Agenda and minutes

1.1       The Lead Member confirmed as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2016.

Disclosure by all Members present of personal interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the Members regard the interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.

2.1       Councillor Barnes declared a personal interest in Item 4 as the Chair of Etchingham Parish Council, but he did not consider this to be prejudicial.

3.1       Reports referred to in the minutes below are contained in the minute book.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

4.1       The Lead Member considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

4.2       Ms Lawrence and Ms Campbell, the Lead Petitioners, gave a presentation of further evidence in support of their petition.

4.3       The Lead Member suggested the commissioning of a feasibility study, which could be used to support any future bid to the Community Match Fund.

DECISIONS

4.4       RESOLVED to advise petitioners that (1) traffic calming measures incorporating a 20mph speed limit and a pedestrian crossing in Etchingham are not a priority for the County Council at the present time; 

(2)        Step down markers are not permitted in advance of a speed limit and it has been determined that the Vehicle Activated Sign outside of the school is in the correct position;

(3)        the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership’s criteria requirements are not met for a speed camera to be installed in Etchingham due to its good safety record; and 

(4)        Etchingham Parish Council may wish to consider funding traffic calming measures incorporating an advisory 20mph speed limit and pedestrian crossing facilities in Etchingham through the Community Match Fund scheme. 

Reasons

4.5       Additional traffic calming measures incorporating an advisory 20mph speed limit on the A265 near Etchingham Primary School and a pedestrian crossing in the High Street are not presently a priority for funding from the County Council’s budget.  However, they could be supported if an alternative source of funding becomes available or if an application through the Community Match Scheme was successful.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

5.1       The Lead Member considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport, together with written representations from the Lead Petitioner and the Local Member.

5.2       Officers confirmed that the survey had been done in a suitable location, but that a further survey at the location suggested by the Lead Petitioner and Local Member would be conducted.  The Lead Member confirmed that he would consider a further report should the further survey provide findings contradicting the first survey.

DECISIONS

5.3       RESOLVED to advise the petitioners that (1) the provision of a School Crossing Patrol on Prince Edwards Road is not a priority for the County Council at the present time; and

(2) Wallands School and/or local community groups may wish to consider sponsoring a School Crossing Patrol. 

Reasons

5.4       There is no statutory requirement to provide School Crossing Patrols and removal of the service was considered as part of the Reconciling Policy and Performance Resources (RPPR) process. However, Members recognised the value of the service and agreed to continue funding those sites that met policy criteria. The approval of additional School Crossing Patrols at sites of local concern was recognised at the time and Members agreed that these should be supported, as long as there were no financial implications on the Road Safety Budget. There is in place a scheme which allows School Crossing Patrols to operate at sites not meeting the national criteria, if local sponsorship can be found.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

6.1       The Lead Member considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

6.2       Ms Ratusniak Silva, the Lead Petitioner, spoke in support of the petition and provided photographs of the local conditions.  The Lead Petitioner and Local Member were encouraged to work with the school to address anti-social driving and parking.

DECISIONS

6.3       RESOLVED to advise the petitioners that (1) traffic calming measures around Bourne School are not a priority for the County Council at the present time;

(2)        consideration has been given to the installation of school warning signs in locations deemed appropriate by the Local Traffic and Safety Team; and

(3)        additional parking restrictions have been included for consideration as part of the Parking Team’s 2017 Eastbourne Parking Review.

Reasons

6.4       The County Council has a limited amount of funding to develop local transport improvements and resources need to be targeted to those schemes which will be of greatest benefit to our local communities. To help prioritise the numerous requests for improvements a process to determine which schemes should be funded through our Integrated Transport programme was developed. A traffic calming scheme for the roads around Bourne School has been assessed to determine if it might be a priority for future consideration. The proposal did not meet the benchmark score to enable it to be taken forward at this time.

6.5       The provision of School warning signs has been assessed against the national criteria by the Local Traffic and Safety Team who have arranged for appropriate signing to be installed.  Additional parking restrictions will be considered as part of the ongoing review of parking in Eastbourne and, subject to their prioritisation, will be progressed as part of this review.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

7.1       The Lead Member considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

DECISIONS

7.2       RESOLVED to (1) approve that the Council charge fees for Registration Services in line with legislation;

(2) delegate authority to the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport to approve any future changes in fees payable for Registration Services in line with legislation; and

(3) if necessary, write to the General Register Office, to request clarity over future intentions for changes to the fees regime.

Reasons

7.3       The General Register Office will shortly be imposing fees on local authorities for services that were previously provided for free.  The services identified in the report are for the benefit of individuals, and the Registration Service will be charging fees on a cost recovery basis.  The Registration Service will retain a discretion to waive fees in cases of genuine financial hardship or registrar error.