Issue - meetings

a)  That the refined vision and objectives for the Integrated Transport Strategy as the basis for officers to work with Kent County Council and other transport providers in achieving improvements to the transport systems in Maidstone be approved; and

b)  That the work programme as set out in in paragraph 1.3.42 of the report of the Head of Planning and Development for developing the ITS to a full draft document and public consultation in the summer of 2014 be approved.

DECISION MADE:

a)  That the refined vision and objectives for the Integrated Transport Strategy as the basis for officers to work with Kent County Council and other transport providers in achieving improvements to the transport systems in Maidstone be approved; and

b)  That the work programme as set out in in paragraph 1.3.42 of the report of the Head of Planning and Development for developing the ITS to a full draft document and public consultation in the summer of 2014 be approved.

To view full details of this decision, please follow this link:-

http://services.maidstone.gov.uk/meetings/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=21754&PlanId=226

Interviews with Paul Lulham, Kent County Council Highways and Jon Bunney, JMP Transport Consultants.

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development, Michael Murphy, Principal Planning Officer (Spatial Policy) and Jon Bunney of JMP Transport Consultants were invited to introduce item 9:- Draft Maidstone Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS).

Rob Jarman began by introducing the draft ITS. The Committee was informed that a new (higher) housing target had been calculated since the ITS was first drafted. The original housing target was set at 10,080; whereas new modelling had given a number of 19,600. Therefore the draft ITS had to be updated to reflect this new target. However the Committee was warned that even if no housebuilding was to occur over the period the ITS covers, traffic congestion would still increase.

Jon Bunney then informed the Committee that the new draft ITS contains refined vision, refined objectives and a new work programme. It focuses on the following elements:

·  Park and Ride

·  Improving the Gyratory system in the town centre

·  Increasing walking, cycling and car sharing

·  A refreshed town centre parking strategy

The Committee was informed that originally, three combinations of transport measures were considered:

1.  Rail, bus, walking and cycling enhancements.

2.  As option 1, but with radial Park and Ride sites.

3.  As option 1 but with a North and South Park and Ride spine.

Option 1 was selected following public consultation. However, after further analysis it was agreed that Option 1 was not acceptable due to the levels of congestion that would be generated by it. Therefore Option 3 was considered as the next best option; and this was the option proposed in the ITS. Therefore the ITS envisions a North-South Park and Ride spine, with a site close to Junction 7 of the M20 and another site at Linton crossroads at the A229 corridor to the south of the town.

A representative from Coxheath Parish Council raised concerns about the siting of a new Park and Ride site at Linton crossroads. He was concerned that a need for a park and ride site hadn’t been established and he was also concerned about its financial viability.

Rob Jarman responded with the following points:

·  That extensive modelling work carried out by Kent County Council and Maidstone Borough Council suggests a North-South spine park and ride service was the most viable option

·  Financial considerations/viability depends on commitments by Kent County Council and Maidstone Borough Council. It would also be important to bid for money from the Local Enterprise Partnership, which is only possible if there is an ITS

The Committee requested that the Part II cost benefit analysis on the new Park and Ride be circulated to the Committee for information.

A Member was concerned that even though the details around Park and Ride sites were agreed last August (including a possible site at Linton crossroads); Linton, Coxheath and Loose Parish Councils were not consulted about it. The Member was concerned that officers were not following the parish charter.

The Committee highlighted that there was a possible wording error in paragraph 1.3.16 (page 30) of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87