Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Miss C Tuohy (0116 305 5483). Email: cat.tuohy@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item | |
---|---|---|
In attendance. Mr. B. Pain CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Environment and Transport. Mrs. C. Radford CC, Cabinet Support Member for Environment and Transport. |
||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2018 were taken as read, confirmed and signed. |
||
Question Time. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35. |
||
Questions asked by members. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). |
||
Urgent Items. Minutes: There were no urgent items for consideration. |
||
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.
|
||
Declarations of the Party Whip. Minutes: There were no declarations of the party whip. |
||
Presentation of Petitions. Petition - Market Harborough’s Bus Services A petition is to be presented by Barbara Johnson, signed by 2850 local residents, in the following terms: “Market Harborough is the only town in the District with a population of around 24,000 and growing. Vital facilities and businesses in the centre are well over 800m away from the many residents’ homes. We, the undersigned, Market Harborough residents petition the Leicestershire County Council to understand the special nature of this town, and to retain the town’s present bus arrangements after June 2019, to ensure accessibility for all residents, together with the benefits of connectivity, sustainable travel and support for the present thriving local economy.” Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that one petition had been
received under Standing Order 36. Barbara Johnson presented the following petition, signed by
2850 local residents: “Market Harborough is the only town in the District with a population of
around 24,000 and growing. Vital facilities and businesses in the centre are
well over 800m away from the many residents’ homes. We, the undersigned, Market
Harborough residents petition the Leicestershire County Council to understand
the special nature of this town, and to retain the town’s present bus
arrangements after June 2019, to ensure accessibility for all residents,
together with the benefits of connectivity, sustainable travel and support for
the present thriving local economy.” The Director of Environment and
Transport responded that the draft PTPS was not about specific services.
Comments received and representations made would be noted. Should the route
require review as a result of the new policy and strategy, if adopted, then the
comments and petition now presented would be taken into consideration at that
time. |
||
Draft Passenger Transport Policy and Strategy. A copy of the report to be submitted to the Cabinet at its meeting on 16 October
2018 is attached. The Committee is invited to comment on the draft PTPS. The
views of the Committee will be reported to the
Cabinet. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning
Draft Passenger Transport Policy and Strategy. A copy of the report, marked
“Agenda Item 8” is filed with these minutes. Arising from
discussion, the following points were raised: i)
All
current contracts for subsidised services had been extended to June 2019 to
allow for the new Policy and Strategy to be in place and implemented. ii)
Leicestershire
County Council could only assess current demand for transport, as a robust
evidence base was needed. When new developments were proposed there would be an
assessment of passenger transport needs in relation to that development as part
of the planning process. iii)
Concerns
were raised that over 77% of respondents felt the draft policy would make it
harder for them to access essential services. However, it was clarified that
people agreed with the priority groupings and priority activities identified,
but disagreed that an alternative solution could be anything other than a bus
service. iv)
Demand
Responsive Transport (DRT) represented a far more cost effective solution than
operating and paying for a scheduled bus, which on some occasions may carry few
or no passengers. The Council recognised more work needed to be done to promote
the benefits and increase the awareness and understanding of DRT; hence
£145,000 was being put into resources to help with the transition in the areas
that would be affected. v)
The
draft PTPS did not consider “Leisure” as a priority journey; however this did
not preclude those users from accessing such services via DRT. vi) Currently
a major piece of work was underway to refresh the County Council’s Section 106
policy. The County Council had to look
to the regulations governing Section 106 Developer Contributions. Where such
contributions had been sought, for instance transport for a new development, if
that development was then serviced by a commercial bus operator, the S106
monies would need to be refunded. vii) Some
Bus Pass users had indicated they would be willing to pay towards their
concessionary fare. However, there was no mechanism for the County
Council to facilitate this. The only way for these users to contribute would be
for those people to pay the full fare. RESOLVED: That the comments of the Committee be forwarded to the
Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 16 October 2018, and that the
Cabinet be advised that the majority of the Committee supported the draft Passenger Transport Policy and
Strategy. (Members of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Group expressed concern
at the level of savings required of this area of service.) |
||
A copy of the report to be submitted to the Cabinet at its meeting on 16 October 2018 is attached. The Committee is invited to comment on the proposals. The views of the Committee will be reported to the Cabinet. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning HS2
Mitigation. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 9” is filed with these
minutes. It was noted that as
of 11th October the Government had published the Working Draft
Environmental Statement for consultation on HS2 Phase 2b. The consultation
would close on 21st December. Members noted the
comments that had been tabled by Local Member Mr Sheahan CC and supported his
suggestion that the Director of Environment and Transport should engage with
the relevant Local Members when responding to any consultation by HS2. Arising from the
discussion was as follows: i)
The
impacts on the County would not just be restricted to transport. In 2023,
construction would begin and could take up to eight years. This would have
implications for departments such as public health, education and social
services. ii)
Option 3
was recognised as a high cost. Experience from other councils had shown that
investment was necessary to both minimise the impact and get the financial
support for mitigation measures for the communities affected. In
Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire, the councils had been successful in obtaining
approximately £1 million per kilometre of rail to support mitigation. iii) Route 4, an alternative proposal through
Measham, which would avoid Ashby Canal was with the
Secretary of State for decision. The Working Draft Environmental Statement
which is out for consultation concerns the preferred route and does not include
this alternative route. iv) Warwickshire’s team had been in place for
around seven years. Over that time the focus had changed depending on the
phase. The County Council would employ staff on a permanent basis. v)
Some
Members were sceptical over whether HS2 would go ahead. Officers advised that
the Department for Transport and HS2 were working on the basis that the project
would go ahead but if that were to change the County Council would review its
current approach. RESOLVED a) That the comments of the Committee be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 16 October 2018, and that b)
That the
Committee recommends, that part 2(e) be amended to read as follows: “The Director of
Environment and Transport, following consultation with the Lead
Member for Environment and Transport and subject to engagement with
the relevant local members, be authorised to respond on behalf of
the Council to HS2 requests and consultations.” |
||
Review of Winter Maintenance. Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment
and Transport concerning the Review of Winter Maintenance. A copy of the
report, marked “Agenda Item 10” is filed with these minutes. Arising from the discussion the following points were
raised: i)
47% of the
network, consisting of all P1 and P2 routes were gritted. This was an increase
on the previous year (45%) due to anomalies, new developments and other slight
alterations that had been made to the routes. Further optimisation of these
routes would be looked into; ii)
Three
new gritters had been purchased for the forthcoming season to increase the size
of the Council’s fleet and six of the current fleet had been refurbished. One
of these would be available for viewing on the morning of 5th December outside County Hall
when an information session for members on winter maintenance was planned. iii)
Once
salt bins were purchased by Parish Councils from the County Council they would
be refilled free of charge for life; refills would be documented to ensure the
system was not being abused. Schools could also purchase salt bins through the
County Council’s Property Services; iv)
The
County Council had weather stations throughout the County measuring the
temperature of the carriageway surface to determine if gritting would be
required that night and for which geographic areas of the county. v)
The
County Council was keen to expand the Snow Warden scheme, further information
would be sent out to Parish and Town Councils and to Members, vi)
A rock
salt premix with Safecoat was currently being used by the County Council. The
Council would be going out for procurement for rock salt in the next year; one
of the specifications of the procurement
would be for it to be ‘treated’ rock salt to ensure it functioned with
current equipment. RESOLVED: That the report be noted. |
||
Street Lighting - Operational Review. Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Director of
Environment and Transport concerning the Street Lighting Transformation Project
and the part-night lighting initiative operating across the County. A copy of
the report, marked “Agenda Item 11” is filed with these minutes. Arising from the discussion was as follows: i)
The
Council’s LED lights were a white light source containing elements of both blue
and yellow light and complied with all industry standards, there was no
evidence that these lights caused any health problems. ii)
The
Central Management System connected to each lantern, enabling the remote
switching on and off and dimming and trimming to maximise energy savings whilst
ensuring appropriate lighting levels for communities. iii)
If a
community or the Police requested lights to be switched on through the night in
an area discussions would be held with the Police to consider the need and full
night lighting may be restored for a trial period. Members were informed that,
in some cases, the Police requested that the County Council switch off lights
earlier in certain areas in order to discourage anti-social behaviour. After a
spate of crime in Oadby, lights had been switched back on temporarily, this
would be continued until the end of the year. The Council would then liaise
with Leicestershire Police to consider the next steps forward. This was
welcomed by Members. iv)
Cheaper
technology meant that the changes to street lighting could be put into place
far more economically than when it had originally been proposed, allowing the
County Council to buy equipment at the best price and accelerate the LED Street
Lighting Transformation project; v)
Members
highlighted that many people would not know what “50% lighting” would look
like. Officers would consider if there was a way to demonstrate this to
Members. RESOLVED: That the report be noted. |
||
Leicestershire Recycling and Residual Waste Performance Report. Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Director of
Environment and Transport concerning Leicestershire Recycling and Residual
Waste. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 12” is filed with these
minutes. Arising from discussion, the following points were raised: i)
The decline in Leicestershire’s recycling
performance was attributable to a number of complex factors, a number of which
were outside the Council’s control. It
did not necessarily mean residents were doing less; industry ‘light weighting’
trends meant waste weighed less, affecting recorded figures. ii)
Work was underway by district councils to ensure
there was a coordinated single published kerbside recycling specification for
all districts that use the County contract, so that they could more clearly
inform residents as to what could be recycled. iii) Currently
all rigid plastics were being sent to landfill as there was no cost effective
market for them. Officers were always considering other ways to deal with those
materials. iv) Further
clarification was expected later in the year from the Government when it
publishes its Resources and Waste Strategy, at that point it could be
appropriate to revisit the current Joint Municipal Waste Strategy. RESOLVED: That the report be noted. |
||
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on 8 November 2018, 10.30am. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on 8 November at 11am. |