Contact your Parish Council
Maidstone Borough Council - Overview & Scrutiny Scoping Paper
|
Proposer Name
|
Overview and Scrutiny Committee |
|
Proposed Topic (What?)
|
Review of the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) |
|
Description and Reason for Review (Why?)
|
Concern was expressed at the lack of progress to the schemes within the ITS, particularly the Wheatsheaf Junction and that the schemes were put forward to support the Council 2017 Adopted Local Plan and had still not been delivered.
It was felt that the ITS’s delivery required further scrutiny.
|
|
Link to:
Council’s Strategic Plan
National/Regional priorities
Executive Priorities
|
The delivery of the ITS is linked to both the 2017 Adopted Local Plan, and the ongoing Local Plan Review (LPR) process ahead of the LPRs adoption as the new Local Plan.
|
|
Desired Outcome(s) (Outcome)
|
To be decided by the Committee at November Meeting.
E.g., more transparency and understanding of ITS delivery.
|
|
Approach (How, When and Who) |
To be decided by the Committee at November Meeting.
Such as:
Type of research (desk based?) Site Visits
Sources of Information Required Previous Council Reports
Possible Participants Evidence collection – written and/or verbal – and from which individuals/bodies Council Teams i.e. officer interviews
|
|
Review Timescale (When) |
To be decided by the Committee at November Meeting.
|
|
Link to CfPS effective scrutiny principles |
Select which CfPS effective scrutiny principles would be met through conducting the review:
· Provides a constructive ‘critical friend’ challenge · Amplifies public voices and concerns · Is Independently led by Councillors · Drives Improvement in Public Services
|
Things to Consider before a decision is made:
· CABINET REVIEW - TIMELINE
o The Cabinet will be reviewing the Integrated Transport Strategy in the future. The Committee could contribute through pre-decision scrutiny on the matter.
o The ITS review was mentioned in points 6.2-6.7 of the report concerning the Council's response to Kent County Councils Local Transport Plan Consultation.
o The Committee could call the Cabinet to attend meetings and provide updates and hold the Cabinet to account as part of its ‘Check and Balance’ function (as opposed to starting the review imminently).
· TIMELINE & APPROACH
o Will the review be conducted this year? The Committee has four meetings remaining in the Municipal Year.
o Could the review be conducted in the next municipal year? This could allow for greater time if the review runs over and more flexibility in approach.
o How will the review be conducted? Via the Committee, a working group or sub-committee?
· BREADTH OF THE REVIEW
Such as:
o Will the whole ITS be reviewed?
o Will it be focused on delivery/non-delivery of the ITS?
o Will it focus on the next iteration of the ITS?
o Are there particular schemes in the ITS to be reviewed?
· POINTS HIGHLIGHTED BY OFFICERS
o The review would need to take into account the following work streams, to prevent confusion and/or duplication between that work and the Committee’s review:
§ The Council’s response to the Kent County Council (KCC) Local Transport Plan which is at consultation stage;
§ The Council’s response to the KCC Kent Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan which is also at Consultation stage, or any work MBC undertakes to prepare a Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan;
§ The Council’s current work on the Movement Strategy evidence document produced by Steers for the Town Centre Strategy.
§ The Council’s forthcoming work on a new Integrated Transport Strategy. For example, reviewing the existing ITS whilst concurrently creating the new one in another could be challenging.
o An option would be for the Committee to focus upon the deliverability (or not) of the current ITS. Such as, should the future ITS focus on changes that are more directly within the control of the Council’s decision making and be aligned to realistic budget constraints and availability of external funding?
The Committee could consider prioritising actions, and also creating further categories for short, medium and long term actions, and classify them by whether they are in the Council’s direct control, partial control or not within our control at all. For those that are only in our partial control or not in our control at all, they should have realistic strategies as to how the Council can influence their timely delivery.
o The Committee could really focus on a set of particular actions where the chances of excellent outcomes should have been good. For example, this might be cycling enhancements, and critically evaluate what has been achieved to date, and then so bring renewed focus to improving upon this area in the relatively short term.