Agenda and draft minutes

1.Mr Thorp sent apologies. Mr Mole was the allocated substitute.

 a) The Clerk highlighted the changes in the Membership in accordance with   paragraph 6.5 of the constitution as detailed in section 18 (public arrangements). Overall membership would now see a reduction from 17 Members to 13 Members.

 b) Mr Prater expressed concern regarding the revised figures and the consequent effect on Members’ ability to undertake effective scrutiny of the decision presented to them. He requested that the Leader reconsider the decision in light of these issues. The Chair acknowledged the concerns raised and advised that he would refer the matter to the Leader of the Council for further consideration.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held 04/11/2024 of the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee and on the 11/11/2025 Growth, Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee were a correct record and that a paper copy be signed by the Chair.

Paul Webb (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services), Paul King (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Special Projects), 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 Osborne, delivered his verbal update, recent events encompassed:

a)    Updated on the continued salt gritting of Kents roads, in addition to the road’s drainage teams clearing of 65,000 gullies since April 2025. In addition, 35,000 pot holes had been filled.

b)    A provisional grant of £48 million capital and £42 million revenue from the DfT (Department for Transport) had been received and would aid in the continued improvements of Kents bus networks, additionally a multiyear funding settlement for walking and cycling of £1.6 million revenue, and £ 5.2 million capital for 2026-27 was also discussed.

c)    The Highways long term maintenance contract with partners Ringway would commence in May. The contract was valued at £50 million per year, and repairs would be expected to be completed at a faster rate then previously recorded. £30 million had been invested in the road resurfacing programme, and a capital highway’s maintenance grant of £56 million was being received this year (2026-27). In addition, a further £274 million pounds was to be invested into the network over the next four years.

d)    Additional investments to pre-school road safety training would look to reach over 4,000 children and older drivers throughout Kent. The discussion was summarised with the announcement that Kent Highways had been nominated for a national award for most improved performance.

2. Mr King, Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Special projects gave his first update of the new collated portfolio:

a)    Thanked KCC officers for the swift response observed during the recent water outages that had impacted Tunbridge Wells and surrounding areas. Mr King further outlined how the new revised portfolio would aim to drive economic revitalization, stimulate investment and job creation within Kent’s coastal areas. The Cabinet Member looked forward to future collaborative work that will benefit the people of Kent.

b)    Highlighted KCC’s £93 million annual spend on waste disposal that had seen around 660,000 tonnes of material pass through household waste recycling centres and transfer stations.

c)    The Cabinet Member highlighted the opportunities being explored to improve enhanced recycling outcomes in the discussed areas by improving better economical benefits through resource efficiency and costs savings.

3. Mr Webb, Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services updated Members on his respective portfolio:

a)    The Committee acknowledged an update on the high level of activity experienced by the Trading Standards team over the festive period. It was reported that a new TikTok channel had been launched, aimed at informing the public of the significant hazards associated with counterfeit goods and provided guidance on the key indicators to consider when purchasing items to ensure that they were genuine and safe.

b)    The same team were also heavily involved with the BBC’s Scam Safe week initiatives and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Paul Webb (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services), Paul King (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Special Projects), David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) with support from Dave Shipton (Head of Financial Strategy) and Kevin Tilson (Finance Business Partner, Growth, Environment and Transport)

1.Dave Shipton updated the Cabinet Committee on the following aspects of the GET Draft budget:

a)    The draft budget balances a significant increase spend of £179.5 Million and had signified an 11.7% in spending. The figure also balanced the reversal of £28 million of savings seen from previous years. Spending pressures were partly offset by the impact of net changes in reserves of £14.7 Million and £ 61.7 million of new and full year effect savings plans and £14.6million of income generation.

b)    Mr Shipton added that once the discussed elements were considered, there was a net increase of spending of £ 116.5 Million (up 7.6%). Net increase was funded by a combination of funds from central government and local government. Capital programme also included a near £500 million increase over the 10-year period but would be entirely funded from external source or from within already approved borrowing in the existing capital programme. No new borrowing was raised.

c)    The majority of the capital programme was directed towards investment in school buildings, highways asset management, and the maintenance and improvement of other council-owned facilities. Mr Shipton highlighted the £21.7 million increases related to the Growth, Environment and Transport portfolios.

d)    Highlighted the key components that Members needed to be aware of when setting a budget such as local government finance settlement and Council tax arrangements.

e)    Officers urged caution in understating the risk captured within the draft budget. Aspects such as the significant pressures seen in areas such as Adult Social Care (£90 million) and Children’s Social Care (£50 million) provisions, whilst not part of the discussed portfolio, the discussed functions still impacted the wider budget as a whole. Deterioration to GETs asset stock was flagged as a significant risk to the GET portfolio. Mr Collins praised the work Mr Shipton and colleagues had completed in delivering the draft budget.

2) In response to the presented Draft Budget, Members asked the following:

a)    Members discussed the highlighted spending growth pressure but queried if the provision of future increase of waste tonnage (984,0000) was correct as building targets had stagnated. Mr Tilson responded that the provision was included in the budget for demographic?driven increases in waste tonnages and was based on modelling linked to new housebuilding. The discussed assumptions were reviewed annually, with budgets adjusted for any under? or over?delivery. For 2026–27, slower?than?expected housing growth had resulted in the removal of approximately 5,000 tonnes from the forecast. This had ensured the medium?term plan reflected expected tonnage changes alongside evolving recycling targets.

b)    The £660,000 on street car parking was raised by Members who specifically queried on how the County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

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. The report covered the periods of September to October 2025. The performance dashboard was the first combined view of the two preceding Cabinet Committees.

a)    38 of 44 KPIs included within the report were RAG (Red, Amber and Green) rated Green, it was noted that there was five RAG rated amber.

b)    The solitary red KPI represented ‘Emergency incidents attended to within 2 hours’ The discussed red KPI had seen a decrease due to the impact of storm Benjamin that had occurred in October and subsequent impacts on the ability to resource and respond in a timely manner. The service had held and would continue to hold regular meetings with contractors at an area level to discuss areas of concern and lessons learned to aid in the improvement of the KPI.

c)    The five amber KPI captured ‘Percentage of priority 1 food, feed and consumer products sample tests reported to clients within 5 working days’ (Community Protection) , ‘Percentage of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) faults reported online’ (Strategic Development and Place) , ‘Enquiries requiring a response, responded to within 28 days including completed in 28 days’ , ‘Percentage of highway enquiries reported through the online fault reporting tool Highways’ ( Highways and Transport) and ‘Municipal waste recycled and composted’ ( Environment and Circular economy)

d)    Overall green KPIs had represented 86% of the overall picture and indicated a solid on or ahead of target trajectory, five rated amber and one rated red closed out the reporting periods overall picture.

2) In response to comments and questions from Members and guests, discussion covered the following:

a)    Members noted the changes to HT02 from ‘Faults reported by the public completed in 28 days’ to ‘All inquiries requiring a response to within 28 days.

b)    Mr Loosemore explained that the previous descriptor had not provided a true representation of what the KPI reflected and that the new wording would give a more accurate representation.

c)    HT08 capturing ‘emergency response within two hours’, Members raised concerns on the Council’s capacity to deal with emergency Incidents, Officers raised that the failure of this KPI was due to the capacity issues impacted by recent storm events. Officers further discussed how resources would be allocated on prioritised events.

d)     A decline in DT01 ‘Percentage of highways inquiries reported through the online tool’ from green to amber was noted.  Further investigation was required to understand the small decline seen in the KPI.

e)    Officers explained to Members the rationale of the removal of a number of KPIs associated with household recycling centres and wood converted to biomass. The removal had been seen as a way to not reward the use of waste energy in a bid to reduce the Councils’ overall emissions and retained a focus on increasing recycling and reuse targets.

f)      Members asked for further updates  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Andrew Loosemore (Interim Director of Highways and Transport), Shane Bushell (Client Transport Manager) and Steve Pay (Public Transport Planning and Operations Manager) were in attendance for this item

1.Mr Osborne presented the following aspects of the update:

a)    The Gravesend-Tilbury ferry service had ceased operations in April 2024 following Thurrock Council’s withdrawal of its funding contribution. Kent County Council had subsequently provided temporary sole funding to ensure that passengers received appropriate notice of the closure. At present, no budget provision existed to reinstate the service.

b)    Any future re?establishment would require the identification of new funding sources. Kent County Council continued to support the Thames Estuary Growth Board, which was leading work to assess options for restoring the ferry, either as a commercially viable service or through a suitable partnership?funding arrangement.

2. In response to comments and questions from Members and guests, discussion covered the following:

a)    It was confirmed that there had not been any signs of support received from the Thames Estuary Group on the reintroduction of the ferry crossing. It was suggested that the level of funding required to reinstate the crossing would likely to be beyond the reach of one singular organisation and even if reinstated would likely require a significant subsidy to continue to be viable.

b)    The Cabinet Member expanded upon the exploration of alternative funding sources, whether through collaboration within the group or from external partners. Options included examining potential Thames Crossing?related revenues and opportunities arising from future local development. Mr Osborne urged caution and suggested that at this stage no assurance about when or whether the ferry service would be reinstated could be made.

c)    Members raised Thurrock Councils current local plan consultation and suggested the Kent County Council look to submit a response and cooperate in any potential future negotiations.

d)    It was determined the Thames Estuary Growth Board had now disbanded (Late December 2025) due to a lack of public funding. Members highlighted that the discussion brought to Committee specifically had targeted the discussions between KCC and the TEGB.

e)    It was suggested that the paper presented be withdrawn, updated and brought back at the next meeting of the Cabinet Committee. In addition, Members discussed that the presented report did not capture the concerns raised from the initial petition.

f)      Members also asked that when the report returns a concise capital costing of costs of return to service, ferry acquisition and other budgetary constraints that may require partnered support be captured.

g)    The Chair agreed that the item would return with a corrected and updated revised report at the next available opportunity.

RESOLVED to note the Report

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) Andrew Loosemore (Interim Director of Highways and Transport) and Robin Hadley (Asset Manager) were in attendance for this item

1.Officers briefed Members on the associated report and requested any feedback from Members, aspects captured included:

a)    Concerns were raised on the accidental destruction of a number of orchids on Bluebell Hill by contractors, Members suggested some improved signage be implemented to prevent similar incidents occurring. Officers acknowledged concerns but did raise that due to the difficult locations of sites that signage may be difficult to implement and conversely there was a desire to not advertise the location of sensitive areas to the wider public.

b)    The Vice-Chair raised the discussion of foliage growth upon roundabouts (Ebbsfleet locale) and how this could potentially be a health and safety issue for road users. Officers acknowledged the concerns and highlighted the targeted wildflower installation in conjunction with the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation once underway, would be assessed on safety grounds.

c)    In relation to Swanscombe and Greenhithe, a significant portion of the area was designated as a Site of Special Interest (SSI), with the remainder falling within the development corridor (Swanscombe Heritage Park). Members asked how collaboration could be strengthened between KCC and Swanscombe Council to support visitors.

d)    Mr Hadley acknowledged the request and discussed the current involvement of activities; a communication plan could be rolled out to talk to locals and asked for Members involvement in the initiative.

e)    Members sought assurances that Members of the committee would be involved with the Plan Bee initiative. The Cabinet Member for Environment and officers confirmed that this was agreeable.

f)      Officers confirmed the process for dealing with invasive plant species such as giant hogweed and Japanese knotweed. New build verge improvements were also a concern raised by Members.

g)    In terms of local planning applications, KCC had provided an ecological advisory service to every planning authority in the county. Biodiversity officers would review applications and advise on the ecological considerations of any proposed schemes.

h)    KCC had published the Kent and Medway Local Nature Recovery Strategy in November. This had set out KCC’s strategic priorities for nature recovery and had provided a spatial framework that included a mapping tool that planning authorities could use to inform their local plans. This would help guide decisions on land use, site allocations, and the delivery of ecological outcomes across the county.

RESOLVED to note the Report

Jamie Henderson (Deputy Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Environment and Coastal Regeneration) and Ben Hudson (Energy and Climate Change Manager) were in attendance for this item

1.Mr Hudson presented the item and discussed the following aspects to Members

a)    The Energy and Low Emission Strategy (E?LES) was adopted in 2020 by a wide range of public?sector partners, including all 14 local authorities, the NHS, the Kent Chamber of Commerce and the Kent Housing Group. It offered a comprehensive strategy that sets out how Kent would meet national targets and policies whilst supporting the transition to a clean and resilient economy. The strategy would be delivered through a partnership approach and was overseen by the Kent and Medway Environment Group.

b)    The process of updating the implementation plan began in February last year and included consultation with all Kent and Medway partners and had encompassed Districts, Boroughs, and the KCC Environment Board. The revised plan had deliberately focused on priorities that were impactful, achievable, and relevant, and reflected the evolving policy and funding considerations across all 14 partner organisations and not solely KCC.

RESOLVED to note the Report

Jamie Henderson (Deputy Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Environment and Coastal Regeneration) Steve Samson (Head of Economy) and Sarah Nurden (Strategic Programme Manager - KMEP) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Samson presented the item with background aspects presented to the Members

a)    The Kent and Medway Economic Framework was a jointly developed strategic document agreed in March 2024. It had been produced through collaboration between all local authorities in the County, the private sector and business community through the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP), other key organisations included universities and further education colleges. It reflected a shared commitment across key partners to support and guide economic development in Kent and Medway.

b)    The report outlined the five ambitions within Kent and Medway which had encompassed: supporting businesses and encouraging innovation, improving skills and employment, supporting infrastructure for growth, and economic opportunity for all communities and promoting Kent and Medway as places to invest, visit and conduct business.

c)    Officers provided a further update on activities under the economic strategy. It was recognised that the strategy was not a funded programme in itself, but rather a framework through which partners across Kent and Medway work collaboratively to secure external investment and deliver shared priorities. The Council would continue to work with a range of organisations to identify and pursue funding opportunities to support delivery.

d)    It was reported that the ongoing collaboration with universities and other regional partners was underway to prepare a joint bid to central government that would aim to secure funding to support the development and growth of innovation clusters. The update formed part of the Committee’s regular monitoring of progress against the strategy’s ambitions and action areas.

e)    Reference was made to the Kent and Medway Business Fund. The loan scheme was administered by Kent County Council and provided loan financing to small businesses across the County to support business growth and aid in job creation.

2. In response to comments and questions from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Members asked how aspects were measured specifically those aspects that have been successful. Officers acknowledged how broad the framework was and as an example discussed how a focus on business support could be measured through the Kent and Medway growth hub service to capture the number of businesses that had received support.

b)    Officers emphasised the importance of clearly demonstrating the impact of the strategy’s work, particularly in relation to measurable outcomes such as employment creation. The Member commented that, as an example, an ambition was to see 300 people employed through a particular policy or programme, reporting should enable Members to understand if progress had remained on track.

c)    Members discussed the recent closure of Visit Kent and how the current ‘Brand Kent’ sat within the overall picture of Kent tourism frameworks. Officers responded that the tourism body of work discussed had now been brought in?house under the new Grow in Kent banner.

d)    The team’s activities had included improving the number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Jamie Henderson (Deputy Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Environment and Coastal Regeneration) Colin Finch (Strategic Programme Manager for Infrastructure (GET)) was in attendance for this item

1.Mr Finch presented the item by highlighting that:

a)    KCC had a statutory obligation to produce an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS). The statement would set out the financial transactions related to developer contributions, specifically detailing the amounts secured, received, and spent during the preceding financial year.

b)    The report was structured around three principal categories of developer contributions. The most significant of these was Section 106 contributions. As shown in Table 1 at paragraph 2.5, the report provided a breakdown of the funding secured, received, and spent across each KCC service area.

c)    For 2024/25, the total amount secured for KCC services through developer contributions was £31.7 million. The amount received in-year was £23.4 million and represented funding that was now been fully banked from developments that were currently progressed and becoming occupied. In total, £17 million had been invested by KCC into infrastructure to support and enable the growth of new and expanding communities.

d)    Officers also discussed the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). There were five CIL?charging authorities in the County, but only one, Folkestone & Hythe District Council provided KCC with a regular and predictable stream of CIL income. KCC received 35% of their annual CIL revenue, and in the reporting period this amounted to £547,000. All of the funding had now been allocated, through policy decisions, to support the delivery of the new waste transfer station required to serve the district.

e)    Developer contributions were also secured and delivered through Section 278 agreements. These relate to highway improvements that developers undertake directly on the public highway network. The value of these works was demonstrated through financial bonds attached to each Section 278 agreement. The bonds reflected the cost of the infrastructure being delivered by the developer. During the reporting year, the total value of bonds secured had amounted to £12.7 million.

f)      The future spending and priorities balance had increased from £119 million to £126 million over the financial year. It was not unusual for funding to be held at this level, as a number of major infrastructure requirements associated with growth carried significant costs. Notably, substantial allocations were being retained for the Sturry Link Road (£6.8 million) and for the expansion of Chilmington Green Secondary School, alongside several other projects detailed within the report.

g)    Officers added that while the IFS was a useful tool for setting out what had been secured, it was important to recognise that secured contributions represented only a snapshot in time. Actual delivery and spending profiles would inevitably evolve as developments progressed, and infrastructure programmes moved forward.

h)    On average, over the past five years, KCC had received £33.4 million per year in developer contributions and represented a significant and ongoing contribution to KCC’s overall budget. Officers raised that a series of district?level meetings involving district and county members had taken place. These sessions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) Andrew Loosemore (Interim Director of Highways and Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Osborne introduced the following key decision

a)    The Cabinet Member proposed to introduce two new Highways Enforcement Policies. These policies enabled the County Council to act against landowners and utility companies that had breached legislation or significantly disrupted the management of the highway network. Enforcement would only be used as a last resort, when all other avenues to resolve the issue had been exhausted.

b)    The primary aims of the discussed policies was to improve road safety, reduce delays, and ensure fairness and transparency on how highway-related non?compliance was managed.

2. In response to comments and questions from Members, the discussion covered the following:

a)    Members discussed examples of long-term infrastructure disruptions and failures by developers. Officers acknowledged the concerns and examples raised but did suggest that each individual case had its complexities and legal issues that would need to be addressed separately.

b)    The proposal was welcomed by Members especially if the policy was to be used to deal with ongoing issues with utilities companies and their impact on the roads of Kent. Members suggested that with the aid of the policy KCC could be far more robust with required timeframes for expected repairs and disruptions to the public.

c)    It was suggested that the defect list be reviewed to encompass the actions of reinstatement and if reinstatement works were deemed inadequate after a repair and that the associated contractor be summoned to amend the repair to a satisfactory standard.

d)    The Cabinet Member echoed the concerns and acknowledged the wider examples Members had shared. Officers echoed suggestions that the key decision would allow KCC to be more robust in challenging developers.

e)    On the discussion of fixed penalty notices (FPN), KCC currently issued FPNs and carried out inspections of all utility works at various stages. The new proposed approach, if KCC intended to pursue prosecution, would not issue an FPN as this removed the legal basis for further actions. Instead KCC would begin collecting evidence against the utility company and build a formal case.

f)      KCC’s approach had focused on issuing FPNs but would now shift to seeking to take enforcement actions further where necessary. Officers anticipated that the number of prosecutions would remain relatively low, as the primary objective was to send a clear message that would ultimately drive compliance and improve performance across the sector.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision, namely:

That the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport agree to:

a)    To approve and adopt a new enforcement policy enabling Kent County Council (KCC) to take enforcement action against land owners to ensure highways users are not put at risk from non-compliance under relevant statutory provisions.

b)    To approve and adopt a new street works enforcement policy enabling KCC to take relevant enforcement action up to and including prosecution against utility companies and other entities for non-compliance failures under relevant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) Andrew Loosemore (Interim Director of Highways and Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Osborne presented the Key Decision to Members for consideration, aspects to be considered were:

a)    The A28 Sturry Link Road would be a critical piece of infrastructure required to reduce congestion and to support new housing and economic growth in Canterbury and East Kent. Although substantial funding had already been secured through developer contributions and government grants, a funding gap had remained.

b)    To address the funding gap, the County Council was seeking support from the Brownfield Infrastructure and Land Bill Fund. Securing funding would assist in mitigating the financial risk to the Council and ensured that the project could proceed without delay. A decision on the funding application was expected later in the month (January 2026).

2. In response to comments and questions from Members, the discussion covered the following:

a)    Members queried that the link road project being dependent on a £9.8 million funding contribution from Homes England and if funding was not secured, or if a shortfall arises, would County Council propose to address the deficit through future Section 106 developer contributions. The Cabinet Member suggested that a shortfall was unlikely but had instructed officers to explore all options.

b)    Officers updated that the grant had successfully passed the next stage of their approvals process. Officials from the Ministry of housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) were present at that meeting. The proposal had now been passed to MHCLG for formal approval. Officers expected a decision within the next five to ten days, and the indications at the current stage remained positive.

c)    In Addition, officers responded to the £9.8 million funding gap that Members had referenced. Officers clarified that the figure did not represent the full value of the grant being requested. Homes England had applied their own contingency allowances, and their assessments did not include indexation when calculating the funding gap.

d)    KCC budgets had captured an anticipated level of indexation that would be expected to be met through developer contributions. As a result, Homes England had considered a grant value of up to £24 million, which would significantly offset the gap and reduce the overall financial risk to the County Council.

e)    Frustrations were shared on the lack of progress made with Network Rail in light of the works occurring around the Sturry train station location. Impacts to the local traffic were emphasised and included environmental concerns on the possibilities of the River Stour being impacted by building runoffs. Members asked for support in holding National Rail to account for the impacts that continued to disrupt the Sturry and Broad Oak areas.

f)      Officers highlighted the six planning conditions that related specifically to environmental matters, particularly those associated with the River Stour. Officers would be working through the process of preparing and submitting the necessary documentation to enable these conditions to be formally discharged. This included providing the evidence required to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Mr Brian Collins (Deputy leader of the Council) with Rebecca Spore (Director of Infrastructure), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director of Growth and Communities), Hugh D’Alton (Strategic Programme Manager) and James Pearson (Head of Libraries, and Registration & Archives) were in attendance for this item.

1. Mr Collins presented the key item to the Members; the following was discussed:

a)    Outlined the ongoing holding costs for keeping Grace Hill and the sites current state of disrepair which had remained unchanged since December 2022. It was highlighted that this had placed significant financial pressure on the Council.

b)    Restoring Grace Hill to even a basic, habitable condition would likely require substantial expenditure. The Deputy Leader discussed that as a Council there was a responsibility to balance investment and spending across the entire County, not just at one locale.

c)    Following the closure of the Grace Hill Library in 2022, a temporary library facility was established opposite the original site to ensure continuity of service for residents.

d)    The temporary library had been in place opposite Grace Hill along with other measures since its closure in 2022. The library did not provide residents with the experience or resource levels expected of a fully operating library in the Town Centre. It had also lacked a proper adult section and a proper children’s section, and although staff on site were working extremely hard the limitations of the premises had remained very restricted in delivery of offer.

e)    If the option of returning the library to the Grace Hill building was to be pursued, there would be no immediate reinstatement of services. The Deputy Leader suggested that in reality and under favourable conditions, it would likely take around three years before the building could reopen and that was only if such an investment were financially viable for the Council to pursue.

f)      The Council had agreed to look for alternative location for a temporary service in the town centre where the full-service offer could be delivered. The best site found was the former Woolworths building, 14 Sandgate Road, as a potential site for delivering library services. This option had offered a significant opportunity. It would provide the people of Folkestone with a dedicated, fully equipped library and included a complete adult section and a complete children’s section. Adult Education Services would also move into the location and align with the administration’s commitment to creating spaces that offer more than a just traditional library provision and ensure that the Folkestone has a full town centre offering.

g)    The Deputy Leader acknowledged that passions were understandably running high among some residents of Folkestone and acknowledged and respected those feelings. While the intention was for the Grace Hill site to go to auction in February, that process had not yet taken place. The door was therefore not fully closed to any offers to purchase the building.

h)    The Deputy Leader elaborated that there were still time and opportunities for individuals or organisations to come forward with alternative proposals for the future of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The work programme was noted.