Agenda item
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
Minutes:
The Chief Executive reported that eight questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
1.
Question by Mr. Max Hunt CC:
Could the Chair confirm
that whilst there is national guidance on the installation/management of
assets, there is no local guidance as such.
Response
from the Chairman:
Whilst there is national guidance on the
installation/management of assets, there is no local guidance. There is,
however, local criteria for the management of Leicestershire County Council
(LCC) assets, which enables the Department to manage the asset base within the
budget available.
The key policies and strategies that set these criteria are:
Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire and Future Approach to Casualty Reduction – 12 September 2016:
https://politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s122206/Road%20Casualty%20Reduction%20in%20Leicestershire%20and%20Future%20Approach%20to%20Casualty%20Reduction.pdf
Highway Asset Management Policy and Highway Asset Management Strategy Review – 23 June 2017:
The criteria have been developed so that
they prioritise safety, followed by the need to maintain the highway in the
most cost-effective way.
2.
Question by Mr. Max Hunt CC:
How
are the installation of highway assets, including specifically VAS signs, Bus
Shelters and Zebra Crossings, prioritised where the core budget is concerned
(e.g. by records of incidents, petitions, complaints, collisions, or other
local factors) and are these criteria published?
Response
from the Chairman:
Vehicle
Activated Signs and other Safety Measures
The prioritisation criteria for the
installation of highway safety measures funded by Leicestershire County Council
are contained within the Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire and Future
Approach to Casualty Reduction – 12 September 2016: https://politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s122206/Road%20Casualty%20Reduction%20in%20Leicestershire%20and%20Future%20Approach%20to%20Casualty%20Reduction.pdf
This document is
available on the Leicestershire County Council website. The criteria identifies localities that
should be prioritised for funding on the following basis:
·
The
site must be on the local road network;
·
The
site has experienced 7 or more accidents in 5 years;
·
The
site has not been investigated in recent years, or have treatment ongoing or where
treatment is proposed;
·
The
site has been assessed to identify patterns of accidents or treatable
accidents;
·
The
number of accidents at a site is higher than the national figure for comparable
roads.
Zebra Crossings
Accepted national practice to assess the
justification for a pedestrian crossing using a calculation involving both
pedestrian and vehicle flows. This is known as ‘PV²’ and effectively evaluates
the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. In 1995 the
introduction of Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/95 – “Assessment of Pedestrian
Crossings”
replaced the previous Advice Note TA10/80
"Design Considerations for Pelican and Zebra Crossings.”
Most Local Authorities, including LCC
continued to use a modified version of PV² formula including additional
enhanced criteria taking into consideration the types of pedestrians, the
different types of vehicles, the vulnerability of pedestrians plus community
links etc. as detailed in LTN 1/95 and the new guidance in the Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 6: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/851465/dft-traffic-signs-manual-chapter-6.pdf
Bus Shelters
Experienced County Council
officers make an assessment when a bus shelter request is received by using
their knowledge of the network and by carefully considering each request based
on frequency, usage and locality as well as reviewing daily passenger
usage. As there is no specifically
defined scoring criteria covering other factors to determine shelter requests,
it is recognised that this approach requires a review. The intention going forward is to work
towards developing a clear policy for bus shelter requests which will include a
scoring framework for a range of factors.
This work will be progressed as part of the Bus Service Improvement
Plan.
3.
Question by Mr.
Max Hunt CC:
How many
installations/improvements under the Members’ Highway Fund (MHF) have been
approved which do not meet the existing local criteria for funding out of the
core budget?
Response
from the Chairman:
68 (everything that has been approved to
date).
4.
Question by Mr.
Max Hunt CC:
How
many installations/improvements under the MHF have been approved which do meet
the existing local criteria for funding out of the core budget, and are those
criteria published in detail for VAS, Zebras and Shelters?
Response
from the Chairman:
0
No criteria exist
other than whether they are allowable on the highway. The criteria for whether they are allowable
on the highway is governed by the following national legislation and guidance:
Traffic Signs
Manual (all chapters) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual
The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made
If a member has
asked for something that should be paid for out of the core budget the application
has been declined and been transferred to “business as usual”
5.
Question by. Mr
Max Hunt CC:
If
installations/improvements have been approved under MHF which meet the existing
local criteria for funding out of the core budget, why would members opt to use
the MHF?
Response
from the Chairman:
Please see the answer to question 4 above.
6.
Question by Mr.
Max Hunt CC:
Is it
possible that an MHF application could ‘jump the queue’ over other more worthy
cases, based on cost or long standing records of performance?
Response
from the Chairman:
Safety will always
be the priority and the Department will address the most pressing issues with
its core budget. The objective of the
MHF is to be able to address local members concerns in their local communities
and it is recognised that those concerns may not always align with the priority
of our core highways works. It should be
noted however that the funding for MHF works is in addition to our core
highways budgets.
7.
Question by Mr.
Max Hunt CC:
Have
there been a drop in installations/improvements from core budget since MHF was
introduced and if so do we foresee this continuing?
Response
from the Chairman:
No.
8.
Question by Mr.
Max Hunt CC:
Could
you confirm that where an additional asset or improvement is agreed under MHF which
would increase the authority’s liabilities including maintenance, a third party
capable of accepting that liability must do so under a legal licence; and that
if a third party cannot be identified (for instance in a non-parished area
where their local highway agency has been transferred to LCC) the liability
will be accepted by LCC as it would under a core budget acquisition?
Response
from the Chairman:
It should be noted that Parish Councils have
no responsibility for the highway network and as such there is no transfer of
responsibility to LCC.
The maintenance and public liability of
additional assets or improvements to the network funded by the MHF should be
accepted by a third party if appropriate (i.e. bollards, MVAS etc). If a third party cannot be identified, the
public liability will be “taken on” by LCC.
It should be noted that as with all LCC
assets, once end of life has been reached their retention will be challenged in
line with our existing policies and it may be removed.
Supporting documents:
PDF 441 KB