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 two questions had been received by members.

I am sure The Leader recognises the real hardship that the Environment Committee's decision to introduce car parking charges is having on local businesses in my ward of Queenborough & Halfway, businesses that have seen trade fall off the cliff following introduction of the charges on 1 April. Such is their plight, some are offering to deduct the cost of parking from customers' bills simply to maintain turnover and reducing opening hours to reduce overheads. Of course, that is not sustainable and some fear closing for good.

The Leader will be aware that the council funds a refund scheme at our leisure centres, where centre users can claim back all or part of their parking costs. The current policy was agreed by the Housing, Health and Communities Committee at its meeting of 25 July 2025.

The HH&C Committee report recognised that making customers pay the full amount for their parking, would likely increase the financial risk to the leisure business by reducing its customer base. Members at that meeting commented that "car park refunds encouraged the use of the leisure facilities", and "removing the parking concessions would result in people not visiting the leisure centres".

The same risks are now playing out for real for businesses in Halfway and in Queenborough due to the introduction of parking charges in these areas, risks that were not highlighted or considered in the report to the Environment Committee at its meeting in November 2025.

Now we have evidence, will the Leader ask the Environment Committee to reconsider its decision of November 2025, to see how the Council might support local businesses with council tax-payers' money to offer a customer refund scheme in the same way the Housing, Health and Communities Committee has chosen to support the operators of the three leisure centres?

Car parking refunds have been contained within the Leisure Centre Management Contract since its approval in 2004. This contract is in its final year and will be superseded by a new contract from 1^st April 2027. The decision that Housing, Health and Communities took in July 2025 actually reduced the level of refund for leisure users for the new contract.

The November 2025 Environmental Services and Climate Change committee report (and appendices), relating to the introduction of parking charges at 6 car parks across the Borough, did in fact highlight the context of each car park and what they were used for, with some serving local shops. Members raised the concerns of business impact on the night, so the Committee did adequately debate the issue.

The second committee report in January 2026 clearly covered the feedback from the traffic order consultation and singled out economic impact on businesses and tourism. Members of the committee were reminded that these issues were not unique to Sheppey (as stated in the November meeting) and similar issues were in place across the Borough.

It would of course, not be affordable for the Council to offer parking refunds to all local businesses across the Borough. The leisure centre refunds relate to a Council service promoting health and wellbeing for residents, which is a core commitment in the Corporate Plan

Was the Leader aware that the subsidy that we paid to the Swallows last year was £220,000. The subsidy that we paid to the Sheppey Leisure Centre was £90,000. And that makes the figures that we're asking for the help for local business in Queenborough and Halfway somewhat puts them into perspective.

Thank you, your comments have been duly noted.

Is the chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee satisfied that there was sufficient public consultation prior to the decision taken by her committee on 12 November 2025 to introduce car parking charges at three car parks in my ward, and that there was sufficient risk assessment done on the wider effects of bringing in these new charges? Is she also satisfied that the Decision was taken in accordance with the Gunning Principles, as case law requires, and that it followed the rules and procedures laid out in the council’s Consultation Policy Statement, the Officers’ Consultation Toolkit and Councillors’ Guide to Consultations, all agreed and noted by P&R on 10 September 2025?

I would remind the Councillor that the Chair of the Committee is not a Cabinet member and therefore individual satisfaction is not of relevance.

However, there are two elements to the parking service in Swale – firstly the policy and secondly the operational management.

The parking policy was written in 2024 by a cross-party group representing all areas of the Borough. One of the main principles members were insistent on was that that we had a fair, consistent and transparent parking policy. There was a feeling that there was an inequity in a system that charged some places in the Borough and not others. Members of the working group said that they had heard from residents that the system was unfair. It was also raised that there was a situation where the car parks in one of the most deprived areas on the Island (Sheerness) were chargeable and this was not fair.

The Parking Policy was widely consulted on in line with the consultation policy we had at the time and in line with national principles – the consultation took place from 1^st Nov 2023 and 2 January 2024. Members agreed the policy and no changes were made.

The policy advises that the free car parks should be consistently reviewed.

This brings me to my second point. Under the operational management of the parking service, the free car parks were reviewed and a decision taken (within the policy) to put a number forward to Members for paid parking. These were not all in Sheppey, but they were car parks that were reviewed as suitable for car park charges. The November 2025 committee report included an appendix detailing the context of each of the car parks. These car parks are well used and there is an ongoing cost for maintenance of these car parks. This cost was being subsidised by the other car parks across the Borough and this is against the policy members agreed, which was to have a fair, consistent and transparent policy.

The policy to do this had been consulted on and so members took the decision to charge in these cark parks. We do not consult on the charging of individual car parks – but on the policy.

We did then consult on the traffic order which details the changes in each individual car park, as required in legislation and changes were made as a result of views of residents and businesses.

Both committees that considered the matter were well debated and officers answered questions raised by Committee Members and visiting members.

It's a question to the chair whether she was satisfied that we followed the right procedures and the right procedures had been followed. And I get from the answer that the answer was simply yes, she is.

Declined to answer the question.