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 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.
Supporting documents: