URL: https://democracy.medway.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2178

Decision Maker: Council

Outcome: Decision made

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Question A – Councillor Spalding asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:   “The condition of road surfaces in Medway remains at the forefront of public attention.   In some cases, potholes and deteriorating top surfaces are the result of water leaks which often continue for days despite being reported to Southern Water.   An example of this being the Allhallows Road between Lower Stoke and Allhallows. Other causes are overburdened wastewater and sewage facilities which Southern Water is aware of but does nothing about.   Can the Portfolio Holder tell me how much money has been reclaimed by Medway Council from Southern Water to cover road surface damage that could have and indeed should have been avoided, but for the apparent failings of Southern Water?”   In response, Councillor Paterson said that between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2025, the Council had recovered £117,800 from Southern Water through failed reinstatements, fixed penalty charges, and over-running works.   No reports had been received of road surface damage caused by water leaks on the highway network. In the event of surface water damage being identified, the Council would use its recharging mechanism to reclaim costs from Southern Water.   Question B – Councillor Mrs Turpin asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:   “Back in February this year, consultants engaged the community in Rainham to launch work on a new feasibility study for the town centre. This event included a number of Councillors, the MP and Cabinet Members.   A similar community consultation group was put together for the Hoo Peninsula - named the Hoo Community Infrastructure Framework, again using consultants. However, this engagement work excluded elected ward Members and Parish Councillors.   Can the Portfolio Holder explain the difference in approach taken, which snubbed elected Members for the Hoo Peninsula?”   In response, Councillor Curry said that the consultation had been put together for the Hoo Community Infrastructure Framework engagement programme. The draft framework that had emerged and its recommendations had been informed by an extensive programme of engagement that over 650 people had participated in.   13 events and drop-in sessions had been hosted and a Community Panel created, made up of people living across the Hoo Peninsula. The Panel held four workshops and a final presentation to ward and parish Councillors and it was therefore slightly unfair to say that they had been excluded from the process.   All the events and drop in sessions had been promoted through local and social media and over 50 groups based on the Peninsula were contacted directly, asking them to make their members aware of the ways in which they could get involved.   This was a co-design process by which trust was built by sharing knowledge and experience, with everyone in the group being equal. It was designed so that the Panel was a mechanism for in depth engagement. This included a group of residents, who could share their experiences, build their knowledge about planning, section 106 and other factors that impacted on community infrastructure to enable informed recommendations to be made.   A recommendation was put forward by the commissioned consultants, PRD, that certain groups should not be allowed on the community panel. These groups included elected officers and Members, staff from the Council’s Culture, Libraries and Heritage Team, Regeneration Team and Planning Team and NHS decision makers. At all times, people had had opportunities to comment and contribute to this debate.   Several meetings were held with PRD and stakeholders, including the parish councils and elected Members. At the request of the Community Panel, parish Councillors and elected Members were invited to the final panel session, where they presented their findings, shared their experiences and took questions.   Question C – Councillor Finch asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:   “Over the past year, we’ve seen a surge in camera enforcement across Medway - including over 2,000 fines from the School Streets scheme and more than 3,000 from moving traffic offence enforcement. These clearly generate significant revenue for the Council. However, the red routes scheme, despite its £805,000 cost and rollout across five key roads, issued just 35 fines between May and November 2024.   Given this inconsistency in enforcement outcomes, can the Portfolio Holder confirm whether the Council intends to expand, repurpose or replace these schemes for schemes such as congestion or ULEZ-style charges or limiting how frequently residents can drive in certain areas, including undertaking a full public consultation?”   In response, Councillor Paterson strongly criticised Reform UK and its presence on Medway Council. He considered that figures contained in the question were incorrect and that it demonstrated an ignorance of how moving traffic offences were enforced. He continued that there were no plans to introduce the initiatives set out in the question.   Question D – Councillor Vye asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:   “Residents in Rochester East and Warren Wood are fed up. They're dodging potholes, tripping over broken paving slabs, and wondering why their council tax isn’t being reflected in the state of their streets. It's not just an inconvenience - it's a safety issue. The people I represent deserve answers, and more importantly, they deserve action.   The Labour-led Medway Council must finally take responsibility for the crumbling state of our roads and pavements across Medway - especially in Rochester East and Warren Wood - where potholes and broken footpaths are putting residents at risk every single day.   When will this Council stop the excuses and deliver the repairs our community desperately needs?”   In response, Councillor Paterson was critical of Councillors who did not live near the ward they were seeking to represent and asked questions of other Councillors who knew the area a lot better than they did. He said that this was the case in relation to this question.   Councillor Paterson said that that it was a monumental task to reverse what he called two decades of neglect of Medway’s 831 kilometres of publicly maintainable highways and that the administration was not under any illusions about the scale of the task. While the funding available was not sufficient for the task, there was an objective scoring of roads according to multiple factors, including level of degradation and use. This allowed scarce resources to be allocated to roads most in need of repair. There was no guarantee that those resources would touch every ward every year, local Councillors who knew the area well would be aware that several schemes in recent years, had targeted problems in Rochester East and Warren Wood.   In the last year, works in the ward had included full resurfacing of the Cut as well as resurfacing of Delce Road at its junction with Star Hill. In the following week, resurfacing would take place between the City Way roundabout and High Street, Rochester.   Question E – Councillor Perfect asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:   “Can the Leader of the Council confirm whether he will be undertaking a public consultation with regards to the specific question of whether this Council will be proposing in November three or four councils for the region of Kent as part of the Local Government reorganisation process?”   In response, Councillor Maple said he was pleased that there would be a phase where the public of Medway and of the wider Kent region would have the opportunity to have the conversation about what the future of local government should look like. He agreed that in the short term it was right that the process had been led by council leaders and chief executives as timescales had been very tight. There would now be an opportunity for 1.9 million people, including 285,000 Medway residents to have their say, in relation to the number of councils that should be formed and other aspects, such as what powers could sit with a Mayoral combined authority. The opportunity to ask that question would be taken to be clear on the process and how it would look and feel.   Councillor Maple had appreciated cross party working against the backdrop of short deadlines. A really positive session had been hosted at the St George’s Centre where more than 40 Councillors on a cross party basis had engaged. That had led to questions being answered and sensible suggestions being made. Councillor Maple said his view on how many unitary authorities should be created was well documented. That would be part of the conversation as public engagement took place.   All existing tools of communication would be used for the engagement along with some additional elements. The process of recruiting the team that would assist with this work had been started and this team would be involved in other work. They would be undertaking policy work, which was an area in which other councils had a bigger workforce. Strategy would be important as this work progressed.   Councillor Maple looked forward to hearing the view of all Medway Councillors and most importantly, he looked forward to hearing the views of the people of Medway as the November 2025 decision deadline approached.   Question F – Councillor Hackwell asked the Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Mahil, the following:   “With the increase in the National Living Wage and the lowering of the employers’ national insurance contributions from £9,100 to the lower threshold of £5,000, that came into effect this month due to the Labour government’s budget, many small businesses in Medway are starting to struggle.   Can the Portfolio Holder outline what measures are being taken to support local businesses in helping to create jobs in Medway and attract investment to improve the local economy?”   Councillor Maple answered the question on behalf of Councillor Mahil. He said that the administration and the Portfolio Holder were taking a number of different routes to support local businesses.   The Partners for Growth and Green Growth Grants that were being awarded for up to £2,500, would soon double to £5,000. The Kent and Medway Business Fund offered 0% interest loans of up to £600,000 for businesses looking to move forward.   1 to 1 business support advice began in Summer 2024 and was being delivered from fantastic ascend co-working space. It was planned to expand this service from Summer 2025.   The UK Shared Prosperity Fund had helped to increase footfall in town centres by tens of thousands of visitors. Submissions were now being received for Year 4 of the Fund. As well as important feasibility funding, there was also a specific summer programme fund. This had allowed organisations external to Medway Council to deliver positive events across Medway.   Local supply chain and networking opportunities were being strengthened, including the upcoming Medway Business Meet Up and Medway Business Skills Showcase, which would take place for a second time.   Medway Council would be working with the owners of major employment sites in the area and with the inward investment agency, Locate in Kent, to attract further investment and new local jobs.   The Council had signed the Federation of Small Business Local Leadership Pledge within the first 100 days of the current administration and was making sure that it delivered for businesses.   Question G – Councillor Tejan asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:   “Could the Portfolio Holder provide an assessment of how the recent changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are expected to impact individuals with neurological conditions in Medway, given that we trust that the Council will support these individuals in navigating and mitigating any challenges arising from these changes?”   In response, Councillor Maple said that it was not yet known what the final outcomes would be for the proposed changes. He had supported residents with Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals and had an over 90% success rate, which he considered demonstrated that the previous and current system was not fit for purpose, with people waiting for more than two years for their appeals, with appeals often heard in court, an intimidating environment.   Councillor Maple said that the current system was broken and needed fixing. It was important that people with relevant lived experience to be able to share their views. The Motion that had been put forward by the Labour and Co-Operative Group to be discussed at this Council meeting had needed to be withdrawn following advice from the Monitoring Officer that Councillors who shared relevant lived experience at the meeting would be regarded as having a disclosable interest. Relevant engagement would therefore be undertaken through key stakeholders, such as the Medway Neurological Network.   The current Council administration had stepped in when the Government had made changes to winter fuel payments, to make sure that around 1,600 residents who had just missed out on receiving these payments, received additional support. A number of residents who were entitled to Pension Credit and were not claiming it, were supported to do so, this work continued through the relevant Council team.   Councillor Maple considered that the Green Paper gave some opportunities for improvements but there were risks and the Council needed to ensure that it heard from residents affected, in view of the current system being not fit for purpose, possibly in relation to some intermittent conditions, such as some neurological conditions. He concluded that there would be opportunities for Councillors to have these conversations as the process moved forward.   Note: The Mayor stated that since the time allocation for Member questions had been exhausted, written responses would be provided to questions 10H to 10O.   Question H – Councillor Wildey submitted the following to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray:   “Medway NHS Foundation Trust has recently appointed a new Interim Chief Executive, following the departure of Jayne Black. Can the Deputy Leader please update the Council on engagement she has had with the new Interim Chief Executive, particularly around the outcomes of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) report?”   Question I – Councillor Lawrence submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple:   “Does the Leader of the Council agree with me that the Prime Minister should apologise for breaking his promise not to increase Council Tax?”   Question J – Councillor Joy submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs:   “This administration has risen to praise the breakfast club for all at primary schools, with disturbing news that some of the piloting schools have dropped out due to funding not covering the cost. With other schools in Medway looking at what is funded (the food element, but just for one item and a drink), there has been no consideration of the required facilities to implement the clubs for the government target of 75% to be achieved, of the required staffing to deliver (meeting required ratios) and also the lost revenue to schools that currently have a chargeable service (providing food choices that does not limit what they can have).    With several schools maintained by the Council, what is the financial impact on delivering it, presuming that an area within Education and/or Children’s Services will be cut to fund it?” Question K – Councillor Gulvin submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple:   “Can the Leader of the Council tell the people of Medway if the £40M of borrowing he and his administration have undertaken to balance the first two budgets is going to be reimbursed through increases in government funding or through increases in Council Tax?”   Question L – Councillor Etheridge submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke:   “Procurement Policy Note 009, ‘Tackling modern slavery in Government supply chains’, provides guidance, which applies to all central government departments and their executive agencies. Modern slavery is often a hidden crime involving one person denying another person their freedom. It includes slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour and human trafficking. To tackle these crimes, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (the Modern Slavery Act) was introduced.   Therefore, will the Portfolio Holder guarantee, that the Government’s £200 million purchase of solar panels from the Chinese Solar Power industry using forced labour -  which is rife in the solar supply chain -  will not be used on any Medway Council owned building, by including this within your annual report at the appropriate scrutiny committees and using Medway’s influence to help ensure that no other neighbouring authorities also use these solar panels?”   Question M – Councillor Spring submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:   “China released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2023, making it by far the world's largest polluter that year. While most countries experienced dramatic emission reductions in 2020 due to COVID-19, China was one of only a handful of countries where emissions increased. They are still building coal, oil and gas power plants at an expanding rate.   Shipping goods from China to the UK is highly energy-intensive, as a single trip by a container vessel here can emit up to 900 metric tons of CO2.   Meanwhile, Britain, which puts out just one per cent of emissions, is using China to build our clean energy so we can pretend to be clean.   As Medway’s Green Champion, will you guarantee that by using your influence in Kent and neighbouring authorities, that our green initiatives and associated procurement is initially UK based?”   Question N – Councillor Anang submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways, and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson:   “As the Councillor for Rainham North ward and a parent, I have been contacted by several concerned parents regarding road safety in and around Rainham Mark Grammar School. This follows a recent incident where a student was hit by a car near the school. Parents have indicated that this is not the first occurrence, and the school has stated that they have previously contacted the Council regarding the matter but have seen no action taken.   Given the severity of the issue and the continued risks to students, it is probable that the Council may have received communications from Rainham Mark Grammar School regarding this. Could the Portfolio Holder please confirm what steps, if any, are being considered or planned to address these concerns, such as the provision of a zebra crossing or other traffic calming measures?”   Question O – Councillor Cook submitted the following to the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson:   “In addition to School Streets, what is the Council doing to keep children safe from traffic outside their schools?”

Date of Decision: April 24, 2025