Poulton’s and one outside Lukehurst’s) and the third occupying the full width of one lane outside the Nationwide Building Society. All of these proposed design changes appear, from a resident’s perspective, to have a negative rather than positive impact on public transport and emergency service transit (travelling east), and in the case of the Nationwide loading bay, an increased danger to cyclists who are now being forced into the middle lane.

 

How have these negative impacts been accounted for in the planning of the proposed design changes?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Curry, Councillor Osborne thanked Andrew James for the question. He welcomed the significant interest in this issue from residents, including a number of businesses that had been met on recent visits to Rainham. The Red Route proposal was part of the Council’s Moving Streets programme, which included school streets and box junction changes and was part of a larger programme to promote vehicle movement in Medway for buses, emergency vehicles, and cars, in addition to cycling and walking.

 

The Council had been engaging with local residents and business, bus operators and emergency services. The original consultation had sought views on five proposals and several of those had significant cross-party support.As statutory consultees, emergency services were consulted on the proposals and no concerns were raised regarding the impact to their services, with many of them being in support of the proposals.

 

Councillor Osborne noted that there was already a Red Route programme outside Medway Hospital. Public transport operators had also been engaged during both the informal and statutory consultation processes and local bus companies had expressed support for the proposals. The Council would work with bus companies to look at new routes to promote moving streets.

 

With regards to the proposed Rainham route, the Council had listened to community feedback and concern and redesigned the proposed Red Route schemes to add an additional five loading bays. The new loading bay along the A2 Rainham high street, outside Nationwide Building Society, was proposed following the informal consultation, due to there being regular monetary collections. It was also in response to The Greedy Banker pub, which received heavy barrels and could not load or unload on Station Road. The carriageway width at this location was wide enough to accommodate a loading bay and still provide a two metre running lane so that there was a significant amount of space for cyclists and other users. This would mean that cyclists could move around the occupied loading bay without impinging on the eastbound lane.

 

Larger vehicles were currently loading on the wider part of the footway outside the Greedy Banker, which illegally blocked the footway for pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or in a wheelchair. This indiscriminate parking also blocked the visibility for pedestrians crossing north to south at the busy signal crossing and it was therefore considered that the proposals put forward in the traffic regulation order were appropriate for the location.

 

Andrew James asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Local residents feel that traffic jams are not due to illegal parking, so what quantitative evidence can you provide to back up the claims that a red route will reduce delays?”

 

Councillor Osborne said that the red routes proposals were located on major artery roads in Medway, where significant road flows had been monitored over a number of years. This was a busy road location with a significant number of businesses and  those businesses had regular deliveries, hence why the process had been expanded  to allow more loading bays in situ. The fact that this had been necessary in response to the consultation suggested that there was a high traffic flow along the road.

 

Engagement had taken place with emergency services. They would have a strong view on these matters and had indicated significant support for this proposal in view of the congestion. Arriva had been very clear that their buses had been caught in congestion and they believed that the proposals would reduce congestion at the location.

 

A full consultation had been undertaken and the Council remained open to resident views on these matters and debate was welcome. Councillor Osborne looked forward to seeing the full range of views offered to the traffic regulation order which had been consulted upon at the end of 2023.

 

Question F – Mary Smith, of Gillingham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Price, the following:

 

“I note, with pleasure, the Council's stated intention to start helping with the housing of unaccompanied child asylum seekers. Please will the Council now publish a timetable for starting to accept these very vulnerable children?”

 

Councillor Price thanked Mary Smith for the question. He said that Medway had officially joined the National Transfer Scheme in July 2023 and since that point had accepted 32 young people. All of them had been placed within the allocated timescales of 5 or 10 days, depending on criteria. All eligible young people had an allocated specialist social worker and were housed in a quality assured foster home or Supported Accommodation provision.

 

Medway Council had worked collaboratively to welcome the young people with support from Children’s Social Care, Education and Public Health. Close work was taking place with the Integrated Care Board to ensure the health needs of the young people were met. Work continued with the Home Office, National Transfer Scheme Team and Department for Education to ensure that young people allocated to Medway were appropriate and that the right services were available to support them to ensure they were welcomed to Medway and would become part of communities.

 

Mary Smith asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I’m very pleased to note that my question is to a great degree, out of date, but I would like to ask if all the children that are allocated to Medway are housed in Medway?”

 

In response, Councillor Price said that Medway had taken young people of a variety of nationalities, although predominantly they came from Afghanistan. The majority of young people were either placed in Medway or within a 20 mile radius.

 

Question G – Yasmin Khan, of Gillingham, submitted the following to the Leader of the Council,Councillor Maple:

 

“On the evening of 19 December, at a Medway Palestine Solidarity Campaign protest outside the St George’s Centre, four police officers, and at least five contract security staff who were paid on an overtime basis, had been drafted in to provide “security”.

 

I am unaware of this level of security or policing at any Council meeting in the past or indeed at any other Medway Palestine Solidarity Campaign protest.

The police in attendance confirmed that they were not aware of any issues of concern in relation to anyone involved in a demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Medway.

 

I am stunned at Medway Labour’s clearly biased perception of pro-Palestinian protestors and found the level of police and security there insulting, particularly given that our campaign is centred around ending violence and calling for peace.

 

Equally, it is an appalling waste of strained public funds and police time.

 

In relation to 19 December, at a time when critical budgets are strained, how does Medway Labour justify such security measures, requiring both expenditure on out of hours security staff and use of police time, when our police forces are already under pressure?”

 

Councillor Maple thanked Yasmin Khan for the question. He said that Arrangements for the Council’s formal meetings were made through the Council’s Democratic Services team and Councillors had no operational involvement in these matters.

 

Kent Police contacted Council officers on Monday 18 December 2023 to advise that there was a planned protest due at the Cabinet meeting the following evening. In such circumstances, as was normal practice, officers arranged for security to be present and informed Cabinet Members.

Kent Police’s decision to deploy officers was an operational decision made by them.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Yasmin Khan was not present.

 

Question H – Jeremy Spyby-Steanson, of Chatham, asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“A recent public demonstration saw £618.23 of public money spent on extra security, with questions raised about the cost, or impact, of the police who also attended.

 

Can you please confirm if you believe that it is an appropriate use of public resources to over-police members of the public exercising their public function in a peaceful manner? Demonstration we might add where the local police themselves have reported no concerns about.”

Councillor Maple thanked Jeremy Spyby-Steanson for the question and referred to his answer to the previous related public question. He said it was important that those who wished to demonstrate peacefully were able to do so. When Council officers became aware that a demonstration would take place at a Council event they would make arrangements for the security for all persons attending the event. Councillors had no operational involvement in these matters.

Attendance by the police was an operational decision made by the police.

Jeremy Spyby-Steanson asked the following supplementary question:

 

“The Home Office are currently looking at proposals for the organisers of protests to cover the cost of the policing operations. This has the potential to impact any protest, including those against housing developments or even cuts to Children’s Services. Will the Portfolio Holder commit to writing to the Home Office to express his opposition to these proposals?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that it was well documented that he was not a stranger to protest and demonstration and that he absolutely believed in people’s rights to protest and demonstrate, but it must be peaceful and it must be safe. Councillor Maple hoped any legislation that came forward would not be draconian, but would take into account people’s right to have a safe, peaceful protest.

Question I – Sanjeedah Ahmed, of Chatham, asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“As the conflict in Gaza rages on, I can’t help but feel compelled to reinforce the campaign made by the Medway branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

 

Please confirm what assurances you have sought from BAE Systems that parts built in Medway, by the people of Medway, are not being used against the people of Palestine.”

 

Councillor Maple thanked SanjeedahAhmed for the question. He said that people at the meeting and across Medway would be horrified by the situation in Israel and Gaza and the devastating impact it was having on civilians in the region. The right of everyone to protest peacefully was recognised.

 

BAE Systems operated under the tightest regulation and complied fully with all applicable defence export controls, which were subject to ongoing assessment. BAE had no operations or employees in Israel or Gaza and were not supplying equipment directly to the Israeli government.

 

BAE were partners on Lockheed Martin’s global F-35 programme, which was manufactured in the US and subject to US export controls. It was a collaborative project, led by the US with participation from the UK and others, including NATO allies Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia. The deployment of F-35 by the Israeli government in the current conflict was a question that would need to be put to the UK Government, amongst others.

 

Labour MP Dan Carden had put this question to the Government, asking for an investigation into whether any British made weapons had been used in acts that would breach human rights in Israel or in Palestinian territories. Their response was:

 

“The Government takes its defence export responsibilities very seriously and operates some of the most robust export controls in the world. All applications for export licences are assessed on a case-by-case basis against a strategic export licensing criteria. All licences are kept under careful and continual review as standard, and we are able to suspend, refuse or revoke licences as circumstances require. We can and do respond quickly and flexibility changing international circumstances. The government continues to closely monitor the situation in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank”.

 

Sanjeedah Ahmed did not ask a supplementary question.

 

Question J – Onyx Rist, of Rainham, submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

“The bus services that run near or on Otterham Quay Lane do not meet demand, specifically due to new developments (which are a positive thing, as I live in one). I realise the new Administration has inherited a debt from the previous Administration that means the Council probably can't fund bus services but could the Council have a conversation with commercial bus operators, such as Arriva, about running the 132 service to divert down Station Road, Wakeley Road and Otterham Quay Lane on early mornings, evenings and at weekends to help out elderly or vulnerable residents who might not be able to walk to Mierscourt Road when the Chalkwell or Nu-Venture services do not run?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Curry, Councillor Murray thanked Onyx Rist for the question. She said that the suggestion made would be raised with Arriva at the next available opportunity. The A2 through Rainham was well served by buses, but it was acknowledged that services along Station Road, Wakely Road and Otterham Quay Lane were limited. There were also challenges around increasing the Council’s budget for subsidising bus services in the current financial climate.

 

Medway was committed to working in partnership with bus operators to review and improve public transport across Medway and make sure, as far as possible, that residents and visitors had access to bus services that met their needs.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Onyz Rist was not present.

 

Question K – Bryan Fowler, of Chatham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan, the following:

 

“What resources, including financial contributions, have you been able to secure from the London Borough of Newham or from other sources such as Central Government, to facilitate the housing of people in Anchorage House, Chatham?”

 

Councillor Khan thanked Bryan Fowler for the question. She said that a fundamental challenge relating to permitted development was that it provided no funding through S106 towards the running of local services. This was a national challenge that Medway alone was unable to solve as it required national legislation.

 

Councillor Khan had made the position clear to Newham that they were expected to minimise any potential impact on Medway Council. Medway Council officers would meet Newham representatives regularly and would ensure the appropriate escalation of any issues that occurred. Work would also be undertaken with Newham to secure use of units in the block to provide accommodation for Medway residents, further protecting Medway’s resources.

 

Brian Fowler did not ask a supplementary question.

 

Question L – Carl Dunks, of Rainham, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“I have noticed an acute lack of investment in Rainham from Medway Council, why is there a lack of opportunity for people such as myself for employment?”

 

Councillor Edwards thanked Carl Dunks for the question. She said that the new Council administration had supported events and improvements in Rainham to make it a more attractive place to live and to visit. The Council had supported town centre events during the Easter and Summer Holidays and had also provided events for children at Christmas in Rainham Library. Parts of the shopping centre precinct had been refurbished and £12,500 had been provided from the Shared Prosperity Fund to allow the Rainham Town Centre Forum to deliver its own improvements. Councillor Edwards had attended a meeting of the Forum, just ahead of the Council meeting, where it had been agreed how that money would be spent, based on the needs of the local community.

 

Medway Council was also investing in a new sports centre, which was currently under construction at Cozenton Park. It would offer a range of job opportunities and the Council was keen to see applications from local residents. It was anticipated that vacancies would be advertised from the next month in readiness for the new family friendly centre opening in the summer.

 

The Council also delivered a variety of work-related courses through Medway Adult Education, to help local residents develop the skills they needed for employment. There was close work with the job centre and other partners to ensure a wide variety of programmes to enable support into employment and Mr Dunks would be welcome to contact Councillor Edwards directly so that he could be signposted to those who could support him into good quality jobs.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Carl Dunks was not present.

 

Question M – Alan Stockey, of Rainham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Since this Council took office, you could assume that it has declared a Road Traffic and Congestion Emergency, putting their foot on the gas in their first 100-day plan to penalise inconsiderate motorists and illegal parking to tackle congestion, with only assumed benefits.

 

They have, by their actions, made clear the level of commitment needed to substantiate a declared emergency, i.e. hire a strategic lead of Front Line Services, hire consultants and commit millions on new technology and services. In contrast, to the declared Climate Emergency, a Climate Emergency UK Scorecard score of 39%, and making zero progress in publishing or reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions, the Council has decided not to replace the head of the Climate Response Team.

 

What is this Administration planning to do in the next 100 days to show it remains committed to its declared Climate Emergency and inspire the community to take actions that it, to date, has not?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Curry, Councillor Maple thanked Alan Stockey for the question. He said that over the next 100 days, work was planned across a range of areas within his Portfolio. This included:

 

·     Consulting on the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for 6 weeks from 22 January. Government funding had been received for Active Travel initiatives, which was being used to deliver a programme of activities to encourage and promote walking and cycling. Details of the consultation were available on the Council’s website.

 

·     Solar Together Kent would be launched. This would be the fourth year that Medway supported promotion of the scheme to enable homeowners to install solar panels on their properties and save on their energy bills. Homeowners could register their interest in the scheme via the Council website.

 

·     Medway’s campaign "What’s good for the climate is good for me" would be promoted through social media and in the Council’s climate change e-newsletter.  The campaign provided examples of healthy lifestyle changes that would also help residents reduce their carbon footprint.

 

·     Continuing to refresh the Climate Change Action Plan – Best practice was being considered to inform the refresh, including learning from the Climate Emergency UK assessment. Medway’s score of 39% was higher than the single tier average of 35%, although it was acknowledged that there was still more work to do to make progress on the climate agenda. A score of 81% for collaboration and engagement placed it joint 5^th out of 186 UK single tier authorities. As a continuation of this positive work, Medway would be launching an engagement programme which would include a range of opportunities for the community to help shape the plan.

 

·     Two new groups had been established to support the vision for community level input and action on the climate emergency:

o  Members of the new Climate Change Working Party would be finalising their individual Climate Action Ward Improvement Plans with the aim of supporting and encouraging local climate action within their communities and networks.

o  The Community Climate Working Group, made up of representatives from key sectors across Medway would continue to meet. The aim of the group was to share information and inspire all communities in Medway to take action. The Working Group would be invited to comment on the priorities for the Action Plan. 

 

More information about the Council’s approach to driving the climate agenda forward could be found in the agenda for the meeting of the Regeneration, Culture and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23 January 2024 and this was available on the Council’s website.

Alan Stockey asked the following supplementary question:

 

“It’s fantastic that that work is going on. But I think we need to understand the Council stance on taking its own medicine and being able to illustrate and inspire that particularly on emissions, which is where the community working group is being focused, that they’re doing what they can to reduce their own footprint, do you agree that that inspiration is still needed?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple considered that if Councillor Curry had been at the Council meeting, he would have said that his passion for the issue would ensure that the Cabinet, Council and local community would need to make positive progress and it was right to say that the Council did need to hold itself to account. In relation to matters such as procurement, Councillor Curry would be making relevant representations to colleagues during the relevant processes.

 

Question N – Mathew Broadley, of Chatham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan, the following:

 

“I am alarmed to see some recent questionable announcements regarding housing in Medway.

 

Since the last Council meeting, we have seen plans from the Labour-led Medway Council to sell off two car parks. At the same time the Council-owned Medway Development Company has published the preliminary proposal for the Strood Waterfront, providing zero Council housing.

 

I note that Gravesham Labour has delivered hundreds of new council homes across multiple sites, yet the Strood Waterfront, being delivered by the Council-owned Medway Development Company, is expected to deliver no social housing as part of this development in a prime location.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder explain why Medway Labour has failed to ensure that council housing is being delivered as part of the Strood Waterfront proposal, in order to reassure residents who voted Labour that campaign promises to deliver essential council housing will not be a casualty of Labour’s campaign to “balance the books”?”

 

Councillor Khan thanked Matthew Broadley for the question. She said that it was incorrect to state that Medway Development Company would deliver no affordable housing as part of the development of the former Civic Centre site in Strood. MDC had to operate within the same national and local planning policies as any other developer. In that respect, there was a policy requirement to secure 25% of the homes on site to be affordable. That would be providing a mix of tenures and dwelling types to help meet the needs of Medway residents.

 

There was a national housing crisis, including the delivery of affordable homes and that was felt particularly in the South East. The administration was focussed on addressing this very basic need of providing homes for people, which Councillor Khan considered was a fundamental right. The Council continued to require developers to deliver affordable homes as part of their developments and that included MDC schemes. New council homes continued to be delivered with a strategy and pipeline that would grow council stock over the coming years, as well as the Cabinet agreeing proposals that would increase the amount of temporary accommodation owned by the Council.

 

Matthew Broadley asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Given the fact that Medway Labour announced a couple of days before it was leaked that Newham was going to be delivering Council housing in Medway, are we going to be in a situation by the end of this term where London Labour councils are delivering more council housing in Medway than Medway Labour Council are?”

 

In response, Councillor Khan said that the issue was that there was a conflation of different types of housing that were being delivered. MDC was under the rules that developers faced and would have to be subject to planning policies around affordable homes. There was a pipeline of council housing which sat outside that. With reference to temporary accommodation there was a report on that elsewhere on the Council agenda. This looked in detail at how Medway Council would like to address the issue of temporary accommodation, which is what had happened in relation to the London borough of Newham. They were not delivering Council housing in Medway but were looking at temporary accommodation risks.

 

Question O – Trish Marchant, of Chatham, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Heritage, Culture and Leisure, Councillor Mahil:

“Medway Labour has been a keen contributor and supporter of cultural events across the Medway Towns for many years, from Christmas lights to various festivals and celebrations.

 

Following the controversy of the Council withdrawing funding from the towns’ Christmas lights at short notice will Councillor Mahil confirm what other events, that Medway Labour and the Council have supported historically, will now be subject to cuts or withdrawal of funding, by this Labour Council, in 2024/25?”

Councillor Mahil thanked Trish Marchant for the question. He said that in view of the budget position, all services across the Council, including Medway’s festivals and events programme, were being reviewed and considered as part of savings proposals to meet the financial gap for 2024/25 budget. Final decisions would be submitted to Cabinet on 13 February and Full Council on 29 February.

No supplementary question was asked as Trish Marchant was not present.

 

Question P – Nicholas Chan, of Rainham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Thankfully, the Christmas household waste collection is now sorted. However, the households had faced a headache with their household waste for weeks when Medway Council had made repeated promises of weekly waste collection. Regrettably, as I went along streets like Delce Road and some patches like Henry Street and William Street after the Christmas and New Year holidays, I've seen uncollected household waste spilling over onto the streets. Uncollected household wastes are normally dealt with by contractors on the next day. But the saga surely has meant it cost residents more for the Council to clean up the streets.

 

This demonstrated that Council contracts need more comprehensive considerations other than going to the lowest bidder. A waste collection contract that fails to collect means unclean streets, a contract that emits more carbon footprint will cost more on public health in Medway.

 

As Medway Council prepares for a new dry waste recycling contract, will the Portfolio Holder lead and ensure that a new contract will be comprehensively beneficial to Medway residents?”

Answering on behalf of Councillor Curry, Councillor Maple said that the suspension of Christmas waste collections on 5 and 6 January 2024, following a waste disposal supply chain failure, was extremely disappointing.

 

It was important to highlight that contract failures for waste services were extremely rare and Councillor Curry had personally been involved in discussions with Veolia to hold them accountable for the incident. The matter would also be reported in the Leader’s report, elsewhere on the Council meeting agenda.

 

The Council followed robust contracting procedures when procuring services and all contract awards sought the best possible deal for Medway residents. This would always take into account the service delivery model, value for money, available local infrastructure and interest from suppliers.

 

Nicholas Chan did not ask a supplementary question.