Environment, Development and Transport Committee

Transcription

1 Environment, Development and Transport Committee Date: Friday, 11 March 2016 Time: 10:00 Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 2DH Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones. Membership Mr R Coke - Chairman Ms C Bowes Mr A Boswell Mr B Bremner Mr J Childs Mr S Clancy Mrs M Dewsbury Mr T East Mr C Foulger Mr B Iles Mr T Jermy Mrs J Leggett Mr G Plant Mr J Timewell Mrs C Walker Mr A White Mr M Wilby For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Anne Pickering on or committees@norfolk.gov.uk Under the Council s protocol on the use of media equipment at meetings held in public, this meeting may be filmed, recorded or photographed. Anyone who wishes to do so must inform the Chairman and ensure that it is done in a manner clearly visible to anyone present. The wishes of any individual not to be recorded or filmed must be appropriately respected. 1

2 A g e n d a 1. To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending 2. To agree the minutes of the meeting held on the 29 January 2016 Page 5 3. Declarations of Interest If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is on your Register of Interests you must not speak or vote on the matter. If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is not on your Register of Interests you must declare that interest at the meeting and not speak or vote on the matter In either case you may remain in the room where the meeting is taking place. If you consider that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to remain in the room, you may leave the room while the matter is dealt with. If you do not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest you may nevertheless have an Other Interest in a matter to be discussed if it affects - your well being or financial position - that of your family or close friends - that of a club or society in which you have a management role - that of another public body of which you are a member to a greater extent than others in your ward. If that is the case then you must declare such an interest but can speak and vote on the matter. 4. Any items of business the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency 5. Local Member Issues/ Member Questions Fifteen minutes for local member to raise issues of concern of which due notice has been given. Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Team (committees@norfolk.gov.uk) by 5pm Tuesday 8th March. 6. Notice of Motion Proposal by Cllr M Wilby This committee: Is concerned about the flow of HGV s through towns and villages in Norfolk; 2

3 Recognises the concerns of local residents in affected areas about the resulting damage to the natural and built environment, as well as the risk to pedestrians; Notes the particular effect of this along the B1111 between the A1066 and the A11 through the villages of East Harling, Garboldisham and Roudham; Is aware that the HGV route hierarchy has not been updated for over 20 years, during which time lorry sizes have increased and many roads and villages have changed significantly. And, therefore will: Pilot a modest revision of the HGV route hierarchy along the B1111 using the A roads i.e. the A11 and A1066 and Examine the potential for similar revisions across the county, in other areas seriously affected. 7. Highways England - A47 Presentation from Highways England Asset Development Manager, Simon Amor and Hari Kulathamani, group leader for the Regional Investment Programme Team 8. Countryside access ICAT aims and opportunities for funding beyond the public sector Presentation from John Jones and ICAT Trustees 9. Update from Economic Development Sub Committee Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 10. Highway Parish partnership schemes 2016/17 Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 11. Performance and Risk - Monitoring report (Quarter 3) Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 12. Finance Monitoring report Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 13. Air Quality Management Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 14. Silica Sand Review of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Plan: Pre-Submission and Submission stages Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 15. Norfolk County Council Planning Obligations Standards April 2016 Update Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 16. Great Yarmouth Transport and Infrastructure Steering Group Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 17. Decisions taken under delegated authority Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services 18. Forward Plan Report by Executive Director, Community and Environment Services Page 17 Page 21 Page 35 Page 57 Page 67 Page 73 Page 83 Page 117 Page 121 Page 125 3

4 Group Meetings Conservative 9:00am Conservative Group Room, Ground Floor UK Independence Party 9:00am UKIP Group Room, Ground Floor Labour 9:00am Labour Group Room, Ground Floor Liberal Democrats 9:00am Liberal democrats Group Room, Ground Floor Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH Date Agenda Published: 03 March 2016 If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Customer Services on or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 4

5 Environment, Development and Transport Committee Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 th January 2016 at 10am at County Hall. Present: Mr R Coke (Chair) Ms C Bowes Dr A Boswell Mr B Bremner Mr J Childs Mr S Clancy Mrs M Dewsbury Mr T East Mr C Foulger Mr B Iles Mr T Jermy Mrs J Leggett Mr G Plant Mr M Sands Mr J Timewell (Vice Chair) Mr A White Mr M Wilby 1 Apologies Apologies were received from Mrs C Walker (substituted by Mr M Sands). 2 To agree the minutes from the 26th November The minutes of the meeting held on the 26 th November were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 3 Declarations of Interest 3.1 None 4 Urgent Business 4.1 None received 5 Local Member Issues / Member Questions 5.1 The Chairman invited Mrs M Stone to address the Committee. Mrs M Stone informed the Committee about the scheme to build a roundabout in Hales just off the A146, due to the high number of casualties. Unfortunately there was currently no funding for the scheme so the project had been delayed. 5

6 5.2 Officers informed Mrs M Stone that the department were currently looking to get funding from the LEP for this project but there had been no funding decisions taken by New Anglia on the Growing Places Fund as of yet. 6. Better Broadband for Norfolk (6 monthly update) 6.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services which outlined the progress of the Better Broadband for Norfolk contract. 6.2 The following points were raised during the discussion:- The point was raised that there was a degree of uncertainty from the public about when superfast broadband would be coming to their area. The officers advised that the website would inform the public if their area was covered if they inputted their postcode. A decision on whether to contribute to coverage in their areas was being decided by various Norfolk districts and they should have reached a decision by the end of February. The satellite voucher scheme was there for people who were receiving less than 2mb per second. There was guidance available on the website for submitting an application. It was important to note that the scheme was there to provide a basic service for those with no other service available. The difference in coverage for different districts was due to the level of commercially funded infrastructure that exists. For example the level of coverage from commercially funded infrastructure was very low at 11% in North Norfolk against high levels of coverage in Norwich City and Great Yarmouth. Two District Councils have already decided to invest and there are three districts left to take final decisions Some members raised concerns that the broadband speeds promised by the providers would never be a reality for most people; there were many factors why speeds could be slower than predicted. Officers advised that distance from the cabinet would have an effect on speeds. However, independent national assurance tests have taken place which have demonstrated that actual speeds are on average higher than those that are predicted by BDUK. Concerns were raised that the work of WiSpire could be duplicating areas that the Better Broadband team were covering. The officers advised Norfolk s wireless providers, including WiSpire had been provided with details of areas of non-coverage to help them plan expansion of their networks. It was their choice about where to invest, equally as further fibre rollout occurs it may cover areas where wireless services also exist. It is important to note that wireless services tend not to offer Superfast speeds 6

7 Members raised the point that this scheme was a good example of how a subsidy from central government could have positive outcomes of producing good local infrastructure. 6.3 The Committee considered the completion of the first BBfN contract, and progress for the new rollout. 7 Broadband and Mobile Phones update from Member Working Group 7.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services which provided an update from the Broadband, Mobile Phone and Digital Members Working Group in relation to mobile phone coverage in Norfolk. 7.2 The following points were noted during the discussion:- Norfolk having eleven of the shortlisted communities for the Vodafone Rural Open Sure signal programme was the highest in the country; where it had been installed the feedback had been positive. The Mobile Infrastructure Project dealing with not spots had not been wholly successful. Projects for Blakeney and Itteringham had timed out and as a result money had not been released from central government, however the projects for Sedgeford and Horning were going ahead. There were concerns that the funding that had been provided to the operators to improve signal had been invested mainly in 4G projects rather than investing in rural low signal areas. The 10% of the country that the operators cannot provide signal to could not be identified as the information was considered commercially sensitive. If funding could be received then it was hoped that there would be 3G coverage everywhere by the end of The Committee noted the information provided and the progress being made. The Committee RESOLVED that the next update to Committee will be in three months as a matter of priority. 8. Update from Economic Development Sub Committee 8.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services which provided an update on the issues and actions from the Economic Development Sub-Committee from the 26 November 2015 EDSC meeting. 8.2 The Committee noted the update and actions from the November 2015 Economic Development Sub-Committee. 7

8 9 Member Working Group Wensum Valley Link Road 9.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services which outlined the progress made by the group and the current membership which was up for review. 9.2 Following the first meeting of the group on the 6 th January it was decided that other members would be integral to the group and should be invited to join. It was suggested that Mrs M Dewsbury and Mrs S Gurney should be added to the group due to their divisions falling close or within the Wensum Valley area. The Committee Agreed. 9.3 The officers advised that 1m from the highways reserve had been put aside for this and the A47 scheme and that working with the Local Enterprise Partnership would be an integral part of these projects. 9.4 It was suggested that rather than calling the Wensum Valley the missing link that it should be referred to as the final link. 9.5 The Committee noted the report and Agreed that the membership of the working group should now comprise: Tim East (Chair) Stuart Clancy Bert Bremner Bill Borrett Shelagh Gurney (added at EDT Committee on 29 Jan) Margaret Dewsbury (added at EDT Committee on 29 Jan) 10 Norfolk Parking Partnership - Forward programme and budget report 10.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services which included the report which would be considered at the Norfolk Parking Partnership Joint Committee on 18 February 2016, following the completion of the work of the CPE Task and Finish Working Group The following points were raised during the discussion:- Parking enforcement needed to be a self-supporting operation; currently Great Yarmouth and King Lynn were funding the rest of the county but it was estimated that this money would run out in 2 years. Other councils needed to contribute to help support the enforcement scheme for parking in their areas. The decision for this would be taken at the next Parking Partnership Joint Committee meeting and it was important to improve the participation of all partners in this group and it was hoped that the membership would be expanded to include members from the 6 districts. 8

9 Some members raised concerns around the effect of these proposals on local businesses and argued that in the long term the cost would fall on to Norfolk County Council and the scheme would not work. Members requested that the Chairman of EDT write to the Chairman of the Parking Partnership Joint Committee to highlight the concerns of the EDT Committee on this matter The Committee noted the report and Agreed that the Chairman of EDT write to the Chairman of the Parking Partnership Joint Committee to highlight the concerns of the EDT Committee on this matter. 11 County Council Plan Re-imagining Norfolk The Committee received the report from the Managing Director which outlined the County Council Plan - this provided the strategic direction for the Council, to guide and shape choices about investments and priorities for the coming medium term period The Committee noted the report. 12. Strategic and Financial Planning to The Committee received the report which outlined the proposals that would contribute towards the County Council setting a legal budget for The Committee received a presentation from the Business Intelligence and Performance Senior Analyst, Mr D Harry, which outlined in more detail the results from the budget consultation The following points were discussed following the presentation in regards to the consultation:- The response to Proposal 16 Change our Historic Environment Service so that we only do what we have to by law with a saving of 172k, was highlighted as having received comments from national bodies, the British Museum, the British Archaeology Trust and the House of Commons All Party Archaeology Group. It was noted that people who had responded drew out the difference between what were considered an essential service and non-essential services. It was disappointing that the number of young people who had responded to the consultation was so low and that this should be looked into for future consultations. In response to a comment made regarding the low level of response to the consultation, the Committee were advised that the response rate to this 9

10 consultation was the 2 nd highest response they had ever had for a budget consultation. The information provided by the consultation was to assist and inform members of the committee not to ratify the decisions of the council in regards to the budget Mr J Timewell proposed, seconded by Mr B Bremner, that the Committee agree to support young people into work and enterprise, working with the Princes Trust business start-up programme at a cost of 200k and to also invest 50k in Hethel Innovation Limited with the funding provided to be used as a lever for the next steps in creating a master plan. Some members of the Committee felt that these were important areas to support, that investment in Hethel could only be a positive investment; and the investment of the 200k had the potential to treble to 600k within the Prince s Trust programme over 2 years. The motion Fell with 8 votes For and 9 Against The Committee went through each of the proposals. The following points were discussed:- Mr D Gurney, Historic Environment Manager was invited to speak to the Committee. He explained to the Committee how the savings proposed would result in the team ceasing all community engagement, ceasing work on historic buildings and archaeological findings. This would have a direct impact on the Coroner who relied on the team to carry out her statutory duty in regards to treasures found in the county and would likely mean needing to buy the service elsewhere. Members voiced their concern that this was an area where Norfolk was delivering a world class service and it would be a shame to let this fall to the side. In regards to the proposal number 19, spending less on maintaining roads, maintaining bridges and gritting, the committee voiced concerns around the reduction in spend on the illuminated signs and were assured that all the cuts were non-safety cuts. In regards to reducing the spend on drainage repairs, cleaning and gully emptying this was felt to be an inappropriate cut by various members considering the state of the roads and flooding that had occurred lately. Members raised concerns that many of these cuts could end up costing the council more money further down the line as the problems needed to be dealt with regularly, for example the clearing of weeds. 10

11 In regards to the proposed cut of 50k through reducing highways inspections it was explained that this was the most that could be cut from this budget without having adverse effects on the service The Committee went through and voted on each proposal with the results outlined below: Proposal 16- Change our Historic Environment Service so that we only do what we have to by law ( 0.172M) The Committee voted unanimously to remove this proposal from the list of savings. Proposal 17 - Spend less money measuring and analysing the traffic in Norfolk ( 0.040M) With 8 For and 9 Against the Committee agreed to remove this proposal from the list of savings. Proposal 18 - Use our capital budget to pay for some highways maintenance ( 3.0M) With 16 votes For and 1 Abstention the Committee agreed to keep this savings proposal. Proposal 19 - Spend less on maintaining roads, maintaining bridges and gritting ( 0.980M) The Committee agreed to remove the proposal with the following votes recorded: Reduction in the percentage of roads gritted and/or enabling local communities to pay to fill up grit bins provided by Parish Councils 4 votes For and 13 votes Against Reduction in the number of urban grass cuts from 5 to 4 6 votes For, 9 votes Against and 2 Abstentions Reducing work on verges, hedges and trees by 20% 4 votes For, 11 votes Against and 2 Abstentions Reducing spend non illuminated signs by 20% 4 votes For, 12 votes Against and 1 Abstention Reducing spend on replacement road markings by 10% 2 votes For, 14 votes Against and 1 Abstention Reducing spend on drainage repairs/cleaning/gully emptying by 10% 2 votes For, 14 votes Against and 1 Abstention Reduction in the number of weed treatments from 2 to 1 2 votes For, 12 Against and 3 Abstentions 11

12 Reducing spend on reactive bridge maintenance by 20% 2 votes For, 14 Against and 1 Abstention Reduction in frequency of highway inspections 5 votes For, 9 Against and 3 Abstentions Other savings planned for 2016/17 ( 2.815M), 2017/18 to 2018/19 Part one of this section outlined three efficiency measures that would save an estimated 2.815M in 2016/17. Part two outlined four further changes, which could deliver savings in 2017/18 to 2018/19, including a change in the way that services are delivered to move to a locality based model. With 8 votes For, 1 Against and 2 Abstention the Committee agreed to keep this set of proposals Mr M Wilby proposed, seconded by Mr A White the following set of proposals: Proposal 1: Reverse the following savings for 2016/17: Historic Environment service (EDT026) 172,000 Highways maintenance standards (EDT030) 245,000 Sub Total for Proposal 1: 417,000 Proposal 2: In addition, reverse the following decisions: Re-open Docking recycling centre 70,000 Restore bank-holiday opening at recycling centres 85,000 Restore full-time opening at Ashill, Heacham and Morningthorpe recycling centres 50,975 Sub Total for Proposal 2: 205,975 Proposal 3: Create a new Highways maintenance and small projects fund 1.5million (minimum) Total of proposals 1 & 2: 622,975 Plus a minimum of 1.5million for proposal 3. The Committee noted that Proposal 1 had already been agreed for 2016/17 and 2017/18. With 9 votes For, 2 Against and 6 Abstentions the motion Carried. 12

13 12.8 The Committee RESOLVED to: 1) Consider and comment on the Committee s specific budget proposals for to , including the findings of public consultation in respect of: The budget proposals set out in Appendix 2; and The scope for a Council Tax increase of up to 1.99%, within the Council Tax referendum limit of 2% for , noting that in contrast to previous years, there is no Council Tax Freeze Grant being offered in respect of , and that central government s assumption in the Spending Review is that Councils will increase Council tax by CPI every year (forecast 1.2% in ). 2) Consider and comment on the findings of equality and rural assessment, and in doing so, note the Council s duty under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to: Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 3) Consider and agree any mitigating actions proposed in the equality and rural impact assessments. 4) Agree and recommend to Policy and Resources Committee the draft Revenue Budget as set out in Appendix 2 with the removal of the following savings that were unacceptable to the committee: - Proposal 16- Change our Historic Environment Service so that we only do what we have to by law ( 0.172M) - Proposal 17 - Spend less money measuring and analysing the traffic in Norfolk ( 0.040M) - Proposal 19 - Spend less on maintaining roads, maintaining bridges and gritting ( 0.896M) And with 6 votes For, 2 Against and 9 Abstentions recommend that there be a 1.99% increase in Council Tax to meet the shortfall produced and additional costs. For consideration by Policy and Resources Committee on 8th February 2016, to enable Policy and Resources Committee to recommend a sound, whole- Council budget to Full Council on 22nd February ) Note the Capital Programmes and schemes relevant to this Committee as set out in Appendix 2 and elsewhere on this agenda and recommend that to Policy and 13

14 Resources Committee for consideration on 8th February 2016, to enable Policy and Resources Committee to recommend a Capital Programme to Full Council on 22nd February Highway capital programme and Transport Asset management Plan (TAMP) 13.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services which summarised government and other capital funding settlements, and proposed allocations for 2016/ The following points were raised during the discussion:- In response to the devolution factor, officers had had discussion with the Department for Transport and Highways England to see what opportunities there may be. There was a long list of schemes waiting for approved funding, more work is going into the bids for these as the need to secure additional external funding was key to these projects being completed The Chairman raised a concern regarding the use of large farm machines on the state of the roads. It was discussed that working with the CLA and NFU in a combined approach was key to dealing with the issues. The Chairman agreed to write on behalf of the Committee to the organisations mentioned and copy in the MP for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs The Committee recommends to Full Council that: 1) The reallocation of 0.241m of integrated transport funding to structural maintenance for 2016/17 2) That the Traffic Management programme is ceased, as parking issues are better addressed through the Controlled Parking Enforcement (CPE) forward programme as long as no further financial burden falls to CPE. 3) The proposed allocations and programme for 2016/17 and 2017/18 (as set out in Appendices A, B and C 4) Delegated authority to the Executive Director of Environment, Transport and Development, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of EDT Committee, to manage the two year programme, including the possible virement of funds between the Integrated Transport and structural maintenance programmes in line with the financial delegation scheme to deal with any major scheme cost pressures. 5) The Transport Asset Management Programme (TAMP) for 2016/17-20/21 combined with changes to the response standards set out in para Opportunities to increase commercial activity for the highways service 14.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director of Environment, Transport and Development which sought to inform Members of the options available for delivering Highway Services in a more commercial way and outlined 14

15 the further work needed to better understand what was required to move to a different business model for the delivery of some services Further detail would be provided in a future report that would provide the cost benefit analysis for each service The Committee noted the information provided and asked officers to investigate more thoroughly further options and implications in relation to business models for highway services as proposed, analysing the risk and benefits to NCC, to be presented at a future EDT Committee. 15 Finance Monitoring report 15.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director of Environment, Transport and Development which provided the Committee with information on the latest monitoring position for the relevant services from the Community and Environmental Services department, for It provided information on variances from the original budget (revenue and capital), emerging issues and the position on the use of reserves for those services The Committee noted the forecast out-turn position for the Environment Development and Transport Committee. 16 Decisions taken under delegated authority 16.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director of Environment, Transport and Development which provided an update on decisions taken under delegated powers by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman up to 15 January The Committee noted the report. 17 Forward Plan 17.1 The Committee received the report from the Executive Director of Environment, Transport and Development which set out the items/decisions programmed to be brought to this Committee for consideration in relation to environment, development and transport issues in Norfolk The Committee noted the Forward Plan. The meeting closed 13:20pm. Chairman 15

16 If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact the Customer Services Team on or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 16

17 Environment, Development and Transport Committee Item No. Report title: Date of meeting: 11 March 2016 Update from the previous Economic Development Sub Committee Responsible Chief Tom McCabe Executive Director of Community Officer: and Environmental Services Strategic impact The Chair of the Environment Transport and Development (EDT) committee requested an update for each meeting on the issues and actions from the Economic Development Sub- Committee (EDSC). This report summarises those of the 21 January 2016 EDSC meeting. Executive summary At their January 2016 meeting, the key issues EDSC discussed were: Member working group updates A presentation on the next stage of development for the Hethel Centre A verbal update on apprenticeships in Norfolk The Finance and Performance Report The Forward Plan for the Sub-Committee Recommendations: Members to note the update and actions from the January 2016 Economic Development Sub-Committee. 1. Proposal 1.1. The topics discussed by members at the previous Economic Development Sub- Committee are outlined below. 2. Evidence 2.1 Member working group updates Scottow Enterprise Park Working Group Phase 2 of the solar farm had begun. There was a strong pipeline of inquiries and the interest in Scottow was very strong. In particular, the hangars were attracting significant interest. The EDP had reported that Scottow had broken even for the last financial year and that any future surplus would be reinvested in current projects (such as refurbishing units in response to enquiries), to avoid the costs of borrowing. The Chairman advised the Sub-Committee that Mr B Spratt had replaced Mr M Baker on the Scottow Enterprise Working Group. It was agreed that two additional members would join the Working Group - 17

18 Mr A White and Mr S Clancy. The next meeting of the Scottow Enterprise Working Group would be Monday 26 January Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex China Partnership There were currently no visits planned and the next meeting of the partnership was scheduled for April Apprenticeships Update The Sub-Committee received a verbal update from the Employment and Skills Manager, Jan Feeney. The following points were raised during the update and discussion: The number of apprenticeship starts this year had increased by 16% on last year, compared to 13% nationally and 14% regionally. This equated to 6270 starts last year and 7290 this year. Following up on a point raised at the last meeting around low levels of apprenticeships in leisure and travel and tourism, members were informed that a piece of work was being undertaken to investigate this further. In response to a query regarding the Levy increase due to come in April 2017, members were informed that the team were working with colleagues across the Local Enterprise Partnership to ensure that this would be effectively dealt with. There would be implications for public sector organisations when the levy was introduced due to the requirement that 2.3% of public sector workers had to be apprenticeships. In terms of the additional new Enterprise Zones mentioned in the Finance & Performance report, any new companies coming to the zones may have a need for apprentices, so this could be an area for future joint working. Members requested that a report on the performance of colleges across the county and their involvement in apprenticeships be produced Next Stage of development for Hethel Engineering Centre/Hethel Innovation Ltd The Sub-Committee received a presentation from Mr Simon Coward, Managing Director, Hethel Centre/ Hethel Innovation Ltd. The following points were discussed: Members raised concerns regarding the significant losses reportedly being made by Lotus and whether any changes they made would impact on Hethel; officers advised that the location of Hethel and the land surrounding it had been taken into consideration when locating here and that the staffing at Lotus flexed according to market demand. The goal is to grow Hethel into a technology park; a technical centre with the ability to create between jobs and the key to this is working closely with other local organisations such as the universities and the Norwich Research Park. Finance Monitoring Report The Sub-Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services, which provided the financial position 18

19 for the service to the end of January, including the planned use of reserves. The Sub-Committee noted the report Norfolk Rail Group The Sub-Committee received a report from the Head of Democratic Services and approved the proposed amendments to the terms of reference of the Group. The changes would have the effect of removing the requirement for the Chairman of this Sub-Committee to be a member of and chair the Rail Group. The report also proposed that the Group elect its Chairman from amongst the four elected Members nominated by Norfolk County Council. The Sub-Committee further agreed that the Chairman would be appointed at the next Rail Group meeting. Forward Plan The Sub-Committee received the report from the Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services which set out the items and decisions to be brought to this Sub-Committee for consideration in relation to economic development issues in Norfolk. Members asked for an item regarding the new ownership of the East Port UK in Great Yarmouth. Officers advised that they had met with the new operations manager and felt that the meeting went well and that there could be positive relationships built in the future but that the company should be given a bit more time to settle before inviting them to the Sub-Committee to provide an update. The Sub-Committee agreed the forward plan 3. Issues, risks and innovation 3.1. None as a result of this report. 4. Background 4.1. This report has been produced at the request of the EDT Chair. Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper, please get in touch with: Officer name : Jo Middleton Tel No. : address : jo.middleton@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this report in large print, audio, braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 19

20 20

21 Environment Development and Transport Committee Item No. Report title: Highway Parish Partnership Schemes 2015/16 Date of meeting: 11 March 2016 Responsible Chief Officer: Strategic impact Tom McCabe Executive Director for Community and Environmental Services The Highways and Transport Service contributes directly to supporting the following Council priority: Good infrastructure We will make Norfolk a place where businesses can succeed and grow. We will promote improvements to our transport and technology infrastructure to make Norfolk a great place to do business. With funding now prioritised towards highways maintenance, the highway improvements budget has been set at a level of 2m of investment since 2011/12. The Parish Partnership programme delivers small highway improvements which are considered a priority by local communities and which successfully support Local Transport Plan (LTP) objectives. In March 2015, EDT Committee agreed to continue the programme using 300,000 of the highway improvements budget to fund up to 50% of each bid, with consideration of increased contributions for parish councils with incomes below 2,000. Executive summary This report sets out the proposed parish partnership programme for 2016/17 following analysis and review of the applications submitted. Recommendations That members: 1. Approve all bids listed in Appendix C for inclusion in the Parish Partnership Programme for 2016/17 2. Approve the future inclusion of School Keep Clear carriageway markings when supported by the relevant school as viable bids under the scheme. 3. Consider whether to retain pothole repairs on minor roads (i.e. not A or B roads) within the scope of bids 1. Background 1.1. The Parish Partnership Scheme began in September 2011, when Parish and Town Councils were invited to submit bids for local highway improvements, with the County Council initially funding up to 50% of bid costs. Limited funding is 21

22 therefore targeted to meet needs identified at a local level and helps us to support and promote our role in enabling communities The programme has been well received by Parish/Town Councils and members and feedback has been very positive from communities. Key features are that it: Delivers local priorities identified by local people Draws in additional funding for small scale highway improvements Helps communities have more of a say 1.3. The most popular bids have been for: 2. Funding Trods - a simplified lower cost alternative to footways (often constructed using recycled road surface material) Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) which flash up warnings to drivers. Subsequently owned/maintained by the County Council SAM2 (mobile VAS units which flash vehicle speed as a reminder to the driver). Subsequently owned/maintained by the Parish Council 2.1. The Parish Partnership Programme has been renewed on an annual basis until March 2015, when ETD Committee agreed to use 300,000 of the highway improvements budget to fund up to 50% of each bid, with consideration of increased contributions for parish councils with incomes below 2, The Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership (SafeCam) has agreed to contribute 80,000 towards SAM2 bids in 2016/17. This welcome support boosts the total available County Council funding to 380,000 and emphasises the important role that the Parish Partnership Programme can have in casualty reduction initiatives In 2016/17 letters inviting bids were sent out in June 2015 with a closing date of 15 December 2015 (Appendix A), giving bidders slightly more time than in previous years to develop their proposals A follow-up letter in September 2015 (Appendix B) introduced pot-hole repairs on minor roads (i.e. not A or B roads) within the scope of bids, and that bus shelter requests will only be considered via Parish Partnerships. 3. Bids submitted bids were received for 2016/17, with a short deadline extension for 3 bids. 3.2 Members have previously enquired about the spread of interest for the scheme, so additional information is provided to help demonstrate this. The number of bids received over the past five years by Parish is mapped in Appendix D. This indicates a reasonable distribution across Norfolk, although many parishes have submitted none. 3.4 The number and value of bids submitted over the past five years by District is shown in Appendix E. This indicates a reasonable spread of bids in relation to the size of each District, although the number (13) and value ( 59,531) of bids 22

23 within the Great Yarmouth Borough Council area is comparatively low. 4. Assessment of Bids 4.1. Bids have been assessed through a combination of the following factors: Contribution to LTP objectives Outcome for the local community Value for money This resulted in a score which enabled ranking of bids in priority order bids were submitted and assessed, shown in the table below along with the value of these bids considered viable Of the 127 bids, five were considered unsuitable and rejected (Parishes and associated members have been informed) leaving 122 viable bids The total value of viable bids is 759,014, making the County Council contribution 378,307 which is just within the available funding of 380,000. Consequently, all viable bids can be delivered The 122 individual, viable bids, ranked in Member order, are listed in Appendix C. This highlights three bids (Watton, Sea Palling and Wells-next-the-sea) which were assessed as viable but subsequently withdrawn by bidders Viable bids include contributions toward the A148/B1436 Felbrigg junction improvement near Cromer where a long-running local campaign (STEPS to Safety) is seeking a new roundabout, as reported to this Committee in January 23

24 2016. This contribution would be 52,800 to match external funding from a coalition of Parish/Town Councils, North Norfolk District Council, local businesses and a developer. Although we could not justify 100% funding from the wider highways improvements programme ahead of other higher priority schemes, we have been working with partners to assemble a coalition of potential funders, including North Norfolk District Council, five local Parish/Town Councils, local businesses and a developer. If external funding can be secured, this scheme could be considered value for money ; otherwise, the approved County Council highway improvements funding of 250,000 would need to be reallocated Again, as reported to this Committee in January 2016, whilst Felbrigg junction is ranked number nine on the long list of schemes awaiting funding, those above it are either likely to be significantly more expensive and/or do not have the same strategic importance as a route connector. However, where external funding can be secured, either in whole or part, other potential higher-cost schemes (i.e. above 150,000) could in future be considered within the wider highways improvement programme, where County Council support can be limited to a level that represents value for money. This is a pragmatic approach, paving the way to deliver other, larger schemes in similar partnership arrangements, where a coalition of supportive partners can be assembled 4.8. We have again positively promoted SAM2 bids over VAS. 39 bids for SAM2 were received (46 in 2015/16) amounting to 144,764, helping improve road safety. As noted in 2.2 above, the SafeCam partnership has again offered to support the 2016/17 Parish Partnership programme with 80,000 of funding bids were for trods, which remains a popular improvement. Over the last four years, the implementation of trods has enabled 31 footway requests to be removed from the County Councils footway database bids for part-time advisory 20mph Speed Limits with flashing school warning lights outside Schools were submitted (16 in 2015/16) amounting to 52,629, helping promote safety at schools. 5. Further development 5.1. To complement the above flashing school signs, it is proposed to allow bids for School Keep Clear markings from 2016/17, where these are supported by the relevant school. These markings will automatically be enforceable under new legislation; however, depending on their location, it may not always be practicable for Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) Officers to undertake such enforcement and this may happen only where it is operationally convenient to do so (i.e. when officers are in the area engaged on other enforcement work) The introduction of pothole repairs on minor roads (ie not A or B roads) within bid scope for 2016/17 (see letter in Appendix B) has resulted in only two bids, amounting to 3,600. There was, however, some criticism from Parish/Town Councils at the suggestion they bid for any pothole repairs. In view of this, and the fact that Parish Councils are now able to buy in Highway Rangers for additional local work, members may wish to consider whether this option should be retained within Parish Partnerships. 24

25 5.3. Given the importance of Parish partnerships in supporting community based working going forward, we will undertake the following actions to measure and seek improvements in the following aspects of the programme: 1. Assess/determine viable bids each January; report to EDT Committee and gain approval; programme scheme delivery 2. Value of additional (non-highways) funding secured. We will provide information on and promote use of alternative funding sources to support delivery of the programme, either in replacement of or addition to existing funding. 3. Number of bids from parishes who have not previously submitted bids. We will identify and engage with Parish/Town Councils who have not previously submitted bids, to determine what obstacles may exist and how we may support them in overcoming these and encourage submission of bids where practicable. In particular in the Great Yarmouth Borough Council area where bidding has been comparatively low To help improve our service to Parish/Town Councils, a section on the NCC website is being developed to cover parish partnerships to include the following: All letters to bidders Information on potential funding sources that bidders could access, to complement or replace their contributions 5.5. It is recommended that Members: 6. Evidence 1. Approve all bids listed in Appendix C for inclusion in the parish partnership programme for 2016/17 2. Approve the future inclusion of School Keep Clear carriageway markings when supported by the relevant school as viable bids under the scheme. 3. Consider whether to retain pothole repairs on minor roads (i.e. not A or B roads) within the scope of bids 6.1. The prioritisation process leading to the selection (or omission) of schemes for the parish partnership programme is described in Section 4 of this report. 7. Financial Implications 7.1. The allocation of funding to the Parish Partnerships programme was approved by members as part of setting the Highways capital programme, the bids from parishes recommended to be taken forward are within the available funding. 8. Issues, risks and innovation 8.1. No specific risks arising from the parish partnership programme. 25

26 Background Papers 1. Report on Highways Capital Programme for 2016/17/18 and Transport Asset Management Plan to ETD report (Page 127 onwards) Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with: Officer name : Paul Donnachie Tel No. : address : paul.donnachie@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this report in large print, audio, braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 26

27 APPENDIX A: Letter to Parish/Town Councils inviting bids (June 2015) From the Chairman of the County Council s Environment, Development & Transport Committee Dear Sir/Madam Delivering local highway improvements in partnership with Town and Parish Councils I am delighted to inform you that due to the success of working in partnership with Parish/Town Councils for the last four years the Parish Partnership Scheme Initiative will be repeated in the financial year 2016/17, and will continue each year after that. The County Council has allocated 300,000 on a 50/50 basis to fund schemes put forward by Town and Parish Councils to deliver projects that are priorities for local communities. To encourage bids from Town and Parish Councils with annual incomes below 2,000, we will consider providing additional County Council funding (on a scheme by scheme basis). This will depend on the number and value of bids received, and evidence of income. This letter provides more information on the process and invites you to submit bids, and explains how the County Council can support you in developing your ideas. We are sending it earlier than in previous years, to give you more time to develop proposals. The closing date will be 15 December If you need any advice in developing your ideas, especially around the practicalities and cost estimates, please consult your local Highway Engineers based at your local Area Office. Once all bids have been received we will assess them and inform you of our decision in March What sort of schemes would be acceptable? Small lengths of formal footway Trods (a simplified and low cost footway), Improved crossing facilities Improvements to Public Rights of Way. Flashing signs to tackle speeding. We would encourage you to consider Speed Awareness Mobile Signs, these mobile signs (SAM2-which flash up the driver s actual speed) rather than fixed signs (VAS- which flash up the speed limit). The number of fixed VAS in Norfolk has grown, and checks show that speed reduction can be minimal; we are therefore concerned that their effectiveness is becoming diluted. SAM2 mobile signs are moved around on an agreed rota and can be jointly purchased with neighbouring Parishes, and we believe consider these to be more effective at reducing speed. SAM2 signs would be owned and maintained by the Parish/Town Council (Whilst we will still consider fixed VAS in bids, in assessing these we will need to be satisfied that they will be more effective in reducing speed). Part-time 20mph signs with flashing warning lights, outside schools. The County Council trialled these in 2008/9, and generally had a favourable community 27

28 response, with some moderate reductions in average speeds during peak times. Whilst the County Council supports the aspiration to have part-time, 20mph speed limits outside each school in Norfolk, to do this would cost in the region of 3.75 million Schemes can be within or off the highway provided they are linked to the highway. If they are off highway the future responsibility for the maintenance will fall to the Parish or Town Council. Schemes should be self-contained and not require other schemes or works to make them effective. Schemes that support the Local Transport Plan objectives will have a higher priority for funding. The LTP can be found by clicking here (or visit our website, and search for Local Transport Plan ) With the County Council s agreement Parishes can employ private contractors to deliver schemes. Any works on the highway would be subject to an agreed programme, inspection on completion, and the contractor having 10m public liability insurance. What schemes will not be considered? Bids for minor traffic management changes such as speed limits or waiting restrictions will not qualify. Bids for installation of low-energy LED lighting in streetlights to help cut energy bills and maintenance. What information should you include in your bid? Details of the scheme, its cost and your contribution. Who, and how many people will benefit. How it supports the objectives of the Local Transport Plan. Local support, particularly from your local Member, frontagers and land owners. For off highway schemes, your proposals for future maintenance. Please find a simple bid application form attached to this letter. When assessing your bid we will consider the points above, but also look at: The potential for casualty reduction. Any ongoing maintenance costs for the County Council. Your bids should be ed to the Capital Programme Manager, Paul Donnachie ( paul.donnachie@norfolk.gov.uk) or posted for his attention to the above address. If you need further information on the bid process please contact Paul, by or by phoning For advice on the scheme practicalities and/or likely costs, please contact your local Highway Engineer. Yours sincerely Richard Coke Chairman of Environment, Development and Transport Committee 28

29 APPENDIX B: Further Letter to Parish/Town Councils inviting bids for pot hole repairs (September 2015) Delivering local highway improvements in partnership with Town and Parish Councils 2016/17 Addition of Pothole Repairs Dear Sir/Madam You will recall that we circulated a letter in June to all Parish/Town Councils inviting bids for the Parish Partnership scheme for 2016/17. Bid(s) are to be submitted by December 15 th There has been another type of work that can now be included in the bid. Most of you should be familiar with the work carried out by our Highway Rangers, who liaise with Parishes to attend to local maintenance tasks. The work the Rangers do has proved to be both effective and popular with the local communities they serve. We have been considering a new partnership arrangement with Parish/Town Councils that would allow two rangers to repair pot holes on minor roads. This service would cost around 300+VAT for rangers to undertake a half days work. This cost includes labour, transport, materials, fuel, temporary traffic management, insurance and supervision. The County Council will still undertake pothole repairs across the whole network. This is done on a priority basis which means repairs on minor roads can take longer, or not be prioritised if they are below our intervention thresholds which local highway staff can advise on. As local communities may want faster or different repairs, our Parish Partnership scheme will now include pothole repairs on the following basis: Parish/Town Councils may submit bids for a pothole repair fund, to carry out repairs on minor roads (ie not A or B roads). The County Council will provide up to 50% funding. For example, 1500 Parish Partnership funding would support 3000 worth of pothole work, equivalent to 10 half days per annum. How many repairs are undertaken will depend on the size and location of potholes. We will then consider and prioritise any bids, along with others, and announce the results in March In terms of how this would work in practice, Parish/Town Councils can firstly discuss their pothole concerns with local Highway staff. If agreed, then they can identify the location of potholes they want repaired on a simple sketch plan showing their location and approximate size/depth. This can be provided to the Rangers team who can advise how many visits will be needed to do the work. The Parish/Town Council would, as with other schemes, provide advance payment of their 50% contribution. If less work is required during the year we would of course issue a refund. We may also consider extending this to include other maintenance activities, if is agreed that funding for these can be capitalised, and will, of course, advise you accordingly. I have also attached some important information about Bus shelter applications Over the last few years the County Council has had two ways of funding Bus shelters, the Parish Partnership Scheme and a County Council Bus Shelter Grant. From now on, all further bus shelter bids will be submitted solely through the Parish Partnership Scheme. 29

30 If you have already applied for a Bus Shelter Grant and received your confirmation letter then please proceed with your scheme. When you have settled your invoices please contact Linda Girling (linda.girling@norfolk.gov.uk) who will arrange your refund. The value of your grant will not change from that quoted on your confirmation letter. If you have not already applied for a Bus Shelter Grant but are working towards doing so, please submit a Parish Partnership bid instead. I attach an updated guidance note covering matters to consider regarding bus shelters, such as highway safety, planning permission and accessibility. Regards Paul Donnachie Capital Programme Manager Community and Environmental Services Carrow House Level King Street NORWICH NR1 2TN 30

31 APPENDIX C: Individual viable bids, ranked in Member order Parish Member Scheme Type Value of Works Overall Ranking Score (criteria as per letter to Parishes in Appendix A) 1 Felthorpe Adams, A D Traffic Calming 24, Horsford Adams, A D Bus Shelter 7, West Walton Agnew, S Kerbing 2, Belton with 4 Browston Aldred, C Trod 4, Belton with 5 Browston Aldred, C 20mph Wig Wags 3, North Lopham Askew, S Trod 13, Old Buckenham Askew, S Crossing Point 8, Old Buckenham Askew, S Surfacing 20, Aylmerton Baker, M J M Drainage 1, Kelling Baker, M J M SAM2 3, Matlaske Baker, M J M SAM2 3, Runton Baker, M J M Trod 11, Upper Sherringham Baker, M J M VAS 16, Weybourne Baker, M J M Kerbing 2, Holme next the Sea Bird, R Bus Shelter 13, Old Hunstanton Bird, R SAM2 3, Ringstead Bird, R SAM2 3, Carbrooke Bowes, Ms C SAM2 2, Caston Bowes, Ms C SAM2 3, Ovington Bowes, Ms C Hardstanding 2, Watton Bowes, Ms C 20mph Wig Wags Watton Bowes, Ms C SAM2 3, Neatishead Bradnock, Mrs A Surfacing 3, Sea Palling Bradnock, Mrs A VAS 5, Sea Palling Bradnock, Mrs A Signs Diss Chamberlin, Mrs J R M Footpath 5, Chenery of Horsbrugh, M J East Rudham 27 B Trod 12, Chenery of Horsbrugh, M J South Creake 28 B SAM2 3, Chenery of Horsbrugh, M J Syderstone 29 B Trod Marham Coke, R T Trod 13, Shouldham Coke, R T Trod 1, Shouldham Coke, R T Trod 2, Shouldham Coke, R T Trod Cromer Cox, Mrs H Crossing Point 2, Cromer Cox, Mrs H 20mph Wig Wags 3, Junction Felbrigg Cox, Mrs H 36 Improvement 108, Village Speed Great Melton Dewsbury, Mrs M 37 Signs Hingham Dewsbury, Mrs M SAM2 3, Morley Dewsbury, Mrs M 20mph Wig Wags 6, Stalham Dixon, N D 20mph Wig Wags 4, Costessey East, T SAM2 3, Helhoughton FitzPatrick, T SAM2 3, East Carlton Foulger, C W SAM2 3, Salhouse Garrod, T S C SAM2 3, Dereham Gilmour, P C J Trod 12, Hellesdon Gurney, Mrs S C Bus Shelter 12, Aylsham Harrison, D G SAM2 3, Aylsham Harrison, D G 20mph Wig Wags 5, Buxton Harrison, D G Trod 3, Buxton Harrison, D G 20mph Wig Wags 6, Buxton Harrison, D G SAM2 3, Emneth Humphrey, H A S Trod 6, Outwell Humphrey, H A S Crossing Point 2, Upwell Humphrey, H A S Trod 14, Freethorpe Iles, B J M SAM2 3, Lingwood Iles, B J M Bus Shelter 3, Great Ellingham Jordan, C 20mph Wig Wags 3,

32 58 Scoulton Jordan, C Hardstanding 1, Shipdham Jordan, C Trod Cawston Joyce, J M Footway Widening 6, Beetley Kiddle-Morris, M Trod 5, Necton Kiddle-Morris, M Trod 17, Grimston Law, J Trod 2, Old Catton Leggett, Mrs J Bus Shelter 7, Old Catton Leggett, Mrs J Trod 2, Old Catton Leggett, Mrs J Trod 4, Crimplesham Long, B W C Bus Shelter 3, Runcton Holme Long, B W C Potholes 3, Terrington St John Long, B W C Footpath 5, Watlington Long, B W C Trod 4, West Dereham Long, B W C SAM2 3, Ashill Monson, I A C 20mph Wig Wags 4, Oxborough Monson, I A C SAM2 3, Shropham Monson, I A C SAM2 3, South Pickenham Monson, I A C Footpath 9, Gressenhall Necton and Launditch Bus Shelter 2, Blofield Proctor, A J SAM2 3, Baconthorpe Ramsbotham, D J SAM2 3, Briston Ramsbotham, D J SAM2 3, Kettlestone Ramsbotham, D J Pedestrian Refuge 22, Little Snoring Ramsbotham, D J SAM2 3, Thursford Ramsbotham, D J Signs Scarning Richmond, W SAM2 2, Hainford Roper, D Footpath 5, Hevingham Roper, D Trod 18, Spixworth Roper, D SAM2 3, Horning Seward, E G Steps and Handrail 1, Seward, E G / Timewell, J North Walsham 88 W SAM2 7, Seward, E G / Timewell, J North Walsham 89 W 20mph Wig Wags 7, Poringland Smith, R A Bus Shelter 6, Poringland Smith, R A SAM2 3, School Speed Poringland Smith, R A 92 Signs 1, Stoke Holy Cross Smith, R A Kissing Gates 2, Trowse Smith, R A Trod 9, Narborough Smyth, P J 20mph Wig Wags 3, Ashwellthorpe Spratt, B H A SAM2 3, Bressingham Spratt, B H A SAM2 6, Bressingham Spratt, B H A Verge Works 3, Bunwell Spratt, B H A VAS 6, Dickleburgh Spratt, B H A Potholes Dickleburgh Spratt, B H A SAM2 2, Great Moulton Spratt, B H A SAM2 3, Tacolneston Spratt, B H A Trod 2, Woodton Stone, B SAM2 3, Ditchingham Stone, Mrs M F Trod 15, Hilgay Storey, M SAM2 3, Hockwold-cum- 107 Wilton Storey, M SAM2 3, Northwold Storey, M Footway Widening 1, Southery Storey, M SAM2 6, Southery Storey, M 20mph Wig Wags 4, Stoke Ferry Storey, M VAS 5, Wretton Storey, M Village Gateways Wretton Storey, M SAM2 3, Blakeney Strong, Dr M Posts 1, Blakeney Strong, Dr M Footpath 1, Walsingham Strong, Dr M SAM2 3, Wells next the sea Strong, Dr M Footpath Tasburgh Thomas, Mrs A M Bus Shelter 8, Tasburgh Thomas, Mrs A M SAM2 3, Hethersett Virgo, Miss J Bus Shelter 17, Hethersett Virgo, Miss J Footpath 23, Brockdish Wilby, M J SAM2 7, ,014 32

33 APPENDIX D: Cumulative bids by Parish (5 th February 2016) 33

34 APPENDIX E: Cumulative bids and bid value by District (5 th February 2016) 34