Transcript

And if you're going to speak, speak closely to the microphone and keep your phone away from it and put it onto silent, please. There are exit signs around the room and if the fire alarm should sound during the meeting, please make your way to the nearest and safest exit. We have apologies from Mel Dawkins for whom Lauren Sullivan is present. We also have apologies from Mr Barry Lewis and Mike Dendor. Mike Bulldog is joining us virtually and I understand that Derek Reuben is running late on the GT train troubles. Sorry, Chair, could I pass on the apologies of Mr Broadley as well, please. Okay, thank you. Declarations of interest, does anybody have an interest to declare? No, good, thank you. Minutes for the last meeting, do members agree that those are a correct record that I can sign? Is there anybody? Okay, good. This is fast, isn't it? All right, verbal updates by cabinet members and the corporate director. I'm going to make sure I don't forget you, Mr Jones. I was thinking about getting you to go first, I'm not sure that, but I won't do that. Mr Baker, you go, as you begin with you. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everybody, on this rather grey day. Many of the updates are included in the recently released newsletter that I do circulate ahead of meetings, including the update on the High Western maintenance contract. I mention that because it was somewhat an error included as item 10 on this report as a verbal update. Suffice to say, everybody is a member of this cabinet committee has been invited to the two briefings so far. There was a detailed update of the progress of the HTMC in that newsletter, so I will leave it there. On the subject of making good progress, also making good progress, is the review of joint transport boards. I met with the chair and vice chairs of the JTBs on April 25. I thought it was a productive meeting, and I was pleased to report there was representation from across the county and also from the Kent Association of local councils. There was a strong consensus that there should be a form of engagement to give residents a voice in local highways issues going forward. Local issues were raised around the importance of effective communication, realistic planning, and strategic engagement to adjust transportation and highway related challenges. The next step would be for officers to use the discussion points to prepare a draft report by the end of June for further consideration on future options. This is something I am taking an incredibly close and keen interest in because I do believe JTBs or whatever they call next if the name does change is a great place to discuss these issues that are of importance to residents, and one of the few places where we have the option for district and borough county parish and town councilors to all come together in the various capacities. I am also pleased to say that the 829-thanic way is planned to fully reopen eight weeks early on the 1st of June instead of July the 20th as originally anticipated. I would like to thank the contractors for this achievement and our highway staff have assisted particularly Brian Lovell and his team. The works will improve and stabilise the underlying subcell of the road, stop the heave effect caused by the underlying clay, making it safer and more resilient for traffic users. I would just point out that given this work we have been trying to get it scheduled for about four years or so now to actually finally get to the point where it is almost done within time scale is an absolute testament to the planning and the work of the contractors, and I am particularly pleased not just because I use the road regularly myself of course, but because it has created a major inconvenience during the work period on people's lives we do understand that. It was requested at the last meeting I give an update on the EU entry exit system and how we are getting on with that. We are still awaiting the reasonable worst case scenario in government, that is something I would underline, that is something we very much do need. The stakeholders have been advised to base planning on July 2020 when we had severe traffic congestion, this has now been taken forward. Planning for the start date is still based on the 6th of October, although this has not yet been confirmed as the definite start date, it is what we have and it is what we are working to. We continue to work closely with the Home Office and Department for Transport to ensure the best options for Kent and we have submitted bids to the Government for works to mitigate the impact on our communities and we are awaiting responses. Myself and the leader and others have been engaging and visiting both the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel as per my newsletter to see the work that is happening on the ground. As I have said in other places here, this is not a Kent problem, but it is a problem that dare I suggest will be happening in Kent. We continue to have high demand for permits for street work, something I know you take a keen interest in. The street work team will be meeting you as Chair of this committee, myself and David Rovey's Deputy Cabinet member will also be there next month. We will be discussing the impact of street works and the demand upon our network and the impact on businesses, residents and visitors to our great county. I look forward to that meeting. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Mr Chittenden. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Neil, and thank you for your report. We are read and good contents. Just a couple of points. There are lots of changes going on with the personnel. We meet on site with regard to actually doing the work that we request or we meet on site because there are problems. Is it possible to get some sort of update where we are? I don't. It made stone and a sewer report is retired and I know we are waiting for the new person to step in and there is a very able man covering it at the moment, but I am finding some areas that I want to tackle very difficult to know who I should direct my question to rather than direct it to yourself or Haruna when really I could go down the line. I don't know whether we can have a look and I am sure it applies to all of us in different areas. That is my first point, Chairman. Part of that was because I noticed Elbourner and Richard Emmett are now doing on a special project. Both of them I use quite regularly, but obviously I leave alone at the moment. Second thing, whilst a lot of things were having difficulty getting done for financial reasons, I will make a comment on the pot holding. I thought the amount of, and hopefully the little bit the government have given us as well, I thought the quality of the pot holding has been, repairs has improved dramatically. We are not getting the sort of fill-and-leave and forget about. We are now getting them done properly and/or larger patches, and I say thank you for that. I applaud what you are saying about JTPs, I am glad to see them, hopefully improved and used better than we are using them at the moment, but certainly I think they are an absolute essential tool, and I think I look forward to seeing the Street Works team here next month. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. On the first one, absolutely not the first person to raise it, so I have discussed it with Haruna, not only Maidstone specifically, but I think there is a need to have an updated almost a go-to list for members so they can actually get the answers they want quickly as possible, and I think that is something we will be working on in Maidstone in particular. There will be, I think, a meet your new person thing as well, because I think that relationship between the members and someone who has the instantaneous knowledge is absolutely crucial for all of us doing our roles as divisional members, so I appreciate that. Potholes, yes, I have personally been impressed by the Pothole Blitz work so far, and some of the patching has been great to see, you cannot get away from that, you know, it can never be enough, but we are doing, for the benefit of the committee, you may be interested in the latest position for the Pothole Blitz as of this week. We have currently committed to, and this is how accurate we get on data in highways and transport, total spend committed so far is 4,592,895 pounds and 16 pence, the 16 pence is in the leader seat and 7x, total number of potholes filled is 2,992, and the total meters of patching, square meters is 86,154.37. So as you can see, there's a lot going on, there will always be more, and as you've mentioned potholes, it is perhaps worth noting, because this does come up a lot. The pothole Blitz work is being regularly updated on the pothole Blitz page of the website, but that is, of course, in addition to the general maintenance work that goes on the day-to-day reporting, et cetera, it isn't a case of the pothole Blitz is the only work that's happening, so if it isn't on that list, it won't be repaired far from it, but that is stuff that is above and beyond which has been flagged via the usual method. So I think what we're seeing out there is great, let's hope, as we continue the year, we can show the benefit of that resurfacing approach, and as we always say, how much better it is to get the job fixed correctly the first time and not have to keep going back and back and again to the same thing, it's efficient is what people want to see, I've said it here before, the only thing worse than seeing potholes in your road is seeing the same pothole multiple times in the space of a few weeks. The other question you had, which was on, sorry, could you remind me, I didn't know you had a phone on, but your microphone on? No, I was really saying, look forward to seeing the street work team next month, and yes, I look forward to seeing the updating of the JTBs, I think they're an absolute essential tool for liaison across the border down into the boroughs and the parishes, and so I was really saying thank you very much, thank you. Thank you. Good. Dr Sullivan. Lovely, thank you very much from one road to another. Do you have any update on the galley hill road, and the last thing is I'd really like to see your newsletter if I may, you mentioned about a newsletter, I don't know if that's okay to all members, but I wondered if I could be on. It's not from Neil, though, is it? Who's it sent from, who I can answer, I'll forward you a copy, I think it goes to all members, but we get so much stuff that it's easy to, yeah, I know. If I may in terms of the latest on galley hill, because I'm always wary of saying things I shouldn't, could I ask perhaps Simon could touch upon that in his update at the end as a bit of an addendum if that's okay, thank you. Okay? Mr. Hills. Thank you, Chairman. It's been touched map potholes. I'm glad to see in, at least in Rommy March, you are doing a lot more whole road repairs. You've had lots of science problems with the bad weather in the rain, let alone the badges, and it's glad to see that when you aren't doing it properly, and I just will mention this that I went to rye last week, and if you think cow roads down there are bad, esusics and that stretch was almost impossible, it was terrible, so they are worse than us. I think we're doing a good job. Thank you, Neil. Thank you, Mr. Hills. I mean, it's a comment, not a question, but I would observe, I never want to get into the game of playing, you know, other places are worse because we can always have that argument. It is true, of course, that we are, of course, I would say this in a very difficult situation as a county, because not only did we have a massive amount of traffic and still get funded, of course, based on miles of road, as opposed to use of roads. The subsurface that we build our roads on here is quite different to other parts of the country where it's more firm. As I mentioned in the Tannet way, issues, of course, which, you know, when you've got surfaces, subsurface is moving around, you have problems, but I think you're right. I think we can't get away from the fact that there is a pot hole problem in this country. That's well over the news. It would be childish to try and deny that. I will always say I think there needs to be a more realistic message and, indeed, funding on a long-term basis coming down from government. I, of course, welcomed the long-term commitment that we've had previously, the 134.5 million over the next 10 years or so. But again, that is an amount compared to what we know we could use in terms of that. But, you know, many of us often say we have a general election coming up at some point soon. There are so many crucial, you know, issues in this country that will be debated during that campaign. The one thing I would plead is that, you know, if the parties were to start talking about long-term, full funding of road maintenance, I think that's something that all potential voters would be very interested in listening to and how it's going to be funded, how you're going to potentially establish a link between those using the roads and those funding, who knows. But, like I say, I don't write party manifestos probably for the best, but it is something that would bring a lot of people's interest in these times of disconnect from politics, I suggest. Thank you. Good. Okay. No more. Mr Thomas. Thank you very much. Sir, did you pull that at the last second? No, Chair. I did. I'm sorry. I did catch your eye before you. Okay. Go ahead. I'm easily forgotten. I have previously been in touch with the cabinet member and his deputy about the, about three works, the street works team and the notification of works. Obviously, members are more than aware of the hazards of emergency works from utilities. However, we have had a huge amount of resurfacing works, patching works, which have been underway and there has been a noticeable issue where members get the notification the day before, which is when they, this involves a road closure, this is, this is a serious problem. So I'd just like to know what's happened. There seems to be some kind of, this seems to be an element of silo working play here between street works and the maintenance and the patching work. I'm hoping you can, you can tell me that either that has been the case and it's been addressed and we won't see the prevalence of this in future. But it is a concern that these, that we as members are made to look pretty foolish when suddenly these works appear and we aren't able to, because residents like to be forewarned. They're, residents are relatively understanding if they are aware that there's a closure, when a closure just appears and we as members haven't got the ability to say, actually it's not awful, this is the, when it's our own, when it's our own works, it is a particular problem. Thank you very much, Chair. Does that happen? I mean, it's something I'm constantly looking at because I appreciate as a member, you don't want to be the person to find out, you know, when a road is actually closed. We understand why it has to happen, not necessarily agree with it for emergency utility works, but of course, when it's our own, what I would say, and while discussing this, I had a conversation about it yesterday. There is a balance to be had, of course, because we have to fit our work around other work. So that can be trying. I mean, I've mentioned the case in here before, and this isn't a patching job of a zebra crossing installation in Canterbury. It should have been done during the August school holidays and still hasn't been done because it was the only road left open. So with the only ones who can move our work around sometimes. On top of that, I'm looking at how we actually announce works, because, for example, you could have an announcement that to someone reading it looks as though a road is going to be closed for 48 hours, whereas actually it's a notice to cover the fact that there's an hour or two hour job at some point within that 48 hours. So we have to get that balance between being overly prescriptive and actually disappointing people, perhaps, or sending out a message which isn't accurate. We're constantly looking at it, Mr. Robe is also looking at it, I'm performing conversations with Aruna. I think we all want to see the work done, but we want to have a better idea, perhaps, when it will be done, because I appreciate particularly in your area, Mr. Hood. Some of these, particularly in and around schools, can cause great inconveniences, and while we want to get roads maintained properly, when it's at school, exam time, et cetera, et cetera, we just need to make sure all factors are considered when doing that. So we're keeping an eye on that, so we will continue to do so, and I'll update you on any material changes to that process. I think following up on that, and from the work that we did quite a while ago in the Rye Road in Hawkehurst, one of the things that emerged from that, which SGN was a gas main replacement, was the complete failure by the utilities, in this case, to consult with local representatives, and to work out whether it fitted in with things like school exams, or seasonal business, and so on, so it would be good to look at seeing that people do take more notice of what local representatives can tell them and help them with. I can't go into too much detail at the moment, because it's premature, but the next round of laid-shaft broadband work that we have in Kent, I believe we're looking at working with the utility company there to almost create a framework of how we get that level of engagement correct, because you can take a lot of angst out of that sort of work if people know why it's being done, particularly if the people who are impacted by closures and diversions are the actual end customers who will benefit because of it. The last thing you want is to be driving home from work after a long day in the office or picking up the kids and suddenly seeing your roads closed and not really knowing why, but I think, yeah, get a friend, we can place with the utility company and then roll out, but that will come back to this committee at some point. Good. Thank you. Mr Thomas. Thank you very much, Chairman. I was going to say good morning members, but I understand the importance of these questions that need to be asked. So just to reiterate, as per the last meeting, we do circulate a environment newsletter prior to the meeting so that you have a chance to consider all the things that we're doing, and in case you haven't seen it, it was sent out by the information point last Tuesday afternoon, but I was just going to talk to it briefly, and you will know whether you've seen it or not because there's a picture of me on an e-bike on a recent excursion. So if you haven't seen that, maybe you haven't seen the newsletter, but the first item is just to say that, if you've seen it, that Dave Beaver took early retirement recently, so just wanted to formally thank him for his efforts working for KCC over a number of years, but as one door closes, another one opens, so I wanted to welcome Sue Redick, who is the Head of Service for Waste and Circular Economy. I don't believe she's with us just yet, but she will be with us later on for the items that we have on waste. Moving on, recently there was a workshop at Ashabara Council, where we discussed the high ambition net zero target that has been set by Council leaders. So this is about how we get to net zero for the whole county by 2050, not on a kind of a business as usual path, but on a high ambition pathway. So a member's group is due to be established, hopefully relatively soon. The chief executive who is leading on this is Larissa Reed from Swalbarra Council. I know she was waiting for the recent Council elections in Maidstone and Tumbridge Wales, so that we know who the relevant people will be moving forward to that member's group, but I was catching up with Sue Redick actually just the other day and saying about the Waste Resource Partnership as well and how perhaps we can incorporate some of the work that was previously done there through that pathway so that we can continue to look at the measures that need to be taken countywide to help us on our waste and environment journey. I'm sure members are familiar with the things that are causing much of the carbon footprint, things like transport, which are within our gift, but actually things like housing as well and the need for retrofit in housing, but that's obviously very much a district council issue. So there's obviously a number of issues that need to be discussed across the board and I look forward to working with those members when that group is established. Moving on, talking about NOMO May, I'm sure you're all familiar with this initiative now, that's been running for a few years, but the opportunity to see mowing gardens and lawns and all sorts of areas, but over the last couple of years we've seen amazing results with more than 130,000 square metres, which is the equivalent of over 500 tennis courts of vibrant wildflower meadows spring into life across Kent enriching our landscapes and nourishing pollinated populations, so I hope as many of you are helping to participate in this month's scheme. And please don't forget to share your photographs if you are doing so, we'd love to see those. Otherwise moving on, we have Kent Plan Tree, which is the tree establishment policy, and we have a commitment to establish one and a half million trees, essentially one tree for every resident in the county. And for the last year we managed to establish 17,000 whips, and there's pie chart in the newsletter, but you will see, but if you haven't seen the trees that were established in that year, 30% of those were on farms, and 17% were on school, so it's very much a community initiative, but just to reaffirm that message in terms of who helped deliver those planting of those trees last year, 48% were from the local community, but also 30% were from school, so it's a really great initiative, and I'm delighted with the efforts from the officers on that. And indeed, there is a round four, which we'll be submitting a bid for later this year, so hopefully we'll continue our journey in securing the funds and working with the community to deliver those. And then just moving on to the final two items from me, very much mentioned in the press release and reiterate that point about partnership working is incredibly important for me, and one of the recent initiatives that has been uploaded as a website for repair, reuse and upcycling map, so we're very much trying to encourage residents to use those facilities, and indeed if there are ways that businesses want to get involved in others, there is contact details in the newsletter. Finally, for me, again, very much about that community sense of how we're engaging on environment and waste, the team have listed up-and-coming events relating to the environment, and indeed yesterday was World B Day, so I hope that you will see that we're trying to help support and encourage others to participate in these events, and yeah, hopefully you welcome the content of our unease letter, but if there are any questions, I'm happy to take those. Thank you. Mr Chittenden. Can I just clarify, please, did you slip in there somewhere that David Beaver had left, which is even more worrying, because I'm hearing this, with God to him now, I'm hearing with God to a number of senior officers, all of which have got fantastic service, all of which has always been on top of their gain, and we seem to be putting them out. That really worries me, because David was always an excellent guy, he certainly always stuck by the rules as far as I was concerned, but he always helped where he could and told us when he couldn't, so I'm not sure that this has been a appropriate forum for this discussion, actually. Well, I'm quite chairman, but just to say my understanding, it was early retirement, certainly not been a decision, but we've asked him to leave, it was merely to thank him for his time and service, and also to highlight to members that we do have ahead of service, which is so ready, because obviously, members may have questions in their own divisions or otherwise regarding waste and recycling on all these things, and I think it's important that we do understand and know who our senior officers are, so I just wanted to say thank you today, welcome Sue, and just make sure that, yeah, as the organogram for the organisation evolves, you know, in terms of starters and leaves, I think it's just worth highlighting one of those key members of staff for our team, thank you. Mr Hood, I was going to go to you first, but Mr Hills, don't know if you want to make an insertion about this? Yes, definitely. About Dave Beaver, as I was around at the time, he did give a six-month notice, and he has been heavily involved in advising and whatever, and I think Sue Reddick would do an excellent job, she's very, very good, and she has Dave seal approval, which is excellent, so it's a nice continuity thing here, it's not exactly. Okay, I think we'll just cut it short on staff discussion, so it's not really where we do this. Mr Hood, thank you very much, Chair, although I will also, I think he was an excellent officer, we'll go out and play that stuff, yeah, we'll go out and play in three. In the last round of allocations for playing tree, I had a huge amount of standard trees that were meant to be planted, and there was an issue with micro management from the government funding, which meant that standards weren't included, we weren't allowed to spend the funds on standard trees. Then I have assurance that the trees that weren't planted last season, in the last planted season, we can plant those standard trees now, I understand that that's a detailed question, and you might need to think of, but it is important to me, I've got several trees that I want to introduce into an air quality management area in Tumbich High Street, which we're in the process of meeting new officers about, and ensuring that we don't just have saplings, which are going to take forever to meet their biodiversity potential in terms of taking the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you know, this is quite important. Yeah, thank you, Mr Hood, for your question. As you rightly point out, it's quite a detailed question, I'm not trying to say have the exact answer for you, but I was just going to elaborate on a skip, well, I've had two schemes in my own division as a council, as much as cabinet member, but certainly there's been engagement with parish council, city council, and the team here at KCC. I don't know specifically about the question, but I just wonder if actually it's cheaper to buy the trees that aren't established in the first instance, but actually the ones that are kind of growing from a smaller, I don't know what the technical term is, but I'm not sure whether my colleague Matt might be able to, whether he knows any further on this, but if not, we can get back to you on it. Chairman, we'll come back with an absolute answer on that. The issue is about, as Mr Hood rightly said, it's all about the funding, it's all about the criteria on the funding, and I'm not sure what the funding looks like for next year, yet the team may know, but I'm not sure yet. It may be that we need to put together funding from different places and that we may talk to you about your member allocation and/or parish councils, as the cabinet member said. So it's good to have early sight of the fact that you're super keen to look to continue to do that work, and I'll talk to the team afterwards about the best we can do to facilitate what you're after locally. Mr K, are you talking about that we should be planting bigger trees? Sorry, Chair, it's a combination, so we've got quite a comprehensive planting program in Tumbridge, which we've been and spoken to the Borough Council about, and we've already planted a whole huge number of whips, but we've also, there are certain locations where we want to plant standard trees as well. We're not going to be able to plant whips in a high street, and what is that? Whips are sapling, is it? Yes, yeah. Whips are just slightly smaller than saplings, so they're slightly smaller than saplings, so different trees work, you know, the right tree in the right place, isn't it? And we had locations for a number of trees that would make a huge impact, and sadly, because the criteria changed late in the day, I had correspondence with Mr Hill about this, and that's the issue, it's not that we don't want to plant whips, we want to plant a range of different trees, but if you're planting bigger trees, then they're already making their contribution up, then you're just moving them, they're not actually, or as a whip, would be a new remover of carbon dioxide, if you take a tree from here and put it in tumbrid, that's not making any new contribution at all, did they? Well, well, trees tend to grow, so to, and then you, if you've got, ideally you would plant a whip, because whips tend to establish themselves much better, and then they grow much quicker, but in an urban environment you've got, there's an issue where that isn't going to be feasible, so it's about having a, having a mixed, a balanced approach. Okay, good, Mr Hill's. Chairman, you made a good point, but, because they're all new, if you look, in the news letter it does say the 17,000 one to two year old saplings are planted, but what interested me was the number of Dutch own resistant trees we're planting as well, which is getting the alms back, it's a long term investment, and I like to see that myself, and so I'm totally supportive of what we've done, but it's all there in the news letter, and any further questions, ask my esteemed cabinet member. I'm going to ask your esteemed cabinet member, about, you touched on no more may, and Kent's plan B trundles along, and also, I noticed, I read a story which said that the Asian hornets that we need to be thinking about, seem to have a particular taste of Kent bees, have been more senior than elsewhere. Sorry, I didn't quite catch the question about the hornets, but was it just to say that there's more in Kent? No, well, it's basically, are we doing anything about it, or what is the situation in Kent with Asian hornets? Apparently, there have been more sightings in Kent than anywhere else. So I was sharing an update from the government website yesterday, very much reiterating the point about reporting them when they are seen, I believe they're eating our bees, and it's causing a huge amount of problems, but yeah, I'm not sure I can add anything particular about what we're doing in Kent, other than just obviously being mindful of keeping our eyes and ears open to the challenge, I'm not sure there's anything else that can be added, so I'm starting to have to come back to your show an update on that. Sorry, they're pretty black with yellow ends to their legs, so if you see one of those, get out of your machine gun or something. Yeah, what do we report it to if we do see one? Mr Thomas, I'm just trying to see if I can find that update from yesterday that I shared apologies, I may have to come back to you. Don't worry about it, can you circulate, or get something to circulate to the committee that you've got? That's what I'm going to say, it's probably easier to circulate. Just as a point, it's not a point, apparently the guidance isn't the kill them, when you see them, it's to find, trace them back to their nest and then get the relevant authority into destroyed the nest so that we can actually find, get to the root cause anyway, I'll shut up. Very sensible. So there is actually an online reporting form, or actually alert, non-native@ceh.ac.uk, and I say I'm happy to circulate it, but say the government issued update guidance on this yesterday, and it says that Asian hornets are not generally aggressive towards people, but as an exception to this, when they perceive a threat to their nest, so I'm happy to circulate the update. Yeah, do that. Do that. And the reporting process. Mr Smythe, do you want to say something, or do you need to say anything more? There is an app chairman called the Asian Hornet Watch app, where you can report sightings, and I think that government, I'm pushing people really hard to report those sightings because they don't really know where they are. It's potentially serious. So good. We can deal with them. And I think the Asian Hornet Watch app. Yes. And they're called the National Bee Unit, which has been doing a lot of work to destroy nests of the Asian hornet, many of which are in Kent, as you rightly say. Those bees are particularly beloved as this committee. Absolutely. OK. Mr Joe. Anything else about Mr Thomas? No. Mr Jones. I couldn't believe it, you remembered. Thank you. So yes, good morning members, and just popping back to street works for a moment. I do need to correct the audit findings that were discussed, because I think some of the information we provided in the last update wasn't clear. So I just wanted to make sure that, for the record, that when we talked about the audit findings on the street works that we undertook previously, of the 59 sites that were audited, the compliance rate was over 93%. That's across all of the audit areas, the areas that were audited. And looking at the recent audit and performance, it's found that there continues to be good compliance on all closures. 100% of those audited did require a closure for the works being undertaken. No sites were identified where the road had been closed, but the works not started. 16 sites were identified where repair works had been completed, and the waiting backfill. Six of these had reinstated works in progress at the time of inspection, and no sites were identified where the works were completed, but the road was still closed at the time of inspection. Two were identified as having incorrect diversions to that which was previously agreed, and two were deemed to be unsafe. Well, we currently have three road closure inspectors embedded in the teams, and we've got the fourth out for recruitment. So again, there's some positive progress there. On some other operational matters, there will be a slight delay in implementing the move in traffic enforcement, as the DVLA have refused KCC's application to access their system, which is known as KEDO. This is prevented as gaining access to the details of vehicles registered and the vehicle registered to KIPA, and therefore we're not currently able to issue warning notices or penalty charge notices. We understand that this is due to the DVLA implementing a new system in the coming months, and the current policy is not to permit any new access until the new system is operational. Officers are meeting with the DVLA on the 28th of May, with the aim to resolve the matter and to get on using the enforcement powers that government has designated to us to help manage our road network and support the movement of traffic across it. On the 22nd of February, this year, the Department of Transport launched their latest consultation on night flight restrictions, and Heathrow got where Constance did. The DFT is proposing to maintain the existing regime for a further three years, a three-year bridging period, whilst they await the outcome of several noise studies that they've commissioned. This bridging period would be in place from October 2025 through to October 2028, whilst KCC welcomes the work being undertaken to better understand the impacts of night noise. The proposals would mean the restrictions remain unchanged since 2017. Officers have drafted a response to the consultation, which are lined with our existing policy and Gatwick Airport, along with our responses to previous night flight restriction consultations. Night flight restrictions have a positive impact on the wellbeing of residents, and so our response specifically requests for night movements and noise quota limits at Gatwick to be reduced in order to give adequate respite to communities under the flight paths. Our response will be published on kent.gov.uk website after the consultation closes tomorrow. Following the examination of the development consent order application for a new lower Thames crossing, which concluded in December 2023, the examining authorities submitted its recommendation report to the Secretary of State on 20 March 2024. The Secretary of State is considering the recommendations and has consulted a further three times. It remains to be seen if there is any further consultations, but the Secretary of State is required to make a decision on the DCO by the 20th of June, three months after receiving the examination authorities recommendation report. There will then be a six-week period when people can challenge the decision in the high court through judicial review. If the lower Thames crossing is granted consent, construction will start in 2026, and the scheme will be open to traffic in 2032. Starting up Dr Sullivan's question about Galley Hill, just to confirm that we have now gained access to the road, intrusive activities are going in to investigate, we can try and determine the root cause, and that will also help us to understand what options are available to get that road reopened in the future. It's early days, and it will take some time to get that work. Interestingly, the team are also working to deal with the air and HGVs, as congestion in the area is significant, and certainly they've been reaching out to Kent Police to see if they can enact a Laurie Watch scheme to be able to identify rogue HGVs and report them and feedback to the transport operators. That's about all I can offer on Galley Hill at this point in time. It's an emerging situation, but we need to deal with the facts when they become present to us. I also have a couple of updates just to support Mr Thomas from the Environment and Circular Economy, and decide to identify that the Kent Resource Partnership has received the award for our Town and Bin for Structure project to promote and reward rubbish separation and recycling in Ashford Town Centre. The Resource Management and Circular Economy team has created a repair cafe network to encourage communities to consider where their item could be reused and to help share best practice and standardise the reporting of carbon emission savings. And finally, KCC has been accredited as an Institute of Environment Management and Assessments Training Centre. That means we can roll out a series of workshops to upskill staff in environmental awareness. So very good progress. So that concludes, and I think it's been a good progress since my last report. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Chittenden. Thank you very much, and I've been away for a while and I'm playing catch-up, I apologise. Two things here, one from Mr Jones in the general comment really, with regard to the moving traffic enforcement. I think this is a particular difficult situation because the police effectively gave up dealing with those items which are on the list for handing over to the Councillors sometime in October, November, I've been trying to get certain things from the police since that time and basically it's a dead end. They say go to the Councillors. The problem is in what the government has done in setting the new policies has not given the Council's enough, probably enough money, I don't know about that, but enough time to actually do the proper transition, like in some of the areas, like in no entries, which I've got a particular problem on. We need cameras, but the cameras are committed now for several months, and they'll be probably so I'm trying to get on to the second list. In the meantime, there's no enforcement of a whole series of traffic offenses, so soon you can push it. Mr Jones said the best, I think this is a critical one for people like ourselves. The second thing, thank you for Haruna yesterday. The reason I came across this problem was that I had a problem relating to some rather critical road repair work following two safety issues adjacent to two schools, and Haruna kindly sent two officers down, and they come away with a series of options that they can look at depending on money, et cetera, so thank you for that. The last question is with all these changes, last comment, Chairman, with all these changes with El Bourna doing something else, Richard Emmett doing something else, sooner or longer and well-earned retirement, I may say, and we're seeing other people go. I do worry, there seems to be a certain level, what we used to call re-engineering as well as general people disappearing at the high level, there seems to be some re-engineering, I don't know what's going on, but I'm just going to ask perhaps Neil, when we are liable to get to the stage, we can actually have a nice list of who's who and who we deal with. Will it be this month or next month or have any idea when we can actually put that bar chart or put the chart together, thank you. Could I perhaps answer that last one first, within a month, we'll get you that list within a month, let's see, thank you. Mr Hood, thank you very much Chair. I'm extremely pleased to hear the capsule's position on Gatwick, which is being consistent and especially the fact that it's addressing night flights because disturbed sleep in the Tambridge Wales, Tambridge, Edenbridge, Chilling Stones and Tambridge area is a huge problem, it's a huge problem in terms of people's mental health and it has far-reaching consequences. I attended the planning inspectorate here at Gatwick, at Three Bridges, relating to the northern expansion of Gatwick and actually followed my local MP, Tom Tugenach's contribution and uniquely it was the only time I think I've ever agreed with him. I'm also really interested in the coordinated approach to repair cafes and establishing the carbon impact on the amount of carbon that is involved in those repairs, in stopping those items, mentoring the waste stream because myself and Mr Stepto helped set up the repair cafe in Tambridge and we've just celebrated our second birthday and it's one of the things that we are unable to get a picture within the repair cafe world, bizarrely they don't seem to talk to each other, it's an international community but the fact that we're going to be doing that in Kent and linking everybody together and the County Council is involved in this is something that I absolutely commend, thank you very much. There you are, I wanted to ask you about the part six signs and enforcement because we spent years and I was involved in that in trying to get those powers, I hope we will get them extended, I think I would sort of correct the idea that the police have stopped enforcing them since October, I think they stopped enforcing them about ten years ago and if not longer, so now that we've got them as their roundabout fenced with all sorts of provisos that are irritating and foolish like having to issue warnings and consult and so on and so forth, do we not have or it would seem logical that we do have the legal right to go to the VVLA and say who is the owner of this vehicle and that must be implied in having the position to do that, I mean after all if you set up a car park it seems to me they don't have any problem in getting your name and address, so what is the situation with that, I'm sure we must have a legal right to it, do we not? Well I would think under these ones it's just an operational delay because of the change in the system, so yes we will have the right to deal with it and there will be some argument that under the moving traffic regulations we have to provide that first warning letter in advance for the first offence so there might be some time to deal with that but I think securing the registered keepers address and information is something that is mission critical to us delivering this piece of work but if the VVLA are unable to provide that at this point in time and that's a recogniser we're just going to have to work with that process which is why the team are actively seeking a direct conversation with them and our canvassing opinion from others to see how others are performing as well so we can go as a collective conversation because it will not just be the tent team that is looking for access to this information there will be other authorities seeking it as well as they're getting extent powers in this regard. Unable or unwilling to? I think it's probably a bit of both if I be frank there'll be a bit around the potential for errors to occur in between the transition from one system to another and I think there's a degree of control that would be naturally to be expected in there I think what we'd like to understand is maybe an acceleration and early access to the information but I think this will just be a matter of time before we get this resolved rather than sub-infundamental. Good okay thank you it's taking years up to get to this point so good all right that's the next item then I think we've done that thank you very much to note those updates do we note those updates yeah okay performance dashboard Mr Wagner thank you very much here this is the sixth and final performance dashboard of the 2023/24 financial year and it covers data up to the end of March the summary is provided on page 9 of the online packs this shows that 12 of the 19 indicators are regulated green based on the latest months performance and this is one fewer than the last report of the seven indicators that were below target and not regulated green five are above the floor standard and so are regulated amber and the remaining two below the floor standard and therefore regulated red there weren't any red regulated indicators in the previous report so those two red indicators are both within the highways and transportation division with the first being customer satisfaction with service delivery based on the 100 call back survey and the second being member inquiries completed within 20 working days so reflecting on the overall picture over 60% of the KPIs were regulated green at the end of the year however some areas do remain challenging particularly in relation to highways and transportation where demand for pothole repairs and routine faults was extremely high and with worker in progress at the end of the year still well above expectations the paper does also include in appendix to the proposed KPIs and activity indicators for the 2024-25 financial year and this follows the annual review conducted by services the relevant cabinet members and the corporate director in terms in terms of those changes all KPIs and targets remain unchanged except for three KPIs which are proposed for removal and these are HTO4 which is customer satisfaction with routine highways service delivery based on the 100 call back survey and this is due to resourcing issues within Agilisys who conduct this survey and being unable to conduct it in future the second is HT14 and this is the member inquiries completed within 20 working days the responsibility for responses to these inquiries now resides with the DEPS chief executive department who are represented in this committee and this is picked up in one of the other cabinet committees and the third which is proposed for removal is DT05 which is the percentage of household raised recycling centre voucher applications that are completed online and the reason for this is that the KPIs consistently at 99% or higher which shows that the transition to online transaction has been achieved so thank you very much the committee has asked to note the performance dashboard report and comment on the KPIs and targets thank you thank you Mr. Wagner Mr. Bond thank you Chairman yeah just two items HT04 when you read that it simply says you know our contractor is no longer to carry it out so they're not going to carry it out surely we have in our contract certain criteria that we expect a contractor to carry out he wants to decide he can't do it surely we have some enforcement if we think it's necessary and if we didn't think it necessary why do we put it in the contract and the other one is my old little chestnut which is HT I think it's 14 over street permit works you know the numbers continue to sort of average out probably about 13,000 14,000 but it doesn't give us a true picture because certainly my area might have one street permit but it might run for three months two months and you know there's a perception out there that no matter which corner you turn around there's street works and either road closure or half road closure happening and you know I think it'd be really helpful if we knew whether this is on the increase or not and it's particularly annoying when there is no one working on the street works and what's even worse is the traffic banking up there's no one you know on duty on those street works to try and control the traffic I know we've deployed three or four people now hopefully they'll get to East Kent but you know it is a concern and it's been going on now I've been raising it for well over 12 months now so I just tossed that question in as well so HT 04 can you just say what it is that people watching sorry this is the call back this is the 100 call back surveys that our contractor is no longer able to carry them out due to resource issues okay the survey was carried out out of 79% satisfaction score which isn't brilliant okay good thank you the second question I don't forget a second question first you've been you were asking basically rather than saying how many permits to close the roads are issued how many days are roads closed is that what you're asking basically they should be the number of days that people are basically in convenience because the road is closed partially closed and in fact the work being done on it no monitoring is the problem if I could take both in order I mean on the first one without within the duck the question the Agilisis contract isn't held by high Western transport it's held by corporates so and they're streamlining things for various reasons but what I would say in the key thing is is there still the ability for residents to let us know that they're not satisfied trust me there is and they're not short on coming forward so that is still there and I think there is the scope with the move towards you know more and more thoughts being reported online tying it in with that to give the option of once the job is closed streamlining online reporting is a big question but in terms of that contract it's not one that we hold it is advice from outside of the service but I think the key thing is ensuring that residents do still have the ability to scrutinize work and let us know their thoughts if it doesn't go to their standards so we will keep monitoring that and we will keep on top of that I agree with you mr. Bond in terms of there is a difference between how many row closures there are how many permits are issued and what that means in reality I will get to you as I mentioned to you earlier outside the meeting a bit of a day to dump to show this there is a lot of information but just to give the cabinet committee a bit of an overview in terms of broad figures of the four types of permits that we use the immediate or emergency permit and the duration of these is determined what the issue is 30 percent of all works in the last council year fell into the immediate emergency permit and the average duration of these was five days of closure minor permit which is for a maximum of three days that was 55 percent of works the average is actually two and a half days rather than the three standard permits maximum ten days seven percent average of six days and the major permit duration which is ten days plus so clearly can go on significantly more 8 percent of works the average duration being 14 days that is just an incredibly brief overview of data but I think it's an absolutely fair question I don't know if mr. Robie is going to ask a question or indeed somewhat elaborate during the work he's been doing on road closures because I think there is the question about I don't want to go down this rabbit hole quite now in detail the economic impact on Kent let alone the inconvenience because it would be useful for this cabinet committee to know the total number of days lost of road usage if that's the phrase due to road works but chairman with your permission I think it might be useful for mr. Robie to step in at this point I had him down to speak anyway so thank you mr. Robie thank you chairman I mean we're doing a lot of work on this road works thing but I agree with mr. Bond can you get closer to your microphone clues on this thing I agree with mr. Bond that the issue can you hear me now right I agree with mr. Bond that the issue of the duration of road floors is the critical thing because I mean the amount of work that needs to be done in you know in replacing water pipes and putting in broadband and all the other things yet alone the road works that we need to do I mean this work has to be done and I think people understand that sometimes you have to close the road to do it I mean the road was a safety issue and one thing and another but I think what we should be trying to do is to get to a position where the length of the duration of the closure is minimized in is actually a key KPI now the thing about that is how would you make the closure last for the shortest possible time you do the work for the longest possible time so you'd have longer working days you might work 24/7 even you'd certainly want to make sure that the when the leak was fixed or whatever it was the hole was filled and the traffic management was removed in a sequence rather than having gaps between them and that would apply also to KCC roadworks as well and all of that costs more money and it costs money that Kent I was currently doesn't have and it also costs money that the utilities don't want to pay and of course Mr Baker mentioned the economic impact on Kent of road closures and I'm trying to get a handle on that because I think that's likely to be quite a big number and of course you'd be then looking at a balance between if it costs more to have the duration of the roadworks being shorter than it is at the moment that would be offset against the reduced economic impact on the obviously the Kent economy and that's the sort of area that we're looking at but I think there won't be less roadworks and there won't be less road closures but I think there could be shorter road closures and I think if we communicated properly why would any people would understand that. Thank you. There was a point now where you talked about the utilities not wanting to pay and I think there's a sense among people that for instance they close the road and they leave it lying around not being worked on because it suits them and the extra cost of putting in proper traffic management and getting it done quickly is something that they don't want to pay so the residents then pay the price of that in convenience and delay. I agree with that but I think it's not sensible to be looking for an adversarial relationship with the utilities. One of the things we talked about with her owner and team, Mr. Neil was getting a senior level meeting with some of the utilities about some of these issues because I mean I don't think we've got to, it's not helpful to present them as men with or women even that matter with horns and a tail and a fork kind of thing. We want to try and get them all in the same place and it's not so much that they don't want to do but it's a pound, shillings and pence argument of course it could be done. They could organise their contractors a bit better. I mean most of them organise them quite well and they could pay people more to work longer hours in order that the closure was shorter but of course what you want is you want to make sure that that extra cost isn't reflected in either a reduction in the investment in replacing the water pipe or whatever it is which you need or in excessive price increases for the consumer quite a lot of which ends up with off water and the regulators. So I mean it's not complete as straight forward but I mean I think it'd be wrong to portray the utilities as devils or out to shaft the residents but I do agree with you that the balance is probably not quite right at the moment. Oh Mr Bulldog, from outer space would you like to say something? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I'm not a senior, I think you might have to worship this. There is, well I think it's not where the letter of that is where you use it and then they're able to exception. I think it's a technical excuse for a lot of them. They perhaps they try and do that a bit. I think they take advantage of your thought-law to try to talk to you. They take advantage of what you have to talk about. If I don't have to say it before but they draft a version of the words and then they wait easy again to delay it in three weeks and ask them to go over the version of the CFO. If it is yet, you can go to the book and send them to the top link. Oh really because of the amount of other works that are going on, they're difficult for them. So I really feel that when you see a lot of the two weeks and they start a lot of the play line, there's a bit of something that's a cool piece. These are going to get much people and that differences. And you can say the same to yourself. But if you've got development up here, you can send it in because they need to be working out. Thank you, Mr. Bulldog and I've got Mr. Sandhu and then I'll come to you, Mr. Wagner. Thank you very much. Yeah, regarding the utilities, I totally sometimes sympathise with the county council here. The cabinet member is aware in the past as well, my colleague and borough councillor, Mr. Holt has contacted cabinet member multiple times about coming back to the same locations. And that's always the biggest problem that residents face. You know, if these utility companies are going to do the works, do the works correctly and efficiently in the first place. That's one of the points that I'd like to pick on. And then secondly, HT04. I presume that drainage, sorry, not HT04, HT14. That's priority inquiries completed within 20 days. I presume that drainage would come into that element because I couldn't see a drainage element on there individually. I would just like to commend your team that they have worked sufficiently in multiple locations within my patch. And they are investigating further analysis. I think the so-called ways are all blocked. So I think we need a little bit more investment on that side. But I did want to take this opportunity to just commend in the team as well. Thank you very much. Chair, will that just make clarifying just for the sake of clarity? HT14 relates to inquiries as in anybody who writes in with a query. So it can be absolutely anything. And some are, including one I recently had of someone who wanted to set up a Disney-style land train on a seafront, unfortunately. They had to be told that it wasn't our responsibility. It was the district council, but we get all sorts of queries. Good. Mr Wagner. Wagner. Mr Wagner. Mr Wagner. I usually go Wagner. But yeah, it's just a response to the question around street work permits. I think there's a consideration terms. What data we've got available for the KPI itself as well. So obviously we know what permits we've issued and the kind of the permitted duration for those works to take place. I don't believe we have across all of the 150,000 permits, the actual duration that those street works took. I believe that we do know if they exceeded their duration. And obviously that's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But in terms of the data that's available, certainly in the sort of medium term, there's some limitations to what we could do in terms of that KPI. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Mr Hurd. Thank you very much, Chair. I'm going to write in thinking that HT04, the customer satisfaction one and KPI and the HT14, the priority and queries one. Isn't that the one that I think members use that's gone to another service? They're the only red ones in these KPI's. Am I right in thinking they're the two that we're taking out? Because I was really impressed with the progress that we've made in terms of HT14, because we were heading in the right direction until March, where it's gone back in the wrong direction. So can I have a clarification about why HT04 is a resource issue? What's changed there with Agilisis? And can I ask if this committee isn't going to be seeing the priority and queries risk, but another committee is, what committees would that be if it isn't going to be presented to one that deals with highways? Because that's just a good idea. Can you answer that, Mr Agilis? Yeah, I think I can answer the question on member inquiries. So the committee is the policy resources committee that covers complaints. And there's an annual report which goes to that committee as well, which views all contacts in terms of complaints, inquiries, compliments those as well. I think that's the form that those will be reviewed in future. Not happy with that? Well, I'm a little confused. Well, a highways issue has been reported to policy and resources and whether it shouldn't also be to join the committee. So if we take the contact centre one in particular, let's start that one. We've had quite a volatile year in number of inquiries, number of people getting in touch. Now as an organisation, we can only scale our subcontractors to a certain level. And what we're seeing here is the ability to respond to some of the higher periods of inquiries is meaning that we're missing the target. And that's certainly a conversation through our MRX team in their contract with Agilisis at this point in time. So they're trying to understand why we're missing the targets at this particular point and what could be an improvement plan. And that may well be a conversation around, is it a rescaling of the service? Is there a different way that we need to approach it in terms of giving the residents the best way forward? And as Mr Baker said, can we get something through our future fault reporting tool? Can we do something online? But certainly the conversation around how the contact centre is scaled at this point in time is a conversation. And certainly over the last 12 months, we've seen quite an increase in the number of inquiries across a number of different areas, certainly in highways and transportation. So I think there's a bit around resetting that conversation, and that is an ongoing conversation. In terms of the inquiries one, in terms of why it was going in a good direction. So I think that we did a transfer of the team into a centralised team with some consistency and that made a huge step change. And we had a lot of backlog to get through when they cracked through that backlog. That process, they changed the process of how they were going to operate in October. And that then gave us a step change. So we were getting a lot of things through, we were reiterating the timescales, we needed to work with the quality of responses. So there was a procedural change by the team at that stage. And what we found, certainly in March, is that's a legacy of a couple of very big inquiries. I mean, we sit in there, the Hoon Bay scheme. That again, we have a relatively small number of people in that team that then get overwhelmed for a month, due to the number of inquiries and the public interest around something. I'm working with that team to see what we can do to be resource smoothing. Is there a different approach? Is there a standardisation that we can make sure we hit our dates? But I think looking at the performance data I saw last week, we're stepping back up again. And it's these unusual events, I'll call them, unusual events, that sometimes catch us out and we just need to keep learning from that. But this time last year, that priority inquiries was a significantly different place, and it's been this hugely forward. I think it's a progressive continuous learning exercise for us. And Chair, I'd like to just add to Mr Jones's point there, just to note that the case is, obviously, the figures per month reflect when the case is closed. So there are very, you know, old cases and there have been over the years that go back quite some time. It will miss the target in that month, because that's when it was finally answered. But I think the rest of it has been outlined quite well. I think when I first came to this committee to look at some of the percentages predating that we were looking at 20, 30% some courses. So it's significant progress. Me personally, I would like it to be as close to 100% as you can get, but I would reflect that. That does take a resource and when it's quite a difficult to predict, quite bumpy amount of inquiries coming in. Obviously, resourcing appropriately is always a bit of a judgment call because you don't want to have people not at or that close to capacity. Okay, Mr Chittenden. Thank you, Chairman. I'm afraid I'm not sure I agree with Mr Jones. I see no reason with all this change of chopping around why those figures can't still be maintained in this group. And the reason is I would hate to think I was sitting in here and just listening to the items, which is sweetness and light, and not knowing where the real trouble belongs. And at the moment, these figures reflect, I think, truly the problems we've got, which staff changes. And I can understand that. That's been explained in a month where we're going with that. I think hope that that will bring it up, but to just take them out and say, well, that group can have it, there are not nothing to do with highways and environmental transport. But you, who would have it to think about this as we do, won't get that information, I think is wrong, Chairman. The reason it couldn't go to both. Well, what I was going to suggest is, why don't I take that away and we'll give you a bit more detail next time around the customer satisfaction one in particular. Because it wasn't lip service, but I think there's a level of detail that you do demand, and I'll take that away if that's okay. And I think it would be fair to take away the priority inquiries as well on the basis of, although it would still be reported to policy and resources, I would quite personally like to see it come here because it's one that I take a keen interest in. So if that were to be possible, I would, I don't see a problem. If it has to be reported to PNR, fine. But HD14 in particular, I would still like to come here because I think I, as cabinet member, need to have a, to be held to account over that one because at the end of the day, it's crucial and it's one that is public facing. You can ask that to support that because I think because we've made a change to the system last year, it's probably useful to give members an update of what that's done and how it's progressed and what are the challenges for. So we can certainly come back with a paper around modifications to the inquiry process, how the correspondence team are working and the improvements at the current. I think it'd be good to air that so members are a little bit different. Good. That sounds good. Dr. Sullivan. Yeah, thank you. Being somebody that also sits on PNR committee and where we see the Agilis's contract, it's almost like it's, well, that's broken down. You need to talk about it in your highways or adult social services or children. So there is a danger that things will be missed. Given that we have buckets of data, as I'm told regularly, are we not able to have one which is a get-specific contacts that can be included just to keep, keep eyes on it? Because you're right when everything's falling apart, complaint school up. And have you had any learning from those extraordinary times when there's been an additional level of complaints? Is there proactive things that you've been doing? Thank you. Okay, good. Thank you. Right, we're done with that. Now, we're on to the Kent Bus Service Improvement Plan. Are you going to introduce Mr. Laitala? Thank you. Thank you very much, Tess. Yes, as per the report, the 2004 refresh. Just for our passover, Mr. Laitala, and I will commend the work he and his team have done with this. As with many bits of work, the Department for Transport requests of us. Timescales are not always ideal, but the team do always manage to put stuff together. I think what we manage to do here, as you will note in the appendix, which is the crucial item here, we're really saying what we think would be good, be required across Kent based on work we have done previously and now. But, and I think this is the crucial element, we're making clear that we do not have the funds to be doing this internally. So, we don't want to be in a position where we are giving our wish list and then for the government to turn around and say, Well, if you really, really want it, then you can find the money for it. We're having to be absolutely realistic here. There are many aspects as the appendix shows of buses that we would like to see and prove. I don't know about how they could be improved, but we're being absolutely honest from day one about the funding situation. And I think that is all we can be. But with that, I'll pass over to Mr Lightaller. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Basic refresh comes out of revised guidance that was issued by the DFT way back in January, where they sent out to all those authorities who received basic funding. They sent out revised guidance saying that to actually receive your next tranche of funding, you would need to complete a B-SIP refresh, which effectively means reporting on progress done to date in terms of the B-SIP, working in Hans partnership, and to come up with a table of ambitious, indicative proposals, a pipeline of ready-to-go projects, which could be delivered if there was appropriate funding. They gave us six months, so there is a deadline for the B-SIP refresh, and that drop-dead deadline is the 12th of June. Subsequently, they've also added another requirement, which we're dealing with internally. The purpose of today's key decision is around that indicative table and initiatives that stretch from 2025 to 2029, which is being shared with members. You will see, and I'll be far past onto my colleague Dan Bruce, who actually has done all the work, but you will see that we have caviated this table on the basis that it is subject to external funding. This is about external funding for projects that isn't a commitment by KCC to these projects and KCC providing funding. I just want to make that very clear before I hand over to Dan, I will take you through the process. It is all around external funding, and before anybody else, I have no idea if there will be external funding. One can hope, but we are complying with the DFT requirements, so I'll pass over to my colleague Dan. Thanks, Phil, and good morning, members. And I think what's also important to this, obviously, this is completely separate in a way to what we already deliver in through tranche 1 of the BSEPS, so members will know through previous papers that we've brought to this committee that KCC is currently in, and we're delivering tranche 1 delivery program linked to our BSEPS. So that's in the rollout of a number of positive capital and revenue-funded initiatives, and these have included protection of 49 bus services that serve in school movements predominantly, and which would have otherwise been withdrawn. We've got three major bus priority schemes. We're looking to take forward a number of fairs and incentives and the delivery of a new bus information portal with related QR codes and RTI screens. We are awaiting funding for government for our further program of 24/25 interventions, and it's important to note that the release of that funding is relying on us submitting this 2024 BSEPS refresh. So as Phil said, the paper today is linked to the new guidance. The guidance has two elements. The majority of the document that we need to submit is really a factual update on what has happened since 2021. We need to outline the current status of the bus industry and the networking can. We will outline the delivery program for 23/24, which I've just gone through, and we will then explain what our 24/25 delivery program linked to BSEPS and all council funding will be. But obviously, as I say, that will require the release of that 24/25 funding. We've been working on these elements of the document in the background, and we'll be utilising Kent's enhanced partnership board, which is established at the start of the national bus strategy process to sign that off before the submission date. As we've said, the remainder of the document is around this initiative table, and it's in there that we need to cover the period from 25 to 29. There is talk within the guidance around looking for it. Mr Bruce, can Mr Bulldog, who is up in outer space, as he's struggling to hear you, can you get a bit closer to your microphone, please? Sure, yeah, apologies. So, yeah, just to clarify that there is the first part of the document is related to that delivery program, and the second that we'll be using the enhanced partnership board to sign off. There is no funding available, has already been pointed out, and as such, the document this time is not a bidding document as it was in 2021. What we do, of course, need to be mindful of, however, is there is a chance that the basic could be used for future funding allocations, and as such, that's why we've determined that this element of the document should be subject to the key decision process. The initiative table that you see, as Councillor Baker and Phil have relayed, is covers a range of initiative areas. On network, the principles are around sustaining the network that we currently have, and of course, they're looking to build back on that further through partially reintroducing potentially services that have become commercially unviable, but also looking at other rural connectivity and seeing if we can increase the proportion of population within 30 minutes of key destinations. On fares, we're looking at fare caps and multi-operative fare zones. Of course, we need to be aware that the government currently has their own scheme with the £2 fare cap, and we need to be careful of what we do aligns with that. So, it's a bit difficult in terms of how we position this without knowing what government they're doing with that. And we also have initiatives in there around information, infrastructure and the environment. So, to reiterate again, it's clear in the document, no funding to do any of them at the moment, but we've tried to be pragmatic about the current situation we're aware, as I'm sure we are, that there are challenges in Kent, like nationally with the industry, but then we've looked to try and be ambitious as well, and building forward from that point. It's also important to know that the government would ideally like us in a longer term to align our B-SIP with our local transport plan. Of course, LTP5 is currently in production at the moment, so we would propose to look towards that longer term horizon to align with our LTP, so that as an authority we're all aligned strategically. So, the paper today includes the initiative table and appendix, and members are being asked to comment on the proposed decision to submit the table to government alongside the remainder of our B-SIP document. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Bruce. Mr Bulldog. Thank you for that, Mr Bulldog. I'm referring to the appendix 2.4. It talks about the gain of the business, the capital's where possible. I don't think it's quite a part of the issue, and I don't think it's all about the discussion. I think it's the form of the district, I don't think it's the form of the district, I don't think it's the form of the district. But I just want to see how it's going to be difficult, so as meeting with this base, we're going to continue meeting with the bottom of the city. If we claim to get up, the capital is on this region. Let's check that out. So, why do you better be going through a district problem? You can deal with that. I can come back on that. Yeah, we have established quite a significant meeting structure to support the whole national bus structure process, obviously. We've got an enhanced partnership board, county-wide, then scheme monitoring groups, which cover the free of our EP scheme areas, and we have also asked local districts to form focus groups to look at more localised issues, and they really represent what quality bus partnerships used to do, and we're aware, as Councilor Bulldog knows, that there is a group in Swal. Due to the timescales of this, and with governance and the way we've had to put it all together, we haven't had the opportunity to do additional meetings with all of those, but we did write out to all districts to ask for feedback on the guidance, providing that guidance, and for those that we have received, and I will have to check whether we did receive that from Swal, we've looked to incorporate that into our initiative programme. I think what's important to note is obviously this plan needs to represent the whole county, so whilst there are a lot of specific district level ideas that have come back through that process, we cannot include all of them in these initiatives, because they are very high level, but what we've tried to do is capture the areas that they can fit into, which is why you see reference on network, for instance, around working with districts should funding come up to make sure that any network improvements relate to local transport plans, as well as what we're doing in the county, so really this is all about setting that strategic framework should funding come forward so that we can deliver those local conversations and outputs. Okay, Mr. Baldock. I've got Mr. Rainer next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start by just thanking the officers who have spoken, Mr. Laitel and Mr. Pay and their team, because this was a programme put together, this report, and the work done in order to comply with the government requirements, was done at extremely short notice, under really high pressure, and I think the quality of the work that they have done is exemplary, really first class, and all too often there are brick bets for officers in such circumstances, and it's good to have the opportunity to say thank you well done, it's a subtle report, and all the better for that. I'd like to take the opportunity to draw members' attention in particular, and Mr. Laitel has done so in a general manner, and the previous officer who spoke as well, but I'd like to take the opportunity as the deputy cabinet member for finance, to draw attention to paragraph 2.5 on page 27. It's very important to note that at this time the government has allocated no further funding for B-Sips for the 2025/29 period, and as such the initiative table provides a high level summary of initiatives, which could be delivered in the event that future funding is made available by government through the national bus strategy process. No initiatives will be delivered without this additional funding. It's a really important point to make. There are cliff-age positions next year, which are very impactful on KCC's bus budget, and it bears mentioning at this forum through you, Chairman, to make sure that members are fully aware of that. Having said that, I will now leave to other members to take matters forward from here. I would just like to say that if no one else does so, I would like to propose the recommendation at paragraph 8. I won't go through in full, Chairman. It's there for members to read on page 28. It should no one else put the recommendation forward. Thank you. Sorry, are you proposing the recommendation as written there? I am. Good. Thank you. Well, have you got a seconder for that? Yes. Well, let's go back to that. Let's hear what everyone has got to say, Mr. Rainer, and then we'll come back to your recommendation, if we may. Chairman, I wasn't prepared. There was no seconder for it at the moment, and I was just saying the debate goes forward, but I'm prepared to put a recommendation forward as and when you want to take it. Yes. Good. I'm assuming. This is a good procedure, right? The next person I've got is Dr. Sullivan. Lovely. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I've got a couple of questions. Is it right to just fire a couple over and then quick answer back? Would that be all right? Yeah, you want to ask? So, the B-SIP and all being put together, is there potential that they will fund only certain lines, and do they get to pick which lines that they fund? So, in terms of how the process works, yeah. So, the DFT, it's not a horse trade. You submit how it worked was. We had a B-SIP originally. If you remember, it was about 223 million off the top of my head. They asked us to come back and prioritise what would be key ones. You go through a process of justifying it, and then they come back and say yes or no. And that's when you got down to 35 million. Yeah. Oh, travesty, absolute travesty, let down. Can I just ask on ND13 in the appendix bag? Would you be able to expand on what that £10 million is looking to do? Is that £10 million going to the National Planning Tool, or is this using the tool to put more buses on the roads? I'm just trying to get a feel for how much is actually supporting buses or how much is supporting kind of... The use is about putting more buses on the road, so it's not about that the planning tool doesn't cost £10 million, thankfully. The planning tool is there, and what the planning tool allows us to do is look at the whole issue of bus connectivity, so it takes a range of data, maps it and shows us gaps in for particular service groups and particular destinations. The idea would be £10 million a revenue to put back or to try new services and plug some of those gaps. Right, so using that thingy will then be putting buses back into those days. It's about putting those gaps and improving connectivity. That's brilliant. The one below that then is about working with District Council, plans, etc. Now, I know that there's been a big focus on fast track, certainly in my area, kind of, and adjoining to EBS fleet. I'm sure the aforementioned ND-13 will identify that there are lots of gaps that aren't fast track, and actually the fast track services have been over and above invested in, and it's the other local services to get you to a station, is what's needed. Can I have some assurance that if District Councils are saying we need to ensure that those weaknesses or gaps, those bus services that haven't come back after COVID, are the ones we want to invest in before fast track, that that would be agreed? Yeah, I think ND-14 is recognising that a number of the districts have done some work around buses, and in one particular case, have developed their own bus strategy. So it acknowledges that that work has been done and that we would work with those districts to use basic funding to support them with some of those aspirations. If a district, I suppose in the case of fast track, it's slightly different. The gaps in the network and some of the gaps will also be picked up through the fast track board, which both districts sit on. So yes, they do get picked up. I think what the connectivity tool picks up on is more, in all fairness, it picks up on rural communities, it picks up on areas such as linkages to hospital, which we've always known, particularly in Kent, and the way the hospitals spread is a particular issue. Between the planning tool, the district liaisons, we have the strategies we know about, it would all be brought together to see what we could do to plug those gaps. Right. Okay. Thank you. Do you want to jump in? Could I just jump in? I hate to follow Mr. Leiter. I look at things more about buses, and I'll let it ever will. But I think in terms of those gaps as well, it's worth reflecting that in some areas of the county, it's relative to time of day as well. So I think as we all know, I'm not just talking, you know, evening when buses do tend to drop off quite dramatically in places, there are some areas where you've got far better connectivity in the morning peak than the afternoon or the daytime off peak. So it's working exactly that out because, I mean, Mr. Leiter has just mentioned about hospital appointments, for example, which is we know is a problem. You do need, of course, to spread out that access as well, because if you just had the ability to get to a hospital on a bus for an hour a day and then not get back, it's that level of detail. There is a lot of data there, and I think when I talk, when I think about closing some of those gaps in the network, it's not just the physical connections between various settlements, it's the time gaps as well. And finally, just to say, thank you for answering those questions. As I am a sub on this, I will be abstaining from the vote just because Barry's old man, bus man, thank you. Sorry, you're abstaining from the vote because, did you say abstaining from the vote? All right, okay. Thank you. Mr. Chittenden. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to initially agree with Mr. Rayner with regard to the work that's done by Mr. Leiter and his department and his group of senior officers. I think it's excellent since B-sit came along. I think I've got that right B-sit came along, which was trouble. Since the fact we cut 200,000 out since a reaver in our area at least took, I think, about 85 services and changed some getting rid of them. And also especially for the work that they've done in taking some of those disastrous cuts and turning them into something functional with some of the smaller buses. Certainly a lot of my residents have been very pleased to see the work they've done. I want to say thank you. And long may it continue. With regard to the document itself, I think it's shameful really of government to do what they're doing. The first one I seem to remember, we asked for 200 million. I think we got 35, so 75% was initially wasted. Here, they've done some fantastic work because they've got to. Otherwise, we're not going to get money out of government. But again, until the government says it's there, that is just sitting there. But they're making us do the work. We've got to do it because from a personal point of view, I want to see more buses on the road, and I want to see more usage on buses. Only comment on Mr Rainer's comments when he said about if the government doesn't come up with there been additional funding next year. I hope that doesn't mean that KCC are going to cut their current funding. Any lower, because I certainly couldn't agree with that. But other than that, I'm happy to second. Mr Rainer's recommendation, and I will certainly be voting for this recommendation. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to underline, as it were, Miss Chinden's point there, about the work that has gone on in these difficult times. We all know that the bus industry is where it is. And I think it's difficult sometimes because if your own bus route that you use regularly has disappeared, you might feel as though the County Council is doing nothing to help with buses. But actually, the tireless work that has gone on to try and find novel solutions, different operators, and everything. If it hadn't been for that, to be fair, funded largely by external government grants, various manners, the bus industry in Kent at the moment would look significantly worse than it currently is, and I do think we need to thank our officers for that. It's been a sterling job, and it isn't always recognised, I think, because people do understandably relate to their own immediate buses. But overall, the network is definitely stronger now than it would have been without their work. Yes. In fact, you can tell that it's a good job because Mr Rainer is a hard man to please. I've got Mr Hood now. Thank you very much, Chair. Bus back better. It's got a bit of a hollow ring about it, considering the breadth of the over 100 bus services that have been cut across Kent by operators, and indeed some of our own subsidised services. Coming back to what Mr Rainer said earlier, I think the government is obsessed with extremely tight deadlines for bids, and I think the other flip side of that is the extremely tight deadlines that we get for our officers to come up with proposals and to spend the money. I just find it insane that we've got a situation where, instead of having a situation where we're guaranteed the funding for Kent, and we have the power to apportion the funding as our officers see fit, that they end the council. It's forced to jump through hoops in order to appease their micromanagement. I've got a couple of questions, well, I've got a few questions because this is such a detailed document, and I absolutely applaud all the hard work that's gone into this at very short notice, as has been outlined. Adopting a uniform ticketing system across Kent, that's obviously really good. The Kent bus network is fragmented and it is fundamentally flawed. But we can't pull the levers because we aren't the bus operators as we are repeatedly told is the case. While we are seeing massive capital investments in flagship projects, in North and East Kent, as has been outlined, obviously around those massive projects, if you haven't got connectivity, there's a huge problem. I really hope that in areas like Tumbridge, Tumbridge, Wells and Seven Oaks, we're going to benefit from the improvements that are coming forward, especially pleased to see the comments about the limited evening time tables and Sunday time tables. These are crucial in order to get commuters to be able to have the confidence to leave their cars behind when they get to the station so they know that when they get back from town they're going to be able, they aren't going to have to get a taxi back because the last bus has gone. Because in those towns in West Kent, I'm sure it's the same. Right across the county, those buses just aren't there. I've got a query about LTT2 on page 12 where it mentions one-pound phase for Amazon Prime members. It just seems really, I just want some detail about this. It seems a very odd thing for a council that supports circular economies to be doing this because shouldn't the council actually be supporting face-to-face shopping rather than encouraging the online shopping, which is detrimental to our down centers? I don't really follow this, so if I could have an explanation, a bit more detail about that, and BP-7, the installation of county-wide, I don't even know what this means, RTIGXML traffic priority system. What's that all about? The parking strategy at BP-9 with districts, we're talking about a parking strategy in partnership with districts to ensure that they retain the civil enforcement officers. However, Chairman, isn't this in conflict with the proposal to bring on street charging back under the control of the county, which risks having to actually set up a parallel set of civil enforcement officers potentially? That's going to be duplication. That project line is almost half a million pound a year, so some detail about that. I love the maximum flat fare proposal. We know that elsewhere, there's franchising that completely transforms what we can do here, and as Mr. Lewis rather isn't here, I'd just like to say that a transport for Kent solution that takes all the best bits of transport for Cornwall, transport for London, and gives us the power to really get to the bolts of this in terms of franchising that meets the needs of our residences, is where we should be heading, but our hands are tied, and I absolutely appreciate all the efforts of the team. Thank you very much. Just firstly, before I do that on multi operator ticketing, probably also important to note, we've got a basic initiative using 2324 funding, which is providing grants to all small, medium operators for tap-on, tap-off technology and contactless technology on our machines, so the idea around that is to make sure obviously Kent's got a lot of operators compared to other parts of the country, and we want to ensure that there is that ability to introduce multi operator ticketing, should we get additional funding, and we can do that moving forward, so we're laying the foundations to allow that through Visa for the moment, and this will allow it to grow. On the signal technology, our colleagues in the ITS team will probably be a better place to comment on it, however, the link to buses is, and the idea of this is obviously some areas of the county, it's not feasible to get bus lanes in, there's not the physical space, the impact on wider traffic is not possible. There is technology and I know it's utilised in parts of the county already, where buses can get priority at signals in a general flow, so it's a normal signal junction, but when a bus is recognised as approaching the junction, it can ensure that that signal is activated to green to give the bus priority, so there is the ability to roll out that system wider. Of course, this is a high level at the moment, so we'll need some analysis to look at how that impacts wider traffic flows, but that's the principle. And finally, on the parking strategy element, that initiative really is all about ensuring that supporting recruitment and supporting that resource level there so that the enforcement can support bus issues. Again, really is strategic, yet the will need to be a need to just what the local, what the circumstances are at the time. Government have shown they can be flexible, if times change and we need to adjust what we're doing with those initiatives, but yeah, the intention is about supporting results to enforce bus matters, but yeah, absolutely, if obviously circumstances change, we'd have to react to that with the initiative. And in terms of Amazon, we have a relationship with Amazon where for their regional distribution centre at Dartford, we have a relationship with their staff can use our fast track service for which Amazon pay a fee. That allows their staff to travel for free. It is part of their approach to sustainability. It has been a very successful partnership for both us as public transport because that's funds that go back into fast track and other associated fast track projects. And from an Amazon perspective, it means that their staff travel by bus and not by car. The idea is, has come from the fast track team about talking to Amazon about could we, on a very small area, tap into there, you know, the prime membership, if you like, in that Grosen Dartford absolutely area, that Kenton side area, and offer people for having a prime membership, you would get a pound to travel. And would they then travel? Would that increase people's use of bus? So it's about modal shift. It looks a bit half balmy. I would probably say if you read it on thing, but because of that relationship and the constant talking between us, it's worth looking at. You're looking at me because you want to say something more. I have to say, I'm a bit surprised that you would say that you think face to face shopping is preferable to online shopping because isn't the carbon footprint of online shopping much, much better than face to face? Not if you walk. Okay. However many miles, however many miles you might have to carry your heavy loads back. Did you want to say something else? No, thank you very much for that. That was great. That clarification. I thought I'd completely misread it for a moment, but thank you. Thanks so much. Yeah. Okay. I've got Mr Bulldog next, actually. Thank you, Kevin. I don't know if I can speak to you. I don't know if I can speak to you, but I don't know if I can speak to you. I think when it's fine with the code of your company, we should later be able to pay your taxes, possibly, and we'd just like to ask if you can keep joining these products. I want to talk about the code of your company. We use what you can tell. Thank you for hearing off the point here, actually. Mr Bulldog. Okay. Is that it? Yeah? No, it's all right. No, I'm interested to think that you also don't worry about the carbon footprint of not shopping online. But anyway, Mr Robey, are you going to bring something new to this? It could be very unusual if I did, wouldn't it? On the Amazon thing, I think, I mean, I'm on the fast truck advisory board. I think the fast truck deal at Dartmouth is a very good deal, and really is a win-win for all concern. I mean, the traffic in Dartmouth is terrible for a range of reasons that we all know about. And what this has done is enabled a large employer to essentially get its employees backwards and forced to work without actually involving in cars, which is a beneficial spin-off effect right across Dartmouth, so that's the first thing. The same thing is, I mean, this business is about online shopping versus high street, and we shouldn't be doing that. You can't fight major consumer trends like online shopping. You can throw unintended consequences to the high street and the rest of it. But we won't be able to stop people shopping online, and the issue of what to do with the high street is a wider issue where governments have got to create frameworks, win which the private sector will solve the problem, and it's a difficult thing. You won't be able to reinvent the high street of 1950 with the Butcher Bank of the Kansas Democrat, it just won't work. And it's a difficult problem, but it's certainly not to do with not saying that you can stop online shopping. It's like canoeing the tide. And the third thing is I consider Amazon to be a thoroughly professional business. I don't want to be with anything that Mike Bullock said about it. Good. Okay, I've had enough about Amazon. Thank you very much. That was a good point. Anything else anybody has got to say? No. Oh, Mr. Rainer, sorry. How could I forget you? I now propose that the proposal be now closed. All right. Okay. Seconded, and we agree that recommendation. Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Did you say something, Mr. Bullock? Okay. Let's record my abstention, please. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. We'll note that. And you're abstaining. Thank you. Dr. Sullivan abstained. Mr. Bullock's against. Actually, yeah. I'm not sure you can. My question is a point of order, Chairman. Can someone, as part of this committee, vote online? If so, what am I doing here? A lot of people might ask that question in general, Mr. Rainer. I think I can't remember what the rules are. Do you want me to answer? Yeah. Sorry. Because of the nature of this meeting, it's recommendations. It's not a decision-making body. So, yes, Mr. Bullock can vote online. What I would like to clarify, please, Dr. Sullivan and Mr. Bullock, would you like your votes to be recorded in the minutes? Because I won't do this unless you actually ask me. Yes, please, recorded. Mr. Bullock? Good. Okay. All right. As Miss Kennedy said that, I remember that is the situation. Thank you very much for that. All right. Number eight, road assets renewal contract. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Chair. I will pass I would also, I think, I like to think this is a fairly run of the mill. Obviously, it's separate from a highway and maintenance contract, which we are discussing a lot. This is just to get it in place. But I think I'll just pass it over so we can go into the nuts and bolts if required. Okay. Are you passing to Mr. Gasol? Passing to Mr. Luzmore, I believe, is away in the ether. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Luzmore. Sorry, I'm totally wrong. I'm passing to Alan Katherine, please. Yeah. Yeah. Don't propose to rehearse everything in the paper because it would be quite a time-consuming. But I just wanted to highlight this is this contract is separate to the pot hole. It's contract and neat. Maintenance contract. This is purely concerning medium and large-scale recerting work that we carry out in the county. And also, if you could project a bit more, do you not, too clear? Okay. Sorry. And also, covers major road reconstruction such as the Fannetway works that Mr. Baker mentioned earlier. The main foster, the work we've done on this is really around achieving best value in terms of the prices that come back from the bidders when we go through that process later. That's largely been achieved by understanding the market and doing various technical changes and around specifications, which I certainly won't point with here today. The other thing that we've done in the specification is to make various changes around carbon reduction. And, again, that's mainly around material or specifications to encourage that and actually not just to encourage but to make it a condition of the contract going forward. That's probably the only point I'd like to make. I'm happy to take any questions. Good. Thank you. Anybody? Mr. Chittenden. Thank you, Chairman. Can I ask a question, then really a comment. The question is, where we've been talking about road asset renewal contracts before? One of the things, either here or in some of the five or ten year reports, we've always given the amount of the cost of outstanding work on the highways. In other words, when I first came here, it was about, we needed £400m to bring our highways to the standard. I think a couple of years ago, it was $600m, I believe it's up to $7,000, $800m now. So I'd be interested in what that current figure is, if that's the first point. Second point, over the last 10, 15 years, we've had quite a lot of discussions on two aspects of this. One is the aiming for being part of all of it, and some of the good discussions were good and some of the discussions were bad. The other half of that story is that sometimes we've been not given the chance to see alternative offers. In other words, we've gone out to tender, too late, to actually offer it to the equivalent of this committee to have discussions on whether we should go with one contractor or another, and that's been a sort of a continuing record. What has raised me, made me raise this, is in the summary and the recommendations you're talking about delegating authority, where it says extension clauses within the contract, and it says bracket, five years plus up to five years extension. Now that worries me because it sort of says to me, well, okay, how are we going to check over five years, how we as council is going to be involved, and how are we really going to let that five year run to ten years without some sort of controlled ten years at a long time in this current market, and so that in itself would worry me. And to be honest, Chairman, if that's left in, I will vote against it. I may be the only one, but I don't like the way this is being proposed at the moment. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Rayner. Chairman, I am co-chairman of a board that looks at this high level contract, large scale contracts, and we look at this very critically. There are some contracts where longer term contracts are necessary in order to get a right off period on the contract machinery being used. What I would say in this particular case is that I'm happy to propose it for just the five years. My personal view on these is that we look at it on a five years basis, and that we make a recommendation for five years, and it was my intention in any case to not delegate the additional five years as a movement from this, as a recommendation from this committee. It is a matter of course for my friend, the cabinet member for highways as to whether he takes the recommendation forward, but I'm satisfied that five years seems to me to be reasonable in the circumstances, and I intend at the appropriate time, Chairman, to move the recommendations, but with the deletion of the option of the final five years, there's years six through ten. Thank you. Are you agreeing with Mr. Chittenden in effect? I will see if anybody else – I'll come to you in a second – see if anybody else has got anything to say, and write and come back to a sort of formal recommendation. Mr. Chittenden, let's go back to you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Chairman, sorry. Yeah, I agree with that. I'd still like to know about these figures, the overall cost. I've seen them virtually every year, and the second point on this is will there be annual feedbacks, at least annual feedbacks, to this committee, so as we see exactly where it's going, and we used to get the state of the play with regard to the ability of the company that's handling it, where they've been fined for failures and if you like, awarded for good work. Will we be getting that type of report on an annual basis into this group? Okay. I think that's more for Mr. Jones. Mr Baker, I'm going to come to you first about the five years. I'm just going to say with regard to the comments made by Mr. Chittenden and Mr. Rainer regarding extensions, and I understand Mr. Rainer in particular concerns about contract extensions, et cetera, to make sure you can get the best deals at the time rather than in advance. I don't see a problem with actually head of any extension, something coming back to this Cabinet Committee before that happened. I think we'll always need to have that option to extend, but I think it's something that would warrant a discussion at least at Cabinet Committee before doing so. I don't see a problem with that, just so you can ensure that the circumstances at the time are what you would hope them to be and they would be beneficial for the authority. So yes, I think Mr. Rainer really, your point and Mr. Chittenden, you wouldn't want an automatic ability for the Director of Highways in conjunction with the Cabinet Member, just to say, yet we're extending, you would rather actually have the option for a Cabinet Committee to look at why it would be in the best interest of this authority and the residence it serves to extend if indeed it was felt it was. Okay, I think we've got that before I come to you, sorry, I'll go back to Mr. Rainer. Mr. Chairman, I've noted what Mr. Chittenden said, and I would like to draw to his attention because I've drawn it to both Mrs. Dean's attention and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group that they do not have representation. They don't send anybody along to the contract management review group, which looks in detail and looked at this particular contract in the last six months where Mr. Jones and various of his officers attended there and we were able to go into a degree of depth, which is probably less appropriate for this Committee than it is for the contract management review group. And so my recommendation, my suggestion to Mr. Chairman is, please have a word with his Leader, please talk to Mrs. Dean as appropriate, refer back to my conversations with him over the months, inviting them to send somebody forward and see whether or not the Liberal Democrats can organise themselves accordingly. Thank you. Okay. Chairman, can I come back on? Yeah, and then I'm going to end this ping-ponging. Okay. Yeah, okay. I'm very happy to attend. I must admit I've never heard of the group and I will ask Trudy about it and I have suspected that half the group she hasn't heard of either, but there you go, we hear this all the time. But certainly we're happy to attend, but the main point is that that means one person from each group, I would have thought that we deserved as a Cabinet Committee to have at least a report once a year. With the summary of it, I'm not asking for full detail that Mr. Rainer will be investigating, but I think we should be, we have that as a summary, and the second point was on this figure, where are we with hard weight loss? Yeah, okay. Let's put that to Mr. Jones. In terms of highway backlogs, I mean, obviously, I think we're somewhat confusing the contracts here because obviously a lot of this conversation we're having is about the highway's term maintenance contract, which is the large contract, which we have the working group that comprises all members of this committee looking out, we've had two briefings so far. This is a much smaller contract, as Mr. Cassin said, for the medium and large scale resurfacing largely. But broadly, in terms of the backlog, you're talking for road maintenance, about 750 million, increasing by about 50 million a year, and 750 million backlog, yep, increasing by about 50 million a year. And the overall, if you were to include all other assets, drainage, bridges, et cetera, you're talking north of a billion. That's the broad figures we're looking at now. And Mr. Jones might want to correct me and say I'm very wrong that that is up to him. He's very right. Is he good? Thank you. So who else is going to speak on Mr. Hurd? Thank you very much, Chair. Can we keep it to this country leaders? Is there danger here that we are likely to accept the lowest contract, just above the lowest, notional tender value, but it's just above the minimum quality threshold and that we will risk a significantly poorer standard of work, which is less resilient and actually represents lower poorer value for money. How can we be? I'm just asking for officers, how can we be reassured that the lowest bid is going to be deliverable at the cost that we are quoted? I'm probably, Mr. Rain is probably going to tell me the answer to this. Can I ask if the tenders are still anonymised and am I right in thinking that we've moved away from the price per quality point and if we have done, why have we done so? And then I just wanted to ask a question if you allow me, can I have an idea about where our contractors are based for the micro surfacing work that is carried on in the county and the percentage of, there's about 20% of the budget is for micro resurfacing, something like that. And I know that we've got one contractor at least that comes in from the Midlands. How far flung are our contractors? Are the vast majority of our contractors closer to home and what scope is there for actually doing any of this work? Is there any scope for doing that work, ourselves, as it's such a large, significant part of our budget? Thank you. Well, your second point might conflict with your first point possibly, but maybe I think we're conflating a number of things. So I think it's probably useful if Mr. Cassin just articulates this contract and how we do it and all the rest of it, because I think naturally we're conflating a number of different highways, activities under one banner here. Alan, could you? You're right. Let's keep it to this, OK? No problem, the microsurfacing that you mentioned is actually delivered under the term maintenance contract, the stable contract, by a subcontractor that does come from the middle. Can you get closer to your microphone? It comes down from the Midlands. That is a specialist service with specialist material, so it can't be delivered by any camp-based company. Returning to this contract, the mechanism for awarding it is based on them passing selection questions, which is really about them demonstrating that they have a history of good policy work. We then have specific quality questions, which are about them demonstrating certain skills around programming, costing and more of the technical side. And then they have to pass all of those before we took a price, but when we get the prices back, we do scrutinize them to make sure that they do fit in with our understanding of the market and what is deliverable under that framework. I would also say that this is historically a very successful contract. We just don't have performance problems. The average performance passed over the last four years was 97%. And anything that did fail, they repaired at their cost, which is fairly standard in the contract with this type. OK. This is all about the process, which I assume is a normal process, but it's the... In what district we had, we knew the waste contract, and the winning bid for the contract was significantly lower than the rest, and they couldn't deliver at that cost. And my question is, how do we ascertain whether the winning contract can deliver at that cost? That's part of the normal process of contracting things. I mean, I don't think we need to go further with that. So I think obviously we have the spending, the council's money approach, we have a commission strategy, we have independent experts from the commissioning and procurement team that come in and have a look at the rate and prices. And as Mr. Carson said, we'll compare the market. So if there are some unsustainable priced contracts that have been put forward, yes, so as we look at the price quality point, there will be actually a realisation of whether that's actually a sustainable contract or not, and it will be the commercially most advantageous contract that will take not the lowest price, and that's an important modification to the approach of how we look at it, and I know that in the up and coming changes to the procurement act that we're looking at as well, that's even modified further, so it might not be commercially advantageous because they have to come and say about the advantageous one to the authority, but that's work in progress. Good. Okay. Mr. Reyna, would you like to say your recommendation? Yes, Chairman. I would like to go back to the recommendation, 0.4, almost final line says plus five years extension. I propose we delete the plus five years extension on number four on the recommendation, and other than that deletion, move, I propose, the recommendation as printed and seek a second therefore. Thank you. Mr. Bond, seconded. I did seconded. That's it. Anybody against? Thank you very much. The treatment item 11, Chair, I think we probably should take item number nine. Yes, I'm sorry, yes, yes, the Kent Travel Saver Pass, the one that we're all been waiting for. Okay, number nine, the Kent Travel Saver Pass, Mr. Baker. I think I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of you going to take on mandatory break there, Chair. Over. Do you want to? Yes. I do apologise. Who would like to, everybody's scooting off anyway, off you go. Come back in five, 10 minutes, okay, let's be realistic, 10 minutes. To allow the freeze last year, which people have benefited from, at a time of increasing operator costs that we, of course, have to face the brunt of. Operator costs are still increasing. What we have here is another use of B-SIP funding to keep the increase below what it would be without it, looking at an increase from 450 to 550 for the standard pass as opposed to somewhere closer to 650, perhaps, without that element of B-SIP funding. Crucial, I would add at this point that there does remain the low income pass, of which there are around 2,500 and the cost for those will remain frozen at 120 pounds. I would just before passing on to the team note that I clearly get the difficulties and angst people have faced with this increase for the 24/25 year. That said, while the travel saver is a rather blunt instrument in that, it is the same fee wherever you are in the county and however much the equivalent of a commercial ticket would be. We can't get away from the fact that this is a discretionary service. If we didn't provide the Kent travel saver, there are some school users in parts of the county who would see the cost. If they were to use an operator ticket, skyrocket to around 1,400 pounds. Now there is obviously always comments out there about how the county council would just be in greedy, they're lining pockets, they're putting money away. I would just reiterate as I said at the start, and as we do know, given a previous item on this agenda, the state of the bus industry is what it is, the costs associated with operating buses are only going in one direction. And if the gap between what we charge for the KTS and what we have to reimburse operators for the KTS continues to increase, it is the taxpayer that faces that burden and as we are all to aware, there are only so many places we can reallocate funds from. So I say I think all of us understand the additional burden this will put on families across the county. But despite that, I do still believe that the Kent travel saver does offer compared to if it weren't there, a significant saving for the vast majority of those who will take it up to ensure that children across our county get to and from school, which is of course absolutely crucial, both of them as individuals, the county as a whole going forwards. So I think I'll pass across to Mr Lightau at this point, and thank you. So that time of year, again, when I have to come across to ETC and talk about the Kent travel saver, certainly as a department, we don't like increasing the cost of the Kent travel saver. And now before it, it's predecessor, the young person's travel pass. As I said last year, when I came and presented the paper around the Kent travel saver and the fact we were going to freeze the cost of the pass using basic funding, because of previous increases coming through the system through fair reimbursement and cost of operation, we were looking at the time, if we hadn't had the basic funding last year, I would have probably been coming here with a paper that was seeking a price rise to take the cost of the pass to somewhere around £620. Now because of government funding, and I don't mind saying this, which we as a department were very thankful for, we were able to freeze the pass at the height of a cost of living crisis. And I know before people say that crisis is probably still going on for many people, but this time we're still getting, we're anticipating more increases coming through to the scheme, and that reflects in the budget allocated to it. And given the funding we've got from Brace at Transch 2, we do need to put a price increase in this year, so it reflects, so it keeps us back to the net budget, as reflected in the budget. Now as best we can, we've kept that price rise to a minimum. I do accept £100 is a significant amount of money. I would also point out, as I should do, that that's cost if you're looking at it on a daily rate, we're increasing the cost of the pass of £53 per day. If you use your account travel saver, the 190 academic days is going to cost you an extra £53 per day. Through other measures we've done previously, we do have instalments, which are around affordability, and that process is still there, and thanks to the work that my colleague Steve did in improving the whole platform using instalments is a far easier process. But I do accept £100 is a lot of money, but set against the financial challenge facing the authority. The fact we froze the pass last year, the fact of what we've got available in terms of basic funding, we are going to have to go to £100 increase this time round. Saying that, as we've done over many years, we're going to keep the price of the low-income pass at £120. Just to give members, based on the final year pass number, £2,304 families benefit from that pass. I should say, there are a number of people who benefit from a free pass. So there are 577 people who are in care, children in care who have benefited from a free pass, and there are 2,746 young carers who have also benefited from a free pass. So I think set against the cost of the scheme, I think it's also important to point that out. So this is for information, as I say, the price increase will go through. It's here to be noted and commented on, but it would point back to last year, we did come here and set out, had we not had that basic funding, and I will always be thankful for it, the position will be a lot different. Thank you. I've got Mr Hood first. Thank you very much, Chair. Other committees of the Council have been discussing how we can encourage young people to stay in education, but with a 16+ travel card, now going to cost £600, it's very difficult to see how this is going to help that situation. Obviously, other areas of the UK do things very differently. Scotland has a free travel for everybody under 22. The outcomes in Southampton and Reading are very different because their Council's still own the bus services, I think, will have more direct control over the bus services there. I understand that we've got huge financial constraints, but the problem here is that this system is designed to make sure that bus companies are left no better off and no worse off, and that must be such a difficult final line tightrope to tread, and it seems that we place all of the focus in that direction, and of course, because we're constrained by the system here, we can't actually look at the end-user, and their needs first. A hike of £100 is going to mean that that's just such a huge increase. The protection that we've got, that we're keeping for £120 for those families whose children are in three school meals, that's great, but I'm thinking about those families who are just above them, those families that are just managing, they're going to be really badly hit by this. I understand that the overheads have increased, but these prices haven't increased further, and wage costs haven't increased by that, I'm just staggered by an 18% increase. I'm not sure how forensic we as a council and the public transport team can be in getting to the nuts and bolts of how much we can trust some of the figures, but I'm sure the team are going to set me straight on that. We've got a situation where parents have sent their children to schools, they started in year 7, and then they've got the whole of the secondary education of their child ahead of them, and now they are realising that there's a potentially unaffordable gap between what they are paying now and what they're going to be paying, that's going to be a huge shock, and going forward we have a selective education system, but that isn't really the core of the problem because it's not just grammar school children who travel with extremely long distances, a lot of children travel to non-selective schools to 30 miles or more, and my daughter attends a non-selective school, and her friends come in from 30 miles away, and I find that extraordinary, and if we, how can we have choice, how can we encourage parents to have that choice of where they send their children, if only the very wealthy youth can afford to get them there, that's the quandary we've got, isn't it, it's a fundamental problem, I don't really know the solution, but that's just a, that hike is just, it's ludicrous. I've got Miss Hill's next, thank you Mr Chairman, I understand the emotional reaction from Councillor HOOD, and I understand that, I sympathise with it, but the important thing to me is I come from a low-income area on the march at Lid, and I'm so pleased it remained £120 for the low-income because without that we'll be seriously in trouble, and I think office is a work so hard on this to make this work, so I congratulate them, of course, it's a nightmare situation, we have always increasing costs, I mean it's not simply staff at bus garages, it's cost of parts, repairs, maintenance, everything is going up, and the thing is that we're trying to keep as low as possible, and I'll be interested to find out how many other counties as our neighbours have a similar scheme and how they manage to work it, if they have it, I'm not sure I feel you've got that information at hand, but you would, if anybody would, but it's actually, I think we did a great job, I know it's an increase, I know no one wants to have an increase, but to keep the system going like this at the moment when we have the fears of inspectors coming in if we didn't make the balance box balance, I think it's, we've got to do it, we've got to do it, so well done to Neil and go. Thank you, Mr, Dr Salomon. Thank you, the, we are the biggest, I think we're proudly say we're the biggest county in the UK or in certain England, that's for sure, and the breadth of the space in getting children to school has been on a pro choice policy framework for many, many years, and I think your point then is to heard about it, choice is only in the interest that those who can afford it now, which is, which is, which is not, which is not on, I'm pleased that in our alternative budgets that we submitted, we froze the KTS scheme, and indeed this year round, we were able to freeze it as well. My concern is the, the date in which this is coming in to play on the 3rd of June, I think many families plan for the year, making sure that there's enough school uniform, the shoes that may be able to make just until the summer holidays, this is coming into the 3rd of June, which is only a few, even a couple of weeks away, is there any way that this can be pushed to September? Also, if this is included in the BSEP to try and help to level out, is there any way that if the BSEP was awarded in any, you know, government were to see and fund all of our BSEP requests, is there any way to back date to help support families and even reduce the price, if that is what has been requested? And have we seen any request for increases of free transport requests come in as a result of these changes going up? But it's a real shame, it's, you know, it's, I think it's either 18% or 22% increase. It's an awful lot for, for a lot of families, and I would, I would be against it because I know there are other ways that we could potentially fund this. But yeah, if any questions answered on the request for free transport and the time scale of which this has to be enacted, please, thank you. What do you think, Mr Leiter, I'm going to say that, Mr Baker, do you want to say something? I'll let Mr Leiter, I may come in. In terms of, when we open the window, and the plan is either the 3rd of June, or it may go, it may even go back one week. But in terms of payment, for those who pay by installment, we don't take the first installment to the 28th of August, so we take it just before they go back to school. So yes, you might apply on the day the actual window opens, but the reality is if you're doing the installment plan, we don't take it till the 28th of August. Some parents do still, it's not quite a significant number, do still pay up front in one go. So in that respect, in timescales, maybe it is a little bit easier, and parents have become accustomed to how the window works, so they do plan for it. In terms of impact, in terms of entitled home to school transport, we have regular liaisons with our colleagues in CYPA, we would see if there's any change or this would cause any change, and that's part of our ongoing processes. And there was a point about B-sit funding, if we got future B-sit funding, we'd be allowed to back day. A doubt we would, however, in the initiative table that you just passed earlier in this session, there is a piece in there where we have asked for money for a school transport ticket. So we have thought about how we move forward into the future, and there is a funding request in there, should there be extra B-sit funding. Mr. Baker, do you want to say a bit? No, I think I've really covered it. I was just going to note the point that of course us and indeed the operators do need some sort of clarity relatively early before the start of the school term, because we wouldn't want to get in that position which has happened in the past because of an uncertainty of how much take up there's been for the KTS, of how many buses are needed for various routes and this and that. So the last thing we want as occasionally does happen is people to have paid their money for their KTS, whatever level it may be, and then on day one of school the bus not to turn up, because I think that's absolutely crucial. We talk about getting people onto buses and use to buses. If your first experience of a bus is as of an 11-year-old getting ready for a hectic, stressful anxiety inducing first day at secondary school and your bus doesn't turn up, that's going to put you off a life, but that's just perhaps a wider point. Thank you. I've got Mr. Rayna now. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to say that the situation we have here is one of effectively having to subsidise the buses and it's interesting to see with my own eyes the consequences for the bus operators of inflation. Inflation doesn't run for them as it does with the retail or the consumer price index. The level of bus inflation at the moment as measured by the Confederation of Passenger Transport is said to be running between 24% and 40%. It'd be interesting to see whether Mr. Lighthower supports that or Mr. Pay support that. When you've got inflation running at that level, I think KCC are doing a really good job coming up with a subsidy of £550 against that type of inflation, albeit a little more for post-16s, which of course is more discretionary as far as the Council are concerned. But when I measure it against the large number of children, 3,000 or so who are on substantially either zero cost or substantially subsidised, I think KCC are doing a first-class job on this. Whilst I don't want to move the recommendation, which is to comment and so forth, but I'm willing to move that we accept the proposals in this report as it stands now, seek a second in doing so, but do so against the background that it be held over until the debate is finished. But I want to put down a proposal that it be accepted, because I still feel that this represents excellent value for money for parents and children who have to get to school from this KCC administration that are doing their best in really difficult circumstances. And I also want to take the opportunity to say thank you to Mr. Lighthower, Mr. Pay and their colleagues and of course to Mr. Baker for the work that they have put in to bring this report forward, and on that basis, Chairman, I move the proposals contained in the report. Thank you. Okay, and I'll understand that you'll do that at the end, and I see that Mr Hill has said he'll second, but the number of people want to. Sorry, Chair, could I just want to speak. I've got to stress for everybody's benefit and for the recording that, of course, and someone else might be able to help me out with the intricacies of governance here. We're not taking a decision today. This isn't a key decision. A key decision was taken about nine years ago to build in a process that we use. I accept that, but I mean Mr. Mr. Smith, I was making a proposed recommendation to the Cabinet member for highways. That's what we do here. As was said earlier on another matter, we don't decide here. We simply make recommendations to the Cabinet member, and that is, according to you, is to make a recommendation, any recommendation it would like, and the recommendation here is to accept the report, basically. Okay, Mr. Chittenden. Nice question, Chair. Thank you very much. As I've said before, I admire the work that's been done by Mr. Litella and his team. I've now done it for years. I think they've done a difficult job. I think they're working, of course, now very much within the confines of what they're told to work this in, and I believe that this whole thing is one step too far. This cut is one step too far. Families are already facing increased costs in all aspects of their lives, from food, rent, and council tax. This is yet another blow for Kent's hardworking families trying to make ends meet. An example is a family with two, as has been mentioned, actually, with two children who use the bus to travel to school are now facing an annual bill of £1,100. A large proportion of Kent is rural, and students living in rural areas often have no option other than travel by bus to school. It is not fair that families living in rural communities should have to pay more to get their children to school. Freedom of choice obviously does come into it. Many families choose to send their children to alternative schools in neighbouring areas, for example, to access grammar schools. Students who are 16 plus often are forced to travel outside their areas to access higher education due to lack of choice where they may live. With regard to the environment, parents may decide that driving their children to school is cheaper alternative to the Kent travel saver. We often hear of this 15 years I have sat on that appeal committee and I have heard this time and time again and sometimes we have supported them driving because it is cheaper than actually giving them a place on the bus. This causes congestion and more pollution during school travel periods. We have all suffered what it is like at school travel periods. There is no question. It is not just the buses. The buses are great. The 8 seat is great, but the thousands of cars are getting everywhere everywhere. It has got us to try and be stopped. Increased costs of KCC with potential increase in parents driving children. This creates extra pressure for all the already stretched highways network with more damage local to be created. Chairman, the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose any increases to the travel saver and recognise the significant impact this is going to have on Kent's hard-working families who are struggling to make ends meet. Kent families are being unfairly punished for situations caused by a national conservative government and local conservative administration. I apologise for putting those two bits on us to nearly cross it out because I did not want to go to a policy school in this who created an environment where the standard of living in Kent is declining. Another increase bill on Kent. Give it to the buses, Mr Chittenden. I would like to put a motion, although from the way this is said, it is noted. I am not sure I can, but I would like to make the proposal that the increase of the Kent travel saver cost as proposed is rejected. I do not accept what has been proposed as an amendment. My proposal stands first unless otherwise amending. I agree with that. I wasn't going to let that take precedence. I am not sure you can do it anyway because the decision has been made. This is to note the decision. We will carry on. There is at the end of your part of a political broadcast. Thank you very much. Then I have got Mr Bulldog. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]