At a meeting of the CABINET of HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at THE CASTLE, WINCHESTER on 31 March 2008.
Present:
Councillors:
p T.K. Thornber, CBE (Chairman)
a |
Mrs P.G. Banks |
p |
D.A. Kirk |
p |
C.R.H. Davidovitz |
p |
R. Perry |
p |
J.K. Glen |
p |
Mrs M.D. Snaith |
p |
Felicity Hindson, MBE |
p |
M.J. Woodhall |
p |
M.J. Kendal |
Also present with the agreement of the Chairman: Councillor M.F. Cartwright; N.R.G. Clarke; B.D. Dash; Dr. R.J. Ellis; P.R.C. Hutcheson; C.A. Leversha and A.W. Rice.
389. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs P.G. Banks.
390. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should normally at the time of the debate, declare their interest, and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.
391. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 25 February 2008 were confirmed as a correct record.
392. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS
(i) The Chairman suspended the County Council's Standing Order 21 in
respect of Item 5 on the agenda to allow each of the deputations the
maximum amount of time permitted of 10 minutes.
(ii) In respect of Item 5 on the agenda the Chairman invited the local Member, Councillor M.J. Kendal to speak. Councillor Kendal confirmed that due to his local Member role he would not be taking part in the debate on this matter.
(iii) The Chairman confirmed that while he would chair the meeting he would not participate in the debate or vote in view of the fact that he represented a neighbouring constituency and is a frequent user of the main route through Lyndhurst.
393. DEPUTATIONS
The following deputations were received in respect of Item 5 on the agenda "Traffic Management Solutions - Lyndhurst".
(a) Mr Tony Herbert and Professor Keith Barber - Lyndhurst, Emery Down and Bank Residents' Association
(b) Mr Roger Simmens
(c) Mr John Charlesworth - Lyndhurst Parish Council
(d) Mr Peter Whalley
(e) Mr Peter Roberts - Chairman of the Planning Committee, New Forest Association
(f) Mr Jerry Davis
(g) Mr Michael Selfe
(h) Mr William Dibben
(i) Mr Malcolm Wolley
(j) Mr Derf Paton and Mr George Farwell
394. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS - LYNDHURST
The Cabinet considered three reports in respect of this matter (Items 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) in the Minute book) as follows:
5(a) - Report of the Lyndhurst Bypass Scrutiny Review
Councillor P.R.C. Hutcheson, Chairman of the Environment and Transportation Select Committee, assisted by Councillor N.R.G. Clarke, member of the Scrutiny Review presented the report of the Lyndhurst Bypass Scrutiny Review detailing the outcomes. They reported that the Review had undertaken extensive consultation with as many interested parties as possible and heard evidence from many experts. They also highlighted that Mott MacDonald had been commissioned to conduct a peer review of the Lyndhurst Transport Study to ensure they were both robust and technically correct.
5(b) - Lyndhurst Transport Study Report - Peer Review
The Cabinet received the Lyndhurst Transport Study Report - Peer Review prepared by Mott MacDonald. Mr Clive Livingstone of Mott MacDonald attended the meeting at the Chairman's invitation to answer Members questions about the report.
5(c) - Future approaches to transport investment in Lyndhurst
The Deputy Director of Environment presented a report setting out the best performing opt8ions for traffic relief/environmental enhancement measures for Lyndhurst and inviting consideration whether to make a bid for regional funding based on this. In expanding on the report, the Deputy Director confirmed that the very full range of options considered included whole and partial bypasses to both east and west of the village and these had been assessed under the Government's appraisal methodology. It was noted that the main proposal by the Parish Council would have little chance of meeting either the Government's or its agencies criteria. He also referred to the outcomes of the traffic surveys which had informed the option assessment and a public opinion survey focused on New Forest and Lyndhurst residents which gave highest priority to protecting the natural environment. The Deputy Director asked the Cabinet to note that the recommendations had not had the benefit of stakeholder engagement on the outcomes of the options assessment and it was clear from the representations that the packages put forward for consideration did not command local support and therefore it would not be advisable to submit a funding bid for these options at this stage.
During the course of the ensuing discussion, the Cabinet thanked the deputations for attending the meeting and sharing their views and welcomed the extensive and thorough work that had been done in respect of the three reports that had been presented. In considering the outer bypass route, they expressed concerns about the extensive cost implications and other serious constraints surrounding the implementation of such a major project. It had been made clear to them from the deputations received that the inner route proposals Option 7b (east) and Option 7a (west) were not acceptable to many people in Lyndhurst.
Having given careful consideration to all points of view expressed, the Cabinet adopted the recommendations of the Lyndhurst Bypass Scrutiny Review (Item 5a), with the exception of recommendation J, which was revised. They received and noted the conclusions of the Mott MacDonald Lyndhurst Transport Study Report - Peer Review (Item 5b). The substantive decision sheet is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 1.
395. NEW CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION - A POLICY AND STRATEGY REPORT RE: CARBON REDUCTION COMMITMENT (CRC) IN RESPECT OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL'S BUILT ESTATE AND STREET LIGHTING ARRANGEMENTS
The Cabinet considered the report of the Chief Executive (Item 6 in the Minute book) outlining the proposed introduction of new climate change legislation that will require the County Council to trade for carbon dioxide CO2 emission allowances from 2010 in respect of its property and street lighting obligations. Mike Fitch gave a presentation to highlight the key points outlined in the report, drew attention to the fact that the Government's position as to whether or not schools will be mandated within local authorities' portfolios is currently unclear and at the request of Members, expanded on Appendix 1a to the report.
During the course of the ensuing discussion, the Cabinet considered the many implications for Hampshire, the current situation in regard to schools including the use of wind turbines in schools, the potential impact of the County Council's successful PFI bid for street lighting, the exploitation of energy from waste and how the outcomes of the Strategic Property Review will affect the County Council's carbon footprint. In regard to the setting of a CO2 emissions reduction target, the Cabinet requested that the outcomes arising from the development of the three corporate workstreams detailed in the report are used to assist the Cabinet in refining what the emission reduction target should be.
In conclusion of a full discussion, the Cabinet adopted the recommendations set out in the report subject to some revisions. The substantive decision sheet is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2.
396. BLUE BADGE SCHEME
The Cabinet considered the report of the Director of Environment (Item 7 in the Minute book) setting out the proposed County Council response to the Department for Transport's (DfT) consultation on reforms to the Blue Badge Scheme. The Director of Environment expanded on the key points outlined in the report and answered Members detailed questions.
During the course of the ensuing discussion, the Cabinet agreed that changes were necessary to the scheme to address the current inconsistencies in current eligibility criteria. They were also mindful that any changes to the scheme needed to be fair, enforceable and administratively efficient whilst enabling those with severe mobility problems to have preferential access to on-street parking, including on yellow lines providing this does not interfere unduly with traffic movements.
The Cabinet adopted the recommendations set out in the report subject to some fine tuning to reflect their views expressed above. The decision sheet is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and a copy of the final response will be available on the County Council's website at: http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-index/index-docs-6825.html
397. OLDER PEOPLE'S WELL-BEING STRATEGY FOR HAMPSHIRE : APRIL 2008 - MARCH 2011
The Cabinet considered the report of the Chief Execute (Item 8 in the Minute book) seeking approval of the Older People's Well-Being Strategy for Hampshire for the period 2008-2011. Alex Burn expanded on the key points in regard to the development of the Strategy and the Strategy itself.
The Cabinet welcomed the comprehensive Strategy which will provide an overarching framework to better co-ordinate all the strands of work already being done across the county to support older people to live independent and fulfilling lives. Members were also aware that offering help and advice to help older people continue to drive safely would be welcomed and was an important element to many in respect of maintaining independence.
The Cabinet adopted the recommendations set out in the report. The decision sheet is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 4.
Hampshire County Council Cabinet 31 March 2008 Traffic Management Solutions - Lyndhurst Report of the Chief Executive |
Amended decision (Item 5) |
Contact: Debbie Vaughan, ext no 7330, email: debbie@hants.gov.uk
1. Summary
1.1 The following decisions were made:
1.2 Cabinet resolved the following in respect of traffic management solutions for Lyndhurst:
A Hampshire County Council should exercise whatever influence it can, either in its own right, or in partnership with other County Councils, to ensure that manufacturers of satellite navigation systems include road restriction information.
B Given current information from Lyndhurst traffic surveys that a large percentage of vehicles are local as opposed to through traffic, the review group would wish to see exploratory work on the potential for smarter travel choices in Lyndhurst reducing the need to travel by private car.
C As a short term measure, Hampshire County Council should seek the cooperation of the Highways Agency to make the signage on the M27 and at Cadnam directed at Heavy Goods Vehicles more explicit regarding restrictions on accessing Lyndhurst, except for lorries making local deliveries.
D Hampshire County Council should use its influence, together with partners, to support a review of the level of penalty fine for HGVs contravening the lorry restrictions to enhance its effect, and to ensure greater efforts are made by the police to enforce the restrictions.
E Hampshire County Council should put in place a communication plan which would make it clear to people what information they can expect to receive at different stages of the work to resolve Lyndhurst's traffic problems, and how they can contribute to and inform this process.
F Outcomes from the planned Hampshire County Council led local engagement, and the further consideration of options identified in the 2007 Study Report should be communicated to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee in summer 2008 as part of the scrutiny monitoring work of the committee.
G The review group recommends further trialling of the use of variable message signs on the M27 to direct drivers away from congestion hot spots in the New Forest such as Lyndhurst and routeing tourists to park and ride pick up points for the New Forest open top tourist bus.
H Hampshire County Council should prioritise New Forest wide approaches to traffic management with a view to known hot-spots such as Lyndhurst benefiting from such measures.
I In the light of viability and deliverability issues examined, the review group could not support the prioritisation of either a Lyndhurst focused bypass or a New Forest wide bypass at the present time. Concerns are those connected with the costs over benefits, as well as those relating to environmental impacts, given the stringent tests associated with an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations, the potential adverse effects identified and the range of alternative measures that would be likely to have lesser environmental effect than a bypass, and have yet to be tested.
J The Cabinet does not support the further exploration of the two package options namely 7a and 7b, but does support the lower cost option of demand management measures, such as junction improvements, one way system revisions etc. in the village, as identified by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford.
1.3 Cabinet received and noted the conclusions of the Mott MacDonald Lyndhurst Transport Study Report - Peer Review .
2. Reason
2.1 Lyndhurst has long suffered from localised congestion, largely due to the constrained road network where a local bottleneck is created at the intersection of the A35 and A337 in the High Street. The scrutiny review report details a number of options for consideration and the Director of Environment's report seeks Members' views on a future approach to investment in traffic relief/environmental enhancement measures for Lyndhurst.
3. Other options considered and rejected
3.1 A range of traffic interventions to address the current problems have been fully evaluated and the findings and are set out in the supporting reports.
4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or other Executive Member consulted - none.
5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - not applicable.
6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - not applicable.
Approved by: Date:
Councillor T.K. Thornber, C.B.E. Chairman
Hampshire County Council Amended decision Appendix 2 Cabinet (Item 6)
31 March 2008
New Climate Change Legislation - A Policy and Strategy Report Re: Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) In Respect of the County Council's
Report of the Chief Executive
|
Contact: Mike Fitch Ext: 7846 email: mike.fitch@hants.gov.uk
Approved by: |
.......................... |
Date: |
......................... |
Councillor T. K. Thornber, C.B.E. - Chairman
Hampshire County Council Cabinet 31 March 2008 Blue Badge Scheme Report of the Director of Environment |
Amended decision |
Contact: Alison Quant, ext 5099 email: alison.quant@hants.gov.uk
1. Summary
1.1 The following decision was made:
The County Council's response to the Department for Transport's consultation document on a Comprehensive Blue Badge (Disabled Parking) Reform Strategy was approved subject to some amendments. The final version is available on Hantsweb at:
http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-index/index-docs-6825.html
2. Reason
2.1 Changes to the scheme need to be fair, enforceable and administratively efficient whilst enabling those with severe mobility problems to have preferential access to on-street parking, with the primary purpose of enabling people to park as close as possible to their destination, including on yellow lines, provided this does not interfere unduly with traffic movements.
3. Other Options Considered and Rejected
3.1 Not to support the proposed changes to eligibility to treat those people with assessed mobility problems the same as those who automatically qualify.
3.2 To seek further extensions to the eligibility criteria. Because this scheme applies to on-street parking, where opportunities to park are limited, a widening of the scheme to include those with lesser mobility problems would reduce accessibility for those with greater mobility needs. District Councils, which provide off-street parking, could widen their eligibility criteria to cater for those with specific mobility needs that do not qualify for a Blue Badge.
3.3 To withdraw the concession to park on yellow lines. Although traffic congestion is much more of a problem than when the scheme was set up, in practice few people make use of this concession. Unless there is a significant problem identified, it is reasonable to retain this because alternatives may not be available to meet the person's needs.
4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member Consulted - None.
5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - None.
6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - None.
Approved by: ..................................... Date: ...................................
Councillor T K Thornber CBE - Chairman
1625Decn/AQ
Hampshire County Council Appendix 4 | |||
Cabinet |
(Item 8) | ||
31 March 2008 |
|||
Older People's Well-Being Strategy for Hampshire April 2008 -March 2011 | |||
Report of the Chief Executive | |||
Contact: Alex Burn, Head of Older People's Well-Being Team, tel:01962 84 7279
e-mail: alex.burn@hants.gov.uk
1 Summary
1.1 The following decision was made:
That the Cabinet approved the Older People's Well-Being Strategy for Hampshire 2008-2011.
1.2 Introduction
1.3 A draft Older People's Well-Being Strategy has been consulted on from 10 December 2007 to 10 March 2008. This has been produced by the Older People's Well-Being Team, which is based in the Chief Executives Department. The strategy aims to develop improvement actions for older people, integrated across all parts of the County Council and also relevant partners.
1.4 The team facilitates and supports a Joint Older People's Well-Being Steering Group, which has overseen the development of the strategy. The group's membership is drawn from County Council departments including Adult Services and Recreation and Heritage, as well as a range of voluntary organisations, including Age Concern Hampshire and Carers Together, and agencies such as the Pension Service. There has also been structured input from district councils.
1.5 Summary of the Strategy
1.6 The strategy focuses on the 84% of older people over the age of 65 who at any given time are not intensively using National Health Service (NHS) and social care services. It is structured around the Seven Dimensions of Independence (developed by the Audit Commission and Better Government for Older People in 2004).
1.7 This recognises that central to improving older people's well- being is the development of services and support that will allow them to live independently in their own home for as long as possible, whilst maintaining a positive quality of life.
1.8 The consultation on the strategy requested feedback on which of the 21 proposed county-wide priorities were considered the most important. The proposed county priorities which received the greatest number of responses in order of priority are:-
1. Work with transport agencies to improve access and services.
2. Promote information about existing gardening services. Support the development of low maintenance gardening initiatives and gardening schemes where required
3. Consider a variety of ways to access existing handy person and home improvement activities, including energy savings and insulation
4. Develop further ways to promote personal safety
5. Co-ordinate an on -going benefits campaign across the county with the Pension Service and other agencies
6. Encourage activities between the young and the old.
7. Promote simple and regular physical activities in a variety of settings.
8. Increase the opportunity to access a variety of social activities and the co-ordination between existing resources
1.9 The responses will enable us to develop, with our partners, at a county and local level, realistic timescales and action plans to take forward the resulting initiatives. These work streams will be overseen by the Joint Older People's Well-Being Steering Group.
1.10 The work will initially be contained within existing organisational budgets so should be cost neutral.
1.11 At a local level there will also be underpinning action plans for each district council area, developed with key partners in order to respond to local needs and link into existing work streams and strategies. These will also be initially cost neutral.
1.12 The Older People's Well-Being Strategy links to the LAA as it will fall under the remit of the emerging Health and Wellbeing Partnership Board.
1.13 The resulting action plans, at both county and local level will feed into and support the evolving Self Directed Support (SDS) agenda and help inform the Council's Commission on Personalisation of Care Services.
1.14 There has been a positive reaction from partner organisations. They have recognised the strategy as a framework to develop a proactive approach which will minimise the impact of an ageing population on our services, whilst improving older people's wellbeing and quality of life.
1.15 An additional appendix has been included to provide the members with an overview of what projects have been undertaken with partners in the last 18 months, to provide some context for the strategy.
2. Reason
2.1 The strategy will provide a clear framework for the County Council and its partners to develop work around the well-being of older people in Hampshire. It will therefore be able to support directly the county priorities of Hampshire Safer and More Secure and Maximising Wellbeing.
3. Other Options considered and rejected
3.1 The only other option is not to proceed with approving this policy.
4. Conflicts of Interest declared by the decision maker or other Executive member consulted - none.
5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - not applicable.
6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - not applicable.
Approved by: Date:
Councillor T.K. Thornber, C.B.E. - Chairman