Minutes:
(A) Mr Hunt asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:
“1. Would
the Leader agree with me that we need to be robust when minimising risk to the
authority in financing Major Road Projects?
2. On
25th June 2019 the Cabinet received a report for the delivery of a
comprehensive £25million Major Road scheme at M1 J23 and the A512, as identified
in the Highways Capital Programme, involving negotiations to obtain the
necessary legal agreements and secure third party contributions but stating
that the third party funding, quoted as a net £8million, required further
authorisation before letting the contract for the work, and furthermore that
work would be suspended if agreement was not reached by 30th June
2019.
On the 4th July 2019 I was informed that “we have reached agreement in
principle with the relevant parties”, and that we were “confident that the
necessary agreements will be signed in the short term.”
Would the Leader confirm the third party
developers who are contributing to the project (locally understood to be the
developers of the West of Loughborough SUE, the former Wilson Bowden Science
Enterprise Park and various Shepshed housing developers)?
3. Would
the Leader confirm the contributions secured from each third party according to
their S106 or Planning Conditions?
4. On
June 30th, 2020 the LLEP received a grant of £20million from the
Government’s new Getting Building Fund of which £1.8million was allocated to
the M1/A512 Major Road Scheme. When was
this proposal submitted to the LLEP?
5. Why
was this further contribution from the public purse necessary when agreement on
funding this major road project was apparently reached in July last year?”
Mr Pendleton
replied as follows:
“1. Yes, and robust risk assessment is part of
all projects from inception through to construction with expert input from
finance and legal officers being sought throughout a project’s life.
2. Through S278 Highways Act agreements
Leicestershire County Council secured contributions from the landowners and
developers of the West of Loughborough SUE and the science and enterprise
park. The agreements plus related
Deferred Payments Agreements (DPA) were entered into
by the County Council to ensure that future landowners/developers of the SUE
and science and enterprise park would be liable for the contribution in the
event of onward transfer of the affected land.
At the time of the agreements being
concluded the parties were:
S278 North:
1) Leicestershire County Council
2) Trustees of The De Lisle Family Fund
(First Owner)
3) Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee One Limited
and Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee Two Limited (Second Owner)
4) Persimmon Homes Limited (Developer)
5) William Davis Limited (Option Holder)
DPA North:
1) Leicestershire County Council
2) Persimmon Homes Limited
3) William Davis Limited
4) The Squire Amaury Arnaud March Phillipps De Lisle, Peter Andrew March Phillipps
De Lisle, Simon Jonathan Henry Still and Roythornes
Trustees Limited
5) Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee One Limited
and Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee Two Limited
S278 South:
1) Leicestershire County Council
2) Wilson Bowden Developments Limited
3) Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee One Limited
and Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee Two Limited
DPA South:
1) Leicestershire County Council
2) Wilson Bowden Developments Limited
3) Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee One Limited
and Grace Dieu Corporate Trustee Two Limited
All other required contributions from
relevant Shepshed developments have been secured through s.106 agreements and
these are publicly available.
3. A list of s.106 contributions secured to
date is available attached.
Planning conditions by Charnwood Borough
Council as set out in Planning
Permission references P/14/1833/2 Land at West of Loughborough,
Loughborough Leicestershire and P/19/0524/2 Land West of Snells
Nook Lane Loughborough Leicestershire do not specify a funding amount but
rather seek to ensure safe and suitable access to development permitted and
mitigate the impact of those developments through improvements to M1J23 and the
A512. No development has yet triggered
these planning conditions and so there is as yet no
obligation on these developers to deliver any part of the M1J23 A512 Scheme
according to the planning conditions.
Nothing in the agreements referred to
prevents the delivery of planning obligations or s.106 contributions identified
in P/14/1833/2 Land at West of Loughborough, Loughborough Leicestershire and
P/19/0524/2 Land West of Snells Nook Lane
Loughborough Leicestershire.
4. The
proposal was submitted in June 2019.
5. Agreement in principle
was reached with the LLEP following submission of the proposal in June 2019,
this formed part of the agreements required to fund the scheme from external
sources. The announcement in June 2020
was confirmation of the funding source.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary question:
“2. Since
this Major Road Project not only required funds from developers to trigger
public contributions but the infrastructure was essential to the success of the
two major projects (north and south of the A512), why did Leicestershire County
Council not wait until the planning agreements or conditions were triggered by
the development so that the County Council would gaining maximum leverage,
rather than pushing ahead without a secure agreement?
3. Why
were the contributions from the West of Loughborough SUE and the former Wilson
Bowden development not secured by S106 as opposed to planning conditions?
4.&5. If the expected funding was secured by
the County Council in July 2019 with no gap in funding, as I was led to
understand, why was the request for a further £1.8m funding from the LLEP, and
eventually awarded under a scheme for new building?”
Mr Pendleton replied as follows:
“2. As
set in out in the Cabinet report of June 2019 the objective of the scheme was
to ‘bring together all interested parties to make best use of public and
private sector resources’ in order to achieve the
following benefits:
‘ii. Enable
coordinated delivery of several planning requirements in one scheme;
iii. Reduce
disruption on a critical part of Leicestershire’s road network;
iv. Future
proof (in foreseeable highway capacity terms) the area in preparation for
planned growth;
v. Unlock
strategic employment and housing sites identified in Charnwood Borough Council’s
Core Strategy, helping to support the delivery of planned growth, maintaining 5 year land supply and ensuring a reduction in speculative
development; and,
vi. Ensure
developments contribute fully to their share of costs.’
The M1J23
A512 scheme comprises highway mitigation for a number of
developments with a current planning permission and those in the pipeline. Given the varying land ownerships and
separate option to purchase arrangements and potential protracted negotiations
required to resolve liability for delivery of the schemes across those
developments could have acted as a barrier to housing delivery. Hence it was incumbent on the County Council
using its highway authority role to facilitate arrangements that secured the
necessary external funding required.
Reliance solely on the s106 funding approach would involve triggers for
the contributions and conditions, given the various stages of development and
rates of house building spreading over up to 10 years.
If the
improvements were delivered in line with the various triggers they would be
delivered over a lengthy period with the associated potential for abortive
works, digging up of recently completed works and years of congestion for users
of the network. In addition, timing
clashes would likely mean that the necessary mitigation would not able be
delivered in time to manage the impacts.
Accordingly,
the County Council took the opportunity (when grant funding streams were
available) to combine the various mitigation schemes into one project,
delivered by one contractor in the most efficient way and in advance of the
main triggers to ensure that the schemes designed to mitigate the traffic
impacts were in place when needed. This
is line with the ambitions set out in the Strategic Plan including those around
a Strong Economy and Affordable and Quality Homes.
3. The
decision to grant planning permission and the associated conditions was the
decision of Charnwood Borough Council in its role as Local Planning
Authority. Charnwood exercised their
planning judgement as to what was appropriate for the applications
mentioned. They took
into account as part of the planning consultation process, the Highways
England recommendation that a condition requiring these developments to improve
J23 of the M1 in advance of the access being built on to the A512 (and
associated improvements to the A512) was necessary for the proposed
developments to be acceptable. As this
condition was linked to the requirement for an access strategy it was
appropriate for Charnwood Borough Council to also condition that access works.
4.&5. The
£1.8m funding request was submitted to the LLEP in June 2019 and based on the
submission was given approval in principle.
The LLEP manage a number of different funding streams which are suitable
for this type of highway scheme funding and the LLEP assigned funding from the
Local Growth Funding at a suitable point in the scheme delivery when additional
funding was made available.”
(B) Mr Hunt asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:
“1. Would
the Leader welcome the Government’s Cycle Infrastructure Design Note 1/20 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120
which updates national guidance (2/08) for highway authorities and, to quote
the Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, designers representing the current best
practice, standards and legal requirements?
2. The
Design Note states that cyclists on urban streets must be physically separated
from pedestrians and should not share space with pedestrians. Will we be putting this into effect in
Leicestershire in our future planning consultations and S278 Agreements, and if
so when will this change commence?
3. How
can we put this physical separation into effect in present shared
infrastructure or mitigate its effects where this is not possible?
4. What
changes will be required of the Leicestershire Highway Design Guide and when
will they be effected?
5. Will
the Design Note be integral to the Local Transport Plan (LTP4) and when is a
Draft for consultation currently programmed?”
Mr Pendleton replied as follows:
“1. As an
Authority with a strong track record of promoting cycling and walking, for
example through our successful Choose How You Move brand, we welcome the
Government’s new Cycle Infrastructure Design Note 1/20, and
also the Prime Minister’s Cycling and Walking Plan, which was published
at the same time. Getting more people to
travel by bike, and on foot, is important in respect of the Authority’s
declaration of a Climate Change Emergency, promoting heathier lifestyles and of
supporting economic recovery. However,
to deliver on the Government’s level of ambition will not come cheaply, both in
capital and revenue terms – for example, even the relatively modest extent and
scale of measures proposed in the Authority’s Emergency Active Travel Fund
Tranche 2 bid are forecast to cost in excess of
£2.5m. It would be challenging for the
Authority to deliver on the level of ambition at the best of financial times,
but in its current budgetary circumstances we will need to actively seek
funding from Government to in order to do so.
2. The
new guidance sets out many principles for future infrastructure design,
segregated cycleways in urban centres being one of them. We will expect developers to follow the
Design Note in preparing their development proposals, including where there is
a need for associated off-site cycling and walking improvements. We will provide advice to Local Planning
Authorities (LPAs) accordingly, but as always reflecting prevailing planning
law and regulations, which in some circumstances might mean that it would be
unreasonable, as defined in planning terms, to require a developer to provide a
segregated facility. However, ultimately
district councils as LPAs are responsible for determining planning consent,
including any conditions or obligations that should be attached thereto. The ‘in principle’ nature of any highway
measures is normally established at the grant of consent; Section 278
agreements are subsequently used as necessary to deliver the measures rather
than to stipulate what the ‘in principle’ nature should be. In other words, if a planning
condition/obligation did not require the delivery of segregated facilities this
could not subsequently be imposed through a Section 278 Agreement.
3. We
will look for opportunities to upgrade facilities to segregate pedestrians and
cyclists through future improvement schemes and maintenance programmes. However, non-segregated facilities have often
been used in the past in places where there are physical constraints
and/or it would have not been cost-effective to do so. Thus, and as highlighted in the response to
question 1, there will be significant financial challenges in seeking to
deliver on the Government’s level of ambition for cycling, particularly in
relation to retrofitting existing facilities, and the Authority will need to
actively pursue additional funding from Government in order
for it to be in a position to be able to do so.
4. The
Leicestershire Highway Design Guide is currently under review. Publication of the Design Note will be one of
many factors that will need to be taken into account
as part of conducting this work.
5. It
was originally envisaged that the approach to replacing LTP3 would be via a
single, overall, wholesale review process.
In practice, circumstances have dictated a different approach. The focus has instead been on developing area
or topic specific policies and strategies and plans, including:
·
The Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
·
The Asset Management Policy and Strategy, and
Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
·
Passenger Transport Policy and Strategy
In regard to supporting
people to travel more sustainably and actively, assisting in efforts in meeting
our climate and public health challenges, as well as responding to covid-19
impacts, a Cycling and Walking Strategy (CaWS) for
Leicestershire is currently in development.
This will incorporate the latest government guidance and vision, forming
the key part of the policy and strategy that underpins cycling and walking in
the current and future LTP.
Officers
have begun initial work to scope out what the Authority’s LTP4 might look
like. Once this has been established, a
programme for its development will be prepared.”
Mr
Hunt asked the following supplementary question:
“1. Emergency
programmes of work are often more expensive than those planned
in advance. Are you suggesting
that your Tranche 2 bid of £2.5m is not good value for money or done on the
cheap?
2. You
say you expect developers to follow the Design Note in preparing their
development proposals but also say such proposals would be unreasonable in
certain circumstances. Under what
circumstances are the new Design Note likely to be unreasonable and would it not
be wise to obtain high level clarification of what measures would be reasonable
or unreasonable first thus avoiding developers exploiting this loophole
claiming unreasonableness at every turn?
3. Given
your pessimistic view of the chances of cost-effective schemes for segregating
cycles and pedestrians from motor traffic on existing highways, how can we
increase active travel when pedestrians fear cyclists and cyclists fear motor
traffic (leaving aside the delights of electric scooters!)?
5. In your recent ‘Strategic Transport
Priorities 2020-2050’ publishing the County LTP4 was a short-term priority,
presumably because you take a joined up strategic approach to developing
transport across the County. However,
you begin your answer by saying:
“It was
originally envisaged that the approach to replacing LTP3 would be via a single,
overall, wholesale review process. In
practice, circumstances have dictated a different approach. “
But finish
it by saying:
“Officers
have begun initial work to scope out what the Authority’s LTP4 might look
like. Once this has been established, a
programme for its development will be prepared.”
What
circumstances have dictated a different approach?”
Mr
Pendleton replied as follows:
“1. The Authority
considers that its Tranche 2 bid meets the Emergency Active Travel Fund
criteria as set out by the Government and has been developed as robustly as it
could have been within the timescales available to prepare bids and therefore
represents value for money. We await a
response from the Department for Transport as to whether this bid has been
successful and whether we have secured the funding required to secure its
delivery.
The Tranche 2 bid illustrates that a
substantial level of investment is required even to deliver a package of measures
that is targeted towards a limited number of locations and is relatively modest
in what it will deliver (at least when compared with the overall level of
ambition set out in the Government’s new guidance and plan for cycling and
walking).
2. Under the current
planning system, the requirement for new infrastructure to support developments
is determined on a case-by-case basis, based on the evidence for that site, and
has to be proportion to the scale of development, its
location and its impacts. Thus, what is
a ‘reasonable’ requirement for one development is not necessarily the case for
other developments, and in any case can only be determined according to
site-specific circumstances.
This principle applies to any new cycling and
walking facilities prepared in accordance with the new design guidance (i.e.
Cycle Infrastructure Design Note 1/20), just as it did to cycling and walking
facilities prepared in accordance with the previous design guidance. As stated previously, we can only provide
advice on this matter: the final decision as to whether a requirement to
provide new cycling or walking infrastructure is ‘reasonable’ and should be
included in the conditions/obligations attached to planning consent is a matter
for the relevant Local Planning Authority.
3. Our previous
response was intended to highlight the difficulties of funding new cycling and
walking infrastructure in line with the Government’s new guidance, given the
costs involved in doing so and the broader financial challenges currently
facing the Authority. Notwithstanding
this, the Authority remains strongly committed to promoting active travel as a
key component of the Environment and Transport Department’s work and has a
dedicated ‘Safe and Sustainable Transport’ team responsible for coordinating
active travel initiatives such as the Choose How You Move brand. The Authority’s recent bid submissions for
the Emergency Active Travel Fund (Tranches 1 and 2) are a further demonstration
of this commitment.
As stated previously, the Government’s
ambition for greater segregation of pedestrians and cyclists is welcomed in
principle, and we will look for opportunities to upgrade facilities accordingly
through future improvement schemes and maintenance programmes. That said, the new guidance recognises that
shared-use facilities should remain an appropriate option in certain
circumstances and not be precluded altogether, including in situations where
shared-use facilities are the only feasible option to achieve a continuous
cycle route.
5. As highlighted in
our previous response, we have moved towards a more segmented approach
involving the development of topic or area specific policies, strategies and
plans that have gradually superseded LTP3.
This approach has been driven by the need to respond to emerging
pressures, including changes in Government Policy or Guidance (as in the case
of the Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan) and financial/budget
pressures (as in the case of the Passenger Transport Policy and Strategy). Conversely, had we sought to develop these
topic and area specific policies, strategies and plans as part of a
comprehensive review of the LTP, it would not have been possible to respond to
these pressures in a timely fashion due to the additional complexity and resources
this would have involved. By extension,
a segmented approach will provide greater flexibility to undertake focussed
policy reviews and updates (as necessary) in future.”
(C) Mr Bray asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“Will the Leader update me on progress and give me a revised timescale
for the works in Hinckley town centre, including the improvements to the Hawley
Road Rugby road junction and the proposed residents parking scheme?”
Mr Pendleton replied as follows:
“The scheme was due to commence this summer
but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the delivery of the Rugby Road and Hinckley
Town Centre Improvement schemes had to be postponed so that resources could be
prioritised and focused on delivering critical services across the County.
As services across the Environment and
Transport Department have started to resume, officers have reviewed the works
programme and the improvement works at the Rugby Road/Hawley Road and Brookside
junctions are now planned to start in the Spring of 2021, with the works
intended to be completed before Christmas.
There has been ongoing work to finalise the
necessary elements to ensure the scheme runs smoothly, including purchasing the
land required and developing robust traffic management plans.
A formal consultation on the residents
parking scheme will start from 30th September. Letter drops will go out to all residents
directly affected, explaining the changes and providing them opportunity to
comment or officially object to the scheme.
Further information regarding the residents parking scheme was provided
to Mr Bray in advance of this consultation as part of the statutory process.
Members will receive details of the traffic
management plan and an outline of the works programme once this has been
finalised.
An update will also be posted on the ‘Rugby
Road and Town Centre Improvement scheme’ webpage, which contains the plans for
this scheme. https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/road-safety/rugby-road-and-hinckley-town-centre-improvement-scheme”
(D) Mr Welsh asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“Residents have posting comments on social media sites suggesting that
the County Council have been directing recyclables to landfill. Can the Leader please explain if this is the
case?
If the posts are correct can I further ask why the County Council is
doing this and secondly when can we re-establish the normal waste streams for
this waste?”
Mr Pendleton replied as follows:
“We have not been specifically directing any
recyclable items to general landfill.
Prior to the Covid
19 pandemic, all the County Council’s Recycling and Household Waste Sites
(RHWS) separately collected ‘glass’ and ‘plastic bottles, tubs and trays’,
‘paper’, ‘scrap metal’ and cardboard items and sent them to the appropriate
recycling or treatment facilities.
All the RHWSs have now re-opened following
the full closure of the service due to the Covid 19
pandemic. All sites operate on an
appointment basis only and some sites have not been able to offer the full
range of recycling services. This was
done in order to:
·
ensure
that social distancing can be observed, and the necessary cleaning regimes
undertaken through limiting the number of users on site at any one time;
·
control
the peaks and troughs associated with the use of the sites and thereby prevent
queuing and any associated traffic management issues;
·
prevent
unplanned site closures for residents using the sites;
·
prioritise
the use of the sites for Leicestershire residents, by restricting access to
those that live outside of the county boundaries; and,
·
provide
an ever-evolving sustainable service.
Whilst we initially could not offer
recycling for all items, where a resident brought such items to site, we did
not prevent residents from putting them in the general waste bin where this was
possible. Residents had the option as to
whether to place the item in the general waste at the RHWS, place it in their
kerbside recycling or hold onto it until recycling options were available again
at the RHWSs. It should also be noted
that the waste received from the kerbside recycling collections, operated by
the district councils, continued to be directed to the appropriate recycling or
treatment facilities.
As from the 28th of September, it
is expected that the availability of recycling facilities at the Council’s
sites will have reverted to the same position as prior to the sites
closing. Unfortunately, the exception to
this is the “re use” service, where items such as furniture could be put back
into use; this service remains unavailable.
The appointment system however will remain in place in
order to manage the risks associated with the pandemic. The Council’s website is kept up to date with
items the RHWSs can accept for recycling and other relevant information.”
(E) Dr
Eynon asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“There is a realistic prospect that, when the EU Exit transition period
ends on the 31st December 2020, the United Kingdom will have no trade deal with
the European Union. Leaving the
transition period, with or without a deal, will affect the way goods are traded
in and out of East Midlands Airport. For
either scenario:
Mr Rushton replied as follows:
“1. The
Local Resilience Forum for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LRF) has
updated the Strategic Risk Assessment for the EU Exit taking into consideration
the end of the transition period. The
risk of East Midlands Airport (EMA) freight disruption to the road transport
network within 5 miles of the airport has been reduced from a Red Risk to an
Amber Risk.
2. North
West Leicestershire District Council, the County Council, Highways England,
Leicestershire Police and EMA are continuing engagement with national groups
and local operators to develop planning assumptions and contingency plans. The LRF transport cell is being reconvened to
review the traffic management plan for the EMA site and the surrounding areas.
3. EMA,
and the freight operators at EMA each have their own contingency plans for
dealing with disruption. Some of those freight
operators increased their resilience for parking and storing lorries off site
from EMA during the EU Exit planning last year.
Any further additional provision will be considered as part of the
ongoing engagement with local operators.
The Government also recently announced a Special Development Order
coming into force from 24th September giving it powers to construct
a transport hub for the purposes of handling and processing goods vehicles
associated with international gateways.
Since that announcement, the Government has written advising that it is
not looking to pursue the provision of such a transport hub in
Leicestershire.
4. As detailed above, the plans are still in
development, therefore the cost of any support traffic management is also still
being developed. Previously, the
estimated cost of delivering the support traffic management for that area in
January 2020 was £1.64 million* (*estimate based on having Traffic Management
resources on standby for a 6-month monitoring period with an allowance of 6
weeks actual traffic management in place.
However, the actual duration of any potential disruption is unknown).”
Dr Eynon asked the following supplementary
question:
“I thank the Leader
for his answer and would like to ask:
How will these
measures be funded and what guarantee does this authority have that costs
accrued locally will be reimbursed by central Government?”
Mr Rushton replied as follows:
“As it stands, the
financial position is unclear. But we will be lobbying hard to ensure that all
costs incurred locally are reimbursed from central Government.”