Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

Apologies for absence were received from Mr I Chittenden and Mr P Messenger.

Mr R Bird and Mr G Cooke attended as substitutes for Mr I Chittenden and Mr P Messenger 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.

1.    Mr Lewis declared an interest in the Kent County Council Bus Funding Review (Item 12) as a regular bus user.

2.    Mr Bird declared an interest in The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (item 14) and said that as a resident of Yalding in the Medway Valley he received first-hand experience of the flooding and this could be reflected within the discussion.

3.    Mr Balfour declared a pecuniary interest in the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (item 7) and said that he would leave the room for this item as one of the sites under consideration was owned by his relative.

To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2017 are a correct record and that they be signed by the chairman.

To note the verbal update from the Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services and the written update from the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste.

1.    Mr Hill (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services) announced that the Open Golf Championship would be returning to Sandwich in 2020. He said that the economic impact of the project would be significant for Kent. In 2011 the Open Golf Championship created £24m of direct economic benefit and a further £53m of indirect economic benefit and the event in 2020 was estimated to be 15% larger. Kent County Council and Dover District Council were working with the Department for Transport (DFT) and Network Rail on the Sandwich station infrastructure to support the event, and a decision would be taken shortly.

2.    Mr Hill said that the Kent Community Safety Partnership (KCSP) had held its annual Community Safety Conference on 7 November 2017 . The theme was protecting vulnerable people from organised crime and there were 187 people in attendance from various agencies.

3.    Mr Balfour (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) provided a written update to Members on the major roads programme; Kent County Councils response to the Highways England consultation on proposed improvements to junction 5 of the M2, lorry parking and the South East rail franchise.

4.    Mr Balfour also provided a verbal update on the Urban Grass, Shrubs and Hedges contract and advised Members that due to unforeseen circumstances Kent County Council was unable to fulfil the contract immediately. Officers were in discussion with Amey and Kent Commercial Services to try and find a solution.

Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) added that in order to begin soft landscaping work within communities in March 2018; a decision would be taken between the Cabinet Committee meeting held on 30 November 2017 and that held on 31 January 2018.

5.    The government had announced that it would withdraw from the court case regarding lorry storage at Standford and would begin the process of identifying a suitable site shortly.

6.    In response to questions, both the Cabinet Members and Officer provided the following information:

7.    Barbara Cooper (Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport) said that there had been no update on the bid made to the DCLG housing infrastructure fund.

8.   In relation to the Open Golf Championship, Mr Hill  confirmed that the Kent County Council contribution would be £250,000 and this would not be increased. There would be a further contribution of £100,000 from district councils involved. He defended the intention to provide the funds as reasonable and proportionate.

9.    In regards to the South East rail franchise, Mr Balfour expressed disappointment at the decision of the DFT to defer the new franchise award for a further 12 months and KCC would make representations to that effect to the DFT.

10. RESOLVED that the verbal updates be noted, with thanks.

To receive and note a report that shows progress made against targets for Key Performance Indicators.

Richard Fitzgerald (Business intelligence Manager – Performance) and Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) were in attendance for this item.

1.)    Mr Fitzgerald introduced the report which showed progress made against targets for Key Performance Indicators and referred, in particular, to the guidance notes at page 28 of the agenda pack and to the summary on page 29.

2.)  In response to questions the officers provided further information:

3.)  Mr Wilkin said that a capital bid had been submitted for funding to replace the concrete street light columns across Kent.

4.)  In regards to the Key Performance Indicator HT11c (Number of actual streetlight conversions since that start of the programme), Mr Wilkin confirmed that from March 2018 there would be a further 18,000 LED street lighting conversions to do. The initial stage had been quicker as conversions were concentrated within residential areas with the more complex columns left until last. All conversions were due to be completed by May 2019.

5.)  In regards to Waste recycled and composted at HWRC’s, Mr Wilkin said that there were cost implications for providers if they failed to deliver the provisions of the contract in full and that Kent County Council sought redress for those costs from the provider if they occurred.

6.)  Growth, Environment and Transport (GET) was committed to improving digital inclusion and to this end work was being undertaken in conjunction with Agilisys and Software providers.

7.)    Members commended work undertaken in relation to LED conversions, pothole repair ad recycling.

8.)    RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider and endorse, or to make recommendations to the Cabinet Member responsible for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan on the proposed decision to undertake public consultation on the ‘Minerals Sites Plan – Options 2017’ document and associated ‘Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report.’

Mr Oakford (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Commissioning and Public Health), Katie Stewart (Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement) and Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications) were in attendance for this item.

Mr Oakford advised Members that due to a declaration of interest made by Mr Balfour (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) he would present the report and would take the subsequent decision. Mr Balfour left the meeting.

1.    Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications introduced the report that provided an update on the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (KMWLP) 2013-30 adopted by Kent County Council in 2016. The KMWLP committed the Council to develop a Minerals and Waste Sites Plan, to identify suitable sites for minerals and waste management in Kent.

2.    Following the decision to agree the methodology by which sites would be assessed, a ‘call for sites’ had been issued and work progressed under four main streams:

                      i.        The Minerals Sites Plan

                    ii.        Waste Sites Plan

                   iii.        Associated partial review of the KMWLP (in respect of future requirements for waste management and mineral and waste safeguarding); and

                   iv.        The local development scheme (timetable)

3.    In respect of the Minerals Sites Plan, it was now considered timely and useful to seek local views on the minerals sites options as set out in the KMWLP 2013-30 Mineral Sites Plan Options Consultation Document November 2017  (appendix 1 to item 7 of the committee papers). To this end a public consultation would be held for a twelve week period between December 2017 and March 2018.

4.    In response to questions the officer provided further information:

5.    The process for identification of Silica sand sites was separate from the minerals plan and was clearly set out in the KMWLP.

6.    No dredging sites are proposed in the Site Options document.   None had been promoted during the ‘call for sites, suggesting no case of need.  In order for the Plan to be found sound and capable of adoption, it needed to be deliverable and justified and a willing landowner was crucial to this.  

7.    A Waste Site Plan identifying allocations for sites for waste management was no longer necessary following the implementation of a recent planning permission of significant new capacity at Kemsley. This would provide some 500,000 tonnes of the identified need of 562,000 tonnes. The requirement set out in the KMWLP would therefore need to be amended as part of the partial review.

8.    Mrs Thompson welcomed the views of Mr Payne and Ms Hamiltion, elected Members for Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells and those of the borough councillor represented by Ms Hamilton. She reminded Members that such views would be sought as part of the public consultation period after which the options would be reconsidered in light of any responses.

9.    In regards to the proposed timescale for the Partial Review of the KMWLP and the Mineral Site Options, a 12 week public consultation period was proposed that would run from December 2017 to March  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposed decision for Highways, Transportation and Waste to continue supporting local councils and ensure that opportunities remain available for the delivery of soft landscape services at a local level.  

Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) and (Andrew Loosemore (Head of Highways Asset Management) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Andrew Loosemore (Head of Highways Asset Management) introduced the report that looked at the work carried out by the Task and Finish Group that reviewed the future commissioning of the soft landscape works service. The Task and Finish Group explored the possible devolution of discretionary services to local councils; in particular those in relation to the urban grass, shrubs and hedges contract. In 2016 Highways Transport and Waste held a series of workshops with the local town and parish to councils; of the 49 parish Councils that initially expressed an interest, only 7 had agreed to undertake the work on behalf of Kent County Council. As a result Kent County Council was only able to devolve £11.7k and had £160k worth of work handed back. The recommendation of the report highlighted the closure of the Task and Finish Group however the opportunity would remain open to local councils to adopt work on behalf of Kent County Council.

2.    Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) said that most parishes did not wish to extend the line of communication; the benefit of work carried out at local levels was that parishes responded very quickly to the work required. In regards to financial benefits, due to the economic constraints, Kent County Council could not offer additional money to the parish or town councils. 

3.    The Chairman invited Mr Rayner to speak. He said that the parish prepared its budget in December and this did not correlate with the seminars held by Kent County Council and therefore the parishes did not know what was expected of them and did not have information regarding the quantum cuts.

4.    Mr Loosemore said that timetable was set around the completion of the Task and Finish Group and agreed that the proposition to parishes did not sit comfortably in line with the parish’s schedule. However the offer was open to all local councils over an extensive period of time and there were no expressions of interest made. Those that did come forward were given a quote for the amount of work required and the funding they would receive from the contract for undertaking that piece of work.

5.    RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste endorse the proposed decision for the Highways, Transportation and Waste team to continue supporting individual local councils who express an interest and to ensure that opportunities continue to remain available for the delivery of soft landscape service at local level.

To consider and endorse the principles of the draft Thanet Transport Strategy and confirm support for the initial public consultation exercise to be progressed as part of the Thanet Local Plan process.

Tim Read (Deputy Director for Highways, Transport and Waste) and James Wraight (Principle Transport and Development Planner) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Tim Read (Deputy Director for Highways, Transport and Waste) introduced the report that set out an overview of the draft Thanet District Transportation Strategy and its progress to date, including the future consultation and democratic process in relation to the emerging Thanet Local Plan. Mr Read said that the report asked Members to endorse the principles of the draft Thanet Transport Strategy and support the public consultation exercise.

2.    James Wraight (Principle Transport and Development Planner) said that the draft Thanet Transportation Strategy was jointly developed with Thanet District Council. The aim of the strategy was to encourage sustainable transport, manage journey time, improve resilience of the network and reduce the requirement to travel in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. The Strategy referred to the Inner-circuit improvement route that complimented the existing primary road network in Thanet and would provide enhanced access to rural communities via a socially viable bus service provision.

3.    In terms of infrastructure there was no financial obligation on Kent County Council to fund the infrastructure within the Transport Strategy. It would be largely funded by development and there was viability work carried out by Thanet District Council to assess the viability of the local plan which would then shape the final version of the Transport Strategy.

4.    The strategy would be presented to the Joint Transportation Board (JTB) and then to the District Council in January 2018.

5.    In regards to external funding, Thanet District Council submitted a £10m bid for housing infrastructure funding.

6.    In response to issues raised around Parkway, this was subject to its own planning application in 2018. Discussions had taken place with bus operators in relation to the inner-circuit route and how this would benefit resident’s within Thanet.

7.    RESOLVED that the Cabinet Members consider and endorse the principles of the draft Thanet Transport Strategy and support the initial public consultation exercise to be progressed as part of the Thanet Local Plan process, be endorsed.

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposed decision as attached at Appendix A to; give approval for awarding a two year extension with Amey until 31 August 2020; approve the procurement of the Road Asset Renewal Contract and delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport to approve the award of the subsequent contract to the preferred bidder; and, delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport to award extensions of the Road Asset Renewal Contract in accordance with the possible extension clauses within the contract.

Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) and Andrew Loosemore (Head of Highways Asset Management) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste)introduced the report that set out the proposal to extend the Highways Term Maintenance Contract with AMEY for a period of two years and to re-procure the Machine Resurfacing Contract. Mr Wilkin said that the proposed recommendation restored confidence that the current contract provided a balance of quality, innovation and cost.

2.    Andrew Loosemore (Head of Highways Asset Management)said that the contract commenced in 2015 and the Highways Maintenance team had undertaken a number of visits to other Local Authorities and worked with both Large and Small, Medium Enterprises (SME’s) to understand market engagement and what was available to Kent County Council. Three options were identified however based on the initial evaluation, option 3 was deemed to be the preferred delivery model.                           

3.    Mr Loosemore acknowledged and agreed to amend the typographic error in paragraph 7.2 of the report to read “Commencement of procurement – December 2017.”

4.    In response to questions the officers provided further information.

5.    Mr Wilkin agreed that there were performance concerns with Amey in 2015 and a recommendation was made at the time to Members of the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee, not to extend the existing contract of 5 years and put in place a 12 month extension. Since then its improvement has been evidenced through the quarterly performance reports. Mr Wilkin said that Amey had replaced its Senior Management team and had developed a culture of improvement through collaborative working.

6.    Mr Wilkin agreed that there was a need to look at how Members could be involved more widely with contracts. He advised Members that due to the procedural changes in government the commissioning process meant that contracts needed to go through a large number of Member Boards and Panels. For future commissions of such a nature it would be beneficial to have more informal meetings.

7.    In terms of contract management the division underwent a number of audits including contract management maturity examinations led by the Strategic Commissioner through the Budget Programme Delivery Board. The Board was satisfied that the division had the correct structure and personnel in place to effectively manage contracts and was seen as an exemplar of this however Mr Wilkin welcomed any scrutiny from Members.

8.    Barbara Cooper (Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport) advised Members that the Strategic Commissioner was part of the working group as well as finance and many others to ensure there was challenge from across Kent County Council. Mr Vincent Godfrey was part of this work and deliberately involved from the beginning.

9.    In response to a request for a more robust report, Mr Wilkin referred Members to the Appendix of the report which was the Commissioning Plan for the process and provided a lot of detail. The appendix summarised that whilst there was alterative models of delivery, option 3  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

To note and comment on the serious threat Ash Dieback poses to the environment and economy of Kent; and endorse the KCC approach outlined within the report.

Katie Stewart (Director of Environment, Planning and enforcement) and Tony Harwood (Principle resilience Officer, Resilience and Emergency Planning Service) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Katie Stewart (Director of Environment, Planning and enforcement)introduced the report that provided an update on the Ash Dieback impacts in Kent and the local responses to manage the outbreak. Ms Stewart referred Members to the Appendix within the background documents that provided an overview and scale of the problem. There was work undertaken on a Tree Strategy which was adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document and KCC had launched a Biosecurity: Animal and Plant Health e-learning to raise corporate awareness. In recognition of the potentially significant costs, Kent County Council submitted an ‘Expression of Interest’ however as it currently stood the Council had not incurred costs above the allocated threshold.

2.    RESOLVED that Cabinet Committee note the report and endorse the approach taken by Kent County Council approach to manage the impact of Ash Dieback.

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposals to use the current Socially Necessary Bus Service (SNBS) funding criteria to assess the future delivery of services and the timetable to go out to public consultation.

Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) and Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1. Mr Balfour introduced the report for Members which detailed proposals to utilise the current SNBS criteria to identify potential savings, necessary owing to target savings of £4million in this area between 2018 and 2020.  The proposals covered two elements of SNBS.  Firstly the need to consult the public about the use of the KCC criteria to determine subsidised  bus route and secondly to consult and then review those routes currently subsidised, to assess the continued need for those services and to identify potential savings;.  It was crucial that the view of the public, users, and other stakeholders were sought on both matters.
   
   
2. The Committee, Mr Balfour clarified, would be asked following consideration of the report, to endorse the proposal to consult publicly on those matters previously set out.  He acknowledged that at this stage the full details of all subsidised routes and timetables was not available but assured members that all of this information would be available as part of the consultation in order that those responding to it had all of the relevant information when making their comments
   
   
3. He further emphasised that no decision on services would be taken before the consultation and that the committee was asked only to consider the virtue of  consulting on these matters to assure that aby decisions in the future were properly informed and that the council’s non-statutory spending was put to the best use.
   
   
4. Finally, Mr Balfour assured members that work had begun to secure alternatives to subsidised bus routes, including community transport initiatives and that, as always, any reduction in services would be mitigated as fully as possible.

5. Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) advised Members that although contemplation of service reductions was never welcome, due to current financial pressures it was necessary.  It was therefore crucial that the potential impact of such reductions was understood and work undertaken to assess how they would be mitigated. The consultation would reveal whether the criteria adopted in the past were still relevant and would provide the correct template against which decisions would be taken in the future.

6. Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) said that the consultation would also provide operators with an opportunity to put forward alternative proposals of mitigation if contracts were likely to be withdrawn.

7. The matter was opened discussion; the following comments were made and responses from officers and the Cabinet Member received to questions put:

To endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport & Waste on the proposal for the  Director of Highways to progress feasibility work on B2163 Leeds & Langley Relief Road utilising section 106 developer contributions.

Tim Read (Deputy Director for Highways, Transport and Waste) was in attendance for this item.

1.     Barbara Cooper (Director for Growth, Environment and Transport) made sure all Members had received the letter from Maidstone Borough Council prior to the meeting and said that she would responded to various parts in the letter during the discussion.

2.     Tim Read (Deputy Director for Highways, Transport and Waste) introduced the report that provided an overview to the proposed Leeds and Langley Relief Road. It identified a programme for taking forward the preparatory work and proposed the use of section 106 developer contributions to progress traffic survey and modelling work in order to develop a draft business case to support future funding opportunities.

3.    In response to questions the officer provided further information.

4.    In regards to the Local Planners Report, the recommendations were not binding on the Highways Authority, they were there as guidance.

5.    In response to points raised within the Letter from Maidstone Brought Council, Mr Read said that Kent County Council gained independent legal advice from the Queens Counsel in 2016 regarding the use of monies from the 106 agreement. This guidance was presented to the inspector during the inquiry and was in common circulation. The money that was used was from three unilateral undertakings that affectively put no contractual or statutory obligation on Kent County Council as the Highways Planning Authority providing that the money was used in accordance with Kent County Councils public law and duties.

6.    In response to Members suggestion that the recommendation be re-worded, Mrs Cooper clarified that the Members advice to the Cabinet Member for Planning Highways Transport and Waste could be revised to read as follows:

“The Cabinet Committee is asked to endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposal for the Director of Highways to progress feasibility work on the B2163 Leeds and Langley Relief Road, as soon as possible and that the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport should make arrangements with the Chief executive of Maidstone Borough Council for the appropriate funding for this work.”

7.    Mrs Cooper said that she was happy to talk to the Chief Executive of Maidstone Borough Council to look at how Maidstone’s funding could be used to reduce the expenditure of unilateral monies.

8.    The Chairman clarified that Mr Bird had proposed and Mr Lewis had seconded that the recommendation within the report be amended.

Upon being put to the vote, this was lost (3 votes for, 13 votes against)

Mr R H Bird, Mr B H Lewis and Mr A Hook asked that their

votes against be minuted.

9.     The recommendation in the report was then put to the vote.

Carried (13 votes for, 3 votes against)

Mr R H Bird, Mr B H Lewis and Mr A Hook asked that their

votes against be minuted.

10.  RESOLVED that the decision proposed to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport & Waste on the proposed decision to adopt the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and to delegate to the Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement the authority to make any further modifications which may be necessary.

Max Tant (Flood and Water Manager) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Max Tant (Flood and Water Manager) introduced the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy that set out how local flooding (flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses) would be managed in the county over the next six years. The report presented the progress since the previous Local Strategy in 2013 and identified the challenges that still needed to be addressed to ensure effective local flood risk management.

2.    In response to questions the officer provided further information.

3.    Mr Tant advised Members that point 4.9 on page 213 of the agenda pack listed 6 catchment areas. Medway, Northeast Kent and Nailbourne Valley all contained objectives to deliver flood risk management actions, whereas Folkestone and Hythe, Tunbridge Wells and Sittingbourne contained objectives to explore opportunities for flood risk management. Mr Tant said that the final draft would include wording about the delivery of feasible measures should they be found from the exploratory work.

4.    In regards to flood risk management within the Isle of Sheppey, Mr Tant said that these were largely coastal and fluvial and therefore fell outside the remit of the strategy. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy was only looking at surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourse flooding. Coastal flooding and main river flooding were managed by the Environment Agency which is why the strategy did not make reference to the Isle of Sheppey. However the Medway Estuary and Swale Shoreline Strategy which was the Environment Agency’s proposal for the long term management of the shoreline did include the Isle of Sheppey and Kent County Council had had a report on this at eh most recent Flood Risk Management Committee, chaired by Mr Anthony Hills. The Environment Agency consulted with Natural England in developing this shoreline management strategy, in particular to the shoreline coastal path. . The shoreline management strategy is currently open to consultation (https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/ksles/medway-estuary-and-swale-strategy/).

5.    Mr Tant said that it would not be practical to have a single document that covered all the risks throughout Kent, but this had been considered. Kent County Council had four Shoreline Management Strategies, each was approximately 200 pages long, for each catchments areas there was a Catchment Management Plan, each approximately 200 pages long and therefore a combined document that contained all flood risk was not feasible. Instead Kent County Council created a document for each borough in Kent, called Flood Risk in Communities which set out the local flood risk across all sources, the bodies responsible for managing it and any strategic management plans (https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and-policies/environment-waste-and-planning-policies/flooding-and-drainage-policies/flood-risk-to-communities).

6.    In response to a question about Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in Deal, Mr Tant said that most of the housing developments that he was aware of were on the eastern side of the marshes where the discharge of water was appropriate. There was a recognised risk in regards to the costal defences however Mr Tant advised Members that this was an issue that the developers needed to discuss  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the decision to; publish revised fees and charges for discretionary planning and environmental advice, Development Consent Order (DCO) activity, and delegate authority to the Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement to review and publish revised fees and charges.

Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications Group) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications Group) introduced the report that looked at the proposed fees and charges for discretionary planning and environmental advice to developers and for those promoting national significant infrastructure projects via the Development Consent Order (DCO) process. The report also set out a number of key principles that were applied to establish the revised fees and charges.

2.    In response to questions the officer provided further information.

3.    Ms Thompson said that the hourly day rates set out on page 286 of the agenda pack reflected the level of experience and expertise of the advisors who would undertake the work. The work was traditionally carried out by the Councils Technical Support Team and not by the professional officers.

4.    In regards to cost, Ms Thompson assured Members that that due to the way in which the legislation was drafted, it was not possible to make a profit. Therefore the breakdown of costs shown in table 1 of the report on page 285 of the agenda pack was a true reflection of what it would have cost Kent County Council to deliver those services.

5.    RESOLVED that the proposed decision to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste to:

                      i.        publish revised fees and charges for discretionary planning and environmental advice and the DCO activity; and

                    ii.        delegate authority to the Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement to review and publish revised fees and charges subject to the application of a number of key principles as set out in paragraph 3.4

be endorsed.

To note the revenue and capital forecast variances from the budget for 2017-18 that are within the remit of this Cabinet Committee, based on the August monitoring reported to Cabinet on 30 October 2017.

Barbara Cooper (Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Barbara Cooper (Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport)introduced the Financial Monitoring Report 2017-2018 and referred to the report taken to Cabinet Committee on 30 October 2017 which set out each directorate’s budget for the year. The report showed an overspend of £500,000 for her directorate. Of the £163m a total of £132m went to Highways, Transport and Waste. Ms Cooper assured Members that the budget would return to a neutral position by March 2018.

2.    RESOLVED that the revenue and capital forecast variances for 2017-18 within the August monitoring report be noted.

To consider and agree a work programme for 2018.

Georgina Little (Democratic Service Officer) was in attendance for this item.

1.    The work programme was discussed and the following agreed:

(i)            Financial Monitoring – this would be a regular item

(ii)          Contract Management – this would be a regular item

(iii)         Highways Maintenance Contract  - Barbara Cooper to discuss with Roger Wilkin to confirm a date at the agenda setting meeting

(iv)         Low Emissions and Energy Strategy – Barbara Cooper to discuss with Karen McKenzie and confirm an appropriate date

RESOLVED that the work programme for 2018 be agreed.