Agenda and minutes

Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 31 May 2018 2.00 pm

Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield. View directions

Contact: Miss C Tuohy (0116 305 5483).  Email: cat.tuohy@leics.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

Webcast.

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bbT4loiEc8

 

In attendance.

Mr. B. Pain CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Environment and Highways.

Mrs. C. Radford CC, Cabinet Support for Environment and Highways.

78.

Appointment of Chairman.

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That Mr. A. E. Pearson CC be elected as Chairman of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the period ending with the Annual Meeting of the County Council in 2019.

 

Mr. A. E. Pearson CC – in the Chair.

 

79.

Election of Vice Chairman.

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That Dr. P. Bremner CC be elected Deputy Chairman of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the period ending with the Annual Meeting of the County Council in 2019.

 

80.

Minutes of the meeting held on 6 April, 2018. pdf icon PDF 131 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 April were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

81.

Question Time.

Minutes:

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.

82.

Questions asked by members.

Minutes:

Mr Hunt CC asked the following questions of the Chairman:

 

(a)  Would the Chair agree with me that he or she who pays the piper should call the tune and residents who live in a Residence Preference Parking Zone pay handsomely for the service and as such their views should be given a higher priority?

 

(b)  Would he agree that where minor changes to a Residence Preference Parking Zone scheme are overwhelmingly requested by residents this should be considered?

(c)  We know that highway improvements are heavily restricted by policy recently outlined in an excellent paper on road casualty reduction, so what is the current policy when residents require modest changes in hours or lining?”

The Chairman replied as follows:

 

(a)  Residents are paying the County Council to take measures to reduce the amount of unwanted parking outside their house by implementing restrictions for non-residents. Prior to any scheme being implemented residents are informally consulted on the proposals and have the opportunity to express their views at this time. As with all schemes that involve a large number of households there will be differing opinions and a compromise needs to be reached. Once reached a residents parking scheme is then formally processed through a Traffic Regulation Order that is subject to a public consultation. This entitles any member of the public, including residents, to comment.  Any changes to a residents parking scheme following implementation would automatically be subject to a public consultation.

(b)  If a significant number of residents asked for the scheme to be amended, then the Council  would consider amending it.  However, any amendment regardless of how minor does need to be processed through the Statutory TRO process which is subject to public consultation without any guarantee of a positive outcome.   

 

 

(c)  Any requests from members of the public are considered on their own merit.  A number of variables will be considered depending on the enquiry.  These include, but are not limited to, the following:

 

Number of accidents

Mean speed

Type of road  

Duration of the issue

Impact on emergency vehicles

Whether schemes support the local economy

Level of Member/community support

Number of separate related enquiries in the previous years

Cost of scheme

Whether there are other works/schemes/projects/developments that include this scheme.

 

To make minor amendments to hours or lining still requires the Traffic Regulation Order to be amended, which will be subject to a public consultation with no guarantee of a positive outcome. The cost of implementing a new scheme and the cost to amend an existing is broadly similar, therefore any amendment to a scheme would need to be prioritised within the Traffic & Signals programme of schemes.”

 

 

 

83.

Urgent Items.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items for consideration.

84.

Declarations of interest.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting no declarations were made.

85.

Declarations of the Party Whip.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of the party whip.

86.

Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36.

Petition: Road Safety around Moira Primary School

A petition is to be presented, signed by 529 local residents, in the following terms:

We the undersigned petition the Council to in conjunction with other relevant agencies, to urgently address our concerns about road safety at Moira School. The school has grown in size from an infant to a primary school in recent years and the school run has become much busier. There are repeated occurrences of inconsiderate driver behaviour and potentially illegal parking, which the school has documented and drivers have been spoken to. In the worst example, a car was written off outside the school due to double parking and we believe action needs to be taken before there is a serious accident involving a child. The risks are compounded by restricted visibility at the school entrance looking towards Blackfordby and the close proximity of the speed limit of 60mph for vehicles entering the school’s 20mph zone.

The school and the local community are working together to reduce the likelihood of accident or injury to our pupils, parents or local residents. As a matter of urgency we feel that the council should carefully analyse and audit the current risks and consider making the appropriate adjustments to minimalize these.”

 

 

Minutes:

Mrs Smith, a govenor of Moira School and Mr Sheahan the local member for Forest and Measham presented a petition, signed by 529 local residents in the following terms:-

 

We the undersigned petition the Council to in conjunction with other

relevant agencies, to urgently address our concerns about road

safety at Moira School. The school has grown in size from an infant

to a primary school in recent years and the school run has become

much busier. There are repeated occurrences of inconsiderate

driver behaviour and potentially illegal parking, which the school has

documented and drivers have been spoken to. In the worst example,

a car was written off outside the school due to double parking and

we believe action needs to be taken before there is a serious

accident involving a child. The risks are compounded by restricted

visibility at the school entrance looking towards Blackfordby and the

close proximity of the speed limit of 60mph for vehicles entering the

school’s 20mph zone.

The school and the local community are working together to reduce

the likelihood of accident or injury to our pupils, parents or local

residents. As a matter of urgency we feel that the council should

carefully analyse and audit the current risks and consider making

the appropriate adjustments to minimalize these.”

 

The Chairman thanked Mrs Smith and Mr Sheahan for their comments and attendance at the meeting.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the petition be received and that the Director of Environment and Transport be requested to submit a response to the petition at the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

87.

Draft Passenger Transport Policy and Strategy. pdf icon PDF 399 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning the draft passenger transport policy and strategy. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item10’ is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

 

i)             Alternatives to Direct Responsive Transport (DRT) elsewhere had been looked into; however, services such as ‘Arriva Click’ were expensive to set up and not currently feasible. If a similar cost effective service were available, in the future it would be looked into.

 

ii)            There had been confusion between commercial services and what the County Council could offer or subsidise and limited awareness around DRT. The County Council was putting on DRT trials to raise awareness in communities.

 

iii)           It was noted Community Transport projects provide accessible public transport services and were delivered in partnership with voluntary sector providers and are available to all in the community, not just the elderly.

 

iv)           Decisions have to be made by the Council in the short to medium term to deal with the immediate challenges facing transport. If the Strategic Growth Plan is agreed and finalised it would be accompanied by a Strategic Transport Plan. Until further detail is known then the Council cannot start formulating detailed plans to accommodate the vision.

 

v)            The unused bus passes given back from Section 106 money were not a loss of money to the Council. The Council received money from the developer to mitigate any severe impact, if households decided not to use them then they are given back.

 

vi)           The cost to residents of DRT would be equivalent to a bus ticket and Bus Passes would still be valid, so users would see no difference in cost.

 

vii)         Concerns were raised over the lack of a same day DRT service. Whilst this was the rule, some operators would take on the day bookings. The County Council would not make decisions on where the DRT service would take users, the decision would be made in conjunction with the community in terms of assessing shopping, primary healthcare and employment. Schoolchildren would not be stopped from using DRT but it would not be designed around the school that already have its own home to school transport policy.

 

Mr Pain CC, Lead member for Highways and Waste thanked the members for their comments for the consultation that would end on the 13 June.

 

RESOLVED:

 

 

That the Director of Environment and Transport be requested to include the  views of this Committee in the final report presented to Cabinet.

 

 

88.

Performance Report Quarter 4. pdf icon PDF 318 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport the purpose of which provided an update on departmental performance at the end of quarter 4 of 2017/18. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 11’ is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

 

i)       The percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill had increased from quarter 3  to quarter 4 due to the loss of alternative (non-landfill) disposal points, which is outside of the authority’s control. However, the County Council was in the process of negotiating an increase in alternative disposal points, which would reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill in the future , which would be reported back to the committee at a future meeting.

 

ii)     The percentage of waste sent by Leicestershire local authorities  for reuse, recycling and composting declined to 47.4% slightly off-track for the interim target of 50% due to loss of alternative (non-landfill) disposal points and other influencing factors. Members were advised a future report would be brought to committee regarding causes.

 

iii)    The percentage of waste recycled from LCC sites’ fell slightly to 54% due to the community-based buildings recycling performance being lower. The new Environment Strategy would include revised targets for recycling rates across the Council. This would be brought to the Committee for consideration on 28 June 2018.

 

iv)    Five million pounds of extra funding had been granted to the department for highways maintenance to deal with the effects of the long winter.  A report would be going to the Committee 28 June 2018 going into further detail on how the money would be spent.

 

v)     The Department has multiple contracts for waste disposal. It was expected use of the Energy from Waste site in Coventry would reduce costs compared to  landfill.  It is planned that from April 2020 waste tonnages would increase into the Coventry site.

 

vi)    The Department clarified it was currently looking into how more waste could be reused. The majority of recycling and household waste sites were brought back under the Council’s control in July 2017.  Re-use levels were 15% higher in 2017/18 compared to 2016/17.

 

vii)   New developments and air quality were the statutory duties of the districts, but the County Council was working with colleagues from Public Health to look at the impact on air quality of schemes designed to help with congestion.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the report be noted.

89.

Date of next meeting.

The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on Thursday 28 June 2018.

 

Minutes:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Thursday 28 June at 2.00pm