Your Councillors

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone

Contact: Mike Nash  01622 602264

Link: click here for webcast channel

Items
No. Item

107.

Amendment to the Order of Business

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That:

 

1.  Item 13. 20 MPH Policy Review be considered before Item 12. Reference from Maidstone Borough Council: Implementation of a 20 MPH Speed Limit in Fant.

 

2.  Item 18. Objections to Traffic Regulation Orders be considered before Item 14. Verbal Update – Leeds Langley Relief Road.

 

108.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from:

 

·  Councillor T Sams

 

·  Councillor Powell

 

·  Councillor Stockell

 

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Carter.

 

109.

Notification of Substitute Members

Minutes:

It was noted that Councillor Gooch was substituting for Councillor T Sams.

 

110.

Urgent Items

Minutes:

The Chairman informed the Board that he had decided to accept a report on Objections to Traffic Regulation Orders as an urgent item. The Chairman explained that the reason for urgency was that a recommendation was required from the meeting in order to ensure that projects were not delayed.

 

The Chairman informed the Board that he had agreed to take an urgent update to Item 15. Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP).  The reason for urgency was that Appendix 7 was referenced in the covering report.  Therefore, the appendix needed to be made publicly available to ensure transparency.

 

111.

Notification of Visiting Members

Minutes:

It was noted that Councillors Harper and Adkinson were present as Visiting Members, and indicated that they wished to speak on:

 

·  Item 12. Reference from Maidstone Borough Council: Implementation of a 20 MPH Speed Limit in Fant.

 

·  Item 13. 20 MPH Policy Review.

 

·  Item 15. Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP).

 

·  Item 16. B2246 Hermitage Lane/A26 Tonbridge Road Project.

 

112.

Disclosures by Members and Officers

Minutes:

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

 

113.

Disclosures of Lobbying

Minutes:

Councillor Prendergast stated that she had been lobbied on Item 11. Maidstone Joint Transportation Board Work Programme.

 

Councillors Bird and Hinder stated that they had been lobbied on Item 12. Reference from Maidstone Borough Council: Implementation of a 20 MPH Speed Limit in Fant.

 

All Councillors stated that they had been lobbied on Item 15. Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP).

 

Councillors Gooch, Hotson, Bird, Kimmance and Daley stated that they had been lobbied on Item 16. B2246 Hermitage Lane/A26 Tonbridge Road Project.

 

Councillor Burton stated that he had been lobbied on Item 18. Objections to Traffic Regulation Orders.

 

114.

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.

 

115.

Minutes of the Meeting Held on 17 April 2019 pdf icon PDF 49 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed.

 

116.

Presentation of Petitions (if any)

Minutes:

There were no petitions.

 

117.

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

Minutes:

There were no questions from members of the public.

 

118.

Maidstone Joint Transportation Board Work Programme pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Minutes:

The Democratic Services Officer explained that Item 18. Objections to Traffic Regulation Orders had been accepted as an urgent item.  The item was therefore to be removed from the Work Programme.

 

The Board requested that Highways England be invited to attend the next meeting on 16 October 2019 to speak on:

 

·  “M2 J5/A249”

 

·  “Proposed Improvements to A229/A249 links between the M2/A2 and M20 Corridors”

 

·  “M20 Safety Report”

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee Work Programme be noted, as amended.

 

119.

20 MPH Policy Review pdf icon PDF 91 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Projects and Delivery Manager outlined that the report provided an executive summary of the Kent County Council (KCC) 20mph Policy Review.  This had been undertaken in response to guidance issued by Central Government.  KCC planned to conduct research pilots, at various sites within the County, to trial innovative approaches such as centre line removal, bus build-outs, on street parking bay modifications and gateway features.  It was stated that once the pilot schemes had been operated for a period of twelve months, a report was to be submitted to the KCC Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee.  An update could then be provided to the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board (MJTB).

 

Councillors Harper and Adkinson spoke on this item as Visiting Members.

 

The Board commented that it welcomed the use of less intrusive speed reduction approaches.

 

In response to questions from the Board, Officers explained that:

 

·  Potential pilot schemes were to be submitted to KCC via email.  The email address was to be circulated to all Members of the MJTB outside of the meeting. 

 

·  The final number of pilot schemes was dependent on the schemes that were suggested and the availability of match funding that could be provided, such as Member grants.

 

·  The potential introduction of 20mph speed limits on new residential developments was to be considered during the Local Plan Review, as this required a policy change.  This was being undertaken by MBC.

 

RESOLVED: That the Kent County Council’s 20mph policy review be noted.

 

Note: Councillor Carter arrived at 5.34 p.m. during consideration of this item.

 

120.

Reference from Maidstone Borough Council: Implementation of a 20 MPH Speed Limit in Fant pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Harper introduced the item as a Visiting Member.

 

The Board commented that there had been a longstanding demand for 20mph speed limits in Fant.  It was noted that all potential 20mph pilot schemes were to be submitted to KCC via email and that the selection process for pilot schemes did not require endorsement from the MJTB.  Therefore, it was not prudent for the Board support the Fant pilot scheme as this had the potential to lead to further unnecessary endorsement requests.  

 

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

 

121.

Objections to Traffic Regulation Orders pdf icon PDF 70 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Operations Engineer explained to the Board that the report identified proposed Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that had received objections during formal consultation.

 

Councillor Tippen (Marden Parish Council) made a statement on this item.

 

The Board commented that although the Pattenden Lane proposal had received a number of objections, failing to proceed with the proposal condoned the contravention of Highways Code Rule 243.  This rule stated that vehicles must not stop opposite or within 10 metres of a junction, except in an authorised parking space or when forced to do so by stationary traffic.

 

RESOLVED: That the Joint Transportation Board recommends to the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee and Kent County Council as the Highway Authority that the proposals for:

 

1.  West End are not proceeded.

 

2.  Pattenden Lane are proceeded.

 

3.  Church Green are proceeded.

 

4.  High Street are proceeded.

 

5.  Sovereign Way are proceeded.

 

6.  Sutton Forge are proceeded.

 

7.  Albion Road are proceeded.

 

8.  Chantry Road are proceeded.

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

122.

Verbal Update - Leeds Langley Relief Road

Minutes:

The Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager informed the Board that surveys had been completed in 2018.  The data had been collected and validated, and a final report was to be submitted to the MJTB in October 2019.

 

RESOLVED: That the update be noted.

 

123.

Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP) pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager described each of the schemes within the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP).  The Board was informed that public consultation was to commence in September 2019.  A single consultation page was to be used for the whole package of work, which aimed to give consultees a greater understanding of the wider context of the scheme.  Following an anticipated contract award in early 2020, construction was planned to commence in April 2020.

 

Councillor Harper spoke on this item as a Visiting Member.

 

A20 Coldharbour Roundabout

 

The Board commented that it was positive that a large section of the A20 Coldharbour Roundabout was to be built offline, as this reduced the need for lengthy diversions.

 

In response to questions from the Board, the Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager replied that:

 

·  The potential to implement part-time signalisation at the roundabout was being explored as part of the detailed scheme design.

 

·  The purchase of third-party land had significantly reduced the risk associated with the scheme.

 

A229 Loose Road Corridor

 

Following questions from the Board, the Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager confirmed that:

 

·  The implementation of a signalised lozenge roundabout at the A229 Loose Road/A274 Sutton Road scheme achieved a capacity benefit beyond the original target of 2031. 

 

·  The acquisition of the Wheatsheaf Pub was underway, which significantly reduced the risk associated with the scheme. 

 

·  The detailed scheme design allowed for planting and environmental screening to be introduced.  This was to be included in the consultation process.

 

·  Although Cranbourne Avenue was to be closed at the junction, plans to enhance the street environment for residents who used the road had been included.

 

·  Traffic from Shepway had safe passage to another junction in the Loose Road Corridor, despite the closure of Cranbourne Avenue.

 

·  A fibreoptic link between the signals in the Loose Road Corridor was to be established.  This ensured that the phasing of lights allowed a better flow of traffic.

 

A20 Ashford Road/Willington Street

 

The Board commented that this was a vital infrastructure scheme.  Although there was a risk of an objection to the planning application due to the removal of vegetation, the plans to reinstate the vegetation at an appropriate location were acknowledged.

 

The Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager informed the Board that construction of this scheme was planned for between September and October 2020.

 

A274 Sutton Road/Willington Street & Wallis Avenue

 

The Board noted that the scheme only achieved capacity benefits until 2021.

 

The Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager said that:

 

·  The proposal combined elements of schemes considered by the MJTB in 2015 and 2018. 

 

·  A dedicated right-turn into the petrol filling station to the East was included in the scheme.

 

·  The proposal widened roads into the grass verge, however, the relocation of the southern bus stop allowed for the implementation of an improved planting scheme at the site. 

 

·  The acquisition of third-party land was required to widen Willington Street, in order to achieve improved capacity benefits.

 

·  The cost of the scheme was increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

124.

B2246 Hermitage Lane/A26 Tonbridge Road Project pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

The Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager explained that the scheme had been removed from the MITP due to a lack of demonstrable benefits and value for money.  It was stated that several scheme options had been considered, however, these only provided a capacity benefit of between three and five years.  Therefore, the report recommended that the current options for the B2246 Hermitage Lane/A26 Tonbridge Road Project were not progressed.

 

Councillors Harper and Adkinson spoke on this item as Visiting Members.

 

The Board commented that there was pressure for residential development in the Local Plan.  It was stated that planning applications benefitted from a joined-up response from KCC and MBC, which effectively explained how infrastructure mitigations were to be delivered.  If mitigations were undeliverable, then a joined-up response to explain why a development was not viable was required.

 

In response to questions from the Board, the Senior Major Capital Programme Project Manager said that:

 

·  A double roundabout at the A26 Tonbridge Road/Fountain Lane junction achieved an improved capacity benefit, however, this required the purchase of third-party land.  It was possible to use a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), however, this was a lengthy process to undertake.

 

·  The scheme was funded by S106 monies, however, there was a shortfall and further development was required in order to fully fund the scheme through S106 monies.

 

·  A Working Group had been established to explore options for improving the junction.  This consisted of Officers and Councillors Daley, Vizzard, Kimmance, Gooch and Bird.

 

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

 

125.

Maidstone Highway Works Programme pdf icon PDF 151 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

 

126.

Duration of Meeting

Minutes:

5.02 p.m. to 8.32 p.m.