Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from:

Councillor Albon,

Councillor Barlow,

Councillor d’Abbro,

Councillor Crittenden,

Councillor Paul. Moore,

Councillor Packman.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 27 February 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 27 February 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).

There were no announcements.

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 

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

There were no petitions.

Ms Brown asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Over the past five years TDC’s planning team and committee has approved many planning applications for large and small developments, much of it on Thanet’s BMV farmland.

What are the figures today for houses built so far, to be completed and how many applications have not even been started?”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following points:

Up to 31 March 2024, there had been 5,398 dwelling completions. A further 2,661 units were under construction. 159 planning permissions had not been started at that date.

Ms McCourt asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Thanet District Council has acknowledged in the past that Thanet’s housing targets are over predicted, at 17,140.  ONS data figures show how Thanet has, in fact, a negative population increase; with low and falling birth rates, high and rising death rates and inward and outward migration to and from the district being stagnant. 

We seem to be continually chasing these housing targets but never actually achieving them.  Windfall sites, outside the local plan, are given permissions across Thanet, including building on our BMV farmland.

How are these windfall sites ‘contributing’ to the diminishing of our housing targets?”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following points:

·  All ‘windfall’ developments were counted towards housing land supply.

·  The adopted Local Plan included a windfall allowance of 225 units per year to contribute to housing land supply, based on previous delivery, which had been largely on brownfield sites.

·  Up to 31 March 2024, 3,801 windfall units had been completed, and these are included in the housing land supply calculations. We have calculated that of the 3,801 windfall units, 2,729 were on brownfield land (72%).

·  It is estimated that windfall sites will contribute a further 1,125 units by the end of the Plan period in 2031.

Councillor Pugh asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“It is great news that the Nayland Rock shelter has been refurbished but we still have many sea shelters along our coastline that are in a terrible state of disrepair. Can Cllr Albon explain what the plan is to bring these shelters back into use.”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following points:

·  A shelters working group was formed in 2023 to consider the sustainability of coastal shelters.

·  The group recommended funding the refurbishment of two of the most dilapidated shelters on the Thanet Coastline, located at Westbrook and Palm Bay.

·  A budget of £80k was approved last month for this purpose as part of the 2025/26 general fund budget.

·  Procurement for the refurbishment of the two shelters was scheduled to commence in April.

·  The 2025/26 budget also included a sum of £40k for the adoption and refurbishment of the Colonnade shelter on Marine Drive in Margate.

·  The working group agreed to continue exploring solutions for other shelters across the district, including seeking funding for further works where appropriate.

Councillor Pugh followed up his question by asking a supplementary question. It was noted that there were frustrations that this taken this long, as the working group had been set up in 2023. Questioning was raised regarding why this had taken so long and whether there could be a better improved relationship between councillors and officers in terms of communication?

Councillor Everitt responded that this could be due to the 2023/2024 budget. However, the officer and councillor relationship was improving steadily.

Councillor Crittenden was not present at the meeting, as such a response would be provided in writing.

Councillor W.Scobie asked Councillor Yates the following question:

“Can the Cabinet Member please provide an overview of the Council's Director and Officer Insurance, specifically in relation to employment disputes and compensation, including  financial limits? Could the Cabinet Member also confirm if this policy has been triggered in the last six years with regards to employment disputes and compensation?”

Councillor Yates responded with the following points:

·  This Council had both Professional indemnity insurance and Official’s Indemnity Insurance.

·  Professional indemnity insurance covers alleged negligence or errors in professional services which result in a financial loss later down the line that is not expected , and Officials insurance covers the council for wrongful acts committed by officers, which can include breach of trust, breach of duty, neglect, error, misleading statements, or wrongful trading. This insurance costs this council £7k a year, and has a £2m financial limit.

Councillor W.Scobie followed up his question by asking whether it could be confirmed across all insurance policies that there is no employment practice liability, further asking whether it was the councils intention not to put this in place?

Councillor Yates would respond to the supplementary question in writing.

Councillor Fellows asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Thanet has missed hitting its housing targets set by Central Government, both past and present.  It appears that missing these targets has resulted in Thanet being placed in a very difficult position, when it comes to refusing applications for housing developments.  A recent developer’s appeal was overturned by the Planning Inspector and his report indicated there was a failure to complete a sequential approach by the applicant when justifying the loss of BMV farmland.  Apparently, the applicant had indicated that as 91% of land in Thanet is BMV land, TDC has to allow the loss of farmland in order to achieve its housing targets.

How many houses remain outstanding against the current housing target and when, if ever, is Thanet expected to reach the target?”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following points:

·  As of 31 March 2024, 9,006 units (Local Plan allocations and planning permissions) had not yet started.

·  At that time, 2,661 units were under construction.

·  Of the 9,006 units not started, over 5,500 were subject to ‘live’ planning applications, at various stages.

·  The future housing delivery trajectory was reviewed annually.

·  The Council had no control over when housing sites would be delivered.

·  Additionally, the Council relied on information provided by site agents and developers.

·  Delivery rates were influenced by a variety of factors, most of which were beyond the Council’s control.

Councillor Fellows followed up this question by asking given the constraints on housing targets, what were officers and cabinet members doing to protect farmland further?

Councillor Everitt responded that this was part of the process of drawing up the local plan.

Councillor Braidwood asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“How are developers able to submit plans for a housing application on land greater than that allocated in the Local Plan?”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following points:

·  An applicant could submit planning applications for any land in the district, irrespective of whether they are allocated for development in the Local Plan or not.

·  The Council would then determine the application with regard to the local plan and national policy and guidance.

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

There were no Notice of Motions.

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

The Leader, Councillor Everitt, gave his report making the following key points:

·  The Cabinet had agreed to appoint Westwood One as the preferred partner for the refurbishment and reopening of the Winter Gardens. It was noted that the decision had been approached ambitiously, prudently, and professionally, with due consideration given to the feedback from Overview and Scrutiny. Officers and Cabinet had carefully assessed the complexities involved in restoring the Winter Gardens, a listed building, and recognised strong public support for its revival.

·  Westwood One, a local firm, was chosen for its understanding of the venue's community value and its proven track record, notably at the Granville Theatre. The project was acknowledged as being more complex and large-scale than previous undertakings. Officers would work with the company to ensure its business plan and designs were viable before proceeding to contract.

·  Thanks were extended to Westwood One and council officers, particularly the Director of Place, for their efforts.

·  Updates were also provided on other local projects:

-  Work had begun on the Madeira Walk waterfall restoration, with funding agreed four weeks prior.

-  Lift replacement at Ramsgate’s Leopold Street car park was due to start in June and take up to three months.

-  Progress was being made on improving sports facilities across the district, including funding applications with local football clubs and a temporary pavilion at Jacky Baker’s.

-  Discussions were ongoing regarding the future of athletics facilities at Royal Harbour Academy, with support for Thanet Athletics Club continuing.

·  Concerns were raised over Kent County Council’s (KCC) plans to auction properties including the Pie Factory and the Sarah Thorne Theatre. The auction had been deferred to June, but criticism was directed at KCC for undervaluing community services. A temporary

reprieve for the Millmead Family Hub was welcomed.

·  It was noted that due to the KCC election period, several consultations had been delayed, including the proposed PSPO on alcohol and anti-social behaviour and the housing allocations policy. The PSPO was highlighted as a key measure against community issues, with cross-party support and planned consultation post-election.

·  Praise was given for recent briefings on summer beach management and internal collaboration improvements. Officers were commended for their preparations and ongoing efforts.

·  Councillors were updated on the Thanet Community Champions Awards, which had celebrated contributions from local individuals and organisations. The event had been well attended and emotionally impactful, supported by the Shared Prosperity Fund. The value of community strength and the importance of ongoing investment in local initiatives were emphasised.

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

·  It was positive that Westwood One had been chosen as the preferred operations and bidders. This decision was seen as a testament to their accomplishments at the Granville Theatre. It was noted that the processes followed for the Winter Gardens project had shown clear improvement, with consistent adherence to the established process and the right decisions being made throughout.

·  There was a need to renovate other assets owned by the council. A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Councillor Fellows, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel, presented the report. It was noted that there was lively discussions within the Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Thanks were extended to all officers working with the panel.

Councillors noted the report.

Mr Tucker, the Chair of the Standards Committee, presented his report. Thanks were given to the Independent Members, Councillors on the Committee, the Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services.

Councillors noted the report.

Councillor W.Scobie, Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee, presented the report.

The following key points were given:

·  Thanks to the officers and councillors for their contributions.

·  It was noted that the committee had become too large, partly due to an increase in size to accommodate certain political rules. It was suggested that a smaller committee would be more effective.

Councillors noted the report.

Councillor Yates proposed, Councillor W.Scobie seconded and Councillors agreed the following recommendation:

To “Approve the new Contract Procedure Rules which are attached to this report at Annex 1.”

EQIA report to follow.

Councillor Keen proposed, Councillor W.Scobie seconded, and Councillor agreed the following recommendation:

That “Full Council approves The Statement of Licensing Policy 2025-2030.”

EQIA report to follow.

Councillor Keen proposed, Councillor Britcher seconded, and Councillors agreed the following recommendation:

That “Full Council approve The Gambling Statement of Principles 2025-2028 which are annexed to this report.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded and Councillor agreed that the recommendation be adopted, namely:

“That the Council agrees to Folkestone and Hythe District Council joining the East Kent Joint Independent Remuneration Panel, subject to ratification by Canterbury City Council and Dover District Council.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded and Councillors agreed the following recommendation, namely:

“That Council agrees the proposed calendar of meetings for May 2025 to May 2027 as set out at Annex 1 to the report.”