AT A MEETING of the RUSHMOOR HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORT ADVISORY PANEL held at Rushmoor Borough Council, Farnborough on 8 October 2004.

PRESENT:

Hampshire County Council

Councillors: R.J. Baulk (Chairman); Mrs P.M. Devereux; R.J. Kimber; M.J. Roberts

Rushmoor Borough Council

Councillors: D.E. Clifford; J.P. Matthews; J.J. Wall.

55. 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 debate declare their interest, and having regards 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.

56. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2004 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Arising thereon:

Minute 44 Revised Roles of Panels

Officers noted for future action as appropriate, Members suggestions for facilitating the work of the Panel.

57. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

The Chairman reported the death of Councillor Wheeler following which the Panel stood in silence as a mark of respect to his memory.

58. DEPUTATION

There were no deputations.

59. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND VARIOUS AGENCY ARRANGMENTS.

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 5 in the Minute Book) providing an update on progress regarding the changing arrangements with respect to development control services; traffic management agencies; grass and shrub maintenance agreements; and design and implementation agreements.

In addition to the information contained within the report Members were advised that concerns which had been raised in connection with professional indemnity insurance had almost been resolved and that it was anticipated that the agency agreements between the County Council and Rushmoor Borough Council would be signed by 1 December 2004.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

60. PROGRESS UPDATE ON SCHEMES IN THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 6 in the Minute Book) outlining progress with schemes in the Transport Capital Programme.

In the ensuing discussion the following salient points arose:

(i) Works in relation to the Lynchford Road toucan crossing had commenced in early October rather than in September as stated in the report.

(ii) The PV2 count (recording the number of HCVs and pedestrians travelling along a section of carriageway) on A327 Summit Avenue had been completed and the results confirmed that the road warranted a controlled crossing point; it was hoped that such a scheme could be progressed as part of the Safer Routes for Schools programme.

(iii) In connection with the traffic management scheme at Ash Road, Aldershot further consultation would be undertaken towards the end of October and would take into account issues relating to the wider area. However it was unlikely that this would lead directly to further measures being introduced on Herrett Street where several other schemes had already been implemented.

(iv) It was confirmed that the one way system at North Camp was part of an experimental three month trial scheme which would be commencing in November.

RESOLVED:

That the progress with schemes in the Transport Capital Programme be noted and that the schemes approved for inclusion in the Transport Capital Programme for 2004/05 be endorsed.

61. HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND MINOR CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAMMES 2004/05

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 7 in the Minute Book) outlining progress with regard to the 2004/05 Highway Maintenance and Minor Capital Works programmes and giving an update on the 2004/05 Highway Maintenance budget. The Panel also discussed the Traffic Management Act 2004 and Asset Management.

It was noted that contrary to Appendix Two to the report the footway surface dressing programme had not yet been fully completed. Officers gave a verbal update on the situation within Rushmoor regarding weed control; two sprays had occurred earlier in the year and a third partial spray was in progress.

There was a general consensus that, following previous discussions by the Panel on the matter, significant progress had been made regarding the control of weeds in the Borough, however there was still a substantial problem to be resolved. Members highlighted potential legal issues which could occur should weeds continue to force their way through pavements. It was suggested that these problems could best be resolved by replacing the current county wide term maintenance contract with a more local arrangement. However it was noted that such an arrangement would have financial implications under the terms of the current contract. Officers reported that it would not be cost effective to remove every individual clump of weeds throughout the Borough, but requested that Members inform them of any specific problem areas. Additionally it was suggested that a presentation could be arranged for Panel Members detailing the H.A.M.P. rating system, for awarding funding to special maintenance schemes and resurfacing works.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

62. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES 2004/05

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 8 in the Minute Book) covering the main programmes of traffic management work in the Rushmoor area in 2004/05.

Discussion focused on the speed limit schemes within in the traffic management programme. In particular it was agreed that speed limits needed to be appropriate to each individual stretch of highway. While it was understood that those speed limits within the programme generally involved small extensions to existing limits or related to other developments, officers were requested to investigate perceived inconsistencies in the limits along Fleet Road.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

63. CASUALTY REDUCTION PROGRAMMES

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 9 in the Minute Book) outlining progress on the Hampshire County Council and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership casualty reduction programmes.

Following an update regarding the costs of works at Sandhill Road, copies of the Reducing Road Casualties leaflet published by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership were distributed.

Due to a potential opportunity to gain developer contributions it had been considered prudent to defer the Alexander Road and A325 Farnborough Road low cost casualty reduction schemes to 2005/06. While some support was given to this in principle, disappointment was expressed that the savings made from the deferral would be spent on the next priority scheme within the County as a whole, rather than being ring-fenced for a Rushmoor scheme. This was felt to be a particularly important issue in light of the expected levels of developer contribution revenue likely to be received from the Rushmoor area in the near future.

With regard to the format of the report, the Panel felt that it would be helpful if more information could supplied, particularly data relating to patterns of accidents on those roads within the low cost casualty reduction programme. Further information giving details of the success or otherwise of previous schemes was also requested. Officers reported that they would circulate information on how this programme was managed, the results of previous schemes in Rushmoor and examples of the accident analysis procedure used.

Further discussion focused on the use of speed limit repeater signs. Officers reported that they were governed by legislation regarding the number and type of repeater signs that could be used both in conjunction with a speed camera and on street lit roads. The County Council had tried to find innovative ways of overcoming the difficulties associated with this legislation, such as the use of signs informing drivers of the number of accidents on a stretch of road but these had met with a mixed response from the public. The Panel felt that this served to emphasise the importance of the proposed speed actuated sign on Farnborough Road being installed as soon as possible.

REVOLVED:

(i) That the report be noted.

(ii) That the Project Manager for the Speed Camera Partnership be advised of the Panels view that the proposed speed actuated sign on the A325, Farnborough Road be installed as soon as possible.

64. TRAVEL PLAN PROGRAMMES (INCLUDING SAFER ROUTES TO SCHOOLS)

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 10 in the Minute Book) providing a progress update on the Workplace and School Travel Plan Programmes, as well as the Safer Routes to School programme, for the Rushmoor area.

The Officers agreed to include in future reports the approximate number of employees at each of the businesses which had established a workplace travel plan.

A full discussion took place on the need to set challenging targets for increasing the number of schools and business with travel plans; officers reported that such targets would be part of the next Local Transport Plan. All Borough Councils would have a chance to comment on the targets through the County Council's Area Transport Panels.

There was a general consensus that local authorities should be setting an example in implementing travel plans, and it was therefore agreed to request Rushmoor Borough Council to submit their transport plan to the next meeting of the Panel.

RESOLVED:

(i) That the progress made with the delivery of the Workplace and School Travel Plans, personalised travel planning and Safer Routes to Schools programmes in the Rushmoor area be noted; and

(ii) That the Rushmoor Borough Council travel plan be received at the next meeting of the Panel.

65. STREET LIGHTING REPORT - RUSHMOOR

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 11 in the Minute Book) regarding the various elements of the street lighting service which affected the Rushmoor area.

In addition to information contained within the report Prince Charles Crescent, Aldershot had also been programmed for a column replacement scheme in 2004/05.

It was noted that problems faced in Hampshire regarding the replacement of deteriorating columns were national issues which would require considerable investment to resolve. Currently, of the £1.8 million county wide column replacement budget Rushmoor received £200,000 which was not considered sufficient to reverse the pattern of deterioration. Although in some cases the County Council did repaint the columns, this was not a viable alternative to replacement as it did not extend the life of the column.

Particular attention was paid to column replacement in conservation areas, which it was agreed needed to be of a particularly high standard. It was therefore considered that the Executive Member for Environment should be requested to pay special consideration to column replacement in these areas. In addition officers asked Members to inform them of any specific location where this standard had not been met so that the issues could be considered.

RESOLVED:

(i) That the report be noted.

(ii) That the Panel recommend to the Executive Member for Environment that the County Council should pay particular attention to column replacement in conservation areas.

66. OTHER HIGHWAY RELATED PROGRAMMES

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 12 in the Minute Book) covering a wide range of activities undertaken by specialist teams within the Environment Department.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

67. PASSENGER TRANSPORT REPORT

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 13 in the Minute Book) outlining the services provided by the Passenger Transport Group and detailing the work undertaken in the Rushmoor area.

Councillor Clifford declared an interest in this item as the seconder of a motion concerning bus priority lanes, at a Rushmoor Borough Council meeting.

Following a formal request by Rushmoor Borough Council it had been agreed by the County Councils Executive Member for Environment to undertake a safety audit of Bus Priority Lanes in Farnborough. It was anticipated that the audit would be commenced in 2005. The Panel raised several specific issues concerning bus lanes such as current filtering problems where the lanes ended, and potential `part time' bus lanes. Officers confirmed that these views would be considered in the safety audit and that the review would include all the partners involved in the scheme, including the Borough Council.

Further detailed discussion took place on the increased frequency of services on certain bus routes. It was suggested that rather than having extra buses running on Route 6 from the Prospect Estate there would be more `added value' in having the additional services running later on in the evening. As a general principle the County Council did try to encourage services with `added value', however to a large extent changes to these were outside of the powers of the Council as they were run by a private operator.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.