Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development attaching the report of the Director of City Development on the A660 Corridor Transport Issues to the North West (Inner) Area Committee and the joint report of the Chief Highways Officer and Director of Resources dated 24^th November 2008 referred by the North West (Inner) Area Committee to this Board for discussion.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report attaching the Design and Cost Report to the Chief Highways Officer and Director of Resources dated 24^th November 2008 entitled ‘A660 Woodhouse Lane/Clarendon Road, Woodhouse Proposed Inbound Bus/Cycle Lane and Junction Improvement Measures’ referred by the North West (Inner) Area Committee to this Scrutiny Board for discussion.  Also attached were the Delegated Decision Notification of 2^nd December 2008, the report of the Director of City Development to the North West (Inner) Area Committee of 18^th December 2008 ‘A660 Corridor Transport Issues’ and an extract from the Minutes of the North West (Inner) Area Committee of 18^th December 2008.

The Chair advised the meeting that the Scrutiny Board (City Development) did not have any executive powers to agree to or to stop any decisions made under the officer delegation scheme, Executive Board or the Council.  However, the Board could express their opinions on the issues and these might or might not be taken into account by the decision makers, who were in this instance the Executive Board Member for City Development and Officers under delegated powers.

The Chair then welcomed to the meeting Councillor Monaghan, Chair of North West (Inner) Area Committee, Gary Bartlett, Chief Highways Officer, City Development, Andrew Hall, Transport Strategy Manager, City Development and Helen Franklin, Acting Head of Highways Services, City Development.

The Chief Highways Officer referred Members to the Design and Cost report of 24^th November 2008, and explained why he had come to the decision to revoke the original decision.  The reasons were firstly that the extent and depth of the opposition to the scheme had not previously been released and therefore had not been fully appreciated by officers.  Indeed the extent and depth of the opposition to the scheme had only become apparent to himself in conversation with the Chair of the North West (Inner) Area Committee after the report had been written, the decision taken and then called-in.  Secondly, he was notified that due to a genuine misunderstanding it was incorrectly reported in the report that the Area Committee had been fully consulted.  In fact the matter had been considered by an informal Transport Sub Committee established by the Area Committee but not serviced by the Central and Corporate Governance Unit.  The decision was revoked therefore in terms of the accuracy of the report and the need for the officer Joint Highways Board to be aware of all of the facts.

Members were advised that the current position was that the proposals for the 1^st phase of the A660 corridor were continuing to be reviewed, that discussions were taking place with Ward members and that no final decision had been taken on this.

The Transport Strategy Manager then outlined the background to the A660 corridor scheme and in particular the proposals for the Woodhouse Lane/Clarendon Road junction, which was the first phase of the scheme.  The Officer clarified how the need to widen the A660 had come about due to the knock on effect of the necessity to introduce pedestrian facilities at this junction and to improve the substandard bus stop at this location.

The Chair of the North West (Inner) Area Committee then addressed the Board.  He advised the Board that the Officer decision had been called-in but the Call-in meeting had been cancelled when the Chief Highways Officer revoked the decision.  He then outlined the concerns of the North West (Inner) Area Committee to, not only the first stage of the scheme itself, but also the accuracy of the Design and Cost Report of 24^th November 2008. 

Firstly clearly there had been many more objections received than indicated in the report, particularly on the proposals to widen Woodhouse Lane which would involve the removal and relaying of existing Yorkstone flagstones, trees and grass verges, when this junction was not the most congested part of the A660 corridor. 

Secondly, the Area Committee had also not been consulted as stated in the Design and Cost Report: the Area Committee Transport Sub-Group had met to discuss the issues but the North West (Inner) Area Committee itself had not been due to meet until 18^th December 2008, two weeks after the delegated decision had been authorised.  The Area Committee was clear that there was no malicious intent on the part of Officers, but rather there had been miscommunication between the parties and a genuine misunderstanding.  The Area Committee were concerned that this should not happen again.

Thirdly, the Area Committee were of the opinion that the bigger picture needed to be looked at with regard to transport issues on this corridor: encouraging more cycling, walking and use of public transport, rather than increasing capacity.

Officers then responded to various questions and comments made by the Board on the following issues:

·  Officers were not able to confirm whether the previously proposed Supertram scheme would have involved impinging on green space or used existing roadways in this area.

·  Officers confirmed that different rules on consultation were not applied to different areas of the city.

·  Officers could not confirm whether the option to convert one of the car lanes to a bus lane, and therefore remove the necessity to widen the road on the inbound dual carriageway, had ever been considered and modelled.

·  The Chief Highways Officer confirmed that it was normal procedure to consult with local residents and businesses as referred to in para 3.2.5 of the Design and Cost Report and that this report was seeking funding to take the proposals to full public consultation.  Members expressed their concern that £135,000 had been authorised for further consultation work on a scheme which there had already been massive public opposition to.

·  The Chief Highways Officer suggested the setting of the proposals in the context of proposals for the whole A660 Corridor might be a better way forward that needed further consideration.

·  The Chief Highways Officer pointed out that the Joint Highways and Transport Board reviewed and approved many reports each month.  Of great importance to the Chief Highways Officer  were the comments in the reports relating to feedback from Members and the public.  Unfortunately, responses from Members were often low.  The Chief Highways Officer had asked for this to be reviewed but would welcome comments from the Board how this situation could be improved.

·  Officers confirmed that the junction in question would become a pinch point when the new pedestrian facilities had been installed.

·  Officers confirmed that Councillor A Carter, the Executive Board Member for Development, had been informed that the decision was to be reviewed.

·  The Chief Highways Officer advised that Officers would take fully into account the strong feedback to this scheme that had been received and that all options would be reconsidered very carefully, but he could not give assurances that these proposals would not appear again. 

The Principal Scrutiny Adviser advised the Board on the process in terms of the Board progressing this matter.  He also advised that Members would be able to again call-in any future decision on this scheme.

As previously agreed, the Board then allowed Mr Tony Green, a member of the public, to address the Board.  Mr Green made the following points to the Board:

·  Congratulated the Board on the content and quality of the discussion.

·  The Chief Highways Officer’s suggestion that the public would be consulted on the whole corridor in order to understand the relationship of this particular proposal to the larger consideration, was welcomed. 

·  He hoped that Elected Members would listen to the public and make well informed decisions on their behalf.

·  He was of the opinion that improvements to the corridor should be embraced but that the 100yds of road in question would not make any difference to congestion further up the A660.

·  He warned that in some instances there would be no alternative to demolition.

·  He also warned that road widening schemes attracted more vehicles, resulting in more congestion and the reappearance of the problems.

The Chair thanked witnesses, Officers and members of the public for attending.

RESOLVED –

(a)   That the report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development and the departmental reports on this matter be noted.

(b)  That the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development prepare a draft Statement and recommendations for consideration at the next meeting of the Scrutiny Board (City Development).

(Note: Councillors R Procter and A Hussain left the meeting at 11.25am and 12.10 respectively during the consideration of this item.)