Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2007 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(Report by Head of Major Projects)

(1)       The County Council owned property in the Wrens Cross and Upper Stone Street corridor of Maidstone for potential highway improvements that had no foreseeable likelihood of being implemented.  The report proposed realising the asset and promoting deliverable alternative operational and environmental based improvements in Upper Stone Street and improvements to the Bridge gyratory system.

(2)       The original 1980’s strategy for Maidstone was improvement to the A229 and A249 routes to the north of the Town and the A229 Upper Stone Street/Sheal’s Crescent route to the south.  The two routes to the north were more straightforward and were delivered.  The route to the south had always been problematic because of the gradient away from the Town and the very compact and dense older commercial and residential development.  It was also complicated by the east to west crossing movement of traffic along Wat Tyler Way and Knightrider Street.  By the time consideration was being given to the southern leg of the three highway schemes Government policy had moved away from substantial urban road building.

(3)       Over the last 30 years a number of schemes had been proposed involving a repeating cycle of activity, raised expectation, going dormant through inability to deliver and then being revisited.  All schemes involved a new road that would have cut a swathe through the area creating massive blight during which the County Council was obliged to acquire a large number of properties.

(4)       In 1999 the impracticality of this was recognised and the concept of a major scheme was abandoned and much of the property disposed off.  However, the sense of something needing to be done led to the approval of a scheme for a contra-flow bus and lorry lane down Upper Stone Street and along Knightrider Street although this had not been implemented.  There was still an underlying and understandable feeling that a more substantial albeit undefined improvement of Upper Stone Street should not be prejudiced and this led to the retention of property along the corridor.

(5)       Some seven years on, we were no further forward.  Despite Maidstone Borough Council recently achieving Growth Point status there was still no likelihood of Government funding a highway improvement of Upper Stone Street.  Government funds were limited, and the perceived ideal of a dual carriageway, would not score well on the policy criteria used by SEERA when prioritising schemes on a regional basis for Government.  In simple terms, a dual carriageway improvement of Upper Stone Street would be expensive and in effect just replicate the existing arrangement of two lanes into the town (Sheal’s Crescent) and two lanes out (Upper Stone Street).  Clearly some benefits would be achieved, particularly relief to Sheal’s Crescent but the problem would largely be moved further along to the Armstrong Road/Park Way junction.

(6)       The property being held was a major concern.  In the last couple of years nine residential and two commercial properties had been demolished because they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

(Report by Head of Major Projects)

(1)       From 1 April 2007, the Major Transport Projects Team activity would come under the portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste and as a consequence would rejoin Kent Highways Services.  The benefits of being within Regeneration and Economy since 2004 would be maintained by continued co-operative working and early conceptual feasibility work would continue to be carried out within that Division.  It was an appropriate time to update the Board on progress of the major transport and highway schemes following the last report in September 2006. 

(2)       A progress or status report on Fastrack Phase 1 Major Scheme, Fastrack Thames Way, Fastrack Everards Link Phase 2, A228 Leybourne & West Malling Bypass, M20 Junction 4, East Kent Access Phase 1, East Kent Access Phase 2, Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road, Rushenden Link Road, Ashford Ring Road, Newtown Road Bridge, Ashford, A2 Canterbury Slips, Greenhithe Station, South East Maidstone Strategic Route, A228 Colts Hill Bypass and Land matters was given in the Appendix to the report. 

(3)       In the last six months, the key achievements and progress milestones had been:-

·        the opening of the A228 Leybourne & West Malling Bypass.

·        the completion of the M20junction 4 improvements.

·        the publication of the statutory Orders for East Kent Access Phase 2.

·        the publication of the statutory Orders for Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road.

·        planning permission for Fastrack Everards Link Phase 2.

·        contract award for Fastrack Thames Way.

·        planning application submitted for Rushenden Relief Road.

·        commencement of Ashford Ring Road transformation to two-way operation.

(4)       The key problems in the period had been:-

·        the delay in commencing the traffic calming associated with the opening of the A228 Leybourne & West Malling Bypass traffic calming.

·        getting Network Rail to agree a Permanent Easement for the Station Access Link to West Malling Station

·        the slippage in publishing the statutory Orders for Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road.

·        the need to defer the upgrade of Greenhithe Station because of the pressure on the capital budget.

·        the difficulty generally of progressing DCLG funded growth area infrastructure projects against the funding deadline of 31 March 2008.

(5)       The Head of Major Projects wished to place on record his thanks and        appreciation to the Major Transport Projects Team for their outstanding work.  He wished them all well in Kent Highway Services.

(6)       The Board noted the report.

(Report by Head of Major Projects)

(1)       The original concept and scheme justification for East Kent Access – Phase 1 in 1999 included High Occupancy Vehicle lanes (HOV).  When Phases 1A & 1B were opened it was decided to defer a decision on implementation until Phase 1C was nearing completion.  The report recommended that HOV lanes were not implemented. 

(2)       The intention to have HOV lanes was, in part, to complement the initiative by Pfizer to introduce a Green Travel Plan for its staff that would encourage car sharing.  Government policy was also increasingly focused on integrated transport solutions and less inclined to support conventional highway improvement schemes.  There was also a desire to encourage modal shift and car sharing so that extra capacity was not just lost to normal traffic growth.  These objectives were important but the practical aspects of introducing HOV lanes also needed to be considered.

(3)       These issues were brought before the Board in September 2004 when Phase 1B between the Stour Viaduct and the Ramsgate Road roundabout was approaching completion and there was a very strong objection to the Traffic Regulation Orders that had been published.  In January 2005, the Board accepted the recommendation not to proceed with HOV lanes on Phase 1B on what was a relatively short length and to reconsider when Phase 1C was more advanced.  This was also in the hope that experience elsewhere and further Department of Transport (DfT) advice would give a stronger steer.

(4)       The DfT had recently published Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/06 – High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, commenting on the experience of two of the three sites in the UK.  While there were benefits claimed and the Department would like to encourage more schemes, the fundamental problems of introducing HOV lanes on East Kent Access remained.

(5)       The three HOV sites in the UK were essentially congested urban routes.  East Kent Access Phase 1 was a rural route that by the nature of the improvements would not have capacity constraints on opening – car sharers and buses would therefore gain little advantage over normal traffic through use of a HOV lane.

(6)       Officers visited a site in Leeds, Yorkshire in 2005.  This was a radial route with traffic predominantly heading straight for the city centre with little side traffic and traffic signals that allowed HOV and normal traffic to proceed alternately at the end of the HOV section.

(7)       Phase 1B and 1C had three roundabouts, two serving Pfizer and Sandwich and one serving the old Richborough power station site and Richborough port site.  A HOV lane occupying the conventional near side lane would need to stop short of roundabouts to accept merging conventional traffic wanting to turn left.  Along the length of Phase 1C there were ten entrances serving a house, active commercial sites or potential development sites.  A  HOV lane occupying the conventional near side lane would  be penetrated by the need for normal traffic and lorries to access the sites and all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(Report by Head of Major Projects)

(1)       As part of the recently completed A228 Leybourne and West Malling Bypass a new Link Road had been provided to West Malling Station.  This required Network Rail’s agreement to make the physical connection to their existing Station Access Road together with the granting of rights for the connection to be used by buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians.  Full access for all traffic was not intended as the objective and planning requirement was to avoid opening up a rat-run to and from West Malling and Network Rail themselves would not want increased use of its private Station Access Road.

(2)       Following a letter from the then Cabinet Member to Network Rail in early 2005 some progress was made.  A two-stage approach was offered by Network Rail with the initial granting of a 1 year Licence to get over the immediate time constraints, to be followed by the granting of the Permanent Easement.  The Licence was completed although it took about five months for what was a simple document.  The Head of Major Projects was trying to progress the Permanent Easement but Network Rail was putting up obstacles.  While Network Rail responses implied continued agreement in principle, they said internal consultation processes might raise objections and they could give no timetable for completing the Permanent Easement.

(3)       The delay was understood to be related primarily to a concern within South East Trains who leased the Station land from Network Rail that a proposed private car park , served off the new Link Road, might affect revenue from the existing Network Rail Station car park.  However, the issue of a proposed additional car park should not be a material consideration.  The permanent easement was required to serve existing pedestrians and those using both the bus and kiss and ride facilities.  It was required regardless of whether the private developer decided to progress the proposal for an additional car park.  Clearly that decision rested solely with the private developer and although both the County Council and the Borough Council supported the provision of additional parking, whether or not this was provided was outside the control of the County Council.

(4)       Even if this was not the case, it was considered inappropriate of Network Rail to take the narrow short term commercial view at the expense of the wider strategic objective that all transport providers should be working in partnership to achieve.  The new Link Road would provide improved accessibility to the Station, reduce the adverse impact of station traffic in West Malling, encourage increased use of the train network, and encourage modal shift, all of which needed to be addressed to meet sustainability issues from the increasing demands of new development in the A228 corridor.  Any additional parking for station users would reduce the current illegal over spill parking and would assist in reducing long distance commuting by car.

(5)       The Chief Executive of Network Rail was being lobbied by both the County Council and Tonbridge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       The report sought approval of revised fees and charges for 2007/08 in respect of a wide range of services provided by Kent Highway Services. The Local Government Act 2003 (Section 93) provided the power for charging for discretionary services but also stipulated that local authorities might only cover their reasonable costs in providing such services.

(2)       The main source of income was from developers who were required to pay S38 or S278 fees relating to supervision of new estate road construction and in some cases commuted sums for future maintenance of new highway infrastructure.  The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 [RASWA] and subsequent regulations determined charges for sample inspections, defects, licences, etc but the Road Safety team also provided a range of services, including cycle and minibus driver training for which a charge was made either to individuals or other departments and organisations.

(3)       Fees had been set to reflect the actual cost of the service and in most cases, were rounded up to the nearest £5.00 but an attempt had also been made to standardise charges for similar services. Some charges which were statutory and for which there was no local discretion had not been included in the tables appended to the report.

(4)       As part of the Transformation process, Kent Highway Services was continuing to examine options for delivering some services on line, eg paying for skip permits. This would enable differential charges to be considered, distinguishing between electronic and paper transactions. A further report would be brought to the Highways Advisory Board if this was the case.

(5)       The proposed new fees and charges for 2007/08 were set out in the Appendices to the report.

Highway Definition, Licences and Other Admin Services

(6)       There had been problems with interpreting the correct charges for highway definition work; at present different charges applied depending on whether plans were supplied and by whom. The current minimum charge was £30 plus £22 for showing a boundary on the enquirer’s plan or £30 if KHS provided a plan with a boundary shown. Some district and parish councils had claimed they should be exempt. This was specialised work which often required research into legal documents held in archive files. Inevitably the amount of work on each case varied but it was impractical to calculate the exact cost per enquiry so there needed to be a standard fee. It was recommended that for 2007/08 all highway definition enquiries were charged at £35 plus a further £35 if KHS was asked to supply an A4 plan from the GIS system showing the boundary; the lower charge for showing a boundary on the enquirer’s plan would be dropped. It was also recommended that in future the charge should equally apply to district and parish councils.

(7)       Income from land searches was previously received by district councils, where this function was undertaken by the former highway units. Charging by the Highway Authority was agreed with district councils and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

(Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       The report presented the Highways maintenance budget for 2007/08 (Revenue and Capital) following approval of budgets by the Cabinet on 8 February 2007 and ratification at the County Council meeting on 22 February 2007. Table 1 of the report showed how the Highway Maintenance Budget had been derived taking the total Revenue and Capital budgets for Kent Highway Services as the starting point. It showed that the maintenance works budget had increased by £5.154m compared with 2006/07.

(2)       The countywide programmes in Table 1 of the report included an additional sum of £1.505m for Targeted Highway Works.  This had only very recently been allocated and it had been treated as a top-slice for the purposes of the report and had not yet been distributed to the relevant maintenance or improvements budget heads pending further consideration of detailed works proposals. However it was intended to use the additional resources broadly as follows:- 

·                    £500k on a new programme to improve road signs and markings across the county

·                    £500k on additional maintenance work to street lights

·                    £300k to offset a proportion of  expected increase in tender prices for supported bus contracts

·                    £200k for structures to enable more work to be undertaken on road bridges in the county.

(3)       The “Highway Maintenance Budget Model” report to the Board on 10 January 2006 described how the budget model had been developed for distributing the 2006/07 highways budget. The report recommended that:-

·                    Allocations for highway assets in 2006/07 were based on a relative assessment of their degree of depreciation

·                    Allocations to the Divisions in 2006/07 were based upon an assessment of the size and condition of their networks.

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste subsequently approved the recommendations on 18 January 2006. The budget model had been updated with the most recent condition and network data and had been used to develop the maintenance budget for 2007/08.

(4)       The Budget Model followed a process that:-

·                    Set out the revenue and capital budgets available for highway maintenance,

·                    Separated out the budget necessary for both central and divisional Operational maintenance (works that included safety repairs and routine maintenance such as gully emptying)

·                    Determined the remaining budget available for Repairs (works that maintained the structural integrity of the network)

·                    Allocated the Repairs budget between the various highway assets and

·                    Finally allocated Operations and Repairs budgets to the Divisions.

(5)       The gross highway revenue and capital budgets were set out in Table 2 of the report.  The next stage in the budget process was to determine and separate out both the central and divisional Operational maintenance budgets from the remainder of the budget available for highway maintenance. In calculating the budgets, an 8% allowance for contract inflation had been included to maintain the current minimum level of Operational maintenance. Separating out the budgets for Operational maintenance from the maintenance budget determined the budget available for Repairs. The Operational maintenance budgets and remaining budget available for Repairs were summarised in Table 3  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(Report by Mid Kent Divisional Manager)

            (Cllr P Davies, Chairman of Tunbridge Wells JTB, was present for this item)

(1)       At the April 2006 meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board, Members recommended the removal of two lengths of bus lane; in St John’s Road (A26) on the northbound approach to the traffic signals at Speldhurst Road and southbound on St John’s Road (A26) between Woodbury Park Road and Grosvenor Road.

(2)       A report was presented to the January 2007 Joint Board by the Mid Kent Divisional Manager entitled, ‘The need to assist the provision of quality bus services in Tunbridge Wells’. This recommended the need to maintain all existing lengths of bus lane, including the sections near Speldhurst Road and between Woodbury Park Road and Grosvenor Road, as described above, and provide further lengths of bus lane as part of a raft of measures to improve the quality of local bus services.  This was rejected and Members recommended that the original recommendation made at the April 2006 Joint Board be upheld.

(3)       It was important to mention that the existing section of bus lane between Woodbury Park Road and Grosvenor Road was shortly to become part of a much longer length of bus lane, to provide a continuous length between Grosvenor Road and Queens Road. This scheme was, in the main, developer funded and was reported to, and approved by Members at the April 2006 meeting of the Joint Board as part of the 2007/08 Integrated Transport scheme programme.  The decision would work against the spirit of the free travel pilot for 11-16 year olds due to be launched in June of this year.

(4)       The County Council’s Local Transport Plan clearly set out the need to reduce the number of journeys by car and to increase the proportion made by walking, cycling and public transport. Improving all the modes would widen choice for Kent residents and reduce social exclusion for those who did not have access to a car. KCC’s policy was to work with partners to improve the reliability and quality of local bus services.

(5)       Better public transport was absolutely essential to tackling 3 of the 4 shared priorities – accessibility, congestion and pollution. The County Council’s overarching objective for local bus services was to increase patronage levels through encouraging modal shift, through a programme of investment and partnership working with operators and others, to improve the quality and reliability of bus services.  Increased bus patronage contributed to the County Council’s CPA rating and had been a significant factor in the excellent rating of the Local Transport Plan delivery report.  Approximately 80% of bus services across Kent were provided on a commercial basis without financial support from the County Council, although the County Council spent over £7 million on supporting socially necessary services.

(6)       In partnership with operators and local District Councils, Quality Bus Partnerships (QBP) had been developed across Kent in Ashford, Canterbury, Maidstone and Thanet. QBPs had provided a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(Report by Transformation Programme Director)

(1)       The presentation by Kim Hills, Transformation Programme Director and Barbara Moody, Network Operations Manager – East Kent, updated HAB on the current position / progress of the Highway Service in Kent and provided a vision for the future direction.

(2)       The last 2 years had seen a number of progressive changes:-

·                    The transfer of functions and staff from 12 districts creating three new Divisions.

·                    Mobilisation of a new Alliance contract creating a partnership of four organisations (KCC, Ringway, Jacobs and TSUK) branded together as Kent Highway Services.

            The next stage was to transform the service into a seamless, frontline operation.

(3)       The presentation covered:-

Current service delivery

The journey so far

Initial Price Waterhouse Cooper findings

An asset management business

Fundamental Business Transformation

Report to fix project

Challenges ahead

The next steps and milestones

(4)       Details of the progress made were covered in the presentation.  The next 18 months would be a vital part of the process to transform into a 21^st Century Service.

(5)       Following a question and answer session, the Chairman thanked Kim Hills and Barbara Moody for a very informative presentation.

(6)       The Board supported the direction proposed.

(Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       Kent Highway Services maintained 80 kms (50 miles) of high speed dual carriageways across the county, Appendix 2 of the report showed the location of the roads.  The report proposed a new policy which would enable a standard approach to maintenance and would allow road users to plan their journeys with advanced warning of disruption.

(2)       The adopted asset maintenance plan detailed how each part of the highway infrastructure should be maintained and to what frequency.  In most cases, the roads were maintained using a reactive, needs based approach mainly due to the differing maintenance needs of the highway.

(3)       In addition to the obligations of KHS to undertake maintenance of the highway network, the District Councils also had obligations for cleansing, under the Environmental Protection Act, and in most cases undertook vegetation work on our behalf.

(4)       The cost of undertaking work on the roads was higher than other roads, mainly due to health and safety considerations for the workforce leading to extensive traffic management (cones and signs etc).  Undertaking work in a reactive way could lead to financial inefficiencies and less control over planning work on all parts of the highway.

(5)       The proposed new policy was intended to ensure that routine maintenance was undertaken at set times throughout the year, using planned road or lane closures.  This had two benefits, it allowed maintenance activities of both KHS and the District Councils to be planned and therefore be cost effective and all-inclusive.  It also allowed KHS to advertise the work in advance so that the travelling public were informed of the potential for disruption. 

(6)       Appendix 1 of the report detailed the proposed policy for maintaining the high speed road network.

(7)       The Board supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways & Waste thatapproval be given to adopting the policy set out in Appendix 1 of the report, as the method for maintaining the high speed road network.

(Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       Public perception of Highway Authorities’ control over roadworks was generally predicated on a lack of influence around poor workmanship and traffic delays.  The report outlined the latest on the proposal to introduce a Considerate Contractor Scheme into Kent and for the approval to proceed with launching such a scheme which would encourage a higher standard of works and safety consistently across Kent’s roads.

(2)       The Corporation of London started up the original Considerate Contractor Scheme in 1987.  Considerate Contractor Schemes were now recognised by the construction industry.   There was also a degree of public recognition and with the introduction of more schemes around the country, this would grow to become a national initiative.

(3)       Equally important was the approval and support being given by the Tidy Britain Group and the Health and Safety Executive. Both organisations realised that the schemes were a significant step towards furthering broader environmental, health and safety objectives.

(4)       The aim of the scheme was to introduce a reward system for high performing contractors who considered all highway users during the works.  Through offering coveted Awards based on the condition of the interface between construction sites and the public, the Scheme induced a spirit of pride and excellence in the workforce.  The scheme was also designed to flag up those contractors who were not performing adequately. This would give KCC a better opportunity to monitor the performance for all contractors signed into the scheme and deal with them promptly to improve standards.

(5)       The scheme would be a development and improvement upon the current Highways Authority & Utilities Committee (HAUC) Joint Site Safety surveys and the Kent Highway Services (KHS) Divisional site safety checks. There would probably be willingness by Utilities and a contractor to be a member of the scheme, as non membership almost showed a “don’t care attitude”. The winning of a high achievement award could be displayed on company vehicles (sticker) and jealously guarded and contested the following year.

(6)       The Kent and Medway Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed to encourage all contractors working on the highway to carry out their operations in a safe, consistent and considerate manner by:-

·                    Fostering a joint initiative to demonstrate the spirit of co-operation,

·                    Improving Standards,

·                    Ensuring that anyone using the highway would understand exactly what was happening and where works were in progress,

·                    Giving constructive feedback and praise to develop continuous improvement.

(7)       The scheme comprised of a Code of Good Practice, which included the requirements of “Safety at Street Works and Road Works”, using four categories; Safe, Clean, Considerate and Co-operative. Sites were judged against a checklist that took into account safety, cleanliness, considerate behaviours, co-operation and environmental considerations.  It was by following the code of practice that the standards of works would be raised, rates of progress maximised and the condition of the highway would be improved.

(8)       Members of the public observing works on the highway were invited to comment on the conditions of the site using  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

(Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       The report provided an update on the progress of the Traffic Management Act (TMA) which gained Royal Assent in 2004 and the accompanying Intervention Criteria which might be used by the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport should a local authority be seen to be failing in its duties under the TMA.

(2)       The following list was a summary of the main report highlighting the key areas to be aware of:-

·                    The TMA required that the whole local authority, not just the highways department, to be aware of and take account of the implications of the duty.

·                    The Network Management Plan would be reviewed and reported upon every year in line with the reporting process for the LTP.

·                    If an authority failed to perform its network management duty, then the Act provided for the Secretary of State and the DfT to intervene and appoint a “Traffic Director”.

·                    Permit Schemes were designed to give LA’s further control over works on the highway.

·                    Permit Schemes would be designed to run as ‘cost neutral’. Estimated figures indicated that income from a Permit Scheme might run to £2 million per annum.

·                    Non-refundable cost of managing KHS works through a Permit Scheme would be in the region of £850k per annum.

·                    The DfT would give LA’s a six-month period to establish the permit process.

·                    KCC did have an option of concentrating on Electronic transfer of Notices (EtoN) to improve works co-ordination rather than adopting a Permit Scheme.

·                    The introduction of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) would bring financial penalties to works promoters for incorrect information that adversely affected roadworks co-ordination.

·                    The FPN’s would also be applied to local authority roadworks. The penalties would be recorded against performance indicators and would not be a financial restraint.

·                    DfT had completed its consultations for the FPN scheme and had indicated that the regulations were expected to come into force during mid - late 2007.

·                    The Act required local authorities to commence the noticing of their own roadworks. This would increase notices by 40% to over 70,000 per annum.

·                    Estimated that KHS would require 12 roadwork co-ordinators to manage the notices to ensure the scheme operated to its full potential.

·                    It might be possible to improve the processing of notices by investing in technology such as hand held equipment for the Highway Inspectors.

·                    DfT had indicated that guidelines for a FPN offence would not be issued and had indicated that legal procedures could be through Magistrates Courts.

(3)       It was estimated that 5% of notices might attract an FPN.  With effective management, an annual income of £640,000 could be achieved.

(4)       The current Medium Term Business Plan for the Directorate did not reflect any specific budgetary implications arising from the legislation due to the present uncertainty  on how the Government would direct the implementation of its financial aspects.  However, the cost of a Permit Scheme for Kent, estimated at £2.83m, would be self-funding.  It might be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       In December 2006 the County Council received its Local Transport Plan (LTP) capital settlement.  Part of the settlement was an allocation of £11,693,000 of borrowing approvals and grant to implement Integrated Transport (IT) schemes in 2007/08.  The Council’s budget had been determined by the County Council and it was agreed that borrowing should be capped at the level at which the borrowing was supported by additional funds the County Council received from Government and the additional £1,000,000 of borrowing approvals related to the Dartford Crossing would not be taken up.  The total IT allocation for 07/08 was therefore £7,239,000, 23% less than for 06/07.

(2)       The report detailed how the IT schemes allocation was proposed to be spent on implementing Kent’s Transportation and Safety Package Programme.  A summary of the allocations together with County-wide schemes was shown in Appendix 1 of the report.

(3)       Under the LTP2 Kent now received its allocation based on the Government’s formulaic approach to allocating Integrated Transport Block Capital comprising: congestion, public transport usage, road casualty statistics, accessibility and air quality.  These were based around delivering shared priorities agreed between the Government and the Local Government Association (LGA).  Depending on Kent’s ability to deliver schemes to meet LTP objectives funding in future years could be increased or reduced by up to 25%, should it be decided to take up the full allocation.  Accordingly, and to maximise inward investment, a more rigorous procedure had been developed to deliver schemes which would result in a successful LTP.

(4)       The 2007/08 programme had been developed according to a Design Guide Model (DGM), previously titled BAM, which used Kent’s shared priority objectives to guide the development of schemes.  The objective areas and the guide allocation of funds to meet them were: congestion (30%), public transport (25%), road safety (20%), accessibility (20%) and air quality (5%).  The proportions had been set in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste. Future programmes were being developed through a scheme prioritisation and delivery monitoring methodology (PIPKIN).  BAM and PIPKIN were reported to the Board on 11 July 2006 and were then approved by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste.

(5)       Ultimately PIPKIN would enable a single prioritised programme of schemes to be developed.  The 07/08 programme represented a transition towards this.

(6)       The Transportation and Safety Package Programme (TSP) was shown in detail in Appendix 2 of the report.  Key elements were as follows:-

•           Casualty Reduction Measures - £1,030,640 was proposed to implement 28 schemes to reduce the severity and number of casualties on Kent’s roads.  Schemes were assessed against strict casualty reduction criteria and helped the Council meet corporate manslaughter obligations.   It was estimated that the measures would save some 33  KSIs per year.  There were other schemes within the programme which included a road safety benefit, such as signing and traffic calming.

•           Kent Traffic Management Centre (TMC) - £500,000 to extend the congestion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.