Nearly 3,000 fines have been dished out to motorists continuing to disobey new traffic-free zones set up around schools.

For the first six months since Medway Council set up so-called “School Streets” around seven sites, drivers who flouted the rules were given an initial warning.

The scheme, which introduces a temporary restriction on traffic in key roads around schools during set hours in the morning and afternoon, was brought into effect on March 11 this year.

Up until September 11, drivers received a letter reminding them of the ban, but now those who continue to drive within the zones get hit by a £70 fine, reduced to £35 if paid within 21 days.

Now, a freedom of information (FOI) request has revealed that immediately after the end of the grace period, the number of fines rose at each of the seven school sites — although it has since gradually declined.

Over the first month, between September and October, a total of 2835 penalty charge notices were issued, fetching sums anywhere between £99,225 and £198,450 — all of which the council says is reinvested back into the road network.

The streets most regularly seeing drivers slapped with fines are those around Burnt Oak primary school in Gillingham, with 358 penalty notices issued in just one week.

In August, another FOI revealed thousands of drivers across the Towns were receiving warning letters for breaking the scheme’s rules - and residents in the restricted roads were divided over the scheme with some fearing it is a “revenue raising” measure.

Then, in September, Medway Council announced despite the controversy it would be considering expanding the school streets scheme to a further nine sites and began a consultation with parents and residents.

Cllr Alex Paterson, the authority’s portfolio holder for community safety, highways and enforcement, believes its the right thing to do for children’s safety.

He said: “Every month, around 1,200 children are injured on the road, on their way to school, within 500 metres of their school.

“So if we can take as many cars as we can out of that equation, then that inherently makes those journeys safer.

“The simple message to anyone ignoring these signs is: stop, read the signs, and follow the rules. This isn’t difficult.

“At this stage, we can say safely people know what the rules are.

“I’m happy the figures are moving in the right direction, and the number of PCNs being issued is reducing month on month as the message gets through.

“But you have to remember that every single one of those PCNs is a driver who has either carelessly, recklessly, or deliberately ignored the rules and put children in danger.

“I’m not prepared to accept that. If you do that, you will be fined.”

He did not accept suggestions signage for the school streets was not clear enough and said the signs in place were “above and beyond” the legal requirements.

However, leader of the Medway Conservatives, Cllr George Perfect, disagreed, saying the council needed to do more with residents to inform them about the scheme.

He believes schools streets should only be implemented in areas where residents have the support of schools and locals.

Cllr Perfect added: “I think the problem is in parts of London and other places around the UK, these have been implemented where there are significant levels of traffic measures.

“We don’t have those type of traffic enforcement measures within Medway and we haven’t had them in the past.

“Therefore that means the council really need to be taking a proactive approach and engaging with residents, doing testing around what signs work and what don’t.”

“In highly dense urban areas, some parts of Gillingham and Chatham, where there are constrained roads and dangerous parking clearly these can be beneficial.

“But in places outside of those urban cores, particularly in Hempstead and Wigmore and other parts of Medway, where there isn’t that level of density these aren’t really achieving anything to that end.”

He also did not accept the council’s argument it was not about “revenue raising”.

“I think it’s clear for the public to see by the number of fines being implemented,” he added.

“If the council, as they previously said, don’t believe this is a revenue raising measure, then they should be doing everything they can to ensure that people don’t access those spaces and thus aren’t raising revenue.”

The second round of school streets proposals, which include nine more schools, is to be considered at the authority’s next cabinet meeting on November 19.

Councillors will review consultation responses and make a decision on whether the scheme should go ahead.