Agenda item

Motions

This report sets out motions received for this meeting.

Minutes:

Motion A – Proposed by Councillor Mrs Turpin and supported by Councillor Pearce:

“Chatham Docks is under threat of development from landlords Peel Land and Property, who continue to claim that the site is no longer financially viable, despite having used their ownership of the land to demonstrate their commitment to employment when applying for residential planning permission on the adjacent Chatham Waters site.

The Docks has a 400-year history but in last year's Regulation 18 consultation the Chatham Docks site appeared in the Council’s preferred Spatial Growth Option - The Blended Strategy.

This Council notes that:

· Chatham Docks is a thriving commercial port which directly provides 795 skilled local jobs.

· The Docks indirectly supports an additional 1,440 jobs through the supply chain.

· The businesses located at Chatham Docks make a significant positive contribution to Medway’s economy, with £89 million of annual investment into Medway. The Docks use environmentally sustainable methods to transport goods, which would otherwise be exported by road.

· The closure of Chatham Docks would have a disastrous impact on the employees and their families because they would either lose their jobs or have to relocate; and some of the businesses at Chatham Docks are physically unable to relocate due to the nature of their operation.

· Medway’s Local Plan has not yet been approved, and previous iterations have been criticised for failing to designate sufficient levels of employment land.

This Council resolves to ask the relevant officers to consider to remove the Chatham Docks site from the Council’s preferred option in the forthcoming Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Draft Plan to safeguard employment, skills and the local economy and re-designate Chatham Docks as solely for employment use before the Local Plan is submitted for approval.”

The Monitoring Officer informed the Council that he had advised all Members that in his opinion, the motion should not be debated during the current meeting and that the matter ought to be considered at the June meeting of full Council when the draft Medway Local Plan will be considered. To have a debate in advance of that meeting would increase the risk of legal challenge to the draft local plan because challenges may be brought on the basis of predetermination and / or bias.

The Monitoring Officer had recently shared the advice of King’s Counsel with all Members who had advised that the Monitoring Officer “should allow the matter to be debated, if pressed”

King’s Counsel had further advised:

“It is highly desirable that all Members now refrain from communications about the Local Plan until their opportunity to do so at that determinative Meeting that must be conducted with all Members of the Council having demonstrably not closed their minds, which, were it to occur, would be contrary to their decision-making duties.”

The Monitoring Officer stated that when the substantive motion was put to the vote, he advised Members to vote against the motion to avoid having a Council decision being made prematurely in advance of proper consideration of the Local Plan. Any such vote should be cast on the basis that this was not making a determination on land use, but would be rejecting the motion because the proper time for that debate on land uses would be on consideration of the Draft Local Plan.

In accordance with Rule 11.6.2 of the Council Rules, a procedural motion was moved and supported that the substantive motion be put to the vote without further debate.

Upon being put to the vote, the procedural motion was carried.

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

For: Councillors Crozer, Finch, Pearce, Sands, Spalding, Mrs Turpin, Vye and Williams. (8)

Against: Councillors Bowen, Browne, Campbell, Cook, Coombs, Curry, Field, Hamindishe, Hamilton, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Jackson, Mahil, Mandaracas, Maple, McDonald, Murray, Myton, Nestorov, Nestorova, Paterson, Peake, Louwella Prenter, Mark Prenter, Price, Shokar, Stamp and Van Dyke. (28)

Abstain: Councillors Anang, Barrett, Brake, Clarke, Doe, Fearn, Filmer, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Hackwell, Hyne, Joy, Kemp, Lammas, Lawrence, Perfect, Spring, Tejan and Wildey. (19)

Decision:

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

Motion B – Proposed by Councillor Spalding and supported by Councillor Mrs Turpin:

“Abbey Court Community Special School is a school for those aged 3 -19 with severe, and or profound and multiple learning difficulties. I took up an invitation, as, I understand, did other members, to visit the school.

Meeting the head and touring the facilities was eye opening as was being told that over recent years, facilities have been modernised to ensure a state of the art educational learning experience is available, but this only caters for ages up to 15. It was evident some current facilities were cramped, inadequate and out of date. Although staff and those connected with the school do their best, there is now an urgent need to complete the modernisation of facilities so those pupils aged 16 to 19 have the benefit of the same experience. It was put to me a failure to modernise may see children transported out of area for their education.

The advantages of modernisation so there is a local facility are clear. As pupils move through the years, they can continue their education close to home in surroundings and an environment they have grown accustomed to thus providing a more settled and beneficial experience. There are the long term cost benefit considerations.

Accordingly, this Council asks the Cabinet to commission a detailed report from officers, following discussions between the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, and Abbey Court School, as to what is required, along with cost, to allow this modernisation to take place, with a view to utilising some of the significant cost savings from the changes to Innovation Park Medway to fund same. And, or, in the alternative, to organise and obtain alternative or additional funding sources so those children within the 16 to 19 year age group that require these educational services can continue their learning development locally in modern safe familiar surroundings.”

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Motion C – proposed by Councillor Pearce and supported by Councillor Mrs Turpin:

“This Council resolves to only publish a Regulation 19 draft Local Plan for consultation, if supported with a completed and final Evidence Base, including:

A completed and final Local Housing Needs Assessment
A completed and final Employment Land Needs Assessment
A completed and final Retail Needs Assessment
A completed and final Strategic Transport Assessment
A completed and final Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
A completed and final Infrastructure Delivery Plan
A completed and final Viability Assessment
A completed and final Developer Contribution Guide
A completed and final Playing Pitch Strategy
A completed and final Sustainability Appraisal
A completed and final Habitats Regulation Assessment.”

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the

Substantive motion was taken:

For: Councillors Anang, Barrett, Brake, Clarke, Crozer, Doe, Fearn, Filmer, Finch, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Hackwell, Hyne, Joy, Kemp, Lammas, Lawrence, Pearce, Perfect, Sands, Spring, Tejan, Mrs Turpin, Vye, Wildey and Williams. (26)

Abstain: Councillor Spalding (1)

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Motion D – proposed by Councillor Finch and supported by Councillor Vye:

“Introduction of a Collaborative Case Management System for Ward Work

This Council notes:

· That effective case management is essential for ward Councillors to represent and serve their residents efficiently and transparently.

· That currently, the primary tool provided for managing ward casework is Microsoft Outlook, which lacks the dedicated functionality of a proper case management system.

· That this absence makes it difficult to track progress, manage deadlines, record outcomes, and share case details where appropriate with fellow councillors or officers.

· That Councillors often handle complex, ongoing issues on behalf of residents, where clear records and continuity are crucial.

This Council believes:

· That councillors should be equipped with professional tools to carry out their responsibilities to the highest standard.

· That a modern, secure, and collaborative case management system would improve accountability, service delivery, and continuity, especially when multiple Councillors are working on the same issue or in the same ward.

· That investing in such a system would enhance residents’ confidence in local government and support councillors in their day-to-day duties.

This Council resolves:

· To request that the Chief Executive and relevant officers investigate and report back on options for implementing a dedicated, collaborative case management platform for ward Councillor casework.

· To explore systems that allow for shared access between ward Councillors, basic tagging and categorisation, secure storage of sensitive resident information, and case progress tracking.

· To consult with Councillors across parties to identify key requirements for such a system, ensuring it is fit for purpose and simple to use.”

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Motion E – This motion was withdrawn and was therefore not discussed by the Council.

Motion F – proposed by Councillor Lawrence and supported by Councillor Hackwell:

“The Council notes that:

The people of Medway are rightly concerned that the roads in our authority are in a poor condition and despite some limited work since the administration took control of the Council, no-one can doubt that there remains much to do.

Whilst the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Community Safety and Enforcement has been concerned with imposing red routes and cameras around schools in a vain attempt to raise revenue, the roads continue to deteriorate due to the Administration’s incompetence.

The Leader of the Council has acknowledged that the people of Medway are "deeply unhappy" with the state of the roads. This reflects a recognition of the problem's severity.

The Council’s performance under this Administration has fallen off a cliff, as demonstrated below:

Pothole Repairs Completed

2021/2022	2022/2023	2023/2024	2024/2025*
8,613	13,901	15,630	4,315

* 10 months

The Cabinet has not only reduced the budget for pothole repairs but has also managed to underspend the highways budget for 2024/2025 by £575K despite £401K extra resources provided by the Government.

The Council requests that:

The Cabinet considers to reallocate the underspend for 2024/2025 so it is carried forward into 2025/2026.

The Portfolio Holder publishes a detailed plan within 30 days setting out to residents of Medway how he intends to fully utilise the resources available to the Council, preferably with clear targets for the number of pothole and carriageway repairs to be undertaken in 2025/2026.

The Portfolio Holder sets out how he intends to use the additional £1,289,000 made available by the Government for 2025/2026.”

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the

Substantive motion was taken:

For: Councillors Anang, Barrett, Brake, Clarke, Crozer, Doe, Fearn, Filmer, Finch, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Hackwell, Hyne, Joy, Kemp, Lammas, Lawrence, Pearce, Perfect, Sands, Spalding, Spring, Tejan, Mrs Turpin, Vye, Wildey and Williams. (27)

Abstain: (0)

Decision:

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

Motion G – This motion was withdrawn and was therefore not discussed by the Council.

Supporting documents: