| PRESENT: | |
| Committee members: | Councillors Bhutia, Bright (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Crack, Godwin, Tony Goulden, Griffin, Hewett, Hicks, Hubbard, Maisey and Stamp |
| Substitute members: | Councillor Brice (for Councillor Andrews)
Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers (for Councillor Hunter (Chairman)) |
| In attendance: | Councillor Esterson, Ward Member attending for agenda item 5(A) (Petitions), Councillor Filmer attending for agenda item 5(B) (Attendance of Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services), Councillors Gilry and Griffiths, Ward Members attending for agenda item 5(G) (Twydall Accessibility Scheme), Bob Bertram, Consultant for Twydall Accessibility Scheme, David Bond, Implementation Manager, Quality Public Transport Corridors, Angela Drum, Legal Adviser, John Finlayson, Project Leader, Medway Renaissance, Stephen Gaimster, Assistant Director Development, Economy and Transport, Rubena Hafizi, Parking Manager, Anna-Marie Lawrence-Lovell, Performance Manager, Brian McCutcheon, Local and Regional Planning Manager, Andy McGrath, Assistant Director Frontline Services, Su Negus, Principal Road Safety Officer, Caroline Salisbury, Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator, Bryan Shawyer, Road Safety Manager, Kevin Woolmer, Finance Advisor |
| 440 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 21 October 2009 was signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
| 441 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andrews and Hunter (Chairman). |
|
| 442 | URGENT MATTERS |
| | | The Vice-Chairman advised that there were no urgent matters but that he intended to vary the order of the agenda to hear agenda item 5(G) (Twydall Accessibility Scheme) after agenda item 5(B) (Attendance of the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services).
|
| He would also vary the order of the agenda to hear agenda item 5(F) (Quality of Public Transport Corridors Project) after agenda item 5(C) (Second quarter performance report 2009/2010).
|
|
|
| 443 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers declared a personal interest in agenda item 5(G) (Twydall Accessibility Scheme) as she owned a business in Twydall shopping centre.
|
| Councillor Tony Goulden declared a personal interest in agenda item 5(B) (Attendance of Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services) to any reference of the Rochester Bridge Trust as he was a Member of the trust. |
|
| 444 | PETITIONS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | A specific request was made by Councillor Hubbard (Ward Member) that the petition requesting traffic calming and speed restrictions in Station Road, Strood (as detailed in paragraph 3 of the report), should be referred to the Committee for consideration at its next meeting as the petitioners had recently indicated their dis-satisfaction with the response letter, although it was outside of the 10 day working deadline as set out in the Constitution.
|
| Councillor Hewett (Ward Member) requested that the outcome of a traffic count and speed survey carried out for a petition requesting traffic calming in Berengrave Lane, Rainham detailed in paragraph 3 of the report was sent to the lead petitioner and Ward Members.
|
| Request for traffic calming and speed restrictions in Station Road, Rainham and inappropriate late night driving in the car park
|
| The lead petitioner, James Ferrin, gave a slideshow presentation for a petition referred to the Committee requesting traffic calming and speed restrictions in Station Road, Rainham and action against inappropriate late night driving in the car park. He advised why residents needed the traffic calming measures and showed photographs of a recent high speed accident.
|
| The Committee was advised that in the first six months of 2009 there had been 21 reported traffic accidents in this residential road. In a two week traffic count and speed check that had been carried out 40,000 cars had been counted and speeds of over 70 miles per hour (mph) were recorded. Although it was reported that 85% of traffic was travelling at 35mph or less, the remaining 15% of traffic equated to 6,000 cars travelling in excess of 35mph which was unacceptable. Many of the surrounding roads had traffic calming measures installed but there were none along Station Road. With the high number of accidents, it would not be long before someone was seriously injured or killed.
|
| The residents had considered three options: speed bumps, which were not thought appropriate in this location; raised tables, which were thought to be a good option at each junction; and vehicle activated signs, although the public consensus was that drivers who travelled at over 35mph would not take any notice of these signs. Therefore residents were requesting the installation of raised tables at junctions.
|
| Mr Ferrin reported that the car park mentioned in the petition was used as a skid pad and high speed car rallying late at night. Residents suggested that a low barrier was installed between the lanes in the car park which would immediately stop this anti-social behaviour.
|
| Councillor Hewett, as Ward Member, advised that he supported the petition, especially since the accident that had been shown in the photograph. He agreed that speed bumps were not appropriate in this location and asked officers to look at the possibility of installing raised tables at junctions along this stretch of Station Road. He also agreed that a simple kerb or rail installed in the car park would prevent the late night racing activities.
|
| The Assistant Director, Front Line Services responded saying that he thought these problems could be solved through a phased approach to address the anti-social behaviour and engineering issues. He advised that he would like to talk with Kent Police about the possibility of setting up a PACT group (Partnerships And Communities Together) for Station Road would respond to local behavioural concerns. He also advised that officers would investigate the possibility of installing 2 or 3 raised tables on the road. He added that he was keen to ensure that the appropriate authorities responded to the problems in the car park and officers would also investigate whether there were design features that could reasonably be installed.
|
| Members asked about the possibility of speed cameras being installed but were advised that in the circumstances this would not be possible but localised Police enforcement could be requested.
|
| Request for free car parking in specific car parks in Rochester between 7pm - 8am
|
| The Chairman of St Catherine's Court in Star Hill, Ian Hutchinson, addressed the Committee about the problems encountered by residents from vehicles parking on double yellow lines causing problems to residents trying to park in their own spaces and obstructing other road users. He showed the Committee photographs of this as evidence, explaining that when the photos were taken, there were 8 cars in the nearby car park bringing the Council a total car park fee of £9.16. At the same time, 2 cars were parked illegally on double yellow lines bringing a potential fine of £30 for each car but because the drivers knew there was no enforcement, they risked parking there. Therefore, the Council would not be losing much revenue by allowing free parking in specified car parks from 7pm and this would encourage people to park in the car parks, thereby alleviating the problem.
|
| The Parking Manager responded that she appreciated the residents' problems but one reason why the charges had been extended until 10pm was to make all parking consistent across Medway. It created a level playing field and allowed the Council to enforce the car parks.
|
| Members raised concerns about the issue of consistency across all car parks, saying that the hours of operation should be tailored to suit each locality. The comparison detailed in the report was about the hours charged and a significant number of local Councils did not charge up to 10pm. The blanket policy had caused major problems, especially in the town centres.
|
| Officers responded that in providing off-street parking which is patrolled and has CCTV it came at a cost that had to be covered by either longer hours for payment or higher hourly rates during the daytime. The Council did make available an overnight parking permit, allowing residents to use car parks overnight until 9am at £25 per year. It was suggested that the Council could undertake to talk to local Bed and Breakfast businesses in the area about purchasing these overnight permits which would allow their customers to park overnight in the car park for free and not use the roads.
|
| Councillor Esterson (Ward Member) and Mr Hutchinson responded that the core issue of vehicles parking on double yellow lines had still not been addressed and asked that the CCTV enforcement Smart car was given a greater presence in this area. |
|
| | > Petition report (pdf file 309.1kb) |
| | > Appendix A (pdf file 200.3kb) |
| | > Appendix B (pdf file 12.3kb) |
| | > Appendix C (pdf file 154.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed:
|
| | (a) | to note the petition responses and appropriate officer action in paragraph 3 of the report with the following additions:
|
| | (i) | that the result of the traffic count and speed survey in Berengrave Lane, Rainham is sent to the lead petitioner and Ward Member;
|
| | (ii) | that the petition requesting traffic calming and speed restrictions in Station Road, Strood is referred for consideration by the Committee at its meeting on 13 January 2010;
|
| Request for traffic calming and speed restrictions in Station Road, Rainham and inappropriate late night driving in the car park
|
| | (a) | to ask officers to consider traffic calming solutions in up to 3 locations in the section of Station Road, Strood north of the railway line;
|
| | (b) | that any suitable solutions and costs are submitted to the Committee;
|
| | (c) | that a solution is devised and reported back in relation to the problems in Station Road car park;
|
| | (d) | to request officers to consider setting up a Station Road PACT group;
|
| Request for free car parking in specific car parks in Rochester between 7pm - 8am
|
| | (a) | to note the comments and ask officers to follow up the suggestions detailed above to rectify this matter;
|
| | (b) | that the meeting between the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Spokespersons to consider the work programme (agreed at the meeting on 21 October 2009 and to be arranged) should include a referral to consider a review of the Council's car park policy with regard to cost effectiveness and utilisation of the car parks. |
|
| 445 | ATTENDANCE OF PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR FRONT LINE SERVICES |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Portfolio Holder addressed the Committee outlining the main achievements within areas of his portfolio:
|
| | • | he congratulated the highways department on their hard work for helping to organise the recent Armed Forces Day which had involved so many people and parades which had a major affect on the road network
|
| | • | roundabout sponsorship was selling out and the money would be used to enhance the roundabouts
|
| | • | 47 road resurfacing schemes were planned for this financial year of which 44 will have been completed in the next few weeks. 47 pavement schemes were planned of which 35 had been completed to date
|
| | • | there was to be free parking at certain times over the Christmas period across all car parks and this had been advertised in the Medway Matters newsletter circulated to all households. There had also been free parking for the majority of car parks for Remembrance Sunday
|
| | • | the two CCTV enforcement Smart cars had been very successful and had worked on various initiatives across Medway, especially at schools
|
| | • | street lighting - there had been a trial of LED street lanterns and the Council was hoping to install more of these
|
| | • | there was an opportunity in the future to use the Kent Camera Partnership to enforce against the non-use of seatbelts and use of mobile phones whilst driving
|
| | • | the school 'walking buses' had gone from strength to strength with four new ones started over the last three months
|
| | • | the waste contract had gone out to re-tender in November and should be awarded early next year
|
| | • | the waste team had won the 'Green Apple' award for recycling initiatives for blocks of flats and had been busy with talks at schools. Cuxton school had recycled 150 tonnes of recyclables and the contractor had recycled this into £9,000 of cash for the school.
|
| Members asked about:
|
| | • | future finance for the Medway Tunnel and whether the previous agreement with the Rochester Bridge Trust had been legally binding or not
|
| | • | recycling - drop in figures
|
| | • | the management of the Highways Minor Works Contract
|
| | • | car park charges
|
| | • | CCTV enforcement Smart car - hours of operation and perception of the public of it breaking the law to catch others
|
| | • | companion bus passes
|
| | • | ward parking reviews
|
| | • | street cleanliness and weed control |
|
| | > Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services in attendance (pdf file 79.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee thanked Councillor Filmer for attending the meeting and the information and answers he had provided. |
|
| 446 | TWYDALL ACCESSIBILITY SCHEME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture introduced the report explaining that since the report had been written, he had met with the Ward Members and the outcome of that meeting was detailed in the additional papers that had been circulated prior to the meeting.
|
The Ward Councillors, Councillors Gilry and Griffiths, addressed the committee advising that this project had been on-going for a long time, since the construction of the A289 Twydall had been promised traffic calming, but now there was match-funding from the charity Sustrans and they wished to see the project go ahead within the time constraints that had been set.
|
| The Ward Members advocated that this was a workable scheme that struck a balance for those in favour and others against the scheme. By keeping the main roads at 30mph, this would mean that no-one would have to spend more than a couple of minutes in the 20mph zone.
|
| The plan had been amended since it had gone out to public consultation and the revised scheme gave better access in and out of Twydall and achieved traffic calming, sustainable transport and pedestrian safety. The roads around the nine schools in Twydall had always been the worst areas and the scheme would certainly achieve much greater safety levels around the schools.
|
| Members advised that they had concerns about the original scheme but welcomed the amendments and supported them, especially the areas around the schools. It was noted that there had been a particularly low response to the consultation and that the Council should not adopt the view that no response meant agreement with the scheme.
|
| Members asked various questions about the areas and speed limits just outside of the zone and the raised zebra crossings proposed on Beechings Way. Officers were asked for clarification over the funding and timing arrangements and it was confirmed that if the project did not begin before the end of February 2010, the funding from Sustrans would be withdrawn. It was solely for use in this ward and could not be transferred to other projects elsewhere in Medway. |
|
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme (pdf file 105.7kb) |
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme - Appendix (pdf file 8.4Mb) |
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme - Appendix 1 (pdf file 122.5kb) |
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme - Appendix 2 (pdf file 131.0kb) |
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme - LATE MAP (pdf file 4.8Mb) |
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme - LATE NOTE (pdf file 7.6kb) |
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme - proposed amendments to recommendations (pdf file 7.6kb) |
| | > Twydall Accessibility Scheme - map showing areas of amendment (pdf file 8.4Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to recommend to the Cabinet that:
|
| | (a) | the offer of a grant of £330,000 towards the estimated capital cost of £660,000 of the Twydall Accessibility Scheme which is subject to a commencement of the scheme no later than February 2010;
|
| | (b) | the residents of Twydall area are advised of the revisions made following the consultation;
|
| | (c) | the following amendments to the scheme are agreed:
|
| | (1) | Beechings Way from the Junction of the A289 to Pump Lane is retained at 30mph;
|
| | (2) | on this stretch of Beechings Way, the residential roads to the North are retained at 30mph;
|
| | (3) | on this stretch of Beechings Way, the residential Closes to the South (ie Wingham, Boughton, and Beechings Green) are retained at 30mph;
|
| | (4) | on this stretch of Beechings Way, the planned traffic calming humps are removed from the scheme;
|
| | (5) | the pedestrian refuge separated zebra crossing on Beechings Way at the Community Centre (junction of Lower Twydall Lane) is replaced by a raised table zebra;
|
| | (6) | an additional zebra (and if this cannot be achieved a raised table) is constructed on Beechings Way close to the pavilion (ie close to the junctions of Ruckinge Way and Goudhurst Road);
|
| | (7) | the mini roundabout at the junction of Pump Lane and Ashley Road is retained;
|
| | (8) | an additional zebra (and if this cannot be achieved a raised table) is constructed across Eastcourt Lane close to the North side of the junction with Goudhurst Road;
|
| | (9) | an additional zebra (and if this cannot be achieved a raised table) is constructed across Goudhurst Road close to the West side of the junction with Charing Road;
|
| | (10) | officers and Ward Councillors to agree whether there is scope for an additional zebra across Eastcourt Lane in the vicinity of its junctions with Chilham and Brenchley Roads. If agreement is reached the zebra to be constructed, if not alternative measures are constructed to achieve a safer pedestrian crossing point (ie pinch point/raised table);
|
| | (11) | officers and Ward Councillors to agree whether there is scope for an additional zebra across Featherby Road in the vicinity of its junctions with Chilham Road and Elmfield. If agreement is reached the zebra to be constructed, if not alternative measures are constructed to achieve a safer pedestrian crossing point (ie pinch point/raised table);
|
| | (12) | ensure priorities are clear for cyclists and pedestrians on shared pavements at road junctions;
|
| | (13) | ensure new bus stop in Beechings Way between Eastcourt Lane and Featherby Road has pedestrian access and also provide for additional off-street parking. |
|
| 447 | SECOND QUARTER PERFORMANCE REPORT 2009/2010 |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Performance Manager introduced the report detailing the outcomes achieved against targets in the Council Plan. 23 measures were rated as green, 1 was off target but capable of being achieving by the end of the financial year and 3 were off target and required improvement. Members were also given a summary of the areas that had performed particularly well.
|
| Members asked about:
|
| | (a) | Affordable housing
|
| | (b) | Street cleaning, graffiti and weed control
|
| | (c) | Waste recycling projects
|
| | (d) | Refurbishment of public toilets in the Pentagon Centre
|
| | (e) | Daily start times for Safer Communities Service
|
| | (f) | Chatham road network and implications to businesses near the demolished flyover
|
| | (g) | Kerbside kitchen waste collection and request to officers to provide a Briefing Note to all members on the cost to residents to purchase a second brown bin. |
|
| | > Quarter 2 performance report (pdf file 70.6kb) |
| | > Quarter 2 performance report - appendix 1 (pdf file 179.8kb) |
| | > Quarter 2 performance report - appendix 2 (pdf file 760.7kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the performance for the second quarter 2009-2010. |
|
| 448 | QUALITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORRIDORS PROJECT |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Implementation Manager introduced the report advising that the objective was to reduce congestion and improve air quality. The project would also provide new bus shelters with solar powered lighting and real time passenger information screens. There would also be the facility to send live bus information to mobile phones.
|
| The Vice-Chairman advised that the North Dane Way scheme had been discussed with Ward Members, of which he was one, and they were all in favour of the scheme as it did not take up any current car road space.
|
| Members welcomed the scheme at Strood Riverside to assist traffic in and out of the Medway City Estate and asked for assurance that the scheme along Corporation Street in Rochester would not reduce the current capacity of traffic. Officers confirmed that there would be no reduction in the number of lanes currently available but that existing growth of traffic could not be sustained. The key to this would be the improvement of traffic flow in central Strood and how that impacted elsewhere.
|
| Members were concerned about the impact the implementation of the scheme in Corporation Street would have on traffic and wondered whether the relatively short distance proposed, together with the upheaval and potential damage, would outweigh the benefit of the scheme.
|
| Members also advised officers of their concern that cyclists and pedestrians would share the side of the road on the Chatham Hill scheme. This could be potentially dangerous for pedestrians with cyclists reaching high speeds whilst travelling down the hill and asked that the pavement and road markings were made very clear. |
|
| | > Quality of public transport corridors (pdf file 96.2kb) |
| | > Quality of public transport corridors - appendices (pdf file 8.6Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | endorse the objectives and supported the schemes of the Quality Public Transport Corridors Project delivered by four main highway schemes and improved facilities for cycling and walking;
|
| | (b) | request officers to provide a Briefing Note on these projects to be sent to all Members. |
|
| 449 | LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Local and Regional Planning Manager summarised the annual report. He advised that the total number of completed new houses had been 914, the highest number ever achieved and that this was as a result of work carried out over the past five years.
|
| Members discussed the number of affordable homes built which had been 45% of the total figure. The development at Sovereign Quarter in Gillingham had offered a lot of units to social landlords and in some streets there was more than 50% of social housing which had caused tensions with other residents. Officers responded that a cap was imposed for Housing Associations not to exceed 35% within any development and this rule had been rigidly adhered to. |
|
| | > LDF annual monitoring (pdf file 73.7kb) |
| | > LDF annual monitoring - appendix (pdf file 1.0Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the report and agreed that the above comments were included in the report to Cabinet. |
|
| 450 | PLANNING OF CENTRAL STROOD |
| | Discussion: |
| | The Project Leader introduced the report ensuring that all Members had received a copy of the consultation document. He advised that the results of the consultation were set out in the report and officers were now seeking the views of Members.
|
| A proposal was put forward for consideration as follows: 'The Committee recommends to Cabinet that a feasibility study is undertaken to investigate the retention of the Aveling and Porter building, specifically to look at the financial viability of incorporating the building into any redevelopment of the Civic Centre site, before the Strood Town Centre Masterplan is finalised.' The proposal was circulated with accompanying papers to the Committee.
|
| It was explained that this building should be saved as it was a significant and historical building that was part of Strood's industrial heritage. Officers had advised that it required under-pinning but no source documents had been produced to show where these works were required and whether they included the Aveling and Porter building.
|
| Members expressed their concerns at the significant number of responses categorised as 'neutral' (41%) and thought that this might be because the consultation document asked for comments rather than asking specific questions.
|
| Some Members expressed their support for the above proposal, particularly if there was value for money to be gained through the retention of the building. The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture advised that the cost of underpinning the building had been estimated at £800,000, plus other required works to get the building back to an acceptable standard. The demolition of the building had been agreed at Full Council and again at the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee. English Heritage had been asked to list the building twice but had declined to do so.
|
| Members asked the Director how much the building would be worth should the underpinning and other works be carried out and the Director agreed to investigate this and let the Committee know the estimated value. |
|
| | > Planning of central Strood (pdf file 96.0kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to recommend:
|
| | (a) | the masterplan to the Cabinet;
|
| | (b) | to Cabinet that a feasibility study is undertaken to investigate the retention of the Aveling and Porter building, specifically to look at the financial viability of incorporating the building into any redevelopment of the Civic Centre site, before the Strood Town Centre Masterplan is finalised. |
|
| 451 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Committee considered the current workload. |
|
| | > Work programme (pdf file 64.5kb) |
| | > Work programme - appendix (pdf file 70.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed not to include any new items or amend the current workload. |
|