Agenda and minutes

Highways and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee. - Thursday, 7 November 2024 2.00 pm

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

Contact: Mr A. Sarang (0116) 305 8644  Email: Aqil.Sarang@leics.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

25.

Minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2024 pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2024 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

26.

Question Time. pdf icon PDF 166 KB

Minutes:

The Chief Executive reported that 17 questions had been received under Standing Order 35 and they were all in relation to flooding at Stoney Stanton.

 

  1. Question asked by Ms Ann Jackson

 

“Following the flooding of Stoney Stanton on 1st October 2019 the LLFA conducted an investigation and produced a Section 19 report into the cause of the flooding and proposed a number of recommended actions to be taken in order to prevent further flooding.

 

In both January and September of 2024, heavy rainfall and inadequate drain maintenance culminated in unnecessary and avoidable flooding of the highway and subsequently of driveways and gardens. Properties narrowly avoided flooding thanks to the diligent and resourceful response of residents.

 

On Sunday 22nd September 2024, prior to Station Road, Stoney Stanton’s most recent near miss flood incident, an additional source of water was noticed entering the manhole at the top of Stressline’s drive on Foxbank Industrial Estate. This was previously noted in a report produced by Cllr Chris Stubbs in relation to the 2019 flooding. This is of grave concern to the residents of Mountsorrel Cottages and all those in the village affected by the 1st October 2019 flood.

 

What measures are Leicestershire County Council taking to identify the source of this water and who has responsibility for this water as it comes down the highway?”

 

Reply by the Chairman

 

This forms part of the wider project investigation work that the Council has been liaising with the Parish Council and Stoney Stanton Flood Action Group (SSFAG) about and will continue to be communicated to all relevant interested parties. The Council is developing a flood mitigation project, based on the findings of the formal flood investigation that is published on the Council website. Such projects are complex, require significant investigation, design and funding to achieve but are not a statutory function of the Lead Local Flooding Authority (LLFA) and are done only when resources permit.

 

The Highway Authority is responsible for draining water falling directly onto the public highway, not for conveying third-party water entering the highway from adjacent land.

 

Supplementary Question

 

“My question is about an unidentified water source. I know that you did the Section 19 report, but this water source was not identified in that report. It was there at the time we just didn’t know about it. As suggested in your response, no resources can be allocated to this unless it is identified and until it is identified no one can be held responsible.  My question therefore is when will this be investigated as this is important?”

 

Response from the Chairman

 

At the request of the Chairman, the Director of Environment and Transport responded that, the County Council did not have all the details and requested that Ms Jackson discuss this directly with the Department to provide more details regarding the unidentified water source referred to.   The County Council carried out the section 19 investigation based on all the known factors available at that time. However, if additional information came to light following that investigation, the County Council did need to be made aware of that.  the Director suggested that the additional information could be provided either after meeting at the flooding drop-in session being held in the Members Lounge, or if local residents could send this to the Department it could then be considered further.

 

  1. Question asked by Mr Phillip Pantling

 

“In Leicestershire County Council’s (LCC) April 2021 Section 19 Report detailing the 1st October 2019 flooding of Stoney Stanton, numerous references were made to a ‘misconnected’ pipe that runs down the driveway between the two sets of Mountsorrel Cottages.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Minutes:

The Chief Executive reported that one questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

 

Question asked by Mr Max Hunt CC

 

“In the publicity promoting the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP), the Lead Member is quoted saying that "It’s the more rural communities which are set to benefit most from our plans”. According to government figures which are the five most rural County Divisions and their corresponding access to a private car, and the five Divisions with the least access to the private car and their corresponding rurality”?

 

Reply by the Chairman

 

Five most rural County Divisions and their corresponding access to a private car:

Census

Name

Population Density
(number of usual residents per square kilometre)

No car or van in household

1 car or van in household

2 cars or vans in household

3 cars or vans in household

E05005510

Wymondham

19.5

38

246

289

124

E05005497

Croxton Kerrial

24

38

244

308

181

E05011964

Billesdon & Tilton

28.8

52

390

439

238

E05011980

Nevill

30

46

355

459

304

E05005499

Gaddesby

37.7

42

235

292

168

Population density data sourced from ONS-TS006-2021 dataset.

 

Five Divisions with the least access to the private car and their corresponding rurality:

Census

Name

Population Density
(number of usual residents per square kilometre)

No car or van in household

1 car or van in household

2 cars or vans in household

3 cars or vans in household

E05005435

Loughborough Hastings

1880.4

1113

1338

533

109

E05005436

Loughborough Lemyngton

1505.6

966

1365

492

146

E05005536

South Wigston

2566.3

864

1617

814

277

E05005487

Hinckley Castle

4230.3

775

1439

820

211

E05005452

Thurmaston

2104

723

1801

1104

398

Car availability data sourced from ONS-TS045-2021 dataset.

 

To put this into context, the County Council through its BSIP and passenger transport network review is aiming to improve and enhance public transport choice for its rural communities where in most cases there is very limited or no provision for them. In contrast, many of Leicestershire’s market towns have access to more frequent and in most cases, commercial bus services and consequently tend to have more destination choice and travel opportunities. Nonetheless, the Council is working hard through Enhanced Partnership with bus operators to support commercial provision to help ensure it is secure and stable for the benefit of Leicestershire communities.

 

Supplementary Question

 

“Since the figures show a stark difference between the most rural areas (95% with access to a private car) and those urban areas ( 36% with no car), it would be more efficient to put our limited resources into driving up patronage in urban areas without access to a car, by working towards lower fares, evening and weekend services, more reliable timetables, a comfortable ride and the protection of a weatherproof bus shelter  - and in doing so address our most deprived areas?”

 

Response by the Chairman

 

At the request of the Chairman, the Director of Environment and Transport responded that, Leicestershire’s rural areas had a far more limited bus service than its urban areas and market towns. In most cases the more frequent services were provided by commercial operators and residents in urban areas had better opportunities to access services such as health, education, employment where it was more realistic to access these by walking and cycling.

 

Whilst that was currently the reality of the bus network in the County, the County Council had brought its Bus Service Improvement Plan to the Committee and in implementing the plan, had developed an Enhanced Bus Partnership. This focussed on exploring the opportunities of the type that Mr Hunt had referred to and to implement more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

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.

29.

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.

 

Mrs Hack CC declared that she was a Member of Parliament for North-West Leicestershire but was at the Committee in her role as a County Councillor and a Committee Member.

30.

Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of the party whip.

31.

Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 35.

Minutes:

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

32.

Variation of the Order of Business.

Minutes:

The Chair proposed to vary the order of business as set out in the agenda and moved to take item 10, Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, as the first substantive item.

 

AGREED:

 

That the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy item be taken as the first substantive item on the agenda.

 

33.

Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS). pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered a presentation by the Director of Environment and Transport, which provided an updated on work being undertaken to deliver the Flood Risk Management Strategy with particular focus on flood preparedness, response and recovery in the light of recent flooding across the County. A copy of the presentation marked ‘agenda item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from the discussion the following points were made:

 

i)               Members recognised that conducting flood exercises and building flood resilience would be critical for the future. It was suggested that focus should be given to community engagement to ensure residents themselves were better prepared for future flooding events and in particular took steps to protect their own property.

ii)              It was noted that the County Council managed the risk of highway flooding and, as Lead Local Flood Authority, worked with district councils and other partners to manage flood risk generally across the County. However, its role was limited as it did not have powers to enforce works to be undertaken, even when an issue and responsibility for that issue had been identified, nor was it allocated resources to carry out works in default. 

iii)            A leaflet containing the contact details of relevant organisations with responsibility for flooding matters had been circulated at recent engagement activities in areas known to be at risk of flooding.  A Member questioned the accuracy of the leaflet regarding riparian responsibility for ditches, which was shown to be along the centre line of the ditch.  The Director undertook to clarify the position and to amend the guidance being provided if necessary.

iv)            Members commended parish and town councils and Flood Wardens for the work they did supporting communities both during a flood event but also to promote the need to be better prepared for the future.

v)             A Member commented that some communities found it frustrating that flooding in their area might not qualify for a full section 19 investigation.  Members were reassured that in such cases the Flood Risk Management Team would always informally investigate such events and would seek to address issues in much the same way as was undertaken under the section 19 process meaning the practical outcome of work undertaken by the Team would be very similar.

vi)            Members shared their concerns regarding the impact increased housing and industrial developments would have on flooding across Leicestershire. It was noted that under the current planning system, developers had to demonstrate that a proposed development would not create any additional surface water run off than an existing green field site and when designing a scheme would be expected to conduct ground testing to check current surface water run-off levels.  The Director highlighted that the County Council was only a statutory consultee to the planning process and whilst it could suggest mitigating actions, this was ultimately a matter for the local planning authority to determine.

 



vii)           Members expressed frustration with regard to the current process of grant funding payable from DEFRA, and officers were pressuring DEFRA (alongside other authorities) for a rule change which would enable grants to be paid to the Council in advance to better support grant applicants.

  

viii)         A Member of the Committee noted that the supporting documents of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy appeared out of date requested information on the challenges with the Environment Agency to address this. Officers suggested that a discussion outside of the meeting would help clarify the documents being referred to.  

 

 

The Cabinet Lead Member for Highways and Transport thanked the Risk Management Team for its dedication and professionalism.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)  That the presentation on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

34.

Network Management - Highway Activity Review. pdf icon PDF 255 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport, which provided an update on activity taking place on the highway that fell within the duties of the County council as the Local Highway Authority.  The Committee also received a presentation as part of this item. A copy of the report marked ‘agenda item 11’ and the presentation slides is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from the discussion the following points were made:

 

i)               Members raised concerns regarding temporary traffic lights and the length of time roads remained closed. A member suggested this was particularly frustrating when no works appeared to be being carried out. It was noted that this was a national issue that had been exacerbated by changes in how the sector now operated. Previously multi skilled gangs had been used who were able to carry out works on multiple assets. However, utility companies now used segregated contractors so when issues arose with more than one asset running under a section of the highway, which might not become apparent until works started on site, different contractors had be to be brought in at short notice which caused delay. The Council, along with many other authorities had made representations to the utilities sector on the impact this was having and the need for change.



ii)              Members noted with concern the 36% growth in permit applications and the increased resources needed to respond to these in a co-ordinated way.  Whilst some of this growth linked to the rising number of developments and the need to connect these to existing infrastructure, secondary faults arising from aging infrastructure were also common requiring more repairs or replacement.  Members noted that, for example, Severn Trent Water had increased its growth programme five-fold.

iii)             Following the introduction of improved internal processes,  planned works in the highway were better controlled and co-ordinated.  However, there would always be the need for emergency works that would have to begin at short notice. Utility companies had a statutory responsibility to maintain their assets and they did not therefore have to inform the Authority prior to starting emergency works on the network and closing roads.

iv)            It was confirmed that concurring work were usually delayed due to logistical difficulties and that, although the duration of works was challenged by the Authority, this had to be balanced against the need to ensure  those undertaking works and other road users were kept safe.

v)             Members praised the national one.network website which was updated regularly and provided information on all road issues such as closures or delays on the network. A Member commented, however that there was not always an end date for scheduled works detailed on the one.network website officers were requested to look into the reasons for this. In response to a suggestion for additional signage on site, it was noted that this was not considered as an option as this would cause additional work for a small Inspectors Team across Leicestershire.

vi)            In response to questions raised, the Director confirmed that all statutory undertakers were responsible for reinstating the highway following works being carried out.  The Council’s Inspection Team reviewed such works immediately upon completion.  If not carried out adequately, the Council had the power to issue a financial penalty notice and to seek further reinstatement.  The Council did not however, have the resources to carry out works in default.  It also did not receive any additional funding to redress the negative impact patchwork repairs had on the overall lifespan of the road.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)  That the report and presentation now provided be noted and welcomed;

(b)  That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

35.

Members Highway Fund Update. pdf icon PDF 156 KB

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport which provided an update on the Members Highway Fund (MHF), which set out the final position statement on the MHF, and confirmed the closure of the MHF, other than to deliver the final committed schemes. A copy of the report marked ‘agenda item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from the discussion the following points were raised:

 

i)      Members confirmed that the MHF had been a valued initiative and projects delivered had been welcomed within communities.

ii)     It was recognised that most schemes delivered were speed intervention or safety related, and learning would be taken from this going forward when developing highway safety strategies and policy.

iii)   Any scheme that was rejected was usually as a result of the limited resources available or did not meet set criteria.

 

RESOLVED:

         

That the report be noted.

36.

Date of next meeting.

The date of the next Highways and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for 16 January 2025 at 2.00pm.

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on 16 January 2025 at 2.00pm.