(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Joint Transportation Board, 21/01

Public Document Pack

A G E N D A

JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Monday 21 January 2019 at 6.00 pm Council Chamber, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1RS

Borough Members: Councillors Stanyer (Chairman), Backhouse, Dr Hall, Lidstone, Simmons and Woodward

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

Parish Member Councillor Mackonochie

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

1 Apologies To receive any apologies for absence.

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

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

4 Minutes of the meeting dated 15 October 2018 (To Follow) To approve the minutes of a previous meeting as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

5 Update Report (Pages 5 - 8)

Page 1

6 Proposed Amendments to Parking Restrictions - Mount (Pages 9 - 48) Pleasant Road / Mount Pleasant Avenue, Royal Tunbridge Wells

7 Proposed Amendments to Parking and Traffic Restrictions - (Pages 49 - 58) Mount Pleasant Road and adjoining roads for the Public Realm Enhancement Scheme

8 Local Winter Service Plan 2018/19 (Pages 59 - 60)

9 Well -managed Highway Infrastructure (Pages 61 - 90)

10 Flood Investigation (Pages 91 - 122)

11 Local Plan Working Group Update (Pages 123 - 126)

12 Highway Works Programme (Pages 127 - 150)

13 Topics for Future Meetings (Pages 151 - 152) To agree any topics for future meetings, of which prior notice must be sent to the Chairman and Democratic Services Officer no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting. There can not be any substantive debate/discussion or any decision on any topics raised, except to agree whether the topic may come forward in future.

14 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday 15 April 2019 at 6.00pm.

Mark O'Callaghan Town Hall Democratic Services Officer ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS Tel: (01892) 554219 Kent TN1 1RS Email: mark.o'[email protected]

mod.gov app – go paperless

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

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

Page 2

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

Notes on Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Update Report

Recommendation:

That the report be noted

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report provides an update on matters that have previously been subject to consideration by the Joint Transportation Board and where there has been substantive progress or changes to note.

1.2 Any outstanding matters that are pending will not usually be included in this report but do continue to be monitored separately and may be subject to a report or inclusion in an Update Report on a future date.

1.3 Any items where a decision is required will be subject to a full report.

2. UPDATES

Subject Update Pedestrian Crossing KCC Officers have sent an email to Rusthall Parish Council on Langton Road and Cllr Rankin summarising next steps. Pedestrian count Crossing to complete survey proposed, as part of survey investigations. pedestrian/cycle route from Rusthall to The Pantiles Carrs Corner 1. KCC Officers have provided a feedback report on the Calverley Park Gardens (CPG) closure options to Mr Berendt and Cllr Rankin. KCC Officers have advised Mr Berendt of their deep concern for closure of CPG, based on the information currently available.

2. KCC Officers have provided Cllr Rankin with indicative costs for improving and enhancing the pedestrian refuge on CPG. Cllr Rankin has advised KCC Officers to put further investigation on hold for now, due to Combined Member Grant budget limitations.

3. KCC Officers have met with Cllr Rankin to discuss the other ‘arms’ of the roundabout. Possible improvements to the other ‘arms’ are being investigated and will be reported back to Cllr Rankin. Once viable options are confirmed, further information on costs will be provided to Cllr Rankin. Page 5 Agenda Item 5

4. As point 3 above, further information to be provided once additional options have been considered.

5. KCC Officers have met with Cllr Rankin re. signage in the vicinity of Carrs Corner. Blue advisory ‘No HGV’ signage is to be installed early 2019 in CPG. Warning approach signage on Crescent Road is to be upgraded early 2019.

6. Improvements to the Advanced Directional Signage on Crescent Road is currently being investigated. St Johns 20mph Works complete with the exception of 1 set of roundels zone (including which will be installed January/February 2019. Currie Road) Investigation of safety [Item Discharged] issues related to rat- running Residents’ Parking Following member endorsement at the October board of Grove Hill Road Area changes to the parking restrictions in 6 streets within permit parking zone A, an order was advertised and no objections received. As a result, the necessary traffic regulation order is being made and due for implementation on 1 February 2019.

[Item Discharged] Congestion on Kings Progressed to Combined Member Grant Application. New Toll Road , Pembury signage to be installed February 2019. (Monitor through Related to existing Highways Works Programme.) issues at junction of Hastings Road and [Item Discharged] A21 near Kipping’s Cross 20mph zone for Progressed to Combined Member Fund Application. Speed Culverden surveys to be undertaken January/February 2019. (Monitor Proposal for new zone through Highways Works Programme.)

[Item Discharged] Pedestrian crossing Progressed to Combined Member Fund Application. on Upper Grosvenor Surveys to be undertaken January/February 2019. (Monitor Road through Highways Works Programme.) Proposal for new crossing [Item Discharged] Items raised at JTB in October 2018 as ‘Topics for Future Meetings’ Reporting of Simon Jones, Director of HT&W has advised we do not Performance report at a district level on performance in this manner. We Indicators already have in place more than sufficient performance and contract monitoring and this information is publicly available. Each quarter a Performance Monitoring report is taken to the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee (ETCC) and this is published on the council website. Page 6 Agenda Item 5

Please find below the link that will direct you to the minutes and reports of the last Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee on 28 November 2018. The Performance Dashboard is Item No.130: https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId= 831&MId=7977&Ver=4

Customers who raise an online enquiry can track the progress online and we encourage this as being the best way to report any highway faults. In the event, that a customer has a problem, KCC has a complaints process that should be used where appropriate.

Our road casualty reduction strategy and delivery action plan are available on our website: https://www.kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/road-safety/road- casualty-reduction-strategy

The annual report for year 2017 was recently published in December 2018. This detailed road crash and casualty data is available on the website also: https://www.kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/road-safety/crash- and-casualty-data/detailed-road-crash-and-casualty-data

[Item Discharged]

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Proposed Amendments to Parking Restrictions – Mount Pleasant Road / Mount Pleasant Avenue, Royal Tunbridge Wells

Report Author / Lead Officer Nick Baldwin – Engineer Head of Service / Service Manager Jane Fineman – Head of Finance and Procurement Originating Authority Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Kent County Council Final Decision Taker Kent County Council Exemption Non-exempt Classification For Recommendation

Recommendation:

 That the Board endorses the making of Orders B, C, D, E and F as set out in the report

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Proposals for the Calverley Square development include amendments to the highway layout. To ensure that the revised arrangements function properly, various alterations to waiting and traffic restrictions are necessary and have been advertised. This report details those proposals together with the comments received during a public consultation exercise plus our responses and recommendations.

1.2 The Borough has a clear and ambitious vision to “grow our role as the cultural centre of the Kent & Sussex High Weald, so that by 2024 the borough of Tunbridge Wells is nationally recognised for its vibrant cultural provision”. Having a modern theatre sits at the heart of this vision. The commitment to deliver a modern theatre fit for the 21st Century and deliver new office space on Mount Pleasant Avenue Car Park are key components of the Council’s Five Year Plan. The Calverley Square development will therefore provide:

 A new 1,200 seat theatre that is able to stage high quality touring shows;  A new shared-use building including accommodation for civic functions and offices for TWBC and third party organisations;  An underground car park (approximately 260 car park spaces) partly under the office building and extending under part of Calverley Grounds; and  Local remodelling of the public realm associated with the above buildings and car park.

Page 9 Agenda Item 6

1.3 The development will deliver substantial economic benefits as demonstrated by the Wider Economic Benefits reports published by the applicant. As tested by the Local Planning Authority through independent professional advice (Lichfields report) the economic benefits will be in the order of £24.3m GVA (Gross Value Added) per annum with around half of this net economic benefit retained in the borough with the rest in the wider region.

2 HIGHWAY CHANGES PROPOSED AS PART OF CALVERLEY SQUARE DEVELOPMENT

2.1 A number of highway amendments are proposed as part of the Calverley Square development. These include:-

 Formation of a public realm feature on the southern-most east/west section of Mount Pleasant Avenue and narrowed trackway for vehicles.  Formation of a raised table at the southern-most Mount Pleasant Road/Mount Pleasant Avenue junction.  An amended one-way system on part of Mount Pleasant Avenue.  An angled entrance to the replacement car park on Mount Pleasant Avenue.  Amendments to the kerb line on Mount Pleasant Road in front of the Great Hall to accommodate a loading bay and re-sited bus stops

2.2 To ensure that these alterations can function properly, Traffic Regulation Orders for amended restrictions have been advertised. The proposed restrictions are as follows:-

 The southern-most east/west section of Mount Pleasant Avenue to be subject to a prohibition on stopping, loading or unloading at all times.  A goods vehicle loading bay be created in front Sainsbury’s on Mount Pleasant Road  The taxi bay on the southern-most east/west section of Mount Pleasant Avenue to be removed and relocated to the east side of Mount Pleasant Road  The single disabled bay currently on Mount Pleasant Road outside number 50 to be re-located to the north outside number 58 and enlarged to accommodate two cars.  The car club bay currently outside 42 Mount Pleasant Road to be relocated to the north outside number 62.  To accommodate the last three points, the current 1 hour limited waiting bay to be removed.  The double yellow line and permit parking bays on Mount Pleasant Avenue switch sides  Amended one way restriction in part of Mount Pleasant Avenue with vehicles to travel from west to east on the southern arm and south to north towards the new car park entrance.

Page 10 Agenda Item 6

3 CONSULTATION AND RESPONSE

3.1 Traffic Regulation Orders were advertised for the waiting restrictions on 2 November. An order for the one-way restriction in Mount Pleasant Avenue was advertised two weeks later. Each had a three week consultation period.

3.2 The waiting restrictions were advertised on 5 separate orders which between them resulted in 85 responses. 4 of the responses were from bus companies and either asked questions about, or sought reassurances over, the loading bay/bus stop configuration and enforcement. The issues raised by bus companies have been addressed through dialogue with each of them.

3.3 The 81 public responses were from 52 individuals with one person commenting on 4 proposals, 6 people responding 3 times and 14 people twice. Overall, their comments can be summarised as covering 10 separate issues, as detailed in the next section of this report.

3.4 The proposed reversal of part of the one way arrangement in Mount Pleasant Avenue and extend the restriction to include the southern-most East – West section received no response when advertised and is not, therefore, brought before this Board for further consideration.

3.5 A drawing at Appendix A shows the existing arrangement and parking restrictions. The proposed arrangements are shown at Appendix B. Appendix C lists the Traffic Regulation Orders and also shows the responses received in respect of each order.

4 ISSUES RAISED IN RESPONSES

4.1 As indicated in the preceding paragraph, all responses to the consultation are detailed, without personal information, at Appendix C. Also included under each submission is a response from Vectos, the transport planning consultant working for the main contractor (Mace) and responsible for delivering traffic management solutions.

4.2 The 52 public respondents, as opposed to bus companies, made many similar comments despite being submitted in respect of different restrictions. The objections raised, after discounting those based on inaccurate assumptions, can broadly be summarised as follows:-

 The loss of public parking space on Mount Pleasant Road will inconvenience shoppers and affect retail trade.  Associated with the above, taxi bays are not well used during the daytime.  The prohibition on loading and unloading in Mount Pleasant Avenue will have a negative impact on residents and traders in the vicinity.  Creation of a loading bay on Mount Pleasant Road will be detrimental to highway safety – this was framed around a number of issues including problems for pedestrians crossing Mount Pleasant Road; conflict between pedestrians and goods being trolleyed across the footway; a worsening of

Page 11 Agenda Item 6

traffic conditions in a busy central area and, limited visibility for drivers emerging onto Mount Pleasant Road from Mount Pleasant Avenue.  Accessibility/servicing issues for traders and residents on Mount Pleasant Road/Avenue – it is implied that the revised restrictions will cause problems for anybody wanting to deliver to or collect from commercial or residential premises.  Additional taxi bays on Mount Pleasant Road will result in more hazardous manoeuvres as they try to join the main rank outside the station.  Re-locating the disabled bay(s) up the hill will be a disadvantage to those using them.  Concerns that coaches destined for theatre will park in loading bay and/or bus stops.  Concerns that theatre trucks would use the loading bay and transport scenery etc across and along the footway.  Objections in fairly broad terms to the prohibition of loading and unloading in the proposed public realm part of Mount Pleasant Avenue

5 CLARIFICATION AND GENERAL RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

5.1 Several respondents have assumed that bus stops are being moved away from the immediate area around the station or reduced in number, and raised objections on that basis. Neither is the case, however, and the proposals only involve their re-location 17m to the south.

5.2 Another misapprehension has been that the station taxi rank is being re-located up the hill, whereas in fact it is unaffected. It is only the current ’feeder bay’ in Mount Pleasant Avenue which is being re-located to the southbound (east) side of Mount Pleasant Road.

5.3 Objections to the loss of free public parking on Mount Pleasant Road are understandable but need to be viewed in context. It is unusual in a town the size of Tunbridge Wells to retain free on-street parking space in a central shopping street. This proposal does not remove all such spaces from Mount Pleasant Road and approximately 18 would remain (with approximately 7 lost). Space is generally readily available in the town centre car parks, and the Calverley Square development itself will provide 261 spaces, an increase of 7 spaces over the current Great Hall car park.

5.4 Objections on the basis that the current taxi rank feeder bays are not well used do have some validity but it must be remembered that the bays are currently not in a very visible location. By re-locating them onto Mount Pleasant Road in front of retail premises, it is anticipated that they will become better used, especially when the theatre is in use. Because of the better inter-visibility between this bay and the main one outside the station, it is also hoped that there will be less double parking on the main rank.

5.5 The section of Mount Pleasant Avenue proposed to be subject to a loading prohibition does not have any frontage properties with only the sides of commercial premises abutting it. The proposed restriction should not, therefore,

Page 12 Agenda Item 6

have any significant detrimental impact on those properties, especially when the proposed loading bay on Mount Pleasant Road is taken into consideration.

5.6 The proposed loading bay on Mount Pleasant Road is primarily aimed at meeting the needs of Sainsbury’s and other retail outlets in the Great Hall arcade. It can, however, be used by other premises in the area. It is not intended to be for the new theatre however, since that will have its own loading area. A management plan for the theatre could specifically prohibit vehicles from using this bay. In terms of pedestrian safety, a Road Safety Audit has been undertaken and the one issue raised as part of that process has been addressed by the design team. KCC have raised no objection in principle to the proposed works.

5.7 Taxi manoeuvring from the proposed bay to the station rank will, if anything, be improved over the existing arrangement since they will no longer have to exit a side street (Mount Pleasant Avenue) before crossing the road to join the rear of queuing taxis.

5.8 Moving the disabled parking bay up the hill should have negligible effect on its users and the one supporting comment welcomed the idea. Since the bays may be used by anybody visiting premises either up or down the hill, any dis-benefits should be offset by the benefits.

5.9 The bus stops can be restricted to prevent their use by coaches visiting the theatre.

6 THE INDIVIDUAL RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION

6.1 ORDER A – The Kent County Council (Mount Pleasant Avenue, Tunbridge Wells)(Prohibition of Waiting, Loading and Unloading) No.5 Order 2018

This proposal would prohibit stopping for any purpose in the southern most east-west section of Mount Pleasant Avenue.

Because the process for making an order of this type varies from that applying to the other orders being considered, this matter cannot at the present time be resolved at JTB. Options are currently being explored. The order is only mentioned in this report for the sake of completeness.

6.2 ORDER B – The Kent County Council (Mount Pleasant Avenue, Tunbridge Wells)(Prohibition of Waiting) No. 6 Order 2018

This proposal would result in a double yellow line currently on the western side of Mount Pleasant Avenue being removed and re-introduced on the eastern side.

This restriction relates to a relocation of the present parking bays (Order C) from one side of Mount Pleasant Avenue to the other. This amendment allows

Page 13 Agenda Item 6

vehicles to park on the nearside of the carriageway – since the direction of flow is also being reversed on this section of Mount Pleasant Avenue.

The proposal is logical in traffic management terms and no sound reason for objection has been raised. It is therefore recommended that this restriction be implemented.

6.3 ORDER C – The Kent County Council Zone C (Residents Parking) (Tunbridge Wells) Order 2009 (Amendment) Order 2018

This proposal compliments Order B above in that it moves the parking bays currently on the eastern side of Mount Pleasant Avenue to the western side.

No responses were received in respect of this proposal and the order can, therefore, be made providing that Order B is also endorsed.

6.4 ORDER D – The Kent County Council (Mount Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells) (Traffic Restrictions) Order 2018

This proposal involves the revocation of existing parking bays for taxis on Mount Pleasant Avenue (beside Sainsbury’s) plus disabled and car club bays on Mount Pleasant Road. One hour general use parking bays on part of Mount Pleasant Road are also removed.

The eastern side of Mount Pleasant Road between its two junctions with Mount Pleasant Avenue would then be subject to new restrictions providing a taxi bay, with one space more than in its present location, a relocated car club bay and two disabled parking bays (instead of the one which now exists).

Objections to this arrangement largely revolve around the loss of one hour parking for general use. As has been emphasised earlier in this report, taking on and off-street facilities into account, the overall number of parking bays in the locality will remain constant once the new car park is operational. With additional space for taxis plus an additional disabled parking bay, there are other benefits with the proposed arrangement.

It is recommended that this order be made in the form advertised.

6.5 ORDER E – The Kent County Council (Mount Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells) (Provision of Goods Vehicle Loading Bay) No.1 Order 2018

This order supports the provision of a dedicated loading bay for goods vehicles in front of the Great Hall. Currently vehicles delivering to Sainsbury’s and other local businesses park in Mount Pleasant Avenue, often (illegally) using the taxi bay to do so. This is not an ideal situation irrespective of the Calverley Square development. Creation of a loading bay ensures that this operation takes place in a specific location and the restriction ensures, as far as is possible, that the bay is kept clear of other vehicles.

It is recommended that the order be made in the form advertised.

Page 14 Agenda Item 6

6.6 ORDER F – The Kent County Council (Mount Pleasant Avenue, The Borough of Tunbridge Wells) (One Way Streets) Order 2018

This proposal restricts flow to one way along Mount Pleasant Avenue from its southerly junction with Mount Pleasant Road in a west to east and then south to north direction until the access to the proposed car park.

There were no comments submitted in respect of this order so it does not, therefore, require a Member recommendation to proceed.

7 CONCLUSION

7.1 Members are reminded that the Calverley Square development has received planning consent so the layout involving a narrowed trackway on part of Mount Pleasant Avenue is not itself an issue for debate.

7.2 Although not wholly dependent on each of the other restrictions being implemented, there is a close relationship between all of those proposed, with the ideal arrangement being that all are introduced as advertised.

7.3 Removal of the present taxi bay from Mount Pleasant Avenue is necessary to allow the single track element to function. Waiting, loading and unloading cannot be accommodated in that section of road once it is narrowed although, during construction, a temporary traffic regulation order could be implemented to address this issue.

7.4 All the remaining proposed restrictions either relate directly to those two issues or are required as a consequence to fully and satisfactorily manage parking in the vicinity of the Calverley Square development.

Appendices to the Report

 Appendix A – Existing traffic and parking restrictions  Appendix B – Proposed traffic and parking restrictions  Appendix C – Consultation responses and comment

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A

Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix B

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix C

APPENDIX C

Calverley Square TRO consultation responses

(NB – numbering is for identification purposes only)

ORDER A

Mount Pleasant Avenue (No loading at any time) 7 comments

1. Comments: Moving the taxis from Mount Pleasant Ave to Mount Pleasant will cause traffic chaos! Taxis will constantly moving down Mount Pleasant and make U-turns in the new space created by the loading bay. And/or large delivery lorries parked up - or wating to park will mean lack of visibility for all road users. Also, where will people be expected to catch a bus when the bus stops outside the Great Hall are moved? Moving these away from the station will cause great hardship to the elderly, infirm and school children. These are very disappointing proposals.

Vectos Response:

Note: None of the comments relate specifically to the effect of introducing loading restrictions on MPA.

“The potential impacts of the proposed relocation of the taxi feeder rank from VectosMount Suggested Pleasant Response: Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road were considered by Kent County Council in their assessment of the planning application. They agreed Note:that None there of the would comments be no relateunaccepta specificallyble impacts. to the effect Use of introducingthe proposed loading loading restrictions bay on MPA.on Mount Pleasant Road will be monitored by TWBC to ensure it is only used for its intended purpose. Goods vehicles stopped in the loading bay will not affect visibility for drivers. As a result of the proposed raised table on Mount “The potential impacts of the proposed relocation of the taxi feeder rank from Mount Pleasant Pleasant Road the speed of vehicles turning into Mount Pleasant Avenue will be low and so inter-visibility between drivers and pedestrians waiting to cross will be good. Kent County Council have not expressed any safety concerns regarding the principle of the proposed loading bay. The bus stops outside of the Great Hall are being moved around 17 m south of their existing position. This will not materially affect their ease of access for any user”.

2. Comments: How are people who live in Mount Pleasant Avenue supposed to have any deliveries, move in or out of the properties or even have their rubbish collected? Also any disabled or elderly residents will not be able to have food delivered and so how are they supposed to live. This is very badly thought out and is actually against people’s human rights as they will not be able to get anything delivered, collected or even be able to move when they want too.

Page 21 Appendix C

Vectos Response:

Note: the suggestion is that some servicing of properties along the north-south section of MPA takes place from the east-west section on which loading restrictions are proposed. We can’t say definitively that this doesn’t happen so the comments need to be given a degree of weight.

“From on-site observations and kerbside activity surveys, refuse collections and deliveries relating to properties on Mount Pleasant Avenue, between Carluccios and TSB, are undertaken from the north-south section of Mount Pleasant Avenue. This section of Mount Pleasant Avenue is not affected by the proposed

loading restrictions”.

3. Comments: I fear that the area subject to this consultation will be used as an exit for HGVs servicing the theatre, which will compromise the safety of pedestrians. Ideally the area should be pedestrianised, but the decision to locate the new theatre at the entrance to Calverley Grounds means Mount Pleasant Avenue must be used for HGV access. The exemption for the Council to permit waiting, loading or unloading could also be used to permit lorries servicing the theatre to wait and load / unload, which would again compromise the pedestrian entrance to Calverley Grounds.. On these bases I oppose the proposal

Vectos Response:

Note: None of the comments relate specifically to the effect of introducing loading restrictions on MPA.

“The approved servicing strategy for the theatre requires all servicing vehicles to exit the theatre service yard onto Grove Hill Road. Under the permitted development the section of Mount Pleasant Avenue between The Great Hall Arcade and Carluccios will become one-way eastbound. This means it would be illegal for theatre servicing vehicles to exit this way. The exemption to the loading restrictions for local authorities only applies for vehicles used in the

pursuance of statutory powers and duties. Servicing the theatre does not fall under either of these and so theatre related servicing vehicles would not be exempt from the loading restriction”.

4. Comments: So not only ruining a Grade 2 listed park, the Vanity Project spreads out to cause chaos in Mount Pleasant with even less short term parking to visit what shops are left trading. Get a grip TWBC - you are trying to build a theatre in the WRONG PLACE! It simply won't fit and trying to make it fit will have significant detriment to the area. Approving this nonsence in Mount Pleasant Avenue would be yet another reason for visitors to not come to Tunbridge Wells

Page 22 Appendix C

Vectos Response:

Note: None of the comments relate specifically to the effect of introducing loading restrictions on MPA.

5. Comments: This parking restriction is dependent on the Civic Centre (Calverley Square) Development proceeding, and must only come into force if the development is to proceed. A number of decisions have still to take place before these restrictions should be imposed: CPO public enquiry outcome, project cost review after the lead contractor receives all tenders from potential subcontractors and undertakes project cost reengineering, final decision to proceed from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. This parking restriction must include a dependency on the Civic Centre Development project. If a dependency is not added to the parking restriction there will be a major impact on a number of businesses including the taxis, Sainsbury's, Sofa Workshop, Sunniva Carpeting, BBC and others.

Vectos Response:

Note: None of the comments relate specifically to the effect of introducing loading restrictions on MPA.

“The proposed loading restrictions will only be implemented in the event that all other consents necessary to enable the permitted development to commence have been secured. The only business whose servicing is directly affected by the proposed loading restriction is Sainsbury’s and a suitable alternative loading location will be provided for them”.

6. Comments: Please advise where the overflow station Taxis will go?

Vectos Response:

Note: The comment does not relate specifically to the effect of introducing loading restrictions on MPA.

“The taxi feeder rank will be relocated to the east side of mount Pleasant Road, to the north of Carluccios”.

Page 23 Appendix C

7. Comments: The road infrastructure is not good enough to support this project. It will cause further congestion in a problematic area this is a ridiculously stupid concept

Vectos Response:

Note: The comments do not relate specifically to the effect of introducing loading restrictions on MPA.

“The potential traffic impacts of the permitted development were assessed by Kent County Council as part of the planning application process. They concluded that there would not be any unacceptable impacts as a result of it”.

ORDER B

Mount Pleasant Avenue (Swap single yellow lines for time limited waiting) 3 comments

8. Comments: These no waiting and parking amendments are wrong. Together with the other amendments where are the businesses who already exist on Mount Pleasant Road supposed to park? Where are they who live above those buisneses supposed to park? How are they supposed to receive deliveries so their businesses can continue? How are emergency people like doctors supposed to visit them or or contractors who work on their properties supposed to park? No provisions is being made for anyone who lives in these businesses or works in these businesses who is disabled or not able bodied. This is entirely discriminatory and totally against the equality act.

Vectos Response:

“The effect of the proposed changes to waiting restrictions on Mount Pleasant Avenue is to swap the existing resident/short stay spaces from one side of the road to the other. As such there will be no reduction in parking opportunities. From on-site observations and kerbside activity surveys, refuse collections and deliveries relating to properties on Mount Pleasant Avenue, between Carluccios and TSB, are undertaken from the north-south section of Mount Pleasant Avenue. This will remain the case when the permitted development is occupied”.

9. Comments: I struggle to understand the rationale for spending money moving parking from one side of Mount Pleasant Road to another (this may be apparent to TWBC but not immediately to the respondent). The only reason would be to facilitate the building of a new office complex, which I would not support. As an aside, I feel the time period for this consultation was very short at 3 weeks. It should have been open for longer to allow a wider level of engagement with the public

Vectos Response:

“The TRO will in effect swap existing parking bays from one side of Mount Pleasant Avenue to the other which is needed in order to facilitate the permitted development. There will be no such swapping effect onPage Mount 24Pleasant Road”.

Appendix C

10. Comments: I strongly object to providing taxi-only parking along the lower part of Mount Pleasant Road. We (over 60's) often need to make short visits to this area for brief transactions eg at the bank, pharmacy, railway station, solicitors or one or other shop on Mt Pleasant Rd. It is already increasingly hard to find space to park for a short time; if there is space on the other side of the road, let's have more not less short term parking space. We pay Council Tax in the Borough and would like to be able to park for short periods in the town. T Wells has a massive problem of the town centre dying as shops close because customers can't park. Other taxi-only spaces are dotted around (eg at Fiveways ) and are permanently empty, but residents & shoppers can't park there. Why give in to the enormous numbers of taxis which flood the town just twice a day?

Vectos Response

ORDER C

Mount Pleasant Avenue (Zone C parking bays move from east to west side) 0 comments

ORDER D

Mount Pleasant Road (Taxi bays, disabled bays and car club bay in place of time limited waiting) 28 comments

11. Comments: I object to proposals in the KCC (Mt. Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells) (Traffic Restrictions Order) 2018 Article 1 which restricts any parking or waiting at any time save taxis. This will reduce the number of parking spaces, especially for the disabled, in this part of town, and unless more disabled parking spaces are being provided elsewhere, I feel that taxis have sufficient spaces on the west side outside the railway station or on Lime Hill Road near Five Ways. I also object to the whole of the Mt. Pleasant Avenue, cross hatched area in red, being "proposed no waiting, no loading and unloading at any time" because the area is designated for the building of the new Theatre and Offices on Mt. Pleasant Avenue and will become the most suitable access for such purpose. Any other location will be a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles using Mt. Pleasant Road for day to day travel. How else will heavy goods vehicles be able to deliver their goods to the shops on the east side of Mt. Pleasant Road?

Page 25 Appendix C

Vectos Response

“There will be a reduction in short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road as a result of the permitted development. However, the new car park provided under the offices will be operated as a public short stay car park. It has 261 spaces, which is 7 more than are currently provided by the Mount Pleasant Avenue and Great Hall car parks. 11 of the spaces in the new car park will be designated for disabled use. Whilst Mount Pleasant Avenue will be used by goods vehicles relating to the construction of the permitted development, they will be unloaded/loaded within the construction site not on Mount Pleasant Avenue. From on-site observations and kerbside activity surveys, refuse collections and deliveries relating to properties on Mount Pleasant Road/Avenue, between Carluccios and TSB, are undertaken from the north-south section of Mount Pleasant Avenue. This section of Mount Pleasant Avenue is not affected by the proposed loading restrictions”.

12. Comments: Very disappointed to lose so much short-term on-street parking in Mount Pleasant. These spaces are constantly in use supporting local shops and cafes. Shoppers will not turn to car parks as an alternative, rather they will shop elsewhere. A very disappointing suggestion by TWBC which only serves to further decimate Tunbridge Wells as a shopping destination.

Vectos Response

13. Comments: The transfer of the taxi bay to Mount Pleasant Road and the addition of one disabled bay will reduce one-hour public parking spaces on Mount Pleasant road, by my estimation, from 19 to12. These parking spaces, together with those on the High Street, are already heavily used by people visiting local shops for example to the pharmacy and to Brittens for music lessons. The loss of parking spaces will greatly inconvenience residents and visitors and put further pressure on businesses in the area, contributing to the continuing decline in the town centre. Moreover, the taxi spaces are only used at certain times of day and are likely to be empty for much of the time, denying parking opportunities to the public for no reason. This consultation is flawed because the summary on TWBC's consultation page hides the main issue, the loss of parking spaces. Had this been clearly stated, more objections could have been expected. Compare this with the previous two orders: Kent County Council (Mount Pleasant Avenue, Tunbridge Wells) (Prohibition of Waiting) No.6 Order 2018 and Kent County Council Zone C (Residents Parking)(Tunbridge Wells) Order 2009 (Amendment) 2018, where the summary specifically states that there would be no loss of parking spaces.

Page 26 Appendix C

Vectos Response

NOTE: the loss of short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant was shown on plans submitted with the planning application, including within our Transport Assessment. In terms of reference to consultation and comparing orders we cannot comment.

14. Comments: Yet again the people of Tunbridge Wells are coming last in the decisions being made about the town. Recently the bus stops were moved for a short space of time from outside the station, and it was chaos for residents, trying to get from the station to other parts of TWells. If you also take away the taxi rank, and relocate it across the road, then the already very busy road will become an accident hotspot. What about disabled and infirm people? How will they cope? How will all the shops cope if they cannot have deliveries? Please reconsider this proposal and put the residents of TW at the forefront of your thinking. Having to walk up the hill to get a bus is a non-starter.

Vectos Response

“The existing bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade will remain on the same side of the road but will be moved south of their existing position by around 17 m. The taxi rank outside the station is not affected. The taxi feeder rank on Mount Pleasant Avenue, just to the north of Sainsbury’s, will however be relocated onto the east side of Mount Pleasant outside Russell & Bromley. Whilst the permitted development will affect deliveries to some premises suitable alternative arrangements will be provided”.

15. Comments: I object to the relocation of the taxi spaces from Mount Pleasant Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road. The existing taxi rank arrangement is cumbersome, and involves conflict not only between taxis but other traffic on Mount Pleasant Road. Manoeuvres are often made to cut across oncoming traffic, and sharp turns made at the roundabout at the south end of the road. The addition of another rank on Mount Pleasant Road will generate further conflict, especially with private vehicles leaving the theatre after a performance. I have no objection to the moving of the car club space. I feel it is regrettable that we are moving disabled spaces further up a hill than taxi spaces, making them less accessible than they currently are. I would oppose this.

Vectos Response

“The potential impacts of the proposed relocation of the taxi feeder rank from Mount Pleasant Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road were considered by Kent County Council in their assessment of the planning application. They agreed that there would be no unacceptable impacts. The existing disabled parking spaces on the east side of Mount Pleasant Road are on a hill. Wherever they are located they will be close to some shops and less close to others. MovingPage the spaces 27 up the hill does not make them less accessible”.

Appendix C

16. Comments: My comments are as per my response to the Kent County Council (Mount Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells) (Provision of Goods Vehicle Loading Bay) No.1 Order 2018 – these were :- Comments: I object to the removal of bus stops from this convenient location for the station. The proposed lorry parking and movements will increase congestion on Mount Pleasant Road adjacent to the station, and pose a safety threat to pedestrians from goods being transported across the footway and the obstruction of visibility for those needing to cross the road. I note that no alternative bus stop locations are indicated.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result”.

17. Comments: This proposal (and those associated with it) is so ill-considered, it is hard to imagine anyone seriously contemplating it ! How can these changes be of benefit to anyone except TWBC's hare-brained theatre and office scheme ? Relocating a loading bay from the side of Sainsburys to the front will presumably entail removal or relocation of one or more bus stops. Has anyone considered the effect this will have on the disabled or indeed anyone wishing to access this part of town. To rub salt in, it doesn't even suit the proposed new theatre, and I hear you are even proposing to relocate the bus stops outside the Town Hall ? The proposal also removes another area of short-term parking for the public, replacing it with taxi and disabled spaces. Why are you changing the status quo ? No sensible reason has been provided, why not ? Surely we should be trying to improve the town, not turning this street into a taxi and lorry filled area, where crossing the road will be a nightmare, assuming anyone bothers to venture there, seeing as you can't park. The disabled won't be too happy either, parking halfway up a hill - they will have issues in either direction ! Please think again

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. There will be a reduction in short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road as a result of the permitted development. However, the new car park provided under the offices will be operated as a public short stay car park. It has 261 spaces, which is 7 more than are currently provided by the Mount Pleasant Avenue and Great Hall car parks. 11 of the spaces in the new car park will be designated for disabled use. The existing disabled parking spaces on the east side of Mount Pleasant Road are on a hill. Wherever they are located they will be close to some shops and less close to others. Moving the spaces up the hill does not make them less accessible”.

Page 28 Appendix C

18. Comments: This proposal (and the No.1 Order associated with it) is so ill- considered, it is hard to imagine anyone seriously contemplating it ! How can these changes be of benefit to anyone except TWBC's hare-brained theatre and office scheme ? Relocating a loading bay from the side of Sainsburys to the front will presumably entail removal or relocation of one or more bus stops. Has anyone considered the effect this will have on the disabled or indeed anyone wishing to access this part of town. To rub salt in, it doesn't even suit the proposed new theatre, and I hear you are even proposing to relocate the bus stops outside the Town Hall ? Surely we should be trying to improve the town, not turning this street into a taxi and lorry filled area, where crossing the road will be a nightmare, assuming anyone bothers to venture there. Please think again (From the same person as comment no.17 above but slightly different wording)

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. The permitted development introduces a raised table on Mount Pleasant Road which wi ll reduce vehicle speeds and make it easier to cross”.

19. Comments: There is no relation between the money that is being thrown around and the questionable benefits. All that is being done is expose residents and visitors to obstructions and noise in the shape of roadworks and building sites.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

20. Comments: Current taxi rank arrangements are adequate for the convenience of residents, visitors and commuters. I object to this proposal because it will cause unnecessary expense and disruption in the main road of the town centre which is already marred by pot-holes, empty shops, and deplorable signs of inadequate social and housing policies which will not be cured by grandiose, wasteful building projects, wasting tax-payers' money without bringing any wealth to town.

Vectos Response

21. Comments: There is less space for taxis and what there is is farther from the station. It is a long way from the station to the disabled parking space. One bus stop appears to be going. Having a total restriction in Mount Pleasant Avenue seems a bit much.

Page 29 Appendix C

Vectos Response

22. Comments: I object to the re-location of taxi rank and other bays out of Mount Pleasant Avenue, and the associated blocking of Mount Pleasant Avenue to any loading. There is already a taxi rank outside the station - though very badly catered- for. This proposal will block much-needed short-term parking for the businesses on Mount Pleasant Road. The associated loading bay outside Sainsbury's will remove a much-used bus stop and create potentially very bad bus manouvering just opposite the station taxi rank with it's bad traffic-flow. Thus making it much more dangerous for pedestrians crossing from the station to the bus stops. The "Statement of Reason" makes no sense. The whole area needs a proper re-think, but not this bad shuffle of large vehicles out of Mount Pleasant Avenue. What happens to vehicles delivering scenery for the new theatre?

Vectos Response

Note: Whilst there is specific reference to the proposed loading restrictions, none of the comments actually relate to the impacts of it.

“There will be a reduction in short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road as a result of the permitted development. However, the new car park provided under the offices will be operated as a public short stay car park. It has 261 spaces, which is 7 more than are currently provided by the Mount Pleasant Avenue and Great Hall car parks. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result. Vehicles delivering scenery to the new theatre will do so from the dedicated service yard at its southern end.”

23. Comments: So not only ruining a Grade 2 listed park, the Vanity Project spreads out to cause chaos in Mount Pleasant with even less short term parking to visit what shops are left trading. Get a grip TWBC - you are trying to build a theatre in the WRONG PLACE! It simply won't fit and trying to make it fit will have significant detriment to the area around this bay as busses won't be able to turn in infront of lorries to use the stop properly thereby leaving their rear end sticking out restricting traffic.

Vectos Response

Appendix C

24. Comments: These changes concerning the area of Mount Pleasant Road are unnecessary and will be detrimental to the ambience of that part of the town.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

25. Comments: Again a proposal which will impact on commuters, local businesses and this part of town negatively. I would happily support plans to ease or improve traffic flow through town but this seems to do the opposite. I object.

Vectos Response

“The potential transport impacts of the permitted development were assessed in detail by Kent County Council at the planning application stage. They concluded that there would be no significant adverse effect on traffic flow”.

26. Comments: I have reservations about doing away with parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road and making a taxi rank on what is a steep hill and not easily accessible for the disabled and elderly. Taxis stopping and pulling out will add to the congestion on an already busy road. Taking away parking bays could have a detrimental effect on businesses on Mount Pleasant Road.

Vectos Response

27. Comments: Leave things as they are. You are just trying to clear the area to bomb it with your expensive unwanted theatre. No. Just no.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

28. Comments: The amendments to existing restrictions to stopping and parking will make an already congested Mt Pleasant Road even more user unfriendly and all to facilitate the unwanted Vanity Project.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

29. Comments: The taxi rank needs to be as close to the station as possible and at the foot of a very steep hill. If you are coming off a train as a visitor to this town going to a hotel carrying cases you need taxis to be close at hand not halfway up a steep gradient which is dangerous and slippery during inclement weather. To move the taxi rank would cause untold problems for these visitors. It would cause problems for disabled, elderly, infirm, people carrying heavy shopping, parents with children.

Page 31 Appendix C

How would a disabled person with a stick who may have difficulties walking those extra 20 metres with balance issues manage walking up a steep gradient which could be extremely slippery so they would be at risk of falling and then try with these issues to get into a taxi? Disabled parking is already being removed from outside the Amelia Scott so in order to resite the taxi ranks more disabled parking for blue badge holders is once again being removed making access for those who are more vulnerable and less able more and more difficult into the town. Surely we do not want to alienate the disabled or vulnerable? Then there is the issue of parking fo those who wish to access those very shops on Mount Pleasant like the chemist or the bank. And how will these shops get deliveries with the road being blocked by taxis and disabled car parking and club car parking? Without any way of these shops being able to get deliveries to their stores footfall will decrease to these shops and they will close? Or are they expected to share the delivery road to the back of their stores - the same road that will be used for access to the new underground car park? Altogether this will increase in tenfold the congestion on this side of the road - double parking on this side whilst shops try to continue with their businesses as delivery drivers double park to offload their delivery. This will then cause tailbacks and congestion. It will also block drivers and pedestrians views causing future accidents.

Vectos Response

“The taxi rank outside the station is not affected by the permitted development. The taxi feeder rank on Mount Pleasant Avenue, just to the north of Sainsbury’s, will however be relocated onto the east side of Mount Pleasant outside Russell & Bromley. The existing disabled spaces and Car Club space will be moved further up the hill as a result. From on-site observations and kerbside activity surveys, refuse collections and deliveries relating to properties on Mount Pleasant Road/Avenue, between Carluccios and TSB, are undertaken from the north-south section of Mount Pleasant Avenue. This section of Mount Pleasant Avenue is not affected by any proposed loading restrictions. The majority of this section of Mount Pleasant Avenue will not be used to access the new car park. The potential transport impacts of the permitted development were assessed in detail by Kent County Council at the planning application stage. They concluded that there would be no significant adverse effect on traffic flow”.

30. Comments: From this proposal I note that apart from provision for parking for taxis, 2 disabled spaces and a car club space there is no parking on Mount Pleasant for people who need to park outside the shops to deliver or collect big or heavy items. Also how are these businesses going to get deliveries if they can’t park outside the business? Also this will reduce footfall in these businesses and more shops and restaurants will close if customers can’t get to them and this will cause even more traffic congestion in the town as people drive around trying to find somewhere to park.

Page 32 Appendix C

Vectos Response

“There will be a reduction in short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road as a result of the permitted development. However, the new car park provided under the offices will be operated as a public short stay car park. It has 261 spaces, which is 7 more than are currently provided by the Mount Pleasant Avenue and Great Hall car park. From on-site observations and kerbside activity surveys, refuse collections and deliveries relating to properties on Mount Pleasant Road/Avenue, between Carluccios and TSB, are undertaken from the north-south section of Mount Pleasant Avenue. This section of Mount Pleasant Avenue is not affected by any proposed loading restrictions. The potential transport impacts of the permitted development were assessed in detail by Kent County Council at the planning application stage. They concluded that there would be no significant adverse effect on traffic flow”.

31. Comments: I strongly object to this proposal. The taxi rank outside the station appears to being removed under these proposals - there are massive implications for anyone who is disabled, or infirm departing from the station and having to walk up an extremely steep hill to access a taxi. This surely discriminates and cannot be allowed?! There is no clear rationale as to why these changes are being proposed and so one it left assuming this is to pave the way for the new Civic Centre - which is not wanted by the majority of residents. These proposals seem to indicate the loss of about 50% of parking outside shops on Mount Pleasant Road. This will have a major implication on these shops and businesses. If the loading bay for Sainsbury's etc is now over the road - doesn't this have safety implications. It would be helpful had the reasons and rationale for this proposal been set out.

Vectos Response

“The taxi rank outside the station is not affected by the permitted development. The taxi feeder rank on Mount Pleasant Avenue, just to the north of Sainsbury’s, will however be relocated onto the east side of Mount Pleasant outside Russell & Bromley. There will be a reduction in short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road as a result of the permitted development. However, the new car park provided under the offices will be operated as a public short stay car park. It has 261 spaces, which is 7 more than are currently provided by the Mount Pleasant Avenue and Great Hall car park. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result”.

32. Comments: I support this proposal as being disabled an additional disabled parking bay will be helpful.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

33. Comments: This is a rediculous suggestion. The proposed bays will not accommodate sufficient taxi bays. Persons will have to cross a very busy road to access taxis. Seems like an ill thought out plan.

Page 33 Appendix C

Vectos Response

34. Comments: More changes associated with the proposed civic centre development which is yet to be finalised , mount pleasant will grind to halt with the increased congestion due to these changes .

Vectos Response

35. Comments: As a Taxi driver in Tunbridge Wells for 25 years the amount of Hackney plates have gone up. We have problems parking all the Hackney Vehicles on the ranks near the station. We need more spaces as there is a over spill of taxis since we have come one zone from only 70 vehicles now 107 which most work in Tunbridge Wells (80%). So I would like to see more spaces as Population is going up so the number of taxis will go up so TWBC make sure there is enough spaces. So I am objecting because there is not enough spaces.

Vectos Response

“The proposal is to relocate the existing taxi feeder rank from Mount Pleasant Avenue, just to the north of Sainsbury’s, onto the east side of Mount Pleasant outside Russell & Bromley. The relocated feeder rank will have the same capacity as the existing one”

36. Comments: (Submitted twice)I totally object to the plans to remove parking bays for private vehicles along Mount Pleasant Road. These parking spaces are for local residents / visitors to TW to shop, bank, dine. What will removing this parking spaces create, other than more High Street shops to suffer the loss of customers. An appalling decision by the local council.

Vectos Response

Page 34 Appendix C

37. Comments: The parking for residents and visitors for an hour is well used and restriction to taxis will effect local retailers and businesses and make it impossible for community to simple access amenities in T. Wells. There is already very little parking and this would restrict it further.

Vectos Response

ORDER E

Mount Pleasant Road (Goods Vehicle Loading Bay) 43 comments

38. Comments: To whom it may concern I object to the above proposed Order information as to the relocation of the bus stops. It is also not possible to know whether the provision of the proposed loading bay is acceptable. The relocation of the bus stops must take into consideration amenity for all bus travellers, the impact on traffic congestion and the availability of space to site sufficient shelters. In addition, there needs to be a clear statement about whether coaches delivering theatregoers to the proposed new theatre will be allowed to stop in this loading bay and the adjacent bus stops (if they are to remain in this stretch of road) and if so, for how long they will be allowed to stop. Coaches stopping in this stretch of road could severely disrupt the use of the loading bay and the public bus service.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existi ng position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. Coaches will not be allowed to stop in the proposed loading bay outside Great Hall Arcade or the bus stops”.

39. Comments: I object to the loading bay proposed in the KCC (Mt. Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells) Provision of Goods Vehicle Loading Bay) No 1 Order on the grounds that it should be located on the south side of Mount Pleasant Avenue which was formerly taxi rank waiting bays to the north side of the building that forms the Great Hall. I also object to the whole of the Mt. Pleasant Avenue cross hatched area in red being "proposed no waiting, no loading and unloading at any time" because the area is designated for the building of the new Theatre and Offices on Mt. Pleasant Avenue and will become the most suitable access for such purpose. Any

Page 35 Appendix C

other location will be a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles using Mt. Pleasant Road for day to day travel. How else will heavy goods vehicles be able to deliver their goods to the shops on the east side of Mt. Pleasant Road?

Vectos Response

Note: Whilst there is specific reference to the proposed loading restrictions, none of the comments actually relate to the impacts of it.

“Whilst Mount Pleasant Avenue will be used by goods vehicles relating to the construction of the permitted development, they will be unloaded/loaded within the construction site not on Mount Pleasant Avenue. From on-site observations and kerbside activity surveys, refuse collections and deliveries relating to properties on Mount Pleasant Road/Avenue, between Carluccios and TSB, are undertaken from the north-south section of Mount Pleasant Avenue. This section of Mount Pleasant Avenue is not affected by the proposed

loading restrictions”

40. Comments: Very disappointed to lose so much short-term parking in Mount Pleasant. These spaces are always full of shoppers for the top and bottom of town. Losing these will mean shoppers will be encouraged to the industrial estate and beyond rather than having to drive into car parks. A retrograde step for the viability of shops in Tunbridge Wells Town Centre.

Vectos Response

41. Comments: Yet again the people of Tunbridge Wells are coming last in the decisions being made about the town. Recently the bus stops were moved for a short space of time from outside the station, and it was chaos for residents, trying to get from the station to other parts of TWells. If you also take away the taxi rank, and relocate it across the road, then the already very busy road will become an accident hotspot. What about disabled and infirm people? How will they cope? How will all the shops cope if they cannot have deliveries? Please reconsider this proposal and put the residents of TW at the forefront of your thinking. Having to walk up the hill to get a bus is a non-starter.

Vectos Response

“The existing bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade will remain on the same side of the road but will be moved south of their existing position by around 17 m. The taxi rank outside the station is not affected by the permitted development. The taxi feeder rank on Mount Pleasant Avenue, just to the north of Sainsbury’s, will however be relocated onto the east side of Mount Pleasant outside Russell & Bromley. Whilst the permitted development will affect deliveries to some premises suitable alternative arrangements will be provided”.

Page 36 Appendix C

42. Comments: I oppose the addition of a vehicle loading bay outside Great Hall Arcade on the following grounds; It will make bus access far more difficult, disincentivising public transport use; it will create conflict with motorists and cyclists on an already busy main road; it will make Mount Pleasant Road far less pleasant for pedestrians to use; it will lead to materials for the proposed theatre being carted across Mount Pleasant Avenue; it will impact on the appearance of the street scene in a prominent location in the town, the first view people have as they leave the railway station. I also oppose the civic development scheme which is the driving factor behind this proposal

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsburys has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops. Goods vehicles relating to the construction of the permitted development will be unloaded/loaded within the construction site not on Mount Pleasant Avenue or from the proposed loading bay”.

43. Comments: Why is there a sudden need for a loading bay? I assume this is in preparation for the ill-thought-out Calverly Square development (to which I am vehemently opposed). Please - listen to residents' views - do not build on / adjacent to our wonderful town centre park.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay has resulted from discussions with occupants of Great Hall Arcade about how to improve the permitted servicing arrangements for them”.

44. Comments: ( From same person who submitted comment above) I can see no reason to make the changes proposed. Why are you wasting public money (our money)?

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

45. Comments: I object to the removal of bus stops from this convenient location for the station. The proposed lorry parking and movements will increase congestion on Mount Pleasant Road adjacent to the station, and pose a safety threat to pedestrians from goods being transported across the footway and the obstruction of visibility for those needing to cross the road. I note that no alternative bus stop locations are indicated.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result”.

Page 37 Appendix C

46. Comments: This proposal (and those associated with it) is so ill-considered, it is hard to imagine anyone seriously contemplating it ! How can these changes be of benefit to anyone except TWBC's hare-brained theatre and office scheme ? Relocating a loading bay from the side of Sainsburys to the front will presumably entail removal or relocation of one or more bus stops. Has anyone considered the effect this will have on the disabled or indeed anyone wishing to access this part of town. To rub salt in, it doesn't even suit the proposed new theatre, and I hear you are even proposing to relocate the bus stops outside the Town Hall ? Surely we should be trying to improve the town, not turning this street into a taxi and lorry filled area, where crossing the road will be a nightmare, assuming anyone bothers to venture there. Please think again

Vectos Response

47. Comments: I object to this proposal because it is unnecessary (there is already ample unenforced parking space) and will cause massive disruption to residents, visitors, retailers and users of public transport. It smells of "Jobs for the Boys", and as a late addition to Civic Development proposal, of an ill-conceived, badly researched, money wasting project that will cause more hardship than benefit to the historic and modern town.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay has resulted from discussions with occupants of Great Hall Arcade about how to improve the permitted servicing arrangements for them. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsburys has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops”.

48. Comments: I presume these traffic proposals are to accommodate the proposed building of the new civic and theatre complex? In my view this is an unnecessary project which carries severe financial risk. Cancel the project and use the money saved on social and environmental needs.

Vectos Response

“Goods vehicles relating to the construction of the permitted development will be unloaded/loaded within the construction site not on Mount Pleasant Avenue or from the proposed loading bay”.

Page 38 Appendix C

49. Comments: The majority don't want this theatre!!!!!!! Why are the council ignoring the many people who are against the idea?? And to have big lorries in an area which clearly isn't big enough for them to go through. Just plain stupid!! So there's going to be even more traffic jams, bus services all over the place, taxi's losing business's because of one complete utter idiot who thinks having a new theatre is such a great idea! He's causing nothing but chaos!!

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

50. Comments: I write to object to the above proposed Order on the grounds that until specific information is provided as to the relocation of the bus stops, referred to on TWBC's website here (1), but not mentioned at all in the draft Order, it is not possible to establish whether the provision of the proposed loading bay will be acceptable. The relocation of the bus stops must take into consideration amenity for bus travellers, including the aged, the infirm and disabled, and the impact on traffic congestion and the availability of space to site sufficient shelters for those waiting for buses in inclement weather. In addition, there needs to be a clear statement about whether coaches delivering theatregoers to the proposed new theatre will be allowed to stop in this loading bay and the adjacent bus stops (if they are to remain in this stretch of road) when dropping off and picking up their passengers, and if so, for how long they will be allowed to stop. Coaches stopping in this stretch of road could severely disrupt the use of the loading bay for Sainsburys, and the public bus service.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. Coaches will not be allowed to stop in the proposed loading bay outside Great Hall Arcade or the bus stops”.

51. Comments: I object to the proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury's. It will remove a much-used bus stop and create potentially very bad bus manouvering just opposite the station taxi rank with it's bad traffic-flow. Thus making it much more dangerous for pedestrians crossing from the station to the bus stops. The "Statement of Reason" makes no sense. The whole area needs a proper re-think, but not this bad shuffle of large vehicles out of Mount Pleasant Avenue. What happens to vehicles delivering scenery for the new theatre? This is too far away for sensible delivery and removal at night. What goods will be delivered, where, from this bay? It will only block the bus stops.

Page 39 Appendix C

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. Vehicles delivering scenery to the new theatre will do so from the dedicated service yard at its southern end. The proposed bay is intended to benefit occupants of Great Hall Arcade. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops.”

52. Comments: So not only ruining a Grade 2 listed park, the Vanity Project spreads out to cause chaos in Mount Pleasant with even less short term parking to visit what shops are left trading. Get a grip TWBC - you are trying to build a theatre in the WRONG PLACE! It simply won't fit and trying to make it fit will have significant detriment to the area around this bay as busses won't be able to turn in infront of lorries to use the stop properly thereby leaving their rear end sticking out restricting traffic.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops.”

53. Comments: Mount Pleasant Road is already a busy, congested road and putting a loading bay on it will only make matters worse. Large articulated lorries parked on the road will make manoeuvring difficult for vehicles and pedestrians. Where will the bus stops be relocated to? They are currently in a prime position opposite the railway station. If they are moved to the top of the very steep hill this will cause access problems for the disabled, elderly and those with prams. A loading bay instead of bus stops is of no benefit to the residents of the town/borough.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. The proposed loading bay is not designed to accommodate large articulated lorries as these vehicles are not regularly used by Great Hall Arcade occupants and other premises on Mount Pleasant Road”.

54. Comments: This whole project is ill-conceived and as a local resident I object.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

55. Comments: Will cause many more issues for the existing traffic.

Vectos Response

“The potential transport impacts of the permittedPage 40development were assessed in detail by Kent County Council at the planning application stage. They concluded that there would be no significant adverse effect on traffic flow”. Appendix C

56. Comments: I just sent an email against this proposal and thought I had seen it in TW Alliance post on Facebook - was in fact on TW Past & Present (Refers to message below)

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

57. Comments: This is a totally inappropriate request by TWBC. Many people use the bus stops outside the Great Hall - particularly school children and old people. Also people leaving the station and catching buses home. Elderly people and disabled people find it easier to get picked up by taxis down the side of Sainsburys if they have shopped there too. TWBC are going ahead with this ridiculous scheme in Calverley Park which is going to bankrupt this town - I am angry as I am sure most people in this town have no idea what they are planning to do and will only find out when they have pushed this plan through behind peoples backs. Shame on TWBC and shame on you if you let them do this!! I see the closing date is 23 November - well I have only just been made aware of this through the facebook placement of the news by TW Alliance - thank goodness - I saw it - will now try to pass on to as many people as possible so they can have their say too.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The permitted development will have no effect on any other bus stops in the town centre. The existing taxi feeder rank on Mount Pleasant Avenue, just to the north of Sainsbury’s, will be relocated to Mount Pleasant Road outside Russell & Bromley a short distance north of its existing position”.

58. Comments: I object on the grounds that this is an extremely busy thoroughfare opposite the railway station. Having a loading bay here on the main road would be dangerous. People crossing from the station to Sainsbury’s would be at risk at being hit by a vehicle due to sight lines being blocked by a vehicle unloading in the bay. A lot of young children from nearby nurseries also cross the road to access the park in Calverly Grounds and I fear for their safety. To have a loading bay directly opposite the exit the of the railway station would also present a negative image of the town to visitors. Who wants to see a heavy goods vehicle unloading when you could see the Great Hall? A better location for the loading bay would be the side road by Carluccios. That would mean no unnessecary cost of relocating the bus stops. The bus stops are in the perfect place for people who want to continue their journey after exiting the railway station; their location is easy to find. Putting them elsewhere would require extra signage telling people where to find them.

Vectos Response

“Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the proposed loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position”.

Page 41 Appendix C

59. Comments: Mount Pleasant is a busy, congested road I feel this plan for a loading bay and therefore large articulated lorries stopping there will only add to this congestion. It will also make the road more dangerous for both motorists and pedestrians if the are faced with manoeuvring around lorries. Where will the bus stops that are currently there be relocated? They are in a prime spot opposite the railway station and if relocated further up the hill, will be an issue for the elderly and disabled to access.

Vectos Response

“Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the proposed loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position”.

60. Comments: This seems crazy. Where are the buses meant to stop? How are the shops going to get their deliveries? What about the taxis? This seems utterly unthought out and will just be a complete mess. What on earth are you thinking of? Please reconsider.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The loading requirements of existing shops were considered carefully and where existing locations were affected suitable alternatives are provided. There will be no reduction in taxi facilities. The existing taxi feeder rank on Mount Pleasant Avenue, just to the north of Sainsbury’s, will be relocated to Mount Pleasant Road outside Russell & Bromley a short distance north of its existing position”.

61. Comments: I would like to express my serious concerns regarding the ludicrous proposal in the installation of a loading bay in front of the Great Hall and the following problems if the loading bay is going to be used by the theatre. A) There would be health and safety issues moving staging and scenery equipment that distance in a public area B) There can be up to 2 lorries that are required depending on current types of performances that are currently provided that would be required to be parked there for there duration of the performance. C) This would cause seriously restricted views for traffic coming out of the side Mount Pleasant Avenue, no doubt resulting in higher Road Traffic Collisions and injury to life. D) Finally, this would seriously infringe the bus stops located outside the Great Hall impacting the facilities that are enjoyed by the general public, that include those who are less mobile or those who are visually impaired. E) Moving the disabled bays further up the hill, where it is steeper will mean that it will discourage them from coming into town. I would strongly suggest that the council abandon these ridiculous proposals as this will create a no-go area in the heart of the town, no doubt causing even more financial hardship to the already struggling businesses. The council need to find

Page 42 Appendix C

ways of bringing visitors into the town rather than creating more dead and decaying areas that remain unused for decades.

Vectos Response

“Vehicles delivering scenery to the new theatre will do so from the dedicated service yard at its southern end not from the proposed loading bay. The proposed bay is intended to benefit occupants of Great Hall Arcade. Under the permitted development the section of Mount Pleasant Avenue between The Great Hall Arcade and Carluccios will become one- way eastbound. This means no vehicles would be exiting out onto Mount Pleasant Road. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The existing disabled parking spaces on the east side of Mount Pleasant Road are on a hill”.

62. Comments: Having read these proposals I cannot believe you cannot see what traffic congestion this will cause on a very busy road. Taking away the bus stopswhich are used throughout the day and evening is a BIG error of judgement. Also what about the disabled, elderly and mothers with young children? Obviously they have not figured in the decision making. I am vehemently against this

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the bus stops outside Great Hall Arcade. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops.”

63. Comments: These proposals would do nothing but create considerable congestion and a potential death trap. It is apparent that those who propose this have absolutely no thought for the disabled. The Application should be considered by an independant panel and not the In house planning committee. Should be denied

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the bus stops outside Great Hall Arcade. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the proposed loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result”.

Page 43 Appendix C

64. Comments: Our attractive town is fast becoming a user unfriendly zone for both visitors and residents as TWBC implements additional orders solely to facilitate the Vanity Project.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

65. Comments: This will further add to traffic chaos, make the area more unsightly and deter shoppers and therefore trade. The whole scheme is a unessary vanity project that does not solve the fundermental issues that the town has. Good retail in part cause and effect of high business rates poor parking and traffic flow. I object to the whole project. The theatre struggles to sell its existing shows and it’s easy to get to the west end. Revamp existing civic centre and offices let’s not ruin the towns geritage by destroying the parks!

Vectos Response

66. Comments: The council are trying to make life difficult. There is no way loading bays should be created at the front of a beautiful building. TW is now becoming more and more difficult to park and shop, I tend to go to Crowborough now as its easier to park and NO charges. Also anyone having difficulties walking, would not be able to negotiate Mount Pleasant.

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

67. Comments: ABSOLUTELY BONKERS (Submitted twice)

NO RESPONSE NEEDED

68. Comments: I am opposed to the new loading bay at the Great Hall and resiting of the bus stops because firstly the bus stops need to stay at the bottom of steep and in times of inclement weather slippery hill. If you are disabled, infirm, elderly, a parent with children, a person with suitcases those bus stops being at the bottom of the hill directly opposite the train station and other bus stops are vital. To move them even 20 metres to someone with mobility issues especially onto somewhere which is has a steep incline isn’t disability friendly. It’s discriminatory. How would a wheelchair user who is then on a steep slope manoeuvre their wheelchair onto a bus which would also be on a slope independently? There are often over 5 buses in a line at any one time at these bus stops currently outside the Great Hall and also commuter coaches. The resisting of the bus stop doesn’t allow for enough room for this so buses will be double and triple parked thereby causing gridlock. Taxis will be competing with buses to park and pedestrians trying to get buses run the risk of being knocked over by buses or taxis. Taxis do u turns causing further traffic hold ups coming into town and the possibility of road traffic accidents. There is insufficient room for all on Mount Pleasant road if you place a loading bay by the Great Hall. Having a loading bay by the Great Hall will cause many health and safety risks. Sainsbury’s have upto five deliveries a day and their pallets cannot get through their front door meaning

Page 44 Appendix C

pallets will be moved along a pedestrianised public footpath. This is a health and safety risk to the public. Also the amount of lorries delivering on a main road into the centre of Tunbridge Wells and those lorries parking up to deliver will cause tailbacks, traffic problems and congestion in an already congested town.They will cause problems for traffic and pedestrians to see round them clearly causing road traffic accidents and an accident hot spot. Town will become bottlenecked!

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the proposed loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion.”

69. Comments: The bus stop's removal will cause distress to the disabled, the elderly having to walk up the hill to the War memorial stops The choas caused outside the station with taxis one side lorries the other for what? Jukes plush office and a theatre that the Town cannot afford and most do not want

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position”.

70. Comments: Having a loading bay outside The Great Hall on Mount Pleasant will cause massive traffic congestion and Health and Safety problems. At the moment the lorries are unloaded in the alley by the side of The Great Hall and all merchandise is taken into The Great Hall via a side entrance straight into the store rooms of the various businesses. This is the best option as you are talking about cages and pallets of goods for Sainsburys, also carpets and sofas for the other shops. If you deliver everything to the to the front of The Great Hall then they will have to transport this all round the building by hand to access their warehouse entrances. This could cause accidents involving pedestrians who will also be using the footpath to access the various businesses. Also the pallets are to big to access Sainsburys by any door apart from the warehouse door on the side of the building and due to the height when fully laden it is difficult to see where you are going. Also where you are talking about moving the bus stop to will mean that the buses will be stopped on a hill and they will be very near to an idea which will at busy times of the day when there can be up to 6 buses at the stops with the shorter space will end up blocking the road and causing massive tailbacks.

Vectos Response

“Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the proposed loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stopsPage outside 45 the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position”.

Appendix C

71. Comments: This proposed change will cause more congestion outside the station and will create another problem for disabled residents trying to catch a bus.

Vectos Response

72. Comments: This is quite nonsensical. Consider the usage of TW station - many commuters get off the train and straight onto a bus. Many elderly, with bus passes, use the bus and are known to use the bus up and down the hill. Clearly, the council are so bloated that they don't go by bus. We would suggest somebody goes to the station bus stops and monitors the usage throughout the day. Hopefully it will pour with rain. Has Cllr Jukes had anything to do with this bright idea, as most people we have spoken to think the man is not fit for purpose.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position”.

73. Comments: 1/ Moving the current bus stops will have a major impact on the traffic flow on Mount Pleasant Road. There is no safe place to replicate these bus stops. 2/ At any one time five buses could be at these stops. As it is the area is congested enough. 3/ Public safety would be put a risk . Valuable parking spaces would be lost . Local shops would suffer from the loss of the current road side parking on My Pleasant Road. 4/ I fail to see why a loading bay us required on a major road when any building's it would serve are set behind The Great Hall. I respectfully request that planning permission should be declined in the interest of Health and Safety to vehicle drivers public transport passengers and the general public. Thank you for your consideration.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the proposed loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result. There will be as reduction is short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road as a result of the permitted development. However, the new car park provided under the offices will be operated as a public short stay car park. It has 261 spaces, which is 7 more than are currently provided by the Mount Pleasant Avenue and Great Hall car parks. The proposed bay is intended to benefit occupants of Great Hall Arcade. It will not be used by occupants of the permitted new offices or the theatre”.

Page 46 Appendix C

74. Comments: I strongly object to this ridiculous proposal and the way that is being quietly pushed through. It will cause significant congestion in an area that is already extremely busy and also danger to the many passing pedestrians that frequent that part of the town. It is very busy with locals and also many tourists who walk between the upper and lower parts of the town. It will be a disaster waiting to happen.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion. Kent County Council have agreed with the principle of the proposed loading bay and must therefore be satisfied that there will be no significant safety issues as a result.”

75. Comments: Having massive articulated lorries parked for some time will not look aesthetically pleasing in the town. There will be health and safety issues moving the equipment that distance in in a public areas - among the public and via a very busy well used area right by busy bus stops. Presumably lorries will be parked there for there duration of the performance which is simply unacceptable and will cause traffic chaos and chaos for the buses Lorries parked there will seriously restrict the views for traffic coming out of the side road onto the main road and is likely to cause accidents

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay is not designed to accommodate large articulated lorries as these vehicles are not regularly used by Great Hall Arcade occupants and other premises on Mount Pleasant Road. The proposed bay is intended to benefit occupants of Great Hall Arcade. It will not be used by occupants of the permitted new offices or the theatre. Under the permitted development the section of Mount Pleasant Avenue between The Great Hall Arcade and Carluccios will become one-way eastbound. This means no vehicles would be exiting out onto Mount Pleasant Road”.

76. Comments: I object the proposal on the following points; 1)Taking away the bus stop and taxi rank outside the station will be terribly inconvenient for those who are infirm and are unable to walk up the hill. 2) The bottom end of the station will become totally congested with cars and taxis. Mount Pleasant will resemble a parking lot. 3) Taking away parking on Mount Pleasant will reduce the number of customers to the shops

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s will not result in the removal of the bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade. They will be moved around 17 m south of their existing position. The proposed loading bay outside Sainsbury’s has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion. There will be as reduction is short term parking spaces on Mount Pleasant Road as a result of the permitted77. Comments: development. Assuming However, that this the provision new car park is associated provided with under the the proposed offices willcivic be centre operated as a public short stay car park. It has 261 spaces, which is 7 more than are development, it would appear to be somewhat premature and will create havoc with currently provided by the Mount Pleasant Avenue and Great Hall car parks”. our already congested traffic in Tunbridge Wells

Page 47 Appendix C

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay is associated with the proposed civic centre development. It will only be implemented in the event that all other consents necessary to enable the permitted development to commence have been secured. The proposed loading bay has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion”.

78. Comments: This will undoubtedly cause huge traffic and congestion probalms at the bottom of the town. This proposal is as ridiculous as the proposed site for the new theatre and at very turn here seems to be yet another probelm assoicistwd with the project. You are prooosing to change the whole character of the town into some sort of industrial parking lot. I oppose this.

Vectos Response

“The proposed loading bay has been designed such that vehicles stopped in it don’t stick out into the road or prevent buses from getting to the relocated stops. As such, it will not result in traffic congestion”.

79. Comments: The ****** Group broadly supports the proposed Order which will clearly assist local businesses at the bottom end of Mount Pleasant Road. We did note that within the section dealing with “Exemptions from Waiting Restrictions”, there was no mention of disabled people using their Blue Badge, but assume that this will indeed be the case. We noted that the loading bay may well affect the bus stops outside the Great Hall and assume that one or more may be relocated up the hill. The Group have asked me to congratulate you and the council on “forward thinking” regarding the location of the taxi rank, which will service the new civic centre and theatre complex.

Vectos Response

"Whilst blue badge holders could be picked up or dropped off in the loading bay, they will not be able to park as the loading bay needs to be available at all times for existing businesses within the Town Centre. The new car park being provided under the civic centre includes 11 disabled parking spaces and a step free route from them to Mount Pleasant Road. The proposed loading bay means that the existing bus stops outside the Great Hall Arcade need to moved but they will only be shifted around 17 m south of their current position. The reason for relocating the taxi feeder rank to Mount Pleasant Road was to maximise the attractiveness of the approach to the new civic centre and theatre for all non-motorised users".

ORDER F

Mount Pleasant Avenue (Reversal of one-way system and extension to include southern- most East/West arm) 0 comments

Page 48 Agenda Item 7

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Proposed Amendments to Parking and Traffic Restrictions – Mount Pleasant Road and adjoining roads for the Public Realm Enhancement Scheme

Report Author / Lead Officer Gary Stevenson Head of Housing Health and Environment Head of Service / Service Manager Gary Stevenson Head of Housing Health and Environment Originating Authority Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Final Decision Taker Kent County Council Exemption Non-exempt Classification For Information

Recommendation:

 That the Board endorses the making of Orders A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H as set out in the report.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s Five Year Plan contains a commitment to enhance the public realm in the town centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells to provide a distinctive community space for residents and visitors.

1.2 Following on from the Mount Pleasant Road Phase 1 scheme, the Council’s Corporate Priorities for 2017/18 contained a commitment to develop a Phase 2 scheme around the civic centre complex with funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund Scheme via Kent County Council (£1m) and its own resources (£300,000).

1.3 The Public Realm Phase 2 project is a street scene improvement initiative for Mount Pleasant Road, stretching from its junction with Monson Road to the junction with Church Road. The initial concept sketch for the scheme is at Appendix A and was considered by the Board at its meeting in October 2017, minute TB28/17 refers.

1.4 The potential of this space to act as a functional public space is currently constrained in a number of important respects. Chief amongst these is its heavy use as the town centre’s principal bus interchange and the associated bus stop infrastructure which is visually prominent and acts to clutter the space and to restrict pedestrian movement. The limited pedestrian crossing facilities at the

Page 49 Agenda Item 7

junctions with Monson Road and Church Road / Crescent Road, together with the split level and poor connectivity between Mount Pleasant Road and Civic Way also have significant and harmful severance effects.

1.5 The Public Realm Scheme aims to address these issues as follows:-

 Creating a more pedestrian-focussed space by reducing at carriageway width Mount Pleasant Road 10.3m reallocating space to public realm, rationalising bus shelters and installing pedestrian paving on primary desire lines across Monson Road, York Road and Mount Pleasant Road;

 Introducing wide, stepped areas framing the war memorial to enhance it as a focal point and create a stronger link between Mount Pleasant Road and Civic Way, in particular the Amelia cultural and learning hub entrance;

 Installing paving within the carriageway of Mount Pleasant Road to define the setting of the war memorial and create a sense of a public square for use on civic occasions such as Remembrance Sunday; and

 Improving seating and cycle facilities throughout.

1.6 In the early design phase, no vehicle movement restrictions were proposed for this stretch of Mount Pleasant Road. The initial design was to discourage 50% of vehicle movements using design features to encourage drivers to use alterative routes. As part of the design process the project team was challenged to be more aspirational for the design of the scheme, creating a space with even more priority for pedestrians and bus users and introducing traffic restrictions to displace the majority of traffic leaving the area clear for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, taxis, deliveries, accessing vehicles to use.

1.7 The final version of the design is at Appendix B and a number of highways amendments are proposed as part of the scheme. Eight Traffic Regulation Orders were advertised on 9 November and closed for comments on 3 December. In addition, a pubic engagement event was help in Royal Victoria Place in October. Details of the Orders, referenced A to H are set out below:

2 ORDERS

2.1 ORDER A – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS ROADS, THE BOROUGH OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS) (20MPH, 30MPH, 40MPH, 50MPH SPEED LIMITS AND DERESTRICTED ROADS) AMENDMENT No.22 ORDER 2018 - Various Roads

This proposal extends the 20mph Speed limit along the following roads:-  Mount Pleasant Road From its junction with Monson Road to its junction with Crescent Road and Church Road.  York Road From a point 20 metres east of its junction with London Road to its junction with Mount Pleasant Road.

Page 50 Agenda Item 7

 Dudley Road From a point 12 metres east of its junction with London Road to its junction with Mount Pleasant Road.  Newton Road From its junction with Monson Road to its junction with Mount Pleasant Road.  Monson Road From its junction with Mount Pleasant Road for a distance of 15 metres in an easterly direction.

2.2 ORDER B – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD, THE BOROUGH OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS) (TRAFFIC REGULATION) ORDER 2018 - Mount Pleasant Road

This proposal implements a prohibition of driving. The effect of the proposed Order will be to introduce a prohibition of driving between 9am and 6pm every day except for buses and other exempt vehicles in the following length of road:-  Mount Pleasant Road From its junction with York Road and its junction with Crescent Road and Church Road.

2.3 ORDER C – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS ROADS, TUNBRIDGE WELLS) (PROVISION OF WAITING) No.7 ORDER 2018 - Various Roads

This proposal implements the removal of single yellow lines to be replaced with double yellow lines. The effect of the proposed named Order will be to remove single yellow lines and replace with double yellow lines (DYL) and relocate existing lines due to the relocated of other parking restrictions in the following length of roads:-

CIVIC WAY – DYL - (1) On the west side between its junction with Monson Way and a point 13 metres south of that junction. (2) West side between points 29 metres west and 40 metres west of its junction with Crescent Road. (3) North side between point 5 metres east of its junction with the most westerly junction with Crescent Road to a point 23 east of that junction. To remove DYL from the following (1) On the south-west side (north-south spur) from a point 29 metres west of its most westerly junction with Crescent Road to appoint 48 metres west of that junction.

MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD – DYL - On the west side from its junction with York Road to a point 70 metres south of its junction with Church Road. To remove SYL from the west side from a point 16 metres south of its junction with York Road to a point 42 metres north of its junction with Church Road.

YORK ROAD -DYL – (1) On the north side from its junction with Mount Pleasant Road to a point 70 metres west of that junction. (2) On the south side from its junction with Mount Pleasant Road to its junction with London Road. To remove DYL (1) On the north side from a point 21 metres west of its junction with Mount Pleasant Road to a point 70 metres west of that junction. (2) On the north side from its junction with Mount Pleasant Road to a point 15 metres west of that point. To remove SYL On the south side from a point 30 metres east of its junction with London Road to a point 23 metres west of its junction with Mount Pleasant Road.

Page 51 Agenda Item 7

2.4 ORDER D – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD, TUNBRIDGE WELLS) (PROVISION OF GOODS LOADING BAY) No. 2 ORDER 2018 - Mount Pleasant Road

This proposal implements the provision of a Goods Loading Bay. The effect of the proposed named Order will be to install a Goods Loading Bay in the following length of road:-  Mount Pleasant Road – To install the bay on the west side from a point 18 metres north of its junction with Church Road for a distance of 21 metres in a northerly direction.

2.5 ORDER E – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS ROADS, TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH) (DISABLED PERSONS PARKING BAY) ORDER No.1 2018 - Civic Way

This proposal relocate the Disabled Persons Parking Bays in Civic Way on the west side from its current location of a point 10 metres south of its junction with Monson Road to a point 20 metres south of that junction to a point 13 metres south of its junction with Monson Way for a distance of 40 metres in a southerly direction

2.6 ORDER F – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS ROADS, ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS) (PROVISION OF POLICE BAYS) ORDER 2018 - York Road

This proposal is for the removal of the Police Bay located in York Road on the north side from a point 15 metres west of its junction with Mount Pleasant Road to a point 21 metres west of that junction

2.7 ORDER G – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS ROADS, TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH) (PROVISION OF PARKING PLACES) ORDER 2018 Mount Pleasant Road & Civic Way

This proposal is for the implementation of the removal Time Limited Parking Bays in the following length of roads:-  Mount Pleasant Road – To remove the bays located on the west side from a point 23 metres north of its junction with Church Road to a point 42 metres north of that junction.  Civic Way – To remove the bays located west/south side from a point 42m south of its junction with Monson Road to a point 84 m south of that junction.

2.8 ORDER H – THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS ROADS, TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH) (CAR CLUB PARKING PLACES) (AMENDMENT 1) ORDER 2018 - Mount Pleasant Road

This proposal is to relocate the Car Club Parking Bay from the west side of Mount Pleasant Road between the points 23 metres and 29 metres north of its junction with Church Road to the west side of Civic Way

Page 52 Agenda Item 7

2.9 Full details of the representations received are contained in Appendix C. A summary of the numbers is set out in the table below:

TRO support objection No specific Total support / objection Order A 15 3 16 34 20mph speed limit various roads Order B 1 26 7 34 Prohibition of driving Order C 9 11 14 34 Amend Single/double yellow lines in various roads Order D 1 3 30 34 Loading bay installation Order E Relocation of 1 4 29 34 disabled parking Order F 2 3 29 34 Remove police parking bay Order G 2 5 27 34 Remove time limited bays Order H 1 3 30 34 Car club bay

3 CONCLUSION

3.1 Whilst it is acknowledged that some additional traffic will be displaced to already congested parts of the town, recent studies into these junctions by KCC have shown that there is very limited potential for physical improvements to increase highway capacity. Instead, traffic improvements around the town can be achieved through behavioural change. Limiting through-traffic within the Phase 2 area is a bold move towards embracing the potential to encourage more pedestrian, cyclist and public transport trips. Phase 1 forms the top third of a ped-friendly spine road running north to south through the town centre, and Phase 2 should continue this ambition. Phase 3 will eventually complete the link between the two distinct shopping areas in the town, and assist in attempts to make the town centre more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. Until this is achieved, ambitions to encourage more local trips into the town by foot or cycle rather than the private car will not come to fruition: the town centre must be a welcoming and safe environment for all modes of transport, and these plans for Phase 2 will help to achieve this.

Page 53 Agenda Item 7

Appendices to the Report  Appendix A – Public Realm Phase 2 Concept Sketch  Appendix B – Public Realm Phase 2 Final Scheme Design  Appendix C – Representations to proposed Traffic Regulation Orders (TO FOLLOW)

Page 54 Appendix A Modified Layout Mount Pleasant V2

Improved crossing

New widened / ramped approach

Red brick

Nat West Bus shelter Forecourt to Cultural & Learning Hub Cultural & Learning Hub

Steps /seating

New trees in widened footway War Memorial Red granite bands

Granite setts to roadway

Town Hall

Not to scale

Page 55 August 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix B Date Rev B 13.12.18 14.11.18 www.amey.co.uk Appd RJHF RJHF Metres Preliminary For comment For tender For construction As constructed RBF RBF Chkd c Dimensions : Copyright Amey A1 c 40% Calisto 25% Prospero Transverse banding (100% Blue) Tactile paving to suit crossing type and adjacent surface treatment Tree to be retained Tree to be removed SureSet 'Chocolate' resin bound surfacing Sandstone walling and steps. construction Grassed area Conservation kerbing and edging Cycle stands Granite Setts in table tops: Granite Setts in table Granite Setts in ramps: (Blue 100%) (Red 60% Brown 30% Blue 10%) (Blue 100%) Ketley Corduroy pavers Bollards Bins Bus stop and shelter Potential location of replacement tree Existing street lighting to be reviewed/relocated Red Granite Setts - Transverse banding Ketley Staffordshire square edge pavers Ketley Staffordshire square edge pavers Ketley Staffordshire square edge pavers Flexible asphalt carriageway 1830mm long x 540mm wide seat 1830mm long x 400mm wide bench 15% Kari 20% Rosalind 100% Silver Grey Revision details JR - RBF RJHF 05.09.2018 1:250 adjacent to memorial retained. loading bay highlighted for removal. Layout of steps updated. Existing trees Potential location of replacement trees indicated. Existing trees adjacent to Key updated. S B A Drawn: Design: Chkd: Appd: Date: Client Project Name Drawing Title Original Drawing Size : Scale : Drawing No 4300695/000/05 Rev TUNBRIDGE WELLS PUBLIC SCHEME LAYOUT KEY: REALM PHASE 2 Copyright in this design Amey relocated bus stop Potential location for highway layout Existing Phase 1 with crossing point 'Table Top' feature

Post MONSON ROAD with crossing point 'Table Top' feature

Bol Bol RS RS Bol

B B

YORK ROAD S Post

25 m S RS CTV 20

Col RS

Col 15 with seating Pedestrian area 10

100 S

Col WAY MONSON

5 S

with property owners Col Paving subject to agreement SCALE 1 : 250 0 Central pedestrian crossing point / new public square Cycle stands to be provided as part of Amelia Scott development

Bol

RS monument Existing

Bol

RS Bol MONSON WAY MONSON shop frontage Existing raised Col 0

Post

DISABLED

Col

CTV MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD maintained Existing access

Post DISABLED Steps between Mount Pleasant Rd and Civic Way

DISABLED

RS RS RS bays Disabled

DISABLED

CIVIC WAY

LOADING ONLY Post DISABLED bay Loading

Post DISABLED

Post SP Bol RS TL TL

TL ONLY CLUB CAR SP TL TL

Bol charging point Car Club bay with Post

Post

Bol TL CHURCH ROAD CHURCH Post

TL Post

Bol MAYOR

TL ONLY SP

RS RS HOLDERS

RS TL PERMIT Bol

Bol

Bols Bol B Post Bol Post TL RS TL

Bol CIVIC WAY CIVIC

Bol

TL TL

SP TL CTV ROAD CRESCENT SP existing line at traffic signals Bol Crossing point maintained on

Bol

Bol MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD PLEASANT MOUNT B SP B \\mstrs001\mstdata\d - projects\co04300695 - tunbridge wells public realm phase 2\102.drawings\01. working\000 non contract\4300695-000-05.dwg This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019238. 2018 B +HU0DMHVW\ V6WDWLRQHU\2IILFH&URZQ&RS\ULJKW Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may SP SP File ref -

Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Local Winter Service Plan 2018/19

Report Author / Lead Officer Andrew Loosemore – Head of Highway Asset Management Originating Authority Kent County Council Final Decision Taker Kent County Council Exemption Non-exempt Classification For Information

Recommendation:

 That the report be noted.

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This report outlines the arrangements that have been made between Kent County Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to provide a local winter service in the event of an operational snow alert in the borough/district

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Kent County Council Highways, Transportation & Waste (KCC HT&W) takes its winter service responsibilities very seriously and is proactive as well as reactive to winter weather conditions. Winter service costs KCC in the region of £3.2m every winter and needs careful management to achieve safety for the travelling public and to be efficient. The Highways Operations teams in HT&W work to ensure that the winter service standards and decisions made are consistent across the whole county.

2.2 HT&W prepares an annual Winter Service policy and plan which are used to determine actions that will be taken to manage its winter service operations. The policy was approved at the KCC Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Committee on 20th September 2018 and subsequently signed off by the Cabinet Member.

District based winter service plans

2.3 The Local Winter Service Plan for Tunbridge Wells is a working document. It will evolve and be revised as necessary throughout the year. The document will be available on the KCC website. This document complements the KCC Winter Service Policy and Plan 2018/19. Following successful work in previous years with district councils, arrangements have again been put in place this year whereby labour from district councils can be used during snow days.

Page 59 Agenda Item 8

Additionally, HT&W will supply a quantity of a salt/sand mixture to district councils to use on the highway network. The details are contained in the local district winter plan which enhances the work that HT&W will continue to do in providing a countywide winter service. The local plan comes into effect when a snow operational alert is declared that affects the district of Tunbridge Wells.

Pavement clearance

2.4 Areas for clearing pavements have been identified in the local plan. These are the areas where local knowledge has indicated that people are concerned and would most like to be kept clear when there is snow and ice.

Farmers

2.5 The work that our contracted farmers have done in recent years is greatly appreciated and has made a big difference in keeping rural areas clear on snow days. Again, this year farmers will have predetermined local routes and will use their own tractor and KCC ploughs for clearing snow. The ploughs supplied are serviced by KCC each year. Each farmer will have plans detailing the roads that that they are responsible for ploughing. When snow reaches a depth of 50mm on roads in their areas the farmers will commence ploughing notifying KCC as agreed in their contract. A list of farmers and their contact details can be found in the local plan, (although some personal information will not be available via this report or the website due to General Data Protection Regulations).

3 CONCLUSION

3.1 The arrangements for working in partnership with the district councils in recent years have proved to be very successful and the continuing arrangement will enable HT&W to provide an effective winter service across the county.

Appendices to the Report  None

Background Documents  Kent County Council Winter Service Policy and Plan 2018/19 https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and-policies/transport- and-highways-policies/winter-service-policy

Page 60 Agenda Item 9

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice

Report Author / Lead Officer David Latham – Highway Policy and Inspections Manager Originating Authority Kent County Council Final Decision Taker Kent County Council Exemption Non-exempt Classification For Information

Recommendation:

 That the report be noted.

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This paper outlines the County Council’s strategy for implementing the new Code of Practice for highway maintenance management which becomes fully effective in October 2018.

1.2 It is highly unlikely that there will be any material impacts on the volume or cost of highway maintenance works but there will be a greater emphasis on the assessment of risk. Currently, no changes to service standards are proposed however, prior to any changes being made a full evaluation of options would be required followed by approval in accordance with the County Council Constitution.

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Well-maintained Highways, the code of practice for highway maintenance management was published in July 2005. It provided local authorities with guidance on highways management and proposed some prescribed investigation levels for highway defects e.g. 50mm depth for carriageway potholes. The Code of Practice formed the basis for the County Council’s Highway Safety Inspection Regime and our approach to highway maintenance. Well-maintained Highways was repeatedly deemed to be best practice by the Courts and by adopting the principles of The Code of Practice we have been able to defend claims against the County Council by demonstrating our defence (under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980) of implementing all reasonable measures and demonstrating we are not a negligent highway authority.

Page 61 Agenda Item 9

2.2 Well-managed Highway Infrastructure was published in October 2016 and replaces Well-maintained Highways, Well-lit Highways, and Management of Highway Structures in October 2018. Like its predecessors, Well-managed Highway Infrastructure is a national, non-statutory code of practice which sets out a series of general principles for highway maintenance. It is endorsed and recommended by the Department for Transport and its production has been overseen by the UK Roads Liaison Group (UKRLG) and its Roads, Bridges and Lighting Boards. However, the new Code of Practice is less prescriptive and instead promotes the establishment of local levels of service through risk-based assessment.

2.3 On the 13th July 2018, the County Council’s Environment & Transport Cabinet Committee endorsed the adoption and phased implementation of the fundamental principles of the Code of Practice. This decision was subsequently agreed by the Cabinet Member.

2.4 Well-managed Highway Infrastructure - Implementing the Code of Practice is published on the County Council’s website. It outlines how we will go about applying the principles in the Code of Practice to the way we work and measure our success to ensure continuous improvement and a focus on the County Council’s Strategic Outcomes.

2.5 Link to Well-managed Highway Infrastructure http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/en/codes/index.cfm

3 DISCUSSION

The Highway Network

3.1 Well-managed Highway Infrastructure recommends that the highway network should be considered as an integrated set of assets when developing infrastructure maintenance policies.

3.2 There are several classifications and hierarchies used for the planning and prioritisation of highway inspections, maintenance, renewals, improvements and new installations in Kent. However, residents, communities and businesses do not distinguish between the different categories of road, range of assets or types of work undertaken. They expect the network to be managed and maintained holistically to provide consistent and appropriate levels of service in the context of the County Council’s strategic outcomes.

3.3 An integrated network hierarchy is the foundation of a risk-based maintenance strategy and will inform intervention levels, inspection frequencies and response times. It is important that it reflects the actual use of each infrastructure asset and needs to be sufficiently dynamic to respond to the changing nature of the network – the classification of an asset may alter because of short term influences such as seasonal fluctuations or due to longer-term factors such as climate change and development.

Page 62 Agenda Item 9

3.4 Much of our network hierarchy information is already published including our Resilient Highway Network and Winter Salting Routes. From April 2019, the County Council will publish a series of related hierarchies which include all elements of the highway network. These hierarchies will consider current and expected use, resilience, and local economic and social factors as well as the desirability for continuity of service across administrative boundaries and a consistent approach for walking and cycling.

Risk Based Approach

3.5 Well-managed Highway Infrastructure is underpinned by the fundamental principle that highway authorities should adopt a risk-based approach in accordance with local needs (including safety), priorities and affordability.

3.6 Meaningful risk management is an intrinsic part of the management of our highway infrastructure. Inspections, maintenance, renewals and improvements present extensive choices and therefore it is vital that the impact of implementation and the consequences of failure are fully understood. In addition, there are a variety of external influences which impact on the performance of the highway network. Weather, budget, political direction and demand from other service areas also need to be considered when determining the approach to maintenance and investment.

3.7 Many of our existing inspection regimes and methodologies for prioritising work on the highway already include a consideration of risk. Furthermore, the County Council has already a risk management approach, detailed in the Risk Management Policy & Strategy 2018-21. This approach will now be applied to all aspects for highway infrastructure maintenance. At a strategic level, the management of current and future risks will be embedded within our approach to asset management. At an operational level, a risk-based approach will be used to determine intervention levels, inspection frequencies, response times and investment priorities across all highway assets.

3.8 A case study outlining the practical application of a risk-based approach can be found at Appendix A.

Resilience and Sustainability

3.9 Kent provides key transport links between London and the continent and has some of the most intensively used roads in the country. Any disruption to the network has an immediate impact on road users, the economy and services. Ensuring these roads are as resilient and sustainable as is practicable must be a priority.

3.10 The County Council has long had robust systems in place to respond effectively to severe weather emergencies, unforeseen events and civil emergencies and we already take a hierarchical approach to the management of our 8,700 km highway network. In September 2017, this approach was enhanced further when The Environment & Transport Cabinet Committee endorsed The Definition for Kent’s Resilient Highway Network.

Page 63 Agenda Item 9

3.11 It is important that the highway network is maintained for future generations. In addition to responding effectively to emergencies and high impact events, it is important that due consideration is given to the impacts of climate change. Furthermore, a balance needs to be sought between providing sustainable growth and a competitive, innovative and resilient economy and protecting and improving our natural and historic assets.

Financial Management, Priorities and Planning

3.12 The way in which investment is prioritised needs to provide sufficient flexibility to deliver value for money. In addition to ensuring effective coordination, an asset management-based approach to managing highway infrastructure requires due consideration of different options and factors that influence their success:

 The differing life expectancies of various treatments and the future implications of these for the balance of capital and revenue funding; for example, renewing a bridge parapet might be more expensive than simply repointing the aging brickwork but doing so could generate a saving with respect to the long-term maintenance.  The seasonal and weather sensitive nature of many treatments and the service as a whole; for example, renewing a road surface is best done during dry, mild weather as very cold or wet weather can cause the surface to rapidly fail.  The uncertainties in prediction of out-turn costs for Winter Service, Severe Weather Events and emergencies and the need for financial year-end flexibility

3.13 The County Council has endorsed an asset management based approach to the maintenance and management of highway assets. Part of this approach involves viewing the highway network as a whole rather than as discrete asset groups such as carriageways, drainage, lighting and structures. A cross asset approach will now be taken when developing priorities and programmes and produce a rolling forward works programme that is updated regularly.

Performance Management

3.14 Effective performance monitoring will support the County Council in reviewing progress, performance requirements and works programmes. Our Highway Asset Management Framework establishes mechanisms for performance management, including performance measures and targets, which facilitate the monitoring of delivery with respect to the short, medium and long term strategic direction of the service.

4 CONCLUSION

4.1 The Code of Practice presents an opportunity for County Councils’ to shape the services they provide based on local needs and priorities and does not need to

Page 64 Agenda Item 9

represent a radical change from a customer perspective, particularly in the short term.

4.2 A programme is in place to ensure the timely and effective implementation of the Code of Practice, with a view to having the recommendations largely implemented from April 2019. Information sharing with local representatives and communities form a key part of this programme including planned engagement with Parish Councils via the annual Parish Seminars, “for information” updates to Joint Transportation Boards and enhanced information on the County Council’s website.

Appendices to the Report

 Appendix A – Well-managed Highway Infrastructure - Applying the Code of Practice in Kent  Appendix B – Well-managed Highway Infrastructure - Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent 2018 – 2020  Appendix C – Case Study: Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – A practical application

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A Highway s Asset Management

Applying the Well-managed Highway Infrastructure in Kent

Introduction

Kent County Council (KCC) maintains 8,700km (5,400 miles) of highway network and associated “assets”.

Our roads, footways, street lights, street furniture, traffic signals, gullies and drains, trees, grass verges, signs, road markings, bridges and other structures are all different types of highway asset. These assets help to ensure that journeys around and through the County are safe and reliable.

The County Council has statutory obligations under the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highway in a safe condition and appropriately safe and functioning state. In addition, the Traffic Management Act 2004 requires us to facilitate and secure the efficient movement of traffic on our highway network. Furthermore, the Climate Change Act 2008 obliges us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare to adapt to longer term climate change. Finally, in 2011 the public sector equality duty (the equality duty) came into force. The equality duty was created under the Equality Act 2010 which explains that having due regard for advancing equality involves removing or minimising disadvantage, encouraging participation and taking steps to meet the needs of all people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people.

In October 2016 the UK Roads Liaison Group (UKRLG) published Well Managed Highway Infrastructure. The Code of Practice, which is due for implementation by October 2018, is designed to promote the adoption of an integrated asset management approach to highway infrastructure based on the establishment of local levels of service through risk-based assessment. In the interest of route consistency for highway users, all authorities are encouraged to collaborate in determining levels of service, especially across boundaries with neighbours responsible for strategic and local highway networks

KCC has adopted the principles set out in the Code of Practice and this document outlines how these principles are shaping the services we deliver in a way that supports and achieves the County Council’s priorities. Our Vision

The County Council has a five year strategic statement called “Increasing Opportunities, Improving Outcomes” and this sets out the following vision:

Our focus is on improving lives by ensuring every pound spent in Kent is delivering better outcomes for Kent’s residents, communities and businesses

Funding to maintain the highway network is finite and investment decisions need to balance the competing needs and interdependencies of highway users, local communities, businesses and our highway assets themselves. Adopting an informed and holistic risk based approach enables integrated asset management and supports a principle of spending the right amount of money at the right time to keep our highway network safe and our assets working properly to meet the needs of Kent’s people, businesses and visitors now and in the future.

Page 67 Appendix A Highway s Asset Management

Applying the Well-managed Highway Infrastructure in Kent

Our Strategic Outcomes

The County Council is committed to achieving its vision through three strategic outcomes which provide a simple and effective focus for everything we do.

Effective risk management and integrated highway asset management is vital in supporting the delivery of the County Council’s three strategic outcomes:

Children and young people in Kent get the best start in life

Managing risk and applying asset management principles to create a safe and resilient highway network enables reliable journeys. These journeys enable Kent’s young people to access work, education and training opportunities, supporting them to achieve their potential through academic and vocational education.

Kent communities feel the benefits of economic growth by being in work, healthy and enjoying a good quality life

Creating a highway network that is resilient is key to economic prosperity. As well as connecting the County’s towns and villages, Kent highways also provide a key strategic link between the Capital and ferry, air and rail services to mainland Europe.

Older and vulnerable residents are safe and supported with choices to live independently.

Safe and reliable highways provide valuable access to services, amenities and social activities for older and vulnerable people supporting them to live with greater independence.

The demands of an aging population and the potential barriers to independent living need to be recognised and inform decisions we make about levels of service and maintenance priorities. Our Approach to Asset Management in Highways

KCC has adopted an approach to highway service delivery which is underpinned by asset management principles. Our Approach to Asset Management in Highways was approved by the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee in January 2017.

Implementing Our Approach to Asset Management in Highways is our strategy document which outlines how we are embedding asset management principles, including effective risk management, in the way that we deliver highway services.

Understanding the Assets We Manage

The highway network is made up of a diverse range of assets with an estimated value in excess of £25bn. Understanding our highway assets is intrinsic to effective risk management, integrated asset management and informed decision making.

Page 68 Appendix A Highway s Asset Management

Applying the Well-managed Highway Infrastructure in Kent

Boundaries and changes in road hierarchy are not usually apparent to highway users and significant differences in maintenance standards are unlikely to be desirable. Whilst a main road will inevitably present a different risk profile to a minor road and different authorities will generate different outcomes, understanding these variances and being able to justify corresponding levels of service will be key.

Developing Maintenance Plans and Forward Works Programmes

Understanding the lifecycle of each asset group, the impact of current service levels, our statutory obligations, strategic objectives and public expectations all contribute to a meaningful assessment of risk and consequence.

Our first priority is always to maintain highway safety but there are a range of ways we can do this. There are often several ways we can respond to a highway defect and each of these comes with a cost, an implication for other asset groups and consequence for local communities. Local knowledge, historic evidence and engineering judgement can enable these consequences to be understood and taken account of. With limited resources at our disposal it is also paramount that the action taken is proportionate to the risk.

Measuring Success

It is important that we record and demonstrate the outcomes of our maintenance strategies and investment decisions. Clear performance measures and targets ensure that we are continuously improving the way we work and provide an opportunity to identify areas for further development. By empowering staff to analyse and understand the outcomes of different actions, informed and balanced asset management based decisions about future maintenance, repairs and improvements can be made.

Through bench marking, collaboration and engagement with National Forums, best practice can be shared and captured, service standards can be aligned and we can ensure that we remain focused on the needs of Kent’s residents, businesses, visitors and communities.

Preparing For the Future

Critical Infrastructure refers to routes and assets where failure would result in a significant impact to the local, and potentially the national, economy. There are many potential risks and threats to the function of critical infrastructure and we need to ensure that they are managed effectively to maximise resilience now and in the future.

In an industry that is constantly changing and developing, the adoption of new ideas, methods of working and innovation can driver greater efficiency. Through effective working with our delivery partners, industry working groups and other authority’s opportunities for improvement can be identified and maximised for the future benefit of the County.

Developing Our Approach to Asset Management in Highways 2018/19 – 2020/21, describes the current condition of asset groups and condition/outcome trends going forward based on current resource levels. It includes areas that we want to develop in future as we implement the Code of Practice, strive to further enhance service delivery and ensure continuous improvement.

Page 69 Appendix A Highway s Asset Management

Applying the Well-managed Highway Infrastructure in Kent

Implementing Well-managed Highway Infrastructure

Details of how the County Council intends to implement the Code of Practice in their delivery of highway maintenance will be outlined in “Implementing Well-managed Highway Infrastructure”.

Page 70 Appendix B

Highways Asset Management

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure

Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent 2018 - 2020

Page 71 Appendix B

Contents Introduction ...... 3 The Highway Network ...... 5 Network Inventory ...... 5 Integrated Network Management ...... 5 The whole highway...... 6 Future Maintenance ...... 6 Highway users ...... 6 Risk Base Approach ...... 8 Context ...... 8 Risk Management in Highways ...... 8 Risk Management ...... 8 Identify Risks ...... 9 Assess Risks ...... 9 Evaluate Risks ...... 10 Allocate Risk ...... 10 Determine Actions ...... 10 Apply Actions ...... 11 Monitor & Control ...... 11 Inspections and Surveys ...... 11 Safety Inspections ...... 11 Service Inspections ...... 12 Condition Surveys ...... 12 Structural Assessments ...... 12 Reactive Inspections ...... 12 Defect Recording and Repair ...... 12 Competence and Training ...... 13 Resilience and Sustainability ...... 14 Managing Highways for Resilience ...... 14 Climate Change and Adaptation ...... 15 Financial Management, Priorities and Programming ...... 16 Financial Planning and Budgeting Principles ...... 16 Priorities and Programming ...... 16 Performance Management ...... 17 Performance Measures and Targets ...... 17 Performance Reviews ...... 17 Benchmarking ...... 17

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page1 72 Appendix B

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page2 73 Appendix B

Introduction Our highway network is the most valuable asset we own. It enables safe and reliable journeys and in doing so supports social and economic prosperity. We are committed to good management of our highway network not only now but also, for future generations.

As the Highway Authority, the County Council has legal obligations to keep adopted highway routes available and safe for the passage of the travelling public. Our statutory duties are outlined in a number of pieces of legislation including the following:

▪ The Highways Act 1980 outlines our duty of care to maintain the highway in a safe condition and protect the rights of the travelling public to use the highway. ▪ The Traffic Management Act 2004 conveys a network management duty whereby we are required to facilitate and secure the efficient movement of traffic on the highway network. ▪ The New Roads & Street Works Act 1991 requires us co-ordinate road works and to make best use of the existing network. ▪ The Road Traffic Act 1991 describes our statutory responsibility to promote road safety and take measures to prevent collisions. ▪ The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 details our duties to ensure that the work we do is designed and built competently and that risks to the work force and road users are properly considered and effectively managed. This places particular controls on how and when works are carried out. ▪ The Equalities Act 2010 created the public equality duty which requires us to have due regard for advancing equality by removing or minimising disadvantage, encouraging participation and taking steps to meet the needs of all people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people. ▪ The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 details the environmental legislation that we need to follow to ensure that we minimise our impact on local biodiversity whilst carrying out highway asset maintenance.

In October 2016 the UK Roads Liaison Group (UKRLG) published Well-managed Highway Infrastructure. The Code of Practice is non-statutory however it will be deemed to be guidance of best practice by the courts. The County Council will be required to demonstrate a robust decision-making process, an understanding of the consequences of those decisions, and how the associated risks are managed to ensure highway safety.

The Code of Practice, which is due for implementation by October 2018, is designed to promote the adoption of an integrated asset management approach to highway infrastructure based on the establishment of local levels of service through risk-based assessment. The County’s Highway Asset Management Framework develops this approach in three documents: a policy [Our Approach to Asset Management in Highways], and two strategy documents [Implementing Our Approach to Asset Management in Highways and Developing Our Approach to Asset Management in Highways]. These documents demonstrate our commitment to an Asset Management approach and clearly outline the funding required and the wider benefits to be achieved. The Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee have endorsed all three documents, which are published on the County Council’s website.

The Code of Practice recognises that the delivery of a safe and well-maintained highway network relies on good evidence and sound engineering judgement. A risk-based approach to highway maintenance needs to be founded on information that is sufficiently robust to enable decisions on levels of service, delivery methods and priorities for improvements can be taken and reviewed over time. Our Asset Information Strategy will detail how information to support a risk-based approach to highway maintenance will be collected, managed and made available in ways that are sustainable, secure, meet statutory obligations and facilitate transparency for network users.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page3 74 Appendix B

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure provides guidance to support the development of approaches to highway maintenance that are in accordance with local needs, priorities and affordability. In the interest of route consistency for highway users, all authorities, are encouraged to collaborate in determining levels of service, especially across boundaries with neighbours responsible for strategic and local highway networks. Moreover the principles set out in the Well-managed Highway Infrastructure are intended to influence the ongoing development and evolution of the approach taken to asset management in highways. In accordance with asset management principles, the highway network should be considered as an integrated set of assets with due consideration given to the need to balancing the needs and inter dependencies of different asset groups.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure states that “Where authorities elect in the light of local circumstances to adopt policies or approaches different from those suggested by the Code, it is essential that they are identified, together with the reasoning for such differences, be approved by the authority’s Executive and published.” However, the County Council’s Constitution states that “The Leader and Cabinet Members should…(d) participate in the approval by the full Council of Kent-wide policies and budgets; (e) lead the development of policies for the delivery of services to the whole community of Kent” [Article 2(2)]. Therefore, in addition to approving any deviations from the Code of Practice, the adoption of the principles of the Code of Practice and any fundamental changes to existing policies or service standards will be subject to Executive approval and publication.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure - Implementing the Code of Practice outlines how we will go about applying the principles in the Code of Practice to the way we work and measure our success to ensure continuous improvement and a focus on the County Council’s Strategic Outcomes. Details of our approach will be actively communicated through engagement with stakeholders in setting requirements, making decisions and reporting performance.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page4 75 Appendix B

The Highway Network Network Hierarchies

There are several classifications and hierarchies used for the planning and prioritisation of highway inspections, maintenance, renewals, improvements and new installations in Kent:

▪ Road Classifications are administered by the Department for Transport and provide a system to direct motorists towards the most suitable routes for reaching their destination. ▪ The Resilient Highway Network is defined by the County Council as “the portion of our highway network that is vital to maintaining economic activity and access to key services during extreme weather emergencies and other major incidents”. The purpose of defining this network is to identify the most critical routes and associated highway assets, such as bridges, so that planned whole asset maintenance on that part of the network may be prioritised. Details of Kent’s Resilient Highway Network are published on the County Council’s website [http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and- policies/transport-and-highways-policies/highways-asset-management] ▪ The Winter Network is divided into primary and secondary routes and provides a minimum essential service to the public which includes links to the strategic network, access to key facilities and local communities. Precautionary salting of these routes is undertaken in accordance with the Winter Service Policy which is published on the County Council’s website [http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the- council/strategies-and-policies/transport-and-highways-policies/winter-service-policy] and reviewed annually. ▪ Flooding Hotspots are defined as “flood prone sections of the highway network” and are identified using drainage and flooding enquiry data. They are used to prioritise drainage maintenance, renewals and improvement works. ▪ The Street Lighting Maintenance Hierarchy is defined by the County Council and used to prioritise routine maintenance such as night scouting and bollard cleaning. ▪ The Maintenance Hierarchy is defined by the County Council and used to prioritise safety inspections and routine maintenance such as gully cleansing. ▪ Critical Highway Infrastructure is considered to be those assets where failure would result in significant impact to the local, and potentially the national, economy. Critical infrastructure assets form a crucial part of the highway network.

Whilst it is inevitable that different asset types might have their owner hierarchies, all should be related such that each asset type can be considered in relation to others and to the whole highway network.

Network Inventory Inventory information or “asset registers” are held for most of our major asset groups however the extent of the information varies greatly due to differing business needs. For example, an extensive inventory is needed for street lighting as it is not only used to inform maintenance activities but also the energy bills that run to several millions of pounds. Conversely, the inventory for the highway drainage network is less comprehensive because, whilst it would be nice to know construction information for each of our drainage pipes, the nature of the work we do and the processes that have been implemented do not require this level of detail.

The quality, appropriateness and completeness of asset data is reviewed regularly to ensure that the nature and extent of the network inventory collected is fit for purpose and meets business needs. The sensitivity of information is very limited but where sensitive information is held, it is managed in a security minded way.

Integrated Network Management Kent’s residents, communities and businesses do not distinguish between the different categories of road, range of assets or types of work undertaken on the highway. They expect the network to be managed and maintained holistically to provide consistent and appropriate levels of service. To achieve this, it is vital that the whole highway network is considered and in the context of the County Councils strategic outcomes. Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page5 76 Appendix B

An integrated network hierarchy based on asset function is the foundation of a risk-based maintenance strategy. It is important that it reflects the whole highway network and the needs, priorities and actual use of each infrastructure asset. It therefore also needs to be dynamic and regularly reviewed to reflect the changing nature of the network as a consequence of short term influences such as seasonal fluctuations or longer-term factors such as climate change and development.

The whole highway It is imperative that all highway assets are considered including traffic management and parking provisions. Moreover, it is important to consider the implications of a maintenance regime or scheme not only now but in the longer term. For example, if a road with defective drainage is resurfaced without also repairing the drainage it will remain in a good condition for a much shorter length of time. Over time standing water will cause the surface to deteriorate, increasing numbers of potholes will form and the overall lifespan of the road will be reduced. Prevention is generally more cost effective than cure and if, for example, the drainage is repaired before the road is resurfaced, efficiencies can be made on the remedial works and further savings achieved as responding to the consequences of flooding is not required.

Future Maintenance The highway network increases in size year on year and as do the number of assets we maintain. The impact on future maintenance can vary dramatically depending on the approach taken. As local government finances become increasingly squeezed it is important that the selection and suitability of assets and their component parts and materials, doesn’t place an unnecessary future burden on the Authority. For example, instead of laying a coloured road surface which is costly to maintain, white lining may demark a cycle route just as effectively.

Highway users Highway maintenance regimes and improvements should consider the needs of all highway users, particularly vulnerable users. There may be opportunities while we carry out maintenance and improvements to minimise disadvantage, encourage participation and incorporate the needs of people from protected groups in accordance with the Public Equality Duty. Depending on the nature of the works, it may be possible to enhance safety, priority, integrity or quality of routes, crossing points, public transport facilities or freight movements and these opportunities should be given due consideration. Furthermore, the expectation of consistency means that consideration needs to be given to the hierarchy of neighbouring authorities for both the local and nationally maintained networks.

Kent County Council will apply these principles and consider the highway network as an integrated set of assets when developing our approach to inspections, maintenance, renewals, improvements and new installations.

Defining our Integrated Highway Network

The system of road classification used by Central Government does not necessarily reflect local needs or actual use now and in the future.

From April 2019, hierarchies will be defined and published for all elements of the local highway network. The inherent links between some asset groups such as signs, lines and the carriageway may mean that these network groupings are subsumed into a single hierarchy. Where asset hierarchies differ, they will all be founded on the principle of highway functionality and the desirability for a consistent approach with a view to achieving a high degree of compatibility.

Specific considerations will be dependent on the nature of the asset type however there will be consistent themes that underpin the hierarchy definition:

▪ Importance – this may include key routes between towns, connecting the strategic road network and main routes to critical infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and power stations

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page6 77 Appendix B

▪ Environment - rural, urban, busy shopping streets, residential streets, country lanes etc. ▪ Usage – this may include factors such as the volume and type of users, designations as traffic sensitive, diversion or ceremonial routes and the character and volume of traffic on the adjoining carriageway ▪ Site history - this may include factors such as historic casualty data, historic flooding data and crime statistics ▪ Asset specific considerations – this may include factors such as height or weight restrictions, historic structures, construction materials or the position with respect to the carriageway, footway or cycleway.

Kent County Council will publish a series of related hierarchies which include all elements of the highway network. They will consider current and expected use, resilience, and local economic and social factors as well as the desirability of continuity and of a consistent approach for walking and cycling.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page7 78 Appendix B

Risk Based Approach Context As an organisation concerned with service provision and the social and economic development of the county, efficient and effective risk management is essential. By implementing sound management of our risks and the consequential threats and opportunities, we will be in a stronger position to deliver our business objectives, services that reflect local needs and achieve better value for money. Risk management is therefore at the heart of good management practice and the County Council’s corporate governance arrangements. Our approach to risk management is proactive and enables decisions to be based on properly assessed actions and events that balance risk and reward with a view to ensuring that the right actions are taken at the right time.

It is not possible to eliminate all risk. Whilst some mitigation is often possible, it is important to understand the degree of risk and the potential consequences. These can then be balanced against the cost of reducing or eliminating the risk and the benefits of accommodating the risk.

The County Council has a mandatory approach to risk management called the Risk Management Policy & Strategy 2018-21.

Risk Management in Highways Meaningful risk management is an intrinsic part of the management of our highway infrastructure. Inspections, maintenance, renewals and improvements present extensive choices and therefore it is vital that the impact of implementation and the consequences of failure are fully understood. In addition, there are a variety of external influences which impact on the performance of the highway network. Weather, budget, political direction and demand from other service areas also need to be considered when determining the approach to maintenance and investment.

Adopting a risk-based approach will further facilitate the establishment and implementation of levels of asset condition and service standards that are appropriate to their circumstances.

Kent County Council will adopt a risk-based approach for all aspects for highway infrastructure maintenance, including setting levels of service, inspections, response, resilience, priorities and programmes. The management of current and future risks will be embedded within the approach to asset management and service delivery Strategic, tactical and operational risks will be included as will appropriate mitigation measures.

Risk Management The County Council has adopted a risk management approach which aligns with the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) recognised best practice guidance – Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners. The approach is an iterative process to enable continuous improvement and is summarised below:

Identify Risks

Monitor Assess & Control Risks

Apply Evaluate Actions Risks

Determin Allocate e Actions Risks

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page8 79 Appendix B

Identify Risks Identifying risks is a crucial opportunity to ensure that risks are visible throughout the organisation. At this point risks are considered in their unmitigated state to allow for later prioritisation. Issues to be considered as part of the risk identification process may include:

▪ What are the risks to achieving the asset management strategy and levels of service? ▪ What is the source of each risk? ▪ What might happen? ▪ What would the effect be? ▪ When, where, why and how are these risks likely to occur? ▪ Who might be involved or impacted? ▪ What controls presently exist? ▪ What could cause the control to not have the desired effect on the risk?

A common approach is to commence the risk identification at a high level to obtain an assessment for the level of overall risk exposure. This may then be followed by a detailed assessment of more specific risks where critical assets, critical failure modes and high-risk areas can be defined and analysed in greater detail.

Assess Risks Having identified the risks it is important to understand the potential consequences, positive or negative, and the likelihood of that impact being realised.

Consequence is the outcome of an event, such as increased journey times, isolation of local communities or a drop in public perception of the service provided. It can have positive or negative effects and can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. The consequences associated with an event leading to failure or service reduction may include:

▪ Safety – including fatalities and personal injuries; ▪ Functionality – impact of a loss or reduction in service at route, asset or component level, such as weight restrictions on a bridge; ▪ Cost – increased costs due to bringing forward or delaying work, repair costs, fines or litigation costs and loss of income or income potential; ▪ Sustainability – any impact on future use of highway infrastructure assets. ▪ Environment – environmental impacts, such as pollution caused through traffic delay or contamination from spillages, the sensitivity of the route/area, etc; ▪ Reputation – public confidence in organisational integrity; and ▪ Community costs – damage to property or other third-party losses, which may include business impacts, traffic delays, etc.

Likelihood is the chance of an event such as an asset failure or a fatality on the highway happening. It can be measured objectively, subjectively, qualitatively or quantitatively depending on the level of information available. However, it is measured, there are several issues that need to be considered, including the following:

▪ Changes in policy and funding; ▪ Current and historic performance (severity and extent) of the asset; ▪ Rate of deterioration and/or current age of the asset; ▪ Asset type, material type, mode of failure, extent of failure, etc; ▪ Exposure to incidents of all types; ▪ Human behaviour and workmanship; ▪ Vulnerability to climate change; ▪ Quality of asset management approach and systems.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page9 80 Appendix B

The likelihood of physical failure of an asset is related to the current condition of the asset, hence the importance of accurate condition assessment. The likelihood of natural events is determined less easily but scientific studies are usually available. The likelihood of other events, such as poor work practices or planning issues can be difficult to ascertain. KCC have an established matrix-based approach for determining risk levels.

KCC’s Standard for Determining Risk Levels

Impact Risk Rating Matrix 1 2 3 4 5

Minor Moderate Significant Serious Major

1 Very Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Low Low Low Low Low

2 Unlikely 2 4 6 8 10 Low Low Low Medium Medium 3 Possible 3 6 9 12 15 Low Low Medium Medium Medium 4 8 12 16 20 Likelihood 4 Likely Low Medium Medium High High 5 Very Likely 5 10 15 20 25 Low Medium Medium High High

The target residual rating for a risk is “medium” or lower; in the event that this is not practicable the risk will be escalated for review.

Evaluate Risks All identified risks need to be evaluated against the risk appetite and risk tolerance provides an assurance of a consistent approach to the measurement of risk and appropriate management and escalation. The County Council recognises that risk is inherent in delivering and commissioning services, including highways services, and aims to have an open approach to risk, appropriately balancing risk against reward, with risks managed in a proportionate manner.

With increasing spending demands and continued reductions in Government funding, there is a recognition that it is likely that a higher level of risk will need to be accepted in the future. This will require an approach that allows flexibility and support for well-informed and considered risk taking, promoting transparency and effective risk management, while maintaining accountability.

Allocate Risk It is important that risks are suitably allocated to a stakeholder who is best placed to take ownership and manage them effectively. For example, the risk of a critical asset failure is best allocated to the asset manager who has the level of understanding to determine potential actions and the consequences of those actions, the authority to apply the selected action and the information and knowledge to monitor and control the risk in both the short and longer term.

Determine Actions Mitigation options need be identified for all risks assessed to be unacceptable and there will often be many options to reduce the likelihood and/or consequence. It is therefore important that a logical approach to determining appropriate, proportionate and viable solutions to eliminate, reduce or control risk and enhance opportunities is established.

Some risks can be addressed more easily and effectively than others and costs may range significantly. Therefore, analysis of the costs of risk reduction against different options will facilitate identification of the optimum solution. It should be noted that in addition to the financial implications, the potential actions need to be considered in the wider context of the County Council’s strategic objectives and legal obligations i.e. the most Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page10 81 Appendix B cost-effective action is not appropriate if it contradicts our strategic objectives, breaches our legal obligations or could significantly damage the Authority’s reputation.

Apply Actions Prior to applying actions, the assessment and evaluation stages need to be revisited to determine the residual risk and therefore the effect of the risk action. Having confirmed that this is satisfactory, the Action Owner is confirmed as are the appropriate reporting arrangements. For example, if the action involves significant service reductions, or significant changes in the way that services are delivered approval by the Cabinet Member; Cabinet or Leader of the County Council will be required. Moreover, if significant service changes are being made due to efficiency, economy or effectivity then formal consultation will be necessary.

Monitor & Control Risks are not static and external and internal events can alter the likelihood and impact of risks. It is essential to continue reviewing risks and checking that actions to manage them are progressing to plan. All highway risks are routinely reviewed alongside other business management activities such as performance and financial reporting. Moreover, when emerging events or emergencies occur new and existing risks are assessed and responded to.

Inspections and Surveys Authorities are not statutorily obliged to carry out inspections of all highway elements but are strongly advised to undertake safety inspections in accordance with the principles of Well-managed Highway Infrastructure. Inspection and survey regimes should be planned using a risk-based approach to provide increased levels of scrutiny to areas or assets deemed to be of higher risk.

An effective regime of inspection, survey and recording is the most crucial component of highway infrastructure maintenance and intrinsic to the management of risk. It provides basic information for addressing the core objectives of highway maintenance namely:

▪ network safety; ▪ network serviceability; ▪ network sustainability.

The characteristics of the regime are defined following an assessment of the relative risks associated with potential circumstances of location, agreed level of service and condition. For example, an 80-year-old bridge carrying a main road over a live railway line has greater risks associated with it than a new footbridge over a ditch on a rural footpath. The former may require 2 yearly visual inspections and 6 yearly detailed inspections supported by detailed reporting to reflect the complex nature of the structure. For the latter, it may be sufficient to carry out 2 yearly visual inspections with a “check list” style report and no detailed inspections if the simplistic nature of the structure means that all components are easily accessed and visible. Regardless of the specifics of the regime, it is crucial that they are applied systematically and consistently. Moreover, it is important to recognise that all information recorded, even if not primarily intended for network safety purposes, may have implications for safety and may therefore be relevant to legal proceedings and may have to be made available for public inspection and reference.

The County Council undertake a range of inspections and surveys with respect to the highway and its components:

Safety Inspections The safety inspection regime forms a key aspect of an authority’s approach to managing liabilities and risks. A countywide team of inspectors are tasked with the identification of all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community. The risk of danger is assessed on site and the defect identified with an appropriate priority response. The regime has been developed using a risk-based

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page11 82 Appendix B approach and provides a practical and reasonable approach to the risks and potential consequences identified. Moreover, it takes account of potential risks to all users, and in particular the most vulnerable.

The processes and standards that underpin this regime are detailed in the Highway Inspectors Manual and are reviewed annually.

Service Inspections The inspection requirements of different asset groups can vary significantly due to their composition and the way in which they function. Service inspections are tailored to the requirements of specific highway assets and elements to ensure that they meet requirements for serviceability. Examples of these type of inspections include electrical testing of lit signs and structural testing of street lighting columns. These inspections also include inspections for network integrity and for regulatory purposes, including NRSWA, intended to maintain network availability and reliability.

Condition Surveys Condition surveys are primarily intended to identify defects which, if untreated, are likely to adversely affect long term performance, serviceability and safety. The data collected can be used to forecast life expectancy, to determine when intervention may be appropriate, to model the impact of different intervention strategies and to compare the likely costs. In addition, the information collected informs national government indicators and the annual valuation of the highway network.

Kent County Council will continue to implement asset condition surveys based on asset management need and in accordance with our statutory reporting requirements.

Structural Assessments Structural Assessments are carried out on a targeted basis to determine the capacity of a structure to carry the loads which are imposed upon it, and increases that may be reasonably expected in the foreseeable future.

Reactive Inspections The County Council proactively encourages our customers to report highway defects via our Online Fault Reporting Tool and a dedicated highways line to our Contact Point.

Reports from members of the public provide a further source of knowledge on the condition of the highway network. To maximise the value of this information, appropriate quality assurance measures are needed. As such, a regime of reactive inspections is in place to support the validation of reports, ensure duplicate reports are identified and combined, and to maintain auditability of information. It is not always necessary to inspect a defect to determine the required response but the decision to inspect or not, and the outcome of any inspection should be recorded systematically and consistently.

Kent County Council will develop and implement a risk-based approach to inspections for all asset groups.

Defect Recording and Repair All defects observed during service, safety, condition and reactive inspections, need to be recorded and the type and speed of response determined on the basis of a risk assessment.

Defects that require urgent attention should be corrected or made safe at the time of the inspection, if reasonably practicable. In this context, making an asset safe may constitute displaying warning notices, coning off or fencing off to protect the public from the defect. If it is not possible to correct or make safe the defect at the time of inspection, repairs of a permanent or temporary nature should be carried out as soon as possible. If temporary repairs have been used, permanent repair should be carried out within a reasonable period.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page12 83 Appendix B

Defects that do not represent an immediate or imminent hazard or risk of short term structural deterioration may have safety implications, although of far less significance than those which are considered to require urgent attention. They are more likely to have serviceability or sustainability implications. If repairs are to be undertaken these are likely to be within a planned programme of works with their priority determined by risk assessment. For example defects in highway trees may be identified during condition inspections and if the defect does not present an immediate safety threat, works will be ordered to reduce the risk of failure, eliminate the hazard or improve life expectancy of the tree. Access requirements, other works on the network, traffic levels, and the desirability of efficient traffic management, should also be considered as part of prioritising and scheduling the works.

Kent County Council will develop and implement a risk-based defect repair regime for all highway assets.

Managing the safety and wide range of other risks associated with the delivery of highway infrastructure maintenance requires effective and co-ordinated information systems to record inspections, defect reports, condition assessment and activity. The efficiency, accuracy and quality of information recorded is crucial both to the effective management of the service and to demonstrating that the County Council are a competent highway authority.

All information obtained from inspections and surveys, together with the nature of response, including nil returns, should be recorded consistently. It is important that the data from inspections and surveys can be reviewed and analysed both independently and in conjunction with other information to enable a holistic understanding of the likely future maintenance need, asset condition and trends related to network characteristics and use.

Kent County Council will develop and implement mechanisms for recording all inspections and subsequent activities to justify decisions made, inform future decision making and protect the authority from unjustified or fraudulent claims.

Competence and Training To ensure that inspections, risk assessments and the analysis of the resulting information is meaningful and valid, appropriate competencies for all staff are required. Continued professional development is key to this and should be embedded in the annual Learning and Development cycle.

Kent County Council will ensure that the appropriate competency required for asset maintenance and management is identified and that training is provided where necessary.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page13 84 Appendix B

Resilience and Sustainability Kent, which provides key transport links between the capital and the continent, has some of the most intensively used roads in the country. Any disruption to the network has an immediate impact on road users, the economy and services. Ensuring these roads are as resilient and sustainable as is practicable must be a priority.

Managing Highways for Resilience Resilience as defined by the Cabinet Office is the “ability of the community, services, are or infrastructure, to detect, prevent and if necessary to withstand, handle and recover from disruptive challenges”. Resilience in the context of highway infrastructure is the ability of a road network to withstand not only the impacts of extreme weather (snow, ice or flooding) but also industrial action, major incidents and other local risks. The level of resilience sought for any length of road needs to be commensurate with its intensity of use, economic or social importance and the availability of alternatives. The more intensively used and economically or socially important a route is, the shorter the disruption that is acceptable.

Kent County Council has long had robust systems in place to respond effectively to severe weather emergencies and we already take a hierarchical approach to the management of our 8,700 km highway network. In September 2017, this approach was enhanced further when The Environment & Transport Cabinet Committee endorsed The Definition for Kent’s Resilient Highway Network.

The overarching aims of Kent’s Resilient Highway Network are;

▪ to protect economic activity in and through the county; ▪ to protect access to key services; and ▪ to protect access to key infrastructure.

To achieve this, the following criteria have been used to identify and map a network of our most critical routes and highway assets;

▪ roads connecting main towns in the County of Kent with a population of 20,000 and above, ▪ roads connecting main towns with Highway England’s Strategic Road Network, ▪ roads connecting main towns with main employment sites, ▪ roads connecting with key operational services requiring emergency public access, such as hospitals with Accident and Emergency facilities, ▪ roads connecting with key infrastructure, such as power stations and main transport facilities.

The resulting network is used to inform intervention levels, prioritisation of maintenance and the case for investment in renewals and improvements to reduce the risk of asset failure.

Our Resilient Highway Network is reviewed at least every two years and after any major event to ensure it remains relevant as lessons are learnt and services and businesses within the County change.

In addition to the physical resilience of highway infrastructure, the management of disruption and speed of recovery are also key. There are several potential situations which could have a significant effect on the highway including inclement weather, subsidence, landslip or collapses, oil spills or local events such as Operation Stack.

Kent County Council have operational plans and procedures are in place with respect to winter service, severe weather events, unforeseen events and civil emergencies. These plans have been developed in consultation with partner organisations and include roles, responsibilities and contingency plans and procedures to enable timely and effective response. Clear communication plans are also in place to ensure that weather and flood forecasts are received by operational teams and disseminated to staff, contractors and our customers.

Responses to severe weather, emergency exercises and actual response are used to identify training opportunities and potential improvements to operational plans and procedures. Where appropriate, reviews are

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page14 85 Appendix B carried out in consultation with multiple parts of the County Council and other responding organisations impacted by the event.

Climate Change and Adaptation The Climate Change Act 2008 established a statutory framework for adaptation and set in place a five-year cycle for Government to report on the risk to the UK of climate change and to publish a programme setting out how these impacts will be addressed. The Government released the first National Adaptation Programme in 2013 containing a series of objectives and associated actions. Most notably with regards to highway infrastructure, these actions included:

▪ To ensure infrastructure is located, planned, designed and maintained to be resilient to climate change, including extreme weather events. ▪ To better understand the vulnerabilities facing local infrastructure from extreme weather and long-term climate change to determine actions to address the risks.

As such, it is important that due consideration is given to how the impacts of climate change, such as intense or prolonged rainfall, hotter temperatures and higher windspeed will impact on the types of highway assets that they manage. Some of the risks may have the potential to be reduced my mitigation action and options for mitigating the greatest risks should be explored with a view to prioritising those measures that will provide the greatest return on investment in terms of reduced risk.

Kent County Council will assess the risk of extreme weather events on highway infrastructure and identify ways to mitigate the impacts.

Sustainability

The County Council has an important role in ensuring Kent’s residents and businesses benefit from sustainable growth and a competitive, innovative and resilient economy. This should be balanced with protecting and improving our natural and historic assets, for their unique value and positive impact on our society, economy, health and wellbeing. Materials and treatments used for highway maintenance can have a positive contribution to the public realm. There are a wide range of options, some of which are obligatory, but many of which provide for sympathetic application in particular circumstances. For example the selection of appropriate vegetation and trees during the planning stage of new schemes can bring environmental, drainage and social benefits.

Kent County Council will endeavour to balance the character of the area as well as whole life cost, environmental impact and sustainability when determining materials, products and treatments.

The management and maintenance of highway infrastructure have an inevitable impact on the environment and we therefore have a responsibility to make sure environmental risks and opportunities are managed positively and our use of natural resources is minimised for the benefit of future generations. The County Council’s Environmental Policy outlines the actions and objectives that underpin our approach. In accordance with this policy statement highway verges, trees and landscaped areas are managed with regards to their nature conservation value and biodiversity principles as well highway safety and serviceability.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page15 86 Appendix B

Financial Management, Priorities and Programming Financial Planning and Budgeting Principles It is essential that financial plans are linked to our Highway Asset Management Framework with respect to both short term activities such as routine maintenance, and for medium and long-term activities such as preventive maintenance and asset replacement. Our Highway Asset Management Framework describes how lifecycle planning principles are used to review funding levels, support investment decisions and substantiate the need for appropriate and sustainable long-term investment.

The way in which investment is prioritised needs to provide sufficient flexibility to deliver value for money. In addition to ensuring effective coordination, an asset management-based approach to managing highway infrastructure requires due consideration of different options and factors that influence their success:

▪ The differing life expectancies of various treatments and the future implications of these for the balance of capital and revenue funding; for example, renewing a bridge parapet might be more expensive than simply repointing the aging brickwork but doing so could generate a saving with respect to the long-term maintenance. ▪ The seasonal and weather sensitive nature of many treatments and the service as a whole; for example, renewing a road surface is best done during dry, mild weather as very cold or wet weather can cause the surface to rapidly fail. ▪ The uncertainties in prediction of out-turn costs for Winter Service, Severe Weather Events and emergencies and the need for financial year-end flexibility

Priorities and Programming The County Council has endorsed an asset management based approach to the maintenance and management of highway assets. Part of this approach involves viewing the highway network as a whole rather than as discrete asset groups such as carriageways, drainage, lighting and structures. By sharing and coordinating both short and longer-term programmes of work efficiencies can be made, and the level of disruption caused can be reduced.

Kent County Council will take a cross asset approach when developing priorities and programmes and produce a rolling forward works programme that is updated regularly.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page16 87 Appendix B

Performance Management Effective performance monitoring will support the County Council in reviewing progress, performance requirements and works programmes. Our Highway Asset Management Framework establishes mechanisms for performance management, including performance measures and targets, which facilitate the monitoring of delivery with respect to the short, medium and long term strategic direction of the service.

Performance Measures and Targets Information and data arising from implementation and delivery of asset management are used to identify actions for continual improvement of the approach, including delivery of the overall service. This enables relevant processes and practices to be assessed and form the basis for continuous improvement. Moreover, it ensures that critical performance issues are identified and addressed in a timely manner.

Performance Reviews Regular reviews complement performance monitoring and reporting to support continuous improvement and input into the identification of opportunities for improvement. In more significant cases, these improvements should be formally documented with details of the expected outcomes, specific actions to be taken, the owner, the resources needed to deliver them and timescales. In doing so, focus is maintained, and benefit is maximised.

Benchmarking Finally, benchmarking is a systematic process of collecting information and data to enable comparisons with the aim of improving performance, both absolutely and in relation to others. Through effective benchmarking and information sharing with neighbouring authorities and those authorities with a similar composition of highway network, the County Council can validate the approach taken and ensure that highway users’ reasonable expectation for consistency is considered when developing the approach to highway infrastructure maintenance.

Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – Implementing the Code of Practice in Kent (July 2018)

Page17 88 Appendix C Case Study: Well-managed Highway Infrastructure – A practical application

Routine Enquiries – A carriageway pothole

The current approach

The current Code of Practice, Well Maintained Highways, prescribes that we use locally set intervention levels with respect to carriageway and footway defects in Kent those intervention levels are 50mm depth for carriageway potholes and 20mm depth for footway potholes.

For example, a highway steward identifies 8 potholes over a 20m stretch of a road.

Assuming that the location is not a pedestrian crossing point, those potholes exceed 50mm deep, an emergency order will be raised regardless of the location or usage of that road. If the potholes are 40mm deep and likely to deteriorate then a 7 day or 28 day order will be raised for the repair. If the potholes are 20mm deep, they will either be assessed as “intervention level not met” and then no further action would be taken until the next highway inspection or repairs will be incorporated into a longer term scheme.

The new approach

The new Code of Practice, Well-managed Highway Infrastructure removes the prescriptive service standards. This does not mean the County Council cannot continue to use them as the basis for inspections and repairs, but it does give greater flexibility.

Consider the previous example, a highway steward identifies 8 potholes over a 20m stretch of a road. The removal of prescriptive standards mean that the highway steward can now consider the context, the risk posed by the potholes and make an informed judgement about the timescale and nature of repairs.

If the potholes are 35mm deep, in the wheel track and the road is a high trafficked, 50mph road, a 7 day repair could be deemed necessary on the basis that the volume and speed of traffic means that there is a greater risk to safety.

Equally, if the potholes are 55mm deep but at the edge of a minor road used by farm traffic and a handful of vehicles, the risk is considerably lower and therefore temporary signs warning of the hazard and a 90 day repair could be deemed appropriate.

In summary, there are no material impacts on the volume or cost of pothole

repairs, just a greater emphasis on the assessment of risk.

So, how and when would the Code of Practice have implications for service standards?

The Code of Practice promotes an integrated, asset management based approach to highway maintenance i.e. we need to consider and balance the needs of all asset groups.

In the context of the risk-based approach, this means that if we are not meeting with our statutory obligations or are at risk of failing to meet with our statutory obligations due to under investment, then we need to consider how this is overcome. There are several options that would be considered:

. Additional investment from a new source; . A change of approach e.g. taking a more cost effective, planned approach so that more can be done with the existing budget; - one Highway Authority has made a conscious decision to maintain some roads to a lower standard and sign them accordingly . A reduction in one service to fund the enhancement of another service

Currently no changes to service standards are proposed however, prior to any changes being made, a full evaluation of all the options would need to be undertaken and any notable changes would be subject to engagement, consultation and approval in accordancePage with the89 County Council’s constitution. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Flood Investigation – Tunbridge Wells 19 July 2017 Section 19 Report

Report Author / Lead Officer Max Tant – Flood and Water Manager Originating Authority Kent County Council Final Decision Taker Kent County Council Exemption Non-exempt Classification For Information

Recommendation:

 That the report be noted

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Kent County Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Kent, under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. One of the duties of LLFAs is to undertake investigations into significant flood events, under Section 19 of that Act.

1.2 The Flood and Water Management Team of KCC has prepared a report into the flooding in Tunbridge Wells on 19 July 2017. The report is attached.

2. REPORT FINDINGS

2.1 The report has been prepared with the support of the Highways and Transportation Team, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Southern Water, Kent Fire and Rescue Service, the Tunbridge Wells Flood Action Group and the residents of Tunbridge Wells.

2.2 Approximately 64 residential properties and 23 business properties from across Tunbridge wells reported flooding on 19 July 2017. The report finds that the volume and intensity of rainfall on 19 July 2017 was too large for drainage infrastructure to manage, which led to the flooding. Specific details of the flooding mechanism in parts of Tunbridge Wells are provided in the report.

2.3 The report also provides details of works undertaken in response to previous floods in Tunbridge Wells and opportunities identified to further reduce flood risk in the town.

Appendices to the Report  Appendix A – Flood Investigation Report

Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A December 2018 Kent County Council Flood Investigation Report

Flooding affecting the Tunbridge Wells Area on 19 July 2017

www.kent.gov.uk

Page 93 Appendix A

This document has been prepared by Kent County Council Flood and Water Management Team as the Lead Local Flood Authority under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, with the assistance of:

• Tunbridge Wells Borough Council • Kent Fire and Rescue Service • Southern Water The findings in this report are based on the information available to KCC at the time of preparing the report. KCC expressly disclaim responsibility for any error in or omission from this report. KCC does not accept any liability for the use of this report or its contents by any third party.

For further information or to provide comments, please contact us at [email protected]

Document Status:

Issue Revision Description Date 0 0 First draft for internal comment 21/06/2018 1 1 Second draft for internal comment 12/10/2018 2 2 Third draft for internal comment 19/10/2018 3 3 Fourth draft for external comment 23/11/2018 4 4 Final Draft for issue 13/12/2018

www.kent.gov.uk

Page 94 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Contents Contents ...... ii 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Requirement for Investigation ...... 1 1.2 Trigger for Investigation ...... 1 1.3 This investigation ...... 2 2 Background Information ...... 3 2.1 Location and Known Extent of Flooding ...... 3 2.2 Rainfall Data ...... 6 2.2 Drainage Infrastructure ...... 7 2.3 Watercourses ...... 9 2.3.1 River Grom ...... 9 2.3.2 Southborough Stream ...... 10 2.4 Roles and Responsibilities ...... 12 2.4.1 Kent County Council ...... 12 2.4.2 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council ...... 12 2.4.3 Environment Agency ...... 12 2.4.4 Statutory Undertaker for Public Sewers ...... 12 2.4.5 Riparian Landowners ...... 12 2.4.6 Residents and Property Owners ...... 12 3 Analysis of the Flood Event ...... 13 3.1 Pantiles Area (Including Nevill Street, Cumberland Walk including Upper Cumberland Walk, The Pantiles, Warwick Park, Market Street, Neville Gate, Linden Gardens) ...... 13 3.1.1 Summary of Impact ...... 13 3.1.2 Site Location, Topography ...... 13 3.1.3 Existing Drainage and Watercourses ...... 14 3.1.4 Flood History ...... 15 3.1.5 Flooding Mechanism ...... 15 3.2 Mount Pleasant Road, London Road and Castle Street ...... 15 3.2.1 Mount Pleasant Road ...... 15 3.2.2 London Road and Castle Street ...... 16 3.3 Royal Victoria Place (Including Calverly Road, Lansdowne Road, Lime Hill Road, Jackwood Way, Monson Road)...... 16 3.3.1 Summary of Impact ...... 16 3.3.2 Location ...... 16

Page 95 ii Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

3.3.3 Flooding Mechanism ...... 17 3.4 High Brooms (Including Dougall Close, Brook Road, Sandhurst Close) ...... 18 3.4.1 Summary of Impact ...... 18 3.4.2 Site Location and Topography ...... 19 3.4.3 Flooding Mechanism ...... 21 4 Actions taken to address flood risk ...... 21 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 24 APENDIX 1: Drawing S80402-D-100

Page 96 iii Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

1 Introduction Significant flooding in parts of Tunbridge Wells was reported to Kent County Council (KCC) and other authorities on the 19th July 2017. Many of the areas affected experienced extensive highway flooding and inundation of properties. As a consequence, KCC has undertaken an investigation into this flood event. This is the report of that investigation.

1.1 Requirement for Investigation As the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Kent, KCC has a duty to investigate flood incidents as set out in Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (the Act). The Act says:

(1) On becoming aware of a flood in its area, a lead local flood authority must, to the extent that it considers it necessary or appropriate, investigate:

(a) which risk management authorities have relevant flood risk management functions, and

(b) whether each of those risk management authorities has exercised, or is proposing to exercise, those functions in response to the flood.

(2) Where an authority carries out an investigation under subsection (1) it must:

(a) publish the results of its investigation, and

(b) notify any relevant risk management authorities.

A flood investigation does not necessarily require a thorough investigation of the flood and its mechanisms, only the determination of the risk management authorities who have the relevant functions. However, KCC may choose to undertake a more detailed investigation into a flood incident in order to better deliver the objectives of Kent’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, for instance to improve the understanding of flood risk.

1.2 Trigger for Investigation As the primary purpose of an investigation is to determine the responsible body or bodies to respond to the flood that occurred, KCC will undertake a flood investigation where no other risk management authority is exercising or is proposing to exercise its functions in respect of the flood and where the flood is significant. A significant flood is defined by Section 5.1 of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Kent, and is one that causes:

• internal flooding to one or more properties; • external flooding of five or more properties; • flooding of roads, rail and other transport infrastructure to an extent that they become impassable by vehicles; • flooding of or near locally important services or infrastructure, for example health centres and electricity substations, to an extent that they cannot function normally.

Page 97 1 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

1.3 This investigation The flood event in Tunbridge Wells on the 19th July 2017 meets the criteria of a significant flood event and therefore requires investigation. Whilst other RMAs are exercising their functions in response to the event, an investigation was also deemed necessary due the widespread nature of the flooding and public interest, and to provide information for further studies into flood risk of this area.

Page 98 2 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

2 Background Information

2.1 Location and Known Extent of Flooding Widespread flooding was reported on 19 July 2017 within the town of Tunbridge Wells. Many of the areas affected in this flood were also affected during the 2015 flood. For further information about the flooding in 2015 can be found within the report Investigation of Flooding affecting Tunbridge Wells Area on 24th August 2015.

Table 1 provides a summary of the locations where properties were internally flooded in July 2017 based on reports received by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC), Kent Fire and Rescue Service (KFRS), Southern Water Services (SWS) and Kent County Council (KCC).

Table 1 Summary of investigated flooding issues and known flooding extent.

Location Details of flooding Source of Report

Royal Victoria Place Area Calverley Road Internal flooding to one basement flat property TWBC KFRS Internal flooding to one commercial property Lansdowne Road Flooding reported at 2 residential properties TWBC KFRS Lime Hill Road Flooding reported at 2 residential properties TWBC KFRS, SWS Jackwood Way Flooding reported at 6 residential properties KFRS, KCC, SWS Monson Road Flooding reported at 3 commercial properties TWBC Medway Road Flooding reported at 1 property SWS Mount Pleasant Road Flooding reported at 6 properties KCC High Brooms Area Dougall Close 8 properties reported flooding – 14 properties KFRS, KCC affected in total of which inhabitants of seven are now living in temporary accommodation Brook Road Flooding reported at 6 residential properties KCC Sandhurst Close Internal flooding reported at 2 residential properties KCC The Pantiles Area The Pantiles Flooding reported at 17 commercial properties KCC Cumberland Walk, Flooding reported at 6 properties KCC including Upper Cumberland Walk Warwick Park Flooding reported at 6 properties with a possible KCC further 6 affected properties Market Street Flooding reported at 1 property KCC Neville Street Flooding reported at 2 properties KCC Neville Gate Flooding reported at 2 properties KCC Linden Gardens Flooding reported at 1 property KCC Individual Roads Birling Road Flooding reported at 1 property KCC Broadwater Down Flooding reported at 2 properties KCC Ferndale Flooding reported at 1 property KCC Molyneux Park Road Flooding reported at 1 property KCC, SWS St Johns Road Flooding reported at 1 property KCC, SWS Boyne Park Flooding reported at 1 property KCC, SWS

Page 99 3 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Kent Fire and Rescue Service (KFRS) received over 60 calls as a result of the flood incident, with reports of over 1 metre of water within some properties. Fire officers attended the incidents with three fire engines which carried out pumping of some of the properties and fire crews provided humanitarian assistance. By 4.30am the water had receded and KFRS scaled back its response.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the locations of the main areas affected by the flood events that occurred in 2017.

It should be noted that this list of affected locations is not exhaustive, and many other localised incidences of flooding were reported at this time.

Mount Pleasant

London Road and Castle Street

The Pantiles

River Grom Cumberland Walk incl. Upper Cumberland walk

Neville Gate Linden Gardens

Figure 1 Locations of flooding in 2017 – Warwick Park and Pantiles

Page 100 4 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Medway Road

Jackwood Way

Lansdowne Road

Calverley Road Lime Hill Road

Monson Road Calverley Road

Figure 2 Locations of Flooding in 2017 – Royal Victoria Place

Brook Road

Dougall Close

Sandhurst Close

Figure 3 Locations of Flooding in 2017 – High Brooms

Page 101 5 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

2.2 Rainfall Data Rainfall around the county is recorded by a series of rain gauges operated by the Environment Agency. Following the event rainfall data was requested by KCC for analysis. Data was collected from three gauges at Tunbridge Wells, Lamberhurst and Redgate Mill. The location of these rain gauges is shown in Figure 4.

Tunbridge Wells TBR

Lamberhurst TBR

Redgate Mill TBR

Figure 4 Rain gauge locations

The most significant rainfall was recorded between 02:00am1 and 02:45am with a total of 32mm of rain falling within a 45-minute period. However, within this period a more intensive event of 22.6mm of rainfall occurred in a 15-minute period between 02:15am and 02:30am, this intensive rainfall has a return period estimated as 1 in 32-year return period using the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH)2 and would have been the main factor in the flooding experienced.

Rain gauges located at Redgate Mill (approximately 7.5km southwest of Tunbridge Wells) and Lamberhurst (approximately 10km southeast of Tunbridge Wells) each recorded heavy rainfall during the early hours of 19 July 2017. Redgate Mill recorded 28.84mm of rainfall between 00:45 and 03:00 and Lamberhurst recorded 22.53mm of rainfall between 01:30 and 02:45.

1 Environment Agency rain gauges operate on Greenwich Mean Time, times have been adjusted for British Summer Time 2 FEH is the standard tool in the UK to estimate rainfall return periods. It is used by the Environment Agency and all professional hydrologists to estimate rainfall and rainfall return periods.

Page 102 6 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

The rainfall recorded at these sites corresponds with the quantities and times of rainfall experienced within Tunbridge Wells.

2.2 Drainage Infrastructure The majority of this area is urban development of residential and commercial properties associated with this town centre location. The area therefore has a high percentage of impermeable area due to buildings, car parks, hard standings and highways, which drain to either combined sewers (carrying both foul and surface water) or to dedicated surface water sewers where they are available. The public sewers in Tunbridge Wells are owned and maintained by Southern Water. The public highway generally drains to the public sewer network in this area via road gullies and pipework owned and maintained by KCC as the Highway Authority.

The town centre area to the northeast of The Pantiles is generally drained by combined sewers ultimately discharging to the Tunbridge Wells South Wastewater Treatment Works. There are only a few dedicated surface water sewers in this part of the town.

The Royal Victoria Place area is within the older area of the town and is drained almost exclusively by combined sewers.

To the south and east of The Pantiles, much of the area has separate surface water and foul water drainage. The surface water sewers generally discharge to watercourses which ultimately flow into the River Grom.

North of the town centre, and areas of more recent construction, there are also separate systems of foul and surface water public sewers in many areas. The surface water sewers generally discharge into ordinary watercourses throughout the area. The ordinary water courses which flow through Hilbert Woods and Grosvenor Park receive water from 11 surface water discharge points and a combined sewer outfall.

A plan of the public sewers in Tunbridge Wells can be seen in Figure 5. The concentration of combined sewers (red in the map) indicates the older areas of the town; with the separate system (blue for surface water and brown for foul) the more recently developed areas.

Page 103 7 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Figure 5 Public sewers in Tunbridge Wells

Modern sewerage in the UK is designed according to the standards set out in Sewers for Adoption guidance together with the sewerage undertaker’s own supplementary design stations. Sewers for Adoption was first published in 1980 and sets out a design standard for sewers and drains of 1 in 30 years plus climate change, i.e. a new sewer system should be designed to contain a storm of 1 in 30 years return period, storms that exceed this intensity needn’t be contained in the sewer system. Water companies that own the public sewer network can invest in the sewers according to their business plan, however this investment is regulated by the water regulator, OfWat, and must be cost beneficial. Consequently, it is rare for improvement works on sewers to provide a capacity greater the 1 in 30-year standard where the existing system does not already exceed this standard.

Page 104 8 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

2.3 Watercourses

2.3.1 River Grom The River Grom is a watercourse that flows through the lower part of Tunbridge Wells around the Pantiles and Nevill Cricket Ground area. It was first culverted (i.e. piped) in the late Victorian era to enable development above it, probably in stages, and cannot be seen in the town centre.

The exact source and route of the tributaries of the River Grom is now unclear as there has been so much development in this area. The approximate course of the River Grom culvert can be seen in Figure 6.

There is a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) from the public combined sewer in the culverted section of the River Grom that allows the combined sewer in the Pantiles area Tunbridge Wells to discharge into it if its capacity is exceeded. This is an Environment Agency consented discharge. There are also some surface water sewers that discharge into the River Grom culvert that drain the areas to the south of the river.

Culverted Route of River Grom

Figure 6 Approximate location of the River Grom culvert in Tunbridge Wells

The culvert is large, ranging in width from approximately 0.9 m up to 1.8 m in places. The geometry of the culvert changes, in places it is a Victorian brick arch culvert in others a concrete circular culvert. There are no records of flooding from the culverted section. The open section upstream of the culvert has experienced flooding in the past.

At the time of writing the report of the 2015 flood event, the River Grom was designated as an adopted sewer, which was noted in the report. Southern Water have since changed this designation to an ordinary watercourse, which is its primary purpose. This means that the maintenance of the

Page 105 9 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

structure is not the responsibility of Southern Water, instead it falls to each landowner along its length. This change of designation has caused confusion amongst some land owners as they have conflicting correspondence from Southern Water. Southern Water will inform customers of the change of status.

2.3.2 Southborough Stream Tributaries of the Southborough Stream rise in Grosvenor Park and Hilbert Woods, the channels are mainly natural in character and have a channel width of no more than one metre. The eastern branch of the stream rises in woodland behind properties on Springhead road, it flows through Hilbert Woods before entering a culvert 500m from the source. The stream flows through the culvert for approximately 120m before becoming open channel again and continuing north for 100m before joining the western branch of the stream at the north edge of the park. This section of the stream drains the Sherwood area of Tunbridge Wells and receives discharge from the surrounding surface water drainage with seven discharge points along its course.

The western branch of the stream rises within Grosvenor Park within the wetland area, the stream flows north through the park and has a relatively low gradient but is confined within a small steep sided valley. The stream drains Dorking Road with two surface water discharge point entering at the source of the stream. A combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharge immediately north of wetland area into the stream.

After the confluence of these two branches, the stream flows northeast and leaves the park, it continues within a steep sided channel passing under Addison Road and flowing past Dougall Close where the channel forms part of the open space to the front of the properties. At the boundary of the former Gasholder Station and Dougall Close the stream enters a brick arch culvert for 55m . The stream then flows through a small area of scrubland for 30m. At this point the watercourse is joined by another tributary that drains the High Brooms area. This watercourse flows along Silverdale Road and collects surface water drainage from the surrounding area. Until recently this watercourse was designated as a sewer

The watercourse continues in a northerly direction through a brick arch culvert which becomes a 1500mm concrete pipe. The stream is open channel for 30m between Sandhurst Road and Brook Road before entering a 1500mm concrete culvert. The stream continues through a culvert system flowing in a northerly direction. The geometry of this culvert changes, in places it is brick arch culvert and in others circular concrete culvert pipe

At Dowding Way the watercourse is designated main river, the main river (see Section 2.4.) flows to the northeast under the Tunbridge Wells Business Park. On the northern side of the business park the watercourse exists the culvert and is an open watercourse to the north of Tunbridge Wells.

The location of the culverts on the Southborough Streams can be seen in Figure 7, please note that the route of culverts is usually interpreted and this map only represents the approximate route of the culverted sections.

Page 106 10 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Figure 7 Approximate location of culverted sections of the Southborough Stream

Page 107 11 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

2.4 Roles and Responsibilities

2.4.1 Kent County Council KCC is the lead local flood authority for Kent and the highway authority. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 gives lead local flood authorities powers and duties for the strategic overview of local flooding and for some flood-risk management functions including:

• a duty to investigate flooding • a duty to maintain a register of significant structures and features • powers to regulate ordinary watercourses • A duty as a statutory consultee to review drainage strategies and surface water management provisions associated with applications for major development

As the highway’s authority KCC are responsible for the maintenance and operation of drainage gullies and pipework connecting these to the public sewers for the proper function of highways and safety of highway users.

2.4.2 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) is responsible for street cleaning / sweeping within the area. They are also a category one responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, along with KCC and the emergency services during emergency responses such as that required by a flooding event.

2.4.3 Environment Agency The Environment Agency is responsible for taking a strategic overview of the management of all sources of flooding and coastal erosion. The Agency also has operational responsibility for managing the risk of flooding from main rivers, reservoirs, estuaries and the sea.

2.4.4 Statutory Undertaker for Public Sewers Southern Water are responsible for the maintenance and operation of the public sewer network throughout the area carrying foul water, surface water or combined (sewers carrying both foul and surface water).

2.4.5 Riparian Landowners Private landowners have responsibilities for the maintenance and upkeep of ordinary watercourses, including any associated culverts, and the bed / banks of any watercourse adjacent to or within their land. They should clear away any debris from the watercourse or culvert even if it did not originate from their land.

2.4.6 Residents and Property Owners Private landowners are responsible for the maintenance and operation of drainage assets and connecting pipework located on privately owned roads and footways, car parks and other hard standings and for building surface water drainage.

Residents and property owners who know they are at risk of flooding have responsibilities to mitigate the risk of flood damage to their property as far as is reasonably practicable. They should take measures to protect themselves and their property when flooding is imminent. Residents and property owners have the right to defend their property as long as they do not subsequently increase the risk of flooding to other properties.

Page 108 12 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

3 Analysis of the Flood Event The details of the flooding in the areas affected during the event on 19 July 2017 are set out in more detail in this section of the report. This section collates existing and published information and details recorded during the investigations of the flooding event.

3.1 Pantiles Area (Including Nevill Street, Cumberland Walk including Upper Cumberland Walk, The Pantiles, Warwick Park, Market Street, Neville Gate, Linden Gardens)

3.1.1 Summary of Impact The Pantiles area experiences flooding as a result of surface water naturally flowing towards the River Grom which is culverted underneath the Pantiles area. Due to the arrangements of the roads, surface water collects at Neville Street between the junctions London Road and Warwick Park, above the River Grom.

On the 19th July 2017 the Pantiles area was affected by surface water flooding due to the intensity of the rainfall and the exceedance of the drainage system. Approximately 18 residential properties are known to have flooded in this area (including Warwick Park and Cumberland Walk) along with 17 businesses in the Pantiles.

Initial reports suggested that dispersal of water was slower than in previous events (2009, 2012, 2015), however there is no evidence to confirm this.

The Warwick Park area was also affected by surface water, two properties are reported to have flooded from runoff from the highway. Warwick Park also is at risk of flooding from the River Grom. The watercourse is reported to have overflowed the entrance to the culvert near Rodmell Road during the heavy rainfall leading to the gardens on the north eastern side of Warwick Park to be inundated and causing internal flooding to one property. There are also reports of the combined sewer that flows through these gardens overflowing through manholes.

3.1.2 Site Location, Topography The River Grom catchment topography naturally drains in a north westerly direction from Warwick Park. The entrance to the culvert for the River Grom lies in a private garden on Warwick Park Road, the entrance to the culvert has a complicated arrangement which may be impeding flow and contributing to the flood risk when peak flows are experienced. The flow at this point has come from a mixture of open watercourses, culverted sections of watercourse and drainage from the developments in the area to the north, south and southeast of the Nevill Cricket Ground.

Surface water from the surrounding hills, including the Tunbridge Wells Common, London Road and Mount Pleasant Road flow towards the watercourse and collect at the junction of Nevill Street, The Pantiles and Warwick Park, which lie within a local low point at approximately 80.3mAOD. There are also low points at Market Street of approximately 81mAOD and at Sussex Mews, at the junction with Linden Park Road at approximately 79.3mAOD. In addition to these low points, many buildings affected by flooding have basements below street level.

Page 109 13 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

The updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW), shown in Figure 8, is published on the Environment Agency website and provides information on areas considered risk of flooding due to surface water.

Area of interest

Figure 8 Surface water flood risk local to The Pantiles Area

The affected area includes locations indicated to be at high risk of surface water flooding. High risk is defined as a chance of flooding during a 1 in 30-year event. This map does not take into account the presence of watercourses, sewers or other drainage features that convey water efficiently and is only indicative of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

The map indicates the risk in this area is due to the number of flow routes converging in this area with limited ability for the water to flow away over the ground.

3.1.3 Existing Drainage and Watercourses Both highway and private drainage systems in this area predominantly discharge to the public combined sewer, either by gravity or via a localised pumped system. A small pump serves the foul drainage of the properties at the end of Warwick Park and on Nevill Street, as they have basements and their drainage is lower than the sewer. Some highway drainage in the area was connected to this pump system. AS a consequence, highway runoff increased the load on the pump, which meant that it was more likely to be overwhelmed, potentially causing flooding of the basements served by the pump. It also meant that the highway drained via this small pump, which is likely to have increased the time for water accumulated on the highway to discharge.

The culverted River Grom flows underground below Warwick Park and to the south of The Pantiles.

Page 110 14 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

3.1.4 Flood History The Tunbridge Wells Surface Water Management Plan notes instances of foul and surface water flooding reported by Southern Water due to hydraulic overload of foul and surface water sewers at Warwick Park in 2009 and 2012.

KCC have received reports of flooding affecting properties in the area of Nevill Street and Warwick Park in November 2013, December 2013, February 2014, October 2014 and August 2015.

3.1.5 Flooding Mechanism The main cause of flooding was excessive rainfall which exceeded the capacity of the drainage system, the intensity of the rain meant that surface water was unable to enter the sewer network fast enough and accumulated in the topographical lows points. The heavy rainfall also caused the surcharging (backing-up) of the combined sewer network causing the drains to back up into properties.

KCC have carried out a CCTV inspection of the River Grom culvert to ascertain if damage or blockages of the culvert was a contributing cause of the flooding. The CCTV of the River Grom was carried out between the inlet at Rodmell Road through to Linden Park Road with the junction of Sussex Mews. The CCTV survey reports that there are no major defects, damage or blockages along the length of the culvert. The report records that there are some minor deposits within the culvert which result in a 5% cross-sectional loss and in one location there is a root mass which results in a 10% cross-sectional loss. However, there is no significant loss of capacity within the system which would prevent it from operating effectively and the culvert is likely to have become overwhelmed by the excessive rainfall entering the system.

The entrance to the culvert has an unusual arrangement. The entrance to the culvert is largely closed by what appears to be a rendered wall, which only has a small opening to allow water to pass under it into the entrance chamber. The entrance chamber is also lower than the culvert. This arrangement is likely to impede the flow of water into the culvert and may lead to the flooding of the gardens at Warwick Park.

3.2 Mount Pleasant Road, London Road and Castle Street

3.2.1 Mount Pleasant Road Flooding in this location is reported to have affected two commercial properties in the ground floor and basement levels due to water flowing through doorways and into the basement and the surcharging (backing-up) of the sewer system causing toilets to flood. Flooding was also reported on the highway.

The details and local information for this area are similar to those reported in the 2015 event. Details for this area can be found within the report Investigation of Flooding affecting Tunbridge Wells Area on 24th August 2015.

The primary cause of flooding was excessive rainfall which exceeded the capacity of the drainage in this area. This meant that surface water was unable to enter the sewer network fast enough and accumulated in the topographical low points, which reached sufficient depths to enter property.

Page 111 15 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

3.2.2 London Road and Castle Street Flooding in this location was reported to Kent County Council by Kent Police, the KCC Out of Hours Duty Officer arrived on site at 03:54 am by which time the water had cleared from the highway. The Officer reported three blocked drains on Castle Street and the High Street which were cleansed and audited on the 20 July.

3.3 Royal Victoria Place (Including Calverly Road, Lansdowne Road, Lime Hill Road, Jackwood Way, Monson Road)

3.3.1 Summary of Impact Flooding within this area was reported between 02:21and 04:12am at around the time of the most intensive rainfall, this area is drained solely by highway gullies and combined sewers, which were over whelmed by the intensity of the rain.

A total of 15 properties were affected by the flooding, approximately 11 residential properties and 4 commercial properties.

3.3.2 Location This area is drained by the highway drainage system, as this is an older part the town the drainage discharges exclusively into the combined sewer system. The large urban catchment and extensive roof network also discharges into the combined sewer system which would have taken all the surface water during this event.

The area around Lansdowne Road, Calverley Road and Monson Road all drain towards Mount Pleasant Road to the west. The area to the north of Royal Victoria Place, drains in a northerly direction.

A 675mm combined sewer system from Royal Victoria Place drains towards Jackwood Way, where it has been diverted to accommodate new development. Figure 9 shows the sewer network for pipes 400mm and greater which drain towards Jackwood Way.

Page 112 16 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Figure 9 Sewer network upstream of Jackwood Way

3.3.3 Flooding Mechanism The primary cause of the flooding around Royal Victoria Place was intensive rainfall which exceeded the capacity of the drainage and sewer systems in this area. The intensity of the rainfall meant that the sewer system is likely to have reached capacity leading to it being exceeded and overflowing.

The sewer system to the south of Jackwood Way is reported to have been under sufficient hydraulic overload to cause the manhole to surcharge. Water from the sewer flowed from manholes in Kirkwood Road and Commercial Road to Jackwood Way. The houses at Jackwood Way sit lower than the land to the south, the flood water entered the rear gardens were it ponded and reached sufficient depth to enter the properties from the rear.

Page 113 17 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

3.4 High Brooms (Including Dougall Close, Brook Road, Sandhurst Close)

3.4.1 Summary of Impact Approximately 20 residential properties are known to have flooded in this area, including on Brook Road, Dougall Close and Sandhurst Close. The properties at risk lie near to the Southborough Stream, which is an ordinary watercourse. The properties were flooded directly by the Southborough Stream when it over topped its banks. Figure 10 shows the approximate location of the watercourses in this area.

Flood Risk Areas

Figure 10 Proximity of properties to the watercourse

Page 114 18 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

3.4.2 Site Location and Topography High Brooms lies within the catchment of the Southborough Stream, the catchment drains in a northerly direction towards Tonbridge and the River Medway. The stream rises at a number of springs in Hilbert Wood and Grosvenor Park and two branches of the streams flow through the woodland and managed parkland.

The Hilbert Wood branch of the channel along the rear of properties on Sandhurst Close, approximately 20m from the houses. Immediately downstream of Sandhurst close the stream meets the branch of the channel from Grosvenor Park at the northern boundary of the park and is contained within a steep sided channel passing under Addison Road. As the stream passes to the front of properties at Dougall close the banks of the channel slope towards the narrow channel of the stream which sits 10m from the properties forming part of the landscaped frontage.

At the boundary of the former Gasholder Station and Dougall Close the stream enters a large concrete culvert chamber, the entrance to the chamber is fronted by a large trash screen. As the water enters the system it flows over a metal sluice gate. The purpose of the sluice is unknown, and may be a feature of the previous drainage arrangement prior to the development. After the sluice the watercourse falls into a large chamber where the chamber discharges through a brick arch culvert for 55m.

The stream then flows through a small area of scrubland for 30m. At this point the watercourse is joined by another tributary that drains the High Brooms area. This watercourse flows in a north- easterly direction along Silverdale Road and collects surface water drainage from the surrounding area. Until recently this watercourse was designated as a sewer.

The watercourse continues in a northerly direction through a brick arch culvert which becomes a 1500mm concrete pipe. The stream is open channel for 30m between Sandhurst Road and Brook Road at the car park at the rear of Taylor Court. The carpark and properties that surround this carpark are at a lower level than the surrounding land.

The watercourse then enters a 1500mm concrete culvert, which continues through a culvert system flowing in a northerly direction. The geometry of this culvert changes, in places it is brick arch culvert and in others circular concrete culvert pipe. The catchment is heavily influenced by the surrounding urban area, the urban run-off discharges into the stream via the highway.

The affected area sits within the lower areas of a steep catchment and includes locations indicated to be at high risk of surface water flooding as shown in Figure 11. Due to the topography of the area the surface water naturally flows towards the stream.

Recent development in the area has clearly affected the flood risk. The properties at Dougal Close were built as part of the Connaught Park development in the mid-2000s. Details of this development are available on the TWBC Public Access website, though the details of the arrangements on the site prior to this development are limited, it would appear that changes to the watercourse and its layout were implemented. Some of the site history indicates that a pond has been filled in as part of the development and a culverted watercourse was replaced with an open watercourse.

A flood risk assessment was undertaken as part of planning for this development, however, a copy of it cannot be found. Comments on surface water and foul drainage were made to TWBC by Southern

Page 115 19 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Water and the EA and were reported in the report to the Planning Committee, with conditions recommended that were included in the Decision Notice. Drawing S80402-D100 dated 23 September 2004, shows the layout at Dougal Close including the current watercourse and cross- sections of the bridge at Addison Road. A copy of Drawing S80402-D100 can be found in Appendix 1.

Areas at risk of surface water flooding

Figure 11 Surface Water Flood Map for High Brooms

This drawing includes what appear to be flood levels for 1 in 2 year, at 72.06 m, 1 in 30 year, at 72.3 m, and 1 in 100 year, at 72.4 m. These levels appear to be below the finished floor level of the Dougal Close properties, though only by a small margin.

The flood levels on this drawing indicate that the flood risk from the watercourse was assessed as part of the planning application, however, the subsequent flooding shows that this may not have considered all the factors in the catchment that contribute to the flood risk. Without reviewing the report for this assessment, it is impossible to know how this assessment differs from the real situation, it is also not known whether this assessment is the final assessment or if this was revised. Factors that could affect the discrepancy between the assessed risk and the actual risk include: changes to the watercourse or development layout since the flood risk was assessed; downstream

Page 116 20 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

effects that were not included in the assessment, such as capacity or blockages; the appropriate critical storm duration for the catchment; and potentially more.

3.4.3 Flooding Mechanism As is characteristic of the upper reaches of a river, the channel is narrow but captures flow from a large urban area with numerous surface water discharge points entering the stream along its length. The size of the catchment draining into the stream results in it responding quickly to intensive rainfall and resulting in river levels rising quickly.

Additionally, there are a number of factors which may be contributing to the flooding mechanism beyond the surface water flows and size of the channel.

The trash screen at the entrance of the culvert chamber is the first main feature within the channel which if blocked by debris from upstream would contribute to the flooding at Dougall Close.

The capacity of the culvert system may also be contributing to the flooding by causing water to back up within the system. A CCTV survey of the culvert shows a number of minor defects and blockages which are unlikely to have been a direct cause of flooding. However, a larger obstruction of woody debris is results in an estimated 40% cross-sectional area loss and would have reduced the capacity and impeded the flow of water through the culvert.

In addition, the presence of the culvert limits the available flood plain of the watercourse, so that when the capacity of the watercourse is exceeded it can only flood in the open sections or through the manholes on the culverted sections. Several of the open sections of the watercourse happen to have properties in close proximity, which are at a high risk of flooding as a consequence.

4 Actions taken to address flood risk Section 19 Flood Reports have been produced for both the 2012 and 2015 flood events and can be found here.

Following the 2012 flood event KCC has liaised with the Home Group Ltd, the housing association responsible for the watercourse at Brook Road to improve the maintenance of the stream and ensure debris does not block the culvert or trash screen.

Following the 2015 flood event KCC developed a plan to disconnect the highway drainage on Neville Street from the combined sewer. The sewer was managed by a small pump which during heavy rain could become overwhelmed. Removing the water from the combined sewer and discharging the surface water into the River Grom culvert reduced the risk of sewer surcharging.

KCC have replaced the trash screen on the entrance to the River Grom as shown in Image 1 and 2, the previous vertical screens have been replaced with a single raked trash screen. The new screen allows more effective and safer maintenance of the screen as it can be cleared of debris during higher flows and allows water to pass through easily.

Page 117 21 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Image 1 and 2 River Grom trash screen before (above) and after (below)

KCC and residents have liaised with the property maintenance company, First Port, to arrange regular maintenance of the trash screen near Dougal Close at the entrance to the culvert chamber on the Southborough Stream. Maintenance is being carried out on a quarterly basis to ensure that debris is removed and that high flows can enter the system without being impeded.

Following the 2017 flood event KCC have undertaken drainage cleansing on the following roads in Tunbridge Wells that were affected by flooding: ▪ Broadwater Road ▪ Mount Pleasant Road ▪ Brook Road ▪ Neville Street ▪ Boyne Park ▪ Warwick Park ▪ Commercial Road ▪ London Road ▪ Frant Road ▪ Sandhurst Road

KCC have undertaken CCTV inspections on both the Southborough Stream culvert system and the River Grom culvert to assess for damage, defects and blockages. The details of the surveys are detailed within the report and any remedial work as a result of the surveys has been listed within the recommendations.

KCC is working with the National Flood Forum (NFF) across Kent and has established a flood action group of residents affected by the flooding within Tunbridge Wells. This group has regular meetings to identify the key issues and concerns that they feel need to be addressed in managing flood risk and the NFF facilitate discussion with the various risk management authorities to answer these questions.

KCC through its partnership with the Countryside Management Partnerships has been delivering natural flood management (NFM) measures within Hilbert Woods and Grosvenor Park.

The construction of leaky dams along the watercourse, replicates naturally fallen timber which helps to dams peak flows and reduce the speed at which water reaches pinch points and areas of high flood risk. The dams are fixed securely to the bed and banks of the channel to remove the risk of debris detaching and causing additional flood risk. An example is shown in Image 3.

Page 118 22 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

Image 3 Example of a beaver dam on the Southborough Stream

To address the issue of sewer surcharging, Southern Water have fitted non-return valves to toilets in the basement of commercial properties in Mount Pleasant Road to prevent sewers from backing up and causing or exacerbating flooding.

KCC have completed works identified and developed after the 2015 flood event to disconnect the highway drainage system from the combined sewer network and discharge the highway water into the River Grom. The has provided some capacity within the combined public sewer served by the small pumping station at Warwick Park and will help reduce the risk of surcharging within the properties connected to this pump and should increase the rate at which water discharges from the highway, as it will not be pumped by this small pump.

Page 119 23 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

5 Conclusions and Recommendations The flooding that occurred on the 19th July 2017 was the result of intensive rainfall, with 32mm falling in 45-minutes and 22.6mm this total falling within a 15-minute period, which had a return period of 1 in 32 year. This storm exceeded the design standards of drainage systems, as a consequence, surface water could not enter drainage networks quickly enough and the capacity of the drainage network was exceeded, flood waters flowed to local low points where flooding was experienced.

The River Grom and Southborough Streams, which receive flows from the highway system, quickly reached peak flows as the surface water drainage discharged into these watercourses. This resulted in the River Grom overflowing at the entrance to the culvert system and the Southborough Stream flooding out of bank at local topographical low points adjacent to property.

Whilst fluvial and surface water flooding from a similar event cannot be fully prevented (as drainage infrastructure is not commonly designed to accommodate the intensity of rainfall that was experienced during this event and flows within a watercourse may exceed the natural capacity), there may be steps that can be undertaken to reduce the risk to communities. Some measures that risk management partners will work together to investigate are set out below.

Recommendations 1. Southern Water will publish a summary of its Drainage Area Plans for Tunbridge Wells South and Tunbridge Wells North catchment areas.

2. KCC and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will investigate options of re-development sites including Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes in Tunbridge Wells to can collect and store surface water run-off and discharge water slowly to reduce the peak amount of runoff. TWBC is developing future planning policies in the new Local Plan to require this for future development (once the new Local Plan is adopted).

3. KCC in partnership with the Tunbridge Wells Flood Action Group, will investigate options for Natural Flood Management measures on The Common which can reduce the rate of overland flow and reduce the risk of surface water flooding forming on Neville Street.

4. The Countryside Management Partnerships, the Friends of Hilbert Woods and Grosvenor Park, KCC and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will continue to support the delivery of Natural Flood Management measures in Hilbert Woods and Grosvenor Park to reduce the risk to properties downstream.

5. KCC will investigate the arrangement of the culvert entrance on the River Grom.

6. KCC will monitor the flow in the River Grom and Southborough Stream to assess the flow regime in the watercourses and to aid our understanding of the catchments and potential mitigation options.

7. KCC will liaise with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to arrange clearance of the culvert on the Southborough Stream to remove blockages and carry out a cleanse of the system.

Page 120 24 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

8. Southern Water will implement the Protocol for correctly classifying Culverted Watercourses and Sewers to watercourses and sewers that have recently been reclassified on their sewer map in Tunbridge Wells.

9. KCC in partnership with the Tunbridge Wells Flood Action Group have approached the Tunbridge Wells Common Conservators to develop proposals for natural flood management measures across the common. Natural flood management measures may be able to retain water on the common for longer to reduce the rate of discharge onto surrounding roads and to create additional habitat features on the site. The Countryside Management Partnerships Natural Flood Management officer will work with the conservators to develop natural flood management proposals.

Page 121 25 Investigation of Flooding affecting TunbridgeAppendix Wells Area on A19 July 2017

APENDIX 1: Drawing S80402-D-100

Page 122 Agenda Item 11

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Local Plan Working Group Update

Report Author / Lead Officer Vicki Hubert – Principal Transport Planner KCC Hilary Smith – Economic Development Manager TWBC Originating Authority Joint Final Decision Taker Joint Exemption Non-exempt Classification For Information

Recommendation:

 That the report be noted.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 TWBC is in the process of compiling the new Local Plan (2013-2033), and owing to the significant impact on highways and sustainable transport a Working Group was set up in November 2017 to keep Members updated on progress and enable input from the JTB.

1.2 The last meeting of the working group was in January 2018. Since this time a number of issues have affected the programme of the Local Plan, and in October 2018 a new timetable was agreed at the Planning Policy Working Group:

1.3 TWBC Planning Policy and KCC Highways and Transportation now have a new deadline: the Regulation 18 consultation in August/September 2019. This means that the transport evidence base and any required mitigation should be finalised ready for consultation at that time.

Page 123 Agenda Item 11

2 TRANSPORT EVIDENCE BASE

2.1 The Transport Evidence Base is a fundamental part of the evidence collected by TWBC to show Members, the public and the Planning Inspectorate that the volume of growth can be accommodated. It is required to understand the transport implications of the Preferred Growth Strategy in the Council’s emerging Local Plan across the borough of Tunbridge Wells, taking account of growth scenarios in neighbouring districts. TWBC is responsible for commissioning a transport consultant to assist in the production of the evidence base.

2.2 In December 2018 TWBC commissioned Intelligent Data to undertake extensive traffic surveys across the borough, and SWECO to compile the transport evidence base.

2.3 The brief to SWECO has asked them to consider the following:

• Assess the quality and capacity of transport infrastructure across the borough and its ability to meet forecast demands. • Assess the cumulative impacts of the Preferred Growth Strategy on all transport modes and networks and the impact on the locality, including the impact on networks in the locality of sensitive designated international sites. • Set out proposals to minimise the impact of the development on the transport network to inform the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan • Promote measures to encourage sustainable transport.

2.4 In order to do this, SWECO will be building a transport model (SATURN) covering Royal Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Paddock Wood. (Please note that other parts of the borough where development may occur will be modelled separately.)

2.5 There are five stages to the project:

Stage 0 – Clarification of brief, evidence base review and gap analysis, and preparation of a Data Collection and Methodology Statement. Stage 1 – Data collection, baseline study, identification of issues and opportunities. Stage 2 – Assessment of the impact of future year development trips (all modes). Stage 3 – Identification and appraisal of future transport interventions and assessment of these. Stage 4 – Preparation of final Transport Assessment report.

Page 124 Agenda Item 11

2.6 It is proposed that the Local Plan Members Working Group meet at the end of Stage 1 to discuss the baseline study results and the issues that have arisen. A meeting will therefore be set up to coincide with this milestone.

Appendices to the Report

 None

Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 21 January 2019

Highway Works Programme 2018/19

Report Author / Lead Officer Carol Valentine – West Kent Highway Manager Originating Authority Kent County Council Final Decision Taker Kent County Council Exemption Non-exempt Classification For Information

Recommendation:

 That the report be noted.

INTRODUCTION

This report provides an update and summarises schemes that have been programmed for delivery in 2018/19.

Footway and Carriageway Improvement Schemes – see Appendix A

Drainage Report – see Appendix B

Street Lighting – see Appendix C

Transportation and Safety Schemes – see Appendix D

 Casualty Reduction Measures – see Appendix D1  Local Transportation Plan – see Appendix D2  Externally Funded Works – see Appendix D3  Local Growth Fund – see Appendix D4

Developer Funded Works – see Appendix E

Bridge Works – see Appendix F

Traffic Systems – see Appendix G

Combined Member Fund – see Appendix H

This report is for Members’ information.

Page 127 Agenda Item 12

Contact Officers:

The following officers can be contacted on 03000 418181

Carol Valentine West Kent Highway Manager Lisa Gillham District Manager Alan Casson Senior Asset Manager Katie Moreton Drainage & Structures Asset Manager Sue Kinsella Street Light Asset Manager Toby Butler Traffic & Network Solutions Asset Manager Jamie Hare Development Agreement Manager Emma Green Schemes Programme Manager (West)

1.1 Legal Implications

1.1.1 Not applicable.

1.2 Financial and Value for Money Considerations

1.2.1 Not applicable.

1.3 Risk Assessment

1.3.1 Not applicable.

Page 128 Appendix A

Appendix A – Footway and Carriageway Improvement Schemes

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

Machine Resurfacing – Contact Officer Mr Byron Lovell

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

From Junction of The A264 Langton Road Speldhurst Completed Green to Farnham Lane

Surface Treatments – Contact Officer Mr Clive Lambourne

Micro Surfacing

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

All 2018 Schemes completed.

Surface Dressing

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

All 2018 Schemes completed.

Footway Improvement - Contact Officer Mr Neil Tree

Mascalls Park Paddock Wood Entire length Date to be (Footway Protection) programmed

The Greenways Paddock Wood Entire Length Date to be (Footway Protection) programmed

Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix B

Appendix B – Drainage Report

Drainage Repairs & Improvements - Contact Officer Earl Bourner

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status

No planned works over £5000.00.

Page 131 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix C

Appendix C – Street Lighting

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

Street Lighting Column Replacement – Contact Officer Sue Kinsella

Road Name Parish Description of Works Status

Stone Court Lane Pembury 1 replacement column Complete

Prospect Road Southborough 17 replacement columns Complete

Tunbridge Complete Lansdowne Road 1 replacement column Wells

Tunbridge Complete Bishops Down 1 replacement column Wells

Tunbridge Complete Broadwater Down 2 replacement columns Wells

Completion Tunbridge Eridge Road 1 replacement columns Jan/Feb Wells 2019

8 Complete Tunbridge Mount Ephraim 11 replacement columns Wells 3 remaining Jan/Feb 2019

14 Complete. Tunbridge Some Ramslye Road 15 replacement columns Wells remedial work required on 1 column

5 Complete Tunbridge Chieveley Drive 7 replacement columns 2 remaining Wells Jan/Feb 2019

Tunbridge Complete Park Street 1 replacement column Wells

Completion Tunbridge Calverley Road 2 replacement columns Jan/Feb Wells 2019

Page 133 Appendix C

Road Name Parish Description of Works Status

Tunbridge Complete Sandhurst Road 1 replacement column Wells

Aspen Way Southborough 1 replacement column Complete

Completion Tunbridge North Farm Road 3 replacement columns Dec/Jan Wells 2018/9

Completion Darnley Drive Southborough 2 replacement columns Jan/Feb 2019

Pennington Place Southborough 1 replacement column Feb/Mar 2019

Completion Tunbridge St James Road 1 replacement column Jan/Feb Wells 2019

Tunbridge Upper Grosvenor Road 1 replacement column Wells Complete

Tunbridge Complete Silverdale Road 3 replacement column and 2 signposts Wells Complete Tunbridge Sandrock Road 1 replacement column Wells Complete Tunbridge Bishops Down Road 9 replacement columns Wells Complete Paddock Alliance Way 8 replacement columns Wood

Tunbridge Feb/March Sandhurst Road 5 replacement columns Wells 2019

Old Kent Road Paddock Complete Replacing 4 columns for fold down type Footpath Wood

Paddock Complete Granary 1 replacement column Wood

Completion Blackthorn Avenue Southborough 1 replacement column Feb/March 2019

Page 134 Appendix C

Road Name Parish Description of Works Status

Completion Crundwell Road Southborough 1 replacement column Feb/March 2019

Completion Tunbridge White Bear Passage Replacement of 3 sign posts Wells Feb/March 2019

Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix D

Appendix D – Transportation and Safety Schemes

Appendix D1 – Casualty Reduction Measures

Casualty Reduction Schemes programme update for the Tunbridge Wells Borough.

Casualty Reduction Schemes – Contact Officer Michael Hardy

Location Parish Description of Works Current Status

A228 Maidstone To be designed Installation of advanced warning Road j/w Whetsted Tunbridge Wells and installed within signs prior to junction approach 18-19 financial Road (North) year.

Appendix D2 – Local Transportation Plan

Local Transport Plan programme update for the Tunbridge Wells Borough.

Local Transportation Plan – Contact Officer Michael Hardy

Location Parish Description of Works Current Status Ongoing Carr’s Tunbridge Investigation into improving discussions with Corner/Calverley Cllr Rankin and Wells pedestrian facilities. Park Gardens resident’s association.

Page 137 Appendix D

Appendix D3 – Externally Funded Schemes

Externally Funded Schemes programme update for the Tunbridge Wells Borough.

Externally Funded Schemes – Contact Officer Andy Padgham

Location Parish Description of Works Current Status 20mph zones to enable on-street cycle routes in Goods Station Road and Oak Road; implementation planned for January 2019. Cycle route works being designed for sections in Grosvenor & Hilbert Park 21st Century Tunbridge Installation of shared use and Dowding Way for implementation in Summer Way Wells footway/cycleway facilities. 2019. Public Rights of Way sections in Apple Tree Lane and Home Farm Lane being implemented by PROW currently under construction. The section with highways link between under design.

Page 138 Appendix D

Appendix D4 – Local Growth Fund

Local Growth Fund programme update for the Tunbridge Wells Borough.

The Department for Transport (DfT) added £100m to the Local Growth Fund (LGF) pot in order to fund Local Sustainable Transport Fund Style schemes. KCC subsequently submitted four Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) capital bids 1) East Kent – A network for Growth, 2) Kent Thameside – Integrated door-to-door journeys and 3) West Kent – Tackling Congestion. The fourth was for Tonbridge Town Centre Regeneration, which included a highway improvements scheme in the Lower High Street as well as additional LSTF style measures. The objective of all of the capital bids is to boost economic growth by decreasing carbon emissions and reducing congestion.

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

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

The following schemes have been submitted as part of the successful West Kent LSTF this financial year. *LSTF schemes to be updated by Development Planning*

Scheme Status Tunbridge Wells A26 cycle route design – Phase one, which covers Grosvenor Road to Installation of a cycle route either as a whole Speldhurst Road. In July and August 2018, route or parts of a route on the A26 from carriageway widening was completed on the Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells to Brook A26 to accommodate mandatory cycle lanes Street, Tonbridge either side of the carriageway from junctions with Woodbury Park to junction with Queens Road. This was followed by the resurfacing and lining of the entire length of carriageway from junction with Woodbury Park to Speldhurst Road. Red MMA patches have been installed over all main junctions along the length of the route. Side road entry treatments and installation of new signage are planned to start on 04th February 2019 and are expected to take four working weeks to complete. Tunbridge Wells way finding signs – Partnership Agreement to be signed by TWBC. Installation of way finding monoliths to assist Tender for sign design, build and install can then be pedestrians and tourists in Tunbridge Wells released.

Page 139 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix E

Appendix E – Developer Funded Works

Developer Funded Works (Section 278), Contact Officer: Chris Smith Ref. Scheme location Parish Description Current status Completion New footway and junction certificate issued. TW002038 Gibbet Lane Horsmonden to Gibbet Lane Remedial works notified Former Works completed, Sissinghurst Cranbrook & New bell-mouth entrance TW002044 remedial works to Primary School, Sissinghurst to housing development drainage awaited The Street New parking bays on each side of Penns Yard, break through end of Final certificate TW003015 Penns Yard Pembury Penns Yard to form issued access to new housing development Two new bell-mouth access points into new East Sussex Tunbridge development off north TW003019 Benhall Mill Road leading on the Wells east side of Benhall Mill S278 Agreement Road.

KESH (former To provide improved Works are Kent & East access to former KESH complete and 1st Sussex Hospital), Tunbridge TW003022 from Culverden Park. certificate issued. Culverden Park & Wells New vehicle crossovers in Remedial works Culverden Park Culverden Park Road notified. Road Greggs Wood Tunbridge Development access Final Certificate TW003031 Road phases 2 & Wells south of Phase 1 access. Issued 3 Works are Tunbridge TW003043 Bayham Road New bell-mouth access complete and 1st Wells certificate issued. KESH (former Works are Kent & East Tunbridge New access into TW003045 complete and 1st Sussex Hospital), Wells development of KESH site certificate issued. Mount Ephraim Solicitors Realignment of Hawkhurst Castle, instructed. Design TW003049 Hawkhurst Heartenoak Road junction Cranbrook Road in progress with Cranbrook Road

Reshaping existing Completion Tunbridge garage access with Certificate issued. TW003053 Dowding Way Wells associated works to Maintenance carriageway and footway period now started Creation of links from the Knights Wood Tunbridge existing Knights Way into TW003054 Agreement signed Phase 1A Wells the proposed Knights Wood development

Page 141 Appendix E

Ref. Scheme location Parish Description Current status

New bell-mouth access Greggs Wood Tunbridge TW003056 into development Agreement Signed Road Phase 4 Wells

Completion ‘Smugglers’ New vehicle access south Certificate issued. TW003057 (former Bowles Hawkhurst of old access Remedial works Lodge site) notified New vehicle crossovers from Burslem Road & Agreement Tunbridge Greggs Wood Road to signed; TW003061 Burslem Road Wells permit access to new substantially development complete

Agreement New bell-mouth access signed. Works into new housing partially complete development and Birchfield, Rye TW003065 Hawkhurst adjustment of speed limit Road terminal point eastwards.

Agreement Mascalls Court Paddock New bell-mouth access TW003069 signed. Works Farm, Green Lane Wood for new development partially complete Improved bell-mouth into development at the Agreement Standen Street, TW003079 Benenden junction of Standen Street signed. Iden Green plus improved drainage in Work started Woodcock Lane. Private development site Tunbridge west of roundabout Final Certificate TW003080 Longfield Road Wells between Longfield issued Road/Dowding Way New bell-mouth access Bassetts Farm, into housing development Awaiting design TW003082 Horsmonden Goudhurst Road and footway linking to submission village Improvements to existing Lillesden House, Awaiting revised TW003083 Hawkhurst access and new southern Hastings Road design submission access Technical Closure of existing vehicle approval granted. Spelmonden TW003086 Goudhurst access with new access LOA signed. Farm (A262) to the west. Works almost complete Owl's Nest, New bell-mouth access Awaiting design TW003090 Pembury Tonbridge Road opposite Hospital submission

Page 142 Appendix E

Ref. Scheme location Parish Description Current status

Agreement Highgate Hill, New bell-mouth access signed; TW003095 Hawkhurst Hawkhurst into development substantially complete Camden Road, Application Calverley Road Tunbridge TW003099 received, awaiting adjacent Royal Wells New granite paving and technical approval Victoria Place pedestrian improvements Agreement Woodman Hall, New bell-mouth access TW003100 Hawkhurst signed. Works Rye Road into development partially complete Application Knights Wood, Tunbridge Junction changes and bus TW003101 received, awaiting Phase 1A Wells stop improvements technical approval Agreement Former Dairy New access to housing Tunbridge signed, works TW003102 Crest depot, St development, footway Wells partially complete Johns Road works and bus stop

Technical New bell-mouth access approval granted. Home Farm, TW003107 Bidborough into Home Farm LOA being Penshurst Road development prepared

Agreement 3 London Road, New bell-mouth access signed. Works TW003113 Southborough Southborough into development substantially complete Technical approval granted. Merevale House, Tunbridge New access from London TW003114 S278 Agreement London Road Wells Road plus footway works being prepared

Tunbridge Completion TW003115 11 London Road Extended central island Wells Certificate issued Highway improvements to include: Kerb realignment; Works Completed. Forest Road, Tunbridge Junction improvements; TW003116 Remedial works Hawkenbury Wells New refuge/island in notified Forest Way; Speed limit reduction; Better pedestrian facilities. Tunbridge New vehicle access into Completion TW003122 Longfield Road Wells Travis Perkin Certificate issued Union House, Agreement Tunbridge Public realm TW003123 Eridge Road & signed. Works due Wells improvements Linden Park Road to start Aug 2019

Page 143 Appendix E

Ref. Scheme location Parish Description Current status

Application New crossing points Common Road, Cranbrook & received, technical TW003124 associated with the build Sissinghurst Sissinghurst acceptance of 62 new dwellings granted Technical Signing and lining traffic TW003125 Benenden School Benenden Acceptance calming measures issued Works School access and TW003125A Benenden School Benenden substantially footway works complete Works completed Various junction on Maryland and improvements to Forest Road, Tunbridge TW003126 Hawkenbury Maryland Road, Hawkenbury Road Wells Hawkenbury Road & still has items Forest Road outstanding awaiting lighting. Letter of Pinewood New bell-mouth access Agreement TW003127 Southborough Gardens and footway alterations signed. Works not yet started Station Business Widening of entrance Awaiting Technical TW003131 Hawkhurst Park, Gills Green access Acceptance Letter of Convert builders’ yard to Goods Station Tunbridge Agreement TW003133 new housing with Road Wells signed. Works not accesses and footway yet started

Page 144 Appendix F

Appendix F – Bridge Works

Bridge Works – Contact Officer Earl Bourner

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status No Planned works.

Page 145 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix G

Appendix G – Traffic Systems

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

Traffic Systems - Contact Officer: Toby Butler

Location Description of Works Current Status

No traffic signal refurbishment work being

carried out this year

Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix H

Appendix H – Combined Member Fund

Combined Member Grant programme update for the Tunbridge Wells District

The following schemes are those which have been approved for funding by both the relevant Member and by the Director of Highways and are up to date as of 11th December 2018.

The details below are for Highway Schemes only and do not detail contributions Members have made to other groups such as Parish or District Councils.

More detail on their schemes can be accessed by each Member via the online database or by contacting their Highway Project Manager.

2018/19 Combined Member Grant Highway Schemes

Paul Barrington-King – Tunbridge Wells East

Scheme Cost Status Ferndale handrail £1,800 Completed on site SID installation, High Street, Pembury £6,625 Traffic surveys commissioned Liptraps Lane, dropped crossings £1,265 Completed on site Pembury Gateways TBC Awaiting Parish Council comments on design Kings Toll Road Signage TBC Residents to be consulted New salt bin at Herons Way / The Gill £305 Completed on site

Sean Holden - Cranbrook Scheme Cost Status - - -

Sarah Hamilton – Tunbridge Wells Rural Scheme Cost Status Horsmonden Parish, contribution TBC Gateway awaiting programme date

Catherine Rankin – Tunbridge Wells South Scheme Cost Status Banner Farm Estate feasibility investigation £3,879 Road Safety Audit complete. Design to be reviewed St Marks School improvements TBC Applications to be collated in Spring 2019 Unsuitable for HGV sign at Halls Hole Road £200 Completed on site

Page 149 Appendix H

Peter Oakford – Tunbridge Wells North Scheme Cost Status Additional roundels through St Johns 20mph zone £2,000 15/16 locations are complete. St Luke’s Road still to be completed Southborough Primary School traffic management £3,441 Road Safety Audit completed. investigations Findings to be reviewed.

James McInroy – Tunbridge Wells West Scheme Cost Status Additional roundels through St Johns 20mph zone £500 15/16 locations are complete. (contribution to Cllr Oakford Scheme) St Luke’s Road still to be completed Apsley Street 1-way investigation TBC On hold Spring Lane zig zags TBC Application to be progressed in January 2019 Culverden 20mph zone TBC Speed surveys to be progressed in January 2019 Bidborough speed limit £310 Awaiting speed data results

Page 150 Agenda Item 13

Guidance on Topics for Future Meetings

Background

Each JTB agenda includes an item titled “Topics for Future Meetings”, the purpose of which is to provide an opportunity for members of the Board (and others at the Chairman’s discretion) to raise relevant transport issues.

It must be noted that the JTB is governed by the ‘JTB Agreement’ which states that, “The Access to Information principles shall be applied to the JTB as if it were a Council committee.” Consequently, there cannot be any substantive debate or decisions on any topic unless it is included on the agenda. Failure to comply with the Access to Information Regulations could render any recommendations or any decisions made on the basis of a recommendation open to challenge.

The JTB is a consultative body and has no delegated powers. Nor does it have any resources to conduct its own investigative work. The JTB may make requests of or recommendations to either KCC or TWBC but cannot make any binding decisions or commit to a course of action that incurs financial cost or the use of resources.

Members may raise any issues directly with the responsible authority at any time and this is often the most effective method of resolving local issues.

Procedure

Where a matter of particular local importance arises that is not related to an existing work stream the JTB may request that it be discussed at one of its meetings. In order to comply with the Access to Information Regulations it is important to ensure that the issue is notified and reported correctly. Therefore the following convention has been established.

1. Members of the Board should raise any items they wish to discuss with the Chairman and the Democratic Services Officer in writing as soon as possible before the meeting and no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting. This will enable the Officers to advise the Chairman on the most appropriate course of action.

2. The Chairman will then announce the received items at the meeting under the appropriate agenda item and suggest a course of action. No items should be raised at the meeting without due notice.

3. There cannot be any substantive debate or discussion on the issue, the Board may only confirm the course of action to be taken.

4. If a discussion at a future meeting is agreed, the item will be listed in the agenda of the subsequent meeting. Any such discussion cannot result in any binding decisions.

Page 151 This page is intentionally left blank