Kings Ripton Parish Council Meeting
M7
A meeting of Kings Ripton Parish Council was held at Kings Ripton Village Hall, School lane, Kings Ripton, PE28 2NL on Tuesday 14 January 2014 at 7pm.
Present: Councillors Ros Townsend (Chairman), Philip Rayner, Rebecca Rayner, District Councillor Robin Howe, County Councillor Michael Tew and several members of the public.
1. RESIGNATION OF CHAIRMAN
Clerk had received a letter of resignation from Mr Toates. It was agreed that a letter should be sent to thank him for his services and efforts to the village.
2. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Brian Petre.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There was no declaration of interest.
Chairman suspended the meeting for public participation.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr Collett reported that the seat on the village green needed maintenance and staining. Councillors Rayner would obtain a quote.
Chairman re-opened the meeting.
5. MINUTES
Copies of the minutes held on 27 Nov 13(M6) had been circulated following their informal approval by the Chairman. It was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED to approve the minutes as a correct record and were duly signed by the Chairman.
6. REPORTS FROM DISTRICT AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS
DISTRICTICT COUNCILLOR HOWE
Councillor Howe talked about current finances. There were still constraints and cost reductions of £5.5M were being discussed. These were caused by cuts from Central Government. This would impact on services but no decisions had yet been made. The DC had previously made £8M in savings in the waste management area; this was cost reduction unseen by the customer. Looking at combining some services with Bedford and Cambridgeshire. Now being negotiated at county level.
COUNTY COUNCILLOR TEW
Councillor Tew reported that the County Council had to save £149M over the next four years. He also suggested that once the outcome of the Road Improvement bid was known then the way forward could be discussed. Maybe a mobile flashing sign.
7. SPEED REDUCTION AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Carried over to the next meeting.
8. 7.5T SIGN BROUGHTON END OF VILLAGE
It was noted that lorries were ignoring the 7.5T sign and still driving through the village. It was suggested that the name of the haulier and licence number (if possible) was obtained and reported to the police. Also a note in the RAN to this effect. Councillor Tew said he would find out where the 7.5T signs are and report back.
9. ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEME
A road improvement scheme was submitted based on the village questionnaire. E Ricks had a 3 minute slot to present the report to the panel at HDC. The report included:
Traffic volume increased.
Traffic calming not successful.
Drivers ignore signs.
School children being picked up/dropped off at risk crossing road.
Public footpath over a narrow bridge.
North, a blind bend; South, dangerous crossroads.
Several accidents/near misses.
Wing mirrors of cars/vans/lorries overhang on narrow footpaths.
Copy attached. (see below)
10. PARISH PLAN
Questionnaire given to every household.
Collected about 50 houses.
Shared out tasks.
Road was the highest scoring.
Suspect there will be more traffic due to the development at Upwood.
Councillor Howe suggested to meet with other parishes to share experiences and best practice. Maybe sometime in March come together.
11. VILLAGE HALL SHED
Email to Michael Krause to get an update also mention the handrail.
Update at the next meeting.
12. SGP 2014 LICENCE APPLICATION
Clerk gave the councillors the ring binder detailing the application. This needed to be passed round and comments in by 04 Feb14. It was also noted that the footpaths closed early. It was suggested that this was unnecessary.
13. TREE CUTTING
Quote from Dodsons had been received. It was unanimously agreed to proceed.
14. PLANNING APPLICATION
Parish council commented as follows:
Application 1301834LBC
The application for conversion creates a small dwelling whether used for the applicant’s family or other uses. The kings Ripton ~Parish Council have no objection to the conversion of the building, which could enhance the future use of the barn. Considering the proposed additional occupation, there are safety concerns regarding the access onto the Ramsey Road which has fast commuting traffic. Measures to reduce the risk of the traffic and visibility should be considered. The PC would like confirmation that the proposed conversion is for family use only as described and NOT for permanent let.
15. FINANCIAL REPORT
The Nov/Dec 13 accounts were agreed and approved and signed by the Chairman.
The following cheques were agreed and approved for payment:
Cheque 000450 £43.67 Parish Plan expenses
Cheque 000451 £108.60 Clerks Salary & expenses
Cheque 000452 £193.80 Insurance
Cheque 000453 £250 Donation to the RAN
A new bank mandate was completed and signed by the councillors.
16. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION
Councillors noted the emails sent with thanks. Asked the clerk to put details of the E-cops in the RAN.
17. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Councillor R Rayner asked about reporting potholes. Councillor Tew said this was the Highways Dept and could be reported on the web.
Farm paths mowing – reply to be chased by next meeting.
Clerk to arrange a litter pick up through and around the village.
18. NEXT MEETING
Next meeting would be 18 March 2014 at 7pm in the village hall.
Local Highway Improvement Initiative
Funding Application Form
Please complete all sections of this form.
Please note failure to provide adequate information may result in your proposal being discounted, or further information being sought.
Applying Organisation: Community Led Plan Committee (Kings Ripton)
Contact Name: Erica Bishop
Address: Chapel Cottage, School Lane, Kings Ripton, Huntingdon, PE28 2NL
Email: e.ricks@lboro.ac.uk
Telephone: 01487 773447
Location of Proposal: Ramsey Road, Kings Ripton
|
Objectives of Proposal: What would you like to address? What would you like to achieve? (e.g. Speed control, new footway, parking restrictions etc). AIM Reduce speed of traffic passing through the village. The current narrowing at either end of the village is inadequate and much of the through traffic persistently ignores the 30 mph speed limit and often exceed it by excessive amounts, particularly at the lower end of the village. Cars are often travelling much faster as they near the bridge towards the lower end of the village, even though the derestriction sign and narrowing are further on, away from the bridge. There is no pavement or pedestrian allowance on the road over the bridge, and as traffic comes down through the village there is a bend which is sufficient to obscure sight lines for drivers, and pedestrians wishing to cross the road on the footpath are at risk. There have been several accidents and near misses within the village over the past 12 months. A survey has been carried out in the village in preparation for the Community Led Plan which highlights the concern of all respondents about the speed and increasing volume of traffic. An unsuccessful application was made earlier in the year by the Parish Council to install speed cushions in an attempt to address the problems. An additional problem is caused by large lorries ignoring the weight limit (7.5 tons) on the bridge, and because of their size, they create a further hazard for pedestrians using the very narrow footpath in the village. Some have wing mirrors which form an additional hazard narrowly missing pedestrians on the footpath. . PROPOSAL It Is felt that a chicane, similar to those in Grafham, Hilton etc. is the preferred option. These would slow the traffic to a stop, not only at either end of the village, but also in the heart of the village. A widening of the footpath would also be desirable. |
Panels will score each of the proposals received against the following aims of the LHI initiative:
1) Persistent Problems:
The degree to which ongoing difficulties are addressed
2) Road Safety:
The degree to which a proposal could reduce hazards or improve road safety
3) Community Improvement: (social or economic)
The degree to which a proposal addresses something felt to be very important locally.
Each of these aims will be scored in the following way:
Aims 1 – 3
Score 0: Fails to deliver any improvement
Score 1-3: Delivers few of the aims of the LHI initiative
Score 4-6: Delivers some of the aims of the LHI initiative
Score 7-9: Delivers a substantial improvement
Please outline how your proposal fulfills the LHI Initiative aims.
Persistent Problems: e.g. regular speeding in a community or provide parking area
| Persistent problems are experienced in Kings Ripton where traffic speeding through the village is increasing in volume and the speed restrictions are often ignored with a high percentage exceeding 50 mph. We have areas within the village where there is no footpath, and a short section of footpath in the centre of the village is extremely narrow. This makes it very hazardous when walking through the village, particularly with children. |
Road Safety: e.g. improving crossing facilities for pedestrians
|
Road Safety. There is no pedestrian crossing within the village, and in particular there is no provision where a footpath crosses the main road through the village (Ramsey Road) and where the children are dropped off by the school bus. The crossing occurs where the road narrows to cross the bridge over Bury Brook and cars travelling from the Huntingdon end of the village towards Ramsey are often travelling much faster than the 30 mph limit. This represents a clear and present danger to parents and children walking to and from and waiting for the school bus.
|
Community Improvement: e.g. new streetlight or disabled parking spaces
| The installation of two priority/give way islands similar to those provided in Graham and Hilton, and many other villages, would considerably improve road safety and reduce traffic speed within the village. Forcing traffic to halt rather than merely give way at either end of the village would significantly improve safety for all concerned. |
Please attach additional information in support of your application e.g. plans, correspondence. (Maximum of 3 pages)
Financial Contribution:
Can you confirm that you understand that you will be asked to contribute at least 10% of the cost of the scheme.
Yes/
Please note that unless you are able to contribute 10% of the costs your proposal will not be assessed.
The estimated cost of your project: £10,000 (see indicative costs)
Thank you for taking the time to submit your proposal.