Agenda and minutes

1.    The Chairman proposed that supporting documentation be no longer be printed in the agenda pack for the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee as it was available electronically and that printed copies be provided to Members only on request.

2.    RESOLVED that in future, supporting documentation be provided electronically and not printed in the agenda pack for the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee.  Printed copies would however be provided on request.

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

Apologies were received from Mr P Messenger, Mr A Hook, Mr R Love and Mr A Booth. Mr G Cooke, Mr R Bird, Mr D Brazier and Mrs R Binks attended as substitutes 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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting on 28 November 2019 are a correct record and that they be signed by the Chairman subject to the removal of minute 125.3 (Declaration of interest).

1.    Mr M Hill (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services) gave a verbal update on the following issues:

Accuracy of Kent Police Crime Recording:

Kent Police’s crime-recording arrangements that had previously been graded as inadequate had recently undergone inspection from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and were rated as outstanding. Mr Hill said that he written to the Chief Constable to congratulate Kent Police on behalf of Kent County Council.

Update of the Preparations for Brexit:

Within Mr Hill’s portfolio, the two areas that would sustain the greatest impact as a result of Brexit would be the Emergency Planning Service and Trading Standards.

The Emergency Planning Service had been engaged in developing plans for the multi-agency Kent Resilience Forum and the operational plan had been trialled with further training exercises planned for February and March 2019. The existing mutual aid arrangements with the seven South East authorities were also in the process of being revised. Training in multiagency response and recovery had also been arranged for Duty Directors, Managers and other staff; and a command rota was being developed to cover Kent County Councils response over a six-month period and based on a 24/7-hour response rate. Kent County Council was also leading on its multiagency communications planning and an internal communications plan was being developed to raise staff awareness. Across the directorate, a resilience group had also been established and this would meet monthly with regular progress and monitoring reports. Kent County Council was also reviewing its business continuity plans and had set up a number of workshops which were also being held for Challenger and Environment Planning and Enforcement staff.

The Trading Standards Service which was the area most affected by Brexit was undertaking recruitment for additional border force staff. Brexit may require multi-port operational activities which would have detrimental effect on the Council’s resources.

2.    Mr M Whiting (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) gave a verbal update on the following issues:

Update of the Preparations for Brexit:

Kent County Council had been awarded £29 million of capital grant funding from the Transport Secretary to begin construction on road improvements and infrastructure in preparation for leaving the EU on 29 March 2020. This included work at Manston Airport, a new TAP outside Dover on the A256 and work on the A249, A25 and A20 amongst others. Additional funding was also anticipated for the operational resources to support the work which would be granted following the finalisation of the Traffic Management and Enforcement Compliance Plans as part of the multiagency work within the Kent Resilience Forum.

Manston Airport Trial:

The Manston trial took place on 7 January 2019 in preparation for operation Brock. The purpose of the trial was to test the proposed entry and exit points of the site, the release rate of the Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs) and the time it took for the vehicles to travel from Manston to the Port of Dover, via the to the port  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

To discuss and comment on the proposed Kent County Council response to the consultation.

Katie Pettit (Principle Transport Planner) and Joe Ratcliffe (Transport Strategy Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Ms Pettit introduced the report which set out Kent County Council’s proposed response to Gatwick Airport’s consultation on it’s draft Master Plan 2018, which closed on 10 January 2019. Ms Pettit set out the three scenarios suggested by Gatwick to support the airports growth, Kent County Council’s opposition to the proposed expansion and invited Members comments for inclusion within the response that would be sent to Gatwick.

2.    Mr Balfour welcomed comments and questions from the Committee:

(a)  Mr Lake (Member for Sevenoaks Rural South) was invited to speak.  Mr Lake commended the report and endorsed the response from Kent County Council. Two points of concern however included the negative impact of air pollution as a result of Gatwick’s proposed expansion and the congestion of traffic on the M25 motorway to Gatwick.

(b)  Mr Bird welcomed the report, however, requested that strengthened wording be included within the response that highlighted the necessity of improved railway connections into Gatwick.

(c)   Members echoed the concerns raised and commended the officers report.

3.    RESOLVED that the proposed Kent County Council response to the consultation be endorsed subject to the inclusion of a strengthened proposal regarding rail connections into Gatwick.

To note the progress of establishing a Sub-national Transport Body, Transport for the South East, and the forthcoming informal engagement with Kent County Council in early 2019, before a formal consultation in summer 2019, a response to which will be brought to Cabinet Committee in July.

Joe Ratcliffe (Transport Strategy Manager) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Payne introduced the report which outlined the proposed establishment of a Sub-national Transport Body (STB) for the South East; Transport for the South East (TfSE), which if approved by Government, would have statutory powers post 2020.

2.    Mr Ratcliffe advised the Committee that the purpose of the report was to ensure that Members were made aware of the forthcoming consultation on the proposal that would be submitted by TfSE to Government and that Members would have an opportunity to view the response following the consultation at the Committee in July 2019.

3.    The Mr Payne and Mr Ratcliffe responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following: -

(a)  In response to Members request to include data collation and publication within the list of statutory powers proposed by the TfSE, Mr Payne said that the powers that had been reviewed and investigated for inclusion within the current stage of the proposal were those which were deemed acceptable for submission to Government.

(b)  With regard to whether the transport body was self-contained, Mr Payne assured the Committee that the proposed establishment of an STB was a result of the South East 7 (SE7) councils that sought to establish connectivity through the South East and other southern areas of Britain to Berkshire. The list within the report deliberately failed to mention Essex and East Anglia whom may in future years establish its own equivalent to a strategic Sub-national Transport Body.

(c)   Mr Payne assured Members that the TfSE would be operating inline with existing highways authorities and said that there was no intention to interfere with funding or work being managed at a local level.

4.    RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To comment and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the recommendation to introduce disposal charges for soil, rubble, hardcore and plasterboard at the KCC HWRCs, with charges and limits as follows:

·         Soil, rubble and hardcore: £4 per bag (or part bag)/ item (a bag being up to the size of a standard black sack); 

·         Plasterboard: £6 per bag (or part bag)/ sheet (a bag being up to the size of a standard black sack); and

·         A daily limit on soil, rubble and hardcore, of a maximum of 5 bags/ items per day

David Beaver (Head of Waste Management and Business services) and Hannah Allard (Waste Business Development Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr D Beaver introduced the report which set out the findings of the consultation and the recommended proposed changes to Kent County Council’s operating policy to adopt charging for non-household waste materials at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs). Mr Beaver highlighted to Members that the current waste infrastructure would not cope with the anticipated levels of waste growth as a result of forecasted population increase and therefore, the recommended policy changes aimed to reduce demand on site, create revenue streams and create clearer intelligence that would enable more successful enforcement against individuals defrauding the Authority through illegal disposal of trade and commercial waste.

2.    Ms H Allard drew Members attention to the results of the public consultation (set out within the report) and the key concerns from the public regarding the proposal to introduce charging at HWRCs. The most common concern cited by the consultation was the perception of increased fly-tippng, however, Ms Allard confirmed that there was no significant evidence which suggested charging at HWRCs impacted on this. Out of the authorities that had introduced charging, twelve had seen no impact or minimal impact and four said they had seen an increase; however, this was inline with national trends.

3.    Mr S Jones (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) informed the Committee that the list on page 77 of the agenda pack had been revised since its publication and that garden ornaments (clay and concrete) should not have been listed within the table of chargeable waste materials.

4.    The officers then responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following: -

(a)  Mr Beaver assured Members that communication and training for HWRC staff was key. Following comments received as part of the public consultation, the KCC Waste Management Officers amended the policy to include staff discretion around the charging of waste disposal.

(b)  In response to concerns regarding fly-tipping as a result of charging at HWRCs, Mr Beaver informed the Committee that his role as an officer was to present the facts as they were received and provide Members with the opportunity to resolve the operational issues that Kent County Council faced during a time of unprecedented change. Mr Beaver referred to neighbouring authorities that took the decision to prohibit their residents from depositing soil, rubble, hardcore and plasterboard and agreed that if Kent had adopted the same approach, fly-tipping may have been an issue. However, Members of the Council were clear that they wanted to protect the network and wanted to continue to provide services to the public. As alluded to previously, the evidence did not support that charging at HWRCs would negatively impact on fly-tipping.

(c)   With regards to how fly-tipping is measured, Mr Beaver confirmed that it was measured via the number of incidents, not the weight in tonnage.

(d)  Members commended the work of the officers and the cross-party  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

To comment and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on:

(i)            the Asset Management strategy documents that, once formally adopted and published, will form the basis of evidencing a Band 3 Incentive Fund rating and secure Department for Transport capital funding of £4.6m in 2019/20; and

(ii)          the proposed Service Level Risk Assessments which record our current approach to highway maintenance and associated risks which, once formally adopted and published, will complete our initial implementation of the new Code of Practice. In turn this supports KCC ability to put forward a special defence in accordance with S58 of the Highways Act.

Andrew Loosemore (Head of Highways Asset Management), Alan Casson (Strategic Asset Manager) and David Latham (Highway Policy and Inspections Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Loosemore introduced the report which set out the proposal to adopt and publish two key asset management strategy documents which would enable the Council to evidence a Band 3 Incentive Fund rating and maximise Department for Transport (DfT) capital funding for 2019/20. He also introduced a document containing proposed Service Level Risk Assessments to complete our initial implementation of the new Well Managed Highway Infrastructure Code of Practice and support KCC’s ability to defend claims.

2.    The officers then responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following: -

(a)  With regard to the maintenance of footways, specifically in relation to over-crowded residential parking and the damage caused by utility companies, Mr Balfour (Chairman) informed the Committee that the Kent Design Guide was under review and that the comments received from Members had been noted by the officers.

(b)  In response to concerns regarding flooding and drainage, Mr Loosemore said this was managed through a risk-based approach and resources were deployed using a prioritised order. In terms of residential areas of flooding, the drainage team would adopt a reactive cleansing approach based on reports received from the general public and the routine highways safety inspections. However, the strategic network which caused greater risk to property owners, road users and residents required a proactive, systematic approach.  The drainage team had also introduced a new structure with six additional engineers, a new team leader and a new technical support officer, all of whom would be responsible for carrying out routine work and finding innovative solutions to recurring drainage problems.

(c)  Members commended the report and the work of the officers.

3.    RESOLVED that the proposed decision (18/00068) to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Planning, highways, Transport and Waste on:

(a)  the Asset Management strategy documents that, once formally adopted and published, will form the basis of evidencing a Band 3 Incentive Fund rating and secure Department for Transport capital funding of £4.6m in 2019/20; and

(b)  the proposed Service Level Risk Assessments which record our current approach to highway maintenance and associated risks which, once formally adopted and published, will complete our initial implementation of the new Code of Practice. In turn this supports KCC ability to put forward a special defence in accordance with S58 of the Highways Act,

be endorsed.

To consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste to agree to the implementation of changes to selected bus services in Thanet and Sevenoaks effective from April 2019.

Mr Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr P Lightowler introduced the report which set out the proposed changes, the consultation outcomes and the recommendations for changes to the Thanet and Sevenoaks bus services that were provisionally planned for implementation from 1 April 2019.

2.    Mr Balfour welcomed comments and questions from the Committee regarding the proposed changes to the Sevenoaks bus service:

(a)  Mr Lake (Member for Sevenoaks Rural South) was invited to speak.  Mr Lake requested that the proposed changes to remove the earlier and later 404 bus services from Sevenoaks to Edenbridge be reviewed due to the negative impact that this would have on school children and commuters.

b)    Mr Rayner (Member for Malling West) sought agreement to use his Combined Members Grant with additional contributions from neighbouring parishes to fund a replacement bus service for Sevenoaks.

3.    Mr Lightowler responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following: -

(a)  In response to Mr Lake’s concerns regarding the proposed withdrawal of the 6:00pm service, Mr Lightowler confirmed that the Go Coach operator and Kent County Council had deployed inspectors to travel on the Sevenoaks route to determine the number of regular users who were reliant on the 6:00pm service. The outcome of the inspections did not support the need for a 6:00pm commuter journey. With regards to the bus operator’s ability to manage increased demand as a result of school expansions, Mr Lightowler informed the Committee that major expansions were planned of the Sevenoaks schools and there were plans to review the future bus network.  He said that Kent County Council as the Public Transport Body would be meeting with bus operators, Trinity School and the Weald of Kent in the near future. Mr Lightowler acknowledged that this information was not within the consultation proposal document, however, he wanted to assure Members of the Committee that a separate piece of work which focused on the school network had commenced. Mr Lightowler agreed to liaise with Mr Lake outside of the Committee meeting.

(b)  In response to Mr Rayner’s suggestion, Mr Lightowler agreed to liaise with Mr Rayner and the Parish Council’s to determine whether a replacement bus service could be achieved using Combined Member Grants.

4.    Mr Balfour welcomed comments and questions from the Committee regarding the proposed changes to the Thanet bus service:

(a)  Mrs Binks (Member for Broadstairs) raised the following points:

·         The information within the report was incorrect as the number 56 bus service did not travel into Ramsgate,

·         whilst pleased that consultation resulted in the replacement service of the number 37 bus, Mrs Binks asked why the report failed to mention the two petitions and earlier public consultation meetings in relation to the 56 bus and why the offer made by residents to pay for the retention of the 56 service had not been followed up by officers; and

·         the proposed new route and timetable offered by the 37 bus service meant that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

To comment and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the revised Thanet Transport Strategy for subsequent consideration through the Thanet Local Plan examination process.

Tim Read (Head of Transportation) and James Wraight (Principle Transport and Development Planner) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Read introduced the report which provided an overview of the proposed changes to the revised draft Thanet District Transport Strategy and its progress to date and commended Mr Wraight, the responsible officer, for the work he had done.

2.    The officers then responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following: -

(a)  Mr Wraight said that in terms of the Bus Strategy, the purpose of the inner-circuit was to provide additional routes within the district using commercially viable bus services. The objective of the Thanet Transport Strategy was to support the proposed growth and identify where enhanced bus services could be provided on a commercial basis. In terms of the financial implications, it was anticipated that the necessary highway structure would be funded by development with no financial commitment expected from Kent County Council, however, Thanet District Council may impose a Community Infrastructure Levy for other elements highways infrastructure.

(b)  In response to concerns regarding Thanet District Council’s cycling schemes and how this may be incorporated into the Thanet Transport Strategy, Mr Wraight said that the strategy did not replace Thanet’s walking and cycling strategy, nor did the strategy contain a comprehensive list of all possible interventions that could happen within the Thanet area. The prime purpose of the Thanet Transport strategy was to clearly draw on the interventions, considered by Kent County Council, to be key in supporting planned growth.

(c)   Mr Wraight confirmed that the likely impact of growth on Brenley Corner had been determined using a separate modelling process, the results of which did not support the perception that Brenley Corner would incur significant impact. Due to the modest level of anticipated traffic impact from the Local Plan growth, it is expected that the Thanet Local Plan would not be required to produce a mitigation strategy at this junction.

(d)  Members paid tribute to the officers for their work and their continued transparency when presenting information to the Local Joint Transportation Board.

3.    RESOLVED that the proposed decision (18/00073) to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Planning, highways, Transport and Waste on the revised Thanet Transport Strategy for subsequent consideration through the Thanet Local Plan examination process, be endorsed.

The Environment & Transport Cabinet Committee are asked to:

(a)  NOTE the draft capital and revenue budgets and MTFP, including responses to consultation and government provisional settlement; and

(b)  SUGGEST any changes which should be made before the draft is presented to Cabinet on 28th January and full County Council on 14th February.

Mr K Tilson (Finance Business Partner for the GET directorate) was in attendance for this item.

1.       Mr Tilson introduced the report that was designed to accompany the Draft Budget Book 2019-22 published on 2 January 2019 and referred to the revenue savings and additional spend demands that were of particular interest to the Committee, as well as the new schemes being proposed for inclusion into the capital programme for 2019/20.

2.    RESOLVED that the draft capital and revenue budgets and Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP), including responses to consultation and government provisional settlement, be noted.

To consider and agree a work programme for 2019/20.

RESOLVED that the work programme be noted, subject to the inclusion of the following items:

(a)  Country Parks Management Report

(b)  Response from Government following the submission of the to the Sub-national Transport body proposal

To note the contents of the report.

Andrew Loosemore (Head of Highway Asset Management) and Kirstie Williams (Mid Kent Highways Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Ms Williams introduced the report that provided an overview of the Pothole Blitz contract and the controls in place to ensure the effective management of the contract. In terms of monitoring, the recent recruitment within the district teams amounted to 59 additional staff members whose prime responsibility was to monitor the progression of contracted works, a further three dedicated Clerks of Work were employed who were responsible for attending every construction site to ensure there were no defects. Kent County Council had also recently obtained the power to fine contractors if they breached street works permitting and as a result, an additional 12 staff members were employed to carry out ad-hoc inspections on street works. Ms Williams also highlighted to Members that the Pothole contract had delivered a substantial number of repairs across the district, including 54,000 individual potholes and over 267,000 square meters of larger patchwork repairs.

(a)  In response to the commissioning framework principles, Ms Williams said that Kent County Council, like other local authorities, would write conditions into their contracts which required them to meet employment laws.

2.    RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.