Cabinet - Wednesday 25 March 2026, 5:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Cabinet
Wednesday, 25th March 2026 at 5:00pm 

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. Cllr Jim Martin
  2. Mr Jake Hamilton
  3. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Gary Fuller
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Andrew Rush
  6. Cllr Jim Martin
  7. Cllr Tim Prater
  8. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  9. Cllr Jim Martin
  10. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  11. Cllr Jim Martin
  12. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  13. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  14. Cllr Jim Martin
  15. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  16. Cllr Jim Martin
  17. Andrew Rush
  18. Cllr Jim Martin
  19. Andrew Rush
  20. Cllr Jim Martin
  21. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  22. Cllr Tim Prater
  23. Cllr Jim Martin
  24. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  25. Cllr Jim Martin
  26. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  27. Cllr Jim Martin
  28. Cllr Gary Fuller
  29. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  30. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Connor McConville
  4. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  5. Mr Fred Miller
  6. Cllr Connor McConville
  7. Mr Fred Miller
  8. Cllr Connor McConville
  9. Mr Fred Miller
  10. Cllr Jim Martin
  11. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  12. Cllr Tim Prater
  13. Cllr Jim Martin
  14. Mr Fred Miller
  15. Cllr Jim Martin
  16. Cllr Tim Prater
  17. Cllr Jim Martin
  18. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  19. Cllr Jim Martin
  20. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  21. Cllr Jim Martin
  22. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  23. Mr Fred Miller
  24. Cllr Jim Martin
  25. Cllr Tim Prater
  26. Cllr Jim Martin
  27. Cllr Gary Fuller
  28. Cllr Jim Martin
  29. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  30. Cllr Gary Fuller
  31. Cllr Jim Martin
  32. Cllr James Butcher
  33. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  34. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  35. Cllr Jim Martin
  36. Cllr Gary Fuller
  37. Cllr Tim Prater
  38. Cllr Jim Martin
  39. Cllr Tim Prater
  40. Cllr Jim Martin
  41. Cllr Tim Prater
  42. Cllr Jim Martin
  43. Cllr Gary Fuller
  44. Cllr Jim Martin
  45. Cllr James Butcher
  46. Cllr Jim Martin
  47. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  48. Cllr Jim Martin
  49. Cllr James Butcher
  50. Cllr Jim Martin
  51. Cllr Jim Martin
  52. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  53. Cllr Jim Martin
  54. Cllr Gary Fuller
  55. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  56. Cllr Jim Martin
  57. Cllr James Butcher
  58. Cllr Jim Martin
  59. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  60. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  61. Cllr Jim Martin
  62. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  63. Cllr Jim Martin
  64. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  65. Cllr Jim Martin
  66. Cllr Gary Fuller
  67. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Tim Prater
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Tim Prater
  3. Cllr Jim Martin
  4. Gavin Edwards
  5. Cllr Jim Martin
  6. Cllr Gary Fuller
  7. Cllr Jim Martin
  8. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  9. Cllr Jim Martin
  10. Cllr James Butcher
  11. Cllr Jim Martin
  12. Gavin Edwards
  13. Cllr Jim Martin
  14. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  15. Cllr Jim Martin
  16. Gavin Edwards
  17. Cllr Jim Martin
  18. Cllr Tim Prater
  19. Cllr Jim Martin
  20. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  21. Cllr Jim Martin
  22. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jim Martin - 0:00:04
Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Cabinet. 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 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 have strong opinions on matters
under consideration, it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with

1 Apologies for Absence

respect. So good evening everyone and we'll start with apologies for absence.
Thank you leader, we have no apologies.
Mr Jake Hamilton - 0:00:55
No apologies, brilliant.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:00:56
Declarations of interest.

2 Declarations of Interest

There's anywhere, Councillor Fuller.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a voluntary one on item five,
because I live in council housing,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:01:06
although this particular policy doesn't affect me
because there's no communal areas where I'm living.
Thank you very much for that, Councillor Fuller.
Truly noted.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:01:17
Any other declarations of interest tonight?

3 Minutes

Okay, we'll move on to the minutes.
minutes of the cabinet meeting held on the 11th of February.
Does anyone have any concerns or questions, comments?
I'm very happy to move the minutes.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:01:36
It's very happy to second.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:01:39
All those in favour, please indicate.
Terrific, that's unanimous, thank you very much.

4 Capital Grant Agreement for Folkestone Sports Centre

Moving on then to the first substantive item,
item four, the Capital Grant Agreement
for the Folkestone Sports Centre.
That's pages 15 to 64 in your pack.
And I understand that Councillor Blakemore
will be leading us through this.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, everyone.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:02:10
This report provides detail about the proposed grant
to the Sports Trust to support repairs
and improvement works needed for the swimming pool
at Folkestone Sports Centre to reopen later this year,
including pool renovation, new changing facilities, the addition of solar panels and repairs to the flat roof.
Since Folkestone Sports Centre went into administration in August 2024,
the only public swimming pool in the district has been Hyde Pool, which is also in need of urgent refurbishment.
The community and health benefits of returning into use the swimming pool at Folkestone Sports Centre are clear.
The importance of the pool to residents, schools and clubs has been evident since its closure in August 24.
a petition highlighting the need to save it, attracted some 9 ,000 signatures.
The report recognises that the proposed grant of £2 ,421 ,250 represents a significant investment
by this Council and that there are risks which include possible cost overruns, programme
delays and risks to the ongoing commercial operation.
But the report also details the steps being taken to mitigate these risks, mainly through
the grant agreement included in your papers.
Folkestone Pool has been much missed and this grant will get it open again as soon as possible,
with appropriate measures in place to protect our funds.
I am pleased to move the recommendations to receive a note of the report to approve the
award of a capital grant of £2 ,421 ,250 to the Sports Trust for works required to reopen
and Sports Centre to approve the draught grant agreement as the conditions for the grant
award and to authorise the Director of Housing and Operations to complete and enter the grant
agreement. Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:03:59
Thank you very much, Councillor Blakemore. I'm very happy to second the report and equally
happy to open it up for questions, comments. Councillor Speakman.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:04:12
I'm just raising, I think, a question that did come up at Council when this was discussed
last time.
A large amount of money, I mean, a great initiative, and I think it would be broadly welcome, and
thank you very much for an excellent report.
But is just the issue about being such a large amount of money, why have we decided to go
for a grant rather than a loan, possibly?
I just wonder if somebody could come back on that.
Julie Good.
Andrew, are you able to answer that?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:04:40
Andrew Rush - 0:04:42
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. So on the question of grant versus loan, I think
the first thing to say is to work from the objectives of what we're trying to achieve,
which is to get the swimming pool open this year because of the sort of race against time
we've got with high -graining refurbishment beginning of next. But we wanted to capitalise
the grant as far as possible using capital rather than revenue, and we wanted to be free
of any sort of future obligations.
We wanted this to be a one -off grant that kind of puts them
in a really good position with the solar panelling
to reduce their costs and for the opportunity
for future grants to be diminished.
So why grant rather than loan?
Well, it's all about viability of the financial model.
Because if we'd done a grant, if we'd not done a loan instead
of a grant, we would not be able to use.
We wouldn't have had enough capital.
We would have had to use our own funds, our revenue funds, or borrowings of our own.
We wouldn't have been able to use Section 106 money.
We would have had to apply market rates because of the Substitute Control Act.
Market rates would have obviously added onto financial costs, onto operation.
Bear in mind, this is an operation that we previously grant funded, 150 ,000 revenue support.
So that actually explains to you the deficit of running a swimming pool.
We see it in our own pool.
And so basically the necessity of a grant is in place of a loan because a loan would
not be viable.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:06:19
Are you okay, Councillor Swinton?
Yes.
Councillor Prater.
Thank you.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:06:25
It was good to hear the conversation of this at Overview and Scrutiny as well, who went
through some of the details, including questioning the terms on which a grant would be made in
terms of looking at, I think the question was raised there and certainly was raised
before council about the question of a grant versus the loan. And as Andrew has just answered
accidentally, I think that's because we have been paying 150 ,000 pounds a year as a council
towards supporting swimming at that pool. To then turn around and loan them that money
and effectively ask for the 150 ,000 pounds back every year seems to be a retrograde step.
The reason that we are making this investment
is to get swimming opening, swimming back at folks in pool.
And by offering the grant, that does that in a way
that alone may well not have done that,
because you make it financially less viable
to run a swimming pool there.
You also increase the cost that you would have
to charge people in order to swim there,
and we don't want to see that.
We want to see the chance costs kept down
in order to encourage as many people to swim as possible.
And that's what really, this sort of thing,
this sort of paper which has come forward,
it's the reason I'm here.
I am so happy to be here and to get the opportunity
to vote on this this evening,
cause this is, as far as I'm concerned,
this council doing what we want to do,
which is to get services in this area and up to scratch
and doing the things for our local residents
who want to see.
and by making this investment, we do that.
And we do that with a series of clauses,
and the paper is very detailed and very helpful.
It has clawback clauses in there,
so if they're a project cost overruns,
they sit with the owner of the project
and all those sorts of things.
And I think that we are all delighted
with the timeline given in terms of reopening the pool.
I would be terrified with them if it was my project,
but I'm delighted it's their project
in terms of delivering that.
I look very much to them reopening it in July 2026 on their timetable.
But even if it is not quite July 2026 and it slips days later,
then that will still be what they will still have delivered then for our capital investment
at that stage, but without any future revenue support is swimming back for all of the schools
in our district that are currently trying to use a height pool or the residents of our district who
can either use Heith Pool or ending up going to Ashford or Dover or Deal. And we get the
facility back into the area. I was quite confused when people were voting against our budgets
and things like that. They were voting against investing in our swimming pools from other
groups. I find that bizarre. This is what we should be doing. We should be seeing this
facility back area, we should be seeing
the swimming back there as well.
And somebody else, just because I've been
feeling scrutiny raised this, I want it back on the record.
It's a question about why we were putting
two and a half million pounds in as a grant
to the organisation in order to open this,
as opposed to having spent that money on buying the pool.
And the answer is for exactly that reason.
If we'd spent that money on buying the pool,
we wouldn't have had any money to fix it.
So we would earn a dead swimming pool.
by going this route, other people have made the cost
of the acquisition of Apple, other people are putting
in additional money to fund it.
It's not that two and a half million pounds
makes this thing work on its own.
Other people are putting in the management
to make sure that the pool is actually a facility
and a service to other people.
And we're just making effectively a capital payment
as opposed to 150 ,000 pounds a year
over the course of the next 20 years
in terms to make that happen.
And by doing that and by making that investment,
It cuts the costs of running that service.
It cuts the cost of heating the pool.
It cuts the cost.
But you have to charge people to swim there.
It wins all around.
So I'm absolutely delighted that this paper has come forward.
I'd like to thank all of the officers for all of the work
that has had to go into this, and also to the Shetway Sports
Trust, because this has been a process of dialogue
and a process of going backwards and forwards in terms of getting
those policies in place.
And I'm really excited to think that this summer, we will get that pool back open for
the coming generations to use.
I think we would have done our job then.
I'm delighted to see it.
So thank you very much for the work and thank you very much for the paper.
Yeah.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:10:59
Similarly, I would like to thank the officers for the amount of work that's gone into this.
not only the report, but we had some very, very tense times
when at one point it looked like a housing developer
was gonna buy the pool and that would have been the end
of any sense of swimming in.
So I'm very pleased the way that it has worked out for us.
Just to tell members, the week before last I had a tour,
very much work in progress.
Lots of electricians there, replacing lots of stuff.
So that was all very good.
And they're pretty confident about,
you know, July, August maybe, you know.
But they're pretty confident about their completion date.
In terms of the pool, there will still be a lot of other work going on,
but they're confident they will have people swimming in there this summer.
So that's all very good stuff.
So sorry, members.
Councillor Scoughlin.
Yeah, it's absolutely hugely to be welcomed.
It's a wonderful scheme and I endorse everything that's been said.
Just as a sort of a question around the edge really,
and I don't know if there's an answer to this,
but given I noticed that one of the risks
is the quotes for the work might be incorrect
and it can't be completed on time as it were.
Given the war in the Middle East
and I haven't got my ears to the ground
to the building trade, is there a sense
in which that risk is a bit higher
than we previously thought?
I don't know if there's any speculation on that
or whether I'm sort of, it's so far in train already
that it's not going to be a factor.
Well, I can give you a kind of generalised materials delivery sort of view from the construction
industry is that it all depends on the material.
Most of our timber comes either from Scotland or Northern Europe, so we're pretty good there.
In terms of our bricks, we either do them ourselves
or they come from Holland and Belgium.
Or cement and plasterboard is a little bit sensitive
because a lot of that comes from grease.
But, you know, it's all about oil
and it's all about the plastics industry around that.
So, you know, we just have to...
I would say the bulk of the materials,
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:13:48
and when I was there, there was a lot of copper wire
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:13:49
going in, a lot of pipes, et cetera,
which largely were dependent on South America for that.
So it's a mix, but oil is the big problem
with regard to that.
However, as Councillor Prater pointed out,
there's no way back for the applicant
that is their risk, they have to take that on board.
I think that's a pretty good roundup of world trade.
Thank you very much.
Members, any other contribution or questions?
So, Councillor Praiser proposed, oh sorry, sorry.
Councillor, Councillor, I'm just in the groove.
I'm just in the groove, sorry.
Councillor Blakemore proposed.
I was very happy to second.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much, members.
Very kind of you.
So moving on to item five,
proposed housing neighbourhood management policy,
pages 65 to 88.
And Councillor Shroob is gonna take us through this.
Thank you.
So the neighbourhood management policy sets out how the council as a landlord will manage
its housing land and communal areas.
So it's an umbrella policy which brings together many existing policies where you can find
greater detail on the specific topic areas covered.
You'll see also in the report
that there's been great extensive consultation
on the policy.
We had 130 responses from the tenant consultation,
which is a really great response rate.
So and the report details how those responses have been
incorporated into the draught, including notably a new section
on protecting the environment.
And you'll see there's also a very comprehensive
yet very readable easy read version,
which is to be welcomed.
So although the policy largely reflects how the team already
works in practise, having a clear comprehensive policy is
essential for providing clarity and transparency for tenants
on the service that they can expect from the housing service.
And this is very much in line with what the regulator of social housing's,
their expectations on how social landlords will meet their obligations
around the new consumer standards.
So I'd like to move the recommendations.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Shrie.
I'm very, very happy to second, also to congratulate the officers on the easy read attachment,
which is very, very helpful.
And just to just remind everyone that we have the housing regulator about to land amongst
us and this will be extremely useful in terms of obviously we had all of this, but it does
draw it together and for anyone carrying out an inspection it is helpful to have all of the relevant
information in the one place. So very very happy to second and open up for comment. Councillor Fuller.
Thank you, Chair. I'd also like to thank the officers for the work that they've done and indeed
for what broadly is a policy I totally agree with.
However, I do have one issue with it
and a bit of a concern, and that's around the provisions pertaining to mobility scooters.
I think there's one particular sentence that really irked me when I read this policy, which
is we recognise that mobility scooters are becoming increasingly popular, or specifically
the first part of that sentence. So mobility scooters are not a fashion accessory, they're
popular, they're required for people with disabilities to get around. They are vital
for those people and to describe them as if they were a fashion accessory in this policy
really really irks me. I think it's discriminatory to be honest and I would really like to see
that line if nothing else changed. I'm also a bit concerned that by taking a sort of blanket
policy of banning mobility scooters in communal areas or near properties, we may be discriminating
against disabled people. Now, I appreciate that the policy does suggest that where possible
we will mitigate that, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, in my understanding of the Equality
Act is that reasonable adjustment should be anticipatory, not reactive.
So I don't think it's enough to say that we'll do something about this if someone asks us to.
I think we should be thinking through, wherever our properties are,
how we can facilitate people that require mobility scooters to store them safely.
So that's my major concern.
Everything else within the policy, absolutely happy with, totally understand.
But at the very least, even if officers say, no, it's fine under the Equality Act that
we ban them, fair enough, I'll take their expertise on that.
But I would really like the first part of that sentence to be removed or changed because
frankly it feels inappropriate to me.
Councillor Shrew.
I'm sure we can have that sentence rephrased.
And I don't know if Tom, if you want to speak about
any of the sort of detail on scooters.
Thank you, Councillor Fuller.
The wording can easily be changed.
It wasn't, as obviously as you know,
I'm sure you know, it wasn't the intention to trivialise it
and it was really, it was meant to acknowledge
that the issue of scooters is an increasing issue.
But to make the point that tenants are permitted to keep mobility scooters within their own flats,
this just deals with the shared areas, so it's not a ban on having them, it's just how, where they're stored.
And that is all about fire safety.
Mobility scooters have lithium batteries that are known to spontaneously combust and can cause serious fires.
And our fire risk assessment people are absolutely adamant about things in common areas,
particularly e -bikes, scooters, that sort of thing.
And even if they're not a fire risk in themselves,
they can potentially be an obstruction to emergency services
if the building wasn't covered in smoke and whatever,
and because they're built bulk in someone.
So there are, so accepting your point, they are an issue that we have to kind of, you know,
We can't just ignore them and have them people putting them where they want.
You do make a fair point about reasonable adjustment and should say that we are already proactively
or have been installing mobility scooter storage in some of our independent living schemes,
where there's more demand for them because the population is more old or less mobile
and where they tend to have more space.
There are practical problems in a lot of our blocks just with the physical layer and not having enough external space and so on.
We will, as the policy currently stays, we will consider them whenever we're looking at a refurbishment to a whole block.
And our asset manager today in response to anticipating your question has confirmed that where we get requests from individuals,
we can have a look at that, but that we wouldn't be able to just decide to proactively go and supply,
you know, instal six, nobody just goes to stores for a block where there's no known demands because
it wouldn't be a good use of resources.
Councillor Fuller.
It's good to know that we are acting proactively. I saw your mention of an independent living in the
report but yeah it didn't make clear that was actually being proactive it was
just that we've got some somewhere I suppose following up on on storage in
flats if there are fire risk in a communal area presumably there are fire
risk in a flat so how are we making sure where residents do have scooters
mobility scooters as it were that they are I able to store them in the flat
because obviously some flats might be too small and they're not allowed in
communal areas and they're not allowed away from the flat so where are they
meant to put them but more more sort of more likely more likely scenario where
they're storing them in the flats are we also able um and being as
proactive as possible to make sure that they can store them
safely um with whatever sort of protective storage is
required for that to occur yeah so our responsibilities as
landlord are different with respect to common parts, common areas than they are
to help people choose to use their own home and what goes on behind their
front door is too much great to extend that up to them. We do say actually in
our tenancy agreement which relates to individual tenants in their homes that
if people choose to store any electric vehicle inside that they should do so
ensuring that it doesn't block emergency access
and that they should be taken care of with that.
We don't go much further than that.
We do try and encourage people to think about that
when they're considering their purchase.
They come in a whole variety of shapes and sizes.
Some fold, some are just naturally smaller than others.
So there is an expectation that if you live in a small flat
that you think about that before you buy your mega mobility scooter.
There are, you know, there's no two ways about it.
There are places where it's a problem.
The flat is small.
There's no external space.
And then we would have different sorts of conversations with them about, you know,
one extreme about whether, you know, we could find something more appropriate to live
if they got those specific mobility issues.
and then other different sources of storage options.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Maffola.
Just one more and I'll leave in bit. Sorry Tom.
Just coming back on what you were saying about inside flats.
I'm aware, although obviously not of all of the detail, that under some circumstances, for example,
Occupational Health Force will come in and will ask us to put in a wet room or something like that.
Are there any circumstances where they might also come in and ask us to put in place storage for a buggy or is that, sorry for a...
I haven't seen that and I'm not sure if that would fall within their remit because I haven't seen that.
I've just probably leave it there. I wouldn't want to comment further. I can cheque that and we can relay some information back to you afterwards if that's okay.
Thank you.
Any others?
Oh, sorry.
Councillor Speakeman first and then Councillor Pro Tem.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:26:01
.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:27:10
No light is coming on, so it's difficult to know whether it's on or not.
There are difficulties around recycling collection for some common properties, sometimes simply
because of physical space, but sometimes there may be an issue of cooperation.
I guess with the sense of, you know, it's good to set an example at home,
can you perhaps give us an outline of where we are on that?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:27:44
Yes, so we've always had ongoing conversations with the waste team,
our colleagues in the waste team about refuse and recycling,
but the April changes have sort of really spurred us on,
and now we're working much closer with our colleagues in waste team and through them with Veolia, the main waste contractor.
We're currently working with them on a quick audit of all of our sites,
just so that we know and they know exactly what waste and recycling facilities are already there,
including food waste recycling, and where more work needs to be done
to improve the facilities which might be like you mentioned,
there might also be some places where we need to expand
in enclosure to take the more different sizes of recycling facilities.
There might be somewhere we just need to relocate them to enable it.
So, we are drawing up a list with the team about at the moment specifically about food waste recycling
because that's an area where most of our most of our common or recycling areas do
have recycling facilities but most don't have food waste recycling. That's been a
bit slow to join in so we're working on the catch -up with that. Which also
includes, as you can probably imagine, quite a lot of work with
residents who maybe have never had it before about information about how to
use food waste and the fact that you have to have a caddy in your own kitchen
or you really need one just to store it, which don't come free at the moment.
And so we've been having some conversations about that as well,
because that could be an obstacle for some of our tenants.
So there's some early conversations within the housing team about us,
basically as a one of the shrine kickstart the process,
providing, paying for caddies for people.
It is difficult.
Recycling in common areas, where there are common facilities is difficult and it gets more difficult the bigger the block
because it just takes one person to contaminate a recycling bin, that bin then can't get emptied and then special collections have to be arranged and it can become very complicated and difficult.
So a big part of the work that we do with the waste team will be about really encouraging
and incentivising tenants to recycle and to do the right thing.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:30:24
Are you happy, Councillor Smith?
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:30:26
Yes, I would just like to come back on that a bit.
A, I'm very pleased.
I think it's a great example of collaboration between our teams to tackle this particular
problem around recycling, which I think is dear to our hearts indeed.
And I believe, I don't know,
perhaps looking at Andrew here,
but I think we actually have a dedicated officer
in that respect, I think, working on that.
I don't know if Andrew could give us
a bit more information on that.
Andrew.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:30:52
Andrew Rush - 0:30:53
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:30:54
Sorry, I'm inviting you to contribute, Andrew.
Thank you.
Andrew Rush - 0:30:56
Sorry, Chair.
Yes, first of all, I'd like to thank Tom's team
for cooperation, because it's been really, really,
really great to actually work with them.
And I think there's a very right
about putting our own house in order.
And we've had a lot of support.
we have funding from government.
We'll definitely look at promoting food recycling
and we've made some real inroads as it is.
We are looking to employ a project officer
that is underway at the moment.
This is gonna be a long -term thing.
I know it's only 5 % but it's gonna be long -term.
We're gonna solve it, we're gonna crack it once
and then things will change within a block
and then we'll have to crack it and solve it again.
It's gonna be a process of iteration
and getting that final 5%, but I'm sure we'll get there.
And I say the cooperation has been really, really,
really strong between the two teams.
Excellent, thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:31:48
Councillor Prater.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:31:50
Thank you.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:31:52
This is a situation where recent casework
has prompted a question.
I'm in 6 .7 on the communal parking areas
and that the tenancy agreement specific clauses
is related to parking and vehicles and communal car parts,
including prohibition of trailers and caravans
and a requirement that all vehicles must be taxed,
sworn is not accepted, and roadworthy.
Tim raises eyes in the general direction of Andy and Andrew.
I had recently a piece of casework
around an abandoned vehicle, I think it's abandoned,
there was a negotiation about that,
which was on Romney Avenue, the smoothest surface
in Folkestone and Hyde at this moment.
following its length -to -length resurfacing.
However, an abandoned car had been left on
and threatened the resurfacing to the extent
that they thought at one stage they were going to have
to resurface around it and to leave a rectangle not done.
In the end, after what was described as significant
to and fro and work, KCC relocated the car,
the abandoned vehicle, just before removing the tarmac
and resurfacing the road.
It took some going and it became apparent in that process
that we could not move that abandoned vehicle
from the highway.
KCC would not remove that vehicle from the highway
and despite the fact that the tax had expired on that car
about a fortnight before that resurfacing,
it was not going to be removed by, for lack of tax either
because there's about a three month period on that.
So, it kind of brings me back to the point on this,
is that we say that these things are going to be prohibited
and it's a requirement that these vehicles be taxed,
but are we able to actually then remove things
if they do not?
If people leave vehicles there, which are not taxed,
or somebody who is not a resident leaves a vehicle
in that area in these communal car parks,
can we do anything about that?
And if so, that's great.
I'd just like that reassurance out loud.
But if not, we've got a policy which says
we can't stand this sort of thing,
but we can't do anything about it.
And that would wind me.
So if I could have some reassurance
that we can actually do something
if these prohibited things are done,
and we can remove them from Kerber,
that's great, but I'd just like that reassurance.
Thanks very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:34:18
I'm not quite sure who might like to answer that one.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:34:22
I'll start.
Okay.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:34:23
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:34:23
Just to clarify, this policy deals with housing land, not public highways.
So the issue is very different.
We do, it's not easy. We can get the vehicles removed as the landowner.
This is where this is complicated grey area, the landowner as the council or the landowner as the housing team.
And our land is classified as private land for these sorts of purposes.
As the landowner, we can serve tort notice and if people don't respond,
we can just get vehicles removed and disposed of as though they were our flight tip.
It's not easy.
We don't like doing it.
We go to great lengths to try and track down the owners of the vehicles
and persuade them to move them away.
But we have our powers different to the situation that you were talking about with the public
highway.
And there you are, reassured, super.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:35:28
Any other questions or queries?
We have, or I have now, a suggested amendment that might seek to address Councillor Fuller's
concerns.
So the suggestion is that in the recommendations,
recommendation two, to adopt the proposed
housing neighbourhood management policy
and then change the full stop to a comma
following a review of the wording therein.
So that will allow us to agree it
and allow the officers to vary some of the wording
that may address your principal issues.
Is that okay, Councillor Fuller?
Makes perfect sense to me.
So Rebecca, you as the proposer have to agree.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:36:24
Very happy to agree, thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:36:26
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:36:28
And I don't know if I've already seconded it,
but I'm happy to second it and second the amendment.
That's it, we're covered, good, okay.
So we have a proposal, so do we vote on the amendment?
No, with agreement, your time is up.
With agreement, okay, we all know where we stand.
So good, okay, well we have a proposal, we have a seconder.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much, members, that's very helpful.
Moving on to our next item,

6 Policy Framework for the Initiation, Implementation and Administration of Controlled Parking Zones

a policy framework for the initiation, implementation,
and administration of controlled parking zones.
We have all been waiting for this one.
Councillor Polly Blakemore will lead us through it.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening all.
Yes, it is here at last.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:37:20
This report asks cabinet to consider a new policy protocol for control parking zones
as set out in the papers before you.
The current framework was put in place in 2015 and many issues have cropped up in recent
years which it fails to address, such as the ability for individual roads to apply for
restrictions leading to displacement parking in surrounding streets and the impact of restrictions
on public sector workers.
This review is all the more crucial as the Council now receives up to 40 applications
for CPZs per year, the majority of which relate to individual roads.
So, headlines for the new protocol include,
applications for single streets will not normally
be taken forward, support of at least 60 % of households
and any proposed CPZ will be required before a scheme
advances to statutory consultation stage.
A limited number of business permits will be made
available to people working in education, social and
healthcare, and emergency services located within CPZs.
The number will be based on an assessment
of parking capacity by officers.
And finally, motorcycle permits will be introduced.
I believe we're looking at next year
rather than this April for this now.
Historically, motorcycles were exempt
as in the days of physical permits,
there was no means to display these securely.
But now that permits are virtual,
this is no longer an issue.
And this proposal brings us in line
with Canterbury, Thanet, Ashford and Dover,
who all charge for motorcycle permits already.
The framework was considered by overview
and scrutiny committee in January
and went out to public consultation in February.
Feedback has been incorporated into the framework
and into the report before you.
So the recommendations are, one, to receive
and note the report, and two, to agree to adopt
the new CPZ policy framework.
And finally, I'd like to move the recommendations.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:39:26
Thank you very much. I'm very happy to second and to thank you, Councillor Blakemore, for
the tireless work that you've put into this. If there was ever a Gordian knot, this is
it. I'd also like to thank the officers who have battled through the minutiae of the CPZ.
So, I'm very happy to open for questions and comments.
Very happy to see the report, actually,
but very happy to open for questions and comments.
Sorry, Councillor McConville.
Cllr Connor McConville - 0:40:09
Thank you, and I do welcome this,
and I do agree with all the recommendations.
But one thing that was brought up at overview and scrutiny,
which I don't know if it's been fully addressed in the paper,
is just with regards to, fair enough,
60 % of respondents to move forward,
but in terms of, I see a bit of a lack of clarity
in terms of the total number of people
within the proposed zone.
So, say you had four roads of 50 houses,
so you had 200 residents.
If only 30 of them responded and 20 % wanted it,
then that would be 60%,
that would meet the threshold, but should there be a threshold
that do 100 houses in that thing need to respond for it to be valid?
Or is that not something that's really being considered?
Or it just seems, you know,
if there was something, a bit more clarity around how many people
actually, you know, if they chose not to respond or if,
you know, they respond and say, you know, I think when we did ours,
I'm in favour, I'm not in favour, I don't care,
was almost one of the options.
So that would count as a response either way,
but just some clarity I guess,
just in terms of where we go for that moving forward.
Yeah, I'll let Fred give the detail,
but I think yes, the bar has been raised in this,
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:41:39
because a lot of schemes have come through,
maybe without the scrutiny that they require,
but we do now need, we are saying that we do now need
that 60 % support for the scheme so that we know
when that scheme goes in it is fully supported
by the residents it affects.
Yeah, do you want to add to that, Fred?
Yes, we just make there a 60 % reform themselves.
Mr Fred Miller - 0:42:06
It's been a piece of that until 20,
that's when we get the scheme done.
Cllr Connor McConville - 0:42:25
Is there a level of, you know, if you're consulting on a scheme,
again, for say 200 people and only 10%, 15%, is there,
if it's not in the paper, is there at least a thinking of how many people need to respond to
before it even gets to the 60 % mark to make it viable.
Mr Fred Miller - 0:42:48
Yes, just to be clear, there's an application process
that will require a significant number of residents
to sign a statement, so they're taking this with them
and they will continue that and then the committee
will get the uninformed recommendations.
So during informal construction, do that.
all the residents, all the high -fives,
who comment on the proposal,
say exactly what they would like to see happen.
So in that case, because we would have reached
all the residents, it would be for them to respond.
They wouldn't be required to keep saying so.
It's a stimulating next thing though,
because it will be open to everyone to respond.
and in some ways it's a huge responsibility to concentrate on
and we just have to go in and work with the majority that have this kind of thing.
Cllr Connor McConville - 0:43:45
Yes, we've made that clear in the policy.
Mr Fred Miller - 0:43:57
we've just said significantly longer of the full history of the petition.
Councillor Price, oh sorry.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:44:10
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:44:14
If that petition didn't show that 60 % support, we would then go out to the informal consultation.
Yeah, that's to clarify.
Councillor Price, so then I'll come to Councillor Blaketon.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:44:25
Okay, I'm just going to pick up on that first.
A significant number is not a percentage.
I mean, if half of the people in the road,
say we would like a CPZ in our area,
then I understand that that's then taken forward
and then that goes to consultation
and then 60 % of whoever responds is fine.
But a significant number, I don't know if that's 10 %
or 25 % or 50 % or 75 % of the road.
I think that could actually do some issue.
Although I fully want there to be some flexibility in that,
I'm kind of assuming that you're meaning over half
of the people in the road are asking for something
before it then goes forward.
Because I totally understand that when you go out
to informal consultation, the people who are going to reply
are going to reply.
And that's where you're getting over that hurdle.
But at this moment, if you say a significant percentage
is 10 % of the people in that road ask for a thing,
and you put it out to an informal consultation,
and 10 % of people in that road reply to the thing,
of which 60 % of that 10 % say we want it,
you're now down to 6 % of the residents
in that road backing that thing,
and only 10 % of the people ever asked for it.
90 % of the people might not understand it,
might not have got it, might not have.
I'm concerned that we haven't quite got a threshold
in terms of taking the thing forward.
I think it would be useful for significant number
to be a bit more defined in that.
Having said that, I do actually have,
I have one point where I actually disagree with the policy
as opposed to looking for some clarification on it.
And that point is around the motorbikes.
I totally understand that motorbikes should be required
to go for a licence and should be required
to be parked within the CPZ.
I've got no problem with that at all.
And I've got no problem with the,
it's changed because it's actually possible to now do that.
However, there are a number of councils
where they are trying to limit the amount of space
where you've got space issues and things like that,
whereby the size of the vehicle makes a difference
to the price that you pay for that permit.
So very, very big cars would pay more for a CPZ permit
than very, very small cars.
And that actually helps manage the size of the road.
Now I'm not proposing at this stage
that we go for vehicle size pricing,
pricing, because that will break everyone's head.
However, a motorcycle is a very specific example
of a small vehicle which doesn't take as much space
as a car does.
And yet we're going to go for a full price, CPZ permit,
the same price for a car for a motorbike.
And I'm not sure that that, where it says standard
resident or business charges are applied to the motorcycles.
I don't think that that's consistent with trying
to maximise the number of people that can use the spaces,
et cetera, where if everybody had a motorbike
as opposed to a car, you could get an awful lot more people
into a CPZ zone.
It would be something that we'd encourage, mainly.
I suppose it depends on the bike, but you know,
it actually, people being on motorbikes is better
than being in cars, from our point of view,
as a, for causing a parking issue.
So why aren't we incentivizing the people who own motorbikes
with a cheaper permit, as opposed to charging them
exactly the same as somebody who's got a four by four
bigger than a truck?
So I don't get that.
I don't get why we're tying ourselves to a standard
resident or business charge, as opposed to a lower
resident or business charge for a motorbike than for a car.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:48:08
Okay, I have a list of contributors here, but before we lose the thread, could you respond
to that specifically, Fred, please?
Mr Fred Miller - 0:48:20
Yes, with regards to the motor cycle of the family, we are proposing that the food charge
just make it pretty quick or you've got a vehicle you pay for the food family.
But that would go in the food and charging and we're sure that we can see the plant happening.
So I will obviously be stopping the forgiveness
at this time and then we can stop
whether we should have a reduced charge
for those who need it.
Councillor Prater, very quickly.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:49:01
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:49:01
I would accept that,
but this report actually says the standard charge.
So although that's what you're bringing forward,
if you pass this report with that in it,
that's effectively not got a different banding charge
for a motorcycle.
I'm very grateful that you're considering
a different motorcycle end,
but it's surely pretty simple administratively
to have a different price per bit for a motorbike
than it is for a car.
There are different bandings on the idea from staff.
We can identify what a motorbike is
at the point that they're applying for it
as opposed to a car.
I'd just appreciate that we gave ourselves,
we didn't pass a report with wording in it
which says it will be the same cost,
which is what this currently does,
and we could give ourselves enough wiggle room,
possibly with a minor amendment,
or change of recommendation,
that we would look at an appropriate cost
for a motorcycle permit to come forward.
I'm presuming this happens with the next
fees and charges cycle, or is this immediate?
So, I don't know if we're looking at passing this now,
whether it goes live as of the first of April.
It goes live next year.
Therefore, it can go through that cycle.
It can go through a consideration of what the appropriate charge is of a motorcycle permit,
but I'm just concerned that if you pass this paper, as it is at the moment, the recommendation is exactly as they are,
actually that ties you to the permit being the same cost as for a car, and I'd like to come back to that beef later.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:50:32
Councillor Polly Blakemore.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:50:38
Can I just suggest that we amend the wording to not tie us one way or the other so that
we can discuss further?
I am sorry, Polly.
I was distracted slightly.
Would you mind repeating that?
Yes, I was just going to say if we can just amend the wording so it does not tie us at
this stage for the motorcycle permit being the same as the car permit, then we can discuss
further and make a decision one way or the other before the next fees and charges?
Well, we have some discussion going on to my left. Does the policy actually state a 2 .6 last sentence?
It is now recommended that the first of eight reports.
That's in the report. It's in the policy.
Yep, for sure. It's the policy we're agreeing. So I mean, I think everyone takes your point
on board, Councillor Prater. It's just whether we start amending stuff that we don't necessarily
need to amend at the moment.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:51:59
Just going back to the word significant while we've got this, I think significant is a word
that gives us flexibility. I think if we start going in with hard percentages, there may
be roads, for example, that have off -street parking, a council estate, for example, or
indeed high -rise flats. I think that if we tie ourselves to specific percentages, we
could ultimately end up in something of a conundrum, because life is like that. It will
because when it's used, the officer or member who is using it will have to defend it.
And I think they'll be cross -examined at that time.
So that's just my view on the use of the word significant.
I think it gives us flexibility.
I do have a list, Councillor Scoffram, I will come to you.
And next on my list is Councillor Mike Blakemore.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:53:12
Thank you, Chair. Yes, CPZ is an issue quite close to home. So I do welcome the policy
in particular, the looking at a number of streets rather than individual streets and
the displacement that that's caused. And there are streets that have recently been given
CPZs which are now entirely devoid of cars and possibly never needed that CPZ in the
first place. And that's very obviously pushed the problem elsewhere.
I just wanted to raise a question.
My fellow Cheriton Councillors and I and Fred
will fondly remember the consultation we had in Cheriton
on the CPZ, which was a summary of a trailblazer
because it covered quite a wide area.
It wasn't a single street, it was very many streets.
And the reason why that fell, I think,
was not because residents didn't want it,
it was because businesses campaigned
very strongly against it.
Some of them, businesses on the High Street
whose customers parked on neighbouring residential streets
when the high street was supposedly full.
But there was also the issue in Cheriton,
we have quite a lot of garages in side streets,
back streets, and I know it was a concern for them,
and is a concern for them about where their customers'
cars sit while they are waiting to be fixed.
So I just wondered what our answer is to those businesses
who feel that the CPZs are disadvantaged.
We're making provision for people in education,
and social and healthcare and emergency services,
but other businesses may say, well, what about us?
Okay.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:54:41
Could, do we have an answer to that question?
Oh, can I ask Polly?
I can start off, I'm sure Fred will pick up.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:54:49
I think as Fred keeps reminding me,
we can't solve every problem with this framework,
because there will always be ad hoc situations
that have to be sold separately.
And I think that is one of them.
We have two examples of garages
at opposite ends of the spectrum, if you like,
and we have one over in Charlotte Street,
which works perfectly.
They have two variable parking permits
that he pays for every year,
and he just uses those permits
when the car's had the work done,
they're waiting to be picked up as a temporary arrangement,
and he uses them until they're picked up
and then it goes to the next car.
We have a very different situation in Tudor Road
in Cheriton where we've had a lot of problems
where the business owner doesn't seem to be able
to make a similar situation like that work.
And that has needed a lot of time and energy and money
to fix.
So I think it's just in a situation like that,
it has to be an ad hoc arrangement
and a discussion with the business owner.
and it is based on what that particular street can cope with,
what the available parking is.
That will have to be based on an officer assessment,
because you can't just randomly give them out
because the business only says it needs them.
The parking in there has to be available.
So we can't put that into a policy
because every situation is different
and has to be decided on its merits, basically.
But do add to that, Fred, if you have more to say.
No, I think you've got it.
Good, Fred.
Mr Fred Miller - 0:56:25
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:56:26
Before we move on, I just want to come back to draw members' attention to the top of page
105, second paragraph.
The cost of permits will be included in the Council's approved fees and charges schedule
and may be subject to change as part of the annual budget setting process, which is more
or less exactly what Fred told us a few minutes ago.
I've got you, sir.
Tim.
Yeah, thanks.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:56:57
I've seen that.
I've now found that in the policy,
because Gary uses find much quicker than I do.
So I see that 9 .1 actually covers that.
So I am content that on the basis
that when the fees and charges come forward
that we look at those as having different prices.
I am concerned that the commentary within the report
leads us in one direction.
But just as long as we're passing this on the basis
that we're passing on the basis of the policy
and not that commentary, and that there will be potentially two different prices brought
into the next fees and charges, and fair warning, I will fight for that when we get there, then
okay, we can go ahead on that basis. Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:57:38
I think we've got a meeting of minds on that. So good, sorry. So back to my list. It's Councillor
Fuller next.
Thank you, Chair. While we're building that list of different fees and charges, can I
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:57:50
in the argument for reduced charges for electric cars,
no idea how you're gonna tell,
and increased charges for motor homes because,
well, everyone hates them.
Just to make myself controversial.
I'd like to declare an interest as motor home owner.
Yeah, my colleague owns one.
I'm just being, what's the word, controversial.
Having said that, coming back to our,
sorry, back to our petitions,
unfortunately the wording in the policy
doesn't say significant, it says sufficient.
So, and that is a different measure.
The status decision in me would say sufficient is a bit too woolly and statistically significant
is an actual thing if you measure it, something that decides whether or not a piece of research
has actually found what it was expected.
So I'd actually like to suggest that we possibly go down the route we did with the previous
item to allow officers to amend the policy to change the word sufficient to say significant
initial level of interest, of resident support, sorry, which I admit isn't going as far as
Conor would like in terms of having a percentage, but is a lot less woolly than sufficient.
Councillor Blyton -Moore.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:59:05
Yeah, just to come back on that, I think this is a really difficult one to define because
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:59:08
it basically comes down to when the officers do their assessment from the criteria.
It's basically a list of the most needed,
whatever the criteria come in for each case.
So something may be sufficient one year,
and that isn't sufficient the next year.
So actually sufficient is there for a purpose
in that you can't lock it down to a percentage or even something significant
because it depends what other schemes are coming forward
at that same time that have to be assessed
in that list, basically.
So, yeah, it's a really difficult one to lock down.
Okay, can I just come back on that?
Although we're looking at, obviously, petitions,
schemes within a context,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:59:57
the context of an individual scheme
is the support of the residents that live within that scheme.
So a sufficient level of support is always going to be a significant level of support, as it were.
And significant just makes that a more robust term and a more robust measure.
I don't believe we should be necessarily taking separate or allowing other schemes to override
or the existence of other schemes to override the wishes of residents within a proposed
scheme anyway unless we're forced to do so. So I still believe that the word significant
is a better usage, as it were, is a better word to use and a better measure than sufficient.
Okay, I'll come back to that. Councillor Butcher.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:00:56
Yeah, I think it's an incredibly difficult job to come up with this policy, and I think
Cllr James Butcher - 1:01:02
there's always going to be so much disagreement about things.
You can see that in the consultation, and I think everyone's done a grand job to get
it to this stage.
Just won't be a popular view, but I think the £45 is incredibly low, or very good value
maybe is a better way of putting it, given the cost of filling up one tank of petrol.
It feels very, very reasonable to me,
and I'd be reluctant to see kind of further discounts
taking Tim's point about motorcycles.
I quite like the electric vehicle increases.
Just for comparison purposes,
if you have a bike in a bike hangar
and you're one of six bikes
that's taking up one parking space,
you're paying 72 pounds a year.
What's the power cost?
Huh?
What's the power cost in that train station?
So I think that there's just, you know,
There is something about the cost we expect people to pay.
I don't think 45 pounds is a lot.
Just wanted to cheque, I didn't quite understand
the advantages of CPZs that are on page 99.
It talks about allocated parking spaces for permit holders,
designated parking spaces for residents
and business permit holders.
Didn't quite understand that when in the,
there isn't any actually guaranteed parking,
I don't think is that.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:02:24
It is not guaranteed, but it is allocated in such a way as this area is for permit holders,
but it does say further on, I think that's on the next page, that just because you've
been allocated a permit doesn't mean you've been allocated a space.
That is very clear when people buy their permits.
I think that wording where it says allocated parking space is designated parking space.
I can see what's meant, but I think it's easy to misunderstand.
Councillor Scotland.
I'm afraid I'm still bogged down in the 60 per cent area.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 1:02:59
We could spend a long time as a group getting around this,
but generally I think Councillor Fuller's suggestion of the bit of wriggle room
approving it with a bit of rewriting it
and scope for the officers to do that would be great.
My shot on this is 60 % support would normally be
significant to trigger an informal consultation.
Though this would be advisory.
So that gives you a bit,
but there are lots of different formulas.
Thank you, that's it.
Certainly, so okay.
The, oh, could you switch off?
Yeah, super.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:03:35
So, we have a fledgling amendment which substitutes the word significant for sufficient.
Have I interpreted that correctly?
In that one place, yes.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:03:54
So, where it says there is a sufficient initial level of resident support, which is on page
seven of the policy, it should say there is a significant initial level of resident support.
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:04:10
And on the basis of the fuzziest amendment in the world, I'd like to second that.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:04:19
Okay, so my advice is that we have to take a vote first on the amendment. So we had Councillor
Fuller has proposed that in the place identified,
we swap the word significant for sufficient.
We swap sufficient for significant.
That's what you want, yeah?
Okay, so we swap sufficient for significant.
Okay.
Okay, so I hope everyone's with me on this.
We have a proposer in Councillor Fuller,
we have a seconder in Councillor Prater.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Right, there we go.
Very good.
But we still have to vote on the original.
So I seem to remember that Councillor Blakemore proposed.
I seconded.
So all those in favour, please vote.
Thank you very much.
Terrific, there we go.
What a terrific exchange we've had there.
That's brilliant.
Moving on to item 7, risk management policy and strategy corporate risk register, pages
121 to 170. And I think Councillor Prater is going to take us through this.
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:05:55
I'm almost certainly not having commented significantly on the previous two items. I've
now dug both Gavin and Jonathan's grave for them on this one. So the report is absolutely
in front of you, it has been through overviews
of finance and scrutiny, and questions have been
asked around that.
The update, I think, is very helpful,
and identifies emerging risks,
and absolutely Jonathan and Gavin are the right people
to speak that through.
This report was, on the other hand,
and this report and this update was before
people started lobbing around missiles
in the Middle East.
I don't know what level of emerging risk
that would have at this stage,
but I think significant is probably the word of the day.
But the risks in front of us are more local by nature
than the higher level risks that we can do nothing about.
But yeah, I'm absolutely sure that Jonathan Gavin
will welcome the level of questioning to this report
that I've just given to the others.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:07:05
Are you moving the report?
Absolutely.
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:07:08
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:07:10
I am very happy to second it and open it for questions.
Councillor Fuller.
It's all right.
I'm not going to try and propose an amendment on this one.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:07:21
Just on the section about cyber security, I just wanted to mention that it mentions
that we are focusing on the cyber assessment framework
as sort of our main mitigation.
It's not our only mitigation,
and I think it's just worth mentioning that we've,
A, received Cyber Essentials Certification fairly recently,
which is another sort of measure of our cyber readiness,
shall we say, but also, and we're, as I understand it,
we're only in the exploratory stages at the moment,
but we currently have a security operations centre
that we work with, and we're potentially looking
expanding the work they do for us to include reacting to,
so at the moment they identify threats
and then we deal with them.
We may be expanding to the point where they will also deal
with some threats.
I'm waiting to learn more detail about that.
It's just to show that we've been very proactive
in this area for obvious reasons.
Thank you very much for that.
Councillor Butchett, were you indicating?
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:08:24
Cllr James Butcher - 1:08:30
Thanks, Chair. Just picking out one of the risks, some of the new ones that we've got about the risk of the impact of climate change.
I'm thinking particularly of Councillor Scofford having circulated the emergency briefing.
And I suppose it's trying to understand, okay, so we've got that highlighted as C8,
the Council may be unprepared for extreme weather events and long -term climate impacts.
and understand that that cycle that's kind of set out
and thought about what we do about risk,
but how do we satisfy ourselves about the steps being taken
to prepare the district for those expected impacts?
So I mentioned there were the kind of documents around
or plans or any of those things,
but if we wanted to understand what those are
and test out their robustness,
how do we satisfy ourselves about the steps being taken
using that as an example?
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:09:22
This is quite a long and complicated answer, so maybe we can just stick with the headlines.
Are you able to do that, Jonathan?
That's great.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 1:09:34
So essentially, this risk is, we've had to define this risk in terms of the risk of delivery
of our services in respect of climate change impacts.
So it's largely around our response to severe weather events and those longer term plan impacts.
So in terms of the severe weather impacts which might be flooding, storm, that kind of damage,
we've got our severe weather emergency planning process.
So all staff were trained last year on that one.
So the emergency, that has all been updated.
So that's given us reason to keep that risk likelihood
at that level.
In terms of the longer term impacts,
the carbon strategy, Green Grants Programme
and Sustainable Futures Forum are three elements of that
which we'll be measuring, looking at longer term impacts.
And that work is ongoing in the current year.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:10:38
Just to add to that, Councillor Butcher,
one of the first things that I investigated
when first elected was our response to a very real risk
of extreme weather on the Romley Marsh.
Because for hundreds of years, the people of the Marsh
have protected themselves from the threat of flooding
from the sea, but the threat of flooding from the land
now has become a real issue.
And I have to say, I was delighted with
the information that was just instantly provided to me
by our emergency response head here.
And the report is in my drawer as I speak.
I went to the Environment Agency,
I went to Southern Walter,
and I went to the internal drainage board
and asked them similar questions,
and I was amazed at how unprepared they were.
So it really reassured me that this is something
that just doesn't, you know, I'm not,
this isn't just Jonathan putting something in a table
to satisfy this meeting.
and we really, and if you've got half an hour to spare,
I'm happy to sort of go through it with you,
but we do have evacuation points,
we have the telephone contact numbers,
we have detailed plans to manage that risk.
God forbid it should happen, but we are ready.
I would love to say our partners are ready,
but I'm not entirely sure about that.
and I don't want to speak ill of them, as it were,
but I asked them the same question that I asked internally,
and I was instantly answered here,
whereas particularly the Environment Agency
more or less thought I was mad that this could never happen.
But I hope that gives you some further comfort.
There are practical underpinnings
to these words in this report.
Sorry, next question.
Cllr James Butcher - 1:13:07
We'll just come to Bethnoe. If I've understood Jonathan right, you're saying C8 is about the impact of extreme weather events on the capacity of the Council to deliver its services,
which is a bit different to what you're talking about.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:13:17
Well, sorry, Jonathan. I mean, in terms of we would coordinate that emergency response.
We are primarily concerned with the delivery of our services,
i .e. people becoming homeless, for example, because of flooding.
But naturally, we will work with other agencies
and we will work with Kent County Council,
with the Environment Agency, with Southern Water,
the Internal Clonage Board, everyone.
But the point I'm making really is that there is a practical set of measures
that sit below that rating in that risk register.
Sorry, Jonathan, feel free to add.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:14:02
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 1:14:04
No, it was just to clarify the way that the risk is defined
as the council may lack preparedness for emergency response
to the impacts of extreme weather events
caused by climate change.
Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:14:19
Sorry, yeah, what Councillor Burchard was mentioning
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:14:22
has just sort of made me think of another question
around this actually.
Obviously the risk title is climate change,
but within climate change we've also got the risk
of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.
So are we, when we're considering this particular risk,
are we considering those and their effects
on our both ability to deliver services
and also the services we may be required to deliver
as a result of the light sweat and things like that.
But going beyond that to those particular issues within,
that go hand in hand with client exchange.
Jonathan, would you like to comment on that?
I think, thank you, Chair.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 1:15:07
Go back to that wording in that definition.
This one is actually a really difficult one
because when it was proposed, it's automatically so wide.
So I think my original point about delivery of services
is really we've had to think about what that actually means
for the council as opposed to us being able to deal
with the events of climate change.
And it's not the risk that climate change is happening,
but it's our preparedness.
So the key wording in that, it's impacts of weather events
or extreme weather events caused by climate change.
So in the sort of detailed descriptors of that,
we've included major flooding, storm related land slips,
damage to council owned buildings, heat waves,
shifts in growing seasons and water shortages.
Now that list isn't exhaustive,
but actually what we're looking at here
is whether we have an extreme weather event
that may or may not be caused by climate change.
The key thing is about how we respond to the event itself.
And I think if there's something else
that needs a separate risk, we can enter it in the register.
But I think we've kept this, it's still a high risk,
and we're tolerating it at that high level
because it's a severe, potentially severe impact,
and a lot of it is outside of our control.
But yes, it's about our response to any event
that could be directly or indirectly
caused by climate change.
Excellent response, thank you very much.
Councillor Butcher.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:16:34
Yeah, I mean, maybe this is a conversation to expand on elsewhere, but I think there's
Cllr James Butcher - 1:16:41
a difference between saying our preparedness to respond to an extreme event when it happens,
and what collectively are we doing to prepare ourselves for the future we've been told this
district, the rest of the country, etc., will be facing, which isn't just how do we respond
to that, but in a broader sense, how do we prepare ourselves for a world that's going
look very different and operate very differently.
And I suppose if you, this is over dramatic,
but if we fast forward 10, 15 years
and play a recording of this conversation,
would it look like as community leaders,
we're kind of doing what we needed to do
to prepare where we live and our population
for the future we're told we're gonna be facing.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:17:23
Oh, Councillor Schaffner.
Yeah, I just sort of,
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 1:17:27
Seeing as I circulated to councillors the emergency briefing a couple of days ago, which
is extremely dire and it is coming from absolutely robust science, it's difficult not to be depressed,
quite honestly, and appalled by what looks like is coming down the line.
And the headline news was, you can look at it,
lots of different headlines, but a two degree temperature
rise by 2050 is almost factored in now, it's going to happen.
And beyond two degrees is liable to happen after that.
And this will be absolutely, have all sorts of totally
unexpected knock on effects, which makes Jonathan's job
even more difficult than it is already.
So I think I accept that the emergency measures that you've outlined, Jonathan, make very good sense.
And I think I would say that this is a huge conversation that we ought to be having,
but it probably isn't the place to be having it now.
Jonathan.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 1:18:41
Just to come back on that point from Councillor Butcher, notwithstanding the recent report that was circulated,
There are a number of proactive measures that the council put in place.
It probably is worthy of a separate conversation outside of cabinet, but just to mention a
few.
District wide carbon strategies, proactive measures, green grants programme, which we track
out comes of funded projects.
Also there's the embedding of climate resilience and new developments through the local planning.
So it's not addressing everything, but there's a lot of work proactively that is meant to
address the kind of future events rather than just reactive.
Councillor Speightman.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:19:24
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 1:19:26
Not withstanding, I know council operators just alluded to it, but I mean given the current
international situation and actually this has come up in conversation with officers,
mindful particularly of rising fuel costs as a result,
and this could, I would imagine,
have potentially a significant, I choose my words,
impact on our major contracted partner
in terms of delivering waste services,
across the fuel, et cetera, et cetera.
I just wonder whether that would seem to me
at both a real risk and where that would come in
within our risk register arrangement.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:20:04
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 1:20:04
Thank you Councillor Speakman. I think initially those would be considered as operational or
partnership risk that would be considered through that management of those individual
contracts. If it gets to the point where it is having a significant financial impact on
us it may be considered as a corporate risk. But corporate risk register is reviewed once
a quarter through operational teams and chief officers and CLT and the Audit and Governance
Committee.
So it could be put forward.
For example, we also had one a couple of years ago on the cost of living crisis, if you recall.
So at the point where we feel that that is a corporate issue, then we would consider
that potentially as something we could put on the risk register.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:20:53
Excellent debate.
Councillor Fuller.
Just one very brief comment.
Just building on what Jonathan was saying actually,
in terms of the wideness of the climate change thing,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:21:03
actually one of the significant risks in climate change
is international instability as a result of countries
trying to basically take control of natural resources.
So actually you could stretch argue that the potential risks
that Councillor Spinkman was talking about
are kind of already in there because they're baked into the climate change risk. So just
trying to end on a positive note. Terrific. Okay. So we've had an excellent debate, I
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:21:35
think. Councillor Prater proposed. I seconded. So all those in favour, please indicate. Thank

8 Treasury Management 2025/26 Quarter 3

you very much. Terrific. Moving on to item eight, Treasury Management, 2025 -26, quarter
pages 171 to 198 in your pack, and Councillor Prater will lead us through it.
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:22:01
With a due sense of interest to see if we can do to Alan that which we have just done
to Jonathan and Gavin. This is just the quarterly update in Treasury Management, effectively
details where our borrowing and where our investments are and identifies the environment
within which that borrowing and investment is taking place.
It should be said that this is to the end of quarter three,
therefore these facts are held to be self -evident
on the 31st of December.
That which has happened within it since that
will feature in the end of quarter four report,
which will have a significantly different investment
and borrowing investment section at that stage,
as things have changed a bit.
mainly due to the things that I was mentioning earlier.
So the paper is in front of you.
It details that investment, details our work
within the policy which was set by Council,
and I'm sure that both Jonathan and Alan
are looking forward to a debate on this
as long as they debate on the previous sections.
And I'm happy to move.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:23:14
Terrific.
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:23:15
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:23:16
So, very good.
I'm very happy to second, very happy to review
the numbers within the report,
and open it up now for any questions or comments
that members may have.
That's pretty good.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:23:36
So we have a proposer.
I was happy to second.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much, everyone.

9 Quarter 3 Performance report 2025/26

Item 9, quarter three, performance report 2025 -26,
pages 199 to 230 in your pack.
And Councillor Prater will lead us through it.
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:24:00
It's as written, it has been to scrutiny, unleash hell.
Gavin is waiting for you.
Happy to move.
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:24:07
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:24:10
So you're abdicating your responsibility
to talk us through it.
So that's fine, I'm very happy to second it.
And I will come to you, Gavin, if I may,
just to explain a little bit of the background for us.
Thank you, thank you, Leda, and thank you, Councillor Prater.
Gavin Edwards - 1:24:28
Yeah, it's the quarterly position, as you know there,
it's from the covers, 1st of October, 31st of December.
As it says here, we've got both the two
repentance -y reports there, which is obviously
the corporate performance report
and the housing report there.
both in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.
Section 2 .1 sets out the positioning of our overall corporate performance there,
and you can see that in the graph in there.
And in 2 .3... 2 .2, forgive me,
we mentioned about, obviously, the strong and consistent performance we've noted there
in from the main dependency of the report.
And some noted improved performance as well in 2 .3 there as well.
Obviously, we do this in Section 3, as we've mentioned, we do a separate report,
and that obviously helps us to meet some of the requirements of the Regulator of Social Housing
and having a separate housing land or performance booklet there as well.
And in 3 .2 we've mentioned about the position of the targeting there in Q3 there as well.
And in 3 .3 some of the notable good performance there as well.
Section 4 of that report obviously sets out some of the exceptions
where things were slightly off target in Q3
and we've provided commentary where possible there for that as well.
and some of the ones as well in 4 .2 in relation to the housing landlord service as well.
And that goes down into page 204 of your pack as well.
As Councillor Prater noted, it was considered at Finance and Performance Subcommittee on the 10th of March there as well,
where members discussed it and obviously I'm happy to take any questions on the report. Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:26:03
Thank you very much. Gavin, Councillor Fruehle.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:26:12
Thank you, Chair. This is where I get to make it up to Jonathan by saying that the information
governance and complaints figures are all hit with green ticks for this quarter again.
That's thanks to the excellent work of Jonathan and his team, and I'm really proud of them
for continuing to keep the numbers up. The only obviously small fly in the ointment is
we do seem to have received a few more complaints than the same quarter last year, but nevertheless
it's a really positive picture and really placed for Jonathan and the team that we're continuing to do so with.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:26:43
I think we all echo that, Councillor Fuller, well said.
Councillor Speightman.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 1:26:50
Yes, just on the commentary on page 202,
with my street cleansing cabinet responsibility,
hands up that we are off target on streets surveyed clean and clear of litters has come
up before.
I can explain, which is that as the commentary is there, is that in fact the inspection regime
has been hampered with lack of staff.
So it's actually the figures are a bit skewed as a result of that.
So the inspection numbers were actually reflecting
the reduced number of inspections as a whole,
which is why the target numbers come down.
So without going into detail,
but basically it was a staffing matter
which has now been resolved,
and we expect to be back on,
the figures will show that we're actually on target
next time, next quarter, for reassurance.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Boccia.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:27:51
Yes, seems a really, really impressive set of figures. There's always going to be things
Cllr James Butcher - 1:28:00
obviously that we don't meet or are concerned we're not going to meet. It would be weird
if we didn't have those. I just wanted to cheque, this is on page 214, I think it is,
under regulatory and community services, the fixed penalty notices for high level and low
level enviro crime, one going up, one going down. Just wondered if we've got any sort
understanding what's the storey behind that or what are the numbers telling us if we know.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:28:30
Catherine are you able to give us your interpretation?
Just bear with me while I just get that section of the report up.
Gavin Edwards - 1:28:36
I don't think it's picking when it's fixed penalty notices, are more things being reported?
Yeah, of course, it's a good point, Councillor Butcher.
With regards to the specifics on that, I would need to speak to the team in terms of the
specific trends on that, and I'm very happy to go back and I will obviously provide a
full response to Cabinet on that and speak to the Melbourne officers.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:29:02
Councillor Mike Blakemore.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Excellent report as ever.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:29:10
It's always very interesting looking at the detail in this and the storeys that kind of
lie within.
and strategic housing and homelessness.
It seems like a very, very significant drop
in the waiting list, the number of households
registered on the housing waiting list,
which is incredible, and also the number of empty homes
brought back into use, but then rough sleepers,
temporary accommodation, people in bed and breakfast
all off target, so I was very surprised
by the number of households receiving UKSPF support being down from 208 to 97 year on
year. And I was interested in what the reason for that might be, because that seems sort
of a bit counterintuitive given how much we know people are struggling with the cost of
living. I was also a little bit alarmed to see the number of ASB cases seems to have
quite significantly.
And then the final point that's gonna raise
was about Hive pool and whether we'll need to adjust
that KPI to Hive pool once Folkestone is back open again
because as we were discussing earlier, presumably,
if that's back open, then Hive pool will obviously
be closed for a period for refurbishment,
but after then, it may not, the numbers may not be as high
as they currently are because some of those customers
will be going to Folkestone again.
Very good.
Are you okay with that, Gavin?
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:30:36
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you, Lee, and thank you, Councillor Blaemann, for your comments on that.
Gavin Edwards - 1:30:43
With regards to UKSPF, obviously the target, obviously in the report there, as you can
see, is year -to -date.
We've obviously hit the target on that.
Noting the dropper, we'd have to look into the specifics with that, with the regeneration
team and that, and again, very happy to come back and give a response to the Cabinet with
regards to that.
On the number of ASP complaints, again, with regards to the trend there, again, with detailed
specifics on that, I will follow up on that also with you and provide a full response
back on that.
And with Hythpool noted, we are obviously looking at KPI's targets at the moment.
We are working through those with officers following the very constructive discussion
we had at Finance and Performance Subcommittee on the 10th of March.
So we will note that as part of that as well when we have those discussions with officers
around that as well.
But yeah, very well noted.
Thank you.
Councillor Prozzier.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:31:27
I was just going to come back on that last point because it's a point very well made
Cllr Tim Prater - 1:31:29
about numbers at Hythpool.
we would never previously have had a metric
around numbers at folks and pool, for instance,
because we wouldn't have been told them,
we wouldn't have known those.
And surely what we're interested in
is number of people engaging in swimming
and engaging in sport in the district
across all of the pools which are in place,
which will be two of them at that stage.
So I think I would be interested in knowing,
although it's not financially to our benefit
of people swimming at folks and pool
when it reopens, things like that,
it would be a metric,
the number of people who are doing so
would be something that I think would be interesting
and see that we are growing the number of people
swimming in the district as a whole
by making that investment and that grant
in folks in the pool and seeing that that's growing
the pool as a whole, the pool of people swimming.
So I'll have a pool.
So just as we look at that KPI,
as I said, it's obviously gonna come down.
It's obviously suddenly gonna feel like
number of people swimming there have dropped,
which won't be the case.
The number of people swimming across the district
will have increased.
But if we can just work out if there is any catch on that, whether folks in the Shepway
Sports Trust would be willing to share us numbers of people swimming on a regular basis,
that would be an interesting thing to potentially monitor within that.
Jonathan.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:32:46
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Councillor Perrotta.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 1:32:49
Just to come back on that, just to make the Cabinet aware, we will be bringing a paper
to the July meeting when we have the Q4
with the proposed KPIs and targets for the new year.
We've consulted with the Finance and Performance Committee
at their last meeting on that.
So we're working, as Gavin has said, on a new target.
So I think that's a very good point.
We will take that into consideration
and look at how we can phrase that around access
rather than just specifically about high pool.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:33:25
Thank you very much everyone. Another good debate. So we had Councillor Prater proposed.
I seconded. All those in favour, please indicate. Terrific. Thank you very much everyone and
it's the end of our business this evening. Thank you. Thank you to all the officers and
I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.