Agenda and minutes

In the absence of the Chairman, Councillor Mrs V Metcalfe advised the Panel that she had been asked by the Councillor Knapman to Chair the meeting.

RESOLVED:  

That Councillor Mrs V Metcalfe be nominated Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

No substitute members had been appointed to the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Local Highways Panel held on 5 September 2013.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2013 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

S106 report and schedule attached.

Keith Blackburn, Highways Officer for S106 agreements had been invited to the meeting to inform the Panel how S106 monies were used.

How S106 contributions are determined?

Mr Blackburn advised the Panel that when a planning application was received in the District, this was forwarded to Essex County Council (ECC) as the Local Highway Authority for comment. A highways engineer would consider the effect of the proposed development and if significant would advise the District that highways measures be put into place via a Section 106 agreement to mitigate the impact of the development.

He added that this consultation process was limited by legislation to 21 days which made it difficult to consult widely on the measures required and sometimes there was limited time to carry out a thorough feasibility study. This could lead to the contributions obtained being too small or the scheme not being technically possible which were other reasons why contributions were returned. Mr Blackburn stated that the District would then consider if they needed to ask for the measures that ECC had recommended to be put into the S106 agreement. A judgment was needed on the balance between S106 for Highways and/or Education as ECC services and S106 for District responsibilities, for example, Affordable Housing or Public Open Space. The developer would often try to negotiate to push the cost of all S106 obligations to the lowest level possible.

What happened once the contribution had been received?

Mr Blackburn advised that they would look at whether the works were technically feasible within the cost constraint of the contribution(s). The scheme had to be put into the Authority’s Capital Programme (this would happen once or twice a year). It would then be passed to contractors along with a list of schemes for design and completion.

S106 funds that were left over

Mr Blackburn reported that in the past ECC had staff with responsibilities for highways matters in a given District and they would usually have had a list of schemes that were required. ECC had other budgets which could top up a S106 contribution if needed. Those budgets have now been transferred to the Local Highway Panels. Any extra schemes would still have to comply with the terms of the agreement.

The LHP and S106

(1)        A scheme required by the S106 agreement may need a top up either because:

(a)  the developer managed to negotiate the contribution down;

(b)  full costs were unknown at the time of the agreement; or

(c)  inflation.

New delivery and commissioning arrangements meant less was done in-house. In this case the LHP may be asked to top up.

(2)        If residual funds remained from S106 schemes that were completed the LHP could suggest additional schemes. The additional schemes would have to comply with the terms of the agreement and may need a top up. Otherwise, residual funds were returned to the developer. This was the normal practice when the terms of the agreement had been fulfilled.

The ECC Highways Liaison Officer (HLO) presented a report to the Panel and advised them that they should consider what they might recommend at the meeting. He advised that £58,000 was reserved for works resulting from on-going designs which would be submitted for Cabinet Member approval until the fourth quarter. These works could be deferred for approval until the 2014-15 budget was available.

            AGREED:

That the Panel agreed to defer, the £58,000 for works, for approval until the 2014-15 budget was available, as set out in the table at Appendix 1.

The Panel noted that the Scheme Recommendations schedule for 2012/13 had been discussed in Divisional pre-meetings.

Members agreed that there were no issues to raise at this Panel meeting.

The Panel noted that the Scheme Recommendations schedule for 2013/14 had been discussed in Divisional pre-meetings.

Members discussed the following schemes:

(1)        Scheme LEPP131022 B181 Lyndsey Street, Epping Road junction with B182 Bury Lane

Councillor Jackson advised the Panel that his division would not be prepared to pay for a junction improvement scheme. He advised the Panel that the junction needed marking with white lines and signage.

Councillor Church stated that the Panel could be at risk by cancelling the design if further accidents occurred at this junction. It was noted that the works (£32,500) was part of the £58,000 deferred until 2014-15 (see minute item 27, Budget Reductions). It was therefore agreed that the £32,500 cost of this scheme would not go to the Cabinet Member for approval until the Panel had considered the design of the scheme (see Appendix 1 attached).

AGREED:

That the design should go forward and a decision be made to cancel or continue with the scheme when the design was complete.

(2)        LEPP002007 – A1168 Rectory Lane/Westall Road Box Junction and Keep Clear Sign

Councillor Pond advised the Panel that he was speaking on behalf of the Chairman in his absence. The Chairman had suggested another scheme at this junction to restrict access to Ibbetson Path during the morning rush hour and requested that this be added to the original scheme.

The HLO advised that the additional request would need to be validated and if eligible would require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). He advised that this would delay the original scheme and require extra funding. It was therefore best to keep the additional request separate.

AGREED:

(1)        That Members noted the HLO’s advice regarding a TRO and had agreed to keep the schemes separate.

(2)        That the new request be submitted for validation.

(3)        LEPP132026 – Church Road, Russell Road, Stag Lane and A121 High Road

Councillor Watson reported that Russell Road should be omitted as this was incorrect and be replaced by Beech Lane.

            AGREED:

That Members noted the street name error and that the HLO confirmed he would amend the scheme details.

(4)        Scheme Proposals

In light of discussion on the schemes above, the Panel were asked to approve Capital Schemes for 2012/13 (top up funding) and 2013/14.

            AGREED:

That schemes contained within Appendix 1 to these minutes be approved for submission to the Highways Cabinet Member.

Schedule attached.

The HLO presented the New Scheme Recommendations schedule for the Panel to consider funding. The full list and decisions were tabled and are attached at the end of these minutes. A specific decision was made on the following proposal:

(1)        Scheme LEPP136016 – Church, The Street, High Ongar

In Councillor McEwen’s absence the Panel were advised that the wooden bus shelter in High Ongar was to go ahead. The HLO advised that it would cost £5,500 for a metal bus shelter but £8,000 for a wooden bus shelter. Members agreed that this could go ahead as this was a conservation area. Councillor Bassett suggested that in all future requests for wooden bus shelters, the Parish or Town Councils should pay toward the scheme.

            AGREED:

(1)            That the bus shelter scheme for High Ongar be approved; and

(2)            That future requests for wooden bus shelters be referred to the local council to request for part funding.

(1)        Highway Rangers

The HLO reported on the Highway Rangers Works (pages 65-66 of the agenda).

Councillor Jackson queried why the Panel had to request Rangers works through the Highways Department. The HLO reported that,  as agreed with Essex Highways who provide the Ranger service, the requests had to be logged through Highway Enquiries or the HLO.

(2)        Capital Maintenance

The HLO reported on the Capital Maintenance for 2013/14 (page 67 of the agenda), he advised the Panel that the schedule detailed was planned to go forward.

(Councillor Knapman) To discuss with the Panel whether to submit requests for white line markings to the County Cabinet member for Highways.

The Panel were advised to send all white line requests by email to the Chairman and he would refer them to Essex County Council.

(1)        Procurement of Design Time

The Highways Panel had been previously advised by County Officers that monies from their annual allocation could only be spent on schemes.

The Chairman had advised the acting Chairman that the Cabinet Member had agreed the LHP could use some of their allocation for small scheme designs, engaging Essex Highways designers directly. The Panel agreed to support this process.

The HLO had requested advice from the Cabinet Member’s office as to how this would work in practice, given Essex Highways designers already had a backlog of LHP designs to deal with.

(2)        Future Divisional Pre-Meetings

The HLO advised the Panel that he would meet with all the divisional pairs before the next meeting of the LHP to discuss current and new schemes.

It was agreed that the next meeting would be held on Thursday 27 February 2014 at 6.30pm in Committee Room 2 at the Civic Offices, Epping Forest District Council.