Agenda and minutes

The Board is asked to note that Mr C Hibberd replaces Mr R A Marsh and Mrs E M Tweed fills the vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr C J Law.

The Board noted that Mr C Hibberd replaced Mr R A Marsh and Mrs E M Tweed filled the vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr C J Law.

(1)       Mr W A Hayton proposed and Mr C G Findlay seconded that Mr C Hibberd be elected Chairma.

Carried without a vote

(2)       RESOLVED that Mr C Hibberd be elected Chairman.

Mr Hibberd thereupon took the Chair

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meting held on 8 July 2008 re correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)       Prior to presenting his report the Director informed Members that this would be his last Board meeting, prior to commencing work on the Transport Strategy for Kent.  Mr Mee thanked the Board for their support and assistance during his time as Director, KHS.

(2)       The Director Update set out some of the key issues and developments going on in KHS.

(3)       Opening of the new Office/Depot at Ashford – a successful opening took place at the end of July and in recent weeks staff from across the Alliance had been moving into the new building and depot and getting to grips with their new surroundings and co-working teams.  We continue to look at options for the west of the County to deliver our plan of delivering most of the highway services from two primary operational centres and Invicta House.  In the interim we will be moving staff to Doubleday House complex by October.

(4)       Highways Agency Area 4 Contract – the tender was returned in August and we await, hopefully by Christmas, a decision from the Highways Agency.  The tender was returned in the name of Ringway Jacobs with KCC acting as a key supply chain partner to the company.  This had ensured that any commercial risk remained with the private sector companies but still allowed KCC to be part of, and influence, the delivery team and services to the public of Kent.

(5)       Performance – monthly key performance indicators had dipped in recent months leading to a backlog in outstanding faults repairs, letters answered and increase in complaints.  This was primarily due to bedding in of the new operational structure, accommodation moves and new IT system implementation.  The Alliance wide Executive management team had developed an action plan to get the service back on track and we had seen the elimination of the backlog in Community Operations and Drainage.

(6)       New Contact Centre call logging system – demand on the 08458 247 800 and kent.highwayservices@kent.gov.uk continued at over 15,000 calls/emails per month and the new system was helping us to identify, track and put in place specific improvements to deal with the back log in outstanding service requests that had been building up.  We continued to encourage Members to recommend this point of entry to the public, Parish Councils and indeed themselves for all service requests so that they could be actively managed.  There had been problems in recent weeks caused by a lack of agents to answer and handle calls but meetings had taken place with the contact centre management team and we were assured that service would improve by the end of October.

(7)       EDF – pursuit of a closer and more cohesive relationship between KHS and EDF was continuing.  Contact is now at a weekly operational meeting together with regular meets at Senior Management level.  Although the performance of EDF had shown some improvement, it was important that we continue to pursue both their own performance as well as the way that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(1)     Disabled Persons Parking Bays may be introduced under a legal Traffic Regulation Order and were currently assessed, funded and managed by the 12 Kent District councils under guidelines set by Kent County Council. The introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the introduction of the Disability Equality Duty had necessitated a review of the existing guidance and policy. The report outlines the results of a consultation process carried out with a working party representing the County Council and the 12 District councils.

(2)     The 12 Kent District councils currently accepted requests for disabled persons parking bays using application forms which required various criteria to be met. There were some differences in the assessment of the criteria, in that some district councils considered them to be mandatory and others used discretion based upon individual circumstances and local conditions.  The majority of the 12 Kent District councils charged a £30.00 non-returnable administration fee which was paid upon submission of an application for a disabled persons parking bay. The cost of the necessary legal work, signage and lines were met by the District authorities.

(3)     A Disabled Persons Parking Bay working party was formed, consisting of representatives of the 12 District councils and Kent County Council. Specialist advice was sought from partners and stakeholders as necessary.  The aim of the working party was to achieve a streamlined and consistent application process making use of best practice across the County whilst ensuring that all necessary legislation was adhered to.

(4)     Each individual criterion was examined and investigated, and it was found that with the exception of the administration fee, all other requirements of the application process met the demands of the new legislations and duties, although there were anomalies across the 12 district councils concerning the way in which the criteria were used.

(5)     There was no current legislation that grants a Local Authority the power to charge an administration fee for applications for disabled persons parking bays. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 provided that ‘a person should not be treated less favourably than others who do not have a disability’. Additionally, it must be considered that the parking bay was not for the exclusive use of the applicant, but could be utilised by any driver holding and displaying a current blue disabled parking badge.

(6)     Research was carried out into procedures used by other Local Authorities across the Country regarding applications for disabled persons parking bays. It was found that of all the authorities investigated, none made any charge for the provision of a disabled persons parking bay.  Guidance was sought from the Kent County Council Legal Department to establish whether an administration charge would be within the terms of the relative legislation and duty.  The advice that was received from the legal team stated that:

 ‘A local authority has a duty to act reasonably and not to treat a disabled person less favourably. An administration fee is unreasonable in these circumstances and should not be charged.’

(7)     A new application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(1)  Further to Minute 8 of 18 September 2007, the report gave information relating to the winter of 2007/08 and sought approval of the Winter Service Policy and Plan for 2008/09.  The winter service policy required precautionary salting on ‘A’ and ‘B’ and other busy roads (as defined in the policy statement paragraph 2.1.2) where frost/ice was likely to form on road surfaces.  An analysis of winter weather and the action taken by Kent Highway Services (KHS) for 2007/08 was contained in Annex A; a table of forecast accuracy and other performance indicators were given in Annex B; and a statistical comparison of winter activities for the 2007/08 winter with the preceding four years was given in Annex C of the report.

(2)  On all occasions, during the winter of 2007/08, when frost was forecast and frost occurred, precautionary salting had taken place in advance of freezing temperatures.  There were instances during the winter service period where a frost was not predicted in the main forecasts issued at 14:00 hrs, but subsequent updates warned that frost was likely.  This activated precautionary salting instructions where necessary.  Overall the winter was mild but also with some very brief snow interludes.  Appendix A of the report gave full details.

(3)  The KHS winter service budget for 2007/08 was £2,225,000 and the out turn was £1,822,000.  For 2007/8 there was no requirement for funding from the corporate emergency fund for snow emergency cost. The budget for 2008/09 has been set at £2,326,000

(4)  The KHS winter service contractor for the winter of 2007/08 was Ringway Infrastructure Services, within the alliance partnership agreement formed by Kent Highway Services. Ringway Infrastructure Services would be the service provider for the winter of 2008/09.

(5)  The Meteorological Office supplied forecast services for the winter of 2007/08 under a five-year agreement, which the Board agreed in 2003.  The agreement had now expired.  There were other weather forecast service providers who had emerged over the last few years that provided a similar service to the Met. Office.  These are private companies that have been winning tenders with local authorities in the UK and had gained credibility.  An informal price was supplied to KHS by one of the market leaders, for road weather forecasting during the 2008/09 winter season.  This indicated a substantial saving could be made.  It was therefore decided to formally tender the winter forecasting service for the coming winter.

(6)     The ice prediction service had been provided by Vaisala Ltd in the past and they had performed well again over the past winter season.  It was therefore proposed to continue the relationship with Vaisala Ltd. for the coming winter.

(7)    The Winter Service Policy 2008/09 was given in Appendix D.  There were no significant changes to the policy for the forthcoming winter.  Copies of the Winter Service Plan for 2008/09 had been placed in the Members Room.

(8)     Pre-wetted salt would be operated from the depots at Haysden and Ashford this coming winter.  It was the intention to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

(1)       The Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership (K&MSCP) was launched in 2002.  The partnership operated across the Kent Police area covering both Kent and Medway and its sole purpose was to reduce road crash casualties.

(2)       The K&MSCP produced an annual report for each Partner organisation setting out progress to date and challenges for the future.  Each year the report was presented to the Board as Appendix 1, and considered issues associated with safety cameras in the county and the Kent Police area as a whole:-

Ÿ            An overview of the partnership and its structure

Ÿ            Funding

Ÿ            Operations during 2007/08

Ÿ            Casualty reduction

Ÿ            Communications

Ÿ            Future activity and funding arrangements

(3)       In recent years road crash casualties in Kent had reduced overall.  The success was due to a variety of factors involving many areas of work undertaken and supported by various partners and stakeholders.  Much of this had been achieved through a wide range of KCC led road safety interventions including education, training and publicity, as well as engineering measures.  Much of the work over the last few years had been funded through the PSA Performance Reward Grant (PRG), awarded based on KCC’s notable success in reducing casualties in a targeted way. 

(4)       The Partnership had been in existence for six years, during this time its work had reduced total casualties by 36% at camera sites across the KCC network, consistently performing above the national average. The contribution of the work of the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership to overall reductions in casualties had been substantial. 

(5)       As reported to the July meeting of the Board, KCC was making significant progress in reducing casualties.  A reduction of 471 KSI per year was achieved by the end of 2007, which included 73 at safety camera sites at known crash sites.  At the sites where cameras were now used there had been 14 fatalities per year between them, but now four or five per year were recorded since the introduction of the devices.

(6)      The Board acknowledged:-

(a)       the annual report of the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership;

(b)       the success of KCC’s Road Safety activities and the Partnership; and

(c)        the hard work and commitment of the Road Safety Manager and his team to reduce road crash casualties.

(1)       Further to Minute 7 of 4 March 2008, the report provided an update on progress of the major transport and highway schemes.  The last six months continued to be dominated by the considerable efforts of the Team in progressing the growth area schemes in Kent Thameside and Ashford within the funding and time constraints; and progressing other schemes, mainly in East Kent.  All of this had been made more difficult than usual against the inevitable settling in period involved in the KHS Transformation.

(2)       Everards Link Phase 2 was completed in July, in accordance with the revised timetable and spend profile agreed with DCLG.

(3)       The Public Inquiry into the statutory Orders for Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road commenced on 8 July and sat for seven days.  Preparation beforehand and attendance at the Inquiry required the intensive participation of Jacobs staff and County Council staff across a number of Divisions.

(4)       East Kent Access Phase 1C received the Institution of Civil Engineers South East Association Brassey Awards 2008 in the Transport Project category and as Overall Winner.  The scheme also received the Jacobs Performance Excellence Award 2008 which was a European award that won against a wide range of projects.  This was a challenging scheme and the awards were a deserved recognition for the Project Manager, Jacobs and the contractor May Gurney.

(5)       The Board would be aware that Union Railways/London & Continental Railways had made a substantial claim against the County Council in connection with the South Thameside Development Route Stage 4.  Following the Lands Tribunal hearing into Preliminary Issues in December 2007, the decision was issued in June and the President found for the claimants.  However, the County Council had been granted leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal which would probably be heard later in 2008/early 2009.

(6)       The issue of construction inflation being significantly higher than retail price inflation remained a major concern for the funding of the larger LTP projects such as East Kent Access Phase 2 and Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road.  DfT funding was on a cash basis and the County Council is obliged to make judgements about inflation over the development and construction period of the project.

(7)       A progress or status report on Fastrack Everards Link Phase 2, Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road, Rushenden Relief Road, Ashford Ring Road, Newtown Road Bridge, Other Ashford Schemes, Eurokent Phases 4 & 5, Fort Hill De-dualling, East Kent Access Phase 2, other schemes and Land matters was set out in the Appendix to the Report.  For brevity, only some of the background provided in previous reports was provided with the focus given to activity in the last half year.

(8)       The Board noted the report.

(1)       Mrs Tweed declared an interest in Item 11 as part of Victoria Way went through has Division.

(2)       Mr Poole referred to the fact that he and Mr Muckle also served on the Planning Applications Committee and queried as to whether the report would be going to that Committee as well, and if so, what was the ramifications for Mr Poole and Mr Muckle concerning debate/voting.

(3)       The Chairman and officers undertook to consult the Legal Team and provide advice to members.

(4)       The transformation of the old ring road would be substantially completed in November 2008.  One of the key priorities for the newly created Ashford’s Future Company and Ashford Future Partnership Board was now the implementation of Victoria Way Phase 1 which would create a new ‘town centre’ street and transport link between the International Station and A28 Chart Road via Leacon Road and Brookfield Road.

(5)       The report set out the background, design principles, funding and implementation strategy and governance issues.  It also sought approval to an initial outline design for the scheme as a basis for moving forward to public consultation, negotiations over land assembly and a planning application.

(6)       The transformation of the old ring road had removed unnecessary road space and some traffic capacity.  Plans were being progressed as part of the approved Transport Strategy for Ashford, that included Park & Ride and a new SMARTLINK bus rapid transit scheme, to limit traffic flows on the old ring road to about 85% of 2003 flows.  The Borough Council’s plans for the first Park & Ride on land near M20 junction 9 that included an enabling development proposal had been delayed and this increased the importance of implementing Victoria Way.  In addition to the need to provided an alternative route for some through traffic, Victoria Way provides an essential route to support the expansion of the town centre, that included plans for a new Learning Campus (14,000 students), new housing (about 1500 dwellings), car parking and other mixed commercial uses.

(7)       The concept for Victoria Way was established in planning policy terms through the Greater Ashford Development Framework (GADF), the Local Development Core Strategy (adopted in July 08), the Ashford Town Centre Area Action Plan (ATCAAP), a draft Public Realm Strategy and a Concept Design Study Report.

(8)       The town centre is planned to grow to reflect the growth of Ashford as a whole and in particular to the south and southeast and extending beyond the railway corridor to the area around the existing Victoria  Road.  The concept for the new Victoria Way was the development of a quality street that provided a new multi-purpose street and transport route between Beaver Road and A28 Chart Road taking some traffic pressure off the transformed old ring road.  A complementary but separate proposal was for the Learning Link that aimed to improve the pedestrian and cyclist links across the railway corridor from South Ashford to the town centre.  The interchange between the Learning Link pathway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(1)     The report sought approval of amended fees and charges for 2008/09 (and 2009/10) in respect of a wide range of services provided by Kent Highway Services. The Local Government Act 2003 (Section 93) provided the power for charging for discretionary services but also stipulated that local authorities may only cover their reasonable costs in providing such services. This year fees were originally set for 2008/9 based on an approximate increase of 3%. This was in line with the anticipated rise in staff and administration costs. It had now become necessary to amend the charges due to additional increases in energy and other extraordinary costs. The current fees and charges would increase by approximately 10% and incorporate a degree of rounding up.

(2)     In order to prevent undue additional administration costs it was intended that the proposed new charges would be maintained through to March 2010. The increase was in line with the anticipated E&R budget increases for 2009/10.

(3)     This report was supplementary to the original report by the Director of Highways to the Board on 8 January 2008 and the report ‘Income for Kent Highway Services’ by the Alliance Executive to the Alliance Board on the 28 August 2008.

(4)     Mr Whitehorn informed the Board of three amendments to the Appendix.