Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 17 June 2010.

The record of the meeting held on 17 June 2010 was agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.  

Apologies were received from Councillors Andrews, Hunter, Sheila Kearney and Stephen Kearney.  

Councillor Chishti declared a personal interest in agenda item 12A (Motion) because he is an MP.

Councillor Godwin declared a personal interest on agenda item 11B (Annual Review of the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009/2012) because he is a Member of the Kent Police Authority.

Councillor Tony Goulden declared a personal interest in agenda item 11C (Public Spending Reductions) because he is a Member of the Rochester Bridge Trust.

Councillor Griffiths declared a personal interest in any discussion that may take place during the course of the meeting with reference to NHS Medway because he is a Non-Executive Director of the Trust.

Councillor Juby declared a personal interest on agenda items 9 (report on overview and scrutiny activity) and 11B (Annual Review of the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009/2012) because some of his family members work at Medway Maritime Hospital.

Councillor O’Brien declared a personal interest in any discussion that may take place during the course of the meeting with reference to the NHS because some of his family members are employed by the NHS.  He also declared a personal interest in agenda item 11A (Youth Justice Plan 2010/2011) because he is a Youth Court Magistrate.

Councillor Reckless declared a personal interest in agenda items 11A (Youth Justice Plan 2010/2011) and 11B (Annual Review of the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009/2012) because he is a Member of the Kent Police Authority. He also declared a personal interest in agenda item 12A (Motion) because he is an MP.

Councillor Ruparel declared a personal interest in agenda item 11D (Budget Monitoring Referrals) because she is a council tenant.

The Mayor welcomed a number of Japanese exchange students who were currently visiting Medway to the meeting.

The Mayor announced that former Councillor Fred Bacon had recently died and that his funeral would take place the following day (Friday 30 July 2010). He paid tribute to Mr Bacon and Members recorded their sincere condolences to his family at this sad time. Councillors Godwin, Rodney Chambers, Juby and Burt paid tribute to Mr Bacon.

The Mayor welcomed Tony Dance, one of the Independent Members of the Standards Committee to the meeting and reminded Members that Council meetings were now recorded to assist in producing an accurate record of supplementary questions and answers to questions.  

There were none. 

The following petitions were received and referred to the appropriate Directors:

Councillor Murray presented a petition containing 452 signatures requesting the Council to protect the future of the Watts Meadow Nature Reserve, Rochester.

Councillor Stamp presented a petition containing 1236 signatures requesting the Council to introduce a free bus pass travel scheme for 11-18 year olds in Medway.  

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

“Many Medway residents serve in Her Majesty's Armed Forces and many more have family members who serve. They note with concern the Government's budget which announced a pay freeze for all those earning more than £21,000. In the light of the Council's commitment to those who serve their country, will the Administration lobby the local MPs to actively represent the interests of our Armed Forces in respect of improving their pay and conditions?”

The Leader responded that it was regrettable the last government did not have a greater regard for our armed forces and that concerns were raised at the time as to the lack of equipment for service personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unsatisfactory rehabilitation provision for those injured or maimed in action, as well as the state of the poor family accommodation provided here in the UK. He also cited the unwillingness to support the Ghurkas and their families; only being forced to do so by a campaign led by Joanna Lumley supported by the two opposition leaders who, coincidently were now the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

The Leader stated that the Council had a commitment to support the armed forces in Medway, demonstrated by the decisions to bestow the Freedom of Medway on the Royal Engineers and hosting the first Armed Forces Day last year. The Leader noted that whilst the pay freeze would affect the personnel earning more than £21,000, it was pleasing to note that the Prime Minister had announced plans to double the operational allowance for a six month tour to around £5,280. All three local MPs were very conscious of the worth that was placed on the armed forces and indeed all three of them spoke of Medway’s long connection with the services in their maiden speeches and the Leader stated that they were keen to promote the welfare and well-being of our armed forces.

John Jones thanked the Leader for his response and in terms of the covenant often spoken of by the Prime Minister, asked whether he would be willing to lead a cross-party group to make representations alongside the MPs.

The Leader responded that two of the local MPs were present in the chamber and that the Council continually looks to the welfare of the armed forces.

“With reference to Ridge Meadow School, at the beginning and during the consultation period you said "I can understand these are very upsetting and unsettling times for all involved" So since Ridge Meadow is now the only school out of the original three set to close, why have you or the council not offered any support for the children, families and staff? You have closed us and washed your hands of us.”

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that the Council had worked with the schools receiving pupils transferring from Ridge Meadow to ensure that the transfer process was as smooth as possible. The schools themselves had also worked incredibly hard to support the transfer process and they deserved credit for the work they had done. Oakland School, for example, had invited the transferring pupils into the school every Monday afternoon to help prepare them for the transfer. He stated that the Council would continue to help support this process. In addition, the Council’s Human Resources Team had provided considerable support to the staff at Ridge Meadow.

Mrs Furlong asked why had the Council not contacted individual families of Ridge Meadow to make sure that they were happy and settled and stated that the Council had not worked closely with the staff in finding them new jobs. None of this had been done, she felt the way the closure was dealt with was very unprofessional.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that he regretted if anybody felt they had not been fully dealt with. He was quite sure that the Admissions Team and HR had done exactly what was already described and the process had been very thorough.

“Can the Portfolio Holder tell me why he has allowed the entrance to Watts Meadow from Priestfields Road to be closed by a building company, and why was this action taken with no public consultation?”

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services stated that the route had not been mapped as a public right of way as there were no Highways Act controls over maintaining the access to the route. The sale agreement for the land required the route to be kept open but allowed for it to be closed during the construction of a new access road for a period because of health and safety reasons. As there were no legal controls there was no consultation. He advised that the Public Rights of Way Team had suggested that as a matter of good practice the developers could erect warning signs or closure notices. However, there was no binding obligation on the developers to do this as it was now their land and not Highways.

He stated that there was an alternative route available which passed over Council land. The Council was also talking to Bellway Homes and nearby local land owners to see if an additional route could be created in the short term. He advised that the evidence for modifying the definitive map to add the path as a footpath was due to be assessed later this year. After assessing the evidence a decision on the status of the path would be made and it could well be added to the definitive map as a public footpath at that time. The original path would be reopened as soon as it was safe to do so.

Derek Munton stated that people were worried about the footpath because they were concerned about Watts Meadow which was a nice area right in the centre of Rochester. They were concerned about development possibilities on the whole area. He asked Councillor Filmer what was happening on what was known as “Area 3” which had a fence built round it and had been cleared recently. Was this an area for development?

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services responded that he had visited the site earlier in the week and that he understood local people’s concern over this because it was a very nice place to visit. He stated that the Council had to allow the building company to carry out the work but he was confident that it would be put on the definitive map by the end of April next year. He also stated that the Council was trying to talk to the landowners to make an alternative route available as soon as possible.

“What is Medway Council's policy with regards to leasing council-owned properties to charities and charitable organisations?”

The Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that the Council did not have a specific policy in relation to leasing Council properties to charities and charitable organisations. Nevertheless, such groups were given equal opportunity to apply for Council properties and that each application was dealt with on its individual merits within the local government legislative framework.

Alan Collins referred to building no. 4 Riverside, Chatham which was owned by the Council and leased by the Medway Towns branch of the Royal Air Forces Association (RAFA). He asked whether the Portfolio Holder thought it was fair that such a charity should be forced by the Council to pay almost £2,000 per month in rent, and if so how did he expect such a charity to meet such a demand and what message did this send to the services community?

The Portfolio Holder for Finance responded that as he did not know the precise figures he would look into the issue further. He stated that the RAFA club had had discussions with the Council over a period of time, not least concerning rent owed to the Council and that the Council had done everything to facilitate the repayment of the debt and had done everything it could to facilitate that branch of the services staying on that site.

He noted that in the changes that were being put in place in that area through the regeneration programme, the Council had worked hard with a number of charitable groups to re-house them and in some cases giving substantial financial assistance to enable that to happen. The Council worked with some 50 leases with different organisations across Medway and did all it could to support charities, at least as much as any other Council and perhaps more than some. He undertook to look into the circumstances of the case which had been brought to his attention.

“The Leader has stated that 68% of people they asked said they were in favour of a Medway City bid. Can I please have an explanation on how this consultation was carried out, who conducted the consultation, over what period did it extend, and how were the respondents selected.”

The Leader stated that questions about city status were asked as part of a telephone research interview that the Council commissioned into its activities and services. This included questions on city status as well as a range of other topics. The consultation was carried out by Lake Market Research following the Market Research Society Code of Conduct  over the period 6-16 April 2010. The audience for the questionnaire was adults, aged 18 and over, who live in the Medway area. People were selected at random and selected to ensure a representative sample of the population by age and gender. The Council also ensured that the sample recruited was spread proportionally across the 22 electoral wards. By doing so, the Council had ensured that the sample was representative of the overall population.    

Trish Marchant stated that she understood this to be about 0.1% of the population, which actually supported the bid from the consultation, and asked whether the Leader believed that this was a solid enough foundation to implement such an enormous change to the cultural identity of the Medway Towns.

The Leader responded that he believed that the cross-section that was chosen was representative of the Medway Towns and that when opinion polls were taken on a national basis the pollsters usually polled anything from 1200 to 1500 people (from a population of 60 plus million) and that representative of the entire nation. Medway Council polled more residents against the population than that percentage for the nation as a whole and therefore it was a representative cross-section of the community that were polled at this particular time.

“Owing to your eagerness to close St John’s, parents tried to move their children in to other schools. Nathaniel was accepted by another school and his mum notified schools admissions. However, when St John’s was saved his places at both schools were cancelled, and now he is left without a school. Your offer of support on this was “you can appeal”. Could you please explain why you have let him down?”

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that he was unable to provide details about specific cases like this, although he would be happy to ask the Admissions Team to investigate any specific concerns from an individual parent and, where necessary, to support them in obtaining a place at an appropriate school for their child. He stated the Council had written to parents explaining how the transfer process would work and how the local authority would support parents. At no stage had the Council asked parents to move their children from St John’s, however, some parents decided to move their children to alternative schools prior to the decision being taken by the adjudicator.

Amanda Bowar stated that parents were forced to move their children but when Nathaniel’s mum contacted Admissions she was told that she could appeal. How could you appeal against cancelling a child’s school place when it was every child’s right to an education?

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that the Council had a good system in place. The Council had written to everybody, everybody was in the picture and the system worked. The Council had a legal responsibility to find a place for every child and that this was taken very seriously in the Admissions Department.

“Could you please explain clearly and precisely why it is you have refused to apologise to all those involved in the school closures?”

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that the adjudicator was clear that the consultation process for all schools was fair, open and transparent and stated that the Council had consulted with parents and interested parties at every opportunity. The Council had accepted the adjudicator’s decision and would continue to work closely with the schools and parents to ensure children received the best educational opportunities.

By reorganising school places the Council had secured significant investment for primary school building projects in Medway. The rebuilding of Walderslade Primary School, for example, was underway to replace old, cramped and totally unsuitable accommodation with a new school fit for the 21^st century. The Council’s amalgamated schools would also receive investment to improve their facilities.

Sam Whittington stated that she had not heard an apology and that the Portfolio Holder had made this a political issue when he stated it was the Labour Government that said schools should be closed and that he had made it political when the Council kept St Peter’s School open because Mark Reckless was the parliamentary candidate and that he had made it political when he cancelled the adjudicator’s meeting because of the general election.

Following an interruption to the meeting, the Mayor moved to the next question.

“Since I have moved schools my 6 year old is finding the change extremely unsettling, he was a happy and well behaved child at Ridge Meadow. He is now the total opposite and as a result has been excluded eight times in seven months. All of this has put an extra strain on the school’s resources and the NHS service and other support services and our family. How can you justify this? This is clearly a result of your actions.”

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that he was sorry to hear that Mrs Furlong’s child was having the difficulties that were mentioned but that he was unable to comment on a specific case in public, as there could be a number of factors to take into account.

By reorganising school places in Medway the Council had to look at the big picture in order to secure improved opportunities for all children in Medway. Ridge Meadow had a large number of surplus places and was not viable and so the Council had to close the school to make best use of limited resources. In this particular case, he asked Mrs Furlong to contact him and he would pursue the problems that she had outlined.

Mrs Furlong stated that the school had no more surplus places than anywhere else and asked why did he think that the closure of Ridge Meadow was in the best interest of the children? She stated that the Council had forced her son to leave a secure environment with excellent teachers for that she held the Portfolio Holder responsible, so why was it in the best interests of the children?

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services stated that everything the Council did in the primary strategy was what was best for children in Medway over the long term and that was what the Council had set out to do and that this had been done very successfully for the children in the primary sector for the next 10 to 20 years.

“The Council faces £6million of cuts. Could you tell the public how much money of their money has been wasted on the school closures you tried to implement?”

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that the majority of the reorganisation proposals were proceeding and so no money had been wasted. The amalgamations and closures which were going ahead would result in savings which can be reinvested in other schools.

Stacy Wilson stated that she did not agree that there was no wastage and asked if the Portfolio Holder agreed that the Council would have saved money had the Cabinet read all the correct information that was presented to it by the parents at the start of this procedure? The adjudicator had highlighted in his final decision that had the correct figures been looked at then the closure would have been stopped immediately.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services responded that he was quite satisfied with the way the Council had carried out consultation. The Adjudicator had said it was very open and straightforward and very transparent.

“Can the Leader advise how much money was spent on the Medway City campaign leading up to the bid, including the report "5 Towns Make A City" by Terry Farrell, and also state what proportion came from our council’s funds and what proportion came from elsewhere?”

The Leader responded that this was only the start of Medway’s campaign for city status and the bid had not yet been submitted as the Council was awaiting the final details from government which would be shared in due course. Less than £5,000 had been spent on the summer campaign which included flags for people to sign at summer events and activities and a website which would be used to keep residents informed about the bid.

The “5 Towns Make a City” document had nothing to do with the campaign for city status. It was a product of the masterplanning and design exercise focusing on the place-making agenda for Medway carried out by Sir Terry Farrell as part of his role as Medway’s design champion. This work was carried out during 2007 and 2008 and his role was funded by the Department of Communities and Local Government as part of the Thames Gateway programme.

The Leader stated that the bid had been dubbed the austerity city bid and this was certainly the way the Council was taking this forward. Medway was a city in all but name and had a rich heritage and great future and that the benefits would far outweigh the minimal cost incurred on the campaign.

Trish Marchant asked that if the city bid was either withdrawn or failed, would the Council still implement the changes identified within the very positive view of Medway that was covered in the Farrell report?

The Leader responded the Council would continue with the aims and desires that were expressed in the Farrell report whether Medway was granted city status or not.

He also referred to the benefits that had accrued in other cities that had been granted city status in 2000 and 2002. Wolverhampton had said that it received an extra £2 billion of inward investment since city status was granted. Sunderland had listed a whole plethora of international and national companies that had located in the area which they believed was due to city status. The Leader expressed his desire to create inward investment into Medway which would be to the benefit of the community as a whole.

“Why did you force parents to remove their children from a school they loved and a security they thrived in before the adjudicator made his decision, causing such upset?”

The Portfolio Holder responded that the Council had not forced parents to move their children before the adjudicator had made his decision. The Council had offered all parents with children at St John’s the opportunity to express their preference for alternative schools but in the letter to parents it was clearly stated that if the adjudicator decided that the school should not close then pupils would remain in the school and would not be expected to transfer. Some parents had decided to move their children before the adjudicator’s decision was taken but this decision was not forced on them.

Amanda Bowar stated that parents were told that if they did not get their choice and wanted a different school for their children, they would have to move them before September when the adjudicator had made his decision. So it was actually a case that the Council was trying to force the adjudicator’s decision by making St John’s roll fall further.

The Portfolio Holder responded that there was nothing he could add to his initial response.

“Cabinet Members are supposed to look at all the information present and make an informed decision, but we know from Cabinet meetings that you do not do this as you did not consider any of our documents. You simply agreed with what Cllr Wicks said, which suggests you should not hold your Cabinet positions as you clearly cannot think for yourselves. Do you agree?”

The Leader stated that the Cabinet had considered all the information submitted during the consultation process in making a final decision regarding the schools. All the responses and views expressed during the consultation were clearly evident in the reports that went before the Cabinet. The Council was duty bound to follow the procedures as laid down by the former Labour Government’s Primary Strategy for Change Programme so that Medway could receive £11m of new investment for its schools.

Sam Whittington stated that parents had presented documents to the Cabinet who did not open a single document. She asked whether the Cabinet collectively felt ashamed that all it did was listen to Councillor Wicks instead of reading all the evidence presented as stated in the adjudicator’s final decision.

The Leader responded that he had nothing further to add to his original response.

Members debated the Leader’s report, which contained the following issues:

·         Budget

·         Summer events (including castle concerts, under siege event and the medway mile)

·         City status

·         Green Flag awards

·         Future of Strood Environmental Enhancement Scheme – Cabinet 20 July 2010 (The Leader clarified that Cabinet decision no. 103/2010 should refer to the Temple Street car park rather than Commercial Road car park)

·         Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility.

Members received and debated a report on overview and scrutiny activities. The following issues were discussed during the debate:

·         Electoral registration

·         Ofsted inspections

·         Sheltered accommodation

·         Primary angioplasty

·         The future of the Strood Environmental Enhancement Scheme

·         Dementia update.

Last month, Medway was identified as being in the top ten unemployment blackspots across the whole of the U.K. Can the Portfolio Holder explain therefore how excluding the south east, and Medway in particular, from the National Insurance exemption on new small firms will help to address unemployment locally?

“Last month, Medway was identified as being in the top ten unemployment blackspots across the whole of the UK. Can the Portfolio Holder explain therefore how excluding the south east, and Medway in particular, from the National Insurance exemption on new small firms will help to address unemployment locally?”

The Portfolio Holder responded that she would provide figures which had been produced according to the methodology that the previous Labour Government used in looking at unemployment blackspots and were still being used by the current Coalition Government. The methodology was the number of Job Seeker Allowance (JSA) payments per job seeker vacancy which identified a blackspot.

She stated that in Medway the number of job seeker allowance claimants fell by 317, which was 4.4% of the working age population of the area. The national average was 3.9%. Medway was closing that gap quite considerably but as a comparison Hastings was 6.2% and Thanet was 5.7% and there were some higher in the southeast. Elsewhere in the country, Birmingham was at 7.5% and Liverpool at 7%. Overall, there were 27 local authority areas in the Midlands and the north of England where unemployment levels ranged from 4.8% up to 8.3%.

There was clear evidence that in Medway the local economy was bucking the trend. For example, the latest data on vacancy rates in town centres was far below the national average, with the exception of Chatham. A great deal of investment had come into Chatham which would further improve during the course of the regeneration programme.

The latest figures showed that unemployment in Medway had reduced by 6.2% over the first quarter of 2010-2011 and this was significant because it was at a time when unemployment figures were rising substantially. However, the number of long-term unemployed rose by 145 people over the last quarter, although the June figures showed a slight reduction. She advised that Medway was concentrating on those long-term unemployed through its social regeneration programmes, making access to employment opportunities substantial and in helping with level 1 and level 2 qualifications.

She stated that Medway had seen the highest number of business investments across Kent and Medway over the period 2009-2010 - 395 in total or 15% of the total business investment in Kent and Medway. Medway had also seen the greatest number of jobs created across Kent and Medway over the period 2009-2010, a total of 1,455.

Councillor Maple expressed concern around the long-term unemployed situation and the fact that schemes like the Future Jobs Fund which had been cut and would have tackled those issues which could lead Medway into a situation where some of those blackspots could actually increase.  He stated that the Administration, on many occasions, had mentioned money going up north. He urged the Portfolio Holder to make representations on behalf of Medway to show that in particular with the long-term unemployed that there was still a concern there that the (National Insurance) exemption, for example, would be an aid to tackle that problem.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 215A)

In view of the actions of developers in Watts Meadow, does the Portfolio Holder believe that this will send a signal to developers across the towns that they can do what they like on any open space?

“In view of the actions of developers in Watts Meadow, does the Portfolio Holder believe that this will send a signal to developers across the towns that they can do what they like on any open space?”

The Portfolio Holder responded that developers could not do what they liked. This was a private development and the developer complied with the planning conditions and that one of the areas of complaint would be that if by closing the accessible area it was depriving local people of a valuable asset. She stated that Councillor Filmer, in his earlier answer, had made it clear that that was not the case and that quite clearly these facilities would be open again some time when it was safe to do so. In terms of strategic planning, developers had a responsibility under health and safety requirements to protect the public from any dangers of that development. Given this was the summer holiday period there was a need for the site to be safe.

Development Briefs laid down clearly the terms of reference of any development, therefore, she stated that developers in Medway, particularly those that the Council worked in partnership, did not have an open policy to do what they liked.

Councillor Murray stated that she hoped all developers the Council worked with would take notice of the things that the Council wanted to protect for local people. She stated that the department in the Council which was designated to put footpaths in place where there were none was 18 months behind in their work. She asked whether the Portfolio Holder was prepared to expedite the signing of the order for the public footpath in Watts Meadow so that it was protected as soon as possible in perpetuity.

The Portfolio Holder responded that the original legislation had been repealed and now Central Government had given local authorities until 2026 to add public rights of way to the definitive map for the former excluded areas. Medway was well advanced but the area of Rochester, including the path through Watts Meadow, would be completed by the end of the financial year.

This report sets out the Medway Youth Justice plan 2010-2011 for approval as part of the Council’s policy framework.

Discussion:

This report outlined the Medway Youth Justice Plan 2010/2011 which had been developed following the undertaking of a capacity and capability assessment and discussions and consultations with partner agencies. In addition, the report had been considered by the Children and Adults Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 12 July 2010 and Cabinet on 20 July 2010 in accordance with the Council’s policy framework rules.

It was noted that a Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) had been carried out in May 2008 and reviewed as part of the capacity and capability assessment validation exercise. The screening form indicated that a full DIA was not required.

Councillor Wicks, supported by Councillor O’Brien, proposed the recommendation as set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council approved the Youth Justice Plan, as set out in appendix 1 to the report.

This report seeks approval of Medway’s annual rolling three year Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009-2012 as part of the Council’s policy framework.

Discussion:

This report set out a review of the Community Safety Partnership Plan following a strategic assessment in November 2009. In addition, the report had been considered by the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 6 July 2010 and Cabinet on 20 July 2010 in accordance with the Council’s policy framework rules.

The outcome of a Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) screening was attached to the report and it was noted that a full DIA would be required as part of the planning process when the plan was rewritten in 2012.

Councillor O’Brien, supported by Councillor Chishti, proposed the recommendation as set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council approved the Community Safety Partnership Plan, as set out in appendix 1 to the report.

Council is asked to consider Cabinet’s recommendations in response to the reductions in funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the emergency reductions of £6.2 billion in public spending and the further announcements in the emergency budget presented to Parliament on 22 June 2010.

Discussion:

This report set out a number of proposals in response to the reductions in funding announced by the Government following the emergency budget reductions of £6.2 billion in public spending and the further announcements in the emergency budget presented to Parliament on 22 June 2010. The Cabinet considered a report on the proposed budget reductions on 29 June 2010.

It was noted that a Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) had been carried out on the proposals and this was summarised in paragraph 5 of the report with the screening form set out in appendix 5 to the report.

Councillor Jarrett, supported by Councillor Rodney Chambers, proposed the recommendations as set out in the report noting that the reference to paragraph 3.5 in recommendation 7.1 should read paragraph 3.7.

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council’s constitution at the request of six Members, a vote on the proposal was recorded as follows:

For:

Councillors Avey, Baker, Janice Bamber, Ken Bamber, Brake, Brice, Bright, Bhutia, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, Etheridge, Filmer, Griffin, Gulvin, Haydock, Hewett, Hicks, Jarrett, Kemp, Mackinlay, Maisey, Mason, O’Brien, Reckless, Royle, Wicks and Wildey – 32

Against:

Councillors Bowler, Burt, Gilry, Godwin, Griffiths, Harriott, Hubbard, Maple, Murray, Shaw, Smith and Stamp – 12

Abstain:

Councillors Crack, Tony Goulden, Val Goulden, Juby, Ruparel and Sutton – 6.

Decision:

(a)               The Council agreed the package of measures to redress the budget shortfall as set out in the appendices and summarised in the table at paragraph 3.7 in the report.

(b)               The Council approved the use of reserves accruing from the underspend in 2009/10 to fund any necessary once-off costs in implementing the changes.

(c)               The Council authorised the relevant Director or the Chief Executive:

(i)                 Where specific posts within the general service area have not yet been identified as potential redundancies, to identify such, in line with the package of measures set out in the appendices and to commence consultation on those specific proposals.

(ii)               In all cases to consider the consultation responses received in respect of proposals relating to their Directorates and to determine final redundancy proposals.

This report presents two referrals from the revenue monitoring report considered by Cabinet on the 20 July 2010 in respect of a virement of resources and a revision to the housing rents approved by Council on 25 February 2010. 

Discussion:

This report set out two referrals from the revenue budget monitoring report considered by Cabinet on 20 July 2010 with regards to a virement of resources and a revision to the housing rents agreed by Council on 25 February 2010.

Councillor Jarrett, supported by Councillor Doe, proposed the recommendations set out in the report noting that the reference to Chatham Sports Ground in recommendation 7.1 of the report should read Maidstone Road Sports Ground.

Decision:

(a)               The Council approved the virement of funds to develop 5-a-side football facilities at Maidstone Road Sports Ground as set out in Section 3.1 of the report.

(b)               The Council approved the reduction in housing rents, to be backdated to the 5 April 2010 (week 1 of the rent year). This is to take effect from week 21 having issued appropriate notice to tenants. The average increase in rents for 2010/2011 over 2009/2010 will then be £1.25 per week or 1.8%.

The purpose of this report is to advise the Council of the outcome of public consultation on new executive arrangements and seek a decision on which of the two available options the Council wishes to propose.

Discussion:

This report set out details of the outcome of public consultation on the new executive arrangements with regards to the two available options the Council wished to pursue, namely the Leader and Cabinet model or the directly elected Mayor model.

Councillor Rodney Chambers, supported by Councillor Jarrett, made the following proposal:

(a)               The Council agrees to draw up proposals for  an indirectly elected Leader, appointed for a four year term, who then appoints councillors to the Executive and that at this stage not to make any changes to the allocation of functions between the Executive and Council as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

(b)               The Council agrees to include provision in the Constitution which allows for removal of the Leader by resolution of the Council.

(c)               The Council delegates authority to the Assistant Director, Housing and Corporate Services, to draw up and publish the Council’s proposal in an appropriate format to meet the requirements of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health 2007 Act based on the draft Leader and Cabinet proposals set out in appendix 4 to the report.

Decision:

(a)               The Council agreed to draw up proposals for  an indirectly elected Leader, appointed for a four year term, who then appoints councillors to the Executive and that at this stage not to make any changes to the allocation of functions between the Executive and Council as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

(b)               The Council agreed to include provision in the Constitution which allows for removal of the Leader by resolution of the Council.

(c)               The Council delegated authority to the Assistant Director, Housing and Corporate Services, to draw up and publish the Council’s proposal in an appropriate format to meet the requirements of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health 2007 Act based on the draft Leader and Cabinet proposals set out in appendix 4 to the report.

This report sets out the position regarding the allocation of seats on Committees following recent changes to the composition of political groups.

Discussion:

This report provided details of the allocation of seats on Committees following recent changes to the composition of political groups.

Councillor Ken Bamber, supported by Councillor Rodney Chambers, proposed the recommendations as set out in the report.

Decision:

(a)               The Council agreed the allocation of seats on committees to political groups as set out in paragraphs 2.2 and 3.4 of the report.

(b)               The Council agreed the continued establishment of an ad hoc Committee to consider the removal of Council appointed school governors as and when necessary and to waive political balance in respect of this Committee.

(c)               The Council agreed that the membership of Committees should be adjusted accordingly in accordance with the wishes of the party groups.

(d)               The Council noted that the Employment Matters Committee will be advised that the Independent Group have indicated their wish to take up the seat they are entitled to on the Joint Consultative Committee.

This report details decisions taken by the Cabinet under the special urgency provisions contained within the Constitution. 

Discussion:

This report set out a number of decisions taken by the Cabinet, at its meetings on 29 June 2010 and 20 July 2010, under the special urgency provisions contained within the constitution.

Councillor Rodney Chambers, supported by Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendation as set out in the report.

Decision: 

The Council noted the report.

This Council notes that:

The VAT increase to 20%, announced in the Coalition Government’s budget, will have a disproportionate impact on pensioners and other low-income groups and will also have a severe impact on businesses, charities and community groups in Medway.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has stated the VAT increase was not “unavoidable”, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his budget speech.

This Council resolves to:

·        Write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising concerns about the impact of the proposed VAT increase on pensioners, other vulnerable groups and businesses, and;

·         Call on the local Members of Parliament to voice their opposition to this unfair increase in VAT and to vote against it in Parliament.

“This Council notes that:

The VAT increase to 20%, announced in the Coalition Government’s budget, will have a disproportionate impact on pensioners and other low-income groups and will also have a severe impact on businesses, charities and community groups in Medway.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has stated the VAT increase was not “unavoidable”, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his budget speech.

This Council resolves to:

·        Write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising concerns about the impact of the proposed VAT increase on pensioners, other vulnerable groups and businesses, and;

·        Call on the local Members of Parliament to voice their opposition to this unfair increase in VAT and to vote against it in Parliament”.

Councillor O’Brien, supported by Councillor Jarrett, proposed an amendment that the motion be replaced with:

“This Council notes that:

·        The VAT increase to 20%, announced in the Coalition Government’s budget, and which is now part of the Finance Act 2010-11, will have an effect on all Members of the community in Medway.

·        The previous Labour Government has burdened this country with the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe apart from Ireland, with public sector net borrowing expected to be £149 billion this year.

·        The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury has acknowledged that there is no money left in a letter for his successor.

This Council therefore believes that the increase in VAT is regrettable but fully necessary for the new Government to address the perilous economy they have inherited”.

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

On being put to the vote the new substantive motion was carried and agreed.

Decision:

This Council notes that:

·        The VAT increase to 20%, announced in the Coalition Government’s budget, and which is now part of the Finance Act 2010-11, will have an effect on all Members of the community in Medway.

·        The previous Labour Government has burdened this country with the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe apart from Ireland, with public sector net borrowing expected to be £149 billion this year.

·        The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury has acknowledged that there is no money left in a letter for his successor.

This Council therefore believes that the increase in VAT is regrettable but fully necessary for the new Government to address the perilous economy they have inherited.

This council congratulates Medway Aircraft Preservation Society Limited of Rochester Airport, on being awarded the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service; the MBE for volunteer groups.  This is in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the preservation and restoration of aircraft and aviation artefacts for public display.

This Council congratulates Medway Aircraft Preservation Society Limited of Rochester Airport, on being awarded the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service; the MBE for volunteer groups.  This is in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the preservation and restoration of aircraft and aviation artefacts for public display.

Decision:

This Council congratulates Medway Aircraft Preservation Society Limited of Rochester Airport, on being awarded the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service; the MBE for volunteer groups.  This is in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the preservation and restoration of aircraft and aviation artefacts for public display.