Progress Update Report
To consider the Progress Update which outlines progress made following recommendations and agreed action at previous meetings.
The Chairman advised that Highsted Road, Sittingbourne proposed footway – report on the results from the public consultation exercise would be dealt with as a separate item.
A Ward Member gave an overview on the issues on Highsted Road and reminded Members that the matter had been considered by the JTB in March 2019 and Option 1 had been the preferred option to make the road one-way southbound, and that KCC looked at other options as well, and there had been no further action. The Ward Member explained that the issues were getting worse, and whilst Option 1 was the preferred option, there was a problem obtaining the land to enable this to happen. He considered the speed limit should be reduced to 20mph and the road width narrowed to 6’6’’.
Members raised points which included:
· Disappointed in having to wait for this answer to come back to us; and
· most people supported a footpath, that was why the JTB chose Option 1.
Kent County Councillor John Wright proposed that the matter be considered by the JTB again, to confirm Option 1, with costs of bollards and a TRO for one-way traffic. This was seconded by Kent County Councillor Ken Pugh.
Further comments included:
· It was mean-spirited of the Highsted Academy not to supply land options to provide a footpath;
· a compulsory purchase order (CPO) should be implemented to get the strip of land to achieve the safest option; and
· the CPO could be implemented on the opposite side of the road, for 1.8 metres, to provide a footpath where the majority of people walked.
The Proposer was happy for the above to be added to his proposal. The Chairman also advised that KCC officers had been talking with Highsted School. She suggested that the KCC Education Area Officer be asked to discuss this matter with the school, as to-date, discussions had only taken place with Highways officers.
(1) That the matter be considered by the JTB again, to confirm Option 1, with costs of bollards, a TRO for one-way traffic, and to also consider the option of a CPO and to ask the KCC Education Area Officer to discuss the matter with the school.
Members then discussed the remainder of the Progress Update report.
A Member asked about the response to three petitions, on page 107 of the report, which had the response as reading ‘KCC will be responding to the lead petitioner’. The Swale District Manager advised that discussions were ongoing with the petitioners and the matters were not closed.
Members made the following comments:
· Appalled by these standard responses that were sent out;
· lack of consultation with Members regarding the petitions;
· the Cabinet Member should not have responded without input from the JTB; and
· the JTB Agreement set-out the procedure for dealing with petitions.
Members made the following points on other parts of the report:
Page 105 – Lower Road Junction with Barton Hill Drive, Isle of Sheppey – this scheme was not called ‘Phase 1’ any more.
Eastchurch item – the works were now completed, but there were issues with the cycle lane.
Page 106 – Formal Objections to TRO – Swale Amendment 1 – a request to bring this back to the March 2020 meeting.
(1) That the report be noted.
- Progress Update report updated from previous meeting - MJK Comments 20 Dec 2019 (2) (2), item 445. PDF 126 KB
- Letter from Arriva - Ridham Avenue, item 445. PDF 2 MB