Mr Mayor, Members of the Council,
I rise today to propose a motion that is not about the safety of our children—an objective we all share—but about the competence, the fairness, and the basic honesty of this administration. The Medway School Street Scheme, as it is currently implemented, has become a masterclass in how to alienate a community, ignore the outcome of consultations and through ideological stubbornness and a total disregard for the practical realities of life in our towns.
1. The Legal Failure: The Burnt Oak Precedent
sweep under the rug. We now have the written decision from the Independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal regarding the Burnt Oak Primary scheme on Richmond Road.
In the case of Mr Christopher Lee v Medway Council, the adjudicator found a systemic failure to comply with Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders Regulations. The Council has a strict legal duty to provide signage that is “adequate” to convey restrictions. In this case, the adjudicator ruled that a single, “complicated” sign placed on the offside of the road was wholly insufficient.
Furthermore, the Council ignored its own Traffic Signs Manual. When a regulatory measure prevents traffic from following a previously signed route, the law requires directional signs to guide drivers to an alternative. Instead, this Council allowed drivers to turn into a trap where the only warning was on the wrong side of the road.
Mr Mayor, Mr Lee is a small business owner trying to make a living. He was caught in a trap that a national adjudicator has now deemed legally “wanting.” If the signage is inadequate at Burnt Oak, how many other thousands of pounds have been taken from Medway residents under similarly unlawful conditions? This isn’t road safety; it is a legal failure on an industrial scale.
2. The War on Work and Essential Services
And this hostility toward our local economy is becoming a hallmark of this scheme. Take the case of a resident on Drewery Drive in Wigmore. They were slapped with a £105 fine for simply trying to access their own home to conduct their lawful business. They applied for an exemption, and this Council rejected it. This resident quite rightly noted that as a Labour-run Council, it seems “natural to waste other people’s money.” They are prepared to take this Council to court, and based on the Burnt Oak precedent, they will likely win.
But it gets even more serious. I have learned that operatives from MHS, Medway’s largest provider of social housing, are being unfairly fined while attending early morning repair appointments.
This administration is so blinded by its own ideology that it is now actively penalising the very people who keep roofs over people’s heads. We are making it more expensive and more difficult to maintain social housing in Medway.
3. The Fiscal Smoking Gun: £1 Million in Write-Offs
This administrative chaos is underlined by data from the Head of Revenue Accounts. Mr Mayor, the numbers are a total indictment of this policy.
In just one year, the amount of debt cancelled or written off by this Council exploded from £198,000 to over £1.25 million. And where did that increase come from? Virtually all of it—£1.046 million—relates specifically to “Safer Healthier Streets.”
4. The Human Cost: "Theoretical" Suffering
This lack of legal and fiscal rigour is matched only by a lack of human empathy. In my ward, around Fairview Primary, we have a high density of elderly residents and those reliant on carers who now find themselves “locked in.”
When I raised the plight of these residents, Cllr Paterson’s response was characteristically breath-taking in its arrogance. He dismissed these very real hardships as “theoretical.” He suggested that because elderly residents exist on “almost every street,” their specific suffering here doesn’t warrant a change in policy. To this administration, our residents aren’t people with lives to lead; they are just data points to be managed.
When I asked for just fifteen minutes of the Portfolio Holder’s time to discuss these Fairview residents, I was refused. I was told my approach was “juvenile.” I was told that the residents’ lack of understanding was my failure to “enlighten” them. This is the “Arrogance of Power” in its purest form.
5. Conclusion: The Case for an Independent Review
Mr Mayor, the Portfolio Holder characterises anyone caught in these traps as “selfish drivers.” Tell that to the MHS operative trying to fix a boiler of a vulnerable tenant. Tell that to the small business owner in Drewery Drive. Tell that to the 80-year-old resident in Fairview who is too scared to leave her drive for fear of a £70 fine.
The current approach is failing. It lacks legal standing, it is a fiscal disaster, and it is a social failure.
We are not asking to scrap the scheme today. We are asking for an Independent Review. We are asking for transparency. We are asking this administration to stop marking its own homework and finally listen to the people of Medway.
I move the motion.
Motion B – Councillor Lawrence has submitted the following:
The Council notes that many Councillors are receiving correspondence about the poor implementation of the Medway School Street Scheme and the impact on the lives of those who live in the controlled areas.
The Council will be aware of the recent decision by the independent traffic penalty tribunal after an adjudicator found that signage at Burnt Oak Primary School (Richmond Road in Gillingham) was inadequate. The Council further notes that the areas of concern are:
- The lack of evidence on air quality and accidents involving school children during term time that justifies the imposition of a scheme.
- There is a feeling that residents’ views have been ignored through the statutory consultation, and equipment installed before consultation processes completed.
- The poor signage means many drivers are only aware of restrictions once they had turned into a restricted zone.
- Vulnerable residents are finding themselves locked into an inflexible scheme that stops their ability to freely leave their homes during the operation of the controlled zone.
- Parents are forced to park in other areas that cause traffic issues and increases danger to children.
- Collection rates on penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued.
The Council recommends to the Cabinet that it undertakes a full independent review, which is subsequently reported to the Regeneration, Culture, and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, no later than May 2026.
See Recording of the Full Council Meeting
