Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies from absence were received from the following Councillors:

Nichols;

Kup.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 11 July 2024, copy attached.

It was proposed by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and agreed that the minutes of the Council meeting held on 11 July 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.2 (iv).

The Chair announced that former Councillor Doug Clark had recently passed away. Councillors paused for a minute’s silence in respect of Councillor Clark.

Former Chair of the Council, Councillor Edwards received his past Chair’s badge, and gave words of thanks.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete the Declaration of Interest Form 

Councillor Whitehead declared an interest on item 8d Millmead Notice of Motion. This was due to Councillor Whitehead working for and NHS KCC partnership within social care related to the hubs.

To receive petitions from the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

No new petitions were received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

No new questions from the press and public had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.

Eight questions had been received from Members of the Council in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.

Councillor Crittenden asked Councillor Albon the following question:

“During the last year, during waste collection services being carried out, have there been any fires caused, or believed to have been caused, by the disposal of domestic batteries in household waste?

If so, on how many occasions has this happened?  Have our waste collection vehicles or other property suffered damage due to fire? What has been the overall cost in lost productivity due to vehicles and equipment being out of service?  What has been the financial cost in replacement, repairs and maintenance necessitated following any such fire?  And can you reassure us that there are adequate safety procedures in place to protect our staff in the event of such a fire.”

Councillor Albon responded that:

·  There have been no fires in relation to battery household waste during the last year. Crews have been made aware to look out for items that may contain batteries, and have been made aware that in the event of a fire they are not to try and tackle the fire, but evacuate the vehicle and call the fire brigade.

Councillor Crittenden asked a supplementary question, asking whether further education to the public could be provided in terms of promoting positive recycling habits of items with batteries within the council’s current doorstop collections.

Councillor Albon responded that it was a good idea to look into promoting positive recycling habits of vapes and  items with batteries within the council’s current doorstop collections.

Councillor Wing asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Thanet has the lowest tree canopy of any district in the UK with just 4.4% with some suggesting our coastal environment plays a significant role in this shockingly low statistic. However, the beauty of Mockketts, Dane Valley, Minster and Montifiore Woods, Ellington and Tivoli Parks for example, indicate significant improvements are possible and has begun with tree planting being undertaken. Mature trees create essential benefits; improving air quality, reducing the impact of flooding, ground stabilisation, wildlife habitat provision, reducing the impact of hot periods, improving the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities for example. Many residents in Thanet not only want to see more trees but also want to see less trees removed. Why is it that planning applications for tree work and tree removal cannot be ‘called-in’ to the planning committee for greater scrutiny, as other applications can be?”

Councillor Everitt responded that:

·  To clarify, applications for works to trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders are not planning applications, but are applications for consent from the Local Planning Authority to carry out works under the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) Regulations 2012. The applications are delegated to the planning department to determine and are not included on the weekly list which outlines those applications which can be ‘called in’.  Councillors can comment on applications and discuss cases directly with the planning department, in particular the Planning Tree Assistant.

Councillor Wing followed up by asking a supplementary question regarding including tree applications in the councillors’ weekly lists, to provide knowledge to ward councillors and thus residents.

Councillor Everitt responded that he would bring this up with the planning department, it was a good idea for the planning department to include tree applications in councillors’ weekly lists.

Councillor Bambridge asked Councillor Duckworth the following question:

“With Labour’s notable interest in the amount of land dedicated to golf courses in the country can I please have assurance for myself and the local community that North Foreland Golf course (which TDC owns the freehold of) will not be sold off to Developers for housing?”

Councillor Duckworth responded that:

We can confirm that North Foreland Golf Course is not for sale, and we are not working on any plans to sell it to developers for housing or any other purpose.

Councillor Bambridge did not have a supplementary question.

Councillor Munns asked Councillor Albon the following question:

“During the summer a large rave was held on the Beach at Foreness point; even larger and noisier than last year. No action was taken last year or this year to remove them from the beach. Botany and Joss bay had a steady stream of campers, caravans and motorhomes on the green areas and the beaches with no enforcement to remove or dissuade them.

One encampment at the base of the stacks at botany bay was there for several days creating a no go area for visitors with rubbish and human faeces. Again enforcement officers took no action

Year on year these same problems are increasing, with the associated amount of rubbish and human excrement left behind because of no facilities.  Discarded bbqs, human faeces and litter are ubiquitous and undermine Thanet’s tourism industry. Is there any point in having a beach and coastal PSPO if it's not being enforced?”

Councillor Albon responded that:

·  Raves are usually set up and attended during anti-social hours. Raves are enforced by Kent Police, they have specific powers to deal with them. Thanet District Council has an out of hours noise service that will respond if 3 or more complaints are received. The Council will attend to witness and then involve the police for their enforcement powers.

·  Our Coastal Enforcement Officers are employed to work between the hours of 10am and 6pm. However, they would be unable to stop an event of that size without police presence. In addition, out of hours noise officers would also be unable to stop an event of that size without police presence.

·  There was one report received on the Tuesday morning after the illegal rave had occurred. The Council and the police were unaware of the rave until this time. Coastal Enforcement Officers had patrolled the area during their duty hours and no reports of activity had been logged. In addition security officers engaged and managed by Broadstairs Town Council check the area until 8pm.

·  The August weekend that the rave happened was a very busy weekend with the Margate Soul Festival, Telemo beach party on Margate main sands and with events at Dreamland. Therefore our Coastal Officers were stationed at areas of priority where events were held.

·  Reports of camping, gatherings and BBQ’s are dealt with quickly by our officers. With regards to overnight camping, Coastal Officers follow the tent checking process set by the RISE team for homeless persons (the process is not immediate and can take up to one week).

·  The aim of the beach PSPO is to keep our district’s beaches safe and clean and protect the environment by preventing and managing anti-social behaviour through interventions, education and enforcement.

Councillor Munns followed up his question with a supplementary question asking whether the council should supplement the enforcement team with more resources moving forward.

Councillor Albon responded that whilst this possibility would be looked into, it would come at an additional cost. Additionally, private officers did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7d

Councillor Rogers asked Councillor K.Bright the following question:

“There is uncontrolled motorhome parking at Joss Bay and Walpole Bay council car parks, Palm Bay and Western undercliff Ramsgate promenades, and probably other places along our Thanet coastline. One motorhome parked in Walpole Bay car park even advertised on Booking.com as an Air B and B. There are no adequate toilet facilities at most of these locations, and beaches and greens are being used as toilets. Could TDC initiate a charge for motorhomes and allocate designated parking bays in areas of car parks and esplanades that wouldn’t interfere with other users? It would collect revenue for the council and discourage camping and overnight sleeping.”

Councillor K.Bright responded that:

·  Summer 2024 had seen a significant increase in camper van parking across the district. There had been some restricted areas such as western undercliff where the signage had been removed which limits the council’s ability to enforce the parking restrictions and require frequent replacement.

·  The area which had been used as a car park at Walpole Bay was not a formal car park and was considered to be a promenade. The coastal enforcement team did take action against the vehicle advertising overnight stays and the vehicle was moved on from its location.

·  The Overview and Scrutiny Working Party investigating the impact of tourism looked at the overnight camping provision within the district and have made/are in the process of making recommendations to Cabinet which the council would be taking on board.

Councillor Rogers followed up her question by asking whether the council would commit to a beach and social parking review to alleviate all issues associated with parking and motorhomes.

Councillor K.Bright responded that the parking strategy would be coming to full council either in late 2024, or early 2025.

Councillor Manners asked Councillor Duckworth the following question:

“Events like the Broadstairs Food Festival and OhSoRetro provide a valuable boost to our visitor economy – this is multiplied where the events are held over several days.

Does the Council publish and promote a list of its own venues with clear terms of business for their hire? Do we have a clear calendar of availability, and what support is in place to encourage and support potential festival organisers in navigating TDC’s inevitable strictures and regulations.

In short, is Thanet as business friendly as we should all like to see and can we have a review to ensure that is the case?”

Councillor Duckworth responded that:

·  Thanet had a vibrant events economy with a considerable number of well established large events, as well as new and emerging ones.  The council’s website had dedicated pages which provide detailed information about what is involved in putting on an event and how to apply for use of Thanet District Council owned land which also includes the agreement that event organisers sign up to.

·  There was also a section which highlights the areas which are suitable to be hired, including for what type of events. The council provided specific information on request and assisted with finding suitable spaces if the original chosen isn’t suitable or had been outgrown.

·  The council did not provide a list of availability but this is something that could be looked into.

·  All events were also subject to the advice of the safety advisory group which is a multi agency partnership providing specific advice on individual event plans.

Councillor Manners asked a follow up question, asking whether the council would hold a minuted stakeholder meeting for all those residents with businesses.

Councillor Duckworth responded that the council regularly had engagement with residents. However, in the future there could be a higher focus on residents who run businesses in the district.

Councillor J.Bright asked Councillor Keen the following question:

“Youth Services in Thanet are under attack by Kent County Council. Earlier this year, KCC withdrew funding from The Pavilion Youth Cafe in Broadstairs and Pie Factory in Ramsgate. Now KCC is planning to close the Millmead Children’s Centre which is home to a much-needed youth group, and also plans to sell Pie Factory’s building.

At a time when young people are increasingly facing mental health issues brought on by the cost of living crisis, social media and the lasting effects of the pandemic, youth services are more needed than ever.

How is TDC working with partners to ensure young people thrive in Thanet and do not suffer as a result of the lack of opportunity and support outside of school?”

Councillor Keen responded that:

·  Unfortunately the council was not able to fund the gap left by the withdrawal of KCC funding for direct youth services, however the council did procure a number of local providers for specific interventions. 

·  TDC commissioned services to support young people in both the community and within schools. Working with sport providers to provide intervention activities, i.e. Thanet Games, this included commissioned services and local sports groups to provide education around sport/wellbeing, social inclusion and improving access to resources.

·  From Thanet Games youth volunteers, some have continued onto the Activator training course to become sports coaches.

·  Thanet Games young people had been given the opportunity to access clubs such as football, skateboarding, gymnastics, athletics (and many more).

·  Educational input had also been given within Primary, secondary schools and pupil referral units, around mental wellbeing, social inclusion as well as ‘keeping safe’ in the district (including in the digital world), and criminal behaviour i.e.knife crime.

·  All of this allows the council to hear the ‘voice of the child’, along with the youth council.

·  TDC works with agencies to provide business as usual projects and bespoke projects/interventions to support young people achieve the best outcomes.  Signposting and safeguarding where needed.

Councillor J.Bright followed up her question by asking whether the council could work more closely with parish and town councils to make a list accessible and available to residents to view.

Councillor Keen responded that the council was committed to working with parish and town councils. However, an up to date list would be difficult to keep up to date due to the changing nature of activities.

Councillor Davis asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Having previously expressed in-principle support in this Chamber for the 2026 Tall Ships Maritime Festival at the Royal Harbour of Ramsgate, what is the Leader and Cabinet’s current position regarding formal ongoing support from this Council for this most relevant and important event?”

Councillor Everitt responded that:

The Cabinet remains supportive in principle of a Tall Ships Regatta being hosted at Ramsgate Royal Harbour subject to further development of a detailed event plan and budget. However it has been confirmed to the proposer of the event that without this the council cannot consider any financial contribution or resourcing commitment.

To receive any Notices of Motion from Members of Council in accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 3.

It was proposed by Councillor Pugh and seconded by Councillor Bayford that: 

“1. Revokes the current Local Plan which covers the period 2012-2032. 

2. Launches a consultation on a new Local Plan which includes updated  guidance from the NPPF, including revised population projections using the  most recent Census Data, design codes that reflect local characteristics,  sustainable building methods and renewable energy systems. 

3. Remove current housing allocations on Grade 1 agricultural land and if necessary reallocate to land of poorer quality or brownfield sites. 

4. Will strive to support and bring investment into our high streets in the new local plan by allocating brownfield and under utilised sites within our town centres.” 

In accordance with council procedure rule 3.7, Councillor Everitt provided a response to  the motion. 

Councillors agreed to debate the motion. However, due to paragraph 3.8V of the  constitution stating “the Chair shall rule out of order any motion on notice that relates to  the adoption of, or amendment to, a policy falling within the Council’s adopted Policy  Framework if that policy or amendment (as the case may be) has not first been proposed  by the Cabinet and considered by the Executive, Policy and Community Safety Scrutiny  Panel;” the Council did not debate this motion at the meeting, and deferred it to the  Overview and Scrutiny Panel, and then to Cabinet. After the motion had been to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and Cabinet, Cabinet would then determine whether or not to recommend the motion back to be considered by Full Council.   

It was proposed by Councillor Pressland and seconded by Councillor Austin that:

“Rooftop solar panels are a viable alternative to solar parks in the countryside as a way  of reducing both bills and carbon emissions. The Solar Together scheme has installed  them on residential buildings – but adding them to all new build appropriate aspect roofs  domestic and commercial would greatly increase the energy generated. 

Similarly, rainwater catchment systems help reduce volume rainwater run-off from  commercial and domestic properties. 

In view of the many positives these two installations offer, will the Council:  Write to the new Government to make solar panels and rainwater catchment systems a  mandatory requirement on all new builds, both residential and commercial, using oil, gas  and water company tax receipts to provide funding, with additional taxes on these  companies where needed to achieve the outcome? 

In the meantime do everything we can to encourage developers and commercial property  owners in Thanet to install these as a matter of course?

Actively seek ongoing external funding to help residents and businesses wishing to fit  these on existing buildings.” 

In accordance with council procedure rule 3.7, Councillor Everitt provided a response to  the motion. 

Councillors voted not to debate the motion; therefore the motion fell as the council did not wish to debate the motion.

It was proposed by Councillor Fellows and seconded by Councillor Bambridge that:

“Changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance and protecting pensioners from fuel poverty. The Labour Government’s recently decided to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit.

In Thanet alone 26,648 pensioners will lose the winter fuel allowance. In my village 60% of our residents are retired so this is something that I’m concerned about.

Motion:

• Requests to Bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign using TDCs communication channels and social media platforms to alert those eligible of Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.

• Requests that the Council Leader write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.

• Commit this Council to signing the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all council members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.

• Encourage local efforts to promote Pension Credit uptake through this councils partnerships with local charities and community organisations to ensure that all eligible pensioners in Thanet are supported in claiming their entitlement.”

Councillor Fellows proposed, Councillor Davis seconded and Councillors agreed to debate the motion.

Councillor Whitehead made an amendment to the motion, Councillor K. Bright seconded the amended motion:

·  The proposed amendments are as followed:

·  Insert the words in bold and delete the words in brackets and strike out, as follows:

·  “Notes that the outgoing Conservative government left behind billions of pounds of unfunded in-year spending commitments which require the new Labour government to take action to balance the 2024/25 budget.

·  Notes that government policy over the period since 2010 has discriminated against people below pension age, in particular forcing millions to use food banks to feed themselves and their families, and driving hundreds of thousands of children into poverty.

·  Notes that continuing the Winter Fuel Payment to the wealthiest pensioners would be inconsistent with social justice when children are going hungry.

·  Welcomes the fact that the council is and will continue to use its [Requests to Bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign using TDCs] communication channels and social media platforms to alert those eligible for [of] Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.

·  Requests that the Council Leader writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.

·  Acknowledges [Commit this Council to signing] the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and agrees to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8c

It was proposed by Councillor Boyd and seconded by Councillor Packman that:

“Thanet District Council condemns the proposal by Kent County Council to withdraw  funding from the Millmead Family Hub. We stand fully behind our formal response to the  recent consultation, noting in particular that relocation of these services is likely to have a  significant detrimental effect on take-up and consequently on the lives of those affected  in an already severely deprived area. We believe this impact is out of all proportion to any  immediate saving. We call upon the leader of KCC to attend Millmead, together with TDC  cabinet and ward members, to hear for himself from those directly involved about the  impact of his authority’s proposal on the residents who will be adversely affected.” 

It was agreed in accordance with council procedure rule 3.7, that Cabinet Member  Councillor Keen would provide a response to the motion. Councillor Keen provided a  response to the motion. 

It was proposed by Councillor Everitt, seconded by Councillor Boyd and Councillors  agreed to debate the motion. 

During the debate Councillors made the following comments: 

·  It was important that these centers continued, it offered families a form of rest bite.

·  Questioning over the buildings structural state was raised. However, councillors confirmed that the building was in a good condition.

·  Support to the motion was given by councillors.

Councillors debated the motion, Councillors agreed and the motion was carried. 

To receive a report from the Leader of the Council in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.4.

The Leader, Councillor Everitt, presented his report to Council, covering the following  key points: 

·  The Leader had been to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel in September to  discuss the progress which the Council had made toward the corporate priorities  which had been adopted earlier in 2024. 

·  Complaints received by the council from residents had been considered lower  than previous years, particularly addressing coastal bin management and  resilience issues. Improvements had been noted, with plans for further changes. 

·  The Council had a keen focus on expanding graffiti removal efforts, tracking the  number of removals. 

·  Cabinet's actions on climate change had gone beyond discussions, and action  was being taken in relevant departments to help the Council reach net zero. 

·  The Council had progressed with its housing plans, including building 400  council homes and 11 homes for temporary accommodation. 

·  There had been previous concerns over housing registers and distressing stories  from temporary accommodation. 

·  National policy, successive governments, and the Council’s considerations post Grenfell fire were discussed, highlighting the weaknesses in the planning system. 

·  Updates on the Sealink project, Minster Marshes  planning permissions, and a 5,000-response parking review draft had been received and were under review.

·  The process for the Winter Gardens continued, there would be an update come  the end of 2024 regarding this. 

·  The withdrawal of the new PSPO (Public Space Protection Order) had taken  place in the summer of 2024. 

Councillor Pugh, as Leader of the Conservative Group, made the following points: 

·  Thanks was expressed to the leader for sharing updates beforehand. 

·  Praise was given for recent improvements, but it was noted that further work  needed, such as addressing bin pile-ups and a rave at Botany Bay. 

·  It was agreed that tourism continued to thrive, but keeping beaches clean and  enforcement remained a challenge. Questions were raised about delays in  addressing these issues. 

·  There had been positive feedback on the council's electric vehicle initiatives,  which had broad support from councillors. 

·  Emphasis was put on the council's action plan to reach net-zero emissions by  2030. 

·  Overall fire safety changes were welcomed. 

·  The overall updates on devolution were noted positively, and this was  considered an exciting time for local authorities. 

·  Appreciation for the council’s overall responses in meetings, though some  disappointments, including the summer 2024 PSPO, were mentioned.

The Leader responded to Councillor Pugh’s comments with the following points: 

·  There were some challenges present, which had been addressed, which the  Council was committed to. 

·  The Council could not interfere in procurement processes. 

Councillor Garner, as Leader of the Green Group, made the following points: 

·  Thanks were extended to the leader. 

·  Litter remained an issue, although complaints have reduced. There were  suggestions to increase bins at the start of summer, and to hire additional agency  staff for large events. 

·  Botany Bay's ongoing issues were highlighted within the Questions from  Councillors in the meeting, these concerns had spanned across several years. 

·  Progress regarding temporary accommodation progress was welcomed. 

·  However, there was a heavy reliance on developers to build council homes. 

·  Concerns were raised about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Councillor Fellows, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel, presented the report. It was noted that the panel had been busy, with big issues being scrutinised.

Councillors noted the report.

Councillor Whitehead proposed, Councillor Keen seconded, Councillors agreed the recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“1. Agree to increase the general fund capital programme by £3.004m, which will be used to finance the acquisition of the 11 properties at Westwood Point. This will be funded with additional borrowing and the revenue impact of this will be offset by savings.

2. Note the wider context of the report and the medium-term position with other

temporary accommodation recently secured, or being explored by the Council.”

Councillor Yates proposed, Councillor Keen seconded, Councillors agreed the recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“1. Notes the actual 2023/24 prudential and treasury indicators in this report;

2. Approves this Annual Treasury Management Report for 2023/24.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded and Councillors agreed the  recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely: 

“The time limit for discussion of Motions be changed from 30 minutes to 60 minutes for a trial period of 6 months after which this provision would be brought back to the Committee for review before making a final decision.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded and Councillors agreed the recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“The Leader of the Council will make available in writing a summary of the content of their report to opposition group leaders no later than the Saturday before the meeting. The content of the report should remain confidential and not be shared until after the report is presented at the meeting.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded and Councillors agreed the recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“Agrees the proposal that a change be made to the Constitution making it mandatory for all Councillors to attend Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion training.”

During debate Councillors made the following key points:

·  Notice on training was needed, with it being clear which training was compulsory.

·  The option of providing online training to councillors should be examined by officers.

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded and Councillors agreed the recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“1. Agree that the council’s harbour authority function rests with Cabinet (Executive) within the Council’s constitutional arrangements.

2. Note that as a result of the decision taken at 1. above, Cabinet will become the ‘Duty Holder’ for the purposes of the Port Marine Safety Code.

3. Agree amendments to the Council’s constitution to reflect the above.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded and Councillors agreed the recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“That Council agrees to add to the calendar of meeting 4 November 2024 as a new meeting date of the Governance and Audit Committee.”

Councillor Pugh had informed Democratic Services that he wished to add Councillor Wright from a substitute to a regular member on the Governance and Audit Committee. Councillor Towning would be removed as a regular member to a substitute on the Governance and Audit Committee.

Councillor Everitt had no new nomination changes.

Councillor Garner had no new nomination changes.

Councillor Worrow had no new nomination changes.