On behalf of the developer, the Principal Transport & Development Planner introduced the report which responded to the TRO objections raised against the proposed signal junction and carriageway improvements at the junction where Halfway Road, Minster Road, The Crescent and Queenborough Road met.  The improvements were proposed to improve capacity at the junction as a result of the new residential development at Belgrave Road, Halfway and in accordance with works requested as part of the planning conditions for that development.

Parish Councillor Peter MacDonald was invited to speak.  He considered the person who had carried out the study had no knowledge of the difficulties of driving in a northerly direction along Holmside and Southdown Road and that the traffic queuing was not just during peak hours.  Parish Councillor MacDonald said that investment should have been put into improving the blind corner near the junction of Belgrave Road and the A250 for vehicles travelling from Halfway towards Queenborough as it was difficult to see traffic exiting the junction of Belgrave Road.  He said the whole scheme was a “nonsense” and needed to be looked at again as there were strong objections from local residents. 

KCC Councillor Cameron Beart was invited to speak.  He said that he was not against the scheme but sceptical.  He asked how many extra movements of vehicle would the change generate?  KCC Councillor Beart said it would have been helpful if consultation responses were included within the report and asked whether the officer had responded to any of the comments raised and recognised and accepted that some of the responses were based on assumptions.  KCC Councillor Beart said that the rat-run issue needed to be resolved and was concerned that the scheme could potentially make it worse.  He stated that it was not a parished area despite the report claiming that the Parish Council supported it.  He confirmed that the site was in the village of Halfway despite the report stating that it was in Minster and documents on deposit stated that it was in Queenborough.

The Chairman opened the debate up to Members, and points raised included:

·         Angry that the developer had claimed the Parish Council supported when it was an unparished area; and

·         there was overwhelming public opposition.

The Principal Transport & Development Manager stated that KCC’s Traffic Signal Team had indicated that approximately 300 additional vehicles would be going through that junction per hour because there would be a time saving on the cycle and a significant time saving from when the lights changed from red to green.  The scheme had been requested by KCC and SBC via Planning Committee for the Belgrave Road application.  Through an appeal SBC had employed their own transport consultant to review the performance of the network and they had concluded that the junction improvement was required to mitigate the effects of the new development.  The Principal Transport & Development Manager advised that there was currently an incentive to use the traffic lights at The Crescent as a rat-run and it was hoped that by removing that incentive it would dissuade people from doing that.

KCC Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the TRO be rejected following the public consultation which showed that local residents were demonstrably opposed to the scheme.  This was seconded by Parish Councillor Peter MacDonald. 

There was some discussion about amending the motion and a request that the developer provide a better solution.  The Principal Transport & Development Manager explained that the mitigation had been proposed and accepted by SBC’s Planning Committee, therefore it could not be changed.  He added that the JTB could reject the TRO but if they did the proposed mitigation for this junction would not happen.   

The following points were made:

·         Concerned that with the housing developments there would be extra traffic and if the TRO was rejected things would only get worse for residents;

·         if the TRO was rejected could the developers appeal?;

·         was the Belgrave Road application approved on appeal?;

·         Belgrave Road application had not gone to appeal; and

·         considered the junction was already over-capacity so had to support the TRO.

On being put to the vote the motion to reject the TRO was agreed.

Recommended:

(1)      That the TRO be rejected following the public consultation which showed that local residents were demonstrably opposed to the scheme.