Agenda item

A)           Claire Friend of Chatham was absent. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, responded to her question. The question and response is set out as follows:

 

“Given Medway is a densely populated area which will only set to increase pressure on services will the Council help Kelly Tolhurst's manifesto and long term support of Medway Maritime by considering Rochester Airfield as a new site either full or partial for the Medway Maritime Hospital?”

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, stated that whilst the Council sympathised with the financial plight of Medway Maritime Hospital and appreciated the services it delivers, which in the main is an absolutely excellent service, it is the place of National Government to fund the National Health Service. This was not a role local government should be taking or needs to take not least because of the financial pressures local authorities are currently under.

 

B)           Norman Carter of Walderslade was absent. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, responded to his question. The question and response is set out as follows:

 

“The Medway Towns has a unique and longstanding relationship with the Gurkha Regiments and their families that span many years. No-one on Medway Council could have not been moved by the plight of the Gurkha families and relatives in Nepal, following the devastation caused by the recent earthquakes.

 

Will Medway Council make a donation to support the relief, and cement the bond between the people of Medway and our Gurkha family?”

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett stated that this matter obviously touched many people, not least friends and colleagues of Councillor Bhutia who was a former Gurkha. He confirmed that those Members who campaigned with Councillor Bhutia in the recent Chatham and Aylesford election knew how much this affected him. The Leader agreed to discuss with colleagues whether the Council could do something appropriate.

 

C)           Paul Dennis of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness, the following question:

 

“Can you explain what happened to my vote and to that of several of the constituents of Rainham North who voted for me in the Medway Council elections on 7th May 2015?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness stated that his answer would be in the context of a particularly complex election which took place in May with 3 polls over 3 constituencies. In the local election alone over 280,000 votes were cast with over 125,000 ballot papers.

 

He stated that it was for the Returning Officer, to deal with questions which have been raised about the elections. The Returning Officer was responsible for the organisation and conduct of the Elections, and this was totally separate from Council business.

 

Councillor Mackness advised that he understood that Mr Dennis had already been in communication with the Returning Officer about this matter and had received a response confirming that the records were double-checked on the night of the election, and the paperwork confirmed a zero return.

 

He stated that strict rules governed elections and once results had been declared, without the direction of a court, there was nothing further that the Returning Officer could do to investigate this matter and this had been notified to Mr Dennis in correspondence. 

 

D)           Vanessa Roach of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

 

“Cycling, though increasingly popular, is currently prohibited in the Medway Tunnel. I am aware it would require an act of parliament and some restructuring to enable this.

 

However, in view of benefits cycling brings to the health and well-being of our community as well as the environment and transport infra-structure and considering the effects of the latest welfare cuts, could Medway Council re-consider the feasibility of opening the Medway Tunnel to cyclists? If not, why not?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer confirmed that the Council was very supportive of cycling and had recently introduced the Big Ride and had a programme of cycling improvements which would soon be brought forward. However, in terms of the tunnel this was not straightforward as firstly there were areas in the tunnel that whilst appearing to be footways were actually service ducts and emergency exit routes and therefore not suitable for a cycle path.

 

The only other option would be an on-carriageway nearside cycle lane, used alongside heavy goods and other vehicles.  The outside lane would be used for cars and motorcycles only as it would need to be narrowed to allow for the cycle lane.  This would have unacceptable implications on highway capacity, due to the large number of vehicles using the route.

 

More important are the safety issues.  The speed of vehicles, both large and small travelling through the tunnel would cause problems for cyclists when they were overtaken.

 

E)           John Castle of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Turpin, the following:

 

“Given the following:

·         Working age benefits will be frozen for years meaning 12,000 Medway residents and their families will lose an average of £260 per year

·         4,200 working people whose families will have to make up an average £280 shortfall per year in tax credits.

·         2,200 residents in the ESA work related activity group, considered only temporarily too ill to work, will lose a further £30 per week as their allowance is brought down to the level of JSA.

·         Reduction of the benefit cap

·         Limiting child tax credits to 2 children

·         Additional means testing of tax credits

 

It will be the local council that will have to pick up the pieces when people have nowhere left to turn. Has Medway Council estimated the additional costs these welfare changes will impose on the Council?”

           

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Turpin stated that this Government had made it clear that its aim was to change Britain from a low wage, high tax economy to a higher wage, lower tax and lower welfare economy. It would be an economy where work pays and a lifetime on welfare was not a lifestyle choice.

 

He referred to George Osborne’s latest budget which aimed to secure an extra 1 million jobs in this Parliament and to reduce debt to GDP ratio down to 68.5% in 5 years. The national minimum wage would be increased from £6.50 to £7.20 per hour next April and would reach at least £9 per hour by 2020. At the same time, the personal allowance which was £6,475 in 2010 would reach £11,000 per year earlier than planned next year saving £905 per person per year in tax. Tax credits were expected to fall from £30billion per year in 2010, which is almost a third of the cost of the NHS, to under £25billion as the Conservative Government took steps to get the welfare bill under control. Big companies like Tesco would no longer be as subsidised by the taxpayer for the low wages they pay their workers which amounted to £360 million pounds for Tesco alone last year.

 

He stated that with so many changes going on contemporaneously it was impossible to make an accurate prediction about how each person or each family would be affected, but it was a good time to be in work  because you will take more of your pay home and your wage would be higher if you are on a minimum wage. He advised that the Conservative Party was the party for the working man and woman and reiterated that the country’s welfare system was very precious but must be directed and targeted to those who need the most help through no fault of their own.

 

Councillor Turpin stated that disability benefits would not be taxed or means tested and the triple lock on pensions would remain. Additional means testing of tax credits would ascertain who was most in need of assistance and social housing would be offered at market rates for those earning more than £30,000 outside London or more than £40,000 in London. Whilst most working age benefits were frozen for four years, this would not apply to maternity pay and disability benefits and rents for social housing would reduce by 1% per year. In the meantime, inflation would mitigate the freeze as long as it stayed near to zero.

 

He confirmed that the Council was aware of the areas of risk with some of the changes. However, the Council did not hold all the requisite information necessary to judge how individuals and families would be affected as many people were on passported benefits and, as such, the Council was instructed to make payments of housing benefit reduction without knowing the full details of household income and expenditure. The Council was also unable to quantify how many current claimants would find jobs or increased hours and increasing their take home pay. However, the Government had announced a national £800million discretionary housing benefit fund over the next five years to assist those in need.

 

Supplementary question

 

‘The changes have the potential to have impact on homelessness, physical health and mental health. Does the Council agree with me that the changes hit hardest those who are already struggling to make ends meet?’

 

The Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Turpin said that as stated previously, the Government had a raft of measures including an extra £8billion going into the National Health Service. He therefore considered this would help to improve the Health Service for physical and mental health.

 

F)           Tony Jeacock of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

 

‘Having submitted a question in July 2013 regarding the feasibility of installing electrically-operated advance warning gantries forbidding drivers from driving through Chatham’s open-air bus station, for which they would subsequently be very heavily fined, I was advised that such a feasibility study would indeed be carried out.

 

I have heard nothing further, so observing that no such installations have been made and noting that thousands more pounds have been taken by way of driving penalties imposed on unsuspecting out of town drivers, I assume no such feasibility study was actually executed, but if it was, can the portfolio-holder please advise me as to what the result was and why the Council continues to rob unsuspecting visitors to the Towns who are unfamiliar with Chatham’s road layout? And if the feasibility study was not actually executed, why wasn’t it?’

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, advised that this suggestion was assessed by officers and in doing so, they had to be mindful of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Guidance on Signage.  Unfortunately, the suggested addition to the signage did not conform with these stipulations.  He added that if the Council was to put signage in place outside of Government guidance, there was a risk to the Council’s ability to enforce traffic violations.

 

On that basis, it was not appropriate for the Council to put in place any additional signage as suggested to warn motorists of the restrictions in place at the Waterfront Way bus station. He added that there had been a number of appeals relating to the issuing of PCNs on bus lane infringements, and the Adjudicators had upheld the tickets on the basis that the signs in place were both legal and adequate.

 

            Supplementary Question

 

“Does the Portfolio Holder think that it is right and fair that the Council should have gone to the expense of installing an imposing cinematic screen advertising the attributes and attractions of the town which can only be viewed by people on foot or whilst waiting in a wind and rain swept bus station rather than having stretched to the lesser expense of encouraging visitors to our towns by warning them more clearly of the need to avoid driving through the bus station. Surely the towns revenues will be greater by way of repeat visits by shoppers who have enjoyed a good experience rather than dissuading their return by stinging them with motoring penalties which could and should otherwise have been avoided. Does the Portfolio holder agree with me? If not why not?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer stated that as the supplementary question did not relate to anything in the first question he would decline to answer.

 

G)           Vivienne Parker of Chatham asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“Given that our two country parks contain large numbers of fruit trees, what is being done to ensure the fruit is harvested and sold to support the work of the Green Spaces team?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe stated that whilst the Council had a variety of fruit producing trees at both of its award winning Country Parks, they were not managed as a commercial crop.

 

The fruit trees were not managed for fruit production but for biodiversity and amenity value. He also drew attention to the fact that the costs to manage these commercially as an orchard would not result in an economic return due to the age and number of trees.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

“Capstone Farm has a large cherry orchard and the trees are absolutely full of fruit. Given that cherries are presently selling for £9 a kilo in our local supermarkets how can the Council say that it is not worth selling the fruit?”

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, stated that most of the cherry trees were quite old and therefore the fruit was not of the best and would not produce a marketable product. He advised that the Council was not in this type of business. Concerning the apples at Riverside, these were very young trees. He stated that if there was an opportunity to make it worthwhile then he would support this venture but not if this meant employing additional staff to harvest trees. He referred to the rangers and stated that they were already extremely stretched in running the parks themselves, dealing with voluntary labour, making sure the voluntary labour was properly targeted and dealing with site security. He was not prepared to ask the rangers to take on this additional work.

 

 

H)           Paul Chaplin of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake, the following question:

 

The Government has announced cuts of £200 million to the public health budget for local authorities. How much has Medway's budget been cut, and what services will be stopped or reduced to meet this deficit?

 

The Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake stated thaton 4 June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an in year cut to the public health grant to local authorities totalling £200m nationally.

 

On 31 July, the Department of Health launched a consultation with local authorities on how the cuts should be implemented.  The main question relates as to how each Local Authorities’ contribution to the saving will be made. The consultation proposes a range of options with the Department of Health favouring the option to apply a rate of 6.2% to all local authorities. 

 

The consultation runs until 28 August and if the flat rate of 6.2% is subsequently announced this would mean a cut of £1,042,000 for Medway.

 

Councillor Brake stated that the Public Health Grant is used to provide and commission a range of public health services which improve and protect the health of local people. He said the Council was currently reviewing how best to implement this in year cut to the grant whilst minimising the impact on health.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

“The Government want to cut the £2.8 billion earmarked for public health for local authorities by around 7%.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder tell us how he intends to protect essential preventative services such as smoking cessation, alcoholism, obesity, sexual and mental health to ensure the people of Medway do not see these services suffer needlessly and as a further assurance can he confirm that there will be no increase in Council tax to compensate for these short-sighted cuts?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake, declined to provide an answer on the basis that he considered that he had answered the supplementary question with the last part of his response to the initial question.

 

He added that the Public Health Grant was used to provide and commission a range of public health services many of which the public questioner had outlined which improved and protected the health of local people. The Council was currently reviewing how best to implement this in year cut to the grant whilst minimising the impact on health.

 

He stated that is was too early at this stage to give an indication as to where any revision in service is likely to be.

 

 

I)             Nicholas Alderson-Rice of Chatham will ask the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

“As Leader of the Council and Ward representative for Lordswood and Capstone, which of the five Medway towns do you think the people of Lordswood most closely associate with?” 

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, thanked Mr Alderson-Rice for his question, and stated that whilst he had a Chatham postcode, he considered Lordswood to be part of Medway.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

“Are you aware of the boundary commission proposals to put Lordswood in Gillingham and Rainham?”

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, responded by confirming that he was aware of that. He stated that this made no difference as far as he was concerned, Constituency boundaries are one thing whilst the integrity of Medway was another. He confirmed that Lordswood was part of Medway.

 

J)            Sue Groves MBE of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following:

 

“What public consultation was carried out regarding the ongoing programme of raised kerbs and specifically regarding the raised kerb on Burma Way which has left the bus stop even less accessible?”

 

            The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer thanked

Mrs Groves for her question and advised that the bus stop works at the bus stop in Burma Way, opposite Tobruk Way, were undertaken in February 2013 when a raised kerb was installed to aid level access to buses.  A small amount of resurfacing was undertaken and a bus stop clearway marked on the road surface.

 

Ward Councillors were consulted in 2012 concerning this improvement.

 

He stated that officers view the improvements as beneficial to people with disabilities, but the Council would carry out a review if issues are raised by bus users.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

“As a wheelchair user myself, there are several bus stops throughout the Medway which have had raised kerbs installed. Burma Way is an example of this where there is no physical way onto the pavement to be able to use the raised kerb. Can the Portfolio Holder assure me that actions will be taken to address these issues and cognisance will be given to ensuring that where a raised kerb is installed  it is actually useable?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, advised that he was happy to investigate this, and he thanked the public questioner for raising this issue.

 

K)           Paul Dennis of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness, the following question:

 

“After the acknowledged errors in electoral procedures that led to an ineligible candidate being allowed to stand in Rainham North on 7th May 2015, and the unaccountable loss of several dozen votes for me as the TUSC Candidate, can you tell me when the review promised to us by Neil Davies will be available for public scrutiny?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Councillor Mackness, thanked Mr Dennis for his question and stated that as mentioned in his first response to Mr Dennis’s first question, these were issues for the Returning Officer, not the Council. He confirmed that the Returning Officer did advise the Electoral Commission of this issue and their view was this would have had minimal impact on voting and certainly not have changed any result.

 

Councillor Mackness stated that there will be a Post-Election Review, which is customary, and is an ongoing process, with a number of stakeholders involved in the Elections being engaged to gather their feedback and views and it will involve a number of Members from across the floor. The Returning Officer will reflect on the feedback, and make any necessary changes at that stage to existing processes to ensure further improvement and the successful delivery of future Elections.

 

L)           Tony Jeacock of Rainham will ask the Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers, the following question:

 

“Has the Council’s Planning Committee yet decided on the colour scheme for the Corporation Street-facing side of the new Rochester station?”

 

The Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers confirmed that this was reported to Planning Committee on 1 April 2015.  The Committee approved the use of translucent coating onto the concrete walls.

 

           

            Supplementary Question:

 

“Would the Council consider incorporating the colours, if it is not too late, of the illustrious Corps of the Royal Engineers perhaps together with the ubique badge in recognition of those sappers who have either given their lives or suffered life changing wounds. As the Corps has the Freedom of Rochester and much of Rochester Cathedral is dedicated to the Corps, this would present a more widely visible symbol of the high regard the local community has for the Corps. The Corps of Royal Engineers was responsible for the building and running of military railways during two world wars and indeed had a substantial railway training depot at Longmore in Hampshire and of course Medway is considered to be the home of the Corps.

 

There are many ex sappers, ex Royal Engineer’s living within Medway who would appreciate such a gesture, there is of course no such thing as an ex sapper. Once a sapper, always a sapper?”

 

The Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers advised that as the railway station belongs to the railway it would be up to them to bring forward such an application. The Planning Committee would then consider such an application on its merits.