Agenda and minutes

Joint Transportation Board - Monday, 17th July, 2017 6.00 pm

Download documents using the MOD.GOV app

Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1RS

Contact: Mark O'Callaghan  Democratic Services Officer

No. Item


Chairman's Introduction


County Councillor Barrington-King opened the meeting and commented that he was pleased to be the chairman for the municipal year 2017/18, noting that the chairmanship alternated between Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Kent County Council each year. He hoped for a positive collaborative approach between residents, officers and members.


He added that he remained the elected member for Tunbridge Wells East division and where any significant issues directly affected his division he would ask the Vice Chairman to assume the chair to avoid any conflicts of interest. Members agreed.



Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.


There were no apologies for absence.


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.


There were no disclosable pecuniary or other significant interests declared at the meeting.


Parish Councillor Mackonochie noted he was a member of Capel Parish Council in respect of minute JB6/17. This did not preclude him from participation.


Notification of Visiting Members wishing to speak

Members 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)


There were no Visiting Members who had registered to speak.


The Chairman noted that there were 15 members of the public who had registered to speak, although not all were in attendance.


Minutes of the meeting dated 09 January 2017 pdf icon PDF 291 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.


Members reviewed the minutes. No amendments were proposed.


RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 09 January 2017 be approved as a correct record.


Capel Parish Council Response pdf icon PDF 92 KB


With the agreement of the Board, the Chairman brought the item forward in the agenda.


Michael Hardy, Schemes Project Manager, KCC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         Following a request from Capel Parish Council for improved pedestrian facilities and other measures to tackle excessive HGVs and speed a feasibility study had been undertaken.

·         A site for a zebra crossing had been identified and KCC was working with Capel Parish Council in order to progress.


Mr Jeff Fenton had registered to speak on behalf of Capel Road Safety Campaign.


Mr Fenton commented that a petition containing the signatures of over 1,200 people calling for improved road safety had been submitted to KCC. He outlined several accidents that had lead to action being called for and highlighted that currently there were no traffic calming or safety features in the village. The problems would be exacerbated by 1,100 new homes being constructed in neighbouring Paddock Wood and Capel Parish Council had not been consulted despite a prediction that 70 per cent of the new traffic was likely to pass through Five Oak Green. The proposed zebra crossing was only possible if funded locally and this action alone was insufficient. He called for speed repeater signs throughout the village and several pedestrian island crossings. Nothing had been done to mitigate the increased traffic as a result of the A21 works and he called for permanent HGV restrictions throughout the village once the A21 reopened. Five Oak Green needed help to improve road safety.


Mr Jeff Fenton read a statement on behalf of Ms Dacey Aris, resident of Five Oak Green, who had registered to speak.


Ms Aris expressed significant safety concerns due to the volume of traffic and size of some vehicles through the village, she felt that it had been safer using the pavements where she lived previously in close proximity to the A21 and A25. There had recently been several accidents where pedestrians had been hit by speeding vehicles and driving on to Five Oak Green Road was often hazardous due to speeding vehicles. The proposed crossing was not sited where it was most needed and a traffic island might be more appropriate in that location as the road was wider and the visibility was better. In any case there was a need to slow traffic and provide a crossing closer to the centre of the village which may be more cost effective. She called for a 20 mph zone through the village and noted that any reduction in traffic expected as a result of the completion of the A21 was likely to be negated by an increase in speed and in traffic from the development in Paddock Wood. Action needed to be taken sooner rather than later to prevent a fatality.


Parish Councillor Mackonochie made a statement on behalf of Capel Parish Council in his capacity outside the Joint Transportation Board as Capel Parish Transport Portfolio Holder.


Parish Councillor Mackonochie welcomed the recent meetings between Capel Parish Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB6/17


Tunbridge Wells Tracker for July 2017 pdf icon PDF 65 KB


The Board considered the Tunbridge Wells Tracker for July 2017. Comments were make in respect of the Tracker Items as follows:


Tracker Item 1 – Grosvenor Bridge Tunbridge Wells:

Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells, KCC, confirmed works were progressing well and due to be completed in August 2017.


Councillor Backhouse welcomed the news and commented that Councillors had received criticism for delays although the delayed start was due to Network Rail’s work on the high voltage cables.


Tracker Item 2 – A26 Speed Survey:

Michael Hardy, Schemes Project Manager, KCC, advised that the automatic traffic survey requested by the Board and funded by County Councillor Oakford had been completed. The northbound mean speed was 31.8 mph and southbound mean speed was 35.7 mph, both were within the 40 mph speed limit.


County Councillor Oakford warned against relying on averages as the detailed report showed some individual results above 85 mph, additionally there was a very large percentage of drivers in off-peak times that were in excess of the speed limit. Joining or leaving the A26 was known to be particularly difficult due to the excessive speeds and in May 2017 there had been a large accident near Bidborough Ridge which had resulted in the road being closed for several hours. Speed was a contributing factor which further demonstrated the danger on that section of the A26. Further work was needed.


Councillor Simmons concurred and added that the speed limit should be reduced to 30 mph in certain areas. There had been further accidents involving ambulance responses since May and something needed to be done to reduce the speeds.


County Councillor Holden commented that if it were proposed to reduce a speed limit to below the average speed the Police would not enforce it as it would criminalise large numbers of ‘normal’ motorists, people would not obey it and it would bring the law into disrepute. People who drive at 85 mph on a 40 mph road will not abide a reduced limit and the only way to stop them is with effective enforcement. Experience showed that people were quick to notice excesses but the majority went unnoticed, a reduction in the average speed would be needed if a change in the speed limit was to be effective.


Councillor Backhouse supported a reduction in the speed limit and recalled an accident on the road which resulted in a fatality, the response had been insufficient.


County Councillor Holden added that enforcement was needed. He had worked with Helen Grant MP in a successful campaign to convince Kent Police to enforce speed limits and support Speed Watch groups. Simply putting up speed limit signs would not be effective. There was an established system of Speed Watch working with Local Authorities and the Police which could be used anywhere.


Mr Hardy confirmed that all comments were noted.


Councillor Lidstone supported the call for use of Speed Watch and noted there were several groups around Tunbridge Wells. Even without a Police presence  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB7/17


Proposed Permit Parking Restriction Changes, Zones A and C pdf icon PDF 90 KB


Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, TWBC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         The report for information set out the process that had been undertaken so far in pursuance of the adopted Parking Strategy.

·         The intention had been to simplify and regularise the various restrictions in force across the town and give greater amenity to residents.

·         Following the consultation over 700 responses were received with a majority against the proposals, mainly from businesses objecting to the loss of parking for customers.

·         Due to the strength of opposition the proposals had been withdrawn pending consideration of alternatives which was ongoing for the time being.


Mr Philip Day had registered to speak on behalf of The Pantiles traders and other businesses in the area.


Mr Day expressed significant concern about the potential loss of parking around immediate vicinity of The Pantiles. The current restrictions largely worked although there were some specific points where there may be a need for tweaks. Businesses felt aggrieved at a lack of consultation and proposed a body of representatives of businesses, residents and the Council to find a mutually agreeable solution to what was a sensitive and critical issue which was vital to the viability of The Pantiles. The situation was made worse by the imminent loss of parking at Union House and he urged the Council to consult with the representatives before any change to the restrictions was proposed.


County Councillor Rankin supported the proposal to work with the representatives prior to a further formal consultation to avoid the risk of consulting on proposals that were likely to be strongly opposed. Officers should be particularly mindful of the closure of Union House car park and she noted that there were questions over the future of Linden Park Road car park, any proposals should not adversely affect traders during the time that these car parks would not be available.


Councillor Backhouse concurred and added that residential areas around High Brooms, Sherwood and St. James’ Wards had particular issues relating to how permits were issued so should be considered separately to issues around The Pantiles.


Rosemarie Bennett, Parking Manager, TWBC, confirmed that it was the intention to consult with The Pantiles traders. All the feedback from the previous consultation would be taken into consideration in forming compromise proposals which would then be subject to consultation with representatives before proceeding.


County Councillor Barrington-King commented that he was reassured that views had been listened to.


RESOLVED – That the report be noted.


Possible Extension to Zone C Permit Parking Area pdf icon PDF 100 KB

Additional documents:


Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, TWBC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         The proposals were based on concerns raised by properties on the western edge of the existing Zone C that parking had been displaced from the town centre.

·         Several traffic surveys had validated the concerns.

·         Residents in the proposed extension area had been written to and the response was generally in support.

·         The zone was as set out in appendix A to the report subject to the following amendments:

·         Residents of Hurstwood Lane had expressed an interest in being included although it didn’t adjoin a road within the proposed area.

·         Support in Byng Road was only half and half therefore it was proposed to exclude it from the zone.

·         There was no support from Royal Chase for an increase to the restrictions already in place therefore no changes were proposed.

·         It was the intention to effect any changes at the same time as any changes to Zones A and C, as mentioned earlier in the meeting, to avoid duplication of effort and reduce confusion.


Dr Dorothea Holman had registered to speak on behalf of Boyne Park Residents’ Association.


Dr Holman commented that the Association represented residents in Boyne Park, Somerville Gardens, Mayfield Road and Oakdale Road. All were residential streets and had become increasingly overcrowded with parked cars. There was a mixture of houses and apartments many of which had no off-street parking. The bus service to London stopped at the top of Mount Ephraim and many of the commuters were parked in the surrounding roads all day. Ms Holman commented that residents sought reassurance that the Council would take into account the following three issues: (1) Some residents of Zone C already had to park in the unrestricted roads due to a lack of space in Zone C. Therefore, the Council was asked to monitor the situation if the zone was extended and consider making the areas north of Mount Ephraim a separate zone if the space in the new part of the zone was being taken by residents of the old part of the zone; (2) Some roads within the proposed zone were narrow and not suited to parking on both sides, whilst the residents did not support the encroachment onto pavements it would be necessary for parking bays to straddle the pavements in some areas in order for emergency vehicles and bin lorries to have access; (3) Each zone had its particular issues and the hours of restrictions should reflect the actual situation, what may be right in Zone A may not be appropriate in Zone C. The Council should work with resident’s to find a solution ahead of advertising firm proposals to avoid the issues discussed earlier in the meeting.


Mr Baldwin commented that there would be some time before being ready to put the final proposals to consultation, during that time he was happy to continue the dialog between the Council and residents. Having the proposed area as a separate new zone  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB9/17


Proposed Changes to Zone G Permit Parking Scheme pdf icon PDF 94 KB


Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, TWBC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         Zone G was the original and currently the smallest parking zone and only zone exclusively for permit holders only.

·         Few properties had off-street parking and space was very limited.

·         The advertised proposals sought to: (1) Increase the number of spaces slightly; (2) Introduce an exemption for permit holders so they could use the bays currently designated as one hour waiting; and (3) exclude residents of the recently converted Garden House and School House from eligibility to obtain a permit if they did not already have one.

·         Objections were raised against the exclusion of Garden House and School House on the grounds that there was insufficient off-street parking and the limited parking that was available was not designated to any particular properties.

·         Those residents that did have access to off-street parking did not also have parking permits therefore it was anticipated that only those who did not have off-street parking would seek to obtain a permit.

·         The Board was recommended to endorse the proposals without the element excluding Garden House and School House.

·         There were several further redevelopments expected in the near future and it would be policy from the start that these new properties would not be eligible for permits.


Ms Natalia Gerard has registered to speak on behalf of those residents on Calverley Street who did not occupy the flats.


Ms Gerard commented that capacity in the small, narrow Zone G was already at 151 per cent of available spaces. The proposal to drop the exclusion of Garden House and School was based on claims of discrimination by those residents. If the remaining residents who did not currently have a permit were to apply and were granted under the present policy, capacity would reach 220 per cent. Rather than excluding particular properties; a cap on the total number of permits could be introduced. When Garden House and School House were originally converted it had been claimed that on-street parking would not be needed as off-street parking would be provided. However, the parking never materialised and residents were able to obtain permits as residents of Zone G. She added that the problems were exacerbated by the limited bays being used as a waiting area by people using the nearby shops. The car park on Calverley Street was proposed for demolition to be replaced by 20 apartments with one Car Club parking bay, if the plans went ahead and, like Garden House and School House, the new residents claimed on-street parking; capacity would be at 300 per cent of available spaces. Parking was at breaking point. Long term and sustainable action was needed, there should be a cap at current levels with a waiting list thereafter. Any future developments should not be permitted without their own parking and they should not be eligible for permit parking.


County Councillor Barrington-King commented that Members were aware of the difficulties and solutions needed to be found in a very congested  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB10/17


Proposed Parking Restrictions in Tunbridge Wells and Southborough pdf icon PDF 94 KB


Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, TWBC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         The proposals as set out in this report had been advertised alongside the proposals for Hawkenbury as set out in a separate report later on the agenda.

·         Of the proposed restrictions, a number of comments were received regarding three sites.

·         In response to comments made in respect of Richmond Place it was proposed to lengthen the restriction in accordance with the request of the residents.

·         Opposition to the proposals for Hilbert Road and Pennington Road/Park Road could not be upheld on highway safety grounds and it was recommended that the restrictions be implemented as advertised.


Councillor Simmons supported implementing the proposals for Pennington Road/Park Road. The area in question was a well-known trouble spot.


County Councillor Barrington-King welcomed Councillor Simmons’ comments and noted that Members’ local knowledge was key in guiding the Board’s position. In the absence of any objections he moved that the proposals be endorsed.


RESOLVED – That the proposed course of action as set out in the report be endorsed.


Proposed Parking Restrictions in Hawkenbury pdf icon PDF 270 KB


Nick Baldwin, Senior Traffic Engineer, TWBC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         Parking issues had increasingly become prevalent since AXA PPP occupied the former Land Registry building in Hawkenbury.

·         Many of the roads were narrow and few homes had access to off-street parking.

·         Some of the more urgent safety issues had been addressed but it was always the intention to look into wider proposals including residents’ permits.

·         Support for permits was growing but many of the objections were based on the belief that residents should not have to pay for permits as the problem was caused by a single organisation.

·         The proposals had been through a lengthy process and several informal consultations in order the refine the proposals, the outcome was the permit scheme set out in the report.

·         The consultation received, amongst many responses, a large petition from AXA PPP employees against the proposals who, understandably, need to park somewhere.

·         On balance there was sufficient support to justify implementing the permit scheme.

·         A number of minor amendments to the proposals as advertised were recommended in response to specific comments made to the consultation. These were outlined in the report.

·         There was likely to be further refinement before the scheme was introduced.

·         It was noted that the consultations and costs of implementing the scheme would be funded from Section 106 monies from AXA PPP.


In response to a question from County Councillor Barrington-King, Mr Baldwin confirmed that AXA PPP had been supportive of the proposals and had maintained positive communication since moving into the site. AXA PPP did not endorse the petition by staff.


Mrs Press, resident of Forest Way, Hawkenbury, had registered to speak.


Mrs Press supported the proposals for yellow lines in Forest Way. Whilst she had the benefit of off-street parking; access was often blocked by parked vehicles, not necessarily by AXA PPP employees. The driveway joined the road at an angle and previous attempts to highlight the access with a white line gave the impression of being a layby which attracted people to use it as such. She had suffered verbal abuse on occasions after asking people to move.


Mr Baldwin confirmed that white lines were advisory but that the proposals sought to extend the mandatory yellow lines on Forest Way. He added that future developments at Hawkenbury Farm would provide Section 106 funds which could be used if further restrictions in the area were needed.


Ms Janet Sturgis had registered to speak on behalf of Hawkenbury Allotment Holders’ Association


Ms Sturgis was pleased to note that the proposals had been amended in line with the allotment holder’s requests. The allotments had been maintained since 1895 and the restrictions on High Woods Lane which would have restricted access for many of the allotment holders had been changed. She welcomed the plan to monitor parking in the road and offered to issue allotment holders with identifying badges for their vehicles to help distinguish them from AXA PPP employees or other drivers.


County Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB12/17


20mph Speed Limits and the Hawkenbury Farm Development pdf icon PDF 90 KB


Vicki Hubert, Principal Transport Planner, KCC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         The planning application for the Hawkenbury Farm development was agreed at committee in February.

·         KCC Officers worked with the developers at the pre-application and application stages to ensure that the design speed for the new development was 20 mph

·         Members of the planning committee agreed to further explore a 20 mph limit in the vicinity and the planning permission was granted with that in mind.

·         KCC tried to target speed reduction schemes on roads with a poor casualty record but the need to respond on this case, coupled with the impetus behind 20 mph schemes in Tunbridge Wells, meant that Officers would pursue a 20 mph speed limit on Hawkenbury Road when the detailed school planning application was considered in due course.


Mr David Scott had registered to speak making a joint statement with Adrian Berendt; both were members of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum Transport Group and co-ordinators for Tunbridge Wells Speed Watch.


Mr Scott welcomed the development being designed for 20 mph but felt that there should also be a 20 mph limit in place. A limit would send a strong message and would mean that drivers were more likely to reduce their speed even outside the zone. To limit speeds only in the immediate areas around schools was ineffective because 80 per cent of incidents occurred away from the school. He added that the legal risks to the Council of not setting a limit should not be underestimated and the Council could be liable if an incident was to occur and a 20 mph would have been recommended. Mr Scott commented on a letter from Councillor Matthew Balfour, Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste, to Greg Clark MP in which Councillor Balfour commented that 20 mph limit should apply in streets which were primarily residential or where pedestrian or cyclist movement was high. Furthermore, it was likely that high pedestrian activity would be a feature of the area and Officers were working to achieve a 20 mph limit in residential areas. Mr Scott concluded that this supported the view that there should be a 20 mph limit in residential areas. He added that many of the top employers adopted the policy of safety being the top priority whereas the Council listed safety as one of ten priorities. Residents had a right to arrive home alive and 20 mph limits in residential areas would fully support that goal. In response to complaints that 20 mph was too slow Mr Scott commented that the perception of speed was only noticed when it changed, therefore, a constant limit of 20 mph throughout a wider area would be less noticed than if it varied.


Ms Hubert advised that it was not policy to impose 20 mph as standard for new developments but KCC followed the Manual for Streets guidance and the Kent Design Guide in ensuring new developments were designed for 20 mph without  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB13/17


Future Growth in Tunbridge Wells pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Additional documents:


Vicki Hubert, Principal Transport Planner, KCC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         During the past two years a number of traffic studies had been undertaken to help inform where and how improvements could be made to relieve congestion.

·         There were many examples of where constraints had impeded particular schemes or where schemes were identified they had failed to gain funding from central Government.

·         These results strongly suggested that there now needed to be careful planning of where new growth was located and a focus on maximising opportunities to travel by public transport, cycling and on foot.

·         The Local Plan review was underway which was an opportunity in influence these crucial factors.

·         It was proposed to establish a JTB Working Group to be involved as work on the Local Plan moved forward.


Mr Scott Purchas had registered to speak on behalf of Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group.


Mr Purchas welcomed the report and the acknowledgement that Tunbridge Wells would not solve its congestion problems by proving for more car journeys. He agreed with the conclusion of the report that it was imperative that a shift to active travel be enabled including through a network of safe and attractive cycle routes. A recent study by Transport for London predicted that with the right infrastructure 40 per cent of all journeys could be made by bicycle, if this was achieved in Tunbridge Wells it would make it much easier for those who needed to make the journey by car. Reconfiguring the transport infrastructure was critical to future growth, many towns and cities across the country where changing to use cycling as a key transport mode. A central reason for do so was that seven times more people could be moved by bicycle than by car, there was no other affordable, clean and healthy way to achieve such a large increase in journey capacity. Prioritising active travel would make Tunbridge Wells a better place to live and work and counter health issues associated with more sedentary lifestyles. Transport for London would be happy to provide advice for implementing what has proven to be successful in Europe for many years. He added that common mistakes needed to be avoided such as edge of town developments which encouraged travel by car. The proposed development at Hawkenbury Farm, for example, had no walking or cycling links to the town centre but the school had a car drop of point. It was a similar case at Knights Park. The approach set out in the report was the right direction.


Mr Mark Booker had registered to speak on behalf of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum Planning Working Group and Transport Working Group.


Mr Booker welcomed the report and noted that the Town Forum’s own report titled Developing Our Green Network identified that fifty per cent of journeys in Tunbridge Wells were less than 2 miles. KCC’s own traffic surveys demonstrated that nearly ninety per cent of journeys started or finished in the town, so there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB14/17


Calverley Park Gardens Residents' Association Response pdf icon PDF 267 KB

Additional documents:


Michael Hardy, Schemes Project Manager, KCC, introduced the report which included the following comments:

·         Officers had worked closely with representatives from Calverley Park Garden’s Residents’ Association who had identified their key concerns as being HGVs, Speed and pedestrian safety.

·         There was a petition underway calling for pedestrian facilities around Calverley Park Gardens and Carrs Corner.

·         Past County Councillor Scholes had provided funding for advisory HGV directional signs which were being replaced having been knocked down.

·         Funding had also been secured for a feasibility study into facilities for non-motorised users and a number of aspects highlighted by the Residents’ Association.

·         KCC policy did support 20 mph but there was a lack of funding to undertake the necessary investigation work. This could be pursued with the funding support of a County Member or from elsewhere.


In response to a point of clarification from County Councillor McInroy, Jamie Watson, Schemes Programme Manager, KCC, advised that KCC policy supported the introduction of 20 mph limits in residential areas where the existing average speed was 20 – 24 mph so that there was a reasonable expectation of the limit being self-enforcing. If the average speed was above 24 mph there would need to be additional traffic calming measures. Funds were limited therefore any proposed scheme must also identify the source of funding.


Councillor Backhouse commented that it could be expected that ninety five per cent of drivers would comply with the speed limit even without traffic calming measures. Compliance with other motoring laws, such as the wearing of seatbelts, was very high despite minimal enforcement.


County Councillor Rankin was disappointed that there appeared to be a disconnect between the strategic approach discussed in the previous agenda item and actual implementation of reasonable proposals. The cycle lane on Calverley Park Gardens was too narrow to be used safely and HGVs thundered down the road, but a solution was yet to be found. She disagreed that 20 mph could only be implemented where the speed was already low and noted that 30 mph limits were largely self enforcing; the motivations that compelled the vast majority of drivers to keep to 30 mph would be the same if the limit was 20 mph. She questioned how large societal change could be brought about if small practical changes could not be made.


Mr Watson commented that KCC were working with the residents to identify the priorities but were limited in what they could do. A 20 mph limit may be appropriate in this case but as average speeds on Calverley Park Gardens were 26 mph additional traffic calming measures were recommended. The 20 – 24 mph policy stemmed from the Police who would not support a Traffic Regulation Order that criminalised the majority of motorists. He hoped to reassure Members that there was no lack of willing, only a lack of resources.


RESOLVED – That the report be noted.


Highway Works Programme pdf icon PDF 84 KB

Additional documents:


Earl Bourner, District Manager for Tunbridge Wells, KCC, introduced the report for information and invited questions.


County Councillor Oakford thanked the Officers for their work in implementing the 20 mph zone in St John’s but noted that appendix H to the report showed the work as compete. Traffic calming on Newlands Road was outstanding and several roundels were due to be painted. Similarly, the vehicle activated sign on Speldhurst Road, also marked as complete, had been installed but was not working.


Councillor Backhouse commented that footway repairs on Sandown Park appeared not to have been completed despite having been signed off.


In response to a question from Councillor Woodward, Mr Bourner confirmed that it was a mistake that the report was titled 2016/17 and it should read 2017/18. Councillor Woodward replied to advise that several items which he expected to see in the programme for 2017/18 appeared to be missing. These would be forwarded to Officers outside the meeting.


Councillor Lidstone congratulated County Councillor Oakford in implementing the largest 20 mph zone in Kent but commented that he, as the Borough Member, had not been advised of progress and sought assurances that communication would be better in future. County Councillor Oakford noted that Councillor Lidstone had not been elected at the time the work commenced.


In response to a question from Councillor Simmons, Mr Bourner confirmed that all street lights, including those not owned by KCC, were listed on the KCC website and could be identified by the reference number attached to the lamp post.


Councillor Woodward asked whether there would be an update in respect of the LED replacement program. Mr Bourner advised that stage one, which was the conversion of all lamp posts in residential roads, had been completed. Stage two, conversion of lamp posts on strategic routes, was about to commence.


RESOLVED – That, subject to the comments made in the debate, the report be noted.


Topics for Future Meetings

Prior notice of the topic must be sent to the Chairman and Democratic Services Officer no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting. There can not be any substantial debate/discussion or any decision on any topics raised, but the agreement of the Board that the topic may come forward in future would be required.


The Chairman, County Councillor Barrington-King, advised the Board that one item had been notified for consideration at a future meeting, namely issues concerning Currie Road. Members agreed.


He reminded Members of the need to give notice of a topic in advance of the meeting.


Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is Monday 16 October 2017 at 6.00pm.


The next meeting of the Joint Transportation Board would be held on Monday 16 October 2017 commencing at 6pm.