Officers: Mr. Connor (SDC), Mr. Cook (KCC), Mr. Dines (KCC), Ms. Squires (KCC), Ms. Thomas (KCC), Ms. Williams (KCC), Mr. Wilson (SDC) and Mr. Lagzdins (SDC).

District Cllrs. Mrs. Ayres, Grint, Mrs. Hunter and Mrs. Parkin were also in attendance.

Resolved:      That the minutes of the meeting of the Sevenoaks Joint Transportation Board held on 15 March 2011 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Cllr. Gough declared a personal interest in  Minute No. 4 so far as it related to Eynsford as his children went to school locally and he was a governor of the school.

Cllr Williamson declared a personal interest in Minute No. 7 as a resident of Watercroft Road.

a.         Actions from previous meetings

Cllr. Chard updated the Board regarding the pedestrian footway in Windmill Road, Weald. Although he was unaware of any worn footpath on the land he hoped that, because it was common land, the permission would be granted.

Information provided by Officers confirmed the interactive sign had now been installed on the A25, Greatness.

The Officer tabled an update to the report.

The Local County Member, Cllr. Brookbank, informed the meeting that the proposals for waiting restrictions in Hextable were initiated for safety purposes and there had been no apparent objections. He clarified that although a District Councillor, not present, would be concerned should the restrictions go beyond the surgery that was not something currently proposed.

A member of the public, who lived next to the surgery, said he had no objection to the proposals as they existed but proposed the restrictions go beyond the surgery. He felt that this would increase safety around the surgery and that there was sufficient parking nearby.

Action:            Kent Highway Services (KHS) to investigate the possible extension of waiting restrictions around the Hextable Surgery.

Resolved:      That Members accept the recommendations outlined in column 4 of Appendix A.

The Road Safety Engineering Team Leader at KHS gave a presentation about the possible removal of railings. Road safety was her priority in these proposals. There had not always been a clear reason why the barriers had been installed in the first place.

There was no funding for immediate implementation of the proposals. However there were alternative ways to bring them in such as gradually removing barriers at the end of their natural life rather than replacing them.

She wanted to listen to Members’ views so they could be fed back into the process. Updated proposals were then to be submitted to the next Joint Transportation Board. If Members were interested in site visits they could inform Democratic Services who could co-ordinate the requests.

Site 1

Several Members were concerned that removal of the barriers would affect  the character of the area; the railings were not merely utilitarian. The Chairman informed Officers that they may be historic and should be looked at in that light.

Members thought the barriers were helpful to guide school children in the area, especially while they waited for buses. They also felt the report should focus on the elderly, as well as children, because of the proximity of the almshouse.

Site 2

The Chairman understood barriers in this area were used to chain up bicycles. He stated that the railings would not be removed until Network Rail had provided sufficient storage places for bicycles. A Member of the public thought this important and one Member thought Officers may wish to get in contact with Network Rail or Southeastern to ensure they increase bicycle storage, possibly when the station is refurbished.

A member of the public was concerned by the number of people walking on the wrong side of the barriers. Another informed the board that following a survey 77% of respondents wanted the barriers removed from the area.

A Member thought Officers should consider the impact of vehicles entering and exiting the new development nearby. The Chairman was concerned that removal of all the barriers on the station side of the road may lead to an increase in cars dropping people off inappropriately at the station entrance rather than using the appropriate drop-off points. He felt this may lead to increased congestion on the road due to cars backing-up out onto the main road.

Members agreed they were in favour of the proposals subject to sufficient bicycle storage and that the station entrance does not become blocked with cars dropping people off.

Site 4

A Member was particularly concerned by this junction and thought it potentially dangerous for pedestrians to cross. It was thought the junction should be looked at as a whole. Members of the public, including a representative of the Town Council, agreed that it was dangerous and that the barriers sometimes stopped people reaching the traffic island. The Road Safety Engineering Team Leader said the difficulty with pedestrians crossing would be passed to the relevant officer.

The Chairman looked forward to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The KHS Community Delivery Team Leader reminded Members that there had been two consecutive severe winters. The Government had recognised the road network was deteriorating and had allocated £200million nationally. £6.5million was allocated to Kent with £2.5million going to Find and Fix 3 to remedy potholes and the rest to road resurfacing. £200,000 was allocated under Find and Fix 3 to each district.

Work began on 19 April 2011 and 25% of the fund had already been spent. 5 gangs were available to work and 4 were currently in use. Workers were required to cut and patch potholes and take photographs of the scene before and after the work. Each one would be audited.

Find and Fix had tended to focus away from “A” and “B” roads because of traffic management difficulties. The meeting was informed that updates could be found via the Kent County Council website (www.kent.gov.uk).

The Sevenoaks District Council Head of Environmental and Operational Services reminded Members that the proposals had been approved for implementation in March 2011 subject to consultation responses.

He brought Members’ attention to the strong support for the proposals in each of the 4 affected areas. Of the comments made many of them were outside the control of the District Council. Without Pay and Display charges the Council did not have sufficient funds to implement the proposals. The Council also had no control over the use of land for car parking which was privately held or outside the District.

The Chairman clarified that it would be simple for Members to reduce the current proposals but not to extend them. If the proposals were to be extended then further public consultation on an amended Traffic Regulation Order would be needed and it would be very unlikely the plans could be implemented before 2012.

A Member felt the plans might cause parking displacement and that the income raised would be excessive. The Officer emphasised that under legislation any income from pay and display would be ring-fenced for transport, parking and highway improvements, it would not go into the District Council’s general funds.

A local District Councillor, not on the Board, suggested that although consultation responses had been in favour of the proposals they also voiced concerns including about the pay and display charges and the lack of parking spaces. The Chairman of Halstead Parish Council added that he was concerned whether the restrictions would prevent local people from using the station.

Officers noted there was a significant incidence of car theft and damage in the area. They suggested that this may reduce if there is increased presence for the enforcement of the parking restrictions.

A Councillor from the London Borough of Bromley was also concerned by the possibility of displacement if there was less space for parking. He suggested that if more spaces were created under the plans then the District Council could raise more money.

He informed Members that it was possible other solutions could be found to the parking difficulties. His Council was taking more enforcement action against the waste-transfer company and this could allow space for Network Rail to provide parking spaces. His Council had also considered buying some of the nearby private land for use as additional parking and he confirmed that there were resources to do this.

The District Council Portfolio Holder for The Cleaner and Greener Environment believed the situation was deteriorating every time she visited. She felt it was preferable to implement the restrictions now and review them later.

A Member suggested that in the past it has been a successful practice to review the impact of such decisions after 6 months at which point further amendments could be made.

A motion was put that the current proposals be refused and that a new scheme be drawn up along the lines of the Parish Council’s suggestions.

The Head of Environmental and Operational Services advised the Board  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.