Venue: Microsoft Teams
Contact: Miss C Tuohy (0116 305 5483). Email: cat.tuohy@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
In attendance. Mr. B. Pain CC, Deputy Leader Mrs. T. Pendleton CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Highways and Transportation. |
|
Minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2021. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2021 were taken as read, confirmed and signed. |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Minutes: 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? 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. |
|
To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. Minutes: There were no urgent items for consideration. |
|
Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda. 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. |
|
Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. Minutes: There were no declarations of the party whip. |
|
Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 35. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 35. |
|
Strategic Property Energy Strategy. Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Environment and Transport Performance Report to December 2020. Additional documents:
Minutes: 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. |
|
Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire 2019-2020. Additional documents:
Minutes: 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. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: 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 |
|
Development of a Melton Mowbray Transport Strategy. Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Leicestershire Cycling and Walking Strategy. Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on 4 June 2021 at 2pm. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be
held on 3 June 2021 at 2pm. |