______________________________________


________________________________

To Members of the Environment Scrutiny Committee

Notice of Meeting

Meeting

ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Date/Time

18 December 2002 at 10.00 am

Place

County Hall, Oxford

Contact officer

Deborah Mitchell
(Tel: 01865 815463; E-mail)


Chris Impey
Assistant Chief Executive

December 2002

Membership

Chair - Councillor Biddy Hudson

Councillors:

Bill Bradshaw

Alan Bryden

Mrs Dee Bully

Andrew Crawford

Dickie Dawes

Jean Fooks

Mrs C. Fulljames

Patrick Greene

Steve Hayward

Brian L. Hook

Terry Joslin

Roy Mold

Chris Robins

Leslie Sibley

 

 

AGENDA

  1. Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments

  2. Declarations of Interest

  3. Minutes

    4. To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 16 October 2002 (EN3(a)) and 31 October 2002 (EN3(b)) and to receive for information any matters arising therefrom.

  4. Petitions and Public Address

  5. Scrutiny Reviews

10:05 (a) To receive updates on the following reviews:

    • Highway Consultations on Planning Applications

    • Highways Quality of Repairs and Drainage

    1. Bus Review Progress Report

The Director of Environmental Services reports as follows:-

The Executive and Environment Scrutiny Committee have agreed on a review by consultants of bus services. This focussed mainly on the Council’s policy and practice in arranging subsidised bus services. The study was carried out by The Halcrow Group, under the oversight of a Review Panel compromising of Councillors Bradshaw, Crawford, Greene, Hudson and Joslin plus David Turner representing the Learning and Culture Scrutiny Committee; the Executive Member for Transport and a member of the Social and Health Care Scrutiny Committee were also invited to attend Panel Meetings.

Halcrow have produced two reports; the Existing Situation Report was reported to Environment Scrutiny Committee on 18 September 2002; the Policy and Practice Review Report was considered by the Review Panel on 29 November 2002, and amended in the light of comments made then. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Members Resource Centre.

The recommendations from the Policy and Practice Review, as amended by the Review Panel, are attached (EN5). (download as .doc file)

Summary of recommendations

The Panel agreed these recommendations nem con, save in respect of Recommendation G, on increased monitoring of subsidised services. Councillors Bradshaw and Greene spoke against any increased monitoring save to require operators to supply passenger data from ticket machines, on the grounds of the cost of the other measures.

The recommendations from this meeting will be considered by Executive on 21 January 2003, and whatever is then agreed will be incorporated into the Council’s draft Bus Strategy, which will then be the subject of public consultation (as required by law) before report back to Members.

The Terms of Reference of the Halcrow Study included a possible stage 3 to follow adoption of the Bus Strategy; the review of individual bus services themselves. This would incur extra cost. The current recommendations propose only minor changes to bus services, which can be incorporated in normal scheduled reviews of services. Whilst there are a number of specific areas of further work recommended, there would appear to be no need for a general review of all services.

The purpose of this agenda item is therefore to:

          1. request the Scrutiny Committee to either:

              1. agree the recommendations (EN5) submitted to this meeting; or

              2. amend the recommendations and reach consensus on such amendments; and

          1. consider whether to ask the consultants to proceed in due course to Stage 3 of the Study, and if so how this is to be funded.

  1. Scrutiny Commission Work Programme

11:05 (a) Future Work Programme (EN6)

The Committee is asked whether it would wish to identify any matters for inclusion in the future Work Programme and to consider the scope and development of the review briefs, their timescales and the resources required, and the appointment of members to the Review Panels.

    1. To approve the scoping document for the Corporate Environmental Policy.

    2. To receive an oral report from Councillor Greene regarding exploring different methods through which the Committee can carry out its wide ranging scrutiny functions.

  1. Forward Plan

    2. 11.25 To identify any Environment items on the current Forward Plan on which the Committee wishes to ask the Executive to consult the Committee. (Members are asked to bring to the meeting the latest copy of the Plan).

  2. Rail Projects

    3. 11:30 The Committee agreed to ask that the Executive consult the Committee, prior to consideration by the Executive where possible before any final decision is made on the Rail Projects.

    Report by Director of Environmental Services (EN8).

    The report provides members with information on the key rail projects that have been progressed during 2002 plus a comprehensive list of rail projects and aspirations for consideration that takes into account the existing aspirations approved by the former Public Transport Sub-Committee in April 2000, and also amendments and additions put forward by the Rail Development Officer and parish representatives. It seeks to obtain guidance from members on the relative importance of each of the Council’s rail aspirations for the coming year.

    The structure of the rail industry is in a period of great change and the report describes the environment against which the aspirations need to be considered, and the likelihood of progressing each aspiration in the coming year. In order for the Executive to consider each aspiration, an indication of the possible staff and financial implications for the County Council is given, together with an overall recommended priority.

    The Executive may wish to consider revising some of the recommended overall priorities, although there is a limit to the number of projects that can be proactively taken forward at any one time. If the Executive decide to elevate some of the aspirations in overall priority, they would also therefore need to consider decreasing the priorities of a similar number of aspirations.

    The Committee is asked to consider what advice, if any to give to the Executive.

  3. SPEED MANAGEMENT POLICY: ROADS HIERARCHY PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAMME

    4. 12:00 The Committee agreed to ask that the Executive consult the Committee, prior to consideration by the Executive where possible before any final decision is made on the Speed Management Policy.

    Report by Director of Environmental Services (EN9).

    The Executive at its meeting on 3 April 2002 (EX17) approved the development of a hierarchy of roads within a developing Speed Management Strategy for future consideration by both the Executive and the Environment Scrutiny Committee. It also approved the development of specific speed limit proposals. This report outlines progress to date, seeks approval for specific 50 mph speed limits and proposes a pilot programme of two 20 mph zones with supporting measures for the 2003/04 Casualty Reduction Scheme Programme.

    A road hierarchy is an essential element of the Speed Management Strategy to give a consistent framework to consider all speed limit requests across the county although a definitive hierarchy cannot be produced until all issues linked to each type of limit have been fully assessed. The rural road hierarchy development is being undertaken by a team of Council officers representing a wide range of functions and police officers from the Traffic Department. This work has taken account of the Transport Networks Review (TNR) currently being undertaken by Halcrow consultants; in practice it does not appear that there is any serious risk of abortive work in progressing the speed management policy prior to the reporting of the TNR expected in 2004.

    50 mph limits are at the furthest stage of development. Any significant change in the widespread use of 40 mph speed limits on the rural network must await changes in primary legislation by the Government which is unlikely in the short to medium term. Further development of the 30 mph element of the hierarchy awaits the outcome of Environmental Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation to the Executive. A desire for much wider use of 20mph speed limits has been identified and 2 further pilot schemes are sought.

    The Committee is asked to consider what advice if any, to give to the Executive.

  4. Call In of Executive Decision Market Square/Wessex Way, Bicester Traffic Measures to follow the Skimmingdish Lane Improvement

    5. 2:00 On 29 October 2002 the Executive considered a report by the Director of Environmental Services (a copy of which is attached at EN10) which outlined a proposal for the measures following the Skimmingdish Lane Improvement and sought endorsement of Option 5 for Market Square/Market Hill pedestrianisation scheme which included the extension of Wessex Way.

    The Executive resolved to endorse the work led by the Steering Group and agree Option 5 as the preferred Option to be developed for Market Square/Market Hill.

    The Proper Officer received on 5 November 2002 a request by ten members of the Council in accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny Procedure Rules in the Constitution in the following terms:-

    "We request that the Proper Officer of the Council calls in the decision of the Executive taken on 29 October 2002 and listed at Item 12(c) of the list of decisions – (Market Square/Wessex Way, Bicester Traffic Measures to follow the Skimmingdish Lane Improvement) – endorse the work led by the Steering Group and agree Option 5 as the preferred Option to be developed for Market Square/Market Hill.

    The reason for our request is that we believe that this decision of the Executive is premature and should be reconsidered by them in the light of the fact that there had been no public consultation on that Option, and that they did not consider fully the impact of all current developments in the local area.

    Councillor Les Sibley
    Councillor Olive McIntosh-Stedman
    Councillor Brian Hodgson
    Councillor Rob Evans
    Councillor Margaret Ferriman
    Councillor Ted Cooper
    Councillor Sam Segaram
    Councillor Barbara Gatehouse
    Councillor Liz Brighouse
    Councillor John Power
    Councillor Sylvia Tompkins
    Members of the Council."

    If, having considered the decision, the Scrutiny Committee has material concerns about it, then it may refer it back to the Executive for reconsideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns. If referred to the Executive the views of the Scrutiny Committee will be considered by that body within a further 10 working days, and the decision will then be amended or otherwise and take immediate effect. It is not referred back to the Executive then the decision is effective from the date of this meeting.

    The Scrutiny Committee is asked to decide whether to:

          1. refer the issue back to the Executive with comments; or

          2. accept the Executive’s decision.

            Return to TOP