Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from District Councillor P Walker, County Councillors P M Brivio and E D Rowbotham, and Mr R Frost and Mrs S Hooper.

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 10 December 2015.

The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on 10 December 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

The Dover District Manager (DDM) introduced the report which was a follow-up to the report taken to the 10 December meeting, and updated Members on the progress made in respect of traffic improvements to Sandwich town centre.  Councillor P I Carter welcomed the update and commented that the measures were urgently needed. 

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

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

The DDM presented the report which updated Members on works that had been approved for delivery in 2015/16. 

Councillor N J Collor pointed out that developer-funded works to the A20 York Street roundabout were due to start on 22 February, with completion scheduled for August. Councillor T P Johnstone reported that he had raised concerns about the design layout at Spinney Lane, Aylesham.  The DDM advised that Kent County Council’s (KCC) Section 278 team was overseeing the project and currently in discussions with the farmer over access to his land.  He undertook to provide a written update for Members.  In respect of Appendix H, Councillor M J Ovenden stated that the leaflet distributed to residents on proposed works to Sandown Road, Sandwich had failed to include any details of the scheme or a contact point and looked unprofessional.   The DDM undertook to give feedback to those responsible for producing the leaflet.   In response to Councillor T A Bond, the DDM advised that the highways budget for 2016/17 was still being finalised and, until known, the highway works programme could not be finalised. 

Mr Walkden raised concerns about the amount of litter and waste on the A20 and A2.  Councillor Collor advised that these routes were the responsibility of Highways England (HE).  This matter had been raised with HE by Dover District Council and the MP for Dover and Deal.  It was unfortunate, but the high cost of lane closure meant that litter picking could not be done as frequently as the Council would like. 

In response to Councillor G Cowan, the DDM advised that a decision had been taken that the strategic road network should be separate from the local road network and managed by a Government body.  Part of the A20 was an extension to the M20 and therefore regarded as part of the strategic network.  Councillor Ovenden queried why litter picking could not be dovetailed with highways maintenance lane closures.   Councillor Collor suggested that the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets be requested to bring a report to the Board.  Councillor M R Eddy suggested that the Chairman should write to the MP for Dover and Deal to request that he attempts to influence HE.  The District was the gateway to England and the appalling amount of litter reflected badly on Kent.  He noted the amount of litter on all main roads in the District, including the A256, and supported Councillor Collor in requesting a report to the Board on what steps were being taken to address the situation.  In response to the Chairman, the DDM undertook to report back on the latest situation in respect of Cooting Road, Aylesham.

The DDM gave a verbal update on Combined Member Grants which had been reviewed in the context of the delivery of highway projects.  As a result, the scheme would be revised from 1 May 2016.  The principal changes were that District Managers would support Members in identifying highway projects from the annual programme of works.  This would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

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 1A 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, no letters of objection had been received in respect of Applications D, E and F.  Since these 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.

Three letters of comment and one letter of objection had been received in respect of Applications A and B respectively but, since both applications met all the criteria, it was recommended that they also be progressed to the second stage.

One letter of objection had been received in respect of Application C following informal consultation.  A garage was available to the applicant at the rear of the property.  However, the applicant was a young child and accessing the property from the rear was very difficult.  Due to the mitigating circumstances, it was recommended that the application be progressed to the second stage.  Councillor Johnstone advised that he had looked at the property and the garage was a structure with a door and looked more like a workshop.

Councillor Collor requested that a disabled parking bay in Birdwood Avenue, referred to at page 38 of the report and purportedly no longer in use, be removed.

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended that Applications A, B, C, D, E and 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).