It was noted that the webcast would not be going out live, but would be available for viewing shortly after the meeting.

Resolved: That all items be web-cast.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sharp and Verrall.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs Wilson was substituting for Councillor Sharp.

It was noted that the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture, Councillor Richard Ash, was a visiting Member.

Councillors Beerling and Yates stated that, in relation to item 9 on the agenda – Air Quality Management Action Plan, they had responded to the consultation as they lived in areas impacted by air quality issues.

Resolved:  That all items be taken in public as proposed.

Resolved:  That:

(a)  Clarification on the time period over which the assessments for properties’ requirements and accessibility as part of the waste and recycling strategy (Minute 36.) were carried out be provided to the Committee; and

(b)  The Minutes of the Environment and Transportation Committee held on 21 September 2010 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interview with:

·  The Head of Spatial Planning, Michael Thornton; and

·  The Senior Engineer, Kent Highways Services, Peter Rosevear.

The Chairman welcomed the Head of Spatial Planning, Michael Thornton; and the Senior Engineer, Kent Highways Services, Peter Rosevear, to the meeting.  The officers gave a presentation on the Core Strategy background to the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) and the ITS itself.  Copies of the slides are attached as an Appendix to these Minutes.

The Committee heard about the housing target options being considered by the Council for the Core Strategy with December being the target date for a decision.  The Government had revoked the South East Plan containing Maidstone’s original housing target and it was now for Maidstone to set its own.  This included the strategic approach to meeting the target, be that through a Strategic Development Area (SDA) or a dispersed approach to new housing.  The need for close working and synergy between documents, such as the Core Strategy and the ITS was emphasised.

Members sought clarification over housing numbers already built and definitions of regeneration and redevelopment.  5,800 houses had already been built or had planning consents, whilst 1,800 had also been allowed for previously developed land.  Regeneration was broadly defined as everything that was not built on greenfield land, this included those built in gardens, though this was a small % of the total.  It was noted that the figures used referred to housing numbers after replacements of existing housing.

The Committee then received the presentation on the ITS and heard about the issues facing Maidstone and the difficulties, given the uncertainty in funding and housing targets (both numbers and strategic approach), in producing an ITS.  These issues all had to be balanced with the need to attract inward investment to the town in order to meet the Council’s prosperity agenda.  The objective of the ITS was to prevent traffic congestion increasing in line with the increase in housing.  An additional issue for Maidstone to consider was the Town being designated an Air Quality Management Area, with traffic the main contributor to the problem.  A variety of potential approaches were outlined, including the use of Park and Ride, and car park pricing and availability. 

The presentation also outlined the advantages and disadvantages of the SDA and dispersed housing target approaches.  It was also highlighted that transport was just one of many requests made for funding when new development was proposed and had to compete alongside funding for education, health, parks, affordable housing and other requests.  A workshop was to be held on 25 October 2010 to establish Members’ priorities for development funding.

Following the presentation the Committee stressed the need to find solutions to the traffic problems without always falling back on funding issues.  The question was asked as to what examples of best practice there were in other districts and whether there was a Kent-wide solution to the problem.  Officers informed the Committee that a lot of authorities had similar issues with congestion and also did not know what the funding arrangements or housing targets would be.  In some cases the Council would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Interview with the Senior Pollution Officer, John Newington.

Air Quality Action Plan to follow (Appendix A)

A draft of the Air Quality Management Action Plan was circulated at the meeting.  The Committee were informed that this action plan was not the latest version of the document, which was not ready to be released to them.  Corporate Management Team would be considering the latest version in the next couple of weeks but Senior Pollution Officer, John Newington, would be able to outline the changes that had been made to the document during and after his presentation to the Committee.

The Chairman welcomed John Newington to the meeting who proceeded to give a presentation on air quality to the Committee, providing them with an update on the Air Quality Management Area and the associated action plan. It was noted that there were five hotspots where weekly limits for nitrogen dioxide were being exceeded and two hotspots, Upper Stone Street and next to the Wheatsheaf, which were potentially exceeding the hourly limits for nitrogen dioxide.  It was also highlighted that whilst the figures showed that Well Road needed a 0% reduction in nitrogen dioxide levels it was right on the cusp of exceeding them so monitoring was still required.

In response to questions from Members the officer outlined the modelling techniques used to get the figures for vehicle contributions to nitrogen dioxide and the overall amounts.

Members expressed their disappointment at the length of time taken to get the action plan agreed and highlighted the dangers of low air quality, particularly to children.  In addition the number of planning applications being made on Upper Stone Street without consideration for the impact of air quality on health was highlighted.  The officer explained that the relationship between planning and environmental health had improved with air quality assessments being requested more frequently.  The officer explained that they had been given up to 18 months from the designation for developing the action plan and submitting this to DEFRA, a draft plan had been submitted on 1 May 2010. From the point of submitting the draft the Council had 6 months to finalise the action plan, the plan would be submitted in December.

The Committee questioned the value of the action plan, particularly with no Integrated Transport strategy in place, and also asked what actions had been taken to meet the 11% carbon reduction by 2011.  The officer assured the committee that he would get a response to them regarding carbon reduction from the Council’s EMS Project Manager. 

Members also asked whether harder actions could be taken beyond monitoring.  They questioned the role of DEFRA and whether the Council could do more than the minimum required.  The Committee asked whether any legislation allowed the Council to take enforcement action against polluting drivers or if low emission zones could be used.  The officer stated that these were something that could be investigated and also stated that traffic orders could be used such as had been done in other areas.  Oxford was given as an example where 6-8 traffic orders of varying types were in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Written update from Jonathon Scott, Street Scene Manager.

The Committee considered the written update on the new street cleansing arrangements from the Street Scene Manager, Jonathon Scott. 

Members expressed concern over the low numbers of respondents to the quality surveys and suggested that the question asked in the survey would get a better response if it was asked as part of a larger survey or something more in depth.  The Committee also suggested that small prize being on offer might encourage more responses.

It was agreed that the Street Scene Manager should be invited to talk to the Committee in March 2011 and that the figures in the report should be checked as there were concerns that some of the survey results did not add up to 100%.

Resolved:  That

a)  The Street Scene Manager, Jonathon Scott,  be invited to the meeting of the Committee in March 2011 to present a fuller set of survey figures

b)  That the current survey results be checked as there were concerns that not all areas added up to 100%; and

c)  That consideration be given to altering the way in which the survey is conducted, perhaps through including it with another consultation or by offering a small prize, in order to improve the number of responses and make the results more meaningful.

The Committee considered the future work programme and agreed that the production of a Parking Strategy should take priority.  Therefore they agreed to move consideration of Communal Spaces and the interviews with the Cabinet Members for Environment and for Leisure and Culture to January 2011.  In addition the Committee agreed that the Head of Change and Scrutiny should decide whether there was a need for the parking tender documents, scheduled to come to the Committee in November 2010, to be considered by the Committee.  The meetings in November and December 2010 would then be used to complete the work on the Parking Strategy.

Resolved:  That the work programme be amended to allow the Parking Strategy to be considered at the meetings in November and December 2010.

6.30pm to 9.30pm.