Agenda and minutes

Mr. B. Pain CC, Deputy Leader

Mrs. T. Pendleton CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Highways and Transportation.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2021 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that the following questions had been received under Standing Order 34.

Questions from Mrs. J. Howard

1.  OJEU Notice

a.    Expressly should the Council now reconsider its recycling statements for the future to make them more ambitious, despite allowing for a 1% increase in houses, in order to take account of the targets for separate collection of waste (and its management) in the Waste Management Plan for England released in January 2021.

Response by the Chairman:

The Chairman replied as follows:-

Our future approach will be considered as part of the review of the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy, work on which is now underway. The review will set future recycling targets for Leicestershire and will ensure they reflect the ambitions and appropriately align with national targets. As this updated strategy is progressed, due consideration will be given to the circular economy elements within the Environment Bill, the aims and ambitions set within the Resources and Waste Strategy and other relevant strategies and plans e.g. 25 Year Environment Plan and Industrial Strategy.    In regards to the separate collection of materials this will be further explored in the national consultations which we expect to be released in March 2021 of which we will engage and respond to. 

b.  Secondly why does the Council need to have further dialogues on increasing that tonnage quoted in the Notice. Or, Conversely, if it has set its minimum tonnage too low, what target was it trying to meet? Will it therefore confirm that if it achieves its target rates of recycling and the minimum tonnage is accurate, that it should include into its procurement contract a clause to reflect these targets for reducing that tonnage to reduce greenhouse emissions in accordance with its Climate Emergency Council Declaration in May 2019 and in compliance with the Waste Management Plan 2021

The Chairman replied as follows:-

The published OJEU notice for the Contract for the Treatment of Post 2020 Residual Waste is being run via a competitive dialogue procurement process, as such further dialogue is standard practice.  When assessing the tonnage, variations in waste arisings caused by housing growth or increases in recycling have been considered while also providing the County Council with flexibility during the contract period.  For detail regarding the Climate Emergency Declaration, please see the answer to (h) below.

c.   Thirdly as there are two OJEU notices for the same the contract, has the council deleted from the April Notice the ability to include waste from other Waste Disposal Authorities. Or is it restated in the July Notice as ‘intends to dialogue on the options available to increase the tonnage ……’ please explain. The answer is relevant to question 8.

The Chairman replied as follows:-

Please note the two notices issued for the Contract for the Treatment of Post 2020 Residual Waste procurement serve different purposes and are standard practice for a contract of this nature. A Prior Information Notice (PIN) was issued in April 2019 advising the waste management sector that this procurement would be commencing imminently. The OJEU Contract Notice was issued in July 2019 which advertised and commenced the procurement. The notices allow for other named Waste Disposal Authorities to utilise the resulting contract.

Please see the answer to question (q) regarding other Waste Disposal Authority involvement in the Contract for the Treatment of Post 2020 Residual Waste.

2.         Heat Take Off Incinerators, RI and the Procurement Process

d.  Can the Council therefore reappraise its minimum standard so that it will have as its new minimum in any procurement process/contract, that any waste to energy incinerator, has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The Chief Executive reported that the following questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5) from Mr. M. Hunt CC.

1.    Why does the County Council not allow urban communities to have small wooden posts, or similar arrangements, to protect grass verges and amenity areas on former council estates when the authority tolerates them in rural, parished areas and so-called beauty spots?

Response by the Chairman:

The statement that there is a different approach depending on the type of area is incorrect.

 Barriers of this kind are typically used to protect highway verges that are damaged through either parking or over riding. Leicestershire County Council (LCC) has no statutory duty to improve the existing road network only maintain it.  Any alteration to the network to stop vehicles parking on a verge would be classed as an improvement scheme and must therefore meet a strict criterion for it to be funded. The aesthetics of a location are not considered when assessing proposals/requests, as such LCC are normally not able to justify funding to install this kind of barrier.

If individuals, communities or parishes wished to explore this kind of arrangement, the installation and maintenance would have to be fully funded by a third party, including costs associated with licensing and public liability insurance. 

The location of the proposal is only assessed to ensure that the “barrier” can be safely installed according to legislative guidelines. Whether a site is in a rural or urban location does not impact on the decision, each site is assessed on individual basis.

2.    To residents who live in former council estates this seems a use of ‘red tape’ to frustrate their efforts to apply the same protection as they see in more privileged areas.  What is the legal situation under equalities legislation?

Response by the Chairman:

As explained in the above response, the perception that there is a different approach depending on the type of area is incorrect. All locations are assessed individually regardless of their wider environment.  The process for applying for any improvement on the highway that is funded by a third party is the same irrespective of locality and applicant.  It does not conflict with equalities legislation.

3.    Why does the County Council tolerate rocks on grass verges when they won’t tolerate wooden posts?  Would the authority tolerate a local school to install posts an adjacent amenity area in order to prevent unauthorised parking on grassed areas.

Response by the Chairman:

The County Council does not authorise the placing of stones on verges. The use of (typically) white painted stones by residents, is contrary to the Highways Act 1980 and may make the resident and or the authority liable for third party damage and injuries. We acknowledge that in some instance’s stones have been used on verges without permission from the authority.  Whilst we do not proactively enforce their removal, if a complaint is received regarding their installation, action is taken to address the situation. 

As detailed in the response to question 1 a school may apply to the authority for permission to install preventative barriers on the highway, however these would need to be funded by a third party and meet national guidelines. 

4.    On the wider question of inequality, does the law permit the County Council to devote more resources to support Parish and Town Council in contrast to unparished areas.

Response by the Chairman:

The law applies across all areas and our practice is to respond to requests regardless of the area it is derived from according to the Councils Highway’s Asset Management Policy.

Mr Hunt CC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

There were no  urgent items for consideration.

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.

There were no  declarations of the party whip.

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

The Committee received a report from the Director of Corporate Resources regarding the Strategic Property Energy Strategy. The Report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

The Head of Strategic Property informed the Members that the Strategic Property Energy Strategy was a sub-strategy of the Environment Strategy and addressed County Council Buildings which made up 36% of the County Council’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Strategy looked to enable the Authority to achieve its target of zero carbon by 2030.

Arising from discussion the following points were noted:-

i.     The Council’s greenhouse gas emissions accounted for 1% of Leicestershire’s emissions. The Council’s wider unmeasured emissions and the approach to reducing Leicestershire’s emissions would be addressed as part of Tranche 2 of the Carbon Reduction Roadmap.

ii.    Where the Authority had reduced its estate, the original baseline figure was amended accordingly to ensure progress reflected the proactive work the County Council had undertaken to reduce its emissions, and not the removal of buildings from the estate. 

RESOLVED

That the comments of the Committee be forwarded to the Scrutiny Commission and Cabinet for consideration and that Cabinet be advised that the Committee supports the proposed Strategic Energy Property Strategy.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Environment and Transport and the Chief Executive on Environment and Transport performance to December 2020. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

The Director of Environment and Transport presented the report and stated  that out of the 38 performance indicators 31 had been updated of which four remained the same, 18 had improved and nine had deteriorated. Arising from the discussion the following points arose:-

i.     A Member questioned why ‘the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI)’ had risen by 5% despite the reduction in volume of traffic. Anecdotally it had been noted that there were more individuals walking and cycling, and that the reduction in traffic on the road as a result of Covid-19 had resulted in increased reports of speeding. However, the County Council did not have the data available to draw concrete conclusions on the matter. Members were assured that the Department would continue to work with the Police as set out within the road casualty reduction report. 

ii.    Members remained concerned regarding the data quality of reported traffic accidents due to changes in police reporting procedures which may have resulted in the underreporting of accidents. The County Council were aware of the issues and understood a group met regularly to consider the issue and that the Committee would continue to be kept updated on the matter.  

iii.   ‘Total Business miles claimed’ had reduced by 17%. While the figures had been somewhat affected by Covid-19 Council services such as highways maintenance and transportation for vulnerable children had continued in a socially distanced manner.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport which provided an update on road casualty statistics for 2019/2020 and Leicestershire‘s approach to casualty reduction. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with the minutes.

The Committee welcomed Graham Compton from Leicestershire Police to the meeting who highlighted key points within the appended Police Road Safety Report.

Members were concerned regarding the increased traffic accidents and speeding complaints received during the year that appeared to be as a result of the pandemic. Mr Compton confirmed that the Road Safety Partnership were looking at the 2020 figures but as yet were not able to draw concrete conclusions. The Police and the County Council were aware that similar patterns were being considered nationally by the Department for Transport. The Road Safety Partnership would look to take any appropriate actions in response to incidents of speeding and members were encouraged to share the Neighbourhood Link (https://www.neighbourhoodlink.co.uk/) with their constituents to enable them to submit policing, traffic and speed comments or concerns for their local area.

The Lead Member for Highways and Transportation assured the Committee that the County Council continued to work with the Police and local communities through schemes such as Community Speed Watch and Speed Enforcement Initiatives. Due to the Council’s limited resource and oversubscription of the schemes it was important it focused its effort on the most ‘at risk’ areas following detailed data analysis of speed checks within areas. The Council would look to expand such schemes where feasible.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport which provided details of the Department’s Capital Programme and Works Programme 2021/22. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 11’ is filed with these minutes.

The Director informed the Committee that the report set out the current position but there was a need for flexibility within the works programme as more detailed information became available regarding the road network. Members would be kept updated with the latest work programme via the Members Hub.

Mr Hunt raised concerns regarding the focus of the capital programme on major road schemes as opposed to maintaining and improving the existing highway network. He commented that the development of Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE’s) had been promoted highlighting their close proximity to existing town and urban centres which would reduce the need for significant additional road schemes as residents would be using existing transport networks and local facilities. Most SUE’s however, such as the one in north Loughborough have required major capital investment in widening the A512 which would have little benefit for existing communities.

The Director assured the Committee that funding was allocated to the Authority on a formula basis from Government to maintain its highway network. Capital schemes such as the A512 were to improve the network and mitigate the impact of growth. The Director acknowledged the concern of residents however highlighted that had the A512 scheme not been undertaken there would be significantly more complaints as the existing highways infrastructure would not be able to fully support the movements generated by such growth.

Mr Pendleton highlighted the risk that the Authority had taken in forward funding infrastructure to enable areas such as Charnwood to reach growth targets as set out within Local Plans.

RESOLVED:

That the comments of the Committee be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration and that Cabinet be advised that the Committee supports the proposed Highways and Transportation Capital Programme and Works Programme

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport which provided details on the development of a Melton Mowbray Transport Strategy. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

In presenting the report the Director set out the importance of an interim Melton Mowbray Transport Strategy to guide delivery of early priority measures such as the Melton Mowbray Distributor Road (MMDR) and to provide a framework to develop other measures to be put in place following the completion of the MMDR. 

Members noted that a decision by Cabinet in 2015 accepted a ‘proportionate and reasonable’ deterioration in traffic conditions in Melton as a result of developments being permitted prior to completion of the MMDR. That decision had been made on the condition that the growth pressure felt were to be  for a limited period pending the completion of the MMDR. The development of the Melton Transport Strategy alongside other interim  measures were aimed at resolving traffic deterioration within Melton.

Members agreed that it was reasonable, in light of Covid-19, to begin with  an interim Transport Strategy on the basis that this would further allow for consideration of the ambitions for the town centre, areas of key development in and around the town as well as addressing issues post Covid. 

The Committee also supported the aspirations set out within the engagement document to provide a long-term vision for the delivery of future improvements to Melton’s transport network while making Melton more attractive for pedestrians, cyclists, local residents and visitors.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee support the creation of an Interim Transport Strategy for Melton Mowbray. 

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport consulting on the Leicestershire Cycling and Walking Strategy. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 13’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion the following points arose: -

i.     Members expressed concern regarding shared walkways which caused cyclists and pedestrians to feel unsafe. It was suggested work be undertaken to separate cyclists and pedestrians, where feasible.

ii.   A Member suggested that some safety concerns could be addressed through behaviour programmes which could strengthen confidence of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as increase the use of active travel modes. It was felt that if there was a critical mass of cyclists it could ensure that road users were more conscious of them as a result. 

iii.  In response to concerns regarding the temporary cycle lanes the Lead Member for Highways and Transport stated that the County Council had been invited by Government to act quickly and allocate road space for temporary cycle lanes. It was recognised that locally and nationally these changes had not been taken positively by motorists thus Government had made it clear that going forward there needed to be appropriate consultation and support within communities for local schemes. Members were assured the Cycling and Walking Strategy would provide a basis for the Council to bid for any future funding made available by Government and also a means consultation and engagement with communities.

iv.  The Cycling and Walking Strategy would be brought to the Committee in June 2021 following the completion of the consultation and development of the strategy. 

RESOVLED:

That the comments be considered as part of the development of the Cycling and Walking Strategy.

The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on 4 June 2021 at 2pm.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on 3 June 2021 at 2pm.