Agenda item

Up to 60 minutes is allowed for this part of the meeting unless extended by the Chairman of the Council or 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 order received 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 N J Collor asked the Portfolio Holder for Social Housing, Port Health, Skills and Education, Councillor D P Murphy:

“With the Council’s most welcome initiative of starting to build new homes will the Portfolio Holder kindly advise what eco and other environmentally friendly features are being insisted upon?”

Councillor D P Murphy advised in his written response:

“All of the developments of new Council housing have, to date, exceeded the building regulations requirements in relation to conservation of fuel and power. Clearly, reducing the impact upon the environment is of great importance, however, alongside this it is also vital to ensure that the new homes address fuel poverty and are usable as homes by the residents, so this is also a priority. As a result, we do not apply the same single solution or set of requirements to all the Council’s housing developments, and we take a flexible approach to ensure the best solution possible at each particular development. Air source heat pumps, PV panels, enhanced insulation and car charging points have all been provided to date, and it is our intention to keep pace with the technology to address the needs of the environment and our residents.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.

(2)  Councillor N J Collor asked the Portfolio Holder for Community and Corporate Property, Councillor O C de R Richardson:

“As the Portfolio Holder is aware central Dover only has one public toilet located in Stembrook Car Park. With plans gradually coming out about a redevelopment of this entire area will the Portfolio Holder guarantee to me here and now that a public toilet facility will be included in any plans for the future and subsequent delivery of any development project?”

Councillor O C de R Richardson advised in his written response:

“Plans for the Stembrook site are still ongoing and in development; but I can guarantee that public toilet provision within Dover Town Centre is a recognised need; as well as that the Pencester Garden’s / Stembrook area is an area of focus for public toilet delivery. 

Please rest assured that as project proposals emerge – as is also the case with any potential town centre development - due consideration is been given to the recognised need for public toilets within the town centre, as well as the provision of strategic car parking.

Public Toilet options currently under consideration for the town include traditional approaches; as well as ‘pay-to-pee’ opportunities and the ‘we’ll pay you to let people use your toilet’ schemes. Consideration of less traditional approaches to public toilet provision is related to our shared ambitions for designing out of crime, anti-social behaviour and vandalism.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.

(3)  Councillor H M Williams asked the Portfolio Holder for Social Housing, Port Health, Skills and Education, Councillor D P Murphy:

“Does Cllr Murphy share my concerns that the current contract with Porchlight, which provides invaluable support to those experiencing homelessness is not being renewed in the Autumn. Is he able to comment on any measures to replace that support?”

Councillor D P Murphy advised in his written response:

“On 31 December 2021, the KCC Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care & Public Health wrote to all District Council Leaders explaining that as a consequence of extraordinary pressures on KCC budgets the decision had been taken not to renew the current Kent Homeless Connect (KHC) contract from 1 October 2022.   The £5,069,901 annual cost of the contract is currently met via the Adult Social Care budget and includes a contribution of £393,200 from the Public Health grant. 

A Public consultation has taken place and concluded on 6 June after a six-week period of engagement. Over 220 consultation responses were received and 80 people attended in-person events. The respondents told KCC about the impact they expected if alternative arrangements could not be put in place, and this included an increase in homelessness and rough sleeping, an impact on the wellbeing and safety of people who experience homeless and rough sleeping and an increase in cost to the public sector including KCC Adult Social Care. 

KCC has been working with District Councils and the current prime contractors to consider how the issues raised in the consultation could be mitigated.    This work has included consideration of alternative arrangements with its partners, its funding of a transition period for up to 18 months and the delivery of its duties under the Care Act, which will be influenced by the new Social Care Strategy. 

The end of consultation report is due to be published shortly in advance of the Adult Social Care Cabinet Committee in July and KCC is considering providing funding for an 18-month period, drawn from its reserves, to ensure continued support for people who use the service. 

A working model of the transition would see a phased move to new arrangements over three six-monthly stages. The model recognises the complexities of a change in arrangements in supported housing, allowing a longer time to achieve this. Dover District Council will continue throughout this period to work collaboratively with both KCC and Porchlight to support local residents and in particular the most vulnerable.  

The estimated cost of this approach over an 18-month transition period would be £4,563k.

The consultation highlighted a potential increase in demand for KCC’s own services and they have stated that they will exercise their duties to those who need an assessment under the Care Act and to consider how care and support needs can be met.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.

(4)  Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Community and Corporate Property, Councillor O C de R Richardson:

“Has the review on the siting of memorial benches in public parks taken place and if so, can he advise on what the new policy now is?”

Councillor O C de R Richardson advised in his written response:

“The review of memorials across the district, including memorial benches, is still on going because this is not a straightforward matter.

We need to balance the understandable wish on the part of family and friends to recognise and commemorate the lives of their loved ones with the availability of suitable locations to site more and more memorial benches and indeed the obligations on public bodies to address climate change.

We may need for example to question whether it is appropriate for us to encourage the continued provision of timber memorial benches at a time when there is emphasis on the planting of trees rather than the felling of them.

Once the review is complete any recommendations will be considered by members prior to the adoption of any new policy.

The present position is that there is no policy change simply a suspension of the service whilst alternatives are considered.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.

(5)  Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Community and Corporate Property, Councillor O C de R Richardson:

“Can the circumstances in which the recent visit by the Fun Fair in Pencester Gardens was able to take place. Previous advice given to councillors that due to a number of factors the visit would not be going ahead.”

Councillor O C de R Richardson advised in his written response:

“I am sure that all councillors will be aware that the original decision to cancel the annual Fun Fair in Pencester Gardens attracted wide public attention and led to an extensive campaign for the decision to be reversed.

In the face of the claims and counterclaims in respect of issues such as the value of the fair to the people of Dover, the impact on the trade of local businesses and the disruption to the lives of those living and working in the vicinity, I was pleased to agree to reverse the decision and allow the Fun Fair to take place as planned.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.

(6)  Members were advised that Councillor S H Beer had withdrawn this question.

(7)  Councillor E A Biggs asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor T J Bartlett:

“Despite the cancellation of the Inland Border Facility by the Government citing that Freight traffic with Europe has declined by over 50%, can he explain why there has been dramatic increase in the implementation of Operation Tap for residents of Aycliffe?”

The question was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Licensing and Regulatory Services, Councillor M Bates, who advised in his written response:

“The IBF and the Traffic Access Protocol at Aycliffe are not directly related and have completely different functions.

TAP is activated to prevent gridlocking of the town of Dover and is implemented on request by the Port of Dover to National Highways.

Rather than reducing, freight volumes have continued to increase since the end of the pandemic. The operation of TAP ensures that Dover’s town centre is kept clear of traffic will continue to be required until a alternative holding facilities for freight vehicles can be established in Kent or indeed across the UK.

That said, I share your concern at the impact that this arrangement has on the residents of Aycliffe and we continue to lobby the powers that be to bring forward proposals to provide such facilities as indeed we lobby for a long term solution to operation Brock and the widening of the A2 from Lydden to Dover.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.

(8)  Councillor K Mills asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment, Councillor N S Kenton:

“Could the Council Leader advise Council and the District of the outcome of any conversations that have taken place with VEOLIA regarding the Companies contracts in Russia.”

Councillor N S Kenton advised in his written response:

“The joint waste contract we have is with Veolia Environmental Services UK and not related to the Russian or Ukrainian businesses.

Veolia have issued the following statement on the issue:

"Veolia UK is a business entity with no legal, financial or operational ties with Veolia’s Russian affiliate. Veolia UK maintains continuous dialogue with the UK authorities and public bodies to ensure its full compliance with all applicable sanctions.

Veolia Group provides absolutely no new funding for the operations of its affiliate in Russia and has stopped all new investment and all financial flows between the Veolia Group and its Russian subsidiary. 

Veolia utterly condemns war and violence in Ukraine. In full compliance with the current sanctions regime, Veolia Group is maintaining its responsibility to its employees and the communities it serves by continuing its essential public service operations in both Ukraine and Russia.”

Officers have raised the issue with Veolia and are keeping this matter under review although options within the contract to take action are limited and would be very costly to implement.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.