Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Mayor outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meetings held on 19 November 2025 ((Minute Nos. 466 - 477) and 10 December 2025 ((Minute Nos. 556 - 568)  as correct records.

The Minutes of the Meetings held on 19 November 2025 (Minute Nos. 466 - 477) and 10 December 2025 (Minute Nos. 556 - 568) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Mayor as correct records.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Mayor reported that, together with the Deputy Mayor, over 110 engagements had been completed across the borough since the start of her term. These included a range of Christmas events such as Lights of Love at Minster Abbey and the UK Paper Mill Christmas Concert, as well as New Year engagements including a Faversham Carnival dinner, a restaurant opening in Leysdown, and a visit by Milton Regis Cubs to the Council Chamber.

The Mayor advised that an upcoming engagement would include a function with the High Sheriff of Kent to discuss the rehabilitation of people serving custodial sentences.

Congratulations were extended to Borden Grammar School’s Violence Against Women and Girls Champions, who had been selected as finalists in the National Crimebeat Awards to be held in London in March 2026.

The Mayor also noted the official opening of the Master’s House workshops, highlighting their importance in supporting young people in Sheerness and recognising the passion previously shown for the project by Councillor Bonney.

Members were advised that nominations for the Mayor’s Civic Awards would be opening shortly, inviting nominations for individuals recognised as “hidden heroes” for their contribution to supporting others across the borough.

To consider any questions submitted by the public.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm on the Wednesday before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330).

The Mayor advised that one question had been received from a member of the public and invited Collette Haseldine to ask her question.

Following the recently concluded second public consultation on the proposed introduction of parking charges to raise £335,000 to balance the 2026-27 budget and leaving 17.3 million pounds in reserves under the Borough of Swale Off street parking places variation number 10 order 2026 proposal and its companion variation number nine proposal which again attracted overwhelming public opposition including over 3,500 00 petition signatures and detailed objections raising concerns about local economic, social, and um community impacts. And given that both the courts and the external auditors have consistently uphold that under sections 55 and 122 of the RO traffic regulation act 1984 both off street and on street parking charges income are restricted to traffic and parking management purposes and must not be set or used for general council services. And given that even though section 95 of the traffic management act 2004 expanded the permitted uses of any surplus once generated, it does not remove the requirement that parking charges themselves must not be set as a fiscal measure for general budget purposes. Can the leader explain what steps the council is taking to ensure that these proposals comply with the road traffic regulation act 1984 and relevant case law and on what legal basis officers consider that parking charges income may lawfully be raised for general budget purposes where that position appears to conflict with established judicial and audit findings and department for transport guidance.

Thank you, Mayor and thank you Colette for your question.

The Council has undertaken the relevant consultation to the off-street parking charges proposed late last year and it is compliant with the legislation and guidance from the British Parking Association, that the majority of Councils across the country rely on. This was reported on and discussed by Members at the Environmental Services and Climate Change committee last night. At the meeting, Members discussed the matter of opposition against the charges and the principles of fairness across the Borough.

The report recognised that the modest projected income from the additional 6 car parks was proposed in order to help those car parks become self-sufficient, meaning that other Council budget (revenue or reserves) can be spent on a range of services.

Thank you for the response. With regards to the proposed transfer of assets, whether considering transferring the assets to Queenborough Town Council would save the Borough Council the money and instead of raising charges elsewhere to make fairness, perhaps you could reduce them elsewhere to make fairness.

Thank you, and again, a good question. Asset transfer is part of the Economy and Property committee and they will deal with that issue. Thank you.

To consider any questions submitted by Members.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm on the Monday the week before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330).

The Mayor advised six questions had been received from members.

On 1 October this Council made a clear political decision to take back control of HMO development by progressing a borough-wide Immediate Article 4 Direction and by urgently producing a Supplementary Planning Document so residents could finally be consulted and poor-quality HMOs properly controlled.

Nearly four months later, nothing has changed on the ground. HMOs are still being created without planning applications, without public consultation and without this Council having any real say, precisely the democratic failure this motion was passed to end.

So, can the Chair of Planning tell Full Council—without generalities or process language—what has been done since 1 October, give a clear timetable with dates for both the Article 4 Direction and the SPD, and explain why residents are still being left unprotected while this Council’s own decision remains unimplemented?

Thank you Cllr Palmer, for your question.  Members will be aware that no planning decision is sound without robust evidence – whether that be a planning application being decided, or whether that be planning policy being created. 

With this precursor point, I am pleased to explain that a paper came to Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group last week, setting out the significant amount of research and evidence building that has taken place and laying out a programme for adoption of the SPD five months from now. As the SPD will need its pre-consultation draft approved by Policy and Resources Committee, a period of consultation, a period of reflection on that consultation and then approval by the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group, Policy and Resources Committee and Full Council, I trust you will see that pace is being applied to this workstream.

The Article 4 direction is progressing in parallel, and the approvals route for this document is via Planning Committee. I will take the liberty of commenting on behalf of Cllr Booth, the Chair of that Committee, that this is presently anticipated at Planning Committee in March.

Can the Leader confirm whether Swale Borough Council has been approached by Government or the Home Office about refurbishing existing homes or building new housing in Swale for use as asylum-seeker accommodation, as part of the national pilot scheme now being pursued by other councils? 

Swale Borough Council has not received any approach from the Home Office or any other Government department regarding the pilot programme announced in the summer statement that it intends to bring an end to the use of hotels as asylum accommodation.  Should the Government initiate discussions with us in future, we will engage constructively and ensure that Members are informed, and a report brought to the relevant committee.

My question is to the Leader: Given the ongoing erosion of the Sheppey Cliffs caused by climate change, shifting tectonic plates, and rising sea  ...  view the full minutes text for item 662.

The Leader said:

“This evening I want to reflect on the council’s continued focus on regeneration, community wellbeing,   planning and partnership working.

I will begin in Sheerness, where we have reached an important milestone in the Sheerness Revival project with the opening of the new Makers Studios at Masters House. This marks the completion of the first of three major regeneration schemes being delivered as part of the council’s £20 million investment into the Isle of Sheppey. It was a privilege to be involved in last weeks ribbon cutting ceremony which saw a happy and welcome return to the borough of former leader Roger Truelove who has retained a keen interest in the wider sheerness revival project.

The studios are modern, sustainably built, and provide affordable, professional spaces, operated by the national enterprise charity Launch It. The studios offer mentoring and business support alongside workspace, helping young entrepreneurs turn creativity into sustainable livelihoods. This builds on the earlier £1.5 million refurbishment of Masters House, which now hosts a thriving community of small businesses.

Madam mayor, regeneration is not just about buildings, it’s about people and how communities function from day to day.

That is why the council is giving equal emphasis to tackling loneliness and social isolation across Swale. This work is informed by feedback from residents and organisations, who highlighted barriers such as rural isolation, transport challenges, digital exclusion and lack of confidence.

Working with the Swale Voluntary Alliance and Swale CVS, and funded through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, the council is supporting a coordinated programme of practical action. This includes a Swale Activities Directory, a telephone befriending service for younger residents, loneliness champion training, for volunteers and frontline staff, and work to support residents who are digitally excluded to get online and stay connected.

The aim is simple but vital, to help people feel seen, supported and able to belong, and to ensure that no resident in Swale feels they have to face loneliness alone.

Supporting residents through the cost of living also remains a priority. The council will continue to deliver One Swale Roadshows across the borough between January and March, bringing together charities and partner organisations to offer advice and practical help with bills, food and fuel, employment, health and wellbeing. The first event of the year will take place in Sheerness on 29 January.

Madam mayor I also want to briefly highlight the launch of the Regulation 18 consultation for the council’s next Local Plan, which sets out our early vision for how development should take place across Swale.

This stage focuses on development management policies, the rules used to assess planning applications and places a clear emphasis on infrastructure, design quality and environmental protection. 

The council has chosen to bring forward these essential policies now, with a further consultation on potential development sites to follow later this year. This ensures we are in a strong position to demand quality design, appropriate infrastructure, affordable housing and high environmental standards when sites are considered.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 663.

Amendment added 27.01.26.

In proposing the border emergency motion, as set out on the Agenda, Councillor Richard Palmer cited immigration pressures and the downstream impacts on the Council and residents of Swale. He emphasised the motion was not anti‑worker or anti‑agriculture, acknowledging the importance of seasonal farm workers to the local economy and the role that properly managed, lawful and time‑limited migration played in supporting food production and local businesses.

Councillor Palmer explained that the motion focused on the scale, control and consequences of current immigration levels. He highlighted the Council’s statutory responsibilities, including housing, homelessness prevention, temporary accommodation, planning control, environmental health and community cohesion, and noted that while immigration policy was set nationally, the impacts were felt locally through increased pressure on housing availability, GP provision, school places and council‑funded services.

Referring to briefing information, he stated that population growth of between 1,200 and 1,600 additional residents per year was placing further demand on local services. He linked this pressure to concerns raised by Members regarding large‑scale housing developments, including proposed garden village schemes, and argued that declining birth rates meant that natural population growth alone did not justify development at this scale. He suggested that mass immigration, combined with weak or unenforced national policies, was a significant driver of housing demand.

In concluding, Councillor Palmer stated that it was inconsistent to oppose overdevelopment locally without challenging the national policies that contributed to it. He said the motion sought to set out the reality of the situation and called on central government to take responsibility for the consequences of its decisions, or lack thereof, and commended the motion to the Council.

In seconding the motion, Councill Mishchuk reserved his right to speak.

The Mayor then advised an amendment to the motion had been received and circulated to all members.

Councillor Richard Palmer made a Point of Order relating to 3.1.16.4 of the constitution that amendments should not seek to negate the intent of the motion. Councillor Palmer argued that the proposed amendment was procedurally flawed, as it went beyond an amendment and effectively negated the original motion. He contended that the amendment substituted the policy narrative by removing reference to legal and illegal immigration pressures and replacing it with alternative explanations for population change, thereby fundamentally altering the intent of the motion. He further argued that elements of the amendment introduced assertions about the economic and social benefits of migration without supporting evidence and included statements on national immigration law that fell outside the Council’s remit, and were unnecessary for determining the motion. Councillor Palmer expressed concern that accepting the amendment would set a precedent allowing motions to be wholly rewritten through amendment, contrary to the Constitution, which he stated permitted the substitution of words but not the wholesale replacement of paragraphs or the reversal of a motion’s purpose.

The Mayor invited input from the Monitoring Officer.

In responding, the Monitoring Officer advised that the initial point raised constituted a valid point of order, as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 664.

In introducing the report, Councillor Wooster, Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee , drew attention to the significant work ongoing around the borough and she offered her thanks to the members of the committee and officers for their hard work.

The report was seconded by the Vice-Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, Councillor Jayes.

Members made comments including:

• welcomed the report and recognised the benefits delivered through climate action measures, including LED lighting, solar panels, and energy efficiency improvements which reduced costs and improved quality of life;
• disappointed that some Members were not present for the debate, particularly given the constitutional and environmental significance of the report;
• effective climate action also delivered social benefits, including warmer homes, reduced fuel poverty, improved air quality, better health outcomes, and stronger community wellbeing;
• acknowledged that climate change disproportionately affected those already under pressure, including people on low incomes, older residents, young families, and those with existing health conditions;
• investing in climate and energy efficiency measures reduced long‑term financial, social and health costs, including pressures on the NHS, emergency services and housing repairs;
• supported measures promoting active travel, public transport, and protection of green spaces, with associated benefits for physical health, mental wellbeing and community pride;
• recognised that the report did not underestimate the financial pressures facing councils but highlighted that delaying action would increase future costs;
• referenced the importance of leading by example within the Council, particularly in relation to recycling practices and waste management within council buildings;
• concern about the absence of clear cost information within the report, with Members stating that understanding expenditure and value for money was important for budget planning;
• suggested that future reports should include clearer financial data to support scrutiny and decision‑making;
• referenced the role of planning policy, including the Regulation 18 consultation, in reducing environmental impact through development management;
• supported the report while raising specific queries about technical claims, including building standards, energy installations and emissions reduction data;
• concerns raised about fuel poverty affecting working households who did not qualify for existing support schemes, and the need to explore how such residents could be better assisted;
• referenced differences in how fuel poverty was defined nationally, and the implications this had for eligibility and support;
• acknowledged that forthcoming national schemes which may assist households who were “just about managing” to transition to more energy‑efficient heating systems;
• recycling contamination increased costs to the Council and required further education and engagement with residents;
• supported further work through area committees and officer‑led workshops to address recycling and waste issues;
• concerns raised about the lack of food waste recycling provision for blocks of flats, with calls for early rollout and appropriate resident education;
• recognised that climate action initiatives were delivering savings to the Council, including reduced electricity costs and long‑term financial benefits;
• expressed thanks to officers and committees for their work on the report and the progress made since the Council declared a climate and ecological emergency; and
• emphasised the value of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 665.

In proposing the recommendation, Councillor Bowen, Chair of the Constitution Working Group, explained that Members were being asked to consider the amendments set out in Appendix One and determine which should be approved for incorporation into the Constitution.

He advised that a number of the proposed changes were largely procedural in nature and described them as sensible and straightforward improvements and he referred to amendments relating to the Member Protocol on pre‑decision engagement, changes to the budget amendment deadline, and revisions concerning area committees.

In relation to the budget amendment deadline, Councillor Bowen explained that the change would provide officers with additional time to properly review amendments ahead of the budget meeting, reducing last‑minute pressure and avoiding the need for weekend working.

Councillor Bowen also highlighted the proposal to introduce the use of an electronic Council seal. He stated that this reflected the Council modernising its processes while retaining the traditional seal for appropriate documents, and that the electronic seal would make the handling of documents more efficient.

Councillor Wise, seconded the recommendation and reserved his right to speak.

The Mayor then invited comments from members.

Councillor Baldock expressed significant reservations about the proposed Member protocol for pre-application and pre-decision developer engagement, stating that it did not provide opportunities for parish councils, town councils or residents’ groups to engage with Members. He raised concern that the protocol could be perceived as allowing one‑sided engagement with developers and warned that this could attract external criticism. He stated that, in his view, the proposal required further consideration and refinement.

Councillor Baldock also raised objections to the proposed change to the naming of Area Committees, arguing that the term “Councillors and Residents Forum” was misleading and inconsistent with the Council’s Constitution. Councillor Baldock stated that forums and committees were distinct entities and that Area Committees were intended to consider future policy impacts on local areas, rather than act as engagement forums.

Councillor Baldock referred to consultation feedback indicating public support for the existing “Area Committee” title and questioned the rationale for changing it. He expressed concern that the proposed change would create confusion for the public and asked that the renaming proposal be removed.

The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Baldock and seconded by Councillor Jayes.

Motion: That Appendix 1, Item C, point one be removed.

The Mayor then invited members to debate the amendment..

A Member commented that this committee was not the correct forum for such a change and there had been numerous opportunities for input and changes during the working groups.

Councillor Baldock stated that he did not consider there to be sufficient justification for the proposed change as set out in the report. He referred to the consultation results, noting that a majority of respondents supported retaining the existing name, and questioned why this feedback was not being reflected in the proposal. He expressed concern that changing the terminology would require substantial amendments to the Constitution to define what a “forum” was, including whether such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 666.

The Deputy Leader, Councillor Ashley Wise, introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.

Councillor Wise spoke in support of the proposed name change and wider recommendations relating to Area Committees. He explained that the proposals formed part of a package of 14 recommendations which had been considered by Area Committee Chairs over a number of meetings, and took into account feedback from both the public and Members.

He stated that the feedback indicated some uncertainty about whether the current name clearly reflected the role and purpose of Area Committees, and that respondents to the consultation were largely those who already engaged with the committees. Councillor Wise explained that the recommendations therefore sought to look beyond existing attendees and consider how engagement, attendance and participation could be improved more broadly.

Councillor Wise outlined that the proposals aimed to strengthen public involvement in policy development at a local level, including practical measures such as improving access through hybrid meetings to enable fuller participation by those attending online. He confirmed with Member their awareness of the decision made by the Western Area Committee, and formally put forward the relevant recommendations for consideration by the Council.

In seconding the recommendations, Councillor Ben Martin reserved his right to speak.

The Mayor invited comments from members.

Members were invited to make comments and these included:

•      questioned whether Area Committees were fulfilling their intended purpose, with the view expressed that a more fundamental review was required to determine whether they remained effective or necessary;

•      concerned that procedural or naming changes would not address underlying issues if Area Committees were not operating as intended;

•      acknowledged that the proposals had been subject to review through working groups and committees, with differing views on whether further reconsideration was appropriate;

•      Area Committees operated differently across the borough and  a “one size fits all” approach risked undermining their effectiveness;

•      opposed to reducing the number of meetings, particularly where committees were intended to consider future policy impacts at a local level;

•      Area Committees should be better used to feed local and parish views into policy development, rather than limiting their role;

•      restrictions on meeting venues could reduce local engagement, with the view that committees should retain flexibility to meet in locations appropriate to their area;

•      the scheduling and format of public participation could be improved, including consideration of holding public forum sessions separately from formal committee business;

•      supported the work of the review group while opposing specific recommendations, with some Members indicating a preference to vote against individual proposals rather than seek amendments;

•      practical challenges existed around venue availability and logistics when meetings were held in different locations;

•      concerned about accessibility of venues, including issues relating to hearing, mobility, sight impairment and acoustics;

•      supported online or hybrid meetings as a way of improving accessibility and increasing public engagement;

•      online meetings during the pandemic had attracted higher attendance than in‑person meetings;

•      highlighted the importance of ensuring sound quality for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 667.

In proposing the recommendations in the report, the Leader explained that it was proposed not to implement the decision taken on 2 April 2025 to further reduce the number of committees in the 2026/27 municipal year. He advised that the second recommendation was to retain the existing committee structure, comprising the Policy and Resources Committee, the Environment, Services and Climate Change Committee, the Housing, Health and Communities Committee, and the Property and Economy Committee.

This was seconded by Councillor Bowen who reserved his right to speak.

Resolved:

(1)  That Council does not implement the part of the decision taken on 2 April 2025 to reduce the committees by a further reduction of one in the municipal year 26/27.

(2)  To keep the committee structure as the following Committees

• Policy and Resources

• Environmental Services and Climate Change

• Housing, Health and Communities

• Property and Economy

The Leader introduced and proposed the recommendation to appoint Keith Hills, Linda Howard and Dave Crompton as independent members to the Members Remuneration Panel.

This was seconded by Councillor Bowen.

Resolved:

(1)  That the appointment of Keith Hills, Linda Howard and Dave Crompton to the Members Remuneration Panel be agreed.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following item: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1.

1.  Information relating to any individual.

As there was no discussion on the exempt appendix, it was not necessary to pass the resolution to exclude press and public.

There was no discussion on the exempt appendix

The meeting was adjourned between 8.20pm and 8:40pm and 9:25 and 9:40pm.

The Mayor extended Standing Orders from 10 pm to 10.30 pm and 10.30pm to 11pm in order that Council could complete its business.