Questions to the Council meeting of 4th March
Questions to the Council meeting of 4th March were again rejected as being too similar to a question already answered in the last six months or to another question accepted for the meeting on the 4th. Many of these will be followed up through the EIR or FOI process.
1. Examples of other roads costing around £100m paid for by developers.
This question, we think, was considered the same as the question put by Ms V. Wegg-Prosser (Q13 under ‘Answers’ –> Council Meeting 4th of March) about examples of highway authorities building ‘alternative trunk routes’ for the Highways Agency.
In fact the answer to Q13 from Cllr Wilcox appears to be to the rejected question: According to Cllr Wilcox the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (BNNR) was built using public/private funding. We are researching the status of the BNNR to find out whether this is an appropriate example for either of the questions.
2. What the evidence base says about the future of public transport and how far it will help to reduce travel by car
The question was: What has the Council learned from the studies it has commissioned about the predicted scale of the shift from private cars to public transport over the next 15 years?
The questioner was told that this was similar to Questions 7 & 8 answered on the 4th of February.
Question 7 ‘answered’ at the 4th of February meeting concerned the number of car trips the Council has transferred to the sustainable modes through its Local Transport Plan investment to date and how many it plans to transfer under the reduced funding from the Department for Transport.
This is somewhat different to what the Council’s evidence base and studies say will be the levels of public transport use … although they could be related if the Council were to take the evidence into account!
Question 8 asked about the levels of walking, cycling and public transport use (and by what year) [that would] enable the Council to determine how well it is progressing on [a] ‘long-term outcome’ [in the revised Joint Corporate Strategy of] ‘Better roads, reduced traffic congestion, with more people walking, cycling or using public transport’.
Again, we didn’t really get an answer to this question in February. ‘More’ implies both a quantity and an effort to measure or monitor, if progress is to be assessed, that is to say, if the ‘long-term outcome’ is to have any meaning in policy terms or Council strategic investment.
And again, the Council’s ability to measure progress is quite distinct from forecasts in the studies it has commissioned.
3. The potential impact of successful sustainable travel policies on the use of the proposed ‘Relief Road’
It would be helpful to know what the Council’s ambitions are for sustainable travel, given the reliance of the Hereford Preferred Option on successful sustainable travel measures of some kind.
As can be seen from the rejected questions above, the council is unable to provide this information. They cannot tell us how successful they have been in the past, what scale of modal shift is expected in the future. Or if any of the vast amount of quantitative data they have collected in attempting to make the case for their relief road sheds any light on these changes to which they claim to be committed.
It seems reasonable to ask whether success in modal shift might affect the use of and therefore the supposed need for the Relief Road. If this question isn’t posed, isn’t there a risk that the road could be a big waste of money as well as a huge insult to our local environment, local distinctiveness and future resilience?
4. Council progress on implementing 20mph speed limits
The rejected question was: ‘How many 20mph schemes has the Council implemented over the period of time covered by the first and second Local Transport Plans and what is the total road length covered?’
We do not see that this is that similar to the question about the Council’s position on the use of 20mph limits and cycle lanes ‘to ensure that the road networks in Hereford and our market towns are attractive and safe for sustainable active travel on foot and by bicycle?’
5. The Council’s commitment to protecting the county’s farmers and related industries against the adverse impacts of growth, particularly in competition over water
In this case the question, which was addressed to Cllr Blackshaw, member of Cabinet for Economic Development and Community Services, was rejected as being about a matter not under the control of the Council.
Here is the question:
To Cllr Blackshaw
The Water Cycle Study commissioned as evidence for the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework indicates that the Council’s Growth Agenda will lead to competition for water between our domestic, industrial and agricultural sectors.
What steps is the Council taking to ensure that restriction on abstraction licenses for agriculture as a result of water demand from new housing will not harm the county’s farmers and related local industries?
And the reason given for rejecting it: ‘Water abstraction is licensed by the Environment Agency and is not, therefore, under the control of the Council. Water supply is a matter for the Welsh Water (for most of the County) and Severn Trent Water (for some of the eastern parts of the County). When considering the granting of new licences and the renewal of old ones the Environment Agency do take account of known commitments for future development in the river catchment areas concerned, and the capacity of existing water infrastructure as managed by the two water companies. This question would, therefore, be more appropriately addressed to the Environment Agency.’
____________________
Questions to the Council meeting of the 4th of February
Questions to the Council meeting of the 4th of February were rejected for three reasons. Two questions were considered to be too similar to questions answered in the past six months. One was ‘rejected as it is frivolous’. Another was considered to be too many questions. In the last case we agree. Unfortunately we did not have time to simplify the question.
Questions found to be too similar to an earlier question already answered
Two questions were rejected by the Council as being ‘substantially the same as or similar to a question which has been put at a meeting of the council in the past six months or relates to the same subject matter or the answer to the question will be substantially the same as the previous answer’.
These questions are shown below, together with the argument put by QQs to the Council, to show why we found their position inexplicable.
1. Question from Steve Horsfield:
JOINT CORPORATE PLAN, ‘PRIORITY THEMES’, ‘STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.’ ‘Improve infrastructure and learning and employment opportunities, enabling business growth and sustainable prosperity for all’; LONG TERM OUTCOMES 1.5, ‘Better roads, reduced traffic congestion, with more people walking, cycling or using public transport’.
What does the Council’s traffic evidence (from its Preferred Option for Hereford) indicate will be the levels of walking, cycling and public transport use in Hereford in 2026 during the am and pm peaks?
Question to which it was compared (put to Council meeting 19th November):
Question from Ms P Mitchell, Hereford (Question 9)
What does the Council’s evidence base (i.e. the ‘Hereford Relief Road – Study of Options’ Report (Aug 2010) referred to in para 4.13) predict for the amount of time saved on the average trip (please give duration and length of the average trip) with a relief road for the PM peaks in 2026 compared to the 2008 baseline?
Answer from Councillor DB Wilcox Cabinet Member Highways & Transportation
The forecast year of 2026 has been used for all modelling scenarios as this represents the time horizon of the emerging Local Development Framework.
Based on the preferred option for 2026 (planned growth, western relief road and sustainable transport package 2) average journey times, for all forms of transport, will be as follows:-
· Morning (a.m.) peak average journey time will increase by 17.6% compared with 2008
· Afternoon (p.m.) peak average journey time will increase by 18.5% compared with 2008
It is important to note, that these travel times include projected increases in journeys on foot & cycle, over and above those for car journeys, (ie a modal shift away from motorised transport) and therefore although indicate an overall increase in journey times, cannot be taken as an increase in car journey times.
QQ argument to Council (rejected by the Monitoring Officer)
These are very different questions. [The earlier] question was about the change in duration of the average trip. … In [his] reply … Cllr Wilcox has given a proportional change and then simply asserted that since the Council projects increases in foot and cycle trips the overall increase in duration of the average journey ‘cannot be taken as an increase in car journey times’.
In contrast, Steve Horsfield’s question asks for what the Council’s evidence base says will be the projected modal split for the modes the Council says it is committed to increase. We know that they have done detailed modelling of future traffic in connection with the LDF. It is therefore reasonable to expect them to have thought about this in the commitments made in the JCP.
The simple assertion that there will be an ‘increase’ from Wilcox is not a basis for understanding the significance of Council statements about ‘more people walking, cycling or using public transport’. The number of people doing this is very important to understanding the Council’s transport policies, including relative investment in different modes of transport since this will be critical to achieving a given increase in walking, cycling and using public transport.
2. Question from Rebecca Roseff
According to its own evidence for the Local Development Framework and wider evidence about the impacts of excessive car dependence and increased car traffic on the environment, public health, efficient and reliable public transport, the vitality of the public realm, etc. etc., Herefordshire Council’s determination to secure a bypass (or outer distributor, or relief road) for Hereford flies in the face of many of the laudable expressions of the Joint Corporate Plan, particularly those involving combatting climate change, protecting the environment, reducing congestion and promoting walking, cycling and public transport, encouraging active and independent lifestyles, reducing inequalities and improving access, and being recognised as a top-performing organisation that delivers value for money.
Given the conflict between Joint Corporate Plan statements and the Council’s determination to build a road around Hereford, are the Council now going to abandon their plans to build a bypass around Hereford and instead concentrate on walking, cycling and public transport?
Question to which it was compared (put to Council meeting 19th November):
Question from Mr A Simmonds, Hereford (Question 10)
Can the council provide clear financial detail demonstrating how Herefordshire can afford both the bypass and the other infrastructure required?
Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis Cabinet Member Environment & Strategic Housing
The delivery plan to accompany submission of the LDF will address this question, and will take account of recent and expected government announcements.
QQ argument to Council (rejected by the Monitoring Officer)
Andy has asked the Council to demonstrate that it can pay for the relief road it wants and the other infrastructure that will be required by the scale of proposed growth. He is not saying that it should be dropped.
Becky is pointing out that in her view there is a conflict between the proclaimed aspirations [which we take to be official policy] of the current JCP and the priority the Council places on securing a Relief Road. Her question indicates that there is potentially an opportunity cost of pursuing a road building project that does conflict, in her view, with the aspirations of the JCP, i.e., that the Council devotes more resources, including time, to pursuing a road than to getting on with promoting walking, cycling and public transport.
… if it is the Council’s view that the road does not conflict with these aspirations (including value for money delivery) then the Council will be able to explain, hopefully with evidence, why it doesn’t.
Question rejected as ‘frivolous’
This question started with the same preamble as Becky Roseff’s question, but asked:
Given the blatant disconnect between the language of the Joint Corporate Plan statements and key projects of Herefordshire Council, such as building a so-called relief road around Hereford, how can the public place any trust in such documents and the processes by which they are produced?
