Agenda and draft minutes

The Leader thanked everyone who contributed and congratulated all involved in delivering a highly successful Sweeps Festival bank holiday weekend, noting the strong attendance and international visitors.

This was echoed by Councillors Gurung and Murray, who reported very positive feedback. They highlighted effective coordination across all partner agencies and the success of the free park-and-ride scheme. Many stallholders had expressed a desire to return, with approximately 82,000 visitors attending, including vloggers and other media representatives. It was also noted that International Workers’ Memorial Day had been marked that week, with welcomed public interest in the memorial tree.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Price.

The record of the meeting held on 7 April 2026 was agreed by the Cabinet and signed by the Leader as a correct record.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

A period of 20 minutes is set aside for questions received.  

Two public questions and one Member question had been received and were taken in the order set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

Responses

It was noted that all question responses would be reported for information at the next meeting.

Background:

The report presented a summary of the responses received following the extensive consultation undertaken by the Council relating to the Article 4 Directions which were brought into effect within the following wards: Chatham Central and Brompton; Fort Pitt; Gillingham North; Gillingham South; Luton; Strood North and Frindsbury; and Watling.

A Diversity Impact Assessment had been undertaken and was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

Reasons:

The Council is responsible for ensuring that all residents have a satisfactory standard of accommodation and for the delivery of all types of housing to be of a high quality, while protecting the residential amenities of an area and the existing residents within it, to ensure both existing and future residents’ needs are met.

There is sufficient evidence as set out in the appendices to the report to the 16 December 2025 Cabinet, to suggest that the unregulated nature of HMOs within Medway within the relevant Wards is resulting in a poor standard of living, with subsequent and linked issues in terms of anti-social behaviour and detrimental impact on existing residential amenity.

Having considered the responses to the Consultation it is considered that the benefits of confirming the Article 4 Direction outweigh the concerns.

Background:

The report presented Medway’s Better Care Fund plan for 2026-2027 for the Cabinet’s approval. The Better Care Fund (BCF) in Medway was a joint plan between NHS Kent and Medway ICB and Medway Council with Medway NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) as a key stakeholder. The BCF pooled budget was administered in accordance with a Section 75 agreement between Kent and Medway NHS and the Council.

The report had previously been considered by the Health and Wellbeing Board on 16 April 2026. The Cabinet thanked the Board for its comments which were set out in the minutes at section 7 of the report.

Reasons:

Approval of the Better Care Fund Plan 2026-2027 is essential for the receipt of funding and continuation of many key services in Medway that support residents and carers, reducing the pressure on health and social care services.

Background:

The report sought permission to commence the procurement of a Development Partner and their estimated investment of £120,000,000 for Innovation Park Medway North (IPM N), and agreement to the proposed Head of Terms that would form part of the tender pack and form the basis of the future contract with the development partner.

Exempt Appendices 1- 4 to the report provided the financial analysis, procurement strategy, soft market testing results and a draft Heads of Terms.

Reasons:

This exercise will be procured under the Procurement Act 2023 (PA23) which offers a choice of two procedures:

The open procedure: a single stage tender procedure whereby any interested party can submit a tender and the Council would decide, on the basis of the published award criteria, to whom to award the contract. It is not possible under this procedure to shortlist / limit the number of suppliers who would receive the tender documents. This process maximises the number of suppliers that tender but is used for more straightforward purchases.

Weaknesses of open procedure:

(a)      single stage approach means that bidders must prepare tenders without knowledge of the number of other bids/bidders, this can mean that bidders are unlikely to invest time and resource into the bid as the prospect of success is unknown resulting in no or poor quality bids;

(b)      the specification issued with the tender pack at the commencement of the process must be sufficiently clear and simple from the outset to allow bids to be submitted on a comparable basis. For major regeneration projects such as this Project, this is exceedingly difficult/impossible to achieve; and

(c)      there is extremely limited opportunity for dialogue with bidders during the tender process, there is no opportunity for the Council to help shape proposals to ensure it receives tenders which best meet its needs.

The competitive flexible procedure can be a multi-staged process and does allow for a shortlisting stage (pre-qualification/pre-selection) to limit the number of suppliers receiving a tender. The procedure can be adapted to the Council's requirements so long as it complies with the basic requirements of the Procurement Act 2023. The Cabinet Office Guidance suggests that this procedure is most appropriate for more complex requirements. We consider that the Project falls within the definition of a complex requirement.

Advantages of the competitive flexible procedure:

(a)      a multi-stage approach means  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Background:

The report provided an update on the procurement of the Recycling Resource Management (RRM) Contract and set out the recommended supplier for award.

The RRM Contract was central to Medway’s statutory waste and recycling functions, ensuring the compliant transfer, storage, and treatment of household recycling. It also provided the designated disposal point for all kerbside collected recyclable materials, amounting to approximately 40,000 tonnes per year.

The new contract was due to commence on 1 October 2026 and would operate on a 3 + 3 year term, with an estimated annual value of £1.94 million.

An Exempt Appendix to the report provided the financial analysis of the procurement.

Reasons:

The recommended supplier was the only organisation to submit a fully compliant tender that met all mandatory and technical requirements set out in the specification. The procurement exercise evidenced limited market interest, which is consistent with current market capacity and the specialist nature of the service. As a result, no alternative tenders were available for evaluation.

The bid presents a robust, viable, and fully deliverable solution that will enable Medway to continue meeting its statutory obligations. It provides clear evidence of the supplier’s capability and capacity to deliver all aspects of the contract. The supplier currently operates around 22 contracts across London and the South, including two within Kent -Medway and Dover & Shepway -demonstrating strong regional experience and a proven track record in service delivery.

A re?tendering exercise would be unlikely to produce a different outcome given the market constraints already observed, and would introduce a significant risk of service disruption, additional cost, and potential failure to meet statutory or contractual deadlines.

Awarding the contract at this stage is therefore the most appropriate, proportionate, and defensible route to secure the required services, maintain continuity of a critical statutory function, and ensure compliance with procurement regulations and internal governance requirements.

Background:

The report sought permission to award an open framework following the procurement exercise for Residential and Nursing Care for Older People (Aged 65+).

A Diversity Impact Assessment had been undertaken and was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

An Exempt Appendix to the report provided the financial analysis of the procurement exercise.

Reasons:

The provision of Residential and Nursing Care for Older People (Aged 65+) contract will deliver a service that aims to:

•         Reduce reliance on spot purchasing and individual contracts for specialist care for older people (Aged 65+) by working collaboratively with colleagues, stakeholders, and providers to develop new bandings that reflect an individual’s mental and physical level of need, rather than relying solely on a dementia diagnosis.

•         Standardise services across Medway Council and Kent County Council, ensuring a shared understanding of services commissioned through aligned specifications covering quality, KPI’s, and performance requirements.

•         Maintain an awareness and of the proposed Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and ensure the contract design remains flexible and responsive to emerging strategic changes.

•         Provide greater consistency for providers operating across the Medway-Kent border, supporting improved joint market management and reducing unnecessary variation between authorities.

•         Supporting national and local priorities for social care and health integration, contributing to a more coordinated, outcome focused system for older people.