Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1RS. View directions
Contact: Mark O'Callaghan Democratic Services Officer
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors Davies and Oakford and Parish Councillor Mackonochie. |
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of Interest by Members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer before the meeting. Minutes: There were no disclosable pecuniary or other significant interests declared at the meeting. |
|
Notification of Visiting Members Wishing to Speak Councillors should indicate which item(s) they wish to speak on and the nature of their comments no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting. (Pursuant to Cabinet Procedure Rule 28.4) Minutes: Councillor Sarah Hamilton had registered to speak on minute TB20/15. |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting dated 20 July 2015 PDF 288 KB The Chairman will move that the minutes be signed as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy. Minutes: Members reviewed the minutes. There were no amendments proposed.
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 20 July 2015 be approved as a correct record. |
|
Tunbridge Wells Tracker PDF 133 KB Minutes: The Board considered the Tunbridge Wells Tracker as at 19 October 2015. Comments were made in respect of the Tracker Items as follows:
Tracker Item 1 – Crescent Road central crossing refuge: Steven Noad, Traffic Engineer, Kent County Council, confirmed that funding had been secured and the project would move to design stage.
Tracker Item 3 – Longfield Road and North Farm: Councillor Bulman asked as to the nature of the delays to the scheme. Mr Noad advised that he was not directly involved but would endeavour to get an update from the major projects team and respond by email.
Trackers Item 4 – Borough Transportation Strategy: County Councillor Holden asked what progress had been made with the Strategy and whether it addressed the Hawkhurst traffic lights which had previously been requested. Vicki Hubert, Strategic Transport and Development Planner, Kent County Council, advised that the strategy had been adopted by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and would go before the Cabinet of Kent County Council in April 2016. The strategy identified the Hawkhurst traffic lights as an issue which would be addressed by the Local Plan Review in 2016.
Tracker Item 5 – King George V Hill: Councillor Neve noted the late start of the works and asked for a contact within Kent County Council should there be problems as it appeared that a couple of trees had been removed which was not part of the plan. John Reynolds, District Manager for Dartford, Kent County Council (substituting for Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells), agreed to provide the requested details.
Tracker Item 8 – Grosvenor Bridge: County Councillor Hoare asked what was being done to speed up the works. Mr Reynolds agreed to provide an update from the major projects team by email.
Tracker Item 10 – Carrs Corner: Councillor Bulman noted that the planting of the roundabout was sub-standard. Mr Noad agreed and advised that the tree was due to be replaced in the autumn. Discussions were ongoing with the operations team regarding long term maintenance as it was particularly difficult in this location. Councillor Backhouse added that he had received a number of complaints in respect of the condition of the roundabout which was a high profile focal point at the entrance to the town. Councillor Scott commented that support had been given by the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum for a water themed structure to replace the tree which would be easier to maintain and would be in keeping with the idea of Water in the Wells. Mr Noad thanked members for their feedback and invited the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum to submit its ideas for a waterless water-themed feature directly to Kent County Council.
RESOLVED – That the Tunbridge Wells Tracker be noted. |
|
Joint Reports of Kent County Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council |
|
Minutes: Hilary Smith, Economic Development Manager, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, introduced the report which included the following comments: · The report had been prepared in response to concerns raised both by this committee and other organisations. · There were several examples where 20 mph zones had been successfully implemented by other local authorities which had benefitted from reduced road collisions, improved quality of life for residents and the associated health benefits. · The report explored the national and local policy framework. · There appeared to be widespread support for 20 mph speed limits, particularly in residential roads and near schools. · The recommendations in the report provide a clear way forward which included setting up a working group to include two members of the Joint Transportation Board (one Kent, one Tunbridge Wells).
Mr Tom Swarbrigg, resident of Silverdale Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells and member of the Twenty’s Plenty campaign group, had registered to speak.
Mr Swarbrigg welcomed the report. He commented that speeding traffic on residential roads was a particular concern and noted that 20 mph zones had worked well at his previous address in London. There appeared to be widespread support and clear benefits for borough-wide 20 mph limits, particularly on residential roads.
Parish Councillor Katrina Lyle, member of Speldhurst Parish Council and local school Governor, had registered to speak.
Parish Councillor Lyle welcomed the report and supported the concept of 20 mph limits in both the town centre and villages. Speldhurst Parish Council already had a policy of pursuing 20 mph zones around the schools and would like to see the zones expanded. There was approximately one near-miss per week on the roads around the villages of Speldhurst Parish therefore the Parish Council supported the recommendations in the report for both urban and rural areas of the Borough.
Councillor Sarah Hamilton, borough member for Paddock Wood (East), chairman of Paddock Wood Town Council and local school Governor, had registered to speak.
Councillor Hamilton supported the concept of borough-wide 20 mph limits and offered her services should the working group be established as set out in the report. Paddock Wood already experienced traffic problems and the town faced significant developments in the near future. Heavy Goods Vehicles and other vehicles travelled too fast in built-up areas close to schools and other amenities where people were walking.
Councillor Scott felt that safety should be the number one priority and highlighted the case of a resident of Upper Grosvenor Road who had several cars written off whilst parked in the road and being hit by speeding vehicles. He suggested that if a trial area was needed then the area forming a triangle between St. John’s Road, Upper Grosvenor Road and Yew Tree Road would be suitable as a mainly residential area with many rat-runs.
County Councillor Holden advised members that a speeding working group had been established which was having some success by working with speed watch teams and the Police. Enforcement would be key if there was to be a change in behaviour. Physically barriers would ... view the full minutes text for item TB20/15 |
|
A26 and A264 Route Study Update PDF 237 KB Minutes: Vicki Hubert, Strategic Transport and Development Planner, Kent County Council, introduced the report which included the following comments: · The report provided an update on the route studies currently underway on the A26 and A264 into Royal Tunbridge Wells. · Several key junction points were assessed for queue lengths, peak hour traffic and future modelling. · The results of the ANPR survey were also included which provided some interesting insights. · 14 per cent of traffic on the A26 and A264 passes through the town centre. · Only 8 – 11 per cent of all traffic was through traffic. · The report identified key areas requiring further investigation to enable recommendations to be made for improvement schemes.
A letter from Mr Nicholas Sturcke, resident of Kings Toll Road, Pembury, was read out at the Chairman’s discretion.
Mr Sturcke requested that equal priority be given to the improvement of Halls Hole Road as part of the overall scheme to reduce congestion on the A264. He noted that the tight corner and narrowness of the lane greatly restricted the movement of vehicles and was a major safety concern. Improvements to the Halls Hole Road would allow more traffic to filter away from the worst areas and such a scheme should be included in any works proposed for Pembury Road.
Mr Scott Purchas, resident of Cleeve Avenue, Hawkenbury, had registered to speak on behalf of Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group.
Mr Purchas welcomed the report and offered suggestions for the next stage of its development. Further vehicle capacity increases were likely therefore the only options were to build more roads or reduce vehicle traffic use by shifting more journeys to active travel modes. Evidence showed that more roads leads to more traffic through a process known as “induced demand”. By contrast, increased use of alternatives reduced the overall congestion as well as reduced pollution, was lower cost and improved other quality of life factors. It was suggested that a working party should visit towns in the Netherlands to see first hand the benefits of a cycle-centric transport system. Mr Purchas noted that only 11 per cent of traffic passed through the borough therefore a bypass was not viable and the focus should be on moving people into or around the town. Minor changes to one junction was unlikely to yield significant results due to the proximity of other junctions and the entrances and exits to the main routes which were at or above capacity.
Mr John Coupe, resident of Farmcombe Road, Hawkenbury, had registered to speak on behalf of Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group.
Mr Coupe asked that the report be enhanced by the inclusion of other statistical information from a variety of sources to build up a view of travel patterns and behaviour. He was concerned that the count point data seemed to be inconsistent with the projections for increased traffic. Several large scale developments and their potential impact on the number of vehicles were omitted from the report, it was noted that any new ... view the full minutes text for item TB21/15 |
|
Reports of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council introduced the report which included the following comments: · This matter had been considered at the previous meeting as part of a package of proposed regulation changes but further information had been requested before the Joint Transportation Board was able to give a recommendation. · The matter was simply whether the restrictions as they were marked were adequate for the intended purpose or if they need to be extended across the driveway of 31 Norfolk Road in order to secure safe access to Grove Hill Road and the Bowling Club beyond. · It was the opinion of both Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Parking Department and Kent County Council Highways Department that the current marking are appropriate. · The original complaint was based upon vehicles being parked in such a way that they extend beyond the mouth of the junction and obstructed Grove Hill Road. The current markings prevent this from happening. · Agreement was sought to amend the traffic regulation order to match the situation on the ground.
Mr Roy Thompson, director of The Grove Bowling Club, had registered to speak on behalf of the Club.
Mr Thompson referred to an email he had sent to members prior to the meeting and added that the Bowling Club was requesting that the restriction be implemented as agreed and advertised by Kent County Council. The length of the double yellow lines was significantly shorter than expected and was insufficient to prevent people from parking in such as way as to cause an obstruction around the junction. The recommendation from the Joint Transportation Board and decision of Kent County Council had been overturned on the strength of one resident objection. The effect of the reduced restriction was to create a private parking space for the resident which when occupied obstructed the road for other residents and the many who used the Bowling Club. Mr Thompson added that at the other end of Norfolk Road at the junction with Claremont Road it was deemed necessary for double yellow lines to extend much further on both sides, the same was needed at the junction with Grove Hill Road.
County Councillor Scholes asked for clarification on how the length of the lines was calculated. Mr Baldwin confirmed that the restriction was measured from the intersection of the centre lines of the roads and as such the length of the painted lines would appear to be shorter than the stated restrictions. County Councillor Scholes noted that he was also the Borough Councillor for the relevant ward and had been aware that there was a problem but it was unclear whether the specific length of the line was the issue as he had not visited the site recently. Mr Baldwin reiterated that the purpose of the restriction was to prevent people from parking adjacent to the access to the driveway which would consequently involve them sticking out on to Grove Hill Road, the markings in their current form prevented this. County Councillor Scholes commented ... view the full minutes text for item TB22/15 |
|
Town Hall Service Roads PDF 75 KB Minutes: The Chairman, County Councillor King, advised members that no representations has been received in respect of this topic. Therefore the report was for information only.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted. |
|
Car Club Parking Bays PDF 76 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman, County Councillor King, advised members that no representations has been received in respect of this topic. Therefore the report was for information only.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted. |
|
Reports of Kent County Council |
|
Street Lighting LED Project Update PDF 82 KB Minutes: John Reynolds, District Manager for Dartford, Kent County Council (substituting for Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells), introduced the report which included the following comments: · The trial and consultation in respect of switching off or dimming street lights was underway. · The campaign was widely advertised in local papers, radio, Kent County Council’s website and social media channels. · Street lights in residential areas would be converted to LED within the next fourteen months. Other routes would then up updated.
Councillor Woodward questioned the timing of the consultation which appeared to show that a report would be made to the Joint Transportation Board prior to the conclusion of the consultation. Mr Reynolds advised that he would ask the Project Manager, Robert Clark, to provide clarification.
The Chairman, County Councillor King, summarised the consensus of the Board and asked members whether the resolutions were agreed.
RESOLVED –
1. That the Board requests clarification of the timings of the consultation and an update on the proposed work streams prior to any decisions being taken; and
2. That the report be noted. |
|
Highway Works Programme PDF 114 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chairman, County Councillor King, invited questions and comments in respect of the Highway Works Programme.
County Councillor Scholes noted that the resurfacing works on the A26 London Road was marked as complete and asked whether a specific report on the recent flooding which had been promised was ready. He added that the extent of the flooding on 23 August 2015 and 1 September 2015 appeared to have been contributed to by the drains being blocked with tarmac. John Reynolds, District Manager for Dartford, Kent County Council (substituting for Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells) agreed to make enquiries.
Councillor Bulman commented that the A26 was still in need of significant upgrade and that the long time waiting for such works should be considered when the various work streams were prioritised. Mr Reynolds advised the Board that a survey in the area had recently been undertaken and the condition of the A26 had been noted. It was hoped that funding would be made available in the next financial year.
RESOLVED –
1. That the Board requests a report on the causes of the flooding around The Pantiles on 23 August 2015 and 1 September 2015; and
2. That the report be noted. |
|
Topics for Future Meetings There can not be any substantial debate/discussion or any decision on any reports raised, but the agreement of the Board that the topic may come forward to the Board as a report to the next or future meeting would be required. Prior notice of the topic should be sent to the Chairman and Committee Administrator.
Minutes: The following topics were raised for consideration at a future meeting: · Self-driving vehicles · Debate on the efficacy of traffic lights |
|
Date of Next Meeting The date of the next scheduled meeting is Monday 18 January 2016, at 6.00pm. Minutes: The next meeting of the Joint Transportation Board would be on Monday 18 January 2016 commencing at 6pm. |