Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Mr B Scott (Sandwich Town Council) and Mrs S Hooper (KALC). 

It was noted that there were no substitute members.         

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

It was noted that there were no declarations of interest.  

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 April 2014.

Subject to the correction of the minutes to include apologies from Mr Keith Gowland, the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on 24 April 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

To note the appointment of District Councillor Nigel Collor as Chairman and County Councillor Stephen Manion as Vice-Chairman respectively for the 2014/15 Council year. 

It was noted that Councillors N J Collor and S C Manion had been appointed as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of the Dover Joint Transportation Board by their authorities.

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

Mrs Benge presented the report which set out proposals to address traffic speeds at the junction of Barton Road and Frith Road, Dover by extending works for the construction of a new footway/cycle path on Old Charlton Road and Barton Road.  At its meeting held on 12 December 2013, the Board had indicated its support for the cycle route proposals but had requested that options be explored to improve safety at this junction.  Mrs Benge advised that, having considered all options, it had been concluded that the only viable solution within the funding available was to construct a small build-out at the bottom of Connaught Road.

Councillor P M Brivio reiterated concerns expressed previously about cyclists using Charlton Road and the dangerous nature of the junction which was heavily populated at the beginning and end of the school day.  Local schools had expressed on-going concerns about this area.  Councillor R S Walkden concurred with Councillor Brivio, adding that he was opposed to schoolchildren and cyclists sharing the same route and did not believe that traffic speeds would reduce as a result of the scheme.  Councillor G Cowan advised that he lived close to the junction which had been the scene of many accidents.  In his view, routeing cyclists across Barton Road from Old Charlton Road would be very dangerous, and reducing the width of Barton Road was likely to increase incidents of speeding.  He also had concerns about the build-out at the bottom of Connaught Road.

In response to concerns raised by Councillor J A Cronk, Mrs Benge reassured the Board that the scheme was being funded from Section 106 monies linked to a local development, and undertook to give further details to Councillor Cronk.

Councillor T A Bond also voiced concerns about shared footpaths and the dangerous nature of the junction.   However, he believed that narrowing the road would force traffic to slow down.  To do nothing would not resolve the problems, and the proposals were unlikely to make things worse and might actually improve the current situation.  On balance, he would support the scheme rather than having no cycle path at all.  Whilst Councillor M R Eddy expressed some sympathy with Councillor Bond, he was of the opinion that the scheme was likely to make matters worse.   The junction needed to be looked at in its entirety.

Whilst expressing disappointment that it had not been possible to make greater improvements to the junction, Councillor F J W Scales expressed support for the scheme.  In response to a suggestion from Councillor Walkden for lane signage, Mr Heaps advised that an existing sign on the approach to the junction would be reviewed, but enforcement was often an issue with lane signage. 

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended that the scheme, as outlined in Drawing No KCC-S106-BRD-001A included in the report, be approved.

(On there being an equality of votes, the Chairman used his casting vote and the motion was carried.)

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

Mrs Benge introduced the report which outlined proposals to upgrade Ramsgate Road, Sandwich in order to improve pedestrian/cycle access between the town and the Discovery Park (DP).  Discussions had taken place with landowners to encourage them to take steps to tidy their accesses in order to increase the width of the footway which was encroached upon in some places by vegetation.  Other measures included the provision of a new lay-by and the installation of a gateway and traffic calming.

Councillor B W Bano welcomed the scheme but emphasised that it was important to establish a sustainable link between Sandwich railway station and the DP.   Councillor P I Carter advised Members that Sandwich Town Council had serious concerns about the scheme, particularly that there had been minimal consultation with residents and the idea of shared cycle paths/footways on a road which had a high pedestrian flow.   Moreover, the Council would prefer that there was no parking on the road at all given that some motorists had now taken to parking on the grassed area since the installation of single yellow lines.

Mrs Benge expressed surprise at Sandwich Town Council’s views given that there had been full consultation with the Council, including a site visit.  She emphasised that the recommendation before the Board was for Members to approve the scheme for public consultation.  Whilst the lay-by could be removed, the Council had indicated that it wanted parking, and its removal would be a decision for Sandwich Town Council and Dover District Council.   The plans of the scheme had been altered at the Council’s request.   The chief executive of DP had seen plans of the scheme, and KCC was certainly aware of the DP scheme.   It was clarified that the single yellow lines covered both the verge and the footway, and therefore cars parked on the verge were doing so illegally.   

Councillor Carter welcomed the clarification and measures designed to slow traffic speeds.   However, he suggested that better signage and enforcement were needed, and that a public meeting should be held.   Mrs Benge indicated that she was happy to undertake additional consultation with Sandwich Town Council, but that this would need to be done quickly given that the scheme had a delivery deadline of this financial year.

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended that the scheme be progressed, subject to no objections being received during public consultation.

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

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 at the time of publication, should be considered as a matter of urgency for the reason that the matter cannot wait until the next scheduled meeting of the Board.

Mr Heaps presented the report, reminding Members that a report on proposed waiting restrictions for Bevan Close had originally been submitted to the Board on 12 December 2013.  However, following concerns raised by the Deal Town Council representative at the meeting, a site visit was held, following which an amended proposal was re-advertised.   A number of comments had been received, including a petition with 19 signatories.  These responses had led to the proposals being revised further and these were now before the Board for consideration.

Councillor Bano agreed that the revised proposals were the best option and indicated his support for them, as did Councillor Eddy who suggested that the scheme should be reviewed in time.   Several Members raised concerns that county and district division/ward Members had not been informed of the site visit which had been held without their knowledge.  Councillor Eddy added that it was an important point of principle that county and district Members should be invited to any site meetings that related to proposals affecting their divisions/wards.

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended that the waiting restrictions outlined in Appendix C of the report be implemented.

(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 in order to avoid any further delays in implementing the proposed scheme.)

To consider the attached report of the Director of Highways, Transport and Waste, Kent County Council and the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets, Dover District Council.

Mr Rivers introduced the report which provided an update on the Dover Quality Bus Partnership (QBP).  Members were advised that, following discussions, it had been decided that the Board should be asked to nominate two representatives to attend QBP coordination meetings rather than one.  It was recommended that one should be an urban representative and the other from a rural area.

Councillor Bano welcomed the report which provided some useful statistics.  However, he raised concerns about the age of some buses which were incompatible with wheelchairs and prams, and sought further information about when real-time information technology would be provided at bus-stops.  He was disappointed that, despite assurances that the technology would be rolled out in Dover district by spring 2014, this had not happened.   Councillors S C Manion and G Lymer expressed concerns about the lack of rural bus services which in some villages was non-existent.  Councillor Scales commended the Kent Freedom Pass, but raised concerns about overcrowding on some buses.   Whilst welcoming the report, Councillor Eddy requested that more detail be provided on, for example, the number of low-floor buses and the ages of buses.   It was agreed that KCC’s Transport and Safety Policy Manager should be invited to attend the next meeting to answer questions.

RESOLVED:   (a)        That Councillors G Lymer and E D Rowbotham be nominated to attend quarterly Dover Quality Bus Partnership co-ordination meetings.

                         (b)        That the report be noted.

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

Mr Rivers introduced the report which outlined the results of the 2013 Highway Tracker Survey.  Although the sample size was very small, it was encouraging that the results for Dover were at least 6%, and in one case 8%, above the average satisfaction level for residents in the rest of Kent.

Several Members questioned the validity and value of the survey when it was based on such a small sample size.   For example, there had been numerous complaints in Deal about drainage problems and, to a lesser extent, street lighting, and it was therefore absurd to suggest that the survey was a true reflection of how satisfied Deal residents were with KCC’s services.  It was suggested that future reports would be more worthwhile if complaints information was also included for comparison. 

RESOLVED:   (a)        That it be recommended that a larger sample size of residents be used for future Highway Tracker surveys in order to improve their validity.

                        (b)        That the report be noted.

To receive the attached report of the Kent Association of Local Councils.

The Board was advised that the report summarised comments received from members of the Kent Association of Local Councils (KALC) on the impact of the storms and floods that had occurred in December and January.   It was clarified that the report did not include feedback from councils which were not members of the KALC, e.g. Sandwich Town Council.  Councillor Rowbotham advised that the KCC Growth Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee had received a report on lessons learned from the flooding at its meeting held on 8 July 2014.

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

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

Mr Rivers presented the report which updated Members on works that had been approved for construction in 2014/15.

In respect of Appendix A, Members were advised that works outside the flats at Crabble/Lewisham Road had been added to the programme, and works at Military Road, Dover had been completed on 3 and 4 July.  Beaconsfield Road, Deal works were due to start in the week commencing 28 August.   Mr Rivers undertook to check for Councillor Eddy on the status of works being carried out at Balfour Road which was being dug up.  Works at Swingfield which was just outside the district had been included in error.  Machine resurfacing at Crabble Hill was programmed to start on 12 and 13 August.   In respect of footway improvements to Folkestone Road at Hougham Without, the Board was advised that the contractor and officers were yet to assess the road to determine the extent of works needed and the road’s suitability for treatment, but further information would be circulated when known.

Members raised concerns about the absence of drainage information on KCC’s website.  Mr Rivers advised that the drainage review had been delayed by the drainage team being diverted to work on urgent issues that had arisen as a result of the December/January flooding.  He reminded Members that they had been informed at the last meeting that A, B and C roads and roads in rural areas would have their gullies cleaned annually.  Urban roads would be cleaned to a schedule based on highway inspection results. 

Councillor Eddy asked for updates on Albert Road, Kingsdown Road and Ranelagh Road, adding that it would be helpful to know when gullies/drains were due to be cleared so that any specific problems could be reported.   Mr Rivers undertook to check on these, and also to advise Councillor Manion when works to Cooting Road, Aylesham would be carried out and whether Homestead Lane was in Sutton rather than Dover as stated in the report.  It was agreed that KCC’s Drainage Manager should be invited to attend the next meeting to answer questions.

In respect of street lighting work, it was clarified that, like utilities companies and contractors, KCC had to book road space and apply for permits to carry out work on the highway.   Although KCC was waiting for road space to carry out works to London Road, Dover, he was confident that these would be completed by the end of July. 

With regards to the Member Highway Fund (MHF), the Board was advised that the brown tourism signs at the Drop Redoubt had been replaced, and the installation of a new bus shelter at St Richards Road had been completed.   In response to Councillor Scales who questioned the use of the MHF for routine maintenance work, Mr Rivers clarified that the MHF was designed to enable Members to progress schemes that would not otherwise be funded through the maintenance programme because they were a low priority.   

Councillor Eddy explained that he had used his MHF to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 656.

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 Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The Corporate Estate and Coastal Engineer introduced the report which gave details of nine disabled parking bay applications.  It was confirmed that applications were now being assessed against criteria which were based on KCC’s guidelines.

In respect of Applications A, B and C the Board was advised that, following informal consultation, no letters of objection had been received.  Since the applicants met all the criteria, it was recommended that the applications be progressed to formal advertisement.

At its meeting held on 24 April, the Board had recommended that Application D be formally advertised.   It was now proposed to relocate the bay to the opposite side of the road.   Since no objections had been received in response to the formal consultation, it was recommended that the application be sealed by KCC.

Applications E and I had been the subject of informal and formal consultation and,  no objections having been received, it was recommended that the applications be sealed by KCC.

In respect of Applications F, G and H, Members were advised that comments had been received in response to formal consultation which were generally supportive of the applications but raised other concerns.  As the applicants met the relevant criteria, it was recommended that the applications be sealed by KCC. 

It was noted that, in respect of Applications E and F, the applicants were not the drivers of the vehicles.  However, there were exceptional mitigating circumstances in relation to Application E and on-street parking problems in relation to Application F.   

RESOLVED:   (a)        That it be recommended that Applications A, B and C 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).

             (b)       That it be recommended that Applications D, E, F, G, H and I be sealed by Kent County Council.

             (c)       That it be noted that the amendments made to the criteria used to determine disabled persons’ parking bays now brought the Council’s criteria into line with Kent County Council’s guidelines.