Archive for Uncategorized

KCC Manifesto Launched

The Kent Labour Forum, which represents Labour Kent-wide, has published its manifesto for the upcoming KCC elections on May 4th. You can read the manifesto here



Our own Candidates are:

  • Sittingbourne South       Roger Truelove
  •  Sittingbourne  North      Ghlin Whelan
  • Sittingbourne West         Tony Winkless
  • Sittingbourne East         Frances Rehal
  • Sheppey                       Angela Harrison and Gill Smith.

Please contact us if you want to  help in any way over the coming campaign.


Think Again!

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Labour Activists were out in force on Saturday to ask for signatures on the ‘Think Again’ petition. This is asking Tory-Led Swale Borough Council to think again about their decision to borrow £28 Million ( now increased to £60 Million) to fund the building of a Cinema, shops, restaurants and a Multi-Story Car Park (didn’t we used to have one of those?) that they are calling ‘regeneration’.

Now you can sign the petition online at . Please do and help us reach the target which will trigger a Council debate on this subject.

It’s Still Not Here

It’s still not here-but it can be if we pay for it

After several years of promise without delivery, the long running saga of Sittingbourne Regeneration has now entered dangerous waters. Most of last year we were led to understand that the developer group, Spirit of Sittingbourne, were searching for capital to build the leisure and retail parts of their development plan. October, we were told. Then as autumn began to turn to winter it emerged that Tory led Swale Borough Council were prepared to borrow up to £28 million to invest in those properties.

It was presented as an “opportunity” that only came to light in late summer. This was not exactly credible, given that the same Tory administration had given themselves the facility in March to borrow £30 million.

The defensive argument put forward for this face saving manoeuvre is that Tory Government austerity is so severe in dealing with local government that they must find ways of achieving investment income if they want to maintain services. Labour is profoundly sceptical. Trying to turn Councils into development investors is not the way to fund local government. However, if it has to be, then the investment proposed by Swale Council is fraught with risk and uncertainty. They are investing in a multi-screen cinema that major operators rejected as a going concern and for which the private sector developers could not secure funding, nearly two years after they had erected their self-ridiculing “It’s Here” signs.

A minor cinema operator has been signed up, knowing that they alone were prepared to give this dubious scheme a chance. There is no market research to prove that a multi-screen cinema is a viable long term investment. If it fails, the associated eating houses will fail and Swale will be left with a declining asset, a large debt and interest payments to meet. That won’t be good for services or the council taxpayer.

This investment has to be sustainable over several decades, through ups and downs in the economy and against a background of changes in leisure behaviour, especially when it comes to watching film.

Swale says other Councils have gone down the investment route. Some have and some are building up problems for themselves. Where it is working for local Councils, they have shrewdly invested in going commercial assets, not a highly problematic scheme that has struggled to start up.

Labour also contends that the Council has not adequately considered the risks involved, that it has been persuaded by others to rush into this dubious venture and that it has no mandate from the local taxpayers.

They claim that they fought the 2015 elections on a promise of regeneration, and so they did. However, there was no understanding at that time that it would be funded by Council borrowing with its attendant liability for local taxpayers. They have been notably coy about the £28 million borrowing in public. Tory Councillors put out leaflets, claiming progress on regeneration without any mention of the borrowing. When opposition parties called in the decision to go for borrowing, the public were crudely excluded from the scrutiny meeting.

It isn’t publicly credible that the motive for this foolish decision is purely for investment. It is blatantly obvious to all involved that the endless delay in regenerating Sittingbourne is a matter of great political embarrassment to the Tories. They are clearly prepared to advance down a treacherous road on a scheme of dubious value, using all of their capital provision on one scheme that the private sector has found to lack viability.

The scheme itself is not worthy of the risk. The Council decided in 2009, when the Spenhill-Tesco plans were being downgraded, to seek out a development partner and the Spirit of Sittingbourne emerged. Labour believes it was wrong to be so closely tied to and dependent on one group of developers to move forward on much needed regeneration. It was wrong to effectively delegate to the developers the design and planning of the town renewal. What they came up with is a retro plan, tried and exhausted by many other towns, with nothing distinctively local to Sittingbourne, based on a financial model that was inappropriate to Swale and one that ignores the need to regenerate many other parts of the town, not least the High Street and its extensions in West Street and East Street. Labour particularly opposes that part of the agreement that has allowed developers to appropriate long stay car parks to build town centre apartments. It is bizarre that the developers are going to retain this access to cheap land use without eventually funding the rest of the scheme. When the development agreement was being concluded, it was understood that in return for long stay car parks, the developers would fund the multi storey car park. In the end, it is Swale that is going to fund this at the same time as relinquishing their own car parks.

We say that there has been weak leadership that has allowed the private sector developers to dictate the progress of the scheme. Swale has never recruited the kind of staffing that could manage property development and we doubt whether they will in the future.

There are various views in the town. Some people are hostile to the Council because nothing has happened, not because the scheme is poor and the funding risky. What Labour wants to see is that people are properly aware of what is going on. The public must have a say before the Tory Council lands the future residents of Swale with a disaster.

Labour will be raising a petition so that people can have their say. We shall be talking to people in town centres. We will continue to ask all the necessary questions in Swale Council.

Council announcement on Regeneration


At last?

Swale Borough Council responds to SoS distress call

The news that the Tory administration on Swale Borough Council plans to borrow up to £28 million to fund the core of the Sittingbourne Town Centre project comes as no surprise.

It has been obvious since March, when they introduced an emergency funding provision of £30 million, that Swale was getting ready to rescue this scheme.

The developers, in spite of all the fanfare and hype, have always known, as we in the Labour Party have repeatedly said, that this project is of dubious commercial viability.

The Conservatives are now prepared to take a major financial risk. The assumptions about income are based on the presumed profitability of a multi-screen cinema and restaurants, plus a hotel and retail units. Based on inevitable uncertainty about the general economy plus widely held doubts about the demand for these facilities, Labour does not believe the risks are justified.

This is a massive departure in policy by the Conservatives on Swale Borough Council. For the last 15 years, they have steadfastly refused either to borrow or to use their growing reserves to benefit Swale residents, refusing to improve our children’s play areas and failing to tackle homelessness.

They have no mandate from the people of Swale to exhaust practically all of their borrowing capacity on this one scheme. What is there for Sheppey and Faversham for example?

People, including many Conservative supporters, say to us that this is not what Councils should be doing. Even if they must go down such a path, is it wise to blow all of our investment opportunities in one dubious project?

The Leadership on the Council must answer one question.

If they are going to fund the cinema, the restaurants, the multi storey car park, the hotel and the retail blocks, why is it still necessary to donate our car parks to the developers to build homes? What exactly are the people of Swale getting for such generosity? It isn’t the rest of the scheme, because the Council is now funding that.

With their overwhelming majority, I am sure they will take this forward. So, naturally, I do not want it to fail because the people of Swale will pay. However, it seems to us in the Labour Party, that the developers have played with the Swale Council and have emerged with what they want, the opportunity to build homes in a town centre location.

Planning Inspector reports: More houses needed in Swale

for-sale-signThe Government Planning Inspector has issued her interim findings following the review of Swale’s Local Plan in November.

The impossible position for Swale was that it had produced its own housing needs assessment based on population growth and its draft local plan, and there was a marked discrepancy between the two.

Whilst the needs assessment required 760 new homes s year, the draft plan only provided site allocations for 540.  Developers at the review jumped all over this.

Swale tried to mitigate the shortfall with three arguments (1) that a 760 figure would bring about environmental damage and the loss of good agricultural land (2) that the borough does not have the infrastructure to support so many new houses and (3) that our local knowledge of the housing market and the viability of developing estates here meant that 760, even if allocated, would not be delivered.

The Inspector has set aside these arguments and the new figure for the revised period from 2014 is 776 houses a year. This means, inevitably, that sites omitted from the draft Local Plan will have to be revived.

Since the Inspector rejects the idea of this shortfall being disproportionately assigned to Faversham, sites in Sittingbourne and Sheppey will come into the reckoning. This may mean Barton’ Hill in Minster and Cryalls Lane in Sittingbourne.

Our fear is that more site allocations will not mean more houses but an enhanced opportunity for developers to pick the most viable sites.

In these circumstances, the enormous North West Sittingbourne proposal is certain to go ahead and possibly even increased in density.

Councillor Roger Truelove