Agenda and minutes

In the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, it was proposed, duly seconded and

RESOLVED:   That Councillor B W Butcher be elected to chair the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from District Councillor J S Back, County Councillor S C Manion, and Mr P I Carter (Sandwich Town Council) and Mr A Minns (Kent Association of Local Councils).

It was noted that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council’s Procedure Rules, Councillor B W Butcher had been appointed as a substitute Member for Councillor J S Back.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 December 2018.

Subject to their amendment to show that Councillor P M Wallace was in attendance from Minute No 16 onwards only, the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the attached report of the Strategic Director (Operations and Commercial).

The Transport and Parking Services Manager (TPSM) introduced the report, reminding Members that the Board had resolved at its previous meeting that further consultation should be undertaken.   The outcome of the latest consultation was that the majority of respondents had indicated that they were not in favour of the proposed scheme.   

In response to concerns raised by Councillor P M Brivio, the TPSM clarified that the responses submitted for both consultations had been taken into account in order for Officers to understand the change in residents’ views. This was particularly important given that the consultations had been carried out so close together.  Whilst she sympathised with the ward Member, Councillor S S Chandler agreed with the Officer, arguing that it would be wrong to implement the scheme when there had been a consistent trend over time of residents voting against it.  Councillor N J Collor supported this view, commenting that some residents might not have bothered to vote a third time so it was right to take previous responses into account. 

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended that the withdrawal of the proposal to introduce a residents’ parking scheme in Priory Hill, as detailed at Appendix A to the report, be agreed.

To consider the attached report of the Strategic Director (Operations and Commercial).

The TPSM introduced the report which set out proposals to convert some of the existing double yellow lines to limited waiting times in Elizabeth Street.  This measure was designed to address a problem with lorries parking overnight in the street and regularly obstructing the entrance to a private car park.  The Board was advised that double yellow lines prohibited any vehicle from parking.  However, by replacing them with limited waiting times it was hoped that cars would park there, thus preventing lorries from doing so. 

RESOLVED:  That the limited waiting proposal, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be formally advertised and, in the event that no objections are received, that it be recommended for sealing by Kent County Council so as to bring it into effect.  Any objections received in respect of the formal advertisement will be referred back to a future meeting of the Board for further consideration, prior to making any final recommendations.

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

The Dover District Manager (DDM) presented the report which provided an update on schemes that had been programmed for delivery in 2018/19.  She advised that the ‘No Cycling’ markings paid for by Councillors T A Bond and D P Murphy had not been completed to Kent County Council’s (KCC) specification or satisfaction and would therefore be re-done. In response to a query from Councillor Chandler, she advised that the resurfacing of the road to Stourmouth had not been included in the report as the works were still subject to final budget calculations.  To the best of her knowledge, they would be going ahead.  She reported that KCC’s drainage team had not been aware of the proposed highway works to the ER261 at Alkham, but were now talking to those responsible.

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

It was moved by Councillor D G Cronk, duly seconded and

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 involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the attached report of the Strategic Director (Operations and Commercial).

The Highways and Parking Team Leader presented the report which outlined details of seven disabled parking bay applications, and proposed the removal of three bays that were no longer needed.   Applications A to G met all the criteria and their formal advertisement was therefore recommended.  However, Application H had proved contentious and the Board was requested to make a recommendation on this.  Councillor Brivio expressed concerns that the Board was being asked to take a view on an application without having sight of residents’ views.  Councillor D G Cronk suggested that the application should be deferred for more information on why the proposed bay had been moved from one side of the road to the other. 

RESOLVED:  (a) That it be recommended that consideration of Application H be deferred for further information, including an explanation as to why the proposed bay had been moved from one side of the road to the other.

                        (b) That it be noted:

(i)            That Applications A to G would be formally advertised and, in the event that no objections are received, they will be sealed by Kent County Council.  (Should any objections be received during the consultation process, the applications will be discussed with the Chairman of the Dover Joint Transportation Board for a final decision.)

(ii)           That Items I to K would be formally advertised with the intention of removing them and, in the event that no objections are received, their removal will be sealed by Kent County Council.