Agenda item

Question 7A – Peter Skudder, of Gillingham, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness, Councillor Louwella Prenter:

 

“I hear that the travellers in Wigmore / Bredhurst have been given permission to stay, I am concerned as this could impact the value of our properties and have not seen any consultation with residents in the area, or any contributions that they are making to the local Council if the land was sold to them. How long will they be staying?”

 

In response, Councillor Prenter said that the Council had granted a licence to occupy for a specific period of time. The occupants had failed to leave at the end of the period which had resulted in the Council taking legal proceedings to recover the possession of the site. The Court had set a final hearing date for trial of 19-21 February 2025. The land remained in the ownership of the Council.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Peter Skudder was not present.

 

Question 7B – Robert Wyatt, of Cliffe, asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:

 

“Could the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement please give an update on the Council’s progress with pothole repairs to date including information about any additional funding from the Government to tackle potholes?”

 

In response, Councillor Paterson said that during the current financial year, the Highways Team had repaired 4,800 potholes and carried out more than 2,385 highway inspections. The Team would continue to be responsive to further reports of defects and work to ensure all inspections were carried out on time.

 

The additional funding from the Department for Transport (DfT) for potholes in the current year was £401,000 of Network North funding, which was diverted from HS2. It was understood that there was no further HS2 funding available at the end of the current financial year.

 

For 2025/26, £1.289m had been allocated from the DfT for road maintenance, which included resurfacing works.

 

Robert Wyatt chose not to ask a supplementary question.

 

Question 7C – Carolyn Hart, of Gillingham, asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Could the Leader of the Council give an update on what is being done to support those who may need additional assistance but might slip through the net following the Government’s decision to means test Winter Fuel Allowance?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that a range of activities had been undertaken or were planned to encourage take up of Pension Credit and to highlight the wide range of support available to Medway’s Pensioners.

 

Through the Cost-of-Living Crisis Response Plan, the Council had purchased a tool called the Low-Income Family Tracker (LIFT), and this had been used to identify Medway residents in receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction who may also be entitled to claim Pension Credit. These 440 residents were sent a letter from Councillor Murray, as the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care, to explain how to claim Pension Credit and to outline the support that Medway’s Financial Welfare Team could provide.

 

An event had been hosted at the Pentagon Centre on 21 October 2024. Whilst the primary focus of the event had been about maximising Pension Credit take up, the opportunity had also been used to invite other Council services and key partners to show the wide variety of support available to Pensioners. This included partners from the DWP, MVA, Age UK, Carers First, Imago and Southern Water, alongside the Council’s Benefits and Financial Welfare Teams, Housing Services, Public Health, Medway Integrated Community Equipment Services and Medway Adult Education.

 

The award winning Benefits and Financial Welfare Team had been attending community events and accepting specific invites to events where pensioners would be present. This included events with Naushabah Khan MP, Medway Matters Live, visits to church groups, pensioner luncheons and prominent community spaces, such as the Net in Walderslade. These events had all been well received and had enabled officers to communicate the wider support available to residents.

 

In December 2024, approximately 1,600 pensioner households had been identified in Medway who were not eligible for Pension Credit but were in receipt of housing benefit, or the Council Tax Reduction Scheme. Each household received a payment of £200 and they had been informed via a joint letter from Councillors Maple and Murray. This payment had been funded through the Government’s Household Support Fund. As of 14 January, 90% of the payments had been claimed through the safe and secure Post Office Payout system.

 

Medway Council would be continuing to operate the Household Support Fund throughout the winter, with over £1million allocated to support all residents in financial hardship, including support with energy costs. Officers would continue to identify and engage positively with Pensioners who required additional support this winter.

 

Carolyn Hart chose not to ask a supplementary question.

 

Question 7D – Liubov Nestorova, of Gillingham, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“What is the Council doing in terms of improving Gillingham High Street?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that he was pleased to be working on some exciting plans to rejuvenate and regenerate Gillingham Town Centre.

 

Officers had worked with the National High Street Task Force and key external stakeholders in the last year to address the challenges facing Gillingham High Street.  This programme had identified key areas of focus and actions for supporting the regeneration of the town centre.

 

The work of the Gillingham Town Centre Taskforce had continued. Chaired by the MP for Gillingham and Rainham, Naushabah Khan, the Gillingham Town Centre Taskforce had been created with senior Council officers, partners and key businesses to discuss the issues facing the town centre and to work on actioning some of the key priorities for Gillingham High Street.

The taskforce met bi-monthly, and partners would continue to meet regularly to help ensure the town centre was a better place for everyone, from residents and visitors to businesses and young people.

Some successes from this taskforce had been the refurbishment of new lamp columns, the repainting of the Town Centre benches and the very successful Love Gillingham event. A second Love Gillingham was being planned for July 2025.

The first Gillingham Co-Creation Community Panel had taken place in autumn 2024 as part of Medway’s ongoing regeneration work to transform the town centre.

The programme was being run by Design-South East and BPTW, who had been commissioned by the Council to deliver a co-creation project with Gillingham's residents and businesses. The workshop included 40 panel members featuring residents and individuals who worked in Gillingham. The panel discussed opportunities to improve the High Street and looked at the most challenging issues currently affecting the area, including concerns around safety, cleanliness and green space improvements. The Panel would help to shape the future of Gillingham Town Centre, making it a better place to live, work, learn and visit for years to come.

Council Maple said that there was a huge amount of enthusiasm and support for Gillingham amongst the businesses and its community. The final workshop would take place on Saturday 1 February, where the community panel would develop a Gillingham Town Centre Action Plan that would identify a clear vision with projects for the transformation of the area over the coming years.

Liubov Nestorova asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Do you think all of this is easier to achieve working with a Labour MP and a Labour Government.”

 

Councillor Maple said it was tempting to give a one word answer of yes. He said he was incredibly proud of what the three local MPs were doing in Parliament. It was the current Council administration, when in opposition, who had said there should have been two bids for the Future High Streets Fund, one for Gillingham and one for Chatham. The then Council administration had refused to do that, only putting forward Chatham. The current administration prioritised those areas that needed support. From this perspective, Councillor Maple was pleased to be working with a Government that he said recognised a Council that was trying to put right the wrongs that had been in place for the last 20 years.

 

There was an absolute determination on the part of the people of Gillingham to work with the Council to make their community the very best, and Councillor Maple hoped that whoever was elected on 6 February 2025 would be part of that journey.

 

Question 7E – Sultana Bhatti, of Gillingham, asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“I have been made aware that a ceasefire motion continues to be opposed within the Labour Group.

 

The International Court of Justice found that there was a plausible case of Genocide as far back as January 2024 and the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for key Israeli individuals, including the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in November. These rulings were not made lightly and indicate grave breaches of international humanitarian law.

 

The Medway Palestine Solidarity Campaign has consistently lobbied the Council to call for a ceasefire, the banning of arms licenses with Israel (export and import) and for international law to be upheld.

 

Can the Leader of the Council please ask why Medway Labour continues to oppose any ceasefire motion being accepted onto the agenda at Council meetings, particularly as other councils, including Manchester and Maidstone, have passed their own motions, and continue to do so?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that he welcomed the progress made internationally over the last few days and highlighted that there was also a motion in relation to this issue elsewhere on the Council agenda.

 

Councillor Maple said he recognised that any Councillor could suggest a motion, however there were also clear rules brought in during the Covid pandemic to limit the number of motions which could be brought forward by political groups. There was only one motion from each political group on the current Council meeting agenda. It was an internal matter for each group to decide the process for submitting a motion.

 

Councillor Maple said that motions put onto the agenda in the name of the Labour and Co-Operative Group were submitted through a democratic process, as was the case for the motion submitted to this meeting that thanked hardworking staff in Strood for the role that they played over the Christmas period.

 

Sultana Bhatti chose not to ask a supplementary question.

 

Question 7F – Saboor Ahmed, of Gillingham, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson:

 

“As a resident of Gillingham for 25 years, I understand the parking issues in the area very well. With much of the area under permit restrictions, and with pay and display charges up 185%, the cost of parking a car for local families, households and those using the High Street is becoming a significant burden, at a time when everything is going up. Furthermore, shopkeepers are saying the Council’s increases in parking charges are impacting their businesses in the High Street, this was something that was raised again in recent months with the then Councillor for Gillingham South, and MP, Naushabah Khan. To date no action has been seen to be taken on these matters.

 

With all of the above in mind, I ask the Portfolio Holder to listen to calls to reduce the cost of resident parking permits and to reintroduce the free parking sessions for the High Street, therefore, will he now act to help local families with the cost of living, and to support local businesses?”

 

In response, Councillor Paterson said that after 14 years of what he considered to be neglect by the previous MP and more than 20 years of inaction by the previous Council administration, he would have considered it a novelty to hear Conservative opposition Councillors claim to be speaking up on behalf of Gillingham residents.

 

Councillor Paterson said that the numbers quoted in the question did not add up and that homeowners had been left paying hundreds of pounds more in monthly mortgage costs. This would have a far more profound impact on the cost of living than a few pence more on parking charges. It was suggested that the questioner might like to do his sums again.

 

Medway’s parking permits were currently significantly low in cost compared to neighbouring authorities in Kent. A resident permit currently cost £33 per annum. This equated to a little over 60p per week or 9p per day. These extremely modest charges reflected the fact that operating these schemes to protect parking spaces for Gillingham residents brought with it operational and delivery costs and it would be unfair to expect other council tax payers, who did not benefit from the schemes to bear the costs of subsidising them.

 

A piece of work had recently been carried out around town centre parking in Medway, which, showed the number of car park transactions were consistent with previous years and therefore unlikely to be the reason for any perceived impact on business.

 

Councillor Paterson paid tribute to Naushabah Khan MP and her former ward colleagues for their support of the Love Gillingham initiative, which had culminated in a fantastic positive event in September 2024, which brought the whole community together. The current administration was building up Gillingham in partnership with its residents.

 

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

 

Question 7G – Trish Marchant, of Gillingham, asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Will the Leader, Vince Maple, advise if, as part of the devolution changes, there is any intention to revise the election process to a fairer voting system which would be proportionate to voters’ wishes, so that the electorate across the new unitary authority will be represented equally. Noting that at the 2023 locals, Labour took control of the Council with just 10% of the available vote.”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that the rules regarding election processes were a matter for the Government. In relation to directly elected Mayors, Councillor Maple believed that second preference voting should be used as that would ensure a stronger mandate for the person selected. He said that most people understood and respected the first past the post electroral system and that his views were different from many others in his party. It was for all people involved in elections to encourage and inspire people to vote. Councillor Maple said that he would wish to retain the current electoral system for electing unitary authority Councillors.

 

Two sets of public consultation would be undertaken. Any individual, political party, resident group, parish council, council group or anybody else would be entitled to make their submissions, initially on the Mayoralty, and later on local government reorganisation.

 

Trish Marchant asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Does Councillor Maple not think that there would be greater engagement with the electorate if there was proportional representation or a fairer voting system as it would encourage more people to vote if they knew their vote actually would be counted and they would have representation of some sort on the Council, especially considering the lack of consultation so far and public awareness around the upcoming potential merger with Dartford and Gravesham?”

 

Councillor Maple said that he took a different view on the map and that whether it was Dartford, Gravesham, Swale or anybody else, it would be for the 1.9m residents in the region to share their views. He said that he wanted to inspire people to vote and for them to vote on 6 February 2025.

 

All political parties could look at the percentage of votes they had received. While Labour had taken control of the Council with 10% of the total available vote, Councillor Maple wondered what percentages of the vote the other parties would have secured in that election.

 

Question 7H – Onyx Rist, of Rainham, submitted the following to theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

 

“I would like to ask Councillor Vince Maple to ensure that Gillingham is protected in any decision regarding devolution. Gillingham's former Liberal Democrat councillors warned that the Unitary Authority, now known as Medway (our Council) would mean that Gillingham is forgotten. This has happened given the lack of investment that Medway Council has given Gillingham in comparison to Chatham or Rochester.

 

I want to ask Councillor Maple to rectify that, and ensuring that Gillingham gets the investment it desperately needs in any deal, in doing so, making sure any elections that may need to be postponed are quickly held within a matter of months?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple referred Onyx Rist to the answer he had provided to question 7D.

 

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

 

Question 7I – Matthew Broadley, of Chatham, asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“On 30^th November, a Council leader addressed the Kent Association of Local Councils and spoke about the democratic deficit that the UK has in local government, particularly when compared to the rest of the world. This Council leader stated that should Kent switch to wider Unitary Authorities, this would not only exacerbate this democratic deficit, but would also reduce the democratic accountability of the system.

 

The English Devolution White Paper is set to almost double the existing democratic deficit, with the resident to councillor ratio in Medway expected to increase from approximately 3,500 to over 6,000.

 

Can you please confirm who it was that made those representations to the Kent Association of Local Councils?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple confirmed that the former Council Leader who had raised the issue was the former Leader of Swale Borough Council, Andrew Bowles. Councillor Maple said he had been pleased to answer his question when he had posed it during a wide-ranging conversation at the Kent Association for Local Council’s AGM.

 

Matthew Broadley asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Given that the main decisions have already been made behind closed doors, how can the residents of Medway and Kent take this local democracy review seriously and feel that their voices will be heard?”

 

Councillor Maple said that very few decisions had been taken to date and that he considered that the death of democracy had been somewhat overinflated.

Medway already knew that unitary authorities worked, having had over a quarter of a century of experience.

 

While Councillor Maple did not agree with all decisions that had been made by the Council, the one thing he had never had to do when someone had called him was to say that he was not their Councillor and that they would need to speak to another Councillor. This was what happened in other parts of Kent.

 

On the issue of the Mayoralty, there would be a public consultation. Councillor Maple encouraged Mr Broadley and anybody else who wished to, to make their contribution heard and that these would be considered carefully. It was not yet known when the consultation would be, it could be in a couple of months’ time should Medway be admitted to the priority programme. It was anticipated that the Council would find out before the end of January 2025.

 

Councillor Maple said that Medway Council would do everything it could to ensure that all people could play their part, should they chose to, and that this could be made as easy and straightforward as possible. It was suggested that if any conversations to date had been behind closed doors, then there were others who had also been behind these doors.

 

Councillor Maple said that he would personally work with everybody, regardless of political party and that he wanted the best deal in the conversation for the 1.9 million people. He was pleased to be proposing the establishment of a cross-party working group later in the meeting and considered that it was the right thing to do to have the 14 Council leaders write to the Government to indicate their wish to make progress on this matter. The doors were open here in Medway ready to have these conversations and Councillor Maple urged everybody to play their part as the process moved forward.

 

Question 7J – Doug Bray, of Chatham, submitted the following to theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

 

“Under what rationale do you justify your request to delay elections and extend the Councillor terms, which is beyond the democratic mandate that residents voted for and in doing so explaining what steps will be taken to uphold democratic integrity and maintain public confidence?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that he had not requested a delay to any elections in the current year, in fact the opposite was the case. Councillor Maple had written to the Minister of State, Jim McMahon, to make it very clear that he did not believe it was appropriate for any councillor, of any council, of any political persuasion, to have a 7-year term of office. This was a possibility if the Kent County Council elections and many other elections across the country were postponed with no clear indication of when councils would cease to exist.

 

In his letter, which he would publish on his X feed, Councillor Maple was clear that his working assumption was that Medway Council would cease to exist in 2028 and, therefore, the shadow elections for the new authority that would look after the 285,000 residents would be in 2027. He considered that it would be acceptable at that point for a one-year extension with the clear indication that the Council would cease to exist. That was very different to the situation that a number of councils across the country found themselves in. It was a matter for those individual Council Leaders and Cabinets as to the decisions taken and the representations made, but Councillor Maple was very clear on his views around the principle of a 7 year term of office.

 

There was the possibility of a 1 year extension of the term of office for existing Councillors, but Councillor Maple had not made any request and he would seek the support of all Councillors to do that at the appropriate moment. Medway had three upcoming by-elections in February 2025 and Councillor Maple looked forward to conversations on the wider issues later during the Council meeting.

 

No supplementary question was asked as Doug Bray was not present

 

Question 7K – Bryan Fowler, of Chatham, asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

 

“Mindful of the recent decision to grant a Premises Licence to an Off Licence in a designated Cumulative Impact Area, what assurances can you give to the Public Health Team, the Police and public, that Medway Council still supports the Cumulative Impact Policy?”

 

In response, Councillor Murray said that whilst she was unable to comment on the specific case as it was subject to an appeal, Mr Fowler was right to seek reassurance. It was very important that all parts of the Council understood and supported the objectives of the Cumulative Impact Area, in line with the commitment to prevent poor health, tackle health inequalities and provide opportunities for all residents to improve their health.

 

Councillor Murray said that the Licensing Committee was determined to play its part in supporting the Cumulative Impact Area and that the Committee was in the process of setting up a working group to ensure the Committee would be fully informed about the Cumulative Impact Area’s purpose and reach, as well as exploring how best to reflect these in licensing policy and decisions. This work would also involve police colleagues and other partners.

 

Bryan Fowler asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Going forward, how will you ensure that the locally produced policy continues to be operated in future, especially as it appears from papers on devolution, which we’re going to be discussing later on, suggest that Medway councillors, all of you, have already made your minds up that we do not want a/our unitary authority to continue in existence?

 

Councillor Murray said that Mr Fowler had been completely misinformed. On the contrary, it was anticipated that everybody else in Kent would be looking to Medway for leadership. Medway was very proud of the unitary authority and considered it to be the most efficient and democratic form of local government. This would continue under a new mayoral authority. Between now and then, the Licensing Committee and all staff would be working to achieve the very best they could for Medway.

 

Councillor Murray said that there should not be concern. There was a lot of misinformation about devolution, which was why Councillor Maple had put it onto the Council’s public agenda for discussion later in the meeting, so that people would have the opportunity to hear what was going on.

 

Question 7L – Jeremy Spyby-Steanson, of Chatham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“Whilst I welcome the long overdue development of the site of the old Strood Civic Centre, I am alarmed to see no council housing being delivered as part of the development. We had the opportunity, through the Medway Development Company, to deliver a mixed-housing development that could have included a proportion of council housing, to accommodate some of those desperate families who have been on the council house waiting list, sometimes for years.

 

With the fire sale of the Union Place Car Park (Chatham) and Temple Street Car Park (Strood), it appears that we are missing opportunities to meet this housing demand. I can only assume that this is having a detrimental impact on the delivery of affordable and social/council housing across Medway as profit becomes more important than meeting local housing demands.

 

What measures are Medway Council taking to ensure that we do not miss these opportunities going forwards?”

 

In response, Councillor Curry said that the delivery of affordable homes was vital within schemes to provide for balanced communities, but also to help address the affordable housing crisis that existed across the country, including in Medway.

 

In respect of the Civic Centre site, the costs of developing this site, due to dealing with land issues, made it unviable to deliver affordable homes through the planning system. The Council would deliver the required affordable homes on this site, outside of the planning process, using grant funding.

 

Regarding Union Street Car park, it was the intention of the Council to work with the purchaser to deliver much needed homes and affordable homes.

 

Similarly, in relation to Temple Street Car park, the Council was working with the purchaser in relation to it forming part of a wider development to bring significant improvements to Strood Town Centre, which would include the provision of much needed affordable homes.

 

Councillor Curry said that there must be a general acceptance of there being a desperate need for many more affordable homes in Medway, but there was also a real issue currently with registered providers, who were the usual leaders in the delivery of affordable homes, and their inability to deliver affordable homes in sufficient numbers through the planning process. In this respect, Medway Council, as planning authority, was leading the way in the South East to find solutions, in partnership with developers, registered providers, the Council itself, affordable providers and Homes England. This would ensure the continued delivery of these much needed homes, often currently outside the usual planning process.

 

Jeremy Spyby-Steanson asked the following supplementary question:

 

“In respect I think when we talk, and I think in this question I made it quite clear, when we talk about affordable housing, I’m specifically saying Council housing. Does the Councillor feel that Medway Council’s ability to prioritise council housing is set back by the Labour Government’s growth at all costs mindset towards the economy?”

 

Councillor Curry said that he did not think it was and he considered that Medway Council was doing its best on all fronts.