Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meetings held on 23 April 2015 and 27 May 2015 (Annual Meeting of Medway Council).

The record of the meetings held on 23 April 2015 and 27 May 2015 were agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct records.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chishti, Clarke, Etheridge, Griffin, Royle and Wicks.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

Councillor Griffiths declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 15 relating to the Balfour Centre, Pattens Lane (also referred to in the record of Cabinet decisions dated 4 August 2015 which had been circulated in the Supplementary agenda) and agenda item 16(B) Motion from Councillor Murray. Both declarations related to the fact that he is a Non-Executive Director of Medway Community Healthcare and he left the meeting for the consideration and determination of both items.

Other interests

Councillor Johnson declared an interest in agenda item 13 (Update to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules) on the basis that a close relative works for an organisation that provides contracted services and he left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this item.

Councillor Cooper declared an interest in agenda item 10A, relating to a question from Councillor Osborne to Councillor O’Brien about Hempstead Junior School on the basis that her grandchildren attend the school. She confirmed that she had not spoken to anyone about the item.

The Mayor referred to the passing of former Councillor Ken Stevens on 26 July 2015. He advised that Ken had been a Gillingham and Medway Councillor for Rainham Ward and had served on Medway Council between 1997 – 2000. He asked that the Council’s sadness at this news be placed on record and reminded Members that the funeral was to take place on 13 August.

Councillor Griffiths paid tribute to former Councillor Stevens who had served a period of 10 years in local government; two terms on Gillingham Borough Council as Deputy Group Leader and then as a Medway Councillor between 1997 – 2000.

The Mayor drew attention to the retirement of Roger Malden, one of the Civic and Ceremonial Assistants later in the month after 13 years supporting successive Mayors and Deputy Mayors. On behalf of the Council, he expressed his best wishes to Roger for his future.

The Mayor drew attention to the following forthcoming charity events:

·         Fine Dining at McLeods Restaurant on 17 September

·         A Civic Day Out on 25 September

·         A Chinese meal at Confucious on 6 October

·         The traditional Golf Day on 9 October

He advised that more information and tickets were available from his office.

The Mayor reminded members to speak clearly into their microphones to ensure that people in the public gallery could hear and he reminded members that an audio recording of the Council meeting would be made available on the Council’s website.

The Mayor reminded members that a written copy of amendments to any proposals must be provided to the Head of Democratic Services and that copies should be brought up to top table first.    

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, presented a gift to Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE and paid tribute to his services and achievements over his 15 year period as Leader of the Council.

Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE responded by thanking the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett for his kind words and gift and formally placed on record his gratitude to the Council’s staff.       

Public petitions 

Neil Wood submitted notice of an e-petition asking that the Council support Medway World Peace Festival.

Member petitions

Councillor Osborne submitted a petition containing 93 signatures asking that the Council ensure that Medway’s communities are kept safe in the face of unprecedented cuts to both Police and Council budgets.

Councillor Maple submitted a petition containing 20 signatures asking the Council to resurface the pavement in Mills Terrace.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor O’Brien submitted a petition containing 59 signatures objecting to the recent changes to the bus service 116 as this no longer services the London Road, Rainham with a direct route into Medway Maritime Hospital.

The Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake submitted two petitions, one from residents living on Walderslade Road and surrounding areas including Sussex Drive containing 251 signatures and one from residents living in and around Sindle Shaw House, King George Road containing 355 signatures objecting to the reduction in frequency of bus service 181 and changes to the 176 and the newly introduced 177 which has left areas of Walderslade without an accessible service and, in addition the removal of the Bluewater service.

A)           Claire Friend of Chatham was absent. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, responded to her question. The question and response is set out as follows:

“Given Medway is a densely populated area which will only set to increase pressure on services will the Council help Kelly Tolhurst's manifesto and long term support of Medway Maritime by considering Rochester Airfield as a new site either full or partial for the Medway Maritime Hospital?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, stated that whilst the Council sympathised with the financial plight of Medway Maritime Hospital and appreciated the services it delivers, which in the main is an absolutely excellent service, it is the place of National Government to fund the National Health Service. This was not a role local government should be taking or needs to take not least because of the financial pressures local authorities are currently under.

B)           Norman Carter of Walderslade was absent. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, responded to his question. The question and response is set out as follows:

“The Medway Towns has a unique and longstanding relationship with the Gurkha Regiments and their families that span many years. No-one on Medway Council could have not been moved by the plight of the Gurkha families and relatives in Nepal, following the devastation caused by the recent earthquakes.

Will Medway Council make a donation to support the relief, and cement the bond between the people of Medway and our Gurkha family?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett stated that this matter obviously touched many people, not least friends and colleagues of Councillor Bhutia who was a former Gurkha. He confirmed that those Members who campaigned with Councillor Bhutia in the recent Chatham and Aylesford election knew how much this affected him. The Leader agreed to discuss with colleagues whether the Council could do something appropriate.

C)           Paul Dennis of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness, the following question:

“Can you explain what happened to my vote and to that of several of the constituents of Rainham North who voted for me in the Medway Council elections on 7th May 2015?”

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness stated that his answer would be in the context of a particularly complex election which took place in May with 3 polls over 3 constituencies. In the local election alone over 280,000 votes were cast with over 125,000 ballot papers.

He stated that it was for the Returning Officer, to deal with questions which have been raised about the elections. The Returning Officer was responsible for the organisation and conduct of the Elections, and this was totally separate from Council business.

Councillor Mackness advised that he understood that Mr Dennis had already been in communication with the Returning Officer about this matter and had received a response confirming that the records were double-checked on the night of the election, and the paperwork confirmed a zero return.

He stated that strict rules  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219.

Discussion:

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

·         The comprehensive induction programme following the Local Elections.

·         The budget and the effect of the increase in the minimum wage

·         Local finances and the additional income bought in by NORSE

·         Medway’s cultural offer

·         Development in Medway including, Chatham Waterfront, Rochester Riverside, Strood Waterfront, Temple Marsh, Railway Stations and Rochester Airport.

Discussion:

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

·         Update on Medway Norse

·         Procurement Strategy

·         Topics for in-depth scrutiny reviews

·         Re-Commissioning of short breaks provision for children with disabilities

·         Ofsted inspection of the Local Authority’s arrangements for school improvement

·         Update on progress in relation to the Children’s Safeguarding Improvement Notice

·         Scrutiny of the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT)

A)           Councillor Osborne asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor O’Brien, the following:

“Can the Portfolio Holder define the local authority 'strong local governor presence' at Hempstead Junior School and what advice he can give to parents on support & actions from Medway Council since the resignation of a large number of the governing body?”

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor O’Brien responded by confirming that the governing body of Hempstead Junior School was full and had no vacancies at present. It was chaired by a Local Authority Governor who had considerable experience of governorship and successful experience as a chair of a governing body outside Medway since 2010. Individuals with governance and professional leadership experience had been co-opted onto the Governing Body to augment those governors who chose to continue their governorship at the school. One of these new governors also serves as a governor of a school judged by OFSTED to be outstanding.

Consequently, he believed the local authority has secured strong governing body arrangements at Hempstead Junior School

Supplementary Question:

“Councillor O’Brien will be aware that this has raised a number of parental concerns. Simply from an audit perspective given the fact that a significant number of Governors had resigned, is the Council reviewing and ensuring that appropriate financial scrutiny has occurred at the period when the Governing body was at a significant reduction to due the resignations?”

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor O’Brien, stated that he had answered most of what Councillor Osborne had asked. He added that Governors retire from and join Governing bodies all the time. He suggested that Councillor Osborne and also other Members seriously consider themselves becoming Governors of schools and to encourage local people, parents in particular to do the same.

B)          Councillor Osborne asked the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, the following question:

“With the Pentagon Centre empty, Tesco leaving and shop owners raising concerns about business tax levels on Chatham High Street does the Council feel that its endeavours to attract business to our high street has been a success given the millions of pounds of public money invested into the Bus Station and road network?

The Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, stated that this had been moderately successful.

            Supplementary Question:

“I do not think that is an appropriate answer, given the scale of the issues that are seen in Chatham High Street, we see the Tesco closure, we see empty premises in the Pentagon Centre and the Pentagon Centre itself is a question mark itself. Can he give confidence to the people of Medway that the strategic ambition for Chatham Town Centre as it is, and will be part of the Centre City bid for next year?”

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE reported that the Pentagon Centre is currently experiencing very stable footfall figures, which was contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 222.

This report advises the Council of changes required to statutory Standing Orders contained in the Employment Rules in the Constitution. These revisions are required under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and relate to the procedure for disciplinary action against, and the dismissal of, the Council’s Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive), Monitoring Officer (Assistant Director, Legal and Corporate Services) and Chief Finance Officer.

Discussion:

This report advised the Council of changes required to statutory Standing Orders contained in the Employment Rules in the Constitution to accord with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. The changes related to the procedure for disciplinary action against, and dismissal of the Council’s Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive), Monitoring Officer (Assistant Director, Legal and Corporate Services) and Chief Finance Officer.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness, supported by Councillor Saroy proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decisions:

a)            The Council approved the revised Employment Rules, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, to replace the current version in the Constitution, which includes the modifications highlighted in bold in paragraphs 4.9 , 4.10 and 4.15 which are required to comply with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) England (Amendment) Regulations 2015;

b)            The Council designated the Chief Executive as the Proper Officer for the purposes of the executive notification procedure outlined in paragraphs 4.4, 4.6 and 4.12 of Appendix 1.

c)                  The Council agreed to receive a report at a future meeting on arrangements to meet the requirement to establish an Advisory Panel, as a Committee of the Council, to advise the Council before any decision is taken to dismiss the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer or Chief Finance Officer.

This report has been produced at the request of the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and presents recommendations for changes to Council rules 8 and 9 in the Constitution which relate to questions from the public and Members at Council meetings.

Please note that Paragraph 16.2 (Amendment to Council Rules) of Part 1, Chapter 4 of the Constitution states that any motion to add to, change or withdraw these Council Rules, will when proposed and seconded, be taken forward without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council (15 October 2015).

Discussion:

This report had been produced at the request of the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services and presented recommendations for changes to Council rules 8 and 9 in the Constitution which related to questions from the public and Members at Council meetings.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness, supported by Councillor Tejan proposed the recommendations set out in the report as follows:

The Council is recommended by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services

to approve revisions to Council Rule 8 (Questions by the Public) and Council

Rule 9 (Questions by Members) as set out in Appendix A to the report which

give effect to the following changes:

a)            Closer alignment of the rules for questions at Council meetings from the public and Members (but with the retention of 30 minutes for public questions and 20 minutes for questions from Members);

b)            removal of a facility for second and supplementary questions’

c)            limiting any person, organisation or Member to no more than one question at each Council meeting;

d)            discontinuation of the practice of allowing substitutes to ask questions if a questioner cannot be present with a written answer to be supplied after the meeting instead;

e)            introduction of a rule which limits the time allowed for answers provided to questions at Council minutes to three minutes; and

f)             amendment of Council rule 8.3 so that the final sentence reads “Any questions that have not received a response within the times limits will receive a written reply after the meeting”, as a response to the suggestion of the Independent Person under the Councillor Conduct regime.

In accordance with Council Rule 16.2, the Mayor stated that this proposal would now be taken forward without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council as it involved making changes to the Council Rules in Medway Council’s Constitution.

In February 2015, the legislation which governs the procurement rules for public sector procurement was updated and enacted into UK legislation in the form of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. This legislation replaces the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (as Amended).

The Council, as a public sector organisation is bound by this legislation and therefore, the internal Contract Procedure Rules of the Council need to be updated accordingly.

Discussion:

The Council received a report setting out changes to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules to accord with amendments to the procurement Directives by the European Union in February 2014 which had subsequently been enshrined in UK law on 26 February 2015 in the form of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

The Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Gulvin supported by Councillor Wildey proposed the recommendations set out in the report 

Decision:

The Council approved the updated Contract Procedure Rules, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

This report seeks approval to an addition to the Capital Programme for the construction of the Rochester Riverside Multi Storey Car Park.

Discussion:

This report sought approval to an addition to the Capital Programme  for the construction of the Rochester Riverside Multi Storey Car Park.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett supported by Councillor Tolhurst proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision: 

The Council approved the addition of £982,000 to the Capital Programme for the construction of the Rochester Riverside Multi Storey Car Park.

This report requests that Council declares surplus the Balfour Centre site, Pattens Lane, Rochester and delegates authority to the Assistant Director Legal and Corporate Services in consultation with the Leader to dispose of the property.

Discussion:

This report requested that the Council declare surplus the Balfour Site, Pattens Lane Rochester and delegate authority to the Assistant Director Legal and Corporate Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council to dispose of the property.

The Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Gulvin supported by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake proposed the recommendations in the report.

Decision: 

The Council:

a)            Declares the Balfour site surplus to requirements.

b)            Delegates authority to the Assistant Director of Legal and Corporate Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council to:

·                 Dispose of the property upon the best terms reasonably obtainable.

·                 Utilise, if necessary, the Council’s disposal powers under circular 06/03 Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003, provided the transaction satisfies the consent order’s conditions and does not breach state aid rules.

Council notes:

The Electoral Commission’s findings in its report into the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) and, in particular, the finding that 1.9 million of the current entries on the electoral register are only being retained under the transitional arrangements from the previous household registration system, which represents 4% of all register entries. The Electoral Commission has previously estimated that the number of people not correctly registered at their current address is around 7.5million across the UK.

The Government moved the order on the 16 July 2015 that will end the transitional arrangements and fully implement IER 12 months early. The Electoral Commission has warned that there is “a risk that a considerable number of eligible voters could be removed from the registers before the significant set of polls scheduled for May 2016 if the transition to IER is brought forward.”

Council believes:

That the Government’s proposals for the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration (IER) remain poorly thought out and implemented, running the risk that voters could be disenfranchised as part of this process.

That the end of the transitional arrangements before IER is fully implemented should have remained until December 2016 as stated in law and should not have been brought forward to December 2015.

Council resolves:

To take every possible step to ensure that as many local residents as possible are registered to vote.

To write to the Government to express our concerns and to ask for additional resources that ensure that local residents are not disenfranchised from the democratic process.

The Council notes the Electoral Commission’s findings in its report into the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) and, in particular, the finding that 1.9 million of the current entries on the electoral register are only being retained under the transitional arrangements from the previous household registration system, which represents 4% of all register entries. The Electoral Commission has previously estimated that the number of people not correctly registered at their current address is around 7.5million across the UK.

The Government moved the order on the 16 July 2015 that will end the transitional arrangements and fully implement IER 12 months early. The Electoral Commission has warned that there is “a risk that a considerable number of eligible voters could be removed from the registers before the significant set of polls scheduled for May 2016 if the transition to IER is brought forward.”

Council believes that the Government’s proposals for the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration (IER) remain poorly thought out and implemented, running the risk that voters could be disenfranchised as part of this process.

That the end of the transitional arrangements before IER is fully implemented should have remained until December 2016 as stated in law and should not have been brought forward to December 2015.

Council resolves to take every possible step to ensure that as many local residents as possible are registered to vote.

To write to the Government to express our concerns and to ask for additional resources that ensure that local residents are not disenfranchised from the democratic process.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Council notes the government’s consultation into cuts of £200m from public health budgets within this financial year.

Medway’s Health Profile for 2015 published by Public Health England shows that the health challenges in Medway are significantly worse than the national average for 13 out of 32 health indicators, including children in poverty, under 18 conceptions, smoking related deaths, homelessness and cancer mortality rates.

Council believes that cuts to public health funding would risk the vital delivery of preventative care for its residents and undermines the NHS Forward View, which received cross-party support, in its assertion that the sustainability of the NHS will now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health.

Council therefore calls upon the Chief Executive to write to the Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP asking that the Government to:

·         reconsider this decision whilst highlighting the valuable contribution that local public health measures, such as the reducing obesity strategy, have made on tackling health inequalities and improving the health of the local population in Medway.

·         include consideration of the implications of all council decisions on public health as the NHS Forward View implies.

The Council notes the government’s consultation into cuts of £200m from public health budgets within this financial year.

Medway’s Health Profile for 2015 published by Public Health England shows that the health challenges in Medway are significantly worse than the national average for 13 out of 32 health indicators, including children in poverty, under 18 conceptions, smoking related deaths, homelessness and cancer mortality rates.

The Council believes that cuts to public health funding would risk the vital delivery of preventative care for its residents and undermines the NHS Forward View, which received cross-party support, in its assertion that the sustainability of the NHS will now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health.

The Council therefore calls upon the Chief Executive to write to the Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP asking that the Government to:

·         reconsider this decision whilst highlighting the valuable contribution that local public health measures, such as the reducing obesity strategy, have made on tackling health inequalities and improving the health of the local population in Medway.

·         include consideration of the implications of all council decisions on public health as the NHS Forward View implies.

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the motion was requested:

For: Councillors Bowler, Brown-Reckless, Cooper, Craven, Freshwater, Gilry, Godwin, Johnson, Joy, Khan, McDonald, Murray, Osborne, Pendergast, Price, Shaw and Stamp (17)

Against: Avey, Bhutia, Brake, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers OBE, Chitty, Doe, Fearn, Filmer, Franklin, Gulvin, Hall, Hicks, Howard, Iles, Jarrett, Kemp, Mackness, O’Brien, Opara, Potter, Purdy, Saroy, Tejan, Tolhurst, Tranter, Turpin, Wildey and Williams (30)

Abstain (0)

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.