Agenda and minutes

Cabinet Advisory Panel A - Monday 18 January 2016 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Home Gardens, Dartford, Kent, DA1 1DR

Contact: Email: memberservices@dartford.gov.uk 

Items
Note No. Item

1.

Chairman's Introduction

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting.

2.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors L A Canham, P Cutler, B K Kaini, M B Kelly and M I Peters.

3.

Urgent Items

The Chairman will announce his decision as to whether there are any urgent items and their position on the agenda.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

4.

Items Reserved for Debate

Minutes:

The Chairman advised Members that no B or D items had been drawn down for debate.

 

Accordingly, Members endorsed the Officer recommendations in respect of the following items:

 

11.      Management of Double Parking and Parking at Dropped Kerbs

 

12.      Health Inequalities Action Plan 2016 - 2018

 

13.      Street Naming and Numbering - Mill Pond Site and Parcels 29 & 31 The Bridge

 

A.        Stone Lodge - Injurious Affectation Claim and Consultancy Fees

5.

Declarations of Interest on Items Drawn Down for Debate Only

To receive declarations of interest from Members including the terms(s) of the Grant of Dispensation (if any) by the Audit Board or Managing Director.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

6.

References from Committees

None at this stage.

Minutes:

There were no references from other Committees.

SD (ES)

7.

Review of Local Air Quality Management - Changes to Guidance and Reporting pdf icon PDF 63 KB

Summary:

 

1.         Defra are carrying out the final stage in a three part consultation covering a review of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) delivery in England.

 

2.         The report sets out the Council’s view on the proposed changes and a response to the consultation which is contained in Appendix A to the report.

 

3.         Defra’s review of Local Air Quality Management provides an ideal opportunity for Dartford to restate its approach to LAQM and produce a new action plan in accordance with the proposed Defra changes.

 

Recommendations:

 

1.         That Members agree the consultation response to Defra as detailed in Appendix A to the report.

 

2.         That an awareness campaign and public consultation on Air Quality be undertaken to assist in the production of a new air quality action plan for Dartford.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Defra are carrying out the final stage in a three part consultation covering a review of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) delivery in England. This report set out the Council’s view on the planned changes and presented the Council’s proposed response to the consultation. Defra’s review of Local Air Quality Management will also provide an ideal opportunity for Dartford to restate its approach to LAQM and produce a new action plan in accordance with the proposed Defra changes.

 

  • The Scientific Officer described the scope of the consultation and referred to the changed guidance and reporting requirements and the fact that these changes provided an opportunity for Dartford to review its approach to air quality management.

 

  • In response to a question the Scientific Officer confirmed that the four historic pollutants, which were now considered to be under control and hence had been removed from the reporting requirements, would not reach levels that might cause concern in the future.

 

  • Members then referred to the air pollution caused by traffic using Bob Dunn Way and the Scientific Officer confirmed that due to the increased amount of traffic using this route they would be looking to expand air quality monitoring into this area in the future.

 

  • The Advisory Panel endorsed the report’s recommendations.

SD (ES)

8.

Consultation on Proposed Changes to National Planning Policy pdf icon PDF 61 KB

Summary:

 

The government is consulting on changes to national planning policy, which include a range of measures aimed at improving housing delivery and amending the definition of affordable housing.  It is proposed to submit the Council’s comments alongside a joint Thames Gateway Kent Partnership (TGKP) response.

 

Recommendations:

 

1.         That the Council responds to the consultation in the manner set out in Appendix A to the report.

 

2.         That the joint TGKP response (provided at Appendix B to the report as a draft), once finalised and agreed by the TGKP Board, be submitted alongside the Council’s response.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The government is consulting on changes to national planning policy, which include a range of measures aimed at improving housing delivery and amending the definition of affordable housing. This report presented the Council’s proposed response and noted the intention to submit the Council’s comments alongside a joint Thames Gateway Kent Partnership (TGKP) response.

 

  • The Head of Regeneration noted the two responses that were to be submitted and said that Cabinet were only being asked to agree a draft version of the TGKP response, which would subsequently be finalised and agreed by the TGKP after the Cabinet meeting.

 

  • The Head of Regeneration then talked Members through some of the key issues that had been highlighted in the proposed responses and said that the expansion of affordable housing products to enable access to home ownership was supported but should not be at the expense of those for whom home ownership is not an option. She said that the requirement for higher density housing development around commuter hubs was a good idea but added that a holistic approach should be taken which considers commercial and employment options as well as housing at these transport hubs.

 

  • The Head of Regeneration noted the proposed additional support for new settlements and urban extensions and said that decisions should be made through the Local Plan. She also referred to brownfield sites and said that such sites should be developed according to circumstances that are assessed on a site by site basis with development options not being restricted to housing alone.

 

  • In relation to the development of small sites the Head of Regeneration said that Dartford already had a well developed strategy for assessing new sites coming forward for development, which defined how they should be assessed and how their cumulative impact on the supporting infrastructure should be considered. She also referred to the proposed housing delivery test and said that it was not considered to be productive to force the identification of further sites if targets are not met when sustainable sites, which would meet the required targets if developed, have already been identified.

 

  • The Head of Regeneration then referred to the proposals relating to Starter Homes and said that, in principle, the initiative was positive and would deliver benefits. However, she noted the new types of site being proposed under the Starter Homes exception policy and said that site suitability should be considered on a site by site basis. Brownfield sites should be considered for their broader potential to deliver development, not just Starter Homes. She also felt that fixed time limits on retention of land for employment/commercial uses before they could be taken up for Starter Homes was not always appropriate because commercial investment can lag behind residential development and regeneration schemes can take many years to come forward and be progressed.

 

  • Members welcomed the response and the fact that Starter Homes should not be at the expense of other low cost home options. They also noted the safeguards that had been requested to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

SD (ES)

9.

Consultation on River Crossings in East London pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Summary:

 

Transport for London is carrying out further consultation on proposals for river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere in East London.  This report sets out relevant issues for the Council to consider at this stage and proposes a response.

 

Recommendations:

 

1.         That the impact of the proposals for new river crossings in East London, as set out in the report, be noted.

 

2.         That a response to the consultation be sent to Transport for London, based on the emboldened text in paragraphs 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 of the report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Transport for London is carrying out further consultation on proposals for river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere in East London.  This report set out relevant issues for the Council to consider at this stage and proposed a response.

 

  • The Head of Regeneration explained how the response noted the Council’s preference for the tunnel option for both crossings as this would provide greater resilience in adverse weather conditions when bridges were likely to be closed. She then referred to the advantages that would be delivered if public transport links were enhanced to areas such as The Bridge and Crossways and integrated with the new crossing to provide improved access to employment opportunities. She also said that proposals for an improved cross river cycle network should be extended so that it also considered cross-boundary connections into Dartford.

 

  • Head of Regeneration then highlighted the assessment that had concluded that the crossing would have a positive impact on Dartford road traffic as the overall load would be spread across an increased number of crossing points. She then referred to the Mayor of London’s ‘City in the East’ proposals and said that updated modelling should be carried out to take the increased number of dwellings and job opportunities at Bexley Riverside into account. She also noted the concern that had been expressed at the proposal to impose charges at the Blackwall Tunnel, should this occur in advance of the new crossings’ construction as it was felt that this could result in an increase in the levels of traffic currently using the Dartford Crossing. She then said that the response also asked that income from any tolling that is introduced be re-invested and used to further enhance the transport network.

 

  • Members agreed with the proposed response and noted how the crossing would help to ease traffic congestion in the Erith area and could also deliver air quality improvements in Dartford. There was also strong support against the earlier introduction of charging at the Blackwall Tunnel.

 

  • Members also referred to the fact that these crossings were not likely to affect the awaited decision relating to the proposal to deliver a Lower Thames Crossing, and the need for the Government to make a decision on the location of this crossing so that its impact on traffic levels may be included when assessing the benefits that would be delivered by the new east London crossings.

 

  • The Advisory Panel endorsed the report’s recommendations.

SD (ES)

10.

Parking Consultation: Heath, Stone and Town Wards pdf icon PDF 73 KB

Summary:

 

1.           Some of the residents of Heath, Stone and Town wards reported numerous and increasing parking related issues, mainly as a result of rail-heading. The Council has undertaken a number of consultations on proposals for managing the reported issues.

 

2.           This report summarises the results of the consultation undertaken from 5th to 30th November 2015.

 

Recommendations:

 

1.           That the completion of the traffic regulation order in accordance with paragraph 3.7 of the report and the implementation of the schemes be approved.

 

2.           That households within the consultation areas be informed of the consultation outcome and the applicable installations.

Minutes:

Some of the residents of Heath, Stone and Town wards had reported numerous and increasing parking related issues, mainly as a result of railheading. The Council therefore undertook number of consultations on proposals for managing the reported issues. This report summarised the results of the consultations that were carried out between 5 and 30 November 2015.

 

  • The Transport Services Manager advised that there were some minor errors in the figures that had been recorded in the tables of results in the report, but confirmed that the corrected figures had not changed the report’s recommendations.

 

  • One Member referred to the results for Stone ward and asked what advice would be required from Kent County Council (KCC) before some schemes were to be installed. The Transport Services Manager explained how Dartford Borough Council introduces schemes to ‘balance parking demand’, and said that the proposed yellow line schemes which address ‘traffic movement’ and ‘road user safety’ are the responsibility of KCC and hence require their analysis and advice. He noted how Dartford could propose double yellow lines along a single stretch of road, which would then be relaxed to a single yellow line in some places following advice from KCC. He said that it was important to maintain visibility along each road and said that Dartford would always propose the strongest controls which would then be scaled back following KCC’s involvement.

 

  • The Member also referred to the fact that no controls were to be introduced in Bell Close and voiced concern at the impact that the schemes proposed for other roads in the area might have on Bell Close. The Transport Services Manager replied that as there had been no support for a ‘parking demand’ scheme in the road there was a risk of increased parking from vehicles displaced from other areas. The Strategic Director (External Services) also noted that, as this was a no through road, schemes associated with ‘traffic movement’ and ‘road user safety’ were not required. The Transport Services Manager also noted that there were few locations in Bell Close where on-street parking would be possible. He then referred to schemes that had been introduced in other areas and said that further consultations can be carried out if ‘vehicle displacement’ issues arise, but also confirmed that ‘parking demand’ schemes would not be imposed where there is no majority support from residents.

 

  • Members who have schemes already operating in their areas noted how residents’ views can change once schemes have been introduced. It was then suggested that the impact on other roads in an area should be considered as a whole when assessing the introduction of parking controls, especially since controls associated with ‘traffic movement’ and ‘user road safety’ are being proposed in roads where there was no majority household support. Other Members recognised the knock-on issues that can arise when introducing parking controls but supported the Council’s position of not imposing ‘balance parking demand’ schemes in roads where there is no majority support.

 

SD (ES)

11.

Management of Double Parking and Parking at Dropped Kerbs pdf icon PDF 58 KB

Summary:

 

Kent County Council (KCC) adopted formal powers to enforce against ‘double parking’ and ‘parking at dropped kerbs’ under the Traffic Management Act 2004. KCC’s Parking Manager was granted approval in March 2011 for each district to commence enforcement of dropped kerbs and double parking. This report seeks approval to commence the enforcement of the same within the Borough of Dartford.

 

Recommendations:

 

1.         That the powers to enforce against ‘double parking’ and ‘parking at dropped kerbs’, with the exception of private driveways, be adopted by Dartford Borough Council.

 

2.         That the public be advised of the newly adopted enforcement using various media.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Kent County Council (KCC) adopted formal powers to enforce against ‘double parking’ and ‘parking at dropped kerbs’ under the Traffic Management Act 2004. KCC’s Parking Manager was granted approval in March 2011 for each district to commence enforcement of dropped kerbs and double parking. This report sought approval to commence the enforcement of the same within the Borough of Dartford.

 

  • Although this item had not been drawn down for discussion the Chairman used his discretion and allowed a Member to comment on this item.

 

  • The Member noted that the report did not recommend the enforcement of parking across dropped kerbs outside residential properties and hoped that the request that had been made at the Joint Transportation Board to re-introduce the painting of ‘dog bone’ markings across residential dropped kerbs would continue to be progressed by officers.

SD (ES)

12.

Health Inequalities Action Plan 2016 - 2018 pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to seek adoption of Dartford’s Health Inequalities Action Plan 2016 – 2018 following its consideration by the Policy Overview Committee on 15 December 2015.

 

Recommendation:

           

That the Dartford Borough Health Inequalities Action Plan 2016 – 2018 be adopted.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members endorsed the recommendations in the report.

SD (IS)

13.

Street Naming and Numbering - Mill Pond Site and Parcels 29 & 31 The Bridge pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Summary:

 

1.         To approve four new road names for the development at the former GSK   Mill Pond site.

 

2.         To approve four new road names for the development of Parcels 29 & 31 at The Bridge.

 

Recommendations:

 

1.         That Cabinet approve the new road names for the development at the former GSK Mill Pond as Augustin, Oldfield, William Mundy and James Smith.

 

2.         That Cabinet approve the new road names for the development of Parcels 29 & 31 The Bridge as Henry, Hopkins, Jennings and Mitman.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members endorsed the recommendations in the report.

SD (IS)

14.

Stone Lodge - Injurious Affectation Claim and Consultancy Fees
(Exempt Category SO 46 (1) (b) Annex 1 Paragraph 3)

Summary:

 

To seek agreement to the contractual payment of the consultant’s fees in relation to completed work and to recommend the delegation of decisions relating to other aspects of an ongoing injurious affectation claim.

 

Recommendations:

           

1.         That the contractual consultancy fee referred to in para. 3.3 of the report, be paid to the named consultant.

 

2.         That the Managing Director be granted delegated authority to negotiate with and agree the amount of compensation payable to the Council by the power line company named at para. 3.5 of the report.  

 

3.         That the Managing Director be granted delegated authority to pay the contractual consultancy fee to the named consultant, as and when compensation for injurious affectation is agreed with the power line company named at para. 3.5 of the report.

Minutes:

Members endorsed the recommendations in the report.