Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from County Councillor B R Cope; District Councillor B W Bano and Mrs Marlene Burnham (Deal Town Council).

To note appointments of Substitute Members.

It was noted that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council's Procedure Rules, Councillor P M Brivio had been appointed as substitute Member for Councillor B W Bano.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

Where a Member has a new or registered Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in a matter under consideration they must disclose that they have an interest and, unless the Monitoring Officer has agreed in advance that the DPI is a 'Sensitive Interest', explain the nature of that interest at the meeting.  The Member must withdraw from the meeting at the commencement of the consideration of any matter in which they have declared a DPI and must not participate in any discussion of, or vote taken on, the matter unless they have been granted a dispensation permitting them to do so.  If during the consideration of any item a Member becomes aware that they have a DPI in the matter they should declare the interest immediately and, subject to any dispensations, withdraw from the meeting.

Where a Member is declaring an Other Significant Interest (OSI) they must also disclose the interest and explain the nature of the interest at the meeting.  The Member must withdraw from the meeting at the commencement of the consideration of any matter in which they have declared a OSI and must not participate in any discussion of, or vote taken on, the matter unless they have been granted a dispensation to do so or the meeting is one at which members of the public are permitted to speak for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the matter.  In the latter case, the Member may only participate on the same basis as a member of the public and cannot participate in any discussion of, or vote taken on, the matter and must withdraw from the meeting in accordance with the Council's procedure rules.

Councillor J H Goodwin declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Minute No 398 (Southeastern Railway Stakeholder Newsletter) by reason that he was employed by Southeastern Trains and withdrew from the Council Chamber during consideration of this item.

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 September 2012.

In respect of Minute No 198, Mr Rivers confirmed that Members could use their funds to implement Public Rights of Way schemes in the current financial year.  However, schemes which required a Traffic Regulation Order or lengthy consultation were unlikely to be able to complete the process before the end of the financial year. 

In respect of Minute No 207, Councillor Ridings was advised that work to cut back overgrown foliage at the A256/A257 Ash roundabout could be carried out during scheduled resurfacing work.  However, leaving some foliage in place was a recognised safety measure as it forced cars to slow down or stop altogether in order to check that they could proceed safely.  Councillor Collor was advised that the cost of the East Kent access road was £11.15 million per kilometre.  This was a significant figure but included the cost of two large structures, a signal-controlled roundabout and multiple pumped drainage systems.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on 20 September 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To note the attached minutes of the Environment, Highways and Waste Cabient Committee meeting held on 4 July 2012.

To note the attached reports that went to the meeting of the Environment, Highways and Waste Cabinet Committee on 15 November 2012:

·           Policy for Use of Mirrors on the Highway in Kent

·           Joint Transportation Boards Agreement and Governance

The Board received the minutes of the Environment, Highways and Waste Cabinet Committee (EHWCC) meeting held on 4 July 2012 and the reports that went to the EHWCC meeting held on 15 November 2012. 

RESOLVED:    That the minutes and reports be noted.

To consider the attached report of the Public Affairs Manager, Southeastern Railway.

The Board received the Southeastern Railway newsletter.

RESOLVED:    That the newsletter be noted.

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

In respect of Phase 1, Mr Heaps advised Members that the agreement for the dedication of land had been signed by Kent County Council (KCC) that day, and was due to be signed by Asda early in the new year.  In respect of Phase 2, the deed of dedication was due to be signed by Dover District Council (DDC) and K-College the next day.  DDC's Planning Committee had granted planning permission for the new bridge and construction was due to commence early in the New Year.  In response to Councillor Cowan, it was clarified that a small payment had been made to K?College from Sustrans funding to compensate for the loss of parking spaces.  Mr Heaps undertook to provide precise figures.

RESOLVED:    That the report be noted.

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

Mr Heaps referred Members to the report.  In response to questions, it was clarified that parish councils could fund crossings themselves.  However, the work involved in designing individual crossings took considerable resources and KCC would therefore also seek a contribution towards design costs.  To provide some degree of certainty to the process, Mr Rivers undertook to explore with Amey, the new engineering consultant, if it was possible to provide fixed cost prices for the work involved in designing a range of crossings so that parishes were aware what resources they would need in total.  Mr Heaps confirmed that crossings funded by parish councils would still need to meet the criteria used to prioritise schemes in general, and would require final approval by KCC to ensure that there were no safety concerns and that they met design standards.  However, crash statistics would not be taken into consideration.

RESOLVED:    (a)        That the report be noted.

                         (b)        That Mr Rivers be requested to explore fixed cost prices for the design work involved in a range of pedestrian crossings. 

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

The Board viewed photographs of the proposals, and was reminded that it had agreed at its meeting held on 22 September 2011 that eight proposed waiting restrictions at various locations in the district should be re-advertised due to an administrative error.  One had since been withdrawn and the others re-advertised.  Several Members cautioned against imposing too many parking restrictions, but welcomed that a pragmatic approach had been taken on proposals for Dodd's Lane in response to representations received from members of the public.

RESOLVED:    That the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders set out at paragraph 3.3 of the report be proceeded with.

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

Mr Rivers presented the report which updated Members on works that had been approved for construction in 2012/13.

In respect of Appendix B1, Members were advised that the works to Pencester Road, Dover would be implemented by the end of April.  It was clarified that the footway scheme was at Kings Close, Kingsdown not Dover.  On Appendix B3, Mr Rivers clarified that a testing programme had identified defective street light columns.  Dangerous ones had been removed immediately and others would be replaced on a priority basis.  The Board would receive a report in due course which would give details of columns that had been removed and lights switched off. 

In respect of B4, the Board was advised that soakaways were currently cleaned on a reactive basis.  However, it was planned to move to a scheduled programme which would enable funding to be targeted where it was most needed.  In terms of replacement, sites would be assessed on the basis of highway safety, property flooding, network disruption and impact on the local community, and work prioritised accordingly.  The drainage works programme would be updated and placed on the KCC website.  In response to requests, Mr Rivers advised that the junction of York Street/Townwall Street, Dover and Wellesley Road, Deal would receive attention from KCC's drainage team.  Members were asked to let Kathryn Lewis, KCC's Drainage and Flood Manager, have details of blocked soakaways.

With regards to C2, Members were advised that footpath improvement works to EBX3 had been completed on 13 December.  On C3, the access road to Betteshanger Business Park had been adopted following no objections being received.  Works to Maison Dieu Road, Dover had been completed in November.  Works on the new access at the White Cliffs Business Park were on hold pending work to be carried out by UK Power Networks.  Mr Rivers undertook to respond to Councillor Goodwin in respect of road lining at Dixon Road, Dover.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

The recommendation is attached.

The procedure for determining applications for on-street disabled persons’ parking bays is attached.

MATTER WHICH THE MANAGEMENT TEAM SUGGESTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE AS THE REPORT CONTAINS EXEMPT INFORMATION AS DEFINED WITHIN PART 1 OF SCHEDULE 12A OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS INDICATED AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PROPER OFFICER CONSIDERS THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE EXEMPTION OUTWEIGHS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION

RESOLVED:    That, under Section 100(A) 4 of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the business on the grounds that the item to be considered involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. 

To consider the attached report of Dover District Council’s Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The Corporate Estate and Coastal Engineer presented a report to Members which detailed eight disabled parking bay applications. 

Members were advised that one letter of objection had been received in relation to Application A, following formal advertisement.  On Application B, no letters of objection had been received during informal consultation and formal advertisement.  Both applications met the criteria.

In respect of Application C, the Board was advised that the application had come to Members for determination since, if approved, the bay would exceed the 5% guideline limit.  It was clarified that the 5% limit had previously been exceeded in cases where an overwhelming need had been proven or when the road was a long one and existing bays were well spaced out.  Councillor Cowan argued that, if the applicant met the criteria, a bay should be provided, regardless of whether the 5% limit would be exceeded.  Councillor Scales commented that bays were not for the exclusive use of the applicant and could be used by anybody with a disability.  Therefore, applicants should be able to demonstrate an exceptional need if the 5% guideline were to be exceeded.  On Application D, Members were advised to defer the application since the applicant had been reported to the Blue Badge team at KCC and an investigation was ongoing.    

At its meeting held on 20 September 2012, the Board had resolved that Applications E and F should progress to formal consultation.  This had now finished and the original objectors had upheld objections submitted during informal consultation.  Although Application E met all the criteria, the applicant owned a garage 70 metres from their property.  However, they had difficulty walking this distance and a doctor's letter had been submitted in support.  Application F also met all the criteria, but the applicant owned a garage at the rear of their property.  However, a doctor's letter had been submitted which stated that the applicant should not lift the garage door as this could precipitate an angina attack. 

The Board was advised that Applications G and H met all the criteria for a disabled parking bay.  No objections had been received during informal consultation and it was recommended that these applications be progressed to formal advertisement. 

RESOLVED:    (a)        That Applications A, B, E and F be recommended for sealing by Kent County Council.  

                         (b)        That Applications C, G and H be formally advertised and, in the event that no objections are received, be recommended for sealing by Kent County Council (with any objections being referred back to a future meeting of the Dover Joint Transportation Board for further consideration).

                         (c)        That Application D be deferred pending an investigation by Kent County Council's Blue Badge team.