Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield. View directions
Contact: Mr A. Sarang (0116) 305 8644 Email: Aqil.Sarang@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2024 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2024 were taken as read, confirmed and signed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
“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.
“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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). 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:
Population density data sourced from ONS-TS006-2021
dataset. Five Divisions with the least access to the private car
and their corresponding rurality:
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS). 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Network Management - Highway Activity Review. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members Highway Fund Update. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. |