Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Swale House

Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330 

Items
No. Item

579.

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.

 

Minutes:

The Chairman ensured that those present were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

Audio Recording

580.

Minutes

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 January 2020 (Minute Nos. 432 - 447 ) as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 January 2020 (Minute Nos. 432 - 447) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to the Swale District Manager reporting back to relevant Officers recommendation (2) in Minute. No. 444, whereby the JTB had agreed consultation with Adelaide Drive and Sydney Avenue residents and the update report only referred to consultation with residents of Adelaide Drive.

581.

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.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Steve Davey declared a pecuniary interest in Item 8, Formal Objections to Traffic Regulation Order – Swale Amendment 8 as he owned a property in Albion Terrace, Milton Regis.

582.

New JTB Agreement (verbal update)

Minutes:

The Chairman brought forward this item in order to clarify Kent County Council’s (KCC) position in responding to petitions presented to the Joint Transportation Board (JTB).  She advised that under the existing JTB Agreement, a response to a petition presented to the JTB should be handed over to KCC and a report should be brought back to the JTB meeting.  This was exactly the same in the new JTB Agreement.  However,  KCC had not followed the existing process and had referred to their own Petition scheme and had responded to the petitioners directly.

 

The Programme Manager (KCC) agreed that there had been confusion as the Petition policies did appear to contradict each other and he agreed to go back to KCC’s Legal Team to confirm the correct process.    He added that, for petitions with more than 1,000 signatures, a matter would be debated at the JTB meeting.

 

In the discussion that followed, several Members said that there had been consultation on the new JTB Agreement, which had not yet been signed by Swale Borough Council (SBC). A KCC Member was critical of the process and said that changes suggested to the Agreement had been intended to streamline and make the process more efficient. A Member highlighted cases of petitions presented that had more than 1,000 signatures, but were not later debated at the JTB meeting.  A Member said that an issue raised at the JTB meeting should be responded to at the JTB meeting. Several Members highlighted communication issues with the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Waste.

 

The Chairman said that until the JTB Agreement had been clarified, the status quo should prevail and a response to petitions received at the previous JTB meeting should be reported back to a future meeting, and this would include those petitions on the current Agenda.  The Chairman asked the Programme Manager (KCC) if he would be happy with that suggestion as a way forward, and he agreed. 

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That, until the new JTB Agreement was clarified and implemented, KCC should report back on petitions received at a JTB meeting, to the next meeting.

583.

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 ‘date’ ‘month’ 2014.  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.

Minutes:

Registered speakers spoke on their requested item in the order on the Agenda.

Recommendations to Swale Borough Council's Cabinet

584.

Petition for road safety improvements at Nutfields, Sittingbourne

Minutes:

Kim Stone presented a petition on behalf of local residents which sought to install double yellow lines in Nutfields, Sittingbourne. In presenting the petition, Ms Stone highlighted the number of accidents that had been caused by cars illegally parking at the junction, creating a blind spot.

 

A Member highlighted that as the request was for parking restrictions, the issue should be considered by SBC.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from SBC, on the issues raised in the petition, be considered at the next JTB meeting.

585.

Petition for Park Road and surrounding area - late item

Minutes:

Kent County Councillor Mr John Wright presented a petition from local residents to request that SBC extended the operating hours of the SBC residents’ parking permits in the area around Park Road, Sittingbourne, in order that residents may park in the vicinity of the area after 5pm and on Sundays.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from SBC, on the issues raised in the petition, be considered at the next JTB meeting.

586.

Formal objection to Traffic Regulation Order Swale Amendment 8 - Proposed Single Yellow Line, Church Road, Murston pdf icon PDF 61 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A Ward Member referred to the late objection to the proposed yellow lines in Cooks Lane, Milton Regis and said that there was room to park in other areas nearby, including a free-standing car park.  He said that double yellow lines were urgently needed.  Another Ward Member agreed and said that cars parked in that location caused an obstruction.

 

A Ward Member drew attention that the plan had been modified to address the concerns raised for the proposed double yellow lines in Dyngley Close, Milton Regis and he supported the proposal.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That the proposed single yellow line in Church Road, Murston be progressed.

 

(2)  That the proposed double yellow lines in Cooks Lane, Milton Regis be progressed.

 

(3)  That the proposed double yellow line in Dyngley Close, Milton Regis, be progressed on the east side of the close only, and on both sides of the junction.

587.

Formal Objection Traffic Regulation Order Swale 9 - Proposed Double Yellow Lines - Sandford Road, Sittingbourne pdf icon PDF 75 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Ward Member supported the decision to defer the proposed double yellow lines in Sandford Road, Sittingbourne in order that the Traffic Regulation Order was not delayed.

 

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed that the double yellow lines in Sandford Road, Sittingbourne be removed from the Order in order to allow proposals in other areas to progress whilst KCC considered alternative solutions.  This was seconded by KCC Councillor Mr Mike Whiting. On being put to the vote, Members agreed.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  To note the formal objections received to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order and that the proposed double yellow lines in Sandford Road, Sittingbourne be removed from the Order to allow proposals in other areas to progress whilst Kent County Council considered alternative solutions.

588.

Formal Objections to Traffic Regulation Order Swale Amendment 11 - Proposed Double Yellow Lines, Invicta Road, Sheerness pdf icon PDF 56 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman explained that double yellow lines had previously been part of a Traffic Regulation Order in Galway Road, Sheerness agreed in 2007, but were not installed and she gave an outline of some of the traffic difficulties in the area.

 

A Parish Councillor supported the comments but questioned why the double yellow lines did not extend into Galway Road, as shown in the drawings on page 59 of the report.  The Chairman said that there was an error on the drawings included in the report.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That the contents of the report be noted and that officers proceed with the installation of both sets of double yellow lines in Invicta Road, Sheerness as shown in the drawings, which included both corner junctions with Galway Road.

589.

Proposed Extension to Sittingbourne Residential Parking Scheme - Results of Design Consultation pdf icon PDF 56 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Members’ comments on the results of the design consultation to the proposed extension to the Sittingbourne Residents’ Parking Scheme.

 

During the debate, a Member said that opinion was divided and there were strong views on the effectiveness of the scheme.  He warned of cost implications.   A Member said that the proposal to extend the scheme had been considered previously but there was not enough support.  He suggested considering the times of the existing zone in line with the petition submitted earlier in the meeting.

 

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed that the scheme be put on hold until a full review of resident parking schemes in the Borough had been carried out.  This was seconded by Parish Councillor Cameron Beart.  On being put to the vote, Members agreed.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That the scheme be put on hold until a full review of resident parking schemes in the Borough had been carried out.

590.

Ridham Avenue/Coldharbour Lane - Buses pdf icon PDF 57 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Members’ comments on the report which provided an update to a report previously considered by Members in June 2019, which had outlined objections to a TRO, to include double yellow lines in Coldharbour Lane/Ridham Avenue, Kemsley.

 

A Member supported the installation of double yellow lines and had witnessed buses having to reverse dangerously in Ridham Avenue due to parked cars.  He added that bus companies were considering withdrawing from the area.

 

KCC Councillor Mr Mike Whiting proposed and Councillor Mike Baldock seconded the proposal to proceed with double yellow lines.  On being put to the vote, Members agreed.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That Members note the contents of the report  and that the previously proposed double yellow lines in Ridham Avenue, Sittingbourne be progressed.

591.

School Buses parking in Swale Way and other areas in Swale pdf icon PDF 57 KB

Minutes:

The report provided some background and historical information relating to school buses parking in Swale Way, Sittingbourne and in other areas of Swale.

 

Members discussed previous action taken to address the issue, and gave examples of dangerous parking by school buses.  In the debate that followed, Members made points including:

 

·         Buses blocked laybys intended for a safe refuge for car drivers, all day;

·         police often did not consider parked buses to be dangerous;

·         should consider a very short waiting restriction during the day so that a bus could not park in a layby all day;

·         the problem moved around the Borough;

·         should discourage buses to park up for long periods before school pick up; and

·         more school places on the Isle of Sheppey was required so that pupils did not have to travel.

 

Members agreed that a report with options should be brought back to JTB to discuss.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from SBC officers with options of actions and possible solutions be brought back to a future JTB meeting.

592.

Parking Proposals - Abbey Neighbourhood Association, Faversham pdf icon PDF 302 KB

Minutes:

Chris Williams, Faversham Town Council, introduced the report which sought to suggest solutions to assist access and parking issues in Abbey Street, Faversham and improve the air quality and street scene.  He commended the Abbey Neighbourhood Association for their work in putting the proposal together.

 

Orville Wright, Abbey Neighbourhood Association, spoke in support of the report, thanked Members for their support and said that the end solution, rather than interim solutions, was important.

 

A Ward Member spoke in support of the proposal and drew Members’ attention to page 140 of the Agenda which outlined the marking out of parking spaces.  She said that this could be trialled and monitored by the community group.  She commended the Abbey Neighbourhood Association for their work.

 

In the debate that followed,  Members made points including:

 

·         Abbey Street was a busy and important street leading to a school, commercial area, pub and boatyard but was often difficult to drive down;

·         it could be difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to cross at the Court Street end;

·         the proposals were well thought out;

·         support for the proposals;

·         marking out parking places could create more spaces;

·         it was important to use sympathetic material;

·         was paint appropriate?;

·         temporary paint lines might become permanent;

·         who would take the proposals forward?

·         who would fund the proposals?;

·         pleased to see communities working together; and

·         proposals could link in with the transport plan for the school.

 

A Member commended the item coming forward and hoped to see a report from officers come back to a future JTB meeting.

 

Councillor Benjamin Martin proposed and Councillor Mike Baldock seconded that SBC officers should lead on a future report with KCC officers’ input. On being put to the vote, the proposal was agreed.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That an officer’s report, led by SBC, addressing the parking proposals and solutions raised by the Abbey Neighbourhood Association come back to a future JTB meeting.

Recommendations for Kent County Council's Cabinet

593.

A2 London Road, Teynham - Carriageway realignment pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

The report gave details of a proposed realignment scheme on the 30mph section of London Road, Teynham (between Station Road and Cellar Hill) and the results of the consultation.

 

Mr David Powell, Chairman of Lynsted Parish Council, spoke on the item.  He repeated the Parish Council’s concerns on the realignment scheme, drawing particular attention to the position of the casual crossing, which the Parish Council considered would be dangerous for pedestrians to use due to the high speed of traffic using the A2 and the limited sightline in approaching it.  Mr Powell questioned the value for money of the scheme and raised concern that the narrowing of the road would make it difficult for HGVs passing.

 

A Ward Member referred to previous accidents in the area and in supporting the proposal, stated that improvements to the road had been required for a long time.  He shared the Parish Council’s concerns about the position of the crossing and suggested a speed camera should be installed.

 

Whilst several Members supported the proposals in the location and said that it was much-needed in an accident black-spot, some expressed their concern about the positioning of the crossing. A Member referred to an interactive flashing sign that had previously been successful in the area. 

 

In response, the Programme Manager said information on how to request a speed camera could be found on the Kent and Medway Camera Partnership website but there was a strict criteria and this location did not qualify.  He agreed to forward the criteria to Members.  The Programme Manager agreed to feed back the comments made about the siting of the crossing, but advised that a safety audit had already been carried out.

 

A Member suggested that the location would benefit from more greenery.  The Programme Manager said that responses to the consultation had also raised this and he agreed to look at this suggestion.

 

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed and Councillor Benjamin Martin seconded that the proposal be deferred for officers to report back to the next meeting after investigating the location of the crossing.  This was not put to the vote as Members raised concern that the scheme would be delayed.

 

Members noted the report and the Programme Manager agreed to feed back Members’ concerns and suggested amendments.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  That the report be noted.

 

(2)  That Members comments on the location of the crossing be fed back and any amendments made to the scheme implemented if appropriate.

594.

30mph Signs, Lynsted (verbal upate)

Minutes:

The Programme Manager explained that there had been a request to look at 30mph signage in Lynsted Lane, Lynsted.  He explained that the Road Traffic Regulation Act stated that if a road was street-lit, the speed limit was 30mph, unless signed otherwise and that 30mph speed limit signs or roundels were not legally allowed to be installed. The Programme Manager added that some additional signage in the form of roundels on the carriageway could be considered at the gateway point, near The Valance, as there had been concerns of speeding in this area.

 

A Member expressed his frustration at the limited action that could be taken, but thanked the Programme Manager for his explanation.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  Members noted the verbal update.

595.

Stonebridge Pond/Dark Hill, Faversham - Safety Improvements pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A Ward Member spoke in support of providing safety improvements in the area of the junctions of Dark Hill/Davington Hill and Stonebridge Way/Curtis Way, Faversham. He highlighted the increase in traffic and on-street parking in the area and said it was often difficult for parents to cross the road to get to the Primary School. The Ward Member said that the issues had been raised since 2008, and he explained that a recent petition and residents group had been set up to address the issues.  He stressed that there was a high level of public concern, a desire for commitment to take action and for KCC Officer input to reach sensible solutions.  Finally, the Ward Member drew attention to the improvement options suggested by the residents group in the report and suggested an initial site visit with a KCC officer.

 

Another Ward Member spoke in support of addressing the issues and referred to Faversham’s Town Council’s support.

 

In the discussion that followed, Member raised points including:

 

·         If 20’s Plenty was implemented, more crossing points would be required;

·         crossing on the brow of a hill was dangerous;

·         safety improvement proposals were welcomed by parents at the school;

·         previous helpful KCC officer input had stalled due to funding for a major scheme in Faversham already committed, but could now be looked at again;

·         suggested KCC officer and Ward Member site visit was best way forward;

·         suggested looking at installing a zebra crossing; and

·         support for the proposals.

 

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed that a report from KCC Officers come back to the next JTB meeting.  This was seconded by the Chairman.  On being put to the vote, the proposals was agreed.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from KCC be submitted to the next JTB meeting.

596.

Petition to reduce speed limit in Newnham Lane, Eastling

Minutes:

The Chairman accepted a petition from Eastling Parish Council which sought to reduce the speed limit to 30mph on the whole of Newnham Lane, Eastling.  A Member advised that he had spoken to KCC Officers about the issue and they were expecting the petition.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from KCC, on the issues raised in the petition, be considered at the next JTB meeting.

597.

Petition response - Plough Road, Eastchurch pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Minutes:

The Chairman referred to the discussion on petitions earlier in the meeting and said that a report on the petition should be brought back to the JTB meeting for discussion.

 

A Member said that the petition on Plough Road, Eastchurch had 1,500 signatures at the time it was presented and now had 1,732 signatures, and so should have been reported back.

 

Another Member referred to a discussion he had with the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transportation and Waste who had advised that he was unaware of the response sent out to the petitioner and confirmed that the site had not been visited.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from KCC be submitted to a future meeting.

598.

Petition response - Shortlands Road, Sittingbourne pdf icon PDF 58 KB

Minutes:

The Chairman referred to the discussion on petitions earlier in the meeting and said that a report on the petition should be brought back to the JTB meeting for discussion.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from KCC be submitted to a future meeting.

599.

Petition response - St. Helen's Road, Sheerness pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Minutes:

The Chairman referred to the discussion on petitions earlier in the meeting and said that a report on the petition should be brought back to the JTB meeting for discussion.

 

Recommended:

 

(1)  That a report from KCC be submitted to a future meeting.

Items for Noting

600.

Gully clearance in areas prone to flooding pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman praised the usefulness of the report.

 

The Swale District Manager drew Members’ attention to page 153 which advised Members to report hotspots not included in the current list.

 

A Member asked why Lower Road, Eastchurch and Lower Road Queenborough and Minster were not all considered to be hotspots as they were all on the main road?  He referred to page 156, Whiteway in Queenborough, as he had been informed by KCC that there was no mains drainage in that location even though it regularly flooded, so what was being cleaned? Lastly, he asked that Halfway be listed on its own, not as Sheerness.  The Swale District Manager agreed to feed any comments back to the drainage team.

 

In response to a Member’s question on whether the frequency of clearance could be reviewed in high use areas, the Swale District Manager advised that it was set by the Drainage Team, but was resource dependent.

 

A Member asked whether additional gullies could be added to roads?  In response the Swale District Manager confirmed that adding an extra gully was relatively straight-forward but this would depend on the existing drainage in the location.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  That the report be noted.

601.

Review of Residents Parking in the Borough (verbal update)

Minutes:

The Chairman advised that a review of Residents’ Parking in the Borough was necessary and would be carried out as resources became available.  There was general agreement that a review was overdue and welcomed.

602.

Faversham Swing Bridge pdf icon PDF 109 KB

Minutes:

The Chairman referred to the recent briefing held for Members on the Faversham Swing Bridge and praised the Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste.

 

A Member requested that the word ‘ambition’ be taken out of the report as he said it was a legal right to navigate Faversham Creek but this had been prevented by Peel Ports.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  That the report be noted.

603.

Highways Work Programme pdf icon PDF 145 KB

Minutes:

The Chairman drew attention to the officer contact list for any further information.

 

A Member referred to the works at London Road, Newington, on page 171 of the report, and asked for an update as he understood that the works would be carried out once the gas works had been completed in October 2020.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  That the report be noted.

604.

Progress Update Report pdf icon PDF 137 KB

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

Minutes:

A Member drew attention to Minute No. 444/02/20 School Buses – Adelaide Drive, Sittingbourne on page 195 of the report which had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  That the report be noted.

605.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held at 5.30pm on Monday 22 June 2020 (subject to confirmation).

Minutes:

The next meeting of the Swale JTB will be at 5.30pm on Monday 22 June 2020.