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 Deputy-Mayor in-the-Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

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 Leader of the Council, Councillor Tim Gibson, introduced the report which set out the Council’s response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) request for representations on the Structural Change Order (SCO) relating to Local Government Reorganisation.

He proposed the amended recommendations following consideration by the Policy and Resources Committee, including amendments to the transitional governance model, joint committee membership, alignment of parish elections, and the preferred naming convention.

The recommendations were seconded by the Vice-Chair of Policy and Resources Committee, Councillor Lloyd Bowen, who reserved his right to speak.

Members were invited to make comments and these included:

• Clarification was sought regarding the proposed membership of joint committees, with concern expressed that the drafting could lead to an excessively large committee if based on predecessor districts rather than assembly areas;
• concern that local government reorganisation represented a significant cost and diversion of officer time and resources away from service delivery and local priorities;
• the view that the programme created opportunity costs, including delays to strategic projects and impacts on long-term council visions;
• concern regarding the limited information available to Members and the public at this stage of the process and difficulty in assessing the implications of the proposals;
• acknowledgement that, despite concerns, the Council was required to engage constructively with the process and respond to Government;
• a request that maps be included as part of the Council’s submission to clearly illustrate the geographical options;
• concern regarding the potential duplication of services (e.g. social care, highways, education) under multiple unitary authorities; and
• support for aligning parish and town council elections with future unitary elections  to improve efficiency and clarity.

Councillor Charles Gibson proposed an amendment and seconded by Councillor Rich Lehman to replace the preferred naming convention in Table 3 with the alternative locally-derived naming options set out in Table 4.

Members debated the amendment and comments included:

• Differing views on the preferred naming convention, with some Members supporting simple geographic descriptors (e.g. North, South, East, West Kent) for clarity, while others favoured locally distinctive names to reflect identity and history; and

• concern that naming should ultimately be determined by future authorities in consultation with residents.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

On returning to the substantive, further comments were invited and these included:

• The Council’s response formed part of a wider consultation and would not determine the final outcome;
• the Government would ultimately decide the structure and naming of any new authorities; and
• the Council’s role was to provide a clear and practical response to influence the implementation arrangements.

Resolved:

(1)  To approve that the transitional governance models for all geography options be ‘New Council with Joint Committee’

(2)  To approve the proposed membership of the Joint Committees as set out below: