Officers at Swale Borough Council recommended against installing physical security measures at the undercroft of Swale House in Sittingbourne, contradicting a resolution passed by the Economy and Property Committee in July 2026.

Officers at Swale Borough Council recommended against installing physical barriers to secure the undercroft at Swale House, the council’s main office building, when the Policy and Resources Committee met on 9 September 2026. The recommendation ran counter to a resolution passed by the Economy and Property Committee in July 2026, which had called for the undercroft to be secured at a cost of approximately £70,000.

Background to the dispute

Concerns about safety and security at Swale House were first raised at the Economy and Property Committee in October 2025, during a discussion about letting the building to voluntary and community sector organisations. Officers were subsequently asked to draw up costed options for additional undercroft security.

A one-off budget of £125,000 was agreed at Full Council on 18 February 2026 for “chamber / meeting security” for the 2026/27 financial year. According to the papers, £24,500 of that sum had already been spent on internal building security measures, with a further £17,400 notionally committed, leaving £83,100 available.

At its July 2026 meeting, the Economy and Property Committee resolved to recommend to Policy and Resources Committee that the undercroft be secured, with design input from Kent Police and highways engineers, at an estimated cost of around £70,000. Kent Police, from a “designing out crime” perspective, supported the proposals. Highways engineers indicated that vehicle access gates could be moved further up the ramp to mitigate concerns about vehicles reversing onto Crown Quay Lane or East Street.

Why officers maintained their objection

Despite the Economy and Property Committee’s resolution, officers said their assessment of the balance of advantages and disadvantages had not changed. The papers listed a series of concerns, including the likely displacement of antisocial behaviour to other parts of the town centre, reputational risk, the possibility of tailgating through pedestrian access points, and the need to allow all vehicles to enter the undercroft before they could turn around and exit — because reversing onto the highway would be unsafe.

Officers also noted that installing physical measures would create ongoing annual costs of approximately £4,500 for servicing gates, automatic number plate recognition equipment and access control points, and that there was a risk of additional expense if the new system proved incompatible with the council’s existing access control infrastructure.

Members of the Economy and Property Committee who had supported physical security measures argued that previous incidents in the undercroft had caused reputational damage, that the council could not rely on the police, and that the undercroft needed to be made safer for staff and commercial tenants.

What happens next

The papers noted that if physical measures were not introduced, any unauthorised use of the undercroft would continue to be dealt with using existing services and available powers. The Economy and Property Committee had previously resolved that “there should be no tolerance to trespassers within the undercroft” and that this stance should inform service approaches.

The papers also noted that central government had recently indicated it intended to find all rough sleepers a home by the end of the year, with an expectation of more funds to offer accommodation and mitigate associated problems.

The council had not published the minutes of the meeting at the time of writing, so the committee’s decision is not yet on the public record.

Sources

Top image: illustrative, computer-generated. Illustrative AI-generated image of a generic council building undercroft. This is not a photograph of Swale House or any real location.