To receive Questions from the Public, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.
Minutes:
Public questions had been received from Mr Paul Holland:
Question 1 – “Does the council/TRO Panel accept that many roads in the borough are restricted to a single flow of traffic by parking on both sides of the road and why are some areas targeted and others are not? If so, why are some areas actively targeted and others not?”
The Chair read the following response:
“The Council accepts that many roads in the Borough are restricted to a single flow of traffic by parking on both sides of the road.
The Council, as Highway Authority has a Statutory duty to investigate these locations particularly where there are road safety and or traffic management / congestion concerns and where possible take action to mitigate or remove the problem.
It must be stressed that drivers have no right to park on the public highway and the Highway Authority must be able to exercise hits powers to maintain the safe and efficient movement of traffic across its network.
Interventions are prioritised across the network with the classified routes in the Borough (A and B roads) given the greatest priority owing to the volumes of traffic and the level of vulnerable road user activity (pedestrians and cyclists etc).”
Question 2 - Does the council/TRO Panel accept that Unity Partnership has a vendetta against areas where TRO’s have been rejected and in some cases has continued these for 9 years?
The Chair read the following response:
“The Council does not accept this comment.”
Question 3 – “What environmental factors are considered when evaluating and comparing speed surveys taken during these unprecedented times to previous “normal” speed surveys? What is the estimation of impact that halving the traffic volume on all roads would reduce overall speed on roads due to less holdups and free flowing traffic? Also are new speed reduction signs a major contributing factor to the reduction in speed and if they were non functional at a prior speed survey, can this be accepted as a like for like comparison? Would speed surveys taken at different times of year e.g. when schools are open/closed be regarded direct comparisons?”
The Chair read the following response:
“The two traffic surveys that were undertaken were carried out in accordance with standard (national and TfGM) procedures and took place for 24 hours over a 7-day period and included peak periods during the day and evening / overnight. On this occasion two surveys were carried out, one pre Covid and the other after the first lockdown.
There is little difference between the two surveys with a variance of around 3mph.
The VAS signs have been recently repaired. These devices are advisory and are not part of a process that can issue penalty points to drivers. The devices can and do have a positive effect on drivers behaviour but are not a silver bullet.”
Question 4 – “Why is evidence/comments submitted to Unity Partnership that alleged breaches are by requestors households not disclosed to the Councillors for comments?”
The Chair read the following response:
“Unity Partnership has followed the Strict TRO Panel protocols and these assertions are refuted.”
Question 5 – “Does any member of the TRO Panel, any Councilllor or any employee at Unity Partnership have any relationship of any kind with any residents on the North Side of Denshaw Road and if so has this been Declared?”
The Chair read the following response:
“No TRO Panel members or Unity employees have relationships with the residents on the north side of Denshaw Road.”
Question 6 – “Does the council accept that poorly designed traffic management plans are not re-evaluated when further schemes are planned as this would show failure?”
The Chair read the following response:
“The Council does not accept this allegation. The effects of Traffic Regulation orders are monitored and in some cases, proposals are modified or adjusted following feedback.”
Question 7 – “Does the Council/TRO panel acknowledge that Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders are used as a method of bypassing due process and removing the need for public consultation and are used when proposed TRO’s have been previously defeated.”
The Chair read the following response:
“The Council does not accept that Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders are used as a method of bypassing due process. Experimental TRO’s are often used to test a proposals efficacy and to gain an understanding of the merits (or not) of a permanent TRO that will have long term effects.”
Public questions had been received from Mrs Claire Holland:
Question 1 – “Why have the Council published a further report (dated 17th November 2020) with full details of their recommendations and evidence in support without engaging with local residents directly affected by the proposals as they have promised to do on several occasions?”
The Chair read the following response:
“This is the TRO objections process.
The proposals are presented alongside the objections to them alongside in the accompanying TRO Panel report.”
Question 2 – “What provisions are there for those directly affected by proposed schemes, to consider any objections raised and consider any further reports prior to the issue being put to the TRO panel for a final decision?”
The Chair read the following response:
“The TRO Panel will consider the objections and will make a decision at the meeting to reject or uphold the objections. The decision of the Panel will be final.”
Question 3 – “Why was the Council’s initial report on the proposed scheme dated 15th November 2018 not released until 15th July 2019, some 8 months later? What are the normal timescales for such publications to be released?”
The Chair read the following response:
“This is the TRO objections process.”
Question 4 – “Why do those members of the public who are directly affected by the proposals only get 3 WORKING days to raise any questions prior to the matter being heard at the TRO panel?”
The Chair read the following response:
“This is the TRO objections process.”
RESOLVED that the public questions and responses provided
be noted.