To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.
Minutes:
The Corporate Estate and Coastal Engineer introduced the report which gave details of seven disabled parking bay applications, together with proposals to remove four bays.
In respect of Application B, the Board was advised that the recommendation was to refuse the application since current parking arrangements allowed the driver to unload outside the house without causing traffic congestion. The applicant was not the driver of the vehicle and had difficulty walking but was not in a wheelchair. Councillor Bond voiced his concerns that traffic was likely to be obstructed by double parking as the property was very close to a junction and on a bus route.
Ms Day advised the Board that it was required to consider the application against specific legal advice which was that applications must be determined on traffic management rather than medical grounds. She confirmed that further medical evidence could not be sought at this stage, but would be requested should the applicant appeal. It was stressed that the application form and guidance notes made it clear that applicants should submit evidence of any mitigating circumstances with their initial application.
Councillors Bond, Eddy and Scales commented that they had insufficient medical information before them, and that further medical evidence should therefore be sought and the application deferred accordingly. Councillor Bond argued that it was for the Board to make a judgement as to whether there would be traffic congestion, and it could not do this based on the evidence before it. Councillor Collor suggested that Members should act upon the information in front of them. Given that there had been no further letters of objection following the bay’s re-positioning, he would be inclined to support the application.
Ms Day reiterated that Board members were not medical practitioners and could not seek medical information at this stage. Deferring the application would delay the process and the final decision would then have to be taken by the KCC Cabinet Member. In response to a query from Councillor Wallace, Ms Day advised that legislation stipulated that a disabled parking bay could only be provided if not providing one would cause significant traffic congestion. The Board was urged to act upon the legal advice that had been given. The CECE added that it had been established that the road in question was clear for most of the time which would allow the driver to disembark the disabled person without causing an obstruction.
In respect of Application D, the Board was recommended to refuse the application since the applicant was not in receipt of disability benefit. Councillors Bond and Walkden questioned why the application had been accepted when the applicant failed to meet one of the key criteria. The CECE explained that, once payment had been taken, Officers were obliged to process the application. It was confirmed that the applicant could re-apply if refused. Councillor Brivio commented that it was unfair that another person who did not meet the criteria had had their application rejected at the initial stage by Officers.
In respect of Application G, the Board was recommended to refuse the application since the driver would be able to unload directly outside the property causing minimal traffic congestion. The CECE confirmed that the vehicle was registered at the applicant’s address. Councillor Wallace remarked that the road in question was very narrow with cars parked on both sides. There was also a school and nursery in the road. Based on the limited evidence before him, Councillor Bond was of the opinion that double-parking would cause congestion in the road. Moreover, on the basis of advice given earlier in the meeting, his view was that the Board was able to approve the application since non-provision would cause traffic congestion.
Ms Day advised that any recommendations from the Board which went against KCC guidelines and advice would go to the Executive for determination.
In response to Councillor Bano, the CECE agreed to investigate the provision of Google Earth pictures at future meetings.
RESOLVED: (a) That it be recommended that Applications A, B, C, E, F and G be formally advertised and, in the event that no objections are received, be recommended for sealing by Kent County Council (with any objections being referred back to a future meeting of the Dover Joint Transportation Board for further consideration).
(b) That it be recommended that Application D be refused.
(c) That it be recommended that the four disabled parking
bays detailed in Item H of the report be formally advertised with the intention of removing them and, in the event that no objections are received, be recommended for sealing by Kent County Council (with any objections being referred back to a future meeting of the Dover Joint Transportation Board for further consideration).