Agenda item

(1) Mr Balfour introduced the report and explained that the proposal was to form a sub-committee of Scrutiny to improve the perceived disconnect between the development industry and the utility businesses.  The County Council had no authority to summon the utility companies to a meeting, but there was opportunity to assist and work together.    KCC did have the authority to ‘call to account’ the regulators.  The sub-committee would work in partnership with the utilities and development industry to bring forward ways of doing things better to enable a more efficient use of resources and money within the county.   

(2) There were concerns about the sub-committee and its Membership being drawn from the main Scrutiny Committee and why the utilities companies would attend a sub-committee rather than the main Scrutiny Committee.  It was suggested that the appropriate Cabinet Committee might be a better place to discharge this function.

(3) A Member asked whether the Cabinet Member had had a dialogue with the utilities companies confirming that they would engage with a sub-committee.  It was also considered that an annual report be made to the County Council.  It was suggested that the role be discharged by the Scrutiny Committee, reporting to County Council and being reviewed in 12 months’ time to consider whether the role should be discharged differently. 

(4) Mr Balfour responded by agreeing that it was not easy to gain confidence with the utilities companies so that they would engage and discuss.  It was important to support the fragile relationships which had been built up so far and not put off any discussions with the utility companies further up the chain.   It was not suggested that members of the sub-committee be limited to the main Scrutiny Committee, although they could be, but to draw membership from the whole council to gain expertise.  The sub-committee would then report back to the main committee.  A Member asked for clarification on the membership of the sub-committee and it was confirmed that the sub-committee would be drawn from the whole council.

(5) A Member asked whether relationships were being developed with regulators as well as developers, discussions were being held with the developers to determine where there were difficulties and once this information was available relationships with the regulators would be built on.  Contacts through the districts and the developers group were currently being mapped. 

(6) Members queried why the group was being set up and the Cabinet Member confirmed that there was a demand for a group to be formed in a way which did not mar the good relationships which had been built up already. Mrs Stewart confirmed that work had been undertaken with Kent Developers Group and the districts to identify whether there were barriers and it had shown that there were often difficulties in the investment planning stage or the connection stage there was often a mismatch of timings.  The sub-committee would be extremely helpful in identifying where there were barriers to enable this information to be put to the regulators.       

(7) A Member queried whether the Sub-Committee would have to be held in closed session to maximise benefit from the group, Mr Balfour agreed that there was a concern that a formal webcast meeting may result in a counterproductive meeting, the intention was to ensure a balance between having authority and communication behind the scenes.  Mr Sass confirmed that whether the group was the full Scrutiny Committee or a Sub-Committee the usual rules around exemptions would apply. It was preferable to discuss as much in open sessions as possible but there were exemption rules around commercial sensitive data for example that might require closed sessions. 

(8) A Member suggested that the Commissioning Advisory Board (CAB) might be an appropriate arena in which to discharge this function.  It was also considered that this should be postponed until after the County Council elections in May 2017.  Another Member considered that the CAB would not be an appropriate group for discussion with the utility companies.  It was necessary for the meeting to be informal; a Sub-Committee would have no powers of decision but would get information and allow for further discussion with the utility companies.  Mr Balfour agreed that the CAB was not a suitable arena for these discussions,   the proposal contained within the Scrutiny Committee paper was the preferable option, it was difficult to know how successful it would be without trying the Sub-Committee and review the process in the future. 

(9) A Member expressed the view that the Sub-Committee should report to the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee rather than the Scrutiny Committee to make it less formal.  The Member did not feel he could support the proposal within the agenda papers.

(10) Another Member was pleased that the Membership could be drawn from all 84 Members of the Council depending on knowledge and experience; including an Independent Member and that the Sub-Committee should report on an annual basis to the Scrutiny Committee.  Mrs Stewart confirmed that the utilities companies welcomed the opportunity to be involved in this Sub-Committee.

(11) Mr Sass confirmed that the Chairman, Mr Parry’s view was that the Sub-Committee would be more appropriate than the main committee to ensure that the group was not too large, Mr Parry was also keen to extend an invitation to the Independents Group, which is why the proposed membership was  5:1:1:1:1.

(12) Mr Cowan proposed that the Sub-Committee be drawn from all 84 Members of the Council to ensure people with knowledge and experience in the field of utilities.  The 9 members were to be made up of 5 Conservatives, 1 UKIP, 1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Independent. 

(13) This was seconded by Mr Birkby and the proposed was carried. 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee establish the Kent Utilities Engagement Sub-Committee with nine Members drawn from all 84 Members of the County Council. The nine member Sub-Committee is to be made up of 5 Conservatives, 1 UKIP, 1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Independent member.