COLTS HILL: Controversial road closure plan cancelled
PEOPLE power has caused Kent County Council to perform a U-turn over the most controversial aspect of its proposed improvement scheme for the A228 at Colts Hill.
The experimental closure of Crittenden Road for one year has been dropped from the list of measures being considered for the Capel accident blackspot as an overwhelming number of residents opposed it.
Of 143 replies to a public consultation on the £100,000 scheme, 104 were against blocking the road's western end to prevent all but emergency vehicles from turning in from a dangerous staggered crossroads.
KCC cabinet member for highways Nick Chard said: "Most residents have made it clear that they don't want Crittenden Road closed.
"Kent Highway Services said they would listen to local views. We have listened, and that's why we changed our plans."
Other options proposed to improve safety on the narrow, winding A-road – the most direct link between Maidstone and Pembury hospitals – remain on the table.
They include widening the road at a dangerous bend, new chevron signs, verge markers and Kent's first red-painted road surface.
4 Comments
by John, -
Friday, February 12 2010, 5:14PM
“What about a 30mph limit and/or speed camera(s) in the affected area instead?”
by Jock, Paddock Wood
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 12:51PM
“It is absurd to even propose closing Crittenden Road. As Nicola has already mentioned in a previous post, the majority of traffic on this road is from residents of nearby villages, and is not a popular rat run.
This backwards thinking mentality sums up our authorities. Rather than tackle a problem properly they look for cheap fixes.
Our roads needs serious long term investment. They have been neglected for decades and have become overcrowded as a direct result of this. Closing a road is the KCCs response !?
It is clearly obvious that the government have failed to get us out of our cars, purely because they have failed to provide the nessasary public transport network to do this.
We've tried that solution and it didnt work. So lets now have the extra roads/routes that should of been built decades ago.”
by Nicola, Matfield
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 11:37AM
“The problem with the Colts Hill proposals as originally made is that they apparently looked only at the route from Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone and failed to take account of the substantial amount of cross traffic from the Eastern villages such as Brenchley Matfield Horsmonden and Goudhurst to Tonbridge and Sevenoaks. Certainly the villages and their representatives were not consulted, despite being most affected by the proposal. Crittenden Road and Alders Road are not a ratrun but a main route and carry a lot of traffic. Proportionately, for the amount of traffic movements, there are very few accidents there. I have driven that route almost daily for 16 years and have hardly ever been delayed or diverted because of accidents there. The main problem is the speed of traffic on Colts Hill. Traffic lights or a roundabout would have the advantage of slowing the traffic down and making life more tolerable for those who actually live on Colts Hill. The proposal as originally made would, if implemented, send a lot more traffic into Capel and Paddock Wood as the A21 cannot cope. Another possibliity is that traffic would use the A21 northbound as far Tunbridge Wells and then turn off to access Colts Hill past Tescos and Notcutts-not really very helpful. It is good to see that the authorities do listen when the arguments are put cogently and rationally and hopefully this will lead to a solution that will enable the traffic from ALL directions to flow safely.”
by Tom, Tunbridge Wells
Monday, February 08 2010, 4:02PM
“I drive up this road most days and it is self evident that the cross traffic from the adjacent lanes is the cause of delays and hazards. The proposed improvements are the only way to solve this if the bottle necks on the A21 are not to be resolved. People tend normally only to respond to these issues if they wish to complain. Your article suggests that nearly 50 of the responses were positive. If these responses are weighted bearing this in mind then the response looks more even. I think they should go shead with the trial and stop messing about!”