MEMORANDUM
To:
All Members of the Highways and
Transport Cabinet Panel
Executive Members for (1) Highways
& Transport and (2) Environment,
Planning & Waste
Director of Environment &
Commercial Services
4 December 2009
From: Legal and Member Services
Ask for: Adrian Service
Ext:
25564
My Ref: AS
Your Ref:
_____________________________
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL
10 NOVEMBER 2009
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
N Bell, P J Bibby (substituting for J Maddern), G F Button, R F Cheswright, G R Churchard,
W E Eynon, S B A F H Giles – Medhurst, T C Heritage (Vice – Chairman), M D R Muir,
S OBrien, S J Pile (Chairman), R G Tindall (substituting for M Cowan), A D Williams.
Also in Attendance
D J Hewitt and T W Hone.
Officers
R Smith
N Gough
- Lead Officer - Assistant Director of Environment (Transport Management)
- Area Highways Development Control Manager, Environment &
Commercial Services Dept
D Humby
- Head of Transportation Planning & Policy, Environment & Commercial
Services Dept.
J Jack
- Youth Engagement Manager – Youth Connexions
T Mason
- Principal Engineer (Policy), Environment & Commercial Services Dept.
M Saunders
- Strategy Development Manager, Herts Highways
A Service
- Democratic Services Officer
I Thompson
- Strategy Development Manager, Herts Highways
M Younghusband - Head of Transport Programmes and Strategies Unit, Herts Highways
MEMBERSHIP
The Panel noted that P J Bibby and R G Tindall had been appointed to respectively
replace J K Maddern and M Cowan as Members of the Panel for this meeting only.
APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of M Cowan, A F Hunter and
J K Maddern.
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes060706
MEMORANDUM
1.
4 December 2009
PRESENTATION BY CONNECT PLUS
Tim Jones, the Chief Executive of Connect Plus, the Highways Agency’s DBFO
contractor for the M25 and associated radial routes gave a presentation [including
power point slides] outlining how they intended to proceed with the programme to
widen and undertake maintenance works to the M25 in particular those lengths that
were in or served Hertfordshire. The road widening programme would be
undertaken in phases with the first phase ending in June 2012 prior to the start of
the 2012 Olympics.
He stated that without demand management measures being employed, the
current continual growth of increased vehicle movements 2% annually, would
mean that the extra road capacity provided by the fourth lane would be absorbed
within 12 to 15 years.
The current accident levels on the M25 or artillery routes involved 86 deaths
annually and 1 serious accident per day.
He stated that the M25 road widening works would involve the same arrangements
as employed with the Birmingham Motorway widening works notably the use of the
hard shoulder whilst adjoining lane(s) were closed. In response to a question, he
stated in the event of a road accident where works were being undertaken, the
signs indicating the hard shoulder was usable by vehicles as a diversionary lane
would be switched off at traffic control centre with vehicles being shephered out of
using the hard shoulder so that emergency vehicles only could use the hard
shoulder to get to the accident scene.
The Panel expressed the importance of getting information about accident
occurring quickly to maximise the possibility of drivers coming off roads at junctions
prior to the where the accidents were and locating information gantries before
junctions.
The County Councillor for Oxhey Park expressed concern at the dangers of driving
onto the M25 at Junction 25 whilst widening works were being undertaken. Tim
Jones stated he would look into this point and see if something could easily be
done to improve safety whilst the widening works were being progressed near this
junction.
He stated that the renewal contract involved pavement replacement, strengthening
of embankments, replacement of steel safety fencing, bridge maintenance which
would be undertaken mainly during the night over the next 30 years.
In response to a request he stated that he would provide an electronic copy of
powerpoint slides shown as part of his presentation.
2.
YOUTH TRANSPORT ISSUES – “THE END OF THE LINE” DVD
The Panel viewed Watford Youth Advocates DVD entitled “End of the Line” which
contained three drama storylets concerning travelling on public transport in Watford
highlighting shortcomings of public transport experienced by youths.
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes/010606
2
MEMORANDUM
4 December 2009
The issues highlighted in the three storylets were :



The absence of late night public transport services to get home [bus routes W7
and W9 particularly]
ID accepted by bus operators [bus route W1 featured] consistency of students
passes
Safety of youths travelling alone on public transport i.e underground trains
[Metropolitan line] including unmanned stations
Attitude of some bus drivers to youths, routes with high numbers of youth
passengers, drivers allocated to routes asked if they are happy to do this
The Watford Advocates present requested that consideration should be given to
the following initiatives / incentives to encourage greater usage of public transport
by youths : a) provision of safe carriages with a member of train / tube staff travelling on
board, which would re assure passengers travelling alone
b) consistent age for concessionary travel permits for students / youths
c) advertise / publicise what Identity documents are needed to be shown for
concessionary travel
d) transport operators should ask their drivers if they are happy driving on routes /
services with a high level of youths using them.
The Panel Chairman thanked the youth advocates for their presentation and invited
them to make future contributions to Council transport schemes including the
workshop session for the forthcoming LTP 3 to be held next year.
The Deputy Executive Member for Children’s Services drew the Panel’s attention
to a radio story broadcasted stating that a cross party group of lady Members of
Parliament did not feel safe travelling home from late night sittings of Parliament
by public transport, which supported the views expressed by Watford Advocates
today.
It was suggested that a safe stopping off points scheme involving stations at
Stevenage, Watford etc should be promoted to deal with this concern.
In response to problems experienced in making this DVD, the Executive Member
stated that for future ventures it may be possible to give assistance and suggested
he / officers be approached to see what could be possible.
3.
MINUTES OF PANEL MEETING HELD ON 8 SEPTEMBER 2009
Item 3 (Introduction to the Work of the Highways and Transport Cabinet Panel)
a) Work programmes considered by the Panel
Rob Smith advised that the belief that there were a number of works
programmes that the Panel did not see was not the case. He stated that details
of puffin and pelican crossings conversions were included in the yearly
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes/010606
3
MEMORANDUM
4 December 2009
Integrated Works Programmes which was brought to the Panel. Change of
road signs i.e location of hospital were dealt with on an individual basis and
often funded by third parties i.e NHS trusts.
He did agree that the Minute did not clearly state how the belief stated would be
responded to.
b) Highways Adoption Policy for New Roads
In response to a question, the Executive Member for Highways & Transport
explained the reasoning why he had refused the request for Tony Swendell
to speak at today’s meeting concerning the future policy for adoption of new
roads as public highway. He felt that Tony Swendell’s comments related to
past cases of road adoptions and that they would be more appropriately
considered as part of the forthcoming scrutiny of road adoptions in March 2010.
Item 4 (Speed Management Policy and Strategy)
It was agreed that the preamble to this Item should include an additional sentence
to record “Some Panel Members were not prepared to agree the revised
Speed Management Strategy as currently stated.”
That subject to Item 4 of the Minutes being amended to include the above sentence
shown in bold type, the Minutes of the Panel meeting held on 8 September 2009 be
approved as a correct record.
4.
PETITIONS
There was one petition received from the public which would be presented to the
Panel at the start of consideration of Item 8 at this meeting.
5.
HIGHWAY SERVICES RE PROCUREMENT - 2012
The Panel received a report outlining the tendering process which would be
followed leading up to the contract for Hertfordshire highway services being
awarded in October 2012.
The Panel noted the report.
6.
SPEED MANAGEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY
Ian Thompson advised that since the last Panel meeting on 8 September 2009 the
revised Speed Management Policy Statement and Strategy had been considered by
the Member Advisory Group on October 2009 and outlined changes that had been
made.
It was noted that the Police Authority’s Priority Setting Forums were due to meet
quarterly in every county ward would select specific issues they wished the Police to
concentrate on in the next three months which could include speed enforcement. It
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes/010606
4
MEMORANDUM
4 December 2009
was stated that this new way of working had been introduced in North Herts and after
a trial was due to be rolled out to other Hertfordshire District areas.
Some County Councillors had yet to be made aware of the operation of these
Forums.
It was noted that letters would be sent to all Hertfordshire District / Borough Councils
about the new Forums in the next two to three weeks.
Some Panel members whilst commending the revised Strategy were concerned
about the lack of resources that would be made available to implement the strategy
especially 20 mph speed limits. It was felt that funds available through the Highways
Joint Member Panels discretionary budget and the County Councillors locality Budget
allocations would be inadequate to fund a desired number of 20 mph speed limits.
The Executive Member for Highways & Transport advised that next year’s Council
funding allocations was expected to be reduced and consequently funding of
additional speed limits could prove to be difficult. He stated he would approach
Teresa Villiers to seek clarification of the possible future implementation of additional
safety cameras to further reduce road accidents injuries and deaths.
The opposition Groups Members of the Panel present stated that they could not
support the revised Speed Management Policy Statement and Strategy due to the
likely failure to fund 20 mph speed limits but they would not oppose it.
The Panel agreed to endorse the Speed Management Policy Statement and Strategy
as submitted.
7.
FUTURE APPROACH TO HIGHWAY ADOPTION POLICY FOR NEW ROADS
Dave Humby advised on the current arrangements followed to adopt new roads built
as public highway maintainable by the County Council with suggested revisions
to give greater clarity, certainity and expedite the adoption of new roads.
He stated that with the construction of new developments, whilst developers could
be encouraged they could not be required by current legislation to offer roads
serving new developments for adoption.
One Panel member felt that consideration should be given to lobbying for a change
in legislation to assist with the current situation.
The County Councillor for Central Oxhey advised of residential roads which were
adopted highway only accessible by a length of un adopted road.
In response to a question, Rob Smith highlighted the limitations of the Advanced
Payments Code system and why the County Council had chosen not to operate this
system in the last 30 years and felt the system suited areas governed by unitary
authorities.
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes/010606
5
MEMORANDUM
4 December 2009
The Liberal Democrat Group Panel Members requested that their opposition to a)
[para 7.1 of the submitted report] below be recorded.
That the Executive Member for Highways & Transport be requested to recommend
the Cabinet to agree the following revised approach for the adoption of new roads as
highway maintainable at public expense :a) In order to give greater clarity:
On developments with no through route, only the main access road will be
considered for adoption. Residential access roads serving underground car
parks, supported by structures or taking the form of short culs-de-sac with no
wider highway benefit will not be considered for adoption.
b) In order to give earlier certainty:
The extent of adoption should be agreed in principle by the developer and
Highway Authority (planning and implementation teams) at the planning stage.
This should be recorded in the planning consultation response.
c) In order to achieve a signed Section 38 Agreement as quickly as possible:
Pressure should be brought to bear on developers to enter into S 38
Agreements by the use of highway informative notes in the planning
consultation response.
d) In order to ensure long-term maintenance of un adopted roads for the benefit of
residents:
If the developer states that they do not want to offer roads for adoption, the
long term maintenance of private (un adopted) roads in residential
developments should be secured as a standard requirement through a S106
obligation.
e) In order to give greater clarity to residents:
Street name plates on un adopted roads should clearly identify them as such.
f) In order to improve joint working for collective benefit:
That the aspects requiring cooperation of the Local Planning Authorities are
discussed with them and protocols established under the Pathfinder banner.
g) In order to reduce the numbers of roads waiting to be adopted:
The backlogs of historical adoptions should continue to be actively managed
down by Hertfordshire County Council officers as quickly as resources permit.
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes/010606
6
MEMORANDUM
8.
4 December 2009
HITCHIN FLYOVER
Mrs L Slaney-Parker on behalf of Wilbury Residents Alliance presented a petition
containing 300 signatures of residents of Hitchin and spoke objecting to Network
Rail’s draft Transport and Works Act Order in respect of the “Hitchin Curve” Hitchin
Flyover. A copy of Mrs Slaney – Parker’s presentation was circulated at the
meeting.
Trevor Mason advised that Network Rail had promoted a draft Transport and Works
Act Order to construct the Hitchin Flyover and the County Council as highway
authority had been consulted on the Order and had until 11 November 2009 to advise
the Secretary of State of its response.
He stated that North Herts District Council had objected to the Order on the following
grounds : 


contrary to green belt policy
flooding problems
the effects of construction traffic
The Panel were concerned about the method of construction for the scheme, which
will lead to a significantly increase traffic on Stotfold Road, Hitchin and other parts
of the local network, in particular, the major increase in HGV traffic during the
construction of the embankment. It was felt that Network Rail should explore
alternative means of importing construction material especially by rail which would
reduce traffic impact on the local road network.
The County Councillor for Letchworth North West stated that whilst the Hitchin
Flyover scheme would improve rail movements, the inconvenience that would be
experienced by local residents during the construction period would be intolerable.
In particular the topography of the area involved a hill with a 1 in 5 gradient which
lorries would be travelling on and having to turn right across traffic at the bottom of
the hill. Furthermore there were primary schools plus a secondary school on the
construction route which was narrow in stretches plus a cemetery which slow
moving hearses would be regularly going to.
The County Councillor for Letchworth East and Baldock stated that many of the
roads likely to be on the construction route were narrow and construction lorries
when passing other traffic would probably use the verge and pavement in the
residential area increasing the likelihood of accidents occurring. He also felt that
the proposed Section 106 contribution was not adequate to enable appropriate
school crossings and layby provision for displaced parking to be provided
The Panel were advised that it would be necessary for the County Council to ratify
the objection at its meeting on 24 November 2009.
The Panel
(a) agreed that the Council be recommended to object to the draft Transport and
Works Act Order submitted by Network Rail to construct the Hitchin Flyover
owing to the adverse impact of construction traffic on local residents and the
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes/010606
7
MEMORANDUM
4 December 2009
highway network. That Network Rail be urged to consider that construction
building materials should be brought in by rail rather than by road. In the event
of the scheme progressing a specific route for daytime construction traffic should
be agreed.
9.
DATES OF FUTURE PANEL MEETINGS
The Panel noted the dates of its following future meetings: a) Tuesday 12 January 2010 at 10.00 am.
b) Tuesday 9 February 2010 at 10.00 am.
INFORMATION NOTE
The following Information Note had been sent to Panel Members since the last
Panel meeting on 8 September 2009 : > 09/09 – Making the Most of School Transport – Review being undertaken
Kathryn Pettitt
Chief Legal Officer
Share drive/ member &committee/ committee/cabinet panels/ highways&transportpanel/ minutes/010606
8