Agenda item

Question A - Alan Stockey of Rainham asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“Given all the focus on air quality and the current concerning state in Four Elms Hill, I want to ask why there is no reference to air quality in section 11 of the Climate Change Action Plan - Resilience, which currently focuses exclusively on flood and extremes of temperature?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Doe, the Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Gulvin, thanked Mr Stockey for his question. He said that air quality was an important part of the Climate Change agenda and was included within the Climate Change Action Plan under Priority Area 6 - Transport, Travel and Digital Connectivity. There were a number of measures under this priority area which ensured that the Air Quality Action Plan was delivered. 

 

Councillor Gulvin said that the Climate Change Action Plan aligned with the Kent and Medway Energy and Low Emissions Strategy, where air quality measures also sat under Transport, Travel and Digital Connectivity.  

 

Question B - Louise Smith of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“I note with amazement that despite thousands of people being on the Medway housing waiting list, that properties in Chatham Waters and Rochester Riverside are currently being advertised in Hong Kong by Peel and Countryside Partnership. The Chatham Waters development was reported by the Medway Messenger on 2nd April.

 

It is therefore shocking that the position of this Council’s leadership is to lose hundreds and hundreds of quality jobs to build more properties to be bought by investors in the Southern Hemisphere not by Medway residents.

 

Will the Portfolio Holder confirm she still wants hundreds of jobs lost with the housing being bought by individuals overseas, depriving local people of both employment and homes?”

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Ms Smith for her question. She said that the matter was a commercial decision by the company concerned and that the firm had stated that it had created 199 new homes for Chatham residents.

 

It was understood that properties would be sold to a property investor and a company appointed by the investor as an agent to let and manage the properties. This would give control to ensure that these properties were occupied by local people.

 

Councillor Chitty understood that related planning issues would be considered by the Council’s Planning Committee.

 

Question C - Karen Turner of Gillingham asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services – Lead Member, Councillor Mrs Josie Iles, the following:

 

“I am a teaching assistant in a Medway school. Support staff like myself have worked hard throughout the pandemic supporting the education of children and enabling other key workers to continue doing their vital jobs. Medway Council has miscalculated holiday pay for term time only workers for many years, yet you are offering Medway staff (like myself) just half of what was given to Kent workers over the same issue.

 

Why did you clap us during the pandemic and now think we are only worth half of what our colleagues in Kent received?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Mrs Josie Iles, the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, Councillor Potter thanked Mrs Turner for her question. He said that the offer to compensate employees for changes made to term time holiday pay calculations had arisen due to a Supreme Court ruling involving a non-Medway academy trust. The court had made a ruling but there was no specific mechanism for providing additional funds in relation to past school budgets, which was why negotiations had taken place regarding the offer in Medway.

 

Kent County Council had offered actual back pay to their employees, whilst Medway had offered to pay the weekly pay at the current pay rate, which was   more generous per person for most employees.

 

Kent’s Schools Forum had been able to identify reserves of £9 million from the Government funded Designated Schools Grant to fund the offer. Medway did not have such reserves, but in any case, this was funding that would not now be spent on school provision. Further compensation would impact significantly upon schools’ budgets and ultimately on education.

 

Councillor Potter said that the Medway offer was still more generous than the National legislative frameworks relating to holiday pay compensation.

 

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

 

“What can the Council do to stop people waiting outside Balfour Infants School leaving their car engines running for up to 10 minutes, waiting for their children to come out?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Doe, the Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Gulvin, thanked Ms Parker for her question. He said that the idling of car engines outside schools was an issue which had been raised previously with the Council and that an all schools email had been sent out in January 2022. This had provided schools with information they could send out to parents, including ideas for schools to help promote anti-idling.

 

Council Gulvin advised that the Council’s Environmental Protection team had received funding through the DEFRA Air Quality Programme to undertake an anti-idling signage project in the Rainham Air Quality Management Area, which would commence during 2022. It was proposed that this would be rolled out across other areas of Medway where idling had been identified as being an issue.

 

The approach being taken by Medway Council was one of education and promotion of the issues, following the guidance issued by the Department for Transport.

 

Question E - Satinder Shokar of Rochester asked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following:

 

“The third sector has been taking on a greater burden due to the pandemic and will now also have the cost of living crisis presenting it with more and more challenges. The sector is already desperate for more funding, so this is a matter of great urgency.

 

Will the Council be able to help by increasing funding for these organisations?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Doe, the Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Gulvin, thanked Mr Shokar for his question. He said that the Council had commissioned the Voluntary Community Sector (VCS) ‘Medway Better Together’ consortium contract, which would end in December 2023 and was currently under review as part of the procurement process. This would look at value for money and achievements to inform the new contract. The contract was made of five service lots which were part of a single contract.

 

The five lots were:

 

Lot 1 - Infrastructure support to voluntary and community services organisations in Medway, which had been awarded to Medway Voluntary Action (MVA).

 

Lot 2 - local Healthwatch, which had been awarded to Engaging Kent.

 

Lot 3 – welfare, debt and advice support service, which had been awarded to Citizens Advice Medway.

 

Lot 4 - carers information, guidance and support, young carers and carer support payments, which had been awarded to Carers First.

 

Lot 5 - support and information services for the visually impaired, which had been awarded to Kent Association for the Blind.

 

Councillor Gulvin said that the consortium had key objectives, which included supporting funding opportunities and sustainability for smaller VCS organisations. Since the award, MVA had supported the sector with over £4,648,989 in income generation and were now a single point of contact to address relevant issues, risks and opportunities on behalf of the Council. All VCS organisations were encouraged to seek support through MVA to secure funding, in addition to other sources of funding that might be available to them.

 

Question F - Bryan Fowler of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, the following:

 

“In the recent Medway Matters magazine, it states how residents gave their views on proposals about how the Paddock area could be landscaped, including planting and a fountain.

 

What were the outcomes of the survey regarding the proposal to level the Paddock and to install a water fountain?”

 

In response to Mr Fowler’s question, Councillor Chambers said that the responses from the survey had highlighted strong support for the proposals. There would be changes incorporated into the landscaping, as the footpaths would be made more accessible by widening and reducing the gradients. Accessibility would also be enhanced by creating a new central open space, in compliance with the Equality Act. However, the majority of planting, lawn and tree areas, would be retained at the same level. There would be no overall increase in the area or amount of hardstanding in the new design from what already existed.

 

Councillor Chambers said that the majority of survey responses had supported the creation of a water feature and The Chatham Forum had supported the water feature from a business and retail perspective, provided it was maintained and anti-vandalism measures accommodated. The water feature would provide a focal point for the central open space, which residents had strongly supported in the survey.

 

There would be a public information event during summer 2022, to showcase the final designs of the Paddock.

 

Question G - Kate Belmonte, on behalf of Medway Green Party, asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“The Office for National Statistics, a non-ministerial Government Department, conducted the latest ten yearly National Census in 2021. The Census results have demonstrated, clearly and conclusively, that we only need half the houses currently being demanded by Central Government.

 

On 14 February 2022, our Housing Advisor, Bernard Hyde Dip Arch RIBA Dip, sent Councillor Jarrett a copy of a parliamentary briefing document, from the House of Commons Library, on 'calculating housing need'.

 

Is Medway Council, now planning to live in the real world of up-to-date population data or continue with housing proposals that risk our food security, precious green spaces and internationally protected nature reserves on the Hoo Peninsula?”

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Mrs Belmonte for her question. She said that the Council had put this question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities over many years. The repeated response had been that housing need should be calculated using the Government’s set standard methodology, which was based on the 2014 projections. This had been substantiated by decisions relating to planning appeals and inspections of Local Plans throughout the Country.

 

Councillor Chitty said that the only chance of Medway being able to produce a sound Local Plan would be by demonstrating how it could meet housing and growth needs, as identified using the Government’s set methodology.

 

Question H - Kate Belmonte of Gillingham asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following:

 

“The air quality throughout Medway is regularly affecting the health of our residents, with readings often exceeding not only WHO limits but also our own governmental targets. There are a number of ways to tackle this health crisis but one of the definitive ways is to reduce the number of cars on our roads. Parents transporting their children to/from school using cars not only increases air pollution but also makes roads more dangerous for those families trying to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their physical health by waking/cycling.

 

In order to increase the number of parents, children and youths walking and cycling to/from school and thus reducing the of number of cars on our roads, will the Council commit to introducing 20mph speed limit zones across Medway during the hours of 8am - 9am and 3pm - 4pm, thus making it safer for our citizens.”

 

Councillor Filmer thanked Mrs Belmonte for her question. He said that the Council was committed to improving air quality for residents and future generations and this was reflected in its Climate Change Action Plan.

 

The Council would consider proposals for lower speed limits where it was appropriate to do so and where evidence suggested it would produce real benefits in terms of safety for all road users. The use of lower speed limits was just one of the tools available to support walking and cycling to school.

 

The Council promoted initiatives to encourage walking and cycling throughout the academic year and supported walk to school events in partnership with the KM charity. It also provided bikeability training to schools in Medway to promote safe cycling and it was very pleasing that ten Medway Schools had been recognised for their achievements at the Green School awards ceremony, held in November 2021. Councillor Filmer encouraged all Medway schools to promote active travel and the benefits to health and wellbeing it brought.

 

Question I - James Braithwaite, on behalf of GMB Medway Branch, asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services - Lead Member, Councillor Mrs Josie Iles, the following:

 

“GMB term time only members have, by a significant margin, voted against Medway Council’s pitiful offer of just two weeks compensation for miscalculation of holiday pay. Why are the Council insisting on imposing the offers and not returning to the negotiation table?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Mrs Josie Iles, the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, Councillor Potter thanked Mr Braithwaite for his question. He said that the GMB had undertaken a consultative ballot rejecting the compensation offered while Unison members had voted overwhelmingly to accept the Medway offer.

 

Given that trade union members had voted differently, it had been decided to go out to individual members of staff so that they could decide whether they wished to accept the compensation offer.

 

Councillor Potter said that the Medway offer was based upon affordability and was aimed at limiting the impact on current school budgets, bearing in mind that there was no specific mechanism to make payments from previous school budgets. However, the offer was still more generous than national legislative frameworks relating to holiday pay compensation.

 

Question J - Bernard Hyde of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation, Councillor Chitty, the following:

 

“In view of the latest very concerning report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will Medway Council now work with their partners in the South Thames Building Control Partnership (Canterbury City Council, Gravesham Borough Council and Swale Borough Council) to bring forward the Future Homes Standards on all new buildings with immediate effect?

 

The IPCC report clearly indicates that time is fast running out and we need to take action now, before it is too late.”

 

Councillor Chitty said that as the current Chairman of the Building Control Partnership, she could give assurance that there had been considerable discussion between the partner authorities.

 

Council officers well understood building control issues in the context of climate change and recommendations made by the Government. However, Councillor Chitty did have concerns relating to developers who used independent contractors to undertake their building control work and would be interested in receiving any further comments that Mr Hyde might have.

 

Question K – Phil Taylor of Gillingham submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett:

 

Following Councillor Chitty’s offer made at the Council meeting on the 7th October 2021 to use Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers at Chatham Docks, what steps have been undertaken by Medway Council to respond to the letter from Dentons, dated 25th November 2021 and the follow-up from Dentons on the 14th January 2022, both addressed to Councillor Jarrett and Chief Executive, Neil Davies, to investigate this opportunity?

 

Note: As Mr Taylor was not present at the meeting, the Mayor stated that he would receive a written response to his question, 7K, in accordance with Council Rule 8.6.