Agenda and draft minutes

Joint Transportation Board - Monday, 25th January, 2021 6.00 pm

Download documents using the MOD.GOV app

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online. View directions

Contact: Caroline Britt  Democratic Services Officer

Media

Items
No. Item

TB13/20

Apologies pdf icon PDF 9 KB

To receive any apologies for absence.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no apologies.

TB14/20

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 9 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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

TB15/20

Notification of Visiting Members wishing to speak pdf icon PDF 9 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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors Hayward, Atwood and Pope had registered to speak on Agenda Item 6.  In addition 3 members of the public had registered to speak.

 

Councillor Rands had registered to speak on Agenda Item 7.

 

One member of the public had registered to speak on Agenda Item 9.

TB16/20

Minutes of the meeting dated 19 October 2020 pdf icon PDF 254 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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members reviewed the minutes.  No amendments were proposed.

 

RESOLVED -  The minutes of the meeting dated 19 October 2020 be approved as a correct record.

TB17/20

Kent Community Rail Partnership pdf icon PDF 48 KB

Presentation by Kent Community Rail Partnership.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Helen Kellar, Therese Hammond and Chris Fribbins from the Kent Community Rail Partnership (Sustrans) gave a presentation that included a brief overview of the Kent Community Rail Partnership, its projects and activities which included the following:

 

-       It was noted that the only station within the current remit for the Tunbridge Wells area was Paddock Wood.

-       Established in 2003, it had 3 rail lines across Kent. 

o   Swale Rail Line

o   Medway Valley Line

o   Kent Downs Line

-       The organisation was funded through the Department for Transport, South Eastern, Kent CC, Medway Council, Parish Grants and the Community Rail Network.

-       Community Rail was a Government strategy, supported by the rail industry that engaged local people in the development and promotion of local and rural routes, services and stations.

-       Dissemination of information was undertaken in a number of ways, e.g. pop ups at railway stations that provided information on a variety of topics e.g. tourism and rail safety.

-       It also undertook work towards independent rail travel for those with accessibility issues.

-       Measures towards better Active Travel were also promoted.

-       Due to the pandemic a number of on line measures had been introduced to help combat loneliness and isolation.

-       There was always the opportunity to welcome partners to the Partnership.  In addition, joint working opportunities for Active Travel and when able to, pop-ups to help promote local areas.

 

Discussion and responses to questions raised included the following:

 

-       A number of activities had taken place during Covid-19 including work with community groups and schools.  Work was also underway with South Eastern to discuss messaging for when the Country came out of the current situation, to help build confidence and provide assurance for the public to return to using public transport.

-       Membership included a Town Councillor from Paddock Wood (David Sargison),  but as no stations in Tunbridge Wells were included there were currently no Members from Tunbridge Wells.

-       South East Community Rail Partnership had just taken on the Tonbridge to Hastings line, which might be of interest to Members in Tunbridge Wells. 

-       The Kent Rail Partnership currently did not have any of the spurs going towards Ashford.  However it did provide input into the Kent Strategy and would provide advice to those who were looking to adopt a station.

 

TB18/20

Cornford Lane/Halls Hole Road pdf icon PDF 9 KB

Presentation by Cornford Lane/Halls Hole Residents Association.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A presentation was given by Howard Mackenzie and Gary Palmer from the Cornford Lane, Halls Hole Road Residents Association which included the following:

 

Gary Palmer:

 

-       A working Group to address the traffic issues in Cornford Land and Halls Hole Road should be supported.

-       The current problems included gridlock, illegal use by HGV’s, verbal abuse and threats to residents, damage to cars, prevention of access by emergency vehicles, the collapsing road structure in Cornford Lane and the high earth bank in Halls Hole Road.

-       Safety was of primary concern as Cornford Lane had many blind bends and entrances.  However, this did not deter cars and vans from speeding which resulted in numerous accidents, many of which required attendance by the emergency services.

-       The junction of Cornford Land and Halls Hole Road was almost totally blind when exiting Cornford Lane and required drivers to listen for approaching traffic due to the lack of visibility.

-       Pedestrians were also required to use the junction.

-       The junction with Bayhall Road and Halls Hole Road had seen two pedestrian injuries caused by a speeding car and although Kent CC had undertaken some safety improvement works, the previously injured people believed that the work had done nothing to prevent a similar accident re-occurring.

-       In Cornford Lane at least three cyclists had been knocked off their bikes, two rendered unconscious which required hospital treatment.

-       Pedestrians in both roads, including Cornford Lane, both residents and staff at Aspens had had many near misses, including being hit by wing mirrors or having to literally jump into the hedgerow to avoid being hit.

-       The Ramblers Association, though keen to reinstate its use, had long ago removed Cornford Lane from its recommended walking routes, citing it as being too dangerous for walkers.

-       Two testimonies from two traumatised residents in Cornford Lane:

 

“I parked our car, leaving the driver’s door open so that my son could get out. My daughter got out of the rear passenger door and waited by the open driver’s door. My son had just got out of the car when a large four-wheel-drive vehicle approached at high speed. My daughter, realising that the approaching vehicle could neither pass without hitting the door nor stop in time, slammed the door shut and ran to safety. Fortunately, my son didn’t try to follow his sister – he would not have made it - and instead flattened himself against the side of the car as the vehicle went flying past. I have no doubt at all that if my children hadn’t made the decisions that they did in those bare seconds then one or both of them would have been killed.”

 

“A large four-wheel-drive came around the corner (at the junction of Cornford Lane  & Halls Hole Road) so fast I had no time to take avoiding action. I don’t think that the driver had even noticed me at first but then she appeared to see me and jammed on her brakes. She  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB18/20

TB19/20

Near Miss Register pdf icon PDF 112 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Terry Hughes, Community Safety Manager introduced a report that asked the JTB to consider the potential of a Near Miss Register which included the following comments:

 

-       A motion at Full Council in February 2020 put forward a request for the cost, means and viability of establishing and maintaining a near-miss register to cover the roads in Tunbridge Wells.

-       This would comprise of:

o   A data base of near misses.

o   A means to report near misses.

o   The staff time and associated costs to establish and run the register.

o   Integration of other data such as killed and seriously injured records.

-       The implementation of a simple register would be easy to maintain and costs would be low. It would take an officer approximately two days to build and deploy the application and a further day to create the content and publish a web page.

-       The success of a register would be dependent on the data submitted and therefore there was some concern as to whether the information received would result in changes to behaviour and improved safety.

-       There was also concern that the register could be misused and there was the issue of the subjective accuracy of reporting.

-       TWBC’s Community Safety Team would overlay the data with slight, killed and seriously injured data that was collected annually as part of the strategic assessment process. 

-       Kent Highways Team were happy for TWBC to produce a quarterly report to the crash data team which could then be reviewed with other collision data.  However it should be noted that although the data might be useful exercise over the longer term, it would not necessarily improve or change the work they currently undertook with regards to casualty reduction measures.

-       TWBC could use the data for other purposes, such as exercises in awareness.

 

Councillor Rands had registered to speak and provided the following statement:

 

I last spoke on this matter in February when full council voted to it to the JTB.   I must thank the officers who have in the intervening months worked on this project and come up with a cheap and easily implemented proposal.

 

I appreciate there will be scepticism in some quarters as to how a near-miss register will work. I note the report we have before us is lukewarm. I find that odd, because use of a near miss register has become the norm in many industries. 

 

So what is it? We record the accidents that almost happen. A driver has to conduct an emergency stop to avoid hitting a pedestrian who steps into the road – that’s a near miss. A pedestrian has to jump back onto the pavement – that’s a near miss. There isn’t some mathematical formula we can use like if a car comes within 10cms it’s a near miss but if it’s 11 it’s okay. There’s a subjective judgement to be made and that’s absolutely fine because most people are neither insane not idiots. You know if  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB19/20

TB20/20

High Woods Lane, Hawkenbury - Parking Issues pdf icon PDF 204 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer introduced a report that recommended the advertising of a Traffic Regulation Order for additional waiting restrictions on High Woods Lane, Hawkenbury which included the following:

 

-       Permit parking for residents was introduced in two stages for residents in Hawkenbury – early in 2018 and with a subsequent extension in 2020.

-       A single yellow line was introduced on one side of the carriageway in High Woods Lane.

-       Residents of High Woods Lane had asked for further restrictions including the status of the verge where the new restrictions would apply.

-       Subject to agreement by the Board, TWBC would contact the residents who would be affected by parking in the Lane. Depending on the views expressed, a proposal for additional restrictions would be brought forward.

 

Discussion and responses to questions raised included the following:

 

-       All the houses in this road benefited from some form of off street parking, so on street parking issues did not apply.

-       The proposed restrictions would be introduced on the side of the carriageway with no houses.

-       It was unclear as to the reasons for the proposed introduction of these measures.

-       Employees of AXA would be further disadvantaged if parking restrictions were introduced.

-       It was suggested that only one resident had objected to vehicles parking on this stretch of road.

-       The proposal was not to introduce permit parking in High Woods Lane.  It would be a single yellow line which would apply for a short period during the day.

-       Parking along the lane had resulted in the verges being churned up and in places, impeded passage. 

-       Representations had been received from owners/users of the allotment as parking had become more difficult. 

 

The Chair requested a vote:

 

Those in favour to endorse the proposal: 2

Those against the proposal: 6

Those who abstained: 4

 

RESOLVED: The Board voted against the proposed proposal to advertise for a Traffic Regulation Order for additional waiting restrictions on High Woods Lane.

 

TB21/20

Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation pdf icon PDF 995 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer introduced  a report to recommend a formal consultation on the proposal to expand Permit Parking Zone C which included the following:

 

-       In 2017 a report to the JTB recommended an extension to Permit Parking in Zone C. The implementation was subject to an issue with the existing zone which was not resolved so no further action was taken at the time.

-       An informal resurvey of the original proposal had now been conducted. The report provided an update of residents views.

-       The outcome of the survey showed that although the volume of support was broadly similar to that given in 2017, more people had responded with the result that in the area previously proposed for restrictions, although the majority were still in favour it was more finely balanced.

-       The next step would be to formulise the proposal and undertake a consultation.

 

Mr Hugh Hennebry, member of the public had registered to speak and provided the following statement:

 

“Some time ago there was a proposition that one side of the road on Molyneux Park Road would have yellow lines on it to stop parking. Although this sounds well-intentioned, it could cause a real and significant danger to cars, bikes and pedestrians.

 

The current arrangement of cars parked on both sides of the road slows traffic down, which is good, as there is often only width for one car, so they have to pause. If cars are only parked on one side it is likely that cars driving along the free side of the road will travel faster. The new 20mph restrictions are great, thank you. However, it is a very steep hill and cars travelling down often exceed the speed limit.

 

The road is on a steep camber, as well as on a steep gradient. I believe the suggestion was that the lower side of the road (houses with odd numbers) would have parking and the higher side of the road (even numbers) would not allow parking. Exiting from a driveway which sits lower than the level of the road (odd numbers) is already a hazard, as parked cars currently block the view of the road and do not allow visibility of the road in either direction. Where the roadside parked vehicle is a van, or a high car e.g. a 4x4, this is exacerbated, especially if the emerging car is a normal height car . With an even greater number of cars trying to cram into fewer spaces (a number of the houses on the road are multi-occupancy) there will inevitably be cars over spilling exits to driveways and causing even worse visibility for cars attempting to exit a driveway from below the road level. This means cars will need to come into the main thoroughfare "completely blind". This will inevitably cause collisions with cars, cyclists and even pedestrians. This will be made worse when cars travel faster because of point 1. above. Do please come to see this situation for yourselves  ...  view the full minutes text for item TB21/20

TB22/20

Highway Works Programme pdf icon PDF 333 KB

To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Julian Cook, Tunbridge Wells District Manager at Kent CC introduced the Highways Works Programme that provided an update and summarised the schemes that had been programmed for delivery in 2019/20.

 

Discussion and responses to questions raised included the following:

 

-       A report of flooding issues in the St David’s Hill area of Cranbrook was not included in the programme as it was likely to be funded from the Reactive Budget.  It was agreed than an update would be forwarded direct to Cllr Holden.

-       The work accomplished in what was a very challenging and difficult time by the Kent CC team was to be applauded.

-       The 20mph Zones detailed in Appendix H of the report were welcomed.  However, a request was made for the inclusion of Royal Chase as part of the scheme.  It was understood that because vehicle speeds were already below 30mph (28mph), the road did not qualify.  It should be noted that police were unlikely to support an application to reduce the speed limit where average speeds were already below the posted speed limit.  Kent CC agreed to report back on this issue.

-       The consultation period for tranche 2 of the Emergency Active Travel Fund had now closed.  None of the 5 schemes included (and likely to be approved) were in the Tunbridge Wells area.    

-       Appendix E, included an entry for the realignment of the Heartenoak Junction in Hawkhurst.  It was agreed that an update would be forwarded direct to Cllr Holden and Hawkhurst Parish Council.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TB23/20

Topics for Future Meetings pdf icon PDF 9 KB

To provide an update on issues previously raised (if appropriate) and to consider any topics for future meetings.  Please note, prior notice must be sent to the Chairman and Democratic Services officer no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting.  There will be no substantive debate/discussion/decision on any topics raised. 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Comments were made in respect of the following matters:

 

-       An update on a couple of the items raised at the last meeting:

o   The bridge at High Brooms – Kent CC had now replaced the signing and the position was being kept under review.

o   York Road/Dudley Road – Kent CC and TWBC had been in discussion about the Public Realm, including the issue of enforcement of the restrictions through Mount Pleasant, York Road and Monson Road.  A report would come back to the JTB once a review had been undertaken.

-       A request was made to bring Kent CC’s response to the recent DfT consultation – 48 Tonne Intermodal Freight Trial consultation to the next JTB meeting.  The proposal was to increase the standard maximum laden weight fro 6 axle articulated lorries when on public roads from 44 tonnes to 48 tonnes.

-       2 topics had been submitted in writing by Councillor Scott and would be considered for a future meeting.

-       There was a request for a standing item on Highways Improvement Plans (HIPs) so that they could be monitored at regular intervals.

-       It was agreed that suggestions for future meetings that had been put forward be circulated to members of the Board for consideration.

 

 

TB24/20

Date of Next Meeting pdf icon PDF 9 KB

To note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday 19 April at 6.00pm.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The next meeting was scheduled for Monday 19 April 2021 at 6:00pm.