NORTON CANES PARISH COUNCIL Minutes of Council Meeting Held On
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NORTON CANES PARISH COUNCIL Minutes of Council Meeting held on 20 July 2016 at Norton Canes Community Centre at 7pm Present: J. Preece (Chairman) J. Beddows J. Bridgen J. Bernard Mrs A. Bernard Mrs. S. Harding J. Hampshire C. Preece M. Holder Mrs Z. Stretton M. Stretton Also Present: 10 members of the public PCSO Neil Griffiths (to end of Police Report) Michelle Shaker, Community Speed Watch Co-ordinator (to end of her presentation) Mrs T. Williams, Temporary Clerk Cllor Preece thanked everyone present for attending the meeting. Cllor Mrs Harding asked the Chairman if he would call a minute’s silence in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks in France (recently in Nice) and also for Jo Cox, MP (for Batley and Spen), who was murdered (on 16 June 2016) in the line of duty. A minute’s silence was held. 985/2016 Public Participation Michelle Shaker, Community Speed Watch Co-ordinator for Staffordshire Safer Roads Partnership was welcomed to the meeting. Michelle proceeded to deliver a presentation on the Community Speed Watch scheme and how it could assist in improving road safety in the community. She advised that the Safer Roads Partnership consists of Staffordshire Police, Staffordshire County Council, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service and other agencies. There are more than 40 Community Speed Watch groups in Staffordshire with another 17 groups in the process of setting up (waiting for equipment, training or funding). All people who make up these groups are volunteers. The vision of 1 the Partnership is to double or triple this number for the whole of Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent. Training of volunteers consists of a 2½ hour session which includes some practical work in handling the radar devise. The local PCSO will undertake risk assessments to identify the speeding hot spots where the group will stand. After this, it is a case of operating the device and recording people who are caught speeding. The make and model of the vehicle, date, time and speed, are recorded and entered into a national data base which identifies the registered keeper. If it is the first time the keeper is caught they receive a warning letter (which works well and is often all that is needed). If the same person is caught again, another more strongly worded letter is sent as a final warning. In addition to this, a police officer will visit the keeper at home. No- one likes that happening and it is a huge deterrent. The data collected is monitored over a period of time and provides very useful statistics. It highlights issues that can then be reported to county partners, and provides evidence for getting speed surveys done so traffic in particular areas can be monitored. It is a useful gauge of what vehicles are doing in the area. It is important that the community engage with the Partnership and assist in identifying the hot spots. There are just six camera vans for the whole of the County and 222 yellow cameras by the roadside. Of these 222 cameras only 30 are live at any one time. Cameras are categorised as High, Medium and Low ‘Killed or Seriously Injured’ (KSI) and are switched on in accordance with these statistics. Cameras are not loaded in areas with low KSI statistics. Live cameras have to be kept rotating and it is a vast area to cover. Norton Canes has a radar gun (which is shared with Heath Hayes) and hot spots for speeding are generally known, although there has been an issue getting risk assessments done. Michelle asked the meeting whether there was a pattern for speeding in Norton – daytime, night time or throughout. Members of the public spoke one by one and shared their concerns about where speeding was a problem. Between the Old Yew Tree and the Sycamore was mentioned as well as the A5, Burntwood Road Norton Hall Lane, Brownhills Road, Walsall Road. People also expressed their disappointment that the cameras in Norton are not working. Michelle said that data held on Norton Canes illustrated that accidents are of a minor nature and not speed related. However, hot spots for speeding have been identified as Betty’s Lane, Brownhills Road, Church Road and Hednesford Road. As Norton Canes is not a high priority for live speed cameras, the Community Speed Watch could play its part in collecting data that might raise its ranking. Concerns were raised about motorist reactions to the speed guns in respect of confrontation and hostility. Michelle explained that conflict management is incorporated into the training although incidents are not common occurrences (in seven years Cllor Bernard has only had two people stop to 2 deliver verbal abuse). She suggested the group dial 101 when they start their session and the PCSO on duty will be alerted (and if possible attend some of the session). If motorists do stop, volunteers have a letter to show them confirming they have been legitimately appointed by the Safer Road Partnership. If the volunteer feels uncomfortable they can choose to just walk away. The incident should then be reported. A member of the public spoke about a proposed road scheme involving a one-way system and speed humps but the work had not taken place. This was confirmed as being Staffordshire County Council work. Cllor Bernard asked how much a radar gun would cost if enough volunteers could be recruited. He also informed the meeting that he had been successful in obtaining a quantity of wheelie bin stickers (marked up with 30mph speed limit) from the Safer Roads Partnership for residents of some of the roads highlighted. These would be hand delivered by him and fellow volunteers. He also asked whether a camera van could visit Norton Canes from time to time and Michelle advised that its sitings was also dependent on KSI statistics. She said that an area could be set up as a ‘Community Care Site’ where local people provide the information on road safety issues (but this is dependent on information being put forward by members of the public). The value of the Speed Awareness Course was stated by Cllor J. Preece and that it would be a good idea if the courses were made compulsory for all motorists. Cllor Bernard asked whether it would be possible to get some signs installed saying ‘Slow Down’ or ‘Kill your Speed’. Michelle said that if a Speed Watch group shows commitment, after six months it would be possible to request Speed Watch signs (one for each side of the road) but these have to be paid for by the Parish Council or Staffordshire County Council. They cost about £350. Temporary LED signs were also mentioned. PCSO Neil Griffiths acknowledged that there is speeding in the village but with a push on the Speed Watch scheme a lot of work can be done to knock this on the head. The following Councillors offered to become Speed Watch volunteers: Cllor Bernard (already a volunteer at Heath Hayes), Cllor J. Preece, Cllor Holder, Cllor M. Stretton, Cllor Beddows. Before leaving the meeting at the end of her presentation, Michelle was thanked by the Chairman for her time. At this point (7.35pm) five members of the public also left the meeting. Other issues Planning Application CH/16/191: Brownhills Road, Norton Canes 3 Residential Development for 39 Affordable Homes – Two local residents (Mark Cope and Matt Wilkinson), who had not been able to attend the previous meeting, thanked the parish council for its support with this planning application. At this point the Chairman declared that he is a member of the District Council’s Planning Control Committee. He invited Cllor Mrs Stretton to speak about the application. Cllor Mrs Stretton suggested that a meeting be set up between a number of the residents (perhaps ten), Councillors and the Development Control Manager of the Planning Department so that concerns about the planning application can be directly expressed in full. Sometimes plans can be changed in accordance with local people’s wishes. She asked the two men to leave their names and addresses. Cllor Bernard said he had arranged a meeting with Mark Cope to discuss a response to the case. Cllor Beddows asked Mr Cope and Mr Wilkinson to explain the progress that had been made since the last meeting. Mr Cope advised that local residents had: • submitted their objections in writing individually (there are five pages of consultation responses on Cannock Chase Council’s Planning Register for the application). • A collective document had been produced and attention given to ensuring the observations were properly and concisely compiled. The neighbours have signed to say they are in agreement with its content. • A request had been made to the Planning Department for the publicity period to be extended. Residents were now waiting for the Planning Committee date. Cllor Holder asked whether a site visit had been requested and suggested that objectors make their presence known on the day. He advised that a pre meeting discussion with the Planning Officer would be a good idea. Where officers recommend approval on a planning application, the committee must find very good planning reasons for going against this advice. He pointed out that the residents’ collective response (earliest version) contains a section that he found to be objectionable. Mr Cope and Mr Wilkinson advised that the document had been improved since the early draft and none of the 40+ objectors have experience with responding to planning applications. He agreed that there were faults in how the objections had been presented – but at the same time the applicant was inviting some of the comments made because of the way the development had been designed.