Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 20 February 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 20 February 2014 was agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.  

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bright, Gilry, Hewett, Igwe, Kearney, Osborne and Purdy. 

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Filmer declared an interest in any reference to Medway Norse because he was a Director of Medway Norse.

Councillor Mackinlay declared an interest in any reference to Medway Norse because he was a Director of Medway Norse.

Councillor Murray declared an interest in any reference to the University Technical College (UTC) because her employer (Mid Kent College) was one of the UTC partners.

The Mayor informed the meeting of the sudden death of Michael Filmer, one of the Civic and Ceremonial Assistants in the Mayor’s Office, on 3 April 2014. She stated that Michael had worked for Medway Council for over 12 years and many Councillors had attended Michael’s funeral earlier the same day. The Mayor, on behalf of the Council, placed on record the appreciation for Michael’s loyal and dedicated support to successive Mayors over many years.

Councillors Murray and Bowler both paid tribute to Michael Filmer.

The Mayor also announced that Joyce Esterson had died earlier this month. Mrs Esterson was first elected to Rochester Council in 1965 and then after a break to raise her family was re-elected and served on Rochester upon Medway City Council from 1979 to 1995. She was Mayor of Rochester in 1991/92. The Mayor, on behalf of the Council, placed on record their sadness and condolences to the family. The funeral for Joyce Esterson was due to take place on 28 April 2014.

Councillor Murray paid tribute to the life of Joyce Esterson.

The Mayor reminded Members to ensure that written copies of any amendments were provided to the Head of Democratic Services and that copies should be brought up to the top table first.

There were none.  

Councillor Bowler submitted a petition containing 36 signatures which requested the extension of the parking permit scheme in Maidstone Road, Rochester, to include the houses between 85-151 Maidstone Road.

Councillor Harriott submitted a petition containing 14 signatures which requested extra paths through the verges between Boughton Close and Charing Road, Twydall.

Councillor Mackness submitted a petition containing 631 signatures regarding the future of the GP Practice run by Dr Elapatha, Delce Road, Rochester.

Councillor Maple submitted a petition containing 23 signatures regarding the condition of Darland Avenue and Rowland Avenue, Gillingham.

Councillor Murray submitted a petition containing 70 signatures regarding flooding on the public highway near the junction of Star Hill/Rochester High Street, adjacent to Magee’s Café, 208 High Street, Rochester.

Councillor Price submitted a petition containing 21 signatures regarding the closure of the Izzatt Day Centre, Clover Street, Chatham.

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

Members agreed that questions would not be read out.

A.     Gerardo Esposito of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

You are on record as stating that the financial return on ratepayers £4 million investment into the airfield paved runway and infrastructure will be better than depositing the money in a Building Society.

The Rochester Airport Limited bid submission business model reveals you are mistaken. The £4M taxpayers’ return on investment (ROI) in the paved runway and airport facilities upgrade is pitiful.

The disastrous ROI figures legitimise the WS Atkins report 2001 assessment that there is no financial case for investing in a paved runway and proposed a grass option B nearly identical to the Airport Masterplan.

·        You say the airport accident record is good.

·        You say Medway Council is not going to commercialise the airport.

·        You say the paved runway and concentrated flights will result in 'less noise than at the moment' but that is untrue.

Please tell us why the taxpayer is paying millions of pounds for a small number of budget fliers to have a paved runway when they cannot afford it and they have been safely using grass since 1933?

Councillor Jarrett stated that the level of investment was reasonable considering it was an asset owned by the Council, and would be repaid by proceeds from the development created on the site of the redundant runway. In addition it was anticipated that the Council would benefit from in excess of £300,000 per annum of additional business rate income aside from a percentage of retail return against the airport operator’s lease holdings. There was also the value of leverage in terms of potential future public sector investment and also in creating additional jobs and economic activity and vitality both directly and indirectly from the development.

There was no supplementary question.

B.    Jennifer Sanders of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

Please tell us how Medway Council arrived at a £4M ratepayer contribution towards the Rochester Airport paved runway and facility upgrade?

Councillor Jarrett stated that the Council considered the proposal to fund the upgrade of the Rochester Airport at a Cabinet Meeting on 9 July 2013 and at a Council Meeting on 25 July 2013. The reports for those meetings and decisions made were in the public domain and members of the public wishing to understand the decision making process could look at those documents on the Council’s website.

The decision to invest in the upgrade of Rochester Airport was made by Cabinet and eventually Council and the capital investment needed for the upgrade was agreed at the subsequent Council meeting. This investment was up to £4M.

The Council then incorporated this into a Lease with Rochester Airport Limited, which would include the staging of investment whereby the works would be carried out by the operator to the Council’s specification before staged payments would be made.

There was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1043.

Prior to the consideration of agenda item 8 (Leader’s Report), the Worshipful The Mayor of Medway adjourned the meeting between 8pm – 8.10pm following disturbance in the public gallery, as provided for in Council Rule 11.2.3.

Councillor Maple asked for the Mayor to reconsider his proposal to allow the public questions O-Q to be asked at the meeting. The Mayor stated that this matter had already been voted on and the Council had not agreed to Councillor Maple’s proposal.

Discussion:

Members received and debated the Leader’s report, which included the following:

• Government Opportunities (GO) awards
• Bluewave Communications Partnership (Medway Council and East Sussex County Council) launch
• Chatham Dockyard closure and 30 years of regeneration
• Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) submission
• University Technical College
• English Festival
• “A Better Start” Big Lottery Bid
• School Admissions September 2014
• Youth Service.

Discussion:

Members received and debated a report on overview and scrutiny activities, which included the following:

• Draft Capital and Revenue Budget proposals 2014/2015
• Refresh of Council Plan Indicators 2014/2015
• Hot Food Takeaways in Medway: A Guidance Note
• Leader and Portfolio Holders being held to account
• Medway Safeguarding Children Board Mid Term Progress Report
• School Admission Arrangements 2015
• Adoption performance in Medway
• Improvement Plan for Children’s Services
• Acute Mental Health Inpatient Beds Review Update
• Health and Wellbeing Board Review of Progress
• Health Inequalities Task Group Review report
• Annual Review of waste contracts
• Cultural activities
• Controlled Parking Zones
• Traffic flow in Chatham
• Possible Snow Angels project
• Update on Fair Access to Credit Task Group Review
• Healthchecks
• Private sector housing
• Strood Library consultation
• Rochester Community Hub.

To receive nominations for candidates for election at the Annual Council Meeting on 14 May 2014 as Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the 2014/2015 municipal year in accordance with Council Rule 20.3, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member), Councillor O’Brien, supported by Councillor Carr, proposed that Councillor Kemp be nominated as the Mayor of Medway for the 2014/2015 municipal year.

On being put to the vote this nomination was agreed. 

Councillor Mackness, supported by Councillor Avey, proposed that Councillor Maisey be nominated as the Deputy Mayor of Medway for the 2014/2015 municipal year. 

On being put to the vote this nomination was agreed. 

Please could Councillor Filmer, Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, tell me why Vicarage Road in Gillingham South Ward has been omitted from the current resurfacing list?  Residents advise me that council officers had promised them a road resurfacing last year, which has failed to happen.

Please could Councillor Filmer, Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, tell me why Vicarage Road in Gillingham South Ward has been omitted from the current resurfacing list?  Residents advise me that council officers had promised them a road resurfacing last year, which has failed to happen.

Councillor Filmer stated that following an enquiry in August 2013 from a member of the public who had expressed her concern regarding the road surface condition of Vicarage Road at its junction with Canterbury Street, a highway inspector arranged for some remedial repairs to be undertaken.

The inspector’s report prompted a whole road surface condition survey to be undertaken by an engineer who scored his assessment of the road as a priority 2 rating.

Last year the significant number of priority 1 roads identified as requiring treatment prevented any category 2 roads from being considered for the 2014/2015 programme.

The section of Vicarage Road between Canterbury Street and Belmont Road has been reassessed as priority 1 and would be included within the responsive maintenance works for this year. The remaining section from Belmont Road to College Road remained as a Priority 2.

Councillor Juby asked for a response in writing. He also asked if the category 1 roads in Gillingham South wards could be looked at. There were a number on the list for this year, but at the time the list was published nobody was aware that the railway lines and stations would be closed quite considerably, therefore, could the Council make sure that the rail bus relief service knew which roads were being resurfaced at the weekends or evenings.

Councillor Filmer stated that he was happy to provide a written response and that he would look into the other points that Councillor Juby had mentioned.

DCLG Officials wrote to Chief Executives of principal authorities in England regarding the Publicity Code. 

What changes will the council be making to make Medway Matters compliant with the code?

DCLG Officials wrote to Chief Executives of principal authorities in England regarding the Publicity Code. 

What changes will the Council be making to make Medway Matters compliant with the code?

Councillor Rodney Chambers stated that the short answer was that the Council was not planning to make any changes to Medway Matters at present, and that the Council was complying with the law on Council publications. He stated that Councillor Maple may already be aware that the letter received by the Council was general and informative in nature and was sent to all Councils, although six other Councils, had been deemed to be non-compliant and had been written to, directing code compliance under section 4a of the Local Government Act 1986 which had been recently inserted by the passing of the (section 39) Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Local authorities were required by section 4(1) of the Local Government Act (1986) to have regard to the contents of the code in coming to any decision on publicity. This was not an explicit order.

The Council always had regard to the code since its publication, which is what the law required, and would continue to do so. It would remain the intention to continue publishing Medway Matters in the current format.

Medway Matters was the most cost effective method for the Council to communicate with its residents and the Council considered that it did not threaten, nor compete with the twice-weekly published Medway Messenger or weekly published Kent on Sunday.

A recent survey had been carried out which stated that Medway Matters was read by two thirds of residents who valued its information about Council services and how to get the best out of those services.

Councillor Maple stated that he would be writing to the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, within the next seven days as he believed Medway Matters had breached the publicity code in three instances. He asked the Leader of the Council that he would perhaps want to liaise with the relevant officers to reconsider whether those breaches were in place or not. Councillor Maple stated that he would be happy to share a copy of his letter to Eric Pickles with the Leader of the Council.

Councillor Rodney Chambers stated that he would wait to hear from the Secretary of State.

This report sets out proposals to make additions to the Council’s Capital Programme for 2014/2015.

Discussion:

This report provided details of proposed additions to the capital programme for three key schemes (Strood Sports Centre, the Medway Crematorium and the Corn Exchange), which would be funded by prudential borrowing. The report set out the proposed works and funding requirements for each of the projects.

The Cabinet considered this report on 8 April 2014 and its recommendations to Council were set out in the report.

An exempt appendix provided further financial details of the Crematorium Improvement Programme.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, proposed the recommendations set out in the report:

Decisions:

(a)   The Council approved the addition of Strood Sports Centre redevelopment to the capital programme with funding of £500,000 at this stage tobe funded by Prudential Borrowing.

(b)   The Council approved the additional Prudential Borrowing requirement of up to £475,000, so that the Crematorium Improvement Project could be concluded.

(c)   The Council approved the addition of the Corn Exchange Improvement Programme to the capital programme with funding of £100,000 to be funded by Prudential Borrowing.

This report requests that Council agrees to delegate authority to the Director of Regeneration Community and Culture, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to dispose of the Stanley Wharf site on Rochester Riverside for redevelopment.

Discussion:

This report provided details of a proposal to dispose of Stanley Wharf, Rochester Riverside to enable development on the site. The Cabinet considered this report on 8 April 2014 and its recommendations to Council were set out in the report.

An exempt appendix provided details of the tender process for Stanley Wharf, the preferred developer and the financial bid received.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council agreed to delegate authority to the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture in consultation with the Leader of the Council:

·      To dispose of the Stanley Wharf site (as shown edged black on the plan attached to the report) for redevelopment.

·      To enter into any necessary agreements.

This report seeks approval to two changes to the Constitution, namely the requirement of a recorded vote to be taken in respect of a substantive motion, and any amendments proposed to it, at a budget decision meeting of the authority where the Council makes a calculation or issues a precept under the relevant provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and a proposal to include the criteria for the Ward Improvement Fund as Part 12 to Chapter 5, as recommended by the Councillor Conduct Committee at its meeting on 31 March 2014.

Discussion:

This report provided details of proposed changes to the Constitution, namely the incorporation of a new statutory council rule requiring a recorded vote to be taken in respect of a substantive motion, and any amendments proposed to it, at a budget decision meeting of the authority and also the inclusion of the criteria for the Ward Improvement Fund (as Part 12 to Chapter 5), as recommended by the Councillor Conduct Committee at its meeting on 31 March 2014.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decisions:

(a)   The Council agreed a new council rule requiring a recorded vote to be taken in respect of a substantive motion, and any amendments proposed to it, at a budget decision meeting of the authority where the Council makes a calculation or issues a precept under the relevant provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as set out in Appendix A to this report.

(b)   The Council agreed to add the criteria for the Ward Improvement Fund to Chapter 5 of the Constitution, as set out in Appendix B to this report.

This report will ask Council to make recommendations to Annual Council and the Joint Meeting of Committees on 14 May 2014 regarding appointments to Committees, Sub-Committees and other bodies, and the schedule of meetings for 2014/2015.

Discussion:

This report provided details of the overall allocation of seats on committees and sought to recommend to Annual Council on 14 May 2014, the committees and other bodies to be appointed for 2014/2015 and a programme of meetings. The report also asked the Council to make recommendations to the Joint Meeting of Committees on 14 May 2014, immediately following the Annual Meeting of the Council, in respect of the establishment and membership of sub-committees and task groups.

Councillor Kemp, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

It was noted that the ratio for the School Transport and Curriculum Appeals Committee should read 3:2 (page 129 of the Agenda).

Councillor Shaw, supported by Councillor Murray, proposed the following amendment:

Add new recommendation 6.2:

That the Council resolves:

i)                    To agree there should be provision for named substitutes for Members of all Scrutiny Task Groups and;

ii)                  That Council Rule 18 should be changed to include an additional clause as follows:

18.10 – In the case of Scrutiny Task Groups (which are not formal Committees or Sub Committees of the Council), substitutes are permitted to the extent there may be one named substitute for each Task Group Member who must be appointed when the Task Group is established.

The Monitoring Officer advised that Council Rule 16.2 (Amendment to council rules) applied in this case and this amendment would be taken forward without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.

Decisions:

(a)   The Council agreed to recommend to Annual Council and the Joint meeting of all Committees on 14 May 2014 as applicable:

(i)                 the establishment of committees, sub committees and task groups, their size and the allocation of seats to political groups as set out in paragraph 3.5 above and in Appendix A, together with terms of reference as set out in the Council’s constitution;

(ii)               the 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;

(iii)             that appointments should be made to Joint Committees, outside bodies and other bodies as set out in Appendix B ( with nominees to be reported at the Annual Council meeting);

(iv)             the timetable of meetings for the 2014/2015 municipal year as set out in Appendix C to this report.

(b)   The Council agreed to consider the amendment regarding named substitutes on Scrutiny Task Groups at its next ordinary meeting in accordance with Rule 16.2 of the Council Rules.

This Council welcomes the Government budget announcement of a 25% duty on Fixed Odd Betting Terminals and requests that the Chief Executive conveys this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as asking for future consideration of tax increases and restrictions on these machines.

This Council welcomes the Government budget announcement of a 25% duty on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals and requests that the Chief Executive conveys this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as asking for future consideration of tax increases and restrictions on these machines.

Councillor Maple, supported by Councillor Bowler, proposed the following amendment:

Retain original motion and add the following paragraphs:

This Council also notes the lack of medical support nationally for those with gambling addiction in comparison to other addictions and requests that the Chief Executive writes to Jeremy Hunt to call in an increased provision for medical support for those with gambling addictions.

This Council is extremely disappointed by the response of the Association of British Bookmakers following a cross party approach in 2013 to create the Medway Responsible Gambling Partnership which to date has not actually met since its initial meeting or achieved anything for the community of Medway.

This Council instructs Medway Council officers to prepare an article 4 designation for Medway’s town centres as regards bookmakers and financial institutions that do not have a deposit facility.

Under Council rule 11.4.1 Councillor Hicks, with the consent of the Council and the seconder of the substantive motion, agreed to alter the substantive motion to incorporate the first two paragraphs of the proposed amendment. Councillor Maple indicated that he was content with the revised substantive motion.

Decision:

This Council welcomes the Government budget announcement of a 25% duty on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals and requests that the Chief Executive conveys this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as asking for future consideration of tax increases and restrictions on these machines.

This Council also notes the lack of medical support nationally for those with gambling addiction in comparison to other addictions and requests that the Chief Executive writes to Jeremy Hunt to call in an increased provision for medical support for those with gambling addictions.

This Council is extremely disappointed by the response of the Association of British Bookmakers following a cross party approach in 2013 to create the Medway Responsible Gambling Partnership which to date has not actually met since its initial meeting or achieved anything for the community of Medway.