Agenda item

(Report by Mr A Wilkinson, Managing Director, Environment and Regeneration)

(1)       Members received the draft 2008/09 Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan 2008/09 to 2010/11 together with an update of the current position in the current year.

(2)       The report specifically covered the Cabinet Member’s portfolios for Environment, Highways and Waste and Regeneration and Supporting Independence. 

 (3)      In introducing the report Mr Gould referred to the last meeting of the Policy Overview Committee which outlined the Medium Term Plan priorities.  This report showed the revenue gross expenditure, income and net expenditure, as contained in Appendices 1 and 2.  It also included the Capital Investment Programme in Appendices 3 and 4.

 (4)      The Committee were informed that the 2008/09 draft Revenue Budget for Environment, Highways and Waste reflected nearly a 15% increase on the current financial year on a “like for like” basis.  Attention was drawn specifically to the £5 million injection into Highway maintenance works and a £4 million injection for the expansion of the current year pilot of the “Freedom Pass”. 

(5)       The Committee noted that within the 2008/09 draft Revenue Budget for Regeneration and Supporting Independence there was a transfer in of the Supporting Independence Programme budget of £1 million including Towards 2010 target funding.

(6)       Within the Capital Medium Term Financial Plan the Local Transport Plan settlement from government offered a £37m programme of capital maintenance and integrated transport, though with a marked reduction in grant.  The proposals before the Committee reflected a full take up of the offer.  The programme also reflected a substantial investment in Waste Infrastructure (some £30m over the Medium Term Financial Plan) and as expected starts on East Kent Access Phase 2 and schemes in the Kent Thameside Growth Area.

(7)       Turning to the current year’s budget the Committee’s specific attention was drawn to the underspend in the Revenue Budget on Waste which was due to the non operation of the Allington Plant.  Paragraph 9 of the report before the Committee explained the movements in budget heads since the report to the Cabinet on 3 December 2007, which was attached as Appendix 5.  The current underspend forecast was £2.465 million.  It would be necessary to make further calls on the corporate centre’s Emergency Conditions Reserve due to the gales and floods in recent weeks. 

(8)       With regard to the Regeneration and Supporting Independence portfolio there had been little movement in the budget heads from that reported to Cabinet on 3 December 2007.

(9)       The Committee noted that the Capital Programme had seen significant rephasing into future years, as reported to Cabinet.  The latest position indicated that further rephasing would be necessary.  Every effort was being made to reduce the rephasing on Highways work programmes. 

(10)     For the Regeneration and Supporting Independence portfolio the forecast showed an increased spend from the report to Cabinet and that expenditure related to the EuroKent spine road.

(11)     Mr Gough informed the Committee that much of the regeneration activity goes on through other portfolios. Part of the new Regeneration Strategy and associated restructuring was to ensure better co-ordination of these activities

(12)     Mr Ferrin, Mr Gough and Mr Wilkinson then responded to a number of questions from Members which included the following issues:-

Produced in Kent

(13)     Mr Gough informed the Committee of the Joint Venture with Hadlow College around ‘Produced in Kent’

Current Financial Year Capital Programme

            (14)     In response to a question about the £2.117m underspend on this financial year’s Highways Maintenance and Integrated Transport Scheme Capital Programme the response was that every effort would be made to reduce this re-phasing in the current year.

Congestion

            (15)     Several Members asked questions about the priorities for reducing congestion across Kent.  The Committee noted the work that had been undertaken in Maidstone and the continued work on the Maidstone bridge gyratory system, which would need some re-siting of assets owned by EDF Energy.  Acknowledging the work already undertaken to reduce congestion in Maidstone town centre the question was asked whether there was any likelihood that the town centre would become an air quality management area.

(16)     Priorities after Maidstone were Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells. 

(17)     After Tunbridge Wells the expected priorities were Thanet and Dartford and Gravesham.  The Committee noted that Dartford and Gravesham would be treated as a single area. 

(18)     The Committee were informed of the ongoing dialogue with the Department of Transport regarding the A2 slip roads at Canterbury and the impact that this would have on reducing congestion within Canterbury city centre.

(19)     The inclusion of Kent Thameside in the list of priority plans to reduce congestion was welcomed but the comment was made that much of the problem in this area was relating to roads which were managed by the Highways Agency and not the County Council.

(20)     In acknowledging the list of priorities for addressing congestion issues for particular urban areas the question was raised when other areas would be included in the list, for example Sittingbourne and Dover. 

Freedom Pass

(21)     Members asked about the robustness of the financial figures in terms of the number of persons using the Freedom Pass and whether the scheme when extended across the county would become even more popular.  The response was that estimates for the take up of the Freedom Pass as a pilot had far exceeded what was anticipated and that included estimates made by the transport operators for the pilot areas as well.  However, the volume increase within the pilot had not created a comparable cost increase. It was therefore felt that the County Council could expect to see an uplift in the use of the Freedom Pass.  The Committee noted the synergy between the Freedom Pass and the potential to reduce congestion.

Economic development

(22)     One Member expressed the view that the budget was not as substantive for economic development as maybe it should be and cited a number of countywide initiatives where he felt that the activity could be co-ordinated more effectively through an economic development function.

(23)     In response the Committee noted that economic development had for a long time been undertaken by the County Council as a discretionary function.  The Committee noted that economic development was planned to be a statutory duty in the future.

(24)     RESOLVED that the draft Budget for the Environment, Highways and Waste and Regeneration and Supporting Independence portfolios for 2008/09 and the Medium Term Plan 2008/09 to 2010/11 and the forecast position for the current year’s revenue and capital budgets be noted together with the responses made to the questions from Members of the Committee.