Contact: David Jellings

Direct Dial: 01275 884219

E-mail: david.jellings@n-somerset.gov.uk

Date: 24th October 2003

Dear Sir or Madam

StratEGIC PlanNING AND EconOMIC DevELOPMENT Policy AND Scrutiny Panel - Monday 3rd November 2003, 3.30 p.m., Kenn Room, TOWN HALL

A meeting of the Panel will take place as indicated above. The agenda is set out overleaf.

Yours faithfully

Solicitor to the Council

To: Members of the Panel

Councillors:

Elfan Ap Rees (Chairman), Mark Canniford (Vice-Chairman), John Clark, Bob Cook, John Crockford-Hawley, Derek Kraft, David Shopland, Clive Webb

All other Members of the Council (for information)

AGENDA

1 Apologies for Absence and Notification of Substitutes

2 Public Discussion (Standing Order SSO 9)

To receive and hear any person who wishes to address the Panel. The Chairman will select the order of the matters to be heard.

3 Declarations of Interest by Members

4 Minutes

4.1 Meeting of the Strategic Planning and Economic Development Policy and Scrutiny Panel held on 8th September 2003, (page 4) – to be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

5 Matters referred by Council, the Executive, other Committees and Panels (if any)

None.

6 Request for an Item to be Considered by the Panel

Councillors Ap Rees and Canniford have asked for the following to be considered:-

“To review traffic management, potential growth and future safety issues in Herluin Way, Marchfield Way, Winterstoke Road West and Searle Crescent, and to consider more sustainable transport options (in line with Government objectives and Council policy) for consideration as an alternative way of achieving the proposed traffic improvements that the new signal controlled junctions on Herluin Way are intended to provide and which would then be considered by the Executive Member with regard to the Section 278 Agreement”.

7 Matters for Consideration

A Policy Related Matters

7.1 Interim Report on Progress of Overview and Scrutiny Assessing Objections to the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan First Deposit Draft (page 9)

B Scrutiny Related Matters

7.2 Interim Report of the Safety Camera Partnership Working Group (page 19)

C Performance Related Matters

None.

____________________________________

EXEMPT ITEMS

Should the Panel wish to consider a matter as an Exempt Item, the Panel will be invited to pass the following resolution –

“(1) That the press, public, and officers not required by the Members, the Chief Executive or the Director, to remain during the exempt session, be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the ground that its consideration will involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.”

Also, if appropriate, the following resolution should be passed –

“(2) That members of the Council who are not members of this Panel be invited to remain.”

MOBILE PHONES, PAGERS AND SIMILAR CALLING DEVICES

All persons attending this meeting are requested to turn off these devices in accordance with the Council’s statement concerning disturbance caused by such apparatus. The Chairman may approve an exception to this request in special circumstances.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

ON HEARING THE ALARM – (a continuous two tone siren)

Leave the room by the nearest exit door. Ensure that windows are closed.

Last person out to close the door.

DO NOT stop to collect personal belongings.

DO NOT use the lifts.

FOLLOW the green and white exit signs and make your way to the assembly point.

DO NOT re-enter the building until authorised to do so by the Fire Authority.

GO TO ASSEMBLY POINT D – THE CAR PARK OPPOSITE MAIN RECEPTION

AGENDA CONFERENCE

The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Officers

The agenda conference will be held on Wednesday, 29th October 2003 at 4.00 p.m. in the Kenn Room, Town Hall.

AGENDA ITEM 4.1

MINUTES

OF THE MEETING OF THE

StratEGIC PlanNING AND EconOMIC DevELOPMENT Policy AND Scrutiny Panel

Monday 8th September 2003

HELD AT THE TOWN HALL, WESTON-SUPER-MARE, SOMERSET.

Meeting Commenced: 3.30 p.m. Meeting Concluded: 5.20 p.m.

PRESENT: Councillors Elfan Ap Rees (Chairman), Mark Canniford (Vice-Chairman), John Clark, John Crockford-Hawley, Richard Tucker (substitute for Councillor Derek Kraft), Clive Webb

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Derek Kraft and David Shopland

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Nigel Ashton, Isabel Cummings, Glyn Duck, Jon Gething, Colin Golland, Greta Lewis, Sally Tabrett, Audrey Telling, Arthur Terry, Barry Walters and Liz Walters

SPE 3

Minutes of the Meeting held on 21st July 2003 (Agenda Item 4.1)

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 21st July 2003 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

SPE 4

Presentation by the Safety Camera Partnership (Agenda Item 7.1)

The Panel and other Members of the Council in attendance, received a presentation given by the Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire Safety Camera Partnership on speeding issues and the methods used to catch speeding motorists.

The Safety Camera Partnership was represented by Nigel Farrell (Chairman of the Partnership Board) and Dick Bowen (Manager of the Project Team).

Mr. Nigel Farrell explained that the operational work of the Partnership was carried out by a Project Team headed by Dick Bowen. He claimed the Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire Partnership was regarded nationally as a success, and was seen as a template for other Partnerships.

Dick Bowen led the presentation (a copy of which is has been circulated previously to all Members of the Council, and is included in the minute book) and highlighted the following claims:

1. Since the establishment of the Safety Camera Partnership in April 2002, collisions in North Somerset had reduced by 8 per cent, and casualties had reduced by 9.3 per cent.

2. The Partnership aimed to reduce casualties and collisions by reducing vehicle speed and enforcement of red light running through

(a) educating the public;

(b) enforcing speed restrictions and red light offending regularly and consistently;

(c) reassuring the public that the Partnership was a road safety project.

3. The Safety Camera Partnership initiative in the United Kingdom was considered the largest road safety project in the world. The Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire Safety Camera Partnership comprised representatives of local authorities, the Avon and Somerset Constabulary Magistrates’ Courts Committees and Primary Care Trusts.

4. Casualties resulted in a cost to the NHS. The Partnership worked closely with both the NHS and the North Somerset Primary Care Trust. Tackling speed and reducing casualties helped to free up hospital beds.

5. Six Police Officers were seconded to the Project Team from the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. The costs of these officers were borne by the Partnership, not by the Police nor the local authorities.

6. The Partnership only targeted sites with a history of collisions. Camera sites could not be set up anywhere; rules and guidelines on setting up items had to be followed. There were 280 sites in Avon and Somerset, a mixture of fixed and mobile sites. A further 40-50 sites were planned for the third year of the Partnership. All sites were reviewed twice a year.

7. “Speed Choice” Driver Education Programme. Drivers attending this course would not incur penalty points on their licence for the offence they had committed. The course was self-funding.

8. The Partnership was not a tax on motoring. Its emphasis was on road safety and reducing collisions and casualties.

9. Performance indicators showed the work of the Partnership in reducing casualties and deaths to be a success. During the period 1st April 2003 to 31st March 2003, casualties had reduced from 7224 to 6848, and deaths had reduced from 103 to 88 in Avon and Somerset.

10. The Partnership concentrated on the ‘professional speeder’ and known ‘hot spots’.

Members of the Panel and other members in attendance questioned the statements and statistics provided, and in particular, introduced the following comments and questions:

1. The work of the Partnership was a public relations disaster, especially for the Chief Constable, and was, in effect, an additional motoring tax.

2. What were the figures for the number of speeding tickets issued in the past year?

Answer to 2 - The figures were due to be published by the Government in October. The Partnership was more concerned with reducing the number of casualties.

3. 4,000 fixed penalty receipts in one year would indicate how much the Partnership was reducing the number of casualties.

Answer to 3 – Not aware of that figure. The Operational Case was based on the premise of paying for itself.

4. The Partnership should focus traffic speeding in the vicinity of schools.

5. Can income from fines be used on a wider range of safety issues, for example, safety training and the provision of crossing patrols?

6. There were fewer road deaths per head of population in the United Kingdom than for example, in the United States. The number of road deaths annually had fallen for a number of years due to improved road safety. More people died in their homes than on the road. Speed in itself did not cause accidents, it was inappropriate speed, for example, in the vicinity of schools. What would be the impact if expenditure was concentrated on protecting those most vulnerable, such as children and motorcyclists? Would it not be more appropriate for money to be spent on providing crossing patrols than on speed cameras?

Answer to 6 – The use of the Partnership’s income was constrained by the Operational Guidance laid down by the Government. The question would be better addressed to the Government.

7. Most roads were not built for speed. Cameras should be hidden, and more cameras were needed.

Answer to 7 – The Partnership was obliged to work on the basis that cameras can be seen by motorists.

8. Is the accident record on the A369 through Easton-in-Gordano such that a mobile camera could be sited there?

Answer to 8 – The site was not currently in the Operational Case, but this would be reviewed. The siting of cameras was continually reviewed, with new sites coming into consideration, and other sites having cameras removed.

9. The Partnership expended a large amount of public money without appearing to be publicly accountable. Do you produce accounts and are these available to the public and are the minutes of the meetings of Partnership Board available for the public?

Answer to 9 – The accounts were currently being audited, prior to a report to the Government. They were not made available to the public as stipulated by the Department for Transport. The minutes were available if requested.

10. What happens if the Partnership makes a profit or loss?

Answer to 10 – Any profit is returned to the Treasury, and not retained by the Partnership. Any loss has to be borne by the Partnership, with the partners each contributing a proportion.

11. What is your response to criticism about

(i) staff not being visible through omitting to wear reflective vests?

(ii) staffing causing a danger to the public by siting vehicles or where staff are a distraction in themselves.

Answer to 11 – It was incumbent on staff to locate their vehicles as safely as possible. The guidance states that cameras can be located within 900 metres of a ‘hot spot’.

12. Where can a copy of the Government guidance to the Partnership be obtained?

Answer to 12 – On the Department for Transport website.

13. What action was being taken to address the issue of the poor placement of some cameras (the public see cameras sited where accidents do not occur) and the non-wearing of fluorescent clothing by staff?

Answer to 13 – The guidance states that cameras can be located within 900 metres of a ‘hot spot’.

The Chairman on behalf of the Panel and other elected members thanked the Partnership for attending to address members’ questions, queries and concerns. He pointed out that not all the areas for questioning had been addressed, and he asked the Partnership to respond in writing to all these questions, so that the answers together with the issues raised at this meeting, may be considered in depth by a Members’ Working Party with a report back to this Panel. This was agreed by Mr. Farrell.

Members were reminded that the Safety Camera Partnership was holding an open day at the Winter Gardens on 1st October 2003 to which partners, including elected Members, and other interested persons were invited to attend.

THE PANEL ADJOURNED AT 5.00 P.M.

__________________________________

THE PANEL RECONVENED AT 5.15 P.M.

CONCLUDED: that a Working Party comprising Councillors Mark Canniford, John Clark and Clive Webb be set up to consider the issue of safety cameras, including the issues raised at this meeting, and to report back to this Panel.

SPE 5

Updated Work Plan (Agenda Item 6.1)

The Panel received an update on its Work Plan following the first meeting of the Panel on 21st July 2003.

CONCLUDED: that the items on the Panel’s Work Plan be noted, and further noted that the Work Plan will be constantly reviewed and may be subject to change.

SPE 6

Performance Monitoring (Agenda Item 7.2)

The Panel considered a report which set out the areas of performance monitoring to be included within the Panel’s Work Plan, and how the Panel could be involved. The report provided details of the progress made to date on the Council’s Key Corporate Performance Indicators in the first quarter of 2003/2004.

It was noted that on the whole performance was good, but that it was important to monitor the performance.

Reference to the percentage of principal roads with a notional residual life of less than 0 years. It was explained that this meant that the roads were worn out and needed urgent attention.

CONCLUDED:

(1) that the results of the first quarter monitoring report be noted;

(2) that the areas of the performance continue to be monitored; and

(3) that the reporting of Best Value Reviews and the outcomes of inspections be built into this Panel’s Work Plan.

________________________________

Chairman

________________________________

AGENDA ITEM 7.1

NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL

REPORT TO THE

STRATEGIC Planning and Economic Development Policy & Scrutiny Panel MEETING ON 3^rd November 2003

MEMBER’S NAME:	COUNCILLOR ELFAN AP REES
SUBJECT:	INTERIM REPORT ON PROGRESS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY ASSESSING OBJECTIONS RECEIVED TO NSRLP FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT
KEY DECISION:	NO

1. SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to review and assess progress of the SP&ED Policy and Scrutiny Panel with regard to scrutinising the NSRLP First Deposit draft and comments made by objectors. Overview and scrutiny plays an important part in ensuring the Council identifies and understands the range and nature of objections made to the emerging Replacement Local Plan, as well as where key challenges are likely to arise to Council objectives, as expressed through its emerging land use policies. To facilitate an appropriate discussion forum, five councillor workshops have been arranged between September and December 2003. The purpose of these workshops is to look in detail at the objections received and to work with officers to identify key issues which elected members consider are likely to need addressing by amendments to the Plan when it is placed on Second Deposit. Since September, three workshops have been conducted and this interim report reviews progress and identifies the recommendations of the Panel with regard to the workshops held so far.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the SP&ED Panel formally record that 3 workshops have been conducted with officers. These have covered aspects of the NSRLP relating to chapters: 1 Introduction, 2 Planning Context, 3 Local Plan Vision, Aims and Locational Strategy, 4 General Development Principles, 9 Transport and 11 Cultural and Community Facilities.

2. That the SP&ED Panel formally record the comments made at Appendix A as proposed recommendations to the Executive Member for Strategic Planning following the SP&ED workshops held on 13^th September, 3^rd October and 17^th October respectively with respect to the chapters listed above.

3. That where appropriate and necessary, officers continue to progress responses to objections made to the NSRLP First Deposit draft taking into consideration the recommendations of the three SP&ED Workshops held to date.

3. PROPORTIONALITY ISSUES

None

4. HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

None

5. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

	Approved Budget	Extra Bid?	Recurring/Base Budget?
Revenue
Capital

6. OTHER/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Legal

Crime & Disorder

Health & Safety

Equal Opportunities

Trades Unions

Youth Voice

Other

7. COMMUNITY IMPACT

Corporate

Environment

Lifelong Learning

Health & Welfare

Prosperity

8. POLICY IMPLICATIONS (if any)

The NSRLP represents the land use expression of the Councils corporate vision, objectives and priorities for a more prosperous and sustainable North Somerset. When adopted this Plan will replace the existing Local Plan and provide a framework to regulate and manage the use of land in North Somerset through Development Control. It will also be a key delivery mechanism to give a land use expression to other corporate objectives of the Council. Every Councillor will be required to make important planning decisions involving the policies agreed in the Local Plan, during their term in office. It is therefore important that Members contribute to this process effectively and take ownership of the Plan.

9. DETAILS

The procedure for preparing the NSRLP involves a 2-stage consultation process. In November 2002 the Council published a First Deposit draft. Over 2,700 comments from 600 people and organisations were received. The comments are currently being considered and when the work is completed, a revised Plan setting out the Council’s response to the matters of objection, will go before the Executive seeking a recommendation to place the Local Plan on Second Deposit consultation in Spring 2004. Before this can take place, the Council’s SP&ED Scrutiny Panel have an important role to play in debating and discussing the main issues and areas raised by the consultees.