Agenda and minutes

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member.

(1)     The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained the draft discussion document setting out Kent County Council’s (KCC) proposed view on how the UK can meet its aviation needs for the consideration of the Committee.  Paul Crick, Director Environment, Planning and Enforcement, and Joe Ratcliffe, Principal Transport Planner – Strategy, were in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)     Facing the Aviation Challenge took account of KCC’s earlier discussion document ‘Bold Steps for Aviation’ (May 2012, with revisions in July 2012) and was consistent with KCC’s submissions to the Airports Commission between March 2013 and May 2014 including proposals for expansion of some existing airports, better utilisation of regional airports, improved accessibility to airports by rail and reform of Air Passenger Duty (APD); as an alternative to a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary, which is strongly opposed.  Improvements to the noise environment around airports also forms part of the proposed discussion document.

(3)     In ‘Facing the Aviation Challenge’, KCC recommends to Government:

•        The need for correction of the UK’s competitive disadvantage in terms of APD.

•        The creation of a National Policy Statement (NPS) for airports that supports the growth of existing airports with one net additional runway added in the South East by 2030.

•        The NPS should not however, support the development of new airports.

•        The NPS should support a phased approach to adding runway capacity to keep pace with demand, therefore allowing existing airports to add additional runway capacity when the need arises, most likely a second net additional runway in the South East by 2050.

•        The need for better utilisation of regional airports, especially in the short and medium terms, as this will provide much needed capacity across the South East and bring significant economic benefits to regional economies.

•        Investment is needed to improve surface access to airports; especially rail access and the development of an integrated air-rail transport system that will be beneficial to London and the South East’s connectivity to global markets.

•        An independent noise authority should be set up (as recommended by the Airports Commission) and measures taken to properly measure, minimise and mitigate the noise impacts of existing airport operations and airport expansion.

•        Proposals for a new hub airport must not be progressed any further. Action is needed now and this can only be achieved by building on the UK’s existing airport infrastructure.

•        In the interests of the national economy, action on these issues is needed now.

(4)     Members commented and raised concerns over the lack of reference in the paper to Manston.  At the full Council meeting on 17 July 2014 Members had voted unanimously to explore with Thanet District Council ways in which it could support proposals to retain Manston as an airport.  Members stated that Manston should be treated as feasible until it became  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Members were asked to note that Mr Andrew Bowles had been appointed to the Cabinet Committee to fill the Conservative vacancy.

The Chairman informed Members that Mr Andrew Bowles had been appointed to the Cabinet Committee to fill the Conservative vacancy.

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

Apologies were received from Mr Bowles, Mr Harrison and Mr Whybrow who were substituted by Mr Manion, Mr Pearman and Mr Harman respectively.

To receive any declarations of interest made by Members in relation to any matter on the agenda.  Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared.

No declarations were made.

To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record

(1)       Mr Wickham asked if his votes could be shown in the votes relating to Item 7 (13/00095/2 Young Person's Travel Pass and Petitions to extend the Young Person's Travel Pass to 16-19 year olds and reduce the cost from £100 to £50 for pupils entitled to free school meals).

(2)       Subject to this amendment it was RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2014 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on the lessons learnt during the severe weather and flooding over Christmas and New Year 2013-14.

(1)     The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained a full review of lessons learned from the Christmas & New Year 2013-14 storms & flooding (and previous severe weather events) and recommendations for how the County Council, in collaboration with its partners, can be better prepared to manage such future events and flood risk.  Paul Crick, Director Environment, Planning and Enforcement, and Stuart Beaumont, Head of Community Safety and Emergency Planning, were in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)     The storms and floods in the Christmas and New Year period 2013-14 had been a toxic mix of wind and rain with the wettest December for 79 years and the highest peak flows ever recorded at the Leigh Barrier.  The response from officers had been first class with KCC mobilising an army of volunteers.  Many lessons had also been learned.

(3)     Although the report focused on the events from 23 December 2013 onwards, to provide further background and context, reference was also made to the preceding severe weather events on 28 October (St Jude storm) and 5 & 6 December (east coast tidal surge).

(4)     During the storms and floods 929 properties, both residential and commercial, were flooded in Kent compared to 1000 properties in 2000.  Surrey had been the worst hit area of the country with 2,313 properties flooded while Thames Valley had 930, West Sussex had 130 and East Sussex had 97 properties flooded.

(5)     28,500 properties were without power during the storms and floods and 50,000 sandbags were provided to protect at risk communities.  Although there is no legal obligation on any organisation to provide sandbags and other practical support (e.g. pumps, dehumidifiers), public expectation was, understandably, to the contrary.  This had been exacerbated throughout the response by a general lack of awareness, miscommunications & inconsistency of approaches adopted. 

(6)     It had been observed that there was a general lack of flood awareness and individual/community resilience.  For example, in some parts of Kent, 40-50% of the homes and businesses at risk of flooding in Kent were not signed-up to the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) Floodline Warnings Direct (FWD) Service and so were unlikely to receive any prior warning of flooding.

(7)   In response to questions raised and comments made the Committee received the following further information from officers:

(8)     The report made 17 recommendations, 12 relating to the emergency response and 5 around future flood management. 

(9)   Some of these recommendations were outside KCC’s control or remit; with reference to recommendation 13 assurances from the Environment Agency would be key to KCC committing any future funding towards flood defence schemes.  Cabinet, at the beginning of the month, had received assurance of the EA’s commitment to work with KCC going forward.  The issue with funding schemes was complicated; it was now unlikely that the government through the EA would fund 100% of flood schemes, in some cases to achieve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To receive verbal updates from the Cabinet Members for Commercial & Traded Services, Community Services and Environment & Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on the following:

·               Community Safety including Conference

·               Kent & Medway Police & Crime Panel

·               KCC's 6th Annual Rail Summit

·               Road repair update

·               Major Projects update (Poorhole Lane, North Farm, M20 J10a)

·               Trading Standards and convictions

·               Eco2Mobility

·               Coroners

·               Waste Management update (Procurement, Church Marshes facility, tonnages and fly-tipping)

·               Single Local Growth Fund

Community Services

Mr Hill, Cabinet Member for Community Services, gave a verbal update as follows:

Community Safety Annual Conference – 4 June 2014

(1)       The 12^th annual conference had been convened by the Kent Community Safety Partnership and been attended by over 150 delegates from all public services and local authorities as well as elected Members. 

(2)       The theme of the conference this year was the electronic scene and it had focused on the emerging issues around personal and business safety presented by the ever increasing use of the internet, social media and other forms of electronic and web based methods of communication.  The range of electronic technology today was startling but this merely increased the playing field for cyber bullying and threats to personal information from the ‘dark web’.  This was a timely presentation of an ongoing problem and would be revisited at a later date.

Domestic Homicide Reviews

(3)       Following changes in the statutory requirements since November 2011 the Community Safety Partnership had taken over responsibility from the Home Office for initiating and undertaking Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) in response to tragic events across Kent.  There have been 10 DHRs since the enactment of the legislation and three Lessons Learnt Seminars have been hosted for the completed DHRs for frontline practitioners and multi agencies to share the lessons and recommendations from several reviews.  These seminars had involved presentation of the cases from the Independent Chairs and key agencies responses to the recommendations.  The events were hugely successful, with over 350 attendees and planning was current underway for the next set of seminars in the early part of next year. 

Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel (PCP)

(4)       The Channel 4 documentary ‘Meet the Commissioner’ had sparked much media and social comment.  The PCP had asked the Police and Crime Commissioner to come and talk to them, which she had agreed to do and as a result of this she would be reporting back to the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel at its next meeting on her revised engagement strategy and to explain some of the thing which had occurred during the documentary.

Environment & Transport

Mr Brazier, Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, gave a verbal update as follows:

Highways & Transportation

Major Projects

Poorhole Lane, Thanet – Local Pinch Point Fund Scheme

(5)     Jacksons Civil Engineering had been appointed to construct the scheme and had started on site on 23 June.  The first sod had been cut on the 3 July and work was due to be completed by 31 May 2015.

North Farm, Tunbridge Wells – Local Pinch Point Fund Scheme

(6)     Lafarge Tarmac had been appointed to construct the scheme and had started on site on 14^th July.  Work on this was also due to be completed by 31 May 2015.

M20 J10a

(7)     The Highways Agency (HA) was now actively promoting the full junction scheme including the KCC interim junction scheme.  KCC were working with the HA and the Department for Transport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To receive the report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained a position statement which had been prepared to provide guidance on the consideration of impacts for large scale solar arrays (‘solar panel farms’) for the consideration of the Committee.  Paul Crick, Director Environment, Planning and Enforcement, and Andrew Roach, Planning Policy Manager, were in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)       Although Districts Councils were the determining authorities for planning applications KCC was a formal consultee and provided advice on matters including the landscape/visual, ecological, historical and agricultural impacts of these schemes. 

(3)       The position statement had been prepared to ensure consistency across the county, a number of guiding principles had been set out in a statement to form the basis of KCC views on these applications.  It was the intention that the position statement would be raised at the Kent Planning Officers Group (KPOG) in order to achieve ownership from Districts to these key principles and consistent evaluation of impacts across Kent.

(4)       In response to comments made and questions raised the Committee received the following additional information from officers:

(5)       The definition of climate change was set by a series of government and EU policies including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Climate Change Act 2008 and the EU Renewable Energy Directive.

(6)       Regarding the removal of solar PV arrays at the end of their permitted period discussions were underway with borough and districts as to what mechanisms could be put in place to police this.  Bonds, financial lock ins or collateral were all options that were being investigated.

(7)       Dr Eddy raised concerns over Section 6 Historical Environment particularly para 6.2.  He stated the paragraph could be radically improved by making a clear distinction between three levels of historical environment as follows:

1.       World Heritage Sites

2.       Protected monuments of one sort or another, i.e. listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments; and

3.       Archaeological sites and heritage assets  

(8)       Members were in agreement that the position statement was a step in the right direction and went a long way to supporting borough and districts.

(9)       RESOLVED that, subject to the rewriting of para 6.2, the Cabinet Committee endorsed the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to support the policy statement as setting KCC’s position on the assessment of solar arrays and the provision of comments to districts.

To receive the report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained for the consideration of the Committee details of the preliminary work carried out to date identifying an engineering feasible site to deliver a Thanet Parkway Station and outlined the key milestones in taking this project forward.  Ann Carruthers, Transport Strategy Delivery Manager, and Fayyaz Qadir, Principal Transport Planner - Delivery, were in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)       Kent County Council had for a number of years had an aspiration to deliver a parkway station and associated car park in Thanet to operate as a park and ride facility.  A parkway station, in conjunction with the rail journey time improvements being implemented between Ashford and Ramsgate, will boost inward investment in Thanet and Dover (including Discovery Park Enterprise Zone)by making it a more attractive location to do business. The connection to London in around an hour as well as the expanded employment catchment area for Thanet and Dover residents would provide a significant economic boost to East Kent. 

(3)       Work had been carried out which looked at the best location for parkway station between Minster and Ramsgate stations on the Ashford to Ramsgate line.  Taking into account aspects such as signalling as well as gradient, curvature and location of auto half barrier level crossings (AHBs), the optimum location for the station is immediately to the east of the Cottington Road underbridge.  While this site is on embankment and will require lifts to platform level, in terms of rail operating constraints, this location is considered the most technically feasible on this section of line.

(4)       The preliminary project cost estimate was £14 million and, several weeks previously, £10 million was awarded from the Single Local Growth Fund.  Kent County Council has provisionally allocated £2.65 million in the Council's Medium Term Financial Plan and was working with key partners to fill in any funding gap to deliver this new station.

(5)       Thanet District Members had requested whether enhancement to the current station at Ramsgate, in terms of additional car parking spaces, could provide the benefits of a new Parkway station would deliver.  Four options had been identified but all had challenges and none had any clear future-proof benefits. 

(6)       An application had been made by the promoter of the Manston Green development but did not include any infrastructure for a parkway station.

(7)       RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport take forward the delivery of Thanet Parkway Station in the location to the west of Cliffsend by:

a)      Commencing land acquisition work;

b)      Undertaking public consultations to support the project development process; and

c)      Undertaking project development work to enable the submission of a planning application and design work for the scheme.

To receive the report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained information concerning a procurement undertaken by KCC Waste Management to identify providers for the management and operation of Household Waste Recycling Centres and Transfer Stations in Kent for the consideration of the Committee.  Roger Wilkin, Head of Waste Management, was in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)       The proposed contracts were required to prevent extension of existing contracts which would be in breach of Procurement Regulations.  A transparent and accountable procurement process had been used to select providers.

(3)       KCC has a statutory responsibility as the Waste Disposal Authority for the disposal of household waste and as such the contracts are a fundamental requirement to ensure waste can be managed cost-effectively and via environmentally sound methods.

(4)       Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs) had been undertaken to inform the contract specification and assess the impacts of the procurement process. Resulting action plans had been implemented to ensure equitable access for Kent householders with regard to protected characteristics. The EqIAs informed the inclusion of equality related mandatory requirements within the tender documents including:

•        Designated staff as ‘equality champions’ for customer care at each facility;

•        Ensuring facility signage is clear and appropriate for customers where language and literacy may present as barrier to using the service; and

•        All HWRCs are managed in line with KCC’s policies including the Disability Access Scheme.

(5)       HWRC and TS facilities would be leased/licenced to the selected providers through KCC Property.

(6)       The proposed contract spend by KCC would be approximately £7.8m per year for an initial period of up to six years, with a possible extension of up to six years based on performance and there was potential to secure financial savings through these new contracts. 

(7)       Analysis and review of performance would be ongoing.  Due to procurement regulations the current contracts cannot legally be extended ad infinitum.

(8)       The contracts were for two lots over twelve sites and would be awarded to a maximum of two suppliers but could be only one.

(9)       RESOLVED that the Committee endorse the award of contracts to the preferred tenderers following completion of the procurement process for the provision of the Management and Operation of Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) and Transfer Stations (TS) to ensure service continuity.

a)      Lot 2: Mid Kent facilities – 5 HWRCs; 2 TS

b)      Lot 3: East Kent facilities – 7 HWRCs; 1 TS

To receive the report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained details of the countywide Highway Resurfacing Contract which is set out in the 2014/15 Strategic Priority Statements for the Highways, Transportation & Waste Division and follows the established process of market testing this element of highway works on a periodic basis for the consideration of the Committee.  John Burr, Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste was in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)       A significant part of the annual capital highway works budget is set aside for the delivery of carriageway resurfacing schemes.  The principle of procuring the delivery of the Countywide Highway Resurfacing Programme through competitive tendering process was established in 2008 to ensure the maximum benefits from a competitive market’s prices. Since then this service has been procured through the market on a regular basis.

(3)       Annually around 35-40km (approx 25miles) of the highway network is resurfaced. This generally consists of removing the top layer of the carriageway surface and replacing it with a new one.  This protects the lower construction layers of the carriageway from the elements, reinstates carriageway strength and prolongs its life.

(4)       Procurement advice was sought and followed regarding the procurement of a single contract to replace the existing two contracts (North and South Kent) to benefit from the economy of scales.  The duration of the new contract is two years with an option for extension by a further two years, on a one year at a time basis (2 + 1 + 1).

(5)       Given the value of the contract an OJEU compliant procurement process was followed, twelve potential tenderers expressed an interest and four submitted priced tenders.  The tender evaluation process consisted of three elements; initial assessment (Mandatory Questions), quality and price.

(6)       In response to questions raised and comments made the Committee received the following further information from officers:

(7)       At the end of the tendering process overall the Eurovia Infrastructure Ltd submission represented best value, comparing like for like the cost of delivering the schemes referred to through the new contract would result in significant savings.  Eurovia have provided KCC services in the past, they are an established company and while considerably cheaper than the previous contract they were also sustainable. 

(8)       On average in previous years Highways had resurfaced 4% of the highways network but the additional money made from savings through the award to Eurovia would be utilised to resurface additional road schemes throughout the county.

(9)       RESOLVED that the Committee endorse and recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport the approval and award of the Highway Resurfacing Contract 2014-16 to Eurovia Infrastructure Ltd.

To receive an update on the Committee’s proposed work programme.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Head of Democratic Services which contained the Environment and Transport Work Programme for 2014-15 for the consideration of the Committee.

(2)       Members requested an update on Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to a future meeting.  It was agreed that this would be included in the Storm and Flood update at the November meeting.

(3)       RESOLVED that the Environment and Transport Work Programme 2014-15 be agreed.

The Environment and Transport Performance Dashboard shows progress made against targets set for Key Performance Indicators.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Members for Community Services and Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained the Performance Dashboard for the consideration of the Committee.  Richard Fitzgerald, Performance Manager, was in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)       The data within the report was to the end of May 2014.  It reflected the Strategic Priority Statements that the Committee had seen at its last meeting and included the new areas of responsibility from the creation of the Growth, Environment & Transport directorate following the top tier realignment.

(3)       Highways and Transport Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were mostly green and performance was generally good.  Contact from the public had remained high but progress was being made on this as a result of the success of Find and Fix.

(4)       Waste Management KPIs were green, a real improvement as last year there had been several amber KPIs.  While many of the Environment, Planning and Enforcement KPIs were also green CO₂ emissions from business mileage per FTE, Trading Standards and Kent Scientific Services were all red.  In relation to business mileage the commentary explained that finance staff selling more services and generating income and ICT staff installing Unified Comms, both across various sites as well as additional mileage from the storms and floods emergency.  Regarding the indicators for Trading Standards and Kent Scientific Services the flows here fluctuated.  These were ones to watch and could be considered amber rather than actually red at this stage only two months into the year.

(5)       In response to questions raised and comments made the Committee received the following further information from the officer:

(6)       HT02: Faults reported by the public completed in 28 calendar days was amber in the month and had gone down. It was also commented that the online fault reporting portal had been down for several days at one stage.  This indicator was currently at amber largely due to clearing the backlog of faults. As one of the main interfaces between the council and Kent residents it was important that this facility worked.  

(7)       Expected activity levels were based on previous years trends and were set for the number of contacts and enquiries received from the public.   These figures where for works in total and expected activity levels had not been broken down into routine faults reported, potholes and street lighting, although this would be possible to put in place in the future.  The 100 Call Back Survey for customer satisfaction was a useful tool to understand customer expectations from the service.

(8)       Day burner street lighting was something that KCC aspired to not having but, in places such as tunnels, sometimes this was unavoidable.  One option was to convert said lighting to LED and this was something KCC was looking at doing with all its lighting stock.  With regard to whether the street lighting repair figures could be broken down into day  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To receive a report of the risks which have been registered in relation to Environment and Transport.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained the risks which have been registered in relation to Environment and Transport for the consideration of the Committee.  Mark Scrivener, Corporate Risk Manager, was in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)       The report before the Committee was the annual presentation of directorate level risk register.  It featured the five directorate level risks currently featured on the Growth, Environment and Transport Risk Register and which were all relevant to the E&T Cabinet Committee.  Four risks were rated “medium” with a fifth rated “low”.  Members would recognise the risks from regular items presented to the Committee.

(3)       In response to questions raised and comments made the Committee received the following further information from officers:

The list was not meant to be exhaustive; some items potentially affect several functions across the Growth, Environment & Transport directorate, and often had wider potential interdependencies with other services across the Council and external parties.

(4)       Each division within the directorates had their own risk register for risks of a more operational nature that underpinned the directorate risk register.

(5)       When current levels of risk were deemed unacceptable, ‘target’ risk levels were set and further mitigating actions were introduced with the aim of reducing the risk to a tolerable and realistic level.  A standard reporting format is used to facilitate the gathering of consistent risk information and a 5x5 matrix is used to rank the scale of risk in terms of likelihood of occurrence and impact.

(6)       Risk Registers should be regarded as a ‘living’ document to reflect the dynamic nature of risk management.  Directorate Management Teams formally review their risks, including progress against mitigating actions, on a quarterly basis as a minimum, although individual risks can be identified and added to the register at any time.  Key questions to be asked when reviewing risks were:

•        Are the key risks still relevant?

•        Have some risks become issues?

•        Has anything occurred which could impact upon them?

•        Have the risk appetite or tolerance levels changed?

•        Are any related performance/early warning indicators appropriate?

•        Are the controls in place effective?

•        Has the current risk level changed and if so is it decreasing or increasing?

•        Has the “target” level of risk been achieved?

•        If risk profiles are increasing what further actions might be needed?

•        If risk profiles are decreasing can controls be relaxed?

•        Are there risks that need to be discussed with or communicated to other functions across the Council or with other stakeholders?

(7)       With reference to Risk ID GET02 Health and Safety considerations and in particular the identification and rectification of crash remedial sites on highways, as with the Road Safety Policy document that had come to the last meeting, the Council was continually looking at new measures to educate and control this.  Work was being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.