Public Document Pack

A G E N D A

JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Monday 10 February 2020 at 6.00 pm Council Chamber, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1RS

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

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

Parish Member Councillor Mackonochie

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

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

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

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

4 Minutes of the meeting dated 14 October 2019 (Pages 11 - 20) To approve the minutes of a previous meeting as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

5 Update Report (Pages 21 - 22) To consider the proposals set out in the report.

Page 1

6 SGN (Southern Gas Networks) Program of Works in (Pages 23 - 24) Tunbridge Wells A presentation on the work of SGN.

7 Banner Farm Estate Proposed Permit Parking Restrictions (Pages 25 - 30) The recommendation that the board endorses the proposal to introduce permit parking restrictions in the Banner Farm Estate, Tunbridge Wells.

8 Zone A Permit Parking Restrictions (Pages 31 - 34) The recommendation that the Board endorses the proposal parking restrictions in the Zone A area of Tunbridge Wells.

9 Zone HA Hawkenbury Permit Parking Zone (Pages 35 - 40) The recommendation that the Board endorses the proposal to introduce permit parking restrictions in additional streets within the Zone HA area of Hawkenbury.

10 Proposed Electric Vehicle Charging Bays: Mount Pleasant (Pages 41 - 44) Road (for information only) To note the results of the public consultation exercise in respect of proposed electric vehicle charging bays in Mount Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells.

11 H ighway Works Programme (Pages 45 - 66) To consider the proposals set out in the report.

12 Topics for Future Meetings (Pages 67 - 68) To agree any topics for future meetings, of which prior notice must be sent to the Chairman and Democratic Services Officer no later than 4pm on the working day before the meeting. There can not be any substantive debate/discussion or any decision on any topics raised, except to agree whether the topic may come forward in future.

13 Date of Next Meeting (Pages 69 - 70) To note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday 20 April 2020 at 6.00pm.

Caroline Britt Town Hall Democratic Services Officer ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS Tel: (01892) 554253 Kent TN1 1RS Email: [email protected]

mod.gov app – go paperless

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

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

Page 2

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

Notes on Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Apologies for Absence

Procedural Item:

To receive any apologies for absence.

Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Declarations of Interest

Procedural Item:

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

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Notification of Visiting Members wishing to speak

Procedural Item:

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

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

TUNBRIDGE WELLS JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Monday, 14 October 2019

PRESENT: Borough Councillors Backhouse, Bruneau, Lidstone and Scott County Councillors Hamilton (Chairman), Holden, McInroy, Oakford and Rankin Parish Councillor Mackonochie

Officers in Attendance: Nick Baldwin (Senior Engineer, Parking), Mark O'Callaghan (Scrutiny and Engagement Officer), Caroline Britt (Democratic Services Officer), Julian Cook (District Manager), Richard Emmett (West Kent Highways Manager) and Jane Fineman (Head of Finance and Procurement)

Other Members in Attendance: Councillors McDermott, Morton and Rands

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

TB59/19 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stanyer and Woodward.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

TB60/19 There were no disclosable pecuniary or other significant interests declared at the meeting.

NOTIFICATION OF VISITING MEMBERS WISHING TO SPEAK

TB61/19 Councillor Rands had registered to speak on Agenda item 11.

The Chairman noted that there were 8 members of the public registered to speak on various items.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 15 APRIL 2019

TB62/19 Members reviewed the minutes. No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 15 April 2019 be approved as a correct record.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 15 JULY 2019

TB63/19 Members reviewed the minutes. No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 15 July 2019 be approved as a correct record.

UPDATE REPORT

TB64/19 Paul Mason from the Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group had registered to speak on this item and made the following comments:

- The Update Report did not include anything on walking, cycling or public transport. - Heavy traffic already existed in villages, towns and the countryside – the air was polluted and child obesity was a serious issue. Page 11 Agenda Item 4 2

- Asked that the Board consider a new style Agenda that included items that actively looked at monitoring targets for walking, cycling, and the progression to a carbon neutral status by 2030. It would then allow action to be taken if those targets were not being reached. - Concern was raised that the aims and objectives included in a number of transport related strategies (Transport Strategy 2015-2026, Cycling Strategy 2016-2020 and the Kent Active Travel Strategy) would not be achieved.

Discussion included the following comments:

- Recognition that monitoring was important and that particular attention should be given to cycling, walking and the various modes of public transport. - It was noted that as the fleet was being replaced, buses were becoming more environmentally friendly. - That there was a paradox between requests received for free parking in Tunbridge Wells and complaints about congestion and pollution. - To consider a standing report to the JTB’s across the County that gave details on the progress of key projects and business performance indicators. - To note, that the Report did include items on pedestrian safety and pollution.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

ZONE HA PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS, HAWKENBURY, TUNBRIDGE WELLS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TB65/19 Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer TWBC introduced the report that proposed to advertise amendments to the permit parking restrictions in the Hawkenbury area of Tunbridge Wells. In summary:

- A new permit parking zone in Hawkenbury was introduced in 2018. - Initially and based on the interest shown, restrictions were only introduced in a few streets. - A survey was undertaken in the summer of 2019 the outcome of which was that there was now sufficient interest to expand the scheme and introduce more roads where permit parking would apply. - There was an expectation that the introduction of a wider scheme would have a knock on effect to those streets outside the permit parking area so it was likely there would be a need for further work at a later date. - The recommendation to now go to a formal public consultation with the results to be reported back either at the January 2020 or April 2020 meeting.

Discussion included the following comments:

- Confirmation that the consultation would last for a period of 3 weeks. - The aim was to complete the consultation process by Christmas 2019. - There was recognition of the good work done so far on this issue.

RESOLVED – The Board endorsed the proposal to advertise amendments to permit parking restrictions in the Hawkenbury area of Tunbridge Wells. Page 12 Agenda Item 4 3

ZONE A PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS, TUNBRIDGE WELLS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TB66/19 Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer TWBC introduced the report that proposed to advertise amendments to the permit parking restrictions in parts of Zone A. In summary:

- The amendment would apply to 2 small parts of the existing Zone A parking area. - The lower end of Warwick Park (Northern end) where some properties had no off street parking facilities and where it had now become difficult to find spaces to park. The intention was to expand this area to include Rodmell Road which was currently unrestricted. - In addition to the 1 hour morning restriction in the streets off Claremont Road, the introduction of a 1 hour restriction in the afternoon. It was hoped that this would reduce the impact long term parking had on residents.

Mr Max Eddy resident of Warwick Park had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

- Ability to park on the lower part of Warwick Park had become much more difficult over the last few years. - There were 70 parking spaces in this area of which there were about 50 Zone A Permits. There were 10 houses and a couple of flats without off street parking. As such parking should not be an issue in the area. However, this part of the road was shared with Kentish Mansions, flats in the Chapel Place area and Lower Cumberland Walk which had an impact on the availability of spaces. - The use of this area by commuters was also a major concern especially as they did not pay for permits so were parking for ‘free’. - Endorsed the expansion of the scheme as a minimum. And it should include around the enclave and Rodmell Road. - Undertook a survey on the availability of the 23 spaces in Rodmell Road and found that 14 cars had stayed for the entire day with 4 cars having parked for at least half the day. Only 3 spaces had 3 different cars during the day. - The flow of cars and availability of spaces would benefit traders and allow for more shoppers.

Ms Elaine Cole resident of Warwick Park had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

- Had also seen a marked change in the ability to park in the area. - Endorsed the introduction of permits in Rodmell Road. - The hotel advertised the use of their function room which exacerbated the current parking problems especially in the evening. - Concern that the proposed scheme would not be sufficient – additional spaces being used by the new Pantiles flats. Current occupants creating off street parking thereby reducing the number of on street parking spaces. - Hazardous for the Mead school drop off and pick up – additional parking provision would make it safer. - Consideration be given to Sunday restrictions. Page 13 Agenda Item 4 4

- The scheme to be extended to include Rodmell Road, Warwick Park and Roedean Road.

Mrs Jean Phillips-Martinsson resident of Rodmell Road had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

- Rodmell Road being used as a cut through particularly by large lorries. - Private driveway being used for reversing – resulted in damage to car left on the driveway. - Difficulties in actually getting out of private driveway. - Request that consideration be given to stop HGV’s using the road. - Additional cars due to One Warwick Park Hotel and particularly when weddings took place.

Discussion included the following comments:

- Start of the process. The recommendation was to now go out to a public consultation. - Not sufficient evidence at the moment to extend the scheme to more of Warwick Park. In response to the suggestion that it was very difficult to park between Nevill Street and Rodmell Road, TWBC had visited the area everyday over a period of a couple of weeks and at different times of the day and had found there had always been spaces to park – on occasion up to 14 spaces. If the scheme extended to this area, it would likely result in parking issues displaced to other roads. - Not ruling out extending the scheme in the future, but recommended a step by step approach rather than a big scheme approach which would cause much more disruption. Permit parking needed to be achieved in a sensitive way. - Not aware of any proposals to restrict HGV’s from using these roads but it would need to be referred to the KCC safety team to determine whether there was any concerns related to safety. - Inappropriate road use by HGV drivers was a major concern across the country. HGV Group set up with the aim of creating a pattern of strategic routes – similar to the London Lorry Scheme. In the early stages, but a trial area south of Maidstone had been identified. - Understood there was a 7.5tonne limit in most residential areas, except for deliveries. Sat Nav’s were a particular issue with lorry drivers as they didn’t distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate roads. - Parking around Railway Stations a wider issue that should be looked at. - Consideration to be given to look at measures to reduce reliance on Cars. - Insufficient car parking in the Tunbridge Wells area. - Acknowledgement that ‘on street’ users might not be able to afford car parking fees. - Understood that this was a step by step process but a request to review more frequently. - HGV restrictions was an enforcement matter although it was suggested this did not happen. Wanted to see the powers transferred from the police to the Highways Authority.

RESOLVED – That the Board endorsed the proposal to advertise Page 14 Agenda Item 4 5

amendments to permit parking restrictions in parts of Zone A, Tunbridge Wells.

CRANBROOK EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER

TB67/19 Nick Baldwin, Senior Engineer TWBC introduced the report regarding the experimental Traffic Regulation Order that was introduced in Cranbrook. In summary:

- The restrictions included in the current Traffic Regulation Orders in Cranbrook did not match, nor were they what was wanted. - Options were considered relating to appropriate measures as to how new restrictions should be signed and lined. - As such, earlier this year, an experimental Traffic Regulation Order was implemented. - The scheme included changes to the restrictions in Cranbrook and the use of a paler and narrower yellow line. - As an experimental scheme it could run for a maximum of 18 months, then a decision would have to be taken as to whether it became permanent, or adjusted if necessary. - There was no prior consultation for an experimental scheme – the first six months was the period when the public could make comments. - It was recommended that the scheme should continue, and more information gathered. There was no pressing need to change anything at this time. Instead, a report would be submitted at the end of the scheme and would include recommendations regarding the best final arrangement.

Discussion included the following comments:

- The experimental scheme would expire on 20 September 2020 so would aim to report back to JTB at either the April 2020 or the July 2020 meeting. - The work to progress this scheme, the liaison with the community, the additional budget required were to be applauded – it had worked well and made the restrictions enforceable.

RESOLVED – That the Board noted the comments received.

REVISED JTB AGREEMENT

TB68/19 Mark O’Callaghan, Scrutiny and Engagement Officer introduced the report highlighting the changes made to the report following the meeting in April 2019. Further clarification had since been made. In summary:

- Voting rights for Parish Members could be at the discretion of the Board, and; - The number of public speakers to be made consistent with Tunbridge Wells’ usual procedure rules. - Subject to these changes, the Board would be invited to comment which would then be fed back to Cabinet for approval.

Adrian Berendt, Chair of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum had Page 15 Agenda Item 4 6 registered to speak which included the following comments:

- The agreement allowed for representatives to be appointed from Town or Parish Councils. As Royal Tunbridge Wells was an unparished Council, the Town Forum would be an appropriate representative and as such would like to be included for nomination.

Discussion included the following comments:

- The Board was made up of accountable elected members and as such suggested that in the first instance, legal advice should be sought. Also, as a non decision making Committee, it would need to be reviewed/decided at a different level. - Any decision would set a precedent for other non elected groups. - Recognition that there was expertise and professionalism within non elected groups, including the Town Forum that could add value to the Committee. - There was a process to create a Town Council so it was an option open to Tunbridge Wells. It would then be able to have representation as elected Members on a range of Committees. - The Audit and Governance Committee had non elected representatives who made a valuable contribution to the Committee but did not have a vote. - Elected Members were also required to sign the Code of Conduct. - Need to separate the request for non elected Groups to be included to speak on a Committee and their ability to vote. - A request was made that 5.3 of the agreement also included the words ‘active travel’. - Further clarification was sought as to whether the agreement would offer Parish Councillors the opportunity to vote (para 2.2 and 2.3 refers). It was noted that Maidstone and Swale JTB’s (also Tonbridge and Malling?) already allowed Parish Representatives the vote. - Sections 2.1 – 2.4 not explicitly clear about voting rights. Suggested that the wording needed to be reviewed. - Maidstone JTB agreement stated ‘All Board members, including Parish Council Members shall have the right to propose motions and amendments and to vote on the same’. It was suggested the same wording could be used for the TWBC agreement. - General agreement that the Board should be able to decide whether Parish Councillors be given the ability to vote. The revised JTB could be supported subject to it being revised to include the reference to ‘active travel’ and the Board’s ability to assign voting rights to Parish Members being expressly stated. The inclusion of the Town Forum was a different issue and would need to be dealt with separately. - The JTB Agreement was a Kent wide document that needed to be agreed by all 12 districts. As such there would be a need to establish whether any amendments would require agreement by all 12 districts or whether there would be flexibility to make small changes to suit the requirements of individual districts. - Representations to the JTB on the Maidstone JTB Agreement was written simply as follows: ‘ Any JTB Member, KCC elected Member and any Maidstone Borough Council elected Member, may place a relevant item on the agenda and attend and speak at any meeting of the JTB but may not vote nor propose a motion nor an amendment (unless already a voting member of the JTB). It was suggested this wording be put forward as an amendment to the current wording. Page 16 Agenda Item 4 7

RESOLVED – That the revised JTB Agreement be supported subject to the following amendments:

- The addition of ‘active travel’ under Section 5.3. - Review of Section 2.3 to include the Board having the ability to assign voting rights to Parish Councillors.

HIGHWAY WORKS PROGRAMME

TB69/19 Julian Cook, District Manager, Kent County Council introduced the report that gave a summary of the schemes that were programmed for delivery in 2019/20.

Discussion included the following comments:

- There was no further update on the A26 Cycleway at this time. - It was agreed that Kent CC would respond directly to Cllr Holden regarding the current position on the realignment of Heartenoak Road junction with Cranbrook Road, Hawkhurst. - Traffic counts had been completed for proposed 20mph limits. Now waiting for a survey to be completed to ascertain that the demand was there and then for a consultation to take place. Looking at Banner Farm as an example of what could be achieved. To note that Culverden was interested in something similar. - The minutes of 15 July made reference to the use of Bell Mouth access points on Benhall Mill Road and Bayham Road. It was confirmed that a response had been sent.

Mr James McGrath, Ms Pippa Collard and Cllr James Rands had all registered to speak on Appendix D of Agenda Item 11 – Tunbridge Wells Public Realm Works which included the following comments:

- The 2 month temporary closure of York Road had been very beneficial to the residents. The residents of the road had now requested that the temporary closure be made permanent. - Residents of York Road, Suffolk Mews and Norfolk Heights approved the closure of York Road, making it safer, quieter and with improved parking for residents. 2 carriage turning circles within the road worked and were useful. - To reopen York Road would allow it to be used as a rat run for cars wanting to get to Mount Pleasant. The road was unsuitable to accommodate this additional traffic. - Broadly in favour of the newly created pedestrian area of the Town Centre but felt the benefits would be negated if traffic was allowed to use both York Road and Dudley Road. The point of the Public Realm was the reduction of traffic and the enhancement of public space for pedestrians. - It was suggested that the installation of removable bollards would be the most cost effective method to effect the closure. - A petition with 78 signatories had been collected. - If it was an administrative issue to convert a temporary closure to a permanent closure, perhaps the way forward was an experimental TRO that could then be converted to a permanent TRO at a later date. Page 17 Agenda Item 4 8

- Very expensive to get Sat Nav’s to exclude York Road, so there was strong assumption that traffic using Church Road and wanting to get onto Mount Pleasant Road would be directed down York Road. - Another option considered was the creation of 2 U shaped loops but this was considered difficult and too expensive. - Whilst the residents of Dudley Road had not yet come to a final decision – they would expect equitable treatment - if York Road was closed, Dudley Road would expect the same.

Discussion included the following comments:

- A decision on the continuation of a road closure (York Road and Dudley Road) could not be given at this time. Once the work had been completed there would be a need to assess the impact of the works across the whole area. The next steps would be a discussion between Kent CC and TWBC with the aim of bringing a report to the next JTB meeting. - There was a concern about the time it would take for a decision to be made. Given the clear support from residents and that the traffic displacement had caused no adverse effect could something not be done to an earlier timescale. Otherwise it might be an opportunity missed. - Suggested that there might be an opportunity to convene a meeting before the next scheduled JTB meeting in January. It would have to be lead by TWBC but Kent CC would be happy to join that discussion. Councillors to approach TWBC.

Mr Paul Mason for Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group had registered to speak on Appendix E of Agenda Item 11 with particular reference to Bell Mouth Junctions which included the following comments:

- The installation of Bell Mouth junctions were considered dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians. It was recommended that this type of junction should no longer be built thereby making it safer for cyclists to travel and pedestrians to cross.

Discussion included the following comments:

- Not always possible to have a square junction and as such a certain number of Bell Mouth junctions were necessary to allow safe and easier access for large vehicles. - It was normal practice to ensure pedestrian crossings were appropriately located and not put at the widest point of a Bell Mouth junction. - The Kent Design Guide made clear that the width of a Bell Mouth be constructed that would be appropriate for the road/location – residential or industrial. - Understood that a response to this effect had been forwarded to Mr Mason by the Kent CC Safety Engineer – agreed to follow up. - To look at Appendix E and the number of Bell Mouth Junctions and establish where each were located. It would then be possible to determine whether or not they had been constructed appropriately. - Kent CC happy to meet to discuss existing Bell Mouth sites. If a new Bell Mouth the Kent Design Guide which was currently under review, would allow for comments as part of the consultation process.

Page 18 Agenda Item 4 9

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

TOPICS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

TB70/19 Comments were made in respect of the following matters:

- To note and as a reminder to Members, issues in the first instance should be directed to the relevant ‘owner’ before being raised at JTB. For Highways Safety and Highways Improvement matters please contact Kent CC in the first instance, for any parking related matters, TWBC. - To consider levels of engagement especially once the Transport Plan had been issued. - The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had a Working Group that was looking at engagement. - Consider a standing agenda item for Kent CC to report on their strategic goals and their progress towards targets. The JTB would then have the option to make recommendations. - Any such report should be County wide so would be consistent and comparisons could be made. - Zone G Parking – Home owners were not able to sell their houses. They were not able to pass their parking permits to the new owners and because they were placed at the bottom of the queue, it was taking up to 2 years for any new owners to get a permit. o TWBC had spoken to an estate agent to see what could be done to help residents. One measure taken forward was to reduce the amount of double yellow lines behind Argos which created an extra couple of spaces. A new permit type was created specifically for residents of Zone G to have a full time permit for Crescent Road carpark at a cost of £200. Although more than a normal permit, it gave residents a guaranteed space. o Need to make clear to current residents and potential buyers what the options were.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

TB71/19 The next meeting was scheduled for Monday 27 January 2020 at 6:00pm

NOTES: The meeting concluded at 8.15 pm. An audio recording of this meeting is available on the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council website.

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Update Report

Recommendation:

That the report be noted

1. INTRODUCTION

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

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

1.3 These items are ‘to note’. Any items where a decision is required will be subject to a full report.

2. UPDATES

Subject Update Pedestrian Crossing Proposal currently with KCC to resurface the approaches to and 20mph Limit for the zebra crossing on Forest Road. Forest Road

Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

SGN (Southern Gas Networks) – Program of Works in Tunbridge Wells

A presentation by SGN that will include: - An introduction to SGN - Reason for the work that is done and why it is necessary to use Traffic Management - Projects due to be completed in Tunbridge Wells this year - Example of community engagement to try and mitigate the inconvenience which may be caused by gas pipe repair works

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Banner Farm Estate, Tunbridge Wells – Proposed Permit Parking Restrictions

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

Recommendation:

 That the Board endorses the proposal to introduce permit parking restrictions in the Banner Farm estate, Tunbridge Wells

INTRODUCTION

The Banner Farm estate in Tunbridge Wells is a 1950’s development located to the south east of the town centre consisting of approximately 276 dwellings in 6 residential streets. Farmcombe Road acts as the spine road and it’s junctions with Claremont Road and Forest Road are the only points of vehicular access to the estate.

The estate is sandwiched between two existing permit parking zones and most streets experience some form of nuisance parking. An earlier consultation exercise showed enough interest within the estate to warrant the development and advertising of a formal proposal for permit parking.

This report provides greater background information, explains what is proposed and details the results of a public consultation exercise.

BACKGROUND

The Banner Farm estate consists of 6 residential streets – Farmcombe Road, Farmcombe Close, Banner Farm Road, Cavendish Drive, Delves Avenue and Sussex Close. With the exception of Farmcombe Road, all these streets have relatively narrow carriageways.

Approximately a third of the total length of Farmcombe Road and all of Farmcombe Close are currently subject to restricted parking, the north-western end of the estate being part of the Zone A permit parking area. Both these streets contain some permit

Page 25 Agenda Item 7

parking bays which, in total, can accommodate about 24 vehicles. At the Farmcombe Road end a section of the highway is subject to double yellow line waiting restrictions.

The estate, together with the current Zone A and HA Permit Parking Zone boundaries is shown below:-

In recent years there has been a growing trend for long-stay parking to take place on the unrestricted estate roads and this has led to problems with traffic movement through the estate and difficulties with access to driveways. These problems are compounded at times by the additional traffic and parking associated with the nearby Claremont Primary School.

An informal consultation exercise was undertaken during 2017 to determine whether there was sufficient interest in the idea of permit parking to justify expansion of the Zone A permit parking area. The area consulted covered quite a large part of the southern side of the town and included the unrestricted part of the Banner Farm estate.

The results of that survey were reported to the JTB on 16th October 2017 where it was noted that there was a demand for an expansion of Zone A to include additional streets to the east of the A267, Frant Road. A significant proportion of the positive responses at that time came from residents of roads on the Banner Farm estate.

The intention had been to progress the expansion of Zone A alongside other proposed changes. This has taken longer than anticipated but other reports on this agenda detail proposals for other parts of Zone A plus an expansion to the

Page 26 Agenda Item 7

Hawkenbury (Zone HA) permit parking zone. Each has now been subject to a formal consultation process.

THE ADVERTISED PROPOSAL

During January 2020 a formal consultation was undertaken which detailed proposals to introduce permit parking on all the currently unrestricted part of the Banner Farm estate. If implemented as advertised, that would result in on-street parking being restricted to permit holders between the hours of 10 to 11am and 2 to 3pm on Monday to Friday each week.

The existing permit parking restriction in Farmcombe Road (between its junctions with Claremont Road and Cavendish Drive) applies between 10 and 11am on Monday to Saturday, although a proposal to alter that to include a 2 to 3pm restriction has recently been advertised and is the subject of a separate report on this agenda.

Neither period proposed for a restriction would adversely affect the primary school in normal circumstances because parking would be unrestricted at school drop-off and pick-up times.

Although not forming part of the consultation process, it is proposed to deal with the newly restricted area as a permit parking area with entry and terminal signs where the restrictions start and finish.

This method, used successfully elsewhere in the vicinity, requires no delineation of parking bays and relies solely on signing. Not only does it reduce costs but also allows parking to take place more flexibly – as would have been the case before long-stay parking became an issue.

CONSULTATION RESPONSE

112 responses were received during the statutory three week formal consultation period (plus 3 just beyond the due date*) from 104 different addresses, 97 of the latter being within the Banner Farm estate. A road by road breakdown of these responses is shown in the table below:-

Comment No. of No. of Support Object to Road Name or Responses Properties Proposal Proposal Question Banner Farm Road 3 2 3 - - Cavendish Drive 28 27 27 - 1 Delves Avenue 26 22 22 3 1 Farmcombe Close 4 4 3 1 - Farmcombe Road 44 40 37 5 2 Sussex Close 3 2 3 - - Other (i.e. outside 7 7 1 5 1 estate) Total 115 104 96 14 5 The above table includes the three late responses*

Page 27 Agenda Item 7

Objections were based around cost and the impact of fewer parked vehicles. In respect of cost some objected to the idea of having to pay for permits saying that, if needed, they should be given to residents free of charge.

Others were of the opinion that having fewer parked vehicles would increase traffic speeds. Comments were made about displaced parking and any knock-on impact elsewhere. The need for an afternoon restriction was also mentioned.

The Banner Farm Residents Association also provided a comment in favour, having been actively involved in promoting the idea in the lead up to the formal consultation.

PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION

When proposing new restrictions, one consideration is who will be affected and what the likely impact will be in terms of where any displaced vehicles will subsequently be parked.

In this instance, it is long-stay non-resident parkers who will be most affected by the proposed restriction. Local workers and outbound commuters will be displaced and either need to find an alternative parking place or other means of travel.

Since the Borough Council provides a large number of off-street parking spaces within the town centre and its periphery there are viable alternatives available. Most of the larger public car parks in the town have spare capacity at present. Furthermore, there remain streets within walking distance of local facilities where parking is currently unrestricted.

It is not unreasonable, therefore, to implement restrictions across the Banner Farm estate if they will provide environmental benefits with less traffic seeking a parking place, thereby improving the amenities of the area.

On that basis, and taking into account the comments that have been made, it is proposed to implement permit parking restrictions throughout the remainder of the Banner Farm estate.

On balance it is considered that these restrictions should take the form of a permit parking area rather than the more conventional arrangement where signs and road markings are provided to delineate bays for permitted vehicles.

A permit parking area requires no road markings and relies solely on entry signing and repeater signs throughout the restricted area. It is only suitable in certain circumstances but has been used to good effect in Teise Close and Camden Park within the Hawkenbury permit parking area.

Because no bays are marked, drivers can park wherever they wish, except of course on any yellow line restrictions. Where parking is likely to be less intense, this is an arrangement which works well. Delineated bays are more suitable where demand for parking is high even during restricted periods and parking needs to be more strictly controlled to prevent congestion or minimise any adverse impact on safety.

Page 28 Agenda Item 7

One issue which has arisen is that of the first section of Farmcombe Road from its junction with Claremont Road plus Farmcombe Close. These sections are already covered by a permit parking restriction being within the boundary of the current Zone A.

A separate report on this agenda details a consultation which, amongst other things, proposed the addition of an afternoon restriction within that part of Zone A currently only subject to a 10 to 11am permit holder only restriction. It was some residents of the two above mentioned roads who objected to a 2 to 3pm restriction.

Although the original intention had been to begin the new permit parking area at the Claremont Road junction, there may be some benefit in starting the new area to the west of the Cavendish Drive junction where the entry sign could be located to give a clear advance warning of the restrictions ahead.

CONCLUSION

A consultation in respect of proposed expansion of Permit Parking Zone A to include the remaining part of the Banner Farm estate has met with a largely positive response.

RECOMMENDATION

Members are recommended to endorse the making of a traffic regulation order, the effect of which is to introduce permit parking restrictions across the remainder of the Banner Farm residential estate.

Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Zone A Permit Parking Restrictions, Tunbridge Wells – Proposed Amendments

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

Recommendation:

 That the Board endorses the proposal to amend permit parking restrictions in the Zone A area of Tunbridge Wells

INTRODUCTION

The Zone A permit parking area lies to the immediate south of the town centre and places restrictions on parking in many residential streets. Those restrictions usually take the form of a limit on the time that a person can park or a period of the day during which parking is prohibited with, in both instances, an exemption for permit holders.

The restrictions in place have, in some areas, been unchanged for many years so whilst deemed appropriate initially, they may be less so now. Requests are received from time to time for changes to restrictions or to expand the area covered.

The current proposals, and hence this report, stem from requests by resident permit holders to make small scale amendments.

BACKGROUND

When the current Parking Strategy was adopted in 2016, a number of amendments to permit parking arrangements were detailed, including some for Zone A. When these were advertised in the latter part of that year, there was a considerable level of objection, resulting in them all being dropped.

Requests for change were, however, still being received and some have already been addressed, specifically those relating to the Grove Hill Road area. Two other issues have been the source of comment for several years and these have now been

Page 31 Agenda Item 8

looked at in more detail and proposals advertised as part of a public consultation exercise.

ISSUES ADDRESSED

Two specific issues were looked at, as detailed in the October JTB report (copy attached as Appendix A). One amendment proposed was that Rodmell Road be included in the restricted area and have bays marked. The other issue related to streets in the Claremont Road area where it was proposed to add an afternoon hour long restricted period to the existing morning one.

CONSULTATION RESPONSE

28 responses were received during the statutory three week consultation period. Of these, 19 expressed support for the changes, with 5 objecting and 4 either asking questions or making suggestions.

The objections all related to the Farmcombe Road/Farmcombe Close area and were against the idea of having a restriction on parking between 2pm and 3pm.

Of the 4 passing comment without necessarily expressing support or objection, 2 requested restrictions on the remaining part of the Banner Farm Estate – which is covered in a separate report - with the other 2 requesting restrictions over a wider area. The latter can be considered as and when any further amendments to Zone A come forward.

PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION

With no objection being made to the proposal to include Rodmell Road in the restricted area, it is recommended that we proceed with amending the traffic regulation order to cover that change.

In respect of the Claremont Road area it is proposed that the additional afternoon restriction (2pm to 3pm Monday to Saturday) be imposed in Buckingham Road, Grecian Road, Norfolk Road, Arundel Road, Claremont Gardens and Claremont Road.

It is further proposed to await the results of a consultation in respect of the remainder of the Banner Farm estate before deciding whether to proceed with the additional afternoon restriction in Farmcombe Road and Farmcombe Close – a separate report on this agenda covers the Banner Farm consultation, which had not finished at the time of writing.

CONCLUSION

A consultation in respect of proposed changes to restrictions in Permit Parking Zone A has produced a largely positive response. The only exception has been objections to changes in two streets.

Page 32 Agenda Item 8

RECOMMENDATION

Members are recommended to endorse the making of a traffic regulation order which adds to and amends restrictions in the Zone A permit parking area as detailed in this report.

Appendices to the Report

 Appendix A – October 2019 JTB Report

Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Zone HA Hawkenbury Permit Parking Zone.

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

Recommendation:

 That the Board endorses the proposal to introduce permit parking restrictions in additional streets within the Zone HA area of Hawkenbury

INTRODUCTION

The Zone HA permit parking area is at the south-eastern corner of Tunbridge Wells and is centred on Hawkenbury. The zone was first implemented in 2018 following an extensive consultation exercise.

Based on the final consultation response, the restriction on parking was initially implemented in very few streets. It was, however, anticipated that demand in other unrestricted streets may increase over time. This has proved to be the case and a further consultation exercise was undertaken during the summer and autumn of 2019 to determine what demand there was for expansion.

This report details the restrictions in place, the impact of those restrictions, and the response to the most recent consultation exercise.

BACKGROUND

As has been detailed in previous reports to this Board, complaints about parking in Hawkenbury largely stemmed from the arrival of AXA PPP in the area in 2012. Whilst a number of streets had experienced high levels of parking demand for many years due to the lack of off-street parking facilities, complaints only arose when competition for roadside parking space was between residents and others.

The culmination of many months of consultation and survey work was the establishment of a permit parking zone in early 2018. Support for the idea was somewhat limited, however, and parking was only restricted in a few streets. Parking has only been available to permit holders between the hours of 10am – midday and 2pm – 4pm Monday to Friday in The Shaw, the Meads, Teise Close and parts of

Page 35 Agenda Item 9

Camden Park and Forest Road although anybody living in the Hawkenbury area can apply for a permit and park in any of the restricted streets.

The introduction of restrictions almost inevitably caused non-resident parking to migrate to unrestricted areas, either intensifying an existing problem or possibly causing an issue where there was none before. Whilst this was expected to happen, it would not have been appropriate to impose restrictions in roads where residents did not support their use at the time.

It was, however, anticipated that demand may grow once a scheme was established and residents could see the benefit of having restricted parking in the street where they lived. In any event the intention was always to review the scheme once it had been in operation for several months and this process began during 2019.

The October 2019 JTB report provided details of an informal consultation process and made recommendations in respect of proposals to be advertised for the purpose of formal consultation.

THE FORMAL PROPOSAL

The formal consultation was based on responses to the informal exercise and contains two basic elements. Firstly, it is proposed that 7 additional streets be subject to permit holder parking during the hours of 10am – midday and 2pm – 4pm.

In addition, to better manage parking where it would be preferable to have no daytime parking, it is proposed to introduce sections of single yellow line in Forest Road and Beech Close plus a short extension to the existing double yellow lines in Dorset Road and Hawkenbury Road.

The section of Forest Road at Sibbey’s Corner has multiple driveways with cars often parked partly on the footway in between. Much of this section is already covered by a double yellow line restriction and, since cars parked in the remaining few spaces do cause potential problems through damage to the footway and restricted visibility from driveways, it is proposed that daytime parking be restricted, as shown below:-

Page 36 Agenda Item 9

Parking on the corner of Dorset Road and Forest Road has long been a source of complaint because of the potential safety hazard associated with a busy junction where many pedestrians cross. To enhance safety it is proposed to further remove parking from the busy mouth of the junction by extending the existing double yellow lines by an additional 10m, as shown above.

Beech Close is a relatively short and narrow residential cul-de-sac where daytime parking by non-residents has caused access issues for those living in the street. It has been proposed that a daytime restriction be imposed. The proposed restrictions are shown here:-

The extensions to double yellow lines in Hawkenbury Road are shown below and are being proposed to prevent vehicles being parked on the end of bays at an angle where they potentially cause problems for through traffic.

Page 37 Agenda Item 9

CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Only 16 responses were received when the formal consultation took place. That contrasted with 200 replies to the informal process.

The difference can probably be explained in two ways – firstly, the informal consultation took the form of a letter sent to every property within the area affected whereas the formal process relied on public notices. Secondly, we have often found that, when a detailed proposal is advertised, those in favour assume that it will be progressed and do not bother to express support. Those objecting tend to be more vocal at that stage.

A summary of responses to both consultations is shown below:-

Street Units Restrictions In Favour Object Percentage Response Proposed Informal Formal Informal Formal Informal Formal Beech Close 10 Yes - 1 - - - 10% Boundary Road 18 Yes 10 2 2 2 67% 22% Chester Avenue 22 No 2 - 6 - 36% - Chieveley Drive 48 No 2 - 8 - 21% - Cleeve Avenue 13 No - - 3 - 23% - Dorset Road 35 Yes 14 - 5 - 54% - Farmcombe Rd 5 No* 2 - - - 40% - Forest Road 94 Yes 10 - 7 - 18% - Forest Way 24 No 9 - 4 - 54% - Halls Hole Road 13 No - - 4 - 31% - Hawkenbury Cl 24 Yes 4 - 2 - 25% - Hawkenbury Rd 39 Yes 11 - 5 - 41% - Lambourn Way 19 No 2 - 3 - 26% - Maryland Road 46 No 0 - 10 - 22% - Napier Road 72 Yes 20 2 6 1 36% 4% Nelson Road 59 Yes 18 - 5 2 39% 3% Rookley Close 8 No - - 3 - 37% - Roundhill Road 16 No - - 3 - 19% - Whybourne Crst 26 Yes 18 6 2 - 77% 23% Others** - No - 4 Proposals for Farmcombe Road are being considered as part of a separate consultation* ‘Others’ refers to responses from residents of roads outside the boundary of Zone HA**

Of those who responded to the earlier informal consultation, 61% were in favour of expanding Zone HA, although in each of the streets where new restrictions are now being proposed, the positive responses generally significantly outweighed the negative ones (105 to 34 – i.e. 76% positive).

The same percentages for the formal consultation are 55% and 69% respectively in favour.

Page 38 Agenda Item 9

PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION

Taking a lesson from previous exercises where informal consultations had produced positive responses but formal ones either less so or largely negative replies, on this occasion equal emphasis has been placed on both informal and formal responses. It should be noted that nobody who replied to both consultations provided a contrary view.

With that in mind, it seems clear that there is a desire within several streets for inclusion within the permit parking scheme. Analysis of the results did not suggest that there was a need to vary the proposals as advertised.

It is, therefore, proposed to proceed with the introduction of permit parking in the following additional streets:-

 Boundary Road  Dorset Road  Hawkenbury Close  Hawkenbury Road (part)  Napier Road  Nelson Road  Whybourne Crest

It is furthermore proposed to introduce additional single yellow lines with a weekday, daytime restriction on parking in:-

 Beech Close  Forest Road (part)

A slight extension to the double yellow lines in Dorset Road and Hawkenbury Road also forms part of the overall proposal.

CONCLUSION

A consultation in respect of proposed changes to restrictions in Permit Parking Zone HA has produced a largely positive response. It is, therefore, proposed that permit parking be made available in additional streets as outlined in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

Members are recommended to endorse the making of a traffic regulation order which would introduce permit parking restrictions in more streets within Zone HA as detailed in this report.

Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Proposed Electric Vehicle Charging Bays, Mount Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells

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

Recommendation:

 That the Board notes the results of a public consultation exercise in respect of proposed electric vehicle charging bays in Mount Pleasant Road, Tunbridge Wells

INTRODUCTION

There are currently no electric vehicle charging bays provided on-street in Tunbridge Wells Borough. Kent County Council have secured funding for the provision of electric taxi charging points in a number of locations around the county. A suitable location for a charging point has been identified on Mount Pleasant Road in Tunbridge Wells. To ensure that the associated roadside space is restricted to use by electric vehicles, and only when being charged, a traffic regulation order has been advertised, the effect of which would be to create bays for the intended purpose.

BACKGROUND

National government policy is encouraging a transition away from internal combustion engines and towards ultra-low ‘tail pipe’ emission vehicles (ULEV), including Electric Vehicles. Meeting this ambition requires a step change in the availability of electric vehicles (EVs) charging infrastructure. Although it’s difficult to say with certainty how the technology will progress over the next ten years, a network of charging infrastructure will be required to enable drivers to top up their battery when they are out and about and critically for use by drivers without off-street parking. Whilst it is not anticipated that councils will become the long-term default provider for charging infrastructure, Councils do have a role to play in catalysing this market during the early interim phase.

There are both environmental and economic reasons for councils to encourage the adoption of EVs on our road networks, including reducing emissions of harmful air

Page 41 Agenda Item 10

pollutants and carbon dioxide and the expectation from residents and visitors that places will have adequate coverage of convenient and affordable electric vehicle charging infrastructure available to use. Therefore, in partnership with other Kent local authorities and led by Kent County Council a successful grant bid for round 2 of the ULEV Taxi Infrastructure Scheme was made to the Office for Low Emission Vehicles for the installation; at no cost to the council, apart from the TRO costs; of a dual rapid vehicle charge point on Mount Pleasant Road. One bay will be available for the exclusive use of Taxi and Private Hire vehicle drivers only, as per the grant requirements, thereby encouraging the uptake of EV’s amongst the trade. Mount Pleasant Road was chosen due to its close proximity to the town centre areas, critically the taxi ranks and shopping areas, plus adequate space on site to accommodate two bays and the charging equipment safely.

CONSULTATION EXERCISE

The two on-street parking bays have been proposed on the western side of Mount Pleasant Road between points 25 metres and 37 metres north of its junction with Lonsdale Gardens. It is proposed that one of these will be for use by electric taxis and private hire vehicles with the other for use by any electric vehicle whilst in the process of being charged, but with a maximum stay of one hour.

The draft order was advertised on Friday 3rd January 2020 and a 3 week response period followed.

CONSULTATION RESPONSE

5 responses were received during the statutory three week consultation period. Of these, all expressed support for the changes, with none objecting. Some queries were raised and responses have been sent to the individuals concerned.

The responses were as follows:-

 “The chargers should be rapid dual use type as these are the type that would work with a 1 hour restriction.”  “My personal car and my work van are both electric and I think this is an excellent proposal. In addition to the benefits mentioned, I feel it would also benefit tourism in the area as I am sometimes put off visiting other towns that do not have adequate charging facilities. There is no mention of the type of chargers but given that the waiting time is limited to one hour I would hope they would be a minimum of 50kW rapid chargers with both CHAdeMO and CCS connectors. I can foresee some frustration to drivers who need to charge if the public charger is in use, blocked or not working and the taxi charging bay is empty.”  “Both units must be for all to use there, simply isn't enough electric taxis atm to warrant having a designated unit. Great to here they are coming thou”  “The provision of EV chargers, especially destination chargers (7kw) would certainly encourage me to visit.”

Page 42 Agenda Item 10

 “I support the proposed change. Being a regular user of the "Fast" chargers in the Great Hall multi-storey car park, I can see that more provision is required. However I have the following concerns: - One hour is not a long time to be charging an electric car on a standard "Fast" charger. I would like assurance that these bays will be for "Rapid" chargers, charging at least at 22kW - There is no need to restrict one of the bays to taxis. In order to achieve maximum benefit to the local environment, two bays should be provided for all vehicles. It is too soon in the uptake of electric vehicles to restrict some of these facilities to such a small minority of users. Other systems (such as incentive pricing) should be offered to encourage EV uptake by taxi drivers.” WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

With no objections having been raised to the creation of the two bays for electric vehicles, Kent County Council will be asked to make the necessary traffic regulation order and the bays will be marked and signed.

CONCLUSION

A consultation in respect of a traffic regulation order to cover two EV charging bays has been completed with no objections being made thereby enabling the necessary traffic regulation order to be made and the bays introduced.

RECOMMENDATION

That Members note this report

Appendices to the Report

 None

Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

To: Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board

By: KCC Highways, Transportation & Waste

Date: 10th February 2020

Subject: Highway Forward Works Programme – 2019/20 onwards

Classification: Information Only

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

Drainage Repairs & Improvements – see Appendix B

Street Lighting – see Appendix C

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

Developer Funded Works – see Appendix E

Bridge Works – see Appendix F

Traffic Systems – see Appendix G

Combined Member Fund – see Appendix H

Conclusion

1. This report is for Members’ information.

Page 45 Agenda Item 11

Contact Officers:

The following contact officers can be contacted on 03000 418181

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

Page 46 Agenda Item 11

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

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

Machine Resurfacing – Contact Officer Mr Byron Lovell

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

A228 Colts Hill Capel Crittenden Road to B2017 Completed

Lomas Lane to th A268 Rye Road Sandhurst Programmed 25 Rosemullion February 2020

Travel Lodge Hotel to nd A264 Mount Ephraim Tunbridge Wells Programmed 2 Church Road March 2020

Eridge Road Roundabout th A26 Eridge Road Tunbridge Wells to Pedestrian Crossing Programmed 6 (Summervale Rd) March 2020

Junction with Hanover Rd A26 Grovesnor Road Tunbridge Wells To be programmed to A26 St Johns Rd Spring 2020

Surface Treatments – Contact Officer Mr Jonathan Dean

Micro Surfacing

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

A262 Goudhurst Road Various From East of Goudhurst to Complete Biddenden

J/w Benhall Mill Road to Forest Road Tunbridge Wells Bayham Road (Joint with Complete 2018 SD)

Maidstone Road to Queen Lucks Lane Paddock Wood Street (Leave out level Completed crossing)

From the junction with the A264 Pembury Road Tunbridge Wells A21 Access roundabout Completed (Tesco end) to the junction with Kingswood Road.

Page 47 Agenda Item 11

Mascalls Park Rd to "Kings Completed Maidstone Road Paddock Wood Barn" (Joint with last year's microsurfacing)

50m west of Petteridge Brenchley Lane ("Myrtle Cottage") to Brenchley Road Crook Road (Opposite Completed

Brenchley Memorial Hall)

Clayhill Road Lamberhurst B2169 Furnace Lane to Completed A21 Lamberhurst Quarter

A268 Queen Street, Bodiam Road Sandhurst Sandhurst to KCC Completed boundary with East Sussex ("THE MILL HOUSE") Crittenden Road and From A228 Colts Hill to Chestnut Lane Capel / Matfield Maidstone Road, Matfield Completed

KCC Boundary (East end Bayham Road Tunbridge Wells of Tunbridge Wells Completed Crematorium) to Forest Road

Tunbridge Wells Completed Blackhurst Lane Between Sandown Park and Academy entrance

In front of Hospice and Maidstone Road Pembury near school. Completed

Penshurst Hill to 50m past Barden Road Speldhurst Furzefields Completed

Lower Green Road to Postponed to Etherington Hill Speldhurst Gateway Summer 2020

Mount Pleasant Road bend Clayhill Road Lamberhurst past "Snaggs Well Completed Cottages" to end of trees

North Hill Road Hawkhurst Delmonden Lane to A268 Completed MA.

Cromwell Road Tunbridge Wells Whole Length Completed

End of HFS j/w Standen Mill Street and Street ("Weald House") to Sponden Lane Cranbrook Sponden Lane ("Sponden Completed Oast")

Page 48 Agenda Item 11

Surface Dressing

Road Name Parish Extent of Works Current Status

A228 Pembury Pembury From Maidstone Road to Completed Northern Bypass Pembury Road

Cranbrook / Headcorn Road/Green Completed Staplehurst Road Staplehurst Lane to Park Wood Lane.

Footway Improvement - Contact Officer Mr Neil Tree

Showfields Road Tunbridge Road Entire Length Completed (Footway Protection)

College Drive Tunbridge Wells Entire Length Completed (Footway Protection)

Concord Close Tunbridge Wells Entire Length Completed (Footway Protection)

Page 49 Agenda Item 11

Appendix B – Drainage Repairs & Improvements

Drainage Repairs & Improvements - Contact Officer Earl Bourner

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status Job reviewed due to cost. Like for like Longfield Drainage improvement on the replacement to be Tunbridge Wells Road, roundabouts raised with additional gully at low point to resolve ponding. Possible upgrade to the drainage Under further Bakers Cross Cranbrook system or replacement of investigation. sections.

Frittenden Under further Sissinghurst Drainage Improvements Road investigation

Nursery Replacement of existing highway Paddock Wood In progress on site Road drainage due to service damage.

Improvement to highway gully Commenced 12th Madeira Park Tunbridge Wells outside 33. December 2019

Bewl Bridge Installation of new gullies near Commence 17th Lamberhurst Lane junction with A21 December 2019

Dundale Drainage improvement near Job passed to Lamberhurst Road Dundale Oast contractor

Drainage improvement near Job passed to Barden Road Bidborough Dundale Oast contractor

Flood Risk Management Team Tunbridge lead project to work with the Wells Tunbridge Wells conservators of the commons to Under investigation Common manage surface water run-off within the area

Page 50 Agenda Item 11

Appendix C – Street Lighting

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

Street Lighting Column Replacement – Contact Officer: Sue Kinsella

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status

Angley Road Cranbrook Replacement of 5 signposts By Mar 2020 By Mar 2020 Ashcroft Road Paddock Wood Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Blackhurst Lane Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Broadwater Lane Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Cambrian Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 2 signposts By Mar 2020 Constitutional Hill Southborough Replacement of 1 signpost Road By Mar 2020 Culverden Park Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Eridge Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 2 signposts By Mar 2020 Ferndale Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Forest Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Forge Road Southborough Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Garden Street Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Goods Station Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Goudhurst Road Cranbrook Replacement of 2 signposts By Mar 2020 Granville Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Harmony Street Rusthall Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Kingswood Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 3 signposts By Mar 2020 Lamberts Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 signpost By Mar 2020 Langton Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 6 signposts By Mar 2020 Angley Road Cranbrook Replacement of 1 Column

Page 51 Agenda Item 11

By Mar 2020 Bayhall Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 2 columns By Mar 2020 Benhall Mill Road Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 1 column By Mar 2020 Bishops Down Park Tunbridge Wells Replacement of 2 columns Road Pembury By Mar 2020 Brickfields Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Camden Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Clarendon Way Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Dudley Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Eridge Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Garden Road Replacement of 3 columns Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Grosvenor Road Replacement of 2 columns Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Quaker Lane Replacement of 2 columns Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Sandhurst Road Replacement of 2 columns Pembury By Mar 2020 Hastings Road Replacement of 2 columns Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Langton Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Liptraps Lane Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Longfield Road Replacement of 1 column Pembury By Mar 2020 Lower Green Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 North Farm Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Pembury Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Queens Road Replacement of 2 column Rusthall By Mar 2020 Rusthall High Street Replacement of 4 columns Rusthall By Mar 2020 Rusthall Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Sandhurst Road Replacement of 4 columns Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Sandrock Road Replacement of 2 columns

Page 52 Agenda Item 11

Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 St James Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 St Johns Road Replacement of 10 columns Rusthall By Mar 2020 Tristan Gardens Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Upper Grosvenor Rd Replacement of 2 columns Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Vale Road Replacement of 1 column Tunbridge Wells By Mar 2020 Woodbury Park Road Replacement of 2 columns

Page 53 Agenda Item 11

Appendix D – Transportation and Safety Schemes

Casualty Reduction Measures

The Schemes Planning & Delivery team is implementing schemes within Tunbridge Wells Borough, in order to meet Kent County Council’s (KCC) strategic targets (for example, addressing traffic congestion or improving road safety). Casualty reduction measures have been identified to address a known history of personal injury crashes. Current status correct as of 6th June 2019.

Local Transport Plan funded schemes – Contact Officer: Fiona Paine

Road Name Description of Works Current Status

Casualty reduction measures (reactive) – Tunbridge Wells A228 Colts Hill Feasibility Investigation Junction Improvements A262/B2162 Junction Improvements Feasibility Investigation

Horsmonden Proposed alteration to speed limit Speed survey Investigation Road/ Fairman’s terminal location Lane LTP Schemes - Tunbridge Wells - - -

Externally Funded Schemes

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

Externally Funded Schemes – Contact Officer: Fiona Paine Source of Road Name Description of Works Current Status Funding 21st Century Installation of shared Tunbridge Wells On site Way use footway/cycleway Borough Council facilities.

Tunbridge Improvement works to Tunbridge Wells Mount Pleasant Road was Wells Public the public realm Borough Council opened to traffic on Sunday 3 Realm Works November on substantial completion of the footway works allowing the bus operations to return.

Signing of the daytime restrictions is to be completed by mid-December and the steps either side of

Page 54 Agenda Item 11

the war memorial still require the sandstone cladding to be placed. This work started w/c 9 December.

A tree is to be planted either side of the war memorial to replace the 2 that were removed. This will take place w/c 6 January 2020.

All work is programmed to be completed by the end of January 2020.

Local Growth Fund

Local Growth Fund programme update for Tunbridge Wells Borough

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

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

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

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

Scheme Status Tunbridge Wells way finding signs – Partnership Agreement to be signed by TWBC. Installation of way finding monoliths to Tender for sign design, build and install can then be assist pedestrians and tourists in released. Tunbridge Wells A26 Cycleway Further design work to be considered for the 2020/21 financial year.

Page 55 Agenda Item 11

Appendix E – Developer Funded Works

Developer Funded Works (Section 278), Contact Officer: JAMES PRONGER Scheme Ref. Parish Description Current status location Completion New footway and certificate issued. TW002038 Gibbet Lane Horsmonden junction to Gibbet Lane Remedial works notified Two new bell-mouth access points into new East Sussex leading Benhall Mill TW003019 Tunbridge Wells development off north on the S278 Road east side of Benhall Mill Agreement Road. Works are complete TW003043 Bayham Road Tunbridge Wells New bell-mouth access and 1st certificate

issued. Solicitors instructed. Realignment of Design in progress. Hawkhurst Heartenoak Road TWBC planning now TW003049 Castle, Hawkhurst junction with Cranbrook involved and Cranbrook Road Road contacting developer. Reshaping existing Completion garage access with Certificate issued. TW003053 Dowding Way Tunbridge Wells associated works to Maintenance period carriageway and now started footway Creation of links from the existing Knights TW003054 Knights Wood Tunbridge Wells Way into the proposed Agreement signed Phase 1A Knights Wood development

Works complete,

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

now started

Completion Certificate issued. ‘Smugglers’ New vehicle access Remedial works TW003057 (former Bowles Hawkhurst south of old access notified. Lodge site)

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

Page 56 Agenda Item 11

Scheme Ref. Parish Description Current status location New bell-mouth access into new housing TW003065 Birchfield, Rye Agreement signed. Hawkhurst development and Road Works ongoing adjustment of speed limit terminal point eastwards. Agreement signed. TW003069 Works partially Mascalls Court Paddock New bell-mouth access for complete, further Farm, Green Wood new development works to widen Lane bellmouth not yet

complete. Improved bell-mouth into Certificate 1 development at the Standen Street, issued; TW003079 Benenden junction of Standen Street Iden Green maintenance plus improved drainage in period started Woodcock Lane.

New bell-mouth access Bassetts Farm, into housing development Awaiting design TW003082 Horsmonden Goudhurst Road and footway linking to submission village Awaiting revised Improvements to existing design submission Lillesden House, TW003083 Hawkhurst access and new southern TWBC planning Hastings Road access contacting developer Substantially Highgate Hill, New bell-mouth access TW003095 Hawkhurst complete; remedial Hawkhurst into development works notified TW003100 Woodman Hall, New bell-mouth access Agreement signed. Hawkhurst Rye Road into development Works ongoing

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

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

Page 57 Agenda Item 11

Scheme Ref. Parish Description Current status location S278 LoA signed New bell-mouth access Home Farm, 20 Feb. 2019. TW003107 Bidborough into Home Farm Penshurst Road Work not yet development started Technical approval Merevale Tunbridge New access from London granted. S278 TW003114 House, London Wells Road plus footway works Agreement signed Road 8 March 2109 Highway improvements to include: Kerb realignment; Junction improvements; Works Completed. Forest Road, Tunbridge TW003116 New refuge/island in Remedial works Hawkenbury Wells Forest Way; notified

Speed limit reduction; Better pedestrian facilities.

Cert 1 issued; in Tunbridge New vehicle access into TW003122 Longfield Road maintenance Wells Travis Perkin period Union House, Agreement signed. Eridge Road & Tunbridge Highway works associated TW003123 Works due to start Linden Park Wells with development shortly Road Works completed TW003124 New crossing points awaiting road Common Road, Cranbrook & associated with the build safety audit report Sissinghurst Sissinghurst of 62 new dwellings remedial work to be done

Benenden Signing and lining traffic Technical TW003125 Benenden School calming measures Acceptance issued Benenden School access and Works substantially TW003125A Benenden School footway works complete

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

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

Page 58 Agenda Item 11

Scheme Ref. Parish Description Current status location New car dealership, by Tunbridge Initial design TW003351 Pembury Road Tesco site, changes to Wells received roundabout Convert builders’ yard to Letter of Goods Station Tunbridge TW003133 new housing with Agreement some Road Wells accesses and footway works started 62 house development Letter of Heartenoak involving footway works, agreement signed TW003187 Hawkhurst Road provision of bellmouth and works due to start passing places January 2020 17 house development The Foundry, TW003231 Horsmonden requiring provision of new Works underway Maidstone Road bellmouth 20 house development Legal agreement Maidstone Paddock requiring provision of new TW003232 signed works due Road, Matfield Wood bellmouth and bus stop early 2020 improvements 36 house development Letter of TW003245 Turnden Cranbrook requiring provision of new agreement signed bellmouth and footway works underway

Large housing development requiring Legal agreement Paddock new bellmouth, road being undertaken TW003246 Badsell Road Wood widening, pedestrian works due crossing and footway imminently works Technical approval Knoxbridge New bellmouth for access TW003283 Cranbrook given works due Farm to farm early 2020

New bellmouth for access Design submitted Old Kent Road Paddock TW003393 to small housing awaiting changes Paddock Wood Wood development to be confirmed

Common Road Cranbrook and Additional footway linking Design submitted TW003365 Sissinghurst Sissinghurst development to bus stop awaiting approval

Page 59 Agenda Item 11

A26 New Toucan crossing in Design approved Tunbridge TW003386 Southborough association with works due early Wells Tunbridge Wells Southborough Hub 2020

Flagstones Cranbrook and New Bellmouth for small Design submitted TW003352 Hartley Road Sissinghurst housing development awaiting approval Cranbrook

Frant Road Tunbridge Bellmouth improvements Design approved TW003347 Tunbridge Wells Wells for housing development works due 2020

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

Letter of Walkhurst Road New bellmouth for access TW003308 Benenden agreement signed Benenden to 12 x properties works started

A264 Pembury Road Tunbridge Tunbridge New bellmouth entrance in Design submitted TW00132 Wells Wells to care home awaiting approval (Beechwood School)

Page 60 Agenda Item 11

Appendix F – Bridge Works

Bridge Works – Contact Officer: Earl Bourner

Road Name Parish Description of Works Current Status

No works planned

Page 61 Agenda Item 11

Appendix G – Traffic Systems

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

Traffic Systems - Contact Officer: Toby Butler

Location Description of Works Current Status

Replacement of signal A264 Pembury Road near A21 Completed July 2019 controller

Replacement of signal A26 Eridge Road near Ramslye Road Completed August 2019 controller

Replacement of signal Programmed December A264 Pembury Road near Sandhurst Road controller 2019

Replacement of signal Completed October Grove Hill near Mount Pleasant controller 2019

Page 62 Agenda Item 11

Appendix H - Combined Member Grant programme update

Member Highway Fund programme update for the Tunbridge Wells Borough

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

The list is up to date as of 6th June 2019.

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

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

Paul Barrington-King Details of Scheme Status

SID Installation, High Street Pembury Awaiting feedback from Network Solutions team on proposed location

Pembury Gateways Works ordered, awaiting construction

Sarah Hamilton Details of Scheme Status

Paddock Wood Gateways Entry treatments to be progressed. Funding application to be submitted in early 2020.

Sean Holden Details of Scheme Status

No highway applications received -

James McInroy Details of Scheme Status

Bidborough – Traffic Surveys for proposed 20mph Traffic surveys in progress limit

Page 63 Agenda Item 11

Peter Oakford Details of Scheme Status

Southborough Primary School 20mph Zone – Design Awaiting installation on site and Installation Broomhill Park Road One- way Concept design provided to school. Awaiting confirmation from Member on next steps

Catherine Rankin Details of Scheme Status

Banner Farm Estate 20mph zone Complete subject to RSA3

Page 64 Agenda Item 11

1.1 Legal Implications

1.1.1 Not applicable.

1.2 Financial and Value for Money Considerations

1.2.1 Not applicable.

1.3 Risk Assessment

1.3.1 Not applicable.

Contacts: Richard Emmett / Julian Cook 03000 418181

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Topics for Future Meetings

Procedural Item:

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

Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13

Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board 10 February 2020

Date of Next Meeting

Procedural Item:

To note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday 20 April 2020 at 6.00pm.

Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank