Issue - items at meetings - Monitoring Access Scrutiny recommendations

10.1 The Head of Highway Operations introduced the report updating Members on the progress against the recommendations of the Street Access Issues scrutiny review, and outlining the work of the Enforcement team in areas where there are statutory requirements (eg skips and scaffold licensing) and others where the need was identified, such as removal of abandoned bicycles.

10.2    During 2010-2011, there was quite a high level of compliance with A-board policy. Only four A-boards were confiscated following the issue of 84 warning letters. A universal advertising sign was being considered for one area in a design that fitted in with existing pedestrian wayfinding monoliths

10.3  It was clarified that Equalities implications at paragraph 5.3 should read ’The Council seeks to ensure that public highways are used in a manner that maximises the benefit to the most number of users.  However in the busiest areas of the city competing interests can come into conflict. It is the council’s responsibility to manage these interests and to ensure equality of access particularly for those with mobility issues.’

10.4 Councillors commented that the issue was an important one especially for disabled people and recognised the difficulties of monitoring compliance with policy.

10.5 Answering questions, the Head of Highway Operations assured Members that complaints and reports were kept on record. At present overgrown vegetation and over-spilling builders’ materials were of particular concern to residents.

10.6The Head of Highway Operations replied she did not anticipate a reduction in income from A-board licensing. Licensing zones were expanding and there had been an increase in applications for tables and chairs. Fees were put towards Highways enforcement monitoring and a vacant post had now been filled.

10.7 Disabled people giving evidence had a range of views about street access.  Some, particularly those with sight problems did not necessarily like pedestrianised space if there were a lot of obstacles to navigate round. They pointed out that barriers to movement included not only A-boards but cars parked on dropped kerbs and shops without ramps. Clear straight corridors were preferred.

10.8 Street clutter could indeed be very disruptive and difficult to negotiate. Objects such as bike racks, lampposts and signs plus utilities’ equipment, were all necessary but the Council has a policy to reduce this wherever possible.

10.9 Parking or even driving on pavements included a number of different restrictions and definitions of what constitutes an obstruction and contraventions. Such driver behaviour can be difficult to enforce against. For example there are many unmarked private forecourts and historical rights of way that would not now necessarily be granted.

10.10 A trial programme of marking table and chair placements had started and was anticipated to be finished by October. All sites were being measured and conditions incorporated into new licences.

10.11 RESOLVED: that no further tracking reports relating to this scrutiny review are needed, unless trigger by a significant indicator, such as an increase in the number of complaints about highways obstructions.