Agenda item

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Place)

To consider the above petition, bearing 14 signatures, which has been submitted by Councillor Taylor, an Earlsdon Ward Councillor, who has been invited to the meeting for consideration of this item along with the petition organiser.

The Cabinet Member for City Services considered a report of the Cabinet Member for City Services that responded to a petition requesting the resurfacing of pavements in the Firs Cul-de-sac. The petition, bearing 14 signatures, had been submitted by an Earlsdon Ward resident, who attended the meeting and spoke in support of the petition. Councillor Taylor, the Councillor Sponsoring the Petition and an Earlsdon Ward Councillor, also attended the meeting and spoke on behalf of the petitioners. The report had been requested by the Petition Spokesperson, following receipt of a determination letter, a copy of which was attached as an Appendix to the report that advised of the investigations undertaken, the action proposed and approved in response to the issues raised.

The report indicated that the Firs cul-de-sac was a small no through road and the pavements provided local property access serving eight properties. There was low pedestrian usage as there were no linking routes, either pedestrian or vehicular via this road. It was subject to parking restrictions by way of double and single yellow lines. A location plan was attached as a further Appendix to the report.

Records showed that the last annual programmed safety inspection took place on the 17th July 2018 at which time only two minor defects were identified which required attention and repair. Following receipt of the Petition an engineer made a further visit on 25th September 2018 to make an assessment of the construction and overall condition of the pavements. It was noted that the pavements were one metre in width restricted to less at various locations by overhanging vegetation from the private properties. The pavements were predominately tarmac with some recent reinstatements. The pavements were aged and although not aesthetically pleasing at the time of inspection, there were no intervention level defects identified. 

Following the engineer’s assessment, and given the current condition and usage, the recommended treatment would be reconstruction of the pavements. This would be held as a site on Coventry City Council’s forward programme list and the condition of the pavements would continue to be monitored and scored against all other similar sites citywide. If a priority score was reached it would be included in a future capital funded improvement programme. This was a consistent approach that was taken for the prioritisation of footway schemes across the City.

Councillor Taylor referred to the citeria applied to assess the condition of pavements. He was concerned that residents did not understand what the ‘standard’ was and what score was reached in order to identify pavements for repair. 

The Petition Spokesperson outlined the concerns of the residents indicating that the paving had been deteriorating over many years and, although the kerb stones were in good condition, much of the paving and/or tarmac had broken up or come loose. The effects of the winter weather and cars visiting the local school and parked along the pavements, had exacerbated the problem and the loose stones were now a tripping hazard and were unsafe.

The Council’s Highways Technical Services Manager explained that on a safety inspection, Inspectors would identify anything 20mm or greater in depth, and slightly deeper on the highway, as in need of repair work. Independent Surveyors and the City Council’s own Surveyors made annual inspections of pavements applying a scoring system to prioritise intervention work. Although pavements at The Firs were old and tired and in some places were significantly narrowed by residents’ overgrown shrubbery that required cutting back, the road had only scored 14 against others that had scored much higher, 33 being the highest score recorded. Having regard to the Council’s limited budget for this work, criteria had to be applied to ensure that the areas in the poorest condition were dealt with as a priority.

The Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member acknowledged that there were many streets across the City with paving in poor condition but confirmed that budget restrictions required that criteria be applied for intervention level defects to be identified.

The Cabinet Member requested that Highway Inspectors re-visit The Firs to meet with the petition organiser and make appropriate arrangements for the area to be swept of loose or broken paving.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for City Services:

1)  Notes the petitioners concerns.

2)  Endorses that the actions confirmed by determination letter to the petition spokesperson, as detailed in point 1 of the determination letter set out in Appendix B to the report.

3)   Agrees that a Highways Inspector meets with the Petition Organiser on site and that appropriate arrangements are made for the area to be swept of loose or broken paving.