Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M W Rose, L M Wright, M W Moorhouse, and S M S Manjan.

It was noted that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor D G Beaney had been appointed as substitute member for Councillor M W Rose.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 March 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2025 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive the Cabinet decisions in respect of recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy informed Members of the decision of the Cabinet relating to recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in respect of the call-in relating to the Review of Parking Bay Suspension Charges at its meeting held on 31 March 2025. Members noted that the Cabinet had rejected the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To receive any public petitions or issues referred by Council, Cabinet or another Committee.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy advised that there were no issues referred to the Committee by Council, Cabinet or another Committee.

The Chairman indicated that Minute No. 136 (Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions) and Minute No. 137 (Scrutiny Work Programme) would be taken en bloc.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy presented the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions to the Committee for its consideration.

RESOLVED: That the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions be noted.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy presented the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme to the Committee for its consideration.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy noted the lack of engagement from Kent and Medway NHS in respect to blood services (phlebotomy) in Deal. The Chair expressed disappointment, and it was agreed that a joint letter of the Charman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Leader of the Council should be sent as soon as possible.

Councillor J P Loffman raised the importance of a single meeting on Infrastructure Funding Statement. It was noted that this could be prioritised when the new work programme is discussed in May, for discussion potentially before summer break.

Councillor S H Beer highlighted the Council’s progress on climate change and encouraged members and the public to view this on the Council’s website.

It was agreed to note the Work Programme.

Please note that in accordance with the agreed Protocol for Public Speaking at Overview and Scrutiny, the right to speak only applies to agenda items 10 to 14.

Members of the public wishing to speak must register to do so by no later than 2.00 pm on the second working day (Thursday) before the meeting.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy advised that no members of the public had registered to speak on items on the agenda to which the public speaking protocol applied.

To consider the attached joint report of the Director of Environment & Place and the Chief Executive.

The Environmental Protection and Crime Manager outlined the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) Consultation report that had been approved by the Cabinet to commence statutory and public consultation on a new PSPO.

Councillor M Bates questioned why no new provisions for unauthorised camping were included in the report and whether there was available data on the effectiveness of the PSPO in preventing unauthorised camping, as this was an issue in St. Margaret’s Bay. The Community Safety, Resilience, and Digital Manager highlighted the complexity of PSPO enforcement with the limited resources of the Council as well as measures taken during the peak season, such as new signage and engagement with Kent Police.

Councillor S H Beer asked whether this consultation would be for residents concerned with dog safety, highlighting anecdotal claims of dog aggression in North Deal.

The Environmental Protection and Crime Manager noted that they welcomed all proposals from residents, through commenting on the Council’s proposals and submitting new proposals.

It was moved by Councillor M J Nee, duly seconded by Councillor J P Loffman, and

RESOLVED: That the report be agreed.

To consider the report of the Head of Housing (to follow).

The Housing Options Manager presented the update report that noted changes since the original report considered by the Committee 18 months ago.

Councillor M Bates noted the success of the scheme in Burgoyne Heights and thanked Officers for the scheme’s success.

The Chair welcomed the positive outcomes of the report.

RESOLVED: That the report be agreed.

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented the report, informing Members that it had arisen from a recent complaint concerning a historic non-financial Section 106 obligation that resulted in a decision from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman that a report be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee updating it on arrangements now in place.

Members raised the following matters:

·         To enquire what steps, in respect of S106 obligations, can the Council take if a developer becomes insolvent. It was stated that it will depend on the specifics of the site and S106. S106 obligations are often delivered prior to full completion of developments, in accordance with trigger events outlined in S106 agreements.

·         To seek clarification as to why this report had come to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and why the Ombudsman had taken so long to come to its’ decision. It was clarified that it was a recent Ombudsman decision and that the decision had recommended that this report come to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that improvements on the S106 monitoring process have been made by reviewing processes.

·         To seek assurance on the active monitoring process of historic S106 agreements, and whether this had been examined by Internal Audit team. It was stated that audit reviews have taken place. The issue related to active monitoring in instances, when developers failed to submit information. It was confirmed that Internal Audit completed an audit around 2 years ago, and processes were changed as a result.

·         Councillor M Bates proposed a recommendation be made that the Planning Policy Team Leader update the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in September 2025 on progress with respect to reviewing all historic S106 agreements. It was stated good progress has been made and more significant cases highlighted, however the scale of the work was not fully known and officers agreed that Councillor M Bates’ recommendations would be helpful.

·         To seek clarification on whether the S106 monitoring fees had been charged to developers. It was stated that developers have paid £500 per trigger event and this fee was collected and continued to be collected.

RESOLVED:  (a) That the report be noted.

                        (b) That an update be brought back to the committee in September.

To consider the attached report of the Head of Place and Growth.

The Project Manager (Place and Growth) presented the report that sought approval from the Cabinet for £245,000 to be used from the Project Cost Plan of £20.8m as these costs were not previously included. The temporary access arrangements were being accelerated and these funds were needed to fund capital works.

It was moved by Councillor J P Loffman, duly seconded by Councillor S H Beer, and

RESOLVED: That the report be agreed.

To consider the attached report of the Community Safety, Resilience and Digital Manager.

The Community Safety, Resilience, and Digital Manager presented a summary of KIDAS funding report:

·         Seeking approval in principle of the uplift of funding to KIDAS, as funding has not changed since 2017.

·         To allow KCC to commission a new, holistic approach to services for all of Kent.

·         To allow KIDAS to maintain the same level of service with funding.

Councillor C D Zosseder, the Portfolio Holder for Community and Corporate Property noted the success of domestic abuse services in East Kent, and that the service provided excellent value for money.

Councillor M J Nee enquired why Kent County Council had left these funding arrangements this late for the next financial year. It was stated that KIDAS funding was provided by central government, local authorities and the Police and Crime Commissioner, and this approach came after correspondence from central government.

It was moved by Councillor J P Loffman and, duly seconded by S H Beer, that the importance of the service be noted, and

RESOLVED: The report be agreed.

The recommendation is attached.

MATTERS WHICH THE MANAGEMENT TEAM SUGGESTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE AS THE REPORT CONTAINS EXEMPT INFORMATION AS DEFINED WITHIN PART 1 OF SCHEDULE 12A OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS INDICATED AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PROPER OFFICER CONSIDERS THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE EXEMPTION OUTWEIGHS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION

It was moved by Councillor M Bates, duly seconded by Councillor M J Nee, and

RESOLVED:       That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the business on the grounds that the items to be considered involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the attached report of the Head of Housing.

The Housing Development Officer set out the report on purchase of new affordable   housing at Cross Road, Walmer.

Members considered the report.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.