Council - Wednesday 19 November 2025, 4:00pm - Slides Tab - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Council
Wednesday, 19th November 2025 at 4:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Share this agenda point
  1. Slide 1
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Slide selection

extraordinary meeting. This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet. For those who
do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber. For members,
officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones are used
so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you. Would anyone with
a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting. I would like
to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under consideration,
and public speakers with respect.
And obviously, please feel free to sit or stand
when speaking.
So item one on the agenda, apologies for absence.
Thank you, Chair, and evening, or late afternoon.
Welcome.

1 Apologies for Absence

Nice to see members, staff, and members of the public,
but if they're listening in.
We've got three apologies for absence today.
So from councillors Cooper Kelly, Cooper and McShane, thank you.
Thank you and item two, declarations of interest.
Does anybody have any declarations?

2 Declarations of Interest

No, okay, so we'll move on to item three which is the only item on our agenda this evening.

3 Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) - Final submission to Government and next steps

So members, this afternoon's meeting has been convened to consider a single item of business
relating to local government reorganisation. I'd just like to remind you that external
legal advice was sought earlier in the year by monitoring officers in Kent and the advice
concluded that the decision in respect of the folks in High District Council's submission
would be an executive decision. Therefore, four council are being consulted on this matter
and are invited to make recommendations to the Cabinet to inform their decision making.
meeting in order to make a final decision on this matter. Please could I ask members
to keep their speeches succinct to ensure that all members have an opportunity to have
their say. Members may only speak once on this matter. I'd also like to remind members
that this meeting is to allow members to have a debate on the different options and it is
not a question and answer session. So I'm going to hand over to our leader, Councillor
Jim Martin to open the debate.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chair.
And I will have to start with an apology
because as you have read out the legal advice,
Council are being, in the very comments, consulted.
But I think everybody in this chamber knows
I'm determined to follow the views of this Council.
I would be extraordinarily surprised if cabinet was to do anything other than the expressed
opinion of this council and I'd just like to thank everyone for their support in that
measure and as I said at the briefing the one thing that binds us all together is that
We are Democrats and so this is the only way that I feel that I could go and I'm sure that
I can speak for most people in the chamber.
What I would ask, Chair, is for a recorded vote.
I think this is going to be quite a complex measure to get through, Eden to get through
I think it is just better, more prudent, if we have a recorded vote from the outset
and everyone knows exactly where they stand. Thank you.
Thank you. So we'll need five people as a minimum to support that.
We certainly have more than five.
Do we need to make a motion?
Who would like to second?
I'm very happy to second and so might.
Thank you. Do we need a... We don't need a vote on that.
Okay, wonderful.
So the debate is now open, so if you'd like to speak.
Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you, Chair.
Conscious that most people,
probably everyone might want to speak,
so I'll keep this brief.
And to that end, I'm really just gonna talk about
two models, the two that I think
are most likely to go forward.
And that's no disrespect to our colleagues in Gravesham and Dartford and KCC, who've
put a lot of work into their models, but I can't see either of those or the 4B model
going forward when all the votes are counted.
So I'll focus on the two that are left, which is 3A and 4D, if I may.
3A, as we know, came from the KCC administration pre -May 2025, so when the Tory party were
in control of the council.
And I believe it was created to cater for the wishes of the Tory -run councils in West
So for me that model, even at just looking coincidentally on the screen,
it sat there as a sort of bright blue beacon for all to see.
And I think what will happen if we end up with that unitary is that West Kent
will be the huge beneficiary of that system
and West Kent being the wealthier end of Kent
will just hang on to that, to the detriment of East Kent.
So I just see that that model was created
by West Kent for West Kent.
I've got another issue with 3A which is it creates an East Kent unitary council with
a population, estimated population of 677 ,906.
I've heard comparisons between that number and the two unitaries that have been decided
in Surrey which are around the 500, 600 ,000 mark.
But the East Kent model there in 3A is bigger than the larger of the two Surrey models.
And it's bigger by the smaller of those two unitaries by more than the population of Folkestone
and Hive District Council.
So the East Kent model there is significantly bigger than the proposed Surrey models.
I would add to that that the five districts that make up East Kent in the 3A unitary council
have got planning permission for over 30 ,000 homes and that includes obviously our district
that has planning for 8 ,500 homes at Otterpool which as we've heard in this chamber updates
that that's, fingers crossed, quite close to coming to fruition.
The five and a half thousand homes at South Ashford are underway.
The seven and a half thousand homes at Whitfield in Dover, they've built 600 of those already.
They're well underway.
And that 30 ,000 figure is what's got planning and we know that these sites will take many
more houses than that.
The point I'm making is that that unitary there at 677 as a starter will very quickly
go over 700 and then we'll within short order maybe a couple of election cycles
start motoring towards 750. That would leave us then with a we don't know yet
obviously to be decided but something in the order of 70 or 80 councillors
looking after three quarters of a million people and that's not what the
councillors in this chamber do that's what the councillors in this chamber and
that Councillor Prater does for KCC the whole lot.
They'll be looking after everything for all of those people.
And I know that there's talk of regional assemblies,
local district assemblies,
but that's still the same councillors.
I just think that that council will be too big
and unmanageable for the councillors that are elected.
Moving very swiftly to the 4D model,
Obviously if you split the county into four,
with the current population 1 .85 million,
you're gonna end up with a council that's below 400 ,000
and in 4D that is in fact the case.
But what the people that have brought 4D together
have tried to do is the smaller.
I think we've gone out of time for you, sorry.
Oh, can I just finish this paragraph?
Finish your paragraph.
Sorry, it's a five minute limit still for people to speak.
Oh, okay, sorry, I should have spoken quicker.
Okay, thanks for letting me finish this paragraph then.
4A has the smaller unitary in the west below 400 ,000.
That's where the wealth is.
So it's a fairer distribution of population.
It's the closest to what the government's asking for.
The wealth is distributed more fairly.
and it's the only model on that board
that is proposing that as part of this massive chaos
and disruption of forming unitaries,
that we actually look at the boundaries
and sort out some of the mistakes made in 1974
and look to the next 50 years to get these councils right.
Thank you for having that extra time.
That's okay, thank you.
So just to other councillors,
we do have to still sit within the five minutes,
Otherwise, we'll be here a long time.
So we're going to move on to Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Let's be clear, this is not about deciding the best option,
but rather the least worst case for us to consider.
If you look at the requirements under Options 5A and 4D,
they require boundary changes, as Councillor Lockwood has alluded to.
and in the time scales we have available to decide which option we're going to take,
that would seem to be a bridge too far.
Option 4B addresses some of the criteria laid out by the government,
but I've dismissed this as it separates both Folkestone and Ashford from Dover,
and therefore the links specifically to do with the channel crossings
and the Port of Dover and the cross -channel rail link.
Option 1A was maximum uninformed, unsubstantiated dictatorial decision
which has been padded out but still doesn't fit.
It does not address many of the criteria laid out by the government
particularly with regard to population sizes
and introduces aerial assemblies with no information as how they would work.
It does not support the case for future devolution.
It also does not support a lot of the data that's been put forward that's been consistently
used by many of the other options and those things that have been carried out which have
allowed us to have a very detailed options appraisal system.
It would appear to leave individual councillors supporting a huge number of residents picking
up again a point that Councillor Lockwood made across all of the service provisions
that this Council, future Councils would have to address.
Option 3A represents, in my opinion, the least worst case.
It provides the best population split to align with government criteria.
It provides the best resident representation
with regard to Council resident numbers.
And using Figure 20, which is a very useful attachment
in the notes that we've been provided, to assist with the analysis,
gives option 3a as the highest overall assessment
using the evaluation criteria in that case.
LGR will do nothing to assist residents
with local democracy.
With regard to Romney -Mars,
the administrative centre is likely to be located
many miles away, denying residents direct access
and will put additional strain
on whoever the elected representative is.
LGR sounds like a death knell for independent councillors
and many others including younger residents who would wish to take on the role of a Councillor.
They will find it impossible to balance the demanding roles of Councillor earning a wage
and family ties.
Let's not forget though that as Councillors we drift in and drift out of councils.
It is the hard working professional and award winning officers, staff and contractors that
deliver the backroom and front line services for us.
LGR does nothing to recognise their role and their input into a successful council.
So for me, it's option 3A, the least worst case. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. And we'll move on to Councillor Mike Blakemore.
Thank you, Chair.
This has been a hurried process, ill -thought -out and still, even at this stage,
with too many questions left unanswered.
without devolution, upheaval without any clear benefits beyond ending the separation of powers
between county and districts. That streamlining does offer potential for real benefit if the new
unitary authorities are adequately funded and the cost of reorganisation itself adequately
covered. But the price of LGR goes way beyond its price tag. There's a cost to local democracy
with far fewer councillors representing and supporting residents, weakened links with the
community, less potential for partnership with local groups and more competition
for scarce resources. I know we're not here to re -litigate LGR, though in truth
it was never up for debate in the first place, but to decide between the
different models before us. I would have preferred a four unitary model that
could not vote for the two before us. One links us with Swale without rationale,
and the other would split this district as well as creating other complex
boundary changes.
Looking for a smaller unitary to address the issues I've mentioned, 5A has some merits,
including linking us with our natural partners, Ashford and Dover, but disaggregation costs
would be too high, savings too far off, and longer -term questions over its financial viability.
I believe 3A is the best of a bad bunch.
I'm concerned about the size of the population it will represent, the loss of democracy,
and about bringing together two of the three most deprived districts in Kent.
But it aligns with historic cultural and economic geographies,
brings together channel crossing infrastructure,
and offers the quickest payback time of the realistic options.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Councillor Tony Hills.
Thank you, Chair.
This is the most important decision that the government will take
for local government in 50 years.
Not something we asked for,
but the government has decided to proceed at speed.
And if all goes to plan, our district will be history by 2028.
I think our officers have done a magnificent job
in getting us to this place with all the information and data.
What is chosen?
We will have to make work for our community
and live with it for the possibility to come.
To me, there is only one contender that fits the best
for this historic East Kent.
3A. Why?
This layout for East Kent fits, in my opinion,
the historic shape for our region.
It recognises the shape for medical services and transport.
It keeps control to the gateway to Europe with the major transport links.
gives us a strong coastal unit working to make us more resilient to a changing climate.
I think that our residents will find adaption to 3a more natural, intuitive,
and all five current district councils have elements that can bring to make 3a successful as a unit to protect and enhance the future for East Kent.
I quote from a report, three unitary council creates financially sustainable and democratically
accountable authorities with sufficient scale to provide core services and the flexibility
to meet the needs of an occupation.
And that size is important to be viable in the long term.
So I'll be supporting 3a and I hope that you'll be doing the same.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Wimble.
Thank you, Chair.
Most of this has already been said.
None of us asked for this and I just think it's going to cost the taxpayer a lot of money,
whatever option you go for.
I will say also that Councillor Martin has been going around to all the boroughs and
and parish and town councils doing a really good job explaining the chaos
that we've got to try and sort out. So thank you for that.
My only reason, I will say that 3A would be my alternative reason, one to go for.
The only reason I went with the Kent model of 1A is because of cost.
We've at the moment got real problems with things like our fostering organisations,
which are already in meltdown.
So if you split the county up into three,
you've got three new fostering options to sort out,
which already cost us tens of thousands of pounds per day
because we don't have enough fostering facilities.
Same with fire and rescue.
You know, they're wanting millions more pounds worth of investment.
At the moment, if it's split between the whole county, it's easier to budget.
So, splitting it up three ways, which I will say,
if we are going to go with any option other than 1A,
which I'm sure you're not going to back, 3A is the obvious one.
We looked at it before about doing the Super Council
and we work with Ashford, we've got investments with Ashford,
we work with Dover on our waste collection.
And Canterbury is the obvious next area that we should work with.
I'm not so sure about the Thanet side of things
because they're a very different organisation to what we are here.
I get why you would want to go with 3A.
But at County I'm dealing with waste.
98...
98 million pounds a year on waste.
We get that price because we're buying in bulk.
Each individual area will have to do their own waste contract.
I'm not too about collection from your houses, because you already do that.
you've got Biffa, Veolia and all the others.
And places like Allington where we currently do it
are saying it's going to cost a lot more money
than we're currently already paying, and we're already paying well over the odds.
So I just think it's going to bankrupt everybody.
I think your council taxes will probably be doubled
to what they are now within five years.
1A is the option that is the least expensive to implement.
It's the quickest turnaround as well on the money.
You've still got your divisions, so you can still have what we're currently talking about.
But you would have the scale of economy for buying power.
That's the main reason why I'm going to go with that.
But knowing that you're probably not going to go with that,
I would back 3A as the next best deal from a county point of view.
Because we didn't have devolution as part of this.
If we had devolution, we was looking for a mayor, then it would be a bit different.
I'll back what you were saying and what everybody was saying.
I don't think there's anybody in here who actually thinks this is a good idea at all.
It's been forced on us, so it is about doing the best of the bad job.
I'm going to go for 1A for the economic reasons,
but 3A, if you're not minded to go with that,
makes the most obvious sense for this council, with our partners,
that we've been having a good working relationship with
for the 18 odd years I've been coming along here.
Thank you. Councillor Holgate.
Thank you, Chair. And thanks to everyone who's worked so hard on this endeavour.
Like everyone else, I've been tracking this closely for months because what's happening now has been shared
will fundamentally reshape local democracy in Kent.
I'll be honest, for something described as devolution, i .e. pushing power downwards, LGR will do anything but.
Labour, the party of localism apparently, not anymore it seems.
The government's own white paper promised empowerment.
What we've actually received is a statutory instruction, a fixed timeline, a fixed population
threshold and a transition that all councils must fund almost entirely from their own budgets.
Kent a county of 1 .9 million people with some of the most acute social care pressures in
the county, in the country sorry, have been offered just over £500 ,000 to deliver reform
expected to cost 10 to 20 million pounds.
KFOG, the Kent Financial Office of the Group,
is now explicit.
LGR quote, does not solve the funding crisis.
So we have to tell the truth.
This isn't a rescue.
It's a restructuring that may look neater on paper,
but does not address fundamental issues
and challenges facing local government.
And in the middle of that restructuring
does hit the question of representation.
The government's guideline of 500 ,000 residents per unitary
has no grounding in evidence, geography,
or community identity, it's simply an administrative preference.
It also means, very simply, there will be fewer councillors
serving far more people.
At the White Paper launch, we even heard the then Deputy Prime Minister
laud the fact that we need fewer politicians,
as if reducing democratic representation is a good thing.
Given the current circus in Westminster,
I could certainly think of a few less politicians myself.
However, it is a great simplification to just call district councils politicians.
We are first and foremost community activists and advocates who represent our areas and
work hard to be the people with their everyday problems.
This chamber itself is filled with an incredible cross -section of our community, local teachers,
social care workers, architects, musicians.
Why not instead celebrate our contribution and promote the importance of local representation
as opposed to cheering our demise to serve your own narrative?
District councils aren't a burden to be trimmed, we are residents.
According to that a problem to be solved misunderstands entirely what I believe local government actually is.
If you want a warning sign that's been mentioned, look at Surrey.
The consultation showed clear support for three unitaries.
The minister imposed two, not because residents wanted it, not because it strengthens a local voice,
but because it quote will speed up house building. That should set alarm bells ringing across Kent.
Because the price of speed is democracy.
Fewer councillors, larger wards, more remote bureaucracy, less community influence over
planning, infrastructure, transport, the environment, the things residents raise to us every single
day.
I know the two -tier system is imperfect.
Streamlined services?
Yes.
Destroy local accountability?
No.
And I'm not standing here pretending that we can stop reorganisation.
I know we can't and it's happening.
FHDC will disappear in 2028 and residents deserve honesty about that.
But inevitability doesn't mean silence.
Our job now is to protect the principles that matter.
Local decision making that is genuinely local,
a financial settlement that doesn't punish high need districts,
planning powers that serve communities, not developers,
representation that remains accessible to working people,
and a structure that strengthens identity, not erases it.
Because reorganisation is coming, then let at least be a good reorganisation,
and rooted in evidence, respectful of local identity,
and driven by the needs of the people in Kent,
not the preferences of Whitehall.
If it wasn't clear, I hate it.
Quite frankly, I don't like any of the options,
as many of us don't, and I simply don't believe in it.
However, I do have a civic responsibility to uphold,
and I have therefore to defer to the expert advice,
which does regretfully support 3A.
And a final note, I identify a lot with Councillor Thomas,
talked about accessibility of local government
for younger councillors, I'm not calling myself young,
but I certainly have, I've got two children under three,
I've got a busy four time job, so a personal impact on me
is that this will probably be the end of local government
for me, which adds to my frustration a little.
3A, regretfully, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Fuller.
Oh, that's helpful.
Thank you, Chair.
Great, my iPad's crashed.
The wonders of technology.
Techno Kid just died.
Yeah, Techno Kid just died.
That is wonderful.
I'll see if I can do this from memory, I guess, then.
So, I was thinking about local government reform earlier today.
And I kind of came up with a tortured analogy for where we're going with this.
So, it kind of reminds me a bit of ETAIL to help out,
in the sense that it seemed like a good idea at the time
and then turned out to be awful.
But also, it reminds me of, if we did that,
But Rishi's rules for E -town to help out were, you can pick which restaurant you're going to go to,
but it has to be a chicken place, and they have to sell buckets.
And then the family as it were, sit there and they come up with a group of options.
Some take the hint and say, alright, what you really want us to choose is KFC.
Some choose Popeyes, some choose Chick -fil -A.
One decides that they want to order in pie and mash
and you're going to eat what you're given.
I'll let you guess which one that was.
But ultimately the decision is going to be made by Rishi as it were in this analogy.
Now in this particular analogy 3 A's is your KFC.
The reason it's your KFC is because it meets the 500k threshold.
All of the councils are above 500k.
And it also meets the threshold in terms of how the area fits together.
How it supports forming a sensible council.
At least in East Kent anyway.
So, if you're looking at East Kent, there are various organisations that fit within
a similar structure to the 3A East Kent Council.
So you've got your hospitals, so you've got hospitals at Canterbury, Folkestone,
Ashford, Dover, Margate, and there's one in Whitstable which I didn't know about
until I looked into it.
So again, East Kent.
You look at your police areas and the East Kent commanders cover the five districts that
are in 3A.
If you look at education, specifically East Kent College Group, five of their six campuses
are in East Kent.
So those are Canterbury, Broadstairs, Dover, Folkestone and Ashford.
We'll just ignore Sheppey.
It's for the best.
Spoken like a member of staff.
What else have you got?
You've got the sink ports, which I'm going to let Jim talk about.
But most of the original sink ports, certainly the ones in Kent
and the ones that are actually proper ports,
Faberge and you're not really a port,
are all in East Kent.
Sorry, but you're not.
Well, you're not, it's even...
All of the, even English heritage, if you look at that,
All of the coastal castles are going to be in the East Kent unitary.
Similarly, all the Martello Towers in Kent are going to be in an East Kent unitary.
And you've even got all of the Royal Military Canal in an East Kent unitary.
Then if you look at the Gateway to Europe,
you've got three of the four HS1 stops in East Kent, in Norrina, actually.
If we get Eurostar back, you've got Ashford, and bearing in mind that they've said that
Eurostar can have competitors now, so you might have Ashford back, and that's Ebb's
Fleet, so again, Ashford, East Kent.
You've got Le Shuttle in Folkestone, you've got the port of Dover in Chantenuse in Dover,
and you've also got the Sevington border facility, and as I mentioned, HS1 linking all of that
up.
So the crux of my point here is that basically the vast majority of structures
around education, health, transport and even tourism,
all fit together well in East Kent.
And for me that fits with the requirements of government
in terms of this restructure.
Government hasn't promised us a massive pot of money
and none of the options here deal with the massive elephant in the room
which is 15 years of austerity
coupled with the massive crisis in social care
that successive governments have ignored.
But to return to my tortured analogy,
we've been asked to choose a chicken restaurant
not to solve local government. So on that basis I'm going to go with KFC or 3A.
And I think we're time up. I'm really sorry.
Councillor Mead.
Thank you, Chair. How do you follow that? The first thing I'd like to point out to the
Chamber today is that the Labour group are having a free vote. We've not been whipped
on this, we're all making our own decisions for our own reasons, so I thought it was important
to point that out. We obviously heard on the grapevine, going back quite a ways, that this
was coming through, and I've been looking at this right from the start, and I've had
discussions with our MP, because I too have got some grave concerns about how the split
is going to happen and I've been trying to look at it from a people centric point of
view very much about our residents and which one of these not perfect maps would actually
serve our residents the best. And I looked at 4D and yes if we go down the middle there
a possibility that we would be more financially secure because of the financial and economic
side going up the middle of Kent. But I don't think that it's the right idea to split Folkestone
and Hyde into two. I really don't. We've been together for such a long time. We support
each other, our residents go back and forth, our children share schools back and forth.
I think if we were to cut that, I think it would do irreparable damage to some of our
communities. So I can't go for 4D. The three unitaries, 3A, I've always felt that Dover,
Ashford, and Folkestone and Hoyle should be together in whatever form it comes, because
that is the beating heart, that is the artery to the continent.
And along the M20 from Dover up to Ashford,
that is where the majority of the economics come in.
We have other parts obviously, but to me that is the strongest,
and it's the strongest that a really strong unity could make the most of.
And also if we were to split that down,
My worry is that you'd have Operation Brock when Dover has problems or the M20 has problems
trying to be coordinated by two separate unitaries who don't agree with each other.
On Hill, to put it forward.
So I saw a big problem, that's with the 4D and I'm sorry to disagree with Councillor
Lockwood on that.
My worry about 4D also is if you look at that you've got very much an East Kent unitary.
And if you look at the deprivation and the services that are required in that part of
Kent, they do not balance.
It doesn't matter how you try and add it up, the two do not balance.
If you go for 3A and you follow it round the coast, we all know that coastal towns have
more deprivation than slightly more in country.
There are all sorts of reasons for that.
A lot of people retire, go to the coast because we're a lovely area to live, but unfortunately
we all get older, we all need more services, but of course they are not earning money and
cannot put into those services. So when you take into consideration that the average wage
in Folkestone, as an example, the last time I saw it was £22 ,000, and we are looking
to try and fund our elderly and vulnerable, our SCND, our social care, it's a big ask.
So I just feel that the larger unitary along the east and south would actually be in a
better position to be able to fund what our residents and our vulnerable residents need
the most as well as giving us the possibility of grabbing that economic highway from Dover
through to Ashford.
So for me it's not perfect but for me it will be through them.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Alan Martin.
Thank you, Chair. So for me there are two key aspects that are driving my thinking around
these options. The first around local accountability and democracy and the second around ensuring
an economically efficient model for delivery. So first of all looking at democracy, all
of these models increase the resident to member numbers.
That in itself isn't an immediate disaster
because in the modern age residents can be served
quite adequately through customer services
and not everything has to come through the member these days.
But we are moving from a model where you have a blend
of KCC and district councillors supporting individual
residents and parish and town councils where they
actually perform quite a significant role.
With fewer councillors on the ground,
I'm very concerned about the void between residents
and the unitary structure and the role
that parish and town councils will play within that.
I'm also concerned a bit like Councillor Holgate
around the fact that this probably drives us
to a system where councillors need to be doing this
as a full -time job.
And I think if they're paid well enough,
that's probably okay, but it will narrow the stock
of people who are prepared to step forward and do this fun role.
My key thing though from a democracy perspective is to make sure we avoid a very large increase
in that resident to member ratio.
Conversely on the economic side, I've got two things that I'm looking at there.
First of all is scale and efficiency and in particular the cost of disaggregation services
with some of the models with more councils within the area.
If you look at the payback periods for quite a lot of these options, some of them we don't
see payback and others they're pretty paltry and it's only really 1A and 3A that actually
gives us a decent economic model to work on.
I'm also conscious of how we pull risk across the area.
I'm an insurance man at part,
and whenever you're pulling risks and liabilities,
it's always best to do that over a larger pool of individuals.
And therefore, when we're looking at how we spread the risk
on things like social care,
I'm way more comfortable doing that
over a larger group of people in the population.
None of these options improve democracy or solve the funding challenges we have around
things like social care, but the trick is for us to find a council that is large enough
that it works financially but not so big that it's too distant from its local residents.
Ironically, I've always struggled to explain to people how the services are split between
KCC and District and why that split was chosen, but running through these business cases actually
gave me for the first time real clarity on the common sense behind the system that we have today.
So in summary my decision is trying to bring those two points together, the economic and the democratic.
I think any of the four and five unitary council proposals simply don't work economically
and that comes through very clearly from the business case.
Interestingly, the KCC proposal, from a pure economic perspective, is the absolute winner,
both in terms of how it pulls the risk on things like social care and bringing greater
efficiency savings in. However, it completely goes against, and in my mind is contradictory
to the aims of LGR, so I'm left with 3A, which is the closest I can find to a balance between
those two models.
Thank you. Councillor Proter.
Thank you. I was reminded by Bill, who is the leader of Somerset Council this morning,
that ultimately we're not in charge of the destination on this, but we are in charge
of the journey. And I'm absolutely on the same page as Jackie, saying that therefore
what we need to do is think through what's the best for folks and residents in what you
get out of this and then we can give some opinion on what the structure is that might
deliver most of those things. So concentrating on those and looking at some of the journey.
I think things that make most difference is that Folkestone and Hyth residents are best
served if there is devolution to Kent. There is only one prize in any of this. Local government
reorganisation on its own is pointless. The only prize to this is the devolution of money
and decisions affecting Kent currently being made in Westminster being given to Kent in
order that Kent people can make those decisions. It doesn't mean we get more money overall,
but it does mean that the decisions that are currently being decided by government on local
transport, on skills, on employment, on housing, on regeneration, on trade, investment, innovation,
business support, that they get made in Kent and not in Westminster by someone who's never
been there except while passing through to go on holiday.
And for devolution, you can't have that with a single authority.
1A doesn't allow for devolution to that authority.
It means you can't have the prize that would make a difference to the people of Kent.
And if you can't have the prize, then we're just playing the hunger games
without even the chance of a square meal at the end of it.
It is a worthless game to play.
Other things that would make a difference to folks in the highest residence
is that they'd be best served by actual local service delivery.
Because when we talk about local service delivery, we know what we're talking about.
Because you remember when we put this authorities housing into a shared service with other districts?
It failed. Spectacularly failed.
And it took us years to get it back on track in this district.
So, just lumping services together may not be the answer
of giving us the best services for the people of Faxon Hive.
And lumping services together at speed
is certainly the wrong answer to doing that.
So, unitaries, for its to work, are going to need to delegate powers
around planning, around service delivery and around local partnerships
to area committees who can understand their area,
who know how things work in that area.
And those area committees need to be local enough
to be recognisable to our residents and they need to have enough councillors to have some
hope of representing them. And right now the best understood boundaries for those areas
committees would be the existing districts because they have some of those services in
place at the moment. We have a housing stock that we understand and we know how to run
and we know how to work. Now you might change those boundaries over time but it's a great
place to start particularly if you need to deliver this thing for May 2028. Other things
folks in the high residence will care about is that this needs to be affordable. As others
have said, there need to be enough savings that this process just doesn't increase the
burden on taxpayers by leaving merger costs which are never paid off. Now KPMG already
says that the five unitary model just doesn't save enough, pretty much ever, to pay its
costs back. It should be ruled out on that basis. And the expected savings for the four
unitary models make it doubtful that that payback will occur in the lifetime of, well,
some in this room. But even if you believe the best savings of KPMG, which are doubtful
at best, you don't get that money back for many years. Kent residents don't get the best
out of either the four or the five unitary models in Kent. But also, folks on the high
presidents need to be careful that we do not drown under the weight of our own social care,
as Jackie was saying. And if we've got an authority of this size, one of the asks that
we need to be making government, one of the demands we need to be making government is
fair funding settlement that understands that it is different here.
Woking got a different settlement because they were drowning in debt.
Spelthorne got a different settlement because they were drowning in their own debt.
We're going to need a different settlement because otherwise folks won't work for social care.
And we need some, and folks in the high residence, need some continuity and a deliverability.
We need to be able to ensure we can deliver services without interruption from day one.
And a proposal which cuts our district into pieces, even divisions into pieces.
hell, in my district, in the division, even polling districts into pieces,
is seeking to do too much to deliver by May 2028.
You need to cut district services and contracts into bits
and move staff into different employers.
It's simply no time to re -engineer the politics of Kent
and the political geography of Kent by May 2028.
We don't have the time because the government set a stupid timetable
for this process.
So that's the journey. We want devolution, we want local service delivery,
we want affordability, we want social care support,
and we want continuity and deliverability.
And if that's the journey,
there's only one model that allows us to get there,
and that model's 3A.
Because that covers most of the ground that you have there
and most of the options for Jonathan's case.
So that's the model I'll be voting on this evening.
I'd really ask you to do the same.
Thank you.
Just about in time.
Would anybody else like to speak?
Councillor Scufflin.
I don't want to rehearse a lot of the things that have been said already
because there's a lot of wisdom, a lot of very profound observations
and I support nearly everything that's been said.
And not least, that we're all, I think, entering this holding our noses.
This isn't something we want to do, it's being done to us.
That's a very unfortunate place to be.
So that is a starting point.
We've all flagged up the lack of representation,
the rise or necessity to have so many professional politicians,
the way that that may well undermine the ability of new MPs to come forward.
Because where do MPs get their training?
They come as amateurs, they come as district councils,
they come as parish councils, town council,
they work their way up the system and understand it.
We've flagged those things up.
One of the other things which we're flagging up
is what's going to be best for local residents.
And that is absolutely fundamental.
And we've been talking about that on operational levels,
we've been talking about it on identity levels,
economic geographies and so on and so forth.
Just a few left of centre principles, background, complex,
You'd expect it from somebody with an academic background.
Some years ago, quite a lot more years ago actually,
I wrote a little booklet called The Romans in East Kent.
I'm not going to go back to Roman times,
but the Romans recognised something very fundamental
that Canterbury was more or less at the centre of East Kent.
They put four key ports round the coast.
They were at Richborough, Macalva, Dover and Port Le Nonde,
which was this limb.
So the centre of the wheel, as it were, of East Kent,
was Canterbury and the spokes led out in four different directions.
There was a historic natural unity to East Kent.
And that's one of the things which I'm aware of.
Wearing a geography hat...
I'm not going to go too deep into this...
Wearing a geography hat, I expect some of you remember
the notion that towns have hinterlands.
And they have catchment areas.
So, what are the towns in the district?
Very difficult for Kent because there is no natural major town.
It's not like Manchester that's got a huge catchment area.
We've got lots of different, not little, but smaller towns
with competing catchment areas.
It's certainly one of them.
The towns around the coast are catchment areas.
Ashford, big settlement now, that's got a catchment area.
We've got to try and find a way of steering through that
and putting those all together.
Another way of looking at catchment areas,
and you may find myself thinking it's a bit surprising,
is the River Stour.
Now the River Stour rises in our area
and it flows right through this area of East Kent
and it comes out near Sandbridge between Dover and Fannock.
You may think it's a bit academic
but the reason that we haven't started work on Otterpool
is something to do with the water treatment plants
and nitrates down at Stortmarsh
and we know that water supply is going to be a big issue
which is already an issue and it's going to get a bigger issue
and we can look at that in different ways.
So, there's a unity in East Kent, there's an identity in East Kent,
there's a geographical entity, there's a historical dimension
and then the economic one.
And lots of us have flagged up the way in which the Fort of Dover,
Ashford, M20, A20, High Speed Rail, all link through our areas
and economic geography takes us that way.
So education geography will take us to Canterbury,
economic geography takes us across South Kent.
3A does that job, it unites these things together.
It's the least worst option, thank you very much
for starting us on on that thought,
Councillor Thomas and other people who said that.
But I see 3A as the best for the district,
the best that we can do in circumstances.
I very much regret the whole thing.
I think it's flawed, it's not going to save money,
it's not going to make a greater democracy.
I would much rather it failed as a scheme,
but if we got to run with it, I'm going to have to vote for 3A.
Thank you. Councillor Hollingsby.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Well, I think most of what I might have said has been said.
I've enjoyed the lesson from Councillor Scoffin
and actually also from Councillor Field.
I too have looked at all of these options, read the summary.
The 4 unitry and the 5 unitry to my mind do not meet the government criteria.
I think option 1 that Councillor Wimble is voting for certainly doesn't meet the criteria for the government criteria.
So I think it does rule out most of them apart from 3A and 4D.
I've got a lot of sympathy for 4D, but it splits our district.
I really don't think that people want to see the district split in two or three.
So I think the government criteria does say
that the Boundary Commission would not be looking at the boundaries
for another probably two years.
So what are they going to do in the meantime?
What are the unitaries going to do in the meantime?
So it seems to me that 3A is the thing that fits mostly
and I think most people have been saying about the geography.
We've heard from Councillor Scroffam about the Roman times.
That was quite interesting.
So I think that's a very good way of actually describing
East Kent and how East Kent comes together.
The five districts have worked together over quite a few years.
There was an East Kent cluster
and the three areas worked very well together and have done.
We've had our ups and downs, we've had the housing.
In fact, I go back as far as when we were sharing IT with Ashford.
That came away as well.
So there are lessons to be learned from things that we've done before.
But that's our lessons to be learned.
And I think, whatever we do,
it's also going to depend on the other 13 districts in the county
as to what they put forward.
So, you know, we've got no sort of idea exactly what's going to come up.
And at the end of the day, like they did for Surrey,
the government will tell us, and I've said this all the way along,
the government will tell us what we're going to do.
But I do think we need to be perhaps a bit more positive
in terms of influencing how our district,
how 3A can actually work, and we need to work with it.
And actually, whatever is decided by government,
we are going to have to work with it
and we're going to have to make it work for our residents
because if we don't, then our residents are really going to suffer.
I think people have already mentioned about having professional councillors
and I think that's going to come.
I can't see, as a number of councillors proposed,
that people can actually manage the workloads
that they will be expected to, despite technology.
I know technology.
So I personally don't feel that we could go for anything else other than 3A.
Thank you. Councillor Chapman.
Yeah I'd like to apologise for being late but I came from work and I'm sorry if this has already been covered
but why are we scheduling meetings at 4 o 'clock when there are people that work?
It's completely unfair to us and it's unfair to our residents.
Q, would anybody else like to speak?
Councillor Walker.
Not to speak, I'll try this one.
I was just going to speak briefly and actually raise Councillor Chapman's point that we've
got a few apologies for absence. They're all councillors who work full time. Councillor
and should be sleeping now.
So yes, there has been some talk about
councillors who are of working age
and I think this is important to schedule
our own meetings at a good time.
Anyway, that said, on to the point in hand.
I do share concerns about a lot of the
things that have been mentioned.
I share a concern about the 3A model
with our area having very little money
and West Kent having all the rich new areas together.
I have considerable concern about that.
Though the other points people made about 3A is also well taken.
The 5A model,
which I initially bought out the idea of splitting...
Sorry, I'll get the things wrong.
The one where we split in half, the Medway model, 4D,
where we're split in half.
I first saw that and thought,
that's horrific, we can't be split in half at all.
I think it's a brave attempt to right some historical wrongs,
not quite right in this area.
If that could be looked at more, then that would be a superb one,
because we may as well take the chance to change things very much
rather than just tinker at the edges.
Little has been said about option 5, the 5a model,
which I quite like because it is smaller.
you're able to get more of that localism within there,
but that does have budgetary problems too.
The other thing I was going to mention
was that we're all talking about what's happening now
and the costs now, which of course are extremely important,
but we've had local government changes for a long time.
We probably won't get them for a long time after this.
So I'm thinking, what will this area look like in 2070
under any of these models?
And I actually haven't quite made my mind up,
I feel 3A just has too many problems.
If there was more time, I would support 5, sorry, 4D.
4B, I dislike. We have nothing in common with Swale.
I'll try and spot our social links, aren't there?
I very much would like to keep together with Hive.
So it's a difficult one at the moment.
I'm minded for the one that no one else is supporting, the 5 unitary.
But I will think on before we vote. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Conner.
Thank you, Joanne.
Which one Bill?
It's fine.
I didn't want to speak too early. I just wanted to listen to what everyone in the room has been saying.
And it seems that there is quite a bit of support for 3A.
And for many of the reasons that have already been talked about this evening,
I'm minded to support 3A but probably as Paul said, the best case of a worse set really.
But in listening to you speak and also listening to the town and parishes and their thoughts
and let's say the majority of those were also minded to support 3A.
There was a few individual councillors that supported other models but not in the general
consensus but there was one council which overwhelmingly chose to support 5A.
I've not really given much thought to 5A because it doesn't make financial sense.
I couldn't see any way in the world a government would go for it especially since as Rich stated
with Surrey going for a three model,
both in more councils voted for that,
and the resident in the consultation was over 50 % for the three model,
but it still obviously went to a two.
So I think there could potentially be a choice between a three and a four model,
and I think a five model's too far of a stretch.
but the fact that one parish council did opt for that
did give me a little pause for thought.
I know it's been mentioned a few times,
but I think the key thing here is time,
and it's a real shame, I think.
I think if there wasn't such a pressing desire for this government
to try and do this within this parliament,
not only in Kent but across the whole of the UK,
we could have seriously looked at something that really worked for everyone,
we could have looked at boundary changes.
A lot's been said about the importance of the M20 corridor.
For example, Dover, us, Ashford.
But could there be a boundary change that brings Dover into us?
And Deal and Sandwich perhaps go up to a north part of Kent? I don't know.
It keeps the infrastructure.
We just don't have the time.
I think if we had five or six years to really do this
and give it the time I think it deserves,
then we could have had something that worked a lot better.
But sadly, we've got just over a week.
So...
And with that in mind,
although there's no perfect one, there's no best one,
There's clearly a worst one for a number of reasons.
But as we're really pressed up against it,
and we can see that things are moving at pace elsewhere in the country,
I think 3A, for all the reasons that have already been stated,
is where I'm at.
Thank you. Councillor Wing.
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank all the staff and Jim
and the amount of work they put in to make this a proper democracy as best we can.
I think the amount of work and that should be thanked.
The reason I've become a councillor to help the people and the residents that live in the district,
and that's the sole reason why I've become a councillor.
Another reason, it's difficult for me because I don't think they're going to be properly served after this.
I keep this really short because I think there's some fantastic debate in here
and everybody's making really good points.
I should be supporting 3A because it's the best of the worst job.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak?
Could I ask a question as well in a minute?
I don't want to speak. I just want to ask a clarification question.
We'll have Councillor Davidson first, if that's okay. Thank you.
Thanks, Chair.
I'd also like to make the point about four o 'clock meetings
challenging for people to get to if they're working or if indeed they have
childcare arrangements that need to be made so I hope that will be considered
for the future. In terms of the options in in front of us I remember when we had
early discussions about this some of the concerns that were raised were around if
you had three unitary split what that would mean in terms of representation
for Councillors and for our residents and the potential to lessen the direct connexion
for our residents in that situation.
There was a four unitary option at an earlier stage which hasn't made it into the final
selection I believe so for whatever reason that's not something that's come through this
process and we've not had any control over that as a potential option to consider this
evening.
discussion in the room that 3A is going
to be the choice of us collectively this evening.
I can see there's a simplicity to that.
It's something that residents will be able to understand.
I've heard all the arguments that have been made around that,
but I do still have concerns about a three -way split
rather than a four -way split.
I have sympathy with the four -way split
that's been outlined in 4D, but I do think it's
complicated and also poses challenges.
So I don't think that's a perfect solution either,
and I think with the pressures of time,
that is going to be very difficult.
And really our focus, we want the focus to be on
the positives that can come from this process
in terms of the devolution aspect of it,
and looking at funding for the services
that we need within the district.
So having said all that, and not being happy
with really any of them, I may just get to a place where I abstain, but I wanted to explain
why that was.
Thank you. It's not really a question and answer session. Is it a very simple question,
Councillor Wimble?
Very simple. So we're all lay people, we're not professionals who run the council. Dr
Priest is our CEO who's meant to be leading us with a clear vision. She's non -political,
I get that and today this has been proven that we're all in agreement that this is wrong.
From the CEO's point of view, have you got a position that you think we should be going
down because you're the person we should go to for advice if we're not sure?
I'm going to say that this perhaps is not appropriate in this forum.
We've had other forums where we've been able to question the officers.
So as I said at the beginning, we've had a whole series of sessions where we've been
able to question officers about this, including an overview on scrutiny.
So I would say this is a decision from or a suggestion.
You know, it's not going to be an ultimate decision obviously from the councillors, but
I think we need to just leave it to ourselves today if that's okay.
Thank you for your point though.
Is there anybody else who would like to speak or are we happy to move to a...
Jim's going to close, sum up and then we'll move to a vote.
Thank you everybody for all your interesting perspectives on this.
I've enjoyed some of the analogies, some of the history and some of the geography.
Really good debate today. Thank you everybody.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you very much all of the councillors for contributing so earnestly.
and also from such an informed position.
Really difficult to wade through a lot of this information
because there's just so much of it.
I found the analysis that many councillors had
has been hugely accurate.
So thank you very much for all the time you've spent on looking at this.
Just very, very quickly,
1A doesn't support devolution.
4B, as Councillor Walker said,
we had a few cultural and geographic links with Swale.
Nothing wrong with Swale at all.
But it also separates us from Dover,
which in my mind is a huge problem.
Just so, Councillor Davidson, no, I did very much promote 4A and 4C,
but I was outvoted in the Kent leaders' selection of the...
Now, had we wanted to go forward with our own proposal,
as Dartfield and Grapesham did, as Medway did, as KCC did,
it would have cost us 80 ,000 pounds
and I was very much in the mind that the Secretary of State
is making this decision anyway.
So it seemed to me to be a poor use of our residents money.
So I went with the majority and the two that were selected
for further analysis, 3A and 4B and D.
The results are set out there for you.
With regard to 4D, again, like many councillors said,
I get it. I do have sympathy
with the kind of felt -tip pen approach
in terms of starting again and trying to...
But it is so unsatisfactory for us
in terms of the people that elected us.
I won't labour this,
Half of my time is spent on local government reorganisation
and the other half is on Otte Pool.
The problems that it throws up for Otte Pool
is that the people of Folkestone have invested year on year
in this project called Otte Pool on the promise of returns
that would be returned to that community.
If we go into different unitaries, there is zero chance
that there would be a return from Otipool to the people of Folkestone.
So from that point of view, I can't vote. I get it, I get it.
But I can't vote for it.
So as many people have said, with counter 3A and 5A,
5A in the discussions I supported, it was more or less out of devilment,
but I did support it because it groups us together very strategically
with our key partners.
But 5A is more about the politics of North Kent.
It's a Dartford and Grapham proposal.
So, sensibly, I've kind of stayed away from it.
KPMG has given all of the payback periods, all of that sort of thing.
So, I have come down to 3A. You've all been on this journey with me.
I think it's an erosion of local democracy, yada, yada, yada, yada.
I won't say all of that again,
But I will, taking my cue from Councillor Mead,
I will talk about some of the positives.
Fire, police, the NHS all support 3A.
They support that because their existing geographies,
particularly the health of geography, very, very important.
If we start to try and rearrange all of that,
I see car crash written over everything.
So that is a huge positive for me.
But moving on beyond that,
and some councillors have asked the question very, very sensibly,
where are we going to be in 20 years' time with this or whatever.
In 3A we have and we control the gateway to Europe.
Now, you know, 22 miles across the Channel,
if you go further, a 200 mile radius and you've got 60 million people,
You've got 60 million people. That is way more than 200 miles
in the opposite direction in the UK.
We have got a golden opportunity in terms of the Channel tunnel and Dover,
in terms of the future.
Our two growth industries in our district are adult social care and tourism,
and we can tap into 60 million people to come and see what we have to offer.
in this fantastic place that we call home.
So, looking at the positives,
I can't see that opportunity in any of the other proposals.
So, for many, many reasons,
but taking my cue to talk in a positive tone about 3A,
because I think it gives us the greatest commercial opportunity
to move forward in terms of the expansion
to the benefit of the people of Fodson and Hyde.
So I'll finish on that, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, so we're going to move to a vote
and obviously we'll do it in order.
So the idea is that you will just call out
which option you would like, thank you.
Councillor Mike Blakemore.
Three A.
Councillor Polly Blakemore.
Three A.
Councillor Butcher.
Three A.
3A. Councillor Chapman. 3A. Councillor Davidson. Abstain. Councillor Fuller. 3A. Councillor
Goddard. 3A. Councillor Godfrey. 3A. Councillor Holgate. 3A. Councillor Mrs Hollingsby. 3A.
3A Councillor Jones
3A Councillor Lockwood
I'm going to buck the trend and go 4D Councillor Alan Martin
3A Councillor Elaine Martin
3A Councillor Jim Martin
3A Councillor McConville
3A Councillor Meade
3A Councillor Praetor
3A Councillor Scoffin
3A Councillor Shubbe
3A Councillor Speakman
3A Councillor Thomas
3A Councillor Walker
Also backing the trend for 5A Councillor Wimble
Just to be awkward 1A Councillor Wing
free aid
Thank you members.
There's that's one in favour of option 1A,
22 in favour of option 3A,
one in option of 4D in support of option 4D,
one in support of option 5A and one abstention.
Thank you so that vote will then go to
cabinet who will be meeting on the
arising of this meeting so thank you
everybody and apologies if it was inconvenient this afternoon but we hadn't had any complaints
before so I was unaware so thank you for informing me now. I hope you all have a good evening
and we'll close the meeting there. Thank you.