Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

1.            Apologies were received from Mr Wickham who was substituted by  Mr Brazier.

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.

The Chairman, Mrs Stockell and Mr Chittenden declared an interest on Item B3 as they were both Maidstone Borough Councillors.

To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 February were correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

A statement from the Lead Petitioner – Bob Lane

This item was brought forward for discussion by the Chairman as agreed at the start of the meeting.

1.            The Chairman welcomed Mr Bob Lane, representative of “No to Lower Thames Crossing East of Gravesend” and Mr Brian Sweetland, County Councillor for Gravesend Rural, who had been given permission to speak at the meeting by the Chairman.

2.            Mr Lane representative of “No to Lower Thames Crossing East of Gravesend” campaign spoke on the petition that asked the Council to withdraw its support for a Lower Thames Crossing East of Gravesend and to support the thousands of Kent residents whose lives would be devastated by this proposal.  A new crossing East of Gravesend would not address the problems at Dartford.

3.            The Chairman then invited the Cabinet Committee to debate the petition. During debate the following views were expresses and concerns were raised:

·      The lifting of the toll at Dartford had not reduced delays and congestion as anticipated. 

·      A new route was necessary and a status quo was not an option.

·      There would always be a collateral cost.

·      No viable alternative been put forward the crossing needed to be in Gravesend.

·      There would always be people who object to what every option was put forward.  This was a better option than adding to Dartford’s traffic. 

·      It was suggested that there was a need to look at getting freight off the roads and onto trains.

·      Residents travelling from one borough to another through the tunnel should be provided with a free bus service.    These options could be carried out through 106 agreements with five year costings.

·      A suggestion was made that the tunnel should be extended to avoid housing.

·      There was support verbalised for the petition and did not feel that the case had been made for Option C. 

·      It was suggested that Option A and the upgrading of the Dartford Tunnel should be addressed in KCC’s response to the Consultation.

·      There were strategic questions that need to be asked regarding how much infrastructure Kent was willing to accept and what was it doing to the quality of lives of Kent’s residents.  It was considered that this was a short term solution and that alternatives should be looked into.  Option C would have an effect on biodiversity, air quality, land and town scape, noise pollution.  It was questioned whether the Kent Environment Strategy had any value.

·      A request was made that a Kent Freight//Rail Action Plan to be produced.

·      A suggestion was made that a Select Committee or Members Task and Finish Group consider alternative ports other than Dover.

·      There was a need to look at what goods were moving on Kent’s roads at source.

·      This was not nimbyism; there was genuine concern by residents of Gravesend.  Option C would do nothing for the Dartford at best it would remove 14% of traffic from the Dartford Crossing. 

·      It was suggested that the M25 needed to be turned into a true London Orbital Road, that could be achieved with little land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, Cabinet Member for Economic Developmentand Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on the proposed response to the Highways England consultation on a proposed route for a new Lower Thames Crossing.

1.            The Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement, Mrs Stewart, introduced a report  that  sought the Cabinet Members comments on the County Council’s proposed response to the Highways England consultation on a proposed route for a new Lower Thames Crossing.  Mrs Stewart stated that the response to the consultation was a work in progress.  Consideration would be given to all comments raised at this meeting and those made at the Growth, Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee meeting held on 3 March.  The consultation was due to close on 24 March, before which, Cabinet would make its final considerations to the final draft of the response at its meeting on 21 March.

2.            Members were made aware that the County Council had been working closely with the borough councils affected by the proposals taking account of their concerns within the response.

3.            The Transport Strategy Manager, Mr Ratcliffe, advised on the background of the consultation, variations to routes proposed since the first consultation held in 2013 and the rational of KCC’s draft response appended to the report.

4.            The Chairman welcomed the Mr Sweetland, Local Member for Gravesend Rural, who had received permission to speak to the meeting. 

5.            Mr Sweetland highlighted that he had resigned his Cabinet post because he did not agree with the County Council Administration’s view that it strongly supported Option C. He highlighted the issues for his decision; (i) A reference in the DfT published document in 2013 by AECOM reference to Option C “that it is likely that the Dartford Crossing would remain close to capacity and although delays would be reduced incidents could still lead to long delays as they do at present” Mr Sweetland believed that this was a very big risk which would not be realised until the crossing was built in Gravesham. He stressed the issues of the continued traffic congestion at Dartford’s former toll area including; air pollution and associated health problems, the many incidents per week on that route meant there were three miles of traffic.  Mr Sweetland highlighted KCCs response to the DfT consultation in 2013 when it agreed Option C included the proviso that a variant was built in; the upgrading of Bluebell Hill.  In the current consultation HE had taken the decision not to progress with the variant upgrading of Bluebell Hill.  He highlighted the high rates of asthma using a health map from the Dartford Crossing Hospital emergency Unit that showed areas either side of Dartford which he did not want to see in Gravesend. He quoted from a document produced by KCC in 2002 “What Price Growth” and asked for the four tests within the report to be returned; to preserve our; countryside, traditional villages, market towns and environmental heritage.  He advised that a meeting on the Dartford Crossing recorded by Radio Kent would be air in the evening.   He concluded that HE’s consultation was bias; poorly managed, accompanying information difficult to obtain and would result in the likelihood of no growth with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

To receive verbal updates from the Cabinet Members for Environment & Transport and Community Services and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport.

1.            The Cabinet Member for Community Services, Mr Hill, advised that he had no verbal update for this meeting.

2.            The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, advised on the following:-

Country Parks, Environment, Planning & Enforcement

(a)       Property Group recently published statutory notices in respect of five sites; Parkwood, Preston Hill, Bluebell Hill Picnic site, The Larches and Dryhill following a review by the Country Parks team.

(b)       The notices regarding the five sites created a significant public response, therefore the process was stopped.  A full consultation would be would be launch in due course, inviting local communities and stakeholders to come forward with proposals to ensure that the sites remained open to the public and were financially viable.   This Cabinet Committee would receive a future report on the outcome of the consultation.

 Safer Roads

(a)       Transport Intelligence: CRASH data recording had now begun at Kent Police.  This would streamline data collection and improve accessibility and accuracy.

(b)       Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership: The procurement of digital upgrade for existing safety camera equipment had sped up the process for police to report speeding offences at camera locations, reducing the maintenance costs.

(c)       Road Safety: An award winning Speak Up campaign delivery was held in February aimed at passengers of young drivers and a Seatbelts campaign was held in March to highlight the issue of 1:3 fatalities last year due to a seatbelt not being worn.

(d)       Safer Mobility: Following a successful bid to the Department for Transport for funding had been received to deliver child cyclist training in schools until 2020.

Environment 

(a)       ISO14001 success – Following a three day assessment the Council has shown that it continued to meet the international standard for environmental management and delivered improved environmental performance. Kent remained ahead of its target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions which translated into cost savings on energy, fuel and travel.

(b)       Kent Environment Strategy – An implementation plan workshop was held on 25 February with over 70 delegates in attendance from various sectors and organisations providing expert input into the development of activities for delivery of the strategic priorities.  Officers were drawing the conclusions together to develop the first draft of the implementation plan which would be consulted on with key stakeholders over the coming months.  

Minerals and Waste Development Plan

(a)       Following the receipt of several further Main Modifications from the Planning Inspectors, that were necessary to ensure the soundness of Kent’s Mineralsand Waste Local Plan, an eight week public consultation was held which expired on 4 March 2016.   

(b)       A total of 25 representations were received.  These views would be considered by the Inspector in finalising his report.  When he was satisfied with the Plan, his report would pave the way for the County Council to adopt the Plan.  Once adopted the Minerals and Waste LocalPlan became the Development Plan against which minerals and waste management planning applications were determined and the allocation criteria for the separate Minerals and Waste  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member of Environment & Transport and the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on the proposals to amend fees and charges for 2016/17.

1.            The Interim Deputy Director Highways Transportation and Waste, Mr Loosemore, introduced a report on the proposed changes to fees and charges for the 2016/17 financial year for certain highways elements where a charge was made for the provision of services. He advised that no review was undertaken or changes were made for 2015/16.  It was proposed to increase fees in line with recent council tax increases, unless fees were not covering reasonable cost where a further increase had been proposed.  As there was no increase in 2015/16 the general increase has been at 3.98%reflecting two years council tax increases at 1.99% each year.  The effective date for agreed changes to fees and charges, as set out in appendix 1 of the report, was April 2016.

2.            Mr Loosemore responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    Mr Loosemore agreed to discuss; the questions on Third party signing inc. Tourism and the differing charges for emergency road closures and temporary road closures with Mr Baldock outside the meeting.

b)    Members were advised that Road Closures were made by the Traffic Regulation rules and a notice was published in the press.

c)    Mr Loosemore advised that emergency road closures were carried out by notice only which was why the cost of the fee was lower

d)    The access to technical information was cheaper for a three year history of crashes at a location was cheaper that a five year history as this was calculated on the average officer’s time, some cases were longer, some were shorter which meant that it was not always the same cost.

e)    Mr Loosemore advised that there were no charges for “A” boards on the pavements. The Pavement License referred to seating facilities with table and chairs on the highway.

f)     Mr Loosemore explained that the Technical data on crashes at a location was for developers and not the general public. 

g)    Mr Loosemore agreed to discuss Mr Caller’s comments regarding the headings “Traffic Count data” in the table at appendix 1 with him outside the meeting.

h)   Mr Loosemore noted the request by a Member to make the form for a temporary road closure user friendly.  Mr Loose added that the general advice regarding community road closure for the queen’s 90^th Birthday celebrations this year was available on KCC’s website. There would need to be signage on the roads regarding the closure and public liability insurance.

3.            RESOLVED that:-

(a)  the responses to questions by Members be noted; and

(b)  the Cabinet Committee endorsed the recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport on the proposed amendments to fees and charges for 2016/17 as attached at appendix 1 and 2 of the report.

To receive a report from the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on a proposal for the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to delegate authority to the Head of Waste Services to award the West & Mid-Kent Dry Recyclables contract, subject to successful procurement and also to offer contract extensions of up to two years subject to achieving satisfactory service performance and being commercially beneficial to KCC.

1.            The Head of Waste Management Services, Mr Beaver, introduced a report that explained that the current contract for the processing of dry recycling would expire in June 2016.  As the current contractor, Viridor Management Limited did not wish to extend the contract due the significant changes in the global commodity process; KCC was due to go out to Tender.  KCC had engaged with four potential suppliers that had a progressive and constructive working relationship with KCC.  It was proposed to split the contract into two lots based on the collection arrangements of the relevant Waste Collection Authorities.  This was due to the cost of recycling glass being significantly higher that residual mixed dry recyclates.

2.            Mr Beaver and Mrs Cooper agreed to follow up on comments made on possible problems at the Allington Energy from Waste (EfW) Incinerator with Mr Bowles outside the meeting. 

3.            RESOLVED that the Cabinet Committee endorsed the decision to be made by the Cabinet Member of Environment and Transport to delegate authority to the Head of Waste Services to award the West & Mid-Kent Dry Recyclables contract, subject to successful procurement and also to offer contract extensions of up to two years subject to achieving satisfactory services performance and being commercially beneficial to KCC as set out in appendix A of the report.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, Cabinet Member for Community Services and Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport that outlines the draft Growth, Environment and Transport Directorate Business Plan (2016-17) for consideration and comment, prior to publication online in April 2016.

(This item was brought forward for discussion by the Chairman as agreed at the start of the meeting)

1.            The Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport, Mrs Cooper, introduced a report that outlined the early draft Growth, Environment and Transport Directorate Business Plan for 2016-17 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report which would be used to help shape and inform the final version of the Directorate Business Plan to be published on line in April 2016. Mrs Cooper highlighted key sections of the draft, including a commissioning timetable to guide the Commissioning Advisory Board and Cabinet Committees going forward as to which commissions they would like to look at, a section listing internal and external services which indicates when internal services would be reviewed, cross-cutting priorities for customers, commissioning and communities, and the divisional priorities. Mrs Cooper drew Members’ attention to GET’s Plan on a Page, which has been designed to show the relationship between our strategic outcomes, Cabinet Member priorities and how they flow down into the business plan. Members noted that the Performance Indicators were to be developed further for the final business plan.

2.            Mrs Cooper and Ms Phillips noted comments and responded to questions by Members as follows:

(a)   Following a request, Mrs Cooper agreed to the commissioning activity tables, on pages 178 to 186, being reproduced at A3 size in future reports.

(b)   Some Members commented in favour of the new commissioning activity table on pages 178-186 of the report and some were finding it difficult to understand. Mrs Cooper advised that there had been a lot of discussion about ways to simplify the format. Mr Hill added that he felt this format reflected Cabinet Members’ priorities better than before.

(c)    Ms Phillips advised that the final version of the Growth, Environment and Transport Business Plan 2016/2017 would be available in April on KCC’s website.

3.            RESOLVED that the responses to questions by Members and the final Directorate Business Plan 2016/2017 would be published online in April 2016 be noted.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Communities and Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport that provides an update on the transformation of the Community Warden Service following the public consultation in November 2014 and subsequent budget reduction of £700k in 2015/16 as indicated in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and outlines the development of a Volunteer Support Warden pilot scheme.

(This item was brought forward for discussion by the Chairman as agreed at the start of the meeting)

1.            The Cabinet Member for Community Services, Mr Hill, introduced a report that provided an update on the transformation of the Community Warden Service following the public consultation in November 2014 and budget reduction of £700k in 2015/16 and outlined the development of a Volunteer Support Warden pilot scheme.

2.            Mr Hill explained that following the consultation 70 uniformed community wardens had been retained preserving as much community based frontline delivery resource as possible.  It also prompted proposals for a volunteer wardens scheme.  The volunteers would complement and support the Community Wardens Service rather than replace them. This was carried out in conjunction with Kent Police and Kent Association of Local Councils (KALC).  

3.            The Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement, Mrs Stewart, advised that this was a new way of working and the service would continue to evolve with an intelligence led approach.  This work would be carried out working closely with Parish and district councils to understand the priorities for their areas and shape the Community Warden Service with them in a challenging budget climate.

4.            The Head of Public Protection, Mr Overbeke, explained in detail the report regarding the realignment of the service to produce the 50% savings whilst continuing to provide a robust service on the ground. He then spoke on the pilot scheme for voluntary warden developed in partnership with KALC. A maximum of 12 Parish Councils were selected to be involved to keep the pilot manageable.  A recruitment campaign was held for three months and 18 people responded in the specific areas.  Following interviews eight individuals were selected who would be deployed across five parish and two town council areas following their training in March 2016.  A structure review would be undertaken on the pilot in the next six months.  A decision would be made on whether to expand of the scheme and if so any financial contribution required from participating parishes enabling the parish to decide if it wished to be part of a full Scheme in April 2017.

5.            Mr Hill, Mrs Stewart and Mr Overbeke responded to questions by Member as follows:

(a)       Mr Overbeke advised that the financial savings target of £700k had been achieved.

(b)       All the posts within the scheme had been filled.

(c)       Concerns were raised regarding the parish councils setting their precept before November.  This left a narrow timeframe for the Parishes to decide to proceed with the scheme.  Mr Hill agreed that it was a narrow timeframe.  The purpose of the pilot was to tease out some of the difficulties.  He confirmed that for the scheme to work the Volunteer would need sufficient support and advice from a regular Community Warden.

(d)       A report would be submitted to a future meeting of this Cabinet Committee on the outcome of the Pilot.

(e)       A robust approach would be taken with regards recruitment as the volunteers would be wearing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport on the proposed decision to give approval to the preliminary design scheme for Willington Street Maidstone A274 Sutton Road junction & Willington Street Maidstone A20 Ashford Road junction for development control and land charge disclosures.

1.            The Deputy Director Highways Transport and Waste, Mr Read, introduced the report on the improvement scheme to widen the Willington Street Junction. The overall estimated scheme cost was £1.8 million.  The allocation from the Local Growth Fund was £1.3 million.  The remaining £500k was available from Section 106 Local Developer contributions. The Scheme information had been submitted to Government, to confirm the £1.3 million Local Growth Fund allocation to the Willington Street Junction improvement Scheme as recommended by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership Accountability Board.

2.            Mr Read noted comments and responded to questions by Members as follows:-

a)    This was a very welcomed report.  This area was notoriously conjected with traffic and any widening of this road was welcomed.

b)    Mr Chittenden advised that this was one of many items from the Integrated Plan which had been agreed by Maidstone Borough Council and the Joint Transport Board.  He considered this the only sensible route South of Maidstone.

3.            Resolved that:-

(a)    the comments and responses to questions by Members be noted; and

(b)    the Cabinet Committee endorsed the proposed decision to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport to:

i)     approve the preliminary design scheme for Willington Street Maidstone A274 Sutton Road junction & Willington Street Maidstone A20 Ashford Road junction for development control and land charge disclosures;

ii)    give approval to progress all statutory approvals or consents required for the scheme ;

iii)   give approval to enter into Local Growth Fund funding agreement subject to the approval of the Corporate Director of Finance & Procurement, and

iv)   give approval to enter into construction contracts as necessary for the delivery of the scheme subject to the approval of the Procurement Board to the recommended procurement strategy.                                                                                                     

To receive a report by the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transportation and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport on the proposed decision to approve consultation on a range of measures (bus service changes) required to reduce KCC expenditure on supported bus services.

1.            The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, introduced a report that sought the Cabinet Committees endorsement for a consultation to take place on a range of measures required to reduce KCC expenditure on supported bus services as set out in Appendix A of the report.  A further report would be submitted to this Cabinet Committee detailing the responses of the consultation and any necessary proposals to a future meeting.

2.            Mr Balfour praised the work of the Head of Public Transport, Mr Lightowler and his Team to achieve the savings and reduce the impact on those that use the bus services.

3.            Mr Balfour and Mr Lightowler noted comments and responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    A comment was that the consultation did not allow for the consultee to be against the issue in their answers.

b)    Mr Baldock advised that there had been a noticeable impact on the residents in his electoral area.  Mr Lightowler said that there had been minimal impact on users of the bus services.  If there were a lot of complaints the Corporate Director would have seen them.

c)    Mr Chittenden commented that when services were cut there must be an effect on people who use the service and he hoped that the bus routes least used were those affected.  He praised the timely bus services in this electoral area and considered that there was still a need to reduce the number of cars on the road.

d)    A comment was made that the figures within the report and appendix did not tally and needed to be revised. Mr Lightowler agreed to address the figures in the report and appendix.  He explained that the Operators Grant portion of full duty was 25 pence per litre.  The Department for Transport (DfT) paid a fixed sum.  The officers recalculated the figures and found that this generated a surplus of £250,000.  Members noted that there was an agreement that as long as the surplus could be reinvested into public transport this would be signed off by the DfT. 

e)    Mr Balfour advised that most other Local Authorities had ceased to provide supported bus services.  KCC’s aim was to ensure the revisions to the existing service allowed it to operate commercially.

f)     Mr Lightowler advised that he had worked hard on the EQIA  whether deprivation was considered would have depended on the data that came back on the usage and deprivation may not have been as high .  He referred to Stage Coach in Folkestone having a strong commercial network.

g)     Agreement was given to a request for a report on “Supported bus services” being submitted to a future meeting of the Cabinet Committee outside of the consultation.

4.            RESOLVED that:-

(a)  the comments and questions by Members be noted; and

(b)  the Cabinet Committee endorsed the decision to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport on the proposed decision to approve consultation on a range of measures (bus service changes) required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

To receive a report by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport seekingapproval on the delivery of the ‘Low Carbon across the South East’ (LOCASE) project funded via European Regional Development Funds which will aim to support businesses across the South East Local Enterprise Partnership to improve their energy efficiency.

1.            The Sustainable Business Programme Manager and Head of Sustainable Business and Communities, Mrs McKenzie, introduced a report that sought approval for the delivery of the Low Carbon across South East (LOCASE) project funded via European Regional Development Funds.  She advised that the project’s value was £18 million and was an accessible business support programme across the SELEP area, providing grants to small businesses.

2.            Mrs McKenzie responded to questions by Members as follows:-

a)    Mrs McKenzie advised that the usage of water did not within this funding.  She gave examples of how the funding could be used by a business eg a feasibility study, an audit, marketing, relocation etc to increase its efficiency in low carbon.

b)    Mrs McKenzie was able to forward a list of companies to Members that had received support in the last round of funding.  She explained that her Team provided generic advice and had procured a framework of suppliers to give to businesses. 

c)    There would be a strict criteria followed before funding a business.  The businesses were assessed by the Sustainable Business Team then by the Funding Panel. 

d)    Mrs McKenzie explained that as part of the proposal for EU funding, KCC had agreed to contribute £134,377 in-kind match funding over three years of the project.  She was able to provide figures from the last round to Members outside the meeting.  Mrs McKenzie’s advised that her Team, over the three years, would bring in £18 million which was good value for money.  

e)    It was agreed that a report and appendix headed “European Funding Update” submitted to the Growth, Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee on 3 March 2016   be forwarded to Members. This report indicated that, based on the projects already approved and others in the course of being evaluated, over £45 million in EU funding was likely to have been secured by Kent by the end of the first quarter of 2016 in support of its priorities.

f)     Members were assured that no funding would be forwarded to the successful businesses that applied for funding until the EU grant funding was banked and receipts from the businesses were received. 

g)    Mrs McKenzie concluded that the funding was secured until 2020 regardless of the outcome of the European Referendum.

3.            RESOLVED that:-

(a)   the responses to questions by Members be noted; and

(b)   the Cabinet Committee endorsed the decision to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport on the proposed decision to approve the delivery of the Low Carbon across the South East as detailed in appendix A of the report.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on the proposed decision to direct Highways, Transportation & Waste  to lead on a programme of workshops, to consider  the devolution of soft landscape services.

1.            The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group, Mr Pearman, introduced a report that set out the work undertaken by the Member Task and Finish Group set up to review the options for the future commissioning of the soft landscape works service.

2.            Mr Pearman thanked the Members of the Task and Finish Group; Mr Caller, Mr Whybrow, Mr Chittenden, Mr Baldock and Mr Brazier, for all their work on this matter.  He advised that the Group concluded that their preferred approach was Option 3Devolve to Local Councils.

3.            Mr Diplock explained that a series of workshops would be set up to consider devolution of the service to local councils and determine the level of interest.  This work would be carried out in conjunction with the Kent Associations of Local Councils.

4.            Mr Balfour also thanked the Task and Finish Group and considered that the local authority should be heavily involved in this.

5.            Mr Pearman, Mr Balfour and Mr Diplock responded points raised by Members as follows:

a)    Some Members applauded the recommendation by the Task and Finish Group.

b)    A comment was made that borough councils also had to make financial savings and there may be issues with devolving the soft landscape works service in the future.

6.            RESOLVED that responses to questions by Members; and support be given to the recommendation by the Task and Finish Group set out in the report be noted.

To receive a report by the Cabinet Member, Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport thatupdates Members on the work undertaken  to date with Maidstone BC in seeking to agree a realistic and deliverable transport strategy. Despite KCC’s efforts, the draft ITS produced by Maidstone BC does not reflect KCC’s position so  the paper explains why an objection should be raised by KCC  on account of the unacceptably severe impact on the highway network evidenced by the traffic modelling work jointly commissioned by KCC and MBC.

1.            The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, introduced a report that explained the work undertaken to date with Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) in seeking to agree a realistic and deliverable Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS), as part of the Maidstone Local Plan.  He reported that the draft Integrated Transport Strategy produced by MBC;  and to which a response was necessary, did not reflect KCC’s position.

2.            Mr Balfour believed that work could still be done jointly between MBC and KCC to ensure that an improved document was produced in the future and therefore work continued to be undertaken to remedy the problems highlighted in the report and to secure a robust Local Plan for Maidstone Borough Council.

3.            The Head of Highway Transport, Mr Read, reported that MBC were undertaking a regulation 19 consultation on their draft Local Plan which included the draft integrated transport strategy to which Mr Balfour had referred in his introduction.  He informed members that the ITS had been produced by MBC unilaterally, despite the fact that it should be a jointly produced document and that as a result it did not reflect KCC’s position.  Furthermore, it did not reflect the position of the local Joint Transportation Board as agreed at its meeting in December 2015.   Therefore it would be necessary to voice an objection to the document at this stage, and for the reasons set out, on account of the unacceptably severe impact on     the highway network.

4.                He continued; KCC had been working with MBC on the draft document for 5 years during which time the number of proposed new houses had risen from 10,000 to 18,560 and this had caused concern for KCC that the impact on the highway network would be unacceptably severe.  National planning guidance required the local highways authority, KCC, to produce evidence where it was believed that the impact of a plan or proposal on traffic congestion would be severe and in this case this was evidenced by the traffic modelling work jointly commissioned by KCC and MBC.

5.            The JTB had considered this evidence in July 2015, which estimated that without mitigating measures traffic delays in the town would rise by 40% as a result of the impact of the Local Plan. Mr Read stressed that the Strategy put forward by MBC did not include measures to successfully mitigate the impact of over 18k houses.   In addition, the modelling work had found that the most severe impacts would occur at the south and south-east approaches to the town and that a relief road connecting the A274 to the A20, around the villages of Leeds and Langley, was shown to be the best way of mitigating these identified pressures.  The JTB agreed that MBC and KCC should work towards an interim housing strategy to 2022 including lower housing numbers and pursue the provision of the relief road as described. 

6.            Despite representations reflecting the concerns and recommendations of KCC and the JTB as detailed in paragraph 5.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

To receive an update on the Cabinet Committee’s proposed work programme 2016.

RESOLVED that the work programme 2016 be noted.

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, Cabinet Member for Community Services and Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on strategic risks relating to the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee, in addition to two risks featuring on the Corporate Risk Register for which the Corporate Director is the designated ‘Risk Owner’.

1.            The Corporate Risk Manager, Mr Scrivener, introduced an annual report that contained strategic or cross cutting risks that potentially affect several functions across Growth, Environment and Transport directorate.  There were currently six directorate risks featured on the GET risk register none of which were rated “High”.  The Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport was also designated as the Lead for two corporate risks relating to CRR3 and CRR4.

2.            RESOLVED that the directorate risk register and relevant corporate risks outlined in appendices 1 and 2 be noted

To receive a report by the relevant Cabinet Members and Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport that shows progress made against targets set for Key Performance Indicators.

1.            The Business Intelligence Manager – Performance, Mr Fitzgerald, introduced a report on performance against targets for the Key Performances Indicators including this year’s Directorate Business Plan.  He highlighted that Highways and Transport had met all of its targets and Waste Landfill was also doing very well and although Kent Scientific Services had a good year it had not reached the income it had received in 2015.

2.            Mr Balfour advised that the Public Rights Of Way red indicator, on page 242 of the report, was due to a systems failure that had taken some time to correct.

3.                  RESOLVED that the report be noted.