Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Browne, Edwards, McDonald and Mrs Turpin. 

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct. Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 2.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

Councillor Crozer declared an interest in Motion 8D as he is the Chairman of AMAT UK. Councillor Crozer left the meeting during discussion and determination of the item.

Other interests

There were none.  

To approve the records of the meetings held on 18 April and 15 May 2024.

The record of the meetings held on 18 April and 15 May 2024 were approved and signed by Worshipful the Mayor as correct, subject to an amendment being made to the minutes of the 15 May meeting to replace an erroneous reference to Councillor Gulvin to read Councillor Perfect (as set out page on 50 of the 18 July 2024 Council agenda).

The Worshipful the Mayor of Medway announced that he would be holding a charity tour of Rochester in September, further details would be available from his office.

The Mayor, supported by Members of the Council, moved a suspension of Council Rules. This was to facilitate continuation of the changes set out below to how the meeting would be run. These changes had initially been trialled at the January Council meeting.

Decision:

The Council agreed to suspend Council rules to facilitate the following changes:

a)       Public questions would be extended from 30 minutes to 40 minutes with a reduction in the time allocations for the Leader’s Report from 35 minutes to 30 minutes and the Overview and Scrutiny activity report from 25 to 20 minutes.

b)       Public questioners unable to attend this evening had been allowed to send a representative to read out their question or the Mayor would put the question on their behalf. Only public questioners attending in person would be able to ask supplementary questions.

c)        The order of business had been changed as indicated on the Agenda. In summary, the agenda item on motions would be taken after public questions. Any information reports or reports for noting would be the last agenda items.

d)       Limit the number of speakers per motion to the proposer and seconder, plus up to 10% of each group (rounded up) as follows:

Labour and Co-operative Group – 4

Conservative Group – 2

Independent Group – 1

Independent Members – 3

The same number of speakers would be allowed for each amendment to a motion.

There were none. 

Public:

There were none.

Member:

There were none.

Question A – Ralph Allison, of Twydall, submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

“Will the Council fund the installation of low level barriers to prevent the incursion of vehicles onto the play park area on Sturry Way, Twydall?”

Councillor Curry said he recognised that greenspaces in Medway were subject to unauthorised vehicular access. Medway had over 140 greenspaces, all of which were vulnerable to unauthorised use with physical damage occasionally being used to gain access.

Although there were no known reasonable ways or materials to absolutely prevent misuse of any greenspace, physical obstructions could deter individual and groups from particular sites.

Councillor Curry had asked Medway Norse colleagues to arrange a site inspection with Council Officers to provide advice on what additional steps could be taken to make the site more secure. This would be reviewed and a decision made on the available resources and priority of the remedial work at the site.

No supplementary question was asked as Ralph Allison was not present.

Question B – Sabine Strickland, submitted the following to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray:

“I’m working as a support worker and do sleep ins too, our minimum wages have been increased through the government but social services in Medway have still not given an answer about the increase for the sleep-in rates, so the question is: Why not!?”

Councillor Murray said how much she valued the work of everyone involved in the care sector in Medway and that she had made this clear when she had spoken at the Parliamentary launch of the Fair to Care report on pay.

The care sector was experiencing high demand and dealing with increasingly complex clients and Councillor Murray said that little had been done by the previous Government to address the resulting funding crisis, despite the Council and others having made the situation clear to government. The new Government had promised to carry out a review of the sector and Councillor Murray would be working with the three local MPs to ensure that all available information and research was used as part of that work.

The Council issued a fee uplift to care providers each year and it was the responsibility of the care provider to determine rates of pay and pay increases for their staff in line with national legislation.

Information about working nights, including sleep in shifts could be found on the gov.uk website.

Help and advice for employees on rights and obligations at work, including pay and the National Living Wage, could be provided by ACAS and through trade unions.

No supplementary question was asked as Sabine Strickland was not present.

Question C – Les White, of Wainscott, submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson:

“The speed camera on Hollywood Lane has not been working at all for the last three years for, I have been led to believe, cost saving reasons. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

This report sets out motions received for this meeting. 

Motion A – proposed by Councillor Lawrence and supported by Councillor Tejan:

“The Council notes that:

The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Maple and Cllr Murray, provided unequivocal support for the Chatham Docks outside this very chamber when the Labour and Co-Operative Group formed the Opposition. This included throughout the last local plan regulation 18 and 19 process under the previous administration.

The Labour and Co-Operative Group are now refusing to rule out Chatham Docks being earmarked for development within the local plan.

Labour and Co-Operative councillors voted in favour of a planning application to redevelop Basin 3 of the Chatham Docks, which subject to the Secretary of State’s call in, has sealed the fate of approximately 150 jobs and an unknown number in the associated supply chain for a promise of industrial units that may never be built.

The community of St Mary’s Island, and people across Medway, feel a sense of betrayal at the disregard of previous promises made by the Labour and Co-Operative Group, and woeful responses claiming the Leader of the Council “arranged a meeting” are not enough.

When this Labour administration came to power in May 2023 one of the promises it made to residents was the creation of 1,000 new jobs. In the administration’s first year of power, it has created zero new jobs.

During the period of the last Conservative administration 2,500 jobs were created across Medway, despite the challenges of the COVID pandemic and a very tight financial position.  

The Council calls on the Leader, Portfolio Holder for Social and Economic Regeneration and Inward Investment, and the wider Cabinet to:

1.      Apologise for the Labour and Co-Operative Group’s betrayal of the support for businesses and workers in the Chatham Docks.

2.      Urgently set out its detailed strategy for Medway’s economic development and job creation. This must detail the action it intends to take to replace any jobs lost because of Basin 3 before those losses can be replaced with new employment. 

3.      Acknowledge that any loss of businesses based in Chatham Docks will result in reducing Medway’s GDP and impact families and other businesses.

4.      Through the Local Plan process, properly engage with conversations over the Chatham Docks, with stakeholders, including employees, unions, and community representatives, to gather insights and build consensus.”

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the motion was taken:

For: Councillors Anang, Barrett, Brake, Clarke, Doe, Etheridge, Fearn, Filmer, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Hackwell, Hyne, Joy, Kemp, Lammas, Lawrence, Pearce, Perfect, Spring, Tejan, Wildey and Williams (22)

Against: Councillors Animashaun, Bowen, Campbell, Cook, Coombs, Curry, Field, Gurung, Hamandishe, Hamilton, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Jackson, Jones, Khan, Mahil, Mandaracas, Maple, Murray, Myton, Nestorov, Osborne, Paterson, Peake, Louwella Prenter, Mark Prenter, Price, Stamp and Van Dyke. (29)

Abstain: Councillors Crozer, Sands and Spalding. (3)

Note: In addition to the Members named under apologies for absence, Councillor Shokar was not present when the recorded vote was taken.

The amendment was lost.

Decision:

Upon being put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

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

Discussion:

Members received the Leader’s report. The following issues were discussed:

• The General Election and the hard work of Medway Council staff.
• Thanks were given to the three outgoing Cabinet Members, who were now local MPs as well as to the three outgoing MPs.
• The new Government’s plans and the need to lobby for sufficient resources for Medway.
• The Cross Party LGA Councillor’s Forum
• The forthcoming Youth Justice, Care Quality Commission and social housing inspections.
• The development of the new Local Plan and the public engagement taking place, the regeneration plans for Chatham and concern about some development proposals.
• The raising of the Pride flag and Windrush flag by the Council.
• The variety of recent events, such as the Rochester Sweeps Festival, Medway Mile and the Mini Youth Games, the 10th Annual Armed Forces Covenant Conference, Welcome to Medway event and Our Medway Live.
• Launching of the National Lottery Heritage 10 Year Plan.
• Work undertaken with the Medway Diversity Forum and the Federation of Small Businesses Kent.
• Signing of the Docking Station Memorandum of Understanding between Medway Council, Chatham Historic Dockyard and the University of Kent.
• Agreement of the One Medway Financial Improvement Plan and the One Medway Council Plan.
• Freedom of the Borough status awarded to Medway Foundation Trust.
• Opening of Cozenton Park Sports Centre.
• Final confirmation had been received that the new Healthy Living Centre in Chatham would open, to be named the James Williams Health Centre.
• A Peerage for Life had been awarded to Craig Mackinlay, the former MP for South Thanet.
• Regeneration plans for the centre for Chatham.
• Work with partners to bring forward new jobs and focus on local labour in new developments.
• The special bus service running during the school summer holidays linking country parks and other attractions in Medway.

Decision:

The Council noted the report.

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

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

“Given the roll out of the new measures to enforce Saturday traffic restrictions on Rochester High Street, will he consider extending the restrictions to Sundays as well? 

Despite Sundays being just as busy along the High Street for pedestrians with as many people walking in the road, not having standardised restrictions across the weekend seems like an obvious omission which the new Labour administration should address.”

Councillor Paterson said that the Saturday traffic restriction on Rochester High Street had been in place for many years and continued to provide a safe environment for pedestrians using the high street.

Sundays on Rochester High Street had become increasingly vibrant, with visitors and residents enjoying the many shops and restaurants that chose to open and take advantage of the additional footfall.

Councillor Paterson agreed that a consistent approach to traffic restrictions all weekend would be better for pedestrians, traders and motorists. Officers were currently assessing a proposal to extend the Saturday restriction to Sundays and public holidays and a plan for seeking the views of residents, businesses and other key stakeholders was being prepared. Ward Councillors would be included in this discussion and should a decision be taken to proceed, an appropriate timeline would be established for taking the proposal through the required statutory process.

Question B – Councillor Perfect asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

“Under the last Government, then Conservative led Medway Council secured a record £14.4m funding through the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Levelling Up Fund. This will deliver/has delivered The Docking Station, the restoration of the Brook Theatre, and the Fitted Rigging House (South).

Please can the Leader of the Council update the Council on how he intends to lobby and work with the new government to secure future capital funding for our towns and villages?”

Councillor Maple said that the new Deputy Prime Minister, who now had statutory responsibility for local government had added local government back into the name of the government department and had also made it clear that, the ‘Hunger Games’ style of approach to funding would end.

Councillor Maple did not want to see an elected Mayor of Kent and Medway but he did want additional resources, both capital and revenue, for the community and he would work with whoever he needed to, to try to secure that. It had been made clear that unlocking this would not require there to be an elected Mayor.

Councillor Maple looked forward to the prospect of working with councillors across Kent to secure funding for the community here in Medway and said that he would not be abstaining in writing letters to fight for resources from the new Government.

Question C – Councillor Hackwell asked the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:

“The Leader of the Council has stated in this chamber that if he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

This report sets out why Medway Council should consider adopting care experienced as a protected characteristic.

Background:

This report set out why Medway Council should consider adopting care experienced as a protected characteristic.

The duties towards care leavers were defined within the Children Act 1989, the Leaving Care Act 2000, and the Children and Social Work Act 2017, but did not include the more recent terminology of care experienced. Care experienced was used to define people who had been looked after at some point in time by the local authority and was recommended as a protected characteristic in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care published in May 2022. To date over 90 Local Authorities had agreed to add Care Experience as a protected characteristic.

The report had previously been considered by the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee and by the Cabinet, the comments of which were set out in sections 8, 9 and 10 of the report.

As part of the debate a video was shown highlighting the positive reasons for the proposed scheme.

The Portfolio Holder for Children's Services, Councillor Price, supported by Councillor Howcroft-Scott, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decisions:

a)    The Council noted the comments made by the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the comments made by the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the decisions of the Cabinet, as set out in sections 8, 9 and 10 of the report.

b)    The Council agreed to adopt care experienced as a protected characteristic.

Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) are under a duty to produce a Community Safety Plan to formulate and implement a strategy to reduce crime and disorder, combat substance misuse, and reduce re-offending.

This report provides information on the proposed plan, which forms part of the Council’s Policy Framework, to cover the period from 2024 to 2027.The Community Safety Plan discharges the Council’s statutory requirement to produce a plan for community safety.

Background:

This report set put the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2024 – 2027. Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) were under a duty to produce a Community Safety Plan to formulate and implement a strategy to reduce crime and disorder, combat substance misuse, and reduce re-offending. This report provided information on the proposed plan, which formed part of the Council’s Policy Framework, to cover the period from 2024 to 2027. The Community Safety Plan discharged the Council’s statutory requirement to produce a plan for community safety.

The report had previously been considered by the Regeneration, Culture and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 13 June 2024, the comments of which were set out at section 6 to the report. The report had also been considered by the Cabinet on 9 July 2024, the decisions of which were set out at section 7 to the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, supported by Councillor Field, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decisions:

a)    The Council noted the comments of the Regeneration, Culture and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as set out at section 6 to the report and the decisions of the Cabinet, as set out at section 7 to the report.

b)    The Council approved the proposed Community Safety Plan 2024 – 2027, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, and draft Community Safety Action Plan 2024 – 2025, as set out in Appendix 2.

This report requests Council approval for additions to the Capital Programme as recommended by Cabinet on 11 June 2024.

Background:

This report requested Council approval for additions to the Capital Programme as recommended by Cabinet on 11 June 2024.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decisions:

The Council agreed the following additions to the capital programme, as set out in sections 4 and 5 of the report:

i)      £430,000 to the capital programme to fund the overspend reported on the Operational Depot scheme, to be funded by Prudential Borrowing, and

ii)     £4,655 to the capital programme to fund the overspend on the Mountbatten House Purchase scheme, to be funded from borrowing in advance of the capital receipts expected from the sale of the building to Medway Development Company.

This report seeks approval of revised terms of reference for the Integrated Care Partnership.

Background:

This report sought approval of revised terms of reference for the Integrated Care Partnership (ICP).

The report set out that the ICP was a joint committee between Medway Council, Kent County Council and NHS Kent and Medway (Integrated Care Board) and each partner organisation must approve any proposed changes to the ICP’s terms of reference, for Medway Council, this was a matter for decision by Full Council.

The Terms of Reference for the ICP had been developed nearly two years previously when the ICP was being established and had not yet been reviewed. Over the past two years, various pieces of national guidance around Integrated Care Systems had been released and the Kent and Medway system had developed. As arrangements had developed, members of the ICP had been able to articulate how they would prefer the ICP to operate and the purpose of the partnership was becoming clearer.

The Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, supported by Councillor Campbell, proposed the recommendations set out in the report, subject to the inclusion of the following additional recommendation:

‘The Council recommends the ICP system leaders to give consideration as to how they strengthen the duty to consult and engage on service transformation and changes, including how to work with overview and scrutiny.’

Decisions:

a)    The Council approved the revised terms of reference for the Integrated Care Partnership, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

b)    The Council agreed to recommend the ICP system leaders to give consideration as to how they strengthen the duty to consult and engage on service transformation and changes, including how to work with overview and scrutiny.

This report provides a summary of the work of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees since the last report to Council on 18 April 2024.

Background:

This report provided a summary of the work of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees since the last report to Council on 18 April 2024.

Councillor Tejan, supported by Councillor Howcroft-Scott, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Members raised the following issues during debate:

• Thanks were given for the work of Council’s four scrutiny committees.
• Annual Public Health Report ‘The Power of the Crowd’ and the partnership working achievements.
• The development of the new Medway Local Plan, its consideration by the Council’s scrutiny committees and the resources available for the planning function.

·      GP access and the need for there to be more GPs in Medway.

·      The equalities debate held by Medway Youth Council.

·      The improvements made to Medway’s SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) services, as recognised by Ofsted.

·      The national shortage educational psychologists.

·      The need to ensure that the move towards digital services did not exclude any vulnerable groups.

Decision:

The Council noted the report.

The Corporate Parenting Board Annual report summarises the work on the Board over the last year, outlines progress against the strategy and sets out the priorities for the coming year 2024-25.

Background:

The Corporate Parenting Board Annual Report, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report summarised the work of the Board over the last year, outlined progress against the Strategy and set out the priorities for the coming year 2024-25.

The Annual Report was a way of demonstrating engagement and commitment to the Council’s corporate parenting responsibilities, as set out in the Children and Social Work Act 2017. This defined for the first time in law the responsibility of corporate parents to ensure, as far as possible, secure, nurturing and positive experiences for children in the Council’s care and for care leavers.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Price, supported by Councillor Mandaracas, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council noted the progress made against the Corporate Parenting Strategy, as set out in the attached Annual Report.

This report provides an update in respect of the ten resolutions made by Full Council on 20 July 2023, when it passed a motion approving the ‘Councils for Fair Tax’ declaration.

Background:

This report provided an update in respect of the ten resolutions made by Full Council on 20 July 2023, when it had passed a motion approving the ‘Councils for Fair Tax’ declaration. The motion had included ten resolutions, which besides approval of the declaration had also included a request for an update on progress to be submitted to Cabinet and Full Council. The Cabinet had considered the report on 11 June 2024 and had noted the update provided.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Culture and Leisure, Councillor Mahil, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council noted the update provided in respect of each of the ten resolutions made by Full Council.

This report provides details of a recent usage of urgency provisions contained within the Constitution.

Background:

This report provided details of recent usage of urgency provisions contained within the Constitution.

An Exempt Appendix to the report set out details in relation to a Human Resource matter.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, supported by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council noted the use of urgency provisions as set out in sections 3 and 4 of the report.</AI17>