That the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and its preferred option, using a ‘do minimum plus’ basis for further improvements, be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-

1.  Paragraph E3.1; at the end of the paragraph an additional sentence should be added: “Overall, these transport infrastructure improvements and initiatives are expected to cost £39.5m”

2.  Paragraph 5.0.3 amend to read: “Unfortunately however, it is not forecast to significantly reduce town centre congestion, which was one of its key objectives overcapacity is still flagged on some key routes; therefore it is unlikely to reduce traffic congestion on the scale that was initially hoped to be achieved”

3.  Paragraph 5.4.1, first sentence, amend to read: “The only remaining deliverable alternative left available to MBC was to proceed with an option that included only those components of the options modelled.....”

4.  Paragraph 5.4.1; after “within the vicinity of Junction 8” add “and M20 Junction 7”

5.  Paragraph 5.4.1; amend to read “at a total capital expenditure of some £38 £39.5 million”

6.  Paragraph 5.4.1; last sentence, after “transport infrastructure necessary to support the development proposed by the Core Strategy” add “and help manage existing traffic congestion issues”

7.  Paragraph 6.2.2 (b) should be amended to read: “A249 / Bearsted Road / New Cut Roundabout.  This includes capacity improvements and provision of a pedestrian crossing at Bearsted Roundabout and at New Cut Roundabout.”

8.  Paragraph 6.2.2 an additional point should be inserted between points (b) and (c) to read: “(c) Bearsted Road / New Cut Road Roundabout.  This includes capacity improvements and an enlargement of the roundabout”

9.  Paragraph 6.2.3; “Projects (a) – (r)” should be amended to read “Projects (a) – (s)”; and “Locations (s) to (w)” should be amended to read “Locations (t) to (x)”

10.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, an additional row between the “M20 Junction 7 Bearsted / Roundabout” row and the “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” row should be inserted labelled “A249 / Bearsted Rd Roundabout” and should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £386,000 and £530,000 respectively

11.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Roundabout / New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £423,000 and £559,000 respectively

12.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £2,765,000 and £3,304,000 respectively

13.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “New Cut Rd / A20 Ashford Rd junction improvements” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £470,000 and £604,000 respectively

14.  Paragraph 6.31.3; should be amended to read: “This scheme will be funded only by KCC through its Integrated Transport Block Funding Allocation but will  ...  view the full decision text for item 55

DECISION MADE:

That the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and its preferred option, using a ‘do minimum plus’ basis for further improvements, be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-

1.  Paragraph E3.1; at the end of the paragraph an additional sentence should be added: “Overall, these transport infrastructure improvements and initiatives are expected to cost £39.5m”

2.  Paragraph 5.0.3 amend to read: “Unfortunately however, it is not forecast to significantly reduce town centre congestion, which was one of its key objectives overcapacity is still flagged on some key routes; therefore it is unlikely to reduce traffic congestion on the scale that was initially hoped to be achieved”

3.  Paragraph 5.4.1, first sentence, amend to read: “The only remaining deliverable alternative left available to MBC was to proceed with an option that included only those components of the options modelled.....”

4.  Paragraph 5.4.1; after “within the vicinity of Junction 8” add “and M20 Junction 7”

5.  Paragraph 5.4.1; amend to read “at a total capital expenditure of some £38 £39.5 million”

6.  Paragraph 5.4.1; last sentence, after “transport infrastructure necessary to support the development proposed by the Core Strategy” add “and help manage existing traffic congestion issues”

7.  Paragraph 6.2.2 (b) should be amended to read: “A249 / Bearsted Road / New Cut Roundabout.  This includes capacity improvements and provision of a pedestrian crossing at Bearsted Roundabout and at New Cut Roundabout.”

8.  Paragraph 6.2.2 an additional point should be inserted between points (b) and (c) to read: “(c) Bearsted Road / New Cut Road Roundabout.  This includes capacity improvements and an enlargement of the roundabout”

9.  Paragraph 6.2.3; “Projects (a) – (r)” should be amended to read “Projects (a) – (s)”; and “Locations (s) to (w)” should be amended to read “Locations (t) to (x)”

10.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, an additional row between the “M20 Junction 7 Bearsted / Roundabout” row and the “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” row should be inserted labelled “A249 / Bearsted Rd Roundabout” and should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £386,000 and £530,000 respectively

11.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Roundabout / New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £423,000 and £559,000 respectively

12.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £2,765,000 and £3,304,000 respectively

13.  Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “New Cut Rd / A20 Ashford Rd junction improvements” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £470,000 and £604,000 respectively

14.  Paragraph 6.31.3; should be amended to read: “This scheme will be funded only by KCC through its Integrated Transport Block Funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55

The Group considered the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment seeking agreement to a Draft Integrated transport Strategy, prepared jointly by the Kent County Council and the Maidstone Borough Council, for public consultation.

The Group discussed in great detail the issues raised in the report and the various measures that could be taken in respect of the concerns raised.

RESOLVED to Recommend to the Cabinet: That, subject to the following amendments, the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy and its preferred option, using a “do minimum plus” basis for further improvements be approved for public consultation:-

 a) That a greater emphasis is given to pedestrian movement in and around the Maidstone town centre within the Strategy.

b) That the Cabinet investigate and seek clarity from the Kent County Council on what level of funding it would underwrite the schemes set out in the ITS Action Plan.

Interview with Rob Jarman, Head of Planning, Jonathan Morris, Principal Transport Officer and Paul Lulham, KCC Highways.

The Head of Planning, Rob Jarman and Paul Lulham from Kent County Council (KCC) Highways, provided an overview of the report.

Members discussed the report and agreed that the proposals needed extensive consultation and suggested that Cabinet put in place a methodology for public consultation. 

There was concern expressed by the Committee that there would not be enough funding available to support the proposals outlined in the draft Strategy, namely that Maidstone would have new housing but these would in effect be  islands without the appropriate infrastructure to support them. It was explained that the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy had been developed in partnership with KCC. The strategy was a 14 year plan and emphasised the need to prioritise infrastructure delivery. It was noted that some of the funding for infrastructure would come from Community Infrastructure Levy. 

Members expressed apprehensions over the proposed bus lane along the A274, believing that this would make the area unattractive, ruining the landscape and could be detrimental to the Borough. The Committee requested that this option be re-assessed. They noted that this was a multi model transport strategy with the aims of improving the town centre, public realm and making public transport a more attractive option.

It was resolved that:

a)  the option to install a bus lane on the A274 be re-assessed; and

b)  Cabinet put in place a methodology for public consultation.