Swale Joint Transportation Board 07.12.2020

Swale Joint Transportation Board 07.12.2020

The Chairman explained that the meeting would be conducted in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panel (Coronavirus) Flexibility of Local Authority Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 No. 392.

In welcoming all Members and members of the public, the Chairman explained which Swale Borough Council (SBC) and Kent County Council (KCC) officers were in attendance.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 September 2020 (Minute Nos. 71 - 95) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 September 2020 (Minutes Nos. 71-95) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

During the debate on Item 6 Bus Parking in Swale, which proposed additional planning conditions for new school developments, Councillor Mike Baldock declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was Cabinet Member for Planning.  Parish Councillor Cameron Beart and Councillors Monique Bonney and Simon Clark, declared a non-pecuniary interest on the same item as they sat on Planning Committee.

During the debate on Item 8 Review of Residents’ Parking Schemes in Swale, Councillor Simon Clark declared a non-pecuniary interest as he lived in Park Road, Sittingbourne.

Members of the public have the opportunity to speak at this meeting.  Anyone wishing to present a petition or speak on this item is required to register with the Democratic Services Section by noon on Friday 4 December 2020.  Questions that have not been submitted by this deadline will not be accepted.  Only two people will be allowed to speak on each item and each person is limited to asking two questions.  Each speaker will have a maximum of three minutes to speak.

Petitions, questions and statements will only be accepted if they are in relation to an item being considered at this meeting.

The Chairman welcomed the members of the public to the meeting.

Stephanie Easton spoke in favour of the proposed double yellow lines in Court Tree Drive, Eastchurch, in the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Swale Amendment 18 (Item 5 on the Agenda).  She referred to the lack of progress on the proposed car park in Plough Lane, leading to cars parking in the area causing obstructions and she said that safety was a priority.

Mr Chris Cox presented a petition ‘Make Minster Broadway a 30mph limit’.  He drew attention to incidents and accidents in the area and sought to raise awareness of road safety on the Isle of Sheppey.  Mr Cox said that reducing the current 40mph speed limit to 30mph would reduce the number of accidents in the highly populated and built-up area of Minster Broadway.  The Chairman said that a report would be considered at a future Swale JTB meeting.

Mrs Chris Reed from Sheerness Town Council presented a petition requesting an alteration to the Promenade at Neptune Terrace, Marine Parade, Sheerness to ensure that wheelchairs, pushchairs and bicycles could use it efficiently.  She highlighted the difficulty in negotiating the steps by wheeled vehicles and offered solutions to overcome the difficulties.  The Chairman said the petition would be referred to officers for a response.

Mr Perfect spoke in objection to the proposed waiting restrictions at Arthur Street junction with Laburnum Place, Sittingbourne (Item 9 on the Agenda) and said that there were no parking issues in the location.  He said that only one resident was in support of the waiting restrictions and several others were not. 

The Seafront and Engineering Manager introduced the report which asked Members to note the formal objections and comments received on the advertised TRO, Swale Amendment 18.  He drew attention to recommendation (1) which proposed a single yellow line in South Street, Queenborough and advised that the time for the restriction had been revised from 6pm to 8pm until 6am on all days following a request from the Town Council, and this applied to motor homes only.    A Kent Association Local Council (KALC) Member advised that a Ward Member suggested a revision to the time to allow flexibility for the night-time economy in the area. 

Referring to recommendation (2), proposed double yellow lines in Court Tree Drive, Eastchurch, the Seafront and Engineering Manager advised that five formal objections and three indications of support had been received in addition to support from the Parish Council and Kent County Council (KCC) Members, as outlined in the report. A KCC Member proposed an amendment to the recommendation that a temporary layby be installed with a double yellow line on the other side of the road, until the car park at Plough Road was built, but this was not seconded.

In the discussion that followed, a KCC Member, raised concern about the high traffic movements in the area and requested that officers work to progress the car park area in Plough Road.  He proposed that the double yellow lines in Court Tree Drive, Eastchurch be progressed.  This was seconded and on being put the vote, Members agreed.

The Seafront and Engineering Manager reported that there were three representations of support for double yellow lines in Ashford Road, Faversham which Members noted.

Recommended:

(1)  That the proposed single yellow line in South Street, Queenborough be progressed but with revised times of 8pm to 6am on all days.

(2)  The proposed double yellow lines in Court Tree Drive, Eastchurch be progressed.

The Seafront and Engineering Manager introduced the report which provided information around possible options that could be considered to address problems with school buses parking in the Borough.

A KCC Member thanked the officer for the report, said that each option needed to be individually considered and he suggested that any future planned schools should have the provision for proper drop-off and parking facilities for parents but also parking provision for buses on the school site. He also said there should be a more detailed report setting out the impact each possible remedy might have on an individual site, to be brought back to a future JTB meeting with recommendations.

In the debate that followed, Members raised points including:

·        Referred to a historical suggestion of installing double yellow lines to the entrance of one particular bus depot so that buses could return to the depot during the day;

·        some school buses in Bell Road, Sittingbourne were parking on single or double yellow lines causing congestion, and this was very dangerous;

·        Fulston Manor school did not provide the agreed parking for collection and drop-off when the school extension was approved and this needed to be looked at again;

·        should include a parking restriction condition when considering the school bus contract tender;

·        should discourage car use and encourage other ways of travelling to school;

·        referred to school travel plans and said there needed to be a more comprehensive approach of how children got to school and minimise car use;

·        more yellow lines were not the solution;

·        more enforcement was needed;

·        joint approach from SBC and KCC was required; and

·        most school buses were commercially run, not tendered bus services;

A KCC Member said that parents had a choice of where to send their children to school and should not be restricted on how far a child should travel.  He referred to the Government’s plans for production of electric cars only by 2030 and said there was a need for more electric charging points at schools around the Borough, but these plans were best facilitated through the school travel plan.  The same Member drew attention to the issues caused at Westlands School now that buses no longer parked within the school and he also spoke of the facilities needed to be provided to accommodate car drivers when planning new schools.

The same Member proposed that the Swale JTB write to SBC and KCC asking that, where appropriate, proper drop off and pick up and parking facilities were installed for buses, in any proposed new schools, particularly the planned school at Grovehurst.  The proposal was seconded.

As the proposal sought to impose planning conditions on future planning applications for schools, the Cabinet Member for Planning and members of the Planning Committee were advised to abstain from voting.  On being put to the vote, the Chairman used his casting vote and the proposal was agreed.

Recommended:

(1)  That the Swale JTB wrote to Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council asking that where, appropriate,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 308.

The Seafront and Engineering Manager introduced the report which provided details of recent informal consultations undertaken on proposals for various waiting restrictions in the Borough. He drew attention to the summary Annex D on page 71 of the report and he highlighted the high number of waiting restriction requests.  A Member said, to streamline the process, some requests could go through the Parish Highway Improvement Plan Process and he supported the suggestion from the Seafront and Engineering Manager for a review of how requested proposals were progressed.

Recommended:

(1) That the proposed double yellow lines for Forge Road/Milton High Street, Milton Regis be abandoned.

(2) That the proposed double yellow lines near Nos. 1 & 12 Hilton Close, Faversham be progressed with slight amendments.

(3) That the proposed double yellow lines near Nos. 13 & 30 Hilton Close, Faversham be abandoned.

(4) That the proposed double yellow lines near Nos. 29 & 46 Hilton Close, Faversham be abandoned.

(5) That the proposed double yellow lines in Lammas Drive and Cortland Close, Milton Regis be progressed.

(6) That the proposed double yellow lines for Newlands Avenue and London Road, Sittingbourne be progressed.

(7) That the proposed double yellow lines for Periwinkle Close, Sittingbourne be progressed.

(8) That the proposed double yellow lines for Queenborough Road and St Peter’s Close, Halfway be progressed with slight amendments.

(9) That the proposed double yellow lines for Middletune Avenue, Milton Regis be progressed but the single yellow line be abandoned.

(10) That the proposed loading ban for Hope Way, Sheerness, be progressed.

(11) That the proposed double yellow lines for Gordon Square, Faversham be progressed.

The Seafront and Engineering Manager introduced the report which was in response to Members’ requests for a survey on Residents Parking Schemes in the Borough.  He highlighted the summary of responses in the charts at Annex D from page 89 onwards. In the discussion that followed, Members raised points including:

·        Noted low response rate to the survey but encouraged a more comprehensive consultation to encourage a higher response;

·        disappointed with low level of response;

·        how could changes to the residents’ parking scheme be brought forward?

·        could the extension of the residents’ parking scheme in Park Road and Ufton Lane, Sittingbourne be progressed?; and

·        referred to petition from residents in Edith Road, Faversham, and the surrounding area, requesting residents parking scheme be extended and asked if a consultation could commence on this request?

In response, the Seafront and Engineering Manager said writing to individual properties would have been too resource-intensive and Ward Members were encouraged to engage with residents to respond.  He said that informal consultations were more resource and cost effective and whilst recognising the low level of response, said that the report gave an indication of whether and how existing schemes should be changed.  The Seafront and Engineering Manager said that there were differing views on all schemes including the previous consultations on a residents’ parking scheme in Edith Road and the surrounding area, and he urged caution about a further consultation for this area.  He agreed to speak to the Ward Member on the extension of the residents parking scheme at Park Road/Ufton Lane outside of the meeting.

Recommended:

(1) That the report be noted.

The Engineer introduced the report which gave an update of a recent informal consultation undertaken on proposals to install double yellow lines at the vehicle access point for 17-20 Arthur Street, Sittingbourne, at the request of a resident.  He gave a history of the issue, and explained that the consultation received four responses, one in support and three in objection.  The Engineer said that as there was a lack of support, it was recommended that the restrictions be abandoned.

Recommended:

(1)  That the contents of the report be noted and that the proposed restrictions be abandoned.

The Engineer introduced the report which provided the results of a consultation sent to residents in the Abbey Street area which proposed parking amendments to promote improved vehicle movements in Abbey Street and Abbey Place, Faversham.  He explained the minor amendments to the original proposal and explained that of the 67 responses to the consultation, 42 were in support, 22 objected and three did not specify either way. 

A Member thanked the Engineer and said that whilst the proposals would not fix the volume of traffic on the over congested road, it would assist the flow of traffic.  Other Members agreed that the traffic would run more freely but not any faster.  A Member highlighted the importance of encouraging ways of reducing traffic such as installing cycle racks.

Recommended:

(1)  That Members note the report and recommend the proposed amendments be implemented.

The Swale District Manager introduced the report which provided an update on identified schemes approved for construction.  He drew attention to the typing error on the first item at the top of page 143 which was in Murston, not Minster and said that the work on the scheme would be completed by the end of the week.  A Member referred to the information contained within Appendix I - Update – Key Street and Grovehurst Road Improvements and asked how residents accessed the consultation documents if they could not access on-line, and he also drew attention to the typing error for the start of construction work which should be March 2022 not 2020.  In response, the Swale District Manager agreed to follow up any questions with the Project Manager – Major Capital Programme.

The Swale District Manager responded to a Member’s request for an update on the resurfacing of pavements at Barrow Grove, Sittingbourne.  He said he would try and ensure it was in the programme for the next financial year but if there were funds left over from this financial year, the work would be carried out sooner.

POST MEETING NOTE: The Project Manager – Major Capital Programme advised the following with regard to accessing the Key Street and Grovehurst Road consultation document:

If you have any questions for the project team or require any of the consultation material printed, please email us at: a249swalejunctionimprovements@kent.gov.uk or call us on 03000 42 14 37 (this number goes to an answer machine which is monitored during office hours)

Resolved:

(1)  That the report be noted.

To consider the Progress Update which outlines progress made following recommendations and agreed action at previous meetings.

A Member sought clarification on the cycle path on the A2/A251 junction, Faversham.  The Schemes Programme Manager advised that a shared 2.5m wide footway could be provided on the south side of the A2 from the A251 junction with the Abbey School access road along with three controlled crossings, one across the A251junction and two either side of the A251 on the A2.  He said cycle facilities could not be provided on the A251 as there was not the available space for vehicles and cyclists, and the footway on the east side was only wide enough for pedestrians.  The Schemes Programme Manager said he hoped to present the detailed plans at the next Swale JTB meeting in March 2021, with a view to commencement of the work in Summer 2021, subject to available roadspace.  In response to a Member’s question, the Schemes Programme Manager confirmed that an air quality impact assessment on three crossings in the location had not been carried out.

Another Member sought a response from the last Swale JTB meeting, on his request for a merging turn sign at Cowstead Corner.  He also asked for a formal update on the four petitions – Plough Road, Eastchurch, Shortlands Road, Sittingbourne, St. Helen’s Road, Sheerness and Newnham Lane, Easting - that had been removed from the report. A KCC Member advised that a meeting had taken place at Shortlands Road and the situation was due to be reviewed.  There was a discussion about petitions not being reported back to the JTB and the Chairman agreed to coordinate raising the issue with KCC officers and KCC Cabinet colleagues.

A Member drew attention to Minute No. 445//02/20 Highsted Road, Sittingbourne and suggested a meeting with the schools with officers, JTB members and Ward Members in attendance.  Another Member was critical at the lack of response from the schools.

Resolved:

(1)  That the report be noted.

The Swale District Manager introduced the report which outlined the arrangements that had been made between KCC and SBC to provide a local winter service in the event of an operational snow alert in the Borough.  He referred to the web link on page 172 of the report, which provided more information.

A Member advised that the prisons had assisted with clearance of Church Road, Eastchurch in the past when the farmer did not clear it.  The Swale District Manager advised that, as a main road, it was not specifically allocated to the farmer, but he had cleared it in the past using his own equipment and, due to the layout of the land, there had been severe drifting snow.  He said the prisons and others had also assisted and KCC were grateful for all help.

Resolved:

(1)  That the report be noted.

The next meeting will be held at 5.30pm on Monday 1 March 2021.

The next meeting of the Swale JTB will be at 5.30pm on Monday 1 March 2021.