Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

Apologies were received from Mr Bond. Mr Baldock was in attendance virtually.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2024 were a correct record and that they be signed by the Chair.

1) Mr Oakford introduced the budget report. The budget report was created before the announcement of the Government’s funding allocation.

2) Mr Baker added the following comments regarding his portfolio:

a)    Subsidised bus services were included in the draft budget to ensure bus transportation was an option for residents and to help ensure children had transport to school.

b)    Continued efforts would be made to secure external grants and to increase income where appropriate and ringfence them for transport related projects.

3) Mr Thomas added the following comments regarding his portfolio:

a)    The previous savings target relating to the review of the number and operation of Household Waste and Recycling Centre (HWRC) sites, had been removed from the draft budget.

b)    Further to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

c)      A budgetary safety net would be implemented to ensure bus services continued as KCC could not rely on money from the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP).

d)    On-street parking was included in the budget because if the service was returned to KCC, 24 months' notice would be required. Discussions with district and borough councils would continue, but it was important to have the framework in place in the budget. Mr. Baker emphasised that financial and practical impacts needed consideration before any decisions could be made.

e)    There were no changes to subsidised bus routes proposed in the budget.

f)      In the long term, KCC’s budget was not guaranteed. KCC was planning for the future based on current knowledge through the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). More information would be available after the spending review and grant distribution details were shared by the administration. However, bus subsidies would remain as budgeted through the MTFP period.

RESOLVED to NOTE the administration’s draft revenue budgets including responses to consultation.

1) Mr Thomas provided an update on Waste and Recycling:

a) Work continued in the area of creating energy from waste, as opposed to relying on landfill.

b) Preparations were underway for the Government’s waste reforms, which were developed as part of the UK's commitment to reducing waste and moving to a circular economy. The Authority strongly supported the principle of producer responsibility, believing it should be extended beyond just packaging waste to encompass additional materials. Residents were encouraged to recycle and reuse. Officers from  the Resource Management and Circular Economy team, along with the FCC, presented a £2000 donation to the chairman's chosen charities, We are Beams and the Elliot Holmes Memorial Fund.

c) Results from the HWRC Summer survey were shared. A total of 6,063 people participated about HWRCs booking system, and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. A 96% satisfaction rate was achieved, which were a testament to the Team’s dedication and hard work.

d) The King's Hill Solar Farm Project, which achieved second place in the National Solar PV Project of the Year category at the National Energy Efficiency Awards 2024 held on 11th October, was highly commended for maximizing the site for biodiversity alongside the development of the solar farm, providing good outcomes for both nature and clean energy production.

e) The Whose Hoo project was a four-year landscape-scale project aimed at conserving, enjoying, and celebrating the remarkable landscape and heritage of the Hoo peninsula, and was set to receive almost £3 million of funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Through a diverse range of conservation, education, and volunteering activities, the project helped connect residents and visitors with the area while safeguarding its built and natural heritage. It was a collaborative project with partners, the total value of the Heritage activities that KCC contributed was £309,000, of which £228,000 was from the National Lottery Heritage Fund Grant, the remainder £78,000 of volunteer time, and a very small cash contribution of £2,000 from KCC to support the volunteer activity that was coordinated.

2) Mr Baker provided an update on Highways and Transport:

a) Keeping the highway safe was a key objective, and Highways Improvement teams, in collaboration with Kent Police, recently conducted eight days of site visits across the county to examine crash cluster sites. These visits enabled informed decisions on road improvements for some sites requiring limited intervention, and others needing engineering solutions. Feedback from Kent Police highlighted the expertise of the Highways Improvement teams in road design and safety.

b) Following the announcement of the unfunded transport projects review in July 2024 and the uncertainties that brought about, the Team were progressing cautiously with the A228 Blue Bell Hill improvement scheme. That project also needed to take into account a decision on the Lower Thames crossing, which had been due in October 2024. It was expected that the Spring Statement would report the results of the unfunded transport projects review with a decision on the Lower Thames crossing now due by the 25th May.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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

1) Mr Wagner introduced the report. There were 17 key performance indicators (KPIs); 13 were rated green, 4 were rated amber and 0 were rated red.

2) Officers responded to questions of detail and noted comments, which included the following:

a)    It was suggested that the Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) rising waste tonnage , could be influenced by the challenges that collection authorities have been having. If food waste could be separated from the rest of household waste, significant savings could be made. It was the mix of waste received in the centres that made the difference, particularly the inert building materials. Also, problems with new waste collection suppliers had caused an increase of people using HWRCs.

b)    In response to a question regarding how people were being incentivised to recycle, it was explained that there had been a trial in Dover which had resulted in a 10% increase in the food collection rate. KCC were working to collaborate with other authorities and find the best system to improve overall practice. Simpler recycling was a new government requirement to which authorities needed to conform. Extended producer responsibility payments were to be introduced.

RESOLVED to note the Performance Dashboard.

1) Mr Thomas introduced the report.

2) Further to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

a) Members were assured that the map of how KCC was achieving Net Zero would be presented to the committee in January. However, the costs and impacts were not part of the Adaptation Plan.

b) KCC worked with its partners to support the environment plan and regular updates would be provided to Members.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision for the Cabinet Member for Environment to:

i) To ADOPT the Kent County Council Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2025- 2028.

ii) To DELEGATE authority to the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment to refresh and/or make revisions to the Strategy as appropriate during the lifetime of the strategy.

iii) To DELEGATE authority to the Corporate Growth, Environment and Transport to take relevant actions, including but not limited to finalising the terms of, and entering into required contract or other legal agreements, as necessary to implement the decision as shown at Appendix A.

Helen Shulver, Head of Environment was in attendance for this item

1) Mr Thomas presented the report.

2) Further to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

a) Regular updates on the plan would be brought to the committee. The Kent Environment Strategy Cross Party Members Group was used to test ideas, and Members could bring questions there for more detail.

b) Regarding match funding, Mr. Thomas noted the limited capital available. KCC was developing a Green Finance Strategy to support ongoing work, alongside funding through Council Tax and seeking sustainable, ethical investment.

c) KCC was making efforts to support green highways, including efficient supply chain management, influencing road users to make sustainable choices, and innovating new products and materials to reduce pollutants from highways.

d) Mr. Thomas agreed on the importance of partnership working, highlighting the framework for goals and strategies on page 24 of the plan. Ms Shulver added that more in-depth reports would be available to Members, and Officers were willing to share detailed information.

e) Mr. Thomas stated the aim was to have a cross-departmental support team rather than just a delivery team. He cited the example of carbon emissions from the KCC building, overseen by the director for infrastructure, with officers working alongside the director. More information would be in the report for the January meeting.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment to:

                 I.          To adopt the Kent Environment Plan on behalf of Kent County Council.

               II.          To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment to refresh and/or make revisions to the Strategy as appropriate during the lifetime of the strategy.

             III.          To delegate authority to the Corporate Growth, Environment and Transport to take relevant actions, including but not limited to finalising the terms of, and entering into required contract or other legal agreements, as necessary to implement the decision as shown at Appendix A.

1)    Mr Thomas presented the report.

2)    Further to questions and comments from members, it was noted that:

a)    Members were able to pledge their districts' participation in the scheme through the No Mow May website. The report included top performing districts but figures from all participating districts could be shared with members.

b)    Mr. Thomas highlighted the Making Space for Nature strategy, which was being developed and would be presented to the committee in January. KCC was required to participate in this strategy along with 48 areas across the country, aiming to reverse decades of nature decline by prioritising species and habitats and mapping out the process.

c)     In response to a discussion on signage for unmown areas, Mr. Thomas suggested that signs might be problematic for other departments but invited members to work towards having signage in their divisions.

d)    Mr. Baker commented that the reporting system for informing Highways about verges needing to be left unmown, needed improvement. He added that the alternatives to current weed-killing chemicals were ineffective, leaving both those wanting weeds gone and those opposing chemical use unhappy. He suggested closer collaboration between Highways and the Environment Department to address this and other issues.

RESOLVED to note the report.

Phil Lightowler, Head of Public Transport was in virtual attendance for this item

1)    Mr Baker introduced the report. Mr Lightowler presented the report virtually.

2)    Further to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

a)    This had not become law, and details were still unclear. A major question was about funding. It was agreed that a broader vision was needed beyond just buses, emphasising the importance of reliability and giving school children positive experiences on buses.

b)    The issue tied into a wider devolution debate, questioning whether transport for Kent could work as a separate agency, similar to Kent Fire Authority, rather than being part of the council.

c)    With ringfenced funding, planning ahead would be easier, routes could be established, and infrastructure for buses would be in place.

d)    There was a disparity between public perception of KCC's responsibilities and those of bus companies.

e)    Mr. Baker concluded by agreeing that conversations should continue, following the process through parliament, and seeing what funding KCC received at the end.

f)      Mr. Lightowler added that franchising might offer opportunities to work with other authorities and give KCC better control, but funding remained an issue.

g) Members discussed the benefits and challenges of exploring the bus franchise model in Kent further.  Cabinet Member commented that this was already planned but welcomed the Committee’s support.  Ms Dawkins proposed that this be made a substantive recommendation and with support of the Chair this was confirmed through general assent.

RESOLVED that

• A recommendation be made to the Cabinet Member that further exploration of options for progressing a bus franchise model in Kent be undertaken; and
• The report be noted.

Pauline Harmer, Senior Highways Manager was in attendance for this item

1) Mr Baker introduced the report, supported by Ms Harmer.

2) Further to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

a)    KCC was restricted by law regarding road sign content. The name of the company carrying out the utility works would be in bold, with any supporting names also featured.

b)    In regard to road sign clarity, directing Members to the One Network website for information on permits and road closures. He noted the balance between informing road users and avoiding sign clutter.

c)     The Kent Corridor Coordination Group's efforts to coordinate road works, though emergency works often disrupted plans and road users' journeys.

RESOLVED to note the update.

The work programme was noted.