Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of any petitions received by the Council which fall within the remit of this Committee including a summary of the responses sent to the petition organisers by officers.

There are two petition referral requests to be considered at this meeting.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out a summary of petitions received by the Council which fell within the remit of this Committee.

Paragraph 3.1 of the report set out a summary of the responses to petitions that had been accepted by the petition organisers.

In accordance with the Council’s petitions scheme, two petitions had been referred for discussion by the Committee and the lead petitioners were in attendance and invited to address the Committee.

1)            Maidstone Road/Pattens Lane pedestrian access and road safety

The Committee welcomed Mrs E Turpin to the meeting and she set out her reasons for requesting a review of her petition.

She circulated photographs of the junction and advised that pedestrian use of this junction was busy as it abutted a church, a pharmacy and several schools. She explained that pedestrians were unsure from which direction cars were coming from and referred to the number of vehicular accidents at this junction and near misses.

Mrs Turpin expressed concern that the central islands at this junction were too small and stated that other junctions of a similar size in Medway had pedestrian crossing facilities.

She commented that nationally people were being encouraged to pursue a healthy lifestyle and increase physical activity and more people would be prepared to walk to their destination if this junction was safer for pedestrians to cross.

She referred to the various options outlined in the Director’s response and, in particular, the impact that each of the individual options would have upon the traffic flow at the junction and expressed the view that there may be other options available that would keep traffic flowing.

In response, the Acting Head of Integrated Transport confirmed that  pedestrian crossing facilities were not provided at this junction and accident statistics only showed vehicular traffic incidents. He also advised that there were approximately 200 pedestrian movements between 7am – 7pm at this junction.

He reported upon the various options that had been investigated as outlined in the report and advised that traffic modelling indicated that should any of the options be introduced, the junction which was currently operating within capacity would, as a result, operate at over capacity.

He referred to the third option which involved the possible provision of Puffin Crossings on Maidstone Road to the North of the junction, and on Walderslade Road in the vicinity of its junction with Park Avenue. Such crossings would operate independently of the junction but would be located someway from the desire line and therefore may not be used. He reiterated that the road safety data indicated that the current design of the junction was not unsafe for pedestrians.

The Committee discussed the petition and the officer’s response and whilst a number of Members had sympathy with the lead petitioner, it was recognised that road safety schemes were prioritised based on road safety data. From the information received, this junction did not rank sufficiently high enough to justify the implementation of a scheme at the current time. It was considered that if the Council were to undertake works at this junction to improve pedestrian access it would be inconsistent with current policy and could create a precedent.

The Committee noted that the third option of providing stand alone pedestrian crossing facilities would most likely be the least expensive option and sought information as to the likely costs involved. In response, the Acting Head of Integrated Transport advised that to date, none of the options had been costed but it was likely that each pedestrian crossing would cost several thousand pounds.

A Member sought information as to whether there are any similar schemes ranked on the priority list of road safety schemes. The Acting Head of Integrated Transport advised that he did not have this information available but confirmed that this particular junction would be a low priority due to the accident data available. 

The Chairman thanked the lead petitioner for attending the meeting to speak on her petition and advised that from the information presented there were other road safety schemes which ranked higher priority but that dependent upon budgets and available resources, it may be possible to reconsider a road safety scheme at this junction a future date.

Decision:

a)            The Committee thanked Mrs Turpin for attending the meeting and speaking on her petition and agreed that no further action be taken at the present time on the basis that there are other road safety schemes in Medway which have been ranked as a higher priority.

b)            The Committee noted the petition response and appropriate officer action set out in paragraph 3 of the report.

2)            Objection to potential parking restrictions at Commodore’s Hard adjacent to the causeway

The Committee welcomed Mr P Clarke to the meeting and he set out his reasons for requesting a review of his petition.

He explained the impact that the recently introduced parking restrictions were having upon boating activities at The Strand and advised that Commodore’s Hard was the only site from which small boats could be launched.

He referred to the current consultation on the possibility of introducing a 30 minute limited wait period which would provide users of the launching area sufficient time to detach their equipment and vehicles from trailers and then move their vehicles to the Pay and Display parking area. He explained that this initiative was impracticable as to launch a small boat from the slipway resulted in the boat user wading into the river with their boat. They would then need to return to their car wet and covered in mud so as to move it to the Pay and Display car park.

He commended the Council on the way in which it actively marketed the river not only in publicity materials promoting Medway but also in the current issue of Medway Matters where it was stated that ‘Enjoying the River’ was one of the top 5 things to do in 2018. However, in reality, small boat users could no longer use the slipway at Commodore’s Hard as a result of the parking restrictions. 

Mr Clarke advised the Committee that the popularity of boat ownership was increasing and the majority of boat owners started out with small vessels. He also expressed concern as the lack of investment on the slipway.

The Acting Head of Integrated Transport outlined the background to the introduction of parking charges at The Strand and advised that following the introduction of the charges, some individuals were now parking at Commodore’s Hard so as to avoid parking charges. Following discussions with Ward Councillors, it had been decided that the introduction of a 30 minute waiting limit would enable boat users to continue to use the facility.

The Ward Councillor supported Mr Clarke’s concerns and the impact that the introduction of parking charges at The Strand was having on boat users. He advised that on occasions, access to the river by boat users was blocked by those individuals who were now using the slipway to park vehicles so as to avoid parking charges. He also shared Mr Clarke’s frustrations with the lack of investment in the slipway and the need for dredging. 

Arising from discussions, Mr Clarke advised that the duration of the proposed limited waiting period was irrelevant as it was impractical to move a vehicle when wet and muddy after launching a boat into the river. He stated that most boat users would be out on the river for between 5 – 6 hours and therefore he considered that there needed to be a contingency in place for river users.

The Committee discussed the petition and the concerns raised by Mr Clarke on behalf of boat users.

A Member suggested that one way forward would be for boat users to be issued with permits to enable them to leave their vehicles on Commodore’s Hard whilst out on the river and for a set number of parking spaces to be set aside specifically for boat permit holders.

The Acting Integrated Transport Manager confirmed that this was one alternative that could be investigated but in doing so it would be necessary to consider all users of the Strand Leisure Park.

The Committee also discussed the enforcement of such parking permit scheme if it were to be introduced.

Mr Clarke suggested that approximately 5 – 6 parking bays would be sufficient to be set aside for boat users and he could see no reason why boat owners would object to paying for a permit to use such bays if they were located near the slipway.

Decision:

Officers be requested to investigate the possible introduction of parking permits for river users to enable them to park on Commodore’s Hard when  launching their boats from the slipway.