Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 25 July 2013.

The record of the meeting held on 25 July 2013 was agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.  

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Baker, Griffiths, Mason, Price and Rodberg. 

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.

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

Councillor Christine Godwin declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in paragraph 4.1.1 (Outcome of NHS Consultation on Acute Mental Health Inpatient Beds Redesign in Kent and Medway) of agenda item 9 (Report on Overview and Scrutiny Activity) because her husband (Councillor Paul Godwin) was a Non Executive Director of Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this report

Councillor Paul Godwin declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in paragraph 4.1.1 (Outcome of NHS Consultation on Acute Mental Health Inpatient Beds Redesign in Kent and Medway) of agenda item 9 (Report on Overview and Scrutiny Activity) because he was a Non Executive Director of Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this report.

Councillor Murray declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in paragraph 2.2.1 (Medway Adult and Community Learning Ofsted – Update on Improvements) of agenda item 9 (Report on Overview and Scrutiny Activity) because the report referred to her employer (Mid Kent College).

Councillor Stamp declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in agenda item 13 (Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 – Update) because the report referred to his employer (Environment Agency).

Other interests

Councillor Adrian Gulvin declared an interest in agenda item 16B (Motion on Royal Mail) because he had subscribed to the recent Royal Mail share issue.

Councillor Kemp declared an interest in agenda item 16B (Motion on Royal Mail) because he had subscribed to the recent Royal Mail share issue and had subsequently sold his shareholding.

Councillor Mackinlay declared an interest in agenda item 16B (Motion on Royal Mail) because he had subscribed to the recent Royal Mail share issue and had subsequently sold his shareholding.

Councillor Turpin declared an interest in agenda item 16B (Motion on Royal Mail) because he had subscribed to the recent Royal Mail share issue and had subsequently sold his shareholding.

The Mayor announced two fund raising events coming up to raise funds for her chosen charities: A Charity Pig Race Night on 21 October at Medway Rugby Club, Rochester and an Indian Night on 21 November at the Shozna Restaurant in Rochester. Tickets were available from the Mayor’s Office .

The Mayor asked Members to speak clearly into the microphones to ensure people in the public gallery can hear.

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

There were none.

Councillor Osborne submitted a petition containing 183 signatures which asked Medway Council to carry out a full Community Impact Study before spending £4.4m on Rochester Airport.

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

A. Janet Stephens of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett:

“Rochester Airport Masterplan is a public infrastructure project.  Can Councillor Jarrett confirm that he understands the financial implications and liabilities that the Land Compensation Act 1973 (part 1) may impose on the airport operator?”

Councillor Jarrett stated that the Council was aware that the Land Compensation Act 1973 provided for compensation to be paid in limited circumstances to certain landowners where the value of their land was depreciated by the physical impact of public works including private airports by a relevant responsible authority.

It was not clear at this stage whether or not any compensation would be payable and, if so, to whom as a result of the proposed development at Rochester Airport. Councillor Jarrett stated that the legal advice that he had received confirmed that the airport operator would be responsible for any claims arising under the Act.

Ms Stephens asked whether Councillor Jarrett believed that local property values close to the airfield would be affected by this project and asked if he could confirm that adequate provisional funding for compensation to residents for property value reduction would be included in budgetary estimates by Rochester Airport Ltd and Medway Council to cover such an event. 

Councillor Jarrett stated that this would be a matter for the airport operators and that he was sure they would be prevailed upon to deal with things in the proper way.   

B. Colin McEvoy of Rochester had submitted the following question to the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett:

“No supporting documentation has been provided by Medway Council to validate claims of creating 1000 jobs cited in the Rochester Airport Masterplan  post 2016 when the Council  will take back the land on the west side of the airfield.  It is therefore unlikely that people in Medway desperate for new employment opportunities will see any jobs created on the land until post 2019 or beyond.

As you have publicly stated at the last Council meeting July 2013 that Medway Council has looked at options for the airfield will you therefore tell Medway Job seekers how many new jobs could possibly be created and by what date if the entire airfield closed January 2014 with the full 110 acres available for development”.

Councillor Jarrett stated that the Council had made a manifesto commitment to retain the airport, in order to maintain aviation, create jobs, and enhance heritage aspects of the site. As the entire airport would not be closing, no estimates of future job numbers had been produced for the entire site.

The number of jobs that could be created at Rochester Airport would depend on the quantum of commercial development and the types of commercial uses that were realised as a result of future negotiations with developers, and potentially with individual businesses that expressed an interest in an opportunity to develop freehold units on the site.

Mr McEvoy was not present at the meeting, therefore Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 463.

Discussion:

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

·        Education and employment opportunities

·        Economic Development and growth

·        Health and wellbeing

·        Pay Day lending

·        Children’s Services improvements

·        Rochester Airport Masterplan

·        Local Plan

·        Zero hour contracts

·        Strood Community Hub

·        Social Workers – the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member) asked that his appreciation of the work undertaken by the Council’s Social Workers be placed on record and conveyed to the staff.

Discussion:

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

• Outcomes of NHS consultation on acute mental health inpatient beds redesign in Kent and Medway
• Member development session 10 September 2013
• Rochester Airport Masterplan
• Procurement Strategy
• Overnight short breaks provision for disabled children and young children (Preston Skreens)
• Medium Term Financial Plan
• Accident and Emergency pressures
• City Deal
• Parking
• Snow Angels
• Pay day lending.

Whilst welcoming the new Liberal Democrat initiative for free school meals for all early years children, will the Portfolio Holder be conducting a thorough review of our primary schools to ensure that they all have sufficient space and facilities to provide this service?

“Whilst welcoming the new Liberal Democrat initiative for free school meals for all early years children, will the Portfolio Holder be conducting a thorough review of our primary schools to ensure that they all have sufficient space and facilities to provide this service?”

Councillor O’Brien stated that the Council would watch with interest the development of this scheme and the Council would do all it could to make best use of it in Medway.

The proposal was still in its infancy and the Council awaited details of how this was to be implemented and funded. Once there was clarity the Council would be in a position to assess and scope the space and facilities needed to deliver the project. As kitchens were constantly under review the Council already knew where the challenges would be, but the solutions would be different depending on how the project was to be delivered.

Can the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Phil Filmer, confirm how many miles of road the Council manages?

“Can the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Phil Filmer, confirm how many miles of road the Council manages?

Councillor Filmer stated that the Council had a total carriageway length of 831km (516 miles), which included single, dual carriageway and roundabouts.”

The total pavement length was 1,042km (647 miles). Obviously, the pavement length was not exactly double the carriageway length, because there were, for example, country lanes.

As some roads were dual carriageway, the total  “Lane length” was 1,714km (1,065 miles). For Highways Maintenance Budget purposes the Council looked at the highway / pavement linear distance as a total and this was often referred to as a total distance of approximately 1,500-1,600 miles.

Councillor Osborne stated that he appreciated the answer. He stated that there was a lack of clarity in the public realm about how many miles of road not highway that the Council managed, largely because of irresponsible press statements indicating that the Council had three times the amount of road than the actual total. He asked if Councillor Filmer could ensure that future statements made by the Conservative Group had the right level of number of roads and the right length.

Councillor Filmer stated that he was quite happy to send Councillor Osborne a copy of the exact figures by email.

Can the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, confirm whether he will co-sign a letter to the Chief Executive of Gillingham Football Club in support of the Stonewall 'Right Behind Gay Footballers' campaign? 

“Can the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, confirm whether he will co-sign a letter to the Chief Executive of Gillingham Football Club in support of the Stonewall 'Right Behind Gay Footballers' campaign?” 

Councillor Rodney Chambers stated that all forms of discrimination whether they be sexist, racist or homophobic had no place in a modern society, and the Council worked hard to eradicate such discrimination.

Gillingham FC had already in February 2013 committed itself to opposing homophobia by signing up to the Football Association initiative ‘Football v Homophobia’ campaign. In addition Gillingham FC backed the ‘Kick it Out’ organisation which campaigned to end all forms of discrimination in the game.

He stated that for the reasons just stated he did not consider it necessary to write to the Chief Executive of Gillingham FC as they were already supporting two campaigns to stamp out homophobia in the football game.

Councillor Osborne stated that he welcomed the support of Gillingham FC to anti-homophobia campaigns in football. This council had a significant profile within the area, including the Medway Matters publication and that a co-signed letter would reach a significantly larger number of people if the Council was to offer support to this cross-party campaign backed by the government and opposition alike, therefore, he asked again whether Councillor Rodney Chambers co-sign the letter?

Councillor Rodney Chambers stated that he had already given a reason for this not being necessary.

Please could you advise me on the number of households with rent arrears or the total amount owed to the Council in rent arrears since the implementation of the bedroom tax? 

“Please could you advise me on the number of households with rent arrears or the total amount owed to the Council in rent arrears since the implementation of the bedroom tax?” 

Councillor Jarrett stated that Medway Council’s HRA rent arrears as at 31 March 2013 were  £279,209.01 including Homes for Independent Living/Sheltered Accommodation.  This equated to a total of 828 tenants in arrears.

HRA rent arrears as at 6 October 2013 had fallen to  £269,368.64 (including Homes for Independent Living/Sheltered Accommodation) with 733 tenants in arrears. This represented a reduction overall of £9,840.37.

Councillor Igwe asked if he could be told how much in legal fees would it cost the Council to recover debts associated with this?

Councllor Jarrett stated that he would provide a written answer to the supplementary question.

Please advise me on the total number of food bank sites across Medway and the total number of households known to depend on food banks each month?

“Please advise me on the total number of food bank sites across Medway and the total number of households known to depend on food banks each month?”

Councillor Jarrett stated that he had been provided this information by Helen Gallagher, the Medway Foodbank Co-ordinator.

Medway Foodbank comprised a warehouse and office on the Medway City Estate and six local Foodbank Centres, which was where clients came to receive food donated by Medway people to support those in need.

The Medway Foodbank opened in December 2011 and on average 93 vouchers had been issued each month.

One voucher equated to sufficient food for 3-4 days, sufficient for the size of the household to whom the voucher had been issued, a basic amount for a single person, more proportionately for a family. Clients were not given more than four vouchers in succession, although voucher issuers had the discretion to issue more if they felt it was necessary.

Councillor Igwe asked how long would Medway continue to have a Foodbank?

Councillor Jarrett stated that there would be one for as long as there was a need and he suspected that this need would run for as long as it took the Conservative-led government to dig the country out of the mess it was left in by the last Labour government.

This report provides details of three schemes to be added to the Council’s Capital Programme. 

Discussion:

This report provided details of three schemes to be added to the Council’s Capital Programme: the Housing Revenue Account Development Programme, Strood Community Hub and Solar Photovoltaic Energy Systems.

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

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

(Retain recommendations 10.1-10.3) and add new recommendation 10.4:

“Council notes the decision taken by Council officers under urgency powers that future capital projects will come forward for the refurbishment/relocation of Riverside 1 and expansion of Twydall Community Hub”.

Under Council Rule 11.4.2 and with the consent of the Council, Councillor Jarrett and the seconder of the substantive motion agreed to alter the substantive motion to include the proposed amendment.

Decision:

a)     Council approved the addition of a £5.5m Housing Development Programme to the Council’s Capital Programme funded by utilising the £5.5m borrowing Headroom available to the Housing Revenue Account.

b)     Council approved the addition of £1 million to the Capital Programme to fund the refurbishment and fit-out costs of the Strood Community Hub.

c)      Council approved a funding envelope for the Solar Photovoltaic Energy Systems scheme by adding £230,000 to the capital programme.

d)     Council noted the decision taken by Council officers under urgency powers that future capital projects will come forward for the refurbishment/relocation of Riverside 1 and expansion of Twydall Community Hub.

This report sets out the following issues for consideration: a proposed amendment to the Employment Matters Committee terms of reference and a number of proposed changes to added members of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Discussion:

This report provided details of a recommendation to amend the terms of reference of the Employment Matters Committee and a number of proposed changes to co-opted/added members on the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

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

Decision:

a)     Council agreed to amend the terms of reference of the Employment Matters Committee as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

b)     Council agreed the changes to Co-opted and Added Members positions on the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee as set out in paragraph 3 of the report.

This report provides details of the new legislativerequirements of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, including necessary changes to Committee Terms of Reference, Scheme of Delegations and the fee setting process.

Discussion:

This report informed Members of the new legislativerequirements of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, including necessary changes to the Licensing and Safety Committee’s Terms of Reference, Scheme of Delegations and the fee setting process.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, Councillor Hicks, supported by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

a)     Council agreed to add responsibility for dealing with all matters relating to the functions of the Council under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 to the terms of reference of the Licensing and Safety Committee.

b)     Council noted that the Licensing and Safety Committee has agreed:

·       the powers and duties of the council as the licensing authority relating to the determination of applications made under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 be delegated to the Assistant Director, Legal and Corporate Services.

·       the setting of fees under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 be delegated to the Assistant Director, Legal and Corporate Services.

·       that the Licensing Sub Committee should consider and determine the action to be taken when representations are received from an applicant where it is proposed to refuse, vary or revoke a scrap metal licence.

c)      Council agreed the consequential changes to the Council's Constitution as set out in Appendix D to the report.

This report sets out proposed changes to the composition of the Independent Remuneration Panel along with recommendations about recruitment arrangements.

Discussion:

This report set out proposed changes to the composition of the Independent Remuneration Panel along with recommendations about recruitment arrangements.

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

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

Recommendation 7.1 – delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and replace with:

a)     to amend the membership of the Panel to a maximum of five for an initial appointment of four years and specify that applications are encouraged from people with experience in specific sectors like the business community, the charity or not-for-profit sector, or Human Resources.

b)     to authorise the Deputy Director, Customer Contact, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance to make arrangements with the South East Employers organisation to provide support by way of assistance with recruitment and induction of Panel members.

During discussion on the amendment and in response to a Member’s question, the Monitoring Officer advised that it was possible for the Panel to have a non-voting Chairman.

During debate on the amendment, as permitted (under Council rule 11.4.2) the Leader of the Council with the consent of the meeting and the seconder of the substantive motion agreed to incorporate a proposal that the Panel should comprise a non-voting Chairman from South East Employers and five other voting members. On that basis, Councillor Maple indicated his support for the revised substantive motion.  The Mayor then put the revised substantive motion to the vote.

Decision:

a)     Council agreed the membership of the Panel should comprise five people plus a non-voting Chairman (from South East Employers) for an initial appointment of four years and specified that applications should be encouraged from people with experience in specific sectors like the business community, the charity or not-for-profit sector, or Human Resources.

b)     Council agreed to authorise the Deputy Director, Customer Contact, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance to make arrangements with the South East Employers organisation to provide support by way of Chairing the Panel (in a non voting capacity) and assistance with recruitment and induction of Panel members.

c)      Council agreed to authorise the Deputy Director, Customer Contact, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance to make necessary arrangements to recruit to the vacant positions on the Panel as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report.

d)     Council agreed that Panel members be offered a fee of £50 per session and be entitled to claim back travel and subsistence costs at the same rate as elected Members.

This report details the use of urgency powers by the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture. 

Discussion:

This report provided details of the recent use of urgency powers by the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture with reference to a HR matter in July 2013 and a Housing Revenue Account issue in September 2013.

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

Decision:

Council noted the report.

This Council notes that Medway has a proud military history and has maintained strong links with the Armed Forces.

This Council also notes that Medway’s commitment to the Armed Forces Community Covenant ensures the needs of those residents of Medway who serve, or have served, the country are recognised and supported at a local level.

This Council further notes that many other residents have, through a range of professions, served the country in equally significant measures, such as in national security and defence – including those who participated in the testing of Britain’s nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s.

This Council welcomes that, following a Ministry of Defence commissioned Health Needs Analysis in 2011 of British nuclear test veterans, the NHS has introduced a number of practical measures to support them. 

This Council believes that other parts of the public and voluntary sector should seek to introduce a similar measure to support nuclear test veterans – and that the Council should lead this at a local level by extending the provisions of the Armed Forces Community Covenant to those veterans who live in Medway.

This Council notes that Medway has a proud military history and has maintained strong links with the Armed Forces.

This Council also notes that Medway’s commitment to the Armed Forces Community Covenant ensures the needs of those residents of Medway who serve, or have served, the country are recognised and supported at a local level.

This Council further notes that many other residents have, through a range of professions, served the country in equally significant measures, such as in national security and defence – including those who participated in the testing of Britain’s nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s.

This Council welcomes that, following a Ministry of Defence commissioned Health Needs Analysis in 2011 of British nuclear test veterans, the NHS has introduced a number of practical measures to support them. 

This Council believes that other parts of the public and voluntary sector should seek to introduce a similar measure to support nuclear test veterans – and that the Council should lead this at a local level by extending the provisions of the Armed Forces Community Covenant to those veterans who live in Medway.

Councillor Maple, supported by Councillor Harriott, proposed an amendment as follows:

Add new paragraph below current paragraph no. 4:

This Council further notes the significant number of residents affected by the medical conditions related to exposure to asbestos and radiation. This exposure was prevalent in the Chatham Naval Dockyard. The individuals affected were those employed at those sites, in both military and non military roles and often their immediate family members in the worst cases leading to terminal medical conditions.

Add the following text (underlined) to current paragraph 5:

This Council believes that other parts of the public and voluntary sector should seek to introduce a similar measure to support nuclear test veterans and those families impacted by exposure to asbestos and radiation – and that the Council should lead this at a local level by extending the provisions of the Armed Forces Community Covenant to those veterans who live in Medway.

During consideration of the motion and in response to a Member’s question whether the amendment could be agreed by the Council, the Monitoring Officer suggested that the word “alleged” be added to the amendment as follows:

“The alleged individuals affected…”

Under Council rule 11.4.2 Councillor Chishti, with the consent of the Council and the seconder of the substantive motion agreed to alter the substantive motion to incorporate the proposed amendment.

The mover of the motion also confirmed his support for the amendment including the Monitoring Officer’s proposed wording.

Decision:

This Council notes that Medway has a proud military history and has maintained strong links with the Armed Forces.

This Council also notes that Medway’s commitment to the Armed Forces Community Covenant ensures the needs of those residents of Medway who serve, or have served, the country are recognised and supported at a local level.

This Council further notes that many other residents have, through a range of professions, served the country  ...  view the full minutes text for item 472A)

This Council recognises that the Royal Mail is part of the fabric of our nation and believes that plans for its privatisation will lead to high prices and a reduction in services for the people who need those services the most. 

Council agrees to formally sign the “Save our Royal Mail” petition to put pressure on the Government to reverse its decision and protect the country’s postal services; and that the Leader of the Council should write to the Secretary of State for Business and Enterprise conveying the terms of this motion.

This Council recognises that the Royal Mail is part of the fabric of our nation and believes that plans for its privatisation will lead to high prices and a reduction in services for the people who need those services the most. 

Council agrees to formally sign the “Save our Royal Mail” petition to put pressure on the Government to reverse its decision and protect the country’s postal services; and that the Leader of the Council should write to the Secretary of State for Business and Enterprise conveying the terms of this motion.

Under Council rule 11.4.2, Councillor Igwe proposed the following alteration to the motion:

Delete original motion and replace with:

This Council notes the regrettable flotation of the Royal Mail and believes that this privatisation will negatively impact residents, businesses and those working for the Royal Mail in Medway. Council agrees that the Leader of the Council should write to the Secretary of State for Business and Enterprise conveying the terms of this motion.

Council rule 11.4.1 states that a Member may alter a motion of which he/she has given notice with the consent of the meeting. The meeting’s consent will be signified without discussion. On being put to the vote, the meeting did not give consent for the motion to be altered.

The original motion was withdrawn.

Council notes that over 80 councils have introduced the living wage of £7.45 an hour outside of London and £8.55 inside London. 

Council agrees to introduce the living wage to all directly employed Medway Council employees from 1 January 2014 and instruct officers to explore options to move all those who carry out work on behalf of Medway Council to also be paying the living wage.

Council notes that over 80 councils have introduced the living wage of £7.45 an hour outside of London and £8.55 inside London. 

Council agrees to introduce the living wage to all directly employed Medway Council employees from 1 January 2014 and instruct officers to explore options to move all those who carry out work on behalf of Medway Council to also be paying the living wage.

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