Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Mo Elenor, Mrs Zita Wiltshire and Councillor Sheila Bransfied.

Councillor Vera Hovenden was in attendance as Councillor Bransfield’s substitute.

At this stage of the meeting, and upon invited to do so by the Chairman, Councillor Fenner presented to Paul Valek, District Manager, Kent County Council Highways & Transportation, a petition for traffic calming measures at Cecilia Road, Ramsgate.

To approve the Minutes of the Joint Transportation Board meeting held on 19 December 2013, copy attached.

It was AGREED that the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2013 be approved and signed by the Chairman.

John Farmer, Project Manager (Major Projects), Kent County Council Highways and Transportation, outlined progress on the Poorhole Lane Improvement scheme.

Sally Benge, Strategic Transport and Development Planner, Kent County Council Highways and Transportation, then gave a presentation on the wider Westwood Strategy (power point slides now published on the Council’s website, as part of this meeting’s details) the key objectives of which were to:

1)  Sustainably accommodate new housing/new jobs and other development;

2)  Identify and address key strategic transport issues; and

3)  Complement and be integral to the Local Plan.

Based on the Thanet Transport Model (shown at slides 3 to 5), it was critical to improve the traffic flow across Thanet, particularly at Westwood, where the following characteristics existed:

A.  Convergence of A254 and A256

B.  Four quadrants supporting out of town shopping

C.  Complex access and car parking arrangements

D.  Poor accident record

E.  Poor pedestrian connectivity

F.  Lack of separation between retail traffic and through traffic

G.  No segregated bus access

H.  Peak time congestion

The strategy for Westwood had the following aims:

  i.  Reduce congestion/emissions reduction

  ii.  Parking solutions

  iii.  Improve safety record

  iv.  Optimise economic benefit of the area

  v.  Improve pedestrian/cycle access

  vi.  Reduce journey times for buses

  vii.  Improve public realm

Schemes of works under PHASE 1 of Strategy would include (as illustrated on slide no. 8):

1.  Widening of Poorhole Lane which would have roundabout junctions at both ends (by March 2015)

2.  Widening, in part, of Star Lane; introduction of lay-by parking; and new link between Star Lane and Haine Road

3.  Adoption of new Sainbury’s link road between New Haine Road and Margate  Road;  Enlargement of Margate Road roundabout.

Positive impacts expected from Phase 1 were:

  I.  Vehicle travelled time reduces by 74% and 25% respectively in 2014 and 2028 representing smooth and uncongested journeys to work, shopping, leisure and other activities

  II.  Network delays reduce by 14% and 35% respectively in 2015 and 2028 showing reliable journeys

  III.  Highway trips increase by 41% and 76% respectively in the scheme opening and design year indicating more economic activities are generated in the area due to the scheme

  IV.  Average car speed increases by 46% and 68% respectively in 2015 and 2028 demonstrating quicker journeys and less loss of productive hours in congestion

  V.  Majority of economic benefits come from travel time savings

  VI.  Every £1 invested would generate a further £12 of traditional economic benefits

  VII.  £25.5m of GVA benefits per year would further improve the local economy of Thanet and wider Kent.

Schemes proposed for Phase 2 (Slide No. 10 refers) were:

a)  Improving Westwood Road junction with Ramsgate Road (marked in red on Slide No. 10)

b)  Relieving congestion at Westwood Roundabout and enhancing walking/cycling and public transport connectivity (marked in green on Slide No. 10)

Negotiations had commenced on the adoption and upgrade of the existing Tesco link road (marked by a purple dotted line, slide 10).

What the Scheme should look like  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Kelly Garrett, Traffic Engineer (Traffic Schemes), Kent County Council Highways and Transportation, presented her report.

Members then raised queries as follows:

  i.  What type of pedestrian crossing would be installed? 

Kelly Garrett replied that the choice between a zebra crossing and a pelican crossing would depend on the results of surveys of pedestrian and traffic volumes and also discussions with the school.

  ii.  Have guard railings been considered to separate the footway from the road?

Kelly Garrett said that this option could be discussed with the school; however problems associated with the use of guardrails included high maintenance costs and propensity for some children to try to jump over the rails.

It was proposed by Councillor D Saunders, seconded by Councillor Dwyer and AGREED:

“THAT the ‘next steps’ as set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the report be approved, namely:

1.  To further develop proposals for the Casualty Reduction Measure, as outlined in paragraph 2.2, with a view to delivering a pedestrian crossing in the 2014/15 financial year;

2.  KCC officers will work with the local schools and the Broadstairs Road Traffic Group to further investigate the issues and identify the extent of the problems.  A further meeting has been arranged with the ‘working party’ on 28 March 2014 to start this process.  If considered necessary following the further investigations the ‘working party’ will develop solutions as appropriate with a view to identifying highway improvement measures for inclusion in a bid for funding from the 2015/16 Local Transport Plan.”

Kelly Garrett, Traffic Engineer (Traffic Schemes), Kent County Council Highways and Transportation, presented her report, outlining the results of implementing the Phase One and setting out proposals for Phase 2.

Points were raised during discussion as follows:

a)  A Member had waited 2 ½ minutes at the traffic lights at the Canterbury Road West Gateway, before accessing the village. 

Kelly Garrett advised that officers would look again at how traffic signals were operating at this location.

b)  Would it not be preferable to have a 30 mph speed along the whole of Canterbury Road West?

Kelly Garrett stated that having a 30 mph limit along the whole road would diminish the effect of that speed limit on the village.

c)  What was the current position regarding contractors’ repair work at Cottington Bridge?

John Farmer, Project Manager (Major Projects), Kent County Council Highways and Transportation, reported that the contractors had been due to come back to do remedial works at the end of the summer 2013.  However, that had not happened. 

There had been an expectation that the contractors would return this week.

John Farmer said that he would provide an update for inclusion in the minutes.

[Post-meeting update from John Farmer: 

The Contractor returned to Cottington Bridge in the week beginning 24 March 2014 and would complete the remedial works to kerbing, noise fence and safety barrier by the end of April.  Resurfacing of the deformed carriageway would take place over five nights at the end of May.

The Contractor would also be undertaking remedial works to the Cliffsend Underpass during May.  This would involve overnight closures of one direction or the other between Sevenscore roundabout and Lord of the Manor roundabout and the alternative route would be via A256 Richborough Way and Sandwich Road and vice versa.

All works were weather dependent to some extent and this might affect the programme.]

Councillor W Scobie expressed disappointment that KCC Members who represented the Ramsgate electoral division were not present at this meeting. 

Officers were congratulated on the scheme and, it was AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Gregory, seconded by Councillor Terry:

“THAT the officer’s recommendation as set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report be adopted, namely:

‘Approve drawing number TH-EXT-0047-101 Rev A in Annex 2 for construction in spring/summer 2014.’”

Ryan Shiel, Traffic Engineer (Member Highway Fund Team), Kent County Council Highways and Transportation, presented his report, outlining the features of the Zebra Crossing Scheme. 

He added that:

a)  the zig zag lines would be reduced in order to return some of the parking places;

b)  light beacons would be shielded to reduce light pollution;

c)  the scheme would be monitored following implementation to see if any further works were required.

Councillor W Scobie, who stressed that safety of school children at Cliftonville Primary School was of highest priority, advised that he had Councillor Mo Elenor had agreed to provide funding for parking enforcement at the school out of their Member Highway Fund.

It was proposed by Councillor Dwyer, seconded by Mr Terry and AGREED:

“THAT the recommendation as set out at paragraph 4.1 of the officer’s report be adopted, namely:

‘That based on the petition for a crossing, and amendments after the consultation process, the scheme proceeds as outlined.’”

The Programme was NOTED.

Paul Valek, District Manager, Kent County Council Highways and Transportation, reported that of the additional £2.5 million identified by the County Council for weather damage repairs, £156,000 had been allocated to Thanet. 

He stated that the following roads had already been repaired, using £40 – 50K of the funding:

-  BIRCHINGTON:  King Edward Road

-  MARGATE:  The Passage, Dane Valley; Canterbury Road

-  RAMSGATE: Brockenhurst Road; Winterstoke Way; Upper Dumpton Park;. School Lane

-  MANSTON;  Coldswood Road

Members then asked questions as follows:

1.  What was the expected timeframe from a white line being put around a pot hole to when it was repaired?

Paul Valek outlined the criteria for responses as varying from 2 hours to 24 hours and 7 days to 28 days. 

He would look into why the pot hole in Cliffsend referred to by Councillor Hovenden had not yet been repaired.

2.  What size did the pot hole have to be to warrant re-filling?

On a carriageway, the intervention criterion was 50 mm, but when a pot hole was 40 mm it would be logged for repair as within a week in wet weather it could increase to 50 mm.

The report was NOTED.

Robin Chantrill-Smith, Civil Enforcement Manager, Thanet District Council, presented his report and, in answer to a Member’s query, advised that it could take up to nine months to complete a scheme following its approval by the Board.  This was because each scheme was subject to public consultation and legal processing.

It was AGREED:

“THAT the officer’s recommendations as set out at paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 be adopted, namely:

1.  That the recommendations shown in Annex 1 are approved;

2.  That the proposals which require statutory consultation are advertised and that any traffic related objections are reported back to a future meeting of the Board.”

The report was NOTED.

The next Board meeting will be held on Thursday, 12 June 2014.

It was NOTED that the next Board meeting would be held on Thursday, 12 June 2014.