Agenda and minutes

For those meetings that are being broadcast (as agreed by Council in July 2022) there will be a link to view the live broadcast under the ‘Media’ heading below. Guidance on how to watch live broadcasts of meetings.

The link to view a recording of a meeting that was broadcast can be found on the Council’s YouTube channel (@doverdc)

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Kate Batty-Smith  Democratic Support Officer

Items
No. Item

11.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

 

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors L B Ridings, P Walker, Mr R J Frost and Mrs S E Hooper.

 

12.

Appointment of Substitute Members

To note appointments of Substitute Members.

Minutes:

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

 

13.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 37 KB

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

Minutes:

It was noted that there were no declarations of interest.

14.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 68 KB

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 June 2015.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on 4 June 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

15.

Proposed Raised Tables - New Street and High Street, Sandwich pdf icon PDF 613 KB

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

Minutes:

The Traffic and Safety Team Leader (TSTL) presented the report which outlined proposals to install four raised tables in High Street and New Street, Sandwich in response to measures requested by residents through the local Kent County Council (KCC) Member, Councillor Leyland Ridings. The scheme, which would be funded by Section 106 monies, had strong support from Sandwich Town Council, Sandwich Town Team and Stagecoach.   The proposals were designed to improve pedestrian safety and reduce the speed of traffic using the town’s one-way system.   Traffic surveys, carried out from 18 May, had shown that average speeds had been 19.2mph in the High Street and 22mph in New Street.  There were limitations on where the tables could be placed, but it was intended to site them in the vicinity of the town’s main pedestrian routes. 

 

Councillor P I Carter proposed that recommendation 4.2 of the Officer’s report should be taken forward.   A good deal of work had been done by Sandwich Town Team and the scheme ticked all the boxes.  Councillor N J Collor supported the scheme since it had Stagecoach’s support, but expressed concerns about the number of responses received after the deadline and the poor response rate.  Mr Moorhouse advised that Sandwich Town Team had contacted some High Street residents who had not responded to the consultation.  They had indicated their support for the proposals, thus increasing the overall number of residents in favour of the scheme.    

 

Councillor G Cowan questioned the need for the tables, given the average speed of traffic using the roads.   The number of consultation responses had been very low and, in his opinion, the tables would look unsightly.   Councillor M J Ovenden expressed concerns about option 4.2 since it was not clear what would happen in the event that the vibration and core surveys indicated that the tables would cause damage to buildings.   Councillor M R Eddy agreed, adding that traffic speeds were generally compliant and the streets narrow, and the money could therefore be spent more productively elsewhere.   Councillor S F Bannister commented that the tables were unlikely to be effective at slowing down the minority of drivers who were the real target of these measures.   In response to Councillor Bannister, the TSTL confirmed that the Sandwich town area was not a KCC priority for casualty reduction measures.    Councillor T A Bond stated that he was very much in favour of giving local people what they wanted.  However, he too had concerns about the very poor consultation response and believed that the money could be better spent elsewhere.  

 

Mr Moorhouse and Councillor Carter expressed concerns about some Members’ responses.   The proposals were part of a wider plan to address longstanding traffic problems in Sandwich, including traffic speeds and HGVs striking buildings.   It appeared that some Members were unaware of these.  A considerable amount of time, effort and money had been put into resolving these problems, and it was disappointing that Members were not more sympathetic.

 

It was moved by Councillor P I Carter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

16.

Proposed Highway Improvements to South Street, Deal pdf icon PDF 98 KB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Project Engineer (PE) introduced the report which outlined proposed highway improvements to South Street.  These would be funded by a specific allocation made by Government which could not be used elsewhere.  KCC Highways had worked with Deal Town Council on the improvements.  Public consultation, including an exhibition, had taken place between 16 July and 14 August 2015, in response to which 118 objections had been received, including from Deal Town Council.    Section 2 of the report summarised the various points raised during consultation.  As a result of the concerns raised, Officers were proposing to make amendments to the original scheme and to take the amended scheme out for further public consultation. 

 

The principal point arising from the consultation had been the change in traffic flow which would be reviewed as part of the amended scheme.   The key objective for KCC was to ensure that the scheme caused no detriment to local businesses.  The public’s concerns about Middle Street being used as a ‘rat run’ could be addressed by reversing the one-way directional flow of traffic.   Other concerns related to the location of taxi bays, bus-stops, increased pedestrian movements and the safety of pedestrians and other road users.  In particular, Officers were keen to address issues surrounding buses double parking and pedestrians crossing through moving traffic and between parked cars.   

 

Councillor E D Rowbotham emphasised that the needs of the elderly and schoolchildren should be taken into account.  This was an opportunity to improve safety and make improvements to the appearance of South Street, the latter potentially with funding from Deal Town Council.   Councillor Eddy supported the amended scheme set out at Appendix B of the report.  Consultation should be undertaken with businesses, Stagecoach, local residents, taxi and bus users/drivers.  He suggested that Deal Town Council be approached to establish what funding it could provide for environmental improvements to the area. 

 

Mr B W Bano stressed that the needs of bus users should be prioritised, as was improving the bus shelter.  A scheme was needed which would allow bus users, particularly the disabled and those with prams, to get on and off buses safely.  Councillor Bond praised KCC for the work it had done and the level of consultation.  South Street was a confined space which needed tidying up. To achieve this it might be necessary to consider relocating some facilities, such as taxis and coaches.   Councillor Collor added that public safety should be a priority, and pointed out that some dropped kerbs did not appear in the revised plan.  

 

In response to Councillor Carter, who questioned why the scheme was going ahead given traffic problems elsewhere in Deal, the PE undertook to check on South Street’s accident/fatality record and where the scheme ranked in priority.   In respect of Sondes Road, it was clarified that it was intended to install ‘no stopping’ and ‘no loading’ ‘blips’ on its junction with Victoria Road in order to ensure that there was clear access for buses which were regularly obstructed by cars parked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

17.

Operation Stack Update pdf icon PDF 49 KB

To note the attached report of the East Kent Highway Manager, KCC Highways and Transportation.

Minutes:

KCC’s East Kent Highway Manager (EKHM) presented the report which updated Members on the plan to use Manston as a holding area for HGVs unable to cross the Channel due to industrial action.  

 

Councillor Collor referred to the KCC Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee report that had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting.  This report differed to the report presented to the JTB as it stated that traffic would be diverted to Manston once it became apparent that Phase 2 of Operation Stack was needed.   The JTB report indicated that traffic would only be diverted to Manston if Phase 3 was required.  Given that Phase 3 had never been implemented, the level of manpower and machinery based at Manston until June 2016 was wasteful and unnecessary.  

 

The plan to restrict departures from Manston to conveys of 20 vehicles at a time would unnecessarily prolong the period of disruption to east Kent’s roads.   It was estimated that 28 police officers would be needed to police the route where it fell within Dover district alone.  In any case, the proposed scheme would only deal with traffic for Dover; Channel Tunnel traffic would still be stacked on the M20.   He was aware that Highways England were working on a long-term solution.

 

Councillor Cowan agreed that the use of Manston was idiotic and would simply lead to the clogging up of east Kent’s roads.   Kent had effectively been closed for business during the summer, with a loss to the economy of £250 million per day, and a long-term solution had to be found.   The levy of £10 imposed on HGVs by the Government should be used to build lorry parks, but these would have to be free, or the cost of them included in Eurotunnel or ferry tickets, or drivers would not use them.   Councillor Eddy commented that the potential disruption to local roads would be horrendous.   The idea of a lorry park at Westenhanger, broached some time ago, had not been pursued and should be reinvestigated.    

 

Councillor Ovenden was concerned that the villages she represented would be used as diversion routes from the A2.   Councillor Bond shared the concerns raised by other Members, adding that the expansion of the Port of Dover was only likely to make matters worse.  He was incredulous that the trial carried out at Manston had not gone on to test the transfer of lorries from Manston to Dover.

 

The EKHM sympathised with Members’ concerns, particularly those relating to rural roads.   He clarified that the plan to release a limited number of trucks was designed to minimise the impact on Sandwich and the A256.  Signs were already in place to discourage lorries from entering Sandwich and minor roads as it was evident that the police would be physically unable to resource the scheme.   Members were reassured that lorry parking was high on KCC’s agenda and a meeting, involving all agencies and authorities, was scheduled for the following month to consider options.  Many man-hours had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

Street Lighting - LED Project Update pdf icon PDF 53 KB

To consider the attached report of the Project Manager, KCC Highways and Transportation.

Minutes:

The Dover District Manager (DDM) advised that the consultation period would run from 21 September to 29 November 2015 and not as stated in the report.  The proposals would be publicised extensively, including on the radio, on KCC’s website and in libraries. 

 

Councillor Eddy stressed that if some sites were being considered for permanent removal, Members should be consulted.   Mr P M Wallace criticised the scheme and questioned how much money it would actually save given that £4 million had already been spent on installing timers.  He was also critical of the standard of original consultation, and referred to the unpopularity of the scheme with members of the public, as evidenced by a 10,000-signature petition.   Both Councillors Bond and Collor stated that they were sceptical of the scheme and in particular the time allowed in providing a meaningful report to the JTB on the outcome of consultation.   

 

RESOLVED:   (a)  That the report be noted.

 

(b) That the Chairman writes on behalf of the Board to express its concerns about the very short period allowed between the consultation deadline and reporting the outcome of the consultation to the Dover Joint Transportation Board at its meeting to be held on 10 December 2015.

 

(Following the departure of the Chairman, Councillor N J Collor assumed the chairmanship of the meeting).

 

19.

Highway Works Programme 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 153 KB

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

Minutes:

The DDM introduced the report which updated Members on works that had been approved for construction in 2015/16.  In respect of Appendix A, Members were advised that microsurfacing works to Telegraph Road, Deal had been rescheduled and would now go on next year’s programme.   Works to Albert Road, Dover had been postponed due to the weather and were now scheduled to start on 28 September.   The DDM undertook to pass on concerns raised by Councillor Carter about lorries and other commercial vehicles using the Sandwich toll bridge in order to avoid the A256 Sandwich by-pass during machine resurfacing works.  In respect of Appendix B, the DDM acknowledged recent flooding problems experienced in Mill Hill Road raised by Councillor Rowbotham, but explained that this was common throughout the district and was caused by a lack of capacity in the sewerage system.  

 

In respect of Appendix D, the DDM advised that remedial access works at Buckland Hospital had been completed, but another access was due to be constructed.  With regards to Appendix F, the DDM advised that works to path no EB10 (Maxton to Aycliffe) were due to commence in 2 to 3 weeks’ time.   Works to the North Downs Way at Guston had started and were due to take 6 weeks.  Councillor Eddy passed on compliments from a Walmer Parish Councillor regarding the speedy filling of potholes, and reported that a Belisha beacon by a crossing at Marke Wood was not working.  

 

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

20.

Exclusion of the Press and Public pdf icon PDF 39 KB

The recommendation is attached.

 

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

 

MATTERS 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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.

 

21.

Applications for Disabled Persons' Parking Bays

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

Minutes:

The Corporate Estate and Coastal Engineer introduced the report which outlined details of thirteen disabled parking bay applications and proposed the removal of three bays which were no longer required.   Following informal consultation with neighbours, letters of objection had been received in respect of Applications A to E and I to K, with one letter of support received for Application C.   Applications A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, L and M met all the criteria and it was therefore 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.

 

The Board was advised that Application E met all the criteria.  However, KCC guidelines suggested a minimum road width of 3.2 metres to accommodate a parking bay.  The road was narrower than this and it was therefore recommended that the application should be refused.   The applicant of Application K was not the driver of the vehicle and had access to off-street parking which was provided at cost.   The applicant chose not to make use of this, but had been offered use of the access driveway for loading and unloading by the freeholder.    The road in question was very narrow and did not meet KCC’s minimum width guidelines.   The recommendation was therefore that the application should be refused.    Whilst Councillor Eddy expressed sympathy for the applicant, the road was very narrow and, given that the individual had driveway access for loading and unloading, he agreed that the application should be refused.

 

Item N of the report dealt with three bays which were no longer needed.

 

RESOLVED:   (a)      That it be recommended that Applications A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I,

                               J, L and M 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).

 

(b)     That it be recommended that Applications E and K be refused.

 

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

 

 

    Broadcast and Recording of Council Meetings

    1. (a) Where a meeting has been broadcast via the Council’s website a recording of that broadcast will generally be available for viewing on-line for a period of 30 days from the close of the meeting. In normal circumstances this would be within 2 working days of the meeting. However, there may be circumstances where it will take longer.

      (b) The broadcasts and recordings are the copyright of the Council and may not be copied, displayed or published to the public, adapted or dealt with in any other way restricted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

      (c) The Council will not make available copies of the recordings either in whole or in part other than in compliance with a legal requirement arising under The Freedom of Information Act 2000, UK GDPR, The Data Protection Act 2018 or some other enactment, rule of law or direction of a court or tribunal which is binding on it.

      (d) Dover District Council is a Data Controller under GDPR. During this live broadcast, if you are participating in the meeting your personal data will be processed. Some of the meetings will be recorded and retained for viewing for 30 days on the Council's YouTube channel. Your information will be handled securely and confidentially in compliance with data protection legislation. For more information on your privacy and how your personal data may be processed during a live broadcasting of a Council meeting, please visit our website and view our Broadcasting of Meetings and Corporate Privacy Notice at www.dover.gov.uk/privacy