Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cannon, Gooch and Round.

There were no substitute members.

The Chairman stated that there was an urgent update to Item 14 – Committee Work Programme, which had been accepted as it contributed to the item’s consideration.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

RESOLVED: That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

The Principal Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the ‘Kent Minerals and Waste Plan – MBC response' decision had not been implemented before the call-in meeting, held in September 2023. The previous request to include the name of the item in paragraph 1, Minute 81 was noted.

It was also requested that the decision’s implementation date be included in the minutes, alongside the correction of a spelling error.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2023 be approved as a correct record and signed, subject to the following changes to Minute 81

1.  The correction of a spelling error on page 3, replacing ‘exiting’ with ‘existing’;

2.  The inclusion of the title of the item and date that the response was sent to Kent County Council in paragraph 1, to read:

‘The Principal Democratic Services Officer introduced the report, with the Committee asked to consider the call-in request received against the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development on the ‘Kent Minerals and Waste Plan – MBC response’, shown respectively at Appendices 1 and 2 to the report. The decision had been implemented from the 26 September 2023’.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2023 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no petitions.

There were no questions from Local Residents.

There were no questions from Members.

The Principal Democratic Services Officer outlined the changes made to the Cabinet Forward Plan following its republication, in case the Committee wished to conduct pre-decision scrutiny on any of the items.

RESOLVED: That the Cabinet Forward Plan be noted.

Councillor Clark introduced the scope put forward for the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) Review on behalf of the Members that submitted the proposal. The reasons for the proposals included that; developer and other funding contributions had been secured to deliver various schemes within the ITS; many schemes had not been delivered; whilst Kent County Council (KCC) was responsible for the infrastructure delivery, the Council was not taking ownership of traffic mitigation measures; the ITS was considered by the Inspector alongside the adopted Local Plan, as mitigation measures against the housing proposed.

In response to questions, the Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development advised that the Cabinet would begin reviewing the ITS after the adoption of the ongoing Local Plan Review, which would likely take place in January 2023. The Chief Executive advised that the ITS review would be guided by principles, with the next steps and guiding principles having been outlined in the report concerning the Council’s response to KCC’s Local Transport Plan Consultation. The review would involve a period of research and development which the Committee could engage with, as opposed to being able to conduct pre-decision scrutiny at that early stage. Reviewing the ITS before the LPRs adoption could negatively impact its adoption.

The Committee expressed support for reviewing the ITS as outlined in the urgent update but felt that the review should take place after the LPR was adopted.

RESOLVED: That a review into the Integrated Transport Strategy be conducted following the adoption of the Local Plan Review.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development introduced the item, with the Cabinet’s response to each individual recommendation included in the SCRAIP. Some of the recommendations were not felt to be feasible following discussions with the Strategic Planning Team.

The Chairman stated that the response provided was an improvement upon the draft Cabinet response published in September 2023. It was noted that some of the actions had been agreed, and some had possible future suggestions included, providing an opportunity for the actions to be revisited in future.

RESOLVED: That the Water Management Cycle Review - Cabinet Response (SCRAIP) be noted.

The Chairman welcomed the returning witnesses to the review, which were:

·  Councillor Garten, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services

·  Jennifer Stevens, Head of Environmental Services and Public Realm

·  John Edwards, Public Realm Operations Manager

·  Carl McIvor, Waste Crime Manager

The Head of Environmental Services and Public Realm referenced the briefing note provided to the Committee, which had been produced following the discussion had and suggestions made at the previous meeting. Further areas where Member feedback was sought included the Waste Crime Team’s (the team’s) prioritisation of responsibilities, social media usage, and the use of different approaches to enforcement, such as via pilot schemes.

The Committee supported an increased social media presence to deter fly-tippers and encourage Local Residents to use the appropriate services. In response to questions:

·  The Head of Environmental Services and Public Realm stated that the Team often checked an individual’s waste carrying licence when they were made aware of collections organised through social media, however it was relatively easy to obtain these licences, even though some individuals did not dispose of the waste properly. The Government was looking to introduce a requirement to evidence competency before a licence was granted to address the issue.

The Team was looking to create a presence on social media, with an appropriate Officer to conduct pre-emptive checks to provide individuals with the right information on waste disposal, before fly-tipping occurred. Intelligence was also shared between the Team and Kent County Council’s Trading Standards data analysts, to assist in addressing fly-tipping, and it was noted that the Team had also conducted joint operations with the police in stopping vehicles carrying waste; and

·  The Cabinet Member emphasised the importance of intelligence sharing, with Members and Parish Councils advised to pass any information to either himself and/or the Team to address the matter. The importance of publicising successful enforcement action was reiterated. 

In relation to pilot schemes:

·  Several Members suggested that possible locations should include the High Street and East Wards, given the close proximity of properties within those areas reducing travel distance, the insufficient waste provision at the building adjacent to Albion Place and vandalism experience to locked waste facilities in the area. The Committee was asked to inform the Officers if there were any further suggestions; 

·  It was suggested that Medway Council should be asked to provide information and figures on its approach in removing the charge for bulky waste collections, to ascertain if there is a reduction in both fly-tipping and enforcement action in response; if so, this could be trialled in an area within Maidstone; and

·  The Head of Environmental Services and Public Realm stated that the Team was bidding for external funding, which would be used to suggest joint working with other Local Authorities (LA) bordering Maidstone to address fly-tipping across LA boundaries; fly-tipping hot stops such as Yelstead Lane and the Stockbury Area were given as examples.

Several Members questioned the services provided, and how the Team worked with other Council Teams. In response the Waste Crime Manager stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

6.30 p.m. to 7.51 p.m.