Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Tower House, St Peter's Place, Canterbury

Contact: Josie Newman  01227 862 009

Items
No. Item

584.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Wimble.

585.

Substitute Councillors

Minutes:

Councillor Hirst was present as a substitute for Councillor Wimble.

586.

Declaration of any interests

TO RECEIVE any declarations for the following in so far as they relate to the business for the meeting:-

 

a.       Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

b.       Other Significant Interests (what were previously thought of as non-pecuniary Prejudicial interests)

c.       Voluntary Announcements of Other Interests

 

Voluntary Announcements of Other Interests not required to be disclosed as DPI’s or OSI’s, ie announcements made for transparency reasons alone, such as:

         Membership of outside bodies that have made representations on agenda items, or

         Where a Councillor knows a person involved, but does not have a close association with that person, or

         Where an item would affect the well-being of a Councillor, relative, close associate, employer, etc but not his/her financial position.

 

[Note: an effect on the financial position of a Councillor, relative, close associate, employer, etc; OR an application made by a Councillor, relative, close associate, employer, etc, would both probably constitute either an OSI or in some cases a DPI].

 

Minutes:

The following voluntary announcements were made

 

  • Councillors A Baker, Eden-Green, I Thomas, R Thomas and Waters were members of the Planning Committee. (Kingsmead regeneration item)

 

  • Councillors Fitter-Harding, Ian and Jeanette Stockley had electric cars. (Electric Charging points item)

 

Councillor Hirst declared that he was a director at a charter surveyors and property developers and that is would leave the item for the Kingsmead Regeneration item.

 

587.

Public participation

Members of the public may speak on any item on the agenda, for a maximum of three minutes, provided that notification has been given to Democratic Services by 12.30pm on the working day before the meeting.

Minutes:

There were no public speakers for the meeting.

588.

Minutes of meeting Thursday, 25 January 2018 of Regeneration and Property Committee pdf icon PDF 78 KB

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Minutes:

The minutes were agreed as a true record.

589.

Electric Vehicle Charging Points - consultation on Traffic Regulation Orders to reserve on street parking bays pdf icon PDF 94 KB

TO CONSIDER the report of the Director of Development.

Additional documents:

Decision:

That parking bays at the following nine locations, as advertised, are reserved for the charging of electric vehicles:

 

(a)   Canterbury at; Westgate Hall Road, North Holmes Road, Queens Avenue and Beverley Road.

(b)   Herne Bay at Central Parade

(c)   Whitstable at; Sea Street, Cromwell Road north location only, Nelson Road and Gladstone Road.

 

Reasons for the decision: Electric vehicles are expected to play a big part in improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions. Residents with no off street parking cannot trail a cable across the footway to their domestic supply and therefore are not able to charge from home. The on-street charging bays help to overcome this barrier to the take up of electric vehicles, and are an initiative promoted by the Government with high subsidies to the Council.

Minutes:

The Head of Transportation and Environment introduced the report and drew attention to the supplement containing the minutes of the Joint Transportation Board. A number of potential locations for the siting of on-street electric charging points had been advertised. Following the results of the consultation it was now recommended that nine of those locations be installed.

 

The Joint Transportation Board had recommended a slight change to one of the locations set out in the report, suggesting instead that the Cromwell Road North location be implemented rather than the Cromwell Road South location.

 

The Chairman proposed the recommendations of the Joint Transportation Board. These were seconded and when put to a vote agreed.

 

The councillors asked questions and made comments and the Head of Transportation and Environment gave points of clarification where necessary. Additional points including the following were made:

 

1.     Technology was available that allowed the provision of quick charging points.

 

2.     The traffic order would restrict parking in the bay to electric cars only. It could not implement a penalty to cars that were using the bay without be charged. Such a penalty would have to be sought through another mechanism.

 

3.     The battery sizes in electric cars were increasing. This would mean that they took longer to charge.

 

4.     Currently the council operated to different systems for electric charging, this was not helpful and it would be desirable not to end up with a third type.

 

5.     Given issue with air quality consideration should be given to preferential parking for electric car drivers in the urban areas

 

6.     It would be important to make the charging options clear for visitors with electric cars.

 

7.     Charging points were being considered in the off street car parks.

 

8.     It would be important to future proof in order to manage the evolution of technology.

 

9.     The likely contract model would be that the infrastructure would be owned by the contractor and so at the end of a contract the council would have options rather than being left with out of date equipment.

 

10.  Residents’ concerns about the charging points were likely to reduce once they were in operation and this had been the case in other areas.

 

RESOLVED: That parking bays at the following nine locations, as advertised, are reserved for the charging of electric vehicles:

 

(a)   Canterbury at; Westgate Hall Road, North Holmes Road, Queens Avenue and Beverley Road.

(b)   Herne Bay at Central Parade

(c)   Whitstable at; Sea Street, Cromwell Road north location only, Nelson Road and Gladstone Road.

 

Reasons for the decision: Electric vehicles are expected to play a big part in improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions. Residents with no off street parking cannot trail a cable across the footway to their domestic supply and therefore are not able to charge from home. The on-street charging bays help to overcome this barrier to the take up of electric vehicles, and are an initiative promoted by the Government with high subsidies to the Council.

 

Record of voting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 589.

590.

The Friars - extension to the pedestrian zone - results of public consultation pdf icon PDF 82 KB

TO CONSIDER the draft report of the Director of Development.

Additional documents:

Decision:

That the pedestrian zone is extended to include The Friars from the junction with St Peter’s Street for a distance of 116 metres in a north-easterly direction.

 

Reasons for the decisions: The formal advertisement for the traffic order to extend the pedestrian zone resulted in six objections and one response in support. The majority of the points raised are objections to the paving scheme which was not a part of this decision. The intention was to reduce the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians at the busiest time of day.

Minutes:

The Head of Transportation and Environment introduced the report and drew attention to the supplement containing the minutes of the Joint Transportation Board. He added that the proposed area had been modified following the original public consultation undertaken for the wider public realm scheme. Formal public consultation had now been undertaken in regard to the traffic order in the modified area and these were set out in the report and its appendices.

 

The Chairman proposed recommendations as set out in the Joint Transportation Board minutes. These were seconded and when put to a vote agreed.

 

The councillors asked questions and made comments and the Head of Transportation and Environment gave points of clarification where necessary. Additional points including the following were made:

 

1.     Having different pedestrian schemes in close proximity might cause confusion.

 

2.     The paving, along with signage, at the start of the pedestrian zone would help to indicate the change in rules. This approached had worked in the Kings Mile.

 

3.     The residents’ concerns were mostly not relevant to the pedestrian zone, but some were.

 

4.     Residents were concerned about being marginalised when city centre projects were being considered.

 

5.     The public consultation at the start of the public realm improvement project indicated that people were overwhelmingly in support for the approach of raising parking charges to pay for public realm improvements.

 

6.     There were proposals for rising bollards at various points around the city in order to reduce the potential for danger to pedestrians from vehicles.

 

7.     The wider public realm scheme had been agreed the implementation or not of the extension to the pedestrian zone was a separate issue.

 

RESOLVED: That the pedestrian zone is extended to include The Friars from the junction with St Peter’s Street for a distance of 116 metres in a north-easterly direction.

 

Reasons for the decisions: The formal advertisement for the traffic order to extend the pedestrian zone resulted in six objections and one response in support. The majority of the points raised are objections to the paving scheme which was not a part of this decision. The intention was to reduce the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians at the busiest time of day.

 

Record of voting

For the proposal: A Baker, Fitter-Harding, Spooner, I Stockley, J Stockley, I Thomas, R Thomas and Waters (8)

Against the proposal: Eden-Green, Fisher and Hirst (3)

Abstaining from the proposal: None

591.

Date of next meeting

7pm Thursday 28 June 2018 in the Guildhall, St Peter’s Place, Canterbury.

Minutes:

7pm Thursday 28 June 2018 in the Guildhall, St Peter’s Place, Canterbury.

592.

Any urgent business to be dealt with in public

592a

Kingsmead Field Regeneration pdf icon PDF 88 KB

TO CONSIDER the report of the Director of Development

Additional documents:

Decision:

That the committee support the delivery of the affordable housing on Kingsmead Field through the approach set out in this report.

 

Reasons for the decision: The delivering five units of affordable housing out of a proposed development of 16 dwellings was in line with council policies and this Committee commitment as landlord replicates what would be achieved under a section 106 agreement between the council and an external property developer.

 

Minutes:

(Councillor Hirst drew attention to his interest as a chartered surveyor and property developer at Angela Hirst and left the minute before this item was considered. Councillors A Baker, Eden-Green, I Thomas, R Thomas and Waters made a voluntary announcement that they were members of the Planning Committee).

 

The Chairman drew attention to the supplements for the meeting.

 

The Head of Property and Regeneration introduced the report which outlined the council’s approach, which complied with its current policies, in the delivery of affordable housing on Kingsmead Field. As the council was acting as property developer in this project she explained the need to for the Committee, as landlord, to publicly commit to the approach set out. This in part replicated what would be achieved under a section 106 agreement between the council and an external property developer.

 

The Committee were advised that the plot numbers mentioned in the report had no bearing on the decision before them and so could be disregarded.

 

The Chairman proposed the recommendation as set out in the report. This was seconded and when put to a vote agreed.

 

The Committee members made comments and asked questions and the Head of Property and Regeneration and the Director of Development gave points of clarification as required. Additional points were made including the following:

 

  1. It was pleasing to see the Council building its own property both to regenerate an area and to provide social housing.

 

  1. Affordable housing had a broader meaning than just social housing.

 

  1. The Committee could not bind the Housing Revenue Account to buy the properties for social housing. That would be a separate decision for another committee.

 

  1. A planning application would be the next stage once the principle of the proportion of affordable housing this development would seek to deliver was determined.

 

  1. The project was a pilot and the council had a responsibility to achieve best value from it’s land. Providing 30% of the units as affordable housing was possible because it was a high value area, this approach would not be financially viable in every scheme.

 

  1. There were many different ways to deliver affordable housing and as the council undertook more schemes it would be able to offer a broader range of tenures.

 

  1. A mix of housing was important for the district.

 

There was general agreement that the expectation was that the affordable units would be for social rental housing.

 

RESOLVED: That the committee supported the delivery of the affordable housing on Kingsmead Field through the approach set out in the report.

 

Reasons for the decision: The delivering five units of affordable housing out of a proposed development of 16 dwellings was in line with council policies and this Committee commitment as landlord replicates what would be achieved under a section 106 agreement between the council and an external property developer.

 

Record of voting

For the proposal: A Baker, Eden-Green, Fisher, Fitter-Harding, Spooner, I Stockley, J Stockley, I Thomas, R Thomas and Waters (10)

Against the proposal: None

Abstaining from the proposal: None  ...  view the full minutes text for item 592a