Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Doe, Gulvin, Gurung, Hubbard, Joy, Sands and Shokar.

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 Mahil declared an interest in agenda item No.11 (Star Hill to Sun Pier Conservation - Request to Extend the Conservation Area) as he lived within the Conservation Area. Councillor Mahil left the room during discussion and determination of the item.

Other Interests

Councillor Cook declared an interest in agenda item No.9 (Leader’s Report) as she had been interviewed, in her employment capacity, as part of the area SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) inspection of the Medway Local Area Partnership. Councillor Cook remained in the room during discussion and determination of the item.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 29 February 2024.

The record of the meeting held on 24 January 2024 was approved and signed by Worshipful the Mayor as correct.

The Deputy Mayor announced that he was deputising for the Mayor as the Mayor was recuperating from an operation. Best wishes were sent to the Mayor as she continued her recovery.

The Deputy Mayor addressed the Council with words that had been provided by the Mayor:

The Mayor gave thanks to everyone who had sent messages of support, which had given her strength and hope and had been much appreciated.

The Mayor of Medway’s Charity Fundraising Gala, held on 22 March 2024, had showcased the best of Medway to visiting dignitaries from across London and the South East. The event had and also celebrated Medway heroes past and present.

Thanks were given to Members and all the organisations that had helped to make the event a success.

Significant funds had been raised for the Mayor’s three chosen charities; SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity, Medway Help for Ukrainians and Young Medway.

The Deputy Mayor offered condolences to some Council Members who had recently lost family members.

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 – 3

Independent Group – 1

Independent Members – 4

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

The Leader gave thanks to Medway Council receptionist, Sue Lovick, who would shortly be retiring, for her excellent service. Sue had been the most recent winner of the Customer Service category at the Council’s Make a Difference awards.

Best wishes were sent to the Mayor and to other Members who were recuperating following operations.

The Leader had recently written to the Minister for Roads and Local Transport, Guy Opperman MP, in relation to the issue of potholes. The letter had made clear that the level of Government funding available to Medway Council was not adequate. A response had been received from the Minister, which the Leader had responded to.

The Leader highlighted that in 2022, a report had been considered at Overview and Scrutiny, which showed that due to investment shortfalls, there was a backlog of work that would cost approximately £35million. Due to inflation, it was estimated that the backlog now stood at £50m. The additional £400,000 that Medway had received had not been enough to make a significant impact and Medway had not been allocated any new additional funding. It was disappointing that the Minister had not accepted the Leader’s offer of a meeting to explore options around the lack of resources to address the condition of roads in Medway.

Public:

A petition was submitted that called on the Council to install a pedestrian crossing near the Bridgewood Asda in Chatham, so that the supermarket could be accessed on foot or by bus, rather than by car.

Member:

There were none.

Question A – Judith Northwood-Boorman, of Rochester, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Property,Councillor Khan:

“Medway Labour has been a leading voice for some time in various campaigns to protect the Medway Towns from over-development, including “Save Capstone Valley” and “Save Chatham Docks”. These campaigns were often against proposals that would result in a change of use for areas, whether that be farmland to housing, or business use to housing.

I note that a worrying trend has emerged of Medway Labour now supporting developments that they historically opposed publicly. In the interests of openness and honesty, will the Portfolio Holder confirm what campaigns, that Labour has supported historically, they have u-turned on now that they hold the keys to the Council?”

Councillor Curry answered the question as it was within his Cabinet Portfolio. He said that the administration was firmly committed to doing what was right for Medway, the people, the environment, businesses and visitors. A key objective was to deliver a sound Local Plan to meet the growth needs of Medway and needs set out by the Government. This included planning to deliver the homes needed for Medway’s growing population and the specific needs of those residents, providing the employment opportunities and protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment of the area. 

The Local Plan would be essential in meeting these growth needs to ensure growth would be achieved in a sustainable way, with the necessary infrastructure. This would avoid constant speculative applications, which were often determined on appeal and could result in development that did not meet the needs of Medway, could be in the wrong location and that lacked the necessary infrastructure.

Meeting growth needs through the Local Plan would mean that difficult decisions may need to be made in the interests of everyone in Medway, but such decisions would be informed by substantive evidence and work undertaken as part of the Plan making process.

Councillor Curry noted that a large part of the Capstone Valley, East Hill and Gibraltar Farm had already been subject to speculative development. There would be further applications of a similar nature without a Local Plan in place. In relation to Chatham Docks, the Council did not own the land and the landowner would be able to submit any application that they chose, which could then end up in a Public Inquiry.

Putting a Local Plan into place was fundamentally important to provide proper control of development in Medway.

No supplementary question was asked asJudith Northwood-Boorman was not present.

Question B – Emma Wade, of Rochester, submitted the following to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray:

“As I was a single mum, I have often contacted Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) for advice on matters to do with housing, benefits, and advice on domestic abuse related issues.

I recently called for support and was told that they are no longer funded. I believe this is a vital service.

I work for the NHS  ...  view the full minutes text for item 758.

 This report sets out motions received for this meeting.

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

“This Council notes that since May 2023 the carriageways across Medway have deteriorated far beyond what is acceptable. In many cases repairs completed in early 2023 have again become a hazard to road users.

In presenting its budget for 2024/2025, the Medway Labour and Co-Operative Group have reduced the budget for repairs by £300,000, which will mean that it is likely a further significant deterioration will occur in the next twelve months.

The Council notes that the Conservative Government and Secretary of State for Transport as part of Network North has provided an additional £401,000 for this financial year, followed by further funding in coming years totalling to £12.5 million to Medway Council for repairs.

The Council recommends the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Climate Change to reinstate funding for carriageway patching to address the backlog of repairs.”

Councillor Curry, supported by Councillor Peake, proposed the following amendment:

Council notes that since May 2023 2010 the carriageways across Medway have deteriorated far beyond what is acceptable. In many cases repairs completed in early 2023 have again become a hazard to road users.

In presenting its budget for 2024/2025, the Medway Labour and Co-Operative Group have reduced the budget for repairs by £300,000, which will mean that it is likely a further significant deterioration will occur in the next twelve months.

The Council notes that the Conservative Government and Secretary of State for Transport as part of Network North has provided an additional £401,000 for this financial year, followed by further funding in coming years totalling to £12.5 million to Medway Council for repairs.

The Council recommends the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Climate Change to reinstate funding for carriageway patching to address the backlog of repairs.

Council welcomes the letter Cllrs. Maple and Curry sent to the Government calling for more financial support to address the £50m backlog in road repairs and recognises that after years of decline a significant intervention is required in order to restore our traffic network to a satisfactory standard.

Council also recognises and thanks the work of officers who continue to deliver on all parts of our highway network within this limiting and challenging financial envelope.

Amended motion reads:

Council notes that since May 2010 the carriageways across Medway have deteriorated far beyond what is acceptable.

Council welcomes the letter Cllrs. Maple and Curry sent to the Government calling for more financial support to address the £50m backlog in road repairs and recognises that after years of decline a significant intervention is required in order to restore our traffic network to a satisfactory standard.

Council also recognises and thanks the work of officers who continue to deliver on all parts of our highway network within this limiting and challenging financial envelope.

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

For:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 759.

Discussion:

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

• The SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) inspection of the Medway Local Area Partnership including the significant improvements made and recognition of further work required.
• Development of the Refresh Medway Cultural Education Partnership project and the increased signage in Chatham, Gillingham and Strood.
• The Exceptional Financial Support for Medway agreed by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the development of the One Medway Financial Improvement and Transformation Plan. 
• Development of the One Medway Council Plan, which was the first time the Council had undertaken public consultation on the priorities within  its Plan.
• UK Shared Prosperity Fund Round 3 – following Round 2, which had been oversubscribed, Round 3 would be launching on 1 May at the Rochester Corn Exchange.
• The Business and Skills Showcase recently held at Mid Kent College featuring small and medium sized businesses.
• The Pride in Medway awards, which would take place on 19 April. People and organisations nominated for awards were congratulated.
• The poor condition of some roads in Medway.
• Some concern about the introduction of Red Routes.
• Development of Adult Education in Medway and skills development work being undertaken with Job Centres.
• The development of the Gillingham Task Force to address challenges in Gillingham town centre.
• Concern about support available for armed forces veterans.
• Medway residents who had come together to clean their communities as part of the Great British spring clean.
• Commencement of the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) which targeted nuisance use of vehicles.

Decision:

The Council noted the report.

This report sets out Members’ questions received for this meeting. 

Question A – Councillor Crozer asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

“Could the Portfolio Holder update us on any progress with the UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site status bid, for East Coast Wetlands, and a bid for Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) status - both benefiting the Hoo Peninsula?”

Councillor Curry said that the bid had been submitted by the RSPB and supported by Medway Council, following a motion submitted by the Independent Group at a previous Full Council meeting. The process could take several years, Councillor Curry had contacted the RSPB to reiterate the Council’s support and to establish what progress had been made.

The RSPB had provided the following update:

“Following the successful addition last year of the East Coast Flyway to the UK tentative list of NWHS sites, we are now assessing how best to move forward with completing the nomination dossier (indicative costs, proposed funding streams, further detail on how partnerships might work, etc). This dossier is required before a nomination can proceed.

We have commissioned a specialist consultant to produce a report to this effect and we expect this to be completed imminently.

RSPB staff continue to engage with stakeholders (local authorities, coastal forums and statutory bodies) to maintain momentum and cultivate awareness of the tentative listing.

Links with other similar World Heritage Sites (Waddensea Secretariat and the Getbol Korean Tidal Flats) continue to strengthen. We are working on an arrangement with the Korean Ministry for Oceans and Fisheries for bilateral sharing of expertise related to coastal habitat management and successful UNESCO inscription.

UNESCO’s preliminary assessment is expected in September 2026 with potential nomination and World Heritage Status inscription in 2029.”

In relation to the AONB, which were now called Natural Landscapes, the Government had changed the rules and Councillor Curry had therefore spoken to the North Kent Downs, a national landscape team, to understand the impact of the changes and whether they could be applied to the Hoo Peninsula and North Kent Marshes.

The Council had been working hard with communities on the Hoo Peninsula over the previous year. Community consultations in relation to local infrastructure had been established and funding for the development of Deangate Country Park was in place. The development of Neighbourhood Plans had been supported Hoo and in High Halstow.

Question B – Councillor Mandaracas asked the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs, the following:

“Given the national struggles post-pandemic, what progress has the Council’s education team had on increasing attendance rates in the last year?”

Councillor Coombs said that school attendance had taken a significant dip following the pandemic. Poor attendance had a significant impact on outcomes for children, significant work had been undertaken to improve it in Medway.

In the last year, the Attendance Team had worked to implement the Council’s Attendance Action Plan, following the publication of further statutory guidance on attendance in 2022 ‘Working together to improve attendance’. The Plan included identifying and working  ...  view the full minutes text for item 761.

This report seeks Council approval to extend the boundary of the Star Hill to Sun Pier Conservation Area, as recommended in the Management Plan.

Background:

This report sought Council approval to extend the boundary of the Star Hill to Sun Pier Conservation Area, as recommended in the Management Plan.

The Star Hill to Sun Pier Conservation Area Appraisal and Conservation Area Management Plan had previously been approved by Cabinet on 13 February 2024, as set out at section 6 to the report.

Extensions to the Conservation Area boundary, as proposed within the Management Plan, required Full Council approval.

The Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, supported by Councillor Campbell, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council approved the extension of the boundary of the Star Hill to Sun Pier Conservation Area to include the Bethal Chapel, Chatham High Street, Manor Road and Hammond Hill, as set out in Appendix 4 to the report.

This report requests that the Council approves the  Cumulative Impact Assessment 2024 to 2027, following consideration by the Licensing and Safety Committee on 19 March 2024 and by the Cabinet on 9 April 2024.

Background:

This report set out the proposed Licensing Cumulative Impact Assessment 2024 to 2027. Cumulative Impact Assessments were required to be reviewed every three years, with the current Assessment due to expire on 30 April 2024. The Cumulative Impact Assessment formed part of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

The report had previously been considered by the Licensing and Safety Committee on 19 March 2024 and by the Cabinet on 9 April 2024.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne, supported by the Chairperson of the Licensing and Safety Committee, Councillor McDonald, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council approved the Cumulative Impact Assessment 2024 to 2027, as set out in Appendix E to the report.

This report seeks approval to amend the scheme of delegation in relation to the referral of planning applications to the Planning Committee. It also seeks approval to amend the Planning Code of Good Practice, in relation to the role of ward Councilors addressing the Committee.

Background:

This report sought approval to amend the Scheme of Delegation in relation to the referral of planning applications to the Planning Committee. It also requested approval to amend the Planning Code of Good Practice, in relation to the role of ward Councillors addressing the Committee.

The report had previously been considered by the Planning Committee on 13 March 2024, the minutes of which were set out at section 6 of the report.

The proposed changes were detailed in paragraphs 3.2-3.6 of the report and at Appendix A. There was an additional change detailed in paragraph 7.2 of the report regarding the need for consistency on the number of letters of representation from different households.

In relation to the number of letters of representation, Members were referred to a drafting error on page 520 of the Agenda. “More than five” should read “five or more”. This confirmed that the minimum number of relevant letters of representation would be five – the proposed change, as drafted, implied that the minimum number could have been six, which was incorrect.

The Chairperson of the Planning Committee, Councillor Stamp, supported by Councillor Jones, proposed the recommendations set out in the report, subject to the reference to “more than five relevant letters of representation” on page 520 of the Agenda being amended to read “five or more relevant letters of representation”.

Councillor Hackwell, supported by Councillor Gilbourne, proposed the following amendment:

Council is recommended to approve the changes to the Planning Code of Good Practice, as set out in Appendix B to the report subject to the following wording to be added to the end of section 7.1 (ii) of Appendix B (page 523 of the Agenda):

Each Ward Councillor will also be permitted to speak for up to 2 minutes at the end of the debate, prior to any summing up by the Chairperson and the vote being taken.

Amended recommendation 1.2 reads:

Council is recommended to approve the changes to the Planning Code of Good Practice, as set out in Appendix B to the report subject to the following wording to be added to the end of section 7.1 (ii) of Appendix B (page 523 of the Agenda):

Each Ward Councillor will also be permitted to speak for up to 2 minutes at the end of the debate, prior to any summing up by the Chairperson and the vote being taken.

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

Decisions:

a)      The Council approved the changes to the Employee Delegation Scheme, as set out in Appendix A to the report, subject to the reference to “more than five relevant letters of representation” on page 520 of the Agenda being amended to read “five or more relevant letters of representation”.

b)      The Council approved the changes to the Planning Code of Good Practice, as set out in Appendix B to the report.

This report asks the Council to make a number of recommendations to the Annual meeting of the Council on 15 May 2024 regarding the committees and other bodies to be appointed for 2024/2025 and also a programme of meetings.

Background:

This report asked the Council to make a number of recommendations to the Annual meeting of the Council on 15 May 2024 regarding the committees and other bodies to be appointed for 2024/2025 and also set out the proposed programme of meetings.

On 24 January 2024, the Council had agreed a draft schedule of meetings for 2024/2025. Since then, there had been ongoing discussions around the dates of some of the Cabinet Sub-Committee meetings. It was anticipated that finalised dates would be included in the report to the Annual Council meeting.

Councillor Myton, supported by Councillor Browne, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decisions:

The Council agreed to recommend to Annual Council on 15 May 2024:

a)    The establishment of committees, sub committees and task groups, their size and the allocation of seats to political groupsas set out in Appendices A and B to the report, together with terms of reference as set out in the Council’s constitution.

b)    That appointments should be made to Joint Committees, outside bodies and other bodies as set out in Appendix C (with nominees to be reported at the Annual Council meeting).

c)    The timetable of meetings for the 2024/2025 municipal year as set out in Appendix D.

d)    To delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with Group Whips, to vary the schedule of meetings during the 2024/2025 municipal year as required, on the basis set out in paragraph 5.4 of the report.

This report provides a summary of the work of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees since the last report to Council on 24 January 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 24 January 2024.

Councillor Tejan, supported by Councillor Paterson, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Members raised the following issues during debate:

• Work undertaken by the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee in relation to access of children and young people to dental services.
• Acknowledgement of the work undertaken by all four overview and scrutiny committees including Members and officers supporting them.
• The opportunity available to each Committee to look at the development of the Local Plan.

·      The return of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and Dermatology services to Medway, although other Stroke services were not returning.

Decision:

The Council noted the report.

This report details contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of Contract Procedure Rule 1.8.2 of the Contract Procedures Rules which were effective for the period this report covers.

Exemptions to Contract Procedure Rules, to deal with the letting of contracts in exceptional circumstances where it is considered to be in the best interests of the Council to do so, can be approved by the Monitoring Officer, provided that the exemption does not breach UK Directive, Statute or Regulation.

Background:

This report provided details of one contract awarded during the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, in accordance with the provisions paragraph 1.8.2 of the Contract Procedure Rules which were effective for the period covered by the report.

The report stated that exemptions to Contract Procedure Rules to deal with the letting of contracts in exceptional circumstances, where it was in the best interests of the Council to do so, could be approved by the Monitoring Officer, provided that the exemption did not breach any UK Directive, Statute or Regulation.

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

Decision:

The Council noted the contents of the report.

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

Background:

This report provided details of one contract awarded during the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, in accordance with the provisions paragraph 1.8.2 of the Contract Procedure Rules which were effective for the period covered by the report.

The report stated that exemptions to Contract Procedure Rules to deal with the letting of contracts in exceptional circumstances, where it was in the best interests of the Council to do so, could be approved by the Monitoring Officer, provided that the exemption did not breach any UK Directive, Statute or Regulation.

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

Decision:

The Council noted the contents of the report.