Agenda item

Question A – Martin Hill, of Gillingham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:

 

“I live in Napier Road, Gillingham, this used to be a quiet road, but now it is a racetrack for speeding motorists and motorbikes. Over the last 10 to 25 years we have had two children killed by speeding motorists, one suicide on a motorbike, several severe crashes and regular speeding cars going over 40 mph. This road has a school on it.

 

We need proper speed bumps and cameras, what can be done about this situation?”

 

In response Councillor Paterson said that selfish, speeding motorists were a scourge on communities and he sympathised with the concerns raised. The Council was not in a position to undertake all the road safety interventions that he would like and all road safety work was evidence based. Recent collision data was examined to ensure resources were used most effectively to reduce the number of people being harmed while traveling on Medway’s roads.

 

Earlier in 2024, collision data for several streets in the Gillingham area, including Napier Road, had been analysed. This study indicated that Napier Road did not meet the criteria for further intervention when compared against other locations in Medway, it was also noted that vehicle activated speed limit signs had been installed on this road to influence driver behaviour and traffic speeds.

 

Councillor Paterson said that he worked with officers and partners, including Kent police, to promote safe road use and prevent casualties wherever possible. However, priority must be given to locations where recent road casualties were being recorded. This meant that the Council was unable to prioritise additional measures on Napier road at present. Road safety in the area would continue to be monitored over the coming months.

 

Martin Hill chose not to ask a supplementary question:

 

Question B – Liz Sweet, of Hempstead, asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

 

“I would like to start by placing on record the thanks of Medway Help for Ukrainians to the former Mayor, Councillor Nina Gurung, for choosing us as one of her charities. We are extremely grateful for the funds raised.

 

Can I also thank the Council and their excellent Homes for Ukraine team for their support since our creation at the start of the war.

 

Although not in the same media spotlight as at the start of the conflict, the risk to lives in Ukraine remains real and present, and our and your continued support is very needed.

 

One area where there has been a reduction is individuals and families stepping forward as sponsors for those seeking support in the UK. 

 

Will the Council work with Medway Help For Ukrainians to find a means of attracting people in Medway to become sponsors to Ukrainians wishing to flee the war?”

 

In response Councillor Murray thanked Liz Sweet for the kind words about Councillor Gurung’s charity support for Medway Help for Ukrainians, a grass roots organisation that continued to demonstrate the compassion, generosity and determination of people in Medway to welcome new communities who needed support.

 

Councillor Murray gave assurance that the Council and new local MPs were very conscious that Ukraine faced a third year of war with all the difficulties that entailed. The Council would continue to support the efforts of Medway help for Ukrainians to encourage sponsors for families and she was pleased that government support was still available. Mid Kent College, schools, employers and the voluntary sector who had helped the Ukrainian community in Medway were thanked.

 

Tribute was paid to the resilience, hard work and optimism that Ukrainians who now lived in Medway had shown and to the enrichment achieved through the sharing of their culture, experiences and contributions to life in Medway.

 

Liz Sweet asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘Hopefully you can agree to an early meeting where we can start to put in place an action plan to find a solution to this difficult challenge?’

 

Councillor Murray said that she would be very happy to do that.

 

Question C – Nicholas Craddy, of St Mary Hoo, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

“The application for 44 houses at Fenn Corner came to the Planning Committee on 25 September 2024. The All Saints ward Councillor, Councillor Spalding, made reference to documents missing from the planning portal including pre application and traffic surveys.

Councillor Pearce proposed deferring the application so all the documents referred to by the ward Councillor could be scrutinised by the Committee and taken into account before an informed decision could be made, and so for Members of the Committee not familiar with the location could see first hand the situation on the ground. Councillor Peake seconded the proposal for a site visit and he was subsequently joined by Councillor Etheridge.

The Committee Chair called on the Vice Chair, Councillor Jones, to move the vote on a deferral.

Councillor Jones stated he was not quite sure what he was supposed to be moving because he was opposed to a site visit. He stated the planning presentation had told the Committee everything it needed to know, that the planning presentation was quite expansive and had given a clear picture. He stated his inclination was the Committee did not need a site visit.

At this point the Chair intervened and moved a vote for a deferral which was carried.

The ward Councillor had made it clear documents containing reasonably required information were missing. Councillor Pearce took the view the Committee needed to see them.

The Council’s own planning code at paragraph 5.1 states:

‘Councillors making planning decisions must come to a decision only after due consideration of all information reasonably required upon which to base such a decision.’

Does Councillor Maple have complete faith and confidence in Councillor Jones given he seems content to ignore the Council’s own planning code?”

In response Councillor Maple put on record his thanks to the Planning Committee and planning officers. The Committee was run on a quasi-judicial basis which meant no political whipping and often there would be unanimity from all Committee Members. Sometimes Members from different political would vote in different ways.

 

The role of a ward Councillor at the Committee was a very important one. In Medway, the only people allowed to address the Planning Committee were the ward Councillors. In some other councils there could sometimes be an attempt to build a consensus amongst residents with a resident allowed to address the Committee for 3 minutes.

 

The role of a Vice Chairperson was critical for democracy with them having a role to play in ensuring that work goes forward and individual items considered, with Vice Chairpersons needing to be able to separate their personal views from those of the Committee as a whole.

 

Councillor Maple recognised that the work of planning committees could sometimes be frustrating and this was not helped by Medway currently having a Local Plan that was more than two decades old. He said he had absolute confidence in Councillor Jones as Vice Chairperson and considered that he was doing a good job along with the new Chairperson of the Planning Committee, Councillor Stamp. He thanked all Committee members for the work they do on a very regular basis.

 

Nicholas Craddy asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘At the last Planning Committee meeting, the ward councillor for All Saints ward, Councillor Spalding, raised the matter of missing documents and information, including pre-application communications, as referred to earlier. Looking at the Portal, these documents have still not been uploaded to the Portal by the planning department. Even if they are uploaded now, nobody is able to make any representation about them. People might wonder what the Planning department has to hide.

Does the Leader of the Council have confidence in the Medway Planning team, which of course includes the Portfolio Holder and Chair of Planning?’

Councillor Maple said that he had confidence in the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Committee as well as all Members of the Committee. The Committee met more regularly than other Council committees and had to read hundreds of pages of documents. Of the Planning Committees Councillor Maple had seen or participated in as ward Councillor, he considered that the Committee had done a very good job.

 

If there were specific documents that had been not made available, officers and the Head of Planning would be asked to look into that.

 

Councillor Maple had absolute confidence in Medway’s Planning department. Developers, residents and others said that when they were dealing with Medway, they were dealing with some of the best officers when it came to this particular issue. He considered that the team did a great job in delivering committee papers, delivering hundreds of decisions and also the large public consultation on the Local Plan.

 

Question D – Matt Nightingale, of Cuxton, asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Currently there is no safe route for residents from Cuxton to walk into Strood Town Centre. A lack of a continuous, paved route means that anyone using a wheelchair, mobility scooter or a pram are unable to get out of the village without the use of a vehicle.

 

A commitment was made as part of the proposed Cuxton Marina to deliver a continuous, safe route into town from the village, but this has been delayed due to a pending planning application and by Network Rail.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder provide an update about when the riverside footpath between Cuxton Station and Medway Valley Park will be opened, including what representations the Council has made to expedite the delivery of this vital artery?”

 

Councillor Curry said that the Council was committed to promoting Active Travel and this was demonstrated by the emerging Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan, which would provide a plan for the delivery of improved walking and cycling routes across Medway.

 

It was recognised that pedestrian and cycle links between Cuxton and Strood were not as good as they might be and there were significant physical and financial challenges associated with improving existing routes along the A228, or via the existing public rights of way adjacent to the River Medway. The delivery of a pedestrian and cycle route through the adjacent Cuxton Marina site was supported, in principle, but this presented challenges as it required the agreement of the landowner, Network Rail as an adjoining landowner, and potentially, wider acceptance of any proposals to redevelop the Marina site. Pre-application discussions had taken place and should a planning application for the redevelopment of this site be forthcoming, it would be ensured that every effort was made to progress this important link.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Matt Nightingale was not present.

 

Question E – Cat Jamieson, of Rochester, asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Rochester Riverside School has now been open for over 12 months, yet the main crossing at the junction of Gas House Road and Corporation Street is still not safe and has no signage indicating there is a school there and that drivers need to be careful of children crossing.

 

Despite numerous concerns being raised by many parents to the Council and to our local political representatives back in September 2023, nothing has changed and we have not been kept updated of any progress.

 

Please can the Portfolio Holder publish any risk assessments that have been completed and provide a route-map on how they intend to make this route safe for children and families who are walking, cycling and scooting to and from Rochester Riverside School?”

 

Councillor Paterson responded to the question as road safety now came under his Cabinet Portfolio. He considered the issue of safe journeys to school to be of the utmost importance and was proud of the work being undertaken at nine locations in Medway to introduce the next phase of school streets.

 

As a local ward Councillor, along with his ward colleagues, Councillor Paterson had consistently raised concerns about the arrangements for pedestrian access to Rochester Riverside School, including prior to opening to pupils in September. Despite being a recently constructed road layout, the area did not  lend itself to the sort of School Street style intervention that had already transformed active journeys to seven Medway schools. These pedestrian access issues were exacerbated by the fact that Gas House Road was currently the only vehicular access point to Rochester Riverside and would remain so until the completion of further phases of the development.

 

Councillor Paterson had requested that officers explore whether the configuration of the traffic signals could be altered to provide a separate phase dedicated to pedestrians. As part of this, traffic and road safety assessments would be undertaken to understand what impact changing the signals would have on the rest of the junction and design processes undertaken would identifies additional infrastructure needed. This work had already commenced and there would be an ongoing dialogue with officers as they work through the technical issues involved.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Cat Jamieson was not present.

 

Question F – Ralph Allison, of Twydall, asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“The National Society for Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) recommends that local authorities should provide 20 allotment plots per 1,000 households. Medway currently provides 1,000 plots, with 1,996 people on waiting lists as of April 2024. According to the NSALG calculation, Medway should be providing over 2,000 plots.

 

What actions will the Council take to address this shortfall in allotment plots, given that some people on waiting lists are likely to pass away before they ever get access to a plot?”

 

In response Councillor Curry said that the Council, as part of a recently completed study on greenspace provision, had included allotments as a specific module. Current provision was being assessed and the study would then recommend how the shortfall of provision may be addressed.

 

Due to the topography and population distribution in Medway, it was not always possible to provide allotments close to where people wanted them in already densely populated urban areas. The Council over the next year would be exploring a range of options such as new allotment provision aligned with development and Community Growing schemes, such as the provision being worked on at Cozenton Park in Gillingham. This was a hugely important area of work that Councillor Curry was personally committed to.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Ralph Allison was not present.

Question G – Onyx Rist, of Rainham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness, Councillor Louwella Prenter, the following:

 

“Many residents living on the new development on Otterham Park, built by Persimmon, are having to deal with a company run by Persimmon called FibreNest and at the moment are left without choice as Open Reach are not yet in the area. Many residents are having issues with Fibre Nest WiFi.

 

Does the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness agree that residents should have choice and will she write to Persimmon to force them to allow Open Reach to come onto the estate so residents can have a choice?”

 

In response Councillor Prenter thanked Onyx Rist for bringing the situation to her attention. She said that she would write to the developers regarding the issue on behalf of residents concerning freedom of choice of service provider.

 

Councillor Prenter asked Onyx Rist to send her further information, or details regarding the residents, who may require support with the current arrangements on the Otterham Park development.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Onyx Rist was not present.

 

Question H – Alan Wells, of Chatham, asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

 

“I am highlighting the importance of fully-accessible Changing Places toilets, which are needed by people with severe disabilities. Changing Places UK – co-chaired by Muscular Dystrophy UK – has campaigned for more than a decade for people with severe disabilities, who need extra equipment and space to use toilets safely and with dignity. More than 2,400 Changing Places facilities are now registered across the UK, but many areas like Medway still lack adequate provision. 

Changing Places Toilets are different to standard disabled toilets with extra features and more space to meet the needs of people with profound and multiple learning difficulties and others with personal care needs and their carers, and others who have a disability or condition that means they need personal support. This includes people who have had a severe stroke and people with muscular dystrophy. 

There are currently 10 Changing Places toilets across Medway, with 4 of these having limited availability, and some of the other 6 having older inadequate equipment installed. 

Standard accessible toilets do not meet the needs of many disabled people and without Changing Places toilets, carers are often forced to change severely disabled family members on a dirty toilet floor. This is dangerous, unhygienic and undignified. However, the alternative is to limit outings to a couple of hours or to not go out at all. 

With only a few Changing Places being available across our towns, for the people who need them to use the toilet safely and with dignity, my question is

‘What is the Council’s plan regarding more 'Changing Places' facilities to be installed at various venues across Medway?’”

 

Councillor Murray thanked Alan Wells for raising the issue, which was important to many in the community, both those with young families and to older children and adults who had more complex disabilities. Conversations with the Changing Places Toilets (CPT) team at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), had not previously given any indication that there would be further specific funding being made available for Changing Place Toilet (CPT) Facilities. Officers were in regular contact with the CPT Team and would continue to explore the increasing provision if funding became available for potentially more and better CPT facilities across Medway.

 

Councillor Murray would ask the team to report back on the condition of the existing CPTs given the assertion that some had inadequate facilities because it should be ensured that CPTs are safe and those who needed to use them should not be deterred from doing so. As not all were installed by the Council, standards would vary. The CPT at the Pentagon Shopping Centre had been moved to the upper floor and the facilities there had been upgraded and improved.

  

In July 2024, a CPT, funded by DLUHC had been completed at the University of Greenwich Pembroke Building. This facility was delivered to the current BS 8300 Standard for CPT facilities. It had been fully registered as part of the funding conditions with Muscular Dystrophy UK (MDUK) and was now available to the students/public that had a RADAR Key.

 

In addition to this facility, a CPT had been installed in the new Cozenton Park Sport Centre that opened in July 2024. This had not been registered with MDUK as it was not funded by DLUHC but this could be explored to see if it could be formally registered and displayed on their website.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Alan Wells was not present.

 

Question I – Mike Evans, of Rochester, asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

 

“The Council will be aware that Trussell Trust and The Joseph Rowntree Foundation are campaigning for an Essentials Guarantee, which will ensure the Standard Allowance of Universal Credit is sufficient to cover life’s essentials such as food, clothing, transport and utility bills. The current rate of £91 a week is too low for people to afford these essential requirements.

 

As historically low rates of Social Security are the main driver of foodbank use, and given that in their manifesto, Labour committed to ending the need for emergency food, will the Council consider making a Declaration of Support for Trussell Trust’s Essentials Guarantee campaign?”

 

At the request of the questioner, Councillor Maple provided an answer. He thanked Mike Evans and the team at Medway Food Bank and said that he and a number of other Councillors had visited the food bank on World Food Bank day and that this had provided the opportunity to thank those involved in its work.

 

The Essentials Guarantee campaign was a long held ambition and part of the conversation around ensuring that food banks would no longer need to exist within the community. The new Government’s manifesto was very clear that it had pledged to grow the economy but ultimately move the need for emergency food to no longer be within the local community. Councillor Maple considered that the Essentials Guarantee was part of that programme, He urged colleagues visiting the Medway Food Bank to have a look at some very powerful testimony there from individuals within the community. He was prepared to work with Medway foodbank to look at making a declaration of support for the Trussel campaign.

 

Mike Evans asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘Could I just ask Councillor Maple, how you’ll take this forward and if writing to DWP or the Treasury, might you consider advancing the moral case for everyone being able to afford life’s essentials but also the massive saving it will accrue to the NHS and social services if everyone is able to afford life’s essentials. I know that the CEO of Barnardo’s, Lynn Perry, has said that the best way to reduce the government’s very substantial social care bill would be an increase in social security payments.’

 

Councillor Maple said he was very pleased to have seen Ruth from Mike Evans’ team at the Home Start AGM on the day before the Council meeting. She had made the important point that nationally, Trussell, were changing their strap line to “together with Trussell”. In the spirit of cooperation, Councillor Maple would want to work closely with Medway Food Bank to understand the specifics on how this could impact the residents of Medway if such a declaration was made. He said that he would be happy to organise a meeting with Mr Evans and colleagues, along with the relevant Cabinet Members. This was a meeting that he looked forward to getting in the diary as soon as practically possible to continue that conversation.

 

Question J – John Castle, of Chatham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Active travel across Medway brings many advantages, including to both health and the environment.

 

Does the Portfolio Holder agree with me that a walking and cycling bridge from Sun Pier to Medway City Estate would be a great benefit to people in Medway?”

 

Councillor Curry said that the Council was in the latter stages of developing a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), which would provide a ten year plan for the delivery of cycling and walking interventions, to support the uptake of Active Travel in Medway. This aligned with one of the sub-priorities within the One Medway Council Plan, which sought to: “Provide improved opportunities to walk, cycle, use public transport and electric vehicles, reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality”.

 

Officers were also in early discussion with businesses on Medway City Estate in line with an estate-wide Travel Plan. This was linked to a Section 106 funding contribution, with the objective to promote non-car accessibility initiatives.

 

It was recognised that the River Medway was at the heart of Medway’s identity but was arguably an under used or under appreciated asset. Focus was therefore on the development of the emerging River Strategy. This would set out a proposed vision, strategy and delivery plan for the future use of the river, including key investment opportunities. This would enable the river to play a more significant role in supporting economic growth and contributing to the life and experience of our communities in Medway. One key aspect would be walking alongside the river.

 

The suggestion of an active travel link between Sun Pier and Medway City Estate was appreciated and was something that would be considered further, in accordance with the workstreams that had been mentioned.

 

John Castle asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘Following on the Active Travel scheme, other places of similar size to Medway have implemented a cycle hire scheme. Does the Portfolio Holder agree with me that working with partners and sponsors to deliver a scheme in Medway would bring a lot of benefits to residents and visitors.’

 

Councillor Curry said he had looked at cycle hire schemes in some detail in the UK and around the world. Part of the problem was who operates them and how they are operated. The issue was a complex issue, not different from the operation of EV charging on roads with similar types of challenges applying. One of the big issues was people asking what happens when the bikes get dumped everywhere and who would collect them. The issue had been given significant consideration and was not one for which a decision had yet been made.

 

Question K – Matthew Broadley, of Chatham, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Labour supported a (defeated) motion in July 2016 that would have seen Medway Council adopt the culture behind the City of Sanctuary movement. A number of Labour Councillors have, at various times, sat on the Steering Committee of the Medway City of Sanctuary Group.

 

I recognise that the previous administration and current administration have made progress in working towards being a Council of compassion.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder confirm if the current administration intends to fully align with the City of Sanctuary campaign and seek recognition as a Council of Sanctuary?”

 

In response Councillor Maple said that he had always been very supportive of the City of Sanctuary. The organisation locally had been fairly inactive post COVID so the starting point for the community of Medway would be potentially a reignition of that.

 

In other parts of the country there were examples of this, some communities around the UK had got universities of sanctuary so that would be a conversation as would council’s of sanctuary.

 

Councillor Maple was supportive of the principle but recognised that it could not be done in isolation, looking at this would be welcome. He had spoken with one of the existing Committee members from Medway City of Sanctuary and there was a recognition that there was inactivity at the moment, whilst noting that there had been a literal sanctuary during the last three years for people fleeing war.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Matthew Broadley was not present.

 

Question L – Jeremy Spyby-Steanson, of Chatham, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“History was made in 2021 when Green Councillor Cleo Lake proposed a motion to back the campaign for reparations. This motion would not have passed without the support of the Bristol Labour Group.

 

Cross-party motions between elected Greens and elected Labour councillors have also passed in other councils around the country, including Islington and Lambeth.

 

Last Saturday, multiple political parties came together for the William Cuffay Festival, to celebrate a Chatham icon who himself was the son of a former slave. Slavery therefore goes to the heart of our political psyche in Medway.

 

It is in this spirit of cooperation that I ask, will Medway Labour commit to the following?

 

?      Publicly support the campaign for reparations;

?      Call on the British government to establish a commission to study the impact of the UK’s role in transatlantic slavery, its legacies and impact today;

?      To write to Bell Ribeiro-Addy and affirm that Medway Council is committed to the aims and ambitions of the All Party Parliamentary Group for African Reparations.”

 

In response Councillor Maple said that he had been very pleased to give the  opening speech of the festival. The Festival recognised industrial struggles forty years ago around the issue of coal mines and the impact of thousands of jobs being lost overnight.

 

Councillor Maple thanked Medway Trade Union Council, the lead organisers of the Festival and the CWU, who had produced a fantastic documentary, which he encouraged Members and residents to watch. It would shortly be available on YouTube. He also encouraged people to listen to Anthony Martin, who had performed some very moving songs.

 

In relation to the substantive question, this was not something that was being considered currently. The Council had a huge programme and there would continue to be delivery for the people of Medway.

 

Jeremy Spyby-Steanson chose not to ask a supplementary question.