To consider any questions which may have been received from Elected Members and which are asked pursuant to Standing Order No. 11.
(a) Councillor Hunt
‘What plans does the council have to implement more 20mph zones within residential areas and outside schools in the borough?’
(b) Councillor Fielding
‘Many residents have asked me if the proposed children’s play area at Penny Pie Park Gyratory can be placed in a different location further away from the traffic and the high levels of Nitrous Oxides emitted by that traffic but I am advised by the project team that it will be constructed as shown on the current plans, just yards from the new highway.
Why is this location being used rather than one much further away from traffic?’
(c) Councillor Kitching
‘On 19th February this year Cllr Chris Lamb issued a statement in response to concerns about the high costs of security at Penny Pie Park in which he said
‘The anticipated cost for the security services, including the purchasing and hiring of fencing, totals £220,000’
A little more than 6 months later, a report to Cabinet stated that the costs of security and fencing at Penny Pie Park now stand at £447,000.
Why have these costs more than doubled in this short time and can the Cabinet member please confirm that these increases are not as a result of scheme enhancements requested by residents.
What is the anticipated final cost for the security and fencing at Penny Pie Park?’
(d) Councillor Hunt
‘The Section 106 agreement accompanying the granting of outline planning permission for the former North Gawber Colliery site in Mapplewell, under planning reference 2014/0452, required the developer to pay a sum of £77,580 as a Highways Infrastructure Contribution towards improvement works associated with Swallow Hill Road, Mapplewell. This sum has been paid by the developer. Please can an update be provided on the plans of the council to implement these much-needed highway improvement works.’
(e) Councillor Hunt
On 23rd May the Secretary of State for Transport announced an active travel fund to support local authorities in implementing facilities for cycling and walking. The funding is in two tranches:-
· tranche 1 supports the installation of temporary projects for the COVID-19 pandemic
· tranche 2 supports the creation of longer-term projects ?
Please provide an update on the amount of funding that the council has secured in relation to this opportunity and what its plans are to implement schemes in relation to each tranche of funding.’
Minutes:
The Chief Executive reported that she had received a number of questions from Elected Members in accordance with Standing Order No. 11.
Note: a maximum of 30 minutes was allocated for this item in accordance with Standing Order No 11 (2)(d).
(a) Councillor Hunt
‘What plans does the council have to implement more 20mph zones within residential areas and outside schools in the borough?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) responded by thanking Councillor Hunt for his question. There were currently 115 20mph roads in Barnsley spread across 12 zones.
Officers regularly monitored these 20 mph restrictions and they used road safety data and professional judgement to make informed decision about possible extensions or additions to other areas across the borough.
The Service invested the annual funding available for safety measures in delivering the statutory responsibilities under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Traffic Management Act 2004.
The Service was also looking at what measures could be implemented to further protect young people. Although not strictly speaking a 20mph initiative, officers were working on a new temporary School Streets Project that had recently been awarded funding by DEFRA. A School Street was a road outside a school with a temporary restriction on motorised traffic at school drop-off and pick-up times. The restriction applied to school traffic and through traffic. The aim of the pilot was to create a safer environment for children to get to school through creating safer active travel routes.
The Service had funding to consider this initiative for 10 temporary closed school roads which may all be at separate school locations. This project was still in the planning stages, but Members would be updated when more information became available.
If the pilot was successful, there was the potential to develop permanent road closures outside schools.
Councillor Lamb felt that all Members would agree that this was a safer method than a 20mph zone as mentioned within the question.
Councillor Hunt thanked Councillor Lamb for his response. He stated that he very much welcomed the pilot which was examining the Schools Street/Residential Zones and he was aware that other Local Authorities were doing something similar and he believed that one was being undertaken in Rotherham. He stated the figures for 2019 revealed that deaths had increased on Barnsley’s roads compared to 2018. There had been 140 incidents which resulted in serious injuries and this was an increase of 86% since 2010. In addition, studies of pedestrian injuries and car impact speed released by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents showed a fatality risk of just 1.5% at 20mph compared to 8% at 30mph and he, therefore, asked as a supplementary question if the Cabinet Spokesperson would agree with him that 20mph speed zones (and he thought these could be extended to not just outside schools but to residential areas as well) played a valuable role in reducing the number of road casualties. They had a high level of public support and complemented strategies for active travel modes such as walking and cycling. He asked if the Cabinet Spokesperson would commit to working with the Highways Department and Public Health to urgently develop a plan to significantly increase the number of 20mph zones not just outside schools but also across residential areas throughout the Borough.
Councillor Lamb stated that the supplemental question was supposed to be limited to one question rather than about four as submitted by Councillor Hunt. He would, however, in the interests of openness and transparency do his best to answer them. He felt that everyone would agree that slower moving traffic was, generally speaking, safer as it reduced the stopping distances for the drivers, however, with all highway considerations, be that outside schools or anywhere else in the borough, there were three elements considered in terms of solutions. Firstly, education, secondly engineering and thirdly enforcement. As all Members would be aware, however, 20mph zones were only of any use if they were enforced and, of course, speed enforcement was the responsibility of the South Yorkshire Police rather than the Highways authority. He regretted, therefore, that it was very difficult for him to commit to working with the Highways Department purely on the implementation of further 20mph limits as it was not known if that would be the best solution and, in addition, it was not know if the South Yorkshire Police would be able to commit to the enforcement of those speed limits. Unfortunately, at the moment he could not commit to agreeing with that request.
(b) Councillor Fielding
‘Many residents have asked me if the proposed children’s play area at Penny Pie Park Gyratory can be placed in a different location further away from the traffic and the high levels of Nitrous Oxides emitted by that traffic but I am advised by the project team that it will be constructed as shown on the current plans, just yards from the new highway.
Why is this location being used rather than one much further away from traffic?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) responded by thanking Councillor Fielding for his question. He stated that the scheme was being delivered in accordance with the planning application approved by the Planning Regulatory Board and the decision notice published in February 2019. He felt that Elected Members and indeed members of the public would expect nothing less of the Council than to comply with its own planning decisions.
Councillor Fielding wondered whether the Cabinet Member was aware that when the development was proposed the Council had commissioned a green space appraisal from their consultants Aecom in 2018. That proposal put forward three possible layouts for the green space within the park all of which located the play area in the north eastern corner of the green space as far away from the traffic and its pollutants as possible and he, therefore, asked as a supplementary question why the Council had not only ignored residents concerns on this matter but also the recommendations of its technical consultants.
Councillor Lamb, in response, stated that it was not for him to answer for the decisions of the Planning Regulatory Board and he suggested that Councillor Fielding raise this question with the Planning Regulatory Board as all the Council was doing was implementing the decisions of that Board.
(c) Councillor Kitching
‘On 19th February this year Councillor Lamb issued a statement in response to concerns about the high costs of security at Penny Pie Park in which he said
‘The anticipated cost for the security services, including the purchasing and hiring of fencing, totals £220,000’.
A little more than 6 months later, a report to Cabinet stated that the costs of security and fencing at Penny Pie Park now stand at £447,000.
Why have these costs more than doubled in this short time and can the Cabinet member please confirm that these increases are not as a result of scheme enhancements requested by residents.
What is the anticipated final cost for the security and fencing at Penny Pie Park?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Kitching for the question and responded by stating that as members would be aware, officers had carried out a detailed review of both the forecast and actual expenditure to inform the revised budget for the A628 Dodworth Road/Broadway Junction road improvement scheme. This had been set out in the recently approved Cabinet report regarding the awarding of the main Civil Works Contract.
Security was an essential part of the overall scheme budget as it was important to protect employees and residents. Members would also recall that an employee had actually been attacked on site and had required hospital treatment.
The revised budget had updated costings under the security budget at £447,000. Previously some of these costs had been allocated and shown against the contingency budget.
The estimated cost for security and fencing currently remained at £447,000.
Councillor Kitching thanked Councillor Lamb for his response and as a supplementary question asked if, given the massive increase in the cost of the scheme compared to what was estimated previously by the Council, why the Council taxpayers of Barnsley should have confidence in the figures issued by the Council in relation to capital projects such as this one going forward.
Councillor Lamb stated that he was unable to answer for every project in every scheme that the Council operated as it would not be possible for him to manage every one of those. He felt, however, that Council taxpayers should have every confidence in the costs of projects and value for money and this had been highlighted in agenda item 3 of today’s meeting as the Council had been given a ‘clean bill of health’ by independently appointed external auditors.
(d) Councillor Hunt
‘The Section 106 agreement accompanying the granting of outline planning permission for the former North Gawber Colliery site in Mapplewell, under planning reference 2014/0452, required the developer to pay a sum of £77,580 as a Highways Infrastructure Contribution towards improvement works associated with Swallow Hill Road, Mapplewell. This sum has been paid by the developer. Please can an update be provided on the plans of the council to implement these much-needed highway improvement works?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Hunt for his very timely question. He stated that the Highways and Engineering Services was currently undertaking a feasibility study focused on the western end of Swallow Hill Road. The study would identify options for highway improvement works.
The Service would assess these options to find the best approach for the area, within the allocated budget.
Councillor Hunt thanked Councillor Lamb for the updates which he welcomed as he had been trying to obtain an answer to his question for some time. He then, as a supplementary question, asked if Councillor Lamb could provide some firm timescales around when the feasibility work would be completed and when it was likely that the residents would see the benefit of these highway improvement works.
Councillor Lamb stated that, as all Members would be aware, the country was in the middle of a pandemic and he felt it would, therefore, be inappropriate for him to make any forecasts on behalf of the Highways and Engineering Department. He would, however, raise this question outside the meeting with the Head of Highways and Engineering in order that Councillor Hunt could be provided with an answer to his supplementary question.
(e) Councillor Hunt
‘On 23rd May the Secretary of State for Transport announced an active travel fund to support local authorities in implementing facilities for cycling and walking. The funding is in two tranches:-
· tranche 1 supports the installation of temporary projects for the COVID-19 pandemic
· tranche 2 supports the creation of longer-term projects ?
Please provide an update on the amount of funding that the council has secured in relation to this opportunity and what its plans are to implement schemes in relation to each tranche of funding.’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Hunt for his question which was an area of the Council’s business that was very close to his own heart.
The Council very much welcome the money received from the Government’s Active Travel Fund. It had enabled the Council to move forward with plans for active travel improvements across the borough.
As Councillor Hunt had identified, there were two tranches. For the first trance the Authority would receive £241,000 plus an additional £65,000 which was an underspend from other authorities.
The following progress had already been made on the tranche scheme:
· Improvements from the Town Centre link to the Trans Pennine Trail.
· Links from the Interchange through to Regent Street South, then Eastgate and onto the Barnsley District General Hospital.
· Links from the Hospital to Dodworth
The trance 2 funding had not been confirmed but it was expected that around £90,000 would come into the borough.
The plans proposed would look at how improvements could be made to low traffic neighbourhoods and quiet streets in various locations.
Schemes were also proposed for Goldthorpe (which linked into the Stronger Towns Bid) and in Elsecar with links to the Elsecar Heritage Centre and the Trans Pennine Trail.
There were currently no timescales for the delivery of these projects, but work was ongoing to look at feasible of a range of options.
It was also reported that the Council had been awarded money through the Transforming Cities Fund which would be used to further enhance the active travel infrastructure across the whole of the borough.
Councillor Hunt thanked Councillor Lamb for his response and he asked, as a supplementary question in relation to the tranche 1 funding, which in total was around £300,000, if all the projects mentioned in the response had actually been completed as he was not aware, and neither were residents and it was not felt that there had been a great deal of visibility or publicity in relation to what had been done. He was aware that work had been undertaken to try to get better cycle connectivity to the hospital but questioned whether the other projects had been completed.
Councillor Lamb stated that as far as he was aware, progress was being made but if Councillor Hunt had a question in relation to a specific area of activity, he would be more than happy to take that away and have it looked at in greater detail.