Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Etheridge, Filmer, Hamilton and Nestorov.

To approve the Record of the Meeting held on 12 June 2025.

The record of the meeting held on 12 June 2025 was agreed and signed by the Chairperson as correct.

The Chairperson will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report.

There were none.

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 4.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

Discussion:

Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration introduced the report and thanked officers for their help in its completion.

The following issues were discussed:

Local Plan – in response to a question about how the Portfolio Holder reconciled the proposed allocation of sites on Captone Valley with the need to preserve greenspaces. The Portfolio Holder stated that balancing the need to build additional housing whilst keeping greenspaces was a fundamental issue for the Council. There was a recognised need for 24,500 additional homes in Medway, and the Council was obliged to allocate land for them.  The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that this required some compromise and difficult decisions had to be made, however allocations were proposed following assessments and without an up to date Local Plan Council decisions had been overturned by public enquiries.

The Portfolio Holder added that the Council had held detailed negotiations with Maidstone Borough Council regarding development at Lidsing and would work with landowners. The public consultation in relation to the local plan showed strong support for additional housing balanced across the different parts of Medway. Previous Local Plan proposals had allocated the majority of housing in a single area which in the view of the Portfolio Holder would have been unsustainable.

Impact of development – It was asked what measures the administration had taken to mitigate the impact of large scale development in existing communities such as Hempstead where not all s106 contributions had been received locally. The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that the estimated growth in population would require additional infrastructure to be developed, the Council was working on an infrastructure plan but it also required the support of central government, health agencies and private companies. The Portfolio Holder undertook to provide further information regarding s106 contributions in the Hemptstead area to the ward councillors following the meeting.

Regulation 19 consultation – in response to a question regarding the progress of the regulation 19 consultation the Portfolio Holder explained that a smaller response had been received than during the regulation 18 consultation, this reflected the additional consultation and large number of responses received at regulation 18 stage.

Local Government Reform – the Portfolio Holder was asked for his views regarding the Local Plan and Local Government Reform. He stated that it was the responsibility of the Council to put in place a local plan fit for Medway now. When the local plan was agreed, it would be the legal document for the subsequent authority in this area until any new local plan was developed by a successor authority. He added that other authorities in Kent had recently undertaken or were consulting on a local plan and it would be several years before a successor authority would be in a position to agree a local plan, it would in his view be wrong to not put a plan into place.

Planning Enforcement - in response to a question whether the Portfolio Holder felt the planning enforcement team was adequately resourced, the Portfolio Holder stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

This report introduces the draft Housing Allocations Policy 2025 which replaces current Housing Allocations Policy, last reviewed in 2019. The Housing Allocations Policy sets out how Medway Council allocates available social housing stock in the Medway area, as well as who is able to access the housing register. A summary of changes to the policy is set out in appendix 1.

Discussion:

The Chief Housing Officer introduced the report, she highlighted the principal changes proposed in the policy which had previously been agreed in 2019. The new policy proposed changes in the eligibility criteria raising the financial cap to £63,000 pa and to increase the residency criteria to three years alongside other changes which were detailed in the report.

The following issues were discussed:

Vulnerable groups – in response to a question whether changes in eligibility could negatively affect those fleeing domestic abuse, the Chief Housing Officer stated that those cases were dealt with under the homelessness criteria and would therefore be unaffected by any changes. She added that Care Leavers would also be unaffected as they were the responsibility of the placing local authority.

Banding – the Committee discussed the housing allocations banding criteria, the Chief Housing Officer explained that band A, the highest priority was a small cohort with medial needs or other specific criteria. She added that most residents were placed in bands B or C. Those in Band D would be a lower priority need so it was to be expected that those families to take longer to be rehoused. Another factor which affected how long people remained on the waiting list was applicant preference, for example if an applicant only applied for properties in a particular area, there choice of properties was reduced and it would consequently take longer to be placed in a suitable property

Community Contribution – further information was requested in relation to the community contribution by applicants, the Chief Housing Officer stated that it was proposed that the community contribution required be increased to three years to secure eligibility, this contribution could take many forms such employment, voluntary work or caring responsibilities.

It was asked whether the increase in residency would affect vulnerable groups, the Chief Housing Officer stated the consultation responses had included many requests for residency criteria to be raised to five years, however, officers felt three years was the right balance and noted a commitment to Medway. The Assistant Director Community and Culture added that proposals were based on good practice and legislative requirements, and housing allocation was always based on need. The scope of the policy allowed for some flexibility in decision making to reflect exceptional cases and if Members felt any group had been excluded or disadvantaged this could be reviewed.

Eligibility – a Member commented that a resident had informed him they were deemed ineligible by the service because housing was provided to asylum seekers, the Chief Housing Officer stated that whilst she could not comment on individual cases, this was not the case, to be eligible for housing applicants needed to have settled status and recourse to public funds. She undertook to discuss the case with the Member outside of the meeting.

Band X – the Committee discussed the removal of band X from the register. The Chief Housing Officer stated that band X referred to ineligible applicants whose details had been kept on file.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.

This report presents the results of the first round of the Council’s capital budget monitoring process for 2025/26. The Council’s summary position is presented in section 4, with sections 5 and 6 providing the detail for the service areas within the remit of this Committee.

Discussion:

The Head of Corporate Accounts introduced the report. The Capital Budget reported an underspend of £846,000 in round one of monitoring for the year with an underspend of £639,000 in relation to schemes under the remit of the Committee.

The following issues were discussed:

Gun Wharf improvement works – in response to a question regarding the cost the Gun Wharf Improvements Scheme the Head of Facilities Management and Capital Projects explained that the projected costs of RAAC repairs had reduced as the roof no longer required replacement, however, the initial improvement costs were greater than initially estimated. He undertook to provide a briefing note on the current planned works and costings to the Committee.

Hook Meadow works -  a Member asked if ward councillors could be involved in future discussions regarding the ongoing works at Hook Meadow. The Assistant Director, Community and Culture agreed and added that the Council continued to consider innovative solutions for the Community Hubs and this would include opportunities within the Medway 2.0 transformation scheme but finances remained constrained.

Cozenton Park – in response to a Member question whether the underspend in round one would be reallocated, the Head of Corporate Accounts stated that the scheme was currently underspent, however, those monies were scheduled to be reallocated in round two monitoring to other schemes.

Decision:

a)       The Committee noted the report.

b)       The Committee requested a briefing note setting out planned works and costs of the Gun Wharf Improvement Works

c)       The Committee noted the request that ward Councillors be consulted in relation to the ongoing works at Hook Meadow

This report presents the results of the first round of the Council’s revenue budget monitoring process for 2025/26. The Council’s summary position is presented in section 4, with sections 5 - 7 providing the detail for each service area. 

Discussion:

The Head of Revenue Accounts introduced the report, he highlighted

the round one monitoring forecast which projected £10.9m overspend for the financial year, with an overspend of £723,000 of areas within the remit of this Committee.

The following issues were discussed:

Parking fines -  a Member requested further information regarding the projected overspend of £1.6m in relation to parking services. The Head of Revenue Accounts stated that there had been lower than expected income in relation to penalty notices and additional costs in relation to servicing those penalty notices. This was however an early projection based on round one monitoring and further projections would be made at the end of round two monitoring. The Member requested a briefing note in relation to penalty charges notices and debts to the Council.

Vacancies – it was asked whether vacancies in the department had impacted service delivery and whether vacancies were deliberately not filled to ease financial pressures, the Deputy Director of Place stated that recruitment was being undertaken however, the vacant roles were in specialist areas and recruitment had proved a challenge.

Decision:

a)       The Committee noted the report.

b)       The Committee requested a briefing note to provide additional detail regarding PCN fines and parking services.

c)       The Committee requested a briefing note in relation to bad debts.

This report advises the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fall within the remit of this Committee including a summary of the responses sent to the petition organisers by officers.

Decision:

The Committee noted the petition responses and officer actions as set out in the report.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows the Committee to adjust it in the light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances. It gives Members the opportunity to shape and direct the Committee’s activities over the year. 

The following issues were discussed:

A Member commented that there had been recent discussions regarding the possibility of the Committee receiving a report in October on economic activity in the area, the relevant officer was not at the meeting, and it was agreed this would be discussed with the officers following the meeting.

Decision:

a)       The Committee noted the report and agreed the work programme as set out at Appendix A to the report.

b)       The Committee noted the action log as set out in appendix B to the report.