Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 December 2023 (Minute Nos. 473 – 484) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 December 2023 (Minute Nos. 473 – 484) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

Members of the public have the opportunity to speak at this meeting.  Anyone wishing to present a petition or speak on this item is required to register with the Democratic Services Section by noon on Friday 1 March 2024.  Questions that have not been submitted by this deadline will not be accepted.  Only two people will be allowed to speak on each item and each person is limited to asking two questions.  Each speaker will have a maximum of three minutes to speak.

Petitions, questions and statements will only be accepted if they are in relation to an item being considered at this meeting.

Mr Sam Martin spoke on Item 6, Formal Objection to Traffic Order – Swale Amendment 50 2023. 

Mr Martin said that if the matter was proceeded with as set out in the report, he considered this was likely to alleviate the parking issues.  He referred to the objectors to the scheme suggesting the possibility of residents having a parking permit for this location.  In response, the Seafront & Engineering Manager explained that the option of a residents’ parking scheme was discussed with the developer and the conclusion was that as the estate provided one parking space per property, that formalised spaces on the road were not necessary.  He added that this could be an option in the future if residents submitted a petition requesting a residents’ parking scheme.

The resolution to this matter is set out within the item below.

The Seafront & Engineering Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

Recommended:

(1)      That the report be noted, and the proposed revised design of double and single yellow lines be progressed.

The Seafront & Engineering Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

The Chair invited comments from Members and points raised included:

·         In support of formalising the disabled bays, especially where parking was notoriously bad; and

·         clarification sought on who would pay for the formalising work.

In response, the Seafront & Engineering Manager explained that Swale Borough Council (SBC) installed the disabled bays on behalf of Kent County Council (KCC), and the costs would be met by SBC.  These included the cost of advertising the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), once when proposed and once when completed and officer time.

Further comments included:

·         It was not reasonable for KCC to request work and then for SBC to pay for it;

·         this matter needed to be referred back to KCC; and

·         clarification sought on whether enforcement officers could act on disabled parking bays being misused if they were advisory, rather than formalised.

The Seafront & Engineering Manager explained the difference between advisory and formalised bays and said that advisory ones were not enforceable, and quicker to install as it took an average of 12 months to get the TRO finalised, for a formalised bay. Advisory bays were important as often the person concerned could not wait for the whole process to be carried out due to their health issues.  Advisory bays would then be included in subsequent TROs.

Councillor Richard Palmer moved the following motion:  That the Chair of the Swale Joint Transportation Board (JTB) writes to the Cabinet Member at KCC for clarification as to why SBC was expected to pay for this work, even though KCC had requested the formalising of existing disabled persons’ parking bays around the Borough. This was seconded by KCC Councillor Mike Baldock and on being put to the vote, was agreed.

Recommended:

(1)      That the report be noted and the disabled persons’ parking bay in South Avenue, Sittingbourne, be formalised as advertised.

(2)      That the Chair of the Swale JTB writes to the Cabinet Member at KCC for clarification as to why SBC was expected to pay for this work, even though KCC had requested the formalising of existing disabled persons’ parking bays around the Borough.

The Seafront & Engineering Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

The Chair invited comments from Members and points raised included:

·         Noted that after an informal consultation on Residents’ Parking Scheme was carried out, due to costs; hours of permitted parking etc. residents sometimes decided that they did not want the scheme to go ahead after all; and

·         in support of the consultation going to other roads in the vicinity to take into account any displacement of vehicles.

There was some discussion on the best timings for any restrictions and the Seafront & Engineering Manager said that a one-hour single yellow line restriction (between 10 am and 11 am for example) could be put in place.  However, there were pros and cons to this option as the restriction would also have an impact on the residents in the street.  The operational side of a one-hour permit scheme would need to be looked into with the Council’s Parking Team, in terms of whether this was practical in terms of enforcement, to determine whether a permit be issued, or a single yellow line be installed.

Recommended:

(1)      That the report be noted and that an informal consultation be undertaken with residents of Wellwinch Road, Regency Court and Victoria Road, Sittingbourne, on the possible introduction of a Residents’ Parking Scheme in these roads, and the options minuted above be included within the consultation.

Daniel Rollinson, National Highways M2 Junction 5 Project Manager, gave a verbal update on the M2 Junction 5 Stockbury Works, Sittingbourne.

The Chair invited comments from Members and points raised included:

·         Since the lane closures had been in place, the nearby rural lanes have had issues with ‘rat-running’;

·         once the work was completed, KCC needed to fix the potholes and surface damage on the lanes;

·         clarification sought on the number of accidents that had taken place during all the highway works at this location;

·         was the project due to be completed on time?; and

·         there seemed to be a real issue of drivers crossing lanes at the last moment which caused delays, could the lanes be marked off so that vehicles could not cross into another lane?

In response, the Project Manager said that there had been no accidents directly linked to the on-going works and the works were due to be completed by mid-summer 2024. He said that the lane swapping issues were down to driver behaviour and there was little that could be done to rectify this.  Road maintenance was the responsibility of KCC and the KCC District Manager  said that KCC were aware of the condition of the country lanes and at some point remedial work would be carried out.

The Chair thanked the Project Manager for his update.

Resolved:

(1)      That the verbal update be noted.

The KCC District Manager (Swale) introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  He drew the Board’s attention to page 35 of the agenda papers and said that the wording under ‘Overrun Charges’ needed to be amended to read ‘avoidable’.

The Chair invited comments from Members and points raised included:

·         The report should be shared to the project group;

·         did not consider the penalties to the utility companies were high enough;

·         permits were given out for too long a time period;

·         all the works carried out by utility companies should be added to a map;

·         the Council needed to be stricter towards the utility companies;

·         the quality of repairs was not good;

·         this issue needed to be fed into the Local Plan process;

·         any fine money should revert to the areas affected by the works; and

·         clarification sought on how works were checked and enforced.

The KCC District Manger confirmed that he would get some further information.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be noted.

Richard Shelton, Project Manager (Major Capital Programme Team, KCC) gave a verbal update on the Grovehurst Road Junction Works, Sittingbourne.

The Chair invited comments from Members and points raised included:

·         Welcomed the progress that had been made;

·         clarification sought on the signage that would be installed for the works on Swale Way; and

·         concerned with the closure of the Kingsberry bridge and the further impact this would bring.

The Project Manager responded and added that there would be another drop-in session on-site on 25 March 2024, from 12 pm to 1.30 pm.

The Chair thanked the Project Manager for his update.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be noted.

Appendix added 29 February 2024.

The Active Travel Infrastructure Team Leader introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

The Chair invited comments from Members and points raised included:

·         The scheme would really help pedestrians and wheel chair users;

·         some elements of the scheme would slow traffic down and help to instil the existing 20 mph speed limit in the town;

·         this would enhance the physical environment;

·         the scheme would result in some loss of parking; and

·         suggested trees be added along the route.

In response, the Team Leader acknowledged that it would be beneficial to have trees placed along the route, but said the scheme was very constricted by the existing road space, but this could be reviewed at a later stage of the design detail.

The Chair thanked the Team Leader  for his update.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be noted.

The KCC District Manager (Swale) introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

The KCC District Manager responded to Members’ questions and said that he would report back to Members on some of the points raised.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be noted.

To consider the Progress Update which outlines progress made following recommendations and agreed action at previous meetings.

A Member requested that a comment/update be added by officers to item 478/12/22, Faversham Pedestrianisation on the schedule.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be noted.

The date of the next meeting will be confirmed at Annual Council.

The next meeting of the Swale Joint Transportation Board would be confirmed at SBC’s Annual Council meeting on 15 May 2024.