Your Councillors


Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone

Contact: Mike Nash  01622 602264

Items
No. Item

92.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from:

 

·  Councillor Springett

 

·  Councillor Carter

 

93.

Notification of Substitute Members

Minutes:

It was noted that Councillor Spooner was substituting for Councillor Springett.

 

94.

Urgent Items

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

95.

Notification of Visiting Members

Minutes:

There were no Visiting Members.

 

96.

Disclosures by Members and Officers

Minutes:

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

 

97.

Disclosures of Lobbying

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

 

98.

To consider whether any items should be taken in private because of the possible disclosure of exempt information

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That all items be taken in public as proposed.

 

99.

Minutes of the Meeting Held on 16 January 2019 pdf icon PDF 74 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed.

 

100.

Presentation of Petitions (if any)

Minutes:

There were no petitions.

 

101.

Questions and answer session for members of the public (if any)

Minutes:

There were no questions from members of the public.

 

102.

Maidstone Joint Transportation Board Work Programme pdf icon PDF 49 KB

Minutes:

It was requested that an item regarding the M2 Junction 5 and associated works be considered at the next meeting.  The Board suggested that a representative from Highways England be invited to this meeting.

 

A further report, regarding the safety of M20 junctions impacted by Operation Brock, was requested.  It was stated that metal barriers had remained in situ on the westbound carriageway after Operation Brock had been deactivated.  This represented a safety risk.

 

It was suggested that the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee at Maidstone Borough Council conduct a review regarding the impact of introducing 20mph speed limits. 

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee Work Programme be noted.

 

103.

Maidstone Bridges Gyratory – Post Scheme Monitoring pdf icon PDF 124 KB

Minutes:

Mr Russell Boorman, Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager (Kent County Council), explained that the report contained initial findings from the post-scheme monitoring of the Maidstone Bridges Gyratory.  A final report was to be submitted to the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board containing information regarding cycling and pedestrian safety.  It was stated that the scheme had been a success when considering the reduction in the number of recorded incidents.

 

The Board commented that landscaping work was not complete at the site.  Maidstone Borough Council was working on the generation of proposals, in liaison with Parish Councils.

 

In response to questions from the Board, Mr Boorman stated that:

 

·  Kent County Council (KCC) was working with central government to obtain additional enforcement powers.  These powers ensured that box junction blockages could be resolved.  This would improve the performance of the gyratory scheme.

 

·  An update on the design and implementation of flood prevention measures was to be provided to Members via email.

 

The Board requested that Mr Boorman attend the next Agenda Setting meeting to assist with the preparation and scheduling of reports.

 

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

 

104.

Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP) pdf icon PDF 137 KB

Minutes:

Mr Boorman stated that on 12 April 2019, SELEP agreed the remaining funding for the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP).  A total of £8.9m had therefore been secured.  Mr Boorman explained that the schemes within the report demonstrated a package of works that was considered to be achievable within the budget and time requirements.

 

The Board commented that:

 

·  The original Willington Street Maidstone A274 Sutton Road Junction scheme had been rejected, however, a smaller scheme with reduced impact on vegetation could be designed.

 

·  Although the A20 Hall Road Aylesford project was a mitigation scheme, it did not benefit Maidstone.

 

In response to questions from the Board, Mr Boorman replied that:

 

·  It was not possible to retain the current traffic signals at the Coldharbour Roundabout.  The reconfiguration meant that vehicles were required to stop in different locations.  It was suggested that the designs include the infrastructure necessary to enable the implementation of signals if these were required at a later date.

 

·  Options for the Willington Street Maidstone A274 Sutton Road Junction were to be returned to a future meeting of this Board for consideration.

 

·  SELEP funding for the Willington Street Maidstone A274 Sutton Road Junction project required the scheme to demonstrate good value for money.  Any proposal was therefore subject to the same level of scrutiny as other schemes within the MITP.

 

·  The removal of the A20 Hall Road Aylesford scheme from the MITP risked losing the funding available for the work if another scheme was not delivered in its place.

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

1.  The report be noted.

 

2.  The Maidstone Joint Transportation Board recommends that the A20 Hall Road Aylesford scheme be removed from the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package.

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

105.

Maidstone Highway Works Programme pdf icon PDF 143 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

 

106.

Duration of Meeting

Minutes:

5.00 p.m. to 6.26 p.m.

 

Our A-Z

If you cannot find what you are looking for in our search facility, you can use our A-Z index to find the service you require.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z