Committee Minutes

							     Complaints and Appeals Committee                                                        20 July 2004

                               COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS COMMITTEE

     A meeting of the Complaints and Appeals Committee was held 20 July 2004

     PRESENT:              Councillor Lancaster (Chair), Councillor J Taylor (Vice Chair),
                           Councillor Ferrier

     OFFICIALS:            R Baker, L Coe, V Flynn, R Long, J McNaughton, S Rigg and D Turley

     **ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: CASE NO. 1 – Mr J Campbell (Objector)
                            CASE NO. 2 – Appellant did not attend.

     APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors McIntyre, Sanderson and
     N J Walker

     **DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: No declarations made at this point of the meeting.

     INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURE

     The Chair opened the meeting, introductions were made and all present were reminded of the
     procedure to be followed.

     The Head of Legal and Democratic Services proposed that, as this was a departure from the
     normal complaints procedure, at the end of the discussion, the Objector and officers were to be
     invited to wait outside the meeting, then be recalled and informed immediately of the
     Committee’s decision, rather than wait seven days for the written response.

     Agreed.

     **MINUTES

     The Minutes of the meeting of the Complaints and Appeals Committee held 23 March 2004 were
     submitted and accepted as a true record.


CASE NO. 1

     Summary of the Appeal

     The Director of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed with the Objector that he had no
     written documentation to present to the committee. As this was an objection against a Traffic
     Regulation Order, it was explained that the procedure would be that the officer would present his
     report, the objector would be invited to explain his objection to the traffic regulation order then
     the officer would be invited to respond. Members would then consider the report and objection
     and determine the issue.

     It was confirmed that the main basis of the objection referred to the installation of a traffic
     calming road hump in Amesbury Crescent, forming part of a 20 m.p.h. zone in the Aviemore
     Road area of Hemlington.

     CASE FOR THE COUNCIL

     The Lead Officer presented a report on behalf of the Head of Transport and Design Services.
     The purpose of the report was to allow Members to give consideration to an objection received
     against the council’s intention to construct a road hump associated with the proposed Aviemore
     Road 20 m.p.h. zone.

     As background, Members were advised that the Aviemore Road 20-mph zone was approved by
     the Executive Member for Liveability and Environment in February 2004. Local Ward
     Councillors were also informed of that decision. Following the legal notice of intent, an objection
     was received from Mr J Campbell of 7 Amesbury Crescent, on the following grounds:-


                                                  1
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\840c132a-4adf-49bc-af90-0a5e22ddefdf.rtf
     Complaints and Appeals Committee                                                      20 July 2004


     a)        that section of Amesbury Crescent was a cul-de-sac and did not have a problem with
               speeding traffic
     b)        there was no reason to install the road hump
     c)        it was not wanted by local residents
     d)        it was a waste of council resources
     e)        there was a lack of consultation.

     The officer explained that he had written to the objector and visited his property to discuss the
     proposal but Mr Campbell did not wish to withdraw his objection.

     In response to the above objections, the council’s response was as follows:-

     a)        the cul-de-sac in question was 150 metres long and there was only one road hump
               positioned mid-way along its length
     b)        the Aviemore Road area was selected for Traffic Calming due to demand from residents
               and local Ward Councillors concerned about road safety and speeding problems
     c)        although Mr Campbell claimed that these measures were not wanted by residents, the
               Public Consultation exercise had indicated that 92% supported some form of traffic
               calming and 68% fully supported the proposals.
     d)        the introduction of 20 mph zones were nationally recognised as providing both road
               safety and environmental improvements
     e)        a full consultation process was undertaken for this scheme.

     A copy of the information leaflet and survey form was produced for Members’ information.
     Members were advised that a specially convened Community Council meeting had taken place,
     at the outset of the procedure. Following that, a week-long public consultation exercise had
     taken place, when 600+ leaflets were distributed, of which 125 were returned and of those, 92%
     supported the proposals. Plans of the proposals were also displayed in the local public library.

     In summary, the officer stated that all procedures had been followed correctly and that the traffic
     calming measures were considered necessary as a road safety measure.

THE OBJECTOR’S RESPONSE

     Mr Campbell’s first point was that the consultation leaflet indicated that is was for Aviemore Road
     and not for the rest of the area. He stressed to Members that he did not oppose the 20-mph
     zone, only the road humps. He stated that the main value is the contribution they make to the
     prevention of road accidents, especially where speeding was an issue. He added, however,
     that he had lived in Amesbury Crescent for 27 years and there had never been the same
     problem with speeding as there was in Aviemore Road. He also claimed that the residents most
     directly affected by the road humps should have been consulted separately and this was not
     done. He also claimed that public notices were not placed in the vicinity as required by law.


     Mr Campbell reaffirmed that his objection was to the road humps and not the 20-mph zone. He
     referred to road humps already in place in the area and commented that he thought they were
     positioned inappropriately, caused flooding and were improperly used in that local children used
     them as ramps for skateboarding. He added that in snow conditions, they would be hidden and
     be an extra hazard. He concluded that there appeared to be no grounds for the installation of the
     road humps.

     RESPONSE

     The engineer responded as follows:-

         road humps were introduced to slow down traffic and assist pedestrians and were so
          positioned as to avoid private driveways
         there should be no drainage problems as a result and the problem mentioned would be
          investigated



                                                      2
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\840c132a-4adf-49bc-af90-0a5e22ddefdf.rtf
     Complaints and Appeals Committee                                                       20 July 2004

        public notices were attached to lamp posts in the vicinity of the road humps by Streetscene
         Services, were checked on a weekly basis and replaced if lost
        with regard to the skateboarding, Aviemore Road is on an incline so it is likely they would be
         attracted there anyway
        local residents would know the position of the road humps and would slow down in snowy
         conditions. There had been no other reported problems concerning snow and road humps.

DISCUSSION

     General discussion took place and Members asked questions of the objector and the lead officer
     regarding the consultation exercise, the design of the leaflet and map employed for that purpose,
     the number of replies from occupants in Amesbury Crescent (18, all but three agreeing to the
     proposals)

     The Chair requested that both the officer and the objector sum up their representations.

     ** At this point, the Objector and Officers left the room, to allow Members to discuss the objection
     and reach a decision.

     Members were advised that the first point to consider was the decision by Transport and Design
     Services to install traffic calming measures. The second point to consider was whether the
     proper consultation procedure had been followed and that the leaflet did not mislead the local
     residents.

     The objector and officers were recalled to the meeting room to hear the decision.

     DECISION

     Members agreed that the objection was not upheld as the majority of the people who
     responded to the consultation exercise were in favour of the proposed traffic calming
     measures and therefore the construction of the road hump be allowed to proceed.

     (The objector and lead officers left the meeting at this point).

CASE NO. 2

     (Two Housing Officers joined the meeting).

     However, after a wait of ten minutes, the Appellant was not present. In response to a telephone
     call to the Appellant’s home, the officer was advised that the Appellant had taken her child to the
     doctors and would not be attending the meeting.

     The Director of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the hearing of her case should be
     deferred and she was written to and advised of a revised date for the hearing.

     Agreed that the hearing of Case No. 2 be deferred to allow the Appellant to appear in
     person.




                                                  3
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\840c132a-4adf-49bc-af90-0a5e22ddefdf.rtf