Agenda item

Up to 60 minutes is allowed for this part of the meeting unless extended by the Chairman of Council on a motion moved, duly seconded and approved by the Council.  Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.

Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.

The questions received are set out in the agenda papers.

In accordance with Rule 12(1) of the Council Procedure Rules, Members of the Cabinet responded to the following questions:

(1)       Councillor M Bates asked the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste, and Planning, Councillor N S Kenton:

          “Obviously during these difficult times many things have been affected.  Could the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste, and Planning, outline how recycling collections have fared during the pandemic, and how this compares with our neighbours?”

          In response, the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning stated that despite the challenges posed by the pandemic he was pleased to report that Veolia were able to maintain a normal service throughout the lockdown period and the months that had followed. This was in stark contrast to some of our neighbouring authorities where services such as garden waste collections had been suspended or routine collections had been delayed.

          The Leader of the Council had visited Veolia’s depot to thank the staff personally in recognition of their outstanding efforts to maintain normal services despite significant staff shortages due to self-isolation and waste volumes increasing by as much as 25% at this time.

          In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor M Bates exercised his right to ask a supplementary question.

(2)       Councillor H M Williams asked the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste, and Planning, Councillor N S Kenton:

          “Please explain why the planning committee were not informed about the major changes to Planning proposed by the White Paper which came out on August 6th with responses to be submitted by 13 October.  Members of the committee were not involved at any stage in discussion nor were they able to ask questions about the proposals or DDC’s response.   Nor were other interested councillors informed or invited to participate in any way.  Are you able to advise why this happened like this?”

          In response, the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning stated that while officers had delegated authority to respond to consultations by Government on matters such as this it was agreed that due to the impact of the proposals, both interim and longer term, that a report should be taken to Cabinet to inform Members about the detail of the proposals and to get high level endorsement of the proposed response. The timescales associated with the consultation on the interim proposals meant that this had to be sent prior to the Cabinet on 5 October, however the response was shared with, and agreed by, appropriate Members.  A briefing was held to inform Members of both proposals on 13 October 2020 and the outcomes of that were reported to Cabinet on 19 October 2020 prior to the response being sent.

          In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor H M Williams exercised her right to ask a supplementary question.

(3)       Councillor S H Beer asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Governance and Digital, Councillor C A Vinson:

          “When reviewing our property assets are social values applied as well as financial values?”

          In response the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Governance and Digital confirmed that the social value is recognised as an important consideration when the Council reviewed the value of its property assets.

          In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor S H Beer exercised her right to ask a supplementary question.

(4)       Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health, Councillor D P Murphy:

          “Can the Portfolio Holder advise what the progress is on the sale of the shared ownership properties at the new development at Harold Street?”

          In response the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health stated that the 29 shared ownership units were being marketed by the estate agents Countrywide (CDRS) in accordance with Homes England guidelines and that he understood that the agents were virtually ready to relaunch the marketing campaign post-COVID. 

          In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor P M Brivio exercised her right to ask a supplementary question.

(5)       Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health, Councillor D P Murphy:

          “Does he have any view on the new shared ownership eligibility as outlined by Homes England.” 

          In response the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health set out the rules for shared ownership adopted by Homes England. These rules would increase the number of people eligible to purchase a property and enable people to acquire further shares in their home more easily in the future which it was hoped would make shared ownership a more attractive tenure for people on lower incomes.

          Councillor P M Brivio did not exercise her right to ask a supplementary question.

(6)       Councillor C D Zosseder asked the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Licensing and Community, Councillor N J Collor:

          “To provide the costs of the ill thought out cycle/bus lane in Maison Dieu road?”

          In response the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Licensing and Community stated that he did not have any information on the costs of the scheme as it was a proposal developed by Kent County Council as the highway authority under the Active Travel Plan.

          In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor C D Zosseder exercised her right to ask a supplementary question.