Gravesend Transport Quarter

REPORT

on CONSULTATIONS

Kent Architecture Centre

for Gravesham Borough Council

29 September 2009

2

Contents

1 Executive Summary 3 2 The Vision 5 3 Introduction and role of the current master plan 5 4 The Consultation Process 7 4.1 Consultation Activity 7

4.2 Diary of Activity 8 4.3 The Questionnaire 9 4.4 Stakeholder Meetings 9 4.5 Street Survey 10 4.6 Other Responses Received 10

5 Responses to the Consultation 11

5.1 Questionnaire Responses 11 5.2 Other comments & feedback received 19 5.3 Street Survey Audit – Key Issues 38

Appendices

Appendix 1 Materials Used in the Consultation Process 39

1.1 Exhibition display panels 39 1.2 Photographs of the scale model 46 1.3 The Questionnaire 47 1.4 Promotional Flyer 49 1.5 Promotional Poster 50 1.6 Newspaper four-page wrap around 51 1.7 Street survey forms 55 1.8 Press coverage 62 1.9 Neighbourhood Forum newsletter 64 1.10 Web site material 65 Appendix 2 Consolidated comments from the Street Surveys 66

Contacts 71

3

1 Executive Summary Consultation The Transport Quarter was subject to a previous public consultation in 2005/6 which resulted in the omission of the Victoria Centre and the ‘Gala Bingo’ block from the original master plan. Revisions to the plan were included in the 2009 version of the plan which was the subject of this consultation. The public exhibition on the Transport Quarter Master Plan consultation was held for a period of six weeks from 12th June - 24th July 2009 at both TOWNCENTRIC and the Civic Centre. It was widely publicized and attracted a wide range of comments, questions and suggestions from the public. Two hundred and twenty nine people completed the questionnaire devised for the consultation. Twelve letters, four e-mails and three phone calls were also received. Public Perceptions of Proposals The detailed analysis of the rating of responses to the main statements provided in the questionnaire showed that the master plan was well received overall. These responses revealed that:

• the proposals for the transport quarter are supported • it is considered a good idea to integrate all transport modes • the new civic square and other public realm improvements are welcomed • removing all through traffic from Clive Road and barrack Row is supported • providing additional car parking is welcomed • improving pedestrian access and comfort is welcomed • the provision of additional housing is accepted

Changes to the Master Plan Resulting from the Consultation In light of the public view above no major changes to the master plan are considered necessary. The wealth of suggestions, questions and comments provided have been reviewed in detail at a workshop involving all of the project’s stakeholders. As a result of this process the following refinements to the plans are recommended, subject to detailed design: -

• Shared spaces should be designed to have kerbs. • cycle parking provision should be included at Key nodes • Day-lighting issues should be considered in the detailed design stages for all parts of the transport

quarter development. • Principles of ‘Secure by Design’ should be considered for embodiment within the designs. • Taxis should be allowed to turn left into Darnley Road, provided that they exit Barrack Row from the

south side lane. • Taxis should be allowed to use the south-bound bus lane in Darnley Road • The option of providing a taxi rank on the north side of Barrack Row is to be discussed with taxi

operators. Such use would require the use of a call forward system. Further refinements to the detailed aspects of the plan will be made utilizing the feedback and opinion gathered from the Street Survey exercise which pinpoints features of the area which should be retained as well as identifying areas where changes should be made. The totality of the input received should provide for a more comprehensive outline master plan and better detailing of individual elements of the scheme.

4

Conclusion The consultation responses were supportive in the main and there is a broad base of approval for the proposals which provides the confidence to proceed to refining and finalizing the master plan and the preparation of subsequent detailed plans for implementation of the improvements within the Transport Quarter. Assessment of each of the main questionnaire statements shows a balance of public agreement to the main aspects of the master plan. The consultation process has been useful in identifying some aspects of the master plan which should be changed in light of engagement. Preparation of subsequent detailed designs should be informed by information gathered from the street survey process providing a refined public realm in line with public opinion.

An image from the display at the exhibition

5

2 The Vision “is to create a major gateway for Gravesend with a transport interchange that integrates the railway station with the town centre and with bus/Fastrack and taxi services by rationalising traffic movements and improving pedestrian links” 3 Introduction and role of the current master plan Gravesham Council has for a number of years been concentrating on raising the vitality and viability of the town centre and has been master planning a number of town centre ‘quarters’. The Transport Quarter Master plan – the subject of this consultation – in final draft form has been the subject of a wide and detailed consultation process aimed to advise local people and to give them the opportunity to have their say in making the plan an effective one. This document relates the story of how the public consultation has been carried out, summarizes comments on the master plan principles that have been accepted and looks carefully at any remaining areas of concern that have been expressed with a view to making appropriate changes in the final plan. Gravesham Borough Council and Kent County Council have worked in partnership to produce a master plan which provides for a transport interchange for buses, trains and taxis by re-routing traffic away from Clive Road. This creates a more pedestrian friendly environment and more accessible town centre by allowing the Civic Centre forecourt to be joined with the sensory garden and reduced traffic flows in Windmill Street, Lower Wrotham Road and north of the station. A footbridge over the railway will enhance accessibility. The provision of car parking at the transport interchange creates space for a new link road and additional housing south of the station. The interchange will also include retail kiosks which will provide additional jobs along with the construction work required to bring the plans to fruition. Other key partners in the project are Network Rail, Arriva, Fastrack and the government’s Homes and Communities Agency. The master plan indicates, within the study area, what we are trying to achieve. The master plan is being developed to provide an effective framework for the delivery of the following aims:

• The integration of the transport quarter with the town • The removal of through traffic from Clive Road and Barrack Row • The creation of a new pedestrian bridge across the railway • The creation of a new transport interchange • A new traffic layout with additional and more comfortable space for pedestrians.

The master plan is a pre-requisite for a planning application and further consultation will take place as part of the detailed planning application stage. Subject to planning consents, work to implement the scheme could start in the spring of 2010. A master plan is a framework for the development or redevelopment of an area. Illustrations, particularly of the shape and appearance of buildings and open spaces, are conceptual only, being the subject of final detailed design at a later stage. When the Master plan framework is employed to produce the final designs for the area, an ecological approach will be taken into account as will the principles of ‘Secure by Design’ and other advice pertinent to the design of the buildings and public realm. Many of the detailed concerns that were raised about the existing environment which were beyond the scope of the master plan will be addressed at the subsequent final designs stage. It is important to involve the public and all key stakeholders in the development of a plan because these are the very people whose lives are affected by the proposals. This is recognised by government and there is a statutory duty for the Council to consult. This particular consultation has been carried out in some depth.

6

CONSULTATION MASTERPLAN Burns+Nice The Transport Quarter is an area around the railway station, Rathmore Road and the Civic Centre in Windmill Street as shown on the plan above.

Station

Civic Centre

7

4 The Consultation Process A borough wide in-depth consultation was carried out to provide the opportunity for all local residents to voice their views. The consultation was promoted by a four page wraparound of a free and widely distributed newspaper providing coverage to 33,000 homes in Gravesend. Flyers advertising the consultation were distributed in the town centre and at the station. Posters were put up in council car parks, libraries and on local bus services. Letters and flyers were distributed to all town centre businesses and flyers were provided to taxi drivers. An exhibition of the proposals was available to view for two weeks at TownCentric and subsequently a further four at the Civic Centre. The consultation materials consisted of a large model which provided a three dimensional representation of how the Transport Quarter might look post implementation accompanied by a detailed display of the proposals and the various aspects of the scheme. A questionnaire was provided for people to record their views which they could leave or return by a freepost facility. All schools in Gravesend (37 in total) received a schools pack on the master plan, providing opportunities to engage in educational activities related to the Transport Quarter. The Youth Council was presented with the proposals and was asked to give their opinions. Information was also provided on the Council’s website, describing the master plan and asking people for comments on it. All major stakeholders were written to, including parish councils, informing them that the consultation was taking place. Businesses and the taxi operators groups as well as nearby local residents were invited to and consulted at separate meetings. A street survey was conducted, split into three areas - north and south of the railway and the area of the Civic Square. This produced a list of the priority concerns that will need to be addressed by the time that the detailed designs for the quarter are worked up. 4.1 Consultation Activity Consultation Activity

Details

Local newspaper

Four page wraparound in The Gravesend Reporter, dated 11 June 2009

• Newspapers available free at TownCentric and Civic Centre • Newspaper distribution during the day around town centre then at the outside the

railway station from 4pm – 7pm to catch the returning commuters • Newspapers with the 4-page wrap delivered to all homes in Cobham Street and

Darnley Street.

Web Site Web page created on GBC website – Wraparound information available on-line Exhibitions Exhibitions of the scheme drawings and a model held in TownCentric display space and

subsequently in the foyer of the Civic Centre for a total of six weeks.

Flyers distributed

• 450 flyers with letter distributed to businesses around the town centre. Inviting town centre businesses to reserved session on 18th June 5 – 7pm

• Flyers distributed to taxi drivers

Posters • 30 Posters put up in car parks advertising consultation. • 50 Posters provided to Arriva for use on buses. • 16 Posters used in local libraries

Education packs for schools

Special information packs sent to all 37 schools within the Borough with an offer to present their work to the Council on 14 July 2009.

Letters Individual letters were sent to:

8

• All parish councils, enclosing flyers for distribution • Citizen’s Advice Bureau with flyers for distribution • Town Centre Churches with flyers for distribution • Age Concern branches – Northfleet, Meopham and Gravesend • Adjacent businesses including - Debenhams, Tesco, Barclays Bank, St Georges

Centre, Arriva, Thamesgate Centre owners – all offering one-to-one sessions

Additional letters

Letters sent to: • Adam Holloway MP • Homemead Residents’ Group • Gravesham Court Residents’ Association. • North West Kent CVS • Northfleet Active Retirement Association • Gravesend Cycling Club • North West Kent Racial Equality Council • Asian Retired People’s Association • Guru Nanak Day Centre • Gravesend Historical Society • Kent Thameside Regeneration Partnership • KCC Adult Education area manager • Gravesham Licensed Victuallers Association • Kent Police Crime Reduction Unit • South-Eastern Trains • Cross Rail Safeguarding Manager • Gravesham Access Group

4.2 Diary of Activity Dates

Details

12 June 2009 Press briefing carried out with local newspapers. (News Shopper, Gravesend Reporter, Gravesend Messenger) Press releases containing copies of four page wrap along with offer to supply other visual materials sent to:- BBC Radio BBC South-east Television ITV Meridian Invicta Radio Time FM Press Association – South-east correspondent Newspaper distribution in town centre between 2.30 – 7.00 pm. Flyers dropped at station for distribution circa 300 left at counter for people to pick up with active distribution promised.

13 June – 26 June 2009

Exhibition of plans and model at TownCentric, St Georges Square, Gravesend Newspapers distributed in the Town Centre 12.00 – 5.00

29 June – 24 July 2009

Exhibition of plans and model at the Civic Centre foyer, Windmill Street, Gravesend

9

15 June 2009 Flyer distribution from 11 am around town centre, then at station from 4pm – 7pm. Flyers delivered to Cobham and Darnley Streets.

16 June 2009 Meeting with the Police Community Liaison Officer – on a one to one basis at TownCentric. Reserved session between 5pm – 7pm for Cobham and Darnley Street residents.

17 June 2009

Meeting with Arriva

18 June 2009 Reserved session for businesses

24 June 2009 Session held with Youth Council (Voxbox) to engage and gather opinion

2 July 2009 Meeting with owners of Thamesgate Centre, and second subsequent meeting with the master planners.

6 July 2009 Meeting with Gravesham Access Group

9 July 2009 Meeting held with taxi drivers – map supplied by drivers with detail of suggested changes/inclusions to the TQ. Street audits conducted with Residents Volunteer Group, Gravesham Access Group Members and Councillors

Brief meeting held with Tesco and their agents China Corp 14 July 2009 Attended Northfleet and Gravesend West Neighbourhood Forum. Provided brief

presentation to group and held question and answer session.

4.3 The Questionnaire A questionnaire provided the primary feedback on the proposals and was available for recording comments at the exhibition locations during the entire consultation period. The questionnaire was compiled by Burns + Nice and was available for the duration of the six week public exhibition at TOWNCENTRIC and at the Civic Centre foyer. This report analyses the 230 (approx.) questionnaire returns for the Gravesend Transport Quarter ‘Have your say!’ questionnaire and looks to provide conclusions and discussions to assist interpret the results. The key aim of the questionnaire was to gauge public support for the proposals and react to any concerns that may arise from the consultation. 4.4 Stakeholder Meetings A number of meetings were held with groups or individual stakeholders. Invitations to individual (reserved) sessions at the public exhibition were provided to town centre businesses, Cobham and Darnley Street Residents and transport user groups. Seven people representing three businesses arrived at the session for businesses. Seven residents arrived for the Cobham and Darnley Street residents’ session. No response was received from the invitation sent to transport user groups. Further invitations for one to one meetings were issued to businesses immediately adjacent to the proposals which included Barclays, St George’s Shopping Centre owners, Debenhams, Tescos and Thamesgate Centre owners and Arriva. Further meetings were also held with the Gravesham Access Group and the Police Community Liaison Officer together with the Council’s Community Safety Manager. A presentation was also made to the Northfleet and Gravesend West Neighbourhood Forum by members of the project team followed by

10

a question and answer session. Notes from the meeting can be found on page 5 of the most recent edition of the Neighbourhood Forum Newsletter which can be found at Appendix 1.9, but outstanding issues from the meeting are answered within this report. Meetings Held: Cobham and Darnley Street Residents – 16th June 2009 Police Community Liaison Officer - 16th June Arriva – 17th June Town Centre Businesses Session – 18th June Youth Council – 24th June Thamesgate Shopping Centre Owners – 2nd July Gravesham Access Group – 6th July Taxi Drivers – 9th July Tesco’s Representatives – 9th July Northfleet and Gravesend West Neighbourhood Forum – 14th July 2009 Issues raised in these meetings have been incorporated into and addressed in the tables provided in Section 5.2. 4.5 Street Survey

In addition to the public questionnaire, an invitation was sent to the residents panel, Council officers, Members and the Gravesham Access Group to audit the three separate parts of the master plan area and to report back their views as individuals on the current environment. They were asked to comment on the following:

• Access, links and information • Private transport and car parking • Comfort and visual impressions • Uses and activities • Sociability and atmosphere.

The value of this exercise has been to provide some clear indicators of what the master plan should address. The form of scoring was on a scale of 1 to 5, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The norm or neutral response score is 3. The street surveys were carried out in three sub-zones of the master plan area, i.e. the North side of the railway, the South side of the railway and the Civic Square and sensory garden area.

The street survey split into the areas north and south of the railway and the area to become the Civic Square. This produced a list of the priority concerns that will need to be addressed by the time that the detailed designs for the quarter are worked up. These are the key concerns: Details of comments and scores from the Street Survey can be found in the appendices. 4.6 Other Responses Received Twelve letters, four e-mails and three telephone calls were received during the consultation period. The phone calls and e-mails were responded to immediately. Issues outlined in letters were incorporated into the details/concerns and responses to these are included in this report in the tables.

11

5 Responses to the Consultation The questionnaire asked for a name and postcode, why the individual was in the town centre that day and by what means of transport they had arrived in town. There then followed seven statements about individual aspects of the Transport Quarter which respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A space was provided on the questionnaire for any comments about the scheme. A copy of the questionnaire can be found as appendix 4.3. A total of 229 questionnaires were completed fully or in part. 5.1 Questionnaire Responses The questionnaire returns have been compiled using an excel spreadsheet to tally the answers to the specific questions posed. These tallies have then been input into graphs to highlight the responses. Where written comments have been made, these have been collated into generic responses rather than listing every response verbatim and dealt with in Section 5. Reason for being in the town

Reasons for Being in Town

Shopping or Visiting

78%

Working in Town17%

Commuter5%

Working in TownShopping or VisitingCommuter

There were 209 responses received to the first part of the questionnaire. The vast majority of the respondents (78%) gave ‘shopping in or visiting the town centre’ as the main reason for being in the town. Only 17% of the respondents were working in the town centre and 5% were commuters.

Mode of Transport into Town

Other2%Taxi

3%

Car39%

Train1%

Bus17%

Cycled3%

Walked35% Walked

CycledBusTrainCarTaxiOther

12

The question “How did you get into town today” received 226 responses which were split as follows:- The car was the preferred mode of transport with 40% of the respondents indicating that they ‘had travelled by car’, a further 35% had walked into town and 17% had come by bus. Taxis had been used by 3% and the train by 1% to travel into the town with 1% had used some other means of transport Responses to Statements about the Transport Quarter Proposals The individual statements about the Transport Quarter proposals asked the respondent to rate each statement according to how strongly their either agreed or disagreed. The scale used was as follows:-

statement Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Statement 1 - “An integrated public transport interchange bringing together buses, trains, taxis, and Fastrack is a good idea”.

Statement 1 Opinions Expressed

141

4018 10 16

0

50

100

150

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agre

e

Nei

ther

Agr

ee n

orD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e

Total Responses

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

225 141 40 18 10 16 % 62% 18% 8% 5% 7%

Of those responding to this statement 80% either strongly agreed or agreed that this was a good idea. A relatively small 12% of people disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. The table above provides detail of the actual numbers of respondents and their rating of this statement.

13

Statement 2 - “I am in favour of the new Civic Square and improvements to public spaces the proposals will bring”

Statement 2 Opinions Expressed

103

5034

16 20

020406080

100120

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Nei

ther

Agr

ee n

orD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e

Total Responses

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

223 103 50 34 16 20 % 46% 23% 15% 7% 9%

A large percentage (69%) of people either strongly agreed or agreed that they would be in favour of improved public spaces as a result of the proposals. A relatively small percentage (16%) was not in favour disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this aspect. The table above provides detail of the actual numbers of respondents and their rating of this statement. Statement 3 - “I am in favour of the removal of through traffic from Clive Road and Barrack Row”

Statement 3 Opinions Expressed

104

4427 18

30

020406080

100120

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Nei

ther

Agr

ee n

orD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e

Total Responses

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

223 104 44 27 18 30 % 46% 20% 12% 8% 14%

14

66% of people either agreed or strongly agreed they were in favour of removing through traffic from Clive Road. 22% strongly disagreed or disagreed. The table above provides detail of the actual numbers of respondents and their rating of this statement. Statement 4 - “The proposals will improve pedestrian access around the town. (E.g. Civic Centre forecourt, new footbridge)

Statement 4 Opinions Expressed

91

5431 23 26

020406080

100

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Nei

ther

Agr

ee n

orD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e

Total Responses

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

225 91 54 31 23 26 % 40% 24% 14% 10% 12%

There was general agreement that the proposals would improve pedestrian access around the town with 64% either agreeing or strongly agreeing that this would be the case. Only 22% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The table above provides detail of the actual numbers of respondents and their rating of this statement. Statement 5 - “I support the proposal to provide additional car parking within the transport quarter”

Statement 5 Opinions Expressed

109

38 2815

34

020406080

100120

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Nei

ther

Agr

ee n

orD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e

15

Total Responses

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

224 109 38 28 15 34 % 49% 17% 12% 7% 15%

Additional car parking within the transport quarter is seen as having overall support with 66% of people either agreeing or strongly agreeing that they supported the idea. Just 22% did not support the idea either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The table above provides detail of the actual numbers of respondents and their rating of this statement. Statement 6 - “I am in favour of additional housing within the Transport Quarter”

Statement 6 Opinions Expressed

57

34

57

25

49

0102030405060

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Nei

ther

Agr

ee n

orD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e

Total Responses

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

222 57 34 57 25 49 % 26% 15% 26% 11% 22%

The numbers agreeing and strongly agreeing was 41%, 26% ‘neither agreed nor disagreed’ and 33% strongly disagreed or disagreed to the provision of new housing in the town centre. Although opinions are more widely spread the balance is in favour. The table above provides detail of the actual numbers of respondents and their rating of this statement.

16

Statement 7 - “I support the proposals for the transport quarter”

Statement 7 Opinions Expressed

86

5433

1334

020406080

100

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Nei

ther

Agr

ee n

orD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e

Total Responses

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

220 86 54 33 13 34 % 39% 25% 15% 6% 15%

The general support for the proposals is clear to see with 64% of people strongly agreeing or agreeing and just 21% strongly disagreeing or disagreeing that they support the transport quarter proposals. The table below provides detail of the actual numbers of respondents and their rating of this statement. As can be seen from statement 7, of the 229 questionnaires that were completed 64% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement “I support the proposals for the transport quarter”. In addition a number of positive comments were made which include the following:-

• “Good idea - hope it happens • Personally I think the whole thing's a great idea. Traffic in Gravesend is dreadful, you definitely need to

do something and this looks great. • An excellent well thought out project. • This regeneration I feel happy about. It will be a great improvement to the appearance of the area for

visitors arriving by train and bus. Let’s hope it matures into reality. • This project will bring Gravesend railway station in line with standard of Ebbsfleet and will improve the

outlook of the town centre. • I feel these plans will greatly improve this town • This is a lovely proposal, a good prepared and well laid out exhibition, good, polite and friendly staff to

explain proposals, plans and hopefully end result for community and tourism. With thanks. • Anything that improves the whole town for residents and workers is fantastic. Well done. • A thoroughly well thought out master plan. • Any improvement is a good idea. • This appears an excellent proposal that will enhance the town for everyone. • Much needed improvements. • Hurry this up

A complete list of the written comments which were made is provided within tables 1 – 7.

17

5.2 Other Comments and Feedback Additional feedback to the consultation was received from a number of sources including:-

i) Written comments on the questionnaires – 162 of the 229 questionnaires that were completed had written comments.

ii) Feedback from Stakeholder meetings iii) Twelve letters, four emails and three telephone calls that were received.

The comments received from whatever source were collated into generic responses and tabulated into seven broad areas as below:- Table 1 Built form and public realm Table 2 Movements and connections – ease of access Table 3 Traffic movement Table 4 Improving the quality of the environment and the sense of place Table 5 Car parking Table 6 Costs of implementing the work Table 7 Critique of the consultation process How Feedback has been considered In order to deal with the feedback in a measured way a workshop was convened to consider the comments received and to agree a response to each of them. The workshop comprised the key stakeholders from both local and county councils together with Network Rail and Arriva in attendance and included representatives from:-

• Kent Highway Services - Transportation and Development • Kent Highway Services - Major Projects • Network Rail • Fastrack • GBC Planning team • GBC Project Delivery team • Arriva • Burns + Nice, Master Planners

The responses provided to each specific or general concern were discussed in depth and agreed with the practitioners present at the workshop. Responses to some aspects of the scheme were dealt with by individual officers having relevant expertise in the particular field, for example the traffic flow comments were responded to by Kent Highway Services. Facilitation was provided by the Kent Architecture Centre.

18

Responses to issues raised TABLE 1 The built form (building or facility) location, type and mass and the

public realm 1.1 Station Car Park Details/Concerns Concern that a car park on this side of the railway (serving drivers from the south) would create higher

traffic level than if it were to be located south of the railway line - the Rathmore Road surface car park being required for the overall development

Workshop Response The adapted and widened Rathmore Road route is designed to take traffic out of Clive Road-Barrack

Row. There will be an overall reduction in traffic levels to the immediate north side of the railway. 1.2 Car parking numbers Details/Concerns Capacity of the station car park greater than existing surface car parks at the station and south of

Rathmore Road. Workshop Response The number of rail passenger trips from Gravesend Station is predicted to increase by 45% per year.

On this basis the number of car parking spaces required is 400 and it is estimated that 70% of the car park users will be people who live locally.

1.3 Multi-Storey Car Park Mass and Location Details/Concerns Comments that the multi-storey car park structure is too dominant at the location shown. Workshop Response This has been read from the computer generated birds eye images – these conceptual images do not

show any details of facades and the height and mass are indicative only. The car park is proposed on the site of the existing surface car park and car sales lot in order to take full advantage of the levels and because the location is immediately adjacent to the station. The purpose of the master plan is to improve the transport interchange in central Gravesend - to better integrate modes of travel. This explains the importance of having the station car park retained and concentrated in one place, freeing up the other former car park area for a more appropriate use. Planning controls are in place to ensure that all new buildings that form part of the master plan will be designed to a high standard. There is a counter-argument that a building at this point should be a taller than average landmark building. The building, irrespective of height will need to be carefully detailed to fit into the surrounding context, (which does include a number of tall or bulky buildings). There is an option, subject to cost, to construct, say, two car parking levels below ground.

1.4 New Housing Details/Concerns Why have more housing? Why flats and not all houses? Workshop Response It is generally accepted that having more people living in a town centre improves a centre’s vitality and

viability. The residential development also helps the commercial viability of the proposals. The site is suitable for either flats or houses. However, market demand will drive a decision on dwelling type, whether houses or flats or a mix of both. There is no current demand for additional office accommodation in this area although the new High Speed 1 domestic services might stimulate this in the future.

1.5 New housing – its affect on existing residents south of the master plan boundary Details/Concerns

19

The effect of new development on the Rathmore Road car park on the residents on the north side of Cobham Street with possible adverse affect on property values. Concerns over privacy and maintaining a good view.

Workshop Response The design of the housing will be carefully controlled, with landscape screening, Both the views north

and ambience of this area will be improved and there is a counter argument that values may be enhanced by the environmental improvements. Privacy will be maintained by adopting standard separation distances between habitable rooms, existing and new fencing along the southern edge of the new development will be of a height to protect existing residents’ privacy within their back gardens.

1.6 Loss of Open Space Details/Concerns Concern over loss of the open space in the Rathmore Road car park. Workshop Response The master plan will remove a sea of parked cars from the space and create a more attractive

replacement development which will be screened by tree planting, thus introducing a higher level of green space. The master plan also seeks to provide new and improved existing open spaces for pedestrians – in particular the connection between the Civic Centre forecourt and the existing sensory garden, where the two separated open spaces will be combined once the existing one-way road is rerouted to permit a comprehensive detailed re-landscaping proposal for that area. The master plan is a conceptual framework for future detailed designs for the public and private realms.

1.7 Daylight Details/Concerns Concern that new housing development will reduce daylight reaching the rear of the existing properties

in Cobham Street. Workshop Response Daylight issues will be considered in the detailed design stages for all parts of the transport quarter

development. 1.8 Loss of Security Details/Concerns Potential for north boundary of houses on north side of Cobham Road to become less secure. Workshop Response Providing a more secure use to the north of this boundary line would improve security because the

existing car park has public access at all times, whereas the proposed rear gardens to new housing will have private ownership in the hands of neighbouring people who would share concerns over security.

1.9 New Bridge Link Details/Concerns What is the purpose of the new bridge? Workshop Response This is to improve access for the public to and from the residential areas to the south of the town centre

(and to improve access from the town centre to the ‘up’ side of the railway station for trains towards London). Existing road bridges have narrow pavements, so a new access is likely to be favoured even if walking distances are not reduced by very much. The bridge is not necessarily part of the railway passenger bridge. The detailed design of the bridge is still being considered. This may be a joint bridge for use by both the public and rail passengers.

1.10 Affordable Housing Details/Concerns What level of affordable housing is to be included in the area? Workshop Response The Council’s minimum standard of 30% affordable homes will be applied. 1.11 Bus Interchange Area Details/Concerns Concern over diesel fumes and possible dark areas for passengers at shelters, seating areas Workshop Response The building will be open sided facing Barrack Row and the area will be well ventilated. Recent rules on

20

the permitted levels of vehicle emissions will be applied and an air quality report will be carried out to inform the detailed design of the building. The undercroft of the building at the position of the bus stands will be between 6 and 8 metres high. Principles of ‘Secured by Design’ will be embodied within the designs.

1.12 Existing car sales area accommodated in the old stable building and taxi office. Details/Concerns Can these be retained? Workshop Response Both sites will be needed to allow the development of the master plan area in a comprehensive way and

the existing site use will no longer be compatible with an improved transport interchange. Network Rail, as landowner will be involved. The building adjacent to the car sales is not a listed structure and it is difficult to see how it could be incorporated within the Master plan.

1.13 Rail Station Footbridge Details/Concerns Railway footbridge position. Workshop Response This will be incorporated to best suit pedestrian flows and complement the master plan. 1.14 Rail Station platform lengths Details/Concerns Extended platforms for new trains. Workshop Response Network Rail is committed to extending platforms that will accommodate 12 carriage trains in the future.

This will enable the operation of longer Networker type trains as well as the new 12 car high speed trains.

1.15 Rail Station Roof Details/Concerns Could the improved station be completely covered over by a glass roof? Workshop Response Whilst structurally possible and could achieve an architectural result, this is not seen as a viable

financial proposition particularly in the current economic climate 1.16 Rail Station car parking Details/Concerns Why not put car parking above the station and tracks? Workshop Response Whilst this would be viable for a new-build station complex, there are too many structural implications

regarding excavation adjacent to existing in-use railway tracks. The solution would free up land but is considered to be far too expensive. It might also make the station feel ‘sub-terranean’ and could be difficult and expensive to maintain.

1.17 Provision of more retailing Details/Concerns Why build this scheme when there could be more shops opened in the town? Workshop Response There is a minimal amount of new retail proposed and these are kiosk units within the interchange.

Access to the town centre however, is fundamental in order to provide the best possible footfall and climate for expansion of retailing. The local and county Councils offer support to businesses in a many different ways, for example Gravesham BC has introduced free car parking on Saturdays and Sundays to encourage better use of the town centre during this recession period. Both councils support a range of organizations that themselves support businesses. The TOWNCENTRIC office is a good reference point and can be approached.

21

TABLE 2 Movement and connections – ease of access 2.1 Ease of access for disabled people Details/Concern Will the proposed bridge be accessible to wheelchair users on the route from Rathmore Road towards

the shopping areas? Workshop Response Yes, the proposed bridge will be wheelchair accessible.

In addition Network Rail is reviewing how access for disabled people can be improved within the station as part of a wider scheme to improve the station facilities.

2.2 Pedestrian access – general comments Details/Concern a. Pedestrians from main thoroughfare will have to detour to bridge then climb up/down with

shopping etc. Controlled crossing better (Traffic will be disrupted by Rathmore/Darnley junction anyway) Simply need to adapt current arrangement with Barrack Row development for extra bus stops = through traffic.

b. Footbridge would be an ideal platform for 'yobs' to throw objects onto the railway line below. Not sure there are personal safety issues with reduced traffic at night and walking from the Town/station. Clive Road nasty piece of road at 3am people move between pubs. Consider also safety issues when developing the area. All pedestrian bridges/walkways and bus stops should be under cover.

c. Need good pedestrian crossing points on rerouted traffic flow? Pedestrian desire lines around the whole area need to be considered and provided for. Access to the Victoria Centre (Adult Education building), crossing needed at Victoria Centre if possible. More difficult to cross some roads, more car/pedestrian conflicts in some areas. The proposals would make it more difficult for traffic and pedestrians in Windmill Street and Wrotham Road to the Civic Centre, Station and to shopping centre.

d. We need open space walking/user friendly for prams, buggies, cycles, disabled transport,

scooters and the like, plenty of seating and lead to roads of cafes and restaurants - and a bit further away cinema, theatre and sports.

e. Not in favour of part-time pedestrian areas. Semi-pedestrianised areas - needs to be fully pedestrian or full traffic, otherwise this could be dangerous for pedestrians. Do not believe the current area that is semi-pedestrianised in New Road works well with shoppers and customers not expecting to see buses.

Workshop Response a. The bridge will be accessible by both a ramp and steps on the North side to deal with a small

change in height and will emerge at the Rathmore Road end at pavement level.

b. The detailed design of the bridge will take account of risks to both personal safety and people throwing things and indeed themselves onto the tracks below.

Detailed designs for the whole area will be drawn up in consultation with Police Architectural Liaison Officers in order to counter personal safety problems within any aspect of the scheme design.

c. A pedestrian survey across the Transport Quarter project area is being undertaken which will be used to inform the locations of pedestrian crossings from observed desire lines and volumes of pedestrian traffic at a variety of locations around the area.

22

d. Reduced traffic flow in Clive Road, Lower Wrotham Road/Upper Stone Street, Lower Windmill Street and Railway Place and the pedestrian bridge allow for much improved pedestrian access and permeability with improved routes into the town centre. Apart from the bridge these areas will not be entirely traffic free.

e. Whilst permanently pedestrianised areas would be desirable in some locations this is not

possible due primarily, to the servicing requirements of shops and businesses in the area.

2.3 Car Access General Comments Details/Concern As someone who needs to drive into town daily for work (in a van with equipment) I cannot see how

this proposal is a good idea. You will never convert people to public transport as it is impractical for workers and serious shoppers. People need cars. I am a mother of young children living in Medway. I rarely come into Gravesend as there are few shops & find negotiating the existing bus lanes and cameras hazardous enough. I will continue to go to Bluewater where parking is free + welcoming. This is a proposal to spend a vast amount of money to achieve nothing. It certainly does not have any advantage for local business. It may offer something for a small minority + the railway + bus companies but it discriminates against mothers with prams + pushchairs and people in wheelchairs who cannot use this transport. Is this wonderful new transport going to deliver me to my front door with my shopping + young children in all weathers? (No!). I and my friends will continue to use our cars + will go where we are welcome. You just want to make things more difficult for motorists.

Workshop Response These proposals are intended to facilitate ease of use of the transport system. However car usage is

acknowledged as both convenient and sometimes essential. The proposals serve a balanced section of both public and private transport users needs and it should be noted that the proposals will provide a net increase in the number of available parking spaces in the town by around 100. Parking in the council’s car parks is currently free all weekend from 6pm on Friday evenings and will remain so until at least the New Year.

2.4 Bus Services – General Comments Details/Concern Timetabling – can this be improved? Workshop Response The fundamental concept is to make better provision for passengers using all of the existing routes so

that services are more convenient and comfortable to use. With the introduction of more frequent rail services it will be necessary to review the frequency of bus services on the existing routes, but such reviews are carried out on a regular basis anyway. Most bus use is not related to rail travel connections. Arriva strives continuously to provide more frequent services, but this is not always possible due to a number of reasons, including commercial viability. Six bus stands are to be provided, related very much to the availability of land and it is possible that there may be some latent demand for additional bus services. All services are based on need and commercial viability.

2.5 Wheelchair access to buses Details/Concern Will this be provided? Workshop Response Arriva will shortly have a fleet of vehicles that will provide over 90% wheelchair access. This is to

comply with current standards. 2.6 Sunday Bus Services

23

Details/Concern Are there any Sunday bus services? Workshop Response Again these are subject to need and commercial viability. Some services currently run on Sundays and

are likely to be maintained. 2.7 Bus services into Stone Street and King Street Details/Concern Will these be kept? Workshop Response It will be important to maintain bus services into the town centre so it is likely that existing bus stops

will be kept. 2.8 Bus companies other than Arriva and Fastrack Details/Concern Will the stops be restricted to just these two companies? Workshop Response No. The present arrangement will hold which is that any company is able to use the bus stands, but

they are only used at the moment by Arriva and Fastrack (which happens currently to be operated by Arriva).

2.9 Newer Technology Details/Concern Can rail and bus tickets be linked similar to the way Oyster cards are available for multi-mode travel in

London? Workshop Response Yes, this will be possible. A similar system is under trial elsewhere and there will be systems whereby

passengers will be able to buy such tickets via their mobile phone accounts. The ‘Plus Bus’ combined travel ticket is being introduced for combined rail and bus travel.

2.10 Rail Station construction programme Details/Concern When will the station improvements be finished? Workshop Response This relates to new and longer trains being operated into Gravesend. Completion could be between

2012 and March 2014, very much dependent on changes being introduced at London Bridge Station. 2.11 Service Vehicles Details/Concern Has servicing been considered? Workshop Response Yes - and there will be adequate provision, certainly as good as the existing provision. A separate

study is currently being carried out by an external consultancy to ensure that servicing will work in detail.

2.12 Improved Access and Traffic Flows Details/Concern Will the traffic flows work? Workshop Response A comprehensive study that investigated the entire traffic network in the town was undertaken. The

traffic modelling exercise demonstrates that the revised system will work. 2.13 Manor Road Details/Concern Will current restrictions on the use of Manor Road be relaxed? Workshop Response Not likely to be changed. Greater policing of this illegal short cut is suggested. 2.14 Cycling in King Street and New Road Details/Concern Will cycling be permitted in King Street and New Road?

24

Allowing cycling in King Street / New Road is essential. Workshop Response This is under consideration as part of a separate study being carried out for Kent Highway Services.

Depending on this study and timing, cycling could be permitted before the Transport Quarter proposals are fully implemented.

2.15 General comments relating to cyclists Details/Concern Current cycle access to the town centre is very poor, the proposals make no improvements.

Improvements are vital. Please include cycle paths Not much provision for cyclists. Need more cycling lanes. Cycling areas should be considered. Cycle lanes and marking – will it be improved?

Workshop Response Kent Highways is being consulted on the provision of dedicated cycle lanes and paths for the entire

town centre and the approach routes to Gravesend in particular. A survey has been conducted of cycling facilities around the Transport Quarter which will be used to inform the Master plan. However, the possibility of providing southbound cycle movement using the proposed bus lane over the Darnley Road bridge is being investigated. Also, consideration is being given to providing widened footways along the improved Rathmore Road for shared pedestrian and cyclists use. Cycle parking facilities will be investigated at the detailed planning stage of the Transport Quarter. Cycle parking at key nodes will be provided to enhance the provision already made on the south side of the station.

2.16 Parking for disabled people Details/Concern What provision will there be for drivers who have disability permits? Workshop Response Adequate provision will be made throughout the overall scheme with the aim of providing both on-

street bays and bays within car parks for disabled permit holders. 2.17 People with visual impairment Details/Concern Will the street detailing be such that aids will be provided for the blind and partially sighted? Workshop Response Yes. National design standards will be applied. 2.18 Safety Audit Details/Concern Will a safety audit be carried out on the proposals? Workshop Response Yes, and this will also cover the publicly-accessible Council owned (private) open spaces such as the

Civic Centre forecourt and the existing sensory garden. TAXIS 2.19 Bus lane use – Darnley Road Details/Concern Taxis wish to use bus lane at left hand turn out of Barrack Row. This would mean an extended

journey for passengers who wish to travel south and would incur an additional fare Workshop Response 1. Taxis should be allowed to turn left into Darnley Road, but this turn will only be possible from the

south side lane of Barrack Row. 2. Taxis would be allowed to use the south-bound bus lane in Darnley Road. 3. Buses have transponders to give advance calls on the traffic lights, whilst the presence of taxis approaching the signals would be detected in the normal way.

2.20.1 Taxi Ranks Details/Concern

25

Where would these be located? Will Bank Street rank be amended?

Workshop Response As shown on consultation plans. Bank Street is outside the study area; however no plans to amend

this rank are envisaged. A taxi rank is proposed on the south side of the railway station on Rathmore Road (as widened). A taxi rank adjacent to the Tesco west (side) wall is not possible due to potential conflicts with the bus movements in this area

2.20.2 Taxi call forward Details/Concern What options are there? Workshop Response The option of providing a taxi rank, if this can be accommodated; on the north side of Barrack Row is

to be discussed with taxi operators. Such use would require the use of a call forward system. If this were to be implemented, any taxi wishing to travel south along Darnley Road from a rank on the north side of Barrack Row would first have to turn right out of Barrack Row and travel clockwise around the island block as a left turn from the north side of Barrack Row would not be permitted. The location being considered is on the north side of Barrack Row. CCTV or other measures could be used to call taxis forward from the head of the rank in New Road

2.20.3 Taxis from map provided A number of detailed queries and a map prepared by the drivers showing their thoughts on the

arrangements that could be made for taxis in the master plan provided the comments below:- 2.20.4 Taxis – Elderly shoppers Details/Concern Important to ensure that the elderly in particular who tend to come into the centre by bus and then take

a taxi home with their shopping are properly considered Workshop Response This is fully covered – there are no changes proposed that will affect the current arrangements. The

Bath Street taxi stands will continue to feed the short taxi rank in New Road, diagonally opposite to the Tesco north-west corner.

2.20.5 Taxis – Clive Road eastbound Details/Concern Will taxis be permitted to travel southwards on Garrick Street as existing and then make a left turn into

Clive Road to exit the area in an eastwards direction? Workshop Response No. This does not happen currently and will not be permitted in the future. 2.20.6 Taxi rank in Garrick Street Details/Concern Can a taxi rank be provided in Garrick Street? Workshop Response No. this is not possible due to the potential conflict with bus and pedestrian movements. 2.20.7 Taxi rank in Windmill Street Details/Concern Could a taxi rank be provided in Windmill Street? Workshop Response As a result of consultations, this possibility is being investigated. 2.20.8 Taxi rank to north side of station Details/Concern Will it be possible to have a taxi rank on the north side of the station? Workshop Response This is not possible due to the lack of space next to the station. However the use of the north side of

Barrack Row is being investigated. 2.20.9 Other taxi rank possibilities Details/Concern

26

Any other possibilities for taxi rank provision, such as an out-of-core hours rank between 1800 and 1000 the following day in New Road?

Workshop Response Any new taxi ranks will need detailed consideration regarding location(s). It is not possible to permit

the use of bus stands by taxis. 2.21 Signs in New Road Details/Concern Could signs be used to deter private cars using bus lane (accepted that too much sign clutter would

not be desirable)? Workshop Response GBC to discuss options. Enforcement action would normally take place once a scheme is in place. 2.23 Bus stops Details/Concern Will Garrick Street bus stops be retained in the new master plan? Workshop Response No 2.24 HGVs from service yards at or near to the Thamesgate shopping centre Details/Concern Comment that the turn appears tight for HGVs Workshop Response Kent Highways explained that the swept paths assessment had been carried out at all junctions/turns,

including Railway Place. 2.25 Barrack Row Details/Concern Is there sufficient space for buses to pass? Workshop Response Yes 2.26 Traffic flow direction Details/Concern Concern regarding traffic flow directions in local residential streets (Cobham, Darnley and Brandon

Streets) and the possibility of a bottleneck being created at the junction of Cobham Street and Wrotham Road.

Workshop Response Understood. The traffic modeling shows the possibility of limited queuing here and the directions of

flow will be considered.

27

TABLE 3 Traffic movement 3.1 Whole traffic flow Details/Concern The whole traffic flow through the town needs to be re-organized not piecemeal as in this case. The

proposals do not go far enough to separate pedestrians and traffic (including buses)

Does not resolve debilitating 1-way traffic system and aggravates traffic and pedestrian flows to station, Bus Park and shopping.

Workshop Response The proposals are not aimed specifically at increasing the capacity of the ring road, although some

extra capacity will be created by separating out the car park traffic from the ring road traffic at the Wrotham Road/Rathmore Road junction. Controlled pedestrian crossings of the major traffic routes are being provided and pedestrians will benefit from the greatly reduced traffic flows in Clive Road, Barrack Row and Garrick Street. Buses need to penetrate the town centre to deliver and pick up passengers at key points and hence pedestrians cannot be completely separated from these and service traffic.

3.2 Narrow Junction Details/Concern Narrow turn at Rathmore Road - Darnley Road. Bridge narrow. Present junction is busy now. Workshop Response The junction is being widened, even so the turn from Rathmore Road into Darnley Road is still tight

but vehicle turning circles and capacity calculations show the junction to be workable. 3.3 Reduce through traffic Details/Concern Try to cut down traffic through town + free parking in town need to use car sometimes Workshop Response New Town Centre signing with an Urban Traffic Management and Control System (UTMC) is to be

introduced over the next few years. This will give better signing for through traffic and information as to the location of the nearest car parks and the numbers of available spaces. Off-street parking in the Council controlled car parks is currently free overnight and at weekends. Charges during the day compare well with neighbouring Boroughs.

3.4 Location of interchange Details/Concern I agree with the need for a public transport interchange if it is in the right place and does not adversely

affect the traffic system Workshop Response The public transport interchange is located, close to the railway station, the taxis and the Town

Centre and will aid the traffic system rather than adversely affecting it. 3.5 Clive Road and Manor Road Details/Concern 'Bit concerned about Clive Road/Manor Road Traffic problems' Workshop Response Traffic modeling indicates that Clive Road should operate within capacity. Manor Road is a separate

issue; there are existing Traffic Regulation Orders which prohibit its use by through traffic, it is an enforcement issue which currently lies with the police but changes in Government Regulations in the near future are likely to enable the Borough Council to take over the enforcement powers, meaning that it can be policed more actively. Exiting traffic from the Thamesgate and station car parks will all pass Manor Road and so it is quite likely that more drivers than at present will be tempted to flout the restrictions on Manor Road and hence enforcement will be more of an issue. It is the intention that enforcement will be more high profile in the early days of the revised traffic system to deter persistent abusers of the restrictions.

3.6 Traffic impact on conservation area Details/Concern

28

All this to bring transport together? It seems to me to be already close together. As a resident of St James' Road I'm very worried about traffic impact/parking on this conservation area.' 'I think two-way traffic along St. James' Road will create a rat run if traffic is heavy. I support blocking off the end of St. James' Road as originally proposed. ’’Disappointed to see original proposal re movement of Queen Victoria Statue to the end of St. James' Road to prevent rat run along the street.

Workshop Response The proposals will bring all the bus stops together rather than being split between Garrick Street and

Clive Road. St James' Road already has stringent waiting restrictions so there should be no impact on this. At present the right turns in an out of St James' Road to/from Darnley Road are prohibited but some abuse of these restrictions does occur. The changes to the ring road, by making that section of Darnley Road past St James' Road one-way northbound, will remove the temptation for these illegal movements. However, by rerouting all the ring road traffic past St James' Road, there is the distinct possibility that some drivers will be tempted to use St James' Road and then St James' Street or Avenue as a rat run to avoid delays at the Overcliffe lights. The amount of drivers doing this should be small as they will encounter delays in trying to rejoin the main road traffic on Overcliffe, nevertheless, this will be monitored and appropriate action considered if there is a problem; the options will include having a 'No Entry' into St James' Road from Darnley Road or a complete closure of that junction.

3.7 Use of Stone Street and Clive Road Details/Concern Access to existing Thamesgate car park seems an issue - a lot of traffic will still use Stone Street and

Clive Road. Will existing traffic restrictions in New Road change? Workshop Response The amount of traffic in Clive Road will be drastically reduced by removing the through traffic. The car

park traffic can be catered for perfectly adequately. The existing traffic restrictions in New Road will remain, except the direction of flow in the section between Garrick Street and Stone Street will be reversed. This will remove the rat run east-west through the town centre which exists between 6pm and 10am.

3.8 Traffic flow in Cobham and Darnley Streets Details/Concern Look at the flow of traffic through Cobham and Darnley Streets and the possible bottleneck this may

cause Workshop Response There should not be bottlenecks in Cobham Street and Darnley Road and there do not appear to be

any benefits in reversing their directions of flow; more relevant is that it would be virtually impossible to be able to accommodate safely traffic exiting Cobham Street at the junction with Darnley Road.

3.9 Junction of Stone Street and Clive Road Details/Concern There is a possible bottleneck at junction of Stone St/Clive Road. Good ideas but as far as possible

bottleneck is concerned this needs to be looked at. This is misleading as the proposed two-way traffic flow is utter madness being that it would access onto and over shared pedestrian & vehicle areas at the junction with Stone Street.

Workshop Response Traffic Modeling indicates that the junction of Stone Street and Clive Road will work within capacity,

without undue delays. There will be traffic signals at the junction phased such that only one leg of the junction will have traffic entering the junction at any one time or there will be an all red to traffic so that pedestrians can cross at will.

3.10 Traffic re-routed through Woodville Place Details/Concern Traffic re-routed through Woodville Place will cause problems for traffic emerging from Cobham Street.

Clive Road is wide enough to take traffic in both directions and could be the main entrance to the station thus leaving Rathmore Road alone.

Workshop Response Cobham Street traffic should be able to join the flow of traffic in Wrotham Road unless large amounts of

drivers try to use it as a through route. That in itself should be a deterrent to it becoming a rat

29

run. The main reason for building the Rathmore Road link is so that through traffic can be removed from Barrack Row and Clive Road to create a better pedestrian environment and create space for the bus interchange.

3.11 Widen Darnley Road bridge over the railway? Details/Concern The rail bridge at Rathmore end near Victoria Centre needs to be widened if it is to be 2 way - in

fact Rathmore Road must be widened. Anything to improve the appalling traffic clog up in the town should be better. I cannot see how the revised town centre traffic system would work in practice. What alternatives have been considered?

Workshop Response The widening of the rail bridge has been looked into at length, and was an option if the cost could have

been shared with Network Rail. However, Network Rail decided that they could carry out extensions to their platforms with out needing to rebuild the bridge and hence the cost couldn't be justified especially as to significantly improve the traffic flow on that section of the ring road, both the bridge and the junction with New Road/Overcliffe need improving. Both of these would be very expensive and the latter would require land acquisition and property demolition. Hence, whilst the current proposals do not deliver any major improvement to capacity of the ring road, they do not prohibit the widening of the bridge or improvements to the New Road/Overcliffe junction in the future. However, the current proposals do widen and realign Rathmore Road.

3.12 Access to car park 2 Details/Concern Access to car park 2 could be difficult at peak times, particularly from the west. Workshop Response It is assumed that the reference to car park 2 is the new multi-storey car park. This car park will be

used primarily by rail commuters; hence their arrival will be before the am peak flow on the ring road and hence should not be problematic.

3.13 Traffic lights? Details/Concern Will there be traffic lights at Rathmore Road/Darnley Road junction? Junction of Rathmore Road and

Darnley Road will be a nightmare Workshop Response There will be traffic lights at the Rathmore Road/Darnley Road junction with pedestrian

facilities. Calculations indicate that these should operate within capacity. 3.14 Access to the east of the town Details/Concern Access to the east of the town (e.g. to Temple) from west at Wrotham/Parrock Street will be difficult.

Wrotham Road one way by side of Civic centre plus removal of road between civic centre sensory garden reduces flexibility of traffic movement. Will I still be able to pick up my wife after dark from rail station when there is no public transport - without parking in dark unsafe car park? Rathmore Road will take too much traffic. Grid lock at 5pm.

Workshop Response Access to the east from Wrotham Road/Parrock Street is unaffected by these proposals. Egress from

the Station car park and the Thamesgate Centre car park to Wrotham Road and Windmill Street is made easier. The loss of the highway link which currently cuts the sensory gardens off from the Civic Centre is not significant and is adequately replaced by an improved Woodville Place. The new car park and footways will have good lighting. The improved Rathmore Road will have sufficient capacity for the traffic expected to use it.

3.15 General Details/Concern The closing of Clive Road & the opening up of Rathmore Road only moves a problem not solve it. A

complete new system needs to be looked at! Not just one small piece. Our town is very piecemeal and very stop-go. A new plan is needed and fast. 'Removing through traffic in Clive Road + Barrack Row will increase congestion. Does not resolve debilitating 1-way traffic system and aggravates traffic and

30

pedestrian flows to station, bus park and shopping. Workshop Response The proposals are not designed to deliver significant improvements to the capacity of the ring road but

should ease the flow by splitting off the traffic to/from the Station and Thamesgate centre car parks. Widening of the Darnley Road bridge and expansion of the Darnley Road/New Road/Overcliffe junction are required to give major improvements to the capacity of the ring road in this sector. As those improvements would be very expensive and the latter would require land acquisition and property demolition, they are not included in the Transport Quarter proposals but are not prohibited by them for being carried out at a later date. Controlled crossings will be provided on the new ring road alignment for pedestrians accessing the town from the south.

3.16 New road system - description Details/Concern What will be the new road system around the town? Not explained. Workshop Response The only change to the ring road will be between Lord Street and Darnley Road. Ring Road traffic will

turn left (instead of right) from Lord Street into Windmill Street, it will then turn right into Woodville Place, before turning right again into Wrotham Road, it will then turn left into a realigned and widened Rathmore Road, before turning right onto Darnley Road.

3.17 Severance of traffic Details/Concern Not sure how severance is repaired as road has been repositioned. The proposals would make it more

difficult for traffic and pedestrians in Windmill Street and Wrotham Road to the Civic Centre, Station and to shopping centre.

Workshop Response The ring road traffic has been moved further out from the town centre. Hence, the Civic Centre,

Railway Station and bus stops are linked better with the town for pedestrians and the environment improved with the removal of most of the traffic. Controlled crossings will be provided on the new ring road alignment for pedestrians accessing the town from the south.

3.18 Traffic Domination Details/Concern Poor integration of public realm in the scheme with continued traffic domination of town centre - and

needs rethinking. Workshop Response The public realm is being significantly improved with the proposals and traffic will not dominate the town

centre. The majority of traffic is being removed form Clive Road and Barrack Row, and through traffic is being removed from Garrick Street, apart from buses and taxis. Traffic still needs to access the car parks and service vehicles still need to access the town centre. Also, buses still need to be able to deliver their passengers to the centre of the town.

3.19 Thamesgate Car Park Details/Concern Will Thamesgate car park be underused as at the moment; if it's full you simply drive past. Who will risk

it being full and have to turn back? Workshop Response It is not possible to comment on the usage of Thamesgate as it is privately owned and operated. There

are however separate proposals which have funding which will improve the signing of car parks and traffic flow by linking traffic signals called UTMC (Urban Traffic Management and Control). Hence, drivers will have better direction signs to the major off-street car parks, be informed of the number of spaces in each of them and of how many of these are available.

3.20 Altered traffic flows Details/Concern Agreed it is a good idea to remove through traffic from Clive Road but only if the altered traffic flow is

investigated and adjustments made Workshop Response The altered traffic flow has been investigated and adjustments to the highway alignment are

31

incorporated in the proposals. 3.21 Traffic at rear of Woodville Halls Details/Concern Traffic passing the rear of Woodville Halls is a danger to events loading/unloading equipment'

'Woodville Place - not a lot of space - would be better to eat into the old Police Station site' Workshop Response It is feasible to widen Woodville Place sufficiently to cater for the traffic flow on the Woodville Halls side

of the road and ease the corner radii at each end of the road. A lay-by for service vehicles will be provided. Lorries delivering stage equipment will still be able to park adjacent to the stage entrance on Darnley Road. Whilst there will be a greater traffic flow to contend with, it will be one way as compared to two-way at present and manoeuvring should be able to be carried out safely with a banksman. Redevelopment proposals for the police station site are already being drawn up, these would have to be changed and land acquisition negotiated if the widening were to be on that side of the road instead. This would incur more cost and time delays to the scheme which needs to be avoided if at all possible

3.22 General Comments Details/Concern These proposals do nothing to improve Gravesend. Traffic lights at Rathmore Road/Darnley Road only

shift the traffic problem. Traffic lights at Clive Road/Stone Street will cause major traffic jams. How do heavy goods vehicles negotiate the system? Neither Rathmore Road nor Clive Road are large enough for two lane traffic. Railway Place/Woodville Place route makes no sense. Good idea poorly designed. Of course we lose Rathmore Road car park (296 spaces) so gain minimum access worse

Workshop Response The proposals are not designed to deliver significant improvements to the capacity of the ring road but

should ease the flow by splitting off the traffic to/from the Station and Thamesgate car parks. All junctions have been tested so that the HGVs can manoeuvre through them safely. Alterations to kerb lines and complete reconstruction of Rathmore Road will mean that that road and Clive Road can operate two-way. The capacity of the traffic lights at Clive Road/Stone Street has been tested and shown to operate within capacity in the peak periods.

3.23 Ban traffic? Details/Concern No traffic through town centre at any time. Removal of through traffic from New Road completely

instead of just at certain times would be safer and would certainly get my vote. Workshop Response This is not practical. The majority of traffic is being removed from Clive Road and Barrack Row, and

through traffic is being removed from Garrick Street, apart from buses and taxis. Traffic still needs to access the car parks and service vehicles still need to access the town centre. Also, buses still need to be able to deliver their passengers to the centre of the town. Studies in other towns have shown that keeping a limited amount of vehicle presence in otherwise pedestrianised areas gives a safer environment than having completely pedestrianised areas, especially late in the evenings and at night.

3.24 Traffic in Stone Street Details/Concern Why does the traffic have to go all the way down Stone Street? Workshop Response It is not clear exactly what is being queried by this. Historically, traffic has been allowed to exit from

Princes Street to Stone Street because there is insufficient room for service vehicles to turn around in Princes Street so they need a way out from that road. Reversing the flow in the section of New Road between Garrick Street and Stone Street may increase traffic along Stone Street but to the benefit of less through traffic in the town centre as a whole especially New Road and Garrick Street as it will remove the benefit for drivers cutting through the town centre along King Street.

3.25 Congestion during implementation phase Details/Concern …also when all this is being done there will be traffic jams. Workshop Response Yes it is inevitable that there will be some delays but not major ones. The phasing of the proposals has

32

not been worked up yet but it is feasible for the major works to be carried out on the roads so that the ring road flow is not compromised drastically, and the hours of works can be programmed to avoid constrictions at peaks times.

TABLE 4 Improving the quality of the environment and the sense of place 4.1 New housing Details/Concern Why have more housing? Why flats and not all houses? Workshop Response Response provided at 1.4 4.2 New housing – its affect on existing residents south of the master plan boundary Details/Concern The effect of new development on the Rathmore Road car park on the residents on the north side of

Cobham Road with possible adverse affect on property values. Concerns over privacy and maintaining a good view

Workshop Response Response provided at 1.5 4.3 Loss of Open Space Details/Concern Concern over loss of the open space in the Rathmore Road car park. Workshop Response Response provided at 1.6 4.4 Facilities for young people Details/Concern Are any being provided in this area? Workshop Response Not specifically, however other areas of the town centre are planned to have new facilities for young

people and younger children with parents 4.5 Affordable housing Details/Concern What level of affordable housing is to be included in the area? Workshop Response Response provided at 1.10 4.6 Provision of more retailing Details/Concern Why build this scheme when there could be more shops built in the town? Workshop Response Response provided at 1.17

33

Table 5 – Car parking 5.1 Car parking Details/Concerns a. Why is this amount of parking required in this location and who would it serve? –

Where can I park to use train!! As a resident of St James Road I'm very worried about traffic impact/parking on this conservation area. Parking restrictions in St James Road need reviewing to ensure that residents have sufficient space to park. My only real concern is the probable increase in parking in residential streets close to the town centre. It is essential to improve the transportation infrastructure in the town and the only problems I can foresee are increased parking in nearby streets and more commuters driving to the town due to the ridiculous parking charges at Ebbsfleet. Keep parking prices as low as possible to encourage people not to park in nearby roads. (Campbell Rd is one such place) whilst they get the train to work.

b. car parking is generally expensive Keep car park open until 10pm or 10.30pm

c. Why not extend car park over railway lines, with access from Darnley road.

d. Access to car park 2 could be difficult at peak times, particularly from the west. Particularly interested to see the end of the "crossover" access to & from Clive Road car park Will Thamesgate car park be underused as at the moment; if it's full you simply drive past. Who will risk it being full and have to turn back?

e. New Road needs better parking enforcement/management. The whole system would need enforcement Gravesham Court - illegal parking – needs enforcement Parking on pavements needs to be addressed – better enforcement.

f. Design of multi-storey to include CCTV, good lighting, community safety

g. Who gets the money from the car parks? Is there a developer in mind to manage the car park

h. Why can’t we have a Park & Ride system for Gravesham instead of this? Workshop Response a. The need to provide additional car parking within the town centre arises as a result of

predicted increases in passenger numbers and the start of the High Speed Rail service from Gravesend into St Pancras (journey time 22 minutes) in December 2009. Commuters may decide to use Gravesend Railway Station as it is likely to be cheaper to park here rather than Ebbsfleet. The additional parking spaces provided would have a twofold function in providing for increased demand as well as reducing the impact of the potential parking demand in nearby residential streets. In addition the authority is looking to introduce Controlled Parking Zones in order to reduce possible impacts on residential streets.

b. Car park pricing and opening hours have not been decided yet as is the design of the facility.

e.g. barrier or pay and display and may have a bearing on opening hours as a result.

c. Whilst a parking facility extended over the railway would be viable for a newly built station facility there are too many structural implications involved with excavating adjacent to an in use

34

railway track. The solution would be considered to be far too expensive as a result. This might also make the station feel ‘sub-terranean’ and could be difficult and expensive to maintain as a result.

d. The plans for the transport quarter will include the provision of adequate numbers of

strategically located, real-time, car-parking “Spaces available” signs, allowing motorists to make choices of parking location.

e. Comments about parking enforcement have been passed to Gravesham Councils parking

section for action.

f. Detailed designs for the car park will be drawn up in consultation with Police Architectural Liaison Officers in order to “design out” personal safety problems.

g. Income from the proposed car park is not decided at the moment and will depend on a number

of factors including, land ownership, who builds it and who is appointed to operate the facility.

h. Park and Ride requires significant flows from outside the urban area on routes where the travellers can be captured. Most users of the car parks come from within the urban area. Further most such schemes require a significant subsidy.

Table 6 Costs of implementing the work covered by the master plan 6.1 Costs of the scheme Details/Concern A lot of money and time for not a lot of return.

These proposals will cost far too much at this time of recession. It seems unnecessary the money can be spent on more important things. Proposed scheme V. poor value for money. Just wonder where the money is coming from bearing in mind the Activity park starting the same time. Sounds like a good idea but how much will our council tax go up??

Workshop Response The proposals are not being funded from Council Tax receipts. The funding for part of the scheme will

come from the Homes and Communities Agency which is part of the Government’s Department for Communities and Local Government. Other funding sources will be utilized for the remainder of the project including Kent Highway Services and private sector investment. The council has a duty to ensure value for money when procuring goods and services by obtaining multiple quotes for work or undertaking tendering processes depending on value. Construction work on roads, civic forecourt, car park and housing will provide a source of employment, available for local people, much needed in this time of recession.

35

Table 7 Critique of the way the consultation process was carried out 7.1 Costs of the scheme Details/Concern ‘Residents’ does not appear on the questionnaire as an answer option.

Question 2 (How did you get into town today?) should have included how you are getting home again. Firstly I appreciate that Gravesend is trying to move up in terms of facilities, social cohesion and that. But....The survey is very poor, it gives no opportunity for a nuanced response and the questions are loaded. Also it is ambiguous what certain questions mean or how they should be answered. Also when using before and after make them comparable, not gloomy grey now and bright sunny happy peopled after. It creates an entirely fictitious idea of the proposal. It doesn't seem clear enough as to whether buses are going to use the dark green roads, or if they will stop in town. Insufficient data to be able to form a really objective judgment e.g. Illustrations do not appear to be in same proportions as diagrams, need actual measurements etc. Again it appears you are trying to get a quart into a pint pot. The wooden model would be much clearer if the directions of traffic flow were marked.

Workshop Response The questionnaire was designed to gauge public perceptions about the various aspects of the Transport

Quarter proposals. The questions about working, visiting/shopping and commuting and the mode of transport used, were provided to give us a breakdown of answers and help understand how people currently travel into town. The scoring system that was used is accepted as best practice for consultations of this type. The statements used were targeted to gauge opinion about various aspects of the proposals. The response was entirely the choice of the consultee, there was no guidance on how to answer questions in order to ensure free choice in the selected score allocation. A comments section was provided which was used by 71% of those completing the questionnaire in qualifying their answers and making further comments. In addition letters about aspects of the proposal were received and contact telephone numbers and names were supplied for queries. The materials prepared were designed to, as far as possible; make clear the objectives of the Transport Quarter to the public in a clear and concise manner. Precise measurements for all aspects of the project will be provided at the subsequent detailed planning stage. Presenting illustrations in the same proportions as the diagrams would have rendered some images too small, therefore the images could not be scaled against the diagrammatic representations. The illustrations provided on the posters were labeled as how aspects of the project might look and not how they will look. The detailed design phase of the project is yet to be completed. The wooden model was provided to give a 3-D representation of how the proposals could translate physically into the town centre. Most visitors to the exhibition found it most helpful in understanding the proposals. Traffic flow diagrams were provided on the posters to better inform the public of the implications of the project.

36

5.3 Street Survey – key issues The following two tables provide lists of the key issues identified from the street survey. A comprehensive list of the consolidated comments from the Street Surveys can be found under Appendix 2. Table 1 Priority issues in the Station North and Station South areas Improve pedestrian links, making the area more convenient to move around in. reduce the impact of the vehicle on pedestrian movements

Provide enough pedestrian crossings and ensure that these are on the desire lines. Ensure that they are clearly marked and visible from a distance

Provide kerb faces to delineate roadways, provide dropped kerbs and tactile paving to help those with disabilities

Provide handrails and seats for the elderly Make bus stops and taxi ranks easier to locate Ensure that public transport routes are adequate, safe and convenient Improve cycle routes, safety and cycle parking Provide better maps and signs Make it easier to find a car parking space, with sufficient dedicated spaces for disabled people and parents with children and women on their own

Reduce levels of vehicle noise and pollution Make the area more attractive and inviting Make roads fit in better with the surroundings Provide better soft landscaping provide good levels of street furniture including seats, bins, trees, lighting of an appropriate scale

Make better use of the spaces, providing choices of places where people can sit, relax, enjoy the sunshine

Provide more activity, especially on south side of the railway. This to include public toilets Hold special events and exhibitions and places for people to meet, sit and gather Table 2 Priority issues in the ‘Civic Square’ area Make connections to local destinations more obvious and convenient Ensure that pedestrian crossings are adequate and convenient and are on pedestrian desire lines. Ensure that they are clearly marked and visible from a distance

Make it easier to locate bus station, bus stops and taxi ranks Improve provision of cycle routes and cycle parking Provide more and better maps and signs Minimise vehicle noise and pollution levels Reduce numbers of lorries and heavy goods vehicles Make the area more attractive and inviting Integrate traffic movements in a way that ensures that they do not compromise the pedestrian experience

Provide a choice of places where people can conveniently sit, both in the sun or in the shade

Encourage the provision of a street culture with shops and cafes spreading out into pedestrian areas

Provide good level of trees and other soft landscaping Provide suitable lighting to make areas pleasant Provide adequate uses/facilities and make these attractive – especially public toilets and a form of evening shopping

37

Appendices Appendix 1 Material used in the consultation process 1.1 Exhibition display panels

Exhibition display panel, 1 of 7

38

Exhibition display panel, 2 of 7

39

Exhibition display panel, 3 of 7

40

Exhibition display panel, 4 of 7

41

Exhibition display panel, 5 of 7

42

Exhibition display panel, 6 of 7

43

Exhibition display panel, 7 of 7

44

1.2 Photographs of the scale model

Model viewed looking eastwards – Darnley Road Bridge in the foreground

Model viewed looking north-eastwards

45

1.3 The questionnaire – front page

46

Questionnaire – rear page

47

1.4 The flyer advertising the exhibition (A5-size)

48

1.5 Promotional poster (A3-size)

49

1.6 Four-page newspaper wrap-around This content was published in the Gravesend Reporter as a four-page wrap around and additional copies were circulated in the town by the Council.

Front page

50

4-page newspaper wrap-around – page 2

51

4-page newspaper wrap-around – page 3

52

4-page newspaper wrap-around – back page

53

1.7 The Street Survey forms – page 1

54

The Street Survey forms – page 2

55

The Street Survey forms – page 3

56

The Street Survey forms – page 4

57

The Street Survey forms – page 5

58

The Street Survey forms – page 6

59

DATE: 18th June 2009 SOURCE: Reporter PAGE: 5 TOPIC: Transport Quarter REF NO: TQ/0003

1.8 Press Coverage – Gravesend Reporter

60

Press Coverage – News Shopper

DATE: 17th June 2009 SOURCE: News Shopper PAGE: TOPIC: Transport Quarter REF NO: TQ/0005

61

Press Coverage – Gravesend Messenger

DATE: 18th June 2009 SOURCE: Messenger PAGE: 5 TOPIC: Transport Quarter REF NO: TQ/0006

62

1.9 The local neighbourhood forum newsletter

Page 5 of the Forum newsletter is devoted to the Transport Quarter Master Plan

63

1.10 Website materials

Key pages from Gravesham Borough Council’s website

(The pack issues to the Press contained the same information. Also included in press pack and website was the information contained in the four-pack newspaper wrap-around. Page 51 refers).

64

Appendix 2

Consolidated comments from the Street Surveys Part 1 of the street survey requested participants provide comments about aspects of the area which they would keep as well as comments about those aspects of the area which they would like to see changed. The comments listed below are the total collective feedback received from the process relating to each aspect of the area as listed. Part One The existing street environment

South of the railway

• The map by the station is good • More maps are needed • A pick-up and drop off point is needed • Could Railway Company put town information inside the booking hall? • Taxi rank has a cab at it today – never seen one here before

Civic Square location

• Lack of pedestrian crossings in the area, particularly around the rear sides of the Civic Centre

• Civic Centre – there are very few bicycle parks and so cyclists must use pavements – area very untidy although there are many waste bins. Pond is dirty and needs cleaning.

• Civic Centre – how do I find my way from here to town, buses, and taxis? (relief for VI’s)

North of the railway

• Public transport – the bus stops and taxi ranks would be easily available by foot if they were signposted, the same for interchange between buses/trains

• No taxis available when arriving at station. Have to walk to cab office. Not easy for disabled or people with lots of luggage and/or children.

A Access, links and information

Non-defined locations

• Map is not easy to find • Not car-friendly, no pick up points for shoppers. • Town signs need to be outside the station TownCentric and shopping

areas. • Main bus routes – stop locations required • Map • Camber on paths • All step edges need to be clearly edged in white/yellow paint • Map of town centre is not very visible and white paint has worn off

steps. B Private transport and Parking

• More parking spaces for disabled and more attention to pavements etc. for these people.

• I cannot comment on car parking as I live in the town centre so do not need to park ever. However friends have told me ‘parking is a nightmare’.

• Traffic is not permitted to flow freely and is forced to do unnecessary mileage around the town

• Unnecessary traffic restrictions. Commuters and shoppers competing for convenient parking

• No wheelchair access to station car park south side

65

• Need more trees and green space in the town! • Signs are obscured by trees and lighting posts. No crossing on Stone

Street or dropped kerb opposite dry cleaners. Difficult slope outside N. station to buses and taxi rank. Taxi rank too far away to be convenient for train users

• No seating in or outside station north side • Inadequate crossings to use station in view of heavy use traffic. • It would be nice to have more art work. • Map in Clive Road not at best vantage point. Road sign obstructed by

camera pole. • Drop kerb at junction Stone Street and Clive Road totally inadequate • No drop off point pick up point – station N and S. • No dropping off or picking up place outside station • Needs a taxi rank and a seating area with shelter. Both sides of

station exit uphill towards town and no bus available. • Drop off point needed at station, on both sides.

C Comfort and visual impressions

• Roads are not attractive they are functional • The planting has weeds growing in it (Civic Square) • Disproportionate number of litter bins on the Civic Centre frontage

compared with street side. South Station is poorly lit at night. • Station south car park not friendly for people with luggage • Any visitor coming to Gravesend by rail doesn’t get a good first

impression. Coming out south not too bad, e.g. trees, but north your first sight is of a huge drab run down back of the bingo hall and graffiti.

• At night feels less safe • Lovely original building. Please don’t change the façade • Civic Centre forecourt is less safe at night – skateboarders, etc.

D Uses and Activities

• The grass bank and trees make for a pleasant walking environment • Toilet facilities are poorly marked and hard to find in all areas • Toilets – clean, well-kept, not open after 6pm. • Excellent toilets in Lord Street car park are not signed.

E Sociability and Atmosphere

• Usually stations are too busy for charity collections.

Part Two Comments on the Proposed Master plan

Residents • Its inevitability • The area is currently pleasant and open to walk around • Grass and trees feature heavily in the area • When I used to commute – arriving at the station was a sense of calm

after London. • Nothing • It’s central to the town • The railway station has character • A nice mix of old and new buildings

1 Things you like best about the Transport Quarter

Access • Easy approach to south side of station

66

Group

• Access for wheelchairs to platforms • Clean and tidy • Maps on wall – information to town centre etc. • Good railway information board • Managed to keep ‘heritage’ buildings • Mural on wall opposite N. station (near Debenhams) • Near to town centre • No shared surface schemes. They are dangerous for disabled people,

specifically visually impaired • Longer consultation period this time • Good 3D model!

Council Members

• Station • Car parking • Centrally placed • Handy for car parks (when you know where they are!) • Handy for shops – better signs needed • Busy for a lot of the time.

Staff – Station North

• Functional • Close to Debenhams

Staff – Station South

• Station is attractive • Car parking close to station • Easy access to station from Perry Street area • Quiet • Trees/planting • Nice station building • Nice lamp posts • Ideal location • Railway Station • Taxi links • Car parking

Staff – Civic Centre

• Open – not too enclosed • Planting/pond/gravestones • Seating • Sensory garden • Seating area on Civic forecourt • Woodville Halls

2 List the short-term things that you would do to improve the Transport Quarter

Residents

• Ground level access to Civic Centre from all aspects • Remove most of concrete outside Civic Centre • I would have a campaign to encourage everyone to say ‘good

morning’ to one another! • More flowers • More bins around bus stops • Make the people planning it live here and use it! • Improve traffic flow • Remove traffic restrictions • Remove through traffic from town centre • Remove the graffiti from Tescos and surrounding buildings • Re-paint the station in colours reflecting the period • More green spaces and cycle ways

67

Access Group

• Needs a dedicated drop off area (south side) • Needs bigger display maps on ticket machines • No seating in booking area • Telephones need to be lower for people in wheelchairs • Seats • Signage – concise information • Make pavements flatter • Remove cobbles • More disabled car parking • Better/more drop off area on north side of station • Shared surfaces are a safety issue for visually impaired people – they

cannot give eye contact to drivers and without kerb edges and delineation they are at risk of serious harm/injury. Please do not put shared surface schemes into this area.

• Taxi rank at station • No shared surfaces • Bus station covered in • More seating at bus station and rail station • Safer pedestrian access from Clive Road to Garrick Street (back of

Tesco’s)

Members • Better traffic flow • Better signage • Improved planting • Provide cycle ways • Better lighting • More chance for casual meeting groups of people as well not

connected with pubs • More notice boards – both about area and maps and events

Staff – Station North

• More planting • Better signs • Cover excess of bricks – more murals?

Staff – Station South

• Rathmore Road bank – remove topsoil and plant wild flowers • More bins • Safety • Accessibility for pedestrians • Accessibility for vehicles • Two-way traffic • More parking spaces • Access across railway for non-rail users, without going all the way up

Rathmore Road Staff – Civic

Centre • Make it quieter • Better lit • Pedestrian crossing to rear of Civic (Windmill Street) • Pedestrian crossing to front of Civic (Wrotham Road) • More crossings/maybe pedestrian area • Repaint street lighting

3 What long-

• Make the town centre a place that people want to visit without having to walk miles for facilities or pay extortionate parking charges. Remember that out of town shopping centres are free.

68

• Put in cycle lanes – everywhere not ¾ m that go nowhere • Only allow deliveries at night/early morning (before ‘rush hour’) • Put in more green open space • Segregate traffic from pedestrians • Provide dedicated commuter parking • Provide better toilets • Make the whole area more pedestrian-friendly • Increase the amount of trees and gardens • Demolish the bingo hall, its an eyesore • More green spaces and cycle ways

Access Group

• Taxi rank needs to be at station north side • More attractive planting would enhance the area • North side needs a dedicated ‘drop-off’ area • No shared surface schemes • Taxi rank at station • Better signage to all facilities • Covered bus station with seats, info desk and real time stops.

Destination timetables clearly available. Council Members

• Integrated transport exchange • Improvement of the offer in the Civic Square • Clear signage and pedestrian links • Improvement in the train service, e.g. faster • Regeneration • Pedestrianise more • More planting and landscaping • More signage which are easy for visitors to understand •

Staff – Station North

• Reduce impact of cars – reclaim the roads!

Staff – Station South

• Back of buildings in Cobham Street need to be masked • Easier to cross

term changes would you make to the Transport Quarter that would have the biggest impact?

Staff – Civic Centre

• Reduce impact of traffic at front of Civic Centre • More green – a place to meet • Demolish Civic Centre eyesore • Less concrete at front of Civic Centre • Less traffic

69

Contacts For further information, please contact either of the following: For general views John Pexton Major Projects Co-ordinator Gravesham Borough Council Civic Centre Windmill Street DA12 1AU 01474 337189 For Highways and traffic flow issues Colin Martin Kent Highway Services Doubleday House St Michaels Close Aylesford Kent ME20 7BU 08458 247800

Historic Dockyard Chatham ME4 4TZ 01634 401166 29 September 2009