Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

Apologies were received from Mr M Whybrow and Mr P Harman attended as a substitute.

Mr M Whiting requested that his apologies be noted as he arrived late to the meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest made by Members in relation to any matter on the agenda.  Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared.

Mr R Love declared a voluntary interest in relation to item 10 on the agenda as the Chairman of The Kent Resources Partnership. Mr Love said that he did not have a personal involvement and therefore would participate in the discussion.

To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2018 are a correct record and that they be signed by the Chairman.

To receive verbal updates from M Hill, OBE , Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services and Mr M Whiting, Caninet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste.

1. Mr M Hill, OBE (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services) commended the work of all Kent County Council staff during the harsh winter weather, in particular, the efforts by the Highways Team, Adult Social Care and Community Wardens for their significant endeavours in keeping the community safe. As part of Kent County Council’s emergency planning, the Emergency Centre was set up and manned throughout the entire period; Mr Hill reiterated his thanks to all staff throughout the County including partner agencies for working together to ensure all safety measures and continency plans were met.

2. Mr Payne delivered the verbal update on behalf of Mr Whiting and reiterated the thanks to the Highways Department and Duty Directors for their efforts in ensuring both the community and staff remained safe during the harsh weather.

3. In regard to the Pothole Blitz, Mr Payne informed the committee that the recent weather had a detrimental effect on the highway network however the Highways Team had been rapid in their response and would be delivering another Pothole Blitz campaign from April 2018. The budget that had been allocated to cover the work was £5.2 million however this was due to rise to £8.1 million for 2018/19; this was in addition to the day-to-day safety critical repairs within the Highway Term Maintenance contract.

To receive and note a report that shows progress made against targets for Key Performance Indicators

Richard Fitzgerald (Business Intelligence Manager, Performance, Strategic Business Development & Intelligence) was in attendance for this item. 

1. Mr Fitzgerald introduced the report which provided an update on the progress of performance against the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which were included within the Directorate Business Plan for 2018-2019. The latest Dashboard provided data up to January 2018. Mr Fitzgerald highlighted key areas within the Performance Dashboard and said that the KPI’s for Highways and Transportation were showing as green however the data within the report was collated prior to the winter event, the effects of this would be shown in the next report.

2. Members enquired about the delay in streetlight conversions and whether this was due to faulty cabling. Mr Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) informed Members that there had been instances where conversions to LED lighting had been prolonged due to the significant technical difficulties in the electrical cabling underground which required input from UK Power Network. Mr Wilkins acknowledged that this sometimes resulted in lengthy delays however assurance was given that such cases remained relatively low. He advised Members that the response from the public had been positive.

3. In response to Members’ queries as to whether Kent County Council had experienced disputes with electrical companies regarding payment, Mr Wilkin said he was not aware of any particular disputes but invited Members to provide further detail outside of the meeting.

4. With regard to issues raised around potholes and highway maintenance, Mr Wilkin explained the following points:

(a)  The pothole metrics were those used to measure Amey’s performance under the Highway Term Maintenance Contract. If Amey failed to deliver the terms within the contract, Kent County Council could seek financial recompense. These measures were put in place before the Pothole Blitz which used a separate metrics system.

(b)  Mr Wilkin assured Members that an amalgamation of intelligence was used to identify potholes for repair.  The frequency of inspections was determined by the nature of the road and the risk. Mr Wilkin said that a majority of inspections were carried out during daytime hours however night regimes were in place to inspect the functionality of illuminated assets.  Mr Wilkin assured Members that a substantial part of activity and expenditure went into patching the roads rather than filling individual potholes. Repairs often started with immediate effect subject to approval from the Highways Team as budgetary control needed to be maintained. A pothole which was considered to be of immediate danger to the public aimed to be repaired within a two-hour timeframe.

(c)  The Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance Survey had identified that 24,500 miles of road throughout England and Wales required essential maintenance, of which 750 miles was within Kent. To carry out the extensive work required within the given 12-month period, this would require an additional £506 million. In Kent, the cost for this on a yearly basis would be an additional £32 million. Mr Wilkin informed Members that reduced funding from the Government meant long-term visions could not be met.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposed decision to approve the GIF 2017 Update attached at Appendix B.

Tom Marchant (Head of Strategic Planning and Policy) and Hannah Clement (Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Project Officer) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Payne (Deputy Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) introduce the report which set out the Kent and Medway Growth and Infrastructure Framework (GIF) that was first published in 2015. The GIF provided robust evidence on housing, economic growth and the associated infrastructure needed for the County up to 2031.

2.    Mr Marchant said that the draft Growth and Infrastructure Framework had been updated since 2015 to include revised housing and population figures and provided a breakdown of the cost for a range of infrastructure up to 2031. The GIF used data from a number of sources and was developed in collaboration with Medway Council, all district and borough councils within Kent and local partners. Mr Marchant paid particular attention to Figure 1 within the report which showed the comparison of figures between the 2015 and 2018 Framework.

3.    In response to questions, Mr Whiting (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) agreed that paragraph 4.7 within the report required revising to ensure clarity and explained to Members that the GIF would require updating as new housing developments and local plans came to light, to ensure it accounted for the changing demographic and required infrastructure.

4.    Members commented on the housing and population figures. Mrs Cooper (Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport) confirmed that the figures within the report should read a population growth of 396,200 matched by a housing growth of 178,600. In regard to the increase of housing numbers and where these would be situated within Kent, Mrs Cooper informed Members that housing was a national issue, however, in order to respond to the need for sustainable homes for a longer period of time, it was essential to consider the infrastructure needs up to 2050. Extensive plans ensured Kent and Medway were in a strong position to anticipate and plan for sustainable growth far into the future and manage demand under increasing budgetary pressures.

5.       In response to questions around the backlog of highways maintenance, and the new housing methodology, Mr Marchant said that the updated GIF used data from October 2017, data after this point had not be accounted for within the report, however it would be incorporated into the next edition of the framework.

6.    Members asked about the ‘new jobs’ figure and whether this included the new jobs within the anticipated aviation centre at Manston Airport. Mr Marchant said the figure included the job numbers from the Thanet local plan and officers regularly monitored this. It was predominately the decision of Thanet District Council to determine the future use of the site and the supporting infrastructure in terms of jobs and homes. Once that had been determined, the next iteration of the GIF would incorporate those figures.

7.       In response to Members’ concerns around the source of information, Mrs Cooper said that the data was from district  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposed Kent County Council response to the consultation.

Joseph Ratcliffe (Transport Strategy Manager) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Whiting (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) introduced the report which set out Kent County Council’s proposed response to the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation on the ‘Proposals for the Creation of a Major Road Network’, which closed on 19 March 2018. The DfT had indicated that any comments from the Committee could be submitted separately.

2.    Mr Ratcliffe said that within England there were two tiers of roads: The Strategic Road Network (SRN) which was managed by Highways England; and the Local Road Network (LRN) managed by Kent County Council (KCC). However, a recent report identified a further set of economically important roads that required the same level of attention as the SRN which formed the Department for Transport’s consultation document ‘Proposals for the Creation of a Major Road Network’ to which KCC has responded. Inclusion in the MRN would enable access to additional funding from the National Roads Fund for significant investments that could offer transformative solutions to the most economically important ‘A’ roads. He said that following the consultation, sub-national transport bodies would formulate a Regional Evidence Base to identify priorities and these would be used to inform the development of the MRN Investment Programme which would be updated every two years.

3.    In response to Members’ questions regarding the ‘A260’, Mr Ratcliffe confirmed that the ‘A260’ had not been included within KCC’s suggested amendments. Members were informed that the Government had proposed a number of criteria to be used when defining the MRN, if KCC wanted to request additional roads be included within the MRN, it would need to justify its reasons. Mrs Cooper (Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport) advised the Committee that inclusion within the MRN would give KCC the opportunity to bid for funding. The MRN would be reviewed every five years to identify changing priorities.

4.    Mr Whiting acknowledged Members’ frustration, however, reaffirmed that KCC had continually put forward a strong business case which highlighted the volume of traffic experienced in Kent compared to other counties. The response to DfT stressed that maintenance funding was imperative and should be included as part of the MRN. He said that he welcomed Members suggestions regarding the ‘A260’ and was happy to discuss the points raised with the DfT. With regard to the Lorry Park, he said that discussions were on-going to identify a solution on the ‘A249’, however, KCC were awaiting an update from the Government.

5.    RESOLVED that the proposed Kent County Council response to the consultation be endorsed.

To endorse the multi-agency Kent Community Safety Agreement and note the draft priorities for 2018/19; and note the progress made in developing an integrated County Community SafetyTeam and endorse the plans to develop the integration further.

Shafick Peerbux (Head of Community Safety) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Hill, OBE (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services) introduced the report which provided an overview of the statutory Kent Community Safety Agreement, its draft priorities for 2018/19 as well as the progress made in developing an integrated County Community Safety Team.

2.    Mr Peerbux said that the Community Safety Agreement (CSA) was a statutory, multi-agency document which outlined the key community safety priorities for the county along with cross-cutting themes that supported the identified priorities. The Community Safety Partnership (CSP) was responsible for reviewing the Kent Community Safety Agreement on a regular basis and to provide an annual update. The CSA was developed in consultation with statutory partners and was based on the outcome from local district and borough council strategic assessments, data reviews, legislative requirements, horizon scanning and partnership plans. Since the papers had been published, there had been additional changes to the themes and these were: Preventing Extremism and Hate; and Mental Health which had been linked to the Public Health agenda.

3.    Mr Peerbux explained to the Committee that a joint Kent Community Safety Team (KCST) had been established which involved personnel from Kent County Council, Kent Police and Kent Fire and Rescue Service to form a co-located team with the aim of sharing resources and minimising the impact of service reductions. In 2017, Kent County Council undertook an internal audit process which highlighted several areas within the partnership that were working well and identified opportunities for improvement, one being the development of a community safety hub which would provide expertise and good practice on cross-county matters.

4.    In response to Members’ questions, Mr Hill said it was the responsibility of the Chief Constable to keep the Police Commissioner informed of all operations.

5.    Mr Hill assured Members that the Mental Health issue was a standing item on the Kent Community Safety Partnership agenda and also on the Police and Crime Panel agenda.

6.    In response to Members’ questions regarding fire safety and burglary, Mr Peerbux said that the these were a key focus and a significant amount of work was being done however it does not feature within the strategic priorities.

7.    RESOLVED that:

(1)  The multi-agency Kent Community Safety Agreement and draft priorities for 2018/19 be noted and endorsed; and

(2)  The progress made in developing an integrated County Community Safety Team and the plans to develop the integration further, be noted.

To endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste for Highways, Transportation and Waste’s continued work with the Kent Resource Partnership to ensure that a joined-up approach to litter continues in Kent.

Carol Valentine (Highway Manager, Growth, Environment and Transport) and Nichola Hood (Waste Business Partnership Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Whiting (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) introduced the report which set out the work of the Kent Resource Partnership (KRP) and sought Members’ approval to endorse the continued collaborative working between Kent County Council and District Councils to ensure Kent’s highways remained litter-free.

2.    Mrs Valentine highlighted some of the key areas within the report which included the joint work undertaken by the KRP to improve waste management; project updates which included the KCC High Speed Roads project, the KRP Street Scene, the Great British Spring Clean and Communication project; and forthcoming activity for 2018-2019. Mrs Valentine also emphasised the success of Member and Parish involvement during the 2017 Spring Clean and hoped that this would continue to be a key feature in the 2018-2019 programme. Mrs Valentine said that responsibility for litter collection and street cleansing resided with the District and Borough Council’s, Kent County Council was the disposal authority.

3.    In response to data collection, Mrs Hood said that work continued within the Kent Practitioner Group to ensure information was being shared and jointly collected across the District Councils. This was regulated through the Intel Officer position funded by the KRP.

4.    With regard to the disposal of plastic materials, Mr Wilkin said that all issues around litter and bins was the responsibility of the District and Borough councils. The issue around the disposal of plastic was a national issue and work was being done to reduce plastic packaging across the country however this required Government intervention. Information regarding litter collection could be found on the District Council websites.

5.       In response to a question about fly-tipping, Mrs Valentine said that District Councils were responsible for removing obstructions from carriageways on behalf of Kent County Council. The Authority had worked with the District Councils in carrying out a number of covert operations with success. Mr Wilkin said that Kent County Council had a good working relationship with partner agencies such as Kent Police and the Environment Agency and had succeeded in apprehending those responsible fly-tipping.

6.    Members commended the report and thanked Mrs Valentine and officers involved for their work.

7.    RESOLVED that the proposed decision to continue work with the Kent Resource Partnership, to ensure a joined-up approach to litter, be endorsed.

To consider and comment on the directorate risk register and relevant corporate risks outlined in Appendices 1 and 2.

Mark Scrivener (Corporate Risk Manager) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Scrivener introduced the report which outlined the potential strategic risks that could prevent the Authority from achieving its objectives and identified how those risks were controlled. Mr Scrivener said that the Directorate Management Teams carried out a regular review of the risk registers including the progress against mitigating actions and sought Members’ comments regarding the key directorate risks as presented within the report.

2.    RESOLVED that the directorate risk register and relevant corporate risks outlined in Appendices 1 and 2 of the report be noted.

The Cabinet Committee is asked to consider and comment on the final draft Growth, Environment and Transport Directorate Business Plan (2018-19) and

note that the final Directorate Business Plan will be published online in April 2018.

1. Mrs Cooper (Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport) introduced the report that set out the key features within the draft Growth, Environment and Transport Directorate Business Plan for 2018- 2019 including: a summary of progress made against the previous year’s activity; the priorities within the GET Directorate for 2018-2019; and referred Members to the key commissioning activity which would help inform the future work programme. Mrs Cooper said that more detailed proposals could be found within the Divisional Business Plans.

2. In response to Members’ comments, Mrs Cooper noted the typographic error within the report and said this would be corrected.

3. RESOLVED to note that the final Directorate Business Plan would be published online in April 2018.

To endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste for the proposed programme for the “Big Conversation”, its aims and proposed approach.

Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Whiting (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) introduced the report which set out the aims and planned approach of the “Big Conversation” which would help identify possible alternative delivery models of public transport. Mr Whiting said that due to budgetary pressures there was a need to reduce subsidised bus services and therefore engagement with the public and stakeholders was crucial in developing new ideas that would improve rural connectivity. He said that the timetable within the report set out the delivery of the programme and that the Committee would have the opportunity to comment on the feedback from the “Big Conversation.”

2.    Mr Lightowler said that the “Big Conversation” focused on improved rural accessibility for those without alternative means of travel and work was being done to look at Total Transport whereby Kent County Council would bring services together to create a demand responsive service. The “Big Conversation” would be a means of consulting with the public to gain their views and input on future delivery models.

3.    Members commended the report.

4.    RESOLVED that the proposed programme for the “Big Conversation” be endorsed.

To endorse progressing to consultation on the proposed network changes.

Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Whiting (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) introduced the report which set out the proposals for delivering the revised budget reduction in 2018-2019 of £455 million in respect of subsidised bus services, subject to public consultation. Members were asked to endorse the proposal to go out to consultation and were advised that they would have the opportunity to feed into the conversations throughout the consultation period.

2.    In addition to this, Mr Lightowler said the proposals that had been received could deliver significant savings with minimal impact to service users and this would be met through commercial bus service provisions already in place or via a revised commercial bus service. There would be local consultations with affected Councils for each of the proposed changes and these would identify: the scope of the change; the mitigation or alternative provision; and would be accompanied by maps and timetables to ensure proposals were clearly understood. With regard to subsidised bus service tendering, Mr Lightowler said that by tendering as packages between mainstream contracts and subsidised Bus Service contracts, the proposed changes would ensure savings were met.

3.    In response to Members’ comments regarding cuts to the 42 and 42A bus service between Minster and Cliffsend, the Committee was informed that Mrs Constantine had said that this service would now not be cut.

4.    Members commented on the report and commended Kent County Council’s efforts in ensuring that tax payers’ money was used to target areas that need Subsidised Bus Services. 

5.    RESOLVED that the proposed decision to progress to consultation on the proposed network changes be endorsed.

To consider and agree the Work Programme for 2018.

1.    Mr Whiting paid tribute to Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) and thanked him for all the work he had done for the Authority and wished him all the best with his future.

2.    RESOLVED that the work programme be noted.