Agenda and minutes

ABERDEEN, 27 October, 2009. – Minute of Meeting of the ENTERPRISE, PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE.  Present:- Councillor Dean, Convenor;  Councillor McCaig, Vice-Convenor; and Councillors Adam, Allan, Boulton, Clark, Corall, Cormie, Greig, Jaffrey, Milne, Penny, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart and Young (as a substitute for Councillor Crockett).

From Article 9 onward, Councillor Crockett joined the meeting and Councillor Young left the meeting.           

The Convener intimated that items 4.1 (Festive Lighting) and 4.2 (Aberdeen’s Winter Festival, 5 November 2009 – 25 January 2010) on the agenda would be considered concurrently as one item of business.

The Committee resolved:-

to note the information.

The Committee had before it the minute of the previous meeting of
1 September 2009.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to amend resolution (v) at article 18 (Midstocket and Rosemount Public Transport Review) to include “as well as other routes in the city”; and

(ii)        to approve the minute as a correct record.

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

            During consideration of the following item the following members declared an interest in the matter by reason of their involvement with the North East of Scotland Transport Partnership (Nestrans):- Councillor Kevin Stewart as Chair of Nestrans, the Convener and Councillor Boulton as Board members of Nestrans, and Councillor McCaig as a substitute Board member of Nestrans.  None of the members involved considered it necessary to leave the meeting during the committee’s deliberation on the report before it.

The Committee had before it a statement of pending and outstanding committee business, which had been prepared by the Head of Democratic Services.

With regard to item 20 (Disabled Persons’ parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 the Committee received an oral update from Mr. D Wemyss, Senior Committee Officer (Roads Legislation) who confirmed that as agreed at the previous meeting of the Committee, the Council had written to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change at Holyrood, and also to COSLA, NESTRANS and SCOTS (the Society of Chief Officers for Transportation in Scotland), outlining its serious concern about the situation, calling for significant financial support to enable local authorities to deal with their new obligations, and exploring lines of enquiry that could ameliorate some of the worst difficulties now being confronted. The Council was still awaiting a formal response from the Minister; however the Convener had received a letter from him in which he had suggested grounds for optimism by advising that his officials had approached the Department for Transport to seek an amendment to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction 2002 to allow mandatory disabled parking places to provide for without the need for a Traffic Regulation Order or the associated regulatory traffic sign. In addition they were also examining amending the Local Authorities’ Traffic Order (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 to simplify the promotion and advertising process.

The Committee then heard from Councillor Kevin Stewart, Chair of Nestrans, who advised that Nestrans at its meeting on 3 September 2009, had considered the Council’s letter on this matter and agreed to send a letter supporting the Council’s position to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. Thereafter, he highlighted the financial implications of the Act for local authorities and emphasised that the Council could not afford to lose sight of this and should remain cautious despite the optimism in the Minister’s letter, and therefore that officers should continue to prepare for the implementation of the Act.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to delete items 3 (Traffic Management in Gordon Mills Crescent Area – Beach Boulevard – Jack’s Brae – Carnehie Brae – Charlotte Street); 6 (Minto Place (Off Minto Drive, Altens); 7 (Craig Den (and access road to Woodend Hospital) – Criagton Road – Speademill Road – Crombie Road – Traffic Management Measures); 8 (Broomhill Road – Affleck Street – Hamilton Place (no.19) – Aberdeen gateway, Moss-side); 9 (Bloomfield Road – Westerton Road – Marchbank  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Committee had before it a list of outstanding motions which had been prepared by the Head of Democratic Services.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         in relation to Motion 2 (Motion by Councillor Donnelly – calls to introduce a levied ‘Trades Annual Parking Permit’) to request officers to investigate this motion through the Controlled Zones Working Group as a matter of urgency; and

(ii)        to otherwise note the list of outstanding motions.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which provided an update on the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure service performance as at August 2009. 

The report presented the key management information and performance indicators for the Housing and Environment Service which consisted of the following four sections:-  (1) a progress report from the Director;  (2) a summary in the format of a performance indicator balanced scorecard and detailed information supporting those indicators being considered this cycle;  (3) a monitoring statement for the Non Housing Capital Programme 2009/2010 as at 31 August 2009;  and (4) a table providing additional information on the performance of road defect repairs.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)           in relation to EPI101P (Average Sickness Absence – EPI) to amend the current target from 11.3 days to 10 days;

(ii)         in relation to EPI304P (% of Street Light Repairs Completed Within 7 Days) to request officers to provide a breakdown of the performance of repairs in the city centre in comparison to outlying areas ; and

(iii)     to otherwise note the performance of the Service to date.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which advised of replacement savings for the originally intended income from decriminalisation of bus lane offences (which had been delayed by the legislative process at the Scottish Parliament).

The report advised that as part of the 2009/2010 budget process, a number of proposals for income generation, efficiencies and service reduction had been approved by the Council in December 2008.  The savings of £210,000 associated with income from decriminalisation of bus lane offences had been identified to be unachievable due to delays at the Scottish Parliament.  Accordingly, in accordance with the instructions to Directors from the budget monitoring board and the Chief Executive, an alternative set of savings had been identified from within service budgets.  These had been identified (through monitoring of budget spending trends and action by service management) as follows:-

With regard the proposed alternative savings the Head of Service assured members that funding remained available to fill the vacant school patroller posts should individuals come forward for the post. Thereafter, Councillor Allan, on behalf of Councillor Hunter, sought clarification regarding which organisation was responsible for the street lighting in Footdee.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to note the intended areas where budget savings were to be made to offset the loss of income from the bus lane offences; and

(ii)        to request officers to advise Councillor Hunter who was responsible for the lighting in Footdee, Aberdeen.

The Committee had before it a joint report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure and the City Chamberlain, which advised of the revenue budget performance for current financial year to date as at 31 August 2009.  The paper confined itself to services relating to the Committee, outlined areas of risk that were immediately identifiable, and explained the responses to these.

Appended to the report was a summary monitoring statement for the revenue budget 2009/2010 which outlined the budget for the year, detailed the actual spend to 31 August 2009, and explained any variances. The current financial position reflected an anticipated overspend of £1.509million representing 3.1 per cent of the overall budget.  In particular the report highlighted that, in light of the current downturn in building work within the city, income from building applications was not expected to meet budget for the year. Similarly, planning application income had shown a significant downturn to date.  Overall, the current forecast income for the year was £500,000.00, compared to the budget of £1.2million.  To offset the impact of this, the management of vacant posts was being actively pursued as a source of savings and the service was continuing to work with other Heads of Planning and COSLA to lobby government for increases in planning fees.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to note the information on management action and risks that was contained in the report; and

(ii)        to instruct officers to continue to review budget performance and report on service strategies as required to ensure a balanced budget;

(iii)       to instruct officers to report back on the replacement savings achieved by the service.

The committee had before it a joint report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure and the City Chamberlain providing an update on progress made on various projects in the Non-Housing Capital Programme previously approved by Council (and now aligned to the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure Services).

Appendix A to the report outlined the Non-Housing Capital Programme projects aligned to Enterprise, Planning and infrastructure Services, and provided, for each project, the budget for 2009/10, spend to the end of August 2009, and the forecast out-turn position.   Comments on particular projects, where appropriate, were included in the narrative.

The report advised that the spend to the end of August 2009 reflected payments made and processed but not commitments made and due to be paid by the year end.    Also, it had to be noted that the budgeted figures included slippage from 2008/09.

The Committee resolved:-

to note the contents of the report in relation to the projects outlined at appendix a.

The Committee had before it the above-named two reports by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which the Committee had agreed earlier to consider concurrently (see Article 1). These reports explained the issues surrounding the installation, maintenance and storage of festive lighting in Aberdeen, and outlined the programme of events and activities that would form Aberdeen’s Winter Festival from 5 November 2009 to 25 January 2010 respectively.

Firstly, the report regarding festive lighting advised that the existing festive illuminations budget of £206,950 for 2009/2010 was funded through the Common Good Fund and covered the following aspects:-

• 3 year lease of Festive Lighting (July 2008 – January 2011) including the design, construction, installation, removal and maintenance of the illuminations on Union Street;
• Utilities Bill
• Rental of storage unit at Poynernook Seafood Park

Of the above elements, it was advised that the cost of storage might need to be reviewed following installation of the lights in 2009, as the Council had received notice to vacate the current storage facility in 2010.  Officer were exploring suitable alternatives, but it was anticipated that a storage facility could not be found from the Council’s existing estate portfolio.  It might therefore be necessary to rent a facility, the costs of which had not yet been determined.

The report explained that in an attempt to reduce energy use, lighting services had received costs for appropriate timing devices that would allow the Union Street lights to be switched off during daytime.  Details of the works required to implement such devices, and otherwise to continue to supply festive lighting on Union Street, Albyn Terrace and the Green (all of which were included in the existing festive illuminations contract) were outlined, as were all related costs - an accumulated total of £22,300.

With regard to community festive lighting the report provided a detailed overview of the current provision of community lighting and the cost implications of this.  It was highlighted that in November 2008 the Council could not put up the lights themselves due to staff shortages and that therefore the work had been sub-contracted to a local supplier.  The cost of this work had not been budgeted for, and agreement has been reached to fund it from the reduction in spend on other festive activities.  During the 2009 budget setting process the Council had agreed not to continue to support the costs of community festive lights, and had instructed officers to advise elected members and Community Councils that the Council would not be in a position to support this activity in future years either.  However, since this decision had been advised to Community Councils and to elected members, a number of issues had arisen, demonstrating the difficulty of identifying ownership of the features, and where responsibility should be held.

The report brought to the attention of the Committee two further aspects regarding community lighting; namely, that no charge had been made to the community in the past for the cost of electricity used (costs were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Vice-Convener and Councillor Allan declared an interest in the subject matter of the following Article by virtue of being the Council’s appointed representatives on the Friends of Gomel Board. Neither Councillor felt it necessary to withdraw from the meeting.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure outlining an application for financial assistance from the 2009/2010 International Twinning Budget.

The report advised that the Friends of Gomel had applied for financial assistance of £2,250 from the fund to contribute towards the cost of a visit to Gomel by nine members of the Friends of Gomel during the 20^th anniversary of the twinning link between Aberdeen and Gomel. The purpose of the trip was to promote existing projects with which the organisation was involved, and to develop proposals for new projects.

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the contribution.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure providing an account of traffic management measures considered necessary at the above locations.  Firstly, at Blackfriars Street, the Schoolhill triangle, Schoolhill and St Andrew’s Street, loading restrictions were being proposed to prevent vehicles parking at Robert Gordon’s College to drop off and pick up pupils.  A reduction in the speed limit to 40mph was proposed on Wellington Road and new waiting restrictions were intended on Holburn Street to provide short-term parking adjacent to the new Post Office at 560 Holburn Street.  Finally, in association with the development of the former Cockers Roses site at Arran Avenue, a prohibition of waiting at any time was recommended.

The Committee resolved:-

to request the officials to carry out preliminary statutory consultation on legislation to provide for these schemes, to move straight to substantive statutory advertisement if there were no significant preliminary responses, and thereinafter to report back.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance providing an account of statutory objections to speed cushions advertised in association with the traffic order providing for 20mph speed limits at the above locations.

All twenty-two representations (identical in standard form) related to the speed cushions in Cattofield Gardens, not Cattofield Terrace. The report was inclined towards the view that there was nothing in the objections to outweigh the virtue of the intended scheme, which would reduce speeds in the vicinity and take account of the anticipated displacement of traffic from Cattofield Terrace to Cattofield Gardens.

The Committee resolved:-

to overrule the objections, to make and implement the traffic order, and to establish the associated speed cushions, all as originally envisaged.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance confirming that no statutory objections had been received as a result of the public advertisement of the above-named traffic order, which provided for 20mph speed limits with associated speed cushions.

The Committee resolved:-

that the order be made and implemented as originally envisaged.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance providing an account of statutory objections that had been received as a result of the public advertisement of the above-named traffic order, providing for 20mph speed limits on Spademill Road and Spademill Lane, along with associated speed cushions.

The central thrust of the objections related to the traffic calming proposals, not the regulatory speed limits.  The recorded speeds at the location were not undesirably high, but pedestrians were vulnerable on narrow roads without footways.  There was local support for the proposals, even though there was also clearly opposition to them.  The objections had expressed sceptism about traffic calming, and the report conceded that there was a lot of merit in being able to defend a public policy in terms of the concrete conviction of the public that it was sensible.  In this case, however, although sceptism was being expressed by the objectors, reassurance was being expressed by supporters, and by the roads officials.  Speeds on the two roads would not usually be excessive, but the exceptions represented a genuine concern.

The Committee resolved:-

to overrule the objection, to make and implement the traffic order, and to establish the associated  speed cushions, all as originally envisaged.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance confirming that no statutory objections had been received as a result of the public advertisement of the above-named traffic order, which provided for various traffic management measures in the Area Central sector of the city.

The Committee resolved:-

that the order be made and implemented as originally envisaged.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance confirming that no statutory objections had been received as a result of the public advertisement of the above-named traffic order, which provided for various traffic management measures in the north sector of the city.

The Committee heard from Mr David Wemyss, Senior Committee Officer (Roads Legislation), who advised that one of the local members, Councillor Clark, had expressed concern regarding the prohibitions of waiting at any time intended for Victoria Street in Dyce (in association with a proposed zebra crossing), and that, accordingly, the roads officials had agreed to carry out further surveys at the location.

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the implementation of the order with the exception of the prohibition of waiting at any time associated with the zebra crossing proposed for Victoria Street in Dyce, and to request officers to complete further surveys at that location and report back on this aspect to the next meeting on 26 November.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance confirming that no statutory objections had been received as a result of the public advertisement of the above-named traffic order, which provided for various traffic management measures in the south sector of the city.

The report explained that there were no statutory objections to the order except for a number of representations about yellow lines in Westerton Road and Marchburn Road.  However, these were inextricably interwoven with current controversies about traffic calming at those locations, and could not be resolved separately.  Accordingly the recommendation was that the order be approved in all aspects other than Westerton Road and Marchburn Road.  It would await an outcome vis-à-vis those two streets, and then be clear for confirmation in terms of that outcome.

The Committee resolved:-

that the order be approved except for its provisions accepting Westerton Road and Marchburn Road.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure intimating the outcome of testing a proposal to introduce traffic signals at the Langdykes Road approach to the Wellington Road/Souterhead Road roundabout.

The report advised that expansion of the Altens Industrial Estate and the increase in housing within Cove over a number of years had led to increased queuing at the Wellington Road/Souterhead Road roundabout, and reminded members that the Access from the South study completed in 2008 had identified possible medium term options to ease queuing at the junction before the eventual replacement of the roundabout by a fully-signalled junction.

Subsequent to the Access from the South study, some further work had been carried out recently to identify whether signalising any of the remaining arms of the junction would lead to overall benefits at the junction in terms of reductions of queues and delays.  Following this work, it was now considered that the optimum proposal would be to introduce traffic signals on the Langdykes Road arm of the junction as a means of allowing a greater flow of traffic to access the roundabout from Wellington Road (northbound).  This would give a better balance to flows entering the roundabout and would allow the junction to perform at a more optimum level.  Appropriate models had been developed to analyse the junction and test options to add traffic signal control at the Langdykes Road entry arm.  Tests were carried out for a wide variety of signal timings and the conclusion was that some benefits could be achieved if this proposal was implemented.  Details of further positive traffic impacts of the scheme were outlined. The estimated cost of the scheme was in the region of £50,000 to £70,000.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)                 to note the work carried out to date (outlined in the report) to identify an improvement at the Wellington Road/Souterhead Road roundabout;

(ii)               to approve the scheme to introduce part time (a.m.) traffic signals at the Langdykes Road leg of the Wellington Road/Souterhead Road roundabout;

(iii)             to instruct appropriate officers to implement the scheme subject to successful tender procedures.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure outlining the case of a driveway application refused on the basis of not meeting Roads Consent Policy.

By way of background, the report reminded members that the Policy and Strategy Committee at its meeting on 27 September 2005, had approved a revised Roads Consent Policy for the assessment of driveway applications.  In particular, section 2 of the revised policy referred to the length of the driveway and stated that 5 metres was considered the minimum length acceptable for a driveway (so that an average car parked in the driveway would not overhang the footway).

The application before members, which had been refused, had a front garden of only 4.5 metres deep and 6.5 metres long.  Therefore, an average sized car parked at right angles to the road would clearly overhang the footway.  The overall available space would not allow a vehicle to enter and manoeuvre internally to allow the vehicle to exit at right angles to the road, and there would be problems for visibility.  The report highlighted that officers already applied a certain amount of flexibility when considering applications and worked with applicants to develop acceptable solutions where possible.  However, in this case it was considered impossible to create a driveway which did not compromise road safety. 

The Committee resolved:-

that the application for a driveway at 3 Primrosehill Drive be refused as contrary to policy (i.e. likely to cause a road safety hazard to other road users, and especially pedestrians).

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure on the background to a request for funding towards upgrading a private road and footway at Colsea Terrace, Cove Bay.  The report sought a decision on whether the Council should continue with the award of the grant to upgrade the carriageway and footway to an adoptable standard.

In early March 2007, the road officials in Neighbourhood Services South had received a detailed submission requesting grant assistance to upgrade the privately maintained footway and carriageway to adoptable standards in Colsea Terrace, Cove Bay. The request had indicated that the applicants had had a bill of quantities from a contractor and that they now wished the works to start as soon as possible as they were working on an adjacent site.  The budgets for 2007/2008 were approved by Resources Management Committee on 22 March 2007 including £2000 for private road adoptions.  Accordingly the applicant had been advised (the letter to the applicant dated 31 August 2007, was appended to the report) that the grant monies were available and that, prior to any works commencing on site, he should contact road services advising of the start date for the works so that arrangement could be made for the works in progress to be inspected. However, there had been no further communication from the applicant until February 2009 when he had telephoned to ask if the grant was still available.  With no budget allocation for this type of work, and in view of the significant delay involved, the applicant was advised that, there being no budget available the Council could no longer support the application.  The City Solicitor had advised that, as the applicant had not commenced work during 2007/2008 financial year, the grant monies were no longer available.  The applicant had been dissatisfied with this response and had asked that the matter be referred to the appropriate Committee in order that a final decision might be made.

The Committee resolved:-

that there was no longer a private roads and footways budget available to award a grant and that, as the times between the original award of the grant (in August 2007) and the request to see if the grant was still available (in February 2009) had been excessive, the grant application be rejected.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which advised of potential festive Park and Ride services on the four Sundays on the run-up to Christmas to mitigate additional traffic in the city centre and to improve the festive shopping experience.

The report provided a detailed background outlining the Park and Ride services provided in the run-up to Christmas in previous years, and highlighting parking difficulties within the city centre to visitors during the festive period.

The report advised that from 26 October 2009, service 215 operated by Stagecoach Bluebird would include an early service on Sundays between Kingswells and Union Square (between 9.00am and 11.00pm).  However, Aberdeen City Centre Association had raised concerns that recent reductions made by First Aberdeen to the commercial bus network in the city would have a significant impact on the accessibility of the city centre this winter, particularly with expected growth in footfall.  To mitigate these negative effects on the local road network, and the possible perception of the city centre as a highly congested and stressful environment to visit, tenders were invited for additional Park and Ride bus service.  Appendix 1 to the report detailed the proposed route and timetable for the festive Sunday park and ride service.  The service being proposed would offer a promotional return single fare of £1.50, which was 50 pence cheaper than the standard Park and Ride return ticket.  In addition to this, all existing First Aberdeen weekly or season tickets would be accepted on the service.

The Committee resolved:-

to implement the additional Sunday services for Kingswells – City Centre – Bridge of Don Park and Ride for the festive period as detailed in the report.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure advising on the update of the Youth Travel Card scheme for bus travel. 

The Committee heard from the Convener who suggested that, as Aberdeen City Youth Council had not been consulted on this matter, and as it was an issue that clearly affected young people across the city, the report be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee to enable consultation with the Youth Council to be carried out.

The Committee resolved:-

to defer consideration of the report to its next meeting on 26 November 2009, to enable consultation to be undertaken with the Aberdeen City Youth Council.

EXEMPT INFORMATION

            The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(B)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following two items of business so as to avoid disclosure of exempt information of the class described in the following paragraphs of Schedule 7(A) to the Act:-  article 20 (paragraph 1);  and article 21 (paragraph 1).

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Councillor John Stewart declared an interest in the following article as the Council’s appointed representative on Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (ACSEF). Councillor Stewart did not consider it necessary to leave the meeting during consideration of the subject matter.

The Committee had before it a business case prepared by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which sought a contract extension for the fixed term contract of the regional identity brand manager until 31 March 2010. 

The report advised that the fixed term post had been established in 2006 to provide a more co-ordinated approach to the Aberdeen City and Shire regional identity marketing strategy. It was advised that funding for the regional identity was approved as part of the 2009/2010 budget process and that the contract extension would allow the current postholder to complete the activities outlined in the brand strategy (attached as an appendix to the report).  The implications of not extending the contract were detailed.

The report recommended:-

that the Committee approve the business case and grant the extension. 

The Committee resolved:-

That the recommended contract extension be not approved.

The Committee had before it a business case prepared by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which sought approval for (1) the redesign of an existing support assistant post to that of senior support officer, to account for additional duties as detailed in the report; and (2) the Equal Pay and Modernisation salary range for the redesigned post to be implemented as soon as possible. 

The business case advised that the recommendation did not seek additional resources but rather the re-engineering of the post to take on additional duties unfulfilled after an early retirement.  The redesigned post would incorporate some of the duties that were previously carried out by a now disestablished post of administrative assistant; namely, budgetary control and financial monitoring, supervision and delegation of work to support assistants, and contributing to and supporting the ongoing development of the new ID system.  These duties were currently being carried out by management level officers, and, were the business case to be approved, it would release management time to concentrate on more strategic issues.  The full year impact on revenue/capital budget was £22,272; the funding would be provided from within the existing Non Housing Response Maintenance Budget. 

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to approve the redesign of the existing support assistant post to that of a senior support officer, to take account for additional duties as detailed in the report:  and

(ii)        that the Equal Pay and Modernisation salary range for the redesigned post be implemented as soon as possible.

- COUNCILLOR DEAN, Convener.