Labour regains overall control of Medway Council
Plus no to Tesco in Rochester, Grain developer reverses course, motion changes accused of being an affront to democracy, Medway Council meeting highlights, planning news in brief, and more
Two councillors suspended by the Labour Party over a year ago were welcomed back into the party last week, restoring the party’s overall control of Medway Council that they lost in February. We’ve got the details below. Further down, we have news on Tesco’s plans for Rochester being rejected, an update on an infuriating developer issue in Grain, an Independent Group councillor angry about changes at council meetings, highlights from last week’s full council, news in brief, and more. Phew.
Labour regains overall control of Medway Council
After technically losing control of Medway Council in February when they lost two seats to Reform in by-elections, Labour retook control of the council last week after two suspended councillors were readmitted to the party.
Cllr Satinder Shokar, who represents Strood West, and Cllr Stephen Hubbard, who represents Strood North and Frindsbury, were suspended by the party 14 months ago following reports of an ‘altercation’ between the two at a Christmas party.
Local Authority understands that the Labour Party has declined to reveal any outcome from the investigation. Still, reinstating the two back into the party would suggest they were cleared of any wrongdoing. Requests from this publication to the national Labour Party, who conducted the investigation, went unanswered.
It borders on shambolic that two councillors can be suspended from a party running an administration for vague reasons, that it can take well over a year to resolve, and that when it is finally resolved, residents are still none the wiser about what has happened. But that’s the internal machinations of the Labour Party for you.
Speaking to Local Authority, Medway Council Leader Vince Maple said he was pleased that the process had concluded:
“It's positive the process has finished. It was good to have Stephen and Sat back with us at full council. This process has taken far too long. That's not been fair to either the individuals or indeed to the rest of the Labour group or the two constituency parties that they are members of. I'm pleased the process has come to an end. It has taken too long and that is all I will be saying on the matter.
As a result of the reinstatement, Labour once again control 31 of Medway Council’s 59 seats. Fundamentally, it doesn’t change very much as Cllrs Shokar and Hubbard continued to vote with Labour in council meetings, but it does mean Labour will be entitled to slightly more committee seats and more time to speak in council meetings.
With two years (at least) until fresh local elections in Medway, Labour’s majority remains rather tenuous. Will they be able to hang on for the full term? Only time will tell.
Medway Council says no to Tesco in Rochester
Two weeks ago, we covered the sorry saga of a licensing hearing to decide whether to grant Tesco a licence to sell alcohol in Rochester that was called because of four objectors.
As a result of that hearing, Tesco had their application refused as the panel believed that “the Applicant had failed to meet the threshold required to satisfy that there were exceptional circumstances allowing them to divert from the established CIP (Cumulative Impact Policy).”
From the text of the decision, it is clear that there was nothing Tesco could have done to obtain the licence for the site, which, as a reminder, is on a heavy footfall thoroughfare next door to Rochester station, the sort of place you might expect to find a grocery store.
As a result, the assumption must now be that it is now Medway Council policy to not issue any licences for new premises in any of Medway’s Cumulative Impact Policy areas, no matter how responsible the application may be. The eventual outcome of this is presumably the inability to purchase alcohol in most of Medway’s town centres.
Tesco told Local Authority they were “reviewing the decision of the licensing sub-committee.” It is unclear what this means for their plans in Rochester, as it is difficult to imagine them opening a store without alcohol sales. So the town might need to wait longer to have a chance to buy some basic groceries on the way home from the station from somewhere that isn’t the Co-op.
Local Authority is an award-winning independent news service for Medway. To receive our free weekly briefing editions straight to your inbox when we publish, please subscribe below.
Grain developer reverses course
In December, we covered the strange and slightly infuriating case of a developer who obtained planning permission for a development in Grain and immediately applied for permission not to bother building minor things like pedestrian access to the site.
At last week’s full council meeting (more on that below), perennial Lib Dem question asker Alan Wells requested answers from Cllr Simon Curry, Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, about how this could happen.
Cllr Curry’s response was curious, as he claimed that the move had to be made to help the project obtain government funding for affordable housing provision. This has apparently all been sorted out, and the developer has submitted another amendment to reinstate the removed footpath and planting from the scheme.
All’s well that ends well, we suppose, but it seems very odd that no one could explain this at the time, only after it became a news story and questions got asked in council meetings. Indeed, at the time, developer Esquire gave us a quite direct ‘no comment’ response, nor did any of their planning documents explain what was happening. Still, at least the good people of Grain will have a rather faster route to the Co-op after all. Hurrah!
Full council is a thing that happened
Last week saw April’s full Medway Council meeting. It was expected to be a long one, mainly because there were six motions on the agenda (possibly for the final time - see below), although things didn’t quite work out that way.
Our paid supporters can catch up on our full live coverage from the night on our Substack Chat, but here are some key moments and highlights:
Part of the length problem was because an Independent Group motion from the last meeting was held over to this meeting to obtain legal advice on whether it could prejudice the Local Plan. Labour and Conservatives remained convinced it could, so they refused to speak on the motion, and it was voted down without any serious debate.
Both Labour and Cllr Shokar withdrew their motions on welfare reform. Cllr Shokar presumably did so because he was readmitted to the party, but it was slightly odd that Labour did so. Cllr Turpin (IndGroup) suggested ‘Sir Keir might have been on the phone this afternoon,’ but Labour insisted it was because they wanted their councillors to share their lived experience, but this would be a conflict of interest. So, seemingly not knowing that when they submitted it, they decided to withdraw the motion rather than discuss it at all. All very strange.
Reform submitted their first motion, requesting better software for councillors to do casework. This weirdly led to the most vicious response of the night from Labour, with Cllr McDonald arguing a good councillor can do casework with a pencil and a napkin. Which, sure, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Even more strange when Labour is going gung ho on intregating AI into as many council services as possible.
The Conservatives submitted a motion on a classic council issue: Potholes. They demanded to know why the council was repairing fewer potholes than ever. Cllr Paterson (Lab) responded that the administration rejects the former ‘whack-a-mole’ response to potholes that the Conservatives used and that they are focusing on larger, longer term fixes. Cllr Hackwell (Con) gets to throw in an obligatory ‘war on motorists’ line.
Both Labour and the Conservatives still seem angry about Kent and Medway not being selected for an initial devolution deal, with Cllr Perfect (Con) in particular calling it ‘truly shameful’ and a ‘cruel decision.’
Reform submitted two questions, one on red route fines and one on potholes in Rochester East and Warren Wood, the ward they were elected to represent. Cllr Paterson (Lab) responded to both, accusing them of ‘not being from around here’ given they live in Cuxton, and offered a lengthy quote from Tony Benn about fighting fascism. He goes on to accuse their red route question of reeking of conspiracy theories and dogwhistle politics.
Cllr Perfect (Con) asked Cllr Maple (Lab) whether Medway supports Kent being divided into three or four unitary authorities. The current belief is that the Conservatives support three and Labour support four, but Cllr Maple managed to speak for a full three minutes without actually answering the question.
In a big win for democracy, time was only allocated to answer 7 of the 15 questions submitted by councillor.
An extraordinary full Medway Council meeting will be held on 13 November to solely discuss the issue of local government reorganisation, or in other words, the abolition of Medway.
Under changes to Medway Council’s constitution, the majority of public and councillor questions that are usually asked at full council meetings will instead be directed to Cabinet meetings.
If you’d like to watch all four hours of the meeting yourself, you can do so below:
Independent Group councillor says motion plans are an ‘affront to democracy’
Deputy Leader of the Independent Group, Cllr Michael Pearce, has warned that ‘local democracy is under threat’ following suggested changes to Medway Council meetings to limit the number of motions that can be debated at each gathering.
Under the current system, each political group and independent councillor can submit one motion for discussion at each of Medway’s four full council meetings annually. Documents seen by Local Authority from a recent cross-party governance meeting shows a proposal to limit each meeting to three motions on a carousel basis, meaning not every group would be entitled to bring a motion for discussion at every meeting. Cllr Pearce asserts that the Labour and the Conservative groups on the council are pushing this forward.
Under the current balance of the council, there are four political groups and one independent councillor. Within these new rules, as the quota of motions would reset annually, Labour and the Conservatives would get three motions each year, while the Independent Group, Reform, and Cllr Chris Spalding (Ind) would each be entitled to two. These numbers would reduce if more political groups or independents were to appear on the council. Indeed, under the recent scenario where Cllr Shokar and Cllr Hubbard sat as independents, some independents would have seen their entitlement reduce to one motion per year.
Motions, by their nature, are designed to be timely ways to raise debates about local issues, something that is somewhat undermined if a councillor or group has to wait six, nine, or even twelve months to bring them to the council chamber. Cllr Pearce has branded this an “affront to democracy” on social media posts about the issue.
Local Authority asked Medway Council Leader Vince Maple about the situation, who argued that there needs to be ways to make meetings shorter while also expressing his frustration with Cllr Pearce:
“I find it deeply disappointing that someone's chosen to both take to social media and I understand provide the media with some emails from an informal cross-party group which has been working collaboratively and positively.
I think everybody would agree that Medway Council's meetings are very, very long. There's an absolute consensus across all the political groups, unless this is a change in the position of the Independent Group, that we want to try and work collaboratively to find ways to make those effective but hopefully shorter. Motions undoubtedly take a large chunk of the time of council meetings. Officers prepared a couple of options, both of which are used by other councils. The individual, who was invited to the meeting, didn't attend, didn't give his apologies, took to social media, took to leaking information to the press. I thought that was very unhelpful and doesn't build a collaborative approach in trying to find a solution to which I think, again, even residents of Medway would agree that having five or six hour long meetings is not conducive to doing good business for the people of Medway.”
In brief: Planning special
🏗️ Plans have been submitted to build two residential blocks of up to 42 flats in the centre of Chatham. The site on Clover Street is currently unused brownfield land and fits with Medway Council’s desire to create more homes within Chatham town centre.
🪖 A fight over anti-tank lines could define an application for 12 flats on Medway Road in Gillingham. A developer wants to build the units on ‘previously developed MOD land’, but the access route would involve the loss of military heritage assets.
🏘️ The development of East Hill in the Capstone Valley continues at pace, with the developer submitting plans for Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4 of the project. These would see another 497 homes delivered on the site, alongside open spaces and a shop.
More Authority
We sat down with prolific writer Dan Abnett and maker Nik Vincent for our weekend interview. They talk about writing together, Dan’s father, who was a significant member of the Medway folk scene, being physically attacked for something Dan wrote, and more.
“If I'm prolific, it means that people keep coming back for more”
In the first of a two-part interview, Steven speaks to husband and wife Dan Abnett and Nik Vincent. Dan is a prolific comic book writer and novelist, while Nik is an author and maker. They speak about how they came to start writing together, Dan’s father, who was a significant member of the Medway folk scene and Steven’s Year 9 art teacher, being physically attacked for something Dan wrote, and lots more.
Over on the Kent Current, we looked at the imminent Kent County Council elections, checking in on the state of the campaign, the likely winners and losers, and some of the more… colourful characters standing in the county. The election takes place this Thursday, and we’ll have all of the results and analysis over on the Kent Current, so if you want to keep up with all of the happenings just over the border, make sure you subscribe for free over there.
Footnotes
Want to share a story or tip with us? Get in touch via hello AT localauthority DOT news. We’re always happy to talk off the record in the first instance.
Follow us on social media! We’re on Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, and Threads, but not that other one.
If you enjoy Local Authority, please share it with your friends, family, associates, and even your enemies. We have no meaningful marketing budget, so we rely on word of mouth from our readers to find new readers. You can even get some sweet rewards for sending new readers our way. Details here.
Music that soundtracked the creation of this edition: Jamboree by Beat Happening, American Demo by The Indelicates, and Rilo Kiley by Rilo Kiley.
It is painfully obvious that Medway Council has problems with Full Council. This is afterall , a Council which literally sits with its backs to the public.Since its formation, the number of Full Councils has reduced to 4 a year. Judging by recent events at the last 2 Councils, where the agenda was changed on the night ( as you have pointed out), this would seem to be a matter of organisation, dare I say intent? Compounded by the fact that members of the public can no longer park near the chamber, this reductive approach to democracy is becoming increasingly stark. Small wonder that a Councillor shares things on social media when there is so little public debate. And yes, there has been no debate about reorganisation but merely a one way flow of information. Does Medway Council and its Councillors believe in the concept of subsidiarity?