Public Document Pack
Date: 25 February 2009 Our ref: JTB/Agenda Ask For: Charles Hungwe Direct Dial: (01843) 577186 Email: [email protected]
JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD
12 MARCH 2009
A meeting of the Joint Transportation Board will be held at 6.00 pm on Thursday, 12 March 2009 at the Council Chamber, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent.
Membership:
Councillor Hayton (Kent County Council) (Chairman); Councillors: M Roberts (Vice-Chairman), Clark, S Brown, Mrs Fenner, D Green, Jarvis, Moores, Mrs Roberts, B Sullivan, Burgess (Kent County Council), Fullarton (Kent County Council), Ms Green (Kent County Council), Hibberd (Kent County Council), Hart (Kent County Council), Poole (Kent County Council), Wells (Kent County Council) and Goodban (KAPC)
A G E N D A
Item Subject No
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive any declarations of interest. Members are advised to consider the extract from the Standard Board Code of Conduct for Members, which forms part of the Declaration of Interest Form at the back of this Agenda. If a Member declares an interest, they should complete that Form and hand it to the Officer clerking the meeting.
3. SPEAKING UNDER 24.1 Cllr Wise to speak on Item 10.
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (Pages 1 - 4) To approve the Minutes of the Joint Transportation Board meeting held on 27 November 2008, copy attached.
5. THANET QUALITY BUS PARTNERSHIP - WORKING TARGETS (Pages 5 - 8) To receive the report of the Community & Public Transport Officer and the Public Transport Team Leader – East Kent, Stuart Smith and Steve Gasche respectively. Copy attached.
6. 50 GROSVENOR PLACE, MARGATE - COLLAPSED PRIVATE CELLAR UNDER THE HIGHWAY (Pages 9 - 12)
Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent, CT9 1XZ Tel: +44 (0)1843 577000 Fax: +44 (0)1843 291640 DX 30555 (Margate) www.thanet.gov.uk Chief Executive: Richard Samuel Item Subject No
To receive the report of the Head of Community Operations, Kent Highway Services. Copy attached.
7. BROADSTAIRS TRAFFIC PLAN (Pages 13 - 38) To receive the report of the Head of Transport and Development, Kent Highway Services. Copy attached.
8. TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY PACKAGE PROGRAMME (Pages 39 - 50) To receive the report of the Head of Transport and Development, Kent Highway Services. Copy attached.
9. NETHERCOURT AND CHILTON AREA, RAMSGATE-HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME CONSULTATION RESULTS (Pages 51 - 56) To receive the report of the Head of Transport and Development, Kent Highway Services, Mike Smith. Copy attached.
10. FAIR TRADE SIGNS AT THANET ENTRANCES (Pages 57 - 60) To receive the report of the Highways Inspector, Michael Bates and the Signs, Lines & Barriers Manager, Rachel Best. Copy attached.
11. HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME 2008/09 (Pages 61 - 70) To receive the report of the Head of Community Operations, Kent Highway Services. Copy attached.
12. ST PETERS ROAD, MARGATE - EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC ORDER (Pages 71 - 80) To receive the report of the KHS Head of Transport & Development, Mike Smith. Copy attached.
13. REPORTS TO THE HIGHWAYS ADVISORY BOARD (Pages 81 - 156) To note the reports submitted to the Highway Advisory Board. Copies attached.
14. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION Members to suggest items for future consideration at forthcoming meetings of the Joint Transportation Board.
Declaration of Interest form - back of agenda
Agenda Item 4
JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD MINUTES
27 NOVEMBER 2008
Present:
Thanet District Council: Councillors: Brown, Campbell (substituting Cllr Clark), Jarvis, Moores, Mrs Fenner and Roberts (Vice-Chairman), Sullivan
Kent County Council: Councillors: Hayton (Chairman), Burgess, Hart, Green, Hibberd, Fullarton, Poole, Wells
KAPC:
The following Members were also present pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 24(1) and took part in the proceedings as follows:
Councillor King Councillor Scobie
R165 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Councillor Clark was substituted by Cllr Campbell.
R166 SPEAKING UNDER 24.1 Cllr King was to speak on Items for future consideration.
R167 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None Cllr Wells said that he wanted it to be on record that he had declared an interest in the matter regarding the Nursing Home that was the subject of discussion under agenda item 8 of the Joint Transportation Board meeting held on 25 September 2008.
R168 MINUTES To include in the minutes that Cllr Brown was present at the meeting. Members agreed on the minutes.
R169 REQUEST FOR STAGECOACH SUNDAY SERVICE FOR GARLINGE, DANE VALLEY, ACOL AND SANDWICH Stuart Smith said that the KCC budget does not allow for extra services. He said that the service was not a good commercial performer. Cllrs Jarvis and Hart were working together on the case. Cllr Hart said that he was going to approach the new Stagecoach Director to present the request for an extra bus service. Members proposed that the matter be referred to the Quality Bus Partnership and requested officers to progress this issue with the Partnership.
Cllr Hart proposed. Cllr Poole seconded. Cllr Hibberd abstained.
R170 50 GROSVENOR PLACE, MARGATE-COLLAPSED PRIVATE CELLAR UNDER THE HIGHWAY Members observed that the resident concerned had raised the issue with Kent County Council (KCC) before the situation got worse and that there was a possibility that there
Page 1
were even more private cellars along that row of properties. Members felt that a more permanent solution should be sought.
Members said that KCC officers should seek legal advice before determining a permanent solution to the problem. Dennis Button was to pursue the issue of seeking legal advice and report back to the next Joint Transportation Board meeting on 12 March 2009. Mike Smith was going to investigate the justification of load limit (weight restriction) to vehicles accessing the road with the properties in question. It was proposed that formal traffic regulation to suspend parking bays on the properties in question be adopted. The Board unanimously agreed to adopt the proposal.
R171 TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY PACKAGE PROGRAMME DRAFT THANET BIDS FOR 2010/11 Mike Smith said that the 2009/10 bids have been considered. He reported that those projects not covered in that bid schedule would be considered under the 2010/11 bids. The Chairman said that Cllr S. Tomlinson had requested that the Joint Transportation Board considers traffic calming in the high street in Garlinge. Mr Smith said that the request to attend to the issue of traffic calming in the Garlinge High Street would be considered in the 2010/11 bids.
Members expressed that there were potential traffic hazards near some schools and requested KCC officers to look at the sites with a view to taking corrective measures to protect school children. Mike Smith agreed to meet some of the school heads affected. Mike Smith said that Members were encouraged to provide evidence of community support for requests they were making to KCC. He also said that project prioritisation system was being reviewed.
Dennis Button provided the attachment on evaluation scheme used for considering project proposals which members could use as a guide for submitting community project proposals. Copy attached.
R172 PROPOSED BUS STOP CLEARWAYS-BEACON ROAD & BROMSTONE ROAD, BROADSTAIRS Stuart Smith reported that in early 2009 Service 8 linking Westwood and Canterbury via Broadstairs and Margate is to be reviewed and be converted to Super Low Floor (SLF) buses. He said that there had been some objections to these proposals. The objections sited loss of on-street parking for disabled family members as well as fault lines near some properties.
Members decided to move the recommendation that Thanet District Council Cabinet Member approve the implementation of the proposed Bus Stop Clearways.
R173 HIGH STREET, MARGATE-CONSULTATION ON EXPERIMENTAL EXTENSION TO PEDESTRIANISATION
Mike Smith advised that this was not a transportation matter and therefore could best be dealt by the Margate Renewal Partnership as the issue was about improving the economy of the high street.
Members agreed to send the issue to the Margate Renewal Partnership for their consideration.
R174 A254 RAMSGATE ROAD / QEQM TRAFFIC SIGNALS- PROPOSED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS Mike Smith said that the report was to inform the members on the rationale for proposing adoption of traffic signal regulation orders for the A254 Ramsgate Road junction with the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital access road.
Page 2
The Board adopted the recommendations that: a) approve the parking restrictions ‘no waiting at any time’ (double yellow lines) for A254 Ramsgate Road, b) approve the parking restrictions (single yellow lines), for Ramsgate Road service road, St Andrews Close and Dene Walk, with an amendment restricting them to operating between 08.00 hrs -18.00 hrs Monday to Friday only.
R175 HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAME 2008/09 Members said that there seemed there was little being done by EDF regarding street lighting on Vale Square, Ramsgate. Members suggested that EDF be approached to resolve the matter.
The report was then noted.
R176 REPORTS TO HIGHWAYS ADVISORY BOARD The reports were noted.
R177 ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION -Consider the introduction of the day Thanet Loop Bus Service to cover Westgate -St Saviours Church-request for dog bones -St Saviours School-request for extra school signals on St Mildred Road -Request for Footpath-Minster Road -Green Road and Holy Lane-Request for traffic calming -Hereson Road-Members wanted to find out when the works were going to be completed
The meeting ended at 7.53 pm
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 4 Agenda Item 5
THANET QUALITY BUS PARTNERSHIP (QBP) – PROPOSED NEW WORKING TARGETS
To: Joint Transportation Board – 12 March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: Commercial & Environmental Services
By: Head of Transport & Development - KCC Director of Economic Development & Regeneration - TDC
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Whole District
Summary: To recommend that the KCC Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways & Waste, and the TDC Cabinet Member for Commercial & Environmental Services, approve the proposed new working targets for the Thanet Quality Bus Partnership.
For Decision
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 In July 2000 Kent County Council, Thanet District Council and Stagecoach Group signed a Quality Bus Partnership (QBP). This was only the second such Partnership in Kent and the first in East Kent.
1.2 The principles of the Partnership were: • Creating a public transport network acknowledged by local residents, visitors and the business community as an increasingly attractive alternative to private car use. • Seeking increased use of local bus services to assist in achieving a sustainable and self-sufficient transport system, capable of meeting the needs of the 21 st Century, enriching the quality of life in Thanet, attracting investment, work and leisure opportunities.
1.3 The Partnership set the following targets: • To seek annual growth in the use of local bus services of 3% each year for a ten year period starting in 2000, as measured by the total number of single passenger journeys made on partnership local bus services provided by Stagecoach. • The target growth must contribute to an overall objective of ensuring that, at the end of the 10 year period, public transport caters for 20% of all travel needs, for journeys of one kilometre and over, in the Thanet area.
2.0 The Current Situation
2.1 In 2003 the Partnership made a successful bid to the Government’s Urban Bus Challenge Fund for “Kick-Start” funding for Thanet’s urban area. The bid envisaged replacing a group of trunk routes which linked Margate and Ramsgate via Q.E.Q.M. Hospital and Westwood and via Cliftonville and Broadstairs with a single high-frequency, fully accessible, circular service. This was launched as The Thanet Loop in October, 2004. The bus/rail/cycle interchange facilities at Ramsgate Station were upgraded at the
Page 5
same time with a funding bid to the Rail Passenger Partnership Fund. The existence of the QBP and wider community support for the projects were instrumental in the success of these bids.
2.2 The immediate success of The Thanet Loop persuaded the Stagecoach Group to upgrade Margate and Ramsgate local services 32 & 34 as The Thanet Stars in June 2005. Older van-derived mini-buses were replaced by modern, fully accessible midi- buses as a commercial initiative.
2.3 Passenger numbers have continued to grow on The Thanet Loop and notably on trunk service 8 between Westwood, Broadstairs, Margate, Westgate, Birchington and Canterbury. Stagecoach is now proposing to improve the frequency of this service from April, 2009 and to replace the conventional double deck buses with the latest Super-Low- Floor double deck buses. This will extend the benefits of a frequent, accessible service to residents west of Margate and on the direct route between Broadstairs and Westwood. TDC and KHS are currently upgrading the bus stops along this route with raised kerbs, Bus Stop Clearways and new bus stop poles providing improved publicity displays.
2.4 As stated in Para 1.3, the original QBP set a target to increase bus usage by 3% year on year for ten years commencing 2000. Since the launch of The Thanet Loop in 2004 passenger numbers based on ticket sales have grown as follows: • 2005/6 over 2004/5 28.1% Cumulative 28.1% • 2006/7 over 2005/6 19.2% Cumulative 52.8% • 2007/8 over 2006/7 6.5% Cumulative 62.7% • 2008/9 over 2007/8# 10.0% Cumulative 79.0%# # These are projected figures to the end of March 2009.
Although some of the recent growth has been due to concessionary travel, it is clear that the upgrading of services, roadside infrastructure, publicity and marketing has led to real growth in core bus usage.
3.0 Proposed new working targets
3.1 The proposed new working targets are attached (annex 1).
3.2 These new targets reflect the significant increase in the number of passenger journeys achieved in recent years, the continuous improvement to bus route infrastructure such as raised kerbs, bus stop clearways and bus stop timetable and map information, and the planned reduction in the number of Thanet DC controlled off-street parking places available in town centres in the district.
3.3 These new working targets, if approved, will be the basis on which the continued improvement in the provision of good quality bus services will be monitored by the QBP, with each of the parties to the QBP seeking to meet their obligations in the agreement.
4.0 Options
4.1 To recommend that the KCC & TDC Cabinet Members approve the adoption of the proposed new working targets.
4.2 Request officers to consider any alternative targets and discuss these with Stagecoach in East Kent.
4.3 No further action. This would restrict the ability of the Partnership to move forward and build on the considerable achievements made to date and have a negative effect on the perception of Thanet as a place to live, work and invest.
Page 6
5.0 Corporate Implications
5.1 Financial
5.1.1 KCC has budget provision identified for future improvements to roadside infrastructure and publicity.
5.1.2 There are no ongoing financial implications for TDC.
5.2 Legal
5.2.1 The Quality Bus Partnership is not legally binding on any of the parties or in any manner restrictive to the commercial or operational activities of Stagecoach in East Kent or any other organisation.
5.3 Corporate
5.3.1 Paras 7.6.1 and 7.6.3 of the Thanet District Transport Plan support improvements to roadside infrastructure and the introduction of Super-low-Floor vehicles to further services.
5.3.2 Para 18.2.1. of the Thanet District Transport Plan supports measures to improve access to bus services for those with mobility problems.
5.3.3 Policies ACC2 “Mobility Impairment” and DM5 “Local Buses” of KCC's Local Transport Plan 2006-11 support measures to improve access to and the quality of local bus services as an alternative to the car.
5.4 Equity & Equalities
5.4.1 The provision of Super-Low-Floor buses, bus boarders and Bus Stop Clearways will assist the elderly, those with mobility impairments, buggies, heavy shopping, etc. in accessing bus services as an alternative to the car. 5.4.2 Improvements to publicity will increase awareness of the bus services available to a wider cross-section of the community.
6.0 Recommendation
6.1 The Joint Transportation Board is asked to recommend that the KCC Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways & Waste, and the TDC Cabinet Member for Commercial & Environmental Services, approve the proposed new working targets for the Thanet Quality Bus Partnership.
7.0 Decision Making Process
7.1 This is not a key decision and does not need to go to Council. There are no budgetary implications for TDC.
Contact Officers: Stephen Gasche – Public Transport Team Leader (East Kent) KCC – 01622-221995 Stuart Smith – Community & Public Transport Officer TDC – 01843-577607 Background Papers
Quality Local Bus Services in the Thanet Area 2000 Local Transport Plan for Kent 2006-11
Page 7
Thanet District Transport Plan 2005-2011 ANNEX 1
THANET QBP – PROPOSED NEW WORKING TARGETS
08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12
1. % of buses operating on 92 94 95 95 time
2. % of scheduled miles 99.75 99.75 99.75 99.75 operated
3. % of miles operated with 47.4 74 74 74 low-floor buses
4. Average Fleet Age (years) 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
5. % of Thanet drivers with an 48 55 60 60 NVQ Level 2
6. Complaints 159^ To To To ^ last complete year figure reduce reduce reduce is for 07/08 number number number by 5% pa by 5% pa by 5% pa
7. Passenger Journeys 8.038 8.279 8.527 8.782 * projected (figures based million* million million million on 3% increase pa) 8. Stops with bus shelters 121 121 121 121
9. Stops with improved 321 333 345 356 accessibility
10. Pick up stops with timetable 70% 80% 80% 80% information
11. Number of TDC controlled 2633 2400 2200 2000 off-street car parking spaces in Town Centres ^
12. Passenger satisfaction N/A N/A N/A N/A
13. Journey Times
Thanet Loop 73 71 68 68
Margate – Canterbury 51 49 48 48
Northdown Park – Margate 17 17 16 16
^ Broadstairs, Margate and Ramsgate town centre car parks only, and excluding College Square multi-storey (non-TDC)
Page 8 Agenda Item 6
50 GROSVENOR PLACE, MARGATE – COLLAPSED PRIVATE CELLAR UNDER THE HIGHWAY
To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board – 12 March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways & Waste
By: Head of Community Operations, Kent Highway Services
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Margate Central Division: Margate and Clifftonville
Summary: That subject to the views of the Board, a TRO is advertised to move the parking bays at Grosvenor Place, Margate to minimise future vehicle loading on any cellars.
For Decision
1.0 Introduction and background
1.1 At the meeting on 27 November 2008 enforcement action was recommended against the owner of 50 Grosvenor Place if repairs were not carried out to a collapsed cellar. Shortly after the meeting it was noted that remedial work had taken place. The owner was contacted to ascertain the nature of the works undertaken. The owner stated that works to block off and fill the collapsed area of cellar had been completed.
1.2 It was agreed with the KCC Structures Team that an inspection and assessment of the work be carried out by the Thanet Community Delivery Team Leader. A site meeting was arranged for 17 December 2008 where access to the cellar area was given. It is confirmed that the remedial works are acceptable and the site is now safe with the footway surface and kerb line reinstated. At present no further action is being instigated by KHS against the owner.
2.0 The current situation
2.1 The Transport and Development Team have inspected the location and are considering the possibility of a change in the parking bay lay out in the area. The parking bays are in position opposite the properties with cellars and this allows through traffic to overrun the footway placing stress upon the cellar structures. It is proposed that the parking bays be swapped to the other side of the road thus offering an element of protection to the cellars. The weight of through traffic, which includes a significant amount H.G.V's will then be moved away from the structures. The proposal is shown in Annex A.
3.0 Options
3.1 Approve the advertising of moving the on-street parking to the Eastern Side to minimise the vehicle loading on the cellars.
Page 9
3.3 No further action. This could lead to a long term problem of damage to the cellars in Grosvenor Place.
4.0 Corporate Implications
4.1 Financial
4.1.1 If no action is taken Kent Highway Services could be faced with disruption to the use of Grosvenor Place if further cellars are damaged, with all the attendant costs.
4.2 Legal
4.2.1 A Traffic Regulation Order needs to be advertised and any objections considered by the Board.
4.3 Corporate
4.3.1 The Highway Authority has a duty to maintain the highway in a safe condition.
4.4 Equity and Equalities
4.4.1 The Highway Authority has a duty ensure safe passage along the highway for all road users.
5.0 Recommendation
5.1 Subject to the views of the Board advertise changes to the on-street parking arrangements.
6.0 Decision making Process
6.1 This is not a key decision and needs no formal approval as it is part of the Highway Authorities Statutory Responsibility.
Contact Officer: Dennis Button - 01233 614034 Community Delivery Manager
Page 10
Annex I - Plan of Grosvenor Place, Margate
Existing on-street parking bays
Proposed on-street parking bays
Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 12 Agenda Item 7
BROADSTAIRS TRAFFIC PLAN
To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board, 12 March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste
By: Head of Transport & Development, Kent Highway Services
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Viking, Bradstowe Division : Broadstairs & Sir Moses Montefiore
Summary: The report summarises progress made with the detailed design, and recommends a three phase approach towards completion of the scheme.
For Recommendation
1. Introduction
1.1 On 26 March 2008, two concept designs and a proposed car park signing strategy were approved by this Board for the purposes of a public consultation. The consultation was very successful in the amount of responses received – 301 in total.
1.2 On 25 September 2008, the results of the consultation were presented to this Board, and a revised car park signing strategy and ‘Composite Scheme’ were put forward. The following actions were approved at that meeting:-
• The ‘Composite Scheme’ and revised ‘Car Park Signing Strategy’ be progressed; • Further consultation be carried out on the detail of the Plan; • The four key scheme aims in relation to improving road safety, reducing congestion, lowering vehicle speeds, and increasing pedestrian activity, be adopted.
2. Summary of further consultation on the detail of the Plan
2.1 Since September, KHS has progressed the detailed design of the Plan, in line with the approved Composite Scheme.
2.2 Upon completion of the initial design work, a meeting took place on 22 January 2009 with the Broadstairs Traffic Plan Committee (BTPC). A summary of this meeting is contained within Addendum 4.
2.3 The meeting recommended splitting the scheme into 3 phases, to minimise disruption in the town centre during key busy periods – specifically, the summer period and the lead-up to Christmas. The recommended layout proposals for each phase are contained within Addendum 1 (Phase 1), Addendum 2 (Phase 2) and Addendum 3 (Phase 3).
2.4 The previously approved ‘Composite Scheme’ has been amended to reflect the outcome of the BTPC meeting, and may be seen in Addendum 5 [drawing to follow] .
2.5 As can be seen in Addendum 2, three aspects of the Plan were recommended to comprise ‘Phase 1’. This is because they did not attract significant debate during the original consultation. They are deemed to be ‘Quick Wins’. Subject to the views of this Board, these aspects could proceed without further delay.
Page 13
2.6 As such, the Contractor has been instructed to be ready to commence work upon ‘Phase 1’ on Monday 16 March. A letter drop will be carried out to immediately affected residents and businesses in advance. Any major objections received at this stage will be reported verbally to this Board for further consideration.
2.7 Subsequent to the BTPC meeting, further consultation took place with Thanet District Council’s ‘Heritage Development Advisor’ and ‘Conservation Area Appraisals Officer’. This was in relation to the materials that should be used for the scheme. The views of TDC’s officers were taken into account and the following ‘suite’ of materials is recommended for all ‘table-top’ features:
• For the table top, bluish red blocks will be used (similar to those seen in Chandos Square – see fig. 1 below). • For the ramp leading up to the table-top, granite setts. • Conservation style kerbs will be used at the top and the bottom of the ramps, to retain the granite setts (as seen in fig. 1, adjacent to the block paving).
2.8 In respect of the footway areas adjacent to the table-top features, the difficulty faced in deciding which material to use is that Broadstairs town centre currently suffers from a rather ‘patchwork quilt’ effect. Where possible, existing materials will be matched into, whether they are existing grey block paving or tarmacadam. The exception to this is the proposal at the entrance to Albion Street from the lower High Street (drawing no. EK321-06); subject to available funding, it may be possible to extend the current yorkstone paving ‘theme’ from Sea Approach (see fig. 2), at least on the seaward side of Albion Street.
Fig. 1: Block paving in Chandos Square Fig. 2: Yorkstone paving in Sea Approach
3. Additional consultation on Phases 2 and 3
3.1 Phases 2 and 3 (as seen in Addenda 2 and 3 respectively) contain elements that were the subject of debate last year. It is considered that these elements should be presented for further public consultation.
3.2 This is particularly relevant to Phase 2, which proposes a new layout for the High Street / Queens Road junction. Members will note that two options are being put forward for approval. The ‘preferred option’ (EK321-11) advocates a wider footway adjacent to the new bus stop lay-by; this is dependant upon the successful conclusion of negotiations with a third party landowner, which are currently in progress. As such, a ‘main’ fallback option is also being put forward for approval (EK321-01), which is not dependant upon the acquisition of third party land. Page 14
3.3 Subject to the views of this Board, the format of the additional consultation for Phases 2/3 will be similar to that carried out last year:
• A letter drop to immediately affected residents and businesses. • Notices on site. • Consultation highlighted via press publicity. • Display of proposals at a venue which is local and easily accessible (such as Broadstairs library). • Display of proposals on www.kent.gov.uk . • Email notification to be sent to relevant organisations, as well as everyone who took the time to respond to the original consultation last year.
3.4 The results of this additional consultation will then be taken into account with any revisions to the scheme design made as appropriate, and subsequently presented back to this Board for final approval.
4. Recommendation
4.1 Subject to the views of this Board, it is recommended that:-
4.1.1 Phase 1 is progressed as detailed in Section 2 of this Report and Addendum 1;
4.1.2 Phases 2 and 3 are progressed as detailed in Section 3 and Addenda 2 & 3.
Contact Officer:
Steve Darling, Transportation Planner (08458 247800) KHS Transport & Development
Background Papers
Addendum 1: Phase 1 – proposed scheme layouts Addendum 2: Phase 2 – proposed scheme layouts Addendum 3: Phase 3 – proposed scheme layouts Addendum 4: Summary of BTPC meeting held on 22 January 2009 Addendum 5: Revised Composite Plan
Page 15
Page 16
ADDENDUM 1 : Phase 1 – proposed scheme layouts
Page 17
ADDENDUM 2 : Phase 2 – proposed scheme layouts
Page 18
ADDENDUM 3 : Phase 3 – proposed scheme layouts
Page 19
Addendum 4 : Summary of BTPC meeting held on 22 January 2009
Broadstairs Traffic Plan Committee
Introduction
Kent Highway Services (KHS) carried out a public consultation in Summer 2008, upon two options for Broadstairs town centre (Concept A and Concept B), and a Signing Strategy.
The consultation generated a strong response from the public, with over 300 replies. The results of the consultation did not provide an immediate consensus. Further analysis of the feedback received led to the production of a combined version of both Concepts, known as the “Composite Plan”. The Signing Strategy was also amended.
The ‘Composite Plan’ and revised ‘Signing Strategy’ were approved by the Thanet Joint Transportation Board (JTB) in September 2008. The JTB Report may be viewed online at http://thanetdc.maximaasp.com/Thanet/i2z1nt00.doc
Further consultation with the Broadstairs Traffic Plan Committee (BTPC)
Since September, KHS has been working up the details of the Composite Plan. Some aspects of the Plan did not generate debate in the original consultation, and are deemed as ‘Quick Wins’. Other aspects are more detailed and will require more consideration.
These latest detailed aspects were presented to the BTPC on 22 January 2009. The BTPC consisted of the following representatives:
- County councillors - District councillors - Town councillors - Broadstairs Conservation Area Advisory Group - Broadstairs Chamber of Commerce - Broadstairs Tourism & Leisure Association
The meeting was informed that KHS has funding for 2008/9 (£75,000) and 2009/10 (£150,000). It was agreed to split the programming of the works, in order to make the fullest use of the funding available, and to minimise disruption at the busiest times of the year. The following programming was recommended:
PHASE PROPOSALS PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME Phase 1 EK321-04 : Lower High Street Programmed to start 16 March 2009, (Quick Wins) EK321:07A : Charlotte St / John St / for an approximate duration of 5 Buckingham Rd weeks (to be complete by Monday 4 EK321- 10 : High St / Belvedere Rd May at the latest) Phase 2 EK321-01 : Queens Rd (main option) Programmed to start 5 October (Queens Rd) EK321-11 : Queens Rd (preferred 2009, for an approximate duration of option) 6 weeks (to be complete by Tuesday 1 December at the latest) Phase 3 EK321-06 : Albion St / High St Programmed to start 4 January (Albion St) EK321-09 : Albion St (adjacent to 2010, for an approximate duration of Balmoral Gardens) 6 weeks
Page 20
As a result of the meeting, KHS has also agreed to take the following matters forward:
1. Consideration will be given to a proposal to narrow the western footway of Albion Street, between The Dolphin PH and Church Rd. This would ease two way traffic flow at an existing pinch point. Subject to technical approval and budgetary considerations, this work could form a part of Phase 3.
2. The signing strategy will be progressed, and ideally implemented after Phase 2. The following needs to be considered in conjunction with this: a) Signage for free parking on Eastern / Western Esplanade b) Signage for coaches approaching from south or north c) Hotel signage (brown signs)
3. The scheme will introduce new areas of block paving. The meeting recommended matching footway areas with existing (i.e. grey). Carriageway paving could be red coloured. Further consultation will take place with TDC’s Conservation Officer.
4. The two disabled parking bays outside The Albion could be reduced to one, to facilitate loading and unloading in the vicinity.
5. During the works, it will be necessary to divert traffic along Carlton Avenue. KHS will approach TDC with the suggestion of suspending parking charges in Lloyd Rd / Lawn Rd, and to suspend parking on one side of Carlton Avenue, for the duration of the diversion.
6. For the ‘Quick Win’ proposal EK321-07A, consideration to be given to the junction of Buckingham Rd, with the intention of improving the area for pedestrians, and to discourage through traffic (please note that the latest drawing EK321:07A reflects this).
7. Discussions took place regarding loading restrictions. KHS will take forward Traffic Regulation Orders that are essential to the design of the proposals. It is recommended to consider ‘wider’ issues for the town centre as a separate matter, in conjunction with TDC, with whom this responsibility mainly rests.
Scheme approval
The proposals as discussed in this Summary will be taken forward for approval by the Thanet JTB on Thursday 12 March 2009 .
In respect of Phase 1, a letter drop to all affected businesses and residents will be carried out, 2 weeks in advance of the provisional start date of 16 March.
Subject to JTB approval, consultation for Phases 2 and 3 will be carried out in due course.
Page 21
Addendum 5 : Revised Composite Plan
Page 22 Agenda Item 7 Annex 1
Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 24 Agenda Item 7 Annex 2
Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 26 Agenda Item 7 Annex 3
Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 28 Agenda Item 7 Annex 4
Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 30 Agenda Item 7 Annex 5
Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 32 Agenda Item 7 Annex 6
Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 34 Agenda Item 7 Annex 7
Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 36 4 Magwitch 1 Allotmen Masonic Court t G 0 ard 5 ens Temple OAD R e 11 n Ha 8 rbo 4 ur M 9 e 4 MONT w 6 s 8 Westde BEL
2 7 1 4 ter 9 4 4 4 Cais 5 5 4 6 Broadstairs Traffic Plan - COMPOSITE PLAN (Revision A) 4 5 WAR 1 3 DOUR CL 4 2 4 OSE 1 m 3 1 . 4 Fair 16 view NA SH G 2 ARD E NS 8 emont 3 Tr 13 1 Pro spec ST M 6 1 t Mews PHASE 3 3 6 3 9 El AR 7 Y'S 3 RO Sta AD 4 1 Sub 3 Abandon proposal to 2 Albion St (o/s Balmoral) LB Car Park 2 8 CR 8 2 t OF PCs 6 - removal of existing feature7 r restrict access to T' u S PLACE 5 E o 4 D 2 C 5 IC T AC P 5 2 3 h ROS h KE e No entry to car park to P 1 c N Pr ECT a S WA osp k M RO- new raised platform e 2 car park n S B 3 e L c CT PL AD 1 K t Ba 3 3 3 prevent "rat running" 0 2 7 3 ROSPE 37.3m P 8 3 9 10 2 PH 7 5 2 66 7 2 NTRY
64 orks
E Y 1 W
HI O 5 G 62 ENTR O H N ST N 20 RE 9 ET 11 3 58 X PHASE 1 2 13
67 T 56 E 18.2m 65 High St / Belvedere Rd 54 TRE 2 S 52 44 1 61 N O 59 I 26 - raised platform B L 57 A TH 31 Bank ANE B 10 T R 35 uilder OA 's Yard D Eagle
51 e d a House 49 r 5 42 16 a 4 P 47 e 3 h 2 PH T 18 0 1 40 2 8 PH 3 LB 1 Bank 2 24 2 2 45 9.2m 8 1 TCBs PHASE 3 Joanns Court 6 LOSE C 1 ter R HIG el H S a h TR 1 S EE 1 ENC Page 37 T High St / Albion St 33 26 24 ff 1 li TEPH 2 2 1 C S 4 20 1 - change of priority D 18 9 31 8a - footway widening
7 1 H IGH STREE T - block paving OSE 1 5
CL 9 T 20.2m 4 3 Shelter
ub Sta 8 TREE
S n
l S o QUEENS ROA 6 E 1 bi 5 Ward B l Queen's Road d 1 l A l y a e 2 y t ION o o Baptist Church R H
N 9 LB E
11 H A H
P EP
ST PHASE 1 2 Lancaster 2.2m OAD 7 House CP High Street (o/s 18-24) S ER ea
1 er R 2 Ap 1 proa E ace c helt l h Highway features S - raised platform The
an P Serene Serene Place T 1 E Bank Hall House Ragl 3 E
e Double yellow lines R c
BELVED a C l astle T P m S d 6 H . o o use 9 1 E 3 wo t
3 ST T o EPHEN r Loading restrictions 4 5 T CLOSE 2 T
O T
9 E 3 L
E 5
R PHASE 1 5 R
T
S A 4 Designated parking
6 E
H T
T 7 Charlotte St / John St C O PHASE 2 L
R 4 A
11 H
9 - footway widening C Road marking
8 High St / Queens Rd11 - improved crossing3 points - change of priority 5 1 Sand DUN 1 11a Hall DONALD ROA - raised platform urt Road layout 35 D Co PH o 16 - new pelican crossing t
ne 1 3 Posts
1 18 re
15 Se 6
12 - new bus stop layby 4 Block paving 1
2 JO Bus shelter 20.6m HN S TREET 4
Surgery ry 12
urge 3 Works 31 3 S 1 Work Bus stop clearway s Annex 8 Agenda Item 7 7
1 11 T LB EE 0 19.3m 1 TR New footway D S 8 A RK 3 RO O 29 Y PO Pelican crossing
2 1 9 E
D R
A E
D This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the E V Raised platform 'S RO L
N E permission of Ordnance Survey onE behalf of the Controller of B 1 E 21.8m U 1 Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c)Q Crown Copyright. Unauthorised 1 2 D Zigzag markings A
reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to O
R
M
prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019238.2008 A
0 H 1
G 19 2 22
N 1 I
K
UC
B This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 Agenda Item 8
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT PROGRAMME 2009/10
To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board – 12 March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways & Waste
By: KCC Head of Transport and Development
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: All Division : All
Summary: This report introduces the Integrated Transport programme for 2009/10 for the Thanet District For Information
Introduction
1. The report detailing the county wide Integrated Transport programme for 2009/10, which was presented to the Highways Advisory Board on 3 March 2009, is attached as Appendix A. The programme for the Thanet district is shown in Appendix 1 of that Report. Any changes that the Highways Advisory Board recommends that are different to the report will be reported verbally to this Board on the night.
6.0 Options
6.1 This report is for Members’ information
7.0 Corporate Implications
7.1 Financial 7.1.1 All of the measures are being carried out from KCC budgets.
7.2 Legal 7.2.1 None identified.
7.3 Corporate 7.3.1 None identified.
7.4 Equity and Equalities 7.4.1 None identified.
8.0 Recommendation
8.1 This report is for Members’ information
9.0 Decision Making Process
9.1 This report is for Members’ information
Page 39
Contact Officers: Mike Smith Transport and Development Manager 08458 247 800
Background Papers : Appendix 1
Page 40
Item XX/ Appendix 1 Decision No (as appropriate) ______
By : Head of Transport & Development Planning
To: Highways Advisory Board - 3 March 2009
Subject: The Transportation and Safety Package Programme 2009/10
Classification: Unrestricted
______
Summary: This report is to inform members of the proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 to be recommended for approval by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste. ______
1. Introduction and Policy Framework
(1). Kent County Council’s (KCC) local transport funding for 2009/10 was determined by the Department for Transport (DfT) in November 2007 as part of its assessment and settlement announcement regarding Kent’s transport strategy, the Local Transport Plan (LTP). This funding has been provided to support local transport schemes that deliver the LTP, which itself sets out the County Council’s approach to achieving a number of key transport objectives, including:
• Improve access to key services by sustainable modes of transport; • Tackle the occurrence of peak hour congestion, particularly in larger urban areas; • Improve road safety by reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Kent’s roads; • Improve local air quality, particularly in designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
(2). Kent’s LTP funding for 2009/10 includes a capital allocation of £14.752M, which consists of borrowing approvals and grant and is specifically for the implementation of Integrated Transport (IT) schemes. Of the £14.752M, £2.600M will be used to fund detailed design and supervision of construction of 2009/10 schemes as well as forward design of 2010/11 schemes, and £2.200M is required to complete the 2008/09 programme. These include schemes which have been deferred in order to provide additional funding for maintenance in 2008/09. This results in a budget of £9.952M for implementation of new schemes. The allocation for new schemes in 2008/09 was £9.65M.
Page 41
(3). This report provides details of the 69 schemes that make up the proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 together with a brief summary of key elements of the programme. The schemes proposed for 2009/10 are shown at Appendix 1 .
2. Scheme Prioritisation
(1). The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 has been devised using Kent’s Scheme Prioritisation Methodology, PIPKIN. A report outlining the principles and a proposal to implement PIPKIN was presented to the (HAB) in July 2006, and was approved by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste on the strength of the recommendations of this Board.
(2). All scheme proposals have been subjected to a formal assessment and prioritised in accordance with their likely impact and wider contribution towards Kent’s strategic and local transport objectives. The relative merit of each scheme has been determined in comparison to others submitted in the same year. Revisions to the viability of some schemes, such as their public acceptability and their deliverability, and the inclusion of previously approved carryovers from the 2008/09 programme has resulted in a final list of 69 new schemes to be funded from the 2009/10 budget. Schemes which have not achieved sufficient priority can be resubmitted as part of the 2010/11 programme.
(3). The 2010/11 programme will be assessed using a revised scheme prioritisation system. This system is currently being developed through an informal member group and will be the subject of a future report to this Board.
3. Priorities for Funding
(1). The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 includes: (a) Funding for the development of Kent’s successful Traffic Management Centre (UTMC) to new areas of Kent and targeted funding to support the evolution of UTMC in Tunbridge Wells, Gravesend, Maidstone and Canterbury (£1.025M) as well as extension and upgrading of the Kent bus tracking and real time passenger information system (£350K).
(b) A new and innovative Kickstart Public Transport initiative (£1.627M). Bus companies were invited to submit proposals for capital funding to deliver a step change in local bus services and frequencies to support regeneration and help tackle congestion. Investment will fund new buses in Ashford including Stagecoach (10 vehicles) allowing Line A to be increased in frequency from 15 to 10 minutes and low floor vehicles and frequency improvements to be cascaded to routes 3 and 5. Enhancements are also planned for route 13 from Singleton to the town centre (1 vehicle) and for Ashford E Line linking Eureka Park – Town Centre – Orbital Park (2 vehicles). These enhancements will lay the groundwork for Ashford’s Smartlink network. The Eastonways 38/ 38A, serving the Ramsgate and Birchington areas, is to be enhanced with 2
Page 42
new vehicles. 2 new vehicles are also to be provided on the 326/ 327 Sittingbourne to Gillingham, operated under contract to Chalkwell.
(c) Investment in bus infrastructure to support Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) initiatives in Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, Maidstone and Thanet (£0.8M). This is match funding which has levered in significant investment from bus operators in new vehicles and higher frequency services.
(d) Investment in road safety initiatives through a targeted programme of Casualty Reduction Measures (CRMs). There are 18 schemes (£1.8M) in total with casualty reduction as their primary objective.
(e) A smart card bus ticketing system is under development for Kent. The precursor to this is to ensure all Kent buses are equipped with Smart Card Compliant Ticket Machines . There are over 800 public buses operating in the county. This £1.0M contribution will help fund a package of new and upgraded ticket machines for operators and help bring forward the ticket machine investment programmes planned by Stagecoach and Arriva. It is proposed that the machines will also link with Kent’s GPS and Real Time Passenger Information System. A pilot is planned in partnership with Stagecoach for Kent Freedom Pass holders in Thanet; it is hoped that a launch will be possible in September 2009.
(f) A £250K investment is proposed to upgrade bus stop poles and information to passengers as part of Kent’s Public Transport Information Strategy . This will complete a programme to upgrade all of the 560 most important (level 1) bus stops in Kent, it is also key to supporting a re-tendering of the Kent Roadside Infrastructure Unit.
(g) The programme includes a range of measures on the highway to support Safer Routes to School (£375K) as well as infrastructure within the school grounds including new bike shelters to support Platinum School Travel Plans (£100K). Schools receive platinum status for travel plans which have been in place for more than one year and where measures in the plan are actively being implemented. These schemes are part of Kent’s successful travel to school initiative which has achieved a 5% switch at primary schools from car to walking to school.
(h) £100K is to be spent on upgrading pedestrian crossings to DDA compliancy . A further £50K is to be top sliced from the programme to introduce dropped kerbs requested through the year by the public.
Page 43
3. Consultation/ Local Members
(1). Many of the schemes within the programme have been developed in consultation with local stakeholders and Members. Subject to approval of the programme by the Cabinet Member, the schemes will now be reported through the Joint Transportation Boards as part of the ongoing design and consultation process.
4. Conclusion
(1) The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 of 69 schemes detailed in this report will make an important contribution to delivering targets in Kent’s Local Transport Plan: tackling congestion, improving road safety, enhancing access to local services by bus, for cyclists and pedestrians and contributing to improvements in local air quality.
5. Recommendations
(1) Subject to the views of this Board, it is proposed to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that:
(a) the proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 (as shown in Appendix 1) be approved;
(b) this Board notes the development and application of Kent’s new Scheme Prioritisation System;
(c) the Joint Transportation Boards receive updates on the approved schemes in their areas.
______
Background Documents: The following background documents have been used in the preparation of this report:
Highways Advisory Board 11 July 2006, Item 10 The Local Transport Plan for Kent 2005/6 - 2010/11
Appendices
Appendix 1 – 2009/10 Transportation & Safety Package Programme
Author Contact Details: David Joyner, Sustainable Transport Manager, 01622 696852 [email protected]
Page 44
APPENDIX 1 - 2009/10 Transportation & Safety Package Programme
Ashford PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref 13 ASH24 Ashford Domestic Station Improvements Victoria Multi-modal interchange Tackling congestion £ 90,000 Bus Strategy Action Plan Pilot Scheme - Routes 'A', 20 ASH20 3 & 5 Stanhope Bus infrastructure Tackling congestion £ 200,000 48 PRWe04 Highfield Lane Estate to William Harvey Hospital N Willesborough Walking Tackling congestion £ 20,000 52 ASH30 Halstow Way to Noakes Meadow Cycleway Beaver Cycle track Tackling congestion £ 40,000 Safer Routes to School - Beaver Green School, 53 ASH34 Cuckoo Lane Beaver First 'safe routes’ Casualty reduction £ 20,000 103 ASH29 Christchurch School to Park Farm cycleway Norman Cycle track Tackling congestion £ 60,000
Page 45 Total £ 430,000
Canterbury PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref Bus stops with travel 5 CAN13 Canterbury Bus Strategy Westgate information Tackling congestion £ 300,000 Urban Traffic Control 17 CAN14 Canterbury Urban Traffic Management Westgate (installations) Tackling congestion £ 150,000 27 CAN23 Canterbury to Chartham off road cycle route Wincheap Cycle track Tackling congestion £ 100,000 38 CAN19 Connect 2 Harbour Cycling Tackling congestion £ 50,000 Total £ 600,000
Dartford PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref 43 DAR36 Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Town New or improved footway Improving accessibility £ 25,000 45 DAR16 High Street, Bean - new footway Bean & Darenth New or improved footway Improving accessibility £ 20,000 56 DAR38 A2018 Rochester Road - cycle route improvements Heath Unsignalled crossing Tackling congestion £ 50,000
57 DAR11 Pedestrian links to Bluewater Castle Signalled crossing Tackling congestion £ 100,000 Total £ 195,000
Dover PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref 14 ITT02 Kent Bus Tracking System East Kent Town & Pier Bus priority Tackling congestion £ 250,000 Bus Stop infrastructure improvements in the Dover Improvements to existing 24 DOV02 District Town & Pier bus stops Tackling congestion £ 100,000 28 DOV01 River Dour Cycle Route (Phase 2) Town & Pier Cycle track Tackling congestion £ 100,000 Total £ 450,000
Gravesham
Page 46 PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref Urban Traffic Control 22 GRA04 UTC Gravesend, including VMS Central (installations) Tackling congestion £ 125,000 B2175 The Hill/Stonebridge Road (Thames path 36 GRA23 connection) Northfleet North Cycle track Tackling congestion £ 40,000 46 GRA22 Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Pelham New or improved footway Improving air quality £ 50,000 54 GRA18 Wrotham Rd (North) cycle routes Woodlands Cycle track Improving air quality £ 40,000 A227 Gravesend to Wrotham speed limit signing Gravesend/ - Top slice review Wrotham Other Schemes Tackling congestion £ 50,000 Total £ 305,000
Maidstone PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref 10 MAI28 Cycle Improvements Maidstone Town Centre High Street Cycle lane Tackling congestion £ 30,000 Urban Traffic Control 19 MAI10 Urban Traffic Management Control System High Street (installations) Tackling congestion £ 200,000 Improvements to existing 25 MAI09 QBP Scheme Shepway South bus stops Tackling congestion £ 100,000 119 MAI05 Fant Traffic Calming Fant Urban Traffic Calming Improving Accessibility £ 85,000
126 MAI21 Ware Street Zebra Crossing Bearsted Unsignalled Crossing Tackling congestion £ 25,000 Total £ 440,000
Sevenoaks PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref 1 SEV08 Speed Limit (cycle route) - Swanley Swanley White Oak Safety scheme Casualty reduction £ 50,000 Total £ 50,000
Shepway PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref Folkestone Harvey 16 SHE04 Folkestone Pedestrian Improvements West New or improved footway Casualty reduction £ 80,000 Bus Stop Improvements - Route 10/10A Folkestone Harvey Improvement to existing bus Page 47 31 SHE09 (Folkestone to Ashford) Central stop Tackling congestion £ 125,000 Bus Stop Improvements - Route 12/711/712 Folkestone Harvey Improvement to existing bus 32 SHE11 (Folkestone to Dover) Central stop Tackling congestion £ 80,000 Folkestone High Speed Rail Link Station Access Folkestone Harvey 42 SHE17 Improvements West Multi-modal interchange Improving accessibility £ 200,000 Total £ 485,000
Swale PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref 11 SWA06 Homewood Avenue Safer Routes to School Chalkwell Traffic management Casualty reduction £ 100,000 21 SWA15 Marine Parade/Richmond Street SRTS Sheerness East Crash remedial measure Casualty reduction £ 75,000 34 SWA32 Cycle Network improvements - Sittingbourne St Michaels Cycling Tackling congestion £ 60,000 Improvement to existing bus 39 SWA26 Swale-wide bus infrastructure improvements Milton Regis stop Tackling congestion £ 95,000 40 SWA08 Borden Traffic Management Chalkwell Traffic management Casualty reduction £ 50,000 Bell Road refuges by Memorial Hospital, 44 SWA36 Sittingbourne St Michaels Traffic management Casualty reduction £ 15,000 50 SWA33 Sheerness High Street pedestrian refuge Sheerness East Crash remedial measure Casualty reduction £ 10,000
51 SWA20 Priory Row, Davington - Safer Routes to School Davington Priory First 'safe routes’ Casualty reduction £ 15,000 227 SWA19 Lynsted Footway Teynham & Lynsted New or improved footway Improving accessibility £ 100,000 Total £ 520,000
Thanet PIPKIN rank Scheme Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost ref 6 THA25 Cliftonville Primary School SRTS Cliftonville East Unsignalled crossing Casualty reduction £ 100,000 7 THA21 Margate seafront to Drapers Mill Margate Central Cycle track Casualty reduction £ 160,000 8 THA20 Broadstairs Traffic Plan (Phase 2) Viking Toucan or puffin crossing Tackling congestion £ 150,000 Improvement to existing bus 9 THA05 Thanet Quality Bus Partnership Margate Central stop Tackling congestion £ 100,000 23 THA10 Westwood Transport Plan Northwood Road duelling & widening Tackling congestion £ 250,000 Page 48 30 THA14 Pysons Road, Broadstairs St Peters Unsignalled crossing Tackling congestion £ 211,000 37 THA08 Garlinge Primary School - SRTS Garlinge Unsignalled crossing Casualty reduction £ 165,000 41 THA26 Westbrook Avenue/Westgate Bay Avenue, Margate Westgate-on-Sea Unsignalled crossing Casualty reduction £ 190,000 Chilton Primary School SRTS/Nethercourt Hill, 47 THA22 Ramsgate Cliffsend & Pegwell First 'safe routes’ Casualty reduction £ 150,000 Junction improvements for pedestrians - mass New junction/improvement 49 THA24 action plan (Thanet) Dane Valley scheme Casualty reduction £ 20,000 62 THA04 Dane Valley Cycle Routes (Phase 5) Dane Valley Cycle track Tackling congestion £ 111,000 Total £ 1,607,000
Tonbridge & Malling PIPKIN Scheme ref Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost rank A20 & A228 to Kings Hill - bus priority measures 3 TON05 and info imps Aylesford Bus priority scheme Tackling congestion £ 50,000 15 TON14 Tonbridge Station Interchange Judd Multi-modal interchange Tackling congestion £ 40,000 33 TON13 Winterfield Lane - footway East Malling New or improved footway Tackling congestion £ 200,000 Total £ 290,000
Tunbridge Wells PIPKIN Scheme ref Description Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost rank Urban Traffic Management & Control (UTMC) 2 TUW01 Tunbridge Wells Pantiles & St Marks Bus infrastructure scheme Tackling congestion £ 300,000 A26 Pembury Road - Linked Signalised junctions Southborough & 4 TUW18 with Bus Priority High Brooms Signal upgrading Casualty reduction £ 50,000 Longfield Road 'Great Lodge' junction Southborough 26 TUW17 improvements North Junction improvement Tackling congestion £ 50,000 35 TUW14 A264 Langton Road Cycleway Rusthall Cycle lane Tackling congestion £ 150,000 Total £ 550,000
Countywide PIPKIN Scheme ref Description District/Ward Scheme Type Scheme Objective Cost rank
Page 49 Ashford, Stanhope/ 12 STT09 QBP Kickstart Scheme (Ashford, Thanet, Swale) Countywide Bus infrastructure Tackling congestion £ 1,627,000 Urban Traffic Control 18 ITT01 Traffic Management Centre Development Countywide (installations) Tackling congestion £ 250,000 29 ITT03 Kent Bus Tracking System West Kent Countywide Bus priority Tackling congestion £ 100,000 92 STT08 Smart Card Compliant Ticket Machines Countywide Bus infrastructure Tackling congestion £ 1,000,000 Improvements to existing 94 STT01 Public Transport Information Strategy Countywide bus stops Tackling congestion £ 250,000 Platinum School Travel Plans - Off highway 142 STT02 infrastructure Countywide School travel plans Tackling congestion £ 100,000 160 STT03 Upgrading pedestrian crossing points Countywide Walking Improving accessibility £ 100,000 - Top slice Reactive drop kerbs Countywide Unsignalled crossing Improving accessibility £ 50,000 - Top slice CRMs fastrack for quick delivery Countywide Crash remedial measure Casualty reduction £ 50,000 - Top slice Pedestrian Crossing (8 sites) Countywide Crash remedial measure Casualty reduction £ 500,000 Total £ 4,027,000 TOTAL Countywide Allocation 2009/10: £ 9,949,000
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 50 Agenda Item 9
Nethercourt & Chilton Area Ramsgate highway improvement scheme: Consultation Results To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board, 12 th March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste
By: Head of Transport and Development, Kent Highway Services
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Nethercourt Division: Ramsgate
Summary: This report informs Members of the results of the consultation for the proposed highway improvement scheme for Canterbury Road East, Nethercourt Hill and High Street St Lawrence, Ramsgate.
For Decision
1. Introduction
1.1 Kent Highway Services (KHS) are promoting a scheme to make improvements to Canterbury Road East, Nethercourt Hill and High Street St Lawrence in Ramsgate. At the September 2008 meeting of this JTB, drawing number EK00314-L was approved for consultation purposes.
1.2 The proposals for a series of pedestrian refuge islands, kerb build outs, central road hatching and associated parking restrictions were consulted upon during February 2009. A consultation pack was distributed to local residents and businesses on Canterbury Road East, Kendal Close, Nethercourt Hill, High Street St Lawrence, Southwood Gardens and the entry to Ashburnham Road and Chapel Lane. Key organisations, the emergency services and the relevant District and County Councillors were also consulted as well as Chilton Primary School and the Nethercourt & Southwood Residents Association. The KM also ran an article and provided contact details should anyone else wish to be sent a consultation pack.
1.3 The purpose of the consultation was to provide local residents, businesses and key organisations, including the emergency services, with the opportunity to express their level of support for the scheme proposals and provide input in to the detailed design.
2. Consultation Results
2.1 A total of 63 responses were received after over 350 consultation packs were distributed to residents and businesses in the vicinity of the proposals and key organisations. The question was asked “do you understand and support the need for the proposed highway improvements for the Nethercourt & Chilton area of Ramsgate”. Of the 63 respondents, a total of 55 replied “yes” to this question (or indicated their support in a letter) and 1 respondent replied “no”. Of the remaining seven, 2 responded that they understood but did not support the proposals, 4 thought the proposals as consulted upon did not satisfactorily deal with the issues and 1 respondent objected to the proposals. During the time of this consultation, 2
Page 51
additional independent letters were received by Kent Highway Services from residents requesting crossing facilities be provided on Canterbury Road East.
2.2 The results of the consultation have been summarised and considered. This can be seen in Addendum 1.
2.3 A file of all the responses is available at this meeting of the JTB for Members inspection.
2.4 Where feasible the comments and suggestions made through the consultation have been taken into consideration through the detailed design process. In general Kent Highway Services have had a very encouraging response from local residents and a high level of understanding and support for the scheme has been demonstrated. Naturally there were concerns and a number of useful suggestions have been made through the consultation process. A revised drawing can be seen in Addendum 2. A larger colour copy will be available at the meeting on 12 th March 2009. The measures now proposed are subject to safety audit approval.
3. Conclusion
3.1 The results of the consultation have been very encouraging and positive comments and suggestions have led to improvements to the scheme design.
4. Recommendation
4.1 It is recommended that Members note the results of the consultation, and approve the revised drawing EK00314(con) Rev A for detailed design and construction.
Contact Officers:
Kelly Garrett Transport Planner 08458 247 800 (Thanet & Canterbury)
Background Papers
The Consultation responses are on display for Members Inspection. Addendum 1 – Results of the Consultation Addendum 2 – Revised Scheme Drawing No. EK00314(con) Rev A.
Page 52
Addendum 1
Consultation Comment Response A reasonable number of respondents Prior to commencing design work KHS have made requests for a Pelican conducted pedestrian counts, one of which crossing on Canterbury Road East by took place by Kendal Close at & near the Kendal Close instead of the proposed location of the School Crossing Patrol. A island and kerb build outs. This is total of 165 pedestrians were counted where the School Crossing Patrol is crossing here in a 12 hour period (0700- located, when one is present 1900 on a week day during term time in (attendance by a SCP is irregular). May). This is a relatively low figure and unfortunately does not justify the additional and significant expenditure on a signal controlled crossing. One reason against the proposed island and build out is that the School Crossing Patrol will not be able to work from it. This would also be true of a Pelican crossing because the lollipop stop sign may contradict the traffic signals. Following the consultation I have instead investigated the possibility of providing a zebra crossing at this location. This is now featured on the revised scheme drawing. A considerable number of respondents KHS is in the process of conducting a County have made requests for a reduction in wide review of speed limits on ‘A’ & ‘B’ roads the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph on and is considering them for their suitability. As Canterbury Road East, Nethercourt Hill part of the review, speed limits in the Thanet and London Road. area are due to be considered this year and Canterbury Road East, Nethercourt Hill and London Road will be included. The physical measures being proposed by this scheme whilst assisting pedestrian movements will also have a traffic calming effect. Reductions in speed limits are not usually supported by the Police unless they are self enforcing. Having the proposed measures in place would be likely to strengthen the case for a lower speed limit on these 3 roads. Some respondents have questioned the Some parking restrictions are necessary to necessity for and extent of the proposed maintain the required carriageway width when parking restrictions (Double Yellow the measures are implemented. The parking Lines). Some of the respondents think restrictions have changed to suit the new they are unnecessary and will result in proposals. A minimum level of parking parking being displaced to less suitable restriction is already proposed for Nethercourt areas. Hill so it is not possible to reduce this further. Some respondents have suggested that Given the number of vehicular accesses to an additional pedestrian refuge island properties it is difficult to get an island in at would be welcome by the new this location. However I am currently residential flats on High Street St investigating with the owners the possibility of Lawrence to assist pedestrian altering the accesses to the public house to movements and reduce vehicle speeds allow for an island. Assuming a positive by physically preventing vehicles from outcome of this feasibility investigation, an using the central hatching instead of additional pedestrian refuge island will be slowing down for the bend. provided here. Page 53
Residents in the vicinity of the proposed Prior to any construction all turning kerb build outs and islands are movements from accesses in the vicinity of concerned that there will not be the proposed measures will be checked. All sufficient space to adequately and safely have however been designed to the allow vehicular access too and from appropriate design and safety standards. driveways and the camp site. A couple of respondents have The proposed measures will encourage suggested traffic calming at the slower vehicle speeds on Nethercourt Hill and Nethercourt Circus roundabout. Canterbury Road East and therefore on these approaches to the roundabout. It has been suggested that parking This can be included in the Traffic Regulation restrictions also be included on the Order if considered necessary. London Road approach to the Nethercourt Circus roundabout. It was suggested that the build outs and Apart from the site that is already being islands and double yellow lines be considered outside the new flats there are continued in High Street St Lawrence. already a series of build outs, pedestrian islands and double yellow lines at junctions in High Street St Lawrence. It has been requested that double yellow Some parking will now be maintained on lines proposed for Kendal Close extend Canterbury Road East reducing the likelihood further into Kendal Close than proposed, of displaced parking. Whilst eliminating to remove nuisance and inconsiderate Pierremonts nuisance parking, any additional parking from Pierremonts the garage. parking restrictions may receive objections from other residents of Kendal Close particularly if considering visitor parking. One resident has requested traffic lights This is considered too excessive. by the public house in High Street St Lawrence as well as a one way in Chapel Road and speed humps Some respondents welcome the double Parking restrictions proposed for junctions will yellow lines at the junctions as this will be implemented subject to advertisement of improve visibility. the Traffic Regulation Orders. Some respondents have made Subject to approval from this JTB, KHS will welcoming comments regarding this progress with the detailed design and scheme and feel that it has been long construction. overdue.
Page 54
Addendum 2
Page 55
Page 56
Agenda Item 10
Fair Trade Signs at Thanet District Entrances
To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board – 12th March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: Highway
By: Kent Highway Services Signs, Lines & Barrier Manager and Thanet District Council Highway Inspector
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward:
Summary: Request for the Fairtrade mark to be used on traffic signs at Thanet district entrances and the reasons why this is not permissible
For Information
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 On 14 th January Rachel Best was sent an email from Transport and Development whereby Thanet District Council were requesting new non-standard traffic signs to promote Fairtrade in Thanet. This request was forwarded to Rachel Best to obtain a KCC policy reply as Signs, Lines and Barrier Manager for Kent Highway Services (KHS).
1.2 The request was being raised by Cllr Martin Wise on behalf of Tammy Stewart-Jones, Thanet Fairtrade promoter. Thanet District Council were requesting signs to be placed at a strategic location on each of the entrances into Thanet. This request was made as the Fairtrade Foundation awarded permission for all areas within the UK with Fairtrade status can use their identity on traffic signs with a strapline: “Guarantees a better deal for Third World Producers”. Rachel Best contacted the Department for Transport (DfT) and has received a formal policy response from them. They have not permitted the use of this logo on traffic signs and consider it to be advertising. However, some towns in the UK have taken the decision to permit the use of this logo and traffic signs have already been installed, although they are unlawful signs.
1.3 The DfT contacted the Fairtrade Foundation after Rachel Best forwarded them a copy of their publications and potential sign designs. This was the first the DfT had been made aware of this matter. DfT explained to Fairtrade Foundation that it was not possible and incorrect of them to make these statements and designs in relation to traffic signs as it makes the traffic sign unlawful. The Fairtrade Foundation have agreed to retract the use of the Mark on traffic signs and also retracted the possible sign designs they also published.
1.4 The issue was referred to KCC’s Cabinet Member for Highways, Environment and Waste, who instructed KHS to comply with DfT guidelines.
1.5 Following further conversation with Thanet District Council, as the proposed new signs will not be acceptable to the DfT and do not comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002), further consultation is carried out with Thanet District Council to establish a possible way forward for separate signs to be erected, subject to full planning permission and agreement with Kent Highways.
Page 57
1.6 Should Thanet District Council still require boundary signs, designed in accordance with the TSRGD 2002, to be placed at strategic entrances to Thanet this matter be taken forward separately.
ENDS
Contact Officer: Rachel Best, Signs, Lines & Barriers Manager Reporting to: Norman Bateman, Head of Technical Services Contact Officer: Michael Bates, Thanet District Council Highway Inspector Reporting to: Bob Spicer, Streetscene Manager
Background Papers
Use the table below to insert details of background papers
Title Details of where to access copy
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Name the officers consulted in the drafting of the report
Finance Legal
Page 58
Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60 Agenda Item 11
HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME 2008/09
To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board – 12 March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways & Waste
By: Acting Director of Kent Highway Services
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: All Division : All
Summary: This report updates members on the identified schemes approved for construction in 2008/09.
For Information
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 This report gives members the current position on the identified schemes that were approved for construction in 2008/09.
2.0 Road Surface Treatments
2.1 Microsurfacing - See Annex A1 Thin surfacing - See Annex A2 Other surfacing - See Annex A3 Surface Dressing - See Annex A4 High Friction Surfacing - See Annex A5
3.0 Highway Maintenance Schemes
3.1 Carriageway Schemes - see Annex B1 Footway Schemes - see Annex B2 Drainage/Other Schemes - see Annex B3 Street Lighting Schemes - see Annex B4 Highway Strengthening Schemes - see Annex B5
4.0 Local Transport Plan Budget 2008/09
4.1 Local Transport Plan Funded Schemes - see Annex C1 Public Rights of Way (LTP Funded) – see Annex C2 Developer Funded Schemes (Delivered by KHS) - see Annex C3
5.0 Other Works
5.1 Bridge Works - see Annex D1 District Council Funded Schemes - see Annex D2 County Member Funded Works - see Annex D3
Page 61 Major Capital Projects - see Annex D4
6.0 Options
6.1 This report is for Members’ information
7.0 Corporate Implications
7.1 Financial 7.1.1 All of the measures are being carried out from KCC budgets.
7.2 Legal 7.2.1 None identified.
7.3 Corporate 7.3.1 None identified.
7.4 Equity and Equalities 7.4.1 None identified.
8.0 Recommendation
8.1 This report is for Members’ information
9.0 Decision Making Process
9.1 This report is for Members’ information
Contact Officers:
Dennis Button Community Delivery Manager 01233 614034 Gary Peak Local Transport Schemes Team Leader 01233 614094 Toby Howe Strengthening & Resurfacing Schemes Manager 01233 614145
Background Papers
None.
File: Works Progress 2008_09.doc
Page 62 ANNEX A – ROAD SURFACE TREATMENTS
ANNEX A1 – MICROSURFACING: 5 – 15mm depth Location Description Status Grenville Gardens Birchington Full Length Completed Grenham Road Birchington Lyell Road – Sea View Completed Road The Retreat Birchington Full Length Completed Hundreds Close Westgate Full Length Completed Linksfield Road Westgate Full Length Completed Minster Road Westgate Full Length Completed Hatfield Road Ramsgate Full Length Completed Grosvenor Hill Margate Full Length Completed Clarence Avenue Cliftonville Full Length Completed Margate Headcorn Gardens Palm Bay Full Length Completed Margate Reading Street Road St. Full Length Completed Peter’s St. Mildred’s Full Length Completed Avenue/Grosvenor Road Broadstairs Lanthorne Road Broadstairs Full Length Completed Warren Drive Broadstairs Full Length Completed Rhodes Gardens Broadstairs Full Length Completed Collingwood Close Westgate Full Length Completed
ANNEX A2 – THIN SURFACING: 15 – 24mm depth Location Description Status N/A N/A N/A
ANNEX A3 – OTHER SURFACING: 24 – 100mm depth Location Description Status Cliff Terrace/Eastern Zion Place – Godwin Road Completed Esplanade
ANNEX A4 – SURFACE DRESSING: 5 – 15mm depth Location Description Status Old Road Sarre Full Length Completed
ANNEX A5 – HIGH FRICTION SURFACING Location Description Status Canterbury Road Westgate Approach to Pedestrian Completed February Crossing at Golf club Albion Road St. Peter’s J/w Church Street Completed February Approach to Zebra Crossing (Both directions) George V Avenue Margate J/w A28 Canterbury Road Completed
Page 63 ANNEX B – HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE SCHEMES
ANNEX B2 – FOOTWAY SCHEMES Location Description Status Westbrook Avenue, Margate Rancorn Road West Completed to Rancorn Road East Northcliffe Gardens Broadstairs Full Length Deferred to 2009/10 Ashburnham Road Ramsgate High Street St. Deferred to 2009/10 Lawrence – Southwood Road
2010 – FOOTWAY SCHEMES Location Description Status Fort Crescent Margate Between Trinity Programmed March 2009 Square junctions (South Side only) Marine Terrace Margate All Saints Avenue – On site Marine Gardens (South Side only) Northdown Road Cliftonville Devonshire Gardens – Programmed March 2009 Margate Northumberland Avenue
ANNEX B3 – DRAINAGE SCHEMES Location Description Status Following analysis, no large schemes are to be carried out this financial year; budgets are being spent on dealing with long standing issues. Locations are being surveyed to develop schemes for next financial year.
ANNEX B4 – STREET LIGHTING SCHEMES
Location Description Status Swinburne Avenue, Broadstairs Column Replacement Yew Tree Gardens, Birchington Column Replacement Spencer Road, Birchington Column Replacement Michelle Gardens, Garlinge Column Replacement St Andrews Close, Margate Column Replacement Lawn Road, Broadstairs Column Replacement High Street, Manston Column Replacement Royal Road, Ramsgate Column Replacement Deferred to 2009/10. The Ridings, Cliftonville Column Replacement Dane Park Road, Margate Column Replacement North Foreland Avenue, Column Replacement Broadstairs Cuthbert Road, Westgate Column Replacement High Street, Margate Column Replacement Marine Gardens Margate Column Replacement College Road, Margate Column Replacement Early 2009 Sea Road, Birchington Column Replacement Early 2009 Northdown Road, Column Replacement Early 2009
ANNEX B5 – HIGHWAY STRENGTHENING SCHEMES Location Description Status None
Page 64
ANNEX C – TRANSPORTATION, PROW & SAFETY SCHEMES
ANNEX C1 – LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN SCHEMES Location Description Status A299 Thorne Hill Nr Minster Junction modification Completed August Bus priority, Victoria traffic lights, Margate pedestrian crossing (Phase 1) phasing changes, Completed August Victoria Traffic Lights, Margate MOVA to enhance (Phase 2) junction operation A299 St Nicholas roundabout Sign rationalisation Deferred to 2009/10 (London approach) Consultation being carried out. New pelican and Phase 1 construction planned Broadstairs Traffic management change of priority at to take place in March/April. Plan (Phase 1) High St/Queens Rd, See separate report to this car park signing Board for more detail. Contribution to Viking Coastal Trail and Connect 2 Phase 1 Contribution Only Crab & Winkle cycle routes Provision of traffic QEQM Hospital Entrance Works programmed for March lights Improvements to St. Duke Street completed Peter's Footpath, February. Turner to Dickens - Strategic route signing, and a St Peters Footpath deferred to walking route (Phase 4) contribution towards 2009/10 due to land works at Duke Street, negotiations Margate CRM - sheep pen on Cecil Square/ Cecil Street, Detailed design being Cecil St. arm of Margate progressed. On Agenda junction CRM - relocation to Harbour Parade, Ramsgate Completed October. crossing arrangement Dane Valley Cycle Routes (Phase Provision of new cycle Carried over to 09/10 and 4) routes combined with Phase 5 A254 QEQM to Westwood cycle route link Works in progress New crossing island VCT - Margate Station link at Canterbury Rd j/w Works in progress Buenos Ayres Pedestrian & Cycle facilities (to A254 Margate Road complement A254 Design work complete. Works (Westwood/Northwood) road widening to be programmed. scheme [developer funded]) Completion of work on Bus Stop Infrastructure the Stars/Loop routes Works in progress Programme and improvements to Routes 8 & 9 Use of MOVA and A254 Inter-urban Corridor Crossing Design work in progress Improvements enhancements to improve flows
Page 65
ANNEX C2 – PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (LTP Funded) Location Description Status TRX1 – Claremont Gardens, Construct new surface Between January 2009 – Ramsgate March 2009 TR29 - Off of Auckland Avenue, Surface repairs Between January 2009 – Newington, Ramsgate March 2009 TB6 – Off of Afghan Road, Construct new surface Between January 2009 – Broadstairs March 2009 TR2 – Off of West Dumpton Lane, Construct new surface Between January 2009 – Broadstairs March 2009 TR3 – Off of Vine Close, Construct new surface Between January 2009 – Broadstairs March 2009
ANNEX C3 – DEVELOPER FUNDED SCHEMES (DELIVERED BY KHS) Location Description Status Detailed design ready to progress, however there is A28/Rancorn Road, Margate Junction modification some doubt whether development will proceed
Page 66 ANNEX D – OTHER WORKS
ANNEX D1 – BRIDGE WORKS
Location Description Status Military Road /Royal Parade, Replacement of balusters. Completed August Ramsgate Seaview Terrace, Margate Strengthen as existing To be reviewed with Thanet retaining wall in poor DC. Earliest start 09/10 condition. Joint scheme with Thanet DC.
ANNEX D2 – DISTRICT COUNCIL FUNDED SCHEMES
Location Description Status None
ANNEX D3 – COUNTY MEMBER FUNDED WORKS
Location Description Status None
ANNEX D4 – MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS
Location Description Budget Status Bus lanes and priority Kent Thameside Fastrack £8M Completed March 2008 measures Bus link between Completed July 2008 but Greenhithe station, Everards Link Phase 2, unavailable until Ingress Park and £5.25M Greenhithe Developer implements Swanscombe next section. Peninsula Statutory Orders confirmed December 2008. Submission to DfT/DCLG for next stage of funding approval. Advance site clearance New route across underway for ecological Sittingbourne Northern Relief Milton Creek between £43M mitigation. Road Ridham Avenue and Tender list being Castle Road selected. Detailed design & contract documentation being progressed. Objective is a main or substantive start in September 2009 SEEDA led scheme. New road between Land secured and A249 Neats Court and Rushenden Relief Road £10M planning conditions Rushenden Road satisfied. bypassing main Road Tenders being assessed.
Page 67 SEEDA securing funding. KCC/SEEDA Agreement to be concluded. Objective is a start in April 2009. Substantial completion Ashford Ring Road 2 way transformation £16M early November 2008. Newtown Road Bridge, Rail bridge deck Completion December £5M Ashford replacement 2008. Design being developed Victoria Way Phase 1 for planning application in Victoria Way, Ashford (link between Victoria £16M summer 2009. Southern Sector: Road and Leacon Awaiting CIF Bid Road) decision. Junction improvements and Design being developed. Drovers roundabout to M20 signalisation and £16M Awaiting RIF Bid Junction 9 footbridge over the decision. M20 Eurokent Phases 4&5, Completion in early Access road £6.75M Thanet November 2008. Land for EDF sub-station secured will allow statutory Orders to be confirmed. Submission to DfT for Scheme to improve next stage of funding remaining sections of approval. East Kent Access Phase 2 £71M A299 and A256 to New pond completed for support East Kent ecological mitigation. Tenders to be returned late March 2009. Objective is a main or substantive start in September 2009. De-dualling completed October 2008. Remaining public realm works to King Street & De-dualling and public Fort Hill, Margate £1M Duke Street close to realm improvements completion. Public realm works to Harbour View about to start. Design being developed. Negotiations underway to secure significant area of replacement newt habitat. Borough Green & Platt £16M Subject to progress on Bypass above, the objective is to submit a planning application in July/August 2009.
Page 68 Provision of missing Design being developed. slip roads on A2 at Objective is public A2 Slips, Canterbury £1.5M Harbledown, consultation in spring Wincheap and Bridge 2009.
Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 70 Agenda Item 12
St Peters Road, Margate – Experimental Traffic Order
To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board – 12 March 2009
Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste
By: KHS Head of Transport & Development
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Margate and Cliftonville
Summary: To consider the impact of an Experimental Traffic Order in St Peters Road, Margate, and to take the decision to make or revoke the Order.
For Decision
1.0 Introduction
1.1 On 25 September 2008 a report was presented to this Board, outlining bus stop improvements in St Peters Road, Margate, and an associated Experimental Traffic Order. This report is contained within Addendum 1.
1.2 At the meeting, the Board resolved that recommendation 5.1.3 be supported. The minutes of the meeting are contained within Addendum 2.
2.0 Experimental Traffic Order
2.1 The Experimental Traffic Order (the single yellow line) is due to expire 18 months after its introduction. This will be on 29 April 2009.
2.2 It was introduced with the main intention to assist the passage of buses. The first six months of the Order constituted the consultation period. The Highway Authority has the remaining 12 months to decide whether to make or revoke the Order.
2.3 The previous report demonstrated that the Order had not provided any benefit for the buses. On the balance of the responses receive during the six month consultation period, the recommendation was to revoke the Order. In the light of representations made by the owner of the adjacent Nursing Home, it was further recommended to shorten the length of the clearway so that it did not impact upon his frontage.
2.4 In respect of the issues directly associated with the introduction of the bus stop and associated clearway, no additional matters have come to light since September.
3.0 Additional requests for parking restrictions
3.1 The Nursing Home has requested additional double yellow lines. Members have also referred to requests from other residents in the locality.
3.2 As per recommendation 5.1.3, these requests have been referred to Kent County Council’s Parking Manager. She has advised that during this current year, all
Page 71
requests for double yellow lines are being collated across the whole County. It is anticipated that there will be in excess of 300 individual requests and site investigations to consider.
3.3 Each location will cost approximately £1,200 to progress. Therefore, to make the best possible use of taxpayers’ money, an annual Traffic Regulation Review will take place in the 12 different districts of Kent each year in February. This will take place after consultation with the emergency services, to prioritise these requests. Reports will then be made to each JTB in the early part of the year, to request funding approval for the next financial year.
3.4 Unfortunately there was not a budget to progress additional double yellow line requests this year. The budget for the bus stop improvements can only extend to making or revoking the Experimental Traffic Order.
3.5 Therefore the additional requests for parking restrictions will need to go through the process outlined in 3.3 above.
4.0 Discussion
4.1 The Experimental Traffic Order was introduced on 29 October 2007. It must be made or revoked by 29 April 2009.
4.2 It will not be possible to progress the additional requests for parking restrictions in this locality before the end of April, as per the Countywide process outlined in 3.3.
4.3 The Experimental Traffic Order was promoted through its potential benefit to the bus service. It can only be substantiated through a demonstrable benefit in this respect. In the intervening period since the last report in September, no additional information has come to light that would suggest that the Experimental Traffic Order is providing a benefit to the bus service.
4.4 In the light of the points made in 4.1 to 4.3 above, there would appear to be no alternative other than to revoke the Experimental Traffic Order.
5.0 Recommendation
5.1 Subject to the views of this Board, it is recommended;
(1) to revoke the Experimental Traffic Order in St Peters Road, Margate, and to reduce the existing bus stop clearway in size, as per the recommended layout shown in Addendum 3;
(2) to refer all other requests for parking restrictions in this locality to the annual Traffic Regulation Review, as detailed in 3.3 above.
Contact Officer: Steve Darling, Transportation Planner, Kent Highway Services (08458) 247800
Background Papers
Addendum 1 - Previous Thanet JTB Report – 25 September 2009 Addendum 2 - Minutes of the JTB Meeting dated 25 September 2009 Addendum 3 - Plan showing recommended layout
Page 72
Addendum 1
Previous Thanet JTB report - 25 September 2009
Page 73
St Peters Road, Margate – Experimental Traffic Order
To: Thanet Joint Transportation Board – 25 September 2008
Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste
By: KHS Head of Transport & Development
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Margate and Cliftonville
Summary: To consider the impact of an Experimental Traffic Order in St Peters Road, Margate, and to take the decision to make or revoke the Order.
For Decision
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The A255 St Peters Road is the primary road between Margate and Broadstairs.
1.2 It is a single carriageway road for its entire length. The section between the B2052 College Road and the A254 Ramsgate Road is relatively narrow for a road of its class, and on-street parking means that vehicles have to give way to oncoming traffic in an informal manner.
1.3 It is classified in the highest category of Traffic Sensitivity – Category A – which means for every day of the week between 7am and 7pm.
2.0 Background
2.1 A new bus stop was requested by residents in this locality, and a post and bus stop flag were erected in October 2005 outside The Vicarage. This stop is serviced by new easy access low- floor buses, as a part of the ‘Thanet Stars’ service no. 34, which runs on a 15 minute frequency between 7am and 7pm from Monday to Saturday.
2.2 Kent Highway Services (KHS) has an ongoing programme of introducing raised kerb ‘boarders’, to facilitate access to the new buses for wheelchair users, pushchairs, and the elderly / infirm. In order to allow the buses to pull in beside the boarder, it was necessary to implement an associated ‘bus stop clearway’, in order to keep an area clear from parking so that this can occur. KHS undertook this work in July 2007.
2.3 A series of permanent parking restrictions are already in place in St Peters Road. In the section that is the subject of this report (between Alma Road and Sussex Avenue), on the southern side there are double yellow lines and a bus stop clearway. On the northern side, there are double yellow lines extending 15 metres from the junctions with the side roads of Alma Road and Sussex Avenue.
2.4 In theory, this allows on-street parking over a length of 60 metres. However, half of this length is mainly given over to vehicular crossovers, with one on-street parking space squeezed in between two of the crossovers.
2.5 On the southern side of the road, opposite the section of vehicular crossovers, there is a nursing home. This establishment receives deliveries on a regular basis, when the delivery vehicle legitimately can wait on the double yellow lines to unload.
Page 74
2.6 Representations were received from the nursing home owner that the combination of the above can lead to delays to traffic on the A255 St Peters Road whilst deliveries are taking place, or buses are stopping at the bus stop, especially when vehicles are parked on the opposite side of the road.
3.0 Experimental Traffic Order
3.1 A site meeting was carried out on 28 August 2007, with representatives of Kent Highway Services, Thanet District Council, Stagecoach East Kent, the owner of the nursing home, and one of the County members for Margate & Cliftonville.
3.2 At this meeting, it was proposed that in order to ease the throughflow of traffic on this section of road for the buses, additional parking restrictions could be trialled.
3.3 The bus service and the nursing home deliveries only take place during the peak daytime period. This is also the time when St Peters Road is designated as ‘traffic sensitive’.
3.4 It was therefore proposed that the parking restriction could be in the form of a single yellow line, with restricted hours of operation. For consistency, it is preferable for such restrictions to conform to a standard period. In Thanet, this is deemed to be 8am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday.
3.5 Although it is intended to be beneficial for traffic flow and the punctuality of the bus service, the effect of introducing this parking restriction could not be accurately foreseen. As such, an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was proposed. This would allow the single yellow line to be in place for a 6 month ‘trial’ period. During this time, its impact would be monitored, and representations could be made in support of, or in objection to, the proposals. At the end of the 6 month period, a decision would be made whether to make the Order permanent, or to remove the Order.
3.6 A plan of the original proposals is shown in Addendum 1. Photographs indicating the extent of the original proposals are included in Addendum 2.
4.0 Discussion
4.1 The ETO was introduced on 29 October 2007, for a minimum period of 6 months.
4.2 KHS has received three responses to the advertisement of the ETO.
4.3 The first was a petition signed by 19 residents immediately affected by the introduction of the ETO, in objection to the proposals.
4.4 The second was from Stagecoach East Kent, who stated that the single yellow line had made no noticeable difference to the punctuality of the bus service; and as such, they had no strong views as to its retention or removal.
4.5 The third was from a solicitor representing the nursing home, asking for the bus stop to be removed.
4.6 The ETO was specifically related to the bus stop and bus movement. As can be seen from the response from Stagecoach, from their perspective the ETO has had no impact.
4.7 The ETO appears to have had a negative impact upon the local residents whose properties front the single yellow line, particularly for three residents who hold disabled parking badges.
4.8 A site meeting was arranged in April 2008 between KHS representatives (including a safety audit team), and representatives of Thanet District Council and Stagecoach, to discuss the request made by the nursing home in 4.5 above.
Page 75
4.9 It was firstly clarified that the bus stop was introduced due to public demand, and a usage survey carried out on 7 March 2008 demonstrated that people are boarding and alighting at this stop. Stagecoach would therefore object to its removal, as it would be a restraint of their business. This course of action would also be contradictory to a number of objectives contained within the County Council’s Local Transport Plan, and would be detrimental to the local amenity in removing a facility that is used by residents. As such, the request made in 4.5 does not appear to be a reasonable option, considering the detriment that it would cause in proportion to the public benefit of the stop remaining in situ.
4.10 At the above mentioned site meeting, the possibility of relocating the bus stop was considered. It was agreed by all present that the current location represents the best option, both in terms of safety and convenience for bus users. It should be noted that the bus stop was in place for nearly two years prior to the introduction of the bus boarder and clearway, without adverse comment. It is therefore considered that the relocation of this stop is not a reasonable option, having considered the public benefit of having a bus stop in the locality.
4.11 The possibility of amending the length of the clearway was also discussed. The existing length is the preferred specification for the types of buses currently using this route. However, in view of the business needs of the nursing home, it was considered that a relaxation in standards is acceptable in this specific case. It was noted that the clearway could be shortened so that it starts at the boundary between the nursing home and The Vicarage. The proposed new layout is shown in Addendum 6, and was presented to the nursing home as the most suitable compromise for the locality.
4.12 A further response was received from the nursing home’s solicitor, regarding the suggested compromise. A detailed explanation of their business needs was given, as a prelude to their own proposal:
(1) Acceptance of the retention of the bus stop, and the associated shortening of the clearway; (2) Double yellow lines on the opposite side of the road outside 15-25 St Peters Road, to facilitate movement in and out of their drive; (3) Designated loading bays across and adjacent to their own driveways.
4.13 The acceptance of the new bus stop clearway arrangements detailed in 4.11 is welcomed; however the suggested proposals outlined in (2) and (3) above cannot be dealt with under the existing ETO for the following reasons:
(a) Double yellow lines are more restrictive than the single yellow lines that were promoted and advertised through the ETO, and as such cannot be introduced under this current Order. (b) The ETO was specifically related to facilitating bus movement on the A255. Its purpose was not to deal with the business needs of the nursing home. The revised length of the clearway ensures that the buses do not stop on the frontage of the nursing home, and therefore do not impede movement in and out of the nursing home’s driveway.
4.14 In summary, it is considered that the ETO has not had a significant enough impact upon bus service punctuality to warrant retention of the parking restrictions introduced on an experimental basis outside nos. 15 to 25 St Peters Road.
4.15 A compromise solution involving the reduction in standards for the bus stop clearway has been put forward. Additional operational matters raised by the nursing home are beyond the scope of the current ETO.
5.0 Recommendation
5.1 Subject to the views of this Board, it is recommended;
Page 76
(1) to approve the intention to revoke the Experimental Traffic Order in St Peters Road, Margate;
(2) to approve the intention to reduce the existing bus stop clearway in size;
(3) that in respect of the issues raised in 4.12(2) and 4.12(3), to forward the representations of the nursing home owner on to Kent County Council’s Parking Manager, for separate consideration as a part of the Countywide Annual Review of Traffic Regulation Orders.
5.2 The recommendations are summarised in the plan shown in Addendum 3.
6.0 Decision Making Process
6.1 The Highway Authority can introduce an Experimental Traffic Order without the need for formal Committee assent; however, the final decision to make or revoke the Order does require such approval.
Contact Officer: Steve Darling, Transportation Planner, Kent Highway Services (08458) 247800
Page 77
Addendum 2
Minutes of the JTB meeting dated 25 September 2009
R127 ST PETERS ROAD, MARGATE: EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC ORDER
Mr Smith reported that the bus stop had been requested by the community in the locality. He also said that the solicitor for the Nursing Home had asked for the bus stop to be removed. Mr Smith said that he had received nineteen objections from those residents immediately affected by the Experimental Traffic Order. He reported that Stagecoach had not expressed any strong views.
Cllr Wells said that he knew the owner of the nursing home and that he had been lobbied by the nursing home. Cllr Wells said that the bus stop was affecting ambulance access into and out of the home’s premise especially in case of emergency. He said that the experimental traffic order had not been effectively enforced as only one ticket had been issued in the six months of the trial period. Cllr Wells said that the nursing home was experiencing restriction of trade.
Cllr Wells offered to demonstrate his point by showing a DVD to which Members said yes and Cllr Poole objected. The DVD failed to play. Cllr Johnston said that there was need for more consultation on the issue of the bus stop. Cllr Campbell asked what the recommendations were to which Mr Smith said that the recommendations were based on the experiment carried out and had been included in the report he had presented.
Cllr Hibberd asked whether short-wheel base buses could be used. Mr Darling then said that the clearway is always longer than the bus to allow the bus to pull in along the kerb and that the clearway is always standard.
Cllr Burgess then moved recommendation 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 Cllr Johnston seconded.
Cllr Wells then said that there had not been enough time for consultation and that enforcement of the yellow line had not been effectively done. Cllr Clark declared his personal interest. He then said that there was need for traffic calming on that road. Cllr Johnston said that the whole parking situation should be looked into. Cllr Wells suggested that the consultation should be given more time.
Cllr Johnston said that Members should approve recommendation 5.1.3 alone and go for more consultation. Cllr Wells asked for information regarding the length of the Experimental Traffic Order to which Dennis Button said that the order was for eighteen months.
Cllr Wells then moved the recommendation 5.1.3 Cllr Campbell seconded.
Page 78
Addendum 3
Plan showing recommended layout
Page 79
Page 80 Agenda Item 13
Report to Highways Advisory Board 11 November 2008, 6 January 2009 and 3 March 2009
A report by the Acting Director of Kent Highway Services to the Thanet Joint Transportation Board on 12 March 2009
Introduction
Attached are reports to the Highways Advisory Board presented:
11 November 2008
Item 11 Decriminalised Parking
6 January 2009
Item 3 Minutes – 11 November 2008 Item 6 Enforcement by Motorcycle Patrols – One Year Pilot Scheme Item 7 Concrete Roads Item 8 Kent Design Guide – Interim Guidance Notes prepared as a response to the publication of Manual for Streets and Planning
3 March 2009
Item 3 Minutes - 6 January 2009 Item 4 Kent Highway Services - Director’s Update Item 5 Future Working Relationships with EDF Item 6 Capital Road Maintenance Programme 2009/10 Item 8 Kent Permit Scheme Update Item 9 Public Transport Developments, Funding and Initiatives Item 10 Results from the Highway Tracker Survey 2008 Item 11 Progress Report on Major Capital Projects
______
Contract Officer
Dennis Button Community Delivery Manager Telephone: 01233 614034
Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 82 Agenda Item 13 Annex 1 ITEM 11 Decriminalised ParkingParking:: The Traffic Management Act 2004 Changes to lllegislationlegislation and revision of the DistrictDistrict/Borough/Borough Agency Agreements
A report by the Kent Parking Manager to the Highways Advisory Board on 11 November 2008 ______
Introduction
1. The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Part 6) Civil Enforcement of Parking took effect in April 2008, introducing new legislation and statutory requirements for all local authorities in England and Wales.
2. Within Kent, the 12 District/Borough and City Councils are responsible for the practical application of parking policy within Agency Agreements negotiated between the County Council and the 12 District/Borough authorities. This report summarises the current situation with regard to the Agency Agreements and the management of parking and provides information as to the future arrangements between the 12 District/Borough Councils and Kent County Council.
Background Information
3. Currently, the 12 District/Borough Councils carry out the functions for on-street parking on behalf of the County Council under 12 individual Agency Agreements. However, under new legislation contained within the Traffic Management Act 2004, Kent County Council are now fully liable and responsible for meeting the requirements of the Traffic Management Act and may be audited by the Department for Transport with regard to meeting the necessary obligations under this new legislation.
4. The current Agency Agreements were negotiated with each individual District /Borough Council between 1997 and 2001, dependent upon when each District/Borough Council took on powers under decriminalisation and were written under previous legislation relating to The Road Traffic Act 1984 and The Road Traffic Act 1991.
Future Proposals
5. As a result of the changes in legislation due to the advent of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the associated Network Management Duties, the 12 current Agency Agreements are no longer legally fit for purpose and may leave both the County Council and the District/Borough authorities open to challenge by a Member of the Public, possible judicial review or potential intervention by the Department for Transport acting on behalf of the Secretary for State. It is therefore necessary to fully review the current Agency Agreements with all the 12 District/Borough authorities.
6. Although all District/Borough Councils across Kent work closely together with regard to best practice, there still remains a wide variation in the way parking is enforced across the County of Kent. This causes unnecessary confusion for the general public, residents and visitors to the County. Coupled with the new statutory responsibilities of Kent County Council brought about by the Traffic Management Act 2004, it is proposed that the current Agency Agreements are renegotiated with all 12 District/Borough Councils to allow the opportunity for consistent management procedures with regard to parking requirements in Kent and to ensure that Kent County Council meet all statutory requirements necessitated by the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Page11.1 83 Decriminalised Parking: The Traffic Management Act 2004 Changes to legislation and revision of the District/Borough Agency Agreements ______
7. It is proposed that the new Agency Agreements will operate alongside a Local Operating Agreement containing required policies, procedures and actions which will allow Kent County Council to meet its statutory requirements under the Traffic Management Act 2004 as well as allowing for new innovations to be put into place to assist in the efficient enforcement of on-street parking controls across the County.
8. Any future changes to legislation will only require the rewriting of the Local Operating Agreement. This will prevent unnecessary delays in renegotiating the Agreements and no longer leave the County Council or any of the 12 District/Borough authorities in a position where they may be subject to a legal challenge whilst negotiations take place.
9. Due to changes in legislation it is necessary to commence immediate renegotiations of the 12 Agency Agreements between the County Council and the District/Borough authorities. A report was submitted to the Leaders and Chief Executives of the 12 District/Borough authorities on 22 September 2008 requesting agreement to the full renegotiation of the current Agency Agreements and the introduction of a Local Operating Agreement within each District/Borough Council. The 12 District/Borough Leaders and Chief Executives instructed Kent County Council to commence negotiations with no further delay.
Recommendation
10. Members are asked to note the content of this report.
Accountable Officer: Lorna Day, Kent Parking Manager, KHS Network Management 01622 693718
Page11.2 84 AgendaAgenda Item Item 133 Annex 2 ! ! ! ! "" #$$%& '() * +! , *- . +! / ! ! (0 ! / 1 ! (' ! (' ! 2( * / 1 +! '- 1 !( 3 !( & 45'()4 2 ) * 2 6 +! 2 * 3 72 3 +!42 *6 ' 1 +! * 5 3 +! 36 * +! 8 *2 +! ' *( +! ' * 3 +! 2 * 3 6 +& ! " ! ! #$ %# ! %! & ' ( " & ! % ' *"+ 0 9*#+ ": 3 #$$%! 3 ' 33 ! 3 3 & 4 3 1; ! ! 3 & *#+ 3 & *9+ ! 1 ' : M ' 4 ' 1 M 3 3 ' 33 & ) * !+,- %# )../ (54-2 ": 3 #$$% &
Page 1 85 0 ! " '!+)..1 (54-2 #$$=! ! & 2 '&3$ 4 !+& R!-( ! *"+ ' 3 3 1 3 3 2 ! 6 & 1 1 ! > 2 ! , ? / ! 2 & 3 2 & *#+ 2 3 ). • 0 • 1 • 2 3 3 , 6 • 20 6 7 % $7 8+ *-( - ' !! " #$%&' $ ! *"+ 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 53 1& 3 3 & *#+ ). % !!!!% 9 6 3 3 3 * @ + 53 1 6 7 3 & "A & 3 "2 3 33 > > & * 4$:(! ' 9 4 B @ M > 3 3 3 1 & 3 3 3 2 &3 3 / & 3 > @ & 3 3 0 &
*9+ 3 3 1 ! 1 1 1 ! ' 2 ! !6 ' !6 0 7( !
PagePage 86 2
& 3 & *A+ 3 & , ' ' &"" ! " ! ! !& ;! (! ( #$%)!$ *+,!& %-!. /! &'$)#0*/ !!% ! *"+ 3 3 4 3 O 8- 4 R P& 1 3 6 30 3 & *#+ 4 6? 3 ! 3 , & 8- 1 1& 8 - < R!= > & ' ) . ; ! ! ! !3 1& *9+ 3 3 . & , 4 & B 3 *3 "==$+ 3 1&2 1 "=%$R! 1 333 >3 & 3 3 4 . 1 & * -- > ?..($ + 1 3 1& *A+ ' 3 8- "=%$R& ! 1 3 3 3 F&G *> 3 + ! Q3 3 R & 4 3 3 > 3 & 4 & " ! " $ ! ! M !( ! !& * $ * R! &% M 8- 4 M ( 8- 4 & M 8-R @ 3 1& M 8-R 3 &
Page 3 87
M' 3 3 4 & M 4 ! 3 (' & ! M 1 8-R & I " M( 3 & ' 4! " $ ! ! #!( ! !& * $ * R! &% A #$ !! M 3 ; ! ! 3 ! ! 8- 3 3 & A ! M ! (5R! ! 2 ( & 4 6 ! ! 4 !# & ! M0 3 1 4 & 4 G 0; 3 1& #0; 3 4 & A ! % ! M 2 1 Q R B B 1! > 1 & 3 & A !% M B B 3 8-3 3 & A # &! ' M 1 & ' K ! 3 & & M 3 4 R 3& 3 3 & 3 &4 3 ' !:$1 & *G+ 4 1 > 3 3 0 1 1 R 3 & 1 4 F$$8- , B "& 8-R ; ; > 3 & *:+ 4 R !# 3 ? & !# "G 3 &6 3 4 1 & PagePage 88 4
*F+ 4 > & > "G & 6 >& *%+ 2 ). • 3 3 6 M . M 1 3 6 • , 4 R3 B 16 M 3 ; 3 • 3 • L ? 3 • , 3 &4 1 • 4 1 ! *=+ 3 ! 3 3 6 8-3 & ? 7 % &%-- ( %-% 1 #/ /2* *"+ 3 3 3 3 ' & > 1 "= 3 #$$%& 9$$ 3 % & ' 33 3 & *#+ ! 2 3 3 *2 + ' 33 & 33 4 O4 ' P& *9+ 2 33 @ 3 3 3 ! ! B ! 3 &6 1 2 ' 33 3 & *A+ 3 B 1 ' 33 * + & 2 @ 3 A 33 ! ! 6 ! 3 0 #$$=& 3 6 13 3 3 3 #$$=& *G+ , 33 !6 3 3 3 3 ! ! 3 > 1 & 6 3 3 6 1& 3 3 ! 6 ' 33 1& 3 B ! 3 6R 1 0 #$$=& *:+ 3 1 3 *' "+ 6 3 3 *' #+ 3 33 3 1 3 ? 3 & 6 3 Page 5 89
3 > 1 3 3 & 6 $!! > 13 3 3 & *F+ 3 3 3 6 3 1! 3 13 3 33 & 6 3 3 1 3 / 8 3*/8+& 13 1 6 33 3 33 3 33 & *%+ 3 3 1 3 & 3 3 6 3 1 3 1 3 >3 1 ' " 13 & ! /8 ' B & *=+ 33 ' B 3 3 3 ). . M ! 1 ! ? . 3 3 3 ? . 3 33 & 6 3 >! ! 3 B 3 3 ' & B 33 >" 3 & *"$+ 3 3 3 3 ' 33 3 &
*""+ 3 1 3 3 & / (! ! !* $ *%# ! ( 7 ' !! ' ! ).. !* $ ' ! 3 #$%4 5* *"+ 3 3 1 B 6 3 &6 A$M 1 B *6+ #$$F! 3 "==A."=%A 8 R#$"$ & *#+ ! A$M ! 2 "GM 6 3 "==A.=% & 2 , 3 ! 2 1 3 & 3 A$M 6 #$"$& PagePage 90 6
*9+ 3 #$$F6 3 ! #$$F! 3 1 B 3 ? R 2 !( ! B 3 1 & *A+ 3 "F.#A ? G$$ 1 ? "#.": 3 & 3 3 &2 / / #$$% M :. 3 #$$F& 7 - !(B 7 (9+ (*! "* !9 *G+ 3 1! (( !3 !3 3 3 6 ). • . ! 3 3 ! & • 2 9 3 ! 2 #$$% #$$=! 3) 3 *"F.#A+? G$$ ?"#.":3 & • Q R ! 3 3 > 1 1; 3 ! 3 1 3 3 MQ R*3 + QR3 N R* +& • > O 3P 3 3 3 & • 3 ! & • 424 1 3 1 3 1 & &7&$! %!* ! *:+ 3 1 3 / 3 ? 3 & (!" $3 !! *F+ 3 3 B ;6 ! 3 33 & ! ( ! *%+ 6 ( 3 ! ' 33 3 & R 2 R & Page 7 91
*=+ 3 33 3 & ! #$"$! & *"$+ ). * + 33 ( 3 ? * + 33 3 3 B 3 6 & 1 3 ! ( ( ' C &" 67 #$%)!$ *8& ! !!% ! *"+ 3 2 ( 4 ! % #$$%& 1 8 ( * #+ ' 33 ' ? 1 3 ' 3 & *#+ 8 ( *B ( 1+ #$$: # 3 3 & 3 5 1 1 3 >3 & *9+ 3 33 ' & 3 3 1 3 3 ! & ! 3 "$$ ! 3 3 & 3 3 8 B ( ' &5 1 ! & *A+ 3 1 3 3 F 3 ? 3 & *G+ ( 5 ! Q9$ 33 R!Q 33R Q: :RR R* F 3 + 3 & 5 B 5 "95 5 B ! B 5 ! 2 ( ! B "$F 3 > 2 ( 1 3 & *:+ 3 "A% 3 3 3 1 &
PagePage 92 8
*F+ 33 3 ! R 3 3 33 3 & *%+ 33 3 3 ! , ). * + ( 5 Q9$ 33 R!Q 33R Q: : R 4 2 ( 8 ( B # 3 "# ? * + 33 3 3 3 3 & . % !( 7 8 '9 & "" '% )..2 & '! ' ! ( 4 ! " & ! D *'&' $' % ! 66 #/5 * *"+ #$$A*' :+ ' 1 1 3 #$$%! @ , & , 6 ! "# 2 ; 3 3 33 3 1 3 "#2 ; & 3 3 1 3 "#2 ; 6 & *#+ ! "# 2 ; . 3 1 "# & ! #$$A! 6 3 @ 2 3 3 & *9+ 2 ; "==F #$$"! 3 3 2 ; 1 3 3 ( "=%A ( "=="& *A+ #$$A 1 2 ! "# 3 3 2 ; 3 ' ! 3 B 3 2 3 3 & "#2 ; & *G+ 2 ; 6 1 3 ! 3 1 6 & 3 ! & 3 3 6 #$$A! 3 3 "# 2 ; 33 3 Page 9 93
3 1 @ 6 6 @ #$$A& *:+ 3 3 3 4 53 @ 3 ! 3 6 @ #$$A 3 3 . 3 1 & *F+ @ 4 53 & 3 "# 2 ; 3 B 13 & *%+ 2 "# 2 ; & 3 4 > "#2 ; ## 3 #$$% @ 4 53 2 ; & "# 2 ; 4 > 6 & *=+ ). * + 3 ? * + 3 3 *%+ 3 &
PagePage 94 10 AgendaAgenda Item Item 136 Annex 3 M ! M "
# $ % & ' ' % ( )' *( & & + + ( $$ # + ( (*, - ! ! " " ! ! ! # $ .- # . + ( $ &( ' $ ( $$( ' $,$ ( ' ,&+ + (- - # / ' #'' % 0 1 , % $( $ &( ++ $ '' (' $ ,-#2$ ( ( (($ ( (( ' ' , $ ' , (- %" $ 3- # ( ( $, ( ((( ' &( (,$ ( , $ (' $ '+ - 0- # ( ' $ ( ' +( )' 4'' - # (( ' ( ,$ ( , $ ( '' & ' , ($ &( ' ( ( ' $- 2 $( # 50 ( ,$ ( , '' ( ( $ ( , $ ' , $( ' ' (,$ ( - 5- ( $ &( ' ' $ ( ( $ ' ' ' &-
Page 11 95
- #( ( ( ' & ' ( ( ( ((( $, ' - ( ( ( ' & ' ' '/ (& (- 6- # '($ (( ' & '($ &( $ ((( '$,& ( ( -'' '' $ ( ' & $ (&( ( - & 7- + + ( $ ( ' $( $$ # + ( $ ((' (( ( ( $ $ ( - # (( ' (( $ &( $ ( ( ( .$( !- !- # $( (( & ( ( (( ( & ( '. $ - & $ . - + + ( $ ' '$$ 2 (!0 , $ ( '' & (( / $ ' (( - # + ((($ (( - #(( $( '' & ' .$ - ..- ( ( ' + & ' ( $ &( & $, ( ( - . - * ( & ( (( ' ( ' ( $ ( , ' -#((( &(&(' $ ' ,- .3- #((& $$ ' ( $ (( ' ,'' (' ($ ( - .0- / '(&( (& ( $ $ &( $ &( ' -
PagePage 96 12
&(4'' 9: *,% 1 ,% #(9 . !36.7) (9 ( -;,- - , , 91
Page 13 97 This page is intentionally left blank
PagePage 98 14 AgendaAgenda Item Item 137 Annex 4
!
" # # # # $ $ % &
"# % $$ % $# ' $ ' ( $ )$% $$ % ## R & " # # % # # # ) R & " %R + $ $&, ,% $$ & " , + - ( )+ . # "" +/$$& #$ % % R R + , , $ $# % &"# $$+% $$ # % # #$ # # %#& " R $ + # $ # % ,+ + +$ # % % # % & "% $$ + #$ $ $ # # % # % # % ) R & % # $$+# ( % % &"# $$ 0 % $ #$# # # % 0&
Page 15 99
0 # + %% ) R % # # #$ & +$1%% - $$ "$- 2 3'4 $- 0 &$$50& & 0 0 -6
PagePage 100 16 AgendaAgenda Item Item 138 Annex 5
!
" M " $ %% % % &' ( ' )' ) ' ))*+
,
-% &' ' %' . ' % .( ' . )' ) ' % .))*. " '' ( )' %%' )' " / ' )0 1)"23
- " $ &%%+
4 5 ' M ' % % ' 0 6 ''
O/ & ' PM ' 9 '
* : ')0 M%' ; % %'' %0 '' %
- " $ & &9 ' 0 &%% &)' < " % & ( = '. R = ' = = '1 ' 3-O/ & ' P$ % ' ' . % 5 ' : ')0 $ & = = ' ''% % $ ' & % ' % = '% %
- % %% % =& ( &. % ' % '' % %' % % . " $ 4* ( & " $ . % % ' "
Page 17 101
4 143 - % &' ( ' 1 % -% . = ? ' " @ A' &' " . ( B3 " C . % &' )' ) ' ))*+ 1= @? ' " . $ & 3 ' '%0 QR ' '%' ; % ' %0 % ' R = ' 0 &'0 ' & &9 % % ))* 1 3 =E % ' 6' " ' ' '& '' ' . & ' " & %. 5 ' Q % %' R % &' % % ' %0 & % -'' %' ' %0 ' ( )' %%' )' " )"2 1/ ' )0 3 ))*
1*3 - )' < " % 1)<"3. Q ' R . %% ' ' " $ - & %% & )<" & % . ' % = ' % % . & ( = ' R = ' C ' %% ' & = = ' '' %
M"
143 - " % ''& 0 1O ' % - %% P3 '' ' % ' %' ( ' ' % 5 ' - &' ' % - &'
%' % & ''' %
1 3 - 5 ' $ &' 5 ' ' 0. ' ? & & '' ' . & '
1*3 - $ ' % 0 & . 9 . R ' %'' %
#MO% P
* 143 -Q & ' R " & % & ( ' - " $ 6%' '
'M ( )*
2 143 )0 && ' %' ' % % " . ' ' . &
PagePage 102 18 % '' & % ))* 0 ' %% 0 6% '' %. ' %% % '
1 3 - " $ ' %% % %0 . % & & ' & ' %'' % ))*. ' % % ' & %% . %% & ' %' %0 '' & % . % 1% '3 ''
1*3 - % $ % & ' ' C '. & ' & ' % % %0 % % % . ' %% % %0 - " $ %0 '. ' & ' %% % %0 ' '. '. %0 6%O PC'' %0 ' % &' . ' &
* + ,(*
F 143 % % '& 0 '' 6% C . '%% 0 %% 0
1 3 - " $ '' & &9 R = ' % % % ' 6 '' ) C - ''' & '&
143 - %% " $ . % ' " & & % % 0 $ '
1 3 - " $ ; % " & ' ( ' % & % ))* - R 6 ''
( B &9 % % =& ( & E . A =& ( & : %% % + 143 - " $ ' ' " % &' F
1 3 ' & 0 0:% & & %% %
Page 19 103 1*3 -$ &%% &)' < " % % " . : ')0 .' %% % % )' ) ' ))*+
123 - 5 ' : ' )0 " $ %% % & = = ' % & R = '( &' 0 0 O/ & ' P " $ . % "
* -
" %+GG0 0G% &' G ' G0
( ' %+GG 0G%G &'G G
)' ) ' ))*+
%+GG 0G% &' G%' & ' G%%*
. -
&A
-% @ ' % (
* & & H0 0 ( BB4F2FF!F
PagePage 104 20 AgendaAgenda Item Item 133 Annex 6 ! ! ! !"# $%%&' ()* + ,! - +. / ,! #0 !#) 0!!# !1 + (. 0 ,!11 + ,!1) + ) ,! 23 ! )3 ! # 0 ! )( !)( !) 4 ' 1 * + 1 5 ,! 1 + 4 61 4 ,!71 +5 ( 0 ,! 2 +( 4 7 ,!1 +) ,!#( + !) ,!)- + 4 1 4 ,! 1 + 4 5 ,' ! " ! !#$%# ! %! &' (" &% ' 3 8+$, 88 $%%9! 0 : 4 4'- 0 4 4 4 ; ' ) * !+ ,%# )--. +8, 3 <+$, 88 $%%9 M ( 7 ( 0! : 4 ' 0 4 ' +$, )>7.1 88 $%%9 ' / '&0$ , !+& R!2( M +8, 1 4 0 4 5! */ + , !! !# 0 1 4 4 '