Issue - meetings

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

Question A – Councillor Spalding asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:

“The condition of road surfaces in Medway remains at the forefront of public attention.

In some cases, potholes and deteriorating top surfaces are the result of water leaks which often continue for days despite being reported to Southern Water.

An example of this being the Allhallows Road between Lower Stoke and Allhallows. Other causes are overburdened wastewater and sewage facilities which Southern Water is aware of but does nothing about.

Can the Portfolio Holder tell me how much money has been reclaimed by Medway Council from Southern Water to cover road surface damage that could have and indeed should have been avoided, but for the apparent failings of Southern Water?”

In response, Councillor Paterson said that between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2025, the Council had recovered £117,800 from Southern Water through failed reinstatements, fixed penalty charges, and over-running works.

No reports had been received of road surface damage caused by water leaks on the highway network. In the event of surface water damage being identified, the Council would use its recharging mechanism to reclaim costs from Southern Water.

Question B – Councillor Mrs Turpin asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

“Back in February this year, consultants engaged the community in Rainham to launch work on a new feasibility study for the town centre. This event included a number of Councillors, the MP and Cabinet Members.

A similar community consultation group was put together for the Hoo Peninsula - named the Hoo Community Infrastructure Framework, again using consultants. However, this engagement work excluded elected ward Members and Parish Councillors.

Can the Portfolio Holder explain the difference in approach taken, which snubbed elected Members for the Hoo Peninsula?”

In response, Councillor Curry said that the consultation had been put together for the Hoo Community Infrastructure Framework engagement programme. The draft framework that had emerged and its recommendations had been informed by an extensive programme of engagement that over 650 people had participated in.

13 events and drop-in sessions had been hosted and a Community Panel created, made up of people living across the Hoo Peninsula. The Panel held four workshops and a final presentation to ward and parish Councillors and it was therefore slightly unfair to say that they had been excluded from the process.

All the events and drop in sessions had been promoted through local and social media and over 50 groups based on the Peninsula were contacted directly, asking them to make their members aware of the ways in which they could get involved.

This was a co-design process by which trust was built by sharing knowledge and experience, with everyone in the group being equal. It was designed so that the Panel was a mechanism for in depth engagement. This included a group of residents, who could share their experiences, build their knowledge about planning, section 106 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 858