Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from County Councillor J A Rook and District Councillor B W Bano.

To note appointments of Substitute Members.

There were no substitute members appointed.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

In respect of Minute No 500, Mr Rivers advised that KCC was working with its new consultant, Amey, to provide the best options for all design work which included a number of different pricing mechanisms: hourly rated, target costs and fixed price.  Each had an appropriate use based upon the risks and the ability to define the work sufficiently.  It was likely to be possible to agree a fixed rate for an initial scoping report to determine whether a crossing was feasible at a location, and which type of crossing would be appropriate.  This would not be a design, but would assist KCC Members in deciding whether they wished to progress a scheme.  

The Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on 20 December 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the amendment of the end of meeting time to read 7.13 pm.

The Chairman presented a petition to Mr Rivers from the residents of Birdwood Avenue which requested that their grass verges be tarmaced.  Members reported that similar problems, caused by cars parking on the verges, had occurred elsewhere.  It was agreed that it would be helpful to consider the problem on a district-wide basis.

RESOLVED:    (a)        That a report be brought to a future Joint Transportation Board meeting on problems relating to parking damage to grass verges.  

                         (b)        That the petition be noted.

(In accordance with the provisions of Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman agreed that this item, which was not detailed on the agenda, should be considered as a matter of urgency.)

To note the attached Minutes of the EHWCC meetings held on 20 September and 15 November 2012.

To note the attached report that went to the meeting of the EHWCC held on 10 January 2013:

·           Joint Transportation Boards Agreement and Governance

The Board received the minutes of the Environment, Highways and Waste Cabinet Committee (EHWCC) meetings held on 20 September and 15 November 2012. 

In respect of the Member Highway Fund, it was confirmed that the report referred to in the minutes was out-of-date and every Member had now submitted proposals.  In response to Councillor R S Walkden, Mr Rivers advised that fees for the lane rental scheme were set at different levels depending upon the type of road, period of restriction and whether a full or partial closure was required.  It was clarified that only primary and secondary routes would be gritted in severe weather conditions.  However, once these were under control, other roads, such as bus routes, would be dealt with.  Mr Howe advised that a review of routes would take place in the spring to ascertain whether new routes should be classified as critical. 

Mr Rivers presented a report which had gone to the EHWCC meeting held on 10 January 2013 and outlined revised governance arrangements for Joint Transportation Boards across the county.  Of most interest to Members was an amendment which would allow the chairman of the JTB to vary the number of town and parish representatives attending meetings.  

Mr Burr advised that the future of Joint Transportation Boards had recently been considered.  There was consensus that the level of detail often required to consider highways matters risked clogging up Locality Board meetings, and a more efficient mechanism might be for regular reports to be submitted to the Locality Board on highways matters.  It was clarified that the review of governance arrangements had come about as a result of requests from several districts to vary the number of parish representatives.  A request from the Kent Association of Local Councils to extend voting to towns and parishes had been rejected.

RESOLVED:    (a)        That the minutes be noted.

                         (b)        That the recommendations in the report relating to revised governance arrangements for Joint Transportation Boards be endorsed.

To consider the attached report of the Head of Programmed Work, Kent County Council.

Mr Burr introduced the report which described proposals for the trial switching off of surplus lights and the switching off of other lights for part of the night.  As a result of revised legal advice, the complete removal of lights had been discounted in favour of a 12-month trial switch-off.  As a trial, lawyers were satisfied that the lighting columns without lighting did not represent an illegal highway obstruction.  Each trial site had been risk assessed and checked against crime and road traffic accident statistics.  Kent Police had also been consulted.  

Several Members questioned the inclusion of Whitfield Hill which had been the site of several accidents and acted as a relief road for Jubilee Way.  Although the accidents recorded were not related to lighting, Mr Hatcher undertook to review and consider part-night lighting at this location.  It was also suggested that sites at Farthingloe Farm junction and the Discovery Park should not be included as the former was a potential development site and the latter was endeavouring to attract new businesses to the Enterprise Zone.  Mr Hatcher suggested that lighting at Farthingloe could be switched on as and when development came forward, and part-night lighting could be considered at the Discovery Park.  Members suggested that lights at the Betteshanger Business Park were unnecessary and should be switched off in the absence of any development.  In respect of all sites, Mr Hatcher reassured Members that all sites underwent a safety audit and, if necessary, additional mitigation measures would be introduced, such as reflective signage, enhanced road markings and road studs. 

In response to concerns raised by Members, Mr Burr confirmed that accident records dating back to 1994 had been checked.  Sites where a fatality had occurred due to visibility/lighting issues had been removed from the list.  The programme of switch-offs would commence in the summer.  Kent County Council (KCC) would work closely with Kent Police to monitor whether road accidents or crime levels were increasing as a result of the switch-offs.  Immediate action would be taken if indications were that they were having a negative effect.   

RESOLVED:   That the proposals outlined in the report be recommended for approval, subject to appropriate amendments being made as a result of the Board's comments on Whitfield Hill; the A256 By?Pass at Eythorne; Farthingloe Farm junction, Folkestone Road and the A256 at Ramsgate Road (South) by the Discovery Park.

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 A, the programmed schemes were dependent on clement weather.  Corrections to the report were noted, namely that Strakers Hill was in the parish of Sutton by Dover and there was no railway bridge at Capel-le-Ferne.  On Appendix D1, Members were advised that funding for the Dover Quality Bus Partnership scheme would be carried forward to the following financial year.  The land acquisition with Asda for the River Dour Greenway had now been completed.

In respect of Appendix D3, legal negotiations with Asda on River Dour Phase 1 had been completed.  Works to Buckland Bridge as part of the River Dour Phase 2 scheme were not programmed to start until the summer due to issues with statutory undertakers plant.  Sustrans had reduced its contribution for this part of the works as it would not be completed in the current financial year, but KCC would fund the bridgeworks.  In respect of the Member Highway Fund at Appendix F, Councillor Cope's caretaker gang work in Dover West Division was programmed to start on 18 March, and Councillor Manion's in Dover North on 25 March.  Councillor Ridings' contribution to work on King Street, Sandwich was a jointly funded project which would be carried forward to the following financial year.  Works to High Street and Deal Road, Sandwich were county-wide schemes which were awaiting a programme date.  Street furniture for Councillor Rook's scheme at Beach Street, Deal would be installed shortly, and the scheme at Salisbury Road/Granville Road, Walmer was due to be completed during the half-term break. 

Mr Rivers advised that four additional gangs had been provided to carry out 'find and fix' winter damage repairs in the Dover district for two months.  Members were asked to report any damage.   

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 DDC's Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The Corporate Estate and Coastal Engineer presented a report to Members which detailed six disabled parking bay applications, and proposals to remove four which were no longer required.

Application A concerned a request made by the new tenant of a house to use an existing bay previously installed for a former tenant who had moved on.  The new tenant met all the criteria for a disabled parking bay and approval was therefore recommended.

In respect of Application B, the Board was advised that, following informal consultation, three letters of objection had been received which were mainly concerned with the location of the proposed bay.  As the applicant met all the criteria, it was recommended that the location of the bay be moved to outside number 10 and the application be progressed to formal advertisement.

Applications C, E and F had received no letters of objections following informal consultation with neighbours.  Since the applicants met all the criteria, it was recommended that the applications be progressed to formal advertisement.

Letters of objection had been received in respect of Application D during informal and formal consultation.  Furthermore, one objector had reported the applicant to KCC's Blue Badge Team for further investigation.  For this reason, at its meeting held on 20 December 2012, the Joint Transportation Board had deferred making a decision on the application until KCC's investigations had concluded.  KCC had now advised that there was no reason to doubt the applicant's eligibility for a Blue Badge as the applicant would have been subject to an assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions in order to receive the higher mobility allowance. 

In the light of this advice and the fact that the applicant met all the criteria for a disabled parking bay, it was recommended that approval be given and the application be sealed by Kent County Council.  Councillor Collor requested that, given the level of interest in the application, respondents should be reassured that their views had been considered.

Item G of the report dealt with the removal of four disabled parking bays which were no longer needed by the original applicants.  It was therefore recommended that these bays be formally advertised with the intention of removing them.

RESOLVED:    (a)        That Application A be recommended for approval and the applicant be permitted continued usage of the existing disabled parking bay. 

                         (b)        That it be recommended that Applications B, C, E and F 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 recommended for sealing by Kent County Council.

                         (d)        That it be recommended that the four disabled parking bays detailed in Item G of the report be formally advertised with the intention of removing them and, in the event that no objections are received, be recommended for sealing by Kent County Council (with any objections  ...  view the full minutes text for item 528.