Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, - Swale House. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330
Confirmation of Chairman and Vice-Chairman
To confirm the Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the Municipal Year 2017/18.
(1) Councillor Ken Ingleton was confirmed as Chairman for the Municipal Year 2017/18.
(2) County Councillor Bowles was confirmed as Vice-Chairman for the Municipal Year 2017/18.
Emergency Evacuation Procedure
The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.
The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.
The Chairman will inform the meeting that:
(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park; and
(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.
Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.
It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.
The Chairman ensured that those present were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.
To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 March 2017 (Minute Nos. 1224 - 1231) as a correct record.
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 March 2017 (Minute Nos. 1273 – 1278) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
Declarations of Interest
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.
No interests were declared.
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 23 June 2017. 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.
Mr Brian Clark presented a statement and petition on behalf of local residents which sought parking restrictions in Highsted Road, Sittingbourne between 10am and 11pm Monday to Friday. The statement and petition was also tabled for Members. Mr Clark spoke about the traffic problems caused in Highsted Road, following the opening of the Swanstree Avenue link road some seven years ago, and the parking problems experienced by local residents on a daily basis. He stated that the way vehicles were parked was a danger to other road users and pedestrians. Mr Clark raised concern that there was no footpath along the section of the road between Farm Crescent and the junction of Swanstree Avenue with children and mothers with prams having to walk in the road. Mr Clark requested that the issues were looked at and that it was more luck than judgement that no serious accidents had occurred.
Kent County Councillor John Wright supported the petition. He stated that Highsted Road, Bell Road and Brenchley Road were the sites of the three major service areas and that there was significant traffic congestion and highway safety issues in the area. He urged officers to look at this in conjunction with the wider issues.
Councillor Roger Truelove (previous Kent County Councillor for the area) stated that their would be no solution to the issues raised without the cooperation of the Sittingbourne Memorial Hospital and Highsted Grammar School.
The Chairman accepted the petition and advised that a report would be written and submitted to a future meeting of the Board.
Mr Simon Harwood, spoke on behalf of local residents, other parents and govenors of Tunstall Primary School, Tunstall Parish Councillors and drivers in the local vicinity who had signed the petition to provide Tunstall School with a Pedestrian Crossing. Mr Harwood drew attention to Minute No. 1227/03/17 on page 94 of the Progress Update Report, and stated that a KCC School Crossing Patrol was not in place as stated in the report, and that the school was struggling to fill the position.
Mr Harwood did not consider the proposed crossing patrol was adequate as there were two crossing points to the school, and the crossing patrol would only cover one of these for 30 minutes in the morning and afternoon, and also funding was not guaranteed in the future. Mr Harwood stated that both crossings were ambiguous, both to drivers and pedestrians alike, and whilst vehicles had the right of way it was not always clear if vehicles were stopping in both directions leading to confusion, risk and danger to pedestrians. He explained that Tunstall Road provided busy access to and from south Sittingbourne and the School was increasingly being used as a community facility and that school operating hours were not restricted to 9am to 3.30pm, but were actually operating from 8am to 6pm. Mr Harwood asked officers to reconsider the request and support formalising both crossings which he considered would significantly reduce the risks of an accident involving a pedestrian. ... view the full minutes text for item 69.
The Interim Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact introduced the report which provided a summary of the results of the recent consultation with residents of School Road, Plantation Road and Kings Road in Faversham as to whether they would support the introduction of a Residents Parking Scheme in their road. He then outlined the recommendations set out in the report for Members.
The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities, drew attention to the results of the consultation set out at Annex C of the Committee report for a parking scheme in School Road, Faversham. He considered that some of the comments raised objecting to the scheme demonstrated a lack of understanding about how the permit scheme worked, and noted that the scheme was overwhelmingly supported.
Members considered the results of the consultation and raised points which included: concern about how the consultation was pursued; the Electoral Register could have been used as it was a public document; fully support proposals for the scheme in School Road as local residents had been concerned for some time; School Road was very narrow with parking on the residential side only, so consider it should not be operated under the parking vouchers scheme, but with permit parking only; and were the Ward Member and County Member advised when consultation letters were sent out?
In response to concerns about the poor response rate and access to personal information on properties, the Interim Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact agreed to look at how the process for consultations could be improved. He agreed that the Ward Members and County Members should be informed when consultation letters were sent out. With regard to the Electoral Register, the Interim Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact explained that residents could opt-out of having their details on the register, so it would not necessarily help and advised that officers were looking at other more intuitive ways to engage with residents.
(1) That a Residents Parking Scheme is introduced in School Road, Faversham.
(2) That Plantation Road is included in the Residents Parking Scheme.
(3) That a Residents Parking Scheme is not introduced in Kings Road, Faversham.
The Interim Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact introduced the report which provided a summary of formal objections and support received in relation to the recently advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Swale Amendment 6. The Interim Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact outlined the recommendations for Members.
A Member queried how the funding for the Ranelagh Road, Sheerness item was to be progressed as the County Member that had supported the scheme had not been re-elected? The Interim Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact stated that the reporting timescales had crossed over with the election period and officers would need to liaise with the current County Members about whether they would be able to fund the item.
The Mid-Kent Highway Manager confirmed that none of the County Member Highway Funding had been rolled-over to new Members. In response to a query she agreed to let Members know how much funding was required for the Ranelagh Road scheme.
A Member proposed that the Ranelagh Road item be deferred to allow discussion with the County Members to consider whether they would fund the scheme. Discussion ensued and Members agreed to support the scheme.
Members raised points which included: supported yellow lines in Ranelagh Road as footpath at the end of Stroud Crescent was very narrow; note the complaint on page 47 of the report about parking in the area which flagged-up that the planners needed to be more proactive in collecting Section 106 monies from developers and ensuring there was a more adequate contribution to provision of car parking; and supported the yellow lines in Ospringe Place, Faversham as it had no corner protection and they would improve safety in the area and issues with exiting Ospringe Place.
(1) That the proposed double yellow lines at the side of the Funeral Directors in Ranelagh Road, Sheerness be progressed.
(2) That the proposed double yellow lines in Ospringe Place, Faversham, be progressed on both sides of the road.
(3) That the proposed double yellow lines in Fairview Road, Sittingbourne, be progressed.
The Interim Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact introduced the item which provided an update to the petition submitted to the Board in March 2017 by residents of Ufton Lane, Sittingbourne. He outlined the recommendations in the report for Members.
County Councillor John Wright raised comments which included: need to consult with businesses in the area; vehicles parked around the junction of College Road, Burley Road and Epps Road, had been damaged where the road had been widened and need to look at extending the residents parking zone further to towards the junction so it was not so wide; and local residents were concerned about speed, so should look at having a comprehensive consultation in terms of traffic flow and direction; and also given the residents the option in Ufton Lane of amending the waiting limit by one hour or 30 minutes.
Councillor Roger Truelove, a Ward Member, raised points which included: this was a residents parking scheme which he considered did not work for the residents because it was adjacent to the ‘business district’ of Sittingbourne; as a consequence residents in the whole area were affected by office workers parking for two hours and then going out of the office, so residents that had paid for parking were not able to access it; taxis were also parking in the area when they should access their own site; how many licenses were given to taxi drivers to park in Cockleshell Walk?
The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities (also a Ward Member) raised the need to supply information as part of the consultation to residents outlining the hidden impacts the ½ hour waiting would have, so they could make an informed decision.
Members raised the following points: need to consult with businesses that would be affected in West Street as a lot of people parked there and walked to the shops; and there was merit in trialling Ufton Lane in the first instance.
(1) That officers proceed with an informal consultation with residents located within the 2 hour waiting limit of Ufton Lane on proposals to amend the waiting limit to one hour or 30 minutes and that the impacts of such proposals be clearly set out for residents.
(2) That officers extend the informal consultation area to include all residents located within the 1 hour waiting limit areas of the Residents Parking Scheme to gauge support for changing the waiting limit to 30 minutes and that the impacts of such proposals be clearly set out for residents.
Appendix A added 14 June 2017.
The Major Projects – Project Manager (KCC Highways and Transportation) introduced the report which provided an update on the South East LEP (SELEP) funding and the programme to deliver the junction improvements at the A2500 Lower Road / Barton Hill Road, Minster.
The Major Projects – Project Manager reported that progress was on programme as previously reported to the Board. The SELEP bid had been prepared and was due to be issued on 23 June 2017, but had been extended to 30 June 2017. A decision from SELEP was expected on 8 September 2017. The Major Projects – Project Manager reported that the Section 106 Agreements for the Plover Road and Harps Farm developments had been drafted and agreed and just needed to be signed-off. The earliest start date to deliver the junction improvements was summer 2018.
The Major Projects – Project Manager reported that they had identified a further Department of Transport funding stream in the National Productivity Infrastructure Fund (NPIF). He explained that they had been reviewing a number of projects that could come forward for consideration but as an authority were limited to two bids. There was a proposal to put in a bid for the improvement of the widening and provision of a footway/cycle way between the A249 Neats Court and Barton Hill Drive to widen the footway which was currently 5.86 metres, to 7.3 metres to bring it in-line with current standards and also provide a new link for cyclists and pedestrians between Minster and the retail areas of Neats Court. The Major Projects – Project Manager explained that housing from Policy AX1 of the Local Plan provided match-funding to support the bid. A report on the proposals could be provided at a future meeting of the Board.
Members considered the update report and raised points which included: current situation was intolerable and a disgrace, queuing was not just at peak times; solution would be to shut-off the southbound junction with A2500 (Barton Hill Drive); parking restrictions were required on Plover Road and Thistle Hill; design of roundabout did not work for HGVs; if there was another access on the road it would make the situation worse; road was substantially less than the minimum design for a carriageway road and had too many vehicles travelling on it; design was hopeless; smaller roundabout would be more suitable; how confident were officers that funding would be confirmed?; was there a Plan B if the funding was not confirmed; need to seriously consider the impacts and disruption to visitors and businesses during the peak holiday season; did not understand why the project could not be brought forward to ensure it was not undertaken during the summer period; the semi-permanent scheme had not been considered by the Board; the design and shape of the roundabout needed to be looked at; and request that officers liaised with Swale Borough Council’s Section 106 Officer to establish what money from the original Thistle Hill development had been spent as this could be ... view the full minutes text for item 73.
The Board considered the report which provided an update on the identified schemes approved for construction in 2017/18.
Page 71 – Footway and Carriageway Improvement Schemes
A250 Halfway Road Power Station Road Roundabout
A Member sought clarification on when the work would be completed.
Another Member considered an excellent job had been carried out so far.
The Knole, Faversham
A Member raised concern that the surface treatment work would not commence until September 2017 and requested that the work be brought forward.
Elm Lane, Minster
A Member reported that this was in a terrible state and proper repairs had not been carried out on the busy lane for 50 years. He added that it needed to be repaired properly before the surface treatment work was carried out. Another Member stated that the shoulders of the road were non-existent where they had widened the road by spreading out more tarmac.
Cryalls Lane, Sittingbourne
A Member requested that Borden Parish Council and the local Ward Members be informed regarding the details of the soakaway.
A2 Dully Road, Bapchild
A Member requested that Bapchild Parish Council and the local Ward Members be informed regarding the details of the soakaway.
Appendix C – Street Lighting
A Member stated that there were a number of street lights on The Meads, Sittingbourne which needed to be replaced with LED lights, but noted that these were on unadopted roads. He sought clarification on whether there was a requirement for developers to install LED lights as a matter of course on new developments.
The Mid-Kent Highway Manager understood that it had been a requirement for LED lighting to be installed on new estates for some time, and there was a back-log of installing the new lights on unadopted roads.
A Member sought clarification when ornate lamps would be replaced.
Rushenden Road, Queenborough
A Member reported that there were numerous lights out of action and asked that this be looked at. He raised concern that the KCC website had stated that they were programmed for repair, but still had not been.
Light not working in Upper Brents junction Broomfield Road, Faversham
A Member raised concern that this had been reported six months ago and still had not been repaired, he asked that if it could not be repaired it be added to the replacement list.
A Member requested that the programme for conversion to LED lights be published.
Page 81 – Developer Funded Works
SW/003028 Ospringe School, Ospringe
A Member requested further information on the revised vehicle access.
SW/3037 Stickfast Lane, Iwade
A Member reported that there was a problem with surface water run-off and flooding which he believed was caused as a result of resurfacing works carried out by the brick clay extractor developer.
SW/3027 Tunstall Road, Tunstall
A Member raised concern that there was no footpath connection along Tunstall Road and pedestrians had to walk in the road.
SW/003055 Scocles Court
A Member asked that a footpath be provided as ... view the full minutes text for item 74.
To consider the Progress Update which outlines progress made following recommendations and agreed action at previous meetings.
Members considered the report which gave an update on the progress made regarding various schemes in the Borough.
383/12/15 Pedestrian Crossing at South Avenue School, Sittingbourne
In response to a query from a Member, the Mid-Kent Highway Manager reported that following receipt of a petition a report would only be provided if there were grounds to support it. Whilst if a County Member brought a case forward a report would be provided.
1079/12/16 Update on the 20’s Plenty for Faversham Working Group
The Mid-Kent Highway Manager reported that the project would be delivered as a third -party project.
County Councillor Antony Hook, reported that he had received an apology from KCC Highways and Transportation that a report had not been provided and that this had been because not everyone at KCC had seen the information. There would be a meeting with the Schemes Project Manager, KCC and the Working Group, a provisional date of 19 July 2017 was given.
Members raised points which included: disappointment that no update report has been provided; if this was a third party project then why did the update report state that the A2 was not suitable, surely that was for the third-party to establish; appalled that this was designated a third-party project; KCC had been provided several times with an extensive study of where there were bicycle problems in Faversham and a useful report by knowledgeable consultants which state the default position was that Faversham was a 20mph limit and that would need to include the A2; need to have a serious and cooperative discussion with KCC about this; and if the whole town was made 20mph then the high cost would disappear as they would be no need to change signage for individual streets
1227/03/17 The Meads
A Member stated that without knowing the costs for the TRO it was difficult to know whether a third party could be sought.
A Member stated that residents would be disappointed, but the County Member would be taking the project forward.
1229/03/17 Review Speed Limit on Scocles Road, Minster
A Member noted that KCC would not be looking to fund implementation of the scheme. He reported that planning were currently looking at an application in Scocles Road and KCC had put two requests in for funding, one of which was for £1,000 per dwelling for a new roundabout, which the Member stated already had funding. The other request for funding was to move the 30mph signs to the other side of Elm Lane. The Member suggested that it seemed sensible to allocate the monies from this development to fund the signage for 30mph signs along the entire length of Scocles Road making the road safer.
1084/12/16 A2 Teynham Speed Limit Petition Response
A Member asked that Members of the Board had sight of the response from Matthew Balfour sent to County Councillor Bowles.
1085/12/16 Eligibility of New Developments to Purchase Permits in Residents’ Parking Schemes
The Cabinet Member for Families and Communities reminded Members that at ... view the full minutes text for item 75.
Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be at 5.30pm on Monday 11 September 2017.
The Chairman confirmed that the next meeting was at 5.30pm on Monday 11 September 2017.