Public Document Pack
SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date: Thursday 11th September, 2008 Time: 6.30 pm Venue: Maghull Town Hall, Hall Lane, Maghull
AREA COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Moluneux Ward Park Ward Councillor Councillor Howe (Chair), Liberal Democrat Blackburn (Vice-Chair), Liberal Democrat Colbert, Liberal Democrat Byrne, Liberal Democrat Robertson, Liberal Democrat Fenton, Liberal Democrat
Sudell Ward Councillor Connell, Liberal Democrat C Mainey, Liberal Democrat S Mainey, Liberal Democrat
Parish Council Representatives Parish Councillor Baldwin Aintree Village Parish Council Parish Councillor Russell Lydiate Parish Council Parish Councillor Walker Maghull Town Council Parish Councillor Karran Melling Parish Council Parish Councillor McKeating Sefton Parish Council
COMMITTEE OFFICER: Olaf Hansen Committee Clerk Telephone: 0151 934 2067 Fax: 0151 934 2034 E-mail: [email protected]
If you have any special needs that may require arrangements to facilitate your attendance at this meeting, please contact the Committee Officer named above, who will endeavour to assist.
A G E N D A
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Declarations of Interest Members and Officers are requested to give notice of any personal or prejudicial interest and the nature of that interest, relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the relevant Code of Conduct.
3. Minutes (Pages 5 - 10) Minutes of the meeting held on 22 May, 2008.
4. Police Issues
5. Open Forum
6. Budget Monitoring (Pages 11 - 22) Report of the Finance Director
7. Parking Service Review (Pages 23 - 48) Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services.
8. Cleansing Services Update (Pages 49 - 56) Report of the Environmental Protection Director
9. Core Strategy (Pages 57 - 76) Report of the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director
a) Core Strategy: Minute No.24 of St.Oswald and Netherton and Orrell Area Committee (Pages 77 - 78)
10. Green Space Strategy for Sefton - Consultation Draft (Pages 79 - 86) Joint Report of the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director and the Leisure Director
11. Strategic Intelligence Assessment (SIA) Priorities (Pages 87 - 100) Report of the Head of Community Safety
12. Sefton Village Speed Management Scheme - Results of (Pages 101 - 108) Public Consultation Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services.
13. Objection to Proposed Traffic Regulation Order, (Pages 109 - 120) Damfield Lane, Maghull - Outcome of Consultation Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services.
14. Results of On-Street Parking Consultation - Maghull (Pages 121 - 138) Station Area Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services.
15. Proposed Disabled Persons Parking Place (Pages 139 - 142) Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services.
16. Consolidation of Traffic Regulation Orders (Pages 143 - 148) Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services.
17. Waddicar Lane Developments, Melling (Pages 149 - 152) Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services.
18. Correspondence from Previous Meeting Items (Pages 153 - 168)
19. Date of Next Meeting In accordance with the agreed programme of meetings for this Area Committee, the next meeting will be held on 6 November, 2008 at Melling Primary School, Wheeler Drive, Melling commencing at 6.30 p.m.
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 THE “CALL IN” PERIOD FOR THIS SET OF MINUTES ENDS AT 12 NOON ON TUESDAY 10 JUNE, 2008. MINUTE NOS. 5, 6, 9, 10 11, AND 12 ARE NOT SUBJECT TO “CALL IN”
SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
MEETING HELD AT THE MAGHULL TOWN HALL, HALL LANE, MAGHULL ON THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 2008
PRESENT: Councillor Howe (in the Chair) Councillors Colbert, Blackburn, Byrne, Fenton, C Mainey and S Mainey Parish Councillors Baldwin, Brown, Russell and Walker
1. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2008/09
RESOLVED: That
(1) Councillor Howe be elected Chair of the Committee for 2008/09; and
(2) Councillor Blackburn be elected Vice-Chair of the Committee for 2008/09.
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Connell, Robertson and Parish Councillor McKeating.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were received.
4. MINUTES
RESOLVED:
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 March, 2008 be confirmed as a correct record.
5. POLICE ISSUES
Sergeant Meadows reported that compared to the same period last year: overall crime was down 90%; violent crime was down 40%; robbery was down 100%; theft from the home (burglary) was up 32%; theft from a motor vehicle was down 52%; theft of a motor vehicle was down 80%; and criminal damage was up 12%.
Councillor Fenton asked whether the speed at which vehicles, in particular motorbikes, travelling along Lambshear Lane, Lydiate could be monitored.
Page1 5 Agenda Item 3 SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE- THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 2008
Sergeant Meadows replied that there were speeding operations in place along Lambshear Lane, but he would look into the matter.
Councillor C.Mainey reported that quad bikes were being ridden around the Sefton Meadows, between Northway and Bridges Lane, and the site of the former brick crushing works at Sefton Lane Industrial estate area of Maghull. Sergeant Meadows said he would look into the matter.
RESOLVED:
That the Police be thanked for their presentation.
6. OPEN FORUM
(a) Mr.G.Harris, Clerk to Aintree Village Parish Council, asked whether the Area Committee would consider the erection of a ‘No Ball Games’ sign at Kempton Park Road, Aintree Village.
A representative from the Technical Services Department explained the criteria and process regarding the erection of ‘No Ball Games’ signs. After discussion, Members agreed that the site at Kempton Park Road did not meet the criteria required to erect a ‘No Ball Games’ sign and refused the request.
(b) Mr.G.Harris, Clerk to Aintree Village Parish Council, asked the Area Committee to note that Aintree Village Parish Council supports a trial use of ‘grasscrete’ within the parish; would agree to its 2008/09 Area Committee allocation being used for this purpose; and suggested that an appropriate site would be the heavily damaged grass verge by the large green at Altway, Aintree Village.
Parish Councillor Baldwin informed Members that he would take this question back to Aintree Village Parish Council for further discussion.
(c) Parish Councillor Brown made a complaint that, in Melling, bags of rubbish collected by street sweepers were not being collected by Cleansing Services. Consequently, the street sweepers’ hard work was being undone as bags full of rubbish were being torn and their contents scattered.
Members agreed to forward the complaint to the Environmental Protection Director for a response.
(d) Parish Councillor Brown commented that the gas pipe work being undertaken around Melling continued to create waste debris, and requested that the mechanical sweeper be deployed to give the streets a thorough clean.
Members agreed to forward the request to the Environmental Protection Director for a response.
Page2 6 Agenda Item 3 SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE- THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 2008
(e) A local resident asked if alley gates could be installed at Gordon Avenue, Maghull to act as a barrier to prevent youths congregating in gangs and causing anti-social behaviour in the area. However, if alley gates were deemed unsuitable for Gordon Avenue could CCTV cameras be installed.
Councillor Howe suggested a meeting between Sudell Ward Councillors, Parish Councillors and the local Police Community Support Officer should be held to discuss measures that could be taken. Councillor C.Mainey agreed to meet with officers from Technical Services to pursue this matter.
7. BUDGET MONITORING
Further to Minute No. 72 of 20 March 2008, the Committee considered the report of the Finance Director which indicated that the balance available for allocation during 2008/09 was as follows:-
Aintree Village £3,860 Lydiate £3,610 Maghull £20,829 Melling £8,550 Sefton £1,315 Molyneux Ward (SEPAC-wide budget) £2,520 Park Ward (SEPAC-wide budget) £1,770 Sudell Ward (SEPAC-wide budget) £3,020
Total £47,474
RESOLVED:
(1) the budget for 2007/8 and balance available to each Parish/Town Council and SEPAC-wide for allocation for the rest of the year be noted;
(2) the balances of the litterbin budget for each Ward be noted; and
(3) the Finance Director be requested to delegate litterbin budgets to Ward Councillors.
8. INSTALLATION OF GRASSCRETE VERGE PROTECTION, LUNT ROAD SERVICE ROAD
The Committee considered the report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services that requested the expenditure of £2,007 by Sefton Parish Council and £1,693 by the Area Committee allocation for installation of grasscrete at Lunt Road service road, Lunt. The report requested that £1,140 to be allocated from the Sefton Parish Council allocation and £553 to be allocated from the SEPAC-wide allocation.
Page3 7 Agenda Item 3 SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE- THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 2008
RESOLVED:
That the sum of £1,693, £1,140 from the Sefton Parish Council allocation and £553 from the SEPAC-wide allocation, be allocated towards the installation of grasscrete at Lunt Road service road, Lunt.
9. FOOTWAY / VERGE PARKING
The Committee considered the report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services that informed of the current policy and options relating to footway and verge parking, with specific reference to Oriel Drive, Aintree Village.
Members had a wide ranging discussion on the possible options regarding controlling parking around Oriel Drive. Members said that Aintree Village Parish Council should be consulted with regard to the possible installation of Bitmac at areas affected by cars parking on verges. Members agreed that in the interim, ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ waiting restrictions be implemented at the junction of Haileybury Avenue and Oriel Drive.
Attached as an annexe to the report was a plan of the proposed TRO
RESOLVED: That
(1) the policy regarding the footway / verge parking be noted;
(2) Aintree Village Parish Council be consulted with regard to the possible installation of Bitmac at areas affected by cars parking on verges; and
(3) the Legal Director be authorised to:
(a) to commence the necessary consultation procedures and advertise the intention of the Council to make a Traffic Regulation Order under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which would be to introduce “No Waiting at Any Time” restrictions at the junction of Haileybury Avenue and Oriel Drive, as indicated in the report and the annexe to the report; and
(b) to take all necessary action in connection with the making of the Order.
10. SEFTON VILLAGE SPEED MANAGEMENT SCHEME
The Committee considered the report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services that provided the details of the proposed speed management scheme for Sefton Village and sought approval for consultation with residents.
Page4 8 Agenda Item 3 SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE- THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 2008
RESOLVED:
(1) the details of the Sefton Village Speed Management Scheme be approved; and
(2) the Technical Services Director be instructed to carry out all necessary consultation with frontagers and report back to a future meeting of this Committee.
11. SOUTHPORT ROAD, LYDIATE - SPEED MANAGEMENT SCHEME
The Committee considered the report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services that provided the details of the proposed speed management scheme for Southport Road, Lydiate and sought approval for consultation with residents.
RESOLVED:
(1) the details of the Southport Road, Lydiate Speed Management Scheme be approved;
(2) the Technical Services Director be instructed to carry out all necessary consultation with frontagers and report back to a future meeting of this Committee.
12. OBJECTION TO PROPOSED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER - DAMFIELD LANE, MAGHULL
The Committee considered the report of the Technical Services Director that advised of the receipt of an objection to the proposed introduction of ‘No Waiting At Any Time Restrictions’, on Damfield Lane, Maghull.
Members discussed the report in detail, and suggested possible compromises with local residents that had objected. Members requested that the Technical Services Director hold further discussions with local residents with a view to obtaining a suitable compromise.
RESOLVED:
That the Technical Services Director be requested to hold further discussions with local residents with a view to obtaining a suitable compromise for the Damfield Lane, Maghull Traffic Regulation Order.
Page5 9 Agenda Item 3 SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE- THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 2008
13. NEW FOOTPATH/CYCLE LINK, WADDICAR TO HOLMES BRIDGE
The Committee considered the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services that advised of the construction of a footpath and cycle link between Chestnut Walk, Waddicar and Holmes Bridge.
Members raised a number of queries with regard to the report.
RESOLVED: That
(1) the report on the new footpath / cycle link, Waddicar to Holmes Bridge be noted: and
(2) the Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services be requested to contact Molyneux Ward Councillors to answer queries regarding the report.
14. WADDICAR LANE DEVELOPMENTS, MELLING
Further to Minute No. 75 of 20 March, 2008 the Committee considered the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environmental Services that advised of the progress with the formal adoption of the roads and sewers at the Village development by Morris Homes together with the Satinwood Crescent development by Morris Homes and Persimmon Homes.
RESOLVED:
That the Progress report - Waddicar Lane Development be noted.
15. CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PREVIOUS MEETING ITEMS
The Committee considered correspondence relating to previous items raised in the Open Forum.
RESOVED: That
(1) the correspondence be noted; and
(2) the Technical Services Director be requested to write to Merseytravel to discuss the impact of parking restrictions around Maghull Station.
16. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
In accordance with the agreed Schedule of Meetings for this Area Committee, the next meeting will be held on Thursday, 17 July, 2008 at Old Roan Methodist Church, Altway, Aintree Village commencing at 6.30 pm.
Page 610 Agenda Item 6
Meeting: Sefton East Parishes Area Committee
Date of Meeting : 11 September 2008
Title of Report: Budget Monitoring Report
Report of : P. Edwards This report contains Yes No Finance Director CONFIDENTIAL Information/ ü Contact Officer : M. W. Martin EXEMPT information by (Telephone No.) 0151 934 3506 virtue of paragraph(s)..…..... ü of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ? ü
Purpose of Report
In line with the policy approved by Cabinet on 16 June 2005, this report: - i) seeks the Committee’s confirmation of any proposals made by the Strategic Director for requests up to £1,000; ii) advises Members of the budget for 2007/8 and the balance available to each Parish/Town Council for allocations for the rest of the year; and iii) provides the forum for consideration of formal reports for requests for allocations above £1,000. To improve the procedure for approving allocations financed from Area Committee budgets.
Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to: a) Note the budget for 2008/9 and balances available to each Parish/Town Council from the general budget and to each Ward from the Sepac-wide budget for allocation for the rest of the year.
b) Note the balances of the litterbin budget for each Ward.
c) Consider any further reports for requests for allocation above £1,000
Page 11 Agenda Item 6
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community ü 2. Creating Safe Communities ü 3. Jobs and Prosperity ü 4. Improving Health and Well-Being ü 5. Environmental Sustainability ü 6. Creating Inclusive Communities ü 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and ü Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People ü
Financial Implications
2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Any proposals contained in this report can be contained within the Area Committee’s delegated budget.
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
None
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
Report to Cabinet: Area Committee Budgets on 16 June 2005.
Page 12 Agenda Item 6
BACKGROUND:
1. Introduction
1.1 In 2002-03 the Council allocated funds to Area Committees for expenditure on local priorities that would not otherwise be funded from Council budgets. This budget has remained in place in subsequent financial years.
1.2 As a measure to improve the administration and control of Area Committees’ budgets Cabinet on 16 June 2005 approved new procedural arrangements including the formalisation of a reporting regime to each respective Area Committee meeting advising of proposals made by the relevant Strategic Director of requests up to £1,000 and any commitments entered into. The report also advises each Area Committee of the balance of its budget available for allocation.
2. Proposals made by the Strategic Director and commitments arising
2.1 At the time of writing this report the Finance Director has received no requests for allocations of up to £1,000.
3 Budget available for allocation
3.1 The budget for 2008/9 has been allocated in line with minute 41(2) of 9 November 2006 i.e. split 80% for Parish and Town Councils to allocate and 20% for a SEPAC-wide budget. The table below summarises the budget position for Parish and Town Councils for this year after adjusting for the SEPAC-wide provision. Details of allocations made during the year are contained in Annexes A to E.
SEPAC general Balance Allocations Available budgets for B/fwd to date Funds Parish/Town Councils £ £ £ Aintree £3,860 £0 £3,860 Lydiate £3,610 £0 £3,610 Maghull £20,829 £0 £20,829 Melling £8,550 £0 £8,550 Sefton £1,315 £1,140 £175 Totals £38,164 £1,140 £37,024
3.2 The SEPAC-wide budget is shown in the table below. Details of allocations made during the year are contained in Annex F.
SEPAC-wide budget by Balance Allocations Available Ward B/fwd to date Funds £ £ £ Molyneux £2,520 £0 £2,520 Park £1,770 £553 £1217 Sudelll £3,020 £0 £3,020 Totals £7,310 £553 £6,757
Page 13 Agenda Item 6
3.2 Members have previously agreed that the litterbin budget would be managed at Ward level. Details of approvals made during the year are contained in Annex G. For information, the current charges for litter bins are: • Standard (plastic) £210 • Robust (metal) £380
SEPAC Litterbin Balance Allocations Available budget by Ward B/fwd to date Funds £ £ £ Molyneux £1,049 £0 £1,049 Park £1,609 £0 £1,609 Sudelll £1,609 £0 £1,609 Totals £4,267 £0 £4,267
4 Recommendations
4.1 Members are asked to: a) Note the budget for 2008/9 and balances available to each Parish/Town Council from the general budget and to each Ward from the Sepac-wide budget for allocation for the rest of the year.
b) Note the balances of the litterbin budget for each Ward.
c) Consider any further reports for requests for allocation above £1,000.
Page 14 Agenda Item 6
Aintree Parish Annex A
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £0 2008/9 allocation £3,860 Subtotal £3,860 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2008/9 £3,860
Allocations :
Date Minute Project Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Page 15 Agenda Item 6
Lydiate Parish Annex B
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £0 2008/9 allocation £3,610 Subtotal £3,610 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2008/9 £3,6100
Allocations :
Date Minute Project Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Page 16 Agenda Item 6
Maghull Town Council Annex C
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £8,794 2007/8 allocation £12,035 Subtotal £20,829 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2008/9 £20,829
Allocations :
Date Minute Project Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Page 17 Agenda Item 6
Melling Parish Annex D
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £7,030 2008/9 allocation £1,520 Subtotal £8,550 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2007/8 £8,550
Allocations :
Date Minute Project Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Page 18 Agenda Item 6
Sefton Parish Annex E
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £1,140 2008/9 allocation £175 Subtotal £1,315 Less: Allocations made to date £1,140 Balance available for 2008/9 £175
Allocations :
Date Minute Project Cost Approved Number 1. Grasscreting service road – Lunt Road 22/5/08 8 £1,140
Total £1,140
Page 19 Agenda Item 6
Sepac-wide Provision Annex F
Molyneux Ward:
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £753 2008/9 allocation £1,767 Subtotal £2,520 Less: Allocations made to date £0
Balance available for 2008/9 £2,520
Date Minute Molneux Ward Allocations: Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Park Ward:
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £3 2008/9 allocation £1,767 Subtotal £1,770 Less: Allocations made to date £553 Balance available for 2008/9 £1,217
Date Minute Park Ward Allocations: Cost Approved Number 1. Grasscreting service road – Lunt Road 22/5/08 8 £553
Total £553
Sudell Ward:
Resources available: 2007/8 balance brought forward £1,254 2008/9 allocation £1,766 Subtotal £3,020 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2008/9 £3,020
Date Minute Sudell Ward Allocations: Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Page 20 Agenda Item 6
Litterbin Allocations Annex G
Molyneux Ward: 2007/8 Brought forward £492 2008/9 budget £557 £1,049 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2008/9 £1,049
Date Minute Molneux Ward Allocations: Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Park Ward: 2007/8 Brought forward £1,052 2008/9 budget £557 £1,609 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2008/9 £1,609
Date Minute Park Ward Allocations: Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Sudell Ward: 2007/8 Brought forward £1,052 2008/9 budget £557 £1,609 Less: Allocations made to date £0 Balance available for 2008/9 £1,609
Date Minute Sudell Ward Allocations: Cost Approved Number
Total £0
Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 22 Agenda Item 7
Meeting: Southport Area Committee Formby Area Committee Crosby Area Committee
Linacre & Derby Area Committee St Oswald and Netherton and Orrell Area Committee Litherland & Ford Area Committee Sefton East Parishes Area Committee
Date of Meeting : 2nd July 2008 3rd July 2008 9th July 2008 18th August 2008 28 th August 2008 3rd September 2008 11 th September 2008
Title of Report: Parking Service Review
Report of : This report contains Yes No Alan Moore Strategic Director & CONFIDENTIAL √ Deputy Chief Executive Information/ Contact Officer : EXEMPT information by virtue of Stuart Waldron Assistant Director paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 of Transportation & Development Schedule 12A to the Local √ 0151 934 4006 Government Act, 1972 (If information is marked exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report √ DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report
For Cabinet Member Technical Services to consult with the Area Committees on a review of the Parking Service including policy and strategy priorities and budget issues.
Recommendation(s)
It is recommended that: i) Area Committee note the current Parking Service Review ii) Area Committee identify issues for Cabinet Member Technical Services to take into consideration in future reports to Cabinet to formalise the proposals within the review.
Page 23 Agenda Item 7
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community 2. Creating Safe Communities 3. Jobs and Prosperity 4. Improving Health and Well-Being 5. Environmental Sustainability 6. Creating Inclusive Communities 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People
Financial Implications
2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure N/A Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure N/A Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
None
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
N/A
Page 24 Agenda Item 7
1.0 Background
1.1 A report commencing a review of Parking Service Policies and Strategies was reported to Cabinet Member Technical Services and Cabinet on the 4 th June 2008 and 12 th June 2008, respectively. A copy is attached as Annex A.
1.2 Cabinet approved the proposals for consultation, including all Area Committees, but deferred the interim increases in pay and display charges in Bootle and Southport until this consultation has been completed.
2.0 Parking Service – Review of Policies & Strategies
2.1 Parking Service Priorities
The report sets out an outline of national, regional and local transportation policies and the contribution the Parking Service can make to achieving aims and objectives. From this a set of priorities were suggested:
i) Strategic Highway Network
- effective management to control and regulate parking to facilitate the safe free flow of traffic.
ii) Parking Facilities
Provision and management of ‘static facilities’ within the responsibility of the Council that::
- Support economic regeneration by providing effective access - Protect the environment - Encourage a shift to sustainable modes - Managing parking for residents
iii) Contribute to making the promotion of ‘Smarter Choices’ a priority for the authority
iv) Promote equality
2.2 The Parking Plan
A plan for parking management is proposed that comprises three main categories:
i) Management of Strategic routes
- regulate parking to ensure free flow of traffic
Page 25 Agenda Item 7
- Regulate parking to improve road safety - Ensure controlled parking does not cause congestion.
ii) Resident Parking
Provide controls commensurate with the balance of responsibilities between the car owner and the Council (ie transport policies and promoting equalities) including:
- Promoting safety - Appropriate controls in residential areas - Rational for amending the current policy of charging for Residents Privilege Parking Permits on a bi annual basis to a one-off registration charge.
iii) Visitor Parking
Provide measures to
- Effectively manage available spaces to maximise usage and improve access ie shorter stay parking in the core areas within shopping centres, long stay parking to the periphery of the centre or at remote sites ie Park & Ride
- Promote transport policies for managing demand and the sue of sustainable transport modes.
- Regulate parking demand through appropriate scale of charges.
3.0 Parking Service Budget
3.1 The Parking Service Budget essentially comprises three elements:
- Base Costs - Staff costs - Premises costs - Central Services - Admin Costs
- Contracts - Parking Attendant Enforcement Service - Park & Ride Bus Services - Adjudication Service
- Management Cost - Repair & Maintenance - Marketing
Income comprises fees from Pay and Display and Park and Ride services and from Penalty Charge Notices. Overall there are pressures on the Parking Service Budget identified in the attached report to be considered as part of the consultation process.
Page 26 Agenda Item 7
3.2 The review will also give further consideration to the introduction of alternative payment methods eg annual permits etc, and possible inclusion of additional charging schemes if identified by the Area Committee.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 Area Committees are requested to consider the issues raised in the Parking Service Review and advise Cabinet Member Technical Services of matters to be taken into consideration in a report to Cabinet in the Autumn 2008, with regard to:
- Priorities for the Parking Service
- The outline Parking Plan
- Management of Parking for residents and visitors
- Proposals to amend the current policy of charging a bi annual £20 fee for a Residents Privilege Parking Permit to a one-off registration fee of £20.
- Management of visitor parking to retail and commercial centres.
- Increasing income, through increased parking charges from Pay and Display Parking to meet budget requirements.
- Considering alternative parking charge arrangements ie annual permits, additional areas etc.
5.0 Proposal
5.1 The results of the consultation exercise will be co-ordinated and reported in a future Cabinet Member Technical Services report to Cabinet, programmed for late Autumn 2008.
Page 27 Agenda Item 7
Annex A
REPORT TO: Cabinet Member Technical Services Cabinet
DATE: 4th June 2008 12 th June 2008
SUBJECT: Parking Services Review
WARDS AFFECTED: All
REPORT OF: A R Moore Strategic Director & Deputy Chief Executive
CONTACT OFFICER: Stuart Waldron Assistant Technical Services Director 0151 934 4006
EXEMPT/ No CONFIDENTIAL:
PURPOSE/SUMMARY:
To seek approval to consult on proposed amendments and developments to parking strategies with regard to residents parking and managing the parking service budget and approval to interim increase in parking charges for 2008/09 previously considered by Cabinet.
REASON WHY DECISION REQUIRED:
To address the current high incidence of representation regarding residents parking and to enable the Parking Services Budget to meet the costs of identified demands.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Cabinet Member Technical Services
(i) Recommends to Cabinet the revised parking charges for Tulketh Street, Southport and Bootle Leisure Centre Pay and Display Car Parks as detailed in the report.
(ii) Approves the proposed consultation exercise with regard to Resident Privileged Parking Schemes and for developing a long term framework for the Parking Services Budget as outlined in the report. A further report on the outcome of this consultation be submitted to Cabinet in Autumn 2008.
Cabinet
(i) The revised parking charge for Tulketh Street, Southport and Bootle Leisure Centre Pay & Display Car Parks the approved as detailed in the report.
(ii) Note the proposals for the consultation exercise with regard to Resident Privileged Parking Schemes and for developing a long term framework for the Parking Service Budget as outlined in the report, and request the Cabinet Member Technical Services to submit a report on the outcome of the consultation and proposals for this matters to a Cabinet Meeting in Autumn 2008.
KEY DECISION: Yes
FORWARD PLAN: Yes
IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Following the expiry of the ‘call in’ period for the minutes of the meeting Page 28 Agenda Item 7
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:
None
IMPLICATIONS:
Budget/Policy Framework: The Parking Services budget is contained within the Technical Services Portfolio. The proposed increases in parking charges will contri bute to previously approved budget demands within the Parking Service. Financial: The proposed consultation exercise will be undertaken within existing resources.
2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure N/A Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: N/A Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Legal:
Risk Assessment:
Asset Management:
CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN/VIEWS
Page 29 Agenda Item 7
CORPORATE OBJECTIVE MONITORING:
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1 Creating a Learning Community √ 2 Creating Safe Communities √ 3 Jobs and Prosperity √ 4 Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5 Environmental Sustainability √ 6 Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7 Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8 Children and Young People √
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS RELIED UPON IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT
Page 30 Agenda Item 7
Parking Services Review
1.0 Background
1.1 The Cabinet meeting on the 7 th February 2008, considered a report seeking approval to revised fees for Council Controlled Car Parking in accordance with the strategy for reviewing parking charges, previously approved in July 2006. The Cabinet resolved:
“That consideration of the revised parking fees be deferred to the next Cabinet meeting and that the Technical Services Director holds discussions with representatives of each Political Group on the options for the parking fees prior to the Cabinet meeting”.
1.2 The Technical Services Director held a meeting with representatives of each Political Group on the 13 th February 2008.
1.3 The meeting noted:
- Key issues relating to the Parking Service budget, with financial implications, require further analysis and assessment.
- In consideration of future increases in parking charges in the main centres, the impact of ongoing development and disruption be taken into consideration, as has already been the case with Crosby Village Centre parking plans.
- Recognition of the Parking Services budget within the approved overall Council budget.
- Agreement that the Technical Services Director requires further time to review these issues and undertake consultation with relevant stakeholders.
1.4 Cabinet at this meeting on the 28 th February 2008, considered the results of this consultation and resolved:
“The proposed framework and timescale for reviewing the Parking Services budget as outlined in the report be approved”.
This framework was:
i) Report to Cabinet – late Spring 2008
To include:
- Progress report on consideration of the issues raised at the meeting with each Political Group representatives outlined above.
- To give further consideration to the Parking Services Budget and progress interim proposals for increasing income from parking charges by bringing forward proposals for approval relating to off-street parking charges as outlined in the report to Cabinet on the 7 th February 2008.
ii) Cabinet Member Technical Services to make recommendations to Cabinet – late Autumn 2008.
Report to include:
- Conclusions of further consideration of the issues relating to the Parking Services Budget, and results of consultation with stakeholders.
Page 31 Agenda Item 7
- Proposals for a three-year structure of parking charge increases to meet identified budgetary needs.
1.5 The purpose of this report is to seek agreement to the policy framework within which these issues will be reviewed.
2.0 Sefton Parking Plan – Scope of this Note
2.1 In November 2005 Scrutiny and Review (ETSP&R) concluded a major review into the Parking Service. The recommendations, subsequently approved by Cabinet are attached as Annex A.
2.2 The recommendations set various principles with regard to managing parking in the Borough’s highway network and within its off-street car parks. Consequently this note will seek to review and take forward these recommendations through:
- A review of Policy Considerations - Confirmation of priorities for the Parking Services. - Outlining the Parking Plan and suggest strategies to be adopted. - Consider immediate and longer-term budget issues, and set a framework for the more detailed report to be presented to Cabinet in Autumn 2008. - Identify a process of stakeholder’s consultation.
3.0 Policy Considerations
3.1 National Transport Policy – “Towards a Sustainable Transport System” – October 2007
Deliver economic growth and an enhanced environment/quality of life through:
- An overall reduction in carbon emissions from transport - Target investment at key gateways and urban areas through smaller scale schemes offering high value for money, with strong emphasis on the promotion of sustainable modes of travel – public transport, cycling and walking supported by comprehensive ‘Smarter Choices’ programmes. - Improve Quality of Life i.e. remove the negative impacts of traffic. - Promote greater quality of opportunity – provide effective access for everyone.
3.2 Travel choices
- People expect high mobility and equality - Life style choices are very much influenced by car based travel i.e. where to live, to work, send children to school etc. - To achieve carbon emission reduction targets the influence of more sustainable modes needs to grow in future short, medium and long-term choices. - Transport planning and land use planning have critical roles in this process.
3.3 The Merseyside Transport Agenda
The Merseyside Transport Strategy as set out in the 2 nd Merseyside LTP 2006-2011, sets out our vision:
Merseyside LTP Vision:
‘A fully integrated safe transport network for Merseyside which supports economic and social regeneration and ensures good access for all, and which is operated to the highest standards to protect the environment and ensure quality of life.’
3.4 Parking Services role :
Page 32 Agenda Item 7
The transport system is a means to an end; a journey has two key elements:
- ‘The Journey’ – the actual moving of people and goods
- ‘The Purpose’ – the correct ‘static facilities’ at either end to facilitate related activities e.g. access to home, access to shops, leisure etc.
The Parking Services has a key role to both elements in managing and delivering a transport system to achieve the Merseyside vision, summarised as follows:
Vision Priority: Parking Role:
Integrated and safe - To promote the safe free flow of traffic on strategic routes for people and goods
Support social regeneration - Promote effective management of ‘static facilities’ to and good access for all provide good access to residential areas, shopping and commercial areas and industrial zones
- Parking for disabled
Operate to high standards - Effective management through Civil Parking Enforcement - Security at car parks
Protecting the environment - Managing demand and promoting public transport, cycling and walking
Ensure quality of life - Promoting personal safety and security, controlling impact of visitors - Managing intrusive parking in residential areas
LTP Shared Priorities :
Safety - Promoting the safe use of the highway for vehicles and pedestrians
Congestion - Managing and regulating parking on strategic routes on the network and contributing to managing demand
3.5 Other Influencing Factors – Development Control
The new transport agenda has required a significant change in planning development control policies over the last decade or so. Particularly with new town centre residential developments where limited or no parking for private cars is permitted or provided. Residents are aware of this fact, and hence accept when purchasing or renting such properties that parking for private vehicles may not be available
Scrutiny and Review (ETSP&R) considered this issue in the Parking Services Review and
resolved in November 2005.
‘The existing policy that all new developments such as flats and new houses which
gained planning permission after 11 October 2000 within the Southport Town
Centre Controlled Parking Zone are subject to planning regulations which
preclude them from having a residents parking permit be supported’
Page 33 Agenda Item 7
4.0 Priorities for Parking Service
4.1 From the latest Policy Review the following priorities are recommended:
- Provide effective management to control and regulate parking on the strategic highway network to facilitate the safe free flow of traffic.
- Effective provision and management of ‘static facilities’ within the responsibility of the Council that:
- Support economic regeneration by providing good access - Protect the environment - Encourage a shift to sustainable modes. - Managing parking for residents.
- Contribute to making the promotion of ‘Smarter Choices’ a priority in the authority
- Promote equality
4.2 As previously discussed the trip is made up of the ‘Journey’ and the ‘Static Facility’ at the beginning and end. The journey requires the Parking Service to facilitate the safe free flow of traffic. The other Parking priorities relate to the ‘static facilities’, and it is suggested these should be considered at two levels:
i) The resident – and their visitors.
ii) The visitor to an area – either for the purposes of working, shopping, leisure etc.
Transport policy does not aim to prevent personal mobility through people owning and using a car, but encourage restraint in car use by improving the availability, acceptability and awareness of the alternatives. Furthermore, if they choose to use a more sustainable mode for some of their journeys they need the confidence that they can leave their vehicle at or near their dwelling with some degree of certainty that the vehicle will remain secure and undamaged whilst they are away.
Therefore, in shaping the strategy it is suggested for:
i) Residents - measures be introduced appropriate to the need and within available capacity that provides priority for residents and their visitors.
ii) ‘Visitors’ - In areas that attract ‘visitor parking’ introduce appropriate controls to effectively manage demand including the use of charges. Where Park and Ride is available provide controls that encourage long stay parking (i.e. in excess of 4 hours) to use these facilities.
5.0 The Parking Plan
5.1 Management of Strategic Routes
The Strategic Routes will be defined in the Council’s Network Management Plan that will set out how the Authority will manage the Strategic Route Network to minimise delay and
Page 34 Agenda Item 7
congestion on these routes. The Network Management Plan required to meet the Council’s Statutory Duty under the 2004 Traffic Management Act will be reported to Cabinet Member Technical Services and Cabinet in September 2008.
Key contribution for Parking Plan:
§ Regulate parking to ensure the safe free flow of traffic § Ensure controlled parking does not cause congestion on these routes.
Strategy:
§ Provide ‘Yellow Line’ parking restrictions as required
§ At junctions provide restrictions that as a minimum provision comply with the Highway Code.
§ Provide a level of enforcement to ensure restrictions are effective
§ Provide measures to support access by Emergency Services
§ Provide measures to support the movement of public transport.
5.2 Resident Parking
5.2.1 In considering parking in residential areas, it is worth reiterating the following key principles:
- It is a car owner’s responsibility to park their vehicle legally.
- As a consequence the Council, as Highway Authority is not duty bound to provide specific parking spaces.
- The Local Transport Plan does not provide capital funding to provide parking spaces for private parking, unless as part of a scheme to achieve other transport strategies e.g. reliable bus journey times.
- The Council in managing the highway and its off-street parking stock has the following commitments:
- Promote the safe free flow of traffic
- Provide effective access to facilitate economic growth
- Protect the environment and residents amenity
- Promote equality
- Land Use Considerations
In determining a strategy for resident parking the location and type of housing will be key issues, as will be achieving appropriate balances, between resident and non resident parking, particularly where alternatives are available.
5.2.2 Proposed Strategy for Residents Parking
This can be considered in following categories:
i) Residential Areas with Available Parking
A high proportion of residents have parking for their vehicles, either within the curtilege Page 35 Agenda Item 7
of their property, or on-street and cause little or no problems to traffic flow, safety or the amenity of the area.
Parking controls are only required should parking at or near junctions become a road safety issue.
ii) Residential Areas with Limited Parking Capacity
In some residential areas, often with limited off-street parking within the curtilege of properties, on-street capacity is approaching or at capacity.
Controlling the parking, through permit schemes would have little effect as all residents would be eligible for permits. Consequently in such areas parking controls will again only be introduced to promote road safety i.e. at junctions and physical measures to remove obstructions to pedestrians.
iii) Residential Areas with High Incidence of Non Resident Parking
These are areas where there is a high incidence/potential for visitors to park in residential areas. This can be for work, shopping, leisure etc, More often than not to avoid charges or inconvenience, associated with alternative, purpose built parking provision.
At present the main strategy for dealing with these areas has been to provide Residents Privileged Parking Zones, whereby a permit is required to park in designated bays that are operational for 24 hours, 7 days a week. Permits are provided for vehicles registered at a property within the zone of the scheme plus one visitor permit per property.
Due to these schemes placing higher demands on administration and enforcement resources, a charge for both residents and visitors permits was approved in 2006, with income retained for funding scheme administration and enforcement. Implication of the charge was completed early in 2008.
Note
The implementation of the charge involved a consultation process with the residents. They were asked to indicated if they were willing to pay the charge (i.e. £20 for a 2 year permit) or if not accept the scheme would be initially suspended, and subject to further consultation ultimately removed. The decision was taken on a simple majority view of responses received.
All RPP schemes have now gone through the process and are summarised in Annex B.
It is clear, the majority of roads/schemes were the charge has been accepted, are areas that would suffer from high incidence of non resident parking if the controls were removed. Also alternative parking is available in most cases.
However, the introduction of the charge remains a contentious issue, with petitions and representations regularly submitted.
There is also a long list of outstanding request for RPP schemes to be considered. A review of the criteria used is required based on the experience gained from introducing the permit charge with the cost to introduce, administer and enforce also taken into consideration.
An alternative method to control commuter parking in residential areas would be to
Page 36 Agenda Item 7
provide a one or two hour restriction banning parking during the day. Such restrictions are less demanding on resources than RPP schemes but any restriction will also apply to residents’ vehicles during that period. Such proposals may be useful for examples around rail stations or hospitals that suffer very high levels of commuter parking raising obstruction within local roads.
Proposals to provide an additional policy for RPP Visitor permits for locations such as Strand House/The Palatine, Bootle also requires further consideration and consultation.
iv) Southport Town Centre Controlled Parking Zone Permits
When the Southport Pay & Display controlled Parking Zone was introduced in the early 1990’s residential properties within the zone with no off-street parking facilities were provided with permits to park in the Pay & Display Bays.
As discussed in 3.5, with the change in transport policy, properties built or conversions to residential property after 11 th October 2000 without parking are not provided with a permit. Developers are advised through the Planning Control system.
A charge has been introduced as for Town Centre permits i.e. £20 for 2 years.
5.3 Charging for Residents Permits
Policy Considerations
i) As previously outlined transport objectives aim to encourage sustainable transport choices wherever possible. For the Parking Service the main influence is in managing demand for the ‘static’ facility i.e. for residents at the start of the journey, and for the visitor to an area at the destination.
ii) In accordance with a vehicle owner’s responsibility and the Council’s duty as Highway Authority it was not unreasonable to impose a charge. This has provided funding for the administration and enforcement of schemes.
iii) However in residential areas where there is, or the potential for, a high level of ‘visitor’ parking the residents and their visitors, suffer severe loss of amenity, safety and security. This is not of their own making and has build up over many years as car based travel has increased. In most cases alternatives are available for the non- residential parking i.e. public transport, public parking areas within walking distance, park and ride etc.
Current Situation
Feedback from members and representations to the Department would indicate that the introduction of the charge remains deeply contentious.
Consequently, as part of the wider review Cabinet Member Technical Services has requested consideration be given to removing the charge. This based on shifting the balance of policy considerations to promote equality and the quality of life issues in a situation were the problem is not of the residents making.
Proposal
To remove the charge for RPP residents and visitor permits raises a number of practical matters:
- The introduction of a charge did highlight areas where RPP schemes were most needed, and hence a priority for enforcement.
Page 37 Agenda Item 7
- Residents who now pay for their permits would likely be aggrieved if the charge was removed and all schemes reinstated as they would have received no benefit. To refund the charge would incur considerable additional administration costs.
- If the charge were removed it is likely those residents in areas where the scheme has been suspended, will have to be advised and will likely want their schemes reinstated.
It is therefore proposed that the current charge for a bi-annual permit (resident & visitor) be turned into a one-off permit registration fee of £20 per permit, this to cover administration costs.
Consequently:
- Those schemes were the charge is currently paid will continue to have their permits renewed on a bi-annual basis at no further charge.
- Residents in suspended schemes will be re-consulted, as originally intended, indicating the scheme will be reinstated if that is the view of the majority of residents but permit will have a £20 registration fee attached.
- New schemes will have permits with a £20 registration fee.
Permits will continue to be issued to:
- Resident - for vehicles registered at a property within the scheme.
- Visitors - one per property
- Permits are individually numbered hence specific to a property.
New residents who move into the area will have to register their vehicles and pay the registration fee.
There is a potential for visitors permits to be passed on in this situation, but Parking Services will be able to detect this if alerted and seek return of the permit or subsequently with formal notice cancel the permit and take enforcement action.
The continued bi-annual renewal of permit will also control the potential for this to happen.
The criteria used to assess and prioritise request for new RPP schemes be reviewed taking the result of the introduction of the charge into account.
Budget Implications
As the introduction of a charge, indicated acceptance that additional funding was required to administer and enforce RPP schemes, then removal of the charge should not diminish this level of available funding.
Consequently, this has been taken into account when considering budget issues later in the report.
5.4 Parking in Main/Local Centres
5.4.1 The efficient and effective control of parking in the local shopping centres of the Borough is essential to provide increased access opportunities for visitors to the areas.
Consequently, it is suggested the following principles continue to be promoted, taking account of the economic health of the area at any particular time and recognising that private provision cannot be required to similarly manage there capacity.
Page 38 Agenda Item 7
- Charges are introduced as appropriate as a tried and tested effective means of controlling parking. The scale of charges to be appropriate to promote short and long stay parking to support the particular area.
- Where alternative facilities are available i.e. Park and Ride and good public transport, cycling and walking links, the charging structure should encourage long-stay parking to use these alternatives.
5.4.2 The parking for the main centres within the Borough can be summarised as follows:
Bootle Town Centre
Council Owned - Off street pay and display multi storey car park – promoted as longer stay parking.
- On-street pay and display – promoted as short stay parking.
Private Provision - off street Pay & Display Multi-Storey shopping centre parking – promoted as short-stay parking.
- Off-street Development site permanent/temporary approvals for long stay parking.
Southport Town Centre
Council Owned - On-street Pay and Display – limited to short stay central core area of high demand – parking charges otherwise to promote shorter stay parking.
- Off-street at grade Pay & Display – provides short and long stay parking
- Park & Ride – Esplanade Fairways & Kew sites – very low priced long stay parking, efficient bus links.
Private Owned - Off-street staffed parking, charges promote short and long stay parking
Crosby Town Centre
Council Owned - Off-street at grade Pay & Display Parking – charges promote short and long stay peak
- On-street – periphery of shopping centre – uncontrolled.
Maghull Central Square
Council Owned - Off-street at grade parking - limited to 2 hour per stay
Private Owned - Off-street at grade uncontrolled parking.
Formby Town Centre
Council Owned - Off – Street at grade time limited parking.
- On-street uncontrolled on periphery of centre.
Private Owned - Off-Street Pay and Display - promoting short and long stay parking.
Page 39 Agenda Item 7
Waterloo Local Centre
Council Owned - Off –Street at grade uncontrolled parking.
- On-Street limited time spaces
5.5 HGV Parking – Loading and Unloading/Overnight Parking
In urban areas there is often intense competition for kerbside space from passing traffic, buses, shoppers, businesses or residents requiring parking & stopping spaces and delivery vehicles. In many areas where off road servicing facilities do not exist, delivery vehicles must load and unload at the kerbside. If this process is not managed then this can cause severe problems such as congestion and vehicle obstructions.
Loading bays can reduce loading times and disruption to residents. They also help to improve road safety and cut crime. Loading bays can be designed for goods vehicles or all vehicles. They should only be restricted to goods vehicles if absolutely necessary.
There is no one size fits all solution to the issues associated with urban servicing and deliveries. Local Area Freight Quality Partnerships could provide the appropriate fora to investigate freight traffic management issues appropriate to that area. Typical issues which could be addressed as part of a Local Area Freight Quality Partnership include:
• Directional Signage • Priority for goods vehicles • On-street loading/unloading facilities • Lorry Parking & Welfare facilities
6.0 Parking Service Budget Issues
6.1 A 5 year framework for the Parking Services Budget was approved in July 2006 and is attached as Annex B. This was set in line with the recommendation of the Scrutiny and Review Parking Service Review.
6.2 Further consideration of this raises the following issues:
• The scale of increases is based on Retail Price Index (RPI) which at the time was 2.5%.
Currently the Retail Price Index is running at over 4.1%.
Increases in the contracts for the Park and Ride buses and the Parking Enforcement Contract are directly linked to RPI.
• The revised proposals for funding Residents’ Privileged Parking needs to be accommodated in the Parking Services’ budget.
• The patronage at the Kew Park and Ride is increasing on a steady basis. Proposals are being considered to increase this further by linking the site to the Southport Hospital. However, without support for the next two years for the bus service costs it is anticipated there will be a significant impact on the overall budget, based on the currently approved funding profile approved by Cabinet in August 2007.
6.3 Cabinet on 28 th February 2008 approved for further consideration in this report the progression of interim proposals relating to off-street parking charges as outlined to Cabinet on 7 th February 2008. These were:-
Page 40 Agenda Item 7
Bootle New Strand Car Park Income/Bootle Leisure Centre Car Park
In line with Cabinet’s resolution, charges were increased on the Bootle New Strand Car Park in June 2007. The principle change was to increase the charge for over 4 hours parking from £2.50 to £3.20. It was anticipated that this increase would generate an additional £35,000 of income.
Monitoring of the income, however, has revealed that the additional income generation is not being met, but usage of the Bootle Leisure Centre Car Park by commuter (long stay) parkers has increased.
In view of the above, in order to ensure that the Bootle Leisure Centre Car park does not become dominated by commuters and spaces are available for users of the centre, it is now suggested that the charges on this car park be amended to bring the charge for parking 4 hours and above into line with the Bootle New Strand Car Park.
Bootle Leisure Car Park
Stay Up to 1hr Up to 2 hrs Up to 4 hrs Over 4 hrs Current Charge 0.40 0.80 1.5 2.20 Proposed Charge No Change No Change No Change 3.20
No additional income is shown from this increase as it is anticipated that motorists will return to parking at the new Strand Car Park, and assist with achieving previously approved income projections.
Southport Tulketh Street Pay & Display Car Parks
Stay Up to 1hr Up to 2 hrs Up to 4 hrs Over 4 hrs TOTAL Current Charge 0.50 0.80 1.60 4.50 Proposed Charge 0.60 1.00 2.00 5.00 Additional Income £4,000 £14,000 £21,000 £2,700 £41,700
Note: These are full year income generation predictions.
6.4 In accordance with the Cabinet resolution of 28 th February 2008, further consideration to a programme of increases is underway and will be reported in late Autumn 2008. It is proposed this will
- consider increases in charges to existing schemes, including the potential for increases to be applied on a bi-annual basis.
- consider the potential for the wider provision of discounted parking for residents to Park and Ride and some Town Centre areas.
- consideration of an additional Pay & Display On-Street Parking Scheme in the Bootle Town Centre area under consideration with the Area Committee.
- consideration be given to making Council parking facilities available to resident ‘out of hours’ to ease congestion in residential areas.
- in line with S & R Committee recommendation in November 2005, that acknowledged the link between the surplus and income and the overall Council budget, also recognise the need for increased investment of surplus from parking income to enhance the Council’s Transportation Service.
Page 41 Agenda Item 7
6.5 Promotion of ‘Smarter’ Choices
A key transportation strategy is to increase awareness and promotion of alternative more sustainable modes of transport to the private car wherever possible. This will also assist with managing the demand for visitor parking.
This should include for example the promotion of the Park and Ride in Southport, promotion of the use of bus and rail services for commuters to Bootle, improved cycle facilities, etc.
Campaigns and promotions could include providing additional travel planning services, travel awareness brochures, etc.
It is therefore proposed to include an allocation of £25K per year to support such proposals. This will initially be utilised to promote the Southport Park and Ride Service at Kew. Detailed proposals will be brought for the consideration of Cabinet Member Technical Services in due course.
6.6 Budget Summary
A revised summary incorporating these increases in expenditure and income is included as Annex C.
7.0 Consultation with Stakeholders
7.1 The Key issues within the report are:-
- Residents’ Privileged Parking Permits
Replacing the bi-annual charge of £20 for a one off £20 registration fee.
Amending the criteria for the introduction of new schemes.
- Parking Services Budget
Proposals for increased expenditure to be balanced with increasing income / adjusting surplus to base budget.
The following consultation exercises are proposed. 7.2 (i) Area Committee
Report to be included on all Area Committee agendas in July / August 2008.
Cabinet Member Technical Services to attend meetings to present report.
(ii) Scutiny and Review Committee (Environmental; Technical Services; Planning and Regeneration)
Cabinet Member Technical Services to present report to an appropriate committee meeting.
(iii) Town Centre / Business Village Partnerships and Chamber of Commerce
Feedback from these partnerships, particularly in relation to the extent increasing charges may impact on the local economy to be sought during July / to / September 2008.
The feedback from these exercises will be included and taken into consideration in the report to Cabinet in late Autumn 2008.
Page 42 Agenda Item 7
8.0 Recommendations
(i) The proposals to increase parking charges on the Bootle Leisure Centre and Southport Tulketh Street Off-Street car parks, as detailed in the report are approved.
(ii) Consultation on the proposals for amending Residents’ Privileged Parking Schemes with regard to amending the charge for permits and reviewing the criteria for new schemes and developing a long term framework for the Parking Service Budget as outlined in the report be approved.
(iii) A further report on the outcome of this consultation be submitted to Cabinet in the Autumn 2008.
Page 43 Agenda Item 7
Annex A
Cabinet – 3 rd November 2005 Report of Scrutiny & Review Committee (Environmental; Technical Services; Planning and Regeneration) Parking Services – Interim Report (Parking Services Working Group)
Recommendations:
That the Cabinet be requested to approve the following recommendations of the Working Group:-
(1) The new parking enforcement contract should be drafted to allow the requirements of Traffic Management Act be implemented as and when Government guidance is available”.
(2) The proposals for the enhancement of the maintenance team resources to be included in the new Parking Enforcement contract to cover the extra duties in relation to maintenance work repairing lines and signs in car parks, picking up litter and carrying out general cleansing be supported;
(3) Parking Attendants (PAs) should not work in pairs other than in exceptional circumstances;
(4) Due to time constraints proposals relating to the simplification and revision of the pricing structure for Pay and Display be considered further and included in the final report;
(5) The only justification for extending pay and display into new areas would be for it to be done on traffic management grounds alone;
(6) Any proposals for new ‘Pay and Display’ areas should be referred to the appropriate Area Committee for a decision in principle before the scheme was drawn up in detail;
(7) As soon as practicable the appeals panel process for the blue badge scheme be extended by the inclusion of an independent member;
(8) Proper use of the blue badge be enforced in co-operation with the police and other organisations (including disabled groups) to prevent abuse of the scheme;
(9) Arrangements should be set up to clamp and, if necessary, remove the vehicles of untraceable offenders who have offended on five occasions or more;
(10) A charge of £20 per permit for a two year period be introduced for all residents parking schemes and all money raised from the charge to go towards the enforcement and associated administration of such schemes;
(11) When considering any new RPPs or revisions to existing RPPs consideration be given to the areas and times to be applied with a view to maximising the use of the parking space available;
(12) The existing Policy that all new developments such as flats and new houses which gained planning permission after 11 th October 2000 within the Southport Town Centre controlled parking zone are subject to planning regulations which preclude them from having a resident parking permit be supported;
(13) The fee for a one-day waiver from car parking charges be raised from £5 to £10 and a £10 fee (for 2 years) for long-term waivers be introduced;
(14) The concern of the Working Group that insufficient funds have been budgeted for the improvement/maintenance of car parks/parking meters be noted;
(15) The Principle of Park and Ride scheme should be supported and properly resourced;
Page 44 Agenda Item 7
(16) To improve the profile of PAs their role, their responsibilities, their powers and their service to the public through effective traffic management within the Borough;
(17) The Assistant Chief Executive (Communications) develop a strategy and planned activity schedule to publish positive stories from the Parking Services section;
(18) That in order to meet the unavoidable expenditure required by Parking Services:-
(i) the Cabinet reduce the level of income retained centrally from car parking charges from £1.4million to £1.2million
(ii) future car parking charges be increased annually in line with increases in the retail price index.
(iii) surplus income in excess of the £1.2million be retained by Parking Services to be used towards the cost of replacement parking meters and car park resurfacing subject to a cap on the level of any surplus to be retained of £100,000 annually.
Page 45 Agenda Item7
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS – CABINET JULY 2006 Annex B
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Expenditure Budget Saving Target - Approved 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Latest Estimates for additional expenditure: Income Loss as result of Capital Projects 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Additional Admin/ Enforecement Resources - Residents Parking / Waivers( Note3) 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Enforcement Contract Renewal 20,000 50,000 85,000 125,000 162,000 Eastern P&R Buses (Assumes opening April 2007) 150,000 210,000 220,000 230,000 TOTAL 230,000 410,000 505,000 555,000 602,000
Income
Page 46 Oct 05 5% Increase - Approved July 05 134,000 134,000 134,000 134,000 134,000
Proposals: Growth Item - April 06 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Charge for RPP Permit / Waivers(Note 3) 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 June 06 - Increase on Charges- Implemented October 2006 40,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 April 07 - Increase on Charges (Total 5% over 06 & 07) - Implemented April 2007 30,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 April 08 - RPI Increase on Charges (Say 2.5%)- I mplemented April 2008 65,000 65,000 65,000 April 09 - RPI Increase on Charges (Say 2.5%)- Implemented April 2009 68,000 68,000 April 10 - RPI Increase on Charges (Say 2.5%)- Implemented April 2010 73,000 TOTAL 334,000 414,000 484,000 552,000 625,000 BALANCE 104,000 4,000 -21,000 -3,000 23,000 Notes: 1) Expenditure projections are based on latest information available on costs and timescales, variations may occur as details become available 2) Any additional surplus from these proposals will be targeted at progressing other programmes of improvements identified in the report. 3) Expenditure to adjusted to balance actual income 4) Assumes Cabinet Approve an ongoing Programme of Charge commencing in June 2006 & surplus in any year retained in Parking Account to balance shortfall future years. Annex C INTERIM SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS MAY 2008 – TO BE CONFIRMED – OCTOBER 2008 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Expenditure Base Budget 2007/08 Latest Estimates for additional expenditure: Service Development Park and Ride Bus Contract (Reduced income as scheme develops) 70,000 35,000 0 0 0 Residents Parking Schemes (Removal of RPP Residents Charge) 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Promotion of 'Smarter Choices' -including Park and Ride Services 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Annual Increases Enforcement Contract Annual Increase - RPI - Currently 4.1% 1,087,500 44,500 89,000 136,500 185,500 236,500 P&R Bus Contract annual Increase - RPI - Currently 4.1% 547,505 22,500 45,500 69,000 93,500 119,000
TOTAL 162,000 224,500 260,500 334,000 410,500
Income Income from Residents Privilege Parking Permits 20,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Page 47 Proposals:
Interim Proposals for 2008/09 - Implentation October 2008 20,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 For consideration in further report - October 2008 October 08 - I mplementation January 2009 2,496,200 (Parking Charges (Subject to Consultation) April 09 - Implementation June 2009 only) April 10 - Implementation June 2010 April 11 - Implementation June 2011
April 12 - Implementation April 2012 Agenda Item7 TOTAL 40,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 BALANCE -122,000 -181,500 -217,500 -291,000 -367,500 Increase 122,000 59,500 36,000 73,500 76,500 % Increase Required 4.90% 2.27% 1.34% 2.70% 2.70%
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 Agenda Item 8
Meeting: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting : 11 September 2008
Title of Report: CLEANSING SERVICES UPDATE
Report of : W.T Milburn This report contains Yes No Environmental Protection Director CONFIDENTIAL √ Information/ Contact Officer : G.Berwick EXEMPT information by virtue of (Telephone No.) 0151 288 6134 paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local √ Government Act, 1972 (If information is marked exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report
To update the Sefton East Parishes (SEPAC) Area Committee on activity in relation to the provision of Cleansing Services within the Area Committee boundary.
Recommendation(s)
That the Area Committee notes the contents of the report
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community √ 2. Creating Safe Communities √ 3. Jobs and Prosperity √ 4. Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5. Environmental Sustainability √ 6. Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People √
Page 49 Agenda Item 8 Financial Implications
NIL
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
NIL
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
NIL
1.0 BACKGROUND.
1.1 As agreed by the Cabinet Member – Environmental in 2003, the Cleansing Services Section of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) reports to each Area Committee on a regular cycle.
1.2 These reports provide information for the Area Committee (Members, interested parties and residents) about current performance and / or issues that relate to the services provided by Cleansing within the defined boundaries of the area concerned.
1.3 Each element of the service is reported separately.
2.0 REFUSE COLLECTION
2.1 As reported in October 2007 the area has seen the introduction of the Wheeled Bin Service together with Alternate Weekly Collections.
2.2 There have been 682 requests for Assisted Collection Assessments from the elderly and infirm. Waste Advisors area working through the requests.
2.3 The following statistics relate to the refuse collection service within the boundaries of the Area Committee for the period April 2007 to March 2008.
• Wheeled bins (grey & green) not collected on normal day = 424 • Refuse Sacks not collected on normal day = 607 • Green Sacks not collected on normal day = 200 • Second Grey Bin Assessments = 461
2.4 The reported ‘not collected’ figure may seem high however in relation to the number of collections made during this period they are less than 0.01%. A contributing factor to these figures is the effect that trench works carried out by utility companies has on vehicle access. Whilst Page 50 Agenda Item 8 there is legislation to ensure access is provided for emergency services this obviously does not apply for refuse or recycling vehicles.
3.0 CIVIC AMENTIES / BULKY ITEM COLLECTION.
3.1 The service is currently operating at 6 working days within the Sefton East Parishes (SEPAC) Area Committee (AC) area, outside the agreed target of 5 days, but normal for this period of the year. It is anticipated that this will return to 5 days by mid/late July. The bulky collection service operation is still extremely popular with residents, with a number of compliments recently received over the ‘good service’ and that it is free. Some 45% of all calls made regarding cleansing services functions relate to bulky item collection requests.
3.2 Currently 98% of all collections are provided on the date scheduled, as notified to the caller by the contact centre. Some 5511 calls, from households within the boundary of by this Area Committee, were received during the period April 2007 to March 2008.
4.0 STREET CLEANSING
4.1 During the year April 2007 to March 2008 there have been a total of 275 reported incidents of fly tipping within the Sefton East Parishes AC area, this represents 9.48% of the borough total. Fly tipping on Council owned land is normally removed within 72 hours of the section being notified. This activity is being recorded under National Indicator 196 for 2008/9 onwards.
4.2 The Best Value Performance Indicator for cleanliness (BVPI 199) was 23% for 2007/08. National Indicator 195 has now superseded the BVPI 199 indicator, following consultation with Government Office (GONW), Sefton now has a Local Area Agreement (LAA) primary target of 23% for detritus and a secondary target of 19% for litter. Previously these elements were combined and reported as BVPI 199a.
4.3 The number of street sweeping complaints received for the year April 2007 to March 2008 for this Area Committee was 225, which equates to 11.59% of the borough total.
4.4 The Cleansing Section continue to respond within one hour for any emergencies that occur on the highway, for instance road traffic accidents, spillages or dumping which are deemed dangerous by the Police or Fire Service.
4.5 The Cleansing Section continues to operate a single Graffiti Team (2 staff) on a borough-wide basis. Offensive graffiti is targeted for removed within 72 hours from Council property, however non-offensive graffiti is placed on a list and has a target of 48 days for removal, again from Council owned property. The Section received a total of 20 complaints (7.43%) for offensive graffiti and 18 reports (10.97%) for non-offensive graffiti for the Sefton East Parishes AC area. The figures in brackets show the percentage for the area in relation to borough- wide reports. The LAA agreed target for graffiti, under NI 195, for Sefton is 8% in 2008/9. 4.0 OTHER INITIATIVES WITHIN CLEANSING.Page 51 Agenda Item 8
4.1 The remainder of Waste Services staff are currently being trained on ‘customer care’ and are also being refreshed in first aid and manual handling processes; this will be concluded in July 2008.
4.2 All staff within waste services will also during August and September 2008, under go additional training in ‘banksman’ operations. This is the term used to assist refuse drivers in reversing the refuse vehicle safely. This is a legal requirement before the end of 2008, and the Council will need to satisfy the Health and Safety Executive that this training has been carried out to satisfactory standards.
4.3 The section still has 1 employee under the age of 25, on ‘Green Apprentices’ course, in conjunction with Myerscough College in Lancashire. This gives all ‘young’ employees the opportunity to obtain national qualifications, and further underlines the section and the departments’ commitment as an Investor in People (IIP).
4.4 A further 29 members of the workforce, in addition to the first 25, have now successfully achieved a Waste Management Level 2 National Vocational Qualification, certificates have been presented to the individuals concerned in recognition of their achievement.
5.0 RECYCLING
5.1 GREEN BEE (DRY RECYCLABLES) KERBSIDE SERVICE
Since the introduction of wheeled bins and Alternating Weekly Collections (AWC) there has been a sustained increase in tonnage compared to that of the previous year. The average collected tonnage has risen from 352 tonnes per week to 400 tonnes per week and continues to improve. Increased publicity and raised public awareness over recycling have all contributed to the increase.
Recycling Tonnage
2500 2006/07 pre AWC 2007/08 post AWC 2000
1500
1000
500
0 Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
5.2 FOOD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE Page 52 Agenda Item 8 Alongside the introduction of wheeled bins an additional “opt in” weekly food (kitchen) waste recycling service has been implemented. On request residents are supplied with two caddies one for indoor use and one to present on collection day with other recycling containers, collections commenced on 12 th June 2007. Since the start of the service in excess of 16,000 caddies have been delivered and a sustained growth in the amount of waste collected for “in vessel” composting, to date well over 1000 tonnes of food waste has been collected.
Food Waste Tonnage
180 166.6 160 Tonnes collected 135.6 140 123.72 120 95.62 100 90.7
80 72.88
60 53.01
40 34.13 20.64 20 6.22 0 Jun- July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar- 07 08
5.3 BRING SITES
The introduction of plastic banks at bring sites has encouraged residents to use these facilities and there has been a significant increase in the amount of material recycled at sites. There is however a minority of residents who continue to fly tip material outside the banks provided, this illegal dumping is jeopardising some sites. To counteract this practise there has been increased enforcement presence and improved signage warning users of the consequences of illegal dumping of material. Work continues to identify additional sites for bring banks subject to approval and strict criteria, additional sites for plastic banks would be particularly welcome.
Page 53 Agenda Item 8
Bring Bank Tonnage
180
160
140
120
100 06-07 80 07-08
60
40
20
0 Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
5.4 GREEN (GARDEN) WASTE
The introduction of green wheeled bins for garden waste has again encouraged the use of the service and tonnage has increased further. To date 80% of the Borough receives a kerbside collection of garden waste either in wheeled bins or green bags. Areas and Wards not currently covered by the service are encouraged to use the CA (bulky) service, which allows up to 12 bags of green compostable garden waste to be collected free of charge (bags are not supplied). This service is available on request via Sefton Plus on 0845 140 0845.
Green Waste Tonnage
1800 1600 06-07 tonnage 1400 07-08 tonnage 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
6.0 AREA COMMITTEE SPECIFIC INFORMATION (SEPAC, Sefton East Parishes AC) Page 54 Agenda Item 8
6.1 Abandoned Vehicles; for the period April 2007 to March 2008, the section achieved an 86.6% response rate for removal of an abandoned vehicle within 48 hours of a report being received. The section continues to work closely with its partner/contractor to improve this rate. The total number of abandoned vehicles within Sefton for the above period was 328, of which 42 were reported within this Committees’ boundary.
Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 56 Agenda Item 9
MEETING: Sefton East Parishes AREA COMMITTEE
11 th September, 2008 DATE:
SUBJECT: SEFTON CORE STRATEGY – ISSUES FOR SEFTON EAST PARISHES
Report of : Andy Wallis, Planning and This report contains Yes No Economic Regeneration Director CONFIDENTIAL ü Information/ EXEMPT information Contact Officer : Ingrid Berry (Planning) – (0151) by virtue of 934 3558 paragraph(s)...... ü
of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ? ü
Purpose of report
To bring Members up to date on the development of a local profile for Sefton East Parishes which will feed into the development of a Core Strategy for Sefton.
Recommendations:
That the Committee:
(1) note the background papers and plan setting out key issues and challenges for the Sefton East Parishes area, together with the summary of an informal discussion with members; (2) identify any further key issues affecting Sefton East Parishes to be considered in the development of the Core Strategy; and (3) comment on the proposed approach to consulting the local community on these issues and suggest other groups who should be consulted.
Page 57 Agenda Item 9
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1 Creating a Learning Community ü 2 Creating Safe Communities ü 3 Jobs and Prosperity ü 4 Improving Health and Well-Being ü 5 Environmental Sustainability ü 6 Creating Inclusive Communities ü 7 Improving the Quality of Council Services ü and Strengthening local Democracy 8 Children and Young People ü
Financial Implications
No direct implications.
2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report: None
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this report Attached as appendices to this report.
1. Background
Page 58 Agenda Item 9
1.1 The preparation of a Core Strategy for Sefton is a key piece of work for the Planning and Economic Regeneration Department over the next 2 – 3 years. Much of the context for this is set by national and regional guidance, for example the numbers of homes we are expected to provide is set by the Regional Spatial Strategy. We also have to regard to the spatial elements of the Sustainable Community Strategy.
1.2 However, the Core Strategy must relate well to Sefton’s distinctive characteristics and local communities. We need a local vision of the potential for, and the constraints on, growth and change. The Core Strategy is where difficult choices have to be made and justified.
1.3 To help us do this, the Department is beginning a discussion with Area Committees on their vision for their area over the next 15 - 20 years, the time period of the Core Strategy.
1.4 Officers from the Department met informally with Council members from the Area Committee in June. They considered some background papers which are attached as appendices to this report, including: • an A3 plan (‘Sefton East Parishes Profile’) highlighting some key issues and opportunities in the area • A profile containing key statistics relating to the Area Committee area is also attached as Appendix B • a ‘SWOT’ analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) (Appendix A). Note of the informal discussion with Sefton East Parishes Members on this in Appendix C1. • key issues / questions for discussion (Appendix C2). • A note of the informal meeting with Members held 24 th July, 2006 (Appendix D)
1.7 I am keen to find the views of the Area Committee, at a local level, on some of the big issues, challenges and opportunities Sefton is likely to face over this time period. These include: ◊ how and where to meet the needs of the Sefton East Parishes area for new homes, including affordable housing, and for jobs ◊ how people can get around the area more easily to jobs and services – and not just by car ◊ how to make the Sefton East Parishes area more attractive to live in – ‘cleaner, safer, greener’ ◊ how to ensure that Maghull’s centre remains healthy and continues to meet people’s needs for shopping and local services.
1.8 This will also tie in well to work on developing a Sustainable Community Strategy for Sefton and will enable that document to be tuned in to specific issues and concerns affecting the Sefton East Parishes area.
Page 59 Agenda Item 9
2. Consulting on key issues
2.1 Following this meeting and a proposed meeting with the 10 parishes on 30 th September, it is proposed to consult more widely with the local community in the autumn.
2.2 In preparing the Core Strategy for Sefton, I am required to involve local groups, businesses, residents and others who have an interest ion the area. This formal commitment is set out in a document “the Statement of Community Involvement” and is also a statutory requirement. I am aware that other consultations have been carried out in this area on behalf of the Council and other organisations, and I am keen to avoid duplication where possible.
2.3 I would like to use a variety of approaches to ensure as wide a cross-section of local community views as possible. These might include: ◊ distributing a newsletter setting out the background to what we are doing and asking people to complete a brief survey ◊ putting material on the Sefton web-site and inviting responses ◊ taking a half page advert in the Maghull & Aintree Star on the development of the Core Strategy and asking people to give their views. ◊ running a couple of workshops to discuss issues (perhaps one in the afternoon and one in the evening), to which the following would be invited: • some members of the Citizens’ Panel who live in this area • representatives from the list of organisations and interests mentioned in Appendix E.
2.4 Other area committees have stressed the importance of making sure that the voice of young people is heard in this challenge of shaping Sefton’s future. My staff have already been working with the Sefton Young Advisors and hope to involve them in further consultation.
3. Conclusions
3.1 Members’ views are requested on: ◊ the suggested key issues and any other issues they would like to be considered for this area in the development of the Core Strategy ◊ the suggested approach to consulting the local community.
Page 60 Agenda Item 9
Page 61 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 62 Sefton East Parishes Area Committee Profile – Key StatisticsAgenda Item 9
Population Profile
Proportion of Population by Broad Age Groups (ONS 2006) 40.0 Sefton East Parishes
Sefton 35.0 England & Wales 30.0
25.0
20.0
Percent
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 0-15 16-29 30-44 45-64 Males, 45-59 65+ Males, 60+ Females Females Age Band
(Source: Office for National Statistics Mid-year Population estimates 2005)
The age profile of the Sefton East Parishes Area contrasts with England and Wales’ and also Sefton’s overall population profiles. The Committee area has a smaller proportion of young people (aged 0-15) and much higher proportion of older people at retirement age (5.9 percentage points above the national average). The projected aging of Sefton’s population over the next two decades therefore has particularly significant travel, school provision changes, health, social care and elderly housing provision issues for this area.
Healthy life Expectancy
Average Healthy Life Expectancy (years) - Persons 85 Average Healthy Life Expectancy (years) - Persons North West Healthy Life Expectancy (years) - Persons
80
79.9 79.9 79.7 79.4
77.6 Years
75
70 Molyneux Ward Park Ward Sudell Ward Sefton East Sefton Average Parishes
(Source: Office for Office for National Statistics Experimental Statistics, 1999-2003)
Healthy life expectancy is the expected number of years of life in good or fairly good health. All of Sefton East Parish area wards have a good quality of health and therefore the Committee area has a higher healthy life expectancy than the overall Borough and regional averages. Page 63 AgendaTravel To Work Item Areas 9
(Source: Census 2001)
The map above identifies the main employment locations for residents within the Sefton East Parishes area. Over a quarter (28.2%) of residents in the Sefton East Parishes area in employment, also work within the committee area boundary. However, there are also major centres of employment in sites close to the committee boundary in Netherton and Bootle and the Southport town centre area. Outside the Borough, central Liverpool is the workplace destination for 14.3% of the Committee area’s working population. To a lesser extent, the town centres in and around Ormskirk, Kirkby, Birkenhead and Garston are still important employment locations for Sefton East Parish residents. Page 64 Mode of Travel to Work Agenda Item 9
Sefton East Parishes - Mode of Travel to Work
6.1% 0.3% 6.7% Work from Home 1.7% 7.2%
Train
5.5%
Bus
Car/Van/Motorcycle
Bicycle
On Foot
Other
72.5%
(Source: Census 2001)
Almost three-quarters (72.5%) travel to work from the Sefton East Parishes committee area by Car/Van/Motorcycle. This increases traffic congestion on the main commuter routes through the area to the major employment centres. 11.7% of East Parishes Committee resident travel on Public transport, however railway stations and frequent bus routes are limited to urban areas excluding many of the rural villages in the Committee area.
Worklessness (August 2006 – May 2007) Data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is used to calculate worklessness. A workless person is someone of working age who are in receipt of the following benefits: Job Seekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Lone Parent, Carers and Others on Income Related Benefit.
Worklessness within all of the wards in the Sefton East Parishes area is significantly lower than the Borough average.
Working Age Population - Average Worklessness Aug 06 - May 07 20.0% Sefton East Parishes Area - Ward Worklessness 18.0% Sefton Worklessness Average
16.0%
14.0%
12.0% 12.4%
10.0% 11.3% 10.8%
8.0% 9.0%
6.0% % of Working Population Age
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% Page 65 Molyneux Ward Park Ward Sudell Ward Sefton East Parishes AgendaIndex of Multiple Item Deprivation 9 2007 – Sub Domain Barriers to Housing and Services
Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation 2007 Ward Results - Sefton East Parishes
HIGH DEPRIVATION Average Ward Deprivation Score Sefton Deprivation Average
LOW DEPRIVATION
Molyneux Park Sudell Sefton East Parishes Area Committee
Although the national IMD 2007 results are published at a small geographical level (Super Output Areas), aggregated together they can be used to obtain a ward average score for multiple deprivation.
The purpose of the Barriers to Housing and Services domain is to measure barriers to housing and key local services. The indicators are structured into two sub-domains: ‘geographical barriers’, which includes accessibility to local services (road distances to GP’s, general stores/supermarkets, primary schools and Post Offices), and ‘wider barriers’ that include issues relating to housing affordability and overcrowding.
The average Sefton East Parishes barriers to housing and services score, highlights the Committee area as more deprived than the Sefton average for this domain. Areas of higher deprivation for this domain are usually areas where housing affordably and overcrowding is more of a problem or the area is in a more rural setting away from services such a GPs, Schools and local amenities that are located within the main urban centres. The most deprived SOA in Sefton for this indicator is located within the south-eastern part of the Park Ward.
Page 66 House Affordability Agenda Item 9
East Parishes Area - Average House Price (2000 - 2007) £250,000 180 Average House Price 2000/01
Average House Price 2006/07 160 Average House Price Increase £200,000 2000-2007 (%) 140
120
£150,000 100
80
Price (£) Average £100,000 Percentage Increase Percentage 60
40 £50,000
20
£0 0 Park Ward Sudell Ward Molyneux Ward East Parishes Area Sefton Committee
(Source: Land Registry Sales 2000-2007)
The Sefton East Parishes average house sale price in 2007 was £174,647, 3.8% higher than the Sefton average. The biggest increase in prices since 2000 occurred in the Sudell Ward (120%), the overall area committee house price increase over this period was 117%. Although the average house price in this area was 3.8% higher than the Borough average, overall annual earnings were 14.6% higher and housing equity was 4.2% higher, savings, however, were 10.4% lower.
2008 Household Income
Area Average annual Average Savings Average Equity Gross Household Income Sefton East Parishes £29,526 £14,695 £149,985 Sefton £25,763 £16,393 £143,970 (Source: Sefton Strategic Housing Market Assessment April 2008)
Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 68 Agenda Item 9
Sefton East Parishes area profile – ‘SWOT’ analysis Strengths Opportunities § Population likely to have a longer healthy § New prison may bring about the provision life expectancy compared to Sefton & NW figures of Maghull North station and additional park & § Good motorway links to east ride, which would relieve pressure on existing § Close to major employment locations in station & congestion in residential areas. Aintree & Netherton. § Vacated library site adjacent to Town § Over 28% of the area’s population lives Centre will become available for development, and works in the area. but not best location to accommodate new retail § Worklessness in all wards is lower than the development Sefton average. § Reinstatement of North Mersey Line § Popular residential area with limited scope would create direct link to Bootle & Netherton for further infill; few large sites industrial areas, decreasing extent of commuting § New leisure and library provision at by car Maghull Town Hall will improve local facilities. § Thornton – Switch Island link will relieve § Generally good access to urban and rural use of rural roads as ‘rat runs’, and has potential recreation opportunities. Residents consider the to provide link to port access road improvements quality of the provision to be good. Allotments (Highways Agency scheme) proposed at Sefton Lane (Parkhaven Trust site). § Leeds and Liverpool Canal provides § Almost half the residents surveyed in the opportunities for enhanced recreation usage – CDRP’s tracker survey during 2007 / 08 living in sites to be identified for marina & other the SEP area did not think there was any problem recreational uses. More potential once Liverpool with anti-social behaviour in the area. Only 0.8% link opens in 2009. of respondents thought there was a high level of § Planning permission for flood storage on anti social behaviour in the area. Lunt Meadows will help relieve flooding § No part of the area is more than 2 kms downstream. from the urban area. Weaknesses Threats § Fewer young people (aged 0 – 15) & much § Increase in house prices relative to higher % of older people (over 60 / 65) compared incomes likely to increase the need for to Sefton & England average. affordable housing. § Lack of local employment provision results § Lack of local employment and lack of in large numbers of commuters to Bootle & direct rail link to Bootle means that commuting Liverpool, with lesser flows to Southport, by car will remain the norm. Ormskirk, Kirkby. § Growth of port likely to lead to significant § 72.5% of the workforce commute by car, growth in HGV traffic through the area, and only 11.7% use public transport. especially along A5036 (Dunnings Bridge Road) § Lack of direct rail access to Bootle & & through Aintree. Southport § Maghull Town Centre in need of § Lack of frequent bus service and local investment. Likely to be under threat from facilities in rural area encourages use of the car proposed development in Kirkby Town Centre. § Poor east / west road links, especially in § Narrow green belt to north, south & east – rural area need to prevent neighbouring settlements from § Lack of southbound access at M58 coalescing restricts opportunity to expand (junction 1). Lack of Ormskirk bypass affects Maghull and other settlements to north, east and access to employment & Southport hospital, as south into the green belt. well as encouraging extraneous HGV traffic into § Area SW of Maghull and north of Aintree area. at risk of river flooding. Surface water drainage § Apart from Sudell ward, the area performs an issue throughout the area. badly in relation to barriers to housing and key § Melling WWTW needs upgrading to take local services (IMD indices). This may be flows from any eastward expansion of Maghull, because of a lack of affordable housing and local or Melling. (United Utilities could programme this amenities in the rural areas. Average house for 2010 – 2015). prices in all areas have doubled since 2000 & are § Policies preventing development in rural above the Sefton average. areas will mean that limited services remain at § Studies indicate 7% of Sefton’s need for risk from closure. affordable housing requirements are required in this area, but there are few large (over 15 dwellings) sites to accommodate this. Lack of
Page 69 Agenda Item 9
rented housing. § Areas close to River Alt & its tributaries are at risk of flooding, which restricts their suitability for new development. § Few facilities for young people. § Poor provision of parks in Aintree Village & rural villages.
Page 70 Agenda Item 9
Key issues and questions
What kind of place do you want Sefton East Parishes to be in 15 – 20 years’ time?
The Core Strategy needs to look ahead over a period of 15-20 years. Thinking ahead over this period of time there are a number of important questions to consider for the SEP Area Committee area:
How can the gap between the least and most well off be reduced? Ø The area does not show any areas with significant deprivation, and all of the area is less deprived the Sefton average in terms of multiple deprivation. There is less worklessness and people tend to live longer. A key aim of the Core Strategy must be to bring the levels of deprivation in other areas nearer to the level in the Sefton East Parishes area.
The Sefton East Parishes area has a need for more affordable housing - how can this be met? Ø Recent research indicates a need for 855 affordable dwellings in Maghull, to be provided at a rate of 171 each year (7% of the Sefton requirement). However, it is not likely that this number of affordable homes could be built. Ø Two options for meeting this are: § Further building within the built-up area e.g. further division of existing plots or re-using land previously used for other purposes, but limited opportunities of this type due to site size threshold for securing affordable housing provision. § Extension of existing built-up area, but many areas are at risk of flooding (along the R Alt & its tributaries) & they are surrounded by high quality agricultural land. Inevitably any expansion would mean taking land out of the Green Belt. If this is necessary, where should we look?
Should the Sefton East Parishes area be trying to attract more jobs into the local area? If so, where? Issues: Ø There is little local employment apart from Sefton Lane Industrial Estate, the Aintree Racecourse Business Park & Maghull town centre. However the area is close to major employment areas in Netherton. This results in significant levels of commuting, particularly by car, to Liverpool city centre & Bootle, with some to Southport, Ormskirk & Kirkby. Ø Lack of appropriate land for new employment. Ø More jobs within the local area would reduce the numbers of people travelling to work, and increase non-car modes of commuting. The Aintree to Bootle line could be re- opened (at a cost of £15m at 2003 prices) to improve access to Bootle, although this is unlikely in the short term. Better bus services to the train station would also help reduce the amount of car-borne commuting.
How can the town centre be strengthened? What about facilities in the villages? Issues: Ø Limited room to expand Maghull town centre – particularly an issue for service uses. Library re-locating to Maghull Town Hall as part of new leisure complex. Shops likley to be hit hard by proximity of major proposals at Kirkby town centre, if permitted.
Page 71 Agenda Item 9
Ø Health provision in Lydiate is poor. How can this be improved? Ø Much of the rural area suffers from a lack of local services and an infrequent bus service
Getting around Issues: Ø Junction 1 M58 – lack of southbound access roads Ø Maghull North Station – provision linked to new prison. Feasibility study underway. Ø Maghull Station Park & Ride – existing facilities inadequate and mainly used by non- Sefton residents, giving rise to congestion on nearby roads. Poor bus links from most of Maghull does not encourage use by locals. Ø How can people move around the area more easily by means of transport other than the car? (e.g. how can we make it easier to walk and cycle between home and school, work, facilities & services)
Improving the environment Issues: Ø Large number of parks of all types and sizes except in Aintree Village and rural villages, providing a wide range of facilities, but maintenance & quality varies. Proposed allotments at Parkhaven Trust’s Sefton Lane site & leisure centre / library at Maghull Town Hall will enhance provision. Little provision in villages. Ø Countryside facilities (Sefton Meadows & Wango Lane) & Leeds and Liverpool Canal add to choice on doorstep. Ø Crime – perception for all crimes higher than the actual amount.
Page 72 Agenda Item 9
Informal briefing session Core Strategy - Sefton East Parishes Maghull Town Hall, 24 th July, 2008
Present:
Members Officers Molyneux Ward Alan Young (AY) Cllr Geoff Howe (chair) (GH) Ingrid Berry (IB) Cllr Tony Robertson (TR) Cllr Jack Colbert (JC) Park Ward Apologies Cllr James Byrne (JB) Cllr Andrew Blackburn Cllr Mrs Robbie Fenton (RF) Andy Wallis, Planning & Economic Sudell Ward Regeneration Director Cllr Roy Connell (RC) Steve Matthews Cllr Cliff Mainey (CM) Cllr Mrs Sylvia Mainey (SM)
Summary of key points
1. Housing & possible long term green belt release As part of his introduction, AY outlined the various studies that were being carried out as part of the evidence base to help us determine where and how much development could be accommodated in the urban areas. However as our targets set in Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) are going to be very challenging to meet in the urban area, we are also having to consider sites put forward by landowners in the green belt. A plan showing the sites submitted as part of the ‘call for sites’ process as well as one showing the sites submitted when the UDP was being prepared was circulated.
AY explained that not every site put forward under the ‘call for sites’ would be identified for future development, but it was likely that we will have to consider where and how much land outside the urban areas may need to be released in the long term to meet our needs. A green belt study would be needed at a sub-regional level before any strategic green belt release could be proposed.
The links with the other studies – employment land, flood risk, green space and housing markets – were also discussed. It was agreed that we would need to be pro- active and not leave decision–making to planning appeals.
RF asked how we would decide which sites would be considered, and AY outlined our plans to consult more widely in the autumn, after the Area Profiles had been considered by all the Area Committees in the August / September cycle. We would also be consulting on the ‘call for sites’ together with the consultants comments on each, as well as the recommendations from the other studies.
It was suggested that, if land did need to be identified for possible development, then potential areas of search could include the land east of Maghull (i.e. bounded by the railway, the prison, the M58 & Poverty Lane), or land at Lydiate, to support the enhancement of local services. The land east of Maghull may be suitable for employment as well as a potential housing site. AY confirmed that if any of this (or any other site) was released for housing in the longer term, our normal requirement that 30% of the housing provided should be ‘affordable’ would apply.
Page 73 Agenda Item 9
CM asked about the definition of affordable housing. In response AY promised to send Members notes he’d written which explained what the PPS3 definition was. (This was sent to Members with this note, and included the preliminary results of the housing market assessment for the Maghull area). He stressed that it no longer included ‘low cost market housing’.
There was some concern that 850 affordable housing units were required in Maghull, and that this could not be disentangled to the individual wards, as well as about the general lack of funding available to help address these needs.
JC confirmed that there was a lack of quality rented accommodation in the area, in part as a result of the ‘right to buy’ policy, although it was pointed out that this had tailed off recently.
2. The SWOT analysis
AY asked for feedback on the SWOT analysis, and asked Members to let IB know if any other points occurred to them after the meeting.
A number of points were raised, including: • the lack of affordable housing, • the lack of a direct rail link to Bootle & Southport ( the N Mersey link), and • the lack of an adequate bus service to the railway station, • The need for good access to hospitals, especially Southport, as well as Ormskirk & Aintree, • The lack of health facilities in Lydiate.
Members did not feel that there was too much green space in their area, but were concerned about the quality of some sites.
They also pointed out that a lot of the facilities in their areas served wider catchment areas e.g. Maghull station (mainly used by people not living in Sefton), and Maghull High School (Ormonde Drive) which also has a wide catchment area. Both of these give rise to localised congestion.
Traffic is a big issue in the area. They felt that this was probably the biggest factor that affected the future development potential of the area.
It was agreed that IB would produce a revised SWOT analysis for circulation with the notes of this meeting.
3. Other issues
Members also wanted to know how our Core Strategy will link to those of our neighbours, and how they could influence key issues in adjoining areas. They were particularly keen to support the provision of the Ormskirk bypass, as this would help reduce the numbers of HGVs using unsuitable roads in their area en route to Southport.
Members were concerned that the density of new development , and expressed the view that the density of the existing area is about right (approximately 30 dph). AY explained that this was the density that we encouraged for all new development, except in limited locations where there were good transport links and proximity to facilities, and that such sites tend to be in town centres.
Page 74 Agenda Item 9
In response to a query on housing provision , AY explained that a report was likely to be considered by Planning Committee in September about relaxing the housing restraint policy. It was agreed that once the housing market picks up and the restraint is lifted this was likely to lead to more pressure for intensification. This would also impact on drainage. IB commented that one of the things that we would need to consider in the Core Strategy was whether to include a policy which highlighted which parts of the Code for Sustainable Homes we should be promoting to address local issues, rather than leaving this to the discretion of house-builders.
4. Maghull Town Centre
A Working Group had been established to discuss the issues surrounding the centre. This included representatives of the PCT, the Maghull Group, the Council & London & Cambridge Properties.
5. Involvement of the parishes
IB said that we had been invited to attend the meeting of the 10 parishes to discuss the Core Strategy earlier that week, but that the whole of the discussion had related to the Green space Strategy. We had therefore been invited back to attend their next meeting on 30 th September to discuss our Area Profile of the parished area.
6. Next steps
A report would be brought back to the Area Committee in early September summarising the key issues raised. This would also set out our proposals for consulting the wider community.
Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 76 ST OSWALD AND NETHERTON AND ORRELL AREAAgenda COMMITTEE Item – 9a 28 AUGUST 2008
24. CORE STRATEGY - ISSUES FOR ST. OSWALD AND NETHERTON AND ORRELL
The Committee considered the report of the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director advising on the up to date situation concerning the development of a local profile for St. Oswald and Netherton and Orrell that would feed into the development of a Core Strategy for Sefton.
The report indicated that the preparation of a Core Strategy for Sefton was a key piece of work for the Planning and Economic Regeneration Department over the next 2-3 years; that much of the context for this was set by national and regional guidance, for example the numbers of homes expected to be provided was set by the Regional Spatial Strategy; but, however, the Core Strategy must also relate well to Sefton’s distinctive characteristics and local communities and that a local vision of the potential for, and the constraints on, growth and change was needed. The Core Strategy was where difficult choices had to be made and justified.
Attached to the report were:
• two plans (‘South Sefton context map’ and ‘St,. Oswald and Netherton and Orrell Profile’) highlighting some key issues and opportunities in the area
• a ‘SWOT’ analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) for both South Sefton and St. Oswald and Netherton and Orrell area
• a profile containing key statistics relating to the Area Committee area
• key issues/questions for discussion
The report concluded by seeking views on some of the big issues, challenges and opportunities Sefton was likely to face, including:
• how and where to meet the needs of the St. Oswald and Netherton and Orrell area for affordable homes
• how to ensure that there were more job opportunities which were appropriate for local people
• how people could get around the area more easily to jobs and services - including by bus, cycle and on foot
• how to make the St. Oswald and Netherton and Orrell area more attractive to live in - ‘cleaner, safer, greener’
• how to ensure that the Marian Square shopping centre remained healthy and met people’s needs for shopping and local services; and
Page 77 Agenda Item 9a ST. OSWALD AND NETHERTON AND ORRELL AREA COMMITTEE- THURSDAY 28TH AUGUST, 2008
the identification of any further key issues which should be considered in the development of the Core Strategy; and the suggested approach to consulting with the local community.
Members expressed serious concern:
• that Project Jennifer was not shown on the South Sefton context map and suggested that this project would have a serious impact on the retailing sector in the South of the Borough
• about the inconsistencies of the Council in raising objections to the Tesco/Everton scheme in Kirkby but not to the Project Jennifer proposals in North Liverpool; and considered that the Project Jennifer scheme would have a more detrimental impact on the South of the Borough than the Tesco proposal
• that the Council had missed an opportunity to apply for a Growth Point similar to that in North Liverpool which may now have a negative impact on Sefton’s housing market and economy.
RESOLVED: That
(1) the report on the Core Strategy and issues for the St. Oswald and Netherton and Orrell area be noted;
(2) Project Jennifer be included on the South Seton context map;
(3) the concerns of the Committee, as referred to above, be submitted to all Area Committees for consideration;
(4) the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director be requested to report to the Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) on:
(a) the differences between the Tesco Kirkby project and Project Jennifer and their affect on Sefton’s retail sector; and
(b) the broader planning and economic regeneration issues associated with both proposals and their affect on Sefton; and
(5) subject to (2), (3) and (4) above, it be noted that no further key issues were identified and that no objection be made to the proposed approach to the consultation as set out in the report.
Page 78 Agenda Item 10
MEETING: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
11 SEPTEMBER 2008 DATE:
SUBJECT: GREEN SPACE STRATEGY FOR SEFTON – CONSULTATION DRAFT
Report of : Andy Wallis, Planning and This report contains Yes No Economic Regeneration Director Graham Bayliss, CONFIDENTIAL ü Director of Leisure Services Information/ EXEMPT information Contact Officer : Steve Matthews (Planning) – by virtue of (0151) 934 3559 paragraph(s)...... ü
of Part 1 of Schedule Mark Shaw (Leisure) – 12A to the Local (0151) 934 2943 Government Act, 1972 Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ? ü
Purpose of report
To advise members of the consultation draft Green Space Strategy for Sefton and to seek their views on it.
Recommendation(s):
That the Committee agree the Green Space issues in the Area Committee area as set out in this report and suggest any further issues in this area which they think the Sefton Green Space Strategy ought to address.
Page 79 Agenda Item 10
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1 Creating a Learning Community ü 2 Creating Safe Communities ü 3 Jobs and Prosperity ü 4 Improving Health and Well-Being ü 5 Environmental Sustainability ü 6 Creating Inclusive Communities ü 7 Improving the Quality of Council Services ü and Strengthening local Democracy 8 Children and Young People ü
Financial Implications
No direct implications, but strategy should ensure more effective use of money to improve green space and should offer better chance of securing external funding for enhancement.
2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report: None
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this report Consultation draft ‘Green Space Strategy for Sefton’ at http://www.sefton.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=8817 and http://consult.sefton.gov.uk/portal .
Page 80 Agenda Item 10
1. Background
Good quality green spaces are an essential element of urban neighbourhoods and make a profound contribution to the quality of life of communities. They offer many economic, social and environmental benefits. Approaching their planning and management strategically will maximise the value of capital investment and revenue expenditure .
Extract from a Good Practice Guide prepared by the Government’s agency for improving Green Space – CABE Space.
1.1 A draft ‘Green Space Strategy for Sefton’ was approved for consultation by Cabinet on 12 June 2008. The consultation period ran from 27 June to 8 August 2008. it was due to be reported to this Area Committee on 17 July, but that meeting was cancelled due to strike action.
1.2 The results of consultation are due to be reported to Planning Committee on 17 th September. As the deadline for that meeting is 5 th September, it was decided to hold an informal meeting of this Committee on 20 th August. This was attended by Steve Matthews from my Department and by Councillors Howe, Blackburn and Robertson. Issues raised at that meeting have been fed into the report to Planning Committee and any further views raised at this meeting can be reported verbally.
1.3. The draft Strategy is a corporate document, and has been prepared by a Steering Group which comprises representatives from the following organisations: o Sefton Council - Planning, Leisure, Children’s Services and Technical Services Depts; Community Safety team; o North Merseyside Biodiversity Manager, based at Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service; o Sefton Primary Care Trust; o A representative of Sefton Area Committee of Local Parish Councils; o Sefton Council for Voluntary Services, including ‘Transform’ (network of environmental organisations in Sefton); o Mersey Forest.
1.4 The Green Space Strategy can be viewed on-line at http://www.sefton.gov.uk/greenspacestrategy and http://consult.sefton.gov.uk/portal .
2. Draft Green Space Strategy – key points
2.1 The draft Green Space Strategy’s vision for green space in Sefton is to create a mosaic of green spaces which will be cherished by this and future generations.
2.2 The strategy has five aims for green space in Sefton: :
1. To improve the quality, variety and accessibility of all types of green space.
Page 81 Agenda Item 10
2. To increase community involvement in and use of all green spaces.
3. To make the most of the ways in which green space can help reduce the impacts of climate change.
4. To increase wildlife value of all green spaces.
5. To work with partners, especially to make the most of funding opportunities.
2.3 The draft Strategy is not simply about parks and play areas. It also about other types of ‘green space’ – playing fields, allotments, natural areas (e.g. the Canal), and the countryside.
2.4 It is also not just about recreation. Green spaces are important to local communities in a number of ways: o they provide opportunities for exercise which improves physical health o they offer opportunities for relaxation and contemplation which contributes to mental health o they support a variety of habitats and species, contributing to biodiversity o they can help to reduce the impact of climate change (e.g. lowering air temperature through shading from trees; reducing the rate of water ‘run-off’ after heavy rain) o they can be attractive to look at which makes areas more pleasant to live and do business in.
2.5 Green spaces do not have to be publicly owned to have these benefits. Sefton East Parishes is different from the rest of the Borough because most of the parks and play areas are owned and managed by the parish councils. However, green space may be in different ownerships: o Parkhaven Trust is privately owned but a one mile circular walk and 100 allotments are being proposed at its Sefton Lane site o the woodlands between Maghull and Sefton Village are owned by the Forestry Commission, but there is public access; o similarly the canal is owned by British waterways, but there is a right of access along the towpath.
2.6 The diagram below shows how the draft Green Space Strategy for Sefton sets the context for other existing or future strategies prepared by the Council or its partners. These will usually contain more detail (e.g. about priorities, sites, spending and funding), for example the Parks and Green Spaces Asset Management Strategy, Coast Management Plan and forthcoming playing pitch and street trees strategies.
Page 82 Agenda Item 10
Southport Investment Strategy North Merseyside BAP – Urban Green Infrastructure
3. How can the Green Space Strategy improve green spaces within the Sefton East Parishes area?
A number of issues came up in the informal discussion on 20 th August and also at the Ten Parishes AGM in July which illustrate some of the ways in which the Green Space strategy might be able to assist.
• Strengthening partnerships with parishes and other organisations: the success of the strategy lies largely in how effectively partnerships can be built with those who have common objectives.. There is much potential to develop the current partnership between Sefton Council and the town/ parish councils in this area, together with police, schools, residents’ groups, businesses, landowners (e.g. Parkhaven Trust), churches and other community groups. This approach complements that set out in the Neighbourhood Community Charter for Sefton East Parishes.
• Improving the A59 through planting trees and wildflower meadows: The idea of planting trees in the central reservation had been suggested. The costs of making the central reservation safe for people to carry out maintenance is very high, so this is not likely to be practical. However, there may be opportunities of planting trees and wildflower areas within the highway
Page 83 Agenda Item 10
verge (but not in the central reservation), which would help to make this approach into Sefton more attractive. This could be discussed with Sefton Council’s highways maintenance team.
• Working with Parish and Town Councils to achieve a Green Flag award: Maghull Town Council are keen to pursue this for King George V playing fields, but this has had to be postponed until the redevelopment takes place. Other parish councils may be interested in achieving the Green Flag quality award for one of their parks.
• Improvement of Rainbow Park, Melling: this is a top priority under of the Parks and Green Spaces Asset Management Strategy, but no funding has been identified yet. There may be other partners who could become involved in improving this park.
• Green spaces in Aintree Village area: Harlow Drive recreation ground is the only significant park in this area. There are issues of youth disorder in this area which in part may be due to the lack of suitable open spaces for young people. What opportunities are there to work with other landowners to open up some public access to other green spaces (e.g. Davenhill School) at particular times?
• Opportunities which arise through development o Parkhaven Trust is updating its accommodation on the Sefton Lane site; as part of this new development it has offered to provide a one mile circular walk and 100 allotments – both available for public use. o Ashworth prison: Discussions are continuing about whether suitable green spaces can be provided in compensation for those in building the prison at Ashworth. o There may be scope to improve the proposed nature reserve at Aintree ‘curve’ in association with development of adjoining land.
• Better access to community woodland e.g. Jubilee Woods The view was expressed that the access points to Jubilee Woods (e.g. from Sefton Lane) were not inviting. At the same time it was recognised that opening up more access for cars could encourage unauthorised use e.g. by motorbikes, or for fly-tipping. There is the opportunity to discuss with Mersey Forest if there are practical ways of improving access without generating these problems.
• ‘Seed’ fund for environmental projects: Maghull Town Council operates a ‘seed’ fund for environmental projects. This is available to community and voluntary groups (others too?) and is able to partly fund local improvements e.g. Sefton in Bloom, joint environmental projects with Sefton Council.
• Making the most of the different functions of green spaces: Some green spaces, particularly the larger ones, have a number of different functions, and it is important to make the most of these. For example, there is scope within the Sefton Meadows Community Woodland to improve and safeguard its
Page 84 Agenda Item 10
biodiversity value, enhance the ecological and strategic path links which it provides, and make the most of its potential to adapt to climate change, as well as make more of its recreation value;
• Improving links and access to green space throughout Sefton East Parishes area: There are likely to be lots of opportunities to improve access to green space throughout the area, particularly to provide safe links to homes, schools, jobs and services. This has lots of positive spin-offs – it encourages exercise, benefits health, reduces obesity, lowers number of car trips, reduces amount of carbon emitted ….
• ….. and improving links into the countryside There is scope to work with partners to promote Leeds and Liverpool Canal and the Cheshire Lines Path (Trans Pennine Trail) as a recreation and wildlife corridor;
• Planting street trees: This is will be addressed in the Street Tree strategy which the Leisure Director is currently preparing. This will take into account issues relating to the red squirrel refuge and red squirrel buffer zone and a need to protect against grey squirrel movement.
• What types of green space are missing in Sefton East Parishes area? There are still some large areas of private green space in Sefton east parishes area, particularly in Maghull. There may be scope for development on part of these sites, provided that a significant proportion of the land is made available for access by the public. It would be helpful to know what the key priorities are for providing further green space in Sefton East Parishes so that if those situations arise, we can try to provide further areas of green space which the local community would like to see.
• Working with schools to provide greater access to green space: The Government’s ‘extended schools’ initiative requires schools to demonstrate closer links with the community by 2010. This requires schools to provide greater access to their facilities to the local community. One example might be the school and community working together to provide e.g. a nature area within the school grounds which the whole community could have access to outside school hours. This depends on the individual school, but grants are available which support this kind of initiative. There is likely to be increasing scope to match these grants with other funding to provide something of benefit to the wider community.
• Ecological links: Preserve and enhance the outstanding ecological linkages provided by the Alt valley, and embankments and cuttings of the M58 and M57 and their links through the area and beyond,
• Farmland: Recognise the importance of farmland in this area as a ‘hotspot’ for internationally important farmland birds, and make the most of new biodiversity habitat opportunities at Lunt Meadows;
4. Benefits of a green space strategy - overview
Page 85 Agenda Item 10
4.1 The green space strategy doesn’t come with lots of money. However, it does provide a common framework of priorities which are supported by a number of partners. This should enable more to be achieved as partners may be able to contribute some resources which, taken together, can enable specific projects to be carried out. For example, money which is available through the development process (‘section 106 money’) could be matched by money from other funders.
4.2 By highlighting agreed priorities, the strategy is likely to mean greater success in bidding for funds e.g. the Play Partnership funding which Sefton Council received earlier this year.
4.3 Members are asked to comment on the issues raised above or on any other issues which they think might be relevant to the green space strategy.
5. How can we make sure that the Green Space Strategy ‘works’ for Sefton East Parishes?
5.1 The Green Space Strategy will have an action plan which will set out key actions, key organisations to implement them, possible sources of funding and timescales. A steering group will meet, say twice a year, to monitor progress. A representative of the parish councils was on the original steering group and this arrangement should continue.
5.2 The strategy will be placed on the web-site. It will include a variety of case studies of how improvements have been made to green spaces e.g. through a number of partners coming together to get access to a range of funds. Further case studies will be added.
5.3 One of the major stumbling blocks to improving green spaces is awareness of funding. The web-site will highlight sources of funding and will include links to relevant sites so that e.g. voluntary and community groups are able to promote schemes which have a good chance of being funded. For example Big Lottery has two current funding streams which are suitable for green space initiatives and are directed to community groups - ‘Awards for All’ (www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/a4ai ) - up to £10,000, and ‘Changing Spaces’ (www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/prog_changing_spaces) - up to £100,000.
Page 86 Agenda Item 11
Meeting: Sefton East Parishes Area Committee
Date of Meeting : Thursday 11 th September 2008
Title of Report: Strategic Intelligence Assessment (SIA) Priorities
Report of : Amanda Langan This report contains Yes No Head of Community Safety
CONFIDENT IAL √ Information/ Contact Officer : Louise Thomas EXEMPT information by virtue of Strategy Support Officer paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 of (Telephone No.) 0151 288 6166 Schedule 12A to the Local √ Government Act, 1972 (If information is marked exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report √ DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report
To comply with Minutes No 26 (2) of the Cabinet Member -Communities in relation to the report on the Strategic Intelligence Assessments presented on the 23 rd July 2008:
“….the SIA priorities, and any subsequent updates as to the progress of partners in addressing issues, be forwarded to each Area Committee….”
Recommendation(s)
1. The Strategic Intelligence Report and the local Safer and Stronger Communities priorities to be noted.
Page 87 Agenda Item 11
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community √ 2. Creating Safe Communities √ 3. Jobs and Prosperity √ 4. Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5. Environmental Sustainability √ 6. Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People
Financial Implications
2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
All organisations that have a bearing on delivering services aligned with the SIA have been consulted in the preparation of the SIA, and the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership (SSCP)
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
1. Cabinet Member- Communities Report: Wednesday the 23 rd June 2008
2. From the Neighbourhood to the National: Policing our Communities Together (2008)
Page 88 Agenda Item 11
3. Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime: Louise Casey (2008)
4. Comprehensive Area Assessment: Joint Inspectorate Proposals for Consultation (2008)
5. Delivering Safer Communities: Guidance for Crime and Disorder Partnerships (2008).
Page 89 Agenda Item 11
BACKGROUND:
Introduction
1.1 As members will now be aware there have been a number of national directives and developments that have taken place that have had a direct impact on the way in which Sefton’s Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership (SSCP) runs at a strategic level and how the Crime and Disorder Partnership runs at an operational level.
1.2 These directives and developments flow from a recent national review of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) the findings of which have now been incorporated into the Police and Justice Act 2006. This introduced a number of changes for the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership, one of which, the requirement to produce a Strategic Intelligence Assessment (SIA) is highlighted in this report.
1.3 However the production of the SIA now has to be seen in the developing context of the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), and in particular the Area Assessment that will look at how well local public services are delivering better results for local people on specific themes, one of which will be community safety.
1.4 The CAA, commencing in April 2009 will take locally agreed priorities, as defined in the Local Area Agreement, as a potential starting point for the inspection. A core principle of the CAA will be ‘ rooted in the needs and aspirations of local people in each area’ and as such will assess our understanding and delivery of services to meet those identified needs.
1.5 To assess and respond to ‘local need’ the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership have, amongst other ‘priority’ indicators included National Indicator (NI: 21) in its Partnership Plan. This indicator is a public perception indicator that assesses the proportion of residents who strongly agree/agree that the local council and the police are dealing with their concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour. This is an APACS indicator (Assessment of Policing and Community Safety) that will be used in the CAA in a process that will assess the contributions and the outcomes of partnership working in far more detail than in previous inspection regimes.
1.6 To ensure that we, as a Partnership, are attuned to the concerns of local communities the Hallmarks of Effective Partnerships introduced the statutory requirement for all ‘Partnerships’ to undertake a Strategic Intelligence Assessment (SIA) that provides the Partnership with the information upon which local community safety ‘priorities’ and thus need, is identified.
1.7 The Area Assessment component of the CAA will essentially focus on three questions
1. How well do the local priorities express community needs and aspirations? 2. How well are the outcomes needed being delivered? 3. What are the prospects for future improvement (based on judgements to questions 1 and 2)
Page 90 Agenda Item 11
1.8 The CAA is inherently about ‘sustainability’ and the risks posed to the longer-term sustainability of a community and as such will ‘shrink’ its enquiry to assess progress on local priorities in particular neighbourhoods and communities. The SIA will thus feature greatly in the CAA inspection,
1.9 The CAA will also review how the new ‘duty to involve’ is being implemented and as such will look at the available evidence that demonstrates that
1.Councils and their partners ‘know and engage with their communities’
2.The extent to which the ‘priority’ outcomes have been defined with the involvement of communities
3.How well communities have been involved in assessing whether priority outcomes have been delivered
4.The effectiveness of local partners’ activities in co-ordinating community engagement and communicating its impact on their decisions
1.10 Through the Area Assessment the CAA will make one assessment of community safety delivered by the Partnership and its partners in Sefton which will, in part, be based on the effective delivery of the outcomes associated with the Strategic Intelligence Assessments (SIA’s). As we anticipate the Strategic Intelligence Assessments become of critical importance to the Area Assessment inspection process that will feature in the new CAA
1.11 Further to this the CAA will almost certainly be reflective of the recent Home Office review on Neighbourhood Policing and also Louise Casey’s report on ‘engaging communities in fighting crime’ both of which emphasise the need to work in local partnerships to address local issues. In her report Casey states that:
‘ [bring] together local policing within the broad range of local services provided by local councils , housing associations and others that contribute to community safety by tackling crime and anti-social behaviour’ [Chapter 3; pg 30]
1.12 If the SIA identifies the local ‘risk/priority’ issues from the available data (including as it does community consultation data) then the Local Community Safety Area Partnerships that we are developing bring partners together to agree how to progress those priorities and turn them into actions. Again it is envisaged that the Local Community Safety Area Partnerships will again feature in the Area Assessment of the CAA.
1.13 As such it is anticipated that the CAA will thus review both the methodology and the production of the SIA, qualifying as it will its effective identification of the ‘public’s priorities’ and also the effectiveness of partnership working within the Local Community Safety Area Partnerships (CSAP’s). Section 2 (below) looks at the production of the SIA ‘s in Sefton, whilst Section 4 describes the proposed model of the CSAP’s and how integral they are to the process of ensuring there is a strong and accountable local delivery of services by the partners.
2.0 Sefton’s Approach to the Strategic Intelligence Assessments (SIA)
Page 91 Agenda Item 11
2.1 Sefton’s Community Safety Department, on behalf of the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership, have undertaken the responsibility to produce the Strategic Intelligence Assessment. Within Sefton we have already established, through the Neighbourhood Planning Unit (now named ‘AIM’ Analysis and Intelligence Management Team), the staff, business processes and data protocols to allow this requirement to be implemented to the requirements of the Hallmarks and the CAA.
2.2 The production of an SIA has to be based on a robust business model reflective of the broader principles of the National Intelligence Model used by the Police. To comply with this requirement the Analysis and Intelligence Team (AIM) have analysed data from the data-sets as described below ( See Appendix 1 for detail ):
• British Crime Survey Comparator Crime (BCS-crime) • Anti-Social Behaviour Incident data • Mayrise & Flare Environmental Data • Substance Misuse data (a subset of recorded crime) • Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service data
2.3 To complement and add further context to the data sets, as described above, the Community Safety Division have also commissioned an extensive public perception survey that allows residents in Sefton to comment on specific community safety issues.
2.4 The requirement to take into account local perceptions of crime and safety is another statutory requirement associated with the production of the SIA, in that the Partnership need to reflect the views from the community on matters they would want to be prioritised.
2.5 This wider consultation process of consultation commenced in May 2006 with the development of the ‘ Safer ’ questionnaire and the appointment of an independent market research company (Mott MacDonald) to undertake the process on behalf of the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership. The resultant tracking survey allows up to 60 different residents from each Area Committee Area each month to give their views on community safety issues ranging from personal crime through anti-social behaviour and the RESPECT programme to perceptions of drug issues and environmental crime.
2.6 The ‘Safer’ survey has built not only a ‘perception picture’ for Sefton but also one for each Area Committee Area that complements and adds a further ‘richness’ to the development of the SIA’s. From this information it becomes possible to prioritise, on the basis of ‘respondents responses’ those community safety issues that are most reflective of the wider concerns of the general public in each Area Committee Area (See Appendix 2 ) in a way that can be assessed and tracked over time in a manner that allows the SSCP to establish if the actions they have employed have changed residents perceptions and feelings about their safety.
2.7 The same survey instrument is also being used by the SSCP to monitor and assess its 4 current Local Area Agreement targets as well as the new LAA indicators agreed by the Local Strategic Partnership. To date the views and options of over 10,000 residents have been captured and used to inform and drive this process in Sefton.
Page 92 Agenda Item 11
2.8 In addition the SSCP have now also commissioned a ‘Stronger’ survey that further allows the SSCP partners to better understand the wider outcomes associated with issues associated with the work of the SSCP such as satisfaction belonging, cohesion and volunteering within local communities. This will allow the SSCP to be in a better position to be able to respond to the implications of the new Place Survey and the Assessment of Policing and Community Safety that will feature in the new Comprehensive Area Assessments.
2.9 The construction of the SIA has to follow the broader business models as highlighted in the new Hallmarks of Effective Partnerships . This requires the analysis to use a consistent set of rules applied to the analysis of all the data sets to highlight issues and incidents in a repeatable way. ( See Appendix 3 ).
2.10 As such the process of producing the SIA’s will be the platform and the business case for the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership to both plan with partners, and where necessary commission, programmes to address these local community safety issues.
3 Priorities
3.1 The Community Safety Department, on behalf of the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership, has now refreshed the Strategic Intelligence Assessment for a geography aligned with each respective Area Committee. .
3.2 A copy of the Area Committee priorities can be found in Appendix 4.
4.0 Community Safety Area Partnerships
4.1 In Sefton the SSCP endorsed the development of the SIA’s to reflect as best as possible the local concerns and crime and disorder patterns associated with a geography that was co-terminus with each respective Area Committee and also where possible each Police Neighbourhood, although in some cases one Police Neighbourhood may cover a larger area than the Area Committee.
4.2 In addition the process, as originally conceived, is also now taking into account the developing Neighbourhood Management model so the work around the development of actions to address the SIA priorities is not distinct from the wider Neighbourhood Management model but complements it.
4.3 To translate the SIA priorities into ‘ actionable analysis’ at the local level officers representing the key partners of the SSCP meet at a ‘local’ Community Safety Area Partnership meeting to discuss the SIA priorities for that Area Committee Area. The partners discuss the 12-month special and temporal analysis of the data, and then review the latest 3-months data on each priority theme to see if there are any emerging issues that need to be addressed. This detailed analysis of each priority allows partners to construct action plans that address each of the key themes within the SIA such as repeat locations, hot-spot areas, temporal and spatial issues such as peak times of the year and days about which incidents occur.
4.4 The actionable analysis to address the priorities in the SIA forms the basis of specific Community Safety Area Partnership Plans. These local partnership meetings allow operational officers from the various ‘responsible authorities’ to meet collectively to better understand and discuss as ‘partners’ the broader issues and community concerns identified in the SIA.
Page 93 Agenda Item 11
4.5 It is has been recognised nationally and locally that an effective response to the priority issues, especially in the field of Safer and Stronger Communities, requires organisations working in effective partnership, where services work collaboratively and effectively with a common understanding of how they can collectively make a difference to the lives of residents and communities.
4.6 This ethos is at the very heart of the Community Safety Area Partnerships ‘working in effective partnership’ to deliver a series of focussed interventions that reflect and address local concerns, very much in line with the anticipated requirements of the CAA. It is proposed that the process of identifying both the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership’s ‘priorities’ and the action plans is a fully inclusive process that will be reported to the SSCP, Communities Cabinet Member and each respective Area Committee.
4.7 To further ensure that the process of consultation with the community to identify ‘local priorities’ is reflected back to residents and respondents who have taken part in the community safety survey, the SSCP agreed to ensure that the SIA priorities, action plans and commitment of partners to address the priorities should be, as widely as possible, transparent.
4.8 As such the SIA priorities, the commitment of partners and activity to address those priorities will feature in the media in the coming months so local residents can feel better informed about the work of the Community Safety Area Partnerships and hold the wider strategic ‘Partnership’ to account in terms of their understanding of what is being done to address and deliver against those priorities. The Community Safety public perception survey will assess the impact of how well we are doing, as there are specific questions in the survey that will allow both the SSCP and the Community Safety Area Partnerships to review their progress.
4.9 The Community Safety Area Partnerships (CSAP) will work around a core set of defining principles complemented by a degree of local flexibility to meet and further respond to locally identified need. For the CSAP to be effective we believe that it should have (as described in the new Neighbourhood Policing model);
• A clearly defined local geography
• A set of agreed and shared local community safety priorities (SIA)
• Shared information, feedback and communication with the stakeholders and the local community on partnership focus accountability and progress.
• Co-ordination by partners of their activity to tackle priorities effectively
• Evidenced based deployment of resources
• A neighbourhood lead to support the leadership of the CSAP
• Strong and effective joined –up community engagement with feedback to the local community on what the partners have and are doing to address their concerns.
• The partnership reaches clear decisions based on the best available evidence
• The partnership reflects and works to the Hallmarks of Effective Partnership
Page 94 Agenda Item 11
• There are clear lines of accountability back to the SSCP and also through the Local Democratic Process to the Area Committee and Cabinet Communities.
• We recognise as a Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership the crucial role that the Area Committee, and local councillors, play. We are therefore suggest that there needs to be an effective working relationship between the Area Committee and the Local Community Safety Area Partnership and would welcome further feedback when the SIA priorities are presented at the Area Committee.
4.10 The Community Safety Area Partnerships (CSAP’s) are supported by the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership who have put in place the effective administrative and secretarial support as well will be providing dedicated officer support. Through our Analysis and Intelligence Management Team (AIM) we will be able to provide information to both the Local Community Safety Area Partnership as well as produce briefing reports for all Councillors that could, subject to the approval of the Area Committee, feature as both public and confidential briefings on the prevalence of crime, anti-social behaviour with additional longitudinal analysis of how crime and disorder changes over time along with community perceptions.
5.0 Conclusion
5.1 The Community Safety Department, on behalf of the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership, have produced the relevant Strategic Intelligence Assessments. The methodology being employed in their production ensures that each SIA is bespoke and relevant to each Area Committee Area.
5.2 The SIA will be an embedded and central feature in the Community Safety Area Partnerships which through an evolving process will enable agencies and departments to further understand and be more responsive to the key issues that affect residents in each Area Committee Area that otherwise may be ‘diluted’ if the SIA were conducted at the Sefton Borough-wide level. As a process the partners are always keen to reflect additional information and add to their understanding in a way that would naturally assist in the most effective deployment of resource, and recognise the role of the Area Committees in this.
5.3 The Strategic Intelligence Assessments will define the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership’s key priorities for a 12-month period. However these ‘priorities’ are not ‘fixed in stone’ and will, subject to discussion and evidence, be amended so they remain contemporary and relevant to local communities.
6.0 Recommendations
1. The Strategic Intelligence Report and the local Safer and Stronger Communities priorities to be noted.
Page 95 Agenda Item 11
Appendix 1
Data Sets used in the preparation of Strategic Intelligence Assessments (SIA’s)
The analysis to prepare the SIA is derived from the following categories within each of the data sets as described below. The data sets include those that describe and record the prevalence of reported: • Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) • British Crime Survey (BCS) • Environmental (ENV) • Fire (FIRE) • Crime: Substance Misuse .
Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) has been defined within the Police NICL dataset: -
Category NICL Code Abandoned Vehicles (not stolen/causing obstruction) P211 or 211 Animal Problems P212 or 212 Begging/Vagrancy P213 or 213 Hoax call to emergency services P214 or 214 Inappropriate use/sale/posession of fireworks P215 or 215 Malicious communications P216 or 216 Noise P217 or 217 Prostitution Related activity P218 or 218 Rowdy / Nuisance - Environmental Damage / Littering P219 or 219 Rowdy / Nuisance - Neighbours P220 or 220 Rowdy / Nuisance - Rowdy or inconsiderate behaviour P221 or 221 Street Drinking P222 or 222 Substance Misuse P223 or 223 Trespass P224 or 224 Vehicle Nuisance / Inappropriate Vehicle Use P225 or 225
Period for analysis: Discoverer 04/06 – 03/07 as supplied by Merseyside Police.
British Crime Survey crime (BCS-crime) has been defined within the IMS dataset Data set
Category Home Office Code Theft from Person 3900 Common Assault 10423, 10433, 10500 & 10501 Vehicle Interference 12600 & 82590 Domestic Burglary 2800, 2801, 2802 & 2900 Personal Robbery 3405, 3406 & 3407 Theft of a Vehicle 3702, 4801, 4802, 13001, 13002 & 13101 Theft of Pedal Cycle 4400 & 13718 Theft from a Vehicle 4510 & 4511 Wounding 501, 514, 803, 806, 833 & 834 Criminal Damage 5601, 5602, 5700, 5701, 5702, 5800, 5801, 5802, 5803, 5804, 5805, 5807, 5809, 5811 & 5813 analysed - IMS 04/06 – 03/07 as supplied by Merseyside Police.
Page 96 Agenda Item 11
Environmental Data has been defined within the data as the following:- Dataset Category Flare Accumulation of Refuse Flare Dang. Sructure office hours Flare Dang. Structure out of hours Flare Dangerous Structures Flare Dangerous/Aggressive Dogs Flare Filthy & verminous premises Flare Fly Tipping Flare Graffiti Flare Grot Spots Flare Insecure Prem. Office hours Flare Overgrown land/gardens Flare Rats Flare Stray Dogs Flare Vacant & unsecure premises Mayrise Abandoned Vehicle Mayrise Fly Tipping Mayrise Graffiti Mayrise Rear Entries Mayrise Street Cleansing Mayrise Street Sweeping
Dataset analysed - Flare 04/06 – 03/07 and Mayrise 04/06 – 03/07 as supplied by Sefton MBC Environmental Protection Department.
Fire has been defined within the data as described by the following:-
Dataset Category Fire Challenged Calls Fire Deliberate Property Fires Fire Malicious Calls Fire Secondary Fires Fire Vehicle Fires Fire Violence at Work
Dataset analysed - Fire 04/06 – 03/07 as supplied by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.
Substance Misuse has been defined within the IMS dataset using the following Home Office recorded crime codes: -
Category Home Office Code Possession 9250, 9251, 9252, 9253, 9254, 9255, 9259, 9260, 9266, 9268 & 9269 Supply 9230, 9231, 9234, 9270, 9271, 9274, 9279, 9280, 9281 & 9289 Other 9221, 9229, 9320, 9330 & 9340
Dataset analysed - IMS 04/06 – 03/07 as supplied by Merseyside Police.
Page 97 Agenda Item 11
Ap pendix 2
The Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership: Public Perception Survey (Sefton’s Tracking Survey)
An independent social marketing research company, Mott McDonald has been commissioned by the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership (SSCP) to undertake a public perception ‘tracking survey’ for Sefton that also produces statistically relevant findings for each Local Area Committee Area. Each month 60 residents from each Area Committee Area are selected at random and asked a series of questions in a street ‘face-to-face’ interview that is specifically looking to define community safety issues.
Analysis of the data, which is again carried out by the independent research company Mott McDonald, establishes those community safety issues that, based on residents perceptions, are a priority for residents in each Area Committee Area.
The questionnaire has been designed to cover the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership’s Local Area Agreement mandatory outcomes and as such includes indicators to establish respondents’ perceptions under the following headings:
• Reassure the Public, reducing the fear of crime - Fear of being a victim of crime
• Reassure the public, reducing the fear of crime- General community safety issues
• Reduce the harm caused by illegal drugs
• Build RESPECT in communities and reduce Anti-social behaviour (National LAA indicator set)
• Anti Social Behaviour (Local indicator set)
• Empower local people to have a greater choice and influence over local decision making and a greater role in public service delivery
• Improve the quality of the local environment
Page 98 Agenda Item 11
Appendix 3
Rules applied to the data to identify ‘priorities’ .
Identifying Wards as ‘priority’ wards within an Area Committee Area.
1. Where a Ward within an Area Committee Area is sufficiently different to its peers in terms of overall counts of ‘incidents’ for all data sets, this Ward would be identified as a ‘priority’ ward and/or 2. Where Wards within an Area Committee Area have a reasonably similar profile in terms of overall counts of ‘incident’ for all data sets, but are also over the Sefton average , both or more wards would be identified as a priority wards. 3. Wards that are below the Sefton Average for overall counts on ‘incidents’ for all data sets would not be selected as a ‘priority’ ward within an Area Committee Area.
Identifying Area Committee Area ‘Priorities’
1. Using the Ward profile data for each individual Ward the Top 3 categories of a data set based on ‘count’ are identified.
2. Using the Ward profile data for each individual Ward the Top 3 categories of a data set based on a comparison with the Sefton average are identified.
3. Categories that are common in analysis process 1 & 2 are identified
4. Assess the categories identified in Process 3 across Wards to identify levels of Commonality across the Area Committee Area (ACA).
5. Where sufficient commonality exists across Wards this category would be regarded as an ACA Priority.
6. Where there is insufficient commonality across Wards, the category with the highest Count of incidents within the ACA would become the designated ACA priority.
7. This process is repeated for all data sets (Recorded Crime, Anti-Social Behaviour, Environmental Incidents, Substance Misuse and Fire incidents)
For the substance misuse data set there are only 3 categories of substance misuse crime that include; Possession, Supply and Other offence. Due to the limited number of categories and possession accounting for the majority of substance misuse incidents, substance misuse will only be identified as a priority should the ACA have a level above the Sefton average.
Page 99 Agenda Item 11
Appendix 4
Sefton East Parishes Priorities
Perception Survey Perception Survey Data Set Category Priority Category Priority
Crime • Burglary Dwelling Fear of being a victim • Burglary Dwelling of crime
ASB • Abandoned Vehicles • Build • Teenagers • Vehicle/ Nuisance/ RESPECT in Hanging Around Inappropriate Vehicle communities • Litter and Rubbish Use and reduce ASB (National LAA indicator set) • Anti Social • Underage Drinking Behaviour • Youth Disorder (Local indicator set) Environmental • Fly tipping Improve the quality of • Dog Fouling • Street Sweeping the local environment Substance Misuse • Possession Reduce the harm Not Applicable caused by illegal drugs
Page 100 Agenda Item 12
Meeting: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting : 11 SEPTEMBER 2008
Title of Report : SEFTON VILLAGE SPEED MANAGEMENT SCHEME – RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Report of : This report contains Yes No Alan Moore CONFIDENTIAL √ Strategic Director of Regeneration & Information/ Deputy Chief Executive
Contact Officer : EXEMPT information by virtue of Dave Marrin – 934 4295 paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 of Paula Butt – 934 4227 Schedule 12A to the Local √ Government Act, 1972 (If information is marked exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report
To appraise Members of the results of the recent consultation carried out with residents/business owners fronting onto Brickwall Lane, Bridges Lane and Sefton Lane on a proposed speed management scheme for Sefton Village, Maghull.
Recommendation(s)
It is recommended that:
(i) The report be noted.
(ii) Members give approval to progress the scheme towards the end of 2008
Page 101 Agenda Item 12 Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community √ 2. Creating Safe Communities √ 3. Jobs and Prosperity √ 4. Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5. Environmental Sustainability √ 6. Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People √
Financial Implications
2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure 90,000 Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources 90,000 Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
None
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
Report to Sefton East Parishes Area Committee, dated 22 May, entitled ‘ Sefton Village Speed Management Scheme’
SEFTON M.B.C.
Page 102 Agenda Item 12 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 At its meeting on 22 May 2008, the Sefton East Parishes Area Committee approved to progress with a consultation exercise to the frontages of Brickwall Lane, Bridges Lane and Sefton Lane, Maghull regarding a proposed Speed Management Scheme for Sefton Village
1.2 A consultation pack consisting of an information flyer, a questionnaire and three plans showing the proposals was delivered to 61 properties fronting the proposed scheme on Thursday 7 August, and the closing date for consultation returns was Thursday 28 August.
1.3 The consultation flyer and questionnaire are attached as Annexes A & B. Due to the length of the route and the small scale of the plan which would be required for this report, it is not possible to include the 3 plans within the consultation pack within this report, however a schematic plan showing the location of the various features is attached as Annex C.
2.0 CONSULTATION RESULTS
2.1 A total of 30 questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 49.2%. This is a good response rate for the scheme.
2.2 Of the 30 questionnaires returned, 28 (93.3%) are in favour of the Sefton Village Speed Management Scheme, and 2 (6.7%) are not in favour of the Sefton Village Speed Management Scheme.
2.3 Of the 28 respondents in favour of the proposed scheme, the following comments/requests were supplied on the questionnaires:
• 10 supplied no comments or requests • The siting of the illuminated signs and that they be shielded to avoid glare into nearby properties was raised twice • The route be resurfaced to reduce HGV noise was raised once • Introduction of speed cameras be introduced was raised four times • A weight restriction be introduced to prevent HGV’s using the route was raised three times • Introduction of traffic calming measures was raised once • Introduction of traffic signals at the junctions into the industrial areas was raised once • Road widening at the junctions into the industrial areas to prevent queuing traffic was raised twice • Additional enforcement of the route to consolidate the scheme was raised once • Additional speed limit signage was raised once • Introduction of 30mph speed limit through length of speed was raised once
2.4 Of the 2 respondents not in favour of the scheme:
• One does not see the point of the introduction of pedestrian refuge islands as the respondent says; “they have not seen anybody crossing the road in the scheme, and that there are no facilities nearby to necessitate any great volume of people crossing the road. In addition the road is plagued by speeding traffic and heavy goods vehicles. Money would be better diverted to a scheme to enable people to cross at the junction of Sefton Lane and Liverpool Road South”.
Page 103 Agenda Item 12 • The other respondent is concerned about the major increase in traffic using the route to access the industrial areas and the waste disposal site, and says that “this road was never intended for the major increase in road traffic using it nor designed for it. The high volume of traffic using this road is now causing a problem for my family through noise, vibration and dust and damage to the local environment. Therefore we are opposed totally to your plans without further surveys and consultation being carried out. We would therefore like to be consulted before any traffic measures are erected near our property”.
3.0 COMMENTS
3.1 In the consultation exercise 93.3% of respondents were in favour of the scheme, which is a very positive response to the proposals.
3.2 With regard to the comments of the respondents’ in favour to the scheme:
• The illuminated signs (VAS) signs will positioned so that they do not present problems with glare to nearby properties • Resurfacing of the carriageway does not form part of this scheme, however the suggestion for resurfacing will be passed onto Highway Maintenance for consideration in future programmes • The route of the proposed scheme does not meet the criteria for the introduction of speed cameras, which specifies that a minimum of 4 killed or seriously injured collisions within a 1km length are required • The introduction of a weight restriction cannot be considered for the scheme as the route is a strategic route for heavy goods vehicles into the Maghull’s industrial area • The introduction of traffic calming measures cannot be considered as such measures will increase alleged noise and vibration • Traffic movements on Sefton Lane at its junction with its garden centre and industrial estate are currently being investigated, and traffic signals will be considered as part of any future scheme • A proposal to widen the road at the junctions into Maghull’s industrial areas will be considered as an option in the study of the junction • Traffic counters will be placed on the highway within the scheme to monitor it’s effectiveness in reducing vehicle speeds along the route. If higher then anticipated vehicle speeds are recorded, the issue will be raised with Merseyside Police whom can carry out additional enforcement if required • Speed limit signage on the highway can only be erected as per the regulations set out in ‘The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002’ and a 30mph speed limit is deemed to be in place if there is a system of street lighting in place on the highway. However the change in the speed limits within the scheme will be clearly signed along the route to highlight the changes to road users • The introduction of a 30mph speed limit throughout the whole scheme cannot be considered, as sections of the scheme are semi-rural where a 30 mph speed limit would be inappropriate, and such a speed limit would not be supported by Government legislation and Merseyside Police. The changes in the speed limit along the route facilitate the introduction of ‘Gateway’ features for Sefton Village to be introduced, that highlight the speed limit of the various sections along the route to road users travelling in both directions within it.
3.3 With regard to the comments of the respondents’ not in favour to the scheme:
• There is a mix of both traffic islands and pedestrian refuge islands proposed for the scheme, with the pedestrian refuges being placed at locations where there are Page 104 Agenda Item 12 existing pedestrian desire lines within the scheme (on Brickwall Lane/Bridges Lane adjacent to residential properties to facilitate pedestrian access to St. Helens Church and the nearby Punchbowl public house). Perhaps no pedestrians have been observed crossing within the proposed scheme as there are currently no facilities in place to enable pedestrians to cross safely. The proposed scheme is designed to slow vehicles down along the route, and due to the location of the industrial area of Maghull it is not possible to ban heavy goods vehicles from using the route. With regard to the junction of Sefton Lane and Liverpool Road South, a scheme to improve the pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction is currently being designed, for possible inclusion within future years programmes.
• Again the proposed scheme is designed to slow vehicles down along the route, and due to the location of the industrial area of Maghull it is not possible to ban heavy goods vehicles from using the route. With regard to the respondent complaining about the lack of consultation regarding the proposals, this Committee Report outlines the results of a consultation exercise recently carried out with the frontages of the properties within the proposed scheme.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION
4.1 In light of the very positive response to the scheme from the consultation respondents’, and only 2 respondents not being in favour of the scheme, it is recommended that full approval be given to the progression to the scheme to enable the measures to be introduced on site later this year.
A.R. MOORE Strategic Director of Regeneration & Deputy Chief Executive
Page 105 Agenda Item 12 Annex A
Page 106 Agenda Item 12 Annex B
Page 107 Agenda Item 12 Annex C
Page 108 Agenda Item 13
Meeting: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting : 11 SEPTEMBER 2008
Title of Report: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER, DAMFIELD LANE, MAGHULL – OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION
Report of : This report contains Yes No Technical Services Director CONFIDENTIAL √ Information/ Contact Officer : EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 of Angela Bottomley Schedule 12A to the Local √ (Telephone No.) 0151 934 4683 Government Act, 1972 (If information is marked exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report
To advise members of the outcome of the site meeting following an objection to the proposed introduction of No Waiting At Any Time restrictions, on Damfield Lane, Maghull.
Recommendation(s) It is recommended that:
(i) The Traffic Regulation Order, as amended and shown in Annex A, be approved, and implemented on site.
(ii) That the objectors be advised accordingly.
Page 109 Agenda Item 13
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community √ 2. Creating Safe Communities √ 3. Jobs and Prosperity √ 4. Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5. Environmental Sustainability √ 6. Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People √
Financial Implications
2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure 700-00 Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources 700-00 Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report SEPAC 24.01.2008 –Proposed Traffic Regulation Order - Damfield Lane, Maghull SEPAC 22.05.2008 – Objection to Proposed Traffic Regulation Order – Damfield Lane, Maghull
SEFTON M.B.C.
Page 110 Agenda Item 13
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Requests were received from a resident of Damfield Lane, asking for the introduction of No Waiting At Any Time restrictions. It was alleged that long-term parking was taking place, and that the parked vehicles were compromising traffic flows from Liverpool Road South onto this section of Damfield Lane, and from the A59 Northway, into Damfield Lane.
1.2 In addition to this, the location of the Red Lion Bridge, at the junction of Damfield Lane with Liverpool Road South also caused visibility problems, for vehicles entering and exiting Damfield Lane.
1.3 It was also alleged that the visibility problems, and the parked vehicles compromising traffic flows meant that frequently traffic was gridlocked, neither able to enter or exit Damfield Lane. This was particularly the case at peak times.
1.4 This section of Damfield Lane is the A5147 and the link road for traffic exiting the A59 Northway to enter Maghull town centre.
2.0 SITE SURVEYS
2.1 Officers of Technical Services carried out surveys at the junction and along Damfield Lane, for signs of obstructive parking by vehicles, and have confirmed that there is a problem at this location, caused by inconsiderate parking.
2.2 In addition, during surveys, it was observed that the gridlocked traffic at the junction, on the Red Lion Bridge, was not able to enter or exit Damfield Lane during peak times, due to the presence of parked vehicles along Damfield Lane. This in turn created problems for vehicles travelling over the bridge and being confronted by the vehicles that were stationary and not able to enter Damfield Lane, or move around them to continue along Liverpool Road South.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 This section of Damfield Lane is approximately 9 metres wide at its widest point, and 5.5 metres at its narrowest point. It has a speed limit of 30 mph. The properties have off street parking availability for at least one vehicle, and Alexandra Wharf, which is accessed from Damfield Lane, is a private road for residents only. This section of Damfield Lane, is one-way only from the A59 Northway to the mini- roundabout turn-around, adjacent to Alexandra Wharf. From this point onwards, to the junction at Liverpool Road South, the traffic is two-way.
4.0 CONSULTATION
4.1 The matter was discussed at a meeting of the Traffic Management Liaison Group at which representatives of parking services and the emergency services gave their approval to the proposal.
Page 111 Agenda Item 13
4.2 The committee report was presented to the Sefton East Parishes Area Committee, on the 24 th January 2008, and the proposals were approved in full. A plan showing the proposal is attached as Annex A.
4.3 The legal process began, with a legal notice appearing the Maghull Star publication on the 14 th February 2008, and site notices were put up on site.
4.4 A written objection was received by Technical Services, within the three week objection period, to the proposals. A second letter was received in support of the proposals, but raising some concerns about parking availability. Both letters are shown in Annex B.
4.5 A second report was presented to the Area Committee on 22 nd May 2008, outlining the receipt of the objections and the reasons for them.
4.6 At that meeting, the Committee accepted the need for the No Waiting At Any Time restrictions, but felt that some on-street parking should remain. They therefore recommended that further consultation take place, with the objectors, to determine an acceptable compromise.
5.0 SITE MEETING
5.1 A letter was sent from Traffic Services, to both the residents of this section of Damfield Lane, inviting them to suggest a mutually convenient time and date for the site meeting.
5.2 It was agreed that the meeting take place on the evening of 20 th June 2008. An officer from Traffic Services met with the residents, and number of issues were raised (increased traffic flows/HGV’s, signage from Switch Island, introduction of Pay and Display parking at the nearby Somerfield store, traffic signals at Westway, pavement parking outside their properties, vehicles for sale on the highway, and the use of the private road out of the nearby trading estate onto the Red Lion Bridge), in addition to the problems arising on Damfield Lane.
5.3 The issues raised, as listed above in 5.2, will be dealt with as separate matters, and the residents will receive written correspondence answering these points.
5.4 The issues that were raised and are pertinent to the proposed introduction of No Waiting At Any Time restrictions can be listed as follows – • The resident of no.8 Damfield Lane is disabled, and enquired about having a disabled persons parking place (DPP) introduced outside the property. • The resident of no.6 Damfield Lane has suggested that she would be willing to introduce an off-street parking place within the curtilage of her property, but feels that she would be unsuccessful in obtaining permission, due to the proximity of the nearby Red Lion Bridge, and her access and egress would be too close to the junction, and compromise road safety. • The residents felt that while leaving an unrestricted section on Damfield Lane may be beneficial it would still not guarantee them parking places. • The residents of both no.6 and no.8 remain adamant that the introduction of Residents Parking is the only satisfactory solution, and re-emphasised the problems caused by the nearby business developments, fast food and wine Page 112 Agenda Item 13
bars, which make parking impossible not only during the day, but in the evenings and weekend as well.
6.0 TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICERS’ RESPONSE
6.1 The request for the consideration of a Disabled Persons Parking place (DPP) to be introduced has been dealt with. An application form has been sent to the resident, and the normal procedures will be undertaken, and a decision made in due course.
6.2 The resident of no.6 who has expressed her willingness to provide off-street parking within the curtilage of the property is entitled to apply for Planning Permission to carry out these works, and establish the extent of any costs that she may incur. It is suggested that the resident contact the Local Planning Officer and discuss the matter and the issues surrounding it, as each Planning Application is based on its own individual merits.
6.3 Both the residents again expressed their preference for the introduction of Residents Privileged Parking Scheme (RPP) and their willingness to contribute towards the costs incurred, on this section of Damfield Lane. It was again explained why a request for Residents Privileged Parking Scheme cannot be considered at the present time. Members will be aware that the Cabinet Member - Technical Services is currently undertaking a review of the Parking Service and in particular Residents Privileged Parking Schemes. Until this review has been completed officers are unable to consider the progression any outstanding requests for RPP schemes.
6.4 Leaving a section of the road unrestricted on the opposite side from the properties, as suggested by the Area Committee at the last meeting, may benefit the residents, however, anyone else would be entitled to park there. During the course of the site meeting, both residents said that they frequently had to park their vehicles elsewhere until parking could be obtained outside their properties, and leaving a section unrestricted would not necessarily benefit them. Nevertheless, this is seen to be the most appropriate compromise solution and is shown in Annex C.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the amended Traffic Regulation Order as suggested by the Area Committee, and shown on the plan in Annex C, is approved, and implemented on site, and the objectors advised accordingly.
Page 113 Agenda Item 13
Page 114 Agenda Item 13
Page 115 Agenda Item 13
Page 116 Agenda Item 13
Page 117 Agenda Item 13
Page 118 Agenda Item 13
Page 119 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 120 Agenda Item 14
Meeting: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting : 11 SEPTEMBER 2008
Title of Report: RESULTS OF ON-STREET PARKING CONSULTATION – MAGHULL STATION AREA.
Report of : This report contains Yes No
A. R. Moore Strategic Director of Regeneration & Deputy CONFIDENTIAL √ Chief Executive Information/ EXEMPT information by Contact Officer : virtue of Dave Marrin 0151 934 4295 paragraph(s)...... of Part √ Colin Taylor 0151 934 4189 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 (If information is marked exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ? √
Purpose of Report
To report the results of the recent consultation with residents in the vicinity of Maghull station regarding the current on-street parking situation, and to recommend the way forward
Recommendation(s)
It is recommended that :-
(i) the results of the public consultation be noted.
(ii) a Traffic Regulation Order restricting waiting Monday to Friday 10.00 am – 11.00 am be implemented on Willow Hey, Grange Park, Summerhill Drive, Station Road, Melling Lane, Rutherford Road, Gatley Drive, Swan Hey, Swan Walk and Tailors Lane as shown on the plan in Annex C, be approved.
(iii) the necessary legal procedures, including those of public consultation and advertising the Council's intention to implement the Order(s), be approved.
Page 121 Agenda Item 14
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community 2. Creating Safe Communities 3. Jobs and Prosperity 4. Improving Health and Well-Being 5. Environmental Sustainability 6. Creating Inclusive Communities 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People
Financial Implications
2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure £10875 Funded by: Sefton funded Resources £10875 Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry? Traffic Management Budget
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
NIL
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
Sefton East Parishes Area Committee 21 March 2002 – Receipt of Petitions – On-street parking conditions Swan Walk, Rutherford Road & Gatley Drive, Maghull Sefton East Parishes Area Committee 18 July 2002 – Results of On-Street parking surveys, Maghull Station / Results of speed surveys – Station Road & Melling Lane, Maghull Sefton East Parishes Area Committee 22 March 2007 – Assessment of on-street parking surveys – Maghull Station area Sefton East Parishes Area Committee 13 September 2007 – Results of on-street parking consultation – Maghull Station area Page 122 Agenda Item 14
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Members will recall that the issue of on-street parking in residential roads in the vicinity of Maghull railway station has been the subject of a number of complaints, consultations and Committee reports over the past five years or so.
1.2 Further consideration of this matter was discussed between officers of Technical Services and Ward members earlier this year and as a consequence, a further report was submitted to, and approved by this Committee at its meeting of 20 March 2008. It was resolved to carry out a further consultation with affected residents in an attempt to resolve the matter.
1.3 It was resolved that the consultation would be carried out in the Summer and the most appropriate options for action were :
- a short term waiting restriction Monday to Friday 10.00am – 11.00am - No action at the current time
1.4 It was resolved to re-consult residents in the following roads :
Spring Gardens Daisy Mount Tailors Lane (between Station Road and Hall Lane) Swan Walk Swan Hey Rutherford Road Gatley Drive Summerhill Drive Willow Hey Melling Lane (Railway line to Summerhill Drive) Hurst Road Grange Park
A copy of the consultation papers is included in Annex A
2.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
2.1 The public consultation took place between Thursday, 22 May, the closing date for replies being Friday, 13 June. A total of 368 questionnaires were delivered out of which 152 were returned. This equates to a return rate of 41.3%, which is considered to be a good response rate for this type of consultation.
2.2 The overall totals from those who responded favouring each option are as follows :
Short term waiting restrictions Monday to Friday 10 am–11am 115 75 % No current action 37 25%
TOTALS 152 100%
The totals are summarised in Annex B of this report Page 123 Agenda Item 14
2.3 Analysis of the responses from each of the individual roads has been carried out. These are shown in the following paragraphs, together with a resume of any comments made by residents.
2.4 Response from Willow Hey residents:-
46 questionnaires delivered, 30 returned. This equates to a 65% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 29 (97%)
No current action required 1 (3%)
Comments were included by some residents, a summary of the comments are :
• Support action, but what about Doctors, nurses, carers, etc. • Irresponsible and footway parking is a major issue in Willow Hey. • The parking restrictions should be 10am – 12 noon.
2.5 It can be seen that all but one respondent are in favour of the parking restrictions. The resident not in favour of the proposals stated that the car park at the station should be extended still further.
2.6 Response from Grange Park residents :-
26 questionnaires delivered, 13 returned. This equates to a 50% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 13 (100%)
No current action required 0 (0%)
Comments were included by most residents, a summary of the comments are :
• Parking opposite our gates makes it difficult to get in or out of our driveway. • The parking restriction should be 2.00-3.00pm to deter shoppers. • The parking restriction should cover school times.
2.7 The results show that all respondents are in favour of the proposed waiting restrictions.
2.8 Response from Hurst Road residents:-
10 questionnaires delivered, 6 returned. This equates to a 60% response rate.
Page 124 Agenda Item 14
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 2 (33.3%)
No current action required 4 (66.6%)
Only two respondents included comments, a summary of the comments are :
• Roads are congested due to poor parking. • If this restriction is applied it must also include Hurst Rd which is used by commuters, on one occasion recently a refuse lorry could not gain access.
It can be seen that the majority of respondents in Hurst Road are not in favour of the proposed parking restrictions.
2.9 Response from Summerhill Drive residents:-
53 questionnaires delivered, 16 returned. This equates to a 30% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 10 (63%)
No current action required 6 (37%)
Few respondents commented, a summary of the comments are :
• Please include waiting restrictions at the junction with Melling Lane where parking is bad. • If the second railway station was built it would improve matters.
It can be seen that the majority of respondents in Summerhill Drive prefer the introduction of waiting restrictions.
2.10 Response from Station Road residents:-
36 questionnaires delivered, 5 returned. This equates to a 14% response rate
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 5 (100%)
No current action required 0 (0%)
Respondents commented as follows :
• I support the proposal so long as the existing double yellow lines are retained. • Another railway station would ease the problem. Page 125 Agenda Item 14
It can be seen that the response from Station Road residents was very low, but all respondents were in favour of the proposed waiting restrictions.
2.11 Response from Melling Lane residents:-
45 questionnaires delivered, 19 returned. This equates to a 42% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 17 (90%)
No current action required 2 (10%)
Comments were included by almost half of all respondents, a summary of the comments are:
• Also provide waiting restrictions 3.00 – 4.00 pm to deter shoppers. • Parking restrictions should be implemented, Melling Lane is too narrow to permit parking. • I would not want to see parking restrictions on Melling Lane the current parking situation slows vehicle speeds. • It’s a pity the Saveaway does not extend to Aughton / Ormskirk then the parking would stop immediately.
It can be seen that a vast majority of respondents wish to see the introduction of the proposed waiting restrictions.
2.12 Response from Daisy Mount residents:-
16 questionnaires delivered, 10 returned. This equates to a 62% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 0 (0%)
No current action required 10 (100%)
Four respondents included comments, a summary of the comments are:
• Restrictions would be difficult for deliveries, visitors and builders. • Any restriction would make it difficult for residents. • The plan will penalise residents and move the parking to another area, and between 10-11 am residents will have to move their vehicles. This is not a workable scheme. Look to improve parking at other stations in the area to stop people travelling to Maghull for cheap tickets.
It can be seen that all respondents wish to see no action at the current time.
Page 126 Agenda Item 14
2.13 Response from Spring Gardens residents:-
11 questionnaires delivered, 4 returned. This equates to an 36% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 0 (0%)
No current action required 4 (100%)
Comments were included by two of the respondents, a summary of the comments are:
• Parking is not a problem. • Residents should park on their own drives.
It can be seen that all respondents wish to see no action at the current time.
2.14 Response from Rutherford Road residents:-
14 questionnaires delivered, 6 returned. This equates to a 43% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 6 (100%)
No current action required 0 (0%)
Comments were included by three respondents, a summary of the comments are:
• We would strongly object to paying for a permit to park outside our home, residents should be exempt from the parking restriction. • Emergency service vehicles are unable to access the road.
The results reveal that all respondents in Rutherford Road prefer the introduction of parking restrictions.
2.15 Response from Gatley Drive residents:-
9 questionnaires delivered, 3 returned. This equates to a 33% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 3 (100%)
No current action required 0 (0%)
Page 127 Agenda Item 14
Comments were received from two of the respondents, a summary of the comments are:
• You don’t give many options, how about Residents privileged parking? • I still feel short term parking is not the answer to the problem. Commuters will start working Flexi time.
The results reveal that all respondents are in favour of the proposed parking restrictions.
2.16 Response from Swan Walk residents:-
37 questionnaires delivered, 16 returned. This equates to a 43% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 10 (63%)
No current action required 6 (37%)
Comments were included by a handful of respondents, a summary of the comments are:
• We have put up with this problem for too long we hope that you can now make a decision. • I won't make a decision as on our estate we have 37 bungalows and only 19 off- road parking places. If restrictions approved residents would be penalised. • Sometimes at the weekend pubgoers to the 'Mogul' park in our road, sometimes there can as many as 3 cars parked.
The results show that a majority of respondents are in favour of the parking restrictions although one or two have reservations on the matter based on their comments.
2.17 Response from Swan Hey residents:-
26 questionnaires delivered, 8 returned. This equates to a 31% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 6 (75%)
No current action required 2 (25%)
Comments were included by a handful of respondents, a summary of the comments are:
• Build the Maghull north station to resolve the problem.
Page 128 Agenda Item 14
• Will the decision move cars from Swan Walk into our private car park. If so, can tickets be issued on cars parked in Swan Hey. It may be a case of moving the problem onto someone else. • Parking on the corners in Swan Hey make’s access difficult. There are too many DPP places in the station car park.
The results show that a majority of respondents are in favour of the parking restrictions although one or two have reservations on the matter based on their comments
2.18 Response from Kennessee Close residents:-
18 questionnaires delivered, 6 returned. This equates to a 33% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 4 (66.6%)
No current action required 2 (33.3%)
Most respondents included comments, a summary of the comments are:
• Would doctors, nurses, etc be exempt. • Residents privileged parking is the only solution. • Could you not come up with a better solution to for residents’ visitors. Charging for permits is immoral this is a pensioners close.
It can be seen that a majority of respondents wish to see the introduction of the proposed parking restrictions. However, as residents have no off-street parking facilities, this would be detrimental to them. It is suggested that Kennessee Close be prioritised as a high priority for the introduction of a Residents Privileged parking scheme.
2.19 Response from Tailors Lane residents:-
16 questionnaires delivered, 9 returned. This equates to a 56% response rate.
Preference
Short term waiting restrictions 10 am – 11 am 9 (100%)
No current action required 0 (0%)
Some respondents included comments, a summary of the comments are :
• We have been affected by commuter parking levels for many years. • Will the commuters be leafleted about the parking restrictions before they come into effect?
Page 129 Agenda Item 14
• We're still waiting for the new railway station, which would relieve the congestion on the narrow lanes around Maghull. Whatever happened to the plans for the new station promised 38 years ago.
The results show that all respondents wish to see a short term parking restriction in Tailors Lane.
3.0 SUMMARY & PROPOSALS
3.1 The consultation results show that there is an overall majority in most roads in favour of the short term waiting restrictions.
3.2 The only roads where respondents are not in favour of the proposed parking restrictions are Daisy Mount, Spring Gardens and Hurst Road. It is therefore not proposed to introduce any waiting restrictions in these roads.
3.3 Although a majority of respondents from Kennessee Close are in favour of the proposed waiting restrictions, most residents have nowhere to park but on-street, and some residential properties do not front the carriageway. It is therefore considered that this type of Order would be too punitive. Members should be aware that when the priority list for its introduction of further Residents Privileged parking schemes is re-introduced, the proximity to the station and lack of off street parking is likely to place Kennessee Close high on the priority list.
3.4 It is proposed to introduce a Traffic Regulation order in :
Willow Hey Grange Park Summerhill Drive Station Road Melling Lane Rutherford Road Gatley Drive Swan Walk Swan Hey Tailors Lane
Between the hours of 10.00am and 11.00am Monday to Friday.
All existing waiting restrictions will be retained for the purposes of road safety and freeflow of traffic.
3.5 The impact of the scheme will be closely monitored, with a progress report to this Area Committee 6-9 months after implementation. The results of this scheme will be fed into the current Parking Service Review as strategies and policies are revised and developed over coming years.
A R Moore Strategic Director of Regeneration & Deputy Chief Executive
Page 130 Agenda Item 14
NEWSLETTER ON-STREET PARKING SITUATION - MAGHULL RAILWAY STATION
The purpose of this newsletter is to update you following our consultation conducted last summer on possible proposed parking measures in the vicinity of Maghull station, to advise you of the current situation and to re-consult you on a workable solution to the parking problem in your road.
We thank you for your input at the time and appreciate your comments. However, as the results of the consultation were inconclusive, further consideration of this matter has been discussed between officers of Technical Services and your Ward Councillors. As a consequence, a further report was submitted to, and approved by the Sefton East Parishes Area Committee at its meeting of 20 March 2008.
The report detailed the results of last summer’s consultation whereby the majority of residents who responded, although not overwhelmingly, favoured a Residents Privileged Parking Scheme.
Residents may be aware that the 23 existing Residents Privileged Parking Schemes in the borough have been subject to review, further to continuing representations regarding the introduction of a £20 bi-annual charge for each permit, to cover administration, enforcement and implementation costs. This process is ongoing and has been widened to also consider the criteria for assessing the need for schemes.
As a consequence, requests for new schemes, of which there are over 100, cannot be further considered. Furthermore, based on current criteria, priority is likely to be given to areas with high levels of non-resident parking and where there is no off-street parking available to residents. The Maghull Station area, whilst meeting the criteria for the level of non-resident parking does have a reasonable level of parking for residents within the curtilege of the properties.
Consequently, an alternative form of parking control, that restricts parking for a short period e.g. 1 hour during the day is considered the most effective way to remove parking by commuters. Residents should be advised, however, that during that period the restriction will apply to all vehicles and hence if a residents car is parked on the yellow line they could be liable to receive a parking Penalty Charge Notice. Page 131 Agenda Item 14
1/2 Given that the vast majority of commuters will have parked on-street by 10.00 am and caught their train into Liverpool or Ormskirk, the civil enforcement officers (traffic wardens) only need to visit the area during the hour 10-11 am to issue penalty charge notices to illegally parked vehicles.
Given the information above and based on the results of the earlier public consultation, it has now been considered that the most appropriate options for action are :
- A short term waiting restriction e.g. Monday – Friday 10am – 11 am on both sides of the road (Removes all commuter parking, may be restrictive to residents who have to park on- street during hour of operation)
- No action at the current time
The alternative option is to take no further action at the present time and await the results of the review into Residents Privileged Parking Schemes, that may not be completed for a further 12 – 18 months.
This consultation is your opportunity to indicate to Sefton Council what action you may wish to take place. I would like to add that this will be the final consultation with residents at this stage. If the proposed scheme is not supported, further consideration of the parking situation in this area cannot be given until the Residents Privileged parking review is complete.
Included with this correspondence is a questionnaire. Please take the time to complete the questionnaire and return it in the pre-paid envelope provided to reach us no later than Friday, 13 June 2008. Alternatively, you may complete the on-line form, which appears on the traffic scheme consultation page, via the Council's website at www.sefton.gov.uk .
It is currently anticipated that the results of this consultation will be reported to the Sefton East Parishes Area Committee at its meeting on 17 July. Depending on the results of this consultation should the scheme be approved for implementation at that meeting, it is possible that the parking restrictions could be implemented by the end of the year. Following implementation the area will be continually monitored and any residents concerns will be discussed with your Ward Councillors to assess any further action.
Should you require any further information before completing your questionnaire please telephone our call centre on 0845 140 0845 and leave a message for Colin Taylor, the officer co-ordinating this consultation to return your call, you should receive a response within two working days. Please telephone if you require this information in large print.
Page 132 Agenda Item 14
Many Thanks, A. R. MOORE F.R.I.C.S. STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION
ON-STREET PARKING SITUATION – MAGHULL RAILWAY STATION.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Please state below which proposed parking measure you are in favour of, given the current on-street commuter parking situation in your street : (Place a tick ( ü) in the appropriate box): -
Short term waiting restrictions i.e. Mon-Fri 10am – 11am only
No current action required
Comments (continue overleaf if necessary): ......
Name: …………………………………………………………..
Address ……………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………….
Please complete and return your questionnaire in the pre-paid envelope provided. Alternatively, you may complete the on-line form, which appears on the traffic scheme
Page 133 Agenda Item 14
consultation page, via the Council's website at www.sefton.gov.uk . All completed questionnaires should reach us no later than Friday 13 June 2008
Sefton MBC Technical Services Department Traffic Services Unit – Traffic Management & Road Safety Team
Page 134 Agenda Item 14
MAGHULL STATION PARKING QUESTIONNAIRE – RETURNS
ROAD No. DELIVERED % RETURNED % YES
WILLOW HEY 46 65.2 96.7
GRANGE PARK 26 50.0 100
HURST ROAD 10 60.0 33.3
SUMMERHILL DRIVE 53 30.2 62.5
STATION ROAD 36 13.9 100
MELLING LANE 45 42.2 89.5
KENNESSEE CLOSE 18 33.3 66.7
DAISY MOUNT 16 62.5 0
SPRING GARDENS 11 36.4 0
RUTHERFORD ROAD 14 42.9 100
GATLEY DRIVE 9 33.3 100
SWAN WALK 37 43.2 62.5
SWAN HEY 26 30.8 75.0
TAILORS LANE 17 56.3 100
TOTALS 368 41.3 % 74.3 %
Page 135 Agenda Item 14
Page 136
2
High School B
R 1
O
O K 3 L 2
A 2 5
FB .9
a N m
8
1 2
D FB S 1
S P D RIN R KEY m G I 0
V . G 2 1 A
E 8 03 2 R a 1 1 1 DE 7 N 1 7 2 S # . 5 1 9 P GP M El Sub Sta # 22.6m
# Proposed Monday to Friday 10.00 am
17.7m 2 2
2 El Su b Sta 2 1
1 1
2 E
6 L LAN
L 1
A 5
H 0 – 11.00 am waiting restrictions
ry D 6
3 A 1 e 1 t 4 y 3 4 2 0.7m I
sb 8 SY e 0 r 4 2 1 P MO
5 U Play ing P 0 1 N O T V
Field ER 1
1 1
2 TY 1 6 1 L E 1 A War R NOTE NE Memorial C St Georg e's A RC Churc h E St George 's L 7 TT I 2 RC Churc h
2 L
1
2 0 2 2 m 2 1 18.6m . 22.3m 7 0 8 2 2 E Th e Nook Existing waiting restrictions on Station Road and 2 N A
L 5 6 St. Georges Court 'S Club R in 1 O n Mellingra Lane are not shown L i S 1 I 1 D T ra A A D Summerhill
T 1 T SP D County Primary School ck
1 IO 3 #
1 ra a 0 r 9 N in T R 1 K
3 E O a 4 A N 4 Pond D NE
SS
2 E
1 8 E
5 1 C 5
2 L 2
1 OS
4 E
Club 1 1
7 El 1 s S 1 Bowling Gre en st ub Car Park o S 1 to 4 8 P ta 22.3 m
# K
0 # 1 R 2 2
A
P 2 4 Sum m erhill Farm D 1 E A 0 G
Christopher Taylor OLB# # 6 n N
R 2 # Pos ts i A
2 a
Hous e D 1 r 9
4 2 T R R a 18.6m D 1
in # 2 re 9 G
a 2 FO e 2 r Maghull Station 6 V 2
D FS 9 R ie 8
E w 11 H 4 5 4 H C 8 # T to R U
U ou 12 O R 8 R rt A S DT
4 2 3 5
3
1 Tre e View 0
n D 9 P 1
L 3 TCB i r 1 D 5 O
4 Court # 8 a
ee A a H 1 V 2 1 r i d G 0 O 3 U n E s A 1 D R
a T R # TCB R
L 4 S 1
nd E 2 D 3 T 1 TY Y 1 L D 1 R R Page 137 iv R O # L T e I FO A o rp V A N w o E R S D K in o T 9 R E g lC E A 5 a H TIO FB A 7
P n T G P at a 1 N r h l U 2 R e a H E R O ( t U G ADPH M Maghull R N ) o g # S A 7 u Station T 4 m l R R 4
2 5 2 SP
. 3 O G 4
6 1 2 2
2 A 5 1 5 D 4 L
2 6 e
2 2 v 5
2 2 6 e
l 2 0 5 C 0
2 ro 1 K 1 1
L 5 1 ss
1 A 7 8 i
2 3
1 n
2 2 1 g
9 1 8
W 7 6
N 2 20.4m
A 1
2
S 1
5
W 1 W 1
2
# 2 LB 5 2
S 5 A
3 N
5 3 H 2
E 1 4
5 1
Y 4 6
1 4
4 1 0
15.5m Draper' s 8
a 5 3
2 2 1
6 1
Bridge 4 3
9 K
3
7 R 3 A P P O b E A V
1 G S E
5 N 4
H 1 R
4 A 7 a L 1 2 R E 1 T I 2 Y D 1 G G A # 5 H L 1 O SP M 5 A 4 R 2 N
R E O
3 LL E E 2 5 I A 2 N
G . G D
1 5 E
D P L 2 1 I 1 V
R 5 A I M 4 N
2 1 2 R B 1 E # . 1 D
9 P 2 7 L
2 1 2 3 IL 4
3 2 # M 3
6
4 H 2
13.7 m 1 8.9m 1
R 0 1 5 1 E 2 M #5 M 3 U 3 3 S 2 3 Durant' s El
El Cottag es 2 Sub Sta
9 1 Su b 0 3 3
1 Sta 2 1
a
0 Agenda Item14 2 D A
Pla y ing O
R 2 Fi eld X 4 7 D F U A IE Playing Field E
O L 3 N
D 8
2 1 Y R W M# P 2 L
E A 2 O
4 9
G Y M
9
D 4 2 I 2 1 R
3 B
02 4
4 1
1
1
18.6m El 6 1
2
2 Ros ewood Sub Sta
8 Cros s 6 Hey 2 2 3 1 1 3 L 5
0 e
0 e a
d 2
2
s 2 a 1 2
1 nd 2 H
F E 7
4 I L A 2
1 E iv
0 T
L e 3 H D rp W F
W o I 1 I
9 o L 3 E
7 A l L 5 L 2 7
1 Y C O D a W 3 n R
2 a H
l E O 9 6
0 Y A 1 D 9
T Y CANNEX
TCB o E
w H 0 4
# in 1
W 3
7 g O
7
5
7 L
1 P L
8 I 1 a
th 2 7 W
2 1
a
6
2 8 3
2
84 Pav ilion 2
b
8 8 4
2 3 3 5
2
5
6
3
0 6
1
4 8 3 1
3 18.3m 1
2 2
74
4
4
4 3
H U D S O N METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF SEFTON Title Drawn CMT
Scale A R Moore F.R.I.C.S. Maghull Station parking proposals NTS
Date Strategic Director & Deputy Chief Executive SEPT ‘08 N Agenda Item14
Page 138
Agenda Item 15
Meeting: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting : 11 SEPTEMBER 2008
Title of Report: PROPOSED DISABLED PERSONS PARKING PLACE
Report of : This report contains Yes No
A. Moore Strategic Director of Regeneration & Deputy Chief Executive CONFIDENTIAL √ Information/ Contact Officer : EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 of Peter McCabe Schedule 12A to the Local √ (Telephone No.) 0151 934 4538 Government Act, 1972 (If information is marked exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report
To seek approval for the progression of a Traffic Regulation Order, the effect of which will provide a disabled resident with a parking place directly outside their place of residency.
Recommendation(s)
It is recommended that: -
(i) The Traffic Regulation Order, as set out on the plan in Annexe A, and as detailed in the report, be approved;
(ii) The necessary legal procedures, including those of public consultation and advertising the Council's intention to implement the Order, be approved.
Page 139 Agenda Item 15
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community √ 2. Creating Safe Communities √ 3. Jobs and Prosperity √ 4. Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5. Environmental Sustainability √ 6. Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People √
Financial Implications
2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources 300 Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
Page 140 Agenda Item 15
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 A request has been received from a resident of Oriel Drive, Aintree for a disabled person’s parking place outside their place of residency.
1.2 Site observations and information supplied by the resident’s general practitioner confirms that the usual level of parking leads to the applicant frequently being unable to secure a parking space within their mobility range and a reasonable distance of their home, leading to undue inconvenience and / or discomfort. It is proposed, therefore that a disabled parking place be provided.
1.3 It was agreed at the 4 August, 2004, Cabinet Member – Technical Services Committee, that; in order to provide a better service to residents with disabilities, all new Traffic Regulation Orders for DPPs would allow the provision of a numbered permit to the applicant, in order to restrict the use of the bay to that individual only.
2.0 PROPOSAL
2.1 It is proposed to introduce a disabled person’s parking place including the provision of a numbered permit to the applicant outside :
Oriel Drive - South Side
from a point 80 metres west of the north-west kerbline of Haileybury Avenue to a point 74 metres west of the north-west kerbline of Haileybury Avenue
2.2 A number of changes to the procedure for making Traffic Regulation Orders have recently been made. On 8th November 2000, Technical Services Committee agreed to simplify the system by introducing one Traffic Regulation Order for each road in Sefton, where waiting restrictions are required. On 4 August 2004, Cabinet Member (Technical Services) approved the introduction of Permits on Disabled Parking Places (DPPs). These will be introduced on all new DPPs and also any existing DPPs when a new Traffic Regulation Order is made.
SEFTON M.B.C
Page 141 E S O L C
L
E Agenda Item15
I
R 2
1 0 57 O 3
0 20 # 7 Youth BM Holy Rosary 1 Centre 0.1 RC Junior School 7m El Sub Sta 2 9.8m
3
2 2 2 1
Page 142 Clinic
2 10.1m 2
8 2
2 5 1
4 3
1
4 5 1
E
6 4
4 5 1
U 9 1
N 2 1
E 2 E
8
3 3
1 U
V 4
4 2
1
6
3 7 N A 1
0 1
4 E E 1 V ANNEXE A N 2 A
O 10.1m 1 T Y S R N U E B D Y
3 E 2 L 1 I
0 A H
TO
N 2 B 6 METROPOLITAN BOROUGH R OF SEFTON PROPOSED DISABLED PERSONS PARKING PLACE – Drawn PMcC ID G 140 ORIEL DRIVE, AINTREE E D NTS P A Williams BSc., D.I.S., C.Eng., M.I.C.E.,R Scale IV E Technical Services Di rector Date N Agenda Item 16
Meeting: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting : 11 th SEPTEMBER 2008
Title of Report: CONSOLIDATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS
Report of : This report contains Yes No Alan Moore CONFIDENTIAL √ Strategic Director of Regeneration & Information/ Deputy Chief Executive EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 Contact Officer : of Schedule 12A to the Local Dave Marrin – 0151 934 4259 Government Act, 1972 Angela Bottomley- 0151 934 4683 (If information is marked √ exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report √ DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report To recommend the progression of simplified Traffic Regulation Orders at various locations.
Recommendation(s)
It is recommended that :-
Traffic Regulation Orders, relating to roads detailed in Annexes A and B, be progressed.
The Technical Services Director be authorised to execute the necessary legal procedures, including those of consultation and objection and to advertise the Council’s intention.
Page 143 Agenda Item 16
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community √ 2. Creating Safe Communities √ 3. Jobs and Prosperity √ 4. Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5. Environmental Sustainability √ 6. Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services √ and Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People √
Financial Implications
2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure 700-00 Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources 700-00 Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report None
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report None
SEFTON MBC
Page 144 Agenda Item 16
1.0 Background
1.1 At its meeting of 8 th November 2000, Technical Services Ratification Committee approved a method of simplifying Sefton’s Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) by the introduction of one order for each road. On 4 th August 2004 Cabinet Member (Technical Services) approved the introduction of Permits on Disabled Parking Places (DPP’s). These will be introduced on all new DPP’s and also any existing DPP’s when a new Traffic Regulation Order is made.
1.2 In the vast majority of cases, the new TRO’s will simply reflect the waiting restrictions, which are currently on site. In this situation, it is simply proposed to advertise the new TRO in the local press, without placing notices on site
1.3 Where the current waiting restrictions are considered either inappropriate, or too restrictive, the opportunity will be taken to review the existing restrictions, and if considered necessary, introduce amended waiting restrictions or the removal of the waiting restrictions altogether In these cases, the TRO will not only be advertised in the local press, but also on site via the usual site notices.
1.4 Due to the large number of roads within Sefton which have waiting restrictions, the process of converting the existing Orders to the new style Order will take some time. As a consequence, Orders will be dealt with in batches of approximately 10, and this report is one of many which will be taken through Area Committee over forthcoming months.
2.0 PROPOSED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS
2.1 Annex A details the roads where new TRO’s will be progressed, the effect of which will result in no change to the existing restrictions currently on site
2.2 Annex B details the list of roads where new TRO’s will be progressed, the effect of which will result in changes to the existing restrictions currently on site. The extent of the proposed changes are included in Annex B. All other restrictions along that length of road will remain the same.
Alan Moore Strategic Director of Regeneration & Deputy Chief Executive
Page 145 Agenda Item 16
ANNEX A
SCHEDULE OF CONSOLIDATED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS NO CHANGE TO EXISTING RESTRICTIONS
REF.No. LOCATION WARD
0864 Deyes Lane, Maghull Sudell
Page 146 Agenda Item 16
ANNEX B
SCHEDULE OF CONSOLIDATED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS CHANGES TO EXISTING RESTRICTIONS
REF.No. LOCATION WARD
PROPOSED CHANGES – None
Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 148 Agenda Item 17
Meeting: SEFTON EAST PARISHES AREA COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting : 11 th September 2008
Title of Report: Waddicar Lane Developments, Melling
Report of : This report contains Yes No Alan Moore CONFIDENTIAL √ Strategic Director of Regeneration Information/ EXEMPT information by virtue Contact Officer : of paragraph(s)...... of Part 1 David Marrin - 0151 934 4295 of Schedule 12A to the Local Brian Mason - 0151 934 4175 Government Act, 1972 Ian Berrington – 0151 934 4626 (If information is marked √ exempt, the Public Interest Test must be applied and favour the exclusion of the information from the press and public). Is the decision on this report √ DELEGATED ?
Purpose of Report
To advise the Area Committee of progress with regards to the formal adoption of the roadways and sewers of two residential developments within Melling, namely, Morris Homes' The Village, Waddicar Lane, Melling and Persimmon / Morris Homes' Satinwood Crescent, Melling.
Recommendation(s)
That : -
1. The content of the report be noted.
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1. Creating a Learning Community √ 2. Creating Safe Communities √ 3. Jobs and Prosperity √ 4. Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5. Environmental Sustainability √ 6. Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7. Improving the Quality of Council Services √ and Strengthening local Democracy 8. Children and Young People √
Page 149 Agenda Item 17
Financial Implications
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
Planning and Building Control
List of background papers relied upon in the preparation of this Report
None
Page 150 Agenda Item 17
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 At the request of the Area Committee (24 th May 2007) reports are regularly submitted to the Area Committee advising the Members of progress with regards to the formal adoption of the roadways and sewers of two residential developments within Melling, namely, Morris Homes' The Village, Waddicar Lane, Melling and Persimmon / Morris Homes' Satinwood Crescent, Melling.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Members will be familiar with the previous concurrent reports to the Area Committee since May 2007.
2.2 At the May 2008 Area Committee, Members were informed that following agreement by the Councils Planning Committee, Officers were preparing a legal case to make application to the Courts for an injunction against the developers of ‘The Village’ housing site, Morris Homes Limited. The injuction, if obtained, would require the developers to complete the final section of sewer pipework which would enable a sewer connection from ‘The Village’ development to the sewer located in Satinwood Crescent.
2.3 The Coucil’s legal advisors are currently in the process of finalising the Court Order and have been seeking clarification on a number of issues from the Water Authority, United Utilities.
3.0 Conclusion
3.1 As can be seen, it is proposed to instigate formal enforcement action against the site developer in the Courts and that Members will be updated on the outcome of any future Court Hearing.
A R Moore Strategic Director of Regeneration and Deputy Chief Executive
Page 151 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 152 Agenda Item 18
Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 154 Agenda Item 18
Legal & Administrative Department Town Hall Lord Street Southport PR8 1DA
Date: 19 June 2008 Mr.G.Harris Our Ref: OH Clerk to Aintree Village Parish Council Your Ref: 3 Canterbury Close Aintree Village Please contact: Olaf Hansen Liverpool Contact Number: 0151 934 2067 L10 8LA Fax No: 0151 934 2034 e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Mr.Harris,
Sefton East Parishes Area Committee (SEPAC) – Verge Parking, Oriel Drive and Altway, Aintree Village
Thank you for your letter of 11 June, 2008, that included an extract from the Minutes of a recent meeting of Aintree Village Parish Council (AVPC).
The extract details AVPC’s request to use their budget allocation from SEPAC to fund the installation of ‘bitmac’ to damaged verges at Oriel Drive and Altway, Aintree Village. However, I must clarify a few points. SEPAC’s budget allocation for AVPC 2008/09 is £3,860, not £3,882 as stated in the appropriate AVPC Minute. Consequently, after match funding for the proposed installation of ‘bitmac’ at Oriel Drive, at a cost of £5,100 (£2,550 from SEPAC and £2,550 from AVPC), £1,310 would be left in the budget for 2008/09. The Minute requests that the remaining balance be used to ‘bitmac’ damaged verges along Altway. I have to make clear that the remaining £1,310 could only be used if the AVPC submits a request to Ward Councillors with an offer to match fund, from the Parish Council’s own budget, the cost of any proposed project.
Please feel free to contact me with any query you might have in relation to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Olaf Hansen Committee Administrator
Caroline Elwood, LL.B. (Hons.) Dip.L.G. Minicom: 0151 934 4657 Solicitor PageLegal 155Director
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 156 Agenda Item 18
Page 157 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 158 Agenda Item 18
Legal & Administrative Department Town Hall Lord Street Southport PR8 1DA
Date: 26 June, 2008 Mr.G.Harris Our Ref: OH Clerk to Aintree Village Parish Council Your Ref: 3 Canterbury Close Aintree Village Please contact: Olaf Hansen Liverpool Contact Number: 0151 934 2067 L10 8LA Fax No: 0151 934 2034 e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Mr.Harris,
Sefton East Parishes Area Committee (SEPAC) – Verge Parking, Oriel Drive and Altway, Aintree Village
Thank you for your letter of 21 June, 2008, that sought to clarify an extract from the Minutes of a recent meeting of Aintree Village Parish Council (AVPC).
The funding for the proposed installation of ‘bitmac’ at Oriel Drive, at a cost of £5,100 would require a contribution of £2,550 from AVPC’s own funds which would then be match funded by a contribution of £2,550 from SEPAC’s budget allocation for AVPC. As the Technical Services Director’s report to the last SEPAC meeting clearly states, the installation of ‘bitmac’ could not be accommodated from current Technical Services budgets (see paragraph 4.5). If AVPC are unable to make the required contribution of £2,550, the proposed scheme to install ‘bitmac’ at Oriel Drive cannot be progressed. Likewise, the same financial arrangements would apply to the proposal to install ‘bitmac’ to damaged verges along Altway.
For ease of reference, I enclose a copy of the Technical Services Director’s report on Verge Parking. Feel free to contact me with any query you might have in relation to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Olaf Hansen Committee Administrator
Caroline Elwood, LL.B. (Hons.) Dip.L.G. Minicom: 0151 934 4657 Solicitor PageLegal 159Director
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 160 Agenda Item 18
Page 161 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 162 Agenda Item 18
Environmental Protection Department Magdalen House 30 Trinity Road Bootle Merseyside L20 3NJ
P Ashby Date: 23 June 2008 Our Ref: ENF/4400/SEPAC/LBINS/GB/JC Lydiate Your Ref:
Please contact: Mr G. Berwick Contact Number: 0151 288 6134 Fax No: 0151 285 5217 e-mail:
Dear Mr Ashby
RE: LITTLE BINS – LYDIATE AREA
I refer to your question for the July meeting of SEPAC (Sefton East Parishes Area Committee) and passed to me for comment in relation to litter bins in Lydiate.
The provision of litter bins in all wards of the Borough now rests with the Area Committee and elected members from each ward.
I am quite confident that the elected members for your ward will accept your comments and allocate bins to your identified stretch of road between the Weld Blundell Public House and St Thomas Church.
The hedgerow and hedge issues will be addressed by the Technical Services Department.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Yours sincerely
G. Berwick Cleansing Services Manager
Cc SEPAC Committee Clerk
Bill Milburn Environmental Protection Director Regeneration Directorate
Page 163 Minicom: 0151 934 4657
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 164 Agenda Item 18 Technical Services Magdalen House 30 Trinity Road,
Bootle, Merseyside, L20 3NJ
Date: 20 th August 2008 Our Ref: TSU/HDC/BAM/DV3860 Mr B Beavan Your Ref: 8 Spring Gardens Maghull Please Contact: Brian Mason L31 3HA Contact Number: 0151 934 4175 Fax No: 0151 934 4568 e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Mr Beavan,
Flooding Problems – Waddicar Lane, Melling
I refer to your question/comment to the Sefton East Parishes Area Committee regarding the above and would comment as follows.
The flooding to which you refer has been a longstanding problem and believed to be associated with the two adjacent residential developments, by Morris Homes and Persimmon Homes.
The matter is continuously reviewed and a report is prepared to each Area Committee meeting providing an update as to progress to resolve the problem, which at this time, is the responsibility of the aforementioned developers.
The Traffic Services Manager is working alongside the Building Control Manager to ensure an appropriate solution is sought to the problem and within an appropriate timescale.
I trust this clarifies the matter and should you require anything further, please contact Mr B Mason on the above telephone number.
Yours sincerely
Mr. D. Marrin Traffic Services Manager
CC Ian Berrington - Building Control Manager
Alan Moore, F.R.I.C.S. Strategic Director of Regeneration & Deputy Chief Executive Technical Services is part of the Regeneration Directorate
Minicom: 0151 934 4657 Page 165
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 166 Agenda Item 18
Environmental Protection Department Magdalen House 30 Trinity Road Bootle Merseyside L20 3NJ
B. Bevan Date: 27 August 2008 Clerk to Melling Parish Council Our Ref: ENF/4400/MellingSwp/GB/Joy 8 Spring Gardens Your Ref: MAGHULL Liverpool Please contact: Mr G. Berwick L31 3HA Contact Number: 0151 288 6134 Fax No: 0151 285 5217 e-mail:
Dear Mr Bevan,
QUESTION FOR SEPAC – 11 SEPTEMBER 2008
I refer to your question for the September meeting of SEPAC, the contents of which I have noted.
You ask about manual cleansing operatives in the Melling area and state that a reduction has occurred recently.
I can assure you that no reductions in manual cleansing have been instigated by cleansing. What you may have become aware of is one of the manual sweepers (Mr Bowker) has been off for a considerable period of time sick. A replacement was sourced and the service was re-established. I can now confirm that Mr Bowker has returned to duties.
I trust this clarifies the position, many thanks for your question.
Yours sincerely,
G. Berwick Cleansing Manager
Bill Milburn Environmental Protection Director Regeneration Directorate
Page 167 Minicom: 0151 934 4657
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 168