Up to 60 minutes is allowed for this part of the meeting unless extended by the Chairman of the Council or on a motion moved, duly seconded and approved by the Council. Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.
Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.
The questions received are set out in the order received in the agenda papers.
In accordance with Rule 12(1) of the Council Procedure Rules, Members of the Cabinet responded to the following questions:
“As the Portfolio Holder is aware central Dover only has one public toilet located in Stembrook Car Park. With plans gradually coming out about a redevelopment of this entire area will the Portfolio Holder guarantee to me here and now that a public toilet facility will be included in any plans for the future and subsequent delivery of any development project?”
(4) Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Community and Corporate Property, Councillor O C de R Richardson:
“Has the review on the siting of memorial benches in public parks taken place and if so, can he advise on what the new policy now is?”
“The review of memorials across the district, including memorial benches, is still on going because this is not a straightforward matter.
We need to balance the understandable wish on the part of family and friends to recognise and commemorate the lives of their loved ones with the availability of suitable locations to site more and more memorial benches and indeed the obligations on public bodies to address climate change.
We may need for example to question whether it is appropriate for us to encourage the continued provision of timber memorial benches at a time when there is emphasis on the planting of trees rather than the felling of them.
Once the review is complete any recommendations will be considered by members prior to the adoption of any new policy.
The present position is that there is no policy change simply a suspension of the service whilst alternatives are considered.”
(5) Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Community and Corporate Property, Councillor O C de R Richardson:
“Can the circumstances in which the recent visit by the Fun Fair in Pencester Gardens was able to take place. Previous advice given to councillors that due to a number of factors the visit would not be going ahead.”
Councillor O C de R Richardson advised in his written response:
“I am sure that all councillors will be aware that the original decision to cancel the annual Fun Fair in Pencester Gardens attracted wide public attention and led to an extensive campaign for the decision to be reversed.
In the face of the claims and counterclaims in respect of issues such as the value of the fair to the people of Dover, the impact on the trade of local businesses and the disruption to the lives of those living and working in the vicinity, I was pleased to agree to reverse the decision and allow the Fun Fair to take place as planned.”
“Despite the cancellation of the Inland Border Facility by the Government citing that Freight traffic with Europe has declined by over 50%, can he explain why there has been dramatic increase in the implementation of Operation Tap for residents of Aycliffe?”
The question was answered by the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Licensing and Regulatory Services, Councillor M Bates, who advised in his written response:
“The IBF and the Traffic Access Protocol at Aycliffe are not directly related and have completely different functions.
TAP is activated to prevent gridlocking of the town of Dover and is implemented on request by the Port of Dover to National Highways.
Rather than reducing, freight volumes have continued to increase since the end of the pandemic. The operation of TAP ensures that Dover’s town centre is kept clear of traffic will continue to be required until a alternative holding facilities for freight vehicles can be established in Kent or indeed across the UK.
That said, I share your concern at the impact that this arrangement has on the residents of Aycliffe and we continue to lobby the powers that be to bring forward proposals to provide such facilities as indeed we lobby for a long term solution to operation Brock and the widening of the A2 from Lydden to Dover.”
“The joint waste contract we have is with Veolia Environmental Services UK and not related to the Russian or Ukrainian businesses.
Veolia have issued the following statement on the issue:
"Veolia UK is a business entity with no legal, financial or operational ties with Veolia’s Russian affiliate. Veolia UK maintains continuous dialogue with the UK authorities and public bodies to ensure its full compliance with all applicable sanctions.
Veolia Group provides absolutely no new funding for the operations of its affiliate in Russia and has stopped all new investment and all financial flows between the Veolia Group and its Russian subsidiary.
Veolia utterly condemns war and violence in Ukraine. In full compliance with the current sanctions regime, Veolia Group is maintaining its responsibility to its employees and the communities it serves by continuing its essential public service operations in both Ukraine and Russia.”
Officers have raised the issue with Veolia and are keeping this matter under review although options within the contract to take action are limited and would be very costly to implement.”