Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent
Contact: Gabriella Stewart
Media
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from:
Councillor Ara; Councillor Dennis; Councillor d’Abbro; Councillor Driver; Councillor Farooki; Councillor Nichols; Councillor Paul Moore; Councillor Pressland; Councillor Scott; Councillor Wright; Councillor Wing. |
|
Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.2 (iv). Minutes: There were no announcements. |
|
Declarations of Interest 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 Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
Local Government Reorganisation Revised Annexes 2 and 3 Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Everitt introduced the report making the following key points:
· In December, a white paper was published addressing English devolution and local government reorganization. · A combined submission process was undertaken, which was described as collaborative and constructive, with efforts to achieve consensus across party lines. However, it was agreed that there would be no more than four unitary councils, and no fewer than three, although the exact geography had not been settled. · Concerns were raised that the lack of defined geography limited options for other areas. Appendix 3 of the proposal was not fully supported, with some considering the geographies to be premature. · Achieving consensus in East Kent proved to be more challenging. · There were potential impacts on the timetable, with the population of Kent (1.9 million) making it difficult to meet the requirement for four unitaries, each with a population of at least 500,000. · A debate suggested that Faversham might be better placed in an East Kent unitary. · Additionally, concerns were voiced about the potential delay of devolution due to a lack of financial resilience and the need to safeguard important local provisions. · Many questions remained unanswered, particularly regarding how upper-tier services would be addressed. The final submission was due on November 28th. The cabinet was asked to consider the recommendations during their meeting that evening.
During the debate, Councillor’s made the following comments:
· Emphasis was placed on the importance of involving town and parish councils in the ongoing discussions. · Concerns were raised that district councils should not sell off assets while the reorganization process was ongoing. The options for the number of unitaries were still open, which was considered a positive development. There was also a push for greater local engagement in the process. · It was noted that the target of 500,000 people per unitary authority should not be set in stone, as flexibility was necessary. · Thanks were extended to the officers who organised the extraordinary meeting, acknowledging that it had been daunting for both councillors and officers. · The opportunity to streamline democracy and improve transparency was seen as a key benefit, with an emphasis on addressing certain issues at the local level. · The review of green spaces was also discussed, stressing the importance of ensuring proper protection when these spaces were transferred to a unitary authority. Recognition of the role of town and parish councils in these discussions was also requested. · Discussions were expected to gain momentum once the council knew the direction of devolution. Town councils were encouraged to meet and align their efforts to ensure a unified approach. · Gratitude was expressed to the leader for their time and for facilitating the meetings. · There was a call to avoid party politics and to work cross-party, with a focus on achieving efficiency savings. Concerns were raised that having too large a geographical area could risk excluding some communities. · Concerns were also raised about the Council Tax Support Scheme in Kent, noting that it was a generous scheme, providing 90% support, and expressed a desire for this ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |