Agenda item

Question A – Judith Northwood-Boorman, of Rochester, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Property,Councillor Khan:

 

“Medway Labour has been a leading voice for some time in various campaigns to protect the Medway Towns from over-development, including “Save Capstone Valley” and “Save Chatham Docks”. These campaigns were often against proposals that would result in a change of use for areas, whether that be farmland to housing, or business use to housing.

                                   

I note that a worrying trend has emerged of Medway Labour now supporting developments that they historically opposed publicly. In the interests of openness and honesty, will the Portfolio Holder confirm what campaigns, that Labour has supported historically, they have u-turned on now that they hold the keys to the Council?”

 

Councillor Curry answered the question as it was within his Cabinet Portfolio. He said that the administration was firmly committed to doing what was right for Medway, the people, the environment, businesses and visitors. A key objective was to deliver a sound Local Plan to meet the growth needs of Medway and needs set out by the Government. This included planning to deliver the homes needed for Medway’s growing population and the specific needs of those residents, providing the employment opportunities and protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment of the area. 

 

The Local Plan would be essential in meeting these growth needs to ensure growth would be achieved in a sustainable way, with the necessary infrastructure. This would avoid constant speculative applications, which were often determined on appeal and could result in development that did not meet the needs of Medway, could be in the wrong location and that lacked the necessary infrastructure.

 

Meeting growth needs through the Local Plan would mean that difficult decisions may need to be made in the interests of everyone in Medway, but such decisions would be informed by substantive evidence and work undertaken as part of the Plan making process.

 

Councillor Curry noted that a large part of the Capstone Valley, East Hill and Gibraltar Farm had already been subject to speculative development. There would be further applications of a similar nature without a Local Plan in place. In relation to Chatham Docks, the Council did not own the land and the landowner would be able to submit any application that they chose, which could then end up in a Public Inquiry.

 

Putting a Local Plan into place was fundamentally important to provide proper control of development in Medway.

 

No supplementary question was asked asJudith Northwood-Boorman was not present.

 

Question B – Emma Wade, of Rochester, submitted the following to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray:

 

“As I was a single mum, I have often contacted Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) for advice on matters to do with housing, benefits, and advice on domestic abuse related issues.

 

I recently called for support and was told that they are no longer funded. I believe this is a vital service.

 

I work for the NHS and regularly advise my patients to contact CAB for help with the cost of living, relationship support and work-related matters.

 

My patients are vulnerable and I’m unsure where I can direct them for help in the future. At a time when we are all facing a difficult future, it is a much-needed service.

 

What steps are Medway Council putting in place to ensure that the interruptions to service provision are minimised and clearly communicated to the community at large, because clearly it has been insufficient up to now.”

 

Councillor Murray was pleased to hear that the questioner had been able to access help and support from the Citizens Advice Bureau in the past and gave reassurance that the Bureau had a number of funding streams. The Council would support it where appropriate to continue to seek new sources.

 

Councillor Murray also gave thanks to the Emma Wade and her NHS colleagues for the service they gave to people in Medway and hoped they would continue to signpost patients to the Citizens Advice Bureau and Medway Council as appropriate.

 

Centralising the Welfare Benefit functions within the Council strengthened resilience and the offer to Medway residents. The service covered five separate functions within the Council with each team having general financial welfare knowledge alongside their specific areas of work. The teams were Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction Assessment; Appeals and Discretionary Payments; Housing Related Support Team; Macmillan Welfare Benefits Team; and Financial Welfare team.

 

These teams worked together and collaborated with other parts of the Council, such as Social Care and Housing to provide a holistic service. 

 

Medway Council was able to discuss cases with and access information from the Department for Work and Pensions. This was permitted through a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the Department. 

 

The financial welfare pages of the Council website, email address and telephone service allowed residents to contact the Team. This contact was triaged for an officer to be allocated that would suit the needs of that resident. Appointments could be undertaken within most Council buildings, via the telephone or in residents’ homes. 

 

In relation to domestic abuse, Medway provided the Medway Domestic Abuse Service through its partner, Oasis. This was a specialist support service for victims of domestic abuse and their families. Councillor Murray was pleased to have recently visited an open advice session that the provider and other organisations offered each Tuesday at the Sunlight Centre, Gillingham.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Emma Wade was not present.

 

Question C – Doug Bray of Chatham, submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration Councillor Curry:

 

“Unless I am mistaken, the public register of planned resurfacing works is published online at the following address:

 

https://www.medway.gov.uk/info/200249/roadworks_in_medway/526/roadwork_schemes/3

 

It is proving to be hazardous to drive around the Medway Towns. A glance at any of our community social media groups shows that public infrastructure is crumbling around us.

 

I recognise that this is not an issue that suddenly materialised since May 2023 and it is something that Medway Labour frequently attacked the Medway Tories about.

 

Further, Labour nationally have failed to commit to providing the necessary funding for the Potholes Fund and are being noncommittal about increasing funding to local councils.

 

Given Medway Labour have proposed the introduction of 20mph zones across areas of Medway, is it your intention to avoid the cost of enforcement by simply allowing the roads to deteriorate to such an extent that residents are unable to travel above 20 mph without causing significant damage to their vehicle?”

 

Councillor Curry advised that Medway had over 3,000 publicly maintained roads and that the annual carriageway condition surveys showed that the roads reference via the link in the question were deteriorating quicker than others and required resurfacing works. The Council’s ongoing participation in the Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) Survey, which benchmarked performance against other local authorities, showed that Medway’s A, B and C Class roads were performing slightly above the national average, while the unclassified road network was not. Nationally, local highway authorities were struggling to maintain their carriageway infrastructure because of many years of underfunding. This included Medway.

 

Prior to budget cuts for the new financial year, the money available to improve the highway network had enabled resurfacing and improvement to several roads year-on-year. This was a very small percentage when compared to the highway network as a whole and equated to resurfacing less than 4% of the highway network each year. With more vehicles on the road network, the average lifespan of a newly surfaced road was now 15 years. This equated to the chances of having a particular road resurfaced at national level at once every 80 years.

 

Medway’s highway asset had a replacement value around £2 billion and bringing the network back to a steady state to supress deterioration would cost £50 million. Over the last ten years, the number of two and three car households had increased significantly leading to there being more cars on the road and there was less funding available to maintain these roads.

 

The Council’s Highways Service adopted a robust inspection regime to identify defects on the highway which posed a risk to the travelling public and carried out annual condition surveys to assess the roads in most need of repair. This enabled officers to collate a proposed resurfacing programme, which was then published on the Council’s website for transparency.

 

Work on Active Travel and the Medway Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) was underway with a consultation designed to encourage discussion and debate. It had not yet been determined what action would be taken in relation to priority walking and cycling routes, including 20MPH zones.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Doug Bray was not present.

 

Question D – Fouzieh Ahmed, of Gillingham, submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Culture and Leisure, Councillor Mahil:

 

“The Muslim community has seen a huge increase in Islamophobia over the last six months.

 

It is disappointing then to hear that the Portfolio Holder for Culture, Harinder Mahil, has not attended any of the Iftars during the holy month of Ramadan. Nor have Vince Maple (in his capacity as the Leader of the Council) or Nina Gurung (in her capacity as the Mayor of Medway).

 

There have been countless opportunities, from the Taste of Ramadan events, to any of the Iftars that are held every night.

 

Can the Member confirm if there is a reason why they have chosen not to join the Muslim community during this most holy of months?”

 

Councillor Mahil said that he had not attended Ramadan because his brother had terminal cancer and at the time only had a few weeks to live. His funeral had just taken place and Councillor Mahil would be back to normal duties shortly. Councillor Maple had kindly stepped in to cover many of Councillor Mahil’s duties during this time.

 

Councillor Mahil noted that the Mayor of Medway, Councillor Gurung had also recently been unwell.

 

Despite these setbacks, multiple Cabinet Members had attended Iftars in demonstration of the community focus of the administration.

 

During this very tough time, many family friends had come to visit Councillor Mahil and his brother during Ramadan and had broken fast with them. He said that interface between the Islamic faith and his own had made him the person he was but that neither this, nor participating in fasting, was something he would use for public or political gain. 

 

No supplementary question was asked as Fouzieh Ahmed was not present.

 

Question E – Alan Stockey, of Rainham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“As we approach the anniversary of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs funded Anti-idling Project in Rainham, led by the University of Kent's psychology department, I would like to know what is being done by the Council to move forward the promising early results of the awareness raising signage to improve driver behaviour (and reduce air pollution) not just in Rainham, but also more widely across Medway's Air Quality Management Areas and at locations of temporary traffic lights.”

 

Councillor Curry reported that practical steps had been implemented from the project by the Street Works team. They had asked utility companies to use extra signage of “turn off engine” on all work sites with temporary lights. This was put forward at a quarterly meeting in 2023, which was attended by all local authorities and utility companies last year and had been agreed.

 

The signage could be legally enforced by making it a condition on any permit with temporary lights. If the signs were not found on site then a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) could be issued.

 

Alan Stockey asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Given the massive additional signage proposed around our Red Routes to indicate those Red Routes, whether any can be indicating that AQMAs exist and that caution should be taken?”

 

Councillor Curry considered this to be a good point and said that he would take it back to the Streetworks and Highway Team for further consideration.

 

Question F – Trish Marchant, of Gillingham, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“A Citizens’ Assembly is a representative group of citizens who are selected at random from the population to learn about, deliberate upon, and make recommendations in relation to a particular issue or set of issues.

 

Will Medway Council consider convening Citizens’ Assemblies to address issues of major interest to the community, particularly with items which may cause controversy, such as the Red Route scheme, where the consultation identified a majority of respondents were against the scheme?”

 

Councillor Maple said that that he was proud of the approach taken by his administration in making Members and officers accessible to the public and providing opportunities for engagement.

 

Medway Matters Live was highlighted, which was an event held in Rainham with a second to follow in Hoo. These events provided people the opportunity to put questions to the Council Leader and Chief Executive. A number of non-statutory consultations had been undertaken, including on the One Medway Council Plan.

 

The ability for members of the public asking questions at Full Council meetings to ask supplementary questions had been introduced and this could lead to specific actions being taken as a result.

 

Opposition Leader meetings helped ensure that the administration could hear the views of residents who lived in wards not represented by a Labour and Co-Operative Councillor. Councillor Maple had made himself available, for example, for the Hoo Parish Council and he looked forward to attending meeting at other parish councils.

 

These examples all provided opportunities for the public to raise questions or concerns and they could also make contact through channels such as e-mail,  WhatsApp and direct messages on X.

 

Although Councillor Maple could not guarantee that people would get the answers they wanted every time, he could ensure that they would always have the opportunity to put their point across, for example by making Local Plan representations. The introduction of Citizens’ Assemblies was not ruled out, but he considered that the administration already had a good record of being open for the public to interact with.

 

Trish Marchant asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Citizens’ Assemblies differ from consultations because they involve informed citizens who are able to take part and contribute to decision making. In Wandsworth Council, a Citizens’ Assembly was used to assess the issues of air pollution which links into the previous question and it gained over a hundred suggestions on how problems could be addressed.

 

Does the Council not feel that this shows the effectiveness and inclusiveness of Citizens’ Assemblies, as opposed to consultations, which as I said earlier aren’t always taken into account?”

 

Councillor Maple recognised that councils of different political persuasions used Citizens’ Assemblies. In relation to climate change, he considered that the administration had a good track record of bringing relevant people together to share their views and ensure that a wider conversation could take place than would be possible through the use of a specific set of questions in isolation.

 

Citizens’ Assemblies were not ruled out, but Councillor Maple considered that at this stage, the tools being used were good and were an improvement compared to the previous administration.

 

Question G – Jeremy Spyby-Steanson, of Chatham, submitted the following to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray:

 

“Medway Greens remain appalled at the decision to cut core funding to Medway Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), an independent, impartial voice that the residents of Medway rely on.

 

Whilst Medway Greens accept that budgetary cuts are required, we believe that services provided by Medway CAB are essential for vulnerable members of the public, and must remain independent and impartial, to retain the trust of the community.

 

As a lay resident, I have concerns about the impartiality of Medway CAB now that Medway Labour control the council, given that the Director of Medway CAB, Dan McDonald, is a Labour Councillor.

 

These concerns were exacerbated in the last few weeks. In the original statement published, Medway CAB identified that the cause of their plight was the removal of their core funding by Medway Council. After the Medway Greens made an intervention, this statement was amended and the blame was put at the feet of the national Tory government, raising alarm bells over the influence that Medway Labour Party has over the leadership and communications of this respected and essential local service.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder please identify how she intends to reassure the residents of Medway that the independence of the council advisory service will be maintained if the subject of the grievance is with the Council? This is a significant and troubling conflict of interest that has alarmed residents across Medway.”

 

Councillor Murray welcomed the Green Party support of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau. Alongside the in-house advice service, the Council had arrangements in place to give residents access to independent accredited debt advisors and had joined with the Money and Pensions Service to access their Money Advisor Network. The Network was run by the MoneyHelper, a UK arm’s-length Government body that helped people access free, confidential and independent debt advice. This service was provided to the resident and the Council free of charge.

 

There were provisions within legislation which provided independent adjudication for example, disputes in relation to housing benefit could be appealed through HM Courts and Tribunals Service and decisions in relation to council tax could be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal Service.

 

The Council had a robust complaints procedure, which could be escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman, which was independent to the Council.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Jeremy Spyby-Steanson was not present.

 

Question H – Matthew Broadley, of Chatham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Medway Labour, and yourself directly, have been actively campaigning against the closure of Chatham Docks for a few years. This campaign contributed to the previous Council Leader, Alan Jarrett, ultimately deciding to step down and not seek re-election in the local elections of 2023.

 

Further, the campaign was supported nationally by Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Yet when reviewing the map of “Urban Regeneration Sites” we see the whole of the Chatham Docks included in plans for urban regeneration and a change of use. The area south of St Mary’s Island (around the new Asda) has already been re-purposed for residential use, specifically high-rise residential apartments.

 

On September 4th 2023, the BBC published an article titled “Council will not rule out dock housing development”, where Deputy Leader, Teresa Murray seems to have announced that Medway Labour had abandoned the “Protect Chatham Docks” campaign.

 

It seems clear that Medway Labour, and Keir Starmer’s, support for the campaign to “Protect Chatham Docks” has been abandoned now that it is no longer a campaign tool to undermine the previous administration, something supporters of the campaign have now woken up to.

 

To further insult the campaign, Medway Labour have recently been parading around the Towns celebrating the 400th anniversary of Chatham Docks, Docks that were closed by Margaret Thatcher. The national leadership of Labour now celebrate the achievements of Margaret Thatcher and how she changed society, she certainly changed Medway, by tearing the heart out of our employment and cultural heritage. Something that Medway Labour seem eager to continue.

 

The Medway Green Party notes that the Basin3 proposal does not appear to address the loss of jobs for people already employed in the area and refers to attracting “high-value jobs in target growth sectors” and is vague when it makes a claim of “potentially tripling current job numbers on the site”.

 

The collapse of Innovation Park Medway illustrates the risk of such projects, which aimed to bring in employment in similar “target growth sectors”.

 

What guarantees have Medway Labour sought about protecting the docks and the 1,440 people employed directly or through local supply chains, particularly given the risks if Basin3 goes the way of Innovation Park Medway?”

 

In response, Councillor Curry said that sites were not currently being allocated as part of the Local Plan process as it was currently at the consultation phase where all land owners and members of the public could see what sites had been put forward by the land owners and developers. These were being discussed and debated with the Regulation 18 process due to commence in just over a month.

 

The Council was working to deliver a much overdue Local Plan to guide Medway’s growth over the next fifteen to twenty years. As part of this work, Chatham Docks Industrial Estate had been put forward for inclusion in the Plan by both some of the occupiers and the landowners.

 

Delivering a sound Local Plan was one of the prime objectives of the Council’s administration. The existing Plan was over 20 years old, out of date, large parts were no longer compliant with national planning policy and all the allocated sites had already been built out. This left the Council particularly vulnerable to speculative development all over Medway. Pressure from speculative applications, which often came with inadequate infrastructure provision, could only be addressed through the delivery of a sound Local Plan as soon as possible. A new Local Development Scheme, the programme for delivering the Plan had been agreed and this was working to a very tight timescale.

 

Councillor Curry stated that to comment currently on Chatham Docks, a site that had been put forward by two different parties for two different proposals, as to do so would be prejudicial to the whole Local Plan process.

 

The failure to have a Local Plan had been the responsibility of the previous administration and there was now determination to deliver one.

Matthew Broadley asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Chatham Docks. Save Capstone Valley. Disabled access to swimming. Children’s access to sports and other costs. What mandate do Medway Labour have to be impacting the residents of Medway in the way they are, including these workers that they gave promises to and their leader gave promises to in the lead up to local elections last year? Because all I see is broken promises, nationally, locally everywhere from the Labour party.”

 

Councillor Curry questioned whether the supplementary question was linked to the original question. He said that there had been a mandate when the Council had been elected and that was what was being worked towards.

Question I – Kate Belmonte, of Gillingham, submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“In August 2023 at the height of last summer’s heatwave, concerns were raised with the Planning Department over the lack of maintenance of trees and hedging planted in the Linden Homes estate in Rainham. Further investigation and a site audit by Vistry Group determined that a lack of maintenance was evident and that the site had been underplanted against original plans. Frustratingly, promises to rectify noted issues by the end of the 2023/24 planting season have not been delivered upon and many dead trees and hedges still remain.

 

What is the Council doing to enforce Vistry Group’s obligations?”

 

Councillor Curry said he understood the concerns raised. The Council shared the frustration expressed with this site and with other similar sites where important landscaping and tree planting had either not been implemented in accordance with approved plans or had not been properly maintained in accordance with a maintenance schedule agreed via planning condition.

 

In accordance with national guidance on planning enforcement, the Council would initially look to resolve planning breaches without the need for formal notices and provide developers with the opportunity to resolve the issues and concerns, avoiding a costly legal process.

 

In this instance the developer had advised it had passed the management of the public open space areas to a management company in 2023. They had also advised that replanting had been undertaken in March 2024, albeit that some of the species needed to be changed. Officers were currently arranging to meet the management company/developer on site to compare what was there with what had been approved, to agree a way forward. An update would then be provided to those who had raised concerns.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Kate Belmonte was not present.