Agenda and minutes

Further to Minute 1(2) of 11 November 2008, Mr Muckle requested progress on the guidelines being drawn up.  Work was continuing on the paper and the Chairman assured Members that he would endeavour to have a report for the next meeting.

(1)       Further to Minute 5(2) of 11 November 2008 – Permanent Lorry Park, Members requested details of the outcome on the award of the contract for the Economic Impact Study.  Caroline Bruce undertook to circulate details of progress to Members.

(2)       RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2008 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)       The Interim Director gave an oral update on some of the key issues and developments in KHS, as follows:-

(a) Staffing

Members would be aware that since the last HAB, John Hobbs had been unable to continue his work as Director of Highways Improvement for personal reasons. 

We were enjoying a period of stability and were starting to reap the benefits of this – staff had welcomed job security and morale was improving.  However, she recognised that many staff were still reeling from the significant change over the last four years, and she had some way to go to ensure that all staff felt happy and valued.  This was understandably one of her key priorities.

(b) Transformation

We were now nearing the end of the implementation of technology planned during transformation – with streetlighting moving from their Mayrise system to the WAMS/Confirm software during January and February.  Additionally Job Smart was being implemented and this would improve the programming of maintenance work and visibility of the status of fault repair to KHS staff and the Contact Centre – which would enable us to provide more information to the public about when a fault would be resolved.

A site for the West Kent depot was being actively pursued and she hoped to be able to share more details over the course of the next few months.

(c) Journey times into Maidstone

Anecdotally we had heard from a number of stakeholders - members, traders, bus operators - about the positive effect of the Traffic Management Centre and technology on journey times into Maidstone – and importantly the reliability of those journeys.  We now had data to evidence this improvement with journeys taking on average 3.5 minutes per mile in the peak run up to Christmas against a baseline in 2007 of 4.2 minutes per mile.

(d) Winter service

With the cold snap greeting the New Year it was timely to give an update on the winter service, but members would be aware that preparation for winter starts in October and might have seen the press coverage or heard radio interviews with one of the supervisors for the salting teams.

Coverage was on 30% of the road network with 53 salting routes and 64 vehicles carried out salting duties.  Salt was kept throughout the county for use by those vehicles.  Additionally 250 snow ploughs were held by farmers in rural areas and these had been serviced ready for action.

Salting runs were up by about 50% on this time last year.

As at 5 January, between 10,000 and 12,000 tonnes of salt was held in depots with further deliveries later in the week.  Members would also recall that we had started to use pre-wet salt (which basically improved stickability of the salt) and a report on this in the early summer was planned as part of the annual winter maintenance report to HAB which would be brought forward from September.

(e) LED programme

The programme to replace all traffic light heads with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

(1)       Mr May gave a presentation on Jobsmart having circulated a detailed diagram of the system.

JobSmart - What did it do?

• A way of electronically scheduling jobs to gangs effectively and efficiently

• A way of letting people know what was going to happen

• A way of getting clear job instructions to the gangs in the field

• A way of monitoring the live progress of things as they happened in the field

• A way of letting people know what had happened and storing records

JobSmart - How was it Smarter, Better, Faster?

• Live feedback of quality information to those who needed to know (informed   Customers)

• Effective scheduling of work leading to improved efficiency (value for money)

• Creating realistic targets and ensuring delivery (meeting Customer expectations)

• Passing on accurate information to gangs out in the field (safe and right first time)

• Capturing and exchanging data electronically (less paper, accessible records)

(2)       Following a detailed question and answer session, Mr May invited Members to visit Jobsmart.  The Chairman thanked Mr May for a very informative presentation.

(1)       The 12 Kent District Councils were responsible for the practical application of parking policy within a framework set by the County Council.  The requirements of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the associated Network Management Duties had placed a responsibility on KCC as the Highway Authority to provide a more efficient and economic civil enforcement package. There was an expectation that local authorities would provide a universal level of enforcement across the highway network with a concentrated presence in areas of increased risk, such as school sites.

(2)       There was a general concern that vehicles parked outside schools on legally enforceable school keep clear markings were causing a potential safety issue in many parts of the County.

(3)       Traditional enforcement patrols consisted of one Civil Enforcement Officer in a van. To regularly enforce school keep clear markings, the patrol must negotiate town centre traffic during the two busiest times of the working day, resulting in the possibility of only one school receiving enforcement per day. As an example, Thanet District contains 54 school keep clear markings and effectively, a regular patrol might take upward of eight weeks to complete an enforcement circuit of the District.

(4)       Although the possibility remained of using more than one enforcement patrol to visit the schools, this had serious repercussions on the enforcement of the remainder of the District on a day-to-day basis.

(5)       There was also a concern that more rural areas and those locations where there were few waiting restrictions were not being enforced as rigorously as other localities and that illegal parking might cause safety issues. Although the sites were included within regular enforcement beats, they were often not enforced as frequently as the busier town centre and residential areas.  

(6)            There were often telephone calls received from members of the general public reporting illegal and unsafe parking both at school sites and in more remote locations. If an enforcement officer was despatched, the vehicle had more often moved on by the time the patrol was able to reach the location.

(7)       Kent County Council officers had agreed to operate a one-year motorcycle enforcement pilot scheme in partnership with Thanet District Council to provide high level enforcement at all schools within their District along with a rapid response to more remote locations. The scheme would commence, following a publicity campaign to local schools, on 1 April 2009.  The pilot scheme would be closely monitored in order that all results could be analysed at the end of the 12 month period.

(8)       Kent County Council was to provide funding of approximately £40k to purchase one motorcycle, one staff member, all equipment and full training. Thanet District Council would provide all insurance costs, vehicle running costs and maintenance. They would employ the necessary staff member under their terms and conditions for a 1 year period.

(9)       Similar motorcycle enforcement schemes elsewhere in England had been successful in reducing the problems caused by inconsiderate parking outside schools and in more remote locations.

(10)            Patrols  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(1)       Further to Minute 3 of 8 July 2008 concerning Magnolia Avenue, Cliftonville, and the need for KHS to consider an approach to maintaining the Authority’s minor concrete roads asset, the report updated members on progress in assessing the County’s concrete estate roads.

(2)       The condition assessment of Kent’s minor roads was achieved by a visual survey carried out on a two year cycle. Six Districts were surveyed one year and the remaining six the following year. The six Districts being surveyed this year were: Maidstone, Canterbury, Gravesham, Shepway, Thanet and Tunbridge Wells.  In order to complete an assessment of the condition of the concrete road asset, this year’s survey will be extended to cover concrete roads in the other six Districts that the local Highway Inspector considered were in need of attention. The report would be followed up with a further report in April to promote a programme of repairs.

(3)       This year’s visual survey was being enhanced to record the particular types of deterioration exhibited by concrete roads to enable a comprehensive assessment of the needs for maintaining that part of the roads asset. Therefore, the concrete road survey data would be separately analysed to develop a specific programme of repairs for the County’s concrete estate roads.

(4)       A further report would be presented to the May meeting of the Board to consider the needs for investment in the concrete roads asset. The report would make use of the enhanced survey and analysis used to compile a proposed programme of works.

(5)       The Board noted:-

(a)       the progress being made in identifying the need for investment in the County’s concrete estate roads; and

(b)       that a further report would be submitted post April 2009.

Prior to consideration of the report Members received a presentation from  Mr White, Transport & Development Business Manager.

(1)       The publication of the “Manual for Streets (Department for Transport, Communities and Local Government & Welsh Assembly Government, March 2007)” had necessitated a review of the Kent Design Guide. Furthermore, the publication of Planning Policy Statement PPS3: “Housing (Communities & Local Government, November 2006)” heralded a shift in guidance concerning residential parking ‘standards’ such that local planning authorities were required to produce residential parking policies for their areas. Kent’s District Councils asked Kent Highway Services to use its considerable knowledge and growing evidence base on the subject to produce a response to PPS3.

(2)       The public realm arm of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, Space, facilitated an external review of the Kent Design Guide that gave it a relatively clean bill of health. However, the visibility guidance in the Guide had been superseded, the Quality Audit ‘concept to completion’ process needed to be enlarged upon and the guidance in respect of residential parking needed to be emphasised. The latter also satisfied the need to replace the residential parking element of Kent and Medway Structure Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG4 (Vehicle Parking Standards) to accord with PPS3.

(3)       The Kent Planning Officers Group (KPOG), as ‘client’ for the Kent Design Initiative, had overseen preparation of and consultation on the resulting Interim Guidance Notes. They had been approved by KPOG and were to be offered for adoption, for Development Control purposes, by Medway Council and Kent’s District Councils. Formal approval by Kent County Council would encourage such adoption.

Interim Guidance Note 1 – Quality Audits

(4)       The Kent Design Guide promoted collaborative working (“the Development Team approach”) on all developments involving the creation of new streets and places. Manual for Streets developed the idea into Quality Audits. These enabled the Development Team to balance a range of complimentary and competing factors to arrive at the best overall development.

(5)       The Quality Audit Note established the way that Quality Audits should work, with reference to the Building for Life standard that was being recommended for use by all those involved in designing, assessing and building new housing.

(6)       The Note also drew upon survey work conducted by Kent Highway Services, in conjunction with the Kent Design Initiative, into residents’ views on recently completed developments.

Interim Guidance Note 2 – “Visibility”

(7)       The ‘visibility standards’ contained in the Kent Design Guide had been superseded by the guidance contained in Manual for Streets. The Interim Guidance Note explained the changes and related them to good design.

Interim Guidance Note 3 – Residential Parking

(8)      Parking was by far the biggest cause of dissatisfaction among residents of recently completed developments. In spite of the guidance contained in the Kent Design Guide, discredited ideologies on the location, design and number of spaces were still being imposed. PPS3 sought a design-led approach that took account of expected levels of car ownership, having regard for the most efficient  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(1)        The report set out the current position concerning the provision of bus stop clearways in the Canterbury district, and recommended that the Cabinet Member approved the original recommendation of the report considered by the Canterbury Joint Transportation Board (JTB) on 25 November 2008 that all present and future bus stop clearways should be restricted for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.    

(2)     The Department for Transport (DfT) set out its guidelines on the provision of bus stop clearways in DfT circular 02/2003: The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002. Paragraphs 24-32 set out the new regulations which were designed to enable buses to pull up level with the kerb at bus stops in order to facilitate easy access and egress for bus passengers. In addition, the regulations foresee the legally binding requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 2004, which required all buses to be DDA compliant by 2017. This meant that wheel-chair users must be able to access and egress low-floor buses at all times of operation, including evening and early morning services. To restrict access by bus to able-bodied passengers only during those times by restricting the times of operation of bus stop clearways would be contrary to the requirements of the DDA, and would therefore require further changes to the bus stop infrastructure when the whole bus fleet was converted to low-floor access by 2017.

(3)     Paragraph 29 of TSRGD was particularly relevant to the issue of the period of time for which the restrictions should apply to vehicles other than buses stopping at bus stop clearways. It stated:  “.. and that the hours of operation and enforcement should take account of the hours when buses are operating”. As buses operated on all the principal inter-urban routes serving Canterbury between 0600 and 2400, and on most of the city centre routes between 0630 and 2330, and as the DfT guidelines permitted the restriction to apply 24 hours a day, it was recommended that this provision be applied to all present and future bus stop clearways in the Canterbury district. The reason for the uniform approach was that, where a timed restriction applied, vehicles frequently parked during the evening and were not removed until after the morning peak period had commenced, causing serious problems for access and egress at bus stops when they were blocked by parked vehicles.

(4)     The development and improvement of the bus network was dependent on a constructive working partnership between the bus operator, the City Council and the County Council. This had been exemplified in Canterbury by the operation of a Quality Bus Partnership (QBP), which sought to promote improvements to bus services through understanding and co-operation between the parties to the QBP. The extension of bus stop clearway restrictions so that they applied all day every day was an essential pre-requisite for the success of the QBP, as it would be indicative of a serious commitment by KCC to the support of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(1)        The latest results of the work carried out by Jacobs UK on the speed limit review were set out in the report.  This was the latest in a series of HAB reports on the speed limit review. It set out the funding implications for the implementation of the demonstration project; gave details of the communication process with the parish council and others on the demonstration area; set out the recommendations of the review of phase 1; and gave details of the programme for the completion of the review. 

(2)          The estimated cost of the recommended changes in the demonstration area was £225,621. This covered the signing and lining required to make the limits enforceable and clear to drivers whilst seeking to reduce clutter wherever possible. A detailed breakdown of the costs was set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

(3)          In May 2008 presentations were given to the parish councils in the demonstration area. The presentations included an opening address by Keith Ferrin and he was followed by presentations from Jacobs on how the speed limits were considered; the Kent Police Traffic Unit gave their position; and John Wilson, who had represented all of the parish councils in the demonstration area. In addition to the presentations copies of the Jacobs report were provided and the parish councils were invited to comment on the reports recommendations. Subsequently a number of comments were received along with letters from individual residents, a local Councillor and action groups. The review team, the Kent Traffic Police and John Wilson, reconsidered the comments. A further report was then produced and circulated to all those who wrote to the council giving details of any subsequent changes or giving detailed explanation on why further changes could not be included.

(4)        The review on Phase 1 was now complete and a draft report had been prepared.  It covered 11 “A” class roads and 9 “B” class roads (a complete list of roads was set out in Appendix 2 of the report), and 109 parish councils (a complete list of councils was set out in Appendix 3 of the report). The report recommended reductions to 40 speed limits and increased to 13 which represented changes to 19.18% of the total of 267km of road covered within the phase 1 area.

(5)         During discussion Caroline Bruce undertook to provide Members with details of the above changes, following the meeting.

(6)         The programme for the completion of the review of the A and B road network was as follows:-

(7)         Local communication with Parish Councils in the demonstration area had been through John Wilson of East Farleigh PC who had agreed to act for all of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.