Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Director of Highways and Transportation, Kent County Council.

The Traffic and Safety Team Leader (TSTL) presented the report which outlined proposals to install four raised tables in High Street and New Street, Sandwich in response to measures requested by residents through the local Kent County Council (KCC) Member, Councillor Leyland Ridings. The scheme, which would be funded by Section 106 monies, had strong support from Sandwich Town Council, Sandwich Town Team and Stagecoach.   The proposals were designed to improve pedestrian safety and reduce the speed of traffic using the town’s one-way system.   Traffic surveys, carried out from 18 May, had shown that average speeds had been 19.2mph in the High Street and 22mph in New Street.  There were limitations on where the tables could be placed, but it was intended to site them in the vicinity of the town’s main pedestrian routes. 

Councillor P I Carter proposed that recommendation 4.2 of the Officer’s report should be taken forward.   A good deal of work had been done by Sandwich Town Team and the scheme ticked all the boxes.  Councillor N J Collor supported the scheme since it had Stagecoach’s support, but expressed concerns about the number of responses received after the deadline and the poor response rate.  Mr Moorhouse advised that Sandwich Town Team had contacted some High Street residents who had not responded to the consultation.  They had indicated their support for the proposals, thus increasing the overall number of residents in favour of the scheme.    

Councillor G Cowan questioned the need for the tables, given the average speed of traffic using the roads.   The number of consultation responses had been very low and, in his opinion, the tables would look unsightly.   Councillor M J Ovenden expressed concerns about option 4.2 since it was not clear what would happen in the event that the vibration and core surveys indicated that the tables would cause damage to buildings.   Councillor M R Eddy agreed, adding that traffic speeds were generally compliant and the streets narrow, and the money could therefore be spent more productively elsewhere.   Councillor S F Bannister commented that the tables were unlikely to be effective at slowing down the minority of drivers who were the real target of these measures.   In response to Councillor Bannister, the TSTL confirmed that the Sandwich town area was not a KCC priority for casualty reduction measures.    Councillor T A Bond stated that he was very much in favour of giving local people what they wanted.  However, he too had concerns about the very poor consultation response and believed that the money could be better spent elsewhere.  

Mr Moorhouse and Councillor Carter expressed concerns about some Members’ responses.   The proposals were part of a wider plan to address longstanding traffic problems in Sandwich, including traffic speeds and HGVs striking buildings.   It appeared that some Members were unaware of these.  A considerable amount of time, effort and money had been put into resolving these problems, and it was disappointing that Members were not more sympathetic.

It was moved by Councillor P I Carter and duly seconded that Option 4.2 of the report should be progressed.  On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

Councillor Eddy opined that there was a reasonable case for taking measures in New Street.  If it could be clearly demonstrated that the measures were effective there, then further measures could be implemented in the High Street.   It was incumbent upon Members to consider the outcome and potential efficacy of measures taken, not the amount of money that had been spent to date.

RESOLVED:  (a)  That, taking into account the number of objections to the proposals in High Street, it be recommended that the proposed scheme there be abandoned and further investigations be made into other options. 

(b) That it be recommended that the raised tables in New Street should proceed as proposed in the consultation.