\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
Venue: Framland Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
\n\t\t
Contact: Mrs. B Ireland (Tel. 0116 305 6339) \n\t\t Email: bireland@leics.gov.uk\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\tItems\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\tNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
75.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Minutes. PDF 289 KB
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2009 were taken as read, confirmed\nand signed.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
76.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Question Time.
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been\nreceived under Standing Order 35.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
77.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been\nreceived under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
78.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Urgent Items.
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
There were no urgent items for consideration.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
79.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Declarations of interest.
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The following members declared a personal non-prejudical\ninterest in the items on Weight Restriction Orders (minute 83) and Road Safety\n(minute 84) as members of the Police Authority:
\n\n
\n\n
Mr D. C. Bill CC
\n\n
Mr R. Fraser CC
\n\n
Mrs M. L. Sherwin CC.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
80.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
There were no declarations of the party whip.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
81.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36.
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been\nreceived under Standing Order 36.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
82.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
National Forest Railway Line.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
Representatives of Network\nRail have been invited to attend this meeting to explain the physical and\npractical barriers to reopening the Line to passenger transport.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr Spencer Gibbens of\nNetwork Rail who had agreed to attend to explain the physical and practical\nbarriers to reopening the National Forest Railway Line to passenger\ntraffic.\u00c2\u00a0 Mr Sheahan CC, the local member\nwho had presented the original petition on this matter to the meeting of the\nCommittee on 1 November 2007,\nwas also welcomed.
\n\n
\n\n
Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted:
\n\n
\n\n
\n - Spencer\n Gibbens reported that, even if grants and funds could be found to enable\n the requisite upgrades to the infrastructure to be made, the biggest\n barrier would remain, that of finding a means to subsidise the operating\n costs.\u00c2\u00a0 Unless there was a will to\n provide revenue subsidies, either locally or nationally, there was no\n chance of the line being upgraded in the foreseeable future.
\n - The\n subsidy/revenue breakdown was route specific.\u00c2\u00a0 It was noted that the popularity of a\n line did not equate to profitability: additional subsidy was required to\n lay on an extra coach if required.
\n - In\n terms of infrastructure, work was currently planned in for 2014/15 on the\n Knighton North Chord, for improvements to signalling, and this would be\n the most apposite opportunity in the short to medium-term to also schedule\n works necessary to enable the National Forest Line to be reopened to\n passenger traffic.\u00c2\u00a0 The work being\n programmed in for 2014/15 would provide sufficient capacity for the\n network to be able to handle passenger traffic joining from the National\n Forest Line, if that upgrade were to take place.
\n - Network\n Rail would not carry out work infrastructural improvements speculatively,\n i.e. in the hope the improvements would then attract greater demand for\n services on a line.
\n - The\n main constraint on increasing services on lines within Leicestershire was\n on the Syston to Wigston line, affecting freight trains running between East\n Anglia and the North\n West.\u00c2\u00a0\n This would be addressed in 2014/15 with a view to increasing\n capacity.\u00c2\u00a0 A secondary constraint\n was the Wigston to Kettering\n line, creating a conflict between freight and high speed passenger\n trains.\u00c2\u00a0 A Strategy would be\n published later in 2009 setting out proposals to tackle this area.
\n - It\n would be possible to bring the National Forest Line up to passenger\n traffic standard in stages, as had been done with the Robin Hood Line.
\n - The\n most likely means of progressing the reopening of the National Forest Line\n lay in partnership working, headed by a lead sponsor.\u00c2\u00a0 It was noted that Network Rail could not\n be the lead sponsor but would take an advisor or facilitator role.
\n - Mr\n Gibbens was only aware of the rail industry grants that may be\n available.\u00c2\u00a0 He pointed out that\n Network Rail was not funded to carry out enhancement projects, only for\n maintenance and operating work.\u00c2\u00a0 The\n Department of Transport (DfT) could require certain works to take place:\n it would probably still require a local sponsor to be in place.
\n - It\n was reported that the Train Operating Companies were commissioning a study\n into the Leicester to Burton\n line.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
RESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n
a) That\n ... view the full minutes text for item 82.
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
83.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Weight Restriction Orders.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
Representatives of\nLeicestershire Constabulary have been invited to attend this meeting to report\non progress with enforcing weight restriction orders within the County.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr Graham Compton and\nChief Inspector Mark Newcombe of Leicestershire Constabulary who had agreed to\nattend to report on progress with the enforcement of weight restriction orders\n(WROs) across County\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s roads.\u00c2\u00a0
\n\n
\n\n
Mark Newcombe explained the Road Policing Unit (RPU) had\nfocused much of its resources on the Serious Collision Unit since April 2008\nand this had impacted in its ability to provide the number of patrol hours\nrequired under the agreement with the County Council.\u00c2\u00a0 The recent weather related problems on the\nroads had also taken officers away from this area.\u00c2\u00a0 However, a further 900 hours of patrolling\nhad been programmed in before the end of the year and the Force was likely to\nbe close to achieving the target of 4,000 hours of targeted patrol for the\nyear.\u00c2\u00a0 It was anticipated that there\nwould not be a repetition of the problems going forward into the next\nyear.\u00c2\u00a0 In future years, it was hoped\nthat, following revised guidance to local officers and the ability to track\nnon-RPU vehicles, the amount of work done in this field by those officers would\nalso be recorded.
\n\n
\n\n
Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted:
\n\n
\n\n
\n - The\n costs of providing the service had risen considerably since the contract\n had been drawn up.
\n - The\n County Council was not empowered in law to enforce moving traffic\n offences.
\n - When\n the contract was introduced it had been on the basis on providing a number\n of hours of patrol and there had been issues surrounding the delay in\n responding to complaints of potential infringements of WROs.\u00c2\u00a0 There were now only 8 outstanding\n complaints, the oldest of which had been made 12 days previously.
\n - A\n better service could be achieved if local officers and communities were\n more involved.
\n - Penalties\n for contravening a WRO could include prosecution.\u00c2\u00a0 All incidents were logged and if a\n particular haulage company appeared to be causing a problem, officers\n would talk to the company and follow-up would be taken.
\n - The\n police had other priorities, targets and pressures to respond to.
\n - The\n RPU targeted WRO patrols to areas from which complaints had been\n received.\u00c2\u00a0 In addition, the main\n arterial routes were regularly patrolled.\u00c2\u00a0\n There were a significant number of weight restricted routes across\n the County and the patrols had to be targeted.
\n - SatNav\n devices were contributing to the problems, as they did not recognise the\n WRO areas: this was a national problem, requiring a national solution.
\n - Very\n few of the vehicles stopped were foreign registered.
\n - Better\n marking and publicity of WROs was required.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
RESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n
That the information provided by Leicestershire Constabulary\nbe noted.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
84.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Road Safety.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
Representatives of Leicestershire\nConstabulary have been invited to attend this meeting to discuss the future\ndevelopment of the successful partnership working in reducing road casualties.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Chairman thanked Mr Graham Compton who had also agreed\nto attend to discuss the future development of the successful partnership\nworking taking place in reducing road casualties on the County\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s roads.
\n\n
\n\n
Mr Compton reported that the Leicester, Leicestershire and\nRutland Road Safety Partnership (LLRRSP) was on schedule to meet its targets in\nreducing the number of casualties on the Counties\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 roads.\u00c2\u00a0 However, it was becoming increasingly\ndifficult to achieve further reductions and the Partnership was looking for new,\ninnovative initiatives to continue the trend.
\n\n
\n\n
Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted:
\n\n
\n\n
\n - The\n cause of most accidents was distraction and there was a speed element\n involved in over 50% of accidents.\u00c2\u00a0\n Anecdotally, there was very little evidence that defective lights\n contributed to accidents.
\n - The\n income for the Road Safety Unit had reduced in the last year, which\n suggested that safety cameras were having an impact, resulting in fewer\n speeding drivers.\u00c2\u00a0 It was noted that\n the income from the cameras was collected into a central fund and not by\n the local Safety Camera Partnership.
\n - There\n was an ongoing national drive to tackle the use of mobile phones by\n drivers.\u00c2\u00a0 There was anecdotal\n evidence that the increase in the potential sentence had seen a reduction\n in the number of drivers still using mobile phones.
\n - A\n permanent safety camera could only be installed at a site with a history\n of serious accidents.\u00c2\u00a0 However, the\n mobile safety camera unit could target roads where there were concerns\n about speeding drivers, even if there had not been a serious accident.
\n - All\n speeding complaints that came in from the public to the police were\n addressed.\u00c2\u00a0 For example, in rural\n villages, a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcgrey box\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 might be deployed for 3 days to record the speeds\n of all vehicles and ascertain the average and a decision could then be\n taken as to what level of action might be required.\u00c2\u00a0 Where speeds were considered to be\n excessive, the local authority might become involved in providing\n engineering solutions to physically reduce speeds.
\n - There\n was evidence that designating certain stretches of road as \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcred routes\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\n made no difference to number of accidents along the road.
\n - Data\n on injury accidents was collected from the forms that officers had to fill\n in after every such accident.\u00c2\u00a0 The\n Police had been looking at giving the County Council access to the figures\n on damage only accidents but the current logging system could not record\n these.\u00c2\u00a0 It was known that insurance\n companies were not willing to share their information on damage only\n accidents.\u00c2\u00a0
\n
\n\n
\n\n
RESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n
That the information provided by Leicestershire Constabulary\nbe noted.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
85.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Local Transport Plan (2006-11) progress reporting: update. PDF 84 KB
\n
Additional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nHighways, Transportation and Waste Management concerning the feedback from the\nGovernment Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) on the LTP2 Progress Reports for\nLeicestershire and Central Leicestershire and how the actions from both LTP2\nProgress Reports would be taken forward during the remainder of the LTP2\nperiod.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked\n\u00e2\u20ac\u02dcB\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed with these minutes.
\n\n
\n\n
Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted:
\n\n
\n\n
\n - The\n letter attached as Appendix 2 to the report was concerned with the Central\n Leicestershire Local Transport Plan which covered the administrative area\n of Leicester City Council, together with county urban areas that directly\n border the city; hence the comments contained within that letter were\n largely aimed at the City Council.
\n - It\n was not yet clear what format LTP 3 would take but it was expected to be\n more strategic than the earlier plans and to cover a much longer period,\n through to 2026.\u00c2\u00a0 The Council was\n required not to start specifying any schemes beyond the current funding\n window (2014).
\n
\n\n
\n\n
RESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n
That the contents of the report and, in particular, the\nfeedback from the Government Office for the East Midlands and the actions to be\ntaken during the remainder of the Local Transport Plan 2 period, be noted.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
86.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Transport Scheme Development (Major Schemes): current position. PDF 87 KB
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nHighways, Transportation and Waste Management concerning the current position\nof the Leicestershire County Council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Major Schemes programmes.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcC\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed\nwith these minutes.
\n\n
\n\n
Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted:
\n\n
\n\n
\n - The\n Earl Shilton bypass would be opening on 27th March 2009.
\n - The Government\n expected major road building projects to fulfil one of its major objectives\n and, in the case of the Melton Mowbray bypass, this would need to be growth\n and, therefore, housing development was the key to securing the bypass.
\n - Other\n major objectives that could deliver new roads included dealing with climate\n change and safety.
\n - There\n was no possibility of funding for a bypass at Sharnford before 2014.
\n - Concerns\n were raised over the lack of signal to pedestrians waiting to cross roads at\n temporary pedestrian lights installed at the Foxhunter Roundabout, Enderby,\n which was resulting in confusion and hesitancy for pedestrians over when\n it was safe to cross.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
RESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n
That the contents of the report be noted.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
87.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Community Heritage Initiative. PDF 91 KB
\n
Additional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nCommunity Services summarising the achievements of the Leicestershire and\nRutland Community Heritage Initiative which ended in November 2008 and the\narrangements in place to continue key aspects of the work.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcD\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed\nwith these minutes.
\n\n
\n\n
Members were informed that Carolyn Holmes, Senior Curator: Natural\nLife in the Department of Community Services, had been nominated by the County\nCouncil for the Council Worker of the Year Green Award, for her work as the\nmajor architect behind the Community Heritage Initiative.
\n\n
\n\n
RESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n
a) That\nthe content of the report be noted;
\n\n
\n\n
b) That\nthe Director of Community Services be requested to pass the thanks of the\nCommittee to the staff involved in the initiative and its congratulations to\nCarolyn Holmes on her nomination for Council Worker of the Year Green Award.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
88.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
ENABLE. PDF 92 KB
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nCommunity Services concerning the work which Environmental Action for a Better\nLeicestershire (ENABLE) had been involved with over the past year and work\nareas it would involved with over the forthcoming year.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcE\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed\nwith these minutes.
\n\n
\n\n
Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted:
\n\n
\n\n
\n - The\n top 10 carbon emissions producers across the Council had been identified\n and were being targeted.\u00c2\u00a0
\n - It\n was acknowledged that it was important to raise awareness among staff.
\n - There\n had been a 2% saving in energy used at County Hall for the last year for\n which the figures had been verified.
\n - Work\n was being done with companies across the County advising them on how to\n reduce energy bills, one result of which might be to reduce noise and\n light pollution.
\n - The County\n Hall energy assessment was currently being undertaken and the building\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s\n Energy Certificate would be displayed in the foyer of County Hall as soon\n as it was available:.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
RESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n
That the contents of the report be noted.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t
89.
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
Date of next meeting.
\n
\n\n
\n\n
The next meeting is scheduled to take place on 16 April 2009 at 2.00 pm.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n
Minutes:
\n
\n\n
\n\n
It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be\nheld on 16 April 2009 at 2.00 pm.
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n
\t\n
\t\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
Venue: Framland Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
\n\t\t
Contact: Mrs. B Ireland (Tel. 0116 305 6339) \n\t\t Email: bireland@leics.gov.uk\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\tItems\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t| No. | \n\t\t\tItem | \n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t75. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Minutes. ![\"pdf](\"mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif\") PDF 289 KB \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2009 were taken as read, confirmed\nand signed. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t76. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Question Time. \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been\nreceived under Standing Order 35. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t77. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been\nreceived under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t78. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Urgent Items. \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n There were no urgent items for consideration. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t79. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Declarations of interest. \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The following members declared a personal non-prejudical\ninterest in the items on Weight Restriction Orders (minute 83) and Road Safety\n(minute 84) as members of the Police Authority: \n\n \n\n Mr D. C. Bill CC \n\n Mr R. Fraser CC \n\n Mrs M. L. Sherwin CC. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t80. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n There were no declarations of the party whip. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t81. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36. \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been\nreceived under Standing Order 36. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t82. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t National Forest Railway Line. \n\n\n \n\n Representatives of Network\nRail have been invited to attend this meeting to explain the physical and\npractical barriers to reopening the Line to passenger transport. \n\n \n\n \n\n Minutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr Spencer Gibbens of\nNetwork Rail who had agreed to attend to explain the physical and practical\nbarriers to reopening the National Forest Railway Line to passenger\ntraffic.\u00c2\u00a0 Mr Sheahan CC, the local member\nwho had presented the original petition on this matter to the meeting of the\nCommittee on 1 November 2007,\nwas also welcomed. \n\n \n\n Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted: \n\n \n\n \n - Spencer\n Gibbens reported that, even if grants and funds could be found to enable\n the requisite upgrades to the infrastructure to be made, the biggest\n barrier would remain, that of finding a means to subsidise the operating\n costs.\u00c2\u00a0 Unless there was a will to\n provide revenue subsidies, either locally or nationally, there was no\n chance of the line being upgraded in the foreseeable future.
\n - The\n subsidy/revenue breakdown was route specific.\u00c2\u00a0 It was noted that the popularity of a\n line did not equate to profitability: additional subsidy was required to\n lay on an extra coach if required.
\n - In\n terms of infrastructure, work was currently planned in for 2014/15 on the\n Knighton North Chord, for improvements to signalling, and this would be\n the most apposite opportunity in the short to medium-term to also schedule\n works necessary to enable the National Forest Line to be reopened to\n passenger traffic.\u00c2\u00a0 The work being\n programmed in for 2014/15 would provide sufficient capacity for the\n network to be able to handle passenger traffic joining from the National\n Forest Line, if that upgrade were to take place.
\n - Network\n Rail would not carry out work infrastructural improvements speculatively,\n i.e. in the hope the improvements would then attract greater demand for\n services on a line.
\n - The\n main constraint on increasing services on lines within Leicestershire was\n on the Syston to Wigston line, affecting freight trains running between East\n Anglia and the North\n West.\u00c2\u00a0\n This would be addressed in 2014/15 with a view to increasing\n capacity.\u00c2\u00a0 A secondary constraint\n was the Wigston to Kettering\n line, creating a conflict between freight and high speed passenger\n trains.\u00c2\u00a0 A Strategy would be\n published later in 2009 setting out proposals to tackle this area.
\n - It\n would be possible to bring the National Forest Line up to passenger\n traffic standard in stages, as had been done with the Robin Hood Line.
\n - The\n most likely means of progressing the reopening of the National Forest Line\n lay in partnership working, headed by a lead sponsor.\u00c2\u00a0 It was noted that Network Rail could not\n be the lead sponsor but would take an advisor or facilitator role.
\n - Mr\n Gibbens was only aware of the rail industry grants that may be\n available.\u00c2\u00a0 He pointed out that\n Network Rail was not funded to carry out enhancement projects, only for\n maintenance and operating work.\u00c2\u00a0 The\n Department of Transport (DfT) could require certain works to take place:\n it would probably still require a local sponsor to be in place.
\n - It\n was reported that the Train Operating Companies were commissioning a study\n into the Leicester to Burton\n line.
\n \n\n \n\n RESOLVED: \n\n \n\n a) That\n ... view the full minutes text for item 82. \n\t\t\t\t\t | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t83. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Weight Restriction Orders. \n\n\n \n\n Representatives of\nLeicestershire Constabulary have been invited to attend this meeting to report\non progress with enforcing weight restriction orders within the County. \n\n \n\n \n\n Minutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr Graham Compton and\nChief Inspector Mark Newcombe of Leicestershire Constabulary who had agreed to\nattend to report on progress with the enforcement of weight restriction orders\n(WROs) across County\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s roads.\u00c2\u00a0 \n\n \n\n Mark Newcombe explained the Road Policing Unit (RPU) had\nfocused much of its resources on the Serious Collision Unit since April 2008\nand this had impacted in its ability to provide the number of patrol hours\nrequired under the agreement with the County Council.\u00c2\u00a0 The recent weather related problems on the\nroads had also taken officers away from this area.\u00c2\u00a0 However, a further 900 hours of patrolling\nhad been programmed in before the end of the year and the Force was likely to\nbe close to achieving the target of 4,000 hours of targeted patrol for the\nyear.\u00c2\u00a0 It was anticipated that there\nwould not be a repetition of the problems going forward into the next\nyear.\u00c2\u00a0 In future years, it was hoped\nthat, following revised guidance to local officers and the ability to track\nnon-RPU vehicles, the amount of work done in this field by those officers would\nalso be recorded. \n\n \n\n Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted: \n\n \n\n \n - The\n costs of providing the service had risen considerably since the contract\n had been drawn up.
\n - The\n County Council was not empowered in law to enforce moving traffic\n offences.
\n - When\n the contract was introduced it had been on the basis on providing a number\n of hours of patrol and there had been issues surrounding the delay in\n responding to complaints of potential infringements of WROs.\u00c2\u00a0 There were now only 8 outstanding\n complaints, the oldest of which had been made 12 days previously.
\n - A\n better service could be achieved if local officers and communities were\n more involved.
\n - Penalties\n for contravening a WRO could include prosecution.\u00c2\u00a0 All incidents were logged and if a\n particular haulage company appeared to be causing a problem, officers\n would talk to the company and follow-up would be taken.
\n - The\n police had other priorities, targets and pressures to respond to.
\n - The\n RPU targeted WRO patrols to areas from which complaints had been\n received.\u00c2\u00a0 In addition, the main\n arterial routes were regularly patrolled.\u00c2\u00a0\n There were a significant number of weight restricted routes across\n the County and the patrols had to be targeted.
\n - SatNav\n devices were contributing to the problems, as they did not recognise the\n WRO areas: this was a national problem, requiring a national solution.
\n - Very\n few of the vehicles stopped were foreign registered.
\n - Better\n marking and publicity of WROs was required.
\n \n\n \n\n RESOLVED: \n\n \n\n That the information provided by Leicestershire Constabulary\nbe noted. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t84. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Road Safety. \n\n\n \n\n Representatives of Leicestershire\nConstabulary have been invited to attend this meeting to discuss the future\ndevelopment of the successful partnership working in reducing road casualties. \n\n \n\n \n\n Minutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Chairman thanked Mr Graham Compton who had also agreed\nto attend to discuss the future development of the successful partnership\nworking taking place in reducing road casualties on the County\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s roads. \n\n \n\n Mr Compton reported that the Leicester, Leicestershire and\nRutland Road Safety Partnership (LLRRSP) was on schedule to meet its targets in\nreducing the number of casualties on the Counties\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 roads.\u00c2\u00a0 However, it was becoming increasingly\ndifficult to achieve further reductions and the Partnership was looking for new,\ninnovative initiatives to continue the trend. \n\n \n\n Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted: \n\n \n\n \n - The\n cause of most accidents was distraction and there was a speed element\n involved in over 50% of accidents.\u00c2\u00a0\n Anecdotally, there was very little evidence that defective lights\n contributed to accidents.
\n - The\n income for the Road Safety Unit had reduced in the last year, which\n suggested that safety cameras were having an impact, resulting in fewer\n speeding drivers.\u00c2\u00a0 It was noted that\n the income from the cameras was collected into a central fund and not by\n the local Safety Camera Partnership.
\n - There\n was an ongoing national drive to tackle the use of mobile phones by\n drivers.\u00c2\u00a0 There was anecdotal\n evidence that the increase in the potential sentence had seen a reduction\n in the number of drivers still using mobile phones.
\n - A\n permanent safety camera could only be installed at a site with a history\n of serious accidents.\u00c2\u00a0 However, the\n mobile safety camera unit could target roads where there were concerns\n about speeding drivers, even if there had not been a serious accident.
\n - All\n speeding complaints that came in from the public to the police were\n addressed.\u00c2\u00a0 For example, in rural\n villages, a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcgrey box\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 might be deployed for 3 days to record the speeds\n of all vehicles and ascertain the average and a decision could then be\n taken as to what level of action might be required.\u00c2\u00a0 Where speeds were considered to be\n excessive, the local authority might become involved in providing\n engineering solutions to physically reduce speeds.
\n - There\n was evidence that designating certain stretches of road as \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcred routes\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\n made no difference to number of accidents along the road.
\n - Data\n on injury accidents was collected from the forms that officers had to fill\n in after every such accident.\u00c2\u00a0 The\n Police had been looking at giving the County Council access to the figures\n on damage only accidents but the current logging system could not record\n these.\u00c2\u00a0 It was known that insurance\n companies were not willing to share their information on damage only\n accidents.\u00c2\u00a0
\n \n\n \n\n RESOLVED: \n\n \n\n That the information provided by Leicestershire Constabulary\nbe noted. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t85. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Local Transport Plan (2006-11) progress reporting: update. PDF 84 KB \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nHighways, Transportation and Waste Management concerning the feedback from the\nGovernment Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) on the LTP2 Progress Reports for\nLeicestershire and Central Leicestershire and how the actions from both LTP2\nProgress Reports would be taken forward during the remainder of the LTP2\nperiod.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked\n\u00e2\u20ac\u02dcB\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed with these minutes. \n\n \n\n Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted: \n\n \n\n \n - The\n letter attached as Appendix 2 to the report was concerned with the Central\n Leicestershire Local Transport Plan which covered the administrative area\n of Leicester City Council, together with county urban areas that directly\n border the city; hence the comments contained within that letter were\n largely aimed at the City Council.
\n - It\n was not yet clear what format LTP 3 would take but it was expected to be\n more strategic than the earlier plans and to cover a much longer period,\n through to 2026.\u00c2\u00a0 The Council was\n required not to start specifying any schemes beyond the current funding\n window (2014).
\n \n\n \n\n RESOLVED: \n\n \n\n That the contents of the report and, in particular, the\nfeedback from the Government Office for the East Midlands and the actions to be\ntaken during the remainder of the Local Transport Plan 2 period, be noted. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t86. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Transport Scheme Development (Major Schemes): current position. PDF 87 KB \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nHighways, Transportation and Waste Management concerning the current position\nof the Leicestershire County Council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Major Schemes programmes.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcC\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed\nwith these minutes. \n\n \n\n Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted: \n\n \n\n \n - The\n Earl Shilton bypass would be opening on 27th March 2009.
\n - The Government\n expected major road building projects to fulfil one of its major objectives\n and, in the case of the Melton Mowbray bypass, this would need to be growth\n and, therefore, housing development was the key to securing the bypass.
\n - Other\n major objectives that could deliver new roads included dealing with climate\n change and safety.
\n - There\n was no possibility of funding for a bypass at Sharnford before 2014.
\n - Concerns\n were raised over the lack of signal to pedestrians waiting to cross roads at\n temporary pedestrian lights installed at the Foxhunter Roundabout, Enderby,\n which was resulting in confusion and hesitancy for pedestrians over when\n it was safe to cross.
\n \n\n \n\n RESOLVED: \n\n \n\n That the contents of the report be noted. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t87. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Community Heritage Initiative. PDF 91 KB \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nCommunity Services summarising the achievements of the Leicestershire and\nRutland Community Heritage Initiative which ended in November 2008 and the\narrangements in place to continue key aspects of the work.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcD\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed\nwith these minutes. \n\n \n\n Members were informed that Carolyn Holmes, Senior Curator: Natural\nLife in the Department of Community Services, had been nominated by the County\nCouncil for the Council Worker of the Year Green Award, for her work as the\nmajor architect behind the Community Heritage Initiative. \n\n \n\n RESOLVED: \n\n \n\n a) That\nthe content of the report be noted; \n\n \n\n b) That\nthe Director of Community Services be requested to pass the thanks of the\nCommittee to the staff involved in the initiative and its congratulations to\nCarolyn Holmes on her nomination for Council Worker of the Year Green Award. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t88. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t ENABLE. PDF 92 KB \nMinutes: \n\n\n \n\n The Committee considered a report of the Director of\nCommunity Services concerning the work which Environmental Action for a Better\nLeicestershire (ENABLE) had been involved with over the past year and work\nareas it would involved with over the forthcoming year.\u00c2\u00a0 A copy of the report, marked \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcE\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, is filed\nwith these minutes. \n\n \n\n Arising from discussion, the following principal points were\nnoted: \n\n \n\n \n - The\n top 10 carbon emissions producers across the Council had been identified\n and were being targeted.\u00c2\u00a0
\n - It\n was acknowledged that it was important to raise awareness among staff.
\n - There\n had been a 2% saving in energy used at County Hall for the last year for\n which the figures had been verified.
\n - Work\n was being done with companies across the County advising them on how to\n reduce energy bills, one result of which might be to reduce noise and\n light pollution.
\n - The County\n Hall energy assessment was currently being undertaken and the building\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s\n Energy Certificate would be displayed in the foyer of County Hall as soon\n as it was available:.
\n \n\n \n\n RESOLVED: \n\n \n\n That the contents of the report be noted. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t89. | \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Date of next meeting. \n\n\n \n\n The next meeting is scheduled to take place on 16 April 2009 at 2.00 pm. \n\n \n\n \n\n Minutes: \n\n\n \n\n It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be\nheld on 16 April 2009 at 2.00 pm. \n\n \n\n \n\n | \n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t
\n
\t\n
\t\n