Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Animashaun, Browne and Doe.

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

Councillor Shokar declared an interest in Agenda item No.13 (Review of the Constitution) as he works for Medway Voluntary Action. Councillor Shokar did not participate in discussion and voting on the item.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

To approve the record of the meetings held on 24 April, 14 May and 26 June 2025.

The records of the Full Council meetings held on 24 April, 14 May and 26 June 2025 were approved and signed by Worshipful the Mayor as correct.

The Worshipful The Mayor of Medway announced that Councillor Bowen’s mother had recently passed away. The Mayor offered his condolences on behalf of the Council to Councillor Bowen and her family.

The Mayor announced some forthcoming events in support of his chosen charities, Caring Hands and Slide Away.

In October, there would be a charity dinner at Spice Fusion and on 29 November there would be a theatrical production of Charles Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ at Eastgate House.

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 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 – 1

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

The Leader sent his best wishes to the England women’s football team, who were playing a match against Sweden, in the European Championships, later in the evening. 

Public:

A petition was submitted on behalf residents of Fort Horsted, in relation to Extending Fort Horsted’s bus route and expanding Aviation Business Park.

Member:

A petition was submitted by Councillor Pearce on behalf of Stoke Parish Council. The petition was entitled, ‘Help Save the Lower Stoke Car Park’. The petition called on the Council to either reverse the decision to declare Lower Stoke Business Park surplus to requirements and to dispose of the property or to donate and transfer the freehold of the car park at minimal cost to Stoke Parish Council.

A petition was submitted by Councillor Spalding on behalf of residents of Allhallows. The petition was entitled ‘The Allhallows Road Safety Petition’. The petition called on Medway Council to make roads in the area safe.

A petition was submitted by Councillor Peake on behalf of residents of Snodhurst House, Wayfield Road, Chatham. The petition called on Medway Council to provide a safe place to cross the busy Wayfield Road to enable pedestrians to access the bus stop opposite. The petition further called on the Council to review existing signage and to install additional signage as necessary.

Question A – Vivienne Parker, of Chatham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

“As you may be aware a planning application has been lodged to build 500 homes on the site of the old gas works in the Strand, but unfortunately the ground survey has revealed the presence of cyanide and asbestos amongst other hydrocarbon type pollutants. 

Can the Council confirm this site is on the highly polluted sites register.”

In response, Councillor Curry said that the site was not currently recorded on a register. More detailed information on this location could be obtained by following the process on the Council’s website and Councillor Curry would ask the Council’s Democratic Services team to contact the questioner with the specific weblink.

The site owner recognised the contamination issues on site and had experience of dealing with similar former gas holder sites elsewhere in Kent. In these cases, where planning permission had been granted, the contamination issue had been dealt with appropriately and the developments had successfully been delivered.

Councillor Curry had met with the developer and they had provided reassurance of their expertise in this field. Medway had a long history of redeveloping contaminated sites and he drew attention to Rochester Riverside, which was one example. The Medway Local Plan, which was currently in the Regulation 19 consultation stage, had identified that approximately 40% of development for new homes would be on brownfield sites.

Vivienne Parker asked the following supplementary question:

“Can the Council assure me that the local residents and people living near by will be kept safe from the escape of pollution from this site during the remediation process?”

Councillor Curry said that he could give this assurance. The company was very experienced at this kind of work, all of which took place in fairly dense urban areas and they had a very good track record of keeping pollution under tight control and making sure that contamination was not released.

Question B – Nicholas Chan, of Rainham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

“Very often infrastructure comes after development. Right now, there are business opportunities and a new care home planned at Medway's Innovation Centre. Also, it is widely reported that Medway Council sat on unused s106 money.

Will Councillors use these opportunities to improve transportation choices for Chatham residents such as extending bus route 185 to the future developments across Fort Horsted?”

In response, Councillor Curry said that it would be incorrect to say that Medway had sat on S106 money. The Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement, the next one of which would be in December 2025 was a point in time and set out what agreements have been made, what money had come in, what money had been spent and the further infrastructure planned. 

Contributions were being received every week, relevant schemes were being funded and delivered and that meant there was regular turnover of S106 funding. A big scheme was sometimes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

This report sets out the motions received for this meeting.

Motion A – Proposed by Councillor Finch and supported by Councillor Vye:

“This Council recognises the urgent need for fairer access to mobility support for residents facing serious but time-limited health conditions, such as cancer treatment or recovery from major injury, who currently fall outside the eligibility criteria of the national Blue Badge scheme.

We note the growing support for the KentOnline “Blue Badge Battle” campaign, including cross-party backing from all 18 Kent MPs, who have called for a temporary Blue Badge concession scheme to support those in genuine need.

This Council further notes that:

·       The Department for Transport’s current guidance restricts eligibility to conditions expected to last at least three years, which excludes many residents enduring serious but non-permanent impairments.

·       Medway Council already follows national guidance but is now, appropriately, in active discussions about the potential for a local scheme, as confirmed by Council officers.

·       Introducing a carefully designed temporary concession scheme could offer vital short-term support while reinforcing Medway’s reputation as a compassionate, resident-focused authority.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1)    Support, in principle, the creation of a Medway-based temporary parking concession scheme for residents with significant mobility impairments arising from serious but time-limited conditions.

2)    Request that officers continue to work with Parking Services and other departments to develop a viable, clearly communicated local framework, with suitable eligibility criteria and enforcement guidance.

3)    Urge the administration to bring forward proposals for this scheme via the appropriate governance routes, with an update to Full Council no later than January 2026.

4)    Call on Medway’s MPs to raise this issue in Parliament and press for a national legislative amendment to embed such flexibility in the statutory Blue Badge scheme.”

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

“This Council recognises the urgent need for fairer access to mobility support for residents facing serious but time-limited health conditions, such as cancer treatment or recovery from major injury, who currently fall outside the eligibility criteria of the national Blue Badge scheme.

We note the growing support for the Kent Online “Blue Badge Battle” campaign, including cross-party backing from all 18 Kent MPs, who have called for a temporary Blue Badge concession scheme to support those in genuine need.

This Council further notes that:

·       The Department for Transport’s current guidance restricts eligibility to conditions expected to last at least three years, which excludes many residents enduring serious but non-permanent impairments;

·       Medway Council already follows national guidance but is now, appropriately, in active discussions about the potential for a local scheme, as confirmed by Council officers;

·       Introducing a carefully designed temporary concession scheme could offer vital short-term support while reinforcing Medway’s reputation as a compassionate, resident-focused authority.

·       The Council currently has a system in place in those circumstances where individuals have received an SR1 form because their condition is moving towards an end-of-life situation. In those circumstances a blue badge in the existing system is normally dispatched within a few days.

This Council welcomes:

·       The letter from the Leader of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Discussion:

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

·       Local Government reorganisation progress and the strong cross party working taking place across Kent and Medway.

·       The recent Special Council meeting which had approved publication of the Pre-Submission Draft Medway Local Plan. Residents and other local stakeholders were encouraged to share their view up until the deadline of 11 August.

·       The change to enable 16 and 17 year olds to vote at future elections which had just been confirmed by the Government.

·       Concern about the number of children in Medway who were currently in temporary accommodation and the importance of the Local Plan in addressing this.

·       Recent parliamentary meetings including a regional meeting of MPs that had been chaired by Councillor Maple and an event hosted by Visit Kent.

·       The success of Victory in Europe (VE) Day commemorations in Medway.

·       Armed Forces Day and the creation of the Medway Armed Forces Partnership Board.

·       The refresh of the One Medway Financial Improvement and Transformation Plan.

·       The refresh of tennis courts and the Splash Pad at the Strand.

·       Regeneration of St John’s Church.

·       Opening of two new buildings at Victory Academy.

·       The creation of the North Kent Downs and Woods National Nature Reserve.

·       Hosting of the Medway Live staff engagement events at the Central Theatre by the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive.

·       The introduction of public and Member questions at Cabinet meetings and changes trailed at Council meetings that aimed to reduce meeting length.

·       Retention of eight Green Flags for Medway parks and open spaces and the aim for Deangate to also achieve Green Flag status.

·       The variety of flags flown outside Gun Wharf in recent months to represent the whole Medway community.

·       The restructuring and rightsizing of Adult Social Care.

·       The free classes being provided by Public Health to support people to maintain their health and wellbeing.

·       The opening of the James Williams Healthy Living Centre at the Pentagon Centre and the wrap around services that this would provide.

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

Question A – Councillor Hamilton asked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, the following:

“Have our HR policies ever allowed elected Members — under any administration — to unilaterally override staff contracts or working conditions outside proper processes?”

In response, Councillor Van Dyke said that the Medway Pay Policy Statement was reviewed annually by the Employment Matters Committee and Full Council, and any other policy changes that may impact working conditions would be subject to consultation with Trade Union colleagues and through the Employment Matters Committee.

It was not possible for Members to make changes to these matters outside of these processes.

As the General Secretary of Unison had said in standing up for the rights of working people, who had been unacceptably threatened, it was disappointing but not unexpected that Nigel Farage thought he could immediately threaten local government workers in the councils Reform UK now controlled. Councillor Van Dyke concluded that the UK had laws that protected workers and strong unions that would stand up for their Members.

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

“Can the Leader confirm whether it would be legal for this Council to pass a budget which would deny young people with support like driving lessons or education access based on their immigration status or background, as Reform UK have recently suggested, on the basis that Medway Council has a statutory duty of care to young people who are in our care until the age of 25?”

In response, Councillor Maple said that Medway Council, like all local authorities in England with care responsibilities, had clear and binding statutory responsibilities towards all children and young people in its care, including care leavers up to the age of 25. These responsibilities were underpinned by several key pieces of legislation and statutory guidance.

This duty was the foundation of the Council’s role as a corporate parent, which required the Council to act in the best interests of all Children in Care and Care leavers, as any good parent would. This included access to education, training, employment, and life skills such as driving lessons, where appropriate.

It would not be lawful for the Council to pass a budget that denied support to Children in Care or care leavers based on their immigration status or background. Such a policy would be incompatible the Council’s statutory duties, the legal framework governing care, and its role as a corporate parent.

Councillor Maple said that Zia Yusuf had demonstrated, when discussing this issue on BBC Radio Kent, that he and his party did not understand the statutory responsibilities that they had taken on.

Medway Council was committed to upholding the rights and welfare of all young people in its care and was pleased to pass a cross party motion in 2024 recognising that people with care experience had a protected characteristic. The Council would ensure that they were supported equally and fairly, and that all children continued to matter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

This report focuses on introducing the MedPay Review principles for senior managers (Strategic Service Managers and Service Managers), ensuring that the senior officer pay scales are adjusted in align with the rest of the organisation to enable progression through the pay ranges, based on a career progression framework (to be developed).

Background:

This report focused on introducing the MedPay Review principles for senior managers. It sought to align senior officer pay scales with the rest of the organisation, to enable progression through the pay ranges, based on a career progression framework, which would be developed by service areas, as was the case for all other ranges.

A competency framework had been agreed at the Employment Matters Committee meeting held on 29 January 2025. However this did not enable progression through pay grades and further work was now needed to take place to build the progression frameworks for senior managers.

The report had previously been considered by the Employment Matters Committee on 1 May 2025, the minutes of which were set out at section 6 of the report.

The report explained that the Employment Matters Committee had agreed to recommend pay scale Option B to Council for approval, which contained four pay progression points, rather Option A, which contained three pay progression points and had been preferred by officers. The report, therefore, requested Council to approve Option B, as recommended by the Committee.

The Chairperson of the Employment Matters Committee, Councillor Mark Prenter, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

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

1)    “The Council is asked to note the progress and preferred direction for senior officers’ pay and performance management and the option recommended by officers, being Option A. 

2)    The Council is asked to note the comments made by the Employment Matters Committee with regard to recommending Option B rather than Option A, as set out at section 6 of the report and the comments in response to Option B of the Chief Organisational Culture Officer, as set out at section 7 to the report. 

3)    The Council takes due regard to the views of the Employment Matters Committee’s recommendation of is asked by Employment Matters Committee to agree Option B (as set out in Appendix A to the report), however agrees with the recommendation from the Chief Organisational Culture Officer and the Corporate Management Team that Option A be agreed so work can commence on building the professional frameworks for each area.

4)    The Council is requested to note that the development of a Career Progression Framework and salary scales for Assistant Directors and Deputy Directors shall be undertaken concurrently but implemented subsequently by the Head of Paid Service.”

Amended Recommendation reads:

1)    “The Council is asked to note the progress and preferred direction for senior officers’ pay and performance management and the option recommended by officers, being Option A. 

2)    The Council is asked to note the comments made by the Employment Matters Committee with regard to recommending Option B rather than Option A, as set out at section 6 of the report and the comments in response to Option B of the Chief Organisational Culture Officer, as set out at section 7 to the report. 

3)    The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

This report requests Council approval for amendments to the Capital Programme as recommended by Cabinet on 3 June 2025.

Background:

This report requested Council approval for amendments to the Capital Programme as recommended by Cabinet on 3 June 2025. These changes related to Innovation Park Medway / Pentagon Future Capital Works and the flexible use of Capital Receipts.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Mahil, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

a)    The Council agreed the removal of £34.170million from the Innovation Park Medway Scheme as set out in section 4.1 of the report, in line with Cabinet decision number 45/2025, dated 11 March 2025.

b)    The Council agreed that £2.400million of the underspend on the Pentagon Future Capital Works scheme be used to fund a new scheme to deliver further improvements to the Pentagon, as set out in section 4.1 of the report including:

·       Replacement of a section of roof (R14).

·       Refurbishment of 205 high street.

·       Upgrades to fire exits and windows to the bus lane.

·       Repair and resurfacing of the service road.

·       Repairs and resurfacing to the car park.

c)    The Council agreed to remove the remaining unspent balance of £431,000 from the Pentagon Future Capital Works scheme, as set out in section 4.2 of the report.

d)    The Council agreed to transfer back to General Capital Receipts the unspent balance on the amounts earmarked through the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy, as set out in Section 5 of the report:

·       £544,706 originally earmarked for Children’s Social Care improvement.

·       £148,709 originally earmarked for Adults Social Care Improvement. 

·       £165,230 originally earmarked to support the wider transformation programme.

A number of measures to reduce the length of full Council meetings have been trialled since the Council elections held in May 2023. This report recommends that those measures that have been trialled be made permanent by changes to the Council procedure rules and that further options, considered at the cross-party governance meetings be adopted too.

The report also asks the Council to agree a change of Membership to the Health and Wellbeing Board to add Voluntary and Community Sector representation.

Background:

The report set out that a number of measures to reduce the length of full Council meetings had been trialled since the Council elections held in May 2023. These had included motions being debated earlier on the agenda, a limited number of speakers on motions and questions by the public and Members on executive functions to be considered at Cabinet meetings.

The report recommended that those measures that had been trialled be made permanent by changes to the Council procedure rules and that further options, considered at the cross-party governance meetings be adopted too.

The report also asked the Council to agree a change of Membership to the Health and Wellbeing Board to add Voluntary and Community Sector representation.

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

Decision:

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. (Note: Following having been proposed and seconded, this recommendation was taken forward without discussion for debate at the next ordinary meeting of the Council, as set out in paragraph 2.2 of the report).

b)    The Council approved the appointment of a representative of Medway Voluntary Action to the Health and Wellbeing Board, as a non-voting Member.

This report provides a summary of the work of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees since the last report to Council on 24 April 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 24 April 2025.

Some of the topics discussed included:

• Pre-decision scrutiny of the Taxi Tariff Review Policy and Action Plans in relation to the Air Quality and Climate Change Action Plans.
• A Committee request made for officers to investigate amending the Council’s Petitions Scheme to enable e-petitions to be more widely accepted.
• Committee discussion of the leadership arrangements and the Care Quality Commission inspection at Medway Maritime Hospital.
• An update provided to Committee on the Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board’s Community Services Engagement Programme.
• Requests made by two Committees for training for Members to be investigated in relation to how to use the information contained in performance monitoring reports to maximise effective scrutiny.
• Scrutiny undertaken of Southern Water including raising concerns about senior management payments and dividends. The misreporting of sewage was also highlighted.
• The scrutiny of Care Leaver accommodation and the development of inspections of this accommodation by young people.
• The Medway Youth Council Annual Report and Conference, which had been inclusive and engaging.

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

Decision:

The Council noted the report.

This report advises the Council of the sale of Unit 1, Cherry Trees Court, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. This follows inclusion of the property on a list of non-operational properties declared surplus by the Cabinet on 29 October 2024.

This report is submitted to the Council for information in line with constitutional requirements.

Background:

This report advised the Council of the sale of Unit 1, Cherry Trees Court, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. This followed inclusion of the property on a list of non-operational properties declared surplus by the Cabinet on 29 October 2024.

The report had been submitted to Council for information in line with constitutional requirements.

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 sale of Unit 1, Cherry Trees Court, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire.

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

Background:

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

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

Decision:

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