Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were recorded from County Councillors Davies, Holden and Scholes.

 If a Member has a prejudicial interest, this should be declared at the start of the meeting.

Personal interests may be declared at this point or alternatively can be declared at the time when the specific item is being discussed, if a Member wishes to speak on an item in which s/he has a personal interest. 

Members in doubt about such a declaration are advised to contact the Legal Services Manager/Monitoring Officer before the date of the meeting.

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests. However, Councillor Rogers asked that it be noted that he was an employee of Network Rail; County Councillor Hoare advised that he was a member of the congregation of St. Augustine’s Church.

Members should indicate which item(s) they wish to speak on and the nature of their concern/question/request for clarification.

Councillor Rankin had registered to speak on minute TB41/14, TB42/14 and TB44/14. Councillor Webb had registered to speak on minute TB42/14.

of the meeting dated 19 January 2015.

Councillor Scott asked for the following amendments:

·         Minute TB32/14 be amended to show that it had been Councillor Neve who highlighted that an assault took place in Chandos Road.

·         Minute TB35/14 be amended to show that is was him and not Councillor Neve who had asked for confirmation as to which County Councillor was providing funding for works on Sandrock Road.

Councillor Neve asked for the following amendment:

·         Minute TB36/14 should have “at” added so it read, “grass verges on George V (Pigs) Hill be looked at.”

RESOLVED:

·         that, subject to the amendments above, the minutes of the previous meeting on Monday 19 January 2015 be accepted as an accurate record of the meeting.

Updated as at 9 April 2015.

The Board considered the Tunbridge Wells Tracker System as at 20 April 2015. The following comments were made in respect of the Tracker Items as follows:

Tracker Item 1: Vicki Hubert, Strategic Transport and Development Planner, Kent Highways & Transportation stated that there was nothing further to add to the update except that they would keep Members informed should a window of opportunity arise for the commencement of the work.

Tracker Item 2: Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells, Kent Highways & Transportation introduced the item as an update for information and invited questions. Councillor Bulman noted his satisfaction that the temporary roundabout at Knights Park appeared to have already made a significant improvement to the flow of traffic through the area. This solution could be considered when considering other similar projects including on the A26 to be discussed later. Councillor Scott reassured the Board that if any proposed water fountains on roundabouts in Knights Park and Kings Standing Way were to go ahead they would be low level and feature automatic shut-offs in high winds to avoid splashing which should negate the problems experienced at other roundabouts with water fountains.

Tracker Item 3: David Candlin, Head of Economic Development, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council advised that there was nothing further to add to the update.

Tracker Item 4: The Chairman, Councillor Rogers noted that this item would be covered by the full report under minute TB44/14.

Tracker Item 5: Mr Bourner introduced the item as a final update for information. The item may be removed from the Tracker.

Tracker Item 6: Mr Bourner introduced the item and invited the Board to indicate its preferred course of action. Councillor Neve commented that he preferred option (ii) as it would look better in keeping with the natural environment and be easier to maintain in the long run. The condition of the surface was continuing to deteriorate with parking on both sides of the road, effectively reducing the road to a single lane track and more of the verges would need doing. The Chairman, Councillor Rogers asked Mr Bourner to provide a costing of the scheme. Mr Bourner advised to keep the item on the Tracker and to proceed with the works in sections subject to budgetary constraints. However, Councillor Neve insisted on a full report.

RESOLVED:

·         that the Board requested a full report on the matter to be brought to the next meeting of the Joint Transportation Board.

Tracker Item 7: Mr Bourner introduced the item and added that crime statistics had been collated by the Police to form part of the full report which will be coming to the next meeting of the Joint Transportation Board. Councillor Backhouse noted that the lack of street lighting had been identified by the residents of Sherwood as a particular concern. All lights in certain areas were switched off rather than every third light as had been expected. Clarity was desired as to what the ongoing policy would be. Councillor Woodward asked whether LED  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB41/14

At the Chairman’s discretion this item was brought forward.

Councillor Rankin had registered to speak: Councillor Rankin advised that much of what she wanted to say had already been covered in the previous item and similarly applied here.

Councillor Webb had registered to speak: Councillor Webb commented that there appeared to have been a recent spate of new road crossings on Mount Ephraim and a comment had been made at the previous meeting highlighting the finite resources for such works. He had previously supported new crossings on major roads including Langton Road and The Pantiles which were approved in February. As such he objected to new applications before existing ones had been completed.

Steven Noad, Traffic Engineer, Kent Highways & Transportation introduced the report and noted that the recent new crossings on Mount Ephraim had been funded through discretionary Member Grants. Mr Noad suggested  it might be possible to look at the proposed crossing on Crescent Road in conjunction with the Carr’s Corner roundabout discussed earlier. However, having spent 1.5-2 hours investigating the proposed site the location did not appear to be desirable. The proposed site would be on the bend and too close to entrances/exits of the car park. It was also noted that there are existing crossings only 90 yards away.

Councillor Neve asked if it would be possible to determine in advance of a feasibility study whether factors such as the visibility and sight lines are insufficient. Mr Noad confirmed that it was the purpose of the feasibility study to determine such factors and it need not be prohibitively expensive. County Councillor Hoare noted that the corner was used by many people using Calverley Ground as well as parishioners and a pedestrian refuge would be welcomed.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers invited further questions and comments. There being none, and no objections, the Board was asked whether it supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

·         that the report be noted and that the Board endorsed a dialogue with the local County Councillor for the area should there be options available to fund this work.

Ms Sarah Holden had registered to speak, Councillor Webb had agreed to read a statement on her behalf. Ms Holden’s statement requested that the resident permit zone on Castle Road be extended to the north of Onslow House. The current spaces appeared to be rarely used but they were useless to residents as they were limited to 4 hours. A recent collision in the road highlighted the need for resident’s parking north of the building to avoid people backing down the road. The one-way system would usually mean a resident having to take a 30 minute detour in order to park to the south of the building. The problem was compounded by the lack of a footpath. The walk up from the parking spaces south of Onslow House was dangerous whereas the short walk down from the spaces north of Onslow House would be comparatively less hazardous.

Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council introduced the report and added that the report followed the introduction of parking controls across the borough and was intended as a review of the measures. To date the only issue that had been presented was Castle Road as mentioned by the speaker. The report made the recommendation that the regulation covering the section of Castle Road where parking was limited to 4 hours without exemption would be changed to exempt permit holders.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers invited questions and comments. There being none, and no objections, the Board was asked whether it supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

·         that the report be noted and an amendment to the permit parking arrangements for Castle Road be endorsed.

Councillor Rankin had registered to speak. Councillor Rankin asked whether there was the intention of extending restrictions on pavement parking through the borough, or parts of it, to protect the new pavement surfaces.

Rosemarie Bennett, Parking Manager, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council confirmed that they would be looking at pavement parking throughout the borough and Ferndale was on the radar. Pavement parking would form part of the Parking Strategy which would be published shortly.

Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council introduced the report and noted a correction to paragraph five. Major York’s Road had received funding from the local County Council Member. Work was likely to commence in May ahead of the rest of the proposals. The report was not an exhaustive list and was intended to give an indication of the proposals which had received the most comment to date.

Councillor Neve suggested that any decision on the introduction of restrictions on King George V Hill should be taken in conjunction with the earlier proposal for maintaining the verges (Tunbridge Wells Tracker System, Item 6). If the verges were restored the double yellow lines might be unnecessary. Furthermore, Councillor Neve offered his services with distributing information if the proposal was to go through to consultation.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers invited further questions and comments. There being none, and no objections, the Board was asked whether it supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

·         that the report be noted.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers advised the Board that the purpose of the report was not to advise on what kind of innovative transport solutions to implement but rather to establish whether there was an appetite to explore innovative transport solutions and how to go about exploring those solutions.

Mr Peter Perry, Town Forum had registered to speak. Mr Perry made reference to a section of the discussion document prepared by DHA which highlighted a number of factors that effectively ruled-out establishing a park-and-ride scheme based at Tesco on Pembury Road. Mr Perry noted that the discussion document went on to highlight that park-and-ride schemes would be more successful if they piggy-pack on existing transport links. Mr Perry suggested that the new Tunbridge Wells Hospital at Pembury might serve as such a link. The hospital benefitted from 6 buses per hour into Tunbridge Wells throughout the day and other good services to Tonbridge, Maidstone and Paddock Wood. The hospital also had good road connections to the A21. Subject to agreement with the hospital, a park-and-ride scheme could be established with the minimal cost of a few signs. Use of the park-and-ride might reduce congestion on Pembury Road. A second option would be to facilitate use of High Brooms train station with 4 trains per hour into Tunbridge Wells. Improvements to North Farm Estate and the anticipated widening of the railway bridge would provide easier access to the A21. A new multi-storey car park would be needed. In closing Mr Perry asked that important reports such as the DHA discussion document be provided further in advance.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers advised that reports were prepared subject to strict deadlines and unfortunately would not be available earlier.

David Candlin, Head of Economic Development, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council introduced the report and advised that the author of the discussion document Paul Lulham was in attendance for questions.

Councillor Scott welcomed the opportunity to discuss future solutions. County Councillor Hoare noted that the borough had some pressing needs that could be addressed by more conventional means. Councillor Scott referenced a paper that had been prepared by him and Councillor Woodward which had been distributed to Members. The paper highlighted the issue of congestion in the long term. The nature of transport would change significantly over the next decades and retrofitting contemporary transport schemes into a town was an increasingly expensive and damaging operation. Councillor Scott added that any plans for the future must consider some of the near future solutions which might be less expensive to retrofit and considerably less damaging. Councillor Woodward supported the comments made by Councillor Scott and noted that the table used in the discussion document to compare relative costs of various transport schemes omits Personal Rapid Transport schemes.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers invited further questions and comments. There being none, and no objections, the Board was asked whether it supported the recommendations.

RESOLVED:

·         that the Board endorsed the inclusion in the Borough Transport Strategy referring to the need to  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB45/14

Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells, Kent Highways & Transportation introduced the report and added that there would be a move from programmed cleansing to more reactive cleansing. Local hotspots, high speed roads and strategic main routes would be cleansed every 12 months. Minor urban roads, residential areas and rural roads would be subject to targeted cleansing. Property flooding would remain a priority.

Councillor Woodward asked the definition of a hotspot and how many there where in the borough. Mr Bourner confirmed that a hotspot is where there was known flooding and agreed to email Councillor Woodward with the number of hotspots in Tunbridge Wells. Councillor Woodward asked, in reference to paragraph eight of the report, how the various improvement schemes were selected. Mr Bourner advised that he would take the question back for a full answer but summarised that generally works which improved hotspots and property flooding issues were prioritised.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers invited further questions and comments. There being none, and no objections, the Board was asked whether it supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

·         that the report be noted.

Mr Adrian Berendt had registered to speak. Mr Berendt questioned the assumption in the report that traffic would increase by 17 per cent over ten years. It was highlighted that the report failed to take account of 1) changes to the A21 redistributing local traffic to major routes, 2) changes to driving habits due to factors such as new schools  in Sevenoaks or internet shopping, 3) Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s own Transport Strategy which sought to prioritise active transport and 4) the fact that when the junction was previously altered the traffic had been predicted to increase but there had been a decrease in traffic. Rather than relying on inaccurate modelling it was suggested that the Council considered how it wanted the town to look and used the existing 5 year plan as a guide. Mr Brendt suggested that the redevelopment of the junction satisfied none of the goals of the 5 year plan and action should be taken to address the wider problem. The example of the Dutch was given whereby 33 per cent of children cycle to school whereas only two per cent cycle in the UK. It was suggested that more than 7,000 children go to school on St Johns Road and 25 per cent have expressed an interest in cycling to school. High quality, segregated cycle lanes on the A26 would deliver significant reductions in traffic, reduce pollution, tackle obesity and improve the quality of life for all residents.

Vicky Hubert, Strategic Transport and Development Planner, Kent Highways & Transportation introduced the report and added that the wider problem would be looked at in preparing the draft Transport Strategy. Ms Hubert noted that funding for the redevelopment of this particular junction had been secured from the Local Growth Fund on the basis of increasing capacity which was the sole purpose of this report at this time. Furthermore, wording in the report that might have suggested vehicle and pedestrian safety had not been considered was not accurate and was intended only to show that those aspects were not the primary driver in the way the funding was secured.

In response to a question from Councillor Backhouse, Ms Hubert confirmed that the works were due to commence from January 2016.

Councillor Bulman expressed concern at the report and noted that suggestions a mini-roundabout would increase congestion seemed counter-intuitive. The example was given of traffic on North Farm which had significantly improved due to the mini-roundabout. Councillor Bulman suggested a live trial whereby the traffic lights would be switched off and mini-roundabouts installed using traffic cones, as was the case on North Farm. Such a trial would cost-effectively prove or disprove whether they would work. County Councillor Oakford asked to hear more about the statistics provided earlier by Mr Brendt. County Councillor Oakford also commented that whilst mini-roundabouts were generally good for cars, they did nothing for the ease and safety of other road users and pedestrians. Any improvements would need to work for all.

In response to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB47/14

Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells, Kent Highways & Transportation introduced the information only report.

Councillor Neve praised the recently completed works in Ferndale. Councillor Backhouse praised the comprehensive communications from Kent Highways & Transportation to residents in Sherwood regarding works from Pembury Road to High Brooms.

Councillor Bulman asked how much of the A26 was due for resurfacing. Mr Bourner confirmed that the A26 had not appeared in the 2015/16 priority list nor had it been successful for a Change Fund bid.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers invited further questions and comments. There being none, and no objections, the Board was asked whether it supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

·         that the report be noted.

Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells, Kent Highways & Transportation introduced the information only report.

The Chairman, Councillor Rogers invited questions and comments. There being none, and no objections, the Board was asked whether it supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

·         that the report be noted.

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.

Board members asked for the following topics to be considered for future meetings:

Rosemarie Bennett, Parking Manager, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council advised that the Parking Strategy would be ready shortly.

Councillor Backhouse asked Members to consider the matter of road safety on the junction of Birken Road and Liptraps Lane. A number of inappropriate heavy goods vehicles have been reported using the predominantly residential road to access Longfield Road. There was some data available that showed a number of near-misses at the junction. The Chairman, Councillor Rogers asked that the data be sent to him and Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells, Kent Highways & Transportation.

The Vice Chairman, County Councillor King noted that the Chairman, Councillor Rogers was not seeking re-election and as such this was his last meeting. The Board recorded it’s praise and thanks for Councillor Rogers’ chairmanship.

The next meeting of the Joint Transportation Board will be Monday 20 July 2015 commencing at 6pm.