Dover Joint Transportation Board

DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD

White Cliffs Business Park Dover Kent CT16 3PJ Telephone: (01304) 821199 Facsimile: (01304) 872300

31 May 2011

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 9 June 2011 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 [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Chief Executive

Dover Joint Transportation Board Membership:

Dover District Council Members: Kent County Council Members:

Councillor T A Bond (Vice-Chairman) Councillor N J Collor (Chairman) Councillor J H Goodwin Councillor B R Cope Councillor G J Hood Councillor G Cowan Councillor M A Russell Councillor S C Manion Councillor F J W Scales Councillor L B Ridings Councillor J M Smith Councillor J A Rook Councillor R S Walkden Councillor C J Smith

KALC Representative (non-voting): Vacancy Vacancy

Town Council Representatives (non-voting): B Henderson (Deal Town Council) Vacancy (Dover Town Council) B A Scott (Sandwich Town Council)

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES

1 2. APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

To note appointment of Substitute Members.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members are required to disclose the existence and nature of a personal interest under this item of business 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.

4. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN

To note the appointment of County Councillor Nigel Collor as Chairman and District Councillor Trevor Bond as Vice-Chairman respectively for the 2011/12 Council year.

5. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 21 April 2011 (to follow).

6. MATTERS ARISING FROM NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMS

To consider any matters raised.

7. REVISION OF SPEED LIMITS – A257 (Pages 4-22)

To consider the attached report of the Kent Highway Services' Head of Transport and Development

8. WOODNESBOROUGH ROAD – FOOTWAY CONSTRUCTION (Pages 23-26)

To consider the attached report of the Kent Highway Services' Head of Transport and Development

9. RESULTS FROM THE HIGHWAY TRACKER SURVEY 2010 (Pages 27-32)

To consider the attached report of the Director of Kent Highway Services.

10. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME UPDATE (Pages 33-38)

To consider the attached report of the Kent Highway Services' Traffic Scheme and Member Highway Fund Manager

11. HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME 2011/12 (Pages 39-46)

To consider the attached report of the Director of Kent Highway Services.

12. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC (Page 47

The recommendation is attached.

The procedure for determining applications for on-street disabled persons' parking bays is attached.

2 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

13. 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 49-68)

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

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.

3 Agenda Item No 7

Revision of Speed Limits: A257

To: Dover Joint Transportation Board, 9 June 2011

Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste

By: Head of Transport & Development, Kent Highway Services

Classification: Unrestricted

Ward: Little Stour and Ashtone, Little Stour Division : Sandwich

Summary: The report summarises the proposal of altering the current speed limit on the A257.

For Recommendation

1. Introduction

1.1 Members will recall that a report on this subject was tabled at the Dover JTB of 12th April 2011. Unfortunately it was not possible to organise the advertising of the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) prior to that JTB, as such it was decided to return to this JTB with any objections received.

1.2 The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to implement the proposed two new sections of 50mph and extension of the 30mph at the Western end of Wingham was advertised by Kent County Council (KCC) on the 8th May 2011 in the Kent on Sunday. Statutory and non statutory Consultees were also written to outlining the proposed TRO and the details were posted on the KCC website.

1.3 The closing date for comments was the 31st May. Due to this final report being required prior to this closing date for comments, any additional comments received after this date will be reported to the JTB verbally. Comments that have been received can be seen in Appendix 1.

1.4 To date, two representations have been received from the Association of British Drivers and Kent Police. The former states that there is no crash data or speed check data to back up the proposal; the proposed limit is below the perceived safe speed limit of the road; and that drivers are capable of adjusting their speed to suit hazards in the road ahead without applying a blanket lower speed limit.

1.5 Kent Police have commented that the speed limit review recommended that the two stretches of national speed limit either side of Littlebourne should not be changed and they still support that stance. They state that divers will not view the road environment as a 50mph limit and the poor compliance will bring other 50mph limits into disrepute. The classification of the road prohibits any major engineering works that would assist in reducing speeds and therefore actual driven speeds will be unlikely to alter. There does not appear to be a pattern to the crash record and only one crash could possibly be attributed to excessive speed.

Kent Highway Services’ Comments 1.6 Although both objectors have raised valid points, observed speeds of the majority of vehicles are already sufficiently low to justify a 50mph speed limit, and therefore the proposed reduction in speed limit will not adversely affect the majority of drivers.

1.7 The extent of the proposal is shown on the two drawings in Appendix 2 and is being funded from the Member Highway Funds of Mr Ridings and Mr Northey

2. Recommendation

Subject to the views of this Board, it is recommended that the proposed speed limit alterations (The Kent County Council (A257 Canterbury, Littlebourne, Ickham and Well and Wingham) (50pmh Speed Limit) Order 2011) are progressed and implemented.

Due to part of the A257 falling within the Canterbury District, the approval of the Canterbury JTB will also be necessary for this scheme to be progressed (21st June 2011).

Contact Officer:

Tony Jenson, Transportation Engineer – Dover and Shepway

Background Papers

Appendix 1: Copies of responses to TRO advertisement Appendix 2: Dover JTB Committee report Revision of Speed Limits: A257 12 April 2011

APPENDIX 1 – Copies of responses to TRO advertisement 1. Kent Police 2. Association of British Drivers

The Association of British Drivers. Kent Branch

8, Sussex Gardens Herne Bay Kent. CT6 8DU 18th May 2011

The Transportation and Development Manager East Kent Area Kent Highway Services Javelin Way Ashford. TN24 8AD

Your ref:- (A257 Canterbury, Littlebourne, Ickham and Well and Wingham) (50MPH Speed limit) Order 2011

Dear Sir We wish to OBJECT to the above Traffic Regulation Order. We believe the current speed limit of 60mph should not be reduced.

We have listed several points which we would like you to consider:-

1 You have not listed any speed related accident figures to warrant lowering of the current limit. Kent Highway Services accident figures prove that most accidents occur within the already restricted areas, further speed reduction measures will not seem to serve any useful purpose, other than causing driver frustration and increasing the risk of prosecution whilst driving safely. Further inspection of accident figures seem to show that most accidents are within nationally recognised statistics, ie, rear end shunts, turning and failed to look properly categories and very few for speed per se.

2 You have not supplied any speed check data to warrant claims of excessive speeding. Has a traffic volume/speed census ever been done along this road to determine the accident rate in any three year period? If we assume that 15,000 vehicle movements a day is the norm, then that equates to about 16.5 million vehicle movements over a three year period. If as we suspect the rate is negligible, then lowering the speed limit will not reduce the number of casualties, as you claim it will do in your Statement of Reasons.

3 Lowering the speed limit by 10 mph, will only increase those ‘speeding’ and so increasing the conviction rate of perfectly safe drivers, driving over a downgraded limit, that is well below the generally perceived safe speed limit for this stretch of road. This simple fact is backed-up by similar views of Kent Police, who also stated that any downgrading of the current limit, would “bring other 50mph speed limits into disrepute”

7 4 On roads of this character drivers expect to encounter many types of hazards at various levels at certain periods of the day and you adjust your driving to suit. This simple fact is lost on those that think ‘driving by numbers’ is the panacea for preventing accidents.

No road has a ‘safe’ speed, it all depends on prevailing conditions.

While bearing in mind the above statement, the current 60mph is not a target speed and if you have done any speed checks, then you will have found that the vast majority of drivers think that this speed limit is perfectly safe for certain sections of the A257 especially on a rural road with limited housing density where a ‘blanket’ reduction would be un-acceptable.

5 May I quote from your own report by Mid Kent Transportation Manager dated 11th July 2006. “It is our view that the introduction of an inappropriate limit is likely to breed contempt, lack of compliance and lack of respect for the law and place undue pressure upon the Police” It also says “In setting any limit the Police and the County Council are seeking limits that foster compliance and as much self-enforcement as possible.” Similar views are set out in the DfT’s --- Setting Local Speed Limits 01/2006, and we repeat, that Kent Police have stated a similar view.

In Conclusion.

Your past experience will tell the average pedestrian/resident vastly over estimates traffic speeds, (your own traffic speed surveys will confirm this) and very often it is also traffic density that can be an underlying theme to demanding some sort of action. These schemes are so often generated by a few vocal residents and chased up by local councillors chasing a few votes come the next parish election. Do all these people, religiously follow speed limits when driving past somebody else’s house? The volume of so called ‘speeding drivers’ (which does not mean dangerous) tells us, they do not! As mentioned earlier, no traffic volumes, speed related accidents or speed survey tables have come with this TRO, so we assume it is more of a ‘rant’ from a few local people, which nowadays seems to be the driving force behind such measures. But in Setting Local Speed limits 01/2006 the opening line says” Speed limits should be evidence- led” to pre-empt such ‘rants’ distorting statistical evidence. As in previous DfT Circulars, Setting Local Speed Limits 01/2006 says that “Speed limits should not be used to attempt to solve the problem of isolated hazards”, therefore, just lowering the speed limit is not the first option.

We must state here that we find it totally unacceptable that experienced Police advice and DfT guidelines are being totally ignored and that the personal views of a few councillors and two MP’s are being used to push this TRO through.

Thanking you for your time and we would like a written response to the points we have raised. We also wish to be given the opportunity of presenting our case at the meeting where these proposals will be decided.

Yours sincerely Terry Hudson Kent area co-ordinator

8 Tel:- 01227 374680 (evenings/weekends only) E-mail:- [email protected]

Brian Macdowall Secretary Tel:- 01227 369119 Mobile:- 07930 113232

Ian Taylor Assistant co-ordinator Tel:- 01304 203351 Mobile:- 07850 259499

Could you please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.

Traffic Management Unit, Tactical Operations, London Road, Aylesford, Kent ME20 7SL Telephone: (01622) 798542 Fax: 01622 798549 Mrs. Lorna Day Kent Highway Services Invicta House Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX You Ref: LD/MJ Our Ref: 165/TRO/11826/11 Date 20th May 2011

The Kent County Council (A257 Canterbury, Littlebourne, Ickham and Well and Wingham) (50mph Speed Limit) Order 2011. The Kent County Council (A257 Canterbury Road, Wingham) (30mph Speed Limit) Order 2011.

Dear Mrs. Day,

Thank you for your letters dated 6th May 2011 regarding the above subject. The introduction of any new speed limit is an emotive subject, as is the antisocial behaviour of those motorists who exceed the present limits.

In order to ensure credibility of a new speed limit we would expect all aspects of DfT Circular 01/2006 to be adhered to.

Any speed limit introduced outside of this guidance will not only be ineffective but will leave the Police with the task of carrying out constant enforcement, where previously an issue of excess speed did not exist Kent Police would seek that the legislation and advice given in the Traffic Signs Manuel Chapters 3 and 5, and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, is complied with.

Having studied these proposals and viewed the area, Kent Police have the following observations:

50mph Speed Limit.

As part of the consultation process, Kent Police would like to see 24-hour, 7-day speed data for these areas. We have previously requested this in a letter to Mr. Tony Jenson dated 9th March 2011, but to date no such data has been provided.

A speed limit review conducted by Jacobs on behalf of Kent Highway Services was commenced in 2007, and the A257 Canterbury to Sandwich was part of Area 2, this was reviewed in 2009.

The review team recommended that there should be no change to the current 60mph speed limit in site 8, which is located on the A257 between a point 85m west of the property entrance of ‘Little Acres, The Hill, Littlebourne and a point 80m east of the junction with Stodmarsh Road, Canterbury.

The review team also recommended that there should be no change to the current 60mph speed limit in site 6, which is located on the A257 between a point 325m west of the junction with Mill Road, Wingham Green and a point 40m west of the entrance to Lee Priory, Littlebourne.

Kent Police Traffic Management Unit personnel visited these sites and agreed with these recommendations.

The proposed new 50mph speed limit between the west of Littlebourne and the eastern outskirts of Canterbury appears to mirror site 8 of the speed limit review, which is 1.8 miles in length. The road geometry and environment does not appear to have changed since the review was conducted, and using the summary tables contained within DfT Circular 01/2006, this area would still fit the criteria for a rural 60mph speed limit.

10 During my visit, observed driven speeds were in the region of 50-65mph. Drivers will not view the road environment as a 50 mph limit and there will be poor compliance, this will bring other 50mph speed limits into disrepute. The proposed new 50mph speed limit between Wingham Green and the east of Littlebourne appears to mirror site 6 of the speed limit review, which is 1.4 miles in length.

The road geometry and environment does not appear to have changed since the review was conducted, and using the summary tables contained within DfT Circular 01/2006, this area would still fit the criteria for a rural 60mph speed limit.

During my visit, observed driven speeds were in the region of 50-60mph. Drivers will not view the road environment as a 50 mph limit and there will be poor compliance, this will bring other 50mph speed limits into disrepute.

The A257 is a major through route used by all types of vehicles, which prohibits any major engineering measures to assist in reducing vehicular speed. Without effective engineering changes to the road itself, the actual driven speeds will not be sufficiently reduced to obtain the necessary compliance to the proposed new 50mph speed limit.

Therefore Kent Police would view the proposed new 50mph speed limits as inappropriate and formally object to these proposals.

Having researched the available recorded crash data, there have been 6 injury crashes on the A257 between Littlebourne and Canterbury in the last 3 years, and 3 injury crashes on the A257 between Littlebourne and Wingham Green in the last 3 years.

Apart from loss of control in wet conditions, there does not appear to be any pattern to these crashes as the circumstances of the other collisions is different, and only one of these crashes indicates that excess speed may have been a factor. In our view the crash history for the last three years is not significant for an ‘A' class road considering the amount of traffic that uses it.

If any further information becomes available to be viewed in regard to this particular proposal Kent Police would be willing to look at this information and provide further comment.

30mph Speed Limit.

The speed limit review recommended that the eastern 30mph speed limit gateway of Wingham village should be moved 200 metres east as it is currently in a poor position, being located within a series of bends. This would appear to locate the gateway just east of the entrance to Fairview Nursery, and would be similar to your proposal.

Therefore Kent Police in principle would have no objections to this proposal Kent Police should point out that, as with all new Traffic Regulation Orders we would look for their introduction to be in the main self- enforcing. This fact needs to be taken into account when making new orders, and methods to ensure self- enforcement must be provided to maintain credibility of the order. The demands on Kent Police are such that deployment of resources must be prioritised and it is likely that enforcement of this regulation will receive a low priority.

I hope that these views are of assistance to you.

Yours Sincerely Geoff Bineham Police Constable 8635 Traffic Management Section

APPENDIX 2 – JTB Committee report Revision of Speed Limits: A257 12 April 2011

Revision of Speed Limits: A257

To: Dover Joint Transportation Board, 21 April 2011

Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste

By: Head of Transport & Development, Kent Highway Services

Classification: Unrestricted

Ward: Little Stour and Ashtone, Little Stour Division : Sandwich

Summary: The report summarises the proposal of altering the current speed limit on the A257.

For Recommendation

1. Introduction

1.8 On behalf of Kent County Council (KCC), Kent Highway Services (KHS) are proposing the alteration of the speed limit on two sections of the A257.

1.9 A working party was organised locally which included representatives from local Parish Council and residents groups; MP’s Laura Sandys and Julian Brazier; County Councillor Leyland Ridings and District Councillors and was formed to discuss the impact traffic had on the Villages located on the A257 and surrounding roads.

1.10 Among other issues, all were concerned with the speed of traffic on the A257 and had related concerns regarding road safety. As a result of this KHS were asked to investigate the potential of lowering the speed limit on the A257.

1.11 KHS carries out a yearly examination of crash clusters on the County’s Roads. This is based on personal injury crash information supplied by Kent Police. The 2010 investigation did not reveal any recurring crash cluster sites along the length of the A257 that required action.

1.12 As the year progressed two sites developed that had several ‘damage only’ crashes:

1.12.1 On the approach to Wingham from the west (Bridge Bend), additional signing and lining improvements were organised for this location.

1.12.2 The bend on the A257 at Shatterling suffered from a spate of crashes. Although the average traffic speeds were within the posted 50mph limit, there were a number of drivers maintaining excessive speed on the approach to the bend. As a result of this, County Councillor Leyland Ridings agreed to fund two bend warning interactive signs from his Member Highway Fund.

1.13 The A257 was assessed as part of the Kent-wide speed limit review carried out by KHS Road Safety Team and Kent Police in 2010 which examined all of the County’s A and B roads. This assessment was made in accordance with Department of Transport Circular 1/2006 "Setting Local Speed Limits" and primarily looks at the road environment rather than actual traffic speeds.

13 1.14 The only recommended alteration arising from the Speed Limit Review for the A257 was to extend the current 30mph entry on the western side of Wingham; to move this a further 200m to the west to locate the speed limit gateway prior to the series of bends as drivers approach the village from the west.

1.15 The characteristics defined within the Speed Limit Review for a 50mph road are as follows:

"Should be considered for lower quality A and B roads which may have a relatively high number of bends, junctions or accesses. Can also be considered where speeds are below 50mph, so lower limit does not interfere with traffic flow."

1.16 Following the request of the working party, KHS agreed to re-examine the existing 4 sections of 60mph speed limit on the A257. These are expanded upon below:

1.17 Stodmarsh Road to the west of Littlebourne Village. This section of the A257 incorporates several side roads, private accesses and a series of bends bordered closely by woodland. This may be appropriate for a 50mph limit (this section is within the Canterbury District).

1.18 East of Littlebourne Village to Wingham Green. This section also incorporates several side roads and private accesses (some with poor visibility); a length through a cutting where the road width narrows and a sharp bend (recently benefiting from Cllr Northy funding two interactive warning signs). This section may also be appropriate for a 50mph limit.

1.19 Gobery Hill east of Wingham, to Shatterling. The A257 in this area is extremely straight and has an open street scene, as such this section should remain 60mph.

1.20 Shatterling to the A256. This section, mainly consisting of the Ash by-pass, has a wide and open layout benefitting from excellent visibility and should also remain at 60mph.

1.21 A briefing based on the above findings was provided for Leyland Ridings which he fed back to the working group at their meeting on the 5th March 2011.

1.22 Kent Police Traffic Management Unit were consulted regarding the potential to lower the speed limit to 50mph at the above two locations. They returned a response stating that they do not support the lowering of the speed limit. There are various reasons for this these are summarised below, and the full response can be found in Appendix 1.

1.22.1 Kent Police Traffic Management Unit revisited the sites as examined in the Speed Limit Review and maintain that the original recommendations (no reduction in 60mph speed limits) are correct.. 1.22.2 Observed driven speeds are in the region of 60mph and as such drivers would not comply with a 50mph. 1.22.3 The introduction of unsuitable 50mph limits would bring 50mph limits into disrepute and result in Kent Police having to carry out constant enforcement on a road which previously did not have a speeding problem. 1.22.4 Kent Police Traffic Management Unit have also requested a 24hour 7day speed survey carried out for the lengths being considered for change.

1.23 Unanimous feedback from the working group was that the lowering of the speed limit to 50mph on the two sections of the A257 as mentioned above was a positive step and should be progressed was soon as possible.

1.24 County Councillors Leyland Ridings and Michael Northy have indicated that they would be willing to fund the required Traffic Regulation Order alterations and additional signing from their Member Highway Fund allocations to enable this scheme to be implemented.

1.25 To gauge feeling from the wider community a Traffic Regulation Order was advertised on 17th April taking into account the lowering of the speed limit top 50mph on the aforementioned two sections of the A257 and the extension of the 30mph limit into Wingham from the west as mentioned in section 1.7. Plans for this can be seen in Appendix 2. This process will not be complete until 16th May, any objections be received prior to the JTB will be reported verbally.

3. Recommendation Subject to the views of this Board, it is recommended that, should no further objections being received to the Traffic Regulation Order, the scheme is progressed and implemented.

Should objections be received after the April JTB meeting, they will be reported to the next available JTB.

Due to part of the A257 falling within the Canterbury District, the approval of the Canterbury JTB will also be necessary for this scheme to be progressed.

Contact Officer:

David Barton, Local Transportation & Development Manager - Dover and Shepway KHS Transport & Development (08458 247800)

Tony Jenson, Transportation Engineer – Dover and Shepway Development KHS

Background Papers

Appendix 1: Correspondence from Kent Police Traffic Management Unit Appendix 2: Plans showing potential speed limit changes

Revision of Speed Limits – A257

APPENDIX 1 – Correspondence from Kent Police Traffic Management Unit

Traffic Management Unit, Tactical Operations, London Road, Aylesford, Kent ME20 7SL Telephone: (01622) 798542 Fax: 01622 798549

Mr. Tony Jenson Kent Highway Services Javelin Way Henwood Industrial Estate Ashford Kent TN24 8AD

You Ref: MHF/10/11/LR Our Ref: 165/SL/11645/11

Date 9th March 2011

A257 Speed Limits Canterbury to Wingham Green.

Dear Mr. Jenson,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 25th February 2011 regarding the above subject.

The introduction of any new speed limit is an emotive subject, as is the antisocial behaviour of those motorists who exceed the present limits.

In order to ensure credibility of a new speed limit we would expect all aspects of DfT Circular 01/2006 to be adhered to.

Kent Police would seek that the legislation and advice given in the Traffic Signs Manuel Chapters 3 and 5, and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, is complied with.

Having studied these proposals and viewed the area, Kent Police have the following observations:

As part of the consultation process, Kent Police would like to see 24-hour, 7-day speed data for these areas.

A speed limit review conducted by Jacobs on behalf of Kent Highway Services was commenced in 2007, and the A257 Canterbury to Sandwich was part of Area 2, this was reviewed in 2009.

The review team recommended that there should be no change to the current 60mph speed limit in site 6, which is located on the A257 between a point 325m west of the junction with Mill Road, Wingham Green and a point 40m west of the entrance to Lee Priory, Littlebourne. The review team also recommended that there should be no change to the current 60mph speed limit in site 8, which is located on the A257 between a point 85m west of the property entrance of ‘Little Acres, The Hill, Littlebourne and a point 80m east of the junction with Stodmarsh Road, Canterbury.

17 Kent Police Traffic Management Unit personnel visited these sites and agreed with these recommendations.

Section 1

The proposed new 50mph speed limit between the west of Littlebourne and the eastern outskirts of Canterbury appears to be similar to site 8 of the speed limit review. The road geometry and environment does not appear to have changed since the review was conducted Using the summary tables contained within DfT Circular 01/2006, this area would still fit the criteria for a rural 60mph speed limit.

During my visit, observed driven speeds were in the region of 60mph. Drivers will not view the road environment as a 50 mph limit and there will be poor compliance, this will bring other 50mph speed limits into disrepute.

Section 2

The proposed new 50mph speed limit between Wingham Green and the east of Littlebourne appears to be similar to site 6 of the speed limit review. The road geometry and environment does not appear to have changed since the review was conducted Using the summary tables contained within DfT Circular 01/2006, this area would still fit the criteria for a rural 60mph speed limit.

Therefore Kent Police would view the proposed new 50mph speed limits as inappropriate and would not support these proposals.

Having researched the available recorded crash data, there have been 6 injury crashes on the A257 within section 1 in the last 3 years:

 There was a loss of control collision in wet conditions/daylight in August 2008. There was no evidence of speeding but there was a patch of mud on the road.  The next crash occurred at night in dry conditions in January 2009, where a vehicle was speeding, overtook another vehicle then lost control and overturned  The third crash occurred in May 2009 during the day in wet weather, where two vehicles slowed, but a following vehicle failed to react and collided with the rear of the vehicle in front.  The fourth crash occurred during the day in October 2009 in dry conditions, where a vehicle lost control for unknown reasons and left the road to the nearside  The Fifth crash occurred in May 2010 during the day in dry weather, a driver was alighting from her vehicle, closed the drivers door and another vehicle collided with her one of her legs and failed to stop.

18  The sixth crash occurred during the day in dry weather in August 2008, where a vehicle lost control on a bend and collided with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. The driver of the vehicle that lost control failed a breath test.

Having researched the available recorded crash data, there have been 4 injury crashes on the A257 within section 2 in the last 3 years:  There was a head-on collision caused by inappropriate overtaking in wet conditions/daylight in January 2008.  The next crash occurred in March 2009 during the day in dry weather, where a vehicle slowed to carry out a turning manoeuvre, and a following vehicle failed to react and collided with the rear of the vehicle in front.  The third crash occurred in daylight in November 2009, where a vehicle braked hard in wet conditions and lost control, colliding with oncoming traffic.  The fourth crash occurred during the day in December 2009 also in wet conditions, where a vehicle overshot a junction from a side road colliding with a vehicle on the A257, and the offending vehicle failed to stop.

Apart from loss of control, there does not appear to be any pattern to these crashes as the circumstances of each crash is different, and in our view the crash history for the last three years is not significant for an ‘A' class road.

Kent Police should point out that, as with all new Traffic Regulation Orders we would look for their introduction to be in the main self-enforcing. This fact needs to be taken into account when making new orders, and methods to ensure self-enforcement must be provided to maintain credibility of the order. The demands on Kent Police are such that deployment of resources must be prioritised and it is likely that enforcement of this regulation will receive a low priority.

I hope that these views are of assistance to you.

Yours Sincerely

Geoff Bineham Police Constable 8635 Traffic Management Section

Revision of Speed Limits – A257

APPENDIX 2 – Plans showing potential speed limit changes

22 Agenda Item No 8 Woodnesborough Road – Footway Construction

Member Highway Fund Scheme - Results of Consultation

To: Dover Joint Transportation Board

Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment and Enterprise

By: Head of Transport & Development, Kent Highway Services

Classification: Unrestricted

Ward: Sandwich Division: Sandwich  Summary: This report summarises the results of the public consultation for a new length of footway to be constructed in Woodnesborough Road, Sandwich.

For Recommendation  1. Introduction

1.1 On behalf of Kent County Council (KCC), Kent Highway Services (KHS) is proposing the construction of a new length of footway on the north side of Woodnesborough Road leading into Moat Sole, adjacent to The Butts, Sandwich.

1.2 The proposed scheme involves the removal of existing cast-iron bollards and the construction of a new footway with links to existing footways. This footway will include new bollards at the edge of the carriageway to prevent footway parking. This footway will have dropped kerbs to allow access for grounds maintenance vehicles and pedestrians. Please see the scheme plan as Appendix A. . 1.3 At this location some vehicles currently park at a right angle to the kerb in a partial lay-by. These vehicles frequently park directly adjacent to the existing bollards protecting the entrance to the Butts. This results in pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or wheelchairs having to walk in the carriageway. Subsequently the principle scheme aim is to improve the safety of pedestrians. It was this concern regarding pedestrian safety which led to Sandwich Town Council requesting this scheme.

1.4 County Councillor Leyland Ridings is proposing to fund this scheme, the cost of which has been estimated at £3,222, utilising his Member Highway Fund.

2. Summary of consultation responses

2.1 A scheme proposal was prepared and put forward to public consultation. The consultation documents may be seen on request but have not been included in this document in the interests of saving paper.

2.2 The consultation ran for 1 month, from 18/03/2011 to the 18/04/2011. Information leaflets and feedback forms were posted to 30 immediately affected residents and businesses and 3 notification posters were placed in the immediate vicinity.

2.3 The consultation documentation was made available on www.kent.gov.uk and visitors were given the opportunity to respond via an online feedback form. Other consultees contacted directly included: the emergency services, a local bus company and the local Town, District and County Councillors.

2.4 Kent Fire and Rescue returned a response of no objection. Kent Police returned a response of no objection provided all signing and road markings comply with the Traffic Signs and Regulations General Directions 2002. They also stated that consideration should be given to an engineering solution which stops cars overhanging and blocking the footway. This will be achieved through the repositioning of the new bollards in comparison to those currently in place.

2.5 Stagecoach stated that they had no objection to the scheme. However they requested a new bus stop to be implemented in the lay-by. This idea has been discounted on safety grounds as it is deemed an unsafe place for a bus to stop with regards to the bend in the road to the east and the level-crossing both being in close proximity. It would also require the removal of the parking which appears to be an emotive subject for the local residents.

2.6 Consultees were asked whether they support the proposal and were also given the opportunity to make additional comments, summarised as Appendix B. The results were as follows:

Do you support the proposals for a new footway on Sea Street? YES No UNSURE 78% 17% 5%

3. Conclusion

The most frequently cited issue with the proposals is the perception that some element of parking in the partial lay-by will be lost. Due to the lay-out of the site and the fact that there is no designated parking provision currently the number of vehicles that can park depends entirely on the size of the vehicles and the position in which they park. As such it is envisaged that no parking will be lost so long as people park considerately and do not have overly long vehicles.

4. Recommendation

Subject to the views of this board it is recommended that the proposed alterations are progressed and implemented.

Contact officer:

David Barton, Transportation and Development Manager – East Kent KHS Transport and Development (08458 247800)

Attachments:

Appendix A: Scheme Plan Appendix B: Additional comments made and the KHS’ response

24 APPENDIX A

25 WOODNESBOROUGH ROAD - FOOTWAY IMPROVEMENTS

APPENDIX B - CONSULTATION RESPONSES, ISSUES & RESPONSE

Item Comment received KHS response 1 Agree on condition: bollards are The bollards will be moved by 1M moved no more than 1 metre from and the effect on parking at the their existing position and that the location will be kept to a minimum. construction of a new footway does not restrict the parking without charge as currently occurs most of the time.

2 This reduces the number of free This scheme should not reduce the parking places and does not amount of parking available. increase the safety of pedestrians. The Cllr should spend the money This scheme will improve the on excessive speeding, poor street perceptions and actual safety of lighting maintenance and road pedestrians by reducing their need to surfaces walk in the carriageway.

3 Not necessary - money could be The Members Highway Fund is better spent elsewhere (e.g. better allocated for spend on the highway public toilet in town) and Leyland Ridings has chosen to support this scheme following a request from Sandwich Town Council. 4 I park a vehicle in the lay-by as I The proposal should not reduce the don't have onsite parking. I would amount of parking available. support it if more parking spaces are freed along the opposite side (currently a ban 8 - 5 everyday except Sunday, losing parking would be a major inconvenience)

5 No benefits. Another street light on It is envisaged that the scheme will St.Thomas Hospital by the Bollards bring safety benefits to pedestrians. would be appreciated. The parking is essential for local residents The resident should make representations to their local Member if they believe there is another scheme worthy of funding.

The parking should not be unduly affected by the scheme.

26 Agenda Item No 9

By: Director of Kent Highway Services

To: Dover Joint Transportation Board

Subject: Results from the Highway Tracker Survey 2010

Classification: Unrestricted

Summary: Inform Joint Transportation Boards of the key results of the 2010 Resident, County Member, District Member and Parish/Town Council Highway Tracker Survey. The full survey report is over 100 pages long and available on the KCC website

Introduction

1. Satisfaction surveys, to gauge perception of the highway service have been carried out since 1987. The 2010 survey was carried out between November 2010 and January 2011 (fieldwork was affected by the severe winter weather) and sought views from residents, County Members, Parish/Town Councils and District Members. 2. The survey is conducted by an independent market research company called BMG and a summary of the results are presented in this report. This information will be used by the Director and Senior Management team to identify actions to help improve service delivery. 3. A total of 1,207 face to face interviews were carried out on a representative sample of Kent residents with approximately 100 interviews in each of the twelve Districts, reflecting the age, gender and economic status. This sample size gives a +/- 2.8% accuracy for results at a County level and +/- 10% accuracy at a District level.

4. In addition to residents views the same survey questions were asked of all County and District Members and Parish/Town Councils. A total of 41 County Members responded (a response rate of 49%), 190 District Members replied (a response rate of 33%) whilst for Parish/Town Councils a total of 134 completed the survey (a response rate of 44%)

5. The questionnaire comprised around 25 questions, ranging from satisfaction with the condition of roads, pavements, streetlights and local bus and train service through to views on congestion and safety cameras.

6. Results are reported by 'Net-Satisfaction'. This is a figure calculated by subtracting the % of people who are dis-satisfied with the service from the % who are satisfied. This gives a truer picture of the service and a balance between those happy, those un-happy and those who are not sure.

27 The 2010 survey results 7. The independent market research company BMG identified three key findings;

a) Residents are less satisfied with the condition of roads than last year (Figure 1), particularly country lanes (Figure 2). The accumulative effects of successive poor winters have hit road perceptions but this is the same across the national arena. Satisfaction with streetlighting has improved and pavements show a slight drop but the clear priority for residents is road maintenance. Views of County Members and Parish/Town Councils are generally continuing to improve, and this is now matched with improvement amongst District Members.

b) There is a need to engage, inform and liaise with the community more. For example the work of the Customer Liaison Teams over the last two years as the contact point for County Members and Parishes has helped increase year on year satisfaction with the highway service. Although there is still much to be done, better information, easier reporting of faults and delivering services when promised is the key to improve satisfaction.

c) Public transport (mainly serving unprofitable rural routes, the punctuality of service, and the cost) is an increasing concern, and negatively impacts on any attempts to address congestion. The recent rerouting of some train services in the past 12 months has detrimentally affected journey times to London from certain parts of the county. Whilst public transport is in the hands of the private sector, KCC does have a planning role, and the provision of more extensive, integrated, public transport services (including park & ride) does seem necessary.

8. Some examples of the results included in the full report are set out in Appendix 1. Figures 1 to 4 set out resident satisfaction results with roads, pavements and streetlights. Figures 5 -7 show the results from District Members.

Further Information

9. The tracker survey report is very large and contains much more detailed information along with an executive summary of the issues identified from the results by BMG. A full copy of the report will be available on the KCC website.

Background Documents: None

Other Useful Information: None.

Author Contact Details

David Thomas, Business Performance Manager, Kent Highway Services

 [email protected]  01622 696863

28 Appendix 1 Results from the Highway Tracker Survey 2009

Figure 1 -Residents - Satisfaction with the condition of roads in the local area – year-on-year comparison

80% 69% 70% 61% 60% 52% 52% 54% 52% 49% 51% 51% 46% 46% 42% 39% 40% 34% 32% 33% 32% 32% 29% 41% 29% 26% 37% 21% 21% 34% 22% 20% 25% 19% 20%

0% 5% ‐2% ‐8% ‐20% ‐15% ‐13% ‐20% ‐22% ‐26% ‐40% ‐39% ‐48% ‐49% ‐60% 1987 1991 1993 1994 1996 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfaction

Figure 2 –Residents - Satisfaction with specific types of road in the local area, year-on-year comparison (showing biggest fall in Country lanes)

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ‐10% Residential or estate roads Main 'A' roads Town centre roads Country lanes Roads overall

29 Figure 3 - Residents - Satisfaction with the condition of pavements in the local area – year-on-year comparison

80%

61% 57% 60% 56% 54% 51% 53% 50% 48% 45% 47% 42% 43% 40% 44% 28% 27% 36% 34% 32% 32% 29% 31% 29% 20% 28% 26% 21% 23% 16% 14% 0% 4% ‐5% ‐20% ‐14% ‐15% ‐20% ‐27% ‐29% ‐40% ‐40%

‐60% 1993 1994 1996 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfaction

Figure 4 - Residents - overall satisfaction with the condition of street lighting in the local area – year-on-year comparison

80%

68% 69% 70% 64% 63% 60% 58% 59% 60% 56% 55% 50% 51% 50% 44% 45% 39% 40% 37% 32% 31% 30% 27%

27% 20% 21% 21% 21% 20% 18% 18% 16% 10% 14%

0% 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2009 2009 2010

Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfaction

30 Figure 5 – District Members - overall satisfaction with the condition of roads in the local area – year-on-year comparison

80% 73% 70%

60% 52%

40%

20% 18% 12% 0% 11%

‐20%

‐40% ‐34%

‐60% ‐58% ‐62% ‐80% 2008 (193) 2009 (178) 2010 (190)

Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfied

Figures in parentheses denote unweighted sample bases

Figure 6 – District Members - overall satisfaction with the condition of pavements in the local area – year-on-year comparison

80% 73% 69%

60% 52%

40%

20% 21%

0% 8% 8%

‐20%

‐40% ‐31%

‐60% ‐61% ‐65% ‐80% 2008 (193) 2009 (178) 2010 (190)

Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfied Figures in parentheses denote unweighted sample bases

31 Figure 7 – District Members - overall satisfaction with the condition of streetlights in the local area – year-on-year comparison

60% 56%

50%

39% 40% 36%

36% 30% 27% 24% 21% 20%

10% 12%

‐10% ‐12% ‐20% 2008 (193) 2009 (178) 2010 (190)

Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfied Figures in parentheses denote unweighted sample bases

32 Agenda Item No 10

TO: DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD DATE: 9 June 2011 SUBJECT: Highway Improvement Scheme Update BY: Traffic Scheme & Member Highway Fund Manager Classification: Unrestricted Summary: Update on Integrated Transport Schemes to be implemented this financial year Decision Required: For information

Introduction

1. On 8 April 2011, Kent County Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste announced the programme of works that would comprise the Integrated Transport Programme 2011-12 at the KCC Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee (please see Appendix A).

Discussion

2. Appendix A to this report identifies the Integrated Transport schemes to be implemented in 2011-12. In addition to this list, a scheme to deliver the next phase of the River Dour cycleway in Dover is also being funded (£100k KCC investment). This scheme is being match-funded by Sustrans and is costing a total of £800k.

3. The schemes in Appendix A have been mainly compiled from the 2010-11 schemes list. Members are aware that following the coalition Government’s decision to reduce the in-year local authority Integrated Transport budget in June 2010, the County Council had to undertake a review of its capital funding prioritisation. This resulted in a significant reduction in the number of schemes that were programmed for delivery during the last financial year. This reduction was endorsed by KCC Cabinet scrutiny in July 2010.

4. Therefore, the 2011-12 Integrated Transport programme aims to clear some of the backlog of schemes which had previously been assessed, designed and consulted on and formally approved by the Cabinet Member. The schemes that will be delivered in 2011-12 focus on improving road safety, tackling congestion and maximising external funding contributions.

Future bids for funding

5. It is likely that approved schemes from the 2010-11 programme that have not yet been implemented will be given priority when compiling the 2012-13 programme.

6. For this reason, KHS are not investing significant resources in developing new Integrated Transport schemes at present. Only those that can demonstrate a quantifiable injury crash saving or assist in obtaining alternative sources of funding will be progressed. Instead, Members are encouraged to explore the opportunities

Decision Required

7. To note the report.

Contact Officer: Andy Corcoran Traffic Schemes & Member Highway Fund Manager

34 Appendix A Section of POSC report relating to the Integrated Transport Programme 2011-12

Bryan Sweetland – Cabinet Member Verbal Update Environment, Highways & Waste Policy Overview & Scrutiny Committee - 8 April 2011

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

2011/12 Integrated Transport Schemes (scheme list attached for Members information)

 Kent’s 2011/12 Integrated Transport scheme capital allocation from Government is £8.199m and this is not ring fenced. Once the sums for road maintenance, the Member Highway Fund, A2 slips, Maidstone High Street and forward design costs are taken out, we are left with a total of £2.4m.  £500k will be top-sliced and allocated for Casualty Reduction Measures. This programme is derived from the annual crash cluster site reviews and route studies. Safety schemes which save the number of casualties are given top priority.  £100k is needed to fund reactive Casualty Reduction Measures. Enabling KHS to react quickly to deliver low cost, easily implemented safety schemes identified throughout the year.  £500k will fund Intelligent Transport Systems and Traffic Management.  The remainder of the programme is a mixture of bus route improvements, Safer Routes to Schools, and funding to match investment by partners in bus and rail. Nearly all are deferred schemes from 2010/11, removed as a result of needing to make in- year savings.  Many of the schemes within the programme have been developed in consultation with local stakeholders and Members. The schemes will be reported back through the Joint Transportation Boards as part of the ongoing design and consultation process.

35 Priority Description Objective Comments £

Garlinge Primary School - East 1 SRTS (Thanet) Road Safety Safer route to schools scheme with strong local and member support 111,000 Thanet QBPs - Stagecoach Clearways, poles/flags, timetable cases and raised boarders at principal East 2 Loop/ Eastonways (Thanet Congestion / Access stops on the Stagecoach Thanet Loop and to support Eastonways 39 & 56 50,000 to Margate) County Links liveried buses Shepway/ Dover QBPs - Clearways, poles/flags, timetable cases and raised boarders at principal East 3 Routes 101/102 (Folkestone Congestion / Access stops on 101/102 routes. Match funded with Stagecoach providing new 50,000 to Dover) buses and higher frequency services. Plans are being developed to pilot a community focused demand Swale QBP - Multi Operator responsive bus network for Swale. This infrastructure fund will match a bid East 5 Accessing Services 50,000 Routes for revenue support to Government this April. The launch of a Swale QBP is supported by Swale Members. Clearways, poles/flags, timetable cases and raised boarders at principal Shepway QBP - Routes East 6 Congestion / Access stops on 101/102 routes. Match funded with Stagecoach providing new 50,000 101/102 (Hythe to Lydd) buses and higher frequency services. Clearways, poles/flags, timetable cases and raised boarders at principal Dover QBP - Dover Town East 7 Congestion / Access stops on 101/102 routes. Match funded with Stagecoach providing new 50,000 Routes buses. East Kent Total 361,000

Sustainable Transport Measures - West Malling to Mid 1 Leybourne (Tonbridge & Congestion / Access To fund scheme design as part of Section 106 contributions package 50,000 Malling)

Mid 2 Medway Valley Line Station Congestion / Access Match funding - Community Rail Partnership with Southeastern 50,000 accesses (Maidstone Mid Kent Total 100,000 Priority Description Objective Comments £ Pembury Hospital bus route West 1 improvements (Tunbridge Congestion / Access Match funding S106 for Pembury Hospital. Bus and bus stop infrastructure 250,000 Wells) Cycle Infrastructure West 2 Improvements (Gravesham, Tackling congestion Minor infrastructure and links at Lion Roundabout to NW Kent Colleage 5,000 Pelham) Network Improvements London Road Swanley West 3 (Phase 2 - Birchwood) Improving air quality Network improvement scheme to tackle congestion and improve air quality 40,000 (Sevenoaks) 36 St John's Road bus & cycle West 4 route (Campus Link) Tackling congestion S106 Match funding and part of Tunbridge Wells Quality Bus Partnership 85,000 (Tunbridge Wells) Northfleet - Ebbsfleet Station Improved pedestrian/ cycle routes between stations. Links to 2012 West 5 Congestion / Road Safety 40,000 (Gravesham, Woodlands) Olympics Traffic island/footway to bus stops. Improved access to an OAP home. West 6 Coldharbour Road, Congestion / Access 46,000 Northfleet (Gravesham) Tackles crash problems Sevenoaks Station Match funding for National Station Improvement Programme. Scheme will West 7 Congestion / Access 200,000 Multimodal Interchange provide a bus/rail interchange and improved pedestrian/ cycle links. West Kent Total 666,000

Bus Stop Infrastructure CW1 Access Reactive bus stop maintenance and minor improvement programme 68,000 Improvements

The remaining contribution to Stagecoach to GPS enable their ticket CW2 Smart card ticket machines Tackling Congestion 55,000 machines. Links to congestion monitoring and passenger info systems.

Countywide Total 123,000

Summary: Total for Schemes 1,250,000 Casualty Reduction Measures (top-slice) 500,000 Intelligent Transport Systems/ Traffic Management 500,000 Reactive Casualty Reduction Measures 100,000 Equalities Act - dropped kerb pedestrian crossings 50,000 Staffing/OH/CO's 500,000 Grand Total 2,900,000

37 11-12 Uncommitted Member Highway Fund Allocation

Dover Uncommitted £ 7 applications being progressed Nigel Collor Dover Town 25,000 No further applications Bryan Cope Dover West 24,354 No further applications Gordon Cowan Dover Town 25,000 4 applications being progressed Steve Manion Dover North 58,551 3 proposals with Member totalling £20,993 4 applications being progressed Leyland Ridings Sandwich 15,340 2 proposals with Member totalling £10,669 3 applications being progressed Julie Rook Deal 37,655 3 applications being progressed Kit Smith Deal 37,205

Total 132,834

38 Agenda Item No 11 Highway Works Programme 2011/12

A report by the Director of Kent Highway Services to the Dover Joint Transportation Board on 9 June 2011

Introduction and Background

1. This report gives members the current position on the identified schemes that were approved for construction in 2011/12.

Road Surface Treatments

2. Thin Surfacing - See APPENDIX A1 Micro Surfacing - See APPENDIX A2 Surface Dressing – See APPENDIX A3

Highway Maintenance Schemes

3. Carriageway Schemes - see APPENDIX B1 Footway Schemes - see APPENDIX B2 Street Lighting Schemes - see APPENDIX B3 Drainage Maintenance Works – see APPENDIX B4 Weather Damage Repairs – see APPENDIX B5

4. Indicated below are those schemes identified for the Dover district for constructing 2010 / 11 funded through the Local Transport Plan.

Local Transport Plan Funded Schemes – see SEPARATE REPORT Public Rights of Way (LTP Funded) – see APPENDIX C2 Developer Funded Schemes (Delivered by KHS) - see APPENDIX C3

Other Works

5. Bridge Works - see APPENDIX D1 District Council Funded Schemes - see APPENDIX D2 County Members Highway Fund Works - see APPENDIX D3 Major Capital Projects - see APPENDIX D4

Conclusion

6. This report is for Members’ information

Contact Officers:

Toby Howe Highway Manager 08458 247800 Andy Corcoran Traffic Schemes & Member Highway Fund Manager 08458 247800 Alun Jones Strengthening & Resurfacing Schemes Manager 08458 247800

Background documents: None

APPENDIX A – ROAD SURFACE TREATMENTS

APPENDIX A1 – THIN SURFACING: Between 40-100mm Plane and Overlay

Location Description Budget Status None

APPENDIX A2 – MICRO SURFACING: 20mm Overlay

Location Description Budget Status Rokesley Road / Whole length £26,800 Completed April 2011 Fulbert Road, Dover Upper Street, Whole length £19,718 Programmed June Kingsdown 2011

APPENDIX A3 – SURFACE DRESSING

Location Description Budget Status Barfreston Road, Eythorne Whole length £24,374 Completed May 2011

Butter Street / Chapmans Hill, Whole length £12,811 Completed May 2011 Nonington Church Lane, East Langdon Whole length £ 3,786 Programmed May 2011 Coldred Road / Church Road, Whole lengths £30,870 Completed May 2011 Eythorne / Coldred Crooked S Road, Ripple Whole length £14,565 Completed May 2011 Goodnestone Road, Wingham Whole length £18,536 Programmed May 2011 Gravel Lane, West Hougham Whole length £12,015 Completed May 2011 in Crooks Court Lane Hockley Sole, Capel Whole length £15,570 Completed May 2011 Ingleton Wood Road, West Whole length £22,321 Completed May 2011 Hougham Minnis Lane, River Whole length £16,117 Completed May 2011 Old Court Hill, Nonington Whole length £ 8,460 Completed May 2011 Plough Hill, Alkham Whole length £ 3,760 Programmed May 2011 Ratling Road, Aylesham Whole length £21,894 Programmed May 2011 Satmar Lane, Capel Whole length £14,458 Completed May 2011 The Lane, Guston From Railway £12,395 Completed May 2011 Bridge to Guston The Street, East Langdon Whole length £ 8,436 Programmed May 2011 Winehouse Lane, Capel Whole length £ 8,514 Completed May 2011 Winkland Oaks Road, Ripple Whole length £14,227 Completed May 2011

APPENDIX B – HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE SCHEMES

APPENDIX B1 – CARRIAGEWAY SCHEMES None

APPENDIX B2 – FOOTWAY SCHEMES

Location Description Budget Status Buckland Avenue, Dover Whitfield Avenue – £75,000 To be programmed Barton Road Crabble Avenue, Dover Crabble Road – £52,000 Completed 2011 Hillside Road

APPENDIX B3 – STREET LIGHTING SCHEMES Inventory data collection has been completed and is being used to produce a programme of work for street lighting replacements. A number of roads have already been identified where upgrade is required but the list is not yet complete. It is anticipated that work will commence in September 2011 and a final list of roads where schemes will take place will be available for the next JTB.

APPENDIX B4 – DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE WORKS

Gulley cleansing schedule We now have 12 machines working throughout Kent on a roughly District- based schedule of routes to complete gulley cleansing on a roughly 2 year cycle. Whilst cleansing, the operatives are gathering asset data on the gullies to determine how full they are. This will then be fed into an optimisation programme to determine the most effective return period for that road – gullies that do not fill up very often will be visited less frequently, and conversely those that are always full will be visited more often.

To deal with one-off gullies, we have 2 small “van packs” which are portable machines that can visit the more difficult sites to ensure they are cleansed. The schedules are being looked at to be able to publish these on a monthly basis to show where we will be visiting on a Parish basis. This is being developed at present and should be available on www.kent.gov.uk from June 2011.

Civils Works Scheme and repair works to the surface water drainage system are generated both from calls from the public, parishes, district council, etc, and from our own routine gulley cleansing. Where works are straight forward, we aim to carry these out within 28 days, but a great many of these require further investigation from surveys, CCTV and excavations to determine causes of flooding. Where we have to talk to other bodies, such as the Environment Agency, Southern Water, etc, these schemes may take much longer.

All works are prioritised to enable critical works to take precedence and range from those areas that are safety critical (eg. high speed roads) to problems where flooding is a nuisance. On average, we complete a range of about 1500 of these each year.

41 APPENDIX B5 – WEATHER DAMAGE REPAIRS

Unlike last winter where all potholes in a road were repaired, our Engineers and Inspectors are identifying potholes that are safety critical. These will be marked up in white paint and numbered for ease of identification. These repairs will wherever possible be permanent, the external contractors plus KHS crews are being directed to carry out these necessary repairs.

The initial budget was £50,000 per district and the work commenced on 19 January and was completed on 31 March. Work was carried out on 93 roads and a total of 1,403 potholes were repaired in Dover with a spend of £41,546.

The find and fix work continued from April when the weather improved, with a more extensive repair programme. Local contractors have been assisting to increase the number of gangs working to repair potholes across the County. Information on the progress of this work can be found on www.kent.gov.uk.

42 APPENDIX C – TRANSPORTATION, PROW & SAFETY SCHEMES

APPENDIX C1 – LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN FUNDED SCHEMES

Description Objective Comments £

Dover QBP – Dover Congestion Clearways, poles/flags, timetable cases 50,000 Town Routes / Access and raised boarders at principal stops on 101/102 routes. Match funded with Stagecoach providing new buses

Bus Stop Access Countywide reactive bus stop 68.000 Infrastructure maintenance and minor improvement Improvements programme

Smart card ticket Tackling The remaining contribution to 55,000 machines Congestion Stagecoach to GPS enable their ticket machines. Links to congestion monitoring and passenger info systems

APPENDIX C2 –PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (LTP Funded)

Location Description Status Alkham ER261 Ingleton Wood Drainage and surface Deferred Road improvements St Margarets at Cliffe ER42 Step construction Deferred St Margarets at Cliffe ER36 Step repairs and construction Deferred (Bay Hill) Wingham EE63 (Popsal Construct tarmac path Deferred Lane) Ringwould and Kingsdown Step construction Deferred ED33 EE253 (Eastry) Construct tarmac path Complete

APPENDIX C3 – DEVELOPER FUNDED SCHEMES (Section 278 Works)

Location Description Status

Betteshanger Access road to business park Final remedials complete awaiting agreement on structures Fees

43 APPENDIX D – OTHER WORKS

APPENDIX D1 – BRIDGE WORKS

Location Description Status None

APPENDIX D2 – DISTRICT COUNCIL FUNDED SCHEMES

Location Description Status None

APPENDIX D3 – COUNTY MEMBER HIGHWAY FUND WORKS

Members Name & Brief Description of Proposal Amount Date Works Electoral Division of Programmed MHF Steve Manion – Installation of kerb buildouts, £5,013 Works Dover North lining, signing and new village complete name plates in Great Mongeham.

Bryan Cope – Introduction of one-way for 200m £10,000 April JTB Dover West Lower Road, River requested further investigation Leyland Ridings – Install gateway feature with red £5115 Programmed Sandwich anti-friction surfacing and 30mph for May roundel, renew carriageway markings and install reflective studs at the edge of carriageway. Lower Street, Eastry Steve Manion – Dover Remove section of footway on £5500 Awaiting North west side of Sea Street to allow for programme small buildout on east side. date Realign kerb in Reach Street and introduce appropriate illuminated signage Chapel Lane, St Margaret’s at Cliffe Leyland Ridings – Installation of two bend warning £8800 Works Sandwich interactive signs is proposed. complete A257 Shatterling

Nigel Collor – Dover To resurface carriageway using £25,797 Awaiting Town Stone Mastic Asphalt programme East Cliff, Dover date

Nigel Collor – Dover Carry out microsurfacing from £39,398 Works Town junction with Waterloo Crescent to completed island at junction with Townwall Street

44 Members Name & Brief Description of Proposal Amount Date Works Electoral Division of Programmed MHF Marine Parade, Dover

Nigel Collor – Dover New weight restriction to be £11,390 Awaiting Town introduced including appropriate programme illuminated signs date Military Road, Aycliffe

Bryan Cope – Dover Introduce a patch of red surfacing £12,861 Programmed West with speed limit roundel on the for May carriageway at the speed limit terminals Capel-le-Ferne

Bryan Cope – Dover Extend existing 50mph speed limit £2915 Awaiting West a further 450m to the south of its programme existing starting point. date Alkham Valley Road, Alkham

Bryan Cope – Dover New larger illuminated speed limit £17,188 Awaiting West signing and patch of red surfacing programme including speed limit roundels on date carriageway. Construction of new pedestrian refuge with appropriate signing and lining. A256 Whitfield Hill, Dover

Leyland Ridings – Construct new short section of £3222 Report going Sandwich footway to link existing footways on to June JTB the north side, new bollards to be placed at front edge of footway to prevent parking on the footway. Woodnesborough Road, Sandwich

Leyland Ridings – Extend 30mph limit. Introduce £16,442 TRO to be Sandwich 40mph speed limit on Gore Street advertised and Preston Road. Introduce carriageway roundels at each change of speed limit. Install unsuitable for HGV signs. Stourmouth

Bryan Cope – Dover Install waiting restrictions and £2,932 TRO to be West appropriate signage and introduce advertised TRO to make school keep clears enforceable. Melbourne Avenue, Dover

Leyland Ridings – Contribution towards flood £16,416 Awaiting final Sandwich alleviation scheme paying for the costs provision and installation of

45 Members Name & Brief Description of Proposal Amount Date Works Electoral Division of Programmed MHF submersible pumps. Sandwich

APPENDIX D4 – MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

Location Description Budget Status Archaeology substantially complete and major utility diversions and earthworks Scheme to underway. improve Piling work started on the two major bridge remaining East Kent structures and drainage outfalls to Pegwell sections of Access £87m Bay. A299 and Phase 2 Some sections of carriageway under A256 to constructtion. support East Project remains on target for completion in Kent early Summer 2012.

46 DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 12

DOVER JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD – 9 JUNE 2011

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 paragraph of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act set out below:

Item Report Paragraph Reason Exempt

Applications For Disabled Persons' 1 and 2 Information relating to any Parking Bays individual and Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual