Public speaking at Council meetings

Questions from Councillors

Question from Councillor Matterface to Councillor Keen:

Councillor Matterface asked Councillor Keen the following question:

“The Thanet Quality Bus Partnership met quarterly from 2000 until 2014. Since then, it has been inactive, but it was a useful collaboration between Thanet District Council, including Parking, Stagecoach East Kent and KCC Highways and Transportation. With climate change being a TDC policy, is it now time to revive this valuable body since we need to encourage closer working links with the other two organisations?”

Councillor Keen responded with the following key points:

• The Quality Bus Partnership had been replaced by the Enhanced Partnership Board and Enhanced Partnership Schemes Monitoring Groups, including one for East Kent, which would meet approximately every six months.
• Thanet District Council was represented on this group.

Councillor Matterface followed up her question by asking the following supplementary question:

“Would a similar body give Thanet more say in acquiring a fairer share of the £78 million allocated to KCC by the Labour government, which could help bring back routes like the number 9 and 33?”

Councillor Keen responded that the council did not currently know how much would come to Thanet or the criteria, but would be lobbying for new or improved routes or frequency to meet need, especially around new housing developments. Councillors were encouraged to email officers with concerns about particular routes.

Question from Councillor Fellows to Councillor Whitehead:

Councillor Fellows asked Councillor Whitehead the following question:

“Last year, following decisions by your Cabinet and this full Council, this council adopted a series of recommendations relating to the Birchington Conservation Area. These recommendations were based on a report by consultants Alan Baxter Ltd. who had undertaken an extensive review of the existing Conservation Area in Birchington, supported through research using the Birchington Heritage Trust archives together with public consultations and input from Birchington Parish Council.

The leader spoke at the time about the importance of heritage and supported the recommendations.

There have been repeated promises by council officers over the past year that work would begin to implement the decision and recommendations but nothing ever happens.

Please can you tell us what is going on?”

Councillor Whitehead responded with the following key points:

• It was confirmed that heritage was an important priority for planning and that the council was fully committed to supporting all 27 designated conservation areas.
• Additionally, it was explained that 12 areas did not currently have Conservation Area Appraisals, which were critical.
• Due to having a single conservation officer, the council had to prioritise areas without appraisals and those with a high volume of planning applications, as these presented a greater risk of harmful development.
• The area proposed for the Birchington extension currently had low levels of planning applications.
• It was further confirmed the council was committed to the principle and hoped to consult on the extension in the new year.

Councillor Fellows followed up the question by asking a supplementary question, noting that he did not feel he had received an answer on when this would happen.

Councillor Whitehead reiterated that consultation was hoped for in the new year.

Question from Councillor Kup to Councillor Everitt:

Councillor Kup asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“The latest Cabinet finance report highlighted several risks and pressures that may affect the 2025/26 budget. Taking into account the reserves and borrowing position noted in that report, could the Leader explain how these pressures are expected to shape next year’s budget-setting, including whether they may result in council-tax increases, cuts to services or other financial measures?”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following key points:

• The Cabinet was fully aware of the council’s financial position and was not waiting for the year end to act. The corporate management team’s strict control measures, which had included a weekly spending panel to scrutinise purchases over £10,000 and a freeze on non-essential recruitment, had already been endorsed.
• It was explained that the long-term strategy for the 2026-2027 budget would be to rebase the budgets to properly fund systemic demand-led pressures, such as homelessness, and to review the asset portfolio to dispose of high-liability buildings.
• It was noted that simply slashing services would be a false economy and would drive away skilled staff.
• Given the financial situation, anything other than a maximum permissible council tax increase would place the council in an extreme minority and would be difficult to justify to external auditors. It was added that a 3% increase to Thanet’s precept would amount to around 15p a week extra for Band D households.

Councillor Kup followed up his question by asking a supplementary question, asking for assurance that the financial situation would remain secure, with “wiggle room,” if the anticipated local government reorganisation was delayed due to potential judicial reviews.

Councillor Everitt responded that the budgeting assumptions were based on the government’s expected timeline, and it was challenging to budget around hypotheticals.

Question from Councillor Yates to Councillor Whitehead:

Councillor Yates asked Councillor Whitehead the following question:

“Margate is full of incredibly beautiful listed buildings and structures. Two of these in particular are in disrepair, specifically the grade II listed building Nayland Rock hotel which has been in disrepair for over a decade and the grade II star listed scenic railway in Dreamland theme park which suffered damage in August 2024. Will TDC consider using its enforcement powers to encourage the owners of Nayland Rock Hotel and Dreamland to repair these listed and much loved buildings and structures?”

Councillor Whitehead responded with the following key points:

• The council had already been directly involved for an extended period. For the Nayland Rock Hotel, planning permission and listed building consent for various works had been granted earlier in the year, and minor repair work had already taken place.
• Work was anticipated to commence soon.
• For the Scenic Railway, repairs following the August 2024 damage had taken place.

Councillor Yates followed up his supplementary question by asking if the Scenic Railway could be expected to be running by next year’s opening time and questioned if TDC was doing enough to restore the Nayland Rock Hotel, noting its continued deterioration?

Councillor Whitehead responded that the council was working with the owner of the Nayland Rock on repairs. Explained that, regarding the Scenic Railway, while the council could enforce the condition of buildings, it could not necessarily enforce usage, and this would be an ongoing discussion with Dreamland.

Question from Councillor Wing to Councillor Albon:

Councillor Wing asked Councillor Albon the following question:

“There seems to be some confusion among locals concerning the mute swan and fish deaths along waterways covered by Dover District Council and ourselves. The EA released information relating to a serious contamination event on the River Wantsum at Sarre on the 5th September and we have, quite rightly, released a statement about an increase in incidents of bird flu. Are you able to give an update on both situations as well as any ongoing action to deal with both the contamination incident and bird flu, including who is removing any dead birds, especially the mute swans, and how fast to limit the spread?”

Councillor Albon responded with the following key points:

• The council had only received four reports of suspected bird flu in Thanet.
• As a precaution and in line with government guidance, signs were in place at rural paths to warn the public not to handle dead birds or other wildlife and to keep dogs on a lead.
• Government advice was that the risk to general public health was very low.

Councillor Wing asked a supplementary question. It was that there highlighted footage of dead swans on Kent Wildlife Rescue Service’s Facebook page and it was asked whether Councillor Albon could contact the service to ensure that the volunteers had all the resources they needed to remove the birds?

Councillor Albon confirmed that if the dead birds were in the Thanet area and near the edge of the water, wardens would remove them, but they would not retrieve birds floating in the middle due to health and safety, as it was primarily the Environment Agency’s responsibility.

Question from Councillor Rogers to Councillor K.Bright:

Councillor Rogers asked Councillor K.Bright the following question:

“Ramsgate councillor Barbara Young has written to officers asking when are we going to do something about nuisance parking on the Westcliff She didn’t receive a response! I counted 10 camper vans parked on the Western undercliff, Ramsgate late evening on Tuesday, one of them has been lived in since June! Many of them leave their rubbish on the promenade, their toilets are emptied in the sea or on the beach regularly as there are no facilities and the prohibitive signs are being flouted. Residents are rightly disgusted and want a solution. Why can’t we provide an allotted space for them at the far end of the undercliff during the day and enforce their removal in the evening?”

Councillor K.Bright responded with the following key points:

• Apologies for a lack of response to a previous query from Councillor Young.
• It was explained that signage had been significantly vandalised, preventing civil enforcement.
• This issue had been resolved, and enforcement was taking place after the restriction began at 6p.m. Vehicles staying for prolonged periods were considered unauthorised encampments, and enforcement for these was the responsibility of the highways authority (KCC), not the council’s civil enforcement team.

Councillor Rogers asked a supplementary question, asking why several camper vans were not fined when the new barrier and tunnel were closed, and for the number of fines issued?

Councillor K.Bright stated he did not have the exact number of fines but assured that the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued across the district had increased by around 45% since April 2024.

Question from Councillor Austin to Councillor Everitt:

Councillor Austin asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“I read with interest the LGIU’s recent briefing, “Local government buying for better outcomes – making the most of the Procurement Act”. The Procurement Act 2023 appears to give us much greater flexibility in procurement decision-making than councils had in the past.

In particular, it seems to offer us the chance to adopt a version of what has become known as the Preston Model – the community wealth-building approach that gives preference to local suppliers when letting contracts, supporting local prosperity and safeguarding or creating local jobs. In economically challenged areas like Thanet this is particularly good news.

What steps are we taking to adapt our procurement policies to make the most of this welcome development?”

Councillor Everitt responded with the following key points:

• It was agreed that the Act was a significant shift.
• Officers had already begun adapting policies, with contract procedure rules having been updated to proactively select local suppliers for contracts below major thresholds.
• The council intended to adopt the government’s new voluntary policy, which would allow reserving certain lower-value contracts specifically for local and UK-based suppliers. “Community wealth building” would be a core theme of the updated procurement strategy.

Councillor Austin asked a supplementary question asking if a councillor briefing could be arranged in the new year to detail what this meant in practice.

Councillor Everitt committed to organising a councillor briefing in the new year

Question from Councillor Bayford to Councillor Whitehead:

Councillor Bayford asked Councillor Whitehead the following question:

“I share the concern for homeless families and individuals who are forced to accept temporary accommodation out of the Thanet area, suffering disruption to their work, education and daily lives and am pleased that the number of people in this situation is decreasing. I’d like to ask what measures have been considered to supply larger numbers of temporary homes at cheaper prices than those currently being acquired, so that a greater number of people can be provided with temporary accommodation locally.”

Councillor Whitehead responded with the following key points:

• The council had already committed to a £42 million, 170-home program of new council-owned TA.
• The in-house TA and prevention measures had produced a drop in total TA placements from 319 last September to 224 this week, with out-of-area placements reduced by over two-thirds.
• It was explained that the current approach was to acquire homes that met Homes England space standards and were suitable as long-term housing stock, ensuring the investment had future value.

Councillor Bayford followed up the question by asking a supplementary question. It was asked if looking into “zed pods,” as other councils were doing, would not be more cost-effective and in keeping with the government’s plan to provide more appropriate units of TA by 2030?

Councillor Whitehead explained that Thanet had particular challenges with land availability and that zed pods were often not more cost-efficient, citing the £300,000 cost per unit in Ashford, which was more expensive than the council’s purchases of permanent accommodation (£90,000 to £112,000 for two-beds). It was explained that the pods also required additional costs for site suitability and connecting utilities (sewage, electricity), which would add to the overall expense.

Question from Councillor Davis to Councillor Everitt:

“Will the Leader, having previously expressed support for the establishment of a Tall Ships led Festival at Ramsgate’s Royal Harbour, please give our community a Christmas gift of hope, by reconfirming his commitment to supporting the idea, and the millions of pounds in additional revenue and opportunities it will provide to our local economy?”

Response to follow.

Questions from Press and Public:

Question from Mr Bell to Councillor K.Bright:

Mr Bell asked Councillor K.Bright the following question:

“Given that The Oval hosts large-scale public events attracting thousands of visitors, and that we have been requesting enforceable parking restrictions to protect emergency access since 2021, can the Cabinet Member explain why no progress has been made, and what immediate steps TDC will take to ensure that emergency services are not obstructed during future events?

This is a serious public-safety issue. There are currently no legally enforceable measures guaranteeing emergency vehicle access to the site, despite repeated requests for additional restrictions at the main and secondary entrances. Should an incident occur — for example, a fire, serious injury, or terrorist attack — and emergency services were delayed due to parked vehicles, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Will the Cabinet Member confirm that this matter will be included on the agenda for the next Joint Transportation Board meeting and progressed with Kent County Council without further delay?”

Councillor K.Bright responded with the following points:

• A request for changes had been received in July 2025 and was not yet at the stage to go to the next Joint Transport Board meeting.
• Officers were working through the request, and any elements brought forward for adoption would be taken to a future JTB meeting, noting that the process could take up to 18 months.
• The request was being taken seriously, noting that double yellow lines were already in place and 31 Penalty Charge Notices had been issued in the last 12 months, highlighting that the area was patrolled.

Question from Mrs Brown to Councillor Whitehead:

Mrs Brown asked Councillor Whitehead the following question:

“I attended the recent design codes workshops and completed the online survey. As decisions about design will be made in reserved matters, after outline planning permission has been granted. I have concerns how TDC will be able to use design codes to meet the Thanet community’s aspirations for well designed homes in character with the local area and how the National Design Code 2019 can be used to deliver well designed places using the 10 characteristics of well designed places in line with the government’s policy. The characteristics are: Context – enhances the surroundings, Identity attractive and distinctive, Built form a coherent pattern of development, Movement accessible and easy to move around, Nature enhanced and optimised, Public spaces -Safe, social and inclusive, Uses mixed and integrated, Homes and buildings functional, healthy and sustainable’Resources efficient and resilient, Lifespan made to last.

How will TDC’s planning team achieve these government ambitions?”

Councillor Whitehead responded with the following key points:

• It was confirmed that the council was keen to ensure the emerging design codes would carry full weight in the decision-making process.
• The local plan policies and the emerging design codes would be applied equally to all relevant planning applications.
• However, until final regulations and guidance were produced by the government, no final decision could be made about exactly how best to incorporate the design codes into the planning framework.
• Central guidance was hoped to be received early in the new year.

Question from Mrs McCourt to Councillor Whitehead:

“When an application is given approval by the planning inspectorate, with conditions, we have learned that developers are able to employ companies of their choice to ‘check’ against the conditions set. This system is rather like getting pupils to “mark their own homework” together and we all know how unsatisfactory that is in an educational setting. These conditions are very serious; having been set by the Inspectorate in order to ensure the necessary standards are maintained. We are aware of flooding issues in the district causing issues to housing adjacent to new builds and others on new builds. We understand there are insufficient staff at TDC who are able to ‘check’ these conditions are met.

If the conditions set by the planning inspectorate have been ‘checked’ but issues arise on such developments, who is to be held responsible for repairs, especially where a developer has gone into liquidation?”

As the questioner was not present at the meeting, they would receive a response in writing.

Question from Mrs Williams to Councillor Duckworth:

Mrs William asked Councillor Duckworth the following question:

“Has the cabinet member for regeneration and property personally viewed the access path to the Pierremont Park service depot site and can they explain how it is proposed that the park environment and in particular the mature trees and shrubs and tranquil nature of this pathway could possibly be protected if the service area were to be commercially developed?”

Councillor Everitt responded in Councillor Duckworth’s absence with the following key points:

• It was confirmed that both Councillor Everitt and Councillor Duckworth had visited the site.
• It was stated that the access path was not included in the sale, and any prospective owner would not be entitled to make any changes to the access road.
• Any implications for the park from a potential future change of use of the depot site would be a matter for the planning process to consider.

Question from Mr Darrer to Councillor Keen:

Mr Darrer asked Councillor Keen the following question:

“Thanet residents are deeply frustrated that, despite the council having a Dog PSPO in place, enforcement against dog fouling is almost non-existent. Shockingly, only 37 FPN’s issued in nine years across Thanet. The Oval, a 4.2-acre public park maintained by volunteers and recently awarded Green Flag status, suffers particularly badly — yet to date no action has been taken to address the problem. TDC already has the power to authorise external organisations to enforce PSPO’s. GRASS Cliftonville CIC has offered to take on this responsibility at The Oval at no cost to the council, with staff undergoing full vetting, training, and oversight through the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme with Kent Police. Can the Cabinet Member explain why, after several years of repeated requests, the council continues to refuse to allow GRASS to enforce the Dog PSPO properly at The Oval, when legislation clearly gives the council the power to act?”

Councillor Keen responded with the following key points:

• It was confirmed that whilst the council did have the powers under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, these powers were normally exercised only by council employees or officers operating under formal agreements.
• It was stated that authorising volunteers without such a formal arrangement would present legal, operational, and safeguarding risks.
• The initial request had been denied as the council did not have the capacity to establish and manage the necessary governance and oversight arrangements.
• It was confirmed that first steps had been taken to move this forward, and officers had met with Grass to discuss the required responsibilities.

• You must give your name and address. Your address will only be used to identify that you are a Thanet resident entitled to ask a question at a council meeting.
• Your question must not be more than one hundred and fifty words.
• You must give the name of the Cabinet Member your question is for. To find out which Cabinet Member you should ask, please click on cabinet posts.
• Please check the summary of questions asked at past meetings via the link below to make sure your question or a similar question has not been asked within the last 6 months.
• Please view  Speaking at Council meetings – Frequently Asked Questions for more information.

Questions from earlier Council meetings can be found in our archive.