Agenda item

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

Councillor Maple proposed that the time allocated for public questions (30 minutes) be extended to ensure that all questions be dealt with at the meeting. On being put to the vote, the proposal was lost.

 

A. Rachael Noxon of Strood asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“Will the Portfolio Holder explain how it feels it necessary to support biodiversity and acknowledge the wishes of the public, by stopping using herbicides in children's play areas and around trees, but not in the rest of our greenspaces and facilities and which are also homes to wildlife, and recreational places for children and pets?”

 

Councillor Doe thanked Ms Noxon for her question. He stated that as glyphosate was currently deemed safe to use by independent scientific experts working for the EU and UK Government, the Council would continue the adopted practice on green space and other public assets, with the exception of children’s play areas and around tree bases where an integrated approach using non-biochemical products would be trialled for one year.

 

He concluded by stating that the Council would continue to monitor best practice and the legal standing of products and would adapt its practices if that became necessary.

 

B. Graham Colley of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following:

 

“Most car journeys are short and, in many cases, could be replaced by bicycle journeys. Good for the environment and health of the individual. However, potential cyclists are concerned about cycling safety. London Boroughs have made massive strides to improve cycle routes and safety.

 

Would the Council please detail its cycle policy, including what has been achieved over the last 12 months, its aims over the next one, three and five years and what adjustments have been made with the advent of electrically assisted bikes?”

 

Note: As Mr Colley was not present at the meeting, he would receive a written response to his question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

C. Peter Alexander of Street Fuel Ltd asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, the following:

 

“Does the Leader of the Council accept that given the commitments given by Peel L&P when it obtained planning approval for the Chatham Waters site in 2013 to provide the necessary investment in the Docks through the release of the Chatham Waters site have not been forthcoming, the inclusion of Chatham Docks (SLAA 2018 site 824) as a mixed-use redevelopment site in MLP 2037 provides Peel L&P with a justification to renege on its commitments under the Chatham Water planning approval?”

 

Note: As Mr Alexander was not present at the meeting, he would receive a written response to his question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

D. Phil Taylor of ArcelorMittal Kent Wire asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“Given that the inclusion of Chatham Port as a mixed-use redevelopment site in the New Medway Plan would directly threaten 800-full-time skilled jobs and more than 16 apprentices and the idea that Chatham Docks could simply move to Sheerness shows a complete lack of understanding of port activities at Chatham Docks, how will Medway Council ensure that it plans for employment land within the New Local Plan guarantees that all the businesses at Chatham Docks will be able to remain in Medway and in doing so whether the 600,000 sqm of additional employment land identified in the latest version of the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) is appropriate for the operators at Chatham Docks and whether these figures take account for the loss of 284,000 sqm employment space that would be lost at Chatham Docks?”

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Mr Taylor for his question. She stated that the most important element to this matter was the Strategic Land Availability Assessment which had been reported to Cabinet in December. This formed part of the Local Plan work and evidence base but did not allocate sites and did not represent a draft Local Plan. She stated that significant work was ongoing in relation to the evidence base to support the Local Plan and it was anticipated this would be issued as a formal draft plan (Regulation 19 stage) for consultation in the summer of this year.

 

She also stated that it would be wrong to comment on specific sites at this stage until all the necessary evidence and work had been completed and the draft Plan had been produced for consideration.

 

She concluded by stating that to do so could prejudice the draft plan and that this could be seen as predetermination.

 

E. Gary Rosewell of Total Ship Services Ltd asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“Port capacity and capabilities is already stretched and to lose Chatham Docks would be an irreversible decision. If its protection is removed by Medway Council and a Developer with little or no interest in the local community is allowed to wipe away centuries of port and naval traditions this will be lost to the Medway Towns forever.

 

Would Medway Council agree that the importance of its Climate Emergency Initiative will be impossible to achieve if the water traffic from Chatham Docks and along the River Medway will have to move onto roads with the effect of increased CO2 emissions and if it agrees this is the case, how will Medway Council give due consideration to the impact Chatham Docks has provided and will continue to provide to significant infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, Thames Tideway and the upcoming Lower Thames Crossing and Silvertown Town Tunnel?”

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Mr Rosewell for his question. She stated that the answer she would provide would be repetitious but she wanted to make sure everybody understood the Local Plan process because the Council had to follow a very prescribed way of achieving a Local Plan.

 

She stated that, as indicated earlier, the Strategic Land Assessment did not allocate sites; this would come as part of the draft Local Plan to be released in the summer of this year for consultation. Significant work was continuing in relation to the completion of a Strategic Transport Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat Regulations Assessment.

 

She also stated that the Local Plan was being produced by following national planning policy and guidance, with sustainability at its very heart.

 

She concluded by stating that, as with the last question, it would be wrong and completely inappropriate at this stage without the necessary evidence base, to comment on individual sites and to do so could potentially prejudice the Local Plan.

 

F. John Spencer of GPS Marine Contractors Ltd asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“GPS Marine has produced a report which I would ask that Councillors read (via our website - https://gpsmarine.co.uk/ ), which sets out the key benefits that can be readily secured simply by moving freight off the road and onto rivers. These already considerable benefits will be increased massively as soon as vessels start to use biofuels and introduce emissions reduction technologies. The first steps towards these changes are already being made.

 

The South East is extremely well placed to take advantage of the benefits that water freight brings, but the opportunity to take advantage of such benefits will be lost for ever if facilities such as Chatham Dock are continually lost to residential development.

 

The Council declared a climate emergency last year, keeping Chatham Docks open would be a firm step towards doing something about the climate emergency. Promoting the use of Chatham for intra port freight would be a second step and the Council using the dock area for its waste and refuse services and shipping waste by barge to the incineration facility would constitute a real step change in terms of the Council’s environmental credentials.

 

Chatham Dock is an irreplaceable strategic asset in terms of water freight and water freight derived benefits. In London such assets are protected under the “Protected Wharves Scheme” and are being brought back into use as quickly as planning allows.

 

I believe that for all the reasons alluded to, the Council should consider adopting such a scheme in the case of Chatham Docks.

 

I also believe that that water freight brings significant benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving curbside air quality, reducing traffic congestion, reducing road wear and reducing HGV related road traffic accidents.

 

I would also state that Council should be doing more to promote the use of the river Medway for freight traffic – starting with its own domestic and commercial waste.

 

GPS Marine operates the largest fleet of tugs and barges on the Thames and Medway and currently provides employment for 126 people. The closure of Chatham Dock would lead to losing all but one of the ship repair facilities on the river Medway. GPS Marine uses EAPL and Stick-Mig Welding Ltd, both of which are based at Chatham, to do most of the steelwork repairs on its fleet of 70 vessels. If it becomes impossible to repair the fleet without leaving the Thames and Medway, it is conceivable that it will become impossible to operate the fleet. This would put hundreds of thousands of truck movements back onto the roads annually and cause thousands of tonnes more carbon to be emitted into the atmosphere as stated in GPS Marine’s report.

 

Therefore, is the Council’s concern in relation to climate change sufficiently robust to cause it to act to prevent Chatham Docks closing and maintain the area’s ability to use its natural assets to deliver the benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality, reduced traffic congestion, reduced road wear and reduced HGV related road traffic accidents?”

 

Note: As Mr Spencer was not present at the meeting, he would receive a written response to his question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

G. Kate Belmonte of Gillingham asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“With the declaration of a Climate Emergency in 2019 and the immense threat we and many other species face, why is the newly formed Climate Change Member Advisory Group meeting just once every 4 months for 90 minutes?”

 

Councillor Doe thanked Ms Belmonte for her question. He stated that he recognised that the response to Climate Change was one of the fastest growing environmental movements in recent history and that action was required to avoid significant consequences. 

 

He stated that a Climate Change Member Advisory Group, set up to respond to this challenge, met quarterly. The first two meetings had already been held in September and December 2019 resulting in the identification of a considerable number of positive actions, some of which would require additional expertise to take them forward. 

 

He stated that an officer group, made up of key officers across the Council, had also been established to oversee the development of a cross-cutting action plan. The group had been meeting on a monthly basis since September 2019 and provided him with frequent updates. 

 

He stated that these meetings were very important, but the actions that were being taken were more significant. The Council had come together to play its part, and it was determined to progress this work in the context of the steps being taken nationally, and indeed internationally.

 

He concluded by stating that progress could not be judged simply on the basis of how often the Member Advisory Group met but actually by what was happening between meetings where a lot of the action was being taken.

 

H. Daniel Belmonte of Gillingham asked the Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Gulvin, the following:

 

“How will the Council use its procurement power to respond to the climate & biodiversity crisis?”

 

Note: As Mr Belmonte was not present at the meeting, he would receive a written response to his question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

I. Marilyn Stone of Rainham asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“I would like to ask on behalf of all Medway Green Party members if you are able to provide an update on the work you are doing around the climate emergency.”

 

Note: As Ms Stone was not present at the meeting, she would receive a written response to her question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

J. Catriona Jamieson of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“We are aware that the final draft Local Plan will be completed in the summer 2020. Have you read the Green Party’s response to the consultation and are you able to comment?”

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Ms Jamieson for her question. She stated that work was ongoing in relation to the evidence base to support the draft Local Plan to be released this summer. She stated that while it would be inappropriate to comment on individual responses received as part of previous consultations, she advised that her Local Plan team had read and considered all comments received in relation to consultation on the Local Plan.

 

K. Kate Belmonte, on behalf of Extinction Rebellion Medway, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, the following:

 

“Should we see the forecasted 2 degree rise in global temperatures by 2050 what plans do the Council have for the potential flooding of large areas of Medway, and how would this influence the placement of new building developments?”

 

Councillor Jarrett thanked Ms Belmonte for her question and the accompanying map she had provided to him. He stated that the Council worked closely with other bodies, such as the Environment Agency who had particular responsibility for this matter, Internal Drainage Boards and Southern Water to manage flood risk. 

 

He stated that these bodies worked together to understand the risks, share information and investigate flood incidents to find solutions to reduce the risk of flooding.

 

He stated that the Environment Agency had strategic overview and had produced a Shoreline Management Plan and the Medway and Swale Strategy, which looked at the actions needed to manage flood risk now and in the future.

 

He stated that the Council, as a lead Local Flood Authority, also had a strategy to manage flood risk. Any new development at risk of flooding had to be built in accordance with national planning policy, which took flood risk into account. Development proposals in areas at risk of flooding were reviewed by the Environment Agency and the Council.

 

He concluded by stating that the Council worked with developers to ensure that development was appropriate, safe and mitigated the risks of flooding both now and over the lifetime of the development.

 

L. Julian Quinton of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Turpin, the following:

 

“Could the Portfolio Holder please tell me how and when the public are to be consulted over the savings of £406K by cutting front line services and what the impact these cuts will have on the local area and local residents?”

 

Councillor Turpin thanked Mr Quinton for his question. He stated that the £406,000 of savings formed part of the Council’s transformation savings. He stated that the Council had an outstanding Transformation Board and team of officers throughout the Council who worked to deliver large amounts of savings.

 

He stated that following a meeting of the Board earlier in the week, three officers, who were in line for awards, had gone up to London to give a presentation because the outstanding work they had done had been noticed. 

 

He stated that the £406,000 in savings was not anticipated to result in any cuts to frontline services because there were more efficient ways of working. The services were going to be delivered to meet the needs of the local communities by new ways of working.

 

M. Paul Watkinson of PDMR Ltd asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, the following:

 

“The notion that Chatham Docks ‘is not financially viable’ is fantasy.  The Docks have suffered from a lack of investment by Peel L&P over the last two decades, despite during this time the tenants in addition to the rents paid, have also seen the services charges increase.  These service charges are supposed to fund the upkeep and maintenance of the site.

Peel L&P has created the illusion of a run-down, financially unviable asset, in order to convince Medway Council that the only solution is to redevelop the site for luxury housing.

 

Would the Council agree that:

 

Sheerness or Thamesport is not suitable for the existing tenants because;

 

A)    The road network in and out of Sheerness / Thamesport cannot cope with a further 400-600 vehicle movements;

 

 

B)    The quayside at Sheerness / Thamesport has an 8mtr tidal movement that is wholly unsuitable for the coastal vessels using Chatham Docks or for the vital ship repair works undertaken in Chatham Docks;

 

C)    The cost of relocating the businesses in Chatham Docks will put many of them out of business.

 

Kingsnorth is not suitable for tenants because;

 

A)    There is not suitable quayside. The existing jetty is c.400mtrs long and in poor condition and is not designed to handle general cargos or capable of being used for ship repairs;

 

B)    Medway Council has already informed tenants in Chatham Docks that there is now insufficient space on this site to accommodate the business needs of the specialist Companies in Chatham Docks?”

 

Note: As Mr Watkinson was not present at the meeting, he would receive a written response to his question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

N. James Chespy of Gillingham asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“Will Councillor Doe withdraw his disgraceful remarks made about Jess Glynne in relation to the loss of revenue coming from her having to cancel due to ill health her concert at Rochester Castle?”

 

Note: As Mr Chespy was not present at the meeting, he would receive a written response to his question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

O. Vivienne Parker of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following:

 

“What is the Council doing to reduce household waste and encourage recycling?”

 

Councillor Filmer thanked Ms Parker for her question. He stated that he was very proud of the recycling service provided in Medway. At a time when other local authorities were limiting their services, the Council had maintained its weekly collections, access to recycling centres had been preserved, as had the education programme. He stated that with weekly collection services and a network of recycling centres, it had never been easier to recycle within Medway. He also stated that there was a dedicated engagement team.

 

He stated that over 28 different material streams could be recycled through the three household waste recycling sites, with over 70% of the material dropped off being recycled.

 

He also referred to Medway’s free organic service, collected on a weekly basis, which allowed residents to send garden and food waste for composting and the weekly recycling service which allowed residents to recycle an unlimited amount of mixed recycling containers and separated paper and cardboard from the kerbside. 

 

He concluded by stating that for anyone who was unsure how or what to recycle, he would encourage them to contact the Environmental Engagement team, via @medwayrecycles on twitter or by emailing communityteam@medway.gov.uk for further information and support.

 

P. John Castle of Chatham asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“The Climate Change Emergency demands action from all actors including local authorities.

 

There is a national target of reducing emissions by 80% before 2050. Medway has an opportunity to become a leader and set an example. Other authorities are adopting targets for reducing emissions, for example Sevenoaks has a Zero Carbon initiative.

 

Will the Council set a target of being carbon zero for its estates, properties and business by 2030?”

 

Councillor Doe thanked Mr Castle for his question. He stated that the Council had declared a Climate Change Emergency in April 2019 and that a report to Cabinet in July 2019 had set out the Council proposed response.

 

He stated that it had been agreed that a cross-cutting action plan would be developed which would see short, medium and long term steps outlined to achieve measurable change throughout Medway. The Council had also signed up to the Kent and Medway Energy and Low Emissions Strategy which committed to achieving “net zero” by 2050.  The strategy was currently being finalised and it was anticipated that it would be published in March. The strategy would frame the Council’s 5 year rolling action plan.

 

He stated that, in the meantime the Council was exploring options to undertake a carbon baseline assessment of its own estate so that the journey to carbon zero could be mapped out for inclusion in the action plan. So whilst at this stage the Council was aiming for 2050, if the actions could be taken within the financial envelope then he thought that this target could be brought forward.

 

However, he stated that he did not want to commit to a target that the Council may then not be able to deliver. Therefore, the Council would not commit realistically to an earlier target until it had the baseline information.

 

He also stated that the Council had invited providers to tender via the Re:fit programme, so that existing Council buildings could be assessed for energy efficiency in order to propose measures which would contribute towards a reduction in emissions. A staff travel survey had been conducted in December 2019, and the results of the survey would provide the information necessary to further support and encourage active travel, business travel and commuting among staff such as car sharing and so on. He stated that the Council had also taken a look at electric buses and were looking for a framework where they may be able to be introduced.

 

He concluded by stating that the Council was taking this matter seriously and would do everything it could to achieve being carbon zero in the minimum possible time.

 

Q. Martin Rose of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“Debenhams on Chatham High Street is, sadly, due to close imminently. Its size, shape and location may make it an unattractive prospect for retail investment, particularly in the current unpredictable environment for business.

 

The primary concern is that it will go the way of the other local buildings such as the Theatre Royal, Rochester Post Office and Britton Farm in Gillingham, remaining derelict for a long time, leading to a cycle of further decline in the eastern end of Chatham High Street. This well-connected site could offer the community a great deal, providing new housing, educational or health care facilities.

 

With this in mind, what is the Council doing to ensure the future use of the Debenhams site serves the needs of the community and in providing a response can the Portfolio Holder confirm whether the Council will work with developers to change its planning designation to residential or other uses to avoid a cycle of decline on the High Street?”

 

Note: As Mr Rose was not present at the meeting, he would receive a written response to his question in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.

 

R. Paul O’Neill of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“It’s good to see Gillingham FC not at the bottom of the league but it seems Medway Council is when it comes to provision of electric car charging points. Electric vehicle adoption is one way to achieve multiple goals in Medway. First, air pollution is high in some parts of Medway. Enabling fast adoption of cleaner vehicles in Medway would help to reduce car emissions. Gillingham now ranks 4th on the most polluted towns according to WHO figures. The Office for Low Emission Vehicles offers grants for the adoption of electric car charging points, so additional funding is available to achieve national targets. For example Southwark are putting charging points on lampposts.

 

Will Medway Council put in place measures to provide good quality coverage of electric car charging points before 2030?”  

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Mr O’Neill for his question. She stated that the Council wished to see an increase in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, both on-street, off-street and at the workplace.

 

She stated that officers had approached the Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) about funding opportunities and where best the Council could use any available funding that may be there and they had been advised to establish a robust evidence base first, before preparing a bid. She stated that this work was currently being progressed.

 

She concluded by stating that the Council was committed to providing good quality coverage and had engaged with the Energy Savings Trust on options to seek to progress this.

 

S. Bryan Fowler of Chatham asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, the following:

 

“Medway Council is proposing to abolish geographically, locally based Community Wardens as part of making savings of £406,000 to Front Line Services.  Why are these cuts of funding being made?”

 

Councillor Jarrett thanked Mr Fowler for his question. He stated that the answer had been clearly set out earlier in the meeting by Councillor Turpin. These were financial savings being made as part of the Transformation Programme. He stated that transformation was not the same as reduction. He stated that there would be no cuts to these services and he referred to the Transformation Programme which had yielded over £4million worth of savings precisely to avoid cuts to frontline services.

 

He concluded by stating that these services would be delivered in a new and better way importantly to reflect the changing needs of our local communities.