Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies.  

There were no Substitute Members.

There were no urgent items.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

Councillors Cooke, English and Jeffery had been lobbied on Item 14 – Community Governance Review – Maidstone Urban Area – Update.  

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

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no petitions.

There was one question from a Local Resident.

Question from Mr Bernard Creswell to the Chairman of the Democracy and General Purposes Committee

‘At the last meeting on the 29th of January, a report on the Community Governance Review of the Maidstone Urban Area was published, which suggested a larger town council incorporating surrounding wards and parishes. Concerns were raised that this could lead to the abolition of some parish councils, and a press article further highlighted these issues. Since the publication of the report those in committee circles have expressed differing implications and outcomes.

Can the Chairman clarify and record in the minutes of the meeting the current position on this matter?’

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Creswell asked the following supplementary question:

‘I wondered if there was a reason why any parish representatives weren’t included?’

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question. 

The full response was recorded on the webcast and was made available on the Maidstone Borough Council website.

Please use the following link to access the webcast recording: Democracy and General Purposes Committee - Wednesday 26 March 2025

There were no questions from Members.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager stated that there were no items on the work programme currently, but that there would be a report on the Community Governance Review presented to the Committee in June 2025.

Councillor Jeffery presented an update on the work of the Allington Millenium Bridge Trust.

The Committee thanked Councillor Jeffery for his report.

RESOLVED: That the Reports of Outside Bodies be noted.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager introduced the report, which provided an updated timeline for the Community Governance Review (CGR) following confirmation that the Kent County Council elections would take place in May 2025. The timeline was shown in point 2.3 of the report, and the working group membership was shown in point 2.4, with the group to work with Officers to put forward the review’s terms of reference. There was discretion on completing the tasks within the review provided that overall required deadlines were met.

Following the Committee’s previous meeting, the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager had attended a meeting of the Maidstone branch of the Kent Association of Local Councils (KALC) to answer questions on the CGR, and would be happy to answer further questions from Parish Councils as the review progressed.

In response to questions, the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager stated that:

·  The Council was at a preliminary stage of the CGR, with the Council following national guidance on the process. A parish representative had not been included in the working group membership as the Council was required to act independently at the principal authority to the review and could not be seen to favour one parish over another; and

·  There would be opportunities to involve Parish Councils in the process, but it was important to listen to the feedback of all potentially affected Parishes and communities, particularly the unparished areas;

The Committee acknowledged the advice provided, and requested instead that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of KALC be invited to observe the working groups meetings to involve Parish Councils in the process. Inviting the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of KALC, instead of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Maidstone KALC branch, was felt to be fairer.

RESOLVED: That the update and revised indicative timetable for the Community Governance Review be noted.

The Principal Democratic Services Officer introduced the report which had been produced following the Cabinet’s decision to explore the creation of an advisory board, having considered the ‘Voting age to 16’ motion.

The recommendation was for Model C to be agreed as the youth advisory board (the board) model, as this would allow the board to conduct investigations into topics of importance to it and have a consultative function for Council matters when appropriate. This model reflected the Cabinet’s views on the board’s creation. The next steps were outlined in points 7.1 and 7.2 of the report.

During the debate, there was some concern expressed that a Council Board was not required as there were various other bodies in Kent that engaged with young people, including the Maidstone Youth Advisory Group, alongside the likelihood of Local Government Reorganisation making any such body redundant in the future.

In response, the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager stated that the aim was to integrate the Board into the Council’s structure and overview and scrutiny function, giving its work purpose and making it part of the decision-making process, whereas other existing forums sat outside of the Council’s purview. Historically, the Council had not had input from external youth bodies and improving communication with them would be explored. 

The majority of the Committee felt that Board should be progressed, as it would be Maidstone focused and facilitate engagement with young people which was sometimes difficult, and that local government reorganisation should not prevent the Council from undertaking further work. However, it was requested that a representative of the Maidstone Youth Advisory Group be invited to attend its meetings as part of encouraging improved communication.

RESOLVED: That Model C be agreed as the youth advisory board model.

The Director of Strategy, Insight and Governance introduced the report and outlined a correction to the first table in Appendix A, as the total number of Cabinet decisions made in March was 12, and total number of collective decisions was 49.

The Director of Strategy, Insight and Governance highlighted that there had been no Cabinet decisions taken wholly in private session, with the Council aiming to publish as much information in the public domain as possible. There had been one access request from a Member for exempt information, with the information requested released with minor redactions in accordance with Environmental Information Regulations.

The Committee expressed thanks for Officers’ efforts in making information as accessible as possible.

RESOLVED: That the annual review of Members’ Access to information be noted.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager introduced the report on behalf of the Council’s Monitoring Officer. It was recommended that the existing Independent Person’s term be extended from 2025 to 2029, as there had been a robust recruitment procedure as part of their appointment, and the existing arrangements working well.

The appointment would be considered at the Council’s Annual Meeting in May 2025.

RESOLVED: That the Council be recommended to appoint Alan Harrison to the role of Independent Person under s28(7) of the Localism Act 2011 for a period of 4 years from 22 May 2025 to 21 May 2029.

6.30 p.m. to 7.22 p.m.