Agenda and minutes

(1)       Further to paragraph 8 – Fees and Charges for 2008/09, Mr Whitehorn informed the Board that the:-

(a)        £120 fee agreed for a Pavement Licence referred to ‘A’ boards and goods on display, as well as tables and chairs;

(b)        proposed £390 fee for review of independent safety audit was no longer appropriate; and

(c)       note re traffic counts indicating no charge to members of the public/parish/district councils should be deleted and thereby enable actual costs be recovered on a discretionary basis.

(2)        RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2008 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)       The Director’s update set out some of the key issues and developments in KHS.

(2)       Traffic Management Centre  - the recent heavy rain gave an unexpected insight into life without the Traffic Management Centre (TMC) and the effect it had on Maidstone town centre.  The heavy rain led to flooding and the evacuation of the Traffic Management Centre on 15 January, and, as a result it was not able to change the traffic signal timings to respond to varying traffic flows and prevent queues building, nor to use the roadside variable message signs to inform people.  This led to pretty big queues in and around Maidstone.  Fortunately, the TMC was back up and running in two days.  This showed the benefit of the system that was now being rolled out into Canterbury and Kent Thameside.  At a recent Maidstone Business Forum meeting with the Town Centre Manager, Borough Council Members and business representatives all agreed the TMC was helping and a real benefit.  This was good news and a real sign of approval of the hard work of staff and investment by KHS.  Caroline Bruce, Acting Head of Network Management, was leading on this.

(3)       Public satisfaction tracker survey - Kent Highway Services latest residents survey was showing increasing levels of public satisfaction. Every year 1200 residents from across Kent were asked their views on the condition of roads, pavements and streetlights in the County.  The headline 2007 results were set out in the report and traditionally progress was measured through something called '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.  Members would remember that a positive net satisfaction in 2006 was achieved for the first time since surveys began 20 years ago.

Progress to raise the profile of the highway service was going well with branded KHS vehicles and the page every week in the Kent on Sunday paper, increased press releases about the service and not forgetting the 15,000 calls each month handled by the Contact Centre.    There was still more to do and the new shaped KHS would be ready for the start of the new financial year.  But, through all the change that had been going on in KHS over the last year, staff from across all the Alliance partners (this included Jacobs, Ringway and TSUK who made up the KHS Alliance) had shown how dedicated and committed they were by delivering a service that was recognisably better than last year, as measured by the residents who received the service.   

(4)       Dealing with service requests and calls – we were now reporting progress on dealing with service requests on a weekly basis to managers and staff.  This reporting by the new seven service groups ensured managers got regular information about how their teams were performing.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

(1)       The report presented the Highways maintenance budget for 2008/09 (Revenue and Capital) following approval of budgets by Cabinet on 6February 2008 [and ratification at the County Council meeting on 19 February 2008]. 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 overall that the maintenance works budget had increased by approximately £2m compared with 2007/08.

(2)       The main changes from 2007/08 were as follows:- Revenue: +£4m for freedom pass, +£5m for highways maintenance injection, -£1.5m targeted highways works. Capital: +£4m IT schemes [net of Ringway fixed charge share], -£1.6m for phase1 of LED conversion, -£3m capital maintenance supported by Prudential borrowing. There had also been a significant change in the accounting mechanism for the grants for rural buses and safety cameras, the effect of which was to increase the overall budget but remove income previously credited to KHS.

(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 available funds. The report recommended that:-

·                    Allocations for highway assets were based on a relative assessment of their degree of depreciation, and

·                    Allocations to the areas 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. The budget model had been updated with the most recent condition and network data and had been used to develop the maintenance budget for 2008/09.

(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 Operational maintenance (works that included safety repairs by NOMU gangs 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 new Services.

The model also provided a geographical distribution of the available funds by district for each asset group based on quantity and condition of the attributes.

            (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 the Community Operations and Technical Services Operational maintenance budgets from the remainder of the budget available for highway maintenance. In calculating the budgets, an 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 overall maintenance budget determined the balance available for Repairs. This was summarised in table 3 of the report.

(6)       Table 3 of the report showed that, compared with 2007/08, the budget for Operations had risen by £3,416k owing to an increase for contract inflation but also an effort to align the budgets to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

(1)       The report advised the Board on scheme progress to re-configure Dover Priory Station forecourt and the easterly section of Folkestone Road (from the railway bridge to Effingham Street junction), Dover. The report presented the detailed designs including the art interventions; examined traffic and environmental issues; feedback from the consultation process; clarified funding sources; and outlined the delivery programme.

(2)       The Board was asked to support the detailed designs and subsequent procurement process for reconfiguring Dover Priory Station forecourt and the easterly section of Folkestone Road into a quality urban space that acted as a key ‘gateway/arrival space’ into Dover town centre, and recommended to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Supporting Independence that the scheme goes out to tender along with all the necessary approvals. 

(3)       The Dover Pride Regeneration Strategy, Dover’s town centre Masterplan and the Public Realm Strategy were key drivers in transforming the perception of the town centre. The improvement of the public realm was an integral part of an overall strategy for Dover town centre, which built on the 9 major projects outlined in the Public Realm Strategy (July 2006) for Dover town centre.

(4)       Throughout the extensive consultation process to date many stakeholders, interest groups and local residents had recognised that Dover town centre’s current transport infrastructure presented physical and psychological barriers that severed the town centre from its environs.  The current road network hindered a comprehensive approach to outward and connected expansion that should place a strong emphasis on high quality public transport, a safer walking environment (for both the able bodied and the disabled) and safer cycling routes rather than car use.

(5)       A comprehensive and innovative approach to implementing high quality design to all new and existing areas of public realm, public open space and traffic/pedestrian management within Dover town centre was acknowledged as a high priority by Dover Pride.  The quality of improvements to the public realm would be critical in setting the context and a benchmark for the transformation of the town centre, whilst at the same time avoiding abortive work.

(6)       More importantly, if not implemented, it was unlikely that businesses, developers and new residents would be attracted to the town in sufficient numbers to achieve this transformation.  Development sites would remain empty, external investment would be harder to attract and the town centre will not improve.

(7)       The Dover Pride Board on 14 July 2006 considered a report on the Public Realm Strategy and its 9 major projects, and agreed to the importance of preparing concepts and detailed designs for Dover Priory Station Approach and the easterly section of Folkestone Road, the first major project emerging from the Public Realm Strategy (July 06).

(8)       The first public realm project needed to create a positive identity, and act as a visible sign of Dover Pride’s commitment to transforming Dover town centre. The area was currently secluded and isolated from the town centre despite being a key gateway to the town centre. When emerging from the station there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(1)       Further to Minute 6 of 18 September 2007, the report provided an update on progress of the major transport and highway schemes  The last six months continued to be dominated by the considerable efforts in progressing the growth area schemes in Kent Thameside and Ashford within the funding and time constraints and general resource pressures on the Team.

(2)       A claim against the County Council for some £500,000 was successfully defended in the High Court.  Schemes had achieved successful internal and external financial audits and a Gateway review.  Fastrack continued to be recognised for awards and in particular was a key factor in the County Council receiving the prestigious Transport Authority of the Year award in November.

(3)       A progress or status report on Fastrack Thames Way, Fastrack Everards Link Phase 2, Ashford Ring Road, Newtown Road Bridge, Ashford, Rushenden Relief Road, Eurokent Phases 4 & 5, Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road, East Kent Access Phase 2, other schemes and Land matters was set out in the appendix to the report.  For brevity, only some of the background provided in previous reports was provided with the focus given to activity in the last half year.

(4)       There had been substantial progress and the key milestone achievements had been:-

o                   Fastrack Thamesway.  Completed. – March 2008

o                   Ashford Ring Road.  Award of contracts for the final stages and complex public realm stages of the Ring Road and Bank Street. – October 2007

o                   Newtown Road Bridge, Ashford.  Network Rail instructed to award contract– January 2008

o                   Eurokent Phases 4 & 5.  Funding and land Agreement completed.  Contract award and start of construction – January 2008

o                   Fort Hill De-dualling.  Ringway instructed – February 2008

o                   Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road.  Planning permission for amended scheme and publication of new statutory Orders – January 2008

o                   Rushenden Relief Road.  Planning consent – October 2007

o                   West Malling Station Link.  Completion of the Deed of Easement with Network Rail that would allow the private car park implementation – December 2007

o                   Everards Claim.  The claim for about £500,000 successfully defended and a vindication of actions taken in 1994, in the High Court with award of costs.– October 2007

o                   Union Railways/London & Continental Railways claim.  Preliminary Issues Hearing before the President of the Lands Tribunal – December 2007.

o                   ZED Homes Planning Inquiry Ashford – January 2008

o                   East Kent Access Phase 2– Successful Gateway 1 Review by 4ps – November 2007.

o                   Corporate Finance Audit of A228 Leybourne & West Malling Bypass and East Kent Access Phase 1C noted good project management and no recommendations.

o                   EU Commission and DCLG audit of expenditure of European funding on Fastrack Thames Way.  Successful audit with no adverse comments – December 2007

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

o                   Ashford Ring Road remained a challenging project to deliver with its innovative public realm design, many interfaces, funding uncertainties and working within a difficult urban environment.

o                   Rushenden Relief Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(1)       At Highways Advisory Board (HAB) on 1 May 2007, a paper on highway tree management was presented and the following adopted by Members:-

·                    Tree management procedure.

·                    Preparation and adoption of a tree policy.

·                    Purchase of the Confirm tree modules system.

·                    Use of preferred arboricultural contractors by all KHS partners

(2)       At HAB on 18 September 2007, a paper on a highway tree policy was presented and adopted by Members.  The purpose of this paper was to propose the adoption of a change in procedure when dealing with customer enquiries and complaints in respect of highway trees which would result in improved service delivery across a number of areas.

(3)       The adoption of a Highway Tree Policy had provided clarity in a number of areas of highway tree management and had provided a consistent approach to making decisions ensuring that priority was always given to safety issues.

(4)       From 1 April 2007 the arboricultural team took over the responsibility for all aspects of tree management including routine safety inspections and customer enquiries.  Work was ongoing with the KHS Contact Centre to ensure that customer calls were directed to the right place and were properly dealt with within the appropriate timescales.

(5)       437 Priority 1 (P1) calls had been received from the KHS Contact Centre and dealt with.  P1 calls involved trees that had failed or were in imminent danger of failing and average response time had been well under two hours.

(6)       Approximately 2500 Priority 2 (P2) calls had been received.  P2 calls related to general, rather than legal nuisance issues. Safety issues were always dealt with as P1.  Approximately 25% of the P2 calls had resulted in some form of remedial works on site.  General nuisance issues included leaf and seed fall, sap deposition, blocking of light and interference with television reception.  The total volume of calls for 07/08 was anticipated to be in the region of 4000.

(7)       A number of calls were filtered out by the Contact Centre but generally all tree related calls came through to the arboricultural team for attention.  A number were dealt with immediately by letter or by telephone with an explanation that the type of problem indicated was not one that a responsible tree owner was required to deal with or that the works did not fall under the remit of KHS e.g. clearance of overhead services.  The remainder of calls required an inspection.   These were grouped into geographical  areas  to ensure best use of time and travel resources.  An analysis of figures from April 2007 showed that in 75% of cases the inspection resulted in a decision not to carry out any works.  The main reasons were that the complaint or enquiry had been overstated or was a general nuisance issue, as outlined above, that KHS was not required to deal with.  The 25% requiring works was generally related to trees in decline, vehicular damage, vandalism and other non predictable events.

(8)       The process of managing calls was a drain on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Following a proposal by the Chairman, Members agreed to consider Item 9, followed by Item 8, prior to Item 6.

4.       Speed Management in Kent

          (Item 9 – Report by Head of Transportation and Development)

(1)       A report was submitted to the Board on outlining the need to gain community ownership on the many requests for action on speed related issues that the County Council received.

(2)       The County Council received approximately 30 requests per month per division, often from individual members of the public, requesting some form of traffic speed control.  In trying to be helpful, the County Council committed a significant resource to researching the reasons behind most of those requests.  In the vast majority of cases, perception was not reality.  Equally, there were a number of examples of speed control measures, such as traffic calming, which were both inappropriate in scale and unpopular with some members of the local community.  There was no doubt that work on dealing with individual requests diverted transportation teams from undertaking more strategic work which was important in the context of the challenges which faced Kent.

(3)       It was important that the County Council used its resources to the best effect.  The recent introduction of PIPKIN demonstrated that the County Council wished to base criteria for expenditure on highway and transport improvements scientifically and not according to the greatest pressure.  Equally, the work being undertaken on Government Circular 1/2006 previously reported to the Board would audit speed limits on all A and B class roads in Kent by 2012.

(4)       Kent County Council held a PIPKIN Seminar for Parish Councils in January 2008.  At the Conference, Parishes received a copy of the ‘Understanding Speed Management in Kent’.  A copy would be sent to all of those Parishes which were unable to send a representative to the seminar, and a copy of the text of the leaflet was set out in the Appendix to the report.

(5)       In essence Kent residents were being asked to gain reasonable community support for any proposal relating to speed management.  Once received, a data led approach would be used to determine the outcome as detailed in the Understanding Leaflet.

(6)       During debate the Chairman referred to the draft Minutes of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board of 21 January 2008.  Following consideration of a report relating to Heavy Goods Vehicle Management – South and West of Maidstone, the JTB had requested that the Board recommend the funding of necessary surveys to establish the position with regard to heavy goods vehicles in Yalding and Farleigh.  The request had not been received, and, therefore, was not included on this agenda.

(7)       Following various comments and requests from Members, the Board:-

(a)       agreed that a joint review with the police and relevant agencies be carried out into the increase in deaths on Maidstone roads, and a report submitted to the Maidstone JTB and this Board;

(b)       agreed that a report be submitted to the Board’s meeting in May relating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(1)       The report set out the progress to date in the introduction of free travel for 11 – 16 year olds and described a programme of implementation for additional pilot schemes in 2008 leading to a full Kent wide roll out in 2009.

(2)       In September 2006, Kent County Council published “Towards 2010” (T2010) with an aspiration to introduce free travel for school children in secondary education aged 11 – 16.  In June 2007 two free travel pilot schemes called Kent Freedom were introduced in Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells and Canterbury. Excellent press coverage was gained from the launch events.

(3)       The key policy aspirations of free travel for 11 – 16 year olds were:-

·                    A reduction in peak hour congestion.

·                    Improved social inclusion through improved mobility of young people outside school hours.

·                    Encouraging longer term use of public transport by young people. 

(4)       Two free travel trials were introduced on 4 June 2007 in Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells/Tonbridge.  Over 5000 passes had been issued which was above expectation.   Additional bus capacity had been provided by bus operators in the pilot areas to cope with extra demand given that most existing service buses were full in the morning peak.   Eight additional vehicles in each pilot area from 4 June ensured a seamless introduction of free travel providing sufficient capacity for the extra demand.  This had been increased to 10 from the start of the September term.  The incumbent operators had been asked to provide additional capacity, used on a flexible basis. This was the most efficient way of providing additional seats as trying to set up “competing” additional KCC funded services on commercially provided routes would undermine local bus networks and would be outside the free market spirit of the Transport Act 1985.  Excellent support from the South Eastern Traffic Commissioner for this approach had been received.

(5)       Detailed work had been undertaken on the usage of passes in the two pilots and the cost to the County Council in 2007-08 was estimated at £1.4m with a full year cost of £1.9m. In other words, the additional take-up had not directly translated to additional costs. The operators were reimbursed on the gap in their income as a result of the scheme on an open book accounting basis. This was largely income from students who previously paid a fare plus the cost of providing additional capacity.

(6)       The Kent Freedom Scheme was very popular in Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells/Tonbridge.  Initial results indicated a modal shift from private car movements to bus of 25% which was most encouraging.  Impact studies on congestion were being measured and would be reported when meaningful results were available.  There was evidence that students were using Freedom passes for travel at weekends and evenings which was a key aspiration of the Kent Youth Forum. Students also had the travel flexibility to use after school clubs which had been greatly appreciated by a number of correspondents.

(7)       At the meeting of Cabinet Scrutiny on 12 December 2007, the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(1)       The purpose of the report was to inform the Board of the issues relating to this scheme to allow the Board to review the recommendations of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board (JTB) made at its meeting on 21 January 2008.

(2)       At its meeting on 29 May 2006 the Tunbridge Wells JTB considered the report submitted by the Mid Kent Divisional Manager which identified several options for reducing congestion at the junction of the A26, Yew Tree Road and Speldhurst Road, Southborough.  The JTB recommended that Kent Highway Services proceed on the basis of Option 2a ‘Provision of new left turn lane into Yew Tree Road’ and Option 3 ‘Alternative Staging’.  If it was found that Option 2a was either not achievable or too expensive then Option 2b should be progressed.  An extract from the above report identifying the proposed options was attached to the report.

(3)       The report submitted to the JTB anticipated that Option 2a would typically allow 3 vehicles per cycle to benefit from the left turn lane whilst Option 2b would typically allow 1 vehicle per cycle to benefit.  Both of the options would have an impact on vehicles turning right into Yew Tree Road.

(4)       Based on initial costs estimates an allocation for the delivery of the scheme had been set at £141,400 within the 2007/08 Capital Maintenance Programme.

(5)       Subsequent to the JTB’s recommendation an outline design was prepared and a cost estimate produced for Option 2a ‘Provision of new left turn lane into Yew Tree Road’.  The option would include:-

(a)       Construction of a new 50m long left turn lane into Yew Tree Road and associated footway.

(b)       Realignment of the Yew Tree Road junction.

(c)        Relocating the Yew Tree Road stop line further back to accommodate the swept path of left turning large vehicles and subsequent relocation of the existing controlled crossing point.

(d)       Construction of an offside traffic island for the positioning of the primary traffic signal.

(e)       Full replacement of the existing pelican crossing north of the junction, resultant from a combination of the widening on the east side and the age of the current installation.

The estimated outline cost for delivering the scheme had been given as £207,100.  This incorporated works, fee’s, utilities and signal costs but did not include potential costs for vertical realignment, accommodation and any unsocial working hours uplift.  The cost for delivering Option 2a would therefore be £65,700 above the schemes current allocation.

(6)       Because the estimated cost for Option 2a significantly exceeded the budget allocation and in accordance with the Board’s recommendation Option 2b was considered.  This option would vary from Option 2a in having a 25m left turn lane as opposed to the 50m left turn lane in Option 2a and the removal of the need to replace the existing Pelican Crossing on the A26.  The cost estimate provided for the outline design of Option 2b was £178,100 which was £29,600 above the schemes current allocation.  A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.