Submit a question for Full Council Thursday 10 December 2026
Please read the guidance on this page before submitting your question.
A question can also be posted to: The Committee Services Manager, Council Offices, PO Box 9, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent, CT10 1XZ
Members of the press and residents of Thanet can ask questions at Ordinary Meetings of Council; the exceptions being the annual council meeting, the annual budget-setting meeting (usually at the beginning of February) and Extraordinary Meetings.
A question must be submitted by the person who will ask the question at the Council meeting and not someone else on the questioner’s behalf. You can submit a question by following the link on this page.
The Committee Services Manager must receive your question at least five full working days before the date of the meeting. Saturdays and Sundays and bank holidays do not count as ‘working days’.
| Date of Ordinary Meeting of Council | Time by which your question should be received |
|---|---|
| Thursday 10 December 2026 | Wednesday 2 December 2026 – 5.30pm |
Ruth Bailey asked Councillor Everitt the following question:
“Ahead of LGR, many Districts are working constructively with Town and Parish councils to transfer assets, supported by robust Community Asset Transfer policies.
Valued assets are being transferred, often at little or no cost, to safeguard them, strengthen local decision-making, improve services and help communities thrive.
TDC’s asset disposal policy seems to differ significantly, with Town and Parish Councils not even consulted.
Broadstairs Town Council are the natural, willing successor of the Pierremont Depot having assumed additional responsibilities devolved from TDC, with further responsibilities likely in future.
You recently said, “giving away assets unlawfully is not something we will be doing”. However, the General Disposal Consent of 2003 lawfully permits land to be disposed of for less than best consideration, as demonstrated by other councils.
Now the sale has fallen through, will the Depot be transferred to Broadstairs Town Council as the most appropriate custodian of the site?”
Councillor Everitt responded as follows:
Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 is a strict statutory requirement establishing a council’s primary legal duty to obtain the best consideration reasonably obtainable when disposing of land. In contrast, the General Disposal Consent 2003 is a permissive power granted by the Secretary of State that allows sales at an undervalue up to £2,000,000 to promote local well-being; it does not override or replace the underlying statutory duty. Crucially, courts define “consideration” strictly as monetary value, meaning non-monetary social value cannot count towards the financial best consideration threshold.
There is a distinction between low-value community amenity assets and commercial assets like the Pierremont Depot. While parks, war memorials, statues and play areas carry minimal market value and represent maintenance liabilities suitable for nominal-sum transfer, the Pierremont Depot has verified commercial demand with willing buyers offering in excess of £300,000. Under our fiduciary duty to local taxpayers, foregoing a £300,000+ capital receipt represents a direct opportunity cost equivalent to spending public funds. To lawfully sell a high-value commercial asset at an undervalue under the General Consent, the Council would require an independent Section 123 Valuation Certificate, a robust business case demonstrating perceived community benefits (such as Social Return on Investment) that justify the £300,000+ foregone receipt, and verified compliance with the UK Subsidy Control Regime.
Consequently, the Council would not simply hand over or “give away” the Pierremont Depot following the collapse of the previous sale. Broadstairs Town Council is a valued local partner, and it is welcome to participate in an open market process, where the Council can consider all offers to secure best consideration for local taxpayers.
Helen Heckety asked Councillor Keen the following question:
“The recent enactment of the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) at Walpole Bay has negatively impacted the disabled community. I need to park by the tidal pool and have enjoyed doing so all summer. There is a limit to outdoor activities I can do and this was one. Now you have taken that away. You say there’s an exception for disabled people but this is not on the signs, so that’s not an exception, is it? If you think I have time to appeal every time I am fined, then I assure you I don’t. What about my friends who help me in and out of the pool. Where do they park? I’ve got a progressive disability and enough to worry about. This enactment makes life worse for disabled people.”
Olivia Schelts-Harris asked the following question of Councillor Keen:
“The Council has stated that the Public Spaces Protection Order already prohibited unauthorised parking on Thanet’s promenades, but that in August 2026 it changed its enforcement approach at Walpole Bay because of concerns about emergency access, campervans, litter and the Seaside Award.
Given that the legal prohibition on parking was already in place, what specific decision was made in August 2026 to change the Council’s previous approach, what evidence and equality impact information was presented to the decision-maker before that decision was taken, and will the Council now publish the relevant decision record, equality assessment and evidence of the alternatives considered — including less restrictive measures for longstanding community users and disabled residents — and review the decision if those considerations were not properly undertaken?”
Nicky Browne asked the following question of Councillor Keen:
“Forbidding parking close to Walpole tidal pool, puts swimmers- usually women in danger. Swimmers need friendly constructive support, close warm and discrete changing areas. How can the council justify this at the start of the winter swimming season? It is cruel.”
Richard Barry asked the following question of Councillor Keen:
“Why close the parking facility for Walpole Bay Tidal Pool, a wonderful local amenity? Why put swimmers, including my wife, in possible danger?”
Kate Maylard-Mason asked the following question of Councillor Keen:
“I am a regular cold water swimmer and paddle boarder and the current restrictions are preventing me from using Walpole Bay.
I am 63 and cannot carry all my SUP and safety gear up and down the slope. Additionally , my husband and 86 year old mother have gained great joy from watching my activities from the car with a picnic, something we can no longer do…
Does the council think it is fair to discriminate against the elderly and disabled?
Will cold water swimmers and local people with mobility issues, be granted a parking permit?
Does the council wish to prevent local people from accessing fresh air and exercise, which have proven physical and mental health benefits?”
Grace Rae asked Councillor Keen the following question:
“I appreciate the need for changes to the parking at Walpole Bay re. Emergency access, overnight camping and litter, however this feels like a blunt instrument response. While limited provision has been made for those with blue badges – although no clarity on the signs as to what this means in practice, what of those with limited mobility but no blue badge? Those with small children, anyone with balance or mobility needs that change. The tidal pool offers safe swimming to a huge range of people, and removing all parking will negatively impact the vast majority of users. What alternative measures have been tried before this full ban was enacted? Most users of this area are responsible and sensible – it feels like we’re being punished for the actions of the minority.”
Alison Allington asked Councillor Keen the following question:
Why was the decision made to stop parking for everyone at Walpole bay? This is having a detrimental effect on the local community who use the pool. Many of whom are women arriving on their own early morning and evening throughout the year. The lack of parking creates a safety issue as people need to walk down a path that is hidden from view. It is also an issue for people with mobility issues who will now find the pool more difficult to access. This decision makes it harder for local people to use a great resource.
Councillor Keen gave a consolidated response to the questions from the members of the public regarding Walpole Bay Tidal Pool Access:
The council was fully committed to protecting Walpole Bay as a safe, welcoming, and vibrant community space for everyone. The Beach and Coast Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) was in place to ensure that promenades and beach access points remained clear and safe for pedestrians and to maintain access to the coastline for emergency services and essential service vehicles. The decision to implement the current PSPO was taken by the council’s Cabinet on 25 January 2024 and it had been in force since that time. The PSPO created offences from its implementation date of 1 April 2024. The council had discretion over how to prioritise enforcement of those offences. The Council was bound however to deploy its limited enforcement resources proportionately and where there was greatest need. The position in Walpole Bay earlier that year became a priority since the health and safety of the public was being compromised and the only access route for emergency vehicles to the lower promenade was being frequently blocked. The decision to prioritise Walpole Bay due to health and safety concerns and blocked emergency access demonstrated proportionate targeting of enforcement resources based on the severity of risks. This was consistent with guidance that PSPOs should focus on specific behaviours and be proportionate to the detrimental effect being caused.
An increase in persistent antisocial parking and overnight camping on the lower promenade at Walpole Bay had specifically increased the health and safety risk to pedestrians. Littering and waste generated by the unauthorised camping also posed a real threat to bathing water quality and put the Seaside Award for Walpole Bay at imminent risk. A decision was therefore made to prioritise enforcement at Walpole Bay in August which was preceded by communication with stakeholders including pool users and more generally via social media.
The PSPO made provision for exceptions for any person who was registered blind or had a disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Blue badge holders and others with evidence of disability would not therefore be issued with a fixed penalty notice if parked on the lower promenade. Other users who chose to park on the promenade at Walpole Bay who had a disability as defined by the Act but did not have a Blue Badge would be required to appeal an FPN using the formal process. All such parking still had to consider the safety of pedestrians and had to ensure that emergency access was not blocked. The Council took very seriously its Public Sector Equality duty and was very mindful of the needs of disabled residents. As part of work towards extending the restrictions contained within the Beach and Coastal PSPO beyond the expiry date of 30 March 2027, the Council would carry out a full review of the equalities considerations. A public consultation was also carried out as part of this process and the Council would give careful consideration to all representations made during this process. In addition, any identified equalities considerations would be reviewed following consultation.
The council remained dedicated to delivering lasting regeneration for Walpole Bay and the tidal pool, ensuring this valuable coastal asset continued to serve the community effectively and safely. Making the bay accessible and inclusive to everyone was a key aim of the planned regeneration work at Walpole Bay, including: The installation of new accessible toilets and showers as part of the new beach facilities.
Pauline Farrance asked Councillor Everitt the following question:
“In 2022, in a Section106 document concerning a 450 unit development in Margate, Gladman Developers agreed to pay the Health Centre Contribution to the Council (£864 per Residential Unit) -50% on Commencement of the Development; and the balance on first Occupation, towards the cost of ‘creating capacity at Limes Medical Practice or within the Primary Care network.’ Please explain where these monies are now, and the process by which they should be available to The Limes. (The management of the Limes have heard nothing about this funding – and it is in dire need of increased accommodation and staff).
Given the large scale housing developments both completed and in progress throughout Thanet, are you satisfied that all the Section106 commitments have been met? Sadly, I was unable to find any TDC Infrastructure Funding Statement after 2021/2022.”
Councillor Everitt responded as follows:
The Council has been working with the housing developer, Places for People, to ensure that all contributions required are paid in accordance with particular trigger points as the development becomes occupied, including healthcare contributions. Currently all healthcare contributions have been received for phase 1 of the overall site (between Hartsdown and Shottendane Road), totalling £119,232, with further payments to come as the development progresses.
In regard to the primary care network accessing any funding collected by the Council from Section 106 Agreements, it is the responsibility of Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board to assess any requests for funding of projects from GP Practices. The Council is working with the East Kent Health and Care Partnership to ensure that we can provide the contributions collected as soon as possible once projects have been agreed internally by the Integrated Care Board and NHS England. The management of the Limes should contact the primary care estates team with NHS Kent and Medway to discuss their individual project and funding requirements.
Councillor Wing asked the following question:
“In chasing concerns over the massive build up of timber at the Port of Ramsgate, we were informed by a TDC Officer that this;
‘temporary use of the land for the storage of the timber is permitted under the general Permitted Development Order. Continuing the use beyond the permitted period would require planning permission, as the activity is not directly linked to port operations’.
Planning permission would have required consideration of all manner of potential issues relating to but not exclusive of, the impact on the environment, residents living close to the site, safe storage, management and transport, including along Military Road when the tunnel is shut, as well as security and fire prevention and risk. Can I therefore ask, when the date for this temporary use for timber storage started and the date at which it ends and planning permission is legally required?”
Councillor Everitt responded with the following:
The storage of FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) controlled logs at the Port of Ramsgate commenced on 6 August 2026. This use of port land is firmly aligned with the decision of Cabinet on 18 December 2025 to pursue and secure short term income opportunities.
Permitted development allows for this type of storage for a period of 28 days. That 28 day period expired on 2 September 2026.
It is the responsibility of the council’s tenant to obtain all necessary permissions for its operation at the Port of Ramsgate including planning consent. The company is aware of that requirement. The council as landlord has the ability to serve notice on the company to vacate the site. The council as the Local Planning Authority also has the power to take planning enforcement action following the expiry of the initial 28 day period. However it is understood that a planning application is being prepared and it would be disproportionate to take any such action currently.
Councillor Wing followed up with a supplementary question:
“Storing raw virgin timber possesses a severe fire risk and with or without planning permission, whether it’s temporary or not. It must comply with the Environment Agency’s fire protection plan (FPP) guidelines which includes stack heights, fire brakes, stock rotation, temperature testing, quench water supply, plant suppression, 24/7 security. Can I ask are we compliant with this and if not, can we ensure that that happens as soon as possible?”
Councillor Everitt responded that he had every confidence TDC officers carried out all required checks but would ask officers to write to Councillor Wing.
Councillor Pressland asked the following question:
“The new Biodiversity Strategy is very welcome and we congratulate all involved in its creation.
However, if this is to be more than a paper exercise, please can you inform members how a web of wildlife corridors will be created through Thanet and beyond to genuinely link the fragments of patched habitats still remaining, as our efforts so far have frankly been derisory?
The Government’s ‘Land Use Framework’ calls for multiple pressures on land to be addressed together – so do we have a strategy map, time frame to implementation and a clear commitment to funding?”
Councillor Everitt responded to the question and made the following points:
A dedicated Green Infrastructure Strategy was in development to map priority ecological corridors linking urban parks, coastal areas, and rural habitats across Thanet, including SSSIs and Local Wildlife Sites.
Proposed measures included hedgerow restoration, verge rewilding, tree-lined greenways, wildflower margins, and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) aligned with the Kent County Council Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) and National Nature Recovery Network (NRN).
Nature recovery actions were organized across five spatial themes and prioritized six council-owned sites identified in the 2026 BNG Habitat Bank Feasibility Assessment, with delivery managed via Annual Action Plans and five-year ecological reviews.
Thanet District Council established an Eco Fund and a council-led Habitat Bank mechanism utilizing Conservation Covenants and Section 106 agreements to capture developer contributions from mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).
Initial council site enhancements were projected to generate approximately £105.8 BNG habitat units, securing long-term funding for 30-year habitat maintenance. Funding was further supplemented by external grants delivered in partnership with organizations such as the RSPB and the Kent Wildlife Trust.
Councillor Garner asked the following question:
“With Local Government Reorganisation approaching (though not quite as speedily as expected), councils across the country, including Waverley in Surrey, are considering disposing of assets to parish and town councils, sometimes at less than best consideration, in order to retain them in public ownership.
Where TDC assets are being considered for disposal, will the Leader confirm that Cabinet is actively considering whether transferring an asset to a parish or town council at an undervalue could deliver wider economic, social or environmental benefits under the General Disposal Consent, rather than simply pursuing the highest commercial receipt?
Will he also explain how, where the highest commercial value is pursued instead, he will demonstrate that the potential wider public benefits and the General Disposal Consent have been fully considered?”
Councillor Everitt responded as follows:
Councillor Garner followed up with a supplementary question:
“The call in to Overview and Scrutiny Panel of the decision around the method of sale for Pierremont park Depot was valid. This was due to the information not being sufficiently clear in relation to the provisions of the general consent order.
Is the Leader saying that the general consent order would have no bearing on the sale of Pierremont Park Depot?”
Councillor Everitt responded as follows:
The reason for the call in being valid does not change the substance of the issue. With the Monitoring Officer’s consent, he would be happy to share the detailed legal advice received on the matter. The Council were not in a position to transfer the asset at a significant undervalue.
Councillor Dawson asked the following question:
“The council has committed £3.3 million to acquire ten homes. Could the Cabinet Member outline the value‑for‑money assessment behind this decision, including how alternative options: such as modular construction, building conversions, or purchasing lower‑cost properties were considered?
Given the financial pressure from temporary‑accommodation costs, I would welcome reassurance that this approach offers the most effective and sustainable increase in housing supply.”
Councillor Whitehead responded with the following:
It was clarified that the project involved converting an existing council-owned building into ten two- and three-bedroom flats, rather than spending £3.3 million to purchase ten properties.
Councillor Dawson followed up with a supplementary question:
What benchmark did the council use to satisfy itself that this was the best use of public money rather than an approach that could have provided more homes for the same investment?
Councillor Whitehead responded to the supplementary question:
The funds for this project could not be used to purchase properties. The Live Margate funds could be returned as could the brownfield release funds and then there would be no funds for any housing.
Councillor Yates asked the following question:
“On 27 August, TDC cabinet passed a tackling poverty strategy. This report has received excellent feedback from a range of sources including Kent social policy academics who are finalising an East Kent Poverty Strategy. What are the next steps for this strategy now it is approved and have we chosen the officers to take the lead on this essential work?”
Councillor Keen responded as follows:
“Tackling Poverty is a responsibility of everybody, with the corporate lead being Penny Button, the strategy is being embedded across the council, the officer group is up and running and the establishment of a Tackling Poverty Strategy Network is beginning. The strategy clearly lays out the next steps that this network will take.
Agree Terms of Reference for the Tackling Poverty Strategy Network.
Councillor Yates asked a supplementary question:
What is the process for existing groups to apply for funds to increase their presence within the community and deal with rising demands?
Councillor Keen responded to the supplementary question:
An answer was to be provided to Councillor Yates.
Councillor Oxborrow asked the following question:
“As the consultation for the New Local Plan gets underway, how is the Cabinet ensuring that crucial, long-term infrastructure assessments, specifically regarding the ongoing air freight development at Manston Airport are fully integrated before any fresh housing allocations are finalised on our remaining greenfield sites?”
Councillor Everitt responded as follows:
As part of the Local Plan process, the Council will need to give consideration to the infrastructure requirements generated by the new development proposed in the draft Plan. This includes the physical and social infrastructure to support new development – transport; utilities; health; education; open space and so on – engaging with the relevant providers to ensure that the key infrastructure can be delivered in a timely manner alongside new development.
The infrastructure assessment would include all planned and committed development (that is, development that has not yet been undertaken – housing; employment; retail and other forms of development). This would include any housing, commercial or other development with a planning permission or other relevant consent. This would include the Manston Airport Development Consent Order (DCO) granted in 2022.
The Manston Airport DCO contains a range of requirements to be addressed before the development proceeds, including some infrastructure requirements. In addition, the Examining Authority would have considered the infrastructure requirements generated by the DCO scheme.
Councillor Oxborrow asked the following supplementary question:
While the scoping phase maps general requirements, our previous local plan shifts proved that removing Manson completely concentrated immense pressure onto our Greenfield sites. Given that the new scoping consultation expands our overall housing house building targets to an unprecedented 21,400 homes by 2040, will the Leader commit to a strict cap on further strategic housing allocations for the Garlinge and Westgate corridor?
Councillor Everitt responded to the supplementary question that it would be improper to speculate on the outcome of the consultation. No one wishes to prioritise building on open spaces on green fields. The Local Plan process is a complicated and detailed process and there will be plenty of opportunity for people to put their view forward.
Councillor Austin asked the following question:
“TDC recently held our annual landlord event – a valuable chance for people renting out properties to get together, share knowledge and get advice – and for our teams to reinforce messages about being a good landlord.
Last year a resident suggested a parallel event for private renters, and the Green Group backed this request. Sadly we didn’t get anywhere – so we’re asking again this year.
Over the past year, the ban on Section 21 evictions has improved rights for tenants – but on the other hand, rents in Thanet have risen faster than the average for the South East, pushing more renters into poverty.
We’ve just launched our Poverty Strategy. Isn’t it time we offered an annual day of advice, support and mutual help to private sector tenants, as we do for their landlords?”
Councillor Whitehead responded to the question, making the following points:
Thanks were given to Councillor Austin for recognising the value of the annual Landlord Forum in fostering landlord relationships and promoting best practice.
The Council was open to exploring alternative ways to establish a community of interest for private sector tenants to share mutual support.
Councillor Austin asked a supplementary question:
“Hackney Council have recently set up a Rogue Landlords Taskforce. How are we tackling rogue landlords in Thanet?
Councillor Whitehead responded to the supplementary question:
The Council have taken part in landmark cases of national significance in terms of dealing with rogue landlords. The Council has an excellent record in terms of enforcement and the work the Private Sector Housing Team has been recognised at Kent Housing Group and through awards.
Councillor Munns asked the following question:
“Beach bonfires violate the PSPO and cause severe harm. Sand-covered embers retain heat for days, which can inflict severe burns on people and pets. Leftover timber leaves dangerous nails and screws in the sand, while intense heat destroys local ecosystems and melts plastic into toxic marine debris. We had one of the hottest and driest summers this year and experts predict this will be the norm. However, through the summer months bonfires were a regular sight on Thanet beaches. A national emergency was declared on the 14th August, Broadstairs fireworks were cancelled due to the risk of wildfires. Bonfires were still being lit on beaches and clifftops in Kingsgate. I raised my concerns to officers and asked for evening enforcement patrols. I was told there was no budget. For next season can we budget for evening patrols when there is a high risk of wildfires.”
Councillor Keen responded as follows:
It is always disappointing to learn that there was such disregard to such important government guidance. We had a finite resource that was allocated through a service level agreement which was agreed prior to the government guidance which is why officers were unable to provide additional evening patrols this year.
The patrols have previously been set to ensure maximum coverage of our beaches during the busiest periods. Officers will look into how evening patrols can be included into next year’s patrols however this will mean a loss of some day time patrols as we are not in a position to increase the overall budget for this work without impacting other vital services.
Councillor Munns asked a supplementary question:
Can we ensure more notices are put out and have evening patrols to enforce the PSPO, as that would deter people from lighting bonfires?
Councillor Keen responded to the supplementary question:
More messages reiterating public responsibility and the risks caused by not following advice will be looked into for next year.
A question from Councillor Pugh:
Councillor Pugh was not present at the meeting and therefore, a written response was to be provided.
Councillor Fellows asked the following question:
“At a time when our local traders are struggling with rising costs due to things like national insurance rises etc, a falling footfall and an increasingly difficult trading environment, I’m sure everyone will agree that this Council should be doing everything within its power to support our high streets rather than making it harder for people to shop locally.
So my question to the Cabinet Member is:
In Birchington we have always felt that’s it’s an anomaly that we have to pay to park when in nearby Westgate they don’t. Will the cabinet member therefore commit to urgently investigating the introduction of at least one hour of free on street parking and reducing the charges in our Council car parks in Birchington, or at least some meaningful parking concessions to encourage people to use our village shops and give our local businesses a much-needed boost?”
Councillor K Bright answered the question as follows:
Times are tough on our high streets. We know people prefer convenience of online shopping at the expense of bricks and mortar retail. As you are aware we committed as part of the parking strategy to review fees and charges. The team is currently looking into this and I will raise your concerns about Westgate as well as your suggestions for Birchington. However l must manage your expectations and say that it is highly unlikely that the review will provide 1 hour on street parking.
We will be providing free parking in our car parks for the Saturdays in December again this year as we have for the last 5 years.
Councillor Fellows asked the following supplementary question:
How much longer does this administration intend to wait before taking practical action on parking charges to support traders and our residents and when will we see the new parking strategy working for our high streets?
Councillor K Bright responded to the supplementary question:
Changes to fees and charges are made as part of annual budget setting. We want to see high streets thrive. Any changes would be implemented within the next budget.
PermalinkPermalink
| Date of past Ordinary Meeting of Council | Questions asked at Council meeting |
|---|---|
| Thursday 24 September 2026 | |
| Thursday 26 February 2026 | |
| Thursday 11 July 2024 | |
| Thursday 28 March 2024 | |
| Thursday 22 February 2024 | |
| Thursday 23 February 2023 | |
| Thursday 8 December 2022 | |
| Thursday 8 September and Thursday 13 October 2022 | |
| Thursday 14 July 2022 | |
| Thursday 31 March 2022 | |
| Thursday 24 February 2022 | |
| Wednesday 12 January 2022 | |
| Thursday 14 October 2021 | |
| Thursday 9 September 2021 | |
| Thursday 15 July 2021 | |
| Thursday 3 June 2021 | |
| Thursday 25 March 2021 | |
| Thursday 25 February 2021 | |
| Thursday 10 December 2020 |
Questions from earlier Council meetings can be found in our archive.
Permalink