Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors P M Beresford, T A Bond, G Lymer and D P Murphy, and Mr K Gowland (Kent Association of Local Councils).

There were no substitute members appointed.

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 21 February 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2019 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) summarised the responses received following public consultation on proposals to introduce restrictions on the parking of motor homes along Dover Seafront, at the beach in Walmer and at the Quay in Sandwich.  In respect of Dover, 65 respondents favoured restrictions, with a general consensus that these should be enforced between 6.00pm and 08.00am.  75 Walmer respondents were in favour of restrictions, preferring all-day controls.  Six responses were received in respect of the Quay with no general consensus.  Officers recommended that a balanced approach should be taken at all three sites, with motor homes allowed to park for a maximum stay of 2 hours and no return within 3 hours.   The sites would be on a Pay & Display charging model.  Such controls would allow motor homes to wait for their ferry but keep spaces turning over.

Councillor C A Vinson queried why charging was recommended when this was respondents’ least favoured option. The TPSM explained that the display of a parking ticket made it easier to monitor and enforce restrictions.  With restrictions only and no charging, vehicles would have to be logged and then checked later. Charging would also help to cover the schemes’ implementation costs. 

Several Members were concerned that the maximum stay was too short.  At a time when Dover was trying to regenerate and encourage more tourism, these proposals sent out the wrong message.  Whilst there was sympathy for residents, Members questioned where motor homes would go, and stressed the importance of finding alternative parking sites for these vehicles. 

Mr Paul Carter commented that owners were buying a Sandwich resident’s parking permit and using the Quay car park as a cheap place to stay or store their vehicles.    Alternative parking sites were needed, and he was disappointed that a better solution was not being proposed.  Councillor M J Holloway found it unhelpful that all three schemes had been lumped together.  It was evident that the Quay was being used as a camping site, even though there were alternative parking sites in Sandwich (i.e. Gazen Salts and the Guildhall).  The residents he had consulted were in favour of the proposals. However, he questioned how the scheme would be enforced overnight.  It was essential that vehicle owners should not be able to purchase residents’ permits as this would undermine the scheme. 

The TPSM advised that there was an informal motor home site at Maison Dieu in Dover. Whilst the Council did not want to scare visitors off, it needed to find a  solution to the problem.  The consultation had been a test to gauge the general feeling of the public.  Motor home parking in car parks was not acceptable and more enforcement could be undertaken.        

Councillor N J Collor commented that this problem had been around for years.  The level of public response to the consultation had been very disappointing.  Whilst inappropriate parking was annoying for residents, alternative parking sites were not easy to find.  In response to Councillor J P Haste who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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 2019/20. 

In response to Mr Carter, the DDM advised that Highways Improvement Plans were for towns and parishes to produce, outlining what measures they wanted. KCC Highways would help implement these measures but would not fund them.  In response to Councillor Kenton, the DDM confirmed that she was aware of lumpy tarmac on the A256 at Whitfield.   The works had been carried out in far from ideal weather conditions in order to meet a Brexit deadline.  The contractor would return to carry out repairs.   She undertook to find out for Councillor Vinson why the ‘East Kent – A Network for Growth’ capital bid to the Local Growth Fund had not been successful.

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted. 

It was moved by Councillor E A Biggs, 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 items 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 Parking Operations Manager presented the report which outlined details of fifteen disabled parking bay applications, and proposed the removal of twelve bays that were no longer needed.   

Applications A to L met all the criteria and their formal advertisement was therefore recommended.  Application M was before the Board because its installation would exceed the recommended cap of 5% on disabled parking provision in a road.  Application N was before the Board due to its contentious nature.  Application O had been deferred at the meeting held on 21 February 2019 for further information.  The TPSM explained that a senior development planner from KCC had looked at the relocated bay and agreed that it was an improvement on the location proposed originally.

RESOLVED:   (a) That it be noted:

(i)            That Applications A to L 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 P to AA 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.

(b) That it be recommended that Applications M and N be approved, and Application O be repositioned as proposed.