Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Tuesday, 17th March, 2009 at 6.30 pm, at the Town Hall, Morecambe. Agenda Part 1 (Open to Press and Public) 1. Apologies 2. Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests

Members are asked to consider any Personal/Prejudicial Interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in relation to matters under consideration on the Agenda.

3. Minutes of the Meeting held on 20th January 2009 (Copy attached) 4. New Constitution

(Report attached)

Discharge of Delegated Powers 5. Lancashire Local Grant Applications

(Report attached) 6. Small Grants to Voluntary Organisations and Project Grants to

Young People (Report attached) 7. Proposed Disestablishment of School Crossing Patrol, (Point B18)

Bowerham Community Primary School, Greaves Road, Lancaster (Report attached)

8. Proposed 'No Waiting At Any Time', Collingham Park, Lancaster -

Consideration of objections (Report attached)

9. Proposed Prohibition of Waiting, At Any Time, Hampson Lane,

Ellel - Consideration of Objections (Report attached)

10. Highways Services Budget 2009/10

(Report attached) 11. Street Lighting Carbon Reduction Programme 2009/10

(Report attached)

Other issues for consideration 12. Proposed Closure of Hornby High School

(Report attached) 13. Pedestrian Priority Programme 2009/10 (Report attached) 14. Residents Parking Schemes – Proposed Process (Report attached) 15. Speed Limit Review of 'A' and 'B' Roads in Lancashire (Report attached) 16. Capital and Revenue Programmes for the Maintenance,

Assessment and Strengthening of Bridges and Other Highway Structures 2009/10

(Report attached) 17. Branksome Area, Morecambe – Proposed 20mph Zone (Report attached) 18. Winter Service (Gritting) in Lancaster 2008/09 (Report attached) 19. Allocation of Playbuilder Grant Funding in Lancashire 2009/10 (Report attached) 20. Customer Access – Face to Face Strategy (Report attached) 21. Local Children's Trust Partnership - Lancaster District (Report attached) 22. Prevention Fund Grant Allocation to Local Children's Trust

Partnerships (Report attached) 23. Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders (Update) (Report attached) 24. Dates of Future Meetings (Report attached) 25 Urgent Business

26. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on 21st April 2009 at 6.30pm at the Town Hall, Lancaster. I M Fisher County Secretary and Solicitor County Hall Preston

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting held on Tuesday 20th January 2009, at 6.30 pm in the County Chamber at the Town Hall, Lancaster. Minutes Present:-

County Councillor Liz Scott (Chair)

Lancashire County Council

County Councillor Susie Charles County Councillor Chris Coates County Councillor Peter Elliot

County Councillor Sarah Fishwick County Councillor Niki Penney

Lancaster City Council

Councillor Eileen Blamire Councillor Ken Brown*

Councillor Roger Dennison* Councillor Tony Johnson Councillor Andrew Kay

Councillor Stuart Langhorn Councillor Roger Plumb*

Councillor Bob Roe Councillor Roger Sherlock Councillor John Whitelegg

*Note: Councillors Ken Brown, Roger Dennison and Roger Plumb attended as substitutes for Councillors John Barnes, David Kerr and Malcolm Thomas.

Apologies were received from County Councillors Janice Hanson, Tony Jones, Albert Thornton and Jean Yates and Councillors John Barnes, Malcolm Thomas and Andrew Kerr... Public Participation The Chair explained that whilst Lancashire Local meetings were not public meetings, but business meetings to jointly deal with the business of the County Council in a public setting, it was the practice to facilitate public involvement before the transaction of formal business by the Members of the Lancashire Local by inviting comments/question on matters included on the

agenda. A thirty minute period was set aside for this, with no person being allowed to speak for more than three minutes. The Chair then invited contributions from the floor on matters on the agenda. All members of the public spoke in respect of the item on the consultation on the closure of Hornby High School. Caroline Jackson – Head Teacher She had worked in the area for 16 years and stated that Hornby High School was making an excellent contribution to education in Lancaster. The school was not a ‘special school’ but caters for pupils with special educational needs. The District needs Hornby High School. Jennifer Smethurst – Assistant Head Teacher She felt that the fall in the number of pupils at the school was the County Council’s fault. The school had not been given enough time to build up the number of pupils attending the school. One of the reasons for poor exam results was down to the fact that the Head of Maths had left the school due the uncertainty. Clive Elliot – Head of English There was local support in the District for the school. The consultation in 2007 there were over 800 names in support of the school and over 1500 have been received so far during the current exercise. Why do parents send their children to Hornby High School – because they make extremely good progress. Pupils were sitting GCSE’s 6 months early. The school serves the needs of the community. Ann Prescott – Learning Manager Year 9 pupils are offered the chance to sit their GCSE’s early. She also raised issues surrounding Horticulture, Rural Studies and the Land Based Diploma as the school is based on a rural community. Mr Bowers – Parent He stated that he had 3 children who attend Hornby High School who used to go to another school in Lancaster The teachers at Hornby have had a tremendous influence on them and they are receiving the best education possible. Do not take this opportunity away from them. You have got to back the school. Mr Uddin – NUT District Secretary You have got to support the school as it is part of the District’s future.

Kim Barden – Teacher The County Council states ‘A place where everyone matters’, but this principle is not happening at Hornby. She also referred to the cost of re-schooling and implications on good exam results. Mary Winter – Teacher She stated that she was the longest serving teacher at the school and had never been tempted to leave. It is a small school and its very size made it special. If you take away Hornby High School you take away something special. Clare Hannah She explained that not enough emphasis had been put on the CVA figures and the fact that the school caters for pupils with ‘special needs’. Pat Quinton- Govenor - Lune Valley Federation The Govenors were keen to keep the school open. Staff could have left the school 2 years ago when all the uncertainty began. Year 10 was the largest year group and they were half way through their GCSE’s. More than 25% of the pupils have come from other schools in the District – is closure good for their education. Think seriously about the schools closure – it should not happen. Mr Pritchard – Pupil I am a year 10 pupil – keep it open. He referred to the school motto- small school big difference. Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests Councillor Stuart Langhorn declared a personal and non prejudicial interest in respect of Item No 9 – Consultation on the Closure of Hornby High School as a member of the NUT. Councillor Roger Plumb declared a personal and non prejudicial interest in respect of Item No 9 – Consultation on the Closure of Hornby High School as he was a teacher in the area. Minutes of the meeting held on 2nd December 2008 Councillor Stuart Langhorn asked whether a meeting held between County Councillor Vali Patel, Cabinet Member for Schools and other County Councillors prior to the last meeting of the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District formed part of the meeting of the Local. Councillor Langhorn was informed that it did not.

Councillor Langhorn also indicated that his apologies had not been recorded in the Minutes. 73. Resolved:- That, subject to Councillor Langhorn’s apologies being recorded, the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2nd December be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. Lancashire Local Grant Applications A report was presented in relation to two applications totalling £465.25 under the Local Grants Scheme. The applications had been submitted by County Councillors Albert Thornton and Niki Penney. 74. Resolved:- That approval be given to:-

(i) a grant of £225.25 to The Rainbow Beach Collective– application submitted by County Councillor Albert Thornton;

(ii) a grant of £240 to Chatterbox Community Group - application

submitted by County Councillor Niki Penney. Small Grants to Registered Voluntary Organisations and Project Grants to Young People A report was presented which outlined the work of the Lancaster and Morecambe Youth Council and Youth Bank in approving registrations and awarding grants to voluntary youth groups registered with the Lancashire Young People's Service. The process was established by Lancashire Locals – Lancaster District as the mechanism by which it could involve young people in the democratic process of allocating project grants. 75. Resolved:- That the report be noted and the grants to small voluntary organisations as recommended by the Lancaster and Morecambe Youth Council, Lancaster and Morecambe Youth Bank and Lancashire Local – Lancaster District representatives, and as set out in Appendix ‘A’ to the report now presented, be approved. Beaufort Road, Morecambe, Lancaster District: Proposed Prohibition of Waiting Restriction Lancashire Local – Lancaster District considered a report setting out details of objections received in respect of a proposal to extend the existing ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions in Beaufort Road, Morecambe at its junction with Farnlea Drive. This was deemed a Key Decision and was included in the Forward Plan. 76. Resolved:- That having considered the proposal to extend the existing ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions in Beaufort Road, Morecambe, at its junction with Fernlea Drive, as identified on the plan at Appendix ‘C’ to

the report, together with the objections received to it and the comments of the County Council’s Acting Executive Director of Environment, the amended proposal of a ‘No Waiting 8am to 4pm, Monday to Friday’ be approved and introduced. Consultation on the Proposed Closure of Hornby High School Stephen Mercer, School Policy and OPS Manager, Lancashire County Council presented a report which informed Lancashire Local – Lancaster District that in spring 2008, the governing bodies of Skerton High School and Hornby High School agreed that the schools should form a federation, with a single Governing Body responsible for both schools. The hope was that by bringing the schools closer together and sharing their resources it would be possible to keep both the schools open and meet the needs of the pupils and local communities served by the schools. Both schools had seen the numbers of pupils on roll reduce in the last few years, and in 2007 Lancashire County Council consulted on the possible closure of the schools. As a result of the federation proposal, no firm decisions on the future of the schools were made, and the County Council agreed to allow time for the federation proposals to be explored. Lancashire County Council had also continued to monitor trends in pupil numbers and the performance of the schools, and on 23 December 2008 a report was considered by the Cabinet Member for Schools. The report referred in particular to two recent developments. The first, called the "National Challenge", which was a government programme intended to ensure that by no later than 2011 at least 30% of the pupils in every secondary school achieved at least 5 GCSEs at grades A*-C, including English and Maths. Although pupils, staff and governors had worked very hard to raise standards, Hornby High School performed below this 30% benchmark in 2007 and 2008, with 17% of pupils at Hornby achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C including English and Maths in 2008, down from 28% in 2007. The second development concerned pupil numbers. These had fallen further since 2007, and for September 2009 only eight parents had identified Hornby as their first preference school. In these circumstances, the Cabinet Member for Schools agreed that Lancashire County Council should recommence the review of the future of Hornby High School, with a view to the possible closure of Hornby High School from 31 August 2009. Further details of the proposals were set out in the consultation document which was attached at Appendix 'A' to the report. Supplementary information in the form of questions that parents, staff, governors and others might have about the proposals was attached at Appendix 'B'.

Members of Lancashire Local – Lancaster District raised many concerns, mainly in respect of:-

• the National Challenge and CVA criteria • falling roles at the school • the capital assets of the buildings including the swimming pool • the position of Skerton High School if Hornby closes • the recommendations of a City Council Task Group not being taken

into account • staffing issues • the consultation process not taking account of the procedures set out in

the Parish and Town Council Charter • the timetable for the decision making process was rushed • the fact that Hornby High School leads the way on the Land Based

Diploma • that this decision will effect the local community as a whole

These issues were responded to in detail by Stephen Mercer and the Local were informed that further consultation meetings were being held during January and that all responses should be submitted by 30th January 2009. 77. Resolved:- 1. That Lancashire Local – Lancaster District does not support the closure of Hornby High School. 2. That in disagreeing with the closure of Hornby High School the Local highlights the following reasons for its disagreement:-

a) There is no evidence that parents of pupils who attend the school believe that Hornby High School is a failing school

b) Hornby High School’s contextual value added score is outstanding placing it as one of the top schools in the county

c) The National Challenge criteria could be met this year. It is expected that that the County Council would point out to the School’s Minister the context of Hornby High School in a selective system and the outstanding achievements of individual pupils

d) No evidence has been provided to support the view that closing Hornby High School will raise standards in the District or raise standards for individual pupils

e) The potential of partnership working between Hornby High School and other schools and colleges has still not been allowed to mature. It was a recommendation of Lancaster City Council and the Lune Valley Federation should be supported.

f) The fall in pupils applying to Hornby High School can be placed within the context of the County Council’s attempt to create an academy in the District. There has also been a fall in number at the other schools mentioned in the proposal last year as a result of the County Council’s rise in bus fares. In effect the fall in pupil numbers has been increased by the County Council’s actions.

g) Any extra funds released by the closure of Hornby High School would not follow its pupils to other schools and would not even be spent on District 1 schools alone.

h) Lancaster City Council found evidence to support the conclusion that parents were very supportive of the curriculum offered at Hornby High School. Instead of feeling that the curriculum had been reduced they felt it was better able to meet their children’s needs

i) Hornby High School’s budget is not currently in deficit – if pupil numbers increase it would face no financial problems

j) A specialist status for Hornby High School, taking into account its experience could be pursued as an alternative to closure

k) No questions have been asked about why parents choose to send their children to Hornby High School instead of taking up places in schools which are geographically nearer to them. There is no evidence to suggest they would fill these places if Hornby High School was to close

l) The largest year group at Hornby High School is Year 10 – this year group would be the one most seriously affected by the proposed closure. There is no guarantee they would be able to continue with the same course at a new school

m) It is not clear whether the staff at Hornby High School would be transferred to another school in District 1

n) The issue of pupil leakage out of the District has not been addressed 3. In regard to the consultation document Lancashire Local - Lancaster District considers it to be flawed in respect that:- a) contextual value added figures are missing b) No data is provided for the number of secondary aged pupils in

the District – compared to the numbers actually in the secondary schools

c) The County Council broke its own consultation protocol with

Parish Council’s by not giving them 6 weeks to respond

d) The decision to consult could have been made at an earlier date – ie not to clash with the Christmas break and thus causing undue anxiety to staff, parents and pupils

4. Lancashire Local – Lancaster District requests that Lancashire County

Council’s Overview and Scrutiny look at the consultation on the closure of Hornby High School and consider whether procedures and best practice have been followed

5. If Lancashire County Council’s Cabinet decide to ignore the decision of

this Local and close Hornby High School – An item be placed on each agenda of this Local so that the closure can be monitored

Lancaster District Sustainable Community Strategy A report was presented which informed Lancashire Local – Lancaster District that the Lancaster District Sustainable Community Strategy had received approval from all the partners of the Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership. The report updated the Local in regard to the scope, activity and priorities in the Strategy. 78. Resolved:- 1. That the report be noted. 2. That the Lancaster District Sustainable Community Strategy be reviewed at the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District on a quarterly basis. Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders – Update A report was presented that detailed the current stage of progress of pending permanent Traffic Regulation Orders for the Lancaster District. With regard to Item No 62 ‘Waiting Restrictions on Hampson Lane, Ellel’, County Councillor Susie Charles was informed the proposal had been agreed on 12th January 2009 as no objections had been received. She informed the Local that she had submitted an objection to the proposal and would take the matter up with the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development. 79. Resolved:- That the report be noted. Proposed Programme for Extending Horse Use of Multi-User Paths in the Lancaster and Morecambe Area A report was presented which outlined a programme for extending horse use of multi-user paths in the area and set out the liability issues of allowing horse use of the Millennium Bridge if the bridge parapets, which were less than the national recommended height for bridleway bridges were not raised.

80. Resolved:- That the proposed programme of extending horse use on multi-user paths, including the Millennium Bridge, as set out in the report now presented, be agreed. Transforming Adult Social Care in Lancashire to deliver Personalisation A report was presented on the realignment and restructure of the County Council's Adult and Community Services Directorate to establish separate commissioning and personal social care functions within the Directorate. The report provided an outline of the role and responsibilities of the new commissioning and personal social care functions and an update on progress in establishing the new structure, within the context of the social care reform agenda. It also provided contact details for key members of the management teams of Commissioning and Personal Social Care. Through the adoption of a project management model, the directorate would gradually change its systems, processes and procedures to accommodate individual budgets, but more importantly would develop a strong communication and involvement strategy to ensure input from a wide range of partners, stakeholders, service users and carers. The cultural challenge in moving to a model of greater shared risk and responsibility meant it was crucial that there was a greater shared understanding of the why, what and how of personalisation across the whole of Lancashire. This would require a different skill mix for the workforce in personal social care, with a re-aligning of the structure to secure a more generic, person-centred approach, whilst also creating additional capacity for commissioning to develop a comprehensive commissioning framework that would deliver the agenda detailed above. A series of task groups were underway across both frontline delivery of personal social care and commissioning to lead the change towards personalisation. 81. Resolved:- 1. That the report be noted. 2. That further reports be submitted to Lancashire Local – Lancaster District on a quarterly basis. Urgent Business Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding National Beauty Lancashire Local – Lancaster District were informed that the statutory management plan for the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) had been reviewed to produce a new plan for the area for the period 2009-2014. The new plan would directly affect the landscape and rural communities of the area by influencing the policy, actions and priorities of partner organisations. A draft management plan had been produced and was made available for formal consultation during September, October and November 2008, to be formally adopted by partner local authorities in March 2009.

82. Resolved:- That the report be noted. Date of Next Meeting 83. Resolved:- That the next meeting of Lancashire Local-Lancaster District be held on Tuesday, 10th March 2009 at 6.30 pm at a venue to be confirmed. I M Fisher County Secretary and Solicitor County Hall Preston

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17th March 2009

Part I - Item No. 4

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

New Constitution Contact for further information: Paul Smith, Lancashire County Council – Office of the Chief Executive. Tel :01772 533425, paul.smith@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report sets out the implications of the new constitution for Lancashire Local – Lancaster District, approved by both Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council. The new constitution for Lancashire Local – Lancaster District is set out at Appendix “A” for information Decision Required Lancashire Local – Lancaster District is asked to :-

1. Note the new constitution 2. Agree to establish a Working Group to draft recommendations to present to a

future meeting of Lancashire Local-Lancaster District with regard to • A formal protocol between the Local and the Lancaster District Local

Strategic Partnership in general, and with the Children's Trust in particular

• A formal protocol between the Local and City Councillors who are not members of the Local

• The approach needed to take forward the delegation to the Local for a District Strategic Plan and Annual Delivery Plan for the Lancashire Young People's Service in Lancaster District

• Pursue further discussions with the County Council on working more closely on complementary service delivery via the Local, with the aim

- 2 -

of having in time tailored the constitution for Lancashire Local Lancaster District to reflect this.

3. Confirm the existing Protocols regarding how the Local engages with -

• Town & Parish Councils in Lancaster District • Young people in Lancaster District • Public participation in the meetings.

Background 1. A new constitution for the Local was approved by both Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council. Lancashire Locals have been in operation in some Districts for four years and in all Districts including Lancaster District. During this period of time a great deal has been achieved in terms of engaging local councillors in decisions on LCC services delivered in their district, influencing wider service delivery to ensure that it meets local need. There has also been some joint working across the county and district councils prompted by Lancashire Locals. The County Council has remained committed to supporting and developing the Lancashire Locals and therefore work has been undertaken to identify the potential for developing the model further. 1.2. A consultation process was undertaken with stakeholders including all Lancashire Locals, District Councils, Parish and Town Councils, Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and the County Council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee. Discussions were held with Cabinet Members, their Executive Directors, and local officers to consider the challenges and opportunities in further development of the committees. A revised constitution was developed following the consultation period and in further discussion with the County Council's Cabinet Members for Community Planning and Partnerships, and Adult and Community Services. 11 districts, including Lancaster District, have Lancashire Locals which take the form of a Joint Committee with equal numbers of County and District Councillors. Only Hyndburn has an Area Committee of the County Council comprising only County Councillors. 1.3. In short, the main additions/changes are:-

• The inclusion of the Lancashire Young People’s service including; o determination of the annual outcomes expected by each district

delivery plan o determination of the resource allocation to each element of the service o recommending proposals for the deployment of Playbuilders Funding o monitoring the delivery of the annual district delivery plan

- 3 -

• Powers to approve highways gating orders and determination of the

construction of cycle tracks in the place of footways. • Approval and monitoring the proposals and priorities of the County’s

Corporate Face to Face Strategy.

• A new provision allowing additions to be made to the powers of the Lancashire local on an ongoing basis,

• Greater flexibility for each Lancashire Local to decide how and when to

engage members of the public in their meetings. • Inclusion of the protocols for engaging young people and parish and town

councils as part of the constitution. 1.4. The discussions have also highlighted that there is potential for the Lancashire Locals to take on an enhanced role in bringing together complementary services between the Districts and County Council which will result in more joined up service delivery at the local level. This was always the County Council's intention when the Lancashire Locals were originally established, but to date has not been fully explored. In response to the recent consultation on the draft constitution there were also indications from a number of Lancashire Locals, including Lancaster, that they would be interested in pursuing this further. Further work is therefore planned by LCC in the New Year to hold discussions with those Districts that wish to pursue this, including Lancaster District. The new provision enables additions to be made to the remit of the Lancashire Locals on an ongoing basis, and following discussions with Lancaster City Council there may be agreement to incorporate further changes to the constitution, reflecting a tailored Lancaster District constitution, to be agreed later this year. 1.5. The new provision also enables discussions with County Council directorates to continue internally, to identify additional delegations over the longer term and ensure that the Lancashire Locals remain relevant in the light of emerging government legislation on neighbourhood level working and community engagement. 1.6. The other significant difference in the new constitution is its emphasis on local priorities and aspirations and the need to strengthen links with district based partnerships such as LSPs. For the shaping and influencing role to be effective locally, the decision on which services are to be selected for influence by each Lancashire Local must be informed by local priorities and aspirations. By focussing in on the local government priorities in the Sustainable Community Strategy, Local Area Agreement, Neighbourhoods Plan (where one exists) and other neighbourhood level plans such as parish plans, local members can combine their specialist local knowledge of the area and develop a programme of work that tackles local issues and aspirations within an agreed framework, which should inform the development of their locality plan.

- 4 -

Although the Locals will now have additional powers, it is emphasised that they are asked to focus attention on the priorities in the Sustainable Community Strategy, and care will be needed to ensure that agenda do not become over-loaded. Implementation Arrangements The revised constitution for Lancaster District Joint Committee, as attached, was adopted by Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council. This will mean that Lancashire Local-Lancaster District constitution is now formally in place. Consultations To accompany the draft constitution a consultation paper was prepared and sent to the Lancashire Locals, District Councils, LSPs, and all Parish Town Councils as well as all members of the County Council, for comment during October. In addition, the County Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee has been consulted. Suggestions received by respondents that could be reflected in the constitution with relative ease, have been. This includes things such as greater flexibility for Lancashire Locals to decide how and when to engage members of the public in their meetings and more references to the role of parish and town councils. However a number of suggestions require further work to be undertaken. This work will be pursued over the coming months and if practicable included in the constitution under the new provision to add to the powers on an ongoing basis. Advice The Local is advised to take forward the actions identified so that the Local can move ahead quickly and effectively to deal with the implications of the new constitution. Alternative options to be considered The Local may wish to consider alternative approaches to take forward the implications of the new constitution. Implications: All of the proposals in this paper comply with, approved policies, budgets and financial regulations of the County Council (as outlined in the draft Lancashire Local constitution). Risk management

- 5 -

The risk of not acting promptly to pick up the new constitutional arrangements will be to miss opportunities to shape local services in Lancaster. Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Directorate/Ext Report to Cabinet Member for Community Planning and Partnerships and Adult and Community Services

29th September 2008

Sarah Parry, OCE, Policy Unit, 30615

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A

Appendix A

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District

Constitution

JOINT COMMITTEE

Section 1

Context and Purpose

Page No.

1

Section 2 Functions (A) General Remit (B) Delegated Powers

3

4

Section 3

Standing Orders

9

Appendix Examples of use of the General Remit

17

1

Section 1 – Context and Purpose Lancashire Local-Lancaster District is a Joint Committee of the County Council and Lancaster City Council. The impact of Lancashire Local-Lancaster District needs to be focused, visible and transparent. As Lancashire Locals bed down across Lancashire, their purpose has crystallised. Lancashire Locals are the County Council’s key vehicle for empowering local County Councillors to:- 1. Determine the design and delivery of local government services through its

delegated powers. 2. Influence the shape of our services at a local level by working jointly with District

Councillors drawing on the knowledge and expertise of Cabinet / Executive Members and Officers in their respective councils and councillors from relevant Parish and Town Councils.

The Local provides a forum through which the County Council can prioritise its resources to best meet local needs and aspirations. Meetings of the Lancashire Local are generally open to the press and public. Parish and Town Councillors, together with local people interested in specific agenda items, are able to have their say before decisions are taken. The Lancashire Local has a strong role to play as a County Council problem solving body for Lancaster. Local problem solving is a key role for councillors as community advocates, and Lancashire Local-Lancaster District can significantly enhance this role. The County and City Councillors on the Lancashire Local have the detailed local knowledge, along with Parish and Town Councillors, that is needed to find realistic solutions to neighbourhood and district community concerns relating to County Council services in Lancaster. The involvement of City Council representatives on the Lancashire Local provides the opportunity to identify local solutions and service improvements for City Council services also, working alongside County Council services. The Local can thus seek to jointly deliver local government service improvements for the residents, businesses and visitors to Lancaster. This means both Councils being proactive in bringing service issues to the Local and seeking to deliver local priorities together. The Lancashire Local will concentrate on the agreed local priorities and targets in the Lancaster Local Strategic Partnership’s Sustainable Community Strategy [ and the Joint County / City Locality Plan] – as far as they involve Lancashire County Council services or closer working between the County and the City. Lancashire Local-Lancaster District will formalise its own specific working arrangements alongside the Lancaster Local Strategic Partnership to agree how best it can support the Partnership and establish a regular dialogue strengthening that relationship. The role and responsibilities of the Lancashire Local sits at arms length from the Local Strategic Partnership, but supports the Sustainable Community Strategy for Lancaster.

2

Lancashire Local-Lancaster District will deliver focused, visible, and transparent outcomes for the residents, businesses, and visitors to Lancaster, in accordance with local priorities and targets relating to local government services.

3

Section 2 - Functions The scope and overall purpose of the Lancashire Local is as set out in Section 1. The general remit of the Lancashire Locals is set out below and the more specific delegated functions are outlined in later sections. (A) General Remit The general remit of the Lancashire Local is:- 1. To exercise those functions delegated to it by the County Council and City Council. 2. To seek solutions to local concerns relating to County Council services. 3. To express views on policy, strategy or other matters specifically referred to it by

the County Council or the Borough/District/City Council including where appropriate the co-ordination of consultation with local stakeholders and communities.

4. To monitor the delivery of the Locality Plan where one exists, and explore

opportunities for joint working between the County Council and the City Council on complementary service delivery where this would bring benefits to local people.

5. To advise the County Council, the City Council and other public

bodies as appropriate on issues of local interest or concern which are brought to its attention by members, Lancaster City Councils’ Area Committees, Parish and Town Councils other bodies and members of the public.

6. To assist the County Council in its response to Government policy in relation to neighbourhoods. 7. Lancashire Local-Lancaster District has the remit to shape and influence any matter

relating to any local County Council service in the district of Lancaster and to discuss any opportunities for a closer alignment of County and City services in the district, for example joint working around regeneration and economic development. When exercising this function, Lancashire Locals are encouraged to select those services for shaping/influencing that are relevant for addressing local issues/priorities specific to the district, as outlined in the Sustainable Community Strategy, and other evidence based data/plans such as Parish Plans. These local government priorities will be incorporated into the annual joint locality plan (where one is to be produced) where it is considered to be a priority for the district in that year. The Appendix attached suggests some of the services that Lancashire Local-Lancaster District may want to consider where their Local Strategic Partnership priorities identify council services as a local priority. This list is not comprehensive and is intended only as a guide.

4

(B) Delegated Powers The services identified below are delegated by the County Council or Lancaster City Council as indicated, for decision making by the Lancashire Local, in accordance with the relevant legislation. In discharging the delegated powers, the Lancashire Local must act at all times within the approved policies, budgets and financial regulations of the Council delegating the functions, and in accordance with Standing Orders at Section 3 of this Constitution. There is set out below a list of the functions that are currently delegated to Lancashire Local-Lancaster District. Additional functions and matters for determination may be delegated to the Local in the future by Lancashire County Council and City Council, which will form part of this Constitution. The Secretary to the Local will maintain a record of all additional delegated functions and will ensure that any such additions are reported to the Local at the next meeting after the delegation takes place. Highways (delegated by Lancashire County Council)

1. Budget Allocation To exercise discretion for the provision of highway authority functions (except winter maintenance) within an annual countywide allocation to be apportioned to each Lancashire Local in accordance with road lengths in their area. 2. Street lighting special maintenance schemes. To determine the priority of street lighting special maintenance schemes within the County Council’s allocated budget. 3. Local Safety Schemes

a) To determine the priority of local safety schemes including walking and cycling proposals where there is more than one such scheme for the District in an approved programme.

b) To determine specific schemes where objections or representations have been received.

4. Crime reduction street lighting schemes

To determine the priority of crime reduction street lighting schemes where there is more than one such scheme in the District in the approved programme. 5. Retaining Walls Strengthening Programmes

To determine the priority of retaining wall strengthening schemes where there is more than one such scheme in the District, in the approved Strengthening Programme.

5

6. Gating Orders To approve the making of Gating Orders under Section 129A of the Highways Act, 1980 pursuant to the Highways Act 1980 (Gating Orders) (England) Regulations, 2006, where objections or adverse comments have been received and after a public inquiry (if any) has been held. 7. Removal of Footways and construction of Cycle Tracks To decide not to provide a footway under Section 66 of the Highways Act, 1980 but instead to approve the construction of a cycle track with a right of way on foot under Section 65 of the Highways Act, 1980. 8. Pavement Cafes To approve applications for licences for pavement cafes. 9. Residents parking schemes To determine specific schemes where objections or representations have been received. 10. Traffic Regulation Orders/Speed Limit Orders To approve the making of Traffic Regulation Orders and Speed Limit Orders where objections or representations have been received. 11. 20mph Speed Limit Zones

a) To determine the priority of 20mph zones where there is more than one scheme in the approved programme for the district.

b) To approve the making of schemes for such zones where objections or

representations have been received 12. Road Humps To determine the establishment of road humps under Section 90A of the Highways Act, 1980 where objections or representations have been received. 13. School Crossing Patrols To review and determine the continuation of a School Crossing Patrol when the current Patrol Officer leaves the service. 14. Car parking Out of any monies which are declared by the County Council both to be surplus in the on street parking account and also available generally to the Lancashire Locals for the purpose of highway improvement projects under s.55(4)(ii) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984 as amended, to determine the priority of such measures within that purpose.

6

15. Pedestrian Crossings

a) To determine the priority for pedestrian crossings where there is more than one in an approved programme for the district.

b) To approve specific proposals where objections or representations have been received.

16. Bus Shelters To determine the locations of bus shelters within the County Council’s responsibility (e.g. on Quality Bus Routes). Waste Management (delegated by Lancashire County Council) To determine the location of household waste recycling centres where there are viable alternative site options. Lancashire Locals Climate Change Fund (delegated by Lancashire County Council) From funds made available by the County Council to consider for approval projects submitted by community and voluntary groups, or Parish Councils, to support local climate change in accordance with the criteria laid down by the County Council. Libraries (delegated by Lancashire County Council) To determine, taking into account the results of consultation undertaken by the County Library Service the pattern of library opening hours together with other appropriate local developments within existing resources. Museums and Heritage (delegated by Lancashire County Council) To determine, taking into account the results of consultation undertaken by the County Museums Service, the pattern of opening hours for the County Museums Service within existing resources. Lancashire Young People’s Service (delegated by Lancashire County Council) 1. Within the national framework and corporate policies, to determine and approve, in

consultation with young people, the priorities and deployment of youth resources (except staffing) within available budgets and oversee a District Strategic Plan and annual Delivery Plan for the Lancashire Young People’s Service, encompassing :-

a) Determination of the annual outcomes expected by the Lancaster District

Delivery Plan.

b) Determination of the resource allocation to each element of the service in Lancaster, and the availability of young people’s provision within the existing service budget and statutory requirements, to best meet the needs of the

7

neighbourhoods, the needs of minority groups and those of vulnerable young people across Lancaster.

2. To recommend proposals for the deployment of Playbuilders’ Funding for Lancaster

district, with particular emphasis on the effectiveness of the partnership arrangements by taking into account the priorities of the local Children’s Trust Partnership for Lancaster

3 To monitor the delivery of the Annual Lancaster District Delivery Plan through:-

a) A six month review of delivery of the Plan. b) Ongoing local problem-solving with the service. c) Ongoing identification of opportunities for closer working between the

Lancashire Young People’s Service and complementary City Council service activities eg – Leisure, Cultural and Arts Services.

4. To work closely with the Lancashire Young People’s Service in order to make

effective the committee’s problem-solving / opportunity seeking remit. 5. To work with young people in Lancaster to establish and monitor a Lancaster

Protocol on engagement with young people, encompassing the allocation of Small/Project Grants and local youth issues generally.

6. To approve Small/Project Grants to youth organisations in accordance with

guidelines issued by the County Council, following consultation with young people. Where the criteria for funding give priority to decisions by young people the outcomes must reflect their conclusions.

Links with Local Children’s Trust Partnership (delegated by Lancashire County Council) To formalise its own working arrangements with the Local Children’s Trust Partnership, as outlined in Section 1, in order to ensure that the Local Trust Partnership and the Lancashire Local play a clear and complementary role in delivering quality local services across all functions delivered by the Children & Young People’s Directorate. Customer Access (delegated by Lancashire County Council) To approve and monitor the proposals and priorities of the County’s Corporate Face to Face Access strategy, in relation to it’s work in the Lancaster District.

A copy of the Protocol regarding engagement with young people, as agreed by the Lancashire Local-Lancaster District at the meeting on **********, is attached as Annex A to this Constitution.

8

Local Grants Scheme (delegated by Lancashire County Council) To consider for approval recommendations from County Councillors for grants to support local groups in accordance with criteria laid down by the County Council. Local Gateway Grants (delegated by Lancashire County Council) To consider for approval applications for Local Gateway funding in accordance with the criteria laid down by the County Council.

9

Section 3 - Standing Orders Membership 1. (i) Membership of Lancashire Local-Lancaster District shall be all local County

Councillors with electoral divisions in Lancaster and an equivalent number of Councillors appointed by Lancaster City Council. At least one City Council member shall be a member of that Council’s Executive. All City Council representatives shall be appointed in accordance with the political balance rules as they are applied to their authority by the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989.

(ii) A person shall cease to be a member if he/she ceases to be a member of the

County Council or a member representing an electoral division in Lancaster district or in the case of a member of the City Council ceases to be a member of that Council or resigns from the Lancashire Local.

(iii) Prior to the meeting, the Secretary must be notified of substitutions for City

Council Members made in accordance with that Council’s normal procedures.

Parish and Town Councils 2. (i) Lancashire Local-Lancaster District shall, in consultation with Parish and

Town Councils in its area, draw up a Protocol to ensure that Parish and Town Councils can engage effectively with the Lancashire Local.

(ii) A representative of a Parish or Town Council may participate at Lancashire

Locals when items are discussed which are specifically concerned with their area.

Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair 3. (i) The Chair, who shall be a County Councillor, shall be elected at the annual

meeting of the Lancashire Local.

(ii) The Deputy Chair, who shall be of a different political group to the Chair, shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Lancashire Local and, wherever possible, shall be a member of the City Council.

(iii) Existing office holders are eligible for re-election.

A copy of the Parish and Town Council Protocol, as agreed by the Lancashire Local-District at the meeting on **********, is attached as Annex B to this Constitution.

10

(iv) The Chair and Deputy Chair shall, unless he or she resigns the office or ceases to be a member of the Lancashire Local, continue in office until a successor is appointed.

(v) The Chair shall not preside at the election of his or her successor if he or she

is a candidate at that election. In those circumstances, the Deputy Chair continuing in office under (iv) above shall preside or if there is no such Deputy, a Chair shall be appointed by the Local for the purposes of conducting the election.

Secretary 4. A nominated representative of the Chief Executive of the County Council shall act

as Secretary to Lancashire Local-Lancaster District and shall be responsible for preparing and circulating agendas for meetings, advising on constitutional matters and for producing the minutes.

Meetings 5. (i) Meetings shall be held in public other than in the circumstances set out in

Standing Order 27. (ii) Meetings shall be held on a six or eight weekly cycle to be determined along

with venues, by the Lancashire Local. (iii) The meeting held in June each year, or if there is no scheduled meeting that

month the first meeting after June, shall be the Annual Meeting of the Lancashire Local-Lancaster District.

(iv) The Chair or in his/her absence the Deputy Chair may call a special meeting

of the Lancashire Local-Lancaster District to consider a matter that falls within its remit but cannot await the next scheduled meeting, provided at least 10 clear working days notice in writing is given to the Secretary.

(v) The Lancashire Local may prepare a Protocol to facilitate the opportunity for

other members of the City Council to participate at Lancashire Locals, but not vote, when items are discussed which are specifically concerned with their ward.

The following Protocol regarding engagement with City Councillors who are not members of the Local was agreed by the Lancashire Local at the meeting on *********.

11

Delegated Powers 6. The delegated powers mean those powers to be discharged by the Lancashire

Local as set out in Section 2(B) of this Constitution. 7. The Lancashire Local-Lancaster District shall discharge the delegated powers,

within the budgetary and policy framework set by the County Council in the case of County functions or by the City Council in the case of its functions.

8. When discharging the delegated powers the Lancashire Local shall take decisions

only after taking into account advice given in writing or orally from relevant Officers of the County Council or of the City Council as appropriate, including legal, financial and policy advice.

Executive and Key Executive Decisions There are particular requirements to be met when the Lancashire Local is exercising delegated powers in respect of executive and key executive decisions, and these are set out below: 9. An executive decision means a decision by the Lancashire Local that has been

delegated to it by the Executive (or Cabinet) of the County Council or of the City Council.

10. Consideration of Key Executive Decisions

(i) A meeting of the Lancashire Local shall be held in public if a decision to be

made at that meeting will be a Key Executive Decision. (ii) A Key Executive Decision shall not be taken by the Lancashire Local unless

the report which it intends to take into consideration has been made available for inspection by the public for five clear working days prior to the meeting.

(iii) Any Key Executive Decision to be taken by the Lancashire Local shall be

included in the monthly Forward Plan of the County Council or of the City Council as appropriate.

(iv) Where the inclusion of a matter in the Forward Plan is impracticable and the

matter would be a Key Executive Decision, that decision shall only be made where:

(a) the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the

County Council or City Council as appropriate, has been informed in writing of the matter about which the decision is to be made;

(b) the provisions of paragraph (ii) above are complied with

(v) Where the date by which an urgent Key Executive Decision must be made makes compliance with paragraph (ii) above impracticable, the decision shall

12

only be made where the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the County Council or the City Council as appropriate, agrees that the making of the decision is urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred.

(vi) The Secretary shall ensure that a copy of a report referred to at paragraph

(ii) above shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, be sent to the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the County Council or of the City Council as appropriate.

(vii) A report referred to in paragraph (ii) above shall include a list of background

papers, and the Secretary shall make available for public inspection a copy of each of the documents on the list of background papers.

(viii) Where an Executive Decision by the Lancashire Local was not treated as

being a Key Executive Decision and the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the County Council or the City Council as appropriate, is of the opinion that the decision should have been so treated the relevant Committee may require the Lancashire Local to submit a report to the County Council’s or the City Council’s Full Council setting out the reasons why the Lancashire Local was of the opinion that the decision was not a Key Executive Decision.

Overview and Scrutiny 11. Executive decisions made by the Lancashire Local are subject to scrutiny by the

County Council’s or the City Council’s relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee (depending on which authority delegated the particular function), including an Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s right under the Local Government Act 2000 to request that an Executive Decision made but not implemented be reconsidered by the decision-taker (often referred to as ‘call-in’).

12. The processes and procedures for the exercise by the relevant Overview and

Scrutiny Committee of their ‘call-in’ function shall be in accordance with the Constitutions of the County Council or the City Council depending on which Authority delegated the executive decision in question.

13. An Overview and Scrutiny Committee shall not exercise the ‘call-in’ function in

respect of an executive decision by the Lancashire Local where that decision has been designated by the Lancashire Local as being urgent in that any delay in its implementation could adversely affect the efficient execution of their responsibilities on behalf of the County Council or the City Council, and provided that the designation and the reasons for it are recorded in the Minutes.

14. Executive decisions made by the Lancashire Local shall be implemented by the

County Council or the City Council as appropriate, in accordance with their respective Constitutions.

The following general provisions apply to the consideration of all matters within the Lancashire Local’s remit.

13

Chairing of Meetings 15. In the absence of the Chair, the Deputy Chair shall preside at the meeting. In the

absence of both, the members present shall, as the first item of business, appoint one of their number who is a member of the County Council to be Chair of the meeting.

Access to Information 16. Items of business may not be considered at a meeting of the Lancashire Local

unless a copy of the item has been open to inspection by members of the public for at least five working days before the meeting (or where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, from the time the meeting is convened). However an item that has not been open to inspection may be considered where, by reason of special circumstances which shall be specified in the Minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

Agendas and Minutes 17. Agendas for meetings of the Lancashire Local shall be dispatched by the Secretary

five clear working days in advance of a meeting, and copies will be made available for public inspection at the designated County and City Council offices, libraries, other local public information points and on the Democratic Information System on the County Council’s Website.

18. Agendas will identify separately matters which are for decision by the Lancashire

Local under delegated powers, and which of those are executive or non-executive decisions.

19. The Lancaster City Council and any Member of the Lancashire Local may suggest

items for inclusion in the Agenda within its remit provided such requests are received by the Secretary at least 10 clear working days in advance of the meeting. It shall then be for the Lancashire Local to determine whether it wishes to receive a report on the matter at a future meeting. Where, in the opinion of the Secretary, the matter requires a more immediate response, it shall be for the Chair and Deputy Chair to determine whether the Lancashire Local should receive a full report at its next meeting.

20. The minutes of a meeting shall be published on the Democratic Information System

as soon as is reasonably practicable, and wherever possible within three clear working days after a meeting at which an executive decision has been made.

Quorum 21. The quorum for any meeting shall be seven members with at least two Members

from each authority. If there is not a quorum of Members, the meeting shall stand adjourned for 15 minutes. If after that time there is still no quorum the meeting shall stand adjourned until a date and time to be fixed by the Chair

14

Members Code of Conduct 22. Members are bound by the Code of Conduct of the authority which appointed them

to the Lancashire Local and should particularly observe the provisions of their respective Codes concerning the declaration of personal and prejudicial interests when attending meetings of Lancashire Locals.

Declaration of Neutrality 23. A Member will be required to declare a position of neutrality when the Lancashire

Local considers formulating a recommendation which will fall to that Member to decide upon in their capacity as a Cabinet Member of the County Council or the City Council.

24. A declaration of neutrality will permit the Member to advise the meeting on any

policy background or other general issues that might assist discussion but he/she shall refrain from indicating his or her intended position on the issue and shall abstain from voting.

Voting 25. All members are entitled to vote and voting shall be by show of hands, and in the

case of an equality of votes the Chair of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.

Members of the public 26. The Lancashire Local will have the flexibility to determine what the mechanisms

should be for the public to participate at meetings including the need to avoid undue influence by a vocal minority. Unless other mechanisms are adopted by the Lancashire Local the following process shall be applied:- Members of the public shall be allowed to speak at each meeting in relation to items on the agenda. Each Lancashire Local will agree how this is best conducted locally. The Lancashire Local will be requested to periodically review their arrangements for public participation, to ensure they remain effective.

The following Protocol regarding public participation was agreed by the Lancashire Local at the meeting on **********.

15

Exclusion of the Press and Public 27. The Lancashire Local may, by resolution, exclude the press and public from a

meeting during an item of business wherever it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure of Exempt or Confidential information as defined by the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.

Urgent Business Procedure 28. The County Secretary and Solicitor may in consultation with the City Council, and

with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Lancashire Local, deal with matters of urgency which cannot await the next meeting and which do not in the view of the Chair and Deputy Chair warrant a special meeting being convened.

Sub-Committees and Working Groups 29. The Lancashire Local may appoint (i) Sub-Committees with power to act to discharge any of its functions, provided:

• they comprise an equal number of Members of the County Council and of the City Council,

• at least one quarter of the Sub-Committee is present at the meeting. (ii) Working Groups which cannot make decisions but may consider specific matters and report back to a future meeting of the Lancashire Local.

Conduct at Meetings 30. The conduct of meetings and the interpretation of these Standing Orders are at all

times a matter for the Chair of the meeting whose ruling is final.

16

ANNEX A Protocol for engaging young people with the Lancashire Local ANNEX B Protocol for Parish and Town Council engagement with the Lancashire Local.

17

Appendix Examples of use of General Remit The Lancashire Local’s General Remit includes a responsibility to shape and influence any matter relating to any local County Council service in the district of Lancaster, and to discuss any opportunities for a closer alignment of local authority services in the district.

This will enable the Lancashire Local to help influence County Council activity generally in Lancaster. The list below is not comprehensive, and offers examples only, which may serve to prompt Lancashire Local-Lancaster District to explore the potential for local service improvement and closer alignment of local authority services in Lancaster district. The local priorities in the District’s Sustainable Community Strategy will be the key determinant of the focus of the Lancashire Local’s attention and as such will form the basis of a joint locality plan where one is to be developed. In many cases this will involve shaping and influencing County Council services not included in the examples below.

Examples of the use of the General Remit Highways 1. Highway Authority Functions

a) Consider and express views on matters relating to the exercise of Highway Authority Functions within the Lancaster area, including performance monitoring, contributing to policy development and assisting in the development of Best Practice.

b) Consider and express views for changes in highway policies and

standards.

2. Local Transport Plan Consider and express views on all matters in relation to the Local Transport Plan, especially social inclusion matters. 3. Highway Special Maintenance Schemes Consider and express views on locations where it is considered that resurfacing or reconstruction of carriageways and/or footways should be included in future programmes of work. 4. Safety Cameras Comment on proposals for ‘community concern’ sites put forward by the local Community Safety Partnership and the locations for proposed fixed camera sites.

18

5. Street Scene Consider and express views around rationalising the street scene, including road signs, road markings, street furniture, lighting, seats, bins, street cleaning, fly posting, graffiti etc, and in particular to influence proposals for traffic management/signing schemes. Traffic Regulation Orders and Speed Limit Orders Make suggestions for future Traffic Regulation Orders and Speed Limit Orders. 20mph Speed Limit Zones Make suggestions for future 20mph Speed Limit Zones IT Public Enquiry Manager (PEM) System Consider reports on the IT Public Enquiry Manager system (e.g. highway defect faults) and express views on changes and/or improvements Public Transport a) Consider and express views on local bus networks and proposed changes in

provision (subject to statutory timescales) b) Consider and express views on local priorities for public transport in terms of

Quality Bus Routes and subsidised bus routes. c) Facilitate closer joint working between the County and the City Council on sharing

information and marketing in respect of public transport. d) Facilitate effective joint liaison arrangements linking the CityCouncil’s regeneration

initiatives to improving access to public transport. e) Consider and express views on local community transport needs. School Travel Plans To review annual programmes of School Transport Plans, to monitor progress on their implementation and encourage local schools to pursue such plans. Environmental Projects To consider and express views on the following: a) The promotion of initiatives to improve the environment of the District, under the

Green Partnership Awards. b) Opportunities for removing derelict, underused and neglected land and to consider

projects that might be supported under the Small Sites Reclamation Programme within Reclamation and Management of Derelict Land in Lancashire (REMADE).

19

c) Proposals for the after-use of major land reclamation schemes under the Reclamation and Management of Derelict Land initiative, managed by the North West Regional Development Agency.

Waste Management Consider and express views on proposed sites for future waste facilities, as part of the Lancashire Waste Management Strategy. Countryside Service To consider and express views on the following a) Future Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan b) The Public Rights of Way Network c) The County Council’s Countryside and Recreation Policy Adult Social Services The Lancashire Local-Lancaster District will have the opportunity to receive annual reports on the following service areas to keep local councillors informed and provide an opportunity to examine and influence services. 1. Partnership Boards

Learning/Disability Partnership Board. Physical Disability/Sensory Impairment Partnership Board Older People Partnership Board

2. Locality Commissioning Plans

The Commissioning Plans for each Adult Social Services client group, i.e. mental health, learning disabilities, physical disabilities and older people. The annual report will contain the plans for expanding existing services, developing new services and decommissioning services over a three year period. Commissioning plans will be reviewed and updated annually. The services typically commissioned are day care, respite care, home care, rehabilitation, residential and nursing home care, and home care support to very sheltered housing.

3. Supporting People The work of the Supporting People Team on activities in the District, including performance information and information on service development and delivery Adult Education Consider and express views on the development of Community learning provision, especially in areas of deprivation

20

Children and Young People To consider and express views on the following. a) the development of District based links for the Every Child Matters Agenda b) School Organisation Reviews/School Place Planning Museums Services Consider and express views on local management arrangements. Asset Management Consider and express views on the development of joint County and CityCouncil asset management and shared facilities, particularly one-stop shops. Community Strategies Monitor and express views on County Council actions identified in local community strategies. Lancashire Local Area Agreement Monitor County Council performance at the District level towards relevant targets in the Lancashire Local Area Agreement.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Electoral Division affected: Morecambe West, Morecambe South, Lancaster South East, Heysham, Skerton, Morecambe South

Lancashire Local Grant Applications Appendices ‘A and B’ Refer Contact for further information: Misbah Bhatti, 01772 530818, Lancashire County Council, Office of the Chief Executive, misbah.bhatti@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report presents 8 applications from local organisations totalling £2,566.30 to the Local Grants Scheme for Lancashire Local – Lancaster District. Applications have been submitted by County Councillors Albert Thornton & Peter Elliott (pooled), Jean Yates (x2), Peter Elliot (x2), Niki Penney, Albert Thornton and Janice Hanson. Appendix B contains details of each application. Decision Required Lancashire Local – Lancaster District is asked to consider the applications set out in Appendix B in light of the information presented. Background Local grants are made under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, which states that “Every local authority are to have power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects:

• the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area, • the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area, and • the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.

Lancashire County Council is committed to ensuring that the distinctive needs and interests of small groups are taken into account as their needs may differ from those of other larger voluntary organisations. Lancashire County Council’s Local Grants Scheme enables each County Councillor to put forward proposals for expenditure in their electoral division. Each County Councillor will have a specific budget which they can spend to enhance the well-being of people who live in their area (division). For

Part I - Item No. 5

- 2 -

the financial year 2008/09 each County Councillor has a budget of £1,250. A maximum of £250 can be carried forward from the 2007/08 allocations to 2008/09 on the basis that it is committed to projects (via the normal approval process) by the end of the 2008/09 financial year. In recommending applications for grants, regard must be had to the Lancashire Partnership’s Sustainable Community Strategy, ‘Ambition Lancashire’, and County Councillors should ensure that approved grants contribute towards the achievement/advancement/promotion of one or more of Ambition Lancashire’s principles Narrowing the gap and Active and Involved Citizens and Communities. Consideration should also be given to the key priorities and themes in Ambition Lancashire. Consultations These applications will be presented to and considered by Lancashire Local – Lancaster District. Advice The applications presented meet the criteria of the Local Grants Scheme. Alternative options to be considered N/A Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder or Other This item has the following financial implications: The requested amounts can be met from the respective County Councillor’s individual local grants budget. (See Appendix A) Risk management No significant risks have been identified in relation to the grant proposals contained within this Report. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers

- 3 -

Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel No N/A

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A

Appendix A Lancashire Local Lancaster District– County Councillor’s Current Budgets 2008/2009

County Councillor Application Requested Amount

Budget remaining from 2007/08

Budget for 2008/2009

Remaining Budget after application is

approved Lancaster & Morecambe Hindu Society (pooled) £100

Albert Thornton Warton Community Recreation Area Committee

£174.75 Zero £274.75 Zero

Lancaster & Morecambe Hindu Society (pooled) £300

Barton Road Community Association £500 Peter Elliott

Moorside Fields Community Association £200

Zero £1,000 Zero

Janice Hanson Friends of West End Primary School £332.43 Zero £332.43 Zero

Heysham St Peter £400 Jean Yates Heysham Methodist

(Garden Scheme) £150 Zero £550 Zero

Niki Penney Skerton Community Association £409.12 Zero £409.12 Zero

Appendix B

1

Applications to be considered for Local Grants, Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Application for Lancaster & Morecambe Hindu Society County Councillor: Albert Thornton & Peter Elliott

Electoral Division: Morecambe South & Lancaster South East

Name of Organisation: Lancaster & Morecambe Hindu Society

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: What geographical area does the project cover: Morecambe, Heysham, Hest Bank, Preston, Lancaster, Ellel, Over Kellett.

Project start and finish date: 21 March 2009 – 21 March 2009 How much funding will the applicant require: £400 (£100 from CC Thornton, £300 from CC Elliott) Total Cost of Project: £900 (approx)

Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes Name: Lancaster & Morecambe Hindu Society Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: Yes 27 March 2008 - £350 towards the costs of celebrations for the Divali festival Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: Yes (however, all children will be accompanied by their parents) Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: The evening will consist of dinner provided by the Preston caterer. There will be a dance, talks by some of the children and a live DJ. How will this project benefit the community? This project will provide the platform for the local community to integrate by coming to enjoy a fun filled, cultural evening allowing individuals to share values and cultural beliefs. As well as this, it also gives the local community an insight and brief introduction of local social facilities.

Appendix B

2

Please provide a breakdown of costs: £400 will go mainly towards the cost of food.

Appendix B

3

Application for Friends of West End Primary School County Councillor: Janice Hanson

Electoral Division: Morecambe West

Name of Organisation: Friends of West End Primary School

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: 32 What geographical area does the project cover: Morecambe West

Project start and finish date: April 2009 – July 2009 How much funding will the applicant require: £332.43 Total Cost of Project: £340

Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes Name: Friends of West End Primary School Amount: Any shortfall Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: No Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: Yes Does the organisation have children or vulnerable adult protection policies in place? Yes Are the appropriate individuals cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau? Yes Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: The money will be used towards developing the garden areas of the school grounds by replanting bulbs/plants/shrubs in the raised beds and large pots. The money will also allow us to start creating planting areas on the Westminster Road side of school. How will this project benefit the community? In an area with very little greenery, the planting which will be carried out mainly by the children, will lift the area aesthetically.

Appendix B

4

Please provide a breakdown of costs: Plants : £80 Bulbs: £50 Shrubs: £100 Planters: £50 Garden Equipment: £60 Total £340

Appendix B

5

Application for Heysham St Peter County Councillor: Jean Yates

Electoral Division: Heysham

Name of Organisation: Heysham St Peter

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: 1 stipendiary & various volunteers What geographical area does the project cover: Heysham

Project start and finish date: 2009 - Ongoing How much funding will the applicant require: £400.00 Total Cost of Project: Annual costs ongoing

Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes Name: PCC Amount: Annual costs as needed Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: No Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: No Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: The money would be used to purchase a heavy duty mower in order to help maintain the Glebe garden within the grounds of St Peter's Church. How will this project benefit the community? The church is visited by thousands of people every year and the garden was created and is used by many of the local residents. Please provide a breakdown of costs: All monies would be used towards the provision of a heavy duty mower.

Appendix B

6

Application for Heysham Methodist (Garden Scheme) County Councillor: Jean Yates

Electoral Division: Heysham

Name of Organisation: Heysham Methodist (Garden Scheme)

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: Unknown What geographical area does the project cover: Heysham

Project start and finish date: Spring 2009 How much funding will the applicant require: £150.00 Total Cost of Project: This is an ongoing project and the total cost is whatever it costs on completion.

Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes Name: Methodist Community Group Amount: Contributing towards a major project to extend the building. No figure available. Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: No Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: No Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: The money will be used to plant shrubs on a recently reclaimed area. How will this project benefit the community? Improve environment in a built up area. Please provide a breakdown of costs: All monies will be used towards the costs of shrubs.

Appendix B

7

Application for Skerton Community Association County Councillor: Niki Penney

Electoral Division: Skerton

Name of Organisation: Skerton Community Association

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: 20 What geographical area does the project cover: Skerton

Project start and finish date: April 2009 – Ongoing How much funding will the applicant require: £409.12 Total Cost of Project: £420

Is anyone else funding the activity: No (group will cover shortfall) Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: Yes 23 January 2008 - £175 towards Provision of lunch for approx 100 people to encourage/promote healthy eating Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: Yes Does the organisation have children or vulnerable adult protection policies in place? Yes Are the appropriate individuals cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau? Yes Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: The money will be used towards the purchase of; 4 x Electric free-standing cookers Kitchen utensils – various Start-up ingredients for cooks club How will this project benefit the community? A healthy eating project to build on the fresh food co-operative aimed at young males – to develop equality and confidence, eventually using self-grown produce when community garden is complete and harvested.

Appendix B

8

Please provide a breakdown of costs: 4x cookers £172.00 1x stew pan £35.00 3x 7" saucepans £18.00 4x casseroles £18.00 3x 9" saucepans £24.00 6x loaf tins £12.00 2x 10" deep pans £30.00 1x knife set £50.00 Chopping boards £8.00 square cake tins £10.00 Baking sheets £8.00 tools (ladles etc) £15.00

Appendix B

9

Application for Barton Road Community Association County Councillor: Peter Elliot

Electoral Division: Lancaster South East

Name of Organisation: Barton Road Community Association

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: 20 What geographical area does the project cover: Lancaster South East

Project start and finish date: ongoing How much funding will the applicant require: £500 Total Cost of Project: £1,000

Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes Name: Community Association Amount: £500 (one-off) Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: Yes 12 March 2008 - £1,000 towards costs of providing three events one of which to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the centre Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: No Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: Cost of a community picnic and fun day to take place on Saturday 27th June at the centre. Providing entertainment and multi-cultural refreshments to people from local communities. This will take place both inside and outside the centre. Fun events will include bouncy castle, face painting and bucking bronco etc. How will this project benefit the community? By providing a family fun event for families from the local communities to attend, enjoy and socialise at and also give them the opportunity to sample various types of food. By providing another opportunity for everyone to visit the centre and find out about the activities that are available there for themselves and families. Please provide a breakdown of costs:

Appendix B

10

Refreshments £200 Hire of equipment (bouncy castle etc) £300 (part cost)

Appendix B

11

Application for Moorside Fields Community Association County Councillor: Peter Elliot

Electoral Division: Lancaster South East

Name of Organisation: Moorside Fields Community Association

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: Main committee of 7, 70+ members What geographical area does the project cover: Lancaster South East

Project start and finish date: August 2008 – December 2009 How much funding will the applicant require: £200.00 Total Cost of Project: £751

Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes (contributions from members of the community) Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: No Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: No Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: If successful, the money will be used to improve access to the disused allotments which lie between Moorside Primary school and Bowerham Tennis Club. How will this project benefit the community? A wildlife conservation area will be created to provide recreation for members of the community and educational opportunities for pupils at the school(s). Please provide a breakdown of costs: 1 x heavy duty loppers @ £56.00 100 hardwood logs @ £50.00 1 x heavy duty strimmer @ £185.00 Adim/Room Hire/Website @ £40.00 20 x Railway sleepers @ £20.00 each Total : £731.00

Appendix B

12

Application for Warton Community Recreation Area Committee County Councillor: Albert Thornton

Electoral Division: Morecambe South

Name of Organisation: Warton Community Recreation Area Committee

Does the organisation have a constitution/other suitable documentation: Yes How many people work in the organisation: Committee of 8 (volunteers) What geographical area does the project cover: Morecambe South

Project start and finish date: October 2008 – End 2009 How much funding will the applicant require: £174.75 Total Cost of Project: £100,000 (approx)

Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes Name: Various Organisations Amount: £27,000 (approx) currently secured Has the organisation previously received funding from the local grants scheme: Yes £300 towards costs of providing better recreational / play areas for children aged 2 - 12 Will the activity involve significant contact with children or vulnerable adults: No Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for: The money will be used towards improving the provision of play facilities in Warton. Providing two fenced areas of play equipment & natural play elements & maintaining a grassed area for ball games & village events. How will this project benefit the community? A need for improved facilities was identified in the 2008 Parish plan – it was felt the lack of appropriate facilities added to youth anti-social behaviour problems. Please provide a breakdown of costs: 2 x six year old area £25,000 6 x fifteen year old area £50,000

Appendix B

13

Landscaping etc £25,000

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 6

Electoral Division affected: Skerton East and West, Morecambe North, Morecambe South, Morecambe West, Poulton, Heysham North, South, Central

Small Grants to Registered Voluntary Organisations and Project Grants to Young People (Appendix 'A' refers) Contact for further information: Mandy Stott, (01524) 581175, Lancashire County Council, Directorate for Children and Young People, Mandy.Stott@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report outlines the work of the Lancaster and Morecambe Youth Council and Youth Bank in approving registrations and awarding grants to voluntary youth groups registered with the Lancashire Young People's Service. Decision Required Lancashire Local – Lancaster District are asked to agree the recommendations made by the Lancaster and Morecambe Youth Council, Lancaster and Morecambe Youth Bank and Lancashire Local – Lancaster District representatives for grants to small voluntary organisations and young people, thereby using all money allocated in this financial year. Background and Advice These grants can be made under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, which states that "Every local authority is to have the power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects:

• the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area; • the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area; and • the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area."

Section 2(4)(b) of the 2000 Act includes a specific power to give financial assistance to any person under the well-being provisions.

- 2 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 6.doc

A sum of money is made available annually for registered voluntary youth groups and project grants to young people:

• to support individual groups or units not supported financially in other ways by the County Council;

• and to support development projects for individual young people. The process was established by Lancashire Locals – Lancaster District as the mechanism by which it could involve young people in the democratic process of allocating project grants. The full amount of the grant money made available in this financial year by Lancashire County Council's Young People's Service, Lancaster District, is £13,956.00. At previous meetings of Lancashire Local – Lancaster District a total of £7,770.00 has been awarded, leaving a balance of £6,186.00. Details of the recent applications received are shown as Appendix 'A' to this report. Lancaster District Youth Council has discussed the requests received and their recommendations for payments are attached in Appendix 'A' to this report. If the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District agree to the recommendations of Lancaster District Youth Council, £6,186.00 will be awarded, thereby using all money allocated in this financial year. Consultations N/A Implications: This item has the following implications: Risk Management Financial: The grant allocation for Lancashire Local – Lancaster District will have money left in the last part of this financial year if the recommendation is not implemented and there are no further Lancashire Local meetings until the new financial year. Crime and Disorder: If the grant is not allocated the activities will not be able to take place and the young people may not continue attending the group and may chose to take part in other activities which may be linked to anti-social behaviour. If the grant is agreed amount recommended along with what they have raised themselves will enable them to take part in the activities. Plus develop their sense of belonging to the group and develop their confidence to go on and organise other activities after this project.

- 3 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 6.doc

Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel No Report to the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District on small grants to voluntary organisations and project grants to young people Appendix 'A' Report to the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District on small grants to voluntary organisations and project grants to young people Appendix 'A'

14 October 2008 20 January 2009

Mandy Stott, Lancashire County Council, 01524 581175 Mandy Stott, Lancashire County Council, 01524 581175

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District APPENDIX 'A' 10 March 2009

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 6 appendix a.doc

INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS – DECEMBER 2008

Young Person Reason for Application Amount Requested

Amount Granted Notes

Young Person No 1 To go towards travellers History of Dance project.

£100.00 £100.00

Young Person No 2 Towards materials to work on individual display of work re: History of Dance in June 2009.

£100.00 £100.00

Young Person No 3 Towards being part of the Travellers History of Dance group in June 2009.

£100.00 £100.00

Young Person No 4 Towards funding the History of Dance Project.

£100.00 £100.00

Young Person No 5 Towards interview learning skills for Travellers History in June 2009.

£100.00 £100.00

This group of individuals are involved in a History of Dance project but do not constitute a formal group so have asked individually for assistance towards their part in the project.

Young Person No 6 Shoes and pedals for racing bike.

£91.48 £100.00 Supporting healthy activity.

Young Person No 7 Towards materials for design course leading to qualification.

£100.00 £100.00 Supporting educational achievement.

Young Person No 8 For a drum machine to support a young band.

£100.00 £100.00 Supporting young music makers.

Young Person No 9 Towards laptop for course work to support and further educational development.

£100.00 £100.00 Supporting educational achievement.

- 2 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 6 appendix a.doc

Young Person Reason for Application Amount Requested

Amount Granted Notes

Young Person No 10 Resources and stationery to take to India on Voluntary Service Overseas placement.

£100.00 £100.00 Helping one young person to help others.

Young Person No 11 Cheer-leading costume and equipment.

£100.00 £100.00 Supporting healthy activities.

Young Person No 12 Dance wear – contemporary dance.

£100.00 £100.00 Supporting healthy activities and education.

Young Person No 13 Equipment required for catering course.

£100.00 £100.00 Supporting educational achievement.

Young Person No 14 Towards purchase of guitar – to develop skills.

£100.00 £100.00 Supporting young music makers.

TOTAL ₤1,400.00

GROUP APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS – DECEMBER 2008

Name of Group Reason for Application Amount Requested

Amount Granted Notes

Salt Ayre Cog Set Towards purchase of equipment for young people's coaching sessions.

£3,000.00

£3,136.00 Happy to support healthy activity attracting lots of young people and promoting cycling for all abilities.

Cycle rack for group use and wheels.

£250.00 £250.00 Support shared equipment/transport costs.

- 3 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 6 appendix a.doc

Name of Group Reason for Application Amount Requested

Amount Granted Notes

Signposts Young people's activities. £4,500.00 £1,000.00 Granted £1,000 previously – bid considered again in this round.

1st Burton Boys' Brigade To purchase expedition equipment.

£900.00 £150.00 Granted 750 previously – bid considered again in this round.

TOTAL £4,786.00 Totals for 08/09 £13,956.00 £1,400.00 Total awarded

previously £7,770.00 £6,186.00 £6,186.00

Total now awarded £6,186.00 Total remaining £0.00 Lancaster District Youth Council recommends awarding the above grants.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 7

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Central

Proposed Disestablishment of School Crossing Patrol, (Point B18) Bowerham Community Primary School, Greaves Road, Lancaster, Lancaster District (Appendix ‘A’ refers) Contact for further information: Alan Fisher, 01772 534663, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate alan.fisher@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Approval is sought to disestablish the school crossing patrol at Bowerham Community Primary School, Lancaster in line with the County Council’s agreed criteria. This point has been subject to a scored assessment (using two counts on different dates) based on agreed criteria for maintaining a school crossing patrol, and on each occasion has been insufficient to enable the continuation of this point. The school has been notified of the results. Lancashire Constabulary has not conducted an appeal count (a final count undertaken for verification purposes) as no appeal request has been received from the school. Decision Required That Lancashire Local – Lancaster District consider the disestablishment of the school crossing patrol at Bowerham Community Primary School, Lancaster, in light of the information contained in this report. Background and Advice The County Council took over the responsibility for the school crossing patrol service from Lancashire Constabulary in 1996. The current budget provision for this service is £1.5m and it was recognised that guidelines were required to ensure some consistency in provision, provide an opportunity for new crossings to be created and enable review of existing ones as appropriate. The County Council agreed the criteria to establish/disestablish all school crossing patrols and this is attached for reference at Appendix ‘A’. The basic criteria for provision of a school crossing patrol is a calculation of the numbers of vehicles and unaccompanied primary age children that cross during the

- 2 -

busiest half hour (the evaluation is conducted over a one hour period spanning the start and finish times of school). This is called the pv2 where p=number of pedestrians and v=number of vehicles. When the formula has been applied, together with any additional adjustment factors which may include sight lines, lighting, junctions, casualty data and other environmental issues at this point, the result based upon national recommendations should equal 4 million with a minimum of 15 unaccompanied children of primary school age crossing to qualify for a crossing patrol. However, in Lancashire the figure used is 2 million, half the nationally accepted figure, and 10 unaccompanied children. The criterion used in Lancashire is significantly more generous than the national recommendations. The crossing patrol at Bowerham Community Primary School, Lancaster has come up for review owing to the post becoming vacant. When a crossing patrol officer retires or resigns it is standard practice to reassess the point to determine if it still meets the County Council’s criteria. This crossing point has been assessed on two occasions, on 8th and 19th September 2008 respectively. The point did not meet the required criteria on either of these occasions. During a site visit by a Road Safety Adviser on 2nd October 2008 observations of traffic, pupils and parents took place and all available adjustment factors were taken into account. A further visit was made by a Principal Road Safety Adviser on 24th November 2008 and all findings were verified. The point scored a pv2 of 6,166,096 but only a maximum of 5 children crossed at the point therefore not meeting the criteria. On one occasion no children were observed crossing. During these observations, it was noted that drivers and children acted appropriately and parents took responsibility for the safety of their children on the journey to and from school. An examination of the recorded casualties within 50 metres either side of this point has been carried out and no child casualties (during school travel times) have been recorded in the last three years. The Local Authority Road Safety Officers’ Association supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Department for Transport state: “Even where a School Crossing Patrol (SCP) is provided, parents remain responsible for ensuring their children’s safety, just as they do when a zebra crossing or pelican crossing is provided. Some parents may regard the provision of an SCP as an indication that the Authority is assuming responsibility for the safety of their children on their whole journey to and from school. This is a misconception that must be countered, perhaps by conducting local ‘awareness raising’ campaigns to reinforce the message of parental responsibility”. Following assessment, a letter was sent to Bowerham Community Primary School, Lancaster regarding the proposal to disestablish the School Crossing Patrol. The letter also contained an offer to appeal against this decision. No request for an appeal assessment has been received from the school.

- 3 -

Environment Director’s Response It is recognised that the absence of a school crossing patrol creates a perceived increase in the risk on this particular journey to school. However, it is considered that the recorded traffic flow gives sufficient gaps in traffic for children to cross, assuming that they are acting responsibly and parents are taking adequate measures to ensure the safety of their children on the journey to school. Consultations The County Council's School Travel Plan team have also been consulted and have confirmed that Bowerham Community Primary School have an approved school travel plan for 2005/06, currently due to be reviewed, encouraging sustainable travel to school, such as public transport and walking. It is felt important to note that a high percentage of children attending the school currently walk; a survey conducted in April 2005 indicated that the figure was 55%. The School Travel Plan team are continuing to work with the school which has been engaging positively with the process which is ongoing. Lancashire County Councils Road Safety Group offer to all schools a free Road Safety Service for their pupils, and over the last few years Bowerham Community Primary School has been engaged in the following activities:

• Passport To Safer Cycling, (Module 1) March 1998 – October 1999, December 2004, June 2007 – July 2008.

• Passport To Safer Cycling, (Module 2) June 2007 - July 2008 • Right Start Pedestrian Training Stages 1 and 2 April 2006 – July 2008 • In September 2006, the award winning “Journeys” guide was issued to the

school. There are a number of additional road safety resources such as starting school information / the green cross code that have been issued or offered by the Road Safety Group, who are keen to work with the school to improve pedestrian awareness and safety for their pupils. The Local is therefore requested to consider the proposed disestablishment of the school crossing patrol at Bowerham Community Primary School, Lancaster. Implications: This item has the following implications: Financial The cost of the School Crossing Patrol is £3,858 per annum and comes from the HEM Revenue DFM budget (school crossing patrols).

- 4 -

Risk Management The school is naturally concerned about the impact of the loss of the patrol on the safety of children crossing the road at this point, however this could be mitigated by continuing to deliver the "Right Start Child Pedestrian Training Programme", offered free by the County Council and the establishment of a proactive approach to road safety education. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel No N/A.

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

W:\CSSG\DemocraticServices\General\PDF Conversion Kit 2\Lancashire Locals\Agendas\Lancaster District\17 March 2009\Item 7 Appendix A.doc

1

Appendix 'A' Criteria for the Establishment of School Crossing Patrols Basic Outline: In developing the criteria, consideration has been given to many factors which affect the safety of unaccompanied child pedestrians (11 years of age or under). The formula is tailored to address the special conditions that exist when a school opens and closes. The criteria produce a complicated formula but essentially rest on three basic themes:- 1. A count of unaccompanied child pedestrians and vehicles. 2. The use of a number of adjustment factors. 3. The consideration of additional crossing facilities. P.V. Squared The following "P.V. Squared" formula is used to determine the site of a school crossing patrol where P = the number of pedestrians and V squared = the number of vehicles * the number of vehicles. P = Child Pedestrians The criteria states that sites having less than 15 unaccompanied primary age children should not be considered for the establishment of a school crossing patrol. However in Lancashire this figure has been reduced to 10 thus enhancing safety aspects. The definition of primary age children for the purposes of the criteria will be year 6, i.e. 11 years or under and not attending high school. V = Vehicles The number of vehicles are counted during the prime time of the opening and closing of a school. The vehicle number is also "weighted" in that heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles are counted as being equivalent to two saloon vehicles. Criteria to be Achieved When the formula has been applied the result should equal 4 million to qualify for a crossing patrol. However, in Lancashire the figure used is 2 million, half the nationally accepted figure. If, however, the formula does not result in 2 million being reached then providing the point is used by more than 10 unaccompanied children, adjustment factors can be taken into consideration. These adjustment factors reflect the environmental and geographical features of an individual site which may give rise to potentially greater risks. If a crossing patrol was to be established for a high school the criteria would have to reach 100 million as against 2 million for a primary school. The P.V. squared where a Pedestrian Light Controlled Crossing (i.e. Pelican) is available must equal a minimum of 100 million. However, Crossing Patrols at Zebra Crossings will be maintained if a P.V. squared of 2 million is achieved. The following adjustment features may apply to a site:- 1. Speed of Vehicles It is recognised that in addition to the volume of traffic, the speed at which traffic is travelling can also give rise to added potential risk. The higher speed increases the weighting factor.

W:\CSSG\DemocraticServices\General\PDF Conversion Kit 2\Lancashire Locals\Agendas\Lancaster District\17 March 2009\Item 7 Appendix A.doc

2

2. Carriageway/Footpath Width/Carriageway Gradient The wider the carriageway the higher the "weighting" factor. The narrower the footpath, the higher the "weighting" factor. The steeper the gradient of the carriageway approaching the school crossing patrol the higher the "weighting" factor. 3. Visibility The layout of the road and parking of vehicles will be taken into consideration and the weighting factor will be at its highest where there is least amount of visibility coupled with higher speed. 4. Road Junctions If a school crossing patrol site is positioned within 20 metres of a road junction then it is assigned a "weighting" factor. 5. Road Markings If road markings occur within 50 metres of a crossing patrol site a "weighting" factor is added. 6. Street Lighting Due to the particular problems that may occur during the winter months if there is no street lighting at the school crossing point then a "weighting" factor will be added. 7. Age of Children The age of children is taken into account and this is calculated by adding a "weighting" value to the average age of unaccompanied school children (providing more than 10 children cross). 8. Accidents All accidents that occurred between 8.00.a.m. and 5.30.p.m. each day over the previous 3 years and within 50 metres of the site will be taken into account and a "weighting" factor will be added. 9. Additional Crossing Facilities Under the National Road Safety Officers' recommendations if a school crossing site is within 200 metres of a crossing facility, e.g. pelican crossing, then a negative weighting value would be added. However, to apply an extra safety margin it has been agreed by the Police and Lancashire County Council that the distance of 200 metres was too long and accordingly this has been reduced by half. See also “Criteria to be Achieved”. The provision of a school crossing patrol should not be viewed as an alternative to the responsibility of parents to ensure their children’s safety on the journey to and from school. Further information with regard to the crossing patrol criteria can be obtained from the Road Safety Group.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 8

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Central, Lancaster East.

Proposed 'No Waiting At Any Time', Collingham Park, Lancaster - Consideration of objections (Appendices 'A' and 'B' refer) Contact for further information: John Foster, 01524 772068, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate john.foster@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Consideration of objections to a proposal to introduce ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions in Collingham Park, Lancaster. This is deemed a Key Decision and is included in the Forward Plan. Decision Required The Local is asked to consider the proposal in light of the information contained in this report. Background and Advice Lancashire County Council was asked by members of the public to consider introducing waiting restrictions in Collingham Park, Lancaster, near to the entrance to the cycle track leading to Lancaster University. The reasons given for the request were that parked vehicles:-

i) obstruct the entrance to the cycle path; ii) obscure visibility of cyclists and pedestrians exiting it; iii) force vehicles into the opposing traffic lane on a bend which is situated on

a relatively steep hill, thereby putting traffic travelling in either direction at risk; and

iv) cause a hazard to cyclists who are about to turn right into the cycle track because of iii) above.

The County Council's area office staff visited the site and recommended that a prohibition of waiting restriction be advertised.

- 2 -

It was anticipated that if restrictions were introduced only on the side of the road adjacent to the cycle track, drivers might park their vehicles on the other side, on the inside of a bend, where they would obscure passing motorists' visibility. Therefore the proposals include a restriction on the northern side of the road and restrictions near the junction of Beechwood Gardens, to ensure adequate visibility for drivers emerging from the side road. The proposals are set out at Appendix 'A' and shown on the attached Plan. Public advertisement of the proposal was carried out by the County Council in accordance with legal requirements. In response to the consultation, 3 letters of objection have been received. Summaries of these objections, together with a response to them are set out at Appendix 'B'. It is recommended that the Traffic Regulation Order be introduced as set out in Appendix 'A' to this report and as shown on the attached plan. Alternative options to be considered 1. That the Traffic Regulation Order be made, with an amendment. 2. That the Traffic Regulation Order as a whole not be made. Consultations The County Council formally consulted statutory consultees, together with over 20 other organisations. Implications This item has the following implications, as indicated: Financial The estimated cost of the proposed work is £500 and this will be will be funded from the Traffic and Safety Signs and Lines Budget (PL 8C). Human Rights Any objectors that have submitted an objection may argue that the proposal infringes their right to quiet enjoyment of property under the first Protocol of Article 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Convention/Act provides that such infringements should not occur : “except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law” The Convention goes on to state that this right : “shall not…in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest…..” On balance, given the benefits that the revised proposal would produce for the community as a whole and the relatively minor nature of the inconvenience which could be suffered, it is felt that the potential advantages to the wider community

- 3 -

should prevail and that the proposal is entirely proportionate to the aims it seeks to achieve. Risk management Traffic Management: A consequence of implementing the order is that traffic will not be able to park in the length of road contained in the order and drivers may park elsewhere, in inappropriate places. The proposed prohibition of waiting restrictions in the immediate vicinity will tend to deter drivers from causing a hazard or obstruction at that site; however it is not possible to anticipate where drivers may decide to park their vehicles as a result of the restrictions and any effect this may have. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: Nil.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel N/A.

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Appendix ‘A’

Schedule 1 - No Waiting At Any Time

Length of Road in the City of Lancaster

Side of Road

Collingham Park

i) From a point 6 metres east of the centre line of Scotforth Road for a distance of 36 metres in an easterly direction

South side

ii) From a point 6 metres east of the centreline of Scotforth Road for a distance of 227 metres in an easterly then northerly direction

North and west side

iii) From a point 50 metres south of the centre line of Beechwood Gardens for a distance of 65 metres in a south westerly direction

South east side

iv) From a point 22 metres north of the centre line of Beechwood Gardens for a distance of 34 metres in a southerly direction

East side

Appendix ‘B’ Organisations consulted by Lancashire County Council when the Traffic Regulation Order was advertised: 1. Road Policing Co-ordinator, Lancashire Constabulary 2. Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust 3 . National Grid, NRSWA Section 4. BT Incoming Notice Reception 5. United Utilities Ltd, Planning Liaison 6. United Utilities (Electricity) 7. Royal Mail 8. Navigation Technologies Ltd 9. Telewest Broadband 10. Freight Transport Association 11. Road Haulage Association, Northern Region 12. Agricultural Industries Confederation 13. NRSWA Co-ordinator, Atkins Telecoms 14. Innogy plc, Property 15. Council for the Protection of Rural England 16. National Farmers Union North West Region 17. Area Representative GLASS, Green Lanes Association 18. Abnormal Loads Officer, HEM Bridges 19. National Grid Gas Distribution 20. Scotland Gas Networks 21. Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust 22. Lancaster Chamber of Commerce 23. Right to Ride Representative 24. Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service 25. Lancaster & Morecambe Dial-a-Bus Service 26. Passenger Transport Unit – Consults Stagecoach etc. 27. Lancaster City Council plus County Divisional Councillor

Objections Received: Objector 1 • Travel to the University by public transport would take four train journeys and six

bus journeys per day. • The cost of public transport is several times the cost of private motoring. • The University does not provide parking for those with a legitimate business

there. Officer's Comment The following response was received from the University:

• The University states that it accepts that some people have no reasonable and realistic alternative than to drive to the campus from their home and has recently increased its allocation of ‘Visitor’ parking on campus by 95 spaces.

• Where a vehicle user does not have a University car parking permit, they are invited to park in the Visitor & Priority Parking Zones (or in any other available car parking space). Pay and display charges apply Monday – Friday 08:00 – 18:00. There are usually available visitor spaces on campus on any given day during University term-time. The University has now made pay and display tickets and one-day parking scratch cards valid in the Staff Preference Zone (formerly Inner Zone) to increase parking choice. Seven additional pay and display machines were installed on the campus during November 2008 to make it easier for visitors (and non-permit holders) to pay and display in any available space.

• The University has been regular and consistent in its messages to staff and students regarding its advice not to park on local highways surrounding the University but to park on campus, where spaces are available.

• All students are entitled to park on campus. Where they are not eligible for an annual or termly parking permit, pay and display facilities should be used during the appropriate times. There have been sufficient parking spaces this academic year to accommodate these vehicles on campus. Additional car parking spaces on campus are not necessary.

Objector 2 • The restrictions are not necessary, as no problems have been observed • The proposals will cause problems for those who can't obtain a permit to park on

campus. • The traffic regulation order objection period spanned the Christmas period, when

mail would be delayed, and an extension should be given. Officer's Comment • Area Office staff saw parked vehicles obscuring the sight lines at the exit from the

cycle path leading from the University and forcing vehicles into the opposing

traffic lane, thereby confirming the reports that were received from members of the public.

• See Officer's Comment to Objector 1. • The Traffic regulation order objection period was 21 November to 19 December

2008 and this period was extended by 2 weeks to 6th January to ensure that any correspondence held up by the Christmas post would be considered.

Objector 3 • The restrictions are not necessary, as no problems have been observed and

there are no hoses or flats in the area that the vehicles currently park. • The proposals will cause problems for those who can't obtain a permit to park on

campus. • The University will loose students. • The University should provide more parking for students, who are put in danger

when they have to walk off campus to access their cars. • Notices should be placed on cars reminding drivers to park responsibly and

tickets should only be issued to persistent offenders. Officer's Comment • See Officer's Comment to Objectors 1 and 2. • Notices placed on cars have proved ineffective in similar situations, and a traffic

regulation order has to be in place for Penalty Charge Notices to be issued by Civil Enforcement Officers.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 9

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East

Proposed Prohibition of Waiting, At Any Time, Hampson Lane, Ellel - Consideration of Objections (Appendices 'A' and 'B' refer) Contact for further information: John Foster, 01524 772068, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate john.foster@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Consideration of objections to a proposal to introduce a prohibition of waiting restriction in Hampson Lane, Ellel near its junction with the A6 Preston - Lancaster Road. This is deemed a Key Decision and is included in the Forward Plan. Decision Required The Local is asked to consider the proposal in light of the information contained in this report. Background and Advice The County Council was asked by a member of the public to consider introducing waiting restrictions in Hampson Lane, near its junction with the A6. It was reported that parked vehicles cause obstruction and an instance had been observed where a heavy goods vehicle that was about to enter Hampson Lane had to wait on the A6 for other vehicles, who were exiting that road, to clear the junction. The member of the public pointed out that this problem would be made worse if the application to allow an increase in HGV traffic to and from Ellel Quarry was approved. The site was subsequently inspected and it was recommended that a prohibition of waiting restriction should be advertised. The proposals are set out at Appendix 'A' and shown in the attached plan. Following formal consultation of the proposal, 1 objection was received. The details of this, together with a reasoned response are set out at Appendix 'B'.

- 2 -

It is recommended that the proposal be approved as set out in this report and shown on the attached plan. It is recommended that the Traffic Regulation Order be introduced without amendment. Alternative options to be considered 1. That the Traffic Regulation Order be made, with amendment(s). 2. That the Traffic Regulation Order not be made. Consultations Public advertisement of the proposal was carried out by the County Council in accordance with legal requirements. Statutory consultees together with over 20 other organisations, were formally consulted. Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Financial The estimated cost of the proposed work is £240 and this will be will be funded from the Traffic and Safety Signs and Lines Budget (PL 8C). Human Rights Any objectors that have submitted an objection may argue that the proposal infringes their right to quiet enjoyment of property under the first Protocol of Article 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Convention/Act provides that such infringements should not occur: “except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law” The Convention goes on to state that this right : “shall not…in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest…..” On balance, given the benefits that the revised proposal would produce for the community as a whole and the relatively minor nature of the inconvenience which could be suffered, it is felt that the potential advantages to the wider community should prevail and that the proposal is entirely proportionate to the aims it seeks to achieve. Risk management Traffic Management - It is considered that failure to implement a waiting restriction at this location will increase the chance of obstruction and traffic-related injuries occurring.

- 3 -

Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel N/A.

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Appendix ‘A’

Schedule - No Waiting At Any Time

Waiting At Any Time restriction on the following lengths of Hampson Lane, Ellel:

1. South side, from a point 13 metres east of the centreline of Preston Lancaster Road (A6) for a distance of 58 metres in an easterly direction;

2. North side, from a point 11 metres east of the centreline of Preston Lancaster

Road (A6) for a distance of 43 metres in an easterly direction;

3. North side, from a point 74.5 metres east of the centreline of Preston Lancaster Road (A6) for a distance of 61m in an easterly direction.

Appendix ‘B’

Organisations consulted by Lancashire County Council when the Traffic Regulation Order was advertised

1. Road Policing Co-ordinator, Lancashire Constabulary 2. Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust 3 . National Grid, NRSWA Section 4. BT Incoming Notice Reception 5. United Utilities Ltd, Planning Liaison 6. United Utilities (Electricity) 7. Royal Mail 8. Navigation Technologies Ltd 9. Telewest Broadband 10. Freight Transport Association 11. Road Haulage Association, Northern Region 12. Agricultural Industries Confederation 13. NRSWA Co-ordinator, Atkins Telecoms 14. Innogy plc, Property 15. Council for the Protection of Rural England 16. National Farmers Union North West Region 17. Area Representative GLASS, Green Lanes Association 18. Abnormal Loads Officer, HEM Bridges 19. National Grid Gas Distribution 20. Scotland Gas Networks 21. Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust 22. Lancaster Chamber of Commerce 23. Right to Ride Representative 24. Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service 25. Lancaster & Morecambe Dial-a-Bus Service 26. Passenger Transport Unit – Consults Stagecoach etc. 27. Lancaster City Council plus County Divisional Councillor

Objections Received: • The objector lives close to the site of the proposed restriction, and states that no vehicles

have been seen parking there. • The proposed restriction is a waste of public money.

Officer Response • Although there may be some times of the day, when no vehicles are parked at the location

of the proposed restriction, members of staff from the local area office often see vehicles parked in every available place at that site.

• It has been reported that the parked vehicles, together with vehicles queuing to emerge from Hampson Lane, block the junction and prevent access into the road from the A6, Preston to Lancaster Road. The result of this is that the vehicles prevented from entering Hampson Lane have to wait on a bend at the exit from a roundabout on the A6, which is a high speed road that carries a large volume of traffic, thereby causing a hazard.

• A significant number of heavy goods vehicles travel along Hampson Lane. It is the route to Drinkwater Mushrooms, Ellel Quarry and a meat packing company, and all of these businesses rely on heavy goods vehicles to transport their freight.

• Some of these businesses deal in low bulk density materials; therefore the vehicles that are used to transport goods to and from these are large. These vehicles have wide swept paths and are easily obstructed.

• Parked vehicles obstruct the footway leading from the A6 to Askham Construction and the County Council offices.

• Parked vehicles obscure the visibility of drivers emerging out of vehicular accesses of Askham Construction and the County Council offices.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 10

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Highways Services Budget 2009/10 Contact for further information: Jim Robson, 01524 753340, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate, highwaysareanorth@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Lancashire Locals will be allocated highways related budgets for the financial year 2009/10 which, if previous years practices are followed, will be apportioned to each Local in accordance with the road length in that District. Under delegated powers the Lancashire Local is asked to exercise discretion in the expenditure of the allocations for their area of responsibility. Decision Required That the Lancashire Local develop a similar programme for 2009/10 to be funded by the allocations over which the Local has discretion. Background and Advice Under delegated powers, Lancashire Local Committees may exercise discretion in the expenditure of an amount of funding under two budget heads. These budgets have yet to be confirmed, but it is estimated that the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District's budgets for 2009/10 will be of the order of: Standard Allocation Budget £29,000 Additional HM Budget £37,000

- 2 -

The Standard Allocation Budget may be spent on areas of work within the highway environment which would add value but which would normally be of insufficient priority to be included in a programme of works at this time. The Additional Highway Maintenance Budget is intended for repairs or other maintenance treatments to carriageways and footways. Neither budget may be used to fund any aspect of Winter Maintenance. The County Winter Maintenance policy has been carefully formulated in accordance with national policy guidelines and must be delivered consistently across the County. Some examples of expenditure under the Standard Allocation Budget heading are shown below:

• Mobility crossings • Additional footway resurfacing/slurry sealing • Additional carriageway resurfacing/surface dressing • Upgrading of lighting stock, provision of lighting • Additional signing • “H” bar road markings at town centre crossing points • Sign cleaning • Painting and maintaining fencing • Improvements to verges • Kerbing verges • Highway tree maintenance

Some examples of expenditure under the Additional Highway Maintenance Budget heading are shown below:

• Additional footway repairs to blacktop / flags / block paving • Additional footway resurfacing/slurry seal • Additional carriageway repairs • Additional carriageway resurfacing/surface dressing

Both budgets are revenue allocations, so the works must be completed this financial year. Consultations N/A. Implications: This item has the following financial implications: Finance

- 3 -

These budgets have yet to be confirmed for 2009/10. They will be contained within the Environment Directorate budget and allocated at the discretion of the Lancashire Local under powers delegated through the constitution. Risk management The purpose of the report is to agree a programme of works early in the financial year 2009/10. Failure to agree a programme may result in work being delayed and/or the allocated budget remaining unspent. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel Constitution for Lancashire Local Committees

2008

Paul Smith / Lancashire County Council / 01772 533425

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Appendix A

Letter to all LL – LD Councillors

Dear Councillor,

Annual Allocation of Highways Funding 2009/10

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District has received an Annual Allocation of Highways Funding from the County Council under two budget heads, Standard budget and Additional Highway Maintenance budget. These budgets have not yet been confirmed, but it is estimated that the 2009/10 budgets will be as follows: Standard Allocation Budget £29000 Additional Highway Maintenance Budget £37000 The Standard Allocation Budget may be spent on areas of work within the highway environment which would add value but which would normally be of insufficient priority to be included in a programme of works at this time. The Additional Highway Maintenance Budget is intended for repairs or other maintenance treatments to carriageways and footways. Neither budget may be used to fund any aspect of Winter Maintenance. The County Winter Maintenance policy has been carefully formulated in accordance with national policy guidelines and must be delivered consistently across the County. Examples of expenditure under the Standard Allocation Budget heading are shown below:

• Mobility crossings • Upgrading of lighting stock, provision of lighting • Additional signing • “H” bar road markings at town centre crossing points • Sign cleaning • Painting and maintaining fencing • Improvements to verges • Kerbing verges • Highway tree maintenance

Some examples of expenditure under the Additional Highway Maintenance Budget heading are shown below:

• Additional footway repairs to existing blacktop / flags / block paving • Additional footway resurfacing/slurry seal • Additional carriageway repairs • Additional carriageway resurfacing/surface dressing

Appendix A

The budgets may be combined provided the combined budget is spent on highway maintenance issues. Both budgets are revenue allocations, so the works must be completed this financial year i.e. by 31st March 2010. An item is included on the agenda for Lancashire Local – Lancaster District on 10th March 2009, under which any bids received may be considered. To submit a bid, please provide full details by Friday 6th March 2009 to: Jim Robson Area Manager (North) Lancashire County Council Hampson Lane Galgate Lancaster LA2 0HY Fax: 01524 753345 Email: highwaysareanorth@lancashire.gov.uk I recognise that this is an extremely tight deadline and apologise in advance if you are unable to respond in the time available. However, it is essential that a full programme is agreed early in order to make full use of the revenue budgets available. Yours sincerely,

Jim Robson Area Manager (North)

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 11

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Street Lighting Carbon Reduction Programme 2009/10 Contact for further information: Martin Dunwell, 01772 534589, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate martin.dunwell@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report details the street lighting carbon reduction programme of works for the 2009/10 financial year, which is set out at Appendix 'A'. Also it details progress on the street lighting special maintenance and capital schemes being undertaken this financial year which are set out at Appendix 'B'. Decision Required The Local is requested to approve locations for the street lighting carbon reduction programme (set out at Appendix 'A') for construction in 2009/10 based on priorities identified by the Street Lighting Manager and subject to budget approval. Background and Advice The street lighting service has the following objectives: 1. To ensure that street lighting equipment is electrically and structurally

safe, and is installed and maintained safely; 2. To reduce accidents and the severity of accidents on the highway; 3. To improve security, reduce crime and the fear of crime; 4. To provide lighting to encourage the use of commercial, leisure and

amenity services;

- 2 -

5. To provide appropriate lighting to conservation areas and other special areas;

6. To minimise the impact of lighting on the environment including the saving of energy and reducing waste;

7. To deliver the street lighting objectives sustainably, economically and effectively.

The County Council has 164,000 lighting units on the highway and carries out around 30,000 repairs per annum. The number of lighting units in the Lancaster District is 18,007 and around 800 repairs are carried out per annum. Currently lights are inspected for outages on average every two weeks and 99.6% of repairs are completed within five working days. The revenue budget for the street lighting service is £14M, of which £6M is for highway energy and £8M is for maintenance. As part of the drive to address the effects of climate change, the County Council has committed to reduce street lighting carbon emissions by 30% over the next five years. This may be achieved by the use of new technologies including variable lighting levels, electronic equipment, more accurate switching, replacement of illuminated signs with reflective versions and the use of LED's. This results in reduced energy costs, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, reduced light pollution and other environmental benefits. Also newer equipment should be more reliable leading to fewer faults, which reduces unplanned outages and maintenance costs. It is proposed that this is funded as part of the street lighting carbon reduction programme. The carbon reduction budget allocation in the Lancaster District for the 2009/10 financial year is expected to be around £600,000 and is taken from the revenue budget for maintenance. It is proposed to prioritise the works by combining carbon reduction works with the routine maintenance programme as this will result in greater carbon reductions and allow more lighting units to be upgraded or replaced. A list of roads where works are proposed subject to approval of this report is given in Appendix 'A'. Consultations N/A. Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Financial – The works have budgetary approval. Crime and Disorder – Lighting reduces crime and the fear of crime. Accidents – Lighting reduces road accidents. Health and Safety – The replacement of equipment reduces the risk of structural failure.

- 3 -

Risk management By combining the replacement works with routine maintenance it will reduce the risk to operatives of additional travelling and traffic management set up. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel N/A.

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A. .

Appendix 'A' Carbon Reduction Programme 09/10 Lancaster

ROAD NAME AREA ROAD NAME AREAA601(M) M6 Motorway Lindeth Gardens Lancaster North (B)Acre Moss Lane Morecambe (S&B) Line Street Morecambe (S&B)Ainsdale Close Lancaster North (B) Lingmoor Road Lancaster North (B)Ainsdale Footpath Lancaster North (B) Littledale Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Aire Close Lancaster North (B) Longlands Crescent Morecambe (S&B)Albany Road Morecambe (S&B) Longlands Lane Heysham & Surrounding (A)Albert Road Lancaster North (B) Longlands Lane Morecambe (S&B)Albert Road Morecambe (S&B) Longlands Road Lancaster North (B)Albert Road (A) Morecambe (A) Longlands Road Footpath Lancaster North (B)Alderley Heights Lancaster North (B) Longton Drive Morecambe (S&B)Aldi Access Road (Marine Rd) Morecambe (A) Lonsdale Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Aldrens Lane (Back) Lancaster North (B) Lord Street Morecambe (A)Alexandra Road Morecambe (S&B) Lord Street Lancaster North (B)Alexandra Road Morecambe (A) Lord Street Morecambe (S&B)Alexandra Road Lancaster North (B) Low Road Service Road Halton with AughtonAlexandra Road Back Lancaster North (B) Lowlands Road Morecambe (S&B)Alfred Street Lancaster North (B) Lune Drive Lancaster North (B)Altham Road Morecambe (A) Lune Street Lancaster North (B)Ancliffe Lane Bolton-le-Sands Lune Street Back Lancaster North (B)Anderton Street Morecambe (S&B) Lune Terrace Lancaster North (B)Anderton Street Morecambe (A) Lupton Place Lancaster North (B)Arnhem Road Carnforth Lymm Avenue Lancaster North (B)Artle Place Lancaster North (B) Main Road Bolton-le-SandsAsh Meadow Grove Nether Kellet Main Road EllelAshbourne Close Lancaster North (B) Main Street Nether KelletAshbourne Drive Lancaster North (B) Main Street Wray with BottonAshbourne Rd & Dr Footpaths Lancaster North (B) Main Street WhittingtonAshbourne Road Lancaster North (B) Main Street Heysham Morecambe (S&B)Ashdale Place Lancaster North (B) Main Street A683 Hornby with FarletonAshton Dr - Torrisholme Rd F/P Lancaster North (B) Main Street Heysham (A) Heysham & Surrounding (A)Ashton Drive Lancaster North (B) Main Way Lancaster North (B)Aughton Court & Footpath Lancaster North (B) Malham Close Lancaster North (B)Austwick Road Lancaster North (B) Malham Close Footpath Lancaster North (B)Ayrton View Lancaster North (B) Mallowdale Road Lancaster North (B)Back Kellet Road Carnforth Manor Road Slyne with HestBack Oxford Street Carnforth Mardale Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Bailey Lane Morecambe (S&B) Marine Rd/Central Dr R/About Morecambe (A)Baker Street Lancaster North (B) Marine Road Morecambe (A)Baker Street Back Lancaster North (B) Marine Road Morecambe (S&B)Balmoral Road Morecambe (S&B) Marine Road Back Morecambe (S&B)Banbury Road Morecambe (S&B) Market Street Morecambe (A)Banbury Road Morecambe (A) Market Street Morecambe (S&B)Bank Road + Footpaths Lancaster North (B) Marlborough Road Morecambe (S&B)Barbon Place Lancaster North (B) Marsh Close CockerhamBare Lane Morecambe (A) Marsh Road CockerhamBare Lane Morecambe (S&B) Marshaw Road Lancaster North (B)Barley Cop Lane Lancaster North (B) Mathias Street Morecambe (S&B)Barley Cop Lane-Mayfield Ave Lancaster North (B) Mayfield Avenue Lancaster North (B)Barrows Lane Village End Heysham & Surrounding (A) McDonald Road Morecambe (S&B)Battismore Road Morecambe (S&B) Meldon Road Morecambe (S&B)Bay Road Morecambe (S&B) Melling Road A683 Hornby with FarletonBeaufort Road Morecambe (S&B) Mellishaw Lane Morecambe (S&B)Beaumont Place Lancaster North (B) Mellishaw/Southgate R.B Morecambe (S&B)Beaumont Street Lancaster North (B) Michealson Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Beckside Caton with Littledale Middlegate Morecambe (A)Belmont Close Lancaster North (B) Middleton Rd(Sc Rd To Mid Way) Heysham & Surrounding (A)Billy Hill Morecambe (A) Middleton Rd,Trumacar-Middleto Heysham & Surrounding (A)Billy Hill Morecambe (S&B) Middleton Road Morecambe (S&B)Birkdale Close Lancaster North (B) Middleton Road (A) N.Principal Heysham & Surrounding (A)Bishopdale Close Lancaster North (B) Middleton Road (A) Principal Heysham & Surrounding (A)

Bloomfield Park Carnforth Middleton Road Overton Morecambe (S&B)Bold Street Morecambe (S&B) Middleton Way Heysham & Surrounding (A)Bold Street (A) Morecambe (A) Middleton Way Morecambe (S&B)Bolton Avenue Lancaster North (B) Middleton Way (B/T) Heysham & Surrounding (A)Borwick Drive Lancaster North (B) Moneyclose Lane Heysham & Surrounding (A)Bottomdale Road Slyne with Hest Moneyclose Lane Morecambe (S&B)Bowland Drive Lancaster North (B) Morecambe Road M Morecambe (S&B)Brennand Close Lancaster North (B) Morecambe Street Morecambe (S&B)Bridge Road Morecambe (S&B) Morecambe Street Rear Morecambe (S&B)Brindle Close Lancaster North (B) Morecambe/Clevelys Footpath Lancaster North (B)Broadacre View Caton with Littledale Morley Close Lancaster North (B)Broadway Lancaster North (B) Morley Road Lancaster North (B)Broadway Morecambe (S&B) Moss Lane Morecambe (S&B)Broadway Morecambe (A) Moss Lane Heaton Morecambe (S&B)Broadway Island Morecambe (A) Moss Place Lancaster North (B)Brock Close Lancaster North (B) Mount Avenue Lancaster North (B)Brock Close (GP) Lancaster North (B) Myndon Street Lancaster North (B)Browgill Place Lancaster North (B) Nelson Street Morecambe (S&B)Browsholme Lancaster North (B) New Street Morecambe (S&B)Buckingham Road Morecambe (S&B) Newgate Morecambe (A)Buller Street Lancaster North (B) Newmarket Street Morecambe (S&B)Burlington Avenue Morecambe (S&B) Noel Road Lancaster North (B)Burnfell Road Lancaster North (B) Norfolk Street Lancaster North (B)Burton Avenue Lancaster North (B) North Gate Morecambe (A)Bye-Pass R/bout Mcbe Road Morecambe (S&B) North Gate Morecambe (S&B)Bye-Pass/Mellishaw R.B Morecambe (S&B) North Road West CarnforthBye-Pass/Midd. Rd R.B Morecambe (S&B) Northumberland St (FEEDER PIL) Morecambe (A)Bye-Pass/Moss Lane R.B Morecambe (S&B) Northumberland Street Morecambe (A)By-Pass Road Bolton-le-Sands Northumberland Street Morecambe (S&B)Calder Way Lancaster North (B) Oak Drive Halton with AughtonCambourne Avenue Carnforth Oldham Street Morecambe (S&B)Capernwray Road Over Kellet Olive Road Lancaster North (B)Captains Row(Lune House) Lancaster North (B) Osbourne Road Morecambe (S&B)Central Avenue Lancaster North (B) Owen Road (Back) Lancaster North (B)Central Drive Morecambe (S&B) Oxcliffe Road Heysham & Surrounding (A)Central Drive Morecambe (A) Oxcliffe Road Morecambe (S&B)Central Drive Back Morecambe (S&B) Oxcliffe Road-Westcliffe Dr(A) Heysham & Surrounding (A)Chapel Lane Ellel Oxford Street Lancaster North (B)Chapel Street Morecambe (S&B) Parliament Street Morecambe (S&B)Chapel Street Ellel Pedder Street Morecambe (A)Chatsworth Road Morecambe (S&B) Pedder Street Morecambe (S&B)Chelsea Mews Lancaster North (B) Peel Avenue Lancaster North (B)Church Lane Morecambe (S&B) Pendle Road Lancaster North (B)Church Road Tatham Penrhyn Road Lancaster North (B)Church Street (A) Morecambe (A) Penrod Way Heysham & Surrounding (A)Clare Road Lancaster North (B) Penrod Way Morecambe (S&B)Claremont Crescent Morecambe (S&B) Pickthorn Close Lancaster North (B)Claremont Road Morecambe (S&B) Pinewood Avenue Caton with LittledaleClarence Street Morecambe (S&B) Pinfold Lane Lancaster North (B)Clarendon Road Morecambe (S&B) Pollards Place Lancaster North (B)Clarendon Road Morecambe (A) Port Way Heysham & Surrounding (A)Clarendon Road + Steps Lancaster North (B) Port Way Morecambe (S&B)Clark Street Morecambe (S&B) Poulton Road Morecambe (S&B)Cleveleys Avenue Lancaster North (B) Poulton Square Morecambe (S&B)Coastal Road Slyne with Hest Powderhouse Lane Lancaster North (B)Coastal Road Morecambe (A) Price Close Lancaster North (B)Coastal Road Morecambe (S&B) Princes Crescent Morecambe (A)Combermere Road Morecambe (S&B) Princes Crescent Morecambe (S&B)Conder Place Lancaster North (B) Princess Alexandra Way Heysham & Surrounding (A)Coronation Way Lancaster North (B) Princess Alexandra Way Morecambe (S&B)Cove Road And Lane Silverdale Queen St Back Morecambe (S&B)Cragbank Crescent Carnforth Queen Street Morecambe (A)Cragbank Terrace And FootpatCarnforth Queen Street Morecambe (S&B)

Crake Bank Lancaster North (B) Queen Street(Top) Morecambe (A)Cregareth Close Lancaster North (B) Ravens Close Lancaster North (B)Crescent St Back Morecambe (S&B) Rawthey Road Lancaster North (B)Crimewell Lane Heysham & Surrounding (A) Raygill Place Lancaster North (B)Croft Street Morecambe (S&B) Regent Park Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Crossdale Lancaster North (B) Regent Road Morecambe (A)Crossgill Place Lancaster North (B) Regent Road Morecambe (S&B)Cycleway Denny Beck-Caton Caton with Littledale Richmond Avenue Lancaster North (B)Cycleway Denny Beck-Caton Quernmore Ripon Avenue Lancaster North (B)Daisy Street Lancaster North (B) Roeburn Dr - Lune Dr F/Path Lancaster North (B)Dallam Avenue Morecambe (S&B) Roeburn Drive Lancaster North (B)Deansgate Morecambe (S&B) Roeburn Place Lancaster North (B)Dee Road Lancaster North (B) Roseberry Place Morecambe (S&B)Denny Avenue Lancaster North (B) Rossall Road Lancaster North (B)Derby Road Lancaster North (B) Rothesay Road Heysham & Surrounding (A)Devonshire Road Morecambe (S&B) Rothsay Road Morecambe (S&B)Drayton Road Morecambe (S&B) Royalty Mall Morecambe (A)Duddon Close Lancaster North (B) Ruskin Road Lancaster North (B)Dunsop Gardens Lancaster North (B) Rydal Road Bolton-le-SandsEarl Street Lancaster North (B) Rydal Road Morecambe (S&B)Earl Street Back Lancaster North (B) Ryelands Road Lancaster North (B)Easington Lancaster North (B) Salt Ayre Lane (Derwent Ct) Lancaster North (B)East Street Morecambe (S&B) Salt Ayre Lane (Past Tip) Lancaster North (B)East View Court Lancaster North (B) Salterfell Road Lancaster North (B)Eastgate (White Lund) Morecambe (A) Sandringham Road Morecambe (S&B)Edenvale Crescent Lancaster North (B) Sandylands Morecambe (S&B)Edenvale Road Lancaster North (B) Scale Farm Footpath Lancaster North (B)Edward Street Morecambe (S&B) Scale Farm Road Lancaster North (B)Eidsforth Road Morecambe (S&B) School Road Morecambe (S&B)Ellesmere Road Morecambe (S&B) Scotforth Road ScotforthEllwood Avenue Lancaster North (B) Scotland Road Warton (Carnforth)Elms Road Morecambe (S&B) Scotland Road Yealand ConyersElmsdale Close Lancaster North (B) Sefton Drive Lancaster North (B)Emesgate Lane Silverdale Sefton Drive Footpath Lancaster North (B)Endsleigh Grove Lancaster North (B) Sefton Road Morecambe (S&B)Esgrigge Court & Footpath Lancaster North (B) Selby Avenue Lancaster North (B)Euston Grove Morecambe (A) Severn Court Lancaster North (B)Euston Road Morecambe (A) Shakespere Road Lancaster North (B)Euston Road Morecambe (S&B) Shakespere Road Footpath Lancaster North (B)Fairfield Road Morecambe (S&B) Shore Road Morecambe (S&B)Fairhope Avenue Lancaster North (B) Shrimp Roundabout Morecambe (A)Farleton Court & Footpath Lancaster North (B) Shrimp Roundabout Morecambe (S&B)Field Road Heysham & Surrounding (A) Skerton Bridge Left Hand Side Lancaster North (B)Field Road Morecambe (S&B) Skerton Bridge Right Hand Side Lancaster North (B)Flare Road Morecambe (S&B) Skipton Street Morecambe (S&B)Fleet Green Lancaster North (B) Skipton-Kendal Road A65 LeckFootpath Cambourne-St Austa Carnforth Slyne Road Bolton-le-SandsFootpath Kings Dr-Dunkirk AveCarnforth Slyne Road Morecambe (S&B)Footpath Kirklands Rd-Kirkby Over Kellet Slyne Road (Back) Lancaster North (B)Footpath Live Stock Ellel Smithy Lane Morecambe (S&B)Footpath Off Gummers Howe WCarnforth Smithy Lane New Heysham & Surrounding (A)Footpath Redruth Dr-St AustellCarnforth South Road Morecambe (S&B)Foundry Lane Halton with Aughton Southgate, Whitelund Morecambe (A)Foxdale Place Lancaster North (B) Springfield Street Morecambe (S&B)Furness Road Morecambe (S&B) St Georges Playing Field Lancaster North (B)Gardner Road Lancaster North (B) St Margaret's Road Bolton-le-SandsGardner Road Back Lancaster North (B) St Nicholas Crescent Bolton-le-SandsGarnet Street Morecambe (S&B) St. Chads Drive Lancaster North (B)Garstang Road (Main Street) Cockerham St. Chads Footpath Lancaster North (B)Gilpin Close Lancaster North (B) St. Johns Grove Morecambe (S&B)Glentworth Road Morecambe (S&B) St. Lukes Church Footpath Lancaster North (B)Granville Road Lancaster North (B) Stankelt Road SilverdaleGrebe Wharf Lancaster North (B) Stanley Road Morecambe (S&B)

Green Ayr Lancaster North (B) Stanley Street Morecambe (S&B)Green Lane Morecambe (S&B) Station Road Hornby with FarletonGreen Lane Ellel Station Road Slyne with HestGreen Lane Lancaster North (B) Station Road Morecambe (S&B)Green Street Morecambe (S&B) Stratford Cl - Hathaway Rd F/P Lancaster North (B)Greenset Close Lancaster North (B) Stratford Close Lancaster North (B)Greenset Close Footpath Lancaster North (B) Sugham Lane Morecambe (S&B)Greta Place Lancaster North (B) Summersgill Road Lancaster North (B)Hale Carr Lane Morecambe (S&B) Sunningdale Avenue Slyne with HestHall Drive Morecambe (S&B) Sunningdale Crescent Slyne with HestHall Drive (A) Morecambe (A) Tan Hill Drive Lancaster North (B)Hall Street Morecambe (S&B) Tarnbrook Road Lancaster North (B)Halton Road Lancaster North (B) Tarnbrook Road Morecambe (S&B)Hamilton Drive Lancaster North (B) Tarnsyke Road Lancaster North (B)Hammerton Hall Close Lancaster North (B) Tebay Court & Footpath Lancaster North (B)Hammerton Hall Close Footpath Lancaster North (B) Tesco Road Morecambe (A)Happy Mount Drive Morecambe (S&B) The Gars Wray with BottonHarcourt Road Lancaster North (B) The Grove CarnforthHathaway Road Lancaster North (B) Thornton Road Morecambe (A)Haverthwaite Avenue Morecambe (S&B) Thornton Road Morecambe (S&B)Hawarden Avenue Morecambe (S&B) Thorpe Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Hawthorn Avenue Caton with Littledale Threshfield Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Hazelrigg Lane Ellel Throstle Grove Slyne with HestHeronsyke Lancaster North (B) Thwaite Brow Lane Bolton-le-SandsHest Bank Lane Slyne with Hest Tithebarn Hill ThurnhamHexham Road Morecambe (S&B) Trent Close Lancaster North (B)Heysham Mossgate Road Morecambe (S&B) Trumacar Lane Heysham & Surrounding (A)Heysham Rd Back Morecambe (S&B) Trumacar Lane Morecambe (S&B)Heysham Road Heysham & Surrounding (A) Tunstall Street Morecambe (S&B)Heysham Road Morecambe (S&B) Udale Place Lancaster North (B)Heysham Village Bus Ter (A) Heysham & Surrounding (A) Union Street Morecambe (S&B)Highfield Crescent (A) Morecambe (A) Vale Road Lancaster North (B)Hill Road Lancaster North (B) Victoria Street Morecambe (A)Hillmore Way Morecambe (A) Victoria Street Morecambe (S&B)Hillmore Way Morecambe (S&B) Victoria Terrace ThurnhamHindburn Close Carnforth Wagon Road EllelHindburn Place Lancaster North (B) War Memorial CarnforthHodder Avenue Lancaster North (B) Wartonwood View CarnforthHornby Bank Nether Kellet Washburn Court Lancaster North (B)Hornby Court & Footpath Lancaster North (B) Watery Lane Lancaster North (B)Hornby Road Claughton Wenning Place Lancaster North (B)Hornby Road A683 Caton with Littledale Wennington Court Lancaster North (B)Hornby/Wennington Road Wray with Botton Wensley Drive Lancaster North (B)Howgill Avenue Lancaster North (B) West Drive Lancaster North (B)Hunting Hill Road Carnforth West End Road Morecambe (A)Hyndburn Close Lancaster North (B) West End Road Morecambe (S&B)Ingleborough Road Lancaster North (B) West Street Morecambe (A)John Street Carnforth Carnforth West Street Morecambe (S&B)Keer Bank Lancaster North (B) West View Road Morecambe (S&B)Kellet Road Over Kellet Westbourne Road Warton (Carnforth)Kellet Road (Ind. Est) Carnforth Westcliffe Drive Heysham & Surrounding (A)Kendal Drive Morecambe (S&B) Westcliffe Drive Morecambe (S&B)Kensington Road Morecambe (S&B) Westgate Morecambe (A)Kent Street Lancaster North (B) Westgate Morecambe (S&B)Kent Way Lancaster North (B) Westminster Avenue Morecambe (S&B)Khyber Pass Footpath Lancaster North (B) Wetherfield Close Lancaster North (B)Kilnbank Avenue Morecambe (S&B) Whalley Road Lancaster North (B)Kings Drive Carnforth Wharf Court Lancaster North (B)Kingsway Morecambe (S&B) Wharfdale EllelKirkby Lonsdale Road Arkholme With Cawood Whernside Road Lancaster North (B)Kirkby Lonsdale Road Melling With Wrayton Whinisty Lane Morecambe (S&B)Kirkby Lonsdale Road Over Kellet White Lund Road Morecambe (S&B)Knowlys Road Morecambe (S&B) Whitegate Morecambe (A)

Laburnum Grove Lancaster North (B) Whitendale Lancaster North (B)Laburnum Park Carnforth Whiteray Road Lancaster North (B)Laburnum Road Lancaster North (B) Wilton Close Lancaster North (B)Lade End Morecambe (S&B) Windermere Road CarnforthLambert Road Lancaster North (B) Windham Place Lancaster North (B)Lancashire Street Morecambe (S&B) Windholme Lancaster North (B)Lancaster Road Morecambe (S&B) Winster Park Lancaster North (B)Lancaster Road Carnforth Winster Park Footpath Lancaster North (B)Lancaster Road (A) Morecambe (A) Winster Walk Lancaster North (B)Lancaster Road A588 Cockerham Winterdyne Terrace Back Morecambe (S&B)Lancaster Road A683 Hornby with Farleton Woodhill Lane Morecambe (S&B)Lancaster Road Incl Church BrHalton with Aughton Woodlands Dr Morecambe (S&B)Lancombe Court Lancaster North (B) Woodlands Road Lancaster North (B)Langdale Place Lancaster North (B) Woodman's Lane Burrow with BurrowLangdale Road Carnforth Woodman's Lane LeckLangden Brook Mews Lancaster North (B) Wray Court & Footpath Lancaster North (B)Langton Close Lancaster North (B) Wyre Close Lancaster North (B)Lansdowne Road Morecambe (S&B) Wyresdale Road QuernmoreLeyburn Road Lancaster North (B) Yealand Grove CarnforthLeycester Drive Lancaster North (B) Yorkshire Street Morecambe (S&B)

Appendix 'B' The status of this year's lighting schemes is detailed below: Scheme name Current Status Heysham Road, Awaiting last 15 United Utilities connections. Morecambe Macdonald Road Area, Complete Heysham Lancaster rural Complete lantern changes

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 12

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Proposed Closure of Hornby High School Contact for further information: Stephen Mercer, (01772) 531925), Lancashire County Council, Directorate for Children and Young People, stephen.mercer@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary The report provides information about the current position regarding Lancashire County Council's proposal to close Hornby High School from 31st August 2009. Decision Required Lancashire Local – Lancaster District is asked to note the information presented in the report. Background and Advice At the meeting held on 20th January 2009 Lancashire Local – Lancaster District considered the consultation document issued by Lancashire County Council on 5th January 2009 proposing to close Hornby High School on 31st August 2009. On 13th February 2009 the Cabinet Member for Schools considered a report on the response to the consultation. Over 2,500 responses were received. The report included the response from Lancashire Local – Lancaster District. The great majority of responses were opposed to the proposed closure of the school. Having considered the report, the Cabinet Member for Schools agreed to:

- 2 -

(a) note the consultation arrangements that were made and the consultation response that was received for the authority's proposal; and

(b) agree to the authority publishing a Statutory Notice of its proposal to close

Hornby High School from 31 August 2009. (c) agree that, with the consent of parents/guardians, provision will be made for all

the pupils currently in Years 7 to 10 at Hornby High School to transfer to the roll of Skerton High School from 1 September 2009;

(d) agree that all pupils transferring from Hornby High School to Skerton High School

on 1 September 2009 will be able to complete their secondary school education on the Skerton site;

(e) note that discussions will be held with the Governing Body of the Lune Valley

Federation to ensure that arrangements are made to enable all pupils currently in Year 10 at Hornby High School who transfer to the roll of Skerton High School on 1 September 2009 to complete their programmes of study at Key Stage 4.

The current position in connection with the proposal – the Call-in Procedure At the meeting on 20th January 2009, Lancashire Local – Lancaster District resolved (in part) that: "Lancashire local – Lancaster District requests that Lancashire County Council's Overview and Scrutiny look at the consultation on the closure of Hornby High School and consider whether procedures and best practice have been followed." The particular issues raised by the Lancashire Local in relation to the consultation were:

• contextual value added figures are missing

• No data is provided for the number of secondary aged pupils in the District – compared to the numbers actually in the secondary schools

• The County Council broke its own consultation protocol with Parish Council's

by not giving them 6 weeks to respond

• The decision to consult could have been made at an earlier date – ie not to clash with the Christmas break and thus causing undue anxiety to staff, parents and pupils"

In addition, on 18th February 2009, the Chief Executive of Lancashire County Council received a request, signed by six County Councillors, for the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider whether that decision should be the subject of a Call In.

"

- 3 -

The latter request was received in accordance with Procedural Standing Orders from County Councillors Tim Ashton, Albert Atkinson, Malcolm Barron, Mrs Susie Charles, Geoff Driver and Mrs Valerie Wilson. As a result of this request received on 18th February 2009, the decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Schools on 13th February 2009 could not be implemented until the call-in procedure had been completed. The reason for the request as submitted by the above Members is as follows:

"Hornby High and Skerton formed the Lune Valley Federation in April 2008. This Federation has had too short a time to prove itself and no notice appears to have been taken of the success of Hornby High throughout the Lancaster District for transforming the lives of a great many children"

The County Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Children and Young People arranged to meet on 26th February 2009 to consider the above requests. Lancashire Local – Lancaster District may wish to note the following provisions from the County Council's Constitution:

• An O&S Committee may request that an executive decision made but not yet implemented be reconsidered by the Decision Maker, or request that the Full Council decide whether to ask the Decision Maker to reconsider.

• The Committee must decide at the meeting whether or not to exercise its Call

In powers.

• Any such request for reconsideration shall include the grounds upon which the request is based.

• Once the Committee has determined to make such a request, the request and

the grounds upon which it is based must be registered with the Chief Executive in writing within three clear working days of the O&S Committee meeting.

• If a request is made the Decision Maker must then reconsider the decision

having regard to the grounds upon which it is based. The Decision Maker can affirm, amend or rescind their decision.

• The Decision Maker shall publish their response to a request for

reconsideration and the reasons for their decision by writing as soon as is reasonably practicable to the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

• The Decision Maker can only be required to reconsider the same decision

once.

- 4 -

Having considered the comments made by Lancashire Local – Lancaster District, heard representations, and asked questions, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were content that appropriate procedures and practice had been followed. Having considered the request that they Call-In the decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Schools on 13th February 2009, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decided, by 11 votes to 9, not to Call-In the decision. The decision to publish a Statutory Notice proposing the closure of Hornby High School on 31st August 2009 has therefore been implemented. There is a period of six weeks following publication of the Notice during which representations on the proposal may be made, in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Notice. Any representations received will be reported to the Cabinet Member before the proposals in the Notice are determined. Consultations N/A Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Risk management N/A Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper

Date Contact/Council/Tel

Report to the Cabinet Member for Schools on the future of Hornby High School

23 December 2008 Stephen Mercer, Lancashire County Council, 01772 531925

Report to the Cabinet Member for Schools on the Review of the future of Skerton High School, Hornby High School and Central Lancaster High

24 January 2008 Stephen Mercer, Lancashire County Council, 01772 531925

- 5 -

Paper

Date Contact/Council/Tel

School from September 2008 Report to the Cabinet Member for Schools on the consultation, by Governing Bodies of Skerton High School and Hornby High School, on proposals to federate

18 February 2008 Stephen Mercer, Lancashire County Council, 01772 531925

Report to Lancashire Local – Lancaster District on the Consultation on the Future of Hornby High School

20 January 2009 Stephen Mercer, Lancashire County Council, 01772 531925

Report to the Cabinet Member for Schools on Proposal to Close Hornby High School Appendix 'A' Appendix 'B'

13 February 2009 Stephen Mercer, Lancashire County Council, 01772 531925

Report to Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee on The Outcome of Consultation about a Proposal to Close Hornby High School on 31 August 2009 Appendix 'A'

26 February 2009 Stephen Mercer, Lancashire County Council, 01772 531925

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 13

Electoral Divisions affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Pedestrian Priority Programme 2009/10 (Appendix 'A' refers) Contact for further information: Janet Wilson, 01772 534258, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate janet.wilson@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary The Local Transport Plan (LTP) provides specific funding for schemes to improve pedestrian facilities in locations that would not qualify for funding under accident reduction criteria. Potential schemes are distilled into a prioritised programme of work referred to as the Pedestrian Priority Programme. In previous years the Cabinet Member has approved the programme of work for the subsequent year. Following the approval of the Cabinet Member, Lancashire Locals have been given the opportunity to prioritise the order in which schemes in their area are progressed. It has been the intention to develop a procedure that would engage Lancashire Locals more effectively in the development of the Pedestrian Priority Programme by seeking their views on submissions for the Programme prior to the Programme being approved by the Cabinet Member. This report seeks to explain the new procedure. Decision Required That

i. consideration is given to the requests submitted in Appendix 'A' for inclusion in the Pedestrian Priority Programme for 2009/10,

ii. the Local prioritise the schemes and identify the scheme deemed to be top priority, and

- 2 -

iii. the Local make suggestions regarding other locations that could be considered for inclusion in the Pedestrian Priority Programme 2010/11.

Background and Advice The Local Transport Plan provides specific funding for schemes to improve pedestrian facilities in locations that would not qualify for funding under accident reduction criteria. Approximately 100 requests are received annually from District Councils, Parish Councils, members of the public and groups within the County Council's Environment Directorate. After undergoing preliminary investigation and costing, each request is compared using a methodology that scores the schemes on feasibility, community benefits, safety and sustainability. Feasibility issues consider whether there are existing services such as road lighting or power; visibility; land issues; and traffic signal capacity (for pedestrian facilities at traffic signals). Community benefits takes into account the proximity of the proposal to other locations such as shops, schools and health facilities; current pedestrian flows and potential pedestrian demand, traffic speeds, traffic flows and road function. Safety considerations include the number of vulnerable road user casualties at the location and the appropriateness of the proposed measure to address safety concerns. Sustainability considers whether the proposed scheme would encourage more walking or use of public transport, whether it would complement a Safer Route to School or School Travel Plan, or whether it would remove real or perceived dangers. Previously, at this point, these elements have been combined with the estimated cost of the scheme to give a final score. The Programme has been based on the schemes with the highest ranking scores. In order to ensure that the Pedestrian Priority Programme (PPP) delivers a programme of work that will encourage more people to walk, by providing facilities that will make journeys easier and safer for pedestrians, it is felt that Lancashire Locals should be engaged more effectively in the development of the PPP. Lancashire Locals are therefore asked to consider Appendix 'A' that contains submissions for consideration for the 2009/10 Programme and to prioritise the

- 3 -

schemes. The schemes at Appendix 'A' are listed in terms of suggested priority with the highest ranking scheme at the top of the list. The scheme identified by the Lancashire Local as top priority will be given a weighting in the form of an extra 20 points. This will have the effect of increasing the final score of the scheme and therefore will increase its chances of inclusion in the final programme. However, it will not guarantee that the scheme will be included in the Programme. The final Programme will contain the highest ranking schemes from the whole County as is currently the case and will be dependant on the capital allocation received from the Local Transport Plan. The Local is therefore encouraged to choose as its priority a submission that will score highly based on the criteria described above. The Local is also asked for suggestions regarding potential schemes that will be considered for the 2010/11 Programme. The suggested schemes will be assessed and will influence the list of submissions for the 2010/11 Programme to be considered by the Lancashire Local. Once the Programme for 2009/10, based on the highest scoring schemes, has been approved by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Planning, the Lancashire Locals will be informed. If more than one scheme from a Lancashire Local area successfully makes the final Programme then the schemes will be progressed based on the priority determined by the Lancashire Local. Advice has been sought from the relevant County Council Highway Engineers. Some schemes originate from local residents via Parish Councils. Consultations Public consultations will be carried out as necessary after detailed designs of schemes are completed. Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Risk management No significant risks have been identified in relation to the proposals contained within this report. Financial The programme of work will be approved by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Planning in line with the allocation of LTP funding awarded to the Programme. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans

- 4 -

Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel Report to Cabinet Member: Pedestrian Priority Programme 2008/09 Lancashire Walking Strategy

14 January 2008 November 2007

Janet Wilson/ Lancashire County Council/ 01772 534258

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Appendix 'A' Suggested Schemes to be considered for inclusion in the Pedestrian Priority Programme 2009/10 Lancaster District

Location Scheme Type Cost (£) Score

Impact of scheme to increase

walking levels (1 no impact, 5 high

impact)

Lancashire Local order of importance (1

being top priority)

Kellet Rd Carnforth Build out 5000 204 5

Kellet Rd Zebra 25000 35.2 5 Greaves

Rd/Pointer R'bout

Zebra 18000 52 3/4

Ridge Lane/Bulk

Rd Footway 2500 264 3

Slyne Rd/Vale Rd Footway 4500 147 3

Barton Rd/Warwick

Ave Refuge 8500 97 3

Bolton Lane Bolton le Sands

Footway 4000 75 3

Main Rd Bolton le Sands

Zebra 25000 40.8 3

Hornby Rd Caton

Zebra to a toucan toucan

35000 26.3 3

Kirkby Lonsdale Rd

Arkholme Footway 5,100 122 2/3

Butterfield St Footway 2500 204 1 Yealand Grove

Giggle gates 15000 36 1

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 14

Electoral Divisions affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Residents Parking Schemes – Proposed Process (Appendix 'A' refers) Contact for further information: Martin Galloway, 01772 532096, Lancashire County Council Environment Directorate, martin.galloway@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to establish an agreed means of processing requests for residents parking schemes, such that appropriate schemes can be delivered. Decision Required The views of the Lancashire Local are requested. Background and Advice During the period July/August 2007, the Lancashire Local Committees were consulted on the proposed revised criteria for the identification of residents parking schemes. In several cases, working or task groups were established to debate the criteria in more detail. In general, some of the Locals expressed concern over the imposition of strict criteria for the identification of residents parking schemes and five Lancashire Locals requested that the criteria be introduced as guidelines or allow flexibility to enable special cases to be considered on their merit. At least five Lancashire Locals supported the criteria as outlined with none expressing opposition, although there were a number of minor alterations suggested. It was, however, recommended that the criteria be adopted as guidelines without the suggested amendments.

2

The views expressed by the working groups and the Lancashire Locals were presented to the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development on the 5 November 2007 for consideration. A copy of the report (and its appendices) is set out at Appendix 'A' by way of background information. The Cabinet Member agreed: That,

i. The revised criteria be adopted as the County Council’s Guidelines for identifying residents parking schemes, and

ii. A further report be submitted to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable

Development outlining the proposed processes to implement residents parking schemes, following consultation with the Lancashire Local Committees.

It was also recommended that more detailed discussions take place between the County Council’s Area Managers and District Councils. Current position Members of the Local will be aware that residential streets close to facilities which attract commuters, shoppers and visitors for long periods of time, can be frustrating for those who live in the area as they experience difficulty with parking near their homes. There are currently approximately 78 schemes in operation across the County, all but one administered by the District Councils. There is no legal right to park on the public highway, but residents parking schemes are often introduced to improve local amenity, particularly where there is no off street parking . Unfortunately, The County Council does not generally have the resources available to support the implementation of new amenity schemes such as residents parking. Its priority within available resources must be focused towards safety and the Traffic Management Act aims of reducing congestion and disruption on the road network. However, it is acknowledged that there is considerable demand in certain parts of the County and the County Council would wish to adopt a flexible approach on the basis as set out in this report. Options The following options have been put forward for consideration; Option 1: Lancashire County Council highways area offices to prioritise and deliver the schemes. Realistically the Area offices do not have the capacity or resources to deliver residents parking schemes unless there is a significant direct road safety or traffic management implication. Within the context of road safety and traffic management a prioritisation mechanism or tool will be developed should demand exceed available resources.

3

Option 2: Lancashire County Council highways area offices to deliver road safety / traffic management justified schemes and the District Councils to prioritise, deliver and fund schemes which are aimed at local amenity. This option will necessitate amending the Highways Residual Agreements, and delegating power, for the districts to carry out agreed highway duties, at no cost to the County Council. Detailed discussions would need to take place between the District and County Councils and the County Council would undertake the making and implementation of the Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to ensure consistency with existing schemes and TROs. Currently eight Districts manage and administer residents parking scheme permits with only one, Fylde, being delivered by the County Council. Discussions are to be held with District Councils regarding the management and administration of existing and future schemes, however, a central database of all on street permits would be advantageous. This would not only enable the monitoring of the number of permits issued but would assist with the on street enforcement of such areas. It would provide up to date information to the enforcement service, which will be provided by the County Council from September 2009. The existing enforcement notice processing system is capable of recording and issuing permits. As such it is suggested that this would be a requirement that should any District administer the on street residents parking permits then these should be processed through the LCC central processing system to which all Districts have access. Advice The County Council Highways Area offices are presently only resourced to progress schemes which have a direct road safety benefit or traffic management implication. Residents parking schemes are largely used to address local amenity concerns and within the existing area resources such local amenity schemes realistically are not able to be progressed. The adoption of option 2 would provide a mechanism to introduce residents parking schemes which not only address road safety and traffic management issues but also caters for the amenity concerns of local communities. It is not however a requirement that district councils provide amenity resident parking schemes in their district. A further discussion will need to be held with Districts to examine the processes and administration of schemes Consultations District Engineers have been consulted on these proposals and at the time of writing Pendle, Preston, South Ribble and Hyndburn had expressed a preference for delivering the schemes in their respective district. The Highways Area Managers have also been consulted and are in favour of the options as outlined in this report.

4

The final draft of this report was presented to District Engineers at their meeting on 11th February 2009. A summary of any remaining issues or concerns raised will be provided by the Area Manager on the evening of the Lancashire Local Meeting. Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Risk management The current process for responding to applications for residents parking schemes requires clarification in order to avoid continued confusion and dissatisfaction for residents of Lancashire. Financial The arrangements for the management of new residents parking schemes are the subject of current discussion. However, all income and expenditure related to residents parking schemes will need to be included in a countywide on-street account. Consideration will be given to the possibility of including an allocation in the County Council’s Capital Programme in the future for safety or traffic management related schemes. Should the proposals lead to a significant increase in the numbers of schemes across the County then there will be a need to consider the implications for maintenance, enforcement, the legal process including staffing and indeed the whole life costs of such schemes. The development of a pricing policy and charging mechanism will also be required. Legal If the schemes are delivered by District Councils the financial and legal issues, in particular Traffic Management Act 2004 compliance and management issues will all have to be considered. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers

5

Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel Reports to Lancashire Local Committees Report to Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development

July/August 2007 5 November 2007

Jane Carrigan/ Lancashire County Council/ 01772 534374

Appendix 'A' Report to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development Report submitted by: Executive Director of Environment

Part I - Item No. 4

Electoral Divisions affected: All

Revision of Criteria for Provision of Residents Parking Permit Schemes (Appendices ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ refer) Contact for further information: Martin Galloway, 01772 532096, Environment Directorate martin.galloway@env.lancscc.gov.uk Executive Summary During the period July/August 2007, the Lancashire Local Committees were consulted on the proposed revised criteria for the identification of residents parking schemes. In several cases, working or task groups were established to debate the criteria in more detail. The views expressed by the working groups and the Lancashire Locals themselves are set out for consideration in the report now presented at Appendix ‘C’. Recommendation That,

i. the revised criteria as set out at Appendix ‘A’ be adopted as the County Council's Guidelines for identifying residents parking schemes, and

ii. a further report be submitted to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable

Development outlining the proposed processes to implement residents parking schemes, following consultation with the Lancashire Local Committees.

Background Following the publication in August 1991 of the County Surveyors' Society Traffic Management Working Group report on Residents Parking Schemes, the County Council began to use the stipulated criteria as its normal assessment requirements for new residents parking schemes. In recent years there has been a significant amount of debate over the relevance of this criteria with at least two district authorities highlighting the difficulties encountered in meeting these requirements. As a consequence of these

2

representations a questionnaire was circulated to all 12-district authorities seeking their views on the individual criteria and also their experiences in the implementation of such schemes. The revised criteria are listed at Appendix ‘A’. Consultations The findings of this consultation process were reported to Lancashire Locals during July and August 2007 (generic report attached at Appendix ‘B’ for information). Several Locals established their own working or task group before making final recommendations, but the views of all the Lancashire Locals have now been received and these are listed at Appendix ‘B’. Advice In general, some of the Locals expressed concern over the imposition of strict criteria for the identification of residents parking schemes and five Lancashire Locals requested that the criteria be introduced as guidelines or allow flexibility to enable special cases to be considered on their merit. At least five Lancashire Locals supported the criteria as outlined with none expressing opposition, although there were a number of minor alterations suggested and these are also listed at Appendix ‘B’. It is, however, recommended that the criteria be adopted as guidelines without the suggested amendments. In addition to reviewing the criteria for residents parking it is also recognised that there is a need to consider the processes involved in identifying and administering these schemes. It is recommended that a further report be submitted once more detailed discussions have taken place between the County Council's Area Managers and District Councils. This report would examine the current residual responsibility for residents parking schemes and the future administration and funding of them. It is envisaged these additional discussions would take place over the coming months and a subsequent report would be available for consideration by Lancashire Locals before being considered by the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development early next year. Alternative options to be considered The criteria could be adopted as a fixed policy but this would deny any flexibility in approach and possibly prevent some schemes that may have merit from being progressed. Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder or Other This item has the following implications, as indicated: Financial Whilst there are no direct costs associated with setting these criteria as guidelines, the cost implications of implementing such schemes would be considered in the

3

follow up report on procedure. Any representations made to the Cabinet Member prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Directorate/Ext Lancashire Local reports

July/August 2007

Jane Carrigan/ Environment/34374

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Appendix ‘A’ Criteria for Residential Parking Permit Schemes 1. Not less than 67% of the available kerb space should be occupied for more

than six hours between 8.00am and 6.00pm on five or more days in a week from Monday to Saturday and a bona fide need of the residents should be established.

Note: 'Available kerb space' is defined as the length of unrestricted

carriageway where parking could be permitted. This would of course exclude junctions, accesses and areas subject to existing waiting restrictions (but not limited waiting).

2. Not more than 50% of the car owning residents have or could make parking

available within the curtilage of their property, or within 200 metres (walking distance) of that property in the form of rented space or garages etc. Off-street parking space should not be available within 200 metres walking distance.

Note: Off-street car parks are considered as an available facility for local

residents but not where an hourly/daily charge is made (eg. pay and display) unless contract arrangements or similar have been provided.

3. The peak or normal working day demand for residents’ spaces should be able

to be met. Note: The parking problem or peak demand time may be outside the normal

working day, eg next to a shift working factory or hospital, and this should be taken into consideration.

4. When considering the introduction of concessions for residents within an

existing restricted area the re-introduction of a limited number of parked vehicles should not negate the original reasons for introducing the restrictions.

5. The Police should be satisfied that a reasonable level of enforcement of the

proposals can be maintained or alternatively that enforcement could be adequately carried out by some alternative means.

6. The proposals should be acceptable to the greater proportion of the residents.

A 75% response rate from households, with greater than 50% of these being in favour of the scheme, is considered acceptable.

7. The introduction of the scheme should not be likely to cause unacceptable

problems in adjacent roads. 8. Permits for non-residential premises should be able to be limited in their issue

to essential operational use only.

Appendix ‘B’ Lancashire Local – Meeting to be held on

Part I - Item No.

Electoral Division affected:

Revision of Criteria for Provision of Residents Parking Permit Schemes (Appendices 'A' and 'B' refer) Contact for further information: Martin Galloway, 01772 532096, Lancashire County Council Environment Directorate Executive Summary This reports outlines the findings of a countywide consultation on the application of the current criteria for the consideration of residents parking schemes. The results of that consultation are set out at Appendix ‘A’, and have been taken into account in developing revised criteria. The proposed revised criteria are listed in full at Appendix ‘B’, and the views of each Lancashire Local are being sought prior to consideration by the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development. In addition to reviewing the criteria for residents parking, it is also recognised that there is a need to consider the processes involved in identifying and administering these schemes. It is proposed that once the criteria upon which new schemes would be assessed has been approved, further consultation with Lancashire district councils would take place in relation to the current residual responsibility for residents parking schemes and the future administration and funding of them, in a bid to provide clarity and consistency of approach. It is intended that a further report on this issue will be submitted to the Local later in the year. Decision Required The views of the Lancashire Local are sought with regard to the revised criteria prior to consideration by the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development.

6

Background Following the publication in August 1991 of the County Surveyors Society Traffic Management Working Group report on Residents Parking Schemes, the County Council began to use the stipulated criteria as their normal assessment requirements for new residents parking schemes. In recent years there has been a significant amount of debate over the relevance of this criteria, with at least two district authorities highlighting the difficulties encountered in meeting these requirements. As a consequence of these representations, a questionnaire was circulated to all 12 district authorities seeking their views on the individual criteria and also their experiences in the implementation of such schemes. Nine of the 12 districts have responded to the questionnaire with additional information on schemes in Fylde being provided by the County Council's Area office. A table summarising these responses is included at Appendix ‘A’. Unfortunately, no information to date has been received from Chorley or Hyndburn Borough Councils. In summary, seven of the ten authorities providing information operate residents parking schemes, with permit charges being made in all but one scheme. The charge ranged between £5 and £40. The provision for visitors and businesses varied considerably between schemes and sometimes within the same authority, as did the size of scheme being introduced. Additionally, the approach to the identification, assessment, funding, administration and implementation of residents parking schemes has varied between districts. This has ranged from Ribble Valley Borough Council viewing the whole process as being a County Council function, with only the administration of the scheme being delivered at district level (provided all costs were reimbursed), to other districts seeing a partnership where initial identification and assessment was driven by the district with County Council processing and implementing schemes once they had been agreed. The cost of administering the scheme was borne by the permit charge, but initial set up costs were met from various sources. It is proposed that once the criteria upon which new schemes would be assessed has been approved, further consultation with districts would take place in relation to the processes to be adopted in the identification, funding, administration and implementation of future schemes in a bid to provide clarity and consistency of approach. It is intended that a further report on this issue will be submitted to the Local in due course. Consultations A questionnaire was circulated to all District Councils seeking officer views on the current criteria used to identify residents parking schemes. The views of the Lancashire Locals are being sought on the findings of this review before a report is submitted to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development.

7

Lancashire Local - Pendle established a working group and provided comments in advance of circulation of the questionnaire: • The general attitude to residents parking schemes should change following

the introduction of decriminalised parking. Under the previous regime, inadequate enforcement influenced the success of schemes where they were introduced and, indeed, whether they were introduced at all.

• Introduction of schemes should be based on less prescriptive criteria. • Flexibility ought to be introduced to allow local decisions to reflect local

circumstances. • There ought to be no automatic rejection of a proposal because of proximity to

a particular class of building such as a school. Rather, consideration should be given to the criteria and decisions made on the merit of the particular case.

• Flexibility should be introduced to permit variable schemes, eg limited waiting

during the day with residents parking in the evening. • Specific criteria should be amended as follows: the volume threshold should

be reduced from 80% of non-resident owned vehicles to 60%; length of time during the day should be reduced to four hours.

These comments have been considered together with the questionnaire replies when considering revisions to the current criteria. Advice The aim of this report is to review the current criteria being applied in the assessment of residents parking scheme proposals. The eight criteria are listed below for ease of reference, together with comments expressed, although there was a general consensus amongst district responders that the criteria are acceptable, with a few minor amendments (it should be noted that these are a simplified version of the criteria originally listed in 1991). 1. Not less than 85% of the available kerb space should be occupied for more

than six hours between 8.00am and 6.00pm on five or more days in a week from Monday to Saturday and a bona fide need of the residents should be established.

Criterion 1 was generally accepted, but there appeared to be some confusion

over the definition of "available kerb space". For clarity, it is proposed to define this as the length of unrestricted carriageway where parking could be permitted. This would of course exclude junctions, accesses and areas subject to existing waiting restrictions (but not limited waiting).

8

It was also suggested that the percentage should be reduced and whilst it is considered that a clearer definition would resolve the difficulties it is accepted that a reduction to 67% (two thirds) would seem reasonable.

2. Not more than 50% of the car owning residents have or could make parking

available within the curtilage of their property or within 200 metres (walking distance) of that property in the form of rented space or garages etc. Off street parking spaces should not be available within 200 metres walking distance.

There was some minor divergence of opinion on this matter but again there

was a general acceptance of it. Since most schemes are being promoted within terraced areas it was seen as almost irrelevant. However, in one case (Preston) it was suggested that consideration should be given to a higher incidence of two car households and the increased demand on street for available spaces. It is however considered that this would be contrary to sustainable policies and should not therefore be accepted. In Lancaster, for example, where planning conditions prevent provision for cars, then resident’s permits have been cancelled.

The suggestion that 200 metres could be an issue seems unrealistic given the

accepted walking distance of 400 metres to local bus stops. Off street car parks are considered as an available facility for local residents

but not where an hourly/daily charge is made (eg pay and display) unless contract arrangements or similar have been provided.

3. The peak normal working day demand for residents spaces should be able to

be met (it is imperative that before a scheme is considered it can be shown that the demand for residents parking can be accommodated).

This has been accepted but it has been pointed out that problems arising can

be specifically at weekends or in the evenings and schemes should be able to reflect this. It is recommended that a common sense approach be adopted in this respect, since whilst the parking problem may be outside the normal working day it may actually be occurring during peak demand time, for example in areas next to a factory operating shift working, or a hospital (the 1991 guidance actually stipulated 40% of non residents parking at night-time).

4. When considering the introduction of concessions for residents within an

existing restricted area, the re-introduction of a limited number of parked vehicles should not negate the original reasons for introducing the restrictions.

There was some uncertainty as to the meaning of this criterion but it was

widely accepted as being reasonable. In principle, the introduction of parking for residents should not cause traffic management problems, which had originally been addressed.

9

5. The Police should be satisfied that a reasonable level of enforcement of the proposals can be maintained, or alternatively that enforcement could be adequately carried out by some alternative means.

It is accepted procedure and a requirement of any Traffic Regulation Order to

seek police approval before proceeding. It is however also accepted that decriminalised parking enforcement is now carried out and the practicalities of this should also be considered.

6. The proposals should be acceptable to the greater proportion of the residents. This was accepted by all responders but there appears to be an issue over

the definition of "greater proportion". It is therefore suggested that this criterion be re-worded to require a 75% response rate from households, with greater than 50% of these being in favour of the scheme.

7. The introduction of the scheme should not be likely to cause unacceptable

problems in adjacent roads. This was also accepted by the majority of responders but there may be an

issue in respect of adjacent streets being included in the original zone and therefore undermining the potential support for a scheme.

8. Permits for non-residential premises should be able to be limited in their issue

to essential operational use only. There was full agreement on this matter with at least two districts offering no

exemptions. The proposed amended criteria are listed in full at Appendix ‘B’. It is proposed to submit a report on the proposed approval of the revised criteria to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development as soon as is practicable. This report will include the views of all the Lancashire Locals. If approved, the assessment criteria will be applied to all new applications for residents parking schemes, but it is not intended to review any which are currently in operation or being processed. In addition to reviewing the criteria for residents parking, it is also recognised that there is a need to consider the processes involved in identifying and administering these schemes. It is recommended that a further report be submitted, once more detailed discussions have taken place between the County Council’s Area Managers and District Councils. This report will examine the current residual responsibility for residents parking schemes and the future administration and funding of them. It is envisaged these additional discussions would take place over the coming months and a subsequent report would be available for consideration by Lancashire Locals later in the year.

10

Alternative options to be considered N/A. Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder or Other This item has the following implications: N/A. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being

considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans

Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel No Nil.

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Appendix ‘C’ Revision of Criteria for Residents Parking Views of Lancashire Local Committees Lancashire Local - Lancaster (19 June 2007) The Local welcomed and supported the proposed revised criteria for residents parking as set out in the report presented and that the County Council's Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development be requested to consider how resources might be made available to allow speedy implementation of new Residents Parking Schemes. Lancashire Local - Wyre (1 August 2007) The Lancashire Local - Wyre asked that the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development be informed that it finds the proposed revised criteria for Residents Parking Permit Schemes to be reasonable. Lancashire Local - Ribble Valley (18 July 2007) In considering the revised residents parking criteria members made the following comments: • Any criteria need to be flexible and require unanimity and support from local

people. • Criterion 6 only refers to residents and should be amended to take account of

the views of the wider community, including local businesses. • If residents parking schemes are required to be self financing and must,

therefore, have the support of the majority of people in a specific area why must the County Council insist on certain provisions such as 67% of available kerb space being occupied for more than six hours between 8.00am and 6.00pm on five days in a week from Monday to Saturday? If there is a majority in support of a scheme then there should be a degree of flexibility as to how that scheme is introduced.

• When considering the introduction of a residents parking scheme the amenity

of residents needs to be balanced against the economic development of the area.

It was resolved that the views of the Lancashire Local - Ribble Valley as set out above be referred to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development for consideration.

12

Lancashire Local - Fylde (21 June 2007) The Local raised the following points: • The hope that schemes would be self funding. • Problems with parking at Blackpool Airport. Would a solution be no parking

for 1 or 2 hours per day? • Problems with parking at Clifton Hospital. It was resolved that the revised criteria for residents parking permit schemes be supported. Lancashire Local - Preston (12 June 2007) Concern was expressed that the provision of residents parking permit schemes was a very big issue in many parts of the city, in particular in the vicinity of Royal Preston Hospital; St Georges Road and St Thomas's Road; in the vicinity of the University of Central Lancashire; and in many other areas with large numbers of terraced housing, or multi-occupation housing, and it was felt that the revised criteria, as set out in the report, did not assist with many of the problems in those areas. It was felt that the criteria was a 'one size fits all' criteria, and it was felt that 'prescriptive, catch-all arrangements' would not work in many areas of the city - it was felt that different solutions would need to be sought to assist in different areas, and that local knowledge and local consultation was the best way forward. It was suggested that the criteria should be looked at again, with consideration being given to areas with special or peculiar issues, or areas vulnerable to overspill parking in the vicinity of, for example, an industry or a hospital. Until the findings of the Task Group were known, Lancashire Local - Preston was minded to say that it was not content with the proposed revised criteria as outlined in the report, and that, until that time, the proposed revised criteria should be 'left on the table'. It was resolved: a) That the revised Criteria for the Provision of Residents Parking Permit

Schemes, as detailed in the report, be noted; and b) That a Task Group of Lancashire Local - Preston be established, comprising

Members to be determined following discussions with the District Partnership Officer, together with an appropriate City Councillor who was not a Member of the Local, in order to address the matters contained in the proposed revised Criteria for Residential Parking Permit Schemes, and make suitable alternative suggestions with a view to making the criteria more flexible to suit local needs, and that a further report on the findings of the Task Group be presented to the next Meeting of Lancashire Local - Preston in order that the

13

views of the Local may be forwarded to the County Council's Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development; and

c) That the consultation exercise shortly to be commenced by Preston City

Council, referring specifically to problems in the vicinity of Royal Preston Hospital, in which residents would be requested to choose a favoured option to deal with the problems caused by parking from a range of options, should continue as planned.

The Task Group met on 20 July 2007 and presented a full and final report on this matter to the Lancashire Local - Preston meeting on 31 July 2007. A summary of the Task Group findings, and the recommendations of the Task Group, were as follows: In conclusion, the Task Group had acknowledged that there was no single solution to the problem, and that there was a need to make people and 'businesses; face up to problems themselves - there was a need to carry out consultation with communities and, as part of that consultation process, people needed to be made aware that there were potential consequences to the solution of the problem, and that there would be a financial cost to them. It was, however, felt that the wishes of residents were paramount, and that the proposed criteria should place greater emphasis on the views of those residents. The Task Group had reinforced the comments made at the previous Meeting of Lancashire Local - Preston, that it was felt that the criteria was a 'one size fits all' criteria, and it was felt that 'prescriptive, catch-all arrangements' would not work in many areas of the city - it was felt that different solutions would need to be sought to assist in different areas, and that local knowledge and local consultation was the best way forward. The Task Group recommended that the criteria should be looked at again, with consideration being given to areas with special or peculiar issues, or areas vulnerable to overspill parking in the vicinity of, for example, an industry, sporting venue, shopping centre or a hospital. The Task Group recommended that, rather than a 'standard policy' or 'criteria', the County Council should issue 'guidelines', which would enable consideration to be given to areas with special or peculiar issues. The Task Group recommended that Lancashire Local - Preston endorse the findings and recommendations of the Task Group on the Revision of Criteria for Provision of Residents Parking Permit Schemes, and agree that those views be forwarded to the County Council's Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development prior to a decision being made. Lancashire Local - Preston requested that a further report on this matter, containing advice as to how the Local might deal with local areas of concern, together with suggestions for a small number of schemes in Preston to be piloted on a trial basis

14

to address local problems, be presented to a future Meeting of Lancashire Local - Preston. It was resolved that: i) Lancashire Local - Preston noted the report from the Task Group formed by

the Local, giving consideration to the proposed revised criteria for the provision of Residents Parking Permit Schemes, and agreed that the comments and recommendations of the Task Group, as detailed in the report, be forwarded to the County Council's Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development prior to a decision being made; and

ii) Lancashire Local - Preston agreed that a further report on this matter,

containing advice as to how the Local might deal with local areas of concern, together with suggestions for a small number of schemes in Preston to be piloted on a trial basis to address local problems, be presented to a future Meeting of Lancashire Local - Preston.

Lancashire Local - South Ribble (20 June 2007) The Local queried whether a 'standard policy' was helpful in connection with this issue, feeling that the criteria was a 'one size fits all' criteria, which would not work in many areas - it was felt that different solutions would need to be sought to assist in different areas, and that local knowledge and local consultation was the best way forward. It was suggested that, rather than a 'standard policy' or 'criteria', the County Council should issue 'guidelines', which would enable consideration to be given to areas with special or peculiar issues. Lancashire Local - West Lancashire (11 July 2007) It was resolved that the revised criteria for residents parking permit schemes be supported. Lancashire Local - Chorley (13 June 2007) That a Sub Committee of the Local be established on the basis of six members (three from the County Council and three from the Borough Council) to examine the revised criteria for the consideration of residents parking schemes and respond to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development. Lancashire Local - Chorley - Residents Parking Sub Committee (13 August 2007) A report was presented regarding the proposed revised criteria for residents parking permit schemes. In considering the proposed revised criteria, members agreed to look at each criterion in turn and make comments.

15

Criterion 1 – Not less than 67% of the available kerb space should be occupied for more than six hours between 8.00am and 6.00pm on five or more days in a week from Monday to Saturday and a bona fide need of the residents should be established. It was noted that originally it had been proposed that 85% of available kerb space would be required to be occupied, though following initial consultations with District Councils this had subsequently been amended to 67% which was considered to be more reasonable. It was also noted that for the purposes of the criteria 'available kerb space' was defined as the length of unrestricted carriageway where parking could be permitted and would not include junctions, accesses and areas which were already subject to existing waiting restrictions (but not limited waiting). Criterion 2 - Not more than 50% of the car owning residents have or could make parking available within the curtilage of their property, or within 200 metres (walking distance) of that property in the form of rented space or garages etc. Off-street parking space should not be available within 200 metres walking distance. The meeting was informed that application of this criterion could mean that whilst a residents parking permit zone was introduced in a particular area, any property within that zone with a driveway would not then receive a permit. It was also noted that, as many families had more than one car, some residents may be opposed to the introduction of a zone for this reason or would need to consider converting areas such as front gardens in order to provide additional parking within the curtilage of their property. It was reported that the provision of rented space or separate garages was less of an issue in the borough than elsewhere in Lancashire. It was suggested that in some rural areas within the borough, residents would be unlikely to consider parking vehicles 200 metres away from their property for fear of theft or vandalism. Members noted that the criterion referred to 'car owning residents' as opposed to householders and it was confirmed that it was currently the Borough Council policy to issue two permits per household to those eligible residents within a zone. It was reported that disabled drivers were not exempt from a residents parking zone and in certain cases permits could be issued for use by non-residents such as carers or family members who had elderly relatives living within a zone. Some concern was expressed regarding possible future demand on residents parking zones if properties within an existing zone were changed from single to multiple occupancy resulting in an increased number of car owning residents then seeking permits for a zone with little if any spare capacity. The Chair suggested that in designing future schemes care needed to be taken to ensure that there was a degree of flexibility with regard to the operation of the residents parking zone so that on-street parking became available at times of low demand, eg after 6.00pm. In response, Mr Capstick reported that officers already took care when designing schemes and referred to the Eaves Lane Zone where parking was limited to residents only between 8.00am and 8.00pm all day.

16

Criterion 3 – The peak or normal working day demand for residents spaces should be able to be met. Members noted that the presence of commercial activity within a proposed residents parking permit zone was a factor which needed to be taken into account as it was possible that this could have a significant affect on the on-street parking within the area. Criterion 4 – When considering the introduction of concessions for residents within an existing restricted area, the re-introduction of a limited number of parked vehicles should not negate the original reasons for introducing the restrictions. Members agreed that when considering the introduction of residents parking permit schemes careful consideration needs to be given to the design of the scheme in order to ensure that it did not conflict with any prohibition of waiting or other restriction which was already in place. It was reported that in designing future schemes, the opportunity would be taken to review any existing restrictions as they could no longer be necessary due to changed circumstances in the area. Criterion 5 – The Police should be satisfied that a reasonable level of enforcement of the proposals can be maintained, or alternatively that enforcement could be adequately carried out by some alternative means. It was noted that the support of the Police was required when pursuing any Traffic Regulation Order. However, it was confirmed that whilst the Police could take action in relation to vehicles which caused an obstruction, following the decriminalisation of parking it would be for the Borough Council (via ParkWise) to carry out enforcement associated with prohibition/restriction of waiting and residents parking schemes. Criterion 6 - The proposals should be acceptable to the greater proportion of the residents. A 75% response rate from households, with greater than 50% of these being in favour of the scheme, is considered acceptable. It was reported that as the previous wording had simply referred to the 'greater proportion of residents' in considering revising the criteria the opportunity had been taken to clarify the level of support which was considered necessary for a residents parking scheme to progress. Criterion 7 – The introduction of the scheme should not be likely to cause unacceptable problems in adjacent roads. The proposed criterion was accepted. Criterion 8 – Permits for non-residential premises should be able to be limited in their issue to essential operational use only. The proposed criterion was accepted.

17

In response to a query regarding the funding of residents parking schemes it was reported that currently the Borough Council charged £15.00 for an initial permit and £35.00 for a second permit with Business Permits costing £220. Mr Capstick added that the charges for permits should cover the cost of administering any residents parking permit scheme. It was noted that following the dissolution of the Lancashire Highways Partnership there was some confusion as to how residents parking schemes would be processed in the future. Ms Fodor reminded members that once the criteria upon which new schemes would be assessed had been approved, further consultation with District Councils would take place in relation to the processes to be adopted in the identification, funding, administration and implementation of future schemes in order to provide clarity and consistency of approach. It was noted that a further report regarding this aspect would be submitted to the Lancashire Local - Chorley in due course. It was resolved: 1. That the Sub Committee generally welcome the proposed revised criteria for

residents parking permit schemes as set out in the report and make the following specific comments.

a) That consideration be given to the use of plain English in relation to the

wording of the revised criteria, particularly with regard to Criterion 2. b) That in future greater flexibility be applied in the design of resident parking

permit schemes to ensure that there is sufficient availability of parking for residents at times when demand for parking was low.

c) That the Borough Council as planning authority have regard to parking when

considering any future planning applications in respect of a change of occupancy as this may have an impact on the operation of residents parking permit schemes.

d) That all Lancashire Local Committees have a determining role with regard to

future residents parking permit schemes. 2. That the views of the Sub Committee be reported to the Cabinet Member for

Sustainable Development for consideration before any decision is made in relation to the revised criteria for residents parking permit schemes.

3. That a further report in relation to the processes to be adopted in the

identification, funding, administration and implementation of future residents parking permit schemes be brought to all Lancashire Locals in due course for consideration and comment.

Lancashire Local - Hyndburn (25 June 2007) It was resolved that the Lancashire Local - Hyndburn supports the revised criteria for the consideration of residents parking schemes.

18

Lancashire Local - Burnley (19 July 2007) It was felt that residents of many areas were keen to see such schemes implemented, until it became known that there was a cost element, ie an annual fee, and it was felt important that residents should be made aware of those costs at an early stage in the consultation procedure in order to attempt to avoid abortive preparatory works being undertaken. It was resolved that the comments now made by Lancashire Local - Burnley on the revised Criteria for the Provision of Residents Parking Permit Schemes, as detailed in the report, be submitted to the County Council's Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development prior to his Decision Making Session. Lancashire Local - Pendle (6 June 2007) The Lancashire Local had previously established a Working Group which had provided comments to contribute to the original consultation exercise. The main thrust of those comments was the need for flexibility within the policy to allow local decisions to reflect local circumstances to permit variable schemes, such as limited waiting during the day and residents parking in the evening. This would address difficulties in Pendle where the main problems were in the evening when residents required parking facilities. In addition, it had been the view of the Working Group that available kerb space should be occupied for more than four hours during the day instead of six hours (Criterion 1). As now proposed, these requests had not been reflected in the revised criteria and the Lancashire Local wished to reaffirm that it remained of the view that it would wish to see these suggestions incorporated into the revised criteria. It was resolved that the Working Group previously established to consider and comment on the current criteria for the provision of residents car parking schemes be reconvened to consider and comment on the revised proposed criteria. Lancashire Local - Pendle's Response (9 July 2007) The comments below relate to Appendix B of the County Council's draft policy. The amendments below apply to each paragraph. 1. Pendle request that the available kerbside space be not less than 60% and

not 67% as recommended by the County Council. 2. It is felt that 200 metres is unduly restrictive and should be reduced to a more

reasonable distance. However, if this is not negotiable it is felt that individual applications should be treated on their own merits. For example, Duke Street in Colne is a particularly steep street and there is a significant gradient over a distance of 200 metres which would not be deemed as a reasonable distance to walk, especially for the elderly or a young mother pushing a pram.

3. No comment.

19

4. No comment. 5. Given the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement in 2004,

although it is reasonable to consult the Police on the proposed introduction of all new resident parking areas it is felt that their opinion should now have less weight in as far as they will not be enforcing the Traffic Regulation Order.

6. It is felt that 75% is an unrealistic response rate to expect, especially taking

into account areas with rented accommodation, student lodging etc. 60% is a more reasonable minimum response requirement.

7. It is accepted that the introduction of a scheme should not cause

unacceptable problems in adjacent roads. 8. It is accepted that non-residential permits should only be issued to essential

operational users only. In addition to the comments above, the Lancashire Local - Pendle would like to add that notwithstanding the general criteria, each case should be treated on its own merits. In such cases Lancashire Locals should be consulted and have the ability to overturn rulings where it is felt that the introduction of a residents parking area would be in the public's interest. Lancashire Local - Rossendale (12 June 2007) The Local welcomed and supported the proposed revised criteria for residents parking as set out in the report.

20

Decision Taken: Declarations

Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development

Revision of Criteria for Provision of Residents Parking Permit Schemes

This item has been cleared by the: County Secretary & Solicitor : Finance Group

Yes Yes

Original recommendation, as set out in the report, approved without amendment.

Yes

Original recommendation amended and decision as follows:

No

I have a personal/prejudicial interest in this matter. No

If an interest is declared please give details below:

A C P Martin Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development 5 November 2007

Chief Officer I certify that this is an appropriate and accurate record within the terms of Standing Order 62(3) and (5) of the decision taken by the Cabinet Member.

Graham Harding Executive Director of Environment 5 November 2007

*Delete as appropriate

(NOTE - This item is published before the decision is considered. The item will be re-filed should the decision taken differ from that recommended in the report)

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 15

Electoral Divisions affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Speed Limit Review of 'A' and 'B' Roads in Lancashire (Appendices 'A' and 'B' refer) Contact for further information: Martin Galloway, 01772 532096, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate martin.galloway@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report outlines the study carried out into the existing speed limits on all 'A' and 'B' roads in Lancashire and makes recommendations for the amendment of a small number as detailed at Appendix 'A' to this report. In addition, the proposed changes are set out on the attached Plan. A copy of the consultant’s report for the Lancaster area is set out for information at Appendix ‘B’ which is only available electronically on the County Council’s Democratic Information System (DIS). It is proposed that once the views of the Lancashire Local Committees have been offered, a report will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development seeking approval in principle for the total programme of proposals. The proposed speed limit orders will then be formally advertised and any objections received will be reported for determination by the relevant Lancashire Local Committee. Decision Required The views of the Lancashire Local are sought on the proposed changes to speed limits as a result of the comprehensive speed limit review of 'A' and 'B' roads in Lancashire.

- 2 -

Background and Advice As outlined in the County Councils Speed Management Strategy (approved by the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development, 2 October 2007) there are 130 different 'A' and 'B' class roads within Lancashire, all of which have required assessment. The review of the current and appropriate speed limit for each road has now been completed with a series of recommended changes to the limits being identified. The review of speed limits has been carried out in accordance with the guidelines as detailed in Circular 01/2006 with the review of these routes being outsourced due to the level of resources required and in line with the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport, "to formally review the speed limits on 'A' and 'B' roads in accordance with this new guidance, and implement any necessary changes, by 2011". A copy of the consultants’ report for the Lancaster area is set out at Appendix ‘B’ to this report, however in the interests of economy, is only currently available in electronic format. Consultations The views of Area Managers teams and the local traffic police have been sought during this review process. The views of the Lancashire Locals are now being sought before any formal advertising takes place. Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Risk management Within Circular Roads 1/2006 there was a requirement to review all speed limits and implement any changes on 'A' and 'B' class roads by 2011. It was considered essential that the review stage took place as quickly as possible with a view to the review being completed within 12 months of its commencement. Any changes identified, as part of this process could then be implemented over the remaining period up to 2011. The proposed changes to speed limits will necessitate a range of physical measures from simple sign changes to the introduction of more robust gateway treatments or even interactive signs or carriageway alterations. There was no option given by the Secretary of State not to carry out this review. No significant risks have been identified in relation to the proposals contained within this report. Financial The physical works whether they are simple signs or more significant alterations will necessitate financial provision over the next two years and as a consequence the

- 3 -

proposals have been prioritised within the report as phase 1 – replacement signs or phase 2/3 – physical alterations. It is possible that the works will have to be carried out over the next three years due to financial constraints and subject to approval and legal procedures. The work may have to be carried out on an area basis to facilitate the phasing and identification of the necessary funding over the next three years, which has yet to be finalised. Legal All new speed limit orders will require that a statutory advertising and order making process be followed. It would be proposed to follow the same phasing as identified above. Traffic Management The proposals are consistent with maintaining the free flow and safe movement of traffic. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel Speed Management Strategy – Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development decision Department for Transport Circular 1/2006 Setting Local Speed Limits

2 October 2007 29 August 2006

Martin Galloway / Lancashire County Council/ 01772 532096 Martin Galloway / Lancashire County Council/ 01772 532096

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Appendix 'A' Review of speed limits on A and B roads

Proposed Schemes Across Lancashire

District No. of SchemesChorley 9Pendle 3Lancaster 12West Lancashire 13Preston 4Hyndburn 5South Ribble 11Wyre 7Fylde 0Ribble Valley 6Rossendale 6Burnley 8

Route Section

Route Section Description

Length (km)

Existing Speed Limit (mph)

Proposed Speed Limit

(mph)Priority Accompanying Works Notes

A6 / 001 Preston Lancaster Road 2.400 60 50 1Replace current terminal signs and install new

repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new speed limit.

A6 / 004Preston Lancaster Road &

Scotforth Road (Lancaster)

0.300 50 40 2Replace current terminal signs and install new

repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new speed limit.

A6 / 005Preston Lancaster Road &

Scotforth Road (Lancaster)

1.390 50 40 2

40mph gateway treatment including signs on yellow backboards, roundels and dragon teeth as well as "SLOW" carriageway markings at various points

along the section. Replace repeater signs.

A6 / 007 Lancaster Road & Main Road (Slyne-with-Hest) 1.470 50 40 1

Replace current terminal signs and install new repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new

speed limit.

A6 / 010Slyne Road, By-Pass

Road (Bolton-le-Sands) Main Road (Carnforth)

1.300 40 30 230mph gateway treatment including terminal signs

on yellow backboards, 30mph carriageway roundels and dragons teeth.

A6 / 014 Scotland Road 1.470 60 50 1Replace current terminal signs and install new

repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new speed limit.

A6 / 015 Scotland Road 0.440 60 50 1Replace current terminal signs and install new

repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new speed limit.

A6 / 016 Scotland Road 0.580 60 50 1Replace current terminal signs and install new

repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new speed limit.

A601(M) / 003 (Warton) 0.150 70 50 1

Add new 50mph terminal signs and add new repeater signs at the appropriate spacing for the

new speed limit.

A683 / 001Lancaster / Morecambe Bypass (Morecambe, Heaton with Oxcliffe)

4.600 50 60 1Replace current terminal signs and install new

repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new speed limit.

B5290 / 001 Ship Road (Thurnham) 0.726 60 40 2

40mph gateway treatments to include signs on yellow backboards and carriageway roundels. Install

new repeater signs located at the appropriate spacing for the new speed limit. Due to existing

mean speed no further works should be required. Change to the carriageway centre line markings due

to the reduction in speed limit.

B6480 / 005 Bentham Road ( Wennington) 1.395 60 50 1

Replace current terminal signs and install new repeaters at the appropriate spacing for the new

speed limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads

Package 3 – Lancaster

December 2008 Produced for Lancashire County Council St John's House Queen Street Manchester M2 5JB UK T 0161 832 4542 F 0161 835 2038 E info@mouchel.com

© Mouchel 2008 i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads

Report Title Package 3 – Lancaster

Revision E

Status Final

Control Date 10th December 2008

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft B. Hardy 15/01/08 G. Hough 16/01/08 D. Nicholson 16/01/08

B Draft J. Earl 28/04/08 G. Hough 28/04/08 P. Ramsey 28/04/08

C Final G. Prince 26/08/08 G. Hulme 29/08/08 P. Ramsey 05/09/08

D Final J. Pollard 17/10/08 G. Prince 17/10/08 D. Nicholson 17/10/08

E Final L. Low 10/12/08 G. Prince 10/12//08 D. Nicholson 10/12/08

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Lancashire County Council Martin Galloway 1

This Report is presented to Lancashire County Council in respect of Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads

and may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not

covered specifically by the scope of this Report.

© Mouchel 2008 ii

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, Mouchel Limited is obliged to exercise

reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by Lancashire County

Council and Mouchel Limited shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable

skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly.

This Report has been prepared by Mouchel Limited. No individual is personally liable in connection with the

preparation of this Report. By receiving this Report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts

that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.

The material contained within drawings within this report have been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey

Map with the permission of the controller of HMSO. License Number: 100023320. © Crown Copyright

reserved

Unless otherwise stated, all references to 60mph speed limits refer to the national speed limit for single

carriageway roads. Where a posted speed limit of 60mph is recommended for a dual carriageway section

of road attention will be drawn to that fact.

© Mouchel 2008 iii

Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 2

2 Package 3 – Lancaster ...................................................................................... 2

Appendix A – Figures

Appendix B – Area Team Meeting Minutes

Appendix C – Area Team Review Meeting Minutes

Appendix D – Assessment Proformas

Appendix E – Schedules

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Speed Limit Review Mouchel has been commissioned by Lancashire County Council to undertake a review of speed limits on all A and B class roads within the county.

This commission has been undertaken in two stages, the first to develop a methodology and project plan, and the second to undertake the review itself. The first stage of the commission reported in the summer of 2007 and work began on the second stage during the Autumn.

1.2 Package 3 – Lancaster In developing the methodology for undertaking the speed limit review, the A and B roads within the county have been split into twelve separate packages based on the boundaries of the twelve two-tier shire districts within Lancashire. Each package includes the review of all A and B roads within a particular shire district.

This report presents the results of the review of speed limits on roads within the seventh of these packages of routes, the Lancaster Package.

1.3 Structure of this Report Following on from the introduction this report provides some brief background to the package of routes and then goes on to present the recommendations of the review for package three.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008 2

2 Package 3 – Lancaster

2.1 Package Composition The Lancaster package of routes covers 137km of county A and B road. The individual routes covered by this package are as follows:

• A6 – 27.86km

• A588 – 14.55km

• A589 – 12.80km

• A601(M) – 2.20km

• A683 – 29.10km

• A687 – 2.90km

• A5105 – 4.49km

• A6070 – 2.40km

• B5272 – 1.75km

• B5273 – 4.96km

• B5274 – 1.17km

• B5275 – 1.57km

• B5290 – 1.61km

• B5321 – 5.80km

• B6254 – 16.40km

• B6480 – 7.26km

Drawing 724130/040/103/001 in Appendix A shows the full extent of routes covered by the Lancaster package, including existing speed limits.

2.2 Lancaster Overview Lancaster district borders Cumbria to the north, North Yorkshire to the northeast, Ribble Valley to the southeast and Wyre to the south. In this district there is a strong mix of urban and rural areas, with the urban areas including Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham. There are also many small rural villages such as Hornby and Cantsfield to the east. The A6 connects the south to the north of the package and runs parallel to the M6 linking the district to the national motorway network.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008 3

A meeting was held between Mouchel staff and local Lancashire County Council Highway staff to discuss the package in terms of existing/historic speed concerns, recent local safety schemes and future committed development that would have an impact on the traffic flow patterns or speed characteristics of the package of routes. The results of the meeting have been incorporated into the section analysis proformas and have helped to rationalise some of the decisions made.

The minutes from the meeting between the project team, the area team and the police, to discuss this package, can be found in Appendix B.

2.3 Methodology The methodology employed can broadly be split into three sections, namely:

• driving the route and filming the entire package (all roads, both directions);

• determining the route sections, based on existing speed limit changes, changes in environment, accident records, etc; and,

• completing the proformas, analysing the results to ensure consistency and making the relevant recommendations.

In order to determine the strategy for collecting new traffic data the sections were examined to determine the availability of existing data, the presence of any accident problem and the current speed limit. Lancashire County Council assisted in processes has provided all of the speed, volume and accident data it has available. This coarse sift enabled Mouchel to be selective in acquiring new data as assumptions regarding the mean speed of heavily built up areas currently subject to restricted road status meant that no data would be required on these sections over and above that already held.

Following the submission of the draft of this report, a second meeting was held with the local Area Team to review the recommendations. The outputs from this meeting (see Appendix C) have been reviewed and used to finalise this report.

The proformas providing summaries of the assessment processes undertaken for each route section and identifying the recommended speed limits are provided in Appendix D.

Schedules providing the text for the revised Orders implementing the new speed limits are provided in Appendix E.

2.4 Route Sections The following table provides a summary of the current and proposed speed limits for each route section covered by the Lancaster package. Blue shading indicates a proposed change to the existing speed limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008 4

Route Section Length Existing Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

A6 A6/001 2.40km 60 50 A6/002 0.90km 30 30 A6/003 1.40km 50 50 A6/004 0.30km 50 40 A6/005 1.39km 50 40 A6/006 7.26km 30 30 A6/007 1.47km 50 40 A6/008 0.63km 30 30 A6/009 0.40km 40 40 A6/010 1.30km 40 30 A6/011 1.10km 30 30 A6/012 1.00km 40 40 A6/013 1.60km 30 30 A6/014 1.47km 60 50 A6/015 0.44km 60 50 A6/016 0.58km 60 50 A6/017 0.94km 70 70 A6/018 3.40km 60 60 A588 A588/001 4.75km 60 60 A588/002 0.80km 40 40 A588/003 6.84km 60 60 A588/004 2.16km 30 30 A589 A589/001 7.70km 30 30 A589/002 1.20km 40 40 A589/003 3.10km 30 30 A589/004 0.80km 40 40 A601(m) A601(m)/001 0.80km 60 60 A601(m)/002 1.16km 70 70 A601(m)/003 0.15km 70 50 A683 A683/001 4.50km 50 60 A683/002 1.17km 40 40 A683/003 1.08km 30 30 A683/004 1.67km 40 40 A683/005 1.95km 60 60 A683/006 0.98km 60 60 A683/007 1.15km 30 30 A683/008 2.48km 60 60 A683/009 1.40km 40 40 A683/010 2.25km 60 60 A683/011 1.09km 30 30 A683/012 1.90km 60 60 A683/013 0.95km 30 30 A683/014 2.60km 60 60 A683/015 0.60km 30 30 A683/016 1.20km 60 60 A683/017 0.50km 30 30 A683/018 2.40km 60 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008 5

Route Section Length Existing Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

A687 A687/001 2.90km 60 60 A5105 A5105/001 1.40km 30 30 A5105/002 0.90km 40 40 A5105/003 1.50km 40 40 A5105/004 0.60km 40 40 A6070 A6070/001 2.40km 60 60 B5272 B5272/001 0.99km 60 60 B5272/002 0.76km 30 30 B5273 B5273/001 1.10km 30 30 B5273/002 3.10km 40 40 B5273/003 0.76km 30 30 B5274 B5274/001 1.17km 30 30 B5275 B5275/001 1.57km 30 30 B5290 B5290/001 0.74km 60 40 B5290/002 0.87km 30 30 B5321 B5321/001 5.80km 30 30 B6254 B6254/001 0.90km 30 30 B6254/002 0.90km 60 60 B6254/003 1.30km 30 30 B6254/004 5.70km 60 60 B6254/005 0.60km 30 30 B6254/006 2.60km 60 60 B6254/007 0.60km 60 60 B6254/008 0.90km 60 60 B6254/009 0.60km 30 30 B6254/010 2.30km 60 60 B6480 B6480/001 2.30km 60 60 B6480/002 0.50km 30 30 B6480/003 2.30km 60 60 B6480/004 0.76km 30 30 B6480/005 1.40km 60 50

Within Appendix A, Drawing 724130/040/103/002 highlights where changes to speed limits are proposed and Drawing 724130/040/103/003 shows the proposed speed limits within the Lancaster package.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Appendix A – Figures

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Appendix B – Area Team Meeting Minutes

Lancashire Speed Limit Review - Package 3 Lancaster Minutes

Area North Offices, Galgate 10:00 am, Wednesday, 09 January 2008

Present Lancashire County Council: Karen Galloway (KG), Ian Kime (IK), Clive Holt (CH), John Foster (JF) Mouchel: Gary Hough (GH), Geoff Prince (GP)

Distribution Invitees, Local Police (Mark Proctor)

1.0 Agreement of route sections not subjected to review

Action by: Date:

GH & GP discussed the way in which Mouchel had been appointed to provide a Speed Limit Review for Lancashire County Council as part of the existing framework. It was discussed that the current routes were including all A classified and B classified routes (except for Trunk Roads) within the district. The districts of Lancashire have been split into ten different packages and each one will be reviewed individually.

GH showed all attendees a plan detailing the routes to be covered within each package.

As part of the discussions it was described to attendees how the routes were split into separate sections for analysis. Each road has been driven and video recorded in both directions, these roads have then had a desktop study applied looking at the existing speed limits and accident data. The roads are then split by existing speed limits, high accidents and change of characteristics of the road.

As part of the discussions that took place, it was decided that the following sections needed adding to the current plan:

• A6 Bolton-Le-Sands, Hesbank, 40mph area to be split and re-assessed in light of

GP

ASAP

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

adjacent SRS, 2 distinct stretches of differing character – is rural section too short?

• B5254 – village of Newton to be assessed in isolation.

• A65 to be de-trunked in near future, assess?

2.0 Recent safety schemes within route sections

Discussions took place regarding any recent safety schemes within the proposed route sections that might have effected the current speeds or accidents along sections, the following list details all the schemes:

• A683 – 2 schemes in programme, signs and lines.

• Oxcliffe Road, signs and lines.

3.0 Existing speed related problems & issues

GH & GP asked the attendees if there were any specific sections that had speed related problems or issue. The following list details all the existing sites:

• Broadway to be reduced to 30mph – political pressure.

• Greyhound Bridge – 40mph to be reduced, merging issues and accident problems.

• Heysham Link, police enforcement issues at present.

• County-wide desire to see speed limit consistency along entire length of A6.

• A6 north of Carnforth, high KSI ratio. LCC currently monitoring situation

• Claughton – local pressure requesting 30mph limit through village

4.0 Scheme or development proposals

It was discussed that any major schemes or developments could have an impact on the review. The attendees were asked to provide information on any large or significant schemes or developments that will impact on the review, the list below details all schemes:

• A6 – north of university potential

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

development, Science Park. • A6 – large scale expansion of University. • Docks – 50% increase in size of Marina. • Heysham Link, waste transfer station, new

roundabout. • Heysham Link extension proposals.

5.0 Extensions to existing sections

Existing speed limits in need of extension to encompass recent development:

• B6254 – Cornish, planning permission granted for industrial estate.

• B6254 – Over Kellet, request received to extend speed limit to incorporate new development.

• B6254 – Arkholme, village hall built outside of speed limit.

• A683 – Hornby, locals request extension.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Appendix C – Area Team Review Meeting Minutes

Lancashire Speed Limit Review - Lancaster, Wyre & Fylde Minutes

Lancashire County Council Offices - Area North

9:30 am, Tuesday, 15 July 2008

Present

Lancashire County Council: Glenn Robinson (GR), Ian Keim (IK), Jim Robson (JR), John Foster (JF), Karen Galloway (KG)

Mouchel: Gary Hough (GH), Geoff Prince (GP)

Distribution

Invitees

1.0 Introduction

GH welcomed everyone to the meeting and described how the outcome of the meeting will be presented. The final outcome of the meeting in terms of speed limits changed will be documented within the final report. The purpose of this meeting is to agree a final list of changes to the current speed limits within Lancashire, Wyre & Fylde.

2.0 Lancaster 2.1 A6 Section 1 – It is proposed by Mouchel to decrease

the speed limit along this section from 60mph to 50mph. This was agreed by the meeting.

Section 4 – There was no recommended change on

this section. However; LCC would like this section reduced to 40mph. The meeting agreed that this would be the most suitable speed limit for this section.

Mouchel

Section 7 – LCC would like this section reducing

from 50mph to 40mph to keep consistency throughout the route. This was agreed within the meeting.

Section 10 – It is proposed to reduce this section

from 40mph to 30mph. It was agreed within the

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

meeting that this would be acceptable. Section 15 – This section should be shown as

60mph not 70mph. Mouchel

Section 14 – LCC would like this section to be

reduced to 50mph. Mouchel is to reassess this section.

Mouchel

Section 15 – LCC would like this section reduced

from 60mph to 50mph. Mouchel will reinvestigate this section.

Mouchel

Section 16 – It is proposed to reduce this section

from 60mph to 50mph. This was agreed by the meeting.

The meeting accepted the recommendations for

remainder of the route.

2.2 A601(M) Section 2 – It was agreed within the meeting to

reduce the northern part of Section 2 to create a 50mph section approximately 150m south of its junction with the A6. This will need to be labelled as A601 (M) Section 3.

Mouchel

The remainder of the sections were accepted by the

meeting.

2.3 A6070 There are no proposed changes to this route; this

was accepted by the meeting.

2.4 A588 There are no proposed changes to this route. The

meeting agreed this.

2.5 A589 Section 4 – LCC highlighted the high numbers of

accidents along this section. Mouchel is to reinvestigate and assess if this section should be reduced to 30mph.

Mouchel

The meeting agreed with the recommendations for

remainder of the route.

2.6 A683 Section 1 – It is proposed to increase this section

from 50mph to 60mph. This was agreed within the meeting.

Section 9 – It is proposed to increase this section

from 40mph to 60mph. This was rejected by the meeting and Mouchel has been asked to return this

Mouchel

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

to 40mph due to proposed engineering works to take place to improve the existing gateways at the start of the section.

There are no proposed to changes to remainder of the route. The meeting agreed with this.

2.7 A687 There are no proposed changes; these were

accepted by the meeting.

2.8 A5105 There are no proposed changes to this section,

which was agreed by the group.

2.9 B5272 There are no proposed changes to this section; this

was agreed within the meeting.

2.10 B5273 There are no proposed changes to this section; this

was agreed within the meeting.

2.11 B5274 There no proposed changes along this route; this

was agreed within the meeting.

2.12 B5275 There are no proposed changes to this route. This

was agreed within the meeting.

2.13 B5290 Section 1 – It is proposed to reduce this section from

60mph to 40mph. This was agreed within the meeting.

There are no proposed changes for the remainder of

the route. This was agreed with the meeting.

2.14 B5321 There are no proposed changes to this route. This

was agreed within the meeting.

2.15 B6254 There are no proposed changes to this section. This

was agreed within the meeting.

2.16 B6480 Section 5 – It is proposed to reduce this section from

60mph to 50mph. LCC would like Mouchel to reinvestigate this section.

Mouchel

There are no proposed changes for the remainder of

the route. This was agreed with the meeting.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Appendix D – Assessment Proformas

A6

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/001 Section Length 2.4km Start OSGR 349017,452478 End OSGR 348319,454848 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 20.05 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed 43.81 Mph 50 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

60 Mph 60

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�� �

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

15.2 Accs/100m veh km

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

40 Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

60mph

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments: In the interest of consistency across the entire route, a speed limit of 50mph has been recommended. This reflects the above indicators.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/002 Section Length 0.9km Start OSGR 348319,454848 End OSGR 348334,455765 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 30/40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Pubs, Shop, Car Sales 30/40 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30/40

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Speed camera

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 123.41 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The existing speed limit was deemed appropriate due to the high accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/003 Section Length 1.4km Start OSGR 348334,455765 End OSGR 348091,457225 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

50mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30/40

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 50 Speed reduction measures? Rumble strips leading into the 30 zone

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 35.26 Accs/100m veh

km 30/40

Current Mean Speed 46.49 Mph 50 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

50 Mph 50

Recommended Speed Limit

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Yes Comments: The existing speed limit was deemed appropriate because of the current mean speed and accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/004 Section Length 0.3km Start OSGR 348091,457225 End OSGR 348037,457500 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Dual

Existing Speed Limit

50mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? University of Lancaster 50 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 50/60

Present Not Present 50 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 0 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments following area team review meeting: Although Mouchel has recommended the speed limit to remain at 50mph, the area team would prefer if the speed limit along this section was reduced to 40mph due to a new set of traffic signals which links the A6 to the University. This was agreed within the meeting to be the most suitable speed limit for this section.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/005 Section Length 1.39km Start OSGR 348037,457500 End OSGR 348003,458870 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

50mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30/40

Specific development? None 50 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 50 Speed reduction measures? Rumble strips leading into 30mph zone

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 199.36 Accs/100m veh

km 30/40

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

107.23 Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

40 Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: 40mph gateway treatment including signs on yellow backboards, roundels and dragons teeth as well as "SLOW" carriageway markings at various points along the section. Replace repeater signs. Comments: A reduction in speed limit from 50mph to 40mph is recommended for this section. Despite the low level of development, the high accident rate indicates that a reduction in speed limit would be appropriate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/006 Section Length 7.26km Start OSGR 348003,458870 End OSGR 347661,464082 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? School, Pub, Bus Station, Town Centre Shops, Schools,

30

Road standard Narrow urban

Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 316.18 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Speed camera Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The existing speed limit was deemed appropriate because of the highly built up

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

urban nature of the road and high accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/007 Section Length 1.47km Start OSGR 347661,464082 End OSGR 347762,465516 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

50mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 50 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 23.48 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

N/A

Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments following area team review meeting: Although Mouchel has recommended the speed limit to remain at 50mph due to a low accident rate, the area team review meeting would prefer if the speed limit along this section was reduced to 40mph to keep a level of consistency through the whole route. This was agreed within the meeting to be the most suitable speed limit for this section.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/008 Section Length 0.63km Start OSGR 347762,465516 End OSGR 347821,466112 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 40

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Nursing home 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Gateways

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 62.62 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

N/A

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The existing speed limit was deemed acceptable due to high number of accidents along the route section

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/009 Section Length 0.4km Start OSGR 347821,466112 End OSGR 347990,466489 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures?

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 65.76 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

N/A

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to the section leaving a 30mph and entering a 40mph, it is believed that this section should remain at 40mph for consistency.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/010 Section Length 1.3km Start OSGR 347990,466489 End OSGR 348132,467766 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 40

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? Police station, bridge, signal junction

30

Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30 Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures?

Speed cameras Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 20.23 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Checked for consistency across whole route?

N/A

Potential speed reduction measures: 30mph gateway treatment including terminal signs on yellow backboards, 30mph carriageway roundels and dragons teeth. Comments: Due to proximity of residential properties to the carriageway, it has been decided to reduce the current speed limit to 30mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/011 Section Length 1.1km Start OSGR 348132,467766 End OSGR 348606,468796 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Pub, School, Fire station, allotments 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 47.82 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Speed cameras Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The existing speed limit was deemed appropriate because of the highly built up urban nature of the road and relatively high accident rate.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/012 Section Length 1km Start OSGR 348606,468796 End OSGR 349153,469531 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 26.3 Accs/100m veh

km 40

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit remains at 40mph. This is for continuity, as it is between two built up 30mph zones. In addition, the incidence of bends and the accident rate indicates that 40mph is the appropriate limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/013 Section Length 1.6km Start OSGR 349153,469531 End OSGR 350094,470816 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30/40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Church, School, Hotel, Petrol Station 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 116.28 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit of 30mph is retained for this section. This is due to the specific developments, high use by vulnerable users

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

and a very high accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/014 Section Length 1.47km Start OSGR 350094,470816 End OSGR 350864,472077 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 8.95 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments following area team review meeting: Although Mouchel has recommended this section to remain as 60mph, it was discussed in great detail within the area team meeting regarding reducing this section to 50mph due to a number of accidents located at the junction of the A6 and A601(M). The meeting concluded that the most appropriate speed limit for this section is 50mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/015 Section Length 0.44km Start OSGR 350864,472077 End OSGR 351119,472439 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 14.94 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments following area team review meeting: Although Mouchel has recommended this section remains at 60mph, it was discussed in great detail within the area team meeting regarding reducing this section to 50mph due to a number of accidents located at the junction of the A6 and A601(M). The meeting concluded that the most appropriate speed limit for this section is 50mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/016 Section Length 0.58km Start OSGR 351119,472439 End OSGR 351385,472969 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 47.83 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments: Despite the proforma indicating that 60mph is the most appropriate speed limit, local knowledge of the section suggests that 50mph is more appropriate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/017 Section Length 0.94km Start OSGR 351385,472969 End OSGR 351220,473872 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Dual

Existing Speed Limit

70mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 70

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 70

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 70

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60/70

Specific development? None 70 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 70

Present Not Present 70 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 29.51 Accs/100m veh

km 60/70

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

40 50

60 70

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit is retained at 70mph. This is due to it being a dual carriageway, having low level of development and low incidence of bends and junctions.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A6 Road Section A6/018 Section Length 3.4km Start OSGR 351220,473872 End OSGR 350967,477181 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50/60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 26.52 Accs/100m veh

km 50/60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

60mph

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit is retained at 60mph. This is due to the low level of development, no specific development and having few bends or junctions.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

A588

Area Lancaster Road Number A588 Road Section A588/001 Section Length 4.75km Start OSGR 342509, 449795 End OSGR 346186, 452006 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? Rumble Strips, 40mph advisable limit through

bend. Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 55.16 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

N/A

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

60

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Comments: Despite the high accident rate, all other variables associated with the section show that the speed limit should remain at 60mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A588 Road Section A588/002 Section Length 0.80km Start OSGR 346186, 452006 End OSGR 346431, 452654 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 40

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 40

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 30/40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50

Specific development? Village, Sewage Works 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 40

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? Rumble Strips

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 16.16 Accs/100m veh

km 50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

N/A

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph N/A

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The section has a low accident rate, the village is set back from the carriageway and the road is wide, therefore the speed limit should remain at 40mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A588 Road Section A588/003 Section Length 6.84km Start OSGR 346431, 452652 End OSGR 347087, 458932 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? Rumble Strips

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 111.20 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

N/A

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph N/A

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: Comments: The extremely low level of development on this section makes the existing 60mph speed limit appropriate to the conditions of the road. Any decrease in the speed limit would be unlikely to reduce the accident rate and as such, it is advised to retain the current speed limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A588 Road Section A588/004 Section Length 2.16km Start OSGR 348087, 458932 End OSGR 347906, 460914 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30/40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30/40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 40

Specific development? Sports Ground, College, School, Hospital

30

Road standard Narrow urban

Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30/40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 66.44 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Recommended Speed Limit

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: Comments: It is advised to retain the current speed limit of 30mph due to the section running through the residential area on the edge of Lancaster. The location of the school, college and hospital, and the nature of the road conditions indicate that the

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

existing limit is the most appropriate limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

A589

Area Lancaster Road Number A589 Road Section A589/001 Section Length 7.7km Start OSGR 340429,460044 End OSGR 344630,464722 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Pubs, shops, hotels, schools, post office 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 21.89 Accs/100m veh km

30/40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30/40

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Speed cameras, speed humps Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The existing speed limit was deemed appropriate because of developments and the number of vulnerable road users.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A589 Road Section A589/002 Section Length 1.2km Start OSGR 344630,464722 End OSGR 345173,463758 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30/40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Residential, care home 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 19.58 Accs/100m veh km

30/40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30/40

Present Not Present 30/40 Speed reduction measures? Speed camera Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Although there are a high number of vulnerable road users the accident rate remains low and so the existing 40mph speed limit is recommended.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A589 Road Section A589/003 Section Length 3.1km Start OSGR 345173,463758 End OSGR 347788,462489 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Pub, school, college, hotel, Aldi 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 28.87 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Speed camera Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The existing speed limit was deemed appropriate because of the high number of vulnerable road users and the accident rate.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A589 Road Section A589/004 Section Length 0.8km Start OSGR 347250,462509 End OSGR 347920,462123 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 50

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 40

Specific development? Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

40

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 40

Current Accident Rate 15.33 Accs/100m veh km

50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments following area team review meeting: This section has been proposed by Mouchel to remain as a 40mph, but within the area team meeting it was discussed that 30mph might be a more appropriate speed limit due to the nature of the junctions and traffic flow.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

This section has been reinvestigated and the conclusion drawn from this desktop study is that the existing 40mph speed limit should remain due to the low accident rate and lack of supporting evidence for a lower speed limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

A601(m)

Area Lancaster Road Number A601(m) Road Section A601(m)/001 Section Length 0.8km Start OSGR 350900,470062 End OSGR 351180,470465 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

70mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 0.00 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed 57.20 Mph 60 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

60 Mph 60

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The speed limit was deemed appropriate because of the road character and the low accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A601(m) Road Section A601(m)/002 Section Length 1.16km Start OSGR 351032, 470637 End OSGR 350957, 471778 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Dual

Existing Speed Limit

70mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

70mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 70

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 70

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 70

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

70

Specific development? None 70 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 70

Present Not Present 70 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 0.58 Accs/100m veh

km 70

Current Mean Speed 57.2 Mph 70 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

40 50

60 70

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The speed limit was deemed appropriate because of the road character and low accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A601(m) Road Section A601(m)/003 Section Length 0.15km Start OSGR 350957, 471778 End OSGR 350907, 471925 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Dual

Existing Speed Limit

70mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

70mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 70

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 70

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 70

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

70

Specific development? None 70 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 70

Present Not Present 70 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 10.82 Accs/100m veh

km 70

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A

Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

40 50

60 70

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Add new 50mph terminal signs and replace repeater signs. Comments following area team review meeting: Section 3 of the A601(M) was created following the Area Team Review Meeting. It was discussed that the approach to the roundabout at the junction of the A601(M) and the A6 had a number of accidents mostly caused by the change in speed limit. It was therefore agreed that a new section would be created and the section would be made 50mph to tie into the speed limits surrounding it. It was also specified during the meeting that the end of Section Three needs to be 150m south of the roundabout with the A6.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

A683

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/001 Section Length 4.5km Start OSGR 341464,460267 End OSGR 345083,462327 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

50mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 6.30 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed 53.25 Mph 50 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

60 Mph 60

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit is increased from 50mph to 60mph. This is due to the low accident rate, low level of development and no specific development.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/002 Section Length 1.17km Start OSGR 345081,462322 End OSGR 345741,463219 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Dual

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 40

Specific development? Industrial units 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

40/50

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 50

Current Accident Rate 88.01 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 50 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite the high accident rate, it is recommended that the speed limit remains at 40mph. This is due to the section being higher quality dual carriageway with moderate use by vulnerable users. There can be arguments for reducing and increasing the speed limit for this section. However, the most appropriate speed

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

limit appears to be 40mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/003 Section Length 1.08km Start OSGR 348181,462414 End OSGR 348582,463418 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30/40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30/40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30/40

Specific development? Industrial units 30/40 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 363 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit remains at 30mph. This is due to the edge of centre location and variable levels of development and accident rate.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/004 Section Length 1.67km Start OSGR 348582,463417 End OSGR 349886,464227 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 40

Specific development? Industrial units 40 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

40

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 50

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 50

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 40

Current Accident Rate 173.91 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 40mph. This is due to the variable development and edge of centre location.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/005 Section Length 1.95km Start OSGR 349898,464255 End OSGR 351739,464626 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures?

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 42.05 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed 46.95 Mph 40/50 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

60 Mph 60

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite a high accident rate, it is recommended that the current 60mph limit should be retained. This is due to the low level of development as well as the speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006 indicating that 60mph is the appropriate limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/006 Section Length 0.98km Start OSGR 351739,464626 End OSGR 352428,464459 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? Hotel 50 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 50 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 35.51 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to a high accident rate and high incidence of bends, it is recommended that the current speed limit of 60mph be reduced to 50mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A687 Road Section A683/007 Section Length 1.15km Start OSGR 352428,464459 End OSGR 353500,464804 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Football ground, pub, post office 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 43.57 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Speed camera Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit of 30mph should be retained. This is due to the level of development and current speed reduction measures in place.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/008 Section Length 2.48km Start OSGR 353498,464805 End OSGR 355628,465944 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 39.94 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit of 60mph should be retained. This is due to the low level of development, low use by vulnerable users and low incidence of bends or junctions.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/009 Section Length 1.4km Start OSGR 355628,465944 End OSGR 356721,466777 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50

Specific development? Pub 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 11.47 Accs/100m veh

km 50

Current Mean Speed 39.75 Mph 40 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

60 Mph 60

Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments following area team review meeting: Mouchel has recommended this section be increased to 60mph due to the low level of development, low incidence of bends and a low accident rate. It was discussed in great detail and agreed with the area team meeting regarding keeping the current 40mph speed limit. This is due to the carriageway narrowing through the route to create a pinch point at the eastern end of the section and proposed engineering works to improve the current gateway signs.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/010 Section Length 2.25km Start OSGR 356721,466777 End OSGR 358399,468201 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 40.66 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite a high accident rate, it is recommended that the speed limit remains at 60mph. This is due to the low use by vulnerable users, low level of development and no specific development on this section.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/011 Section Length 1.09km Start OSGR 358399,468201 End OSGR 358400,469193 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Schools, Post Office, Pubs, Hotel 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 44.73 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to a school being on this section it is recommended that the current speed limit is retained at 30mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/012 Section Length 1.9km Start OSGR 358404,469198 End OSGR 359461,470686 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? Garage 50 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 23.54 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit for this section should remain at 60mph. This is due to the low level of development, low accident rate and low use by vulnerable users.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/013 Section Length 0.95km Start OSGR 359461,470868 End OSGR 359965,471474 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Residential 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 40

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 29.76 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed 31.15 Mph 30 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

40 Mph 40

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to the level of development and the presence of speed reduction measures it is recommended that the speed limit is kept at 30mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/014 Section Length 2.6km Start OSGR 359965,471474 End OSGR 360732,473380 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? No 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A

Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate Speed Limit

Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 20.61 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit for this section is retained at 60mph. This is due to the low level of development, no specific development and low accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/015 Section Length 0.6km Start OSGR 360732,473380 End OSGR 360966,473912 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Pub, Post Office 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 44.65 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to the level of development, high accident rate and speed reduction measures present, it is recommended that the current speed limit of 30mph is retained.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/016 Section Length 1.2km Start OSGR 360966,473912 End OSGR 361303,475100 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 22.32

Accs/100m veh km

60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit of 60mph should be retained. This is due to the low level of development, no specific development and low accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/017 Section Length 0.5km Start OSGR 361297,475103 End OSGR 361397,475631 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Hotel 40 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 80.36 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite the low level of development for this section, it is recommended that the speed limit is retained at 30mph. This is due to the high accident rate and high incidence of bends.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A683 Road Section A683/018 Section Length 2.4km Start OSGR 361406,475617 End OSGR 361876,478008 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 16.74 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to the low level of development, low accident rate and low use by vulnerable users, it is recommended that the current speed limit of 60mph should be retained.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

A687

Area Lancaster Road Number A687 Road Section A687/001 Section Length 2.9km Start OSGR 361106,472680 End OSGR 363646,472512 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 10.71 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed 38.35 Mph 40 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

60 Mph 60

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what After 0.8 miles it changes to

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? 30mph and shortly after that, 20mph.

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit remains at 60mph. This is due to the low level of development, no specific development and low accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

A5105

Area Lancaster Road Number A5105 Road Section A5105/001 Section Length 1.4km Start OSGR 344588,464904 End OSGR 345639,465705 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

40mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30/40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30/40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30/40

Specific development? Hotels, Restaurants 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 49.51 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: Speed cameras, vehicle activated signs Comments: Narrow urban roads and dense development indicate that the existing 30mph speed limit remains most appropriate

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A5105 Road Section A5105/002 Section Length 0.9km Start OSGR 345639,465705 End OSGR 346505,465945 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

40mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 50

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 17.77 Accs/100m veh

km 50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: As the section is considered rural due to the absence of frontages or development, then the speed limit could be increased to 50 or 60mph. However, there is no justification for doing so over this short stretch, so it is recommended that the speed limit remains at 40mph for route consistency.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A5105 Road Section A5105/003 Section Length 1.5km Start OSGR 346505,465945 End OSGR 347563,466965 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

40mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 40

Specific development? None 40 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30/40

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30/40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 40

Current Accident Rate 24.88 Accs/100m veh km

50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The current speed limit of 40mph should be retained due to minimal development, the edge of centre location and the set back nature of the buildings.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number A5105 Road Section A5105/004 Section Length 0.6km Start OSGR 347563,466965 End OSGR 348024,467510 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

40mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 40

Specific development? None 40 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30/40

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 40

Current Accident Rate 54.10 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The current speed limit of 40mph should be retained due to minimal development, the edge of centre location and the set back nature of the buildings.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

A6070

Area Lancaster Road Number A6070 Road Section A6070/001 Section Length 2.4km Start OSGR 351428,473056 End OSGR 352601,474919 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 41.73 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed 50.1 Mph 50 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what 60mph

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit of 60mph should be retained. This is due to the low level of development and no specific development over this section. It also retains consistency over the county border.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B5272 Area Lancaster Road Number B5272 Road Section B5272/001 Section Length 0.99km Start OSGR 347209, 450659 End OSGR 346814, 451567 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? School 40 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 40/50

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures?

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 90.07 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what 60mph

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite the high accident rate and the presence of a school within the area the section is more suited to the 60 speed limit. Retaining this speed limit will also help keep the speed limit consistent across the entire route.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B5272 Road Section B5272/002 Section Length 0.76km Start OSGR 346814, 452567 End OSGR 346536, 452159 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30/40

Specific development? School, Pub 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Rumble Strips

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 33.79 Accs/100m veh

km 30/40

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The section should remain at 30mph due to the level of development along the section and its close proximity to the carriageway.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B5273 Area Lancaster Road Number B5273 Road Section B5273/001 Section Length 1.1km Start OSGR 341732,462365 End OSGR 342713,462437 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

40mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Petrol station, residential 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 85.79 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: Carriageway markings, interactive signing measures Comments: Despite the predominant 40mph speed limit along the route, the narrow carriageway and dense development indicate that 30mph remains the most

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

appropriate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B5273 Road Section B5273/002 Section Length 3.1km Start OSGR 342713,462437 End OSGR 345505,462498 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

40mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

40mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 40

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Caravan park, retail park, residential 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 40

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 64.26 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: Speed limit roundels, carriageway markings, interactive signs Comments: Some arguments for 30mph limit, but low density development and route consistency indicate existing 40mph limit is still appropriate.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B5273 Road Section B5273/003 Section Length 0.76km Start OSGR 345505,462498 End OSGR 346075,462930 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

40mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 40

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Asda, school, residential 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 110.37 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: Speed cameras, vehicle activated signs, carriageway roundels, warning signs Comments: All indicators, including high accident rate indicate 30mph as most appropriate speed limit, and therefore no change is recommended.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B5274

Area Lancaster Road Number B5274 Road Section B5274/001 Section Length 1.17km Start OSGR 342594,463875 End OSGR 343603,464312 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Residential, superstore, shops 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 57.39 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Zebra crossings, speed humps Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to the location and level of development it is recommended that the speed limit remains at 30mph.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B5275

Area Lancaster Road Number B5275 Road Section B5275/001 Section Length 1.57km Start OSGR 345365,463731 End OSGR 345124,465118 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Residential, pubs, shops 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 14.50 Accs/100m veh km

40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? None Present Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years)

N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Current DfT guidance employed in this speed limit review indicate that the current speed limit remains the most appropriate.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B5290

Area Lancaster Road Number B5290 Road Section B5290/001 Section Length 0.74km Start OSGR 345929,455732 End OSGR 345353,455897 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 40/50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 87.32 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed 29.50 Mph 50 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

40 Mph 40

Recommended Speed Limit

�

��

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

57.09 Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

40 Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: 40mph gateway treatments to include signs on yellow backboards and carriageway roundels. Replace repeater signs. Due to existing mean speed no further works should be required. Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit for this section should be reduced from 60mph to 40mph. This is due to the high incidence of bends and a high accident rate. In addition, the speed limit zone from Figure 2 of the DfT Circular 01/2006 also indicates that 40mph is the most appropriate speed limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B5290 Road Section B5290/002 Section Length 0.87km Start OSGR 345353,455897 End OSGR 344509,456168 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 50/60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 50/60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50/60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30/40

Specific development? Pub, Farm, Boat Yard, Dock 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30/40

Present Not Present N/A Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 0 Accs/100m veh

km 30/40

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite the low level of development and low accident rate, it is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 30mph. This is due to the specific development in this section.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B5321 Area Lancaster Road Number B5321 Road Section B5321/001 Section Length 5.8km Start OSGR 342792,464243 End OSGR 347664,462470 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

30mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? Superstore, shops, hotel, residential, college, school, pubs

30

Road standard Narrow urban

Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 40.75 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Zebra crossing, speed humps, speed cameras Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit of 30mph should be retained. This

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is due to the presence of a school on this section as well as the high accident rate and high level of development.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B6254 Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/001 Section Length 0.9km Start OSGR 349948,470608 End OSGR 350689,470101 Urban/Rural Urban Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Level of Development Both sides

One side

Variable Minimal 30

Location Town/city centre

Edge of centre

Suburban 30

Location of buildings Edge of carriage-

way

Set back Variable 30

Specific development? School, pubs, post office 30 Road standard Narrow

urban Higher quality

Special road or Bypass

30

Use by vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Provision for vulnerable users?

High Moderate Low 30

Parking and waiting restrictions in operation?

Yes No 30

Current Accident Rate 106.62 Accs/100m veh km

30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? Speed camera, signalised pedestrian crossing Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole route? Yes Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit remains at 30mph. This is due to the high accident rate and the presence of a school in this section.

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/002 Section Length 0.9km Start OSGR 350689,470101 End OSGR 351610,470003 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 53.31 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite the high accident rate it is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 60mph. This is due to the low level of vulnerable users and low level of development.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/003 Section Length 1.3km Start OSGR 351610,470003 End OSGR 352783,469865 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Post office, school 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 73.82 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit remains at 30mph. This is due to the presence of a school in the section as well as a high accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/004 Section Length 5.7km Start OSGR 352873,469865 End OSGR 357990,471870 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 37.88 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed 49.85 Mph 50 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

60 Mph 60

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Despite the high accident rate, it is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 60mph. This is due to the low level of development and the speed limit zone in Figure 2 of the DfT Circular 01/2006 indicating 60mph as the appropriate limit.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/005 Section Length 0.6km Start OSGR 357990,471870 End OSGR 358439,472263 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 40

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Caravan Park 50 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 50 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 79.97 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The presence of some village development and the existing 30mph limit mean that local resistance to increasing the speed limit at this location would be prohibitive. Therefore it is recommended that the speed limit remain at 30mph, regardless of any indicators to the contrary presented above.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/006 Section Length 2.6km Start OSGR 358439,472263 End OSGR 359640,474394 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 18.45

Accs/100m veh km

60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 60mph. This is due to the low levels of development and low accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/007 Section Length 0.6km Start OSGR 359640,474394 End OSGR 359787,475000 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 40

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 40

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 39.98 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit through Newton be retained at 60mph as the level of development present does not justify any reduction at this location.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/008 Section Length 0.9km Start OSGR 359787,475000 End OSGR 360173,475869 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 0.0 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 60mph. This is due to the low levels of development and low accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/009 Section Length 0.6km Start OSGR 360173,475869 End OSGR 360232,476416 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 40

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Pub, school 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 30

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? ‘Slow’ road markings

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 39.98 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 30mph. This is due to the presence of a school in this section, as well as a high accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6254 Road Section B6254/010 Section Length 2.3km Start OSGR 360232,476416 End OSGR 361329,477970 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 31.29 Accs/100m veh

km 50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the current speed limit of 60mph should be retained. This is due to the low level of development and low use by vulnerable users.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

B6480

Area Lancaster Road Number B6480 Road Section B6480/001 Section Length 2.3km Start OSGR 357817,467625 End OSGR 360005,467683 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 60

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

60

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 19.44 Accs/100m veh

km 60

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what N/A

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

is the speed limit for the next 600m? Checked for consistency across whole route?

Yes

Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The speed limit should remain at 60mph due to the level of development and low incidences of bends and junctions.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6480 Road Section B6480/002 Section Length 0.5km Start OSGR 360005,467683 End OSGR 360427,467813 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Pub 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 40

Present Not Present 30 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 89.42 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: The speed limit should remain at 30mph due to the high level of development, accident rate and incidence of bends and junctions.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6480 Road Section B6480/003 Section Length 2.3km Start OSGR 360427,467813 End OSGR 361407,469713 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

50

Specific development? Pub 40 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 29.16 Accs/100m veh

km 50

Current Mean Speed 37.90 Mph 40 Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

50 Mph 50

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

�

��

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: It is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 60mph. This is due to the low level of development, low use by vulnerable users and moderate accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6480 Road Section B6480/004 Section Length 0.76km Start OSGR 361407,469713 End OSGR 361982,470122 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

30mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

Yes 30

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 30

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

30

Specific development? Train station 30 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 40

Present Not Present 40 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 58.83 Accs/100m veh

km 30

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

��

�

�

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

- Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

- Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

N/A

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: N/A Comments: Due to the high level of development and high accident rate, it is recommended that the speed limit should remain at 30mph.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Area Lancaster Road Number B6480 Road Section B6480/005 Section Length 1.4km Start OSGR 361982,470122 End OSGR 363232,470002 Urban/Rural Rural Single or Dual

carriageway Single

Existing Speed Limit

60mph Predominant existing speed limit on whole route

60mph

Level of Development Appropriate Speed Limit

Does the section contain 20 or more frontage houses at a density of 3 houses per 100m?

No 60

Does the section contain 10 or more frontage houses at a density of 2 houses per 100m?

No 60

Other Considerations Appropriate Speed Limit

Incidence of bends or junctions?

High Moderate Low 50

Accident rate? High (>35)

Moderate (25-35)

Low (<25)

40/50

Specific development? None 60 Use by vulnerable users? High Moderate Low 60

Present Not Present 60 Speed reduction measures? N/A

Recent Safety Schemes or other improvements (last 5 years) N/A Accident Rate and Speed Comparison Appropriate

Speed Limit Functional Tier Upper Lower N/A Current Accident Rate 95.81 Accs/100m veh

km 40/50

Current Mean Speed N/A Mph N/A Speed limit zone in Figure 2 of DfT Circular 01/2006

N/A Mph N/A

Recommended Speed Limit

�

�

��

�

Estimate of new accident rate (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Accs/100m veh km

Estimate new mean speed (if new speed limit is lower)

N/A Mph

If, the road crosses the county border, what is the speed limit for the next 600m?

60mph

Checked for consistency across whole Yes

30 40

50 60

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

route? Potential speed reduction measures: Replace current terminal signs and repeaters. Comments following area team review meeting: Mouchel has recommended this section to be decreased from 60mph to 50mph due to the very high accident rate and the high number of bends in the carriageway. During the area team review meeting it was asked if Mouchel could reinvestigate this section to look at keeping the speed limit at 60mph. Mouchel have reinvestigated the section and keep with there original recommendation that the speed limit is reduced from 60mph to 50mph. As previously investigated the main reasoning for this is the very high accident rate.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Appendix E – Schedules

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS STREETS, Lancaster) (30 MPH SPEED LIMIT)

Schedule

Length of Road Section of road over which 30mph speed limit restriction will be applicable

A6 – Slyne Road, By-Pass Road (Bolton – le – Sands) Main Road (Carnforth)

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/101

From a point on A6 Slyne Road 200 metres south of its junction with Greenwood Avenue for an distance of 2,498 metres in a northerly direction to a point on A6 Main Road 20 metres south of its junction with Hawthorn Road.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (VARIOUS STREETS, Lancaster) (40 MPH SPEED LIMIT)

Schedule

Length of Road Section of road over which 40mph speed limit restriction will be applicable

A6 – Preston Lancaster Road & Scotforth Road (Lancaster)

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/102

From a point on A6 Preston Lancaster Road 125 metres south of its junction with Green Lane for an distance of 1,698 metres in a northerly direction to a point on A6 Scotforth Road 165 metres south of its junction with Rays Drive.

A6 – Lancaster Road & Main Road (Slyne – With – Hest)

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/103

From a point 266 metres north of its junction with Green Lane for a distance of 1,463 metres in a northerly direction to a point 152 metres south of its junction with Throstle Grove.

B5290 – Ship Road (Thurnham)

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/107

From its junction with the A588 (Main Road) for a distance of 726 metres in a north westerly direction to a point 278 metres north west of its junction with Brickcroft.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

(VARIOUS STREETS, Lancaster) (50 MPH SPEED LIMIT)

Schedule

Length of Road Section of road over which 50mph speed limit restriction will be applicable

A6, Preston Lancaster Road

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/08/103

Section within Lancaster has been included in the order schedule for Wyre as the length of the 50mph speed limit on A6 crosses the district boundary.

(** This order crosses the Wyre/Lancaster district boundary**)

A6 – Scotland Road (Warton) Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/104

From a point 200 metres north east of its junction with Hawk Street for an distance of 2,510 metres in a north-easterly direction to a point 145 metres north of its junction with Borwick Lane.

A601(M) (Warton)

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/105

From a point 150 metres south of its junction with A6 for a distance of 150 metres in a north westerly direction to its junction with the A6.

B6480 – Bentham Road (Wennington)

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/108

From a point 26 metres east of its junction with Spout Lane for a distance of 1,395 metres in a south easterly direction to a point 953 metres south east of its junction with Ravens Close Road.

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

(VARIOUS STREETS, Lancaster) (60 MPH SPEED LIMIT)

Schedule

Length of Road Section of road over which 60mph speed limit restriction will be applicable

A683, Lancaster / Morecambe Bypass (Morecambe, Heaton with Oxcliffe)

Please refer to plan: 724130/040/03/106

From its junction with Middleton Road (A589) for a distance of 4,571 metres in a north easterly direction to its junction with Mellishaw Lane (B5273).

Speed Limit Review of A and B Roads Package 3 – Lancaster

© Mouchel 2008

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 16

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham l

Capital and Revenue Programmes for the Maintenance, Assessment and Strengthening of Bridges and Other Highway Structures 2009/10 Contact for further information: Bob Flitcroft, Chief Engineer (Bridges), 01772 534585, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate, bob.flitcroft@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary The report summarises the capital and revenue expenditure proposals for 2009/10 for the maintenance, assessment and strengthening of bridges and other highway structures in Lancashire. A schedule of proposed works within Lancaster is also provided. Decision Required The Local is asked to note the report. Background and Advice Capital Programme The provision in the Environment Director’s approved Capital Programme for maintenance, assessment and strengthening of bridges and associated fees in 2009/10 is £6.902 million together with an additional provisional allocation for de-trunked road bridges of £266,000. It is considered that this will need to be allocated as follows (each sum including associated fees):-

- 2 -

• £0.050M – Bridge assessments; • £1.106M – Minor essential structural maintenance of bridges; • £2.131M – Other essential structural maintenance of bridges; • £0.981M – Essential strengthening of retaining walls; • £2.634M – Bridge strengthening schemes; • £0.266M – Bridges on de-trunked roads.

The prioritisation of works in the essential structural maintenance of bridges and the essential strengthening of retaining wall categories is based upon structural condition, which is assessed following regular inspection. Inspection of structures, including reporting of condition, is undertaken using the system developed by the County Surveyors Society (CSS) Bridges Group and recommended for use in the national Code of Practice for Management of Highway Structures published by UK Bridges Board. The programme for, and the prioritisation of, bridge strengthening schemes is developed using the method agreed by the General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Highways and Transportation Committee in December 1998 and March 1999. Priorities are decided using a matrix analysis of the following factors:

• Assessed load carrying capacity of the bridge. • Traffic flows carried by the bridge. • Length/standard of diversion route if weight restriction is imposed on the

bridge. • Any temporary measures which have been imposed in order to reduce

risk to the travelling public using the bridge. • Condition of the bridge. • Effect on bus services and winter gritting routes. • Cost of strengthening (including associated fees). • Social, environmental and economic consequence of imposing weight

restrictions. • Likelihood of significant reserve of unquantifiable strength. • Difficulty of monitoring for deterioration – such information as to the

difficulty of inspecting the critical components taking into account ease of access and condition of the key elements of the structure.

In order to deal with variation in the cost of schemes, slippage which sometimes occurs on schemes or with unexpected deterioration in the condition of a structure, the Environment Director would continue to re-allocate finance between schemes and to other schemes in a similar manner to that originally agreed by the Highways and Transportation Committee in March 1991. Funding is also provided by Department for Transport (DfT) for maintenance works to structures on highways that have recently been de-trunked. The works were identified prior to de-trunking and formed part of the legal transfer process. The DfT have yet to indicate the level of settlement for de-trunked roads for 2009/10.

- 3 -

The draft programme of Capital Bridgeworks in the Lancaster district includes the following larger schemes:-

Bridge/ Structure

Name

Bridge/ Structure Number

Electoral Division

Brief Description Total Estimated

Cost £000

Greyhound Viaduct

580 Lancaster East/Skerton

Investigations to deck

50

Brecks 546 Lancaster Central

Strengthen spandrels

39

Quicksand Pool South

379 Lancaster Rural North

Strengthen spandrels

39

Cam Brow No4 Ret Wall

30132 Lancaster Rural East

Rebuild Wall 39

Loyn NE Ret Wall

31712 Lancaster Rural East

Rebuild Wall/Embankment

26

Tower Lodge East & Central Ret Walls

31733/31735 Lancaster Rural East

Rebuild Wall 91

Keepers Cottage Ret Wall

31104 Lancaster Rural East

Rebuild Wall 39

Smithy Beck 432 Lancaster Rural East

Concrete repairs 65

Keepers Cottage

6218 Lancaster Rural East

Masonry repairs 65

West End Railway

368 Morecambe North/West

Strengthening 200

Revenue Programme The provision for Routine Maintenance of Bridges in the approved revenue budget is £271.4k (to be confirmed). Routine Maintenance of Bridges is carried out as a reactive task and includes items such as:-

i) Vegetation removal ii) Graffiti removal iii) Cleaning/greasing of structural elements iv) Clearing of watercourses at structures v) Other non-capital items

- 4 -

The budget also includes for provision of height/weight restriction signing, drainage faults which give rise to structural problems, diving inspections, topographical surveys, confined space inspections etc. Consultations The list of consultees varies from scheme to scheme. Members of the public and businesses that are affected by the work are consulted on implementation proposals as a matter of course. Other consultees (dependent on the type and location of the bridge) might include:

• Environment Agency • English Nature • District Councils • Statutory Undertakers

Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Finance Works are funded from the County Council's capital and revenue budgets. Risk management The implications of not undertaking this work are that the bridges and highway structures concerned will continue to deteriorate and will ultimately become more expensive to maintain. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel N/A.

- 5 -

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 17

Electoral Division affected: Morecambe South

Branksome Area, Morecambe – Proposed 20mph Zone (Appendix 'A' refers) Contact for further information: Eddie Mills, 01524 772069, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate, eddie.mills@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Consideration of objections to a proposal to establish a 20mph zone in the Branksome Area of Morecambe, Lancaster District. Decision Required The Local is asked to consider the proposal in light of the information contained in this report and as set out on the Plan attached. Background and Advice At its meeting held on the 21 November 2006, the Local agreed that the surplus arising from on-street parking income up to 2005/06, should be spent on introducing 20mph schemes within the Lancaster District. The Local agreed a priority list of 6 potential 20mph schemes, and placed the proposal for Branksome at number 4. The funding for schemes 1 to 3 were agreed at that meeting and in July 2007, the Local agreed to fund the remaining 3 schemes on the list from the surplus arising from the on-street parking income. The County Council formally consulted statutory bodies, and distributed 467 consultation plans and reply sheets to residents and businesses within the proposed zone. 128 residents returned completed reply sheets and 3 people responded by phone. In total, 118 people supported the proposals including the proposed traffic calming measures, 13 residents did not support the scheme and raised objections. The objections and observations received are shown and responded to at Appendix 'A'.

- 2 -

It is recommended that the Executive Director of Environment be asked to proceed with the formal advertising of the Road Humps Notice and 20mph Speed Limit Order. Alternative options to be considered

1. To abandon the scheme in light of the objections received. 2. To amend the scheme proposals.

It should be noted that the majority of the residents who responded to the consultation were in favour of the introduction of the proposed scheme. Consultations Public consultation was undertaken during the period December 2008/January 2009. Implications: This item has the following implications as indicated: Financial The scheme was requested by the Local and is financed through its discretionary 2006/7 budget. The estimated cost of the scheme is £35,800. Human Rights Objectors that have submitted an objection may argue that the proposal infringes their right to the peaceful enjoyment of property under the first Protocol of Article 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Convention/Act provides that such infringements should not occur “except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law”. The Convention goes on to state that this right “shall not…in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest…..” Any interference with such rights must be done as provided for by the law and the interference must strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the rights of individuals. The rights of the individual are recognised but need to be balanced against the general rights and interests of the wider community. It is felt that the potential advantages to the wider community should prevail and that the proposal is entirely proportionate to the aims it seeks to achieve.

- 3 -

Risk management The County Council’s objectives include making Lancashire a place where people can 'feel safe' and 'travel easily and safely' by reducing the number of people injured in road accidents. The introduction of 20mph zones form part of the County Council's overall strategy to achieve this and failure to implement the scheme may impact on the achievement of these objectives. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: Nil.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel Report to Lancashire Local - Lancaster District: Surplus Expenditure Income Generated from On-street Car Parking

21 November 2006

David Porter / Lancashire County Council / 01772 533412

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

1

Appendix ‘A’ Branksome Area, Morecambe proposed 20 mph zone Consultation Responses 467 consultation plans and questionnaires were distributed to local residents and businesses. 131 residents responded, of which: 118 (90%) respondents agreed with the introduction of a 20mph zone including the proposed traffic calming; 13 (10%) respondents did not support the scheme and raised objections which are detailed below. Objections:

1. 4 respondents stated that they wished to see additional police enforcement action on the estate rather than the introduction of a 20mph zone.

2. 2 respondents stated that the proposals penalise law abiding motorists.

3. 2 respondents requested the introduction of a roundabout or traffic

signals at the Westgate/ Windermere Avenue junction to improve access into the estate rather than a 20mph zone.

4. 1 respondent stated that there are too many humps and that they can

cause damage to vehicles.

5. 1 respondent stated that the roads on the estate are narrow and people drive slowly anyway and therefore the 20mph zone is not required.

6. 1 respondent stated that vehicle activated signs should be used instead

of traffic calming features.

7. 1 respondent stated that he supported the introduction of a speed limit but not humps.

8. 1 respondent stated that he was concerned about the effect humps

would have on access to properties for disabled drivers and stated that they would obstruct private driveway accesses.

9. 2 respondents stated that Buttermere Avenue was only a short length

of road and did not require traffic calming measures. 10. 1 respondent stated that he wanted an 'Access only' restriction on the

entrances to the estate rather than a 20 mph zone. 11. 1 respondent phoned in to request that the flat top hump on

Windermere Avenue be moved to a new location. Due to the problems it would cause for drivers accessing the private road between property numbers 6 & 7. The respondent stated that they would submit a written

2

request for this matter to be considered. However, no request was received during the consultation period and no similar objections were recorded.

Environment Director's Response:

1. The Police support the introduction of 20mph zones that are self enforcing and contain traffic calming. It is not feasible to have Police officers or place cameras on all roads to prevent all motorists from speeding.

2. In the pursuit of safer roads, there is unfortunately a 'price to pay' in

terms of the capital cost of implementing traffic safety schemes and also the perceived inconvenience in negotiating the necessary traffic calming features. The proposals are designed to ensure that vehicle speeds are reduced to below 20mph. Traffic calming has been proven elsewhere in Lancashire and across the UK to be effective in reducing speeds and subsequent injury collisions and this scheme has been developed in order to address this issue.

3. There are currently no proposals to introduce a roundabout or signal

controlled junction at this location. Such a proposal would have a detrimental effect on road safety within the estate due to its potential to increase the number and speed of vehicles attempting the shortcut between Lancaster Road and Westgate. The introduction of the proposed traffic calming measures would deter motorists from attempting to shortcut through the estate and reduce the speed of vehicles within the estate.

4. The proposed humps would be constructed to a maximum height of 75

millimetres taking into consideration current design advice from the Department for Transport. The current regulations permit the construction of road humps up to a maximum height of 100 mm. The statutory requirement is that a 20 mph zone is indicated by zone entry and exit signs and that no point within the zone must be further than 50 metres from a traffic calming feature (unless in a cul-de-sac less than 80 metres long). Research carried out by the Department for Transport recognises that road humps, chicanes and other road engineering measures are currently the most effective method of reducing vehicle speeds. It found that there was no evidence that damage is caused to vehicles when travelling at sensible speeds below 20 mph and negotiating humps that have been designed in accordance with the above guidance.

5. The most common response from residents returning their reply form

was that the estate is used as a racetrack by some drivers. This is supported by the speed survey data which shows that some drivers travel in excess of the existing 30mph speed limit.

3

6. To satisfy the statutory requirements for the introduction of a 20mph zone to be introduced there must either be existing features within in the proposed zone that reduce the speed of vehicles to 20mph or less, or additional measures are introduced to make the zone speed limit be self enforcing. For the purposes of the introduction of a 20mph zone, vehicle activated signs are not considered to be traffic calming features.

7. The County Council has been notified by Department for Transport that

approval would not be granted for the introduction of 20 mph zones that do not have the traffic calming features that are necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements. Lancashire County Council carried out trials to reduce speeds outside 12 schools in the area by placing 20 mph signs without any other form of traffic calming. The results found that not only did the signs fail to reduce average speeds, but in some areas speeds actually increased. See comments relating to objection 4 regarding the statutory requirements for the introduction of a 20mph zone.

8. It is not envisaged that the humps will cause access problems for

disabled visitors. The humps have been located so as not to obstruct private driveways. See comments relating to Objection 4.

9. Buttermere Avenue is straight, and measures 100 metres long; the

hump is required so that the zone meets the statutory requirements. See comments relating to objection 4 above regarding the spacing of humps.

10. 'Access only' restrictions are impractical. They contain exemptions for

certain vehicles, therefore they are very difficult to enforce and place an unrealistic demand on Police resources.

11. See comments relating to objection 4 above.

2 respondents stated that they were opposed to the proposals but gave no reasons for their objection. The remaining observations relating to the proposals were received from residents who supported the scheme in principle (the number of comments received are given in brackets):

• Branksome Estate is used as a racetrack (18) and shortcut by some drivers (6).

• Raised concerns regarding child safety and children playing in the estate (8).

• Request for additional hump on Christie Avenue near Cartmel Place junction (2).

4

Officer Response: The proposals meet the current recommendations for the spacing of traffic calming features and it is thought that additional features are not necessary.

• There are parking problems on days when football matches are being

held (2).

Officer Response: Morecambe Football Club is currently proposing to relocate to a new purpose built stadium situated on Westgate and the parking problems occurring on match days should ease once the move is completed.

• Concerned that proposed humps may be too high (1) (See comments

relating to objection 4). • Request for additional hump on Ennerdale Avenue bend (1)

Officer Response: The traffic calming features that are currently proposed on both approaches to the bend would reduce vehicle speeds, and the bend itself meets the requirement for a traffic calming feature.

• Request for double yellow lines to prevent parking on Ennerdale Avenue Bend due to near miss accidents(1).

Officer Response: Parked vehicles tend to have a traffic calming effect and can reduce the speed of vehicles. There is evidence that the removal of parking unnecessarily can lead to an increase in vehicle speeds. There are no recorded injury accidents that would support the introduction of measures such as double yellow lines at this location.

• The introduction of 20mph zones on ex-local authority estates should

be automatic (1). In total 467 consultation documents were distributed to residents and businesses situated within the zone. Additional copies of consultation documents were sent to the following organisations: 1. Lancashire Constabulary 2. Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust 3. Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service (Morecambe Station) 4. Stagecoach Lancaster 5. Battersbys Coaches 6. Dynamo 7. Lancaster City Council 8. Cyclist Touring Club (Lancaster District) Of the above organisations the CTC responded confirming that they had no objection to the proposals. Consultation documents were also sent to the County Divisional Councillor for Morecambe South, the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development and the 3 Lancaster District Councillors for Westgate Ward.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster district Meeting to be held on 17th March 2009

Part I - Item No. 18

Electoral Divisions Affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Winter Service (Gritting) in Lancaster 2008/09 Contact for further information: Brian Abraham, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate Brian. Abraham@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report provides an overview of the Winter Service in Lancaster, including footways and cycle paths, for the current winter 2008/09. Decision Required The views of the Lancashire Local are requested regarding the winter service in Lancaster. Background and Advice 1. Legal and Policy Considerations The County Council as highway authority is under a legal duty to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by ice and snow. It is the County Council’s Policy to provide a winter service which, as far as is practicable, will permit the safe movement of traffic on priority roads at all times and will keep to a minimum delays and accidents in which ice or snow is a contributory factor. However, it is generally accepted that it is uneconomic, unjustifiable and indeed simply impossible to treat the whole highway network when undertaking planned

- 2 -

winter gritting. It is therefore necessary to clearly identify the priority roads that will receive preferential treatment for gritting and snow clearing. The criteria for this prioritisation of roads is as follows:

• County Motorways (e.g. M65 Junction 10-14) • All Principal “A” Roads • All “B” Roads • Other Roads - between or through large centres of population

- serving hospitals, ambulance and fire stations - leading to main centres of employment and on important commuter routes - leading to important industrial and military establishments - single access to villages

In determining the extent of the priority network, allowance has been made for the obvious geographical and topographical differences in Lancashire in terms of climate and altitude. This results in the Lancaster district having all “A” roads plus approximately 17.5% of the remaining urban network and 25% of the remaining rural network gritted on a precautionary basis. It should be clearly understood that the majority of the highway network will not receive the winter service and moreover, housing estate roads and minor roads without appreciable gradients have been specifically and intentionally excluded. However during periods of severe weather, the service may be extended to non-priority roads (secondary routes) but only during hours of daylight and after all the higher priority roads are clear. In no circumstances will private roads or unadopted streets (including s38 highways) receive any winter services. Taking an average over the whole County, approximately 1/3 (2350km out of a total network of 7000km) of roads are classed as priority roads in terms of the winter service. 2. Resources The County Council spends in the order of £4.0 Million per year on the winter service and in a typical season spreads 18,000 tonnes of salt although this of course will vary dependent upon the severity of the winter in question. There are 48 front line gritters operating county-wide from 12 depots and additional vehicles (including 15 reserve gritters) are available to deal with severe weather conditions. This additional plant includes towed gritters, snow blowers and snow ploughs for severe situations. Typical County-wide costs are shown in the table below for the different conditions encountered. Treatment Rate of Spread (grammes/sq metre)

Weather Conditions Total cost per treatment

7.5 Frost £12,000 30 Severe Icing/Medium Snow £32,000 2 x 40 Heavy Snow £64,000

The winter service is a demand-led service and when the winter weather is worse than average, the service will continue to be delivered, even if the original allocated budget is overspent.

- 3 -

The 6 No. gritters which serve Lancaster district operate out of the Caton and White Lund Depots. 3. Weather Forecasting and Decision Making The decision on the appropriate action is taken by the County Council’s Area Duty Officer who has the responsibility for the 3 districts of Lancaster, Wyre and Fylde. The County Council also operates a rota of Standby Duty Inspectors who are available to undertake inspections of the highway network should the forecast be marginal or if reports are received of hazardous conditions. Both the roles of Area Duty Officer and Standby Duty Inspector are carried out by officers who have the necessary experience and, crucially, the knowledge and familiarity of the local highway network. The County Council owns 11 Road Weather Stations and receives information from 4 others owned by the Highways Agency (3) and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (1). The forecasts are supplied by the Met Office and the forecast graphs together with the real time (actual) weather condition data can be viewed by decision makers on the Ice Prediction System via the Internet from a bureau in Birmingham. The forecast text, which is received daily at around midday, covers the following 24hr period as well as the longer term 2 to 5 day forecast. The forecast information includes:

• forecast v actual road surface temperature and road state; • forecast v actual air temperature and relative humidity (dew point); • forecast precipitation rate, type and timings & • Radar Maps showing history (3 hrs) and forecast (6hrs) for both

precipitation type and intensity. The daily forecast is routinely updated at around 7.30pm but is subject to detailed revision at any time during the day and night should the actual forecast conditions vary from those expected. So what can possibly go wrong? The following examples illustrate what can, and sometimes does go wrong, causing problems for the travelling public:

• On a wet night followed by rapidly clearing skies, salting will normally start after the rain has stopped to avoid the salt being washed away, but with temperatures falling by as much as 5 deg per hour, some roads may well have frozen before the gritter has salted them.

• “Dawn (Hoar) Frost” – which occurs on dry roads and involves the formation of early morning dew on cold roads, which freezes on impact and is difficult to forecast with any accuracy.

• Rush hour snowfall when rain turns to snow coinciding with the rush hour. Early salting cannot take place as it would be washed away and gritters cannot progress due to congestion.

• Road weather forecasts are up to 90% accurate which means that there are up to 10 days in winter when frost is not forecast but actually occurs.

• It can take up to 4 hours for gritters to salt a route and therefore it will take this length of time before some roads are treated.

4. Rock Salt

- 4 -

The County Council uses rock salt as the de-icing agent on highways. Rock salt has to be used responsibly because not only is it an expensive material, it also comes from a non-renewable source and can have an adverse effect on the environment by damaging vegetation for instance. Salt works by lowering the freezing point of water (to about –9 deg C) and in order to complete the de-icing process, the movement of the salt on the road surface by the action of passing traffic is essential. Therefore in conditions where traffic volumes are light, roads can remain icy for some time after the gritter has spread salt. Furthermore, in snow conditions the salt will only be effective where the depth of snow is less than 40mm and traffic can move the salt around. Most of the salt supplied to Lancashire this year is treated with a by-product of the sugar refining industry and is marketed under the name of "Safecote". Safecote has the advantage of providing effective anti-icing, de-icing and corrosion inhibition properties. However the salt used in the White Lund depot and on all routes in Wyre and Fylde is untreated. 5. Grit Bins Numerous requests are received for grit bins every year from parish councils, residents’ associations and individual members of the public. It is the policy of the County Council that grit bins should only be provided on non-priority / secondary roads based upon the following criteria:

• Combination of vertical and horizontal profile producing a hazardous condition i.e. steep bend with adverse camber.

• Junction hazard eg. steep road down to a main road junction. • High/moderate vehicular traffic volume. • High pedestrian movement eg. steep footways in town centres.

Although grit bins will not generally be sited on housing estate roads there may be exceptions and an element of local discretion is accepted. There are currently 114 grit bins and nearly 100 salt heaps at various locations throughout the Lancaster district. 6. Footways and Cycleways Footways are not included in the County Council's planned winter service and therefore will not receive any precautionary salting treatment. A designated priority footway network has been established in the Lancaster district to identify those footways which will be treated on the following basis:

• The priority footway network comprises: o Access to and from transport interchanges; o Access to and from main centres of employment; o Access to and from main shopping centres; o Access on the highway adjacent to main hospitals;

• Treatment of the priority footway network will start within 24 hours of the start of a continuous icing/snow event but only during daylight hours.

• Other footways will receive treatment only during severe weather events and then only when resources permit.

- 5 -

Cycle tracks and cycleways are not included in the County Council's planned winter service and therefore will not receive any precautionary salting treatment or any post-salting treatment. Cycle tracks and cycleways will receive treatment only during severe weather events and then only when resources permit. 7. Information and Publicity The County Council publishes an explanatory pamphlet entitled “Safer Winter Driving” which provides some useful background information about the winter service as well as safer driving tips. 8. Priority Road Network The total treated length of priority road in the Lancaster district is approximately 260km comprising 105km of Principal Road and 155km of the remaining network. The priority road network of 260km accounts for 26% of the total adopted highway network in Lancaster. The priority road network is shown in map form on the County Council’s website. 9. Secondary Road Network The secondary road network receives treatment in times of snow and continuous icing only and its treatment in "frost only" conditions (between 80% & 90% of the winter events) cannot be justified. However, it should be appreciated that once snow has been compacted and formed into ice due to very low road surface temperatures, the effect of de-icing salt is very limited and the icy conditions often persist for several days despite the repeated application of salt. As mentioned earlier salt becomes totally ineffective at -9 deg C but becomes progressively ineffective below -5 deg C at the maximum spread rate possible using gritting vehicles. Consultations N/A. Implications This item has the following implications as indicated: Financial: The cost of providing the winter service is met from the County Council's highway maintenance budgets. Risk Management Risks arising from providing a winter service are managed by adopting and following the policy stated in the Lancashire County Council Highway Maintenance Plan 2008.

- 6 -

Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel No Nil.

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I- Item No. 19

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Allocation of Playbuilder Grant Funding in Lancashire 2009/10 (Appendices 'A' and 'B' refer) Contact for further information: Katherine Ashworth, (01772) 532882, Lancashire County Council, Directorate for Children and Young People, katherine.ashworth@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report is about the Lancashire 'Fair Play' Playbuilder Initiative, an external funding scheme profiled to invest £1.183 million capital, developing 20-25 play spaces for 8-13 year olds across Lancashire offering natural and adventurous play, during a three year period 2008-2011. The report presents initial recommendations for grant funding for Playbuilder schemes in the financial year 2009/10 from the Children's Trust Partnership Board meeting held on Friday 16 January 2009. Following an applications and assessment process, it outlines eight projects across Lancashire which are recommended for funding. Decision Required Lancashire Local – Lancaster District is asked to consider the recommendations made by the Children's Trust Partnership Board (formerly the Lancashire Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership) for Playbuilder grant funding (2009/10) in the amount of £370,500 and recommend proposals for the deployment of Playbuilder funding for the Lancaster District to the Cabinet Member for Children

- 2 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

and Young People. Background and Advice The Playbuilder Initiative flows from the national government play strategy 'Fair Play' and is a key commitment in the National Children's Plan. It is a capital programme investing £235 million nationally on developing new play facilities targeted specifically at the 8-13 year age range. The Initiative is intended to develop (or re-develop) public play spaces close to where children live which encourage free and natural play and make use of sustainable and natural resources. These are expected to meet the more challenging and adventurous play needs of 8-13 year olds and be accessible to all children. A key tenet of the programme is the involvement of children, their parents and carers and local communities in development processes (see Appendix 'A'). The Initiative is intended to raise the profile of play as an important feature in improving outcomes for children and young people, further embedding play in planning for children's service provision. Lancashire has been granted a Playbuilder Grant, which values as follows: Year Playbuilder Capital

Allocation Playbuilder Revenue Allocation

Total

2008/9 £315,521 £13,004 £328,525 2009/10 £433,842 £16,719 £450,561 2010/11 £433,842 £16,719 £450,561 Total £1,183,205 £46,442 £1,229,647

Lancashire County Council is the fund holder and responsible for providing strategic leadership for the initiative in Lancashire and it has been determined that this will operate through Lancashire Young People's Service. Project development to date has fully involved District Council play representatives to ensure alignment of the initiative with existing play development strategies and priorities in local areas. There is a requirement over three years to maintain a measure of equity across the whole county whilst adhering to the specific required criteria for Playbuilder play areas. It is therefore intended that the award of Playbuilder Grants will be balanced according to a model which seeks to:

• approve one Playbuilder play area within each district council area (subject to bids meeting the specific agree criteria) either in year 1, 2 or 3 as appropriate;

• approve a further eight to thirteen play areas based on their degree of fit with the criteria alone.

- 3 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

In order to achieve the financial targets, each successful Playbuilder play area will normally receive an average unit investment of around £47,000.

Projects which secured year one (2008/9) funding were as follows:

- 4 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

District Area

Year One Projects

Town/Ward area Match Funding secured

£

Play builder Funding Award

£ Wyre Marine Hall

Gardens play area

Fleetwood seafront 23,000 47,000

Ribble Valley

Clitheroe Castle creative play area

Clitheroe town centre 13,719 47,000

Chorley Astley climbing forest

Chorley just outside town centre

10,000 45,000

Hyndburn Lowerfold park Great Harwood 58,000 42,000

Burnley Hargher Clough Play Area

Stoops and Hargher Clough Estate, South West Burnley

37,000 27,003

Pendle Heyhead Park Brierfield 20,000 49,400

Rossendale Greenfield Memorial Gardens

Haslingden 55,000 47,000

TOTAL £304,403 FUNDING AVAILABLE £315,521 CONTINGENCY BALANCE £11,118

Identification of Year Two Play Schemes 2009/10 (Appendix 'B' refers) At a meeting of the Children's Trust Partnership Board on 16 January 2009, following an application/assessment process which had taken place (in line with previous years' practice), recommendations for Playbuilder grant funding awards were considered and recommendations made to initially fund eight projects in year two (2009/10). It was also recommended to defer decisions relating to the remainder of bids submitted and that these be invited to resubmit a further developed version of their schemes for secondary assessment, following feedback from the assessment panel. This second stage assessment would then seek to identify the project(s) with most alignment to the Playbuilder criteria to be recommended for funding approval against the remaining funding within the financial year. Potential schemes had been submitted for consideration reflecting ten out of the twelve district council areas in Lancashire, with three areas submitting multiple schemes. From assessment analysis, the eight highest scoring schemes were identified and were recommended for funding, see below. These were those considered to have the highest degree of fit with scheme criterion through a scored analysis and are considered to have provided sufficient evidence that they are deliverable within the financial year.

- 5 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

District Area Year Two Projects Notes Recommended

Playbuilder Funding Award

£ Lancaster Happy Mount Park,

Morecambe

District Council Project

No awards made to this district area in Year One 44,500

Lancaster Halton with Aughton Play Area

Parish Council Project

No awards made to this district area in Year One 47,000

Wyre Memorial Park, Fleetwood

District Council Project

Secured funding for a scheme in Fleetwood in Year One 47,000

Wyre Scorton Play Area Parish Council Project

Wyre district secured one project in year one. 47,000

Fylde Lowther Gardens, Lytham St Anne's

District Council Project

No awards made to this district area in Year One 44,000

South Ribble Farrington Park District Council Project

No awards made to this district area in Year One 47,000

Preston Mill Lane Adventure Play Area

District Council Project

No awards made to this district area in Year One 47,000

Pendle Sackville Street, Brierfield

District Council Project

Secured funding for a scheme in Brierfield Ward in Year One 47,000

SUB TOTAL 370,500 TOTAL CAPITAL AVAILABLE 433,842 RESIDUAL CONTINGENCY 63,342 Plus any residual capital from 2008/9 approved for carry

forward within cash limits by the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF). Potentially £11,118

The remaining five bids will be invited to resubmit for secondary consideration against the residual balance outlined above. This following feedback and design consultancy support being offered through Lancashire County Council Environmental Projects Team as required.

- 6 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

Applications to be invited for re-submission Ribble Valley Tower Hill Youth Association

Salt Hill Play Area, Clitheroe

Chorley Yarrow Valley Boulder Park, Chorley

West Lancashire

Summer Street

West Lancashire

Garnet Lees

Hyndburn Higham Playing Fields

(A summary of all schemes submitted is attached as Appendix 'B'). It can be noted that following funding of the eight approved schemes as outlined in this report, only one District Council area (West Lancashire) remains to secure at least one play area funding, following years one and two. Happy Mount Park A proposal for the development of an innovative junior play area within Happy Mount Park, Morecambe was submitted for consideration by Lancaster City Council. It was recommended by the assessment panel that the above scheme be approved for funding at £44,500 which is the figure required to complete the proposed scheme in addition to match funding secured. The scheme, entitled 'Natural Adventure Project' proposes contemporary, junior play facilities which make substantial use of natural and sustainable resources. This will operate alongside an outdoor education/nature centre and development of the use of public art in the natural setting. The scheme was considered to present fantastic potential for development in line with the aspirations of the Playbuilder Initiative for challenging and adventurous play for 8-13 year olds. Once completed, Play Rangers will work at the project to deliver group activities such as den building. The site is well integrated with local opportunities for safer cycling. The development is clearly drawn from local needs assessment. A project designer is about to be appointed who will work with local children to develop the final design. Happy Mount Park play area development is indicated as a priority within the district play strategy. Halton with Aughton Play Area A proposal for the development of a new junior play area was submitted for consideration by Halton with Aughton Parish Council. The scheme will be developed on land surrounding the village hall providing an 'adventure play area' development for junior age children as part of a much bigger Masterplan for the area, including an imaginative play area for toddlers, extension to the village hall, nature and wildlife area

- 7 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

and sports facilities for teenager. It was recommended by the assessment panel that the scheme was approved for funding at £47,000 as requested, targeted specifically at the junior play aspects of the overall development. The scheme proposes a series of fixed pieces of equipment providing a diverse range of challenging and adventurous climbing, swinging, balancing, stretching and jumping experiences for the children, the choice of which has been directly informed by the involvement of children and young people. These allow for reasonable access to different levels of challenge for children with different physical abilities. The scheme makes good use of landscaping and planting techniques and the natural undulations of the site to enhance the landscape for play and creating discrete areas offering different play experiences. The development is clearly drawn from local needs assessment and research. The scheme proposes the installation of an 'electronic' piece of equipment called an ICON which was not considered to be eligible for Playbuilder funding, which must be associated with natural adventure play. Consultations The development of the project has been supported by the involvement of a wide variety of agencies that have impact on play development and improving health outcomes for children. These have included:

• District Council Play/Parks Development Leads; • Lancashire County Council Environmental Projects Team; • Independent Play Design consultants; • Groundwork Pennine Lancashire; • Barnardo's; • Primary Care Trust; • Green Partnerships Environment Action Fund; • Community Futures; • Planning Services; • Transport and Highways Department; • Young people.

Membership of the applications assessment panel has been drawn from this range of expertise. Further to this, the project has received consultancy support from Play England who has been appointed national support body for the Initiative by the DCSF. All potentially funded projects are required to be cleared by the DCSF before allocation can be confirmed. It is confirmed by DCSF that all aspects of the projects recommended in this report are eligible for Playbuilder funding, for example the Chorley Boulder Zone project - elements of the scheme are deemed ineligible, hence the proposed reduced award figure.

- 8 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Risk Management In general terms, risk implications of the proposals in the report are focused around the completion of the play area development by the funded body. These are required to be within the financial year indicated and costs to fall within the specified budgetary allocation (grant), unless other additional sources of supplementary/match funding have been sourced and secured. Conditions relating specifically to individual schemes will be set out in a service level agreement, acceptance of which is essential as a condition of the 'offer of grant'. Responsibility for the delivery of schemes within these terms and conditions is discharged to the funded body from the County Council within the service level agreement. This includes the right to reclaim funding not utilised for the agreed purposes, or for projects not delivered within the agreed timelines.

Individually funded schemes are closely monitored throughout the duration of their development and delivery phases by a project officer reporting to the County Council. This enables regular risk assessment of the projects progress towards completion within the agreed timelines.

Regular reporting to the DCFS is required on the progress of the programme overall as a condition of grant and the above project management approach allows the County Council to uphold its commitments in this area. Financial It is critical that funding decisions are reached at this early timetable stage (pre beginning of relevant financial year) in order to ensure that projects have sufficient time for implementation and completion within the financial year. This is in order to ensure our compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant from the DCSF for Playbuilders which requires spend to be defrayed within the financial year, otherwise any balances may be reclaimed by the DCSF. Legal Conditions of grant making to each project are governed by a Service Level Agreement which has been prepared in conjunction with Lancashire County Council's Legal Services. The principle/detail of this agreement was followed with existing projects funded in year one. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans

Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A

- 9 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19.doc

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers

Paper

Date Contact/Council/Tel

National Children's Plan Katherine Ashworth, Lancashire County Council, 01772 532882

Report to Cabinet Member for Children and Young People on Lancashire Fair Play Playbuilder Initiative

22 July 2008 Katherine Ashworth, Lancashire County Council, 01772 532882

Report to Lancashire Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership on Playbuilder Project

10 September 2008 Katherine Ashworth, Lancashire County Council, 01772 532882

Report to Cabinet on Development of Lancashire Locals Appendix A Appendix Ai Appendix B Appendix C

4 December 2008 Katherine Ashworth, Lancashire County Council, 01772 532882

Report to Full Council on Development of Lancashire Locals Annex A1 Annex A2 Annex A3

11 December 2008 Katherine Ashworth, Lancashire County Council, 01772 532882

DCSF Fair Play National Play Strategy

December 2008 Katherine Ashworth, Lancashire County Council, 01772 532882

Report to Children's Trust Partnership Board on Lancashire Fair Play Playbuilder Initiative

16 January 2008 Katherine Ashworth, Lancashire County Council, 01772 532882

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A

Lancashire Local – Lancaster APPENDIX 'A' 10 March 2009

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix a.doc

LANCASHIRE FAIR PLAY PLAYBUILDER

HEADLINE CRITERIA FOR YEAR TWO PROJECTS

The following key criteria are set for Playbuilder play areas in line with the national objectives

Evidence that the following essential activities are in place/adequately planned (Deliverability within time constraints)

Free and Imaginative play potential Required matched funding secured Continuous open access Identified development in play strategyInnovation in play value Planning consent secured Adventurous and challenging play potential (8-13yrs focused)

Public consultation processes in place

Use of sustainable and natural resources/landscaping techniques for play

Risk assessments/insurance arrangements agreed

Developed from needs assessment Detailed costing secured (recent) Engagement of children, their parents/ carers and communities

Detailed plans/drawings available secured from reputable source

Accessible experience for disabled and non-disabled children alike

Procurement mechanisms/supplier lead in times possible within timeline

Strategies for safe access to site in place

Partnership working evidenced

Ability to improve health outcomes for children

Ownership issues clear

Fosters community cohesion Linked with other local public amenities for children/families

Promotes inclusion by reaching 'harder to reach/vulnerable group'

Lancashire Local – Lancaster APPENDIX 'B' 10 March 2009

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix b.doc

Summary of Applications for Year Two Playbuilder Funding

District Area Applicant Organisation

Project Name Description of planned project Comments arising from

assessment process Match Funding Required/ Secured

Proposed Playbuilder Funding Award

Lancaster District Council Happy Mount Park

Existing large park in Morecambe. Existing community group involved in master planning for park. Desire to focus on natural play to enhance setting. Focus on inclusive design.

High on innovation focus Link with public art and education themes. Specific focus on 8-13yrs. Full time ranger to be associated with scheme supporting local volunteers.

£140,700 total cost of Playbuilder scheme. £96,200 secured funding from Big Lottery, Arts Council, Lancaster City, LCC Environmental Projects Team. Further £50,000 of grants under consideration which would allow an overall upscale of aspirations and new ideas to be funded. £44,500

Lancaster Halton with Aughton Parish Council

Halton Play area

Parish Council Project – development of their land alongside a wide ranging village leisure development including extension to village hall. Provision of natural adventure play scheme alongside a new toddler area, multi-use games area, skate park and football pitch.

Ambitious scheme which has already secured significant match funding for non play area elements. Holistic approach to meeting community needs – part of parish plan. Innovative design sympathetic to natural landscape – providing good range of challenge and adventure.

Total scheme costs of £122,626. Only £20,000 currently secured. Therefore subject to requiring additional match funding of £55,626 to applied for (Lancashire Environment Fund/Changing Spaces). Computerised item 'ICON' not considered a priority for Playbuilder (natural/ adventure play) funding. Unsure as to level of synergy with Lancaster district play

- 2 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix b.doc

District Area Applicant Organisation

Project Name Description of planned project Comments arising from

assessment process Match Funding Required/ Secured

Proposed Playbuilder Funding Award

strategy or involvement of District Council.

£47,000

Wyre District Council Memorial Park

Creation of a major play space for Fleetwood incorporating equipped and natural play elements. Existing park Renovation of existing play features in different site setting which is more inspiring Also enhanced tree and sensory planting

District commitment in match funding. Responds to needs of deprived neighbourhood. PANEL NOTED THAT THIS SCHEME IN SAME AREA (FLEETWOOD) OF DISTRICT THAT RECEIVED FUNDING IN YEAR ONE.

Total cost of Playbuilder Project, £94,000. Wyre Borough Council Capital. Agreed in Principle. Subject to Budgetary approval (Feb 09) £47,000.

£47,000

Wyre Wyresdale Parish Council

Scorton Play Area

Parish Council Project – development of their land next to existing Parish Centre in village developing play/facilities for toddlers, juniors and teens. Provision of play scheme with good natural resources used alongside fixed equipment.

Scheme is part of parish plan. Makes good use of flat site with contouring, planting and shaping to enhance play value. One item of equipment (scooter) questionable for age range. Suggest alternative. .

Total scheme costs £57,158. Secured match funding from LCC £25,000, element of which can top up Playbuilder area and rest towards other elements of development for toddlers.

£47,000

Fylde District Council Lowther Gardens

Existing formal parkland in Lytham centre with Green Flag accreditation. Replace existing play area with new facilities for natural play and challenge for Juniors. Other improvements planned for toddlers and other infrastructure items.

All required match funding secured. Use of substantial trim trail set within tree canopy area. Mixture of equipment providing varied range of challenge levels. Good use of landscaping techniques to enhance environment for play.

Total cost of Playbuilder element £60,000 of a £122,731 total project cost. Secured. £64,000 Big Lottery, £4,000 Section 106 and £10,731 of in-house works to be provided.

£44,000

- 3 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix b.doc

District Area Applicant Organisation

Project Name Description of planned project Comments arising from

assessment process Match Funding Required/ Secured

Proposed Playbuilder Funding Award

Ribble Valley Tower Hill Youth Action Group

Salt Hill Playing Fields, Clitheroe

Redevelopment of an existing run down play area just outside the town centre of Clitheroe in a relatively deprived neighbourhood. Proposed installation of a largely timber focused 'trim trail'.

Panel are aware that LCC Environmental Projects Team are working with this community group to develop the potential plans and funding for this scheme, but were unaware of the bid submission. It was also unclear as to how well informed/engaged the District Council has been with the bid submission – yet the scheme is within their ownership. PANEL NOTED THAT THIS SCHEME IN SAME AREA (CLITHEROE) OF DISTRICT THAT RECEIVED FUNDING IN YEAR ONE. Costs provided were for equipment and installation only and did not include for any site works, landscaping, professional fees etc. It was felt this project has much positive scope for development but was at too early a stage of development to justify the funding submission. The scheme already has substantial expert support in place and could easily be worked up further and re-submitted for second stage consideration for residual year two funding or year 3 funding consideration with a full design plan and costing.

£54,050 (equipment cost and installation only)

No Award Preston District Council Mill Lane

Adventure Play Area

Part of extensive masterplan for the park. Significant improvement to

Good use of natural features in park to enhance environment for play. Accessibility has been prioritised.

Total project costs £104,459. Secure match funding £47,000

- 4 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix b.doc

District Area Applicant Organisation

Project Name Description of planned project Comments arising from

assessment process Match Funding Required/ Secured

Proposed Playbuilder Funding Award

access around the park for health and leisure access. No current provision for junior age range in park. Focus on adventure and challenge.

Driven by a strong Friends group. Innovative approach taken to development of challenging features for the junior age range.

required from Preston City Council (final decision March 09). Funding of £5,000 already in place for contract administration from Preston City Council.

South Ribble District Council Farrington Park

Provision of redeveloped facilities for families, toddlers, juniors and teenagers at existing site. New pathways safely connecting facilities with Stanifield Lane, Bashall Grove and Mill Street. Focal point creation of a spiral mound for junior adventure area. Climbing and balance features included with use of surrounding slope areas and trees to enhance setting. High priority within district play strategy.

Significant local investment in match funding. Holistic scheme blending needs of wider age ranges positively. Evidence of consultation with juniors and strong needs assessment based on this. Thoughtful design.

Total cost of Playbuilder Scheme £79,249.58 (within a wider masterplan for park scheme cost of £365,966. South Ribble Borough Council Capital. Subject to Budgetary approval (Feb 09) £160,500. Secured. £158,466 section 106 funding.

47,000

Chorley

District Council

Yarrow Valley Park Boulder Zone

A zone specifically for juniors within Yarrow Valley Country Park to be developed. Linking a series of pre-formed artificial boulders by rope to create a multi-level climbing and scrambling challenge. Bespoke build. Alongside this a series of off the shelf 'exercise stations' are proposed to enable a range of

Relatively innovative allowing for free play on boulder zone. Following advice from DCSF/Play England. The series of 'exercise/warm up stations' around the periphery of the boulder zone area are considered 'ineligible' for Playbuilder funding. Concern regarding the use of artificial boulders within the context of the natural park – also as to the lack of

Overall cost of boulder zone and exercise station development £46,224 – though an insufficient breakdown did not allow for disaggregation of cost of boulder zone from exercise stations. Exercise stations not considered a priority for Playbuilder (natural/

No award

- 5 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix b.doc

District Area Applicant Organisation

Project Name Description of planned project Comments arising from

assessment process Match Funding Required/ Secured

Proposed Playbuilder Funding Award

access for different abilities to warm up exercises.

contouring, featuring and landscaping / planting proposed. The overall effect of the design was of a flat square site which felt not conducive to the setting. It was felt this project has much positive scope for development with adaptations to maximise the use of natural landscape for natural play potential. The scheme could easily be worked up further and re-submitted for second stage consideration for residual year two funding or year 3 funding consideration with a full design plan and costing.

adventure play) funding.

West Lancashire

District Council

Summer Street Play Area Tawd Valley Park

The project intends to provide a play area, grass ball court and teen shelter at the site with skating facilities (subject to consultation) The facility will be situated in Tawd Valley Park, a linear country park in Skelmersdale. Development intends to include volunteering for local people.

No site plan or proposed design or list of proposed equipment or play developments provided. This inhibited specific assessment of play value, natural play context, adventure and challenge potential or value for money. The play area element appears to be indicated as the priority (first phase) development at this site. It was felt this project has much positive scope for development for natural play potential. The scheme could easily be worked up further and re-submitted for second stage consideration for residual year two funding or year 3 funding consideration with a full design plan and costing.

£22,500 district council capital funding secured. Total project costs of £69,500. No budget breakdown provided to indicate how this apportions to different aspects of the overall scheme.

No award

- 6 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix b.doc

District Area Applicant Organisation

Project Name Description of planned project Comments arising from

assessment process Match Funding Required/ Secured

Proposed Playbuilder Funding Award

West Lancashire

District Council Garnett Lees Play Area

The project intends to provide a play area, ball court and teen shelter at the site with skating facilities (subject to consultation). Development in partnership with Parish Council who may assume management responsibility on completion.

No site plan or proposed design or list of proposed equipment or play developments provided. This inhibited specific assessment of play value, natural play context, adventure and challenge potential or value for money. Application suggests that the priority for development at this site (phase 1) is a teen youth shelter and a kick about ball play area – neither of which are eligible for funding under the Playbuilder initiative. If natural adventure play for 8-13yrs is a priority, suggest re-work and re-submit for year three funding for different scheme elements.

£42,000 section 106 funding secured. Total project costs of £89,000. No budget breakdown provided to indicate how this apportions to different aspects of the overall scheme. No match funding yet identified.

No award

Hyndburn District Council Highlife Highams Playing Field, Accrington

Replacement of existing run down facility. Proposed reuse of some existing fixed equipment. Natural play element to include landforming and sensitive use of planting and natural materials to create and interesting and engaging landscape.

No site plan or proposed design or list of proposed equipment or play developments provided. This inhibited assessment of play value, natural play context or value for money. Described in bid as 'teen facilities'. Involvement of local residents group No match funding for relevant phase. It was felt this project has positive scope for development for natural play potential. The scheme could

Playbuilder element outlined as £47,100 (no details/ breakdown given). Part of a wider development programme with overall indicated cost of £99,550 (no details/breakdown given). No award

- 7 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 19 appendix b.doc

District Area Applicant Organisation

Project Name Description of planned project Comments arising from

assessment process Match Funding Required/ Secured

Proposed Playbuilder Funding Award

easily be worked up further and re-submitted for second stage consideration for residual year two funding or year 3 funding consideration with a full design plan and costing.

Burnley NO APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN TRANCHE 2

Pendle District Council Sackville Street Play Area

Extension of existing facility to provide for 8-13yr needs. Current facilities targeted at 4-8yrs to be retained. Alongside existing well used MUGA – theme of development to emulate sports such as skating, slalom, surfing and spinning – along with balancing and a tyre group swing. Natural features included eg quarried stone seating/social area.

No match funding from other sources (except small amount of financial support for consultation by Pendle BC). Possibly under-scoped financially? PANEL NOTED THAT THIS SCHEME IN SAME (WARD) AREA (BRIERFIELD) OF DISTRICT THAT RECEIVED FUNDING IN YEAR ONE.

£49,400

£47,000

Rossendale NO APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN TRANCHE 2

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17th March 2009

Part I - Item No. 20

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Customer Access – Face to Face Strategy Contact for further information: Karen McCann, (01772) 537111, Lancashire County Council, Adult and Community Services Directorate, karen.mccann@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Lancashire County Council has an ambitious Customer Access Strategy which aims to improve the way citizens are able to access the services provided. The Customer Access Strategy covers the following three main service delivery streams:

1. Self service (web) 2. Telephone 3. Face to Face

This report concentrates specifically on the Face to Face delivery stream and outlines the work currently being undertaken following full approval of the strategy by the County Council's Cabinet in April 2008. Decision Required Lancashire Local – Lancaster District is asked to consider and comment on the report. Background and Advice The Varney report (December 2006) described the need for local authorities to transform their services to provide a better service for citizens and a better deal for taxpayers. It focussed on the need to change the channels through which services are

- 2 -

delivered and accessed. Wherever possible, citizens need to be encouraged and supported to use the self service and telephony delivery streams. Those who are unable, or unwilling, to use the self service or telephony streams, need to be identified for a targeted Face to Face service. Face to Face The findings of the Varney report and Lancashire County Councils Equality of Access research study (2006) were considered, alongside other supporting information. Together these confirmed that certain citizens are more likely to be unable or perhaps unwilling to use the internet or the telephone to access services. These citizens can broadly be split into the following groups, highlighted as being more likely to require a Face to Face service:-

• Older people (65+) • Disabled people • BME citizens • Rural communities • Disadvantaged communities

The Face to Face approach has been developed in a way that complements the work of the two more-established delivery streams (self service and telephony) by working to identify and bridge any existing and/or emerging gaps between the customer and the internet/telephony access routes. It also ensures links into other corporate-wide strategies or agendas, including:

• the Transformational Programme for Business Change • the Equality and Diversity agenda • the Locality agenda • the Community Cohesion agenda

The Corporate Face to Face Access team has undertaken extensive research and development in order to inform the planning of this delivery stream, which involves experienced Customer Service Officers (CSOs), using mobile technology, visiting a variety of venues to enable us to successfully target our delivery to those identified as requiring a Face to Face offer. Venues include libraries, children’s centres, supermarkets, District Councils’ one stop shops, schools and even citizen’s homes. Early and ongoing analysis of these findings has established the need for the Face to Face strategy to be flexible and responsive, providing different service offer levels at different times of the year, in a variety of venues, based on analysis of the research and need identified and in a way that keeps it informed, flexible and responsive to the changing needs of our citizens.

- 3 -

Consequently, we provide a “fixed and flexible” offer, as follows: Fixed offer: • guaranteed and advertised “access” to information and services via local venues. • incorporating all 3 delivery streams and resulting in 12 district maps showing where

people can go to access free internet, free direct dial phones and actual face to face support in local community venues. This latter element will be delivered by existing staff – those already working in fixed bases across the county, including LCC staff (Library, corporate receptionists etc) and Partner staff (including district staff) who will all be given the necessary access and training to use our Acorn system in order to offer consistent, high quality, validated information about county services.

The fixed offer will be supplemented and informed by the…….

Flexible offer: • specifically aimed at reaching and supporting our 5 key target groups. • involving fully trained CSO’s from the CSC operating as outreach officers attending

ad-hoc, sessional activity that takes place in each specific district, arranged either by LCC or one of our increasing number of partner organisations. This can include activity linked to our target groups – i.e. prayer groups for our Eastern European citizens and/or OAP line dancing sessions or, alternatively, activity can be linked to specific service delivery activity – i.e. on-line school admissions support sessions.

• these CSO’s will mirror the offer being made by our district partners by helping

citizens to access information and services about both the county and district services, using mobile technology, linked to both systems.

• the mobile team will act as the eyes and ears of the authority by forging links with

the community, citizens and service providers and undertaking ongoing research to identify and report on the changing needs of citizens and communities.

• another key part of their role will be to support and promote all three delivery

streams by acting as channel change agents - supporting citizens to access services using the most efficient and effective channels (internet and telephone), wherever possible and appropriate. During the pilot this has been very productive, with CSO’s taking every opportunity to show citizens the internet, set them up with email accounts and advise them about venues where free internet access and/or training is available.

We have also been developing the way we use technology and information in order to deliver services in a way that better meets the needs of our citizens i.e.: • TellyTalk – a video conferencing facility at Accrington library which enables a citizen

visiting the library to see, hear and speak to an officer based at the Customer Service Centre (CSC) in Preston and access information and advice on all county services. This facility has the ability to capture photographs, signatures and documents and to transfer them to/from citizen and CSC officer in live time therefore

- 4 -

providing a much quicker, easier and cheaper way of delivering services i.e. the replacement of a Blue Badge.

• A-Z sharing with districts – the A-Z’s are the separate lists of service information

used by the county and districts. We are currently exploring how we and our district partners can share this information with each other, in order that we can provide basic service information on each others’ behalf in a way that will make far more sense to the citizen.

• Training of LCC front line staff – we have identified LCC officers that regularly come

into direct contact with citizens and plan to train them to access and use the A-Z, again enabling them to help citizens with a range of information. This process has already started and has included library staff in various libraries in the South Ribble, Chorley and Burnley districts and all the LCC corporate receptionists.

• Life Events – we recognise that people have different needs at different times of

their life and relating to different events that occur. We are currently working at identifying and linking together relevant services in a way that will help the citizen, will reduce the number of times they have to contact us/our partners, will flag up linked services they may not yet have considered or known about and will help us to identify when we need to make appropriate referrals to relevant partners/service providers. We are initially concentrating on the following three key Life Events:

1. Birth – being piloted through work with Children’s Centre’s in South

Ribble, who work with young families living in areas of deprivation. 2. Moving Home – being piloted through work with Elevate in Burnley, where

a large proportion of the population has been displaced. 3. Bereavement – being piloted with Chorley, South Ribble and Burnley

District Councils and the Department for Work and Pensions this aims to establish the means and protocols necessary to enable the sharing of sensitive information with relevant organisations to ease the process for the bereaved and to reduce the overpayment of benefits/provision of costly services.

Consultation/communication In addition to background research provided by the Equal Access research study and the “fieldwork” undertaken by the pilot the Team we also undertook various consultation exercises to enable us to obtain the input of as many people as possible before our strategy was submitted for approval to cabinet in April 2008 including:

• Locality Focus Groups (LFG) – updates are regularly provided to each group to ensure key officers and councillors are informed of the proposals and encouraged to contribute their views and suggestions. Many successful leads have been obtained via this route and feedback has been extremely positive.

• Lancashire Locals – as above, updates are regularly provided to all District

Partnership Officers with the offer of presentations and/or reports to Lancashire Locals meetings.

- 5 -

• Face to Face information event 30/01/08 – we held an information event that was attended by over 100 interested parties, stakeholders and colleagues.

• DVD – we have a Customer Access Strategy DVD which is being shown to a

wide variety of groups and partner organisations and can be viewed via the following LCC internet link: http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/csc%5Fvideos/

• “Access Lancashire” business cards and bookmarks are now available,

promoting the self serve and telephony contact channels. Face to Face Stream Implementation The strategy was approved by cabinet on 4 April 2008 and we are now part way through an 18 month implementation plan, which is being done on a phased basis. The phased timetable for implementing the strategy in each district was agreed by the Cabinet Working group on 7 May 2008 and is as follows:

1. Burnley, Chorley, South Ribble – by 30/09/08 2. Fylde, Lancaster & Rossendale – by 31/03/09 3. Wyre, Pendle, Ribble Valley, Preston, West Lancs, Hyndburn - by 30/09/09

A District specific Face to Face proposal will be created for each district area, tailored to identify and address the needs of each different community. This work will be led by the Face to Face Implementation Team who will establish District Implementation Groups (DIGs) in each of the 12 districts comprising:

1. Business Development Officer, Face to Face Implementation Team 2. a representative from each LCC directorate 3. a representative from the District 4. Libraries 5. Help Direct 6. District Partnership Officer 7. PCT 8. Police 9. Fire Service etc

The first three districts proposals were completed, submitted and approved according to the above timeframe and are currently being implemented and further developed. The second phase has started and the DIGs are already working together to create their District Specific proposals, which will be shared with the Corporate Face to Face Steering Group before being submitted to the relevant Lancashire Local for approval. Advice N/A Alternative options to be considered

- 6 -

N/A Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime, Disorder, Other Risk management N/A Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel Customer Access Strategy – Face to Face Strategy Report to Lancashire County Council Cabinet - Customer Access Report to Lancashire County Council Cabinet - Customer Access Equal Access Research Project Customer Access Strategy – A Governance Framework Overview and Scrutiny -Shared Services Contact Centre Review Audit Commission – Performance Summary Report

April 2008 July 2007 February 2007 December 2006 September 2006 August 2006 June 2006

Karen McCann, Lancashire County Council, (01772) 537111 Gabby Nelson, Lancashire County Council, (01772) 537303 Gabby Nelson, Lancashire County Council, (01772) 537303 Gabby Nelson, Lancashire County Council, (01772) 537303 Gabby Nelson, Lancashire County Council, (01772) 537303 Gabby Nelson, Lancashire County Council, (01772) 537303 Gabby Nelson, Adult and Community Services Directorate, Ext: 37303

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A

aaaaa

Lancaster District Proposal

For

FACE to FACE ACCESS

2

CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction 3 2. Background 4 3. District profile: 10

a) Makeup 10 b) Geography 11 c) Service Access Issues 12 d) Face to Face Research Findings 13

4. Recommendations: 15

a) Service Access 15 b) Fixed/Flexible Offer and TellyTalk 16 c) District map showing access coverage 18

5. Timeframe/Implementation Plan 20 6. Promotional Activity 21 7. Community Cohesion 22 8. Sharing Best Practice 23 9. Special Projects/Innovative Solutions 24 10. Approvals Process 26

APPENDICES Terms of Reference and Group Membership Agreed Information Sharing Protocol

3

1. Introduction Lancashire County Council has an ambitious Customer Access Strategy (CAS) which aims to improve the way our citizens are able to access the services we provide. The CAS covers the following three main service delivery streams:

1. Self service (web) 2. Telephone 3. Face to Face

This report concentrates specifically on the Face to Face delivery stream and outlines the work currently being undertaken following full approval of the strategy by Cabinet in April 2008.

4

2. Background The Varney report (December 2006) described the need for local authorities to transform their services to provide a better service for citizens and a better deal for taxpayers. It focussed on the need to change the channels through which services are delivered and accessed. Wherever possible, citizens need to be encouraged and supported to use the self service and telephony delivery streams. Those who are unable, or unwilling, to use the self service or telephony streams, need to be identified for a targeted Face to Face service. The findings of the Varney report and Lancashire County Councils Equality of Access research study (2006) were considered, alongside other supporting information. Together these confirmed that certain citizens are more likely to be unable or perhaps unwilling to use the internet or the telephone to access services. These citizens can broadly be split into the following groups, highlighted as being more likely to require a Face to Face service:-

• Older people (65+) • Disabled people • BME citizens • Rural communities • Disadvantaged communities

The Face to Face approach has been developed in a way that complements the work of the two more-established delivery streams (self service and telephony) by working to identify and bridge any existing and/or emerging gaps between the customer and the internet/telephony access routes. It also ensures links into other corporate-wide strategies or agendas, including:

• the Transformational Programme for Business Change • the Adult & Community Services “Help Direct” development • the Equality & Diversity agenda • the Locality agenda • the Community Cohesion agenda

The Corporate Face to Face Access team has undertaken research and development in order to inform the planning of this delivery stream, with initial activity split into two phases to provide both a county-wide and a district level perspective. Both phases involved experienced Customer Service Officers (CSO), using mobile technology, visiting a variety of sites to determine the most appropriate venues and to explore the most appropriate service delivery channels to enable us to successfully target our delivery to those identified as requiring a Face to Face offer. Their work was threefold and included:

• Service access, using mobile technology linked to the corporate network. • Research of need, using citizen focused questionnaires. • Venue evaluation, using 360 degree questionnaires and exit interviews.

5

Pilot venues included libraries, children’s centres, supermarkets, District Councils’ one stop shops, schools and even citizen’s homes. Over 2,000 citizens completed questionnaires, in over 100 venues and all 12 District Councils were involved. Early and ongoing analysis of these findings has established the need for the Face to Face strategy to be flexible and responsive, providing different service offer levels at different times of the year, in a variety of venues, based on analysis of the research and need identified and in a way that keeps it informed, flexible and responsive to the changing needs of our citizens. Consequently, we will be providing a “fixed and flexible” offer.

a) Fixed offer

• Guaranteed and advertised “access” to information and services via local venues. • Incorporating all 3 delivery streams and resulting in 12 district maps showing

where people can go to access free internet, free direct dial phones and actual face to face support in local community venues. This latter element will be delivered by existing staff – those already working in fixed bases across the county, including LCC staff (Library, corporate receptionists etc) and Partner staff (including district staff) who will all be given the necessary access and training to use our Acorn system in order to offer consistent, high quality, validated information about county services.

b) Flexible offer

• Specifically aimed at reaching and supporting our 5 key target groups. • Involving fully trained CSO’s from the CSC operating as outreach officers

attending ad-hoc, sessional activity that takes place in each specific district, arranged either by LCC or one of our increasing number of partner organisations. This can include activity linked to our target groups – i.e. prayer groups for our Eastern European citizens and/or OAP line dancing sessions or, alternatively, activity can be linked to specific service delivery activity – i.e. on-line school admissions support sessions.

• these CSO’s will mirror the offer made by our district partners by helping citizens

to access information and services about both the county and district services and other partner information, using mobile technology, linked to both systems.

• The mobile team will act as the eyes and ears of the authority by forging links with

the community, citizens and service providers and undertaking ongoing research to identify and report on the changing needs of citizens and communities.

• Another key part of their role will be to support and promote all three delivery

streams by acting as channel change agents - supporting citizens to access services using the most efficient and effective channels (internet and telephone), wherever possible and appropriate. During the pilot this has been very productive, with CSO’s taking every opportunity to show citizens the internet, set them up with email accounts and advise them about venues where free internet access and/or training is available.

6

3. District Profile a) Makeup Lancaster’s population is approximately 143,5001. The population has grown by 4% over the last 6 years. The population of Lancaster is 95% White, with the remainder made up of Asian (1.9%), Mixed (0.8%), Black (0.6%) and Other (1.5%)2. The population is broken down into the following age bands: 0-14yrs (14.5%), 15-24yrs (10.7%), 25-44yrs (23.6%), 45-64yrs (28.3%) and 65+yrs (22.8%)3. Lancaster’s over 65 population (22.8%) is notably higher than the national average of 16.1%.

1 ONS Mid-year Population Estimates, 2007 2 ONS Mid-year Population by Ethnic Group, 2006 3 ONS - Key Population and Vital Statistics

7

b) Geography

The proximity of the Lake District, excellent road and rail connections, a well regarded university and a rich architectural legacy are some of the factors that make Lancaster a popular location. The town centre is attractive and contains an interesting range of shops, historic places to visit and leisure activity for the local community and visitors alike. Lancaster does however contain areas of severe deprivation that may be overlooked by the casual visitor.

The neighbouring coastal town of Morecambe has experienced many of the problems associated with the decline of British seaside resorts and has some significant areas of deprivation in the core urban centre.

Recent examples of high quality regeneration activities in the town include the iconic Midland Hotel which should become a catalyst for developments in the surrounding area. The impressive Morecambe Coastal Protection Work that first commenced in 1989 is now nearing completion and helps to give a positive impression.

The renovation of the Winter Gardens in central Morecambe would further enhance the central urban area.

Morecambe Football Club increased its profile with promotion to the Football League. The proposed new stadium and associated developments should further improve its fortunes and benefit the town.

The natural attractions of the area are important assets. Organised walks across Morecambe Bay are a popular summer pastime, but can only be undertaken with expert supervision.

The authority contains part of the Arnside/Silverdale area of outstanding natural beauty that includes the important RSPB reserve at Leighton Moss.

Leisure cruising along the local coastline and the Lancaster canal is supported by marinas at Glasson and Galgate that are operated by BWML. In addition, the Tewitfield Marina is located at the current navigable limit of the Lancaster canal but there are plans to reopen the 14-mile section to Kendal.

The small town of Carnforth continues to retain an important railway function because of its direct access to the West Coast Mainline. The town's railway station is a popular visitor attraction as a result of its connection with the film Brief Encounter.4

4 LCC website

8

c) Service Access Issues linked to the Face to Face Strategy This section is under construction and will be completed by the District Implementation Group. This section will highlight in particular which groups are predominantly hard to reach in the Lancaster area and they issues they face when accessing services.

9

d) Face to Face Research Findings To build upon the recommendations of Varney and the findings of the Equal Access Research Study, the Corporate Face to Face Access team has undertaken additional research and development in order to inform the planning of the Face to Face Access strategy. The research project aimed to identify the best way to offer Face to Face service access to the citizens of Lancashire. Over 2,000 citizens completed questionnaires, in over 100 venues and all 12 District Councils were involved. The following shows the Lancaster results in comparison to the Countywide results:

FACE TO FACE RESEARCH STATISTICS

Question asked Countywide result

Lancaster result

How would you prefer to contact Lancashire County Council? Face to Face 41% 60% Telephone 54% 38% Email/Online 5% 2% Are you aware there is a Customer Service Centre for Lancashire County Council services and enquiries? Yes 25% 29% No 75% 71% Have you used it? Yes 20% 14% No 80% 86% Do you think you would use it in the future? Yes 88% 77% No 12% 23% Are you aware that Lancashire County Council has a website that provides information on all Lancashire County Council services? Yes 33% 26% No 67% 74% Have you used it? Yes 13% 9% No 87% 91% Do you think you would use it in the future? Yes 56% 29% No 44% 71% Are you: Male 38% 24% Female 62% 76%

10

Are you 60+? Yes 53% 59% No 47% 41% Are you a BME citizen? Yes 8% 1% No 92% 99% Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes 29% 26% No 71% 74% Do you consider yourself to live in a rural area? Yes 31% 24% No 69% 76%

11

4. Recommendations Service Access Issues This section is under construction and will be completed by the District Implementation Group. It will outline the recommendations that are proposed to enable the hard to reach groups to access Lancashire County Council and partner services via the Face to Face mobile officers.

12

The Fixed / Flexible Offer and Telly Talk Fixed Offer 1. Libraries

Morecambe and Lancaster libraries will have access to the LCC A-Z and will receive the necessary training to deliver the fixed offer. There will be a rollout programme of training for the remaining five libraries in Lancaster, timescales of which are yet to be determined. 2. District Councils We are consulting with Lancaster City Council One Stop Shop for them to have access to the LCC A-Z in the first instance, with the LCC Customer Service Officer’s (CSO's) having access to the Lancaster City Council information as a reciprocal arrangement for when they are out in the field delivering the flexible offer accessing hard to reach groups. The necessary Information Sharing Protocol to enable this to happen is attached at the end of this document as an appendix. Flexible Offer Activity will continue to concentrate on the main issues facing Lancaster and will link to our main five target groups. It is important to clarify that this delivery plan is a work in progress and will be updated over time as new venues and issues emerge pertaining to Lancaster. The table on the next page illustrates current flexible activity together with details of the target groups it is aimed at. Online School Admissions – there will be specific support available by the CSO’s to parents applying for school places online, venues in Lancaster are to be confirmed. TellyTalk TellyTalk is a video conferencing facility that is currently being piloted at Accrington library. It enables a citizen visiting the library to see, hear and speak to an officer based at the Customer Service Centre (CSC) in Preston and access information and advice on all county services. This facility has the ability to capture photographs, signatures and documents and to transfer them to/from citizen and CSC officer in live time therefore providing a much quicker, easier and cheaper way of delivering services i.e. the replacement of a Blue Badge. Funding has been agreed to provide a TellyTalk unit in each of the 12 districts. The District Implementation Group is currently assessing the different venues, via an options appraisal, which have been suggested to house the Telly Talk unit. The recommendation will then go to the Telly Talk Project group first who will then make their recommendation to the Corporate Face to Face Steering Group.

13

Target Groups

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009

September 2009

Age Concern Roaming Luncheon Club 2,4,5 20th 2nd, 9th

Age Concern -George Washington 2,4,5 8th 7th, 12th

Carnforth Library

Caton Victoria Institute All 14th 12th, 15th, 26th, 29th

Gregson Community Arts Centre

All 18th, 26th 26th

Heysham Library

Mobile Library

One Voice 5 23rd

Poulton Children's Centre 1,3,4 14th 23rd 9th

Signposts All

Trading Standards 2 28th

Westgate Children's Centre 1,3,4 2nd, 24th 19th

Key:Fixed Flexible

Target Groups BME 1 Over 60's 2 3 Rural 4 Disabled 5

Timetable of fixed and flexible activity in Lancaster

Free Internet Access

Disadvantaged

Bolton le Sands Library

Halton Library

Lancaster Library

Morecambe Libray

Silverdale Library

14

This map shows the activity in the Lancaster area. It enables any gaps for service delivery to be identified. As the project continues, venues will be added to the map. Ultimately the Face to Face Venue maps will be available as a resource on the Lancashire County Council GIS system.

5. Timeframe/Implementation Plan The strategy was approved by cabinet on 4th April 2008 and therefore we have now moved into the implementation phase, which will be completed on a phased basis. The phased timetable for implementing the strategy in each district was agreed by the Cabinet Working group on 7th May 2008”. Proposals will be produced for;

1. Burnley, Chorley, South Ribble – by 30/9/08 2. Fylde, Lancaster & Rossendale – by 31/3/09 3. Wyre, Pendle, Ribble Valley, Preston, West Lancs, Hyndburn - by 30/9/09

A District specific Face to Face proposal will be created for each district area, tailored to identify and address the needs of each different community. This work will be led by the Face to Face Implementation Team who will establish District Implementation Groups (DIGs) in each of the 12 districts, comprising:

1. Business Development Officer, Face to Face Implementation Team 2. a representative from each LCC directorate 3. a representative from the District 4. Libraries 5. Help Direct 6. District Partnership Officer 7. PCT 8. Police 9. Fire Service etc

These groups will work together to create this document, the District Specific proposal, for their area, which will then be shared with the relevant Lancashire Local for approval along with the Corporate Face to Face Steering Group.

6. Promotional Activity All promotional activity is outlined within the Face to Face Marketing and Communications plan, co-ordinated by our Marketing and Communications Officer. Branding The Access Lancashire logo was created in March 2007. The design around the logo to create the branding e.g. using the secondary Lancashire County Council colour of green and sitting alongside and complementing the Lancashire County Council logo, aims to represent the Customer Access Strategy. In time this will become the symbol for Lancashire citizens who will recognise it as being able to access Lancashire County Council services. Work is also being undertaken with the Corporate Marketing Team to ensure that the Access Lancashire brand is as visible as possible throughout the county. Local activity More detailed information will be provided around local promotional activities. The key promotional opportunities lie with the more permanent elements of the proposal such as Telly Talk and the fixed offer, however if we are attending one off events which are promoted locally then inclusion in the promotional materials would be arranged. It is therefore important that any promotional opportunities that manifest themselves around the flexible events need to be acted upon quickly so as not to miss the chance to piggy back onto any activity. Joint campaigns There are various partner publications and campaigns that we will link into including CVS and parish council newsletters. More detailed information will be provided around joint promotional activities. Promotional Material When delivering the flexible offer, the Customer Service Officers always have one of the Access Lancashire sidewinders on display, which clearly indicates our identity and purpose. Business cards and bookmarks have also been created in line with the Access Lancashire branding and, in time, other promotional material will be developed to complement and promote all three of the customer access delivery streams.

7. Community Cohesion Community cohesion in Lancashire means people working together and respecting the differences in our society. Strategic Strategically there is a need to break down the barriers that prevent certain elements of our community linking with each other and accessing much needed services. One of our responses is the appointment of 4 Bi-lingual CSO’s, speaking a range of Asian and Eastern European languages. In Lancaster More detailed information will be provided around specific community cohesion work that is being undertaken in Lancaster. Potential A good example of the sort of opportunities around community cohesion is taking place in the Chorley district where a session was arranged for Polish people to access the internet. Members of the Asian community were also invited along and it ended up that both communities were helping each other to use the internet.

8. Sharing Best Practice Throughout the work that the Face to Face team are undertaking, it is becoming more and more apparent that there are opportunities to share best practice and to work across the districts in Lancashire. An example of this is from the more established face to face work that has been happening in Chorley:

Whilst working with the Polish community in Chorley a good relationship was forged with a polish community leader working out of a local church. Running parallel to this, a small ESOL class was taking place in South Ribble in reaction to a growing number of Polish parents from Bamber Bridge sending their children to the adjacent school. The Face to Face team have since put the two parties in touch and the ESOL class is being advertised at the church in so more parents from the Polish community in Chorley can benefit from the ESOL class. This not only assists cross district working but also enables community leaders to learn from and assist each other but also helps the parents meet others from their own community facing the challenge of settling in a new country.

More detailed information will hopefully be provided around Face to Face best practice that is happening in Lancaster.

9. Special Projects/Innovative Solutions The Face to Face Team is involved with a wide range of projects and initiatives that have been identified through our partnership working and networking with other service providers and stakeholders. These projects benefit Lancashire and its partners by ensuring we remain engaged with our citizens and are ready and able to identify and respond to the changing needs of our citizens and communities. The following provides an update on these projects: Life Events We recognise that people have different needs at different times of their life and relating to different events that occur. We are currently working at identifying and linking together relevant services in a way that will help the citizen, will reduce the number of times they have to contact us/our partners, will flag up linked services they may not yet have considered or known about and will help us to identify when we need to make appropriate referrals to relevant partners/service providers. We are initially concentrating on the following three key Life Events:

1. Birth – being piloted through work with Children’s Centre’s in South Ribble, who work with young families living in areas of deprivation. A diarised case study is also taking place of a pregnant lady who lives in South Ribble.

2. Moving Home – due to the Elevate project, a number of people are being rehomed within Burnley. Therefore links have been made with the Clearance team and the Neighbourhood Management team at Burnley Borough Council who are working with those residents.

3. Bereavement – the Tell Us Once project aims to establish the means and protocols

necessary to enable the sharing of sensitive information with relevant organisations to ease the process for the bereaved and to reduce the overpayment of benefits/provision of costly services. This project has been commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and managed by Lancashire County Council and a two-tiered approach with Chorley, Burnley and South Ribble District Councils is to be rolled out.

Web Forum Further information will be provided on the progress of Web Forum. Primary Care Trust (PCT) In Lancaster The PCT's are an important partner for the Face to Face DIG with some PCT venues across the county being vital to the flexible offer due to the target audience using the venues on a regular basis. Discussions about how we can identify opportunities to ‘join up’ service delivery for residents within new, yet to be built PCT buildings are also taking place. A key PCT team for the CSO’s to link with is the Patient Advice and Liaison (PALS) team. Due to the nature of their enquiries, potential exists to provide access to the LCC A-Z for PALS staff and similarly provide LCC CSO’s with access to PALS information. Further information on the links between the PCT in Lancaster and the face to face work will be provided.

In Other Districts In Chorley, South Ribble, Preston and West Lancashire, the Central Lancashire PCT are planning to link to planned venues such as the Equitable Access Centre’s and the Long Term Condition Centre’s.

10. Approvals Process: This proposal will undergo the following consultation and approvals process: Lancashire Local – April 21st Face to Face Steering Group - TBC Once the proposal has been approved, work will continue to develop the borough specific model to ensure it continues to respond to the changing needs of the citizens we all seek to serve.

APPENDICES

Terms of Reference and Group Membership

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CUSTOMER ACCESS STRATEGY

Face to Face Implementation Group - Membership and Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference The purpose of the Face to Face Access Implementation Group is to support the work of Lancashire County Council in relation to the face to face element of the Customer Access Strategy by developing a District Implementation Proposal covering the Lancaster district area. This proposal will be submitted to LCC’s Corporate F2F Steering Group for approval by xxxxx 2009. Once approved the Implementation Group will act as a reference group/critical friend and will receive and comment on quarterly update reports. The group will fulfil this role by: • Recommending and agreeing the membership of the group in a way that will best

represent the demographics and needs of the district area being covered. • Developing and submitting a District F2F Proposal to the Corporate F2F Steering Group

informed by the findings of the following research:

o research into customer access trends within Lancashire, using a variety of information (including the Indices of Deprivation 2004, the Census of Population 2001, the Equal Access Report, the F2F pilot study etc);

o an audit of existing F2F delivery mechanisms within Lancashire and within existing

partnerships, to identify gaps in provision in terms of reaching the target groups;

o an audit of existing F2F information points across the agencies to identify gaps in provision in terms of geographical coverage;

o consultation with partner agencies to identify priority issues and create a baseline

against which future progress can be measured;

• Identifying and securing the commitment of relevant service delivery partners to ensure a joined up service delivery model, incorporating the FIXED and FLEXIBLE offers and involving officers from a range of organisations accessing each others information under the terms of the Data Sharing Protocol and the Reciprocal Arrangement agreement;

• Shaping and influencing actions to improve Customer Access for citizens at the same time as identifying and supporting the aims of other associated strategic and locality agendas i.e. Accommodation Reviews, Channel Change etc;

• Monitoring progress and impacts against agreed targets and performance measures; • Keeping abreast of national activity, guidance, research and good practice on customer

access via F2F; • Making recommendations to the Corporate F2F Steering Group regarding any priorities,

strategies, policies and procedures necessary to the delivery of the implementation plan;

• Developing mechanisms for integrating improved F2F/Customer Access activities into organisational business planning and performance management systems;

Principles The Implementation Group will work to the following principles*: • Leadership: The members of the Implementation Group will act as stewards / champions

of the corporate Face to Face strategy within their Directorates and Organisations. • Consultative: The Implementation Group will consult appropriately, internally and

externally, on key stages of its work. • Objectivity: The Implementation group will seek to base its recommendations on accurate

information and evidence-based effective actions. • Integrated: The Implementation Group will seek to co-ordinate Face to Face activities

and integrate associated improvements into the core activities of the various County Council Directorates and Organisations involved.

• Productive: The Implementation group will seek to bring about measurable change and

positive outcomes for citizens by ensuring they are supported and enabled to access information and services via whichever method is best placed to meet their needs in the most efficient and effective way possible.

*Wherever possible and appropriate, work in relation to these principles will be carried out jointly with the other cross-cutting policy areas of activity.

Membership Membership will be made up of those internal and external organisations that are able to work in partnership to enable citizens to access information and services in an improved, more effective and more efficient way by providing access to joined up services, via a range of access channels, accessible in a variety of locally based venues. Membership will include:

• Lancashire County Council – Corporate Face to Face Area Co-ordinator Helen Boyd

• Lancashire County Council – District Partnership Officer Bren Cook

• Lancashire County Council – ACS directorate representative (Libraries) Diane Baxter

• Lancashire County Council – Children & Young People directorate representative TBC

• Lancashire County Council – Environment directorate representative Craig Wilkinon

• Lancashire County Council – Help Direct representative (Commissioning Officer) Sarah McTigue

• City Council representative – Jane Allder, Head of ICT & Customer Services • Primary Care Trust representative – Jane Waite, North Lancashire PCT • Police representative - David Britton, Corporate Development, Connect Project • Lancashire Fire & Rescue representative – Kyran Ronson, Community Protection

Manager

MUTUAL DATA PROCESSING AGREEMENT Face to Face Project

THIS AGREEMENT is made the day of 2009. BETWEEN:- A. ……………………………………… and B. ………………………………………. WHEREAS:- The parties, for their mutual benefit, wish to allow the processing of certain personal data and information of a confidential nature belonging to the other and wish to protect such personal data and confidential information in the manner set out in this Agreement. NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:- 1. Definitions 1.1 "Purpose" means the exchange of information in the furtherance of joint service delivery by the District

Councils and Lancashire County Council.

1.2 "The Receiving Party" means the party that processes the Personal Data or Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party.

1.3 "The Disclosing Party" means the party whose Personal Data or Confidential Information the Receiving Party processes. 1.4 “Personal Data” has the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

1.5 "Confidential Information" shall mean any information of a confidential nature which has been or will be

supplied by the Disclosing Party to the Receiving Party for the Purpose relating to the Disclosing Party, its business, procedures, staff or clients.

2. Obligations of the Receiving Party

2.1 The Receiving Party shall not divulge the Disclosing Party’s Personal Data or Confidential Information, in whole or in part, to any third party and shall exercise in relation thereto no lesser security measures and degree of care than those that the Receiving Party applies to its own Personal Data and Confidential Information.

2.2 The Receiving Party shall use the other party’s Personal Data and Confidential Information solely for the Purpose and in any event shall make no other use of other party’s Personal Data or Confidential Information without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party.

2.3 The Receiving Party undertakes that it shall process the Personal Data of the Disclosing

Party strictly in accordance with instructions issued from time to time by the Disclosing Party.

2.4 The Receiving Party shall ensure that only such of its employees who may be required

by the Receiving Party in support of the Purpose shall have access to the Personal Data or Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party.

2.5 The Receiving Party shall ensure that all employees used in support of the Purpose are

aware of their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 and competent in the care and handling of Personal Data and Confidential Information.

2.6 The Receiving Party undertakes to process the Personal Data of the Disclosing Party

only in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom. 2.7 The Receiving Party undertakes not to disclose the Personal Data or Confidential

Information to a third party in any circumstances other than at the specific request of the Disclosing Party.

2.8 The Receiving Party hereby agrees to assist the Disclosing Party with all subject access

requests received from data subjects of the Personal Data. 2.9 The Receiving Party will allow its data processing facilities, procedures and

documentation to be submitted for scrutiny by the auditors of the Disclosing Party in order to ascertain compliance with the relevant laws of the United Kingdom and the terms of this Agreement.

2.10 The Receiving Party shall not make copies of the other party’s Personal Data and

Confidential Information except to the extent reasonably necessary for the Purpose. Any copies made in accordance with the terms of this Clause shall be the property of the Disclosing Party.

3. Obligations of the Disclosing Party 3.1 The Disclosing Party shall permit the Receiving Party to process such of its Personal

Data and Confidential Information together with such other information as the Receiving Party requires to perform its services in relation to the Purpose.

3.2 The instructions given by the Disclosing Party to the Receiving Party shall at all times be in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom.

3. Warranties and Indemnities 3.1 Each party warrants that it has the right to disclose its Personal Data and Confidential Information to the

other party and to authorise the other party to use the same for the Purpose. 3.2 Each party warrants that it has appropriate operational and technological procedures in place to safeguard

against any unauthorised access, loss, destruction, theft, use or disclosure of personal data. 3.3 The Receiving Party shall indemnify the Disclosing Party and hold it harmless from and against all claims

and proceedings and all liability, damages, losses, costs and expenses (including legal costs and expenses) arising as a result of the Receiving Party’s breach of this Agreement.

3.4 In the event of a breach of security, howsoever caused, each party agrees to inform the other of the nature

of the breach and the action that it proposes to take or has taken in respect of that breach. 4. Ownership All rights in Personal Data and Confidential Information disclosed for the Purpose are reserved by the

Disclosing Party and no rights or obligations other than those expressly recited herein are granted or to be implied from this Agreement.

5. Notices

All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be sent to

the other party marked for the attention of the person at the address set out below.

Notices may be sent by first-class mail or facsimile transmission provided that facsimile

transmissions are confirmed within 24 hours by first-class mail confirmation of a copy.

Correctly addressed notices sent by first-class mail shall be deemed to have been

delivered within 72 hours after posting and correctly directed facsimile transmissions

shall be deemed to have been delivered instantaneously on transmission provided that

they are confirmed as set out above.

6. Termination 6.1 This Agreement shall continue in force from the date hereof until terminated by mutual consent or by either

party giving to the other written notice. Notwithstanding any such termination, all rights and obligations hereunder shall survive with respect to Personal Data and Confidential Information disclosed prior to such termination.

6.2 On termination of this Agreement, the Receiving Party shall cease to use the Personal Data and

Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party and shall arrange for the prompt and safe return of copies of the same belonging to the Disclosing Party.

7. Non-Assignment

The Receiving Party shall not be entitled to assign the benefit or delegate the burden of this Agreement nor be free to sub-contract any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party.

8. Invalidity

If any term or provision of this Agreement shall be held to be illegal or unenforceable in whole or in part under any enactment or rule of law, such term or provision or part shall to that extent be deemed not to form part of this Agreement but the enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected provided however that if any term or provision or part of this Agreement is severed as illegal or unenforceable, the parties shall seek to modify this Agreement to the extent necessary to render it lawful and enforceable and as nearly as possible to reflect the intentions of the parties embodied in this Agreement including without limitation the illegal or unenforceable term or provision or part.

9. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties in respect of

Personal Data and Confidential Information and supersedes all previous agreements, understandings and undertakings in such respect. The interpretation construction and effect of this Agreement shall be governed and construed in all respects in accordance with the Laws of England and the parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.

Signed on behalf of Signed on behalf of Signed: __________________________ Signed: ___________________________ Name: __________________________ Name: ___________________________ Title __________________________ Title: ___________________________ Date: __________________________ Date: ___________________________

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 21.doc

Lancashire Local - Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 21

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Local Children's Trust Partnership - Lancaster District Contact for further information: Bren Cook, (01524) 585863, Lancashire County Council, Office of the Chief Executive, bren.cook@lancshire.gov.uk Executive Summary The Lancaster District Local Children's Trust Partnership held a launch event on the 23 January 2009 at the Hornby Institute. This report summarises the events of the day. Decision Required Lancashire Local - Lancaster District is asked to note the report. Background Local Children's Trust Partnerships in Lancashire are part of the governance arrangements that support the work of organisations and partners in their work of helping children and young people achieve the following five Every Child Matters outcomes: • Stay Safe; • Be Healthy; • Enjoy and Achieve; • Achieve Economic Wellbeing; • Make a Positive Contribution.

- 2 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 21.doc

The Local Trust Partnership (LTP) in Lancaster District was asked to organise an event to 'launch' the Trust, the Youth Charter and Children's Plan, as well as to celebrate children and young people's hopes for the future. Around 100 people attended the event held at the Hornby Institute. Thirty of those were children and young people from schools and youth projects in the District. Bowerham Primary School provided a steel band as people arrived and the day was opened by Keith Buddgen, the Mayor of Lancaster City Council. Presentations were made by Jude Thomas, Centre Manager - Lune Park and Carnforth Children's Centres and Chair of the LTP; Andrew Sofield, Head of Children's Integrated Services, Lancaster, Fylde and Wyre and Sarah Callaghan, Lancashire Children and Young Person's Champion. The invited guests from a wide range of agencies and sectors then discussed 'Not what can the Trust do for you but what can you do for the Trust'. At the same time the children and young people made a fifty foot long collage which described their aspirations for the future. After a speech by County Councillor Jennifer Mein, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, the Trust was officially launched by Bess Shooter, the youngest person at the launch. Bess cut a rainbow-coloured ribbon held by CC Mein and Victor Clemence, Lancaster's Member of the Youth Parliament. Over Kellet Primary School then performed a thought provoking piece of drama about how to genuinely listen to the views of young people rather than pay lip service to 'participation'. A short film, made by young people from the Lancaster District, was shown which explained the Youth Charter and marked its official 'launch'. The event was closed by Jude Thomas. Consultations N/a Advice N/a Alternative options to be considered N/A Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder or Other This item has the following implications:

- 3 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 21.doc

N/A Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments:

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel No

Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22.doc

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 22

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Prevention Fund Grant Allocation to Local Children's Trust Partnerships (Appendices 'A', 'B', 'C' refer) Contact for further information: Andrew Sofield, (01524) 585619, Lancashire County Council, Directorate for Children and Young People, andrew.sofield@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Lancashire’s Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership (LCYPSP) has agreed to allocate grants to the 12 Local Children's Trust Partnerships for the period April 2008 to March 2011. The resource to be distributed is drawn from the uncommitted element of the funding previously provided through the Lancashire Children’s Fund (LCF). This report describes the background to the grant and sets out the process for allocation. Decision Required Lancashire Local - Lancaster District is asked to note the report. Background and Advice The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) announced in July 2007 that the funding previously made for activities supported through the Children’s Fund would be maintained at the same level for a further three years. As part of that announcement the DCSF confirmed that certain criteria would be attached to the continued funding. In Lancashire it was agreed by the LCYPSP that some Children’s Fund projects would continue to receive funding for all or part of the additional three years. This left an element of uncommitted funding and LCYPSP agreed that this element should be allocated to Local Children's Trust Partnerships. The funding is available for three years, to March 2011. The LCYPSP has agreed a set of criteria

- 2 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22.doc

for this grant which is in keeping with the expectations of the DCSF as laid out in July 2007 when the continuation of the funding was announced (see Appendix 'A'). The Local Children's Trust Partnerships (LCTPs) must follow the approach required by the LCYPSP. The criteria for allocating the funding are set out below: (a) Grants will be made to the 12 Local Children's Trust Partnerships through a

formula based on the number of 0-15 year olds in the district with an additional factor to reflect levels of deprivation.

(b) Services commissioned will meet the principles agreed by the LCYPSP as set

out in the July 2007 letter from DCSF. (c) Services commissioned will be for the period up to 31 March 2011. (d) A consistent approach to commissioning projects will be adopted by all

LCTPs. (e) The majority of the grant will be for projects delivered by Voluntary,

Community and Faith Sector (VCFS). Appendix 'B' sets out the principles that the LCYPSP have agreed should apply and Appendix 'C' is the agreed annual grant for each LCTP. All 12 trusts are making use of the facility to carry forward some of the funding from 20-08-09 into the following two years. In summary, this has resulted in the following spending profile for the current year:

Full allocation Spent Allocation (25%) Carry Forward (75%) £1,274,917 £318,730 £956,187

All 12 trusts have now identified priorities for which the prevention fund will be used. Each of the 12 trusts have adopted one of the approaches as outlined below:

• Five trusts have opted to commission one off projects in 2008-09, followed by

further round(s) of commissioning for service delivery in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

• Seven trusts have opted to have one round of commissioning, with service delivery commencing in 2008-09 and continuing until 2010-11.

43 projects have been commissioned, or are underway and in the latter stages of the process. The summary of committed allocations across the three years is shown in the summary table below. Of these 43 projects, some headline figures are shown below:

• £1,156,053 is being invested in to parenting/family support, through the delivery of 8 projects.

• £259,316 is being invested into positive or diversionary activities, through the delivery of 14 projects.

- 3 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22.doc

• £40,933 on emotional health through the delivery of 13 projects. • Monitoring and delivery visit timetable to be established, based upon banding

system to that relates to grant size. • Commissioning with unallocated funds to be undertaken.

A summary table of active projects/committed expenditure is shown below:

- 4 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22.doc

District Budget Allocation 08/09 Budget Allocation 09/10 Budget Allocation 10/11

35,809 196,947 196,947

1 Family Support project Lancaster

1 Parenting project linked to PA role Parenting Through the PA role (TBC after review in

09-10) 10,833 140,253 140,253

Wyre 1 Family Support project

38,523 82,622 82,622

Fylde 1 Family Support project 2 Positive Activities projects TBC – will be spent in line with priorities in the action plan

41,555 228,554 228,554

Preston 1 Young Peoples outreach project

4 positive activities projects (inc 1 for children with

disabilities) 1 Diversionary project

1 Family Support project

To be allocated after further work on priorities and gaps

24,679 135,732 135,732 Chorley 5 diversionary activity

projects To be allocated after further work on priorities

24,438 134,410 134,410

South Ribble

1 residential project for young carers

1 Family support 1 scoping exercise

To be allocated after further work on priorities

31,158 171,368 171,368 West Lancs. 13 projects promoting

emotional health and self esteem

To be allocated after further work on priorities

27,265 149,959 149,959 Hyndburn

1 Family Support project

11,237 61,801 61,801 Ribble Valley 1 small grant project, 1 CYP conference project, 1 mentoring project

31,894 175,417 175,417 Burnley

1 small grants project, 1 family support project

30,261 166,437 166,437 Pendle

1 Nurture Training project To be allocated to 1 project for raising aspirations

19,910 109,506 109,506 Rossendale

1 Obesity scoping Project To be allocated after scoping work

- 5 -

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22.doc

In summary, the process followed in Lancaster was to establish the subgroup with terms of reference, which then had the delegated authority from the trust partnership for allocating the funding. A service specification was written and went out to tender aligning the service required with the Lancaster Children's Trust Partnership priorities. Two pieces of work have been commissioned; one early intervention and prevention family support service that will be delivered by the Coastal Child and Adult Therapeutic Service (CCATS), and the remainder have been allocated to the second, to support the parenting adviser role established to role out the parenting strategy in the district. Consultations N/A Implications: This item has the following implications, as indicated: Risk management There are no risks related to this particular report as the report is for noting only. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel Report to Lancashire Local - Lancaster District on Local Children's Trusts Appendix 'A' Appendix 'B'

14 October 2008 Andrew Sofield, Lancashire County Council (01524) 585619

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District APPENDIX 'A' 17 March 2009

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22 appendix a.doc

EXTRACT FROM DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

(DCSF) LETTER The Children's Fund, a universal, preventative service for children, young people and their families, has the potential for supporting future plans. Many areas have already taken the first steps towards securing this by including the Children's Fund Grant within the Local Area Agreements. This decision allows wider scrutiny of the outcomes secured by Children's Fund services and ensures that those identified as being effective and meeting local need can form the cornerstone of a future, preventative agenda. The involvement of the voluntary and community sector (VCS) runs throughout the programme. The expertise, knowledge and personal approach of the VCS to delivering services has meant that the most vulnerable children, young people, families and communities have been reached. It is important that we are able to sustain this into future arrangements and see the VCS at both a strategic and delivery level. Over the past few years, Children's Fund partnerships have developed an understanding of the relationship between participation, prevention and ways of achieving multi-agency collaboration. It has led to positive outcomes for children and families, in line with the ECM outcomes framework, including reported impacts on attendance, behaviour, self esteem and relationships. The Government has allocated significant resource to the Children's Fund - £966m over the life of the programme - and I am keen to see lasting benefit for children and young people from this investment. We need to sustain the preventative approach, integrating the methods into what should become common practice. We also need to continue to involve children and young people in the design and delivery of services so they have a real input to the future provision of preventative services. Local authorities can build on the valuable participation work that has already been undertaken by Children's Fund programmes.

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District APPENDIX 'B' 17 March 2009

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22 appendix b.doc

RESOURCE ALLOCATION TO LOCAL CHILDREN'S TRUST PARTNERSHIPS

(LCTPs) : PRINCIPLES The following principles will apply when allocating the continuation funding. This approach will help to ensure that the preventative focus of the Children’s Fund in Lancashire will be maintained within future practice. Future activity should:- • be based upon firm and up to date evidence of needs in relation to the five

ECM outcomes within a preventative context, with particular reference to the three priorities highlighted by DCSF:

– improving school attendance; – raising children’s and young people’s self-esteem; – preventing young people at risk from becoming involved in criminal

activity; • be based upon effective practice with clear evidence of a positive impact on

service users, identifiable through evaluation findings; • be based upon a feasible business case for funding; • remain focused on children and young people aged 5-13 within Lancashire; • give consideration to priority-need groups in order to narrow the gap and not

simply focus on deprived wards; • incorporate the themes of prevention, participation and partnership working; • incorporate evaluation activity that will demonstrate the impact on service

users, in respect of the ECM outcomes. Project Officers are allocated as follows: Lancaster, Wyre and Fylde Jo Humphries Preston, South Ribble, Chorley Talha Wadee and West Lancashire Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Burnley, Mohammed Sarfraz Pendle and Rossendale

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District APPENDIX 'C' 17 March 2009

w:\cssg\democraticservices\general\pdf conversion kit 2\lancashire locals\agendas\lancaster district\17 march 2009\item 22 appendix c.doc

GRANT TO LOCAL CHILDREN'S TRUST PARTNERSHIPS: 2008/09, 2009/10 and

2010/11

District District Population Aged 0-15 Years1

District Population Aged 0-15 Affected by Income Deprivation2

Grant per annum3 £

Lancaster 24,924 5,600 143,234

Wyre 19,672 3,315 102,002

Fylde 12,874 1,503 60,089

Preston 26,983 7,178 166,221

Chorley 19,881 2,913 98,714

South Ribble 20,955 2,441 97,753

West Lancashire 22,126 4,719 124,631

Hyndburn 18,623 4,388 109,061

Ribble Valley 10,656 765 44,946

Burnley 20,356 5,633 127,580

Pendle 20,227 5,025 121,045

Rossendale 14,643 2,839 79,641

Total 231,920 46,319 1,274,917

The overall grant is £1.3m per annum for the three years 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/2011. Calculated on:- • £3.50 per eligible child (£231.9k) • £10.00 per deprivation factor (£46.3k) Due to availability of data the number of 0-15 year olds has been used to calculate how the grant is allocated across the 12 districts.

1 District Population Aged 0-15 Years (2004) 2 Number of the District Population Aged 0-15 Affected by Income Deprivation (2004) 3 Subject to confirmation

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on 17 March 2009

Part I - Item No. 23

Electoral Divisions affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders (Update) (Appendix ‘A’ refers) Contact for further information: Jim Robson, 01524 753330, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate, Jim.Robson@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This report details the current stage of progress of pending permanent Traffic Regulation Orders for the Lancaster District. Decision Required The Local is asked to note the report. Background and Advice It has been agreed that progress reports on the processing of Traffic Regulation Orders will be submitted to each meeting of the Lancashire Local Committee. To this end, the status of the Orders currently being processed and their stage of progress is attached at Appendix ‘A’. The abbreviations used at Appendix ‘A’ to describe the type of Order in place are as follows: DPP Disabled Parking Place PoW Prohibition of Waiting RoW Restriction of Waiting PWR Permanent Weight Restriction

- 2 -

NWAAT No Waiting At Any Time Prb Un/Loading Prohibition of Loading and Unloading Prb Loading Prohibition of Loading Rev Revocation Consultations Lancashire Constabulary, the County Council’s Network Management group and Lancaster City Council have been fully consulted on the proposals. Local residents will also be consulted on the proposals through the use of site notices and advertisements in the local press, and in the event that objections are received, the individual proposals will be considered by the Lancashire Local Committee. Those proposals not receiving objections will be considered by the Executive Director of Environment. The Local is asked to note the report. Implications: This item has the following implications: Financial Implications There will be cost implications for introducing the Traffic Regulation Orders, although this would be funded via existing Ordinary Maintenance Budgets. Risk Management There are no significant risks identified. Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Council/Tel No N/A.

Appendix APERMANENT TROS - LANCASTER 09-Mar-09

REF

NO

. TS/

TR

O/1

/..

LOCATION COMMENTS TYPE AD DATE CONSULT END

OB

JEC

TIO

N (Y

/N)

REPORT TO

ENGINEER

YES - Lancs Locals

Meeting Date

NO - Key Decision by Exec. Dir. Of Env.

DECISION TAKEN

WORKS COMPLETE

DATE INTO OPERATION

12Market Street, Carnforth ON HOLD

Loading Bay/Prb of Un/Loading 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

13Dolphinholme Bridge, Dolphinholme 0

Rev 17T(TRO/1/2) & PWR 18T 09-Feb-07 09-Mar-07 N 14-Mar-07 00-Jan-00 02-May-07 Approved 00-Jan-00 06-Feb-09

21

Eastgate, Middlegate, Northgate, Morecambe ON HOLD PoW & RoW 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

26 Bulk Road, Lancaster 0 Various 19-Oct-07 16-Nov-07 N 19-Nov-07 00-Jan-00 14-Jan-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

27

Yealand Road Canal Bridge, Tarn Lane, Yealand Redmayne 0

Rev 17T & PWR 18T 28-Mar-08 25-May-08 N 28-Apr-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

28Westbourne Road, Lancaster 0 Rev & PoW 07-Sep-07 05-Oct-07 N 08-Oct-07 00-Jan-00 18-Dec-07 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

29

Main Street, Mainway, Pinfold Lane, Lancaster 0 PoW 07-Sep-07 05-Oct-07 N 09-Oct-07 00-Jan-00 18-Dec-07 Approved 00-Jan-00 13-Oct-08

30Alexandra Road, Carnforth 0 PoW 14-Sep-07 12-Oct-07 N 24-Oct-07 00-Jan-00 18-Dec-07 Approved

Work Ordered 21/01/08 04-Aug-08

31Braddon Close, Morecambe 0 PoW 21-Sep-07 19-Oct-07 N 26-Oct-07 00-Jan-00 14-Jan-08 Approved 23-Jul-08 11-Aug-08

33

Exeter Avenue, Cork Road, Canterbury Avenue, Lancaster 0 PoW 05-Oct-07 02-Nov-07 Y 07-Nov-07 22-Jan-08 00-Jan-00

Lesser restriction approved 28-Jul-08 22-Sep-08

34Lancaster City Centre, Pedestrian Zone ON HOLD

Revocation and Prb of Driving 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

36Brook Street, Lancaster 0

PoW & Amendment 08-Feb-08 07-Mar-08 Y 10-Mar-08 06-May-08 00-Jan-00 Approved 00-Jan-00 01-Dec-08

38 Stoney Lane, Ellel 0 PoW 18-Jan-08 15-Feb-08 Y 18-Feb-08 00-Jan-00 04-Apr-08 Approved 16-Jun-08 07-Jul-08

39 Salford Road Galgate 0 Rev & PoW 13-Jun-08 11-Jul-08 Y 18-Jul-08 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

40Middle Street, Lancaster 0 Prb of Loading 01-Feb-08 29-Feb-08 Y 04-Mar-08 06-May-08 00-Jan-00 Approved 29-Sep-08 27-Oct-08

OBJECTIONSDate published:

Appendix APERMANENT TROS - LANCASTER 09-Mar-09

REF

NO

. TS/

TR

O/1

/..

LOCATION COMMENTS TYPE AD DATE CONSULT END

OB

JEC

TIO

N (Y

/N)

REPORT TO

ENGINEER

YES - Lancs Locals

Meeting Date

NO - Key Decision by Exec. Dir. Of Env.

DECISION TAKEN

WORKS COMPLETE

DATE INTO OPERATION

OBJECTIONSDate published:

41

86 Sandylands Promenade, Morecambe 0 DPP 06-Feb-08 05-Mar-08 N 07-Mar-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 01-Dec-08

42

58 Sandylands Promenade, Morecambe 0 DPP 06-Feb-08 05-Mar-08 N 07-Mar-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 01-Dec-08

43Rosebery Avenue, Morecambe 0 DPP 20-Feb-08 19-Mar-08 N 31-Mar-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 19-Jan-09

44Lake Avenue, Morecambe 0 DPP 06-Feb-08 05-Mar-08 N 07-Mar-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 01-Dec-08

45Willow Lane, Lancaster 0 DPP 22-Feb-08 25-Mar-08 N 25-Mar-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 24-Nov-08

46Torrisholme Square, Torrisholme 0 NWAAT 22-Feb-08 21-Mar-08 Y 08-Apr-08 06-May-08 00-Jan-00 Approved 00-Jan-00 13-Oct-08

47Hyde Road / Holbeck Ave, Morecambe 0 NWAAT 20-Feb-08 19-Mar-08 Y 01-Apr-08 06-May-08 00-Jan-00 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

48Dale Street / Back Dale Street Lancaster 0 NWAAT 29-Feb-08 02-Apr-08 N 14-Apr-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

49Marine Road West Morecambe 0 NWAAT 27-Feb-08 26-Mar-08 N 08-Apr-08 00-Jan-00 12-May-08 Approved 00-Jan-00 13-Oct-08

50Lancaster City Centre, Pedestrian Zone ON HOLD

Prb of Waiting/various 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

51Slyne Road, Lancaster 0 NWAAT 23-May-08 20-Jun-08 Y 02-Jul-08 02-Sep-08 00-Jan-00 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

52Newton Area, Lancaster 0

PoW (See Road Humps & 20MPH 30-May-08 27-Jun-08 N 04-Jul-08 02-Sep-08 00-Jan-00 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

53St Margarets Road Morecambe 0 DPP 13-Aug-08 10-Sep-08 Y 17-Sep-08 02-Dec-08 00-Jan-00 Approval 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

54Kirkes Road, Lancaster 0 DPP 15-Aug-08 12-Sep-08 N 19-Sep-08 00-Jan-00 02-Oct-08 Approval 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

55Church Street Lancaster 0

Amendment to One way and access 20-Feb-09 20-Mar-09 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

Appendix APERMANENT TROS - LANCASTER 09-Mar-09

REF

NO

. TS/

TR

O/1

/..

LOCATION COMMENTS TYPE AD DATE CONSULT END

OB

JEC

TIO

N (Y

/N)

REPORT TO

ENGINEER

YES - Lancs Locals

Meeting Date

NO - Key Decision by Exec. Dir. Of Env.

DECISION TAKEN

WORKS COMPLETE

DATE INTO OPERATION

OBJECTIONSDate published:

56Church Street Lancaster 0

Rev. Prb of Waiting & Pay & Display 20-Feb-09 20-Mar-09 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

57Beaufort Road Morecambe 0 NWAAT 24-Sep-08 22-Oct-08 Y 04-Nov-08 20-Jan-09 00-Jan-00

Amended Approval 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

58Pinfold Lane Lancaster 0 NWAAT 19-Sep-08 17-Oct-08 N 23-Oct-08 00-Jan-00 12-Jan-09 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

59 Low Road Middleton 0 Rev. DPP 01-Oct-08 29-Oct-09 N 17-Nov-08 00-Jan-00 12-Jan-09 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

60 Westgate Morecambe 0 NWAAT 22-Oct-08 19-Nov-08 N 26-Nov-08 00-Jan-00 12-Jan-09 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

61Torrisholme Road Lancaster 0 Res of waiting 17-Oct-08 14-Nov-08 N 24-Nov-08 00-Jan-00 12-Jan-09 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

62 Hampson Lane, Ellel 0 NWAAT 24-Oct-08 21-Nov-08 N 28-Nov-08 00-Jan-00 12-Jan-09 Approved 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

63Hest Bank Lane, Slyne with Hest 0 NWAAT 31-Oct-08 28-Nov-08 N 09-Dec-08 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

64Main Road Bolton-Le-Sands 0 Res of waiting 31-Oct-08 28-Nov-08 N 09-Dec-08 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

65Queens Drive, Bare Lane, Morecambe 0 NWAAT 19-Nov-08 17-Dec-08 N 06-Jan-09 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

66Yorkshire Street East, Morecambe 0

Rev & Loading Bay 12-Nov-08 10-Dec-08 N 19-Dec-08 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

67Collingham Park, Lancaster 0 NWAAT 21-Nov-08 19-Dec-08 Y 05-Jan-09 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

68Glasson Dock Swing Bridge 0 Amendment 05-Dec-08 09-Jan-09 N 16-Jan-09 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

69 Broadway, Lancaster 0Loading / Unloading 30-Jan-09 27-Feb-09 N 16-Jan-09 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

70Dallas Road Area lancaster 0

Res Permits Res & Prb of Waiting 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

71Regent Street Area Lancaster 0

Res Permits Res & Prb of Waiting 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

72Brook Street, Area Lancaster 0

Res Permits Res & Prb of Waiting 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

Appendix APERMANENT TROS - LANCASTER 09-Mar-09

REF

NO

. TS/

TR

O/1

/..

LOCATION COMMENTS TYPE AD DATE CONSULT END

OB

JEC

TIO

N (Y

/N)

REPORT TO

ENGINEER

YES - Lancs Locals

Meeting Date

NO - Key Decision by Exec. Dir. Of Env.

DECISION TAKEN

WORKS COMPLETE

DATE INTO OPERATION

OBJECTIONSDate published:

73Church Street North Road Lancaster 0 One Way 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

74Church Street North Road Lancaster 0 Various 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

75Green Street Morecambe 0

Rev. Prb & Res 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

76Meadowside, Lancaster 0 Res of Waiting 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

77Clarence Street, Morecambe 0

Res of Waiting & Permit Parking 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

78Sulyard Street, Lancaster 0

Loading Bay & DPP 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

79Hazelrigg Lane, Ellel, Lancaster 0 Prb of Waiting 30-Jan-09 27-Feb-09 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

80Chapel Lane, Ellel, Lancaster 0 NWAAT 20-Feb-09 20-Mar-09 0 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00 00-Jan-00

Lancashire Local – Lancaster District Meeting to be held on the 17th March 2009

Part I - Item No. 24

Electoral Division affected: Lancaster Rural East Lancaster Rural North Morecambe North Lancaster Central Lancaster South East Morecambe West Skerton Lancaster East Morecambe South Heysham

Programme of Meetings for 2009/10 Contact for further information: Paul Smith, 01772 533425, Lancashire County Council, County Secretary and Solicitor’s Group, paul.smith2@lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary This Report suggests a draft range of dates for meetings of the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District for the Municipal Year 2009/10 and asks the Local to consider times and venues for those meetings. Decision Required The Lancashire Local - Wyre is asked to:-

a) agree the draft programme of dates for meetings of the Lancashire Local –Lancaster District for 2009/10; and

b) agree preferred start times for meetings; and c) consider preferred venues for meetings.

Background The Terms of Reference for the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District provide that the Local shall meet on a six or eight weekly cycle and at venues to be determined by the Local. The final meeting of the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District in the 2008/09 Programme is due to take place on Tuesday, 21st April, 2009.

- 2 -

2

The suggested programme for the Lancashire Local – Lancaster District following that meeting is as follows:-

21st July 2009 at 1.30pm 1st September 2009 at 6.30pm 13th October 2009 at 1.30pm 1st December 2009 at 6.30pm 19th January 2010 at 6.30pm 16th March 2010 at 6.30pm

Although the Lancashire Locals are not primarily about public engagement, meetings are open to the public and to the press. Meetings in 2008/09 have taken place at various venues throughout the area, and the Local may wish to continue this arrangement. Consultations Officers of the City Council and Lancaster’s District Partnership Officer have been consulted when preparing the suggested programme of meetings to avoid potential conflict with existing meetings. Advice N/A Alternative options to be considered N/A Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder or Other This item has the following implications: N/A Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans Name: Organisation: Comments: N/A