| PRESENT: | |
| Committee members: | Councillors Andrews, Bhutia, Bright (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Crack, Godwin, Tony Goulden, Griffin, Hewett, Hicks, Hubbard, Maisey and Stamp |
| Substitute members: | Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers (for Councillor Hunter (Chairman)) |
| In attendance: | Councillor Diana Smith, Robin Cooper, Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture, Angela Drum, Head of Legal Services, Mick Hayward, Chief Finance Officer, Steve Hewlett, Head of Integrated Transport, Andy McGrath, Assistant Director Frontline Services, Caroline Salisbury, Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator |
| 509 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 2 December 2009 was agreed with the following amendments:
|
| | • | Councillor Maisey did not attend the meeting
|
| | • | Minute 444 (Petitions) decision for "Request for traffic calming and speed restrictions in Station Road, Rainham and inappropriate late night driving in the car park" should read:
|
| (a) | to ask officers to consider traffic calming solutions in up to three locations in the section of Station Road, Rainham north of the railway line;. |
|
| 510 | APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE |
| | | An apology for absence was received from Councillor Hunter (Chairman). |
|
| 511 | PETITIONS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The lead petitioner, Mr Boucher, addressed the Committee advising that petitioners were requesting a variety of traffic calming measures in Station Road, Strood following two deaths last year. He said that although the report stated that a traffic survey had shown that cars travelled at a reasonable speed, he disputed that and whilst in Station Road earlier in the day he stated that he had seen cars travelling at 40 - 50 miles per hour. Articulated lorries also used the road as a shortcut to the Medway City Estate and residents asked for action before anyone else was killed.
|
| Councillor Hubbard advised that there had been a tremendous response from local residents to the petition. As ward Member, he had already raised concerns about the development and positioning of Evelyn Close some years ago in relation to the sharp bend on Station Road and the pedestrian crossing point also being too close to the bend. Once Evelyn Close had been built, it was found that cars were running into a fence on Station Road and a crash barrier had been erected to prevent this.
|
| He also advised that he was concerned with the information detailed in the report, as the figures were different from those supplied to him in November 2009 leading him to consider that it was not the same survey. The Committee was advised by Councillor Hubbard that the current national guidelines on uncontrolled crossing points for traffic travelling at 30 miles per hour should be at 45 metres visibility distance. The crossing point in Station Road was at 40 metres distance and therefore, people did not have time to get across safely.
|
| The Committee was also advised that he considered the main problem with the Council's policy was that it relied on police statistics to result in any action being taken and there was a long time delay whilst the police were considering prosecution or a coroner's inquiry was being held. It was not until after these that the police amended the statistics. As a result of this, and the two sad deaths last summer, it was unsurprising that residents were asking for traffic calming measures to be installed in this location as soon as possible.
|
| Members raised the following issues:
|
| | • | the new high speed train service now ran through Strood, so it was possible that the volume of traffic had risen since the traffic survey was carried out last year. Therefore could another traffic survey be undertaken?
|
| | • | how many deaths and/or accidents needed to happen in an area before action was taken?
|
| | • | why was the Council still waiting to hear from Kent Police when the two deaths happened over six months ago? Was there an accident record prior to the two deaths?
|
| | • | the Council should take account of residents' requests and the degree of pedestrians feeling unsafe in this road
|
| | • | it would be better to take temporary action, whilst waiting for a formal response from Kent Police, to avoid risk of further injuries or fatalities.
|
| Officers responded that it would be possible to carry out another traffic survey. The problem with this particular issue was that the cause of the accident was still unknown. It could be human error, vehicle failure and/or the road design and it would be wrong, at this stage, to put in a scheme until all the factors were known. Traffic calming was actioned in response to a pattern of accidents and not just the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI). It would be premature to design and price a scheme if it did not respond to the actual problem. The Council did receive accident reports from the police but officers would speak to the police about the time delay with accident information, particularly in this case. |
|
| | > Petitions (pdf file 67.5kb) |
| | > Appendix A (pdf file 236.8kb) |
| | > Appendix B (pdf file 99.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note the comments of the Director, officers and lead petitioner;
|
| | (b) | ask the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture to contact Kent Police about the possibility of limited early disclosure on accident reports;
|
| | (c) | request that officers report back to Committee with the causes and reasons for the accident resulting in two deaths in Station Road, Strood in 2009, together with ideas for any improvements at that stage. |
|
| 512 | PARKING STANDARDS REVIEW |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Head of Integrated Transport introduced the report advising that the review applied to residential developments only and that at a regional level it was now considered that there should no longer be a standard setting out the maximum number of car spaces at a development. Members were also informed that the Council had recently commissioned a Parking Strategy and part of that work was to review the Parking Standards and that this report proposed an interim measure until the full review had been concluded.
|
| Members commented that they received constant objections about insufficient parking at new developments and that this interim measure was encouraging. Members also mentioned the possibility of encouraging underground parking facilities in the future. |
|
| | > Parking Standards Review (pdf file 116.8kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | recommend to Cabinet the adoption, on an interim basis, of the amended draft residential parking standards detailed in tables 6.1 and 6.2 of the report, which take into account consultation comments and comments from Members of this Committee;
|
| | (b) | endorse that the amended draft residential parking standards is used for pre-application advice with immediate effect. |
|
| 513 | DRAFT CAPITAL AND REVENUE BUDGET PROPOSALS 2010/2011 |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report advising the Committee of the draft capital programme and revenue budgets, including the key features and significant pressures within the Regeneration, Community and Culture directorate.
|
| The Committee commented that the Members' Priorities Fund was mainly spent on projects within the Regeneration, Community and Culture directorate and requested further information setting out what schemes the funds had been spent on since the fund was created.
|
| Members also asked that officers investigate previous Committee requests (within the last year) of matters to be included in the budget setting process, to enable the Committee to see whether they had been actively considered in the setting of the draft budget.
|
| The Committee expressed concern over the £290,000 shortfall for the financing costs of the Innovation Centre and on further investigation it was established to be a £290,000 recurrent pressure for 25 years. Officers advised that when the Innovation Centre was originally envisaged, the business plan gave levels of income that were now no longer attainable and the long term revenue position was that it would not meet the borrowing costs (over 25 years) to finance the capital cost of building the centre. Occupancy of the centre was anticipated to be around 90% by 2014. |
|
| | > Draft capital and revenue budget proposals (pdf file 128.1kb) |
| | > Appendix 1 (pdf file 49.6kb) |
| | > Appendix 2 (pdf file 53.5kb) |
| | > Appendix 3 (pdf file 53.2kb) |
| | > Appendix 4 (pdf file 71.6kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | refer the above comments to the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 2 February 2010;
|
| | (b) | request a briefing note detailing the schemes within the Members Priorities Fund;
|
| | (c) | request officers to investigate the recommendations of the Committee during the past year that were asked to be included as part of the budget setting process and details sent to Committee Members via a briefing note. |
|
| 514 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Committee discussed the deferral of various reports and requested a briefing note on the location, costs, maintenance and security of salt bins. |
|
| | > Work programme (pdf file 71.0kb) |
| | > Appendix (pdf file 68.3kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note that the following reports have been deferred until later in the year:
|
| | • | Air Quality Management Action Plan
|
| | • | Waste Strategy Review;
|
| | (b) | note that the following reports would be considered at the meeting on 18 March 2010:
|
| | • | Rochester Riverside Management Company
|
| | • | Gateway 3 Contract Award - waste disposal and collection service
|
| | • | Medway Renaissance - all Chatham and Gillingham projects (including Medway Park)
|
| | • | Member's item: winter gritting schedule and associated deployment of contractor resources;
|
| | (c) | set up a task group on the basis of 2:1:1 (2 Conservative: 1 Labour: 1 Liberal Democrat) to agree terms of reference and undertake an in-depth review of the effectiveness and future of Partners and Communities Together (PACT) schemes within Medway;
|
| | (d) | request a briefing note is sent to all Members of the Council regarding the location of salt bins within Medway, the cost of providing new bins, the cost of salt bin maintenance and the security of salt bins to avoid them being stolen. |
|