Public Document Pack
Gravesham Joint Transportation Board
Members of the Gravesham Joint Transportation Board are summoned to attend a meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Gravesend, Kent on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be transacted.
S Kilkie Assistant Director (Communities)
Agenda
Part A Items likely to be considered in Public 1. Apologies
2. To sign the minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 5 - 14)
3. To declare any interests members may have in the items contained on this agenda. When declaring an interest members should state what their interest is.
4. To consider whether any items in Part A of the agenda should be considered in private or those (if any) in Part B in public
5. Petition - London Road, Northfleet, Kent - report herewith. (Pages 15 - 20)
6. Petition - The Ridgeway, Shorne, Kent - report herewith. (Pages 21 - 24)
7. Waiting Restrictions Consultation Responses - report herewith. (Pages 25 - 38)
8. Highway and Transportation Schemes Progress Report - report herewith. (Pages 39 - 44)
9. Local Transport Plan 3 - report herewith. (Pages 45 - 62)
10.Cross Lane East (No Entry), Gravesend, Kent - report herewith. (Pages 63 - 66)
Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU 11.Speed Cameras in light of government changes - verbal report.
12.Streets included in the verge parking ban and the call for more nominations - verbal report.
13.Reports from Kent County Council's Policy Overview Scrutiny Committee (Pages 67 - for information - copies herewith. 114) 1. Winter Service Consultation 2010
2. Repairs to Weather Damaged Roads
3. Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking
3.1 Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking (Appendix 1)
4. Financial Monitoring 2010/11
4.1 2010/11 LTP schemes to be retained (Appendix 1)
4.2 2010/11 LTP schemes not to be funded this year (Appendix 2)
14.Any Other Business
15.Exclusion To move, if required, that pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded from any items included in Part B of the agenda because it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted that if members of the public are present during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
Part B Items likely to be considered in Private
None.
Members
County Councillor Michael Snelling (Chair) Cllr William Dyke (Vice-Chair)
Councillors: Lesley Boycott Colin Caller Jane Cribbon Sara Langdale Leslie Christie (KCC) Harold Craske (KCC) John Cubitt (KCC) Bryan Sweetland (KCC) Page 3 Agenda Item 2
Gravesham Joint Transportation Board
Wednesday, 16 June 2010 7.00pm
Present:
County Councillor Michael Snelling (Chairman) Cllr William Dyke (Vice-Chairman)
Cllrs: Lesley Boycott Colin Caller Jane Cribbon Sara Langdale Leslie Christie (KCC) Harold Craske (KCC) John Cubitt (KCC) Bryan Sweetland (KCC)
Also in Attendance
Mr W Fisher, Meopham parish Council Mrs L Hornby, Shore Parish Council
Paul Gibbons Service Manager (Parking & Amenities) Rob Bright Senior Engineer (Development) Ray Dines Transportation & Development Manager (KCC) David Aspinall Operations Manager (KCC) Andrew Burton Highway & Schemes Manager (KCC) Kerry Prescott Transportation Engineer(KCC) Penny Roper Street Lighting Engineer (KCC) Carlie Plowman Committee & Scrutiny Assistant
67. Minutes
The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2010 were signed by the Chairman.
68. Declarations of Interest
No declarations were made.
69. Street Lighting
The Board was advised that clarification on street lighting performance in Gravesham was requested following the publication of the street lighting performance results in February’s edition of KHS news.
The report detailed the work that has been carried out in Gravesham over the last 12 months along with the proposed works for 2010/11. These works will not only reduce the need for
1 Page 4 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
reactive maintenance over the coming year but will reduce energy consumption and the number of enquiries made to Kent Highway Services.
Members were introduced to Penny Roper who was appointed the Street Lighting Engineer for Gravesham and Dartford in January 2010.
Resolved that the report be noted.
70. Winter Service Consultation
The Board was informed that at the meeting of Kent County Council’s (KCC) Environment Highways & Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee it was agreed that a consultation process on the winter service for 2009/10 would take place in April 2010. The results of the consultation will be used to inform and improve the winter service policy and plan for 2010/11.
Members were invited to submit the winter service questionnaire or any comments to the Committee Section or David Aspinall for inclusion in the final report and recommendations that will be presented to KCC’s Environment Highways & Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee in July 2010.
Members requested that Kent Highway Services consider the views received from the residents who attended the Neighbourhood Forum meetings. KHS confirmed that the minutes received for these forums have already been fed into the consultation process. Several residents informed Members that they would be willing to grit paths, alleyways and road junctions if additional salt bins or a larger supply of grit was distributed locally. Members also suggested that consideration be given to sheltered accommodation and the liaison with Borough and District Councils be improved.
The Board thanked Maria Baker for her assistance over the winter period.
Resolved that the comments made by the Board are collated and submitted to Kent Highway Services for inclusion in the report and recommendations to Kent County Council’s Environment Highways & Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee in July 2010.
71. Proposed Waiting Restrictions
The Board considered the following locations within Gravesham that have been the subject of complaints or identified by the public, officers or local councillors for the introduction of Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO). Each proposal is for double yellow lines to be implemented on the grounds of safety:-
Northfleet:
• Brook Road junction with Brook Road • St Mark’s Avenue • First Avenue junction with Park Avenue • Foxwood Grove junction with Park Avenue • First Avenue junction with Preston Road
2 Page 5 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
• Preston Road junction with Vale Road • Waterdales junction with Vale Road
Gravesend:
• Hillside Avenue junction with Valley Drive • Thomas Drive junction with Valley Drive
Chalk:
• Lapis Close junction with Orlick Road • Lower Higham Road junction with Chalk Park access
Members were advised that the proposed locations will need to be advertised and any objections or comments will be submitted to a future meeting of the Board.
Resolved that the proposed locations be endorsed.
72. Works at Echo Square, Gravesend, Kent
Further to Minute 52 (24.03.2010), Members received a verbal update on the situation regarding the works at Echo Square.
The gas main replacement and resurfacing works at the Echo Square roundabout have now been completed and the works that are taking place in Sun Lane are due to be completed by the end of September 2010.
Kent Highway Services are currently firming up the design work, implementation of the proposed scheme and cost estimate. Members were advised that the concrete bollards at Echo Square will be removed no later than October 2010.
It was noted that Gravesham Borough Council will be responsible for the grassed area of the Echo Square roundabout. The horse trough and the old sign post will be refurbished.
The Board requested that the area is improved as soon as practicable.
Resolved that the information given be noted.
73. Footway and Verge Parking - Hall Road, Springhead Road and Old Road East
Further to Minute 56 (24.03.2010), Members were updated on the work undertaken to consider alternative schemes to a total ban on footway and verge parking in Springhead Road, Old Road East and Hall Road.
The report detailed the findings and Members considered the following:-
• Springhead Road (this relates to the section between St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School and its northern end) - Residents were consulted in March 2010 on a combination of all day parking restrictions along much of this section, combined with three designated parking bays which residents could access without obstruction to
3 Page 6 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
moving traffic or to pedestrians. Of the responses received seven residents were in favour of the proposal, 20 were against and five were undecided.
Many of the respondents suggested having a permanent one way traffic order along this section as a way of maximising the space available for parking in the road. Members were informed that this proposal was introduced as a temporary basis in order to facilitate the gas main replacement works. Kent Highway Services expressed concern regarding this proposal as such a change will have effects on the local highway network (including Dover Road) which would need to be modelled and would disadvantage local businesses.
Members expressed disappointment at the recommendation for Springhead Road and it was suggested that Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) officers liaise with the local Members to investigate an alternative solution for this road.
• Old Road East - A scheme has been prepared for consultation to ban parking on the south side except for (a) the footway fronting No’s 180 to 210 which is relatively wide and (b) a new road bay which would front No’s 218 to 234. This is considered an acceptable compromise to preserve as much parking as possible for the benefit of residents but limiting it to areas where the safety of pedestrians and moving traffic will not be adversely affected.
• Hall Road - The parking issue in Hall Road relates to the manner in which residents parking overspills from driveways onto the linkages across the public verge. It was recommended by Members that consideration be given to the use of wooden posts to protect the section of verge fronting No’s 143 to 197. It was noted that to provide an effective physical deterrent approximately 105 posts would be required and the cost of this work would be around £5000. Although this is part of the public highway Kent County Council would not fund this work. Both County Councillors Craske and Christie have offered their Member’s Highway Fund to implement the proposed works.
Resolved that
(1) in respect of Springhead Road Gravesham Borough Council officers liaise with the local Members to investigate an alternative solution for this road;
(2) in respect of Old Road East the Traffic Order is publicised and the public view obtained;
(3) in respect of Hall Road a Traffic Order published for the section of double yellow lines and subject to suitable funding; bollards are placed at the section near the north eastern end of Hall Road.
74. Manor Road Gate, Gravesend, Kent
Further to Minute 54 (24.03.2010) the Board was advised that the gate is due to be delivered by the end of June 2010 and all safety audits have now been completed.
4 Page 7 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
The gate will be installed once all associated works are complete and the public has been properly informed of its purpose.
Resolved that the information given be noted.
75. Willow Walk Parking Survey
Further to Minute 62 (24.03.2010) Members were advised that a survey was carried out to ascertain the level of the parking problem in Willow Walk, Culverstone.
The report detailed the results from the survey and as there is not an over whelming issue with parking in the area it was recommended that the situation be monitored and a further survey be carried out in two months. It was noted that the introduction of restrictions would have an effect on residents, their visitors and trades people.
It was recommended that GBC officers report any further findings directly to the local Members and the Parish Council.
Resolved that no new restrictions are introduced in Willow Walk, Culverstone and that GBC officers report any further findings to the local Members and the Parish Council.
76. Potholes
Further to Minute 63 (24.03.2010) the Board was informed that Kent Highway Services received additional funding for external contractors to undertake pothole repairs. FM Conway Limited have been appointed to undertake pothole repairs for Gravesham.
It was noted that the list of the roads due to be repaired by FM Conway Limited is available on Kent County Council’s website.
Members were advised to report any roads that need repairing to KCC’s Contact Centre.
Resolved that the verbal report be noted.
Note: Mrs L Hornby, Shorne Parish Council, spoke under the term of the agreement.
77. Parking Restrictions - Fountain Walk area
Further to Minute 45 (16.12.2009) the Board was informed of the results from the public consultation exercise carried out to introduce a residents’ parking scheme in Fountain Walk and the surrounding roads.
The public consultation exercise was carried out in March 2010 and the report detailed the results received by the resident. It could be seen that a clear majority of the local residents were in favour of the proposed scheme. Of those residents who were against the scheme or undecided, concern was expressed regarding the annual cost of purchasing a permit and the maximum number of permits which a household would be entitled to.
While Arriva has raised no objection to the introduction of a parking scheme it was noted that consideration be given to the arrangements that the Arriva Garage can make to
5 Page 8 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
accommodate their drivers’ travel requirements. Details of the proposed parking spaces and restrictions have been drawn up by officers in preparation for drafting a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).
The implementation of this scheme will be delayed until the instigation of the one way scheme in St Mark’s Avenue.
Resolved that
(1) subject to further discussions with Arriva, the scheme proceeds to the formal TRO stage;
(2) the implementation of the scheme is delayed until the instigation of the one way scheme in St Mark’s Avenue.
78. Transport Quarter Traffic Regulation Order Consultation Responses
Further to Minute 8 (17.06.2009) Members were informed of the comments and objections to the Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) recently advertised in support of the Transport Quarter project.
The planned highway changes include a number of changes to the A226 one-way system in Gravesend town centre. The legal basis for these changes is by means of Traffic Regulation Orders. The following three Traffic Regulation Orders were advertised in April and May 2010:-
(1) The first TRO is to introduce one-way traffic on the following streets or parts of streets:-
• Windmill Street (southbound) from Albert Place to Woodville Place; • Woodville Place (westbound) from Windmill Street to A227 Wrotham Road; • A227 Wrotham Road (northbound) from Woodville Place to Albert Place.
(2) The second TRO is to make the following changes:-
• to introduce one-way traffic on New Road (eastbound) from Garrick Street to Stone Street; • to allow vehicles to turn right from Darnley Road into New Road (eastbound) for purposes of access or loading, between midnight and 10am and between 6pm and midnight.
(3) The third TRO is to prohibit driving in Albert Place, between the junctions with Windmill Street and Wrotham Road.
In response to the consultation Kent Highway Services received two representations from local residents, the main objection relates to the air quality impact.
It was noted that the Bureau Veritas report indicates that Woodville Place and parts of Wrotham Road around the Civic Square will experience a worsening in the predicted level of Nitrogen Dioxide emissions but that there are no predicted exceedences above the national
6 Page 9 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
objective threshold of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. It is also predicted that there will be an improvement in air quality in the section of Windmill Street between Lord Street and Albert Place. A detailed evaluation of the Air Quality issues was detailed in the report.
Members were advised that there will be significant amenity benefits arising from the closure of Albert Place relating to the traffic and the enlargement of the Civic Square.
Resolved that Members confirmed their agreement to the making of the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders and the implementation of Phase 1 of the scheme.
79. Disabled Parking Bay
The Board was advised of an application for a disabled parking bay in the vicinity of . The application was made in October 2008 and due to the paperwork being mislaid it was not until March 2009 that an officer visited the applicant to discuss the application.
The property is one of a group of houses around a green which has no road frontage and is accessed by an inclined footpath leading down from the road. The applicant’s request for a disabled parking bay within the turning facility at the end of the road was turned down in October 2009 on the basis that there was insufficient space to provide a standard size bay in the road and still maintain access for other vehicles. Following further representations from the applicant, officers agreed to look at a reduced size of bay in the turning head.
The immediate neighbours were consulted in February 2010 and three letters of objections were received. The report detailed the main points raised by the objectors and the applicant’s response in turn to these points.
The applicant has a disability which leads to difficulty in walking and wherever possible the Council tries to assist by providing a disabled parking bay on the road. However, the width constraints and the limited parking available for other residents on Scott Road, Gravesend rules against the provision of a space in this location.
Resolved that Members uphold the officer’s decision that a disabled parking bay is not appropriate in this case.
80. Highway and Transportation Schemes Progress Report
The Board received a report detailing the progress of highway and transportation schemes in Gravesham.
Members were informed that an announcement was made and there will be cuts to this budget with immediate effect. Any works that have commenced or are due to commence on Monday 21 June 2010 will be implemented. The proposed schemes that are part of the Members Highway Funds will proceed.
The Board was informed that Members will be notified of the announcement and any further changes to this budget.
Resolved that the information given be noted.
7 Page 10 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
Note: Mr W Fisher, Meopham Parish Council, spoke under the term of the agreement.
81. Lorry routing Gravesham
The Board received a report detailing the current situation regarding lorry management issues in Gravesham.
At the meeting of Kent County Council’s Highway Advisory Board on 8 May 2008 a report was considered regarding the problems associated with satellite navigation devices and other matters relating to heavy good vehicle movements. It was resolved that a Countywide Freight Strategy should be developed and that action regarding localised issues should generally be deferred pending completion of this work. It is intended that the Kent Advisory Route Map will be updated to form a framework for the consideration of future proposals along with the proposed overarching Freight Strategy.
The report identified the following key lorry issues within Gravesham:-
• Springhead Road south and adjacent residential streets; • Norfolk Road, Gravesend (Canal Basin); • Old Road East/Cross Lane East and various adjacent residential streets including the Windmill Hill area; • Higham; • London Road, Northfleet (B2175); and • A227.
The situation relating to Echo Square, Old Road East/Cross Lane East along with other areas in Gravesham will be considered as part of the review of the Advisory Lorry Route Map. It was noted that it may be possible to improve direction signing at the Echo Square roundabout as part of the permanent ‘no entry’ scheme.
Members were invited to submit any other key lorry issues within Gravesham.
Funding for any new lorry related projects will be limited and will have to be consistent with the proposed Countywide Freight Strategy and considered against other County wide priorities. The earliest that any new scheme could be included in the County’s Local Transportation Programme is the financial year 2012/13.
Resolved that the report be noted.
82. Reports from Kent County Council's Policy Overview Committees for information
The following reports were submitted to Members of the Joint Transportation Board for information:-
(1) Winter Service Consultation 2009/10 (2) Street Lighting Policy and Strategy 2010 (3) Policy for the Management of Obstructions and Temporary Items on the Highway (4) Cycle Kent 2010
8 Page 11 Gravesham Joint Transportation Board 16.06.2010
(5) Passenger Rail Services (6) The Transportation and Safety Package Programme 2010/2011 (7) Future Highways - Procurement Update
Resolved that the reports be noted.
83. Reports submitted by Kent County Council for information
The following reports were submitted to Members of the Joint Transportation Board for information:-
(1) Public Transport (2) Joint Transportation Board Parking Protocol (3) Final Parking Protocol
Resolved that the reports be noted.
84. Proposed Dates for 2010/11 Municipal Year
Resolved that the following be agreed as the dates on which meetings of the Board will take place during the 2010/11 municipal year.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010 Wednesday, 8 September 2010 Wednesday,15 December 2010 Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Close of meeting
The meeting ended at 9.10 pm.
9 This page is intentionally left blank Page 13 Agenda Item 5 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank Page 19 Agenda Item 6 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Agenda Item 7 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank Page 37 Agenda Item 8
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 8 September 2010
Reporting officer: Head of Countywide Improvements, Kent Highway Services
Subject: Highway and Transportation Schemes Progress Report
Purpose and summary of report: This report advises members of the progress of highway and transportation schemes in Gravesham.
Recommendations:
1) That Members NOTE the progress of highway improvements schemes in Gravesham
1. Background and Discussion.
1.1 For each highway improvement scheme in Gravesham that is both programmed and funded, Appendix 1 summarises progress to date and anticipated progress prior to the next meeting of this Board.
1.2 On June 29 2010, as a result of the national savings in spending that the Government recently announced, KCC published details of those schemes it expected to be affected by a £4.1 million reduction in this year’s integrated transport budget. These savings were confirmed at the meeting of Cabinet on 12 July 2010 and two schemes that were to have built in 2010-11 have now been removed from this year’s programme: Page 38
2010/11 Local Transport Plan Schemes NOT now to be Funded Original in 2010-11 budget
Upgrading the quality of the pedestrian environment between £40K Northfleet and Ebbsfleet Stations
Coldharbour Rd Gravesend - New pedestrian refuge close to £46k Oaklands Rd
1.3 The schemes that were selected for withdrawal of funding were based on the degree to which their objectives meet four criteria: whether a scheme improves road safety; reduces congestion; is already underway; or has generated significant external funding that would otherwise be lost.
1.4 Whilst the removal of these schemes is a loss, the traveling public will still see the benefit from significant highway improvements in the Borough, as summarised in Appendix A of this report.
1.5 Some schemes affected by the Government reductions may yet receive partial funding from Kent County Council Members through the dedicated fund that each Member has to spend on roads in their area. Other schemes that have already received funding approval from this budget and have either been installed or are shortly be installed are:
Member Highway Fund Schemes Approved For Implementation
School La, Higham - verge protection works (Mr Snelling)
London Rd, Northfleet: zebra crossing nr Gordon Rd (Messrs Christie/Craske)
St Mark's Ave, Northfleet - one way scheme (Messrs Christie/Craske)
London Rd, Gravesend zebra crossing (Mr Christie)
1.6 The re-configuration of the Woodville Halls scenery store has marked the commencement Gravesend’s Transport Quarter. Works on the project will continue into 2011 with the re-routing of the traffic around the Civic Centre and the forecourt improvement works. To minimise the impact on the town’s economy, there will be a break of those works in the public areas in the lead up to Christmas
2 Page 39
APPENDICES: APPENDIX 1: 2010-11 Highway and Transportation Scheme Progress
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: The background papers pertaining to this report are held on the Kent Highway Services files.
All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department
Contact Officers: See last column in Appendix 1 (tel 08458 247 800).
3 APPENDIX 1: 2010-11 Highway and Transportation Scheme Progress
Kent Highway KHS Location Description of Works Current Progress Anticipated Actions for Services Ref next 3 months Contact allocation Original
(Prior to next JTB) Forecast Out-turn 08458 247800
Town Centre a) Senior KCC and GBC 2) link the Traffic Memorandum of understanding Gravesend officers to meet and agree on Management Centre to (MoU) between Gravesham 09-ITS- the terms of the MoU and Sue Urban traffic Gravesham Borough and Kent is in 1st draft stage. £125K £125K GR-04 management b) KCC and GBC to procure Westwood
Council's CCTV room Progress has been somewhat Page 40 installation of control system slower than expected improvements: communications link
Remaining elements of the Traffic signs and new Wrotham Road, scheme will be completed in MY speed limits to better All but a handful of the Meopham & September and an in-service £50K £57K Julian Cook 0455 manage speed and modifications are now in place Istead Rise review carried out to assess TD traffic management the scheme’s effectiveness
New footway on railway None – this scheme will no Sole Street bridge Works completed £22K £25K Helen Cobby MY 1453 longer be reported to this Board TD Cross Lane East Making permanent the installation is scheduled to start MY 1455 Detailed report appears elsewhere (Echo Square) experimental one-way in September 2010 and to take £14K £14K Andy Padgham TD on this agenda Gravesend section of Cross Lane E two weeks to build APPENDIX 2 (page 2 of 2): Highway and Transportation Schemes in 2010-11 Works Programme
Kent Highway KHS Ref Location Description of Works Current Progress Anticipated Actions for next 3 Services months Contact Forecast
(Prior to next JTB) Out-turn 08458 247800
Error in booking of road space zebra crossing nr Gordon Rd Road markings, high friction surfacing MY 1456 London Rd, possession meant that the (KCC-Member Funded – Mr and “switch-on” of belishas scheduled £25K Helen Cobby TD -1 Gravesend crossing could not be completed Christie) to tie-in with start of autumn term in time for the Summer term
Detailed design complete but New signing to direct lorries to ON HOLD - Meeting required between MY 1456 Higham and Medway Council have objected to Page 41 Canal Road via Lower respective Councils to seek political tbc Kerry Prescott TD -2 Lower Higham positive routing via Lower Rochester Road agreement Rochester Road
Convert to one way traffic MY 1456 St Mark's Ave, between London Road and Member funding approved; Works to be programmed – £11K Helen Cobby TD -3 Northfleet Cremorne Road (KCC- detailed design underway provisionally early November Member Funded – Mr Christie) Environmental Improvements Local KCC Members to decide whether MY 1456 Echo Square (provisionally KCC-Member Design commenced June 2010 to fund as part of the Member Highway tba Andy Padgham TD -4 Gravesend Funded – Messrs Sweetland Fund /Cubitt)
verge protection works Road MY 1456 School Lane, Member funding approved; Works to be ordered - provisionally late (KCC-Member Funded – Mr £10K Andy Padgham TD -5 Higham detailed design underway November Snelling) This page is intentionally left blank Page 43 Agenda Item 9
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 8th September 2010
Reporting officer: Head of Transport and Development
Subject: Local Transport Plan 3
Purpose and summary of report: This report is for information and discussion
Recommendations:
1. For Members’ information.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Local Transport Plan process is the main mechanism for funding and delivering local transport improvements. The first Local Transport Plans (LTPs) covered the period 2001-2006 and the second plans (LTP2) covered the period 2006-2011. Local Transport authorities have a statutory obligation to have their third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) in place by 1st April 2011.
1.2 The LTP3 document for Kent is being prepared by the Transport Policy team at Invicta House, with input from the KHS Transportation and Development teams which cover the twelve KCC districts, and also with input from other transport areas such as network management, highways asset management, public rights of way, public transport, walking and cycling.
2. Local Transport Plan 3.
2.1 The requirement for a Local Transport Plan is set out in the Transport Act 2000 as amended by the Local Transport Act of 2008. The latter requires that LTPs contain policies (i.e. strategies) and implementation plans.
2.2 Guidance of what LTPs need to contain is provided by the document “Guidance on Local Transport Plans” published by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2009.
2.3 The Department for Transport expects authorities to consider national transport goals to be over-arching priorities in their LTPs. The five key goals formulated by the previous Government, are as follows: Page 44
Support economic growth – to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering a reliable and efficient transport network;
Tackle climate change - to reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to tackle climate change;
Promote equality of opportunity – to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society for all;
Contribute to better safety, security and health – to contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy, by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health.
Improve quality of life – to improve the quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment.
2.4 The national goals replace the four “shared priorities” required for LTP2. However those priorities – accessibility planning, congestion, air quality and road safety – will continue to be essential elements of LTP3.
2.5 The DfT’s guidance outlines that LTP3 is to be developed not only to meet national transport goals but also local strategic objectives and priorities. Kent Partnership’s objectives, and a strategy to achieve them, are set out in “Growth without Gridlock – An Integrated Transport Strategy for Kent”.
2.6 “Growth without Gridlock” outlines a longer term vision for Kent’s transport network and explains how it will meet the demands of housing, economic growth and an ageing population, while at the same time reducing our emissions to combat climate change. The strategy outlines a network that gives greater choice and encourages travel by means other than the private car. Each of the transport modes and their issues and challenges are described with a range of proposals, which are then applied to the different areas of the County. The key proposals in the strategy are an integrated bus network, maximising the benefits of high speed rail, key infrastructure and promoting flexible working which reduces the need to travel during peak periods.
2.7 A draft of “Growth without Gridlock” went out to consultation between November 2009 and February 2010, and at the same time officers met with key stakeholders and all of the district councils. The final version of this Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) is currently being revised and is expected to be launched in the Autumn. The proposals contained in the ITS will be developed by a range of methods including LTP3 and subsequent LTPs.
3. LTP Objectives
3.1 The starting point for LTP3 has been to take the aims of the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) and propose 16 LTP3 objectives, grouped under the national transport goals, as shown in Table 1. Also shown are some transport objectives under each LTP3 objective and examples of the types of scheme that can support these objectives. The wording of the national transport goals has been revised in Table 1 to reflect the needs of Kent and the fact that the new Coalition Government has not adopted these as their national goals. But for the purposes of establishing an LTP3 framework, these goals still provide a comprehensive overview of local transport issues.
2 Page 45
3.2 In the period covered by LTP2, the four shared priorities were given weightings to guide the SPS Scheme Prioritisation System, which helps inform members on prioritising the Integrated Transport Programme. It is the intention that a method of prioritising schemes should continue for LTP3 and that weightings will be applied to the national transport goals. The figures to be used for weighting are being developed in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste.
3 Table 1: LTP Objectives
National Proposed LTP3 Transport Objectives Possible Measures Transport Objectives (not comprehensive) Goal
Growth Tackling reduce journey times for personal travel, business and freight Traffic management centres, Kent permit scheme, junction/capacity, improvements, Without Congestion improve journey time reliability congestion busting teams, parking management and park and ride Gridlock reduce disruption to network caused by road works and other incidents Supporting provide transport infrastructure to support regeneration and New road infrastructure, bus rapid transit, walking and cycling networks Regeneration housing and Delivering locate development near transport hubs Housing
Access to Jobs improve access to jobs and services by efficient means of Bus infrastructure, walking and cycling improvements and Services transport like public transport, walking and cycling provide transport infrastructure
A Resilient maintain and improve the condition of the transport network Highways maintenance programme, congestion busting teams Page 46 Network ensure local transport networks are resistant and adaptable to sudden incidents and long-term changes UK Gateway Support the function of the County’s international gateways New road infrastructure, improved interchange at railway stations, parkway stations, freight management Tackling a Reducing reduce traffic levels School and workplace travel plans, low emission buses, low emission zones, Changing Emissions improve carbon efficiency of current forms of transport teleconferencing/teleworking, better integration of transport and spatial planning Climate reduce the need to travel and minimise the distance of journeys taken Smarter Travel encourage modal shift to more sustainable transport modes Public transport, walking and cycling improvements, smarter choices (travel planning, car like public transport, walking and cycling clubs, car share etc.), Kent Freedom Pass Supporting Supporting improve access by and integrate public transport, walking and Public transport, walking and cycling improvements, better information on alternative forms Independence Independence cycling of transport, smarter choices (travel planning, car clubs, Kent carshare etc.), better ticketing for All focus investment in deprived areas and integration between modes, community transport initiatives reduce the barriers to transport of affordability, accessibility, availability, distance and lack of information
A Safer and Safer Roads reduce the number of casualties on the transport network Crash Remedial Measures, road safety education, publicity and enforcement Healthier County Protecting reduce and reverse the impact of transport on public health Traffic reduction measures in Air Quality Management Areas Communities
Active Transport encourage and enable more physically active travel Promotion of walking and cycling
A Safe and reduce crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour on the Better street lighting, application of Kent Design Secure Network transport network Enjoying Life Accessing Life’s improve access to learning, culture, sporting events, social Promotion of public rights of way network in Kent Opportunities networks and the countryside
Enjoying the improve the journey experience of transport users Improved journey Information Journey
Protecting reduce the number of people and dwellings exposed to high Noise management schemes, environmental assessment of new infrastructure, lorry Kent’s Natural levels of noise management and Man-Made reduce the level of pollution (noise, fumes, spillage, vibration Environment etc) from traffic reduce and reverse the impact of new infrastructure on the natural environment minimise lorries on unsuitable routes
Sociable Streets enhance well-being and sense of community by creating more Urban and rural streetscape design opportunities for social contact and interaction
Page 47
5 Page 48
4. LTP3 Strategy and Implementation Plan(s)
4.1 As mentioned above, LTP3 is required to include a separate strategy and implementation plan. The purpose of the strategy is to set out the area’s key challenges and how they should be addressed, articulating what the authority wants to achieve and how it intends to do it. This will take the challenges and aims of the ITS as well as other strategies and studies like the “Delivering a Sustainable Transport System - London to Dover / Channel Tunnel” report. KHS Transportation & Development teams (T&D) have been asked to provide input for their own areas covering the following:
District profiles – including relevant facts and figures, recent events and trends;
Spatial planning information – describing future development plans of each District;
Transport Issues and Challenges, grouped according to the five national objectives for transport;
Transport Planning and Strategy, outlining the work undertaken over the last 3 – 5 years, including local transport strategies;
4.2 The Implementation Plans will take the form of a business plan for implementing the measures to deliver the strategy, and in addition to the above work T&D teams have also been asked to provide the following:
List of proposed schemes, grouped under the national objectives;
Planning and development, outlining the initiatives that KCC and its partners will be carrying out over the five year period, such as transport modelling, and items that may not require LTP funding but which will contribute substantially to the LTP objectives.
4.3 The first draft of the LTP3 Strategy input and five year Implementation Plan for Gravesham Borough is shown in Appendix A.
5. Timetable
5.1 The timetable for the process of creating Local Transport Plan 3 is as follows.
September 2010 Draft LTP3 for public consultation
January 2011 Consultation deadline, revision of final LTP3
March 2011 Final LTP3 adopted by Kent County Council
1st April 2011 LTP3 comes in to force. Page 49
6. Appendices
6.1 Appendix A: Draft LTP3 Implementation Plan for Gravesham
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Kent Partnership, Growth without Gridlock – An Integrated Transport Strategy for Kent (Final Draft) (November 2009)
Department for Transport, Guidance on Local Transport Plans, (July 2009)
All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department
CONTACT OFFICER: Peter Slaughter 01322 421446
7 Page 50
APPENDIX A
8 Page 51
Draft LTP3 Implementation Plan for Gravesham
District Profile
The Borough of Gravesham is in the north-west of Kent. It is strategically located on the A2 Trunk road and High Speed One rail line within easy commuting distance of London. The Borough is bordered by the local authorities of Dartford, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, and Medway. The Thames forms the Borough’s northern boundary.
The main urban areas are Gravesend and Northfleet which lie just to the north of the A2. South and east of Gravesend the Borough is predominantly rural. 78% of the Borough is designated as Green Belt.
The A2 provides good communication links with London, the M25 and the Channel ports, and three rail routes provide frequent services to London. However, the Borough’s only strategic transport link to the south is the A227 which passes through many small communities on its way to Tonbridge. Gravesham’s links to the north are by way of the A282 Dartford crossing, and a small passenger ferry operates between Gravesend and Tilbury in Essex.
The estimated population of the Borough in 2008 was 98,000, and was expected to grow to 112,900 by 2026. The population is in general relatively young, with over 40% below the age of 30. Over 20% of working residents commute to Greater London, according to census figures from 2001, and about 15% commute to Dartford. Over 60% percent of commuters travelled by car at that time.
The economy in Gravesham has undergone a structural shift in the last couple of decades, moving away from the traditional industries of manufacturing, engineering and power generation. There has however been growth in employment in construction, banking, finance and insurance. The riverside wharves remain economically active, importing marine-dredged aggregates, cement, metal ores and raw materials for paper manufacture etc. Gravesend is the headquarters of the Port of London Authority and there is also a boat repair yard there.
Economic prosperity varies widely across the Gravesham, and the Borough contains some of the most deprived areas and least deprived areas in the country.
The Borough forms part of the Thames Gateway and includes a number of large development sites. These include several developments in Gravesend (the Town Centre and the Canal Basin) and several sites in Northfleet (Northfleet Embankment East and Northfleet Embankment West). On the west side of the Borough is Ebbsfleet, where an large area extending into Dartford is planned to be developed into a business district with homes, leisure and supporting community facilities. Ebbsfleet is centred on the international station and is identified as one of four transformational hubs proposed for the Thames Gateway.
Spatial Planning
Gravesham Borough Council’s Corporate Plan clearly sets out the Council’s top priority as regeneration. Strategic objectives are to secure redevelopment of sites in Gravesend’s town centre and unlock major regeneration along the Borough’s waterfront. Ebbsfleet is to be promoted as the financial / business heart of Gravesham and Dartford, as set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy for Dartford and Gravesham (2008-2011), developed by Gravesham and Dartford Borough Councils together with other strategic partners.
9 Page 52
A key principle behind the Council’s strategy is to focus the majority of development in the existing urban area where there is access to a high range of quality facilities, services and public transport. It is also the intention to use previously developed land wherever possible, when it is suitably located, and to preserve the Borough’s Green Belt and open countryside.
The former South East Plan set the number of new homes to be built in Gravesham up to 2026 as 9300. All of these were to be built north of the A2, with the exception of 100 planned to be built further south to serve the needs of the rural community. The Council’s Economy and Employment Space Study determined that it should plan for 10,000 additional jobs in the Borough up to 2026. However, with the advent of the economic downturn and the revocation of the South East Plan it will be necessary to review and justify the scale of housing and employment provision.
Transport Issues and Challenges
Supporting economic growth
There are a number of locations where the existing road network approaches capacity in the morning or evening peak periods. One of the most obvious examples is the one-way system around Gravesend town centre.
Clearly the scale of growth in homes and employment up to and beyond 2016 will significantly increase pressure on the road network and lead to more extensive delays. The Highways Agency has recently completed capacity improvements to the A2 in Gravesham, between Cobham and Pepper Hill, and also further west at the junction with the M25. Further capacity improvements are planned for the A2 Ebbsfleet junction as well as on the local highway network.
The impact of development proposed for 2010 – 2025 has, however, been shown by traffic modelling to require more than highway improvements. A high quality public transport network is essential to provide an attractive alternative to travelling by car. A key element therefore in Kent Thameside is the Fastrack bus rapid-transit system, the first two routes of which are already running successfully. Future routes are planned, including a direct route through the Northfleet Embankment developments.
Another recent radical improvement for public transport is the commencement of high-speed domestic train services to London from Gravesend (23 mins) and Ebbsfleet (17 minutes). These services provide a dramatic improvement over the journey times on the local “classic” rail lines through the Borough, and have also opened up new connections to Ashford and East Kent.
Better use will also need to be made of the existing highway network by actively managing peak hour traffic flows and providing motorists with up to date travel information. This will be delivered by the introduction of UTMC systems (Urban Traffic Management and Control).
Reducing carbon emissions
Good progress has been made extending the local cycle network to the new station at Ebbsfleet, so it can now be reached on traffic-free cycle paths from the east (Gravesend), the north (Northfleet), the west (Swanscombe) and the south (National Cycle Routes 1 and 177).
10 Page 53
Every opportunity will be taken with other new planning applications to create pleasant walking and cycle routes to serve new developments. The intention will be to create safe routes to schools, stations and shops.
The introduction of the Fastrack bus rapid transit system in 2006 has successfully attracted passengers out of private cars, according to user surveys, and it is planned to use future extensions of Fastrack to reduce the traffic impact of the Borough’s planned major developments. There is also potential to develop a coach-based park-and-ride site on the A2 at Tollgate, south of Gravesend, to encourage car-drivers not to drive up the A2 to London. The viability of this scheme will be investigated with coach operators.
Promoting equality of opportunity
Recent investment in public transport in the Borough is well placed to benefit areas of high deprivation. For example, Fastrack services link areas of deprivation to areas of employment growth (Bluewater and Crossways Business Park in Dartford). Ebbsfleet International station has been constructed within walking distance of areas in Northfleet with high indices of multiple deprivation.
One of the Fastrack services has been routed to provide access to one of the Borough’s main hospital (Darent Valley Hospital in Dartford), and the same service provides access to Ebbsfleet which is planned to the primary growth area for employment
Contributions to better Safety, Security and Health.
The safety of all the County’s roads is monitored by Kent Highway Services using police records of personal injury accidents. The process takes place every year and allows measures to be taken to address any emerging safety problem.
There are seven designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in Gravesham, including the Gravesend one-way system and a number of busy intersections on roads radiating from Gravesend. The plans to introduce Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) systems on these routes will help to create smoother traffic flows and reductions in traffic pollution. One of the AQMAs is along the A2 trunk road, and this has recently benefitted from the re-routing of the A2 away from houses south of Gravesend, though it is still too early to say how this will change the air quality designation.
With the intention of creating healthier lifestyles and providing alternatives to car travel, both Kent County Council and Gravesham Borough Council intend to develop a safe network of walking and cycling routes for both functional and leisure trips. Routes to schools, railway stations and employment centres are seen a priorities. It is also intended to develop “Green Grid” routes, such as alongside the river Thames and to connect Ebbsfleet to the A2 Linear Park.
11 Page 54
Improve Quality of Life and Healthy Natural Environment
The Core Strategy for Gravesham affirms that the Borough Council will support improvements to public transport, and will support measures that maximise sustainable and healthier travel options and minimise environmental impact.
Good examples of successful public transport investment are the Fastrack bus rapid transit system and also the “Kickstart” funding for local bus routes 495 / 498 / 499 in Gravesend which has achieved increased passenger levels. In the period of this local transport plan it is intended to invest in local bus infrastructure in Gravesham, and it is also intended to secure future Fastrack routes to be built by developers as part of new residential and industrial developments. Fastrack has been designed to be a key public transport service linking town centres, railway stations, Bluewater shopping centre and Darent Valley Hospital.
The extensive development sites at Ebbsfleet and along the Thames embankment offer an unrepeatable opportunity to provide solutions with long-term environmental benefits. For example, it is planned to extend the cycle paths radiating from Ebbsfleet station to provide connections to new residential developments in Springhead Rise and along the Thames embankment. These proposals will support the new communities by improving access to the High Speed railway and the planned Ebbsfleet development. Moreover, they will enable better connections between neighbourhoods and better access to the natural environment south of the A2 trunk road.
Transport Planning and Transport Strategy
The primary aim of the transport strategy for Gravesham is to address the growing demands on the Borough’s transport network, especially on the roads. Potentially the largest source of traffic growth is from housing and business development in the Borough and the surrounding area. However there are also rising levels of long distance and international traffic that will increase demand on the A2 trunk road, increasing pressure on some of the Borough’s other roads such as the A226.
A draft Transport Strategy for Kent Thameside (the areas of Dartford and Gravesham north of the A2) was produced by Jacobs for Kent County Council in consultation with the Borough Councils in 2008. This usefully outlines the results of running the KTS multi-modal transport model for the years 2011 and 2025. The results show that, even when a number of committed and funded transport schemes are taken into account, and despite generally good public transport provision, the very high level of development planned for Kent Thameside would significantly affect the operation of the highway network.
A number of particular future congestion hotspots have been indentified in the model, and a package of 11 additional schemes has been developed and tested to address these problems. These are the Strategic Transport Investment Package schemes (STIPS) and have been estimated to cost approximately £200m. If they could all be implemented, a model for the year 2025 suggests they would reduce queues at over-capacity junctions by about 21% and reduce journey times by 3% or more.
12 Page 55
Table of Strategic Transport Infrastructure Package Schemes for Kent Thameside Scheme Cost Description £m A2 Ebbsfleet junction 29.8 Improve access between A2 and Ebbsfleet, Eastern Quarry etc improvements A2 Bean junction 48.5 Improve access between A2 and Eastern Quarry and Bluewater improvements A2 Demand management 30.7 Variable speed limits, access management, Variable Messaging Signs, vehicle priority lanes etc A226London Rd / B255 St 7.5 Junction capacity improvement by provision of underpass Clements Way underpass Urban Traffic Management & 7.1 Introduction of traffic signal control system with traffic flow monitoring using Control (UTMC) CCTV, additional signalised junctions, Variable Messaging Systems, real time information A226 Thames Way dualling 12.6 To improve access to Ebbsfleet Dartford Town Centre 10.1 Revise traffic circulation on ring road and improve bus access, to support improvements development proposals A206 Bob Dunn Way junction 3 Convert Marsh St roundabout to signalised junction improvement B262 Hall Rd junction 3 Junction capacity improvement and traffic calming on Springhead Rd improvement Rathmore Road link 10.1 New section of one-way system to support new public transport interchange Gravesend north of Gravesend’s railway station. Fastrack Northfleet to Garrick 12.6 Provision of dedicated Fastrack route from new development area Street , Gravesend Total £200.2 At 2010 prices, inclusive of contingencies and administration.
A significant growth in public transport usage is predicted by the KTS model, increasing from about 18% in 2008 to an estimated 27% by 2025. This mode shift is caused by increased Fastrack services, the new high-speed commuter rail service from Ebbsfleet, and increased highway costs relative to expected public transport costs up to the year 2025.
Alongside the STIPS schemes, a range of other measures are being developed. These include public transport improvements, walking and cycling improvements, junction improvements, parking strategy, demand management and travel plans. Some of these are being progressed as part of new residential and business developments, and developers will be expected to fund schemes either wholly or in part depending on the impact of the development, in accordance with the planning regulations. The funding would be secured via Government grants and through the Section 106 process or a Community Infrastructure Levy. The programme would be subject to annual review.
LTP Implementation Plan
The following tables outline the proposed Integrated Transport Programme implementation programme for Gravesham 2011- 2016. Provision also needs to be made for funding crash remedial measures every year, a process which addresses the personal injury crashes reported by the police every twelve months.
13 Page 56
LTP3 Implementation Plan for Gravesham 2011-2012
Scheme Description Cost estimate £
National Objective: Support economic growth
UTMC programme for Gravesend (TM1) £250,000
National Objective: Climate change (But Safety is also a major factor)
Sole Street footway – phase 2 (WA1) £90,000 Istead Rise – Meopham footway / cycleway - phase 1 (WA1) £120,000 Northfleet – Ebbsfleet station link – improving / extending existing footway - £40,000 2010/11 scheme postponed (WA1)
Gravesend low-cost cycling improvements – phase 1 – Lion Roundabout and St £5,000 James Rd - 2010-2011 scheme postponed (CY1)
Hall Rd – Colyer Rd new footway / cycle path link (CY1) 2010-11 scheme £74,000 postponed . Dering Way cycle path (CY1) £83,100 National Objective: Promote Equality of Opportunity
National Objective: Contribute to better Safety, Security and Health
Leander Drive safety improvements (TM9) £20,000 London Rd, Northfleet - Upgrade zebra to puffin at Rosherville primary school £50,000 (RC1) . A226 East Milton Rd – new pedestrian island (RC3) £20,000 Higham Village pedestrian improvements (WA1) £10,000 Coldharbour Rd (west of Mulberry Rd) – new pedestrian island and footway - £46,000 postponed 2010-11 scheme (RC3) . Clearway restrictions, Ebbsfleet £20,000 National Objective: Improve Quality of Life
Planning and Development
1. Use Northfleet Embankment planning applications to secure improvements to Northfleet – Ebbsfleet footpath NU7A and / or NU14 2. Use Ebbsfleet detailed planning applications to secure contributions towards direct pedestrian link between Northfleet and Ebbsfleet stations. 3. Progress negotiations with landowners for permissive cycle path on footpaths between Ebbsfleet and Swanscombe peninsular (including footpath NU2).
14 Page 57
LTP3 Implementation Plan for Gravesham 2012-2013
Scheme Description Cost estimate £
National Objective: Support economic growth
Fastrack waiting restrictions where on-street running (BL3) £5,000 UTMC programme for Gravesend (TM1) £250,000 National Objective: Climate change (But Safety is also a major factor)
Sole Street footway extension – phase 3 (WA1) £161,000 Gravesend – Low cost cycling improvements phase 2 (CY1) £10,000 National Objective: Promote Equality of Opportunity
National Objective: Contribute to better Safety, Security and Health
New zebra crossing on Pelham Rd outside Girls’ Grammar School (RC3) £32,000 Lorry route signing around Gravesend (OS1) £100,000 Reactive budget for Safe Routes to School and other footway improvements, £100,000 and Speed Management (WA1) National Objective: Improve Quality of Life
Planning and Development
15 Page 58
LTP3 Implementation Plan for Gravesham 2013 - 2014
Scheme Description Cost estimate £
National Objective: Support economic growth
Bus stop improvements - Twelve new shelters with info system (BI2) £66,000 UTMC programme for Gravesend (TM1) £250,000 Denton Relief Road – Forward works, land issues £100,000 National Objective: Climate change (But Safety is also a major factor)
Istead Rise – Meopham footway / cyclepath – phase 2 (WA1) £325,000 Gravesend low cost cycling improvements – phase 3 (CY1) £10,000 Improvements to pedestrian / cycle access to Ebbsfleet (CY1) £30,000 National Objective: Promote Equality of Opportunity
National Objective: Contribute to better Safety, Security and Health
New Toucan crossing on A2 coastbound offslip at Pepper Hill (RC1) £100,000 Reactive budget for Safe Routes to School and other footway improvements, £100,000 and Speed Management (WA1) National Objective: Improve Quality of Life
Planning and Development:
16 Page 59
LTP3 Implementation Plan for Gravesham 2014 - 2015
Scheme Description Cost estimate £
National Objective: Support economic growth
UTMC programme for Gravesend (TM1) £250,000 KTS Model upgrade (OS1) – other half of budget shown on Dartford list - £200,000 Vissim model of A2 corridor (OS1) £200,000 Accommodation works / land acquisition at Milton Rd / Ordnance Rd traffic £50,000 signals (RD11)
National Objective: Climate change
Gravesend low cost cycling improvements – phase 4 (CY1) £10,000
National Objective: Promote Equality of Opportunity
National Objective: Contribute to better Safety, Security and Health
Reactive budget for Safe Routes to School and other footway improvements, £100,000 and Speed Management (WA1)
National Objective: Improve Quality of Life
Planning and Development:
17 Page 60
LTP3 Implementation Plan for Gravesham 2015 – 2016
Scheme Description Cost estimate £
National Objective: Support economic growth
UTMC programme for Gravesend (TM1) £250,000 A2 Park & Ride for Commuter Coaches (PR1) £500,000 Contribution toward Northfleet – Ebbsfleet station link (WA1) £2,000,000 National Objective: Climate change
Gravesham low cost cycling improvements – phase 4 (CY1) £30,000
National Objective: Promote Equality of Opportunity
National Objective: Contribute to better Safety, Security and Health
Reactive budget for Safe Routes to School and other footway improvements, £100,000 and Speed Management (WA1)
National Objective: Improve Quality of Life
Planning and Development:
Ebbsfleet central district: development likely to be in progress by this time
18 Page 61 Agenda Item 10 Page 62 Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank Page 65 Agenda Item 13
By: Nick Chard, Cabinet Member – Environment, Highways and Waste
To: Environment, Highways & Waste Policy Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 29 July 2010
Subject: Winter Service Consultation 2010
Classification: Unrestricted
1. Background Following the worst winter in over 30 years, a consultation exercise was carried out of the winter service delivered by Kent Highway Services. The final consultation report was produced by Ipsos MORI on 12 June. Additionally the views of Members of this committee and joint transportation boards were sought and the results thereof have been added to the consultation report to produce a revised draft Winter Service Policy 2010/11.
2. Key findings The key findings of the MORI report were reported to the EHW POSC in May of this year and the recommendations of the report are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. A full version of the report has been sent to Members of this committee. Additional copies can be requested from KHS.
3. Proposed policy revisions As a result of the comments received a number of changes are proposed to the existing Winter Service Policy Statement (Appendix 2).These are summarized below:
3.1 District arrangements – District councils have made it clear that they wish to be more involved in assisting with the provision of the winter service in their local areas. On a practical level this will include pre and post winter meetings with them and more formalised arrangements for snow and ice clearance in agreed areas. This is reflected in sections 2 and 6 of the policy. Community Delivery Team Leaders will review their local winter service plans in consultation with their district council colleagues.
3.2 Salt bins (Section 8.1) The provision of salt bins is of concern to parish councils in particular. They are seen as a community resource and a considerable number of requests have been made to KHS for new salt bins to be placed for the next winter season. There are currently 1803 salt bins placed around the county. The proposal in the revised policy is for the existing scoring system to continue and that from now on salt bins are filled with a mixture of sharp sand or grit and salt. The provision of bags of a sand/salt mix to be made available to parishes is also recommended to be trialled next winter. Additionally last
1 Page 66
year Members were able to use their Member Highway Fund money to purchase salt bins.
3.3 Footway clearance (Section 6.3) Footway clearance was a key concern of most of the stakeholders consulted. The key to improvement in this area is utilising district council staff and having clear plans in place to do so. This will be set out in the Winter Service Plan for 2010/11 and the local winter service plans. Work is also being done with other stakeholders such as the health service to explore how joint working with them could improve footway clearance across the county.
3.4 Communications (Section 10) Communications will be improved for communities, businesses and the emergency services. Regular detailed briefings will be given to the contact centre and the website and traffic management centre will be updated regularly as needed. The existing leaflet will be revised and district councils will be included in daily briefings as necessary. Key KHS staff have received media training and media contact will be developed prior to and during the winter season. A snow desk arrangement will be put in place as soon as snow conditions are experienced. This will coordinate activities, including emergency service and district councils and other KCC departments, including education.
3.5 Salt (Section 3.3) The supply of salt across the country is limited and KHS is continuing to secure stocks in the UK and from abroad. The use of pre wet salt is being extended next season to another two depots. Some district councils have requested stocks of salt for their own use to treat footways in their areas. Consideration needs to be given to these requests when drawing up agreements with them.
4. Other areas Meetings have been held between KHS and the Children, Families and Education Department and discussions are ongoing to improve schools responses to snow and icy conditions. A meeting has also been held with the leading bus operators in the county in regard to gritting bus routes and increasing the communications between KHS and those companies during the winter.
6. SEASIG Winter Service Group The inaugural meeting of the South East Authorities Winter Service Group was held at the Ashford Highway Depot in June. The group is chaired by KHS and is a useful forum for sharing ideas. Practical arrangements for mutual aid across the region in future and joint procurement arrangements are being considered and will be reported to this committee in due course.
2 Page 67
5. Recommendations It is recommended that the Cabinet Member for Environment Highways and Waste: a. Approve the policy changes recommended above b. Develop formal agreements for winter service with District councils across the county, including the provision of salt c. Approve the trial of salt bags in selected parish council areas ______
Background documents: Ipsos MORI ‘The Winter Service Policy Consultation 2010 Final report for Kent Highway Services’ June 2010 Joint Transportation Board notes
Appendices Appendix 1 - Recommendations from Ipsos MORI report Appendix 2 - Draft Winter Service Policy Statement 2010/11\
Officer contact details: Carol Valentine, Kent Highway Services, Ashford Highway Depot Tel: 08458 247800
3 Page 68
Appendix 1 Recommendations from Ipsos MORI report
Recommendations
Based on our analysis of the findings from the online survey and depth interviews, as set out in this report, we have developed the following recommendations for the development of the Winter Policy Statement 2010/11, and for KHS’s relationship with district authorities more generally.
It is clear from the online survey and the depth interviews that there were significant issues for KHS over the past winter. However, the depth interview respondents, in the main, felt that learning had taken place between the two phases of extreme weather, and the service provided by KHS had improved. Consequently, this experience must be used to improve the relationship between KHS and the districts, and to improve the future delivery of the winter service for Kent residents.
The wider impact for Kent County Council
Our recent NHT survey of Kent residents1 found that 55% are satisfied with the work that the authority undertakes on cold weather gritting, this is comparable to an average for the residents of the 76 local authorities that took part of 54%, which is positive. However, it suggests that more can be done. Ipsos MORI’s analysis of the data from the 76 authorities participating in the NHTS, in the report from A to B2, has found that there has been an upward trend in the proportion of the public who want to see extra investment in road and pavement maintenance at a time when the volume of traffic has increased in recent years and when, according to the Highway Condition Index, 11% of all ‘B’ and ‘C’ roads were not in ‘good’ condition before the harsh winter of 2009-10.
It is important to pause to consider resident satisfaction with road and pavement maintenance as there are wider implications for the Council. Our evidence from the NHTS shows that addressing road and pavement conditions, and perceptions of them, are vital pre-conditions to improving public views of transport and highway services. After aggregating the NHTS data collected in 76 local authority areas, we can see that the condition of highways is unlike most transport and highway services in attracting more resident dissatisfaction than satisfaction: half (49%) are critical against a third who are satisfied (36%). A quarter, (24%), are very dissatisfied.
Furthermore, we have found that half of residents wish to be more informed about transport issues. This has implications for the impact of improving communications to residents during periods of extreme weather, as in our wider local government work we have found that more informed residents are more satisfied.
1 National Highways Transport Survey http://www.nhtsurvey.org/ Kent County Council was one of 76 authorities to conduct this postal survey in 2009. 2 March 2010, From A to B, Ipsos MORI, http://www.ipsos- mori.com/DownloadPublication/1342_sri-transport-from-a-to-b-2010.pdf
4 Page 69
Involving stakeholders in the development of the Winter Policy Statement
To develop a more useful Winter Policy Statement and improve the delivery of the work of KHS during periods of extreme weather, it will not be necessary to restructure the service, or indeed return to pre-2003 ways of working. However, including the district authorities in the planning process and ensuring that they and residents are informed will be essential.
The depth interviews with districts identified very clearly that poor communications shaped the perception of the planning and management of the KHS response to extreme weather. It was felt that this was the case in the lead up to the winter period and during the extreme weather, where prior consultation would have been beneficial.
It is possible to identify a link between the poor communication among individual districts and KHS and the satisfactory clearance of roads and pavements. Those districts who lauded their contact for their responsiveness and flexibility were more understanding of the pressures faced by KHS.
The district authorities want to be involved in helping KHS designate the priority routes in their local area. Therefore it might be appropriate to consult the districts on district-specific sections of the Winter Service Policy Statement 2010/11. There is no desire to make this an unwieldy document that details the approach for every side-street, but the districts would like to be able to highlight essential junctions and services such as local crematoria, which might ordinarily be designated as a low priority.
County Councillors, who represent stakeholders such as schools, felt that in the future the needs of such local organisations should be considered more comprehensively than was the case in 2009/10. The County Councillors, themselves felt well informed of the work conducted by KHS, however a high proportion would prefer to receive information about the Policy via email, rather than in the current report document.
Improving the relationship between KHS and district authorities
Furthermore, during the extreme weather those authorities who had good access to a key contacts and information, and could feed into the local delivery of salting and snow clearance were much more understanding of the issues faced by KHS. Allowing and perhaps encouraging communication between key KHS contacts and district authorities, so that urgent, unexpected, problems can be treated is highly desired.
There is a need to be systematic in the relationships between individual districts and KHS key contacts. It is clear that at the moment there are some very good relationships and some less so. However, it appears that the better relationships exist because of the personal relationships that existed from before the re-organisation. A minimum standard of contact could be outlined, perhaps in a Service Level Agreement, so that those with poorer relationships can benefit for renewed attention.
5 Page 70
In terms of ongoing consultation, it may be useful to use current existing fora, such as the technical officers group or JTBs for prior consultation around priorities.
There are also lessons to be learned from working with staff employed by the district authorities to clear local pavements. A key issue for the councillors and parish councils was the clearing and salting of local pavements, which could be eased if there was more joint-working between the districts and KHS, employing district employees who are otherwise unable to work during extreme weather. Similarly, the interviews with county councillors indicate a desire to utilise local knowledge and resources, especially in the treatment of pavements and rural roads.
The online survey has shown that there is a desire from districts and parishes for residents to be more involved in helping their local areas cope with extreme weather. However, greater clarity around what help districts and parishes can give is desired by online respondents, district/borough councillors and county councillors alike. This might simply involve encouraging districts to involve their parishes in discussions over the prioritisation of local roads and footpaths, or might involve a greater provision of grit or salt for parishes.
Treating pavements
The online survey clearly identified a concern about the treatment and clearance of pavements, with a more positive perception of the work of KHS to clear main roads. This may be a reflection of the Winter Statement focusing on gritting rather than snow and ice clearance, as some interviewees perceived.
It is possible that improved relationships with districts and the delegation of cleansing staff could help here. However, the desire of local stakeholders for you to increase the priority placed on clearing pavements will present financial challenges. Therefore, if you do not already it may be worth developing partnerships with local businesses, LSP members – particular PCTs – and local public services across the county to identify whether the work of clearing pavements and footpaths may be made less onerous and costly for KHS. If, as the feedback from one depth interview suggests, there are cost savings to be made in the health sector if greater priority is given to pavements.
Communicating with residents
Improving the provision of information for local residents on the roads that will be cleared and gritted is clearly required. Over the winter 2009/10, when district authorities and councillors were contacted they had to recommend that residents speak to the county as they did not have enough information to answer questions. Perhaps if the districts were better informed this could relieve some of the pressure from the KHS Contact Centre.
Some of the depth interviewees identified that residents had had a poor experience of trying get through to the contact centre, with calls unanswered
6 Page 71
and messages left unanswered. This suggests that the contact centre was also not prepared for the extreme weather, whether because staff were unable to get to work, or the volume of calls was so great that staff could not cope. It is important that communications to residents are addressed, and perhaps minimum staff coverage should be agreed to ensure that residents are dealt with more effectively.
It may also be useful to review the information that you published on the KHS website over the Winter 2009/10. Improving the information made available online for districts and residents may reduce the volume of calls to the KHS contact centre. Perhaps a portal where districts could access the schedule for salting and snow clearing plans for there areas and the most up-to-date weather predictions, and a less detailed version made available on your main website would be a useful resource. Indeed, one county councillor interviewed by KHS suggested that methods of informing the public of KHS measures during extreme weather might be outlined in a future Winter Service policy statement.
Interviews with county councillors
The third phase of research, conducted by KHS, largely mirrors the findings from the interviews and discussions with parishes and districts. However, county councillors were more satisfied that KHS treated the main roads quickly and efficiently. The working relationship between KHS and the districts was thought to have improved over the two phases of extreme weather, and it was noted that this learning should be used to improve the future delivery of winter provision for Kent residents.
The, county councillors felt that greater collaboration between KHS and the district authorities would improve future winter service provision, especially the treatment of rural roads and pavements.
7 Page 72
Appendix C KHS Winter Service Review
KENT HIGHWAY SERVICES
WINTER SERVICE POLICY STATEMENT
2010/11
8 Page 73
Contents Page No
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Winter Service - Statutory Duties 3 1.2 Winter Service Standards 3 1.3 County Highways 4 1.4 Motorways and Trunk Roads 4
. Winter Service Objectives 4
2.1 Salting 4 2.2 Snow Clearance 4 2.3 Snow Fencing 5 2.4 Roadside Salt Bins 5
3. Winter Service General 5
3.1 Winter Service Contracts 5 3.2 Winter Service Season 5 3.3 Alternatives to Salt 5
4. Weather Information 5
4.1 Weather Information Systems 5 4.2 Weather Reports 6 4.3 Principal Winter Service Duty Officers 6
5. Salting 6
5.1 Planning of Precautionary Salting Routes 6 5.2 Precautionary Salting 6 5.3 Post Salting 6 5.4 Spot Salting 7 5.5 Instructions for Salting of Primary Routes 7 5.6 Instructions for Salting of Secondary Routes 7
6. Snow Clearance 7
6.1 Instructions for Snow Clearance 7 6.2 Snow Clearance Priorities on Carriageways 7 6.3 Snow Clearance Priorities on Footways 8 6.4 Agricultural Snow Ploughs for Snow Clearance 8 6.5 Snow Throwers/Blowers for Snow Clearance 8
9 Page 74
7. Severe Weather Conditions 8
7.1 Persistent Ice on Minor Roads 8 7.2 Ice Emergencies 8 7.3 Snow Emergencies 9
8. Roadside Salt Bins 9 8.1 Provision of Roadside Salt Bins 9
9. Budgets 9
9.1 Winter Service Budget 9 9.2 Ice and Snow Emergencies 9
10. Public and Media Communications 9
10.1 Neighbouring Authorities and Other Agencies 9 10.2 The Media 9 10.3 Pre-Season Publicity 10 10.4 Publicity during Ice and Snow Emergencies 10
10 Page 75
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Winter Service - Statutory Duty
1.1.1 The legal position relating to the highway authority’s responsibility in respect of winter service is set out in an amendment to section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (c.66) (duty of highway authority to maintain highway): -
“(1A) In particular, a highway authority is under a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice.
1.1.2 The County Council recognises that the winter service is essential in aiding the safe movement of highway users, maintaining communications, reducing delays and enabling everyday life to continue. It is very important to both road safety and the local economy. The winter service that the County Council provides is believed to be sufficient so far as is reasonably practical to discharge the duty imposed by the legislation.
1.1.3 The County Council, as highway authority, takes its winter service responsibilities extremely seriously. However, it is important to recognise that the council has to prioritise its response to deal with winter weather due to the logistics and available resources.
1.1.4 The County Council provides the winter service through Kent Highway Services (KHS) which is currently an alliance between Kent County Council, Ringway Infrastructure Services and Jacobs Group and telent.
1.2 Winter Service Standards
1.2.1. In order to respond as quickly and efficiently as possible to its responsibilities KHS has adopted policies and standards for each of the winter service activities and these are detailed within this document. The operational details for the winter service activities in Kent are detailed in the Winter Service Plan 2010/11 that complements this Policy Statement.
1.2.2 KHS provides a winter service which, as far as reasonably possible will:
Minimise the loss of life and injury to highway users, including pedestrians, and preventing damage to vehicles and other property
11 Page 76
Keep the highway free from obstruction and thereby avoiding unnecessary hindrance to passage
1.3 County Council Maintained Highways
1.3.1 Kent Highway Service (KHS) delivers the winter service on Kent County Council maintained highways.
1.4 Motorways and Trunk Roads
The Department for Transport (DfT) is the highway authority for motorways and all-purpose trunk roads in Kent and the Highways Agency acts for the DfT in this respect. Responsibility for the operational maintenance of motorways and trunk roads lies with the Highways Agency. KHS therefore has no responsibility for winter service activities on these roads. However, close liaison exists between the Highways Agency consultants over action taken during the winter service operational period within respective areas of responsibilities.
2. WINTER SERVICE OBJECTIVES
2.1 Salting
2.1.1 Objectives: To prevent the formation of ice on carriageways (precautionary salting) To facilitate the removal of ice and snow from carriageways and footways (post salting).
2.1.2 Roads to be Included within Primary Precautionary Salting Routes
Routine precautionary salting will be carried out on pre- determined primary precautionary salting routes covering the following roads:
Class ‘A’ and ‘B’ roads Other roads included in the top three tiers of the maintenance hierarchy as defined in the Kent Highway Asset Maintenance Plan. These are termed Major Strategic, Other Strategic and Locally Important roads. Other roads identified by Community Delivery Managers (based on local knowledge and experience and input from relevant local stakeholders including district and parish councils), that are particularly hazardous in frosty/icy conditions
12 Page 77
2.1.3 It would be impractical and financially draining to carry out precautionary salting of footways, pedestrian precincts or cycleways and therefore no provision has been made. However, there will be a certain amount of salt overspill onto footways and cycleways when precautionary salting is being carried out on adjacent carriageways. Post salting of footways and cycleways will be carried out on a priority basis during severe winter weather, as resources permit.
2.2 Snow Clearance
2.2.1 Objectives: To prevent injury or damage caused by snow To remove obstructions caused by the accumulation of snow (section 150 of the Highways Act 1980) To reduce delays and inconvenience caused by snow
2.2.2 Snow clearance on carriageways will be carried out on a priority basis as detailed in paragraph 6.2.
2.2.3 Snow clearance on certain minor route carriageways will be carried out by local farmers and plant operators, who are under agreement to the County Council, using agricultural snow ploughs and snow throwers/blowers. Snow clearance on other minor route carriageways will be carried out as resources permit. Some minor routes and cul-de-sacs will inevitably have to be left to thaw naturally.
2.2.4 Snow clearance on footways and cycleways will be carried out on a priority basis as detailed in paragraph 6.3. utilizing KHS staff and district council staff where agreements exist.
2.3
2.4 Roadside Salt Bins 2.4.1 Objective: To provide motorists and pedestrians with the means of salting small areas of carriageway or footway, where ice is causing difficulty, on roads not covered by primary precautionary salting routes.
3. WINTER SERVICE GENERAL
3.1 Winter Service Contracts
3.1.1 Winter service in Kent is included within the Term Maintenance Contract awarded to Ringway Infrastructure Services. This contract was awarded in 2006 and is currently in place until 2011.
13 Page 78
3.2 Winter Service Season
3.2.1 In Kent the weather can be unpredictable and the occurrence and severity of winter conditions varies considerably through the season, and from year to year. Severe winter weather is most likely to be experienced in December, January and February but ice and snow can occur earlier or later. To take account of all possible winter weather the County Council’s Operational Winter Service Period runs from mid October to mid April. Exact dates for the coming winter are given in the Winter Service Plan.
3.3 Salt usage and alternatives to Salt
Pre wetted salt and dry rock salt is used across the county for precautionary and post salting. In cases of severe snowfall, alternatives to salt will be used including sharp sand and other forms of grit.
3.3.1 A number of alternative materials to salt are now available which can be used for the precautionary and post treatment of ice and snow. The cost of these is extremely high and there are also environmental disadvantages associated with most of them. Salt will therefore, for the time being, remain in use throughout Kent for the precautionary and post treatment of snow and ice.
4. WEATHER INFORMATION
4.1 Weather Information Systems
4.1.1 An effective and efficient winter service is only possible with reliable and accurate information about weather conditions, at the appropriate times in the decision making progress. KHS utilises the best weather forecast information currently available allied to the latest computer technology to ensure that decisions are based on the most accurate data available at the time.
4.2 Weather Reports
4.2.1 During the operational winter service period Kent Highway Services will procure detailed daily weather forecasts and reports specifically dedicated to roads within Kent.
4.3 Winter Duty Officers
4.3.1 Experienced members of staff from Kent Highway Services will act as Winter Duty Officers, throughout the operational winter
14 Page 79
service period, on a rota basis. The Officer on duty is responsible for the following: -
Receiving forecast information from the forecasting agency Monitoring current weather conditions Issuing countywide salting instructions for primary and secondary routes Issuing the Kent Road Weather Forecast
4.3.2 The Kent Road Weather Forecast will be issued daily containing information about expected weather conditions together with any salting instructions. The Winter Duty Officer will also be responsible for issuing forecast updates and any revised salting instructions when necessary. The Kent Road Weather Forecast will be sent to alliance members, contractors, neighbouring highway authorities, and other relevant agencies.
5. SALTING
5.1 Planning of Precautionary Salting Routes
5.1.1 Primary precautionary salting routes will be developed from those lengths of highway that qualify for treatment, whenever ice, frost or snowfall is expected. Each primary precautionary salting route will have a vehicle assigned which is capable of having a snowplough fixed to it, when required. In times of severe snowfall and/or extreme ice formation, dedicated vehicles will be assigned to patrol key strategic routes. Secondary precautionary salting routes will also be developed from other important highways for treatment during severe winter weather conditions.
5.2 Precautionary Salting
5.2.1 Precautionary salting will take place on scheduled precautionary salting routes on a pre-planned basis to help prevent formation of ice, frost, and/or the accumulation of snow on carriageway surfaces.
5.3 Post Salting
5.3.1 Post salting will normally take place on scheduled precautionary salting routes to treat frost, ice and snow that has already formed on carriageway or footway surfaces. Post salting may also be carried out on roads or sections of road beyond the scheduled precautionary salting routes.
15 Page 80
5.4 Spot Salting
5.4.1 Spot salting will normally take place on parts or sections of scheduled precautionary salting routes either to help prevent formation of ice, frost and/or the accumulation of snow or as treatment to ice, frost and the accumulation of snow that has already formed on carriageway or footway surfaces. Spot salting may also be required on roads and footways, or sections thereof, beyond the scheduled precautionary salting routes.
5.5 Instructions for Salting of Primary Routes
5.5.1 Instructions for precautionary salting of primary routes will be issued if road surface temperatures are expected to fall below freezing unless:
Road surfaces are expected to be dry and frost is not expected to form on the road surface Residual salt on the road surface is expected to provide adequate protection against ice or frost forming
5.5.2 Instructions for precautionary salting of primary routes will also be issued if snowfall is expected.
5.5.3 The Winter Duty Officer will issue routine instructions for precautionary salting of primary routes, for the whole of Kent, by means of the Kent Road Weather Forecast.
5.5.4 The Winter Duty Officer or Community Delivery Manager may issue instructions for post salting and spot salting.
5.6 Instructions for Salting of Secondary Routes
5.6.1 The Winter Duty Officer will issue instructions for precautionary salting of secondary routes if heavy frost, widespread ice, or snow, is expected.
6. SNOW CLEARANCE
6.1 Instructions for Snow Clearance
6.1.1 The Winter Duty Officer and/or the Community Delivery Manager nominated representatives are responsible for issuing snow clearance instructions. Snow clearance will initially take place on scheduled primary precautionary salting routes, based on the priorities given in para. 6.2.1. Subsequently, snow
16 Page 81
clearance will take place on secondary salting routes and other roads, and footways, on a priority basis.
6.1.2 Snow ploughing shall not take place on carriageways where there are physical restrictions due to traffic calming measures, unless it has been deemed safe to do so following a formal risk assessment and a safe method of operation documented.
6.2 Snow Clearance Priorities on Carriageways
6.2.1 Snow clearance on carriageways should be based on the priorities given below: -
A229 between M20 and M2, A249 between M20 and M2, A299 and A289; Other “A” class roads; All other roads included within primary precautionary salting routes; One link to other urban centres, villages and hamlets with priority given to bus routes; Links to hospitals and police, fire and ambulance stations; Links to schools (in term time), stations, medical centres, doctor’s surgeries, old people’s homes, cemeteries, crematoria and industrial, commercial and shopping centres; With the approval of Community Delivery Manager, other routes as resources permit.
6.3 Snow Clearance Priorities on Footways
6.3.1 Snow clearance on footways should be based on the priorities given below:
One footway in and around shopping centres, and on routes to schools (in term time), stations, bus stops, hospitals, medical centres, doctor’s surgeries, old people’s homes, industrial and commercial centres and on steep gradients elsewhere; One footway on main arteries in residential areas and the second footway in and around local shopping centres; With the approval of Community Delivery Managers, other footways, walking bus routes and cycleways as resources permit. . District council staff will be commissioned to clear agreed priority footways in their local areas. Formalized arrangements will be put in place between the Director of Kent Highway Services and district council Chief Executive Officers.
17 Page 82
6.4 Agricultural Snowploughs for Snow Clearance
6.4.1 Agreements will be entered into by whereby snowploughs provided and maintained by KHS are assigned to local farmers and plant operators for snow clearance operations, generally on the more rural parts of the highway.
6.5 Snow Throwers/Blowers for Snow Clearance
6.5.1 KHS also has a number of snow throwers/blowers, which are allocated to operators on a similar basis to the arrangements for agricultural snowploughs.
7. SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS
7.1 Persistent Ice on Minor Roads
7.1.1 During longer periods of cold weather Community Delivery Managers may instruct salting action to deal with persistent ice on minor roads which are not included within the precautionary salting routes and invoke arrangements with district and parish councils to take action in their local area.
7.2 Ice and Snow Emergencies
7.2.1 During prolonged periods of severe and persistent icing, or significant snow fall, delegated officers may declare an ice or snow emergency covering all or part of the County. In this event Community Delivery Managers will establish a snow desk and implement a course of action to manage the situation in either of these events.
8.1 Provision of Roadside Salt Bins
8.1.1 Roadside salt bins can be sited at potentially hazardous locations for use by the public, to treat ice and snow on small areas of the carriageway or footway. 8.1.2 Salt bins will be filled using a mixture of sharp sand or other grit material and salt and will be refilled twice during the winter season. In the event of severe weather further refills will be carried out as time and resources permit. 8.1.3 An assessment criteria for installing a new salt bin has been devised and is shown at Annex 1. The form will be used by Community Operations staff to assess requests.
18 Page 83
8.2 Payment for salt bins 8.2.1 Once a salt bin has been approved by the assessment criteria, the cost of installation, filling and maintenance will be borne by KHS. 8.2.2 Additionally there will be a trial of bagged salt/sand mix provided to a selection of parish council at the start of the winter season for use in their local area. 8.2.3 Member Highway Fund 8.2.3.1 Members are able to purchase salt bins using their Member Highway Fund in line with the usual application process. All requests will be subject to the assessment criteria in section 8.1.3
9. BUDGETS
9.1 Winter Service Budget
9.1.1 The budget for the annual operational winter service period is based on salting the primary precautionary salting routes on 55 occasions. The main budget is managed by the Head of Community Operations as a countywide budget.
9.2 Ice and Snow Emergencies
9.2.1 There is no specific budget allocation within KHS for ice or snow emergencies. The cost of dealing with periods of icy conditions or significant snowfalls will be met by virement from other planned programmes of work on the highway or from special contingency funds for emergencies.
10. PUBLIC AND MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
10.1 Neighbouring Authorities and other Agencies
10.1.1 The Kent Road Weather Forecast containing details of the winter service action for Kent will be transmitted daily to neighbouring highway authorities and other agencies so that activities can be co-ordinated regionally.
10.2 The Media
10.2.1 Communicating to communities, businesses and emergency services during winter is essential to delivering an effective service. Local media organisations will be informed when instructions for salting of primary precautionary salting are issued. The Kent County Council Internet site will be updated
19 Page 84
regularly and the Traffic Management Centre will issue road updates.
10.3 Pre-Season Publicity
10.3.1 It is important that the public are aware of and understand the KHS approach to winter service. An updated leaflet for drivers and other road users relating to winter service is available in local libraries and on the Kent County Council website. Advice will be provided on self help for communities, including encouraging local action where appropriate e.g use of salt bins.
10.4. Publicity during Ice or Snow Emergencies
10.4.1 Liaison with the news media, particularly local radio stations, is of the utmost importance and links will be established and maintained particularly during ice or snow emergencies.
20 Page 85
1.1.1.1.1 Annex 1
SALT BIN ASSESSMENT FORM
Location of Salt Bin Assessment Date Assessed by
Characteristic Severity Standard Actual Score Score
(i) Gradient Greater than 1 in 15 75 1 in 15 to 1 in 29 40 Less than 1 in 30 Nil
(ii) Severe Bend Yes 60 No Nil
(iii) Close proximity to Heavy trafficked road 90 and falling towards Moderately trafficked road 75 Lightly trafficked road 30
(iv) Assessed traffic Moderate (traffic group 5) 40 density at peak times Light (traffic group 6) Nil
(v) * Number of Over 50 30 premises for which 20 - 50 20 only access 0 - 20 Nil
(vi) Is there a substantial Yes 20 population of either No Nil disabled or elderly people
TOTAL
* N.B. Any industrial or shop premises for which this is the only access is to be automatically promoted to the next higher category within characteristic (V).
Any site for which the summation of the weighing factors equals or exceeds 120 would warrant the siting of a salt bin.
21 This page is intentionally left blank Page 87
Item
By: Nick Chard, Cabinet Member – Environment, Highways & Waste John Burr, Director of Kent Highways Services
To: Environment, Highways & Waste Policy Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Subject: Repairs to Weather Damaged Roads
Classification: Unrestricted
Summary:
Members are asked to note progress on the delivery of repairs to roads in Kent. This work is being undertaken by 7 contractors who were appointed following a competitive tender process in March. Progress to date has seen the completion of over 75000m2 of repairs to over 1200 roads.
1. Background
As part of the response to the unprecedented damage to the roads in Kent following the severe winter, KHS has been working to make all the roads in the county safe (in particular with repairs to potholes) and improve the condition of the carriageway surface.
On 29th March, The KCC Cabinet approved the letting of 12 contracts, one for each district, to contractors for the repair of weather related damage to roads. The initial Cabinet decision to award these contracts was discussed at the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee on 9th April. The recommendations of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee related to future monitoring and reporting of progress, these were:-
Ask for confirmation of the level of backlog to road repairs, the level of government support, and the level of expenditure which would be required to clear the backlog Ask for written confirmation that the total cost of administering the process and overheads is no more than 10% of the total cost of the contract;
Ask that Members, Parish Councils and Town Councils be informed when teams will be working in their areas;
Ask that the frequency of inspection of utilities work to road surfaces is increased to ensure benefits and high performance of utility companies; These requests for further information are detailed in this report Page 88
2. Find and Fix Progress
After 12 weeks of the programme (up to 6th July) 13754 individual potholes and 61883m2 of larger patches were repaired. This equates to some 75,600m2 of repairs, equivalent to over 60 Olympic size swimming pools. This has been delivered at a cost of £3m.
The find and fix approach is clearly showing favour with many people, however with the rate of repair significantly higher than normal (due to the high level of winter damage, and increased intervention levels as explained), the cost is greater.
Beyond the completion of this task, any new safety critical potholes, or further deterioration of the road network not evident when the find and fix teams visited, will still be funded from within the KHS core budget and repaired using the permanent repair crews.
3. Communication and Project Management
The roads that are due to be completed, and those that have been repaired are being shown on the KCC website.
KHS has worked with the liaison officers to be responsive to members queries about progress, planning and priorities.
The administration of the contract is being undertaken with the KHS alliance; this includes contract preparation, project management, a high level of site supervision and permitting. The total estimated costs of are in the region of £320k (5% of the contract value).
4. Next Steps
Since the initial Cabinet decision which allocated £1m to this work, progress has been good and feedback has been very positive. However, the quantum on the potholes was such that further funding was required to continue the work.
Subsequent Cabinet approval has been given to ensure funding is available for the repairs, and at the July 12th meeting, a final allocation of £6.5m was approved. It is predicted that this budget will allow the completion of some 3000 roads by the external contractors, with a completion date in early autumn.
5. Total highways maintenance backlog
It is currently estimated that the highways maintenance backlog is in the region of £430m.
6. Frequency of inspection for public utility works
The NRSWA code of practice allows for inspections at 5 stages of the works, with an inspection frequency of 6% at each (ie. a total of 30%). KHS has increased the Page 89 frequency of the last two stages to raise the total to 40%. A separate report is being prepared on the findings of this initiative.
7. Recommendations
That members note the progress of the works. This page is intentionally left blank Page 91
Item
From: Nick Chard – Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways & Waste Mike Austerberry - Executive Director of Environment, Highways & Waste Barbara Cooper - Director of Economic Development
To: Environment, Highways & Waste Policy Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 29 July 2010
Subject: Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking
Classification: Unrestricted
Summary: Concerns have been raised by the Kent Developers’ Group concerning the possible consequences of Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking for homebuilding in Kent. This report advises members of how Kent Highway Services and the Kent Design Initiative are working with development partners to test the robustness of IGN3, and points to further consultation that will be undertaken as residential parking policies are developed at district level.
1. INTRODUCTION
Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking (IGN3) is an evidence based response to the requirement that “Local Planning Authorities should, with stakeholders and communities, develop residential parking policies for their areas, taking account of expected levels of car ownership, the importance of promoting good design and the need to use land efficiently” (Planning Policy Statement PPS3: Housing, Section 51). It has been endorsed by the Kent Planning Officers’ Group (KPOG) and recommended to Kent’s district planning authorities for development control and local development framework purposes. It was adopted by Kent County Council (KCC) by Cabinet Member Decisions in May 2009, replacing previously adopted guidance in the 2006 Vehicle Parking Standards (SPG4 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan).
In surveys covering over 200 recent housing developments across Kent, parking is the biggest single issue of concern to residents, with a majority reporting problems in more than half of those sites. Neighbour disputes, obstruction to pedestrians, concerns about emergency service access and damage to highway areas are among the implications. However, the survey results also show that it is mainly the design and use of parking and streets that causes these problems rather than the amounts themselves.
Members of the Kent Developers’ Group have raised concerns about the impact of IGN3 on the density of future housing schemes. In practice, IGN3 is already being implemented successfully at a site specific level without a loss of units or quality. More than half of Kent’s districts are using IGN3 to some degree, and Ashford Borough Council is now consulting on a residential parking Supplementary Planning Page 92
Document based on IGN3. However, further work is in hand to show that IGN3 will help to reduce the incidence of parking problems without affecting reasonable densities of development.
A more detailed report, which includes details of the previously adopted standards (SPG4) and feedback from the Residential Parking Workshop held on 14th April 2010, is included at Appendix 1.
2. THE KENT DEVELOPERS’ GROUP’S REPRESENTATIONS
In an e-mail dated 12 May 2010, Tony Hillier of Hillreed Homes, and as a representative of the Kent Developers’ Group, asked for three specific amendments to be made to IGN3. These were reiterated in a letter from the Kent Developers’ Group to Nick Chard dated 17 March (June) 2010. They are listed below.
These proposed amendments are
1. Reinstate the ability to create parking spaces in tandem by amending the requirement for all parking spaces to be independently accessible.
2. Reinstate the status of garages as counting towards the overall parking standards in an agreed way, albeit not necessarily 100%.
3. Redefine the location categories where the different standards are applied especially “Suburban” & “Suburban edge”.
The way that residential parking is provided is as important as the amount. IGN3 identifies minimum amounts and design parameters for situations with no on-street parking controls, the former being generally below the maximum standards that IGN3 superseded. As such, less reliable forms of parking such as garages and tandem spaces are acceptable in addition to the minimum amounts. Furthermore, because IGN3 is interpreted at a site specific level, development teams have flexibility when considering parking in the context of overall Quality Audit issues.
There is ‘common ground’ over the need for streets to be better able to cope with parking, to meet the reasonable needs of visitors and also those of a limited number of residents. In simple terms, this means that non-urban streets should no longer be ‘designed down’ to the bare minimum for vehicle movement. In practical terms, it means that well-designed, sometimes wider streets should be provided as high quality places within which people can move and meet, and also park responsibly. In this respect, materials and layouts, including boundary treatment and kerb types, will have a strong influence over how the spaces look and are read by users. The Kent Design Guide encourages this approach.
Kent Highway Services (KHS) is working with the district planning authorities to identify the zones within which the different approaches to residential parking should apply. The survey evidence underpins this work.
3. FURTHER CONSULTATION AT DISTRICT LEVEL
Ashford Borough Council has prepared detailed residential parking guidance, in the form of a draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which is now out to consultation. This draft SPD is based on IGN3. Such detailed development of IGN3 Page 93 fulfils the requirements of PPS3 and provides developers and designers with a further opportunity to comment on new, design-led approaches that are aimed at preventing parking problems in future developments.
PPS3 places the onus on local planning authorities (- the district councils in Kent -) to prepare residential parking policies. While KCC could, with district support, undertake further work (including consultation) to develop IGN3 into Supplementary Planning Guidance, it is likely that districts will choose to work locally. To this end, KHS has offered to help with the local interpretation through the Local Development Framework process.
4. TESTING THE ROBUSTNESS OF IGN3
In response to the Kent Developers’ Group’s concerns, KHS and the Kent Design Initiative are working on case studies. These include assessments of sites put forward by two of the Group’s members, single plot options, and sites in Kings Hill. The latter will be assessed by an independent layout architect in order that the design quality implications are considered alongside the numerical aspects.
Ashford Borough Council’s draft SPD includes many very helpful diagrams and drawings. Similarly, Car Parking: What Works Where (English Partnerships, May 2006) contains the visualisation of various parking solutions. The ‘robustness testing’ exercise described above may also yield some useful material.
It has been suggested that concern about the implications of IGN3 is being fuelled by its complexity. Residential parking is a complex subject, but the various ways towards better understanding are already bringing clarification. The reasons for past failure are by no means straightforward, but through collaborative working it should be possible to reduce the incidence of parking problems in future developments.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking is an evidence based foundation for local planning authorities’ “residential parking policies” required under Section 51 of Planning Policy Statement PPS3: Housing. Further public consultation will be undertaken as Kent’s district councils respond to PPS3, as is already happening with Ashford Borough Council’s draft Supplementary Planning Document.
It is therefore recommended that the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee should: a) Endorse the testing of the robustness of IGN3 described in Section 4 and receive a report on the outcomes when they are available. b) Acknowledge the concerns of the Kent Developers’ Group, and the work that is being undertaken to address these concerns, and encourage further dialogue at appropriate levels to understand the actual implications of and opportunities presented by IGN3, and its interpretation at local level. c) Note that public consultation on Ashford Borough Council’s draft Residential Parking SPD offers developers and designers an opportunity to make further representations on the implications of ‘IGN3 based guidance’, having regard for the need to address the problems of some past approaches. Page 94
d) Acknowledge the widespread concern among residents concerning parking in recent residential developments, and the social and cost implications arising from the problems caused, and welcome collaborative working approaches that are seeking to avoid replication of these problems in future developments.
APPENDIX
Appendix 1 – Detailed report on background to IGN3 and responses to the Kent Developers’ Group’s concerns.
Page 95
Item Appendix 1
Subject: Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking
Summary: Concerns have been raised by the Kent Developers’ Group concerning the possible consequences of Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking for homebuilding in Kent. This report gives the background to IGN3, describes current and planned work to address development industry concerns, and points to further consultation that will be undertaken as residential parking policies are developed at district level.
1. INTRODUCTION
Planning Policy Statement PPS3: Housing (Communities & Local Government (CLG), November 2006) requires that “Local Planning Authorities should, with stakeholders and communities, develop residential parking policies for their areas, taking account of expected levels of car ownership, the importance of promoting good design and the need to use land efficiently” (PPS3, Section 51).
In 2008, the Kent Planning Officers’ Group (KPOG) asked Kent Highway Services (KHS) to prepare a response to Section 51 of PPS3. Following consultation in August/September 2008, using the Kent Design Initiative ‘limited consultation list’, the final document, Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking (IGN3), was endorsed by KPOG and recommended to the member authorities (excluding Medway Council) for adoption for development control and local development framework purposes. KPOG also asked Kent County Council to adopt IGN3 to give it more weight. This was done by Cabinet Member Decision in May 2009.
IGN3 uses a substantial, and growing, evidence base drawn from surveys of developments constructed mainly in the past ten years. Where two cars are likely to be in use, it suggests that the parking spaces should be independently accessible because tandem arrangements are frequently underutilised. It uses evidence concerning the unreliability of garages as parking to discount their contribution where no on-street parking controls are in place. It also identifies different approaches for areas according to the presence, or otherwise, of on-street parking controls and other constraints.
Parking is the most significant issue of concern in the developments that have been surveyed, with a majority of residents giving it a negative rating in over half of the sites. Similarly, a majority of residents consider that there are parking problems in nearly two thirds of the sites. The evidence base demands a positive response, in line with the criteria contained in PPS3.
Concern about unintended consequences arising from IGN3, such as reduced densities of development, was expressed by Tony Hillier of Hillreed Homes in the Summer of 2009. This resulted in representations being made on behalf of the Kent Developers’ Group, of which Tony Hillier is a member, to the December meeting of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee (CSC). CSC directed that a Residential Parking Page 96
Workshop should be arranged to bring together developers, members and designers to discuss the implications of IGN3.
This report discusses issues raised by the Kent Developers’ Group and matters covered by the Workshop held on 14 April 2010. It seeks to address the concerns and to demonstrate that further work is being undertaken to test the robustness of IGN3.
2. PREVIOUS STANDARDS & GUIDANCE
In order to understand whether there are any unintended consequences arising from IGN3, it is important to consider the residential parking standards that were in force before it was adopted/endorsed.
The previous adopted residential parking standards, which IGN3 replaced in May 2009, were contained in planning guidance supplementary to the defunct Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Below is the relevant extract from SPG4 Vehicle Parking Standards (2006):
Land Use Class C3 – Dwellings
Maximum Vehicle Parking Standards
Car Parking 1 bedroom 1 space per dwelling 2 and 3 bedrooms 2 spaces per dwelling Mixed Development of 1,2 & 3 bedroom Average of 1.5 spaces across development 4 or more bedrooms 3 spaces per dwelling Sheltered Accommodation 1 space per resident warden + 1 space per 2 units Notes: 1. Flats and Apartment Blocks consisting of 2 and 3 bedroom units will be regarded as Mixed Developments. 2. For 1-bedroom dwellings the parking will usually be provided as a communal space. For other size dwellings part or all of the parking can be provided on a communal basis. 3. The level of car parking provision includes any garages, provided as an integral part of the dwelling or within its curtilage, and/or driveways, provided within the curtilage, subject to the preferred sizes set out in Appendix B. 4. In Controlled Parking Zones the parking provision should result in no net loss of on-street parking.
Provision in mixed developments should be established initially on the basis of the units to be provided. There may be scope in mixed developments, particularly at higher densities, for sharing car park spaces and lower provision than the indicative average of 1.5 spaces per unit may be achieved in discussion with the local planning authority. Developments in town centres, or consisting largely of small units, may achieve more stringent standards.
(From Page 24, KMSP SPG4: Vehicle Parking Standards (July 2006))
SPG4 guidance in respect of garages and driveways included the following:
Garages Experience has shown that garages, provided for individual residential dwellings, are unlikely to be used for the parking of a vehicle unless sufficient space is also incorporated within the garage for storage. This may have less relevance for garages that are provided as a communal facility for residential accommodation. However, the needs of the mobility Page 97 impaired, either as a driver or as a passenger, should also be considered in the design of garages and sufficient space should also be allowed to enable a garage to be used as a secure location for any cycle parking provision. Taking these factors into account the preferred internal dimensions of a garage that should be considered for residential developments in Kent are: -
Preferred Garage Size for Single Car 5.5m (length) x 3.6m (width) Preferred Garage Size for Two Cars 5.5m (length) x 6.0m (width)
Driveways & Manoeuvring on Site
Where parking or garaging for more than two cars is provided this should not be met by constructing the garage or parking area one vehicle wide by the number of vehicles long. Driveways associated with garages and parking areas for two cars should preferably be double width.
(From Pages 32 & 33, KMSP SPG4: Vehicle Parking Standards (July 2006))
3. INTERIM GUIDANCE NOTE 3 & SPG4
A comparison of the survey evidence base and the resultant minimum guidance levels in IGN3 with the maximum standards in SPG4 is shown below:
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM OWNERSHIP FROM SURVEY DATA WITH SUPERSEDED SPG4 (MAXIMUM) AND ADOPTED IGN3 (MINIMUM)
MAXIMUM FROM MAXIMUM MINIMUM OWNERSHIP STANDARDS STANDARDS SURVEY DATA* SPG4 IGN3* (superseded) (but see also notes & caveats) NOT ALLO- SUB- SUB- ALLO- CATED URBAN URBAN BEDS CATED BEDS EDGE/ RURAL/ VILLAGE 1 0.83 1 1 2 1.50 2 2 1 & 2 1.0 1.5 3 2.00 2 2 3 1.5 2.0 4 2.33 3 3 4+ 2.0 2.0 5 2.50 3 3
* Visitor parking not included
As can be seen, the minimum guidance levels in IGN3 are generally less than the equivalent in SPG4. As such, the provision of garages in addition to the minimum amount is welcome, especially when they are large enough for storage (of bicycles, white goods, etc.) in addition to the parking of cars (up to at least family saloon size).
In respect of the provision of two parking spaces for a dwelling, IGN3 is more flexible than SPG4 because it requires that they should be independently Page 98 accessible rather than specifically side by side. Non-allocated spaces satisfy this requirement.
It appears that some developments within which parking problems are now being experienced were constructed with undersized garages and a parking provision less than the maximum levels in SPG4. IGN3 seeks to prevent the replication of these problems without affecting the reasonable density of non-urban housing schemes.
4. DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY CONCERNS
In an e-mail dated 12 May 2010, Tony Hillier of Hillreed Homes, and as a representative of the Kent Developers’ Group, asked for three specific amendments to be made to IGN3. These were reiterated in a letter from the Kent Developers’ Group to Nick Chard dated 17 March (June) 2010. They are listed below.
These proposed amendments are
1. Reinstate the ability to create parking spaces in tandem by amending the requirement for all parking spaces to be independently accessible.
2. Reinstate the status of garages as counting towards the overall parking standards in an agreed way, albeit not necessarily 100%.
3. Redefine the location categories where the different standards are applied especially “Suburban” & “Suburban edge”.
The background to the proposed amendments has been enlarged upon in correspondence and meetings, and at the Residential Parking Workshop held on 14th April 2010. The concerns are listed below: a. IGN3 will reduce the densities of future housing schemes. b. Garages are used by some people and should count as parking spaces. c. Double width driveways will have a harmful effect on layout design and density, especially in respect of pushing the frontage of dwellings further away from the street. Tandem parking should be accepted as a legitimate way of providing two spaces. d. Additional areas of hard paving to accommodate extra parking will increase the impermeable area of developments, exacerbating drainage problems. It will also increase costs. e. IGN3 is difficult to understand and implement, causing inconsistency in its use by Kent Highway Services’ (KHS) officers and district planners. Interpretation of the ‘zones’ is particularly problematic. f. Kent’s district councils have not collectively accepted or adopted IGN3, with or without any local changes, leading to uncertainty among designers working in some or all of Kent.
Items a. and b. are covered in Sections 2 and 3 above. Furthermore, car barns are acceptable as part of the IGN3 requirement. Item c. is oversimplified in that there Page 99 are alternative forms of independently accessible spaces. Furthermore, SPG4 recognised the problems associated with the under-use of tandem parking, and the growing evidence base has done nothing to undermine that view.
Compared with SPG4, no significant addition to the impermeable areas is necessary. Furthermore, the underprovision of parking is likely to lead to the ad hoc paving over of garden space.
KHS, in the context of the Kent Design Initiative and as a statutory consultee in respect of planning proposals with highway implications, is working with district councils, developers and designers to ensure that the guidance in IGN3 is translated into schemes that will meet the Quality Audit tests of Interim Guidance Note 1. It is also assisting district council partners with the translation of IGN3 into guidance at local planning authority level, as required by PPS3. The evidence base is being developed to provide robust support for inclusion in local development frameworks.
Several district councils are using IGN3 and/or are considering translating it into a local Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Progress towards SPD involves further public consultation, hence any parties dissatisfied with consultation in respect of IGN3, and/or concerned about how IGN3 will affect layouts, will have further opportunities to make representations. At least two districts have suggested that IGN3 should be developed into Countywide Supplementary Planning Guidance, which would also involve further and wider public consultation. This matter is being considered by KPOG, albeit the majority view thus far has been that each district should prepare its own policies and guidance, preferably based on IGN3.
5. CASE STUDIES
Two case studies, using occupied developments, were prepared by Hillreed Homes for the Residential Parking Workshop. These were intended to show that IGN3 would reduce the reasonable density of development on the sites in question. One of the case studies was used at the Workshop.
Both of the Hillreed case study sites have been the subject of a residents’ survey. Both are rated negatively for parking, one significantly so. As such, the approach to parking has been shown to be inadequate in the opinion of those who live there.
The layouts have been reviewed by KHS in the light of IGN3. Both could accommodate appropriate levels of parking without the loss of units and without serious degradation of quality. Indeed, ad hoc parking in areas without adequate formal provision is itself usually a source of reduced quality of life.
‘Single plot’ sketches were also prepared by Hillreed Homes to demonstrate, at the most basic level, how IGN3 would affect plot sizes and urban design. In response, KHS has prepared single plot sketches to show a variety of options with less impact.
Millwood Designer Homes also submitted three case studies, one occupied and two proposed. These are to be the subject of further discussion between Millwood and KHS. Page 100
The other case study used at the Workshop was a Ward Homes scheme that is positively rated by residents for its parking. More recent examples of proposed schemes reappraised in the light of IGN3 demonstrate how people-focussed quality can be achieved without reducing the reasonable density in context.
6. DISTRICT COUNCIL APPROACHES TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING
In a report to the April meeting of KPOG, district planning authority approaches to residential parking were tabulated. More than half of Kent’s 12 district councils are using IGN3 to some degree. Two have adopted it as a material planning consideration, while two others are using it as the basis for more detailed guidance that will be subject to further consultation. Of the three districts whose responses were not included in the report, two are known to be using IGN3 to some extent.
Ashford Borough Council has prepared detailed residential parking guidance, in the form of a draft SPD, which is now out to consultation. This draft SPD is based on IGN3. Such detailed development of IGN3 fulfils the requirements of PPS3 and provides developers and designers with a further opportunity to comment on new, design-led approaches that are aimed at preventing parking problems in future developments.
PPS3 places the onus on local planning authorities (- the district councils in Kent -) to prepare residential parking policies. While KCC could, with district support, undertake further work (including consultation) to develop IGN3 into Supplementary Planning Guidance, it is likely that districts will choose to work locally. To this end, KHS has offered to help with the local interpretation through the Local Development Framework process.
7. WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS, DESIGNERS AND DISTRICTS
The 2009 “Kent Design on the Road” workshops included discussions with each of Kent’s district planning authorities concerning IGN3 and its relevance to Quality Audits (Interim Guidance Note 1). All districts have been invited to have further discussions about the local interpretation of IGN3, and several have accepted.
The KPOG Homebuilding Industry Joint Liaison Committee has been a forum for discussion about the post occupation surveys and the use of IGN3. As with district councils, developers and designers have been invited to have further discussions about the guidance. This tends to be happening in the context of actual planning proposals, with layouts successfully incorporating IGN3 parking levels without detriment to quality or density. It is important to note that members of the Joint Liaison Committee have not raised concerns about IGN3 at meetings held subsequent to its approval.
The Kent Developers’ Group has expressed concern about its limited engagement with Kent’s local authorities over planning matters. KPOG representatives have met with Group representatives to address this concern, and to see if the work of the Joint Liaison Committee can embrace Group members and issues.
The Residential Parking Workshop held on 14th April 2010 demonstrated the need for further engagement between the Kent Design Initiative and developers. This is in hand, and will cover a range of subjects including Quality and Parking. Page 101
8. TESTING THE ROBUSTNESS OF IGN3
In response to the Kent Developers’ Group’s concerns, Kent Highway Services and the Kent Design Initiative are working on case studies. These include assessments of sites put forward by two of the Group’s members, single plot options, and sites in Kings Hill. The latter will be assessed by an independent layout architect in order that the design quality implications are considered alongside the numerical aspects.
Ashford Borough Council’s draft SPD includes many very helpful diagrams and drawings. Similarly, Car Parking: What Works Where (English Partnerships, May 2006) contains the visualisation of various parking solutions. The ‘robustness testing’ exercise described above may also yield some useful material.
It has been suggested that concern about the implications of IGN3 is being fuelled by its complexity. Residential parking is a complex subject, but the various ways towards better understanding described in Sections 4 – 8 of this report are already bringing clarification. The reasons for past failure are by no means straightforward, but through collaborative working it should be possible to reduce the incidence of parking problems in future developments.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking is an evidence based response to Planning Policy Statement PPS3: Housing. It seeks to address known problems without simply increasing the amount of parking required. Indeed, compared with previous guidance, the minimum levels in IGN3 are mainly lower. However, the focus of IGN3 is on how parking is provided, such that it is more convenient to use and makes the best use of the land available. Additional parking in the form of garages and ‘non qualifying’ tandem spaces is not excluded.
There is no clear evidence to support the view that properly designed developments must be less dense to incorporate IGN3 parking levels. However, there is clear evidence to the effect that the approach to parking of the past decade has left many developments with parking problems. Furthermore, many developments are already being designed using IGN3 levels and the Quality Audit approach.
Developers wishing to provide parking below the evidence based expected levels of IGN3, and/or in a form that is unlikely to attract full use under normal circumstances, could decide to keep their developments private and control all parking in the streets. There are legal mechanisms for such situations which are designed to protect occupiers against inadequate maintenance and street cleaning. However, not only would such developments be likely to require frequent intervention by private parking management companies to be successful, they may also have an adverse impact on neighbouring streets.
In the light of the above, KHS will continue to work with all development industry partners to achieve the benefits to quality of life in future residential streets that IGN3 has been prepared, endorsed (by KPOG) and adopted (by KCC, and others) to achieve. This page is intentionally left blank Page 103
TO: Environment, Highways and Waste (EHW) Policy Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 29 July 2010
BY: Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for EHW Mike Austerberry, Executive Director of EHW
SUBJECT: Financial Monitoring 2010/11
Classification: Unrestricted
Summary:
Members of the POSC are asked to note the June budget monitoring exception report for 2009/10 reported to Cabinet on 12 July 2010.
FOR INFORMATION
1. Introduction
1.1 This is a regular report to this Committee on the forecast outturn against budget for the EHW portfolio.
2. Background
2.1 A detailed quarterly budget monitoring report is presented to Cabinet, usually in September, December and March, and a draft final outturn report in June. These reports outline the full financial position for each portfolio and are reported to POSCs after they have been considered by Cabinet. In the intervening months an exception report is made to Cabinet outlining any significant variations from the quarterly report. The June exception monitoring report for 2010/11 is attached.
3. Revenue
3.1 The overall position for the EHW Directorate reported to Cabinet on 12 July was a predicted overspend of £0.29m. This has been caused by pressure on the Freedom Pass budget because of the popularity of the pass and the increased numbers of journeys taken.
3.2 There is also considerable price pressure on Waste, with the April RPI being much higher than budgeted. However this is being offset by forecast tonnage being lower than budgeted. Page 104
3.3 Since the exception report was written, the in-year budget reductions have been announced. Our revenue allocation from Area Based Grant (ABG) for road safety has been cut by £0.608m. This has resulted in a reduced contribution to the Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership of £0.44m and other road safety reductions of £0.168m (including not going ahead with the speed limit review).
3.4 KCC’s allocation for ‘Kickstart’ funding of £0.441m was also removed but this reduction has not been passed on to the EHW portfolio.
4. Capital
4.1 The capital budget has seen significant in-year reductions since the exception report was written. The Integrated Transport (IT) funding has been cut by £4.105m, the road safety allocation by £0.508m and the highway maintenance allocation by £0.04m.
4.2 The reduction in the IT funding has meant that a number of schemes will now have to be deferred. A full list of the proposed deferred schemes has been provided to Members. In order to ensure best value for money, the schemes still going ahead in this financial year are those that are already being constructed, those which contribute to road safety, those which tackle congestion and those which attract matched funding. Schemes which are proposed as not being funded this year will receive further consideration if a Member wishes to contribute from their Member Highway Fund, and/or will receive further consideration next year once the national funding position is clearer.
4.3 The reduction in the road safety allocation will mean that new speed signs expected as a result of the Speed Limit Review will no longer be installed, as the review is not going ahead, (see revenue reduction above) and no more speed cameras will be installed.
4.4 The reduction on highways maintenance will result in a small revision to the programme of work for structures.
5 Recommendations
5.1 Members of the POSC are asked to note the budget variations for the EHW Portfolio for 2010/11 based on the June exception report to Cabinet and the effects of the subsequent in-year budget reductions. Page 105
ENVIRONMENT, HIGHWAYS AND WASTE EXCEPTION MONITORING REPORT JUNE 2010-11
REVENUE
Variance This Last Cash Limit m onth report M o vement £000s £000s £000s £000s Directorate total 151,261 290 N/A N/A
Management action 0 0 N/A N/A
Directorate total after 151,261 290 N/A N/A management action
The RPI index for April was much higher than budgeted, which has put significant price pressure on some of the Waste contracts. The Allington waste to energy price per tonne is £2.38 more than the budgeted figure which increases costs (assuming minimum tonnage through Allington of 325,000 tonnes) by £0.773m. Inflation on other disposal and Household Waste Recycling Centre contracts is expected to increase the total price pressure on waste to £1.1m.
This price pressure is expected to be offset by overall tonnage being less than the budgeted 760,000 tonnes. It is very early in the year to predict outturn tonnage with any level of certainty but there is an expectation that tonnage will be at least 16,000 tonnes below budget which would give a saving of £1.1m at an average disposal cost per tonne of £68. Therefore at this stage it is expected that the waste budget will break even.
Initial estimates on the cost of the Freedom Pass show a pressure of £390k due to the popularity of the pass and the number of journeys now being undertaken. This may increase during the year depending on the take-up of passes in the new academic year and more will be known around October.
Vacancies are being held in Resources to offset these pressures and there is expected to be an underspend of £0.1m
Overall, this leaves the Directorate with an unresolved pressure of £0.29m. We are looking at ways to address this but have no firm plans at present. The lack of room for manoeuvre in waste disposal and the constant pressures on highways maintenance mean that finding alternative savings is very difficult. However, the Directorate will do everything it can to produce a balanced budget at the year- end and is confident of doing so. Page 106
CAPITAL
There were no exceptional capital movements to report for June.
Richard Hallett Directorate Finance Manger 16 July 2010 Page 107
2010/11 LTP SCHEMES TO BE RETAINED
Description Scheme Objective Current Budget
QUALITY BUS PARTNERSHIPS
Canterbury QBP (Canterbury, Tourtel Road) Tackling congestion £100,000
Folkestone West Station Access Improvements (Shepway, Folkestone Harvey Tackling congestion £70,000 West) Bus Stop Improvements - Route 10/10A (Folkestone to Ashford) (Shepway, Tackling congestion £89,175 Folkestone Harvey Central)
Sub-total £259,175
CYCLE SCHEMES
River Dour Cycle Route (Phase 1) (Town & Pier, Dover) Tackling congestion £100,000
River Dour Cycle Route (Phase 2) (Dover, Town and Pier) Tackling congestion £200,000
Linear Park Cycle Access (Wrotham Road) (Gravesham) Improving air quality £59,000
Thames Way Northfleet - cycle path (Gravesham) Improving air quality £1,000
Mote Park to Detling Cycle Route (Sheppy South, Maidstone) Improving air quality £15,000
Canterbury to Chartham Cycle Route (Phase 2) (Canterbury, Wincheap) Tackling congestion £350,000
Princes Road Cycle Route (Olive Road - Lowfield Street) (Dartford) Tackling congestion £49,000
Princes Road Cycle Route (Heath Lane - Olive Road) (Dartford) Tackling congestion £120,000
Sub-total £894,000 NETWORK BENEFIT SCHEMES
Eynsford Speed Management (Zebra) (Sevenoaks) Improving Accessibility £27,000
Devon Road, South Darenth - Footway over the River Darent (Dartford) Improving accessibility £19,000
Bluewater - B255 St Clements Way (Dartford) Casualty reduction £7,000
Cross Lane (Echo Square) (Gravesham, Woodlands) Safety Measure £12,000
A229 Running Horse Roundabout (Maidstone) Casualty reduction £13,000
A274 Warmlake Crossroads (Maidstone) Casualty reduction £18,000
Westwood Transport Plan (Thanet, Northwood) Tackling congestion £250,000
Hook Green (Tunbridge Wells) Casualty reduction £70,000
Lamberhurst Traffic Calming completion (Tunbridge Wells) Improving air quality £5,000
Major Yorks Roundabout leftover (Fir Tree Road stopping-up order (Tunbridge Tackling congestion £5,000 Wells)
Hawkhurst Road / Slip Mill Road Junction Modifications (Tunbridge Wells) Casualty reduction £29,000
Pedestrian Crossing Points (DDA/DED) [All districts] Improving accessibility £130,000 Page 108
A20 / West Street, Harrietsham (Maidstone) Safety Measures £6,000
Sevenoaks Town Centre Study (Sevenoaks) Improving Accessibility £40,000
A274 Five Wents (Maidstone) Casualty reduction £28,000
A226 London Road / Stone Place Road Junction (Dartford) Casualty reduction £173,000
Station Road, New Romney (Shepway, Folkestone Harvey Central) Improving Accessibility £120,000
New Hythe Lane (Convert Zebra crossing to Pelican) (T& M) Improving Accessibility £25,000
New Barn Road / Red Street (Dartford) Safety Measure £13,000
A26 Bidborough traffic management (Tunbridge Wells) Tackling congestion £93,000
London Road / Vale Road, (Tunbridge Wells) Casualty reduction £55,000
Colts Hill (Tunbridge Wells) Casualty reduction £54,000
Parsonage La / Main Road Mini Roundabout (Dartford) Casualty reduction £14,000
Temple Hill Estate - traffic management (final phase - Littlebrook Manor Way) Improving accessibility £10,000 (Dartford)
High Street, Bean - new footway (Dartford) Improving accessibility £11,000
Pram ramps (phase 2) (Gravesham) Improving accessibility £25,000
Wrotham Rd, Meopham - speed management (Gravesham) Improving air quality £45,000
Wellington St/Peacock St One-way Reversal (Gravesham) Tackling congestion £9,000
Fant Traffic Calming (Sheppy South, Maidstone) Improving Accessibility £10,000
Ware Street Zebra Crossing [Maidstone] Safety measure £28,000
Tunstall Traffic Management (Swale) Safety measures £4,000
Margate seafront to Drapers Mill (Thanet, Margate Central) Casualty reduction £60,000
Tonbridge Station - Taxi Interchange (Tonbridge & Malling) Tackling congestion £3,325
Sole Street Footway (Phase 1) (Gravesham) Improving Accessibility £18,700
Nettlestead safety improvements (Maidstone) Safety Measures £30,000
B2024 / A25 Jn. Westerham (Sevenoaks) Casualty reduction £35,000
Royal Military Avenue, Cheriton (Shepway, Folkestone Harvey Central) Safety Measures £10,000
Frant Road, (Tunbridge Wells) Improving Accessibility £29,000
Sub-total £1,534,025
A2 SLIP ROAD SCHEME
A2 Slip Road Scheme [Canterbury] Improving Accessibility £1,000,000
Sub-total £ 1,000,000 Page 109
KENT-WIDE SCHEMES
Kent Kickstart Public Transport Scheme Tackling congestion £325,000
Smartcard Ticket Machines Tackling congestion £290,000
UTMC Tunbridge Wells Tackling congestion £200,000
Kentwide UTMC and TMC Enhancement Tackling congestion £230,000
Canterbury UTMC Tackling congestion £230,000
Dartford UTMC Tackling congestion £230,000
Gravesend UTMC Tackling congestion £290,000
Bus Stop Infrastructure Improvements Tackling congestion £80,000
Unallocated contingency reserve Various £60,000
Reactive Casualty Reduction Measures Casualty reduction £50,000
Forward design for 2011/12 Various £25,000
Sub-total £2,010,000
TOTALS for Retained Schemes £5,697,200
dh/jd/jw 24th June 2010 This page is intentionally left blank Page 111
2010/11 LTP SCHEMES NOT FUNDED THIS YEAR
Description Scheme Objective Savings
QUALITY BUS PARTNERSHIPS
Bus Stop infrastructure impts in Dover District (Town & Pier, Dover) Tackling congestion -50,000
Bus Stop Improvements - Route 12/711/712 (Folkestone to Dover) Tackling congestion -50,000 (Shepway, Folkestone Harvey Central)
Thanet Quality Bus Partnership (Thanet, Margate Central) Tackling congestion -50,000
Bus Stop Infrastructure Improvements (Ashford Town, Victoria) Tackling congestion -100,000
Canterbury QBP (Canterbury, Harbledown) Tackling congestion -130,000
Thanet Quality Bus Partnership (Thanet, Margate Central) Phase 2 Tackling congestion -50,000
Tunbridge Wells QBP [Tunbridge Wells] Tackling congestion -50,000
Bus Priority Measures, West Malling to Leybourne (Design Only) Tackling congestion -50,000 (Tonbridge & Malling)
Canterbury Bus Strategy (Tourtel Road) (Westgate, Canterbury) Tackling congestion -95,000
Bus stop infrastructure improvements (Maidstone) Tackling congestion -113,000
Pembury bus route Improvements (Tunbridge Wells) Tackling congestion -331,000
QBP Scheme (Sheway South, Maidstone) Tackling congestion -75,000
Sub-total -£ 1,144,000 CYCLE SCHEMES
Christchurch School to Park Farm cycleway (Stanhope, Ashford) Tackling congestion -60,000
A264 Langton Road Cycleway (Tunbridge Wells, Rusthall) Tackling congestion -70,000
Phoenix Place cycle Route (Dartford) Tackling congestion -10,000
Cycle Infrastructure Improvements (Gravesham, Pelham) Tackling congestion -5,000
St John's Road cycle route (Campus Link) (Tunbridge Wells) Tackling congestion -115,000
Capital maintenance of cycle network (T & M, Aylesford) Tackling congestion -173,000
Beechwood Avenue (Dover) Tackling congestion -45,000
Hall Rd/Coldharbour Rd cycle link (Cygnet Leisure Centre) (Gravesham) Improving accessibility -20,000
London Road Cycle Route (Phase 2 - Birchwood) (Sevenoaks) Improving air quality -40,000
Cycle Network Improvements (Sittingbourne) (Swale) Tackling congestion -60,000
Dane Valley Cycle Routes (Phase 5) (Thanet, Westgate-on-Sea) Tackling congestion -170,000
St John's Road Bus and Cycle Lanes (Tunbridge Wells, Southborough Tackling congestion -85,000 and High Brooms) Page 112
Homewood Avenue (Swale) Tackling congestion -99,400
Henley Fields Cycle Track (Ashford, Stanhope) Tackling congestion -76,000
Old Thanet Way Cycle Route (Canterbury, Westgate) Tackling congestion -158,750
Connect 2 (Canterbury) Tackling congestion -30,000
Princes Road cycle Route (Crayford Boundary - Shepherds Lane) Tackling congestion -121,000 (Dartford)
Sub-total -£ 1,338,150
NETWORK BENEFIT SCHEMES
Darent Valley Accessibility Improvements (Sevenoaks, Swanley White -25,000 Oak) Winterfield La, East Malling - Speed Limit Reduction (T & M) NA -5,000 Pembury Road Completion Dunorlan Park Tunbridge Wells NA -55,000
Borden Traffic Management (Swale) Safety measures -60,000
Pysons Road, Broadstairs (Thanet, ST Peters)) Tackling congestion -100,000
Littlebourne High Street (Preventing Property Damage) (Canterbury) Remedial works -50,000
A229 Gills Green, Hawkhurst (Tunbridge Wells) Casualty reduction -30,000
Nortfleet - Ebbsfleet station (Gravesham, Woodlands) Improving Accessibility -40,000
Coldharbour Road, Northfleet (Gravesham) Improving Accessibility -46,000
Medway Valley Line Station accesses (Maidstone) Improving Accessibility -70,000
Lynsted Footway (Swale) Improving accessibility -85,000
Garlinge Primary School - SRTS (Thanet) Casualty reduction -111,000
B2079 Lady Oak Lane-Bedgebury Road (Tunbridge Wells) Casualty reduction -35,000
Sub-total -712,000
KENT-WIDE SCHEMES
Cycle Parking at Stations Countywide Tackling congestion -75,000
Off-highway works to support Exemplar STP's Tackling congestion -80,000
Sub-total -155,000
QBP SCHEMES -1,144,000
CYCLE SCHEMES -1,338,150 dh/jd/jw 24th June 2010