Agenda item

To receive a report that reviews the cost effectiveness of the Highway element of the Combined Member Fund since the amalgamation of Member Grants, and makes recommendations to deliver a simpler highways scheme. It proposes a single point of contact and a way to identify opportunities where other funding may be available through better methods of delivery, whilst keeping County Members firmly in control of the process.

1.            The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, introduced a report that reviewed the cost effectiveness of the Highway element of the Combined Member Fund since the amalgamation of Member grants and a recommendation to deliver a simpler highways scheme.  He highlighted that Officers held a briefing for all Members of the County Council.  He explained that the aim was simplify the process. This would be achieved through a single point of access, the District Managers, who would work with Members to identify highway projects under the Combined Members Grant.

2.            The Mid-Kent Highways Manager, Ms Williams, advised that the recommendations A to D set out in the report were developed as part of the annual review.  She then spoke on the recommendations and the role of the District Manager, the annual list of highways schemes and scheme fees.

3.            Mr  Balfour and Ms Williams responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    A suggestion was made that the title should be changed to “Combined Members Grant – Highways Schemes”

b)    Ms Williams confirmed that if a highways scheme was passed to a district or borough council that it would become a community project but this did not mean that the money would be despatched quicker.

c)    A Member questioned how much of the combined Members grant was allocated to Highways.  Ms Williams advised that in 2014/2015 the spend from the Combined Members grant for Highways was approximately £600,000 and approximately £1,228,320 for Communities.

d)    Referring to the table on page 65 of the report a Members questioned the average turnaround of 10 weeks for lining of roads saying that yellow lines tended to exceed that time.

e)    Ms Williams advised that the definition of a “Scheme” would be in the Members Handbook.

f)     Members commented that they looked forward to working closely with the District Managers

g)    A Member commented that often one highway scheme could take half of the allocated budget, rise in cost and/or be withdrawn. It was questioned whether there was an opportunity to pay for quick fixes such as potholes where accidents would be averted.

h)   Dr Eddy advised that he had already met with the District Manager for his area and had a list of projects.  He considered the table of average turnaround times helpful when relaying information on the projects to people in his area.  He considered that it was crucial that the advice on the costings of the projects was correct.  Mr Balfour stated that he wanted there to be greater communication and hoped that this was the right formula and where necessary tweaks would be made to achieve this.

4.            RESOLVED that the comments and responses to the questions by Members be noted; and theCabinet Committee agreed recommendations a to d identified in the report as set out below:-

(a)    District Managers take the lead in working with County Members to identify highway projects under the Combined Members Grant. District Managers will provide support in identifying priorities within the context of the wider area, maximising wider community benefits and ensuring that good solutions are identified which can deliver the desired outcomes.

       This support would be part of the core duties of the District Managers who were already funded and therefore the                   site visit/advice cost would be scrapped. As providing District support to County Members is a core function of the District Manager role, there is less opportunity for the staff to be moved to other duties providing a more reliable longer term contact.

(b)    An annual list of schemes be compiled to demonstrate wider community benefit and good outcomes in terms of the identified community need for each District. This list can be compiled from all areas of Highways, Transportation and Waste and be recommended to the County Member for consideration.

The County Member can work with the District Manager to identify schemes which they may be interested in full or partially funding. Additional schemes of their own can also be added and jointly prioritised.

       The programme of works would be communicated through the District Manager at the Joint Transportation Board for each District.

       Members reserved the right not to fund highway schemes through their Combined Members Grant.

(c)    District Managers can advise Members how they can continue to support schemes which were related to the highway but were not generally within the core duties of the Highway Authority, through a contribution to third parties such as Borough/District Councils, Parish Councils and residents groups. These applications would go through the Community Grant process and delivery organised locally. It was proposed that a list of scheme types which cannot be delivered through Community or Highway routes was compiled to advise County Members.

(d)    For 2016/2017 highway schemes delivered through the Schemes Delivery Team, the works cost would include a 15% fee to cover officer costs.

Some works may attract an upfront fee such as traffic surveys; this would be advised to the County Member as required.

A £500 upfront fee was required for more than two scheme applications so that a bespoke quote could be obtained for scheme design.