Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 13^th June 2012 having been printed and circulated were signed as a correct record.

            It was confirmed that two public questions had been received and would be submitted and addressed as part of Minute No 19 and 22.

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

            RESOLVED: That the Minutes be received.

            The Board received a report of the Chief Executive which detailed the first quarter performance management reports on progress against service objectives/milestones and performance targets affecting the services. In line with the revised Council’s Performance Framework for 2012/13 (approved by Executive Board in 2012/13), the Board had been provided with a thematic priority based report; which identified the key issues arising in the following  areas:

·         Economic Regeneration (Development and Investment);

·         Environmental (Open Spaces & Waste Management Services);

·         Highways, Transportation and Logistics (Mersey Gateway/Core Strategy, Transport, Bridge and Highway Maintenance, Highway Development, Flood Risk Management);

·         Physical Environment (Statutory Plans and Housing Issues).

            In receiving the first quarterly monitoring reports, Councillor MacManus submitted the following questions and the responses given are detailed:

1.            Item 1 page 27 - paragraph 2.1.2

            Line 4 makes reference to many homes. “Consultation has begun on a new Biomass plant which is capable of serving the whole of 3MG and many homes and Civic Buildings in Halton”.  Do we have an idea of how many and where they are?

Response

45,000 homes in residential areas close to the 3MG site, Hale Bank and West Bank could be served by the Biomass plant in addition to the requirements at 3MG. The developers have had initial discussions with the Council in respect of the Civic Quarter and a local housing association to ascertain the likely demand. This will be examined further following the planning process.

2.         Item 2 page 30 - paragraph 3 Relating to the Council now being responsible for processing and determining applications to carry out works to certain watercourses -           “There is a fixed fee of £50 per application for consent of works”.  Is the fixed fee determined by the Environment Agency or can the Council increase it?

Response

The £50 fee is set under legislation following the introduction of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010:

Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59) Control of flow of watercourses etc.

Prohibition on obstructions etc. in watercourses

23 (2)              The drainage board concerned may require the payment of an application fee by a person who applies to them for their consent under this section; and the amount of that fee shall be £50 or such other sum as may be specified by order made by the Ministers.

3.            Item 3 page 33 - paragraph 3.1.3. What is the likelihood that we will not get the grant funding towards  the Daresbury Enterprise Zone?

Response

            The Growing Places Fund has been secured in principal and the terms of the funding are currently being negotiated.  The Regional Growth Fund application has been shortlisted and the outcome will be announced in October.

4.            Item 4 page 36 - DIS LI 01 What was the source of the 2012/13 target?

            Response

            All targets are established on an annual basis taking account of prior and anticipated levels of performance and market trends. The 2010/11 Actual occupancy rate was 81% with new marketing initiates developed in the year 2011/12 to promote these units.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

            The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director Policy and Resources, which informed Members of an objection that had been received following public consultation on a proposed Traffic Regulation Order to introduce 20mph speed limits on roads in Hale Village. The purpose of the reduced speed limits was to encourage lower driving speeds and create a safer environment for vulnerable road users in essentially residential areas, redressing the balance between people and traffic. The policy of introducing 20mph areas was contained within the Local Transport Plan.

            The objection received was based on a number of issues:

·         Existing traffic speeds were low and the proposed speed limit was unnecessary and wasteful;

·         Signing would spoil the visual appeal of Hale;

·         Lack of pedestrian traffic;and

·         The objector requested removal of the existing traffic calming features on the approaches to the village from Speke and Hale Bank and ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions be introduced on parts of Arklow Drive.

            The Officers responses to each of the objections and proposals were outlined in the report.

            RESOLVED: That the proposal to make an Order to implement 20 mph speed restrictions on those roads in Hale Village listed in ‘Appendix B’ be supported and the report be submitted for resolution by the Executive Board.

NB: Councillor MacManus declared a disclosable other interest in the following item of business as he recently worked with HCT on the Russell Court project in his role as Councillor.

            The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director Policy and Resources, which informed Members of objections that had been received following public consultation on a proposed Traffic Regulation Order to introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions in Russell Court, Widnes. At a previous meeting of the Board held on 15^th June 2011, (Minute No8 refers, a petition from residents of Russell Court relating to long standing car parking problems in the area was considered It was recognised that there was no on-highway parking permitted on Farnworth Street and little off-street provision; the lack of any visible controls on parking in Russell Court had meant that this small cul-de-sac had become the parking place of choice for more drivers than the space available could comfortably accommodate.

            In a subsequent consultation exercise with residents of Russell Court, provision of 4 additional parking spaces on the ‘drying area’ was proposed. However, this proposal was not generally accepted due to the loss of amenity and comments from the residents that the disabled parking bays should be near the houses.  In view of the comments Halton Housing Trust (HHT) decided that the scheme did not represent good value for money, so the scheme was not progressed. However, the following was constructed:

1.    three new disabled person parking spaces at the head of Russell Court;

2.    a former highway grass verge was replaced to create additional road space;

3.    two new ‘private’ off-street parking spaces in the gardens of other properties owned by HHT;

4.    ‘H-bar’ markings to protect adjoining accesses from obstruction; and

5.   bollards had been installed in some of the highway verges to prevent         ‘driving on’ abuse of these areas.

            However, parking congestion had continued, creating access difficulties and leading to inter-driver/neighbour disputes.  As Russell Court, was only 5.5 metres wide, parking could take place on one side or the other, not on both sides simultaneously.  In light of this, in June 2012 parking restrictions shown in the report were sent out to public consultation.  The proposed restrictions sought to prevent parking where it should be avoided, in order to prevent obstruction and to maintain the unrestricted flow of traffic.

            Subsequently, four objections to the waiting restrictions have been received.  There were no objections to designation of the three disabled person parking spaces at the head of the cul-de-sac.The objections referred to:

·         Russell Court is congested at the present time and raised concerns over parking displacement into adjacent areas; 

·         congestion and parking space pressure in Russell Court;

·         the measures that have been taken to try and alleviate the problems.  Again the fears are for displacement of parking demand and particular concerns over the behaviour of neighbours and the possibility of further animosity and the parking difficulties facing visitors to Russell Court; and

·         pressure on available parking space if the proposed restrictions go ahead, and fears her garage entrance would be blocked routinely despite the recently installed ‘H-bar’ marking.

            The Officers responses to each of the objections and proposals were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

            The Board considered a report which provided an overview of the Neighbourhood Planning process. The 2011 Localism Act introduced the ability for local communities to shape their community and have a greater say in the planning of their areas by producing Neighbourhood Development Plans, neighbourhood development orders and community right to build orders.  The emphasis was placed on the local community leading the process, with support from the local authority in relation to conformity with higher order planning policy and statutory process requirements.

            It was noted that the Neighbourhood Plan, once adopted, would form part of the development plan for the local authority alongside the Unitary Development Plan, Regional Strategy and emerging Core Strategy.  A Neighbourhood Plan could be used to:

·  Develop a shared vision for a neighbourhood

· Set out where residential, retail, business or other development should      be located

·  Protect local green infrastructure

·  Influence building design

            Members were advised that the process of producing a Neighbourhood Plan was governed by the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations which came into force on 6^th April 2012 to supplement the provisions of the Localism Act.  The five key stages in the production of a Neighbourhood Plan were as follows:

·         Defining the neighbourhood;

·         Preparing the Plan;

·         Independent examination;

·         Community referendum; and

·         Adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan.

It was noted that the cost of producing a Neighbourhood Plan was estimated to be between £20-86k and would need to be met by the community. The Council had a duty to support this process by providing officer time and certain costs related to the production of the plan. The cost of these activities was estimated to be between £13-16k per plan. Funding of up to £50m had been identified through the Comprehensive Spending Review to allow local authorities to recoup the costs.

            RESOLVED: That the Council respond to any requests for Neighbourhood Planning, in accordance with the relevant legislation, thereby fulfilling its statutory duty to support and advise its communities in this regard.

            The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director Policy and Resources, which outlined objections which had been received following public consultation on proposed Traffic Regulation Orders to impose ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on parts of Cowan Way, Upton Lane, Green Lane, Cawfield Avenue, Primrose Close, Alder Avenue, Birch Road, Acacia Avenue, Lockett Road, Church Street, Upper Mersey Road and Mersey Road, Widnes and Kenilworth Avenue, Penrhyn Crescent and Ludlow Crescent in Runcorn and also to remove existing ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions from Blundell Road, Widnes.

            In accordance with Standing Order No.34 (9), the following public question was submitted to the Board by Mrs Coleman from 20 Kenilworth Avenue by telephone:

“Mrs Coleman repeated the points in her original letter. In addition Mrs Coleman asked if the Council could consider providing residents-only parking permits or drop crossings to allow residents to get off the carriageway to park.”  

In response Officers advised that:

            The Board item addresses all the grounds for objection that were originally submitted. In relation to the additional request, for the provision of a residents-only parking permit scheme, at the present time this Council does not operate any such arrangements. This issue was the subject of a report to the Executive Board in September 2009, when it was resolved that residents only parking schemes should not be introduced.

            As regards the provision of drop crossings, this would be a matter for the individual house holder to organise and fund, as is the case elsewhere in the Borough. Although it was not always readily accepted, drivers have no absolute right to park on the highway, even near their own homes, and in reality parking should only take place in locations where this would not create an obstruction. Whilst any useable space was available purely on a first come, first served basis, in the case of the Coleman family home approximately 20 metres of their Penrhyn Crescent property frontage would remain clear of waiting restrictions, and in any case drivers were allowed to stop on double yellow lines to load and unload. It was believed that there were no grounds to change the Board item recommendation that the objection be over ruled.

            RESOLVED: That the Board supports the following proposed Orders with its conclusions being submitted to the Executive Board for its consideration:

1.    the implementation of 'At Any Time' Waiting Restrictions as detailed in Appendix ‘3’, namely on Alder Avenue, Birch Road, Acacia Avenue, Lockett Road and Mersey Road/Upper Mersey Road in Widnes and on Kenilworth Avenue/Penrhyn Crescent/Ludlow Crescent in Runcorn;

2.    the intention to revoke existing 'At Any Time' Waiting Restrictions as detailed in Appendix ‘3’, namely on Blundell Road, Widnes;

3.    the proposals to introduce restrictions on Cowan Way, Green Lane, Cawfield Avenue and Primrose Close, Widnes as detailed in the report be discontinued; and

4.    the proposal to implement restrictions at Church Street/Upper Mersey Road, Widnes be progressed to cover a reduced length as detailed in the report.         

            The Board received a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources, which outlined objections received following public consultation on a proposed Traffic Regulation Order to name and set the operating conditions on, the central car parks in Runcorn Town Centre. Members were advised that redevelopment work in the area had created the need to formalise the naming of the central car park areas, as the previous names were no longer applicable. In addition it was proposed to introduce standard operating conditions, to provide a turnover in the use of these parking areas to improve the availability of immediate parking for shoppers using the adjacent Co-Op, Llloyds Pharmacy and Cooltrader stores.

            In order for this restriction to be effective it would be necessary to consider enforcement options as follows:

·         arrange for a private company to enforce the restriction.  Depending on the penalty and the number of motorists not complying with the order, this could be at no cost to the Council or at a cost to be determined by a tendering exercise;

·         authorise Council officers to carry out enforcement, although there would be a high initial set up cost and resources would be difficult to allocate on a regular basis; and

·         authorise a neighbouring  Authority to enforce the restriction, although there would a cost to the Council

            Depending on which option may be deployed, there could be costs for the Council and funding for this purpose would have to be identified. The area was not part of the public highway; therefore the police could not carry out enforcement.

            It was proposed that an overstay charge of £50.00 be introduced, which would be reduced to £25.00 if paid within 14 days.  There were similar restrictions on car parks within neighbouring Town Centres but not within Halton.

            RESOLVED: That the Board supports the revised proposal to make a Traffic Regulation Order, the main effects of which would be to:

·                     name the central Runcorn Town Centre car parks adjacent to the Co-         Op, Lloyds Pharmacy and Cooltrader stores (basically the former        Princess Street car park) as High Street Car Park;

·                     impose standard operating conditions generally as within Appendix ‘A’,     though with a revised maximum stay period of three hours and no      return within an hour Monday to Saturday 8.00 am to 5.00 pm., on both     the High Street car park and the Penketh Court car park; and

·                     introduce a charge of £50.00 for drivers exceeding the maximum stay         period, but reduced to £25.00 if paid within 14 days.