Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B W Bano, J A Cronk, M R Eddy, S C Manion and R S Walkden, and Mr B Scott.

It was noted that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council Procedure Rules, Councillors J M Smith and M J Ovenden had been appointed as substitute Members for Councillors B W Bano and R S Walkden respectively.

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

Councillor N J Collor advised that he would not participate in consideration of Agenda Item 8 (Proposed Residents’ Parking Scheme – Athol Terrace, Dover) on the grounds of predetermination, and left the Chamber during consideration of this item.

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 December 2014.

In respect of Minute No 688, Mr Rivers advised that he would take follow up action with Mr Luigi Scott to ensure that Mrs Burnham was advised when lamp columns along Deal seafront would be replaced.

The minutes of the Joint Transportation Board meeting held on 11 December 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive a verbal update from Mr Andy Corcoran, Traffic Schemes and Member Highway Fund Manager, KCC Highways and Transportation.

A copy of the report that went to the meeting of the Dover Joint Transportation Board held on 11 December 2014 is attached for reference purposes.

Mr Corcoran invited questions on the report that had gone to the JTB meeting of 11 December 2014 on 20mph zones and limits.

Referring to paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the report, Councillor T A Bond queried the results of the surveys, arguing that they were different to results found elsewhere.  In his opinion there was no doubt that speed restrictions should be imposed outside schools. 

Mr Corcoran emphasised that the results set out in the report related only to certain schools involved in the Maidstone trial which had arisen as the result of a petition.  It was likely that traffic speeds had shown an overall increase due to seasonal variations, but vehicles had generally abided by the 20mph limit. The Government had commissioned a study into 20mph zones and limits and results were expected by 2017.  Indications were that 20mph zones had an impact on speed but not necessarily on safety. 

Councillor G Cowan agreed with Councillor Bond and felt that Members had been fobbed off over this issue, having been told differing things over the years as to why  20mph speed limits could not be imposed.  There had been several incidents outside St Edmunds School in Dover, and it was time speeds were restricted along Barton Road.  Councillor P Walker was critical of the report which lacked detail on enforcement and consultation with schools.

Mr Corcoran responded that the report outlined Kent County Council’s (KCC) policy on when it would fund 20mph zones.  KCC supported the use of 20mph zones – evidence being that these were more effective than speed limits - and was happy to implement them, provided they met Government criteria and funding was available.  On the latter point, there simply was not the funding to install zones outside every school.  Members were reminded that the KCC Member Highway Fund (MHF) could be used to fund such schemes.  

Many zones had been implemented in locations with road safety problems, and KCC was looking to expand these in order to tackle public health issues.  It was confirmed that the schools involved in the Maidstone trial had been consulted before the survey was carried out to gauge their views and perceptions.   Parking rather than speeding had emerged from the trial as a key concern.  

Mr P Carter expressed the view that the Maidstone study had been flawed.   Seasonal variations should have been taken into account, and it was well known that cars slowed down outside schools but then speeded up once past the school.   This was why speed limits rather than zones were needed.  Referring to paragraph 11.3 of the report, he argued that £50,000 was an inadequate amount of money and, given the cuts to Member funding, KCC Members did not have sufficient money to contribute.

Mr Corcoran contested that the Maidstone study had been robust, taking into account national and European research on this issue.   The surveys undertaken outside the schools had been only a minor element contributing to the conclusions reached.    It was recognised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 695.

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

The Strategic Transport and Development Planner introduced the report which updated Members on plans for a bus rapid transit system between Whitfield and Dover town centre.  Councillor Cowan welcomed the scheme which would provide important public transport linkage between Whitfield and the town centre. Similar schemes elsewhere had proved very successful.

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

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

Mr Rivers presented the report which informed Members of KCC’s approach to maintaining and improving the highway drainage system, and elaborated on a verbal report Board members had received at the meeting held in December 2014.  Members were referred to paragraph 1.5 of the report and to the table on page 24 which set out the categories of roads and frequency of cleaning.

Urban roads would be the subject of targeted cleaning, with data gleaned from routine walking inspections conducted annually.  Minor rural roads tended to get blocked more frequently but it was not financially viable to include these in the routine cleaning schedule.  They would be inspected by highway stewards on receipt of a report from a member of the public or a Member.  An assessment of the risk to property would be carried out and the drainage team would decide what level of cleaning was required.   In respect of a query on whether the cleaning schedule could be put on KCC’s website, Mr Rivers advised that there was a reluctance to do this, not only because of the finite resources available but also because it might not always be possible to update data in a timely manner.  Members were advised to contact KCC’s Highways Drainage Manager direct who could tell Members when roads were scheduled to be cleaned or include them in the schedule.

In response to Councillor Bond, Mr Rivers explained that urban drains were less likely to become blocked than rural ones because, in a hard paved environment, water ran off pavements into drains and, in the process, had a cleansing effect on drains and pipes.  Moreover, urban water was less silted than that in rural areas.  It was stressed that only those places that had been reported would be targeted, once an assessment had been made as to whether property was at risk or there was a danger.  In summary, a risk-based approach was taken and locations then targeted based on evidence and the need to give best value for money. 

Mr Rivers went on to advise that flooding problems in Deal were caused by a lack of capacity in Southern Water’s sewers but KCC could not force them to increase capacity.  It was KCC’s responsibility to clean its gullies and carrier pipes.  

In response to a query from Councillor Cowan, Mr Rivers informed Members that in some cases double pipes would be installed to cope with higher run-off levels, but schemes were assessed on a case by case basis and solutions were designed to address the nature of the problem at individual locations.  The increased installation of hard-standings and impermeable areas, coupled with more intense downpours, had led to a rise in instances of flooding.  Shared sewers, combining foul and surface water, were also a problem.  Older sewers also presented problems since their joints were sometimes porous which meant that the water table found its way in, reducing the capacity of the sewer and causing flooding to property.     

In respect of flooding on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 697.

In the absence of the Chairman (and Vice-Chairman) who had withdrawn from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 8 on the grounds of predetermination, nominations were sought for a Chairman to preside at the meeting. 

RESOLVED:   That Councillor G Cowan be elected as Chairman.

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The Head of Community Safety, CCTV and Parking (HCSCP) introduced the report which outlined options for a residents’ parking scheme covering Athol Terrace, East Cliff and Marine Parade.  Members were advised that the options had been advertised and residents consulted.  In summary, all Athol Terrace residents had indicated that they wanted an exclusive zone for their road.  50% of respondents from East Cliff had indicated support for a wider zone, but had questioned the removal of the limited waiting period. 

In response to Councillor Scales who queried the report’s reference to the need to limit one-street schemes, the Highways and Parking Team Leader (HPTL) clarified that the rationale behind Snargate Street was that it was the only residential street in that area, geographically restricted by the presence of the cliff behind.  

Councillor Bond indicated his objections to an exclusive scheme for Athol Terrace which, if implemented, would create more parking spaces than there were residents in the road.  This was particularly unfair given the shortage of parking in the area generally.  In his view, small parking zones should only be created where there was a strong need and this was not the case with Athol Terrace.  Both Councillor Bond and Councillor P Walker emphasised the fact that Athol Terrace was a public road, owned by Dover District Council and KCC and not for the exclusive use of residents.  The HCSCP clarified that East Cliff parking was limited and oversubscribed whereas parking in Athol Terrace was undersubscribed.

Councillor M J Ovenden commented that much of the parking congestion in roads adjacent to the Eastern Docks was caused by Dover Harbour Board staff leaving their vehicles there during working hours.  Local residents were being disadvantaged as a result.   The HPTL suggested that option (ii) set out in the report would address concerns raised by East Cliff residents about the removal of limited waiting. 

Councillor Scales stated that option (ii) was the best option but it would be improved by amending it to 24 hours, with which Councillor Bond agreed.  The HTPL advised that a 24-hour restriction would remove the ability of second householders to park without charge at night.  In addition, expecting DDC to enforce a night-time ban was unrealistic.  However, if Members were minded to recommend this option, there was the possibility of using the Marine Parade service road for restricted parking for second vehicles.  With Members’ agreement, the consultation could make it clear that an exclusive zone for Athol Terrace residents was not an option.

It was proposed by Councillor F J W Scales and duly seconded that the proposal be re-advertised covering all 3 roads with a change that the scheme operates daily for 24 hours and includes a 1-hour limited waiting period for non-permit holders.  The Marine Parade service road would be made available for second householder parking between the hours of 5.30pm and 08.30am.

There being an equality of votes, the Chairman used his casting vote and the motion was LOST.

The Chairman and Councillor Walker expressed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 699.

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

The Dover District Manager (DDM) presented the report which updated Members on works that had been approved for construction in 2014/15.

In respect of Appendix A, Councillor Bond expressed concerns about the disruption caused by emergency cable works carried out on the A258 the preceding week.  The DDM advised that KCC’s proposed works on the A258 would be carried out at night and would therefore be less disruptive.

In respect of Appendix B, Members were advised that contractors were on site at Elms Vale Road and work was due to start the following week, as was the case with works at Alkham Valley Road.  Works at Forge Lane had been completed.  As a correction to Appendix C, it was clarified that column replacements at Buckland Terrace and London Road were due for completion by March 2015.  In respect of public rights of way, works on the EB10 would commence by the end of the financial year. 

In respect of Appendix H, it was clarified that the schemes detailed were those that had been signed off by the relevant Member and KCC’s Director of Highways by 25 January 2015.  However, there were a number of other schemes being prepared for Councillors Brivio, Cowan and Eddy and, as advised at the meeting, Councillor Rowbotham.    The Board was advised that upgrade works to the zebra crossing on the A258 near Marke Wood had been completed.   The installation of a salt bin at Green Lane had also been carried out.  On being advised that contractors were on site to widen St Richards Road, Councillor Rowbotham raised concerns about the opposite side of the road which was rutted and muddy. 

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

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 the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The Corporate Estate and Coastal Engineer introduced the report which outlined details of six disabled persons’ parking bay applications and proposed the removal of three parking bays which were no longer required.

The Board was advised that no letters of objection had been received in respect of Applications A to F which had been the subject of informal consultation with neighbours.  Since the applications met all the criteria, it was recommended that the applications proceed to formal advertisement and, thereafter, be sealed by Kent County Council should no objections be received during the advertisement period. 

The disabled persons’ parking bays detailed in Item G of the report were no longer required as the original applicants had moved, and it was therefore recommended that they be removed.

RESOLVED:   (a)        That it be recommended that Applications A to 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).

(b)        That it be recommended that the three disabled persons’ parking bays detailed in Item G of the report be formally advertised with the intention of removing them and that, in the event that no objections are received, they 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).