To reply to any questions received from members of the public which have been submitted in writing in advance of the meeting. Questions can be asked about issues for which the Council has a responsibility. (Public question times take place on a bimonthly basis at Local Area Council meetings: in January, March, May, July, September and November each year.)
As agreed by the County Council in February 2012, the management of local public question times is at the discretion of the chair of the committee.
Please note however that a
question may possibly be rejected if it requires the disclosure of
any categories of confidential or exempt information, namely
information:
And/or:
? is defamatory, frivolous or offensive;
? it is substantially the same as a question which has been put at a meeting of this or another County Council committee in the past six months;
? the request repeats an identical or very similar question from the same person;
? the cost of providing an answer is disproportionate;
? it is being separately addressed through the Council's complaints process;
? it is not about a matter for which the Council has a responsibility or which affects the county;
? it relates to planning, licensing and/or other regulatory applications
? it is a question that town/parish councils would normally be expected to raise through other channels.
If the Chair is of the opinion that a question is one which for whatever reason, cannot properly be asked in an area meeting, he/she will disallow it and inform the resident of his/her decision.
Copies of any written answers (without individuals' personal contact details) will be provided for members after the meeting and also be publicly available.
Democratic Services will confirm the status of the progress on any previously requested written answers and follow up any related actions requested by the Local Area Council.
Minutes:
William Wright, NE22 6LH (12 Forum Court, Bedlington)
Mr Wright referred to a sycamore tree, 15 metres from his bungalow. The roots had entered the sewage system and caused damage which he had to pay £50 excess on his insurance to reline the pipe on his part of the property. He and his wife were unable to flush the toilet in the evening until the morning due to damage.
Mr Wright had contacted Councillor Malcolm Robinson some time ago who had liaised with Leon Savage, Trees and Woodland Team Leader and both had visited the property. Mr Wright conveyed his thanks to Councillor Robinson for his help.
Concerns were raised about the foundations to his property and of issues if it came to selling the property. The council officer who had visited his property had advised Mr Wright to take out extra insurance, but the siting of the tree was the fault of the developer. The situation was causing stress to both him and his wife.
Councillor Flux requested that an officer visit Mr Wright's property and a report be brought back to the next available local area committee on the findings and actions.
Janice Craggs, resident of Hartford Bridge referred to the meeting of 21 March and asked when a response would be available to issues raised by residents on speeding and condition of the road.
Robin McCartney, Infrastructure Manager, Local Services provided the following response:
With regard to the road condition, since 2010 a number of structural surfacing patching works had been undertaken. The most recent inspection of the road had shown there were no individual actionable defects. However, it was accepted that there was a 120 m long section of the road where the underlying bituminous basecourse was showing signs of deterioration and was currently being considered for inclusion for repair in the next programme of works.
Concerns had been raised about the types of vehicles using the road and whether a weight limit could be imposed. Given the nature and classification of the road as an A road, it would not be appropriate for a weight limit to be imposed. It was noted that residents reported that they were experiencing vibrations in properties as a result of passing vehicles. It was sometimes the case at properties adjacent to highways, that vibrations could be noticed when large vehicles passed, however, it should be noted that human perception of vibrations occurred at levels much lower than those that would need to cause any structural damage to buildings. It might be that the potential repairs noted above might help reduce any vibrations experienced.
With regard to road safety issues, analysis of the accident database of all personal injury accidents reported to the Police showed that there had been no personal injury collisions in the last 5 years in the village, the only personal injury collision nearby was a ‘slight’ collision in June 2019 at the A1068/A192 junction.
Speed surveys had recently been undertaken and the following information obtained:
Speed Survey 28 March – 3 April 2023
Northbound:
Average daily vehicles – 2999
Average speed – 30.7 mph
85th percentile – 34.3 mph
Southbound:
Average daily vehicles – 2952
Average speed – 28.6mph
85th percentile – 31.5 mph
Based on this data, the 85th percentile speed did not meet the normal criteria for intervention as such a large population of speeds were consistent with those expected within a 30 mph limit. Such speeds would not be considered to be a site of concern by the Police in relation to deployment of mobile speed cameras.
An analysis of pedestrian and traffic conflict at the bus stop location was also carried out on 28 March using a PV2 analysis. The nationally accepted PV2 analysis intervention value for a crossing is 0.5, the NCC minimum requirement taking account of the unique environment was 0.2 and the result of the PV2 survey for Hartford Bridge at the bus stop location was 0.0009 and therefore, it would not be appropriate to provide a crossing of any kind at this location.
Regarding the bus stops, these had been in place at the location for many years, without incident. It was noted that due to the road layout, there were some limitations on visibility. Potential locations to move the bus stop had been considered, however, the existing positions appeared to be the most appropriate and safest given the road layout along the length and given the proximity of the crest in the road alignment to the south and the bend in the road to the north, the current location was also close to a pedestrian access to Plessey Woods Country Park.
Given the concerns regarding speeding and pedestrian crossing at the bus stops, consideration would be given to whether visibility from the bus stop looking south could be improved by cutting back vegetation and whether road markings and signage around the location could be improved to make drivers aware of hazards and further reduce speeds.
In response to members questions, the following information was provided:
· The next LTP Programme was 2024/25
· Mr McCartney would check whether there had been speed vehicles in the village
· The vibrations could relate to unlevel surfaces, large vehicles, or manholes
· Due to legislation, the speed limit could not be changed to 20 mph. ROSPA standards were applied across the whole of the county and the county wide speed limit in urban areas was 30 mph. Often, reducing the speed contributed to speeding and overtaking and bad driver behaviour.
· 20 mph could still cause vibrations.
Ms Craggs referred to the vibration and volume of traffic and stated that vehicles from the port used Satnav to use the road. The speed through the village was a problem as it was used as a thoroughfare through a residential area. Police speed vehicles had been in the area and had caught a number of motorists. The use of mirrors had been raised previously at the crossroads of Hartford Bridge Farm and Hartford Bridge Drive to improve visibility.
Ms Craggs added that residents would return to ask further questions if they did not receive a response and would also bring forward a petition.
The Chair responded that the matter would be taken back to officers for a response.
The dangers of speeding vehicles through the village and the resurfacing of the road which had not been carried out properly was reiterated by residents and it was pointed out that an undertaking some years ago to mark the bus stop had not been carried out.
Simon Mavin, Construction Manager referred to the patching which he would take back to Team Leaders and email Councillor Robinson.
RESOLVED that the information be noted.