Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Doe, Etheridge and Myton.

To approve the Record of the Meeting held on 14 August 2025.

The record of the meeting held on 14 August 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

Councillors Cook and Peake both informed the Committee that Wayfield Road was in their ward and whilst they had looked at the site and indicated some support, they were coming to the petitions debate with an open mind and would listen to all parties before reaching a decision.

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.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which advised the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fell within the remit of the Committee, including a summary of the responses sent to the petition organisers by officers.

Two petitions had been referred to the Committee for consideration.

The first petition related to opposition to the removal of a wall at Lordswood Lane, Chatham. Nick Phillips attended on behalf of the Lead Petitioner and was invited to speak to explain why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee.

Mr Phillips informed the Committee that residents of Slade Close were opposed to the removal of the wall. He explained that children play on the greenspace outside the houses and if the wall were removed it would be unsafe for the children and could lead to a fatality from a vehicle.

Officers informed the Committee that this issue had been looked at for almost two and a half years to find a solution. It was explained that the wall was built as part of the original housing development, was open ended with a public footpath next to it, there was no record as to the purpose it served and MHS Homes had not accepted responsibility for the wall.

Officers had carried out an inspection of the wall due to deterioration and risk of harm to passing members of the public. The Committee were informed it was not a vehicle restraint system and the costs of demolishing the wall and rebuilding it were summarised.

Members commented on the importance of the protection of the local children from road users, were sympathetic to the residents’ concerns and queried what solutions had already been explored.

Officers explained that following a risk assessment and due to the 30mph speed limit and signage it had been categorised as a low priority. In 2023/24 officers had offered to remove the wall and put a vehicle restraint system in place but it was refused by the residents as they felt it was not tall enough and children would still go under or over it.

Members queried why the existing wall needed to be removed. Officers confirmed that it had been reported as leaning to one side and following an inspection of the 180m wall, there was a lot of brickwork degradation and if not removed it would eventually fall down.

The second petition related to road safety signage at Wayfield Road, Chatham. Pat Cooper, the lead Petitioner was invited to speak to explain why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee.

Pat Cooper explained that she was speaking on behalf of residents of Snodhurst house and with the support of MHS homes.

Residents were concerned for their safety when crossing the road to access the bus stop and there had been some near miss accidents when elderly residents were crossing the road. Parked cars impaired Pedestrians vision when crossing the road, there were no designated crossing points, road signs had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 338.

This report seeks the Committee’s comments on a proposal to formulate a new Medway Greenspaces Bereavement Memorial Policy, setting out a range of site-specific opportunities for family and friends to commemorate departed loved ones, prior to consideration by Cabinet in December 2025.

Discussion:

Officers introduced the report and explained that the views of the Committee were being sought prior to formulating the policy. Current arrangements operated under a number of different polices and this was an opportunity to bring all relevant services under one policy and to ensure consistency. It was also proposed to establish a stakeholder working group to better understand the needs of service users, how needs evolve over time and how the policy could be adapted to meet these changing needs.

Members supported a consistent approach to services and the creation of a working group which they felt should be cross party and reach out to all religious groups and hard to reach communities.

Members were concerned about the cost of using only approved stonemasons for work in cemeteries and requested that the costs be checked to ensure service users would not be charged a premium compared to the open market.

Decision:

a)    The Committee submitted comments to Cabinet on a proposal to formulate a new Medway Greenspaces Bereavement Memorial Policy 2026-2028, as set out in Option 5, to include the proposals set out in sections 1.2 to 1.7 of the report, and as set out above.

b)    The Committee requested that the new Community Working Group be cross party.

c)    The Committee requested that the costings for the approved stonemasons working in cemeteries be checked to ensure this does not require service users to pay a premium compared to the open market.

The report asks Members to consider the draft final report of the in-depth Air Quality, Public Transport and Active Travel Task Group. The Committee is asked to consider the findings and recommendations of the Task Group. This report is due to be considered at the Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 October 2025 and by Cabinet for approval on 18 November 2025.

Discussion:

The report set out the work and recommendations of the Task Group on air quality, public transport and active travel and the process and next steps were summarised for the Committee.

Members raised the following issues:

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) – Members were concerned that LTNs would not improve poor air quality which was improving anyway as diesel cars improved. The issue was caused by public service vehicles, heavy haulage and volumes of traffic on local roads when there were problems on the M2.

The role of public transport and low levels of usage – Members stated that bus usage had still not returned to pre-Covid 19 levels and the introduction of LTNs would cause more congestion for public transport and not encourage residents to use public transport. Members acknowledged the importance of improving public transport services and would like to see this recognised in the recommendations.

Limited impact of the proposed recommendations – Members were concerned that the recommendations would have limited impact on air quality and that to improve air quality it would be necessary to ban the most polluting vehicles from driving through central Medway.

Officers acknowledged the impact improved vehicle euro ratings was having on air quality and how challenging it was to attribute specific actions to the improvement of air quality. Officers informed the Committee that when LTNs were considered by the Task Group negative feedback was considered as well as positive feedback on schemes elsewhere.

Officers informed the Committee that improving public transport relied on partnership working and the Bus Service Improvement Plan was now in place and there were close working relationships with the bus operators. Officers explained that the role the Council had to play was in resolving bus issues caused by traffic congestion and plans were being developed to address traffic congestion.

Decision:

a)    The Committee considered the report as set out at Appendix 1 and provided comments as set out above.

b)    The Committee approved the content and recommendations of the report that fall within the remit of the Committee and referred it for consideration by Cabinet on 18 November 2025.

c)    The Committee requested that an additional recommendation be added to the report stating that officers would continue to work with public transport operators to improve public transport services.

Note:

Councillor Lawrence requested that his vote against the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recommendations under section 17.4 of the Air Quality, Public Transport and Active Travel report be recorded in accordance with Council rule 12.6.

In the Get Britain Working White Paper, the government made a commitment to support all areas to develop local Get Britain Working Plans and to convene local partners to work together to deliver these. Plans are intended to set out an analysis of the economic inactivity challenge in each local area and highlight the actions that could be taken to improve outcomes for the local population and local employers.

Local Get Britain Working plans are central to the Government’s ambition for a thriving labour market where everyone has the opportunity for good work and to get on in work and where we achieve the ambition of an 80% employment rate.

Discussion:

Officers presented the Get Kent and Medway Working Plan, focusing on increasing economic activity and achieving an 80% employment rate. The Committee were informed that approximately 35,000 people in Medway were economically inactive, including carers, long term sick and the unemployed. The strategy outlined key challenges and opportunities, supported by rich data and an action plan. The Connect to Work Scheme was highlighted as this had a good uptake in Medway.

Members shared insights from a church-run job club, noting that peripheral issues such as transport, clothing and caring roles were significant barriers.

Members discussed the need to support carers and small employers and concerns were raised about reinforcing stereotypes by associating caring roles primarily with women, the lack of reference to young carers and the need for inclusive employment practices. Officers confirmed that carers and women were separate target groups and acknowledged the importance of reframing language to make this clear.

With regards to governance arrangements, officers clarified that the plan had already been signed off by stakeholders and the Labour Force Survey would be used to measure progress.

Members discussed child poverty and its impact on education and employment, the selective education system and its influence on employment outcomes and the need for schools to better prepare young people for work.

Officers reported that the Connect to Work scheme focused on 18-24 year olds and the Kent and Medway Careers Hub support young people whilst the Business and Skills Summit addressed the generational skills gap. Officers acknowledged that the selective system was not recognised in the report, but this can follow in the work that follows.

Members raised concerns about the decline in provision for non-academic young people and the need to expand apprenticeships. Officers informed the Committee that apprenticeship numbers had stabilised post-Covid but needed growth and that a task force was working to improve apprenticeship accessibility and completion rates.

Members discussed the importance of mapping opportunities and engaging community groups, receiving updates on the progress of the plan and ensuring inclusive and practical support for all target groups.

Decision:

a)    The Committee noted the report and the Get Kent and Medway Working Plan.

b)    The Committee requested that progress against the Get Kent and Medway Working Plan was reported to the Committee in future.

c)    The Committee requested that there be a focus on the impact of selective system in the next stages of implementation.

d)    The Committee asked officers to ensure that the distinction between carers and women was made clear in the Get Kent and Medway Working Plan.

The One Medway Council Plan (OMCP) 2024/28 sets out the Council’s priorities and the performance indicators used to monitor performance. This report and appendices summarise how we performed in Quarter 1 2025/26 on the delivery of these priorities. This report also presents the Quarter 1 2025/26 review of strategic risks.

Discussion:

The Committee considered the Quarter 1 monitoring report and strategic risk summary.

Decision:

a)    The Committee considered the Quarter 1 2025/26 progress of the performance indicators used to monitor progress of the Council’s priorities, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

b)    The Committee noted the Strategic Risk Summary, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows them 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.

Discussion:

The Committee considered the work programme.

Decision:

a)    The Committee noted the report and changes set out in section 4.2 of 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 at Appendix B to the report.