Agenda item

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

Members agreed that questions would not be read out.

 

A.     Gerardo Esposito of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

You are on record as stating that the financial return on ratepayers £4 million investment into the airfield paved runway and infrastructure will be better than depositing the money in a Building Society.

 

The Rochester Airport Limited bid submission business model reveals you are mistaken. The £4M taxpayers’ return on investment (ROI) in the paved runway and airport facilities upgrade is pitiful.

 

The disastrous ROI figures legitimise the WS Atkins report 2001 assessment that there is no financial case for investing in a paved runway and proposed a grass option B nearly identical to the Airport Masterplan.

 

·        You say the airport accident record is good.

·        You say Medway Council is not going to commercialise the airport.

·        You say the paved runway and concentrated flights will result in 'less noise than at the moment' but that is untrue.

Please tell us why the taxpayer is paying millions of pounds for a small number of budget fliers to have a paved runway when they cannot afford it and they have been safely using grass since 1933?

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that the level of investment was reasonable considering it was an asset owned by the Council, and would be repaid by proceeds from the development created on the site of the redundant runway. In addition it was anticipated that the Council would benefit from in excess of £300,000 per annum of additional business rate income aside from a percentage of retail return against the airport operator’s lease holdings. There was also the value of leverage in terms of potential future public sector investment and also in creating additional jobs and economic activity and vitality both directly and indirectly from the development.

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

B.    Jennifer Sanders of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

Please tell us how Medway Council arrived at a £4M ratepayer contribution towards the Rochester Airport paved runway and facility upgrade?

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that the Council considered the proposal to fund the upgrade of the Rochester Airport at a Cabinet Meeting on 9 July 2013 and at a Council Meeting on 25 July 2013. The reports for those meetings and decisions made were in the public domain and members of the public wishing to understand the decision making process could look at those documents on the Council’s website.

The decision to invest in the upgrade of Rochester Airport was made by Cabinet and eventually Council and the capital investment needed for the upgrade was agreed at the subsequent Council meeting. This investment was up to £4M.

The Council then incorporated this into a Lease with Rochester Airport Limited, which would include the staging of investment whereby the works would be carried out by the operator to the Council’s specification before staged payments would be made.

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

C.    John Castle of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

 

Can the Portfolio Holder tell me, if plans for the replacement of the current public car park in Station Road, Rainham go ahead, who will be responsible for construction costs? 

 

If this falls on the local taxpayer, will the revenue eventually recoup these costs, as well as running and maintenance costs?

 

Councillor Filmer stated that there was no cost to the Council for the construction of the current station works, which were on Network Rail land, it was their project and was totally financed by Network Rail.

 

Mr Castle asked whether the lengthening of the platform and disruption to the current station car park would cause significant impact for commuter parking in the coming months? What steps was the Portfolio Holder putting in place to protect residents from anti-social parking in nearby streets and could he also ensure that there would be adequate parking provision for shoppers so that local traders would not be affected?

 

Councillor Filmer stated that the removal of some parking spaces at the Rainham railway station car park meant that those people who previously parked there would now be able to park in the Council owned car park by the level crossing where there were sufficient spare spaces.

 

The Council currently had no intention of increasing the capacity at its car park but the Council would look into the issue if there was a lack of car parking spaces should a business case be put forward.

 

D.    Nick Alderson-Rice of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, Councillor Hicks, the following question:

 

Do you believe that the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda, which will have an adverse impact on local accountability and insight here in Medway, is in the best interests of residents of Medway?

 

Councillor Hicks stated that Kent Probation was one of the responsible authorities contributing to Medway's Community Safety Partnership which had a responsibility to tackle reoffending by adult and young offenders.

 

There was no indication that this situation would change significantly as part of the transforming rehabilitation agenda. Councillor Hicks stated that he particularly welcomed the proposals to enable all prisoners to receive contact and supervision on release; particularly those on short sentences who presented the highest risk of reoffending.

 

Mr Alderson-Rice stated that the Community Safety Partnership would have to deal with two bodies from 1 June 2014 and asked how did they propose to do this?

 

Councillor Hicks stated that the reasons the government was changing the system was because prison numbers continued to be high and there was a high proportion of offenders who served sentences under 12 months that did not have any supervision at present.

 

New legislation, starting in 2015, would see allprisoners subject to at least 12 months of contact/supervision. It was this group of prisoners (serving sentences less than 12 months) with the highest rates of re-offending. By incorporating this group the Government hoped it could reduce overall re-offending.

Kent Probation was in the process of making the changes the government required of probation services. This would initially involve a split between a National Probation Service (NPS) and a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) on 1 June 2014. The local Community Rehabilitation Company would cover Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Kent Probation would start “shadow running” the split between the two new organisations from end of April.Kent Probation was committed to overseeing a safe transition to the new organisations.

 

E.     Sue Berry of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

We believe that 133 High Street is not a suitable site to combine the library with other council services. The current building has a mezzanine level in the reference section and we understand that the original plans for Strood Library contained a mezzanine level across the whole library, utilising the roof space. Indeed, the foundations were dug deep enough to accommodate and support this.

 

How far have the Council investigated this option for a community hub? It would be a cheaper option and the library would be left intact.

 

Councillor Doe stated that he believed 133 High Street was a perfect location for a Community Hub with a larger space for the children and family zone, as this was a very popular facility at the current library, and space to provide a gateway to Council services such as housing, benefits advice, planning and environmental services, with an adult library, ICT facilities and surgery space for Ward Councillors and other public services.

 

Bryant Road had not been considered as a location for a Community Hub as it was not a High Street presence. He stated that it should not be forgotten that the Strood Community Hub move would also allow the existing Council Contact Point on the former Civic Centre site, to be relocated to a far better location and in far better premises, improving the offer to customers.

 

Mrs Berry stated that at the last Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting she has been told that decisions regarding Strood Library had all been transparent. In the light of this, she asked who had decided that 133 High St would be a suitable site for a Community Hub and when and how was that decision made?

 

Councillor Doe stated that ultimately the decision was made by Cabinet and this was made after a very careful appraisal. He stated that whilst he did not have the precise dates in front of him, the contract for the refurbishment was approved by Cabinet on 11 February 2014.

 

F.     Kim West of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

The Council claim that they have a consistent policy of converting libraries into community hubs. However, there are no plans to site Rainham library and contact point together.

 

How can the Council justify this while moving and downgrading Strood library (a purpose built, well used, much loved, library) while maintaining a separate Library in Rainham? There is no consistency here.

 

Councillor Doe stated that Community Hubs, in each of the 5 main town centres, were part of Medway’s Cultural Strategy which had been published in 2009, and that this included Rainham.

 

The Council had made great progress establishing Community Hubs in Gillingham, Chatham and Rochester, and they had been very well received, and work had commenced on site at Strood.

 

He stated that Rainham presented a challenge in that there were no premises currently available on the High Street which would accommodate both the Library and the Contact Point, but should one emerge that was affordable; the Council would certainly look at it.

 

He stated that he took issue with Ms West’s contention that the Council was downgrading Strood Library. The Council’s highly trained library staff would remain in Strood as would the great selection of books and free access to PCs. The new hub would have the same usable library space, with the children’s zone expanded due to its popularity.

 

He stated that for those reasons he believed very firmly in this location and in the new facility that was being provided.

 

Ms West referred to the local schools, nurseries and local children using the current library. She stated that teachers, parents and children felt the move to 133 High Street would make it too dangerous to use so it was coming off their curriculum.  She asked whether a risk assessment had been completed on 133 High Street as this would be a venue too dangerous to use.

 

Councillor Doe stated that he did not accept this contention. The Council had been liaising with schools and he stated that he was quite confident that there would be a high degree of school use in the area, and as such Ms West’s contention was alarmist and quite untrue.

 

G.    Vivienne Parker of Chatham asked the Chairman of the Employment Matters Committee, Councillor Wicks, the following question:

 

Unison are alleging that Neil Davies, the Chief Executive, has seen his pay and benefits package rise by 11% to £186,587 at a time when other Council staff have had a pay freeze. Is this true?

 

Councillor Wicks stated that the salary sum mentioned in the question was incorrect. The Chief Executive’s total pay package, excluding pension contributions, was £155,037 and this had not changed for the last three years.

 

The Chief Executive had been subject to the same pay restraints as all other employees and therefore his pay had been frozen in line with everyone else.

 

Ms Parker asked if this meant that Neil Davies’ pay had been frozen in line with that of other Council staff?

 

Councillor Wicks stated that the Chief Executive had been treated the same as everyone else.

 

G(i). Paul Chaplin of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

Does the Council keep an up to date list of approved private landlords, and is this monitored regularly?

 

Councillor Doe stated that the Council worked with private landlords and perspective tenants in a number of ways.

 

The Council was part of the countywide Accreditation Scheme for Landlords, which Kent ran, which sought to recognise good landlords, and agents who had the skills needed to run a successful rental business and provide good quality, safe accommodation.

 

He stated that whilst the obvious thing to do was to have a list of those landlords available to everybody who wanted to take on a lease on one of these properties, many of these landlords may just have one or a small number of properties, therefore, landlords had asked that the Council do not publish their details so they would not be overwhelmed with enquires for properties that they may have already let or were making other arrangements to let.

 

He stated that the Council’s approach, in common with most authorities, was to provide clear advice to perspective tenants on where they could find details of accommodation that may be available. The Council was very aware that turnover and relet times for properties could be very short, often taking just hours for a property to be relet, therefore, signposting was the most effective way of dealing with the issue.

 

Mr Chaplin asked for clarification on whether the Council had an approved list of private landlords.

 

Councillor Doe stated that Medway Council was part of the Kent scheme, and the Kent scheme had a list of landlords, which he believed was online and this included those landlords who were in Medway. However, he stated that for

the reasons he had given earlier the Council was not just handing out a list, as this potentially created more work for landlords to deal with the number of enquiries.

 

Mr Chaplin stated that according to the Office of National Statistics there were almost four times the amount of private rented houses in Medway as opposed to Council rented, therefore, could the Portfolio Holder explain why there was inadequate supervision of these properties to protect private tenants from unscrupulous landlords who failed to maintain these homes to a satisfactory standard and in many cases did not even undertake the mandatory annual gas inspections?

 

Councillor Doe stated that he believed that the phrasing of the question was unfortunate because it made assumptions that were just not correct. He stated that all houses in multiple occupation which were legally required to be licensed had been thoroughly inspected and the Council had made sure those had been properly brought up to scratch, including regular re-inspection. Where the premises were not required to be licensed and the Council received complaints about landlords, those were also investigated.

 

He also stated that the Council had now received funding to deal with rogue landlords and that this initiative was being progressed as well. He stated that he had made it very clear publicly that there was no place for rogue landlords in Medway and that they would be gradually tackled, one by one, and where there were serious breaches they would be tackled at once.

 

H.    Harrinder Singh of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

Since the Council last met, the already strong public opposition to the relocation of Strood Library has only grown. Will the Council now reconsider its position?

 

Councillor Doe stated that he appreciated there were some strongly held views on this issue and that the Library Service was highly valued by the community. He stated that the new community hub was a positive investment for the future of Strood, and would result in first class levels of service in a first class environment; therefore, the Council would not be reconsidering its position. He stated that the contract was awarded on 11 February 2014 and works had commenced on site.

 

He stated that he was confident that once customers experienced the offer at Strood Community Hub, based upon the successes of Gillingham, Chatham and Rochester, the benefits would be obvious.

 

Mr Singh stated that the last time he had queried Councillor Doe regarding public consultation the reply was that there would be ample opportunity for people to provide their views. He put it to Councillor Doe that there had been no such opportunity and in light of that lack of opportunity would he now reconsider it?

 

Councillor Doe stated that the Council would be liaising with the public who would have the opportunity to express their views on various aspects of the fitting out of the Community Hub and that this was perfectly reasonable. He stated that the actual decision to place the Community Hub on 133 High Street had already been made and therefore there was no point in consultation on that.

 

I.        Stuart Taylor of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

Medway Council know that Rochester Airport Limited bid submission shows projected air movements of 32,000 rising to about 40,000 per annum.

 

Medway Council stated in their Public Consultation publicity material and invitations that they were going to recommend a cap of 50,000 air movements.

 

In response to public feedback Medway Council then announced a reduction to 40,000 air movements per annum.

 

Listening to public opinion, Medway Council announced a further reduction to a cap of 38,000 air movements per annum.

 

Analysis has revealed that a cap of 38,000 air movements on a single paved runway is abnormally high for any runway at Rochester Airport, for which the highest recorded number of air movements for 02-20 runway was 32,643 in 2003.

 

In accordance with Council supplied - but unverified figures - in 2012, residents only experienced 13,122 air movements on the same runway.

 

A cynical observer might suspect Medway Council inflated the initial air movements figure up to 50,000 in order to manipulate public opinion and manufacture an acceptable outcome for Rochester Airport limited.

 

Please tell us why you are supporting an unprecedentedly high number of air movements which is almost 300% above the current levels if you have no intention to commercialise Rochester airport?

 

Further our cynical observer might also suspect that you are perhaps trying to mislead the public, or do you think we are all turkeys like Councillor Jarrett appears to?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that all previously stated aircraft movements recorded figures had been supplied to the Civil Aviation Authority by Rochester Airport Limited (RAL). RAL was not obliged to do this but chose to do so anyway. Therefore, the figures were verifiable.

 

The finalised figure of 38,000 for annual air movements was below the busiest years experienced by the current airport operator, which currently operated the airport without any restrictions on the number of movements. Air movements in 2012 were low, due to particularly bad weather, and also a period of economic recession that had reduced the numbers of air movements as individuals chose to fly less during financial constraints.

 

The final figure was arrived at following a genuine and comprehensive public consultation exercise, taking into account public opinion and evidence of previous annual air movements.

 

Mr Taylor asked when was this extensive public consultation exercise carried out because he had seemed to have missed it somewhere along the line?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that the consultation was very well advertised. It was over a period initially of some weeks. The secondary one was over a period of three weeks and was advertised quite widely.

 

J.      Rita Mew of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Educational Improvement, Councillor Tolhurst, the following question:

 

I am sure you know that there are a total of 17 Primary, Junior and Secondary schools within a 1-mile radius of Rochester airfield and that many of the schools hold educational classes outside during good weather.

As the Portfolio Holder for Educational Improvement I am sure you are well aware of the Government's commitment to reduce the impact of aviation noise on the learning environment. I wonder therefore why you supported a plan (at Council on 23 January), which recommends an unprecedented high volume of air movements for a single runway at Rochester Airport. 

 

Replies to date of a questionnaire I sent to the 17 schools reveals that you did not consult with the Heads or Principals about the Rochester Airport plans.

 

Please tell me why we the public should not reasonably expect your resignation as Education Portfolio Holder as a result of my findings which appear to reveal a neglect of duty in the care of our children's educational environment and failure to ensure compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement?

 

Councillor Tolhurst stated that she felt that this question had been directed to her incorrectly as she was not the Portfolio Holder with statutory responsibility for schools, however, she agreed to answer this question. The Masterplan for the Rochester Airport site consultation took place and was widely publicised on the Council website and in the local media. Over 7,300 leaflets were delivered to householders and businesses within the surrounding area. Everyone was given the opportunity to take part in the consultation. There was no specific requirement within the Statement of Community Involvement to specifically contact schools in relation to developments such as this. However a detailed assessment of the noise generation and the impact would be required as part of the planning application stage and this would be considered along with the impact at that particular time. The planning process allowed for the local community to have a further involvement in this process.

 

Mrs Mew asked whether the Council was going to contact the schools because the Heads and Principals had told her they would love to have been contacted to find out what the Council was doing?

 

Councillor Tolhurst stated that there was no requirement within the Statement for Community Involvement to specifically contact schools in relation to developments of this kind. However, all local school children, residents of local children, local governors and local teachers had all had an opportunity to be involved in this process and she did not think that anyone could have missed the advertisement about the consultation via the local media and as such, she believed that people had had a good opportunity to put their points across. She also stated that the planning application process did still allow for community involvement and for those views to be passed to the Planning Committee.

 

K.    James Brewood of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

The Rochester Airport Masterplan report to Council 23rd January 2014 owned by Robin Cooper Director, Regeneration, Community & Culture, authored by Catherine Smith, Development Policy & Engagement Manager, showed a table entitled,

 

'Rochester Airport – annual flight movements reported to the CAA since 2000.'

 

My FOIA request to validate the legitimacy of the table title and figures reveals that Medway Council officers do not have CAA confirmation or endorsement to support the presented table.

 

Please tell us what measures Council Members use to verify the accuracy of statements and figures used in determining air movement levels for Rochester Airport?

 

Additionally, what procedures are in place to reprimand any individual found to be misleading Council Members or the public using unverified information in the public domain which is liable to bias or influence opinion when determining future guidelines or policies. If any allegations are proven to be correct, are these determinations reconsidered? 

 

Councillor Chitty stated that the figures supplied to Medway Council came from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). They were supplied to the CAA by Rochester Airport Limited (RAL), but it had not been incumbent upon RAL to have done so. Therefore the table title and figures were entirely correct as supplied to Medway Council.

 

Mr Brewood asked how the Council could set a base figure from an estimate, which had not been verified?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that she could only refer to the figures supplied to Medway Council from the CAA, which was a verified source.

 

L.     Keith Baldock of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

The Council publicity information for the Rochester Airport states:

 

"The Council cannot afford to pay for these improvements without private sector funding."

 

Documents recently released under a Freedom of Information Act request reveals (neither) Medway Council nor Rochester Airport Limited has major private sector funding for the airport project yet the Council continue with their plans. The airport publicity statement is therefore untrue.

 

Given that you feature in the publicity leaflet in which the statement appears, please explain why the public should not consider you untrustworthy and dishonest?

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that private sector funding had been secured on the Rochester Airport project, from BAE Systems, for part payment of the TPS airport study that was commissioned to inform the Masterplan process.

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

13. Michael Fowler of Rochester asked Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers, the following question:

 

Robin Cooper Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture submitted a report authored by Catherine Smith, Development Policy and Engagement Manager to the Planning Committee on 19 February on the Rochester Airport Masterplan which stated:

 

"The consultation work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)."

 

The report contains factually misleading statements such as above and others which attempt to lead the Planning Committee to believe the Rochester Airport masterplan consultation is fully compliant to the Medway Council SCI.

 

The report also appears to confer planning benefit to a large contentious project in advance of it being adopted in the new Local Development Plan to avoid external scrutiny by the Government Planning Inspectorate.

As chairperson of the Planning Committee please confirm you have or intend to recommend rejection of the report and if not tell us why?

 

Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers stated that the report to Planning Committee on 19 February 2014 was to inform Members of the content of the Rochester Airport Masterplan that had been adopted at the Full Council meeting on 23 January 2014. The Committee had no decision-making role on the Masterplan. She stated that it was not within her area of responsibility or that of the Planning Committee to reject an adopted document of the Council.

 

Mr Fowler asked Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers how she could say, truthfully and honestly, that the Council had followed due process when the results of the consultation showed that nearly three quarters of respondents were against the masterplan. Most of the comments were concerning safety. He asked how due process had been followed when the Council had ignored the responses and the comments of the residents? He stated that the Council had failed to take due care and had therefore significantly increased the risk to the lives of residents under the flight path and that perhaps the Council did not care and maybe residents were expendable.

 

Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers stated that this was not a supplementary question, rather it was the questioner’s opinion.

 

N.    William McLennan of Rochester asked the Chairman of the Councillor Conduct Committee, Councillor Hicks, the following question:

 

As the Chairman of the Councillor Conduct Committee, I would like you to provide your personal view on verbal bullying of the public by Councillors.

 

Councillor Hicks stated that individual concerns about the conduct of a Councillor should be raised under the Council’s Code of Conduct process, which could be accessed on the Council’s website. Advice about the process involved and about the concerns someone might have could also have been discussed with the Monitoring Officer.

 

He also stated that where concerns were raised formally they were considered by the Councillor Conduct Committee, which he chaired. Decisions were made by the Committee as a whole after a vote, as was standard practice, therefore, he did not see how it was helpful to offer personal views on a specific issue, in that context.

 

The Council was of course committed to promoting high standards of conduct and behaviour. Those are enshrined in the Code of Conduct.

 

Mr McLennan stated that the Councillor did not answer his question. He asked would the Councillor please give his personal views on the bullying of the public by Councillors?

 

Councillor Hicks explained that the Council was committed to promoting high standards of conduct and behaviour. Those were enshrined in the Code of Conduct and he stated that he had already explained what the process was for dealing with particular concerns. He stated that he could not add anything further to what he had already said.

 

Mr McLennan asked whether the Councillor thought that verbal bullying should be time bound?

 

Councillor Hicks stated that there was a time limit for questions to the Councillor Conduct Committee which Members of the Committee were well aware of. This was something the Councillor Conduct Committee would take into account in dealing with any question put forward.

 

At the end of the allotted 30 minute period for public questions, Councillor Maple, supported by Councillor Shaw, proposed a motion under Council Rule 16.1 to suspend Council Rules to enable the suspension of the time limit of 30 minutes for agenda item 7 (Public Questions) to be extended as necessary to enable questions O-Q (the remaining first questions submitted by public questioners) to be considered at the meeting.

 

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