Agenda item

Officers will provide an update on progress regarding A34 diversions. (paper to follow)

This was an update report from Vale officers. This had started as a Full Council motion in October 2019, asking scrutiny to look into A34 diversion routes. There was a report to scrutiny in November 2021 with attendance from a National Highways and a County Council representative.

This report was not informed by National Highways, but an update from council officers, and chair acknowledged all the work involved for them.

Cabinet Member for Planning Policy introduced the report. Officers had provided some additional detail in the report, based on the questions the committee had asked in the previous meeting where this was discussed, in November 2021. On 12 July 2022, National Highways had a virtual meeting with officers and indicated that they would have more information in a month’s time. Officers had repeatedly asked for further information since the scrutiny meeting.

It was recommended in the report that a formal scrutiny recommendation could be made to the Council Leader, to liaise with County Council.

So far, National Highways had responded on two points:

Consideration of contraflow

Strategies in place to minimise disruption

Outstanding points to address were:

Risk assessment of diversions

Appraisal of options

Schedule of road closures over time, suggested the last 5 years.

A copy of review work – indication was that this would be completed in 1 to 3 years.

The committee were welcomed to ask questions. Cabinet member Councillor Andrew Crawford was present as proposer of the original motion. It was noted that no formal recommendations could be made this evening, but chair would flag questions and comments for the Council Leader’s attention.

• Officers were hoping to receive further information soon (no named representative given), but it was out of the district council’s hands, but they had been persevering. County Council had been helpful also.
• Councillor Crawford, when being asked by the chair to give his views, expressed disappointment in the response given from National Highways. He felt that cost benefit analysis was needed for contraflows, and the response from National Highways that contraflows cost too much, at £200,000, was not justified effectively, due to the lack of analysis of the overall financial setting and benefits.
• A member asked if anything could be done to mitigate diversions at district level, such as temporary lower speed limits.
• Councillor Crawford clarified that residents had more concerns about disruptive scheduled works, and that there was some understanding from residents over accident / emergency diversions that could not be helped. Head of Policy and Programmes added that a conversation was being had about both types.
• A member asked if there had been feedback from the original residents group as to whether things had improved. It was noted that the diversions had been scheduled for years and appear to have gotten worse only recently. Councillor Crawford said he had received contact but only to ask whether National Highways had responded.
• A member added that more detail was needed for contraflow, and that we should express frustration with the lack of response.

Resolved:

Chair of scrutiny will speak to Council Leader and Monitoring Officer regarding  next steps.