Agenda item

The Chairman and Spokespeople have agreed to call-in the relevant part of this report, which deals with the Integrated Transport Schemes. 

Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr John Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services and Mr David Hall, Head of Transport & Development have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.15am and 10.45am to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mr John Simmonds, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ms Lynda McMullan, Director of Finance have also been invited to attend the meeting in relation to this item.

Mr N Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr J Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services, Mr D Hall, Head of Transport and Development and Mr R Hallett, Directorate Finance Manager – Environment, Highways and Waste were present for this item. 

(1)      The Chairman confirmed that the only item which was being called-in from the Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring Exception Report was that of the Integrated Transport Schemes. 

(2)      Mr Chard confirmed that the figures in the report were correct, he referred to table 5 in the Monitoring Exception Report that set out the in year capital grant reductions for Kent of £4.105million to the existing Integrated Transport block.  That decision was signed off by the Leader on 18 June and officers had worked up proposals to meet the £4.105million reduction.  Those schemes which were underway went forward, those which had severe safety implications, those with significant external funding and those which had a significant impact on congestion were also prioritised.  The detail which went out to Members on 28 June was the same information that was contained within the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee agenda papers. 

(3)      Mr Chittenden had given the Chairman prior notice that he wished to ask questions on this item and he asked Mr Chard how the proposals were worked up and how the criteria was applied.  Mr Hall explained that the £4.1million in year reduction had not been anticipated.  Given the short timescale to introduce the reductions, Officers devised a pragmatic way of assessing schemes to be retained based on the impact on road safety, schemes that contributed to the reduction of congestion, gave best value for money, provided significant match funding and those schemes that were underway.  The Council would continue to use SPS in future.  The vast majority of schemes fell reasonably neatly into the criteria, and the proposals were felt to be balanced and pragmatic. 

(4)      Mr Scholes explained that at a recent meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board, Members did not agree with the prioritisations.  Members had put forward suggestions which were broadly financially balanced and was the list in Appendix one of the agenda papers the final decision or were officers still reflecting on the discussions had at the Joint Transportation Boards? In response to a question from Mr Scholes, Mr Chard confirmed that he was aware of the situation in Tunbridge Wells, however the scheme had a major impact on congestion and therefore it was necessary on this occassion to over-rule the Joint Transportation Board (JTB).

(5)      Mr Christie asked whether the JTBs were offered the opportunity to comment on the proposals put forward.  Was it correct that 45% of the IT scheme budget was in question?  Did the Cabinet Member and Officers look at the possibility of using the Member’s funds to fund some of the priority schemes that were previously agreed?  

(6)      In response to another point Mr Chard confirmed that a list showing the schemes that were to be funded had previously been circulated to Members.  The Member Highway fund was taken into account.  It was important to note that those schemes which were proposed not to go ahead this year could go ahead in subsequent years, there had been no political input into the amendments to the scheme.  Mr Hall had done an outstanding job of working up the proposals and these had been thoroughly discussed with the Cabinet Member resulting in the list set out in Appendix 1.  JTBs had not necessarily had the time and opportunity to meet between the letter from the Cabinet Member which was circulated on 28 June and the Cabinet decision of 12 July.  However on 28 June the letter was sent to all members of the County Council and on 29 June a similar letter was sent to all district councillors, parish councillors and clerks. 

(7)      Mr Chittenden asked the Cabinet Member to reconfirm what was decided following discussions about the Scheme Prioritisation System.  Mr Chard explained that he thought there should be a prioritisation matrix, officers were tasked to come up with a transparent system which allowed Members to see how schemes had been prioritised as well as demonstrating value for money.  The JTB had power to make recommendations, it was not a decision making body. 

(8)      Mr Jarvis stated that Kent County Council had missed an opportunity, was the County Council serious about its environmental transport policy when many of the schemes which would not be funded this year were cycle schemes?   Mr Chard explained that had the in year reductions not been announced, all the schemes would have gone ahead.  The Council had to make cuts, safety was a priority and some of the schemes were underway and so had to continue.  The schemes in Appendix 1 were not to be funded this year, it was not the case that they were axed forever.  It was hoped that these schemes would be put forward in future years. 

(9)      Mr Horne asked for confirmation that the Members’ Grants were still available and that they could be rolled over into a following year.  Mr Chard explained that the Council agreed a 2 year pilot on Members’ Grants and it was possible to roll the money forward from last year into this year.  The Council would take a decision next February when the budget was decided to determine what should happen in future. 

(10)  Mrs Law suggested that, in relation to SPS and Member’s Highways Fund, that Members might not be aware that they could contribute to Integrated Transport schemes in the future, Mr Hall explained that the Community Liaison Officers would be liaising with Members to explain that funds could be used in this way. 

(11)  The Chairman asked that the full spreadsheet be made available to Members in future, some schemes were aligned with planning permission which was not currently underway, therefore delaying the transport scheme was not critical and perhaps that point could be made more clear.  The end of Appendix 1 put into one package some Kent wide schemes, however if that package were to be broken down Members might wish to put money towards some of the smaller schemes.  Mr Hall explained that he would ensure that the Community Liaison Officers had the detail behind the smaller packages of schemes to enable them to discuss these schemes with Members.  

(12)  The Chairman asked for an explanation of the phrase ‘variations to and re-scoping of a range of existing IT schemes’.  Mr Hallett explained that a list was available of the variations to and re-scoping of schemes and this would be circulated after the meeting. 

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(13)   Thank Mr Chard, Mr Burr, Mr D Hall and Mr R Hallett for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions,

(14)  Welcome the assurance that the Community Liaison Officers would liaise with elected Members to ensure that Members are aware that unspent Member’s Highways fund could be used to reinstate some of the smaller schemes that had been deleted from the Integrated Transport programme,

(15)  Request further information relating to packages of Integrated Transport Schemes to enable clear understanding of the detail of any changes to the schemes,

(16)  Ask that in future the spreadsheet of schemes includes the comments of those that have responded,

(17)    Thank the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste for his offer to advise Members of any changes to the prioritisation scheme,

(18)  Raise concerns about the unequal treatment of the Joint Transportation Boards across Kent because of the narrow consultation period.