Agenda item

This report sets out Members’ questions received for this meeting. 

Question A – Councillor Crozer asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Could the Portfolio Holder update us on any progress with the UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site status bid, for East Coast Wetlands, and a bid for Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) status - both benefiting the Hoo Peninsula?”

 

Councillor Curry said that the bid had been submitted by the RSPB and supported by Medway Council, following a motion submitted by the Independent Group at a previous Full Council meeting. The process could take several years, Councillor Curry had contacted the RSPB to reiterate the Council’s support and to establish what progress had been made.

 

The RSPB had provided the following update:

 

“Following the successful addition last year of the East Coast Flyway to the UK tentative list of NWHS sites, we are now assessing how best to move forward with completing the nomination dossier (indicative costs, proposed funding streams, further detail on how partnerships might work, etc). This dossier is required before a nomination can proceed.

 

We have commissioned a specialist consultant to produce a report to this effect and we expect this to be completed imminently.

 

RSPB staff continue to engage with stakeholders (local authorities, coastal forums and statutory bodies) to maintain momentum and cultivate awareness of the tentative listing.

 

Links with other similar World Heritage Sites (Waddensea Secretariat and the Getbol Korean Tidal Flats) continue to strengthen. We are working on an arrangement with the Korean Ministry for Oceans and Fisheries for bilateral sharing of expertise related to coastal habitat management and successful UNESCO inscription.

 

UNESCO’s preliminary assessment is expected in September 2026 with potential nomination and World Heritage Status inscription in 2029.”

 

In relation to the AONB, which were now called Natural Landscapes, the Government had changed the rules and Councillor Curry had therefore spoken to the North Kent Downs, a national landscape team, to understand the impact of the changes and whether they could be applied to the Hoo Peninsula and North Kent Marshes.

 

The Council had been working hard with communities on the Hoo Peninsula over the previous year. Community consultations in relation to local infrastructure had been established and funding for the development of Deangate Country Park was in place. The development of Neighbourhood Plans had been supported Hoo and in High Halstow.

 

Question B – Councillor Mandaracas asked the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs, the following:

 

“Given the national struggles post-pandemic, what progress has the Council’s education team had on increasing attendance rates in the last year?”

 

Councillor Coombs said that school attendance had taken a significant dip following the pandemic. Poor attendance had a significant impact on outcomes for children, significant work had been undertaken to improve it in Medway.

 

In the last year, the Attendance Team had worked to implement the Council’s Attendance Action Plan, following the publication of further statutory guidance on attendance in 2022 ‘Working together to improve attendance’. The Plan included identifying and working with priority schools and taking a wider multiagency approach. Work had also been undertaken with the Department for Education on a joint Kent and Medway attendance alliance to analyse data and share good practice.

 

In January 2023, the average attendance in Medway was 89.9% and persistent absence was 29%. In March 2024, this had improved significantly with average attendance at 93.4% and persistent absence at 18.5%. This compared favourably to national averages of 92.7% and 22.5% respectively.

 

Councillor Coombs thanked the Attendance Team and staff in schools who worked hard to help more pupils to attend school regularly.

 

Question C – Councillor Animashaun asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“How many Medway employees who are also resident in Medway will be receiving a 5% cost-of-living pay increase in their wages next week, thanks to the budget passed by the Labour and Co-operative Group in February?”

 

Councillor Maple said that he recognised the efforts made by the Human Resources team and by trade unions during negotiations as well as the contribution of the Employment Matters Committee. Medway Council should be an employer of choice and it was therefore appropriate to take a different approach compared to the previous Council administration.

 

It was disappointing that a previous Member question had questioned the pay award, particularly as the question had not correctly represented how the pay award had been calculated.

 

The pay system at Medway was also now being fixed with the former structure considered to be potentially discriminatory. Evidence from other councils demonstrated that not dealing with discriminatory pay systems could be very costly to taxpayers.

 

A total of 1,888 Council employees who would receive the 5% pay increase were currently living in Medway. This represented about 80% of the workforce.

 

Question D – Councillor Gulvin submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

 

“The Leader of the Council talks a good game on the administration's so called "sixth pledge" of reducing locums. Following the response given to the Member question at the October 2023 Council meeting, what further progress is being made in this area?”

 

As Councillor Gulvin was not present, the Mayor announced that he would receive a written response to his question, in accordance with Council rule 9.1.

 

Question E – Councillor Hackwell asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Since March 11th, the new Safer Streets Scheme has been introduced in one of the primary schools in my ward. As expected, this has made the situation even worse than it was before, the parents are now coming earlier parking in adjacent roads which are making these adjacent roads, even more congested and dangerous than the road that is now closed to non-residential traffic.

 

Although some residents, particularly in the road that has now been closed to traffic at school times are supportive of the scheme, the ones who live in adjacent roads are not.

 

Will the Portfolio Holder please urgently review the effectiveness of the Safer Street Scheme and if deemed necessary, remove it, to make the streets safer for our young people attending this school, before there is a serious accident?”

 

Councillor Osborne answered this question as it fell within his Cabinet Portfolio

 

He considered that the question was actually referring to the School Streets scheme as opposed to the Safer Streets Scheme. The School Streets Scheme was integral to the commitment to provide safe environments for Medway school children and their families, whilst also advancing efforts to enhance the overall quality of life in relation to air quality. Initial feedback on the scheme had been positive in some areas, with requests from other schools having been made to participate in the scheme.

 

Councillor Osborne had met with parents, carers and teachers, who had offered their support and suggested improvements. Councillor Hackwell was requested to contact the Portfolio Holder directly should he wish to request that specific streets be added to the Scheme.

 

Data from the Road Safety Trust and Sustrans indicated children were safer travelling to school because there were around 18% fewer cars on roads around schools in London and in Oxford this was roughly 22%. Monitoring would be undertaken to confirm the impact of the scheme in Medway. Overall perception of safety was significantly higher, with parents and teachers strongly in favour and active travel increasingly leading to healthier lifestyle choices. There would be a period of adjustment for the new initiative.

 

Councillor Osborne also suggested that the Member might wish to clarify their position on the Red Routes Scheme.

 

Question F – Councillor Wildey asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan, the following:

 

“How much did Labour borrow to fund the scheme to buy housing to home the homeless, was it £50 million?”

 

Councillor Khan said that no money had been borrowed for this purpose. The Council had approved £42 million for the purchase of temporary accommodation to support Medway families on 24 January 2024. This capital addition had been supported on a cross-party basis. The funding would be drawn down as and when the purchases required this.

 

Question G – Councillor Anang asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“This current administration has been claiming to be the champions in fighting climate change with Simon Curry as the “most passionate about the environment”.

 

I would like to ask the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change, how the Council is looking to working with relevant private individuals, voluntary organisations, and civic actors in the area of climate change to produce an updated local air management action plan which will be readily available to members of the community.”

 

Councillor Curry advised that the 2015 Air Quality Action Plan covered Gillingham, Rainham and the central Medway air quality management areas. This was currently being reviewed and revised and it was anticipated that a draft of the updated Plan would be ready in Summer 2024. A public consultation would be undertaken.

 

The Four Elms Hill Air Quality Management Plan, which had been agreed in 2022, had now come into effect. There were currently four Air Quality Management areas in Medway. Councillor Curry wanted this to be reduced to none in time as it would demonstrate an improvement in air quality, benefitting the environment and the health of communities.

 

A number of initiatives had been established as part of the Council’s response to climate change. This included the Healthier Streets programme, which involved easing congestion and introducing new schemes, such as the cycling and walking initiatives to get people active during travel. Two working parties, one of which was a cross-party Member group, had been established. These would support the development of local ward action plans to address a variety of issues, including environmental issues and air quality. The other working party included representatives of the whole community and was scrutinising the work of the Council.

 

Councillor Curry also highlighted the work being undertaken at MidKent College to de-carbonise the whole college campus in Medway and Maidstone and the learning opportunities associated with this. 

 

Question H – Councillor Filmer asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry the following:

 

“Please can the Portfolio Holder confirm the timelines around the Local Plan, and specifically when it will be submitted for examination?”

 

Councillor Curry said that a report had been presented to Cabinet on 13 February 2024 which set out an updated Local Development Scheme (LDS). This set out the timetable for the Local Plan. This included a further consultation on Regulation 18 options in June 2024, a Regulation 19 consultation in January 2025, leading to a submission for examination by June 2025. The report and full LDS were available to view on the Council’s website.

 

Question I – Councillor Lawrence asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

 

“Medway Labour made it a clear plank of the local election campaign to deal with the shortage of GPs serving the people of Medway. Councillor Maple stated in his first full Council that he was on top of the issue. 

 

Following the response given to the Member question at the October 2023 meeting, can Councillor Murray provide a further update to the Council as to the current number of GPs now operating in Medway and the increase or decrease since May 2023 providing the target for recruitment as the context?”

 

Councillor Murray said that the administration aimed to ensure that every resident of Medway could access timely high-quality NHS services. In keeping with that and actions taken by the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HASC) to date, close work was continuing with the Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (KMICB) to improve access to primary care in Medway.

 

GP numbers were not the sole measure of good primary care access. A key recommendation made by the Committee was to ensure that residents would be directed to the primary care professional best placed to meet their needs. These may include nurse practitioners and pharmacists.

 

In Medway, the whole-time equivalents of GPs had increased from 84 in May 2023 to 86 in February 2024. These numbers did not include representative part-time or portfolio career GPs.

 

Recruitment of GPs was challenging both nationally and in Medway. Practices were constrained within the national funding mechanism and their available budgets were also utilised to recruit higher numbers of other direct patient-facing workforce, such as nurses and paramedics.

There were currently no GP recruitment targets, but to encourage GP recruitment, the Kent and Medway ICB had implemented a GP attraction package in December 2022, incentivising GPs from outside Kent and Medway to join practices in areas of highest need, which included Medway, Swale and Thanet. In addition to incentive payments for both GPs and practices over a 2-year period, this attraction package included a marketing and social media campaign, coastal fellowships, Kent and Medway Council support for housing, schools, childcare and relocation, mentorship, and clinical supervisor training. This package had resulted in recruitment of three GPs in Medway practices to date.

The Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board had also invested in support and reimbursement of application fees for all practices to obtain Home Office approval as a Tier 2 visa sponsor so that they could recruit international GP graduates. Over half of Kent and Medway practices were now Tier 2 sponsors with one GP recruited in Medway through this route. It was envisaged that the significant number of international graduates seeking employment each year should provide a steady flow of GPs in future years. For further information, the Member was encouraged to contact Dr Logan Manikam, Consultant in Public Health.

Note: The Mayor stated that since the time allocation for Member questions had been exhausted, written responses would be provided to questions 10J to 10AA.

Question J – Councillor Perfect submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Price:

 

“Medway's recent SEND inspection demonstrates the progress made under the previous Portfolio Holder and officers on SEND services, particularly in relation to positive co-production within the service.

 

Please can the Portfolio Holder update on what he will do to support further improvements as laid out in the Ofsted report from 2nd April?”

 

Question K – Councillor Tejan submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“In light of the Labour and Co-Operatives group’s high-profile campaign over many years in support of the docks, supported by Sir Keir Starmer. The Association of Chatham Docks, which includes commercial entities, have shared their proposals for the future of the Docks with two thousand high value jobs protected.

 

Could the Portfolio Holder update the Chamber on the current number of people employed in a “high skilled job” at Chatham Docks as well as the number of high skilled job vacancies there currently are at Chatham Docks?”

 

Question L – Councillor Lammas submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs:

 

“What steps will the Council take to improve the consistency of outcomes for children with SEND across Medway, given the recent OFSTED Inspection found Medway’s Local Area Partnership’s arrangements lead to inconsistent experiences and outcomes for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and/or disabilities?”

 

Note: The question had been submitted to Councillor Coombs but the written response would be provided by Councillor Price as Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities (SEND) was within his Cabinet Portfolio.

 

Question M – Councillor Kemp submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne:

 

“Further to the response given at the January 2024 Full Council meeting, which did not set out a start date, is the Portfolio Holder now able to advise when we will see the promised wardens out on the streets of Medway?”

 

Question N – Councillor Brake submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“There is not a road across the length and breadth of Medway that can be identified as being free of potholes. From Halling to Grain, Walderslade to Cliffe and Strood through to Rainham and the surrounding villages and communities, it is recognised there is much to be done.

 

With over half a million pounds allocated to Medway by Central Government to assist with dealing with this issue, would Councillor Curry please advise how and where this money has been spent?”

 

Question O – Councillor Etheridge submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“Seeing as you stated in a recent scrutiny meeting that you were having meetings with officers and other Portfolio Holders in relation to the Local Plan, can you elucidate on any of your proposals that have received support?”

 

Question P – Councillor Williams submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“Could Councillor Curry confirm what engagement the administration has had with the Lordswood and Walderslade litter picking group after the Full Council meeting where it was confirmed, via an amended motion, that the Administration will engage with them along with ward Councillors Lammas and Hyne?”

 

Question Q – Councillor Barrett submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“Councillors in Rainham have had feedback from residents on the proposed cycle lane for Maidstone Road and most of it has been negative. Given Councillor Curry's track record of ignoring feedback he does not agree with, can he advise Council how he intends to keep cyclists and other road users safe in his new cycle lane given the large number of parked cars and heavy traffic using Maidstone Road and the narrowing of the road that would occur from the introduction of the cycle lane?

 

In giving his answer, I would expect Councillor Curry to provide evidence that cyclists would use the cycle lane in sufficient numbers that makes the costs worthwhile.”

 

Question R – Councillor Clarke submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder please update the Council on what businesses and inward investment she has secured for Medway since her appointment in May 2023?”

 

Question S – Councillor Fearn submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder please confirm how regularly she meets with primary and secondary Headteachers?”

 

Question T – Councillor Gilbourne submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan:

 

“The travellers located at the former Wigmore Coach Park remain in situ several months after the end of the temporary licence granted in July.

 

Can Councillor Khan please update the Council with the action taken since last full Council and legal costs incurred in attempting to seek possession of the land?”

 

Question U – Councillor Hyne submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“What initiatives are the Council bringing forward to reduce litter in our towns?”

 

Question V – Councillor Joy submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

 

“How are things progressing in relation to the discussions around the next steps in relation to the exceptional financial support?”

 

Question W – Councillor Spring submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne:

 

“In the Administration's budget, it was stated that you are scrapping the free swimming for the over 60s and under 16s.  This was despite strong and proven evidence that this could have been protected. 

 

It was also announced that parking charges across Medway would increase as of 8 April by up to 85%. 

 

I have had constituents communicate to me that they are very concerned about the increase in charges as they feel it may deter people from using the local shops thus damaging the local family run businesses and the larger national companies.  

 

It is this deterrent that is a current concern. Constituents are already alive to the fact that your administration has made multiple U-turns. The Cozenton Park Sports Centre (which from many I have spoken to in the Rainham North ward consider the re-naming to be a waste of money and will be called Splashes (and the administration is going to spend unnecessary costs amending all the street signs)), constituents are worried that, albeit it has been stated that the parking at the venue will remain free as it has always been.

 

They fear that in line with your apparent anti-car policies you will do a U-turn and put them in.

 

They fear that by doing so you discourage residents from attending. This fear along with the scrapping of the free swimming will not be well received by constituents.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder categorically confirm to my constituents that for the remainder of your time in administration you will not place any parking charges at the Cozenton Park Sports Centre (Splashes) given that they have never been there previously?”

 

Question X – Councillor Doe submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“Further to the response given at the October 2023 Council meeting which was before the statutory consultation was undertaken, could the Portfolio Holder confirm if any further action has been taken on listening to the results of the public consultation on the Rainham Red Route where the overwhelming number of respondents were against such a proposal, or do the administration still intend to railroad this plan through despite genuine concerns of the public and businesses?”

 

Question Y – Councillor Mrs Turpin submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“Further to the road closure on Frindsbury Hill, one week later there was another road closure on Medway City Estate due to the need for resurfacing. This could have been predicted and the risk eliminated by timely resurfacing ahead of the major and long-term road closure on Frindsbury Hill. Instead, traffic issues were inevitably exacerbated as there were then two road closures in close proximity. Therefore, can the Portfolio Holder ensure that the Council, before any planned major road closures of long duration, diversion routes are surveyed and roads so that any resurfacing can be prioritised before the road closure takes place?”

 

Question Z – Councillor Campbell submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Price:

 

“What is the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services doing following the announcement that British Youth Council will be closing after 75 years, due to financial challenges?”

 

Question AA – Councillor Jones submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

 

“Building on the points raised at the Business Support and Digital Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 4 April 2024, regarding spending reserves to balance the budget, and the point that the budget which needs to be balanced this year is that of the outgoing administration, and whose Leader has alluded in media interviews, to cutting huge amounts from Directorates on the day of Council budget setting meetings, leaving officers with the challenge of closing this gap over the financial year, there being no plan in place as to how to make these savings.

 

Are you confident that the collaborative approach you have taken in setting the budget with the corporate management team, from the bottom up, will lead to a better outturn position?”