Please make sure you have read through the guidance below 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 clicking on the date of the meeting in the table below.
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 |
|---|---|
| 27 March 2025 | 19 March 2025 – 17:30pm |
How many empty and second properties do we presently have in Thanet, what additional council tax charges can we impose on these properties and how many of those we have on our records are being changed these additional council tax charges?
Response:
The questioner was not present at the meeting and would be written to.
The Leader and Cllr Steve Albon have meetings monthly with Southern Water. Please can the conversations expand to land volume water runoff, river eutrophication. Permaculture water management using nature’s biological processes can mitigate volume water run off, off grid sewage treatment for some developments enhancing biodiversity and quality of life.(https://www.biologicdesign.co.uk/#:~:text=Biologic%20Design%20is%20an%20applied,both%20drought%20and%20flood%20resilience.)
Please can they discuss with Southern Water and give feedback to the Full Council in early summer ?
Response:
Southern Water provides a quarterly stakeholder meeting which I attend, along with a number of relevant officers. Separately there is a quarterly Thanet bathing water update meeting which deals more specifically with that issue and provides an opportunity to share information and ask questions.
Land water run-off is a regular topic in these discussions and Southern Water has shared information about the work it is doing or has planned in Thanet. At the last meeting, earlier this month, I asked Southern Water if they would attend a briefing session for all councillors later this year, in order that all members would have an opportunity to hear first hand from Southern Water and have the chance to ask their own questions.
However, in the meantime, officers have passed on the points raised in this question and have asked Southern Water to provide a response.
Response:
The procurement process undertaken by Thanet District Council to identify a concession operator for the Port of Ramsgate concluded on 28 January with no contract being awarded. Bidders were invited via an open procurement process to submit an initial tender for consideration. Despite a successful initial tender stage in November, the council was unable to take discussions beyond the dialogue stage and therefore has not offered a contract via this process.
As identified in the July 2024 Cabinet report, work has been taking place in tandem to explore alternative ‘Plan B’ options for other maritime sector opportunities at the port.
I would give a longer answer but I will be covering the position in more detail in the leader’s report which is the next item on the agenda, and of course Cllr Pugh will be able to respond to that in the usual way.
A recent survey sent to councillors by the council collected qualitative data on how best to engage and support young people in the district. Will you provide an update on this please and consider a members briefing so that we can fully understand the plans going forward.
Response:
The respondent was not present at the meeting. A response would be given in writing.
After complaints from Councillors relating to the poor workmanship at Broadstairs Harbour, I saw the damage to a concrete block that should have been secured pulled over by a wave and joints that didn’t connect on the wooden railings. High tides wash over them and they will be subject to high winds at times. This is a major safety issue. I emailed the senior officers on the 21st October. I was told that the work hadn’t been finalised. I expected the work to be completed to a higher professional standard, but the shoddy joints had filler inserted and been sanded down and some still had gaps between the joints! I complained again and was told that there would be a meeting arranged with officers and councillors. Can you tell me when this is going to take place and when this substandard work is going to be corrected?
Response:
As previously communicated, senior officers will set up a site meeting with the councillors who have raised concerns at the end of the works.
As with all construction contracts, work is continually being inspected and defects highlighted by the engineer on site for correction by the contractor. Upon completion of the construction phase a snagging inspection will be undertaken.
The contractor elected to place the precast wave wall units to check the level and line prior to fixing them in place, this is to ensure that all of the holes for the dowel bars were correctly aligned before fixing the blocks permanently in place with a proprietary grout. Unfortunately a storm occurred at this critical point in the construction process and before the grout was poured. As a result of the large waves during the storm one of the units was displaced and slightly damaged. This issue is a contractor risk and all associated remedial works will be at the contractor’s expense.
The works are not yet complete but a site meeting will be organised with the relevant councillors at the earliest opportunity following completion.
I am sure members, like Cllr Pugh and I in Birchington North, have received concerns from residents about the lack or poor condition of bus shelters across Thanet that aren’t being replaced. For example, we have not had our bus shelters replaced, that were removed due to damage, along Canute Road and Minnis Road. Please can the Cabinet Member clarify where the council is with the tendering process for the supply and installation of bus shelters across the district?
Response:
Officers have been looking at all options for the future contract of our bus shelters in order to ensure that the best option for Thanet is achieved.
We are currently out of contract with the current provider and whilst they are cleaning the existing bus stops & shelters they are not replacing those that have had to be removed due to health and safety concerns.
In order to go to market for a competitive tender process there are a number of things that have to be done, there has been a considerable delay to this for a number of reasons but it is moving forward. Condition surveys are currently being requested for the shelters, once these have been received officers will seek further advice and guidance from procurement colleagues on the next steps.
The UK faces a housing crisis, but TDC also officially recognises an ecological crisis.
The UK has “lost” 97% each of flower-rich meadows and hedgerows. Wildlife has been (quote) “killed, starved, poisoned, ploughed up or concreted over”, in no place more than Thanet.
While we tick boxes promising biodiversity net gain, 47% is not delivered[1]. How are we genuinely protecting irreplaceable habitats for quickly-dwindling nature?
The report urges councils to consider:
Building on Green Belt or farmland is not the only way to address this crisis.
How/will TDC apply this creative thinking to providing quality, future-proofed, environmentally-sound, affordable and liveable homes – for both people and nature?
Response:
This question principally covers Planning issues, which fall within Councillor Everitt’s portfolio, not mine; but as it has been directed to me in a Housing sense I am happy to answer.
It is vital to be passionate within politics; but it is equally important to be accurate, as we are here to provide factual and comprehensive representation for our residents; and that means that there are a significant number of issues to discuss here, which requires a comprehensive reply; apologies Chair.
Unfortunately the question didn’t include a reference for the first two quotes, which means it is difficult to address them accurately, but I’ve done my best.
To quote from the question, “The UK has lost 97% each of flower-rich meadows and hedgerows. Wildlife has been (quote) “killed, starved, poisoned, ploughed up or concreted over”, in no place more than Thanet.”
I have researched the 97% statistic, which links to meadows rather than hedgerows, and its origins are very interesting, to me at least. It appears frequently in online dialogue, and within other reports, usually without reference or qualification; which makes its origins and context very important.
The 97% quoted comes originally from a research paper published in 1987 relating to meadows, entitled: “The changing extent and conservation interest of lowland grasslands in England and Wales: A review of grassland surveys 1930–1984”, by R.A. Fuller, published in “Biological Conservation” in 1987 (Vol 40, no. 4, pp 281-300). It was published in the paper “Biological Conservation” and is the original source of the estimated 97% loss of meadows from 1935-1985, which has been quoted ever since.
Somewhat surprisingly there is estimated to have been only a 1% loss of meadows nationally since 1985; which means that what we are trying to address and change is primarily a historical issue, not a current one, as the question implies. The loss links primarily to the adoption of more intensive farming practices from WW2 onwards, with six million acres of land being turned into cropped acreage and around 40% of meadows being lost during WW2 alone, principally to produce cereal crops; the British Agricultural History Society have a huge amount of very interesting information around these land usage changes..
In relation to hedgerows, loss has slowed significantly since the 1990’s, and the primary loss happened in the 1950’s, similar to meadow loss; this is not, as implied by the question, a new thing. As the Woodland Trust discusses in their latest report on hedgerows, we have lost 118,000 miles of hedgerows since 1950, largely due to the intensification of agricultural methods. They also state that commonly used agricultural chemicals can also have a significant impact on remaining hedgerows; as an administration we have stopped the use of glyphosate on the land that we directly manage, but I have also previously discussed with Officers what we can do regarding the usage of potentially damaging chemicals on our commercially leased land, and am very happy to continue those discussions. Regenerative farming techniques are high on the agenda nationally, and provide significant opportunities to regain biodiversity lost due to more intensive farming practices; and again, I am happy to discuss that in relation to land that we own and our priorities for tree, hedgerow and biodiversity increases, as evidenced by our extensive tree planting schemes on our public land.
Having a reference for the assertion within the question that Thanet is the most affected area in the entire country would be useful, as the vast majority of statistics around the recent loss of arable land do not recognise Thanet as one of the most significantly affected areas; in reference to the loss of high grade arable land, for instance, Thanet currently comes in at 2.1% high likelihood BMV land lost to development according to the most recent Natural England assessment; for comparison Ebbsfleet’s estimation comes in at a 38% loss, Kingston at 19%, and Bracknell Forest at 15%; and although there can be no direct comparison, as to my knowledge we do not have comparable meadows data for each authority from the 1950’s onwards, this does indicate that we are unlikely to be the most affected area in the UK, as the question states.
To conclude this section; the 97% quoted relates to national meadow loss between 1935 – 1985, which is a historical loss; but we can and are doing all we can to improve our biodiversity, and protect vital and identified areas through the Local Plan.
To address the quoted report and its recommendations I have to address what we already do, and how Members can feed into our housing priorities and programmes.
Firstly, the Housing Cabinet Advisory Group that Labour founded meets regularly to discuss both our housing approaches and functions and larger planning issues related to housing. The Green Group is well and ably represented within the CAG, and as such your Group will already be aware that we already fulfil the recommendations listed that are within our remit as a Council; if this is creative thinking, then we are well ahead of the curve, as we have been taking these measures for years, and have a Cabinet Advisory Group specifically for Housing where Members and Groups can bring forward any suggestions that they have for future initiatives. To address the individual points:
We already have and publish a brownfield land register, in line with government format.
We have a very active Empty Homes Programme, the most successful in Kent, which we are further adding to within this budget.
The Local Plan already allows for commercial premises to be converted to housing in some circumstances, subject to protecting important sites/areas for economic development (also an important priority for the district) and core town centre areas. In the current Local Plan, some 30ha of older employment land was allocated for housing.
Current Government guidance does not allow spare rooms to be counted as new dwellings.
The Local Plan already allows for higher density schemes in appropriate areas, subject to design and other considerations. However, the Local Plan also has to meet a mix of housing types and sizes to meet the identified local need, and this does not always lend itself to higher density schemes; we would in fact be heavily and rightly criticised if we prioritised high density schemes in mostly rural areas that do not lend themselves to high density development, which is also a concern that has also previously been brought forward by the Green Group.
The Government is currently considering the introduction of new measures to accelerate development on consented sites and to prevent “land-banking”; however local authorities do not have any direct powers to ensure consented development takes place. The Council does, however, monitor housing consents and completions, and will continue to.
Biodiversity Net Gain is now a statutory requirement, and is prioritised as such; the Local Plan Review gives further opportunities for us to review what we want to see in terms of biodiversity net gain, and what we want to see in terms of construction practices.
We do not have any Green Belt in Thanet, and as such would never be in a position to use or not use it; the allocations of farmland within the Local Plan were made in 2018, and are now committed within it, as Members were made aware of at the time. TDC has put out several calls for sites, focusing specifically on brownfield sites, and we are now renewing an open call for brownfield sites. We always prioritise brownfield first in our building, and in our Council developments, recently securing significant grants for our brownfield and infill developments, and it would be inaccurate to imply that there is available brownfield that is simply not being used or prioritised.
Our council developments are being designed to EPC A, including solar panels in our future phases, and we already re-use brownfield sites that developers choose not to take on; and when we do so we ensure that we include features such as recycled paper insulation, and underfloor heating, to support our environmental considerations alongside reducing financial burdens on residents. We follow a Home For Life approach, to produce easily adaptable properties, to reduce the need for moves and further development to accommodate changing needs and disability, and we plan alongside residents for our outside areas, including upcoming discussions on outside space and biodiversity priorities at our new build Council sites.
As always, I welcome any further suggestions at the Housing CAG; it’s always a very useful and informative group, and provides a genuine way of feeding into our housing priorities and approaches.
Question from Cllr Bayford to Cllr Whitehead:
Thanet District Council’s Interim First Homes Policy Statement from April 2022 states that on new sites a minimum of 25% of all affordable housing units secured through developer contributions should be First Homes.
Would the cabinet member advise as to how many First Homes should have been delivered to date using this formula and what is the actual number that have been sold under this scheme?
Response:
| I think exploring the nature of First Homes is very important to establish to be able to answer this question effectively.
First Homes were effectively a discounted market product for first time buyers, with a 30% reduction in market value, to be passed on through each sale. This was presented as an affordable product, meaning that it fell within our affordable housing numbers. To be eligible for this product you would need to be over 18, with an income below £80,000, with Councils having the ability to impose some local requirements in terms of eligibility. Leaving aside the issues around monitoring valuation of these homes, I have previously expressed concerns around the First Homes programme in Council meetings, and questioned how useful/relevant it is to our area, considering that Robert Jenrick MP, and consequently Michael Gove MP, required all councils to allocate 25% of their affordable housing provision to First Homes, which was a significant percentage. I found the programme to be problematic on several fronts; principally that the central requirement overrode the housing needs worked out locally by individual Councils. Those Members on Planning will be familiar with the relevance of the form of affordable housing/Section 106 housing when determining individual applications; mainly because all forms of affordable housing are not created equal, and not all respond to the actual needs within the population. Our overriding need in Thanet is for affordable rental, and that is what we focus on producing, because that is what the majority of our residents need. The central instruction requiring 25% of Section 106 properties to be First Homes, as in, discounted properties for purchase, contradicted our assessment of local housing need, and therefore in principle reduced our ability to produce what was needed; namely, affordable rent. Analysis by Savills of the potential delivery impact of First Homes suggested that full implementation of the programme as required by government would result in a loss of over 7000 “traditional” affordable homes per annum nationally; which is a huge impact. However, as well as this being a problematic imposition, there were also significant issues around the delivery and uptake of the First Homes programme by providers; which resulted in no First Homes being delivered in Thanet. Although there were a number of lenders initially highlighted by the government as lenders who would give mortgages on First Homes as a product, our understanding from colleagues around the county and the development colleagues with whom we speak, is that this has not been the case and it has been difficult to get lenders to understand or support the product. As mentioned previously, it is also not a product that has been welcomed by developers in any case. This could be for a number of reasons, including the requirement for them to sell the homes and so accruing additional marketing costs; but mainly that it erodes the s106 element of the homes meaning that it reduces by 25% the number of homes in the s106 agreement, meaning that fewer RPs are interested in those ring-fenced homes – this is particularly apparent on smaller sites, as housing providers have, for several years now, been showing a preference for providing larger blocks of homes, often developed and managed independently. We have had some first homes delivered in Kent; however some of these were through the pilot project, which saw government top up the 30% ‘deficit’ thus meaning that the developer did not lose the 30% which was discounted. While 70% of an open market value is a discount, it remains the fact that it is still beyond many people; and that is why there is still a market for shared ownership, which has a much lower entry level, albeit that a rental element still has to be paid. However, it is important to say that we are fully committed to exploring alternative solutions to support affordable homeownership in the district and have delivered affordable ownership options such as shared ownership, which has been a viable product for numerous years. In some cases, the first homes that have not been able to be delivered have morphed into another affordable product, so those homes have not been lost to those looking for affordable options. |
As we know, nature is in crisis; with plummeting insect numbers, massive habitat loss and a changing climate we have many challenges ahead. The UK is one of the least biodiverse countries in the world and Thanet is a particularly challenged area. I would therefore like to ask the leader of the council if the council is fully prepared for the release of the Making Space for Nature report, the first ever Local Nature Recovery Strategy for Kent, when it is released in January and which department, member or officer will be responsible for taking any actions that are recommended?
Response:
A Development Compliance team has been set up within the Planning Department and meets on a monthly basis to discuss development sites that have commenced work or are close to completion. Within that meeting we discuss any sites that have not complied with their planning conditions, which are then passed to the enforcement team, and we make arrangements to visit sites that are close to completion to determine whether they’ve constructed the development in accordance with the approved plans, and implemented their approved landscaping plans in full, including specific biodiversity features. If any inconsistencies with the approved plans are identified, the case is passed on to the enforcement team to determine the necessary action moving forward. Under the new legislation within the Environment Act 2021 there is a requirement for Local Planning Authorities to monitor sites where 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is to be delivered on site, and therefore moving forward there is going to be an even greater need to ensure compliance with landscaping/biodiversity plans, which the planning department are aware of and planning towards.
Question from Mr Barnfield to Cllr Keen:
“Will TDC please work with KCC to issue an extended pavement license for our hospitality venue located at 1 Duke Street, Margate, into the turning circle on Duke Street, Margate. This dead-end road is currently all double yellow lines and is used for illegal parking and turning only. Initial conversations with both residential and commercial tenants who require access, show that we have full support. Our plans would not affect access for emergency vehicles or deliveries. This would support the growth and vibrancy of the Old Town and Margate as whole, building on the success of events including Old Town Market, Margate Pride, Soul Festival and the Christmas Fayre, as well as reinforcing and encouraging the outdoor hospitality destination that we have worked hard to create in the Marketplace, next door, since 2021.”
Response:
The questioner was not present at the meeting, a response would be given in writing.
Question from Mr Calder to Cllr Duckworth:
What is your vision for Ramsgate Town Centre and how can the District Council it take advantage of the new powers given to local authorities for High Street Rental Auctions?
Response:
Over the years, we have faced challenges in addressing long-term vacant buildings with limited powers to intervene effectively.
Hence, we welcome the new permissive powers granted to Local Authorities through High Street Rental Auctions (HSRA), which will enable us to take direct action to bring vacant properties back into use.
We have an implementation plan for HSRA and have already begun the necessary preparation work to ensure that Ramsgate, alongside all the other towns, are ready when the scheme becomes fully operational. Draft proposed areas will soon go out for public engagement, allowing us to gather valuable feedback from the community.
The council recognises that it is important that our town centres function as focal points and centres of economic activity in our district. The way in which people use high streets and town centres continues to change, and it is important for Thanet that we continue to focus on them as both visitor destinations and as places that provide services for our residents.
Through government funding, the council has purchased a building in Broad Street to create workspace and a community hub, helping to boost footfall in the town centre. In 2024, we also successfully brought back Ramsgate Market. Through external regeneration and business support funding we are exploring opportunities to enhance the market provision further with a teenage market, following the success of the pilot in Margate. We are also looking to see the impact on Margate’s High Street when the Digital Campus opens later this year, and we see students using the town centre – there will be opportunities for learning and potentially programming of activities.
The council has used UK Shared Prosperity Funding through the award of grants to support organisations activating spaces in Ramsgate.
The Destination Management Framework for the district includes a priority linked to Vibrant Towns. This framework links activities delivered by the public, private and third sector. It aims to support the growth of the visitor economy and understand how the visitor sector can help diversify the towns’ current offer – by bringing people into our town centres.
Permalink| Date of past ordinary meeting of council | Questions asked at council meeting |
|---|---|
| Thursday, 10 December 2020 | |
| Thursday, 25 February 2021 | |
| Thursday, 25 March 2021 | |
| Thursday, 3 June 2021 | |
| Thursday, 15 July 2021 | |
| Thursday, 9 September 2021 | |
| Thursday, 14 October 2021 | |
| Wednesday, 12 January 2022 | |
| Thursday, 24 February 2022 | |
| Thursday, 31 March 2022 | |
| Thursday, 14 July 2022 | |
| Thursday, 8 September and Thursday 13 October 2022 | |
| Thursday, 8 December 2022 | |
| Thursday, 23 February 2023 | |
| Thursday, 22 February 2024 | |
| Thursday, 28 March 2024 | |
| Thursday, 11 July 2024 |
Questions from earlier Council meetings can be found in our archive.
Permalink