Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Riordan.

Councillor Springett was present as Substitute Member for Councillor Riordan.

There were no urgent items.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

RESOLVED: That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no petitions.

There were no questions from members of the public.

There were no questions from Members to the Chairman.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager proposed an amendment to the Community Governance Review - Grove Green to produce a report for the Committee meeting in January 2025 rather than conducting the review before the County elections in May. The report would set out the processes and a timetable, allowing for a fuller consultation after the election.

RESOLVED: That

1.  A report on the Community Governance Review - Grove Green be presented in January 2025; and

2.  The Committee Work Programme be noted.

There were no reports of Outside Bodies.

In response to queries, the Democratic & Electoral Services Manager agreed to send a reminder to Members that they have the option to submit reports to the Committee.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager introduced the report and advised the Committee that the appointment for South East Employers was a substitute position.

There were the following vacancies:

·  One for Citizens Advice Bureau, a nomination form had been received from Councillor Wales;

·  One for Hayle Park Nature Reserve, a nomination form had been received from Councillor Higson;

·  One for Maidstone Area Arts Partnership, a nomination form had been received from Councillor Couch;

·  One for Maidstone Street Pastors Management Committee, a nomination form had been received from Councillor English; and

·  One for South East Employers (Sub Position), a nomination form had been received from Councillor S Thompson.

Members agreed the nominations. The Chairman highlighted the remaining vacancies including Howard de Walden Centre, Maidstone Cycling Campaign Forum, Medway Valley Line and Relief in Need Charities and suggested that the Howard de Walden Centre and Relief in Need Charities positions should be offered to members of the public, including previous Councillors.

RESOLVED: That

1.  The nominations as set out in Appendix 3 to the report be approved; and

2.  The vacancies for the Howard de Walden Centre and Relief in Need Charities be more widely advertised to members of the public and previous Councillors.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager introduced the update and advised that the recommended minor alterations proposed had been supported by Kent County Council and submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at the beginning of October. These would be decided by the Boundary Commission on 19 November. The divisional changes were expected to apply by the County election in May 2025 and the ward changes by our next election in May 2028. As the boundary changes only come in with the election, there would be slightly incongruent boundaries until then.

The Committee thanked the officer for the clear maps and report. In response to queries, the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager advised that the maps would be further amended to make boundary lines clearer between properties.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager introduced the item and outlined the response which stated that:

·  Remote attendance was perceived as a positive change, but not one that should be dictated to local authorities through legislation, as authorities know their own circumstances best and how this kind of change could be implemented. For example, this could be updated in the Maidstone constitution to be transparent to the public;

·  It was anticipated that proxy voting would have unintended administrative and political consequences and that substitution rules address most issues. The response therefore did not support proxy voting; and

·  Question 5 was unanswered and related to percentage of Members who would use remote attendance. It was anticipated to be on the low side, but was opened to the Committee for comment.

Members were generally supportive of remote attendance and several Members raised that it would be useful in supporting those with disabilities and chronic health conditions that may prevent them coming to meetings. The Committee also raised some concerns relating to how Part II could be discussed in confidence if some members of the committee were attending from home, and that unless cameras were on it was not possible to tell whether a member had taken full part in the debate.  It was agreed that the response be amended to include these concerns, even though the overall thrust was positive. There were more significant concerns about proxy voting, which would only potentially be useful for full Council meetings and was deemed to be unnecessary as it could create more issues than it solved.

RESOLVED: That

1.  The draft consultation response (Appendix 1) be approved for submission subject to the amendments made by the Committee; and

2.  The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager be given delegated authority to make any necessary corrections or clarifications to the response.

6.30 p.m. to 7.40 p.m.