Agenda item

The Chairman invited Mr Edser to present the report on the Highway Network Recovery and Community Infrastructure Levy Programme 2022/23.

Mr Edser noted that the report contained the following errors in the tables provided at Appendix A: Proposed Carriageway and Footway Works by Wards for Year 8 of the Network Recovery Programme – 2022/23:

• Page 38 – Brent Street Section Length (m) 32 should read Queens Road Section Length 32
• Page 38 – Queens Road Section Length (m) 60 should read Barnet Road Section Length 60.

The Chairman enquired about the Brent Cross Year 8 Priority List – it was unclear whether this is highlighting the same area and funding as noted in the earlier section of the report: ‘Queens Road’ in West Hendon. Mr Edser would check this and respond following the meeting.

Action: Mr Edser

The Chairman reported that Blakeney Close, Totteridge (Page 42) had been discussed following a Ward Walk. As there is no house on one side of the road it was felt that the pathway was not essential on that side; also it had frequently needed repair due to lorries not having sufficient space to pass, and driving on the pavement.  A discussion would take place on whether to widen the road instead. 

The Chairman noted that discussions were underway on whether a smaller section of pavement could be left on one side of Coppice Walk than on the side with residential homes.

To cover the cost of this the scheme on Barnet Lane (page 45) would be reduced, leaving out some sections.

Cllr Cornelius requested that in future reports, details are listed in order of Ward alphabetically. Also the specific area is not clear in the report, eg near to which house numbers. The Chairman responded that this information can be provided individually to Ward members once formalised.

Cllr Cornelius asked about sealing materials as previous repairs had not always been successful. Mr Edser would ask the materials expert to provide the specifications on the materials for sealing.

Action: Mr Edser

Cllr Cooke also noted that the order of priorities was unclear. The Chairman noted that future reports would include lists in alphabetical Ward order. Mr Edser noted that all the maintenance work listed had been costed and would go ahead, although details on at which point during the year could not be provided due to the complexity of the programme management, which is developed in consultation with Tarmac Kier. He assured Cllr Cooke that none of the listed entries would be removed from the programme. 

Action: Mr Edser

Cllr Schneiderman enquired about the rationale for whether a road is included in the Brent Cross section of the funding or not. For example, it was unclear why the footway in Cheviot Gate is included in the Brent Cross list as it is a small cul-de-sac whereas Claremont Road is included in the carriageway list.

Mr Edser responded that around £75k CIL funding had been allocated for the roads and footways near to Brent Cross (table 5.23). This had been cross-referenced with the relevant Ward. Discussions had taken place with Ward Members to ensure that bigger schemes had been aligned to NRP funding for specific Wards.

Cllr Jajeh enquired about the contractor’s capacity to undertake the work. Mr Edser responded that officers had been overseeing the programme from the start together with Tarmac Kier. Tarmac Kier is ready to commence when the work programme is approved.

The Chairman moved to a vote on the officer’s five recommendations as outlined in the report, which were unanimously APPROVED.

RESOLVEDthat the officer’s recommendations were approved.