Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Keith Day and Katharine Garcia.

Councillor Kevin Brookes attended as a Reserve Member.

There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2016 were confirmed and signed subject to:-

·        the inclusion of apologies from the Chairman, Councillor David Jones; and

·        the retrospective recording of the dissent by Councillors Bartlett, Andrews and Orrell to the decision taken in respect of the application to divert part of Footpath 6 at Gussage St Michael in that the amendment proposed by Councillor Bartlett and seconded by Councillor Andrews, which was lost on being put to the vote, to accept the recommendation but to allow an opportunity for the alternative route to be gifted by the owner as a permissive path, was not adopted.

Public Speaking

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions

There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

To consider a report by the Service Director - Highways and Emergency Planning.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning for a proposed change to the speed limit from 50mph to 40 mph along part of Preston Road, Weymouth. Following the advertisement of proposals, an objection had been received and, as a consequence, the Committee was now being asked to consider whether the proposed speed limit change should be implemented, as advertised.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers described the proposal, what it entailed and why it was considered to be necessary. Photographs and plans showed the characteristics and configuration of the road at various points along its lengths; its setting within the Weymouth townscape; its relationship with the local road network; where junctions were situated - including that to the Weymouth Household Recycling Centre - and where pedestrian refuges and crossings were located. Members noted that the length under consideration was essentially straight and of generous width, which lent itself to good visibility. Speed survey data had assessed that it would be reasonable and appropriate for the speed limit to be reduced to 40mph limit. This proposal met the necessary speed limit policy criteria which the County Council had adopted.

This section of Preston Road carried significant amounts of traffic in an east/west direction into Weymouth town centre, particularly during the summer season. There had been a number of serious and fatal injury collisions on this section of road and it was considered that by reducing the speed limit could assist in reducing this and considerably benefit road safety.

Given that the amount of traffic using this road and the number and severity of recorded injury collisions experienced over that length, a reduction in the speed limit was considered to be necessary on road safety grounds and was designed to regulate or reduce the speed of traffic in a managed way to be able to readily meet the conditions of the road likely to be experienced.

In response to the advertisement of the proposals, support had been received from the County Councillor for Lodmoor, Tony Ferrari; Weymouth and Portland Borough Council and Dorset Police.  Mrs Grace Dursley was supportive of the proposal, with one objection being received from Mr David Penny. This objection necessitated a decision being made by members on how to proceed.

The public were then given the opportunity to address the Committee. Grace Dursley provided her testimony at how she had been directly affected by the consequences of higher speeds along that stretch of road in the tragic loss of her husband in 2015 in a collision with a motorbike. She firmly felt that the lowering of the limit would go a long way to improving road safety so that the dangers would be lessened and reduce the chances of any other families being similarly affected.

Conversely, David Penny considered that the proposal was unnecessary and could not be justified given that analysis of the speed survey data appeared to show that there would be no benefit from such a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

To consider a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director Highways and Emergency Planning on a proposal for a Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order to record part of Bridleway 18, Mill Lane, Chideock – as shown between points B-C-D-E on Drawing 17/21/2 of the report - as a restricted byway. The reasoning for this was set out in detail in the report.

The officer drew members’ attention to an error in the report on page 2 "Reasons for recommendation a)" the drawing number should be 17/21/1 not 17/21/2.

With the aid of a visual presentation, the basis for the proposal was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown illustrating this, showing the route of Mill Lane from various directions and at various points along its route; its characteristics, configuration and construction; its setting within the landscape in that part of Chideock, its relationship with the neighbouring Golden Cap Holiday Park and Roadstead Farm; where other properties and amenities in the vicinity were; and the points between which it ran. Signage and gating were also detailed, as applicable. The documentary and user evidence contained in the report - and how this had been analysed - was referred to in detail and how this had been applied in the officer’s reasoning for coming to the recommendation. The weight to be given to the user and documentary evidence was explained. The Committee’s attention was drawn to what they were being asked to consider, this being all the available evidence in respect of this route so as any uncertainties regarding the status of Mill Lane might be resolved.

Officers explained that the extent and status of Mill Lane had been the subject of consideration over the course of some years and, in September 2013, following a planning application to West Dorset District Council designed to facilitate the reorganisation of the Golden Cap Holiday Park, Chideock Parish Council requested that the correct position of Mill Lane County Road and Bridleway 18, Chideock be established definitively.

Investigations into the status of the route had concluded that, on balance, the creation of a bridleway in 1996 appeared to be flawed, in that that part of the bridleway – from point B-C-D-E on Drawing 17/21/2 of the report - had already been recorded as a highway maintainable at public expense on the list of streets, the effect being that public mechanically propelled vehicular rights had been extinguished by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Therefore it was now being proposed that the section of route B-C-D-E should correctly be recorded on the definitive map as a restricted byway. Moreover officers explained that a Modification Order must be made if the balance of evidence showed that route shown on the Definitive Map and Statement should be shown as having a different status. For the reasons set out in the report, officers considered that this was the case in that the evidence - on the balance of probability - supported the proposed modification.

Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Monday 15 October 2018.

There were no questions raised by members under Standing Order 20(2).