Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the following councillors:

Councillor Barlow;

Councillor D’abbro;

Councillor Davis;

Councillor Fellows;

Councillor W. Scobie;

Councillor Manners;

Councillor Scott;

Councillor Wing;

Councillor Worrow;

Councillor Paul Moore.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 12 December 2024, copy attached.

It was proposed by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and Councillors agreed that the minutes of  the Council Meeting held on 12 December 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair.

To approve the Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of Council held on 23 January 2025, copy attached.

It was proposed by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and Councillors agreed that the minutes of  the Council Meeting held on 23 January 2025 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 Bill Peppiatt MBE, and Councillor Ken Jones had recently passed away.

Councillors paused for a minute’s silence in respect of Councillor Peppiatt MBE and Councillor Jones. Councillors gave tribute to former Councillor Peppiatt MBE and Councillor Jones.

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 

Report to follow.

Due to the large number of items on the agenda, the Chair decided to change the order of  the agenda to ensure there was sufficient time to discuss and debate the Council’s  Budget items. The budget items would follow first, and then the agenda would return  back to the normal order in which they were displayed within the agenda pack. 

It was noted that in accordance with council procedure rule 17.6, a recorded vote would  be taken on the motion or any amendments and substantive motions. 

It was proposed by Councillor Yates and seconded by Councillor Albon that: 

“1) That Council considers and has regard to the Section 25 report of the Director of  Corporate Services, presented at Annex 1, in execution of their statutory duties as the  Council’s appointed Section 151 Officer; 

2) That Council considers and has regard to the Equalities Impact Assessment and  associated screening tool presented at Annex 2; 

3) That Council approves the 2025/26 schedule of fees and charges, as presented at  Annex 3; 

4) That Council approves the updated Flexible Use of Capital Receipts policy, as  presented at Annex 4 

5) That Council approves the 2025/26 General Fund revenue budget; and  6) That Council approves the 2025-29 General Fund capital programme, as detailed at  Annex 5” 

Councillor Pugh proposed and Councillor Kup seconded the following amendment: 

“An additional £190,000 be added to the 2025/26 General Fund Capital Programme for playground improvements which would see

£70,000 be invested into  Minnis Bay

£70,000 invested into Northdown Park

And £50,000 ready to be invested into Westgate, when the Town Council confirm their plans for Westgate's new playground. All of this is to be funded from borrowing.

The revenue costs for 2025/26 associated with this proposal can be met from existing approved budgets.”

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote on the motion as follows: 

13 Councillors voted in favour of the amendment: 

Councillors Bambridge, Bayford, Braidwood, Dawson, Dennis, Kup, Nichols, Pugh,  Rogers, Rusiecki, Smith, Towning and Wright. 

32 Councillors voted against the amendment: 

Councillors Albon, Ara, Austin, Boyd, J.Bright, K.Bright, Britcher, Crittenden, Currie,  Donaldson, Driver, Duckworth, Edwards, Everitt, Farooki, Garner, Green, Huxley, Keen,  Makinson, Matterface, Pat. Moore, Munns, Nixey, Ovenden, Owen-Hughes, Packman,  Pope, Pressland, H.Scobie, Whitehead and Yates. 

No Councillor voted to abstain. 

The amendment was LOST. 

Councillor Albon proposed and Councillor K.Bright proposed the following amendment: 

“An additional £190k for the general fund capital programme budget, to be funded from  borrowing, to be used for play equipment in the district, including consideration of  Westgate, Minnis bay, and Northdown park, however with a priority final list being  determined by need.” 

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote on the motion as follows: 

45 Councillors voted in favour of the amendment: 

Councillors Albon, Ara, Austin, Bambridge, Bayford, Boyd, Braidwood, J.Bright, K.Bright,  Britcher, Crittende, Currie, Dawson, Dennis, Donaldson, Driver, Duckworth, Edwards,  Everitt,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

It was noted that in accordance with council procedure rule 17.6, a recorded vote would  be taken on the motion or any amendments and substantive motions. 

It was proposed by Councillor Yates and seconded by Councillor Albon that: 

“(i) That Members approve the Thanet District Council element of Council Tax charges as  set out below for the listed property bands: 

(ii) That Members approve the determinations in the Relevant Issues Section of this  report.” 

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote on the motion as follows: 

45 Councillors voted in favour of the motion: 

Councillors Albon, Ara, Austin, Bambridge, Bayford, Boyd, Braidwood, J.Bright, K.Bright,  Britcher, Crittende, Currie, Dawson, Dennis, Donaldson, Driver, Duckworth, Edwards,  Everitt, Farooki, Garner, Green, Huxley, Keen, Kup, Makinson, Matterface, Pat Moore,  Munns, Nichols, Nixey, Ovenden, Owen-Hughes, Packman, Pope, Pressland, Pugh,  Rogers, Rusiecki, H.Scobie, Smith, Towning, Whitehead, Wright and Yates. 

No Councillors voted against the motion. 

No Councillors abstained against the motion. 

The motion was AGREED.

Report to follow.

It was noted that in accordance with council procedure rule 17.6, a recorded vote would  be taken on the motion or any amendments and substantive motions. 

It was proposed by Councillor Yates and seconded by Councillor Keen that: 

“1. That the HRA budget for 2025/26 be approved; and 

2. That the revised Housing Revenue Account capital programme (Annex 1) for 2025-29  be approved.” 

Councillor Pugh proposed and Councillor Kup seconded the following amendment: 

“An additional £70,000 be added to the 2025/26 HRA Capital Programme for playground improvements at Newington Park to be funded from borrowing.

The revenue costs for 2025/26 associated with this proposal can be met from existing

approved budgets.”

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote on the amendment as follows:

8 Councillor voted in favour of the amendment: 

Councillors Bambridge, Bayford, Dawson, Kup, Nichols, Pugh, Rusiecki and Wright. 

4 Councillor abstained from the amendment: 

Councillors Braidwood, Dennis, Rogers and Towning. 

33 Councillors voted against the amendment: 

Councillors Albon, Ara, Austin, Boyd, J.Bright, K.Bright, Brithcer, Crittenden, Currie,  Donaldson, Driver, Duckworth, Edwards, Everitt, Farooki, Garner, Green, Huxley, Keen,  Makinson, Matterface, Pat. Moore, Munns, Nixey, Ovenden, Owen-Hughes, Packman,  Pope, Pressland, H.Scobie, Smith, Whitehead and Yates. 

The amended motion was LOST. 

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote on the substantive motion as follows: 

35 Councillors voted in favour: 

Councillors Albon, Ara, Austin, Boyd, Braidwood, J.Bright, K.Bright, Britcher, Crittenden,  Currie, Dennis, Donaldson, Driver, Duckworth, Edwards, Everitt, Farooki, Garner, Green,  Huxley, Keen, Makinson, Matterface, Pat. Moore, Munns, Nixey, Ovenden, Owen-Hughes, Packman, Pope, Pressland, H.Scobie, Smith, Whitehead and Yates. 

10 Councillors voted to abstain: 

Councillors Bambridge, Bayford, Dawson, Kup, Nichols, Pugh, Rogers, Rusiecki,  Towning and Wright. 

No Councillor voted against the motion. 

The motion was CARRIED. 

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

There were no petitions considered at the meeting.

Ms Sabin-Dawson asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“In the light of the Lost Nature report (https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/lost-nature-report/) published by Wild Justice in December 24 (written by University of Sheffield) which revealed that on average only 53% of the ecological features that were mentioned in planning conditions were present in reality, I would like to ask what steps TDC planning enforcement group currently take to ensure that all planned ecological features promised in submitted plans are actually delivered? If it is not the responsibility of planning committee then I would like to know who is responsible for ensuring that housing developers are fulfilling their obligations for biodiversity in Thanet.”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following points:

·  A Development Compliance team had been set up within the Planning Department and met on a monthly basis to discuss development sites that had commenced work or were close to completion.

·  During those meetings, they discussed any sites that had not complied with their planning conditions, which were then passed to the enforcement team.

·  Arrangements were also made to visit sites that were close to completion to determine whether the development had been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and whether the approved landscaping plans, including specific biodiversity features, had been fully implemented.

·  If any inconsistencies with the approved plans were identified, the case was passed on to the enforcement team to determine the necessary action moving forward.

·  Under the new legislation within the Environment Act 2021, there was a requirement for Local Planning Authorities to monitor sites where 10% Biodiversity Net Gain was to be delivered on site. As a result, moving forward, there would be an even greater need to ensure compliance with landscaping and biodiversity plans, which the planning department was aware of and planning towards.

As the questioner was not present at the meeting, they would receive a response in writing.

Mr Calder asked Councillor Duckworth the following question:

“What is your vision for Ramsgate Town Centre and how can the District Council it take advantage of the new powers given to local authorities for High Street Rental Auctions?”

Councillor Duckworth responded:

·  Over the years, the council had faced challenges in addressing long-term vacant buildings due to limited powers to intervene effectively. However, they welcomed the new permissive powers granted to Local Authorities through High Street Rental Auctions (HSRA), which would enable direct action to bring vacant properties back into use.

·  An implementation plan for HSRA had been created, and preparations had already begun to ensure Ramsgate, along with other towns, would be ready when the scheme became fully operational. Proposed areas for HSRA would soon be shared for public engagement to gather community feedback.

·  The council recognized the importance of maintaining vibrant town centres as economic and community hubs. As town centre usage evolved, the council focused on these areas as both visitor destinations and places that served residents.

·  Using government funding, the council had purchased a building in Broad Street to create a workspace and community hub, boosting footfall in the town centre. In 2024, Ramsgate Market was successfully brought back, and with external regeneration and business support funding, the council explored opportunities to enhance the market provision further, including a teenage market following a successful pilot in Margate. The council also planned to monitor the impact on Margate’s High Street when the Digital Campus opened, with students using the town centre and potentially creating activities.

·  Through UK Shared Prosperity Funding, the council had supported organizations activating spaces in Ramsgate. The Destination Management Framework for the district included a priority for Vibrant Towns, supporting activities across public, private, and third sectors to grow the visitor economy and diversify the towns' offerings, bringing more people into town centres.

Councillor Wing was not present at the meeting, Councillor Wing would receive a response in writing to the question submitted.

Councillor Pressland asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“The  Leader and Councillor Steve Albon have meetings monthly with Southern Water. Please can the conversations expand to land volume water runoff, river eutrophication. Permaculture water management using nature's biological processes can mitigate volume water run off, off grid sewage treatment for some developments enhancing biodiversity and quality of life.

Please can they discuss with Southern Water and give feedback to the Full Council in early summer?”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  Southern Water had provided a quarterly stakeholder meeting, which the speaker attended along with several relevant officers. Additionally, there was a separate quarterly Thanet bathing water update meeting that specifically addressed bathing water issues, offering an opportunity to share information and ask questions.

·  Land water run-off was a regular topic in these discussions, and Southern Water had shared details about the work it had done or planned in Thanet. At the last meeting, earlier that month, the speaker had asked Southern Water to attend a briefing session for all councillors later that year, allowing all members to hear directly from Southern Water and ask their own questions.

·  In the meantime, officers had passed on the points raised in the discussion and had asked Southern Water to provide a response.

Councillor Pressland followed up their question by asking if the leader would discuss with the council’s planning team how this can be included with land water run off.

Councillor Everitt responded that this would be discussed.

Councillor Pugh asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Can the Leader provide an update on the tender to secure an operator for the Port of Ramsgate?”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  The procurement process undertaken by Thanet District Council to identify a concession operator for the Port of Ramsgate had concluded on 28 January with no contract being awarded. Bidders had been invited through an open procurement process to submit an initial tender for consideration. Despite a successful initial tender stage in November, the council was unable to progress discussions beyond the dialogue stage and therefore did not offer a contract through this process.

·  As noted in the July 2024 Cabinet report, work had been ongoing in parallel to explore alternative ‘Plan B’ options for other maritime sector opportunities at the port.

·  A longer answer would be provided in the leader’s report, the next item on the agenda.

Councillor Pugh followed up their question by asking whether now was the time to keep all options open for the port of Ramsgate?

Councillor Everitt responded that all options are on the table, they had already begun discussing plan B, and a report would come back to council to talk about this in the future.

As Councillor Fellows, the respondent of the question, was not present at the meeting, Councillor Dawson would receive a written answer to the question.

Councillor Rogers asked Councillor Albon the following question:

“After complaints from Councillors relating to the poor workmanship at Broadstairs Harbour, I saw the damage to a concrete block that should have been secured pulled over by a wave and joints that didn’t connect on the wooden railings. High tides wash over them and they will be subject to high winds at times. This is a major safety issue. I emailed the senior officers on the 21st October.  I was told that the work hadn’t been finalised. I expected the work to be completed to a higher  professional standard, but the shoddy joints had filler inserted and been sanded down and some still had gaps between the joints!  I complained again and was told that there would be a meeting arranged with officers and councillors. Can you tell me when this is going to take place and when this substandard work is going to be corrected?”

Councillor Albon responded:

·  As previously communicated, senior officers had arranged to set up a site meeting with the councillors who had raised concerns at the end of the works.

·  As with all construction contracts, work had been continually inspected, and defects identified by the engineer on site were addressed by the contractor. Upon completion of the construction phase, a snagging inspection was to be undertaken.

·  The contractor had elected to place the precast wave wall units to check the level and line before fixing them in place. This was done to ensure that all holes for the dowel bars were correctly aligned before permanently fixing the blocks with proprietary grout. Unfortunately, a storm had occurred at this critical point in the construction process, before the grout could be poured. As a result of the large waves during the storm, one of the units was displaced and slightly damaged. This issue was deemed a contractor risk, and all associated remedial works were to be at the contractor’s expense.

·  The works were not yet complete, but a site meeting would be organised with the relevant councillors at the earliest opportunity following completion.

Councillor Rogers followed up their question by asking whether it was common practice for ground workers to be carrying out carpentry works, and would the council continue to allow this to happen?

Councillor Albon would respond in writing to this supplementary question.  

Councillor Kup asked Councillor K.Bright the following question:

“I am sure members, like Councillor Pugh and I in Birchington North, have received concerns from residents about the lack or poor condition of bus shelters across Thanet that aren’t being replaced. For example, we have not had our bus shelters replaced, that were removed due to damage, along Canute Road and Minnis Road. Please can the Cabinet Member clarify where the council is with the tendering process for the supply and installation of bus shelters across the district?”

Councillor K.Bright responded:

·  Officers had been exploring all options for the future contract of the bus shelters to ensure that the best solution for Thanet was achieved.

·  The council was currently out of contract with the existing provider, and while they were cleaning the existing bus stops and shelters, they were not replacing those that had been removed due to health and safety concerns.

·  To go to market for a competitive tender process, several steps needed to be completed. There had been considerable delays for a number of reasons, but progress was being made. Condition surveys for the shelters were being requested, and once received, officers would seek further advice and guidance from procurement colleagues on the next steps.

Councillor Kup followed up their question by asking if there would be support for officers work to repair bus shelters to be fast tracked?

Councillor Bright responded noting that procurement were busy. This was of high importance on the list but could not necessarily be fast tracked.

Councillor Smith asked Councillor Whitehead the following question:

“The UK faces a housing crisis, but TDC also officially recognises an ecological crisis.

The UK has "lost" 97% each of flower-rich meadows and hedgerows. Wildlife has been (quote) “killed, starved, poisoned, ploughed up or concreted over”, in no place more than Thanet. 

While we tick boxes promising biodiversity net gain, 47% is not delivered[1]. How are we genuinely protecting irreplaceable habitats for quickly-dwindling nature?

The report urges councils to consider:

•  Actioning brownfield land registers,

•  Returning empty homes to use,

•  Converting commercial buildings to residential,

•  Counting spare rooms towards housing targets,

•  Optimising Local Plan housing density

•  Discouraging developers from 'sitting on' approved but unbuilt homes.

Building on Green Belt or farmland is not the only way to address this crisis.

How/will TDC apply this creative thinking to providing quality, future-proofed, environmentally-sound, affordable and liveable homes – for both people and nature?”

Councillor Whitehead responded with the following key points:

·  The 97% statistic was clarified, stating it originated from a 1987 paper on the loss of meadows, not hedgerows. The statistic refers to historical losses (1935-1985) and not current trends, with only 1% of meadows lost since 1985. Hedgerow loss was also a historical issue, mostly occurring in the 1950s, and has slowed since the 1990s. The speaker also questioned the claim that Thanet was the most affected area, noting that Thanet's loss of high-grade land is lower compared to other regions.

·  Regarding biodiversity, it was assured that the council was focused on improving it through the Local Plan, including tree planting and regenerative farming. This also highlighted ongoing efforts like the Housing Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG), a brownfield land register, and an active Empty Homes Programme. It was noted that the council already implements many measures, such as allowing higher-density housing where appropriate and prioritizing brownfield sites for development.

·  Additionally, it was emphasised that biodiversity net gain is a statutory requirement, and that the council was incorporating this into new developments, including environmentally friendly features like solar panels. They encouraged further suggestions through the Housing CAG.

Councillor Smith asked if there was something wrong with government algorithms regarding building 1.8 million homes?

Councillor Whitehead responded that to increase revenue from council tax to bring back onto the market, this would be done via the empty homes process.

Councillor Bayford asked Councillor Whitehead the following question:

“Thanet District Council’s Interim First Homes Policy Statement from April 2022 states that on new sites a minimum of 25% of all affordable housing units secured through developer contributions should be First Homes.

Would the cabinet member advise as to how many First Homes should have been delivered to date using this formula and what is the actual number that have  been sold under this scheme?”

Councillor Whitehead responded:

·  It was highlighted that the nature of the First Homes programme, which offered a 30% market value discount for first-time buyers, aiming to make housing more affordable. However, they raised concerns about its relevance for Thanet, especially since it required councils to allocate 25% of affordable housing to First Homes, conflicting with local housing needs. Thanet’s primary need is for affordable rental housing, not discounted homes for purchase.

·  The First Homes programme also faced challenges in terms of delivery and uptake, with issues around lender support and developers’ reluctance to participate, as it reduced the number of homes in Section 106 agreements. Despite these difficulties, some First Homes were delivered in Kent through a pilot project, but the product remained out of reach for many due to its price.

·  It was emphasised that the council’s commitment to affordable homeownership solutions, such as shared ownership, which had been more successful and accessible.

Councillor Bayford followed up their question by asking whether there was anything to help Thanet’s young and employed people to buy a home in the district?

Councillor Whitehead responded that the area needed affordable housing. There would be a focus on delivering shared ownership as well as looking at other marketed products.

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

Councillor J.Bright proposed, Councillor Albon seconded that:

“Motion to address Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in Thanet

The council welcomes the new government’s commitment to halve VAWG in the next decade. However, this bold ambition cannot be realised by the national government alone - we need action from local councillors, council leaders and Police and Crime Commissioners to turn the tide on VAWG in our local communities.

A recent report released by the National Police Chiefs’ Council warns that violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a ‘national emergency’, with cases rising by 37% in the last five years. At least 1 in every 12 women will be a victim of VAWG per year (2 million victims) and numbers are expected to be higher as many feel too ashamed or concerned about reporting their experiences.

Thanet District Council recognises the concerning and disturbing prevalence of

violence against women and girls (VAWG) within our community. Violence against women and girls is a widespread and persistent problem, with serious consequences for those affected and the community as a whole, as it presents a barrier to safety, wellbeing and equality. It includes physical, emotional, and sexual violence, and occurs in many forms, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, spiking and harassment.

Recent statistics highlight, whilst there has been some improvement in Thanet, there is still work that needs to be done. Thanet has the highest recorded domestic abuse-related offenses in Kent. Between November 2022 to October 2023, there were 4152 incidents of VAWG reported to the police in our district. We also know that the true figure will be much higher as many incidents go unreported.

A survey by the Thanet Community Safety Partnership in 2023, found that 1 in 2 women and girls feel unsafe in the District at night time, and 1 in 3 women and girls feel unsafe in the day.

71% of all women in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space (UN Women, 2021). This rises to 86% of 18-24yr olds. Street

harassment affects quality of life as it alters the way women and girls behave,

impacting on their freedom. For example, changing their routes, avoiding going out at night, not going out alone, wearing trainers so they can run away. Men and boys need to understand the impact of sexual harassment and be part of a change of culture.

Attitudes towards healthy relationships in young people are also showing concerning trends, with research indicating a direct correlation between exposure to misogynistic social media content and unhealthy views on relationships (Women’s Aid, 2023). In addition to this, young people don’t know where to access support; a worrying 61% of children surveyed who said they would seek support if they experienced domestic abuse were unsure of where to go for help (Women’s Aid, 2023). Sexism and misogyny as the root causes of domestic abuse must be addressed through prevention work with young men and boys. With the rise of influential figures promoting misogyny  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

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

“This council notes that:

1. The current devolution process in Kent must change to prioritise democratic

governance and accountability so that it better ensures that decisions are made in the best interests of Kent residents and future generations.

2. The high cost of standing for metro mayoral elections in England, including a £5000 deposit and a £5000 contribution for inclusion in a candidate booklet, deters capable individuals from running for office. While it is necessary to discourage frivolous candidacies, alternative mechanisms, such as requiring candidates to gather a specified number of signatures from electors could achieve this more inclusively

3. Spending limits for mayoral elections are disproportionately high, with an

allowance of approx. £150,000 for areas as populous as Kent. This creates a

significant barrier to genuine democratic participation and fair competition.

4. Until 2023 mayoral elections in England were conducted under the Supplementary Vote system which provided a fairer mechanism compared to the First Past the Post system now in use.

5. A democratically elected assembly would provide the devolution process with the very necessary oversight and scrutiny of the mayor’s decisions, causing power to be exercised more transparently and more in the public interest of Kent’s residents.

This council believes that:

1. Reducing significantly the financial barriers to standing for election would foster greater participation and diversity among candidates, thus strengthening democracy

2. Lowering significantly spending limits for mayoral elections would create a fairer electoral process allowing real competition and enhancing the legitimacy of elected officials

3. Establishing a democratically elected assembly as part of the devolution process is essential for maintaining checks and balances and safeguarding transparency and accountability

4. Reintroducing a fairer voting system such as Supplementary Vote or (introducing additional member system) for both mayoral and assembly elections would ensure more representative and democratic outcomes.

This council calls on the Leader, through interaction with Kent County Council, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other relevant

stakeholders to :

1. Call for the cost of standing for election to be lowered by reducing deposit

requirements significantly and exploring alternative mechanisms such as requiring signatures from electors as a fairer means of discouraging frivolous candidacies

2. Advocate for the reduction of spending limits in mayoral elections to ensure fairer competition between candidates

3. Lobby for the reintroduction of a fairer voting system such as supplementary vote for mayoral elections in England

4. Call for the addition of a democratically elected assembly as part of the devolution process in Kent to provide oversight and scrutiny of mayoral decisions.”

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

Councillors did not debate the motion, the motion was lost.

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 government published its white paper on devolution on December 16th. Kent County Council and Medway responded to join the priority programme in January, but their request was declined earlier this month. 

·  Despite this, the council, along with 13 other principal councils in Kent, was invited to submit indicative proposals for local government reorganisation by March 21st, with a deadline for final proposals by November 28th. 

·  It was likely that the council would be replaced by a unitary authority in 2028, with shadow elections in 2027. 

·  The timelines were challenging, and the period since the white paper was published had been busy as the council explored the future. 

·  The council leaders were not decision makers; the government was. However, the proposals put forward would help shape the future governance of Kent. 

·  Legal advice indicated that Thanet’s input on governance was a matter for cabinet, but it was necessary to have a wider discussion, so an extraordinary council was planned for March 20th. 

·  Five councils in East Kent had worked together for many years, but there was a risk of being pushed into one unitary authority in the name of financial sustainability, without considering local identity and representation. 

·  There was concern that a larger new council would make the role of councillor more full-time, limiting who could stand for election. While supporting reorganisation, it was important to consider the implications of creating a council with a population larger than many London boroughs. 

·  Larger structures would not necessarily solve the funding problem for local government services, which went against the principles of devolution. 

·  Many unanswered questions remained, and much work was needed in the coming months and years. However, the council was in good shape. 

·  The council was asked to endorse a further extension of Colin Carmichael’s term as chief executive. Thanet had been shortlisted for the Local Government Chronicle's 2025 award for Most Improved Council. 

·  The chief executive’s contribution over the last three years had been vital in the council’s success, and his vast experience had benefited the leadership. 

·  The council had a number of excellent senior officers who had kept the council afloat during difficult times. In recent years, new recruits had bolstered the team, supported by the council's political stability and ambition. 

·  Success would not be measured by awards, but by the quality of services delivered to residents, who were the ultimate judges. 

·  The budget had been debated and agreed, and more resources would be allocated to things people cared about. Some smaller initiatives had a disproportionate impact, such as repairs to public toilets, tackling graffiti, and addressing issues with Ramsgate's Madeira Walk waterfall. 

·  In January, the Grade II listed Nayland Rock Shelter in Margate was reopened after fire and vandalism damage. Efforts to refurbish other shelters would continue. 

·  The council was working on a new initiative to enhance and restore war memorials and statues, which would be detailed in a forthcoming publication. 

·  An  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Councillor Green, Vice-Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel, presented the report making the following key points:

·  Cabinet members were advised not to formally attend the meetings, though there was disagreement with this suggestion. 

·  OSP were looking forward to the Chief Executive's presentation at the next meeting, which would include topics like hot desking, a shorter working week, and customer relationship management. 

·  Councillors were encouraged to attend the OSP meetings. 

·  It was reminded that all councillors were entitled to put forward topics. 

Councillors commented and asked the following questions:

·  Cabinet had been advised not to attend scrutiny meetings, though it was noted that scrutiny meetings had improved significantly since coming to cabinet. The value of these meetings were emphasised, and it was clarified that they weren’t being ignored simply because cabinet members weren’t present.

Councillors noted the report.

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

“That Council approves the proposed TMSS for 2025/26 (and its annexes),

including each of the key elements listed below.

a. The Capital Plans, Prudential Indicators and Limits for 2025/26 to 2027/28,

including the Authorised Limit Prudential Indicator;

b. The Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy;

c. The Treasury Management Strategy for 2025/26 to 2027/28 and the

Treasury Indicators;

d. The Investment Strategy for 2025/26 contained in the Treasury Management

Strategy, including the detailed criteria;

e. The Capital Strategy for 2025/26;

f. The Non-Treasury Investments Report for 2025/26.”

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

“It is recommended that Council approve the following amendments to the Constitution:

1.  Under Part 3, Delegation Scheme, Part A, Section D amend 2.2 so that it reads as follows:

With the exception of key decision that are covered by the special urgency provisions set out under Part 3, B, 2 and in Part 4, all key decisions must be agreed by the Cabinet.

2. Under Part 3, Delegations Scheme, Section E, Part B, insert a part 2 to read as follows:

Delegation to the Chief Executive:

i, to undertake all action related to the role of the Head of Paid Service

ii, To exercise any power whether specified in this Scheme or otherwise delegated to any other officer with the exception of the Monitoring Officer and unless expressly prohibited by law.

iii, In a situation they consider to be an emergency, to undertake all action they

consider necessary, including:

(a) Incurring expenditure from working balances and/or reserves,

(b) to determine whether to take, defend and/or settle any legal proceedings

(c) to make a final determination whether to acquire land and/or dispose of a building and/or land, subject to consultation with the Section 151 Officer to the extent that they consider it appropriate and feasible and to notifying any emergency action as soon as reasonable to the Leader. For the purposes of exercising this power, all restrictions in the Financial Regulations including the contract procedure Rules are deemed waived and any decision may be made regardless of whether it is a Key Decision. In the event of an urgent key decision the procedure rules in Part 4 of this constitution must be followed.

3. Amend paragraph (q) of the overview and scrutiny procedure rules in Part 4 of the Constitution to read as follows:

The Chair of the Council must agree both that the decision proposed is reasonable in all of the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency. In the absence of both the Chair, the Vice-Chair’s consent shall be required. In the absence of both, the consent of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny shall be required. Decisions taken as a matter of urgency must be reported to the next available meeting of the Council, together with the reasons for urgency.”

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

“It is recommended that Council:

1. Note that the implementation date of new legislation impacting the Council’s

procurement activity, the Procurement Act 2023, is 24 February 2025.

2. Note that the Council’s Contract Standing Orders have been revised so that they will be fully compliant with the Procurement Act 2023. These have been considered by the Council’s Procurement and Legal Teams as well as the Corporate Management Team. They will be presented to the Constitutional Review Committee for consideration and then Full Council for approval in March 2025.

3. Note that since the Council’s current Contracts Standing Orders, set out in part 4 of the Council’s constitution, are not fully compliant with the Procurement Act 2023 can no longer be effective. As a result all new Procurement activity over £25K has been suspended from the 24 February 2025 and until Council determines the decision sought at 4. below.

4. Note and agree that all new Procurement activity must be compliant with the

Procurement Act and will be conducted in accordance with the Council’s new

Contract Procedure Rules (formerly referred to as Contract Standing Orders)

notwithstanding the fact that they still need to be approved by Full Council but on the basis that they have been considered by the Council’s legal, procurement and corporate management teams and on the basis that all of the Council’s procurement activity must be compliant with the new statutory regime.”

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

“It is recommended that Council approve the following amendments to the Constitution:

1. Article 14, paragraph 14.05 so that it reads as follows:

The Common Seal of the Council will be kept in a safe place in the custody of the Head of Legal and Democracy and Monitoring Officer. A decision of the Council, or any part of it, will be sufficient authority for sealing any document necessary to give effect to the decision. The Common Seal will be affixed to those documents which in the opinion of the Head of Legal and Democracy and Monitoring Officer, should be sealed. The affixing of the Common Seal will be attested by The Head of legal and Democracy and Monitoring Officer, the Chief Executive, the Section 151 Officer, a Director, or some other person authorised by the Head of Legal and Democracy and Monitoring Officer. An entry of every document sealed shall be made and consecutively numbered in a book to be provided for the purpose and shall be signed by a person who has attested the seal.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice Chair seconded the recommendations in the report be set  out:

“1. Agree the proposed new scheme including the corresponding index linked increase when it is agreed by staff.”

Councillors agreed.

The Leader proposed, Councillor Pugh seconded, and Councillors agreed that the recommendations in the report be set out:

“1. The appointment of Colin Carmichael, currently Interim Chief Executive, Head of the Paid Service and Returning Officer, as permanent.”