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 Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 October 2025 (Minute Nos. 404 – 419) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 October 2026 (Minute Nos. 404 – 419) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

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.

Update from the Chair on any matters from the previous meeting or upcoming agenda items relating to this committee.

The Chair reported that she had attended the Police and Crime Panel meeting and had put forward the questions raised by Members at their last meeting on 28 October 2025.  She reported the response to each question as set out below:

·         Did the Police & Crime Commissioner consider the reported evidence of reductions in the various aspects of crime were factually accurate or whether there was an element of public perception built into that and complacency?  A report which covered perceptions would be published soon and would indicate whether the figures reflected public perception. 

·         what were the Police going to do to ensure the people of Kent felt confident in reporting something to them so that residents felt safe?  The Police would be publishing some reports detailing Police successes.  They had made improvements to their communication which they hoped would improve trust in the Police locally. 

·         could we have an update on the roll-out of the neighbourhood policing model, and why there had been a failure in providing a dedicated officer to each ward and what were the Police going to do about this? Each ward in Kent now had a named officer and an officer named for multiple wards in some areas, but there would not be a ‘dedicated’ officer for each ward. 

The Chair reported that at the Panel meeting she had spoken about inviting the MPs and Councillors to the Council’s Rough Sleeper Count.  She thanked those Members that had attended the count, and also the housing team who were doing an incredible job supporting some of the borough’s most vulnerable residents.

In response to a question from the Chair about an action from the previous meeting, the Head of Housing and Communities reported that she understood the Leader of the Council would be writing to the Government about Statutory Services.

The Chair provided an update on her work as Chair of the Committee.  She reported that the Police and Crime Panel had been busy with briefings and discussions on the precepts which would be set in February 2026.   The Chair further reported that at the Panel meeting before Christmas 2025 they had considered the report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which focused on: holding the Chief Constable to account; crime prevention; partnerships and funding.  The PCC report had shown a strong emphasis on prevention as a core policing priority delivered through neighbourhood policing and early intervention, by working with young people partnerships and problem-solving approaches to reduce repeated crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB).  

The PCC had also spoken about the use of the crime reduction grants and violence reduction unit to support: multi-agency initiatives; community safety projects; education; victim support; and targeted interventions addressing issues like violent against women, ASB, and retail crime.  The Chair reported that all the documents from the Police and Crime Panel meetings were available on Kent County Council’s (KCC) website.

The Chair thanked the Vice-Chair for chairing the pre-meeting in her absence.  She also thanked the Head of Housing and Communities for the Renters Rights Bill training and the Housing team for the Housing Options training. 

The Chair advised that it was the Community Safety Partnership’s (CSP) turn to submit the questions.  A Member who was a Council’s representative on the CSP agreed to raise at the next CSP meeting.

The Head of Housing and Communities reported that with regard to the Permissive Environments Policy Statement, guidance from KCC was awaited so that item might need to be deferred to the March 2026 meeting or possibly a meeting in the new municipal year.

Resolved:

(1)   That the Forward Decisions Plan be noted.

The Chair introduced the report which set-out the detailed work undertaken to review the play area provision within the Borough and formulation of the recommendations, with some being considered for improvement, closure or transfer of the asset.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Needed to consider that some play areas were in secluded locations across the Borough making them a safeguarding issue;

·         considered it was not appropriate for the only play area in Lynsted at Batteries Close to be closed;

·         welcomed transferring the play areas as assets to Parish and Town Councils, but could they just ‘buy-in’ to some of Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) services?;

·         could any of the good quality equipment be moved elsewhere?;

·         once play equipment was removed, would the site just remain as open grass?;

·         welcomed engagement with Parish and Town Councils;

·         welcomed the concise report and work undertaken;

·         would have liked to have seen a map detailing the sites within the report.  Could this be provided in the Members’ Room when considering other items?;

·         Lionfield play area, Faversham was already closed as it had no play equipment;

·         Housing Associations and management companies for housing estates should also be consulted as they operated some play areas;

·         how was the usage of the play areas being measured?;

·         considered the Council needed to be a lot tougher on landowners and increase funding as part of any Section 106 agreements;

·         play areas needed to be located in areas that were best for local residents, not developers.  It was important that Members had control over the Section 106 agreements;

·         would the Local Government Review (LGR) be considered during discussions with the Parish and Town Councils?; and

·         referred to recommendation (4) of the report and raised concern that of the seven play areas earmarked for closure, five were in Watling Ward and two others were close to Watling Ward.

In response, the Greenspace Technical Officer advised that the detail had not been agreed yet for transferring the Council’s assets but Parish and Town Council’s buying-in to SBC’s services would be a possibility.  Any equipment viable for reuse would be stored by the Council’s contractor and any play areas removed would be returned to amenity grass.  Maps of the relevant areas could be provided.   There was no mechanism to accurately assess the amount of usage on any play areas within the Borough, this was assessed mainly through the consultation, officer experience of wear and tear, but mostly from the work carried out by the consultants.

The Green Spaces Manager explained that developer contributions would be sought and that currently developers contributed to play areas via Section 106 agreements as set out in the Council’s existing Open Spaces and Play Area Strategy.  With regard to LGR, the Green Spaces Manager said that it was relevant, ‘out there’ and being considered by Parish and Town Councils.  He was aware that Parish and Town Councils had already shown an interest in the Council’s assets including play areas.

The Chair said that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 622.

The Chair introduced the report which presented an analysis of the English Indices of Deprivation 2025 (IoD2025), which were published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on 30 October 2025.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Sheerness had previously been 42^nd on the list of Most Deprived Areas and was now 95^th, this was a huge improvement;

·         with the LGR pending should recommendation (3) include “potential other partners”?;

·         officers had delegated powers to amend names/organisations and also considered the wording ‘including’ within recommendation (3) covered any changes to partners due to the LGR; and

·         aware that some partner organisations had only recently embraced the Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs), whilst Swale officers had for many years.

In response, the Chair said that with regard to LGR the announcements towards the end of 2026 about what it was likely to look like in Kent would help to inform agreed recommendations with the new unitary partners.  This would likely be included in transitional discussions.  The Chair considered that the Council used data of this kind really effectively in order to secure funding.

Councillor Brawn proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Watson.

Resolved:

(1)   That the publication of the English Indices of Deprivation 2025 (IoD2025) and the analysis of Swale’s relative position be noted.

(2)   That the adoption of the IoD2025 data as the evidence base for targeting future interventions, specifically supporting the Corporate Plan priority of tackling deprivation and inequality be supported.

(3)   That use of the domain-specific data by officers to strengthen advocacy with strategic partners, including the Kent & Medway Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Kent County Council (KCC), to secure needs-based resource allocation be supported.

The Chair introduced the report which provided an update on the delivery of Household Support Fund (Round 7) and the work of the Community & Partnerships Team on tackling poverty in the Borough.

The Community & Partnerships Manager reported that officers had received the guidance for the Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF), and further detail was required from KCC and a detailed update would be provided at a future meeting.  With regard to recommendation (2) and the option for an Anti-Poverty Champion - internal, her role as Community & Partnerships Manager already delivered a lot of the required work, with the Cost-of-Living Partnership Group being well represented by partners from the voluntary sector so they would be well placed as the Anti-Poverty Champion - external.   

The Chair invited comments from Members, and these included:

·         Were Swale unusual in terms of other Local Authorities in using the information that had been gathered?;

·         there was a lack of resilience and role models within communities, and they both needed to be a priority moving forward;

·         the funding would make such a positive difference to the local community;

·         suggested holding a One Swale Roadshow at Leysdown during October/November 2026 which would coincide with the closure of the holiday parks;

·         requested that a One Swale Roadshow be held at Queenborough;

·         needed to work in partnership with Southern Water and South East Water to ensure residents were aware of the social water tariffs, which offered customers a 50% discount if they were on benefits;

·         welcomed the targeted benefit uptake campaigns, but there was more to do to ensure those that were entitled to Pension Credit were aware that they could claim it;

·         could the Council ‘tighten-up’ on those illegally camping at the holiday parks on the Isle of Sheppey during the closed period?;

·         sought clarity on the role of the Anti-Poverty Champion, and considered more could be achieved with a group of people championing rather than two individuals;

·         considered the Council needed an improved communications vision rather than two anti-poverty champions;

·         needed to be clearer on what would be required from the anti-poverty champion and referred to the Council’s Armed Forces Champion;

·         agreed that the Anti-Poverty Champion – internal should be an officer of the Council;

·         sought clarity on whether the proposed champions would be the first contact point for Members regarding anti-poverty; and

·         considered that more work was required on recommendation (2) so it was clearer what the role of the proposed champions would be.

In response, the Community & Partnerships Manager explained that in terms of resilience there was a new workstream within the CRF which would create many opportunities to develop resilience.  There had been some successes with the One Swale Roadshows, and as the funding for them would be ending March 2026, officers would be reviewing whether they were being held in the correct locations and seeking views from those that attended them to inform their format moving forward.  The Director of Regeneration & Neighbourhoods added that by October/November 2026 a board for the Pride in Place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 624.

The Chair introduced the report which set out the Sport England (SE) Place Partnership Programme.  The Chair said it was a great opportunity for Swale and drew attention to the three recommendations.

The Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods stated that Active Kent and Medway (AKM) would lead, but that SBC had been invited to be a partner.  She said that SE recognised the indices of deprivation within Swale and the correlation between the most deprived wards and areas where people were less active. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         It was a fact that at least 50% of children and adults on the Isle of Sheppey were obese.  It was such an embedded problem and more partners than were currently on the partner board needed to be consulted;

·         Praised the good work of the Innerva gym at the Sheppey Leisure Complex, Sheerness;

·         the Innerva gym at Sheppey Leisure Complex had been relocated.  Would the disabled parking spaces created specifically for the Innerva gym be relocated as well?;

·         would health providers be involved with the partner board?;

·         needed to understand the reasons why people were not getting involved in sport;

·         activities such as table tennis should be considered;

·         sports activities were known to improve mental health;

·         this would make such a huge difference to local residents;

·         important that health providers were included as there was so much support that was available to assist people with fitness; and

·         welcomed the proposed houlistic approach.

In response, the Director of Regeneration & Neighbourhoods explained that SE recognised it would be challenging and would trial different approaches and targeted interventions to help residents with very complex needs be more active.  She confirmed that health providers would be involved at a strategic and lower level, and that officers would engage with a wide range of community groups. 

The Chair proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Watson.

Resolved:

(1)   That the update provided on Swale being accepted as a Place Partnership by Sport England be noted.

(2)   That the Chair of the Housing, Health & Communities Committee and the Director of Regeneration & Neighbourhoods be given delegated authority to sit on the Board of the Swale Place Partnership to contribute towards the delivery of the project.

(3)   That the Head of Environment and Leisure be given delegated authority to use a relevant procurement framework to appoint consultants for the feasibility work for Sheerness Pool.

The Chair introduced the report which provided an overview on the Swale community safety strategic assessment.  Members were asked to provide feedback on the current CSP performance and any emerging issues the CSP might need to focus on.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Domestic abuse was still not being reported, and the Police especially needed to do more work so that victims felt more confident to report it.  This should be a priority alongside Violence Against Women and Girls;

·         there was currently no CCTV at the large Neats Court business park which should have been picked up at the planning application stage.  There were a lot of horrendous issues with crime and ASB.  The site owners were happy for SBC to install CCTV, but did not want to pay for this;

·         should look at business rates in respect of improving safety in town centres and business centres such as Neats Court;

·         police did have the blueprint for ‘designing out crime’ at the planning application stage, but the CSP and the planning department needed to work together on planning applications to ensure items like installation of CCTV were not missed;

·         welcomed the work with Swale Housing to reduce ASB, and the street marshalls had carried out some good work in that respect;

·         concerned about the increase in community tensions which needed to be looked at as a priority;

·         proud of the work undertaken by the CSP;

·         community payback was a good service;

·         the prisoner for homes scheme had been a success; and

·         needed to be aware of funding risks moving forward.

In response, the Head of Housing and Communities said that with regard to designing out crime on planning applications, there used to be two officers based within the CSP unit at Swale House who dealt with that work which was sometimes provided as an advisory on applications.  Future proofing of planning applications would need to be considered further by the CSP.   The Head of Housing and Communities spoke about the Bid Process whereby business rates were enhanced and then invested within town centres but this had never had enough ‘traction’ in Swale.  She agreed that officers needed to consider this further.  

A Council’s representative on the CSP agreed to take forward the issues regarding Neats Court.  She asked Members to let her know about any issues they were aware of and she would raise these at the next CSP meeting.

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 3.

3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

There was no need to pass this resolution as the meeting did not go into confidential session.

This item was not discussed.

The meeting was adjourned from 8.30 pm until 8.40 pm.