Agenda and draft minutes

Two nominations were received for the position of Vice Chair: Mr Mallon and Mr Hood. Following a vote, Mr Mallon was duly elected Vice Chair.

Apologies were received from Ms Isabella Kemp. No substitutes were present.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2025 were a correct record and that they be signed by the Chair. 

Mr J Yates – Head of Delivery, Clean Rivers and Seas Taskforce and Mr M Russell-Stakeholder Engagement Manager presented the Item.

1.Mr Yates presented the following updates to the Members:

a)  Discussed the establishment of the Clean Rivers and Seas Taskforce in 2021, post COVID funding trajectories and the work that had been targeted across the five catchment areas of the Southeast.

b)  £35 million was successfully invested from early 2023 to the end of March 2025 to provide improvements to the combined sewage overflows.

c)  Discussed the use of storm overflows in the prevention of flood damage to homes and businesses. It was indicated that through accountability from customers, stakeholders and regulators that there was a need to reduce the amount of times combined sewage overflows were used.

d)  Mr Yates (Head of Delivery) outlined the challenges that had arisen from increased weather events, ongoing infrastructure developments, and the reduction of permeable land. It was highlighted that these pressures required a different approach to land use in relation to building practices, customer engagement, and compliance with the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) reduction plan.

e)  Reported on progress achieved during the Pathfinder project stage, and the early success that had been secured. Work had now commenced on Herne Bay as part of the 2027 regulatory outputs. It was discussed that catchments could be located only miles or even metres apart, but their needs might be very different. As a result, approaches that had proved effective in Whitstable could not simply be replicated to other impacted areas due to these constraints.

f)    The importance of taking learnings from one catchment area and applying them carefully to new areas was further expanded. Catchment areas would need to be fully understood before interventions were designed. The rationale also applied equally to inland catchments areas such as Tunbridge Wells, where tailored solutions would be required.

g)  It was further noted that a “playbook” approach would be developed to guide work across catchments, with the starting point always being a review of internal practices and capabilities.

h)   Highlighted the significant regulatory challenge the authority faced in relation to combined sewer overflows (CSOs). It was discussed that under current requirements all CSOs must be reduced to fewer than ten spills per year across the regulatory milestones of 2027, 2030 and 2050. This represented a robust and demanding reduction target that required sustained investment, careful planning, and coordinated delivery across the asset maintenance programme.

i)    It was reported on the key learnings from the Pathfinder programme, which had run during the final two years of the last Asset Management Plan (AMP), covering 2023 and 2024/25. It was discussed that the work could not be delivered in isolation without the continued collaboration of Kent County Council and Kent County Council Highway teams.

j)    By working jointly with KCC Highways the project needs would be tailored to secure the best overall solution. Southern Water emphasised that these outcomes demonstrated the value of partnership working and confirmed that one of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Mr P Osborne - Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, Mr D Wimble – Cabinet Member for (the) Environment presented the Item. Simon Jones-Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport and Matthew Smyth-Director for Environment and Andrew Loosemore- Head of Highways were in attendance.

1.Mr Osborne highlighted the following aspects of the verbal update.

a)  The successful launch of the new online reporting tool had enabled residents to report and track pothole issues. Future enhancements to the portal aimed to expand its functionality to encompass reporting for street lighting, drainage, and landscaping.

b)  Sixty salt gritters would be available with an additional four held in reserve. A total of 23,000 tonnes of gritting salt had been stockpiled in preparation for the winter period. Local farmers would also be on standby to assist with clearing and supporting more rural communities.

c)  The Galley Hill restoration works feasibility design and business case development was currently underway to support the reopening of the route. Two options of either a bridge or reinforced embarkment were to be explored. In relation to the Road of Remembrance cliff collapse it was discussed that the site remained subject to an options appraisal phase to determine suitable bank stabilisation measures and to explore potential funding opportunities.

d)  The contract for Bearsted Road has been awarded at a value of £10.9 million, with work having progressed well. Improvements to Bluebell Hill valued at £200 million, had also been approved and site surveys would be underway. The rapid EV charging project would also commence in November.

e)  A total of 22,000 pothole repairs had now been completed. In addition, 250,000 square metres of patching,210,000 square metres of resurfacing and 825,000 square metres of surface works were undertaken. The cost of the Kent Travel Saver had been supressed, with transport efficiencies contributing to a £2.5 million saving. The parish seminar was held recently with over 100 parishes having attended.

1.Mr Wimble highlighted the following aspects of the verbal update.

a)  Drapers (wind) Mill had been upgraded to Grade II status in recognition of its historical and architectural significance. Meopham Mill officially reopened in September following an extensive restoration period. Davidson Mill had also seen sail repairs take place.

b)  Eight county parks had retained their green flag status, with six of the parks securing gold awards at the South and South East in Bloom (SSEIB) competitions. Grove Ferry had been crowned Country Park of the Year.

c)  ‘New reuse’ shops had been opened at the New Romney and Allington household waste recycling centres. Allington had seen a saving on 10,000 tonnes of waste in two weeks.

d)  The customer satisfaction survey received 6,469 responses and had revealed that 96% of users were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their visit. In addition, 74% were able to attend on a same?day booking, while 97% successfully booked at their preferred date and time.

e)  The recent food waste campaign had achieved savings of £260,000. A 20% increase in food waste reduction had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for (the) Environment presented the item.Matthew Smythe- Helen Shulver-Head of Environment and Kay Groves-Service Delivery Manager- were also in attendance.

1.Matthew Smyth presentation captured the following aspects to members:

a)    Discussed the received £12.72 Million received for producer waste packaging for 2025/26 and highlighted a concern on the potential £16 million budget pressure from the proposed emission trading scheme.

b)    Highlighted the 19 recycling centres currently in Kent which had over 2 million visitors a year and managed around 660,000 tonnes of waste per Anum.

c)    Current year’s budget was £88 million net, with now then less 1% of waste hitting landfill outperforming the regional and national average for landfill use. One concern raised was the recycling decrease since the pandemic (2020) which had seen Kent underperform against regional neighbours and fall below the national average.

d)    Shared that 42% of material recycled that had cost KCC around £5.6 Million to reprocess, the remaining 58% that would not be processed would cost KCC around £48 Million pounds.

e)    It was discussed that 83% of material collected was at curb side, with only 17% being dealt with directly via recycling centres. The curb side collection cost to KCC in 2024 was £47 million.

f)      Highlighted the legislation changes on the 31^st of March that Boroughs would collect recyclable materials from all residents within their areas. Collections would encompass food waste, paper, card plastic, metal, glass and garden waste. By March 2027 Boroughs would also be responsible for collecting product wrappers as part of the Extended Producer Responsibility initiative (EPR).

g)    Estimates suggested that a saving of £820,000 could be achieved once Dartford and Sevenoaks Borough Councils began collecting food waste. The deposit return scheme would also finally become realised although this could impact on the amount of valuable materials made available to KCC.

h)    Explained the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which would come into effect from 2028 onwards and would result in any carbon emissions from waste being subjected to a ‘Carbon Credit’ Payment. Current estimates had placed this at a £16 million liability.

i)      Expanded upon the challenges of collecting food waste and a desire to improve and incentivise with District and Borough partners and the pubic to increase recycling. The presentation was closed out with a description of the ongoing work within Districts and Boroughs which would finalize a model on how KCC invested and reduced the cost burden and residual waste.

2.Members asked a number of questions:

a)    Members queried if any other authorities were currently sending waste to Kent facilities especially landfills. Officers responded that because KCC did not own the facilities in question and lacked direct oversight that there could be a possibility that landfill sites in Kent may take materials from outside Kent as a result. Members did flag how this compounded the desire to keep landfill use below 1%.

b)    Questions were raised on the subject of KCC’s performance in terms of income raised from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Mr P Osborne - Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport and Mr D Wimble-Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment presented the Item. Matthew Wagner-Chief Analyst was also in attendance.

1.Mr Wagner presented the current iteration of the performance dashboard:

a)    The second performance dashboard report for 2025/26 showed that, by August 14 KPIs were measured: 11 rated Green, 2 Amber (had met floor but missed target), and 1 Red (was below floor standard). The Red KPI had remained the same from the previous update (HT02- Faults reported by the public completed in 28 calendar days).

b)    Heavy rainfall in June and July had affected demand into August. The service held monthly performance reviews to aid in improving results. Updated data showed September’s performance at 80% of the KPI, meeting the floor standard and had achieved an amber rating.

c)    Highway service demand for new inquiries had stayed below expectations since April. Pothole repairs were above the expected range. Recycling rates remained at the floor standard and well below the 50% target set by KCC and District Councils under the Kent Resource Partnership (KRP)

2.Members raised the following questions:

a)    Queried on the efficiency of using the reporting portal and not directly raising issues to highway managers. Officers acknowledged the response times and highlighted how Borough colleagues had approached highway managers in (the past) an attempt to progress matters quickly. Mr Osborne suggested that if a relationship were place between Councillors and officers that there would be no issue in directly approaching them with matters of concern.

b)    Members suggested that any correspondence from residents to officers / Cabinet Member would also include the respective District’s Member as to enable them to monitor the issue and be part of any wider discussions.

c)    The use of the portal system would remain the opportune and recommended way of recording issues and tracking progress. This would also ensure officers/Members would not be inundated with emails.

RESOLVED to note the Performance Dashboard

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment presented the item.

Helen Shulver- Head of Environment-was also in attendance.

.

1.Mr Wimble prefaced the briefing and explained the targeted options for private and public investments options for KCC and green finance:

a)  KCC would mobilise public and private investment in a bid to meet environmental obligations under the Environment Act and Improvement Plan. This included nature recovery, climate adaptation, and biodiversity net gain although these needs did exceed current budgets. The briefing reviews green finance options to shift from grant dependency to a resilient investment model. Each options carried risks and complexities and required further work to define the approach.

b)  Foundational work included mapping Council assets, exploring biodiversity net gain credits, and piloting habitat creation sites. Development of a green finance strategy required the addressing of five areas: timeframes, investment size, project scope, partnership arrangements, and project types.

c)  Appetite in each area would shape the strategy and involved complex financial models, parameters, risks, and benefits. Member involvement would be essential in shaping and progressing the future strategy.

RESOLVED to note the briefing on Green Finance

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment presented the item. Louise Smith-Flood and Water Manager was also in attendance

1.Mr Wimble introduced the report:

a)    The report proposed a shared 25?year Kent Water Resource Strategy with strategic partners, building on a decade of KCC’s work. The plan would focus on integrated water planning, demand management, investment, and environmental protection.

b)    Kent as one of England’s driest regions faced rising water stress. This year’s extreme dryness had caused bans and outages. The Environment Agency projected a 5?billion?litre shortfall by 2050, with impacts building gradually over time on public supply and high?use industries.

c)    Water stress would impact and threaten resident’s supplies, the economy, and the environment. Building on over a decade of water resource projects and partnerships, KCC had proposed working with strategic partners to create a shared countywide strategy to manage long?term water risks and impacts.

d)    A dedicated water strategy would secure sustainable resources for residents, businesses, and the environment. The plan would align with the Environment Plan’s six goals and support local nature recovery and flood risk strategies.

e)    Goals would encompass: Integrated water planning,embedded water considerations in spatial planning and infrastructure,Demand management through efficiency across domestic, public, commercial, and agricultural sectors and Investment in resilience and environmental protection, including recycling, storage, supply infrastructure, and ecosystem safeguarding.

f)      Members welcomed the report and its acknowledgment of the immediate challenges faced due to climate change.

RESOLVED to note the Water Supply and Sustainability report.

Mr P Osborne - Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport presented the item. Robin Hadley-Soft Landscape Asset Manager- was in attendance

1. KCC had a statutory duty to maintain roads and pavements by clearing vegetation and felled trees. Current contracts would be ending, so approval would be sought for a new emergency tree works contract lasting up to five years, with a possible three?year extension. Procurement was underway, with tender deadline on 17 November 2025.evaluation would commence in December, and the contract would commence 1 April 2026.

a) The proposed contract would ensure a 24/7 emergency response for clearing fallen trees and vegetation that obstructed highways. A two?hour response time would be targeted. Used mainly during adverse weather the contract would support both in?hours and out?of?hours operations.

a)  Demand would be driven by weather events with no fixed schedule present. The service suited small and medium suppliers that could offer a flexible, rapid response. Combining it with larger programmed works had reduced agility and impacted the two?hour emergency target. Usage had risen over the past three years due to more frequent storm events..

b)  The new contract would emphasise data collection on tree failures and capture how and where they occur. This would enable proactive engagement with landowners about their duty of care. It would further aid in identifying high?risk locations that were subject to repeat failures and target landowners more effectively. This would provide a mechanism to recharge costs where trees fall from private properties.

c)  The current contract would end on the 31 March 2026. Tender documents were published and due back later in the month (November). Evaluations and negotiations would be scheduled for December to early January. The existing contract had two providers in place but there had been a need to expand into a more flexible county wide model of multiple providers.

2.Members raised a number of questions:

a)    Queried on the existing KPI performance of the current contract. Officers discussed that the priority would maintain the two-hour emergency call out window and that a level of stewardess would be applied to the contract to allow greater data collation and clarity in KPI’s.

b)    Members raised concerns on the two-tier lot model and asked for clarification. In response it was indicated that a three-tier model has been in place in the past, but a notable provider had gone into liquidation and impacted on delivery.

c)    The lack of a third-tier model was discussed, and it was suggested that a third tier would enable smaller providers to complete works at a District level. Members speculated that the two-tier model could also limit tenders.

d)    Officers acknowledged the feedback of a three-tier model, its impact to smaller provers and the potential impacts to tenders and suggested some temperance to manage both ways across tiers be explored.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision, namely:

That the Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment agree to:

1.    APPROVAL to procure and award a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment presented the item.

Helen Shulver- Head of Environment-was also in attendance.

1.Approval was sought to procure and award a new contract to process 25,000 tonnes of wood and waste annually. The current contract would end in November 2026, and a new one would be required to continue this statutory service. The proposed contract included a 2028 break clause to accommodate potential local government changes.

a)    The proposed five?year contract, with a two?year extension option, would be awarded county?wide on lowest price subject to quality standards. Key features included haulage costs in whole?life evaluation, a landfill disposal ban under the waste hierarchy, and social value commitments.

b)    KPIs would track service quality, contamination, and recycling performance, with innovation clauses for possible future reorganisation. The contract’s annual cost would be just over £1?million and was based on a stable historic tonnage of 25,000 tonnes.

c)    Risks such as market volatility and contamination would be managed through flexible contract terms and public education programmes.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision, namely:

(i)    APPROVE the procurement and contract award of a wood processing contract for an initial 5 years (plus an extension of up to 2 years),

(ii)   DELEGATE authority to the Director of Environment and Circular Economy to take relevant actions to facilitate the required procurement activity,

(iii)DELEGATE authority to the Corporate Director of Growth, Economy and Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment, to take relevant actions including but not limited to awarding, finalising the terms of and entering into the relevant contracts or other legal agreements, as necessary, to implement the decision; and

(iv)DELEGATE authority to the Corporate Director of Growth, Economy and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment, to award extensions of the contract in accordance with the relevant clauses within the contract.

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment presented the item. Ben Hudson- Energy Security and Future Impacts Manager were in attendance

1.Mr Wimble introduced the decision and discussed that KCC had secured £4?million in external funding to upgrade estates and utilities, generating nearly £9?million in fuel and utility savings over five years in addition to the £1 million generated from KCC’s two solar farms.

a)  KCC had cut emissions from 23,000 tonnes to under 10,000. Despite the progress made financial and technological constraints remained challenging to achieving the full 50% reduction target.

b)  KCC had received £24?million in external funding, with £21?million secured in 2020–21. Accessing new funding was becoming increasingly difficult.

c)  Some targets in the Net Zero plan were not feasible under current technology constraints, so greater flexibility would be needed to optimise solutions. The New Energy Efficiency plan was built on four principles: financial value, pragmatism, efficiency, and solutions?led technology fit. A 2026 action plan covered estate efficiency, fleet optimisation, governance, and finance. The contract offered a balanced approach to emissions reduction and efficiency and enabled KCC to modernise assets and explore financial options whilst retaining the benefits of its previous net zero plan.

2.Members responded to the presentation:

a)  Members raised concerns that there were not enough significant differences between the plan presented and the previous approach. Furthermore, a number of Members voiced scepticism at the proposed £32 million pound of savings.

b)  It was further raised that the decision represented an abandonment of previous Net Zero strategies and would impact on any savings that had been made to date. Future decarbonisation bid works were also noted as an area of concern.

c)   Mr Wimble addressed Members concerns and suggested that KCC was not abandoning its climate strategy or denying climate change. The decision was made to move away from the constraints of the strategy to allow best policy practice.

d)  Members asked officers for an historic example of when a past net zero scheme did not focus on value for money or result in cost saving. Officers addressed the point by clarifying that in the early stages after recognising the climate emergency, KCC had accessed government funding, often 100% grants which had enabled investment in schemes without immediate financial returns

e)  Queries were raised on the 2026 action plan reference to fleet optimisation. Mr Wimble responded that the Council would review all fleet vehicle options, including EVs, diesel, and petrol, with decisions based on best value. Current contracts could be extended, and council?owned vehicles could be retained longer. The aim would avoid any unnecessary spending on vehicles that could only be used briefly or redistributed under potential Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Members raised frustrations on the clarity of the £7.5 million proposed savings.

f)    Mr Prater (named as requested in the Minutes) shared that the presented report had in fact captured that the past Council’s Net Zero work had saved millions of pounds and avoided significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

RESOLVED to note the Work Programme.