Agenda and draft minutes

Further to Minute 1 of 6 January 2009, the Chairman referred to the Advice Note circulated to Board Members prior to the meeting.  Members were grateful for the guidelines and would participate in future debates with an open mind.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2009 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Report by Interim Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       Members had requested a written update for each meeting of the Board. This report in particular covered the excellent response to a colder than average winter. Other key areas covered included white lining, Parish Portal, Permits and Kent Traffic Officers.

(2)       Permit Scheme for Kent

            This subject was covered in detail in paragraph 7 below. However, excellent progress was reported with the likely introduction of a permit scheme in 2009 (subject to approval by the Secretary of State). This was a national first and reflected the excellent background undertaken by the Network Management team over a two year period. The progress reflected the County Council’s strategic aims to improve traffic flows and reduce congestion across Kent.

(3)       Winter Service

            Kent Highways Services was very pro-active in responding to the snow and ice emergency which gripped Kent and the UK during December, January and February. 50 salting runs were completed between October and January which would normally cover the whole winter period. In comparison, during 2007-08, only 30 runs were necessary. Kent was early to react to the emergency ensuring that adequate stocks of salt were maintained in the face of a national shortage. It was worth noting that some serious flooding issues were managed effectively after the snow emergency in February.

(4)       White Lining

White lining would be treated as a major priority in the first three months of 09/10 and all towns in Kent would receive a re-fresh of lines up to one km out of the town centre. A re-fresh of lines would also be undertaken where there was a high incidence of crashes. The opportunity would be taken to invite districts to request re-lining in relation to their parking responsibilities.

(5)       Kent Traffic Officers

            Good progress was reported on the establishment of Kent Traffic Officers (KTOs) who would be another key weapon in the fight against traffic congestion. Kent Police approved the County Council’s draft accreditation application on 23 December 2008. Publicity on the issue commenced on 15 February. A number of training sessions had been undertaken through Kent Police, particularly relating to the use of Police Powers.

(6)       Parish Portals

The Parish Portal was a key part of Kent Highway Services’ transformation initiative and was designed to offer a full range of highways services online. “My Kent Highways Online” will provide the public, parish representatives, District Councils and County Members with a number of 'online services' to make access to highways services more convenient.  Workshop-style seminars with parishes and county members took place on 20 and 27 February.

(7)       Staff Morale and Performance

Positive staff morale was growing and was reflected in improving standards of customer and Member care, evidenced by the comments received from staff on a regular basis and by improved performance.

(8)          Kent Highway Services was making positive progress both in its drive to become a more effective operational unit but also in terms of wider policy objectives such as congestion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Report by Head of Asset Management)

(Mr G Horne, MBE was present for this item and had requested to speak)

(1)       Members had been aware for some time of the poor performance of EDF with regard to requests for work from KHS Street lighting, both in the repair of faults as well as the provision of new connections.

(2)       There had been no lack of effort from KHS staff in pursuing EDF for an improved performance but in the vast majority of cases, the chase had proved fruitless for whatever reason EDF had put forward. In the majority of cases, a lack of ‘jointing resources’, to make the connection from the EDF Network to the KHS streetlight system, appeared to have been the fundamental underlying problem for EDF. Demands across the south east for skilled jointers had far outweighed the number of qualified jointers available to EDF

            (3)       The performance indicator used by KHS with regard to EDF was “Average days to respond to streetlight faults” with a target of 30 days. For the year to date (to December ’08), EDF had managed 64.7 days, from KHS records. To help Members, the performance of KHS in repairing faults had been on average for the year 4.7 days, when the work had been released to the contracting arm, against a target of 5 days.

            (4)       To move the whole performance effort forward, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) had been developed in joint consultation between EDF Energy Networks and representatives of Local Authority Lighting Customers and incorporated as a minimum standard the Ofgem National SLA recommendations released in October 2007 with regard to unmetered connections. Though not legally binding, the SLA outlined the minimum level of service to which EDF Energy Networks and Local Authorities would aim to work.

            (5)       Extracts from the SLA were set out in the Appendix to the report and gave Members a feel for the new targets for EDF for both faults and new connections, in the vast majority complying with KHS targets for EDF. Ofgem required EDF to report performance data for street lighting on a quarterly basis. The data had first to be agreed with the customers, the lighting authorities. If agreement could not be reached, Ofgem would be informed of that fact for their assessment.

            (6)       Performance meetings would be held on a regular basis with EDF, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annually with the quarterly meeting in place to agree the performance data that was submitted to Ofgem. The performance meetings together with project and ad hoc meetings would allow a professional and trusting working relationship to develop.

            (7)       To ensure that KHS transfers all required information to EDF when requesting fault repairs or new works, the new business management system being put in place within KHS would automatically complete all necessary details to be sent to EDF thus removing any possible delays at the Kent end.

            (8)       The Head of Asset Management was optimistic that the SLA represented a positive and constructive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Report by Head of Countywide Improvements)

(1)       The assessment of the condition of the highway network was essentially divided into two Categories: Classified (A, B and C Class) roads and Unclassified (the remainder) of the network.

Classified Roads

(2)       The assessment of the condition of these roads was carried out using a vehicle mounted measurement system known as ‘Traffic – Speed Condition Survey’ (TRACS). This records cracking, deformation, riding quality and surface texture. The process was also linked to identified skid deficient sites which had been determined from a combination of crash details in wet weather conditions and the actual measurement of skid deficiency. Additional testing was used to determine whether the road would fail from heavy vehicle loading.  The combination of the results was verified by site inspections and engineering judgement was used  to determine the most appropriate treatment necessary to prolong the life of the road being considered, e.g. reconditioning, strengthening, resurfacing, surface dressing, etc.

Unclassified Roads

(3)       The assessment of the condition was undertaken by driven visual inspection. Additional sites could be added from other sources such as highway inspectors, Members, the public and Parish Councils.  Whereas the major road network was likely to fail from vehicle loading, the minor network was much more likely to fail from ageing. Subsequent site inspections were therefore undertaken to verify the condition and determine the most appropriate treatment.

Surfacing Needs

(4)       Previous priorities had been based on treatment of ‘worst first’ rating from the database of the condition of the network. A new process had been devised that based the treatment of the network on economic rating and prioritised roads that had been rated on a cost effective treatment basis.  That was to say; if a road was in the ‘worst list’ this year it might deteriorate very little in the next couple of years and the treatment would be the same at the end of the period, however another road might be lower down on the ‘worst list’ this year but over the next couple of years it could deteriorate rapidly and if left untreated would require major works.  Therefore it was more cost effective to treat these sooner than those which appeared to be in a worse condition.

(5)       The current maintenance emphasis was on the reduction of reactive maintenance works, in particular on the minor network.  The aim for the surfacing programme this year was to treat the roads that were more liable to need reactive treatment. It had been decided therefore, that the 2009/10 works programme would contain approximately 70% of sites that were in the Minor & Locally Important hierarchy.

(6)       Significant additional funding (subject to approval) had thus been made available in 2009/10 to redress the balance. The budget for Carriageway and Footway Resurfacing for next year was likely to be set at around £20m compared with less than £10m in this year. 

(7)       From the sites initially prioritised, only 24 were shown as requiring Surface Dressing (in 08/09 there were over three times as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report by Head of Transport & Development Planning)

(1)       Kent County Council’s (KCC) local transport funding for 2009/10 was determined by the Department for Transport (DfT) in November 2007 as part of its assessment and settlement announcement regarding Kent’s transport strategy, the Local Transport Plan (LTP).  This funding had been provided to support local transport schemes that delivered the LTP, which itself set out the County Council’s approach to achieving a number of key transport objectives, including:-

·        Improve access to key services by sustainable modes of transport;

·        Tackle the occurrence of peak hour congestion, particularly in larger urban areas;

·        Improve road safety by reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Kent’s roads;

·        Improve local air quality, particularly in designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).

            (2)       Kent’s LTP funding for 2009/10 included a capital allocation of £14.752M, which consisted of borrowing approvals and grant and was specifically for the implementation of Integrated Transport (IT) schemes.  Of the £14.752M, £2.600M would be used to fund detailed design and supervision of construction of 2009/10 schemes as well as forward design of 2010/11 schemes, and £2.200M was required to complete the 2008/09 programme.  These included schemes which had been deferred in order to provide additional funding for maintenance in 2008/09.  This resulted in a budget of £9.952M for implementation of new schemes.  The allocation for new schemes in 2008/09 was £9.65M.

      (3)                   The report provided details of the 69 schemes that made up the proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 together with a brief summary of key elements of the programme.  The schemes proposed for 2009/10 were set out in the Appendix 1 to the report.

(4)       The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 had been devised using Kent’s Scheme Prioritisation Methodology, PIPKIN.  A report outlining the principles and a proposal to implement PIPKIN was presented to the Board in July 2006, and was approved by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste on the strength of the recommendations of this Board.

            (5)       All scheme proposals had been subjected to a formal assessment and prioritised in accordance with their likely impact and wider contribution towards Kent’s strategic and local transport objectives.  The relative merit of each scheme had been determined in comparison to others submitted in the same year.  Revisions to the viability of some schemes, such as their public acceptability and their deliverability, and the inclusion of previously approved carryovers from the 2008/09 programme had resulted in a final list of 69 new schemes to be funded from the 2009/10 budget.  Schemes which had not achieved sufficient priority could be resubmitted as part of the 2010/11 programme.

(6)       The 2010/11 programme would be assessed using a revised scheme prioritisation system.  The system was currently being developed through an informal member group and would be the subject of a future report to the Board.

(7)       The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 included:-

(a)       Funding for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report by Network Performance Manager)

(1)       The purpose of the report was to inform the Highways Advisory Board of the progress with the development and introduction of a Permit Scheme into Kent.  No recommendations were required at this stage and the purpose of the report was to provide information only.

(2)       Through the introduction of a Permit Scheme, Kent County Council intended to increase its powers of coordination and management of activities by works promoters competing for space or time in the street. The Traffic Management Act (TMA), under which a Permit Scheme could be applied and introduced, broadened the coordination and co-operation duties under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA). Therefore the Kent Permit Scheme was intended to make coordination and management more effective and delivered the following specific objectives:

§     to improve safety – for those using, living or working on the street, including those engaged in activities controlled by the Scheme;

§     to minimise the inconvenience and disruption caused by roadworks activities on people using the streets;

§     to protect the structure of the street and the integrity of apparatus in it.

(3)       In a wider policy context, the County Council was committed to fighting the effects of traffic congestion and this was a priority in its Towards 2010 programme. A successful permit scheme would contribute significantly to aiding the “expeditious” movement of traffic on the highway which was a requirement under the TMA.

(4)       Further to guidance from Department for Transport, the Kent Permit Scheme underwent further design and development during the last three months of 2008. The key areas of change included the production of a cost-benefit assessment, specifically for operational permitting aligned to the stated objectives. In addition, the proposed method of operation had to be adapted to meet with the national interface for electronic transfer of information between works promoters and the highways authority.

(5)       As a result of the Scheme development a decision was made to enter into a third mini-consultation with the public stakeholders, including the works promoters. The consultation concluded on 12 December 2008 with an overall positive and supportive response from the stakeholders.

(6)       On 14 January 2009, Kent County Council submitted an application to operate a Permit Scheme within Kent to the Secretary of State for Transport. A copy of the Kent Permit Scheme and application was also sent to the Department for Transport (DfT). The DfT undertake a review and assessment of the Scheme and make the ultimate recommendation to the Secretary of State.

(7)       The application letter requested an early meeting with the DfT to discuss the Scheme and the development of the full cost-benefit assessment. This request was met with a positive response and a meeting was held on 12 February 2009 with the Head of the Traffic Management Division.  Early feedback from the DfT in relation to the Kent Permit Scheme content was very positive. The project team would continue working closely with the DfT to support their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report by Head of Transport & Development)

(1)     Public Transport was experiencing growth in Kent.  The County Council had been at the forefront of developing and implementing new partnership initiatives in recent years through Kickstart funding, and had continued to work closely through its Quality Bus Partnerships (QBPs) with operators and district councils to improve local bus services.  Passenger numbers had increased by some 20% over the past 5 years.  In 2005/06 some 45.7 million trips were recorded, in 2006/07 48.6m trips were recorded and in 2007/08 51.7m trips.  During 2008/09 a number of key initiatives had been delivered and further initiatives were planned for 2009/10.  The report updated Members on progress.

(2)       Quality Bus Partnerships

The Transport Act 2000 and the Local Transport Act 2008 provided for the establishment of Voluntary Partnership Agreements between bus operators, district councils and county councils. These were generally known as Quality Bus Partnerships (QBPs) and by the end of 2008 there were four in existence in Kent – Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury and Thanet. On 9 February 2009 an Ashford QBP was signed, a four-party agreement which also included the Ashford’s Future Partnership Board. It was also intended to reach agreement for the signing of a Dover QBP by the end of April 2009. QBPs established close working relationships between the parties to each agreement, and aimed to improve the quality and reliability of bus services through the attainment of targets for punctuality, reliability, bus stop access and other improvements.  Kent had been particularly successful at establishing QBPs and encouraging investment in Kent which had brought significant improvements in local bus services.

(3)       Bus Stop Improvements

Kent Highway Services, in partnership with Arriva Southern Counties and Stagecoach East Kent, was implementing a programme of improvements to bus stops throughout the county. This would eventually result in every urban bus stop being provided with a 24/7 bus stop clearway (to prevent unlawful parking), a raised kerb (wherever possible) to assist the mobility impaired, a clearly branded bus stop flag, and clear tailored timetable information for the routes serving the stop.  It was planned to launch a new roadside infrastructure unit contract to upgrade and maintain timetable information during 2009.

(4)       Kent Freedom Pass

The Kent Freedom Pass scheme enabling free travel for £50 annual pass for young people living in Kent and schooled in Kent in academic years 7-11 had been expanded, with Swale and Thanet districts being added in January 2009. The final four districts – Dartford, Gravesham, Sevenoaks and Ashford – would complete the scheme in June 2009.  This innovative approach had seen a significant increase in bus passenger journeys by young people.  There were currently over 12,000 passes on issue and on average some 250,000 trips were made per school term month.

(5)       KCC Kickstart

The principle of pump-priming existing bus services to improve the quality of service had been adopted by KCC, with over £1 million of capital funding for the provision of new vehicles.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report by Interim Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       Satisfaction surveys, to gauge perception of the highway service had been carried out since 1987.  The 2008 survey was carried out in November and December and included seeking views from residents, County Members, Parish/Town Councils and for the first time, District Members.

(2)       The survey was conducted by an independent market research company called BMG and a summary of the results were presented in the report.  The information would be used to help improve service delivery.

(3)       A total of 1,237 face to face interviews were carried out on a representative sample of Kent residents with approximately 100 interviews, reflecting the age, gender and economic status, in each of the twelve Districts.  This sample size gave a +/- 2.78% accuracy for results at a County level and +/- 10% accuracy at a District level.

(4)       In addition to residents views the same survey questions were asked of all County and District Members and Parish/Town Councils.  A total of 63 County Members responded (a response rate of 75%), 193 District Members replied (a response rate of 33%) whilst for Parish/Town Councils a total of 154 completed the survey (a response rate of 50%).

(5)       The questionnaire comprised over 40 questions, ranging from satisfaction with the condition of roads, pavements, streetlights and local bus and train service, the most important and most in need of improvement of the services KHS provided, through to views on congestion, accessibility to local services and vulnerability when using the highway.

(6)       Results were reported by 'Net-Satisfaction'.  This was a figure calculated by taking the % of people who were dis-satisfied with the service from the % who were satisfied. This gave a true reflection of the service and a balance between those happy, those un-happy and those who were not sure.

(7)       The key headline from the survey was the continuing improvement in the public’s perception of roads, pavements and streetlights.  For the third successive year there were more residents satisfied than dissatisfied and the last two years results were shown in the Table below.  More detail was set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

(8)       The other key headline was the significant difference in perception between residents and County Members, District Members and Parish/Town Councils.  This continued the trend over the last three years where there were significantly more members dissatisfied than satisfied with roads, pavements and streetlights, although there had been an improvement this year from the 2007 results.  The results were set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

(9)       Overall 73% of residents were aware of Kent Highway Services prior to the interview.  Whilst 28%  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report by Countywide Improvements Major Projects Manager)

(1)            It was an appropriate time to update the Board on progress of the major transport and highway schemes following the last report in September 2008.  It was the intention to continue to provide reports half yearly and when there were important issues to bring to Members notice.

              (2)            The last six months continued to be dominated by the considerable efforts of the Team in progressing the growth area schemes in Kent Thameside and Ashford within the funding and time constraints; and progressing other schemes, mainly in East Kent.  There had been some considerable successes and substantive progress in this period against a backdrop of continuing change within KHS and E&R and new operating systems.

(3)            Eurokent Phases 4 & 5 was opened on time in November.  The scheme had been forward funded by the County Council to facilitate future mixed use development with pay-back from the raised land values.

(4)            Fort Hill De-dualling was completed on time in October.  A Stopping Up Order for the redundant highway was successfully achieved on 6 November.  Both of these aspects were crucial to allowing the Turner Contempoary construction contract to start on time.  The scheme included public realm improvements to The Parade, King Street and Duke Street on behalf of Margate Renewal Partnership and these were substantially completed in February.  Public Realm works to Harbour View at the entrance to Turner Contemporary and the Pier were about to start.

(5)            The Shared Space elements of Ashford Ring Road opened in November, consistent with its revised budget and programme, so that Ashford town centre was clear of traffic management in the critical pre-Christmas trading period.  The scheme had had mixed reviews but as an innovative scheme its operation and safety would be closely monitored.  Newtown Road Bridge was completed in December giving a less oppressive wider span and in particular increased headroom to accommodate future Smartlink buses.

(6)            The statutory orders for Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road were confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport on 23 December 2008.  This followed the Public Inquiry in July and had endorsed, in particular, the proposal for a low level fixed link bridge crossing of Milton Creek.  All efforts were now being directed at the next stage of funding approval to enable a substantive start to be made before September 2009, within the validity period of the planning consent.

(7)            The statutory orders for East Kent Access Phase 2 were expected to be confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport in March 2009.  This followed a frustrating period over nearly 2 years, since the Public Inquiry, to secure a piece of land by voluntary negotiation for a replacement EDF sub-station that in turn allowed the orders to be confirmed.  All efforts were now being directed at the next stage of funding approval to enable a substantive start to be made before September 2009, within the validity period of the planning consent.  Construction tenders were invited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.