Members are asked to consider whether they have personal or

prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and,

if so, to declare them and state what they are.

Members are reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to

paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether

they are subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be

considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping

arrangement.

Members were asked to consider whether they had personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they were.

Members were reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they were subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.  No such declarations were made.

The Director of Technical Services reported concerning a petition from local residents of Manor Lane submitted via a Member requesting a residents only parking scheme.

Whilst the majority of properties had some form of off street parking, residents of the 9 terraced properties near the school entrance had no alternative off street parking provision. The lead petitioner had also submitted 8 signatures from residents living on Manor Lane to confirm their commitment to payment for a residents’ parking scheme.

The lead petitioner addressed the meeting and referred to problems caused by non-residents and commercial vehicles being parked outside residents’ homes. He asked the panel to support their request for a residents’ parking scheme.

The Headteacher of Liscard Primary School had written in support of both the residents’ application for a resident parking scheme and the implementation of a one-way system on Manor Lane.  The Sure Start Centre Manager had also expressed support for these measures.

The Headteacher addressed the meeting. She outlined the Safer Routes to Schools initiatives and indicated her support for the resident parking scheme.

The Director reported that parking survey results in April, 2010 revealed that parking on Manor Lane was predominantly local residents but a significant number of vehicles were recorded dropping-off or picking-up children from Liscard Primary School at school opening and closing times. Existing traffic calming measures provided a good degree of control for speed outside the school entrance, but the bi-directional flow of traffic and poorly regulated parking within Manor Lane gave rise to safety concerns. Members were asked to consider the residents’ parking proposal which would compliment the Safer Routes to School Scheme.

The provision of the residents parking scheme, estimated at £1,000, would be mostly financed by residents in accordance with Council Policy.  The cost of the Safer Routes to School Works, estimated at £5,500, would be financed from the Safer Routes to School Programme within the Road Safety Block 2010/11.

Resolved –

(1)  That the Panel note the petition received and the officers’ responses and recommend to the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the residents’ parking scheme in Manor Lane, Liscard, be approved for advertisement.

(2)  That the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to note that the petitioners’ request is an exemption to the Criteria for the Introduction of Resident Parking Schemes and review the criteria regarding the minimum number of residential properties that are required for such schemes. 

The Director of Technical Services reported upon the results of investigations following receipt of a petition concerning particular problems associated with parking, obstruction, noise and pollution arising from the operation of Stoneacre Garage.

The report concluded that there was no appropriate action that could be taken in relation to the petitioners’ concerns and recommended that the area continue to be monitored.

Resolved – That the Panel:

(1)  Note the petitioners’ concerns regarding the operation of Stoneacre Garage and the investigations carried out by officers from various departments indicating that there were no actionable offences at present.

(2)  Recommend that no further action be taken in relation to the petition, that the area continue to be monitored for any enforceable breaches of highways, planning or environmental legislation, and that officers respond appropriately to any specific enforceable matters that are raised with them.

The Director of Technical Services reported concerning a petition submitted via a Member requesting improved parking provision for the residents of Berrylands Road, Moreton. He reported that there is generally a substantial cost element involved in the provision of improved parking provision and preliminary estimated indicated that  a modest scheme providing parking by removing verges for 12 cars would be in the order of £30,000, for which there was no budgetary provision. It was therefore recommended that no further action be taken.

Resolved -  That the Panel:

(i)   Note the petitioners’ request for additional parking facilities in Berrylands Road;

(ii)  Recommend to the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee that no further action be taken on the basis that there is no specific budget provision for this type of scheme. 

The Director of Technical Services reported concerning the receipt of a 65 signature petitions requesting the introduction of an articulated vehicle restriction to prevent such vehicles utilising Berwyn Drive and Hillfield Drive, Heswall when gaining access and egress from a local builders merchants situated in Berwyn Drive.

The report outlined the situation regarding deliveries by articulated vehicles to this site, complaints received form nearby residents associated with dangerous vehicular manoeuvres, and damage to property and parked vehicles. It concluded that an articulated vehicle restriction would not normally be introduced without the inclusion of an exemption for deliveries within the road and it would therefore fail to resolve residents’ concerns.

The report further concluded that, in anticipation of unresolved objections following advertisement of such an order, there was not a strong enough case to take the matter to a Public Inquiry. It was therefore recommended that no further action be taken in respect of the petition.

Councillor Bob Wilkins, Ward Councillor, addressed the meeting. He referred to the ongoing costs to the council associated with the problems identified in the report and emphasised the need for measures to control heavy goods vehicles on these residential roads.

Councillor Don McCubbin, Ward Councillor, presented a further 93 signature and individual letters in support of action to address these problems. He submitted photographs taken by residents to illustrate their concerns and also referred to his own observations of the dangerous manoeuvres by heavy goods vehicles which had disrupted the flow of traffic in Pensby Road.

He suggested that the company could assist the situation through the use of smaller vehicles to make deliveries from one of their larger Wirral depots, and cease using heavy goods vehicles at this particular location.  

Resolved – That this matter be deferred for further negotiations with the company and yard owners regarding the points raised by members and the residents.

Further to minute  (5/3/2010) the Director of Technical Services reported concerning a feasibility study into the introduction of a puffin-crossing scheme in Seabank Road, Liscard close to its junction with Manor Road, as shown on drawing number BENG/25/10.

The provision of a puffin crossing in Seabank Road was estimated to cost £87,000 compared to the cost to implement a pedestrian refuge scheme at the same location, estimated at £21,100.  An assessment of this location compared to other locations where similar requests had been received revealed that out of 29 locations Seabank Road would be ranked 28th lowest, and there was no budgetary provision to fund the additional costs required to implement the installation of a puffin crossing.

It was therefore recommended that the Panel note the content of the study and agree the implementation of the pedestrian refuge scheme as advertised.

Resolved – That the Panel note the relative feasibility of a puffin crossing or a pedestrian refuge at this location as outlined in this report, and endorse the previous recommendation approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to proceed with the proposed pedestrian refuge scheme.