Agenda and minutes

The Chairman extended a welcome to Parish Councillor Sheila Bransfield as newly appointed Parish and Town Council representative to the Board.

Apologies were received from Councillors Ezekiel, Savage & Sullivan.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the extract from the Standard Board Code of Conduct for Members, which forms part of the Declaration of Interest Form at the back of this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete that Form and hand it to the Officer clerking the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the Minutes of the Joint Transportation Board meeting held on 6 September 2011, copy attached.

On the proposal of Councillor Tomlinson, seconded by Councillor Hayton, the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2011 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

Schedule attached

(Minute No. 16a of previous minutes refers)

Paul Valek, District Manager, pointed out that, although Kent County Council, Highways & Transportation (KCC – H&T) always valued and fully considered, and generally acted upon, the views of the Board, there were occasions where, for reasons such as budget restriction, legislation, lack of support from other stakeholders, engineering or practicality issues, decisions had to be referred to senior management level within Kent County Council.

He stated that, as an advisory body, the Board had no decision-making powers and that the existing Agreement on Joint Transportation Boards between Kent County Council and District Councils was currently being reviewed in order to provide further clarity and guidance on the decision-making process.

NOTED

(Minute No. 18 of Previous minutes refers)

Paul Valek reported that:

a)  Owing to the location of the existing zebra crossing, it was not possible to replace it with a pelican crossing;

b)  Councillors Bayford & Hayton had both expressed interest in funding improvements to the zebra crossing through their Member Highway Fund allocation;

c)  Proposed improvements included upgrading the existing beacons to modular lit posts and enhanced enforcement in the area;

d)  If the scheme was progressed, reports would be submitted to the Board in the future.

Speaking under Council Procedure Rule 24.1, Councillor Fenner stated that residents were very concerned about the safety of residents, in particular, school children, when using the zebra crossing. 

Councillor Fenner referred to:

a)  Factors which made the road unsafe:

§  History of dangerous driving;

§  History of heavy traffic, as evidenced by the area having recently been identified as a possible Area for Air Quality Management;

§  History of indiscriminate parking at the zebra crossing.

b)  The history of accidents in the area, including one fatality.

She suggested that, in the interests of safety, pedestrian guardrails should be provided at the crossing, on the Tesco Store side of the road.

Paul Valek, who pointed out that modular lit posts should significantly enhance the visibility of the zebra crossing, took those comments on board, and undertook to:

a)  look into the possibility of installing guardrails at the crossing;

b)  provide costings for guardrails to Councillors Bayford and Hayton.

(Minute No. 19 of previous minutes refers)

It was NOTED from Paul Valek, District Manager that: 

a)  Councillors Jarvis & Wells had agreed, by means of their Member Highway Fund allocation, to install bollards to prevent parking on the verge and footway;

b)  letters had been sent to residents of St Mary’s Avenue on 18 October 2011, advising them of the proposals; and

c)  scheme approval by Members and feedback from residents were currently awaited.

Councillor Wells asked for an update on the parking of vans and trucks on the grass verge at Friendly Close (Page 4 of the minutes refers).  Paul Valek undertook to provide an update at the next Board meeting.

(Minute No. 22c of previous minutes refers)

It was NOTED from Paul Valek, District Manager, that:

a)  KCC – H&T had attempted to contact the landowners of College Square, Margate, with a view to obtaining permission to install a new dropped kerb to their footway but that, to date, no response had been received;

b)  site notices would be erected to advise landowners to contact KCC – H&T and report any objections they might have in relation to the proposed improvements;

c)  the scheme had been designed and costed, and information submitted to Councillors Jarvis & Wells for approval and to enable part funding to be discussed with Dr Henry;

d)  once financial agreement had been reached, a programme date would be identified.

Councillor Johnston spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1 and, in doing so, offered to help in contacting College Square landowners.

(Minute No. 22f of previous minutes refers)

Paul Valek, District Manager, provided updates as follows:

a)  Harbour Street, Broadstairs:  The Roadworks Team was unaware of any agreement to halt works for a period of five years.  A six-month Order to prevent programmed works had been in place since 1 October 2011 but any emergency works arising would proceed.

b)  Tothill Street, Minster:  Proposed surfacing works had been suspended, owing to SGN’s scheduled mains replacement for the length of Tothill Street.  All works had now been put on hold pending completion of Phase 2 of the East Kent Access Road Scheme.

Councillor Hibberd asked that Highways and Transportation keeps pressure on SGN at a County level.  Noted by Paul Valek.

(Minute No 23 of previous minutes refers)

It was NOTED from Paul Valek, District Manager, that:

a)  any proposal for Upper High Street, Margate, such as full pedestrianisation or traffic calming, must be dealt with separately from the proposal to reduce the speed limit form 30 mph to 20 mph, with support being evidenced both locally and budgetary;

b)  Highways and Transportation would not look to consult on something which they could not fund owing to criteria for spend being based on personal injury crash data.

c)  District Councillors might wish to lobby for support through petition, leaflet and letter drop, but the issue of funding would always remain.

Details recorded at Minute No. 46 below.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells, and seconded by Councillor Bayford, that Recommendation 5.1 of the Report be adopted:

“That the lead petitioner be advised that no further action can be taken at this time and of the application processes available for residents’ parking schemes and white vehicle access markings”.

Councillor Hibberd pointed out that minor collisions had occurred on Kent Gardens and drivers could easily misjudge the width of vehicles when it was dark. 

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED, Councillor Hibberd abstaining.

During consideration of the report, Members made reference was made to:

a)  indiscriminate parking which occurred at zig-zag lines at traffic lights;

b)  need for enhanced enforcement of parking restrictions;

c)  a fatality having occurred at Tivoli Park Avenue.

In answer to a query, Robin Chantrill-Smith, Civil Enforcement Manager, assured Members that the area was patrolled regularly, and on a rota basis with other schools, particularly between 3.00 pm & 3.30 pm.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells, and seconded by Councillor Hayton, that Recommendation 5.1 of the Report be adopted, namely:

“That the lead petitioner be advised that no further action can be taken at this time”.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED.

During consideration of the report, it was noted that:

a)  a consultation on a Thanet District Council Parking Review, which would include parking issues in the vicinity of the QEQM Hospital, was due to take place by March 2012. 

b)  difficulties were experienced by the local “Lollipop Lady” in getting children safely across the road, owing to traffic management issues;

c)  Councillors Jarvis and Wells were willing to commission a speed survey in the area, using their Member Highway Fund allocation.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells and seconded by Councillor S Tomlinson:

“That the lead petitioner be advised of:

a)  the forthcoming Thanet District Council Parking Review Consultation;

b)  the speed survey which Councillors Jarvis & Wells were commissioning through use of the Member Highway Funding allocation.”

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED.

To receive a verbal update by Katie Lewis, Drainage Manager, Kent Highway Services

Katie Lewis, Drainage Manager, provided a verbal update as follows:

a)  Harbour Parade & Seafront, Ramsgate:  KCC – Highways & Transportation (H&T) had been liaising with Southern Water on a regular basis regarding a number of sewerage leaks that had occurred as a result of system blockages.  Currently, there was no work outstanding but the situation would continue to be monitored.  As had been agreed with Councillor E Green, H&T would map the system to identify any breaks, blockages or absent connections.

b)  Westbrook Avenue, Margate:  Following the discovery of a void in October 2011, works been undertaken under an emergency road closure to re-build the system.  The problem had now been resolved.

c)  Staffordshire Street, Ramsgate:  Subsequent to a system collapse in October 2011, an emergency road closure had been put in place, enabling the system to be rebuilt.

d)  Drainage Cleansing, including Margate High Street:  Since September 2011, H&T had attended 183 roads in Thanet.  Of those, 86 had been completed.  Re-attendance of others was required primarily because parked cars were obstructing the gullies or the drain covers were jammed and needed to be removed and replaced. 

Work was currently being programmed and re-attendances would take place at the earliest opportunity. 

A number of roads were outstanding on the basis of requiring attendance out of hours.  Those included Ramsgate and Margate High Streets, which H&T aimed to attend prior to Christmas 2011.

H&T were currently planning their maintenance programme for January to March 2012.  If there were specific locations that Members wished to be attended, these would be accommodated as far as possible providing that the efficient delivery of the programme would not be compromised.

That programme was currently with Kent County Council Contact Centre, and it was expected that information would “go live” before Christmas.  Data would be updated on a weekly basis.

In answer to queries from Members, Katie Lewis stated that:

a)  where vehicles were parked over a blocked drain, H&T would generally carry out a local “letter drop”;

b)  In Maidstone, there was effective joint working between KCC – H&T and the local Council, enabling enforcement of parking restrictions and H&T works to take place at the same time. Thanet District Council may wish to participate in a similar joint scheme;

c)  Currently, eleven Cleansing Crews were deployed across Kent.  They were moved around to respond to greatest need.

Katie Lewis was thanked for her update.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Bayford and RESOLVED that the recommendation at Paragraph 5.1 of the report be adopted:

“That the scheme shown on drawings 10-ITS-TH-02-003 to 006, Annex 1 to the report, is approved for consultation, and, if no objections are received, approved for construction”.

Tribute was paid to KCC H&T on the marked improvements brought about by the first phases of the Westwood Transport Plan.

Paul Valek, District Manager, outlined the results of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) consultation, as follows:

  10, in favour; One, against; and 2, unsure.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Hayton and RESOLVED that the recommendation at Paragraph 4.1 of the report be adopted:

“That, based on the results of the TRO Consultation, the scheme, funding for which would be fully delivered by Councillors Jarvis and Wells, proceeds as outlined”.

Paul Valek outlined the results of the Traffic Regulation order (TRO) consultation as follows:

  6, in favour;  2, against; and One, not sure.

Speaking under Council Procedure Rule 24.1, Councillor Johnston made reference to the particular danger at the junction of New Street with High Street.  Whilst welcoming the funding for a reduced speed limit, she was of the view it would have been economically beneficial to proceed with a pedestrianisation consultation at the same time as the TRO consultation.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Bayford and RESOLVED that the recommendation at Paragraph 4.1.4 of the report be adopted:

“That the 20 mph scheme proceeds as outlined”.

Paul Valek, District Manager, outlined the results of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) consultation as follows:

  2, in favour; One, against: and None, not sure.

It was proposed by Councillor Hayton, seconded by Councillor Bayford and RESOLVED that the recommendation at Paragraph 4.1 be adopted:

“That, based on the results of the TRO consultation, the scheme, funding for which is to be fully delivered by Councillor Hayton, proceeds as outlined.

Paul Valek, District Manager, outlined the results of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) consultation as follows:

  7 for; One against; and None, not sure.

Councillor E Green stated that residents had contacted her on a number of occasions to express support for the proposed scheme.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor E Green and RESOLVED that the recommendation at Paragraph 4.1 of the report be adopted:

“That, based on the results of the TRO consultation, the scheme, funding for which is to be fully delivered by Councillor E Green, proceeds as outlined.

The view was expressed that the illuminated speed limit was currently at the wrong location.  Paul Valek recommended that Members continue to have conversations with Kelley Garrett, Traffic Engineer, regarding that issue.

Concern was expressed at the very low number of respondents to the consultations referred to at Minutes Nos. 35 to 38 above.

Paul Valek, District Manager, confirmed that, in each case, the consultation process had been:  notices put up on site; letters to residents by letter drop; and advertisement in press.

It was proposed by Councillor Bayford and seconded by Councillor Wells, that Recommendation at Paragraph 5.1 be adopted:

“That an informal consultation be undertaken to establish if the residents living within Queens Gardens and Westcliff Avenue would support a proposal to incorporate these roads into the ‘Victoria’ zone and introduce time limited ‘pay and display’ parking to which permit holders would be exempt”.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED.

It was proposed by Councillor Kirby, seconded by Councillor Wells and RESOLVED that the recommendation at Paragraph 5.1 of the report be adopted:

“That this street be reviewed as part of the next annual review”.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Bayford and RESOLVED:

“That Option 1 – ‘Take no further action’ (as outlined at Para 3.1 of the report) be adopted”.

Councillor Johnston, who spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1, expressed the view that Option 2 – “Like for like” Permanent Repairs – should be adopted.

In response to a query from Councillor Wells, Paul Valek, District Manager, undertook to investigate ways to raise the surplus funding required for Option 2 and report back to the Board.

It was proposed by Councillor Wells and seconded by Councillor Bayford that Recommendation in Paragraph 6.1 be adopted:

“That temporary measures (for a period not exceeding two years) be effected to allow Andrew’s Passage to remain open and enable a subsequent decision to be made to close the route or carry out permanent remedial work”.

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED.

Speaking under Council Procedure Rule 24.1, Councillor Johnston referred to joint working that had taken place between Kent County Council and Thanet District Council when railings had previously been refurbished.

Harvey Patterson, Corporate & Regulatory Services Manager, Thanet District Council, outlined reasons to support his view that Kent County Council had responsibility for the maintenance of “Type B” railings.

Paul Valek, District Manager, asked that the legal views of Thanet District Council be submitted to Kent County Council Legal Services in writing.

The ongoing investigations by Kent County Council and Thanet District Council were NOTED by the Board.

The report was NOTED.

In response to a query from Councillor Hibberd, Paul Valek, District Manager, undertook to circulate copies of the Winter Service Plan to Parish Councils.

The Board NOTED the Plan.

The Programme was NOTED.

http://democracy.kent.gov.uk/documents/s19258/Item%20C1%20-%20Reducing%20Congestion.pdf

NOTED

http://democracy.kent.gov.uk/documents/s19261/Item%20C4%20-%20Winter%20Service.pdf

NOTED

http://democracy.kent.gov.uk/documents/s19262/Item%20C4%20-%20Appendix%20Winter%20Service.pdf

NOTED

To receive a verbal update from Paul Valek, District Manager, Kent Highway Services

(Minute No. 29g above refers)

It was NOTED from Paul Valek, District Manager, that:

a)  at the meeting of the Garlinge Residents Association, held on 17 October 2011, the ladies who operated the school crossing patrol at Garlinge Junior School had requested the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit;

b)  Councillor Gregory had requested that this request should be considered at a future meeting of the Board, possibly March 2012;

c)  there was an existing scheme, which had been publicly consulted upon, to address road safety at this junction;

d)  The Head Teacher and local “Lollipop Lady” had expressed support for the scheme when the Engineers had recently met with them;

e)  the scheme, for which funding was available, was due to commence on 5 December 2011.

The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 15 March 2012, at 7.00 pm.

It was NOTED that the next meeting of the Board would be held at 7.00 pm on Thursday, 15 March 2012.