County Council - Thursday 17 September 2026, 10:30am

County Council
Thursday, 17th September 2026 at 10:30am

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Jeremy Eustace

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

Joel Cook
Jeremy Eustace

2 Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in items on the agenda

Share this agenda point

Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Thomas Mallon
Jeremy Eustace

3 Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2026

Share this agenda point

July 16 County Council Draft Minutes - FINAL

4 Chairman's Announcements

Share this agenda point

Standing View
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Harry Rayner
Jeremy Eustace
Harry Rayner
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Connie Nolan
Jeremy Eustace
Trevor Shonk
Jeremy Eustace
David Wimble
Jeremy Eustace
Connie Nolan
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Trudy Dean, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Harry Rayner
Jeremy Eustace
Christopher Hespe
Jeremy Eustace
Harry Rayner
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Dodger Sian
Jeremy Eustace
Standing View
Jeremy Eustace

5 Questions

Share this agenda point

Questions put and Answers given - Sept 2026

Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Stuart Heaver
Linden Kemkaran
Stuart Heaver
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Luke Evans
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace
Luke Evans
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Beverley Fordham
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Beverley Fordham
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Beverley Fordham
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Dean Burns
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Dean Burns
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
John Finch
Jeremy Eustace
Peter Osborne
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Stepto
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Stepto
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Peter Osborne
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Peter Osborne
Jeremy Eustace
Stuart Jeffery
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace

6 Report by Leader of the Council

Share this agenda point

Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Harry Rayner
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace

6 Report by Leader of the Council

Share this agenda point

Jeremy Eustace
David Wimble

7 Planning Applications Committee - Terms of Reference changes

Share this agenda point

Jeremy Eustace
Wayne Chapman
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Alex Ricketts
Jeremy Eustace
Claudine Russell
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Palmer
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Spencer Dixon
Jeremy Eustace
Martin Paul
Jeremy Eustace
Peter Osborne
David Wimble
Jeremy Eustace
Vote
Jeremy Eustace

8 Treasury Management Year End Report

Share this agenda point

Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Chamberlain
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Stepto
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Chamberlain
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace

9 Proportionality Update

Share this agenda point

Proportionality - County Council Sept 2026 - FINAL

Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace
Linden Kemkaran
Jeremy Eustace
Vote
Jeremy Eustace

10 Motions for Time Limited Debate

Share this agenda point

11 National Anthem

Share this agenda point

10 Motions for Time Limited Debate

Share this agenda point

Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Alex Ricketts
Jeremy Eustace
Brian Collins
Jeremy Eustace
Chris Burwash
Jeremy Eustace
Peter Osborne
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Palmer
Jeremy Eustace
Maxwell Harrison
Jeremy Eustace
Trevor Shonk
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Paul King
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Vote
Jeremy Eustace
Stuart Heaver
Jeremy Eustace
Stuart Heaver
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
John Finch
Jeremy Eustace
Peter Osborne
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Luke Evans
Jeremy Eustace
Mary Lawes
Jeremy Eustace
Chris Burwash
Jeremy Eustace
Sarah Emberson
Jeremy Eustace
Thomas Mallon
Jeremy Eustace
Spencer Dixon
Jeremy Eustace
Alan Cecil
Jeremy Eustace
John Baker
Jeremy Eustace
Trevor Shonk
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Palmer
Jeremy Eustace
Alister Brady
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Streatfeild, MBE
Jeremy Eustace
Ben Fryer
Jeremy Eustace
Rob Yates
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Stepto
Jeremy Eustace
Jamie Henderson
Jeremy Eustace
Dean Burns
Jeremy Eustace
Mark Hood
Jeremy Eustace
Thomas Mallon
Jeremy Eustace
Stuart Heaver
Jeremy Eustace
Vote
Jeremy Eustace
Oliver Bradshaw
Jeremy Eustace
Robert Ford
Peter Osborne
Jeremy Eustace
Spencer Dixon
Jeremy Eustace
Albert Thorp
Jeremy Eustace
Chris Palmer
Jeremy Eustace
Bridget Porter
Jeremy Eustace
Richard Palmer
Jeremy Eustace
Alex Ricketts
Jeremy Eustace
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Eustace
Rob Yates
Jeremy Eustace
Antony Hook
Jeremy Eustace
Sarah Emberson
Jeremy Eustace
Robert Ford
Jeremy Eustace
Oliver Bradshaw
Jeremy Eustace
Vote
Jeremy Eustace

11 National Anthem

Share this agenda point

Invicta
Jeremy Eustace
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:00:00

after what we just witnessed. But this meeting, like the special meeting earlier, is being webcast

so may be viewed by the public during and after the meeting. With that note,

is there anyone here who's not willing to be filmed? Please make it known to the clerk now.

Thank you. I will now formally open the meeting of Kent County Council today,

1 Apologies for Absence

17th of September 2026. Agenda item number one is apologies. Mr Cook, do we have any apologies?

Joel Cook - 0:00:30

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:00:43

Gender Item No. 2 is Declarations.

2 Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in items on the agenda

Mr. Hood, do you wish to make—under what items?

On apologies, Mr. Yates is running late.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Hood, sorry, can you make a note that Mr. Yates is running late?

Thank you.

Do we know how late?

Mr. Hood, do you know how late he's going to be?

Mark Hood - 0:01:12

I don't know how late he's going to be.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:01:14

Now we move on to agenda item number two, which is declarations of disclosure of peculiar

interests or other significant interests in the items on this agenda.

So does any member wish to declare any interests or other significant interests on the items

in the agenda today and if so please state which item and the interest relates to.

Mr. Sheffield.

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 0:01:40

Interest, spokenness, for the motion for time limited debate I have a reserve liability.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:01:44

Can you make a note of that? Thank you.

Anybody else? Mr. Mallon.

Thomas Mallon - 0:01:51

Mr. Chair, on the motion put forward by the Green Party I'll actually be speaking as the Chairman of the Kent Medway 5 and Rescue Authority.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:01:59

Thank you Mr. Mallon. We'll come back if there's any issues there. I'll discuss that with the clerk. Anybody else?

3 Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2026

No? Great. We'll move on to agenda item number three. Minutes of the meeting held on the 16th of July, 2026.

Do members agree that the minutes of the County Council meeting held on the 16th of July, 2026 are approved as a record correctly?

And if so, may I sign them as such?

Thank you.

Now move on to Chairman's announcements.

First of all, I'd like to welcome everybody back.

I hope you all had a very restful summer.

It's good to see more or less everybody here in the Chamber,

and as we move into a very busy session in the autumn ahead.

Before turning to today's business, I'd also note a number

of important anniversaries marked since we last met.

On the 3rd of September, the flag of the Merchant Navy was flown

over Sessions House to mark Merchant Navy Day. On the 15th of September, the flag of the Royal Air

Force was flown over Sessions House to mark Battle of Britain Day. And today, the 17th of September

marks the 82nd anniversary of Operation Market Garden, the airborne operation at Arnhem in 1944.

It is right that we pause and remember the extraordinary sacrifice of those who fought

for the freedoms we enjoy today and thank those who continue to serve. So if we just, I'm not asking

for a moment of silence, just a moment of silence and reflection.

Thank you.

Civic activity, I'd like to update members on civic engagements undertaken by myself

and the vice chairman since we last met.

4 Chairman's Announcements

As you'd expect over the summer, this has been a shorter list than usual, but no less important.

Vice chairman represented the council, the chairman of Essex's annual reception,

and the East Sussex summer civic reception both held in July.

I attended the Dover Merchant Navy Day on the 3rd of September in Dover, marking that vital contribution of the Merchant Navy both historically and today.

And the Vice -Chairman visited the newly restored Commissioner's House at the Chatham Historic Dockyard with the Kent Ambassadors on the 15th of September.

And I understand the restoration is a credit to all those who have been involved, so thank you.

Looking ahead, I want to give members a sense of what's coming down the line.

The Vice -Chairman will be visiting the Air Ambulance Charity for Kent, Surrey and Sussex.

I'll be hosting a certificate presentation for staff receiving long service and retirement awards, always one of the more enjoyable duties in this role.

I will also be chairing the 12th Kent and Medway Annual Civilian Military Armed Covenant Conference on the 29th of September.

Just on that last point, it was brought to my attention today that, and I hope she won't feel too embarrassed,

but at the end of this month, Sarah Hammond, who is one of our corporate directors, is retiring at the end of her career,

which has included 28 years service here at Kent.

Sarah has made an outstanding contribution to children's services here in the county,

acting as our Director of Children's Services for a number of years,

following a career supporting vulnerable children.

Sarah's commitment to Kent even extended to her acting as our Director of Adult Services

before the arrival of our new director earlier in the summer.

Sarah, on behalf of the entire council, I wish to thank you

and wish you a very happy and well -earned retirement.

Thank you.

Applause.

Standing View - 0:05:13

Jeremy Eustace - 0:05:17

Before we move on further, I regret to inform the Council of the deaths of four former members who each gave service to local government here in Kent.

Mrs. Margaret Stevens, former Labour Member for Swale North from 2001 to 2005.

During her time here at KCC, she served on the County Council, the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, and the Superannuation Fund Committee.

Mr. Paul Messinger, former Conservative and Independent Member for Ramsgate from 2017 to 2021.

During his time here, he served on the County Council, the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee, and the Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee.

Ms. Cheryl Hall, former Labour member for Ramsgate South from 1993 to 2001.

During her time here, she served on the County Council, the Policy and Resources Committee,

and the Resources and Scrutiny Committee.

And Mr. Rodney Chambers, former Conservative member for Gillingham from 1974 to 1981.

He also served on the Medway Council as well, where he was the leader.

I would like to ask members to offer any tributes or remembrances,

and I would like to go in that order. So if any members would like to speak and offer a tribute to Mrs Margaret Stevens.

I do have a list of names and Mr Brady I have you first if you still wish to take us.

Alister Brady - 0:06:37

Thank you Chair. On behalf of the Kent Labour Group I would like to pay tribute to Mrs Margaret Stevens and reflect on a life that touched so many people.

Having spoken to those who knew her best, they remembered Margaret for her contribution to public life but also much more than that.

They remember her warmth, her kindness, her sense of duty, and the way she always found

time for others.

Margaret lived a life of service, putting people first and making a difference to her

community, often in ways that never appeared in official records.

She served on Dillingham Borough Council before moving seamlessly into the new Medway Unitary

Authority and later was elected to Kent County Council, winning a seat in Sheppey.

Margaret got on with the job of representing her residence, often working quietly behind the scenes.

She brought expertise and knowledge built up over many years of public service.

But just as importantly, she brought a personable, thoughtful and diplomatic approach.

She cared deeply about people and was always considerate of the feelings of others.

Those qualities earned her the respect and friendship of her colleagues across the political divide.

As local government once again faces significant change, it's worth reflecting on the experience and wisdom Margaret brought through previous periods of reorganisation.

Her calm judgement, dedication and commitment to public service will be greatly missed.

Our thoughts are with her family, friends and everyone who had the privilege of knowing her. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:08:14

Thank you Mr Brady. Leader, I have you next.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:08:17

Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to thank Mr Brady for such a wonderful tribute.

My group didn't have the pleasure of working with Mr Margaret Stevens, but we would like to add our condolences and thoughts to her remaining family and friends. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr Hook.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:08:33

Antony Hook - 0:08:37

I'm afraid I too did not know Margaret Stevens, but we're very grateful to her for her service

to the county and send our condolences to her family and friends.

Thank you Mr. Hook.

Mr. Thomas.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:08:46

Thank you, Chair.

Paul Thomas - 0:08:49

The Restore Britain group offer its sincere condolences following the passing of Mrs.

Margaret Stevens and acknowledges her valued contribution to the work of the authority

and the residents she served.

Our thoughts are with her family, friends and those who knew her.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:09:05

Thank you Mr Thomas. Mr Hood.

Mark Hood - 0:09:09

Thank you Chairman. None of my group were lucky enough to have known Mrs Margaret Stevens.

We wish to pass on our condolences to her friends and family. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:09:19

Thank you Mr Hood. And my last speaker I'm aware of is Mr Rayner. Anyone else who would like to speak please.

Thank you Mr Rayner.

Harry Rayner - 0:09:25

Thank you Chairman.

On behalf of the Kent County Council Conservative Group, I'd like to extend our sincere condolences

to the family and friends of Mrs Margaret Stevens at this sad time.

Although we did not have the privilege of knowing her personally, we understand that

she served as the KCC Councillor for Swale North from 2001 to 2005 and was a dedicated

and passionate representative of her community.

Our thoughts are with those who knew and loved her.

Thank you Mr Rayner.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:09:59

Would anyone else like to pay tribute to Mr Stevens?

Now move on to Mr Messenger.

Mr Rayner, I call upon you.

Harry Rayner - 0:10:09

Thank you Chairman.

I first met Paul in business in around 2010.

He was active in shipping cars and like commercial vehicles

into the UK.

He was very good at it and was instrumental

in much of the success that Ramsgate enjoyed

as a roll on, roll off port.

We enjoyed cordial and successful business relations

and we strengthened our friendship following

in both our successful elections to Kent County Council in 2017.

Paul cared deeply about the future of Thanet and Kent

and was a passionate advocate for the causes he believed

would strengthen and benefit his local area.

He was perhaps best known for his steadfast support

of Manston Airport and for his vigorous scrutiny

of the local freight businesses in Thanet.

Paul was committed to representing local people and championing the interests of his community.

Beyond his public service he will be well remembered as a talented musician, of which it was my pleasure to take enjoyment.

Thank you Chairman.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:11:29

Thank you Mr Rayner. Leader.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:11:33

Thank you Mr Chairman. I'd like to thank Mr Rayner for paying a lovely tribute to Mr Paul Messenger.

Once again, we didn't have the pleasure of working with the gentleman concerned, but we'd like to offer our condolences to his family. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:11:43

Thank you, Leader. Mr. Hook.

Antony Hook - 0:11:48

Thank you very much, Chairman. I did overlap with Paul Messinger. I too was elected in 2017. I was on a committee with him and I do remember him always speaking very passionately for the whole Thanet area,

and particularly on the issue of Manson Airport and the desire to recreate air services there.

I didn't get to know Paul very well, but certainly warmly send my condolences to his family and friends.

Thank you Mr. Hook. Mr. Thomas.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:12:14

Paul Thomas - 0:12:17

Thank you Chair. Likewise, we didn't know Mr. Paul Messinger, but on behalf of the Restore Britain Group,

I'd like to express our sincere condolences following the passing of Mr. Paul Missinger.

He will be remembered for his service to the local community, his enthusiasm for public life

and the positive impact he had on many people across Thanet.

We extend our condolences to his family, friends and loved ones at this difficult time.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:12:43

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Hood.

Mark Hood - 0:12:47

Again, none of our group were fortunate enough to have known Mr. Paul Missinger,

But the Green group would like to pass on our condolences to his family and friends at this time.

Thank you Mr Hood. And finally Ms Nolum.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:13:06

Connie Nolan - 0:13:12

Thank you Chair. I didn't know Mr Messinger personally, but he has been described as a person very much connected to his political beliefs.

and as many of my Thanet Labour colleagues can attest, he was very strongly attached to them.

And I think it's surely the mark of a local politician to be remembered for the commitment to the cause that they believe in and are elected to represent.

Others in the wider Thanet community have told me that he was well regarded in the vibrant music scene

and on behalf of the Labour group I send condolences to his family and friends.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:13:46

Thank you Mr. Nelling, is there anybody else who would like to make a tribute?

Mr. Shonk.

Trevor Shonk - 0:13:53

I thought I'd just let, I thought everybody had their say.

Mr. Shonk, do you need to turn your microphone on?

I knew Paul Messenger, he was a likeable chap, we had our differences.

Oh sorry.

Okay the light's broken, you're good, you're good, go for it.

The light's on but nobody's in.

Anyway, I knew Paul Messinger, we had our differences, but in this chamber of all of us, we were a League of Gentlemen.

I will leave it there, he was quite active in my area, we'd had quite a few meats, drinkies, whatever, but he was likeable and it was a bit of a shock when I did here.

Anyway, it's nice that we are paying that man respects because all of us here, for one reason, and that's for our residents. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:14:37

Thank you Mr Shock. Mr Wimble.

David Wimble - 0:14:43

Thank you chair. I didn't know Paul politically, who is a good friend of mine for nearly 30 years.

He is a superb musician. What I do know about him, because we used to regularly have lively debates on Facebook,

I think is the best way of saying things. He is committed to Manston Airport in particular.

He is stood up for his residents and that is all that anyone can ask of any local politician.

He will be greatly missed and I send my condolences to his friends and family.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:15:07

Thank you Mr. Winble. I think nobody else did.

Connie Nolan - 0:15:15

Now we move on to Cheryl Hall. I invite Ms Connie Noone to speak first.

Thank you Chair. Although I didn't know Ms Hall personally, she was of course known to me and thousands, perhaps millions of people as a TV actor.

Some older of us might remember her in the sitcom Citizen Smith where she was Wolfie's girlfriend.

It's interesting that she refused to, at the end of the second series, to carry on because she was appalled by the lack of lines given to women.

and in fact the person who wrote the sitcom actually said it was a good wake -up call for him, so she was always making her mark.

In the Labour Party as an activist, she was well liked and admired by colleagues who describe her as a genuine, committed member of the Labour Party.

Iris Johnson, former leader of Thanet District Council,

who knew Cheryl well, so she was great fun to know,

full of energy and committed to improving lives,

and is a huge loss to the community.

She stood for Ramsgate South,

and had two terms of office here at Kent County Council,

and in fact led the Kent Labour Group for a while.

She also, for Canterbury, was the parliamentary Labour candidate and gave Sir Julian Brazier a good run for his money in that.

She got 31 % to his 38 % of the vote, perhaps smoothing the way for future victory.

And I think the other thing that she will be remembered for in the community is she

was on the first Kent County Council Committee with Iris Johnson of Fannock District Council

to set up the Turner Centre.

And that is a lasting legacy of any Councillor that they were able to see their particular

thought through.

and on behalf of the Labour group I send our condolences to her family and friends.

Thank you.

Thank you Ms Noland.

Now call on the Leader.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:17:34

Thank you Ms Noland for a tribute that made me smile,

because I hope if Cheryl Hall were to look at this chamber today

she would see that women have plenty of air time,

and I'm sure she'd be approving of that.

We didn't have the pleasure of knowing Cheryl Hall,

but I'd like to add my condolences and send them to her family.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:17:49

Thank you Leader.

I now call on Mrs. Dean.

Trudy Dean, MBE - 0:17:56

Thank you Chairman. Cheryl Hall was a bit of a culture shock as far as the counter -counsel was concerned.

We weren't used to having celebrities as members.

And in particular, celebrities who had an excellent career in TV and film.

And she played alongside many of the male comedians and actors of the day who were at that time very famous and or became so shortly, as well as Citizen Smith, which Connie has referred to, which was all about campaigning and failing in the community, which I thought was a good entrance to Kent County Council.

But also she was in On the Busses, she was in The Bill, she played alongside Rodney Bews of The Likely Lads, she played alongside David Jason, and she also played alongside James, which is probably where she learned her bad language from.

She took over the role of the leader of the Labour Party after the death of her predecessor, which is always a difficult job.

She brought her skills of language to her performance, which was sometimes a tad theatrical, and I think the phrase with which she'll probably be best remembered to people of my generation was when she was addressing some of the county council's rather, shall I say, overblown,

reports as all fur and no knickers.

You can see you're not shocked, like in those days, everybody was very shocked by that.

She was a bubbly and energetic character, she was very popular with all parties, always with a ready smile for everyone.

She could light up a room wherever she went, and I hope she still does.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:19:54

Thank you. Mr Thomas.

Paul Thomas - 0:19:58

Thank you, Chair, and it transpires that I knew of her through the TV.

But as far as the Restore Britain group are concerned,

we'd like to express our sincere condolences to her family and friends at this difficult time.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:20:14

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Hood.

Thank you.

Mark Hood - 0:20:19

Again, none of our group was fortunate enough to have known Cheryl Hall.

But she seems to have achieved an enormous amount

in this chamber and elsewhere.

And we would like to pass on our condolences to her friends,

family, and the community that will miss her.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:20:37

Thank you.

Mr. Rayner.

Harry Rayner - 0:20:43

On behalf of the KCC conservative group,

I'd like to extend our sincere condolences to the family

and friends of Cheryl Hall at this sad time.

Although we did not know her personally, we understand

that she served as KCC Councillor for Ramsgate South

from 1993 to 2001 and was leader

of the KCC Labour group during that period.

She clearly made a significant contribution to public service

in Kent and our thoughts are with those

who knew and will miss her.

Thank you, Chairman.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:21:19

Thank you.

I see Mr. Hesford would like to speak.

Christopher Hespe - 0:21:24

Thank you, Chairman. I did know Cheryl Hall for about four years when I was working here in charge of sports, leisure and culture, and she was the cabinet member that I reported directly to.

And she was an absolute livewire, she was great fun, and she was, as Mrs. Dean said, a thespian of great repute.

It's a shock to me, because I've only just heard of her sad passing, but really one has to say that she was a lovely, lovely character.

Very kind, very supportive, and she had a social conscience, and so I send my condolences to her family and friends.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:22:04

Thank you, Mr. Heffs. Is there anybody else who would like to speak?

Now, turn to Mr. Rodney Chambers. Mr. Rayner, if you would like to lead us there. Thank

Harry Rayner - 0:22:13

you. Mr. Rodney Chambers, OBEJL, served as the

KCC conservative member for the Dillingham Number 1 Division from 1974 to 1981.

His time at County Hall coincided

with a significant period of change

in local government following the reorganisation introduced

by the Local Government Act of 1972,

which came into effect in 1974.

Following his service at KCC, Rodney returned

to elected office in 1987 as a member of Jilling and Barr

Council, where he later became leader

of the conservative group.

He subsequently became a founding member of Medway Council in 1998 and went on to serve

as its longest serving leader, holding that position from 2000 until the year 2015.

Throughout his career, Rodney played a pivotal role in the regeneration and development of

Medway, helping to bring forward major projects including the Rochester Riverside development

and wider waterfront regeneration schemes.

In recognition of his considerable contribution

to public service and local government,

he was awarded an Order of the British Empire in 2011.

On behalf of the KCC conservative group,

I'd like to extend our sincere condolences to Rodney's family

and friends at this difficult time.

His long record of public service and commitment

to the communities he represented will be remembered

Jeremy Eustace - 0:23:58

Linden Kemkaran - 0:24:02

by many. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr Rayner. Leader. Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you, Mr

Rayner, for a wonderful tribute to Mr Rodney Chambers. The majority of my group did not have

the pleasure of working with Mr Rodney Chambers, but I'd like to add our condolences to his friends

Jeremy Eustace - 0:24:14

Antony Hook - 0:24:17

and family. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Hook. Thank you, Chairman. I also, of course, did not know

Mr Chambers, but I think I wish I had done. We all know, Ms James, being a local Councillor is a

big job, a demanding job, a great job because you can affect some really positive things

for your community.

But it takes a lot of commitment, for a few years it takes commitment.

To do it as he did I think over four plus decades is really amazing.

So thank you to him and warmest condolences to his friends and family.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:24:46

Thank you.

Mr. Thomas.

Thank you, Chair.

Paul Thomas - 0:24:51

On behalf of the Restore Britain Kent Group, I would like to pay tribute to Mr Rodney Chambers,

whose public service spanned many years, including his time as a Conservative member

of Kent County Council and as a Councillor and leader of Medway Council.

It was his time at Medway Council, when I recall sitting next to him, when I served

on the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership, and he was steadfast in his calls from government

through the SELEP funding for projects in the Medway area.

And some of those legacy projects are still being utilised well today.

His dedication to government and commitment serving residents

who have said left a lasting legacy.

And we extend our heartfelt condolences to his family and friends.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:25:39

Thank you.

Mr. Hood.

Mark Hood - 0:25:43

Thank you.

None of the Green Group had the pleasure to have known Rodney Chambers, but he was obviously a massively important and influential figure in Kent and more so in the Medway towns.

And we wish to pass on our condolences to his friends and family for the service that he has provided to that part of our county.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:26:05

Thank you. Mr Brady.

Alister Brady - 0:26:09

Chairman, on behalf of the Kent Labour Group, I'd like to pay tribute to Rodney Chambers,

over UJP.

Today is a moment to recognise a remarkable record of public service.

Rodney devoted decades of his life to serving the people of Medway in Kent, from his time

at Kent County Council in the 1970s through local government reorganisation, to becoming

the longest serving leader of Medway Council, a position he held for 15 years.

His contribution to public life, as we've heard, he was rightly recognised with an OBE

for services to local government.

I didn't know Mr Chambers, but Councillor Vince Maple, leader of Medway, told me that

politics often meant disagreement across the Chamber.

With Mr Chambers, those disagreements were carried out agreeably and never stood in the

way of working together for the good of Medway.

Whether it is protecting jobs, supporting the future of Chatham, or championing the

Rodney was prepared to put the interests of community first.

Chair, the mark of any public servant is not simply the office they hold, but the difference

they make and leave behind.

Rodney's impact on Medway's regeneration, growth and development remains visible today,

and his long commitment to public service deserves our respect and gratitude.

On behalf of the Kent Labour Group, we extend our serious condolences to his wife Diane,

his family, friends and former colleagues. May he rest in peace.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:27:36

Thank you Mr. Brady. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?

Thank you members for offering your thoughts and remembering the

contributions of our former members. I'd now like to formally move that this

council desires to record the sense of loss it feels on the sad passing of

Mrs. Margaret Stevens, Mr. Paul Messenger, Mrs. Cheryl Hall and Mr. Rodney Chambers.

and extends to their family and friends our heartfelt sympathy to them in their sad bereavement.

Vice -Chairman, are you happy with your second motion?

I'm happy with your second motion, Chair.

Dodger Sian - 0:28:10

Jeremy Eustace - 0:28:12

That is agreed. Members, are we all happy?

Thank you.

Will you now please stand and join me in a minute's silence.

Standing View - 0:28:21

Jeremy Eustace - 0:29:21

and just wanted to say congratulations

that please do open the floor.

Thank you very much for listening

your slides and you can go ahead and

I would first like to thank all the

I have one final area to cover which relates to item 11 on today's agenda, the national anthem.

The national anthem at the July meeting attracted rather more attention than usual

and as those present for recall I made a number of requests during proceedings for members

to bring the singing to a close.

I wanted to set out my thinking on that and on the episode more broadly.

For the record, and it is well established by both the royal household

and long -standing convention. Only the first verse of the national anthem is

customarily sung on official occasions. The tradition observed at everything from

the remembrance of the Cenotaph to the FA Cup final. It is on that basis that I

would expect all members of this chamber, whatever their group, to observe this

convention going forward so the anthem can be sung with the dignity the

occasion deserves and the meeting brought to an orderly close. I would also

take this opportunity to remind all members and officers that as a matter of

a meeting does not conclude until I close it from the chair.

That said, I couldn't help but note a certain irony in what followed.

A number of those who led the six verse rendition were, I understand, among those who had reservations

when the requirement to sing the anthem was first introduced.

Whatever one makes of that, it takes a particular kind of good sport to greet a rule you weren't especially keen on

with quite so much enthusiasm, six times over in this case.

It's not every day that reluctance expresses itself so tunefully, and I compliment them on their commitment.

I will admit though to an enormous sense of dread as those singing hit verse 6, a prayer written at the height of the 1745 Jacobite rising fulfilled Marshall Wade's success in putting down the rebellious Scots.

We do have a Scottish member of his council who was not present in the chamber that day to hear it, which is perhaps just as well, since a verse composed to cheer on the suppression of one's own countrymen does not age any better as a historical footnote.

What we say and what we sing in this chamber matters. What might sound 280 years on, like the charming period

curiosity to those who sang it, would, I imagine, land rather differently for those who did not join in,

and most definitely for a Scott actually in the room. In the spirit of avoiding a repeat confusion,

I can confirm that the first verse is the form to be sung on such occasions, in line with national convention

and advice from the Royal Household. More generally, my door is open to any member,

unclear on our constitutional standing orders. I would always rather be asked than have members

assume. A meeting stays open until I close it from the chair, and continuing regardless

of a direction from the chair, would move from high spirits into disregard for its authority.

And I'm sure nobody in this room wants to go down that route. Thank you.

5 Questions

Now move on to agenda item number five, which is questions. There are 15 questions which

which have been put today.

Hold on before we do that, Mr. Hook.

Mr. Hood, sorry, was it Mr. Hood?

Mark Hood - 0:32:21

Yes, sir, yes, thank you very much, Chair.

My apologies from the Chair.

Mr. Hook, yes.

Yeah, as a point of clarification,

we only got to verse three of the national anthem,

which is my personal favourite

because it's international flavour.

And I think we have made it clear

that we were very pleased that we didn't get

to verse six on account of Mr. Mullen.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:32:43

Mr. Hood, if you'd listened to me from the chair, you wouldn't have made it to verse three.

So, you know, lesson learned for everybody here.

Now moving on to questions from the council.

The first question is from Mr. Hever to the leader of the council.

Mr. Hever.

Stuart Heaver - 0:32:54

Thank you very much indeed, Chair.

Given that 2 ,877 people have already died in England and Wales due

to the record -breaking extreme heat this summer, that Kent Fire and Rescue have attended more

than 130 grass fires since July, and that 2026 is on track to be the worst harvest since

records began. Has the Leader had any second thoughts at all about the Council rescinding

the KCC climate emergency declaration?

Thank you Mr Heaver. Leader.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:33:31

Thank you, Chair. No.

Thank you, Leader. Mr Heater, do you have a supplementary?

Stuart Heaver - 0:33:39

I do, yes I do. Thank you very much, Chair.

Just so the Leader's brevity could not be misinterpreted as lack of concern for health

workers, firefighters, farmers and bereaved families in Kent who really suffered this

summer, would she be kind enough to please expand slightly on why she thinks this summer

was not clear evidence of a climate emergency or indeed whether she thinks it was an emergency

but not her administration's responsibility to do anything about.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:34:10

Thank you Mr Heaver, leader.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:34:12

Thank you Mr Chairman, with your permission I will inject some much needed common sense

into this conversation.

Ten times as many people die from the cold than from heat and grass fires and grass fires

are not caused by an increase in temperature, but rather issues such as arson, poor land

management practise, etc.

Much of the annoyance of the doomsters and the climate catastrophes in the parties opposite,

who often rely on this debunked science for their parties continued existence, in fact,

without the climate scare, what use is the Green Party? We have to ask.

They forget that the climate is always changing. It always has and it always will change.

In Roman and mediaeval times the earth was two degrees warmer than it is today, for example.

The earth is actually coming out of a mini ice age, Mr. Chairman. There is only one way for temperatures to go.

And as for carbon dioxide, it is a trace gas essential for life on earth. To try and eliminate that would be hazardous for us all.

In fact, members may not be aware that a number of recent studies appear to show

that carbon dioxide has reached saturation point and therefore

that additional gas has no effect on warming.

I could go on, but I see no need to.

I think I've made my point.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:35:35

Thank you.

Thank you, Lida.

We'll move on to question number two.

I call on Mr. Brady.

Alister Brady - 0:35:41

Thank you, Chair.

We recently learned that Sessions House has been put forward

for the Maidstone Borough Council's local plan call for sites.

Could the deputy leader explain if KCC intends to put the building

up for sale for residential development?

If not, then why has this been proposed?

In answering this question, can he detail how much has been spent in total

and projected regarding the previous proposed and cancelled sale

of Sessions House including costs to develop the building to date?

Jeremy Eustace - 0:36:11

Thank you Mr Burry, I do know there are about three questions in there but I will allow

a little latitude if the Deputy Leader is happy to address those questions.

Thank you.

Brian Collins - 0:36:20

Thank you Mr Chair, always willing to be obliging to my friend over the back there.

I will congratulate him on three questions in one but I'm happy to answer.

The current Maidstone Borough Council local plan identifies Sessions House as part of

a broad mixed -use town centre designation.

KCC considered it appropriate to submit the site

through the Call for Sites process

in order to maintain future planning flexibility.

KCC therefore recently made a mixed -use submission

as part of the Maidstone Borough Council's Call for Sites.

The local plan Call for Sites supports long -term planning

15 to 20 years in an area.

Sessions House has been put forward

for consideration for mixed use.

In no way means that KCC are considering

putting the asset up for sale

or obliged to change its use.

It is foreseeable that the way that Sessions is used

may well change over the next two decades.

KCC have a duty to seek to provide to it or its successor flexibility in the way that

Sessions House is used.

Roughly translated, there was an administrative error at Maidstone Borough Council and it

got duly reported.

I believe that has now been corrected.

I will come to the second question in this question.

I can confirm that the KCC's plan for Sessions House has not changed.

The building continues to be KCC's strategic headquarters and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

Question number three, answer now.

My previous decision carefully considered the financial aspects, including the abortive costs for previous work of 946K.

as part of the assessment four million of capital was made available for

sessions along with revenue provisions for day -to -day maintenance the medium

term financial plan and budgets were amended accordingly expediture remains

with the budgets allocated I hope that answers the members questions I'm sure

he'll come back to something

Jeremy Eustace - 0:38:45

Alister Brady - 0:38:48

thank you chairman so just for clarity just under five million pounds in total

Jeremy Eustace - 0:38:56

Brian Collins - 0:39:04

Jeremy Eustace - 0:39:10

Alister Brady - 0:39:15

to cancel and then refer back to the council.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:39:17

Luke Evans - 0:39:24

Thank you Chairman.

My question is also to the Deputy Leader of the Council.

In the light of the increasing levels of intimidation, abuse and threats directed at elected representatives

across the United Kingdom and recognising the importance of safeguarding democratic

participation, can the Deputy Leader outline what assessments have been undertaken of the

security arrangements at the KCC buildings and whether any additional measures are required

to ensure that all councillors, regardless of their political affiliation, can carry

out their duties, represent their residents and participate in full democratic debate

without fear of their personal safety.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:40:04

Thank you Mr Evans. Mr Collins.

Brian Collins - 0:40:07

Thank you Mr Chair. While we still have very fresh in our minds the abhorrent death of

This, I feel, is a very relevant question and I thank my colleague for such.

KCC undertakes assessments at all its premises with regards to the safety and security for

all staff members, service users and visitors who access our buildings.

This includes premises where public -facing meetings take place and democratic debate

is undertaken on a regular basis, with specific arrangements in place as appropriate based

on the risks identified. KCC work across the Council with partners such as Kent Police

to manage known protests and risks, implementing and communicating additional safety and security

measures when required. In addition to physical security arrangements within the Council premises,

KCC works closely with Kent Police, Emergency Services and other partners through its Contest

Prevent, Protect and Prepare arrangements to consider protective security, preparedness

and resilience issues across the county, identification of emerging risks and consideration of proportionate

mitigation measures to support the safe operation of public services, public -facing activity

and democratic processes. KCC has worked closely with Kent Police Force's elected official

adviser as part of Operation Ford, which has provided members with personal security training,

incident reporting guidance and ongoing support to help ensure the safety of elected representatives.

Further information is available to members on the member share point and through Prevent Guidance and Resources.

Individual political parties may also offer political guidance and support to their members and each group should liaise with their party organisation to cheque directly as that is outside of KCC functions.

I would encourage members to report any specific concerns to staff within the Government Division

and to engage with Operation Forward as appropriate.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:42:43

Luke Evans - 0:42:49

Jeremy Eustace - 0:42:51

I now call on Mr Thomas, who has a question for the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills.

Mr. Thomas.

Paul Thomas - 0:42:56

Thank you, Chair.

I understand there is a shortage of in -year school places in Maidstone caused by new housing

and population growth, particularly with people moving down from London.

Money from developers appears to be available through Section 106 contributions and CIL.

Given the urgency of the situation, why aren't schools being expanded, rebuilt,

or otherwise increased in capacity now.

Thank you Mr Thomas.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:43:26

Please go ahead.

Thank you Chairman.

Beverley Fordham - 0:43:34

Thank you for your question Councillor Thomas.

The position in Maidstone is more complex than a simple shortage of in -school places

within Maidstone.

The borough has experienced significant housing growth since 2014 to 2024 with 11 ,659 new homes.

In addition to that, there has been office to residential conversion that have increased demand for school places in some parts of the town.

King County Council has responded by supporting schools to accommodate additional pupils by delivering new capacity, including the Langley Park Primary School and support for a new free school in Beaerstedt, both partly funded through 6106 contributions.

But these were secured before the introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy, known as

CIL, by Maystone Council.

Every child is offered a place, although this may not always be in their interest or preferred

school.

Since Maystone Borough Council introduced CIL in 2018, KCC has genuinely been unable

to secure any section 106 educational contributions and has not yet received any seal funding

for education projects in the area.

While KCC remains responsible for planning school places, decisions on the allocation

of seal funding rests with Mainstone Borough Council.

Questions about the use of developer contributions and future infrastructure provision are therefore

are best directed to Maidstone Borough Council. However, it should be noted that last week

KCC finally secured Maidstone Borough Council's agreement that section 106 obligations should

be used to mitigate education impacts where SEAL funding is insufficient.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:45:35

Paul Thomas - 0:45:36

Thank you, Mrs Fordham. Mr Thomas, do you have a follow -up?

Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you for the extensive answer.

Hopefully then in the review of the Kent County Commissioning Plan review, you'll reflect that

so that divisional councillors can really then hit our borough councils to ensure

that we get the capacity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:45:56

Mrs. Fordham.

Thank you.

Beverley Fordham - 0:46:00

All future capacity planning will be in the Kent Commissioning Plan, which should be around,

All future planning should be reflected in the Kent Commissioning Plan which will be

published in November.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:46:11

Thank you Mrs Ford.

I will now turn to Mr Sheffield who also has a question for Mr Ford.

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 0:46:15

Thank you Mr Chairman.

Between May 2035 and May 2026, 4072 requests were made to assess Kent children for special

education needs or disability.

In the same period, 3 ,011 EACPs were issued.

Only 56 % as an annual rolling average are within the 20 week statutory guideline.

The request and delivery figures are not directly correlated but are indicative of an inefficiency.

These figures mask the monthly figures that are periodic but cyclical, which means some

children are further disadvantaged simply by the time of year their schools or parents

apply for the assessment.

Why does the CYP Directorate not have sufficient staff to meet its statutory obligations to

disabled children, which is made far worse by application during foreseeable periods

of high demand?

Jeremy Eustace - 0:47:01

Thank you Mr. Streffield. I hope the answer is as long as the question but we'll see. Mrs. Fordham.

Beverley Fordham - 0:47:05

Thank you Chair. Thank you for your question Councillor Streffield.

Yes the written answer is much more detailed and longer so I've cut it down for today.

Although you really went through that very fast at the beginning.

So it's very difficult to hear what statistics you are actually relating to.

However I'd like to raise three points.

Your question is about same performance, how it is measured and whether staff capacity in itself

generates best outcomes. So the first point I'd like to raise is the figures

that you put forward as your evidence which was assessment and EHCP. They are

two different groups of children so they are not comparable and they are not

indicative of whether there is insufficient, sorry inefficient or

efficient performance. The correct statutory figure that is nationally

recognised is the 20 -week EHCP percentage figure. The second point I'd

like to raise is that the figure that you provided,

you said masks underline performance.

If that was the only figure that we actually published,

I'd be inclined to agree with you.

But as you well know, that through CYPE,

through scrutiny, other internal committees,

and external, such as the DFE, all of our data

is presented and is clear.

And we use a wide range of performance measures

to identify that.

So I do not agree with your statement that that rolling figure is masking our performance.

We do have a wider picture, the width of the data we published.

Our assessments within 66 weeks now are 95 to 99%.

Our EHC performance stands at 72 .5 % compared to nationally of 50%.

There are only six cases more than 24 weeks old and none more than 28 weeks old.

Third, staffing is only one factor affecting performance.

PHC for assessments are part of a complex multi -agency process involving schools, educational psychologists, health professionals, social care families and young people.

We are responsible for the process but delays can arise at any number of points within that which are outside our control.

Our main focus has been increasing overall system capacity through the SEND transformation

programme rather than simply increasing head count.

We have invested in our workforce, development, recruitment, descent, retention and redesigning

our ways of working.

In conclusion, the figures cited are not a reliable measurement of SEND performance on

their own.

Performance is not being masked and is subject to extensive monitoring and scrutiny and SEND

outcomes are not determined by simply the number of Council staff employed.

The evidence shows that the service has improved substantially, is performing above the national

average and is continuing to improve through sustainable system -wide reform focused on

better outcomes for Kent's children and young people.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:50:08

Thank you, Mrs. Fordham.

Mr. Shreveller, do you have a supplementary?

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 0:50:11

I do, Mr Chairman, because whilst we could have a battle of statistics, the basic question was why we do not have sufficient staff to meet our statutory obligations,

and I would maybe, outside of this meeting, welcome a further opportunity to explore, despite all the things that the cabinet member has said, why we still don't have enough to meet our statutory obligation in this regard.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:50:35

Thank you, Mr Ephold. I don't think that's a follow -up question, but I think you did address it in your initial response, so I'm not going to invite you back.

I'm now going to ask Mr. Dean Burns who has a question for the leader of the council.

Thank you, Chair.

Dean Burns - 0:50:46

A recent Freedom of Information response confirmed

that the Kent County Council spent approximately £3 ,122 .69 on delegate fees,

accommodation and travel for five attendees

at the Local Government Association Annual Conference in Bournemouth in July 2026.

The delegation comprised of four members and one senior officer.

At a time when residents continue to face significant financial pressures

and that the council is required to make difficult spending decisions across a range of services,

can the leader of the council explain what tangible benefits, outcomes, partnerships,

funding opportunities or policy influence were secured as a result of attendance

and what alternative arrangements were considered to lower the cost.

For example, car sharing or twin room sharing. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:51:44

Thank you Mr Burns. Leader.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:51:49

Thank you Mr Chairman. Well, there's an image I won't read out of my head very easily.

The LGA Annual Conference is the principal national forum for local government,

bringing together council leaders, members, chief executives, senior officers, ministers and regulators.

It is where national policy is debated, relationships are built and councils seek to influence decisions that affect residents and services.

For an authority of Kent's scale and significance, attendance is a proportionate investment in ensuring our voice is heard

on issues such as local government finance, adult social care, children's services, and local government reorganisation.

The conference provided direct access to ministers, senior civil servants, and sector leaders, enabling us to raise Kent's priorities, strengthen those partnerships, share best practise, and better understand emerging policy.

The value of that engagement cannot always be measured in a single funding bid or spreadsheet entry,

but it's an important part of effective local government leadership. I must say the question

seems to be based on the assumption that the LGA conference is some sort of holiday. Anyone who's

actually attended will know it consists of a demanding programme of meetings, often starting

very early, workshops, policy sessions and stakeholder engagement, as I said from often

very early morning until late in the evening. Indeed, I attended multiple workshops, meetings,

and I spoke on the main conference stage about the importance of attracting and retaining talented

young people into local government, and I was able to showcase some of the excellent work Kent

is doing in that area. We always seek value for money and we keep costs under review. However,

there is also the cost to not being in the room when policy is being shaped and those partnerships

are being formed and opportunities are being identified.

The Kent choosing not to engage would, I believe, be a false economy.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:53:46

Thank you.

Thank you, Leader.

Mr Burns, do you have a follow -up?

Dean Burns - 0:53:49

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I do.

So if previous conference attendance has failed to deliver any identifiable benefits for Kent

residents, does the Leader accept that it is unreasonable to expect taxpayers to continue

funding attendance and that those choosing to attend should either demonstrate clear

value for money or meet the costs personally.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:54:13

Thank you Mr. West. Leader.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:54:15

Sorry, I don't understand what the question was in that. Could I ask for a repeat please?

Jeremy Eustace - 0:54:22

I'll sort of help a little bit. It was more around what was the value for money in attending

based upon what previous administrations have done where I think the Member was asserting

that nothing was achieved. That's my takeaway from the question. So if that helps you a

little bit Leader.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:54:36

Thank you for clarifying Mr Chairman. I simply don't understand how you can quantify what was achieved and what wasn't achieved between this LGA conference and previous ones.

So therefore I can't really answer your question. I don't fully understand the premise.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:54:47

That's fine. We'll move on.

That's a badly formulated question. I'm not sure. Thank you.

Linden Kemkaran - 0:54:50

Not for you to make comments on that, we'll move on.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:54:52

I now invite Mr Finch as a question for the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport.

John Finch - 0:54:57

Thank you Mr Chairman.

There has been considerable confusion arising from the differing and at times seemingly

contradictory reports in the press and social media regarding the proposed bus service cuts

in Thanet. Various explanations have been given regarding the reasons for these service

changes including references to the role of Kent County Council. Could the cabinet member

please clarify the situation and explain the factors that have led to these changes?

Jeremy Eustace - 0:55:26

Thank you Mr. Finch. Mr. Osman. Thank you chair. Thank you Mr. Finch for your question.

Peter Osborne - 0:55:33

It's an easy one. I need to make clear that the proposed changes in THANEC

concern commercial bus services operated by Stagecoach. Decisions about the routes

and frequencies of these services are made solely by the operator, not Kent

County Council. We understand that the changes reflect the operator's

assessment of the services commercial viability and we recognise that concern

these changes may cause for residents and we do not support reductions that

leave communities without access to essential public transport links.

Within our role and the funding available to us we are working with

operators to explore replacement or alternative provision however I'm

pleased to advise that the following the work undertaken by officers here at Kent

County Council we have secured the services by providing subsidy for their

continuation. Confirmed information has been published through the council's

usual communication channels so that the residents receive clear and accurate

updates based on agreed arrangements i .e. it was nothing to do with the local MP

or the local councillor down there it was solely down to KCC. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:56:49

Thank you Mr Osborne. Do you have a supplementary Mr Finn?

Thank you Mr Finch. I'll now turn to Mr Steptoe who has a question for the Deputy Leader.

Paul Stepto - 0:57:01

Thank you Chair. So in December last year the Gravesend Adult Education Centre was sold for £1 .523 million,

which was £1 .123 million over the guide price of £400 ,000.

Would the deputy leader explain who was responsible for agreeing the guide price and whether any

lessons have been learned from the significant difference between the guide price and the

actual price achieved in the sale?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Tepto.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:57:32

Also, just a note, if you could use your neighbour's mic moving forward, because your one's a bit

wobbly today.

Mr Collins.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Brian Collins - 0:57:38

Thank you to my friend over the back there because every time he seems to ask me a question

in his chamber, it always highlights some of the good things we've achieved. I would

say that exceeding the auction price is absolutely marvellous, but I will give him an answer.

Maybe he disagrees, but maybe that's why we're this side of the chamber and he's over there.

In this case, the asset in question was expected to sell below $1 million.

Therefore, a decision over the guide price was initially delegated at an officer level,

in accordance with the scheme of delegations in the Constitution.

Following the auction result, an urgent decision process was initiated to ensure correct governance

arrangements were in place.

and I took the decision to sell at $1 .523 million on 31 December before the transaction completed.

The report and decision were transparently published on decision 25 -00114.

A guide and reserve were set following professional advice from auction specialists.

The auction created competition and the market ultimately determined the final price.

You will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for the Council to comment in detail on reserve

prices, valuation assumptions or bidding behaviour as this is commercially sensitive and may

undermine future disposals.

Officers have confirmed that the service regularly reviews its processes alongside best practise.

I understand that the disposal activity was subject to an internal audit review which

was reported in January to the Governance and Audit Committee.

Thank you Mr Chair.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:59:31

Mr Collins, Mr Steptoe, do you have a follow -up?

Paul Stepto - 0:59:34

I would like to thank the Deputy Leader for his usual witty response.

I wonder if he is aware that the property is now on the market for $2 .5 million and

Would he reassure us that with future such disposals he oversees the process and ensures

that the guide price is commercially appropriate?

Thank you.

Hold on.

Jeremy Eustace - 0:59:59

He's not going to ask you to answer that.

He's already addressed that specifically in terms of what he's required to do in his role.

So we're going to move on to the next question which is from Mr. Hood which is a cabinet

member for highways and transport.

Mr. Hood.

Mark Hood - 1:00:10

Thank you.

Council members in Tunbridge have been attempting to improve access for disabled residents by

amending or removing a motorbike gate at London Road to ensure access for those using mobility

scooters and wheelchairs.

This process has been complicated, but progress appears to have completely stalled despite

correspondence between elected members and officers.

Can the cabinet member tell us when we can expect to see the current gate amended or

removed and what assistance can be provided to ensure that an accessible active travel

Jeremy Eustace - 1:00:46

route from London Road to Trenchwood can be established.

Thank you Mr. Hood.

Mr. Osborne.

Peter Osborne - 1:00:50

Thank you Chairman.

Thank you Mr. Hood.

I don't know why you're really asking me this question because you've been copied into every

single email that I've been copied into so you already know the answer.

So an investigation was undertaken which identified three land owners whose agreement would be

required for any proposed changes to the existing barriers as the footpath across their land

is secured through agreement rather than being a public owned right -of -way.

Initial discussions indicated that the proposals were not considered acceptable

as widening the barriers would allow unauthorised vehicles such as motorbikes

to access the land. Officers have recently agreed to undertake further

engagement with all land owners to explore the matter in more detail and

will also include KCC member Mark Hood in any future discussions with a view to

providing a path accessible for all but still provide a barrier to unauthorised vehicles.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:01:45

Thank you Mr Osborne.

Do you have a follow up?

Yes I do.

Thank you very much Chairman.

Mark Hood - 1:01:49

Well this indicates the power of County Council questions doesn't it Mr Osborne because progress

has only begun again because I've been pressing.

I'd like a question.

Yeah my question is does the cabinet member recognise that very small measures like amending

in these gateways can have a profound effect on improving accessibility for our residents,

and that we must work collaboratively and with urgency to meet their needs

and reduce unnecessary car use because alternatives here are often obstructed

by pavement parking and are far less direct to walk or wheel.

Thank you Mr. Hood.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:02:25

Mr. Osborne.

Peter Osborne - 1:02:27

I believe I've already answered that question.

We are doing what we can and you will be copied into it.

I did have a conversation recently with some staff and some of my officers and historically

the cabinet members in transportation used to get pretty much all the questions.

I mean if this is the best it must mean that I'm doing a fantastic job.

Mr Osborne, thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:02:50

You have nothing else to moan about.

Mr Osborne, thank you.

Just a reminder to everyone, just answer the question.

I don't need any commentary as we go through.

I call on Mr Jeffrey who has a question for the Deputy Leader.

Mr. Chair.

Stuart Jeffery - 1:02:59

Thank you, Chair.

During the debate on Reform's motion

at July's council meeting entitled the Equality Act 2010,

Public Sector Equality Duty and Council's approach,

Reform Council has stated that they wanted a meritocratic

society and to not provide any support towards any

particular group.

With the gender pay gap at KCC currently in excess of 10%,

does the deputy leader consider that women are less deserving

of pay than their male colleagues?

Or does he agree that there are structural and societal differences that are imposed

on women that create this gap?

If he feels the latter is true, will he now support meaningful actions for women at KCC

who have more than demonstrated their merit and mettle to overcome these barriers?

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:03:48

Mr Collins, you seem to have multiple questions again in one question.

I will address that separately.

Yes, indeed.

Over to you, Mr Collins.

Brian Collins - 1:03:54

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I find this a very interesting question, although a serious question, especially from the member

from the party that seems to have trouble defining what a woman is in the first place.

However, I will answer the question.

KCC is clear, gender should never limit opportunity or determine pay.

We pay men and women equally for work at the same level, and our gender pay gap is

continuing to fall.

I believe the gentleman mentioned the figure of 10%.

In fact, it was 9 .7%, which has now fallen to 9 .3%.

Well below the southeast mean of 16 .4%,

the Kent mean of 14 .3%, and the national average of 13 .8%.

That is strong evidence that KCC is making progress

and compares favourably with employers locally and regionally.

A gender pay gap is not evidence of unequal pay.

It reflects the distribution of men and women across an organisation.

Women make up around 79 % of KCC's workforce, 73 % of the upper pay quartile and 59 % of our

leadership cohort.

We will not be complacent through fair -paced strategy, flexible working and accessible development and stronger career support.

KCC is tackling the barriers within our control.

We will continue to publish and scrutinise the data, support men and women equally to progress and take practical action.

The direction of travel is clear, KCC's gap is narrowing, our position is stronger than

the wider benchmarking and we remain committed to meritocracy.

Thank you Mr Chair.

Thank you Mr Collins. Mr Jeffery do you have a follow up?

No that was a very clear answer and very disappointing. Thank you.

Again not a question or a statement.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:06:13

I'm now bringing an end to Agenda Item No. 5.

We've completed our 30 minutes.

Members who weren't able to pose their questions are reminded that all answers

to all questions are published on the Council's website alongside the agenda papers

after this item is finished.

6 Report by Leader of the Council

Now move to Agenda Item No. 6, which is the report by the Leader.

I am making some slight variation today to the normal process of this item.

As Chairman, I have approved the increasing of a time allowed for the Leader's report.

This is also to allow for additional reference to local government reorganisation.

As this is an extraordinary situation, I do not want to comment on this

to limit the speaker's opportunity to update members

on broader activity nor the opposition's chance to respond.

Recognising that this is a significant matter,

I have agreed that all opposition group leaders may also have more time, so they may respond

if they wish to LGR -related points made by the leader.

I'll now ask the leader to start the item and update the council.

Leader, you have 12 minutes in total.

Thank you.

Linden Kemkaran - 1:07:10

Thank you Mr Chairman. So our last full council meeting was of course overshadowed by the government's announcement of LGR, which we were told was written in stone and to get on with preparation immediately.

Well that decision lasted just 36 working days, less time than Liz Truss lasted as Prime Minister. Anyway, more on that later in my report.

So, following our last meeting, I was delighted to take up my place as Deputy Director on the board of the Local Government Association.

It's an honour to represent KCC on such an influential body, shaping policy direction and ensuring that the organisation effectively supports and advocates for local councils across England and Wales.

With local government in such a state of flux, this role is now more important than ever.

I met with the new Chief Exec of South East Water and we had a lengthy discussion that was both full and frank.

I was able to put to him questions raised by residents and he is very much looking forward to our Water Resilience Partnership Forum next month.

The end of July was marked by our Dolge strategy document launch.

At a very well attended press conference we entered phase 2 of Dolge where the D changes from department to delivery.

It marks a significant step for KCC and consolidates a new way of embedding a culture of obtaining value for money for every pound spent at every level of the Council.

I was pleased to be invited to the Scrutiny Committee to deliver my annual report, in which I covered our financial position, adult social care, education and SEND, the water supply problems, highways, our long -term strategy and investing for the future.

I quite enjoyed answering many and varied questions from the committee and of course correcting a few of the misconceptions levelled at the executive.

I made a number of visits during July and August, most notably to Five Acre Wood School for their summer celebration in which all the children, regardless of their ability or mobility, get to enjoy live music, delicious food and dance to their hearts content.

I also joined the Kent Police Netball Community Project, where female police officers host

a holiday camp for local secondary school girls, ostensibly to play netball, but also

to foster resilience, strength, sportsmanship and teamwork, all skills that will help them

negotiate life as young women.

I went to see the latest progress on the Ebslete Development site and was really impressed

by the feeling of community, tranquilly and safety that is there.

More schools and community hubs are opening and new phases of the development are taking shape.

The Road of Remembrance in Folkestone is also coming along nicely.

Together with the cabinet member for highways, I had a site visit to see the enormous soil nails being driven deep into the cliff face to properly underpin it and ensure that there are no further landslips.

It's very exciting seeing such a huge project at its various stages, and it will be transformative for local residents when it's completed and reopened next year.

Attending a women's self -defence class the other weekend in Crawley was a rather more sobering experience.

The women ranged from OAP to teenager, and there was a mum with her 12 -year -old daughter.

All of them came because they were concerned about their safety.

You see, a large number of male illegal migrants and asylum seekers have been moved into their local area.

These women, who'd previously gone about their daily lives in a perfectly normal way, now felt compelled to learn techniques to try and defend themselves in case they were attacked or threatened in the street.

They told me how seeing large groups of unknown men hanging about their towns made them feel very afraid.

How regular reports in the press about assaults, rapes and even murders perpetrated by men who came here illegally made them feel vulnerable and forced them to change their behaviour.

Mr Chairman, it's been a year since I first raised in the Chamber this issue of illegal migration directly affecting the safety of women and girls,

and it was met with hostility and name -calling from the opposition.

In fact, when we declared an illegal migration emergency, they all walked out.

I'd be very interested, Mr Chairman, to hear if their views have evolved to catch up with reality.

The universities of Greenwich and Kent have merged to form a super university and it was

while I was at the launch of the new London and South East University group that the news

came through of the government pausing LGR in Kent, so I'd now like to address the situation

as it currently stands.

Mr Chairman and members, on the 16th of July the government announced its LGR decision

for Kent and Medway.

On the 7th of September, it put reorganisation in Clemson Medway on hold, alongside 13 other areas outside the devolution priority programme.

It also formally withdrew its decisions for four areas within that programme.

Ministers who told us to get on with LGR, now just seven weeks later, have told us to stop.

Members may wonder what the hell is going on in MHCLG. That is a very good question to which we and

everyone in Kent would like an answer. This Reform administration did not ask for LGR. It is on

record that I have opposed it at every turn but we engaged fully and in good faith because for the

council leader not to have a seat at the negotiating table would have been doing a disservice to the

people of Kent. And it is with the people of Kent in mind we made the case for a single

unitary council that could have delivered significant savings without the cost and disruption

of breaking up KCC's services. Instead, the government chose four unitary councils for

East, West, Mid and North Kent. Option 4B. I opposed this decision unequivocally on the

grounds that it provided little clear evidence of how they would be financially sustainable.

Some would inherit huge debts while facing complex service demands that only KCC's size and scale help us manage effectively.

I wrote to the Secretary of State on the 27th of July questioning how that decision was reached and what evidence and judgement was used to arrive at the decision for four unitary councils.

That letter is publicly available on the KCC website and in the papers for the devolution and local government reorganisation cabinet committee.

Despite further letters during August chasing a response, I have received no reply, no acknowledgement.

Instead, the Minister for Local Government has now asked councils to cease implementation work until the review concludes.

We are told the review will take weeks rather than months. But what will it examine? What happens next?

Will councillors have any role in it? We have not been told in any detail.

Next May's elections will now proceed on existing boundaries and that throws into serious doubt the April 2028 start date for the new councils.

It is Mr Chairman nothing short of a shambles.

Leaders of every political colour across Kent and Medway are now asking the same questions.

A Labour government policy presented as urgent has been halted following judicial review proceedings brought about by Reform -led county councils in the devolution priority programme, on the strength of legal advice that has not been made public.

We saw the same earlier this year. Reform UK brought a judicial review when Labour ministers attempted to cancel elections in May.

The government withdrew that decision on legal advice at the last minute.

Mr Chairman, it seems lightning really does strike twice in MHCLG.

I am very proud that it is Reform nationally and Reform -led county councils who are successfully challenging bad decisions from this Labour government.

I notice that the Conservatives remain conspicuous by their absence in the debate.

But I am concerned that Ministers are treating LGR as a game. It is not.

Adult social care, children's services and highways are services that people depend on every day.

Dividing them between four councils is risky and it takes serious preparation.

Councils across Kent and Medway have already incurred significant costs establishing an LGR programme management office.

They did so on the promise from government that funding would cover those costs this financial year.

Will the funding now arrive? We simply don't know.

The Secretary of State has promised Parliament conversations with councils about costs.

What we actually need are commitments.

Kent taxpayers should not be left paying for Whitehall's mistakes.

Over the past three financial years, KCC alone has incurred just over £500 ,000 in direct LGR preparation costs.

Add to that the cost of senior officers and elected members' time diverted from service delivery and the overall cost could easily exceed £1 million.

Throughout this uncertainty, I want our residents to know that keeping services running remains the number one priority for KCC.

And members will know from recent reports in the press that I am considering a legal challenge to the 16th of July decision on Option 4B.

You may ask, why bother? Especially now the government has told us to pause.

Well, because, and this is important, a pause is not a withdrawal.

The government withdrew its decisions for four areas in the devolution priority programme ahead of court proceedings.

It did not withdraw the Kent and Medway decision.

Any judicial review challenge to the original LGR decision must be brought promptly and in any event within three months.

That gives us a deadline of mid -October.

We understand that this time limit does not stop running merely because the government has chosen to pause and review its own decision.

We're still waiting for a substantive response to our July letter.

But if we wait and if the government then flip -flops back to us having four unitary councils, KCC could find that the clock had run down on the right to challenge that decision.

That is not a risk I am prepared to take.

The KCC administration intends to protect KCC's position.

It will send a pre -action protocol letter to the Secretary of State in the coming days.

This is the necessary next step in challenging the government's decision of the 16th of July and protecting KCC's position.

Let me make it crystal clear.

A pre -action letter is a measured step.

It gives the Government a further opportunity to answer the legitimate concerns I raised on 27 July.

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we will ask our lawyers to issue proceedings to protect KCC's position and the interests of our 1 .6 million residents and service users whose interests we were elected to protect.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of Kent, I will not accept such shoddy treatment at the hands of such a careless and clueless government.

I thank you Mr Chairman for the extra time given my extended report today.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:18:38

Thank you Leader. I now call upon the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hook. Mr Hook, your response to the Leader's speech is now six minutes.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Antony Hook - 1:18:48

Chairman, I'd like to start with this.

This council has a statutory interest in public safety.

12 days ago in Kent, we saw the most outrageous sight,

a beautiful late summer Saturday morning,

interrupted by hundreds of men, black clad, faces covered,

blocking streets around our great port town.

Usually, protests communicate through placards or loudspeakers to persuade.

But all those silent anonymous men did was take on an appearance bound to cause alarm.

People do not usually wear face coverings of that nature in September.

And if they do, I suggest it is most likely to convey menace and threat.

Anyone with the faintest knowledge of history understands the message implied by ranks of black shirts.

And we must reject any agenda built on racial or religious stereotypes or prejudice.

There remain questions for the police, and I congratulate the council's police and crime panel for starting that process.

When other protesters have blocked the port, they have been moved on, yet this group was apparently allowed to obstruct our port and the wider town for hours.

And blockages and the inducement of fear must never be allowed to influence policy.

Let me say a word please about and express some appreciation of Kent's lifeboat men and women from Ramsgate to Walmer to Dover and all around our coast.

The RNLI are courageous volunteers who rescue anyone in danger on the sea.

And recently they have faced the most despicable harassment.

When a person is in danger, they are simply a human being needing rescue.

Nationality is neither here nor there.

And once the rescuee is safe on terra firma, it is for the authorities to determine whether they have grounds to remain.

And it is wrong to persecute the rescuers because you think the state makes the wrong decision.

The Kent R &I deserve our full -throated support.

And Chairman, empathy for others has to extend to our public services.

The council knows that Kent and Medway NHS made aggressive cuts to NHS fertility treatment.

My group and others at HOSC fought that and pushed a reference to the Secretary of State.

It was good news that that cut was withdrawn, but then over the summer,

the Kent NHS opened a further consultation which closed on 28th of August.

I'm pleased to report that my group, with the help of an extremely capable officer,

has submitted a detailed reply to the consultation opposing cuts

to facility treatment for our residents.

I understand and was disappointed to be told the administration has not submitted a consultation

reply opposing cuts, I implore the administration to do so and to ask that the NHS accept it

after the deadline.

Since LGR began in December 24, our group has said the real need is to devolve significant

power from Whitehall to a more local level.

Rejoining council boundaries does not fix a single street, create places for children

with special needs, or plug the million pound gap in adult social care.

Nor should power be handed to a single individual, which you might call a mayor.

Power is always best exercised by a group of elected people with joint

responsibility. Now full council had updates in January and March 25 with

published papers that all 81 members were able to debate and vote on.

Chairman, it seems to me peculiar that we are now just getting ad hoc verbal

updates. The importance of this issue should attract a proper debate with a published paper

that members consider in advance and all 81 members can participate in. The LGR committee

is now going for seven months without meeting. And LGR decisions will likely last for 50

years. We have to get above the easy party politics, which is quickly forgotten, and

engage in a more professional way with the substance.

Finally, Chairman, let me come to resources because since we'd last met, the figures for

quarter one of this financial year, April to June, have at long last been published.

And the terrible news is that the council overspent again what's in the budget, the

budget that we agreed in February and started in April.

For this year, now another overspend of 28 million pounds is forecast.

And that is utterly terrifying when you bear in mind how small our reserves are

and how great our risk exposure is.

I would ask Chairman for the Council Leader to guarantee that by the time we get the quarter

to two figures that forecast overspend will be less severe.

And once we finish the year as a whole there will be no overspend.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:24:02

Thank you Mr. Hook.

I now turn to Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Thomas your speech is now limited to four minutes and 30 seconds.

Thank you.

Paul Thomas - 1:24:09

Thank you, Chair. It's good to see the LGR was mentioned but, as has already been mentioned,

it's a shame that that wasn't part of a full debate. Interesting to see that the leaders

mentioned LGA but when she swept into power she saw no relevance for it. On a positive

note, I applaud that the Water Resilience Partnership is actually meeting in the not -too -distant

future but let's hope it does address the real issues which are let's get the

mains and the roads dealt with and adequate to secure supply.

Dolge, well that's quite interesting changing the deed to delivery but I'd like to remind you

in order to deliver you need to determine savings and efficiencies in

the first place so that could be quite interesting to watch. It's pleasing to

I know you went to 5 Acrewood School which sits within my constituency but that's another

area where hopefully you did notice that there's always building work on there because that

school has to keep expanding for the increased need.

Women's safety, I'm not going to touch upon the illegal boat emergency other than just

read the Restore Britain's National Policy on Mass Deportation and that will show you

beyond Albany where we actually stand on this site.

Yeah? Right, we've already mentioned that but.

But.

Mr. Thomas just wait a second.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:25:42

Mr. Baker please.

Thank you.

Carry on.

Paul Thomas - 1:25:45

Yep. But one thing I would like to note is this full council agenda is very light

on substantive items so I can only assume that this is a reflection of the lack

of business being dealt with by the administration or is it a case they're doing business

but they don't want to bring it into this chamber for debate.

It's great to note the government grants us for increased capacity for vehicles at the

Port of Dover and we're prepared to support any further promotion of skinks to alleviate

the need for BROC and negative impacts on Kent roads.

But I also trust that the administration will make accurate and full declarations when they

use the services.

Turning to LGR, Restore Britain have been opposed to LGR and against the administration's

crackpot proposal on ALGR. I find the leader describing the government's decision as a

victory for reform quite extraordinary. On the 14th of April, the monitoring officer

informed Councillor Fothergill in writing, with that correspondence copied to myself,

the Chief Executive and Senior Officers that there was no specific legislation requiring

KCC to undertake these LGR preparations. KCC was choosing to act pragmatically and in readiness.

Councillor Fothergill has repeatedly challenged this approach and the need to properly consult.

I supported her and we attempted to bring a motion before this Council last September

but that was refused. Yet instead of stopping, listening or challenging the

government through the courts as Reform -led Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk subsequently did,

this administration chose to devise and pursue its own LGR option. The leader now

admits that around one million pounds has been wasted on the shenanigans

and separately on the 9th of June she personally approved the strategic partner

decision and further LGR implementation arrangements before the government's July decision was

ever known.

So how exactly is this a victory? Kent taxpayers deserve answers as to why around £1 million

was spent pursuing something the Council was not specifically required by legislation to

pursue in this way, when there were other routes available.

Other Reform Councils fought LGR. Kent's Reform Administration chose to spend money pursuing it.

That is not a victory, it is a serious failure of political judgement and accountability.

And Restore Britain, Kent thanked the tenacity of Mrs Fothergill for a continued diligence,

leading on this thing even though it doesn't get the support.

But just because it doesn't get the support doesn't mean it is the right course of action.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:28:35

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr Thomas.

I now call upon Mr Hood, leader of the Green Group.

Your speech is limited to three minutes and 30 seconds.

Thank you, Mr Hood.

Mark Hood - 1:28:45

Is there any town which could do with less disruption to its road network than Dover?

We have had Stack, we've had Brock, Tack and now Danny Tomo, but not a word of condemnation.

Both the leader and Rupert Lowe justified the blockading of the Port of Dover by uniformed,

mask -wearing, fighting -age men who travelled to Dover to block the roads, terrorise our

communities and damage our county's economy.

Forty per cent of those arrested at immigration protests have convictions for domestic violence.

That is where the danger lies.

They wore balaclavas because they were too cowardly to show their faces, and the only

boats they stopped were the commercial ferries whose trade they disrupted for the whole day

and subsequently RNLI lifeboats in Portsmouth.

Congratulations to Dr Ingrid Dodd on increasing her vote share to become Dover District Council's

first Green Councillor.

Thank you to Reform for providing the motivation for other parties to help make that happen.

Some may say that we couldn't have done it without you.

On the subject of increasing and preserving civic pride of place and identity, it seems

that the fragmenting of our great county by LGR is now on hold.

I am unusually in complete agreement with the leader regarding the huge uncertainty

hanging over those employed by the council.

Members come and go, but many officers have built their careers here, serving our people

and they deserve to know what the future holds for them.

We know that the Prime Minister will be looking at other options, including a more universal

mayoral model, but this hiatus also provides us with a chance to offer a third way forward.

An Assembly for Kent.

An Assembly would still elect a leader who would act as a figurehead if the Government remains obsessed with speaking to one person for every region.

If districts are agreeable, we could still combine councils into fewer, larger authorities, improve efficiency and reduce duplication.

We know how problematic it will be to disaggregate our most complex services down to four voluntary councils.

and by adopting an assembly model, we can continue to operate children's services

and adult social care county -wide, while preventing the creation of councils set up to fail and

burdened by disproportionate costs of delivering higher rates of care while being incapable

of raising enough council tax revenue.

Kent has an unequal demographic, but collectively we can ensure that no area and no resident

is left behind.

Converting our county council to an assembly will be far more cost effective and will prevent

the haemorrhaging of valued staff through early retirement or costly redundancy.

This model is already working in Northern Ireland and we have exceptional circumstances

in the shape of our role as the gateway of Europe and with the US.

Rest assured we will not require a first minister and we will avoid the risk of having an unaccountable

mayor of any hue being free of effective scrutiny.

Cornwall has given its residents the voice to choose whether that ancient nation wanted a mayor and their voice was clear.

69 % said no. Our people should be given the same opportunity.

Cornwall is having a strategic foundation authority but given Kent and Medway are the same size as Northern Ireland,

we should be pressing for stronger devolved powers and requesting that the Assembly is represented in the Mayoral Council of England as the Cornish leader is.

There should be no penalty for the non -mayoral authorities who resist the concentration of power into the hands of the few.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:32:12

Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr Hood. I will now be calling Mr Rayner, who is the leader of the Conservative group. Mr Rayner, your speech is limited to three minutes.

Thank you.

Harry Rayner - 1:32:21

Thank you Chairman. I shall first speak to the matter of local government reform.

For the last two years, at least for me, since the autumn of 2024, when the present central government brought forward rushed and incoherent reform of proposals.

At first in December 2024, it was devolved the mayoral proposal with a budget to match, subsequently withdrawn in February of 2025 at 24 hours notice.

Since that time, local government reform has been promoted by the local government in a

disjointed and ultimately unlawful fashion to the detriment of the whole of Kent local

government.

In short, it has sucked the oxygen from Kent local government, which will undoubtedly have

been to the detriment of the people of Kent by discouraging all sorts of initiatives for

improvement of the current structure.

I further wish to record my thanks and that of my group to all the officers of KCC, Medway

and all the Tier 2 authorities for their unstinting efforts and hard work.

I do sincerely hope that their efforts have not been and will not be in vain.

I look to now address the anticipated budget overspend.

I draw the attention of this administration to the pace

of the increase of their overspend

on the current year's budget.

And also to the impact still to come

of fast increasing diesel prices to the fast increasing

and in fact rapidly increasing price

of cereals grains worldwide.

Both of these impact heavily on food prices and draw the attention of the government increase

in bond coupon prices which increasingly put pressure on mortgage holders.

I call upon the administration to take urgent steps to cease to make any unnecessary expenditure

and take steps, I hope even before we meet again in full council, to ensure that they bring in emergency expenditure arrangements, which the previous administration did in similar circumstances.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:34:45

Mr Chairman, I will leave the matter there.

Thank you Mr Rayner. And finally I call on Mr Brady, Leader of the Labour group. Mr Brady, your speech is limited to 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

Alister Brady - 1:34:53

Thank you. The Youth Guarantee is an opportunity that matters for Kent.

Many Kent employers continue to report skill shortages.

By strengthening pathways into apprenticeships, training and employment,

and by working closely with schools, colleges and local businesses,

KCC must take this opportunity to help more young people develop the skills employers need

and build successful careers here in Kent.

In Canterbury, over 6 % of 16 -17 year olds are presenting not in education, employment or training.

That is 223 young people. This is a KCC failure and young people are being let down.

KCC must do more and look to support the youth guarantee.

For disabled residents across Kent, changes to the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme will make a real difference.

In a large county where many people rely on busses, the removal of the bus pass -time restriction

from April 2027 will improve independence, reduce transport costs and help thousands

of residents stay connected to their communities.

Chairman, following the far -right disorder in Dover and Kent's unique position as the

gateway to Europe, tackling radicalisation is a local issue as much as a national one.

The new Countering Violent Extremism hub will help strengthen efforts to identify emerging threats and intervene earlier when people show signs of radicalization.

KCC must play a leading role in protecting communities from extremism and strengthening community cohesion.

As we move into autumn, KCC must play its part in the government's new Rough Sleeping programme,

helping people experiencing homelessness move away from rough sleeping and into safe accommodation and support for Kent services.

Also, Kent must get involved in the bids for the new community energy funding, which has just been announced by government,

and must signpost local businesses towards the new hospitality grant scheme. I will be following all of those closely.

But I'll end on LGR.

It is a pause by the new Secretary of State to review the process.

I'm hearing that officers across Kent welcome the more relaxed timeframe, which will probably

see a delay by a year.

I'm certain the administration's leader was briefed on this, which would have included

that information.

Thank you, Chair.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:37:26

Thank you, Mr Brady.

Before I invite the leader back, I would like to remind leaders that you are responding

to the leader's report.

and I understand that there has been in the past a view that there's an opportunity to

stand up and speak what you want to speak about, but you're being asked to respond to

the leader's report. That is the agenda item.

So for future, think a bit harder about how you want to engage along the terms of how

you... No, Mr Hood, I'm not taking a point of order.

I'm now going to invite the speaker to respond. Thank you.

Leader of the council.

Linden Kemkaran - 1:37:55

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Well, as always, the level of understanding about LGR is woeful.

It is woeful, especially from the AI chatbot over there in the corner.

You cannot launch a judicial review until the government has handed down a decision.

Everybody should know that. Everyone should know that.

Essex, for example, were further down the road than us because they were on the devolution priority programme.

They spent around three and a half million pounds on preparing for LGR before they were able to receive a decision from government and launch a judicial review.

Kent is not an outlier, Kent is just a few steps behind in the process through no fault of our own.

So that is the first thing I wanted to address.

And I'm glad that my Labour friend was so bullish, I always thought he might not have the guts to say anything.

Because quite frankly, what's he brought to the table today?

We've had the most disgusting treatment of this council by this government.

And we wouldn't mind, but it was Angela Revolving -Dore Rayner who started the nonsense of LGR and Kent in the first place.

She got the sack for tax avoidance, she comes back to the same job and then pulls the plug on her own scheme.

I mean you couldn't make it up and thanks to Labour we've now got an unelected, unwanted Prime Minister who has absolutely no intention of cutting welfare to fund warfare and still the boats keep coming.

I'm glad you mentioned the protests as well. It might be an idea if the government actually stopped the boats and then people might not feel a need to take to the streets to protest.

Mr Chairman, 5000 people in just 8 weeks have broken into our country since Prime Minister

Burnham inserted himself into number 10.

And when we declared an illegal migration emergency in Kent, our Labour friends walked

out with all of the rest of them.

It's an absolute disgrace.

You couldn't make it up Mr Chairman.

In fact, the sooner we get a general election the better.

And Mr Chairman, I've come to the conclusion the only good thing about having a Labour

government is that it's a salutary lesson to all the young voters out there who can

now see with their own eyes just how hopeless they always are when they get into power.

Coming on to the Conservatives, sorry where are they? Oh there they are, there they are,

sorry. They're a bit smaller than last time aren't they? They're a bit smaller. Mr Chairman,

if you believe what you read in the papers, there is chaos in the rapidly diminishing

KCC Tory group. A female member leaving in mysterious circumstances, the rest of them

walking around looking totally miserable. And it's no wonder, Mr Chairman, it's no wonder

they glum because the Conservatives in Kent represent a legacy of failure so

forgive me if I don't take Treasury management advice from their group

leader, forgive me if I don't listen to their advice on managing budgets and

reducing the level of council tax because the 28 years they had their

chance to run this council and I'm afraid last May the voters showed them

where the door was and as for the Greens well I'm glad the leader of the Green

party mentioned the protests again because when he talked about people who

have convictions for public disorder and violence I understand he might know a

good lawyer maybe he can pass that on to anyone who is arrested. Their newest

member for Cliftonville, let me come on to that, he seems permanently confused

and I'd like to help. He seems to think that KCC is somehow responsible for

those protests in Dover. He's put out a petition on social media today calling

for a review into the actions of the Kent County Council. What is he talking about?

Does anybody know? And I notice he's also addicted to making dodgy videos claiming he's

personally saved various bus routes and opened new libraries. Does he have some sort of messiah

complex Mr Chairman? I would love to know. It is embarrassing his lack of knowledge.

So let me help. It is this party Reform UK that has sorted out the busses. It is Reform

UK who has filled a record number of potholes and got a grip on adult social

care and opened new libraries when the Conservatives wanted to close a third of

them. Mr. Chairman the Greens are a joke they have their boob whispering council

tax dodging party leader who wants to open borders and let more imported

rapists and terrorists and give free class -a drugs to everyone we say no

thank you to that. And as for the Liberal Democrats well as the poor people of

Piddington I have discovered if you vote Lib Dem you end up with thousands of

illegal migrants dumped on the doorstep.

Refugees welcome, they cry.

Yes, but not too close to my lovely home, please.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I have saved the worst until last.

At the weekend, a restore member sitting in this chamber

dared to post on social media about a pleasant visit

to the Sikh temple in Gravesend,

something many of us on this side of the chamber

have enjoyed and experienced very much indeed.

The torrent of abuse that followed from her own party

was really shocking.

The Member had to turn off replies, such was the vitriol, hatred and vile naked racism that poured from paid up Members of that party opposite.

It is disgusting. Their own party leader was in the papers for focusing on the skin colour of pupils at Dartford Girls Grammar School. Quite astonishing.

Mr Chairman, it is deeply, deeply concerning that we have members of this Council who have joined a political party that contains a vast number of members who hold such abhorrent views and unashamedly post them on social media.

So, Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the leader of the group, Councillor Paul Thomas, why he has not spoken up publicly in defence of his own member who is sitting next to him and whether that is an indication that he agrees with the racist, ethno -nationalist views expressed by those on the right.

I would appreciate hearing Mr. Thomas explain in his own words why he has kept quiet because I think it is something we would all be interested to hear.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:43:36

Councillor Thomas, explain. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you Leader. As I pointed out before during the Leader's Report and response to the Leader's Report, I don't take points of order nor do we allow people to follow up.

So we're now going to break for lunch. At the time of 12 .45 I would ask everyone to return to the Chamber at 1 .45. Thank you.

6 Report by Leader of the Council

Jeremy Eustace - 1:44:01

We now move to agenda item number seven, which is the Planning Applications Committee Terms of Reference changes.

Before I ask Mr. Wimble to stand up, I understand that an amendment was put forward by the Liberal Democrat group.

I understand that that amendment has required some work to get to a point where it was ready this morning.

I have ruled in the past here and made clear that I will only accept amendments up to the day before council meets.

So on that basis and because it's important that I remain consistent and not be accused of any kind of party bias,

but I will not be allowing that amendment to come forward today.

Mr. Wimble, I've made my decision, Mr. Chair.

I'm not invited to speak.

Please sit down.

Thank you.

I've made my decision.

Mr. Wimble.

Mr. Wimble will move and Mr. Chapman will second the recommendations on page 31

of the agenda pack.

Mr. Wimble.

Thank you, Chair and members.

7 Planning Applications Committee - Terms of Reference changes

David Wimble - 1:45:04

Item 7 of your paper seeks approval for changes to the constitution and terms of reference

for planning applications committees.

These amendments are required to implement new national regulations which introduce a

national scheme of delegation for planning decisions and place limits on the size of

planning committees.

The purpose of these changes is to provide a greater clarity and consistency in planning

decision -making, which will then enable committees to focus on the most significant development

proposals affecting their areas.

More routine, minor technical applications will be determined by officers.

From 31 October 2026, this default position will be that applications are determined by

officers unless they meet one or two national tests.

Firstly, when an application rises an important economic, social or environmental issue of

significance to the local area, or secondly, where it rises significant planning issues

when assessed against the local plan and other material planning considerations.

Applications submitted by Kent County Council will also be assessed against additional transparency and propriety tests.

Under the proposed arrangements, the Chair of the Planning Application Committee or Vice Chair in their absence

and the Head of Planning Applications will jointly determine whether an application meets these tests and should be referred to committee.

To ensure the process remains efficient, a triage system is proposed to screen out applications

that clearly do not meet the national criteria, while any cases where there is uncertainty

will be discussed and agreed with the chair.

Local views will remain a very important consideration in the planning process.

However, referral to committee will depend on whether the issue raised satisfies the

national test.

officers will continue to work with applicants and communities to address local concerns wherever possible.

In practise, it is anticipated that the committee will continue to determine the majority of significant applications currently considered under existing arrangements,

but members will have less involvement in cases involving limited or purely localised objections.

The committee's focus will increasingly be on the most significant and sensitive planning matters affecting Kent.

The report also includes consequential changes arising from Council's decision for the

committees to assume the functions of the former Regulation Committee.

It is therefore proposed that the Committee be renamed the Planning, Applications and

Regulation Committee and that membership is capped at 13 members in line with the new

regulations.

These proposals were considered and supported by the selection of Member Services Committee

on 8 September.

In conclusion, these changes are mandatory and nationally prescribed.

They will ensure that the Council remains legally compliant and clear.

Effective procedures are put in place allowing members to concentrate on the most important

planning issues facing Kent.

I therefore move the recommendation as set out in the report.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:48:20

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Wimble.

Mr Chapman, you were seconding the recommendations.

Thank you very much Mr Chairman.

Wayne Chapman - 1:48:28

I am seconding this item as clearly put out there by Councillor Wimble.

I would also like to let people know of recent times there was the selection member services

committee of which this clearly went straight through with nothing commented upon from any

other members of any other parties at all or even within ourselves.

There's also been two sessions of online training within the last week as well as two site visits

with officers at Ryarsh and Manston and again with the officers and there's been no consultation

or questions being asked of the officers albeit on one of these site visits which was by one of

our members Dean Truder he asked a question to the officer where he was then suitably furnished

I believe with the answer that he was given so for this reason and seeing as best practise here

Jeremy Eustace - 1:49:21

has gone forward I fully endorse this as well thank you. Thank you Mr Chapman I have Mr Hooke

Signal to speak first.

Thank you.

Antony Hook - 1:49:26

Chairman, you've put me in a position where I won't be able to support this paper today.

And so that Council is clear on the chronology, the Chairman of Democratic Services were emailed

on Tuesday, two days before at 12 o 'clock this amendment.

At 9 .58 today, Democratic Services and the Chairman's behalf asked for some small changes.

And before 11 o 'clock, I indicated that we were agreeable to those small technical changes.

So the amendment was indeed in substance served two days in advance.

And it is disappointing that council has now denied the opportunity to vote on that and to consider it.

What has happened in this paper is the administration has chosen to go further than statute requires.

It is a sad fact that we have to amend our rules because of national legislation

which dilutes the power and role of members.

Something that is wrong with what's proposed is that the triage system will be decided only by the chair and an officer.

We think it better the whole committee should be involved in that.

We also think that there should be transparency and that the decision that's made should not simply be reported to the committee, quote, on a regular basis,

but should be published online for the public to see as soon as possible.

We had proposed five days.

The officers said one calendar month was deliverable

and we were happy to reluctantly agree with that.

It's also important that local members are involved.

It's a pity the national legislation prevents local members

from having a very central role in planning matters.

We say that written into these rules ought to be a requirement that the local member,

we all as 81 local members know our areas really well and will think

of considerations that won't be obvious to others.

The local members should be consulted.

Now it may well be by practise convention that should happen.

But the role of the local member ought to be protected

without being written into the rules.

So the administration having obstructed

and could well just simply accept this amendment,

which they've seen since yesterday, having obstructed

that small move for a bit more transparency,

a bit more democracy, then I'm afraid we cannot support the

Jeremy Eustace - 1:51:48

administration's paper today that takes powers from members and takes information from the

public.

Thank you Mr Hook.

I have Mr Ricketts.

Alex Ricketts - 1:51:54

Thank you chair.

As Mr Hook said, large amounts of this paper are things that we simply have to do because

it's legislation that's been passed down by the current government, absolutely.

And it is poor legislation in my view.

I think we're lucky in this chamber at the day that this isn't a planning authority,

but I have dealt with this in my other role as a district councillor, this takes a huge amount of power away from local councils.

It's not been given a huge amount of publicity.

And I think we had the opportunity here today to claw a little bit of that power back, and I'm disappointed that this is being nodded through, and enthusiastically nodded through.

I think either by poor drafting or by intention, this weakens the power of this chamber.

and I'm very disappointed that there were some very sensible amendments here that I was going to support

and I was optimistic that everybody would support them, that local members would be informed.

The legislation talks about the nominated officer and the nominated member.

That puts the nominated officer in the same place as the elected member.

Now officers are fantastic, they are knowledgeable, and they know everything,

but we are elected here to make decisions on behalf of our members, on behalf of the people who elect us.

Having a nominated officer and a nominated member as the decision -making group takes power away from us and we're voting that through today.

We had an opportunity here to make a very small tweak to this and this by the way, in the planning regime that's being imposed on us, is all that we have left.

We can't call in any development over 150 houses anymore. We can't, as a planning committee, make those kind of decisions that we used to be able to make as local councillors.

The one thing left is to impose some small conditions and we had an opportunity to take a little bit of power back today

and it has been summarily dismissed so I will not be supporting this paper and it's a shame.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:53:46

Thank you Mr Ricketts. Ms Russell.

Claudine Russell - 1:53:54

Thank you Chair. I am disappointed because I thought the amendment made sense and it was logical and I think everyone should be cognisant of what we're voting for here.

We're voting for the removal of some of our powers as an elected community representative.

That can never be a good thing.

These changes to planning in the wider sense are frankly incredulous and given the government's

supposed drive for devolution, it seems like they will devolve blame but retain some decision

making, which is a real shame.

Doing this, we're bowing down to central government dicked out and I didn't think you did that.

In the interest of consistency and with the representations that I've also heard today,

I'm going to be voting against this without the amendment,

which I think was a sensible way forward.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:54:34

Shame you didn't take it.

Thank you, Ms. Russell.

Mr. Thomas.

Paul Thomas - 1:54:38

Thank you, Chair.

And likewise, I'm disappointed

that the proposed amendment wasn't allowed to go forward,

especially as it was forwarded to me by email in advance

of this meeting, in fact, yesterday.

So to say we didn't have the opportunity to do it,

it disappoints me that the Reform Administration is

prepared to roll over and have their tummies tickled

in this instance. It is a shame that it is a reduction in democratic policies, especially

at the local level. I'm disappointed that the amendment couldn't go forward because

it at least resurrect the opportunity to give the consultation with the local member, which

I think is a shame and it would be helpful if the opposition or the administration would

Jeremy Eustace - 1:55:29

actually say, come on, let's at least reconsider the proposed amendment here today.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr Thomas.

Before anyone else makes any comments, I want to remind people why the amendment has not

come forward.

It's not because of the content of what was in the amendment, it was because of the timing

of when it was delivered to me.

This is no reflection on any decision by the administration, it is a decision from the

Chair.

I now invite Mr Palmer.

Thank you, Chair.

Richard Palmer - 1:55:55

I think the changes to the planning rule introduced by governments is an attack on democracy and the speakers are quite right.

However, this amendment, this paper of recommendation is just complying with what the government have put in place.

Now, I'm amazed actually when people are saying we need to be told about something happening.

If something is happening in my area that affects my residents, I make sure that people know about it.

I make sure that officers know and I will contact the planning.

I have done and I will do.

So I don't need something to say, speak to the ward member, because I make my voice well known when something is affecting my area.

That's what I thought all members did.

Not just sitting back waiting for someone to contact you.

I believe the actual legislation says that the chair and the nominator person, in this

case it's the chair and the planning officer, but if they can't agree then it automatically

goes on the safe side of the planning officer.

So you can see that the government has phrased the legislation in such a way, and I agree,

it is taking powers away, but all we're doing today is tidying up our procedures so that

they comply with legislation.

So I will certainly be supporting it because I think it would be wrong and it would delay

process and it would cause severe problems if they're not consistent with what the legislation

says.

So I think we need to follow the legislation.

However, we need to hold the government to account.

It's the government who's introduced this, it's the government and it's going to be the

districts, the housing authorities who are really going to suffer and we're going to

a mushroom of housing, all built housing, and that's because the Labour Government

have killed democracy at a local level. They've removed it from the parish councils, from the

district councils, and unfortunately we have to support this to tidy up our policy and make it

Jeremy Eustace - 1:57:59

fit for purpose and compliant. Thank you. Thank you Mr Palmer. I have Mr Hood next.

Mark Hood - 1:58:05

Thank you very much, Chair. I think it's clear that the amendment was proposed and that Democratic

Services were aware of this well before the required time. I'm enjoying the pantomime

that somehow the position of the Chair and the Administration are detached.

Jeremy Eustace - 1:58:24

Mr Hood, sit down. Thank you. I'm going to say this now. Please don't go where you think

you're going because I don't want to have to respond accordingly. That's all I'm going

Mr. Strafield.

Thank you, Chairman.

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 1:58:39

I think there are two or three things at play here.

First of all is Mr. Palmer's point

about whether the local member is active and has his voice

or her voice heard in the debate.

And the amendment was very clear about retaining a formal role

for that voice, not an informal one for Mr. Palmer.

It's about whether we do what the government asks as,

go beyond what the government is asking or whether we retain as much power for local

members as we possibly can. And there is a kind of the points of order kind of element

of whether we can hear the amendment and your decision not to allow that to come forward.

All of those three are I'm sure will be subject to further discussion, but I think for the

of whether members in general would like to have their voice heard in regard to planning.

There is a clear choice about whether you support going further than the government wants

or whether we try and retain for this chamber the power that we can in these matters,

where we can on behalf of our residents, taking Mr Palmer's point that if we're active

then we will have our voices heard, but it's about in future potentially with other administrations

coming in and then not being able to be heard on that basis. So we just have to consider

whether from a point of view of the majority that is a good thing or whether if you're

in a minority position whether you, if you were in our position, whether you would want

your voice heard formally and I think the answer for all of us, I hope the answer for

all of this is please vote against the paper as it currently stands.

It will be easy to bring forward a new paper which retains our ability to have our voices

formally heard in this so I urge you to vote against the motion.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:00:37

I'm sure it will be picked up afterwards with Mr Chairman.

Thank you Mr Sheffield.

I have Mr Dixon.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

Spencer Dixon - 2:00:44

Just on that note of having our voices heard, I've got it in front of me here and it says

the local member is invited to comment on all planning applications

and their views are considered in the decision making process.

Any reports, committee or delegated includes the local member view.

Local members' views are therefore embedded in the process.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:01:04

So I hope that clears this up a little bit for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Dixon.

I am going to return to Mr. Whittle in a second,

but is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter?

Sorry, Mr. Paul.

Martin Paul - 2:01:15

Thank you Mr Chairman. As members will be aware, I chair the Selection and Member Services

Committee. The committee last met on Tuesday 8 September when this paper was considered

in full and unanimously approved by all members, including the Opposition. There was plenty

of opportunity at that meeting for Opposition members to debate the matter and propose any

amendments or alternative motions. They did neither.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:01:47

Thank you.

Thank you Mr Paul. Anyone else wish to speak? I'll go to Mr Wimble.

Peter Osborne - 2:01:56

Thank you Mr Chairman. I was going to do a sum up but I'm actually quite disappointed.

David Wimble - 2:02:01

If you had a good motion to come forward I would have liked to have seen it as a person

putting the paper forward.

I've taken the advice of our head of planning, who's basically we've done the minimum required

as an authority to meet the government's regulations as far as I can see.

I'm very disappointed that we've had this forced upon us in the first place.

I think as well as the county, it's going to hit the boroughs and districts even harder.

This isn't something that we've elected to do.

It's not a reform motion.

We are purely doing what is asked of us from central government, and we've required to

do the minimum amount of legislation to put this in place.

So for that reason, I'm still asking people to back this paper, because it's not down

to reform, it's not down to Kent or political party, it's down to national government, which

I do disagree with, because I do believe that local members should have more input, but

we can't under their legislation.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:03:06

So I move the paper.

Thank you, Mr. Wimble.

Recommendation is the council is asked

to agree the proposed amendments to the Planning Applications

Committee terms of reference to be approved,

agree that the name of the Planning Application Committee

be amended to Planning and Regulation Committee,

agree that the proposed amendments to the appendix

to the constitution incorporating the new planning

scheme of delegation be approved,

and delegate to the monitoring officer

the implementation of these changes on the 31st of October, 2026.

In light of some of the comments I've heard from the floor, I will put this to a vote.

This is meant to be a noting paper, but I understand where people are coming from,

so I will put it to a vote, thank you.

Vote - 2:03:45

A recorded vote, just to be clear, thank you.

So we can just bring that up.

Just to be clear, if you're for item seven or against, thank you.

Okay, that completes the voting.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:04:13

In favour, 43, abstain 3 against 23.

The Planning Applications Committee term of reference changes are approved.

Before I move on to Item 8, I do want to remind members, I did not make my ruling

on the substance of the amendment.

It was on the timing of when it was delivered to me.

Thank you.

8 Treasury Management Year End Report

I'm now moving on to agenda item number eight which is the Treasury Management

year -end report. Mr. Collins will move and Mr. Paul Chamberlain will second the

recommendations on page 68 of the agenda pack. Mr. Collins.

Brian Collins - 2:04:39

Thank you Mr. Chair. This in theory is quite a straightforward item. It is the

Treasury Management activity for last year 25 -26. Please bear in mind this is

obviously a few months away from where we are today so this does not represent

our current figure this is the report for 25 -26.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:05:05

Mr. Chamberlain do you wish to speak now?

Paul Chamberlain - 2:05:11

Thank you Mr. Chairman I've reserved my right to speak.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:05:13

Is there anybody else in the room? Mr. Steptoe you were first followed by Mr. Hoek.

Paul Stepto - 2:05:20

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Deputy Leader for the report.

So first of all, I understand that Treasury is now under the remit of Governance and Audit Committee,

and I understand the reasoning given in the appendix, but I still think it's a shame that the Administration chose not to reinstate the Treasury Management Group,

I think that group gave a lot of expert scrutiny of Treasury and transparency.

There were people there who were business owners, lawyers, people with lots of experience of financial services,

twin hatters who dealt with Treasury in their other councils and so on.

So I think the administration has missed an opportunity by not reinstating that group.

I've got two questions. First of all, in the appendix from paragraph E, it mentions that

there are plans to transition the investment holdings into a more liquid portfolio. This

involves replacing holdings in the pooled funds portfolio and the bonds with more liquid

instruments. So first of all, can they explain what those instruments are going to be? And

The second question relates to paragraph 6 .4, which relates to lobos, and it says that these

are loans where the lender has the option to propose an increase in the interest rate

at set dates following which the council has the option to either accept the raised interest

rate or pay off the loan.

It says that Dexier has exercised their option on a £40 million loan during this period.

So I'm assuming that they put up their interest rate.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

But if that's the case, can they tell me what interest rate we're now paying on that loan?

Jeremy Eustace - 2:07:11

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steptoe.

I now call on Mr. Hook.

Antony Hook - 2:07:17

Thank you very much, Chairman.

And I echo what Mr. Steptoe said, which is regret that the Council seems

to have a formal treasury management group.

But I can say, Chairman, some good news, that since the summer,

the opposition groups have effectively recreated it

and are having our own treasury management meetings

with treasury management officers.

And the administration would be very welcome to come

if they would like to.

I'd like to thank our very professional treasury

and finance officers.

The reduction in the borrowing portfolio is a result

of officer decisions that was explained

at the treasury management group

within the council's approved treasury framework.

It is not the result of any political intervention.

Our officers do an exemplary job managing risk, but they can only work with the cash

that members' decisions leave them.

And I implore all of us members to please not look away at what the paper

for item eight actually reveals.

The existential threat that runs through the paper is liquidity.

Councils collapse when they run out of actual available cash to pay the bills,

and members must read the warnings on the face of this report.

In a single year, our cash investment balances dropped by 160 million, crashing to 316 from

476.

And even more alarmingly, so that's section 12 .3 of the report, the council openly records

that it's liquid cash dropped below our own mandatory minimum safety threshold.

We breached our own liquidity floor.

To keep going, the council is now internally borrowing 449 million against our own reserves

and working capital.

What are the real consequences of that in the real world?

Well, the council is now being forced to unwind covered bonds, to liquidate pooled funds early

and specifically to support basic liquidity needs, like having money at the end of the

month or the end of the week to pay the bills.

When authority has cash in long -term investments, has the cash in long -term investments to collect

the day -to -day position, that is really worrying.

And we face an in -year forecast this year,

an overspend of 28 million.

And the council, of course, sacrificed 10 million

of liquidity for a gimmick with the council tax

that gave back the man in the street one pound 40 a month.

We will eventually, if we keep going in this way,

run out of road.

And if we run out of road, what happens is awful.

Government commissioners come in, enforce drastic cuts, and that is harrowing for all of the people that we all care about.

And every member here shares legal responsibility for KCC's financial survival.

The warning lights are flashing red, the ice we're skating on is getting thin, and we cannot pretend we weren't warned.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:10:12

Thank you, Mr. Hook. Mr. Brady.

Alister Brady - 2:10:16

Thank you, Chair.

I'd also like to speak on pooled funds.

And for years, I've been requesting

that the administration, previous administration,

move away from money market funds

because of their volatility.

So it's good that we are moving away from those

and that's the policy.

But it is important, as Mr. Steptoe said,

of looking at what instruments we're moving to.

If you look at some of the accounts that we have, one of them is at 2 .4 % interest,

so I'm wondering why we still have funds.

Now I know it's good to diversify, but I'm sure there must be another instrument

that would get a better return than that.

And also on liquidity, that concern is real because we have 50 million pounds in Lobos.

We know that recently they've been a section of that.

I think 40 million was called, so we repaid.

And there's a very high probability,

which I've mentioned previously in other committees,

of those lobos being called by the end of this year.

That's 50 million pounds.

And if our liquidity is looking quite shaky, then that's going

to be coming from the reserves.

And if we're moving away from, we're making it more liquid,

moving away from money market funds,

I think that's a real concern because we're not going

to have as many reserves as we would have previously.

So I'd like to hear if we are going to be paying them off,

because I've asked this question before,

what would be the policy there if they are called

because that would mean we'll be paying a higher interest.

So I think the warning lights are flashing on our liquidity

Jeremy Eustace - 2:12:04

and I think we need to know more on that subject.

Thank you Mr. Brady.

Mr. Strieffler.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 2:12:11

I've only got two very simple points.

First of all, it's clear that one of the things that everyone on this side

of the Chamber is quite concerned about is the ongoing transparency

of where we are at any given time.

And the, what we're presented with today is a year to the end of April,

or to the beginning of April 2026, and we're six months later, and we're trying to have a debate

that gets to the bottom of some quite detailed issues with regard to treasury management

in a group of 81 people, not quite that many.

And there are loads more questions as we can hear, many more that are going to be able

to be answered in the three minutes that the cabinet members,

or six minutes the cabinet members have to be able to answer them.

So the answer to that is either we try and reinstate the treasury management committee,

as Mr. Hook has outlined, it's already going

on because officers give advice equally across the chamber.

That is absolutely right and proper.

But the public also need to be reassured in some way

that this is both timely and transparent.

And therefore I would ask again because otherwise there will be,

and I'm talking now in my role as the chair of scrutiny,

there has to be a better way of scrutinising the paper

that we've got in front of us in a more timely way than six months

after the end of the activity and to know

where we are broadly speaking on a quarterly basis in the way

that we do every other financial transaction.

So my point is that please could the administration look more carefully

at bringing more timely information to the council and do so in a forum that is better

and more appropriate for proper scrutiny of the item.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:13:45

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Sheffield.

I have no other speakers if I missed anybody.

Paul Chamberlain - 2:13:52

I'll return to Mr. Chamberlain who reserved his right.

Yes, thank you.

So long -term borrowing down, value of holdings are up.

So it's not all doom and gloom, is it?

I would like to just talk very quickly

about the Treasury Management Review Group,

because that's been mentioned quite a lot.

And it takes me back to when we first started here.

And I remember a colleague of mine very much offering

to work together as Dolch.

I also remember that very clearly being thrown back

at us.

I remember people saying, oh, this was before we ran out of ideas already.

This wasn't written out of ideas.

It was just offering collaboration.

And that's what happened.

I'd also make a note of there's been members here who have been very keen

to join the contract review group, very keen to join that.

And by myself, we're very much welcomed with open arms.

These people have taken no active role in that group.

I think it's just worth making those points.

when that's what's coming towards us, that's all.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:14:53

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain.

Now returning to Mr. Collins.

Brian Collins - 2:14:59

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought I was gonna have an easy item here.

I thought it was all fairly straightforward.

It reminds me of our great leader, Nigel Farage,

when something happens, he puts up on the screen,

Boring! That's what happens when you keep raising about the Treasury Management Group.

How many times, and I'll go through this again, yes, you keep telling us that you had a Treasury Management Group

and look at the mess you got us in.

Why on earth would I want to reinstate a Treasury Management Group that left this council in the amount of debt?

You will see in this paper today, 2 .9 million pounds a year is being saved without you being in the Treasury Management Group.

We're doing very well, thank you. I'm sure you've got other things you could be getting on with.

So no, there will be, not while I have anything to do with it, any Treasury Management Group with the opposition involved.

Now let's have a look at some of this other stuff. Investments, anybody that

wants to cheque on the investments you should have all the details of the

investments on the back there. Lobo loans, yes there may, although I did mention at

the start of this item that we were discussing the 25 -26 year, but as my

friend at the back there mentioned that there are a couple of LOBO loans that

may or may not be paid off at the end of the year and I will cross swords with my

friend across the chamber there. He's mentioned before that for some reason he

doesn't think I have any input on Treasury management. You said officers told you that they made the decisions.

I can assure you they don't make the decisions without consulting with me first.

So I respectfully ask you to get your facts right.

Council tax, Council tax. We keep hearing about Council tax

for me. I'm not even going to go there apart from just to remind

everybody that we put in the lowest Council tax for 14 years

and let's see what we do this year.

The several investments recovered, low -barrow loans

have covered. And then our other colleague there covered

about the Treasury Management Group.

So, you know, what can I say?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:17:34

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

I would remind everyone, let's keep it at an appropriate level.

And we'll go forward from there.

So I will be more finely tuned now having reminded the group

about that, the Chamber about that.

This particular item is around the council being asked

to note this report.

So I would ask if the council notes the report, please.

Thank you.

9 Proportionality Update

Now move on to Agenda Item Number 9, which is the Proportionality Update.

The Leader is to move and Mr. Collins is to second the recommendations set out on page

1 of the Supplement Agenda Pack.

Linden Kemkaran - 2:18:08

Leader.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted to present the Proportionality Update and the Council will be asked to approve

the amendment to the committee sizes and then delegate authority to the Head of Democratic

Services.

Everything is in the paper.

Thank you very much.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:18:25

Brian Collins - 2:18:28

Thank you, Leader. Mr. Collins? Just need to stand up, sir.

Do you second? I will second that.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:18:37

Would anyone else like to speak on the matter? Leader, is there anything else you'd like to say?

Linden Kemkaran - 2:18:46

Jeremy Eustace - 2:18:48

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing to add. Thank you.

Thank you.

So the County Councillor is asked to approve the amendment to the committee sizes and the allocation

of committee and subcommittee places between the political groups, delegate authority to the head

of Democratic Services to implement any time delay changes in consultation with the monitoring officer.

I'm going to call for a recorded vote on this because I want everyone to be clear

on what they're saying, so if you're in favour of the agenda item it's for,

if you're against it's against.

Thank you.

Vote - 2:19:21

I think one person might have impressed, but I saw 69 for no extension.

No objections.

69.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:19:50

Did I get it recorded correctly?

Super.

10 Motions for Time Limited Debate

We now move on to agenda item number 10,

which is motions for time -limited debate.

Each motion may last for a maximum of 45 minutes.

If not concluded before the time, the motion falls.

Our first motion this afternoon is from Liberal Democrats.

11 National Anthem

And I call on Mr. Streffield to propose.

Mr. Streffield.

10 Motions for Time Limited Debate

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 2:20:18

Thank you Mr Chairman, do you need me to read out the full motion?

Unless you really want to.

I'm glad you said that because I hope everyone has had a chance to read it.

Mr Chairman, do you want the good news or the bad news?

Because the bad news is quite serious.

There are Russian warships in the channel, war continues in Europe and every day our infrastructure, public services and utilities face cyber attacks designed to weaken our economy and shake our confidence.

The good news is this.

Kent has around 50 ,000 veterans, men and women with discipline, skills, experience and a

proven willingness to serve.

If we organise properly, they can become a powerful source of community resilience.

Ukraine has taught us a clear lesson.

Resilience is not only military, it is civic, local and human.

A country's strength depends not only on its armed forces, but on the preparedness of its

people.

For the first time in a century, this country is preparing to mobilise, albeit in a limited

way, the strategic reserve, and that includes me.

It is a sober reminder that security is not abstract.

It is personal, practical and immediate.

National defence is the first responsibility of government, but it cannot be the responsibility

of national government alone.

Local government must play its part too.

There are many routes to that national security, strong alliances, economic prosperity, social

unity and community cohesion.

But there are also men and women whose duty is to stand between us and those who would

do us harm.

We should be under no illusion.

We have enemies.

We are not at war, but we may be closer to it than at any point in the past hundred years.

The enemy is not at our gate, but he is attacking our networks every day.

So what should we do?

We fight back by understanding one another, working together and building common purpose.

This motion takes policy threads that are currently separate but already exist and binds

them into one stronger rope.

Kent veterans can provide strategic resilience if we know where they are, what they can do

and whether they are prepared to help.

We should map their skills, we should channel their commitment and where veterans need our

help, we should bring together the Public Health and Wellbeing Board, OPCourage, the

NHS Mental Health Services and OPCvalor. For those who have lost their way, we can help

set them back on the right path and give them renewed purposes.

Kent has the resources to do this. NHS trusts, charities, the Royal British Legion, veterans'

organisations, regular and reserve forces and cadets in every district. What is required

now is coordination. Now we must bring these threads together. We have the

experience, we have the people, we have the duty. Thank you Mr. Streatfield.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:23:14

Antony Hook - 2:23:18

Mr. Hook, you were nominated to second. Thank you very much, Chairman. I'm really proud to second this motion, so

overly brought by my brilliant colleague Mr. Streatfield. This is a really

comprehensive motion, it covers a lot of things and it recognises that veterans

are a profound underutilised civic asset, a reserve of leadership, skills and public

service right here in our community.

Kent knows the reality of local disruption all too well, whether it's from severe floods,

coastal emergencies or traffic gridlock.

And when statutory public service is a stretch to breaking point, community resilience depends

on volunteers, practical logistical capability, and calm under pressure.

And who better to anchor that resilience than men and women who have spent years operating

under command, solving complex logistical challenges and putting the good of the many

ahead of themselves.

By working through the local resilience forum and establishing a veterans community resilience

framework, we're not asking veterans to replace

sanctuary blue light services.

We're creating a structured, safe channel to harness their

skills into local emergency preparedness, youth mentoring,

and civic leadership.

And this work will go hand in hand with our welfare

obligations under the Armed Forces' covenant.

Isolation is an enemy of well -being.

When people leave the Forces, they lose a tight -knit

structure, a sense of purpose, purposeful peer connexion and community involvement

are among the most effective tools we have for suicide prevention, for mental health

recovery and for successful transition to civilian life.

So whether it's backing the extraordinary work of the Royal British Veterans' Enterprises

in Aylesford or ensuring culturally competent supports for Commonwealth entrant veterans,

This motion offers practical constructive vision.

We've not been notified of any amendments and I urge all members of all parties to back this motion unanimously.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:25:31

Thank you, Mr. Hook.

And I confirm there have been no amendments before on this motion.

I call on Mr. Ricketts.

Alex Ricketts - 2:25:39

Thank you, Chair.

Apologies.

There's a huge amount in this motion to commend it.

But I want to focus particularly on the Kent and Medway Civilian Military Partnership Board as an idea.

And I think what it does for me is it completely reframes the way that we talk about veterans.

I think far too often the conversation about veterans in society is about charity,

about them as a problem we need to solve.

Whereas I think this turns it right on its head.

Now of course there will be many veterans that come back into society and they have huge struggles

with mental and physical issues caused as part of what they've done during their service.

but for a huge number of veterans that's simply not the case.

And I think about the military veterans that I know,

and these are useful people looking for ways to be useful.

Well, most of them anyway.

And I think that this is what this does, is we have a huge untapped well

of talent and potential here.

These are people who have leadership ability, who have strategic understanding,

logistics skills, all manner of skills that can be usefully applied in society

and this then becomes a circular self -feeding thing. They have a sense of

purpose, are able to continue with that sense of service that they have while in

uniform and they're back in society. And it reminds me there was an example of

Mayor Klitschko in in in Keefe having an argument about why he was diverting

funds to rebuilding and his point was is that you need to rebuild so that those soldiers

on the front line have something to come home to when they've won.

And I think this is the point is that this gives a real sense of purpose to those people

coming out of the military.

It identifies an untapped well of skills and ability within the, within Kent and massively

increases our resilience and preparedness.

So what I'll ask you to do is for a change, not ask what you can do for veterans, but ask what veterans can do for you.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:27:46

And by that we can both help each other. So I commend the motion to the House. Thank you.

Thank you Mr Ricketts. I call on Mr Collins.

Brian Collins - 2:27:51

Thank you Mr Chair. I'm pleased to see that the members opposite are aligned with us on this side of the Chamber in our commitment to support

to our military veterans as well as our armed forces generally.

This being the case, I am happy to support this motion and will indeed commit to compiling

a report on the same within 12 months.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:28:15

Thank you Mr Collins.

Mr Burwash.

Chris Burwash - 2:28:20

Yeah, thank you very much.

I think the veterans are a really important resource we've got and I think one of the

things a lot of these people have got of experience of repelling invaders instead of getting them

of Council House and the British passport which is our current approach.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:28:34

Thank you Mr Burwash. Mr Osborne.

Peter Osborne - 2:28:39

Thank you chair. I find myself in unfamiliar territory again and I will seek medical advice but I commend this motion and I think it's a great thing and I'm very happy to vote it through.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:28:59

Thank you Mr Osborne, we got there eventually.

And I have Mr Palmer.

Richard Palmer - 2:29:04

Thank you Chair.

I support the motion and I support the thrust of it.

I know that the resilience forum, the Kenton Midway Resilience Forum have already got this

on their radar and so have the Kenton Midway Civilian Partnership but I think it targets

it.

It is a shame that the government needs to rely, in fact I won't call them veterans because

because people of my age tend to get referred to as veterans,

a lot of people in this age group will probably call themselves ex -forces.

But yes, it's a shame, isn't it?

That successive governments have destroyed the armed forces of this country

and we are now facing a situation that we have to rely on granddad again.

Clive Dunn is back in action.

It's sad. Successive governments, from the Labour government through to the Lib Dem and Conservative Coalition have smashed our forces down to an existence that is practically non -existent.

But the people can rest assured that it's up to the age of 65, so if they need to call me back to service, then I think the country will probably just surrender and give up.

But don't forget the men of the Queen's Regiment, and you're right, there are a lot of loyal people, the men of the Queen's Regiment will take this call, the ex -servicemen will be there

Jeremy Eustace - 2:30:40

and if the Russians know that, I'm sure it will scare them away.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr Palmer, and I think if there's one thing which will scare the Russians off is knowing that actually you are still available to take a rifle and stand on the line.

Mr Harrison.

Maxwell Harrison - 2:30:55

Yeah, thank you Mr Chairman. There are occasions for us to have the pomp and the pantomime in this theatre of politics, but this is a very sensible motion that's been put forward by the Liberal Democrats.

It's a very acute thing that right now with the 52 ,000 to 62 ,000 veterans we have in Kent, we must be playing our part to not only support them as this motion sets out, but also to utilise them, which is what is a really fascinating thing.

And after a morning of supporting and commemorating our GIRK's this morning, I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to them by passing through this motion which will do its utmost to support our veterans,

who as Mr Palmer has been setting out have had a bashing recently.

We've seen the recent scrapping of Northern Ireland's Troubles Legacy and Reconsiliation Act.

We've seen, for example, in Swale, where we had ICAR Swales, who had all their cars be the permit, essentially,

to have, you know, remembrance poppies and support for our veterans stripped away by the licencing department

as well as by our council.

It was well -welcomed to see that was overturned recently.

But the fact that we have to go about with the beyond to look after our veterans now in modern 21st century Britain is very, very scary.

Darla Sheppy, Mr Chairman, as you know, has a rich history with his armed forces.

Only last night I was at a Battle of Britain memorial service at the Trinity Church in Sheerness.

And again, the commemoration of all those who have gone forth and thought, our golden generations, past and present, that's why it's so acutely important, Mr Chairman,

to the parts industry on doing this today, not only to support what I think is a fantastic

motion put forward by the opposition, but for all those in the island of Sheppey who

have served this country and all those in Kent, and our country, who deserve our support.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:32:36

Thank you Mr Harrison. Mr Shonk.

Trevor Shonk - 2:32:41

Yes, I'm happy to support this. I'll just scribble some words down. Take these ex -service

people off the streets give them a purpose in life because they was our

fighting soldiers years ago and we fought we've forgotten them KCC over many

years always supporting so I do support this my grandfather was the First World

War I've still got his pitfall they won't like it up them and that's a TV

programme doesn't that mean so it's really good that we can take some of these

people off the streets women men ex -service people give them their

given the structure they used to have because they are some good people out there

and years ago I believe there was about 60 ,000 British soldiers locked away in UK prisons

Jeremy Eustace - 2:33:28

from Scotland and Wales and that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Shonk. Just in case, is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter?

I'll come back to you, Mr Shreffield. Thank you.

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 2:33:38

Mr King.

Paul King - 2:33:43

By the slimmest of the margin. Go on.

Thank you, Chair. I had the pleasure to go to the Battle of Britain Memorial on the Battle of Britain Day this week.

It's just a shame that monuments like that are not supported by central government.

So anything we can do for our veterans, our armed forces generally, I'm so pleased about the Gurkhas this morning as well.

So again, a bit like Mr Osborne, I find myself surprised to be a supporter of the Lib Dems, but we do on this occasion. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:34:16

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 2:34:19

Thank you Mr King. I will now come to Mr Shriffill to see us out. Thank you Mr Shriffill.

Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you very much for your support of the motion which we have deliberately tried to frame as improving resilience.

But I am often struck by the paradox of being a veteran.

As I mentioned this morning to the Brigade of Gherkes,

I once had the freedom of Dorchester bestowed on me

and the crowds lined 10 deep

and it was a really brilliant day, a moment of huge pride.

I can even show you a picture if you ask me afterwards.

And these are men and women

who have proved their worth time and time again.

And many of them would do so gladly.

So in proposing the motion, as I say, I made the positive case

for the positive contribution that all veterans, but especially those with reserve liability,

still can make, both to life in general, but especially at times of need.

But I do have a personal reason for proposing the motion as well, because there are six

men of that company that I command in Afghanistan who have since died by suicide in this country.

The latest was in May.

Now part of this motion says that death by suicide in society in general stands at 10

or 11 per 100 ,000 and the King's College Department

for Military Mental Health suggests that suicide

in our veteran and armed forces population is no more prevalent

than amongst the local population.

That is not consistent with my personal experience

and while we know that there is an issue in general terms

as we heard Mr. Shonk say helping remove veterans

off the streets, we do know there is a problem

with PTSD amongst combat troops

and because these guys have a reserve liability still,

This is a double opportunity of both improving our resilience and delivering the welfare

that these guys need.

We do not know currently how big that problem is in Kent.

I hope very much that this motion will allow us to frame the size of the problem.

We will work with Kent Coroners to tell us how many veterans have died by suicide in

this year and previously.

Obviously, each suicide has a cost of 1 .5 million pounds and the cost of a veteran losing

their life through that method is obviously more.

So this motion is about community resilience, but it has something very, very important

to say about veteran welfare.

It says we are not going to look the other way on this.

In fact, we are going to give the freedom of the county to the brigade.

We are going to keep our covenant that service does not stop when the order comes at the

end of that parade to fall out. Our responsibility extends way beyond the Royal Salute. We will

coordinate all the agencies at our disposal to enhance resilience, deliver security and

take care of those veterans in need and we will do our duty just as they have done theirs.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:37:10

Thank you very much for your support of the motion.

Thank you Mr Sheffield. I will now put this matter to a vote. When that comes up it will

be a recorded vote. If you are in favour of the motion vote for, if you are against, against

Vote - 2:37:21

and if you wish to abstain, abstain. Thank you.

Maybe one more.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:37:40

There we go. Fantastic.

All 69 in favour.

Congratulations, the motion has passed. Thank you.

We now move on to motion number two for time limited debate.

Before we start the motion I ask Mr. Hever to propose it.

I did receive a request for an amendment this morning.

As per my ruling I will not be accepting that amendment.

Mr. Hever, you are invited to propose your motion.

Thank you.

Stuart Heaver - 2:38:16

Station B,

from local residents anxious about speeding vehicles and begging me for 20mph zones to

be extended to more residential and restricted roads in Whitstable and across Kent.

This motion is simply a measured response to their concerns.

KCC's successful Vision Zero policy is based on a safe systems approach, of which safe

and survivable speeds is a key component, and for good reason.

A pedestrian collision at 20 mph has less than a 10 % chance of causing a fatality.

At 30 mph, this increases to around 70 % chance of death, and at 40, it's a 90 % chance of death.

And these are averages. If the pedestrian collision involves a child, then obviously that child's chances of survival are less.

The Atkins report, commissioned by the Government to collect national evidence from 20mph zones

in 2019, found that 20mph is the right speed where people and vehicles closely mix.

20mph schemes are very popular with the general public. They certainly would be in my division.

Data from the Government in Wales shows that following the introduction of the 20mph default

speed limit on Welsh restricted roads.

The evidence seems overwhelming for extending 20mph zones in Kent.

But having taken extensive officer advice, this motion takes a more measured and practical

approach.

It is not a blanket approach to 20mph zones.

Specifically, this motion is measured to recognise that while 20mph limits are a key component

of Vision Zero, good road design can also be effective in affecting driver speeds.

20mph is clearly not a panacea in itself.

After constructive feedback from other groups, we tried to amend section 6 of this motion

to reflect that, to reassure members that this isn't an ambitious blanket approach.

We're trying to be measured and sensible to meet resident concerns and anxieties.

The priority is to identify those many urban residential restricted roads and adavisions

where it is technically feasible to introduce 20 mile an hour zones where they could be extended

at minimal cost, new housings of states, schools, parks and visitor attractions.

Any new policies or initiatives should be incorporated in the HIP.

This is a job for export highway officers, not politicians, but we need to authorise them

to undertake study.

You've hit your limit.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:41:25

I'll wind up with my conclusion.

Stuart Heaver - 2:41:30

So I commend this to members and who knows, it might save a child's life in your division.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:41:33

Thank you Mr Heber. Mr Hood, you were down to second. Would you...

Mark Hood - 2:41:36

Jeremy Eustace - 2:41:41

Yes, I would like to second it and I reserve my right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I have a number of hands going up during that. The first I noticed was Mr Finch.

John Finch - 2:41:48

Thank you Mr Chairman.

While the safety of our residents is a priority, to impose 20 mile zones across 75 % of every single high street and local road in Kent is the wrong mechanism.

This motion fundamentally undermines the principles of localism and devolution.

At a time when we are striving to push decision making closer to the people, this sweeping

one -size -fits -all policy strips away the voices of the exact communities we represent.

Devolution is supposed to give more autonomy to our towns and villages, yet this motion

would achieve exactly the opposite, disempowering local communities by removing their right

to shape their own environments.

Furthermore, this blanket mandate completely removes the purpose of the highways improvement

plans.

Our parish and town councils work tirelessly in direct consultation with local residents

and Kent highways to tailor traffic solutions that fit their unique geographic and economic

realities.

For example, my own town councillor Broadstairs and St Peter's have been working diligently

on their highway improvement plan for four years and hopes to put it out to public consultation

soon.

Imposing this motion today will completely hijack years of their hard work and completely disregard the upcoming voices of the local residents.

Many communities deliberately choose alternative traffic calming measures or when 20 mile -an -hour limiters target strictly around schools rather than an autonomy of high street boundaries.

By forcing a universal 20 mile an hour restriction from above, we render these carefully crafted

grassroots highway improvement plans entirely redundant. We must trust our parish councils

and local stakeholders to know their own roads. I urge Council to vote against this centralising

motion and preserve the democratic right of the Kemp's distinct communities to decide

what is best for their own streets.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:44:00

Peter Osborne - 2:44:03

Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Finch. Mr. Osborne. Thanks Chair. Ultimately it comes down to

if the 20 mile an hour speed limit is credible with drivers. Kent Police has

already told us that they won't be able to enforce all of these these 20 mile an

hour zones. We are already doing 20 mile an hour zones and I for one do support

them. However not on a blanket approach I support them on a case -by -case basis

and it must go out to consultation and it must be done properly. So I mean look

at Wales it cost them 32 million pounds to set up this implementation and it

nearly tore their country apart and you know it's just I for one can't support

this and I will urge all my other councillors not to support it either and

I'll leave you with one thought about speed limits and this is, I don't know if you know,

the first recorded speeding ticket in England and indeed the world was issued in Kent, in

Paddockwood, Kent on the 28th of January 1896.

It was given to Walter Arnold, a motor car pioneer from East Peckham who was driving

his Benz powered vehicle at 8 miles per hour.

In a zone with a legal limit was 2 miles per hour.

According to contemporary accounts the Police Constable spotted Arnold speeding and chased him from about 5 miles on a bicycle.

He was subsequently prosecuted at the Tunbridge Wells.

What I'm getting at is the speed limit was 2 miles an hour and we couldn't stop them speeding then in 1896.

It's unenforceable so therefore I can't support it.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:45:47

Thank you Mr Osborne. Mr Thomas.

Paul Thomas - 2:45:52

Thank you, Chair. We did try to work to try and see if we could get an amendment through

which would be acceptable to us, but like a lot of people have already said, the bit

that we couldn't support was the 20 mile an hour over 75 % of Kent's residential roads.

Whilst we accepted around schools, parks and local centres, close proximity to those in

compliance with design standards to reflect local conditions and also in conjunction with

the local elected member and addressed as part of the HIP, we consider that to be the

most appropriate way.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:46:35

So in that stance we will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr Thomas.

Mr Evans.

Luke Evans - 2:46:41

Thank you Chairman.

Okay, firstly, there are some serious questions about whether blanket 20 mile an hour speed

limits deliver road safety benefits that are often claimed.

So the recent report that was actually released on Monday shows that in Wales last year there

was 1 ,361 people either killed or seriously injured on Welsh roads, which is the highest

level since 2019 when the 20 mile an hour speed limits were introduced.

So I think it gives us pause for thought before pursuing a similar approach on such a large

scale in Kent.

Secondly, I'm surprised nobody else has thought of this yet, or even mentioned it, is the

cost of implementing such a scheme.

I would probably say the conservative cost is going to be at least 10 million, which

is going to add 10 % to everybody's council tax.

I don't know about people in your constituency, but nobody in my constituency voted for the

council tax to go up that much for a 21 hour limit.

But I do want to be absolutely clear on something here, I'm not opposed to 20mph speed limits.

In fact, just this morning I was pushing for one with my local highways officer in a village

that I represent called Acole.

I've also, in the last six months, been pushing for another one outside a local school in

the area where I represent in a little town called Minster.

So I'm not against 20mph road limits, I'm just against being blanketed across the whole

It is probably worth noting as well that in Fannock where I live the whole place is total

gridlock anyway because of overdevelopment of the housing from the MPPF.

So cars don't really go much faster than that where I live anyway I can tell you the

honest with you.

But in conclusion I just want to say that I support 29 hour speed limits as and where

they're required not a blanket approach.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:48:38

Thank you.

Thank you Mr Evans. Mrs Laws.

Mary Lawes - 2:48:43

Thank you Chair. I want to begin by making it absolutely clear that I support safe roads and safer communities.

Nobody in this Chamber wants to see people killed or seriously injured on Kent's roads. I certainly do not.

However, supporting road safety does not automatically mean that a blanket expansion of 20 mph speed

limits is the right answer for every residential road, town or even new development.

Look at Wales.

Wales blanketed them and now they're all reversing what they can.

London was the same.

They're low traffic neighbourhoods.

They're now reversing what they can because the effect has caused so many other problems

to them.

They now want them removed.

I have concerns that this motion, because of moves for a reasonable principle, that

we should reduce road danger where it is evidence, that is, a very specific target, should reduce

road danger where, sorry, I'm moving that over again, target of 75 % and Kent's residential

roads being just 20 mile an hour limits by 2023.

That's a new development of what you mostly mentioned.

I do not believe we should set a target simply because it sounds ambitious. We should set policy

based on evidence, local circumstances, and what actually works. The Department of Transport

research into signed only 20 mile an hour limits found that they generally produce a small reduction

in traffic speed, less than one mile per hour on average, and concluded that there was insufficient

evidence to establish a significant change in collision and casualties in residential areas

following the introduction. That does not mean that 20 mile an hour limits have no

place. They clearly can have a place but it does means that it needs to be

carefully, we should be careful about assuming that simply putting 20 mile an

hour zones automatically makes the road safer. For me the question is what is the

appropriate speed for a particular road? That principle also applies for the two

points of motion concerning new developments. I do not agree that 20 mile

an hour automatically becomes the norm for every residential development.

Because I'm speeding up.

All that I have put down that applies to existing roads and it applies equally to new developments.

I support safer roads, I support sensible highway design, I support proper target measures

that there are to demonstrate road need, but I cannot support making 20 mile an hour the

automatic norm for new developments, nor can I support an arbitrary target of 75 % of Kent's

residential roads by 2030. We need to make our roads safer, but we also need a transport

network that works for people who live, work and travel in Kent. Appropriate speeds on

appropriate roads based on evidence and local circumstances is the approach I believe we

Jeremy Eustace - 2:51:38

should be taking. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mrs Lawles. Our call on Mr Bawash.

Chris Burwash - 2:51:43

Thank you very much, Chairman. One of our Green members was an hour and a half late

today. I think if we change the limits at all, we'll never see any of them again.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:51:53

Mr Burwash, I think nobody here has any information as to why the Member was late, so we won't

comment on that, thank you. Nor should we be looking to ask him either, just to be very

clear. I now call on Mrs Emberson.

Sarah Emberson - 2:52:13

Thank you, Chairman. During my time as the Member for Maidstone Rooley, I have been happy

to work with my parish councils that have sought to introduce or extend 20 mile an hour schemes in

their communities. In my area many villages were established hundreds of years ago and many of

their roads are simply unsuited to the volume of traffic they now carry. In many villages there

are also no pavements meaning residents have no choice but to walk on the road when taking children

to school, visiting neighbours or simply walking to the local shops.

They have told me that due to excessive speeds and careless driving this can sometimes make

this a terrifying experience.

Where appropriate and supported by local residents, 20 mile an hour schemes can play an important

role in improving safety and I believe they are a necessary tool available to communities.

I think we can all agree that we want safer roads.

However, I believe there is a significant difference between supporting targeted schemes,

where there is a demonstrated need, and imposing an arbitrary county -wide target.

The cost of these schemes, that I've seen, ranges anything from $25 ,000 to $75 ,000.

The proposal to extend a 20 mile an hour limit to 75 % of Kent's roads, whilst undoubtedly

is well intentioned, I believe is naive and financially irresponsible.

I support local communities that want to pursue sensible, targeted 20 mile an hour schemes.

While there is clear evidence of need and local support, what I cannot support is the

resources away from other priorities without first demonstrating it is

affordable, effective and necessary. For those reasons I will not be supporting

Jeremy Eustace - 2:54:13

this motion. Thank you Mrs. Emerson. I now call on Mr. Mullen.

Thomas Mallon - 2:54:18

Thank you Mr. Chair. Today I don't come to you as just a member for Swanscombe

and Greenhive. Today I come to you as the chairman of the Kent and Medway Fire

and Rescue Authority.

Within that position, I've got the great pleasure

and privilege to speak to active firefighters on a daily basis.

Just last week, I was talking to two active firefighters,

and they were telling me 20 mile an hour zones are hampering the

fire service.

Now, I hear people say, why can't that hamper the fire

service?

Because they could put the blue lights on,

they can go to any accident they want,

they can go to any fire they want.

But in this case, it doesn't work because people forget

about on -call fire stations.

Now on -call fire stations would be stations

that are actually on -call, funnily enough.

And these require members of the fire service to be paged,

beeped or messaged to get to the station.

Now they have only got a limited time to get from their house

or the place of residence to that fire station.

And these 20 -mile -an -hour zones are one of the biggest gripes

and the biggest complaints from the fire service

that I receive on a daily basis because these are affecting response times

and these are possibly affecting lives and deaths.

So today, Mr. Chair, I would not be supporting this motion for those reasons.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:55:41

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I now call on Mr. Dixon.

Spencer Dixon - 2:55:47

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I try not to tread too much old ground.

So we'll start with the facts.

This administration does support the goal of improving road safety,

reducing deaths and serious injuries through the Vision Zero programme.

So just to spell it out for you, we oppose the blanket extension of 20 mile an hour limits,

countywide numerical targets and dedicated funding

for a match roll out of 20 mile an hour schemes.

All of these 20 mile an hour zones that go in should be considered on a case by case basis.

It's our view the most effective way to reduce speeds in new developments is

through highway design and self -explaining streets,

rather than signs and speed limits.

More importantly, this motion shows

a continuing disregard for public finances.

This would force the council to undertake

a mammoth logistical task that would cost untold millions.

However, there is one way in which

I think this motion is important,

and that is in highlighting how thankful we

and our residents should be that it is not

the Green Party in control of this council.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:56:56

Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Dix. I now call Mr Cecil.

Alan Cecil - 2:57:01

Thank you Chair. I wanted to discuss the economic side of this really.

Councillor Evans has already highlighted the cost of installing all of these measures,

signs and road markings and so forth. But it was more from a business side of things.

I run a small central heating repair business.

I've got vans on the road with engineers

that go out and repair people's broken boilers,

leaking radiators and so on.

So if you're looking at reducing the speed limit

from 30 to 20, it effectively increases the cost

of their wages to me as a business by 20 to 30%.

On top of that, if anyone here runs a diesel car

or a diesel vehicle, there's something called a DBF philtre that is very susceptible to blocking

up unless you take it for a blast down the motorway every so often and that's only going

to get worse if you're chugging along at 20 miles an hour. So you've got increased costs

as a business for wages, you've got increased maintenance costs, probably more unreliable

vehicles as a result. That means fewer repairs get done, in a much slower fashion, costing

me as a business. So what do I do? Do I increase the cost to the customer? That's another layer

of tax, effectively, on them. Or do I go out of business? That means that the corporation

tax that I pay doesn't get paid to the exchequer. The national insurance that I pay doesn't

get paid to the exchequer, it's another two people on the unemployment register.

So on the economic argument it doesn't stack up. Now it mentions in the motion

that the, let me read it, to reinforce the measures at 20 miles an hour is the

safest speed in an urban environment. Now with the greatest respect to my

colleagues across the Chamber, the safest speed is probably two miles an hour. But

it's just not realistic, okay?

My heart goes out to the family whose child sadly died

as a result of that car mounting the pavement,

but I would argue that reducing the speed limit

from 30 to 20 wouldn't have changed that one iota, sadly.

It just, it all ends up, if someone's gonna drive

a 50 mile an hour for a 30 mile an hour limit,

they're gonna do it for a 20 mile an hour.

So on that basis, I'm afraid I can't support it, sorry.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 2:59:44

Thank you, Mr. Cecil.

I now call on Mr. Baker.

John Baker - 2:59:49

Well, I can say that I will support some 20 mile an hour

limits through where schools are.

Basically, this is just another attack from the motorist

because there was a war on motorist.

The Greens and a lot of, a lot of government

basically don't want cars on the road.

Folkestone is a disaster zone.

Councillor Heater said his inbox is full of people that support 20mph.

My inbox is full of people that are pulling their hair out of 20mph.

They're putting their hair out on anti -travel.

They're putting their hair on cycle lanes where they can't get anywhere.

They're putting their hair out because there's more congestion because of what is going on.

This is the world, I'm a motorist, I'm sick to death of it.

The people that put me here are sick to death of it.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:00:36

Mr Baker please speak to me, remind everybody talk to me as the chair we don't talk to individuals

in here leave that for me to do but thank you very much and now call on Mr Shonk.

Trevor Shonk - 3:00:50

Let's see if we make some in rows on this shall we?

Sorry about that.

20 mile an hour is not enforceable.

We haven't got the police to go around and cheque.

The police haven't got the power, or the staff. I think there's a

political limit, not a policing limit. We've got put up all these signs, although I

do agree some signs in some certain areas. So people put these signs up and

they have to police these areas themselves. 20 is not plenty, it's just a sign.

I know it's going to upset people.

I drive within my limits.

I got voted in on other issues.

I was not voted in at a war against motorists.

I know there's people out there with speed.

And I leave all my expertise to KCC highways officers.

We've got Hips at Ramsgate.

They try to override me.

you know, this is just a common sense approach.

You can talk about five mile an hour.

You can talk about a man with a red flag.

But this really, we shouldn't be really telling drivers what they can do and what they can't do.

Highway officers are the way forward.

Thank you very much.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:02:14

Thank you, Mr. Shonk.

I now call on Mr. Hook.

Antony Hook - 3:02:17

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Chairman, I'd like to speak from the experience because my division is Faberchein.

Chairman, thank you.

The clock is just reset.

And Faversham has a town -wide 20 mile limit.

It's everything in the town north of London Road,

which is about 95 percent of the town.

We went for a whole big area having that limit since 2020.

And it's been really positive.

KCC's formal consultation recorded 63 percent support.

And they did a consultation before and about a year

after it was implemented and the figure was exactly the same.

And then an independent survey outside KCC was commissioned

and found 65 % of the residents felt the town was safer and 56 %

of drivers and regular car passengers said they actively

supported the town wide limit too.

And it's well being popular, it's delivered real change,

counted pedestrian footfall around a number

of different sites, not just the town centre, but all over the town, has increased by 18%.

So more people are walking across the whole of the town.

And at 77 % of the number of sites that were monitored for traffic speed by KCC, average

speed was 24.

A 20 mile an hour speed limit doesn't mean everyone will drive at 20.

Just as a 30 mile an hour speed limit doesn't mean everyone drives at 30.

But people will drive slower, significantly so.

and it makes a material difference.

And Mr. Hever has set out the very significant difference

in survivability it makes.

If you go that bit slower, the driver's got time to stop,

is less likely to make a mistake.

And even if they don't, when the collision takes place,

the kinetic force is so much less

that the person is more likely to walk away

without a fatality or serious injury.

And you know, preventing accidents saves money as well.

Road casualties currently cost Kent $385 million.

And the 20's Plenty charity economic modelling shows that across Kent,

wide area 20 mile limits, where they are much more effective than the small ones here

and there could prevent 477 casualties a year, unlocking 77 million in benefits.

So yes, you have an initial cost to change the signs to make gateways, make changes to the road,

but then we save much more than that by preventing accidents.

and also reducing car insurance by up to 42 million for all Kent residents.

So, Favritium's been a great success. It's succeeded though, I think, because it's been community -led.

We had public meetings in Favritium for about three years before KCC implemented it.

So everyone in the town got to discuss it, got to think about it, and there was a real sense that this is something we as a townspeople were deciding to do.

and it wasn't just that the speed was changed, we had really good designers who designed changes to the road to make sure it would really work.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:05:22

So I'm going to support the motion. I think 20 is the future to save lives, to have a safer, cleaner, healthier future.

Thank you Mr. McCall. Mr Palmer.

Richard Palmer - 3:05:28

Thank you, Chair. I do feel a lot has been said, but I was involved very early on with the Joint Transport Board in Swale when I was a parish councillor.

The village I'm in in Newington wanted a 20mph zone.

It took them seven or eight years of our battling,

but there was a good number of people in the village who supported it and still do.

I think KCC has it right that it's on a case -by -case basis.

It's great that Farrisham's got an area -wide one,

but I think the Wales example shows if you go too wide, people start to ignore it.

If you have it small and compact to a small residential area, then there's more compliance with it.

And I think another thing that aids to accident reduction or speed reduction,

because apart from perhaps drink driving, speed is probably the other major problem,

is the community speed watch.

And I just want to clear up something that was said by, I can't remember who it was,

I can assure you that the police do prosecute and will prosecute people if they exceed 20 miles an hour in a 20 mile an hour zone.

What they don't regularly do is go out and set up speed tracks in 20 or 30 mile an hour areas.

But they're a good scheme. I actually feel the current KCC policy is probably the best policy for what a lot of members have said.

I used to be a paramedic in the ambulance service. I do concur.

If I have had someone who has been hit by 40mph or more, they don't tend to survive.

Or if they do survive, they have life -changing injuries.

However, using the speed reduction sensibly and in areas where it is likely to be more effective

Jeremy Eustace - 3:07:12

is far better than just having a blanket bang. Thank you.

Thank you Mr Palmer. Just reminding members, this is a time limited motion.

We've got time until 1535. I want to ensure that Mr. Hood can second as requested.

So please, I'm going in the order in which I saw hands raised, but I will be

bringing down a guillotine to allow this motion to then go to the vote. So our next

call on Mr. Brady.

Alister Brady - 3:07:34

Thank you, Chair. Ever since I've been elected, I've been advocate for Safer Streets.

In 2021, when I came in, I immediately noticed that my division was

on perished, which showed that we were at a disadvantage with highways improvement plans

because they were only set up through parishes.

So I set up a pilot scheme with officers looking

at developing highways improvement plans from perished areas.

We were able to build four and through that residents put forward proposals

to their residents association for requests and many looked at 20 MP8 zones.

If you ask somebody, do they want safer streets right outside their house?

Do they want cars going slower?

If you ask many members here who have objected to that and put up other arguments,

the members would say yes, I would like right outside my house a safer street

and I'd like cars and vehicles to be going slower.

So through that we were able to have a new zone and we're looking to extend that.

However, at the time, there was a weighted system of how much funds can go towards some

highways improvement projects and it was weighted against 20MP8 zones.

So I went to the corporate director and the director of highways to say, can it be a little

bit more fairer because this is coming straight from residents, it's what they would like.

And they went forward and looked at that and they were able to make that a fairer scheme.

This is looking to address that issue a couple of years later to try and find out,

see if that is as fair as it should be.

And if we are getting calls from more residents because they want safer streets,

then we can look at that in more detail.

So I agree with that.

But I think paragraph six is quite ambitious, but it is just calling

on the cabinet member to investigate.

It's looking to explore ways to see if it's feasible and legal.

So I think there shouldn't be a problem with paragraph six

because the cabinet member with officers could turn around

and say, no, we can't do that.

Paragraph seven, I think is that's why we're getting many

of the objections, it's looking like it's predetermined.

It's saying that due to the subject

of technical feasibility we will then have that target.

Now if that was worded differently,

I don't think we would get as many objections.

I'd like to, I would have liked to have seen rural road speeds

put into this amendment because I have a real concern and I keep on raising it that some

of the national speed limits on rural roads are not fit for the safe driving on that road.

So that could be incorporated within the 75 percent.

So it's not like a blanket, it's the feasibility study and the technical ability to see

if that can be implemented on certain roads.

So even though I do have a slight concern about a target of 75 percent by 2030,

I think that could have been a nuance and could be moulded and looked at a better way of delivering it.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:10:36

So I am supportive, but it's just a shame that that's clouded people's judgments. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr Brady. Mr Shrefield.

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 3:10:42

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to my Green colleagues for bringing forward the motion. It's one I'm happy to support.

I hope that they might provide the 20 mile an hour bingo card that goes with this debate usually,

because I think I've got a full house.

The attack on the motorists, the businesses will go bust,

the unenforceable, the more dangerous

won't solve the problem, the cost is prohibitive

and will slow emergency services.

All untrue.

And it is absolutely guaranteed.

Because in 2021, like Mr. Brady, like Mr. Hooke,

one of the things that I did in Seminokes

was to have a consultation on the 20 mile an hour scheme,

The town council, because it got support, then supported it.

And the reason I will give you now is to why the best return on investment that you can make

with your members grant is a consultation on 20 miles an hour.

We have had a positive return on investment on the 10 ,000 pounds that I spent in the first year

and the 100 ,000 that it cost to implement.

It has reduced accidents, so the social cost, the social benefit has now been better

than the cost of that scheme.

It was implemented in a way which I'll explain in a minute.

If we had implemented it in a way that our green cards have suggested

with the 500 metre walking zones around school,

it would have been a complete zone in Sevenoaks.

As soon as you do that in all our major towns,

you cover more than 75 % of the area.

Just a quick note on we are limited by geography in Kent.

We are not going to build any more new roads to have the number of houses

that we've all been asked to build in our district.

We are going to need modal shift.

The only way of getting modal shift

so that you can keep the roads being as clear

as they are currently is to make sure that at 20 miles an hour,

the pedestrian and the cyclist can operate equally alongside

the motor car.

That's not an attack on the motorist.

It's just the fact that we're limited by geography

and we want people to live in the same place.

My final point about safety because there was a question over whether, and it's a very

important question, whether the child, Mr. Heeler very touchingly mentioned, would survive

or not. The 30 to 20 is the difference between fatality and not fatality in general terms

and for every mile an hour that it reduces, even if the police aren't there enforcing

it precisely every mile an hour is a five or six percent reduction in accidents overall

but critically a much greater proportion of fatalities come down when you get closer to

20. So I ask you to support the motion because it is the best return on investment that you

can make in this council.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:13:32

Thank you Mr Sheffield. Mr Fry.

Ben Fryer - 3:13:36

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I'll keep this briefer than I was originally going to because I think a lot of good points

have already been said and I'm conscious of time.

Mr. Chairman, I genuinely believe that this motion is coming from a really good place

and Councillor Heaver mentioned about that child and I think all of us agree that we

don't want situations like that to happen and we all want safer roads.

I personally support 20mph outside of schools in highly residential areas where they should be.

But a blanket 20mph speed limit across 75 % of Kent seems a little bit over the top.

I think Wales should give us food for thought.

470 ,000 people in Wales signed a petition to repeal the 20mph limits.

The Welsh government's own assessment estimated a 1 .6 billion impact on businesses due

to the 20 mile an hour speed limits through a loss of productivity.

So at a time when we desperately need, and this country desperately needs economic growth,

particularly here in Kent, I think that would be a road that we don't want to go down.

So I would say let's have 20 mile an hour, but let's have it

where it's needed and let's be sensible.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:15:00

Thank you Mr. Frier. Mr. Yates.

Rob Yates - 3:15:04

Thank you Chair. I want to thank Councillor Heaver for bringing this motion forward, which

focuses on 20 mile an hour in residential areas.

The districts of Canterbury, Maidstone and Fannett share the highest number of childhood

and pedestrian casualties in Kent, according to our own statistics here at KCC.

These statistics show that in these districts we have twice the number of casualties as

in other districts, so I recommend all members take a look.

Former KCC Councillor Barry Lewis from Margate introduced two 20 -mile -an -hour schemes to Margate with much community support,

and was trying to introduce more as he knew they were needed and he knew the residents wanted it and he knew it would be politically popular.

Just this year in February, I worked with the headteacher of Hartsdown Academy and got a zebra crossing installed outside of their secondary school.

I mention this because I know that there is a serious lack of funding available for counsellors

and all of us to get highway improvement plans delivered.

Indeed, the zebra crossing that KC built in February wasn't built

with highway improvement plan funding.

It wasn't built with community member grant funding.

It was built with active travel funding.

The money to support safety schemes is just not there in my opinion, which is why counsellors,

as Councillor Brady's mentioned, use members grants and also other counsellors

as I mentioned, we are having to use members grants

to support highway improvement schemes.

So the part of the motion I really support

and really want to draw members attention to

is budgetary clause five.

KCC should not force us to search for external funding

to make our roads safer, either from members grants

or from active travel.

We should have dedicated budgetary for safety measures,

and these should favour areas with higher casualty numbers,

especially when it comes to children.

This is not a blanket 20 -mile -an -hour scheme.

This is about residential areas and potential targets and feasibility.

So to members who are saying this is a blanket imposition, please read the paper

and focus on facts and not headlines.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:17:01

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yates.

Mr. Steptoe.

Paul Stepto - 3:17:06

Thank you, Chair.

Before Mr. Hood and I were elected, 20 -mile -an -hour scheme was introduced in Tunbridge.

and what our election promised was that we would revert the arterial roads to 30 mph.

When we came here, we met with our officers and we eventually got that done.

So we knocked 20 mph out of us, I'll point that out.

What we find now in Tunbridge is that any inquiries we have about speed limits

are always requests to reduce the speed limit somewhere.

Going back to what Mr Heaver said about Wales, there are two other benefits.

one economic in that insurance premium costs have gone down because there are fewer collisions there now.

And the other benefit is that more people are cycling, more people are walking because they feel that the roads are safer.

I think my other points have now been covered.

So I would urge you, as Mr Yates says, to read the relevant points again carefully because blanket ban is not mentioned and support this motion.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:18:09

Thank you Mr. Secretary. Mr. Henderson.

Thank you very much chair.

Jamie Henderson - 3:18:15

Environmentally, the slower you go the more pollution you create.

So this policy goes against protecting our planet.

Lower speeds means lower miles per gallon and higher cost to every resident affected.

Also delays to deliveries can mean higher postal costs. Again the suffering of residents.

Commuters will take longer to get home from work and spend longer away from their families.

So residents will pay and suffer if this motion is supported.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:18:52

Therefore, on behalf of my residents, it's a no from me. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Henderson. I'm sorry because of the time I'm calling the last speaker, who is Mr Burns.

Thank you, Chairman.

Dean Burns - 3:19:04

So I'd just like to concur with Councillor Mullan to start with being on the Kemp Fire

and Rescue.

It does create a detrimental effect regarding the pool factor of the employment.

But also I think as Councillors, it's our responsibilities to work with parish councils

and also residents to include these 20 mile an hour zones

in our prior improvement plans

or sometimes using our members grant.

Just last week, I signed off a wig -wag project

outside of school and I think everyone would agree

that that was the right place to put it,

which is gonna help and support the residents

in Ashford East and Ashford Central

for that particular school.

But I just think overall it really comes down to why we're here, what, you know,

as part of being a counsellor is to listen to our residents and, you know, make improvements,

but not just blanket, sorry, not carpet blanket, but just put them, for the road

that I'm talking about that I've just put a project in,

the residents actually told me they didn't want 20 mile an hour in the whole stretch of road,

but we've managed to put it in one area and I think that kind of is a balance

that we should be working with.

Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:20:28

Thank you Mr. Burns.

Mark Hood - 3:20:32

I now return to Mr. Hood who reserves his right to speak.

Mr Hood.

No, don't worry, just making sure you heard me.

Mr Hood, do you want me to invite one more speaker while you sort yourself out?

Okay, good. Mr Hood.

So firstly, the National Fire Chief's Council road safety position states that actually

they support the NFCC formally endorses a safe system approach which advocates the 20

miles per hour limits on streets where pedestrians and cyclists mix with motor traffic. So let's

I also serve on the Kent and Mashmallow Bay Fire Authority and Mr. Mallon doesn't speak

for me.

Let me spell it out for members.

This motion does not call for a blanket 20 mile per hour zone recommendation.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an element of group thought afflicting members in their

knee -jerk response to the wording of the motion before we did.

And it is really disappointing that the cabinet member and the deputy cabinet member seem

to misunderstand their own current policy, which builds upon 20 miles per hour as a fundamental

driver at safer streets to encourage active travel. Mr Evans seems to be making figures

up out of thin air regarding costs, and Mr Henderson has made scientifically illiterate

statements regarding the effects of slower speeds on motor vehicle efficiency.

We are simply asking for the process to be streamlined

and for greater assistance for communities who want

to slow traffic on non -arterial roads,

which meets the strict criteria demanded

by our officers and the police.

Nobody's asking us to undermine residents

and remove their rights to consultation.

Where does the motion say that?

Consultations are the essential part of the process,

so we can ascertain whether a community actually wants the scheme or if it doesn't want it

to be implemented.

And why would a community or an elected official not listen to their community if they tell

us they don't want it?

Officers use their experience to guide members and communities.

Yes, Mr Palmer, we are talking about a case -by -case basis, so I'm surprised that you're suggesting

otherwise.

The first 20 mile per hour zone was actually introduced in Boxwood Ward in Tunbridge and

we're very proud of that.

The 20mph schemes are only approved if the police and officers agree that they will be

self -enforcing.

Appropriate speeds on appropriate roads is exactly what this motion is calling for.

The motion does not call for a blanket policy to implement 20mph across Kent.

please look at what we're actually asking for,

not what you think that we're asking for.

Please look at the detail.

The safety of Kent residents is the first responsibility

of this council.

Vision zero is the strategy which focuses

on reducing pedestrian fatalities.

Crucially, we did submit an amendment to number six,

and that specifically asked to explore the technical

and legal feasibility of establishing a target

for implementing 20 miles an hour.

suitable for non -artillery residential restricted roads.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:24:23

Mr Verdon, I'm really sorry. Mr Verdon, you've run out of time, but thank you very much indeed.

I hope I've made my point.

I think you have.

Thank you for your patience.

No, my pleasure.

Please do take a seat.

Now, before I turn to Mr Hever, Mr Mallon, because you named him, did raise his hand.

But I would remind members that it's specific to how you were named, not an opportunity to have a general discussion.

So be specific, please.

Thomas Mallon - 3:24:43

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I was name -checked, and thank you for recognising that.

It's just to say that I wasn't representing the member, I was representing the residents

of Kent and the firefighters that come to me with complaints about speed limits in Kent.

So that's the facts.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:24:59

Thank you Mr. Mallon, thank you for setting that straight.

I would now return to Mr. Hever who proposed a motion

Stuart Heaver - 3:25:06

to close this out before we go to a vote.

Mr. Hever.

So, everybody feels passionately about it, but there's so much resistance to it.

And again, I can only say it's not a blanket.

It's not for me or any member here to dictate what road, residential, restricted road is

or isn't feasible for a 20 mile an hour limit.

That's the job expert highways officers who we consulted with at length.

And that's why the motion, I think it's as clear as it possibly could be

that even the most prescriptive motion that calls on the cabinet member, highways and transport,

to explore the technical and legal feasibility.

his expert team may look at that and say, that member Mr. Heer is a complete idiot,

we don't think we can have them anywhere.

That's how it works.

It's not for me to say where they go, it's not for you to say where they go,

that's why we have KCC highways officers, but we can't ask them to do a job

if we don't ask them to do a job.

So it really isn't prescriptive, it's not some secret plan to impose 20 mile an hour

on arterial roads or disrupt business.

I tried to go at great lengths to say that,

It looks like everybody got their responses ready before listening to what I had to say in full.

Identifying these potential 20 mile an hour in Kent is their, their feasibility is a job for expert highways officers, not for me.

I'd like to thank Mr. Brady, I didn't know he was the person that initiated highway improvement plans run by members.

I work very hard on my highway improvement plan, I have good support from my highways officers.

I run anti -speeding action days with the toolkits, which I'm sure many of us do there, because it's such a big issue for my residents in my division.

We also, I volunteer for Speed Watch, because I think that's very important to bring down speed, so I realise there are many facets to trying to tackle speeding and highway safety in our divisions.

I was merely trying to respond to what my residents want, but I will pass on the comments that I've had,

the objections and the various learned and perhaps not so learned objections to my residents on Downs Road,

Golden Hill, Canterbury Road, Golden Hill, Cromwell Road and Joy Lane to name a few that came into my head,

and I can at least email them back and say, look, I tried and you can watch for yourself and see what happened.

But I still will, as a last resort, appeal to you to not vote with your instruction or your feeling, but to vote with the facts of the case.

There's an important highways issue. It works elsewhere. Fabishing is a good example.

And, yeah, please do what residents want and try and help Road Safety support KCC existing plans and support the motion.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:27:58

Thank you Mr. Heaver.

We will now put this motion to a recorded vote.

Vote - 3:28:05

If you are for the motion, click for.

If you're against, against.

And if you wish to abstain, abstain.

It should be coming up shortly.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:28:26

We have a result for the motion 16 abstain 5 against 5.

The motion fails. Thank you.

Right Chamber, we're through to our motion number 3.

The motion before the Council is an extension of free bus travel for concessionary pass holders before 9 .30am.

The proposer is Mr Oliver Bradshaw. I invite Mr Bradshaw to propose the motion. Thank you.

Oliver Bradshaw - 3:28:52

Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I'd like to start by briefly acknowledging that I am aware the Labour Government has announced from the 1st of April 2027, disabled passholders will gain access to comprehensive 24 hour free travel and a accessory pass.

As such this motion focuses solely on older residents who use these passes.

One of the main responsibilities of this council is to help our residents live independent and fulfilling lives for as long as possible.

For many of our older residents in Kent, that independence depends on access to reliable and affordable public transport.

Yet for someone trying to attend an early DOTS appointment, help care for a loved one, or simply trying to get to their local town, the current 9 .30am restriction on this bus pass can create a real barrier to this.

Mr Chairman, this motion is not asking the Council to remove this restriction, nor is it asking us to introduce a scheme overnight.

It is simply asking for us to undertake a serious, evidence -led assessment,

although extending the existing free morning bus travel

for older pass holders could deliver meaningful benefits for our residents,

while also continuing to provide value for the Kent taxpayers.

The current English National Concessionary Travel Scheme provides free travel from 9 .30 a .m.

to 11 p .m. on weekdays and all day on weekends and bank holidays.

Of course, many older residents cannot simply organise their lives around a 9 .30am strict start.

Those needing to travel before 9 .30am are required to pay even if they are concessionary pass holders.

Nationally, Mr Chairman, there are 8 .8 million concessionary pass holders in England.

90 % of those are older residents rather than disabled.

In 2024, approximately 604 million concessionary bus journeys were undertaken.

This demonstrates quite frankly how important these journeys are for older residents.

Research has also found that older bus pass residents are about a third more likely to be less socially isolated when holding a pass,

and are 37 % less likely sedentary when holding a pass.

At a time when loneliness and isolation remain significant challenges, particularly in our rural communities,

I believe it is important that the Council explores whether reducing these barriers of travel could help improve wellbeing,

support local communities, and encourage greater uses of public transport.

This is not an unprecedented idea.

Around the country, many other local authorities have used their powers to enhance the concessionary

travel, where there is a clear local benefit.

If this potential study concludes the proposal is not viable, then at least we will know it is not viable.

However, with the potential benefits to wellbeing, independence and community participation for our residents,

as well as the further social and economic benefits, I believe we owe it to the residents of Kent to at least explore the proposal.

Mr Chairman I'm happy to commend this motion and I ask all members for their support.

Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr Bradshaw.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:31:40

Mr Ford you are down to second.

Would you wish to speak now or hold your...

Robert Ford - 3:31:43

I reserve my right.

Thank you Chair.

Thank you Mr Ford.

I call on Mr Osborne.

Peter Osborne - 3:31:49

Thank you Chair.

I don't know where to start with this.

It's badly written, badly thought out, badly researched.

So they're calling on me to do a feasibility study. Well the feasibility study was actually done in August of 2023

and the figures came out at 63 ,000 extra journeys were made in that month before 9 .30

and it cost us a total of 93 ,000 pounds. So times that by 12 but then throwing the mix that hang on a minute they've done it in school holidays

So now chuck in 12 ,500 school children every day, it's going to be over 2 .2 million pounds

according to the officers.

And I have no reason to think that that is incorrect.

We can't afford to do it.

You've killed your own argument because in April 2027 the government have said they're

already going to do it.

So do you want me to spend up to 2 .2 million pounds now and then the government will announce

that they're going to do it in April and they'll go, oh hang on a minute,

with Kent already doing it, so they're not going, we're not going to get the money.

So I will, for one, will not support this and I urge all of our councillors to do the same.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Osborne.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:33:12

I have Mr. Dickson.

Spencer Dixon - 3:33:15

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

And I will start by saying, of course, we would all love

to see more people being able to use the pass.

And Peter has already said a fair bit

of what I wanted to say.

So I will go through a bit of context to this.

So the primary cost of the scheme is

in reimbursing the operators.

For passenger fares, revenue foregone

and around 10 million journeys a year are made

in Kent using that pass.

So for that reason, the scheme cost KCC already

over 16 million pounds per year.

Now I understand that this is asking for a feasibility study

and you're not asking for us to start this tomorrow.

But as the cabinet member pointed out,

this has already been piloted, so one better

than a feasibility study.

And we estimate, as I said, that this could cost

in excess of 2 million.

And the important bit about that is that every pound

of that two million that we would use on that is some,

a pound that we would have to take away

from supporting our bus network.

Now it's all good having more people being able

to use the pass, but if there's no bus to use it on,

then I'm not sure they will see the benefit.

So this isn't about us not wanting to, again,

extend this eligibility.

I think it's worth us waiting to see what happens

when the government do this in April

to see what the lay of the land is then.

Again, as always with Restore, it's a half decent idea,

Jeremy Eustace - 3:34:47

but a day late and a dollar short, so I'll leave it there.

Thank you very much, Chipps General.

Thank you, Mr Dixon. I call on Mr Thorpe.

Albert Thorp - 3:34:53

Thank you, Chair.

Up until about five years ago, I used to be a bus driver,

and I did this for seven years.

And my time as a union rep, we did consider trying to get these passes done,

But the obstacles we come up against was the school children.

Because you've got school children, they've got numerous passes to go on.

Then you've also got young adults going to college.

You've got people getting to work.

Now the busses are overstretched as it is at the moment.

Because they've got far too many people wanting to go to work.

Then they can get drivers or busses on the road.

Through not necessarily a fault of their own.

Now if you add into the mix the people from 9 .30, that puts an extra strain on busses,

whether it's Stagecoach or Eaver, whichever company that does it.

I think it'd be unfair to put this on them.

We have a Prime Minister who said that he's up for busses and he's done everything in Manchester,

so if he can do it in Manchester, perhaps he can do it here, let him do it next year.

He's probably got ways that he can get the busses more equipped to deal with the influx

of the extra work that is going to come in if this was to be passed.

So in my eyes, this isn't really feasible at this present moment in time and I will

Jeremy Eustace - 3:36:13

not be voting for it because it put too much strain on the busses.

Thank you Mr Thorpe and I'm sure if the Prime Minister wishes to come and address the chamber

we'd accommodate him.

Mrs Palmer.

Chris Palmer - 3:36:24

Thank you Chairman.

I live in a rural village and the school bus service comes through our village after it's been to two other villages.

And at 8 o 'clock this morning we came past that bus stop and there was a huge queue of children waiting to get on the school bus.

To add the after 9 .30 concessions to that queue, we do have quite a large proportion of older residents in our village.

would just be, well, it would be silly.

And also the bus service for the rural villages

in our part of Swale is very, very limited.

And we often already get reports of children

that can't get on the school bus,

and then they get reprimanded

because they arrive at school late

and don't get their tick in the box at the right time.

So in our part of Kent,

We just can't facilitate the concessionary passes as much as we would like to.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:37:25

It's just not feasible. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Palmer. Mrs. Porter.

Bridget Porter - 3:37:33

Thank you, Chairman. I would like to reiterate what Councillor Palmer has said.

I'm in a rural area and a lot of the time the busses are too infrequent for the amount

school children, especially on the new school year, because bus drivers don't quite know

how many people are going to use the school bus.

And as Councillor Palmer said, it would just be even more difficult for capacity on the

busses.

And so I wouldn't be endorsing it either.

As one person who uses older persons bus passes, I think that it's better to have it at 9 .30

because everybody's gone to work and then the busses are quieter for older people who

are slower getting on and off the bus.

And another thing is that on Saturday and Sunday you can use the bus early in the morning.

So if you want to go to Wetherspoons for breakfast, you can go before 8 o 'clock.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:38:40

Thank you.

Thank you for that tip, Mrs Porter.

I can see everyone lining up at the bus stop very, very soon.

Mr Palmer.

Richard Palmer - 3:38:50

Thank you, Chair.

I think most has been said, but my concern is this.

I think it's very admirable what they're trying to do.

KCC don't run busses.

And in my area, the people of Dunaway, Chestnut Street, Bobbing, Lathouse, Stowe, Uphchurch,

they would love to see a bus.

Having a bus pass that starts at 9 o 'clock in the morning is no good if you've got no

busses coming.

If there was fair money sloshing about in KCC, I would rather see more bus services,

particularly along rural communities, than a bus starting early.

and someone said about getting to a hospital appointment, I know for a fact that sometimes you can negotiate the time,

particularly if you've got transport issues getting into the hospital, and maybe members might want to make people aware of that,

or sometimes there's organisations that run a car scheme to get people to their appointments sometimes,

Jeremy Eustace - 3:39:47

and particularly you find that's common in the rural community areas. Thank you.

Thank you Mr Palmer. Don't worry Mr Brady, he was looking at me quite a lot, I can assure you.

Mr Ricketts.

Alex Ricketts - 3:39:55

I think this is a very well intentioned motion but I think as some of the points have come

across I'm not sure that a feasibility study is going to tell us anything other than that

what we don't need is more people getting on the bus before 9 .30.

I think if you have a look at the bus services particularly in my area running school specials

if you end up with people with concessionary passes trying to get on those school transport

busses in the morning it's an absolute recipe for disaster. What we do need to

encourage is for people to pay to get on busses outside of the times where

it's school kids and people with concessionary passes. I think people who

already have these passes, they don't need more encouragement to get

the bus because it's free so they will get the bus all the time. I do

understand the point about hospital appointments and what I would suggest

if you've got any residents that are coming to you, the carrier service is excellent

That's certainly what a lot of my residents use if they need to get the bus outside of the concessionary times.

I absolutely think that one area where we could do this is rather than encouraging concessionary passes to use the busses before 9 .30,

is extending the concession for school kids onto the weekends and evenings.

Because say if you've got two kids that have got those passes and they travel for free at the weekend,

then the parents are likely to go, well let's get the bus because the kids go through.

I think there are other things that we can do and there are some good schemes and I would love

to support some cross -party motions to get more bus travel and get those people

into the habit of getting the bus.

I think this is really well intentioned but I really don't think this is the way

Jeremy Eustace - 3:41:36

that we're going to encourage more bus use.

Thank you Mr. Ricketts.

Mr. Thomas.

Paul Thomas - 3:41:42

Thank you Chair and I wasn't going to speak on this but when you've got the cabinet member

for highways and transport and the deputy cabinet member both not realising what's coming

in April.

That's to do with disabled users.

This motion was about elderly people that they aren't providing for.

So it was looking to widen the use of the busses.

And the fact that you're saying, well, the elderly, their doctor's appointment

in my area is at 8 o 'clock.

the busses run in the opposite direction where the schools are and they're not allowing them

to utilise what is effectively an empty bus to get to an appointment.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:42:26

It is shameful but thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Yates.

Rob Yates - 3:42:30

Thank you, Chair.

Earlier this year I conducted a Thanet bus survey looking

at what improvements the busses our residents wanted.

And I thank the leader for mentioning my work earlier as well as the Dover protest petition.

The survey that I sent out got 423 responses and they were sent

to KCC officers before the officers made the decision

about which bus services would be saved.

Forty percent of those responses were from people over 65 years old.

That was the largest group of respondents.

I support this feasibility study because such a feasibility study could be used

to lobby the government to get funding to get this achieved,

especially if Andy Burnham said this is a vital objective of this government.

Doing a feasibility study sets a precedent that we should be ambitious, we should try and make things better,

and sometimes we should ask government for funding to make the lives of our residents better when we know we don't have the funding.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:43:27

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yates. Mr. Hook.

Antony Hook - 3:43:32

I'll be very brief, Chair. I just wanted to make sure that Council is cognizant of the distinction between the disabled passholders and state pension passholders,

passholders because on the former, changes is definitely coming.

And of course, the disabled are in a different position to state pension holders.

Disabled people can be any age from to 99.

And there are numerous studies that have shown that for the great bulk of disabled people

of education age or of working age, transport is a major barrier to them getting on in life

and getting to work or to getting to education.

And many, not all, but many disabled people don't have the option of motorised transport of their own

or might find walking more challenging than able -bodied people do.

And disabled charity has been campaigning on that for a long time.

Since the 2024 general election, Tom Gordon, MP, the MP for Harrogate, has led a number of debates

in the House of Commons on that.

And within the last couple of weeks, over the summer recess, the Prime Minister confirmed

and that he'll be making those changes that that campaign's been asking for.

And I believe the Treasury's providing $60 million for it.

So very soon, the good news is that our disabled residents who are passholders will be able

to use their disabled pass 24 -7 and not have that barrier.

I think people who've reached state pension age, who've had a working career and then got to,

what would in my case be 68, some other people who have been a younger age,

are in a different position.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:45:05

I think colleagues have dealt with that.

Sarah Emberson - 3:45:19

Thank you Chairman.

I would just like to clarify that we are aware of the Government's plans and I should just

point out that we are waiting to see how this pans out and then we will take action accordingly

Jeremy Eustace - 3:45:33

once we have more information. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Emmerson. I'll do a final

Robert Ford - 3:45:43

sweep. I don't want to miss anyone. I know Mr. Ford is biting at the bit. Mr. Ford, back to you.

Thank you. The biggest problem with the current bus system is the limited

operational hours 9 .30 to 11 p .m. There are a few key reasons. Most elderly

people get up early prefer to complete their chores in the morning, preferably

their daily chores in the morning and 9 .38 a .m. starts, restricts their ability

effectively. Changing the start time from 8 a .m. would make it easier for older

people to attend early doctors appointments, hospital appointments, which

could, what you usually scheduled in the mornings.

By implementing these changes, we can create a more practical

and accommodating bus system for older people,

ensuring that they have access to everything.

As per what Mr Palmer said of the eight o 'clock in,

taking it back to eight o 'clock in the morning,

most busses stop operating, a lot of bus areas stop operating

after nine o 'clock in the evening,

so the bus up to 11 o 'clock at night,

no one's using them anyway.

And most elderly people do not go out

in the evenings anyway.

So to look at this properly, you would say,

how much is this gonna actually cost more

if you actually moved it the opposite way round?

Which would stop, you wouldn't then be using two million pound

because you're just shifted it across,

took it from 11 to 9 and back to 8. Thank you.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:47:27

Thank you Mr Ford. I now return to Mr Bradshaw who originally proposed a motion to close

Oliver Bradshaw - 3:47:34

out the discussion before the vote. Mr Bradshaw.

Thank you Chair. First I would like to thank this side of the room for the very positive

constructive criticism. That's actually a nice change. I'd like to go back immediately

to the cabinet members for hires and transport saying that the 2027 April, as I specified

at the start of my speech, it's for disabled people.

They haven't mentioned elderly people, that's why I specified it.

So I'm hoping you're, I'm not going to say that or I might get in trouble.

The idea that suddenly reducing the bus pass times at 8 o 'clock in the morning, let's say,

is going to have the great hordes of pensioners

to send you on the bus service,

I think is highly unlikely,

even if this helps a handful,

maybe a couple hundred residents,

I think we've been doing our job properly.

What concerns me here is just the blanket refusal

from the administration.

I have asked for a feasibility study,

not for you to write a policy of an item, deploy it,

not for you to spend millions of pounds

doing a policy right now, I've asked for a study.

And as Mr. Yates has said, yes we could use a study

to lobby government.

As my colleagues in the liberal arts have said,

yes we could do other cross -party motions.

What concerns me is just the outright flat refusal

from the administration.

And I believe it shows that they are more,

how do I put this nicely, more concerned with

political posturing and actually doing something useful for local residents.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:49:11

Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

Thank you Mr Bradshaw.

I will now bring this matter to a recorded vote.

Vote - 3:49:18

If you could all wait for the buttons to light up.

If you'll forward the motion for, against, against or abstain in the usual manner.

Jeremy Eustace - 3:49:43

That concludes the vote.

Those in favour with 17, four abstentions.

48 against.

The motion falls.

Thank you.

11 National Anthem

Members I now draw your line or attention to item number 11.

This is the national anthem.

Members we have reached the final item of the day.

We will now conclude with the national anthem in the same way as is custom at relevant events.

The first verse of the anthem will be played.

Members who wish to do so are welcome to stand and participate.

Otherwise, please remain in your seats.

The meeting has not concluded.

Thank you.

Invicta - 3:50:19

Jeremy Eustace - 3:51:22

Thank you members. That concludes the business of the day. I remind members that we meet

Webcast Finished - 3:51:33

again on the 5th of November. This brings an end to the meeting. Thank you.

John Baker

Reform UK

View profile

Oliver Bradshaw

Restore Britain

View profile

Alister Brady

Labour and Co-operative Party

View profile

Dean Burns

Restore Britain

View profile

Chris Burwash

Reform UK

View profile

Alan Cecil

Reform UK

View profile

Paul Chamberlain

Reform UK

View profile

Wayne Chapman

Reform UK

View profile

Brian Collins

Reform UK

View profile

Spencer Dixon

Reform UK

View profile

Sarah Emberson

Reform UK

View profile

Jeremy Eustace

Reform UK

View profile

Luke Evans

Reform UK

View profile

John Finch

Reform UK

View profile

Robert Ford

Restore Britain

View profile

Beverley Fordham

Reform UK

View profile

Ben Fryer

Reform UK

View profile

Maxwell Harrison

Reform UK

View profile

Stuart Heaver

Green Party

View profile

Jamie Henderson

Reform UK

View profile

Christopher Hespe

Reform UK

View profile

Mark Hood

Green Party

View profile

Antony Hook

Liberal Democrat

View profile

Stuart Jeffery

Green Party

View profile

Linden Kemkaran

Reform UK

View profile

Paul King

Reform UK

View profile

Mary Lawes

Reform UK

View profile

Thomas Mallon

Reform UK

View profile

Richard Streatfeild, MBE

Liberal Democrat

View profile

Trudy Dean, MBE

Liberal Democrat

View profile

Connie Nolan

Labour

View profile

Peter Osborne

Reform UK

View profile

Chris Palmer

Reform UK

View profile

Richard Palmer

Reform UK

View profile

Martin Paul

Reform UK

View profile

Bridget Porter

Reform UK

View profile

Harry Rayner

Conservative

View profile

Alex Ricketts

Liberal Democrat

View profile

Claudine Russell

Conservative

View profile

Trevor Shonk

Reform UK

View profile

Dodger Sian

Reform UK

View profile

Paul Stepto

Green Party

View profile

Paul Thomas

Restore Britain

View profile

Albert Thorp

Reform UK

View profile

David Wimble

Reform UK

View profile

Rob Yates

Green Party

View profile

Interactive webcast player

County CouncilThursday, 17th September 2026 at 10:30am

Jeremy Eustace - 0:00:00

1 Apologies for Absence

Joel Cook - 0:00:30

Jeremy Eustace - 0:00:43

2 Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in items on the agenda

Mark Hood - 0:01:12

Jeremy Eustace - 0:01:14

Richard Streatfeild, MBE - 0:01:40

Jeremy Eustace - 0:01:44

Thomas Mallon - 0:01:51

Jeremy Eustace - 0:01:59

3 Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2026

4 Chairman's Announcements

Standing View - 0:05:13

Jeremy Eustace - 0:05:17

Alister Brady - 0:06:37

Jeremy Eustace - 0:08:14

Linden Kemkaran - 0:08:17

Jeremy Eustace - 0:08:33

Antony Hook - 0:08:37

Jeremy Eustace - 0:08:46

Paul Thomas - 0:08:49

Jeremy Eustace - 0:09:05

Mark Hood - 0:09:09

Jeremy Eustace - 0:09:19

Harry Rayner - 0:09:25

Jeremy Eustace - 0:09:59

Harry Rayner - 0:10:09

Jeremy Eustace - 0:11:29

Linden Kemkaran - 0:11:33

Jeremy Eustace - 0:11:43

Antony Hook - 0:11:48

Jeremy Eustace - 0:12:14

Paul Thomas - 0:12:17

Jeremy Eustace - 0:12:43

Mark Hood - 0:12:47

Jeremy Eustace - 0:13:06

Connie Nolan - 0:13:12

Jeremy Eustace - 0:13:46

Trevor Shonk - 0:13:53

Jeremy Eustace - 0:14:37

David Wimble - 0:14:43

Jeremy Eustace - 0:15:07

Connie Nolan - 0:15:15

Linden Kemkaran - 0:17:34

Jeremy Eustace - 0:17:49

Trudy Dean, MBE - 0:17:56

Jeremy Eustace - 0:19:54

Paul Thomas - 0:19:58

Jeremy Eustace - 0:20:14

Mark Hood - 0:20:19

Jeremy Eustace - 0:20:37

Harry Rayner - 0:20:43

Jeremy Eustace - 0:21:19

Christopher Hespe - 0:21:24

Jeremy Eustace - 0:22:04

Harry Rayner - 0:22:13

Jeremy Eustace - 0:23:58

Linden Kemkaran - 0:24:02

Jeremy Eustace - 0:24:14

Antony Hook - 0:24:17

Jeremy Eustace - 0:24:46

Paul Thomas - 0:24:51

Jeremy Eustace - 0:25:39

Mark Hood - 0:25:43

Jeremy Eustace - 0:26:05

Alister Brady - 0:26:09

Jeremy Eustace - 0:27:36

Dodger Sian - 0:28:10

Jeremy Eustace - 0:28:12

Standing View - 0:28:21

Jeremy Eustace - 0:29:21

5 Questions

Mark Hood - 0:32:21

Jeremy Eustace - 0:32:43

Stuart Heaver - 0:32:54

Linden Kemkaran - 0:33:31

Stuart Heaver - 0:33:39

County Council
Thursday, 17th September 2026 at 10:30am