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 ten disabled parking bay applications.
In respect of Applications A, C, D and F the Board was advised that no letters of objection had been received following informal and formal consultation. The applicants met all the criteria and it was therefore recommended that the applications be sealed by Kent County Council. No objections had been received in respect of Application H following informal consultation and it was therefore recommended that the application be progressed to formal advertisement.
In respect of Applications B and G, Members were advised that one letter of objection had been received following informal and formal consultation. The applicants met all the criteria and it was therefore recommended that the applications be sealed by Kent County Council. Application E had also received one letter of objection following informal and formal consultation. However, cars would be forced to mount the pavement to pass a car parked in the bay and, in any case, the road was quiet in terms of overall parking. For these reasons it was recommended that the application should be refused.
Seven letters of objection had been received in respect of Application I following informal and formal consultation. These raised concerns regarding the narrow width of the road, tight car space and emergency access. Concerns had also been raised about misuse of the bay and the applicant had been warned about this. The existing width of the road was greater than the minimum width recommended by KCC. An interim bay had been installed since the last JTB meeting and no concerns had been noted. Taking into account KCC’s criteria, parking in the road was heavy and it was almost impossible to double park. Since the applicant met all the criteria, it was recommended that the application be sealed by Kent County Council.
Two letters of objection had been received in respect of Application J following informal and formal consultation. These raised concerns regarding the shortage of parking and whether a parking bay was warranted. The applicant met all the criteria and, having reviewed parking in the road, it was recommended that the application be sealed by Kent County Council.
In respect of Application E, several Members questioned why a bay could not be installed since there were no parking issues in the road and the bay could be used by anybody. The Highways and Parking Team Leader advised that one of the criteria laid down by KCC was that there had to be problems with parking. This provided justification for installing a bay for which there was a cost. The Corporate Estate and Coastal Engineer advised Members that the applicant had requested a bay because they had difficulty walking and for peace of mind. Although parking in the road was very tight, the Council had been advised by two residents that there was an understanding that a space would be kept free for the applicant. Councillor F J W Scales commented that it would not be safe for the applicant to park outside their house as this was a turning head, and it was confirmed that a bay could not be placed there.
RESOLVED: (a) That it be recommended that Applications A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I and J be sealed by Kent County Council.
(b) That it be recommended that Application H 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).