Resolved: That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 May 2024, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

No additional declarations of interest were made.

The Chairman advised that it had been quite busy so far this year and that he had already attended a number of events ranging from summer fetes to charity dinners and school productions. This had allowed Cllr Harrison and their cohorts to build relationships inside the community and with neighbouring Councils. He was pleased to see the return of the Family Fun Days, that allowed residents to enjoy the various activities on offer, and he looked forward to attending them during the holidays. 

He thanked all those who came to his Charity Curry Night fundraiser in Kemsing, this was a great success. The next event would be a Horseracing Night at Horton Kirby on 11 October.

On 11 July he attended the West Heath Schools Prize Giving. The event acknowledged the students hard work, and it was an honour, and quite humbling, to present the awards. The Chairman and Vice Chairman attended the excellent performance of Wyrd Sisters at the Knole Academy

He ended his announcements by thanking members for their support so far.

The Chairman, with the Council’s agreement moved agenda item 6b to take place after agenda item 11.

No questions had been received.

No petitions had been received.

a)     Housing Allocation Policy Review

It was moved by Cllr. Perry Cole and duly seconded by Cllr. Hogarth that the recommendation from Cabinet to note the feedback received from the consultation exercise and the Housing Allocation Policy 2024-2027 was adopted subject to the inclusion of the definition of suitable accommodation.

Cllr Perry Cole spoke to the motion advising that substantial consultations had taken place involving all Members and various interested parties. Some recommendations had been made from those consultations and a number of suggestions had been included in the policy.

Members debated the motion with some concerns raised that there could still be some residents who may not get the assistance they required, as well as it being noted by Members that there was a shortage of affordable housing in the district. Discussion took place on how suitable accommodation was defined and this had been considered by the Housing & Health Advisory Committee but it was considered that the definition, as set out in the supplementary information did not go far enough to include schooling, work and family. It was proposed and duly seconded that the motion, part b, be amended to read as “to adopt the draft of the housing allocation policy 2024-2027, subject to the amendments of the description of suitable accommodation as follows: factors taken into account, including property size, location, affordability, family circumstances, access to support networks and transport links.”

Cllr Gustard spoke to her amendment expressing the need for the clear definition, and considering different circumstances of suitable accommodation, as such when it would be suitable to decline the offer of housing. Members further debated the amendment expressing concern that the most vulnerable residents would be failed if their needs could not be met, noting there could be changes to central government housing policy and needs. Cllr Perry Cole gave his right of reply to the amendment stating that the comments made had been taken on board but the circumstances had not changed and there were an extremely limited number of social housing properties available from housing associations. Therefore, he considered that the changes to the policy were fair and proportionate.

A vote was taken on the amendment and it was lost.

There was no further discussion on the original motion.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: that

a)     feedback from the consultation exercise, be noted; and

b)   the draft housing Allocations Policy 2024 – 2027, with the inclusion of the definition of suitable accommodation, be noted.

a)     Financial regulations and contract procedure rules

It was moved by Cllr. McArthur and duly seconded by Cllr. Penny Cole that the Financial procedure rules as set out at Appendix A, and the Contract Procedure Rules as set out at Appendix B,  be adopted with effect from 1 August 2024. The financial procedure rules covered a wide range of financial management including financial planning, risk management and control of resources.

Speaking to the motion, Cllr McArthur advised that the Governance Committee had also considered the proposed amendments and that the changes would help to achieve robust governance by setting out the processes as well as where responsibility sat to ensure sound financial management. The purpose of the procedure rules were to provide a structure which purchasing decisions were made and implemented and which ensured that the Council used its resources efficiently and purchases quality goods, services and works, and that it acted compliantly according to the rules around spending public money.

Members debated the motion noting the revisions made were positive steps but it was raised that more progress could be made, in particular to central procurement procedures and social value. A Member made reference to both internal and external audit feedback regarding procurement and waivers. It was moved and duly seconded that the motion be amended to include point c, “the Council noting recent reports from both internal and external auditors, requests that the Council and officers examine the potential gains from a central procurement hub, and brings proposals for this to the Audit Committee and Finance & Investment Advisory Committee within six months.”

The amendment was debated, with some support expressed for a centralised procurement team. Debate continued and it was further raised that the audits referred to earlier in debate, had shown that some areas required improvement and that actions necessary to make those improvements were being undertaken.

Cllr. Robinson gave her right of reply and a vote was taken on the amendment which was lost.

Debate continued on the original motion.

The motion was put to the vote and it was carried.

Resolved: That the

i)  Financial Procedure Rules (Appendix A) be adopted with effect from 1 August 2024; and

ii)  Contract Procedure Rules (Appendix B) be adopted with effect from 1 August 2024;

b)     Protocol on webcasting & electronic voting

It was moved by Cllr. McArthur and duly seconded by Cllr. Penny Cole that the protocol on webcasting and electronic voting be confirmed in line with Member’s instructions. Cllr. McArthur spoke to the motion advising that the Governance Committee had also considered the same report and as set out within the minutes from the Governance Committee, and had considered some of the issues following Member feedback.

Resolved:  That the protocol on Webcasting and Electronic Voting be confirmed in line with the instructions of Members.

a)     Swanley Neighbourhood Plan

It was moved by Cllr Thornton and duly seconded by Cllr Reay that the Swanley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020 – 2040, be “made” (adopted) and the Statement (post-referendum) be published.

Cllr. Thornton spoke to the motion stating that the Swanley Neighbourhood plan went to referendum on 4 July and 81% voted in favour of adopting the plan. The Portfolio Holder took the opportunity to thank those involved who brought the plan forward which would be used to inform planning decisions in Swanley.

Resolved: That

i)   following a favourable local referendum result, the Swanley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020-2040, incorporating the Examiner’s modifications, as presented to local referendum, be “made” (adopted) with immediate effect and form part of the Council’s Development Plan to help determine planning applications in the Neighbourhood Area; and

ii)   the Swanley Neighbourhood Development Plan Decision Statement (post referendum) shown at Appendix A of the report, be published.

b)     Appointments to outside organisations

It was moved by Cllr Perry Cole and duly seconded by Cllr. Horwood that the appointments to Outside Organisations be agreed.

Resolved: That

i)     Cllr. Hogarth be appointed as representative for the Citizen’s Advice Bureau – North & West Kent for the municipal year 2024/2025; and

ii)    Cllr. Haslam be appointed as representative for the Southern Water, Co-Design workshop.

c) Appointment of Reserve Independent Person & Remuneration

It was moved by Cllr. Hogarth and duly seconded by Cllr. Perry Cole that Paul Cummins be appointed as the reserve Independent Person and that their allowances be increased with effect as of 1 August 2024. The report set out the recommendation for the appointment of a Reserve Independent Person, which had been agreed by the Group Leaders. The report also set out the allowances for the Independent Person and Reserve Independent Person be increased.

Resolved: That

i)     Paul Cummins be appointed as reserve independent person; and

ii)     The allowance paid to the Independent Person increase to £1,500 and to the reserve Independent Person increase to £750, with effect from 1 August 2024, be agreed.

d) Climate Change Strategy

It was moved by Cllr Roy and duly seconded by Cllr Bayley that the recommendation to note that the previous aspiration to reach net Zero by 20230 would not be achieved for the reason set out in the report. Cllr Roy spoke to the motion setting out that the Council’s aspiration to reach net zero by 2030 was no longer a realistic ambition due to a number of factors and restraints such as the cost to decarbonise the Council’s assets and a lack of infrastructure. She stressed that the Council was still committed to decarbonising its assets and to reach net zero but as highlighted within the report the Council was responsible for less and 0.5% of the district’s emissions and was limited in is ability to influence the two main sources of emissions of transport and domestic use of gas and electricity. A new action plan was being developed to identify projects across  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

One question had been received from Members in  accordance with paragraph 19.3 of Part 2 (The Council and District Council Members) of the Constitution.

Question 1: Cllr. Manston

“Does the administration of Sevenoaks Council see an opportunity to support the rural communities around Sevenoaks District to get better connected?"

Response: Portfolio Holder for Development & Conservation

The Portfolio Holder for Development & Conservation advised that as Cllr. Manston had acknowledged buses, public transport and other highway matters were for Kent County Council. Although the Council had a People & Places Advisory Committee, it did not have the powers over bus companies or franchises and thus would be ineffective of the council’s resources, where there was no significant power to influence, and put forward that Kent County Council should be approached.

The Portfolio Holder further responded that there were though, some limited areas where the council were already supporting more sustainable transport primarily through the planning function, such as policies to encourage electric vehicle charging points, working proactively with developers on larger schemes regarding travel and transport plans, encouraging car clubs, shared vehicle and electric bike schemes and community based solutions for travel to boost support for sustainable transport. As well as through the planning process developing local walking and cycling infrastructure plans, LCWIPS in collaboration with KCC to promote walking, wheeling and cycling as a sustainable alternative to car use. Through identifying improvements, would allow residents to more rural villages to walk, wheel or cycle safety to town centres, giving Swanley Town Centre as an example, to access services and public transport links.

The emerging local plan recognised that residents and visitors need to travel to work, school, shops and access other services and the Plan 1040 set out a clear ambition, predominantly through partnership working to improve the quality, quantity and access to public transport. Sustainable movement was specifically address through policies T1 and T2 which aim to encourage and facilitate modal shift from private car to other more sustainable modes of transport, and were supported by the Council’s movement strategy of 2022 which set out the key priorities including improving public transport services.

In summing up the Portfolio Holder also advised that local members had been successful in securing a bus trial for Hartley and New Ash Green by directly engaging with bus operators and other neighbouring Councillors.

There was no supplementary question. In accordance with the constitution, no further discussion was allowed.

Cllr. Leaman proposed the following motion, which was seconded by Cllr. Streatfeild.

“Council notes the final audit report on Sencio contract Management, published in May 2024.”

Speaking to the motion Cllr. Leaman set out how the motion had been brought to consideration at Full Council. The audit report confirmed that the contract was not fit for purpose and lacked any provision for managing poor performance, expected performance levels and business continuity provision. There was no documented guidance given to the Portfolio Holders and reporting to Committees was ad-hoc. In speaking to his motion, he questioned why no action was taken when there were red flags and concerns expressed by the Scrutiny Working Group, which also highlighted that the contract did not represent value for money. Members were advised on a loan provided to Sencio and he queried why the contract was not rewritten to put it on a sustainable footing. As well as noting that there were no audited accounts since 2018 and losses between 2018 to 2021 ran into the millions and this was before the pandemic and arrival of other gyms. In closing he expressed concern that the report did not detail the role of the Council’s representatives on the Sencio Board,  and only that advice and guidance was provided ad hoc and that Council had not set out any expectations from the Board Members. He questioned whether the Board took a responsible approach to risk management and the interests of the Council and residents.

An amendment was moved by Cllr. Penny Cole and duly seconded by Cllr. Williams that the motion include “and agrees the internal auditors recommended actions in full.” Cllr Penny Cole spoke to her amendment advising that the Audit Committee had thoroughly considered the report by internal audit, and she reassured Members that questions had been asked of the officers and councillors who were present when Sencio went into administration, and she was of the opinion that everything was done that could have been done to ensure that the Council did not spend more money than it had to in ensuring that the Leisure Centres and golf course remained opened and then re-opened as quickly as possible. Having looked back at the Scrutiny Committee meetings, Members had expressed their disappointment with the Chief Executive of Sencio for not providing the accounts and had requested further attendance at the Committee. The Committee though were told, that the finances were back on track. The Board of Trustees comprised on 9 people and the council only had two representatives. The contract itself had been written in a way that the council would not have been in a position to end the contract any earlier. Turning to the audit report and looking to the future, three actions had been proposed for the new leisure contract going forward and would reflect the lessons learned.

Members debated the amendment and questioned how the lessons learned would be embedded into future procurement as well as requesting to identify who was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Leader of the Council reported on the work that he, and the rest of the Cabinet had undertaken since the last meeting of Council. He commended the Chairman for his civic service.

It was moved by Cllr Horwood and duly seconded that the recommendations as set out within the supplementary agenda from Cabinet be agreed. The report set out the identified opportunity to regenerate the Land to the East of Sevenoaks High Street, following the pressing need to undertake significant work to decarbonise the existing leisure centre and other buildings owned to ensure compliance with new environmental standards.

Speaking to the motion, Cllr Horwood stated that this was one of the most significant projects the Council had undertaken to secure investment for Sevenoaks Town, whilst tacking significant financial challenges of how those requirements were met. Initial engagement events had already taken place, and through the Advisory Committees as well as a working group which looked in more detail at the finances.

Members debated the motion, with agreement that this was a project which had a lot of opportunities but it was also complex. Consideration was also given to the working group report and the hierarchy of objectives of the project and possible of conflicts of those. An amendment was moved by Cllr Leaman and duly seconded by Cllr Shea that “That the cabinet member for finance and investments tables the report at the next appropriate meeting, the Council with a full response to the key issues set out in the report of the five Members working group.”

Speaking to the motion, Cllr Leaman set out that the papers demonstrated a mixture of micro clarity and details about cash flow projections but there were elements which had macro ambiguity such as the objectives.

Members debated the amendment, noting that the project was evolving and the Advisory Committees would continue to monitor the progress and finance. Concern was expressed that at this point in time a large amount of time could be spent putting reports forward and more details of the project was needed first, as the issues as they develop would be examined and reported on a regular basis. In debate questions were raised regarding carbon emissions and part of demolishment, and reassurances for cross party, cross community relationships whilst considering the emerging local plan and the emerging master plan being developed by the Town Council. Some concerns had been expressed over the need for a complete risk register as the project moved forward.

In his right of reply to the amendment, Cllr Leaman advised that he recognised that it was a partnership project which would have a mixture of opinions, and looked for assurance that there would be a plan with timetable for milestones.

The amendment was put to the vote and it was lost. There was no further debate on the original motion. Cllr Horwood gave his right of reply to the debate acknowledging that it was a complex and long project which would evolve as it moved forward. Timelines were detailed in the report, particularly around engagement and residents and stakeholders would be kept up to date. It was a partnership project and so there were areas which the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.