Agenda and minutes

Mr Collor declared an interest in Item D2 as the Dover District Council Member on the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2012 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)     The report detailed the reasons for the proposed pitch fee for the new Coldharbour site, and necessary compliance with the Mobile Homes Act, for current and future pitch occupiers. It included the reason for, and proposed level of, a service charge towards costs of waste water disposal.

(2)     The report recommended a pitch fee of £65 per week, to take effect from the handover of each new pitch on the new site, or 1 April 2013 if later, for existing pitch occupiers, subject to consultation under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. 

(3)     The Coldharbour Lane site in Aylesford was originally established in 1981, to accommodate families who had lived for some time down the adjacent (then) A20.  Following various efforts down the years to improve and expand the site, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and the County Council started a joint project in 2008 to establish a new site, which had included new land acquisition and planning consent for a 26-pitch site, and part of the funding from the Homes and Communities Agency.

(4)     The new site was now being constructed, and should be available for occupation early next year.  There needed to be a pitch fee agreed for those who would be allocated a new pitch on the site, and an increase in pitch fee for those who lived on the old site currently.

(5)     The proposed £65 per week per pitch fee would cover the costs of maintenance of the site and repayment of a significant proportion of the prudential borrowing needed to build the site. The implications to KCC if the pitch fee were not agreed and collected would be serious, as any shortfall would need to be found from the County Council’s revenue budget.

(6)     The Mobile Homes Act 1983 required site operators to consult over pitch fee increases with existing pitch occupiers, and to justify the proposed pitch fee set for new pitch occupiers.  Consultation over the design of the new site had taken place with current occupiers, and they would be consulted over the proposed increase to their pitch fee.

(7)     The new site was a complete transformation of the current site, on which the pitch fee had been £44.50 per week.  Current pitch fees for sites managed by the Gypsy and Traveller Unit ranged between £44.50 and £57, so Coldharbour Lane, because of its current condition, was the lowest.  The new site had larger pitches than the current site, and the new facilities included new amenity blocks, pitch surfacing, fencing and utilities; and had a play area for children.

(8)     The Edenbridge site in Sevenoaks recently had significant improvements and expansion and its pitch fee was currently £72.10 per week.  Based on the extent of the improvements resulting from the new site development, the recommended pitch fee for new pitch occupiers was £65 per week per pitch, and the recommended increase for current pitch occupiers was from £44.50 to £65.  It was recommended that the increase for existing occupiers took effect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

(1)               The report set out the current conditions under which the Kent Thameside Strategic Transport (Homes & Roads) Programme was being developed and implemented covering in particular, the available funding, management of risk and the proposals for governance arrangements of the programme.  It was proposed to seek a further Key Decision from Cabinet on 15 October in light of the considerable changes to the progress of development and the available funding that had taken place since a previous decision was taken on 21 February 2008 (Decision No. 07/01108), which agreed to the County Council acting as the Accountable Body for the programme.

(2)               The Kent Thameside Strategic Transport (Homes & Roads) Programme was a package of improvements that responded to the complexities encountered in assessing the individual impacts and mitigation measures for significant development across the boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham.  The 20-year programme aimed to provide key transport infrastructure improvements that would enable the planned level of development in Kent Thameside to be realised. 

(3)       As the Accountable Body for the programme the County Council was responsible for the management of the programme and administration of the funding.  A dedicated Programme Investment Fund had been set up for the programme within the County Councils corporate financial system.  A cash flow model had also been developed to assist the financial management process.  The current estimated cost for the programme was £116.2m and anticipated funding was estimated at £84.0m leaving a funding gap of £32.2m (current prices). 

(4)       In the course of the management of the programme the situation might arise where the County Council was required to use its Prudential borrowing powers to ensure that schemes were completed.  The estimated cost to the County Council was £800,000 per annum for every £10m borrowed.  Although it was not envisaged that the County Council would exercise the powers to cover the shortfall in funding it might be necessary to use such powers to overcome short-term cash flow issues when implementing individual schemes.  In such circumstances the County Council’s borrowing costs would be funded through the programme.

(5)               Discussions with Dartford and Gravesham Borough Councils had identified potential funding of around £5m from the New Homes Bonus initiative.  An estimated 1170 dwellings were expected from sites between 2012/13 and 2015/16 based on information received from Land Securities and the Borough Councils, resulting in a cost to the County Council of around £1.0m, with the Borough Councils bearing the remaining cost.

(6)               The programme (a) would contribute to Ambition 1 of the Vision for Kent (To Grow the Economy) by delivering the critical infrastructure to create the conditions for economic growth; (b) was in line with priorities 8, 9 and 10 of Bold Steps for Kent driving economic prosperity through unlocking key sites in the Thames Gateway Kent region, helping to deliver the Kent & Medway Housing Strategy and ensuring that new housing development was matched with the appropriate infrastructure; and (c) was identified within the Local Transport for Kent 2011-16 and would deliver a priority for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

(Local Members – Mr G Cooke, Mr D Daley and Mrs J Whittle; Maidstone Borough Council – Cllr C Garland, Leader; and Mr R Jarman, Head of Planning, were in attendance for this item and took part in the debate)

(1)       The report proposed a response by KCC to Maidstone Borough Council’s public consultations on Strategic Site Allocations. The main strategic developments proposed by the Borough Council were employment land at Junction 8 of the M20, retail and employment uses at Junction 7 of M20, and residential land at Allington and on the Sutton Road.

(2)       Maidstone Borough Council consulted on their draft local plan Core Strategy in September 2011. The County Council supported the proposed number and distribution of dwellings, but objected to the proposal for a new site for warehousing and other employment uses near to Junction 8 of the M20.  The consultation gave rise to requests that new strategic development sites, such as Junction 8, should be clearly identified. The Council therefore invited proposals for development sites (a ‘call for sites’) in June of this year. The call for sites asked for information about sites specifically at three strategic development locations: housing sites in North West and South East Maidstone, and employment sites at Junction 8 of the M20. 

(3)       The Borough Council was now consulting on the sites and policies that it proposed to allocate in the Core Strategy. The consultation was taking place for 6 weeks from 17 August 2012, and closed on 1 October.  The allocations would become part of the Maidstone local plan Core Strategy which the Borough Council intended to publish in December 2012 before it was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination in 2013 (the Examination in Public).

(4)     The Borough Council were also consulting on an Integrated Transport Strategy for Maidstone (ITS) prepared jointly with KCC as the highways authority.  The draft ITS had been agreed for consultation by an informal group of Members from both authorities. It would then be referred to the Joint Transport Board for Maidstone in October, and would be considered by the Committee in November for subsequent adoption by both authorities.

(5)       The decisions to be taken by the Borough Council might have long term financial implications for KCC as the provider of infrastructure and services to support development.  The proposed response by KCC to the consultation supported the County Council’s ambition to grow the economy.

(6)       The report summarised:- (a) KCC’s views on the main proposals in the draft Core Strategy – Housing, Town Centre, and Employment; (b) the proposed  KCC Response to the current Strategic Sites Allocations Consultation – Housing, Housing land in North West Maidstone, Housing land in South East Maidstone, Housing at Rural Services Centres, Strategic employment locations, Strategic employment location at Junction 8 of M20, Strategic employment site at Junction 7 of M20, Retail Policy, Medical campus and employment uses. 

(7)       The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) introduced a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

(1)       The report considered proposals to speed up the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process by delegating the consideration of non-controversial objections to TRO’s, where the local County Councillor was in full support of the proposal to the Director of Highways and Transportation for consideration. It set out the process and procedures the Director would have to follow when considering the objections.

(2)       The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 gave traffic authorities the powers to make TRO’s for various reasons which were set out in the report.  Typically, TRO’s took the form of prohibitions or restrictions such as speed limits, weight & width limits, prohibition of driving or of motor vehicles, prohibited or prescribed movements, parking restrictions etc. A TRO could be proposed on its own or as part of a scheme.

(3)       When a traffic authority wished to make a TRO it must follow a statutory procedure which was set out in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The procedure required the traffic authority to consult any persons likely to be affected by the restrictions or prohibitions to be imposed by the Order. The authority must publish a notice in a local paper and carry out other provisions to ensure adequate publicity for the proposal such as writing to affected parties or posting notices on the road where the TRO was being proposed. The traffic authority then must allow a minimum of 21 days for stakeholders to make comments on the proposal and, if they wished, formally object.

(4)       Current KCC procedures when objections were received were to report them to the local Joint Transportation Board for the relevant area. The Board was typically asked to make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways & Waste on whether to proceed with the scheme notwithstanding the objections; implement the proposal with modifications, or abandon the proposal. If no objections were received to a TRO then the Director of Highways & Transportation already had delegated authority to proceed with making the Order as proposed.

(5)       The main issue with the current procedure was the time it could take for a decision to be made when objections were received to a TRO. As stated, the traffic authority was legally required to consult when proposing a TRO. When added to the time it took to design a scheme, consult and then report to a local Joint Transportation Board, which were only held every three months, it could take six to nine months to make an order for a very simple proposal such as a few metres of double yellow lines.

(6)       Following the statutory consultation if five or fewer objections were received and the local County Councillor was in full support of proceeding with the proposal, a report would be submitted to the Director of Highways and Transportation requesting authorisation for the Order to be made. The Director would carefully consider the matter and if he was not happy to authorise the making of the Order it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

(1)       The report related to the introduction of a lane rental scheme in Kent in order to apply charges to those carrying out works on the highway network, within specific strategic locations.  The KLRS had been out for formal Consultation between 25 June and 17 September and the results showed a positive support for the Scheme and the overall objectives.

(2)       The Secretary of State for Transport had the power to provide a Council with the legal Order to introduce the Regulations that brought a lane rental scheme into effect.  Transport for London commenced a scheme in June 2012 and KCC had been invited to consider an application for a scheme also.  The Highways and Transportation Annual Plan for 2012/13 included an action listed under item 2.1 to “Agree Lane Rental pilot scheme with DfT for Kent’s most critical roads (to commence in Summer 2013)”.

(3)       KCC had designed a Kent Lane Rental Scheme (KLRS) and had carried out an extensive consultation with key stakeholders who would be affected by the Scheme (interested parties).  The Scheme was well-designed and well-targeted, focusing on the most critical parts of the highway network. It was intended to encourage those undertaking works to carry out their works in a less disruptive manner.  The Scheme complimented the existing Kent Permit Scheme and would further decrease the impact of roadworks on the travelling public in Kent.

(4)       The revenue received from a lane rental scheme would be used to cover the full operating costs of the scheme.  The Council’s Local Transport Plan had an objective to “Keep Kent Moving” and a Kent Lane Rental Scheme was considered an essential tool to not only deliver the objective, but to also maintain and support the Councils legal duty to “secure the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority's road network”.

(5)    The Consultation resulted in over 200 comments received from 30 different interested parties.  Overall, the KLRS received strong support from the interested parties, including the promoters of affected works, as a well-designed and purposeful Scheme.  As a result of the Consultation changes were applied to the Scheme design. An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) was conducted on the KLRS and determined that the Scheme had potential positive impacts, but no potential adverse impacts.

(6)       As part of the application, a full cost-to-benefit analysis had been carried out to show the potential positive impact for the introduction of a lane rental scheme into Kent, for both local residents and businesses.  The base case net present value (NPV) was £8.29m (2010 prices) for the first year of operation, with a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 10.4. The scheme costs included a set up fixed cost as well as an annual running cost. On that basis the BCR demonstrated a robust return for the introduction of the KLRS.

(7)       The current projected timescale to make an application for the KLRS and bring it into operation was based on submitting the application in October 2012. A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

(1)       Each year Highways and Transportation reviewed the Council’s Highways and Transportation Winter Service Policy and the operational plan that supported it in light of changes in national guidance and lessons learnt from the previous winter. The report set out proposed amendments following the review.

(2)       As a result of three successive bad winters, national guidance had been issued by the Department for Transport and was detailed in the code of practice for highway authorities – Well Maintained Highways – Section 13 Winter Service. Much of the guidance provided had long been incorporated in the Highways and Transportation (H&T) winter service policy and plan. Additions to the policy were set out in the report.  The allocated budget for winter service for 2012/13 was £3,237,704, £20,000 of which was allocated for the purchase of additional salt bins.

(3)       The revisions to the winter service policy met the objectives of the Council’s medium term plan for 2014/15, Bold Steps for Kent. Working in partnership with other authorities contributed towards achieving a better service and value for money for Kent residents.

(4)       Putting the citizen in control would be achieved by continuing to provide salt bags to parishes who requested them. Salt bins would be provided across the county and for the first time would be identified on a map on the Kent County Council website. Advice on how people in the Kent community could self help during winter conditions would also be included on the website, including road safety tips.

(5)       Well Maintained Highways recommended that local authorities identified a minimum network that would be treated continuously for a period of six days in the event of a severe winter event. For Kent it had been identified as being the main strategic network, i.e. all A and B roads and some other locally important roads as identified in the highway network hierarchy.  Essentially, they equated to the current primary routes minus the local roads and roads that go through estates etc. H&T would always endeavour to treat the entire primary network as identified in the policy but recognised that there might be times, as experienced in previous years, where it would be prudent to reduce the network as stated above to maintain salt levels and keep main roads in Kent moving as much as possible

(6)       Additionally H&T had identified an Operational Winter Period which was October to April, and a Core Winter Period which was December to February and the stocks of salt needed during those periods to effectively treat the network in line with recommended resilience levels.

(7)       In previous years good relationships had been established with the Highways Agency MAC Area 4 who managed the trunk roads and motorways in Kent.  KCC shared two depots with the HA and there had been a reciprocal salt sharing arrangement for some time which had worked very well. Additionally there was an arrangement with Medway Council in respect of the weather forecast and treating areas on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

(1)     Hadlow Road Link had been an aspiration for over 30 years.  It was an expensive urban scheme that had not attracted either government or private sector development funding.  The present economic climate, reduced funding and national transport policy made funding of a major scheme in a non growth area even more unlikely.  The property held was deteriorating and several houses were boarded up because they were now unsuitable to be leased,  making the area look ‘run down’, as well as the ongoing informal blight created by the presence of the proposal.  Officers had been working with Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council on a more appropriate transport strategy that recognised that the Link Road was undeliverable and should be abandoned.

(2)     The disposal of the land and property would realise capital receipts in an estimated range of £1.4 - £1.8m.  The revenue implications would be positive as the loss of reducing rental income was offset by the avoidance of security costs and the need for significant maintenance if the properties were to be retained.  The Head of KCC Property had agreed (a) to release £250,000 from the future capital receipts in order to help pump prime the development and implementation of priority measures identified in the revised transport strategy; and (b) that the cost of the assessment work – some £25,000 - that had been required to develop a revised transport strategy would be netted off the future capital receipts.

(3)     The removal of the blight and disposal of the land and property held would allow more beneficial use to be made of the land and property that together implicitly contributed to the core objective of ‘Help Kent Economy to Grow’.  The scheme was identified in ‘Growth without Gridlock’ but progress towards meeting many of its core objectives could be more realistically achieved by a revised transport strategy.

(4)       The report set out details of the scheme background; property aspects; and a review of the current Transport Strategy.

(5)             Analysis identified that the Link Road was not essential to the implementation of the development in the Tonbridge Central Area Action Plan.  Properties held were in a poor condition and needed to be sold so that the private sector could bring them into beneficial use and the capital receipts released for the wider public benefit.  A revised joint transport strategy was being developed to reflect the current situation and the limited public sector that was available.

(6)       RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member be recommended to approve that the proposed road scheme known as Hadlow Road Link be abandoned and no longer used for Land Charge disclosures or development control; and that land and property held for the scheme be declared surplus to highway requirements.

(1)       The report set out the responses to the public consultation on the draft Freight Action Plan for Kent and consequent amendments to the Plan. The consultation period was open from 28 May 2012 until 23 July 2012 but late submissions were accepted.

(2)       The Freight Action Plan for Kent (FAP) identified the issues facing the county in relation to road freight, developed a series of objectives and outlined a number of key actions. It focussed on road haulage as it was the mode that predominantly affected the county’s residents, visitors and workers, as well as the road network itself. However, the FAP expressly supported alternative modes of transporting goods that were considered more sustainable, such as rail and water.

(3)       The FAP was subject to internal consultation in February 2012 and subsequently sent to stakeholder groups for six weeks during April and May. The Plan was also sent to KCC Members and Joint Transportation Boards. It produced 39 written representations and significant amendments to the document were made as a result of the process.  A final draft version of the FAP was released for public consultation online from 28 May to 23 July 2012. The same stakeholder groups were again notified of the public consultation. The public consultation resulted in a further 25 written representations and 25 responses online.

(4)       Some of the actions in the Plan had implications for officer time and consequently a new Freight Officer role was created in July 2012 and would be appointed in September 2012. There were no further financial implications beyond agreed budgets.

(5)               The action points in the Freight Action Plan for Kent contributed towards all three of the key priorities in Bold Steps for Kent:

·                    To help the Kent economy grow

·                    To put the citizen in control

·                    To tackle disadvantage

(6)       The stakeholder consultation produced a number of very detailed and helpful responses. As a result the FAP was significantly amended to rectify any omissions identified and for general improvement. It ensured that the draft released to the public was as close to the final version as possible.  The public consultation was promoted online on the Roads and Transport page and was also picked up by the industry website Commercial Motor. The responses to the public consultation could be split between the written representations made and the online responses, details of which were set out in the Appendix to the report.

(7)       The Freight Action Plan for Kent 2011 – 2016 provided a framework for dealing with the problems generated by road freight in the county. Through the public consultation the Plan had been well received and no significant amendments had to be made.

(8)       RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member be recommended to approve the formal adoption of the Freight Action Plan for Kent.

(1)       The report updated Members on the TESC procurement process. On 14 March 2012 the decision was taken not to extend the current Jacobs contract beyond 31 March 2013. Members agreed that ‘in house’ expertise would be supported by a new core contract where general commissions were secured. In addition, a competitive ‘framework’ of specialist suppliers would be procured.

Market Engagement

(2)       On 16 May 2012, the Leader of the Council welcomed senior representatives from over 40 local, national and global organisations to Kent. Presentations gave an overview of KCC’s requirements including the procurement strategy and desired solution, including key aspects of the contract. On 24 and 25 May 2012, Enterprise & Environment (E&E) held a Market Engagement event to identify and discuss solutions to deliver Technical and Environmental services for Enterprise and Environment.

Commissioning and Procurement Board

(3)       On 25 June 2012, the KCC Commissioning and Procurement Board approved the recommendation that the Council should procure a Core Contract plus specialised Lots. This would allow a core contract worth about 80% of the annual £4m - £5m budget to attract suitable companies whilst also delivering the Council some economies of scale. The TESC would be developed to allow other KCC Directorates and District Councils in Kent to commission services.

(4)       The Paw-Print detailed in the report was used to illustrate how the Technical and Environmental Services Contract (TESC) would be comprised of a Core Services contract for the majority of the professional services, with some smaller specialist contracts (“toes”) and internalised services.  The Paw-Print approach gave better flexibility in the procurement of services and greater choices without significant additional procurement costs.  The Council did not want the risk of having a number of different suppliers and therefore inter-dependencies within a process - the management of this would be complex – particularly if there were disputes as this would increase contractual liability upon KCC.  To mitigate this, only specialist work was being split out, for example work that was undertaken either at the beginning or the end of a process, or work that was an independent, standalone function.

(5)             The report set out details of the next steps which consisted of

Core Contract - Pre-Qualification; Invitation to Tender (ITT); Tender Presentations: Preferred Bidder Identified; Mobilisation

The Smaller (“Toe”) Contracts

H&T Internalisation

Waste Management

(6)     The proposed contract spend by KCC would be approximately £4m - £5m per year for an initial period of up to 5 years, with possible extension(s) for a further 5 years. This was a significant potential reduction on historic spend through the “Jacobs” contract which was worth around £12m – £13m per year in 2010/11.

(7)       The TESC aimed to encourage the use of local Kent supply chains and employment of a % of Kent apprentices in a similar way to the Enterprise Term Maintenance contract. The Materials Testing and Coring contract was one that might suit the local labour market. The contract would use key indicators to drive performance with financial penalties if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

RESOLVED that the current entry in the Forward Plan for Environment, Highways and Waste, be noted.

(1)       Consultation on the draft budget proposals for 2013/14 was launched on 6 September, and would run for 8 weeks up to 1 November 2012. The consultation had been launched much earlier than in previous years, which allowed more time for consideration of the options and more time for Cabinet and Cabinet Committees to consider consultation responses.

(2)       The consultation focussed on £42m of savings which were the key new proposals.  It included proposals to address the £28m of savings that were not identified at the time the current Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) was agreed, as well as some items which were included in the current plan but not in detail as there was no impact in 2012/13.

(3)       Cabinet Committees had been asked to establish an Informal Member Group (IMG) to consider the specific budget issues for each portfolio.  The IMG would meet throughout the autumn.  There were no specific terms of reference for the IMG and each group would agree their own working arrangements and which officers should be invited to provide evidence.  It was intended that the IMG would report its findings to the November meeting together with any specific issues for the Environment Highways & Waste portfolio arising from the consultation. 

(4)       RESOLVED that the Budget consultation launched on 6 September and the engagement with Cabinet Committees, including feedback from the IMG at the November meeting, be noted.

(1)       At the last meeting of the Cabinet Committee, it was agreed that the Performance Dashboard would contain a focussed sub-set of key performance and activity indicators, drawn from the year’s Divisional business plans for the Enterprise & Environment Directorate.

(2)               The Enterprise & Environment performance dashboard included latest available results for the agreed set of key performance and activity indicators drawn from this year’s Divisional business plans.  Separate tables had also been included in the Dashboard to provide the raw data/denominator used to calculate the performance indicator results. 

(3)       Where frequent data was available for indicators the results in the dashboard were shown with the latest available month (July) and a year to date figure.  For Waste Management, where data was more appropriately monitored with a rolling 12 month figure to remove seasonality, the data was provided with quarterly updates.

(4)       During debate Mr Bullock requested that the PI – Waste Management – percentage of municipal waste recycled or converted to energy and not taken to landfill, could be split to show the 2 individual percentage figures – for recycled and converted.

(5)       RESOLVED that the report be noted.

(1)       Members were asked to note the first quarter’s full budget monitoring report for 2012/13 reported to Cabinet on 17 September 2012.  There were no exceptional revenue or capital changes since the writing of the quarter 1 report.

(2)       RESOLVED that the revenue and capital forecast variances from budget for 2012/13 for the Enterprise & Environment Directorate (Environment, Highways and Waste Portfolio), based on the first quarter’s full monitoring to Cabinet, be noted.

(1)               Mr Sweetland gave a verbal report on the following issues:-

Highways - Kent Freedom Pass; Pembury Hospital Bus Services; Olympics and Paralympics; and Fault Reporting

Planning & Environment – Solar Panels; Local Development Frameworks; Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedules; Overnight Lorry Parking; and KCC Responses to DfT’s Rail Franchise Consultations

Waste – Household Waste Recycling Centre Policy Changes; Ashford Household Waste Recycling Centre; and Waste Capital Programme

(2)       RESOLVED that the update be noted and a copy circulated to Members of the Committee.

(1)               The report put forward a proposed response to the Department for Transport’s (DfT) current consultation on a draft Aviation Policy Framework.  The draft response drew on the principles set out in the Council’s discussion document Bold Steps for Aviation.

(2)       The final Aviation Policy Framework shaped by the current consultation would be a high level strategy that set out Government’s overall objectives for aviation and the policies to achieve those objectives.  It would be within the policy framework therefore, that the means of addressing the question of how to ensure retention of UK’s aviation hub status would lie.  The draft consultation indicated that there would be a call for evidence from Government with regard to the specific question due later this year, however following the recent Cabinet reshuffle there had been an announcement that the Government would set up a cross party Independent Commission to look at the issue of hub status.  It was not yet known whether there would be a call for evidence associated with the work of the Commission or not. Indications were the Commission was due to report interim findings by the end of 2013 with final recommendations due mid 2015 post election.  Whatever the eventual solution the Commission recommended in terms of hub status, it must align with the policies set out in the Aviation Policy Framework. 

(3)       There were no revenue or capital financial implications arising from the report as it constituted input to Government policy formation.  The proposed response was aligned to the Council’s Local Transport Plan and accorded with the 20 year transport delivery plan Growth without Gridlock.

(4)               The consultation document stated that its aim was to establish the objectives for UK aviation and the policies to achieve those objectives.  It stated that the final framework would be a high level strategy.  Despite this however, the consultation spends much time dwelling on a number of technical issues such as appropriate noise levels for monitoring.  The consultation dealt with the following topics:-

·                    The benefits of aviation

·                    Climate change impacts

·                    Noise and other local environmental impacts

·                    Working together

·                    Planning

Four main objectives for aviation relating to the topics were proposed within the consultation document and were set out in the report.

(5)       The report summarised KCC’s suggested response to DfT’s Draft Aviation Policy Framework consultation which would form the policy context under which future decisions on UK aviation capacity and how this was provided for would be taken.  The full response was attached as Appendix B to the report.

(6)       During debate Mr Bullock referred to the balancing of International Climate Change obligations with the drive for growth in the Government’s paper on the future of aviation.  Mr Sweetland undertook to review KCC’s response to include the issue of striving to achieve a reasonable balance between aviation growth and climate change implications.  

(7)       RESOLVED that the proposed response to the DfT’s draft Aviation Policy Framework consultation, for consideration by the Cabinet Member in finalising the KCC response to DfT by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

(1)       Good progress had been made since the last report to the committee, the outstanding work from the previous 3 year programme had been significantly reduced.  New applications for the 2012/13 year had been arriving at an encouraging rate, however just over a third of this year’s anticipated MHF applications had yet to be received by the Member Highway Fund Team.  The turnaround time from receipt of the application to an order being placed was now circa 15 weeks, a 70% improvement on last years performance.  The new web based system to provide instant access for County Members to their progress reports would be available at the end of October.

(2)       To date, 216 applications for 2012/13 Member Highway Fund had been received.  Assuming that 4 applications would be received per member (336 total) this constituted 64% of anticipated applications.  19 (23%) County Members had submitted no applications for the 2012/13 Member Highway Fund. 49 (58%) County Members had submitted applications for less than half their budget.  24 applications above the 4 free applications had been received, an estimated fee cost to County Members of £23,880.

(3)       The total average turnaround from receipt of the application to an order being placed was 15.2 weeks, a significant reduction on the average turnaround last year of 52 weeks.

(4)       As agreed by the Cabinet Committee, in light of the upcoming elections, all 2012/13 Member Highway Fund should be spent by the end of the current financial year, no rollover of monies would be permitted.  In order to ensure that schemes were installed before the end of the financial year, to allow reasonable programming and avoid installing schemes during inclement weather, orders needed to be placed with both Enterprise and external suppliers before mid December.  It was now no longer possible for certain types of scheme applications to be processed by the team for implementation this financial year, and were set out in the report.

(5)       There remained £405,740 of works from last financial year to be ordered. 14 of the outstanding applications for 2009 to 2012 remained unapproved, and had not been closed by the County Member. The majority of the schemes were late applications, or had complex stakeholder/consultation issues. There remained a number of schemes which were being progressed by the Borough and District Councils which had been subject to local batching of schemes.

(6)               The new web based Member Highway Fund system, would go live on 10 September for scheme data. The County Member access was being developed and instant access to update reports would be available to all County Members by the end of October 2012.

(7)       RESOLVED that the report be noted.