Agenda item

The Chairman adjourned the meeting between  6:38 p.m. to 6.44 p.m., to allow Local Residents to decide whether to ask their questions at the meeting or the next scheduled meeting, where a specific report on Cranbourne Avenue was expected.

There were six questions from Local Residents.

1.  Question from Mr Peter Goddard to the Chairman of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board:

In the absence of the questioner, the Chairman asked the question on their behalf.

‘If the collective minds back in the day couldn't make the roundabout work with the then comparatively minimal traffic of the day and the existing modified junction doesn't work how does the current band of planners think the new proposal agenda point 2.3 (A229 Loose Road Corridor -LGF Scheme) will work at the same junction with the existing traffic let alone the growing no of vehicles that will come from the continued house building on both the A229 and A274?

Successive Annual traffic surveys have listed these roads as over subscribed, never a day goes by that the traffic doesn't back up from the bridge approach into Hayle road then onto the A229 / A274 due to the volume of vehicles feeding into the 2 lanes that allows the only current direct access to the North or West sides of the town.

The remedy has always been and still is a completed Maidstone By-Pass it's many many years overdue, it could be mistaken for an M25 overflow car park not the county town of Kent’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

2.  Question from Mr Gordon King to the Chairman of the Maidstone Joint Transportation was withdrawn.

3.  Question from Mr Vincent Flynn to the Chairman of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board

‘Question in respect of agenda item: 2.3.4. Considering the significant risk to the health and safety of residents, who now have to exit from Plains Avenue and cross four lanes of traffic to head into the centre of Maidstone Town, and given that the consultation has revealed that most residents oppose the closure, which has produced no demonstrable improvement either environmentally or to traffic flow on the Loose Road, but has in fact negatively impacted surrounding roads, will the Council now order the reopening of Cranborne Avenue’.

The Chairman stated that as Kent County Council had not provided any information to support a response, a written response would be provided at a later date.

There was no supplementary question.

4.  Question from Teniola Olukolu to the Chairman of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board:

In the absence of the questioner, the Chairman asked the question on their behalf.

‘Agenda point 2.3 (A229 Loose Road Corridor - LGF Scheme).The reasons for the closure has solely been focused on solving the problem for Cranbrook Avenue despite the reasons for the closure being a shared one with Plains Avenue and Marion Crescent thus what measures are in place to solve the  problem this closure has now brought causing 100% of the problem to be on Plains Avenue?’

The Chairman stated that as Kent County Council had not provided any information to support a response, a written response would be provided at a later date.

5.  Question from Miss Natalie White to the Chairman of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board:

In the absence of the questioner, the Chairman asked the question on their behalf.

‘A question in which I would like to put forward with regards to the above of Cranbourne Avenue being closed is how has this improved the infrastructure of the area?

I believe Cranbourne Avenue should be reopened as having diverted the traffic through Plains Avenue I have seen many accidents happen at this junction.

Many more residents in Plains Avenue now park their cars out on the road and not on their driveways to slow down the amount of traffic down this road as well as the amount of people racing down there too. One particular resident even parks his vehicle on the speed ramp by Loose Road end which causes untold amounts of traffic. Plains Avenue has become highly dangerous since the closure of Cranbourne Avenue with the high chance of school children being knocked down by speeding cars whilst walking to school. Turning right out of Plains Avenue onto Loose Road is extremely dangerous and also causes great tailbacks of traffic, putting traffic lights in here would not be the solution to this. Marion Crescent is also getting heavier with traffic due to Cranbourne being shut.

It would make sense to reopen Cranbourne Avenue for everyone (maybe not the residents that live by the traffic lights) but for everyone else as this would cause less traffic building up everywhere else, this would relieve some off Plains Avenue and also South Park Road which is in desperate need to be totally resurfaced not just repaired. If the length of the traffic light sequence at Cranbourne Avenue was longer then not as many cars would build up a long here (before it was letting 5 cars through if you were lucky).’

The Chairman stated that as Kent County Council had not provided any information to support a response, a written response would be provided at a later date.

6.  Question from Mr Jeremy Day to the Chairman of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board:

In the absence of the questioner, the Chairman asked the question on their behalf.

‘We would like it to be known that we are very unhappy about the negative effects of the closure on our daily lives. The logical alternative to using Cranborne Avenue is using Plains Avenue. However, turning right out of, or into, Plains Avenue has become very dangerous and must surely be having a negative effect on traffic flow on the Loose Road (probably resulting in an increased number of accidents and near misses), the very problem closing the Cranborne Avenue junction was supposed to solve. 

We understood that the closure was for a six month trial period, but it is now almost a year since the trial was supposed to be finished. Our question is therefore why has there been such a long delay in publishing the results of the study and please can we have an assurance that affected residents will be kept informed and their views taken into account? (Something that has been distinctly lacking so far)’. 

The Chairman stated that as Kent County Council had not provided any information to support a response, a written response would be provided at a later date.

To listen to the answers to these questions, please use the link below to access the meeting recording:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6_dH8KpyW8