DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Number: 030130/CAB148 Date: 30 January 2003

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report Number: 030130/CAB148 Date: 30 January 2003 87 Report Number: 030130/CAB148 Date: 30 January 2003 TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL REQUEST FOR DECISION BY CABINET *Part 1 Report Non-Exempt Title and Executive Summary: *RESPONSE TO THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY ON THE PROPOSED DUALLING OF THE A21 BETWEEN TONBRIDGE AND PEMBURY The Borough Council are being consulted by the Highways Agency on proposals to dual the section of the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury. The proposals are outlined, the impact on the Borough is discussed and Members’ views are sought on the proposed response, with key points in bold within the report. The deadline for submission of comments was 20 December 2002 and so a holding letter and brief Appendix summary of the key points has been approved and submitted by the Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder and Director of Operational Services, on the understanding that it may be reviewed following Cabinet consideration and decision. In principle support is expressed for the proposals, but an officer meeting is requested to discuss design and modelling options. WARD: All HEAD OF STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO: Planning and Contact Officer: Michael Thornton Extension: 2062 Transportation RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That the Borough Council supports the earliest construction of the improved Tonbridge – Pembury bypass link. The progress of the proposals should not be delayed by consideration of other sections of the route south of Kippings Cross; 2) That the provision of a grade separated junction at Longfield Road is welcomed in terms of the capacity created; 3) That information is required to enable proper consideration of the options set out in the main report; 4) That the principles for minimal impact on the landscape, the natural environment, heritage, and the concerns of environmental protection, as outlined in the main report, should be applied; 5) That the provision of a parallel route for non-car users, integrated with the local access network and grade separated crossings of the A21 would be a highly desirable aspect any scheme; and 6) The Borough Council requests detailed discussion on the comments expressed in the main report at the earliest opportunity, and the opportunity of continuing dialogue with the appointed contractor team. Reason: To present the interests and concerns of the Borough Council on the proposals. (Items marked * will be the subject of recommendations by Cabinet to full Council; in the case of other items, Cabinet may make the decision, subject to call-in (Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 15)) 88 Item No. 8 TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL CABINET – 30 JANUARY 2003 REPORT OF HEAD OF STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT *RESPONSE TO THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY ON THE PROPOSED DUALLING OF THE A21 BETWEEN TONBRIDGE AND PEMBURY Executive Summary This report (0301301/CAB148) addresses the latest proposals of the Highways Agency to dual the section of the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury. The Borough Council has been consulted on the proposals, which are outlined in the report and the impact on the Borough is discussed. Members’ views are sought on the proposed response, with the key points of response in bold text. The deadline for submission of comments was 20 December 2002 and so a holding response, in the form of a letter and brief Appendix, have been approved by the Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder and Director of Operational Services, on the understanding that this may be reviewed following Cabinet consideration and decision. In principle support is expressed for the proposals, but an officer meeting is requested to discuss design and modelling options. FOR DECISION Introduction (1) The Borough Council has been consulted by the Highways Agency on its current proposals for improving the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury. A single detailed alignment option was presented in late November with comments required by 20 December 2002. In view of the limited time-scale, an initial response was prepared by officers, approved by the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation and submitted. The response is presented here for confirmation. (A similar consultation is also being undertaken for the A21 south of Kippings Cross, with a later deadline for response). (2) The Highways Agency will be presenting a report to Government in spring 2003 that reflects the results of public consultation and other ongoing assessment. If approved in its present form, the scheme would be accepted into the Department for Transport’s “Targeted Programme of Improvements” (TPI) for implementation. (3) If so approved, a contractor would be appointed at an early stage to assist in further development of the scheme design and construction methods. An Environmental Statement (addressing the design and construction method) and draft Orders under the Highways Act would then be published and open to objection and potentially a Public Inquiry. Construction could start in 2005/06, after the Lamberhurst Bypass but prior to further improvements south of Kippings Cross. Background to the proposal and the restricted nature of the current consultation (4) The proposals for this section of the A21 have a complicated history which is outlined in Appendix 1 of this report for clarity. (5) The Access to Hastings Study tested two options for an off-line dual carriageway and on-line road widening to provide a “crawler lane “ ascending Castle Hill. However, the Study concluded with a firm recommendation that a third, untested, option be pursued: that being an on-line dual carriageway with an at-grade enlarged roundabout at Longfield Road and with design speeds of 50mph – enabling the existing alignment to be closely followed and restricted movements for access for local properties to be maintained onto the new road. (6) The Study concluded: “The alignment will be (my emphasis) chosen to have as little impact as possible on the surrounding ancient and semi-ancient woodlands and the RSPB Reserve, but some land will be required from both. Without knowing the vertical alignment it is difficult to say how much land take is required…” but that it is likely to be ”…less than the published proposal.” (Para 8.40). 89 Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued) (7) Only if the Highways Agency consider that they cannot make the route option work might alternatives be considered. (8) To progress this the Highways Agency commenced feasibility studies into establishing an on-line 2-lane dual carriageway scheme. None of the evaluation conducted into route alternatives has been made available and only a single route option published for public consultation. Little detailed information is available with which to properly assess the impact of the proposal or to compare it with the off-line alternatives. (9) The proposals place great reliance on the Access to Hastings Study as a mandate of public consultation support and technical endorsement yet the current proposal has been significantly varied from the parameters set by the Study in that: • rather than at-grade roundabouts at each end, the scheme provides an enlarged southbound slip lane at Tonbridge and grade-separated junction at Longfield Road, in order to provide adequate capacity; • because through-flows on the A21 over the Longfield Road junction will be unimpeded and 70mph speed limit sections of road are at either end of this stretch, and with an overall objective for a “step- change” reduction in journey times to Hastings, the new stretch is designed for 70mph flows; and • consequently, even with restricted movements only, direct access to the dual carriageway by adjacent properties is very strictly limited to occasional uses only. Therefore, segregated local access arrangements have been created for other properties. This includes an underpass to enable bridleways and other public rights of way to traverse the road safely, as detailed below. (10) Despite the findings of the Access to Hastings Study, public consultation has not been conducted on the various options available for a broadly on-line alignment and local access arrangements. Nor has material been published to demonstrate how environmental impact has been minimised or how the options compare. The form of the response to the consultation (11) With the limited information available, the Borough Council is being forced into a position of responding to the consultation by either accepting this proposed route (with inadequate justification and comparison), or to reject it in the hope that the Highways Agency might present an alternative proposal in time. This does not assist constructive dialogue. (12) The report sets out the principles that should be applied in the further reworking of the design of the road improvements with the Highways Agency and contractor, with a selection of additional specific comments on some points of detail. Key observations are in bold text. (13) The overall established position of the Borough Council is that improvement of this link and the capacity of relevant junctions is urgently required, and that this should be achieved with the minimum of disruption to landscape, environment, heritage and property. The Borough Council has made various representations to this end in the past, see Appendix 1: History. (14) The Borough Council implores the early construction of an improved Tonbridge – Pembury bypass link, whilst seeking assurances concerning the published scheme as further detailed design work progresses. The proposed scheme briefly described (15) The scheme before the Borough Council is an on-line dual 2-lane carriageway with grade separated junctions to either end of the link. Grade separation is achieved at Tonbridge through amendments to the southbound access slip at the Vauxhall junction. The Longfield Road junction currently being constructed, as part of the former Seeboard site development, is to be replaced by a dumb-bell junction arrangement with the A21 passing over the top of the route between Tonbridge Road and Longfield Road. Each dumb-bell roundabout is approximately the size of the roundabout currently under construction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Development of a Holistic Index for Safer Roads
    DEVELOPMENT OF A HOLISTIC INDEX FOR SAFER ROADS By ABEER KHUDHUR JAMEEL A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Civil Engineering School of Engineering College of Engineering and Physical Sciences The University of Birmingham December 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Generally, road safety is an important issue. Some global and national organisations have recognised the size of this problem and introduced the “safe system approach ” approach as a successful guide for road safety management. The concept of this approach considers road safety as a system compiled of the elements of road infrastructure, mobility, and vehicles; which all should be designed to accommodate the vulnerability of the road users. This corrected the traditional view which considered road-user behaviour as the main contributing factor to the road safety problem. The question raised in this research is to what extent the safe system approach contributes to the national road safety strategic plans? To answer this question, an assessment of road safety performance is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • (TWA) Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004
    Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004 Application for the Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Public Local Inquiry - Department for Transport Reference: TWA/18/APP/02/OBJ/1002 Statement of Case Sally-Ann Hart, Perryfield House, Udimore, Rye, East Sussex, TN31 6AY, District Councillor for Eastern Rother Ward, Rother District Council and Portfolio holder for Tourism, Culture and Public Realm. Summary Position • Negative economic impact on the wider population • Inadequate economic bases for the Application • Abuse of Transport and Works Act 1992 legislation • Investment required on the A21 to improve the road to encourage tourism and other economic growth - not add further impediments by way of a level crossing • Growth in tourism is vital in our deprived coastal, rural communities - not just about the commercial position of Kent & East Sussex Railway • Additional pressure on Robertsbridge due to existing parking issues • Safety of level crossings - the creation of new level crossings on the national network is banned unless unavoidable • Highways England objects for reasons including safety and economic grounds 1. Rother Valley Railway (the Applicant) has submitted various documentation in its application for the above Order, none of which comprises, nor addresses, adequate economic bases for the Application. RVR’s Application focusses on what it perceives as the environmental argument in favour of a new stretch of railway through an area of High Weald AONB. 2. The Applicant commissioned a Local Economic Impact Study from Manchester Metropolitan University in 2007, with an update in October 2013. These reports provide an assessment of the socio- economic impacts of the re-construction of the railway (the Scheme) based on, for example, economic modelling, desk research and field work.
    [Show full text]
  • Hastings Borough Council Cc Cllr Dawn Poole – Lead Member Regeneration, Communities & Culture Appendix B
    Matter 3 – HBC, SR8 APPENDICES INDEX Appendix A HBC letter to ESCC 25 February 2016 Appendix B ESCC Cabinet Report 8 March 2016 Appendix C HBC comments on the draft Waste & Minerals Sites Plan 19 August 2014 Appendix D HBC comments on the draft Waste & Minerals Plan 09 December 2015 Appendix E Queensway Gateway Road Letter of Support from Rupert Clubb, Director of Communities, Economy & Transport 5 August 2015 Appendix F Statement from John Shaw, Chief Executive, SeaChange Sussex Appendix G Statement from Kerry Culbert, Planning Policy Manager, HBC Appendix H Hastings Local Plan, Hastings Planning Strategy 2011-2028 (adopted 19.02.14); Hastings Local Plan, Development Management Plan (adopted 23.09.15); Hastings Local Plan, Policies Map, Development Management Plan (adopted 23.09.15) (incorporating Planning Strategy Policies adopted 19.02.14) Appendix A Please quote: Your reference: Date: 25th February 2016 Please ask for: Kerry Culbert Telephone direct: 01424 783304 E-mail: kculbert@hastings.gov.uk Web: www.hastings.gov.uk/planning Regeneration and Culture Aquila House, Breeds Place Hastings, East Sussex TN34 3UY Mr Tony Cook Planning Policy and Development Management Planning Services Communities, Economy and Transport County Hall St Anne’s Crescent Lewes East Sussex BN7 1UE By email and by post Dear Mr Cook Thank you for the opportunity to meet with yourself and Sarah Iles on the 9th February to discuss your potential proposed Main Modifications to the Waste & Minerals Sites Submission Plan (W&MSP). We also welcomed your invitation to Rother District to attend in light also of that Council’s concerns with the Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report
    A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report May 2016 Prepared for: A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report @ Mouchel Consulting 2015 A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report Executive Summary Highways England has commissioned Mouchel Consulting to undertake a feasibility study of additional effective safety, accessibility and sustainability improvements that will work with, and complement, the installation of Average Speed Enforcement Cameras (ASEC), between Scotney Castle roundabout (south of Lamberhurst), and Hastings (Baldslow) on the A21. The A21 is an all-purpose trunk road serving as the main access route to Hastings from London and the North. The route forms a north-south link between the M25 at Junction 5 near Sevenoaks in West Kent and the Hastings Borough boundary on the south coast in East Sussex. The northern section of the route between the M25 and Lamberhurst is mostly dual carriageway. This study concentrates on the A21 south of the Lamberhurst bypass, from Scotney Castle roundabout to Baldslow. This 26km section of the route is a predominantly rural single carriageway which is considered to be of poor quality. It serves a number of villages and settlements in addition to forming part of the strategic road network. The main settlements on the route have a high degree of direct frontage access and there are also agricultural accesses throughout. Conflict between strategic through traffic and local trips, combined with the below- standard highway alignment, results in collision rates which are above the national average for severity ratio. As the route is single carriageway, recovery time from incidents is slow and this impacts on journey time reliability.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Idp) November 2016
    LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN (IDP) NOVEMBER 2016 1 CONTENTS 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 3 Background and structure .................................................................. 3 Legislative context ............................................................................. 5 Policy context ..................................................................................... 6 Demographic change in Bromley ....................................................... 7 2. Infrastructure funding sources ......................................................... 11 Infrastructure areas 3. Transport .............................................................................................. 15 4. Utilities .................................................................................................. 22 5. Education ............................................................................................. 26 6. Health ................................................................................................... 33 7. Open Space ......................................................................................... 37 8. Community Facilities (Leisure, Cultural, and Burial) ............................. 41 9. Heritage Assets .................................................................................... 48 10. Public Realm ...................................................................................... 51 11. Emergency
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Idp) Update Report 2020
    LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN (IDP) UPDATE REPORT 2020 Date of drafting – 28 August 2020 The information contained in this document is based on the best available data, and is correct at the date of publication. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) provides an overview of current infrastructure needs; it does not establish a hierarchy of future investment decisions by either the Council or other infrastructure delivery agencies. The projections and infrastructure proposals may change over time, and the IDP will be updated periodically to incorporate such changes in line with new information and updated investment programmes September 2020 London Borough of Bromley Planning Strategy and Projects T: 0208 313 4344 E: LCIL@bromley.gov.uk 1 CONTENTS 1 Introduction Background and structure Policy context Demographic change in Bromley 2. Infrastructure funding sources Infrastructure areas 3. Transport 4. Utilities 5. Education 6. Health 7. Open Space 8. Community Facilities (Leisure, Cultural, and Burial) 9. Heritage Assets 10. Public Realm 11. Emergency Services 12. Energy and Low Carbon 13. Waste and Recycling Facilities 14. Flood Risk Mitigation Appendix 1 Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan Schedule Table Appendix 2 Stakeholder list 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Bromley’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) sets out what infrastructure is required to support planned growth identified in the Local Plan. The Council, its partners and other stakeholders will use the document to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure is in place as growth is delivered. This document reviews and outlines the infrastructure needed to support the growth and objectives reflected in the Local Plan. 1.2 The infrastructure identified in the IDP, should be deliverable within the Plan period (2016-31) and includes details of where funding for this infrastructure will be sourced (where known).
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Submission Local Plan
    Tunbridge Wells Borough Pre-Submission Local Plan Version for Planning & Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board on 11 January 2021 Pre-Submission Local Plan Draft for P&T CAB on 11 January 2021 Foreword 3 Index of Policies 4 Index of Strategic Policies 9 Index of Policies Maps and Inset Maps 10 Section 1 Introduction 11 2 Setting the Scene 18 3 Vision and Objectives 28 4 The Development Strategy and Strategic Policies 32 5 Place Shaping Policies 73 Royal Tunbridge Wells 74 Southborough 129 Strategic Sites: Tudeley Village and Paddock Wood, including land at east Capel 138 Paddock Wood 163 Capel 169 Cranbrook and Sissinghurst 171 Hawkhurst 193 Benenden 213 Bidborough 227 Brenchley and Matfield 229 Frittenden 237 Goudhurst 242 Horsmonden 250 Lamberhurst 262 Pembury 267 Rusthall 297 Sandhurst 302 Speldhurst 310 6 Development Management Policies 319 Draft published on 31 December 2020 Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Draft for P&T CAB on 11 January 2021 Pre-Submission Local Plan Environment 321 Environment and Design 321 Natural Environment 354 Air, Water, Noise, and Land 382 Housing 400 Delivery of Housing 400 Types of Housing Delivery 408 Economic Development 431 Employment Provision 431 Town, Rural Service and Neighbourhood Centres, and Village Settlements 451 Transport and Parking 462 Open Space, Sport, and Recreation 478 7 Delivery and Monitoring 484 Appendices 1 Biodiversity/geodiversity sites within Tunbridge Wells borough 488 2 Schedule of designated Local Green Space sites within Tunbridge Wells borough 492 3 The Monitoring Framework
    [Show full text]
  • A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings
    A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings Average Speed Camera Study May 2015 Highways England A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings Issue and revision record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description First Issue for A 21 April 2015 Internal Use Only B 22 May 2015 Second Issue C 28 May 2015 Third Issue This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no respons bility for the consequences of this and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which used for any other purpose. is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings Content Chapter Title Page Executive Summary i 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Objective __________________________________________________________________________ 1 2. Existing Conditions 3 2.1 Background ________________________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 Speed Limits _______________________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 Layout and Highway Cross-Section _____________________________________________________ 3 2.4 Personal Injury Collision Data __________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Associated Schemes for the
    [Show full text]
  • South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report April 2014
    Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report April 2014 An executive agency of the Department for Transport South Coast Central route-based strategy evidence report Document History South Coast Central route-based strategy evidence report Highways Agency This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Author Approved by 6 03/04/14 Fifth Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones Fourth Draft post stakeholder 5 17/03/2014 Peter Phillips Simon Jones comments 4 31/01/2014 Third Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones 3 15/01/2014 Second Draft amended Peter Phillips Simon Jones 2 14/01/2014 Second Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones 1 04/12/2013 First Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones i South Coast Central route-based strategy evidence report Table of Contents Tables ........................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 The scope of the stage 1 RBS evidence report.................................................. 5 1.3 Route description ............................................................................................... 5 2 Route capability, condition and constraints ................................................... 10 2.1 Route performance .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Highways 15 December 2020
    Goudhurst Parish Council HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE Minutes of a Virtual Meeting held on 15 December 2020 via Zoom Present: Cllrs David Boniface (Chairman), Craig Broom, Alan Foster, Antony Harris and Guy Sutton. Ted Bennett, Helen Sampson and Colin Wilson as advisors. Two members of the public. 1. Apologies were accepted from Cllr Peter Wood. 2. Declarations of Interest: None. 3. Questions from the public and press: There were none. 4. Update on A21 traffic. It was noted that a letter had been received by Ted Bennett from Baroness Vere of Norbiton, Minister for Roads, Buses and Places. She had written to the Members of Parliament for the A21 between Tunbridge Wells and Hastings to let them know that work to improve the safety, to add cycle lanes, and make various improvements that had been planned to run after 2025 will now aim to be completed by 2025 following negotiations which she had had with the Government and Highways England. Mr Bennett was not sure that her reference to Scotney Castle would include the section of the A21 road we are concerned about. It has been suggested to him by Peter Philips of Highways England that our section between the Scotney Castle roundabout and the T & J Motel would not be included. Greg Clerk wrote that the next step would be to convene a meeting to establish precisely what is proposed and to ensure that the measures proposed are satisfactory. We have to assume that this meeting will be after the COVID pandemic. After some discussion it was agreed that GPC would write to Greg Clark to confirm that we are looking forward to the meeting and that we would be intending to take part in discussions about the problems of speeding traffic and other dangers of the section of road through Goudhurst Parish near Bewl Water.
    [Show full text]
  • Philip Hamshaw Msc MCIHT CMILT TEXT (RVR/W3/1 – HIGHWAYS)
    RVR/W3/1 Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT TEXT (RVR/W3/1 – HIGHWAYS) i-Transport Ref: PH/JN/ITL14477-006B Date: 04 June 2021 i-Transport – Basingstoke | London | Manchester | Leeds www.i-transport.co.uk Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT TEXT (RVR/W3/1 – HIGHWAYS) i-Transport Ref: PH/JN/ITL14477-006B Date: 04 June 2021 i-Transport LLP 85 Gresham Street London EC2V 7NQ Tel: 020 3705 9215 www.i-transport.co.uk COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of i-Transport LLP Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT Contents SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND 4 SECTION 3 RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE 12 SECTION 4 EFFECT ON TRAFFIC FLOW 19 SECTION 5 ROAD SAFETY 22 SECTION 6 HIGHWAY DESIGN & DEPARTURES 27 SECTION 7 EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (ESCC) 34 SECTION 8 THIRD-PARTY POSITIONS 36 SECTION 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 40 Date: 04 June 2021 Ref: PH/JN/ITL14477-006B Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Qualifications & Experience 1.1.1 My name is Philip Hamshaw. I am a Chartered Member of the Institute of Logistics and Transport and a Member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have a Masters Degree in Transportation Planning & Engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Document Pack Gravesham Joint Transportation Board
    Public Document Pack Gravesham Joint Transportation Board Members of the Gravesham Joint Transportation Board of Gravesham Borough Council are summoned to attend a meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Gravesend, Kent on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be transacted. Sarah 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 held on 18 June - minutes (Pages 1 - 10) herewith. 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 Reports In accordance with the principle adopted by other JTB’s it is assumed that members are familiar with the reports submitted and officers will not be required to introduce reports. 5. Highway and Transportation Scheme: Progress report 2008/09 herewith. (Pages 11 - 16) 6. Manor Road, Gravesend - report herewith. (Pages 17 - 20) 7. Satellite Navigation Devices (Satnav) - report herewith. (Pages 21 - 24) 8. A2 Pepperhill to Cobham Widening Scheme - report herewith. (Pages 25 - 26) Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU 9. New Cycle track to North West Kent College in Dering Way - report (Pages 27 - 30) herewith. 10. A227 Wrotham Road - report herewith. (Pages 31 - 32) 11. Verge Parking: Consultation - report herewith. (Pages 33 - 46) 12.
    [Show full text]