Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Mr Thorpe. Mr Mole was the designated Substitute.

An update on the Membership of the Committee was provided. Mrs Lawes and Mr Thomas had now joined.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held 10 March 2026 were a correct record and that a paper copy be signed by the Chair.

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

1.Mr Osborne, delivered his verbal update:

a)    Groundwork for the installation of electric chargers had commenced and work had also begun to support the Thameside Fastrack network. Once fully completed the entire network would be operating with electric vehicles.

b)    The Strategic Resilience Team (SRT) had commenced work with the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum, partner agencies, the Police, National Highways, and other authorities to develop plans for traffic management on the approaches to the Kents ports and Channel crossings.

c)    All UK nationals travelling to the EU were required to register under the Exit/Entry System (EES), which was likely to increase crossing times for those travelling across the Channel. It was noted that the full biometric system had not yet been implemented, with registration currently taking place at customs booths. These impacts were expected to add additional processing time for Operation Brock.

d)    Operation Brock would continue to be used for the foreseeable future with no viable alternative having yet to be identified. The SRT had been working with the Department for Transport (DfT) to explore technological alternatives, and it was suggested that any solution explored would unlikely provide a quick fix.

e)    Members were informed that Telent Technology Services (TTS) had successfully retained the maintenance contract for traffic systems assets across Kent following a comprehensive bidding and assessment process.

f)      The new contract had commenced on 1st April. The SRT had been working with TTS to align new processes and develop the associated performance measures. The transition was well underway and had progressed smoothly. No disruption to service delivery had been observed and positive engagement from Telent staff and strong leadership from the local contract manager were noted.

g)    The update highlighted that the previous Winter had been relatively mild. However, there had still been a spike in salt runs in January 2026 which had remained consistent with patterns observed in previous years.

h)    Between April 2025 and March 2026, more than 50,000 potholes had been repaired. A total of 35,000 potholes had been formally reported with 22,500 of those reports being submitted between January and March 2026.

i)      Despite unprecedented demand and significant pressure on services it was indicated that teams had demonstrated resilience, professionalism, and a strong commitment throughout the period. It was discussed that reducing the overall number of potholes remained challenging due to ongoing underlying factors.

j)      The new local highways maintenance contract had been launched with four new suppliers appointed to support patching and repair works. The Structures Fund had opened for scheme submissions. Only one bid per authority was permitted except in exceptional circumstances. KCC had submitted two bids: the primary bid for Galley Hill and a secondary bid for the A299 structures, tunnels and carriageway reconstruction.

k)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) and Richard Emmett (Head of Highways) were in attendance for this item.

1. Mr Osborne presented the following:

a)    The Committee received the annual update on Winter Services which outlined planning and delivery arrangements for the 2025 to 26 winter period, including the response to severe weather conditions.

b)    The report highlighted key areas of good practice, lessons learned, and actions being taken to maintain road safety and improve preparedness for the forthcoming winter season.

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

a)    Clarification on how salting routes were determined, including the extent to which crash data and lessons learned were used to inform route planning.

b)    Members asked how agile the process was, specifically whether live or emerging incident and crash data could be used to review, consult, and amend salting routes within the operational plan where necessary.

c)    The Committee was advised that crash data across the network was received from Kent Police, although there could be a delay of six to nine months before full reports were available, particularly in cases involving injury.

d)    Once received, this information was reviewed by the Casualty Reduction Team (CRT) and shared across highway services to inform learning and identify any necessary actions. It was further reported that where crash investigations identified issues with infrastructure, the authority had a duty to address these accordingly.

e)    The officer explained that understanding road surface temperatures, combined with historic knowledge of the network, informed how roads were treated and supported an appropriate response during adverse weather conditions.

f)      Queried the reliance on farmers for snow ploughing, highlighting concerns that rising insurance costs may deter participation. Asked whether any support or supplementary insurance mechanisms exist. Officers noted the issue and agreed to investigate further.

g)    Members requested that future reports include clearer information on road?condition trends, total expenditure for the service, and any implications for reserves.

h)    Officers acknowledged the concern and outlined the statutory obligations of the service. Operational reserves such as the 16,800 tonnes of salt (equivalent to 12 days’ supply) were addressed as a key example of successful forward planning.

i)      In response to a number of suggestions, Members were advised that delivery followed the existing policy framework, and any changes would require further discussion with Cabinet Members and the administration. It was confirmed that the service was currently budget balanced, with resources fully aligned to deliver the existing Winter Service provision.

RESOLVED to note the Winter Service Update.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Simon Jones (Corporate Director for Growth Environment and Transport) and Shane Bushell (Head of Service: Public Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Osborne presented the following:

a)    The Committee was informed that, following Thurrock Council’s withdrawal of funding and further engagement with partners, no alternative funding had been secured.

b)    Support would continue to be provided to the Port of London Authority as it led efforts to identify a viable commercial solution.

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

a)    The Committee expressed concerns that responsibility for the issue appeared to have shifted to the Port of London Authority following the withdrawal of funding by Thurrock Council, where it had previously been a joint responsibility.

b)    Members raised disappointment with the outcome and emphasised the importance of the service, particularly in relation to culture and economic development. It was discussed that funding had previously been drawn from similar sources to those used for bus services and that the current position would represent the likely end of the Gravesend to Tilbury Ferry service.

c)    The Cabinet Member addressed the concerns raised and advised that government guidance had clearly stated that any revival of the service would need to be financially self-sustaining, with no public subsidy.

d)    The Committee acknowledged the position, noting reports that Thurrock Council had engaged in discussions which confirmed that any future ferry service would need to operate on a fully self sustaining basis.

e)    Discussed the negative impact to residents in Gravesham, Northfleet and the wider Dartford area, noting the loss as significant. Members expressed hope that options to reinstate the service could be explored in the future and committed to continuing to advocate for the ferry’s restoration where possible.

f)      Officers explained that Thurrock Council had withdrawn its funding in 2024 and had been involved in tentative discussions with Kent County Council. However, (to date) Thurrock Council had not yet provided a definitive position on the future of the ferry and had not committed to any alternative funding arrangements.

RESOLVED to note the Gravesend to Tilbury Ferry Update.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Simon Jones (Corporate Director for Growth Environment and Transport) and Shane Bushell (Head of Service: Public Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Osborne presented the following:

a)    The Committee was informed that the Kent Travel Saver pass currently supported approximately 23,000 students to travel to school by bus through discounted fares.

b)    The cost of operating the scheme had increased, primarily due to higher charges from bus operators and rising demands. Whilst Government funding had provided some support, this would not fully offset the increased costs.

c)    It was reported that, in order to maintain the scheme’s sustainability and affordability, a proposed annual fee increase of £35 for fee paying users was being considered. The Cabinet Member elaborated that despite the increase, the pass would continue to represent good value for money when compared to standard bus fares and would safeguard support for those most in need.

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

a)    Concerns regarding the proposed increase impact to 3,100 low income families, noting a rise of 26% (from £135 to £170 per child), equating to an overall additional cost of £108,000 were raised by a number of Members.

b)    Members queried the distribution of low income passholders across districts and questioned the rationale for the scale of the increase, particularly in comparison to the previous year’s 12.5% rise and average fare increases of around 6%. Concern was expressed that low income families were being disproportionately affected.

c)    Further questions were raised regarding the role of bus operators, including whether the increase reflected operator requests or anticipated cost pressures. Members additionally queried on how cost increases were validated, including whether access to operator financial data or audit mechanisms were in place to ensure that funding requests were justified.

d)    Officers explained that eligibility for the reduced cost Kent Travel Saver pass were based on qualification for targeted free school meals, and that any eligible family in Kent would be able to apply for and receive the reduced fare.

e)    The Committee was further informed that increases to costs were not directly set by operator requests but were calculated through a concessionary travel funding mechanism aligned with Department for Transport (DfT) requirements. It was explained that a formula determined reimbursement to operators based on journeys undertaken and reflected the fares that would otherwise have been paid.

f)      Cost increases had been influenced by factors including rising operator fares and additional usage of the scheme, which had seen significant expansion in recent years.

g)    Members questioned if operators were being reimbursed at an appropriate level under the concessionary travel scheme, referring to concerns that reimbursement rates might exceed the principle that operators should be “no better off and no worse off.”

h)    Clarification was sought on how the Council challenged and verified operator claims to ensure that reimbursement accurately reflected actual foregone revenue and did not result in unintended profit.

i)      Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport). Simon Jones (Corporate Director for Growth Environment and Transport) and Abigail Roscoe (Senior Assistant Project Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Osborne presented the following:

a)    The Committee received an update on the ongoing closure of Galley Hill Road, which had been in place since the collapse in April 2023 and continued to cause disruption to residents, the local road network, and bus services.

b)    Members were advised that the immediate priority following the incident had been to ensure public safety, including securing the site and undertaking detailed investigations and feasibility work to understand the cause of the collapse and identify viable options.

c)    The purpose of the report was to seek Member support to progress the preferred option to the detailed design stage. It was discussed that work would continue to secure external funding, including a pre submission bid to relevant funding streams and also to pursue the recovery of costs from third parties.

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

a)    Members thanked the Dartford Councillors that had aided in the facilitation of resolving the issues around Galley Hill in addition the works and coordination of Highways and Transport officers was commended.

b)    The Committee placed on record its thanks for the submission of the Structures Fund bid and for the expenditure to date of just over £1 million in progressing a solution to the Galley Hill Road issue.

c)    Members asked that consideration be given to including a standing agenda item at future meetings to provide regular updates on the progress of the bid and the subsequent delivery of the project. This would be captured in future Cabinet Member verbal updates.

d)    Officers outlined that a draft submission to the technical advisory body was due to be submitted by 19 June. It was noted that feedback would be received on the draft and subsequently used to strengthen the final bid.

e)    Final submission deadline was scheduled for the 3^rd of August, at which point a full and final proposal would be submitted for assessment by the Technical Advisory Body and the Department for Transport. It was further reported that funding decisions were expected in the autumn, with successful schemes required to commence reporting from 1 April the following year.

f)      The Committee was advised that a number of internal funding avenues had been explored. Originally anticipated internal funding had not been secured at the time of reporting, but an alternative solution had since been identified. As a result, there was no current risk to progressing the scheme and the earlier funding concerns would no longer be considered relevant.

g)    Officers highlighted that further investigation was required to understand the root cause of the incident, including whether issues relating to utilities had contributed. In addition, there were a number of associated legal considerations that would remain under review.

h)    Members raised concerns on funds being drawn from elsewhere in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director of Growth and Communities) and Steve Samson (Head of Economy) were in attendance for this item

1.Mr Wimble presented the following:

a)    The Committee received the final in a series of five updates on progress with the Kent and Medway Economic Framework, which had been adopted in March 2024 by the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership, including local authorities, private sector representatives, and further and higher education partners.

b)    Ambition 5 had focused on promoting locations, with emphasis on the rural economy, the cultural and creative sectors, and opportunities to showcase the County nationally and internationally.

c)    Officers highlighted the role of the Kent and Medway Business Fund in supporting local firms within the creative and digital sectors. It was also reported that the Local Growth Plan (LGP) was being developed and would highlight opportunities for sector clustering, as well as future skills and employment priorities.

d)    The Committee was advised that a second focus related to creative places, including activity across districts to develop and promote cultural venues and enhance both resident and visitor spend.

e)    Third focus area addressed the rural economy, including support for Agri- tech and Agri- food businesses through Produced in Kent (PiK) membership. The Grow in Kent and Medway programme was also recognised for its contribution to innovation in the food and drink sector.

f)      The Committee was informed of ongoing work relating to the natural environment, including a cross border geopark initiative with northern France. It was noted that a prospective UNESCO bid was being explored, which could support economic growth and business opportunities across protected landscapes on both sides of the Channel.

g)    Members received an update on the visitor economy, noting that the Visit Kent service had been brought in house in November. It was reported that plans were in development for a forthcoming coastal campaign, alongside a campaign promoting viticulture.

h)    Recent promotional activity was highlighted, including collaborations with the high speed rail service to London and billboard campaigns aimed at increasing footfall and raising awareness of Kent and Medway’s visitor offer.

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

a)    The Committee acknowledged the importance of the film industry to Kent’s economy and its potential contribution to the visitor economy. Members queried how activity relating to tourism and the film industry could be better aligned to maximise economic benefits, including opportunities to attract visitors, promote filming locations, and enhance the county’s overall offer.

b)    It was advised that the Kent Film Office (KFO) had continued to play a key role in promoting the county as a filming location, supported by communications activity and local media coverage.

c)    Recent filming activity at Dungeness for an upcoming feature film were discussed and it was reported that such opportunities had been actively publicised to raise awareness. It was acknowledged that efforts would continue, within available budgets, to promote Kent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director of Growth and Communities) and Tom Marchant (Assistant Director Strategic Development and Place) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Wimble presented the following:

a)    The Committee was advised that the proposal formed part of the Council’s wider energy policy, originally established in 2014, and reflected a position consistent with national policy principle.

b)    Support remained for solar energy development in appropriate locations, such as rooftops and brownfield sites. However, it was emphasised that protecting the county’s food economy was also a key priority.

c)    A position statement had been developed opposing large scale solar developments and battery energy storage systems on high grade agricultural land (Grades A1 to A3). It was noted that this approach reflected the Council’s stated policy position and would inform the development of the emerging energy policy.

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

a)    Members raised concerns on the legal status and scope of the position statement, as set out within the report. Members highlighted that the document was non statutory, did not constitute formal policy, and would not be binding or determinative in planning decisions.

b)    Additionally, Members suggested that the statement appeared limited in scope, with no clear consideration of a wider spatial strategy for solar development, community involvement or ownership models, or the overall role of solar in supporting local energy resilience.

c)    Members also highlighted the lack of reference to the economic implications for farmers, particularly the potential loss of income from land use diversification, and the absence of detail on how such impacts might be mitigated. Additionally, Members highlighted that there was limited discussion of long term protections or strategic planning considerations.

d)    The Cabinet Member introducing the item explained that the proposal had been brought forward in line with a policy commitment on which Members had been elected and was intended to form part of the Council’s emerging energy policy, with the aim of strengthening its influence.

e)    Concern was raised on the long term impact of large scale solar arrays, particularly in areas such as Romney Marsh, and had included potential environmental consequences at the end of the array’s operational life and uncertainty over responsibility for remediation and clean up costs.

f)      It was suggested that the use of agricultural land for solar development should be considered only as a last resort, and that stronger opposition to such development within the county should be articulated. Reference was made to the importance of protecting the county’s landscape and wider economic interests.

g)    In response it was explained that the original proposal submitted to officers had been amended following advice that it could not be implemented to the extent originally envisaged.

h)    Members additionally raised the political nature of the decision and noted that the purpose of the item was unclear, as the report lacked key definitions, including what constituted a large scale solar array, and therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Georgia Foster (Cabinet Member for Communities and Regulatory Services), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director of Growth and Communities) and Graham Rusling (Head of PROW CL&VGS and Access) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mrs Foster presented the following:

a)    The Committee was informed that, over the past five years, the Public Rights of Way (PROW) team had been addressing a significant backlog of applications.

b)    A backlog had arisen following a surge in map modification applications, largely driven by public uncertainty linked to legislative changes and government policy regarding cut off dates for recording historic rights of way.

c)    It was explained if applications continued to be processed strictly in order of receipt, it could take a further six to eight years to clear the backlog.

d)    The Committee was advised that a change in approach was recommended, whereby priority would be given to applications supported by user evidence, such as witness statements and first hand accounts, rather than those based solely on historical documentation.

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

a)    Members supported the proposed change in approach and agreed that prioritising applications with user evidence was appropriate. Queries were raised on how many applications were triggered by the one year rule and sought clarification on how this mechanism was being used in practice to accelerate the processing of applications.

b)    Officers advised that, although the provision to request accelerated processing via the Planning Inspectorate had been in place for some time, it was rarely utilised by individuals or organisation and that this was likely due to confidence in the Council’s ongoing progress in addressing applications. However, a small number of such requests were received, and on occasion the Secretary of State instructed the authority to prioritise specific applications.

c)    The Committee asked whether footpaths that had been in continuous use for over 20 years could be determined immediately upon application. Members were advised that such applications would still enter the existing process and remain within the backlog, rather than being determined immediately. However, the revised approach aimed to improve operational efficiency and fairness by enabling applications supported by evidence to be progressed more promptly.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision, namely:

a)    APPROVE the changes to the Statement of Priorities for Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) applications.

b)    DELEGATE to the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities and Regulatory Services to implement the approved amendment to the Statement of Priorities for Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) applications, including:

•                giving effect to the amended statement in operational practice.

•                making any minor, non material drafting or presentational changes required to ensure clarity and accuracy; and

•                issuing associated guidance or communications necessary to support consistent application of the amended priorities

Georgia Foster (Cabinet Member for Communities and Regulatory Services), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director of Growth and Communities) and Natalie Liddiard (Head of Gypsy Roma Traveller Resident Service) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mrs Foster presented the Following:

a)    Advised that the current policy had last been updated in 2023, with the revised version following a public consultation had received a limited response.

b)     Members noted that KCC owned, provided, managed and maintained seven sites across Kent. The refreshed policy had been clarified for applicants, with a small number of amendments introduced to align with housing allocation processes used by borough and district councils.

2.No questions were raised on the decision; Members endorsed the proposed decision.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision, namely:

a)    ADOPT the Gypsy and Traveller Site Pitch Allocation Policy 2026

b)    DELEGATE authority to the Director of Growth & Communities to take all relevant actions and decisions necessary for its implementation, where such changes do not alter the intent of the policy and do not require further Member decision making.

c)    DELEGATE authority to the Director of Growth & Communities or other officer (as authorised through the Council’s Scheme of Delegation) as required to review the policy on an annual basis and revise the policy where changes do not require additional governance.

The work programme was noted.