Appendix B
Feedback from Joint Member Panels on08/09 IWP & FWP
Broxbourne
Draft 1:
Broxbourne panel members requested a more even allocation of funding between footways and carriageways and pointed out two particular pedestrian areas to refurbish. The panel noted the revised timetable for the IWP / FWP process and requested financial information regarding the schemes delivered in the 06/07 IWP and those proposed for 07/08. Two members mentioned the volume and format of the IWP / FWP appendices were time consuming to digest and difficult to print off. The officers will look at improving the situation by reducing the frequency of reporting the full listings in the IWP / FWP and use of power point.
Draft 2:
In response to the above, Draft 2 of the 08/09 IWP shows 12 carriageway and 3 footway schemes. However, Draft 2 of the FWP shows 68 carriageway and 59 footway schemes, including The Old Pond Roundabout, Cheshunt footways programmed for 10/11. The IWP and FWP also include a number of other types of schemes consisting of bridge maintenance, drainage, integrated transport, safety & movement and discretionary traffic & environmental works.
The panel asked whether the appendices could be reformatted in a logical order on an area or ward basis working say from north to south e.g. Hoddesdon - Broxbourne - Cheshunt - Waltham Cross to make them easier to follow.
The panel also made the following specific suggestions:
- ITP09033 - Broxbourne Olympics Links be moved from the Broxbourne area to the Waltham Cross area,
- CWY07766 - Lt. Ellis Way carriageway surface dressing scheme be deferred until completion of St. Mary's School redevelopment
- FWY10017 - Old Pond, Cheshunt footway works be brought forward and a similar footway scheme be promoted for Waltham Cross pedestrianised area.
Dacorum
Draft 1
The JMP requested that roads on the Highways Extra reserve list be included in the IWP/FWP if they are not done by Highways Extra.
Members also raised the following specific sites:
Hunters Oak
Durrants Road, Berkhamsted
Brown’s Spring
Felden Lane
Chipperfield Road
Chapel Croft, Chipperfield
Hempstead Road, Bovingdon (in for 09/10, could this be brought forwards?)
Draft 2:
The JMP reinforced the comments made at Draft 1 especially regarding Hunters Oak.
East Herts
Draft 1
The East Herts panel noted the report and requested one more site be considered.
Draft 2
The Panel received the report on schemes proposed for implementation in 2008 to 2013 and noted that the programme was still an outline and could be subject to substantial changes.
The Chairman asked Members to review the schemes in their areas and contact the District Manager with any requests for further schemes to be included.
AGREED - that Members be asked to review the schemes in their wards/divisions and submit any requests for other schemes to the District Manager.
Hertsmere
Draft 1
Members reviewed the programme and agreed to feed comments back via the District Manager.
In consultation with officers a number of sites were suggested for consideration for future programmes:
- New Road, Radlett
- Aldenham Rd (Park Road to Watling St), Radlett
- B462 Watford Road / Park Road (Darnhills to Watling Street), Radlett
- A5183 Watling Street (Park Road to Kitswell Way), Radlett Quakers Lane, Potters Bar
- Billy Lows Lane, Potters Bar
- Blanche Lane through South Mimms village
- Rectory Lane, Shenley
- Earls Lane, Ridge
Draft 2
The Panel noted the report and were happy that 50% of its suggestions at Stage 1 had been accommodated. It was however considered that Watling Street, Radlett should be accelerated in the Forward Works Programme.
North Herts
Draft 1
The North Herts Panel noted the report and requested one more site be considered.
Draft 2:
The Panel noted the report and, in conjunction with officers, provided feedback on the timing or treatment of some sites in the existing programme and others not on the programme that they felt warranted consideration.
St Albans
Draft 1
St Albans members received the IWP report and suggested a number of other roads to be considered for the programme.
Draft 2
The report was noted. Members did express concerns that previously requested maintenance schemes were not included or had been deferred as a lower priority within the FWP. Added concern existed on the funding for long standing drainage concerns. Councillor A Lee referred to the Asset Management process with regard to road repairs and suggested inclusion of Lye Lane as part of the five year programme as well as the inclusion of drainage works in Old Watford Road, which had resulted in the permanent closure of the public house there.
Councillor Heritage requested the resurfacing for Cravells Road be implemented during 2008/2009 rather than 2009/1010, as this road is becoming extremely hazardous to travel over.
Members were on the whole supportive of the works undertaken as part of the Highways Extra programme.
Stevenage
Draft 1:
The panel noted the report and stated that Hertford Road surfacing was their priority site.
Draft 2:
The Panel noted the report.
Cllr John Lloyd reported that Valley Way is badly stripped in places and he suggests that it will not last until 2012, as proposed in the FWP. He requests that it be brought forward.
Cllr Robin Parker expressed dissatisfaction with the presentation ofAppendix B of the report, although he acknowledged that an explanation was provided in the report.
Three Rivers
Draft 1:
The Three Rivers panel noted the reports and suggested one road where the footways could be done at the same time as the carriageway work.
Draft 2:
The Panel noted the report and asked whether Highways Extra reserve schemes that did not get built would figure on the IWP/FWP in the future.
Watford
Draft 1:
The Watford JMP noted the report.
Draft 2:
Members expressed disappointment with the low number of schemes, especially footway schemes, proposed for the Watford area in 08/09.
The Panel also asked if Highways Extra reserve schemes that did not get built would be considered IWP/FWP in the future.
Welwyn Hatfield
Draft 1:
The Welwyn Hatfield panel were happy with the IWP process and timescale but thought there were too many things covered in the report which made it confusing. There were about a dozen more roads which they thought should be considered for their area.
Draft 2:
The JMP noted the report and Members expressed concern that the majority of sites they had identified as requiring treatment had not been selected; members were concerned about their ability to influence the work programme. Members also raised specific questions about several sites on the programme.
080317 highways iwp app b1