Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee can be found below and at 

 

26th January 1998:

 

9. HILTON ROAD SAFETY PLAN AND WEIGHT LIMIT CONSIDERATION

 

The Area Joint Committee considered possible measures to address road safety concerns in Hilton, and in particular traffic conditions on the B1040, which was the principal route through the village. It welcomed the work of the Hilton Parish Council Road Safety Working Party which had drawn up a detailed plan for consideration. The main requests within the Plan were for the provision of physical works to reduce vehicle speed and help pedestrians. A 7.5 tonne weight limit on the B1040 was also sought. Whilst a number of suggested measures had already been introduced (including a reduction in the speed limit on the B1040 from 40 to 30mph (and an extension to cover the southern village junction), a 40 mph restriction across the village green and playingfield and the provision of better warning signs) it was unlikely that the County Medium Sized Traffic Management and Accident Remedial Schemes Budget could accommodate any further measures within the next few years. Discussions with Parish Council representatives continued, to discuss the possibility of local funding.

 

Wide ranging consultations had been carried out on the request for a 7.5 tonne restriction. In order to avoid displacement of heavy goods vehicles, a zonal restriction would need to be introduced. Whilst this proposal had received majority support from the affected parishes, concerns had been raised by other local Councils, the Freight Transport Association, Road Haulage Association and the Police. Details of exact lorry movements would also need to be established (at a likely cost of £3,500) and extensive signage provided (in excess of £25,000). The Countywide revenue budget for traffic management and safety schemes in 1998/99 was £153,000.

 

At its meeting on 15th January, the County Environment and Transport Committee had approved a detailed analysis of heavy goods vehicle movements on County roads within the A14 corridor. The Hilton study would be compatible with this initiative.

 

The Area Joint Committee wished to congratulate those involved in the preparation of the community Road Safety Plan which had brought together concerned individuals from across the tiers of local government. It was hoped that this would form a good example for future joint working.

 

It was resolved unanimously:

 

(i) To recognise and accept the significant efforts of the Hilton Road Safety Working Party in drawing up proposals for a local Road Safety Plan and also the work carried out in response to these suggestions; and

 

(ii) In the context of the decision by the County Environment and Transport Committee to consider problems resulting from the use of County roads by heavy goods vehicles along the entire A14 corridor, to support a comprehensive survey to establish the full pattern of lorry movements in the

 

Hilton area before further consideration is given to implementing a zonal weight restriction as requested by residents which would likely cost £25,000.

 

30th March 1998:

 

16. A14 CORRIDOR - SURVEY OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES USING COUNTY ROADS

 

The Area Joint Committee was asked whether it wished to comment on a recent motion approved by the County Environment and Transport Committee, requesting an investigation of ways in which lorries could be discouraged from using unsuitable County roads on the A14 corridor. It noted that a multi-agency approach would be pursued in taking the study forward as the DETR, Police, Trading Standards and Parish Councils all had a role to play. An initial meeting had been held with key partners and a timetable agreed for addressing issues prior to a report containing action plans and a detailed implementation programme being submitted to the Environment and Transport Committee. A questionnaire would be sent to individual Parish Councils along the route to provide appropriate community input into the investigations. Copies were circulated at the meeting.

 

The Area Joint Committee welcomed the motion; which had been presented by County Councillor J E Reynolds and the opportunity to comment on an appropriate way forward. It noted the concerns already expressed to the Committee by residents of Hilton considered at the last meeting under Minute 9 and those of County Councillor J A P Eddy regarding the A1123 through Earith.

 

Members also welcomed the opportunity in the consultations to discuss the growth in HGV traffic with representatives of the freight/haulage industry. It noted that the 1998 Vice Chairman of the Road Haulage Association was based in Cambridgeshire and could, therefore, act as an important conduit in discussing issues raised by the industry.

 

It was resolved unanimously:

 

(i) To welcome the recent motion from County Councillor J E Reynolds, approved by the County Environment and Transport Committee, requesting investigation of ways in which lorries could be discouraged from using unsuitable County roads along the A14 corridor;

 

(ii) To note details of meetings with appropriate agencies prior to a report on action plans and detailed implementation being submitted to the Environment and Transport Committee; and

 

(iii) To note that a draft questionnaire would be sent to all Parish Councils along the A14 corridor to provide community input into the investigations.

 

3rd February 1999:

 

52. PROHIBITION OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES - HILTON ZONE

 

The Area Joint Committee considered objections to an advertised Traffic Regulation Order introducing a 7.5 tonne zonal weight limit in the area of Hilton, Boxworth, Elsworth, Fenstanton, Knapwell and Papworth Everard. The proposals had been developed, in response to requests from Hilton Parish Council and local Members, to reduce the number of lorries using village roads. Detailed local consultations had been undertaken and these had been considered under Minute 9 at which time a comprehensive survey of lorry movements had been agreed in the context of the approved A14 corridor study. A survey, carried out on 10th September 1998, had shown 357 Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCV’s) travelling through Hilton on the B1040; 45 of which stopped within the area and would be unaffected by any weight limit.

 

Six objections to the Order had been received; five from locally based lorry operators and one from the Freight Transport Association. The principal grounds of objection related to the increased operating costs that would be incurred as a result of using the alternative route of the AI4 and A1198 and the existing problems of congestion on the A14 which would be exacerbated. In addition, ARC Ltd had highlighted their 1995 planning agreement with the County Council for access arrangements to their new quarry at Needingworth which had not precluded the use of the B1040.

 

In considering the objections, Members also noted the County Council’s Heavy Commercial Vehicle policy set out in the Network Management Plan which established that “A” and “B” roads should be available for the use of lorries except where a “B” road had a suitable alternative and convenient route. The Network Management Plan also stated that a weight limit would only be considered if the alternative route would not impose unacceptable additional costs on HCV operators. In order to comply with DETR requirements, the provision of signage in support of weight restriction would cost in excess of £25,000.

 

Speaking as the local Member, District Councillor I Bates reiterated the support of Hilton residents and the majority of neighbouring Parish Councils for the advertised proposals. He noted objections received, but considered that the A14/A1198 offered a suitable alternative route. In addition he also highlighted the air quality responsibilities of the two Councils which might not be met if HCVs were not removed from local village roads.

On balance, the Area Joint Committee considered that it could not determine objections received to the advertised Order. It therefore supported a Public

 

Inquiry to determine whether the proposals should proceed. This would also provide all parties with an opportunity to explain and justify their views.

It was resolved by a majority (with no votes against):

(i) That a Public Inquiry be held to determine objections received to an advertised Traffic Regulation Order introducing a 7.5 tonne zonal weight limit in the Hilton area as set out on Plan G518/4/1 to the submitted report; and

(ii) To advise the objectors and local residents accordingly.

14th June 1999:

55. MINUTES - 3RD FEBRUARY 1999

The minutes of the meeting held on 3rd February 1999 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

In relation to the prohibition of heavy commercial vehicles in the Hilton zone (Minute No 52 refers), it was reported that following an environmental assessment later in the year a Public Inquiry was likely to be held early in the New Year.

17th April 2000:

84. HILTON WEIGHT LIMIT PUBLIC INQUIRY

The Committee received a report on the outcome of a public inquiry into a proposed prohibition of heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) order in the Hilton zone. The public inquiry had been held in March 2000 following a decision of the Area Joint Committee in 1998 in the light of objections to an advertised order.

The Inspector had concluded that the proposed order only met three of the five criteria set out in the County Council’s policy for orders to restrict heavy commercial vehicles and that, therefore, the order should not proceed as advertised. However, he had recognised the particular problem of night time noise and had taken the view that a night time lorry ban along the B1040 through Hilton would deliver a large part of the benefits whilst not incurring heavy additional costs to operators.

The Committee noted that, in making a decision, the Inspector’s recommendations had to be taken into account, although they were not binding. Local Member I Bates pointed out that a possible night time ban along the B1040 would be difficult to enforce and was unlikely to reduce the total number of HCVs using the road. One of its effects was likely to be large numbers of lorries driving through Hilton early in the morning just after the end of the ban time, which would cause unacceptable disruption to residents. He felt the order’s aim of “preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs” would not be met.

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

5

In discussing the options available and their implications, the Committee felt , on balance, that it would be difficult to justify the extra costs to operators of imposing a full 24-hour ban on the B1040 at the present time. However, this might change in future if numbers of lorries travelling via Hilton increased. The Committee also felt that the County Council’s policies for orders to restrict HCVs should be reviewed, especially with regard to criteria for alternative routes for the passage of HCVs.

It was resolved unanimously:

(i) to determine the objections;

(ii) to implement the Order on the basis of a 24-hour ban in the zone as advertised excluding the B1040, together with a night time ban from 11pm to 7am along the B1040; and

(iii) to inform the objectors accordingly.

11th September 2000:

96. HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE CONTROL – REVIEW OF POLICY

The Area Joint Committee was asked to comment on a draft revised policy for the control of heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) by traffic regulation order.

In 1998 the County’s Environment & Transport Committee had approved a policy for controlling HCVs. Subsequently, a 7.5 tonne weight limit along the B1040 through Hilton had been advertised and, because of the weight of objections from operators and the clear support of the local community, the Area Joint Committee had decided to refer the issue to a Public Inquiry, which had been held in March 2000. During the Inquiry it had become apparent that clarification was needed in a number of areas of the existing policy, relating to the evaluation of the environmental benefit; criteria for determining the suitability of a road to carry HCV traffic; and guidance on how to evaluate ‘unacceptable additional costs to operators’. The existing policy had therefore been reviewed in the light of the issues that had arisen during the Public Inquiry.

The Committee supported the draft revised policy, but felt that the phrase “unacceptable additional costs for operators” might be open to a wide range of interpretations and might lead to increased numbers of objections to future weight limit proposals. It therefore supported an amendment from Councillor J A P Eddy to reword the policy criterion concerned.

It was resolved unanimously:

- to recommend the following amendments to the draft revised policy:

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

6

11, d) amend to read: “The environmental and road suitability benefits of the proposed restrictions must outweigh any additional costs for operators using the alternative route;” and

11, e), line 3: delete “or routes”.

16th July 2001:

12. B1040 HILTON – 7.5 TONNES NIGHT-TIME WEIGHT RESTRICTION

The Area Joint Committee noted a report on a formal request from Councillor I Bates for the existing 7.5 tonnes night-time weight restriction on the B1040 through Hilton to be changed to a 24-hour restriction. By way of clarification, the Committee was informed that the conclusion of the report should have highlighted that, due to the understandable concern of the residents, there was now a need to review the situation in order to ascertain if any significant change had taken place since the Public Inquiry.

The B1040 was part of the Routes for Movement network, and the HCV night-time ban had been introduced following a Public Inquiry held in March 2000, which had found that such a ban was appropriate. Although the prohibition had been implemented in December 2000, advance warning signs had not yet been installed on the A14 and the A428 as the approval of the Highways Agency was still awaited. Following the Inquiry, the County’s policy regarding lorry bans had been reviewed in order to provide clarification in areas of uncertainty. Since the introduction of the night-time ban, speed reduction measures had been installed in the village, bringing with them some associated reductions in vehicle noise.

The Committee was informed that Councillor I Bates had requested that the matter be reviewed on the basis of an increase in usage and the number of accidents. The Committee also received a 117-signature petition from Hilton Parish Council, presented by Mr D Hedge, requesting an extension of the lorry ban to 24 hours.

It was noted that when the advance signing had been erected on the A14 and the A428, new traffic counts would be undertaken, accident records investigated and legal advice obtained on the implications of implementing a possible 24-hour lorry ban. A full report on the results would then be brought to the Area Joint Committee.

In discussion, Local Member I Bates reported that a 24-hour ban was supported by local members. He felt that the A14/A1198 provided a suitable alternative route for HCVs which would not inflict increased lorry traffic on other villages.

Further points raised and comments made included:

 The need to consider the possible impact of any lorry ban on other communities and to consult residents along proposed alternative routes

 The need to balance the welfare of localities with that of the whole county

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

7

 An observation that HCV designers did not consider the impact of HCV size on villages

 The importance of choosing appropriate days for carrying out the traffic surveys, taking into account local circumstances

It was resolved unanimously:

- to note the contents of the report and that a full report would be included on the agenda for the next meeting.

18th October 2001:

23. UPDATE ON PETITIONS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING

The Area Joint Committee considered reports detailing responses to the petitions presented at the last meeting, as follows:

(e) Hilton Weight Limit

A petition relating to the extension of the hours of operation of the night-time weight limit in Hilton had been considered as part of a report on the B1040 Hilton at the last meeting of the Joint Committee. A re-assessment of the situation in Hilton pertaining to lorry movements was being carried out and a full report would be presented to a future meeting.

3rd December 2001:

41. B1040 HILTON: HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

The Area Joint Committee considered a report on the usage of the B1040 through Hilton by heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) following a formal request by Councillor I Bates.

Following a Public Inquiry in March 2000, a night-time HCV ban along the B1040 and a 24-hour ban in the rest of the Hilton zone had been approved and implemented in December 2000. Taking into account the Inspector’s comments, the County Council had updated its policy on HCV bans. Councillor Bates had subsequently requested that the matter be reviewed in the light of the new policy, on the basis that the number of accidents and environmental problems had increased since the Inquiry. A survey in September 2001 had indicated that the daily lorry flow and the number of accidents had not significantly increased, and it was therefore likely that the environmental effect had not changed significantly either. Legal advice was that any proposal to extend the weight limit in the absence of significant change in conditions could be subject to judicial review. Such action would be highly likely, given the large additional operating costs that HCV operators would incur, and the County Council would be unlikely to win against such action. In these circumstances it was felt difficult to justify more expenditure to pursue the matter further at this time.

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

8

As a way forward, Councillor I Bates proposed, and the committee agreed, that the County Council should be approached with a view to reviewing its policy and that consideration of a possible 24-hour ban through Hilton should be deferred for the present time.

During discussion, it was noted that the County’s policy on HCV bans only gave guidance on whether or not a scheme should be considered in the first place. Members’ comments included:

 the view that the policy on HCV bans should include more precise criteria against which possible schemes could be scored

 a suggestion that every scheme should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, which should not only include HCV operators’ costs, but also costs in terms of environmental impact

It was resolved unanimously:

- that further consideration as to the possible introduction of a 24-hour HCV ban on the B1040 route through Hilton be deferred, and that an approach to the County Council be made for it to review its policy and establish criteria for the making of HCV bans.

25th February 2002:

53. HILTON WEIGHT LIMIT

It was resolved unanimously:

- to note the decision by Cambridgeshire County Council’s Cabinet to endorse the existing policy for the making of Heavy Commercial Vehicle bans and to take no further action in pursuing an extension of the existing HGV night time ban in Hilton.

29th September 2003:

120. A14 VILLAGE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT – PROGRESS REPORT

The Area Joint Committee received a report on progress made with the implementation of traffic calming schemes in selected villages, along the A14 corridor between Cambridge and Brampton.

Members noted the progress made with the proposed schemes for Fenstanton, Hilton, the Hemingfords, Brampton and Godmanchester, and issues raised at the consultations for each village with Parish/Town Councils, Local Members, the public and other interested agencies.

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

9

On a general point, Councillor Bates proposed that an approach be made to the Highways Agency to erect signs on the A14 indicating that traffic calming measures had been made in the adjacent villages, to deter rat-running. It was agreed that an approach be made to the Highways Agency and suggested that any funding required could be made available from the A14 Traffic Calming budget.

It was noted that the Portfolio Holders for Huntingdonshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council had agreed that if there was a projected underspend in either year of the programme, this could be diverted to other villages adjacent to the A14 that were not currently being considered.

Whilst expressing some disappointment at the low public participation in the consultation exercises, Members praised the impressive and professional way in which Parish Councils had contributed to this process.

Local Member Councillor Wallis suggested that the wide verge opposite Victoria Terrace could be utilised to construct a cycleway: Officers advised that Hemingford Grey Parish Council were setting up a working group to consider that part of the scheme.

It was resolved to:

(i) to note the progress made;

(ii) to approve the provision of all measures in the proposed traffic calming scheme in Fenstanton;

(iii) to approve the provision of all measures in the proposed traffic calming scheme in Hilton with an interactive sign at Site E; and

(iv) to approve the provision of all measures in the proposed traffic calming scheme for Hemingford Grey, except for the proposed dual-use footway cycleway facility at Victoria Terrace, which is the subject of further investigation, and the replacement of the raised junction at the Weir Road/Marsh Lane junction with a pair of speed cushions;

(v) to approve that the Highways Agency be approached regarding the possibility of installing signage on the A14 to indicate where adjacent villages have traffic calming measures.

20th April 2009:

189.

PETITIONS RECEIVED

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

10

b.

Request for effective traffic solutions in Hilton to address the high volume of HCVs, excessive speeding along Potton Road, Graveley Way and Fenstanton Road, and the ineffectiveness of existing traffic calming measures

The Committee received a 403 signature petition requesting a review of the current situation in Hilton with a view to introducing effective traffic calming measures.

The petitioner covered the following points in his presentation:

 the significant traffic volumes on the main routes through Hilton, including a large number of HCVs;

 the problems with speeding vehicles – one dog had already been killed on Graveley Way, and villagers feared that the next fatality may be a child;

 frustration of villagers following the previous attempts at traffic calming;

 that the Potton Road (B1040) was effectively being used as a trunk route, and Graveley Way as a rat run between St Ives and St Neots;

 the need for a full assessment of the situation in the village and options for effective traffic calming, including options for the elimination of HCVs on Potton Road 24 hours a day, proposed effective traffic calming solutions for Potton Road and Graveley Way, and recommendations for addressing speeding across the village green.

Local Member Councillor Bates supported the petition, stressing that the traffic problems had an adverse effect on the quality of life of resident, and he requested that all options, including a by-pass, be considered as part of the assessment.

It was resolved to:

1. note the petition;

2. note that appropriate action would be investigated and reported to the next meeting in respect of the petition, and that the petitioners would be informed accordingly.

c.

Request for effective traffic solutions to the traffic problems on Graveley Way, Hilton, and implement appropriate traffic calming measures for the safety of its residents

The Committee received a 122 signature petition requesting measures to address speeding vehicles, rat-running, and the volume of HCVs using Graveley Way, to provide effective traffic calming measures.

The petitioner covered the following points in his presentation:

 the inadequacy of existing traffic calming in Graveley Way;

 the results of a week long traffic survey in February 2009, indicating that 64% of vehicles exceeded the 30mph speed limit, 28% of which were at a prosecutable level;

 the problems faced by young mothers escorting their children across Graveley Way;

 a variety of incidents and near misses that had occurred on the road.

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

11

Local Member Councillor Bates supported the petition, stressing the level of rat-running experienced on Graveley Way, and the need for officers to meet with residents and the Parish Council to agree the most effective solutions.

Councillor Downes indicated their support for the principle of the petition, and queried the point that “the design proposed for A14 upgrade is likely to increase rat running through Hilton”. The petitioner explained that one of the limited number of junctions that form part of the A14 proposals was likely to have a detrimental effect on Hilton, leading to even more cross-country traffic rat-running through the village.

It was resolved to:

1. note the petition;

2. note that appropriate action would be investigated and reported to the next meeting in respect of the petition, and that the petitioners would be informed accordingly.

13th July 2009:

8.

PETITION UPDATES

(b)

Issues in Potton Road, Graveley Way and Fenstanton Road, Hilton

The Committee received a report on the action taken to investigate effective traffic solutions in Hilton, to address the high volume of HCVs, excessive speeding along Potton Road, Gravelely Way and Fenstanton Road, and the ineffectiveness of the existing traffic calming measures.

It was noted that there had been a meeting with Local Member Councillor Bates on 15/06/09, when the following actions had been agreed:

 Potton Road had been added to the October List;

 the Traffic Manager had agreed to confirm timescales for the HCV routing assessments;

 it was agreed that officers would carry out a Manual Radar Check for Potton Road;

 the County Council’s Transport policy and strategy officers would be consulted regarding the feasibility of a bypass for Hilton.

Local Member Councillor Bates spoke in support of the petitioners, stressing that residents want to be taken seriously, and outlining why the existing traffic calming was ineffective. He advised that he would be meeting with respective County Council officers regarding the HCV and bypass issues.

Councillor Downes and Farrer indicated their support for Councillor Bates and the petitioners, praising the petitioners for their presentation of a rational and reasonable case.

It was resolved to:

i) note the report,

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

12

ii) note the actions already planned as outlined in section 3.2 of the report;

iii) inform the petitioner accordingly.

(c)

Graveley Way, Hilton

The Committee received a report on the action taken to investigate effective traffic solutions to the traffic problems of Graveley Way, Hilton.

Local Member Councillor Bates reiterated the points he had raised under 8(b), particularly regarding the use of the road by HCVs. He advised that rat-running between St Neots and St Ives was a real problem for Hilton, and on Graveley Way in particular. He confirmed that the Parish Council would be submitting a Jointly Funded Minor Improvement bid. He questioned when the speed checks referred to in the report had been carried out, pointing out that during the daytime, the problems were not as bad. Officers confirmed that manual radar checks had taken place, but that the automated speed boxes were operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that the results were for free flowing traffic.

It was resolved to:

i) note the report,

ii) recommend that the Parish Council consider submitting a Jointly Funded Minor Improvement bid;

iii) note that no further action is proposed at this time;

iv) inform the petitioner accordingly.

12th October 2009:

13.

JOINTLY FUNDED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS 2010/2011

The Committee received a report on the bids submitted by parish councils for financing from the Jointly Funded Minor Highway Improvements budget. Officers stressed that initial site inspections did not constitute detailed design appraisals, and it was not possible to guarantee that all of the schemes put forward for approval would be implemented. It was confirmed that the order listed in the report was an order of priority. It was further confirmed that if for budgetary reasons the schemes near the bottom of the list were not funded in 2010/2011, they would need to reapply for the subsequent year – there was no automatic ‘rolling over’ of schemes.

Local Member District Councillor Newman commented that it was regrettable that the Pidley scheme exceeded the budget, especially given that neighbouring Oldhurst had a footpath to Warboys.

Local Member District Councillor Simpson commented that he was pleased that the Sapley Road scheme ranked so highly.

In response to a query on the budget, officers advised that the County Council’s budget for 2010/11 had not been set, and whilst it was anticipated

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

13

that the County Council would provide £86,000 for this budget, this could not be guaranteed.

A Member queried the criteria used for Jointly Funded Minor Improvement schemes, given that some of the successful schemes did not have a history of injury accidents, which appeared to be a prerequisite for consideration of measures, as highlighted in a number of the earlier reports. Officers advised that this budget purposely had different criteria, and was based on the benefit to be provided to the community, not just the accident rate.

In response to a query as to whether schemes wholly funded by a Parish or Town Council would be owned by the County Council, officers confirmed that the County Council had a Third Party Funding policy, and as long as schemes met County Council standards, they would be included in future maintenance programmes.

The Committee resolved to:

1. approve the following schemes in the order of priority listed below, subject to funding considerations:

i) Abbotsley, Loves Lane – Prohibit vehicular traffic for pedestrian improvements.

ii) Huntingdon, Sapley Road – Speed Restrictions and speed reduction measures.

iii) Alconbury, High Street – Install kerbed footway iv) Hilton, Graveley Way -Speed Reduction and pedestrian improvements.

v) Somersham, Parkhall Road – Speed Reduction measures.

2. acknowledge that initial site inspections have been carried out to assess the feasibility of constructing the schemes. However detailed design will need to comply with current legislation, guidance notes and County Council policy. Where applicable schemes will be subject to Safety Audit and at this stage it is not possible to guarantee that all those put forward for approval will be implemented.

11th October 2010:

9. JOINTLY FUNDED MINOR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES 2011/12

The Committee considered a report on bids submitted by Parish Councils for financing from the Jointly Funded Minor Highway Improvements budget. Each site was visited and scored against the approved criteria by a joint team of officers and members of the District and County Councils.

Members were pleased to see the variety of different schemes going forward from all across Huntingdonshire, and that the new scoring system gave a more equitable way of awarding funding.

The Committee resolved to:

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

14

1. approve the following schemes in the order of priority listed below, subject to funding considerations:

vi) Warboys, Church Road - Pedestrian Improvements.

vii) Oldhurst, The Lane – Footway Improvements.

viii) Sawtry, Blind Lane – Footway Improvements

ix) Farcet, Peterborough Road – Soft Traffic Calming. x) Hilton, Potton Road - Speed Reduction measures.

xi) Ramsey Heights – Footway Improvements

xii) Grafham, Church Road – Cyclist Warning Signs and Lines.

xiii) Catworth, B660 – Soft Traffic Calming

xiv) Buckworth – Pedestrian Warning Signs

xv) Woodhurst – Bus Stop Improvements.

2. Acknowledge that initial site inspections have been carried out to assess the feasibility of constructing the schemes. However detailed design will need to comply with current legislation, guidance notes and County Council policy. Where applicable schemes will be subject to Safety Audit and at this stage it is not possible to guarantee that all those put forward for approval will be implemented.

17th January 2011:

5. GRAVELEY WAY, HILTON – JOINTLY FUNDED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee received a report regarding representations to a proposed Jointly Funded Minor Improvement Scheme.

A petition had been received by the Area Joint Committee in 2009, requesting effective traffic solutions to the traffic problems on Graveley Way, Hilton, and to implement appropriate traffic calming measures for the safety of its residents. The Parish Council had subsequently made a successful bid for a jointly funded minor improvement in 2009/10. The outcome of investigations (including speed checks), consultations and representations were noted. A petition objecting to the construction of the priority give way feature opposite 2/3 Graveley Way had been received, and as a result of this, this element of the original proposals had been withdrawn. The Committee noted additional comments that had been received since the report had been published.

Hilton Parish Council Chairman, Councillor Stott, advised there was a good case for traffic calming at this location. He added that whilst there had fortunately been very few accidents on the road, a dog had been killed by a speeding car when it was being walked on a lead on the footpath. He also gave some recent data on traffic speeds collected by the Police, which showed that vehicles were occasionally exceeding 60mph on this stretch of road.

Local Member District and County Councillor Bates indicated his support for the scheme. He commented that part of the scheme had been withdrawn

Extracts from Huntingdonshire Area Joint Committee

15

following feedback from villagers, which demonstrated that the Parish Council and Local Members were listening to the local community.

The Committee resolved to:

i) determine the representations without holding a public enquiry;

ii) implement the Jointly Funded Minor Improvement scheme as shown on Appendix B of the report, and

iii) to inform the representatives accordingly.