Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Porter. Mrs Roots attended as the designated substitute.

No declarations of interest were received.

1. A Member referred to page 8, item J, concerning potholes and noted that it had been confirmed that the relevant dataset had been collected. The Member recalled that it had been agreed that this information would be reported regularly to the committee and requested that this be reflected in the minutes.

2.The Member also referred to page 20, item 3, and advised that they had recommended the proposal. However, they acknowledged that the webcast did not clearly evidence this and accepted that the minutes would likely need to remain as drafted in that respect.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held 5 May 2026 were a correct record and that a paper copy be signed by the Chair

Richard Palmer (Cabinet Member for Communities and Regulatory Services), Jamie Henderson (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health), David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) Provided an update on the Following:

1.Mr Wimble discussed the following aspects:

a)    Updated on the current state of broadband and mobile connectivity across Kent. Members were informed that ongoing work to improve the overall digital infrastructure of Kent and address gaps in coverage were underway.

b)    Members were informed that the recently launched Invest Kent service was to be used to showcase investment opportunities across the county and attract potential investors.

c)    The Cabinet Member had recently represented Kent at the Straits Committee in The Hague. Discussions had focused on opportunities to introduce automated agricultural technology and encourage Dutch investment into Kent. It was reported that these discussions had been followed by a productive meeting with the Dutch Ambassador to explore potential joint working opportunities further.

d)    The committee was advised that support for local businesses had remained a priority. The Kent and Medway Business Fund (KMBF) had continued to help with new commercial developments and small businesses across the region. The Growth Hub had supported almost 500 businesses since April, providing advice and assistance to help businesses grow, adapt to changing circumstances and create employment opportunities.

e)    Members were informed that the Skills Bootcamps programme had continued delivering positive outcomes through the investment of £1.5 million and had created approximately 430 training places across a range of key sectors.

f)      Highlighted the in-house delivery of the Visit Kent and Invest Kent services. Members were advised that, despite operating with a reduced team of six officers compared with more than 25 officers previously, the service had performed beyond expectations.

2. Mr Henderson delivered the following update:

a)    The Cabinet Member provided an update on continuing works related to water security and resilience across Kent. Members were informed that, following further county-wide water supply issues experienced in May, Kent County Council was taking steps to strengthen collaboration between relevant organisations and stakeholders.

b)    Members were advised that the first meeting of the partnership was scheduled to take place on 8 October and would bring together key stakeholders to consider evidence, identify priorities and develop a coordinated approach to improving water resilience across Kent.

c)    Updated on work to strengthen Kent's resilience to future water supply challenges and the impacts of climate change. Members were informed that Kent County Council had secured £170,000 in funding through the European Union flagship Pathways to Resilience programme. The funding would support the development of the Kent Water Resilience Partnership and contribute to the preparation of the Kent Water Strategy, which was currently being developed.

d)    Provided an update on works being undertaken to tackle fly-tipping and improve waste management outcomes across Kent. Members were informed of the forthcoming engagement with stakeholders to identify practical solutions to the issue.

e)    Highlighted that a significant archaeological discovery  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Matt Wagner, Interim Chief Analyst; and Simon Jones, Corporate Director for Growth, Environment &Transport were in attendance for this item

1)    Mr Wagner introduced the report and explained that the report represented the year-end position for the 2025/26 financial year and that the accompanying cover report was included within the reports pack, aspects discussed were:

a)    Of the 41 key performance indicators, 32 key performance indicators had achieved their target and were rated green.

b)    Six key performance indicators were rated amber, indicating that performance was above the minimum standard required but had not met the target necessary to achieve a green rating.

c)    Three key performance indicators were rated red, indicating that performance was below the minimum standard required. The following further information on these Red KPIs was included.

d)    KPI ‘number of people supported to access employment by the Connect2WorkProgramme’. Although the formal KPI was not achieved, the Kent and        Medway programme remained among the top five delivery areas nationally (out   of 41) for referrals, programme starts and job outcomes. Performance had improved, with starts in April 2026 exceeding the monthly target, and this level of performance was expected to continue.

e)    ‘Highways inquiries requiring a response that are responded to within 28 days’ Performance declined in the final quarter of 2025/26 due to exceptionally high enquiry volumes. Services prioritised urgent enquiries and continued to monitor performance through monthly management meetings. A further red KPI related to ‘attendance at emergency highways incidents within two hours.

f)      It was reported that a high number of concurrent incidents between January and March resulted in performance falling two to three percentage points below the required standard each month. Members were advised that the new highways term maintenance contract had commenced in May 2026 and that the contractor was working with the Council to improve performance. Overall, 32 of the 41 KPIs (78%) were rated green, six were rated amber and three were rated red.

2. Members discussed the following aspects of the update:

a)    Members raised concerns on the current response times (HT02) and emergency incidents (HT08) trajectories within the report. The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport explained that the new contractor was now in place and that a number of embedding aspects were solidified to ensure overall improvements occur and preparation for Winter was underway.

b)    Officers reported that significant work was being undertaken through the new highways term maintenance contract to strengthen performance management and ensure a more proactive approach to operational delivery. Members were advised that a detailed report on the planned improvements could be brought to a future meeting following discussions with the Cabinet Member.

c)    Members suggested that, in future, all red-rated Key Performance Indicators (KPI) be accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for underperformance and the actions being taken to address this to support the Committee’s consideration.

d)    In response to questions regarding a reduction (DC08) in performance against the Section 106 funding KPI to 89.7% in March 2026,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects) and Alex Riley (Programme Manager-Sectors & Economic Partnerships) were in attendance

1: The Cabinet Member discussed the following:

a)    Introduced a report and the seeking of support for the continuation of the in-house delivery model for the Visit Kent and Invest Kent services through the Growth and Communities team. Members were advised that the services had played an important role in attracting visitors, businesses and investment to Kent and Medway, supporting economic growth, job creation and the local economy.

b)    Kent's visitor economy was worth approximately £4.1 billion annually, supporting more than 82,000 jobs across around 6,000 businesses. The Committee was informed that, following the closure of Visit Kent and Locate in Kent in 2025, Kent County Council and Medway Council had acted quickly to bring the services in-house and ensure continuity of delivery.

c)     It was reported that, despite operating with a team of six officers compared with more than 25 staff previously, the service had successfully stabilised delivery, rebuilt key relationships and raised the profile of Kent and Medway among visitors, investors and businesses and the service demonstrated the effectiveness of the in-house model and the commitment of the staff involved.

2: Members discussed the following:

a)    Concern was expressed regarding the closure of a previous attraction and the impact this had on local visitors and the wider visitor economy.

b)    The committee recognised the value of the visitor economy and the importance of continued support from the Council to assist its development and long-term success. Members expressed their support for the project.

c)    Questions were raised regarding the suitability and sustainability of the proposed operating model in the short to medium term, particularly should Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) be delayed.

d)    Officers responded that a new operating model had been established to maintain county-wide investment promotion and visitor economy functions. The officer outlined progress made to date and the approach being taken to ensure the services could demonstrate value and remain adaptable in the context of local government reorganisation.

e)    LGR had presented challenges for any county-wide service operating without a strategic authority and noted that longer-term arrangements would need to be considered as governance structures evolved.

f)      Members sought assurances regarding the performance management framework for the service, including the monitoring reports, key performance indicators (KPI) and value for money assessments that would be used to evaluate delivery and effectiveness.

g)    In response, officers outlined the proposed approach for the Invest Kent and Visit Kent functions, including arrangements for performance management, sector prioritisation and alignment with Kent and Medway's emerging economic growth strategy. Officers explained how the upcoming Growth Plan would drive a targeted approach.

h)    Members highlighted the KCC £1.27 million contribution in the past and queried if avenues of ‘leveraging ‘were being explored and the benefits to KCC.

i)      Officers advised that the service had successfully secured approximately £150,000 of leveraged funding during its first six months of operation. Additionally, the officer expanded upon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director for Growth and Communities) and Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications Group) were in attendance for the item:

1. The Cabinet Member presented the following:   

a)    Introduced the report and explained that Kent County Council, in its role as the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA), had a statutory responsibility to ensure that an adequate and sustainable supply of minerals was available to meet local and national needs. Members were advised that this responsibility was set out through national planning policy and the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which had been adopted in the previous year.

b)    The report provided an update on progress in preparing the Kent Minerals Sites Plan and sought Members’ comments on the pre-submission draft before it was considered by the County Council as part of the next stage of the statutory process.

c)    Members were advised that the subject matter was technical and complex, as reflected in the detailed report, supporting appendices and background documents. Further presentations had been provided by officers to outline the key considerations arising from the draft plan and to support Members’ understanding of the issues under consideration.

d)    The supporting officer discussed the current shortfall in hard rock (Kentish Ragstone) supply, nominated sites and the extension of the hermitage quarry and proposed extraction.

e)    The supporting officer highlighted the significant public interest in support and objections to the proposed hard rock allocation as an extension to Hermitage Quarry.   The site was discussed and how allocations would need to satisfy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) criteria. The officer discussed the policy test for ancient woodland and the associated wholly exceptional reasons and suitable compensation strategy, and other mitigation proposed. measures

f)      Acknowledged that the Hermitage quarry site was contentious, but the detailed assessment had satisfied the exceptional reasons for the endeavour and that a suitable compensation strategy existed to meet national and local planning policies.

g)    Mitigation and compensation measures would encompass woodland replanting, enhanced buffers and ecological enhancements. Additional discussion highlighted the identified 20 million tonne shortfall in ragstone, the protection of a number of UNESCO buildings throughout the United Kingdom and that there had been no identified indigenous alternative available.

h)    Sustainability benefits of a local supply and the practical deliverability of extending existing quarry infrastructures. The wider socio-economic values were discussed, and the role Gallagher Aggregates plays to the overall Kent community, in terms of project support, job creation and annual turnover to the local economy (£235 million for 2024-25).

i)      Raised the topic of the site continuing to contribute to waste management and recycling in Kent and the development of light aggregates to be used for verging materials and drainage support.

j)      Highlighted the compensation strategy, explained that the proposed biodiversity and habitat enhancement measures associated with the mineral working would be delivered through the translocation and management of soils from affected areas of the site.

k)    Members were advised that, as quarrying progressed, existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Helen Rowe (Interim Head of Highways-Virtually) and Robin Hadley (Soft Landscape Asset Manager) were in attendance for the item:

1.The Cabinet Member discussed the following:

a)    The report sought approval to procure new contracts for the maintenance of urban grass, shrubs and hedges on the highway network. The officer explained that the existing contracts would expire on 28 February 2027 and could not be extended further without exceeding their approved financial limits.

b)    Members noted the importance of maintaining effective vegetation management on the highway network and welcomed the proposed arrangements to secure the continued delivery of the service.

2. Members discussed the following points:

a)    A Member expressed concerns regarding the timing of the proposed procurement arrangements in light of forthcoming Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) proposals. Suggestions were made that it would have been more beneficial to wait for a future Council(s) boundary model to deliver procurement around.

b)    Officers acknowledged the concern and disclosed that a number of contract clauses had been incorporated to address with LGR directly. Additional aspects on having a contract in place for March 2027, and contract provisions to modify, adapt and change to potential boundaries were raised.

c)    Members were advised that, in addition to the proposed two-lot model, the contract documentation would include alternative pricing mechanisms and explained that the intention was to build as much flexibility as possible into the procurement process to ensure that the Council could respond to future changes in service requirements and organisational arrangements.

d)    Officers further discussed that the tender stage had not yet begun although this was due to occur shortly. Final tenders would target the back end of the year although managing the function around LGR would be a complex endeavour.

e)    In response to questions raised verge management, officers advised that the current specification enabled selected urban verges to be converted to pollinator-friendly verges where appropriate. Discussions outlined the proposed contract lot arrangements and advised that there may be an opportunity to review and redefine lot boundaries following the implementation of LGR.

f)      Concerns were raised on the current use of weedkillers, discarded vegetation (after works), blocked pathways, invasive weed management and the overall performance monitoring of maintenance works attributed to KCC. Officers acknowledged the concerns raised and suggested a meeting take place beyond the scope of the Committee to address Members concerns directly.

g)    Members emphasised the importance of ensuring that feedback from officers and operational experience informed the development of the new contract specification so that identified shortcomings could be addressed through the procurement process.

h)    Clarification was sought on the risks associated with procuring the service through multiple contract lots and how best value would be achieved.

i)      Officers explained that the contract structure had been informed by previous experience and extensive market engagement, including consultation with small and medium-sized enterprises.

j)      In response to questions about the use of two contract lots, Members were advised that providers had strongly supported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Andrew Loosemore (Interim Director of Highways and Transport), Joseph Ratcliffe (Transport Strategy Manager) and Mark Welch (Principal Transport Planner) were in attendance for the item:

1.The Cabinet Member Discussed the following:

a)    Introduced the item and explained that it concerned the Dover Border Access Improvement Project and the proposed acceptance and management by Kent County Council of a £20 million government grant.

b)    Explained that the grant would support the Dover Harbour Board in improving outbound border control arrangements at the Port of Dover. Proposed improvements were intended to increase operational capacity within the port.

2. Members raised the following discussion points:

a)    Queried whether an indication could be provided of the number of vehicles that would be accommodated within the port as a result of the proposal.

b)    Officers advised that the port was heavily used and that proposals would create capacity for over 200 additional heavy goods vehicles within the port. It was explained that the additional capacity would be provided within the buffer zone, which served as the principal arrival area where vehicles first entered the port.

c)    Reported that this would be achieved through the relocation of the French border control facilities. Members were advised that the existing facilities were currently located in the north-western part of the port and occupied a significant area close to the main point of arrival.

d)    Border control facilities would be transferred to a vacant area within the eastern docks in the south-eastern part of the port. It was noted that this land had previously been used for container cargo operations but was no longer in active use.

e)    Concerns were raised that the scale of the proposed increase in capacity within the port and questioned the extent to which the scheme would alleviate wider traffic issues affecting the surrounding road network.

f)      Officers addresses the concerns raised and suggested that the additional spacing would ensure that the project would significantly reduce the need for the use of the Dover TAP (Traffic Access Protocol) on the A20 and Operation Brock on the M20 by addressing existing operational deficiencies at the port’s border controls. The project could not eliminate the need for contingency measures entirely; it would look to address the existing border operational deficiencies.

g)    Members acknowledged the various aspects of the proposition but also highlighted the need to continue lobbying relevant authorities regarding capacity constraints on the route to the Port of Dover as access to the port was heavily dependent on a single carriageway route via the A2.

h)    In response to questions regarding the likely impact of the proposed scheme on traffic management measures, the officer advised that, based on the additional capacity provided by the project and the assessment set out within the decision report, the central forecast indicated an approximate 80% reduction in the use of Operation TAP and Operation Brock resulting from capacity-related congestion.

i)      The Cabinet Member informed all Members that additional proposed improvements to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

The work programme was noted.