Agenda item

(1)

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, the Chairman agreed in the absence of the questioner to put a question from Benedict Kempt to the Leader of the Council, Councillor T J Bartlett:

“Recent polling by various sources suggest the people of Kent are interested

in or serious about an independent jurisdiction being created in Kent. In light

of this, is the leader of the council and the leaders of the council interested in

or serious about the prospects of an independent Kent? First and foremost

would be an independent financial system, which could bring a huge

opportunity for the people of Kent.”

In response the Leader of the Council stated:

“I do not believe an independent jurisdiction being created in Kent would be beneficial. However, we remain interested in any devolution and localism conversations to explore greater powers and greater financial freedoms.”

(2)

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 a question from Graham Wanstall was put to the Leader of the Council, Councillor T J Bartlett:

“Regarding H.M The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee next year having earlier been confronted with a lack of interest for a name change within Dover, I have considered this further and after consulting others propose new namings. The Market Square is to undergo changes so we have an excellent opportunity to mark the Queen’s special jubilee naming it “Queen Elizabeth II Square” which I now propose to you. When we met at the subway earlier this year I proposed we call the subway “Captain Tom Moore” and the steps “Prince Philip Steps” to reflect the fact H.R.H. gave so many youngsters a step up in life. You supported both ideas! Now we know Captain Tom’s family do not want his name to be used I propose we call the subway and steps “Prince Phillip Way” as we did with “Dame Vera Lynn Way” which proved popular. With Queen Elizabeth II Square nearby the Queen and the Duke would be remembered side by side as they were for so long in life. I ask that Dover District Council demonstrate civic leadership by permanently marking the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee as these proposals are appropriate to do and popular with the public for our two much loved and respected royals. God save the Queen!”

In response the Leader of the Council stated:

“The Council and I share Mr Wanstall’s respect for the monarchy. Officers explored his suggestions for naming the underpass/steps with both the Moore family and the cabinet office, providing the latter with evidence of HRH the late Duke of Edinburgh’s connection with the port of Dover as evidence to support the proposal. As Mr Wanstall acknowledges in his question, the Moore family did not give permission for Capt. Tom’s named to be used.

Similarly, the cabinet office on 29th September notified Dover District Council that:

“it would not be possible to make a favourable recommendation to Her Majesty, The Queen in this matter. This decision should not, however, be taken as any reflection on the standing of Dover”.

Since the connections of Her Majesty the Queen with Dover is similar to that of HRH the late Duke of Edinburgh’s it is unlikely that the cabinet office would entertain Mr Wanstall’s suggestion regarding renaming Market Square.”

(3)

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 a question from John Hayter was put to the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Licensing and Regulatory Services, Councillor M Bates:

“The introduction of an additional emission charge when renewing a residents Parking Permit “is to incentivise the resident with purchasing a low emitting vehicle”.

My question is: If the resident hasn’t the money to purchase a low emitting vehicle can you explain how this extra premium on their Parking Permit is an incentive for him/her to do so?”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Licensing and Regulatory Services stated:

“The linking of resident permits to emissions is an incentive to use other means of transport or if possible, to purchase a less polluting vehicle. Higher CO2 emitting vehicles are being phased out, have higher road tax, cannot use Ultra Low or low emission zones without a significant charge and have more expensive fuel. It still remains a choice whether to own a car and where the owner choses to park their vehicle. As my Cabinet colleague will explain in an answer to a later question this Council takes the Climate Change Emergency declaration that it made in 2020 very seriously and has augmented several measures to assist the government in reaching its target for carbon emissions. The introduction of Parking Permit charges based on emission levels is one of them and has been set at a very modest level. Those who own vehicles with the highest levels will pay a charge of £150 a year which equates to only £2.88 a week. Most car owners lie within emissions Bands B and C and will thus receive discounts reducing their payments to an equivalent rate of between £1.34 and £2.40 per week depending on the permit zone. Owners of electric cars will only pay £35 to £60 pa and I recognise that, initially, there will be few that fall within that category. However, the numbers are rising as more people seek to change to electric either through purchasing or lease arrangements and we are seeking to incentivise this even further through the introduction of on street and off street EV charging points throughout the district. Finally, Dover is not the first council to introduce this initiative. It is already in place in several other local authorities including Cambridge, Brighton, Horsham, York, Chichester, and many of the London Boroughs.”

The Chairman ruled that the supplementary question from Mr Hayter should not be answered on the grounds that it did not directly arise from the question or the response given.

(4)

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 a question from Sarah Gleave was put to the Finance, Governance, Digital and Climate Change, Councillor C A Vinson:

“With Dept for Transport taking the rail franchise off Southeastern Railways, (due to their financial mistakes over £25million of public funds), and EK rail unions calling for Southeastern railways to be subject to wider fraud investigation, should DDC ask DfT for the government’s in-house rail operator to freeze or cut local rail fares in East Kent to encourage travelers in this district to shift to rail from road given the problems with petrol supplies, the need to decarbonise commuting and the need to relieve road congestion in Dover district?”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Licensing and Regulatory Services, Councillor M Bates stated:

“I share your concerns regarding the financial issues at SouthEastern Railways and in the circumstances welcome the government decision to terminate their franchise.

I also support your comments regarding the need to encourage a shift from road to rail to both reduce congestion and reduce carbon emissions.

If these aims are to be achieved, then rail fares need to be set at an appropriate level and I would encourage DfT and the government to take these issues into account when setting fare levels.”

(5)

In the absence of the questioner (Emma Healey) and given that the time allocated for public questions had finished, the Chairman advised that a written answer would be provided to the following question that had been due to be put to the Finance, Governance, Digital and Climate Change, Councillor C A Vinson:

“With Dept for Transport taking the rail franchise off Southeastern Railways, (due to their financial mistakes over £25million of public funds), and EK rail unions calling for Southeastern railways to be subject to wider fraud investigation, should DDC ask DfT for the government’s in-house rail operator to freeze or cut local rail fares in East Kent to encourage travelers in this district to shift to rail from road given the problems with petrol supplies, the need to decarbonise commuting and the need to relieve road congestion in Dover district?”