Leicestershire County Council Highway Forum for Charnwood
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
QRUrlQRUrl LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAY FORUM FOR CHARNWOOD WEDNESDAY, 1 JULY 2015 AT 4.30 PM TO BE HELD AT COMMITTEE ROOM 2, CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL OFFICES AGENDA Item 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 previous meeting (Pages 5 - 14) 6. Chairman's update 7. Presentation of petitions under Standing Order 36 A petition with 113 signatures from District Councillor Seaton will be presented. The petition requests safeguards to make the railway bridge along Church Hill Road, Thurmaston safer for pedestrians. ‘We the undersigned request action from the Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority regarding pedestrian safety under the railway bridge on Church Hill Road, Thurmaston Leicester. Church Hill bridge is the only pedestrian route to Thurmaston’s three Primary schools from east of Thurmaston. The bridge is only wide enough for single vehicle movement and the footpath to one side of the bridge is narrow. The narrowness of the road means that vans and small lorries take 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 up the whole width affecting their wing mirrors to protrude onto the path causing pedestrian to press against the filthy walls of the bridge. The narrowness of the path means that pedestrians have no option but to walk in single file. This causes problems for adults with prams and pushchairs not being able to hold the hands of their walking children. Older unaccompanied children with less confidence find the bridge path intimidating and challenge to pass along. Any passing of class 1 mobility scooters along the path is dangerous as the head then becomes the same height of wing mirrors and the scooter cannot move out of the way of vehicles. This adds to the competitive approach of vehicles that speed up to enable them to get through the bridge before the oncoming vehicle. The school day starts at the same time as rush hour making the morning walk to school a danger for all pedestrians. The bridge frequently floods which adds to pedestrian safety and accessibility to schools. Elderly pedestrians find the narrow pathway difficult to negotiate whilst concentrating on traffic. There are many safeguards that can be put into place to make the bridge pathway safer e.g. signage – stating that pedestrians have priority, rails that separate pedestrian space from vehicles, right of way priority given to vehicles from a given direction.’ (A response to this petition can be found under Item 8 below) 8. Response to petition - pedestrian safety under the railway (Pages 15 - 18) bridge on Church Hill Road, Thurmaston 9. Response to e-petition - requests for the Council to engage (Pages 19 - 20) in discussions with East Midlands Trains about improving Sileby and Barrow-upon-Soar Railway Station 10. Response to petition - petition raises concern about the (Pages 21 - 24) indiscriminate parking on Wallis Close, Anstey Lane, Thurcaston, LE7 7JS 11. Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) Update (Pages 25 - 32) 12. Network Rail update (presentation) 13. Grass cutting update (Pages 33 - 36) 14. Potholes (Pages 37 - 42) 15. 2015/16 maintenance and improvements programmes - (Pages 43 - 56) information item 16. Programme of traffic management work - current position - (Pages 57 - 64) information item 17. On-going action statement (Pages 65 - 66) 18. Items for discussion - will members please submit these in writing to the officers prior to the meeting 19. Any other items the Chairman has decided is urgent 20. Chairman's closing remarks 21. Date of the next meeting: Wednesday 16th September 2015 (Comm Room 1, CBC offices) This page is intentionally left blank 5 Agenda Item 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR CHARNWOOD HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM 2 AT THE TH BOROUGH COUNCIL OFFICES ON WEDNESDAY 7 JANUARY 2015 AT 4.30PM. PRESENT County Councillors Borough Councillors Cllr D Snartt (Chairman) Cllr M Draycott Cllr I Bentley Cllr D Gaskell Cllr S Hampson Cllr K Pacey Cllr M J Hunt Cllr C Poole Cllr A M Kershaw Cllr B Seaton Cllr P Lewis Cllr M Smidowicz Cllr M E Newton Cllr M Smith Cllr R Sharp Cllr Sutherington Cllr R Shepherd The following also attended the meeting: County officers present: P Price, G Payne, D Wright, J McGuiness, D R Bradbury Borough officers present: 096. CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME The Chairman welcomed Members and officers to the meeting and wished everyone a happy new year. 097. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs D Houseman CC, K Knaggs CC, J Miah CC, C M Radford CC, P Day BC and Mr J Foot BC. 098. URGENT ITEMS There were no urgent items. 099. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Chairman declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 7iii. 100. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 2 nd September 2014 were confirmed and signed as a true record of the meeting. 101. CHAIRMAN’S UPDATE Feedback on Member complaints regarding Customer Services Cllr M E Newton CC thanked officers for the update and welcomed the planned improvement in customer feedback. Mr Payne explained that the planned trial would free up the time of the Highways technical staff. Cllr M Draycott BC stated that there was still a problem with flooding where the A512 meets Epinal Way. She asked when the work would be carried out to alleviate the problem. Mr Bradbury agreed to ask officers to contact Cllr Draycott. 6 102. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER 36 i) An e-petition with 10 signatures from Joseph Robertson will be presented. The petition requests the Council to engage in discussions with East Midlands Trains about improving Sileby Railway Station The Chairman accepted the petition. Cllr R Shepherd CC was disappointed that he had not been informed of the petition. Mr Bradbury agreed to take the issue up with the Chief Executive’s Department. ii) An e-petition with 3 signatures from Joseph Robertson will be presented. The petition requests the Council to engage in discussions with East Midlands Trains about improving Barrow upon Soar Railway Station The Chairman accepted the petition. Cllr A M Kershaw CC was disappointed that he had not been informed of the petition. Mr Bradbury agreed to take the issue up with the Chief Executive’s Department. iii) A petition with 28 signatures from Mrs H B Cox on behalf of the residents of Wallis Close will be presented. The petition raises concern about the indiscriminate parking on Wallis Close, Anstey Lane, Thurcaston, LE7 7JS. The Chairman accepted the petition. The Chairman agreed to accept a petition from Cllr B Seaton BC regarding pedestrian safety under the railway bridge on Church Hill Road, Thurmaston, Leicester. Cllr Seaton explained to Members the problems encountered at this site. The Chairman confirmed that each petition would be investigated and a report on each would come to the next meeting. 103. RESPONSE TO PETITION: REQUEST TO REDUCE PARKING PROBLEMS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS ON GARENDON ROAD, LOUGHBOROUGH The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport in response to a petition requesting the reduction in parking problems on Garendon Road, Loughborough. A copy of the report is filed with the minutes. The Chairman asked Cllr Draycott to comment on the report. Cllr Draycott explained that the petition asked the County Council to address parking problems on Garendon Road and the better utilisation of John Phillips Close. She also stated that cars parked on both sides of the road made it difficult for vehicles to pass on the road. Cllr Draycott commented that the surveys undertaken took place at the top of Garendon Road where there are no houses and less parking problems. She was not satisfied with the report and its response to the petition. Cllr Draycott had expected that liaison would have taken place to discuss the problem with the University. Cllr M J Hunt CC endorsed Cllr Draycott’s comments. He realised that officers 7 were under considerable pressures, however he had serious misgivings with the report. Cllr Hunt commented that, in the report in paragraph 6, officers considered there was not a problem because vehicles have to give and take. However, if vehicles decided not to be reasonable, there would be a problem. Cllr Hunt stated that there was a condition on the residence, that students could not have cars parked unless they had a designated place. This means that, without a space, students park off-campus. Cllr Hunt was disappointed that the report does not provide any possible solutions or way forward, even if at present they were not feasible. Cllr Newton was surprised that there has been no reported accidents in the area. She had travelled on a bus recently which had collided with a car. Cllr M Smidowicz BC asked whether there was a criteria used when looking at the objections to a residents’ parking scheme. Mr Wright explained that there was not a set criteria used. However, when the Loughborough West Parking Study had been undertaken, each area was discussed with local Members looking at the various objections raised. Mr Price, in answer to a Member question, explained that the County Council does not record accident statistics. The police record injury accidents and send the details to the County Council.