Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 March 2015, having been circulated were signed as a correct record.

          It was confirmed that seven public questions had been received and would be submitted and addressed as part of Minute No 4. It was noted that in accordance with Standing Order 34 (9), written notice of questions must be given by 4.00 pm on the working day prior to the date of the meeting to the Committee Services Manager. As the following two additional questions were received after the deadline it was agreed that a written response would be provided:

MARY SYKES

I have lived here quite happily for 18 years but since the incinerator has been up and running my life is just a living nightmare with the rotten smells and the constant humming noise every single night unless they are aware of being monitored I report most nights but on Friday 19th June 2015 I broke down in work due to the stress and lack of sleep this can’t go on. My family life is suffering I have a husband and daughter who is 11yrs old .who feel like they have to walk on egg shells around me. I am very weepy and could very easily fall but have a family I am trying to keep together, please please sort this nightmare we are living out. The noise and stink has to go. What is the council going to do?

DONNA WOODS

There is much concern that when the incinerator stack was reduced by 10 meters that this would result in the dispersal from the stack not to be as efficient considering that the original height was the recommended height.  Could the committee consider additional monitoring is put in a downwind location to provide additional monitoring of the emissions from the site.  I believe Weston School was a recommended place.

            The Board considered the Minutes of the meetings of the Executive Board relevant to the Environment and Urban Renewal Policy and Performance Board.

            RESOLVED: That the Minutes be received.

          The Board considered a report of the Director of Public Health which presented an overview of air quality in Halton. It also presented a summary of national and local air quality monitoring, progress against National and European Air Quality legislation and provided a response to a petition for Air Monitors received by the Council in March 2015.

          It was noted that on the 6^th March 2015, the Council had received a petition entitled “Request for the Council to Monitor the Air Quality for PM2.5 and other toxins” which contained 5,632 signatures.  In response to the petition, the report identified the facts around air quality and air quality monitoring in Halton within the national and international frameworks and identified the following recommendations to address the issues raised in the report and ensure that air quality in Halton remained good and ultimately to improve health and wellbeing in Halton:-

i)        Undertake a series of public engagement events to build a greater understanding of the concerns local people had regarding air quality in Halton and identify opportunities to build improved transparent relationships to ensure a clear way forward in all concerns;

ii)        Develop an active multi-agency Air Quality Forum (including lay representation) to enable issues and concerns could be raised and discussed in an open, engaged forum and facilitate agreement on actions and outcomes.

iii)       Investigate further opportunities to limit emissions and reduce NO₂ in areas of potential high traffic activity around built up areas and achieve compliance with NO₂ Air Quality Objectives.

iv)       Develop a full Air Quality Strategy, based on available local and national data and evidence to ensure that Halton was able to sustain recent improvements in Air Quality across the Borough and proactively seek to remove the declaration of Air Quality Management Areas within the Borough.

          In accordance with Standing Order No.34 (9), the following public questions were submitted to the Board by email:

QUESTION 1 - ANNE-MARIE ATHERTON

Halton Borough Council, as quoted in an article in Liverpool Echo,states that the only air quality measure that the Borough fails is the level of Nitrous Oxide/nitrogen dioxide and that this comes from road traffic. I would like to draw your attention to an article produced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/asthma/no2.html

This article shows a clear link between severe asthmatic attacks and high levels of Nitrous Oxide/nitrogen dioxide. 

I would also like to draw your attention to a published scientific paper which prove nitrous oxide/nitrogen dioxide is produced by waste incinerators of which there is one in Runcorn and one (at least) in Widnes. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf

Therefore I would like to question how does Halton Borough Council air quality investigations distinguish between road traffic nitrogen dioxide and that produced by incinerators?

The medical/treatment cost of the high incidence of asthma and COPD in the borough could be drastically reduced if the air quality was improved - so why does the local council want to do nothing about improving health and quality of life  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

          The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which advised that an 80 signature petition and associated individual letters had been received requesting alteration of the waiting restrictions on Queens Avenue, Widnes.

          The immediate area of the Argos/Homebase offices at Queens Avenue/Royal Avenue in Widnes, was subject to intense pressure on available on and off-road parking provision as a result of these offices, the adjacent housing and the shops on Queens Avenue.

          At the present time, the parking bays on the shops side of Queens Avenue were limited to 40 minutes stay time, with unrestricted parking on the other side. There were also “At Any Time” restrictions in the area of the junctions with Royal Avenue and Coronation Drive, in order to protect sightlines. The short stay parking provision was intended to provide a high turnover in the use of the bays to give better access to the shops for the majority of customers, with the unrestricted parking available for visitors needing to make a longer visit. It was noted that residents had complained about various parking issues including: The blocking of driveways; all-day parking in the limited stay bays near the shops; and the use of “private” housing association car parks by office workers. These issues culminated in a meeting between residents’ representatives, Ward Councillors, Cheshire Police and managers from Argos /Homebase in February 2015.

          Whilst it was accepted that it could be in the interests of some businesses and their customers to have a two hour time limit on the parking bays near the shops, this would severely restrict parking space turnover. It would also limit the number of visitors able to access the businesses directly by being able to drive to the shops and then being able to park immediately near their destination. It was also not clear how a two hour stay would dissuade Argos/Homebase employees from parking there.

          Members were advised that Ward Councillors and Cheshire Police had been consulted and supported retention of the present 40 minute stay duration on the bays adjacent to the shops, Cheshire Police pointing out that the present restrictions were introduced to prevent extended parking outside the shops and provide a short term area for those persons visiting said shops.

          RESOLVED: That

(1)      the requested alteration of the existing 40 minute time limited waiting arrangements adjacent to the shop units in Queens Avenue, Widnes be refused; and

          (2)      the lead petitioners and individual writers be so informed.

            The Board received a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which detailed the fourth quarter performance management report for 2014/15 on progress against service objectives/milestones and performance targets and provided information relating to key developments and emerging issues that had arisen in relation to:-

·         Development and Investment Services;

·         Highways and Transportation, Logistics and Development Services;

·         Waste and Environmental Improvement and Open Space Services; and

·         Housing Strategy.

RESOLVED: That the fourth quarter management report be noted.

          The Board received a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which sought to develop a work programme of topics for the Board to scrutinise as part of their 2015/16 work programme. It was agreed that the following Working Parties be established for 2015/16:

Trees  – Councillors P Hignett, MacManus, G. Stockton, C. Loftus and Sinnott.

Waste Management – Councillors Sinnott, C. Loftus, V. Hill, G. Stockton and Zygadllo.

          RESOLVED: That

(1)      Members of the Board indicate target topic areas for potential scrutiny 2015/16;

(2)      Details of topic briefs be agreed by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board, in conjunction with the Lead Officer; and

(3)      Members confirm their support for the continuation of the Waste Management Working Party and establishment of a Trees Working Party with membership as follows:-

Trees  – Councillors P Hignett, MacManus, G. Stockton, C. Loftus and Sinnott.

Waste Management – Councillors Sinnott, C. Loftus, V. Hill, G. Stockton and Zygadllo.

          The Board considered a copy of the Annual Report from the Chair of the Environmental and Urban Renewal Policy and Performance Board 2014/15. The full Board met five times during the year and the report set out the work carried out and recommendations throughout the Municipal Year April 2014 to March 2015.

          The Chair wished to note on record his thanks to Members and Officers for their support during the year.

          RESOLVED: That the Annual Report be accepted.

          The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which advised on objections that had been received following public consultation on a proposed Traffic Regulation Order to introduce 20 mph speed limits on a number of roads in Halton.

          Overall, 17 letters/e-mails were received, 16 of which were objections to aspects of the proposals. With regards to two objections relating to Palace Fields Avenue, these were primarily related to a belief that the lower speed limit would not be complied with and would be of little value, expressing concerns over enforcement. However, the route carried physical traffic calming for its full length which restricted traffic speeds and negated the need for a high degree of Police enforcement. It was therefore recommended that the 20 mph speed limit was implemented at this location.

          With regard to the eleven objections relating to Beechwood Avenue, these covered a range of issues which were set out in the report. Several of the objections expressed a belief that the reduced speed limit was unnecessary, given the physical layout and geometry of what was a distributor road and bus route already equipped with a range of facilities to assist vulnerable road users, and two School Crossing Patrols operating adjacent to the local schools. It was therefore recommended that Beechwood Avenue be excluded from the proposed 20 mph zones for the Beechwood area.

          Members were advised on the four objections which were received to the introduction of 20 mph speed limits generally and these were summarised in the report.

          RESOLVED: That

(1)      the proposal to make a Traffic Regulation Order to implement a 20 mph speed limit on those roads defined in Appendix B with the sole exception of Beechwood Avenue be supported; and

          (2)      the report be submitted to the Executive Board for resolution.

          The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which sought approval for the Street Lighting Strategy and Policy which had been prepared following a previous report to Executive Board on 29 March 2012. The Executive Board, at its meeting on 26 March 2015 approved an Invest to Save bid of £4.7m for a programme of work to replace the current conventional street lighting with energy saving light emitting diode (LED)  lighting units. The Executive Board also considered potential measures to achieve street lighting savings. It was noted that the cost of street lighting maintenance was constantly rising, mainly as a result of energy costs which were increasing well above inflation. The cost of energy for all the Council’s highway electrical assets (including street lighting, traffic signals, illuminated signs, etc.) was approximately £1,216,000 per annum. It was noted that there was no statutory duty to provide street lighting, however, it was recognised that street lighting had a vital role to play in reducing fear of crime and improving community safety after dark. Due to increased energy costs for street lighting, it was recognised that action must be taken to minimise future growth in energy consumption and was one of the reasons for preparing a Street Lighting Strategy and Policy.

          The report highlighted the following proposals which were contained within the Street Lighting Strategy and Policy:-

·       There should be no net increase in the highway electrical equipment stock that would increase the demand for and cost of energy other than those detailed in the report;

·       There should be a presumption against new lighting schemes or additional highway electrical equipment funded through Area Forums or from the Council’s other capital budgets, unless the additional revenue budget was available to fund the on-going lighting/highway electrical equipment and maintenance indefinitely;

·       Consideration would need to be given in the future to the removal of lighting from secondary independent footpaths and gated routes to the rear of residential properties;

·       Where there were suitable alternative lit routes, then consideration would also be given to no longer installing lighting on independent footpaths, unless it was a primary route to a school or major employment areas;

·       A presumption against any future growth in street lighting provision would be difficult due to the need to provide it on new residential roads and high profile regeneration schemes;

·       The developer shall pay the Council a commuted sum to cover the cost of 10 years maintenance, based on the current HBC Term Maintenance Contract or 10% of the new works costs, whichever was the higher, plus the energy charges for the equipment based on the current energy supply contract rates for 10 years.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)      the Street Lighting Strategy and Policy document attached as Appendix 1 be endorsed and submitted for approval to the Executive Board;

(2)      endorsement be given to the proposal to remove street lighting from rear passageways and independent footpaths where these routes were not the primary means of access to properties and when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

            The Board considered a report which provided an update on current issues around Traveller needs including: sites, unauthorised encampments, needs and management. The report outlined information on permanent sites within Halton and unauthorised encampments. In addition, Members considered information on the latest national policy for Traveller sites and what was expected from local authorities. The report also provided details on the recent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment in 2014 and an update on the delivery of new permanent Traveller pitches at the Warrington Road, Runcorn site.

            RESOLVED: That the update be noted.

          The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which provided a summary of the delivery of the four-year implementation programme of Integrated Transport Schemes and Interventions. The report reviewed the delivery of schemes funded through the Integrated Transport Block (ITB), which was used to fund small transport improvements. The ITB was allocated over a range of themes and interventions that were reported and approved by Executive Board for inclusion into the Council’s annual Capital Programme. Expenditure across these themes during the four-year period had been in accordance with the overall ITB allocation within each of the themes listed below:

·       Integrated Transport;

·       Neighbourhood Centres;

·       Walking and Cycling Improvements;

·       Measure to Assist Buses;

·       Local Safety Schemes and other Highway Improvements; and

·       Intelligent Transport Systems.

          RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

          The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which requested nomination of two Members to represent the Board on the Consultation Review Panel.

          RESOLVED: That the Chair and Vice Chair of the Environment and Urban Renewal Policy and Performance Board, sit on the Consultation Review Panel as may be required from time to time.

          The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which requested Members to agree nominations to sit on the Council’s Public Transport Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2015/16.

          RESOLVED: That

(1)      the nominations for the Halton Public Transport Advisory Panel for 2015/16 be as follows: Councillors Fry, McInerney, Morley and G.Stockton;

(2)      the Chair of the Environment and Urban Renewal Policy and Performance Board, in consultation with the Executive Board Member for Transportation, nominates a Chair and the Chair to agree such deputies, as may be required from time to time;

          (3)      nominations be endorsed; and

(4)      the key issues discussed by the Panel during the Municipal Year 2014/15, as set out in the report, be noted.