LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAY FORUM FOR MELTON
THURSDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2015 AT 4.30 PM
TO BE HELD AT COUNCIL CHAMBER 2 - PARKSIDE, MELTON BC OFFICES
AGENDA
Item
1. Chairman's welcome
2. Apologies for absence
3. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda
4. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda
5. Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 3-8)
6. Chairman's update - change in the law dealing with ragwort (Pages 9-10) and invasive weeds
7. Presentation of petitions under Standing Order 36.
8. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) update (Pages 11-14)
9. Enforcement Policy (Pages 15-20)
10. Changes to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General (Pages 21-26) Directions
11. Future provision of street lighting (Pages 27-28)
12. Forthcoming traffic regulation order consolidation (Pages 29-32)
Officer to Contact: Sue Dann, Democratic Support ◦ Department of Environment and Transport ◦ Leicestershire County Council ◦ County Hall Glenfield ◦ Leicestershire ◦ LE3 8RJ ◦ Tel: 0116 305 7122 ◦ Email: [email protected]
www.twitter.com/leicsdemocracy www.facebook.com/leicsdemocracy www.leics.gov.uk/local_democracy
13. HGVs using unsuitable roads (Pages 33-36)
14. 2014/15 maintenance and improvement programmes - (Pages 37-52) information item
15. Programme of traffic management work - current position - (Pages 53-58) information item
16. On-going action statement - nothing to report
17. Items for consideration for future discussion
will Members please submit these in writing to the officers prior to the meeting
18. Any other items the Chairman has decided is urgent
19. Date of the next meeting - Wednesday 15th July 2015 - 4.30pm (room tbc)
20. Chairman's closing remarks
3 Agenda Item 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON HELD AT THE MELTON BOROUGH COUNCIL OFFICES ON TUESDAY 28TH OCTBER 2014 AT 6.00PM
PRESENT
County Councillors Borough Councillors Cllr J T Orson (Chairman substitute for Cllr P M Chandler Cllr P Posnett) Cllr A Pearson Cllr J Wyatt Cllr J B Rhodes
The following also attended the meeting:
County officers present: P Crossland, G Payne, D R Bradbury
Borough officer present: L Fleming
072. CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME
The Chairman welcomed Members and officers to the meeting.
073. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs P Posnett CC and E Holmes BC.
074. URGENT ITEMS
There were no urgent items.
075. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
076. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 22 nd July 2014 were confirmed and signed as a true record of the meeting.
077. CHAIRMAN’S UPDATE
The Chairman asked Members if they had any issues with items in the minutes.
Cllr P Chandler BC confirmed that a meeting had taken place with a representative from AOne+ which was the Highways Agency’s ‘managing agent contractor’. The representative was astonished to see the state of the grass around the A52. Last Thursday, several gangs arrived on site and did an excellent job.
Cllr Chandler was concerned that there was confusion over who was responsible for the grass-cutting contract and the lack of response from the Highways Agency.
Mr Crossland suggested that an email from Mike Sheldrake to AOne+, setting out the work agreed at the meeting, be attached to the minutes.
- 1 - 4
Cllr J B Rhodes CC suggested that the three local Members for Parliament should be informed of the dissatisfaction of Members to the response on issues highlighted in the A52 - Nick Boles - Alan Duncan - Ken Clarke Mr Crossland suggested that a letter be sent out on behalf of the Chairman of the Forum to the three MPs expressing concerns. The Chairman also asked that Mr Sheldrake continue his correspondence with AOne+.
078. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER 36
There were no current petitions.
079. WINTER MAINTENANCE
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport on winter maintenance. Mr Payne introduced the report with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Payne took Members through the report commenting on the mild winter in terms of snow and frost in 2013/14. It was, however, a very wet winter. In comparison to the previous year, only 7,700 tonnes of salt were used.
Mr Payne went on to explain the tasks that had been undertaken in readiness for the winter. The County Council had over 17,000 tonnes of salt stockpiled in five salt barns around the county.
The Chairman commented that the County Council had a good name for its winter maintenance service. He asked that the minutes reflect the Forum’s gratitude to the winter workforce who work through the night to ensure that the county’s road network is kept open.
RECOMMENDATION
That the report of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted.
080. GULLY EMPTYING OPERATION
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport on the gully emptying operation. Mr Payne introduced the report with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Payne explained that, in 2012, the county had experienced a summer that saw exceptional rainfall. This had produced a problem with the gully emptying process. The County Council received 1,800 requests for gully emptying which suggested that a cleansing problem existed. This prompted an increase in gully emptying vehicles from 4 to 6. By hitting the backlog of gullies, the County Council also looked at the performance of the process. As part of the Customer Services Centre/Highways Review, the gully emptying service was assessed and found to be slower than it should have been, taking an average 55 days to react to customer enquiries.
After the Review, processes have been changed which resulted in average time reacting to customer enquiries decreasing to 5.5 days, an 89% reduction in response time. The Chairman commented that the report was a good news story.
Mr Payne explained to Members that a gully was a road drain with a grid over it.
- 2 - 5
The Chairman asked that the report be sent to the parish councils in the Melton district.
RECOMMENDATIONS
i) That the report of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted; and ii) that copies of the report be sent to the parish councils in the Melton district
081. WEED SPRAYING
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport on weed spraying. Mr Payne introduced the report with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Payne updated Members on the process undertaken in the county to combat weeds. Weeds in the road channels and footways are sprayed twice a year. The timing of the process is dependent upon the weather.
Mr Payne stated that, within the highway, the County Council is only permitted to use glyphosate. However, it is anticipated that changes in EU directives may further restrict the use of glyphosate in the future.
Finally, Mr Payne explained how the County Council deals with dangerous and invasive weeds such as giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed, spear thistle, and ragwort.
Cllr J Wyatt BC stated that in his patch there were more weeds than in previous years. He was not convinced that they had been sprayed. Mr Payne agreed to speak to Cllr Wyatt and take details of the problem areas outside the meeting.
The Chairman asked Cllr Chandler to let Mr Sheldrake know of problem areas of ragwort on the A52.
Cllr Wyatt stated that he believed that there had been a recent change in the law on how to deal with ragwort and other invasive weeds. The Chairman asked that an update come to the next meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
i) That the report of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted; and ii) that an update be provided at the next meeting on any change in law in dealing with ragwort and other invasive weeds
082. OVERHANGING VEGETATION ON THE HIGHWAY
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport on overhanging vegetation on the highway. Mr Payne introduced the report with a copy filed with the minutes.
Mr Payne explained that the report provides Members with details on how the County Council deals with the problem. Officers try to resolve any problems informally wherever possible. Where an informal approach is unsuccessful, a letter will be issued requiring the work to be undertaken. If this fails then legal action will be undertaken.
Mr Crossland confirmed that a report would be going to the Environment and Scrutiny Overview Committee on various enforcement activities and their policies and powers. The Chairman asked that a report come to a future meeting explaining the
- 3 - 6
enforcement powers. Cllr Rhodes stated that this was a difficult topic. He suggested that it would be good practice to consult the local Member on whether stronger powers are used.
Cllr A Pearson CC was concerned that going through the legal process is costly and time-consuming. He suggested that if any vegetation is considered dangerous then the County Council should cut it and charge the landowner.
Mr Crossland explained that one view he had was that the parish council, on behalf of the Director of Environment and Transport, could issue the initial letter. If nothing happened then the parish council could contact the County Council in order to move onto the legal process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
i) That the report of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted; and ii) that a report come to a future meeting on enforcement policies and powers
083. DROPPED KERB PROCESS
The Forum considered a report by the Director of Environment and Transport on the dropped kerb process. Mr Payne introduced the report with a copy filed with the minutes. Mr Payne took Members through the report, which explains the criteria behind the dropped kerb process.
The most important element in the criteria is highlighted in paragraph 5 of the report. There must be a minimum parking space of 5.5m long and 2.4m wide. This will cater for the majority of modern cars. If this requirement is not met then any application for an access will be refused.
RECOMMENDATION
That the report of the Director of Environment and Transport be noted.
084. 2014/15 MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES – INFORMATION ITEM
Members noted the report. Cllrs Rhodes and Chandler gave their thanks for the drainage scheme planned for Normanton.
Cllr Rhodes asked if officers could contact him to discuss the Langar Lane, Harby works.
085. PROGRAME OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WORK – CURRENT POSITION – INFORMATION ITEM
Members noted the report.
086. ON-GOING ACTION STATEMENT
There were no on-going actions.
087. ITEMS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION
The Chairman asked Members to let officers have in writing any items for consideration for future agendas.
- 4 - 7
088. ANY OTHER ITEMS THE CHAIRMAN HAS DECIDED IS URGENT
There were no urgent items.
089. REQUEST TO CHANGE STARTING TIME OF FORUM MEETINGS
The Chairman explained to Members that, in order to avoid clashes with borough and district council meetings, a request has been put forward to change the starting time of all Highway Forum meetings to 4.30pm.
Mr Bradbury confirmed that the request has been taken to 5 other Highway Forums and that they have agreed to start meetings at 4.30pm.
Members noted the change in the start time of future Forum meetings.
090. DATE OF NEXT YEAR’S MEETINGS
The Chairman asked Members to note the dates of meetings agreed for 2015 - 5th February - 15 th July - 20 th October The start time will be 4.30pm.
091. CHAIRMAN’S CLOSING REMARKS
The Chairman thanked Members and officers for their attendance.
28th October 2014 Chairman
6.00 – 6.35pm Date
- 5 - 8
This page is intentionally left blank 9 Agenda Item 6
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
CHAIRMAN’S UPDATE CHANGE IN THE LAW DEALING WITH RAGWORT AND INVASIVE WEEDS
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
1. On the 22nd October 2014, the European Union adopted a regulation on the “Prevention and Management of the Introduction and Spread of Invasive Alien Species” (IAS). This regulation aims to co-ordinate the efforts of EU Member States to combat this threats posed by IAS. The regulation focuses on a list of 50 IAS of the greatest concern across the EU. The exact species on this list has yet to be confirmed. Once identified, these IAS will be controlled using three key strategies of prevention, early warning and management.
2. Further details on the implementation of the new regulation should be release by the UK Government in the next 12 months, following the introduction of the Infrastructure Bill. Once these details are available, a full assessment of the implications on the highway services will be undertaken.
Officer to Contact Greg Payne Tel: (0116) 305 0001 Email: [email protected]
10
This page is intentionally left blank 11 Agenda Item 8
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY (LLFA) UPDATE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Paper
1. To provide Members with an update in respect of flood risk management and of the key areas of work in progress.
Legislative Background
2. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 established the County Council as the lead local flood authority. This new role was accompanied by the following key responsibilities: • A duty to investigate flooding incidents. • A duty to maintain a register of assets likely to have a significant effect on flood risk (not just our assets, but anything on a watercourse) • Regulation and enforcement of ‘Ordinary Watercourses’ • A duty to work together with other agencies in addressing flood risk • A duty to prepare a ‘Local Flood Risk Management Strategy’
Progress against legislative requirements
3. A duty to investigate flooding incidents . – We have established procedures for collecting information about flooding events and undertaking investigation, having based our approach on best practice elsewhere. We have introduced a target to measure our performance of this requirement, which is to prepare and approve investigation reports within 3 months of the reported event. Completed investigations have now been published on the LCC website.
4. A duty to maintain a register of assets likely to have a significant effect on flood risk - An asset database has been developed to hold details of highway structures, river defences and other critical assets. The purpose of this database is to ensure that an accurate record is kept on the ownership and state of repair of critical structures that impact on flood risk. The collection of asset information is a continuous task, however our aim is to record details of key assets (drainage, culverts, etc) by the end of April 2015 .
12
5. Ordinary Watercourses - On 6 th April 2012, the County Council became responsible for granting consent for works affecting ordinary watercourses (i.e. all streams, brooks, ditches, and piped systems etc that are not adopted and are not main rivers). This role is accompanied by enforcement powers which can be exercised against people who undertake work or fail to undertake maintenance resulting in an adverse impact on flow with implications for flood risk. There has been a significant increase in the applications regarding ‘consent’ however we are still managing to achieve our aim which is to respond to applicants within 8 weeks
6. Work with other agencies – Within the County there is an officer ‘Flood Risk Management Board’, chaired by the Assistant Director, with representatives of the Environment Agency, district councils, City Council, Rutland Council, water companies, Local Resilience Partnership and the Canal and Rivers Trust. Officers also meet informally with the City Council and various Environment Agency (EA) staff (as Leicestershire is in 3 separate EA areas) and attend regional meetings at Nottingham. There are 2 ‘Regional Flood and Coastal Committees’ (RFCC’s) relevant to Leicestershire. Mrs Page CC attends the Trent meeting which covers about 80% of the county. The seat on the Anglian North RFCC is shared with Rutland and has generally only had officer representation for Leicestershire.
7. Charnwood Flood Fair - Leicestershire County Council hosted a Flood Fair on Thursday 30th January 2014 at Loughborough Town Hall (2pm-7pm). This event provided an excellent opportunity for residents of Charnwood to get in touch and find out about flood risk, what agencies are doing, and how they can protect their properties. The event was informal in nature and there was no requirement to book a place. Members of the community attended when convenient and were able to speak officers and staff from: • Leicestershire County Council • Charnwood Borough Council • Environment Agency • Severn Trent Water • The Local Resilience Forum
8. Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) Section 9 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (the Act) requires each lead local flood authority to produce and maintain a local flood risk management strategy. The act stipulates the broad areas of content and the approach to be taken in preparing and adopting it. The LFRMS is concerned with local flood risk, i.e. not that from main river or sea which are the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Unlike other strategy documents, it includes an action plan - a proposed programme of measures. This is a specific requirement of the Act. In preparing the draft LFRMS, officer discussions have been held with partners, including the Environment Agency, district councils, Leicester City Council, water companies and the Local Resilience Partnership. A Strategic Environmental Assessment and 13
Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment have also been undertaken as part of the work on the LFRMS. The draft LFRMS is the subject of a formal consultation exercise between mid-November and mid-January 2015. The results of the consultation will be reported to County Council Members before formal adoption, by the end of 2014/15.
9. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) After years of preparation for the County Council to become the SuDS approval body (SAB), there is now potential for a change of direction by Central Government. A consultation exercise was launched on 12 th September, conducted by DCLG, rather than DEFRA. This consultation proposes changes to the planning system, rather than introducing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (SuDS).
If introduced, the proposals would mean:
• No role for LCC as the SAB;
• No need for developers to submit a drainage application to LCC; it would be part of their planning application;
• A presumption that SuDS would be required for developments of 10 or more houses, but district councils would decide whether developments should be drained using SuDS;
• Developments of 9 or fewer houses would not require SuDS;
• District councils to make arrangements for obtaining technical advice on SuDS proposals;
• District councils to be responsible for ensuring that individual developments have arrangements to maintain SuDS indefinitely;
• Enforcement would be undertaken as part of planning enforcement by the respective district planning authority;
• LCC would not be consulted on planning applications in its Lead Local Flood Authority role but would continue to be consulted solely in its local highway authority capacity;
• No responsibility, or indeed power, for LCC, district councils or water companies to adopt or maintain SuDS.
DCLG (in conjunction with DEFRA) is still analysing the circa 400 responses received and has stated that no decision has yet been made on the new approach. 14
10. Flood risk schemes
• The EA Loughborough Flood Risk Management Scheme (attached at Appendix A) – This is a partnership project which aims to reduce flood risk in Loughborough and improve the environment.
• Fowke Street, Rothley – drainage renewal and carriageway resurfacing
Officers to Contact:
Daniel Rawle, Team Manager Tel: 0116 3057066 Email: [email protected]
Jonathan McGuinness, Senior Engineer Tel: 0116 3055549 Email: [email protected]
15 Agenda Item 9
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAY FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
ENFORCEMENT POLICY
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. To advise the Members of the current situation regarding general highway enforcement activity and the potential development of formal policy.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
2. A report was presented to Cabinet on 8 th May 2007 entitled ‘Controlling Street Cafés and Private Signs on the Highway’. Cabinet agreed that chairs and tables could be placed on the highway through a formal pavement café licensing process whilst guidelines for placing signs and displays (including advertising or ‘A’ boards) on the highway should be followed.
3. A Members Information Service (MIS) was issued on 8 th March 2011 to provide ‘Guidance on Use of Facilities and Publicity’ for the District Council Elections in 2011. Tied in with this guidance is advice to candidates and election agents on how the County Council will address the unauthorised placement of election-related material within the limits of the public highway.
4. A report was presented to Cabinet on 11 th October 2011 entitled ‘Changes to the Highway Maintenance Policy’. Whilst the report focused on changes to the grass cutting frequency and manner in which highway defects would be identified and acted upon, the report constituted the last time that Cabinet had the opportunity to review the Council’s Highway Maintenance Policy and Strategy document. That document sets out that the Council not only has a duty of care to all highway users but that there a number of pieces of legislation that provide powers and duties to the ‘local highway authority’ to better fulfil that duty of care.
Background
5. A highway is essentially recognised as being ‘a public right of way over a defined route’. This means that members of the public have the right to ‘pass and re-pass’ along a highway without unnecessary hindrance. A local highway authority has a duty under Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 to “assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority” and is therefore responsible for ensuring that the public is able to enjoy a safe route of passage over ‘highways maintainable at public expense’ and is expected to take such steps as it considers reasonable (including in terms of financial decision- making) to achieve this goal.
16
6. There has always been some question around whether by stopping on the highway a person goes outside their right to “pass and repass” and thereby trespasses against the owner of the land and cause an obstruction to other users. Case law suggests that an individual can pause and rest without their actions constituting an ‘obstruction’ to anyone else wishing to ‘pass and re-pass’. It is perfectly acceptable, for example, to park a car for a reasonable period of time on the highway.
7. The test of whether an individual’s activity on the highway is reasonable is the assessment of whether what they are doing on the highway is ‘reasonably incidental to the exercise of the right of passage or whether they go further and require the assertion of an independent right’. That independent right will extend to the local highway authority granting permission for some form of obstruction to passage or consent to such activity that might impair the safety of other highway users or where statute exists for the legitimate occupation or obstruction of the highway longer than ‘a reasonable period of time’.
The Application of Legislation
8. The Highways Act 1980 is the primary piece of legislation governing use of the highway. It places certain duties on the local highway authority (e.g. Section 41 - to maintain the highway - or Section 150 - to remove snow) but also bestows a wide range of powers. The challenge that officers of local highway authorities have is how, in the absence of specific guidance, to interpret and use those powers to the best overall benefit to the public at large. Some of the more common issues with which highway officers have to deal are as follows.
Adoption of the highway
9. Section 38 is the mechanism by which developers will construct new highways and, through agreement with the local highway authority, essentially transfer ownership of the road so that it becomes highway maintainable at public expense and thus available for the public at large to pass and re-pass. The local highway authority supervises the work to ensure that it is correctly constructed to the specification it has set out but, if it is dissatisfied with the work, it may choose not to adopt the road. However, a developer can nonetheless revert to a magistrates’ court to suggest the road has been properly constructed and should be cited under Section 37 to be correctly constructed. So, a pragmatic approach is needed to ensure the road is constructed in a reasonable manner, acceptable to all parties.
Obstruction
10. Section 137 makes it an offence for a person “without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct” the free passage along a highway. Whilst this seemingly empowers the local highway authority to enforce the removal of what it considers an improper obstruction to rightful passage, it is much harder in reality to remove the obstructions. A typical example would be where a vehicle has parked either partly or fully on the footway at a location where there are no parking restrictions. As identified in paragraph 6 above, parking a car on the highway does not constitute an obstruction and the view of the police is, if there is sufficient space on the footway to still re-pass and re-pass, that vehicle is not necessarily considered to be an obstruction. The local highway authority could pursue legal action, though, if the vehicle remains there for more than a reasonable period of time. 17
Pavement cafés
11. Given the vagueness around the subject of obstruction, this has hitherto meant that a pragmatic approach has been taken by officers. The Cabinet report of 8 th May 2007 sought to identify a workable solution to a growing practice of placing tables and chairs on the highway as an extension to existing internal building premises in the form of licensing highway occupation under Section 115E of the Highways Act.
A-board and other advertisements
12. A similar challenge existed over whether or not to permit the use of A-boards on the highway. To the blind and visually impaired, these do constitute an unexpected obstruction insofar as they may not be located in the same place each and every day. To that end, the report set out some working guidelines but not all elements of society are in favour of their continued presence on the highway. The existing guidelines provide a middle position between complete intolerance of their presence or unrestrained existence.
Signs in the highway
13. Such tolerance is aligned to the County Council’s approach to ‘sponsored roundabouts’. There are many such roundabouts dotted round the county where their location is sufficiently prominent enough for private companies to essentially fund a higher level of maintenance than would otherwise be ‘affordable’. In reality, the current roundabout sponsorship arrangements help to generate in the order of £100,000 income per annum (which is then used to offset other maintenance costs), as well as avoid roundabout maintenance costs of around £100,000 per annum.
14. There are mixed views from the district/borough councils over their usage. Some see the signs as a distraction to highway users, thereby adversely impacting upon road user safety. This view is not shared by the County Council, however it has been suggested to the Department for Transport (which has been consulting on possible changes to the TSRGD) that roundabout signs become a clearly permissible sign for the highway. This could be easily effected by formally acknowledging such signs as a variant to Diagram No. 7008 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
15. This leads to the subject of signage set out by organisations planning local community events. Some of these events require occupation of the highway and thus control under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (because temporary road closures may be required). Irrespectively, County Council officers are always mindful that these community events (on or off highway) invariably lead to the event organisers erecting signs.
16. Sometimes the signs may be small in size and found as wooden stakes driven into grass verges. Unfortunately, the public utilities use grass verges as a less financially onerous route for locating their cables and mains so it can be relatively easy for the person to drive a stake through this equipment if no details have been sought in advance. To prevent this type of activity would be hard but a zero tolerance approach would need to be in place that was well publicised to optimise its effectiveness in safeguarding the public. 18
17. Signs also appear on pedestrian guardrail, posts, lighting columns and temporary fencing and officers assess whether these constitute a safety hazard (in terms of forward visibility or as a distraction) requiring removal (under Section 149 of the Highways Act 1980). Whilst making a balanced decision on this, the County Council can appear draconian and not supportive of the community – even if the event organiser has chosen to ignore officers’ advice in advance of erecting such signage. Again, pragmatic decision-making balances a zero tolerance and a laissez-faire approach.
18. This, in turn, then raises the question of whether or not development-related signs should be permitted or not. These signs are (according to developers) used to direct deliveries to the development site as effectively as possible. Whilst there is some validity in this, this claim becomes less valid the further the sign is placed from the development – is it actually serving as a prompt/advertisement to potential property purchasers instead, essentially free of charge.
Election material
19. To avoid this being a problem at the time of local or national elections, there are some local guidelines to supplement national protocols. The local guidelines essentially ensure that there are no signs placed on the highway and this zero tolerance approach is accepted by all parties, almost without question.
Roadside sales
20. The non-acceptability of road-side sales is covered by Section 147A but this provides little leverage over mobile sign trailers parked on the road or highway grass verges. If they have been parked in prominent locations, the argument that they constitute a major distraction could be used and therefore be removed. In reality, owners are pre- warned that this will happen and tend to move the trailer before it is towed away.
Overhanging hedges and trees
21. The subject matter for the second highest amount of calls for action by highways officers is for the cutting back of hedges and trees. Section 154 of the Highways Act enables the County Council to serve notice on hedge and tree owners for the owners to take action themselves (which actually happens in the vast majority of cases). In rare circumstances, the Council has to undertake the work and recover the cost. However, whilst attempts are made to deal with some hedge and tree owners before growth becomes an issue (on some ‘safe routes to school’ for example), it is arguable whether responsibility for serving notice could be passed to parish or town councils instead as they are perhaps better placed to act at the right time than the County Council.
Statutory undertakers’ works
22. The public utilities have a statutory right to undertake work on their apparatus in the highway and the manner in which this is conducted is through the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The Council has enforcement powers set out in the legislation to ensure that work is undertaken to the right specification but this is an area in which improvements could ultimately be made. 19
Miscellaneous Matters
23. The Local Authorities (Transport Charges) Regulations 1998 provides local highway authorities with a power to charge for a number of regulatory activities including skip, hoarding or scaffolding licences and the clearance of accident debris. Unless controlled through a licensing process tied to the Highways Act, the presence of builders’ skips (Section 139/140), scaffolding (Section 169), materials (Section 170) and hoardings (Section 172) would constitute an obstruction
24. There is a selection of other activities that are enforcement-related, only some of which call upon enforcement by the County Council (such as civil parking). The removal of vehicles for sale is tackled by district/borough councils under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 whilst ensuring that watercourses remain unobstructed is a recent power assigned to the County Council in its capacity as lead local flood authority under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 – but this can be delegated to the district/borough councils, some of whom retain a resource to address such issues. The subject of delegation of enforcement powers is relatively well covered for this latter piece of legislation but clearer delegations may be necessary in respect of other pieces of legislation to ensure officers are properly empowered.
Resource Implications
25. The lack of a clearly consistent, defined approach to some of the issues above can often lead to officers spending significant periods of time resolving matters, invariably not to everyone’s satisfaction. Having a clearer approach to some of these issues in a defined way would therefore reduce the amount of time spent in an enforcement capacity than at present.
26. Each year, the County Council sets its scale of fees and charges. In the present financial climate, it is imperative that the County Council recovers all of its costs whenever and wherever it can. Some of the site supervision charges (e.g. for ensuring that vehicle crossings are constructed properly under Section 184 of the Highways Act) do not fully represent the level of charge that should be required.
27. Furthermore, by enabling the public and developers to use private contractors to undertake works to the highway, there is scope for the work being undertaken to not be fully supervised to ensure full compliance with current health and safety practice, the Council's standards and relevant legislation. This would only be overcome if the charges levied were at a level sufficient to ensure proper resourcing of this supervision or to encourage the work on the highway to be undertaken by Leicestershire Highways Operations.
28. There is no specific timescale to work to but the sooner clearer guidelines/protocols are in place, the sooner that officers would be able to optimise their use of time on enforcement-related matters.
20
Conclusion
29. The conclusion to be drawn from the above is that much of the enforcement activity undertaken by officers in the Environment and Transport Department is based on personal judgement rather than a well defined policy led approach. Furthermore, there is some scope for devolvement of authority to parish councils and the like to enhance the concept of ‘communities in charge’.
30. Given the wide range of enforcement activity that has been referred to above (and it is worth bearing in mind that this is not all the enforcement activity undertaken), an officer working group is being established to compile appropriate enforcement protocols addressing the areas referred to (but not necessarily solely limited to) in this report. Any such enforcement protocols that are developed will be reported back to the Forum in due course.
Recommendation
31. It is recommended that Members note the contents of this report.
Background Papers
‘Controlling Street Cafés and Private Signs on the Highway’ report to Cabinet on 8 th May 2007.
Members Information Service (MIS) issued on 8 th March 2011 to provide ‘Guidance on Use of Facilities and Publicity’ for the District Council Elections in 2011.
‘Changes to the Highway Maintenance Policy’ report to Cabinet on 11 th October 2011.
Officer to Contact
Greg Payne Tel: 0116 305 7073 Highways Manager E-mail: [email protected]
21 Agenda Item 10
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAY FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
CHANGES TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNS REGULATIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. To apprise Members of changes to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions taking effect from April 2015, and to assess the implication of any changes on the Council.
Background
2. All signs erected on the Highway are required to be authorised by the Department for Transport (DfT).
3. The instrument for the authorisation of all frequently used signs and their variants is the document ‘ Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions, 2002’ , and varied by the ‘Traffic Signs (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations and General Directions 2011’.
4. In 2011, the DfT published ‘ Signing the Way’ , a complete review of signing policy which set out recommendations for delivering a modernised Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
5. In May 2014, the DfT presented for consultation its ‘radically different’ TSRGD. It perceived the proposed regulations as providing significant benefits for local authorities responsible for designing and installing signs on their roads. The document has been fully restructured to provide authorities with greater flexibility and a much greater range of sign designs which, in turn, substantially cuts the need for the DfT to specially authorise signs.
6. The consultation closed on 12 June 2014 and the results and proposals for the way forward were published in November 2014. The new TSRGD is due to be effective from April 2015.
7. This report details those changes that will have an impact on the work of the County Council.
Lighting of signs
8. TSRGD 2002 requires certain safety-critical and enforceable traffic signs within street-lit areas to be directly lit throughout the hours of darkness. However, 22
direct lighting for traffic signs impacts on carbon emissions and energy costs for local authorities. While TSRGD 2002 significantly reduced the requirement for direct lighting of many warning signs, the review recommended that the new TSRGD should deregulate sign lighting further.
9. The new TSRGD will remove the lighting requirements from the following sign categories: • Warning signs • Regulatory cycle signs • Bus gate and tramway terminal signs • Lane closures and contra-flow working at road works • Retroreflective self-righting bollard mounted signs
10. Because they are safety critical, the following sign categories will retain the existing illumination requirements: • Height limit warning signs • Signs such as 'Give Way', 'No Entry', vehicle restrictions including height and width restrictions, and banned manoeuvres • Signs used on motorways
11. In addition, the requirement to illuminate ANY sign in a 20mph speed limit or zone has been dropped, allowing local authorities to use their discretion and engineering judgement.
12. This proposal has the potential to save the authority a significant amount of money. A project to realise those savings was proposed to Cabinet on 19 November 2014. The resolutions were passed: http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000135/M00003995/AI00039947/$7Fut ureProvisionofStreetLighting.docA.ps.pdf
Reducing Sign Clutter
13. Reducing sign clutter was one of the key recommendations from the Review, and one to which the Government remains committed. Research carried out by the DfT has shown that the number of traffic signs has doubled in the last 20 years. This is unsustainable, and bears out the need to reduce signing wherever possible.
14. Over-provision of signs can have a detrimental impact on the environment and can dilute important messages. If they result in information overload for drivers, they can contribute to driver distraction, which can have an impact on road safety.
15. Whilst traffic signs are prescribed in TSRGD, decisions on how to use them to sign restrictions and manage traffic are for local authorities. Sign clutter is frequently a result of poor design and placement of signs.
16. The new TSRGD gives local authorities a much more proactive role in deciding when and where to place signs. For example, it removes many of the requirements to place both road markings and traffic signs such as those required to indicate a parking bay. Whilst using both sign and marking will still be permitted, and in some cases will be the best approach, allowing restrictions 23
to be signed with either one or the other will allow traffic authorities much greater scope to place fewer new signs and to remove existing signs. 17. The changes to sign illumination requirements described above will also help reduce clutter, by removing the need in many cases for unsightly luminaires.
18. The new flexibility in TSRGD, along with the design advice in DfT guidance, will enable authorities to go further in reducing the number of unnecessary signs on their roads as far as possible.
Removing the requirement for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for yellow line restrictions
19. The DfT have been considering removing the requirement for yellow line restrictions to have an associated traffic regulation order (TRO). This would apply to: • Single yellow lines • Double yellow lines • Yellow 'school keep clear' zig-zag markings
20. In the same way as bus stop clearways and yellow box markings, the marking itself would become the prohibition and can be enforced against.
21. Removing the need for a TRO for these restrictions would enable traffic authorities to manage their networks more efficiently and cost effectively. Even minor revisions to yellow lines, such as short extensions or reductions of only a few yards, still require authorities to go through the process of making a new TRO.
22. The consultation results showed some concern that by removing the traffic regulation order requirement, members of the public would have less input to the creation or removal of restrictions. There were also concerns that local authorities may simply put down yellow lines and enforce them with no real justification for their presence, and that there would be inconsistency across local authorities in implementing this approach.
23. The removal of the requirement for a TRO would also remove the right of local people to object. However, there was a strong indication that local authorities would continue to conduct effective communication if the TRO requirement was removed, with 95% (including Leicestershire County Council) telling the DfT that they would. In fact, most of the respondents told the DfT that they would consult as a matter of course on any changes to the public highway, and that they want to provide people with the opportunity to respond as part of local democracy.
24. There was, however, concern that when there is local pressure for something to be brought in quickly, the consultation process could be dropped or be minimal.
25. The Government’s response to this part of the consultation is that more time is needed to fully consider the issues raised. Ministers are therefore giving further consideration to the responses to ensure that their decision is both informed and appropriate.
24
Pelican Crossings
26. The revision of the TSRGD also provided an opportunity to look at the various types of signalised pedestrian crossings available and in use to see if changes needed to be made.
27. Pelican crossings have been in use since the 1970s and while still useful, do not provide the benefits available with more modern crossings such as puffins. Many authorities are now choosing to install puffin crossings as their default crossing type.
28. Puffin crossings give more benefits to pedestrians than pelicans by using detectors to monitor the crossing and give people extra time to cross if needed. This is especially useful to more vulnerable pedestrians, such as older people, and people with mobility issues. Research has shown that these crossings are considerably safer than pelican crossings.
29. During the consultation, concerns were raised by some authorities over the lack of a ‘farside’ signal on puffins. That is, the red/green man signal head on the opposite side of the crossing. On a puffin this indication is replaced by a ‘nearside’ indicator on the push button unit, the thinking being that pedestrians already on the crossing will not be ‘panicked’ when the green man goes off.
30. To address these concerns, authorities that want to retain the ‘farside’ signals but provide the benefits of puffin crossings can now use what is known in London as a 'pedex' crossing. These crossings use the familiar ‘farside’ signals of a pelican, but do not have the flashing green man or flashing amber. They can be used with similar detectors to puffins, and also the new countdown signals developed to show how much time is left to cross the road during the blackout period (also included in the new TSRGD).
31. Nationwide, the number of pelican crossings has been declining steadily as puffin crossings increase in numbers.
32. As a result of all these points, and following consideration of all the responses from local authorities, the Government has decided that the revised TSRGD will not prescribe pelican pedestrian crossings. Existing crossings, however, will be ‘protected’ and will not need to be replaced before the end of their life. In most cases, this is about 15-20 years.
33. This will, however, have a financial impact on the County Council going forward, in that the cost of installing a typical puffin is in the region of £37k compared to £35k for a pelican.
34. Similarly, the cost of replacing a life-expired pelican will be about £17k to replace it with a puffin, compared to about £15k to replace it like for like. We would typically replace about 5 to 7 life-expired pelicans each year, funded from the capital maintenance programme.
25
Boundary Signs
35. TSRGD 2015 will introduce greater flexibility to the design of boundary signs, to enable authorities to foster a better sense of place, and to highlight the historic and geographic qualities often associated with particular areas.
36. To enable this, the new TSRGD includes the ability to sign historic county boundaries. Authorities will also be able to put up boundary signs for designated geographical areas such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
37. In conjunction with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and signing manufacturers, the DfT has developed new designs for boundary signs aimed at promoting a greater sense of local identity. These signs incorporate photographic images and are a new and radical change to the traditional sign design process. Following a successful pilot in Plymouth, these signs have attracted a considerable amount of interest from other local authorities and are included in the new TSRGD. Indeed, Charnwood Borough Council is funding this type of sign for both its Borough and Town signs.
Tourist Destinations (Brown Signs)
38. Brown signs for tourist destinations are prescribed in the current TSRGD, but the definition of what constitutes a 'tourist destination' is not clear.
39. In Scotland and Wales, Visit Scotland and the Wales Tourist Board must recognise individual tourist attractions and facilities in order to qualify for a brown sign under TSRGD. However, Visit England does not carry out a similar function for tourist attractions in England. This has brought pressure on traffic authorities in England from private enterprises, such as retail parks, to represent their business as tourist destinations on traffic signs. This can lead to unnecessary sign clutter.
40. The revised TSRGD provides new powers to manage tourism signing. It includes a new definition of a 'tourist destination' to separate those genuine tourist destinations – i.e. those whose primary function is other than retail - from businesses with a purely commercial interest.
41. Visit England has agreed to recognise genuine tourist functions in this way, so the revised TSRGD now only permits brown signs for those attractions that are presently prescribed or are recognised by VisitEngland.
42. All existing brown signs are allowed to stay, but there will be significant restrictions placed on requests for any new ones. This may, in the short term, lead to accusations of inconsistency until such time as knowledge of the new regulations is more widespread.
43. Brown signs are also reviewed whenever a ‘sign decluttering’ scheme is undertaken in the County. 26
Direction Signs
44. Direction signs are covered by complex design rules, known as ‘the Guildford Rules’. These were introduced into TSRGD in 1994 and use colour coded panels to show the road hierarchy on advanced direction signs.
45. The DfT had proposed to revert to colour coding only the route number for higher status routes, and not the destination, however, this proposal was dropped following the consultation. There was concern that the removal would lead to a patchwork approach on the road network where some direction signs followed the rules and others did not. This could lead to road user confusion and loss of continuity of direction signing.
46. Likewise the DfT had also proposed the simplification of sign design by standardising the route arm thickness for direction signs. This too was dropped following consultation due to concerns about possible road safety implications.
47. The end result here is that there are no changes in TSRGD 2015 to the specification of advanced direction signs.
Conclusions
48. The introduction of the new regulations described above will introduce more flexibility into the design and deployment of road signs in Leicestershire.
49. In most cases, it is likely that the measures will, in the longer term, save money for the County Council, especially with the opportunity to review the lighting requirements of warning signs.
50. Set against this, however, it the dropping of the authorization for pelican crossings. Whilst the improvement in safety of a puffin over a pelican is to be welcomed, the change will have negative financial implications on Leicestershire County Council going forward.
Recommendation
51. It is recommended that the Forum notes the contents of this report.
Officer to Contact
David Wright Tel. 0116 305 0001 email: [email protected]
27 Agenda Item 11
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
FUTURE PROVISION OF STREET LIGHTING
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of report
1. To update Members on the future provision of street lighting through the ‘Street Lighting Transformation Project’.
Background
2. The 2014 MTFS identifies a service reduction associated with part-night lighting, switching off, and dimming of Leicestershire’s street lighting, along with a more radical approach to street lighting energy reductions. The service reduction is valued at £245,000 in 2014/15, rising to £1.245 million from 2017/18.
3. The initial £245,000 savings in 2014/15 is anticipated from the completion of the current four-year ‘Energy Reduction for Street Lighting’ project’ which was approved by the Cabinet in December 2009. The part-night lighting, switching off and dimming programme for street lighting associated with that project began in 2010/11 and will be completed during this financial year, 2014/15.
4. The requirement for further significant financial savings of £1 million within the current Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), and the reducing costs and developments in new technology, has resulted in ‘Street Lighting’ forming one of the 24 projects within the Council’s Transformation Programme, falling under the objective of ‘Working the Leicestershire Pound’. The Street Lighting Transformation Project aims to reduce the cost of street lighting through the use of new technology, alternative delivery models, and partnership delivery arrangements.
Proposals
5. At its meeting on 19 th November 2014, the Cabinet considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport regarding the assessment of options available for the future provision of street lighting in Leicestershire.
6. It is proposed that by the full-scale introduction of LED lighting and a Central Management System (CMS) (and the de-illumination of traffic signs on bollards), the savings required could be achieved, as well as achieving a notable reduction in the Council's current carbon footprint.
7. The installation of LED lights would not reverse the part-night lighting programme which has already resulted in considerable savings.
28
Recommendations
8. Cabinet welcomed the support of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee for a Central Management System (CMS)-controlled LED street lighting operation and the de-illumination of traffic signs on bollards.
9. It authorised the Director of Environment and Transport, in consultation with the Director of Corporate Resources, to proceed to the procurement stage for the provision of a CMS and LED lighting for all County Council-maintained street lights.
10. A further report and revised business case will be submitted to the Cabinet to make a final decision on the provision of a CMS and LED lighting for all County Council- maintained street lights as soon as is reasonably practicable following the conclusion of the procurement exercise and a review of the business case.
Officer to Contact
Karen Notman Tel: 0116 305 2304 Email: [email protected]
Background Papers
Report on the future provision of street lighting considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 19 th November 2014. http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000135/M00003995/AI00039947/$7FutureProvisionofStreetLighting. docA.ps.pdf
Medium Term Financial Strategy 2014/15 to 2017/18 (the ‘2014 MTFS’) approved by the County Council on 19 th February 2014.
Energy Reduction for Street Lighting Project report to Cabinet on 15th December 2009 http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000135/M00002688/AI00023891/$OEnergyReduction.doc.pdf
29 Agenda Item 12
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
FORTHCOMING TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER CONSOLIDATION
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. To inform Members of a forthcoming consolidation of the County’s traffic regulation orders, and to provide an overview of the benefits and implications of completing this exercise.
Background
2. In July 2007, Leicestershire County Council was awarded powers to introduce decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE, now known as civil parking enforcement, CPE), allowing local authority enforcement of all parking restrictions within the County. Before these powers could be adopted, the Council was required to review all existing traffic regulation orders (TROs) and to rectify any known anomalies to ensure that all TROs corresponded with the lines and signs on site.
3. This review was completed in 2006 and involved the consolidation of all existing TROs, the result of which was to produce a Consolidation Order for each geographic sub-area of each of the seven districts. In total, 43 Consolidation Orders were produced.
4. A further consolidation exercise was carried out in 2008. This was on a much smaller scale and was in response to the creation of civil enforcement officers (CEOs), which needed to be reflected in the County’s TROs so that parking restrictions could continue to be enforced under the civil/ decriminalised parking regime.
5. Leicestershire’s TROs were last consolidated six years ago and a review is urgently required. Approximately 120 TROs have been implemented since 2008 and these, in addition to the 43 existing Consolidation Orders, need to be checked for validity and accuracy.
6. Under current legislation, the County Council has an obligation to ensure that its TROs are systematically reviewed and maintained so that they conform to up-to-date legislation. Changes have been made to legislation since the last consolidation exercise making parts of current TROs obsolete.
30
Consolidation
7. A county-wide programme of “Amendment and Consolidation Orders” for all TROs with parking restrictions is being rolled out over 2015/2016.
8. The TRO amendments are necessary to ensure that any references to legislation are up to date and that legal definitions are appropriately worded.
9. The amendments will also address comments or issues raised by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) as part of the adjudication process, which will in turn reduce the number of successful penalty charge notice (PCN) appeals against the authority.
10. These amendments will have no material impact on any parking restrictions as currently marked out on site.
11. The opportunity is also being taken to simplify the TRO structure, which will make TROs quicker to prepare, easier to understand and present fewer opportunities for mistakes to be made. This new structure will result in the following:
• The reduction in the number of Consolidation Orders from 43 to 8; • The reduction in the number of TRO schedules (and associated ‘articles’) from over 200 to approximately 10 • The production of map-based schedules
Map-based schedules
12. A ‘map-based schedule’ is a map that forms part of a traffic regulation order. Instead of a written schedule giving the details of a restriction (type of restriction, day/hours of operation, street name & locality, start and finish points), a map is used instead.
13. Each map will be clearly identifiable in terms of restriction type with a key. The days/hours of operation will displayed via a label to the restriction.
14. On larger schemes more than one map will be used.
15. Map-based schedules have been used by other authorities across the country and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal has indicated that they welcome the use of these in penalty charge notice disputes.
16. It is anticipated that the use of map-based schedules will result in a more efficient TRO timeline and a higher success rate in PCN disputes.
Implementation
17. All existing (parking) TROs need to be amended before the consolidation exercise can be carried out. This will be undertaken on a district by district basis, commencing with the smallest in terms of the number of amendments required, followed by those districts where on-street parking is regulated through the use of residents’ parking permits.
31
18. A single Consolidation Order will be produced for each of the seven districts, with the exception of Charnwood where a separate Consolidation Order will be produced for Loughborough.
19. The anticipated order of work is as follows:
Existing no of No of TROs si nce Priority District Consolidation 2008 (/ no with Orders residents parking) 1 Melton 6 3 (1) 2 Oadby & Wigston 3 16 (5) 3 Loughborough 18 (10) 6 4 Charnwood (excl Loughbrough) 13 (0) 5 Harborough 8 12 (2) 6 Hinckley & Bosworth 8 20 (0) 7 North West Leicestershire 7 17 (0) 8 Blaby 5 17 (0)
20. As no restrictions are being changed, it is anticipated that a streamlined procedure will be used in order to initiate the proposed amendments to the TRO structure, mirroring the method used for the 2006 amendment and consolidation exercise.
Resources
21. The TRO amendment and Consolidation exercise requires a significant resource from both the Traffic Management Team and Legal Services. This resource is available; however it is possible that the consolidation work could impact on the timescales for implementing other proposed TRO schemes throughout the County. Every effort will be made to keep local Members informed of any timescale issues.
Benefits
22. A reduction in the number of consolidation Orders will allow TROs in the same district to be advertised together, representing a reduction in future TRO advertising costs.
23. The implementation of map-based schedules will result in TROs that are quicker (and therefore cheaper) to implement, easier to understand and less likely to be challenged at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
Financial considerations
24. The County Council has a statutory obligation to undertake this exercise in order to ensure all our TROs remain legal and enforceable.
25. There is no specific budget allocation for this work, which is likely to cost in the region or £50,000.
32
26. The funding will therefore be provided from the Traffic Management Team’s revenue works budget. This means that there will be a reduction in the number of new TRO and signing and lining schemes undertaken in 2015/2016 to reflect this.
Recommendation
27. It is recommended that the Forum Members note the contents of this report.
Officer to Contact
David Wright Tel. 0116 305 0001 Email: [email protected]
Background Papers
None.
33 Agenda Item 13
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
HGVS USING UNSUITABLE ROADS
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. To inform Members of measures available to Leicestershire County Council to prevent the use by HGVs of roads unsuitable for them.
Background
2. In September 2014, the Traffic Management Team received a request from Enderby Parish Council for an improvement of weight restriction signage following an incident on 27 th August 2014 where a heavy goods vehicle became stuck in the village whilst trying to use an ‘unsuitable’ road.
3. In this instance, the road was part of a 7.5t weight restriction zone.
4. The local Member asked for a report to be taken to their local Highway Forum but, in light of the issues, it was considered to be beneficial to take the report to all Highway Forums.
Weight limits vs weight restrictions
5. There are two types of constraint on the movement of HGVs.
6. A weight limit is a prohibition meaning that it is an offence for ANY vehicle over the weight displayed on the sign to pass. This type of constraint is usually used for a structural weight limit, for example a weak bridge, where an overweight vehicle passing may cause structural or other damage.
7. A weight restriction is a prohibition for vehicles over a certain weight, but with exceptions. Sometimes known as an environmental weight restriction, these prohibitions are usually in the form of a zone, and are designed to prevent the regular passage of HGVs not requiring access for collection from or delivery to premises within the zone.
8. Buses are allowed to use weight restricted zones.
34
‘Environmental’ weight restrictions in Leicestershire
9. Much of Leicestershire is covered by environmental weight restriction zones, with the exception of the A and B road networks and a few other roads, notably those serving industrial complexes.
10. HGVs over 7.5t are only allowed to enter these zones if they are delivering to or collecting from a location within the zone, or if they are leaving or returning to a business based within the zone.
11. Any vehicles over 7.5t within the weight restriction zones and not conforming to the above is committing an offence. The offence can only be enforced by the police.
12. Enforcement of weight restrictions is notoriously labour intensive and time consuming, as a potentially offending vehicle has to be observed by police entering and leaving a zone without having delivered or collected any goods.
13. Residents often believe that HGVs are contravening weight restrictions in their villages whereas in reality the vehicles may be there for a legitimate purpose.
14. A mechanism is in place for residents to report potential abuse of weight restrictions by emailing details to [email protected] or by contacting their parish, town, borough or district council. This mechanism has been covered in previous Highway Forum reports and can be found on the County Council website on http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/highways/traffic_and_parking/weight_limits_and_lor ry_routes .
15. The police do not have the resources to provide a reactive response to infringements of a weight restriction. However, any incidents reported to them either directly or through the local council will be logged and collated and, if there are significant numbers of reports in any one location, a targetted operation may be initiated.
Unsuitable roads
16. The Enderby incident occurred when an HGV using a weight restricted zone legitimately chose to use a road within the zone that was unsuitable for a vehicle its size.
17. This is a secondary problem to that of HGV drivers infringing weight restrictions, but it is a problem that is real and can cause a lot of stress to residents on unsuitable roads, not to mention physical damage to vehicles or buildings.
18. Leicestershire County Council has limited options on how to deal with these issues. These include advisory signing and working with the satellite navigation (satnav) companies.
19. Neither of these approaches is foolproof, but both represent a way of at least preventing some use of unsuitable roads by HGVs.
35
Advisory signing
20. This type of signing consists generally of ‘white on blue’ signs with legends such as ‘Unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles’. They can be used both within and outside weight restriction zones and are to indicate that a road may be generally unsuitable for an HGV.
21. ‘Unsuitable’ may be due to limited width due to parked vehicles, or possibly a sharp bend with walls either side of the road such that a long or articulated vehicle may struggle to negotiate the hazard.
22. Although signed as ‘unsuitable’, it may be that in certain instances or at certain times of the day that a vehicle may be able to safely negotiate the road and, indeed, this may be necessary in order to carry out deliveries, for example.
23. As the signing is advisory, there is no recourse to the law if an HGV tries to negotiate the road. That said, the signs are generally considered effective most of the time.
24. As many ‘unsuitable’ roads are in conservation areas or the older parts of villages, their provision requires a balance between the frequency of occurences of HGVs using the road, the risk of damage to property or vehicles, and the aim of trying not to proliferate signs in what may very likely be a visually attractive area.
25. Any requests for such signing will therefore be treated on an individual basis.
Satellite Navigation Systems
26. Another standard ‘excuse’ for vehicles using unsuitable roads is that “my satnav told me to go this way”.
27. Satnav devices are now very common amongst all drivers and are, in general, an effective way for drivers to reach their destination efficiently and reduce the volume of traffic using roads whilst searching for their destination. Their use, however, brings up a number of issues when used by HGV drivers.
28. Firstly, and very obviously, HGVs cannot negotiate small streets or tight bends. To overcome this, HGV versions of satnav devices are available that have built in to their mapping those roads that are not suitable for an HGV to negotiate, or that have structural or environmental weight restrictions..
29. The issue here is one of cost. A typical satnav for a car costs around £70. The equivalent for an HGV costs £270. In many instances, HGV drivers are not supplied with a device by their employer so they opt for the cheaper, non-HGV satnav with the inevitable consequences when it directs them down an unsuitable road.
30. The second issue is whether a satnav’s mapping system is up to date. Many satnavs, both HGV and ordinary variants, are supplied with a map which is correct at the time of purchase, but that is not updated if roads or their attributes 36
change. If the satnav manufacturers subsequently change their maps in response, for example, to a request from a local authority, many users will never receive that update.
31. Leicestershire County Council have contact details for the major satnav mapping companies, and regularly supply information to them on changes and additions to the road network, as well as information on roads that are or become unsuitable for HGVs. In turn, these companies incorporate changes to their mapping as soon as practical. The problem remains that the updates will not get to all users.
Police Partnership
32. Leicestershire County Council and Leicestershire Constabulary are both committed to reducing the nuisance and danger caused by the inappropriate use of unsuitable roads by HGVs. The Traffic Management Teams of both organisations work together to discuss and exchange information, doing what they can to ease the County’s problems.
Conclusion
33. Whilst measures can be and are taken to try and reduce the occurrence of HGVs using unsuitable roads, it must be appreciated that whatever actions the County Council and the police take, the problem will only at best be reduced. It can never be eliminated.
Recommendation
34. It is recommended that the Forum notes the contents of this report.
Officer to Contact
David Wright, Tel. 0116 305 0001 E-mail: [email protected]
37 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Agenda Item 14
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
2014/15 MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of the Report
1. This report summarises the progress of the major maintenance and improvement programmes that have been approved for 2014/15 for Melton Borough.
2014/15 Programme
2. Details of specific schemes included in the approved 20014/15 Capital and Revenue Programmes are summarised in the attached appendices
• Appendix A - Structural Carriageway and Footway Maintenance schemes. • Appendix B - Footway Slurry Seal • Appendix C - Carriageway Surface Dressing • Appendix D - Sustainable Transport Improvement Schemes • Appendix E - Bridge Maintenance • Appendix F - Flood Alleviation Schemes • Appendix G - Street Lighting Update
3. The programmes for 2014/15 have been developed in accordance with the policies and strategies set out in the Local Transport Plan and in line with the financial allocations approved by the County Council’s Cabinet.
4. In June 2014 the Department for Transport announced that an additional £2.6M would be made available to Leicestershire as part of the national Pothole Repair Fund allocations. The majority of this additional funding has been directed towards carriageway patching, offsetting reductions in the revenue budget. However, a proportion of the Pothole Repair Fund has been allocated to tackle larger schemes that specifically address the issue of potholes. As a result, two additional schemes have been brought forward in Melton Borough, at Thorpe End junction, Melton Mowbray and Teigh Road, Edmondthorpe and these are listed in Appendix A.
5. The annual programme of surface dressing is now complete. The treated sites are shown for completeness in Appendix C. The programme of footway slurry seal is currently in progress and is expected to be completed before the end of the financial year.
38 FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Equal Opportunities Implications
6. The completion of the works programme will improve the operation and condition of the network for the convenience of all users, whilst causing an element of localised disruption during construction work.
Recommendations
7. It is recommended that members note the contents of this report
Officers to Contact
8. Members with specific queries about particular schemes are advised to contact the following officers:
Overall Policy Ian Vears Tel (0116) 305 7215 Email: [email protected]
Structural maintenance, flood alleviation, footway slurry sealing & surface dressing Mike Sheldrake Tel. (0116) 305 0001 Email [email protected]
Improvement schemes Martin O’Connor Tel. (0116) 305 7222 Email [email protected]
Bridge Maintenance Chris Waterfield Tel. (0116) 305 7167 Email [email protected]
Street Lighting Patrick Vasdewan Tel (0116) 3057155 Email [email protected]
Background Papers
None
39
APPENDIX A
MELTON CAPITAL STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME 2014/2015 FOOTWAY & CARRIAGEWAY WORKS
ROAD COST PARISH / TOWN LOCATION DESCRIPTION NOTES No BAND
Norman Way/Thorpe End Carriageway th A607 Melton B 4 Quarter Junction Resurfacing Carriageway C8304 Bottesford Belvoir Road C Completed Haunching St Bartholomews Way Carriageway C7310 Melton B Completed (various sections) Resurfacing Carriageway Orston Lane, Railway – C8309 Bottesford Haunching and C Completed Longhedge Lane Resurfacing Carriageway C7309 Melton Scalford Road C Completed Resurfacing Carriageway C7312 Wymondham Wymondham Drift B Completed Resurfacing
Bridge abutment th C8302 Harby Langar Lane B 4 Quarter stabilisation Carriageway U/C Sproxton Buckminster Road Haunching and C Completed Resurfacing Carriageway U/C Wymondham Glebe Road B Completed Resurfacing Carriageway U/C Scalford Landyke Lane Haunching and B Completed Resurfacing Carriageway U/C Thorpe Satchville Bakers Lane B Completed Haunching Carriageway U/C Wyfordby Stapleford Road (part) C Completed Resurfacing
Carriageway th U/C Edmondthorpe Teigh Road B 4 Quarter Haunching Footway U/C Melton Nottingham Street C In progress Resurfacing
Footway th U/C Stathern Main Street C 4 Quarter Resurfacing
Footway th U/C Somerby Town End C 4 Quarter Resurfacing
Cost band Key:- C < £50k; B £50k - £200k; A > £200k
Officer to Contact
Mike Sheldrake Tel. 0116 3050001 Email [email protected]
40
This page is intentionally left blank 41
APPENDIX B
MELTON BOROUGH SLURRY SEAL PROGRAMME 2014
Site No Village/Town Site Description/Location
1 Asfordby Hill Crompton Road
2 Glebe Road
3 Crompton Road
4 Stanton Road
Shoby Lane footpaths at jnc Main Street. Also footpaths at play area up to end 5 Grimston at last house
6 Melton Mowbray Blyth Avenue (pt) from Tamar Road to Convent Close south side only
7 Burton Road (north side) from jnc Woodland Avenue to King Edward school
8 Burton Road (south side) from o/s no.106 to jnc Gloucester Avenue
9 Burton Road (south side) from opposite Craven Lodge to jnc Craven Street
10 Cranmere Rd from Wycliffe Avenue to Redwood Avenue incl east side to Fairfield Close
11 Dorian Rise link footpath to Dalby Road
12 Dovedale Close
13 Eagles Drive
14 Eagles Drive
15 Eagles Drive
16 Eagles Drive
17 Edendale Rd (north side) from Cherry Tree pub to Kennet Way incl Edendale Rd cul-de-sacs
18 Edendale Rd (north side) from Cherry Tree pub to Kennet Way incl Edendale Rd cul-de-sacs
19 Edendale Rd (south side) from Heather Crescent to Leicester Rd
20 Edendale Rd (south side) from Heather Crescent to Leicester Rd 42
21 Freshney Close
22 Freshney Close
23 Nene Close
24 Kennet Way
25 Leicester Rd from Edendale Rd to field access on bend
26 Link footpaths between Edendale Rd & Tamar Road at large grassed areas
27 Tamar Rd (part) from Blyth Avenue to Nene Close
28 Nottingham Rd (opposite Sainsburys) from cattle market entrance to opp jnc Staveley Rd
29 Nottingham Rd (opposite Sainsburys) from cattle market entrance to opp jnc Staveley Rd
30 Garden Lane
31 Solway Close
32 Swift Close incl link footpath to Dalby Rd
33 Paddock Close
34 Owen Drive & Owen Crescent (incl link footpath to Cranmere Road)
35 Whitelake Close
Link footpath from Chapel Street to Parnhams Close incl towards A606 Nottm 36 Nether Broughton Rd
37 Old Dalby Hawthorn Close including short sections on Debdale Hill
Officer to Contact
Mike Sheldrake Tel. 0116305 0001 email [email protected] 43
APPENDIX C
MELTON AREA SURFACE DRESSING PROGRAMME 2014
Site No Village/Town Site Description/Location Six Hills Lane from jnc A606 at Broughton Hill to just past Stonepits Farm (Mussons 1 Ab Kettleby Fencing)
2 Asfordby Welby Church Road from jnc Welby Ln to St Bartholomews Way
3 Asfordby Asfordby bypass from rndbt at Asf Valley to near jnc Saxelby Rd
4 Asfordby Sarson Close
5 Asfordby Hill Welby Road from end of HRA nr Sports Club to jnc Welby Lane
6 Asfordby Hill Welby Rd from A6006 to end of HRA near Sports Club
7 Ashby Folville Pasture Lane from jnc Pasture Ln North to jnc Great Dalby Rd at X-rds Eastwell Road through Belvoir woods from jnc Redmile Rd to jnc Knipton Rd at 8 Belvoir sawmills
9 Bottesford Longhedge Lane - from jnc Orston Lane nr railway x-ing to SD joint after bend
10 Bottesford Station Road from jnc Beacon View to jnc Rectory Ln
11 Bottesford Walnut Rd access road between house nos 7 & 21
12 Bottesford Walnut Rd access road between house nos 33 & 45
13 Buckminster Buckminster Drift Rd from B676 at X-rds to jnc Hall Ln at water tower
14 Coston B676 Buckminster Rd from 30mph Coston to Royces Corner at jnc Sproxton Rd Scalford Rd, Main St & Belvoir Rd from SD joint at Eastwell X-rds to SD joint just 15 Eastwell before S-bends
16 Eastwell Harby Road from Eastwell X-rds to SD joint at Hill Top Farm - heat damaged
17 Eaton Green Lane from jnc Lings Hill to x-rds at Station Road
18 Eaton Belvoir Rd from SD joint near Eaton X-rds to SD joint nr jnc Tofts Hill
19 Gaddesby Chapel Lane
20 Gaddesby Cross Street
21 Gaddesby Park Hill from jnc Cross Street to jnc Paske Avenue
22 Gaddesby Church Lane
23 Gaddesby Nether End & Ashby Rd from SD joint nr Chapel Ln to stream bridge Ashby Rd from Sd joint nr old railway bridge to SD joint 200m past Ashby Pastures x- 24 Great Dalby rds
25 Hose Harby Lane from 30mph Clawson Ln through Hose to SD joint near 30mph
26 Knossington Owston Woods Rd between SD joints near culvert Clawson Lane (Clawson Top Rd) from SD joint east of jnc Pasture Ln to new surfacing 27 Long Clawson joint Clawson Road (Clawson Top Rd) from SD joint near jnc Waltham Ln to SD joint near 28 Long Clawson jnc Pasture Ln 44
Hose Ln & Clawson Ln from SD joint at 30mph Long Clawson through Hose to SD 29 Long Clawson joint near 30mph
30 Long Clawson Coronation Avenue
31 Long Clawson Water Lane
32 Melton Mowbray Beckmill Lane from King Street to end
33 Melton Mowbray Heather Crescent - section outstanding from last year opp jnc Marigold Crescent
34 Melton Mowbray Horseguards Way from block paving at Cavalry Close to block paving at Bridle Close
35 Melton Mowbray Queensway
48 Melton Mowbray New Street from King Street to end at MBC car park
49 Melton Mowbray Kings Road from jnc Lime St to jnc Salisbury Ave
50 Melton Mowbray Shepherds Croft from Dieppe Way to block paving sections
51 Melton Mowbray Dalby Road from Swallowdale Rd to SD joint between Kirby Ln X-rds & LCC Depot
52 Nether Broughton Melton Road from HFS at Browns Corner to HFS at Broughton Hill
53 Pickwell Stygate Lane from 30mph Pickwell to access to Melton Meat Ltd Abbattoir Main St & Stygate Ln from jncs Somerby Rd to 30mph Stygate Lane incl access area 54 Pickwell at Church Wycomb Ln from jncs Thorpe Side to after bend at top of hill after jnc 2nd Chadwell 55 Scalford turn
56 Scalford Thorpe Side from surfacing joint near 30mph Scalford to 40mph near Meadowcroft
57 Stathern Water Lane from jnc Mill Hill to narrow point near school
58 Stathern Water Lane from narrow point near school to jnc Red Lion Street
59 Twyford Leicester Road from jnc Tilton Rd at Thimble Hall to Charnwood District Bdy Rookery Ln from jncs Main St to road ends at Rookery House incl spur at end 60 Wymondham between nos 4 & 8
Mike Sheldrake Tel. (0116) 305 0001 Email [email protected] 45
APPENDIX D
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMME FOR MELTON 2014/2015
Scheme Cost Anticipated Parish Details Status Location Band Construction Melton Brooksby Network Rail funded - new Awaiting B Q4 Mowbray College Yard footway and ramp construction Design under Various Various Bus stop improvements C 2014/15 way Design under Various Various Cycle parking C 2014/15 way Discretionary footway Design under Various Various C 2014/15 improvements – countywide way Rights of way network Design under Various Various B 2014/15 improvements way Sustainable transport Design under Various Various C 2014/15 improvements way
Notes
Cost Band Key:- C < £50k; B £50k - £200k; A > £200k
Anticipated Construction:-
Q1 = April – June Q2 = July – September Q3= October – December Q4 = January – March Future = future year not yet confirmed
Officer to Contact :
Martin O’Connor Tel. (0116) 305 0001 Email [email protected]
46
This page is intentionally left blank 47 APPENDIX E
MELTON BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME 2014/15
BRIDGE PARISH / COST LOCATION DESCRIPTION NOTES No TOWN BAND Clawson & Paint deck beams 1278 Meadows Lane, Hose C Works complete Harby and brickwork repairs
1351 Scalford Wycomb Lane Brickwork repairs C Works complete
Cost band Key:- C < £50k; B £50k - £200k; A > £200k
Officer to Contact Chris Waterfield Tel: (0116) 305 7167 Email: [email protected]
48
This page is intentionally left blank 49
APPENDIX F
MELTON DRAINAGE SCHEME 2014 / 2015
ROAD COST PARISH / TOWN LOCATION DESCRIPTION NOTES No BAND Drainage Completed C5304 Somerby Town End improvement B Q1 works Drainage Completed C8311 Normanton Main Street improvement C Q1 works
Cost band Key:- C < £50k; B £50k - £200k; A > £200k
Anticipated Construction:- 1st Quarter = April – June 2nd Quarter = July – September 3rd Quarter = October – December 4th Quarter = January - March
Officer to Contact
Jon McGuinness Tel. 0116 305 0001 Email: [email protected]
50
This page is intentionally left blank Street Lighting Column Replacement Programme 2014/15 Appendix G Melton
VARIOUS SITES
Individual lighting columns found to be defective during routine work programmes will be replaced as required
Officer to Contact
Richard Newing Phone 0116 305 0001 email - highwayscustomerservices @leics.gov.uk 51 52
This page is intentionally left blank 53 Agenda Item 15 FOR INFORMATION ONLY
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS FORUM FOR MELTON
5TH FEBRUARY 2015
PROGRAMME OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WORK - CURRENT POSITION
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. To inform Members of the current status of the traffic management work programme.
Work Programmes
2. The programme and current status of traffic management work is summarised in the attached appendices:
Works Programme Appendix 2014/15 Schemes (all) A Developer-funded traffic regulation orders B
Resource Implications
3. Traffic management schemes are funded from various sources: • The County Council’s traffic management revenue allocation – includes most schemes undertaken as a result of an enquiry; • Capital funding (County Council, Local Sustainable Transport Fund etc.) – planned area-wide work; • Developers – no resource implications; • Outside funding (individuals, parishes, districts etc) – those schemes that are unlikely to be rated high enough to justify County Council funding.
Equal Opportunities Implications
4. No direct implications have been identified.
Recommendation
5. Members are requested to note the content of this report.
54 FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Officer to Contact
David Wright Tel: 0116 305 0001 Email: [email protected]
Background Papers
None.
55
Traffic Management Revenue Work Programme: 2014-2015
Officer Score Priority Stuart Bullen [email protected] 0-45 Low Aimi Ducker [email protected] 46-55 Medium Mark Palfreyman [email protected] 56-90 High David Wright [email protected] Telephone (all) 0116 305 0001
▼
District Parish / Town Location and type of scheme Comments Score Objections Works ordered Scheme approval Officer to contact Initial consultation Formal consultation Approval to advertise Anticipated construction
Town Centre - Safety / Congestion / Support received from Syston Town Charnwood Syston 63 PPPPPP Q4 SB Parking Scheme Council. LM report supportive of scheme
Scheme to consult on lowering current speed limit on Knob Hill Road, initial contact with the Parish Council and looking Harborough Horninghold Knob Hill Road 62 PP at providing a communication plan to the SB Parish Council on how we get from the start to finish of the scheme. Formal consultation in February 2015 Scheme has been carried out in Market conjunction with Harborough District Harborough Town Centre - Sign declutter 62 PPPPPP Q4 SB Harborough Council. Initial design completed and signs ordered Sign schedules have been drawn up and Blaby Blaby Blaby bypass - Speed limit alteration 57 PPPPP Q4 SB ordered
Town Centre - Review of parking To work with key stakeholders to Harborough Lutterworth 57 P Q4 SB restrictions on car parks implement enforceable parking restriction
LM report to be written in March 2015. Hicks Lodge - Speed Limit / Cycle This speed limit change is to be worked NW Leics Moira 57 PPPP Q4 SB Safety into other proposed speed limit reductions in Moira. NW Leics Measham Atherstone Road - Review of speed limit 57 PPPOPP Q4 Scheme to be complete in March 2015 SB St Peters Court - Parking and Safety Charnwood Syston 55 PPPP Q4 LM Report being drawn up SB Scheme Blaby Enderby Warren Park Way Business Park 55 PPPOPP Q2 Scheme complete SB
Working with school to implement safety Leicester Forest Stafford Leys School - TRO parking Blaby 55 PP Q4 improvements. Formal consultation in SB East improvements February. Safety improvement scheme around Harborough Thurnby Main Street - TRO's around school 52 PPPP Q4 school gate, objections during SB consultation, LM report inJanuary Safety improvements have been identified. Market Objections received on Brookfield Way, Harborough Business Parks - Safety Improvements 52 PPPP Q4 SB Harborough issue with access to local waste station. LM report February
Market Gores Lane - Review of Parking Safety improvements have been identified. Harborough 52 PPP Q4 SB Harborough Restrictions LM report in February
Scheme approved by Cabinet in Ashby de la Lower Packington Rd - Traffic calming NW Leics 52 PPPPPP Q4 November. Scheduled work to start in SB Zouch measures and parking restrictions March 15. Main Shopping area - Additional Blaby Countesthorpe 52 PPPPPP Q4 Construction in March 2015. SB parking for local businesses
Market Objections received. LM report February Harborough Farndon Fields School 52 PPPP Q2 SB Harborough 2015
Formally advertised, objections received, Bradgate Park area - Parking Charnwood Newtown Linford 52 PPPP Q4 working with Cllr Snartt to identify changes, SB Restrictions LM report February 2015.
Lutterworth Rd / Hill St - Safety Blaby Whetstone 52 ON-HOLD SB Improvements
Formally advertised , objections received Beaumont Rd / Howe Road - Speed Charnwood Loughborough 52 PPPPPP Q4 LM report support gained in December SB Cushions 2014. Construction in March 2015
Blaby Sapcote Stanton Rd - Splitter Island 52 ON HOLD SB Beaumont Rd / Broadway - Splitter Charnwood Loughborough 52 PPPOPP Q2 Completed SB Island 56
Construction started in December 2014, to Charnwood Loughborough Radmoor Rd - Traffic calming measures 52 PPPPPP Q4 SB be completed in March 2015.
Consulting with police on two speed limit NW Leics Moira Ashby Road - Review of speed limit 52 P changes. Provide Parish with police SB findings in Jan 2015. Consulting with businesses in January NW Leics Castle Donington Borough St - Parking Improvements 52 PPP Q4 SB 2015
Parish Council provided feedback on NW Leics Ravenstone Beadmans Corner - Junction protection 52 PPPP Q3 proposal, decision being made at cabinet SB report in March
Extend existing 30mph speed limit, formal Harborough Kimcote Kimcote Road - Gateway treatment 52 P SB advertising in January 2015. NW Leics Acresford Measham Rd - Gateway treatment 52 PPPPPP Q2 Completed SB
Hall Croft - Review of Parking Formally advertised, objections received, Charnwood Shepshed 47 PPPPPP Q4 SB Restrictions LM report supportive of scheme. Barrow Upon Main Road - Upgrade of Zebra Charnwood 47 PPPOPP Q2 Completed SB Soar Crossings Regent St / The Green - Junction Charnwood Thurmaston 47 PPPOPP Q2 Completed SB protection Charnwood Loughborough Thorpe Hill - School Bus Stands 47 PPPOPP Q2 Completed SB
Blaby Enderby High Street - Signing and Lining Scheme 47 PPPPPP Q4 Work to be implemented in January 2015. SB Oadby & Oadby London Rd - Junction protection 47 P Q4 Going to formal consultation in January 15 SB Wigston Oadby & Oadby Churchill Close - Junction protection 47 P Q4 Going to formal consultation in January 15 SB Wigston Long Whatton to Belton - Declutter and NW Leics Belton 47 ON HOLD SB review of speed limit Thurnby & Harborough Station Lane - Traffic calming measures 45 PPPPPP Q4 Construction in March 2015. SB Bushby Harborough Scraptoft Station Lane - Traffic calming measures 45 PPPPPP Q4 Construction in March 2015. SB
Survey showed no overall support for Laycock Avenue area - review waiting changes. May propose changes to Melton Melton Mowbray 45 P SB restrictions restriction times in conjunction with any Q4 future TRO in the area. A512 Ashby Rd/University Road & Old Charnwood Loughborough Ashby Rd (o/s William Booth) waiting 45 PPPPPP Q4Completed AD restrictions TRO Appendix B
Officer to Contact
Martin O’Connor Tel. (0116) 305 0001 Email [email protected]
Melton Developer TRO Schemes in Progress
Parish or Ward Scheme 57 Comment Initial Initial Consultation Formal Consultation to Approval Advertise Advert Public Objections Approval Process Complete
None.
58
This page is intentionally left blank