Appendix A (A1 - A29) Sheet 1 of 2

Proposal to be sealed as advertised

Proposal to be withdrawn and a revisedplan to be be brought back before theBoard at a later date

Proposal to be sealed in accordance with JTB's resolution on 16 June 2008

objection support other

1 Sandwich Rd & Cherry Gnd Lane, Ash A1 1 0 0 2 South St, Victoria Rd, Sondes Rd, Deal 0 0 0 to be sealed

3 New Rd, Sholden, Deal 0 0 0 to be sealed

4 Freemans Way, Deal 0 0 0 to be sealed

5 Lawn Rd, Deal A2 1 0 1 6 Cornwall Rd, Deal 0 0 0 to be sealed

7 Former Primary School, Mill Rd, Deal 0 0 to be sealed

8 Church Path, Deal 0 0 0 to be sealed

9 Park Ave, Deal 0 0 0 to be sealed

10 Stanhope Road, Dover A3 4 0 0 11 Anstee Rd, Dover 0 0 0 to be sealed

12 Whitfield Pri. School, Mayfield Rd, Dover A4 1 0 1 13 Squires Way & Pardoners Way, Dover A5 9 0 0 14 Cow Lane, Dover A6 6 0 0 15 Green Park School, The Linces, Dover 0 0 0 to be sealed

16 Military Road, Dover 0 0 0 to be sealed

17 South Road, Dover A7 2 0 0 18 Minnis Lane, Dover A8 1 0 0

KEY TO SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE

Proposal to be amended and sealed as shown in Appendix B

Proposal not to be pursued

SUMMARY TABLE FOR ADVERTISED PARKING RESTRICTIONS

Letters of: Suggested action

LocationAppendix

Dwg

Appendix A (A1 - A29) Sheet 2 of 2

objection support other

SUMMARY TABLE FOR ADVERTISED PARKING RESTRICTIONS

Letters of: Suggested action

LocationAppendix

Dwg

19 Lower Road, Dover 0 0 0 to be sealed

20 River St, River, Dover 0 0 0 to be sealed

21 Lower Rd, o/s no 161, River, Dover A9 2 0 0 22 Canterbury Rd, Bosney Banks, Lydden 0 0 0 to be sealed

23 Three Kings Yard, Sandwich A10 6 0 0 24 The Green, Church Hill, Shepherdswell 0 0 0 to be sealed

25 Access to Knoll Court, St. Magaret's 0 0 0 to be sealed

26 High St opp Kingsdwn Rd, St Margaret's A11 1 0 0 27 School entrance, Brookside, Temp. Ewell 0 0 0 to be sealed

28 Dover Road, Sandwich A12 2 0 0

Proposal to be sealed as advertised

Proposal to be withdrawn and a revised plan to be brought back before theBoard at a later date

Proposal to be sealed in accordance with JTB's resolution on 16 June 2008

Proposal not to be pursued

KEY TO SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE

Proposal to be amended and sealed as shown in Appendix B

Appendix A1

Sandwich Road and Cherry Garden Lane, Ash.

Response to proposals: Objections 1, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objector : The perceived intention of the restriction is either to keep the lane entrance clear or to

improve the vision of emerging traffic. Both intend to improve safety at the junction and therefore reduce the risk of accidents, but will have the opposite effect.

Restricting the waiting the double with double yellow lines will only move the problem and encourage parking in Sandwich Road on thw opposite side to Cherry Garden Lane. Traffic exiting the lane will now have speeding traffic passing across closer to the to the junction.

The majority of the cars parked along Sandwich Road, where it is intended to restrict the waiting, belong to employees of No 45, The Old Rectory Residential Home. The Home does have its own car park to the rear, but this is used for several old caravans which are then used in the summer months as accommodation for some of the carers. Many of the cars are not parked in Sandwich Road on Saturdays or Sundays, this is because a large number of the residents at the Home return to their families at weekends, and therefore the carers are not needed in such numbers to look after them.

On looking at Appendix A1 it appears that the dotted lines are the wrong way around, with the majority being in Cherry Garden Lane, whe the problem is in Sandwich Road. If the yellow lines were to go from the corner of Cherry Garden Lane and along towards No 43a/43b Sandwich Road and then towards No 53 Sandwich Road on the East side, the junction might then be clearer. As it is shown on the plan, it is virtually ineffective.

I assume that a site visit did not take place to the proposed order being initiated. If a visit had been carried out it would have been observed that nobody ever parks in Cherry Garden Lane since it is only a single track road, and to do so would block the lane entirely. There is also a 6ft 6inches width restriction sign at the Sandwich Road end, warning road users of this fact. However, the lane is frequently used as a shortcut by large articulated lorries, heavy trucks and large tractors, and yet Dover District Council Recycling trucks cannot use the lane – why is that?

I further consider it to be a waste of yellow paint which will make the area look unsightly not solve the problem, and only move it on.

Summary: This request came via the Parish Council, because of incidences where vehicles were parking on the corners of the bell mouth. Although the proposal shows the standard junction protection for the restriction in the Sandwich Road, the lines were extended further into Cherry Garden Lane to dissuade anyone form possibly parking along the narrow length of road prior to the junction. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the County Council.

Appendix A2

Lawn Road Walmer Deal.

Response to proposals: Objections 1, Support 0, Others1 Key points raised by objector : I wish to object to the above planning application proposing to install double yellow lines on

the South-East side of Lawn Road, which runs parallel to my residence, 224 Dover Road. As I understand it, the objection to parking along this stretch of Dover Road has been raised

by the residents of Lawn Road, who claim that parked vehicles block their view when trying to join Dover Road.

If this proposal were to go ahead, it would eliminate all possible parking for the residents between Lawn Road and Walmer Castle Road. Whereas I understand that the visibility is restricted, it is no more so than for many other private resident’s driveways where parking is allowed on either side and exit has to be negotiated in the same way as when exiting from Lawn Road.

You must be aware that there are many roads across the county where visibility is restricted by parked cars; this is all part of the disadvantages of the volume of traffic now present in our towns. Should we then ban all cars from parking on the road? I fail to understand what makes the residents of Lawn Road, who have their own private parking spaces and have already installed large plant pots along the outside wall of my residence, effectively reducing parking for other residents still further, different to any other road users.

I would like to formally object to this proposal and trust that you will give this matter your due consideration before continuing.

Key points raised by other respondent : From the plan, it appears that there will be a gap between the present double yellow line

(DYL) from Walmer Castle Road and the proposed DYL from outside 224 Dover Road and the corner with Lawn Road. This will still allow a car or cars to park on this side thereby obscuring the sight of cars emerging from Lawn Road.

In previous correspondence I have mentioned the siting of the two Refuge Islands which were installed opposite the shed of no234 Dover Road and Winsor Court and also that installed opposite 213(?) and 236 Dover Road, Walmer.

The first mentioned appears to be of little benefit, as the line of sight, on the South-West side (travelling to Deal) is very restricted and the traffic cannot be seen approaching when standing on the pavement, prior to attempting to cross.

There have been some minor accidents caused by the siting of this Refuge Island (witness various debris from cars which was left nearby) and also the damaged yellow signs on the Refuge Island. The lamp post was damaged some months ago, was cut down and has not been replaced, if it ever will.

Is it not time that this Refuge Island is removed completely? This would be a good time for action to be taken on this prior to this section of the Deal/Dover Road being resurfaced early in February 2009.

It appears that a “dropped kurb” was proposed for the Refuge Islands, in plans released in December 2004, to be installed opposite the Refuge Islands, but no action was ever taken.

Summary: Incraesing car ownership inevitably leads to increased traffic and thus to road side parking. Hence slowly over a period of time, cars along certain roads start parking too close to driveways and jubctions. From the diagram, the junction of lawn Road with Dover Road is not bellmouthed and emerges straight out on to abusy road with an incline. Therefore those using this junction felt concerned enough about the safety of this egress to request an improvement to the sightlines. It is a standard requirement of the Traffic Police that any double yellow lines used for junction protection must extend for a distance of at least 10 metres away from a junction. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the Council Council.

Appendix A3

Stanhope Road Dover.

Response to proposals: Objections 3, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objector : Whilst I understand why it is now deemed necessary to take the proposed action, I must

make the following observations and convey my personal concerns. Without wishing to appear pedantic, there is no “Turning Area” in Stanhope road rather than

a number of areas including the proposed site where vehicles turn round. For example my drive is used as a turning area as are my neighbour’s. I recall many years ago approaching the council to create a proper “Turning Area” using a small part of the land to the North of Stanhope Road. This was declined even though the land was at that time owned by the KCC.

As one of the residents who complained about the inconsiderate/dangerous parking at the bottom end of Stanhope Road which resulted in the double yellow lines there, I cannot ignore the unforeseen impact of thet action. The offending vehicles from Barton Road are now parked further up Stanhope Road, thus increasing the parking demands at the lower end. Yellow lines at the top end will undoubtedly have a similar effect.

I recently paid to have a white line painted across the access point to my garage in the hope that I would not have to continually challenge drivers who would park across my drive without consideration to my access rights. I still find that on occasions the situation has not changed. My concernnnow is that if yellow lines are painted as proposed, people will simply park across my drive regardless. I am aware of the saying, “you cannot legislate for idiots”, this proposal will have to be the exception.

If yellow lines are painted as proposed, how will the situation be policed? I ask this question because since the lines have been painted at the bottom end of Stanhope Road, I have often witnessed vehicles in both Stanhope Road and Barton Road parked on the yellow lines. I have never seen a parking enforcement officer in attendance to challenge these inconsiderate drivers. As a consequence of no policing, more and more drivers ignore these yellow lines.

It is my experience that the problems at the top end of Stanhope Road will occur during the evenings and at weekends which are outside of the operating hours of parking enforcement officers. This being the case, what action do you advise when someone parks across my drive?

In conclusion and as previously stated, I do understand why this propel has come about. I do also feel that it is equally important to include within this proposal a longer term strategy that ensures that by solving one problem that you do not create another for those of us, (9 in total) who have garages/drives. After all, we are tax payers too.

By comparison to many other Cul-de-Sacs in Dover, Stanhope Road has to be one of the widest. I am aware that other roads with no through access are much narrower and vehicles are parked partly on the pavements to ease access. No attempt has been made by the local authority to paint yellow lines to create a turning point in these roads.

As stated in my earlier letter most vehicles turn using the drop down kerbs for driveways. To give an example, last evening of the 20 vehicles that came up Stanhope Road, all but 3 turned round by my drive, the other 3 turned round further down the road.

I understand from my neighbour that this proposal came about as a result of one complaint. I would hazard a guess that that complaint arose following an unusually heavey demand on parking on New Year’s Eve when a neighbour held a party and some of the guests came in

their cars. I believe that the published notice of intent is somewhat misleading as it implies that a

“Turning Point” exists. It does not. The top end of Stanhope Road is no wider than any other part of the road. I must also point out that private cars are not the only vehicles that drive up Stanhope Road. We have the refuse collection and recycling vehicles. There are also large delivery lorries that come up from time to time. They reverse up the hill. Given their size and restricted rear vision, I would say that it would be much easier for a car to reverse up than one of these larger vehicles.

This proposal will have an adverse impact on the ability for people to park their cars which need to go somewhere. I feel that it is wrong to consider placating the demands of one resident to the detriment of the greater number. To remove this valuable parking will cause some drivers to obstruct drives thus creating friction and tension amongst neighbours.

I could understand if more people had complained, but to react to one complainant who has clearly not thought the implications of this through cannor be justified. The problem at the bottom of the road was a different matter and was potentially dangerous.

I would like to object the move to place double yellow lines at the top end of Stanhope Road.

I do not feel that anything would be gained by this only more congestion as the terraced houses down the road will just try parking outside mine and others at the top of Stanhope Properties. (semi detached).

Yellow lines were placed at the bottom of Stanhope last year which has had absolutely no effect at all especially at weekends and school days (mornings) when cars are parked right on the corners which is dangerous. If it is not policed what is the point.

Therefore I object to further unnecessary restrictions at the top end of Stanhope with those at the bottom moving their cars further up and those further up moving their cars down it will just end up with less parking and more people complaining.

My family and I wuld like to object to the proposed double yellow lines to the closed end of Stanhope Road.

I must first point out that there is no “turning area” at the top of Stanhope Road. In fact the top end is, if anything, the narrowest point as the field encroaches onto the road, and that part of the road is no longer council owned since the field was sold off. The boundary includes all the land to the North of the drop down kerb to my drive excluding the additional piece of land purchased by me soon after we moved in. Your Plans need updating.

Not only will this proposal take away valuable parking space, it will encourage more people from the lower end of the road to drive to the top to turn around. Not an environmentally sympathetic strategy.

The lines will go across the front of my house which will force me to park further down. Past experience has proved that vehicles parked here are more vulnerable to impact and consequential damage. Not only this, but my drive will be exposed to every driver who chooses to use it as part of the “turning area”. Just the other day my neighbour witnessed a vehicle drive onto my drive right up to the garage doors to turn around at a time of day when there were no cars parked at the top.

When I moved to Stanhope Road I did so partly because of the ability to park my car easily. I cannot use my garage as it is used to accommodate family motor bikes. Icannot park on my drive as it will obstruct access to the garage and would also obstruct the pavement as the drive is quite short.

I understand that this proposal came about as a result of a complaint from one resident. This being the case, maybe the problem is down to the driving skills or lack of rather than anything else. Will that resident welcome the reality of possibly not being able to park their car if valuable parking spaces are lost? People have to park their cars somewhere and this proposal will if allowed to go through, cause more problems than it solves.

Summary: From the comments received the area at the top of Stanhope Road is not a true “turning area”. The road edge at this location is not clearly defined, as there being no kurb edging and that the slopping ground encroaches around the periphery. Thus the road width is narrower than the rest of the road further down. Currently vehicles (of various sizes) using the area to turn, have been seen on a number of occasions to drive over the pavement and onto the driveway of No 74, right up to the wall of the property. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal is not pursued.

Appendix A4

Whitfield Primary School, Mayfield Rd, Dover.

Response to proposals: Objections 1, Support 0, Others1 Key points raised by objector : Having three kids of our own we can fully appreciate the safety of children is paramount and

rightfully so. However, we feel that by having these lines outside our house would reduce our overall happiness with our property.

We moved to the area stretching ourselves financially to afford what we considered our dream home with four bedrooms, off-road parking etc..etc.

One of the aspects of buying the house was that we have one off road parking space plus plenty of room to park on the road which was a major factor for when family and friends come to visit. The last situation we want is to have vistors then have to go outside and try and get another parking space at certain times.

I work locally having my lunch hour mid-afternoon. Usually I come home but struggle to obtain a parking space and if those lines were there it would be almost impossible. One time last summer I was forced to park just on the yellow lines and when I came out of my door I was greeted with policeman ready to give me a ticket. Petty as it may seem but I can honestly say I would not have purchased the property if I knew those lines were to be introduced at a later date.

I would also like to add that quite often people point out the lack of parking space our property currently suffers with during school hours. I fear if this was to get worse it would have a negative effect on our property price in a declining market and putting off potential buyers.

I would appreciate if you could by some way get back to me wiyh a compromise. Key points raised by other respondent : In your letter you state that it is proposed to increase the length of the school entrance (Zig-

Zag) markings to provide additionally safety. From the plan attached you are in fact increasing the length of three zig-zags and

shortening the other one. We have no problems with the increased length as it will give a better view to the crossing

patrol attendant and help keep the school gates clear. However by shortening the one which is opposite our bungalow it would make it very difficult for us to drive on or off our drive during school drop off and collection period.

The road is 5 metres wide and the path on our side is 1.6 metres giving us a 6.6 metre area to turn in. If a vehicle is parked opposite our drive that will take at least 2 metres from our turning area leaving us only 4.6 metres including the path to get our car out.

We understand that in car parks the minimum distance allowed is 6 metres between bays. If the zig-zag has to go would it be possible to have a white line not only in ront of our drive but on the opposite side to allow safe access to our drive?

We therefore request that the zig-zag line opposite our bungalow remains in the same place, or another means of parking restriction put in place to enable us to have vehicle access to our property at all times.

Summary: Originally requested by the School, this proposal received two letters, one of whom objected to the scheme. The other asked if the marking on the Eastern side of Mayfield Road, could be extended six (6) metres, so as to pass opposite the vehicle access of No 34. Suggested Action: The Board is asked to agree that the scheme be amended to extend the markings on the East side of Mayfield Road, opposite No 34.

Appendix A5

Squires Way/Pardoners Way Dover.

Response to proposals: Objections 9, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objectors : I wish to lodge an objection to the degree of yellow lines proposed for Squires Way, while I

appreciate the need for lines around the junction I for one have been asking for this. Idon’t see the need for lines right up to the lay by in Squires Way.

What alternative parking are you supplying as this will mean approximately 20 vehicles will have to find some where to park. The proposal will create more problems than it will solve by pushing these vehicles into Squires Way plus many from Pardoners Way causing aggravation for people who already park outside of the homes.

There are only four that usually park on the other side of Squires Way two of which can be inconsiderate (excluding those on the hill). A letter asking the to park one side as done in Weavers Way may surfice but also stating if co-operation in this wasn’t forth coming then yellow lines would then be extended.

Yellow lines only need to be two vehicles either side up the hill and three vehicles either side of the bottom of the junction and of course across the junction. Itrust you will take these points on board.

The only thing I have against this idear is there seems to be no plans for additional parking for the 20 plus cars that will be affected. The parking along this road is limited now so with the proposals of yellow lines it will be impossible to park.

Across the road from my house there is a piece of waste land, could that not be turned into a parking area for the local residents.

Thank you for sending a copy of the proposed plans regarding the parking restrictions, would you please accept thjis e-mail as an objection to the said plans.

I do accept the junction between Squires Way and Pardoners Way must be kept clear for emergency vehicles, but you could please re-consider the 10 metres South West double yellow lines into Pardoners Way, to maybe 5 metres, which would free up additional parking spaces.

Also on the attached plans I did not realise it would be the whole of Squires Way right around the corner into the parking bays at the top. If this goes ahead we will have a situation where we will lose roughly up to 15 car parking spaces, which would be a catastrophic situation and would impact on all surrounding streets in the area, as parking in our own street, i.e., Pardoners Way is very restricted after 5pm at present, after 11pm on a late shift, when I come home, there is very rarely anywhere to park.

My thoughts on the matter for Squires Way to alleviate such parking difficulties would be, possibly, to keep the double yellow lines 5 or 10metres from the junctionof Pardoners into Squires and may be keep the pavement side up the hill to the parking bays free of yellow lines.

If the the proposed plans go ahead this will cause agreat deal of problems for all the surrounding areas. Please could you reconsider your decision.

I would like to set out my objections to the proposed restrictions by use of double yellow lines, there is no disputing that the junction with Squires Way &Pardoners Way needs to be kept clear however I find it hard to accept that a 10metre strech of Pardoners Way is needed let alone nearly all of Squires Way, I believe that a 5metre section in Pardoners Way as well as in Squires Way would be ample.

Your proposed action remove 15 to 16 parking spaces cauing many problems withparking

only moving the problem from one area to another. I am concerned about the proposal to ban parking on sections of Pardoners Way. There

are 26 vehicles belonging to the residents of this street that need to park. Take these plus visitors and the occasional trade vehile, then it does not need a great deal of imagination to realise that parking spaces are at a premeium, especially at night and at the week-end. The only alternative in this situation is either to park on Squires Way, or at the junction of Pilgrims Way (where the bus stop used to be) IF there is a space available there, and quite often ther is not.

I understand that you only intend to ban parking 10metres each side of the junction of Pardoners and Squires Way. This Probabley does not sound a great deal, but in reality represents five or six vehicles, that will have nowhere to park.

The problem unfortunately may not stop there. As you also propose to ban parking on Squires Way Ifear that those residents who live and park on the east end of Squires Way are naturally going to creep down to Pardoners Way as that will be the nearest area with any parking spaces. This will just compound the situation.

I would therefore like to put three separate proposals forward. 1. Instead of having a “No waiting at anytime” restriction at the junction, have a restricted

waiting time, i.e. No waiting between the hours 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday. During this period Pardoners Way will be much clearer, as many of the residents will have left for work, and even the council refuse vehicle should be able to negotiate that corner. Most residents start reappearing from work at about 5pm by which time the refuse vehicle and any large commercial vehicle will also have finished work. As it is rare for any large commercial vehicles to use the road at the week-end I suggest that this restriction be for Monday to Friday only, thus relieving the parking problem over the week-end. Irealise that this does not solve the possible problem of the Squires Way residents parking in Pardoners Way. Please see Proposal 3.

2. Opposite the junction there is a grass bank that runs parallel to the garden of 20 Pardoners Way. This bank could be removed and that area turned into a lay-by. Vehicles that park in that lay-by will effectively be off the road, and ANY vehicle should be able to negotiate that junction.

3 The above proposals have not taken into account problems which may affect the residents of Squires Way. Along the East side of Squires Way is a sward of grass (old prefab site), with a fairly wide track leading onto it. As this is rarly seems to be used by anyone, other than the occasional dog walker, perhaps this could be turned into a parking area. Vehicle access to this area is easy, and it will turn what is basically waste ground into something of use and purpose.

I am very distressed to learn that we are to be losing parking spaces in our road. As you probably know, at the moment we can only park on one side of the road due to there being a bank on the other side, so already we are limited for parking spaces.

I work shift work and sometimes I have to get into my car in the early hours of the morning, so I do not reish the idea of having to walk to the next street to get into my car. Many a time by the time my husband gets in from work the street is full and he has to park in the next street.

I also have grandchildren who are babies and I don’t want to have to struggle withthem and shopping because I am so far from my fron door.

I know the dustman and the recycle men have had problems getting round, but this situation has been the same for years. I can understand you putting the yellow lines on the corner so that they can swing round but not for the distance that you are proposing.

We have looked at the paperwork that we received from you concerning the parking restrictions along Squires Way, Dover. We have objections to these proposals, mainly due to the lack of parking here at the moment which would get considerably worse if these plans were brought in.

The majority of houses on this road have two cars, in some cases considerably more so to

lose as much parking space as you are proposing would mean A LOT more cars being parked along Squires Way, most of which would end up being parked along the stretch of road directly outside our house, which would obviously lead to us having to park half a mile down the road.

Only ata the beginning of this week a car which was parked a short distance from our house was vadalised, we are not prepared to let this happen to our car, maybe if the transit vans and caravans were not permanently parked here then ther would be more room for everyone else and this would also allow large lorries/emergency vehicles etc. room to pass without hitting something!

You are taking away a lot of parking spaces and not replacing them with anything even though parking her is already a joke. If this goes ahead it will make an already bad situation a lot worse.

It is with much concern I write this note of objection in regard to the proposal of parking restrictions, from the bottom of Squires Way. I agree that section of the proposal requires “sorting out”.

Suggestion:- a Boxed (T) Keep Clear Junction. It would allow those “Jumbo Trucks” to negotiate the turning.

The part of the proposal that’s causing me and I suppose four other’s who live in the target area of the yellow lines, seems a bit harsh. The “Squires Way slip road” was never updated to near the same level as the “New Squires Way” road which has a pavement on each side of a wider road plus a cut-in for parking some cars.

The place where my car is, and has been parked with my near neighbours, is one wheel on the pavement, this allows, “Fire engines” “Jumbo Trucks” and wide “Vans”.

On receiving your proposal for prohibiting traffic at any time on both sides at the junction with Pardoners Ways I was devastated to see on the map you enclosed exactly where you are proposing to put the yellow lines.

I live on the hill of Squires Way and park my car on the hill so that I can easily get to it and keep an eye on it in the evenings, there have been several break-ins and vandalism to our cars over the years, so protecting our property is all importat.

To access my home I have to walk down an alley from the hill, so we don’t even have the option of building a driveway. I have parked on the hill 15 years and there has never that I know, ben a aproblem with access on this hill.

There is also a safety issue if the lines went ahead I would have to park several roads away (out of the perimeter of the map you gave us) because by the time I get home in the evening all neaby parking would be taken forcing me to park some distance, where I ca’t protect my proberty and even worse to walk to my home in the dark on poorly lighted roads where I fear for my safety by attack or injury. That is why Iam very anxious and am not the only female who lives on the hill and has to park late in the evening.

In response to your reason for the restriction I agree that the junction at Pardoners Way has become congested and has made access in/out of Squires Way prohibiting but not as you come up or down the hill, there hasn’t been a problem as all the residents who live on the hill are always respectful of passing traffic.

The dust wagons don’t have a problem passing our cars on the hill. I have observed the wagons coming from Pardoners Way up into the junction of Squires Way and have seen their difficulty, but once they have passed the cars obstructing the junction, they freely come up the hill with no difficulty. In fact the last two weeks they have had to avoid this junction and reverse down our hill to collect our rubbish. Does this not tell you that the problem lays at the junction. You must admit that the access on the hill isn’t the biggest issue compared to the junction.

There have been two fire in the house next door to us and the fire brigade manged to park on the hill. I whole heartedly agree the flow of traffic should be unhindered but the cause isn’t on the hill of Squires Way. Perhaps there should be some lines running on the corners of Pardoners Way and Squires Way to prevent people from parking at the junction which I feel

is the main problem. Summary: From the letters received there is a common agreement that restrictions are required for the junction of Squires Way with Pardoners Way. At present a number of cars park half onto the pavement that runs along the North Eastern side of Squires Way adjacent to no 29. No traffic ever parks along the opposite (South Western) side, because to do so would block the road. Therefore to ensure this side remains clear double yellow lines should be continued from Pardoners Way to around in front of no 36. Suggested Action: That the existing proposal be withdrawn and a revised plan be brought back to the Board for permission to re- advertise.

Appendix A6

Cow Lane/Church Road Dover.

Response to proposals: Objections 6, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objectosr : I am the resident of 33 Church Road and am writing to object to the proposed order to

prohibit waiting at any time (double yellow lines) on the Eastern side from the boundary of 27/29 Church Road to 10 metres Norh of Cow Lane.

My grounds for the objection are as follows. 1. If the reason for the proposed order is to ease traffic congestion then this is unjustified

because Church Road only gets busy at a certain few times during the day and at these times hardly any cars are parked on the road in question. At night, when the parking increases, the road is not so busy with traffic. This is not the M25, this is a residential area for goodness sake!

2. My father who is 72 years old and the owner of our vehicle has just had a hip replacement and has other health problems. If the proposed order goes ahead he will be forced tp park thre car in Markland Road and have to walk (Stuggle) home when he should be able to be free to park outside his own house. This could be particulary dangerouse for a 72 year old man at night.

3. I believe in freedom and if the proposed order goes ahead, this would clearly be an abuse of power by the authorities.

4. Of cause this is an assumption but I, along with other think that the real reason for the proposed order is so that the Council can make money by fining drivers who park on the double yellow lines.

To sum up any reason for the proposed order to prohibit waiting at any time on this part of Church Road, does not justify the proposed order going ahead. The idea of the proposed order to prohibit waiting at any time (double yellow lines) is lunacy. Lets not have yet another example of “red tape”, “nanny state”, “big brother” Britain. Please let common sense and freedom prevail by not going ahead with the proposed and leaving the parking on the Eastern side from th boundary of 27/29 Church Road to 10 metres North of Cow Lane alone.

Parking on Church Road is becoming impossible for the residents as more and more cars owned by residents of Malmains Road Folkestone Road are being parked on Church Road, plus commercial vehicles (“white vans”), each of which takes the space of 2 small cars and for you further diminish available parking by about 9 or 10 spaces is absolutely absurd. It shows that no thought whatsoever has been given to the matter.

Where are we expected to park? Markland Road is full; Elms Vale Road is full. Have you even considersd providing addition parking – possibly by the compulsory purchase of land at the top of Church Road and Malmains Road This is shown as having common access but is impossible to walk through due to neglect and the fouling of almost the entire area by dogs. The area is of no use to anyone; it is not of special scientific interest and is certainly not an area of outstanding natural beauty. You would be able to provide anple parking for a number of cars.

I understand that your proposal is the result of a complaint by one (1) resident of Cow Lane who finds it difficult to negotiate the junction with Church Road. That person obviously has not mastered even basic driving skills if he/she is unable to safely negotiate a junction.

Church Road is used as a “rat run” by traffic heading to /through Tower Hamlets and gets extremely busy. Many drivers approach the corner too fast and there have been a large number of “near misses” and on occasions foul-mothed heated exchanges between drivers

going in opposing directions, neither of whom is willing to give way. The placing of double yellow lines on thea section of road will encourage drivers to travel even faster and will inevitably lead to accidents. Church Road is used by a large number of children going to the numerous schools in the area and your proposal will inevitably put their lives at even greater risk due to the increased speed of traffic.

The number of cars exiting Cow Lane is minimal, you can count the number on the fingers of one hand during a normal day, and the obvious solution to the “problem” descrbed by just one resident is to make Cow Lane a one-way road from West (TOP) TO East (bottom). That would inconvenience nobody and involve no more expense than your double yellow lines.

I would like to know why this matter was not initially addressed by the committee who gave planning permission for the building of rresidential properties in Cow lane.

The junction is exactly the same now as it was when the houses were built. The complaining Cow Lane resident should have checked access to and from the road when he/she first considered buying the property.

Prior to the building of residential properties in Cow Lane the site was occupied by Elms Vale Laundary. Large commercial vehicles were up and down Cow Lane all day with no problems. There is a motor-factor shop in Elms Vale Road whose delivery vehicles constantly uses the road – they seem to have no problems.

I wish to express my opinion that this outrageous proposal will cause anger and resentment among the residents of Church Road who are already hard-pressed to park their vehicles near their own homes and indeed in the road in which they reside.

I wish to object to these plans and have outlined my reasons for doing so below. 1. The immediate concern presented is for the parking situation. These plans will seriously

impact levels of available parking in the road. The road already suffers from parking difficulties at peak times, and is often compounded by parking limitations in Malmains Road. The residents of Malmains Road occasionally park in Church Road and cut though along the path alongside 42a Church Road, thereby increasing the numbers of parked cars in Church Road. To add double yellow lines to the area planned, will remove approximately 10 car parking spaces. This will make parking more difficult and also affect parking availability in adjacent road. There are a large number of families in this road, and although I am not one , to ask a parent to park several roads away, with shopping, small children etc. Ifeel is extremely unfair.

2. Another concern is the impact that removing the parking spaces will have on the volume of traffic travelling along Church Road. Volume of traffic will increase if motorists know that they are able to proceed without delay. Aroad busier than it already is, is not ideal will present further cost and problems in the future with road wear and tear.

3. Another concern is the impact that removing the parking spaces will have on the speed of traffic travelling along Church Road. Currently it is used as a cut through from and to Folkestone, Marklands, Elms Vale, and Eaton Roads etc. Vehicles are limited in their speeds as there is only room for one car to pass through the bend at the top of Church Road. Removing the parked cars, would allow traffic to travel at much greater speeds. We have a playgroup, nearby schools and a church in the imminent area. With children and elderly travelling to and from these venues, the potential speed of vehicles is of serious concern. Adding speed limits signage would also not help, as I truly believe that all it would take is a driver to be travelling at a few miles over the speed limit (not to mention provide an extra cost). The television adverts are well known, detailing that hitting a child at 35mph, they have an 80% chance they’ll die, hitting a child at 30, they have an 80% chance they’ll live.

If you were to continue with carrying out these proposal, I would be very interested to know how you would tackle these issues, as peoples’s health and safety are at risk, as well as their quality of life. Currently having no limit on parking is a selling point to people wishing to sell their houses, so that will also be impacted.

I do have some suggestions for dealing with the issues, either with or without your proposals being carried out. These suggestions have attemped to take ino consideration the current

economic climate, as all businesses are trying ti limit costs, whilst still delivering on services. Firstly, make the road one way in the direction of Elms Vale to Folkestone, which without

double yellow lines would slow traffic, eliminate traffic congestion. This would be at cost to the Council, but a business case for this suggestion would show that the problem would be resolved for a small cost.

Secondly, Parking permits for residents would allow better control over parking. One per household, with the possibility to buy a second from the Council. This suggestion could potentially make money for the council, although would increase paperwork. I do not feel that this would take too mnuch effort to implement, as other areas have similar procedures in place.

Thirdly, allow those of us , who are able to, todrop kerbs and add driveways, which would lower the number of cars parking on the road. I am one such person, and if you were to continue with your plans, I will be entering requests to drop the section of kerb outside my property, so that I would be able to guarantee a parking space for myself, and also for any prspective owners in the future.

I am writing to voice my very strong objection to the placing of double yellow lines outside my house, for the following reasons:

I am a single parent with two small children, one of whom is still a baby. Without a parking space outside my house I will have to carry the baby, plus pram,plus bags quite a long way to a parking space, which is difficult enough to do when you are parked outside the house! Not to mention getting my weekly shop will be a nightmare as I will have to carry all the shopping and the baby to and from the house several times.

I work partime and my father looks after the baby for me , he is a blue disabled badge holder and will have trouble walking the extra distance to find a space too. Church Road is already full to bursting with cars and on the nights I come home from work I am lucky if I find a space in the road at all, the creation of your proposed road markings will take yet another 4 or 5 parking spaces away from an already full street.

My house is directly opposite the church hall and traffic is brisk here-the spaces outside my house are used in the daytime for people dropping off and collecting children from the full time nursery ther, and at weekends all the churchgoers park here to attend services. The hall is also the local polling station and everyone parks here to vote on polling days. It is also used by girls brigade and the elderly for events and meetings.

I also object strongly to double yellow lines being put outside my house for financial reasons-it will seriously affect my resale value of my home if there is no parking, and at a time when prices are already falling as a single parent struggling already this is not good news, especially as the road in Cow Lane, which was built after I moved here has two exits and they also have their own off road parking.

I feel this is completely unnecessary as I have lived here nearly ten years and have never seen any accident as a result of cars parked here. Lorries use this as a short cut and have no trouble passing through and the fire engine passed here at Christmas with no trouble. Cow lane should be made one way if the residents have such trouble pulling out near the church, they have only a few houses and our street is used for parking not only by residents but lots of other communities all day.

I am writing with regard to the proposed parking restrictions in Church Road to Cow Lane, Dover, and would advise I am opposed to the proposals.

Aldready, the road does not have sufficient parking places, and often I have to park a road away in Markland Road. If these restrictions proceed, it is surely going to cause parking problems in another area locally, iemore cars will be parked along Markland Road or Folkestone Road.

The proposal is surely just moving the problem from one road to another! I appreciate that due to the parking on the corner of Church Road, this can cause problems

with traffic meeting on the corner. The solution to me , would be to make Church Road one way with speed humps. Therefore, traffic travelling in opposite directions would not meet and

therefore you could continue to park without a problem. I am writing in response to your letter regarding the proposal to place double yellow lines

outside my property and wish to lodge a formal objection to the plans. I have been a resident here for some 26 years and, during that time, have seen a steady

increase in the number of cars parked in Church Road. Many households, mine included, are two/three car families and this, coupled with the use of Church Road by those in Markland/Malmains and Folkestone Road means that parking is a nightmare.

The road itself is extremely busy, particularly during the school runs, and it is only the fact that there are many cars parked in the road that speeds are kept to a minimum, through necessity, ensuring there have been very few accidents along this stretch.

By placing lines along the area shown ther is bound to be an increase in the speed at which drivers take the top corner and this can only lead to increased risk of accidents and injury to both drivers and pedestrians.

I also strongly object to my property being de-valued by removing the outside parking, this will affect all the properties in this block as well as making it very difficult for the elderly residents to walk to and fro from wherever it is going to be possible to park with shopping etc.

I believe thatb this ludicrous idea has been the result of one complaint from a resident of Cow Lane who appears to have trouble using the junction. Ther was for many years a Laundry in Cow Lane and there was never a problem with the commercial vehicles that used the junction on a regular basis.

I can only suggest that the person concerned seeks some sort of further driving instruction to assist with this problem. It is also interesting to note that the Cow Lane residents all have driveways and Garages, a classic case of “Pull the latter up, I’m all right” if ever there was one.

If there was a need for traff ic calming it seems much more sensible to make Church Road one way, thus reducing the congestion at the top corner and ensuring that the road is not used as ashort cut to the Tower Hammlets area during the morning school run.

This proposal can only cause anger and resentment to those of us who have lived here trouble free for many years and make the already onerous task of finding a parking space even more difficult.

Summary: The original inquirey was from a resident in Cow Lane, expressing concerns when they exit on to Church Road, because of vehicles parked near the junction. Before any proposal is brought before the members for permission to advertise, we always contact the ward members for any comment. Of the three Ward members one was in favour, one did not pass any comment, and one felt that the Cow Lane proposal was in the wrong place and that they should actually be on the bend of Church Road, outside no’s 31,29 up to the boundary with 27. Further also suggesting placement of precaution signs from both directions advising “slow down-dangerouse bend” and a 20mph or less speed limit. From the letters received the following comments were the most common; Parking – effects of losing a number of parking spaces. Church Road being used a rat-run by traffic to Tower Hamletts. Approach corner to fast, have been a number of near misses and foul mouthed exchages, where neither driver is willing to give way. Make Cow Lane one way to Elms Vale Road Make Church Road one way. Incresing car ownership inevitably leads to increased traffic and an increase in road side

parking. Thus slowly over a period of time cars along certain roads start parking too close to junctions which becomes a hazard and which the Highway Authority needs to address. It is a standard requirement of the Traffic Police that any double yellow lines used for junction protection must extent for a distance of ata least 10 metres away from the junction and conform to the Highway Code. With reference to the plan a compromise would be to proceed with the junction protection, which could also act as a pull in if vehicals meet near the corner. The concern with the corner raised by the Ward member, can be delt with by approaching Kent Highway Services for warning signs to be erected. Suggested Action: That the existing proposal be withdrawn and a revised plan be brought back to the Board for permission to re-advertise.

Appendix A7

South Road Dover.

Response to proposals: Objections 2, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objectors : I wish to object to the following “prohibit waiting at Any Time (Double Yellow Lines). I have been to look at the proposed waiting restrictions and in general I agree with the lines

being painted. However I wish to object to one of the items: A18, 2(a) The junction with Tower Hamlets Street and South Road; outside and along side number 38

(actually on South Road) I feel that ten (10) metres of double yellow lines is excessive. Ibelieve that five (5) metres of

double yellow lines should be sufficient and more appropriate. This would allow adequate vision for traffic coming out of Tower Hamlets Street and also allow an extea parking space.

With reference to the leaflet put through the doors regarding double yellow lines leading off South Road. I live second from the corner which means these lines are outside my house so when I park I shall be taking one of the neighbours spaces, when I phoned about this I was told it would sort itself out, I would like to know how when there will be about 30 cars to find places.

I have witnessed the problem with the buses which was caused by a commercial van parking where ever they can, we can’t see up or down South Raod when trying to get out of Odo Road. Once parked on a Friday night they don’t move till Monday. They also park on the pavements so pedestrians and pushchairs can’t get by. Its not as if the drivers live in South Road they go up Lower or Wyndham Roads. There seems a simple answer to this problem to ban commercial vehicles from the area.

Iwould also like to know if this will reduce the value of my property with no parking, I imagine there will be no reduction on my poll tax.

Summary: It is a standard requirement from the Traffic Police that any new restrictions are provided at junctions that the restriction should be for a 24 hour period and extend for a minimum distance of 10metres from the junction. This is to ansure compliance with the Highway Code. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the County Council.

Appendix A8

Minnis Lane, River - Dover.

Response to proposals: Objections 1, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objector : I am writing in regard to your proposals for restricting parking on Lower Road and Minnis

Lane in River. I would like to state that I uncategorically object to any proposal to allow greater or faster

following traffic down these roads. As you are aware River is a small historic village which is unfortunately used as a rat run by many people commuting between Dover and Folkestone via the Alkham Road. This is due in large part to the fact that the junction at Alkham Road is not well-planned, and during rush hour ther are significant delays.

My feeling is that the proposed changes will make use of the shortcut through River even more attractive and will increase traffic on these roads, which are NOT designed for high use. I feel your obligation is to try to funnel through onto major roads, and that therefore you should avoid doing anything which will encourage a higher flow of traffic down these roads.

As a resident of River for 10 years, I am aware of the minor inconvenience using these roads, but it is much less than the inconvenience of high traffic, and what’s more, making these changes will not solve the problem, as the real problem is the unwanted flow of traffic through the village.

I suggest that your effort would be better spent sorting out the junction between Alkham Road and London Road, i.e. with a roundabout (preferably) or traffic light.

I am aware of occasional problems in parking near my house (number 92 Lower Road) which make it difficult for lorries to make deliveries at the Co-Op on Lower Road, so Iam not opposed to a lesser set of restrictions, for example, double yellow lines in front of my house and the house opposite, which would be sufficient to allow lories to pass through. This would also limit the loss of parking spaces, which are already in extremely short supply, to one ,instead of three (in practice, no one parks in front of No 92 anyway, so double yellow lines ther would not constitute a real loss of parking).

I hope you will consider my comments thoroughly, as I believe that your proposals would lead to increased traffic and loss of quality for the residents of River, without addressing the root cause of the problem.

Summary: This proposal was to overcome difficulties due to vehicles parking in/along the narrow Southern section of Minnis Lane. Where the road width permits, parking will still continue as before. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the County Council.

Appendix A9

Low Road (outside no 161) River, Dover.

Response to proposals: Objections 2, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objector : As residents for more thean fifty years we wish to comment on the above The increasing number of cars means that finding a parking space outside or near our house

is becoming difficult. We now both have trouble walking long distances and a ready parking spot close by is rather more importance to us than it used to be.

The proposed new arrangements can only make the general parking situation worse by reducing the spaces available. Having studied the movement of traffic for a long time, we would suggest a more straight-forward alternative to your proposed changes.

The main issue is access for large delivery lorries needing to reach the Co-Op further along the road. By placing “no parking” yellow lines in front of Nos 96,94 and 92 (on the North-East side of road), rather than just in front of Nos 96 and 94 as proposed, an adequately clear through-run for traffic will be created, without the need to add further yellow lines opposite, in front of Nos157 and 159 Lower Road.

We would be grateful if you would carefully reconsider your proposed changes in the light of this suggestion.

I am writing in regard to your proposals for restricting parking on Lower Road and Minnis Lane in River.

I would like to state that I uncategorically object to any proposal to allow greater or faster following traffic down these roads. As you are aware River is a small historic village which is unfortunately used as a rat run by many people commuting between Dover and Folkestone via the Alkham Road. This is due in large part to the fact that the junction at Alkham Road is not well-planned, and during rush hour ther are significant delays.

My feeling is that the proposed changes will make use of the shortcut through River even more attractive and will increase traffic on these roads, which are NOT designed for high use. I feel your obligation is to try to funnel through onto major roads, and that therefore you should avoid doing anything which will encourage a higher flow of traffic down these roads.

As a resident of River for 10 years, I am aware of the minor inconvenience using these roads, but it is much less than the inconvenience of high traffic, and what’s more, making these changes will not solve the problem, as the real problem is the unwanted flow of traffic through the village.

I suggest that your effort would be better spent sorting out the junction between Alkham Road and London Road, i.e. with a roundabout (preferably) or traffic light.

I am aware of occasional problems in parking near my house (number 92 Lower Road) which make it difficult for lorries to make deliveries at the Co-Op on Lower Road, so Iam not opposed to a lesser set of restrictions, for example, double yellow lines in front of my house and the house opposite, which would be sufficient to allow lories to pass through. This would also limit the loss of parking spaces, which are already in extremely short supply, to one ,instead of three (in practice, no one parks in front of No 92 anyway, so double yellow lines there would not constitute a real loss of parking).

I hope you will consider my comments thoroughly, as I believe that your proposals would lead to increased traffic and loss of quality for the residents of River, without addressing the root cause of the problem.

Summary: The proposal is to assist in maintaining a through acces, particularly for large vehicle even if they have to manoeuvre around anything parked outside No 92. From the two letters, the residents at 155 have suggested that double yellow line would be better placed outside No’s 96,94 & 92, and not to have those outside No’s 157 & 159. From the drawing the lines are not outside No 157. The resident at No 92 has mentioned that they have no objection to double yellow lines outside this property, or directly outside the house opposite. However this suggestion would leave traffic able to park outside No’s 96 & 94, thus not resolving the problem. Suggested Action: The Board to decide on one of the following two actions;

a) To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the County Council as advertised. b) That this proposal be readvertised to show the restrictions outside No’s 92 to 96 inclusive and omiitt those outside No 159 and across the drive of No 161.

Appendix A10

Three Kings Yard Sandwich.

Response to proposals: Objections 6, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objectors : The current proposal, rather than achieving its stated objective “to maintain vehicular access

along narrow roads”, would instead encourage additional traffice, and create risks for residents, cyclists and pedestrians and visitors following the Sandwich Town Trail.

We are most concerned at the proposal to put double yellow lines along the length of 3Kings Yard for the following reasons:-

1. The probability that this much used cycle and pedestrian route on the Town Trail, with little or no pavements, will become even more of a rat run from St Peter’s Street to Strand Street, especially in the morning rush hour.

2. It will also enable traffic/motorists to move at higher speeds. 3. The probability that traffic from Strand Street will attempt to use 3 Kings Yard as a route

to avoid blockages at the High Street intersection 4. This will inevitably create more frequent traffic jams in 3 Kings Yard involving vehicles

seeking to leave or enter Strand Street. 5. We already have problems with commercial vehicles directed by sat-nav systems into

Love Lane, which has no exit onto Strand Street, seeking an escape route. 6. There is a height lmit on 3 Kings Yard because of the building above the roadway

between our house and Three Kings. 7. The residents of 3 Kings Yard are presently able to park in this narrow roadway without

interfering with traffic. In fact the parked cars act as a calming influence, forcing through motorists to drive more slowly and carefully.

Our alternative proposal is that three official car parking bays be created in 3 Kings Yard adjacent to numbers 7,8 and 9 for residents. By preventing parking adjacent to No 10, it would make the turn at the top of 3Kings Yard easier too, by stopping cars parking on the corner.

May I add that yellow lines are only a legalised grafity and not welcome, especially the full length that you propose.

I wish to raise an objection to your proposed scheme to implement double yellow lines in Three Kings Yard, Sandwich.

As a resident of the street, I am concerned that the new scheme could significantly increase danger to pedestrians and property in the street. I believe that instigating double yellow lines will increase the use of Three Kings Yard as a “rat Run”. Currently drivers of the vehicles that use the street are cautious due to parked cars that are usually there and navigate at a slower speed. Without risk of cars I am certain that drivers would a) use Three Kings Yard more often, and b) drive faster through it.

The street currently attracts a fair number of pedestrians (it is part of the town trail and is used by people walking to and from the pubs in the evenings) and has inadequate pavements for walking on. It is currently dangerous enough for pedestrians as it is. As an example, in the morning commuting period,the street is used by cyclist as a short cut to Pfizer. Some of these cyclists tend to ride through at excessive speeds. I have almost been hit by cyclists on several occasions when they blindly turn round the corners. I can imagine this would be far more dangerous with the increased volume of cars (at greater speeds than current) that your proposal is likely to create. Like it or not, at least the cars that park in the street act asa natural speed limiter and deterrent to using the street as a shortcut.

As I am sure you are aware, many of the houses in the street are rented and have a high turn over of occupants. I believe the proposed restrictions would also make it very difficult for tenants to move in and out of the street if no waiting at any time is enforced, as well as causing problems getting deliveries.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my objections. My main concern is for the safety of pedestrians and property in the area: I do not personally own a car, so I do not use the street for parking in. I would hope that if your proposal does go ahead, you enforce traffic calming measures such as speed bumps to slow people down. I would also suggest widening the pavement and placing mirrors at the bends so people can see if anything else is coming. Ultimately I believe your scheme would need a one way system to work properly and, more importantly, safely.

With reference to your possible intent to put double yellow lines in Kings Yard, Ihave a few points to make.

1. Yellow lines will look unsitely and you have to think of the visitors to the town that take a lot of pitures of this particular part of Sandwich.

2. It will cause the road to become a rat-run, ie cars parked one side slow any through traffic.

3. With double yellow lines each side and no actual pavement of such each side of would have to that pedestrians would surly be jay walking on a through road. Rather against the law I would have throught.

Lastly I do live here so I do believe I know what I am talking about. Summary: The last time this proposal was brought before the Board Members ( Monday 18 September 2006), it was recommended that this proposal be reconsidered, with the objective of accommodating some parking outside No’s 1-5. However at a Sandwich Town Council meeting in the early part of 2008, the proprosals for Three Kings Yard were discussed. It was decided at this meeting, that due to congestion and the narrow nature of the road that No spaces at all be left for parking amongst the double yellow lines. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the County Council.

Appendix A11

High Street opp Kingsdown Road St Margarets at Cliffe.

Response to proposals: Objections 1, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objector : I write to object to the above proposal. We have to accept that villages were not designed to

accept the amount of modern day traffic. There is always inadequate parking. By putting restrictive DOUBLE YELLOW LINES anywhere in the village is merely going to create a problem elsewhere, and where, everywhere has insufficient room.

There are many eldery and disabled car users in the village and they will still be able to park on the yellow lines, so the problem wouldn’t completely be eradicated. Taking the ability away to park near the village shop is very bad, especially now we all have to go there to pick up a daily newspaper since house to house deliveries were stopped a long time ago. It would affect the trade in the village shop and then we might be at threat of losing it altogether.

Living in Townsend Farm Road and being disabled myself we are often faced with cars parked that do not live in the area, made worse by the fact that commercial vehicles have been banned from parking at Ash Grove the Housing Development, so we get a great big Home Delivery Van, from up there, park in front of our houses every night and weekend and an ancient old hippy mobile home that rarely moves out so we have lost 2 places permanently to these Housing Trust people. We do not need to lose any more opportunities to park near our houses, even 10 metres, as the availability of road space is already very small and at times is extrememely difficult to park.

For the above reasons I object VERY STRONGLY to the above proposal. Summary: This proposal came about, from concerns that were expressed for when traffic made the turning right from Kingsdown Road. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the County Council.

Appendix A12

Dover Road Sandwich.

Response to proposals: Objections 2, Support 0, Others0 Key points raised by objectors : I have written to your office on the above subject several times in recent months. Apart from

a telephone request for a copy of one letter I have had no reponse to my statement that the expense and time wasting in adding to the existing line at the beginning of the road is a total waste of my Council Tax moneys, apart from being totally unnecessary as the “Line of Sight” will be totally unchanged as no vehicles park on that side of the road except to stop briefly if ther is no spare room on the other side. The normal view of the road during working hours will show as few as 3 vehicles parked on the Northwest side, leaving ample space for delivery vehicles to park at any time.

As far as the short lines outside no’s 67 & 69 are concerned, as they both have dropped kebs for vehicle access, ther is no need to put a restriction ther as other drivers avoid such areas.

Incidentally, I note the at least two of the Sandwich Councillors are directly affected by the proposed restrictions as they live in Dover Road/Stone Cross Lees area.. Also, the new Alexander Mews have their own off-road parkin at the rear of their property.. As far as the farm track entrance beside No 80 is concerned, again nobody ever parks there for the obvious reasons, so why bother to restrict what doesn’t happen anyway.

I am of the opion that no-one from the local Council (Dover or Sandwich) or from Kent County Council has ever bothered to conduct a full day survey to establish the truth of my statements in this and previous letters. Please do not waste my Council Tax on a totally unnecessary exercise.

As previously stated., the line of sight will only be improved by cutting back one of the houses on the bend in Dover Road, which, of course, would’nt please the residents therein! I have lived here 9 years now and have no problem approaching Stone Cross Lees provided I take care when turning into the junction at the beginning of the stretch in question.

I would like to object to the proposed prohibition to waiting Mon-Fri 8am-5.30pm on the North-West side fronting 67 and part of 69 Dover Road, Sandwich, on the ground that this does not in any way benefit residents but, on the contrary, it only exacterbates the existing difficulties with on-road parking. The parking on this stretch of Dover Road is especially difficult in the evenings due to the high concentration of residents in the terraces with no off-road parking.

I would like to ask whether the Council has considered any alternative plans such as closing the East end of Dover Road where it meets the Deal Road nesar No 50, and opening the West end onto the bypass? This would mean the heavey traffic going to and from Sandwich Technology School would be forced to drive straight onto the bypass through the wider end of Dover Road where the houses are set further back and there is very little on-road parking. The narrow East end of Dover Road would then only be used by residents and pedestrians and would not require the proposed restrictions; thus increasing the parking capacity. If the Council were to consider such a proposal they would also benefit the safety of School children who currently walk along the very narrow pavements of Dover Road (No’s 33-67, 50-72) amongst heavey traffic going to and from the School as well as residents leaving for work.

Summary: During the consultion period in August 2008, Sandwich Town C ouncil pointed out an error, concerning the proposed restriction outside no’s 76 – 80 inclusive. Therefore at the Joint Transportation Board meeting on Monday 15 December 2008, the Board agreed that this plan could be re-advertised, incorporating this correction. Suggested Action: To recommend that this proposal be sealed by the County Council.