Public Document Pack

A G E N D A

JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Monday 25 January 2021 at 6.00 pm Virtual Meeting - Online

Borough Members: Councillors Stanyer (Chairman), Bruneau, Lidstone, Scott, Woodward, Lewis and Hamilton (Vice-Chairman)

County Members: Councillors Hamilton (Vice-Chairman), Barrington-King, Holden, McInroy, Oakford and Rankin

Parish Member Councillor Mackonochie

Quorum: 4 Members (2 KCC members and 2 TWBC members)

1 Apologies (Pages 5 - 6) To receive any apologies for absence.

2 Declarations of Interest (Pages 7 - 8) To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer before the meeting.

3 Notification of Visiting Members wishing to speak (Pages 9 - 10) To note any members of the Council wishing to speak, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 18, and which items they wish to speak on.

4 Minutes of the meeting dated 19 October 2020 (Pages 11 - 22) To approve the minutes of a previous meeting as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

5 Kent Community Rail Partnership (Pages 23 - 36) Presentation by Kent Community Rail Partnership.

Page 1

6 Cornford Lane/Halls Hole Road (Pages 37 - 42) Presentation by Cornford Lane/Halls Hole Residents Association.

Reports of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

7 Near Miss Register (Pages 43 - 46) To consider the proposals set out in the report.

8 High Woods Lane, Hawkenbury - Parking Issues (Pages 47 - 56) To consider the proposals set out in the report.

9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation (Pages 57 - 66) To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Reports of Kent County Council

10 Highway Works Programme (Pages 67 - 88) To consider the proposals set out in the report.

11 Topics for Future Meetings (Pages 89 - 90) To provide an update on issues previously raised (if appropriate) and to consider any topics for future meetings. Please note, prior notice must be sent to the Chairman and Democratic Services officer no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting. There will be no substantive debate/discussion/decision on any topics raised.

12 Date of Next Meeting (Pages 91 - 92) To note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday 19 April at 6.00pm.

Caroline Britt Town Hall Democratic Services Officer ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS Tel: (01892) 554219 Kent TN1 1RS Email: [email protected]

mod.gov app – go paperless

Easily download, annotate and keep all committee paperwork on your mobile device using the mod.gov app – all for free!.

Visit www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/modgovapp for details.

Page 2

All visitors wishing to attend a public meeting at the Town Hall between the hours of 9.00am and 5.00pm should report to reception via the side entrance in Monson Way. After 5pm, access will be via the front door on the corner of Crescent Road and Mount Pleasant Road, except for disabled access which will continue by use of an 'out of hours' button at the entrance in Monson Way

Notes on Procedure

(1) A list of background papers appears at the end of each report, where appropriate, pursuant to the Local Government Act 1972, section 100D(i).

(2) Members seeking factual information about agenda items are requested to contact the appropriate Service Manager prior to the meeting.

(3) Members of the public and other stakeholders are required to register with the Democratic Services Officer if they wish to speak on an agenda item at a meeting. Places are limited to a maximum of four speakers per item. The deadline for registering to speak is 4.00 pm the last working day before the meeting. Each speaker will be given a maximum of 3 minutes to address the Committee.

(4) All meetings are open to the public except where confidential or exempt information is being discussed. The agenda will identify whether any meeting or part of a meeting is not open to the public. Meeting rooms have a maximum public capacity as follows: Council Chamber: 100, Committee Room A: 20, Committee Room B: 10.

(5) Please note that the public proceedings of this meeting will be recorded and made available for playback on the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council website. Any other third party may also record or film meetings, unless exempt or confidential information is being considered, but are requested as a courtesy to others to give notice of this to the Democratic Services Officer before the meeting. The Council is not liable for any third party recordings.

Further details are available on the website (www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk) or from Democratic Services.

If you require this information in another format please contact us, call 01892 526121 or email [email protected]

Accessibility into and within the Town Hall – There is a wheelchair accessible lift by the main staircase, giving access to the first floor where the committee rooms are situated. There are a few steps leading to the Council Chamber itself but there is a platform chairlift in the foyer.

Hearing Loop System – The Council Chamber and Committee Rooms A and B have been equipped with hearing induction loop systems. The Council Chamber also has a fully equipped audio-visual system.

Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 25 January 2021

Apologies for Absence

Procedural Item:

To receive any apologies for absence.

Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 25 January 2021

Declarations of Interest

Procedural Item:

To receive any declarations of interest by members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest; please contact the Monitoring Officers before the meeting.

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 25 January 2021

Notification of Visiting Members wishing to speak

Procedural Item:

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

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4 1

TUNBRIDGE WELLS JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Monday, 19 October 2020

PRESENT: Borough Councillors Stanyer (Chairman), Bruneau, Scott and Lewis County Councillors Hamilton (Vice-Chairman), McInroy, Oakford and Rankin Parish Councillor Mackonochie

Officers in Attendance: Hilary Smith (Economic Development Manager), Nick Baldwin (Senior Engineer, Parking), Nikola Floodgate (Schemes Planning and Delivery Manager), Paul Leary, Carol Valentine (West Kent Highway Manager) and Caroline Britt (Democratic Services Officer)

Other Members in Attendance: Councillors Morton and Rutland

APOLOGIES

TB1/20 Apologies were received from Councillors Lidstone, Woodward and Barrington-King. Councillor Holden was not present.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

TB2/20 There were no disclosable pecuniary or other significant interests declared at the meeting.

NOTIFICATION OF VISITING MEMBERS WISHING TO SPEAK

TB3/20 Councillor Morton had registered to speak on Agenda Item 6 and Councillor Rutland had registered to speak on Agenda Item 7.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 10 FEBRUARY 2020

TB4/20 Members reviewed the minutes. No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 10 February 2020 be approved as a correct record

UPDATE REPORT

TB5/20 There were no comments.

EMERGENCY ACTIVE TRAVEL FUND SCHEMES UPDATE

TB6/20 Adrian Berendt, Chair of the Town Forum had registered to speak:

“I am speaking on behalf of the Town Forum of which I am the Chair and I should like to start by congratulating the officers both at the Borough Council and KCC for their work on the Active Travel Fund Schemes. They had many difficult decisions to make in a very, very short timeframe. As a consequence we know that some of the design details were not brilliant and we also know that communication was lacking. But overall I think they did a really good job.

I had occasion to watch the KCC Cabinet meeting from last week and apart from one or two uninformed comments – (it occurs to me that if Councillors were commenting on traffic matters perhaps they ought to know their Page 11 Agenda Item 4 2

Highway Code). Overall I was delighted with that meeting because there was a lot about consulting local people about the future schemes.

I have also read the Grant Shapps (MP) letter which says 3 things; one that it supports Active Travel in no uncertain terms. It talks about doing Active Travel properly and it talks about consulting local people. And the Town Forum, which is a strong supporter of Active Travel and has been for many years is willing and able to be consulted on the tranche 2 matters. And probably more importantly on the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan which comes up in the next agenda item. So congratulations to the officers. I am glad there is going to be more and better consultation for future spending and the Town Forum is read and willing to take part.”

Philip Munslow from Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group (TWBUG) had registered to speak:

“Good evening everyone and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on the Emergency Active Travel Fund measures.

I am here on behalf on Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group and whilst we echo what Adrian Berendt has just said we just want to encourage and urge Councillors and Council officers to continue to support the existing fund measures already installed and urge to you identify and implement opportunities for the next tranche of funding – tranche 2.

We still have the unique opportunity to make significant positive changes to our town all paid for by Central Government. We all know there is an urgent need to take action and we need to make the most of this great opportunity.

Whilst our current focus is understandably dominated by Covid-19, all of the long standing issues in the background caused by our over reliance on cars, particularly those for short journeys still remain. That is; congested roads, CO2 emissions, poor air quality, inactivity and sedentary lifestyles and the safety of those who chose to walk and cycle.

To solve these pressing issues, we have to redesign our street space. By doing so, this will incentivise more cycling and walking and provide less incentive for people to pick up their car keys for those short journeys.

We look forward to hearing your support for improved maintenance of the existing tranche 1 measures, particularly the light segregation on the A26 and your shoulders behind some ambitious plans for tranche 2.”

Councillor Morton had registered to speak:

“I am speaking in favour of the Emergency Active Travel scheme for Reynolds Lane because these measures would discourage vehicles using the lane as a through road to avoid traffic on the main A26 route into and out of Tunbridge Wells.

I understand that KCC has installed a monitoring loop in the road in order to get a vehicle count for the week and I would be very interested in getting a report once this is completed.

I also wanted to let you know that we Councillors and some residents have also conducted our own survey and our studies have shown that the short Page 12 Agenda Item 4 3 diversion does not cut down on driving times by a sufficient margin to warrant such a step. Contrary to this it would be far quicker if cars were not weaving in and out of the side roads to join traffic further on in their journeys. Closing Reynolds Lane would provide a Safe Route to school for walking and cycling for school children travelling to St. Gregory’s, TWGGS, Skinners and Bennett’s as well as schools further afield like Bishops Down Primary, Rosehill, St Augustine’s Primary and even Southborough Primary to use the lane.

In summary, our residents would like Reynolds Lane to become a safe and pleasant lane to walk and cycle if only drivers observed the restrictions. I hope that KCC Highways will give us due consideration for a more permanent form of restriction but give the residents and schools mentioned above due notification. New, clearer signage would be very welcome, telling motorists that the lane is closed to all through traffic and that it is open only to residents and visitors.”

Mr Chris Gow (member of the public) had registered to speak:

“I am delighted to see the improvement of the safety of the A26 cycle lane with the installation of the ‘light segregation’ and I recognise the role the Council has played in improving the situation so quickly.

Now there is increased importance to deliver safe alternative transport for folk in this Covid era, may I have the assurance from the Council that the measures put in place will be kept, and development in other areas of the Borough to provide a safe and sustainable cycle routes in the Borough.

I would not like to hear that the measures have been abandoned as they have been in Brighton.

Further to delivering safe cycle routes in the Borough may I ask why there are parking bays obstructing the cycle lane (between the junctions of Beltring Road and Southfields Road) which poses a dangerous situation where cyclists have to swerve into the path of the main flow of traffic to avoid parked cars.

Additionally, the integrity of the cycle lane is compromised on the south route where cyclists entering the bus lane are put at risk by impatient drivers using the bus lane to avoid queuing and travel along the bus lane turning into New England Road or East Cliff Road. This dangerous situation could be prevented by placing ‘No Left Turn’ at the entrances to New England and East Cliff Roads.

I would urge that these actions are examined and action taken before there is a collision involving cyclists. There already have been collisions, one when a vehicle ran into the parked cars at Beltring Road, and another one involving a cyclist and a bus in the cycle lane. We are encouraging folk to cycle and to walk rather than use public transport as now we are practicing social distancing, and more folk will use cycle lanes. We need to make them safe before there is a tragedy.

Further to the development of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in Tunbridge Wells, may I say the traffic speeds on the St Johns 20mph area are frequently above 20mph and can I ask Members of the Committee if further steps are being taken to curb speeding, and also to discourage rat-running in this area. Page 13 Agenda Item 4 4

Plans have been explored by residents, and a comprehensive scheme is needed to control the problems, and may I ask that a plan that is cheap to implement, and has been discussed and drawn up in principle and available now, and which I would be delighted to discuss in detail with you or your colleagues and consultants, be considered as part of the remit of the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. Additionally proposals could be put in place in installing average speed cameras for example, as have been deployed in Nottingham to control speeds in these sorts of areas. I would be delighted to discuss these with somebody in some detail and try and get a safer implementation of low traffic and new schemes to encourage cycling and walking.”

Hilary Smith Economic Development Manager at TWBC introduced this joint report with KCC which included the following:

- The scheme was announced by the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport earlier this year. - The scheme was to support the installation of temporary highway schemes with the aim of both facilitating social distancing and supporting Active Travel. - The timescale for delivering these schemes was particularly short which unfortunately meant the usual consultation processes were not possible. - Failure to submit proposals to the Department for Transport within the defined timescale would have put any future bids for funding in jeopardy. - The schemes were delivered by either temporary or experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (where required). - It was important to note that these schemes were trials which were intended to be monitored carefully with any feedback received to be acted on. - KCC held discussions with all their District and Borough Councils about possible schemes to be put forward to the Department for Transport. They were however, very conscious that the level of consultation they would have wished to carry out was not possible within the tight timeframe. - KCC would ensure that the money received for tranche 2 would be spent with consultation having taken place. - Although the timescales imposed meant there was no opportunity for formal consultation, TWBC did put their proposed list of schemes to Members, Business Representative Organisations and other Community Groups such as the Town Forum through the TWBC Covid-19 Panel. - It was also noted that the schemes were based on past ideas from residents and businesses. Some were also contained in TWBC’s existing cycling strategy. - The report included details of those schemes that had been selected by KCC for inclusion in tranche 1 along with some initial feedback since implementation. - TWBC recognised the issues caused by the short timescales imposed. Feedback was now being received and being looked at closely. The intention was now to take measures to amend and/or improve where this was possible.

Page 14 Agenda Item 4 5

Points made in the discussion were as follows:

- Concern was raised that the sign only scheme at Reynolds Lane was not being complied with. - It was suggested that Reynolds Lane and Culverden Down should be looked at together and consideration be given to making the top end of Culverden Down one way (going west) with traffic going the other way taken along Culverden Park. In doing this, Reynolds Lane would no longer be available for rat runners in the Culverden area. - The use of green technology e.g. electric scooters etc. should be considered in areas such as Mount Pleasant and the High Street. - The introduction of a 20mph (Zone) in Culverden Down was now progressing and was very welcome. There was disappointment that Royal Chase was not included as part of the scheme. - High Street retailers were disappointed regarding the lack of consultation. It was further suggested that the aesthetics of the scheme were ugly and unsafe. Trade had been hit significantly as passing trade had all but stopped. In addition the scheme had caused traffic jams. It was hoped that KCC and TWBC would engage with the retailers and ensure their views were taken into consideration as part of the tranche 2 process. - The scheme in Paddock Wood (Commercial Road) had been suspended to allow for significant road works to take place. - Any scheme that would reduce the traffic on the A26 would be very welcome. It would also promote alternative transport such as cycling and improve air quality in the area. - Concern was raised about the light segregation work on the A26 cycle lane and how vehicles should behave when trying to make space for the emergency services. It was further noted that many of the ‘wands’ that had been installed were either laying across the cycle path, on the road, or were on the footpath. Of paramount importance was to ensure that cycle lanes were safe for cyclists. It was suggested that the A26, being very busy and narrow in places, was not suitable. It would be better to consider using some of the less busy roads that ran parallel to the A26. - TWBC were working with KCC to improve the A26 for cyclists and were aware that the ‘wands’ were being removed. TWBC were looking at more permanent measures which could include the use of Orcas. - It was suggested that these schemes be considered in further detail separately from the formal JTB meeting – perhaps in the form of a smaller working group. - TWBC Officers, members of the Town Forum and The BID had visited retailers in the High Street. Whilst it provided only a snapshot, the main concerns highlighted were the appearance of the barriers and the difficulties being experienced with deliveries. TWBC were in the process of looking at how the look of the scheme could be improved, potentially replacing the barriers with Planters or Parklets. - It was proposed and agreed by Members the recommendation included in the report include the word ‘urgently’ to read; “KCC and TWBC urgently monitor and review the Emergency Active Travel Fund schemes and the feedback to the KCC portal and to TWBC directly. Measures will be taken to amend and improve the schemes wherever this is possible.” It was further agreed by Members that consultation with Members should also be included in the recommendation.

Page 15 Agenda Item 4 6

Recommendation

“KCC and TWBC urgently monitor and review the Emergency Active Travel Fund schemes and the feedback to the KCC portal and to TWBC directly.

Measures will be taken to amend and improve the schemes wherever this is possible. JTB Members would be included as part of the consultation process.”

LOCAL CYCLING & WALKING INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

TB7/20

Councillor Rutland had registered to speak: “I am here to talk about the experimental road closure of York Road in connection with the public realm stage 2 scheme which is related to the Walking and Cycling Plan. I have a statement to read on behalf of Pippa Collard from the York Road Residents Association. I hope that members of this Joint Transportation Board will be able to not only take note, but please take action, since action is what residents of these streets were promised, most recently in February. A trial closure of York Road will promote cycling and walking plus help deliver the objectives of the new public realm. Those objectives are - and I quote from the Cabinet report of April 2018 - ‘a more pedestrian-focussed space’ ‘a community space’ ‘more active travel’ ‘to provide a more tranquil space to be enjoyed by residents and visitors’. A road closure that leads to a reduction in motor vehicles travelling through would be a positive thing. However, the effect of a York Road closure could see displacement of through traffic on to Dudley Road, so we would need to look at the two roads together. This is Pippa’s statement: “I am grateful to Justine for saying some words on my behalf tonight, in addition to her own. ‘I spoke in front of you in January 2019, almost two years ago, to flag up the impact that the new traffic restrictions on Mount Pleasant would have on York Road - a narrow residential street with narrow pavements and houses fronting onto those pavements. The concern was that once the route outside Mount Pleasant was closed to cars, then York Road would be used as the primary cut through from London Road into Monson Road.

Conversations and representations to the Council and others have taken place, the works have been completed and enforcement of the new restrictions have commenced despite public outcry and the current universal confusion over the appalling signage.

Towards the end of the works, for three months York Road was temporarily closed at the Town end whilst it was used as a storage area. The road became more of a community, pedestrians were safer on the pavements and residents were able to park near their homes.

It was agreed in the Council offices approximately this time last year, with representation from York and Dudley Roads, local councillors and KCC, that Page 16 Agenda Item 4 7 an official experimental road closure would be forthwith installed in York Road, to reduce the chance of it becoming a rat run and to encourage more walking and cycling.

Since that time nothing has happened. Apart from Covid which understandably affected all traffic flows around the town. Traffic has now re- ignited and cars are starting to be fined for inadvertently using Mount Pleasant and with this the flow of cars down York Road is increasing.

The chat on social media, apart from being generally vitriolic about the confusion caused by the lack of signage and the project is the odd helpful person advising that York Road is the new route into town! I have seen this in local papers as well. It is truly not acceptable to allow such a rat run. And it is not acceptable for the Council to continue to delay the road closure (allowing still for public service vehicles), having already agreed it in principle, only for another amendment to traffic routes down the line which will further annoy local car drivers. Now is the time!!”

That is the end of Pippa’s statement.

The residents bordering Mount Pleasant were greatly inconvenienced during the works. The public realm scheme has created a problem with through traffic that was not there before. I ask for an urgent re-engagement with this issue. Cllr James Rands and I are willing to help in any way we can. Thank you.”

Ben Coleman from Phil Jones Associates gave a presentation on the current work on the Tunbridge Wells Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan which included the following:

- The presentation gave an overview of the work to date but to note it was work in progress and there was still more work to be done. - There were three key strands to the project: o Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) o Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Programme (LCWIP) o Inter-Urban Routes (IURs) - Low Traffic Neighbourhoods o An approach that could be applied to areas where through traffic had an adverse effect on other users. o It didn’t just look at traffic, it covered air quality, access to open space, access to schools and propensity for mode shift. o Low Traffic Neighbourhoods were imbedded in national policy which encouraged through traffic to use main roads that would enable local roads to become more pleasant for cycling and walking. o The key themes that were used to establish the feasibility of possible neighbourhoods were Trip Attractors, Health, Population, Road Safety, Mode Shift and Traffic. - Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Programme o These were intended to provided a long term approach to the delivery of local cycling and walking measures. o Key was to understand behaviours and where there was potential to increase walking and cycling. o The main output was to provide a list of potential walking and cycling interventions based on evidence collected. Page 17 Agenda Item 4 8

o There were 6 stages of the process: ▪ Determining Scope ▪ Gathering Information ▪ Network Planning for Cycling ▪ Network Planning for Walking ▪ Prioritising Improvements ▪ Integration and Application o The work was currently in stages 3 and 4 for the Tunbridge Wells and Paddock Wood work. - Inter-Urban Routes o The aim, to establish comfortable and safe routes for cycling between settlements. o The delivery of inter-urban routes had to potential to be quite complex as it might include the issue of land ownership and public rights of way.

Discussion included the following comments:

- Routes should be looked at holistically to include all modes of transport e.g. mobility scooters, electric scooters etc. - Combining routes to enable all modes of transport to be accommodated would have to be considered carefully as this would depend on the amount of space available and the level of usage by the different modes. - The use of electric scooters had not been considered directly in the current piece of work. This form of transport was still relatively new and work was still taking place as to the safety requirements and where the most appropriate place for them to be used. - Cross boundary issues were still being discussed particularly with Tonbridge and Malling. - It was agreed that Members interested in speaking directly with TWBC and the consultants should contact officers direct to make the necessary arrangements.

PARISH COUNCIL HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT PLANS

TB8/20 Paul Leary, West Kent Schemes Manager at Kent County Council provided a summary of the Highway Improvement Plans (HIPs) which included the following:

- HIPs were a relatively new initiative that would give Parish Councils an opportunity to set out issues within their area. - The first stage of the process was a template that KCC send to the Parish Council. Parish Councils would then list those locations where there was a concern, desire or wish list. The template also allowed Parish Councils to make recommendations and/or suggestions about possible solutions. - KCC also encouraged that locations were listed in order of priority. - Stage 2 was for KCC to plan and agree a joint action plan with the Parish Council. This would include identifying and assigning responsibility for any actions. KCC would also endeavour to provide a cost estimate and possible funding sources. - KCC were keen to encourage Parish Councils to submit HIPs once a year and to agree a set of objectives and actions for the year ahead. The HIPs were also reviewed at least once a year which gave an Page 18 Agenda Item 4 9

opportunity to look back on any actions that had been undertaken and a programme to take forward into the following year. - KCC gave out a Parish Information Pack which gave examples of typical things that might come up. For example, various forms of traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossings, costs and considerations for appropriate use. - It was also important to ensure that residents were included in discussions.

SPEED MANAGEMENT AND HGV'S ON RURAL ROADS

TB9/20 Parish Councillor Graeme Stevenson, Brenchley and Matfield Parish Council had registered to speak:

“Residents of Blind Lane which is part of Brenchley Road (Blind Lane is the section between Pixot Hill/Crook Road crossroads and the western end of Brenchley High Street) and Windmill Hill in Brenchley, have been complaining repeatedly about the number of HGV’s using these unsuitable roads, particularly local scrap lorries belonging to a number of premises based at Old hay, near Paddock Wood. These companies include Scrap co, JR Car Spares Auto Recycle, Core Commercial, Charles Trent, Osmonds plus others, repeatedly use these unsuitable roads for access to and from their depots from the larger trunk road network of the A21 or the A228. Their use of these roads causes damage to property and road signs and is dangerous for parents and children going to Brenchley and Matfield Primary School, which is located at the western end of Blind Lane. A much wider and safer route is available via Mascalls Court Lane and Mascalls Court Road. To give an understanding of the unsuitability of these roads: Blind Lane (this section of Brenchley Road) has pinch points of 3.9m in width. The widest point of Blind Lane is 5.2m. Whilst Mascalls Court Lane has a consistent measurement of 6.5m width and Mascalls Court Road has only one pinch point of 4.9m in width. From Old hay there is also the option of using Churn Lane, to access the B2162, which runs between Horsmonden and Collier Street.

These firms have been contacted by residents and claim they have been told by KCC Highways that they must not use Mascalls Lane at Paddock Wood as it passes Mascalls school. By coming through Brenchley they are passing Brenchley and Matfield Primary school, if this claim is true should the same argument not apply?

Our request is that these roads are identified and provided with signage stating ‘Unsuitable for HGVs’ and the lorries serving these local scrap companies are asked to use the wider and safer routes provided by Mascalls Court Lane or Church Road to access the trunk road network? It is noted that recently similar signage has been erected at both Watermans Lane and Chantlers Hill nearby (even though Chantlers Hill has a consistent 6m width), and residents in these affected roads in Brenchley do not understand why Blind Lane (Brenchley Road) should be any different.”

Paul Leary, West Kent Schemes Manager at Kent County Council provided a summary of the work being done by KCC in regards to speed management and HGV’s on rural roads which included the following:

Page 19 Agenda Item 4 10

- Speed Management o KCC work within the guidelines at set out by the Department for Transport when setting speed limits (Department for Transport Circular 01/2013). o Speed limits must be evidence lead and self explaining. o The ultimate aim was to ensure that speed limits were self complaint. o Speed limits must be appropriate for the road. They should take account of any history of collisions, take account of the road geometry and the make up of the area (schools, residential etc.). It would also consider what engineering measures were already in place. o KCC would also look at the road function; was it a through route, did it connect with any major destinations etc. o Another consideration related to the make-up of road users including pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians etc. o Existing traffic speeds were also a major consideration. o To note, what whilst most rural roads were subject to the national speed limit of 60mph (single carriageway), in the vast majority of cases drivers were travelling below and often significantly below this speed limit. This was primarily due to the nature and appearance of these roads making it impossible to drive anywhere near the 60mph limit. o The introduction of lower speed limits on these roads (which were already self-enforcing) would require the installation of speed limit signs which could lead to an increase in speeds. o KCC were able to establish vehicle speeds using traffic surveys. The results of those surveys would be used to inform whether any action was appropriate and any associated costs. - HGV’s on Rural Roads o Any issues/concerns related to HGV’s on rural roads should be reported to KCC. o If in a Parish Council area it should be done via the HIP process. o It should be noted that whilst the use of ‘Unsuitable for HGVs’ signing was something that could be used, the signs were advisory signs and therefore not enforceable. It was also important these signs were not overused. o The Lorry Watch scheme was effective where restrictions were already in place e.g. a 7.5 tonne restriction or a width restriction. o Lorry Watch signs could be put up on their own with no volunteers on the ground. Parish Council’s were welcome to discuss this option with the KCC Freight Team. o Restrictions could be imposed where it was thought necessary but there were cost implications to consider (TRO’s and implementation costs). o Enforcement of any restrictions would be a matter for the police. o KCC were in discussion with the Department for Transport regarding lorry parks. o KCC had a Freight Action Plan which set out plans for HGV movement in Kent. o KCC were also looking to improve HGV parking overnight in laybys and verges. Enforcement would be dependent on whether there were any restrictions in place. Page 20 Agenda Item 4 11

Action: 1. Paul Leary to contact Councillor Graeme Stevenson to give an update on the issues raised in his statement.

HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME

TB10/20 Carol Valentine, Highways Project Manager at KCC introduced the Highways Work Programme for 2019/20 onwards that summarised the various schemes across Highways for delivery in the current financial year and through to 2023/24.

Discussion included the following comments:

- It was suggested that the reconstruction of the Red Brick Footway on the eastern side of London Road should also include the western side. - The report mentioned the installation of a zebra crossing on London Road but didn’t say where on the road it would be placed. - It was suggested that the 20mph zone in place at Southborough Primary School be extended to include more of the side streets in the area. - Bridge strikes on the railway bridge on North Farm Road (High Brooms) should be looked at with something put in place to remind larger vehicle users. - Earlier in the year a series of meetings had taken place with KCC on the implementation and success (or otherwise) of the Public Realm. They included a number of issues: o A number of trials to establish how much of the new system was being used properly. o To look at pedestrian behaviour. o How much traffic was going across York Road. o Concern that York Road/Dudley Road would become rat runs. - It was accepted that the pandemic had delayed this work but that it should now be given urgent attention to deal with residents concerns about the roads becoming a rat run. Details of earlier road counts and current road counts should now be made available. - Another concern was that there should be a better, safer crossing at the junction with Monson Road. - It was further suggested that there was a retrial of the road closures of York Road and Dudley Road.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

TOPICS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

TB11/20 Comments were made in respect of the following matters:

- The next meeting to include a presentation by the Cornford Lane/Halls Hole Road residents. - Suggestions to promote and improve the town centre and the wider area and to encourage people to visit. To consider alternative modes of transport. It should also include a review of

Page 21 Agenda Item 4 12

the accessibility of the town centre for those with a disability. - Actions to better protect the railway bridge at High Brooms. - The current position of the JTB agreement. - Air Quality. - A trial area to study the effects of banning HGV’s on rural lanes.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

TB12/20 The next meeting was scheduled for Monday 25 January 2021 at 6:00pm

NOTES: The meeting concluded at 8.30 pm. An audio recording of this meeting is available on the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council website.

Page 22 Agenda Item 5

Joint Transportation Board 25 January 2021

Kent Community Rail Partnership - Presentation

1. Brief overview of Kent Community Rail Partnership This will include our structure, how we are funded, the areas we cover and some information about our partners, our key aims and objectives, 4 pillars

2. Our projects and activities We will present a broad mix of our projects and activities – from on train community events to long-term projects supporting college student to gain practical skills to station audits and cycle rail project. We will mention our recent award winning projects

3. Opportunity to work with us Discuss the opportunity for members to join our partnership meetings, potential to explore new project ideas in the locality

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A Winter 2021

Halling 2021 Courtesy of Bria Bennett Sheerness 2000 Courtesy of Colin Whitbread Charing 1920 – Charing Local History Society

Chairman’s Report by Chris Fribbins I hope everybody was able to enjoy the Christmas and Where do we go from here? There is continued support for AddNew Year Holiday season as best as possible given the Community Rail in the Southeastern area and nationally. It is situation with COVID19. After feeling that London and the still expected to help drive the return to rail when the South East had seemed to avoid the worse problems, the COVID19 restrictions are relaxed. In the meantime, our staff whole of the Southeastern Railway area found themselves are doing what they can to maximise activities and plan for in the new Tier 3, soon to become Tier 4 in the run-up to the return to normal. What the affect will be on rail is unclear. Christmas. Parts of our Community Rail area (Medway The industry was already going through a period of change, and Swale) found themselves at the top of the national and the decimation of passenger numbers has led to charts for infections and deaths. The encouragement to some reduction in services again as both Southeastern staff travel by rail was reversed and only essential journeys and passengers are affected. My feeling is that the vaccine were supported. Although schools and colleges returned in roll-out will take a bit longer than a lot of people hope. the Autumn, their activities were severely constrained and Planning for our new line (Ashford to Otford) will continue so our work with them very limited. There was a reminder of we are ready for a formal launch later this year and there is a better times when our activities with Sheppey College won lot of activity already underway and we are about to enter first prize in their category at the National Community Rail our planning period for activities from April onwards. Network Awards.

History of Swale Rail webpage launched

Over the last few months as we have been unable to work at stations, we have spent some of the time researching the history of some of our stations and sourcing old photographs. This has led to the creation You may have noticed if you have of a new page on our website all about the travelled through Snodland recently history of the Swale Rail Line. the new mural that has appeared at Photo courtesy of Kent Photo Archive the station. Thank you to Eddie at

We would like to thank all our contributors who have given us permission to Network Rail for orchestrating this wonderful addition. During November use their photographs. A special thank you to Linda Brinklow on researching the Sheppey Light Railway. the Snodland footbridge has also been repainted to help brighten up the If you know of anyone who has any old photographs of any of our stations station. Parts of the garden area will then please do get in contact so we can share these memories. Visit be replanted in March to replace the https://kentcrp.org/history-sr and take a look. damaged plants from the work.

Page 25

Appendix A Community Network Rail Awards Success Christmas Quiz We are delighted to announce that “We will be holding up this brilliant we were successful in all three example from Kent nationally, to categories we were shortlisted in at inspire more communities and young the Community Rail Awards 2020. people to engage with and take advantage of their railways.” We achieved first place for our A Chance to Shine Project with We were runners up in the Sheppey College. The project aimed Community Rail In Action Photo to empower students to showcase Competition, which was taken out the On Thursday 17th December we said their talents, boosting self-esteem, opening ceremony at Snodland goodbye to 2020 with our online providing real-life experiences, and Station to celebrate the fantastic work Christmas Quiz. Thank you to Matthew helping build portfolios to enhance by Five Acre Wood. ‘Santa’ Fraser for writing the seasonal employment prospects. questions and acting as our Question Master. Jools Townsend, chief executive of Community Rail Network, said: “Our Our biggest quiz yet with twelve teams congratulations go to Kent and 35 participants from around the UK Community Rail Partnership for their and the North Pole. inspiring project, which highlights Sharing fancy dress, Christmas the great benefits of community rail jumpers, jokes and decorations all engaging with young people. By helped add to the seasonal feeling of being involved with rail, young We also achieved third place in the the evening. A great celebration to people develop skills and Most Enhanced Station category for round off the year. Our winners kindly confidence, and access our Chance to Grow Project with Five donated their prize to a local food bank. opportunities that may otherwise be Acre Wood School Snodland and out of reach, through sustainable Grow19. This project aimed at Book and Film Club and healthy means – and we gain transforming the front of Snodland Preparation for the launch of our new from their ideas and input. station and providing art work for the film club meant a short break for our ticket office. virtual book club. We’re now ready to welcome new members to both. Our We are also extremely grateful for the next read will be “The Railway support we received from Detective” by Edward Marston and Southeastern Railway to enable our first view “The Rainhill Story: these projects to take place and from Stephenson’s Rocket”. our volunteers and line members,

who have generously given their time If you would like to join either group and enthusiasm to make these we launch in January and will share in projects a success. weekly catch-up emails before Date for Your Diary finishing up with a lively on-line chat

via Zoom during the following month. 29th April 2021 – Online Contact [email protected] Annual Stakeholder Meeting to join in the fun.

John Grubb “We were sad to learn of the recent death, of long time Community Rail supporter and transport enthusiast John Grubb. John became involved with the Kent Community Rail Partnership in its’ early days, becoming an ardent member of the Steering Group as well as the individual Swale Rail and Medway Valley Line Group committees.

He always endeavoured to attend all meetings and events until recent mobility problems intervened and was always keen to assist at special events. A kind and thoughtful man he was always the first to express appreciation of the work of paid officers. A real Old School character his enthusiasm and input will be missed by many.” By Ian Paterson (KentPage CRP 26Project Officer 2005-2014)

John’s interests encompassed all areas of bus and train operation, past and present – particularly AppendixNew Support A Officer Kent Rail Strategy

Kent County Council (KCC) are The strategy also comments on working on an updated Kent Rail ticketing, station facilities Strategy to replace the Rail Action (including Bus Interchange, cycle Plan for Kent published in 2011. The parking), the ‘last mile’ from the Rail Strategy was presented to the station to home/destination, freight Kent Rail Forum in October and and international services. the consultation completed in There are other suggestions for November. The strategy does not increasing capacity and speeding have any statutory status, but is We are delighted to welcome up services on other lines and compiled to give the Rail industry an Gary Outram aboard. At the improving the connectivity to the idea of the future rail services in Kent beginning of November Gary Community Rail lines (Strood that are likely to be required in the next joined Kent Community Rail connection to Rochester / Chatham / decade. Although it covers the whole Partnership as the new Project Gillingham). of Kent, there are specific issues Support Officer. raised for the support of Community These are suggestions after detailed ” It’s over six years since Rail in the county and suggested discussion with the train volunteering for Sustrans first changes to the rail services provided operators, Network Rail and the brought me into contact with the on them. Department for Transport to ensure wonderful Kent Community Rail they are practical and deliverable. In general, the Kent Rail Strategy was Partnership team, kindling a They may require additional supported by the Kent Community Rail growing interest in their work investment in rolling stock and/or Partnership. Additional services which has now led to me coming infrastructure improvements. The between Sheerness and London on board. long-term impact of COVID19, the by extending the Gillingham service structure and future funding of the I would like to thank you all for a (1 per hour) are suggested. The High- railway will be an issue. The rail fantastically warm welcome. I’m Speed service from Maidstone West to industry and government do take excited to be working with my St Pancras should be all day (1 notice of the considered new colleagues and all of the line per hour off peak, 2 per hour in the and justified input from the principal members. I am looking forward to peak). Station improvements local authority for the area, but there getting to know you all better as at Maidstone East and West are is no commitment to delivery any of soon as we can get back out and supported (with some work underway these suggestions yet. about on our lines”. at Maidstone East). The platforms would need to be extended at Maidstone West to support the hourly New Kent Downs Logo Highspeed service (12 cars). During November we ran a logo competition to design The long-promised Thameslink service our new logo for the Kent Downs Line. We were from Maidstone East to Cambridge via delighted to receive over 40 excellent entries and we are New Logo the Thameslink from Blackfriars to St pleased to announce that the winner of our competition Pancras over the Kent Downs CRP was Rob Saunders. still shows no sign of arriving soon. It has been suggested that it only run to Kate Rogers and Oscar Collins were the runner ups. Blackfriars instead for now – Rob’s inspiration has led to the creation of our new logo. discussions with the DfT continue. Rob’s Design

Keep up to date! Visit our website: kentcrp.org.uk

Therese Hammond – Project Officer: [email protected] Andy Place – Engagement Officer: [email protected] Gary Outram – Support Officer: [email protected]

@kentcrp1 Facebook Kent Community Rail Partnership @kentcommunityrailpartnership Page 27 The Kent Community Rail Partnership is hosted by the registered Charity Sustrans. The Kent Community Rail Partnership encourages greater use of the Medway Valley, Kent Downs and Swale Rail lines by local people and visitors and aims to improve station environments and facilities on offer.

This page is intentionally left blank Appendix B

Annual Report September 2018 - August 2019

Page 29 Annual Report 2018 - 2019 Medway Valley and Swale Rail Appendix B Chair’s Report 2019

Additionally the KCRP team and volunteers have been busy running events which bring people together and provide a voice for the community, promote sustainable, healthy and accessible travel, support diversity and inclusion and social and economic development. Events we have been involved with or facilitated are summarised in the report.

At the national ACoRP Awards KCRP have continued to be recognised nationally, being nominated in a number of categories and winning first prize for a Community Art Project Promoting Safer Rail Travel with Bradfields Academy and British Transport Police. We are very pleased to have been nominated for a three awards for this year, in the following categories:

• Involving Diverse Groups – Five Acre Wood Project

• Best Community Engagement Project – Sea Folk Sing on the Train

• Best Photo - The Santa Train photo

We experienced an injection of new staff during August with Andy Place joining us as Engagement Officer and Helen Kellar joining us as Delivery Coordinator which brings the team back up to its full compliment. There have Chris Fribbins - Chair been changes in community representation within the Kent Community Rail Partnership Partnership; myself becoming Chair of Kent CRP and James Willis becoming Chair of the Medway Valley Line. These changes provide an exciting opportunity for new ideas. I’d Kent Community Rail Partnership (KCRP) aims to help like to thank the outgoing staff for their commitment to Kent local communities support their local lines and look for CRP. Despite these changes and the uncertainty around the opportunities for events and actions to improve them. This future franchise arrangements the team have developed a has been a further successful year with a full programme of new Action Plan and continue to deliver activities to promote KCRP projects, activities, events and meetings. our key aims and objectives.

Our educational involvement has concentrated on two We would express our thanks to Southeastern, the current groups of 16-19 year olds this year: franchise holder, for their continued financial and operational support throughout their franchise period and the extensions. Five Acre Wood School is situated near Snodland station on The support of Southeastern, Kent County Council, other the Medway Valley Line it is an outstanding District Special authorities and especially individuals have helped. Matt School for children and young people with Profound, Fraser, from Southeastern, is always on hand to help and Severe and Complex Learning Difficulties, including Autistic without him many events may not have happened or at least Spectrum Disorder. They are making improvements to run as smooth as they did. landscaping, ongoing maintenance at Snodland Station and are receiving train travel training. The DfT are now looking to establish a new base for Community Rail in the UK. Previously lines were designated Sheppey College students on the Swale Rail line are looking on a line by line basis including criteria excluding mainline into improvements at all stations on the line including services to London. This led to the Medway Valley Line designing and displaying information posters, planting and being designated, but the Swale Rail Line not, although adding seating. Opportunities for train travel training and now both lines include a Service to London in the mid-week work experience have been provided. Five Acre Wood is peak periods. The previous designation process has been in the process of adopting Snodland station and Sheppey replaced by a new accreditation process managed for the College are adopting all five stations on the Swale Rail DfT by the Association of Community Rail Partnerships line. Both projects are supported by ACORP through the (ACoRP). KCRP will be applying for accreditation during Community Rail Development Fund. Spring 2020 and if successful this will give KCRP access to additional national support and funding. Page 30 2 Appendix B What is Kent Community Rail Partnership?

Community Rail Partnerships (CRPs) encourage local communities to support their local railway lines and stations.There are approximately 65 CRPs across the country and the number is continuously growing. CRPs are comprised of railway operators, local authorities including; county, district, borough and parish councils, schools, colleges, businesses, rail user groups, community organisations and volunteers. CRPs deliver a wide variety of projects to fulfil the needs of the local community whilst recognising the need to provide a voice for their communities, promote sustainable, healthy and accessible travel whilst supporting diversity and inclusion and social and economic development.

Kent Community Rail Partnership (Kent CRP) was established in 2003 and works within a 5 mile radius of each of its 19 stations along the Medway Valley Line (MVL) and Swale Rail Line (SRL) see map on front cover. Both Line activities are overseen by a Steering Group which is chaired by Chris Fribbins and meets quarterly at County Hall. Each line has its own partnership meeting, the MVL meeting is chaired by James Willis and the SRL is chaired by Linda Brinklow, line meetings take place 3 times a year. The Partnership could not operate without the collaboration of the members, who dedicate many hours to support our work for which we are extremely grateful. Kent CRP has been hosted by the charity Sustrans since April 2014, chaired by Sue Murray and meets quarterly at County Hall.

Kent Community Rail Partnership supports 2 railway lines;

1. The Medway Valley Line (MVL) which runs alongside the 2. The Swale Rail Line (SRL) which runs from Sittingbourne beautiful river Medway connecting Tonbridge and Strood via to Sheerness connecting the Isle of Sheppey with the rest of Maidstone, the County Town of Kent and has 14 stations. Kent and has 5 stations. Financial Report and Funding

Kent CRP is grateful for the majority of its funding via grants from Kent County Council, Medway Council and Southeastern Railway. It is also thankful for Borough and Parish Council funding which is diminishing year on year due to central funding cuts however, every penny received is carefully spent to benefit our communities. Kent CRP has been successful in attracting grants and match funding from elsewhere including Swale Borough Council and ACoRP for specific projects and events enabling the completion of a comprehensive programme of projects and events this year.

Financial notes: Income £10,741 in additional income had been received which was not forecast, due to £9,942 received from Southeastern in advance for period April – June 2019, plus some additional income from Boroughs and Parishes. £15,254 was carried forward from 2017/18. Expenditure underspend is partly due to the lower than forecast staff costs and associated overheads. This is mainly as a result of the original Engagement Officer deciding not to return from a career break – the revised 18/19 budget accommodated an uplift from one Officer to two for a short period. Due to uncertainties with the franchise renewal it was decided not to recruit a new, third, member of staff until the new franchise, and subsequent funding, is formally announced. The project continues to operate with 1.4 officer FTE. Also, reduced costs are due to savings and efficiencies in printed materials and event costs.

Core Funding & other income ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE Kent County Council £16,000 £16,000 South Eastern Rail income £52,646 £42,704 Parish Council & other local grant income £1,325 £775 Medway Borough Council Income £6,000 £6,000 Income from Events £250 £0 Abellio & ACORP grants £0 £0 Carry forward from 2017/18 £15,254 £15,255 Total income £91,475 £80,734 £10,741 Expenditure ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE Staff costs & overheads £59,872 £70,832 Events & Marketing £3,362 £7,800 ACORP Awards Glasgow £263 £1,000 Volunteer Expenses £212 £300 Office Admin £1,205 £802 Total expenditure £64,914 £80,734 -£15,820 Deferred into 2019/2020 £26,561 £0 Page 31 3 Appendix B Review of Events, Projects & Activities 2018-2019

The events, projects and activities have been listed under the 4 Pillars of Community Rail: 1. Providing a voice for the community The voice of our communities was heard through the following: • National Association of Community Rail Partnership (ACoRP) Awards 2018 - First place for Community Art Scheme category for BTP text number poster campaign in conjunction with Bradfield School. • Sheppey College students (16-18 year olds) surveyed passengers on the platforms for views of how they would improve travel experiences. These students have adopted the 5 stations on the Swale Rail Line and are implementing the improvements gathered in the surveys including building additional platform seating, planters and artwork they have also produced platform posters, an information website and video informing passengers of local attractions and activities within each of the station areas. Tutors and students also plan to join the SRL Partnership and by attending the meeting will further raise the voice of the community. • Five Acre Wood (Snodland) students (16-19 year olds) have planned and developed Snodland station garden, they adopted this station and will be further improving it by developing waste land into an allotment. A tutor and student are members of the MVL Partnership bringing the community voice to meetings. • Surveys on the SRL highlighted safety concerns of passengers when travelling by train. During Rail Safety Week 400 ticket wallets detailing the BTwP non-emergency text number were given to passengers with an explanation of its use at Sittingbourne station. • The number of station adoptions this year has increased from 2 to 8.

First place ACoRP award Poster by Sheppey College Five Acre Woods student Rail safety week Maidstone West station Students garden garden

2. Providing sustainable, healthy and accessible travel Sustainable, healthy and accessible travel has increased across the lines by: • Delivering group travel training sessions for students of Sheppey College. Over 200 16-18 year olds have enjoyed these sessions and for most it was the first time they had travelled on a train. It is hoped that some will have increased employment opportunities if they feel confident to travel across or off the Island for work. • Delivering group travel training sessions for students (16-19 year olds) of Five Acre Wood School some of whom have severe learning difficulties. It is hoped that some of these students may be able to advance to travel independently to access further education or employment. • Pop-ups at businesses and school places to promote train and active travel (cycling and walking). This year particular focus has been given to cycle, train, cycle journeys and the smoothie bike has proved very popular. • Cycle, ride, cycle family bike ride. Fourteen participants met at Tonbridge (most travelling by train) for the relaxing ride to Penshurst Place where lunch was enjoyed before returning to Tonbridge station for train rides home. This is a 12 mile, mostly off road cycle ride. • The publication of 4 seasonal newsletters to encourage train travel and to share the work of Kent CRP. • Further expansion of social media via; Facebook has 313 followers, Twitter has 438 followers, new website with many updated pages and a growing data base of over 350.

Isle of Sheppey smoothie Maidstone CycleFest 2018 Pop-up Southern Water Pop-up Sheppey Family Bike Ride bike pop-up College Page 32 4 3. Bringing communities together and supporting diversity and inclusionAppendix B Kent CRP continues to increase community involvment by:

• Facilitating the 2 active community rail partnership groups who each meet 3 times a year – The Medway Valley Line Partnership and The Swale Rail Line Partnership. Members are drawn from the communities served to generate the work of Kent CRP. • On Sat 10 and Sun 11 Nov 2018, Sea Folk Sing, an over 55’s choir performed reconciliation pieces to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the ending of WW1. The 35 strong choir was formed to help combat isolation and loneliness. The choir sang at Strood Station on the Sat and at various stations and on the trains along the SRL on the Sun. Around 400 passengers enjoyed these moving events. • Fourteen Maidstone Rotary volunteers planted purple crocus bulbs at Maidstone Barracks Station, the bulbs will not only enhance the station but will also raise awareness of the aim to eradicate polio across the world which is one of the Rotarians key objectives. Envelopes of bulbs, packed by a Maidstone women’s refuge were also available to purchase on the day in order to help fund polio vaccinations and the women’s refuge is financially supported via the packing of the bulbs.The significance of the purple bulb is that the finger nail of those vaccinated is painted with the colour purple to distinguish them from those still to be vaccinated. • Continuation of the prestigious Volunteer of the Year Award at the Stakeholder meeting. This year it was presented to Matt Fraser by Sue Murray (Ex Chair) for his considerable support to Kent CRP’s community. Matt was not only Santa aboard our Santa Train, he also undertook cycle ride leader training with officers and supported the family cycle ride to Penshurst Place, he helped facilitate the crocus bulb planting in conjunction with the Rotary Club and participated in the MVL station audits.

Sea Folk sing at Strood Sea Folk singing at Rotary Club crocus bulb planting Volunteer of the year station (MVL line) Sittingbourne station (SRL) at Maidstone Barracks Matt Fraser 4. Supporting social and economic development The social economic development of the areas within 5 miles of our stations was supported by: • Arranging monthly events which promote awareness and tourism along the lines including the Santa Train. Approximately 80 passengers enjoyed visiting Santa on the train whilst enjoying craft activities, having their faces painted and being entertained by our fabulous balloon artist and Spiderman all whilst travelling along the 2 hour round trip from Maidstone West via Tonbridge and Strood. • Participation in the annual ACoRP Community Rail in the City event. The engagement team was made up of Kent CRP officers, a Sustrans officer, Kent CRP volunteers, Network Rail volunteers and a Sustrans volunteer. The smoothie bike was set up at St Pancras Station, 142 surveys were completed and the cycle, rail, cycle journey was promoted into Kent for day trips and longer stays by the sharing or walking and cycle path information and tourist events across the county by providing leaflets and information bags. • Arranging monthly events which promote awareness and tourism along the lines including the Santa Train. Approximately 80 passengers enjoyed visiting Santa on the train whilst enjoying craft activities, having their faces painted and being entertained by our fabulous balloon artist and Spiderman all whilst travelling along the 2 hour round trip from Maidstone West via Tonbridge and Strood. • Undertaking our annual joint Tonbridge Tourism pop-up with Sussex CRP – Tonbridge station is where our two lines meet. Over 100 passengers were engaged in promoting tourism and active travel across the county. Information bags and leaflets relevant to passenger’s interests were provided. • Collaboratively working with Visit Kent, Produced in Kent, Locate in Kent and Explore Kent which has resulted in collaborative working opportunities. • Developing working relationships with Planning Members and Officers to allow for timely engagement in consultation processes with particular interest in development plans where Kent CRP is able to positively impact on transport plans.

Santa on the Train event Community Rail in the city - St Pancras Tourism Pop-Up - Tonbridge Page 33 5 Appendix B Increased Passenger Numbers on our Lines

This has been another good year with passenger numbers further increasing. Passenger usage figures for the Medway Valley Line

Growth 2018 Station 2017-2018 2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013 vs 2017 Strood 1,071,564 1,132,056 1,197,602 1,182,148 1,098,676 1,110,912 (5.3)% Cuxton 51,124 42,512 40,808 41,578 39,854 45,140 20.3% Halling 94,422 68,100 58,710 55,240 48,070 45,124 38.7% Snodland 325,322 249,698 217,306 194,954 192,934 185,384 30.3% New Hythe 161,968 124,612 115,314 115,906 90,614 89,712 30.0% Aylesford 144,792 122,554 115,314 115,906 112,666 107,356 18.1% Maidstone Barracks 281,524 271,710 266,522 270,645 266,938 267,765 3.6% Maidstone West 877,164 846,586 830,421 843,268 831,718 834,293 3.6% East Farleigh 35,772 33,162 31,604 29,312 27,580 29,794 7.9% Wateringbury 55,808 48,084 47,302 47,976 49,796 50,472 16.1% Yalding 29,160 25,544 23,600 21,604 22,542 24,086 14.2% Beltring 15,074 15,074 11,314 13,502 11,890 13,152 33.2% Paddock Wood 1,181,218 1,174,732 1,152,514 1,147,648 1,103,546 1,129,994 0.6% Tonbridge 4,391,184 4,414,394 4,337,310 4,207,328 4,052,722 4,100,552 (0.5)%

Data Source: ORR Station Data

Passenger usage figures for the Swale Line

Growth 2018 Station 2017-2018 2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013 vs 2017 Sheerness-On-Sea 449,590 432,798 403,538 395,970 390,136 411,480 3.9% Queensborough 175,994 153,166 123,064 118,204 119,210 120,008 14.9% Swale 4,740 4,458 3,916 5,026 3,792 3,372 6.3% Kemsley 163,438 148,188 145,748 140,950 129,438 124,688 10.3% Sittingbourne 2,223,636 2,164,064 2,111,046 2,063,382 1,965,579 1,949,484 2.8%

Data Source: ORR Station Data

The MVL passenger numbers have increased by 15.06% and the SRL passenger numbers have increased by 7.64% this is an average of 11.35% across our two lines.

Be Part Of Our Future

Whether you are an individual, a group, an institution or a business, we can offer a range of opportunities to become involved whether it be work experience, station adoption, help plan an event, create a piece of artwork to be displayed at one of our stations or maybe you’re a social media whizz, whatever your favourite activities we would be interested in hearing from you, email [email protected] or visit our website http://kentcrp.org/get-involved.

Page 34 6 Appendix B Funders and Partners

Kent CRP is very grateful to its Funders and Partners, without their continued support we would be unable to bring new life to our secondary lines on Kent’s Rail Network and thus secure their future.

• Barming Parish Council

• East Malling and Larkfield Parish Council

• Queensborough Town Council

• Snodland Town Council

• RailFuture (London and SE)

Funders • Yalding and Beltring Parish Council

• Aylesford Parish Council • Network Rail • British Transport Police • North Kent Rail User Group • Cuxton Parish Council • Nu-Venture • East Farleigh Parish Council • Paddock Wood Town Council • Explore Kent • Passenger Focus • Halling Parish Council • Promote Kent • Maidstone Borough Council • Swale Borough Council • Minster-on-Sea Parish Council • Tonbridge & Malling Borough Couuncil

Partners • Nettlestead Parish Council • Tonbridge Town Team

Contact Us Therese Hammond Project Officer [email protected] • 07917 131248

Andy Place Engagement Officer [email protected] • 07920 088441

Steering Group - Chair : Chris Fribbins

Medway Valley Line - Chair : James Willis

Swale Rail Line - Chair: Linda Brinklow Vice Chair: Jonathan Fryer

Kent CRP is hosted by Sustrans Website: www.kentcrp.org.uk Twitter: @kentcrp1

Kent Community Rail Partnership , Maidstone West Station, Station Kent Community Rail Partnership Approach, The Broadway, Maidstone Kent, ME16 8RJ Page 35 7 Appendix B

Page 36 Annual Report 2018 - 2019 Medway Valley and Swale Rail Agenda Item 6

Joint Transportation Board 25 January 2021

Cornford Lane/Halls Hole Road

Presentation to be given by the Cornford Lane/Halls Hole Road Residents Association

Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A

Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road Agenda Item – JTB 25th January

Summary

The Friends of Cornford Lane and The Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Residents Association have for very many years requested for action to be taken to resolve the considerable and growing danger to safety, the environment and the economy caused by the excessive volume, weight and speed of traffic using the roads as a rat-run to avoid entirely the A264 – the main road designed to carry traffic in and out of Tunbridge Wells.

We request that the Members of the TWBC Joint Transportation Board vote on 25th January to set up a Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road Working Group which includes representatives from both roads to review the problems and consider schemes to be implemented to resolve those problems.

Background

Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road are two historic roads lying within and overlooking the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Cornford Lane ranks 3rd highest value out of 167 local lanes in TWBC’s Rural Lanes Planning Guidance document and both roads provide rich biodiverse habitat. They also offer unique potential less than 2 miles from Tunbridge Wells for ‘Active Travel’ through an area of high landscape and amenity value which connects Tunbridge Wells, Pembury, Hawkenbury, Sherwood and Dunorlan Park. Links to High Woods Lane and the Tonbridge Cycle Route via Blackhurst Lane extend this potential further.

Danger

During the first Lockdown from 21st March 2020 the absence of traffic allowed these routes to demonstrate their value daily as walkers, runners and riders, sometimes numbering in their hundreds, used and enjoyed these roads.

At all other times, however, this amenity is lost. Excessive and ever-increasing volumes of traffic, including high numbers of commercial vehicles and frequent HGVs, use the routes habitually or led by Sat Nav. While this use was originally at peak times to avoid congestion on the A264, it can now be seen increasingly at any time.

This traffic causes extreme danger both to personal safety and the environment, as well as serious emergency access obstruction and economic loss due to regular gridlocks, and use of the routes for Active Travel is almost non-existent.

Safety

Accidents, caused by careless and speeding drivers, have occurred regularly over many years. Severity ranges from minor knocks to vehicles driving through hedges, colliding head on and even rolling over as well as injuries to people not in vehicles. Injury accidents involving the emergency services are not uncommon and both residents and residential care homes within the roads have experienced and reported serious near-misses and injury accidents.

To quote one local councillor’s comment regarding these problems:

“Absolutely total bloody madness and it’s not going to change unless something fundamental is done.”

1

Page 39 Appendix A

Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road Agenda Item – JTB 25th January

Environment

Environmental damage to the roads continues to accelerate. Verges are continually macerated by vehicles trying to pass one another on single track sections and plant life has been decimated. Hedgerows described by KCC as ‘Species Rich Intact’ have been undermined and crushed and habitats destroyed. The 6’6” width restriction in Halls Hole Road is blatantly disregarded and no attempt is made to enforce it. The weight of traffic is rapidly collapsing several sections of the south side of Cornford Lane into the lower adjacent fields while massive verge erosion and vibration of traffic is causing the higher banks on the north side to slip down to the road. The historic sandstone wall in Halls Hole Road is repeatedly damaged and bank erosion and landslips have at the north end has undermined large and specimen trees. All of this, combined with the reduction in air quality and the disturbance from the noise of vehicles and horns plus the shouting and abusive language of frustrated and angry drivers has led to further loss of biodiversity.

Economic Loss

Emergency access obstruction and economic loss due to the now frequent gridlocks is significant. Regular delays, often lasting 40 to 60 minutes, occur at any time on any day of the week. Vehicles are unable to move and residents can neither leave nor return to their homes. Emergency service access to homes, and in particular the care homes within the roads, is impossible and the consequences of such delays in the event of fire, serious illness or criminal activity could be life changing. Economic loss is significant with the miles of cars trapped within the gridlocks able neither to move in any direction nor reach their destination and valuable work time is lost. Frustration from delays results in anger and aggression as well as unauthorised access as drivers use and damage private driveways and gates to clear the road. Major repairs to the collapsing substructure of parts of the roads are imminent and will require considerable funding.

History

For many years The Halls Hole Road and Cornford Lane Residents Association and The Friends of Cornford Lane have campaigned for TWBC and KCC to address these problems that have been increasing in severity since 1990. During this time many councillors and council officers have acknowledged that there are, here, serious issues that need addressing and yet, despite a long history of discussion and a wealth of policies, both in place or proposed, to encourage councils to protect rural lanes such as these and to promote Active Travel, nothing has been resolved neither has any action been taken to address these issues.

Twenty five years of discussion culminated in 2014 with KCC Highways, at the request of the JTB, proposing 5 options for addressing the problems in Cornford Lane. A public exhibition of their proposals was followed by a public consultation. 223 responses to their proposals recorded a 79% support for a trial closure of Cornford Lane to through traffic. However for reasons not supported by any evidence we could see, the JTB passed a last minute proposal to defer any further progress on the closure of Cornford Lane, until such time as the Borough Transport Strategy had been amended, to include specific reference to Pembury Road. The Transport Strategy was published over five years ago, but progress on Cornford Lane appears still to be deferred.

From the onset of Covid 19 the government realised the importance of safe routes for Active Travel and in July 2020 provided funding for schemes to this. The Friends of Cornford Lane submitted suggestions for both Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road to be considered under this scheme but no interest was shown by the councillors and council officers involved (although ironically Reynolds Lane became Access Only!)

2

Page 40 Appendix A

Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road Agenda Item – JTB 25th January

The Way Forward

For 30 years the problems of these roads have been neglected and the suffering caused by them, as predicted continues, to escalate. The Draft Local Plan and current planning consents indicate the extraordinary amount of local development forecast in the next 10 years and the traffic implications this will bring are obvious.

Many of us live with these problems all day and every day, the residents of both roads, the workers and vulnerable residents of the care homes. We have no choice but to use the roads. Others suffer too – those who are delayed in the gridlocks, those who are injured here, those upset by the aggression shown by some drivers, those whose vehicles are damaged, those who are denied the opportunity to use these exceptional routes for walking, running and riding, and not least those species that rely on the fragile environment that is currently being destroyed.

If no action is taken to address these problems we shall require the JTB to answer many questions including:

 Why Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road are routinely ignored in schemes to alleviate traffic problems?  Why with evidence of numerous accidents the safety of the users of these roads warrants no consideration?  Why no action is being taken to counter the environmental threats to these two roads in an era when the need to safeguard our environment for this and future generations?  Why no action has been taken since the 2014 voted for scheme was deferred?  Why, with so many formal documents guiding TWBC to protect roads such as Cornford Lane and Halls Hole Road, has nothing been done?

Proposal

“The Friends of Cornford Lane request the Members of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board to propose and agree to a motion on 25th January to set up a Halls Hole Road and Cornford Lane Working Group to review the many problems of these two roads and to develop a scheme to address them. The group must include representatives from Halls Hole Road and Cornford Lane”.

We are aware of the new proposal for a roundabout to replace the A264/Halls Hole Road traffic lights and as ever are very disappointed that there has been no discussion of this with us. This increases the need for such a Working Group to be formed. It will create the opportunity for long-ignored problems to be debated fully without the constraints imposed by 3-minute presentations at the JTB with never time for full discussion and development of ideas.

Footnote – The Friends of Cornford Lane have a proposal that they would like the Working Group to consider - a scheme for traffic management in Halls Hole Road and Cornford Lane which would not only address the problems within these two roads, but also have the potential to considerably reduce traffic delays at the Halls Hole Road / Pembury Road traffic light intersection. This scheme has the interest and support of many of the residents of both roads as well as the Pembury Society and the Tunbridge Wells Town Forum. Hawkenbury Village Association is also currently reviewing the scheme.

For further information please contact The Friends of Cornford Lane

Howard Mackenzie [email protected] Gary Palmer [email protected]

3

Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Near-Miss Register for Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board

25 January 2021

Lead Director: Paul Taylor – Director of Change & Communities TWBC

Head of Service: Denise Haylett – Head of Facilities & Community Hubs/David Candlin – Head of Economic Development & Property TWBC

Report Authors: Hilary Smith – Economic Development Manager/Terry Hughes – Community Safety Manager TWBC

Classification: Public document

Wards Affected: All

Summary and Recommendation

Following a motion at Full Council, TWBC officers have explored the possibility of setting up a Near-Miss database/register for the borough so that residents can report incidents that they are concerned about. This report sets out the work that has been undertaken to date and requests that JTB discuss the proposed initiative and makes a recommendation about next steps.

Introduction and Background

At Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Full Council on 26 February 2020 the following motion was put forward:

We request Cabinet to instruct the council’s officers to investigate the cost, means and viability of establishing and maintaining a near-miss register to cover the roads in Tunbridge Wells Borough. This would consist of:

• A database of near misses • A telephone line, postal address, email address and webpage to report near misses • The staff time (and associated costs) to establish and run the register • Integration of other data such as killed and seriously injured records

The debate on the motion included the following comments:

• Road safety was a major concern for residents. Although responsibility for this sat mainly with Kent County Council, action could still be taken forward by TWBC. • The introduction of a near-miss register would be a tool that would be able to assess where there was greatest risk and predict where most accidents were likely to occur. Action could then be taken before somebody was either killed or seriously injured.

Page 43 Agenda Item 7

• This system was already in use by the Ministry of Defence and in aviation. It was also used extensively in Australia and New Zealand. • The term ‘near miss’ was subjective and would always have to rely on the judgement of those who were involved. • Those involved in a ‘near miss’ should be provided with a means to report it which in turn would provide a set of data that could be analysed and if necessary remedial measures could be considered. • The motion asked that instruction be given to investigate the costs, means and viability of establishing and maintaining a near miss register to cover the roads in the Borough of Tunbridge Wells.

Following this debate, Full Council resolved to refer the matter to JTB for discussion.

Establishing the register

Following the Full Council request above, the Digital Team at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has investigated and advised that creating a simple near-miss register is feasible and low cost when utilising existing e-forms or interactive mapping applications. This assumes the near miss register is a simple reporting tool where a user would find a location on the map then complete a proforma asking for information about the near-miss.

North Lincolnshire Unitary Authority offers an example of a near-miss reporting form on which we would base ours: https://www.northlincs.gov.uk/site/forms/form-near-miss-incident- report/

It is proposed that the following information be collected:

• Customer name, address and contact details • Incident location (map and / or address) • Incident date and time • Description of vehicles involved • Direction of travel • Road surface condition • Light conditions • Damage to street furniture • Description of incident

A privacy policy would need to be created for the service.

Technical officers would ensure the maintenance of the database, dealing with any errors or exceptions as they occur and developing it as new requirements arise, but these are not expected to be a significant call on their time.

An export of the data could be provided on a regular basis as necessary, e.g. quarterly.

The Full Council motion suggests that other data, such as killed or seriously injured records should be incorporated into the near-miss register. Attempting to incorporate this data changes the purpose of the near-miss register from being a relatively simple data collection form, to a data integration, display and potentially analysis tool which will require significant

Page 44 Agenda Item 7

additional investment in officer time and perhaps software and is not considered necessary as other systems already fulfil this purpose.

Issues for Discussion

As indicated above, North Lincolnshire, a unitary authority, has had a near-miss register in place for a little over eight years. They too, provide only a web form for reporting but people are able to call the Highways Team’s general number to submit a report. Conversations with colleagues at North Lincs have indicated that the service has not been used a great deal. They have stated that some reports have been useful, some less so, and there has been some abuse. Understandably, the biggest issue to date in North Lincs has been classifying what constitutes a near miss.

The opportunity for Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to provide a similar service for residents has been discussed with a Transport Intelligence Team Leader from KCC Highways who acknowledges that a near-miss register may be useful in some circumstances to understand possible risk on the highway network. He agrees, though, that as with North Lincs, the service could be misused, and accuracy of reporting would be a further issue.

The statutory requirement for KCC Highways is to review and validate injury-only collisions but damage-only collisions recorded by Kent Police are also considered now as part of a wider understanding of incidents that occur on the network.

Reported near misses, as with all collisions, would be random events and would not necessarily improve the casualty reduction measures that are in place or currently being considered by Kent Highways Schemes team.

The KCC Transport Intelligence Team is, however, happy for TWBC to produce a quarterly report to be sent to the Crash Data email address ([email protected]) so that it can be cross-checked against other collision data. While the number of reported incidents may be low, the data should show if this would be useful over the longer term.

In addition, KCC has informed TWBC that it is currently developing its Casualty Reduction Strategy and as part of this, consideration will be given as to how to use additional data to inform where and when interventions are made. One of the data sources that will be looked at is near miss/damage only statistics.

Even if the data collected is not of assistance from a KCC Highways perspective in the short term, it could still provide opportunities for local awareness-raising initiatives or campaigns which could then be taken forward by the Tunbridge Wells Community Safety Unit. Such action would be taken forward under the Road Safety priority (one of four identified priorities) of the Tunbridge Wells Community Safety Partnership Plan, agreed in July 2020.

Recommendation

This paper asks JTB to consider this potential initiative and provide a recommendation on a way forward regarding a Near-Miss Register for Tunbridge Wells.

Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

High Woods Lane, Hawkenbury – Parking Issues

For Joint Transportation Board on 25th January 2021

Summary

Lead Director: Lee Colyer – Director of Finance, Policy and Development Head of Service: Jane Fineman – Head of Finance and Procurement Report Author: Nick Baldwin – Senior Engineer Classification: Public document Wards Affected: Park

Recommendation

That the Board endorses the advertising of a traffic regulation order for additional waiting restrictions as detailed in this report.

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 In 2018, permit parking was introduced in Hawkenbury. This followed an extensive consultation process, during which this Board was updated through reports at key stages. Further consultation on a possible extension to the zone (HA) took place late in 2019 with amendments coming into effect in July 2020. 1.2 During the course of developing Zone HA, one issue arose on several occasions, that being parking in High Woods Lane. The lane, which begins at a junction with Halls Hole Road, is bordered on one side by residential properties and on the other largely by Hawkenbury allotments. The level of parking along the lane has increased in recent years and some local residents have requested a greater level of restriction. 1.3 This report provides details of the development of permit parking in Hawkenbury, the issues which have existed in High Woods Lane and proposes actions in response to comments from local residents.

Page Page 47 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 1 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

2. Permit Parking in Hawkenbury

2.1 Although several streets in Hawkenbury had experienced high levels of on-street parking demand for several decades, it was only when the former Land Registry building was occupied by AXA PPP that complaints began to be made about parking problems and the idea of introducing permit parking arose. 2.2 The matter was first reported to this Board in February 2016. At that time, the results of an informal consultation with residents were detailed. Three residents of High Woods Lane responded to the consultation with 2 stating that there were, at that time, no parking issues in the lane and one saying yes there were. All three, however, indicated that they did not favour permit parking. 2.3 A January 2017 Board report detailed responses to a further consultation in which a specific proposal for permit parking and yellow line waiting restrictions was detailed. Whilst nothing was initially proposed for High Woods Lane or the roads leading off it – Cleeve Avenue and Chester Avenue - comments received as part of the consultation responses led to a change in the proposals which included a single yellow line on both sides of High Woods Lane and Chester Avenue, with no waiting allowed between the hours of 10am to midday and 2pm to 4pm. 2.4 Members endorsed the proposals as outlined at the January 2017 Board meeting and these were subsequently advertised in a public consultation exercise during June of that year. That resulted, amongst other things, in objections to a restriction on the north-east side of High Woods Lane because of its negative impact on allotment holders. The overall proposal was amended to exclude the yellow line from the allotments side of High Woods Lane but left the remainder as advertised. Because of the overall number of changes proposed, an amended traffic regulation order was advertised in September 2017 and the results reported to the October meeting of this Board. No comments were received in respect of High Woods Lane. 2.5 Permit parking areas and associated yellow line restrictions were duly introduced and became effective on 5th February 2018. The intention was that the scheme would be reviewed after being given time to settle and this was duly done during the summer and autumn of 2019, with details being reported to the October 2019 meeting of this Board. 2.6 It will be noted that, in the appendices to that report, several comments were made in respect of High Woods Lane. These are repeated in Appendix A to this report. It is important to stress, however, that any restrictions on parking would not apply to the lay-by opposite the houses. 2.7 A report to this Board in February 2020 detailed the statutory consultation which subsequently took place and proposed amendments to the Zone HA restrictions, including the introduction of permit parking to previously unrestricted streets. No proposals were made in respect of High Woods Lane because, at that time, the land ownership issue was still being investigated.

Page Page 48 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 2 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

3. High Woods Lane

3.1 High Woods Lane is a single carriageway road on the outskirts of Hawkenbury leading from Halls Hole Road into farmland to the south-west of Tunbridge Wells. Approximately the first 220m of the lane is publicly maintainable highway after which it becomes a private road leading to the bowling club and agricultural land. 3.2 Within the publicly maintainable section of the lane, only the carriageway and footway on the south-western side are highway. The verge on the north-eastern side is not maintainable at public expense. This means that any restrictions imposed on the lane would not apply to that verge which, in places, is wide enough to accommodate vehicles completely clear of the carriageway. 3.3 The allotment land to the north-east of High Woods Lane is owned by the Borough Council and leased to the Hawkenbury Allotment Holders Association. That ownership only extends to the hedge bordering the allotments and, therefore, excludes the verge between the hedge and carriageway. This means that neither the highway authority nor Borough Council exercise any control over the verge. 3.4 The consequence of this is that vehicles parked wholly off the carriageway cannot be managed by the Borough Council. Nor do any waiting restrictions imposed on the highway apply to it. In other parts of the lane, where the verge is narrower, a vehicle would have to park at least partly on the carriageway meaning that any waiting restrictions would apply to those vehicles. 3.5 Since the introduction of permit parking residents of High Woods Lane have, from time to time, complained about parking by AXA staff in the lane. It has been explained that, although we could seek to impose restrictions on parking, that would not stop it from happening where vehicles could be parked wholly off the highway, that land being mainly opposite the few residential dwellings which front onto the lane. 3.6 AXA were contacted in response to suggestions that staff were continuing to park in High Woods Lane during lockdown but were adamant that no staff would be doing so since there were much reduced numbers of staff at the Forest Road site and the on- site car park was available for their use. 3.7 A further consideration is that any restrictions would also affect allotment holders since a yellow line waiting restriction applies to all vehicles. The other associated aspect is that the Borough Council does not have, and never has had, a policy of preventing long stay on-street parking wherever it occurs. Controls are only introduced where it is appropriate to do so within the terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. 3.8 Simply preferring parking by one long-stay non-resident rather than another is not a legitimate reason for imposing restrictions. Preserving or improving amenities; preventing danger or damage; removing unsuitable vehicles and/or managing air quality are appropriate reasons but none of these could, for instance, legitimately differentiate between a local worker and an allotment holder. 3.9 Notwithstanding the comments made in the preceding paragraphs, there is acknowledged to have been a growing issue in High Woods Lane, with parking along

Page Page 49 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 3 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

one side often forming an almost unbroken line of vehicles, mostly parked at least partly on the verge which, in turn, causes damage and restricts the remaining width of carriageway for moving traffic. 3.10 The 2020 pandemic resulted in different working arrangements and parking behaviour has changed as a consequence, in some instances quite significantly, so it has not been an ideal year for undertaking parking surveys. Work has, however, been done to try and ascertain the scale of any problem. 3.11 Because comments had been made about parking in High Woods Lane over a period of time following the 2018 introduction of permit parking in Hawkenbury, a survey was undertaken in the first half of 2019 and further information about parking numbers was gathered during October and November 2020. The 2020 survey was, therefore, conducted both immediately before and during the second national lockdown. 3.12 As might be expected, parking numbers dropped significantly during 2020. Between January and June 2019, the average number of vehicles parked in High Woods Lane was 20.67 but in the two months of recorded data for 2020, the average was 13.3. The numbers ranged between 13 and 27 in 2019 and 6 and 17 during 2020. 3.13 It seems clear from these figures that Covid-19 and lockdown had a significant impact on the level of parking in the lane. What is also apparent is that the volume of parking before and during the second period of lockdown was unchanged – the average before is 13.33 and during is 13.28 vehicles. 3.14 It was further noted during site visits that some at least of the vehicles parking in the lane belonged to allotment holders which was also to be expected. A check of registration numbers taken during the 2019 and 2020 surveys showed very few repeats. Of the vehicles that were parked in High Woods Lane in the 2019 survey, only 4 appeared during 2020. With a total of 124 different vehicle registration numbers recorded over the two survey periods, that is a very low (3.2%) number of repeats. 3.15 Although different interpretations could be placed on the lack of repeat registrations between 2019 and 2020, one might be that local workers who may have been parking in the lane in 2019 were not present in 2020. That would certainly accord with AXA’s statement that no staff would be parking there. A visual check of their car park on several occasions showed it to be operating at substantially less than capacity on each visit.

4. Possible Courses of Action and Recommendation

4.1 Bearing in mind the foregoing comments, there are a limited range of possible options for the lane. Do nothing remains a viable option since there is little harm being caused by the present parking situation, other than an unsightly verge and possibly some delays to through traffic. Those issues do, however, fall in line with reasons why a restriction can be imposed and it is, therefore, considered legitimate to at least consider their introduction

Page Page 50 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 4 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

4.2 Since there is already a single yellow line on one side of the street, it would be possible to introduce the same on the allotment side, as had originally been intended. That would, however, almost certainly result in the same objections – to the effect that allotment holders would be adversely impacted. It is not, therefore, considered to be a good option. 4.3 Another possibility would be to introduce a single yellow line that, instead of preventing parking for four hours of each weekday, restricted it for a much shorter period, say one hour per day Monday to Friday. If timed correctly, this could prevent commuters or office/retail workers from parking in the lane whilst having less impact on residents or allotment holders. This restriction could be imposed along the whole of the north-east side or at selected points where the carriageway is narrowest to allow two vehicles to pass. 4.4 Introducing permit parking could be an option but there has been little unqualified demand for it from nearby residents so that is not something that would be advocated in the foreseeable future. 4.5 It is important to stress that, whichever option is chosen, there would remain no control over parking on the wider areas of verge. It is understood that residents frequently use that space despite all properties in High Woods Lane having their own off-street parking facilities. 4.6 Taking all the above points into consideration, the two most viable options at present are a) Do Nothing and, b) Introduce a single yellow line on at least part of the north- eastern side of High Woods Lane. 4.7 Since it is anticipated that parking demand may return to something resembling pre- Covid levels over the next year or so, and if it is accepted that parking was problematical before March 2020, action now should prevent any recurrence of previous concerns. 4.8 To avoid inconveniencing allotment holders as much as possible, the Hawkenbury Allotment Holders Association have been contacted and they have indicated that a weekday 11am to Midday restriction would work best for their members. 4.9 Any consideration of additional restrictions in High Woods Lane should also include mention of Cleeve Avenue, where there are currently no restrictions on parking. Although little interest has been shown for permit parking in that street, the informal consultation in 2019 resulted in concerns being expressed by two respondents about non-resident parking. 4.10 On balance, it is considered most appropriate to promote a restriction on waiting between 11am and midday, Monday to Friday which extends along the whole length of the north-east side of High Woods Lane plus on both sides of Cleeve Avenue. 4.11 Since no informal consultation has taken place in respect of this and because residents of only two streets would be directly affected, and due to the unusual current circumstances, it is proposed to write to each resident of High Woods Lane and Cleeve Avenue explaining what is being proposed. Depending on the response, a traffic regulation order will be advertised. If any objections are received as a

Page Page 51 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 5 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

consequence of the latter process, the matter will be referred back to this Board with a further recommendation. 4.12 It must be understood, however, that the above proposal would still not impact on parking in the unofficial off-highway lay-by near the Halls Hole Road junction and anybody would still be able to park there without risk of receiving a Penalty Charge Notice.

5. Next Steps

5.1 Subject to this Board’s endorsement of the above, residents of the affected areas – High Woods Lane and Cleeve Avenue - will be written to indicating the suggested restriction. Depending on the response, a traffic regulation order will be advertised and any objections considered, with the results being reported to the April meeting of the Board. If there are no objections, and subject to KCC endorsing the proposal, the traffic regulation order will be made without further reference to Members.

6. Appendices and Background Documents

Appendices: • Appendix A: Comments received in respect of High Woods Lane in 2019 • Appendix B: Existing Waiting Restrictions Background Papers: • February 2016 JTB - https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=186&MId=3473& Ver=4 • January 2017 JTB - https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=186&MId=3641& Ver=4 • July 2017 JTB - https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=186&MId=3934& Ver=4 • October 2017 JTB - https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=186&MId=3935& Ver=4 • October 2019 JTB - https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=186&MId=4436& Ver=4

Page Page 52 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 6 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

• February 2020 JTB - https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=186&MId=4437& Ver=4

Page Page 53 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 7 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

Appendix A Comments Received in respect of High Woods Lane in 2019 Road Comment High Woods In the last couple of years and following the introduction of the restrictions Lane throughout the village, parking end to end in High Woods Lane opposite the houses has become intolerable. Residents, their visitors and users of the HAHA community facility are denied access during weekdays. The predominant ‘culprits’ are from AXA, which has never made proper parking provisions on site for their employees, who number around 1000! Other agencies in the area, which have expanded their premises at the expense of their previous on-site parking areas, commuters to TW and London have added to the problems. The constant flow of heavy vehicles to/from the farms and businesses in the High Woods Lane is making the narrow lane unsafe for pedestrians and residential car users, when there are so many cars etc parked on the verges. Therefore, we would support additional restrictions opposite the houses providing neither the residents or the many HAHA plot holders are penalised in any way. A possible solution would be a single yellow line with timed restrictions and permits issued to plot holders, printed by HAHA, at no cost, which are recognised as valid by TWBC. NB. HAHA plot holders already contribute to the cost of the lease agreement with TWBC through their subscriptions/rents. The parking issues we experience are that (mostly) Axa workers park in the bays at the top of High Woods Lane opposite our house. This land has historically been used by the HAHA allotment holders, especially older and disabled members as this is the entrance to the specially designed plots there. Axa staff (and others) regularly block these bays out for the duration of the day, preventing use by allotment holders and residents alike who also use the bays there when appropriate. We only need to use the bays for visitors or when work vehicles need to park on our drive. The lane had a small grass verge along its entire length but that has been eroded as more cars from outside the area have had to seek alternative parking since the introduction of parking measures elsewhere and this has worsened in the last year making the road narrow for the farm vehicles and coaches that regularly visit the area. The only reservation we have is that Residents Only Parking will penalise both residents and allotment holders in order to prevent Axa staff being inconsiderate. It would make sense to avoid ambiguity and formalise the parking for residents with a parking pass with allotment and local occasional users having access to the scratch card passes for temporary use as and when. It has also been suggested that HAHA operate a pass of their own as many residents are plot holders too but unfortunately, TWBC has not supported this in the past. IF A YELLOW LINE IS CONSIDERED THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THE PARKING PROBLEM, BELIEVE D TO BECAUSED BY AXA PERSONNEL , WOULD YOU THEN CONSIDER ALLOWING THE HAWKENBURY ALLOTMENT ASSC. TO ISSUE FREE PERMITS TO PLOT HOLDERS ONLY. THIS WOULD ALLOW YHEM TO ACCESS THEIR PLOT AT ANY TIME. THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS NEED ONLY TO APPLY DURING THE WEEK AND NOT WEEKENDS.

Page Page 54 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 8 of 9 [Insert report title here]

Agenda Item 8

Appendix B Existing Waiting Restrictions

The current restrictions in High Woods Lane and Chester Avenue, as denoted by the broken yellow lines, are No Waiting 10am – Midday and 2pm – 4pm, Monday to Friday

Page Page 55 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 9 of 9 [Insert report title here]

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

For Joint Transportation Board on Monday 25th January 2021

Summary

Lead Director: Lee Colyer – Director of Finance, Policy and Development Head of Service: Jane Fineman – Head of Finance and Procurement Report Author: Nick Baldwin – Senior Engineer Classification: Public document Wards Affected: Culverden

Recommendations

That Members endorse the recommendation to begin a formal consultation on a proposal to expand Permit Parking Zone C and report any objections to a future meeting of this Board.

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 In 2017, a report to this Board recommended an extension to Permit Parking Zone C subject to resolution of an issue in the existing zone. That issue, which was in essence the simplification of restrictions, was not resolved and the proposed extension did not take place. 1.2 This left the question of whether an expansion of the zone was necessary or appropriate unanswered since no formal public consultation ever took place. To resolve this, a further informal consultation has taken place to update residents views prior to the possible advertising of a traffic regulation order for permit parking restrictions. 1.3 This report details the extent of the new survey, the questions that were asked and the responses received together with the options available and a recommendation about whether to proceed to a statutory public consultation.

Page Page 57 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 1 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

2. The Consultation Process and Content

2.1 When amendments are proposed to a permit parking zone, or a new zone is being considered, it has been our standard practice to initially carry out a targeted consultation to establish the views of those living in the affected area. This ensures that no proposals are taken to the more complex and costly formal consultation stage without a broad level of support from those most directly affected. 2.2 In this instance, an area for consultation had been established in 2017 which resulted in a report to the July 2017 meeting of this Board, a link to the report can be found at the end of this report under the heading of background papers. For the latest re-consultation, it was decided to stick with roughly the same area since there was no evidence to suggest that parking issues had expanded outwards. The area over which the consultation took place can be seen in Appendix A. 2.3 Prior to and during the consultation period, on-street surveys of parking were undertaken to enable a comparison between observed levels of parking and resident responses about parking problems.

3. Survey Results

3.1 Residents were given a month to complete and return a questionnaire and a summary of their responses is provided at Appendix B. 3.2 The current level of support for permit parking can be compared with observational surveys of average parking stress levels at Appendix C. This drawing also shows the proposed area for formal consultation shaded blue. 3.3 It is apparent from the responses that, whilst there has been some shift in opinion in respect of pre-Covid parking issues and those experienced since the various restrictions on movement and working practice have taken place, there is still support for permit parking in a number of streets. 3.4 The current interest in permit parking is also broadly reflected in the observed levels of daytime parking. 3.5 Whilst the overall level of response was not high and it can be seen that, in total, more were against the idea of permit parking, this needs to be put in context. The area surveyed was greater than currently considered appropriate for an expansion to permit parking, the reason for that being to ensure that we captured as many views as possible and avoid excluding marginal areas. 3.6 Overall, only 85 of 177 respondents favoured the idea of permit parking but, when marginal streets/areas are excluded, the preference shifts to 84 out of 150 responses in favour.

Page Page 58 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 2 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

3.7 The streets excluded, by virtue of their location and limited response were Coniston Avenue, Culverden Down and Connaught Way. 3.8 The 150 responses mentioned at 3.6 were further reduced by eliminating two more streets. Byng Road, which was neutral in 2017, now has a significant bias towards no further restrictions. Court Road also produced a substantially negative response. 3.9 Of the nine Oakdale Road residents who replied, four were in favour of permit parking and five against. This street, which had previously expressed support for permit parking, is sandwiched between Molyneux Park Road and Boyne Park, both of which returned a positive response to permit parking, although the lower (western) part of Molyneux Park Road also produced a largely negative view. 3.10 In producing a final list of streets for a potential expansion of Zone C, Oakdale Road was included, along with Molyneux Park Road, Mayfield Road, Boyne Park, Royal Chase, Somerville Gardens, Earls Road and Hurstwood Lane.

4. Options Considered

4.1 Since there was still support for permit parking and evidence of high levels of parking stress in some areas, the most appropriate course of action appeared to be to promote a new restriction in appropriate streets. 4.2 Once the streets where there was little or no support had been filtered out and the final list at 3.10 compiled, the next step was to decide on a restriction for the purposes of a formal consultation process. 4.3 Permit parking restrictions usually take the form of either a daytime restriction on parking beyond a specified time period with an exemption for resident permit holders or a period, or periods, of the day during which only permit holders can park. 4.4 Whilst there is no established method of deciding which type of restriction should be employed, it is generally considered more appropriate to have time limited waiting with exemptions in streets nearer the town centre where short-stay parking is more popular. Where non-resident daytime parking is more often likely to be by commuters or local workers, a specified period of the day where only permit holders can park is often considered more appropriate. 4.5 In this instance, it is believed that non-resident parking is generally for long-stay purposes, so a single period of the day during which permits are required to park should achieve the desired result. 4.6 In deciding which period to restrict, the ability to enforce is an important consideration as is the likelihood of non-permit holders being able to circumvent the restriction. With that in mind, it is considered that a late morning restriction, say 10am to mid-day on Mondays to Fridays would be the most beneficial. This takes into account the proximity to existing patrol routes and also reflects the generally low level of response and current abnormal circumstances.

Page Page 59 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 3 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

4.7 Although Oakdale Road and the whole of Molyneux Park Road would be included for the purposes of formal consultation, if the restriction proved to be unpopular we could exclude parts without further consultation being necessary, as would also be the case in other streets where support was outweighed by objection to a specific proposal.

5. The Next Steps

5.1 Subject to Member endorsement of the proposal, a detailed design will take place and a formal consultation undertaken. The results of that will be reported to a future meeting of this Board.

6. Appendices and Background Documents

Appendices: • Appendix A: 2020 Consultation Area • Appendix B: Summary of 2020 Consultation Responses • Appendix C: Parking surveys compared with resident responses Background Papers: • July 2017 JTB Report - https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/documents/g3934/Public%20reports%2 0pack%2017th-Jul- 2017%2018.00%20Joint%20Transportation%20Board.pdf?T=10

Page Page 60 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 4 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

Appendix A

Area Surveyed

Page Page 61 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 5 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

Page Page 62 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 6 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

Appendix B Summary of Responses

Properties Response In Not in Percentage in Road Consulted Rate favour Favour Favour Molyneux Park Road 134 20% 17 10 63% Coniston Avenue (part) 52 35% 0 18 0% Mayfield Road 20 30% 4 2 67% Court Road 51 43% 3 19 14% Boyne Park (part) 55 40% 18 4 82% Culverden Down (part) 18 39% 1 6 14% Connaught Way (part) 16 6% 0 1 0% Royal Chase (part) 29 38% 8 3 73% Somerville Gardens 18 67% 9 3 75% Byng Road 38 53% 6 14 30% Oakdale Road 29 31% 4 5 44% Earls Road 43 44% 12 7 63% Hurstwood Lane 13 23% 3 0 100% TOTAL 85 92 48%

Page Page 63 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 7 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

Appendix C Responses Compared to Observed Parking Stress

Page Page 64 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 8 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

Agenda Item 9

Page Page 65 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 9 of 9 Permit Parking Zone C Expansion Consultation

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

To: Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board

By: KCC Highways, Transportation & Waste

Date: 25th January 2021

Subject: Highway Forward Works Programme – 2019/20 onwards

Classification: Information Only

Summary: This report updates Members on the identified schemes approved for construction

1. Introduction

This report provides an update and summarises schemes that have been programmed for delivery in 2019/20.

Kent County Council has agreed a substantial increase in the budget for planned highway works over the next three years, and as a result we are still in the process of identifying and designing schemes for inclusion in our full Year One to Two (2019/20 and 2020/21) and Year Three to Five (2021/22 to 2023/24) programmes. Because of this, we have decided to publish an interim programme, and to publish the full programmes later this year. For some assets this interim programme covers approximately the first six months of 2019/20, whilst for others it includes most of the works planned for the whole year.

This programme is subject to regular review and may change for a number of reasons including budget allocation, contract rate changes, and to reflect KCC’s changing priorities. The programme and extent of individual sites within the programme may also be revised following engineering assessment during the design phase.

Road, Footway & Cycleway Renewal and Preservation Schemes – see Appendix A

Drainage Repairs & Improvements – see Appendix B

Street Lighting – see Appendix C

Transportation and Safety Schemes – see Appendix D • Casualty Reduction Measures • Externally funded schemes • Local Growth Fund

Developer Funded Works – see Appendix E

Bridge Works – see Appendix F

Traffic Systems – see Appendix G

Combined Member Fund – see Appendix H

Conclusion

1. This report is for Members’ information.

Page 67 Agenda Item 10

Contact Officers:

The following contact officers can be contacted on 03000 418181

Richard Emmett Highway Manager West Kent Julian Cook Tunbridge Wells District Manager Alan Casson Strategic Asset Manager Earl Bourner Drainage & Structures Asset Manager Sue Kinsella Street Light Asset Manager Toby Butler Traffic & Network Solutions Asset Manager Jamie Hare Development Agreements Manager Emma Green Schemes Programme Manager

Page 68 Agenda Item 10

Appendix A – Road, Footway and Cycleway Renewal and Preservation Scheme

The delivery of these schemes is weather dependent; should it prove not possible to carry out these works on the planned dates, new dates will be arranged and the residents will be informed by a letter drop to their homes.

Machine Resurfacing – Contact Officer Mr Byron Lovell

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

Between Dorset Road and th Forest Road Tunbridge Wells Programmed 16 Boundary Road March 2021

From the A228 to just north th Tonbridge Road Pembury Programmed 9 of the Hospital Turning March 2021

From Mount Pleasant Road th Crescent Road Tunbridge Wells Programmed 4 to Calverley Road March 2021

Talbot Road to A268 Rye A229 Highgate Hill Hawkhurst To be programmed Road Spring 2021

Surface Treatments – Contact Officer Mr Jonathan Dean

Micro Surfacing

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

A26 London Road to Mill Bidborough Ridge Bidborough Court Complete (Micro Surfacing) Lower Green Road to Etherington Hill Speldhurst Gateway Complete (Micro Surfacing) From A26 to North Farm Road (Not including one Yew Tree Road Southborough Complete way loop) (Micro Surfacing) From A26 to Yew Tree Powder Mill Lane Southborough Road Complete (Micro Surfacing) From Speldhurst Road to Broomhill Road Rusthall Lower Green Road Complete (Micro Surfacing) Somer hill School to Tudeley Road Tudeley, Tonbridge Woodgate Roundabout Complete (Micro Surfacing)

Page 69 Agenda Item 10

From Brenchley Road to Matfield and Petteridge Lane Cyrals Road Complete Brenchley (Micro Surfacing) From Badsell Road to Maidstone Road Paddock Wood Station Road Complete (Micro Surfacing) Attwaters Lane to A268

Water Lane Hawkhurst Rye Road Partially Complete (Micro Surfacing) Ballards Hill to Chequers North Road Goudhurst Road Complete (Micro Surfacing) From Coach Road To Rusthall Road Rusthall Dingly Dell (A264) Complete (Micro Surfacing) From Bridge near curling rink to Gate TP approx Dundale Road Lamberhurst Complete 750m from A21 (Micro Surfacing) Inc Chruch Road from A26 Constitutional Hill Road Southbrorough to Holden Pond Complete (Inc Church Road) (Micro Surfacing) Langholm Road to End Stonewall Park Road Rusthall Complete (Micro Surfacing) From Camden Road to CANCELLED Royal Tunbridge Beech Close (The Spread Forest Road Moved to Machine Wells Eagle) (Leave HFS) Resurfacing (Micro Surfacing) Royal Tunbridge From A264 Pembury Road Complete (Some Bayhall Road Wells to Halls Hole Road lining works remains

Pembury Lower Green Road to A21 Complete Hastings Road (Micro Surfacing) Delmonden Lane to Horns Road Hawkhurst Avardis Close Complete (Surface Dressing) Little Maplesden to Cranbrook / Colebrook farm (Halden Stepneyford Lane Complete Benenden Lane) (Road Recycling) Rectory Park Road to Brick Kiln Lane Horsmonden Spelmonden Road Complete (Road Recycling)

Footway Improvement - Contact Officer Mr Neil Tree

Eastern side only between Designed and to be

the junctions of East Cliff programmed for

Road and New England commencement in St. Johns Road Tunbridge Wells Road. (Footway 2020/2021.

Page 70 Agenda Item 10

reconstruction of Red Brick Footway)

Designed to be

progressed Entire Length (consultation to be (Footway reconstruction of undertaken in Hopwood Gardens Tunbridge Wells Red Brick Footway) 2021/2022).

Various sections between Designed and

Tuxford Road and Bowen programmed to

Road commence in Southwood Road Rusthall (Footway Reconstruction) February 2021 .

Entire Length To be designed and (Footway Reconstruction) Erskine Park Road Rusthall programmed.

Designed and

programmed to Entire Length Bowen Road commence in (Footway Reconstruction) Rusthall January 2021

.

Page 71 Agenda Item 10

Appendix B – Drainage Repairs & Improvements

Drainage Repairs & Improvements - Contact Officer Earl Bourner

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status

Works are complete but a Drainage improvement on the defect order has roundabouts. Like for Like repair Longfield been raised & Tunbridge Wells of existing drainage together with Road, passed to additional gullies at low points to Contractor in reduce ponding of water relation to topsoiling/seeding Job passed to A CCTV survey has been contractor for Bakers Cross Cranbrook completed. Several pipework repairs to pipework repairs are required. defects

Frittenden Under further Sissinghurst Drainage Improvements Road investigation

Flood Risk Management Team Tunbridge lead project to work with the Project on hold as Wells Tunbridge Wells conservators of the commons to proposals not Common manage surface water run-off viable within the area Outline design of proposed drainage scheme completed, Drainage scheme for repair / and comments Major Yorks Tunbridge Wells replacement of existing highway sought from Road drainage Conservators of the Commons before detailed design progresses Clearance of existing ditches to Standen Benenden reduce flooding of highway and Works Complete Street property

Brock Kiln Horsmonden Repair of displaced drainage pipe Works Complete Lane

Furnace Drainage improvement works Horsmonden Works Complete Lane and clear / regrade ditches

Ladham Drainage improvement works Goudhurst Works Complete Road and clear / regrade ditches

School Horsmonden Drainage Improvement Works Works Complete House Lane

Free Heath Lamberhurst Drainage Improvement Works to Works Complete Page 72 Agenda Item 10

Road stop flooding of properties Drainage works to stop water Chapel Lane Sissinghurst Works Complete coming through the Carriageway.

Burnt House Drainage Improvement Works to Langton Green Works Complete Lane stop flooding of properties

Full survey of system from Church Lane to Sychem Lane, Further Five Oak Part Complete Five Oak Green works are on the system to Green Road complete work from Sychem Lane to Badsell Road Walkhurst Redesign of Drainage system to Benenden Works Complete Road get the system working Pembury Drainage works to get system Tunbridge Wells Works Complete Road working

Page 73 Agenda Item 10

Appendix C – Street Lighting

Structural testing of KCC owned illuminated sign has identified the following as requiring replacement. A status of complete identifies that the column replacement has been carried out. Programme dates are identified for those still requiring replacement.

Street Lighting Column Replacement – Contact Officer: Sue Kinsella

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status

Camden Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 column Complete One completed – access issues Hastings Road Pembury Replacement of 2 columns due to vegetation with the remaining Longfield Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 column Complete 2 Completed – further works required getting Rusthall High Street Rusthall Replacement of 4 columns power to the remaining columns 3 Completed 1 Sandhurst Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 4 columns remaining Bayham Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 column Feb 2021

Forest Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 5 columns Feb 2021

Rodmell Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 column Feb 2021

Cranwell Road Rusthall Replacement of 1 column Feb 2021

Maidstone Road Paddock Wood Replacement of 1 column Feb 2021

Replacement of 2 Belisha Eridge Road Tunbridge Wells Complete Beacon Posts

Pembury Northern Feb/Mar 2021 Pembury Replacement of 1 column Bypass

Goddards Green Benenden & Replacement of 3 Columns Feb 2021 Road Cranbrook

Lansdowne Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 Column Feb 2021 Benenden & Green Lane Replacement of 2 Columns Feb 2021 Cranbrook

Stone Street Cranbrook Replacement of 1 Columns Feb 2021

Page 74 Agenda Item 10

Appendix D – Transportation and Safety Schemes

Casualty Reduction Measures

The Schemes Planning & Delivery team is implementing schemes within Tunbridge Wells Borough, to meet Kent County Council’s (KCC) strategic targets (for example, addressing traffic congestion or improving road safety). Casualty reduction measures have been identified to address a known history of personal injury crashes. Current status correct as of 18th December 2020

Local Transport Plan funded schemes – Contact Officer: Fiona Paine

Road Name Description of Works Current Status

Casualty reduction measures (reactive) – Tunbridge Wells Works complete with defect. Awaiting A262/B2162 Signing / Lining Improvements defect rectification LTP Schemes - Tunbridge Wells Junction improvements to provide On hold due to COVID-19 (resource Carrs Corner pedestrian friendly measures and survey delays) A26 London Installation of a zebra crossing Handed over to contractor Road Signing / Lining Improvements to Lamberhurst traffic calming buildouts throughout Construction in progress village Royal Oak (A264 Junction improvements to provide On hold due to COVID-19 (resource Pembury Road greater capacity and survey delays) junction)

Externally Funded Schemes

The Schemes Planning & Delivery team is implementing schemes within the borough of Tunbridge Wells funded by external corporations whilst still meeting KCC’s strategic targets with the road network.

Externally Funded Schemes – Contact Officer: Fiona Paine Description of Source of Road Name Current Status Works Funding Tunbridge Wells Improvement works Tunbridge Wells Public Realm to the public realm Borough Council All works are complete Works

Local Growth Fund

Local Growth Fund programme update for Tunbridge Wells Borough

The Department for Transport (DfT) added £100m to the Local Growth Fund (LGF) pot in order to fund Local Sustainable Transport Fund Style schemes. KCC subsequently submitted four Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) capital bids 1) East Kent – A network for Growth, 2) Kent

Page 75 Agenda Item 10

Thameside – Integrated door-to-door journeys and 3) West Kent – Tackling Congestion. The fourth was for Tonbridge Town Centre Regeneration, which included a highway improvements scheme in the Lower High Street as well as additional LSTF style measures. The objective of all of the capital bids is to boost economic growth by decreasing carbon emissions and reducing congestion.

The Kent Thameside, West Kent and Tonbridge Town Centre Regeneration bids were all successful. The schemes aim to:

• improve access to employment and services • reduce the need to travel by the private car • enhance pedestrian, cycle and public transport facilities • improve sustainable transport connections

The following schemes have been submitted as part of the successful Kent Thameside LSTF this financial year.

Scheme Status On hold subject to conversations with TWBC and A26 Cycleway SELEP about the development of the scheme

Page 76 Agenda Item 10

Appendix E – Developer Funded Works

Developer Funded Works (Section 278 Agreement Works) – Contact Officer: James Pronger

Scheme Ref. Parish Description of Works Current Status location Completion certificate New footway and TW002038 Gibbet Lane Horsmonden issued. Remedial works junction to Gibbet Lane notified Two new bell-mouth access points into new Benhall Mill Tunbridge East Sussex leading on TW003019 development off north Road Wells the S278 Agreement east side of Benhall Mill Road.

TW003447 New bellmouth access Hornbeam Southbourgh for small residential Initial design submitted Avenue development

Solicitors instructed. Hawkhurst Realignment of Design in progress. Castle, Heartenoak Road TWBC planning now TW003049 Hawkhurst Cranbrook junction with involved and contacting Road Cranbrook Road developer works due spring / Summer 2021

Reshaping existing garage access with Completion Certificate Tunbridge TW003053 Dowding Way associated works to issued. Maintenance Wells carriageway and period now started footway

Creation of links from the existing Knights TW003054 Knights Wood Tunbridge Way into the proposed Agreement signed Phase 1A Wells Knights Wood development which is significantly under way.

Works complete, cert 1 TW003056 Greggs Wood Tunbridge New bell-mouth access issued Maintenance Road Phase 4 Wells into development period now started

New access junction Initial submission Brick Kiln for significant TW003445 Cranbrook phase 2 residential development

New vehicle Work complete; Cert 1 crossovers from issued Tunbridge Burslem Road & TW003061 Burslem Road Wells Greggs Wood Road to Maintenance period permit access to new underway development

Page 77 Agenda Item 10

New bell-mouth access into new housing

Birchfield, Rye development and Agreement signed. TW003065 Hawkhurst Road adjustment of speed Works ongoing

limit terminal point eastwards.

Agreement signed. Works partially complete, Mascalls Court TW003069 New bell-mouth access further works to widen Farm, Green Paddock Wood for new development bellmouth not yet Lane complete resurfacing and traffic calming

Tibbs Court New bell-mouth access TW003444 Brenchley Initial design submitted Farm for new development Awaiting revised design Lillesden Improvements to submission TW003083 House, Hawkhurst existing access and TWBC planning Hastings Road new southern access contacting developer

Highgate Hill, New bell-mouth access Maintenance period TW003095 Hawkhurst Hawkhurst into development ending spring 2021 TW003100 Woodman Hall, New bell-mouth access Agreement signed. Hawkhurst Rye Road into development Works ongoing

Technical approval, TW003101 Knights Wood, Tunbridge Junction changes and agreement awaiting Phase 1A Wells bus stop improvements signing

Former Dairy New access to housing Tunbridge Agreement signed, TW003102 Crest depot, St development, footway Wells works partially complete Johns Road works and bus stop

Home Farm, New bell-mouth access Works carried out TW003107 Penshurst Bidborough into Home Farm maintenance period due Road development

Merevale New access from Tunbridge Works significantly done TW003114 House, London London Road plus Wells small amount left Road footway works

Highway improvements to include: Kerb realignment; Junction improvements; Forest Road, Tunbridge Works Completed. TW003116 New refuge/island in Hawkenbury Wells Forest Way; Remedial works notified Speed limit reduction; Better pedestrian facilities

Page 78 Agenda Item 10

Tunbridge New vehicle access Cert 1 issued; in TW003122 Longfield Road Wells into Travis Perkin maintenance period

Union House, Highway works Eridge Road & Tunbridge Work significantly TW003123 associated with Linden Park Wells underway development Road New crossing points Works completed associated with the awaiting road safety Common TW003124 Cranbrook & build of 62 new audit report remedial Road, Sissinghurst dwellings work to be done Sissinghurst

Signing and lining Benenden TW003125 Benenden traffic calming Partially complete School measures

Benenden School access and Works substantially TW003125A Benenden School footway works complete

Various junction Works substantially improvements to complete Tunbridge TW003126 Hawkenbury Maryland Road, Wells Hawkenbury Road &

Forest Road

New bell-mouth access Substantially complete Pinewood and footway alterations remedials due TW003127 Southborough Gardens

Henwood New bell-mouth access Awaiting signing of legal TW003439 Pembury Green Road into development agreement

Convert builders’ yard Goods Station Tunbridge Letter of Agreement TW003133 to new housing with Road Wells some works started accesses and footway

62 house development involving footway Heartenoak TW003187 Hawkhurst works ,provision of Works underway Road bellmouth and passing places

The Foundry, 17 house development Works completed TW003231 Maidstone Horsmonden requiring provision of maintenance under way Road new bellmouth

20 house development Maidstone requiring provision of Works underway TW003232 Paddock Wood Road, Matfield new bellmouth and bus substantially complete stop improvements

Page 79 Agenda Item 10

36 house development requiring provision of Letter of agreement TW003245 Turnden Cranbrook new bellmouth and signed works underway footway

Large housing development requiring new bellmouth, road TW003246 Badsell Road Paddock Wood Works underway widening, pedestrian crossing and footway works

New bell-mouth access Initial design being TW003438 Coppers Lane Matfield into development reviewed

New bellmouth for Old Kent Road Works carried out road TW003393 Paddock Wood access to small Paddock Wood safety report due housing development Common Road Additional footway Sissinghurst Cranbrook and TW003365 linking development to Works undertaken Sissinghurst bus stop A26 New Toucan crossing Southborough Tunbridge Works significantly TW003386 in association with Tunbridge Wells complete Southborough Hub Wells Flagstones New Bellmouth for Cranbrook and TW003352 Hartley Road small housing Works under way Sissinghurst Cranbrook development

Frant Road Bellmouth Tunbridge Design approved works TW003347 Tunbridge improvements for Wells due 2021 Wells housing development

Tunnel Avenue Small bellmouth Tunbridge Design submitted TW003274 Tunbridge improvements for Wells awaiting approval Wells building conversion

Walkhurst New bellmouth for Works completed TW003308 Road Benenden access to 12 x maintenance underway Benenden properties A264 Pembury Road New bellmouth Tunbridge Tunbridge Design submitted TW00132 entrance in to care Wells Wells awaiting approval home (Beechwood School) New Bellmouth and road widening for new TW003434 and Church Road Paddock Wood housing development Works due early 2021 TW003435 Paddock Wood and associated traffic calming measures

Page 80 Agenda Item 10

New bell-mouth access TW003412 Highgate Hill Hawkhurst into retirement Works due 2021 development

New Bellmouth for Turnden phase housing development TW003441 Cranbrook Initial design submitted 2 and associated traffic calming measures

Page 81 Agenda Item 10

Appendix F – Bridge Works

Bridge Works – Contact Officer: Earl Bourner

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status

No works planned

Page 82 Agenda Item 10

Appendix G – Traffic Systems

There is a programme of scheduled maintenance to refurbish life expired traffic signal equipment across the county based upon age and fault history. The delivery of these schemes is dependent upon school terms and holiday periods; local residents, businesses and schools will be informed verbally and by a letter drop of the exact dates when known.

Traffic Systems - Contact Officer: Toby Butler

Location Description of Works Current Status

Calverley Road/ Camden Road, Tunbridge Renewal of traffic signal- Completed June Wells controlled junction 2020

Liptraps Lane near Harries Road, Tunbridge Upgrade existing crossing Completed Wells to near-sided Puffin December 2020

High Street near Lower Green Road, Upgrade existing crossing Proposed February Pembury to near-sided Puffin 2021

Broadway near Moorland Drive, Upgrade existing crossing Proposed March Lamberhurst to near-sided Puffin 2021

Page 83 Agenda Item 10

Appendix H - Combined Member Grant programme update

Member Highway Fund programme update for the Tunbridge Wells Borough

The following schemes are those, which have been approved for funding by both the relevant Member and by Simon Jones, Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste. The list only includes schemes, which are • in design • at consultation stage • about to be programmed • Recently completed on site.

The list is up to date as of 18th December 2020

The details given below are for highway projects only. This report does not detail • Contributions Members have made to other groups such as parish councils • highway studies • traffic/ non-motorised user surveys funded by Members.

More information on the schemes listed below can be found by contacting the District Manager for the Tunbridge Wells Borough.

Paul Barrington-King Details of Scheme Status

VAS Installation, High Street Pembury With ITS team for delivery

Pembury Gateway Complete

Scheme handed over to contractor. Sherwood 20mph zone Awaiting start date Scheme handed over to contractor. Pembury Wigwags Awaiting start date

Sarah Hamilton Details of Scheme Status

Hook Green Gateways Complete

Sean Holden Details of Scheme Status

No highway applications received

Page 84 Agenda Item 10

James McInroy Details of Scheme Status

Bidborough 20mph limit - TRO Consultation to take place Jan 2021

Rusthall 20mph zone – TRO Consultation to take place Jan 2021

Awaiting TRO consultation results before Rusthall & Bidborough 20mph design & installation progressing Scheme handed over to contractor. Awaiting Culverden 20mph zone start date

Peter Oakford Details of Scheme Status

Brokes Way ATC Complete

Broomhill Park Road Wig Wags Complete

Catherine Rankin Details of Scheme Status

Scheme handed over to contractor. Lansdowne Road Slip Road Closure Awaiting start date

Page 85 Agenda Item 10

Page 86 Agenda Item 10

1.1 Legal Implications

1.1.1 Not applicable.

1.2 Financial and Value for Money Considerations

1.2.1 Not applicable.

1.3 Risk Assessment

1.3.1 Not applicable.

Contacts: Richard Emmett / Julian Cook 03000 418181

Page 87 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 25 January 2021

Topics for Future Meetings

Procedural Item:

To consider any topics for future meetings, of which prior notice must be sent to the Chairman and Democratic Services Officer no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting. There can not be any substantive debate/discussion or any decision on any topics raised, except to agree whether the topic may come forward in future.

Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 25 January 2021

Date of Next Meeting

Procedural Item:

To note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday 19 April 2021 at 6.00pm.

Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank