Agenda item

(To receive a report by Mick Phoenix, Network Management Commissioner, which sets out the updated Network Management Plan to reflect the legislative changes, including the introduction of the Lincolnshire Permit Scheme.  It also incorporates the changes resulting from the reorganisation of Lincolnshire County Council Highways and Transport rolled out in 2017)

The Committee received a report which provided members with the opportunity to consider the Network Management Plan.  It was reported that under the Traffic Management Act 2004, part of the duties of the Traffic Manager, included a recommendation that a Network Management Plan should be used to gather all the policies, standards and procedures associated with highways network management into one document.  The Plan implemented the objectives and aims of the Local Transport Plan 4, however it was regularly reviewed to reflect changes introduced by central government and local priorities.

Members were advised that the key aim of the Network Management Plan was to deliver against the government's priorities for transport in areas such as accessibility, reliable journey times and better air quality.  It was noted that the integration of the various plans and policies with the Network Management Plan allowed a co-ordinated approach to deliver a well-managed network.  The introduction of Value for Money performance measures, as part of the reorganisation, helped to ensure that the delivery of services was closely monitored and any efficiency gains identified could be incorporated into the Network Management Plan.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised included the following:

·         It was queried whether electronic links to the urban transport strategies for Lincoln, Grantham, Boston, Spalding, Sleaford and Gainsborough could be included at the end of the document.  Officers agreed to add these in.

·         It was commented that, in relation to road classification, the functions of roads in rural and urban areas could change, and it was queried what options there were for changing the position of roads within the road hierarchy. Members were advised that the policy on roads was one step above the Network Management Plan and was a collaboration between the network function and those involved in transport planning. 

·         In relation to permits, it was noted that when a road surface had just been laid it became protected. However, utility companies had a statutory right to access their pipes which would override the protected status.

·         In relation to the Lincolnshire Broadband Programme, it was queried whether it was thought that the projected timescales were realistic.  Members were advised that the timescales were set by BT and were incorporated into the document.  The executive Councillor for Highways, Transport and IT added that the onlincolnshire broadband project was actually a little ahead of schedule.  Therefore, it was believed that the timescales for implementation were realistic.

·         Further to the query regarding the broadband project, it was commented that there were some rural villages which could not access the superfast broadband.  It was noted that the cables in the area had been upgraded, however, due to network capacity issues some people were not able to get the speeds promised.  It was suggested that this issue should be taken up with the Executive Councillor outside of the meeting.

·         It was queried whether the pedestrian crossing policy was available, and it was reported that there was a Network Management Plan working group which would be meeting in the near future.  Following this, the policies would be made available online.

·         In relation to Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE), it was commented that the biggest problem seemed to be vehicles causing obstruction.  However, members were advised that the Council did not have any powers to deal with obstruction.  That was a power which remained with the police. 

·         In terms of enforcement services for CPE, it was clarified that there were two separate contracts, one for the on street enforcement, and the other for the back office functions including the processing of tickets.

·         It was queried whether there was any data on what had been achieved so far in relation to enforcement of parking restrictions around schools.  Members were advised that a report would be coming to the June meeting of this Committee.

·         Members were encouraged that the Council was continuing to develop its cycling strategy, but it was requested whether there could be more joined up thinking in terms of cycle lanes, and increasing the amount of uninterrupted paths (it was commented that some cycle paths ran out on some roads), in order to encourage as many people to cycle as possible.  It was noted that this would be taken back to the relevant officers.

·         It was queried whether there was any further progress in relation to the government consultation on de-trunked roads.  Members were advised that officers were still awaiting the decision from central government.

·         It was confirmed that there were set timescales for temporary traffic lights to allow traffic to pass.

·         It was queried how often penalties had to be issued for permit violations.  Members were advised that BT met regularly with the network compliance manager.

·         It was queried whether the Council would be joining the national campaign in relation to pavement parking.  It was noted that further talks would be taking place, but it was something which seemed to be gaining momentum.  The Chairman advised that he represented Lincolnshire on PATROL (Parking and Transport Regulations Outside London), and this had been a big issue for all councils and was high on the agenda.

·         It was commented that some of the road lines seemed to be wearing off and it was queried whether there was a need for more resilient and long lasting paint, as if the lines were not visible, CPE would not be able to issue tickets.

·         Issues regarding trees encroaching onto footways were raised, and it was noted that this would be the responsibility of Area Teams.  It was commented that the full width of the footway should be available for use.

·         It was commented that most of the comments that members received from parish councils related to speed limits.  It was highlighted that some parish councils were spending a lot of money on additional signage.  It was queried whether there was a need for the speed limit review to be carried out again, as a task and finish group was held in 2014 on this issue.  However, members were advised that there was a process just beginning to review the speed management policy, which would take into consideration government directives on speed limits.

·         In relation to parishes, it was commented that all parishes reported problems with speeding.  However, it was also commented that the majority of people speeding through villages were local to the area.  If speed limits were being ignored then that was a police issue, and the council would not want to set false expectations by lowering speed limits if they could not be enforced.

·         It was suggested that if people were made aware of all the processes involved in setting up temporary traffic lights and traffic management while repairs were made to the road, then residents may be more understanding of the disruption.

RESOLVED

            That the comments made in relation to the Network Management Plan be noted.