Minutes of a Meeting of the Policy, Resources and Performance Cabinet Panel Held on Friday

Minutes

To: All Members of the Highways From: Legal, Democratic & Statutory Services & Waste Management Cabinet Ask for: Laura Shewfelt Panel, Chief Executive, Chief Ext: 01992 555452 Officers, All officers named for ‘actions’

HIGHWAYS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT CABINET PANEL 4 NOVEMBER 2014

ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS OF THE PANEL

D Andrews (Vice-Chairman), D A Ashley (substitute for R F Cheswright), M J Cook, T L F Douris (Chairman), S B A F H Giles-Medhurst, P F J Knell, M D M Muir, S O’Brien, L F Reefe, J J Taylor, A S B Walkington

OTHER MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

M Cowan, K M Hastrick, N A Hollinghurst, A Joynes, G McAndrew, R H Smith, S J Taylor, R G Tindall, C J White, P M Zukowskyj,

Upon consideration of the agenda for the Highways and Waste Management Cabinet Panel on 4 November 2014 as circulated, copy annexed, conclusions were reached and are recorded below:

Note: No conflicts of interest were declared by any member of the Cabinet Panel in relation to the matters on which conclusions were reached at this meeting.

PART I (‘OPEN’) BUSINESS ACTION 1. MINUTES

1.1 The Minutes of the Cabinet Panel meeting held on 18 September 2014 were confirmed as a correct record,

The Minutes were then signed by the Chairman.

It was noted that a briefing note would be circulated in relation to Rob Smith / Item 4.8 (c) following the meeting. Simon Aries

1 2. PUBLIC PETITIONS

2A. SAFETY MEASURES ON THE A10 IN HERTFORDSHIRE

[Officer contact: Robert Swears, Head of Profession – Road Safety Engineering (Tel: 01992 658 324)]

2.1 Ms Sarah Boyton presented the petition below and addressed the Panel on the subject of the petition:

“Make safety improvements on the A10.”

The petition contained 1183 signatures.

2.3 The Panel was also presented with an officer report which provided a road safety engineering response to the petition, including how road safety engineering works were prioritised and information regarding collisions on the A10 and the action taken in response to them.

Conclusions

2.4 The Panel:

1. Expressed its deepest sympathies to Ms Boyton and her family and to the families of the other victims of the tragic accident in November 2012.

2. The Panel requested officers to continue to do all they could to ensure that Hertfordshire’s roads were as safe as they Robert Swears could be. Furthermore, that traffic collisions be monitored on the A10 to identify any patterns and/or causes that could be addressed by road safety engineering measures in accordance with the County Council’s approach to road safety

2B. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AROUND ABOYNE LODGE SCHOOL

[Officer contact: Chrissy Jacques, Highways Operational Manager (Tel: 01992 658379)]

2.5 County Councillor Chris White presented the petition below and addressed the Panel on the subject of the petition:

2 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS

……………. “We the undersigned call for the introduction of traffic calming measures in the streets around Aboyne Lodge School because we are concerned about the safety of children and adults who use these streets to get to and from school, as well as pedestrians at other times of day.

Specifically, we call upon the local authorities to implement the following measures:

 Improved and clear signage to alert road users to the presence of the school.  Clearer road markings to alert motorists to the one-way system.  Clearer indication of the 20mph speed limit on those roads that are 20 and more effective measures to enforce this.  Clearer indication of the 30mph speed limit on those roads that are 30 and more effective measures to enforce this.  More effective measures to ensure that motorists stop at pedestrian crossings (traffic cameras).”

2.6 The Panel was also presented with an officer report on the matter. In addition to the petition, Aboyne Lodge Residents Association had met with the Highways Locality Manager to discuss the issues in detail.

Conclusion

2.7 The Panel agreed that a detailed traffic study in the area around Chrissy Aboyne Lodge School be carried out, in accordance with the Jacques County Council’s Integrated Transport Plan ranking process or via the Highways Locality Budget programme.

3. BUS SERVICES CONSULTATION OUTCOME

[Officer contact: Tom Hennessey, Transport Access and Safety (Tel: 01992 555255)]

3.1 The following petitions were formally presented to the Panel prior to its consideration of this item of business:-

A SAVE OUR BUS SERVICES

Mr John Blundell presented the petition below and addressed the Panel on the subject of the petition: 3 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS

……………. “Join the campaign to preserve our bus services.

The Conservative led County Council is planning to cut £880,000 from the budget for bus services. This will have a severe impact on non-commercial services, with the current plans showing no Sunday bus service on these routes, and no evening service after 6.30pm.

We believe that instead of immediately slashing services the County Council should gather information on the number of people affected and the likely impact on them, and consider other possibilities such as sponsorship of services and potential fare rises.

Liberal Democrats are asking the County Council to re-assess this decision and consider all other options to preserve evening and weekend services. If you agree with us please sign our petition.”

B. PETITION TO STOP BUS TIMETABLE CHANGES

Three Rivers District Councillor Andrew Scarth presented the petition below and addressed the Panel on the subject of the petition:

“We the undersigned strongly object to the withdrawal of the Arriva 503 bus.

We also object to the proposal to stop the W19 and 8 evening service (6.30pm onwards) by Hertfordshire County Council. Our expanding community, especially the elderly and vulnerable, needs a frequent and reliable bus service 7 days a week.”

3.2 In addition to the petitions being formally presented to the Panel, due to the number of additional petitions received in relation to this item of business achieving the required 100 or more signatures from residents or business rate payers of Hertfordshire, the Chairman agreed to allow the lead petitioners for these petitions to attend the meeting and to advise the Panel of the text of their petition and the number of signatories to it.

The following petitions were presented in this way:

C. County Councillor Leon Reefe presented the petition below:

……………. “This petition is part of a County wide campaign to stop the proposed cuts to the HCC Supported bus services. The proposal is to cut a minimum of £700,000 from these services in 2015/16 by ending support for services after 6.30pm and on Sundays.

It is also planned to cut similar amounts from the Transport budget in 2016/17 & 2017/18.

We the undersigned strongly object to yet another attack on the more vulnerable in our society and urge the County Council to find the means to continue supporting the much needed services.”

D. County Councillor Sharon Taylor presented the petition below:

“Stevenage Labour Party are campaigning against cuts to the bus services in Stevenage. The potential cuts to Stevenage bus services amount to 25% of the cuts to the entire county! Residents heavily rely on the bus services to go about their day-to-day lives. The Conservative County Council cuts could mean no more evening and Sunday bus services - a real blow to local people. We want to keep our services! The County Council are still in consultation so it is important that we act now to send them a message: Sign our petition to show the County Council we will not stand for any more cuts in our Town."

E. District Councillor Eric Bishop presented the petition below:

“Help save the early evening W19 bus. Sign if the service is important to you

F. Terry Figg presented the petition below:

“object to short sighted and potentially damaging plan to severely restrict people travel choices. Call to review plans and find ways to maintain a usable bus service for people of Hertfordshire”

G. County Councillor Nick Hollinghurst, presented the petition below:

“Oppose the planned cuts to the Tring/Aylesbury evening bus

……………. service.”

H. Susan Groom, presented the petition below:

“Welwyn/Hatfield Green Party opposed to cuts to bus subsidy’s across the area”

3.3 The Panel noted these petitions.

3.4 The officer report provided a summary of the analysis from the public consultation undertaken in response to proposals to reduce the amount of funding given to support the local bus network in Hertfordshire. It also offered Members some options that, if agreed, might require a further period of consultation.

3.5 Public consultation had been undertaken on these suggested changes for a 12 week period from July 2014. There had been 4,548 responses to the consultation and approximately 13,000 signatures on petitions.

3.7 During discussion a number of Members expressed concern that the consultation exercise had been flawed in that it had not included partners such as the NHS Trusts. Further concerns expressed were that the proposed cuts to services would impact greatly on residents visiting relatives in hospitals in the evening and on Sundays and in general would impact most on the most vulnerable.

3.8 As a result of the data contained in the results analysis, the following motion was moved:

(a) S B A F H Giles-Medhurst proposed the following motion which was duly seconded:

“Given the results of the consultation, the opposition to the proposed changes and the fact that savings in excess of £700,000 have been identified, the Panel resolves to recommend to Cabinet to not make any changes to the current supported bus services and the Bus Strategy but that officers are asked to:

- Review over the next year each route on a route by route basis with trips made, communities served and work with

……………. other partners such as the NHS Trusts and bus operators so that we might achieve further savings but more importantly taking on board the consultation responses to improve the routes and serve better the needs of local communities and increase passenger numbers. - Review other routes whereby working with commercial operators we might increase passenger trips and ensure the service meets the needs of passengers and at the times that suit them.

And that report on the above be brought to the Panel in late 2015”

The motion was voted upon and was LOST, the recorded votes being as follows: (4:7)

Those in favour of the motion (4)

M J Cook, S B A F H Giles-Medhurst, L F Reefe, A S B Walkington

Those against the motion (7)

D Andrews, D A Ashley, T L F Douris, P F J Knell, M D M Muir, S O’Brien, J J Taylor (b) T L F Douris proposed the following motion which was duly seconded:-

“That Panel recommends that Cabinet instructs the Chief Executive & Director of Environment to conduct a new consultation exercise on the following Options, as detailed in Paragraph 9 of the report: 1B – withdraw funding from contracted services after 7.30pm Monday to Saturdays 2 - Withdraw funding from contracted services that operate on a Sunday except for routes that directly serve hospitals up to 7.30pm; and 3(iii) – Apply an indicative limit to the level of subsidy of £3.50 per passenger journey across all contracted services which, based on current prices, would realise up to £809, 000

T L F Douris confirmed that references in Options 1B and 2 to “services after 7.30pm” and “services … that directly serve hospitals up to 7.30pm” meant that where the majority of the service was before 7.30pm, the service would continue to be funded.

(c) L F Reefe proposed the following amendment to the motion which was duly seconded:

……………. “Option 4 – to abandon any proposals to cut services and commit to fund in accordance with government legislation”

The amendment was voted upon and was LOST (4:7)

(d) S B A F H Giles-Medhurst proposed the following amendment to the motion and during discussion the amendment was accepted:

“That the County Council will include in its formal consultation all commercial bus operators and NHS bodies in Hertfordshire and that the details of the consultation are carried on all commercial bus routes in the County”

3.9 A vote was then taken on the substantive motion, which was CARRIED. The recorded votes being as follows:

Those in favour of the motion (7)

D Andrews, D A Ashley, T L F Douris, P F J Knell, M D M Muir, S O’Brien, J J Taylor Those against the motion (4)

M J Cook, S B A F H Giles-Medhurst, L F Reefe, A S B Walkington

3.10 The Panel agreed the following recommendation to Cabinet:-

1. That the Chief Executive & Director of Environment be Rob Smith / instructed to conduct a new consultation exercise on the Tom following Options: Hennessey / Elaine Shell  Withdraw funding from contracted services after 7.30pm Monday to Saturdays and  Withdraw funding from contracted services that operate on a Sunday except for routes that directly serve hospitals up to 7.30pm; and  Apply an indicative limit to the level of subsidy of £3.50 per passenger journey across all contracted services which, based on current prices, would realise up to £809, 000

2. That the County Council will include in its formal consultation all commercial bus operators, NHS Trusts and CCGs in Hertfordshire and that commercial operators be requested to carry details of the consultation on all commercial bus routes in the County.

4. RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT PROGRAMME - OPTIONS

……………. AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE SECRETRAY OF STATE’S DECISION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY AT NEW BARNFIELD, HATFIELD

[Officer contact: Simon Aries, Business Manager, (Tel: 01992 555255)]

4.1 The Panel received a report which set out the options for Hertfordshire’s Residual Waste Treatment Programme (RWTP) Project under the contract with Veolia ES Hertfordshire Limited (VES), following the decision of the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government (SoS) to refuse to grant planning permission for a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility (RERF) at New Barnfield, Hatfield.

4.2 The Panel discussed the options and A S B Walkington proposed the following motion which was duly seconded:

“In order to develop a robust proposal for the long term treatment of Hertfordshire’s residual Local Authority Collected Waste, the Panel recommends to Cabinet that:

(i) The County Council should terminate the contract with Veolia forthwith as per the provisions of the existing agreement; (ii) Use the time period provided by the current already negotiated interim arrangements for the disposal of residual waste to commission an analysis of all the different longer term options provided by latest and emerging technological advances including planning solely for waste produced from within Hertfordshire, ensuring flexibility and resilience rather than locking into a specific approach for a quarter of a century, using the less prescriptive approach from government about having disposal facilities within Hertfordshire, and looking for a less centralized approach; and (iii) Bring forward new proposals which better meet the expectations and needs of our council tax payers.

The amendment was voted upon and was LOST (4:7)

4.3 Note: the Liberal Democrat Group and Labour Group abstained from voting on the conclusion reached below.

Conclusion 9 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS

……………. 4.4 The Panel agreed to recommend to Cabinet that:-

(i) in accordance with the provisions of the Residual Waste Simon Aries / Treatment Programme Contract (the RWTP Contract) a Rob Smith / Revised Project Plan (RPP) be sought from Veolia ES Elaine Shell Hertfordshire Limited (VES) and that the time period for VES to provide a draft RPP under the RWTP Contract be varied by an additional three (3) months to six (6) months.

(ii) the VES challenge to the refusal of the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government to grant planning permission for a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility (RERF) at New Barnfield, Hatfield be monitored and that the Chief Executive and Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Highways and Waste Management, be authorised to agree with VES such variations as may be appropriate to the RWTP Contract that ensures that notwithstanding the RPP process, should planning permission for a RERF at New Barnfield be forthcoming during the production and consideration of the RPP, the Council will have the ability to consider whether to proceed with the RPP process or the RERF at New Barnfield.

(iii) the Chief Executive and Director of Environment be authorised to serve any notices, take any action and agree such documents (including variations to the RWTP contract) as may be necessary to give effect to the decisions mentioned in (i) and (ii) above; the final decision to proceed with either the RERF at New Barnfield (if relevant) or to accept the RPP (if relevant) to be made by Cabinet.

5. MAINTENANCE OF HIGHWAY CYCLEWAYS

[Officer contact: Chris Allen-Smith, Group (Tel: 01992 658167)]

5.1 The Panel received a report which updated it on ongoing work to review the management of highway cycleway as part of the holistic maintenance strategy.

5.2 Members were reminded that a number of service improvements had been discussed previously and further work had now been done to look at the costs and practicalities of these potential improvements.

5.3 The Panel looked in detail at the ‘potential service improvements’ 10 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS

……………. section of the report and the recommendations contained therein. 5.4 Specifically, it was felt that a consistent response to issues was required by the Council’s contractors and that this should include more robust action needed regarding vegetation obstructions such as overgrowing hedges and vegetation which should be needed to be cut higher in places where it might impede cyclists. It was agreed that the contractor be instructed to take this into account and cut back such vegetation further in the future when such works are being undertaken. A number of the suggested service improvements were dependent on further guidance being included in the Defect Management Approach document in order to guide staff undertaking the assess and decide process and ensure that they were fully aware of the needs of cyclists and applied a consistent approach. It was agreed that a draft of this revised guidance should be taken to the Members Advisory Group.

Conclusion

5.5 The Panel agreed the recommendations contained within the report Chris Allen- and that the recommendation at paragraph 6.11.5 of the report, Smith relating to staff awareness, be referred to the Members Advisory Group.

6. A120 LITTLE HADHAM BYPASS PUBLIC CONSULTATION UPDATE

[Officer contact: Richard Boutal, Group Manager, Major Projects Group (Tel: 01707 344461)]

6.1 The Panel was provided with initial feedback from the public consultation exhibition for the A120 Little Hadham Bypass and Flood Alleviation Scheme and details of the next steps for the project.

6.2 The public exhibition had been held on three dates between 16 and 20 October at Little Hadham Village Hall. Over 350 people attended and eighty five feedback forms were collected at the event, with a further nineteen received electronically. The consultation period was due to end on 3 December 2014 and all responses would be collated and considered prior to the submission of a planning application, currently programmed for Spring 2015.

Conclusion

6.3 The Panel noted the update and that a further report would be Richard Boutal submitted to its meeting in February 2015.

7. FUTURE ROLL OUT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 11 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS

……………. (CMS) CONTROLLED LED LIGHTING

[Officer contact: Peter Simpson, (Tel: 01992 658170)]

7.1 The Panel received a report seeking its views on progressing a further phase of CMS controlled lighting across Hertfordshire and on pilots for part night lighting (PNL) and additional dimming and trimming on A-Roads.

7.2 It was intended that the programme for rolling out LED lighting incorporating CMS would commence in November 2014, with completion by Summer 2015. Members heard that the PNL pilot was best suited to the rural and semi-rural environments and the dimming and trimming pilot the more urban environments.

Conclusion

7.3 The Panel:

(i) Endorsed the proposal to introduce central management system (CMS) controlled Light Emitting Diode (LED) lighting for all those lighting systems currently in full night lighting. (ii) Endorsed the proposal to undertake pilots on the A- roads involving part night lighting and additional dimming and trimming.

8. EAST WEST RAIL IN HERTFORDSHIRE

[Officer contact: Liz Drake, (Tel: 01992 588637)]

8.1 The Panel received a report updating it on views received from district councils and the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) on the east West Rail (EWR) central section link between Bedford and Cambridge passing through Hertfordshire.

8.2 Members heard that the responses received were generally supportive of the principle.

Conclusion

8.3 The Panel noted the responses received regarding a central section route in Hertfordshire and recommended that the County Liz Drake Council endorse the following position:

The County Council continues to support the principle of a link between the East Coast and Midland main lines passing through, and connecting with, existing Hertfordshire stations, and with it the wider connections on the Oxford to 12 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS

……………. Cambridge corridor.

9. OTHER PART I BUSINESS

9.1 S B A F H Giles-Medhurst sought to raise an issue regarding deferred IWP maintenance schemes. T L F Douris indicated that he did not consider this be of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration but that a written answer would be provided.

KATHRYN PETTITT CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER CHAIRMAN

…………….