Resolved: That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

Apologies were received from Councillor Mrs Paterson.

It was noted that Councillor Warner was substituting for Councillor Mrs Paterson.

It was noted that Councillor FitzGerald was a visiting Member with an interest in Agenda Items 8 and 9, “Maidstone Rail Services”, as he was the Chairman of the Kent Community Rail Partnership.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

There were no disclosures.

Resolved:  That all items be taken in public as proposed.

With regard to the meeting held on 7 September 2009 to scrutinise the Safer Maidstone Partnership (SMP), the Chairman informed the Committee that he had received a letter from the Chairman of the Kent Police Authority congratulating the Committee on a productive and positive meeting.  The Chairman had also met with the co-chairmen of the SMP to develop protocols for scrutiny of the SMP, and these would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee for consideration and approval.

Further to the Councillor Call for Action (CCfA) considered on 13 October 2009, the Chairman informed Members that the Council’s representative on the Kent County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) would be raising the issues from the CCfA at the HOSC meeting on 27 November 2009 when the redesign of hospital services in Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells was being debated.  Permission would also be requested at this meeting to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Health.  The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager confirmed that no response to the recommendations made to NHS West Kent and the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust had been received.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 11 August, 7 September and 13 October 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interview with Ian Paterson, Community Rail Partnership Project Officer, Medway Valley Community Rail Partnership.

The Chairman introduced the Committee’s review of rail services in the Borough to the witnesses and members of the public, highlighting that it was led by a concern over future services.  The aim of the review was to identify whether existing services were sufficient, what improvements were already underway and what improvements were needed for the future.

Ian Paterson, Community Rail Partnership Project Officer, informed Members that he was a part-time project officer for the Medway Valley Line (MVL).  The Medway Valley Community Rail Partnership had been set up in 2005 and there were over 50 similar partnerships in the country.  Partners included local authorities, rail companies and the communities along the MVL, and the partnership met approximately 5 times per year.  Funding came from Kent County Council, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, rail service providers and some parish councils.  The partnership was hosted by Action with Communities in Rural Kent which was a registered charity.

Mr Paterson highlighted that the partnership was not a lobbying or commuter group; rather it existed to promote awareness and usage of the line and improve facilities.  It also responded to consultations where appropriate.  The partnership looked to engage the community, bring them back to the railway and reduce traffic congestion.  The partnership distributed newsletters and timetables to over 40 outlets along the MVL and had installed notice boards at each station.  Bespoke station guides were produced for some stations highlighting information on station facilities and onward travel arrangements.  The partnership also worked with Network Rail and Southeastern who had repainted and refurbished stations along the entire line in 2009, including installation of new seats, customer information screens, CCTV and shelters.  The canopy at Maidstone West had also been replaced.

Passenger figures had increased by 5-6% over the last year, which was better than comparable lines without a community rail partnership.  A survey carried out in 2008 had highlighted concerns over the quality of the rolling stock, a lack of communication with passengers, vandalism and people not paying fares; these issues had now been addressed, which may have contributed to the rise in passenger numbers.

The partnership had campaigned for a larger car park at East Farleigh station, resulting in an expansion from 6 spaces to 40.  A campaign to have rail replacement buses call at East Farleigh, rather than stopping almost a mile away, had also been successful.  The MVL had joined the Kent-wide penalty fare scheme in October 2009 to reduce incidences of people using the line without paying.  Rolling stock on the line had been improved; previously there had been 3-car trains without toilets but these had been replaced by 2-coach trains with toilets. Work had been undertaken with the University College for the Creative Arts to produce murals for display in the ticket hall and platform at Maidstone West station.  Special events on the line, for example “music trains” and commentated journeys, were arranged to increase the profile of the service.  Improvements had also been made to connections and service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Interview with Richard Howkins, South East Route Planner, and Murray Motley, Senior Commercial Schemes Sponsor – Kent, Network Rail.

The Chairman welcomed Richard Howkins, South East Route Planner, and Murray Motley, Senior Commercial Schemes Sponsor – Kent, from Network Rail and invited them to outline Network Rail’s work in Maidstone.

Mr Howkins informed Members that he dealt with strategic planning issues and worked with the Department for Transport (DfT) and rail service providers.  Mr Motley explained that his role was to write plans and business cases for projects and take them to the Network Rail investment panel.  He guided projects through Network Rail’s Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) process, from planning and designing through to funding and construction.

Mr Howkins stated that the Kent Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) had been published in April and all Local Authorities in Kent had been consulted on this.  The RUS had identified all options that could be delivered within 30 years and had made recommendations on these.  Consultation responses were currently being analysed and a strategy would be developed in light of these; it was expected that the strategy would be published early in 2010, and this would identify the medium-term plan for the Kent rail network. 

Mr Howkins and Mr Motley outlined several issues of particular significance to Maidstone:

·  Thameslink: Mr Howkins stated that Thameslink was a major investment programme for rolling stock and improvements to Blackfriars and London Bridge stations.  Construction would begin after the London 2012 Olympics and be completed in 2015/16.  The Kent RUS proposed Maidstone East being on the Thameslink Network, which would connect Maidstone East to the City of London from 2015/16.

·  High speed services: Mr Howkins explained that from December 2009, there was scope to lengthen the high speed trains to 12 cars and run those services currently beginning or ending in Ebbsfleet further into Kent to increase use.  One option was to route trains via Strood to Maidstone West on the Medway Valley Line, whilst the other was to use the existing high speed line to Ashford.  Ashford offered significant benefits, including reducing overcrowding on services from Ashford currently running through Headcorn and Staplehurst, however the services would need to use the international platform and building work would need to be carried out, making it a very expensive option.  Running high speed services to Maidstone offered fewer overall benefits than Ashford, however it was a much cheaper option.  It was highlighted that because the Strood-Maidstone section of the journey would need to be at normal speed, the overall journey time to London on the high speed service was unlikely to be significantly faster than the Thameslink service, taking approximately one hour to reach London.  The DfT would make the final decision, and this was unlikely to be in time for the publication of the final Kent RUS. Mr Motley informed Members that the Maidstone West option would need to be investigated further to check, for example, the condition of signalling, the height and width of bridges and tunnels.  Careful consideration would need to be given to which stops the high  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager informed the Committee that a representative of Southeastern had been invited to the Committee’s December meeting as part of the rail services review, though no response had yet been received. 

A Councillor noted that the rail services review would continue into 2010 and asked what impact this would have on the review of holiday play schemes.  The Chairman explained that the holiday play schemes review would either be carried out in one meeting, or could begin in January as planned alongside further work on the rail services review.

With regard to future scrutiny of the Safer Maidstone Partnership, a Councillor highlighted that there were currently no plans for the March 2010 meeting and so this date could be used.  The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager stated that it had been agreed to hold one SMP Scrutiny meeting during working hours, though this date would still be considered.

Resolved:  That the Future Work Programme be noted.

6:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.