Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

The Chairman welcomed those present including those registered to speak as part of the meeting and reported that item B5 would be moved up the agenda to B1 in order to accommodate those in attendance for that item.

Apologies for lateness were reported on behalf of Mr Caller, who would join the meeting later.

There were no further apologies received or substitutes reported.

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 of interest were received.

In accordance with Appendix 4, Part 3 of the Council’s constitution the committee is asked to elect a vice-chairman from among its members

It was proposed by Mr Harrison and seconded by Mr Simpkin that Mr Pearman be appointed to the role of Vice Chairman.

There were no further nominations and following a vote Mr Pearman was duly elected.

To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 January 2015 were agreed as a correct record, subject to an amendment proposed by Mr Baldock to include details of the vote recorded in minute 13. 

Although, the webcast was not clear as to a request received at the time; for the sake of clarity the details of the vote on Mr King’s suggestion that the report be noted and not further discussed for reasons set out in the debate were as follows:

For: Stockell, Balfour, Simpkin, Harrison, Pearman and King

Against: Macdowell, Baldock, Caller, Eddy, Whybrow and Chittenden

The Chairman used her casting vote and the motion was carried.

To receive a verbal update from the Cabinet Members for Environment & Transport, the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on the following:

·         Allington EfW (to include invitation to a site visit)

·         Minerals and Waste Plan

·         Young Persons’ Travel Pass – update on process

1.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, thanked Mr Brazier, his predecessor as Cabinet Member for his hard work and diligence and looked forward to the work ahead in his new role as portfolio holder, he went on to make the following comments and announcements:

a.    That John Burr had stepped down for six months from his duties as Director of Highways Transportation and Waste to focus on other areas of work and that Roger Wilkin, supported by three others, would be acting up as interim director. 

b.    That David Hall had recently retired following many years of loyal service and that the gratitude of Members for his hard work should be expressed.

c.    Members were invited to visit Allington Waste Management Facility in the week commencing 25^th May 2015.  A date would be arranged following the meeting.

d.    The Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan would come to examination in public from the 14^th April.  Sharon Thompson and her team were thanked for the hard work over many years that had led to this document being produced.  He also thanked Mr Brazier who would continue to oversee work on this important document.

e.    Statistics had been requested in relation to the Young persons Travel Pass and the current figures for passes issued was as follows:

                                          i.    13,457 full year, full cost passes

                                        ii.    1,267 full year, half price passes

                                       iii.    7,765 second half year, full cost passes

                                       iv.    209 second half year, half price passes

                                        v.    1,349 young carer / local authority child in care full year, no cost passes

                                       vi.    465 carers, full year no cost passes

                                      vii.    24,512 passes in circulation as at 10 march.

It was agreed that a note would be circulated following the meeting to members containing the details reported.  

f.     That, as reported at County Council, there were several distinct issues ongoing regarding street lighting:

                                          i.    How the council came to introduce part night lighting and other changes to policy which would be considered by a special meeting of the Scrutiny Committee for that purpose. 

                                        ii.    The need to establish criteria for requests received to turn lights on again which had been turned off as part of the part night lighting exercise and this would be considered at the July meeting of the Cabinet Committee.  Mr Balfour requested that any member with ideas for relevant criteria put them forward for consideration.

                                       iii.    Finally the issue of lighting requirements and criteria in the future should LED lighting be in place would need to be fully considered and agreed and it was likely that a report would be brought before the committee in November.

g.    That issues related to Border controls had recently been publicised in the media and following work with the tunnel operators and the Dover Port Authority, a mini ‘operation stack’ arrangement had been agreed should it be required. Any further issues would result in full ‘operation stack’ procedures.  He assured members that work continued toward Lorry  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

To receive a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth Environment and Transport  and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member on a proposed decision to extend the contract

The Committee received a report seeking endorsement of, or recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport on, the proposed decision to extend the contract for Wood Waste recycling with Kent based company Countrystyle Recycling Ltd.

Roger Wilkin, Interim Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste was in attendance to speak to the item.  He introduced the report and in particular referred to the following:

1. That the contract provided for wood discarded at Kent County Council Household Waste sites to be collected and recycled, mainly as chipboard.  This was considered to be better than the service offered by many other companies which often shredded wood for incineration to create power.
2. That the contract to date had performed well and had provided a good service whilst maintaining value for money, in a manner that was in line with Kent County Council’s strategic vision being, as it was, procured in partnership with another authority. 
3. That in order to demonstrate the benefit of an extension to the existing contract work had been done to ascertain whether other authorities had better provision of the same or equivalent service and this had not been the case.

Following comments made and questions raised by members, officers provided the following further information:

1. That Countrystyle were required to provide shipment notices to show that wood collected had been sent to a suitable board making company and would therefore be recycled.
2. That although there was a cost to the contract, as was the case for most of the materials recycled by Kent County Council, the method in general, and the contract in particular, provided better value than other types of disposal costing approximately half that of other methods.
3. That although the wood would be suitable for use as biomass it was preferred that it be recycled as chipboard or other material in order to promote a circular economy in Kent, where materials are used and reused multiple times.  This was not the case when wood was utilised as biomass as it could not be used again after that.

Members welcomed the report and news that the contract delivered well.  Some debate was had regarding the level of detail contained within the report, but the sentiment was positive about its purpose and it was suggested that the service be advertised more widely in order to encourage further deposits.

Mr Bowles, seconded by Mr Chittenden proposed that the extension of the contract by Cabinet Member decision be endorsed.  The motion was put to the vote and carried.

It was RESOLVED that the proposed cabinet member decision be endorsed.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Interim Director – Highways Transportation and Waste and to consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member on the proposed decision to enter into funding and construction contracts for a number of transport schemes

The Committee received a report seeking endorsement of, or recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport on, a proposed decision to give approval to the necessary actions for progression and completion of highway and transportation improvement schemes funded following successful bids to central government via the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP).

The schemes in question were:

• Tonbridge Town Centre Regeneration Scheme, in drg. No. 4300127/000/11
• North Deal Transport Improvements, in drg. No. NDTI-1
• Maidstone Sustainable access to Employment areas, in drg. No. MSAEA-1
• Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration, in drg. No. STCR-1
• A26 London Rd/Speldhurst Rd/Yew Tree Rd, Tunbridge Wells, in drg. No. KCC/LTP/YTR/001
• West Kent Local Sustainable Transport Fund and
• Kent Thameside Local Sustainable Transport Fund.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport introduced the report for members; he welcomed the report and the opportunity for some of these projects to finally be fulfilled after being aspired to for many years.

Ann Carruthers, Head of Strategic Planning and Policy was in attendance to speak to the item.  She reminded members that KCC had secured £100million for 21 transport projects through successful bids to the Local Growth Fund, applied for and administered by the LEP.  The report before members, she explained, sought endorsement of the processes needed to take forward seven of the schemes to be undertaken with these funds, three of which had had business plans approved by the LEP already. 

Ms Carruthers briefly expanded on each scheme for the benefit of those members not familiar with them.

Ms Carruthers also reported that although the report stated that monies would be paid to KCC quarterly in advance, since the report had been written agreement had been secured from government that funding would come annually in advance. 

In response to comments made and questions raised by members, Ms Carruthers provided the following further information:

1. That it was acknowledged that the ‘North Deal’ scheme was actually in ‘Middle Deal’ ward but it was felt that for the sake of consistency that the name not be changed from that which was originally submitted via the LEP when communicating with the LEP.  KCC however could refer to the scheme by the “Middle Deal” title for its own purposes.
2. That KCC had new responsibilities in relation to drainage from 1 April 2015 and as a result would be a statutory consultee on all new developments, in the case of the North Deal project, and others, it would be an issue that would be investigated carefully and recommendations made as appropriate.
3. That promotion of safe cycling was one of many issues that would be discussed with developers and which they would be encouraged to promote where appropriate, including on the North Deal project should this be the case in those circumstances.

Other comments from members were as follows:

1. Surprise was expressed from one member that the Sittingbourne Town Centre project continued to be pursued in the face of public concern.  In particular the drop off point at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member on a proposed decision to for the conversion of street lighting stock in Kent to LED

The Committee received a report seeking endorsement of the proposed decision to convert Kent’s stock of street lighting to LED and recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport  on the same. Details of the indicative costs and contractual arrangements were set out within the report.  The full details of the decision were set out at Appendix A and included:

• Approval for the procurement of the services to supply and fit LED lanterns to the County Council’s stock of street lights,
• Award of a 15 year maintenance contract to the preferred bidder

with potential extension.

Behdad Haratbar, Head of  Programmed Works  and Rob Clark, LED Project Manager, were in attendance to speak to the item and on introducing the report to members referred to the following:

1. That Kent County Council was one of the largest street lighting authorities in the country with responsibility for approximately 118,000 street lights and 25,000 LED signs and bollards.  The running cost to the council was currently approximately £9.5million per annum.
2. That the conversion to LED was expected to cost around £40million and save around £5.2million  annually.
3. That a two day non-binding market engagement exercise had been undertaken and from this three options had emerged. These were as follows:

·         Option 1 – KCC to procure the supply and implementation of LED lighting with responsibility for the stock reverting to KCC on completion and after the 12 – 24 month guarantee period.

·         Option 2 – KCC to procure supply and implementation of the conversion and the long term management of the converted stock.

·         Option 3 – Ask the market to fund the conversion and undertake long term maintenance which would be akin to PFI

4. The three options had been considered by the CAB in March 2015 and option 2 recommended for endorsement by the Cabinet Committee and ultimately approval by the Cabinet Member

The following further information was provided by officers in response to questions from members:

1. That all District and Parish Councils would be contacted in order that a full list of lighting controlled by other authorities could be compiled.  Following that exercise the preferred bidder would, by inclusion in the contractual terms and conditions, to offer District and Parish Councils access to the contract rates.
2. That the Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to consider the adoption and implementation of the safe and sensible street lighting policy in 2010 but that this was a separate issue from the proposed decision before the Committee..  A further decision would be required should changes be made to lighting policy, in particular, the illumination levels. The policy in this regards will be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Committee.
3. The conversion programme as a whole would not require lights to be reconnected to the mains. This was due to the LED connection being connected above the sub fuse, owned by the Council.  
4. That implementation would be phased, starting in the residential areas with main routes and town centres to follow.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport and to consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member on a proposed decision to introduce a charging regime under the Commons Act 2006 as set out in Appendix A of the report

The Committee received a report seeking endorsement of, or recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport on, a proposed decision to introduce fees in accordance with the detail set out in Appendix A of the report in respect of applications under the Commons Act 2006 following changes to legislation introduced in December 2014.

Mr Paul Crick, Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement, was in attendance to speak to the item and introduced the report for members; in particular he referred to the following:

       i.        That changes to legislation in December 2014 now allowed Council’s to cover the costs of applications made under the Commons Act 2006 such as registering village greens etc. 

      ii.        The proposals before the committee were to recover costs where applications were for the benefit of the landowner.

The issue was opened for debate and following questions from members officers clarified the following matters:

       i.        That the missing words in the report should read ‘village greens’

      ii.        The creation of a ‘right of common’ was a technical term which was not related to the right of access it referred to very old rights such as the right to graze cattle and so were for the benefit of the applicant and not the wider community as may be first assumed.

    iii.        That the £50 per hour fee for officer time to process application was the standard fee currently charged by the Public Rights of Way Team on other paid for applications, and was deemed to be appropriate in this case also.  It was reviewed on an annual basis.

    iv.        No charges had been made for this service in the past.

      v.        That it was possible to de-register a village green in limited circumstances but should the land be of a size over 250sqm the landowner would be required to provide alternative land in exchange.

It was proposed by Mr Pearman and seconded by Mr Ozog that the cabinet member decision as set out in the report for approval be endorsed.

To consider the proposed decision of the Cabinet Member to endorse the principles of the Canterbury District Transport plan

80.         Canterbury District Transport Plan

(Item B5)

 The Committee received a report setting out the proposed decision of the Cabinet Member to endorse the principles of the Canterbury local Transport Strategy. The Chairman explained that the report was returned to the Committee despite having been discussed previously owing to a number of administrative errors that, whilst not substantive, could have called in to question the proper consideration of the matter by the Committee.

The Chairman had agreed that three members of the public may speak to the item, Ms Barwick, Mr Hirst and Mr Baker, as well as local member for Canterbury City South West, Mr Vye.

Ms Barwick addressed the committee.  She referred to the Car parking strategy to gradually reduce car by the means of parking tariffs to encourage park and ride and sustainable transport, at paragraph 462 of the strategy.  As Chairman of the Canterbury Independent Traders Alliance, and representing their views at that time, she held the following:

1. That the City Council policy of reducing car parking spaces, by 18% as identified in the strategy, would have a detrimental effect on small business and shops in Canterbury city centre.
2. That figures showed that businesses had already suffered as a result of the policy to date.  Referring to papers handed out at the beginning of the meeting showing a reduction of car visits and a reduction in park and ride use to the city centre, each, it was claimed, costing businesses £35 per trip not taken.
3. That the letter from the Chief Executive and Leader of Canterbury City Council containing assurances for KCC in relation to this element of the strategy and included in the papers for the meeting, had not been adhered to to date and as such should not be relied upon by Kent County Council.

Finally Ms Barwick urged the Committee to only endorse the transport strategy with a recommendation that reference to city centre parking closures be removed.

Mr Baker addressed the Committee; he particularly referred to the issue of parking at Canterbury West Railway Station.  He argued that, since the introduction of high speed rail at that location, patronage had increased dramatically placing additional and unsustainable pressure on car parking spaces.  He maintained that all 120 available spaces were taken by 10am each day, with approximately 15 regular commuters already parking in the nearby city council car park intended for casual rail users and shoppers. A copy of a petition signed by 49 taxi drivers who also supported an increase in spaces in order that they had a designated waiting area had been distributed before the meeting. 

Mr Baker also referred to the findings of an independent consultant who had recommended that 120 parking spaces were needed at that location.  He argued that not only was that figure not met, being only 99 currently,  but that the City Council intended to reduce that number, citing as evidence the Local Plan which identified both the overflow car park and the city council car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

To receive a report by the Head of Democratic Services that gives details of the proposed work programme for the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee

Cabinet Committee received the work programme report, presented by Mr Balfour.  He reported that the entry relating to Allington Waste Management Facility would not be a key decision as listed but instead a report for consideration. The additional meeting to be held in November, in order to consider LED lighting, had not been agreed at the time of writing and would be included in the next work programme.

It was resolved that, subject to the amendments reported by the Cabinet Member, the Work Programme be AGREED.

To receive a report from the Leader of the Council, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and the  Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport that outlines the draft Growth, Environment & Transport Directorate Business Plan (2015-16) for consideration and comment, prior to publication online in May 2015

Cabinet Committee received a report outlining the draft Growth, Environment & Transport Directorate Business Plan (2015-16) for consideration and comment, prior to publication online in May 2015.

The Cabinet Members present both welcomed the document and commended the way in which it had been written.

The Business Plan set out how the Directorate would deliver against the Strategic Outcomes agreed at County Council. 

Barbara Cooper, Director of Growth, Environment and Transport introduced the Plan for the committee and described its key elements, including significant upcoming projects and transformation work. 

She also highlighted information on commissioning and procurement timetables which would enable members to manage committee agendas according to important future contracts.

Mrs Cooper welcomed comments on the draft.

The following comments were made:

1.    That the document was of very high quality and would be a useful tool for members.

2.    That as the future of libraries was considered it was of concern that targets missed in the 2014/15 budget had been further reduced for 2015/16.  In response Mrs Cooper reported that the failure to meet the 2014/15 target was as a result of IT issues restricting public access to the service via the website and that this had now been resolved.

3.    That descriptions, in the form of a glossary, of terms used and of the current providers listed within the document would be welcomed.  In addition it was suggested that as contracts were awarded, information for members about the company would be welcomed including contact information for officers responsible. 

It was agreed that, with the comments of the committee duly noted by the Director and Cabinet Member, the draft business plan be NOTED.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport and to consider and comment on the risks presented

Cabinet Committee received a report presenting the strategic risks relating to the Environment & Transport Committee remit. The paper also explained the management process for review of key risks.

Mark Scrivener, Corporate Risk Manager, was in attendance to present the report to the Committee who reported that the risk register complimented the Business Plan already considered by the Committee and set out any risks to the achievement of targets within it.

He explained that the register was a ‘living’ document and continued to be managed and maintained as appropriate.

It was agreed that the report be NOTED.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, the Cabinet Member for Commercial and Traded Services, the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport that shows progress made against targets set for Key Performance Indicators

The Cabinet Committee received a report setting out the Environment and Transport Performance Dashboard, which showed progress made against targets set for Key Performance Indicators.

Richard Fitzgerald, Performance Manager was in attendance to introduce the report and take questions from members. 

He highlighted a performance issues of interest to the members present including:

·         Street lighting repairs related to the contractor and for which actions were in now place

·         An increase in recycling that saw total figures at close to 50%.

·         An improvement in income in performance for Kent Scientific Services that meant that income generation had now improved and was on target.

The following comments were received from members:

·         That target HT03 related to connection of street lights and not to repair and that HT03d could be more usefully reported by providing details of repairs conducted.  Mr Wilkin agreed that greater detail could be provided for members wherever they would like to see it and in a form that was most useful

·         That actual numbers should be included alongside percentages in all cases

·         That targets should be stretched as appropriate to encourage high achievement.  Officers and the Cabinet Member assured Committee members that targets were continually reviewed in order that they were set at an appropriate level.

It was agreed that the report be NOTED.

Cabinet Committee was due to receive a presentation from Paul Crick, Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement detailing progress on the development of a Growth and Infrastructure Framework for Kent and Medway but owing to technical issues it was not possible to screen the presentation and the Committee agreed to receive information on the Framework at a future meeting.

Cabinet would receive the presentation at its next meeting, scheduled for 27 April and members could attend that meeting, in addition it would continue to be discussed by the Committee and would be circulated to members.    

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport that outlines the process, timescale and subsequent consultation for the review of the Kent Environment Strategy, including opportunities for Members to engage and provide feedback

Cabinet Committee received a report setting out for information the process, timescale and subsequent consultation for the review of the Kent Environment Strategy, including opportunities for Members to engage and provide feedback.

It was agreed that the process be ENDORSED.