Agendas, Minutes and Reports

MINUTES

OF THE MEETING OF THE

StratEGIC PlanNING AND EconOMIC DevELOPMENT Policy AND Scrutiny Panel

Tuesday 2nd December 2003

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

Meeting Commenced: 4.03 p.m. Meeting Concluded: 6.08 p.m.

PRESENT: Councillors Elfan Ap Rees (Chairman), Mark Canniford (Vice-Chairman), Bob Cook, David Shopland, Clive Webb

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors John Clark and John Crockford-Hawley

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Felicity Baker, Peter Burden, Ann Harley, Arthur Terry and Elizabeth Wells

SPE

Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd November 2003 (Agenda Item 4.1)

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 3rd November 2003 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

SPE

Nailsea Ring Road (Agenda Item 5.1)

The Panel considered this reference from the Executive of 25th November 2003 (EXE 98 refers) which asked the panel to examine the evidence and recommend whether the line for the Nailsea Ring Road should be amended or altered, and for the officers to liase with Nailsea School so as to ascertain the effects on the school.

RESOLVED: that the matter of line for the Nailsea Ring Road be considered at an additional meeting of this Panel to be held in Nailsea before the next scheduled meeting, and that the Chairman of Nailsea Town Council and local residents be invited to attend to enable the Panel to receive their views.

SPE

Bristol International Airport Traffic Management

It was reported that the South Area Committee had asked that the matter of traffic management at Bristol International Airport be investigated. The matter would be included on the agenda of a future meeting of the Panel.

SPE

Proposal to Consider an Exempt Item in Public Session

The Panel noted that the draft Operational Case 2004/2005 of the Safety Camera Partnership for Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire had been issued as an exempt item, and that the Panel needed to determine whether that item be considered in public or exempt session.

The representative of the Director of Development and Environment outlined why the Safety Camera Partnership wished the item to remain exempt.

The Panel considered that the draft Operational Case should be considered as a public item of business provided that it was made clear this was a draft, subject to amendments. It was also reasoned that the subject matter was already in the public domain having been widely reported in the press.

RESOLVED: that the draft Operational Case 2004/2005 of the Safety Camera Partnership for Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire be considered as a public item of business.

SPE

Safety Camera Partnership Operational Case 2004/2005 (Agenda Item 6.1)

The Panel considered (1) the recommendations of the Safety Camera Partnership Working Group regarding new camera sites in 2004/2005 and (2) the draft Operational Case for the Safety Camera Partnership 2004/2005 for Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire.

It was noted that the Executive Member for Strategic Planning would be submitting a report.

The Panel expressed its willingness to receive the views and comments of Members in attendance who were not Members of the Panel.

The representative of the Director of Development and Environment responded to Members’ questions and queries.

[NOTE: A detailed report on the proceedings has been assembled by the Chairman for consideration in conjunction with this minute reference].

Points made by Members included the following:

1) There was a widespread public perception that the Safety Camera Partnership was more focused on raising income, rather than reducing accidents caused by speed.

2) The Partnership needed to address its public relations/communications strategy and to improve the way it presented itself to the public.

3) The Operational Case failed in many instances to address the issues considered to be important by the public and by elected Members.

4) There was no recognition by the Safety Camera Partnership that it had got some things wrong, and it appeared to blame everyone else.

5) Inherited sites not meeting the speed/collision criteria should be reconsidered only by the local authority and on an equal footing with all other fifteen per cent rule sites.

6) The percentage of the Partnership budget spent on staffing and other ancillary administrative overheads was far too high and should be reduced, with greater concentration of funding on “sharp end” road improvements.

7) The expenditure on public relations and communications strategy should be reduced and funding redirected into vehicle activated speed warning signs.

8) Dormant sites should be reviewed on the basis of road safety not cost-recovery.

9) The highway records did not show speed to be the prime cause of accidents on the Weston Primary Distributor Road. It was suggested that the existing mobile sites on that road would be removed in favour of vehicle activated signs. In addition, and if possible, new sites on Milton Road and Knightstone Road should be included:

10) The proposals for motor cycle mounted cameras did not make sense, and should be deleted.

11) The speed threshold should remain unchanged.

12) The Partnership should be targeting evaders such as drivers without a car tax, licence or insurance, and setting this out as a positive written objective in the Operational Case. Resources should be concentrated more on targeting those evaders, and it was considered that the overall payment recovery target should be increased to ninety per cent.

CONCLUDED:

(1) that the Executive be requested to advise the Safety Camera Partnership for Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire of the following recommended changes to the Operational Case 2004/2005:

(i) reduce expenditure on public relations and communications by £171,000 and redirect funding into additional vehicle activated speed warning signs;

(ii) delete the proposed new mobile camera sites at Knightcott and Abbots Leigh, where the highway records do not show speed to be the prime cause of accidents;

(iii) delete the existing mobile camera sites on the Weston Primary Distributor Road, where the highway records do not show speed to be the prime cause of accidents, in favour of vehicle activated signs, instead if possible within the criteria, new sites on Knightstone Road and Milton Road be included for 2004/05;

(iv) review the dormant sites in North Somerset on the basis of road safety and not cost recovery issues;

(v) review and reduce staffing and other ancillary administrative overheads to not more than forty per cent of the overall budget in order to concentrate available funding on “sharp end” road safety improvements wherever possible and reduce the possible impact on local authority and partner budgets;

(vi) increase the overall payment recovery target to ninety per cent throughout the Safety Camera Partnership and concentrate resources more on targeting deliberate evaders, that is, no tax, no licence and insurance;

(vii) look to the targeting of evaders, for example, drivers without a licence, car tax or insurance) as a positive written objective in the Operational Case 2004/2005;

(viii) ensure that mobile cameras used on the M5 in North Somerset, are located at known block spots and are clearly visible;

(ix) inherited sites not meeting the speed/collision criteria to be reconsidered only by the local authority and on an equal footing with all other optional fifteen per cent rule sites;

(x) review and withdraw controversial data, which is at variance with national polls and TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) conclusions;

(xi) leave the speed threshold at present level;

(xii) delete proposals for motorcycle mounted cameras from 2004/2005;

The Panel further

CONCLUDED:

(2) that if the Safety Camera Partnership choose not to take the above recommendations (i) to (xii) on board, then the Panel further recommends the Executive to agree that North Somerset Council should consider withdrawing co-operation and support from the 2004/2005 Operational Case from 31st March 2004, and consider leaving the Safety Camera Partnership at the end of the contract period.

________________________________

Chairman

________________________________