Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor P Walker.

It was noted that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council’s Procedure Rules, Councillor B Gardner had been appointed as a substitute Member for Councillor P Walker.

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 6 (Proposed Residents’ Parking Scheme – Athol Terrace, Dover) on the grounds of predetermination, and left the Chamber during consideration of this item.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 April 2015 (to follow).

The Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on 16 April 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the attached report of the Policy and Strategy Manager, KCC Highways.

The Policy and Strategy Manager advised Members that, following a request from a resident, Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had drawn up proposals for, and consulted on the installation of, two bus-stop clearways in Palmerstone Avenue, opposite and adjacent to Wellesley Avenue.  Only one objection was received in relation to the clearway opposite Wellesley Avenue and this was being progressed.   However, the proposed clearway adjacent to Wellesley Avenue had received more objections, and the Board’s views were therefore being sought on how to proceed with this proposal. 

Members viewed a map which showed alternative locations, were the bus-stop adjacent to Wellesley Avenue to be moved.  However, as set out in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4 of the report, these locations could potentially create a different set of problems.   KCC’s current policy was that bus-stops should not be moved unless there were extraordinary factors involved.  Accordingly, it was recommended that the bus-stop clearway should be installed at the current location, as originally proposed.

Having attended a site meeting in Palmerston Avenue that morning, Councillor E D Rowbotham voiced her opposition to the proposal since it would make parking for residents in Palmerston Avenue even more difficult.  Buses were stopping further along, near Balfour Road, in order to pick up passengers safely anyway.   Given that the current bus-stop was merely a sign on a lamp-post, it would be easy to move the stop nearer Balfour Road.   She requested that costings for the proposed clearway and a new bus-stop be provided, and expressed concerns that Members had not been informed of the proposals earlier.   Councillor M R Eddy advised that the combination of scarce parking and bus movements did not make for a good combination in Palmerston Avenue.  There was very little on-street parking in the road and a clearway would restrict this even further.    He was of the view that the proposal should be deferred as Members needed more information on the options available and their cost and impact on residents.  

Councillor R J Frost raised concerns that a new bus-stop at the Kelvedon Road location would not serve the no 83 bus.  He was opposed to the current location since it would take up valuable parking spaces.  Although moving the stop towards Balfour Road would cost more money, it would achieve maximum parking for residents as well as maximum convenience for bus users.   Councillor T A Bond was disappointed that Members had not been consulted.  He thought the existing bus-stop was in the wrong place and agreed with others that the lack of parking should be taken into account.

The Policy and Strategy Manager apologised that Members had not been consulted on the proposals.  KCC was open to looking at alternative options, such as moving the stop nearer Balfour Road.  It was clarified that the proposals were not driven by cost; Officers had kept the stop at its existing location because this was in line with KCC’s current policy.  Officers would be happy to consider another location if it proved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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

The Highways and Parking Team Leader introduced the report which recommended that parking proposals for Athol Terrace be withdrawn, and existing parking restrictions covering East Cliff and Marine Parade be left as they were.  Members were reminded that the Board, at its meeting held on 26 February 2015, had resolved, amongst other things, that further consultation should be undertaken with residents on alternative schemes, not including an exclusive zone for Athol Terrace residents which the Board had unanimously rejected. 

In consultation with the then Acting Chairman, Councillor Gordon Cowan, Officers had carried out further consultation, the outcome of which had been a unanimous response from Athol Terrace residents that they did not want anything other than an exclusive parking zone for Athol Terrace.   Given that this option had previously been discounted, and that the majority of respondents from East Cliff and Marine Parade were in favour of the existing restrictions remaining, it was recommended that proposals to extend restrictions to Athol Terrace be withdrawn.

Councillor G Cowan commented that both the Board and Officers had spent a considerable amount of time on this matter, and had bent over backwards to find a solution.  Athol Terrace residents had again rejected the options put to them.  He supported the report’s recommendation.  Councillor Bond agreed, adding that there were 21 parking spaces for 13 houses in Athol Terrace, and it was ridiculous for residents to think they could keep these for their exclusive use.   

RESOLVED:   (a)        That it be recommended that the parking proposals for Athol

                                 Terrace be withdrawn, and the existing restrictions covering

                                 East Cliff and Marine Parade be left as they are.

                        (b)        That Athol Terrace be permitted to join the residents’ parking

 scheme covering East Cliff and Marine Parade at a later date, 

 should the majority of its residents later request to do so.

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

The Highways and Parking Team Leader presented the report which outlined proposals to amend the One-Way Traffic Order covering Russell Street in order to accommodate the St James’s Development.  In response to queries, the Team Leader advised that the Council could choose the date when the Traffic Order came into effect and would coordinate this with the developer.

RESOLVED:   (a)    That, subject to there being no written objections received before

                              12.00 noon on 15 June 2015, it be recommended that Kent 

        County Council seal the proposed amendment to the One-Way

        Traffic Order in Russell Street, as detailed in the report and at

        Appendix A.

(b)    That, should any objections be received before 12.00 noon on 15

        June 2015, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be authorised to

        consider the objections with a view to recommending, on behalf   

        of the Board, that Kent County Council seal the proposed

        amendment to the One-Way Traffic Order in Russell Street, as

        detailed in the report and at Appendix A.

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

The Dover District Manager (DDM) introduced the report which updated Members on works that had been approved for construction in 2015/16.  The Board was advised that machine resurfacing works to Alkham Valley Road were programmed to take place between 5 and 10 June.  Micro-surfacing works to Telegraph Road had been withdrawn from the programme due to gas works but would be reinstated later.  Works to Albert Road, Dover had been rescheduled and were due to start at the end of August.   It had been decided that Danes Court was unsuitable for micro-surfacing due to the gradient and other options would therefore need to be explored.  Works to Side Hills, programmed to start on 2 June, were awaiting a re-scheduled date.  Other works to Monkeys Hill, Palm Tree Lane, Beacon Lane, Ringwould Road, West Street Farm Road and Ripple Road had been postponed to various dates in June. 

The DDM assured Councillor Gardner that KCC engineers were liaising with Sainsbury’s over machine resurfacing works to the Queen Street/West Street/Blenheim Road junction in Deal.   The works would take place at night and be advertised using the standard notification procedures.   Councillor Gardner requested that he be copied in to any notification sent to Sainsbury’s or other major retailers.  In response to Councillor Cowan’s enquiry regarding Albert Road, the DDM advised that it had not been possible to complete preparatory works by the time the contractor was due to start.  Items ‘bumped’ off the programme would be reinstated at the end of August.  

In respect of works to the Sandwich by-pass, Members were advised that the contractor would start works at 9.30am and work through to fading light in order to finish them in five days rather than ten.  In respect of works to King Street, Sandwich, the DDM reassured Members that engineers coordinated works with KCC events colleagues and others to ensure that scheduled events and key trading times would not be affected. 

In respect of Appendix C, the DDM apologised that the ward details of lighting columns included in the report were in many cases incorrect.  These would be rectified for future reports.   Referring to Appendix D, the DDM undertook to establish and circulate to Board members which section of Dover Road/Ringwould Road, Deal was earmarked for signage improvements, and further details of improvements to South Street.  In response to Councillor L B Ridings, the DDM promised to speak to Mr Heaps to establish how much money was needed to provide dropped kerbs in Strand Street and at The Quay in Sandwich.  In respect of Appendix H, Councillor Eddy advised that the Beach Street scheme was in its early design phase, looking at addressing problems where the road narrowed by the Royal Hotel.  Affordable options were being considered, including a traffic priority scheme. 

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.  Following informal consultation with neighbours, no letters of objection had been received.   Since the applications met all the criteria, it was recommended that they proceed to the second stage of formal advertisement and, thereafter, be sealed by KCC should no objections be received during the advertisement period. 

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended that Applications A to F be formally advertised and, 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).