Agenda item

(Essex County Council). Tony Ciaburro, the Service Director for Highways and Transportation and Councillor Norman Hume, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation, will be attending this meeting to discuss local highway related issues.

Local Representatives have raised a number of questions for consideration. These  are attached.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting the County Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transportation, Councillor Norman Hume. The Portfolio Holder was in attendance to address a number of written questions submitted by Local Councillors and answer any other questions on matters relating to his area of responsibility.

Councillor Hume acknowledged the many local concerns about Highways and that Local Members were not at all happy with the quality of service. He informed the meeting that a recent MORI poll, conducted at the end of 2006, indicated a 6% increase in public satisfaction with the service compared to 2005/06 but there was still a long way to go. The intention was to give Councils a greater degree of local governance over highways. Consultation had taken place with Local Authorities to determine priorities for the Highways Locally Determined budget. This was to be increased significantly in the region of a ten fold increase and subject to consultation for next years budget. 

Mr Hume acknowledged the need to improve customer services - this was a real issue of concern for Epping Forest. There were difficulties in recruiting permanent staff. Agency staff had been appointed but there was a need for more permanent staff to facilitate relations with the local community.

In response to Members written questions, the responses attached to these minutes were reported.

In response to other questions it was reported that:

(a)        earlier on in the week  Highway Officers  and the Leader of the Council met to discuss the need for works to improve Highway Junctions in Loughton. Councillor Hume referred to the intention to consult local members on this. A Member  expressed concern about accident black spots and traffic congestion on Langston Road, Rectory Lane and in Debden. He was invited to forward these concerns to  Councillor Hume  for a reply;

(b)            concern was expressed at the number of signs on local roads especially at roundabouts  in Epping. This was detracting from the street scene and was unsightly. It was explained that engineers determined where they were located based on safety needs. There was an opportunity for Members to input into this process. The County shared the concerns about sign clutter.  It was stated that the process was partly prescribed by legislation;

(c)        a Member from Matching asked when the third phase of verge grass cutting was to commence for that area? The Portfolio Holder undertook to report back on this;

(d)        reference was made  to changes to the inspection process for repairing potholes. Concern was expressed at the time taken to rectify them once identified. Councillor Hume acknowledged this and felt that delays in the process were not acceptable;

(f)         it was questioned whether highways had an interface for contact with May Gurney, the Councils contractor  for repair works? The Portfolio Holder said that he was not aware of any problems in this area of communication;

(g)        lack of staff was a real problem. It was acknowledged that the District was placed at a disadvantage with regards to this by its close proximity to London which offered higher wages.  Mr Hume clarified that there were currently three vacancies in the West Area Office which comprised approximately 20 agency staff and 60 permanent staff. This balance was not acceptable. The need to recruit more permanent staff was a priority and would be addressed;

(h)        the Capital Programme for maintenance was relatively large but didn’t go far enough. More emphasis would be placed on the category ‘C’ roads and footpaths;

(i)                  the meeting welcomed the commitment to increase funding but questioned how this was to be determined.  Was it to be based on road length or usage? The road length criteria disadvantaged the south of the District where the network provided access to London and, as a result, suffered from high volumes of out commuter traffic. The Portfolio Holder reported that the budget was allocated on a needs basis and should reflect such problems;

(j)                  Councillor Hume reiterated that additional funding would be made available in the ECC Capital programme for maintenance work. He announced the intention to ensure the funding allocation process was transparent and fair and open and recognised local concerns and areas of particularly heavy traffic;

(k)        there was some confusion about the roles of the respective agencies for Highways and the point of contact for complaints? These questions were regularly raised at local Police/residents meetings. The view was that the agencies tended ‘to pass the buck’. There was a need for a central point of contact for all complaints;

(l)         a member from Theydon Bois stressed that speed cameras be used to monitor black spots. Chevrons and other signs had been stolen from the area and accident black spots. Mr Hume said that he would take up these issues. Funding was being delegated downwards for safety issues. This was a County wide problem and one of many problems the Highways team had to deal with;

(m)      the intention was to appoint a permanent manager for the West Area Office. The cost of the backlog for work was significant and way in excess of the £5.7 billion  budget.   An additional 15 million had been added to the maintenance budget just to catch up;

(n)        a member stressed the need for a north facing slip at the M11/Harlow interchange;

(o)        the County’s pot of funding for highways was larger than that for other areas  Was this simply because it covered a relatively large area?  Did it mean they were actually better off? The County had put an additional £15 million into the highways maintenance budget but it was investing money merely to catch up;

(p)            Members felt that highway engineers should be left to carry out their ‘on the ground’ operational duties and not be expected to undertake front line customer services. More customer service staff needed be provided to enable this clear division of duties;

The Chairman thanked the Portfolio Holder for his comprehensive and informative answers. She welcomed back Highways to a future meeting in six months time.

RESOLVED:

(1)               That the County Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transportation, Councillor Hume, be thanked for attending the meeting and answering questions;

(2)            That the responses be made available to Members; and

(3)            That County Highways be invited back to the Committee in six months time.