Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Animashaun, Etheridge, Gurung and Jones.

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 Field declared an interest in motion 8B as he is a Governor of Abbey Court Community Special School. Councillor Field had been offered a dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to enable him to participate in discussion and voting on the item but Councillor Field considered that it was appropriate for him to leave the room during discussion and determination of the item. He therefore left the room during consideration of the item.

Councillor Kemp declared an interest in motion 8B as he is a Governor of Abbey Court Community Special School. Councillor Kemp had been granted a dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to enable him to participate in discussion and voting on the item and he therefore remained in the room during consideration of the item.

Other interests

There were none.  

To approve the record of the meeting held on 27 February 2025.

The record of the Full Council meeting held on 27 February 2025 was approved and signed by Worshipful the Mayor as correct.

The Worshipful The Mayor of Medway announced that Councillor Filmer’s wife, Di, had recently passed away. The funeral had taken place recently and had been attended by a number of Council Members and officers. The Mayor offered the Council’s condolences to Councillor Filmer and his family.

The Mayor reflected on the recent passing of Pope Francis. He said the Pope had inspired millions with his compassion, wisdom, and unwavering faith and had championed peace and the love of all neighbours.

The Mayor thanked everyone who had attended the Annual Mayor’s Ball on 11 April 2025 in support of my Mayoral charities, the Halpern Charitable Foundation and Medway Culture Club. Over 260 guests had attended and the evening had been a great success with a significant amount having been raised to support the work of these charities.

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.

Decision:

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

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

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

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

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

Labour and Co-operative Group – 4

Conservative Group – 2

Independent Group – 1

Reform UK Group – 1

Independent Members – 3

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

There were none. 

Public:

There were none.

Member:

A petition was submitted by Councillor Wildey on behalf of residents of Lordswood Close and Slade Close, Chatham. This opposed the removal of a protective wall on the grounds that it would be a road safety danger to children.

A petition was submitted by Councillor Field that called on the Council to introduce a 20mph speed limit in central Strood.

Question A – Lewis Bailey, of Gillingham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

“Despite receiving legal advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Independent Group refused to alter their motion to a form which would make it compatible with not predetermining any elements of the Local Plan. Council resolved to seek additional external legal advice on this issue, with a view to bring it back.

Instead of just listening to the expert opinion of the Council’s own legal team, the Independent Group forced a situation where the Council had to outsource this work. How much did this external legal advice cost the Council?”

In response, Councillor Curry said that it was not unusual for a second opinion to be sought on some matters for the Council, particularly where the stance taken differed from that which was historically accepted. On this occasion the provision of the external advice had cost £3,120, inclusive of VAT.

Lewis Bailey asked the following supplementary question:

“Given there’s already another motion being put forward by the Independent Group, do we not think this has potential to damage the Local Plan and what are the potential financial implications for the Council if these options pass?”

Councillor Curry considered that there would be an impact if the Local Plan stalled at the current stage, which would be difficult to manage. Medway’s previous Local Plan dated from 2003 when Plans usually only covered a maximum period of 15 years and therefore there would be an implication if there was a further delay.

The Council had been fighting speculative planning applications from developers across Medway, including Cliffe, the Hoo Peninsula and the Capstone Valley. Where the Council opposed these developments, it constantly lost planning enquiries. The cost to the Council had been in the hundreds of thousands of pounds and that could not be sustained. Medway had one of the highest planning enquiry costs of anywhere in the country so the lack of a Local Plan was one that needed to be resolved.

Question B – Katie Lowe, of Rainham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:

“How many dinosaurs have you seen in Medway this month? You may have noticed 1 of the new 21 signs in Medway’s four Air Quality Management Areas asking drivers to switch off their engines at traffic lights, featuring our recently recruited mascot Dino, a logo designed by young creatives at MidKent College.

These signs have been erected to reduce pollution, protect the health of children and those with asthma, and save our pennies. "Turn Off When You Stop", our Medway Breathes slogan, is intended to go far broader. We are looking to find ways to spread the message and particularly encourage drivers to turn off outside schools. We are already building partnerships across the local communities, schools and businesses to ensure our children’s lungs are protected.

Beyond the School Streets scheme, which is not practical for all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 855.

This report sets out motions received for this meeting.

Motion A – Proposed by Councillor Mrs Turpin and supported by Councillor Pearce:

“Chatham Docks is under threat of development from landlords Peel Land and Property, who continue to claim that the site is no longer financially viable, despite having used their ownership of the land to demonstrate their commitment to employment when applying for residential planning permission on the adjacent Chatham Waters site.

The Docks has a 400-year history but in last year's Regulation 18 consultation the Chatham Docks site appeared in the Council’s preferred Spatial Growth Option - The Blended Strategy.

This Council notes that:

·      Chatham Docks is a thriving commercial port which directly provides 795 skilled local jobs.

·      The Docks indirectly supports an additional 1,440 jobs through the supply chain.

·      The businesses located at Chatham Docks make a significant positive contribution to Medway’s economy, with £89 million of annual investment into Medway. The Docks use environmentally sustainable methods to transport goods, which would otherwise be exported by road.

·      The closure of Chatham Docks would have a disastrous impact on the employees and their families because they would either lose their jobs or have to relocate; and some of the businesses at Chatham Docks are physically unable to relocate due to the nature of their operation.

·      Medway’s Local Plan has not yet been approved, and previous iterations have been criticised for failing to designate sufficient levels of employment land.

This Council resolves to ask the relevant officers to consider to remove the Chatham Docks site from the Council’s preferred option in the forthcoming Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Draft Plan to safeguard employment, skills and the local economy and re-designate Chatham Docks as solely for employment use before the Local Plan is submitted for approval.”

The Monitoring Officer informed the Council that he had advised all Members that in his opinion, the motion should not be debated during the current meeting and that the matter ought to be considered at the June meeting of full Council when the draft Medway Local Plan will be considered. To have a debate in advance of that meeting would increase the risk of legal challenge to the draft local plan because challenges may be brought on the basis of predetermination and / or bias.

The Monitoring Officer had recently shared the advice of King’s Counsel with all Members who had advised that the Monitoring Officer “should allow the matter to be debated, if pressed”

King’s Counsel had further advised:

“It is highly desirable that all Members now refrain from communications about the Local Plan until their opportunity to do so at that determinative Meeting that must be conducted with all Members of the Council having demonstrably not closed their minds, which, were it to occur, would be contrary to their decision-making duties.”

The Monitoring Officer stated that when the substantive motion was put to the vote, he advised Members to vote against the motion to avoid having a Council decision being made prematurely in advance of proper consideration of the Local Plan. Any such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 856.

Discussion:

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

·      Local Government Reorganisation proposals which were expected to see the current 14 councils in Kent and Medway replaced by three or four unitary authorities. Medway’s preference was for four unitaries to be created. Following public engagement over summer 2025, Medway and the other councils would be required to submit final proposals to Government in November.

·      Disappointment that Kent and Medway had not being included in the Government’s Devolution priority programme and the impact this could have on funding.

·      The work being undertaken to support Medway becoming a Marmot Place. This was recognised as being an important step to tackling health inequalities in Medway.

·      The approaching 80^th anniversaries of Victory in Europe (VE) Day and Victory over Japan (VJ) Day and the events taking place in Medway to mark the anniversaries, such as a service and parade taking place at Rochester Cathedral, 13 local street parties and six beacons being lit across Medway.

·      Year 4 of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and its availability for Medway businesses.

·      The hosting of the Brickwrecks sunken ships Lego exhibition at the Historic Dockyard, Chatham.

·      The latest Medway Question Time and City Hall events which provide an opportunity for residents, stakeholders and young people to put questions to the Leader and other senior Council figures.

·      The second year of ‘Welcome to Medway’ family events.

·      Hosting of the LV21 Light Ship at Chatham Historic Dockyard.

·      The Pride in Medway event with 199 nominations having been made with there being particular recognition of the overall winner, Paul Dennington.

·      Recognition of Ashley Hook, the Chief Executive of MHS Homes for his work in relation to housing and charity.

·      The development of the Medway Climate Change Action Plan including the target of planting 10,000 trees by 2028. 3,500 had already been planted at Deangate Ridge.

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

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

“The condition of road surfaces in Medway remains at the forefront of public attention.

In some cases, potholes and deteriorating top surfaces are the result of water leaks which often continue for days despite being reported to Southern Water.

An example of this being the Allhallows Road between Lower Stoke and Allhallows. Other causes are overburdened wastewater and sewage facilities which Southern Water is aware of but does nothing about.

Can the Portfolio Holder tell me how much money has been reclaimed by Medway Council from Southern Water to cover road surface damage that could have and indeed should have been avoided, but for the apparent failings of Southern Water?”

In response, Councillor Paterson said that between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2025, the Council had recovered £117,800 from Southern Water through failed reinstatements, fixed penalty charges, and over-running works.

No reports had been received of road surface damage caused by water leaks on the highway network. In the event of surface water damage being identified, the Council would use its recharging mechanism to reclaim costs from Southern Water.

Question B – Councillor Mrs Turpin asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

“Back in February this year, consultants engaged the community in Rainham to launch work on a new feasibility study for the town centre. This event included a number of Councillors, the MP and Cabinet Members.

A similar community consultation group was put together for the Hoo Peninsula - named the Hoo Community Infrastructure Framework, again using consultants. However, this engagement work excluded elected ward Members and Parish Councillors.

Can the Portfolio Holder explain the difference in approach taken, which snubbed elected Members for the Hoo Peninsula?”

In response, Councillor Curry said that the consultation had been put together for the Hoo Community Infrastructure Framework engagement programme. The draft framework that had emerged and its recommendations had been informed by an extensive programme of engagement that over 650 people had participated in.

13 events and drop-in sessions had been hosted and a Community Panel created, made up of people living across the Hoo Peninsula. The Panel held four workshops and a final presentation to ward and parish Councillors and it was therefore slightly unfair to say that they had been excluded from the process.

All the events and drop in sessions had been promoted through local and social media and over 50 groups based on the Peninsula were contacted directly, asking them to make their members aware of the ways in which they could get involved.

This was a co-design process by which trust was built by sharing knowledge and experience, with everyone in the group being equal. It was designed so that the Panel was a mechanism for in depth engagement. This included a group of residents, who could share their experiences, build their knowledge about planning, section 106 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 858.

This report asks the Council to make a number of recommendations to the Annual meeting of the Council on 14 May 2025 regarding the committees and other bodies to be appointed for 2025/2026 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 14 May 2025 regarding the committees and other bodies to be appointed for 2025/2026 and also set out the proposed programme of meetings.

On 23 January 2025, the Council had agreed a draft schedule of meetings for 2025/2026. As reported to Cabinet on 11 March 2025, when it received a report on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and Devolution, it was necessary to add a special Council meeting on Thursday 13 November 2025 to the meetings schedule for the purpose of submitting comments to Cabinet on 21 November 2025 regarding the proposed final submission to Government on LGR, ahead of the deadline of 28 November 2025.

It was noted that Councillors Hubbard and Shokar had re-joined the Labour and Co-operative Group since publication of the Council Agenda, a review of political balance would therefore have to be undertaken in advance of the Annual Council meeting on 14 May.

Councillor Peake, supported by Councillor Kemp, proposed the recommendations set out in the report, noting that the recommendations at paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 [decisions a and b below] would be subject to the outcome of a review of the allocation of seats following the increase in size of the Labour and Co-operative Group from 29 members to 31 members.

Decisions:

The Council agreed to recommend to Annual Council on 14 May 2025:

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 to the report (with nominees to be reported at the Annual Council meeting).

c)    The timetable of meetings for the 2025/2026 municipal year as set out in Appendix D to the report.

d)    To delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with Group Whips, to vary the schedule of meetings during the 2025/2026 municipal year as required, on the basis set out in paragraph 5.4 of the report.

This report sets out a review of the changes as to how full Council meetings are conducted and proposes to make some permanent changes, following initial consideration at the January 2025 full Council meeting. The report also confirms the proposal to trial some further changes with regards to public and Member questions at Council meetings.

Background:

This report set out a review of the changes as to how full Council meetings were conducted and proposed to make some permanent changes, following initial consideration at the January 2025 full Council meeting. The report also confirmed the proposal to trial some further changes with regards to public and Member questions at Council meetings.

This report also recommended changes to the Constitution with regards to the Employee Scheme of Delegation and to the Kent and Medway NHS Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee terms of reference.

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

Decisions:

a)    The Council approved the changes to the Council Rules, as set out in Appendix A to the report, in respect of changes to the arrangements for conducting full Council meetings.

b)    The Council approved the revised terms of reference for the Kent and Medway NHS Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as set out in Appendix B to the report.

c)    The Council approved changes to the Employee Scheme of Delegation, as set out in Appendix C to 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 23 January 2025.

Background:

This report provided a summary of the work of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees since the last report to Council on 23 January 2025.

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

The reports considered by the Council’s four Overview and Scrutiny Committees during the previous three months were highlighted. The Committees were thanked for their work over the previous year including:

·      Holding health partners to account, pressing for action in relation to GP shortages, access to dental services and pharmacy services.

·      The issue of underused space in the Healthy Living Centres was raised.

·      Raising concerns about the funding pressures facing nurseries and pushing for fairer local allocations.

·      Welcoming progress on Family Hubs and Start for Life.

·      Considering a Call-In of a Cabinet decision in relation to the School Streets Scheme.

·      Monitoring the Council’s finances in a challenging climate.

·      Development of a more robust process for scrutiny reviews through a new Task Group Protocol.

Decision:

The Council noted the report.

This report details contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Contract Procedures Rules.

Background:

This report provided details of one contract awarded during the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Contract Procedure Rules.

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

Decision:

The Council noted the contents of the report.

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

Background:

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

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council noted the use of urgency provisions as set out in section 4 of the report.