Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Carter, Cooke, Mrs Grigg, T Sams and Whittle.

It was noted that Councillor English substituted for Councillor Wilby.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

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

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed, subject to the replacement of Luton with Bedford on page 5.

There were no petitions.

There were no questions or statements from members of the public.

There were no petitions.

The Chairman proposed that Agenda Item 12 – A Boards be taken in advance of Agenda Item 11 – Amendments to the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board Agreement, as there was a member of the public present who had an interest in this item.

RESOLVED: That the items be taken in the order proposed by the Chairman.

The Maidstone District Manager from Kent County Council and the Street Scene and Waste Officer from Maidstone Borough Council presented a report on A Boards on the public highway.

It was noted that the item had been raised by the One Maidstone Street Scene Group following obstruction complaints by members of the public.

The Committee noted that there would be a collaborative effort from Kent County Council and Maidstone Borough Council to visit Week Street to tackle the obstruction issues using uniformed Enforcements Officers on 8 June 2017 and yearly thereafter.

The Maidstone District Manager from Kent County Council agreed to circulate the leaflet, which will be handed out to businesses on 8 June 2017, to Members of this Committee.

The Chairman requested that a report be brought back to this Committee in the next municipal year.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

The Committee considered the amended Maidstone Joint Transportation Board Agreement.

The Chairman noted that the address for Maidstone Borough Council was not up to date.

RESOLVED: That the amended Maidstone Joint Transportation Board Agreement be approved for adoption in accordance with each party’s governance procedures, subject to the address being updated for Maidstone Borough Council within the agreement.

The Strategic Transport and Development Planner from Kent County Council presented a verbal report on A20 Through Harrietsham Update.

The following points were noted:

·  This item related to the scheme for road improvements on the A20 which are required to support new housing developments in Harrietsham.

·  The proposals involved:

o  The narrowing of the carriageway

o  Lowering of the speed limit from 40 mph to 30 mph

o  The provision of new sections of footway and pedestrian crossing facilities

·  An outline scheme design had been commissioned by MBC and had provided a basis for securing financial contributions via Section 106 agreements from the various housing developments in the village. Payment of the contributions was tied to the occupation of the developments, which were at varying stages of construction.

·  Once funding was available, the County Council would allocate the necessary resource to review and progress the scheme design. The design had been developed as a complete package and the traffic order required for the speed limit reduction would require a statutory consultation process.

·  In the event that there was local growth fund money left over, following delivery of the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package, there would be scope for the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board to consider whether it could be put towards the Harrietsham scheme.

·  The County Council would continue to explore other funding opportunities that would help to accelerate the delivery of this locally important scheme.

RESOLVED: That the verbal report be noted.

Councillor Clark noted that, as the housing development was no longer going ahead, the scheme at Boughton Lane on page 31 could be removed from the list.

Councillor Clark asked the Strategic Transport and Development Planner from Kent County Council whether the scheme at Cripple Street, on page 29, could be reviewed to consider the amount of land in the frontage to allow for future footpath provision. The Officer agreed that this would be raised with and considered by Kent County Council’s agreements team.