Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, ME10 3HT. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330 

No. Item


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 17 December 2018 (Minute Nos. 390 - 403) as a correct record.



The Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 December 2018 (Minute Nos. 390 – 403) 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.


Public Session

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 1 March 2019.  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.


A representative from Highways England will be making a presentation on the M2 Junction 5 Improvements.



The Chairman welcomed Harshal Cholake (Project Manager, Atkins) and Camelia Lichtl (Project Manager, Highways England) to the meeting. 


Mr Cholake gave a presentation on the M2 Junction 5 Improvements which provided an update on the scheme and covered the following:


Project Background

·         Why were these improvements required; and

·         scheme objectives.


Project Progress

·         Scheme stages;

·         Option 12a presented at Public Consultation;

·         results of Public Consultation on Proposed Option;

·         68% of the respondents disagreed with Option 12a;

·         the alternative solutions proposed by respondents steered towards a fly-over of the roundabout for the A249;

·         Option 4H1 was developed after the public consultation, and a flyover option was announced as the preferred route on 30 May 2018; and

·         the scheme was now at Stage 3 – Preliminary Design for the flyover and roundabout without signalling, with dedicated left turns.



·         Construction was expected to commence in March 2020, with completion by August 2021.


Members’ comments and questions were invited.


A Member asked whether there would be a delay due to funding not being fully committed, and what the impact on traffic would be over the 18 months of construction?  Ms Lichtl explained that Highways England (HE) had been liaising with Kent County Council (KCC) to identify other sources of funding.  Funds from the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) amounted to £2.5million.  She explained that risk workshops had been carried out to drive efficiencies and keep costs down, and the scheme was based on minimum land uptake.  The Member asked how large the funding gap was and Ms Lichtl explained that it remained at £20million, but this might go down a bit.  The HE Commercial Team continually reassessed the project, and rising VAT costs caused variances.  Mr Cholake explained that traffic management during construction was being looked at with the contractor, with offline construction being carried out first, then worked from outside to inside.


A Member asked for details of the footpath from Stockbury Church.  Ms Lichtl explained that a business case had been developed for a footbridge, with an additional pot of money for this, and it was hoped that this would be approved on 11 March 2019.  The Member was disappointed that with regard to the turn-off from the A2 from London, no improvements had been proposed on the right-hand turn, with traffic still queued up along the motorway.  He suggested it was better to have  a dedicated lane further down the A249, and considered the present scheme was a short term fix, and with additional housing in five to 10 years, the same congestion would result.  Ms Lichtl explained that changes to this junction had been taken out because they were too expensive.  Traffic modelling had been carried out based on the currant Local Plan.  Mr Cholake added that the modelling had not included projected modelling for the future Local Plan.  A modelled dedicated left-turn at 40mph had not indicated queuing.  He acknowledged there were issues, but proposals to reduce the speed limit would help mitigate these.


A Parish Councillor considered the slip  ...  view the full minutes text for item 532.

Recommendations to Swale Borough Council's Cabinet


Conyer Road, Teynham - Update on Petition for Review of Parking Restrictions pdf icon PDF 77 KB

Additional documents:


The Seafront and Engineering Manager introduced the report which provided an update to the petition submitted to the Swale Joint Transportation Board (JTB) in June 2018, by residents of Conyer Road, Teynham, requesting a review of the current on-street parking in the area.  He explained that there had been many consultations on this in the past.   Teynham Parish Council were not in agreement with the option of the removal of the single yellow line on the eastern side of Conyer Road, and they wanted the existing situation to remain in place.  The Seafront and Engineering Manager welcomed the views of the Board on which recommendation they preferred.


A Borough Ward Member acknowledged the views of the local residents and the Parish Council.  He considered that if the double yellow lines were extended on the west side of Conyer Road, and the single yellow lines taken away, this could provide residents with additional parking and be far enough away from the corner for wide vehicles.


Kent County Councillor Mike Whiting proposed:  That option ‘b’ in the report be carried forward.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.


Members raised points which included:  this was a very nasty junction, used regularly by agricultural traffic; acknowledged both the Parish Council views, and those from local residents; and suggested that the views of the Parish Council be taken into account as they had frequently looked into this issue.




(1)      That officers undertake an informal consultation with residents to remove the single yellow line on one side of Conyer Road and slightly extend the double yellow lines.


Formal Objections to TRO Amendment 15 - Report on two formal objections received on proposed double yellow lines in Terrace Road, Sittingbourne pdf icon PDF 55 KB

Additional documents:


The Seafront and Engineering Manager introduced the report which provided details of two formal objections received in relation to the recently advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Swale Amendment 15 for amendments to various parking restrictions in the Borough.


A Member asked whether part of the road was a private road? The District Manager confirmed that it was all public.


A visiting Ward Member spoke in support of the recommendation for safety reasons.


Members raised the following points:


·         Supported double yellow lines here as it would improve access to the road;

·         it was against the Highway Code to park near a junction in any case;

·         could not see any reason not to have double yellow lines at this location;

·         this was an obvious step to make, and endorsed the recommendation; and

·         the quicker this was implemented, the better.




(1)      That the report be noted and that officers proceed with the proposed installation of double yellow lines on the junction of Terrace Road and Murston Road, Sittingbourne.

Recommendation to Kent County Council's Cabinet


Highsted Road, Sittingbourne proposed footway - report on the results from the public consultation exercise pdf icon PDF 838 KB


The Schemes Project Manager introduced the report which summarised previous investigations and development work on proposals to install a footway on Highsted Road between its junctions with Farm Crescent and Swanstree Avenue, Sittingbourne.  The report also summarised the results of a public consultation on four options, and it sought a recommendation from the JTB on any further actions.


The Schemes Project Manager explained that it was not possible to have two-way traffic, plus a footpath, as the road was too narrow.  There was an option to make the road one-way either southbound (Option 1), northbound (Option 2), or closure to all traffic except bicycles (Option 3), with pedestrians using the route as well.  He explained that the designs had been done, with consultation carried out in December 2018 – January 2019.  The summary of results were included in the appendix to the report.  There was not an over-riding consensus on any individual option, and so it had been difficult to make a recommendation, other than no further action to be taken.


Members raised the following points:


·         Disappointed with the recommendation;

·         disappointed that report focussed just on providing a footpath;

·         there was heavy traffic in the area as the road served two schools and a hospital;

·         heavy lorries and agricultural vehicles clogged up the road;

·         Option 1 was preferred;

·         a footpath was needed;

·         HGVs should not be using the road;

·         traffic flow needed to be considered;

·         if nothing was done, the issues would get worse;

·         road safety issues for the children using this route;

·         would like KCC to go back to the school and re-negotiate, this is what residents wanted;

·         there would be an accident here without a footpath;

·         surprised nothing more is to be done, which did not reflect the consultation results;

·         something needed to be done;

·         preferred Option 1, together with speaking to the school again;

·         there was clearly a desire not to leave this as is; and

·         the option for no change was not supported by the majority in the consultation.


Visiting adjacent Ward Members made the following points: disappointed with the report, a lot of residents used Highsted Road, and road users were often unaware of the pedestrians on the road; this was within KCC’s remit to sort out; and there needed to be a pathway so that the road was safe for pedestrians and road users.


Kent County Councillor John Wright proposed:  That Option 1 be implemented.  This was seconded by the Chairman.


The Senior Schemes Programme Manager explained that a steer was needed from the Board and that the recommendation was based on no majority preference of the options.


The Proposer explained that the issue was also about inappropriate parking, with traffic grinding to a halt, and to minimise this, the road needed to be closed-off, which would help residents in Highsted Road.  He added that Option 1 was still the preferred option, but did not want a footpath that was unsafe.


A Ward Member explained that he would like to support Option 1, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 535.

Information Items


A2/A251 Junction pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Additional documents:


The Principal Transport and Development Planner introduced the report which provided an update on the completed studies of the A2/A251 and A2/B2041 junctions in Faversham.  He explained that there had been two studies.  One had evaluated the roundabout and traffic light scheme designs in respect of the cumulative Local Plan and recently committed growth.  The second study looked at the feasibility of evolving design options for growth up to 2031.  He explained that the surveys had been compared to the results of the study carried out at the same junction in 2013 when the Perry Court application was submitted.  The Principal Transport and Development Planner outlined the two options and summarised that Option 1 would provide some benefit in the short term, but not in the long term with increase in demand; Option 2 had slightly better performance, but neither option would cope with the projected 2031 growth.  A feasibility study was carried out in 2018 and resulted in two further options, a larger scale of both the roundabout, and signalised options.  Of the two, the roundabout option provided spare capacity in a 2031 Local Plan build-out scenario.  A further report would be submitted to the next JTB meeting in June 2019.


A Ward Member was not surprised that there was little difference between the 2013 and 2018 results as the Perry Court development had not yet been built.  He raised concern with the addition of more traffic due if a (planned) supermarket was built on the Ashford Road.


Members spoke both for against the two options and raised the following points:

·         Some signalled pedestrian crossings would be needed;

·         traffic lights and roundabouts together did not work; and

·         this was premature, bearing in mind the potential impact of the proposed garden villages.


The Principal Transport and Development Planner explained that the addition of any garden villages would take a long time to build out, so these could not be taken into consideration at this time.


The Chairman thanked the Principal Transport and Development Planner for his report.




(1)      That the report be noted.


Highways Work Programme pdf icon PDF 143 KB


The Board considered the report which provided an update on the identified schemes approved for consideration in 2018/19.


A Member requested more information on the drainage repairs in Quinton Road, Sittingbourne.


The Schemes Project Manager confirmed that KCC had sealed the traffic order to make Danley Road, Halfway, one-way to all traffic in 2016.  Traffic signs for the restriction had been ordered and would be installed at the same time as those for the 20 miles per hour speed limit on the same road.


The District Manager explained that the sustainable drainage works in the High Street, Sittingbourne were not going ahead, but other works would be carried out as part of routine maintenance.




(1)      That the report be noted.


Progress Update Report pdf icon PDF 102 KB

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.


Update on the 20’s Plenty for Faversham Working Group


A visiting Member provided a further update and explained that KCC talks had gone well.  KCC had stated that they did not believe Oare Road, Faversham could be added to the scheme.  However, the Member explained that with development at this location, traffic calming was needed and the road added to the scheme at some point in the future.


A Member thanked KCC officers for the work they had done on this scheme.  He referred to the suggestion regarding Oare Road and noted that there was also development taking place along Love Lane and the Western Link, Faversham.


Parking at The Leas, Minster


A Member applauded the restrictions that were going to be put in place.


One–way system option on Church Road, Eastchurch


The Schemes Project Manager reported that he was working on a slight change he had proposed for the scheme to deal with an objection that had been received during the public consultation for the traffic order.


Bell Road/Highsted Road, Sittingbourne, Traffic


The Seafront and Engineering Manager confirmed that the TRO had been drafted and the consultation would commence on 8 March 2019 for three weeks.


The Chairman agreed that there would be an update on Holmside Avenue, Sheerness at the next meeting.


Sydney Avenue, Sittingbourne Parking Restrictions


The Principal Transport and Development Planner confirmed that the TRO was for term-time only.


A Member raised the issue of enforcing restrictions and it was agreed that this should be an item at the next meeting.  The Seafront and Engineering Manager briefly explained that if a bus was genuinely dropping passengers off, that was permitted, but if they parked where there was a restriction, that was an offence.




(1)      That the report be noted.


Agreement on Joint Transportation Boards pdf icon PDF 85 KB

The Board’s views are sought on the attached Agreement, prior to it being agreed by Full Council.


Members discussed the draft Agreement.


Councillor Mike Baldock made the following proposal:  That under paragraph 2.2, the final sentence be amended to reverse the last half of the sentence so that it read:  The parish or town council representatives may speak, vote and propose a motion or an amendment. 


This was fully endorsed by the Board.




(1)      That the last sentence in paragraph 2.2 be amended to read:  The parish or town council representatives may speak, vote and propose a motion or an amendment. 





Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting date will be confirmed after Council on 20 February 2019.



The next meeting of the Board would be at 5.30pm on Monday 24 June 2019.


Record of Thanks


The Chairman thanked officers, Members and Visiting Members for their input over the past municipal year.