Agenda item

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 submitted the following supplementary questions on the responses provided .

 

1.    What precisely is the strict criterion referred to and what are the exceptions (by rule or example) which justify this kind of barrier?

Response by the Chairman:-

 

LCC has a statutory duty to maintain highways at public expense, and a statutory power (i.e. a discretion) to improve highways.  LCC’s general approach is to only consider works that would typically be classified as improvements to the highway, such as the placement of barriers, if there are highway safety issues at the site in question or if the habitual overrunning or parking of vehicles on the verge is causing damage to utilities situated within the highway.  LCC’s current budgetary constraints do not allow it to implement highway improvements that are desirable purely on aesthetic grounds, such as the fencing of grass verges for aesthetic reasons.   

Where measures such as fences and bollards across the highway are requested locally for aesthetic reasons, LCC would defer to other public authorities which have the power to implement such measures (subject to the consent of LCC as Highway Authority).  This then enables LCC to focus its limited resources on meeting its statutory duties in relation to the highway.  In this regard,  if local councils wished to explore this kind of arrangement, they would make an application to LCC as Highway Authority for its consent to the installation and maintenance of the  barrier (or other aesthetic measure)  but this  would have to be fully funded by a third party, including  any ongoing costs associated with licensing and public liability insurance. 

Each site would be considered on its own merits with the location of the proposal only being assessed to ensure that the “barrier” can be safely installed according to legislative guidelines. This criterion is applied throughout the County regardless of whether a site is in a rural or urban location.

2.    Is the County Council unable to see a fundamental inequality under law, or in practice, in giving access to highway improvements to one community with their own precept on the same terms as one with no public means at all?

 

Response by the Chairman:-

 

LCC is consistent in its approach to highway improvements across the county.  As stated above, due to current budgetary constraints, it has an inability to carry out highway improvements purely for aesthetic purposes and requires third parties to provide resources for those types of improvements, leaving LCC to maintain the highway and carry out works required for safety reasons.  

 

This offer for communities to facilitate delivery of aesthetic improvements over and above the core highways services the council provides, by securing third party funding, can be achieved through a number of avenues.  These include:

·         Individuals approaching their parish/town council or parish meeting who may agree to fund

·         Individuals being willing to fund themselves or in partnership with a number of other individual parties each contributing to the cost

·         Individuals requesting funding via their district authority, particularly relevant where the measures are primarily concerned with aesthetics of an area

·         Individuals/community groups or local councils applying to a relevant Community Fund if available at the time.

 

It is acknowledged that not all of the above options will be available for all areas of the county.  It is also acknowledged that some options, even if available, will not be feasible, for example some parish councils are unable to raise their precept to fund measures or some are too small to feel able to fund measures. 

It is emphasised that the core statutory highway services are consistently applied across the county.  The additional options which require third party funding are offered in an attempt to support communities to have measures which they deem important at a time when due to financial constraints, LCC is only able to fund statutory functions.  In making this offer, we endeavour to support as many feasible funding options as possible in recognition of the diversity of characteristics and governance across our communities in Leicestershire

 

3.    Would you agree this give access to individuals with means to achieve what disadvantaged communities cannot, even extending to decorative planning on the grass verge?

 

Response by the Chairman:

 

The initial and supplementary question raise slightly different issues, in relation to discrete powers of LCC as highway authority.  With regard to the planting of grass verges, LCC regularly receives applications for the cultivation of highways within the county and applies the same highway assessment criteria regardless of community.  The application process for a cultivation licence or consent is open to all, including local councils, individuals or community groups.   There is some variance in specific assessment criteria dependent upon the basis and statutory provision upon which the application is made.  

 

 

4.    I am not disputing the law, but how can the County Council demonstrate it applies equal resources to support parishes over areas with no parish or town council?

 

Response by the Chairman:-

 

LCC’s approach to highway improvements is as stated above and is applied fairly and consistently across the administrative area regardless of whether that area has a parish or town council.  LCC applies the criteria  ensuring that it is able to meet its statutory duties as highway authority for the maintenance of the highway including necessary improvements to secure highway safety and protect public utilities, whilst enabling other authorities, groups and individuals (where statutory provision enables)  to secure other improvements to the highway for aesthetic reasons.