LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAY FORUM FOR HARBOROUGH
TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2016 AT 4.30 PM
TO BE HELD AT COUNCIL CHAMBER, HARBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL OFFICES
AGENDA
Item Pages
1. Chairman's welcome
2. Apologies for absence
3. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda
4. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda
5. Minutes of the last meeting (Pages 5 - 12)
6. Chairman's update - Local Lead Flooding Authority and (Pages 13 - 18) responsibility of Highways/Severn Trent
7. Presentation of petitions under Standing Order 36
A petition with 58 signatures from Mrs P M Passingham will be presented. The petition requests that the Knoll Street route be reinstated on the number 33 bus route in Market Harborough.
“We, the undersign respectfully request the restoration of the #33 town service bus to the Knoll Street, Gardiner Street and Highcross Street routes (full wording attached to the agenda)”
Previously the #33 bus used to cross Logan Street, onto Knoll Street and then turn left onto Gardiner Street, left again into Highcross Street and then down Wartnaby Street to the junction with Coventry Road.
Officer to Contact: Sue Dann, Democratic Support ◦ Department of Environment and Transport ◦ Leicestershire County Council ◦ County Hall Glenfield ◦ Leicestershire ◦ LE3 8RJ ◦ Tel: 0116 305 7122 ◦ Email: [email protected]
www.twitter.com/leicsdemocracy www.facebook.com/leicsdemocracy www.leics.gov.uk/local_democracy
A few weeks ago the route was changed unexpectedly so that the bus now turns left down Logan Street, right into Highcross Street, left into Wartnaby Street and down to the junction with Coventry Road. Missing out Knoll Street completely. This has caused much inconvenience and concern to those residents of Knoll Street, Gardiner Street and Highcross Street who use the service regularly.
Also, it is not now possible to pick up the bus on the crossroads of Logan Street and Knoll Street. Instead we have to walk some distance, crossing Norbury Close, to reach the new pick-up point on Northleigh Grove near Horsefair Close. For the young and able- bodied this is a short walk but for many of us who use the bus regularly this is far from ideal.
Speaking with drivers of this bus (many of whom I have gotten to know well over the last few years) they tell me that very few people – only one! – boards the service on the new route and then only infrequently. It would appear that the change in route suits far fewer people than the one it has replaced.
The top of Logan Street is rather narrow and suffers from parking on both sides of the street due to the fact that no properties have garages or drives, unlike Knoll Street. Consequently, the Logan Street is often severely restricted by double parked cars and it was for this reason that the bus began to avoid Logan Street, taking the Knoll Street route instead.
On more than one occasion the bus was unable to get through narrow gaps and had to reverse back up Logan Street and then go along Knoll Street. It seems ridiculous that the Logan Street route has been reinstated when it has caused so many problems to the drivers in the past. Nothing has changed on Logan Street to make it any easier for the bus to get through so I would imagine that there will continue to be problems.
Interestingly, I have noted that the #33 does occasionally still come down Knoll Street, presumably because it cannot get down Logan Street! However, this cannot be relied upon and the people of Knoll Street would prefer some certainty in knowing that the bus will be definitely be coming down the street.
Over the last few years the bus has been the only convenient route into the town centre for many elderly residents, myself included. The bus is regularly boarded by OAPs, mothers with small children and probably, most importantly, it is regularly used by a blind lady who also regularly boards on Knoll Street. The new pick-up point must be particularly hazardous and inconvenient for her.
Attached is a petition of interested parties who are anxious that the Knoll Street route be reinstated as soon as possible. I have made certain that only people with a genuine interest in the service reverting back along Knoll Street have signed the petition.
We hope that you can investigate this issue on our behalf as surely the whole idea of having a town bus service is to service the needs of as many local residents as possible, not to take the quickest route available and miss out many of the people who have come to reply on this service.
We would dearly love to see our bus back along Knoll Street again and hope that sense will prevail sooner rather than later.
8. Response to petition: Request to change the bus routes (Pages 19 - 26) going through the Kibworth Meadows Estate
9. Management of Highway Drainage (Pages 27 - 30)
10. National Highways & Transport (NHT) Public and Public (Pages 31 - 54) Representative Surveys; 2015 Results and 2016 Participation
11. 2016/17 maintenance and improvements programmes - (Pages 55 - 68) information item
12. Programme of traffic regulation orders and signing and (Pages 69 - 72) lining schemes - current position - information item
13. On-going action statement - nothing to report
14. Items for future consideration
will Members please submit these in writing to the officers prior to the meeting
15. Any other items the Chairman has decided is urgent
16. Date of the next meeting - Tuesday 28th February 2017 4.30pm at Harborough District Council offices.
17. Chairman's closing remarks
This page is intentionally left blank 5 Agenda Item 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR HARBOROUGH HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT HARBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY 26TH JULY 2016 AT 4.30PM
PRESENT
County Councillors District Councillors Cllr G A Hart (Chairman) Cllr J Ackerley Cllr R K A Feltham Cllr S Bilbie Cllr S J Galton Cllr C Holyoak Cllr R Page Cllr M Rickman Cllr B L Pain Cllr A Nunn Cllr A Burrell
The following also attended the meeting:
County officers present: P Crossland and S Dann
District officers present: N Proudfoot and D Atkinson
169. CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME
The Chairman welcomed Members and officers to the meeting. He explained that he was the temporary Chairman whilst Cllr W Liquorish CC completed his term as the current Chairman of the Leicestershire County Council. He introduced Mr Atkinson, Head of Planning. He also welcomed Ann Sleath and Ian Hill from Houghton on the Hill Parish Council and also Mrs Allen – Lead Petitioner.
170. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors Liquorish and Hill and District Councillor Hall.
171. URGENT ITEMS
There were no urgent items.
172. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
173. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
Minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 23rd February 2016 were confirmed and signed as a true record of the meeting.
The Chairman advised that he would take item 7 before item 6 (Chairman’s updates).
6
174. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER 36
A petition with 279 signatures from Mrs S Allen will be presented by Cllr R K A Feltham CC. The petition requests the County Council to change the bus route through Kibworth Meadows Estate.
The Chairman asked Cllr R K A Feltham CC to present the petition. Cllr Feltham gave some background to the issues and advised that when the Kibworth Meadows Estate was being developed it was assumed there would be a bus route and that the single decker buses caused no problems at that time. It was only when the Arriva X3 double decker buses started to be used that the problems occurred. He went on to say that some of the new residents had received information about the new buses but existing residents had received no information.
Cllr Feltham stated that 279 signatures highlight the strength of feeling about this issue. The bus route goes past a children’s play area and he felt that a risk assessment was probably necessary. A meeting was held with residents and the Managing Director of Arriva where the issues were discussed.
Mrs Allen (Lead Petitioner) added that if she had known about the bus route she would have not chosen to live there. She stated that she has to keep her bedroom curtains closed due to the double decker buses driving past her house every 2 hours.
The Chairman advised that this issue will be investigated and a response will be brought back to the next meeting.
175. CHAIRMAN’S UPDATES
a) T5 Street Lighting Transformation Project 2016/17
The Forum considered an update by the Director of Environment and Transport regarding the Street Lighting Transformation Project. This update detailed the programme of updating the County Council’s traditional street lighting stock of 68,000 lanterns to LED across the County over the next three years. The report was presented by Mr Crossland with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Crossland explained that the upgrade started in March 2016 and the table in paragraph 4 details the programme up to March 2017. He also added that initially the lights will burn all night at 100% brightness but will pick up the dimming programme within a couple of days.
Cllr S Galton CC asked for the timescale when the street lights in Harborough will be upgraded. Mr Crossland confirmed that Members will be informed when the full programme is available.
Cllr R Page CC stated that she welcomed this upgrade and asked about the publicity for this as she was eager to inform residents of the savings both financially and environmentally for this upgrade. Mr Crossland confirmed that the media were informed about the upgrade initially but he would take this back to officers to look at any local publicity and communication in Parish Newsletters etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS
i) That the update of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted; ii) that officers look into the local publicity/communication of the works.
b) Update on alternative locations from the petition re pelican crossing o/s 67-69 Leicester Road, Lutterworth
7
The update was introduced by Mr Crossland with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Crossland went through the update and advised Members that, following the last Forum meeting, it was agreed that officers would investigate the suggested alternative locations for the pelican crossing and report back to the Forum.
Mr Crossland informed Members that officers had looked at the pedestrian surveys which showed that the greatest pedestrian demand was at the Leicester Road/Central Avenue junction. A decision had been made, in consultation with the Local and Lead Members, that the new crossing be installed at this location.
RECOMMENDATION
That the update of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted. c) Impact of Growth - issues on the A6 (specifically in Oadby and Kibworth)
The update was introduced by Mr Crossland with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Crossland advised Members that this update was in answer to a question from Cllr Feltham at the last meeting. Mr Crossland took Members through the update. He advised that the officers had reported that the benefits would be minimal due to the exit lane and concerns were raised about the wider impact. He confirmed that officers would also be working closely with District colleagues on the cumulative impact.
Cllr Feltham advised that this was a wider issue as there are further developments in Fleckney which will mean new householders will be driving through Kibworth. He went on to say that new developments will be coming in steadily so it is now essential to look at the cumulative impact and he felt that a bypass was needed.
Cllr C Holyoak asked why officers in Highways always respond very late with regard to Planning applications and gave details of a response at 11.00 am on the day that Planning Committee was due to be held. Mr Crossland answered that he would take this away and investigate with a response to be sent to Cllr Holyoak.
Cllr Galton stated that there was a wider issue with the cumulative impact. He asked officers to advise Councillors of what is needed to be able to join the Planning and Highway’s processes together. He gave the Farndon Road development as an example with a junction nearing its capacity.
Mr Crossland advised that joint working is already in place. This is already happening in Melton Mowbray with their Transport Strategy and also in North West Leicestershire and with the Harborough Strategy which is discussed later on in this agenda. Mr Crossland stated that the County Council had assumed that the district planning strategies would develop detailed infrastructure requirements for their areas. He was of the view that this hadn’t really happened and as such, as a strategic transport authority, we need to develop a series of transport strategies for our towns.
Mr Crossland further advised that Developers only have to mitigate their development and not deal with existing issues. Planning policy and guidelines are clear that the cumulative impact of development can be considered when there is a realistic prospect of it being delivered, i.e. there are existing developed permissions or land is allocated in an adopted plan. Where this is not the case government guidance does allow us to insist on cumulative impact studies from the developers. Ideally both highway engineers and planners would like to take all development into account but government guidance restricts what they can do. Where we have concerns we are now taking an approach of doing this work ourselves where district partners are willing to work with us and jointly fund.
8
RECOMMENDATION
That the update of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted.
d) Minimum car parking requirement for new developments
The update was introduced by Mr Crossland with a copy filed with the minutes.
This link will give you the full details http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http:/www.communiti es.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1510293
Mr Crossland informed Members that the 6Cs Design guide is currently under review. This may end up being a 7Cs guide and include Blackpool although, it is not always easy to get 7 Councils to agree, so it may be that different Council’s adopt different sections of the guide and have some local variation.
Cllr R Page CC stated that she felt there was no parking enforcement and no appetite for permits. She went on to explain that in her area there are problems with cars parking across and actually on other residents’ driveways. She asked if the 6Cs is just guidance and not policy, can it be overridden and could Harborough have a different standard. She also asked for the date of when the guide is due to be reviewed.
Mr Crossland confirmed that there is a seminar due to take place which will give Members the opportunity to feed into the review.
Mr Atkinson advised that in answer to the allocation of parking spaces in developments, the information is only a guide and we can override this. Mr Atkinson went on to say that parking needs to be properly managed and sustainable alternative forms of transport be recognised in certain types of developments in the District. He confirmed that evidence would be needed to justify any change in approach.
Mr Atkinson also stated that it is important that the District work with the County and also with developers on the type of packages involved.
Cllr Page stated that there was a lot of rhetoric, there are no bus services in rural areas and residents have more and more cars. She said that she felt that in rural areas this is not adequate. She went on to say that it does actually state that it is guidance and not law.
Mr Crossland reiterated that the 6Cs guide is due to be updated due to legislation changes. He also stated that he felt that it was unrealistic to insist on 3 parking spaces for each dwelling.
Mr Atkinson added that householders can buy as many cars as they want and we have no control over that.
RECOMMENDATION
That the update of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted.
176. MARKET HARBOROUGH TRANSPORTATION STUDY
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport on the recommendations arising from the Market Harborough’s Transport Study. The report was introduced by Mr Crossland with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Crossland took Members through the report explaining that Harborough District Councillors had received a presentation on this last week by County Council officers. 9
Mr Crossland highlighted that the report sets out a range of transport improvements for the future. He informed Members that it was important to note that this would be considered at the County Council’s Cabinet later in the year where it will be recommended to consult on the outline proposals. He also highlighted that there is no County Council funding for this, it will be a joint bid with Harborough District Council to bid for funding through the LLEP for Central Government funding. He pointed out that delivery of this work will be dependent on a successful bid.
Cllr A Nunn advised that at the presentation last week she had raised the issue of a bottleneck on Scotland Road and Northampton Road junction and she asked if this could be fed into the Consultation. Mr Crossland agreed that it would be considered.
177. PART-NIGHT STREET LIGHTING REVIEW
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport on a review that was carried out on the effects of part-night street lighting. The report was introduced by Mr Crossland with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Crossland took Members through the report which was requested by Members at the last round of Highway Forums and explained that the report sets out a review following part-night lighting which looked at the crime rate after part-night lighting had been implemented. He went on to say that the Emergency Services, Police and the Accident Investigation unit had not raised any significant issues with the part night lighting and stated that there was no evidence of a detrimental effect, this is detailed on page 7 in paras 5, 6 and 7.
Mr Crossland highlighted the table in para 9 which shows the number and percentage of crimes before and after part-night lighting, this was summarised from the report put together by the County Councils Research and Insight Team which can be found at Appendix A. This shows that for most of the population there was a reduction in crime apart from a very small percentage (3%) for ‘Constrained City Dwellers’ who are those that live on walking routes from towns where there could be minor incidents of antisocial behaviour. A further review on these areas will be carried out.
Mr Crossland advised Members that, as an advantage of the LED upgrade, the new Central Management system allows us to be flexible and alter the lighting where needed. In consultation with the police, some lights have already been switched back on where necessary.
Cllr S Bilbie DC advised that since the switch off, crime in his area had reduced, which he felt was more about how the police were operating. He advised that he knew of some vulnerable areas where the lights had been switched back on.
Cllr Galton asked if the Central Management system can only switch the new LED street lights back on. Mr Crossland confirmed that was the case.
Cllr Galton asked what the position was with new developments. Mr Crossland understood that it had been County policy for new developments to have LED street lights.
Cllr Galton asked if new developments would automatically be assessed for part night lighting. Mr Crossland said that he would ask officers to investigate and report back to Cllr Galton.
RECOMMENDATIONS
i) That the report of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted; and ii) officers to investigate whether new developments were assessed for part night lighting and advise Cllr S Galton CC. 10
178. A-ROADS TO ZEBRAS - A COMPREHENSIVE MAINTENANCE REVIEW
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport with regard to the reasons for a review that is due to take place on the County Council’s Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP), Highways Maintenance Strategy and Policy and Street Lighting Strategy and Policy documents and to notify Members of the proposed public consultation that will support this review. The report was introduced by Mr Crossland with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Crossland took Members through the report and explained that the report states reasons why it is necessary for the Council to review these policies, mainly due to the reduced level of funding for highways maintenance. Mr Crossland highlighted paragraph 6 which shows the spend in 2009/10 was £32.6m and by 2020/21 it is currently forecast to be £16.5m so after inflation this is a 78% reduction which necessitates a change in our approach. There will have to be a reduction in some services and some will cease altogether.
Mr Crossland explained that this will not just have an effect on the carriageway, there are a number of other services that will be affected under Highway Maintenance such as signing, bus shelters, bollards, grass cutting, winter maintenance and many others.
Mr Crossland also highlighted that there is a new National Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance, which is currently out in draft and will be published in winter 2016, although it is unlikely there will be any significant changes. Based on this, our current practices will need to be updated.
Mr Crossland highlighted paragraph 10 where it states that the Council is assessed and put into one of three bands and we are currently assessed at level 2, we need to be at level 3 before 2017/18 or we will be £3.57m worse off. It is likely that in future we will be using a risk based approach for defects and response times, this is detailed in paras 15 and 16 of the report.
He went on to say that the consultation is an important part of the process and this will help to take account of customer expectations. One of the options is to introduce a Parish Highways Warden building on the existing snow and flood warden initiatives. This relies on the willingness of the community and the County Council will support volunteers by providing training, insurance and health and safety. Mr Crossland advised that Highways Wardens could assist by sending a photo and detailed location of defects to the Customer Call Centre which could then be prioritised and the work programmed in appropriately.
Mr Crossland explained that discussions are needed on decided the priorities as there is some leeway on what works continue and what is stopped.
Mr Crossland advised Members that the consultation will be for 3 months, it started on 5th July and ends on 26th September 2016. A number of key stakeholders will be consulted about the priorities, with recommendations being submitted to Cabinet later in the year, ready for implementation in April 2017.
Cllr Page agreed that a Highways Warden would be a good idea and also requested an improved digital solution to enable digital reporting is made easier. A discussion was held about a map based solution so that repeat reporting was minimised.
Cllr M Rickman DC stated that he also thought Highways Wardens was a good idea and will encourage this idea within his area. He mentioned that he had in the past sent his issues to Rod Hook who is now retiring. Mr Crosland advised all Members to send their defects through the Customer Contact Centre who will log, prioritise and programme the work. Their contact email address is [email protected]
11
Cllr Galton highlighted paragraph 6 and stated that he was concerned about these major changes long term and whether they are sustainable. He raised concern about the extensive list of surface dressing schemes and his concern that we cannot continue to do this without causing a problem. Mr Crossland stated that he agreed with these comments and that it was a National problem with the underinvestment of successive Parliaments for many users. He went on to say that although surface dressing is cost effective it can only be repeated 2 or 3 times.
RECOMMENDATION
That the report of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted.
179. 2016/17 MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMES – INFORMATION ITEM
Members noted the report.
180. PROGRAMME OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WORK – CURRENT POSITION – INFORMATION ITEM
Members noted the report.
181. ON-GOING ACTION STATEMENT
There were no outstanding on-going actions.
182. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
It was agreed that the following reports be brought back to a future meeting:
Local Lead Flooding Authority and responsibility of Highways/Severn Trent Drainage – Highways Drainage and Flooding
Cllr Page highlighted the problems in rural areas with ditches not being cleared regularly and would like included in the report how we work with other agencies to enforce the clearing of ditches.
The Chairman asked Members to let officers have in writing any other items for consideration for future agendas within 10 days of the date of the meeting. These items can be sent to Sue Dann, email [email protected].
183. ANY OTHER ITEMS THE CHAIRMAN HAS DECIDED IS URGENT
There were no urgent items.
184. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
The Chairman confirmed that the date of the next meeting is on 25th October 2016 at 4.30pm in the County Chamber at Harborough District Council offices.
185. CHAIRMAN’S CLOSING REMARKS
The Chairman thanked Members and officers for their attendance at the meeting.
This page is intentionally left blank 13 Agenda Item 6
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR HARBOROUGH DISTRICT
25TH OCTOBER 2016
CHAIR UPDATE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT
Update on the responsibilities undertaken by Leicestershire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority
1. Recently the County Council have received many enquiries regarding issues that involve multi-agency working between Leicestershire County Council (LCC) as the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority and the water utility companies (Severn Trent Water & Anglian Water) and in some cases the Environment Agency (EA). The following information sets out the different roles of these agencies.
2. Following the introduction of the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA 2010), Leicestershire County Council took on the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Leicestershire from the Environment Agency. The role of the LLFA dictates a number of statutory duties that need to be performed including the investigation of flooding incidents in ordinary watercourses including surface water systems, enforcements under the Land Drainage Act (1991) to ensure ordinary watercourses are kept clear and free of any potential flood risks including unconsented works. The Environment Agency is now only responsible for issues related to watercourses that are deemed Main River. Under the duty of flood risk investigations, it is the role of the LLFA to investigate under a Section 19 (FWMA 2010) the causes of the flooding and identify which, if any, of the Risk Management Authority’s involved are responsible. Whilst the LLFA provides recommendations as part of the final flood report, it is not within the LLFA’s remit to provide a solution. Often potential flood alleviation schemes are identified from the report and provide the basis for a funding bid to the Environment Agency, Trent and Anglian Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCC).
3. More recently, LCC in its role as LLFA became a statutory consultee to the planning process as of the 15th April 2015. This applies to all developments of 10 houses or more or major commercial development as per the change of legislation detailed within the Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS161).
14
4. The remit of the LLFA is to assess the surface water drainage systems and associated flood risk. The LLFA utilise planning legislation such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Non Statutory Technical Standards, to advise the Local Planning Authority (LPA) on appropriate locations for development and the management of surface water discharges over the lifetime of the development. Current legislation and guidance enables the LPA to restrict development to a discharge rate equivalent to the current discharge rate of the pre developed site (greenfield rate), or the practical minimum through Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) techniques. The LLFA uses current industry guidance and engineering judgment to ensure that all designs meet these requirements and provide our advice accordingly.
5. Any development agreed since 15th April would be subject to the above criteria. Prior to the LLFA being a Statutory consultee in the planning process the Environment Agency were responsible for agreeing the above with the LPA. All new development (since circa 2010) should be discharging surface water at a controlled (greenfield rate).
6. With regards to connections into Water Utility Company sewer systems, Severn Trent/Anglian Water (STW/AW) are responsible for surface and foul water systems in Leicestershire. Under the Water Management Act, they have to provide a drainage network for new development to connect to. Often the systems agreed connect into historic sewers and may in certain circumstances need upsizing to the cope with the additional capacity. The capacity of the STW/AW systems is not something within the LLFA’s remit, however, the LLFA work closely with STW/AW to identify problems, particularly in areas of flooding or flood risk.
7. With regards to Highway Drainage (gullies & connections) these are the remit of the LCC Highways Department and not the LLFA. The gullies and connections are often connected into the STW/AW systems which add a separate dynamic to a potential highways flooding issue as mentioned previously, whereby the highways gully maybe operating correctly but in time of flooding the STW/AW system maybe at capacity. Again, both the LLFA and Highways Departments work closely with STW/AW colleagues to resolve these issues.
8. Any property with a watercourse (culverted or open) flowing through it is responsible for the maintenance of this as a Riparian Owner. LCC as the LLFA have the power to enforce action on Riparian Owners under the Land Drainage Act (1991) to ensure the sections of the watercourse are clear and free flowing.
9. All blockages of gullies, ordinary watercourses or flooding of the highway should be reported to the LCC customer services on 0116 3050001 or to [email protected] 15
10. Flood Alleviation Schemes 2016/17:
Currently, there are three flood alleviation schemes programmed for Harborough District for 2016/17.
Station Road, Thurnby: Replacement of various areas of collapsed culvert and the removal of roots causing blockages/ restriction in the system that has previously caused internal and external property and highway flooding.
Main Street, Leire: Works to divert the abandoned storm system which runs through various gardens into nearby Severn Trent system to resolve a regular flooding issue to two properties on Main Street.
Northampton Road, Market Harborough: Investigation of various systems in the footpath which should run into Anglian Water main which are no longer working to determine a programme of replacement or repair to prevent internal flooding to cellars of nearby properties and complete flooding of footpath on regular basis making impassable for pedestrians on both sides of road.
11. General Maintenance schemes:
Someby Road, Thurnby: LCC as the LLFA are working with Severn Trent Water to resolve an on-going flooding issue whereby the Severn Trent system is under capacity resulting in water from Highways gullies not being able to discharge causing flooding of the highway and subsequently two properties that are lower than the road height. This scheme requires Severn Trent to upgrade the capacity of their system within the area.
Dalby Avenue, Thurnby: Flooding to public footpath D19 from flooding caused by the Severn Trent System. Flooding is causing the surface of the footpath to be significantly damaged or washed away. LCC have re- instated the footpath on a number of occasions, however due to the regular occurrence LCC have been forced to close the footpath due to the cost of re-instating the surface. Severn Trent have identified the blockage within their system and are currently working to remove this.
Bennion Road, Bushby/Thurnby: Blockages and damage in the Severn Trent System on A47 have caused flooding on Bennion Road due to water not being conveyed away from the area. This has resulted in flooding of the property on Bennion Road. Severn Trent are currently working to solve the issues in the system which should prevent future flooding. 16
Market Harborough, Market Square: LCC are currently working with Anglian Water to identify improvements to the drainage around Market Square in Market Harborough to prevent Highways flooding. (please see Section 11 relating to highways drainage maintenance)
Highways Maintenance (Drainage):
12. Below is a summary of known locations for highways flooding and the maintenance schedule of the highways gullies and drainage system.
Farndon Road – Apr 2016 and Jan 2015
Coventry Road – May 2016 and Dec 2014
Northampton Road – Apr 2016 and Jan 2015
St Mary’s Road – Apr 2016 and Jan 2015
The Square/High Street – Jan 2015 – these are overdue for cleaning as they were previously done on a Saturday morning. Due to this year’s expected financial constraints, the gully emptiers have not been scheduled to work at weekends. It is hoped that this will recommence shortly.
Lubbenham as a whole was cleared in November 2015 with the main road (A4304) having problem areas attended to in July that year, followed by follow-up reactive maintenance in May this year on request from Cllr B Pain CC.
Flood investigations
13. Following the major flooding events of March and June this year, the following flooding was reported to LCC as the LLFA and is currently subject to an on- going investigation by the LLFA under S19 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) for Market Harborough and the surrounding district:
March 2016:
Walnut Leys, Cosby, Harborough - Property Flooding
Arden Way, market Harborough - Property Flooding
Dunton Road, Broughton Astley - Property Flooding
Kilby Road, Fleckney - Property Flooding
Green Lane, North Kilworth - Highway flooding due to Severn Trent Water system capacity. 17
May 2016
Main Street, Tur Langton- Property Flooding
June 2016
14. Various: Thurnby including Leicester Road, Station Road and Someby Ave.- LCC are working with Severn Trent to resolve these issues.
Anglian/ Trent Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (RFCC), Local Levy Funding Bids
15. Currently, there are no on-going schemes with funding, however, LCC are working with both the EA, Anglian Water and Severn Trent to identify potential future flood alleviation schemes to be put forward for consideration in funding for 2017/18 RFCC Local Levy funding schemes.
Officers to Contact
Josh Wilce Senior Engineer, Flooding & Drainage Team , Infrastructure Planning Tel: (0116) 305 6856 Email: [email protected]
Matthew Reedman Highways Service Delivery Manager Operational Highways Tel: 0116 3050001 Email: [email protected] Background Papers
None.
This page is intentionally left blank 19 Agenda Item 8
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HARBOROUGH HIGHWAYS FORUM
25TH OCTOBER 2016
RESPONSE TO PETITION: REQUEST TO CHANGE THE BUS ROUTES GOING THROUGH THE KIBWORTH MEADOWS ESTATE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. To report on the outcome of investigations following the receipt of a petition requesting to change the bus routes going through the Kibworth Meadows Estate, mainly the Arriva X3 service.
Background
2. Lead petitioner Mrs Allen presented a petition containing 279 signatures at the last meeting of the Harborough Highways Forum on 26th July 2016. The petition read as follows:
We the undersigned, request that the County Council change the route of the current buses i.e. Arriva X3 double-deckers, from going through the Kibworth Meadows estate (Barnards Way and Polwell Road) in Kibworth Harcourt to instead go along the Wistow and Warwick Roads for the following reason: Polwell Road has limited off street parking so residents’ cars are parked on both sides of the narrow road making it difficult for buses to pass through, and there is a Play Area on Polwell Road so there is a hazard with double decker buses speeding so close to young children. We also request that a risk assessment is carried out comparing the current route and the Wistow and Warwick Road route.
3. The X3 (Leicester to Market Harborough) is a fully commercial bus service operated by Arriva. In September 2015, Arriva made a commercial decision to register the X3 to route through the Kibworth Meadows estate via Barnards Way and Polwell Road. The registration was approved and the X3 started operating through the estate from 15th November 2015 on a 30 minute frequency Monday to Saturday. Because of the level of usage of this service, the X3 operates using double-decker buses.
4. Prior to this Barnards Way and Polwell Road were being served by the Centrebus 44 - Market Harborough Town service, which operates on an hourly frequency with smaller single deck buses.
5. The Kibworth Meadows estate is now currently served by both the X3 and 44 bus services.
20
6. Concerns have been raised about the X3 double-decker buses routeing through the estate culminating in this petition being submitted. No concerns have been raised about the Centrebus single deck buses running through the estate.
7. The County Council has also received communication from users of the X3 service requesting that it continue to be routed through the Kibworth Meadows estate, so that those residents without a car have good accessibility to a service that links to Market Harborough and Leicester.
Outcome of Investigations
Registration Process
8. The choice of where a bus operator routes its services is ultimately down to them. Buses are permitted to use the public highway and there are no powers for Local Authorities to stop operators serving where they want to. The Traffic Commissioner is responsible for issuing licences and maintaining the register of local bus services. The Traffic Commissioner is appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and approves service registrations by Bus Operators. There are a number of things that Bus Operators must demonstrate to the Traffic Commissioner in order for the service it is registering to be approved with the key factors being demand for the service, the suitability of the roads for the buses it intends to use and that there is no congestion.
9. Unless there are strong grounds for concern about increased congestion and road safety, then the County Council as highway authority would not raise objection to the Traffic Commissioner following a registration for buses to use a particular road.
Barnards Way and Polwell Road
10. Barnards Way and Polwell Road are the main utility roads through the Kibworth Meadows estate with other streets and cul-de-sacs feeding off them. They are approximately 6 metres wide and are traffic calmed with speed tables.
11. Many of the properties fronting Barnards Way are set back from the road where as on Polwell Road they are not; this can give the perception that Polwell Road is narrower. There is a children’s play area off Polwell Road.
12. The vast majority of properties along both roads have off-road parking in the form of driveways with garages or parking areas to the back of them. There are no parking restrictions in place, so residents are able to park on either road. Whilst people can park on Barnards Way and Polwell Road, there is no specific right for people to park outside of their house. People should also be mindful of how they park on the road and be considerate to other users (refuge vehicles, emergency service vehicles, delivery vehicles and buses), so as to enable such users to pass freely and safely without obstruction.
21
13. There have been no recorded personal injury accidents along Barnards Way and Polwell Road within the last 3 years. Officers have observed Arriva buses using these roads and no issues were noted. Officers are also in regular liaison with Arriva and other bus operators and the safety of their passengers and other road users is extremely important to them; their drivers are professionally trained and speeding is something that is not tolerated.
Section 106 Obligation for the provision of a Kibworth Meadows Bus Service
14. During the planning process for the Kibworth Meadows estate, the County Council specified that the site should be served by public transport and that the service should be routed to maximise use of this sustainable mode of travel.
15. The Section 106 agreement attached to the planning permission, dated 19th May 2005, stipulated that an annual bus service contribution of £108,000 should be paid to the County Council for a period of 5 years starting prior to the occupation of the 250th dwelling.
16. The developer met this obligation with an eventual total of £540,000 being paid to the County Council to deliver a bus service. The County Council subsequently formulated a Minimum Service Level (MSL) tender for the site. The MSL that was drafted specified that the service should link the Kibworth Meadows development with a recognised terminus in Leicester City Centre and Market Harborough town centre and that the service must penetrate the development using Barnards Way and serve a minimum of two stops within the development.
17. Barnards Way was specified as it is a typical distributor/utility road able to cater for buses and it is clearly the best route in terms of penetrating the site and optimising access for those who do wish to use the bus. It was considered that routeing around the development along Wistow Road and Warwick Road would result in isolated bus stops on the outskirts of the site thus providing a poor level of access to the service, which in turn would discourage use of public transport from the outset.
18. Prior to the County Council publishing this MSL, Arriva submitted a registration for its X3 to serve the site by routeing along Barnard’s Way and Polwell Road and this was approved by the Traffic Commissioner. As detailed above, the X3 started routeing through the development via these roads on 15th November 2015. The need for the County Council to proceed with the MSL was therefore negated.
19. There is also provision in the Section 106 agreement for new bus stops and associated infrastructure (raised kerbs, shelters etc.). Locations for bus stops have been identified on Barnards Way and Polwell Road and at the moment they are identifiable to users and bus drivers in the form of temporary bus stop flag poles. Both the X3 and 44 are currently serving these temporary stops.
22
Actions taken by Arriva following concerns raised
20. On 3rd April 2016, following receipt of a number of concerns from residents, Arriva submitted a registration to change the X3 service from a half hourly frequency to hourly along Barnards Way and Polwell Road, with alternating journeys serving the centre of Kibworth only. It continues to operate on an hourly frequency.
21. However, despite this change concerns continued to be raised by local residents, which culminated in the submission of this petition. Representatives of Arriva therefore agreed to meet with residents on site to discuss the issues directly with them. Following that meeting, it was agreed to look into routeing the X3 along Wistow Road and Warwick Road, but only on the premise that bus stops could be safely sited on those roads.
22. Representatives of Arriva subsequently reviewed the Wistow Road and Warwick Road route with County Council Traffic Management officers. However, no suitable or safe locations for bus stops could be identified. The notes of the meeting and details of the locations assessed are attached as Appendix A.
23. Arriva have been asked to consider using single-decker buses instead of double-deckers, but the high levels of usage along this route rule out the use of single-deckers.
Conclusion
24. The X3 is a fully commercial bus service operated by Arriva and the decision to route it via Barnards Way and Polwell Road was purely a commercial one. The Traffic Commissioner approved the registration and the service began operating through the estate on 15th November 2015.
25. Notwithstanding this, the County Council consider this route to be suitable for buses and that it maximises accessibility to a frequent bus service for the residents of the Kibworth Meadows estate.
26. As such, the County Council was planning to submit a tender for a bus service that penetrated the site via Barnards Way and Polwell Road utilising Section 106 agreement funds before Arriva’s commercial decision negated the need to tender.
27. Arriva have considered the concerns raised by local residents and in response have reduced the frequency of the service from half hourly to hourly. Arriva also agreed to look into routeing along Wistow Road and Warwick Road. However, following a route assessment, no safe and suitable bus stop locations could be identified along these roads.
28. Single-decker buses would not be sufficient enough in capacity for the high levels of usage along the whole route.
23
Recommendation
29. It is fully appreciated that bus services routeing through housing estates can be an emotive issue for local residents; conversely the lack of provision or poor accessibility can be just as emotive, as we are finding out more and more as the County Accessibility Policy Review progresses forward.
30. The County Council and indeed bus operators therefore try to balance the needs of local communities as fairly as possible, but unfortunately it is not possible to satisfy everybody. In this case, it is considered that routeing the Arriva X3 through the Kibworth Meadows estate is the most viable option.
31. It is therefore recommended that it continues to serve the estate via Barnards Way and Polwell Road and the temporary bus stops be made permanent and the appropriate infrastructure installed utilising the available Section 106 funding.
32. Members are asked to note the content of this report.
Officer to Contact
Lee Quincey Tel: 0116 305 6308 Email: [email protected]
Background Papers
Petition containing 279 signatures is held on the Chief Executive's Department petition file.
This page is intentionally left blank Notes of Site Meeting25
Venue Date / Time
Kibworth 20-05-2016 Wistow Road 14:00 Warwick Road
Present: Representing:
Leicestershire County Council, Public LCC officer Transport, Sustainable Travel Group Leicestershire County Council, Traffic LCC officer Management Arriva officer Arriva Midlands
Apologies:
Officer Leicestershire Police, Traffic Management Officer Arriva Midlands Kevin Feltham County Councillor Frances Webster Kibworth Harcourt Parish - Kibworth Beauchamp Parish - Harborough District Council - Centrebus
Background
A site meeting took place on 14/03/2016 to identify locations and formalise bus stops on Barnards Way and Polwell Road as part of a planning obligation.
Following objections about the bus routeing through Barnards Way and Polwell the bus operator has agreed to explore the possibility of routeing the service along Wistow and Warwick Road. This was subject to the feasibility of providing bus stops on these roads. A site meeting was therefore undertaken on 20/05/2016 to assess the feasibility of providing stops. The outcomes of the meeting were as follows:
1 – Wistow Road
Discussion
It was agreed by all present at the meeting that this site would not be safe or suitable due to the location of a potential access to a new development, the position of a refuge island and the junction of Barnards Way. There is also poor visibility due to a blind bend heading North towards the roundabout with the A6.
1/2 26
2 – Wistow Road
Discussion
It was agreed by all present that this would not be a safe or suitable location to site a bus stop as it is positioned in the middle of two refuge islands. Any buses stopping at this location would block the road and could lead to road users going around the refuge island on the opposite side of the road to pass the stationary buses.
3 – Warwick Road
Discussion
This is a 40mph Road. It was agreed by all present that this would not be a safe or suitable location to site a bus stop. There is a blind bend to the South near Polwell Road where vehicles disappear out of site for approx. 2-3 seconds. It may appear to a bus pulling out at this location that the road is clear when in fact a vehicle could be in the blind spot.
In addition to the above, there is a proposed access to a new development just south of this location.
4 – Warwick Road
Discussion
It was agreed by all present that due to the location of a prosed site access, refuge islands, the junction with Polwell Road and the speed of the road, this would not be a safe or suitable location to site a bus stop.
2/2 27 Agenda Item 9
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR HARBOROUGH
25TH OCTOBER 2016
MANAGEMENT OF HIGHWAY DRAINAGE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current approach to the management of highway drainage across the county.
Roles & Responsibilities
2. Leicestershire County Council; in its capacity as the Highway Authority, is responsible for the provision, operation and maintenance of much of the highway drainage infrastructure within the adopted extents of the highway.
3. The County Council is also designated as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Leicestershire; a function previously incumbent on the Environment Agency. Concerned primarily with the identification and management of flood risk; the LLFA role seeks to coordinate efforts between public and private stakeholders to ensure effective strategies are devised and implemented to reduce both the likelihood and the impact of flooding events.
4. While both roles (that of Highway Authority for drainage and as LLFA) have different needs and agendas, a very clear synergy exists between the two roles. It is important however to note that the LLFA role is not a highways or transportation based role, but rather an environmental one.
5. The remit, powers and duties of the County Council differ subject to the context in which they are considered; i.e. as the Highway Authority, or as the LLFA.
6. Notwithstanding the above, the County Council always seeks to fulfil each of its duties and discharge all of its powers as a single entity, working towards one common end.
7. It is important to note that adjacent land owners often have riparian responsibilities in the upkeep of ditches and water courses which are rarely assets of the County Council as the Highway Authority.
Highway Drainage
8. Whilst there is no specific obligation on Highway Authorities to drain water from the highway, the need to do so is generally recognised as being standard 28
practice and an inherent part of the wider approach to satisfying other statutory requirements and organisational objectives.
9. The highway is typically drained with the use of roadside gullies and grips that divert/collect water and discharge into a nearby public sewer, watercourse or drainage ditch.
10. Including but not limited to gullies and grips, the highway drainage infrastructure network across Leicestershire is extensive. However, rather than ever having been truly ‘designed’, it is a network that has evolved over a number of decades to satisfy the emerging needs of the time.
11. The above becomes evident when analysing the distribution of drainage issues reported to or identified by the Council; newer roads designed with modern standards and sustainability in mind being far less prone to issues arising than those roads of more ‘historic stock’.
12. The location notwithstanding, the maintenance of the drainage network is principally focussed on an effective regime of cleansing; the frequent clearing of gully pots and catch pits designed to keep trash (silt and general detritus etc) out of the system being essential to avoid blockages from occurring.
13. The County Council currently operates 6 mechanical tankers working all year round, 4 to routinely empty each of the gully pots across the county and a further 2 to undertake and deal with reactive issues. Where necessary, structural replacements or upgrades are made to the system, LCC utilise a camera investigation team that supports and informs decisions to deliver appropriate improvements or repair.
14. Previously the County Council has managed highway drainage on a divisional basis split by district boundaries. Whilst this approach served well to provide retention of knowledge and continuity amongst local officers, it made little provision for a needs based assessment of where investment ought to be directed on a county wide basis.
Transformation
15. Owing to the need for the authority to make further significant financial savings in its operational delivery, a number of transformational initiatives around the future management of highway drainage are being either appraised or actively progressed.
16. That transformation is primarily concerned with having an ever more intelligent approach to the allocation of the available and diminishing resources.
17. The need for investment in the network is now considered centrally on a county wide basis by a new, streamlined Highway Service Delivery team. This affords the opportunity to allocate resources based on the greatest need and risk across the entire county, rather than by divisional area.
29
18. Anecdotal or local knowledge previously held by individual officers is being replaced by employing new technology and software to digitally map and record the drainage asset so that information is standardised, accessible to all and can be readily shared with our partners such as the water companies (STW and Anglian Water) and the Environment Agency.
19. Having already mapped with GPS technology the location of in excess of 130,000 highway gullies, data is now routinely being collected on the level of ‘trash’ cleared from each of the gullies when emptied. Such data will assist the Council in moving towards a targeted and risk based approach to gully cleansing whereby those gullies that are found to be frequently full or blocked are emptied at a greater frequency than those which are often found to be empty or that collect little trash.
20. Where practicable to do so, tailored maintenance strategies will be devised for use where specific areas are considered to be at a higher risk of flooding.
21. Similar to the current practices employed in the delivery of the winter service, a strategy of precautionary activities and a command and control process is being devised for when extreme weather events are likely to occur.
22. The County Council continues to build on its existing relationship with partner agencies and private land owners to foster a cooperative approach to investment in drainage and flood prevention.
Officer to contact
Matt Archer - Environmental & Preventative Manager [email protected] 0116 305 0001
This page is intentionally left blank 31 Agenda Item 10
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR HARBOROUGH
25TH OCTOBER 2016
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT (NHT) PUBLIC AND PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE SURVEYS; 2015 RESULTS AND 2016 PARTICIPATION
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of the Report
1. To advise Members of the Forum of the results of the 2015 National Highways and Transport (NHT) Public and Public Representative Satisfaction surveys, and to notify of the 2016 Public and Public Representative satisfaction surveys.
Background
2. The NHT Public Satisfaction Survey is a national survey, administered by IPSOS MORI, now in its ninth year of existence.
3. Leicestershire County Council has taken part in every year and uses the results to support its work.
4. Participation in the survey and subsequent use of the results is specifically mentioned in the DfT’s Incentive Fund documentation for authorities seeking to achieve the maximum Level 3 for future highway maintenance funding.
5. In 2015 a total of 100 authorities took part in the survey, including 25 county councils.
6. Results from the survey allow the County Council to monitor its performance on a number of highways and transport issues at a national and a local level.
7. NHT also administers a Public Representative survey which is essentially an abbreviated version of the public survey.
8. Leicestershire County Council Members have been invited to take part in the Public Representative survey since 2013 and Parishes were also invited to participate from 2014.
9. For Leicestershire, levels of participation in the two surveys are shown in the table below:
32
Respondent 2015 2014 2013
Members 19 25 18
Parish 74 39 N/A
Public 1,242 1,441 1,109
2015 Survey Results
10. Results of the Public Satisfaction survey are published online and a comprehensive suite of reports can be found on the NHT website. (http://nhtsurvey.econtrack.com/)
11. Results from the Public Representative survey are not released in the public domain and a copy of Leicestershire’s report is appended to this paper.
12. Highlights from the public survey include:
Leicestershire is the second highest ranked county council for satisfaction with road condition
Leicestershire is the highest ranked county council for satisfaction with the condition of pavements
Leicestershire is the second highest ranked county council for satisfaction with cycle routes and facilities
Areas where people did not want to reduce spending include maintenance of gullies and drains, roads and gritting
Areas where people said spending could be reduced include public rights of way, cycle paths and subsidies for buses & community transport services.
13. Our ranking for satisfaction with road condition is particularly pleasing given the 20% reduction in road maintenance spending since 2009/10. Despite this the condition of Leicestershire’s roads has improved and remains amongst the very best in the country. According to the latest Department for Transport (DfT) figures to 2014/15, only five other authorities in England have a better combined structural road condition than Leicestershire, all smaller unitary or metropolitan councils with a much smaller road network to maintain.
14. Thanks to the county council prioritising investment in preventative maintenance, the number of potholes has fallen from 8,478 in 2012/13 to 5,220 in 2015/16.
15. Recognition of this work is also reflected in the results of the Public Representative survey revealing that Leicestershire’s Members are significantly
33
more satisfied with Leicestershire’s road condition than they were two years ago, although Parish Councils remain less satisfied.
16. Overall satisfaction with Highways & Transport services was high for Members at 70% but dropped to 51% for Parish Councils.
17. Members also had high levels of satisfaction with street lighting (75%), rights of way (69%) and bus services (67%).
18. When contacting the council Members were very satisfied with how all aspects of the enquiry were dealt with (around 80% on average) followed by Parish Councils and the Public. The council scored very highly across all three respondent groups for ease of contact and professionalism of the person spoken to.
2016 Surveys
19. Questionnaires for the 2016 Public satisfaction survey were sent out for completion during June and July. Results will be available on the NHT website in late October 2016.
20. Members and Parish Councils will be invited to take part in the 2016 Public Representative satisfaction survey in October / November depending on the exact release date from NHT.
21. Members and Parish Councils are keenly encouraged to take part in this survey because it is considered that it will benefit the Council by providing officers with a greater understanding of Members’ and Parish Councils’ needs and priorities for highways and transport services in Leicestershire, particularly at a time of major transformation and reducing resources.
Recommendation
22. It is recommended that Members note the contents of this report.
Officers to Contact
Phil Crossland - Director Environment and Transport Tel: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Ann Carruthers – Assistant Director Environment and Transport Tel: (0116) 305 7966 Email: [email protected]
Background Papers
NHT Public Representative Survey 2015 report for Leicestershire County Council.
This page is intentionally left blank 35
Public Representative Survey 2015 Leicestershire CC 36 NHT Public Representative Survey Contents
Contents
What's Important 3
How satisfied are you 4
Importance vs Satisfaction 5
Your view on Transport and highway services 8
Pavements & Pedestrian Facilities 11
Condition of roads and pavements 12
Potholes and damaged roads 13
Drainage, Winter Service & Environmental Maintenance 14
Enforcement/Obstructions 15
Your views on Information (Q11) 16
Contact with the council (Q17) 18
Respondents 20
23 March 2016 2 37 NHT Public Representative Survey 1. What's Important
Q1 How important, if at all, do you consider each of the following ...? Importance scores, expressed in percentage terms, are shown on this bullet chart and compare Public Representative Survey results (Councillors and/or Parishes) with equivalent results from Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
The following table gives the importance scores expressed in percentage terms for the Public Representative Survey (Councillors and/or Parishes) and for the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
Service Councillors Parish Councillors Public Community Transport 78.9 72.2 59.3 Cycle Routes 61.4 71.9 69.2 Highway Condition 91.2 97.8 93.9 Local Buses 83.3 94.7 82.0 Pavements 89.5 94.9 91.6 Reducing Traffic 78.9 83.0 88.1 Responsive Transport 71.9 67.4 54.8 Rights of Way 72.2 78.0 78.7 Safer Roads 93.0 94.1 95.7 Street Lighting 68.4 77.3 79.4 Taxi Services 60.8 65.2 59.5 Traffic Pollution 75.4 81.1 83.6
23 March 2016 3 38 NHT Public Representative Survey 2. How satisfied are you
Q2 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following ...? Satisfaction scores, expressed in percentage terms, are shown on this bullet chart and compare Public Representative Survey results (Councillors and/or Parishes) with equivalent results from the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
The following table gives the satisfaction scores expressed in percentage terms for the Public Representative Survey (Councillors and/or Parishes) and for the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
Service Councillors Parish Councillors Public Community Transport 60.3 58.0 57.5 Cycle Routes 58.3 53.7 55.0 Highway Condition 67.1 41.1 44.8 Local Buses 66.7 46.4 59.5 Overall Satisfaction 69.7 50.6 55.3 Pavements 68.4 50.6 62.4 Reducing Traffic 35.5 32.4 45.0 Responsive Transport 62.5 38.2 54.1 Rights of Way 69.1 63.7 60.5 Safer Roads 57.9 34.1 59.2 Street Lighting 75.0 61.6 61.3 Taxi Services 68.8 66.9 63.1 Traffic Pollution 53.9 44.4 51.2
23 March 2016 4 39 NHT Public Representative Survey 3. Importance vs Satisfaction
Importance vs Satisfaction comparison - Councillors The radar chart below compares Importance (Q1) and Satisfaction (Q2) results for Councillors from the Public Representative survey
Importance vs Satisfaction Gap - Councillors The Satisfaction Gap is the difference between the Importance and Satisfaction % scores, a gap is coloured red if the importance score is higher than the satisfaction score otherwise it is green.
Service Importance % Importance Ranking Satisfaction % Satisfaction Ranking Satisfaction Gap % Community Transport 79 5 60 9 19 Cycle Routes 61 11 58 10 3 Highway Condition 91 2 67 6 24 Local Buses 83 4 67 7 17 Pavements 89 3 68 5 21 Reducing Traffic 79 5 36 13 43 Responsive Transport 72 9 63 8 9 Rights of Way 72 8 69 3 3 Safer Roads 93 1 58 11 35 Street Lighting 68 10 75 1 -7 Taxi Services 61 12 69 4 -8 Traffic Pollution 75 7 54 12 21
23 March 2016 5 40 NHT Public Representative Survey 3. Importance vs Satisfaction
Importance vs Satisfaction comparison - Parishes The radar chart below compares Importance (Q1) and Satisfaction (Q2) results for Parishes from the Public Representative survey.
Importance vs Satisfaction Gap - Parish Councillors The Satisfaction Gap is the difference between the Importance and Satisfaction % scores, a gap is coloured red if the importance score is higher than the satisfaction score otherwise it is green.
Service Importance % Importance Ranking Satisfaction % Satisfaction Ranking Satisfaction Gap % Community Transport 72 9 58 4 14 Cycle Routes 72 10 54 5 18 Highway Condition 98 1 41 10 57 Local Buses 95 3 46 8 48 Pavements 95 2 51 7 44 Reducing Traffic 83 5 32 13 51 Responsive Transport 67 11 38 11 29 Rights of Way 78 7 64 2 14 Safer Roads 94 4 34 12 60 Street Lighting 77 8 62 3 16 Taxi Services 65 12 67 1 -2 Traffic Pollution 81 6 44 9 37
23 March 2016 6 41 NHT Public Representative Survey 3. Importance vs Satisfaction
Importance vs Satisfaction comparison - Public The radar chart below compares Importance (Q1) and Satisfaction (Q2) results for the Public from the NHT Public Satisfaction survey.
Importance vs Satisfaction Gap - Public The Satisfaction Gap is the difference between the Importance and Satisfaction % scores, a gap is coloured red if the importance score is higher than the satisfaction score otherwise it is green.
Service Importance % Importance Ranking Satisfaction % Satisfaction Ranking Satisfaction Gap % Community Transport 59 11 57 7 2 Cycle Routes 69 9 55 9 14 Highway Condition 94 2 45 13 49 Local Buses 82 6 59 5 22 Pavements 92 3 62 2 29 Reducing Traffic 88 4 45 12 43 Responsive Transport 55 12 54 10 1 Rights of Way 79 8 60 4 18 Safer Roads 96 1 59 6 36 Street Lighting 79 7 61 3 18 Taxi Services 59 10 63 1 -4 Traffic Pollution 84 5 51 11 32
23 March 2016 7 42 NHT Public Representative Survey 4. Your view on Transport and highway services
Q3 For which of the following is it not acceptable to reduce the level of service - Councillors The pie chart below shows the % of Councillors that picked each highway and transport service for which it is not acceptable to reduce the level of service
Q4 For which of the following is it acceptable to reduce the level of service - Councillors The pie chart below shows the % of Councillors that picked each highway and transport service for which it is acceptable to reduce the level of service
23 March 2016 8 43 NHT Public Representative Survey 4. Your view on Transport and highway services
Q3 For which of the following is it not acceptable to reduce the level of service - Parishes The pie chart below shows the % of Councillors that picked each highway and transport service for which it is not acceptable to reduce the level of service
Q4 For which of the following is it acceptable to reduce the level of service? - Parishes The pie chart below shows the % of Councillors that picked each highway and transport service for which it is acceptable to reduce the level of service
23 March 2016 9 44 NHT Public Representative Survey 4. Your view on Transport and highway services
Q3 For which of the following is it not acceptable to reduce the level of service - Public The pie chart below shows the % of the public that picked each highway and transport service for which it is not acceptable to reduce the level of service
Q4 For which of the following is it acceptable to reduce the level of service? - Public The pie chart below shows the % of the Public that picked each highway and transport service for which it is acceptable to reduce the level of service
23 March 2016 10 45 NHT Public Representative Survey 5. Pavements & Pedestrian Facilities
Pavements & Pedestrian Facilities This bullet chart shows Satisfaction with Pavements & Pedestrian Facilities and compares Public Representative Survey results (Councillors and/or Parishes) with equivalent results from the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
The following table gives the satisfaction scores expressed in percentage terms for the Public Representative Survey (Councillors and/or Parishes) and for the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
Service Councillors Parish Councillors Public 5.1 Pavement provision 79.2 60.2 71.1 5.2 Pavement Condition 67.1 55.1 62.6 5.3 Pavement Cleanliness 66.7 60.7 62.3 5.4 Pedestrian Signposts 73.7 64.2 66.2 5.5 Safe Crossing points 61.8 42.9 64.0 5.6 Drop Kerbs 76.3 51.4 66.4 5.7 Clear Pavements 55.3 42.9 42.7
23 March 2016 11 46 NHT Public Representative Survey 6. Condition of roads and pavements
Road Maintenance & Street Lighting This bullet chart shows Satisfaction with Condition of roads and pavements and compares Public Representative Survey results (Councillors and/or Parishes) with equivalent results from Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
The following table gives the satisfaction scores expressed in percentage terms for the Public Representative Survey (Councillors and/or Parishes) and for the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
Service Councillors Parish Councillors Public 6.1 Condition of road surfaces 69.7 40.0 48.4 6.2 Cleanliness of roads 61.1 58.1 63.3 6.3 Condition of road markings 50.0 45.5 61.3 6.4 Condition of road signs 63.2 52.8 62.8 6.5 Street Lighting Provision 81.6 60.2 62.9 6.6 Speed of repair to street lights 71.9 70.0 61.9 6.7 Speed of repair 56.6 36.6 37.7 6.8 Quality of repair 71.1 40.1 45.5
23 March 2016 12 47 NHT Public Representative Survey 7. Potholes and damaged roads
6a. Potholes and Damaged Roads Still thinking about the local area, would you say that compared to a year ago there are more/fewer or no change to the number of potholes and damaged roads
23 March 2016 13 48 NHT Public Representative Survey 8. Drainage, Winter Service & Environmental Maintenance
Drainage, Winter Service & Environmental Maintenance This bullet chart shows Satisfaction with Drainage, Winter Service & Environmental Maintenance and compares Public Representative Survey results (Councillors and/or Parishes) with equivalent results from Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
The following table gives the satisfaction scores expressed in percentage terms for the Public Representative Survey (Councillors and/or Parishes) and for the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
Service Councillors Parish Councillors Public 6.09 Maintenance of highway verges, trees, shrubs 47.4 42.4 48.6 6.10 Weed killing on pavements and roads 40.8 36.4 49.1 6.11 Provision of drains 69.7 53.0 58.6 6.12 Keeping drains clear and working 46.1 41.7 56.7 7.5 Cold weather gritting and snow clearance 76.3 55.1 55.8 7.6 Provides information on Gritting 75.0 50.0 41.9 7.7 Overgrown Hedges 52.6 34.8 44.4
23 March 2016 14 49 NHT Public Representative Survey 9. Enforcement/Obstructions
Enforcement & Obstructions This bullet chart shows Satisfaction with Enforcement & Obstructions and compares Public Representative Survey results (Councillors and/or Parishes) with equivalent results from Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
The following table gives the satisfaction scores expressed in percentage terms for the Public Representative Survey (Councillors and/or Parishes) and for the Public Satisfaction Survey (Public).
Service Councillors Parish Councillors Public 7.1 Potholes Damaged Roads 71.1 38.9 42.6 7.10 Flooding 63.2 41.5 52.5 7.2 Pavement obstructions 42.1 38.5 42.5 7.3 Road obstructions 72.4 57.6 58.3 7.4 Illegal parking 23.7 22.9 39.5 7.8 Mud on roads 52.6 44.9 52.1 7.9 Abandoned cars 51.7 50.9 53.4
23 March 2016 15 50 NHT Public Representative Survey 10. Your views on Information (Q11)
11a.01 Local transport highways services generally How well informed if at all, do you feel about the local transport and highways services in general.
11a.02 Actions council is taking to repair roads How well informed if at all, do you feel about the actions the council is taking to repair local roads
23 March 2016 16 51 NHT Public Representative Survey 10. Your views on Information (Q11)
11a.03 Local Air Quality How well informed, if at all, do you feel about local air quality?
11c Your views about Council action From what you know or have heard and compared to a year ago, would you say that the council is doing more to repair local roads, doing less, or about the same?
23 March 2016 17 52 NHT Public Representative Survey 11. Contact with the council (Q17)
17a Your contact with the council Have you contacted the Council to report a highways and / or transport issue to make a highways and / or transport enquiry over the last 12 months
17b How did you contact the Council? How did you contact the Council?
23 March 2016 18 53 NHT Public Representative Survey 11. Contact with the council (Q17)
17c How was your enquiry handled? How was your enquiry handled?
23 March 2016 19 54 NHT Public Representative Survey 12. Respondents
Councillors Parish Public
23 March 2016 20 55 Agenda Item 11 FOR INFORMATION ONLY
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR HARBOROUGH
25TH OCTOBER 2016
2016/17 MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMES
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on progress in delivering the 2016- 2017 programmes of maintenance and improvement works. Progress is summarised in the attached appendix which includes details of the following programmes:
Works Programmes
Capital Maintenance – Principal Roads
Capital Maintenance – B&C Roads
Capital Maintenance – Unclassified Roads
Surface Dressing
Footway Treatments
Flood Alleviation
Bridge Maintenance
Safety Barrier Repair and Renewals
Street Lighting Renewals
Traffic Signal Renewals
Improvement Works
LED Upgrade Programme
Equal Opportunities Implications
2. The completion of the maintenance programme will improve the condition of the network for the convenience of all users, whilst causing an element of localised disruption during construction work.
56 FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Recommendation
3. It is recommended that Members note the contents of this report.
Officers to Contact
Members with queries on specific schemes are asked to contact the following officers:
Capital Maintenance – Principal Matthew Reedman Tel: (0116) 305 0001 Roads Highway Service Delivery Capital Maintenance – B&C Email: [email protected] Roads Capital Maintenance – Unclassified Roads Surface Dressing Footway Treatments Safety Barrier Repair and Renewals Street Lighting Renewals
Flood Alleviation Bernard Evans Tel: (0116) 305 0001 Infrastructure Email: [email protected]
Bridge Maintenance Chris Waterfield Tel: (0116) 305 0001 Structures and Assets Email: [email protected]
Traffic Signal Renewals Fiona Blockley Tel: (0116) 305 0001 Traffic and Signals Email: [email protected]
Improvement Works Martin O’Connor Tel: (0116) 305 0001 Engineering Services Email: martin.o’[email protected]
Background Papers
None
57
Major Capital Maintenance Principal Roads
Cost Bands A >£200k, B <£200k >£50k, C <£50k
Parish/ Treatment/ Cost District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Band Leicester Road - Archers Carriageway Completed Harborough Great Glen Roundabout Resurfacing
Major Capital Maintenance B&C Roads
Cost Bands A >£200k, B <£200k >£50k, C <£50k
Parish/ Treatment/ Cost District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Band Kibworth Road - Between Carriageway Waiting Carlton Harborough Mere Road and Grange Edge further Curlieu Road Strengthening details. Leicester Road - From Reserve Market Alvington Way to Just Carriageway Scheme Harborough Harborough beyond Fairfield Road Resurfacing Junction
Major Capital Maintenance Unclassified Roads
Cost Bands A >£200k, B <£200k >£50k, C <£50k
Parish/ Treatment/ Cost District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Band Irish Design Bridge/footbrid work in ge progress Goadby Road - Entire Harborough Hallaton replacement Length and patching of carriageway. Peatling Bamburgh Lane - Isolated Carriageway Reserve Harborough Magna Repairs Strengthening Scheme
58
Surface Dressing The following sites were surface dressed in the 2016 season. Parish/ Treatment/ District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Harborough Billesdon Coplow Lane Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Blaston Stockerston Road Surface Dressing Complete Broughton Harborough Hallbrook Road Surface Dressing Complete Astley Harborough Hungarton Baggrave Hall Road Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Hungarton Ingarsby Lane Surface Dressing Complete Husbands Harborough Leicester Road Surface Dressing Complete Bosworth Husbands Harborough Sibbertoft Road Surface Dressing Complete Bosworth Harborough Knaptoft Welford Road Surface Dressing Complete From Bunkers Hill to Long Harborough Laughton Surface Dressing Complete Close Lane Harborough Laughton Laughton Road Surface Dressing Complete Harborough Lowesby Leicester Road Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Lowesby Melton Road Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Lubenham Laughton Road Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Lubenham Laughton Road Surface Dressing Complete Harborough Lubenham Laughton Road Surface Dressing Complete Harborough Medbourne Uppingham Road Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Mowsley Welford Road Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Shearsby Welford Road Surface Dressing Complete
Harborough Stockerston Medbourne Road Surface Dressing Complete Harborough Stockerston Uppingham Road Surface Dressing Complete Harborough Tilton Melton Road Surface Dressing Complete Harborough Welham Bowden Lane Surface Dressing Complete
59
Poor weather conditions through the early part of the surface dressing season meant that more days were lost than was initially estimated. The programme was reduced by approximately 10% to reflect the time lost. Every effort was taken to limit the reductions, but a prolonged wet period in June meant that a significant proportion of the programme did not get completed. When time is lost during the surface dressing season there is generally not the opportunity to catch up, as weekend working is already fully programmed. The surface dressing season cannot be extended beyond the end of August, even if the weather during September is fine. This is to ensure that the surface dressing chippings get sufficiently embedded in the existing road surface. The majority of the sites not completed in 2016 will be rolled forward and will be included as high priority sites within the 2017/18 surface dressing programme. The following list are the sites that did not get surface dressed in 2016/17. Parish/ Treatment/ District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Harborough Billesdon Brook Lane Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Billesdon Coplow Lane Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Billesdon Gaulby Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Blaston Blaston Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Blaston Hallaton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Blaston Main Street Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Bringhurst Drayton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Bringhurst Great Easton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Broughton Harborough Ambergate Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Bradstone Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Broctone Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Chandler Way Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Cromford Way Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Holbeck Drive Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Manton Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Mayre Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Netherfield Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Spinner Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Broughton Harborough Trent Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Astley Burton Harborough Scotland Lane Surface Dressing 2017/18 Overy Harborough Drayton Great Eaton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Drayton Main Street Surface Dressing 2017/18 Great Harborough Barnsdale Surface Dressing 2017/18 Easton
60
Parish/ Treatment/ District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Great Harborough Cross Bank Surface Dressing 2017/18 Easton Harborough Great Glen Stretton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Houghton Harborough Streeton Lane Surface Dressing 2017/18 on the Hill Husbands Harborough Welford Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Bosworth Husbands Harborough Welford Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Bosworth Kibworth Harborough Elliot Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Beauchamp Kibworth Harborough Fleckney Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Beauchamp Kibworth Harborough High Street Surface Dressing 2017/18 Beauchamp Kibworth Harborough School Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Beauchamp Kibworth Harborough School Walk Surface Dressing 2017/18 Beauchamp Kibworth Harborough Smeeton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Beauchamp Harborough Laughton Mill Hill Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Leire Dunton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Leire Dunton Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Leire Frolesworth Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lubenham Marston Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Allfrey Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Azalea Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Beamont Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Dempsey Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Douglas Bader Drive Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Forsythia Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Honeysuckle Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Jasmine Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Johnnie Johnson Drive Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Lacey Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Lavender Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Lutterworth Robinia Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Market Harborough Alvington Way Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Bates Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Burnmill Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Coales Gardens Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Cromwell Crescent Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Davies Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough
61
Parish/ Treatment/ District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Market Harborough Doddridge Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Hammond Way Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Kestian Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Kingston Way Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Monroe Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Ridgeway West Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Roman Way Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Roundhill Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Sherrard Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Smyth Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Stockwell Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough The Crescent Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough The Longlands Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough The Ridgeway Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough The Woodlands Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Timson Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Turnpike Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Market Harborough Tymecrosse Gardens Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Harborough Saddington Shearsby Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Scraptoft Cranbrook Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Harborough Scraptoft Pulford Drive Surface Dressing 2017/18 Smeeton Harborough Main Street Surface Dressing 2017/18 Westerby Theddingwo From Mill Hill to Station Harborough Surface Dressing 2017/18 rth Road Theddingwo Harborough Station Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 rth Thurnby Harborough Fern Close Surface Dressing 2017/18 and Bushby Thurnby Harborough Pulford Drive Surface Dressing 2017/18 and Bushby Thurnby Harborough Sedgefield Drive Surface Dressing 2017/18 and Bushby
62
Parish/ Treatment/ District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Thurnby Harborough Somerby Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 and Bushby Thurnby Harborough Stirling Drive Surface Dressing 2017/18 and Bushby Thurnby Harborough Vale End Surface Dressing 2017/18 and Bushby Tugby and Harborough Crackbottle Road Surface Dressing 2017/18 Keythorpe
Footway Treatments (including full reconstruction and planned patching)
Cost Bands A >£200k, B <£200k >£50k, C <£50k
Parish/ Treatment/ Cost District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Band Greenacres Drive - Phase Footway Harborough Lutterworth 2 from Bitteswell Road Reconstruction Main Street - From the Footway Harborough Mowsley church to 30mph on Reconstruction Saddington Road
Flood Alleviation Schemes
Cost Bands A >£200k, B <£200k >£50k, C <£50k
Parish/ Treatment/ Cost District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Band Replacement B Station Road between of Harborough Thurnby Forest Rise and Somerby blocked/collap Road sed highway drain Diversion of C Main Street north of St highway drain Harborough Leire Peters Close close to St Peters Close Northampton Investigation C Market Harborough Road/Welland Park Road and upgrade of Harborough junction highway drains
63
Bridge Maintenance Schemes
Cost Bands A >£200k, B <£200k >£50k, C <£50k
Parish/ Treatment/ Cost District Location/ scheme name Notes village Description Band Brickwork Harborough Catthorpe Lilbourne Bridge (1038) C repairs Langton Road over A6 Harborough Great Bowden Barrier repairs C Completed (0375) Peatling Brickwork Harborough Arnesby Lane (1034) C Magna repairs
Street Lighting Maintenance & Renewal
Treatment/ District Parish/ village Location/ scheme name Description No. of Columns
Harborough Broughton Astley Broughton Astley 89 Harborough Gilmorton Gilmorton 13 Harborough Great Easton Great Easton 17
Harborough Kibworth Beauchamp Kibworth Beauchamp 76
Harborough Kibworth Harcourt Kibworth Harcourt 10 Harborough Lutterworth Lutterworth 33 Harborough Scraptoft Scraptoft 17 Harborough Swinford Swinford 6 Harborough Ullesthorpe Ullesthorpe 22
This page is intentionally left blank 65
IMPROVEMENT WORKS ANTICIPATED 2016/17 Last updated: 29.09.16 - V1.9 By: AS
Cost Anticipated District Scheme No. Scheme Location Details Status PE Band Construction
Developer funded bus shelter Harborough 3979.002 Great Glen, Church Road Complete C Q1 RW improvements
Developer funded cycle and pedestrain Harborough 3979.001 Great Glen, Stretton Road facilities along Stretton Road, High Street Design underway B Q4 RB/SD to existing shared facilities in Great Glen
Harborough 4536.000 Newton Harcourt, Post Office Lane Developer funded highway improvements Awaiting construction B Q3 PG/RR
Kibworth Harcourt, Main Sreet, Albert Street Harborough 4533.001 Developer funded traffic calming Design underway B Q2 17/18 PG/CH/RR and Langton Road
Developer funded footway improvements Kibworth Beauchamp, Thackery Lane to Harborough 4533.002 between Thackery Lane and Kibworth CE Design underway B Q2 17/18 MA/CH/RR Hillcrest Avenue Primary School
Measures to reduce speeds and improve Thurnby and Bushby, Court Road/Grange Harborough 4266.002 road safety, traffic flow and accessibility Design underway C Q3 MO Lane/Main Street Junction Trial for pedestrians - funded by Parish Council
Permanent Vehicle Activated Sign request Harborough 4661.000 Swinford, Rugby Road and Kilworth Road from Swinford Parish Council, 3rd party Design Underway C Q3/Q4 LM funded
Husbands Bosworth, A4304 and Welford Harborough 4681.000 Advisory school 20mph, 3rd party funded Design Underway C Q3/Q4 PLES/RR Road
Notes
Cost Band Key: C <£50K; B £50K - £200K; A > £200K
Anticipated Construction: Q1 = April - June Q2 = July - September Q3 = October - December Q4 = January - March Future = future year not yet confirmed
Officer to Contact: Martin O'Connor Tel. (0116) 305 0001 Email [email protected]
\\lccfp3\htwinfdemo$\Information and Democratic Support Team\JOBS\COMMSUPP\Highway Forums\Harborough Forum\2016\25102016\M&I\Harb- Improvements work.xls This page is intentionally left blank 67 PROVISIONAL INSTALLATION TIMETABLE FOR THE LED UPGRADE PROJECT ON STANDARD STREETLIGHTS WITHIN THE HARBOROUGH DISTRICT
Please note the timings are subject to change. A full programme will be available on the internet shortly, which will be updated if there are changes to timings.
Billesdon Late September 2017 for up to 3 Days
Broughton Astley Mid-April 2017 for up to 2 Weeks
Bruntingthorpe Early June 2017 for 1 Day
Claybrooke Magna Early June 2017 for 1 Day
Claybrooke Parva Early June 2017 for 1 Day
Dunton Bassett Early June 2017 for 1 Day
East Langton Late June 2017 for 1 Day
East Norton Late September 2017 for 1 Day
Fleckney Early July 2017 for up to 2 Weeks
Foxton Mid-June 2017 for 1 Day
Gilmorton Mid-June 2017 for up to 3 Days
Great Bowden Late June 2017 for up to 2 Days
Great Easton Late June 2017 for up to 2 Days
Great Glen Late June 2017 for up to 2 Weeks
Hallaton Late September 2017 for 1 Day
Houghton on the Hill Late September 2017 for up to 3 Days
Husbands Bosworth Mid-June 2017 for up to 2 Days
Kibworth Beauchamp Mid July 2017 for up to 2 Weeks
Kibworth Harcourt Late July 2017 for up to 2 Days
Kimcote and Walton Mid-June 2017 for 1 Day
Leire Mid-June 2017 for 1 Day
Lubenham Mid-June 2017 for 1 Day
Lutterworth Mid November 2016 for up to 2 Weeks
Market Harborough Mid October 2016 for up to 4 Weeks
Medbourne Late June 2017 for 1 Day
Misterton with Walcote Early June 2017 for 1 Day
North Kilworth Mid-June 2017 for up to 2 Days 68 Scraptoft Mid-September 2017 for up to 3 Days
Smeeton Westerby Mid-June 2017 for up to 2 Days
South Kilworth Mid-June 2017 for 1 Day
Stoughton Late September 2017 for 1 Day
Swinford Mid-June 2017 for 1 Day
Thurnby and Bushby Mid-September 2017 for up to a week
Tilton Late September 2017 for 1 Day
Tugby and Keythorpe Late September 2017 for 1 Day
Ullesthorpe Early June 2017 for 1 Day
Welham Late June 2017 for 1 Day
Willoughby Waterleys Early March 2018 for 1 Day
69 Agenda Item 12 FOR INFORMATION ONLY
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR HARBOROUGH
25TH OCTOBER 2016
PROGRAMME OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WORK - CURRENT POSITION
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. To inform Members of the current status of the traffic management work programme.
Work Programmes
2. The programme and current status of traffic management work is summarised in the attached appendices:
Works Programme Appendix 2016/17 Schemes (all) A
Resource Implications
3. Traffic management schemes are funded from various sources: The County Council’s traffic management revenue allocation – includes most schemes undertaken as a result of an enquiry; Capital funding (County Council, Local Sustainable Transport Fund etc.) – planned area-wide work; Developers – no resource implications; Outside funding (individuals, parishes, districts etc) – those schemes that are unlikely to be rated high enough to justify County Council funding.
Equal Opportunities Implications
4. No direct implications have been identified.
Recommendation
5. Members are requested to note the content of this report.
Officer to Contact
Fiona Blockley Tel: 0116 305 0001 Email: [email protected]
Background Papers None
This page is intentionally left blank DESIGN & DELIVERY TRO'S / NOTICES / TM SCHEMES 2016/17 Last updated: 29/09/2016 By: RD
District Parish / Town Location Scheme / comments
Complete
Objections
Works ordered Works
Officerto contact
Scheme Approval Scheme
InitialConsultation
Formalconsultation
Approvalto advertise Anticipatedconstruction Main Street, Albert Street and Langton Summer Winter Harborough Kibworth Harcourt n/a Developer funded. Proposed traffic calming SC Road 2016 2016 Spring Spring Developer funded. - Proposed pelican crossing - Harborough Lutterworth Leicester Road √ √ Yes √ n/a n/a MA 2016 2016 developer to implement.
Harborough Lutterworth Town Centre √ √ √ n/a √ Q3 Review of parking restrictions on car parks AH
Summer Developer funded. Proposed zebra crossing Harborough Broughton Astley Station Road / Dunton Road √ n/a √ Yes RW 2016 and bus stop improvements 71 Developer funded. Proposed extension to Harborough Harborough Kettering Road √ √ √ n/a √ √ Q2 RD 40mph speed limit
Developer funded. Proposed waiting Harborough Lutterworth Station Road √ √ √ √ √ √ Q3 RD restrictions.
Harborough Broughton Astley Broughton Way / Buxton Crescent √ √ √ n/a √ n/a Q2 Developer funded. Proposed speed limit RD
Developer funded. Proposed waiting and weight Harborough Broughton Astley Broughton Way / Buxton Crescent √ Q3 RD restrictions.
Replace existing bridge signs as a result of on- Harborough Market Harborough Kettering Road & Bellfields Lane √ √ √ n/a √ √ √ Q1 SB going bridge strikes being reported
Harborough Broughton Astley Green Lane √ Proposed no waiting at any time SB
\\lccfp3\htwinfdemo$\Information and Democratic Support Team\JOBS\COMMSUPP\Highway Forums\Harborough Forum\2016\25102016\TRO\Harb TRO.xls This page is intentionally left blank