Agenda item

This report sets out the Members’ questions received for this meeting.

Question A – Councillor Myton asked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, the following:

“Can the Portfolio Holder provide the number of Medway Council Staff who reside in Medway and in doing so break this data down to ward level number(s)?”

In response, Councillor Van Dyke said that based on the workforce snapshot as of 10 April 2026, Medway Council employed 3,313 staff, of which 65.3% lived within Medway. This data excluded agency workers but did include casual and relief staff. The remaining 34.7% of staff lived outside the Medway area.

The ward?level data showed that staff living in Medway were distributed across all wards, with higher numbers in wards such as Watling, Rainham North, Rainham South East, and Strood North & Frindsbury, which reflected population patterns across the authority.

The following ward level breakdown of staff numbers was provided to all Members of the Council:

Question B – Councillor Mrs Turpin asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

"Further to the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement’s comments that potholes “is something that elected Members should keep well out of”, can the Leader of the Council advise Members of any other areas that elected Members, including his own backbenchers, should keep well out of?”

Councillor Paterson provided a point of personal explanation, in accordance with paragraph 11.1.4 of the Council Rules. He said that Councillor Mrs Turpin had chosen eleven words to quote in her question that failed to convey the entirety of the paragraph, which had been said on a Podcast.

Councillor Paterson quoted what he had said as follows “Road prioritisation does not happen on my whim, on my say so as an elected Member, I think this is something that elected Members should keep well out of the decision making process on and so the prioritisation is based on professional assessments, inspections, the data that we are gathering from the cameras on the front of bin lorries and actually making sure that we are doing it where it’s needed, not where those who shout loudest live”.

In response to the question, Councillor Maple said that his advice for all Councillors regarding things that they should keep well out of was selectively using parts of a quote.

Question C – Councillor Spalding submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

"Local Government reorganisation for Kent and Medway continues and does so at a pace that should now be ringing alarm bells. The existing timetable suggests the chosen option for Kent and Medway is expected to be announced before the summer parliamentary recess on 16 July 2026 with new authorities planned to go live on 1 April 2028 and elections to same held on 6 May 2027.

For an election on 6 May 2027, notices of election are required to be published no later than Monday 29 March 2027. The time between announcement of the new authorities and their composition and the latest date for publishing notices of elections is some eight and a half months.

In that time not only must the Electoral Commission undertake ward/division boundary reorganisation including full consultation, but Kent and Medway need to have in place new ward/division electoral registers, and everything associated with same, such as polling districts and polling places.

When Medway changed from 55 councillors in 22 wards to 59 councillors in 24 wards, the review process took place commencing in December 2019 with the final recommendations being presented in March 2021.

The proposed changes were then approved by Parliament some six months later courtesy of The Medway (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 on 20 September 2021.

The changes therein were to take effect in May 2023.

There was a comprehensive and thorough review over time followed by a significant and adequate period of time for Medway to enact the changes at a sensible pace, which also no doubt had cost saving considerations therein.

The current proposed timetable appears rushed, clearly inadequate and unworkable.

Does the Leader of the Council agree the timetable should be amended and any changes for Kent and Medway delayed, to primarily ensure adequate and transparent consultation, as well as allow sufficient time to enact any changes at minimal cost to the taxpayers, permitting the electorate of Medway to give their verdict at the ballot box on this Labour administration?”

As Councillor Spalding was not present, the Mayor announced that he would receive a written response to his question, in accordance with Council rule 9.1.

Question D – Councillor Sands asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

“The Hoo Peninsula is expected to accommodate substantial housing growth, yet there remains a lack of clarity and certainty around healthcare provision to support that expansion.

Residents on the Peninsula already experience constrained access to GP services and routinely having to travel to Gillingham to meet basic healthcare needs. This reflects existing system pressure, not a future projection.

I believe the issue before this Council is therefore one of delivery and credibility. If housing growth proceeds without secured and timely healthcare provision, it risks undermining both resident wellbeing and their confidence. In that context, the following points require clear and accountable responses please.

What is the current baseline of GP provision serving the Hoo Peninsula? In giving her answer, the Portfolio Holder should include the projected capacity gap as development comes forward and whether the Council is working with the NHS Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board to align infrastructure planning with growth.”

In response, Councillor Murray said there were three practices on the Hoo Peninsula, St Werburgh Medical Practice, The Elms Medical Centre and Highparks Medical Practice, with a combined GP workforce. It should be noted that not all care needs needed to be provided by a GP and practices recruited a mix of trained health professionals to best meet the needs of their patients. These broader multidisciplinary teams included roles such as advanced practitioners, pharmacists and other clinicians so the practice could offer broader, more timely and often more effective care for their population as well as increasing capacity for GPs to see more complex cases.

In April 2026, the practices on Hoo Peninsula had 20 GPs, and one locum, equating to 11.82 full time equivalents on the Peninsula and 33 Allied Health Professionals, equating to 29.7 full time equivalents.

In terms of future capacity, the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2025) detailed that a new primary and community health facility would be required to respond to growth in the Local Plan.

NHS Kent and Medway recognised the impact under doctoring was having on primary care and had commissioned the National Association of Primary Care to do an independent review into the particular issues in Kent and Medway. They would share details of their conclusions and the Integrated Care Board’s action plan as soon as possible.

The Planning team had regular Governance meetings, which Councillor Murray had attended, with the ICB regarding S106 requirements and spend to mitigate and address the pressures relating to specific development proposals. Throughout the Local Plan process the Planning and Public Health teams had engaged with the NHS/ICB regarding the emerging spatial strategy and the health requirements relating to that. This was reflected in the relevant policies in the draft Local Plan, and the associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Developer Contributions Guide.

Councillor Murray hoped this provided reassurance that careful consideration was being given to the health needs of the population on the Peninsula. She welcomed ideas put forward as this provision was developed.

Question E – Councillor Pearce asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

“The Inspectors’ Initial Queries letter dated 27th March, for the Local Plan Examination, asks the Council to clarify which submission documents were not available at the Regulation 19 consultation and how that issue will be addressed, and also notes that further consultation may be necessary where new evidence or other documents are submitted on which interested parties have not had the opportunity to comment.

In light of paragraphs 16 and 31 of the letter, will the Leader of the Council now commit that any new document, or any materially amended document, that was not part of the Regulation 19 consultation will be subject to public consultation before the Examination proceeds to hearings?”

In response, Councillor Maple said that the Council has received an initial response from the planning inspectors appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, in relation to its submission draft of the Local Plan. The current approved Local Plan was more than 20 years out of date so it was important to have made this submission. Receiving such feedback was completely common for Local Plans submitted.

The Council had until 27 April to provide an initial response to the inspectors and would be complying with that deadline. This would respond to the questions raised, provide clarification where necessary and would confirm the further steps to be taken. This would include proposals for further consultation and a time frame for that. The inspectors would be invited to comment on all steps proposed within the letter, including the consultation.