Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meetings held on 25 April 2013 and 15 May 2013 (Annual Meeting).

The records of the meetings held on 25 April 2013 and 15 May 2013 were agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.   

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Filmer, Harriott, Mackness 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.

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.

Councillor O’Brien declared a personal interest in any discussion on the former Chatham South School site, because his grandson currently attended Chatham Grammar School for Boys.

The Mayor reminded Members that she had chosen to support the following Charities during her Mayoral year: Age UK, Caring Hands, Demelza and Help for Heroes. There were two fundraising events taking place shortly: a night at the musicals at Strood Academy on 27 September and a race night at Medway Rugby Club on 21 October. Tickets were available from the Mayor’s Office.

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

There were none.  

William McLennan of Rochester submitted a petition which contained 514 signatures which asked:

• Medway Council, Councillors and officers not to sign or commit to a 25-year Rochester Airport lease until residents' safety is assured and confirmed through a full Community Impact Study and a public hearing;

• That a comprehensive study be undertaken to determine the best and most appropriate use of the airport site with respect to community benefit in health, environment, jobs creation and financial return, and that it be published and time be allowed for it to be read and considered by residents and business people not directly involved in the proposal before the public hearing mentioned above;

• That no financial investment of public money be made or committed to Rochester Airport's future until a comprehensive and independent fiscal due diligence is completed;

• That any investment be fully endorsed by an independent auditor and the Medway community (the undersigned) prior to a legally binding commitment to ensure value for money and to avoid infringement of European Court of Justice rulings.

Councillor Osborne submitted a petition which contained 445 signatures which requested Medway Council to reject the resubmitted proposal for an asbestos transfer station (MC/13/1549) in Lordswood.

Councillor Stamp submitted a petition which contained 14 signatures which asked Medway Council to completely resurface Coniston Close, Gillingham because the road had now deteriorated beyond repair.

Councillor Wildey submitted a petition which contained 58 signatures which asked for support to stop the proposal for Asbestos First Limited to re-submit its planning application to create an asbestos waste transfer station at North Dane Way/Albemarle Road.

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

Members agreed that the period of time allocated for public questions be extended by 15 minutes from 30 minutes to 45 minutes and that questions would not be read out. Any questions not asked at the meeting would receive a written response.

A) Peter Dickinson of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following:

Currently aircraft with a flight path over the City Way end of the airport, fly very low, and loudly, at great noise inconvenience and safety risk to the residents of those areas.

Assuming a doubling of movements and a concentration of all flights into that area, it is likely that the noise and the risk and inconvenience will increase at least four fold.

Please can you answer specifically, what measures will be put in place to prevent this, ensuring that these rules are adhered too, and penalties imposed for any and all breaches?

Councillor Jarrett stated that that he would give fairly short answers and not answer the same question twice. In response to this question, he stated these issues would be considered in detail as part of the planning application for the future operation of the airport.

Mr Dickinson stated that leisure power plane flying was a pastime of a very affluent minority, therefore, how could spending £4m of public money be properly justified at a time of austerity for the majority? This money could be better spent on improving the quality of life for the majority of people living in Medway.

Councillor Jarrett stated that this was an investment that the Council was planning to make which would be for the benefit of all the people of Medway.

B) James Brewood of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following:

Why are negotiations taking place to renew the 25-year lease, to the Rochester Airport Company, before appropriate development plans are fully agreed and authorised by all Council Members. No commitment should be given until after any new lease is signed, and then what proportion of this staggering sum will the lessee be contributing financially to benefit from this probably under estimated, staggering costing of £4.4 million pounds?

Councillor Chitty stated that negotiating the new lease and producing the Masterplan was being carried out in parallel. This was not unusual and would enable the airport proposals to progress. The Council would obtain a return on its investment by rental payments linked to operational usage. Furthermore, the Council would not be granting the 25-year lease until the Rochester Airport Masterplan had been subject to further consultation and agreed by Members.

Mr Brewood stated that if the Rochester Airport Company only contributed to an airport management service, were they to be responsible for all or any of the future running and maintenance cost of the airport?

If they were not, why not? If they had no financial investment then this grossly underestimated investment of £4.4m, which would most likely end up costing at least  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

Discussion:

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

·        Local Development Framework

·        Enjoy Medway/Events

·        Lower Thames Crossing

·        Davies Commission Visit

·        Ofsted

·        Medway Maritime Hospital

·        Equal marriage.

Discussion:

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

·        Review of overnight short breaks

·        NHS 111

·        Fair Access to Credit Task Group nomination for Good Scrutiny Awards 2013

·        Decluttering Streets in Medway Task Group

·        Review into quality of care and treatment at Medway NHS Foundation Trust

·        Fixed odds betting terminals

·        Scrutiny of the Community Safety Partnership

·        Review of the School Organisation Plan 2011-2016

·        Petition – Sure start nursery and pre-school facilities.

Why has Southern Water’s Resources Management Plan Consultation not been on any Council agendas or considered by Cabinet?

If we were not going to make any comments or recommendations why have we wasted taxpayers’ money and officers’ time on a task group?

Why has Southern Water’s Resources Management Plan Consultation not been on any Council agendas or considered by Cabinet.

If we were not going to make any comments or recommendations why have we wasted taxpayers’ money and officers’ time on a task group.

Councillor Chambers stated that, as the Councillor would be aware, officers had delegated authority to respond to such plans and the consultation period for Southern Water’s Management Plan did not end until 12 August. Officers were currently compiling a response.

Councillor Chambers referred the Councillor to minute no: 297/2012 and the associated report to the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 16 August 2012. This provided a full update of the Task Group’s recommendation and it would inform the officers’ response.

He stated that a little research would have shown that there had been no waste of taxpayers’ money or officer time.

Councillor Juby stated that, bearing in mind Mr Osborne, the Chancellor’s comments this week on shale fracking, whether this could be included in that response and any effect that might have on water resources in Medway.

Councillor Chambers stated that he would suspect that this would be part of a further consultation. He also stated that he did not know whether the Task Group considered that matter. However, it was the Task Group recommendation that would inform the officers’ response.

Is the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services prepared to work with the Labour-controlled Derby City Council, who, after meeting commitments laid out in their manifesto, such as showing a commitment to children in Local Authority care and remaining committed to all Children’s Centres, ensuring they remain open, recently won a Municipal Journal award for their management of children’s services?

Is the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services prepared to work with the Labour-controlled Derby City Council, who, after meeting commitments laid out in their manifesto, such as showing a commitment to children in Local Authority care and remaining committed to all Children’s Centre’s, ensuring they remain open, recently won a Municipal Journal award for their management of children’s services?

Councillor O’Brien stated that as the new Lead Member for Children’s Services he was committed to learning from other authorities who were doing well in their children’s services and that he referred to this the previous evening at Corporate Parenting Group. He stated that he had already made good contacts through the Local Government network of Lead Members of Children’s Services and would attend the South East Regional meetings of Lead Members of Children’s Services.

There were many services to children and their families to be proud of in Medway and there were also areas of good practice to share with others. Since the new Children’s Centre inspection framework had been introduced in May 2013, Medway had been the first Children’s Centre in the country to be rated as outstanding – Bligh Children’s Centre and Day Care Nursery – and Members should be extremely proud of that for them.

100% of the Medway children’s centres inspected in this new framework had been judged to be good or better and this compared with 25% across the country. With reference to Derby, under the old system they had 9% outstanding, Medway had 14%; they had 45% good, Medway had 57%; Derby was higher on satisfactory, 45% compared to 29% in Medway.

Councillor Price asked Councillor O’Brien how he was going to manage children’s services in the Council to help all Medway schools in the future to obtain at least a good rating.

Councillor O’Brien stated that so far he had visited some 56 schools and children’s centres throughout Medway. All of Medway’s schools had enthusiastic staff as indeed did the children’s centres and they all showed a real drive and determination to deliver a first rate education at all ages. He referred to one Ofsted, Walderslade Primary School, which was released earlier the same day, where Ofsted congratulated the work that was being done by Councillor Tolhurst and the school improvement team and they made special note of that in their Ofsted report. He stated that he believed that through the school improvement team the Council was doing everything that it could to help them to meet the new challenges that they were facing. He stated that he had left each school feeling encouraged about the future.

What does the council intend to do with the former civic centre since Tesco have withdrawn from the development of the proposed flagship shop?

What does the council intend to do with the former Civic Centre since Tesco have withdrawn from the development of the proposed flagship shop?

Councillor Jarrett stated that the Tesco proposal was actually only for a temporary store on the former Civic Centre site, whilst a new store was built in place of the existing store.  The temporary store on the Civic Centre site was to be removed by Tesco once the new store was built.

Irrespective of that proposal, the Council was, as part of its property rationalisation programme, working on relocating the remaining uses from the Civic Centre site, excluding the Control Centre which was likely to remain in its current location for the foreseeable future, to enable the site to be regenerated for a mixed-use development when the economic climate improves.

In the meantime, the majority of the remainder of the site was being used as an operational car park available for public use.

Councillor Igwe asked Councillor Jarrett to confirm, because there had been situations in the past whereby decisions were made about what was going to happen in Strood South without proper consultation, that if there was any planning about any kind of improvement in that area, that the relevant Members be consulted in Strood South.

Councillor Jarrett stated that this would take place. There were a number of potential schemes on which the Council was working and that residents and Ward Members would be consulted in the normal way, either in direct relation to the property aspects involved or as part of any planning process that needed to come forward.

Do the Council have any plans, or have concluded an arrangement, to close Strood Library?

Do the council have any plans, or have concluded an arrangement, to close Strood Library?

Councillor Doe stated that he was not sure how this kind of idea that the Council was going to close Strood Library had originated and that he had never made any such suggestion. The Council was seeking an improved location, an enhancement of the library service and with other complementary services right in the heart of Strood.

Councillor Igwe stated that this information was not out of the blue. Therefore, if there was any suggestion or any kind of discussion around this issue that Members had to be duly consulted.

Councillor Doe stated that he could assure Councillor Igwe that the objective here was to enhance the library service and to make sure that the overall offer to the people of Strood was enhanced. This would not take place without consulting the Ward Members, but proposals needed to be at an appropriate stage before consultation was useful and that this was currently at a very early stage.

Will the Council support the Fighting Fitter campaign, which builds on the Armed Forces Community Covenant by encouraging the leisure sector to offer discounted services to members of the Armed Forces?

Will the council support the Fighting Fitter campaign, which builds on the Armed Forces Community Covenant by encouraging the leisure sector to offer discounted services to members of the Armed Forces?

Councillor Chambers stated that he was pleased to say that Medway Council had been offering a discounted membership to all of its leisure facilities to members of the Armed Forces for the last ten years. As part of the Armed Forces Covenant, the Council now offered a discounted Echoes Premier Membership to all of its leisure centres.

The membership included free use of gyms, swimming pools, fitness classes and racquet sports within any of the leisure centres. Further to this, in recognition of the sacrifices our Armed Forces made, this offer was also available for the partners of military personnel living at the same address.

The Council was indeed more than willing to encourage other leisure providers to follow the Council’s lead in offering discounted services to members of the Armed Forces and he would look to having the offer more widely published in Medway Matters so that all were aware.

Medway Hospital’s A&E is struggling to provide services and investment is at a standstill. What is the Portfolio Holder doing to support the hospital and help them to ensure that Medway residents get improved services when they visit A&E?

Medway Hospital’s A&E is struggling to provide services and investment is at a standstill. What is the portfolio holder doing to support the hospital and help them to ensure that Medway residents get improved services when they visit A&E?

Councillor Brake stated that the Medway Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) was the Commissioner of Medway Hospital and Medway Council was working as a critical friend to improve services at the hospital.  An Executive Programme Board had been established to take forward an A&E Improvement Plan.  Medway Council was represented on this Board by the Deputy Director for Children and Adults Services, David Quirke-Thornton.

This board had agreed key priorities, one of which was the establishment of an Integrated Hospital Co-ordination Team on health and social care, which would bring together current teams across all organisations under a single leadership and ensure a patient centred approach. The team would ensure only those patients that needed admitting were admitted and those that were admitted stay for the time that was clinically necessary – with the overall aim of supporting people to be managed in the community. 

Prevention was better than cure and through the Health and Wellbeing Board the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy had been developed which prioritised interventions which would improve health and support independent living.

Councillor Brake stated that he had raised his concerns with regards to A&E directly with Mark Devlin, Chief Executive of Medway Foundation Trust, and received assurances of the Trust’s commitment to deliver the improvement plan and reduce waiting times.

Councillor Cooper asked Councillor Brake if he would be visiting the A&E department so that he could see what was actually happening because the hospital must be supported.

Councillor Brake stated that he was committed to the health service and the hospital here in Medway. He stated that he was always interested to know what was going on in and around Medway and other parts of Kent but of course at the end of the day the priority was Medway and it would always be so. He stated that he would always see that the very best facilities were available for the people of Medway.

Councillor Brake stated that he had already visited A&E and would be doing so in his new role as a governor at the hospital. He stated that when he chaired the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee he held Medway Hospital, the PCT and the Ambulance Service to account for the poor service that they delivered to the people of Medway and that he had no intention of making that happen again. He stated that he wanted services here in Medway to be the very best for the people of Medway.

Does the Portfolio Holder agree with Agincare’s proposals to rename Robert Bean Lodge?

Does the Portfolio Holder agree with Agincare’s proposals to rename Robert Bean Lodge?

Councillor Brake stated that he did not know where this rumour had come from but it was a rumour and whomsoever was responsible for starting it had caused unnecessary upset for so many people, which was of course most unfortunate to all those involved.

Whilst the company name for Robert Bean Lodge would be Rochester Care Home Ltd, the name of the home would remain the same.

He stated the Council had checked with Agincare, the incoming provider, and they had confirmed that they intended to continue to name the care home Robert Bean Lodge, which was in line with the original commitment when the process with regard to Medway’s care homes was actually started.

Councillor Murray stated that Agincare had been intending to do this. They had put plans in place and changed their mind after representations. She asked that for the future, was the Portfolio Holder prepared to ask his Cabinet colleagues to insist that no service providers in Medway which received Council contracts were permitted to rename facilities without first consulting the Council and did he agree that by doing so he could prevent the hurtful and offensive experiences that Bob Bean’s family had been through in the last few weeks?

Councillor Brake stated that this was a rumour and that there was no thought of changing or taking away of the name Robert Bean Lodge. Agincare had registered the company name as the Rochester Care Home Ltd but the name would always remain Robert Bean Lodge.

He stated that he could not make a commitment on behalf of his colleagues with regard to various services. However, in terms of the services that were being changed at the moment he had made that commitment as Portfolio Holder that there would be no change to names.

However, it would depend on the service that might be provided and the circumstances at the time, therefore, whilst he could make a commitment from his side with regard to this particular issue, he could not make any commitments on behalf of his colleagues with regard to any other project.

Why are the traffic lights in Chatham ‘under consideration’ when the Council has said there are not any problems with traffic flow in the area?

Why are the traffic lights in Chatham ‘under consideration’ when the council has said there aren’t any problems with traffic flow in the area?

Councillor Hicks, on behalf of Councillor Filmer, stated that an item was taken to Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 June 2013 following a Member’s concern regarding the traffic flows in Chatham.

This was a town centre location and as such it was not unusual that such environments would experience certain levels of congestion. The measures to be introduced aimed to improve the flow of traffic along the Brook, and would produce improvements generally wherever such measures were introduced.

To attempt to reduce any congestion that did occur, alterations to the signal timings would be undertaken, the pedestrian crossing facilities would also be changed to puffin type crossings, which would also improve traffic flow and be responsive to pedestrian demands.

It was the intention to move to widespread use of puffin crossings at signal-controlled crossings within Medway; the first puffin site was on the A2 in Rainham.

The signals to be removed at the bottom of the bus ramp were now redundant and could be removed to reduce the street clutter, improve the environment and again improve the flow of traffic in Chatham.

Councillor Shaw asked how many traffic surveys had taken place since the building of the somewhat less than dynamic bus station and the effect this had had on traffic flow?

Councillor Hicks informed Councillor Shaw that she would receive a written response.

The sea wall at the Strand in Gillingham is in a state of disrepair and a potential danger to the public. A significant section of it collapsed last year and has been cordoned off ever since. When will the Council repair this section, and why has no long term funding solution for the sea wall been developed to keep the public safe through proper maintenance and prompt repairs? 

The sea wall at the Strand in Gillingham is in a state of disrepair and a potential danger to the public. A significant section of it collapsed last year and has been cordoned off ever since. When will the Council repair this section, and why has no long term funding solution for the sea wall been developed to keep the public safe through proper maintenance and prompt repairs?

Councillor Doe stated that the section of sea wall that collapsed last year was repaired, but unfortunately a further section then collapsed at the end of February / early March, which was now cordoned off.

He stated that following a number of briefings from officers, this had been discussed with the Corporate Property Team and they were undertaking a full investigation into the extent of the damage and likely costs of repair to ensure the safety of visitors to the Strand.

Councillor Doe stated that the Council was continuing to seek potential solutions, but of course the costs would be quite significant and finances were very constrained.

He stated that Councillor Stamp was in regular contact with the team and they would continue to keep both Councillor Stamp and himself closely informed of progress.

Councillor Stamp stated that there were actually two sections of sea wall that had collapsed into the sea that had gone unrepaired for several months.  He asked the Portfolio Holder what he thought was more of a priority, investing in a much valued leisure and sporting amenity such as the Strand, which was used by thousands of residents and visitors each year, or giving a £4m subsidy to a private airfield used by a small number of wealthy aircraft owners?

Councillor Doe stated that he was not going to answer such a fatuous question of that nature but with regards to the repairs these were of course part of the continuing repair budget. The Council would make sure that the public were adequately protected and those areas where necessary were cordoned off. He stated that he had discussed with the Deputy Director the need for a much more strategic solution to that particular section because he believed that the whole sea wall there was really in a very bad state of repair generally. This would be a much longer term solution which would need to be properly planned and properly resourced.

Given the £27m spent on the Core Strategy document which has now been flatly rejected; will you now give categorical and unambiguous assurances to the people of Lords Wood, Capstone, Walderslade, Chatham and Medway that there will be no construction of homes on the Capstone Valley under a Medway Conservative administration? 

Given the £27m spent on the Core Strategy document which has now been flatly rejected; will you now give categorical and unambiguous assurances to the people of Lordswood, Capstone, Walderslade, Chatham and Medway that there will be no construction of homes on the Capstone Valley under a Medway Conservative administration?

Councillor Chambers stated that Councillor Osborne would be aware from the Leader’s Report that Medway Council had not spent £27m on the Core Strategy document and nor had that Strategy been flatly rejected.

He stated that he could only assume that Councillor Osborne was referring to the fact that the Labour Government had invested £25m in the Lodge Hill site. Otherwise the Council had expended around £1m on the current Core Strategy and around £1m on the earlier document.

The Council submitted a sound Core Strategy for examination in February last year. All the issues around Lodge Hill and nightingales only arose after a first round of public hearings and the Council had now written to the Inspector requesting her to keep the examination open until Natural England had completed its consideration as to whether a SSSI was justified at Lodge Hill – or not. The Council’s evidence was that it was not.

Councillor Chambers stated that he could give a categorical assurance to all residents of Medway that this administration would always resist development in the Capstone Valley and other green designated areas that were at present subject to predatory developers.

Councillor Osborne stated that given Medway Magna had a long history of lobbying and the simple fact that this had been rejected, could Councillor Chambers give a categorical assurance that Capstone Valley would not be developed in the future?

Councillor Chambers stated that he could give a categorical assurance that as long as there was a Conservative administration here in Medway, Capstone Valley would not be developed.

Does the Leader support the resident-led campaign, aided by the Chatham and Aylesford Labour Party, to oppose the Asbestos Transfer Station in Lords Wood, and will he agree to advertise this resident-led campaign in the next Medway Matters?

Does the Leader support the resident-led campaign, aided by the Chatham and Aylesford Labour Party, to oppose the Asbestos Transfer Station in Lordswood, and will he agree to advertise this resident-led campaign in the next Medway Matters?

Councillor Chambers stated that he had been advised that a planning application had been received at the end of June for the change of use from a winter management depot to an asbestos waste transfer station.

He started that he understood this was due to come to the Planning Committee for determination on either 21 August or 11 September.

The Council was unable to use Medway Matters to promote this campaign as suggested as to do so risked pre-determination of the current planning application and that also applied to any comment that he could make as Leader of the Council.

Councillor Osborne asked if the Leader could confirm and write to him concerning the planning application portal which had consistently over the last several years not reported accurately the number of negative or positive comments and the wider concern around planning around whether this could legally implicate all applications and the perception to the public on this system. He also asked if the Leader could categorically assure him that it would be looked at urgently to ensure that confidence remained in this administration and Council.

Councillor Chambers stated that he could give an assurance that it would be looked at and as far as the other instances were concerned, the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture would write to Councillor Osborne.

This report seeks approval for an addition of £4,400,000 to the Capital Programme, to fund improvements at Rochester Airport.

Discussion:

This report set out proposals for the approval for an addition of £4,400,000 to the Capital Programme, to fund improvements at Rochester Airport. The report also sought delegated authority for officers, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance, to enter into contracts in respect of the works at the Airport and to declare land surplus, so that it could be disposed of for development.

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

Councillor Murray, supported by Councillor Griffiths, proposed an amendment to the recommendations:

Delete 9.1.1 and replace with the following:

Defer the decision to spend funds on improvements to Rochester Airport until after the public consultation on the Airport Masterplan has been completed and analysed.

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council Rules at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the amendment was requested.

For – Councillors Bowler, Colman, Cooper, Craven, Gilry, Christine Godwin, Paul Godwin, Griffiths, Hubbard, Igwe, Juby, Kearney, Maple, Murray, Osborne, Price, Shaw, Smith and Stamp (19)

Against – Councillors Avey, Baker, Brake, Bright, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Etheridge, Griffin, Adrian Gulvin, Pat Gulvin, Hewett, Hicks, The Worshipful The Mayor, Councillor Iles, Irvine, Jarrett, Mackinlay, Maisey, Mason, O’Brien, Rodberg, Royle, Tolhurst, Turpin, Watson, Wicks and Wildey (31)

Abstain – (0)

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

Following a question from a Member as to whether voting on the substantive motion amounted to pre-determination on the future consideration of the Rochester Airport Masterplan, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that Members could vote on the substantive motion.

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council Rules at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the substantive motion was requested.

For - Councillors Avey, Baker, Brake, Bright, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Etheridge, Griffin, Adrian Gulvin, Pat Gulvin, Hewett, Hicks, The Worshipful The Mayor, Councillor Iles, Irvine, Jarrett, Mackinlay, Maisey, Mason, O’Brien, Royle, Tolhurst, Turpin, Watson, Wicks and Wildey (30)  

Against - Councillors Bowler, Colman, Cooper, Craven, Gilry, Christine Godwin, Paul Godwin, Griffiths, Hubbard, Igwe, Kearney, Maple, Murray, Osborne, Price, Shaw, Smith and Stamp (18)

Abstain – Councillor Juby (1).

Decision:

a)     The Council agreed to add £4,400,000 to the capital programme to fund improvements at Rochester Airport. This is made up from £4,000,000 as a contribution towards the works, which the airport operator will carry out and the balance of £400,000 is to fund professional fees and works on the council’s retained land.

b)     The Council agreed to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Legal and Corporate Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance, to declare land surplus at the Airport so that it can be disposed of for development on the best terms reasonably obtainable.

c)      The Council agreed to delegate authority to the Assistant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233.

This report seeks approval to amend the Contract Procedure Rules.

Discussion:

This report provided details of an overview of changes proposed to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules to reduce red tape and encourage and support new and existing suppliers to the Council.

The report provided details of consideration at Cabinet on 9 July 2013 and Audit Committee on 11 July 2013, as set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report respectively.

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

Decision:

The Council agreed the revised Contract Procedure Rules attached at Appendix C to the report, for inclusion within the Constitution.

This report seeks approval to the Anti-Money Laundering Policy and the amended Audit Committee’s terms of reference.

Discussion:

This report provided details of the Anti-Money Laundering Policy and amendments to the Audit Committee’s terms of reference for consideration and approval, following consideration at the Audit Committee on 11 July 2013.

A Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) screening form had been carried out on the draft policy, as set out in Appendix C to the report.

A revised Appendix B to the report (Audit Committee terms of reference) was tabled at the report owing to a formatting error in the original documentation.

The Chairman of the Audit Committee, Councillor Mackinlay, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations set out in the report, with reference to the revised Appendix B.

Decision:

a)     The Council agreed the Anti-Money Laundering Policy, as set out in Appendix A to the report, for inclusion within the Constitution.

b)     The Council agreed the proposed amendment to the Audit Committee’s terms of reference, as set out in the revised Appendix B to the report.

This report seeks approval to a number of constitutional issues.  

Discussion:

This report provided details of a number of constitutional issues: the position regarding the overall allocation of seats on committees following a change in the size of the Labour Group and disestablishment of the Independent Group; the appointment of Healthwatch representatives to the Health and Wellbeing Board and two of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees and; a recommendation that the scrutiny of housing should be transferred from the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee to the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

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.

Decision:

a)     The Council agreed the allocation of seats to political groups as set out in paragraph 2.7 of the report following notice of an increase in the size of the Labour Group and a request for a review of the allocation of seats on Committees.

b)     The Council agreed that the Chief Executive should approve any consequential changes to committee memberships in line with the wishes expressed by political groups under his existing delegation.

c)      The Council agreed the continuation 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.

d)     The Council agreed the appointment of the nominees put forward by Healthwatch to the Health and Wellbeing Board and two Overview and Scrutiny Committees for the remainder of the municipal year as set out in paragraph 3.1 of the report.

e)     The Council agreed the transfer of scrutiny of housing to the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the consequential change to the terms of reference of Overview and Scrutiny Committees as set out in the Constitution.

This report sets out recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (the Panel) which are submitted for Members’ consideration along with some changes to the Members’ Allowances Scheme to reflect changes in legislation.

Discussion:

This report provided details of the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel along with some changes to the Members’ Allowances Scheme to reflect changes in legislation.

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.

Decision:

a)     The Council agreed that the role of Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board be awarded a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) and that it should be at 40% of the benchmark, currently £7326.68 eligible from 15 May 2013.

b)     The Council agreed that the SRA to the Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB) be reviewed in twelve months to allow time for the HWB to establish its role and as potential proposals to increase the responsibilities of the HWB become clearer.

c)      The Council agreed that the position of Chairman of Employment Matters Committee be brought in to alignment with other positions that attract an SRA and that the SRA be no more than 20% of the benchmark, currently £3663.34 eligible from 15 May 2013.

d)     The Council agreed that payment of these new SRAs to the current postholders are made with effect from the date of their appointment, and are index-linked to officer pay awards for the same period, as are the other SRAs in the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

e)     The Council agreed that the Members’ Allowance Scheme be amended as indicated in Appendix 2 to the report, to reflect changes to the code of conduct for Councillors and the Standards regime.

f)        The Council agreed that officers bring back a report reviewing the composition of the Independent Remuneration Panel for consideration by Members.

Council notes that:

• the current unemployment in Medway is around 7,000 as a result of the economic crisis;

• local government will see real term cuts in central grant of 28% over the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review period, meaning a cut of £6bn in annual grant by 2015;

• extending the current Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) on shares to other asset classes such as bonds and derivatives could raise £20bn of additional revenue in the UK a year; and

• At least 11 European nations including France, Germany, Italy and Spain are moving ahead with FTTs on shares, bonds and derivatives estimated to raise £30bn a year.

Council believes that:

• revenues from the FTT could help repair the damage caused by cuts in public services since 2010;

• local government deserves to receive a significant proportion of FTT revenues, making an important contribution to both capital and revenue expenditure such as reversing cuts to council tax benefits; and that

• investing FTT revenues in a smart and progressive way would see a significant increase in employment levels.

Council requests that:

• the UK government should extend the current FTT on shares to other asset

classes, such as bonds and derivatives.

Council further resolves to:

• write to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition,

Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stating this council’s support for extending FTTs; and

• write to all local MPs outlining the Council’s position.

Council notes that:

• the current unemployment in Medway is around 7,000 as a result of the economic crisis;
• local government will see real term cuts in central grant of 28% over the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review period, meaning a cut of £6bn in annual grant by 2015;
• extending the current Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) on shares to other asset classes such as bonds and derivatives could raise £20bn of additional revenue in the UK a year; and
• At least 11 European nations including France, Germany, Italy and Spain are moving ahead with FTTs on shares, bonds and derivatives estimated to raise £30bn a year.

Council believes that:

• revenues from the FTT could help repair the damage caused by cuts in public services since 2010;
• local government deserves to receive a significant proportion of FTT revenues, making an important contribution to both capital and revenue expenditure such as reversing cuts to council tax benefits; and that
• investing FTT revenues in a smart and progressive way would see a significant increase in employment levels.

Council requests that:

• the UK government should extend the current FTT on shares to other asset classes, such as bonds and derivatives.

Council further resolves to:

• write to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stating this council’s support for extending FTTs; and
• write to all local MPs outlining the Council’s position.

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