Agenda item

To receive a report that sets out a draft LTP4 (2016-31). It incorporates a refresh of Growth without Gridlock (Kent’s Transport Delivery Plan) and will be aligned with the Growth and Infrastructure Framework (GIF) and the South East Local Enterprise Partnership’s (SELEP) Strategic Economic Plan (SEP).

1.            The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, introduced a report highlighting that this is a refreshed Local Transport Plan (LTP) that included the nationally important strategic priorities such as the new Lower Thames Crossing and a solution to Operation Stack, countywide priorities and priority transport schemes in each district. 

2.            Mr Pearman, Chairman of the Task and Finish Group, advised that the Group looked at road safety in particular, detailed on page 10 of the draft LTP4 headed “Outcomes for Transport”.  The draft LTP4 would be subject to a statutory 12 week public consultation. He thanked the Transport Strategy Manager, Lead officer for the LTP, Mr Ratcliffe, for all his work.

3.            Mr Ratcliffe added that the LTP included a list of priories that would be used to bid for future funds as and when they became available.  He advised that following the 12 week public consultation a report on the outcomes would be brought back to a future meeting of this Cabinet Committee.

4.            Concerns and questions by Members were responded to by Mr Balfour and Mr Ratcliffe as follows:

ŸMr Caller said that he could not endorse the document as recommended in the report as the LTP contained the Lower Thames Crossing which would be going through Gravesend.

ŸMr Whybrow advised that he was a Member of the Task and Finish Group and commended this method of getting Members involved and this should be encouraged.  Mr Whybrow said that he could not endorse the document.

ŸMr Baldock, also a Member of the Task and Finish Group said that he had problems with the priorities noted and considered that the priorities were not aimed at the people that lived in Kent but was for those people that wanted to travel across Kent which he considered was the wrong approach.  He then suggested that the recommendation in the report be altered to read “….consider and note the draft content…”  He then referred to the title of the draft consultation suggesting that this could not be delivered without gridlock.

ŸMr Balfour agreed with the suggestion for the recommendation to be altered to read “… consider and note…” 

ŸDr Eddy commented on the following:

Ø  The document could possibly bring contention as it dwelled on management of traffic. 

Ø  The issue of road safety was wider than the document suggested.  There were priority differences between road safety ie education programmes and asset management aspects such as white lines on roads being painted and signage. 

Ø  He was delighted with the potential schemes listed, in particular, the A2 and A58. 

Ø  He suggested that the recommendation in the report could be changed to “…issue it .”

Ø  The maintenance of road signs on the highways needed to be carried out and properly funded as part of the road safety measures.

Ÿ  Mr Balfour suggested that there was a need for care regarding the issue of safety on roads as there tended to be many reasons behind road accidents including driver error.  The assistance of Kent and Medway Police and local communities would be required as well as continued education of drivers on safety.

Ÿ  Mr Ratcliffe apologised to Mr Angell, Local Member for Ashford Rural South, that he had not been advised on some of the Transport Priorities Schemes listed on page 42 of the LTP4 draft consultation document. He gave an assurance that he would be informed in future. Mr Ratcliffe advised Mr Angell that the schemes had been agreed by Ashford Borough Council.  He further advised that the future schemes were a direct input by Ashford Borough Council. The priorities in blue were identified joint schemes; and the funding for Ashford Spurs had not been secured as additional funding was being sought.

Ÿ  Mrs Waters endorsed comments by Mr Angell regarding local Members being kept informed on local issues.  Mrs Waters considered that the LTP4 highlighted the issues of congestion in New Romney.  She had concerns that Kent residents may presume the listed Transport Priorities for each district or borough were confirmed as they were in the Plan.  Mr Balfour explained that the content of the document was going out for consultation and during this time the districts and borough councils would have the opportunity to give their views/comments. 

Ÿ  Members agreed to replace the word “endorse” with the word “note” in the recommendation set out in the report.

5.            RESOLVED that the comments and responses to questions by Members; and the draft content of Kent County Council’s Local Transport Plan 4: Delivering Growth without Gridlock (2016-2031) for public consultation be noted.