It was noted that an apology for absence had been received from County Councillor D G Beaney.

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 Board held on 8 December 2022.

Subject to the addition of the Kent County Council Highways Public Transport Planning and Operations Manager to the list of attendees, the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the attached note from David Brazier, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, Kent County Council.  

Members considered the report of the Kent County Council (KCC) Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport.  They expressed concerns that there was nobody from KCC at the meeting to explain statements made in the report about pre-application advice and the change in policy known as ‘Vision and Validate’.  

Councillor E A Biggs commented that the latter was a major shift in policy which had not been publicised or, as far as he was aware, widely consulted upon.   He had sought advice from the Council’s Planners about the confidentiality of pre-application advice and been advised that it was information that could probably be disclosed under a Freedom of Information request.   Councillor O C de R Richardson disliked the tone of the report and referred to paragraphs 1.3 and 1.9 which were contradictory in his view.  In respect of the twice-yearly update meetings referred to in the report, he was not aware that KCC Members had been offered these.   Councillor M Bates stressed that it was not good enough for KCC to base its new policy on the ‘hope’ that it would be easier to walk and cycle or travel by public transport in the future.  Councillor T A Bond expressed disquiet at KCC’s position which appeared to shut down questions or challenge.  KCC’s decisions had a significant impact on planning matters, and it was right that its policies should be open to scrutiny.  There appeared to have been little or no consultation on the ‘Vision and Validate’ policy.  Furthermore, he questioned KCC’s commitment to sustainable transport given that he had been trying to get a cycle track installed in Deal for 17 years without success.   Mr A P Minns commented that, whilst KCC had consulted the Kent Association of Local Councils about the policy change, the report was disappointing, and he regretted that KCC Highways was not being more active in connection with planning applications.  In his view it was illogical for KCC Highways to be championing sustainable travel at a time when bus services were being axed.   

It was suggested by Councillor N J Collor that, rather than just noting the report, the Board should ask the Chairman to write to the KCC Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport about its concerns.

In response to concerns raised by Members about traffic delays caused by highway works at Sholden, the Dover District Manager (DDM) advised that he did not know what had been agreed with Streetworks and undertook to find out.

RESOLVED:  That the Chairman of the Dover Joint Transportation Advisory Board

                       be asked to write to the KCC Cabinet Member for Highways and     

                       Transport, outlining the Board’s concerns in relation to KCC’s ‘Vision

and Validate’ policy and its stance on the disclosure of pre-application advice. 

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

The DDM presented the report which provided an update and summary of schemes programmed for delivery in 2022/23 and 2023/24. 

In response to Councillor N J Collor, the DDM acknowledged that South Military Road in Dover was not a high-speed road and undertook to check why this description had been given in the report.  In connection with drainage repairs at London Road, River, he advised that a crew had attended but vehicles had ignored the ‘no parking’ cones so the works would have to be re-programmed.   Councillor Bond raised questions about works at Northwall Road, Mill Road, High Street and Deal Castle.   The DDM advised that he would get a date for the works at Northwall Road from the Asset Renewal Team and establish how the works would be carried out.   In relation to the bollard at Mill Road, he thought that the team was struggling to find a feeder and he would make enquiries.   As for the pedestrian crossing outside Deal Castle, he had spoken to the engineer who had advised that no Section 278 agreement had been signed or paid for.  He would follow this up.  In respect of Southern Water’s works in the High Street, he understood the concerns raised and the fact that the delays had implications for local businesses.  He would follow this up and also obtain an estimated completion date for works at Dover Road.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.