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.

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.

Councillor Peter Marchington declared a disclosable non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 6 Temporary Accommodation (TA) Scrutiny Report as he rented out a property in the Borough.

At this point the Chair provided an update on her work as Chair of the Committee.  She had recently attended a Police & Crime Panel (PCP) meeting where there had been feedback on the annual survey which the Police had carried out to look at their priorities and trust and support within the community.  There had been broad support for their four priorities: protecting people; protecting places; protecting property; and protecting productive partnerships.  The ’takeaway’ from this was that there had been some small improvements in trust; but there was some work to be done in improving people’s perception of their own safety within the Borough’s town centres.  There had been a small increase in people who had seen a police officer in their neighbourhood and a gradual increase in trust in the Police over the last three years.  There had been a small reduction in people experiencing anti-social behaviour (ASB), but there was also a significant proportion of people that did not want to report it.  The Police were encouraging more people to report ASB incidents, as the report levels did not reflect the amount of ASB crime.  The Police had said there had been a substantial response for the first time from under 18s.  There had been joined-up work with schools and in-person engagement at public meetings with community groups and businesses.  Overall, crime was slightly down and trust was very slightly up.  The meeting also discussed the budget settlement.  The only ring-fenced money for 2026/27 would go into neighbourhood policing.  There was a proposal for a £15 precept increase which meant that the proportion of funding coming from council tax had gone up from 27% to 44%.  There had been an increase in costs and pay, but no overall increase in core policing grant and the council tax precept increase would not reach the overall requirement of £30 billion.  The Chair explained that she did not present any questions to the PCP this time, but she would submit a question on the designing-out crime scheme to the next panel meeting.  She also asked that Planning Committees across Kent be briefed about the designing-out crime scheme.  The Chair also attended a Local Children’s Partnership group meeting where there was an update on the Kent Family Hub Scheme.  The LCPG was due to close and would be replaced by the Kent Family Hub Forum.  She had also attended the Place Partnership Group meeting.

In response, some Members confirmed that local Policing was more visible; and designing-out crime and disorder within the planning system was a good initiative.

The Chair introduced the report which set out updates made to the Domestic Abuse (DA) Policy in legislation and minor changes due to best practice in domestic abuse work.

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

·         Welcomed the report and thanked officers involved in writing it;

·         this was one of the Council’s policies that would really make a difference and could potentially save lives;

·         referred to a recent report in the press about domestic violence, noted that suicide as a result of DA was often under reported and cases were sometimes overlooked;

·         it was very important that the policy remained a priority going forward beyond the Council devolution;

·         reports of DA had risen which was positive in one way as it meant that victims had the courage to speak out against it;

·         considered it could be beneficial to have a survivor’s point of view;

·         a performance dashboard would help to monitor how quickly help was received and actions taken;

·         this was a really important policy;

·         recognised the really good work that officers had carried out and the difference the team made, considered them to be ‘unsung’ heroes;

·         welcomed the policy which was well laid out, straightforward to read, and liked that the report did not include pictures and suggested future policies should be set out in this way;

·         other organisations, such as ‘White Ribbon’ also had an invaluable part to play, alongside the Council;

·         clarification sought on whether there was any data in terms of connections between DA/perpetrators/triggers/the failing National Health Service (NHS) and the mental health crisis;

·         did any data outline a need for additional safe refuge in the Borough?;

·         considered refuge placements should be included in the housing needs assessment of the Local Plan, without sacrificing social housing;

·         DA was part of larger, cultural matters including mental health issues, lack of support from the NHS, social media use in schools; and

·         the Council was fortunate that many parts of the organisation worked together as a team to resolve DA throughout the borough.

In response, the Safeguarding Team Lead/ASB Officer referred to the press article and said the picture was much bigger than the victims themselves, and research was being carried out around wider family members, with officers working with local partners on this issue; she acknowledged a need to do more on shared experiences, there were lived experience people who the Council worked with and KCC had just carried out a large piece of work on this and there was a lot to be learnt from that project.  In terms of a performance dashboard, the safeguarding team produced a performance report per quarter and she said the team were assessed and scrutinised on many aspects, and the team were tenacious and always challenged cases and escalated them.  With regard to Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (DARA), this was already being looked at by a county level group.  Learning from serious case reviews were published on a public accessible portal via KMSAB and KSCMP websites.  Newsletters  ...  view the full minutes text for item 766.

The Chair introduced the item which set out the first annual report of the Swale Public Space CCTV Service.  She then invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Welcomed the report and thanked officers for their work on it;

·         referring to Appendix I, considered work should be carried out with the Communications Team to go into more detail on the amount of incidents and subsequent arrests, as it looked as though only some of the incidents had been dealt with;

·         more information ‘out there’ might help to bolster confidence in terms of arrests made, successful convictions and helping to show that the service was good value for money;

·         clarification sought as to whether the CCTV operators reported to the Council when there were obstacles impeding the sightline of the cameras;

·         considered the CCTV service to be very helpful when a call was made to them out-of-hours recently;

·         acknowledged that some residents might think that CCTV cameras were an infringement on their privacy, but that they were beneficial when an incident took place;

·         it would be useful to have a breakdown of cameras that the Council monitored for different organisations;

·         clarification sought on funding and positioning of cameras;

·         residents needed to report incidents individually to show that there was an issue which warranted the installation of CCTV cameras;

·         CCTV should be used as evidence and it would be good to see the data of footage used in criminal cases, and this would show a good cost benefit;

·         incidents were not always criminal, sometimes it was just fortunate that CCTV cameras had ‘picked up’ an incident; and

·         encouraged the use of ‘Swale Link’ and ‘My Community Voice’ for information on combating crime and local policing.

In response, the Strategic Policy and Communities Manager acknowledged that it was important to get the good news ‘out there’ and more of this could be done going forward.  She said that future reports could include more detail of enforcement action that had taken place.  CCTV operators sent through information on a daily basis in terms of any obstructions to CCTV, and if this was on a regular basis, this would be escalated to ensure the cameras were fit for purpose.  Information in terms of a breakdown of cameras that the Council monitored for different organisations, would be provided.  A new request for CCTV camera provision was determined by evidential need, and figures, in terms of statistics of CCTV used in court cases, could be included in the report going forward.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be noted.

(2)      That additional information be included in future reports as minuted.

The Chair introduced the report which set out an update on the current performance in relation to Temporary Accommodation (TA) and current budget position.  The report also discussed the current risks and controls in place to manage the TA budget.

The Head of Housing and Communities added that the Council had been notified of their grant for the next three years, which included the previous homeless prevention grant and domestic abuse grant, plus rough sleeping funds.  The TA element had been split and was in the revenue support grant.  She was very disappointed that the funding would decrease in the next couple of years.  When the homeless prevention grant was consulted on last year, the revised formula indicated that the Council would be better off, but in fact was worse off.  She added that other deprived areas had the same issue, so it appeared the formula was wrong and the areas most in need seemed to be missing out. The Council was now looking into what lobbying could be done to resolve this. 

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

·         Clarification sought for the terms ‘homeless’ and ‘sleeping rough’;

·         considered the 2025/26 winter had been very wet, rather than very cold, and referring to paragraph 2.15 in the report where the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) had been activated for 27 nights, how did this compare to previous winters?;

·         had a response been received from Alison McGovern MP, as set out in paragraph 2.5 of the report?;

·         was a change in Registered Providers (RP) delivery forecast in the next one or two years;

·         was there any evidence of some landlords exiting the market, as predicted by the Renters Rights Act?;

·         in terms of the decrease in grant funding, considered this was a mistake in the worked formula;

·         clarification sought as to whether bed and breakfast accommodation was block booked ahead, or booked on the day?;

·         what was the turnaround for a Council-owned property to be fit for purpose for the next resident?;

·         how did caravan parks impact on the TA figures during their closed season?;

·         Energy Performance Certificate changes would lead to further delays in achieving RPs;

·         needed to recognise that Q3 was always ‘tough’, and going forward needed to encourage Parish Councils to develop rural exception sites by commissioning Local Housing Needs Assessments to justify building affordable homes on land not normally used for housing, and this would also help with the Council’s five-year housing supply and KALC should be asked to promote this;

·         referring to Bridge House, could an update be provided?; and

·         was a commuted sum policy, or the law?

In response, the Head of Housing and Communities explained that broadly, when someone ‘bedded down’ they were classed as ‘sleeping rough’, and she added that the Council services were available to all who needed it in any case.  In terms of SWEP, this had been activated in November/December 2025 when there had been relatively warm days, followed by cold nights, and activations of SWEP  ...  view the full minutes text for item 768.