Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Doe, Etheridge and Hamilton.

To approve the Record of the Meeting held on 11 June 2026.

The record of the meeting held on 11 June 2026 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.

The Chairman had agreed that Agenda Item 5 Call-in: Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, be considered at this meeting as a matter of urgency as permitted under section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable consideration of the matter at the earliest opportunity, taking into account the timing of the call in which was received just prior to the main agenda publication which enabled this to be facilitated at a scheduled meeting of this Committee.

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.

This report advises the Committee of a notice of a call-in received from six Members of the Council regarding the Cabinet decisions made on 4 August 2026 on provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

This item was previously marked to follow and has been circulated separately to the main agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee is of the opinion that it should be considered at this meeting as a matter of urgency as permitted under section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable the Committee’s consideration of the call-in at the earliest opportunity, taking into account the timing of the call in, which was received just prior to Agenda publication and facilitating this at a scheduled meeting of this Committee.

Estimated time: 45 minutes

Discussion:

The report advised the Committee of a notice of a call-in received from six Members of the Council regarding the Cabinet decisions made on 4 August 2026 on provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

The Chairperson stated that the call in was in respect of Cabinet decisions 107/206 and 109/2026 which referred to the provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, and that the Committee would need to decide to do one of the following;

1)       accept the Cabinet decision and take no further action,

2)       refer the decision back to Cabinet for consideration setting out its reasons for doing so, or

3)       refer the decision to Full Council for consideration.

The Chairperson set out the procedure to be followed for this item, and asked the Committee for its agreement to have Councillor Shokar as an expert witness. After discussion this was put to the vote and agreed.

The Assistant Director introduced the report. The opposition spokesperson explained that the decisions had been called in due to: lack of public consultation; cost and capital requirement; appropriateness of the land for allocation as a gypsy and traveller site; and political expediency around the proposals and consideration of other options.

Councillor Shokar was given 5 minutes to address the Committee. He stated that he had spent the previous three years working closely with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families in Medway and had witnessed the challenges experienced by families without a lawful and stable place to reside. He outlined the social and health inequalities experienced by families prior to occupying the Wigmore site, including limited access to education, healthcare and public services. He stated that greater stability had enabled children to attend school regularly, families to register with health services and community organisations to provide support. He referred to positive educational outcomes and examples of improved health interventions, arguing that stable accommodation had produced tangible benefits for the families concerned. He further stated that provision of accommodation for the Gypsy and Traveller community was consistent with the Council's obligations and its commitment to the Marmot principles.

This item was opened for debate. During the ensuing discussion it was reiterated, as stated in paragraph 3.7 of the report, that only Cabinet decisions could be called in. Therefore, decision no. 108/2026, which was scheduled to be referred to full Council on 15 October 2026 for consideration, was not part of the call-in as all Members would have the opportunity to debate and vote on that at the full Council meeting.

Legal costs - In response to a question concerning the legal costs incurred from the previous unsuccessful attempt to remove gypsy and traveller families from this site, officers advised that the internal legal costs were estimated at approximately 140 hours, equating to just under £15,000 over three financial years. External counsel fees amounted to £36,750 plus VAT, with further costs arising from legal proceedings, including costs awarded against the Council (£60K) and a further legal invoice still awaited which was anticipated to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

(Note: There was a short adjournment for a comfort break, from 7.34pm to 7.44pm.)

This annual report provides an account of the role of the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration. It details their ambitions for their areas of responsibility, how they have and will undertake political challenge and leadership and what their priorities and ambitions are for the year ahead.

Estimated time: 60 minutes

Discussion:

The Committee received an overview of progress made on the areas within the scope of the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Regeneration, Councillor Curry, which fell within the remit of this committee.

The Portfolio Holder and officers responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:   

Developer contributions – The Committee were advised that viability assessments were often based on developer profit expectations and that the housing market remained predominantly private sector-led. Medway's housing requirement of 24,500 homes by 2041 remained unchanged and had been carried forward from the previous Government. The Local Plan process had identified capacity for approximately 36,000 homes across Medway, with site allocations carefully balanced against environmental, agricultural and infrastructure constraints. With regard to Section 106 contributions, the updated Developer Contributions Guide aligned with the emerging Local Plan and reflected current costs and valuations. It had not been updated since 2018. Affordable housing requirements remained linked to site viability, with differing targets for urban and greenfield developments.

Recycling, waste collection, and waste disposal – Whilst recycling rates remained lower than desired, Medway performed strongly in relation to landfill diversion, sending a comparatively small proportion of waste to landfill thanks to the energy-from-waste facility. However future regulations would increase costs associated with energy-from-waste disposal, which reinforced the need to improve recycling rates. Behavioural change was needed to encourage greater participation in recycling schemes. Promotional and awareness campaigns were being undertaken to improve resident engagement and increase recycling levels.

With regard to garden waste and the second brown bin scheme, the Portfolio Holder advised that he would need to report back on the target number of bins the 88% represented.

Climate resilienceand carbon reduction initiatives – It was confirmed that air conditioning would be included as part of the Gun Wharf refurbishment and the sustainability of such systems depended on the energy source used to power them. The Climate Change Action Plan contained 5 priorities relating to carbon reduction and resilience measures, including flood management, adaptation to higher temperatures and community education. The need to balance between resilience and retrofitting with contributing to

reducing the temperature of the atmosphere was important. Members were encouraged to attend a forthcoming climate action film screening and subsequent discussion and debate, at Mid Kent College on 14 October 226.

Green spaces – In response to concern over additional green spaces against a background of cutting back on maintenance budgets, the Committee was advised that, whilst remembering that s106 funding was a Planning Committee function, a small proportion supported green space provision and assisted with things like the refurbishment of play areas.

The Committee were advised that a number of services had recently been brought back in-house, enabling a more coordinated approach to green space management. Park maintenance was now undertaken on a site-by-site basis, with some areas receiving a reduced mowing regime. Allowing the grass to grow helped to sequester carbon and enhance biodiversity – all objectives within the One Medway Council Plan.

With reference to dogs needing to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.

(Note: There was a short adjournment for a comfort break, from 9.12pm to 9.23pm.)

This report covers the outcomes of the public consultations carried out seeking views on the introduction of a Medway wide Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to address anti-social behaviour from vehicles.

Estimated time: 30 minutes

Discussion:

The Strategic Head of Public Protection introduced the report which covered the outcomes of the public consultations carried out seeking views on the introduction of a medway widePublic Space Protection Order (PSPO) to address anti-social behaviour (ASB) from vehicles.

In response to questions the Strategic Head of Public Protection advised that as well as the Council’s team of three it was a partnership with Kent Police and the work was mainly carried out by Special Constables who were volunteers. More resources would mean more could be done. Looking ahead, local government reorganisation could provide opportunities for a more coordinated approach across a wider geographical area.

With regard to locations such as Strood Retail Park, multiple tickets had been issued there. However, this was not about penalising reasonable behaviour, and the PSPO only applied when behaviour became detrimental to others. It was noted that most incidents were correctly reported directly to the Police. Only the Police had the right to stop people. Regarding electric bicycles, off-road motorcycles and other motorised vehicles being used irresponsibly in public spaces, some of these activities constituted criminal offences and therefore fell primarily within police enforcement powers rather than the scope of the PSPO. The Strategic Head of Public Protection advised that he would review information provided on the Council’s website regarding nuisance bikes and vehicle-related antisocial behaviour. It was noted that, if the PSPO was renewed, signage would be refreshed across Medway and would include information on how residents could report concerns.

In terms of ANPR cameras, it was difficult to address the issue through cameras alone. Initially it might seem to achieve success, but the activity would simply move elsewhere, as Dartford had recently experienced, as much of the behaviour was mobile and transient. It was noted that fixed penalty notice payment rates were high.

Decision:

a)       The Committee agreed to recommend to Cabinet, to recommend to full Council, to approve the renewal of the medway wide public space protection order to tackle nuisance vehicles and any variations, in accordance with s59 of the anti-social behaviour, crime and policing act 2014.

b)       The Committee noted that the renewal of the public space protection order should help to continue to significantly reduce incidents of vehicle related anti-social behaviour across medway over the long-term and improve the quality of life for residents, visitors and local businesses.

c)       The Committee requested information on the percentage of fixed penalty notices that had been paid and the number of vehicles seized, and further details about a speed camera briefing.

d)            The Committee requested that the Cabinet consider allocating further resources to strengthen future enforcement activity.

This report presents the results of the first round of the Council’s capital budget monitoring process for 2026/27.

Estimated time: 10 minutes

Discussion:

The Head of Corporate Accounts introduced the report which presented the results of the first round of the Council’s capital budget monitoring process for 2026/27. The Council’s summary position was presented in section 4 of the report, with section 5 providing the details for the service areas within the remit of this Committee.

The report was discussed concurrently with Revenue Budget Monitoring - Round 1 2026/27.

In response to a concern as to whether there was a ‘plan B’ should demolition not occur in the planned timescales required to claim grant funding, it was noted that the demolition of the Brook Street multi-storey car park was on track and all necessary arrangements were in place. However, officers would make enquiries with the relevant service and report back.

Decision:

a)       The Committee noted the results of the first round of capital budget monitoring for 2026/27.

b)       The Committee note budgetary changes since Council had approved the 2026/27 capital budget on 25 February 2026 as set out in sections 8.1 to 8.2 of the report.

c)       The Committee requested further information concerning the Brook Street multi-storey car park and contingency plans.

This report presents the results of the second round of the Council’s revenue budget monitoring process for 2026/27.

Estimated time: 10 minutes

Discussion:

The Head of Corporate Accounts introduced the results of the second round of the council’s revenue budget monitoring process for 2026/27. The council’s summary position is presented in section 4, with section 5 providing the details for each service area.

The report was discussed concurrently with Capital Budget Monitoring - Round 1 2026/27.

It was queried why more cameras were being put up when the Council was struggling to collect the penalty charge notice money, which seemed to be spending capital to build bigger debt.

In response to questions about the time taken to get the final properties fully operational, the Assistant Director, Culture and Community advised that she was addressing this issue as one of her priorities. She was pleased to advise that additional units would be coming online shortly however, some of the delays had been unacceptable for a variety of reasons, and from an operational perspective, this had affected the ability to move families into suitable accommodation as quickly wanted. To address this an improvement plan was currently being finalised and she was confident performance would improve. With regard to the increase in nightly accommodation charges, the increase reflected market conditions and providers knew there was significant demand for temporary accommodation. Costs were challenged where possible. The Assistant Director, Culture and Community was happy to investigate the underlying causes in more detail and provide further information. It was agreed that questions concerning this area could be asked at the next meeting.

Decision:

a)       The Committee noted the results of the first round of revenue budget monitoring for 2026/27.

b)       The Committee noted that Cabinet had instructed the Corporate Management team to implement urgent actions to bring expenditure back within the budget agreed by full Council.

This report summarises how the Council performed in Quarter 1 2026/27 on the delivery of the One Medway Council Plan 2024/28 priorities, and presents the Quarter 1 2026/27 review of strategic risks.

Estimated time: 10 minutes

Discussion:

The Committee considered this report which summarised how the Council had performed in Quarter 1 2026/27 on the delivery of the One Medway Council Plan 2024/28 priorities. The report also presented the Quarter 1 2026/27 review of strategic risks.

Decision:

a)       The Committee noted the Quarter 1 2026/27 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 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.

Estimated time 5 minutes

Discussion:

The report was taken as read and Members did not have any queries.

Decision:

The Committee noted the petition responses and appropriate officer actions in paragraph 4.1 of 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.

Estimated time: 5 minutes

Discussion:

The report was taken as read and Members did not have any queries.

Decision:

a)             The Committee noted the report and changes set out in section 4.2 of this 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.