Agenda and draft minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mark Prenter.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 29 January 2026.

The record of the meeting held on 29 January 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 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 (DPI)

There were none.

Other significant Interests (OSI)

There were none.

Other Interests

There were none.

This annual report provides an account of the role of the Leader of the Council. 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.

Discussion:

The Leader of the Council introduced the report, he highlighted that the government had made announcements in relation to Local Government Reform (LGR) that week which proposed the structure and boundaries in a number of areas. In Essex there would be five authorities, in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight there would be five authorities, and in Norfolk and Suffolk areas there were three authorities proposed for each area. The government had sought additional consultation in East and West Sussex. Whilst the government had stressed that no precedent was set by the decision in these instances, the Leader was confident that this indicated that the option chosen by the Council, known as 4D, was viable.

The Leader thanked officers and the Committee for its hard work during the year and scrutiny it provided, both pre decision scrutiny and holding Members to account. He also thanked the Head of Revenue Accounts Dave Reynolds who was leaving Medway, for all of his hard work.

The following issues were discussed:

Meningitis outbreak – a Member thanked the Leader for the leadership he had shown, and the work undertaken by officers during the recent meningitis outbreak. The Leader stated that whilst the outbreak was not finished, the evidence was that the hard work undertaken by officers was working, he added that his thoughts were with the families of those affected and the University of Canterbury. When the outbreak had been resolved, lessons would be learned but Public Health teams in Medway and Kent had done excellent collaborative work, as had the Communications team in ensuring the messages were delivered effectively.

Pride In Place – Members welcomed the Pride in Place funding which provided additional investment for deprived areas in Medway. A Member asked if the Council would be responsible for decision making in relation to allocation of funds. The Leader stated that he was proud to have worked closely with local MPs to receive additional grant funds, decisions would be managed by three Independent Boards which would deliver funding directly and include local resident representation.

Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) – it was asked how the Leader could consider the multi-year settlement positive when the Council was one of 30 authorities which required EFS to balance the budget and this had been used on multiple occasions. The Leader stated that he was confident that the Council would not require further EFS for 2027/28.  The multi-year settlement meant that the budget gap for the 2027/28 year was £8m, which was a lower figure than previous years and was achievable. In addition, the Council had a Financial Improvement and Transformation (FIT) Plan to improve financial sustainability with 81% of actions complete through the first three quarters of the year.

Borrowing Costs – the Committee discussed borrowing costs, it was commented that the finance and interest budget was overspent by £500,000 because Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) rates had not fallen as expected, it was asked whether the Council was at risk because the PWLB had no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 828.

This report sets out details of a review of the Council’s Petitions Scheme and seeks comments from the Committee to be submitted to Cabinet and full Council for final consideration and approval.

Discussion:

The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report, he highlighted the proposed changes to the scheme which included acceptance of e-petitions from third party websites. He added that the scheme would also be considered by Cabinet and Full Council.

The following issues were discussed:

Third Party websites – a Member commented that some third-party websites reflected particular political views and provided push notifications promoting petitions which contained factually incorrect information. He asked whether the purpose of the change was to increase choice for the public or a decision made by the administration to promote a political stance. The Head of Democratic Services stated that the request to review the scheme had been made by the Committee in June 2025, the purpose of allowing petitions from third party websites was to widen choice, though it was for Members to consider whether this would be supported.

A number of Members welcomed the proposed changes to the scheme, it was commented that the addition of third-party websites was a sensible and helpful way to expand choice for the public and enable more engagement. A Member commented that she had previously assisted a group of residents to organise a petition which was then refused, so anything which made the process easier for the public was positive.

A Member commented that he believed the proposals exposed the Council to frivolous national and international talking points instead of issues of local concern and further consideration was required to protect the Council from this risk.

Petition thresholds – the Committee discussed whether the threshold for petitions to be considered by Full Council and Overview and Scrutiny of 5% and 2% of signatures of Medway’s population respectively, was too high a bar. A Member commented that the number of signatures required for a petition to reach Full Council could only be met by petitions which received national attention. The Head of Democratic Services stated that that the threshold for review by Full Council and Overview and Scrutiny had remained the same since the scheme was introduced in 2010. It was proposed that the Committee provide a comment to Council for a review of thresholds in 12 months, and this was agreed. In response to a question whether children were included in the population figure, it was confirmed that the population threshold included all Medway residents.

Lead petitioner -  a Member commented that the scheme proposed that if the lead petitioner was not known then the first signature would be contacted as the lead petitioner and also stated that that the lead petitioner had to be a Medway resident. Further clarity was sought by the Committee as to whether this meant the lead petitioner could be someone from outside the area. The Head of Democratic Services stated in practice difficulties regarding the identification of the lead petitioner only arose for paper petitions.  He added that the current scheme did not restrict all signatories to Medway residents, signatories could be from anywhere, however, the change ensured that lead petitioners  ...  view the full minutes text for item 829.

This report presents the results of the third round of the Council’s revenue budget monitoring process for 2025/26. The Council’s summary position is presented in section 4 of the report, with sections 5 and 6 providing the detail for each service area.

Discussion:

The Head of Revenue Accounts introduced the report. He highlighted that the Council projected an overspend against a budget of £15.6m in quarter three prior to migration via capital receipts and declassification of reserves which meant the budget projected an overspend of just under £10m. The areas under the remit of this Committee projected an overspend of £3.6m.

The following issues were discussed:

Timeliness - Members commented that the report for quarter three was received shortly before the end of the financial year. The Committee requested that the report be brought to Committee at an earlier stage next year to promote effective scrutiny. The Head of Revenue Accounts acknowledged that the report was considered by the Committee at a later stage, he explained that it was the first meeting following consideration of the report by Cabinet.

Capital Receipts – it was asked whether funding the transformation programme through capital receipts was sustainable. The Chief Operating Officer stated that whilst capital receipts had been used for investment, this could not be used as an ongoing source of funding, but he was confident that the 2027/28 budget would not require the use of EFS or capital receipts to build a balanced budget.

Benefit overspend – in response to a question whether the overspend on benefits would continue, the Chief Operating Officer stated that under migration to universal credit the Council retained responsibility for complex cases, which did not attract 100% funding from government for Council costs, so there would always be a funding gap. The Council was part of a pilot programme which had led to government’s impending legislative changes in respect of supported accommodation.

Medway 2.0 – it was asked if the Council was on target for savings as part of the Medway 2.0 programme. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the Council had invested in automation and AI, so it had invested in the right areas to make savings. However, investment in prevention and demand management within adult social care remained the most obvious way of delivering long term financial sustainability. He reiterated that the multi-year settlement was positive and savings were being made through the Medway 2.0 programme. He was confident that the 2027/28 budget would be balanced without recourse to EFS.

Capitalisation Policy – further information was requested regarding the flexibility over capital receipts. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the government’s policy had been extended to 2030 to increase flexibility so he was not concerned.

Council financial position - the Head of Revenue Accounts was asked for his view on the Council’s financial position. The Head of Revenue Accounts stated there had been significant pressure on demand led services over a number of years which had caused the current financial pressures.

It was asked whether the Council’s financial position was a risk to front line services, specifically the weekly bin collection. The Chief Operating Officer explained that prior to the EFS, the Council commissioned a report from CIPFA on its financial resilience. The report stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 830.

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

Discussion:

The Head of Corporate Accounts introduced the report. He highlighted that the Capital Budget projected an overspend of £177,000 against a total budget of £333m. In relation to items within the remit of this Committee the budget was projected to be within budget of £138,000.

The following issues were discussed:

Highways – a Member commented that Abbey Road was in a poor condition and asked for further information as to the difference between highways spending on pothole repairs from capital and revenue budgets.  The Head of Corporate Accounts stated that capital grants were intended to produce or enhance an asset, this included extending the life of an asset such as pothole repair. The capital budget was used for planned repair and maintenance of highways the revenue budget spending for repairs following regular inspections.

ICT – further information was requested regarding the delay in the CCTV scheme. The Chief Information Officer stated that there had been a delay in providing flooring for the centre, however, this had now been dealt with, and the data centre project was almost complete. The Council was currently looking at humidity and monitoring temperature in the data centre.

It was asked why there was no forward budget for ICT development.

The Chief Operating Officer stated that the Capital Strategy outlined the Council requirements and aspirations and included development of ICT. However, the extent to which these requirements and aspirations would feature in the capital programme was subject to the availability of funding and would have to be prioritised. There was no grant funding available for local authorities for ICT so it would need to be funded through borrowing.

Overspend – in response to a question why the projected overspend had risen in quarter three, the Head of Corporate Accounts stated that the rise in projected overspend was caused by schemes under the remit of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The causes had been discussed by that Committee in detail, however, in summary a number of unforeseen events had increased costs. This was standard in capital schemes and officer were confident of bringing this back within budget.

It was asked if any projects had been significantly changed, delayed or paused due to financial restraints of the Council. The Head of Corporate Accounts confirmed that there had been no significant changes or delays because of the Council’s financial position.

Disposal Programme – further information was requested regarding the disposal of assets programme. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the disposal programme had been delivered at a faster pace and greater income had been realised than had been expected so it had been positive.

Decision:

The Committee noted the results of the third round of capital budget monitoring for 2025/26.

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 3 (Q3) 2025/26 on the delivery of these priorities. This report also presents the Q3 2025/26 review of strategic risks which fall under the remit of this committee.

Discussion:

The Chief Information Officer introduced the report which provided a performance and risk summary for round three for indicators under the remit of this Committee. He highlighted that all targets were annual targets, and work was underway to look at changes to the reporting structure to provide more useful information.

The following issues were discussed:

Telephone Calls – in response to a question what evidence was there to support that residents using digital rather than phone services had a positive experience, the Chief Information Officer stated that a user survey had been undertaken, and 80% were satisfied with the service, meeting the Council’s target.

Chief Executive Delegation – it was asked under what circumstances would the Chief Executive use his delegation of powers to include new KPIs would be used. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the delegation gave the Chief Executive Officer the power to include new measures and interim targets, he added that he did not expect that the delegation would be used to remove targets.

The Chief Information Officer added that the report included all the targets agreed at Full Council and none had been removed to ensure transparency.

Strategic Risks – in response to a question what the biggest risk was that faced the Council, the Chief Information Officer stated that finance remained the biggest risk factor for the Council and there had been no risks escalated in the quarter.

Decision:

a)     The Committee considered the Quarter 3 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 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.

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report.

The following issues were discussed:

Attendance of the Chief Executive – it was asked whether the Chief Executive could be requested to attend the Committee to provide an update on areas of responsibility. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the Committee could request the Chief Executive to attend a future meeting under the terms of the Constitution. The Head of Democratic Services stated that there was an informal meeting of Chairpersons, Vice Chairpersons and Opposition Spokespersons scheduled to be held in April, and it was agreed that the meeting would consider the most effective way for Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s to facilitate attendance by the Chief Executive.

LGR – in response to a question whether LGR could be included in the work programme, the Head of Democratic Services stated that Overview and Scrutiny would have a role in LGR, however, the extent of the role had not yet been decided. It was agreed that this could be discussed further at the Informal Overview and Scrutiny Chairperson Vice-Chairpersons and Opposition Spokespersons meeting in April to ensure a consistent approach. LGR would be considered by the Committee following the government’s decision which was expected in July 2026.

Decision:

a)     The Committee agreed the provisional work programme at Appendix 1 to the report.

b)     The Committee noted the work programmes of the other Overview and Scrutiny Committees at Appendix 2 to the report.

c)     The Committee approved improving Scrutiny of Performance Monitoring as the focus of the Medway 2.0 Task Group.

d)     The Committee agreed that the proposed finalised scope and terms of reference of the task group be circulated in writing to the Committee for comments.

e)     The Committee agreed that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Democratic Services, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Task Group, once elected, to approve the finalised scope and terms of reference of the Task Group, subject to their being no objections, to enable the work of the task group to begin as soon as reasonably practicable, to avoid delay.

f)      The Committee requested that the Informal Overview and Scrutiny Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Opposition Spokesperson meeting consider the invitation to the Chief Executive top a future Committee meeting

g)     The Committee requested the Informal Overview and Scrutiny Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Opposition Spokesperson meeting consider the options to consider how LGR would be scrutinised by Overview and Scrutiny Committees.