MP Alan Ducan's, unfounded complaints About Rutland County Council

Over the years  Conservative  MP Alan Duncan  has made complaints about Rutland County Council.

One  example of  a costly report into some of his complaints is shown below.

We are working on obtaining further information relating to, MP Alan Duncan's complaints about
Rutland County over many years until now, to see if the volume  constitutes as harassment of the authority and its officers.

I understand, to stand as a MP in an election you require a lot of signatures and a look at the last election notices show possibly why MP Alan Duncan now shows more support towards the ruling local Conservatives.

First signature being The Duchess of Rutland and  then Tory Leader of Rutland Council Roger Begy the list goes on.

In the report you can see Mr Duncan raised issues about Rutland County Council often
in a similar way to that of the Three anti corruption Councillors.

He referred to the Highways department as objectionable and unacceptable.

Complaints invariably refer to the nature of the decisions taken, the
ever-apparent lack of genuine consultation, a common complaint made today.

he accused  the Council overkill and wasting public money.

he complained the council  Wilfully misled about constituent’s questions.

The report also highlights how Rutland County Councils Officers are never wrong.

The report says

4.12  Doubt if there is anyone in the Environment Department who works as
hard for the Council as the Head of Highways and Transportation. The
complaints by Mr Duncan are completely unjustified.

Although the complaints made by Mr Duncan are considered to be
generally unfounded, the investigation has identified some areas where
improvements could be made. T





RUTLAND COUNTY COUNCIL
INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT BY ALAN DUNCAN MP

1  INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH

1.1  This report sets out the results of an external investigation by M J
Kendrick into complaints concerning the Highways and Transportation
service of Rutland County Council contained in a letter of 3 March 2003
from Alan Duncan MP to the Chief Executive of the County Council. The
investigation was commissioned by Chief Executive following a meeting
with Mr Kendrick on 7 March 2003.

1.2  At the time of commission, Mr Kendrick was already assisting the County
Council in the concluding stages of a Best Value Review into the
Highways and Transportation service, including the assembly and analysis
of a wide range of information, providing a strategic context within which to
consider the complaints from Mr Duncan. This has also enabled both the
time and cost of the investigation to be contained.
1.3  The approach adopted for this investigation has broadly involved three
stages:-
Stage1  Clarification of Substance and Background
•  Early meeting and site inspection with Mr Duncan to clarify and
obtain more detail of the complaints
•  Interviews with appropriate officers to establish their perception
of events leading to the complaints
•  Review of correspondence between Mr Duncan and the Council
to establish extent and nature of previous concerns raised
•  Review of correspondence and records relating to those
projects where specific concerns raised
•  Review of letters to the press following recent publicity
concerning the 3 March letter from Mr Duncan, both for
completeness and to establish the nature and extent of any new
issues raised. New issues from this source noted in this report
have not been dealt with in depth but brief comments are made
where appropriate
Stage 2  Visual and Technical Assessment
•  Inspection of identified projects and sites of concern
•  Review of scheme drawings and technical support information
•  Assessment against approved standards and current practice

Stage 3  Appraisal, Conclusions and Recommendations
•  Assessment of concerns about identified projects and sites
•  Assessment of identified general concerns
•  Consideration of conclusions and recommendations
•  Preparation of Report

1.4  This investigation has not sought to review in detail all of the practices and
processes of the Highways and Transportation service, or to research
every last detail of the identified complaints, for two reasons. First that this
would have unreasonably extended both the time and cost of the
investigation, and secondly that the Best Value Review, currently in its
concluding stages, has addressed these wider issues, and will
recommend a programme intended to deliver continuous improvement
consistent with normal practice.

1.5  This investigation has sought to establish the extent to which the
complaints made by Mr Duncan, broadly concerning technical
competence, scheme implementation, environmental sensitivity, and
nature and style of communication, are fair and reasonable in all the
circumstances. Also to consider what measures might be helpful in
avoiding such difficulties in the future.

2  SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS MADE BY ALAN DUNCAN

2.1  The concerns expressed by Mr Duncan are summarised for completeness
and convenience in four categories, as follows:-
•  General Concerns from letter of 3 March 2003
•  Project Specific Concerns from letter of 3 March 2003
•  Further Issues Raised During Interview of 13 March 2003
•  Issues Raised in Earlier Correspondence with Council
General Concerns from letter of 3 March 2003

2.2  General concerns expressed in the letter of 3 March 2003 to the Chief
Executive are:-
•  Spoken on many many occasions to Chief Executive about the
conduct and reputation of the Council’s Highways Department
•  Latest action labels the Department as the one objectionable and
unacceptable corner of an otherwise well-run council.
•  Estimate that of all the letters or comments received which express an
adverse view of the conduct of the Council, 90% are to do with
highways

Complaints invariably refer to the nature of the decisions taken, the
ever-apparent lack of genuine consultation, and the surly way in which
enquiries are responded to

•  Appears to lack any clear policy approach to its highways decisions
and everything that is done appears to be controlled by the Council’s
officers who are believed to be constrained by government guidelines
and are seen to have no regard for Rutland and its uniquely rural
character

•  Nobody feels that councillors have a real grip on this part of the
Council’s activities
Specific Project Concerns from letter of 3 March 2003

2.3  Specific project or site related concerns expressed in the letter of 3 March
2003 to the Chief Executive are:-
•  Widespread unhappiness attaching to the roadworks when Tescos
was opened
•  Wilfully misled about constituent’s questions about proposed works in
Uppingham
•  Uppingham ‘bumps’ are a constant source of complaint
•  Now being contacted about the erection of new signpost poles which
have suddenly begun to appear all over the County. No parish council
has been approached about the placing of these signs. Signpost poles
are being placed with no thought or concern whatsoever. They seem
taller than many other such signs, some placed right next to existing
signs with no thought about appearance and whether they could be
doubled up on one pole. Money might have been saved by an audit of
existing signage before embarking on the signing
Further Issues Raised During interview of 13 March 2003

2.4  Comments providing further detail of earlier complaints or raising new
issues were recorded at the interview and site inspection with Mr Duncan
on 13 March 2003, as follows:-
•  The fundamental changes considered necessary in the approach of
the Highways and Transportation Service are unlikely to take place
under the present Head of Service
•  The new roundabout at Uppingham is an overkill and waste of public
money. It is already an eyesore and this will be compounded by the
prospect of signing involving 1 metre high chevron signs.
•  Associated with the Tesco development a constituent had traffic
signals erected under window with no warning of this until these were
erected.

Also associated with the Tesco development there was a road hump
installed outside lady’s house that she knew nothing about and had to
get involved in order to get this moved
•  There is no attempt to match paving to local environment, for example
the use of red paving near Council Offices rather than ironstone
•  There is excessive kerbing in rural locations, for example at the Seaton
Bisbrooke crossroads.
Further Information Supplied Following Interview
2.5  Following the interview further information was supplied by Mr Duncan
comprising:-
•  Correspondence from constituent both with Council and Department
for Transport concerning the Road Humps at London Road Uppingham
•  Correspondence from constituents concerning the roundabout at
Uppingham
Issues Raised in Earlier Correspondence with the Council
2.6  In the light of the specific comment by Mr Duncan concerning extensive
earlier complaints about the Highways and Transportation service, copies
of all correspondence over the last two years were requested from the
Chief Executive, the Director of Environmental Services and the Head of
Highways and Transportation. These are summarised below in date
order:-
March 2001   London Road Uppingham.  Road Humps
Oakham. Traffic works associated with Tesco
Development
   A47 Belton in Rutland Flooding
April 2001.  South Luffenham. Traffic calming associated with
development
South Street – Mill Street junction Oakham. Possibility
of mini-roundabout alternative
May 2001.  London Road Uppingham. Traffic Calming
Goughs Lane. Making up of unadopted road
Burley. Footpath works

October 2001.   Oakham Bypass. Objection  by constituent
Central Trains standard of service
August 2002.   Detrunking of A47

Manton. Cycle path route
November 2002.   Lyndon. Lorry movements associated with railway
embankment works

March 2003.   Balk Road. Making up of unadopted road
2.7  An analysis of this correspondence suggests that of the 14 items listed, 2
concerned the A47 trunk road, which is presently the responsibility of the
Highways Agency, 2 concerned policy for the making up of unadopted
streets, and 1 concerned public transport. Of the remaining 9 letters
relating to general highways functions, 1 relates to lorry movements
associated with railway embankment works, and 1 is a request for
information. There would therefore appear to have been 7 identifiable
letters of complaint during the last two years relevant to this investigation.    
3  RECENT PRESS CORRESPONDENCE
3.1  Following the publicity given by the local press to the concerns raised by
Mr Duncan, a number of letters have been published, either supporting
these concerns or raising different issues. These new issues have not
been reviewed in detail as part of this investigation but a brief comment is
made where considered appropriate.
Letters concerning Traffic Calming Scheme London Road
Uppingham
3.2  Letter querying the design and durability of the speed humps in London
Road. Concerned about damage done to the diversion route, the
Lyddington to Uppingham Road, and the alleged inadequate construction
depth of strengthening work.
3.3  Letter concerned about the allegedly dismissive response from the
Director of Environmental Services to his letter of complaint supported by
35 residents and also from the Director of Environmental Health to his
letter supported by 7 residents.
3.4  Letter concerned about damage to vehicles resulting from speed tables.
‘The railings at the pavement edge have done much to help reduce the
risk of road casualties in this location and it would be understandable to

have speed cameras in operation during school hours, but these obstacles
lie in the way of motorists all day and night’
Letters Concerning Other Issues
3.5  Letter referring to a request for information about the sites of road
accidents in the County, which was allegedly met with a refusal to disclose
the information unless paid £30. ‘Unless the public is told where casualties
occur how can the success of any road programme be judged. For
example has the money spent on Barnsdale crossroads been rewarded
with a new decrease in accidents on the A606 between Empingham and
Oakham’

•  It is usual practice to allow inspection of accident records free of
charge but to make a charge to recover the cost of any analysis
work undertaken. Indications are that accidents have reduced but
usually need more than 3 years for confidence
3.6  Letter suggesting that the ‘Roads of Rutland are a disgrace. Some repairs
deteriorate within two years because the repair does not go deep enough
into the road edge to take the weight of the traffic. Ends up being worse
than before. We have a ‘hotch potch’ of poorly repaired roads. Many
instances of roads that do not have any form of centre white line marking
not to mention cats eyes- yet they all fall within the requirement of being
more than 15 feet wide eg Cottesmore to Ashwell road)’
•  It is usual practice to adopt a minimum width of 5.5 metres (18 feet)
for provision of centre white lines where they would assist
definition.
3.7  Letter concerned about road signs. ‘Driving south on London Road,
Uppingham towards the Community college junction, although there is a
school warning sign there is not a sign to indicate junction and a left turn.
But turn to the left and you are immediately past the speed derestriction
sign which means that all of the pedestrian and vehicular access to the
college are directly onto a derestricted road. The authorities know of this
but apparently there have not been enough accidents to warrant an
extension of the speed limit area.’
•  Criteria for speed limits not solely based on accidents. Understand
that Highways service consult Town and Parish Councils on the
need for review of speed limits but understand no requests to date
for this site. Highways service will look into.
3.8  Letter about problems in Lyndon, Pilton, Wing and Morcott resulting from
repairs to railway embankment and transport of material

•  Planning matter not related to this investigation
3.9  Letter concerned about alleged lack of consultation about anything. ‘They
put in humps, bumps, poles and kerbstones none of us want. This is
Rutland not Birmingham. Rutland is special with its verges, its ironstone
cottages, and its rural look. We accept the needs of safety, but does
anyone ever think about the colour of the materials used the location of
signs and the overall impact on the countryside’
•  Issue dealt with later in this report.
4  INTERVIEWS WITH OFFICERS AND PORTFOLIO HOLDER
4.1  Structured interviews have been held with relevant officers, comprising the
Head of Highways and Transportation, the Head of Planning Services, the
Director of Environmental Services, and the Chief Executive. Also with the
Portfolio Holder, Councillor R Lacey. The views of Planning and
Conservation colleagues were especially important bearing in mind the
allegations of environmental insensitivity.
Summary of Interview with Head of Highways and Transportation
4.2  All correspondence with Mr Duncan is dealt with via the Chief Executive.
May get call from his assistants if they are unable to get hold of the Chief
Executive or the Director of Environmental Services. Can only recall two
occasions of direct contact. One was a site meeting about the Section 106
agreement relating to the Tesco development, which resulted in the
relocation by about 2 metres of one of the speed tables .The other was the
recent incident concerning works in Uppingham. In relation this recent
incident Mr Duncan asked ‘Are there any traffic calming proposals in High
Street. Told him that there were none planned. I thought he might have
been interested in the humps in Stockerston Road. I didn’t mention the
bus interchange issue to him as he specifically asked about traffic calming
and, as the bus interchange project had received a lot of press coverage I
assumed that he would have known about this already and would have
mentioned this if it was the subject of his enquiry.
4.3  The detailed installation of the weight restriction signing has been left
more to the contractor that we would have liked. A member of staff has
been going around and acting as link. I provided him with general
guidance and also told him to look at earlier phases of the signing. The
Network Co-ordinator would normally have dealt with this, but the post is
still vacant after extensive efforts to fill it. We have tried to minimise the
signing and arguably there could have been even more signs.  There are
6 phases of the HGV control scheme referred to in LTP with 4 phases


gone in so far. The final phase is subject to call in. The proposals were
started off jointly with Leicestershire County Council and are considered
high priority by local residents. Mr Duncan may have a point about sign
rationalisation and some other signs could be relocated to fit on the HGV
sign poles, at some additional expense. We are looking at this and are
happy to do what we can.
4.4  On the Tesco development the developers were represented by Mouchel
who should have been much more active in consultation but performed
badly and we had to step in. Perhaps the Section106 agreement could
have been tighter to make more clear the respective responsibilities.
Consultants SWK represented the Council at the Public Enquiry, including
traffic modelling, and assessment of application. There were major
objections, but the inspector confirmed the application. We obtained a
wide range of highway conditions including traffic signals, bus facilities,
crossing facilities, low noise surfacing and Gaol Street scheme. Mouchels
should have informed those affected and sought to resolve concerns, but
they didn’t do this well. Some measures, such as disabling the ‘bleeper’
and putting in a lamp shield on the signal installation were introduced. As
things turned out we needed a full time person on site but we didn’t have
one. One of my officers spent quite a lot of time on this and really
exceeded what should have been necessary.
4.5  On the London Road Uppingham traffic calming scheme there were some
complaints about noise of lorries, and some improvements were done to
manhole covers. When the housing development was proposed there was
a need to provide a safer access, including the need to slow traffic on the
main road. The Committee approved a mini-roundabout, but this was not
fully effective. It was subsequently decided to provide a combined scheme
involving speed tables either side of the mini-roundabout and either side of
the pelican crossing on brow of hill. There was a contribution from the
school and the developer. The scheme cut the 85%ile speed from 39 to 25
mph. There were some continuing complaints about noise and we looked
into some Transport Research Laboratory information about the use of
sinusoidal ramps, which were subsequently installed. On the wider issue
of  Safer Routes to School,  there was a meeting about a scheme for
Ayston Road last Wednesday and, although a pelican crossing was
proposed, there was a strong preference from the meeting for speed
tables, despite the previous concerns about the London Road scheme.
There had also been some local concerns about the Stockerston Road
scheme prior to introduction but there have not been problems since.
4.6  On the Uppingham roundabout scheme there was a need for somewhere
safe for buses to turn around as there had been complaints from a
resident concerned about the buses turning round her house. It is all part
of the bus interchange scheme. The scheme was submitted to cabinet, but

this was in plan only as the design had not been finalised at that time. It
has been changed a little since. A mini roundabout option was rejected
because of safety concerns. We could have done a ‘sharper’ island but it
has been designed to maximise planting area for use by ‘Uppingham in
Bloom’. The town council did not make any comments on the roundabout.
There was a letter in cabinet yesterday from the Mayor of Uppingham. The
bus interchange and the roundabout are funded from LTP money and
there is some pressure to get this spent, given the comments from the
Government Office about the need to keep up to programme.
Summary of Interview with Head of Planning Service and Principal
Planning Officer
4.7  It is important to note the high level of planning and development activity
in Rutland for such a relatively small authority, with some 900 applications
per annum, which is similar to somewhere the size of Middlesborough. As
Planning consultation is a statutory function, and time for dealing with
applications closely monitored by Government the Planning service has
had to be resourced properly.
4.8  The issues concerning relative scale of activity and size also apply to the
Highways and Transportation service but, since much of the consultation
activity is non statutory, the Council has been less willing to properly
resource the service. In these circumstances it is always under pressure
for financial and human resources, and priority has tended to be given to
Education funding.
4.9  In these circumstances it is accepted that it will not in every case be
possible to secure the higher environmental quality materials and
treatments preferred for highway works in more sensitive areas, either
because of higher initial costs or ongoing maintenance implications. There
is however regular and constructive consultation between highways,
planning and conservation colleagues, and acceptable compromises are
usually achieved.
4.10  The Tesco development imposed particular pressures both on the
Planning and Highways service, which in the case of Planning reduced
resources for other work to the extent that it recorded the lowest ever
overall performance. Consultation, design and implementation of the
highway works associated with the development were the responsibility of
Mouchel, the consultants to Tesco, but they seriously underperformed on
the detailed consultation, and these shortcomings were especially
noticeable given the extensive statutory consultation exercise undertaken
by the Planning service. The Highways service had to provide far greater
support than should have been necessary and was particularly short
staffed at the time which exacerbated these problems.


4.11  Fully support the proposals for the new traffic island on North Street East
Uppingham as am concerned about safety of the present arrangement
4.12  Doubt if there is anyone in the Environment Department who works as
hard for the Council as the Head of Highways and Transportation. The
complaints by Mr Duncan are completely unjustified.
Summary of Interview with Director of Environmental Services
4.13  Looked though all correspondence and was able to find only relatively few
items of correspondence with Mr Duncan, probably only one or two per
month and some of these tend to be about planning issues and such
matters as dealing with un-adopted roads.
4.14  Have been personally involved in a number of the scheme related issues
raised by Mr Duncan, especially those in Uppingham concerning the bus
interchange and the new traffic island. Have discussed these with the
Uppingham Town Council and County Council members, both in terms of
the design and consultation process. Specifically asked the Town Council
and the Mayor about the roundabout proposal, and they stated they had
no issue with this. I fully support the approach pursued by Highways on
these schemes.
4.15  The Tesco development was opposed by the Council but was approved
following a positive report from the inspector at public inquiry. There was
widespread public concern about the development and the highway works
needed to deal with the additional traffic, and these were not handled well
by the developer’s consultants.
4.16  In respect of the most recent issue, the signing for the HGV restriction
scheme, I have inspected the work with the supervising officer . Some
minor adjustments are being made to reduce intrusion and I generally
support what has been done.
4.17  In the light of recent difficulties with consultation, a protocol is being set
down to define how consultation should be undertaken on schemes, how
long this should take, and who should be consulted. This should help to
avoid future difficulties.
Summary of Interview with Chief Executive
4.18  From a non-technical point of view there would seem to be two main
approaches towards the management and regulation of traffic speeds.
One is to make drivers aware of the nature of potential dangers and their
consequent responsibilities by installing measures such as signs, lines


and coloured surfacing. The other is to impose restraint on the speed of
drivers by physical measures such as road humps and chicanes.
4.19  The first option may be effective with drivers who use a route occasionally
and are therefore less aware of the local environment but is less likely to
be effective with regular users, for whom familiarity will reduce the
influence of such measures. In the latter case, physical measures are
likely to be needed.
4.20  These options present local members with a dilemma. If they opt for the
‘minimalist’ approach this may prove ineffective in reducing traffic speeds,
but the ‘physical’ approach, although effective in reducing speeds may
increase localised environmental affects such as noise or intrusion for
some residents. The advice to Members from the Head of Highways and
Transportation has generally been in favour of the ‘physical’ option and
this approach tends to be supported both by the Director of Environmental
Services and the Portfolio Holder. This is consistent with the relative
importance given to road safety by residents, and the policy of the Council
to reduce road accidents.
4.21  The Tesco development was a highly controversial matter and, although
the Council objected to the development, it was not universally opposed
by the community as a whole and there was in fact quite a lot of support
for the scheme, which did not of course include the residents of South
Street. Much of the Council’s case was based upon the principle that,
since the highway works required by the development were unacceptable,
the development as a whole was undesirable. This was not necessarily
the best strategy and increased the pressure on the Highways service.
Summary of Interview with Highways and Transportation Portfolio
Holder
4.22  I reject entirely the criticism concerning consultation. There has been
extensive consultation on all schemes of significance, particularly with
Parish and Town Councils. The extent to which Parish and Town Councils
further engage with their community in presenting their views is however
variable. It is also sometimes the case that strong support for action to
resolve a perceived local problem can reduce as the detail of schemes is
developed and wider implications become apparent.
4.23  Physical measures to control the speed of traffic do work, but the scale
and impact of these may not always be consistent with the character of
the street, particularly in conservation areas. There have been some
differences between Members and officers on this issue, for example in
the case of a small development, where the traffic calming works initially


proposed by officers were completely inappropriate and were
subsequently not approved by Members.
4.24  There is a tendency for highway engineers to work ‘by the book’ and not to
adopt a flexible approach more sensitive to the environment in
conservation areas. This is a general criticism, not specific to Rutland, but
we do have these problems here. I have previously suggested that we
review the procedures manual in order to establish a more flexible
approach but there was little enthusiasm for this, and I didn’t pursue it
further at that time. Unless supported by more flexible policies and
procedures it is very difficult for Members to challenge technical advice,
bearing in mind the potential legal consequences.
4.25  Despite these comments, which are intended to be constructive, I should
stress that I am well supported by the Highways and Transportation
Service and happy with the great majority of the work that they do. I think
it would be helpful however to explore in more detail with officers the
opportunities and implications of a more flexible approach in reconciling
traffic safety and environmental concerns in the development and design
of schemes.
4.26  I believe that the public allegations of incompetence against a specific
officer by Mr Duncan are outrageous, both in terms of the specific issues
raised, and way in which he has raised them. There are proper
procedures for consideration of such matters, as Mr Duncan should know,
and it is unfortunate that he has chosen not to use them.          
5  REVIEW OF IDENTIFIED PROJECTS
HGV Signing scheme
5.1  The origins and phasing of the Countywide HGV restriction scheme are
set out in the Local Transport Plan. They appear to be well supported by
community and there is no evidence of complaints from any source in
respect of the design and installation of earlier phases of the scheme. The
Police have not objected, but indicated that resources were limited and
enforcement would not be a priority. This is not unusual, but does oblige
the authority to seek to make schemes relatively self-enforcing, including
prominent signing. Mr Duncan does not appear to be questioning the
principle of the scheme, but rather its implementation.
 5.2  The installation of signing for the current phase has been undertaken by a
specialist signing contractor. Supervision of the contractor would normally
have been undertaken by the Network Co-ordinator, but this post has
been vacant for some time, despite extensive attempts at recruitment.
Supervision has therefore been undertaken by another member of staff


  having relevant general competence but more limited technical
background in this area, in combination with his normal duties of coordinating and inspecting works by utilities.
5.3  The supervisor was provided with information from the Traffic Signs and
General Directions 2002  (TSGD) and oral guidance from the Head of
Highways and Transportation that signs should generally be sited at
junctions 1 metre back from the main road and 3 metres from the road
edge, but with some flexibility to deal with visibility and utilities apparatus.
5.4  Direction 8 of the TSGD (The Placing of Certain Signs to indicate the
beginning of a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit) indicates
that:-
‘…….a sign to which this direction applies shall be placed on the relevant
road at or as near as practicable to the point at which the restriction
begins. Where the relevant road has one carriageway then signs need
only be placed on one side of the road either where the restriction only
applies to traffic on one side of the road or the carriageway is less than 5
metres wide and the sign is placed so that its centre is within 2 metres of
the edge of the carriageway. Direction 10 indicates that de-restriction
signs shall be placed on the road as near as practicable to the point at
which the prohibition ceases.
5.5  There was no consultation with Parish Councils or others about the
detailed positioning of the signs. This is normal practice unless there were
special circumstances, for example the possibility of fixing a sign to
premises, or where there was potential for very significant intrusion to
adjoining property.
5.6  The current phase of the scheme involves the installation of 96 restriction
signs with a corresponding number of de-restriction signs. A total of 84
new posts have been installed, which indicates that the opportunity has
been taken for some rationalisation, and it is understood that further
opportunities will be taken to relocate existing signing following completion
of the scheme.
5.7  A site inspection suggests that the signs have been generally located
correctly taking into account the TSGD requirements to be ‘as near as
practicable’ to the start of the restriction and the circumstances on site. It
is suggested that further consideration could reasonably be given to the
following:-
•  The possible removal of two signs at the B672 junction at Lyddington


The possible removal of two signs at the back road H8107 into
Uppingham where the road is physically impassable-perhaps replacing
with unsuitable for HGV signs as at the Seaton junction
•  The possible movement back of two signs at the H9202 Lyddington
junction
5.8  It is concluded that, although the nature and extent of contractual
supervision were less than would normally have been provided, the
installation was consistent with TSGD requirements. Appropriate guidance
was provided by the Head of Highways and Transportation and it would be
unreasonable to expect his closer personal involvement on such a
detailed matter. Attempts have been made to minimise the intrusion of the
signing and these are ongoing. It is also relevant to note that there have
apparently been no complaints in respect of earlier four phases of the
HGV control scheme.

Highway Works Associated with Tesco Development
5.9  As indicated in the interview with the Head of Planning the Tesco
development imposed particular pressures both on the Planning and
Highways service, which in the case of Planning reduced resources for
other work to the extent that it recorded the lowest ever overall
performance. The proposed development was highly unpopular, and the
application was refused by the County Council, but subsequently granted
on appeal, following public inquiry. The Inspector’s report of 17 February
1999 refers.
5.10  In the light of the scale and complexity of technical issues involved in
consideration of the application the Highways service appointed SWK
consultants to advise and subsequently to represent the Council at public
inquiry. In association with the public inquiry the Inspector required the
respective parties to agree upon the nature and extent of highways works
which would be necessary to mitigate the traffic affects of the development
and which in the event of the appeal being successful would be included
within a Section 106 agreement. These works were developed on behalf
of the developer by their consultants, Mouchel, in consultation with SWK
and Leicester City Council (for traffic signals issues) on behalf of the
County Council, and subsequently agreed by the respective principals.
5.11  Following the granting of the appeal the required works were included as
the Second Schedule of a Section 106 agreement dated 24 December
1998.  The agreement states (inter alia) that:-
•  The Estate Owners shall not commence the Highway Works until
detailed drawings have been submitted to and approved by the


Engineer (The Council’s Director of Environmental Services – for the
time being) (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)
•  Prior to the approval of the detailed drawings a Stage 2 Safety Audit in
accordance with Department of Transport Standard HD 19/90 and
Advice Note HA42/90 shall be prepared by the Estate Owners and
submitted to the Council and any recommendations made shall be
incorporated into the design of the Highway Works if the Engineer
reasonably so requires
•  The Estate Owners shall at their own expense carry out the Highway
works in conformity with the approved drawings and to the satisfaction
of the Engineer (whose reasonable instructions and directions relating
to the highway works shall be strictly complied with by the Estate
owners)
•  The Council covenants that it will as soon as is practicable use all
reasonable endeavours to facilitate the estate owners in carrying out
the obligations undertaken in the agreement and without prejudice to
the foregoing shall:-
a)  not unreasonably delay or withhold consent to any designs,
drawings, or specification relating to the highway works
b)  make such Traffic Regulation Orders as may be so required
c)  co-operate with the Estate Owners in all aspects in
execution of the Highway Works
d)  Not unreasonably delay the issue of the Provisional
Certificate of Completion and the Final Certificate of
Completion
5.12  There are two important points about this schedule which had implications
for subsequent events. The first is the constant reference to the concept of
‘reasonableness’ by the Council, implying some level of constraint upon
the level of attention by the Council to matters of ‘detail’. The second is the
absence of any apparent reference to responsibility for consultation and
provision of information to those affected by the proposed works.
5.13  The construction works were eventually commenced, by the main
contractor Keir Ltd, and highway subcontractors P M Harris Ltd.
Consultation, design and supervision of the highway works associated
with the development were the responsibility of Mouchel, the consultants
to Tesco, but they seriously underperformed on the detailed consultation,
and these shortcomings were especially noticeable given the extensive
statutory consultation exercise undertaken by the Planning service. The
Highways service had to provide far greater support than should have
been necessary and was particularly short staffed at the time which
exacerbated these problems.


5.14  Evidence of Mouchel’s underperformance and the consequent high level
of involvement by the Highways service is provided by a schedule of
correspondence and meetings contained in project records. It is also well
documented in letters from the Highways service to Mouchel, in particular
those dated 17 July 2001 and 4 September 2001.
5.15  The very specific and detailed nature of these problems is exemplified by
exchanges of correspondence between the Highways service and
Mouchel during late 2001 and early 2002 concerning the new traffic
signals at South Street-Uppingham Road. The Highways service
consistently requiring Mouchel to accept their responsibilities for
engagement with residents, but the consultants always seeking to refer
such matters back to the Council.
5.16  In these circumstances, together with the overwhelming unpopularity of
the development and the pressures on the Highways service, problems
were inevitable. The position was well summarised by the Leader of the
Council in a letter to the Rutland Times dated 10 July 2001
‘Rutland County Council opposed the original application from Tesco on
the grounds that the additional traffic would have an adverse impact in the
lives of the surrounding residents……The County Council can only seek to
mitigate a situation that has been imposed on Oakham by a combination
of commercial interests and bureaucratic decisions……The traffic
management schemes which have been so severely criticised are a result
of statutory requirements largely concerned with safety. Rutland County
Council did not devise the scheme, nor was it responsible for the
scheduling of the work to implement it.
5.17  Having reviewed the background to this issue, it is difficult to conclude that
the Highways service could have done more to deal with the problems
posed by the development. They appointed well qualified and respected
external technical advisors and accepted their advice, they were
constrained by a Section 106 agreement, they were poorly served by the
developers consultants but made extensive and well documented efforts
despite resource constraints to deal as effectively as possible with these
problems.
5.18  There were clearly some problems in communication and informing
residents although they were unlikely to change their fundamental
objections to the works. Arrangements for minimising the intrusion of
traffic signal installations, particularly at South Street-Uppingham Road
junction, and relocating the road hump referred to by Mr Duncan could
have been handled more effectively by the developer’s consultant, and in
fact the developer had to be brought in directly in order to agree payment
for the cost of the alteration.


Traffic Calming Scheme London Road Uppingham
5.19  According to scheme records and the interview with the Head of Highways
and Transportation the traffic calming scheme on London Road,
Uppingham was installed for two reasons:-
•  To facilitate access to adjoining residential development
•  To support a Safer Routes to School scheme intended to reduce
vehicular speeds to a level less likely to cause fatal injury in the event of a
collision with a pedestrian
5.20  Initially a mini-roundabout for the development access was approved but
this was not fully effective. The matter was considered by the Planning,
Highways and Transportation Committee on 21 September 2000 which
noted that London Road was identified as having the third highest
accident rate relating to school pupils within the County. Following detailed
consideration the Committee agreed to provide a combined scheme
involving speed tables either side of the mini-roundabout and either side of
the pelican crossing on the brow of the hill. It is not clear from the reports
whether the issue of noise to adjoining properties was addressed at that
time.
5.21  Scheme consultation had commenced on 31 August 2000, and views
received, including those of the Uppingham Town Council, which had
considered the matter the previous day, were reported to meeting. The
Town Council did not object to the scheme but raised concerns about
some matters of detail.  
5.22  The matter was reconsidered by the Committee on 30 November 2000 in
the light of continuing strong objections from the Police and Fire Service
who were concerned about potential delays to emergency services. The
minutes of the meeting note that Members were advised at this meeting of
the ‘down side’ to the introduction of speed reduction measures, namely
the noise and vibration that could be caused by vehicles negotiating the
speed tables. It was noted that most complaints however emanated from
road humps and not speed tables. Following further consideration the
Committee resolved that despite the objections from the Police and Fire
Service the scheme be progressed.

5.23  Examination of scheme correspondence records indicates significant
concerns from local residents, particularly from the new development,
about noise and some wider concerns about the diversion route for traffic
during the construction of the works. Some of local residents’ concerns
are summarised below:-


•  June 2002. Residents in Old School Mews, Springback Way,
Leamington Terrace and  South View. Concerned that noise and
vibration was worse.
•  July 2002. Concerned about safety, especially for cycles
•  July 2002. Concerns about noise, and why not other options, cameras
etc considered. Evidence from elsewhere that ‘expensive traffic
calming often gets removed’
•  July 2002. Concerned about noise and asked that this be monitored.
Why not remove the ‘uphill’ ramps, why no 30mph repeaters, why not
20mph limit.
•  August 2002. Could not the ‘uphill’ humps be removed.
•  August 2002, and continuing correspondence to date, also with
Department for Transport. Concerns about ‘jolting’ and faulty design,
technical questions about effectiveness of sinusoidal units
•  December 2002. Noise, drainage, maintenance problems.
5.24  Concern expressed by some correspondents is of a technical nature,
questioning whether the scheme is legal and designed consistently with
current good practice and questioning the effectiveness of the sinusoidal
block used. One resident has also pursued these arguments directly with
the Department for Transport.
5.25  On this specific point there is no doubt that the scheme is legal. Its design,
dimensions and construction are consistent with required standards and
with current practice. The research information provided by the
Department for Transport and seen by the resident concerned suggests
that the sinusoidal blocks may reduce noise and discomfort to some road
users, but these affects overall are probably marginal. They are also likely
to be more durable than alternative forms of construction at this particular
site.  
5.26  The central concern of correspondents however relates to whether
sufficient thought was given, during the development of the scheme, to the
affects of additional noise and its possible mitigation. Also to whether the
Council is sufficiently sensitive to their continuing concerns in seeking
further measures to mitigate these. These matters are more subjective.
5.27  There is certainly evidence that the Committee were aware of the potential
‘downside’ of the scheme in terms of noise generation when it was
approved, but in the absence of detailed records it is not possible to judge


the relative weight given to this. However, road safety was a clear priority
for the Committee and the Council as a whole, given the strong support for
this expressed in the Countywide residents surveys, and this clearly
influenced the decision in this case.
5.28  Site inspection and examination of scheme records confirm that the
scheme is achieving its prime objectives, namely to facilitate safe access
to the new development and to reduce the speed of traffic to a level
approaching 20 mph, which would mitigate potential pedestrian injury. In
fact, accident records indicate that since the installation of the scheme
personal injury accidents at the site appear to have been virtually
eliminated.
5.29  There is no doubt however that this success has been achieved at the
expense of some environmental deterioration to residents of adjoining
premises, who continue express their concerns. The traffic and physical
characteristics of the site are contributing to higher levels of noise and
disturbance than would normally be the case for similar traffic calming
schemes in less difficult locations, and where residents’ initial concerns
tend to be less enduring.  In these circumstances, and bearing in mind the
extent of the schemes success, it would not be unreasonable to review the
position to assess whether some modification to the scheme might be
possible in order to mitigate to some extent these effects without
compromising unduly the road safety benefits secured. It should be
stressed that any such action would be entirely discretionary. There is no
legal obligation on the Council to pursue this course of action which could
of course have some financial implications.
 
North Street East Uppingham Traffic Island
5.30  The traffic island under construction at the junction of North Street East
and Seaton Road is part of the wider measures in Uppingham to
accommodate increased bus service provision and consequent passenger
interchange within the town. The traffic island proposal was developed
following a letter of 1 February 2002 on behalf of 13 residents, concerned
about buses using the ‘cut through’ from North St East to High St East as
a turning route. The letter was confirmation of earlier complaints since the
new Rutland Flyer service had started using the route on 1 September
2001. Apparently 22 buses were passing per day at a rate of 2 per hour
from 07.25 until 18.25. The letter expressed concern that there had been
no consultation with residents about the increased use of the ‘cut through’.
It was understood that the Council were considering a mini roundabout at
the junction of Seaton Road and North St East, which would ‘obviously
provide the ideal solution’

5.31  Consultations took place with the Uppingham Town Council about the
scheme as part of the wider bus interchange proposals and on 20 March
2002 a meeting of the Town Council representatives resolved to
recommend to the Town Council that ‘support be given to the proposal to
build a roundabout which would ‘enable buses to turn safely and make the
junction easier to negotiate for other road users’
5.32  Further details of the scheme were provided to the Town Council on 29
July 2002. ‘The design can be seen as a double island system with
blocked access between the two. This will encourage traffic to travel the
correct pattern around the roundabout. It is felt that a single island may
encourage traffic to cut across the front of other junctions in a way that
may be dangerous to other road users. The island will allow enough space
for buses to turn around which will eliminate the need to use the island of
houses at the bottom of High Street. A number of complaints have been
received from residents in these houses. The scheme should also aid
traffic calming and slow down vehicles entering the town from the A47’
5.33   On 28 August 2002 the Town Council resolved that the bus terminus
incorporating the new roundabout proposals as indicated on drawing No
02/30/1 be implemented. On 11 October 2002 a detailed plan and
description of the roundabout was provided to the Town Council, which
subsequently on 29 October 2002 opposed the bus interchange but made
no further comment on the roundabout.
5.34  Construction of the scheme commenced in late February 2003 and on 11
March 2003 a letter was received from two residents expressing concern
that there had been no consultation on the detail of the scheme which they
had expected to be unobtrusive and like two mini roundabouts joined
together. They were concerned at the size and scale of the roundabout
which they understood was to have 5 illuminated chevron signs plus 5
blue signs with white arrow,  all of which were to be 1m to 1.5 m in height.
The Chief Executive replied 20 March 2003 responding to most of the
concerns but confirming the intention to continue with the works. He noted
that it was ‘not always possible to consult on an individual basis with all
those local residents and other road users who may be affected as staff
resources are just not available. A further letter of 24 March 2003 has
been received from the two residents elaborating on their concerns
including a report of an accident.
5.35  It is ironic that the residents originally contacting the council about the use
of the ‘cut through’ by buses and whom the scheme was intended to
benefit now appear to be dissatisfied by the outcome, which is clearly not
the scale of construction that they were expecting.


5.36  It is clear that the original intention of the Highways service was also to
contain the scale of the project both for financial and environmental
reasons. A mini roundabout option was initially drawn up, and a letter to
Leicester City Council on 6 January 2003 requesting advice on upgraded
lighting noted that ‘Although we are providing a roundabout in this
junction, it is purely to facilitate a means for the buses to turn round and
not due to high volumes of traffic or accident remedial works. Therefore
would you please keep the design to the minimum standards in order to
accommodate the wishes of the local residents’
5.37  The reasons for rejecting the mini roundabout on road safety grounds
resulting from the junction configuration and moving to the current design
are technically sound.  Providing the low level chevron blocks will enable
the omission of the 5 illuminated chevron signs referred to in the recent
letter from residents and the complaint from Mr Duncan, but not the blue
and white arrows which will still be required.  The decision to lay the
blocks at the steepest permitted angle of 50% rather than minimum of
33% was taken to maximise the area available for planting which would
seem to be reasonable in the circumstances.
5.38  On the evidence available the Town Council would seem to have had no
objections on the roundabout despite its objections to the other aspects of
the bus interchange proposals.
5.39  This leaves the issue of the nature and extent of consultations or
information provision to local residents, which has also been raised as an
issue on other schemes. The Chief Executive indicated in his letter of 20
March 2003 that it was ‘not always possible to consult on an individual
basis with all local residents and road users who may be affected as staff
resources are just not available’. This begs the question of in what
circumstances it would be possible – or advisable and this broader issue
of consultation is addressed later in this report.
 
North Street East Uppingham Bus Interchange
5.40  The bus interchange proposals have not been raised directly as a
complaint by Mr Duncan neither do they appear to feature in letters to the
press following the complaint. They are however indirectly relevant to this
investigation as they are the source of Mr Duncan’s allegation that he was
misled by the Head of Highways and Transportation about the existence
of the proposals, and the Town Council has also strongly objected to the
detail of the scheme. In these circumstances it is considered appropriate
to review the circumstances.
5.41  Discussions about the need for bus interchange facility, bearing in mind
the increased number of vehicles  and expected further increases were


opened with the Town Council by letter on 5 December 2001 and a
subsequent meeting 9 January 2002 which appears to have resulted in an
‘initial positive response’
5.42  Correspondence from a local businessman in April June and July 2002
welcomed the increased public transport but drew attention to problems
caused outside premises including adverse comments from customers.
Regular correspondence has since continued. His concerns were
supported by a letter from Leicestershire Police of 1 October 2002
attaching a report from the traffic warden.  ‘Bus drivers using an area of no
waiting as an interchange and proprietor of Uppingham Yarns is
concerned at affect on trade and customers’ access and egress. Please
look at as matter of urgency’ The Police were subsequently advised that a
scheme was being investigated.
5.43  There was further correspondence with the Police during January 2003
including a report from the local Sergeant. Following further discussions
and a meeting the Police confirmed on 18 February 2003 that there were
no formal objections but still some concerns about the overall concept of
the interchange and periodic potential traffic problems.
5.44  A series of correspondence and meetings took place with the Uppingham
Town Council about the proposals, which culminated on 29 October 2002
with the Town Council rejecting the proposals on grounds of excessive
narrowing of the road to a dangerous extent. There were further robust
exchanges between the County Council and the Town Council, including
modifications to the detailed design of the scheme to minimise the
reduction of carriageway width and facilitate bus manoeuvrability, but the
Town Council continued its opposition, and in a letter of 3 March 2003
asked that it be reconsidered. On 6 March the Director of Environmental
Services replied that, following consideration by Cabinet, no further
changes would be made and the scheme would be implemented in the
latest form as agreed by Members.
5.45  There were also concerns about the accuracy, scale and detail of the
initial plans for the scheme which were amplified in correspondence from
a resident. This correspondence continued until a final letter on 3 March
2003 to the Director of Environmental Services, ‘I believe that this
correspondence has now reached its natural end and I must thank you for
your responses to my expressions of concern. I can only hope that your
solution to the problems associated with the bus interchange scheme
prove to be in the best interests of all concerned with its usage despite my
very real doubts. Please convey my appreciation and regards to Mr Ainley
and his colleagues’.


5.46  Although there appears to be general agreement about the need for
measures to accommodate more effectively the additional bus provision,
facilitate passenger interchange and deal with the problems faced by
Uppingham Yarns, it has clearly been more difficult to achieve consensus
on the detail of a suitable scheme.
5.47  Developing such schemes within such constrained circumstances always
involves difficult compromises between technical standards and
practicality, and tensions between stakeholders are not unusual.  Early
disagreements about the nature and scale of initial drawings could
probably have been avoided, but the scheme now proposed by the County
Council, including the modifications referred to would seem to be a
reasonable outcome in all the circumstances.
 
Paving, Signing  and Kerbing Issues
5.48  The location and colour of tactile paving at crossing points for the benefit
of disabled people is the subject of close regulation by the Department for
Transport. Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces 1998 requires
that:-
•  The red blister surface should be used at controlled crossings only
(Zebras, Pelicans, Puffins and Toucans and Traffic Signals with
pedestrian phases)
•  At uncontrolled crossings the blister surface colour should be buff,
or any colour other than red, which provides a contrast with the
surrounding footway surface
•  Where the blister surface is provided in conservation areas or in the
vicinity of a listed building some relaxation of the colour
requirements may be acceptable. This relaxation does not extend
to the use of red at uncontrolled crossing points. Before any
decision is taken by the local authority discussions should take
place with local groups of visually impaired people and mobility
officers and the local conservation officer.
5.49  This guidance suggests that it could have been possible to provide blister
surface colouring other than red in certain sensitive locations, for example
in the vicinity of Catmose, which is a listed building. The red colouration
has faded with time and replacement is probably only justifiable in the
case of any further disruption or need for future maintenance but the
flexibility in choice of material could be applied in any new cases.
5.50  General rules concerning the positioning and mounting of signs are given
in the Traffic Signs Manual 1986. The following are the key points:-


  Normally signs should be erected so that the lower edge of the
sign is between 900mm and 1,500mm above the carriageway level
alongside, the higher mounting height being used where spray is
excessive and likely to soil the sign.
•  In areas where signs are erected above footways a minimum
height of 2,100mm is recommended.
•  When supplementary plates are used the height should be to the
lower edge of the bottom of the plate.
•  Generally not more than two warning signs should be mounted on
one post. When a sign is accompanied by a supplementary plate
the sign and plate are regarded as one sign for this purpose.
Exceptionally three warning signs may be mounted on one post
provided none requires a supplementary plate.
•  Warning signs must not be mounted on the same post as a STOP
or GIVE WAY sign. When mounted with other types of sign the
triangular warning signs should always be mounted on top.
•  Generally no sign assembly should exceed 3.75 metres in height
above ground level
5.51  As indicated, the regulations provide quite extensive flexibility in the
mounting height of signs and also on the shared use of posts. In general
environmental considerations would suggest that mounting heights should
be as low as possible and posts as few as possible consistent with safety
requirements. Observations in most highway authority areas will quickly
identify significant scope for improvements in this field and the situation in
Rutland appears to be no worse and probably better than many others.
Reductions in signing ‘clutter’ usually tend to be made as opportunities
arise rather than as a specific project, and the installation of countywide
HGV signing would seem to present a reasonable opportunity for this.
5.52  The new kerbing at Seaton-Bisbrooke crossroads was installed by the
term contractor on the instructions of the area highway inspector to deal
with verge damage being caused by lorries resulting from the temporary
diversion of traffic during the works on London Road Uppingham, and also
to deal with water causing edge erosion.
5.53  It is not the policy of the Highways Service to install kerbing in rural
locations unless there is a very clearly defined need and a number of
requests from Parish Councils for such kerbing have not been approved.
Subjective observations would appear to confirm that the incidence of
such ‘rural’ kerbing is relatively low compared to other adjoining Councils.
6  REVIEW OF IDENTIFIED GENERAL CONCERNS
Satisfaction with the Highways Service

6.1  A key aspect of the concerns expressed by Mr Duncan is that there is a
high level of public dissatisfaction with the Highways service. Assessing
the extent of user and community satisfaction has been a fundamental
issue for the recently concluded Best Value Review of Highways and
Transportation and the results would not appear to support his view.
6.2  The Councils’s Multi-Service User Satisfaction Survey (MSUS) undertaken
in Spring 2002 based on responses from over 1600 residents selected at
random indicated a net satisfaction rate (those satisfied less those
dissatisfied) for highway services generally of 55% and for highway
maintenance of 25%. This compares very favourably with figures for other
councils from MORI surveys and in fact would place Rutland in second
place behind Dorset (28%), just ahead of Leicestershire (22%) and well
ahead of such councils as Kent (-20%) and Derbyshire (-21%).
6.3  Even stronger support was expressed by the meeting of Stakeholders
held at the commencement of the Best Value Review which, admittedly
from a smaller sample, produced a net satisfaction rating of 81% for the
condition of roads, 63% for the quality and helpfulness of response to
enquiries, and 63% for the quality of service provided.
6.4  Turning to objective measurements of highway condition the National Best
Value Performance Indicators for the condition of both principal and nonprincipal roads place the authority in the best quartile compared with other
highway authorities in England.

6.5  Further details of surveys and relative performance information are
contained in the report of the Best Value Review.
Consultation and Information
6.6  There is less objective information about relative satisfaction with
consultation and information about planned works but the Best Value
stakeholder meeting indicated a net 32% being well informed about these.
This compares with a figure of (-22%) for Leicestershire but based on a
much larger and more representative sample. It is also clear that the
Council does comply with its statutory obligations for consultation in
respect of traffic regulation and evidence of wider consultation on
significant schemes.
6.7  There is undoubtedly however some mismatch between present practice
and residents’ expectations for consultation, which is the case for many
authorities. This may be exacerbated in Rutland by some lack of clarity
about the nature and extent of consultation by the Council in particular
circumstances, and about the extent of information provision to those
directly affected in advance of works commencing. There are also


differences in the approaches of Parish and Town Councils in
disseminating information to local residents. It is understood that the
Director of Environmental Services is presently reviewing policies and
practice for consultation to address these issues, which will clearly be
helpful.
6.8  There were very specific problems, summarised earlier in this report, in
relation to the Tesco development relating to failings in performance of the
developer’s consultant, but lessons have been learned and such problems
are unlikely to be repeated.
6.9  In relation to the specific issue raised by Mr Duncan about consultation or
with Town or Parish Councils or others about the detailed location of traffic
signs this would not be the normal practice of any highway authority
unless there were special circumstances, for example the possibility of
fixing a sign to premises, or where there was potential for very significant
intrusion to adjoining property.
Technical Competence
6.10  The Council should have no concerns about the technical competence of
its Highways and Transportation service and its employees. They are
appropriately qualified, experienced and supported by external specialist
expertise where necessary.
6.11  They are not, of course, perfect. Errors can occur in the best of
organisations, and systems and procedures are always capable of
improvement. Indeed a range of areas for such improvement has been
identified by the Best Value Review.
6.12  The Review has also highlighted the need to address some continuing
recruitment difficulties within the Highways and Transportation Service
which has lead to some problems of capacity relative to community
expectations, also referred to in the interview with the Head of Planning
services.
    Policy and Practice
6.13  Strategic policy for the Highways service is defined in the Local Transport
Plan, which also establishes the basis for Government funding.
Operational policy and practice is set out in a Highway Procedures Manual
supplemented other guidance, for example, to intending developers.
Together these provide a relevant policy and practice framework for the
service but again the Best Value Review has indicated areas for
improvement.


6.14  There is an issue, highlighted by the Portfolio Holder, about the merits of
exploring with officers the possibilities and implications of greater flexibility
in policy and technical advice in seeking to reconcile traffic safety and
environmental concerns in the development and design of schemes in
conservation and other sensitive areas. This would seem to be a helpful
approach.
Information Briefing and Correspondence
6.15  In relation to the specific complaint by Mr Duncan that he was ‘wilfully
mislead’ about constituents’ questions concerning proposed works in
Uppingham, the Head of Highways and Transportation has indicated that
he had no such intention. It is also difficult to see what would have been
gained by such a course of action, as Mr Duncan’s extreme annoyance at
any such misleading and the consequences of this would have been fairly
predictable. It is therefore more likely that any error was one of ‘omission’
rather than ‘commission’.
6.16  Having said that, Mr Duncan’s annoyance in this instance is
understandable. All elected representatives are heavily reliant on officers’
briefing for the effective delivery of their public representative role, and
officers should appreciate the importance of making every effort to provide
them with accurate and comprehensive information. It would have prudent
to err on the side of providing rather more information than was sought,
particularly when such potentially controversial matters were involved.
6.17  The source of Mr Duncan’s complaint about the ‘surly’ style of response is
difficult to determine. All letters to him, even if partially drafted by the Head
of Highways and Transportation have been approved either by the Chief
Executive or the Director of Environmental Services, neither of whom have
been identified for criticism, and indeed the letters appear quite correct in
style and tone. An analysis of the correspondence indicates that out of 14
items during the last 2 years, about 50% refer to matters relevant to this
investigation, a relatively small sample.      
6.18  There has been direct communication between Mr Duncan and the Head
of Highways and Transportation on only two occasions, and even if both of
these had been unsatisfactory, again the sample of transactions is very
small.
  7 CONCLUSIONS
7.1  Before summarising the conclusions of this report it is important to restate
that the investigation has not sought to review in detail all of the practices
and processes of the Highways and Transportation service. This is the
function of the Best Value Review.


7.2  The investigation has sought to establish the extent to which the
complaints made by Mr Duncan, broadly concerning technical
competence, scheme implementation, environmental sensitivity, and
nature and style of communication are fair and reasonable in all the
circumstances.
7.3  Conclusions of the investigation detailed in this report are summarised as
follows:-
1.  Overall there is a high level of user and community satisfaction with the
Highways and Transportation service, which compares well with other
authorities.
2.  Consultation on highway schemes is consistent with statutory
requirements and practice of other authorities. Measures are in hand to
provide improved clarity and consistency.
3.  There are no concerns about technical competence, but some
recruitment problems affecting capacity, which have been addressed
by the Best Value Review.
4.  Policy and practice documentation is satisfactory, but it would be
helpful to explore the scope for greater flexibility in seeking to reconcile
traffic safety and environmental concerns in the development and
design of schemes in conservation and other sensitive areas.
5.  There was no intention to ‘wilfully mislead’ but it would have been
prudent to err on the side of providing rather more information than
was sought, particularly when such potentially controversial matters
were involved.
6.  There is no evidence of a ‘surly’ response to enquiries.
7.  The HGV signing scheme installation has sought to reduce
environmental intrusion, but the level of supervision was less than
would normally have been provided and there is scope for further
rationalisation.
8.  Problems relating to the highway implications of the Tesco
development were the result of failures by the developer’s consultants
and not the Highways service, which made considerable efforts to
resolve them.
9.  The Traffic Calming scheme on London Road Uppingham is legal,
consistent with required standards and with current practice and is

achieving its road safety objectives. This success has been achieved
however at the expense of some environmental deterioration to
residents of adjoining premises and it would not be unreasonable to
consider whether some modification might be possible in order to
mitigate to some extent these effects without compromising unduly the
road safety benefits secured.

10. The reasons for rejecting a mini roundabout option at North Street East
Uppingham and adopting the current design are technically sound.

11. The revised proposals for the bus interchange on North Street East
Uppingham are technically sound and an improvement on the initially
proposed scheme.
12. Blister surfacing to assist disabled people could have been provided in
colouring other than red in sensitive locations, for example in the
vicinity of Catmose.
13. Signing ‘clutter’, variations in mounting height, and the use of kerbing
in rural locations are generally similar or better than in adjoining
authorities.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1  Although the complaints made by Mr Duncan are considered to be
generally unfounded, the investigation has identified some areas where
improvements could be made. The recently completed Best Value Review
of Highways and Transportation has also identified an action plan for
improvement.
8.2  If maximum value is to be obtained from this investigation it will be
important to reconcile the identified differences as quickly as possible,
learning from the experience and seeking to move forward in a spirit of
improved co-operation. The following recommendations are intended to
facilitate this process:-
1.  This report should form the basis of a facilitated discussion involving
Mr Duncan and senior management of the Highways service in order
to review its findings and to establish the basis for improved mutual
understanding and co-operation.
2.  The Best Value Review Improvement Plan together with the identified
financial investment should be implemented to support continuous
improvement of the service.

3. The initiative by the Director of Environmental Services to improve the
clarity and consistency of consultation procedures and practice should
be supported and completed as soon as possible.
4. A workshop should be held involving Members and Officers from both
Highways and Planning services to explore the possibilities for greater
flexibility in policy and technical advice in seeking to reconcile traffic
safety and environmental concerns in the development and design of
schemes in conservation and other sensitive areas and to agree a way
forward.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
9.1 The conduct of this investigation has been greatly assisted by the
approach of officers from the Highways and Transportation service in
responding promptly and constructively to all requests for information.
Additional information and assistance has been provided by other senior
officers referred to in the report, the Portfolio Holder and also by Mr
Duncan who promptly provided clarification and further information relating
to his concerns.
Mike Kendrick OBE C Eng MICE FIHT
7 April 2003