Neighbourhoods Cabinet Member – Minutes – 5 January 2016
28 (28) PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL TRO – NORTHFIELD COTTAGE, MESSINGHAM – The Director of Places submitted a report considering a proposal to introduce an Experimental ‘Prohibition of Motor Vehicles’ Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) to the southern section length of the access road to Northfield Cottage.
The owners of Northfield Cottage had contacted the council on numerous occasions over a number of years with regard to anti-social issues outside of their property.
The council was minded to try and assist initially with an ETRO which would allow the erection of a temporary gate across the current tarmac area for a period of 18 months. Thereafter, a more permanent solution could be implemented. Officers would investigate any objections raised during the 18 months experiment period. These could result in the withdrawal of the Order completely or some variation to the original details.
Resolved – That the introduction of the ETRO, as set out in the report and Appendix 2 to the report, subject to the property owner meeting all associated costs in full, be approved.
29 (29) SPEED LIMIT REVIEW AMENDMENT NO 6 VARIOUS SPEED LIMITS – The Director of Places submitted a report considering an objection received by the council to the proposed speed limit changes in North Lincolnshire.
The council had reviewed the speed limits on all A and B roads in North Lincolnshire. The review had followed the guidance set out in the Department for Transport Circular 01/06 “setting local speed limits”. The Department for Transport had recently issued updated guidance aimed at achieving consistency in the approach to setting speed limits across the country.
The section of the B1430, The Avenue between Burton upon Stather and Normanby was originally assessed as suitable for a 50mph speed limit. Following further complaints regarding speeds in both Burton and Normanby, officers have further reviewed the speed limit. Using the new guidance, the speed limit review team considered that a lower limit of 40mph was now appropriate for this section of road.
This order was previously advertised in June of this year as part of amendment 5. At that time the council did not receive any objection from Burton upon Stather Parish Council to the lower limit of 40mph.
The Parish Council had subsequently received complaints regarding speeds into and out from Burton upon Stather. As such, they now did not support the 40mph limit.
Resolved – (a) That the order be upheld and its introduction authorised, and (b) that officers write to the objector advising them of the decision.
30 (30) SKIP FRAMEWORK ARRANGEMENT – The Director of Places submitted a report informing the Cabinet Member of proposals to consolidate all skip requirements into a single framework arrangement.
The council used a significant number of skips to provide services to residents at the Household Recycling Centre (HRC) sites and to support its internal service teams.
The council had historically used a skip framework arrangement to meet the needs of the internal service teams (Highways, Environment Team). Other requirements for provision of skips and the disposal or processing of the waste or recycling collected had been serviced via individually tendered arrangements, due their high value.
Most skip services were procured in accordance the requirements of the council’s Contract Procedure Rules (CPR). The remainder were emergency arrangements implemented when the council took back in-house the HRC sites in 2012. New arrangements were need to be put in place to procure these in accordance with current CPRs.
Resolved – That the intention to pursue Option 2, as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report, that all the council’s skip requirements be amalgamated into one single procurement exercise, be approved.
31 (31) AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY MUTUAL AID PROVISION (SPORTS GROUND SAFETY) – The Director of Places submitted a report seeking approval to sign up to a mutual aid agreement with the East Midlands Chairs of Safety Advisory Groups Group (EMSAG) to share resources in an emergency relating to visitor safety at the council’s designated sports ground.
The council regulated visitor safety at Glanford Park, through a safety certificate issued by its Safety Advisory Group (SAG). This was required under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Fire Safety and Safety at Sports Grounds Act 1987.
To share knowledge, experience and best practice and provide a broader perspective of SAG activity the council were a member of EMSAG. Members of EMSAG included councils from South Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.
EMSAG had developed a mutual aid agreement. Members could share resources under it in the case of an emergency, for example where technical skills and competence was not available. The council had been invited to sign up to the agreement.
Members of EMSAG had reviewed the document, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, and agreed it in principle. It set out arrangements and conditions under which help could be requested.
Resolved – (a) That the proposal for the council to participate in the mutual aid agreement for the sharing of resources in relation to Sports Ground Safety be approved, and (b) that the Director of Places be authorised to sign the mutual aid agreement on behalf of the council.
32 (32) ASBESTOS DISPOSAL FOR HOUSEHOLDS – The Director of Places submitted a report seeking approval of an extension to the current scheme for the disposal of asbestos from households.
Asbestos was classed as hazardous waste and the handling of asbestos required strict control. The council had a legal duty to provide an asbestos disposal service for residents. A disposal facility was provided at the Scunthorpe Household Recycling Centre site.
In July of this year, the Cabinet Member approved new conditions for the scheme (minute 4 refers). This allowed disposal of up to 20kgs of bonded white asbestos (chrysotile) in one bag provided by the council on up to two occasions per year.
The proposed extension to the scheme would allow further disposal under the same conditions but on a cost recovery basis to ensure that the council was not financially disadvantaged.
Resolved – That Option 2, set out in the report at paragraph 3.2, to offer additional disposal capacity for residents for bonded white asbestos from their households on a chargeable basis, be approved.