Agenda item

Michael Payne, representative of mill managers and volunteer groups, David Denman, Meopham Windmill Trust representative and Paul Allen, Chillenden Windmill Manager, were present for this item.  

1.    The Chairman invited Sarah Hudson, one of the call- in members to provide reasons for the call- in. Mrs Hudson spoke in support of preserving the eight windmills owned by the Council, highlighting their historic, cultural, educational and economic value. She argued that the windmills represented an important part of Kent’s heritage and identity, and that their loss would be irreversible. Mrs Hudson also highlighted that the costs of maintaining the windmills were modest in comparison to their wider public value. Finally, she emphasised the benefits of preservation, including support for tourism, community engagement and education, and argued that further work should be undertaken to explore the creation of a trust to secure their long- term future.  

2.    Claudine Russell, another call-in member, expressed concern that the option of establishing a trust for the windmills had not been fully explored or appropriately assessed against value for money, deliverability and strategic outcomes. Ms Russell further questioned whether the decision aligned with the Council’s strategic objective of delivering sustainable outcomes and best value for residents. She highlighted the collective value of windmills, the significant contribution of volunteers in their upkeep, and the relatively low and controlled maintenance costs. Ms Russell urged the Committee to recommend the decision be reconsidered with a view to exploring the potential for a trust to secure the windmills’ long-term future. 

3.    Another call- in Member, Mark Hood, highlighted the significance of the windmills as valued community assets and expressed concern regarding the decision to depart from a previous Cabinet Committee recommendation. Mr Hood requested clarity on the rationale for this decision and whether it was supported by sufficient analysis in line with constitutional requirements. The importance of the windmills in terms of heritage, education and community identity was also emphasised by Mr Hood, and it was requested that a clear explanation of the benefits of not pursuing a trust be provided. 

4.    Michael Payne, addressing the Committee on behalf of mill managers and volunteers, also raised concerns about the decision- making process and whether sufficient analysis had been undertaken in departing from the previous recommendation to explore a trust. He reiterated the heritage significance of the windmills, the long- standing contribution of volunteer groups, and concerns regarding transparency of maintenance costs and current management arrangements. Mr Payne also questioned the lack of consideration of alternative options, including a heritage trust or community asset transfer, and cautioned against progressing with disposal without further examination of these options.  

5.    Jamie Henderson, Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration, and Public Health, explained that the decision to divest the Council of its eight windmills had been taken under a previous administration following a full assessment of options, and clarified that the current item related to amendments to the Heritage Conservation Strategy to reflect that decision. He also outlined that the updated strategy presented to the Growth, Environment and Transport (GET) Cabinet Committee, included a number of proposed changes and updated policy positions. 

6.    Matthew Smyth, Director for Environment and Waste, explained that the amendments to the Heritage Conservation Strategy reflected the earlier decision to divest the windmills and ensure consistency with that position. He outlined that establishing a Council- led trust was not pursued as it would reduce flexibility for locally driven solutions, would be inconsistent with the decision to divest, and had already been considered and discounted as part of the 2023 options appraisal. Mr Smyth also clarified that community- led trust proposals would not be precluded and could be supported if brought forward and reiterated that Council funding for non- statutory services should be a last resort. 

7.    The Chairman invited questions and comments from Members, and the subsequent discussion covered the following: 

a)    Mr Smyth advised that proposals for a community?led trust would be supported by KCC. However, he explained that establishing a Council?led trust would be inconsistent with the approach of enabling local communities to determine the most appropriate arrangements following the decision to divest. 

b)    Members discussed the call-in procedures and the nature of the recommendation under consideration, including the requirement for the Cabinet Member to demonstrate that due regard had been given to the Cabinet Committee’s recommendation and the clear reasons to not accept it. Mr Smyth further stated that the call-in provided an opportunity to clarify the rationale for the decision, which had been set out in the accompanying report. He explained that the option of establishing a trust had been considered previously as part of the wider options appraisal on whether to divest, and that proceeding with divestment reflected the outcome of that earlier assessment.  

c)    It was advised that support would be available to local groups seeking to take forward divestment, including guidance from Council officers. It was also explained that existing arrangements already supported collaboration and best practice sharing among windmill managers, and that while such cooperation would continue to be encouraged, this was distinct from establishing a formal trust, which would carry legal and financial implications for the Council. 

d)    In response to questions regarding the flexibility of a trust model, Mr Henderson stated that the Council’s approach was for divestment to take place first, with any consideration of a trust to follow. He also indicated that pursuing a trust prior to divestment would be inconsistent with the agreed strategy. 

e)    Mr Smyth advised that, following the GET Cabinet Committee recommendation, they reviewed the meeting discussion and previous documentation, and considered the implications of establishing a trust. This included internal officer discussions and engagement with Members, which informed the rationale and the reasons set out in the Scrutiny Committee report.  

f)     Brian Collins, Deputy Leader, clarified that the Council’s position was to fully support the establishment of community?led trusts or similar arrangements for individual windmills where appropriate, but not to create or operate a single Council?led trust. He further explained that the Council remained open to considering a range of options, that each windmill may require an individual solution, and that all proposals, including potential community asset transfers, would be considered over time. 

g)    Rebecca Spore, Head of Infrastructure, outlined that while the Council did not have a formal community asset transfer policy, it operated under a disposal freehold policy that allowed for broader considerations. She set out that the disposal process was designed to ensure the sustainable future of the assets and was weighted accordingly, with community proposals welcomed. She also stated that freehold disposal did not preclude arrangements similar in nature to community asset transfer. 

h)    Mrs Spore explained that the Council assessed disposal proposals against a range of criteria, not solely on achieving the highest receipt. Lower- value proposals may be supported where they delivered wider community benefits, in line with existing practice.  

i)     Mr Smyth confirmed that the consultation responses were fully considered, with a report presented to Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee in 2024 including the consultation findings. 

j)     It was clarified that the approach did not exclude the use of trusts, rather communities were empowered to decide for themselves whether to establish a trust or pursue another model. It was also confirmed that asset protection would be secured through conditions in the divestment process, separate from any decision on using a trust. 

k)    Mr Smyth stated that financial considerations were a key factor in the decision to divest, particularly to remove ongoing costs, and that the trust model was considered inconsistent with this approach alongside broader policy factors. 

l)     It was advised that the procedural issue under Reason 1 of the call-in arose from the absence of an explanation in the original decision paperwork for not following the Cabinet Committee’s recommendation, although this had been since been addressed in the report to the Scrutiny Committee. Mr Smyth also confirmed that there had been no previous call-in made in relation to the August 2024 decision prior to the current call-in. 

m)  Mr Collins clarified that while the Council remained open to proposals and aimed to be accommodating, no guarantees could be given on outcomes due to the unique nature of the sites. 

n)    Mr Smyth explained that the Council was open to community- led proposals and that the 2024 decision required both divestment and retention as community assets. He confirmed that criteria was in place to ensure a sustainable future and continued community access, with proposals not meeting these requirements excluded. 

8.    Following the questions, the Chairman welcomed comments and views from the Committee about the call-in. These included: 

a)    A Member argued that Members had sufficient information to scrutinise the decision both in 2023 and in 2026, and that the process had been carried out appropriately. They emphasised the need to focus on the decision- making process rather than the emotive aspects of the subject matter and concluded that there was no evidence the process was improper, or that any escalation of the call- in was justified.  

b)    A Member expressed concern that the decision could reduce future availability of windmills and criticised the dismissal of a trust option as based on subjective reasoning. They stated that a cross- party Committee had supported exploring a trust and felt there had been no thorough explanation for rejecting it. Finally, he argued that the decision appeared primarily financially driven and not in residents’ best interests. 

c)    It was raised that Cabinet Member decisions should clearly address and respond to recommendations made by Cabinet Committees to avoid gaps and the need for further scrutiny. 

d)    A Member highlighted strong public opposition to divestment and stated that, although no formal recommendation for a trust was made, the Cabinet Committee had requested reconsideration which had not taken place. They argued that a trust would support local groups and align with policy, and that rejecting it could increase, rather than reduce risks for the Council. 

e)    A Member emphasised that the call-in was valid and reiterated support for a trust to protect the mills and manage costs. They argued that, if a trust was not pursued, the Council should prioritise safeguarding the mills’ long- term heritage use in future decisions. 

f)     A Member clarified that the Council was not proposing to establish a trust itself, but to support local groups in forming their own. They acknowledged that some mills may pass into community or private ownership, with the Council’s role focused on facilitation rather than direct control. 

g)    A Member stated that the mill’s listed status limited their potential for conservation and highlighted that the existing strategy committed to establishing a trust to coordinate management and support volunteer groups. They emphasised that this did not require the trust to directly manage the mills. It was also added that all windmills were listed, mostly Grade II* or Grade I, providing strong internal and external protection and preventing conversion to residential use. 

9.    Following the debate, the Chairman welcomed proposals from the Committee: 

a)    Mr Hood proposed and Mrs Hudson seconded option (d) in the report to ‘require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending review or scrutiny of the matter by the full Council.’ The Chairman emphasised that this option was generally reserved for the most serious matters of fraud or mismanagement by the Council. 

b)    Members voted on the motion. The motion failed. 

c)    Mr Thomas proposed and Mr Eustace seconded option (b) in the report to ‘express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision’. The Committee expressed the following comment: 

              i.        The administration should seek to ensure the protection of windmills going forward in accordance with the policy of the Council. 

d)    Members voted on the motion. The motion passed by majority vote. 

10. RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision. The Committee expressed the following comment:  

              i.        The administration should seek to ensure the protection of windmills going forward in accordance with the policy of the Council.