Agenda item


This report sets out the motions received for this meeting.


Motion A – proposed by Councillor Gulvin and supported by Councillor Tejan


“Return of Investment Zones


Formerly known as Enterprise Zones, the aim of these special zones is to “assist the parts of Britain that had missed out in the last ten years” (Osborne, 2011). Medway was previously selected as part of a North Kent Enterprise Zone, with Innovation Park Medway, which will provide significant support to businesses and our local community and has attracted national attention and further investment into Medway.


The aim of Investment Zones are to drive growth and unlock housing across the UK by lowering taxes and liberalising planning frameworks to encourage rapid development and business investment. We did submit a bid but sadly, these were shelved in the Autumn Financial Statement and replaced by “research clusters”.


Therefore, as a Council, we urge government to re-think this policy and consider the vast benefits that come along with these zones.


We are committed to the businesses that are intrinsic to Medway and committed to being able to welcome as many businesses, new and old, as we can. We believe in our residents and any support we can provide is valuable.


As a Council, we commit to:


·       Writing a considered letter to the government explaining all the benefits this scheme has provided to businesses and urging them to reinstate the Investment Zones.”




Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.


Motion B – proposed by Councillor Osborne and supported by Councillor Van Dyke


1.      “There were 32,541 recorded crimes in Medway between April 2021 – March 2022 (Kent Police Data November 2022).


2.      There were 116 crimes per 1,000 people according to the Community Safety Partnership report agreed in December 2022.


3.      The Victim Based Crime Statistics highlight Medway is the seventh highest Unitary Authority area across England for reported crime per 1,000 people.


4.      There were 5,641 incidents between April 2021 - March 2022 of anti-social behaviour.


5.      Kent Police have proposed Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) numbers to be cut as job losses to save £7m, cutting 70% of PCSO Numbers. The force has proposed to close 208 full-time equivalent PCSO positions, leaving 102 officers in post.


6.      The HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Report (2022) concluded that Investigating Crime, Communication and responding to the Public and Managing Offenders were all areas of concern for Kent Police.


7.      Proposals to establish local Community Payback Boards and supporting Magistrates with community participation in sentencing and redress have been brought forward by Crest Advisory.


8.   Educational professionals and the wider community were very disappointed at the withdrawal of the schools’ policing team in Medway at very short notice.


Council further notes:


1.      That several inner urban Medway wards are amongst the highest levels of reported crime in the South East region.


2.      That Medway Council can support Kent Police by partnering on communication and engaging the public and managing offenders through greater engagement of Youth Offending teams and supporting Community Payback through probation.


3.      That Redbridge Council has had significant success in improving community engagement with neighbourhood policing through the establishment of Enforcement Hubs.


4.   The Council can review and report back on a proposal to partner with Criminal Justice partners and the Probation Service to support Medway and Kent magistrates in community sentencing.


Council resolves:


1.       To write to the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to allocate an additional 80 Police officers to Medway from April 2023 in light of additional Kent Police Budget capacity with the reduction of PCSO numbers and focus on increased police numbers with the new Neighbourhood Policing model for Kent.


2.       To propose to Cabinet that the Medway Community Safety Partnership has an independent chair with no formal party affiliation for the next term of office and that the Executive nominate such a person to ensure robust scrutiny of the PCC takes place without fear or favour.


3.       To visit Redbridge Council and explore the Enforcement Hub proposal, engaging other community stakeholders in shared services to challenge crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental crimes.


4.       To explore and report to Cabinet on proposals to better support Probation Services and community sentencing colleagues on public and victim engagement.”


In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the motion was taken.


For:  Councillors Cooper, Crozer, Curry, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Johnson, Khan, Lloyd, Mahil, Maple, McDonald, Murray, Osborne, Paterson, Prenter, Price, Sands, Andy Stamp, Chrissy Stamp and Van Dyke. (20)


Against: Councillors Adeoye, Ahmed, Aldous, Barrett, Brake, Buckwell, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, Fearn, Filmer, Griffin, Gulvin, Hackwell, Mrs Josie Iles, Jarrett, Kemp, Lammas, Opara, Potter, Tejan, Thorne, Tranter, Mrs Elizabeth Turpin, Wildey and Williams. (26)


Abstain: Councillor Rupert Turpin. (1)


Note: In addition to the Councillors named in the minutes of agenda item no. 2, Apologies for Absence, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers was not present for the recorded vote.




Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Supporting documents: