Agenda and draft minutes

Mr Defriend sent Apologies. Mr Rayner was present for this iteration of the Committee.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held July 7th, 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), and Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) Provided an update on the Following:

1. Mr Osborne discussed the following aspects:

a)    The Committee received an update on the Dover Border Access Improvement Scheme (DBAIP). It was reported that £20 million funding had been secured through the Levelling Up Fund to support the project.

b)    Members were advised that the project would reconfigure the border control facilities within the Port of Dover's Eastern Docks. The works would provide additional processing space and vehicle queuing capacity for the equivalent of more than 500 heavy goods vehicles.

c)    It was reported that the Port of Dover would deliver the works. The project would be funded through a combination of Government funding and investment from the Port, and no financial contribution would be required from Kent County Council (KCC).

d)    Members were informed that, under normal operating conditions, the improvements were expected to reduce the frequency and duration of traffic management measures associated with Dover Traffic Assessment Project (TAP) and Operation Brock by up to 80%.

e)    The Committee received an update on Kent County Council's active travel rewards app (WeRoam). The app would encourage residents to record journeys made by walking, cycling, or using a wheelchair or mobility aid in return for rewards. The initiative aimed to improve health and wellbeing, reduce car use, and support climate objectives. A strong early response to the scheme had been observed with 1,859 downloads recorded shortly after launch. It was also reported that the app had attracted interest from other local authorities and received positive media coverage, including on BBC Radio Kent.

f)      Members were advised that the Bearsted Road scheme had entered fully into the construction phase, with major gas and water utility diversions completed. Retaining wall works at Newnham Court had progressed and work continuing on new access roads and associated infrastructure had continued. Additional funding had been secured, and the scheme remained on track for completion in winter 2026/27.

g)    Between April and August, approximately 628,000 square metres of Kent's road network had been improved through resurfacing, and 425,000 square metres of preventative maintenance works had been undertaken, including significant completed schemes at Burham Green, the A249 Detling Hill, Forest Hill and East Sutton Road in Maidstone.

h)    Members joined in congratulating Mr John Farmer on his retirement and thanked him for his 56 years of dedicated service to Kent County Council.

2. Mr Henderson presented the following:

a)    The Committee received an update on work being undertaken with partners across Kent and Medway through the Pathways2Resilience programme (P2R). Members were advised that the programme was developing a long-term, evidence-led approach to water resilience and climate adaptation, considering both current pressures and the future impacts of climate change on communities, businesses and public services.

b)    It was reported that evidence had indicated that summer rainfall could reduce significantly in future decades,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

John Yates (Head of Delivery), Emma Fairbairns (Clean Rivers and Seas Taskforce) Mike Russell (Stakeholder Engagement Manager) and James Latter (Pathfinder Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1) Mike Russell opened the presentation with the following points:

a)    The representatives from Southern Water introduced the six-monthly update and provided the Committee with an overview of progress made in delivering Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and storm overflow reduction measures across Kent. Members were advised that the Clean Rivers and Seas Task Force had expanded significantly, with more than 120 officers now engaged in storm overflow reduction programmes across the region.

b)    Members were informed that Southern Water (SW) was delivering a £1.5 billion storm overflow reduction programme across its region, with approximately £300 million currently being invested in North Kent. The programme focused on reducing storm overflow activity, improving water quality and creating more sustainable catchment management solutions.

c)      SW officers provided an update on works underway within the principal North Kent catchments, including Whitstable, Queenborough, Sittingbourne, Faversham and Herne Bay. Members were informed that the approach combined traditional engineering solutions with sustainable drainage measures, smart infrastructure and surface water removal schemes

d)    In relation to Whitstable, Members were advised that surface water separation and intelligent gate systems had reduced storm overflow events and that additional improvements, including the development of a new treatment works, were under consideration to address historical issues within the catchment.

e)    The Committee heard that an 82% reduction in storm overflow events had been achieved within Queenborough through the installation of additional storage capacity, smart network controls and surface water removal activity. Members were informed that similar work in Sittingbourne had delivered an 85% reduction in spills by reducing groundwater ingress into the sewerage network.

f)        SW officers outlined progress on a number of SuDS projects, including rain gardens and public realm improvements within Herne Bay town centre, attenuation and drainage schemes at Beacon Hill and Victoria Park, Herne Bay; a proposed SuDS scheme at Cobbers Bridge Road; a series of linked SuDS interventions throughout Faversham town centre; works at Cornwallis Circle, Beckley Street and Cromwell Road, Whitstable; and projects being developed within Sheppey and Queenborough.

g)    Members were advised that investigations had also commenced within future catchments, including Bidborough and Tunbridge Wells, to identify surface water connections and opportunities for intervention. Officers explained that a substantial programme of investigative work was required before solutions could be designed and implemented.

h)    The Committee noted the importance of partnership working and heard that Southern Water was working with local authorities, schools, major landowners, health organisations and commercial partners to identify opportunities for sustainable drainage and surface water management. Officers highlighted examples of successful collaboration through SuDS in Schools projects, public realm schemes and discussions with significant landowners and infrastructure operators.

i)        Members were informed that Southern Water continued to operate its Rivers and Seas Watch platform, which provided real-time information on storm overflow activity and enabled residents and stakeholders to monitor performance and hold  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

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

1)    Mr Wagner updated Members on the following KPI movements:

a)    Introduced the report and explained that it contained data up to the end of June 2026. Members were advised that of the 58 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) included within the dashboard, 40 had achieved target and were rated green, three had achieved performance above the floor standard and were rated amber, and four were below the floor standard and rated red. Four KPIs were not reported during Quarter 1 due to occurring at differing times of the year and the remaining seven were unable to be reported as planned.

a)    The Committee was advised that the four red-rated indicators related to: HT02 – All Highways and Transportation enquiries requiring a response that were responded to within 28 days, HT08 – Emergency incidents attended within two hours, EW4 – Percentage of local planning authority requests for advice from the Heritage Service responded to within 21 days; and EW5 – Percentage of local planning authority requests for advice from the Ecological Advice Service responded to within 21 days.

b)    Members were informed that a number of new Highways and Transportation KPIs had been introduced for 2026/27. Officers explained that several new indicators had not been reported due to ongoing validation work, system integration changes and the introduction of the new Highways Term Maintenance Contract.

c)    In relation to HT02 and HT08, officers advised that performance had been affected by a combination of adverse weather conditions, high service demand and the transition from the previous highway’s contractor to the new provider, Ringway. Members were informed that systems and reporting arrangements continued to be embedded and that performance was expected to improve as those arrangements matured.

d)    The Committee noted that all emergency incidents had been attended, however system integration issues had affected the ability to fully validate performance reporting during the quarter. Officers confirmed that work continued with Ringway to improve reporting accuracy and confidence in the data being presented.

2)    Members discussed the following matters:

a)    Questions were raised regarding the introduction of the new highway’s contractor and the comparability of performance data with figures produced under previous contractual arrangements. Officers explained that KPI definitions remained largely unchanged and that validation work was being undertaken to ensure consistency and reliability of future trend analysis. Members were advised that additional clarification could be provided once the new systems had become fully established.

b)    Concerns were expressed regarding performance against highway enquiry response times, emergency attendance times and pothole repairs. Members highlighted examples from their local divisions where highway defects remained unresolved and queried whether improvements reported within countywide data were being experienced consistently across Kent.

c)    In response, officers acknowledged the challenges associated with mobilisation of the new contract and advised that Ringway had inherited a significant backlog of work. Members were informed that considerable effort was being directed towards validating completed works,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Richard Palmer (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services) and Liz Davidson (Partnership Director) were in attendance for this item.

1. The Cabinet Member introduced the report:

a)    Explained that Active Kent & Medway was currently hosted by Kent County Council, which acted as the accountable body for funding, employment and governance arrangements. Members were advised that the existing hosting arrangements were due to conclude in March 2027 and that, following a structural review, the independent Board of Active Kent & Medway had determined that its preferred future operating model was to become an independent legal entity.

b)    Members were informed that the proposed transition would enable Kent County Council to conclude its role as host authority while supporting the transfer of functions, funding arrangements, governance responsibilities and staffing arrangements to an independent organisation. The Committee heard that the proposed model would provide clearer accountability, stronger governance arrangements, greater organisational resilience and improved opportunities to secure and manage future external funding

c)      The Cabinet Member advised that, having reviewed the proposal in detail, particular consideration had been given to the impact upon existing staff, service users and delivery partners. Members were informed that engagement had been undertaken with staff and stakeholders and that the proposed arrangements were expected to support the continued development of sport and physical activity services across Kent and Medway.

d)    Officers explained that the proposal related solely to Kent County Council’s role in concluding the hosting and accountable body arrangements and providing appropriate transition support. Members were advised that the independent organisation would be responsible for its own governance, funding and operational arrangements following the completion of the transition programme

e)    Active Kent & Medway currently received significant external funding, including investment from Sport England and Public Health, which Kent County Council administered as accountable body.

f)         Kent County Council did not provide core revenue funding to the organisation, and the transition would be supported through a structured programme covering governance, funding, legal arrangements, workforce matters, ICT, finance and contractual responsibilities; and the preferred model reflected the position adopted by the majority of Active Partnerships operating nationally

2.In discussion, Members raised the following matters:

a)    Questions were raised regarding references within the report to potential overcapacity within certain support services and whether the transfer arrangements could result in staffing implications for KCC. Officers advised that no redundancies were anticipated as a consequence of the proposal. It was explained that any impact upon central support functions would be minimal and related primarily to wider corporate arrangements currently supporting the hosted service.

b)    Members sought clarification regarding whether the decision constituted a key decision or non-key decision, noting differing references within the report documentation. The Clerk advised that regardless of the classification, the decision would remain subject to the Council’s governance arrangements and could be called in if required. It was acknowledged that the inconsistency would be reviewed and clarified. (Clarified: Item was a Non-Key Decision that would be subjected to the same level of scrutiny)

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), and Victoria Soames (Senior Project Manager) were in attendance for the item.

1. The Cabinet Member introduced the report:

a)    Explained that the current Independent Cost Consultancy contract used by the Major Capital Programme Team would expire in March 2027. The report sought approval to procure a new Specialist Highway Support Services Framework to provide independent cost consultancy, specialist utility support and programme review services to support the delivery of highway and transportation projects across Kent.

b)    Members were advised that independent cost consultancy services had been utilised by Kent County Council for more than fifteen years and provided an important independent assessment of project costs, programme delivery and financial assurance. Officers explained that the independence of these services from the design function offered additional confidence in project budgets and business cases.

c)      The Committee heard that the proposed framework would be structured into three lots: Lot 1 – Independent Cost Consultancy, Lot 2 – Specialist Utility Support; and Lot 3 – Programme Review Support.

d)    Members were informed that the framework would provide access to specialist expertise on a call-off basis and would support improved cost certainty, programme assurance, governance and risk management across the Council’s highways and transportation capital programme. The framework was worth (maximum value) £4 million over the contractual period with an option for an additional year and would replace the current arrangements when they expired in March 2027

2.Members raised the following points:

a)    A Member queried whether the framework presented an opportunity to employ specialist quantity surveyor expertise directly within the authority rather than commissioning external consultants. Officers advised that demand for the service fluctuated considerably and that retaining sufficient specialist expertise in-house would be difficult. It was explained that the framework provided flexibility and access to specialist skills only when required.

b)    Members sought clarification regarding how the authority would measure whether the framework delivered value for money and achieved the objectives outlined within the report. Officers explained that the procurement process itself would ensure that suppliers were competitively assessed against quality and price criteria. In addition, individual call-off commissions would contain clear statements of work, performance expectations and monitoring arrangements to ensure that the required outputs were delivered.

c)      Questions were raised regarding whether savings generated by the use of specialist support services could be quantified. Officers advised that the primary purpose of the framework was to provide independent assurance, strengthen project governance, improve cost certainty and reduce financial risk. While direct savings could not always be easily quantified, Members were informed that the services provided assurance that projects represented value for money and that cost estimates and commercial decisions had been independently scrutinised.

d)    Members discussed the balance between externally commissioned expertise and the use of in-house resources. Officers advised that the specialist nature of the services, together with the requirement for independence and the variability of workload, meant that an external framework arrangement remained the preferred and most practical solution.

e)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Helen Rowe (Head of Highways-Assets) and Whitney Gee (Programme Manager) were in attendance for the item.

1.The Cabinet Member presented the following:

a)    Explained that the proposal concerned the replacement of the ventilation system within Chestfield Tunnel on the A299 Thanet Way. Members were advised that the ventilation system was a safety-critical asset which had reached the end of its serviceable life and required replacement to ensure the continued safe operation of the tunnel.

b)    The Committee was informed that failures within the existing ventilation system during 2024 had resulted in significant disruption to the highway network and had necessitated the implementation of traffic management arrangements. It was further explained that the existing jet fan system had exceeded its expected operational lifespan and that the risk of further failures would continue to increase without intervention.

c)      Members were advised that the preferred solution was the replacement of all 32 jet fans with modern equivalents fitted with angled louvre deflectors and the relocation of Fan 2 within each bank to improve maintenance access to associated lighting infrastructure. Officers explained that this option had been identified as offering the best balance of safety, operational effectiveness, constructability and value for money.

d)    The Committee heard that the estimated cost of the preferred option was approximately £2.8 million and that funding would be met through the Department for Transport Highways Maintenance Block allocation. Members were advised that the option represented a significantly lower cost than alternative solutions which had been assessed during the options appraisal process.

e)    Officers explained that the replacement system would: improve smoke control capability and tunnel safety; increase system reliability and resilience; reduce the likelihood of unplanned closures and emergency maintenance activity; improve access for maintenance works; and extend the operational life of the tunnel ventilation infrastructure.

2.Committee discussion raised the following points:

a)    Members sought clarification regarding the contractual arrangements and whether the works would be delivered on a fixed-price basis. Officers advised that a competitive procurement process would be undertaken through the Council’s existing contractual arrangements. Members were informed that the design work had already been substantially developed, helping to reduce delivery and cost risks. Officers further advised that while some uncertainty remained regarding fixing arrangements within the tunnel structure, overall project risks had been substantially mitigated through the design process.

b)    Questions were raised regarding whether the Equality Impact Assessment correctly reflected the preferred option. Officers confirmed that although one document referenced Option 2A, the preferred solution progressed through the decision report was Option 2B and that this represented the option under consideration.

c)    ) A Member queried whether contractual timescales and potential penalties could be applied in order to ensure timely delivery of the scheme. Officers explained that while contractual mechanisms could be considered, applying financial penalties often resulted in increased tender costs. Members were advised that the preferred approach was to manage delivery collaboratively through robust project management and contract administration arrangements.

d)    The Committee recognised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Jamie Henderson (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health), Helen Shulver (Assistant Director Resource Management and Circular Economy) were in attendance for the item

1. The Cabinet Member introduced the report and discussed the following:

a)     Provided Members with an update on the national waste reforms and their implications for Kent County Council’s waste disposal function. Members were advised that the report focused on Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (PEPR), the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) and the future implications of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

b)     Members were informed that PEPR had already generated significant additional funding for local authorities. The Committee noted that Kent County Council had received £13.3 million during 2025/26 and had been allocated £11.6million for 2026/27, with future allocations continuing to be dependent upon national funding methodologies and scheme development

c)    The Cabinet Member advised that the DRS would be introduced nationally in October 2027 and would focus on collecting plastic drinks bottles and metal beverage cans through a dedicated producer-funded collection system. While the scheme was expected to reduce the amount of material entering Kent’s municipal waste stream, Members were advised that it could also reduce income generated from the sale and processing of recyclable materials currently managed through local authority contracts.

d)    The committee heard that the ETS continued to represent a potential future financial pressure for waste disposal authorities. Officers explained that, although the UK ETS Authority had recently confirmed that waste incineration would not be brought into the scheme from January 2028 as previously anticipated, the policy remained under development and could still create significant future cost pressures associated with Energy from Waste facilities.

e)     Members noted that Kent County Council and the Kent Resource Partnership were continuing to prepare for future legislative changes through service planning, financial modelling, behavioural change campaigns and partnership working to increase recycling rates, reduce residual waste and improve resource efficiency.

2.Members raised the following points

a)    Members discussed the operation of the forthcoming DRS and queried whether there would be opportunities for local authorities to benefit from the collection of deposit-return materials. It was suggested that containers returned to retailers through collection machines could potentially be incorporated into local authority recycling arrangements rather than relying entirely on separate collection networks. Officers advised that discussions on this issue were ongoing nationally through local authority and government engagement channels. Members were informed that the issue had been raised through the Kent Resource Partnership and with Defra.

b)    Questions were raised regarding whether glass bottles would be included within the DRS. Officers clarified that the current proposals related only to PET plastic bottles and metal drinks cans and did not include glass containers. Glass containers continue to be collected through all kerbside waste collection services for households.

c)    The committee welcomed initiatives that sought to encourage the return and recycling of drinks containers and discussed the wider opportunity presented by producer responsibility measures to encourage more sustainable packaging design and improved environmental outcomes. Officers highlighted that EPR would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Jamie Henderson (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health), Helen Shulver (Assistant Director Resource Management and Circular Economy) were in attendance for this item.

1.The Cabinet Member introduced the report and discussed the following:

a)    Explained that Kent County Council, as the Waste Disposal Authority, had a statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to provide arrangements for the disposal of household waste collected by district councils. Members were advised that the existing temporary waste transfer arrangements serving Folkestone and Hythe would expire in January 2028 and that a long-term solution was therefore required.

b)    Members were informed that KCC currently operated an interim arrangement at Ross Way, Folkestone. The Committee heard that the facility was unable to accommodate all waste streams arising within the district and that residual and food waste currently had to be transported to Ashford. Officers advised that the current arrangements were operationally inefficient, generated additional costs and would cease when the existing contract expired in January 2028.

c)      The Cabinet Member explained that the report represented an update to the previously approved Junction 11 Waste Transfer Station scheme. Members were advised that material changes had occurred since the original decision had been taken, requiring a reassessment of the preferred approach.

d)    Officers outlined the principal issues affecting the Junction 11 project and explained that a critical additional parcel of land required to discharge planning conditions had not been secured. Despite efforts by KCC to acquire the land independently, negotiations had been unsuccessful. Members were informed that without the additional land the planning conditions could not be discharged and the project could not be delivered within the required timescales.

e)    The Committee heard that progression of the Junction 11 scheme would expose the Council to further financial and delivery risks, including land acquisition risks, programme delays and the potential requirement to commit additional expenditure before certainty regarding deliverability could be established.

f)        Officers advised that a market engagement exercise had since identified the availability of a viable alternative solution through the procurement of a commercial waste transfer service within the district. Members were informed that such an approach would provide a deliverable solution within the timeframe required while maintaining KCC’s ability to meet its statutory obligations.

g)    The Committee noted that the proposed procurement would seek to secure a commercial provider capable of receiving, bulking and transporting waste arising from Folkestone and Hythe. Members were advised that the procurement exercise would include consideration of value for money, environmental performance, contract flexibility, social value and future Local Government Reorganisation requirements

2. The following aspects were discussed:

a)    Concerns were expressed regarding the financial implications of ceasing work on the Junction 11 scheme. Members noted that approximately £722,000 had already been incurred in developing the project and queried whether those costs would become abortive. Officers confirmed that the expenditure already incurred would be treated as abortive costs should the project not proceed. Members were advised that there was also a risk that some Community Infrastructure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

Jamie Henderson (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health), and Elizabeth Milne (Head of Environment) was in attendance for this item:

1. The Cabinet Member introduced the report and explained that it represented the first annual update on the delivery of the Kent County Council Environment Plan.

a)    Members were advised that the report summarised progress made during 2025/26 against the six environmental goals established within the Plan and also set out priorities for the year ahead.

b)    The Committee was informed that positive progress had been made across all six goals and that environmental activity continued to contribute towards operational efficiency, service resilience and environmental improvement throughout Kent. Members were advised that achievements included reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the expansion of renewable energy generation, improvements in recycling performance, support for water resilience projects and continued investment in nature recovery initiatives.

c)      Members were advised that amendments would also be made to the published Environment Plan to reflect the adoption of Kent County Council’s Energy Efficiency Plan. Officers explained that the principal change involved shifting the emphasis from the previous net-zero target approach towards improving energy efficiency, reducing operating costs and lowering emissions across council services and assets.

2. Members discussed the following:

a)    Members welcomed the work undertaken by officers and the progress reported against the Environment Plan. Particular recognition was given to the collaborative work undertaken through the Environment Plan Cross-Party Members Group and the range of projects delivered across the authority.

b)    Questions were raised regarding the financial benefits generated (1.2 million KW) through solar energy projects and renewable infrastructure. Officers advised that additional financial information had subsequently become available and confirmed that the energy generated from KCC solar installations represented a significant financial benefit to the authority.

c)      Members expressed concern regarding the substantial reduction in tree planting activity compared with previous years and sought assurances that opportunities would continue to be pursued to expand tree cover across Kent. Officers explained that the reduction largely reflected the loss of external grant funding streams previously available through national tree planting schemes. Despite this, Members were advised that officers continued to pursue alternative funding opportunities and had recently secured additional funding to support future planting activity.

d)    Discussion took place regarding the need to ensure that newly planted trees were resilient to increasingly dry climatic conditions. Officers advised that future planting programmes would continue to consider climate resilience, species suitability and long-term sustainability. Reference was also made to work involving disease-resistant elm varieties and opportunities to increase biodiversity benefits through future planting initiatives.

e)    Members highlighted the importance of securing additional investment to support both Plan Tree and Plan Bee ambitions. Officers advised that a future Green Finance Strategy would seek to identify and secure wider funding opportunities for environmental projects and longer-term delivery of Environment Plan objectives.

f)        The Committee discussed the relationship between biodiversity objectives, nature recovery and wider planning and mineral extraction matters. Members reflected upon the importance of balancing environmental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

RESOLVED that the work programme was noted.