Agenda and minutes

The Board noted that Mr T J Birkett and Mr R Truelove had replaced Mr R J E Parker and Mr K Sansum.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 May 2007 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(Report by Divisional Manager, East Kent)

(1)       The presentation from Matthew Sims explained some of the pertinent changes that had been implemented this year to improve KHSs approach to cyclic maintenance.  The main points of discussion were a change of approach to street lighting faults, which had already seen a dramatic decrease in outstanding faults; targeting of specific maintenance activities to achieve an approach to maintenance which allowed the optimum balance between the efficiencies of planning work and the need to be responsive to customers.  This was primarily in the field of potholes, patching, signs & lines, safety fencing and gully emptying.

(2)       There was also an explanation of the need to target ‘safety critical maintenance’ as a priority, enabling KHS to provide evidence of a risk based approach to maintenance.

(3)       The need to review the HAB approved policy of highway maintenance would explain the gap between policy statements, available budget and vision of how maintenance should be undertaken.  The presentation was a forerunner to a paper at the next HAB which would seek authority for an interim policy on the asset maintenance plan.

(4)       Finally, the presentation explained the issues surrounding potholes and the way in which they occurred and the complexities of repairing.  The presentation discussed the issues of materials, traffic management, cost and volume; there was also a look at the possible future of pothole repairs.

(5)       Following a question and answer session, Mr Sims undertook to circulate copies of the slides used to Members of the Board.

(6)       The Chairman thanked Mr Sims for a very informative presentation.

(Report by Capital Programme Manager)

(1)       In December 2005, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence took the decision, following public consultation, to progress the scheme known as Alternative Route B.  The Officer recommendation was for Alternative Route A and Members of the Highways Advisory Board were split equally in their views between the two options.  The adopted route was strongly opposed by M-Real New Thames Ltd and M-Real Sittingbourne Ltd, who owned Kemsley Mill, and the adjacent and associated private sector interests of Fletcher Challenge Industries, Rexam Property Developments and Kemsley Fields Ltd who were now all directly affected (all referred to for ease in the report as ‘the Mill’).  They saw no basis for departing from the established proposals and affecting their existing and future interests to the benefit of residents of new housing development in the Recreation Way area.

(2)       The adopted scheme had been progressed and it achieved planning consent in September 2006.  The Mill retained their strong opposition to the scheme.  The Compulsory Purchase Order, Side Roads Order and the S106 Scheme for the Milton Creek Crossing were published in February 2007.  The Mill again retained their objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order and Side Roads Order and submitted formal statutory objections.  There were 27 objections to the S106 Scheme.

(3)       The normal process would now be for the Secretary of State to instruct a Public Inquiry following the advice of the County Council on a suggested venue and dates.  At the Inquiry the County Council would present evidence to convince the Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, of the merits of the scheme.  This could be done and a robust case could be presented.  However, there were a number of aspects that needed to be considered in view of the continued and sustained objections of the Mill.  These could be summarised as follows:-

·                    The Mill was a long standing major employer and contributor to the economy of the town.

·                    A key purpose of the scheme was to support existing businesses and future regeneration.

·                    The scheme reduced the length of storage available for in-bound HGV’s on the approach to the Mill and the weighbridge.

·                    The scheme took land from that designated in the Local Plan for a possible future paper making mill – while the land take was relatively small, paper mills were long linear production lines and any loss of land was considered significant by the Mill.

·                    The Scheme encroached onto land that the Mill was seeking to have designated in the Local Plan for commercial development.

·                    The route of the Relief Road was long established and pre dated residential development in the immediate area and particularly Recreation Way.

·                    Owners of the houses would have acquired the properties in the knowledge of the proposals for the Relief Road.

·                    The Officer recommendation was for Alternative Route A.

(4)       Officers had maintained contact with the Mill to better understand the operation of the mill, their objections and to challenge their validity.  While their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(Report by Director of Kent Highway Services)

(1)       The report was for Members’ information and referred to the proposed introduction of a new safety camera housing on the A229 Loose Road in Maidstone.  A previous proposal for narrowing of the carriageway and construction of a pelican crossing was withdrawn and other means of addressing local concern about the creation of a safe crossing point had subsequently been investigated.

(2)       This was a very busy section of the A229 Primary Route, and there had been considerable discussion at the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board about highway problems in the area.  The concern was based on the desire to protect pedestrians crossing the wide, four lane carriageway, and to prevent vehicles from approaching the sharp bend into Sheals Crescent at high speeds, the road was subject to a 30mph speed limit.

(3)       Pedestrian crossing movements were dominated by students heading for the Maidstone Boys Grammar School in Barton Road in the morning, and parents/children heading to and from Southborough Primary School.  Although there was a pedestrian bridge near the Primary School, it had long approach ramps and steps at the top, so many pedestrians chose to cross at ground level.  The speeding issue also caused concern to residents of Sheals Crescent, who had seen the crash barrier at the bend struck and damaged.

(4)       Other means of speed management were investigated.  The A229 being a primary route and four lanes wide, did not allow traffic calming measures to be implemented.  The possibility of an interactive bend warning sign was considered, but the alignment of the road would make it difficult to locate a sign to give drivers adequate warning of the bend, without placing it so far away that vehicles would have time to build up speed again before the turning into Sheals Crescent.

(5)       An additional speed camera housing was therefore considered, as the stretch of road lay between two other existing sites.  It would therefore be seen as an additional measure on a road already subject to camera enforcement where crashes continued to be reported.

(6)       A site meeting was held to look at the potential location for a safety camera on Loose Road just south of Sheals Crescent.  The most suitable location for a camera to reduce speeds approaching the sharp bend was in the entrance of the former vehicle access to Southborough School.  This would encourage drivers to approach the bend at a lower speed than currently occurred reducing the risk of crashes.  There would be some requirement for ancillary works in association with the camera, including kerb protection for the camera post, setting back of the guardrails within the school access, removal of one road sign, and some new carriageway surfacing in which to bed the detector loops.  It was also felt that the lay-by area offered a suitable and safe location from which to carry out camera maintenance.

(7)       The crash record supported the use of an additional camera bid.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       The Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership (K&MSCP) was launched in 2002. The partnership operated across the Kent Police area covering both Kent and Medway and its sole purpose was to reduce road crash casualties.

(2)       The K&MSCP produced an annual report for each Partner organisation setting out progress to date and challenges for the future. Each year the report was presented to the Board as Appendix 1, and considered six issues associated with safety cameras in the county and the Kent Police area as a whole:-

·                    An overview of the partnership and its structure

·                    Funding

·                    Operations during 2006/07

·                    Casualty reduction

·                    Communications

·                    Future activity and funding arrangements

(3)       In recent years road crash casualties in Kent had reduced overall. The success was due to a variety of factors involving many areas of work undertaken and supported by the various partners and stakeholders. However, the contribution of the work of the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership should not be underestimated. The partnership had been in existence for five years, during this time its work had reduced casualties at camera sites, consistently performing at above the national average. To fulfil KCC’s commitment to reducing all seriously injured (KSI) casualties by 40%, by December 2007, 478 fewer KSIs were needed, 69 had already been achieved by safety cameras alone.

(4)       The Board acknowledged the annual report of the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership.

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       The crash records for 2006 for Kent were finalised in May.  The totals were used in establishing best value performance indicators, government targets and establishing trends.  In 2006, 89 people were killed on roads in Kent (excluding Medway), 658 received serious injuries and 5748 were slightly injured.  There were 4752 crashes.  Appendix 1 of the report showed crashes and casualties by severity for 2006.

(2)       To help focus on achieving continuous improvement in road safety the Government had set a national target for reducing casualties by 2010. Compared with the 1994-98 average the target was:-

·                    A 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents (KSI) – KCC as part of PSA2 intended to achieve the target by the end of 2007.

·                    A 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured.

·                    A 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100million vehicle kilometres (MVKm). Kent did not have a traffic model appropriate for KCC roads. Therefore a simple 10% reduction in slight casualties had been used to set targets in Kent.

(3)       Appendix 2 of the report showed that compared with the 2010 target KSI, casualties on Kent roads including motorways and trunk roads were 3% above the 2010 target. Child KSI casualties were just below the 2010 target. Slight casualties showed a reduction of 3%.    Appendix 3 of the report showed that on the roads for which KCC was responsible, the 2010 targets had been achieved.  Casualties on roads for which the Highway Agency was responsible had increased in 2006 compared with the previous year. However individual year on year figures were volatile and the overall trend provided a better indication than individual years.  The overall year on year trends were shown in Appendices 4, 5 and 6 of the report.

(4)       Appendix 2 of the report also showed that on Kent roads child KSI casualties increased from 47 in 2005 to 74 casualties in 2006, however the 2006 figure compared with the 2004 figure of 87, showed a decrease of 15%, indicating 2005 was abnormally low. The variable nature of year on year totals were shown on the trend graph from 1990 for child KSI casualties.  The 2006 total KSI casualties on Kent roads showed a 1.3% reduction compared with 2005, which might indicate a flattening out of the overall downward trend.  2006 slight casualties on Kent roads showed a 1.5 % reduction compared with 2005.

(5)       Overall KCC‘s performance was good and well placed to meet and maintain the 2010 KSI targets. The trend in casualties continued the well established downward pattern albeit that it did appear to be flattening out. It was vital that programmes of work aimed at both improving the road infrastructure and road user behaviour continued to be delivered.  Focused and stronger casualty reduction links with the Highway Agency, Police, Fire and Rescue and the other partners were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       At the meeting of the Board in May 2007, Members requested a report on the feasibility of bus lanes in Tunbridge Wells operating at peak times only and allowing HGV’s access.  As there were bus lanes elsewhere in Kent, consideration of the issue should be on a countywide basis.  The report outlined options under consideration both nationally and locally for the use of bus lanes by other vehicles and on a part-time basis.

(2)       A priority vehicle lane was an area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order, for the use of buses, bicycles, goods vehicles and taxis.  In addition to conventional bus lanes, a number of other models of priority vehicle lanes had been trialled in the UK and the report identified the benefits of each approach.  The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allowed local authorities to introduce experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) without public consultation.

(3)       A bus lane was an area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order, primarily for use by buses and coaches during the advertised hours of operation.  Unless the bus lane had a 24 hour restriction, outside of these hours, all traffic was permitted to use bus lanes.  In Kent, bicycles and Hackney carriages were also permitted to use the lanes but not Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s) or Light Goods Vehicles (LGV’s).  Private Hire taxis were also excluded from using bus lanes.  The concept of using designated lanes for buses was well understood and widely used by highway authorities in urban areas where bus services were adversely affected by traffic congestion.  The introduction of priority measures in Kent (for example bus lanes) had played a significant role in generating the 17% increase in bus usage achieved during Kent’s first Local Transport Plan (LTP), through increasing the profile of services as well as improving reliability.

(4)       Bus priority measures were designed and introduced to help achieve easier and more consistent journey times through congested areas, particularly in towns and cities.  Reliability was also very important in assisting operators to meet the standards set down by the industry regulator, the Traffic Commissioner.  The challenge of operating 95% of all services within a “window” of 1 minute early and 5 minutes late was becoming increasingly difficult as traffic conditions worsened and congestion increased.  Without assistance from the Highways Authority, the costs of catering for congestion would lead to a reduction in more marginal routes which were currently operated without financial support.

(5)       Reliable bus services were also important to passengers.  In almost every survey about bus services, reliability was one of the most important issues for bus users.  Unreliable bus services led to declining bus patronage, increasing congestion on already busy roads.  Providing bus priority measures such as bus lanes were also important in generating operator investment in new buses through Quality Bus Partnership agreements.  In Canterbury, Stagecoach introduced 18 new low floor double-decker buses following the provision of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       The report outlined the current arrangements for providing bus timetable information and infrastructure at bus stops in Kent.  The Transport Act 2000 provided a duty for each Local Transport Authority in England and Wales to ensure that adequate information was provided by local bus operators.  It also empowered them to make arrangements as necessary to plug any gaps in the provision of information, recharging the costs to the appropriate bus operator.  Transport Authorities set out their proposals in an Information Strategy which formally came into effect in April 2002.

(2)       Kent County Council’s Public Transport Information Strategy was first published in 2001 and reviewed by a specialist independent consultant in 2006.  The consultants report recommended that greater attention was given to the arrangements for and funding of the provision of information at bus stops.  The Strategy (2001) concluded that:-

“Roadside information for bus service users is poor in many parts of Kent and the County Council in partnership with Arriva has developed a Roadside Infrastructure Unit which is responsible for the display of up-to-date information on bus services throughout the County. This scheme was initially introduced on a trial basis during 1999 and the County Council has agreed a formal two-year arrangement with Arriva.”

(3)       The consultants review in 2006 concluded that:-

“These arrangements are still in place today, but the procedures and resources for providing roadside information must be reviewed if it is to meet the desired target level of 75% of bus stops in the County. Also improvements must be made to the design standards to ensure the public find the publicity easy to understand and it improves the image of public transport services in the County.”

(4)       The Roadside Infrastructure Unit was formed in 1999 through a fixed cost contract with the main bus operator in West and Mid Kent, Arriva, to provide timetable publicity and information at bus stops and interchanges.  Arriva post timetables and other relevant information at bus stops giving information on all bus services in Kent ran either on a commercial basis or under contract to Kent County Council.  KCC currently spent £7 million per annum on procuring “socially necessary” bus services across Kent.  Approximately £200,000 of this budget was spent on promoting and advertising the services.  The only exception to the arrangement was that Stagecoach, who opted out of the countywide scheme, maintained all stops in areas where they were the sole or principal bus operator.  This covered most Districts of East Kent and some areas of Mid Kent such as Ashford town.

(5)       The Roadside Infrastructure Unit officers carried out a number of functions:-

·                    they sought to ensure that timetables for all commercial and Kent County Council funded bus services were accurate, up-to-date and readable;

·                    they resolved or reported to the relevant authority, cases of vandalism, graffiti and traffic damage to bus stops;

·                    they dealt with a large number of enquiries from members of the public acting as the agent of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       A key requirement of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 was for Kent to produce a Sustainable Travel to School Strategy. The report sought Member approval for a consultation draft of the strategy.  The Education and Inspections Act 2006 placed a general duty on local authorities to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport on the journey to school. Section 508A of the Act, in force from April 2007, required local education and transport authorities to develop a strategy for the sustainable travel and transport infrastructure within the authority so that the travel and transport needs of children and young people were better catered for.

(2)       The strategy comprised a statement of the authority’s overall vision, objectives and work programme for improving accessibility to schools. The accessibility strategy should build on, and be developed in the context of the authority’s community strategies and Local Transport Plan (including its accessibility plan and bus strategy). The strategy was intended to be an important source of information to parents on the travel options available to them when expressing their preferences for particular schools in the admissions round.

(3)       In developing its strategy, the local authority should consider how improvements could help to deliver other objectives, including environmental improvements (from reduced levels of congestion and pollution), health benefits (from increased levels of walking and cycling) and enhanced child safety and security.  The strategy should be evidence-based, including an assessment of the accessibility needs and problems of the local authority’s area and demonstrate how a range of interventions could address the problems. The strategy should set out the accessibility priorities over a time frame that fitted the LTP cycle.

(4)       The Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 2002, amended with effect from 1June 2007, required local authorities to publish their Sustainable Travel to School Strategy on their web-site by 31 August each year, starting in 2007. Local authorities must monitor the implementation of their strategy and revise these annually as they felt necessary.

(5)       In response to the requirement, Kent Highway Services had established a Steering Group, including representatives from CFE and Commercial Services to oversee the development of a Consultation Draft of the Kent Sustainable Travel to School Strategy. This would be consulted on internally during July and August 07 and would be published as a draft for external consultation on the kent.gov site in time for the DfES deadline of 31 August 2007. The September 2008 revised version, would therefore constitute the final strategy.

(6)       Subject to the deletion of Section 4.4.2 on page 30 of the Strategy, the Board:-

(a)       supported the development of Kent’s Sustainable Travel to School Strategy;

(b)       agreed that the Strategy be finalised in draft form for consultation under delegated powers; and

(c)        agreed that the Strategy be published as a draft at the start of the new school year in September 2007, as required by the Act.

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       The report outlined the provisions in the recently published draft Local Transport Bill and their implications for Kent.  The Bill was intended to help tackle congestion and improve public transport.  The consultation would close on 7 September.

(2)       Many of the measures proposed were aimed at major urban areas or modified provisions in the Transport Act 2000 that local authorities had not chosen or been able to use.  The legislation was also updated to allow local authorities to take forward local road pricing schemes should they choose.  The proposals most relevant to Kent were those that:-

·                    provided new powers enabling local authorities in non-Metropolitan areas to set up Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs).

·                    made the implementation of Quality Contracts with public transport operators a realistic option in areas where it was in the public interest for local authorities to take greater control over bus services.  This could provide a mechanism to secure the delivery of Smartlink in Ashford and future phases of Fastrack in Kent Thameside.

·                    provided a new regime to deliver improved bus punctuality, holding local authorities as well as bus operators to account for their contribution to punctuality performance.  Local Authorities were required to provide the Traffic Commissioner with information connected with the performance of their network management duties under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA). Should Kent be found not to be identifying and addressing the causes of poor punctuality the Secretary of State might choose to issue an Intervention Notice under the TMA.

·                    supported further development of the community transport sector than was currently permitted.  Kent had a mix of such community transport schemes across the county and this should ease the development of new and expanded schemes and would provide an opportunity to review the provision of services to rural areas.

(3)       Whilst the elements of the draft legislation set out above had the potential to be of use to Kent, and would feature in the response to the consultation, most of the proposals related more to large metropolitan areas.  Indeed Kent was already making good progress with delivering improvements to bus services through voluntary Quality Bus Partnerships with operators.  In contrast to much of the country, Kent had managed to sustain a year on year 2% growth in bus patronage.  In 2005/06 there were 45.7 million trips made in Kent and in 2006/07 there were 47.1 million trips.  Members would be aware of Fastrack in Kent Thameside where passenger numbers were 50% over projections and included 19% of people who would have previously used their car.   There were similar examples in Thanet and Canterbury. This would form the basis of the response to Government.  In the context of the developing Kent Thameside and Ashford areas, consideration would be given to the potential benefits of applying for PTA status in order to access additional Government funding.

(4)       Given the timing of the consultation, where responses were being asked for by 7 September, the Board agreed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.