DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD White Cliffs Business Park Dover Kent CT16 3PJ Telephone: (01304) 821199 Facsimile: (01304) 872300 6 April 2010 Dear Councillor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a meeting of the DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD will be held at these Offices (Council Chamber) on Thursday 15 April 2010 at 6.00 pm when the following business will be transacted. Members of the public who require further information are asked to contact Kate Batty-Smith on (01304) 872303 or by e-mail at kate.batty-smith@dover.gov.uk. Yours sincerely Chief Executive Dover Joint Transportation Board Membership: Dover District Council Members: Councillor T A Bond (Vice-Chairman)Councillor M D Conolly Councillor A Friend Councillor G J Hood Councillor S R Nicholas Councillor J F Tranter Councillor R S Walkden

Kent County Council Members: Councillor N J Collor Councillor B R Cope (Chairman) Councillor R Frayne Councillor S C Manion Councillor L B Ridings Councillor J A Rook Councillor C J Smith

KALC Representative (non-voting): Town Council Representatives (non-voting):

Mr K Gowland Mrs S Hooper Mrs M Burnham (Deal Town Council) S G Leith (Sandwich Town Council) G Cowan (Dover Town Council)

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are required to disclose the existence and nature of a personal interest at the commencement of the item of business to which the interest relates or when the interest becomes apparent. An explanation in general terms of the interest should also be given to the meeting. If the interest is also a prejudicial interest, the Member should then withdraw from the room or chamber.

1

AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES 2. APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To note appointment of Substitute Members. 3. MINUTES (Pages 4-8) To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 18 February 2010. 4. ENVIRONMENT, HIGHWAYS & WASTE POLICY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

COMMITTEE (POC) (Pages 9-31) To note the attached Minutes of the POC meeting held on 22 January 2010. To note the attached reports to the POC meeting held on 25 March 2010: Kent Winter Service Review – December 2009 to February 2010 Public Transport Developments – Funding and Initiatives 5. MATTERS ARISING FROM NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMS To consider any matters raised. 6. KINGSDOWN PARKING RESTRICTIONS (Pages 32-39) To consider the attached report of the Kent Highway Services Head of Transportation

and Development. 7. RIVER DOUR CYCLE ROUTE PHASE 1 – RESULTS OF CONSULTATION (Pages

40-55) To consider the attached report of the Kent Highway Services Head of Transport and

Development 8. HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME 2010/11 (Pages 56-62) To consider the attached report of the Acting Director of Kent Highway Services. 9. PROPOSED RESIDENTS' PARKING SCHEME (Pages 63-71) To consider the attached report of the Chief Executive. 10. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC (Page 72) The recommendation is attached. The procedure for determining applications for on-street disabled persons' parking bays

is attached.

2

3

MATTER WHICH THE MANAGEMENT TEAM SUGGESTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE AS THE REPORT CONTAINS EXEMPT INFORMATION AS DEFINED WITHIN PART 1 OF SCHEDULE 12A OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS INDICATED AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PROPER OFFICER CONSIDERS THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE EXEMPTION OUTWEIGHS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION

11. APPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS' PARKING BAYS (Paragraphs 1 and 2 –

Information relating to any individual and Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual) (Pages 75-80)

To consider the attached report of the Chief Executive. Access to Meetings and Information Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Council, its Committees

and Sub-Committees. You may remain present throughout them except during the consideration of exempt or confidential information.

All meetings are held at the Council Offices, Whitfield unless otherwise indicated on the

front page of the agenda. There is disabled access via the Council Chamber entrance and a disabled toilet is available in the foyer. In addition, there is a PA system and hearing loop within the Council Chamber.

Agenda papers are published five clear working days before the meeting. Alternatively,

a limited supply of agendas will be available at the meeting, free of charge, and all agendas, reports and minutes can be viewed and downloaded from our website www.dover.gov.uk. Minutes are normally published within five working days of each meeting. All agenda papers and minutes are available for public inspection for a period of six years from the date of the meeting. Basic translations of specific reports and the Minutes are available on request in 12 different languages.

If you require any further information about the contents of this agenda or your right to

gain access to information held by the Council please contact Kate Batty-Smith, Democratic Support Officer, telephone: (01304) 872303 or email: kate.batty-smith @dover.gov.uk for details.

Large print copies of this agenda can be supplied on request.

Agenda Item No 3

Minutes of the meeting of the DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD held at the Council Offices, Whitfield on Thursday 18 February 2010 at 6.00 pm.

Present: Chairman: Councillor B R Cope Councillors: T A Bond N J Collor A Friend G J Hood S G Leith S C Manion S R Nicholas L B Ridings J A Rook C J Smith J F Tranter Also Present: Mr K Gowland (KALC) Mrs S Hooper (KALC) Officers: Mr D Barton (Kent Highway Services) Mr D Button (Kent Highway Services) Senior Transport Officer Democratic Support Officer Apologies for absence were received from District Councillors M D Conolly,

R Frayne and R S Walkden, and Mrs M Burnham. 416 APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS It was noted that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council's Procedure Rules,

Councillor S G Leith had been appointed as substitute Member for Councillor R S Walkden.

417 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on 10 December

2009 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. In respect of Minute No 331, Councillor S R Nicholas raised further concerns about

Coombe Valley Road railway bridge, advising that another collision had taken place. Councillor N J Collor advised that, as a result of discussions through the Quality Bus Partnership, the bus service to Clarendon Place would be maintained using Regent Coaches.

418 ENVIRONMENT, HIGHWAYS & WASTE POLICY AND OVERVIEW COMMITTEE The Board received the reports submitted to the Environment, Highways & Waste

Policy and Overview Committee (POC) on 10 November 2009 and the minutes of the same meeting. An update report had also been produced following the POC meeting held on 22 January 2010, and this was presented to the Board for consideration as an item of urgent business in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

4

Referring to the update report, Mr Button advised that a review of Kent Highway

Services’ (KHS) winter service would be undertaken and a report produced in March. Members were encouraged to send any comments to KHS. Councillor S R Nicholas complained that minor roads had not been gritted during the snowy spell, causing many people to be confined to their homes. Councillor J A Rook expressed concern that EDF had carried out utility works in Deal precinct during the half-term week. Mr Button undertook to investigate further, but advised that emergency works were not subject to the Kent Permit Scheme. Mr Measey, having clarified who received road closure notices, undertook to circulate these to Members.

RESOLVED: That the report, Minutes and update report be noted. 419 MATTERS ARISING FROM NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMS Mr Barton referred Members to Southeastern’s e-mail response to questions raised

by members of the public at the Deal and Walmer Neighbourhood Forum (NF) meeting, and additional papers circulated to the Board regarding the High Speed Rail Link (HSRL) and ‘Growth without Gridlock’. Southeastern’s response had also been e-mailed to all those who had attended the NF meeting. Kent County Council’s (KCC) Integrated Transport Team continued to apply pressure on Southeastern in respect of timetabling and services to Deal. The Board heard that a campaign had been launched to lobby for the High Speed Rail Link (HSRL) to call at Deal. Deal residents had also raised concerns about the deterioration in train services to the town since the introduction of the HSRL. Scrutiny committees at Dover District Council (DDC) and KCC were due to consider Deal train services in March and June respectively, with Southeastern due to attend DDC’s Scrutiny (Community and Regeneration) Committee meeting on 5 March. It was agreed that there was a need to avoid duplicating the work of these committees.

The Board was advised that, emerging from KCC’s regeneration ambitions, the

‘Growth without Gridlock’ Integrated Transport Strategy was an overarching document for Kent that provided a long-term vision for transport in the county. Board Members raised concerns about the level of consultation that had taken place, citing the fact that several town and parish councils had been unaware of the consultation. Some Members were also concerned that Deal – part of the Dover District Growth Point area and the location for 3 significant housing developments – had largely been overlooked by the Strategy. Mr Barton advised that the consultation period had been extended to April 2010.

RESOLVED: (a) That consideration of train services to Deal by KCC’s

and DDC’s Scrutiny committees be welcomed. (b) That, notwithstanding the technical reasons given for

the HSRL service not stopping at Deal, KCC be requested to continue to apply pressure on Southeastern to review the issue of the HSRL stopping at Deal and regular train service timetabling.

(c) That it be recommended to the KCC Executive that the

town of Deal be included in the ‘Growth without Gridlock’ Integrated Transport Strategy for Kent.

5

(d) That the Board expresses its concern about the level of consultation on strategies such as ‘Growth Without Gridlock’ and requests that improvements be made to the consultation process.

420 SPEED INDICATOR DEVICES

Mr Barton referred the Board to a paper circulated at the meeting and gave a verbal report on a pilot project that involved the siting of Speed Indication Devices (SIDs) around the county. Under Department for Transport (DfT) regulations, SIDs could not be installed permanently but were being trialled on a rotational basis in order to enhance KHS’s highways speed management. The initial phase of 24 locations had been extended to 48 locations, in accordance with the criterion which stipulated that 6 crashes had to have occurred within 500 metres of the sign’s proposed location within 3 years. If successful, the pilot, due to finish in April, would be expanded. There was discussion around the issue of KCC Members using the Members’ Highway Fund to purchase signs for rural areas.

RESOLVED: That the written and verbal reports be noted. 421 GRAYLEN CLOSE, NORTH DEAL – PROPOSED BOLLARDS Mr Barton presented a report on the proposal to place two bell bollards at the

junction of Northwall Road and Graylen Close in order to address concerns about the risk to pedestrians and property from lorries using the junction as a turning point. Public consultation had been undertaken on the proposal.

RESOLVED: (a) That the installation of two bell bollards at the junction

of Graylen Close and Northwall Road to improve road safety and protect the fabric of the footway be recommended for approval.

(b) That the investigation and implementation of additional

waiting restrictions near the entrance of Graylen Close and at the junction of Northwall Road and Western Road be recommended for approval.

(Councillor J A Rook withdrew from the Chamber during consideration of this item

on the grounds of predetermination since she had previously expressed a written opinion on the proposal as part of public consultation.

Councillor A Friend declared a personal and prejudicial interest for the reason that

he owned a property in Graylen Close and withdrew from the Chamber during consideration of this item.)

422 COXHILL ROAD AND EYTHORNE ROAD – PROPOSED CHANGE OF SPEED

LIMIT Mr Barton presented a report on proposals to extend the 30 mph speed limit in

Coxhill Road and to change the speed limit from 60 mph to 40 mph in Eythorne Road. Concerns were raised about HGVs using the route through the village, but the Board was informed that the Highways Agency had declined to place additional signage on the A2 turn-off.

6

RESOLVED: That Officers proceed with advertising the Traffic Regulation Order in relation to the proposed changes to the speed limits in Coxhill Road and Eythorne Road, Shepherdswell, as detailed in the report.

423 PARK STREET AND SOUTH STREET, DEAL Mr Barton referred Members to a paper circulated at the meeting which gave the

historical background to the two schemes. Councillor J A Rook advised that a group had been established comprising KCC, DDC, Deal Town Council, Members and businesses with the aim of making improvements to Deal precinct. The group could look at public realm issues relating to South Street and Park Street, with a view to using money available to it to make cosmetic improvements to South Street. Mr Barton advised that concerns relating to pedestrian safety had been raised in relation to the shared space scheme at the junction of High Street and Park Street. To address these, it was proposed to close the junction to all vehicles, which would necessitate the provision of a turning head as part of the public highway at the entrance to the Somerfield car park. Negotiations with Somerfield were ongoing, but if these failed the scheme would have to be dropped.

RESOLVED: That the verbal report and paper be noted.

424 HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME 2009/10 Mr Button presented the updated Highway Works Programme 2009/10 to the Board

for consideration. The Board was advised that it was proposed to abandon the pedestrian crossing in Lewisham Road, River following receipt of a valid objection from the Methodist Church which raised particular concerns about the stopping of cars for funerals and weddings. Moreover, the Road Safety Team considered that a school crossing patrol would be more appropriate.

RESOLVED: (a) That it be recommended that the pedestrian crossing

scheme in Lewisham Road, River be abandoned. (b) That the report be noted.

425 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED: That, under Section 100 (A) 4 of the Local Government Act

1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the business on the grounds that the item to be considered involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

426 APPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS' PARKING BAYS

Mr Measey reported that the application under consideration had previously been refused as the applicant did not meet the criteria - not being in receipt of, nor eligible for, the Higher Rate Mobility Living Allowance (for those aged under 65 years) or Higher Rate Attendance Allowance (for those aged 65 years or over). Following an appeal by the applicant, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Ward and County Members had been consulted. However, no responses were received and the application was therefore being submitted to the Board for consideration.

7

8

RESOLVED: That the application be refused in accordance with Kent County Council’s current guidelines.

The meeting ended at 7.35 pm.

1

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, HIGHWAYS AND WASTE POLICY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

MINUTES of a meeting of the Environment, Highways and Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee held in the Darent Room, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone on Friday, 22 January 2010. PRESENT: Mr C Hibberd (Chairman), Mr N J Collor, Mr J Cubitt, Mr D S Daley (Substitute) (Substitute for Mr M Robertson), Mr M J Harrison, Mr J D Kirby, Mr S Manion, Mr R A Pascoe, Mrs P A V Stockell (Substitute) (Substitute for Mr J R Bullock, MBE), Mrs E M Tweed and Mr M Whiting ALSO PRESENT: Mr N J Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways & Waste IN ATTENDANCE: Mr M Austerberry (Executive Director, Environment, Highways and Waste), Dr L Davies (Director, Environment & Waste) and Mr R Hallett (Directorate Finance Manager) Prior to the commencement of the meeting the Chairman:-

(a) referred to the recent bad weather and informed Members that a final winter service report would be submitted to the Committee in March; and

(b) reminded Members to submit items for the Agenda to Mr Hibberd.

UNRESTRICTED ITEMS

1. Minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2009 (Item A3) RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2009 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman. 2. Cabinet Member's and Executive Director's Update (Oral report) (Item B1) (1) Mr Chard gave a verbal report on the following issues:-

• Winter Service

• Kent Permit Scheme

• Freedom Pass

• East Kent Waste

• Lower Thames Crossing

• Rail – Maidstone to Cannon Street (2) RESOLVED that the update be noted and a copy circulated to Members of the Committee.

Agenda Item No 4

9

2

3. Financial Monitoring 2009/10 (Item B2 – Report by Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; and Mr Mike Austerberry, Executive Director of Environment, Highways and Waste) (1) A detailed quarterly budget monitoring report was presented to Cabinet, usually in September, December and March, and a draft final outturn report in June. The reports outlined the full financial position for each portfolio and were reported to POSCs after they had been considered by Cabinet. In the intervening months an exception report was made to Cabinet outlining any significant variations from the quarterly report. The November exception monitoring report for 2009/10 was submitted for the information of POSC members. (2) RESOLVED that the budget variations for the EHW Portfolio for 2009/10 based on the November exception report to Cabinet be noted. 4. Budget 2010/11 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2010/13 (Item B3 – Report by Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; and Mr Mike Austerberry, Executive Director of Environment, Highways and Waste) (1) The Committee considered draft budget proposals for the Environment, Highways and Waste Directorate, with reference to the KCC published budget consultation paper issued on 5 January 2010. The report also provided a response to the issues raised at the Informal Member Group of this Committee, created in November 2009 to discuss detailed budget issues. (2) Mr Chard and Mr Hallett introduced the draft Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan for the EHW Directorate. The total of the proposed savings and income generation required in order to meet the indicative cash limit for 2010/11 was £3.2m. The majority of the savings would come from improvements in highways procurement. There would also be staffing efficiencies; over £1m savings in Waste; and the ending of the 2010 target for the Clean Kent campaign. (3) The gross savings were offset by the reversal of the capital/revenue swap on support for socially necessary but uneconomic bus routes. A further £0.04m of net income was to be generated by Country Parks in 2010/11 with additional increases in targets across the following two years. In line with the zero pay award for KCC officers for 2010/11, it was proposed that no inflation was added to highways fees and charges for the new financial year. (4) There followed a question and answer session which included the following issues:-

(a) support for socially necessary but uneconomic bus routes; (b) the modernisation and development of waste facilities; (c) staffing efficiencies in Highways, Resources and Planning through

delayering and streamlining processes; (d) an extension to the Freedom Pass.

10

3

(5) During debate certain Members expressed their concern that the relative priorities the IMG placed upon the various services may not be representative of all Members’ views. (6) RESOLVED that:-

(a) the proposal not to add an inflation increase to highways fees and charges in 2010/11, be noted; and

(b) the revenue and capital budget proposals, along with the responses made

to questions from Members be noted. 5. Environment, Highways and Waste Half Year Business Plan Monitoring 2009/10 (Item B4 – Report by Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; and Mr Richard Hallett, Directorate Finance Manager, Environment, Highways and Waste) (1) The report detailed the directorate’s progress against the Business Plans during the period 1 April to 30 September 2009, covering achievement of performance against activity/projects and targets. Progress was presented to Cabinet on 30 November 2009.

(2) As part of the half-year monitoring, progress was checked against each of the 2009/10 Service Level Business Plans whereby most of the Projects, Developments or Key Actions were identified as ‘on-course’ or ‘done and ongoing’. A copy of the Executive Director’s Statement and half year monitoring report giving a summary of progress was set out in the Appendix to the report. The monitoring showed that 6% of the 2009/10 actions were not ‘on-target’ to complete this financial year and were listed with reasons and proposed actions.

(3) RESOLVED that:- (a) the progress against Environment, Highways & Waste Service Level

Business Plans for the period 1 April to 30 September 2009 be noted; and (b) a presentation and discussion relating to the freight structure be arranged

for a future meeting of the POSC. 6. Equalities in Environment, Highways and Waste Annual Report (Item B5 – Report by Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; Mr Mike Austerberry, Executive Director (EHW); and Dr Linda Davies, Chair, Equalities Group (EHW)) (1) The report provided an update on progress with Environment, Highways and Waste directorate’s work on Equalities and Diversity, in support of Kent County Council’s ambition to achieve level ‘excellent’ in the Equalities Framework for Local Government (EFLG) by March 2011.

(2) A new Equality Bill, drawing together all previous Equalities and Diversity legislation was expected to receive Royal Assent early in 2010. The Bill aimed to provide straightforward practical guidance for employers, service providers and public

11

4

bodies. The EFLG which provided the detailed criteria to explain how local authorities should manage Equalities and Diversity issues had been published. (3) The EFLG was based on a wider definition of equality that moved away from a purely legalistic interpretation to a concept of equal life chances. It aspired to be simpler, smarter, proportional and more relevant than the previous standard. It was outcome-based, and recognised that:-

• equality was an issue for us all

• we don’t all start from the same place

• to create a fairer society we needed to recognise different needs Local authorities would be audited on the following five performance areas:

• Knowing your community and equality mapping

• Place shaping, leadership, partnership and organisational commitment

• Community engagement and satisfaction

• Responsive services and customer care

• A modern reflective and diverse workforce (4) During debate Mrs Tweed referred to the Customer Impact Assessments which replaced Equality Impact Assessments in KCC, and asked how Kent Highway Services engaged with the elderly to meet their needs. This stemmed from concerns about the elderly being trapped in their homes during the recent snow, and although it was agreed that there was a social services aspect to it, the discussion led onto what else Highways did for this part of the community. (5) RESOLVED that:-

(a) the content of the report be noted; and (b) the approach for embedding Equalities into the directorate’s business, in

support of KCC’s corporate commitment to achieve level ‘Excellent’ in the new Equalities Framework for Local Government be endorsed.

7. Environment, Highways and Waste Risk Register 2010/11 (Item B6 – Report by Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; and Mr Richard Hallett, Directorate Finance Manager, Environment, Highways and Waste) (1) The report identified the strategic risks that were managed and controlled within the Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate. (2) It had been agreed at a meeting of the Governance and Audit Committee on 5 March 2008 that in future years the risk registers would be considered by POSCs in the January cycle before being reported to the Governance and Audit Committee. The requirement to maintain risk registers ensured that potential risks, which might prevent the Authority from achieving its objectives, were identified and controlled.

(3) During 2010/11 the controls in the register would continue to be tested and checked in order of significance, and new actions monitored. Risk Management Plans would be developed for every risk within the Directorate rated as High (i.e. with

12

5

a score of 16 and above). The plans were a tool to be used by managers with their Services and Business Units to document and monitor actions for the high risks. (4) RESOLVED that the Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate Risk Register, updated in September 2009, be noted and supported. 8. Select Committee – update (Item C1) Report by Overview, Scrutiny and Localism Manager) (1) Further to Minute 9 of 10 November 2009, the Membership of the Select Committee on Renewable Energy was Mr K Ferrin, (Chairman Elect), Mr R King, Mr C Hibberd, Mr C Smith, Mrs E Tweed, Mrs P Stockell, Mr D Hirst and Mr T Prater. It had been agreed that Ms Sue Frampton, the Research Officer supporting the review, would start preparatory work on developing the terms of reference and scope for the review. The Select Committee would start its work in January 2010 and submit its report to County Council on 14 October 2010. Regular update reports would be submitted to the POSC on the progress of the Select Committee. (2) RESOLVED that the report be noted.

13

From: Nick Chard, Cabinet Member – Environment, Highways & Waste

To: Environment, Highways & Waste Policy Overview &

Scrutiny Committee

Date: 25 March 2010

Subject: Kent Winter Service Review – December to February 2010

Classification: Unrestricted

1. Introduction The past winter was the worst in the UK for over 30 years. This impacted on services and agencies across the country as well as in our region. This report sets out how key operators in Kent fared during the severe weather and the lessons learnt that will be used to improve services in the future. Opportunities for further debate will be detailed by the Cabinet Member for EH&W at the committee meeting. 2. Kent Highway Services 2.1 KHS has a Winter Service Policy and Plan which last year was approved by the EH&W Policy Overview Committee in September. These set out how KHS deals with keeping the highway network free from snow and ice. 3. Snow emergencies 3.1 The Winter Service Policy 2009/10 states:

‘During prolonged periods of severe and persistent icing, or significant snow fall, delegated officers may declare an ice or snow emergency covering all or part of the County. In this event Community Delivery Managers will implement a course of action to manage the situation in either of these events’

3.2 Between December and February snow emergencies were called on three occasions. In addition, during this period there were many nights when road surface temperatures fell to below zero thereby necessitating the need to treat the primary and secondary routes. Details of the actions taken for each snow emergency are attached as Appendix 1 3.3 Specific actions were taken during the snow emergencies to ensure key routes were kept open. This included deploying a salting truck to both Bluebell Hill (A229) and Detling Hill (A249) and constantly patrolling these roads to keep them clear. 3. Salt bins 3.1 Salt bins are an important community resource and there are currently 1835 in place across the county. KHS currently pay for salt bins and place them safely in places that suit assessment criteria. There are local concerns about access to salt during bad weather and therefore a decision was made in January by the Cabinet Member that Members could use their Member

14

Highway Fund to pay for salt bins in their local areas. Proposals will be brought to a future meeting of this committee in respect of making further provisions for communities to access salt supplies during snow and ice conditions. 4. District council assistance 4.1 During the snow emergency in December problems were experienced in the clearance of town centre footways. This was addressed during the subsequent snow emergencies and contact was made with district councils and KCC Commercial Services requesting assistance. This proved to be very successful and resulted in many town centres being kept reasonably clear. Additionally Community Delivery Team Leaders in KHS used local district winter service plans to prioritise areas for action. 5. Salt 5.1 At the beginning of the winter season KHS had 20,000 tonnes of salt in stock which is the maximum that can be accommodated at the depots. In an average year we would expect to use about 13,000 tonnes so were were well stocked. Orders were in place to automatically restock once the salt is used. Due to the national nature of the severe weather, problems with salt distribution became apparent early in the New Year. A national salt cell was set up by the Department for Transport to monitor the distribution of salt across the country. Additionally a Kent salt cell was set up for a few weeks in January with KHS, Medway Council and the Highways Agency. Salt usage is shown at Appendix 2. 5.2 Salt supplies from our main supplier, Salt Union, were limited. However other arrangements were in place for receiving salt from abroad and during January and February stock was received from abroad, along with limited supplies from Salt Union. 5.3 In order to conserve salt and to cope better with icy conditions, a decision was made in January to mix salt with sharp sand in a 50/50 mix and to use sand in salt bins. It was also decided that only sand would be used to treat footways in town centres. KHS did not run out of salt at any time and always had adequate supplies. The national salt cell issued weekly guidance on the conservation of salt and general guidance for highway authorities which were followed when appropriate. 6. Media Many requests were received from the media for television, radio and newspaper interviews and this enabled us to get key items of interest to members of the public 7. Customer contact Over 5000 enquires were received in our contact centre during December and January. Throughout the severe weather KHS had regular meetings and provided briefing notes to the contact centre to ensure that members of the public could be provided with up to date accurate information. Additionally the Traffic Management Centre was kept informed of actions being taken to clear the snow and ice and this information was put out hourly by the TMC.

15

8. Staffing KHS staff were fully utilised during the winter emergencies as follows: Ringway staff put on 24 hour duty – 12 hour shifts KHS staff put on rota to work weekends All depots open and staffed 24 hours for duration of snow emergency

9. Future development of the winter service 9.1 KHS and the Cabinet Member for EH&W have received many comments from various stakeholders during the past few months. In addition to learning lessons from the past winter, KHS is keen to take on board any suggestions that could further improve the winter service. To this end a consultation process will be taking place commencing April 2010 (details at Appendix 3). The results of the consultation will be used to inform and improve the winter service policy and plan for 2010/11. Also the district Winter plans will be made available on line to county and district Members. 10. Southeastern 10.1 Snow disrupted rail services between 18 and 22 December, 6-9 January and 13 January due to severe snowy and icy conditions 10.2 Southeastern, along with other operators on the third-rail network is always susceptible to unreliability during very cold weather due to:

icing on the conductor rail impeding acceleration points freezing need to reduce speeds and braking distances. batteries failure often with no heating or lighting and limited

communication. 10.3 Performance on the High Speed Line for domestic trains was not affected severely due to power being delivered by overhead wires. 10.4 During this period of disruption, ice on the conductor rail caused some 100 instances where passenger trains were significantly delayed. The mean delay was 1 hour 20 minutes – the longest in Swanley seven hours. Problems were compounded by late running of trains causing displacement of crew and rolling stock 10.5 Network Rail and Southeastern do attempt to reduce problems by:

use of conductor rail and points heaters Track spraying with de-icing fluid Running ghost trains before start of passenger services Adjusting the software of newer trains to reduce sensitivity to icing

10.6 During 6-8 January, Southeastern ran a reduced service – some 440 Mainline services compared to the normal number of some 870. This was directed by Network Rail in anticipation of adverse forecast of weather and

16

experience of the problems experienced on 18 December when multiple train failures left passengers stranded for long periods on freezing trains. The reduced service was to:

Reduce the risk of passengers trapped in trains Enable following trains to stop in stations if service ahead has

problems Provide a more reliable timetable Limit the number of points and junctions used Provide for the fewer passengers that want or need to travel

10.7 During this period, the delay minutes experienced in Kent on Southeastern were significantly less than those in Sussex and Wessex (operated by Southern and South West Trains). The worst affected Southeastern lines over this period were the Maidstone East and Hastings lines, with replacement buses on the Medway Valley Line used for part of 7 January 10.8 Network Rail and Southeastern are reviewing local performance during this time and there is a national review also taking place. These are likely to concentrate on the need to improve information to passengers in advance and during problem periods; the performance of the reduced timetable (robustness and overcrowding) and the need for more conductor rail heaters. 11. Eurostar 11.1 During the night from 18 and 19 December, five Eurostar trains failed in the Channel Tunnel. This caused the closure of the Tunnel to other traffic in both directions – freight and passenger shuttles and railfreight, with knock-on effects on the M20 and access to Dover. Eurostar services were suspended until a limited service was introduced on 22 December. The cause was ingress of snow into the trains which caused power failures 11.2 The cancellations of Eurostar trains over three days and the subsequent limited service afterwards caused severe delays and inconvenience to passengers and illustrated how unprepared Eurostar were to deal with the problem. Alternative travel arrangements (including coaches and ferries) took too long to organise and passengers were forced to stay in Eurostar terminals and Dover Docks Travel Centre whilst the backlog was dealt with. The numbers of foot passengers processed by DHB was around 20 times normal levels 11.3 An independent review made 21 recommendations to Eurostar to improve train reliability, improve arrangements for evacuation and rescue, and managing disruption and improving communication. The recommendations included:

fitting improved snow filters to the trains covering sensitive electronic control systems and inductors to prevent

condensation and pollution affecting signalling and data systems

17

better communication (video links) between Eurostar and Eurotunnel Rail Control Centre

better briefing of passengers when evacuation necessary onto Eurotunnel shuttle trains

review need for more rescue locomotives to drag Eurostars to Ashford or Calais

review need for Eurostar have longer battery life to maintain air conditioning

review method of handling delayed and evacuated passengers at Ashford and St. Pancras with Network Rail and with SNCF and SNCB in France and Belgium

Eurostar should improve communication with passengers at stations, on the internet (Facebook and Twitter) and to other operators and stations.

12. Eurotunnel Problems started at Eurotunnel on 18 December before the Eurostar failures and the terminal was closed for an hour in the evening and was running a disrupted service until midnight, with freight only from 22.30. After the Eurostar failures, a limited shuttle car service did not start until 11am. The closure of the Tunnel stranded some 1,000 cars at Cheriton and 300 at Coquelles and caused cars and lorries to divert to Dover. Problems with shuttle services lasted until 21 December with rolling stock failures and crew difficulties. 13. Port of Dover 13.1 The Port of Calais was closed between 00.35 hours and 07.25 on 19 December for car traffic and until Sunday morning for freight. This, coupled with the complete closure of Eurotunnel, and the relatively high volume of traffic attempting to go back to the continent for Christmas caused very long queues on the A20 into Dover. 13.2 Traffic on Friday 18th reached back to the Cheriton interchange (Junction 12) in the evening but the Police did not invoke Operation Stack as they were concerned with safety. In the early morning of the 19th December, traffic stretched back to Ashford and Phase 2 Stack was finally put in place at 7.50am. Due to the high amount of tourist traffic attempting to cross the Channel, traffic on the A20 in Dover often stretched back right through the town, even though Stack was in place. Stack was stood down in the early morning of 21st December after over 40 hours. 13.3 These incidents have highlighted the need for a new contingency plan for when not only lorries but large numbers of passenger cars are caught up in Operation Stack. 13.4 KCC is to set up a high-level meeting with the Police, Highways Agency, Dover District Council, Eurotunnel, Dover Harbour Board and the ferry

18

operators to initiate an investigation on how such problems can be ameliorated in the future. Contact Officers Carol Valentine -Community Delivery Manager KHS – 08458 247800 Mick Sutch – Head of Planning and Transport Strategy – 01622 221612

19

Appendix 1 Snow emergency 1 During the week commencing 14th December 2009 the weather forecast indicated that there would be severe snow conditions in Kent. In line with our policy it was decided that a snow emergency be declared in West Kent where the worst of the weather was expected to be. To manage the situation the following actions were taken: Salt The winter service policy was put into action and primary and

secondary routes were salted Ploughs were fitted to gritter lorries to deal with deep snow Ringway deployed a full resource of drivers and vehicles KHS team leaders followed their own local district plans and instructed

local action as necessary Salt was already on order for 400 tonnes for each of our seven depots Salt bins filled

Strategic Gold Command Problems were being experienced across the county with Operation

Stack in place and a broken down train in the tunnel The Police set up a Strategic Co-ordination Meeting chaired by a Chief

Superintendent KHS were represented on that group KHS led on a Bronze group to remove abandoned cars on Bluebell

and Detling Hills on 18.12.09 19th December KHS staff assisted in providing welfare to people stuck

in Operation Stack –under the direction of the Highways Agency Staffing KHS staff detailed to work over the weekend to instruct local action to

Ringway staff who were also working the weekend Farmers Farmers contacted to plough their routes

Customer contact Contact centre short staffed on Friday 18th December due to difficulties

getting to work Few calls on the Friday Most calls later on related to footway clearance and some specific

areas that had not been salted including town centres 3. Snow emergency no 2 Severe winter conditions again hit the county in the week commencing 4th January and continued until 14th January. A snow emergency was called for the whole county on Monday 4th January. The key actions taken are outlined below:

20

Salt On 4.01.10 KHS had 7000 tonnes of salt in stock Due to the national nature of the weather it was decided by the

Community Delivery Manager with responsibility for winter service (the Strategic Manager) that daily winter strategic meetings would be held for the duration of the snow emergency

A decision was taken by the group to immediately take steps to conserve our salt supplies – by mixing salt with sharp sand in a 50/50 mix for use in salt bins a saving could be made

During the week decisions were taken to: o Only use sand in salt bins o Use a 50/50 salt and sand mix on the primary and secondary

routes (pure salt to be used in hazardous surfaces on key arterial roads such as A229, A249)

Salt was on order with Salt Union and a foreign supplier Decision was taken not to give salt to other authorities – however as

the situation worsened we supplied mutual aid to Medway Council and Sheerness Docks with the approval of the Interim Director of KHS

10th January decision taken to prioritise treatment in vicinity of secondary schools so that public exams could go ahead

Snow emergency no. 3 The third snow emergency was confined mainly to East Kent .At the start of week commencing 8th Feb following forecasts of significant snow fall pre-sanding of priority footways was instructed. Liaison with the district councils took place and 12 - 3 man district crews were used for priority footway treatment and clearing in Thanet. As snow started to accumulate all farmers with agreements in place were instructed to plough and keep clear their designated routes. They also assisted in areas off their routes as required. As and when primary and secondary routes were clear local action to problem areas was instructed such as steep gradients and areas where life and death situations arose such as the need for one resident to be visited with essential medical care and medication etc. Regional Resilience Group This was established on Tuesday 5th January and virtual meetings were held with local authorities across the region. Additionally the Police set up a Strategic Co-ordination Group in the same vein as the one in December. The Strategic Winter Service Manager represented KHS at both meetings Salt returns were made twice weekly to the resilience group and this

will continue until further notice Government set up a national Salt Cell to monitor salt supplies across

the country and to ensure that supplies were distributed in areas of greatest need

Kent County Council were seen as being one of the better off authorities due to actions we had taken to conserve our salt supplies (we had reduced our usage by 50% a week and a half before being requested to do so by Government)

21

A Kent salt cell chaired by KHS was set up as a Bronze group of the Strategic Co-ordination Group and this convened by audio conference on three occasions

22

Appendix 2 Salt usage Based on the usage from previous years it is likely that we could use 35,000t of salt by the end of this season.

Salt Usage

Year End Dec Season

2005/2006 4,171.36 12,296.88

2006/2007 1,147.04 9,197.88

2007/2008 9,058.35 17,752.07

2008/2009 7,874.68 24,289.21

2009/2010 13,689.84

Average previous 4 seasons

5,562.86 15,884.01

2009/2010 above average

8,126.98

23

Appendix 3   Chief Executives of district councils

o Structured interviews will be undertaken by Mori with Chief Executives or their nominated representatives

Elected members – telephone interviews by Community Liaison Team Leaders and Officers

District Members – on line survey Parish councils – on line survey Joint Transportation Boards- Winter service will be an item on

the agenda and JTB members will have the opportunity to discuss and make recommendations to the EH&W Policy Overview Committee

All responses will be collated and presented to the POSC in May and July

The independent polling organisation MORI will be commissioned to conduct the in depth interviews with Chief Executives and assess the results of the on line surveys.

24

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: Head of Transport and Development, Kent Highway Services

To: Environment, Highways & Waste – Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Subject: Public Transport Developments, Funding and Initiatives

Classification: Unrestricted

Summary: This annual report informs members of the principal developments, funding arrangements and initiatives undertaken in the provision of public transport in Kent during 2009/10 and planned for implementation during 2010/11. This year’s report also provides a summary of the principal legislative changes following the Local Transport Act 2008, and the bearing they are having on the delivery of public transport.

1. Introduction

(1) Public Transport continues to go from strength to strength in Kent. The County Council has been at the forefront of developing and implementing new initiatives, with new Quality Bus Partnerships (QBPs) signed in Ashford and Dover and similar partnerships planned for Sevenoaks, Shepway and Swale. Passenger numbers have continued to increase year on year. In 2005/06 there were 45.7 million journeys by bus; in 2006/07 48.6 million; in 2007/08 51.7 million; and in 2008/09 55.2 million.

(2) During 2009/10 a number of key initiatives such as Kent County Council (KCC) Kickstart funding have delivered new vehicles and service uplifts for the Ashford A-Line operated by Stagecoach and for some of KCC’s supported bus routes. Further improvements are planned for 2010/11, and this report updates Members on progress.

2. Principal Developments (1) Quality Bus Partnerships

The Transport Act 2000 and the Local Transport Act 2008 provided for the establishment of Voluntary Partnership Agreements between bus operators, district councils and county councils (see section 4 – Legislation). These are generally known as Quality Bus Partnerships (QBPs), and by the end of 2009 half the districts in Kent had QBPs – Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, Maidstone, Thanet and Tunbridge Wells. The new QBPs in Ashford and Dover were signed during 2009, each with the district council and Stagecoach in East Kent and the former including Ashford’s Future Partnership Board. It is now intended to develop a Quality Network Partnership with bus and rail operators in Sevenoaks; a QBP in Shepway; and potentially a multi-operator QBP in Swale.

25

QBPs establish close working relationships between the parties to each agreement, and aim to improve the quality and reliability of bus services through the attainment of targets for punctuality, reliability, bus stop access and other improvements. Kent has been particularly successful at establishing QBPs and encouraging investment in Kent which has brought significant improvements in local bus services.

(2) Bus Stop Improvements

Kent Highway Services, in partnership with Arriva Southern Counties and Stagecoach in East Kent, has continued to implement a programme of improvements to bus stops throughout the county. This will eventually result in every urban bus stop being provided with a 24/7 bus stop clearway (to prevent unlawful parking), a raised boarder (wherever possible) to assist the mobility impaired, a clearly branded bus stop flag, and clear tailored timetable information for the routes serving the stop. It is planned to enter into a new Roadside Infrastructure Unit (RIU) contract to upgrade and maintain timetable information during 2010.

(3) Kent Freedom Pass

The Kent Freedom Pass scheme was rolled out countywide during 2009, and now provides free travel on most bus routes for all young people living in Kent and schooled in Kent in academic years 7-11 for an annual fee of £50. This innovative approach has seen a significant increase in bus passenger journeys by young people. There are currently over 21,000 passes issued and on average some 600,000 trips are made per school term month. It is intended to extend the scheme to pupils resident in Kent but schooled outside the county from April 2010.

(4) KCC Kickstart

The principle of pump-priming existing bus services to improve the quality of service has been adopted by KCC, with over £1.6m of capital funding for the provision of new vehicles in 2009/10. These were provided for the Ashford A-Line operated by Stagecoach, and for some of KCC’s supported bus routes operated by Eastonways Coaches in Thanet, by Kent Coach Tours in Ashford, and on the new E-line route in Ashford.

(5) DfT Kickstart

The Department for Transport (DfT) invited bids from local transport authorities for its new Kickstart funding scheme early in 2009. KCC submitted two bids: one in partnership with Arriva Southern Counties and Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust for West Kent, and one in partnership with Stagecoach for East Kent. The County Council was promised that the result of the submissions would be notified by September 2009, but despite numerous requests no information has been forthcoming. While KCC welcomed the opportunity to bid for Kickstart funding from the Government for significant improvements to inter-urban bus routes in West and East Kent, the delay – and possible cancellation – of this funding by the DfT are regarded as completely unacceptable.

26

(6) Smartcards and Real Time Information (RTI)

KCC is working in partnership with the Kent bus operators to roll out new Electronic Ticket Machines (ETMs) with Smartcard readers and GPS/GPRS transmitters on all service vehicles. This project will generate significant benefits to passengers and bus operators, including reduced bus stop dwell times, more effective delivery and administration of concessionary travel schemes including those for senior citizens and Freedom Pass holders, and enhanced information on patronage, network performance and the identification of incidents and congestion. It is hoped that a pilot scheme will be launched in partnership with Stagecoach in 2010 for Freedom Pass holders, subject to roll out of the new ticket machines by operators. An improved system of RTI is replacing existing displays in those parts of the county which have RTI installed at present, and it is planned to expand the RTI coverage as and when resources allow.

(7) The Kent & Medway Concessionary Travel Scheme

KCC has continued to provide additional funding to sustain the Kent & Medway Concessionary Travel scheme for over 60 year olds, as well as for disabled people and their companions. This has enabled pass holders to travel from 9.00 am instead of from 9.30am, on which time the Government’s funding is based. KCC is preparing to take over responsibility for the administration of the scheme from the district councils in Kent with effect from April 2011 following an announcement by Government in December 2009.

(8) Rail Services

Southeastern launched the full timetable for its new High Speed services linking Thant/Canterbury and Dover/Folkestone with Ashford, Ebbsfleet, Stratford and London St Pancras on 13 December 2009. The new High Speed services have been generally well received, with little evidence of resistance to the premium fare and significant loadings on both peak and off-peak services. In response to the introduction of High Speed services, KCC developed, in partnership with Southeastern and other stakeholders, a Station Travel Plan (STP) for Ashford. This forms part of a National Rail Station Travel Plan Pilot, sponsored by the DfT and ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies) where Kent were successful in bidding for Ashford to participate as one of 31 stations from across England and Wales. The Travel Plan was launched during summer 2009, and has been held up as a model for promoting sustainable travel to other stations in Kent. KCC received an award for the Ashford STP at the Annual Rail Business Awards ceremony in London as an example of excellence in encouraging modal shift from car to bus and cycle for journeys to and from Ashford station. In order to improve bus/rail interchange, KCC, in partnership with Southeastern, is delivering bus information display boards at most of the High Speed rail stations in East Kent. These will provide essential information on local bus routes, and direct passengers to the nearest bus stops where bus timetable information will be available.

27

However, the introduction of High Speed rail services has been very costly in terms of its detrimental effect on the residual timetable for the Mainline services to and from London Charing Cross and Cannon Street. KCC has received many concerns from MPs, Members, passenger groups and individuals, and these will be raised with Southeastern at their forthcoming stakeholder meeting in March 2010. The following table lists the principal issues on each rail route and the date on which they were raised:

ROUTE ISSUE DATE Ashford-London CX Reduction of frequency from 4

tph to 2 tph and slower service as now stops all stations Ashford-Tonbridge

13.12.09

Tonbridge-Ashford Gap in service between 1551 and 1621 resulting in long wait for children returning from Tonbridge schools

06.01.10

Sandwich/Deal/Walmer to Dover/Canterbury

Reduction in CX trains between East Kent stations and Dover and need for easier access to Canterbury

12.01.10

Ashford-Maidstone East

Loss of fast peak-hour trains between Ashford and Bearsted results in missed connections at Ashford and lengthy journey times

05.02.10

Maidstone East and West Malling-London

Withdrawal of shoulder-peak Cannon Street service results in lengthy journeys to Victoria and inadequate service to Blackfriars

05.02.10

Medway-London Victoria

Reduction of off-peak service to 1 tph at Sole Street

22.02.10

Ashford-Thanet

Journey speeds on the Ashford - Thanet route, including Manston Parkway Station (KCC working with Network Rail to improve timings)

22.02.10

KCC continues to support two Community Rail Partnerships (CRP) which cover rail routes in the county: the Kent CRP which covers the Medway Valley Line between Strood and Paddock Wood and SwaleRail between Sittingbourne and Sheerness; and the Sussex CRP which covers the Marshlink Line between Ashford and Hastings and the Uckfield Line between Uckfield and Oxted. Officers in the Sustainable Transport team attend CRP meetings, and the County Council provides financial support for each partnership.

3. Sustaining Kent’s Tendered Network

28

(1) KCC has a clearly established member approved policy to determine the

provision of financial support for socially necessary public transport services. This states that the cost of any such service should not exceed £3 per passenger journey, and that the journey should provide access to one of the following services which could not otherwise be attained: education, employment, health care, or essential food shopping.

(2) About 20% of the scheduled bus routes in the county are provided with

revenue support. Tenders for these services are awarded in accordance with Best Value principles. In 2009/10 the revenue support for these services has been provided by a combination of KCC funding (£5.3 million) and the DfT’s Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) (£2.2 million), with an estimated 4.9 million passenger journeys being made in the current year. During 2010/11 it is anticipated that the supported bus network will be sustained at the present level. The Competition Commission is currently carrying out an investigation into the local bus industry. In the provisional work of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), KCC came out very well indeed, with a high level of bids per tender, a very low number of commercial services withdrawn which then required subsidy, and a very low number of tenders with only one bid.

(3) KCC also supports nine Kent Karrier services, which provide a

combination of dial-a-ride and fixed routes for disabled people and for those living in rural areas away from bus routes. One of these, operating in North-West Kent, incurred a very high level of subsidy, and from 2010/11 will have its level of service reduced so that it is comparable with the other Kent Karrier services.

4. Legislation

(1) This year’s report provides a summary of the principal legislative changes following the Local Transport Act 2008 and the bearing they are having on the delivery of public transport. This new legislation has developed the original powers contained in the Transport Act 2000, and provides three distinct levels of agreement to facilitate partnership between bus operators, district councils and local transport authorities (LTA) as set out below.

Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) – removes OFT power to impose fines on bus operators – encourages agreements with more than one operator (e.g.

Swale) – can now include LTA setting of maximum fares

Quality Partnership Schemes (QPS) – can now include, in addition to VPAs, LTA setting of frequency,

timetable and maximum fares – determines LTA obligations (e.g. bus stop clearways) Quality Contracts (QC) – individual quality contract board determines operator, route,

timetable and fares: removal of competition (2) At present KCC has six Quality Bus Partnerships (QBP) and all of them

are VPAs. Details of these, and of plans for new partnerships, are set out in section 2 above. The most likely beneficiaries of the new

29

legislation will be the existing Fastrack service in Dartford and Gravesham; the emerging Smartlink bus service in Ashford; and the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) scheme in Dover. All of these schemes could potentially benefit from a Quality Partnership Scheme (QPS), which would enable KCC, the district council(s) and the chosen bus operator to enter into such a statutory partnership.

(3) A QPS would give KCC the power to set the frequency, route, timetable and maximum fares for the service(s) included in the QPS, although the guidance from the DfT suggests a partnership approach with the chosen bus operator rather than unilateral determination of these by the LTA. KCC would also have statutory obligations, such as the provision of clearly defined infrastructure works such as bus shelters, bus stops, clearways and raised boarders. Each individual QPS could be tailored to the particular needs of each scheme, with for example a requirement for KCC to provide RTI at all bus stops serving the route(s) concerned.

(4) There are no plans to develop Quality Contracts (QC) in Kent, the

concept for which is based on the non-competitive regulated bus network in the capital that is determined by Transport for London.

5. Conclusion

(1) KCC has continued to make significant investment, through both funding and personnel, in the creation of good quality public transport services throughout the county. The County Council is committed to attaining modal shift from car to public transport, by enhancing the provision of bus services and by improving access for all. Wherever possible KCC will make use of the new powers contained in the Local Transport Act 2008 to enhance the quality of the partnerships between the County Council and its stakeholders.

(2) Recent initiatives such as the development of Quality Bus Partnerships,

the countywide roll-out of the Freedom Pass and the planned introduction of Smartcard will continue to deliver sustainable transport options throughout the county, thus improving the quality of life and ensuring a first-class public transport service for the residents of, and visitors to, Kent.

6. Recommendation

Members are requested to note the report.

30

Background Documents: The following background documents have been used in the preparation of this report:

Kickstart Bus Funding Competition 2009 – Guidance on the application process (Department for Transport, January 2009)

Local Transport Act 2008 - Improving local bus services: Guidance on Voluntary Partnership Agreements (Department for Transport, February 2009)

Local Transport Act 2008 - Quality Partnership Schemes: Statutory guidance to English local transport authorities and metropolitan district councils (Department for Transport, March 2009)

Contact Officer: Stephen Gasche

Public Transport Team Leader (East Kent) stephen.gasche@kent.gov.uk 08458 247800

31

32

Agenda Item No 6 KINGSDOWN PARKING RESTRICTIONS To: Dover Joint Transportation Board – 15 April 2010 Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways & Waste By: Head of Transportation and Development Classification: Unrestricted Summary: Casual parking in Upper Street, and The Rise in Kingsdown, Deal cause

an obstruction for vehicles. To Recommend: That parking restrictions as shown on the drawing in Appendix 2 to this

report be advertised and implemented as a permanent Traffic Regulation Order if no objections are received.

Introduction 1.1 Concerns have been expressed by residents, supported by the emergency services (Appendix

1) and the district authority, that parking in Upper Street and The Rise, Kingsdown, obstructs the passage of larger vehicles and is causing concerns for the access of the emergency service vehicles particularly Kent Fire and Rescue who have stated that they may not be able to reach the scene of an incident due to the parking that currently occurs.

1.2 To address this quickly an experimental traffic order was proposed to provide double yellow

line waiting restrictions as shown on the drawing in Appendix 2. 1.3 The informal consultation that was carried out prior to the start of the experimental order has

prompted two comments via the telephone and none in writing. It has therefore been decided that the views of the JTB should be sought before proceeding further.

Background 2.1 The village of Kinsgdown lies on the outskirts of Deal. It is a residential area and the majority

of the properties have off street parking facilities. 2.2 Obstructive parking occurs on a daily basis when vehicle owners park on the road and

obstruct the free passage of large vehicles as shown in the attached photographs (Appendix 3).

2.3 In 2009, Dover District Council widely consulted on a proposal for more extensive waiting

restrictions throughout the village. The residents raised overwhelming written objection to these extensive double yellow lines and the scheme was dropped.

Proposed Parking Restrictions 3.1 Double yellow lines (no waiting at any time) are proposed on both sides of parts of Stone

Street. These proposals are shown on the drawing in Appendix 2. These proposals are the minimal requirements of the emergency services.

33

Consultation 4.1 Informal consultation has been carried out on these proposals as it was originally intended that they would be implemented by experimental traffic order. 4.2 Comments have been received from the following:

Kent Police Traffic Management Unit

Kent Police have no specific observations but expect:

The application to meet necessary criteria and current legislation

The introduction of these measures will not leave the Police to carry out constant enforcement of obstruction due to the problem transferring to other areas

The safety of other road users is not compromised

Resources are available to enforce these restrictions

Kent Fire and Rescue

Refer to Appendix 1

Resident of Stone Street

Fully supportive of the proposals

Local Residents Concerns raised regarding effects on local shop, public house and church and loss of facilities.

Conclusion 5.1 The parking proposals are modest in response to issues of safety and obstruction and have

the support of the Emergency Services Dover District Council Parking Division and Transportation Engineers and Kent Highway Services. Dover District Council have agreed to enforce the parking restrictions.

Recommendation 6.1 It is recommended that the experimental traffic order is dropped, but that further consultation

and formal advertisement are undertaken on this proposal with a view to introducing a permanent order for the parking restrictions shown on the drawing in Appendix 2. Any objections that are received will be reported to the Board. It is recommended that if no objections are received the Order be made and implemented without reporting back to this Board.

Contact Officers: Lorna Day Kent Parking Manager, Kent Highway Services

34

35

36

APPENDIX 2

37

38

39

Agenda Item No 7 RIVER DOUR CYCLE ROUTE PHASE 1 – RESULTS OF CONSULTATION To: Dover Joint Transportation Board, 15 April 2010 Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste By: Head of Transport & Development, Kent Highway Services Classification: Unrestricted Ward: St Radigunds Division : Dover Town Buckland Tower Hamlets Maxton, Elms Vale and Priory Castle Summary: The report summarises the results of the public consultation for a

cycle route between Buckland Mill and Park Street, Dover. For Recommendation

1. Introduction 1.1 On behalf of Kent County Council (KCC), Kent Highway Services (KHS) is proposing

a cycle route scheme in Dover, which also incorporates improvements for pedestrians.

1.2 This scheme was outlined in the Dover District Cycling Plan approved by the JTB in

December 2008. The scheme originated from the desire to create a main arterial cycle route along the Dour Valley in Dover Town which further cycle routes could then link into (from River and Whitfield for example). The route was developed with KHS working closely with Dover Pride and Sustrans.

1.3 The principle scheme aims are to provide better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists

in Dover in providing a near traffic free route away from the busy ring road thus contributing towards an increase in cycling in the Dover urban area and resulting reduction in traffic congestion.

1.4 This scheme will form ‘Phase 1’ of the River Dour Route travelling from Crabble

Meadows adjacent to Buckland Bridge, to Park Street. Future phase 2 will look to link on to the seafront, and to National Cycle Routes 1 and 2.

1.5 Extra value has been added to the scheme by incorporating improved pedestrian

facilities with the proposed new pedestrian and cycle bridge at Buckland and improvements to existing pedestrian crossings.

1.6 £300,000 has been allocated to the scheme from the 2010/11 Transportation &

Safety Package Programme. A further contribution of £450,000 has been made by Sustrans via their Connect2 funding stream as a top up for Phase 1 and to enable KHS to complete future Phase 2. It should be noted that although this figure may seem high, this is due to the costs incurred by providing a new bridge.

40

2. Summary of consultation response 2.1 A scheme proposal was prepared, and put forward for public consultation. The

documents and original proposals may be seen in Appendix 1. 2.2 The consultation period ran for 6 weeks, from 25th January to 5th March 2010.

Information leaflets and feedback forms were distributed to 460 immediately affected residents and businesses and 20 notification posters were placed along the route. The plans were made available for inspection along with feedback return boxes at both The Discover Centre and The Gateway in Dover town centre. All of the consultation information and scheme drawings were made available on the www.kent.gov.uk website, which included the opportunity to comment via an email feedback form. Press articles detailing the consultation were released in the Dover Express and Mercury. Other consultees directly contacted included the local district and county councillors, town council, the emergency services, bus companies and the Dover Disability Forum.

2.3 Consultees were asked whether they supported the proposals shown in Appendix 2,

and were also given the opportunity to make additional comments, which are summarised in Appendix 3. The results were as follows:-

Do you support the overall proposals for the new walking and cycling route?

Yes No Not sure 67% (58) 26% (22) 2% (2)

5% of respondents did not answer the yes/no/not sure tick boxes, but made comments, these comments have been included in Appendix 3.

2.4 It can be seen that the proposals found favour with a majority of respondents. 2.5 Consultees were also asked if they supported individual aspects of the scheme, this

is summarised in table 1 below:-

Response Different elements of River Dour Cycle Route: Phase 1 Yes No

Not sure

Not indicated

Provision of new Toucan crossing on London Road and reduction of carriageway space and kerb alterations to create a shared footway and cycleway in the vicinity of Buckland Bridge

63%

27%

4%

6%

New, wider bridge for cyclists across the River Dour adjacent to Buckland Bridge 70% 15% 9% 6% Remove traffic lane and widen existing footway to create a shared footway / cycleway from Lorne Road into Cherry Tree Avenue

57%

29%

8%

6%

Improvements to pedestrian crossing creating Toucan crossing across Cherry Tree Avenue and widening of existing footway to create shared footway / cycleway into Barton Path

67%

23%

4%

6%

Improvements to the pedestrian crossing at Bridge Street 74% 11% 9% 6% Reduction of carriageway space and widening existing footway to create new shared footway /

67%

18%

9%

6%

41

cycleway facility between Bridge Street and Crafford Street (once past retail access road, this then moves away from the road, around the back of the car park).

2.6 Although the percentages vary, it can be seen that the majority of respondents were

in favour of each of the proposals. Nevertheless, the concerns of those who are not in favour (or those who gave qualified support) have been considered and addressed. A summary of the main concerns, and the associated recommended response, may be seen in Appendix 3.

2.7 As a result of these considerations, the scheme proposals have been amended.

Revisions are recommended for the following elements, summarised in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Summary of intended revision to original proposals

Existing design Suggested revision to design

Narrowing of London Road to single lane just south of Buckland Bridge with provision of kerb build out and new Toucan crossing.

Ensure provision of necessary footway/cycleway links, and upgrade existing crossing to become a Toucan crossing. London Road to retain its existing 2 traffic lanes.

Removal of historic bollards in alleyway between Brookfield Place and Alfred Road.

Refurbish and reinstall existing historic bollards.

3. Recommendation

3.1 Subject to the views of this Board, it is recommended that the scheme is progressed taking into account the alterations as detailed in Table 2, to detailed design, processing of TRO’s and implementation.

Contact Officer: David Barton, Local Transportation & Development Manager - Dover and Shepway KHS Transport & Development (08458 247800) Background Papers Appendix 1: Extract from Dover District Cycle Plan Appendix 2: River Dour Cycle Route consultation documents Appendix 3: Summary of additional comments made, and KHS responses

42

RIVER DOUR CYCLE ROUTE PHASE 1 – RESULTS OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 1 – Extract from Dover District Cycle Plan Full document available at:

www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport/transport_policies/cycling_strategies.aspx

43

44

RIVER DOUR CYCLE ROUTE PHASE 1 – RESULTS OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 2 – Consultation Documents

45

River Dour Cycle Route . (Phase 1: Buckland to Park Street)

Dover

Public Consultation What is being proposed?

Kent Highway Services are proposing to develop a new walking and cycle route, with the intention of better linking the Buckland area with Dover Town Centre. This is the first phase in a cycle route which will eventually link National Cycle Route 1 on Dover seafront with River. This first phase is shown on the attached plan and will use the following: London Road, Brookfield Place, Alfred Road, Lorne Road, Buckland Avenue, Cherry Tree Avenue, Barton Path, Charlton Green and Dour Street.

Why do we want to do this?

Currently the one way road system in Dover is seen by many cyclists as too busy to be safe, especially for children, resulting in people choosing to cycle on the pavements. The Dover District Cycle Plan identified a route following the River Dour from Buckland to the Seafront as of key importance to the town in providing a safe, near traffic free route linking residential areas with the town centre also complimenting regeneration of parts of the town. This route would also form the important backbone of a Dover Town cycle network for future cycle routes from Whitfield and River to link into and on to the national cycle network on the seafront. What does this scheme involve?

The majority of the scheme will be a signed cycle route on existing lightly trafficked roads and riverside path, however there are specific locations where additional new facilities are proposed: London Road south of Buckland bridge: change existing pelican crossing to toucan

crossing, and building out kerbline reducing carriageway to single lane. Minor junction alteration at Bunkers Hill to create a table top junction (raised to footway

level to slow traffic) It is intended to provide a new, wider bridge for cyclists across the river at Buckland, this

will be subject to Dover District Council’s planning applications procedure. Widen footway from the new crossing (above) around into Buckland Avenue to create a

short new section of shared footway / cycleway. Widen existing footway between Buckland Avenue Road and Cherry Tree Avenue,

removing one traffic lane to create a shared footway / cycleway. Alteration of existing traffic signals on Cherry Tree Avenue to create a new single stage

Toucan crossing.

46

Widening of footway between the above crossing and Barton Path to continue shared footway / cycleway.

Improvements to the pedestrian crossing at Bridge Street (realigning pedestrian crossing point to be in line with Charlton Green, providing more footway / cycleway space).

The footway outside the retail park at Charlton Green will be widened to create a footway / cycleway, this will then continue along a widened alleyway behind the Netto car park to Crafford Street. This element is subject to agreement by the landowner.

The above measures will be funded by a combination of Kent County Council’s integrated transport budget and match funding from Sustrans, the national cycle charity. Where alterations to traffic lanes and traffic signals are proposed, these have been carefully examined to ensure that there will be no adverse effect on traffic flows in the area. How do I register my views? This information is being provided to raise awareness of the proposed improvements. KHS would like to hear from you should you wish to support these proposals or if you have any related concerns or points that you feel are appropriate to be considered as part of the progression of this scheme. Please take time to complete and post or email the feedback form for your views to be registered, to be received by no later than FRIDAY 5th March 2010. Following on from this, the detailed design will be progressed, taking into consideration the feedback from this consultation. The results of the consultation will be reported to the Dover Joint Transportation Board meeting on the 15th April 2010. How to find out more?

If you would like to find out more about the proposals, or see more detailed plans, you can do so in a number of ways: Call our 24hr helpline 0845 824 7800, quoting River Dour Cycle Route. View the proposals online at

www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport/using_the_road/current_consultations.aspx

Where a feedback from can be downloaded and emailed to td.dover.shepway@kent.gov.uk Or Feedback can be left using the online tool.

View the proposals and more detailed drawings on display at the Discovery Centre at

Market Square Dover and in the foyer of the Gateway in Castle Street until 5th March. The Discovery Centre is open from 9am-6pm Monday to Saturday except on Wednesdays when it is open late until 8 and Saturday when it closes at 5. The Gateway is open from 9am-5pm Monday to Friday and 9am-1pm on Saturday. An officer from Kent Highway Services will be available on Thursday 4th and 18th February from 12.30 until 4pm at the Discovery Centre to answer any queries. You can also leave your completed feedback form at above two locations in the box provided.

47

For more information regarding Sustrans visit: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ For more information about Dover Pride visit: http://www.doverpride.org.uk For more information on cycling in Kent visit: www.kent.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/countryside_and_coast.aspx

48

49

RIVER DOUR CYCLE ROUTE (Phase 1: Buckland to Park Street)

Feedback form

Do you support the overall proposals for a new walking and cycling route? Yes No Not sure

Do you support the specific proposals for the following locations? (more detailed plans are available to view online, at Dover Discovery Centre and the Gateway, or on request by phone – see attached leaflet for further information)

Provision of new Toucan crossing on London Road and reduction of carriageway space and kerb alterations to create a shared footway and cycleway in the vicinity of Buckland Bridge Yes No Not sure

New, wider bridge for cyclists across the River Dour adjacent to Buckland Bridge Yes No Not sure

Remove traffic lane and widen existing footway to create a shared footway / cycleway from Lorne Road into Cherry Tree Avenue Yes No Not sure

Improvements to pedestrian crossing creating Toucan crossing across Cherry Tree Avenue and widening of existing footway to create shared footway / cycleway into Barton Path Yes No Not sure

Improvements to the pedestrian crossing at Bridge Street Yes No Not sure

Reduction of carriageway space and widening of existing footway to create new shared footway / cycleway facility between Bridge Street and Crafford Street (once past retail access road, this then moves away from the road, around the back of the car park). Yes No Not sure

Please register any further comments in the box overleaf

Return by Friday 5th March 2010 to: Kent Highway Services, Transport & Development Team (Dover & Shepway), Ashford Highway Depot, Henwood Industrial Estate, Javelin Way, Ashford, Kent TN24 8AD. Alternatively you can email your response to td.dover.shepway@kent.gov.uk

50

RIVER DOUR CYCLE ROUTE PHASE 1 – RESULTS OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 3 – Summary of additional comments made, and recommended responses / actions

51

Item Comment received KHS response

1. Very concerned about the proposed narrowing of London Road to a single lane, this is regularly congested and would cause chaos.

Initial monitoring indicated that narrowing London Road to one lane would not cause a problem, however following subsequent site visits coupled with public opinion, this element of the scheme will be revised: London Road will remain 2 lanes and the parking remain at it’s current level.

2. Very concerned with the removal of historic bollards between Brookfield Place and Alfred Road allowing access to motorcycles.

Bollards will not be removed altogether. It is intended that the existing bollards be refurbished and reinstalled with the addition of any necessary signing.

3. Brookfield place, Alfred Road and Lorne Road are too narrow for cycle lanes.

Cycle lanes are not proposed at these locations, only a signed cycle route.

4. Brookfield Place is a small lane with an extremely poor road surface.

Although full resurfacing has not been intended as part of this scheme, localised improvements may be possible.

5. I would prefer the new sections of footway / cycleway to be segregated facilities rather than shared surface.

Whether the new sections are shared or segregated will depend on the available space taken from the roads (segregated have to be wider). As we still need to ensure larger vehicles are catered for on the highway, this matter will be decided upon at detail design stage of the scheme.

6. I'd like to see cycling permitted along Crabble Meadow as well. If you are going to allow cycling along the narrow path beside the dour why not have it going along this path beside the church and under the railway bridge at the end of the link up to quite streets. this would enable the cyclist to then cycle up to Kearnsey Abbey on friendly roads.

The route from Crabble Meadows at Buckland Bridge, through to the River side of the railway line is to be funded by the developer of the Buckland Mill site. If however this is not forthcoming we will seek alternative funding arrangements.

7. No route signing is shown a the Buckland avenue / Lorne road junction. a single gap in signing can leave cyclists feeling lost, so I think directional signing here is necessary.

Agreed, direction signs will be provided at this location.

8. Buckland and Barton road are two of the busiest road in Dover. With two lanes they just about cope with the amount of traffic but if reduced to one lane the traffic would back up through the town

Buckland Avenue is not being reduced to one lane, it is being reduced from 3 lanes to two on the approach to the Cherry Tree Avenue traffic lights.

52

and up Buckland bridge / hill. Trying to pull onto either of these two roads from parking or a side road can take ten minutes when you have to rely on a kind motorist to let you out. or a break in traffic which would not happen if down to one lane. if reduced to one lane all traffic would come to a standstill whilst a car tries to reverse park, currently traffic can move into the other lane and is still free flowing. parking along these two roads is currently horrific for residents, we can not lose anymore parking space.

The kerb build outs into Buckland Avenue will enable better drivers exiting Lorne Road onto Buckland Avenue to have better visibility past parked cars, so exiting Lorne Road should be easier and safer. No parking is being lost on Buckland Avenue.

9. It was not clear if there would be any barriers to prevent pedestrians walking into cyclists on the Barton Path where it joins Limes Road and Charlton Avenue. I can see that there will be a sign but will this alone prevent a pedestrian walking into a cyclist. There are a number of Schools in the area so a physical barrier as well as a sign should be utilised to separate.

There are steps down from Limes Road and Charlton Avenue, where warning signs will be placed to make pedestrians aware of cyclists on the Barton Path. The Barton Path is not wide enough to install additional barriers, however it is very unlikely that cyclists will be cycling directly adjacent to the boundary wall, so in the event of pedestrians stepping onto the path without looking there should still be time to avoid a collision.

10. Pleased with proposals, but there is a lack of cycle parking

KHS will work with DDC, businesses , schools and new development in an attempt to increase cycle parking provision.

11. With regard to Barton Path this is a lovely riverside walk well used by school children and mothers taking toddlers along to feed the ducks, it seems instead of feeding ducks they will be dodging cyclists. In recent years there have been a number of reports in the Dover Express about cyclists knocking down pedestrians with the result of injuries to the pedestrians but none to the cyclists it seems i can recall no mention though of cyclists being hit by vehicles on the surrounding roads as are quite safe, in fact KCC holds all the accident records it seems so perhaps they can show where a cyclist has been injured by a vehicle in this area and

The Barton Path has been used historically by cyclists for many years. It is a Public Right of Way designated as a Restricted Byway, as such cyclists are legally entitled to cycle along it already regardless of this scheme. It is unfortunate that pedestrians are at times injured by a very small minority of cyclists who behave badly and cycle at inappropriate speeds. These irresponsible people would behave like this regardless of any new facilities and most likely would cycle

53

prove the need to put cyclists on the paths.. i doubt they can. Barton Path is not wide enough for shared use. Having cyclists will reduce the enjoyment of the river path and its wildlife

illegally on the surrounding footways also. Crash statistics for cyclists in Dover Town on the roads are not abnormally high. This is because the number of cyclists is low as they are put off cycling on the very busy roads. This scheme seeks to provide a safe route away from the ring road enabling safer cycling for all.

12. Removing a lane of traffic in Buckland Avenue towards the traffic lights with Cherry Tree Avenue could also lead to chaos, you should be there when the school run is on to see what we mean it is bad enough now without this silly dangerous idea.

The loss of one traffic lane on Buckland Avenue on the approach to the Cherry Tree Avenue junction is only for a length of 50m. This only equates to approximately 8 cars which would then have to use the middle lane (as existing) per cycle of the traffic lights.

13. Buckland Avenue/ Cherry Tree Avenue: Another stretch where we should lose road space for cycle lane. Also i think will involve loss of parking spaces in Cherry Tree Avenue itself. Parking for shops here is already critically scarce,

There will be no loss of parking on Buckland Avenue or Cherry Tree Avenue as a result of this scheme.

14. Construction of a cycle bridge alongside the existing bridge must not obscure the view of the river from the existing footbridge as this is extremely popular with children and parents looking for fish and feeding the ducks.

The new bridge will take as small a footprint as possible, and will allow for the removal of the current footbridge. This will allow for views of the river from both sides of the new bridge.

15. At Bunkers Hill Junction there is an on going problem with water drainage and this area is often flooded in medium to heavy rain conditions.

We are aware of the small flooding problem at this junction and will seek to solve it whilst carrying out these improvements.

16. Cyclists crossing the pavement at the 'table top' junction to the pavement along London Road will be cycling at speed. It will be a dangerous crossing point for cyclists who may be taken unaware by drivers coming down Bunters Hill.

The table junction is ramped thus intended to slow vehicles before the get to the area where they would interact with cycles and pedestrians. Give way lines on the cycleway will indicate that the road will still have priority.

17. Can the cycle route not go through the car park near Buckland Bridge?

The car park is in Dover District Council’s ownership, and although they are in favour of the scheme, it is preferable where possible to place new facilities adjacent to the highway to enable ease of maintenance.

54

55

18. Removal of traffic lane from Lorne Road might cause issues for lorries turning into Cherry Tree Avenue

Assumption that Buckland Avenue is referred to rather than Lorne Road; lorry tracking movement will be checked at detail design to ensure lorries will be able to turn.

19. Alfred Road. Is not suitable for increased cycle usage - it is a narrow residential cul de sac.

Being a quietly trafficked cul-de-sac, this precisely why Alfred Road is suitable for a cycle route.

Agenda Item No 8 HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME 2010/2011 To: Dover Joint Transportation Board –15 April 2010 Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways & Waste By: Director of Kent Highway Services Classification: Unrestricted Ward: All Division: All Summary: This report updates members on the identified schemes approved for

construction in 2010/11. For Decision 1.0 Introduction and Background 1.1 This report gives members the current position on the identified schemes that have

been approved for construction in 2010/11. 2.0 Road Surface Treatments 2.1 Microsurfacing - See Annex A1

Surface Dressing- See Annex A2 Thin Surfacing – See Annex A3

3.0 Highway Maintenance Schemes 3.1 Carriageway Schemes - see Annex B1 Footway Schemes - see Annex B2 Street Lighting Schemes - see Annex B3 Drainage/Other Schemes – see Annex B4 4.0 Local Transport Plan Budget 2010/11 4.1 Local Transport Plan Funded Schemes - see Annex C1 Public Rights of Way (LTP Funded) – see Annex C2 Developer Funded Schemes (Delivered by KHS) - see Annex C3 Other Funded Schemes – see Annex C4 5.0 Other Works 5.1 Bridge Works - see Annex D1 District Council Funded Schemes - see Annex D2 County Member Funded Works - see Annex D3 Major Capital Projects - see Annex D4

56

Recommendation This report is for Members’ information. Contact Officers: Dennis Button Community Delivery Manager 08458 247800 Gary Peak Local Transport Schemes Team Leader 08458 247800 Alun Jones Strengthening & Resurfacing Schemes Manager 08458 247800 Background documents: None

57

APPENDIX A – ROAD SURFACE TREATMENTS

APPENDIX A1 – MICROSURFACING: 20mm Overlay Location Description Budget Status Mongeham Road, Deal

Northbourne Road farm shop to St Richards Road

£19,050 To be programmed. May/June 2010

Kingsdown Road, St Margaret’s at Cliffe

Number 36 – 89 £14,100 To commence April 2010

Southwall Road, Deal

Middle Deal Road to Church Lane

£7,497 To commence April 2010

APPENDIX A2 – SURFACE DRESSING: 10mm Overlay Location Description Budget Status Coxhill, Shepherdswell

From Coxhill Farm to 30mph area

£13,932

To commence April 2010

Barville Road, Tilmanstone

East of Pike Road to Dover Road

£29,250 To commence April 2010

APPENDIX A3 – THIN SURFACING: Between 40-100mm Plane and Overlay Location Description Budget Status New Street, Sandwich

Between High Street (or Level Crossing) and No Name Street

£94,040 To be programmed between August – December 2010

Deal Castle Road/Prince of Wales Terrace

Whole length £135,705 To be programmed between August – December 2010

Middle Deal Road, Deal

Orchard Avenue to London Road

£74,068 To be programmed between August – December 2010

Albert Road, Deal Either side of Level Crossing

To be agreed

To be programmed

Chalkpit Lane, Staple

Whole Length £43,050 To be programmed between August – December 2010

Mill Lane, Staple Whole Length £58,725 To be programmed between August – December 2010

East Cliff, Dover Whole Length To be agreed

To be programmed

Melbourne Avenue, Dover

Whole length (or Durban Crescent North to Green Lane Roundabout)

£268,740 To be programmed between August – December 2010

Queen Street, Deal £54,910 To be programmed between August – December 2010

Sandwich By-Pass Exits from Roundabout – Sandwich bypass and Water Gardens Roundabout

£45,263 To be programmed between August – December 2010

The Strand, Deal Victoria Road to Prince of Wales Terrace

£92,300 To be programmed between August – December 2010

58

APPENDIX B – HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE SCHEMES APPENDIX B1 – CARRIAGEWAY SCHEMES

Location Description Budget Status

None

APPENDIX B2 – FOOTWAY SCHEMES Location Description Budget Status St David’s Avenue Footway reconstruction £62,000 On Site. Programmed

for completion June 2010Elms Vale Road Footway reconstruction £50,000 On Site. Programmed

for completion May 2010 North Military Road, Dover

Whole Length £50,000 Programmed for December 2010

Beach Street, Deal Opposite Royal Hotel car park

£10,000 Programmed for November 2010

Old Folkestone Road, Dover (Aycliffe)

Whole Length £40,000 Programmed for February 2011

Astor Avenue, Dover

From Eaton Road to South Street

£80,000 Programmed for June 2010

Prince of Wales Terrace, Deal

Whole Length £15,000 Programmed for December 2010

High Street, Dover Outside Charlton Centre £10,000 Programmed for March 2011

APPENDIX B3 – STREET LIGHTING SCHEMES There are no Street Lighting schemes planned for 2010/11. Inventory data collection being carried out, to be followed by electrical and structural testing from which future programming of work will be developed. APPENDIX B4 – DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE WORKS

Type of Maintenance Work

Number completed from 01/01/10 to 31/03/10 Description

Scheduled gully cleaning

4512

Routine programmed cleansing of roadside gullies on a pre-determined route

Reactive gully cleaning

633

Responding to incidents of flooding or enquiries through the Contact Centre

Drainage repair works

97

Replacing gully pots: investigating and clearing blockages: repairing or renewing broken and collapsed pipework: clearing and or excavating highway ditches and ponds etc

59

APPENDIX C – TRANSPORTATION, PROW & SAFETY SCHEMES APPENDIX C1 – LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN FUNDED SCHEMES

Location Description Budget (£) Status Beechwood Avenue, Deal

Footway widening to create shared surface for pedestrians and cyclists

£75,000 Provisional start date on site 4 January 2011

London Road, Sholden, Deal

New cycle route and toucan crossings

£130,000 Placed on hold by Nick Chard

River Dour Cycle Route Phase 1, Dover

New cycle route from Crabble Meadows to Park Street Dover (including a new bridge and toucan crossing

£403,000 Report included in JTB. Deferred from 2009/10.

River Dour Cycle Route Phase 2, Dover

New cycle route from Park Street, Dover to the sea front

£200,000 Pending preliminary design

APPENDIX C2 –PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (LTP Funded) Location Description Status Temple Ewell ER127 (Lower Road to London Road)

Resurfacing Scheduled

Denton and Wooton ER146 (Canterbury Road)

Surface improvements

To be programmed

Alkham ER261 (Ingleton Wood Rd)

Drainage and surface improvements

To be programmed

Deal ED4 (Southwall Road)

Drainage and surface improvements

To be programmed

St Margarets at Cliffe ER42 (St Margarets at Cliffe)

Step Construction

To be programmed

St Margarets at Cliffe ER36 (Bay Hill)

Step repairs and construction

To be programmed

Wingham EE63 (Popsal Lane) Surface improvements

To be programmed

APPENDIX C3 – DEVELOPER FUNDED SCHEMES (Section 278 Works)

Location

Description Status

Betteshanger Access road to business park Final remedials awaited APPENDIX C4 – OTHER FUNDED SCHEMES Location Description Budget Status None

60

APPENDIX D – OTHER WORKS APPENDIX D1 – BRIDGE WORKS

Location Description Status A256 Sandwich Bypass Woodnesborough Road

Safety Fencing Affecting A256 Sandwich Bypass poss off peak lane closure/traffic lights. To be programmed

Great Poulders Farm, Poulders Road

Safety fencing Affecting A256 Sandwich Bypass poss off peak lane closure/traffic lights. To be programmed

APPENDIX D2 – DISTRICT COUNCIL FUNDED SCHEMES

Location Description Status

None APPENDIX D3 – COUNTY MEMBER HIGHWAY FUND WORKS

Location Description Status Foxborough Hill, Eastry

New red surfacing and roundel to be put at start of 30mph to highlight speed limit. Warning sign to be installed at brow of hill.

Approved by Nick Chard. To be programmed 2010/11

Guilton, Ash New red surfacing and roundel to be put at start of 30mph to highlight speed limit.

Approved by Nick Chard. To be programmed 2010/11

High Street, Dover Take up uneven precast concrete paving slabs and relay section using asphalt to match surrounding areas.

Approved by Nick Chard. To be programmed 2010/11

Dieu Stone Lane, Dover

Take up precast concrete paving slabs and relay using enhanced materials to suit conservation area

Approved by Nick Chard. To be programmed 2010/11

Preston Lane, Preston

Install kerb buildout with reflective bollards, gateway feature and relocate 30 mph signage.

Approved by Nick Chard. To be programmed 2010/11

Lower Street, Eastry

Install gateway feature with red anti-friction surfacing and 30mph roundel, renew carriageway markings and install reflective studs at the edge of carriageway.

Approved by Nick Chard. To be programmed 2010/11

61

62

APPENDIX D4 – MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS Location Description Budget Status East Kent Access Phase 2

Scheme to improve remaining sections of A299 and A256 to support East Kent

£87m Full approval of funding approved by DfT. Contract awarded to Volker Fitzpatrick and Hochtief Joint Venture. Contract formally commenced November 2009. This follows earlier advance environmental mitigation works and archaeological investigation. Main focus of activity until Spring 2010 will be extensive archaeological investigation. Completion mid 2012.

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 9 REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD – 15 APRIL 2010 PROPOSED RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME Recommendation

The Board is asked to either:

1. To agree that Northcote Road and the residential properties along it be removed from the proposed scheme and that the amended (reduced) residents’ parking scheme be formally advertised. Further, in the event that no objections are received, that the amended scheme is recommended to be sealed by Kent County Council. (Any received objections will be referred back to a future meeting of this Board for further consideration).

or 2. To agree that the complete residents’ parking scheme (including Northcote

Road and the residential properties along it) be formally advertised and in the event that no objections are received, is recommended to be sealed by Kent County Council. (Any received objections will be referred back to a future meeting of this Board for further consideration)..

Contact Officer: Barry Knight Ext 2431 Gordon Measey Ext: 2422 Reasons why a decision is required 1. The Regeneration Unit at Dover District Council is responsible for the processing of

waiting restrictions having regard to the Kent/District – Transport Operations – Protocol No 3, ‘Parking Delivery’. It is necessary for the Board to consider whether the proposals outlined in this report should be formally advertised.

Evaluation of options available to the Council 2. i) To agree to one or other of the recommendations requested above.

ii) To amend and then agree either of the recommendations detailed above. iii) To withdraw the proposed residents’ parking scheme completely. Information to be considered in taking the decision

. 3. A proposal for a residents Parking Scheme in the Blenheim Road area was reported to

this Board at its meeting on 25 June 2009 (see plan in Appendix A). At that time consultative letters had just been sent out to the residents and it was unknown then whether the majority of responders would support the scheme. The Board resolved at its June meeting that providing the majority of responders supported the scheme, that it could be formally advertised without further approval from the Board. It was also resolved that the local District and Ward Members could make any minor adjustments to the scheme, if needed after the consultation and prior to advertisement, providing that these Members were in agreement. Further, if agreement amongst the local

63

4. The result of the consultation was that out of the 107 properties who returned their

questionnaires:

91 supported the scheme 12 objected 4 were non-committal The Air Training Corps was the only non-residential property that objected to the proposal and for this reason, its letter of objection has been included as Appendix B to this report. Comments from the residents who objected to the scheme are summarised below: objections to having to pay for parking outside homes a means for DDC to increase its income parking/permits restricted to one car per household (problems for 2-car

families) concerns about parking for household contractors and visitors visitors to Town should continue to be able to use free spaces in the area

during the day to support the prosperity of the town the scheme would discourage people from visiting and working in Deal permits don’t guarantee the availability of parking spaces the introduction of this scheme will make the parking problems worse the scheme won’t improve anything problems already exasperated by garages being use for storage and not for

cars concerns that double yellow lines would be removed from Hope Road

All the returned questionnaires and letters will be available to Members at the Board Meeting on 15 April 2010 and can be viewed in advance by prior arrangement with the Senior Transport Officer, Gordon Measey (Ext 2422).

5. Unfortunately, a problem has arisen with Northcote Road (one of the roads within the

proposed scheme). Currently, cars park on both sides of this road with pairs of wheels perched up on the footways. However, there is insufficient road width to mark the prescribed parking places on both sides of the carriageway without encroaching on to the footways. The Police and Highway Authority would not support a scheme requiring partial parking on one or other footway along this road and so, if the scheme were to proceed, only one side of the road could be allocated parking; the other would need to be restricted. This arrangement would be the same as all the other roads in the vicinity, but would result in a loss of about 8 spaces compared with that which is currently being used.

6. As a result, a second letter and questionnaire were sent to the Northcote residents

(see Appendix C) explaining the potential loss in parking and asking if they would they still like to be included in the parking scheme. What had previously been a 11 to 3 majority in favour of the scheme in Northcote Road (14 replies received), now turned to a 7 to 4 majority against (11 replies received). One resident responded to both questionnaires, stating that he would support whatever the majority wanted and his vote has been allocated accordingly.

64

65

Comments from the residents in Northcote Road who objected to the scheme are summarised below:

objections to having to pay for parking particularly with a reduced capacity cars only park on the footway on one side and there is sufficient space for both-

side parking loss of 50% of road-side parking parking/permits restricted to one car per household (problems for 2-car

families) concerns about which side of road would be restricted visitors and workers to Town should continue to be able to use free spaces in

the road during the day to support the prosperity of the town could the road be widened to overcome the problem? Northcote Road should be restricted for its residents only

All the returned questionnaires and letters will be available to Members at the Board Meeting on 15 April 2010 and can be viewed in advance by prior arrangement with the Senior Transport Officer, Gordon Measey (Ext 2422).

7. As the situation concerning Northcote Road is not as straight forward as might have

been hoped for, the local District and Ward Councillors did not propose any suggested amendments and so the matter is being referred back to this Board for its decision as to how the scheme should be progressed.

8. The Board is requested to decide how, and if, the scheme should progress to the next

stage which involves it being formally advertised. The recommendations are listed at the front of this report.

Background Papers Regeneration Unit Parking Files.

Consultation Statement The Portfolio Holder for Access and Property Management has been consulted on the

proposal outlined in this report. As part of the statutory process a formal advertisement will be undertaken for the proposal through which objections can be made.

Impact on Corporate Objectives The proposed changes to the waiting restrictions outlined in this report will foster

improved opportunity and access. Attachments Appendix A Plan showing extent of proposed Zone L residents’ parking scheme. Appendix B Letter of objection from the local Air Training Corps Appendix C Additional letter and questionnaire sent to Northcote Road residents NADEEM AZIZ Chief Executive The officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is the

Senior Transport Officer, Dover District Council, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover, Kent CT16 3PJ. Telephone: (01304) 821199, Extension 2422

Flight Lieutenant G R E Hobbs RAFVR(T)

2235 (DEAL) SQUADRON

AIR TRAINING CORPS Drill Hall, Hope Road, Deal, Kent. CT 14 7DF

Telephone: 01304 389024

e-Mail: dealaircadets@btinternet.com

Officer Commanding

22 JUN 2009 June 2009

!.l'{....

c,E.''''';\: - : .. L-_--.-.-­

PROPOSED RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME

J.. r

I have tried e-mail1ng this letter but the message is consistently rejected. That said, 1 write with reference to the letter

received by us regarding the proposed residents parking scheme in Deal that would directly affect our Squadron

Headquarters in Hope Road.

I am not sure if you are familiar with the Air Training Corps but it exists to provide aviation based training for young men

and women between 13 and 20 years of age. It also provides training that is useful to those who join the RAF as well as

those who choose a career outside HM Forces and encourages qualities of leadership and good citizenship.

Although sponsored by the RAF, the Squadron is run entirely by volunteers, all of whom Jive outside the area proposed

under your scheme or, indeed, outside the town of Deal. Whereas our twice weekly training takes place after the zone

would have ceased (from 1900hrs to 2145hrs Tuesday and Friday) a significant amount of training, administration and support

work takes place during the working day and at weekends and the imposition of this residents only scheme could well have a

very serious and detrimental effect on the valuable training and support work, without which the Squadron cannot function.

We have no parking of our own, having no grounds around the Drill Hall, which means we must find spaces wherever we

can on the public roads. Making these residents only streets would mean that training and events at weekends, including the

many public functions the Squadron (including the Squadron Band) attend for the people of Deal and Walmer as well as fund

raising events that we have to run to sustain the Squadron, would be extremely difficult and expensive to manage, especially if

we were forced to use pay car-parks in the town. For many members of staff, that cost may not be one that they could

easily bear.

Whereas we fully understand the problems that the full-time residents have parking, we gladly give of our spare time to train

the youth of Deal and Walmer and this parking scheme will, undoubtedly, have a serious and detrimental effect on the

training end events that we undertake.

We do, therefore, strongly object to the introduction of this scheme on the grounds shown above and request. in the

strongest possible terms, that it does not go ahead.

If it is decided that it should go ahead, we would request and urgent meeting with the relevant council member(s) to discuss

what options are open to the Squadron for parking that allows us to continue with our work without additional and

burdensome expense.

67

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours faithfully.

G R E HOBBS

Flight Lieutenant RAFVR(T)

Officer Commanding Contact Details:

Mobile: 07792 556616

e-Mail: eeoff.hobbs@hye.cQ.uk

68

Appendix C (Sheet 1 of 3)

P.T.O.

Owner/ Occupier Northcote Road.

The Regeneration Unit White Cliffs Business Park Dover Kent CT16 3PJ Telephone: (01304) 821199 Fax: (01304) 872445 DX: 6312 Minicom: (01304) 820115 Website: www.dover.gov.uk Contact: Mr B Knight Direct line: (01304) 872431 E-Mail: barry.knight@dover.gov.uk Our ref: BK/TPU.Park.Dea Your ref:

Date: 29 January 2010

Dear Owner /occupier, Proposed residents parking scheme

In June a letter from the Senior Transport Officer was sent out, along with a plan and questionnaire, asking if you were either for of against the above proposal. From this initial inquiry the responses received indicated overwhelming support for residents only parking. Unfortunately, Northcote Road has a problem which needs to be addressed, which is why I am writing to you a second time. Presently, cars in the road park on both sides of the road by perching the side wheels of their vehicles up on the footway. If cars were to park wholly on the carriageway, as they should, then there would be insufficient space in-between for passing traffic. The Traffic Police have indicated that they would only support a scheme that had prescribed bays marked wholly in the carriageway and there isn’t sufficient road width to accommodate this. In short, there were three options available: 1. Leave Northcote Road without any restrictions, as present (effectively removing it from the resident’s parking scheme 2. Mark parking bays on one side only, leaving the other side unrestricted. 3. Mark parking bays on one side only, restricting the other side with double yellow lines. The first option would keep the current parking capacity in the road (assuming that the police or Highway Authority don’t insist that cars remove themselves off the footway). The draw back with this option is that the parking demand along this road would likely increase if the neighbouring roads join the residents’ scheme and Northcote Road remains the only road in the vicinity without any restrictions to non-residents. The second option is to mark the parking on one side of the road to the prescribed dimensions but in the anticipation that the residents would continue to park “wheels perched up”, as present, on both sides. The downside with this proposal is that one side would be unrestricted, so outsiders could continue to park all day on the other side. Also, it’s likely that cars on the side of the road with the marked bays would park off the footway thereby narrowing the road space in the middle too much, or would encourage cars on the other side to park much further onto the footway than present. The Traffic Police have indicated that they would not support this option because they can not endorse footway parking nor guarantee access through the middle. Consequently, this option can not be pursued.

69

Appendix C (Sheet 2 of 3)

2

The third option is the safest one and would mean that Northcote Road is treated exactly the same as the other roads in the vicinity of similar width (e.g. like Beaconsfield Road and Blenhiem Road) where parking is permitted on one side and restricted on the other. It would safeguard access and would restrict outsiders from all day parking, but would come at a potential loss of about 8 spaces (when compared to the current parking arrangement). As part of the consultative process, could you please indicate your preference for, or against, Northcote Road being included in the parking scheme, as per the third option above. Please can you fill in and return the enclosed questionnaire in the prepaid envelope, to reach this office by 12noon on 12th February 2010. Alternatively, you can reply via email (using my address detailed above) if you prefer, stating whether, or not, you support the inclusion of Northcote Road. Please ensure that any emails are delivered by 12noon on 12th February 2010 and that they include your name and postal address. Yours faithfully, Barry Knight (Transportation Engineer)

70

Appendix C (Sheet 3 of 3)

Proposed Residents Parking Scheme, Deal – Zone L Northcote Road

Please fill in your name and address below:

Name:

Address:

Please tick (�) the appropriate box below 1. Having read and considered the options in the attached letter, would you still support the

introduction of a resident’s parking scheme.

Yes No

Thank you for completing this form. Please return it to the Regeneration Unit at Dover District Council using the pre-paid envelope, by 12 noon on Friday 12 February 2010

71

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 10 DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD – 15 APRIL 2010 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC Recommendation That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be

excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the business on the grounds that the item to be considered involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act set out below:

Item Report Paragraph

Exempt Reason

Applications for Disabled Persons' Parking Bays

1 and 2 Information relating to any individual and Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

72

73

DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING APPLICATIONS FOR ON-STREET DISABLED PERSONS’ PARKING BAYS

1. Under the current arrangements with Kent County Council (the Highway Authority) an

applicant has to satisfy a list of criteria set by County in order to qualify for a disabled person’s parking bay being provided outside, or close to, his or her house. The set of criteria was adopted by this Board at its meeting on 7 February 2005 and is listed below:

(i) the applicant must be a Blue Badge holder. (ii) the applicant must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit entitlement, either:

1. the Higher Rate Mobility component of Living Allowance, or 2. Higher Rate of Attendance Allowance if the applicant was over 65 years

or over when an entitlement was first claimed (Other entitlements such as a War Pension may also qualify).

(iii) the applicant must be a driver of vehicle (unless there are exceptional mitigating circumstances).

(iv) The applicant must not have any off-street parking (eg have no hard standing, nor garage, nor use of either).

In addition, bays will not be provided: along sections of roads subject to stopping, waiting or loading restrictions (eg

on clearways; yellow lines or blips; zig zags outside schools or on approaches to pelican crosses; etc)

in close proximity to road junctions (typically within 10metres) along a road whose width is less than 3.6 metres where there are other disabled bays in a street and these collectively exceed

5% of the available road parking space where the application is for a temporary disability only in areas where the safety or convenience of the applicant or other highway

users could be compromised (eg close to or on the brow of a hill or within the turning head of a cul-de-sac)

2. If the listed criteria are meet then an application goes through a two-stage process:

Under delegated authority, the Head of Regeneration firstly carries out an informal consultation with the neighbours. If no objections are received then an advisory (non-enforceable) disabled bay is marked on site and the application progresses to the second stage where it is formally advertised as a proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This latter stage can take considerable time to complete, which is why an advisory bay is provided in the interim period. If no objections are received in response to the formal (second stage) advertisement, then the TRO is sealed and the disabled bay becomes enforceable. At either stage of consultation, objections can be received which are referred back to the Board to make a recommendation to proceed, or not, with the application.

3. If at any time an applicant appeals against an officer’s decision then in accordance

with the resolution taken by the Dover Joint Transportation Board on 13 September 2005, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the relevant Ward and County Members are contacted to seek views on determining the appeal. If the views of the Members who reply are unanimous then the appeal is determined accordingly. However, if any Members are not in agreement, then the appeal comes back before the Dover Joint Transportation Board to be determined.