KENT COUNTY COUNCIL ______

HIGHWAYS ADVISORY BOARD

MINUTES of a meeting of the Highways Advisory Board held on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 at Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone. PRESENT: Mr R F Manning (Chairman), Mr T J Birkett (substitute for Mr K Sansum), Mr J R Bullock, MBE, Mr D S Daley, Mr C G Findlay, Mr W A Hayton, Mr I T N Jones (substitute for Mr J I Muckle), Mr C J Law, Mr R A Marsh, Mr R A Pascoe, Mr A R Poole, Mrs P A V Stockell and Mr R Tolputt. OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr T R Robinson, Mr M V Snelling and Mrs E M Tweed. IN ATTENDANCE: Mr K Hills, Acting Director, Kent Highway Services; Mr D Hall, County Transportation Manager; Mr R White, Head of Major Projects; Mr N Bateman, Divisional Manager – West Kent; Mr D Bond, Transportation Manager; Mr D Cook, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr G Fitch, Asset Manager; Mr T Read, Transport Policy Manager; Mr G Tanner, Senior Transport Planner; and the Head of Democratic Services (represented by Mrs K Mannering).

UNRESTRICTED ITEMS

Petitions/Reports (1) Prior to the commencement of the meeting the Chairman formally received two petitions:- (a) from East Farleigh Parish Council Chairman, John Wilson and resident Faroque Ashunollah, calling for traffic signal control of East Farleigh Bridge; and (b) from residents of Ramsgate requesting an audio signal on the pedestrian crossing on Northwood Road/Margate Road. (2) Both petitions would be referred to the relevant Joint Transportation Board for consideration, prior to a report to this Board. (3) The Chairman had also received A Country Mile – a blueprint for Safety and Sustainability on Maidstone Borough’s Rural Road Network. Officers would consider the paper and report back to the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board.

1. Membership (Item 1) The Board noted that Mr R J E Parker and Mr K Sansum had replaced Mr T J Birkett and Ms A Harrison.

2. Minutes (Item 3) RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 May 2006 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman. 1 Following a proposal by the Chairman, Members agreed to commence the meeting with Item 7 3. A228 Leybourne and West Malling Bypass (Item 7 – Report by Head of Major Projects) (Dr T R Robinson was in attendance at the meeting and spoke in his capacity as Chairman of the Tonbridge and Malling Joint Transportation Board, and on behalf of Mrs S V Hohler,Local Member) (1) The report gave details of the public consultation for traffic calming and management measures in Leybourne. It also provided feedback received from the public consultation and sought approval to progress with the recommendations received from the Tonbridge and Malling Joint Transportation Board. The report was supplemented by the Leybourne Traffic Calming Report on Public Consultation held in April 2006, hereafter referred to as the Traffic Calming Report. The existing road layout in the area, and the proposed bypass, was shown in Figure 1 of the report. (2) In conjunction with proposals for provision of the A228 Leybourne and West Malling Bypass, it had always been recognised that the changes in the road layout would generate inappropriate use of Castle Way, especially if the road was left with its existing wide carriageway and lay-bys. The bypass proposals were recommended by the Board, and approved by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration in September 2001. That approval included a commitment for appropriate traffic management and safety measures, to Castle Way and Park Road, to be an integral part of the bypass scheme and to be subject to a separate public consultation. (3) As the bypass scheme evolved through its statutory procedures, there were strong concerns expressed by local residents that the scheme would also have an adverse traffic impact upon Birling Road (south). This was a reasonable view and hence Birling Road (south) was included in the consultation process. To fully appreciate the strength of opinion expressed by local residents that lived along the roads, a brief summary of their views and concerns was given in Appendix 1 to the report. (4) During 2005, with the bypass under construction, various discussions were held with key stakeholders in order to understand the issues before deciding upon the best way to prepare for the public consultation. Those stakeholders included the following:- • Leybourne Parish Council • Officers of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council • Castle Way Residents Association • Park Road Residents Association • KCC’s Area Transportation Manager (now Kent Highway Services) • Representatives of the Leybourne Grange developer The discussions highlighted strong local representation by resident associations and local residents in favour of closing each of the roads, Castle Way, Park Road and Birling Road (south). (5) As traffic calming and management measures were often sensitive and controversial it was important to ensure that all key stakeholders, including others not mentioned above, were closely involved in development of the proposals so that they would gain a full understanding of all the wider issues. Such an understanding should help them to accept the final solutions.

2 (6) A one-day facilitated Leybourne Traffic Calming Workshop was held on 1 December 2005. In summary, the workshop identified the following objectives:- • Ensure that through traffic was discouraged from returning to routes through Leybourne. • Control traffic speeds and provide a safe and attractive environment for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians so as to encourage greater use of the modes. • Maintain access to the church, school, shops and services and provide suitable parking for church users particularly those with mobility disability. • Provide suitable access for the emergency services and public transport. • Discourage commuter and lorry parking. • Enhance community integration and cohesion by reducing severance, particularly for non-vehicular modes and for those with mobility difficulties. • Limit the effects on surrounding areas. (7) Measures that could contribute to achieving the objectives were subsequently assessed and developed into alternative options for public exhibition and consultation. However, prior to finalising details of the consultation, in order to seek support for those options being presented, further meetings were held with Leybourne Parish Council and with officers and local Members of the Borough Council and the County Council. (8) The public consultation and exhibition was held in Leybourne Village Hall on Friday 7 April 2006 and Saturday 8 April 2006. The event was well publicised. Leaflets were distributed to homes and businesses in the area, posters were displayed at prominent locations and notices were published in local newspapers. Approximately 450 people attended the exhibition and approximately 350 responded by handing or sending in a completed questionnaire. (9) Options presented for public consultation were listed below. A summary of the key features, the main advantages and the main disadvantages for each option was provided in Appendix E of the Traffic Calming Report. Castle Way – 4 Options (All the closure options allowed for access by pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, buses and emergency vehicles). Option 1 – No closure with extended 20-mph zone Option 2 – Closure at the Castle entrance Option 3 – Closure south of the Church Option 4 – Closure at Pump Close Park Road – 3 Options Option 1 – Closure at Park Road roundabout (but allowing access for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, buses and emergency vehicles) Option 2 – Traffic calming only with road left open Option 3 – One-way road (west to east) with shared footway/cycleway

3 Birling Road – 3 Options Option 1 – No closure Option 2 – Northern closure Option 3 - Central closure Details together with an analysis of the consultation feedback were contained in the Traffic Calming Report. (10) A report was presented to the Tonbridge and Malling Joint Transportation Board on 12 June 2006. The preparation of the Traffic Calming Report was ongoing at the time and, consequently, only a draft report was presented. The draft report was substantially complete and by supplementing the draft report with a presentation, the Joint Board was made aware of the main findings and feedback. (11) A letter expressing the views of Leybourne Parish Council had not been received in time for inclusion in the Board report or the Draft Report on the Public Consultation. This was highlighted at the meeting and specific reference was made to the views of Leybourne Parish Council as part of the presentation to the JTB. (12) The Chairman of Leybourne Parish Council reported that he was not happy with how little weight was given to Leybourne PC's views at the JTB meeting. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council’s Director of Planning and Transportation had since stated “the presentation was highly commendable particularly in its balance and fairness. The test is whether members had balanced advice and took reasonable account of the representations - there can be no doubt that was the case”. The letter from Leybourne Parish Council was now included in Appendix F of the Traffic Calming Report. (13) The Tonbridge and Malling Joint Transportation Board resolved to recommend to Kent County Council’s Highways Advisory Board and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence that:- (a) the following options for traffic management in Leybourne were adopted:- • Castle Way: Option 1 - no closure - with extended 20-mph zone; • Park Road: Option 1 - closure at Park Road roundabout - but allowing access for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, buses and emergency vehicles; • Birling Road: Option 1 - no closure - with traffic calming measures; and (b) the arrangements were re-assessed in twelve months time once traffic patterns surrounding the bypass had become established. (14) The Summary of Main Findings and Feedback from the Traffic Calming Report was attached as Appendix 2 to the report. As part of the traffic calming consultation, the Director of Planning and Transportation at Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council was of the view that some of the proposed options were being driven by perceptions about what traffic might do after the bypass was opened rather than any real evidence about what would happen. He, therefore, recommended strongly for options adopted to be implemented experimentally so that changes might more easily be made. (15) Whilst this approach would have increased cost implications, it was nevertheless more sensible than wasting considerable sums of money on abortive works. The option recommended for Castle Way did lend itself to minimising abortive costs. This was because the Castle Way options contained a very significant amount of traffic calming 4 and environmental enhancements that were common to all options. The work might, therefore, be installed permanently. By effecting a temporary closure of Park Road, this too would minimise the need for extensive traffic calming works that could have been abortive. (16) Work on construction of the A228 Leybourne and West Malling Bypass was progressing to programme and it was expected to be completed by early Autumn this year. Once the Bypass had been opened to traffic, this would provide Castle Way with significant relief and allow implementation of agreed traffic calming and management measures. With Park Road and Birling Road being minor roads, any work required at the locations should not be a problem in traffic terms. (17) There was, however, much to be done and officers would be working closely with the Divisional Manager of Kent Highway Services, the Borough Council and other key stakeholders in designing and procuring the approved measures. Any necessary traffic regulation orders would be promoted within highway authority powers. (18) The funding for traffic calming was included in the overall budget for the A228 Leybourne and West Malling Bypass. However, subject to the scope of the work, the possibility of further funding contributions from the developer of Leybourne Grange (due to their existing planning conditions) and from the Borough Council who would like to see environmental enhancements, would be explored. (19) A letter received from the Chairman of the Leybourne Parish Council was circulated to Board Members. (20) A note with a suggested amendment to the recommendations from Mrs T Dean was circulated for consideration by the Board. (21) The Board supported the proposals for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that:- (a) the options to be designed and implemented for traffic management in Leybourne were:- Castle Way: Option 1 - no closure - with extended 20-mph zone; Park Road: Option 1 - closure at Park Road roundabout - but allowing access for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, buses and emergency vehicles; Birling Road: Option 1 - no closure - with traffic calming measures; (b) the necessary traffic regulation orders be promoted; and (c) a programme of review and monitoring of the works be implemented to enable the arrangements to be re-assessed in twelve months time, or sooner, once traffic patterns surrounding the bypass had become established.

4. Ashford Ring Road (Item 4 – Report by Head of Major Projects) (1) The report advised the Highways Advisory Board on scheme progress to re- configure the existing one-way A292 Ashford Ring Road into a series of two-way quality streets. The report presented initial scheme design concepts, provided feedback from a recent public exhibition exercise, examined funding sources and outlined a project delivery timetable.

5 (2) The Board was asked to support the outline scheme design presented to convert the A292 Ashford Ring Road into a series of two-way quality streets and recommend to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence that the scheme was progressed to detailed design along with the advertisement of the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders. (3) Following publication of the ODPM’s Sustainable Communities Plan 2003, Ashford was now identified as one of the major growth areas in the South-East with a total of 31,000 homes and 28,000 jobs envisaged by 2031. Detailed masterplanning studies followed which had now led to the development of mutually supporting land use and transport strategies to ensure that the town’s future growth was well planned and sustainable. (4) Ashford Borough Council had recently consulted upon the Town Centre Area Action Plan (TCAAP) which would form one of the key documents of the Ashford Local Development Framework (LDF). A Transport Strategy for Ashford had also been developed by the County Council in line with the broad thrust of central government and County Council transport policy which was approved in January 2006. (5) One of the early transformational projects listed in the plan was the need to re- configure the current one-way, traffic dominated environment to a series of two-way, shared use, quality streets which would support and stimulate town centre development and encourage greater joint use by traffic and pedestrians of the public realm, whilst not prejudicing safety. An early ‘mend before extend’ approach to the town centre would be crucial, even before significant growth took place, and the transformation of the Ashford Ring Road was a critical project. (6) The transformed ring road was integral to the vision for the town by setting the scene for high quality public realm as well as stimulating developer opportunities along the highway frontage. The report sought support to progress to detailed scheme design for Phase 1 of the scheme. (7) The existing one-way A292 Ashford Ring Road, which would be ‘down classified’, comprised Elwick Road, West Street, Forge Lane, Somerset Road, Mace Lane, Wellesley Road and Station Road. It placed a stranglehold on the town centre and the fast moving, car dominated environment restricted development opportunities and severed the town centre core from the outlying residential areas. Traffic speeds were relatively high and whilst catering adequately for vehicular capacity, the existing Ring Road added little else to the town centre environment and would restrict its growth if changes to the current configuration were not made. In addition the Head of Major Projects informed the Board that funding would be sought to bring forward the Victoria Road scheme to help reduce traffic on the Ring Road. (8) It was planned to turn the current one-way traffic orientated Ring Road into a series of two-way quality streets so that the current severance imposed by the Ring Road would be significantly reduced and pedestrians and cyclists given more priority. (9) The scheme principles involved the slowing of traffic to 20 mph or less in places and the narrowing of carriageways so that better eye contact was established between drivers and pedestrians. However, it was not a pedestrianisation scheme and whilst it was acknowledged that vehicles would continue to use the new transformed Ring Road, pedestrians and cyclists would have increased importance. In overall terms, the project was very much an exemplar and innovative project which aimed to radically change the highway environment and set the tone for the high quality public realm across Ashford over the coming years.

6 (10) The scheme had a number of aims and objectives which were summarised below:- • to secure a better balance between the needs of car users, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users; • to radically improve the environment of the town centre; • to create a quality of environment that encouraged further investment in the town; • to set a design standard of a quality that must be replicated elsewhere in the town centre; and • to strengthen the town centre’s economy by making the centre easily accessible for all. (11) Whilst the ultimate aspiration was to provide a quality, shared space environment around the entire Ring Road, the current funding available would not stretch that far. It would enable all of the Ring Road to be converted to two-way working and Elwick Road to be radically changed to a high quality, shared space environment. It was also hoped that the quality shared space environment could be extended into West Street/Forge Lane. Funding constraints dictated though that improvements to Somerset Road, Mace Lane, Wellesley Road and Station Road would be more conventional in form at this stage although with unnecessary street clutter removed and a 30mph speed limit. (12) The scheme goes beyond the requirements of a traditional highway design by incorporating the facets of good urban design practice in order to deliver high quality public realm which would complement the future development aspirations in the town. The proposals were exciting and traditional highway design standards could not be applied in the normal way. In developing the detailed design, there would be a balance between the purist urban design aspirations and the operational, safety, buildability and maintenance aspects although the intention was to produce a scheme that was both innovative and high quality. (13) However, there was considerable overlap and interaction between the public highway space and adjacent private development space and the mutual benefits were highlighted below:- • Character - a place with its own identity • Continuity - a place where public/private spaces were distinguished but complementary • Quality - a place with attractive and successful public realm and outdoor areas • Ease of movement - a place that was easy to get to and move through • Legibility - a place that had a clear image and was easy to understand • Adaptability - a place that could change easily • Diversity - a place with variety and choice (14) Integrated Design Teams (IDTs) had been set-up to deliver the project. The IDT included engineers, traffic planners, urban designers, landscape architects, artists and lighting specialists. It was intended that art would be an integral part of the engineering design, as well as taking the opportunity to place subsequently, specifically 7 commissioned art works in appropriate spaces created by the scheme design. All members of the IDTs were working closely together with the ultimate intention that the scheme that was evolving would be a well-balanced multi-functional project of the highest quality. Urban Design, Planning and Transport Officers from both the County Council and Ashford Borough Council were closely involved in the design process. (15) The need to de-clutter, minimise road signage and markings, introduce landscaping, use quality materials and create an enhanced widened public realm for increased social interaction would be maintained throughout the ultimate scheme. Another important design concept was the creation of public squares at the main intersections around the Ring Road. The squares would aim to create areas for increased social activity whilst still catering for vehicular movement. The environment would also offer many increased opportunities for pedestrians to cross the enhanced public realm. (16) As a result of the initial design work over the past few months, an outline design scheme was shown at Appendices B1, B2 and B3 of the report, showing outline scheme layouts along Elwick Road, Somerset Road and Station Road respectively. However, as highlighted in paragraph (11) above, funding dictated that the planned public realm improvements along Somerset Road would not be progressed as part of the Phase 1 scheme. As a result, Somerset Road would now simply revert to two-way flow within a more traditional highway environment with traffic signal control at the junctions of New Street and North Street. (17) The junction of Elwick Road/Church Road marked the entry into the scheme where there would be a gateway entry feature and adjacent two-way 3m wide running lanes for vehicles. There would also be a distinct change of environment relying on scale, texture, colour and materials to emphasise the entry into the new space. A new ‘Elwick Square’ would be created at the junction of Elwick Road/Bank Street which would provide for a balance between all road users including car drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and those who wished to congregate and socialise. (18) It was also anticipated that the public realm improvements to Bank Street previously progressed by Alan Baxter Associates for Ashford Borough Council would be incorporated into the broader Ring Road scheme subject to financial constraints. Moving clockwise around the Ring Road, the use of adjacent running lanes along Elwick Road was maintained to Apsley Lane, where there was a transition to a split carriageway. This would facilitate a central public realm area that would include amenity space with artistic landscaping, a theme which was maintained along Elwick Road to the junction with Godinton Road and into West Street/Forge Lane. (19) Turning into the north western arc, it might be possible to continue the high quality public realm scheme to a point between the junctions with Godinton Road and New Street. Detailed design and estimates would confirm this in the coming weeks. Along Somerset Road, funding constraints would only allow reversion of the Ring Road to two-way flow with the retention of traffic signal junctions at New Street and North Street. Similarly and due to the need to provide greater vehicular capacity around the Ring Road from the junction with North Street in the shorter term, Mace Lane, Wellesley Road and Station Road would also revert to two-way traffic flow and the more traditional highway environment, albeit much less cluttered, would be maintained. It was also intended that the scheme was extended along the A2042 over the railway bridge to the existing roundabout junction with Victoria Road/Beaver Road which would be replaced with traffic signals. (20) A Public Realm Strategy for the town had also been produced which set out a vision for the public realm and established public art as a key driving force for new and 8 existing areas. It had been shown elsewhere that improvements to the public realm would create a sense of civic pride, local distinctiveness and a positive, unified identity that generated economic growth. (21) There were a number of key public realm aspects to the project including the use of quality materials, appearance of street furniture, incorporation of landscaping and the use of innovative highway design. Together with the integral use of art and innovative public realm lighting to bring out the scheme identity and distinctiveness, the project aspired to be a benchmark scheme in the UK. (22) It was acknowledged that the re-configuration of the existing traffic dominated, one-way ring road layout to a series of two-way, high quality streets with less traffic lanes would lead to a reduction in overall highway capacity. However, one of the overarching aims of the transport strategy was to minimise traffic in the town centre area by a series of transport measures and car park re-location policy. Indeed, the ultimate success of the Ring Road re-configuration relied upon a host of other transport schemes coming forward in future years. (23) A comparison of before/after morning peak hour (0730-0930) traffic flows around the Ring Road on scheme opening in 2008 was presented at Appendix C of the report, for various traffic modelling options. For a number of reasons including the reduction in the number of available traffic lanes, the much greater route choice which two-way flow provided and the traffic restraint associated the shared use concept (20 mph/pedestrian/cycle interaction etc), morning peak hour (0730–0930) traffic flows around the Ring Road were predicted to notably reduce at scheme opening in 2008 as follows:- • Elwick Road 3526 to 1505 vehicles (-57%) • Forge Lane 2899 to 2189 vehicles (-24%) • Somerset Road 3799 to 2070 vehicles (-46%) • Station Road 3563 to 3155 vehicles (-11%) (24) In terms of congestion, queuing problems were not anticipated within the confines of the Ring Road since experience from other schemes told us that traffic would move in a fairly well ordered, consistent way at low speed and there would not be long stationary queues. Any queues would occur on the approaches to the scheme although the Case 9 traffic modeling, in Appendix C, predicted that significant queues would only form at two locations. Firstly along Romney Marsh Road on the approach to the new traffic signals at Romney Marsh Road/Beaver Road junction. A maximum queue of around 700 metres was predicted although this only equated to around a 5- 6 minute wait and vehicles would get through in 2-3 changes of the lights. The second predicted queue was on the Mace Lane entry to the scheme with a maximum queue length of around 300 metres, again traffic was expected to clear within 2 changes of the lights. (25) In conclusion, the traffic modelling carried out predicted that reversion of the Ring Road to a two-way shared use scheme was viable and any congestion would be tolerable and a necessary consequence of providing a sustainable growth agenda for the town. (26) In terms of road safety, there had been a total of 48 personal injury accidents around the Ashford Ring Road in the 3 year period up to October 2005. A road safety analysis had also been carried out based upon the existing accident history which took into account the reduction in traffic speed and change in highway environment which would increase driver awareness and care. 9 (27) The assessment predicted that personal injury accidents would reduce by around 30%, a figure which compared favourably with the 44% reduction in personal injury accidents over three years which had been achieved following the implementation of a similar type of scheme along Kensington High Street in London. The scheme was, therefore, predicted to improve road safety around the Ring Road. (28) In overall terms, the scheme formed part of a broad transport strategy for the town which aimed to reduce reliance on the private car and promote other more environmentally friendly and sustainable forms of transport such as walking, cycling and use of passenger transport. With the reduction in vehicle speeds and regularisation of traffic flows using the ring road, traffic noise levels were also predicted to fall slightly and this would provide some environmental benefits. Whilst the overall traffic related impact on air quality was forecast to be broadly neutral, there were some moderately beneficial improvements in terms of reducing the production of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. (29) The existing landscape along the ring road was poor and the proposed introduction of landscaping, public open space and use of quality materials would provided notable benefits to the street scene environment. The scheme itself also provided an opportunity to stimulate appropriate development opportunities and would, therefore, provide moderate benefits for social, cultural, physical and visual connection. In overall terms, the scheme provided a number of environmental benefits. (30) The total cost of the scheme shown on Appendices B1, B2 and B3 of the report was currently estimated to be around £16,000,000 including costs, to date, future maintenance contribution and possible Land Compensation Act costs. A formal funding bid to the ODPM under the second round of Growth Area Funding (GAF2) had been successful and a sum of £8,000,000 of scheme funding had now been secured from central government towards the scheme costs on the basis that it was spent by the end of the 2007/8 financial year. Further project funding of around £2,000,000 was available from a variety of sources including developer contributions secured via section 106 planning obligations and a number of other funding sources that were currently being explored. Thus around £10,000,000 should be available to finance the first phase of the project. (31) As well as the build costs, there were financial implications for future scheme maintenance. A specialist working group of officers had been set-up to assess maintenance costs and it was likely that the available budget would be top-sliced to ensure that adequate funding was available for scheme maintenance over the first 3- 5 years. After that, it was hoped that a suitable developer tariff system would be adopted by the County Council which would be imposed on town centre development to cover the ongoing maintenance costs of the scheme. (32) Following discussions with Ashford Borough Council, the following top four priorities for construction were recommended:- • Conversion of the Ring Road to two-way traffic working throughout • Completion of Bank Street and Elwick / Discovery Square • Reconstruction of Victoria Road / Beaver Road junction • Completion of the remainder of Elwick Road from Church Road to West Street, and the start of the ‘Ashford Arc’ to New Street For future works the priorities were:- • Completion of the ‘Ashford Arc’ New Street Square (New Rents Square)

10 • Completion of the ‘Ashford Arc’ to North Street (Somerset Road) (33) The current funding available would allow priorities 1-4 to be progressed to implementation at this stage. The high quality element of priorities 5-6 would need to be deferred to a future phase. However, it was also anticipated that further funding bids would be made to central government in future years to complete the entire Ring Road transformation project as soon as possible. The report did not seek additional funding approval for the project and contingency arrangements had been put in place to ensure that the available budget was not exceeded. (34) The current scheme delivery programme including consultation, scheme design, advertisement of the accompanying Traffic Regulation Orders and member approval would take around 6 months to complete. On-site scheme construction was scheduled to take around 15 months with a start in March 2007. (35) However, a second phase of the project would hopefully be progressed as a natural successor to the scheme whereby a similar public realm led improvement scheme would be delivered along Somerset Road, Mace Lane, Wellesley Road and Station Road including a new Station Square. The entire Ring Road would be ultimately transformed in terms of its design, appearance and functionality and would support and assist with the future growth of the town centre area. (36) Officers from both the County Council and Ashford Borough Council had been involved in a number of project groups specially set-up to discuss the progression of the project over the past 12 months. The current scheme that was tabled for approval had been subjected to considerable discussion and had the support of officers from both Authorities together with a number of experts in the field. (37) All of the emergency services had been contacted regarding the scheme and discussions had been held with the Police and Fire Service, and were planned with the Health Service. The reaction from both the Police and Fire Service was positive toward the scheme concepts and we were confident that through further dialogue during the development of the design any detail concerns raised could be addressed satisfactorily in the final scheme. (38) In order to engage the public, a Public Exhibition of the scheme concepts was held in the Lower High Street, Ashford on 9 and 10 June 2006. Representatives from Kent County Council and the design team were available to discuss the concepts and respond to queries. There was a very strong public interest with continuous attendance on both days. From experience it was judged that approximately 500 people attended and the design team were occupied continuously in responding to questions and providing additional explanation of the scheme. To-date, 45 comments sheets and e- mails had been received and the comments enclosed had been paraphrased and inserted into the summary sheet in Appendix E of the report. (39) In broad terms, it should be noted that there were few objections to the fundamentals of the scheme and the majority of comments were in support of the scheme. However, some written representations mentioned specific issues, the most common being:- • need to consider more provision for cyclists • knock-on parking issues/problems • possible rat runs in parallel streets • traffic congestion due to a reduced number of traffic lanes • road safety implications arising from informal pedestrian/driver interaction 11 (40) The formal comments received post-exhibition had confirmed the subjective view of the KCC and design team members who were present at the exhibition and who collectively felt that the scheme proposals were supported by the great majority of the visitors. It was considered that the main areas of concern raised as highlighted above were not fundamental issues and all could be satisfactorily addressed and resolved through the detailed scheme design process.

(41) A further report would be submitted to the Board in November 2006 to present the detailed design scheme proposals and report back from the TRO consultation exercises. All KCC/ABC ward members in Ashford had been invited to attend a series of Special Policy Advisory Group (PAG) evening meetings over the past 6 months to discuss the scheme concept and evolution of the scheme design. Indeed, at the most recent meeting on 22 June 2006 members present voted in favour of the scheme concepts being progressed forward to scheme design. All local Ashford members were also invited on a study tour to Holland from 19-21 June where there were a number of examples of similar concepts currently being proposed for the ring road. The feedback from the tour had also been very positive.

(42) A report had also recently been submitted to the Joint Transport Board and Ashford Borough Council Executive for consideration on 29 June seeking support for the scheme concept and progression to detailed scheme design. The recommendation from both JTB and subsequently ABC Executive was supportive of the scheme concept and progression to detailed design in accordance with the six priorities listed in paragraph (32) above.

(43) The Board supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence that the Phase 1 scheme to convert the A292 Ashford Ring Road into a series of two-way quality streets be progressed to detailed design including the introduction of a high quality public realm environment along Elwick Road, West Street and Forge Lane; a more traditional highway environment along Somerset Road, Mace Lane, Wellesley Road and Station Road; and the introduction of traffic signal control at the junction of Victoria Road/Beaver Road/Romney Marsh Road.

5. Kent Thameside Fastrack – Thames Link and Everards Link Phase 2 (Item 5 – Report by Head of Major Projects) (1) The Head of Major Projects informed the Board that the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence had not yet approved plans for Kent Thameside Fastrack schemes at Thames Way, Gravesend and Everards Link Phase 2. This would be done following the meeting, subject to the views of the Board. (2) Due to the late announcement of Government funding for the scheme it was necessary to get early approval to the schemes to ensure programmes to spend money within tight timescales could be maintained. The funding was available from April 2006 to March 2008. (3) Both scheme had funding in place, through monies from the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) (£13.36m) and Interreg (£2m). The schemes were outlined in the Key Facts section of the report. (4) The Board noted the report.

12 6. Rushenden Link Road, Queenborough, Isle of Sheppey (Item 6 – Report by Head of Major Projects) (1) Further to Minute 9 of 10 January 2006, environmental and associated development constraints had required amendments to the route and junction arrangements and the report sought approval to the revised proposals. (2) The County Council was progressing the road scheme at the request of, and on behalf of, SEEDA. The development sites to the south of the Link Road and between the A249 and the railway abut marsh land with national and international statutory environmental designations. In recent discussions with English Nature, SEEDA had discovered that they would be required to provide a substantial buffer zone along the boundary of their proposed development. The effect was to reduce the land available for development and in particular would prejudice specific key development proposals where negotiations by SEEDA were well advanced. (3) SEEDA commissioned their land, traffic and engineering consultants to review the route of the Relief Road and development sites to see if the overall development aspirations could be maintained. The outcome of the work was a slightly contrived alignment and the introduction of a further roundabout junction. From a purist highway point of view the revised layout was not ideal but was the best layout that could be achieved that satisfied the development and environmental aspects and overcame the substantive concerns of the County Council as highway authority. (4) It must also be noted that the principal objective of the scheme was to secure the regeneration of this area of Sheppey and provide traffic relief to Queenborough. From a highway perspective, the fundamental objectives were that the revised layout was safe and operationally efficient. While some imposed design standards were not ideal and theoretically prejudiced at the margins, it must be seen in context of what would be a quasi-urban road, with junctions close together and consequent limitations on the speed of traffic on the intervening links. (5) The Department of Culture and Local Government (previously ODPM) announced on 6 June 2006 the approval of £12m Community Infrastructure Fund towards the scheme. This was less than was bid for by SEEDA but it was believed that the funding would be sufficient to achieve the critical link over the railway between the A249 and Cullet Drive. SEEDA were hopeful that the connection from Cullet Drive to Rushenden Road to complete the scheme and secure the full benefits could be funded from future development contributions. There were no financial obligations on the County Council. (6) The key objective now was to develop the revised outline design and produce an environmental impact assessment to support a planning application. No other statutory approvals were likely to be required although an Agreement would be required with Network Rail to bridge over the railway. The need by SEEDA to revise the route had added pressure to what was an already difficult programme but the objective remained to start the scheme at the earliest opportunity within 2007/08. Rapid progress was necessary to match the funding period objectives as closely as possible although discussions with DCLG on the phasing of spend would be necessary. (7) The Board supported the proposals for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence that in respect of the Rushenden Link Road shown on Drawing No. 21693/10 authority be given to:-

13 (a) seek all necessary consents; (b) arrange for the making and submission for confirmation of all necessary Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land and the rights necessary for the construction of the scheme shown on the drawing listed above; (c) arrange for the making and submission for confirmation of all other necessary Orders and Schemes under the Highways Act 1980, to enable the scheme to be constructed; and (d) give an undertaking to the Secretaries of State, in the event that any Orders or Schemes referred to in (b) or (c) above were made in the absence of any appropriate planning permissions or consents, that the made Orders and/or Schemes would, if necessary, be subject to public inquiry concurrently with any public inquiry to be held in connection with the permissions and consents.

7. Fastrack Service Operation (Item 8 – Report by Head of Major Projects) (1) The report provided a brief summary of how the Fastrack service was operating since its start on 26 March 2006. The formal offer letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had now been received confirming funding of £1.35m until March 2008 for continued delivery of Fastrack. This would enable us to continue preparations for future phases but also to implement an off bus ticketing system. (2) There were some initial problems with bus priority at traffic signals with some signals taking a long time to recognise that a Fastrack bus was waiting. All signals had been investigated and work undertaken to rectify the issues. Arriva drivers were reporting that the situation had improved and the priority system was now working correctly. (3) There had also been problems with the air conditioning units on a number of the Fastrack vehicles. Modifications to the units were being undertaken. There had been some incidents of vandalism to vehicles and there were still reports of vandalism to stop infrastructure. (4) Monthly performance meetings were held with Arriva. Overall service performance had been good and Arriva were actively managing their staff to ensure standards remained very high. Passenger numbers were very pleasing and figures to 12 May were detailed in Appendix A of the report. These illustrated daily and weekly patronage since service commencement and showed steady patronage growth since opening with just over 29,000 passengers per week being carried by mid May. This was some 4,000 passengers higher than the predicted weekly figure for March 2007 (ie, one year into the service) which was estimated before services commenced. (5) Appendix B of the report illustrated mileage lost on a week by week basis. The principal causes had been the faulty air conditioning units and a combination of roadworks at Taunton Road and the problems with the bus priority signals. Notwithstanding those issues the graph clearly demonstrated that with Fastrack achieving a miles operated average of 99.5% the service was performing above the bus industry benchmark figure of 99%. (6) The Fastrack team had been travelling on the service to monitor operations and look out for any enforcement problems. Unauthorised usage of busways did not at this stage appear to be a problem. Any service issues noted were discussed with Arriva at 14 the regular monitoring meetings and they were taking prompt action to rectify any shortcomings. (7) The following marketing/promotions activities were underway or had been undertaken:- Local Radio – the ‘launch’ campaign had now ended. Local Newspapers – Specific marketing campaigns had now ceased. However, vandalism to Fastrack infrastructure had generated sympathetic coverage from the local media and possible opportunities to work with them in shaming vandals were being pursued. National Trade Magazines – A comprehensive article was published in Bus and Coach Professional along with an article in Contract Journal. An article was also to be published in Eurotransport. Fastrack Visits – Delegations from Brent Council and West Yorkshire PTE and Leeds City Council had visited to hear about how Fastrack had been developed and to see the system in action. Future visits were currently being planned for Hampshire County Council, the Cambridgeshire Guided Bus team, the South Essex Rapid Transit team and for the recently formed Bus Rapid Transit UK Association (BRTuk). Newsletter – a new newsletter was currently being drafted with a view to being distributed around the end of June to tie in with the half-millionth customer being carried. (8) The first few weeks of Fastrack service had been very positive. There had been some teething problems but the numbers of customers was very encouraging. The level of vandalism at the stops remained a concern. (9) The Board noted the report.

8. East Kent Access – Phase 2 (Item 9 – Report by Head of Major Projects) (1) The Head of Major Projects informed the Board that confirmation of the funding for East Kent Access Phase 2 (subject to certain conditions), had now been received. (2) The report sought approval to scheme amendments that had been necessary during the planning application process for the project and sought approval to make and submit for confirmation all necessary orders and schemes under the Highways Act 1980 to enable the scheme to be constructed. (3) Further to Minute 2 of 6 September 2005, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration approved revised scheme proposals and gave authority to submit a planning application. The environmental statement and planning application for Phase 2 was submitted on 30 June 2005. Following the application, and the various comments and representations from consultees, supplementary documents were submitted on 25 November 2005. (4) On 9 March 2006, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence endorsed the minor amendments to the scheme proposals, which had resulted from the planning process, and gave consent to proceed with other statutory procedures. Consultation on the planning application was still ongoing. (5) The ongoing planning consultation identified the need for further changes to be made in order to achieve overall improvement to the scheme, to further mitigate 15 adverse impacts, to satisfy evolving legislation and to make the scheme more robust and defendable. Those further changes were summarised as follows:- • Landfill proposals at Lord of the Manor deleted. • Route of drainage outfall to Pegwell Bay revised. • Badger Tunnel removed. • Vertical alignment between Sevenscore roundabout and Lord of the Manor amended. • The junction of Cottington Road and the link from Sevenscore roundabout including the farm access amended. • Reptile Receptor areas added throughout scheme. • Toucan crossings added across Mount Pleasant north of Minster roundabout and across the A299 east of Lord of the Manor junction. • Horizontal alignment between Minster roundabout and Cliffsend roundabout amended and a noise attenuation bund provided south of the proposed road between Laundry Road and Thorne Hill. (6) The above amendments were included in the revised drawings for the scheme numbered 100017/2/140D, 100017/2/141C and 100017/2/142A. The reasons for the amendments were described in the Appendix to the report. (7) Supplementary documents containing the amendments were submitted to the Planning Applications Group and consultation on the amendments had been completed. The planning application was considered by the Planning Applications Committee on 20 June 2006 and consent was granted subject to the necessary referral to the Secretary of State because of it being a departure from the Local Plan. It was now proposed to publish the Side Roads and Compulsory Purchase Orders for the scheme. (8) The changes to the scheme had been generated from responses received to the planning application. They sought to improve the scheme and to mitigate the concerns expressed. Ideally it would have been desirable to report the changes to the Board and achieve a formal Cabinet Member decision before the planning application had been considered. Although the changes could be considered as approved under delegated officer authority, it was desirable to achieve formal Member approval of the changes. (9) This would allow a formal approval to be in place for the Secretary of State who would need to consider the intention to grant consent in the context of it being a departure from the Local Plan. A formal consent to the changes was particularly required before the statutory orders for the scheme were published. (10) A revised estimate had included changes to the scheme, detailed in paragraph (4) above resulting from the planning consultation, together with a further review of Cliffsend underpass. This had resulted in an increase of the overall estimate from £64m to £65m as recently advised to the members of the Project Estimate Review Board. An allowance had been made within the estimate for inflation but this could be higher because of the regional and external factors that affected construction inflation. (11) The scheme was the County Council’s top priority major scheme for the second Local Transport Plan period (2006-2011). It had been included in the Regional Assembly’s recommended major scheme programme for construction between 2009 and 2010 that was sent to Government in January 2006. Work on the scheme was continuing so the delay in Government making an announcement on major scheme 16 funding was not causing a delay with progress of the scheme although the continued uncertainty and financial exposure was unhelpful. (12) The Board wished to place on record its congratulations to all officers involved. (13) The Board supported the proposals for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence that approval be given:- (a) to the changes detailed above; (b) to drawings numbered 100017/2/140D, 100017/2/141C and 100017/2/142A, for development control and land charge disclosures; (c) to seek all necessary consents; (d) to arrange for the making and submission for confirmation of orders for the compulsory acquisition of land and rights necessary for construction; and (e) to make and submit for confirmation all other necessary orders and schemes under the Highways Act 1980 to enable the scheme shown on drawings numbered 100017/2/140D, 100017/2/141C and 100017/2/142A, to be constructed.

9. Local Transport Plan for Kent – Budget Allocation Model and Scheme Prioritisation Methodology (Item 10 – Report by Head of Planning and Transport Strategy) (1) The Local Transport Plan (LTP) was submitted to Government on 29 March 2006. It was the overarching transport strategy for Kent and provided a five-year strategy to tackle transport problems and deliver Kent's local transport objectives. It contained all the County Council’s policies on transport and its spending priorities over five years for major schemes (costing over £5m), maintenance, and small transport schemes such as local safety schemes and traffic management measures. The LTP also lobbied for action by other transport providers and paid regard to Government’s guidance, priorities and targets for transport to ensure the maximum amount of inward investment in the County. In December 2005, Government published allocations of funding for maintenance and small improvement (integrated transport) schemes costing up to £5m. Planning Guide Figure - Small Transport Schemes - Block Allocation (2) The proposed small transport schemes block allocation was very good news for Kent and reflected the pressures that Kent's transport network faced over the next five years. The proposed level of funding for the period 2006 to 2011 increased from £9.464m to £16.397m, representing a significant increase on the levels in the first LTP, with only £5.375m allocated in 2005/06. (3) In light of the increased level of funding and taking into account the Government's latest guidance on assessing LTPs, it was imperative that the transport schemes brought forward by Kent Highway Services (KHS) reflected the desired outcomes of the LTP. The Government had made it clear that its assessment of Kent's new LTP and its subsequent progress towards delivering LTP objectives would influence both Kent's future transport funding levels. Furthermore, it would be forwarded to the Audit Commission for potential use within its Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of local authorities. Therefore, future LTP schemes must also deliver real and measurable progress towards Kent's mandatory and local LTP Targets, to do this LTP schemes must contribute towards key outcomes, which 17 were based on the four shared priorities for transport which had been agreed between the Local Government Association and central Government. They comprised:- • increasing bus patronage across Kent; • improving road safety (reducing casualties on Kent's roads); • reducing congestion and air quality problems; and • improving accessibility to transport and to key services. (4) It was also important that Kent had a robust mechanism for allocating its LTP investment to ensure that those areas with the greatest need were identified and fully supported. Furthermore, Kent must ensure that those schemes that delivered the best value for money and greatest contribution towards tackling local transport problems and delivering its LTP were prioritised in terms of its delivery programme. Budget Allocation Model (BAM) (5) A Budget Allocation Model (BAM) for Kent was being devised to assist in the allocation of its LTP funding. BAM was evidence based. Its primary function was to act as a tool to assist Members in allocating LTP funding to those parts of the county that demonstrated the greatest need. It used Kent's shared priority objectives for transport to allocate its small transport scheme funding across Kent's twelve districts, the totals were then aggregated to provide an overall total for each KHS Divisional Office. This approach enabled Members to allocate funding using an objective methodology and according to the needs of local communities. BAM could also be utilised to provide an overview of the types of schemes that should be considered in specific districts or Divisional Office areas. (6) The criteria used, and the parameters set, in the model could be manually adjusted to simulate any changes in transport funding or any changes in Kent's local transport priorities. At present, the model was weighted against the shared priority objectives in the order of:- • Congestion - 30%. • Public transport - 25%. • Road safety - 20%. • Accessibility - 20% (15% = multiple deprivation and 5% = rural population). • Air Quality - 5%. (7) The weighting used above was broadly consistent with the Government's weighting of the shared priorities for its national planning guide formula. By adopting the Government's methodology for identifying transport needs and accepting the national weighting of shared priority objectives, KCC would maximise the LTP's chances of success, thereby levering as much funding for transport into the County as possible. (8) Appended to the report were two figures. The first figure outlined Kent's funding levels for its small transport schemes by KHS Divisional Office for 2006/07, based on Officer's recommendations, and the proposed small scheme allocation for the rest of the LTP period 2007/08 to 2010/11. The allocation from 2007/08 was based on the Budget Allocation Model and, unlike the 2006/07 programme, did not include any ring- fenced amounts. BAM proposed that all small transport schemes were included in the annual area packages drawn up by KHS Divisional Offices and not to ring-fence any 18 amount. In order to achieve this outcome, KCC would be required to establish a list of proposed schemes in sufficient time for them to be prioritised using the PIPKIN methodology (explained below). Those schemes with the highest PIPKIN rating, that was those schemes that made the greatest contribution to tackling Kent's transport problems and LTP objectives, could then be identified and put forward for Member approval. (9) The second figure included a breakdown of the proposed small transport scheme programme block allocation by shared priority scheme type. Schemes for 2006/07 were based on the 2006/07 Transportation and Safety Package Programme produced by KHS. The allocation for the rest of the LTP period 2007/08 to 2010/11 was based on the proposed Budget Allocation Model. The output of the model placed a greater emphasis on tackling congestion and supporting sustainable modes of transport, it, therefore, reflected Kent's principal transport issues more accurately. It was proposed that by allocating funding by shared priority objective, KCC could demonstrate that its transport expenditure reflected local need, whilst providing Members with enough flexibility to test a range of possible measures under any given heading. Figures 1 and 2 also illustrated that more money would be made available for transport schemes in each Kent Highway Services Divisional Office over the next five years, when compared to Kent's first LTP period (2001 to 2006). The outcome would result in significantly more funding being made available to tackle each of the five shared priority areas. (10) The types of transport schemes that could be delivered under each of the shared priority objectives were summarised in Table 1 of the report. This was intended to provide Members with an understanding of the types of scheme likely to be proposed under each heading. Scheme Prioritisation Methodology - (PIPKIN) (11) A methodology was also being prepared to assist in the prioritisation of LTP transport schemes, it included both major schemes and smaller transport schemes to ensure that all schemes directly supported the objectives of the plan and delivered the best value for money. As with BAM, the primary function of this tool was to assist Members in prioritising smaller transport schemes. The proposed methodology was called PIPKIN, an acronym for Prioritising Investments Programmes on the Kent Integrated Network. PIPKIN's strength was that it reflected Kent's transport objectives as well as national and regional transport priorities. The weighting applied to Kent's local transport objectives reflected the County Council's extensive LTP consultation and prioritised those issues that local communities felt were the most important. It also quantified the merits of each individual scheme against robust assessment criteria. A diagram was appended to the report to illustrate how PIPKIN was structured. (12) PIPKIN was being developed in-house and, therefore, closely reflected Kent's transport priorities. It had no significant financial implications in terms of its design and construction and it could be updated in line with changes to local or national transport policies and priorities with relative ease. It was the intention that this robust approach to prioritising transport investment in Kent would be developed in time to be implemented in 2006/07, therefore, it could be used to assist in the drawing up of transport schemes for 2007/08 and beyond. Once approved, user guidance would be produced to ensure that both Members and Officers were well versed in its use and were able to quickly interpret the outputs of the model. (13) Ultimately, both BAM and PIPKIN were tools to assist Members in making decisions on transport expenditure and prioritising Kent's delivery programme. It would enable Kent to demonstrate to the Government and to its own community that only 19 those schemes that directly contributed towards its tackling real transport issues were implemented through the LTP. This was based on the assumption that those schemes would achieve the greatest outcomes and supported Kent's wider social, economic and environmental objectives. (14) It was suggested that BAM and PIPKIN should supersede any existing LTP funded budget allocation models or prioritisation methodologies employed elsewhere in Kent and ensured that a consistent approach was used throughout the County. Detailed technical guidance was currently being prepared and would fully explain this transparent approach to formulating LTP schemes. (15) The Board supported the proposals for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Waste that approval be given to:- (a) the proposed Budget Allocation Model (BAM) as the small scheme budget allocation model for Kent; (b) the proposed methodology (PIPKIN) as the LTP scheme prioritisation model for Kent; (c) adopt the proposed weighting of shared priorities for Kent; and (d) not ring-fence LTP small scheme funding in future years.

10. Kent Freight Forum (Item 11 – Report by Head of Planning and Transport Strategy) (1) The Kent Freight Forum was set up to provide liaison between the County Council and the freight industry. It met roughly every four months and was held on the afternoon of Highways Advisory Board meetings so that Members of the Board could readily attend. (2) The Forum was chaired by Graham Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence. Other members included the two road haulage associations – The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association – the Highways Agency, Dover Harbour Board, John Chapman (ex Eurotunnel, Road Haulage Association and Strategic Rail Authority), Ashford Borough Council and Dover District Council. Eurotunnel, EWS (the Channel Tunnel railfreight train operators) and Shepway District Council had also been invited to join. (3) The agenda of the forum included:- Strategic freight issues and policies – in the Kent Local Transport Plan, Kent and Medway Structure Plan, the South East Plan and Regional Freight Strategy. Lorry Charging – Britdisc and levies on ferry/shuttle fares. Cross-Channel lorry traffic issues – Operation Stack, overnight lorry parking, queuing into Dover Eastern Docks. The issues particularly affected the three District Councils listed above. Railfreight – Channel Tunnel and potential for rail at the port of Dover. (4) The next meeting of the Freight Forum would be on 19 September at 2.00 pm in County Hall, following the next meeting of the Board. (5) The Board noted the report.

20 11. KCC Highway Maintenance Budget 2006/07 (Item 12 – Report by Acting Director, Kent Highway Services) (1) The report presented the Highways maintenance budget for 2006/07 (Revenue and Capital) following approval of budgets by the Cabinet on 23 January and 6 February and ratification at the County Council meeting on 20 February 2006. (2) Further to Minute 5(8) of 10 January 2006, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste subsequently approved the recommendations on 18 January 2006. The Budget Model followed a process that:- • set out the revenue and capital budgets available for highway maintenance; • separated out the budget necessary for both central and divisional Operational maintenance (works that included safety repairs and routine maintenance such as gully emptying); • determined the remaining budget available for Repairs (works that maintained the structural integrity of the network); • allocated the repairs budget between the various highway assets; and • finally allocated Operations and Repairs budgets to the Divisions. (3) The gross highway revenue and capital budgets were set out in Table 1 of the report, and showed the maintenance works budget which had reduced by £9.169m compared with 2005-6. Capital had reduced by £1.508m in budget book 1 moving from £25.584m in 2005-6 to £24.076m this year. Revenue had reduced by £7.661m, consisting of £3.590m revenue saving, £1.000m for Mobilisation, £1.810 of additional staff costs, and £1.261m of additional overheads. (4) The next stage in the budget process was to determine and separate out both the central and divisional Operational maintenance budgets from the remainder of the budget available for highway maintenance. In calculating the budgets, an 8% allowance for contract inflation had been included to maintain the current minimum level of Operational maintenance. Separating out the budgets for Operational maintenance from the maintenance budget determined the budget available for Repairs. Operational maintenance budgets and remaining budget available for Repairs were summarised in Table 2 of the report. (5) Table 2 showed that, compared with 2005/06, the budget for Repairs (works that maintained the structural integrity of the highway infrastructure) had fallen by £10.013m owing to a reduction in the budget available for maintenance of £9.169m plus an increase in Operational maintenance of £0.844m. The Repairs budget in 2005/06 was £35.038m like for like with 2006/07. The Divisional Operational Maintenance Budget of £10.619m was distributed between the work activities and the Divisions as shown in Table 3 of the report. (6) The report of 10 January 2006 recommended that the Repairs budget be allocated to the various asset groups depending on the relative need of those assets. The relative need had been determined by evaluating the degree of depreciation of each of the assets and calculating the annual budgets necessary to address that depreciation. The budget model allocated the Repairs budget depending on those relative annual needs. The resultant distribution of the £25.025m Repairs budget across the asset groups was shown in Table 4 of the report. Two factors had caused changes to the 2006/07 Repairs budget, compared with 2005/06. The first was caused by the overall reduction to the 2006/07 Repairs budget compared with 2005/06.

21 (7) The budget model, now allocating budgets to all assets depending on relative need by evaluating depreciation, caused the second. The result had been a re- balancing from previous, relatively high allocations to carriageways in support of the N4Y target 52 to treble the length of road surfaced. This had been achieved partly at the expense of other assets (such as safety fences) that had had zero allocations in previous years. This was an untenable position in that, in the light of road death investigations, the Police considered all potential contributory factors such as signs, road markings and safety fences in the causes that led to the fatality. (8) The next step was to allocate money to the Divisions. The Budget model did this by assessing the relative need of each Division taking a range of factors into account that represented the size and condition of the highway infrastructure in each Division. The overall Divisional allocations were shown in Table 5 of the report. (9) A summary of the resulting financial allocation for maintenance was provided in Table 6 of the report. (10) The Budget Model would continue to be developed both as a result of improved asset management practice and through monitoring the actual expenditure during the year as the Divisions responded to the demands on the highway asset. Contributions from the Alliance partners were sought in order to further develop the model for allocating budgets over the next ten years. (11) The significant cut in money for repairs was due to three factors:- • a substantial cut in revenue • mobilisation costs for the new contracts • inflation costs not being covered by budget increases (12) The Board supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that the Highway Maintenance budget as set out in Tables 5 and 6 be approved.

12. Highway Contracts 2006 – Update on Mobilisation (Item 13 – Report by Acting Director, Kent Highway Services) (1) Further to Minute 5 of 2 May 2006, the report provided an update on the progress to be ready for the new ‘look and feel’ Kent Highway Services that would achieve better value, deliver greater efficiency and improve delivery. (2) A new contract to maintain intelligent transport systems (traffic signals) started on 1 June and the company, TSUK, were now operating from the KCC depot in Aylesford adjacent to the Mid Kent and Ringway Offices. They were being fully integrated into the single Kent Highway Services delivery team so the public saw only KHS vans and workers in yellow jackets with KHS logos. Under the new contract we had introduced a computer based fault reporting system that enabled faults to be sent directly to engineers on site including by the Contact Centre. This would speed up fault fixing and make the process more efficient and help to keep traffic moving. (3) New vehicles were required for this contract as the old ones used for the previous contract were now in need of replacement or their lease would expire in July. The new livery for vehicles was on display and all would be branded as Kent Highway Services. New vehicles to respond to emergency and hazards as well as specialist gully emptying machines would be displaying the Kent Highway Services name and contact telephone number. We would have at least 24 Network Operations 22 Maintenance Units at all times on the highway network dealing with reactive repairs and service requests.

(4) Approval was being sought from District Council Offices and Libraries to install a carousel of over 20 leaflets that explained the highway service for such issues as winter service, parking, maintaining roads and grass cutting. This would help raise the profile of Kent Highway Services and manage expectations of the public who would be clear who provided the highway service in Kent. Posters and information cards were being sent to Parish/Town Councils and Members to help them provide information to the public about who to call for a highway service query. We were actively looking at other initiatives such as stickers on lamp posts to guide the public who to call to record a fault and help us speed up the repair.

(5) The Contact Centre were now handling over 13,000 calls and emails each month with around half of them resulting in a service request to one of the three Divisional Offices. For the first time we were able to get a clear picture of the types of service requests and the seasonal nature of them so we could plan the service more pro- actively and develop a press release schedule to keep one step ahead of service peaks. We had more to do to support front line staff in meeting the increased calls now being generated with more publicity of the 08458 247 800 number. We continued to call back a representative sample of callers who had logged a service request with the contact centre to check how satisfied they were with the service KHS had provided. There was more work to be done but we were making solid progress and as the new contracts bed in we would be driving further improvements to the results we had already recorded. By better understanding the views of the public on a monthly basis we hoped to improve service delivery and public satisfaction.

(6) Good progress was being made to rationalise depots and offices for the three Divisions and in the future the ‘co-location’ and ‘co-working’ with staff from all four organisations (KCC, Ringway, Jacobs, TSUK) sitting and working together would help drive efficiency, faster response and service improvement. (7) We were making solid progress in reviewing how services were provided such as gully emptying and surface dressing. By developing the ‘best practice’ from the 12 different ways that were in place with the old highway units we had another chance to improve the service and be more consistent across the county. The contract start date of 10 July would be the start of an on-going process over the coming months and year to look at innovation, best practice and continuous improvement.

(8) It was recognised that bringing together 12 highway units with the three former KCC Area Offices and staff from Ringway, Jacobs and TSUK into one single delivery team was a real challenge. However, the agreement of the seven strategic objectives for the highway service (as set out in the KHS Operating Plan) and a series of values that had been identified through a staff survey would be a critical start to the journey. For the first time the new contracts would focus all organisations on a set of common aims driven by the Vision for Kent, Comprehensive Performance Assessment, Best Value Performance Indicators and public satisfaction.

(9) The Board:- (a) noted the progress being made for the new highway service; and (b) agreed to put forward any issue it would like the new highway service to consider.

23 Following a proposal by the Chairman, Members agreed to take Item 20 next 13. Speed Limits – The Need for Setting Appropriate Limits (Item 20 – Report by Mid Kent Transportation Manager) (1) According to Government figures released in 1999, the majority of drivers regularly broke speed limits. This was true for all classes of road, all times of day and all days of the week. Clearly, many drivers treated posted speed limits as guidelines and failed to recognise the risks they posed to themselves, their passengers and those outside their vehicles. (2) Speed limits were set in one of three ways:- • if there were no street lights and there were no signs to say otherwise, the national speed limit applied; • if there were street lights and there were no signs to say otherwise, the speed limit was automatically 30 mph for all vehicles regardless of whether the road was a single or dual carriageway; the government had made a regulation that specifically prohibited Councils from erecting ‘repeater’ 30 mph signs on such roads; • if a Highway Authority wished to impose a lower or higher speed limit to the above, they must make a legal order to set it and before they could do this, they must consult with the Police who were the enforcement authority for the criminal offence of exceeding the speed limit; to allow Kent Police to target enforcement of speed limits most effectively, they only supported a lower speed limit in the following circumstances:- (a) if no more than 15% of drivers were travelling above the proposed speed limit (the 85th%ile rule); (b) if, at the same time as introducing the new speed limit, the Highway Authority installed physical measures that were likely to reduce drivers’ speeds to the proposed speed limit; (c) if there had been a high number of speed related crashes and non- physical measures aimed at reducing speeds were not implementable and that the site did not meet the criteria for speed cameras; and (d) density of development (the higher the density the lower the speed limit). (3) The Department for Transport’s Circular 1/93 stated that, ‘it was not axiomatic that the lowest limit will produce the lowest actual speed. If the limit is unrealistically low drivers may well choose to ignore it whilst a higher, but more realistic, limit could affect drivers’ choice of speed’. Further, ‘specific speed limits cannot, on their own be expected to reduce vehicle speed if they are set at a level substantially below that at which drivers would choose to drive in the absence of a limit’. (4) A report was submitted by Kent Highway Services to the April 2006 Maidstone Joint Transportation Board (JTB) recommending the conversion of Heath Road, between Linton Crossroads and Langley Crossroads, to a 40 mph limit throughout its length. The current limits were; 40 mph between Linton Crossroads and just beyond Marlpit bends, then national (derestricted), 40 mph through Chart Sutton, and then national through to Langley.

24 (5) Despite the recommendation, the JTB went against it and instead wanted to see the section of road between Linton Crossroads to just beyond the Cock Inn at Cock Street become a 30 mph limit. This was a distance of approximately 1.3 miles. (6) The County Council’s proposal did already recognise that there was a safety issue on this section of road, there having been 6 slight injury crashes in the latest 3 year period (up to 31 December 2005). This included 4 at the junction of Heath Road with Hubbards Lane. The 85th%ile speeds had shown traffic to be travelling at over 50 mph and the character of the road did not naturally suit a 30 mph limit. It was unclear what was expected to suddenly change the behaviour of the majority of drivers from travelling at over 50 mph to speeds which were at or about 30 mph. (7) In setting any limit both the Police and the County Council were seeking limits that fostered compliance and as much self-enforcement as possible. This could only be achieved if the criteria was strictly applied and that the majority of drivers ‘believed’ in the posted limit and understood why it was there. Speed limits were likely to be at their most effective where it reflected the local environment. On a point of comparison it was worth considering the environment of a road quite well known, for example, Willington Street, in Maidstone, which had an existing 30 mph limit. This was a road that bore no resemblance in character (built-up, urban residential, high traffic flows, high pedestrian movements, etc) to the section of Heath Road under discussion, yet was being requested to be treated in a similar manner. (8) There was also a risk that by implementing an inappropriate limit, ie, one that did not relate well to the ‘natural’ road environment, could encourage driver frustration, bunching, potential for shunts and overtaking manoeuvres which could serve to introduce a new safety problem and actually worsen the existing crash record rather than reduce it. This factor must be considered by Members in the context of the Road Death Investigation Manual. (9) Kent Police’s Senior Forensic Collision Investigator believed that setting inappropriate speed limits might ‘inadvertently encourage dangerous manoeuvres’, because if a large number of motorists failed to comply with the reduced limit then they were more likely to try and overtake those in the minority who did. There was a risk of encouraging that particular manoeuvre if the road in question did not suit a 30 mph speed limit which could lead to serious head on collisions. A similar situation arose on the A228 (administered by Medway Council). Although a different class of road a lower limit was introduced against the wishes of the Police and the safety record worsened, rather than improved, as a result of the manoeuvres described. (10) It was the view that the introduction of an inappropriate limit was likely to breed contempt, lack of compliance and lack of respect for the law and place undue pressure upon the Police. The Police were no different to any other organisation in that they had to prioritise resources and target them in those areas where they believed they would be the most effective and bring the greatest benefits. It would be quite illogical and wrong if the Police were pressured into enforcing an inappropriate limit on a road such as this as this could be at the cost of more pressing needs elsewhere. (11) Once there was a realisation among the local community as to the ineffectiveness of the limit, officers could foresee pressure being placed upon the County Council to introduce traffic calming measures. This would have to take its place in the queue for funding and, alongside the necessary signing, risked urbanisation of the countryside as well as increasing the financial burden upon this Authority, including the on-going maintenance.

25 (12) It was also important to bear in mind that although this did not apply in this case, if a road was street lit then 30 mph repeater signs could not be provided. We, therefore, have to be mindful of a potential situation whereby a change of speed limit, from 40 mph to 30 mph in a street lit area, would result in the removal of the 40mph repeater signs, yet they would not be replaced. However, should the situation change in Heath Road whereby there was a need to provide street lighting and a 30mph limit had already been introduced, speed limit repeater signs would have to be removed. (13) Other examples:- A28, St Michael’s St Michael’s Primary School contacted KHS about concerns about traffic driving in excess of the existing 40 mph limit. The School approached Jacobs to carry out the speed surveys and when we eventually obtained a copy it was found that the majority of traffic was complying with the limit. The stretch of road in question had a low crash record and none had involved excessive speed. However, the School was not content with this and was lobbying for a 30 mph limit to be introduced when there was no justification to do so.

A28, Chartham KHS officers recommended that the speed limit should not be lowered, yet this was over ruled by the Canterbury JTB who insisted upon a length of 40 limit, just to the west of Hatch Lane and 50 for the remainder to join up with the existing 50 in Chilham.

A251, between Faversham and Challock Following a safety review of the A251 between Faversham and Challock, which included signing and lining as well as speed limit changes, it was recommended that a speed limit of 40 mph was appropriate for the villages of North Street, Sheldwich and Badlesmere. This reflected the safety record, speed surveys, local environment and Police support. This was reported to the Swale JTB who insisted upon the introduction of a 30 mph limit for each village.

(14) Speed limits had to be appropriate to the local environment, existing traffic speeds and crash record if they were to bring any benefit in terms of improved road safety. It was, therefore, paramount that we dealt with actual problems rather than the perception of a problem. Any worsening of the safety record on a section of road following a change in speed limit would be investigated by the Police under the Road Death Investigation Manual. (15) The Chairman agreed to receive representations from Mr I Ellis, Chairman of the Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council. (16) Subject to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste discussing the matter with the Chairman of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Committee, the Board supported the proposals for recommendation that:- (a) the proposal to introduce a 40 mph speed limit between Linton Crossroads and Langley, as described and as recommended in the report to the April Maidstone JTB, be endorsed; (b) the request by the Maidstone JTB to introduce a 30 mph speed limit between Linton Crossroads and the Cock Inn, Cock Street, not be supported; and

26 (c) Members should only support the introduction of those speed limits that were supported by the Police and recommended by officers. 14. 2005 End of Year Crash and Casualty Numbers and Progress Against National 2010 Casualty Targets (Item 14 – Report by County Transportation Manager) (1) The crash records for 2005 for Kent were finalised in May. The totals were used in establishing best value performance indicators, government targets and establishing trends on KCC roads. In 2005, 90 people were killed on roads in Kent (excluding Medway), 667 received serious injuries and 5835 were slightly injured. There were 4852 crashes. (2) To help focus on achieving continuous improvement in road safety the Government had set a national target for reducing casualties by 2010. The target excluded trunk roads. Compared with the 1994-98 average the target was:- A 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents (KSI) – KCC as part of PSA2 intended to achieve this target by the end of 2007. A 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured. A 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100million vehicle kilometres (MVKm). Kent did not have a traffic model appropriate for KCC roads. Therefore, a simple 10% reduction in slight casualties had been used to set targets in Kent. (3) Our own national targets excluded Highway Agency (HA) roads, but the Best Value Performance Indicators included them so data was presented for Kent including Trunk roads and for KCC roads. Tables 1 and 2 of the report showed 2005 compared with the target set by Government for 2010 and with the latest 2004 data. It could be seen from the tables that compared with the 2010 target, KSI casualties were within 5% of the 2010 target; child KSI had exceeded the 2010 target by 16%. Slight casualties, however, showed a minimal reduction of 2%. (4) Graphs attached to the report showed trends in killed and serious injuries (KSI) and slight injury casualties since 1990. For 2005 KSI casualties decreased by 8% compared with 2004, and indicated that the 2004 was an upward “blip” in the overall downward trend. The 2005 child KSI figures showed a 43% reduction. (5) 2005 slight casualties showed a 2% reduction compared with the national target. KCC highway authority roads however had a 2% increase in slight casualties compared with the 2004 figures. The graphs showed that the trend in slight casualties was more erratic than KSI trends figures. There was however an indication of the start of an upward trend in reported slight injury casualties. This could partly be due to a shift from KSI to slight casualties and improved reporting of slight injury crashes. It was unlikely that a numerical 10% reduction in slight injuries could be achieved by 2010; although a less defined trend might emerge if it was practical to relate slight casualties to a rate per million vkm. (6) Overall KCC‘s performance was good and we were well placed to meet the 2010 KSI targets. Indeed, we were also well placed to meet the additional challenge target of our Local Area Agreement, Outcome 9 (associated LPSA Target 12) - meeting the 2010 KSI targets by the end of 2007. The trend in casualties was downward, continuing a well established pattern. Despite this encouraging downward trend KCC’s commitment to reducing casualties needed to be maintained to ensure our target was 27 achieved. It was, therefore, vital that we continued to deliver programmes of work aimed at both improving the road infrastructure and road user behaviour. (7) The Board noted the content of the report. 15. Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Work Programme for 2006-07 (Item 15 – Report by County Transportation Manager) (1) The report outlined the progress made by Kent Highway Services (KHS) in ensuring compliance with the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005, and recommended a £50,000 programme of improvements to uncontrolled crossing points for spending in 2006-07. (2) The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 came into full force in October 2004. From that date service providers had been forced to make reasonable adjustments to their premises to overcome physical barriers to access. KHS was committed to making the highway environment accessible to disabled people, and this was being done in a thorough and measured way. Focussing upon uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points was the first step in the process. (3) In April 2005, a second Disability Discrimination Act received Royal Assent. The Act was designed to extend disabled people’s rights and was essentially an extension of the DDA 1995. It included further measures to ensure DDA compliance including an extension to cover public transport vehicles. KHS considered itself to be a service provider under the DDA 1995 and should continue to do so under the DDA 2005. (4) A report presented to the Board in January 2005 highlighted uncontrolled crossing points as the highest priority to disabled people questioned in a recent survey. The survey was undertaken jointly by KHS and the Kent Reference Panel (KRP) - a group of disabled people representing many impairments with links to national, countywide and district disability organisations. As a consequence, on 12 July 2005 it was agreed by the Board that the first allocation of £50,000 be spent in East Kent, specifically in the Canterbury City Council (CCC) area, as audits had already taken place here and a clear need had been identified. (5) The report from January 2005 recommended that funds be spent on ensuring uncontrolled crossing points in town centres were made the highest priority and that the KRP, with assistance from KHS officers should ascertain which crossing points within town centres were considered the most urgent to upgrade. The recommendations in the January 2005 report were accepted. In 2005, the KRP audited a number of town centres for dropped kerb requirements across Kent. (6) In 2005-6 the full £50,000 allocation was spent in Canterbury, Whitstable and Herne Bay areas. In addition, CCC also allocated £6500 to be spent in the Canterbury area. A full list of sites where improvements were made, were set out in Appendix A of the report. (7) The report presented to the Board on 7 March 2006 on the Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2006-7 recommended that £50,000 be allocated for 2006-7 to be spent on uncontrolled pedestrian crossings in the West Kent Divisional Area. A clear need had been identified in the West Kent area, where it was considered that the funds would have the greatest impact. The report was approved in full following the meeting. (8) To date, access audits had been completed by the KRP, in conjunction with KHS for towns and villages in the Districts of Ashford, Gravesham, Sevenoaks, Swale, Thanet, Tonbridge and Malling and Tunbridge Wells. A comprehensive set of information had been collected for Tonbridge and Malling and Gravesham and so it was 28 recommended that the majority of the £50,000 allocation for 2006-7 should be spent within the Tonbridge and Malling and Gravesham Boroughs. This did not, however mean that funding could not be used in the Dartford and Sevenoaks areas, should a clear need be identified. (9) Works should be programmed in early to ensure that the funds allocated were spent within the 2006-7 financial year; and £50,000 would have little impact if divided up amongst a number of Districts. It was, therefore, prudent to focus the funding on the Tonbridge and Malling area where a comprehensive priority list of uncontrolled crossing points to be rectified had been created. (10) The Board supported the proposals for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that:- (a) the £50,000 allocated to DDA Compliance in the Integrated Transport programme for 2006-7 be spent on upgrading uncontrolled crossing points in West Malling and Gravesend primarily; and (b) funding in future years continue in order for KHS to maintain and improve its high standard of DDA compliance across Kent.

16. Improving Public Satisfaction (Item 16 – Report by Acting Director, Kent Highway Services) (1) The public’s perception of the delivery of the highways service had generally be rated as poor. The report informed the Board of the ways we currently inform the public of our services and our future plans. Our aim was to improve the perception of the service we provided and to be totally transparent in the way we interfaced with the public. (2) Examples of the ways Kent Highway Services was improving public satisfaction were:- • Kent Highway Services identity. From 10 July, all Kent Highway Services (KHS) Alliance Partners – KCC, Jacobs, TSUK and Ringway – would use the KHS identity, as opposed to their own corporate identity. • KHS montage. A montage of images had been developed to depict the various services we offered to the public. It was intended that this be used on various promotional items, to both internal and external audiences, so people associated the services with our logo. • Leaflets and stationary. We were producing a suite of 25 leaflets that would inform the public about the various services we offered. The leaflets had been written in a question and answer format and would receive the Crystal Mark from the Plain English Campaign to ensure they were suitable for the public. The leaflets would be available through KCC offices, main libraries, District and Borough Council offices, the KCC Contact Centre and website. All Alliance partners would use the same stationary and email signatures to ensure a consistent message and image to the public. • Frontline Staff Clothing. The branding of our frontline staff was extremely important, as they represented the whole of the service whilst in the public’s view. All Alliance frontline staff would be equipped with KHS branded polo shirts, high visibility jacket and fleece, so they were easily identifiable to the public.

29 • Vehicle Livery. All vehicles would be branded with the KHS logo and Contact Centre telephone number. Alliance partners’ vehicles would not display their own corporate identity.

• Roadwork signs and works notification. We had designed a new layout for our standard roadwork signs, which would give the public the basic facts of when and where the works would take place but also a reason for them. We would have an agreed set of standard reasons which would inform the public of why the works were taking place, ie, carriageway resurfacing, footway works, so they might hopefully appreciate that they were being done for their benefit. We would also inform the public of forthcoming works in their area and had developed various procedures to give them as much information and advanced notice, as possible. Information leaflets would be delivered to each house that would be directly affected by the works and copies would be displayed on lamp posts, to inform those that use the road and pavement. In order to reduce the amount of time spent writing generic letters to the public, and to ensure the consistency of our message, we were also producing fact sheets for various services that took place throughout the county, such as surface dressing, drainage cleansing and road closures.

• Press. One of our main objectives in improving public satisfaction was to increase the quantity of positive press articles that appeared in the local newspapers. We realised that by keeping the public informed about our work, the reasons why we were doing the work and how it might affect them, might lead to them having a greater understanding of our service. We had developed various procedures that enabled us to release articles regarding programmed works, together with seasonal work, such as winter services, grass cutting. We also analysed the coverage we get in the local press, recording each article as giving a positive, neutral or negative image of our service. For May 2006, our positive press was 53%, negative press 29%, giving a net value of 24%.

• Surveys and Consultation. We would continue to perform an annual tracker survey to gain the public’s views about our service. The next survey would take place in November 2006 and for the first time, a copy would be sent to KCC members and Parish/Town Councils for them to complete. We would also continue to monitor the views of those who had lived near our roadworks, by surveying residents, KCC Members and Parish/Town Councils. We also surveyed residents on new housing developments. We were also developing a procedure that would ensure we consulted with the public over new designs, road layouts etc, at the appropriate time, so all parties felt that they had had an adequate input into future plans.

• Members. Keith Ferrin, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, had been engaging with both KCC and District Members to inform them of the changes – the meetings had been well received.

30 We would continue to produce the ‘Kent Highways Services News’ for each Highways Advisory Board, to keep Members updated with what was happening in the service and inform them of all important issues.

• Parish and Town Councils. It was very important that Parish and Town Councils were kept up to date with any changes that were happening within the service. We had arranged a series of meetings, one to be held in each Divisional office at the end of June, to which the Parish and Town Councils had been invited. The ‘open afternoon’ would consist of a short presentation, given by the Divisional Manager, that would be repeated throughout the afternoon, allowing the visitors to drop in, hear the presentation and ask any questions relating to the changes or to concerns within their areas. We would repeat the process in November, four months into the new contracts, which would give the Parish/Town Councils an opportunity to raise any concerns and ask any further questions.

We had also distributed A4 information posters and business cards to all Parish and Town Councils, encouraging them to display these on their notice boards and hand out where appropriate.

• Contact Centre. We were continuing to monitor the calls received by the Contact Centre. We produced a monthly analysis of the types of call received, which helped us understand the seasonal variations and plan appropriate press coverage. We also undertook a monthly call-back survey, to monitor the public’s views of the service they received, from calling the Contact Centre to the problem being fixed.

The results of May 2006 call-back survey were:-

• 78% of callers said it was easy to find out who to call about a highway.

• 90% of callers said the operator was helpful.

• 77% of callers said the problem or query was resolved in a time they were happy with.

• 68% net satisfaction with the service overall - this was calculated by taking the 7% who were not satisfied from the 75% who were satisfied.

(3) Through the deliverables identified in the report, we would ensure that residents and visitors to Kent were provided with a much more visible and accountable service. This would happen through a strong partnership within Kent Highway Services, where all staff were empowered to improve service delivery.

(4) The Board:-

(a) noted the progress being made to improve public satisfaction with Kent Highway Services; and

(b) agreed to put forward any issue it would like the new highway service to consider.

31 17. Launch of a Maidstone Car Club (Item 17 – Report by County Transportation Manager) (1) The report outlined a proposal to pilot a Car Club to serve County Hall and Maidstone residents. The Car Club scheme was proposed as part of the County Hall Travel Plan, which had enabled the sustainable expansion of the site from 1360 to 1630 employees since 1999. The results of a survey commissioned at the outset of the plan demonstrated that:- - Many employees lived close enough to County Hall to make sustainable travel choices a real possibility (22.5%) or close to public transport services (72%) and in areas with good car share potential. - Many employees were prepared to change to more sustainable travel choices, providing resources were there to help. - Many employees already walked to work (13%). - Very few employees cycled. (2) A follow up survey in 2002 demonstrated that single car occupancy journeys had reduced by 13.2% and public transport usage had increased by 5%. A further survey in 2005 indicated a further 5% rise in public transport use. A further survey was due to be undertaken as part of National Green Transport Week in June 2006. As part of the Travel Plan, ways were continually sought to reduce KCC’s contribution to congestion, to support staff travel choices and maximise efficiency and productivity. Incentives currently included:- - Half price Arriva bus tickets - Kentcarshare online journey matching scheme - Tax free cycle purchase scheme - Shower and changing facilities - Flexible and home working - Pool car(s) to support business travel - Free Park and Ride season tickets for staff (3) Despite the above incentives, pressure on car parking at the County Hall site continued to be significant with, for example, the Invicta House car park allocation currently at 1 and a half times capacity. It was, therefore, evident that the travel plan initiatives to minimise KCC’s environmental footprint and to help promote the benefits of sustainable transport more widely, needed to be expanded and improved to ensure the successful operation of the site. (4) The Car Club initiative was proposed to replace the pool car system with a much improved scheme operated by a specialist company. The scheme would also be available for local residents to help relieve parking pressure on nearby residential roads. Car Clubs were a relatively new concept although they had expanded rapidly over the past year or so. There were currently 30 such Car Clubs covering 40 towns and cities across the UK with over 9000 users (Source: carplus.org.uk). A Car Club was generally operated by a private company, of which there were several major players in the UK at the current time. Car Clubs provided cars for people when they needed them. This decoupled car use from ownership and so users were free to consider the best way of making a journey. Many users were given, often for the first time, the option of not having to own a car. A Car Club that was successfully 32 embedded within other local transport infrastructure should provide a viable and attractive alternative to private car use. Research had shown substantial reductions in car use amongst Car Club members (up to 70%), taking private cars off the road (6 for every 1 Car Club car), increased public transport use, walking and cycling. This led to reduced pollution and healthier lives, which in turn improved neighbourhoods and communities (Source: carplus.org.uk). The key elements of a Car Club were set out in the report. (5) It was proposed that for the County Hall scheme:- - 2 cars would initially be block booked by KCC for 10 hours a day, ie, 8.00 am to 6.00 pm, thus maximising the availability for business use. - Each individual member would be issued with their own Smartcard with the billing directed to the relevant accounts department. - The cars would be located in a prominent position within the vicinity of County Hall to maximise security and the profile of the scheme. - The scheme would be promoted to other town centre employers and residents in the ME14 postcode area to maximise the utilisation of the vehicles on evenings and weekends. - Depending on the success of the scheme there was the potential to quickly introduce at least a further two vehicles on the County Hall site bringing the total fleet to 4 vehicles (double the existing capacity). (6) Provided that the scheme was well promoted and utilised, the cost implications for KCC were likely to be broadly neutral when compared to the existing pool car scheme which already incurred substantial ongoing costs for the lease and maintenance of the vehicles. It was very likely that substantial savings would be made, particularly taking into account the increased availability and reliability of the vehicles and reduced pressures on staff parking. The scheme would be subject to regular review to ensure it continued to be cost effective and viable but initial indications were that it had the potential to be highly successful. (7) A tender process was underway and it was anticipated that a company would be selected to operate the scheme during July. A series of promotional and briefing events would take place during July/August to ensure that the scheme was ready for launch in September with all pool car users and other staff aware of how the Car Club would operate and how to access the scheme. (8) The Council had, through the development of its 2006-2011 LTP, recognised that piloting and promoting Car Clubs in the county would provide a useful service for the county’s businesses and residents, helping to meet targets for increasing accessibility, reducing emissions and pollution as well as tackling parking pressures and car dependency. (9) The County Hall scheme would serve as a pilot for this type of initiative in Kent and was likely to generate much positive media attention. A number of other local authorities and developers had indicated that they were keen to keep a watching brief on developments. The potential for expanding the scheme in the future were immense, ie, for major employers, other congested town centre locations, other KCC offices and potentially town centre residential developments with restricted parking. (10) The Board:-

33 (a) supported the proposed implementation of a Car Club at County Hall as part of the County’s commitment to be at the cutting edge of new initiatives to improve travel choice and reduce congestion; and (b) agreed that a progress report be submitted to the Board in six months time.

18. Communicating Smarter Choices (Item 18 – Report by County Transportation Manager) (1) The report outlined the proposed communications plan for Smarter Choices Kent in 2006/07 and sought approval for new roadside signs promoting Kent Highway Services’ sustainable transport initiatives at key congestion hotspots. The availability and effectiveness of information in Kent on public transport services was a key determinant in the County Council’s Continuous Performance Assessment (CPA) rating. A lack of awareness about alternatives to car use was often cited as a major barrier to switching to more sustainable travel choices. For example, as part of the 2005 Kent Highway Services Tracker Survey, 68% of respondents claimed that their employer provided no advice or assistance with their travel arrangements. This contributed to the common perception of a limited and unreliable public transport service amongst those who rated access to public transport as ‘difficult’. (2) For those reasons a communications plan had been prepared as part of the Smarter Choices strategy within the Local Transport Plan. The Plan focused on target audiences and locations where the audiences were most receptive to sustainable transport messages. The broad conclusions were that the key audiences were single car occupants making short intra-urban trips and children and young people/parents involved in the ‘school-run’. The audiences were likely to be most receptive at existing congestion hotspots and locations where viable alternatives existed such as improved public transport or areas with a concentration of Kentcarshare members. (3) A communications plan had, therefore, been developed for 2006/07 targeting the above demographic and locations. The key components were:- (a) Radio Advertising Research showed that radio advertising was one of the most powerful yet cost- effective media for advertising, particularly at a local level. In terms of reaching people in their cars at the above locations, radio advertising and promotion provided a largely captive audience. Following recent publicity on CTR FM in Maidstone, the Kentcarshare website experienced the highest number of registrations since its launch in September 2005. For that reason it was proposed to work with CTR (Maidstone) and KMFM (West Kent and Canterbury) with a series of adverts promoting Kentcarshare. The scheme was part of a wider advertising/information initiative across Kent Highway Services. (b) Car Park Ticket Advertising Research had shown that 75% of car park users recalled the message on the back of their car park ticket. It was considered that this mode of advertising was an effective way to reach target audiences. A series of adverts using car park tickets were proposed for September (European Mobility Week) and pre Christmas in Maidstone, Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells. These would promote Kentcarshare as well as walking, cycling and park and ride in partnership with Canterbury City Council and Maidstone Borough Council.

34 (c) Kentcarshare Information Signs At the current time there were Kentcarshare information signs at 25 locations on key routes into Maidstone, Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells. The signs had proved effective, but were temporary and were being relocated on a regular basis to keep the initiative fresh. The signs were being investigated for re-siting at new congestion ‘hotspot’ locations in Ashford, Gravesend and Sittingbourne. (d) New Information and Advice Signs Following the relocation of the above signs, it was proposed to site single information signs at congestion ‘hotspots’ within Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells and Canterbury. The signs would be subject to planning approval from the district councils and we would bear in mind Members’ concern about sign clutter. The intention was that the design would allow for the messages to be rotated on a regular basis to promote other KHS congestion busting initiatives. (e) Information on Walk to School Kent’s partnership with the Kent and Medway Walking Bus Group (K&MWBG) continued. There were now 60 walking buses in the county with 1,500 school children regularly participating. It was estimated that the project had already saved 30,000 ‘school run’ car trips so far this year. It was recognised that there was scope for an additional walk to school incentive at schools where a walking bus might not be possible or practical. As such, KHS was working in partnership with the K&MWBG and Medway Council on the ‘KM Green Footsteps Challenge’, a brand new walk to school initiative to be launched in the Autumn term. (f) Linking to National and International Events KHS continued to target nationally and internationally recognised events to help promote sustainable transport initiatives. The main events this year were:- National Green Transport Week (10–18 June) - KCC Commuter Challenge (Wednesday, 14 June), a challenge to get from Maidstone Hospital to County Hall by the ‘greenest’ possible mode of transport. Points awarded for environmental friendliness, speed, cost and innovation! - National Liftshare Day (Wednesday, 14 June) the annual celebration of car sharing in association with LiftShare and Kentcarshare. - Promotion of the new KCC Bikes for Work initiative in association with the Rewards team. - Local radio and media coverage. Bike Week (17–25 June) - Various activities in association with local schools European Mobility Week (16–22 September) - Kentcarshare radio adverts with CTR and KMFM - Car park ticket advertising - Kentcarshare Parish Council launch

35 Walk to School week (week beginning 22 May and 2 October) - Launch of KM Green Footsteps Challenge (4) The success of Smarter Choices Kent relied on the effective communication of key messages to the general public. (5) The Board supported the initiatives proposed as part of the communications plan for 2006/07.

19. A2 Pepperhill to Cobham Widening Scheme (Item 19 – Report by Acting Director, Kent Highway Services) (1) Widening of the A2 trunk road between Pepperhill and Cobham from 3 to 4 lanes in each direction was Phase 2 of the Bean to Cobham widening scheme; phase 1 of which, Bean to Pepperhill was completed last year. The report gave an update on the construction programme, highlighted the main issues and outlined ongoing consultations between SKANSKA (the consortium delivering the project for the Highways Agency), and County and Gravesham Borough Council officers. (2) Public consultation on three alternative route choices was carried out in March 2001 by the Highways Agency. There was a clear preference for the ‘red’ route which moved the A2 away from residential areas for the majority of its length to follow the line of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. This route was developed further and received confirmation of public support at further public exhibitions/consultation in July and October 2004. The route was confirmed after a Public Inquiry in May/June last year. (3) Since then, SKANSKA had been in regular discussions with working parties comprising both County and Gravesham Borough officers and the County’s consultants Jacobs as the scheme had been developed in more detail. The redundant old A2 corridor was to be retained as highway as there were numerous statutory undertakers services beneath it, but it would be for non motorised uses only. A pedestrian and cycle path would meander along what was the old coast bound hard shoulder, whilst equestrians would be able to use what was the old southern footway between Downs Road and Church Road. Much of the rest of the old carriageways would be recycled and then landscaped. The main topics of the discussions being:- (a) form and management of the landscaping of the redundant old A2 corridor and replacement park (route goes through park provided by CTRL). Also the dowry from the Highways Agency for maintaining this; (b) form of the footpath/cyclepath along the redundant carriageway and control measures at the access points; (c) form of the two public rights of way bridges at Ifield Court and Church Road. Gravesham Borough Council had won a grant of £900,000 to upgrade the basic 2m wide footbridges to 3.5m to enable use by cyclists and equestrians and also enhance the design of the structures themselves; (d) Downs Road – retention or removal of this as a vehicular route across A2. This was a little used route for local residents travelling between Pepperhill/Dene Holme and Istead Rise. It was subject to fly tipping and other undesirable uses. Formal public consultation would be carried out jointly by the County Council and Gravesham Borough Council later this summer;

36 (e) design of the new junctions at Tollgate and Marling Cross and connecting roads which would be transferred to the County; (f) signing of the new junctions and pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian facilities; and (g) impact of the schemes’ construction, including diversion routes and signing with a proposed temporary closure of the Marling Cross over- bridge for several months. (4) The phasing programme for the construction was still provisional and liable to change and it was not expected to be finalised until August this year. Nevertheless, work on the main line was not expected to start until January 2007 when additional crossovers would be constructed to enable contra-flow working on the A2 as required. There was an undertaking to maintain 3 lanes (albeit narrow lanes) in each direction on the A2 at all times during the construction. Prior to this the following advance works were to take place:- (a) August/September 2006 at the Pepperhill Junction – statutory undertakers’ diversions on the eastern slip roads, some earth moving, construction of temporary balancing pond and archaeological investigations; and (b) October 2006 at Tollgate junction – start bridge works, demolish old part of hotel, garage and cottages. (5) Due to the physical constraints at Marling cross, in order to construct the new junction and carry out numerous statutory undertakers diversions, closure of the Marling Cross over bridge was required, probably from mid May 2007 for some 11 months. In order to inform local residents of this, of the diversion routes and to up date them on the scheme programme generally, SKANSKA were proposing to hold another public exhibition at the end of October or beginning of November this year. (6) The bridge closure and other proposed traffic management had given great concern to both the County and Borough Councils. Engineers from the West Kent Divisional office of Kent Highway Services and officers from the Borough Council continued to work closely with the Highways Agency and SKANSKA to resolve, wherever possible, likely traffic congestion throughout the Borough of Gravesham during scheme construction. (7) Day to day works on the local highway network, usually highway maintenance or utilities, had to continue throughout the A2 works. The management of all the works in their entirety would pose a substantial challenge to the highway service. The provisional programme currently indicated that the new A2 with 4 lanes in each direction should be open in October 2008. Works to the redundant old A2 would follow on from this for a few months yet to be decided. (8) The Board noted the report.

20. Safety Cameras (Item 21 – Report by County Transportation Manager) (1) The report considered three items associated with safety cameras in the county:- • The Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership’s (KMSCP) annual report on the progress of the partnership. • With the removal of the government’s rules of safety camera site selection from April 2007 the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership had 37 produced its own selection criteria. The criteria and notes explaining the changes were provided for member’s information. • Following a review of the existing camera sites in the county a limited number of sites were to be removed. A list of the sites was provided for member’s information. KMSCP’s Annual Report (2) Further to Minute 11 of 7 March 2006, the Partnership had now reached the end of its fourth financial year of operation (“Year 4”) and a report from the Project Manager, The Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership was attached as an Appendix. In March it was reported how successful the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership had been in reducing deaths and serious injuries by 53% at the camera sites. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) report in December 2005 showed the Kent and Medway operation to be amongst the best in England. (3) One new fixed site and three new mobile sites were identified and accepted by the government to begin operation this financial year, they were:- Station Road, Littlestone (Fixed) Seven Mile Lane, south of the A26 (Mobile) Seal Hollow Lane, Sevenoaks (Mobile) Marine Parade, Sheerness (Mobile). Members noted that the partnership would provide regular up-date reports to future meetings of HAB, and were reminded that the partnerships website contained detailed information on all Kent’s sites and could be found at www.kmscp.org New Selection Criteria (4) From April 2007 the government would no longer set rules for the selection of safety cameras, both fixed and mobile. They would however be providing guidance based on previous good practice. The KMSCP believed that adherence to the previous government rules had put the county in a strong position nationally with crash reduction rates above the national average. To enable the success to continue beyond 2007 the partnership had produced a selection criterion that was based on the success of the previous rules. However, it also took this opportunity to introduce a degree of flexibility to ensure that all sites where there was a history of speed related crashes, and where all other engineering and education measures had been considered, could then see the introduction of camera enforcement. (5) The only reason to implement a safety camera was to reduce crashes. Therefore, the previous government scoring system was to be retained, but only at the higher scoring level, ie, 22/km in built up areas and 18/km in rural areas. With 5 points for a crash involving a person killed or seriously injured (KSI) and one point for a slight injury crash. The criteria increased the requirement to ensure that the analysis of the crash record (three years) indicated that implementation of a camera would result in a reduction of crash levels at that site. This would also provide clear guidance to members and the public why sites were selected or not. (6) The speed criterion previously used was however flawed; it required 85th percentile speeds more than 5 mph above the speed limit. This requirement excluded many “A” and “B” class rural roads where high-speed collisions resulting in high severity were being recorded. The roads were often subject to the national speed limit and the 38 scope for engineered remedial action was limited compared to urban 30 mph areas for example where traffic calming measures could be introduced. (7) Previously sites to be considered for fixed cameras required a higher number of crashes than sites considered for mobile cameras. In the proposed new criteria the distinction was removed, as the most suitable method of enforcement should be the only consideration. Fixed sites had the greatest effect on speed reduction as they were always present, but in rural areas housings were vulnerable to attack and vandalism. There was also a problem of electrical supply so in those cases mobile enforcement might be the best option. Equally in urban areas where schools and high levels of pedestrians were found it might be difficult to find suitable areas for mobile enforcement to take place and in such places fixed sites might be the only option. All other areas such as signing, road markings, safety of operation etc remained the same. (8) Under the current and previous DfT handbook’s rules the KMSCP was allowed to carry out 15% of its time at “community concern” sites. Some of those were sites previously used by the Kent Police and some following concerns raised by the public about high speeds. Initially some guidance was given in the DfT handbook on site selection but from April 2007 such sites would be purely at the discretion jointly of the KCC and the Kent Police. The KMSCP’s Board was currently considering how sites within this category should be selected along with rules of engagement such as the provision of temporary or part time signage. Details of this would be provided once the KMSCP’s Board had formulated it. Consideration of the increased use of speed indicating devices (SID’s) was also being considered. Review of safety camera sites in Kent. (9) Since the introduction of the KMSCP in 2002 the rules regarding the introduction of safety cameras had changed almost annually and with the changes in April 2007 councils must continue to ensure that all camera sites remained robust and their use justifiable. At a number of locations changes in road layout, increased development, changed traffic flow patterns and subsequent changes to the rules allowing for the provision of cameras meant that a small number of sites were no longer required. A list of the sites was shown in Appendix C of the report. Monitoring of the sites would continue and if the situation changed then camera enforcement could be re-instated. In addition to the sites indicated in Appendix C the partnership was also considering those sites being used under the 15% rule. This would also result in a small number also being removed but again close monitoring of the sites would take place. (10) The Board:- (a) acknowledged the annual report of the KMSCP; (b) noted the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnerships safety camera selection criteria; and (c) noted the removal of safety camera enforcement by the KMSCP at the sites shown in Appendix C of the report.

At the conclusion of the meeting the Chairman thanked the officers for the exemplary manner in which they had presented reports.

06/exe/hab/071106/Minutes

39