MEMORANDUM 4 December 2009
To: All Members of the Highways andTransport Cabinet Panel
Executive Members for (1) Highways & Transport and (2) Environment, Planning & Waste
Director of Environment & Commercial Services / From: Legal and Member Services
Ask for: Adrian Service
Ext: 25564
My Ref: AS
Your Ref:
______
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL
10 NOVEMBER 2009
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
N Bell, P J Bibby (substituting for J Maddern), G F Button, R F Cheswright, G R Churchard,
W E Eynon, S B A F H Giles – Medhurst, T C Heritage (Vice – Chairman), M D R Muir,
S OBrien, S J Pile (Chairman), R G Tindall (substituting for M Cowan), A D Williams.
Also in Attendance
D J Hewitt and T W Hone.
Officers
R Smith - Lead Officer - Assistant Director of Environment (Transport Management)
N Gough - Area Highways Development Control Manager, Environment & Commercial Services Dept
D Humby - Head of Transportation Planning & Policy, Environment & Commercial Services Dept.
J Jack - Youth Engagement Manager – Youth Connexions
T Mason - Principal Engineer (Policy), Environment & Commercial Services Dept.
M Saunders - Strategy Development Manager, Herts Highways
A Service - Democratic Services Officer
I Thompson - Strategy Development Manager, Herts Highways
M Younghusband - Head of Transport Programmes and Strategies Unit, Herts Highways
MEMBERSHIP
The Panel noted that P J Bibby and R G Tindall had been appointed to respectively replace J K Maddern and M Cowan as Members of the Panel for this meeting only.
APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of M Cowan, A F Hunter and
J K Maddern.
1. PRESENTATION BY CONNECT PLUS
Tim Jones, the Chief Executive of Connect Plus, the Highways Agency’s DBFO contractor for the M25 and associated radial routes gave a presentation [including power point slides] outlining how they intended to proceed with the programme to widen and undertake maintenance works to the M25 in particular those lengths that were in or served Hertfordshire. The road widening programme would be undertaken in phases with the first phase ending in June 2012 prior to the start of the 2012 Olympics.
He stated that without demand management measures being employed, the current continual growth of increased vehicle movements 2% annually, would mean that the extra road capacity provided by the fourth lane would be absorbed within 12 to 15 years.
The current accident levels on the M25 or artillery routes involved 86 deaths annually and 1 serious accident per day.
He stated that the M25 road widening works would involve the same arrangements
as employed with the Birmingham Motorway widening works notably the use of the hard shoulder whilst adjoining lane(s) were closed. In response to a question, he stated in the event of a road accident where works were being undertaken, the signs indicating the hard shoulder was usable by vehicles as a diversionary lane would be switched off at traffic control centre with vehicles being shephered out of using the hard shoulder so that emergency vehicles only could use the hard shoulder to get to the accident scene.
The Panel expressed the importance of getting information about accident occurring quickly to maximise the possibility of drivers coming off roads at junctions prior to the where the accidents were and locating information gantries before junctions.
The County Councillor for Oxhey Park expressed concern at the dangers of driving
onto the M25 at Junction 25 whilst widening works were being undertaken. Tim Jones stated he would look into this point and see if something could easily be done to improve safety whilst the widening works were being progressed near this junction.
He stated that the renewal contract involved pavement replacement, strengthening of embankments, replacement of steel safety fencing, bridge maintenance which would be undertaken mainly during the night over the next 30 years.
In response to a request he stated that he would provide an electronic copy of powerpoint slides shown as part of his presentation.
2. YOUTH TRANSPORT ISSUES – “THE END OF THE LINE” DVD
The Panel viewed Watford Youth Advocates DVD entitled “End of the Line” which contained three drama storylets concerning travelling on public transport in Watford
highlighting shortcomings of public transport experienced by youths.
The issues highlighted in the three storylets were :-
· The absence of late night public transport services to get home [bus routes W7 and W9 particularly]
· ID accepted by bus operators [bus route W1 featured] consistency of students passes
· Safety of youths travelling alone on public transport i.e underground trains [Metropolitan line] including unmanned stations
· Attitude of some bus drivers to youths, routes with high numbers of youth passengers, drivers allocated to routes asked if they are happy to do this
The Watford Advocates present requested that consideration should be given to the following initiatives / incentives to encourage greater usage of public transport by youths : -
a) provision of safe carriages with a member of train / tube staff travelling on board, which would re assure passengers travelling alone
b) consistent age for concessionary travel permits for students / youths
c) advertise / publicise what Identity documents are needed to be shown for concessionary travel
d) transport operators should ask their drivers if they are happy driving on routes / services with a high level of youths using them.
The Panel Chairman thanked the youth advocates for their presentation and invited them to make future contributions to Council transport schemes including the workshop session for the forthcoming LTP 3 to be held next year.
The Deputy Executive Member for Children’s Services drew the Panel’s attention
to a radio story broadcasted stating that a cross party group of lady Members of Parliament did not feel safe travelling home from late night sittings of Parliament
by public transport, which supported the views expressed by Watford Advocates
today.
It was suggested that a safe stopping off points scheme involving stations at Stevenage, Watford etc should be promoted to deal with this concern.
In response to problems experienced in making this DVD, the Executive Member
stated that for future ventures it may be possible to give assistance and suggested he / officers be approached to see what could be possible.
3. MINUTES OF PANEL MEETING HELD ON 8 SEPTEMBER 2009
Item 3 (Introduction to the Work of the Highways and Transport Cabinet Panel)
a) Work programmes considered by the Panel
Rob Smith advised that the belief that there were a number of works programmes that the Panel did not see was not the case. He stated that details of puffin and pelican crossings conversions were included in the yearly Integrated Works Programmes which was brought to the Panel. Change of road signs i.e location of hospital were dealt with on an individual basis and often funded by third parties i.e NHS trusts.
He did agree that the Minute did not clearly state how the belief stated would be responded to.
b) Highways Adoption Policy for New Roads
In response to a question, the Executive Member for Highways & Transport
explained the reasoning why he had refused the request for Tony Swendell
to speak at today’s meeting concerning the future policy for adoption of new roads as public highway. He felt that Tony Swendell’s comments related to past cases of road adoptions and that they would be more appropriately considered as part of the forthcoming scrutiny of road adoptions in March 2010.
Item 4 (Speed Management Policy and Strategy)
It was agreed that the preamble to this Item should include an additional sentence to record “Some Panel Members were not prepared to agree the revised Speed Management Strategy as currently stated.”
That subject to Item 4 of the Minutes being amended to include the above sentence shown in bold type, the Minutes of the Panel meeting held on 8 September 2009 be approved as a correct record.
4. PETITIONS
There was one petition received from the public which would be presented to the Panel at the start of consideration of Item 8 at this meeting.
5. HIGHWAY SERVICES RE PROCUREMENT - 2012
The Panel received a report outlining the tendering process which would be followed leading up to the contract for Hertfordshire highway services being awarded in October 2012.
The Panel noted the report.
6. SPEED MANAGEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY
Ian Thompson advised that since the last Panel meeting on 8 September 2009 the revised Speed Management Policy Statement and Strategy had been considered by the Member Advisory Group on October 2009 and outlined changes that had been made.
It was noted that the Police Authority’s Priority Setting Forums were due to meet quarterly in every county ward would select specific issues they wished the Police to concentrate on in the next three months which could include speed enforcement. It was stated that this new way of working had been introduced in North Herts and after a trial was due to be rolled out to other Hertfordshire District areas.
Some County Councillors had yet to be made aware of the operation of these Forums.
It was noted that letters would be sent to all Hertfordshire District / Borough Councils about the new Forums in the next two to three weeks.
Some Panel members whilst commending the revised Strategy were concerned about the lack of resources that would be made available to implement the strategy
especially 20 mph speed limits. It was felt that funds available through the Highways Joint Member Panels discretionary budget and the County Councillors locality Budget allocations would be inadequate to fund a desired number of 20 mph speed limits.
The Executive Member for Highways & Transport advised that next year’s Council funding allocations was expected to be reduced and consequently funding of additional speed limits could prove to be difficult. He stated he would approach Teresa Villiers to seek clarification of the possible future implementation of additional safety cameras to further reduce road accidents injuries and deaths.
The opposition Groups Members of the Panel present stated that they could not support the revised Speed Management Policy Statement and Strategy due to the likely failure to fund 20 mph speed limits but they would not oppose it.
The Panel agreed to endorse the Speed Management Policy Statement and Strategy as submitted.
7. FUTURE APPROACH TO HIGHWAY ADOPTION POLICY FOR NEW ROADS
Dave Humby advised on the current arrangements followed to adopt new roads built
as public highway maintainable by the County Council with suggested revisions
to give greater clarity, certainity and expedite the adoption of new roads.
He stated that with the construction of new developments, whilst developers could be encouraged they could not be required by current legislation to offer roads serving new developments for adoption.
One Panel member felt that consideration should be given to lobbying for a change in legislation to assist with the current situation.
The County Councillor for Central Oxhey advised of residential roads which were adopted highway only accessible by a length of un adopted road.
In response to a question, Rob Smith highlighted the limitations of the Advanced Payments Code system and why the County Council had chosen not to operate this system in the last 30 years and felt the system suited areas governed by unitary authorities.
The Liberal Democrat Group Panel Members requested that their opposition to a) [para 7.1 of the submitted report] below be recorded.
That the Executive Member for Highways & Transport be requested to recommend the Cabinet to agree the following revised approach for the adoption of new roads as highway maintainable at public expense :-
a) In order to give greater clarity:
On developments with no through route, only the main access road will be considered for adoption. Residential access roads serving underground car parks, supported by structures or taking the form of short culs-de-sac with no wider highway benefit will not be considered for adoption.
b) In order to give earlier certainty:
The extent of adoption should be agreed in principle by the developer and Highway Authority (planning and implementation teams) at the planning stage. This should be recorded in the planning consultation response.
c) In order to achieve a signed Section 38 Agreement as quickly as possible:
Pressure should be brought to bear on developers to enter into S 38 Agreements by the use of highway informative notes in the planning consultation response.
d) In order to ensure long-term maintenance of un adopted roads for the benefit of residents:
If the developer states that they do not want to offer roads for adoption, the long term maintenance of private (un adopted) roads in residential developments should be secured as a standard requirement through a S106 obligation.
e) In order to give greater clarity to residents:
Street name plates on un adopted roads should clearly identify them as such.
f) In order to improve joint working for collective benefit:
That the aspects requiring cooperation of the Local Planning Authorities are discussed with them and protocols established under the Pathfinder banner.
g) In order to reduce the numbers of roads waiting to be adopted:
The backlogs of historical adoptions should continue to be actively managed down by Hertfordshire County Council officers as quickly as resources permit.
8. HITCHIN FLYOVER
Mrs L Slaney-Parker on behalf of Wilbury Residents Alliance presented a petition containing 300 signatures of residents of Hitchin and spoke objecting to Network Rail’s draft Transport and Works Act Order in respect of the “Hitchin Curve” Hitchin Flyover. A copy of Mrs Slaney – Parker’s presentation was circulated at the meeting.
Trevor Mason advised that Network Rail had promoted a draft Transport and Works Act Order to construct the Hitchin Flyover and the County Council as highway authority had been consulted on the Order and had until 11 November 2009 to advise the Secretary of State of its response.
He stated that North Herts District Council had objected to the Order on the following grounds : -
· contrary to green belt policy
· flooding problems