The Mayor explained the process that would be followed for the item, drawing attention that the recommendation did not include a recommended business case option and the reasons for this was set out in the report.

The Leader introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.

The Mayor seconded the recommendations and reserved her right to speak.

The Leader of the Conservative Group thanked the Chief Executive and other officers at the Council for their work on the LGR, and he said that SBC were very well-informed on the topic thanks to their efforts. He also thanked the Leader and other Group Leaders for their communication over the preceding months. The Leader of the Conservative Group referred to the five options, and said that the only positive for the option for a single unitary authority was the cost. He said options 3a and 4b had some merit, and he could not support the options that split the borough. The Leader of the Conservative Group said none of the recommendations were preferred options for Swale.

The Leader of the SIA Group expressed his appreciation to the officers for their efforts, acknowledging the complexity of the work undertaken. He remarked that some of the options presented were highly unsatisfactory and cautioned against pursuing option 3a. Whilst noting that all available options were undesirable and imposed upon SBC in a manner he considered anti-democratic, he indicated a preference for option 4b as the least objectionable choice.

The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group acknowledged the difficulty of selecting the best option when none truly reflected the wishes of Faversham residents. She stated that the LGR did not strengthen local governance and would result in Swale residents having less influence. She was highly critical of option 1a, the single authority model, noting that whilst it was the cheapest, this did not make it the most suitable. She further expressed concern that options 3a and 4b risked silencing local voices, while options 5a and 4d, —although preferred by Faversham residents — could become secondary considerations in any reorganisation. She highlighted that an Equality Impact Assessment would only be required once the Government announced the final unitary model and that tax-payers money would be used to make the changes. Concluding, she emphasised that none of the options preserved local character or decision-making and asserted that residents deserved better.

The Leader of the Reform UK Group referred to the potential cost savings achievable under a single unitary authority and warned that some councils could face bankruptcy if action was not taken. He acknowledged that no one was happy with the LGR proposals but stressed the need for realism. He highlighted that coastal communities in Kent incurred the highest costs and, if divided, other areas could not be relied upon to subsidise them. He reported that residents he had spoken to wanted lower Council Tax and improved services, and argued that services would not improve if Kent was split. The Leader of the Reform UK Group identified Adult Services and Special Educational Needs (SEND) as significant financial pressures, particularly concentrated in East Kent. He stated that none of the options were perfect, the reform was not ideal and was being imposed, but some options were better than others. He concluded that residents would most closely identify with the Kent-wide unitary option.

The Leader of the Green Group agreed with many that the process was costly and noted there was little evidence to support the options presented. He stated that, of the options offered, option 4b was the “least worst” as it reflected a shared identity of being a town with a rural background and similar communities. He expressed concern that option 5a carried high costs and reiterated that he was not satisfied with the overall process.

The Mayor invited other Members to speak and points raised included:

·         Water Lane, Ospringe in Watling ward and parts of Ashford Road, Faversham being split, and falling under different authorities under some options and said this was nonsense;

·         Swale was stronger together and could have a voice;

·         option 1a did not match the criteria and having a higher ratio of residents per Council was unmanageable;

·         the options the public chose were discounted by Government;

·         option 4b balanced the books and avoided taking on the double debt of Medway Unitary and Kent County Council whilst also being able to serve residents;

·         some SBC schemes were still being delivered and choosing Options 4d and 5a might mean taking on the debt of those schemes without the benefit;

·         the process would likely be delayed and might cost more than expected;

·         referred to the £732million debt of KCC, compared to £13million debt of SBC;

·         Medway might have assets but also had £612million debt;

·         referred to the recent loan from Ashford Borough Council of £72million invested with a developer for a recent scheme which added to their existing £260million debt;

·         Swale was a valuable asset on its own with comparatively little debt;

·         compared to other Councils who were now part of one unitary and said there was no localism;

·         it was a waste of officer time that could be spent delivering services locally;

·         option 4b gave more rural and coastal connection;

·         eight out of ten of the lowest spending Councils had a population lower than the medium population of existing unitary Councils and the review would not save money;

·         referred to Government not listening to residents or Councils in Surrey;

·         most residents did not want this but if pushed many said their allegiances were more with Medway than Folkestone;

·         although the decision was of considerable importance, there was a sense of fatigue and resignation with Members and public with the continued discussions on the matter;

·         collaboration with Ashford and Folkestone, in particular, could offer benefits to the Isle of Sheppey through their tourism experience;

·         there was potential for different structures to work, and SBC already currently shared services and contracts with other authorities;

·         there should have been greater clarity and steer from Government and this had impacted the options and proposals;

·         some residents had expressed the fear that Kent would lose its identity if it was split up too much;

·         highlighted that KCC already delivered Adult Social Care, Children’s Services and education across Kent;

·         sought clarity on facts and figures on the business cases;

·         highlighted residents’ lack of interest in voting, citing feelings of disengagement and underrepresentation, and stressed that the decision should reflect what was best for those individuals;

·         some residents were unaware of the distinction between their borough and County Council and the services they provided;

·         a ratio of 11,700 residents per Councillor proposed under option 1A was undemocratic;

·         residents at the Eastern end of the borough did not align themselves with authorities on the outskirts of London such as Gravesham and Dartford; and

·         could not support options that split wards and parishes.

Councillor Ben J Martin proposed an amendment to recommendation 1:

“That Council agrees option 4B be put forward to Government for Local Government Reorganisation for Kent and Medway”

He also proposed a third recommendation:

“That Council notes its thanks to the officers both at SBC and other Kent Councils for their work into developing the business cases, and ensuring that Members were well informed.”

Councillor Baldock seconded the amendment.

The Monitoring Officer clarified that Members understood the process to consider the amendment put forward. Members then debated the amendment and made points including:

·         Could not support option 4b;

·         felt conflicted as SBC had worked well previously with the North Kent Coast authorities under the Thames Gateway schemes;

·         spoke of the lack of public transport links to areas authorities within option 4b;

·         noted that patient transport was not relevant to the discussion as patients had the ability to choose which hospital they attended according to need;

·         the location of the head office of any new authority was irrelevant as most residents did not visit the building but phoned or emailed; and

·         irrespective of the decision Council made, there would still be a full consultation process

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Councillor Cavanagh, Carnell, Hunt, Moore, Baldock, S Stephen, T Gibson, Harrison, Jackson, Neal, Thompson, Booth, B J Martin, Last, Noe, Ayre, Wise, Jayes, Watson, Bonney, Winckless, Gould, Shiel, Wooster, Speed, Bowen, Marchington, Cheeseman and Nundy. Total equals 29.

Against: Councillor Macdonald, Brawn, Mischuck, C Palmer, Perkin, R Palmer, Miller, S Clark, and Whiting. Total equals 9.

Abstain: None. Total equals 0.

The Mayor announced that the amendment had been agreed.

Members then debated the substantive motion. A Member queried whether the Council could submit its proposal and highlight concerns about the democratic nature of the process. The Chief Executive advised that whilst the business case could not be amended, a covering letter could be sent, signed by Group Leaders, to express their dissatisfaction.

Members then voted on the substantive motion.

Resolved:

(1)  That option 4B be put forward to Government for Local Government Reorganisation for Kent and Medway

(2)  That delegation be given to the Chief Executive to submit the agreed proposal to MHCLG by the 28 November 2025 and to undertake any other necessary steps as part of this process.

(3)That officers both at SBC and other Kent Councils  be thanked for their work into developing the business cases, and ensuring that Members were well informed.