Interactive webcast player

Council
Wednesday, 7th October 2026 at 7:00pm

 

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 Paul Thomas
  2. Cllr Paul Thomas
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Belinda Walker
  2. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  3. Cllr Paul Thomas
  4. Cllr Belinda Walker
  5. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  6. Cllr Paul Thomas
  7. Councillor Tony Hills
  8. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  9. Cllr Paul Thomas
  10. Councillor Tony Hills
  11. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  12. Cllr Paul Thomas
  13. Cllr Bridget Chapman
  14. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  15. Cllr Paul Thomas
  16. Cllr Bridget Chapman
  17. Cllr Paul Thomas
  18. Cllr Bridget Chapman
  19. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  20. Cllr Paul Thomas
  21. Cllr Bridget Chapman
  22. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jim Martin
  2. Cllr Paul Thomas
  3. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  6. Cllr Paul Thomas
  7. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  2. Cllr Paul Thomas
  3. Cllr Tim Prater
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Cllr David Wimble
  6. Cllr Paul Thomas
  7. Cllr Nicola Keen
  8. Cllr Paul Thomas
  9. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  10. Cllr Paul Thomas
  11. Councillor Tony Hills
  12. Cllr Paul Thomas
  13. Cllr David Godfrey
  14. Cllr Paul Thomas
  15. Cllr Bridget Chapman
  16. Cllr Paul Thomas
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Paul Thomas
  19. Cllr Jim Martin
  20. Cllr Paul Thomas
  21. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  22. Cllr Paul Thomas
  23. Cllr Paul Thomas
  24. Cllr Anita Jones
  25. Cllr Paul Thomas
  26. Cllr Bridget Chapman
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Paul Thomas
  29. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  30. Cllr Paul Thomas
  31. Councillor Tony Hills
  32. Cllr Paul Thomas
  33. Cllr Jackie Meade
  34. Cllr Paul Thomas
  35. Cllr David Wimble
  36. Cllr Paul Thomas
  37. Cllr Nicola Keen
  38. Cllr Paul Thomas
  39. Cllr Paul Thomas
  40. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  41. Cllr Alan Martin
  42. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  43. Cllr Paul Thomas
  44. Cllr Belinda Walker
  45. Cllr Paul Thomas
  46. Cllr David Godfrey
  47. Cllr Paul Thomas
  48. Cllr Gary Fuller
  49. Cllr Connor McConville
  50. Cllr Paul Thomas
  51. Cllr Clive Goddard
  52. Cllr Paul Thomas
  53. Cllr Paul Thomas
  54. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  55. Cllr Paul Thomas
  56. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  57. Cllr Paul Thomas
  58. Cllr Anita Jones
  59. Cllr Paul Thomas
  60. Cllr Paul Thomas
  61. Cllr Paul Thomas
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Paul Thomas
  4. Cllr David Wimble
  5. Cllr David Godfrey
  6. Cllr Paul Thomas
  7. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  8. Cllr Paul Thomas
  9. Councillor Tony Hills
  10. Cllr Paul Thomas
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Paul Thomas
  13. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  14. Cllr Clive Goddard
  15. Cllr Belinda Walker
  16. Cllr Paul Thomas
  17. Cllr Tim Prater
  18. Cllr Paul Thomas
  19. Cllr Paul Thomas
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Paul Thomas
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Webcast Finished

Please be seated.
Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:00:21
We have no minister to lead prayers this evening, so we'll go straight into the business of
the meeting.
So good evening and welcome to the meeting of full council.
This meeting will be broadcast 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's important that the
microphones are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
With anyone with a mobile phone, please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting.
I'd like to remind members that although we have strong opinions on matters under
consideration, it's important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
Please feel free to sit or stand when speaking.

1 Apologies for Absence

So the first item on the agenda is apologies for absence.
Thank you, Chair, and good evening.
Good evening, councillors, members of the public,
and colleagues.
We've got four apologies this evening
from councillors McShane, Holgate,
Kufu Kelly, and Cooper.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:01:41
Item 2, declarations of interest.
Do any members have any declarations to make on the business we're about to conduct tonight?
No?
Thank you very much.

3 Minutes

Item 3, minutes.
So we've got the minutes of the meeting held on the 22nd of July, 2026.
They've been out with members for a week or so now.
Members, happy to agree.
I can sign there's a true and accurate record.
Thank you very much.

4 Chair's Communications

The next item on the agenda is Chairs Communication.
I hope members and officers have enjoyed the summer break.
I'll begin my report by sending my condolences to all the net police families in the district
who were affected by the tragic events in Nepal on the 26th of August.
I'd also like to thank the emergency services, FHDC officers, Sports Trust staff, Grand Burstein
Hotel staff, Salvation Army, Morrisons and all the other organisations that supported
the guests and local residents after the catastrophic fire at the Grand Burstein Hotel.
Going back to the 25th of July, I was invited to attend the New Romney Country Fair, the
largest free event on Romney Marsh.
The weather was perfect and huge numbers of people enjoyed the day.
My thanks go to the New Romry Country Fair Committee for organising another record -breaking
event.
On 26 July, we joined the Worshipful Mayor of Margate, Councillor Leo Britcher, at the
final civic service held by the Charter of Trustees in Margate before the new Margate
Town Council is formed.
The service included the blessing of the new Royal British Legion Margate flag and provided
an opportunity to recognise the service and sacrifice of our armed forces.
On the 30th of July we attended the Mayor of Hawkins, Councillor Steve Cook's charity
event at Terningham Vineyard.
I didn't drink any wine, thank you.
And later in the afternoon I was joined by the leader, the CEO, cabinet members and FHD
DC officers at the opening of the Changing Tides facility in Littlestone, complete with
some very nice ice cream.
On the 15th of August, I was invited by the Worshipful Mayor of Foggston,
Councillor Jacqui Mead, to commemorate VJ Day at the Garden of Remembrance in Foggston.
So thank you very much, Jacqui.
On the 18th of September, we were invited to the Gherkin Memorial Fund
at the Burling Hotel, again with the support from Jacqui Mead
and many other local representatives.
On the 21st of September, I was invited by the Right Worshipful Mayor of New Romney,
Councillor John Rivers, to join him,
and other community organisations for World Dementia Day
at the Moore Community Centre in New Romney,
and where I reaffirmed my commitment as a dementia friend.
On the 29th of September, I was joined by
Councillors Anita Jones, Mike Blakemore, Steven Scotham,
and many FHDC officers at the first youth forum
for the new cohort.
It was standing room only in here.
I've never seen so many people in this room, actually.
as we were joined by 55 students from every secondary school in the district
and students from the White House on Marsh.
I'd like to thank the FHDC officers for organising an excellent event.
It was absolutely fantastic.
And on the 4th of October, we again joined the Worship for Mayor of Folkestone,
Catholic Jackie Meade,
that's a very nice charity fundraiser for the Nepalese community
at the Annapurna restaurant in Folkestone,
so thank you very much for that, Jackie.
And I know we raised a lot of money for them on that night,
So thank you very much.
So that ends my chair's report.
Thank you very much.
Item five on the agenda is petitions,
and we don't have any of those.

5 Petitions

Item six is public questions,

6 Questions from the Public

and we don't have any of those.

7 Questions from Councillors

And the next item on the list is councillor questions.
There are seven questions from members
which are set out in Schedule II on members' desks.
So we'll move on to those now.
The first question is from Councillor Cooper to Councillor Polly Blakemore,
Cabinet Member for Transport Regulatory Services and Building Control.
As Tony isn't here, he's asked us to provide him with a written response,
which we said we will do after the meeting.
The second question is from Councillor Walker to Councillor Mike Blakemore,
Cabinet Member for Community and Collaboration.
And then over to you.
Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:06:42
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Blakemore.
Council recently voted through an agreement to give a grant of 2 .4 million to the Sports Trust
for the long -awaited reopening of the Sports Centre in Ladner Avenue.
The Tower of Folkestone has just been through another summer without a swimming pool,
and I wondered if the cabinet member could update Council with progress on this and the rest of the centre.
Another school year is about to begin. I wrote to our centre in the question, but it now has begun.
The importance of learning to swim is vital for our children and it would be good to have
this facility open as soon as possible so that another new generation did not miss out.
Thank you, Councillor Maymore.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:07:24
Thank you for your question, Councillor Walker. In response to your question, I asked for
an update from the Sports Trust which informs my rather lengthy response. The Sports Trust
had initially planned to reopen the swimming pool at the end of the summer. Unfortunately,
Recently in recent months, the Sports Centre has experienced repeated break -ins and serious
vandalism damage.
This has thrown off the work schedule.
Members who visited the Sports Centre would have seen the damage first -hand, as I have.
One of the worst incidents resulted in shattered glass entering the swimming pool, which required
the pool to be drained and the replacement of a middle section of the tiles.
This has meant the project needed to adapt its work programme, and with the pool empty,
it did allow the Sports Trust to undertake far more comprehensive works to the pool and
its infrastructure, including the balancing tanks, filtration systems and tiling. This
will now result in a substantially upgraded facility but has pushed back the reopening.
You also asked about the rest of the Sports Centre. Unfortunately, vandalism also damaged
other parts of the building, notably the sports hall flooring, which was flooded. This will
now be replaced with a new wooden sports floor providing a similar, if not upgraded, product
while ensuring that the hall remains suitable for wheelchair sport and wheelchair users.
The original plan had not envisaged this flooring being replaced.
The Sports Trust have also looked at the wider centre and what could be achieved for its
long -term future. One major addition will be a new accessible entrance at the side of
the building, bringing users into the centre at swimming pool level and providing much
better access for wheelchair users, families with buggies and others who found the existing
layout challenging.
The changes will also enable the Sports Centre to create a substantially larger and more sustainable gym.
Work has also begun on the two external roofs above the studios and the new entrance, alongside enabling works across the site, including rewiring, demolition and essential structural works.
As work progresses on the building, inevitably the Sports Trust continue to find additional works that need to come within scope and be brought up to modern standards.
Crucially, the Sports Trust report that additional funding required to support these expanded
works has been secured.
The result will be a substantially upgraded swimming pool and infrastructure, improved
changing facilities, a new sports hall floor, a larger gym, and significantly improved accessibility.
Sports Trust also wanted to emphasise again its gratitude to the Council for its continued
support throughout the project.
On the important question of the timetable, the original plan for a late summer, early
the autumn opening have changed for the reasons I've given.
The latest programme is for works to continue
through the remainder of this year
with the aim of opening the swimming pool gym,
sports hall and new accessible entrance
early in the new year.
Thank you, Councillor Plaitmore.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:10:15
Do you have a relevant supplementary question?
Yes, I do, Chair.
Thank you, Councillor Plaitmore.
Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:10:20
Comprehensive answer.
I did actually have two supplementary questions,
once we've answered about the disabled sports going on there, but the other one is about
security. It seems very little thought to be given to security. How do we know this
vandalism won't happen again and won't set the sports even further back?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:10:41
I can't give a detailed answer and probably the sports stars wouldn't want me to talk
in detail about security, but I can certainly cheque in with them and I'll come back to you
about that.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:10:52
Thank you very much, Councillor Pringle.
Question three is from Councillor Hills to Councillor Scoffin, Cabinet Member for Climate,
Environment and Biodiversity.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Tony Hills - 0:11:05
Councillor Scoffin, would you agree that with the storm season fast approaching, that this
should as a matter of urgency review the condition
of our district's coastal defences.
The EA's shoreline management plan number 11
is now 20 years old and I believe it's not fit for purpose.
Thank you.
Thank you for your question, Councillor Hills.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:11:37
The council's always conscious of our in -going
commitment to coastal protection.
In 2024, the Highs to Folkestone Flood and Coast Protection Scheme was implemented to maintain the shoreline management plan policy of holding the line from Folkestone to Highs, which is the most exposed of the lot, I believe.
This comprised a number of large rock groynes and beach control structures along with the capital beach replenishment programme.
The objective of the scheme was to provide a 1 in 200 storm protection and maintain a healthy shingle beach in front of the ageing sea wall to reduce wave overtopping and to prevent the sea wall failure resulting from it being undermined and the structure failing and caused by direct wave impact.
To maintain beach volumes along the frontage to the 1 -200 storm prevention standard,
it was necessary to recycle the shingle twice a year before and after winter storms.
This is to ensure there is an adequate volume and distribution of shingle to form a barrier for winter storms
to prevent flooding to infrastructure, residential properties and businesses from Folkestone to Hyde.
The works have been carried out since the completion of the scheme 20 years ago and
has provided excellent flood protection, most notably after storm Garetti in January, where
no properties were flooded and the scheme was tested out for the first time to that
extent.
This will be the fifth phase of works.
Funding for the scheme is provided by the Environment Agency.
The total current phase of a five -year project, including contingency, is £2 ,778 ,000 approximately.
Funding for the scheme, the District Council's own coastal defences are inspected regularly
and we are happy that they are in good order.
Other stakeholders in our district, such as the Environment Agency, MOD, EDF and so on,
will carry out their own condition assessment of their own coastal areas.
Finally, the Shoreline Management Plan number 11 covers the entirety of the district coastline,
including of course Romy Marsh, and it's currently undergoing a refresh.
And we understand that an updated policy is due to be published by the EA in 2026,
which I guess is in the next three months. Thank you.
Do you have a relevant supplementary Councillor Hills?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:14:17
Yes, please Chairman.
Thank you for that.
Councillor Tony Hills - 0:14:20
It's very kind of you.
But I would just like to make the point
and I hope you would agree with this.
So in the whole question that as Dench Marsh
and that foreshore down that lead is undefended
except by a flattened shingle crest after Storm Goretty.
And I was told by farmer 50 sheep ground down there
because there was no warning from the EA.
Do you think we have a duty of care to our residents
to make sure the EA are doing a proper job?
Of course we do, and we always try and do our best.
But if there's any specific questions
that you'd like me to pursue with the EA,
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:15:01
I'd be very happy to correspond with you about that,
Councillor Hills.
Thank you, Councillor Schaffman.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:15:07
The next question is from Councillor Chapman
to council the poly -blaketmore cabinet member
for transport regulatory services
and building control.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Bridget Chapman - 0:15:21
Noting the CPZH has been extended during the summer
following consultation in May 2026,
given that in January 2026 residents of Vaughan Road
requested stroke petition for CPZG1 to be extended
for all the same reasons included in the consultation of CPZH.
Can the council confirm it will be actively considering
extending CPZG1 to include the western end of Barn Road,
which is a cul -de -sac?
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:16:00
Thank you for that question, Councillor Chapman.
The proposal to extend Zone G1 to include Barn Road
has been considered on a number of occasions,
and has been the subject of significant engagement
with local residents.
Following requests and petitions received from residents
of both Farm Road and Hasbro Road,
officers undertook a full assessment
and progressed the proposal to an informal consultation
in September last year.
The outcome of that consultation showed
that the majority of respondents did not support
the introduction of parking controls.
So as a result, a decision was taken not to proceed
with the scheme at the time.
Since then, we have not received any evidence
to suggest that the overall views of residents
have changed sufficiently to justify revisiting that decision.
We do, however, fully recognise that a significant proportion
and pretty much more than around half, I believe actually,
of residents in Barn Road
support the introduction of parking controls.
But it's important that any parking scheme
is considered in the context of the wider area.
Introducing controls solely at the western end of Barn Road
it would be likely to displace parking
into neighbouring roads, particularly Hasber Road,
potentially creating further difficulties
for residents there and undermining
the effectiveness of the scheme.
For this reason, any future proposal
would require broader support across both
Barn Road and Hasber Road to ensure
that the scheme is effective, equitable,
and does not simply relocate the problem
from one street to another.
Officers do remain willing to review the position
should clear evidence emerge that there is
and sufficient support from residents across both roads for comprehensive safety.
Thank you, Councillor Bremel.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:17:44
Do you have a relevant supplementary question?
Cllr Bridget Chapman - 0:17:48
No, thank you. I will discuss with residents and possibly come back to you. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:17:51
Question five is from Councillor Cooper, the Councillor Speakman.
And as we said earlier, Councillor Cooper is happy for us to provide a written response after this meeting.
So we're now on to question six from Councillor Chapman to Councillor Schaffrin,
Cabinet Member for Climate, Environment and Biodiversity.
Councillor Chapman.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Bridget Chapman - 0:18:16
On 20th of September 2023, this Council unanimously passed a motion asking that water quality
be displayed in real time at beaches across the district.
Possible options were digital signage or flags so that people did not have to seek out the
information online but had it clearly visible to them before they entered the water. Can
you give me an update on where we are with displaying the water quality clearly and in
real time at beaches?
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:18:47
Thank you for your question, Councillor Chapman. This is something that we have discussed extensively
since I was elected three and a half years ago. Thank you. The Council motion approved
on the 20th of September, 2023, requested that a report was prepared and presented to cabinet
that was considered in summary the following points.
What current bathing water quality warning systems were currently in operation?
If no systems were in place, what systems could be implemented
that provided live updates via real -time data?
And thirdly, consideration of how a new warning system could be funded
and the availability of external funding for this.
These options were investigated in a report, C slash 24 slash 42,
considered by the Cabinet on the 13th of November 2024.
The report considered in detail what signage was currently in use,
the real -time data available,
and its limitations and potential for external funding.
After consideration of the report and its finding,
the cabinet resolved not to proceed with the installation of digital signage.
The following points were relevant in that decision.
There are four of them.
The data provided by the EA and Sodden Water
could not be used as live assessment of water quality.
This was simply because the data provided was generally historic
or requiring additional verification.
The EA and Sodden Water,
when communicating the testing and storm overflow data on their website,
provided additional background information and content to that data and what it shows.
Without this additional detail, there was a risk that the information shown on the digital signage
could be oversimplified, inaccurate or simply misunderstood by the public.
Thirdly, the Council already displayed the current boiling water classifications on its beach signage,
which included a QR code taking the user directly
to the Southern Water webpage for that location.
And lastly, external funding wasn't available.
Since the report, however, the council has further
reviewed signage and is currently trialling the use
of a pollution risk forecasting warning signage
at Sunny Sands.
I would, however, make it clear that the PRF warning signage
are predictive and not based on live information.
Thank you, Councillor Scotland.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:21:26
Councillor Chapman, do you have a relevant supplementary?
Oh, yes, I do.
Cllr Bridget Chapman - 0:21:29
LAUGHTER
On the 9th of September, I was going to swim.
But the outlet at the stage had been spewing out sewage
for hours the day before.
I went for a walk instead by sunny sands
and saw that there was a lovely day,
there were lots of people entering the water.
I spoke to some of them, nobody had any idea that the state outlet had been spewing raw
sewage into the sea for hours the day before.
Does it worry you that people are entering the sea when raw sewage has been spewing in
there for hours?
And how can we do better?
I'm suggesting that we perhaps have a brown flag that we display, but we need to do something
because this is unacceptable and we have to deal with it.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:22:19
Councillor Chapman, I couldn't agree more with you
that the pollution of all our beaches,
which are classified as anything other than good or excellent,
is unsatisfactory.
And we appreciate your thought of the brown flag
and certainly that's something that we could consider and talk about.
The difficulties of the accuracy,
the difficulties of confusing information
where you get multiple sources
and contradictory information from the website
is one that we're very much aware of
and we're keeping a simple and clear messaging service
is important.
The brown flag is an interesting way forward on that.
So thank you for that suggestion.
I'd just like to add that we are in constant contact
with Sodden Water or very frequent contact with them.
and this is a new development and we are very pleased to have regular stakeholder meetings.
We have a stick and carrot approach, holding their feet to the fire, holding them to account,
making it quite clear that what is going on is unacceptable,
and at the same time talking with them because we appreciate that it is only in partnership
and that we are going to get results, otherwise we don't have the stick.
We are not the stickholder, so it is a negotiation.
but we're doing our very best and I would like to assure you of that and it's reflected
or enshrined in our corporate plan that we should be doing that.
Thank you.
Do, again, do correspond with me by email if you'd like to or in person.
Thank you, Councillor Scotland.
The next question, question seven, is also from Councillor Chaplin to Councillor Polly
Blakemore, Cabinet Member for Transport, Regulatory Services and Building Control.
Councillor Chaplin.
Sorry, me again. I think lots of people were caught out by the moving in the deadline.
As far as I can see, at some point in 2012, an application to build two houses and a parcel of land opposite the Valley and Sailor was approved with conditions.
The houses were started but never finished and are an eyesore. Is it possible to get an update on what is happening with them?
Councillor Bittenhall.
Thank you again, Councillor Chapman.
The Council is not currently aware
of the developer's funding position
or when the development is likely to be completed.
As a local planning authority,
we have no statutory powers to require development
to be completed within a given timeframe.
However, the planning permission has been implemented,
as you know, because development commenced
and the permission therefore remains extant.
There is no open planning enforcement investigation
at present.
I appreciate that the unfinished development
is indeed an ISOL, but based on the information
we currently have, officers do not consider
that formal enforcement action solely in relation
to the condition of the site would be an expedient
or proportionate use of the Council's enforcement resources.
Should circumstances materially change,
that position can, of course, be reviewed.
If there is local concern about this,
please encourage the residents to report the issue
to the Planning Enforcement Team,
either by the website or via email, or indeed, directly to me.
Thank you, Councillor Beattle. Do you have a relevant supplementary?
No, thank you very much. And thank you for your questions this evening, members.

8 Announcements of the Leader of the Council

Item 8, Announcements of the Leader.
Jim, over to you for 10 minutes. Thank you.
Thanks very much, Chair.
Good evening, Councillors. I hope you all had a
brilliant summer which up until today did seem to go on forever. I will begin with good
news. I successfully completed the Folkestone Half Marathon, finishing one whole minute
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:26:08
faster than I did last year. A fantastic event which is well supported locally and attracts
a lot of visitors to Folkestone and Hyde. I ran on behalf of Flood Relief in Nepal and
and anyone wishing to contribute,
please send your donations directly to the Red Cross.
Members will no doubt be aware
that our progress on local government reorganisation
has been paused.
The pause is so significant
that instead of electing a new unitary council in May 27,
we will now be electing a district council once again.
I'm sure members will have their own thoughts, but I am also sure that we can all agree on
the total waste of time, energy and money expended by this Council.
At the Kent Leaders meeting with MHCLG recently, a range of points that affect us all were
raised.
I made it clear to the civil servants that our staff on whom we depend have been incredibly
disrupted by this process.
People have made career plans around the process as well as life plans.
Until the government decide what they want us to do, we simply get on with business as
usual.
I chaired the local government reorganisation working group meeting last week, which of
course was the shortest working group meeting ever.
Members will also be aware of the tragic fire at the Grand Burstein Hotel.
280 people were safely evacuated at 1 .30am in the morning following an intense fire in
in the basement car park.
The police have arrested two people
in connexion with the fire.
Our council officers responded magnificently.
The Three Hills Sports Centre was used as the welfare centre,
but special mention must go to Cross Keys,
the Harbour Inn, Morrisons,
and the always brilliant Salvation Army,
plus many others, all of whom responded immediately
to our call for help.
My personal thanks go to Mike and Polly Blakemore,
who attended the welfare centre to help hotel guests
who had been evacuated.
Following concerns from Britannia Hotel's
structural engineers, the 95 flats at Pavilion Court
were evacuated later that day,
because the engineers felt there was a risk
of the building collapsing.
All of the people in Pavilion Court were evacuated
and temporally accommodated elsewhere
while being supported with welfare support.
This was incredibly disruptive for the residents
and the frustrations increased every day
that the structural engineers took
to consider the condition of the building.
I am happy to report that all residents
have now moved back into their homes
and my thanks again to all of those council colleagues
and voluntary and community groups
that supported the displaced residents.
With regard to the future of the building,
we are yet to hear.
I was delighted to attend the Gurkha Memorial Service
and represent the district,
along with the Worshifold Mayor of Folkestone,
Councillor Jackie Meade.
I have attended a meeting of the East Stour Farmers Group to discuss nutrient neutrality.
Although it occurred to me that we are an agricultural area, the voice of our farmers is not properly heard in this chamber.
I attended the five parishes meeting to discuss progress on Otterfield Park.
and I was delighted to report that the project
is moving forward at a pace.
Otterpool Park LLP submitted an updated
planning application last week.
This application is essentially the same application
given resolution to grant by our planning committee
in 2023.
Now with a number of updated reports
and sufficient information to progress
the section 106 agreement with Kent County Council.
I attended the planning training
on the national scheme of delegations
provided by our council officers
on delegated decision making in the future,
which was detailed and informative.
I was pleased to attend the Kent Armed Forces Conference
in Gravesend, which again was very informative.
I am attending the Working Group meeting of the Clean Water Bill organised by the local
councils network and I will be attending the Kent Water Resilience Conference tomorrow
morning in Ashford.
I chaired our own Bathing Water Quality Stakeholders meeting.
I attended meetings of the Rotary, the St. John's and St. Bartholomew's Hospital Trust
and the 20th anniversary celebration of the Shed in Folkestone.
I have met with Folkestone festivals and Folkestone Music Town to better understand their plans for next year.
I will shortly be announcing the date of our feedback event, coastal summertime experience and reflections.
We might need a snappier title.
and we will be inviting all relevant businesses
in the district to attend.
To end on some good news, we have received the results
of the annual tenant satisfaction survey.
And we have an overall tenant satisfaction of 79 .4%.
This is a 6 % increase over last year.
Indeed, we have increased our percentage rating
on all 12 of the satisfaction measures
for the second year in a row.
I'm sure all members will join me
in congratulating our housing team.
But it would be remiss of me
if I did not also ask members
to join me in congratulating our benefits team,
who have won the prestigious Benefits Team of the Year Award
for the third year running.
A fantastic achievement
and one which we are all very proud of.
Indeed, the portfolio holder suggested
that like the World Cup, having won it three years in a row,
we should keep the trophy.
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for that, Jim.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:33:23
So opposition response, we'll start with Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:33:28
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Jim,
for your comments and all the work you do
on behalf of this Council and our residents.
And congratulations on your half marathon run
and raising money for that charity.
And can I echo your words, Chair,
about your comments about the Nepalese disaster.
I wanted to just make a point about net zero,
which you didn't bring up,
but it's in relation to the people's emergency briefing
that was shown in this chamber a couple of weeks ago.
And it does cover water quality, nutrient neutrality,
and all those things you mentioned.
But also I think in large part,
we'll explain some of the increase in tenant satisfaction
with our housing stock.
Net zero, as we know, is some people think
it's a waste of time and money,
and I think the argument about that is our country only produces 1 % of carbon emissions,
so what's the point? The point is this, I was speaking on a panel last week, and the
government warm homes scheme is going to bring 22 ,000 well -paid new jobs to Kent by 2030.
and the investment that this council is making
in its own housing stock is reducing bills for our tenants,
which will in fact make them happier,
but it's keeping them warm in the winter,
throughout this super El Nino that's coming,
but also the never -ending summer,
the heat wave after heat wave after heat wave,
these improvements to our housing stock
keeping our oldest and most vulnerable residents cool
in the summer.
So I hope this council keeps going with its target
to reach net zero and the government as well,
because it's really important this investment's going in
to reduce energy use and the benefits that we've seen
that our tenants have there.
You make points about LGR, which we're going to talk about more extensively later.
And thank you as well for making the point about all the people that helped with the
fire at the Grand Burstein.
I think that was an example of how Folkestone works together, the community comes together,
local business, local charities, this council, to support people who are visiting this town,
but also the residents of the flats next door
that were displaced for that period of time.
And I'm really proud of our town
when we do these things together as a community.
Just in relation to the fires,
one of the things mentioned at our conference
by the chief of the fire brigade
was saying in the West Midlands,
there was a wildfire that took all 40 of their engines
to one wildfire, and if anything else had happened
anywhere in the West Lidlands over that period,
like a fire in a hotel basement,
they would have been absolutely stuffed.
Luckily here, our firefighters were available,
and they got there.
Now we don't know the effects on the building yet,
but if that building is able to reopen,
and be refurbished and fixed, that will be in no small part
to the action of our local firefighters
who got there quickly and put that fire out.
They may just have saved that building for our town.
So I'd like to thank them and all the firefighters,
in fact, across the district, and I'll leave it there.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Loughlin.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:37:34
Councillor Mr. Jenny Hollingsworth, thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Sorry.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:37:41
I'd like to thank Jim for his report and congratulations on the marathon.
I was just thinking on the local government reorganisation.
We've got a motion later so I'm hoping that we can discuss that then.
But I totally agree with this in terms of the staff.
It's been, I think, terrible for the staff.
And I have to say, and I'll probably have to repeat this again in a minute,
that our Chief Executive took our staff along with us all the way,
and then, you know, there were lots of opportunities
and lots of people, as you say in your report, making plans for retirement.
And I think it's absolutely a disaster in that respect.
With regard to the fire, absolutely, I would just like to add my congratulations and my thanks to all those people who have been involved.
I did actually say, was it worth me going down? But I was told there were too many people there anyway.
So, but I mean, it's absolutely amazing.
And I probably don't want to compare it with Covid.
But in a way, I did compare it with Covid,
because at the time then we also did very similar things.
We got all the we actually set up the hubs.
And I'm sorry to hear that the new Romney one is not doing as well as should be expected.
But we actually set up the hubs.
We supported them and all other organisations joined in at that particular time, helping with the people in the COVID era.
So, you know, great work from the council and from the community. And thank you very much indeed.
I do hope that the person can actually be replaced because even though people don't like or didn't like the building, it was a feature of F
concerned to hear that and I did attend with a number of other councillors in
here the fundraising event at the Burlington Hotel.
With regard to Otterpool, delighted, I'm just hoping it does actually move on and we do
actually get a result and then we actually get a spade in the ground that
would be absolutely amazing and I'm sure we are I mean the five parishes
certainly the parishes that I attend are very sceptical about it
but and yes I'm sure lots of other people are as well and I am to an extent
but at least this is perhaps a moving along and Homes England are part of it
and Homes England are part of the planning application as well. But of
course the planning application is not the reserved matters and it doesn't even
identify really the start place, where we're going to start. So it is
the outline plan again, but, and it's not detailed, so we wait to hear a bit more
on the detail. I too attended, like many other people, the planning presentation
on delegation. I must say I'm not really, I really don't like it. I think the
the committee, the planning and licencing committee
will not have the power that they've had in the past.
And not only is the office's fault in any way,
but it's a national scheme and we will see how it works.
But it does take away any influence really
from the local community.
Excuse me.
Again, I would just like to add my congratulations to the benefits team.
I think three years is great.
I think actually even prior to that they won some awards.
If I remember, I went up to London to a presentation previously and I think it was the benefits
team.
And finally, obviously, the tenant survey. Wonderful. Keep it up. Let's hope that they continue to be like that.
And Councillor Lockwood has probably outlined what he thinks. And great. So well done. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councillor Hollingsworth.
OK, Councillor Martin, just one please.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:43:11
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:43:13
Thank you very much both for your very relevant comments.
I'll just go back to the first thing if you don't mind.
So 280 people were successfully evacuated, which is fantastic news.
There were a few cuts and bruises but they were just people with trips and slips and falls.
No one suffered any smoke inhalation or anything.
But the weekend before, there were a thousand people in the Burstein, there was the Scar
and Reggae Festival going on, and getting a thousand people out of that hotel might
have been a bit more of a challenge.
I go back to, I think it was a question from Councillor Chapman some months ago about high
reach fire engines and 26 fire engines attended that fire,
which is terrific, a fantastic congratulations
to the Fire Brigade, absolutely, you know,
but if I had a building that caught fire in Ashford
that night, I would have had to wait for the Ashford fire.
I mean, I get it, but these kind of events
do make you think about the overall public safety provision that there is. But the good
news is no injuries. The other thing that I would draw people's attention to is the
comparison that I would make with the Grenfell tragedy and the criticism that the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea have suffered.
I mean, the criticism is so severe, so extensive,
that they have been referred to the Crown Prosecution
Service for corporate manslaughter.
Now, you know, we've come out the right side of it.
Our staff performed brilliantly.
Our emergency plan was in place.
Everyone knew what they were doing.
There will be lessons learned we will feed to that process, but it just demonstrates
How you have to prepare for just about everything you know?
Whether it's flooding on the marsh whether it's a fire in folks them whether it's you know a grass fire in North Downs or whatever
You you've just got to try and sort of anticipate all of this stuff
So you know I just all I can do is congratulate the officers again
congratulate the community for rallying round in such a brilliant way and just hope we don't
have another fire in the town. Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Councillor Martin. Could I have a proposal for the leaders announcement, please,
as Councillor Prater and a seconder, Councillor Martin. We all agree with the path?
Agreed. Thank you very much.

9 Portfolio Holder reports to Council

Item 9 on the agenda is portfolio holder reports. They're included in the pack and that's for

10 Opposition Business

item 10 opposition business, there is no opposition business, that takes us onto

11 Motions on Notice

item 11, motions on notice. So we have two motions in front of us this evening.
I would like to just remind members that we do have 60 minutes for the entirety
of this item, so if members could be mindful of that. So the first motion, I'll call on
Councillor, Mrs Hollingsford. Thank you, Jenny.
Thank you, Chair.
I thought that
the cancelation or the pausing
of LGR
should not actually go
without some kind of
looking at what's actually happened
because
There has been an awful lot of work put in by this Council.
I think it was December 24 when we were first asked to talk about or to have some recommendations
or look at some recommendations from government for unitaries in this intent.
And then on the seventh and despite numerous meetings
for the leaders meeting in Kent,
chief executives meeting, full council meeting,
cabinet meetings, consultations, and whole range of things.
And then on seventh of September,
we have an announcement. Nobody was aware of it. Nobody was aware of it at all.
The officers had no idea, we had no idea, and it was paused. It was paused. So all
that work, all that time, all that preparation stops. I understand that
there might still be some looking at work that might be done.
But it stopped, it stopped, it's paused.
Paused for how long?
Paused for how long?
A year, two years, over to the next general election.
Personally, I can't see anything happening
until at least 29.
So I think, you know, what I'm asking,
what this motion is asking is that we local taxpayers should not be expected
to pay for government's LGR U -turn. I hope people agree that taxpayers
shouldn't be expected to pay. We've had so many U -turns actually but this one
particularly relates to our district, the whole of Kent, and it doesn't seem fair to me.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:49:35
So this motion is asking the Chief Executive and the S15 Officer to write to the Secretary of State
and our local Members of Parliament, making clear that, and again I don't really need to read it out,
Local taxpayers should not be expected to pay for the government's U -turn.
Call on the government to reimburse the council.
I understand that's probably a bit more difficult,
because I looked at the legal position and that might not be possible.
But I mean, just to make the point of what we should do,
call on the government, and I think that's what we should do,
to provide clear answers about the future of local government reorganisations
before councils are expected to pay any more money.
And if we've been asked, or if we're looking at other working groups,
then I think that that's really important.
And I put in about local boundaries,
but that probably didn't apply to us this time,
but it may well apply to us in the future.
So I think it's quite important that you know if the government are thinking about changing the boundaries local boundaries
that at least
counsellors or at least the
Residents should have the opportunity to make comments
So I'm hoping
That members in this council will be able to support this motion
And I would just like to say
The report prepared by Ewing Green sets out the current situation and lists what we want
the Council to do.
I hope you can accept the recommendations to receive and note his report and to agree
the following changes.
The Council resolves to direct the Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer to establish the full
cost to the Council of local government reorganisation to date.
I think that is a really important one and I'd like to see, certainly, if that can be
approved I'd be very grateful.
And to direct the leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State and our local
members of Parliament, making clear that local taxpayers should not be expected to pay for
the government's LGR U -turn.
Finally, to call on the government to reimburse the Council for all costs incurred as a direct result of the local government reorganisation progress.
As I say, that may be the more difficult one and I do understand that.
and I've read the legal piece on there, but with regard to cost, it seems to me that there is no cost actually involved in passing this motion.
So I would all ask you to support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor and Mr Sondheim.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:53:19
Do we have a seconder for this, please?
Councillor David Godfrey.
We have a proposer and a seconder, so this is now open to debate.
Thank you, members.
Councillor...
Councillor Prater.
Councillor O 'Connor.
Moved rather early than I thought I was going to.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:53:38
I have a lot of sympathy for your motion and for those moving it,
because I've always said that I thought
local government reorganisation was the most spectacular
waste of time and resources.
And I was wrong.
Because getting this far into local government
reorganisation in Kent and then pausing it
is an even more spectacular waste of our time and resources.
Because you're right, the process has cost millions so far
in actual and opportunity costs across Kent.
And delaying it leads to uncertainty and additional cost.
But I do have some issues, I'm afraid,
I'm not going to vote against it because I think the intention
is good.
I think the detail could use more work.
I will start with a few things on this.
Firstly, I have always been asked in the past not to direct
our officers to do things in motions.
In fact, I think you asked me not to ask to direct officers to
do things in motions.
I was asked by a previous administration not to direct the
leader of the council either.
That was in gentler times.
Asking nicely will generally get a better response
and it costs nothing to be polite.
Equally for the reasons I give above,
I don't think it's simply possible to come up
with the full cost of the time spent by this council
or others in Kent on local government reorganisation.
And that's because we might be able to come up
with a total number of hours and even a cost per hour
for each officer for the hours that they have done
on this so far.
But what you can't quantify is the opportunity cost
of this process.
Because what if those officers,
even the counsellors who've been involved in this,
and Jim who has spent more hours than I want to think about
in meetings on this, had spent his time on something else?
And focus that time instead on our service delivery
and the day job and the doing other things
that we could have otherwise been doing.
How many more projects might be further down the track
with that time?
How many more savings may we have found?
and different ways of working.
How many projects would be a little closer to realisation?
How much closer to an otter pool development
might we have been if we'd spent all of that time
in otter pool meetings?
Sorry, Jim.
How many more new income streams have we missed
because we haven't had the time to concentrate on that
because we'll work on those?
And we'll never know because we can't quantify those
and they might have been the biggest loss to this council
of all of them.
And a motion also asks that taxpayers shouldn't pay
for the LGR U -turn.
I'm afraid U -turn if you want, Jenny.
But at this moment, we've been told it's paused,
but not changed, not stopped.
Now it may be that Angela Rayner is not for turning,
at which point this course makes little sense.
But we should be seeking reimbursement
for the cost of the delay, not of a frustrated process,
because at the moment, the process is just paused,
not reserved.
So, but right now, we don't know what that is.
We hopefully will find more during October.
I'll take over.
However, what I'll go is something slightly more optimistic
in line with my normal sunny disposition on this.
I said earlier that I thought pausing was a spectacular
waste of time and resources, and I still do.
Unless.
Unless the government are gonna use that pause
to actually align real devolution of power
from Westminster to a strategic authority of account.
And unless the government align the creation
that strategic authority on the same timetable
as local government reorganisation.
Because it's going to be insane to rip services
in this county into four different pieces
and then try and stick some of them back together again
in strategic services a couple of years later.
And unless the government have understood that the pressures
of social care which are fundamental to the problems
being faced by councils across Kent,
maybe they could bring forward proposals for different funding
and delivering those before creating
those new council footprints.
Because I don't know which of those unitaries,
if government has understood that depending
on how you do social care in the future
makes a real impact on how we do local government
in Kent in the future.
Different challenges, you remove a huge sticking,
a huge sticking block at this moment.
I don't know how many of those unlesses will come true.
I don't know the mind of government.
I'm not even sure government knows the mind of government
right at the moment.
But imagine if they did.
Imagine if LGR and evolution and social care changes
were aligned in Kent.
Because then we could actually make better
and different decisions on the council boundaries
that were best designed to meet that different world.
Won't happen.
But it would be a pause, then it would be a pause
that was worth happening if you could do
those three things together.
As I started, I do have a lot of sympathy with the intention in your motion. I am afraid
that I don't think the way it is written is a good answer to their bad question.
Thank you, Councillor Peter.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:58:46
Cllr David Wimble - 0:58:50
Thank you, Chair. This is something that I have been involved in for the last 18 months.
I think, I will read the notes I have been making whilst I have been in the meeting here.
The confusion surrounding local government reorganisations has been deeply frustrating.
Councils have been expected to devote scarce time and resources to preparing fundamental changes,
only to have the process in Kent and Medway to be paused pending a review.
In the past, I have agreed with some Green members.
I will agree with Councillor Prater.
In my view, it has been a huge drain on taxpayers' resources
and a waste of valuable officers' time.
That is no criticism of the officers.
They had to do it. They had a legal obligation to do it.
They worked hard to respond to what was required of them.
They deserve clear direction.
Residents deserve to know what their money is.
Our residents' money has paid for this.
And it's a lot of money.
I know in Kent it's over a million pounds
and the other 14 odd councils, some of which thought,
well, we'll spend some of our reserves
because we won't have to pay it back when LGR comes along.
And now they're finding they're gonna have to.
I know Medway, I was yesterday at BAE Systems
The leader of the council is very worried about it.
Last November, I warned that the slice of Kent would not deliver any meaningful benefit.
My concern was to create a two -tier county of the haves and have nots.
Some new authorities with stronger incomes and resources, others facing greater demands
for services with less money to meet it.
I was surprised when we had the four split in the county up into four.
I thought three, if we were going to do it, three made the most sense.
I think that is what most of the people here thought as well.
But what has Fodson Hive got in common with Sheerness?
Not much.
Anyway, redrawing of the boundaries does not make the cost of social care disappear.
It does not make automatically improved roads, support children's services,
with special educational needs or create jobs.
any proposal must demonstrate it will improve services
and offer better value for residents.
The one thing that nothing happened in this
was there was no costings to what it was gonna cost us.
So I think it was ill thought out.
The pause is what it is, it's a pause.
I personally don't believe it will happen
any time for 2029, but what I do hope
is that we do get a mayoral county
because that opens up millions of pounds worth of funding.
I'm sure when the officers here talk to other officers around the country,
I was meeting with some people from Liverpool the other day,
they had £14 million just to help out with a job starter scheme.
We don't get anything like that money.
So I can see the benefits of it.
A male's scheme has got to be a good thing.
I don't care what party you're from, whoever wins it,
it's going to be good for Kent.
But I think what was proposed was ill thought out, rushed,
Why should we pay the cost for having it reversed or paused or stopped?
I do support the motion.
I agree with Councillor Prater that it could be slightly better put, but it is the taxpayers
of Kent who are paying for this.
Thank you, Councillor Wimble.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:02:17
Councillor Keane and then Councillor Lockwood.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:02:22
I'm happy it's been paused for social care.
But what's really struck me tonight isn't about the pause
in local government reorganisation.
What's really struck me is over the last 18 years,
no one made any fuss when cuts were made
to essential services.
And I've seen the cuts that happened
under those administrations and no one's asking
for that money to be paid back to local government
because local government offices like Kent County,
like Folkestone, had to take the shortfall
in the services they provided.
Not anybody makes any fuss about that,
but when it's Angela Rayner, we make a fuss.
But let me tell you something, Tim, she's not for turning.
She's definitely not for turning, and nor is Andy Burnham.
But let's remember, it's not just the Labour government
that have cost local government money,
It's every single government prior to them coming into power, but nothing's ever said about that.
Thank you, Councillor King. Councillor Lockwood, thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:03:24
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:03:26
Thanks for bringing this motion,
Councillor, Mrs. Jenny Hollingsby, because it's giving us a chance to talk about it.
And I ran out of my five minutes,
so I didn't get a chance to talk about that. Or Otterpool, or Poo in the Sea, nothing. So I ran out of time on that.
Sorry.
So, and I agree with Tim's point,
which has been reiterated by Councillor Wimball's point,
which is the pause is frustrating and difficult
and hopefully not a waste of time and money
if it turns out it's just a pause and then a restart.
We don't know yet.
But the pause does give us an opportunity to align all of those factors and I think
as a council I would urge that we push straight for a mayoralty, a strategic authority, not
the foundation one that's currently proposed.
Let's line that up.
With respect to supporting the motion, there are bits of it that I actually really totally
agree with.
I think the stress and strain on staff
shouldn't be underestimated and the disruption there.
And, you know, writing to MHCLG for clarity,
as you've asked, I think is a really good idea.
And whilst we're, if we're writing,
we may as well ask for some of our money back, why not?
So, to that end, earlier today I wrote to the leader
asking for those things, if those things can be done,
and that allows me to feel confident
that the good things you've mentioned will be covered,
and the rest, accusations of gerrymandering
and councils making these decisions for themselves
and so on, I fundamentally disagree with,
so I'm gonna vote against this.
Okay, Councillor Tunne -Hills.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:05:29
Thank you, Chairman.
Councillor Tony Hills - 1:05:31
Yes, I do understand that some of the wording might upset people on this motion, but I support
this motion from Councillor Poulton because by and large, the heart of it is rights.
What worries me is the cavalier approach of government.
We can march us up the hill like the old Grand Duke of York and march us down again.
Now that amount of work that the staff has done on this and the staff has bought into this not just here all over this County
And to put them on pause is an insult
Because they don't know what's happening to their future
They're the ones I worry about and the captain started again on something else a new direction maybe or not
We don't know and they'll bake to a tell us is I think insulting to us as a council. I
I don't think it's intentional in that context,
it's just high handed.
And that pausing without any explanation
and not telling us when we're gonna know,
have us have an election next May.
Well, if you have an election next May,
you expect to be there for a few years,
otherwise it's not gonna be very good value
for the various councils or communities.
So I'm really concerned that the way this has been managed
is wrong, it's just wrong.
and to get people restarted again on enthusiastic,
nother directions is going to be so difficult.
I go around to my parish councils, they're concerned.
They don't know what's going on either.
There needs to be more information flow.
So I support this 100%.
Thank you, Jenny.
And basically I want to see us start asking
some difficult questions for the right reasons.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Hills.
Councillor Confrey.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:07:24
Thank you. Interesting.
Cllr David Godfrey - 1:07:31
We've heard general support for the main principles of this motion.
We've heard everybody say what a disaster this whole exercise has been.
In addition to our council and our council members and our staff,
Tony mentioned briefly the parish councils and town councils,
and we've had endless discussion to them, what's going on, how much time we've wasted
at those various meetings.
And what we're really asking for here is, government, please recognise what you've caused
us here, and how much you've caused us, and please give us some sort of recompense.
Now, Councillor Pater and Councillor Wimberley have gone a bit further than that, and actually
I think you did as well, and suggesting where we should go in the future.
That's not what this function is asking about.
That's for another time and another debate.
I mean, I have a lot of ideas coming about where we should go next.
This is not what this is about.
It's about please recognise how much pain you've caused us and please give us as taxpayers
some money back.
And that's why I'm supporting this motion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Godfrey.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:08:36
Councillor Bridget Chapman.
I'm really glad that this has been paused.
Cllr Bridget Chapman - 1:08:44
I don't think any of us thought that what was proposed was in the best interests of
our residents.
I'm really sorry for the staff that have been messed around.
I think that's, it's been a really difficult time for them and I really wish that hadn't
happened.
But I find it fairly extraordinary that this is a conservative motion talking about the
mess that's been made by a government.
We have had a change of leader that the Prime Minister has changed and I think that this
pause is a recognition that what was happening wasn't the right thing.
And I think that's good.
I think that's good leadership to stop and pause.
And what I'd like to know from the Conservative group here is if they, why didn't it put a
similar motion forward asking for money back when Liz Truss messed up the economy and cost
this country, let's be generous and say 30 billion, where their motion was when David
Cameron went into a Brexit vote that has absolutely decimated the economy. It's extraordinary
to me that they are doing this and trying to score political points. I think it's disgraceful
and I will be voting against.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:10:03
Thank you, Councillor Chapman. Councillor Meade.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:08
Thank you, Chair. Myself and a couple of others, or maybe one now, Tony, were actually on KCC
when it was first brought up that they were going to split Kent up. And the whole idea
originally was to have a Mayoral Authority to take the strategic services that would
would be Kent -wide, and then the other services
would be brought closer to home.
And that was the understanding.
And the leader at the time got involved in the bid,
we had to bid for this, and whether the bid
was not strong enough or not worded correctly,
we don't know, but Kent were left out.
So we've ended up with what I would call
a halfway house, which wasn't the idea, my understanding, in the first place.
But what I would say is that I don't think the time has been wasted.
I don't think the cost in total has been wasted. I know it hurts to pause.
I totally understand that and I feel so sorry for all of the people that have put in the work so far
to find that it's paused.
But as a senior project manager,
I know that projects pause so you can take a step back,
reevaluate, and then move forward.
And that's what I believe is going to happen.
But one thing I don't do when I pause a project
is go to the contractors and ask for all our money back
when we could actually be moving forward.
That to me makes no sense.
I know what I'm hoping will happen, and that is the mayoral strategic, because I too am
incredibly concerned about social care, vulnerable adults, children's services, because that
has to be done under a strategic authority.
It won't work any other way.
But bringing in services closer to home, like planning, I always found it amazing at KCC,
I was making decisions for places in Kent that I have never even visited, let alone
understood what their residents needed.
I think in general, the movement forward is right, but the pause is correct at the moment
for it to be re -evaluated.
There is a new leadership and I honestly believe we will be moving forward shortly once they
gone through the re -evaluation and I really hope it's going to be with a Mayoral strategic,
but you don't pay things back if something's just paused. If it's cancelled, that's a
completely different kettle of fish. Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:13:07
Thank you, Councillor Mead. Councillor Jim Martin.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:13:14
Thanks very much, Chair. I won't go through what you'll know from my announcements,
That's what I think about local government reorganisation.
This poses some problems, the way that it's written.
I don't think anybody disagrees
that we should try and ask for our money.
Adrian wrote to me today very strongly
that we should ask for our money back.
Just as I understand it,
We're paused until the 12th of October,
when the government will then give us further advice
with regard to it.
Councillor Meade is exactly right.
We were talking about a mayoral authority
for 10 some years ago, which withered on the vine.
But the murmurings that are coming out
is that is the model that we're moving back towards.
So there has been discussion in the Kent leaders meeting,
just canvassing people's view on how would we all feel
about supporting a strategic mayoral authority for Kent.
And it was quite well received.
So we seem to be kind of moving back towards that.
Just to let you know that there is a Kent -wide aspect
I understand that KCC are about to send their pre -action
protocol letter to the government.
So that is another legal challenge to the process.
So it's difficult actually to say exactly where we are
at the moment in terms of if we're paused,
we can't ask for the money back
because we're still in the process as it were.
So I don't think we can ask for our money back tomorrow.
We're gonna have to wait at least until the 12th
until we know what the government are telling us to do.
But I've put some kind of,
just going to your motion, Councillor Hollingsby,
with regard to the second bullet point,
I have absolutely no problem in doing that at all.
Sort of second and sort of third bullet point,
absolutely no problem at all.
Right to the Secretary of State, ask for reimbursement,
absolutely right.
I wouldn't put a figure on it because I wanna know
if they're willing to pay something,
then I would ask the officers to start crunching
a calculator and doing the work.
What I don't want to do is vote for something that causes another shed load of work for
our officers only to be, you know, be un -paused or all of the things that can change in this.
So I would kind of ask for the principal, first of all, and then give them the details
that would support my ask afterwards, if you get what I'm saying now.
Then I would, naturally, I would ask for clear answers.
That would be the kind of thrust letter.
With regard to your final point,
that the Boundary Commission were involved,
that both the Chief Executive and I
went and had a chat with the Boundary Commission.
They were very involved.
They were expecting to be tidal waved by,
would have waited years for boundary commission decisions,
but the local government boundary commission were involved.
They weren't gonna have any say,
they were gonna be kind of asked to move boundaries
along the politician line,
but they were definitely involved.
So I think all of the people who spoke this evening
are certainly in favour of trying to get some of our money back and support the
ethic but it's a difficult one to support in terms of the detail and
the way that it's written. I would have no difficulty in asking the
question of the Secretary of State if that kind of satisfies getting the
ball rolling but we would have to wait until after the 12th and I would
also like really just to canvas the views of my other Kent leader colleagues just to see you know
because there are there are some very different views in terms across Kent in terms of the way
this should now proceed so you know I kind of I support the principle but I don't think I can
support the way that it's currently written. I don't know whether we can do anything about that.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Martin.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:18:34
Councillor, Mrs. Hines, would you like to sum up, please?
How do you sum up from that, I ask? Can I just ask a question?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:18:46
Because it seems to me that the majority of people are actually in favour of the principle,
as Councillor Martin says, but feel that they are unable to support it in various ways.
Is there any mileage in actually re -looking at this motion?
is actually to, I don't know what the process would be,
is to maybe withdraw it and represent it.
But I would like to take advice.
Or I'd be happy to go through the council results
one by one to see if people would support or not.
And I have to say that Councillor Pareta who said about direct, I absolutely agreed with
them and when I read the motion tonight I thought it should have been ask.
So I totally agree with that.
I don't know whether I've got any advice from officers.
Okay, so the advice is at this stage, because you've actually summed up, you can withdraw it with the agreement of Councillor Goldfriess, the seconder.
Otherwise, we'll have to take it to the vote, so the decision is yours, Councillor Holm.
I'm going to put it in next month.
Would you?
Well, you've got the message across very strongly,
and you've got all the support for it.
I think it will come back with something later on.
Yeah.
I'll put it in later.
Right.
Advice from my group, and I'm not
going to be political because that's not how I intend to be,
is that we will withdraw and present
to the next council meeting.
Thank you.
I just want the confirmation from Councillor Godfrey, are you okay with that?
I'd like to just thank everybody for the debate.
I think we've got the message across, yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Huygens, really.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:21:09
I think your decision is to withdraw and represent it at the next full Council meeting.
I think you've heard from around the chamber the views from everybody else.
So again, I think we'll look forward to receiving that in due course.
Thank you very much and thank you for all your work on that as well.
Much appreciated.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:21:34
We do have a second motion on notice and that's from Councillor Anita Jones.
We have 25 minutes left of this hour, by the way.
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:21:42
So again, just making sure that people understand that.
Councillor Jones, over to you.
Thank you.
I am pleased and proud to present this motion to you this evening.
The motion will aim to consolidate the amazing work that is already happening in our district
and to develop it further.
It will also link us with a network of other councils who have already voted to become
councils of sanctuary.
This includes our near neighbours of Thanos and Canterbury who voted in favour of similar
motions last year.
It will also send a clear message about the values we uphold as councillors and as a whole
Council. I stood as a Councillor to try and make the world a better place. This motion
aligns with both my Christian values and humanity. Wherever we come from, we all have the right
to feel safe. This is about dignity and humanity. And to ensure that people watching in the
gallery and at home are clear about the intentions of this motion, I'm actually going to read
it out to you in four. I know we haven't got a lot of time and I'd like people to have
something to say on it, but I think it's really important.
So this council notes,
Folsom Heights District Council already recognises
the importance of our duties in being a place of safety,
committed to the support and inclusion of all our residents.
However, formal recognition of the actions
that are enshrined in our duties is important
at a time when our communities are being encouraged
to divide rather than engage with the vulnerabilities
we all have and the challenges
that we could all face one day.
With that in mind, this Council publicly recognises the need for FHDC to promote the welfare and
inclusion of all people fleeing violence, persecution or who are isolated and seeking
safety.
The importance of supporting the vulnerable, the homeless, the isolated and all residents
in need.
The positive contribution made in our local communities by refugees and those seeking
asylum or safety.
Fochsdon and Hith district has a long, proud history of welcoming individuals and families
fleeing violence, conflict and persecution.
We are a stronger, more diverse community because of the contributions of people from
all backgrounds.
This Council reaffirms its commitment to a culture of welcome and respect for all, especially
those seeking sanctuary.
The Council recognises that a coordinated and forward -looking approach is needed to
support the welfare of people moving into the district
and promote community cohesion.
And we wish to become,
commit to becoming a district sanctuary.
Seeking official city of sanctuary status
for the whole district
and joining the local authority network
will start this process,
working towards greater inclusion
and equality for people seeking sanctuary.
So this council believes that people from all over the UK
and from countries across the world
will be part of Folkestone High District's future
and will contribute great things to the next chapter
of our storey.
That many in our community, including migrants
and people of colour, are currently feeling fearful
and intimidated by the terrifying rise in racism
and anti -migrant words and actions.
That scapegoating migrants, for example,
threatening to deport those with indefinite leave to remain
is a racist attempt to sow division and hate.
That civic leaders, councillors and institutions have a responsibility to speak out against racism, Islamophobia, anti -Semitism and all forms of hate and to model unity and compassion in their words and actions.
That people from diverse backgrounds coming together helps to build mutual understanding and belonging and recognition that we have more in common than that which divides us.
So this Council resolves to defend free speech as a cherished British value, but state clearly that inciting hatred or violence is criminal.
To seek recognition as a district of sanctuary.
To sign up to the City of Sanctuary charter and its principles and values.
To join the City of Sanctuary local authority network.
To continue working with key partners, community groups and people who have escaped persecution
to establish a timetable and action plan for achieving district of sanctuary status.
To bring an initial report to cabinet and full council at the earliest opportunity outlining
the action plan needed to obtain city district of sanctuary status.
To continue to work with key partners and community groups to create greater public
of the needs of people seeking sanctuary across the whole district through a range of initiatives,
projects and activities. Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:26:30
Thank you, Councillor Jones. Do I have a seconder for this, please?
Councillor Chapman, would you like to speak?
Cllr Bridget Chapman - 1:26:41
I would, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I want to speak briefly about why this motion matters
to me personally and why I think the conversation around it is worth having. For well over two
For decades, I have had the privilege of working alongside
young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds.
Over those years, I've met young people who have arrived
here having experienced things that most of us
can barely imagine.
But I've also seen something else.
Young people making friends, learning English,
finding work, joining clubs, helping their neighbours,
and becoming part of the ordinary life of communities
in which they live.
playing cricket for the village team, for example,
or discovering roast potatoes for the first time.
That is important because sometimes,
when we talk about migration sanctuary,
we concentrate on what people might contribute
in some future sense.
The businesses they might build,
the jobs they might do,
the qualifications they might gain,
the remarkable things they might achieve.
Of course, those contributions matter,
and this motion rightly recognises the positive contribution made by refugees and people seeking
asylum or safety. But I think there is another simpler point. Nobody should have to do something
great to earn a place in their community. You don't have to win a prize. You don't have
to start a business. You don't have to become a counsellor. You don't even have to be particularly
interesting. If you live here, work here, study here, raise your children here,
worship here, shop here, catch the bus here, you are part of this community. And
that applies whether you were born in Folkestone, arrived here from another
part of the country, like myself and many of the others in this chamber, or arrived
from another part of the world. The motion talks about the need to support
vulnerable and isolated people and about promoting welfare, inclusion and community cohesion.
It also recognises that people from diverse backgrounds coming together can build understanding
and belonging and reminders of how much we have in common. Those seem to me to be profoundly
local values. And I think it is important as a Councillor to remember the effect our
words can have, and act with responsibility and integrity.
As I have said before, you cannot light the blue -touch paper,
incite division, and then express surprise at the ensuing damage.
Not only is that, at best, intellectually incoherent,
it's also deeply immoral.
At a time when our communities can so easily be encouraged to look at one another with suspicion,
Our responsibility as civic leaders is to do the opposite, to create conditions in which
people can meet one another, get to know one another and recognise one another as neighbours.
The motion before us proposes practical steps towards that, seeking district of sanctuary
status, signing up the City of Sanctuary Charter, joining the local authority network and working
with community organisations and people who have themselves escaped persecution to develop
and action plan. For me, the most important word in all of that is not sanctuary, it's
community. Because communities are not defined by everyone having the same background, they
are built by people sharing a place, sharing responsibilities, helping one another, and
recognising that each person's dignity matters. I remain convinced that most people in our
community are kind, decent, and welcoming. We should always remember that. We should
never allow the loudest voices stirring up division to become the voices that define
who we are. This motion asks us to reaffirm a culture of welcome and respect and to take
practical steps towards making Folkstone and Hive a district of sanctuary. And so I want
to end with a very simple proposition. We can choose to amplify the things that divide
us or we can choose to demonstrate that our community is bigger, kinder and more generous
than that. We can choose to define people by where they came from, or we can recognise
if they are here, they are already part of the place that we share. And we can choose
tonight to make a small but meaningful statement about the kind of council we want to be, the
kind of community we want to be. We can pass this motion unanimously, because we can agree
that people fleeing persecution deserve safety and dignity, that racism and hatred have no
place in our community, that civic leaders have a responsibility to promote cohesion
rather than division, and that everyone who makes their home here has a place in our community.
So I hope every Councillor in this Chamber will join me in supporting this motion, and
I hope that when the vote is taken, we send a very clear message unanimously that we will
not allow division to define this district. We can choose welcome, we can choose community,
and we can stand together.
Thank you, Councillor Chapman. We have a proposal and a seconder, so I now open this to debate.
And Councillor Mike Lakemore.
Sorry, excuse me, Chair. Point of order.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:04
You stated that we only have 25 minutes. I would like to propose, hopefully with the support of the Chamber,
that we actually extend that time so that everyone here actually has the chance to speak on this very, very important motion.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:32:27
We will just cheque the constitution on that and then we will return to it.
If we need to.
Are you okay with that, Councillor Meade?
Thank you.
Councillor Blakemore.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:32:36
I don't know how fast to speak now.
I recently had the pleasure of meeting two individuals who have been afforded sanctuary
in Kent.
Amid so many attempts to dehumanise refugees, migrants, asylum seekers, it's important,
it's essential that we remind ourselves that these are women and men, children and young
people.
Individuals with their own storeys, like the young woman I met, who was encouraged by her
family to make a future in this country while they remained in a Russian occupied part of
Ukraine.
She was taken in by host families, is now studying at the University of Kent.
I also met a young man who fled Afghanistan after a severe beating from a senior figure
in the Taliban because he refused to attend the dresser. The man was his own father. His
son sleeps safely now but is still disturbed by pain from the head injury he received.
Back in April, the leader stated that the principles of the Council of Sanctuary Frameworks
centred on creating a welcoming environment for people seeking safety, ensuring fair access
to services and working constructively with local partners,
voluntary organisations and communities,
already closely aligned with how this council operates.
I know that this is very much the case.
Soon after Russia's full -scale invasion of Ukraine,
the council set up a Ukraine community group
to facilitate communication with hosts,
newly arrived Ukrainians, and support organisations.
Ongoing work includes supporting Ukraine families
into housing and work.
Napier barracks, now closed, became an example
of best practise because of the way the site operated
and initial problems were resolved.
There was extensive multi -agency working,
a host of support measures were put in place
by all partners, as well as opportunities
for participation in community events and activities
such as gardening and gleaning.
Many of us in this chamber saw for ourselves
the positive benefits of such activities,
not just for the men from Napier,
but for those fortunate enough to share a little time with them.
Among other examples is our work for those forced to leave Afghanistan,
including drop -ins facilitated by Folkestone Nepalese Community Centre
and ongoing support from our housing team.
So we are doing much for those seeking sanctuary,
but this motion is nevertheless important
at a time when such simple displays of humanity
risk being shouted down by those for whom fear and mistrust
has become all -consuming.
people whose demands for better lives for themselves and their families, natural and
justifiable, have become reason to deny a chance of a new future to those who have suffered
circumstances most of us can only imagine. I will be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Councillor Baitinol.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:35:16
Councillor Hills.
Councillor Tony Hills - 1:35:23
Thank you, Chairman. I feel I'm going to make myself very unpopular.
Not for the first time.
I have a lot of sympathy with this
and I hope I have an understanding
of where councils are coming from.
And if this was Folkestone,
and it is Folkestone,
but this was Folkestone and it wanted a city of sanctuary,
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
It's an urban area, it's got a lot of mixed problems.
Yes, I understand that.
But on Robley Marsh we are under such pressures from so many different areas.
I'm not sure how relevant this is to Robley Marsh.
When the migrants were coming ashore in small boats, I went down the beach and I spoke to them.
And they're just like you and me, exactly the same.
Aspirations, whatever.
And it really was, there's no difference.
But we've got so many problems on the marsh.
We've got housing coming in which we don't want, we can't cope with.
But the government's impressing that upon us, we have to do it.
We haven't got that sort of capacity.
We're a very rural area, one or two towns but mainly a rural area.
And I think on Robbing Marsh this doesn't work.
It does work I think for Folkestone.
But I think the spirit behind it is fine.
is compassion, what's wrong with that?
But I think I'm only marsh and I won't be doing my duty
if I wasn't fit to voice my concerns.
So unfortunately, I won't be supporting this.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Hills.
Councillor Meade.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:37:04
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:07
I look forward to seeing whether we do have some extra time.
Sorry to cause the officers a bit of panic
going through the constitution.
A very wise person, far wiser than I will ever be, once said, if you don't learn from the past, you will repeat it.
With the division that's going on, the fear mongering that is going through the media, it is dividing people.
and I hate to say it, we saw that happen in a certain place in Europe in 1933 and we know how that ended.
But what I would say on a positive note is that Folkestone became a town of sanctuary in 1914.
We welcomed 14 ,000 Belgian refugees over a very short space of time.
Guess what? They didn't have passports.
But we knew that they were fleeing, and they were fleeing for their lives.
And the Folkestone people opened their arms, they fed these people, they clothed these people, they housed them.
And they became our friends. They became part of our communities.
And this is why I support this, because it's pulling people into our community.
There is nothing greater than supporting someone when they are at their most vulnerable and
seeing them rise up and actually become part of your community and actually have the chance
to give back.
Which I saw with various people that were at Napier Barracks.
Oh boy did those guys give back.
They were doing so much voluntary work in the churches, in the community gardens.
They were a real part of the community.
And I believe personally that we should give everyone who is fleeing persecution and vulnerability
and in fear of their lives sanctuary.
Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:39:20
Okay, thank you, Councillor Meade.
Would anybody else like to speak on this?
Councillor Wimble.
Thank you.
Cllr David Wimble - 1:39:31
I welcome anybody into our country.
I don't care what the colour of their skin is, their religion, their sexuality.
We have 212 consulates and embassies around the world.
If you want to come to our country, you want to embrace our Christian way of life, I welcome you.
What I also think is we need to look after ourselves first.
My daughter has had to move out of the area because she can't get a house.
We have people buying up properties for HMOs.
We have got people putting migrants in places that were designed, I have got a flat for
sale at the moment.
I was told if you set it to the Home Office, you will get £30 ,000 more.
How is that right?
Our local housing is stretched as it is at the moment.
As Councillor Hill has already said, down on the marsh it is pretty bad.
We are told that all these people coming over want to make a better life.
I'm sure they do.
Look at the background to claiming asylum.
Some of these people are coming from Vietnam.
They travelled all around the world to come to our country.
That is wrong, in my opinion.
Where my office is,
there are 460
future dentists, doctors and brain surgeons
all in prison from Kent
They have created a situation where they have committed dangerous crimes, criminal activity,
all of them are foreign nationals who are awaiting trial because of what they are doing
over here.
You can look at me like that.
That is in the public knowledge.
You can look it up.
Maystone Prison, 460.
All foreign nationals who came here without passports, they came here through people,
If you want to come here, come here legally.
Embrace our Christian way of life.
The other day, somebody came down and stayed at the
Ashford International Hotel.
They came down for a meeting and went out in the evening.
They said they felt unsafe.
I got to do what I was elected to do.
That is to look after the people of Romney Marsh.
They don't want people coming to this country.
It is easy.
You can look at me like I am the alien in the room.
When there is an election, we will find out what the people want.
I welcome anybody to come to this country.
There are a couple of reasons why you can't get a visa to come here.
You have a criminal record, you are financially not viable,
or you are known as an alien,
because you have no knowledge of where you are coming from.
You don't have a passport.
Why would you throw a passport away in the sea?
On a boat?
Why would you pay a people trafficker
if you are a doctor in Somalia,
you can go to the embassy and you can come here with a visa.
So, I mean, Councillor Chapman over there
is shaking her head.
Why can't you?
We've got a consulate in Somalia.
We've got a consulate in Somalia.
We've also got an embassy there.
So we have ways of coming to our country perfectly legally.
You can't give away all this fair housing to migrants
because where are the children?
Where are my children going to get houses?
At the moment, when she put her name on the council waiting list here, she told her seven years.
And yet...
Where are they now?
Yeah, she is. She was.
I couldn't afford to keep that flat, so it's for sale.
You can wave your hands about as much as you like.
You've only got to turn the telly on, council.
I'm sorry, can I just remind every councillor of what we actually agreed as a council in terms of debate, not hate.
So please can we treat each other with respect, respect the speaker and allow the speaker
to carry on.
And you have another 30 seconds, Councillor WYNDHAM.
You just summed it up perfectly there.
I've got an opinion that's different to some of you there.
But I'm attacked from my opinion.
That goes against everything we're hearing about.
You know, we've had the Green Party want to do away with Israel as a country.
That's exactly the same thing that the person putting the motion forward says we shouldn't
be doing.
We need to look after ourselves, put our own people first.
Thank you, Councillor Wimble.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:43:43
Councillor Keane.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:43:49
I don't know about the figure in Maidstone prison but I will find out.
I will find out by hook or by crook.
I don't want you to feel sorry for the young person that I know.
He left Afghanistan when he was 11 years old.
He had no chance of any good life in Afghanistan.
He made his way to England and he got to England when he was 15. He travelled through countries
in Turkey, Syria, all over the place and he came here in a boat. And when he got on that
boat, the papers he had, his passport and the papers he had, were taken away by the
traffickers. He was brought into this country on a boat at 15 years old. He'd left his mum
when he was 11. Who is going to turn that child away? Because I wouldn't want to be
one of them.
I've seen that boy grow and I have seen him turn
into the most wonderful human being that I'm proud to know.
I find the remarks that have been made in here tonight,
they go against humanity.
All of these people in prison,
when did they commit these crimes?
Where are these figures?
No, I will look.
But do you know what?
I'm speaking, Councillor Wimberall.
I didn't.
I find it absolutely abhorrent that we are saying
that we shouldn't have a place in Folkestone
for these people to come safely.
There was a big thing a few weeks ago
where the Home Office have allegedly bought
the old police station if they bought it good.
And let's put it to good use.
Let's put the women and children who at the moment
sitting in camps all around Kent there,
haven't got a problem with them,
haven't got a problem with anyone coming to this country
if they're gonna contribute.
and they do contribute.
They contribute in lots of ways.
And as for council housing,
your daughter's not the only one that's hacked away.
My daughter had to go out and buy a house.
Let's do that.
Yeah, it is.
Thank you, Councillor King.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:45:48
I'll just come back to Councillor Meade's request
earlier in the debate.
So with our constitution,
part four slash 23, paragraph 25 .1,
We can suspend the rule on the length of the debate,
providing 50 % of those councillors present
are in agreement.
So, well, just by show of hands now,
how many of those are in favour of extending the debate?
And I can see that that's more than 50%,
so we will extend the debate.
Thank you very much, councillors.
Councillor Speakman, thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:46:26
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 1:46:43
What is at the heart of this motion?
And that is simply what I think a lot of it would refer to as our common humanity.
It's something that's been around for a very long time, that notion.
and I'll spend a bit more.
We do seem to live in a time
when we are constantly being encouraged
to think about what divides us,
where we were born, what we believe, what we look like,
whether we're migrants or refugees, newcomers,
or people whose families have lived here for generations.
And of course, we all have different opinions
as to how much this does and does not matter.
But surely what is important to remember
is that we're human beings.
We worry about our families.
We want somewhere safe to live for them.
We want our children to have a decent future.
We want to feel that we belong somewhere.
These are all simply the kind of human hopes and fears
that have characterised humanity for millennia.
And throughout the whole of human history,
there has been that constant struggle
between maintaining a sense of hope in the face of fear and anxiety,
of showing compassion to strangers,
or allowing ourselves to descend into savage hatred of the other.
But of course history also shows us time and time again
where that hatred leads, and it never ends well for anyone.
But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to express legitimate concerns about borders,
housing, public services, and resources.
Who doesn't want to stop the boats?
Who doesn't want to stop desperate people
drowning needlessly in the channel?
In a democracy, we ought to be able to discuss
these things openly and disagree about them.
But a mark of a truly civilised society
is that disagreement about policy
should never become hostility towards people.
We should never allow ourselves to stop seeing
the individual human being behind
the political argument. The horrors of the first half of the 20th century were not that
long ago, and out of which grew that first article of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which simply says, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
All human beings. In these uncertain times, we should remember that any of us can become
vulnerable in the blink of an eye. No man is an island and tower of itself, as the poet
John Dunn said. And I'm sure we all have experience with that helping hand at times when it was
most needed. But what can we do, what can this council do in the face of enormous international
upheaval? Well, we can have some influence over the sort of community we want Folkestone
and high district to be.
Wouldn't we like it to be a place where we can disagree,
sometimes robustly, sometimes un -ex
A place where somebody who is frightened or vulnerable
is met with a little kindness.
A place where someone who has escaped persecution
can begin to feel safe again.
And a place where nobody should feel that they don't belong
because of their race, religion,
where they happen to be born.
So for me, the idea of a district of sanctuary
is really, this is what it really is about.
It's about saying something about the sort of community
we want to be, and perhaps reminding ourselves
at a time when there is so much emphasis on what divides us,
that there is something much more fundamental
which connects us, our common humanity.
And that is reason enough, surely, to support this motion.
Thank you very much.
Thank you Councillor Spigler. Councillor Allen and Martin.
Thank you Chair. So it's impossible to disagree with much of what everyone has said who is
supporting this motion and the objectives behind the motion I think are quite clear
and all of us as sensible, grounded, ordinary people would back, as I say, pretty much everything
that's been said in here with maybe a couple of exceptions. But I'm taking quite a pragmatic
view to this around what really matters and for me what really matters is the actions
of us as a council, not necessarily the pieces of paper that we sign up to. And when I read
the report that was prepared by the officers, it's quite clear that seeking accreditation
would require some budget, would require some resource, potentially a dedicated
officer, external support and I would assume because it's normally the case
Cllr Alan Martin - 1:51:42
some form of fee to City of Sanctuary, I don't know for certain but it's normally
the case when you seek accreditation that you pay a fee to the organisation
that's facilitating that for you and it would lock us into a three -year review
cycle to maintain that accreditation over time. The report also tells us that, I think,
that what the City of Sanctuary seeks is largely already reflected in what the Council already
does and when people have spoken rightfully and passionately about this topic this evening,
there's been lots of use of the word kind of reaffirm
and to continue to, and in my mind, our council
and the majority of members in the council already
hold this council to that high standard.
And I think in our actions that's carried out.
We've got scrutiny and other mechanisms in the council
to hold our activity to account, I guess,
within our scope of authority.
So my genuine humble questions here are,
if we sought this accreditation,
what specifically would we as a council do differently
as a result?
What would the cost of that accreditation be?
And what measurable improvement would residents,
new and old, see from us that wouldn't have happened anyway
without council acting in the reasonable way
that it has done the whole time.
And maybe given other conversations we've had
around LGR and whatever, maybe my bigger question is,
why would we prioritise officer and budget time,
well, officer time and budgets now,
and prioritise this over other things
that we're struggling with, just to get that bit of paper.
And maybe I'm a simple man, but I don't understand
what that accreditation actually brings.
It is our actions that really matter and I think we can hold ourselves to account.
I don't think we need to seek an external accreditation that is going to cost officer
time and money.
It is for that reason that I have really struggled to support this motion.
I appreciate everyone's genuine thoughts on the Matalope.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor Schaffman.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 1:54:11
Yes, this was always going to be a heartfelt issue. I think anybody, all of us, when we
saw the motion, thought, where do we stand on this? Do we want to speak on this? And
what are our views on it? We have heard some very passionate views expressed. I'm taking
a slightly different view and turning in a way what you are building and turning around
what you said, Councillor Martin, because in my hand I got our corporate plan, which
was agreed unanimously by this council, cross -party discussions which went on for quite a number
of months, I seem to remember at least six months. And it's entitled, if you don't know
if it's bedtime reading, if it's in your minds as it were, Our District, Our World. And you
could say that's our community, our world, that would make perfect sense. And it makes
the point that this district is part of the global community.
The two go together. We are not isolated.
We don't have a fortress around us.
We are part of a much wider community, a global community.
And we can see that in all sorts of different ways.
Just a random statistic, about a third of the people who live in London were born abroad.
Doesn't mean they were not necessarily, it could have been all different nationalities.
a third of them are board to board. It's a multicultural city and it's a much richer city for that.
And that's part of the welcoming aspect that many people have mentioned, that word welcome.
Our district, our world, and it says enhancing prosperity and wellbeing for all.
That's the subtitle.
Enhancing prosperity, whatever that means, not necessarily material prosperity.
It could be that prosperity is a broad concept.
We ought to talk about health at the moment.
A healthy society.
A prosperous society.
And all, enhancing it for all.
Everybody, not just the few, but everybody.
Again, it's an inclusive approach.
Now there are five themes in the corporate plan.
You'll probably remember some of them, but know them.
The community is a big one.
And if you just look at the principles in the community,
It is things like celebrating diversity,
celebrating it,
welcoming
everybody,
and promoting community engagement.
There is a whole theme on leadership.
The reason I think we need
to, and I will be voting
very strongly for this motion,
is that leadership is something
this council can offer.
We have been elected as local leaders,
we have been elected as responsible members
of the community to raise our voices when we think we need to.
And this is the time of division.
It's an ugly time internationally.
It's a time of very worrying trends.
And when we have ballot Harvard -clad mobs in cities
and towns around us, we know these are ugly events.
This is a time when we raise our voices,
and that's why I want to be seen to support the motion.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:57:23
Thank you, Councillor Scoffram.
Councillor Walker, please.
Cllr Belinda Walker - 1:57:30
Thank you, Chair. I think this is a very timely motion.
And if I may, just as we were talking, as Councillor Chat was talking,
a couple of scenarios from my own life popped into mind.
One was I have a mother who is an immigrant from Germany.
I came from a school in the 70s and found her in tears.
She worked in a shop and someone had said,
please find me somebody who can speak English properly.
She could speak English very well.
She was fluent in four languages, English, German, Dutch,
and her own dialect, which is mixed with Dutch and German.
That said, with you a long time, I went to school,
do not admit you're part German,
because you will get the national front,
who were prevalent at the time on you.
but I did speak up and I did get them on me for a while.
Being part European, part anything,
it's not something you admit to,
it's something you're proud of, it's part of your heritage.
But the other scenario, I was working for the NHS
and before I retired, we were in a room training
and they said, if you are an immigrant
or the son or daughter of an immigrant, please stand up.
So some of us did, thinking what's going on.
we were actually applauded.
And I thought that's the first time in my life
I've had somebody give that area to something positive.
That came on the back of, I think it was around 2016,
don't know what happened that year, but anyway.
We had so many of our European staff, physios, nurses,
community occupational therapists, were told to,
I won't say it, they were told to go back home
to their own country, but they actually did.
they were made to be extremely unwelcome.
So I think that as a society, we're going back,
we're going back to the dark days
of the national front of the 70s.
And I think for that reason,
this motion shows that we are supporting people.
It's a timely motion.
And like Councillor Jones,
I have a Christian belief myself,
and my support for this is coming out of that.
I have over a number of years,
but just bumped into Bishop Rose,
bumped into her again last night with Jackie, also as mayor, was able to grab her ear.
Bishop Rose is well known for supporting cities of sanctuary.
She's one of the main Christian leaders in this country, the main Christian leaders in
this area.
So I think we need to think about the critical heritage of this country, which looks at compassion
and decency and caring for those less fortunate than ourselves.
I think we need to bear that in mind.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Walker.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:00:11
Councillor Conroy.
Thank you.
This is always going to be an emotional debate.
Cllr David Godfrey - 2:00:19
And it's natural that all of our thoughts are based on personal experiences.
And I think we've all had some of those, but we've got to just set those back a bit.
Councillor Martin actually has stolen most of my speech.
It's why I have a problem with this motion.
Councillor Scovill has just reinforced that by referring to our corporate plan, which
says actually it's nearly all in there. The work we've been doing for years
helping people and welcoming people is evidence of the fact this council does
the right thing. I believe this is a national issue and it's blown out of all
proportion sadly by events that happen in other parts of the world but we have
had the balaclava people down here, you're quite right, because they talk so
strongly about the incoming votes.
I just wonder, apart from the fact,
I'm not convinced we should be spending the money
on this at this time, I just wonder whether we actually
would have the support of the residents of our districts.
It's all, we're talking about leadership,
but this is a highly emotional and a huge national problem.
And I'm not sure that all the residents of our district
would appreciate us, what might be sending out
the wrong signal. Some people will interpret this as, come here, folks, this is a good
place. We will sort you out, we are not going to, are we? We cannot afford to do that. We
do need to look after our own residents first. So it will not happen. So it is a nice, warm,
comfortable feeling and I think we should all support the sentiments, but I just do
not think it is the right place, the right time for this council to be passing a motion
like this. So I am not against it, but I will have to abstain from it. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Fullo.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:02:03
Thank you, Chair.
It's not our problem.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:02:14
I suspect they said that a lot in Germany in the 1930s as well.
Maybe not.
What I do know is that the tone of the debate, the Overton window, has shifted to the point
where I was slightly horrified but also laughed a bit when I saw Jacob Rees -Mogg have to defend
Britain's involvement in World War II to an American commentator last week. That's how
far we've shifted now that there are people that are actually willing to say on the internet
that we provoked Hitler, with all seriousness. And people that I agree with, sorry, disagree
with and almost every level are having to stand up and say no Hitler was evil
that's where we're at now so yes I'm sure we're doing all of the things that
are mentioned in this motion but we still need to stand up and shout about
it because there's plenty of idiots on the internet that are suggesting that we
should appease Putin or that we should have appeased Hitler or that everybody
that comes over here is a criminal. Speaking of prisons actually there's an
I think it is interesting group
that is overrepresented in our prisons.
Perhaps we should consider deporting them.
95 .9 % of prisoners in the UK are men.
Are we going to blame men
for being criminals?
Is being a man a criminal?
I wouldn't assume someone from another country
is a criminal
just because they happen to be from another country.
When that kind of rhetoric,
when we are talking about
When we are shoehorning people into groups
and immediately assuming that they are a problem
or they are evil or they are not justified,
they are not human, they are beneath us,
then we are already losing.
So I get that maybe this is above our level,
this is a national issue, an international issue,
but everyone has a duty to speak up for humanity.
Everyone has a duty to stand up for what is right.
It doesn't matter how small scale it is,
It doesn't matter if it's just in this room.
And so I absolutely support this motion.
And I'll be very sad to see anyone not.
Thank you, Councillor Fuller.
Councillor McConnell.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, as a migrant, I support the motion.
Cllr Connor McConville - 2:04:45
I will vote for the motion.
But, you know, just a couple of points
just on the motion itself, having sort of looked at a few things.
I mean, you're quite right in some of the things that you said, Alan.
The main point is the report that is attached to the motion.
So, the last point to point five says,
subject to Council approval of the motion,
so if there was a majority vote for this motion tonight,
then a detailed assessment of project costs
and other resource implications will then go to Cabinet.
If Cabinet then look at it and think that the cost is too much or there isn't that resource,
then where does this sit then if Cabinet ultimately vote that they can't resource it?
So I have an issue with that because we can't have Cabinet overturning a Council decision.
So I mean, that will be, there could be a conversation for the future should the motion pass.
And, I mean, just some food for thought
in terms of, you know, what potentially could come.
So the Council must develop a strategy framework
for supporting people seeking sanctuary in the community.
What does that look like?
How much resource goes into that?
And hopefully the report that will, I assume, come to Cabinet
will be quite detailed in all of these.
I think you've mentioned now, like, what does something look like?
I mean, a few examples, one that aren't
potentially good, potentially bad.
So councils could allow people living alone to host refugees
without losing their sole occupancy, council tax discount.
Apparently Swindon Borough Council do this for a limited period.
So, you know, there's a whole raft of potential things
that councils could do.
But, you know, it'd take quite a bit of work to sort of factor those through
and provide a really detailed report of what could happen,
what sort of support, you know, because if, you know,
I wouldn't want to see the motion pass and we're striving to this,
but then we're, you know, we want tangible outcomes, positive outcomes.
So, it's just a bit of food for thought for the,
maybe for the officers coming up.
but obviously very happy to support and vote for it.
Thank you, Councillor McConville.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:07:17
Councillor Goddard.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:07:25
I just want to go back to Councillor Martin, Councillor Godfrey and obviously food for
thought from Councillor McConville because budget and money is obviously my concern about
this and I think Councillor McConville stole half my script because I was going to pick
up about if it goes back to cabinet and there's an issue with funding or officer
time then where does it go then. So that's my concern but like Councillor
Godfrey Martin and Councillor Wimble points out we already do this good work
and you know so I can't see like the little bit of paper that Councillor Martin's
referring to what the difference is there so you know it's a lot of good
work, a lot of good groups within the district. I agree with Councillor Hill's
the city of sanctuary perhaps for the marsh of sanctuary I don't quite know what would happen there and obviously on the Downs.
But yeah interesting with Councillors McConville another spanner in the works there about the food for thought issues with funding and the cabinet decisions etc etc.
But I agree, we already do this in the district and have done many, many years.
So I struggled out.
But definitely back up Councillor Godfrey and his last comments here and Councillor McConville's.
Thank you, Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:08:51
Councillor Annette Jones, would you like to sum up?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:09:00
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:09:05
I find this quite difficult, actually, because I too have Christian beliefs.
I was cabinet member for communities back in the days when we supported the Ukraine
programme very considerably and in fact I think we gave some council tax relief or
whatever on when people were actually accommodating Ukrainians. We also as a
council were asked by the powers that be to provide five houses for
are Afghans, which we did, I think.
I'm sure we did because that's what we were asked to do
and that's what we did.
So I don't see that this piece of paper
will make any difference to what we do
because if we're asked to do things, we do them.
I was at Napier Barracks, I spent quite a lot of time
at Napier Barracks when we had all the single young men there.
Most of the time there were no issues, but there were some issues first of all,
and we had to deal with those.
But they were single men that had come over in the votes and were here.
And what were we expected to do?
We did everything we could, but what were we expected to do
based on the facilities and the resources that we had for this area,
and the fact that we've obviously got a number of different groups in our own district,
the more vulnerable, the elderly, and of course all those people who have come to our district,
who have wanted to come to our district, from abroad.
and I think we've welcomed them,
and I see no reason why we wouldn't welcome anybody now.
But I think as Councillor Gough said,
I think it was him who said,
does it sort of give an open door to anybody
to come to our area because we're providing a sanctuary?
The question, I don't know, but it does worry me.
But, Councillor Scoffin pointed out about the corporate plan.
Yes, exactly we do that. We look after people.
We welcome them. We do what we can, like we did for Afghanistan,
for Afghanistan, like we did for the Ukrainians, like we would do for any other group who has
actually come here because of difficulties in their own country or because they're fleeing.
So I can't see the point of actually a piece of paper that's going to probably cost us
and money and the resources of our officers who are very busy at the moment.
So I'm on the fence at the moment but I really don't feel that I can support.
Thank you.
I should have checked around the chamber.
Does anybody else like to speak on this?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:12:38
Councillor Wonkwood.
Thank you, Chair.
There's just a point of order really,
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 2:12:43
but I mean a very, very emotional debate,
and thank you for people who've prepared
and thought about this carefully,
and made some amazing points.
There's been a lot of talk about, you know,
officer time and money to get this bit of paper,
and I think that's a bit demeaning
for the motion to say it's a bit of paper.
I mean, Councillor Jones outlined all the benefits of joining this network.
We've got four neighbours in Kent who either already have the status, which is Medway and
Dover, and two that have applied, Fannin and Canterbury.
And if I can just say that these are all very well run councils and it would be an honour
to join those councils in this network and share that expertise.
And this isn't just a piece of paper.
I think it's a lot more important than that.
And I think it's a bit demeaning just to say it's a piece of paper.
And just on resources, since LGR has paused,
obviously there's a lot of free officer time.
So sorry to make light of it, but I think it's a good point.
Thank you very much for that, Councillor Lockwood.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:14:06
I'm sure the Council officers really appreciate that.
So, if there's no other speakers, I'll ask Councillor Jones to sum up. Thank you.
Thank you. Well, Crikey, some interesting views.
Cllr Anita Jones - 2:14:21
I hadn't imagined that I would hear such a diverse collection of views about emotion like this.
It's about our common shared humanity,
and I don't know how anybody could vote against something as important as this, as looking
after people, as caring for people, welcoming people.
But that's obviously where we are in this country at the moment, and this is just a
microcosm of what's happening all over the country.
So it's more important than ever that we support things like this and we come together as a
I don't know whether I should.
No, that's fine.
But I'd like to firstly say thank you for everybody who's taken the time to share their thoughts,
whether they were in favour or not.
So I really appreciate the time that people have taken to look at this.
I would be really proud if we supported this motion,
and personally, it would just renew my faith in humanity if we supported this,
and what we can do for our communities.
So please support it.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Chancellor Jones.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:15:33
So we have a proposal and a seconder.
We will vote on this by a show of hands.
So could I see all those in favour, please?
And those against?

12 National Scheme of Delegation - Planning Functions

Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:16:09
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:16:23
Item 12 on the agenda is not controversial at all.
New national scheme of planning delegation, so that's in your pack.
And that's report A of the 2621.
So if I could have a proposal for that, Councillor Prather.
And a seconder, Councillor Martin.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Tim Prater - 2:16:46
I'm just simply going to move the paper which is in front of you
and the recommendations which are there.
These changes are broadly statutory, as was said by Jackie earlier.
They went to the governance committee
on the 9th of September for discussion of the detail.
What has been done by some councils
in introducing these statutory measures
is to also include a number of additional delegations
to officers to further streamline
what will be otherwise an extensive triage process.
In discussions with officers here,
we've opted against doing that
and are bringing forward only the changes
that are required to ensure our constitution
is in line with the revised planning law.
They are significant changes, I don't like them.
They remove powers from councillors in some instances
and I regret that direction of travel.
But that's what we've got.
The changes tonight that are in this paper
are the minimum that we need to do.
I am assured to ensure we are compliant
with our planning law.
In terms of further streamlining,
which I said other councils have done,
and how the process works without it,
we've agreed to go through a technical review process
known as Succotin C.
We'll work with what we've got here,
with the minimum changes in additional delegations
to officers that we can get away with,
and see how it works over the course of the next six months.
It may be then that either officers,
or indeed the planning committee,
come back with proposals to add additional delegations
that in their view would improve that process then.
And then we can have a discussion about those
additional processes then, if they are brought forward,
how much they might help,
why and at what cost do they have powers
which councillors still retain.
That would be for us to discuss then,
but now we have a series of proposals
on which I'm afraid we really don't have much of a choice.
Regretfully, therefore, I'm moving the recommendations
and asking them to vote for them to ensure
our constitution is legal in relation to planning law
from the start of next month.
Move.
Thank you.
Councillor Jim Martin.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, I second the motion as Councillor Projekt
Cllr Jim Martin - 2:18:55
has said this is the minimum we can get away with to stay legal.
I have had many discussions with our head of planning on this.
And he feels that there will be little or
no impact on the relationship with the planning committee.
He feels the planning committee for many years has worked
interactively with the planners and he doesn't see this getting in the way.
My worry, well, Councillor Prater said it, it removes some powers from councillors.
It is an erosion of local democracy, it seems to me.
This is the minimum that we need to do.
I am very confident about our process within this council, but it is a piece of legislation
and we have to implement it.
So I'm happy to second.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:19:54
So it's now time for debate.
Councillor Wimble.
Thank you.
I think it's already been said.
Cllr David Wimble - 2:20:01
We've been, I sat on the planning committee here
on three different terms.
We've had some amazing debates
for and against applications.
I think it's a big brother tactic
of removing one level of democracy.
I get that the planning officers make a decision
using legal advice, but many people have gone against officers and we have had to come up
with a legal reason why we can go against them or for it. I just think it is wrong,
but there is nothing we can do. It is a shame because planning was always one of my favourite
committees.
Thank you. Councillor Godfrey.
Cllr David Godfrey - 2:20:45
Yes, thank you. Yeah, I'm not liking this at all, as Councillor Prita said.
And when it came before auditing governments, I expressed the feeling that we may need to
change planning policy, but this was going to step too far.
I felt it was diluting the local voice. Members won't be able to actually have the
voice they had. The parish and town council don't have the
the automatic voice they had, and therefore we're going to go into some system of gateway processing,
which would involve the head of planning and the chair of, and I suggested then that maybe we should look at having at least the ward member
that's involved in that particular application involved, but as Councillor Prater says, it's imposed on us,
and we've got to actually just go along and see what the heck happens.
So I actually seconded that it came to the Chamber in its current form because I think
to minimise the amount of destruction to our own constitution and to make sure that all
our towns and parishes understand what's going on, and they're not going to like it, is the
least we can do.
And we're just going to have to look at it.
But I fear it's going to lead to an explosion of housing where we don't want it.
This government wants to build 1 .5 million homes in its current term.
60 % of them I think affordable and social.
Where they're going to go,
would it actually impact on that?
Will they just go anywhere we want to go?
I don't know.
I'm just hopeful that Otterpool moves forward
and makes all the impact,
make that a nice thriving community of mixed tenants
is a mixed ownership.
But with reluctance, I will vote for this.
Mr. Combs.
Thank you, Councillor Godfrey.
Councillor, Mr Tullman.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:22:26
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:22:29
I think you know my thoughts from previously.
Yes, I do think it is diluting the local voice.
But I have to say that I have had a number of conversations with the Head of Planning,
and he does assure me that he will only be,
or the planning applications only necessarily
will go to the, for delegation.
If there are sort of ones in between,
that probably they would come to planning
for the time being.
But of course, the decision actually will be up to him
and the chair of planning.
So, you know, we can't actually change that.
but it's certainly not what we want
and we are being dictated to.
Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Hills.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:23:26
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Tony Hills - 2:23:29
I agree with all that's been said.
And I agree with Councillor Peratt.
We have to accept this, we have no choice.
We don't have to like it.
My parish councils won't like it
because it's actually moving some sort of input from them.
What Councillor Prater said, review it in six months, is quite wise, I think.
We can actually see how it's working and we can make representations to other people up there.
If it's not working how we think it should.
But it's an unfortunate situation imposed on us by a centralising government.
Thank you, Councillor Hills.
Councillor Meade.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:24:08
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:24:10
Absolutely, this is our only way to stay legal.
I think a lot of us are concerned that it is removing voices, I think is a good way of putting it.
But we are where we are at.
We've been through a lot of different changes in planning over the 10 years that I've done it.
I'm sure Tony and Jenny have seen an awful lot more than this.
It is a suck it and see, but what I would say to please reassure the councillors is
we have planning lists, look at the planning lists for your area, delve into them, talk
to your parish councils, and if necessary, you can then approach the planning team with
any major concerns, et cetera.
So it's about us becoming more proactive about it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Neat.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:25:09
Councillor Scofrin.
Thank you.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 2:25:14
Yes, building on what everybody's saying really,
I've only came across this more recently
as being slightly to the side of the planning committee
and I don't like it at all.
And I thought, well, where do I find my way into this?
How can I make sense of it?
One area which I was particularly interested in
paragraph 2 .33 on the risks, which is the point you were making, Jenny Collins -B,
about the decision -making as to whether something meets the gateway requirement
and should be referred as a Schedule 2 application to the Planning and Licencing Committee.
And it seems to me you've got two people making a judgement.
Or the way it's written, it's going to be robust, it's going to be transparent,
it's going to be consistent.
you get the feeling that you're looking at a tick box exercise.
Does it meet this criteria? Does it meet that?
I think AI could do that rather well.
The whole exercise looks to me technocratic.
I did have raised with Llewellyn the opportunity for a third person
to make a judgement because if the two people,
the chair of planning and the chief planning officer together
are making a judgement, then they may not always agree.
Of course they won't.
So what happens then?
Well, it goes back, you know, at the moment it looks like it just goes back to the officer
to have the final say.
That doesn't sound quite right to me.
So maybe there's a bit of wriggle room there.
And just to relay the points that people have been saying, as a ward counsellor, yes, it
changes our role.
I was at a parish meeting two days ago,
the Councillor who was in charge of planning,
it was very, very thorough, I really respect what she does.
And she said to me, you know, Stephen,
this is about half of what we do on this Council
is to do with planning.
This is our most important role as a parish council.
I can't see any point in commenting any longer.
And that was her response.
And I thought, well, that's a very sad place to be.
I agree with everybody, we have got to comply, but I wanted to raise those points now so
at least we say, it is a horrible scheme.
Thank you.
Councillor Coddard.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I wasn't really going to speak, but I was going to let it go through, bite my tongue.
That was it.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:27:41
As I started my 20th year on the committee, I suppose I would call it my favourite committee.
half of those 20 years as Vice Chairman as Chairman.
So, you know, the committee is part of me
and always has been and always will be.
But, you know, I could hear the disappointment
in Councillor Frater's voice giving this news,
you know, because it's been told we've got to do it.
Like Councillor Mead said, for 20 years,
certainly since I've been here,
we've had a lot of issues within the planning,
but they've been in house so we can bat them about.
But this is forced against us.
That's all we can hope for, in perhaps three years time we can reverse it and bring it back to us.
But that's another storey for another night.
But yeah, we have to go with it, we have to be legal.
And hopefully, like the planning team says, we won't see a lot of difference on the planning committee.
But yeah, reluctantly we'll have to support this, go with it and I think somebody said suck it and see.
like that saying, that's good, you have to be like that being a Tottenham supporter.
So we will go with this and I do sympathise with Councillor Prater tonight with that lump
in the throat giving this news to us.
But like I say, hopefully, you know, we have got a fine canning team, we always have, we
always will have and we'll go with it and we'll do our best to go with it.
Thank you.
Councillor Walker.
Cllr Belinda Walker - 2:29:10
Thank you, Chair. I was on planning for a while, almost two and a half years, and now
I've switched to Ordinary Governance as part of the discussion with Councillor Godfrey.
And I agree that it's, you know, hands are tied to a certain degree. We can't, you know,
play it back too much. I think the content as in front of us is extremely good. It's
clear. And I wanted to thank the officers involved for producing such a clear, very
well thought out documents given that we are where we are.
I think we have no choice but to vote for it.
OK, thank you very much, Councillor.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:29:42
Councillor Prita, would you like to sum up, please?
Just to thank so many people for their sympathy in this tonight,
Cllr Tim Prater - 2:29:49
particularly from Clive, because the sympathy of the Tottenham supporter
at this time is something to be reckoned with.
OK, thank you. Thank you, members.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:30:01
So we have a proposer and a seconder.
We'll do this vote by a show of hands.
So, can I see all those in favour, please?
I can see that's unanimous, thank you very much.

13 Appointment of Members to the Disciplinary Appeals Committee

Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:30:18
Item 13 on the agenda is appointments of members
to the Disciplinary Appeals Committee.
That's Report A26, Week 18.
And can I have a proposal, please, as Councillor Perator?
and a seconder, Councillor Jim Martin.
Cllr Tim Prater - 2:30:35
Short report, one recommendation, please vote for it.
Councillor Jim Martin.
Nothing to add, yes.
So we have a proposal and a seconder.
Cllr Jim Martin - 2:30:47
Would anybody else like to speak?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:30:48
No.
So that's no.
So would you like to say anything else, Councillor Fagan, before we take the vote?
Thank goodness for that.
So, we have a pose and a seconder, so can I have a show of hands for all those in favour, please?
I can see that's unanimous.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:31:15
Thank you very much, members. Thank you for your perseverance and thank you very much for agreeing to the extension to the motion debate.
That's very much appreciated.
That's it, we'll close the meeting. Thank you.