Agenda and minutes

Joint Transportation Board - Monday, 14th October, 2019 6.00 pm

Download documents using the MOD.GOV app

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

Contact: Mark O'Callaghan  Scrutiny and Engagement Officer

Note: The public proceedings of the meeting will be recorded and made available for playback on the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council website 

No. Item


Apologies for Absence pdf icon PDF 5 KB

To Receive any apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stanyer and Woodward.


Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 5 KB

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. 


Notification of Visiting Members wishing to speak pdf icon PDF 5 KB

To note any members of the Council wishing to speak, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 18, and which items they wish to speak on.


Councillor Rands had registered to speak on Agenda item 11.


The Chairman noted that there were 8 members of the public registered to speak on various items.


Minutes of the meeting dated 15 April 2019 pdf icon PDF 245 KB

To approve the minutes of a previous meeting 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 15 April 2019 be approved as a correct record.


Minutes of the meeting dated 15 July 2019 pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To approve the minutes of a previous meeting 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 15 July 2019 be approved as a correct record.


Update Report pdf icon PDF 64 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.



Paul Mason from the Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group had registered to speak on this item and made the following comments:


-       The Update Report did not include anything on walking, cycling or public transport.

-       Heavy traffic already existed in villages, towns and the countryside – the air was polluted and child obesity was a serious issue.

-       Asked that the Board consider a new style Agenda that included items that actively looked at monitoring targets for walking, cycling, and the progression to a carbon neutral status by 2030.    It would then allow action to be taken if those targets were not being reached.

-       Concern was raised that the aims and objectives included in a number of transport related strategies (Transport Strategy 2015-2026, Cycling Strategy 2016-2020 and the Kent Active Travel Strategy) would not be achieved. 


Discussion included the following comments:


-       Recognition that monitoring was important and that particular attention should be given to cycling, walking and the various modes of public transport.

-       It was noted that as the fleet was being replaced, buses were becoming more environmentally friendly. 

-       That there was a paradox between requests received for free parking in Tunbridge Wells and complaints about congestion and pollution. 

-       To consider a standing report to the JTB’s across the County that gave details on the progress of key projects and business performance indicators. 

-       To note, that the Report did include items on pedestrian safety and pollution.


RESOLVED – That the report be noted.       


Zone HA Permit Parking Restrictions, Hawkenbury, Tunbridge Wells - Proposed Amendments pdf icon PDF 157 KB

 To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Additional documents:


Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer TWBC introduced the report that proposed to advertise amendments to the permit parking restrictions in the Hawkenbury area of Tunbridge Wells. In summary:


-       A new permit parking zone in Hawkenbury was introduced in 2018.

-       Initially and based on the interest shown, restrictions were only introduced in a few streets.    

-       A survey was undertaken in the summer of 2019 the outcome of which was that there was now sufficient interest to expand the scheme and introduce more roads where permit parking would apply. 

-       There was an expectation that the introduction of a wider scheme would have a knock on effect to those streets outside the permit parking area so it was likely there would be a need for further work at a later date.

-       The recommendation to now go to a formal public consultation with the results to be reported back either at the January 2020 or April 2020 meeting.



Discussion included the following comments:


-           Confirmation that the consultation would last for a period of 3 weeks.

-           The aim was to complete the consultation process by Christmas 2019.

-           There was recognition of the good work done so far on this issue. 


RESOLVED – The Board endorsed the proposal to advertise amendments to permit parking restrictions in the Hawkenbury area of Tunbridge Wells. 





Zone A Permit Parking Restrictions, Tunbridge Wells - Proposed Amendments pdf icon PDF 157 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Additional documents:


Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer TWBC introduced the report that proposed to advertise amendments to the permit parking restrictions in parts of Zone A. In summary:


-       The amendment would apply to 2 small parts of the existing Zone A parking area.

-       The lower end of Warwick Park (Northern end) where some properties had no off street parking facilities and where it had now become difficult to find spaces to park. The intention was to expand this area to include Rodmell Road which was currently unrestricted.

-       In addition to the 1 hour morning restriction in the streets off Claremont Road, the introduction of a 1 hour restriction in the afternoon.  It was hoped that this would reduce the impact long term parking had on residents.


Mr Max Eddy resident of Warwick Park had registered to speak, which included the following comments:


-       Ability to park on the lower part of Warwick Park had become much more difficult over the last few years.

-       There were 70 parking spaces in this area of which there were about 50 Zone A Permits.  There were 10 houses and a couple of flats without off street parking.  As such parking should not be an issue in the area.  However, this part of the road was shared with Kentish Mansions, flats in the Chapel Place area and Lower Cumberland Walk which had an impact on the availability of spaces. 

-       The use of this area by commuters was also a major concern especially as they did not pay for permits so were parking for ‘free’. 

-       Endorsed the expansion of the scheme as a minimum. And it should include around the enclave and Rodmell Road.

-       Undertook a survey on the availability of the 23 spaces in Rodmell Road and found that 14 cars had stayed for the entire day with 4 cars having parked for at least half the day.  Only 3 spaces had 3 different cars during the day. 

-       The flow of cars and availability of spaces would benefit traders and allow for more shoppers. 


Ms Elaine Cole resident of Warwick Park had registered to speak, which included the following comments:


-       Had also seen a marked change in the ability to park in the area.

-       Endorsed the introduction of permits in Rodmell Road.

-       The hotel advertised the use of their function room which exacerbated the current parking problems especially in the evening. 

-       Concern that the proposed scheme would not be sufficient – additional spaces being used by the new Pantiles flats.  Current occupants creating off street parking thereby reducing the number of on street parking spaces.

-       Hazardous for the Mead school drop off and pick up – additional parking provision would make it safer.

-       Consideration be given to Sunday restrictions.

-       The scheme to be extended to include Rodmell Road, Warwick Park and Roedean Road. 


Mrs Jean Phillips-Martinsson resident of Rodmell Road had registered to speak, which included the following comments:


-       Rodmell Road being  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB66/19


Cranbrook Experimental Traffic Regulation Order pdf icon PDF 91 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.


Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer TWBC introduced the report regarding the experimental Traffic Regulation Order that was introduced in Cranbrook. In summary:


-       The restrictions included in the current Traffic Regulation Orders in Cranbrook did not match, nor were they what was wanted. 

-       Options were considered relating to appropriate measures as to how new restrictions should be signed and lined.

-       As such, earlier this year, an experimental Traffic Regulation Order was implemented. 

-       The scheme included changes to the restrictions in Cranbrook and the use of a paler and narrower yellow line.

-       As an experimental scheme it could run for a maximum of 18 months, then a decision would have to be taken as to whether it became permanent, or adjusted if necessary.

-       There was no prior consultation for an experimental scheme – the first six months was the period when the public could make comments.

-       It was recommended that the scheme should continue, and more information gathered. There was no pressing need to change anything at this time.  Instead, a report would be submitted at the end of the scheme and would include recommendations regarding the best final arrangement. 


Discussion included the following comments:


-       The experimental scheme would expire on 20 September 2020 so would aim to report back to JTB at either the April 2020 or the July 2020 meeting.

-       The work to progress this scheme, the liaison with the community, the additional budget required were to be applauded – it had worked well and made the restrictions enforceable. 


RESOLVED – That the Board noted the comments received. 



Revised JTB Agreement pdf icon PDF 92 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.


Additional documents:


Mark O’Callaghan, Scrutiny and Engagement Officer introduced the report highlighting the changes made to the report following the meeting in April 2019. Further clarification had since been made.  In summary:


-       Voting rights for Parish Members could be at the discretion of the Board, and;

-       The number of public speakers to be made consistent with Tunbridge Wells’ usual procedure rules.

-       Subject to these changes, the Board would be invited to comment which would then be fed back to Cabinet for approval.


Adrian Berendt, Chair of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum had registered to speak which included the following comments:


-       The agreement allowed for representatives to be appointed from Town or Parish Councils.  As Royal Tunbridge Wells was an unparished Council, the Town Forum would be an appropriate representative and as such would like to be  included for nomination.


Discussion included the following comments:


-       The Board was made up of accountable elected members and as such suggested that in the first instance, legal advice should be sought. Also, as a non decision making Committee, it would need to be reviewed/decided at a different level.

-       Any decision would set a precedent for other non elected groups.

-       Recognition that there was expertise and professionalism within non elected groups, including the Town Forum that could add value to the Committee.

-       There was a process to create a Town Council so it was an option open to Tunbridge Wells.  It would then be able to have representation as elected Members on a range of Committees.

-       The Audit and Governance Committee had non elected representatives who made a valuable contribution to the Committee but did not have a vote.

-       Elected Members were also required to sign the Code of Conduct.

-       Need to separate the request  for non elected Groups to be included to speak on a Committee and their ability to vote. 

-       A request was made that 5.3 of the agreement also included the words ‘active travel’. 

-       Further clarification was sought as to whether the agreement would offer Parish Councillors the opportunity to vote (para 2.2 and 2.3 refers).  It was noted that  Maidstone and Swale JTB’s (also Tonbridge and Malling?) already allowed Parish Representatives the vote.

-       Sections 2.1 – 2.4 not explicitly clear about voting rights.  Suggested that the wording needed to be reviewed. 

-       Maidstone JTB agreement stated ‘All Board members, including Parish Council Members shall have the right to propose motions and amendments and to vote on the same’.  It was suggested the same wording could be used for the TWBC agreement.

-       General agreement that the Board should be able to decide whether Parish Councillors be given the ability to vote.  The revised JTB could be supported subject to it being revised to include the reference to ‘active travel’ and the Board’s ability to assign voting rights to Parish Members being expressly stated. The inclusion of the Town Forum was a different issue and would need to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB68/19


Highway Works Programme pdf icon PDF 88 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Additional documents:


Julian Cook, District Manager, Kent County Council  introduced the report that gave a summary of the schemes that were programmed for delivery in 2019/20.


Discussion included the following comments:


-       There was no further update on the A26 Cycleway at this time.

-       It was agreed that Kent CC would respond directly to Cllr Holden regarding the current position on the realignment of Heartenoak Road junction with Cranbrook Road, Hawkhurst.

-       Traffic counts had been completed for proposed 20mph limits. Now waiting for a survey to be completed to ascertain that the demand was there and then for a consultation to take place.  Looking at Banner Farm as an example of what could be achieved.  To note that Culverden was interested in something similar.

-       The minutes of 15 July made reference to the use of Bell Mouth access points on Benhall Mill Road and Bayham Road. It was confirmed that a response had been sent.


Mr James McGrath, Ms Pippa Collard and Cllr James Rands had all registered to speak on Appendix D of Agenda Item 11 – Tunbridge Wells Public Realm Works which included the following comments:


-       The 2 month temporary closure of York Road had been very beneficial to the residents.  The residents of the road had now requested that the temporary closure be made permanent. 

-       Residents of York Road, Suffolk Mews and Norfolk Heights approved the closure of York Road, making it safer, quieter and with improved parking for residents. 2 carriage turning circles within the road worked and were useful.

-       To reopen York Road would allow it to be used as a rat run for cars wanting to get to Mount Pleasant. The road was unsuitable to accommodate this additional traffic.

-       Broadly in favour of the newly created pedestrian area of the Town Centre but felt the benefits would be negated if traffic was allowed to use both York Road and Dudley Road. The point of the Public Realm was the reduction of traffic and the enhancement of public space for pedestrians.

-       It was suggested that the installation of removable bollards would be the most cost effective method to effect the closure.

-       A petition with 78 signatories had been collected.

-       If it was an administrative issue to convert a temporary closure to a permanent closure, perhaps the way forward was an experimental TRO that could then be converted to a permanent TRO at a later date. 

-       Very expensive to get Sat Nav’s to exclude York Road, so there was strong assumption that traffic using Church Road and wanting to get onto Mount Pleasant Road would be directed down York Road. 

-       Another option considered was the creation of 2 U shaped loops but this was considered difficult and too expensive. 

-       Whilst the residents of Dudley Road had not yet come to a final decision – they would expect equitable treatment - if York Road was closed, Dudley Road would expect the same.


Discussion included the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB69/19


Topics for Future Meetings pdf icon PDF 6 KB

To agree any topics for future meetings, of which prior notice 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 substantive debate/discussion or any decision on any topics raised, except to agree whether the topic may come forward in future.


Comments were made in respect of the following matters:


-       To note and as a reminder to Members, issues in the first instance should be directed to the relevant ‘owner’ before being raised at JTB.  For Highways Safety and Highways Improvement matters please contact Kent CC in the first instance, for any parking related matters, TWBC.

-       To consider levels of engagement especially once the Transport Plan had been issued.

-       The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had a Working Group that was looking at engagement.

-       Consider a standing agenda item for Kent CC to report on their strategic goals and their progress towards targets.  The JTB would then have the option to make recommendations.

-       Any such report should be County wide so would be consistent and comparisons could be made.

-       Zone G Parking – Home owners were not able to sell their houses.   They were not able to pass their parking permits to the new owners and because they were placed at the bottom of the queue, it was taking up to 2 years for any new owners to get a permit. 

o   TWBC had spoken to an estate agent to see what could be done to help residents. One measure taken forward was to reduce the amount of double yellow lines behind Argos which created an extra couple of spaces.  A new permit type was created specifically for residents of Zone G to have a full time permit for Crescent Road carpark at a cost of £200. Although more than a normal permit, it gave residents a guaranteed space. 

o   Need to make clear to current residents and potential buyers what the options were.


Date of Next Meeting pdf icon PDF 5 KB

To note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday 27 January 2020 at 6.00pm.


The next meeting was scheduled for Monday 27 January 2020 at 6:00pm