Agenda item

1.    The Chairman summarised the issue being considered by the Scrutiny Committee in terms of the following two points:

-       Why was the plan and decision to implement the post consultation changes not taken to the Canterbury Joint Transportation board on 10 June 2014?

-       Under what authority was the decision made after the consultation?

2.    Under the process of formal submission of questions and by prior agreement, the Chairman invited Mr MacDowall to ask Mr Brazier three questions;

a)    Why was a full report published not after the consultation?

b)    Were the minutes of the St Dunstan’s Regeneration Scheme Steering Group made publicly available?

c)    Have the local area elected members from district and county councils have been given an opportunity to comment on the proposals for the scheme?

3.    Mr Brazier provided an overview, beginning with the instigation of a trial traffic management scheme on 27 March 2012 which prevented any vehicular travel through the Westgate Towers.  The trial had been requested by Canterbury City Council and was put in place without any formal decision being taken.  The Joint Transportation Board was informed of progress during the trial but did not take a formal role in approving the scheme.  The trial was ended after 12 months by KCC’s Leader Paul Carter due to local reaction against the impact of the traffic management.

4.    To address the unsustainable post-trial situation, Mr Brazier set up the St Dunstan’s Regeneration Scheme Steering Group to review the matter in partnership with senior stakeholders in the area with a view to developing a formal public consultation on possible traffic management options.  The Steering Group included KCC, Canterbury City Council, local business groups and community interests.  The consultation was launched in September 2013 and closed in December 2013.  The initial results of the consultation were taken to Cabinet in December where they were considered by the Leader and all Cabinet members.  The overwhelming support for Option E (allowing traffic through Westgate Towers) convinced Cabinet to announce that KCC would be supporting its implementation while the peripheral issues included in the consultation such as 20 mph limits and weight restrictions would be considered after further analysis had been conducted when the Steering Group next met in January 2014.

5.    Mr Brazier emphasised that this Traffic Scheme, like others of its kind, fall within delegated power and could be implemented without a formal cabinet decision by senior Highways Officers.  It was emphasised that the current scheme is reflective of the proposal endorsed in the public consultation and the scheme should already have been implemented but was delayed due to design work.  Mr Brazier had decided against taking the proposed scheme to the Joint Transportation Board for further comment due to the need for progress to be made after earlier delays and the concern that it would raise expectation that JTB and CCC comments would have a significant impact on the scheme when the formal consultation had already taken place.

6.    Mr Latchford thanked Mr Brazier for his summary of events then outlined the concerns that had been raised to him in his capacity as leader of the opposition, referring to an email record.  Mr Latchford stated that the Canterbury Area Member Panel (CAMP) had asked for a formal consultation report to be taken to the Joint Transportation Board; that this had not been done and the six bullet point summary that had been provided to CAMP was not deemed sufficient in place of a full report.  Mr Latchford asked that an appropriate Officer attend the next CAMP meeting on 21^st July.

7.    Mr Brazier responded to this and follow up questions from members; explaining that he had been consistently responding to correspondence, outlining that the formal consultation had provided ample opportunity for residents, councillors and all interested stakeholders to comment and contribute to the decision making process and that all relevant information that would constitute a ‘consultation report’ has been available on KCC’s website.  Officers were not available to attend CAMP on the 21^st but Mr Brazier stated that while he was already otherwise committed, he would try to attend.  He added that Stagecoach is a private commercial concern and KCC had no direct influence in terms of bus routes.

8.    In answer to specific questions about the involvement of the Canterbury JTB, Mr Brazier explained that the JTB is an advisory body and that he almost invariably takes on board the JTB’s recommendations but that he is not beholden to do so.  In this instance, when there is already two years’ worth of debate, research and correspondence, additional JTB advice was not required to influence traffic measures to be handled under delegated authority.

9.    Further questions were raised in relation to the membership of the Steering Group and concerns that local traders were not sufficiently represented.  Mr Brazier challenged this robustly, referring this to the involvement of significant Trade Associations from Canterbury.

10. In response to reiterated concerns about the decision not to take the St Dunstan’s scheme to the Canterbury JTB, Mr Brazier stated that the response to the current plan was positive, barring a small number of active correspondents who still oppose the plan.  Ongoing updates from stakeholders have supported the view that the proposals will benefit the St Dunstan’s area.  Furthermore, claims that the traffic scheme had directly led to businesses failing were challenged as oversimplifications and argued against.  It was emphasised again that the decision to run buses on any route in Kent was a matter for the relevant bus company and not influenced by KCC, instead basing such decisions on commercial interests.

11. Members commented that other local members were supportive of the content of the proposals but were concerned that local members and that it was likely that  the public expected the scheme to be discussed in public at the JTB. 

12. Mr Brazier again stated that the JTB is most useful when supporting the taking of formal decisions but reiterated that in this instance, no such decision was required.  It was also explained, through rhetorical questioning, that further debate at a future JTB would not be helpful as so much had already been done to find the best solution that it would not be practical to begin re-negotiating with dissatisfied parties at this stage.

13. A discussion took place considering various options to progress the matter, including a request for Mr Brazier to attend a later Scrutiny Committee with an update after having taken the scheme to the Canterbury JTB and that Mr Brazier or relevant Highways representatives attended the CAMP meeting on 21 July.

14. Members commented that the concerns about the appearance of democratic involvement and engagement processes not being followed were understandable but it was agreed that nothing illegal or constitutionally improper had taken place. 

15. A Member stated that the process and communication issues raised so far were justified concerns but that demanding further reports to the Scrutiny Committee would not be helpful.  Instead it was suggested that a strong attempt is made for a relevant individual to attend the upcoming CAMP on the 21^st July and that Mr Brazier take his proposals to the next JTB for consideration.

16. Mr Brazier stated that the communication work undertaken was sufficient and that further engagement with the small number of dissatisfied parties would not resolve the matter. His focus was delivering the plan rather than discussing it further though he would still attempt to attend the CAMP on 21 July.  Similarly, a further update to the Scrutiny Committee on the matter would not be beneficial as it would amount to an update on practical work undertaken as the scheme was being implemented in early September.

17. The Chairman summarised the situation, namely that despite a small number of dissenting voices in the community, there was widespread support for the plan which would now be implemented.  The Chairman suggested that the committee consider providing a recommendation for Mr Brazier and that the committee thank him for his attendance and note his report.

18. Motion proposed by Mr Hotson and seconded by Mr Scholes, that a written report be submitted to the JTB.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note Mr Brazier’s report and request that he provide a written report to the next Canterbury JTB on the St Dunstan’s traffic management scheme featuring a schedule of works with a proposed completion date.