Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Cornford, Fellows, Lewis and Yates.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete the Declaration of Interest Form.

To approve the Minutes of the Joint Transportation Board meeting held on 13 December 2022, copy attached.

Councillor Crow-Brown proposed, Councillor Scobie seconded and Members agreed that the minutes be approved as a correct record of the meeting held on 13 December 2022.

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited Members to discuss the item. No comments were made.

Councillor Crow-Brown proposed, Councillor Quittenden seconded and Members agreed to the following:

·  Support the officers’ recommendations

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited Members to discuss the item:

·  Members discussed Appendix E on the subject of Developer Funded Works. Clarification was requested regarding scheme TH003124 and when this would be submitted to KCC and further details about the entrance to the site.

·  Regarding  the Active Travel A28 scheme, two KCC Highways officers discussed the details with parish council leaders. Members were grateful for their time.

·  Members expressed concern that unless more members of the public used the public rights of way outlined in appendix J there was a risk that those rights of way would be lost.

Members noted the report.

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited Mr Pittock of the Thanet Cycling Forum to make a statement and he made the following points:

·  On the 9th March, the government announced a two-thirds cut in funding for cycling and walking. The funding was cut from £300 million per year to £100 million per year for two years, there were concerns that this would result in a greater expenditure in the future as cycling and walking provide health, economic and social benefits.

·  Thanet Cycling Forum saw little benefit from the tranche 2  scheme and improvements to Sea Road between Birchington and Westgate rail stations and felt that these could be seen by members of the public as a waste of money.

·  It was suggested that the funding could be better used for alternative cycling routes between sections of the Viking Coastal Trail on the promenade, where cycling is prohibited in the Summer months and where conditions make it difficult during the Winter months.

·  The Thanet Cycling Forum was pleased to hear that TDC had secured funding from KCC for further development of the local cycling and walking infrastructure plan, however there were concerns regarding the 12 month timescale for the funding, which did not allow much time for planning, design and consultation.

·  On the subject of the three schemes detailed in the report under 3.13, all three had failed to make it to the 2nd round due to them not scoring sufficiently highly enough. The Forum feared that  other schemes could also fail in a similar way. A request was made for a meeting or event between members and stakeholders to agree on a list of priorities  to make sure the funds were used effectively.

·  It was also suggested that lower cost, higher quality schemes such as quiet streets and low traffic neighbourhoods be looked into.

Members discussed the item and made the following points:

·  When there is a high tide at St Mildreds Bay, beachgoers leave the beach and move on to the promenade, resulting in  potential hazards for both themselves and cyclists. Therefore there would always be some areas such as this that would require cycling to be prohibited. 

·  A meeting between the Thanet Cycling Forum and Councillors to further discuss the issues should be made in the new financial year.

Members noted the report.

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited Members to discuss the item. Members made the following points:

·  It was felt that the report was somewhat “heavy-handed” compared to previous examples of TDC / KCC co-operation.

·  Members expressed concerns regarding 1.3, which reads: “Any correspondence on the application must be made via the Local Planning Authority (LPA). It is not possible for KCC Highways to have external discussions with developers/members of the public/Members or Parish Council’s and other local organisations outside of this process.“

·  Under 1.9: “In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework there is a presumption in favour of development and it is the duty of KCC Highways to work with the developers to try to ensure that development can proceed“ it was noted that there are likely to be changes to the NPPF in the future and that might include  “presumption in favour of development”.

·  KCC Highways would determine the extent of the area covered by a Transport Assessment as per paragraph 1.14 of the report: “KCC Highways will always determine the extent of the area to be covered by a Transport Assessment by scoping out the specific links and junctions on the network that are necessary in order for us to make an informed appraisal.“ It was commented  that these will need to be looked at carefully as previous assessments did not always appear to be  valid.

·  Concerns were raised about the planning development south of Monkton Road for 95 dwellings and the effect this would have on the roads.

Members noted the report.