Highways
- 20mph zone, West End Area, Morecambe
- Salt and grit supplies
- Cost of maintaining road markings outside Whitefield Primary School
- Damage to vehicles caused by road defects
- Damage to vehicles caused by highway defects
- Cost of erecting a sign on Colne Road, Burnley
- Statistics on potholes in Lancashire, specifically Preston
- Roadworks on Burnley Road, Crawshawbooth
- Road maintenance expenditure
- Safety inspections of Caton Road
- Damage to vehicles caused by road defects
- Heysham to M6 Link Road
- Number attempting to take action against damage caused to vehicles by potholes
- Road condition on Todd Lane North, Walton-le-Dale
- Results of road surveys in 2009/10 for Cobbs Brow Lane and Cobbs Clough Road, Newburgh
- Policies on roadside memorials
- Damage to vehicles caused by potholes
- Adopted privately owned land and unathorised removal of signs from highways
- Number of road traffic accidents to which speed can directly contributed
- Information on cobblestones
- List of 'C' roads in Lancashire
- Traffic count for Preston Road, Lytham
- Potholes in Lancashire
- Road Salt: Ordering, usage, etc
- Winter gritting
- Potholes in East Lancashire and resulting trips/falls
- Gritting on A680 Edenfield to Rochdale
20mph zone, West End Area, Morecambe
| Reference | 787.8 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 08/01/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
I have read in the Morecambe Visitor newspaper that the County intend to introduce a twenty miles per hour speed limit in the West End of Morecambe in the new year.
As a resident and stakeholder I request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the following information:-
the details of any public consultation held on this subject,
where and when any public display of the plans where exhibited
what stakeholders have been consulted, e.g. shopkeepers, bus operators, taxi companies, delivery services, etc.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email, we are now in a position to respond to your enquiry regarding the 20mph speed limit in the West End of Morecambe. We have answered each point of your enquiry below.
The details of any public consultation held on this subject. Public consultation on the original design, which incorporated physical traffic calming features such as junction tables, was carried out in 2002. This consisted of an explanatory brochure which was sent to all properties fronting affected roads, and also to the statutory consultees (see list below). Where and when any public display of the plans where exhibited. There was a one-day public exhibition of the proposals which was organised on behalf of LCC by TMS consultants. This was held at West End Community Centre, Westminster Rd, Morecambe on 29 May 2002 between 9am and 7.30pm. What stakeholders have been consulted, e.g. shopkeepers, bus operators, taxi companies, delivery services. Lancaster City Council
Stagecoach North-West
Police
Fire& Rescue
Ambulance
Relevant County Councillors at that time
Relevant District Councillors at that time
All properties fronting onto affected roads
There has been a considerable amount of consultation and discussion over the traffic calming measures proposed. The difficulties in agreeing suitable measures have resulted in this scheme not progressing at this time.
Subsequently recent developments in other parts of England and subsequent consultations on 20mph speed limits by the Department for Transport have raised the profile of ‘sign only’ 20mph schemes. With this in mind proposals are being prepared for the trial in three areas of Lancashire for ‘sign only’ 20mph treatments, one such area has been identified as West End Morecambe and a cabinet member report is currently being prepared for formal decision. Consequently whilst the local press article indicated that West End area was being considered for 20mph, no formal decision has yet been taken. This is likely to happen in early February and will be subject to the normal statutory consultation and advertising procedures required for all speed limit orders and any representations received will be subject to consideration by the appropriate Lancashire Local or cabinet member.
If you have any queries regarding our response, or you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
|
| Attachments | None |
Salt and grit supplies
| Reference | 787.15 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 29/01/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
I would like to make the following Freedom of Information request
1) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2009? 2) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2008? 3) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2007? 4) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2006? 4) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2005? 5) Was Lancashire County Council given any guidance by Central Government as to the quantities it should order this year? |
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 8th January 2010 in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act we are now in a position to provide you with a response.
1) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2009?
The total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council in 2009/10 was 18,000 tonnes
2) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2008?
The total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council in 2008/9 30,079 tonnes
3) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2007?
The total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council in 2007/8 13,522 tonnes
4) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2006?
The total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council in 2006/7 11,517 tonnes
4) What was the total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council between March and November 2005?
The total tonnage of salt, rock salt and grit ordered by Lancashire County Council in 2005/6 26,789 tonnes
5) Was Lancashire County Council given any guidance by Central Government as to the quantities it should order this year?
Lancashire County Council buy rock salt through a tender process that is renewed every two years. The contract is a stock management contract and the supplier is required to ensure that stock levels do not fall below minimum levels specified for each depot/stockpile. The contract requires that salt stocks are replenished to maximum levels during the summer and the amount of salt needed each year depends on the residual stock levels following the winter. I cannot easily differentiate between the summer deliveries and winter ones. However, the tonnages for salt usage each year, in total, are set out below.
The total stock holding at the beginning of winter. This was a slight increase on the previous year. This is equivalent to just over 7 days’ treatments in the event of heavy persistent snow. A report commissioned by Central Government following the salt supply problems in 2008/9 recommended that all authorities should have sufficient salt stocks for 6 days treatments.
The estimated salt usage so far this year is in excess of 23,000 tonnes.
|
| Attachments | None |
Cost of maintaining road markings outside Whitefield Primary School
| Reference | 787.28 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 04/02/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
I should be grateful if you would let me know:-
1. The cost of maintaining the road markings at this school.
2. The cost of erecting the 'No stopping' signs at the school.
3. Who is responsible for enforcement - if anyone.
The yellow road markings had no effect and the additional signs also have no effect. (See attached photograph which shows a car parked on the markings and has been there since just after 9 am and is still there now).
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 12th January 2010 in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to provide you with a response.
Who is responsible for enforcement - if anyone.
The responsibility for enforcing lies with the police.
The cost of maintaining the road markings at this school.
The cost of maintaining the two road markings at the school is £442.78.
The cost of erecting the 'No stopping' signs at the school
The cost of erecting the 'No Stopping' signs at the school, one on a post and one on an existing lighting column, is £500.06.
|
| Attachments | None |
Damage to vehicles caused by road defects
| Reference | 787.15 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 08/02/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Under the general requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would be grateful if you would provide the following information:
The information I am requesting is:
a) The total number of claims made against the Councils for damage to vehicles caused by road defects for the 2008/9 financial year.
b) The total amount paid to settle claims against the Councils for damage to vehicles caused by road defects for the 2008/9 financial year.
c) The amount councils spend on road repair for the 2008/9 financial year
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 8th January 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to provide you with an interim response.
a) The total number of claims made against the Councils for damage to vehicles caused by road defects for the 2008/9 financial year.
Lancashire County Council have received 289 claims for damage to vehicles caused by road defects during the 2008/09 financial year.
b) The total amount paid to settle claims against the Council for damage to vehicles caused by road defects for the 2008/9 financial year
The total amount paid to settle claims against the Council for damages to vehicles for the financial year 2008/09, to date, is £27,859.96.
We are still in the process of trying to locate the information you have requested in respect of Lancashire County Council's spend on road repair. We shall contact you again when we are in a position to provide you with a final response.
|
|
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
We refer to our email dated 5th February 2010, in which we provided you with an interim response to your Freedom of Information request. We are now in a position to provide you with a final response.
c) The amount councils spend on road repair for the 2008/9 financial year.
The total Highway Maintenance Revenue expenditure for 2008/09 was £27.4m.
|
|
| Attachments | None |
Damage to vehicles caused by highway defects
| Reference | 787.108 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 11/02/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Under the general requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would be grateful if you would provide the following information:
The information I am requesting is:
a) The total number of claims made against the Councils for damage to vehicles caused by road defects for the 2008/9 financial year.
b) The total amount paid to settle claims against the Councils for damage to vehicles caused by road defects for the 2008/9 financial year.
c) The amount councils spend on road repair for the 2008/9 financial year.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 8th February 2010 in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to provide you with a response.
Can you tell me out of the total claims figure you provided how many were successful?
Of the 289 claims received during 2008/09, to the date of our original response, we have settled 110 cases.
|
| Attachments | None |
Cost of erecting a sign on Colne Road, Burnley
| Reference | 787.175 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 10/03/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to know please how much this totally useless sign that cannot be seen by passing drivers has cost to purchase and also to erect.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 2nd March 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Cost of sign including erection was £701.26.
|
| Attachments | None |
Statistics on potholes in Lancashire, specifically Preston
| Reference | 787.168 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date Responded | 15/03/2010 | |||||||||
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
|||||||||
| Request |
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I would like to know statistics regarding the number of potholes on roads in Lancashire, in particular Preston.
I would also like to know what the Council’s plans are to address these road hazards.
Please may I have statistics from before and after the recent cold snap.
|
|||||||||
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email of 27 February, we are now in a position to respond to your enquiry regarding potholes.
The number of potholes and similar defects in Lancashire as a whole and in Preston two months either side of Christmas are as follows: -
In relation to the council’s plans to address the problem, below is a recent media statement about pothole repairs:
County Councillor Keith Young, cabinet member for highways and transport, said: "We recognise that potholes are an issue and have invested an extra £9 million in funding repairs over the last financial year.
"Keeping the county's roads safe is a priority and our engineers carry out regular inspections to identify any faults. They also respond promptly when problems are reported.
"We prioritise potholes that pose a danger to drivers or pedestrians and these are repaired as quickly as possible. All available resources are working on this important task. We also carry out resurfacing schemes, wherever possible, on those roads most severely affected by potholes.
The cost of these works is adequately covered in the highway maintenance budgets both now and going forward."
|
|||||||||
| Attachments | None |
Roadworks on Burnley Road, Crawshawbooth
| Reference | 787.130 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 16/03/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
I would like to know and have exact details of how much work has been carried out in this location.
I would like to know how much of tax payers money in the Loveclough/ Crawshooth location is paid towards the cost of providing gritting
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 16th February 2010 in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above, Act we are now in a position to provide you with a response.
I would like to know and have exact details of how much work has been carried out in this location?
There has been a lot of work carried out on this road. All the works have been essential and it is quite common to split works into schemes and carry out the works over a number of years. There are usually practical and logistical reasons for this, often involving statutory undertakers’ works or other types of highway works.
The various schemes for resurfacing Burnley Rd Rawtenstall are as follows:-
Capital SM schemes (approx £750k)
2004-05 Tup Bridge junction
2005-06 Old Fire Station to Hollins Lane
2006-07 Hollins Lane to Mill Row
2007-08 Forrest Bank to Church Street
2008-09 Forrest Bank to Hollins Way
2009-10 Hollins Way to Mill Row
July 2008 Small section adjacent to Hamer Ave
July 2007 Footway works from Hollins Lane to Mill Row
Dec 2009 Footway works Mill Row to Hollins Way
April 2009 Footway works at Rushbed
Safety Schemes were carried out as follows
2007-08 Tup Bridge to Hollins Lane
2008-09 Mill Row to Hollins Lane
Bridge maintenance works were carried out to Tup Bridge in July/Aug 2009
A retaining wall is currently being repaired – Feb/Mar 2010
I would like to know how much of tax payers money in the Loveclough/Crawshawbooth location is paid towards the cost of providing gritting
The winter service across the whole of Lancashire is funded from the Highway Maintenance budget but it is not a budget limited service and so the service continues after the original budget has been spent. £4.3 million pounds was set aside at the start of the year to pay for the winter service but the cost this winter is likely to be at least £5.3 million. The policy ensures that most of the resources are targeted at East Lancashire where the weather and the topography are the most challenging.
However, there have been national salt supply issues that are outside of the control of the County Council that have limited the response to this winter. The first severe weather event in December 2008 was a national event and seriously depleted the reserves held by all three salt suppliers in the UK. As the situation began to recover, a further national severe weather event in late January exhausted the remaining reserves and reliance was completely on mined salt - Highway Authorities were using salt faster than it could be mined. At this point the Government stepped in and formed the ‘Salt Cell’ working through the Cabinet Office in London. The Salt Cell determined who got salt, and how much, based on returns from Highway Authorities. This meant that those authorities that had made no provision for severe weather got salt at the expense of those like Lancashire who had made provision. The County received virtually no salt deliveries for several weeks. In view of the severe nature of the situation for Lancashire, the County Council delegated authority to the Executive Director for the Environment to modify policy should there be a need. In the event, the weather improved just in time and no modification to policy was necessary, but the winter was the worst since 1995/96.
Although Lancashire had made appropriate provision for salt stockholding, the decision was made to increase stockholding by around 12½% to 18,750 tonnes for the current winter season. This is well in excess of the typical usage for the whole winter season over the past 10 years. In addition, the County Council has arrangements in place to have salt delivered throughout the winter to maintain appropriate salt stock levels and resilience. The quantities of salt used in the last few years are:
2008/9 30,079 tonnes,
2007/8 13,522 tonnes,
2006/7 11,517 tonnes,
2005/6 26,789 tonnes.
The high usage in 2005/6 did not create any salt supply problems as the cold weather was much more regional and so demand for salt around the country was variable.
At the beginning of December 2009, the County Council were fully stocked, to a level in excess of government guidelines for resilience. When the severe weather arrived in mid December, the actions taken to deal with the amount of snow that fell nationally quickly consumed large quantities of salt across the country as well as in Lancashire. It was then forecast that the severe weather was going to last a long time and it was realised that intervention to modify policy was necessary using the delegation of authority approved last winter. The Executive Director and the Cabinet Member authorised policy modifications to no longer treat any roads other than the priority network, to not treat footways and not re-fill grit bins. As the weather deteriorated, reserve salt stocks at suppliers were quickly exhausted with some authorities running out. There was a repeat of the previous winter with highway authorities using salt faster than it could be mined and the Salt Cell was formed again at the beginning of January. Such was the severity of the salt supply situation earlier this year that Central Government, via the Salt Cell, imposed a 50% reduction in salt usage on all highway authorities in order to ration the salt being produced by the suppliers each day. With the continuing cold weather salt stock levels are, today, still precariously low in Lancashire and elsewhere in the country, and the Salt Cell is still controlling salt deliveries and will be for sometime yet. This winter has been the worst since 1981/2.
Prudent management and tight control, not irrational decisions, by County Council staff has ensured that the priority network in Lancashire has generally been maintained clear so far this winter, something that has not been possible everywhere in the country.
|
| Attachments | None |
Road maintenance expenditure
| Reference | 787.143 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 16/03/2010 |
| Response Type |
Partial disclosure, part refusal under section 12(1)
|
| Request |
I would be grateful if you could let me know the following about road maintenance spend.
Original budget as at start of financial year
Mid year budget top ups
Actual spend, split by potholes & patching, resurfacing, surface dressing etc if possible
Major schemes - bid accepted
Major schemes - bid refused
I would be grateful for figures for the five years to 2008/09.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 23rd February 2010 , in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
The requested information is set out below. We can only provide 3 years data because the financial system was different before then and is a much more complex system to extract data from, as such to collate this information would incur a commitment of resources in excess of the limit of £450 set by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (SI No. 3244 of 2004), which equates to 18 hours of work. Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act provides that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request where to do so would exceed such a limit.
All figures relate to carriageways only.
The first set of figures is revenue. SM is resurfacing etc.
Budget (£m) Actual (£m)
2006/07 Patching 3.8 4.8
SM 2.6 2.2
2007/08 Patching 4.0 4.9
SM 2.9 2.9
2008/09 Patching 4.2 5.2
SM 2.9 2.6
The second sets of figures are capital
Budget (£m)
2006/7 SM 6.4
2007/08 SM 8.5
2008/09 SM 21.2
The actual capital figures are not readily available but in each year at least the budget above was spent on resurfacing.
|
| Attachments | None |
Safety inspections of Caton Road
| Reference | 787.206 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 22/03/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Under general requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 I would like to request you to provide the following information regarding the safety inspections of the section of Caton Road approaching the junction with Bulk Road, in the direction towards Lancaster.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 16th March 2010 in which you request the disclosure if information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to provide you with a response.
· Dates of all safety inspections undertaken on the carriageway in the two years preceding 12/03/2010
Please see the attachments to this email which details the information you have requested.
· Details of all carriageway defects identified during safety inspections in the two years preceding 12/03/2010
As above.
· Details of how carriageway safety inspections are undertaken, including whether walked or driven, the speed of the inspection vehicle and the number of persons in the vehicle.
Carriageway inspections in urban areas are carried out on foot
· The intended frequency of carriageway safety inspections.
· Details of all complaints and/or enquiries relating to the carriageway, received in the two years preceding 12/03/2010
· The hierarchy classification.
· The road/section number.
· The defect intervention criteria adopted in relation to the identification of all categories of carriageway potholes
· The time period(s) adopted between identification and repair (temporary and permanent) of all categories of carriageway defects.
For points 4-9, please see the attachments to this email which details the information you have requested.
· Whether or not you the authority has formally adopted all or part of the standards contained within the national code of practice for highways maintenance management.
The council has adopted the majority of the standards contained in the national code of practice for highway maintenance.
|
| Attachments |
Caton Road Classification (word)
Caton Road PEMS (pdf)
Caton Road Safins (pdf)
COP Extract (word)
|
Damage to vehicles caused by road defects
| Reference | 787.208 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 22/03/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
How many public liability claims did the council receive from motorists in 2009 claiming damage to their vehicles as a result of defects (pot holes etc) in the council’s roads?
How many of these claims have been dealt with and how many remain outstanding?
How many of the claims did the council payout on?
What is the total amount the council has paid out as a result of the claims made in 2009?
What was the amount of the payout in each case from 2009?
How many public liability claims did the council receive from motorists in 2008 claiming damage to their vehicles as a result of defects (pot holes etc) in the council’s roads?
How many of these claims have been dealt with and how many remain outstanding?
How many of the claims did the council payout on?
What is the total amount the council has paid out as a result of the claims made in 2008?
What was the amount of the payout in each case from 2008?
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 16th March 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
How many public liability claims did the council receive from motorists in 2009 claiming damage to their vehicles as a result of defects (pot holes etc) in the council’s roads? 295 claims submitted in 2009
How many of these claims have been dealt with and how many remain outstanding? 216 files have been dealt with, leaving 79 outstanding
How many of the claims did the council payout on? Damages were paid on 100 of these cases
What is the total amount the council has paid out as a result of the claims made in 2009? Total Damages for claims made during 2009 = £27,130.10
What was the amount of the payout in each case from 2009? See attached
How many public liability claims did the council receive from motorists in 2008 claiming damage to their vehicles as a result of defects (pot holes etc) in the council’s roads? 345 claims submitted in 2008
How many of these claims have been dealt with and how many remain outstanding? 332 files have been dealt with, leaving 13 outstanding
How many of the claims did the council payout on? Damages were paid on 153 of these cases
What is the total amount the council has paid out as a result of the claims made in 2008? Total Damages for claims made during 2008 = £58,886.42
What was the amount of the payout in each case from 2008? See attached
|
| Attachments |
Attachment (excel)
|
Heysham to M6 Link Road
| Reference | 787.151 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 29/03/2010 |
| Response Type |
Partial disclosure, part refusal under section 42
|
| Request |
You advised that the Leading Counsel was Frances Patterson QC and that the decision to instruct her had been taken by the Deputy County Secretary and Solicitor on the basis of her previous experience in relation to the Lancaster Local Plan Inquiry in 1998/1999, which involved consideration of the proposed M6 link.
Further queries
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 25th February 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
You advised that the Leading Counsel was Frances Patterson QC and that the decision to instruct her had been taken by the Deputy County Secretary and Solicitor on the basis of her previous experience in relation to the Lancaster Local Plan Inquiry in 1998/1999, which involved consideration of the proposed M6 link.
Further queries
Decision taken entirely on merit i.e. previous knowledge of her technical skills and experience of this area of work and appearing at local enquiries.
No, but solicitors are generally aware of the various specialisms of counsel and will use tools such as Waterlows, Legal 500 etc to identify whom they consider to be the right counsel for a particular piece of work.
Max Winterbottom, Chief Executive with Laura Sales (Solicitor dealing with the matter at the time) in conjunction with the client and officers.
No, in 1998/1999 no officer had the job title of Deputy County Secretary & Solicitor.
See answer to 3 above.
See answer to 3 above.
This is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 42 provides that, subject to a public interest test, information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained is exempt from disclosure. In considering the public interest arguments, we acknowledge that, as a general principle, there is a public interest in the County Council being as open and transparent as possible. However, legal professional privilege is an overriding interest which is only likely to be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure in very exceptional circumstances, of which this is not one. Our conclusion is, therefore, that in all the circumstances of this case there is a greater public interest in maintaining the exemption than in providing the information to you.
By way of formal instructions to counsel.
No, see answer to 7 above.
|
| Attachments | None |
Number attempting to take action against damage caused to vehicles by potholes
| Reference | 787.250 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date Responded | 21/04/2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Request |
1. How many people have attempted to take legal action against the county council because of damage to cars or persons caused by potholes in each of the past five years?
2. How have each of these cases been resolved and how much has the council paid out in damages?
3. How many potholes does the council estimate there currently is in the county/ Can this be broken down into the 12 district areas?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 29th March 2010 in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to provide you with a response.
How many people have attempted to take legal action against the county council because of damage to cars or persons caused by potholes in each of the past five years?
Please see below.
How have each of these cases been resolved and how much has the council paid out in damages?
Please see my responses in the table below, detailing figures that relate to the number of claims lodged for personal injury/damage to vehicle claims made, citing pothole in carriageway or pothole in pavement specifically, in the years specified:
Please note the figures provided are based on calendar year.
How many potholes does the council estimate there currently is in the county/ Can this be broken down into the 12 district areas?
Lancaster 415
Wyre 503
Fylde 418
Preston 342
South Ribble 201
West Lancs. 193
Chorley 188
Ribble Valley 306
Hyndburn 176
Burnley 368
Pendle 810
Rossendale 857
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Attachments |
None
|
Road condition on Todd Lane North, Walton-le-Dale
| Reference | 787.229 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 22/04/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Under the general requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would be grateful if you would provide information in relation to road condition on Todd Lane North, Walton-Le-Dale, PR5 5UN?, in particular the section near 'Sheerwood Garage Ltd'.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email, we are now in a position to respond to your enquiry regarding the road condition on Todd Lane North, in particular the section near Sherwood Garage Ltd.
We have checked our safety inspection system and in the last 12 months the only highway defect identified was a pothole near the entrance to Sherwood Garage with no other safety defect identified within a distance of 60m of the entrance.
|
| Attachments |
None
|
Results of road surveys in 2009/10 for Cobbs Brow Lane and Cobbs Clough Road, Newburgh
| Reference | 787.247 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 27/04/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Could you please supply results of any road surveys conducted in 2009/2010 for Cobbs Brow Lane, Newburgh and Cobbs Clough Road, Newburgh.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 29th March 2010 in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to provide you with a response.
Please see the attachment to this email which represents one survey carried out along the length of road concerned. It involves a specialist vehicle driving along the road which by use of lasers and other equipment takes measurements. This information is then processed through a computer system using nationally laid down criteria. The colour represents the condition of the road where it is shown on the map hence the colours are overlaid on Cobbs Brow Lane and Cobbs Clough Road. Green tends to be good condition and red poor with amber being somewhere in between.
|
| Attachments |
Plan (jpeg image)
|
Policies on roadside memorials
| Reference | 787.250 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 30/04/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Please can you tell me the latest policies the Highways Authority has in place for roadside memorials, erected following a road traffic fatality?
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email, dated 7 April, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Lancashire County Council does not hold a policy that covers the subject of your request. There is no policy as it is felt that we need the flexibility to respond with compassion to the different needs of different families.
It is not normally appropriate to place permanent memorials in the highway. However, we work with families to find an appropriate and proportionate form of lasting memorial if they wish it, using our discretion, skill & judgement to define what constitutes ‘appropriate and proportional’ under each particular circumstance.
|
| Attachments |
None
|
Damage to vehicles caused by potholes
| Reference | 787.349 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date Responded | 26/05/2010 | ||||||||||
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
||||||||||
| Request |
I would like to know how much money has been paid out by the county council to people after claims related to damage to vehicles caused by potholes in the roads in the last three financial years. I would like to know how much was paid out in 2009/10, 2008/09 and 2007/08.
|
||||||||||
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email, dated 10 May, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Please see the table below detailing compensation payments made in connection to damage to vehicle where potholes were specifically cited during the specified financial years:
|
||||||||||
| Attachments |
None
|
Adopted privately owned land and unathorised removal of signs from highways
| Reference | 787.400 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 12/07/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Please supply the following information.
Part one.
Highway Act 1980.
1 Has your council taken action under Section 132 of the Highways Act 1980 to remove any unauthorised signs or structures from the highway.
2 Did you serve any notice upon any party before taking this action.
Part two
Adoption of privately owned land
1 Has your council ever adopted any privately owned land as a higway.
2 Did your council need the agreement of proprietor of the land.
3 If the adoption took place without the consent of the proprietor, did your council inform them of their action.
4 Did your council record the adoption at the local land charges register in part four, as a caution to perspective purchasers, the fact the use of part of the land recorded in the Title Deeds held by the offical Land Register could be effected by the adoption.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 26th May 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Part one.
Highway Act 1980.
1 Has your council taken action under Section 132 of the Highways Act 1980 to remove any unauthorised signs or structures from the highway.
2 Did you serve any notice upon any party before taking this action.
Part two
Adoption of privately owned land
1 Has your council ever adopted any privately owned land as a highway.
2 Did your council need the agreement of proprietor of the land.
3 If the adoption took place without the consent of the proprietor, did your council inform them of their action.
4 Did your council record the adoption at the local land charges register in part four, as a caution to perspective purchasers, the fact the use of part of the land recorded in the Title Deeds held by the official Land Register could be effected by the adoption.
Question 1
Question 2
|
| Attachments |
None
|
Number of road traffic accidents to which speed can directly contributed
| Reference | 787.603 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 26/08/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
I would like to know the exact number of incidents re RTAs that can be directly attributed to speed being a major contributory factor.
And can we be assured that cameras in Lancashire will soon be switched off under austerity measures.
Why should care homes be allowed to close whilst still funding cameras, surely we have to get our priorities straight?
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 10th August 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond. 1. I would like to know the exact number of incidents re RTAs that can be directly attributed to speed being a major contributory factor. 2. And can we be assured that cameras in Lancashire will soon be switched off under austerity measures. 3. Why should care homes be allowed to close whilst still funding cameras, surely we have to get our priorities straight? 1. In the period 2007 – 2009 there were 11,964 personal injury collisions recorded in Lancashire; of these 4,431, or 37%, had one or more speed-related contributory factors. For fatal or serious severities 39.6% of collisions had a speed-related factor recorded (838 out of a total 2119 KSI collisions in 2007/9) and for fatal accidents alone 58.1% of accidents saw one of these factors logged. One or more contributory factors are allocated by the reporting police officer and are their opinion of the most likely factors that led to the collision. Included in those deemed to be speed related include exceeding speed limit, travelling too fast for conditions, aggressive driving, loss of control, and careless/reckless/in a hurry. Most collisions are multi-factored and so a collision between a pedestrian walking into the road and a car exceeding the speed limit will in truth have two main contributory factors (i.e. pedestrian using road without due care and driver exceeding speed limit). This accident example will however usually only have one factor allocated to it, (i.e. Pedestrian in road) due to the lack of evidence of speeding at the scene of the collision when the Police arrive, as all they will see is a stationary (slightly damaged) vehicle and an injured casualty. Therefore, the number of collisions that involve a driver exceeding the speed limit is likely to be under represented in the preceding figures as it is known from national surveys that over 50% of drivers regularly drive faster than the 30mph speed limit. As it takes longer in time and distance to stop when going faster, there is therefore a minimum of 50% of collisions where reduced speed could either have prevented its occurrence or reduced the injury severity. This argument is based on a premise that there is an even distribution of drivers across the speed spectrum being involved in collisions, when, in reality, the figure will be higher due to the added risks that travelling at higher speed generates. 2. The Future operation of safety cameras in Lancashire is currently under review and no decisions have been made yet. 3. The Freedom of Information Act relates to recorded information, as such we are unable to respond to this part of your request. |
| Attachments |
None
|
Information on cobblestones
| Reference | 787.653 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 29/09/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Under the Freedom of Information Act, please could you tell me whether, since 1st January 2005, your council has permanently removed cobblestones from any roads or pavements in your area as part of any improvement or resurfacing schemes.
Please could you indicate where this occurred and specify what type of surface the cobblestones were replaced with. Could you also indicate whether your council has received any compensation claims from members of the public who claim to have been injured by slipping or tripping on these cobblestones. Please indicate whether any claims resulted in a payout by your council and how much money was paid out. |
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email, dated 1 September, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Lancashire's highways operations are split into three areas, North, South and East, so the information is presented by area.
North
No cobblestones have been removed since 1 January 2005.
South
Penny Street, Preston, in September 2006. Cobbles removed from footways and reconstructed in granular & bituminous materials to a depth of 140mm. Cobbles removed from carriageway and reconstructed in granular & bituminous materials to a depth of 400mm.
East
Since 1st January 2005 there have been no front streets within the adopted highway network where the stone sett paving (cobblestones) has been taken up and permanently removed to be replaced by alternative materials.
With regard to back streets, in Hyndburn there are three back streets which have been resurfaced by removing the sett paving and resurfacing in bituminous materials. These are:
Rear of 14a – 36 Lemonious St, Accrington
Rear 3 – 33 Grange St, Clayton le Moors
Rear 8 – 18 George St, Clayton le Moors
In Rossendale there is one back street which has been resurfaced by removing the sett paving and resurfacing in bituminous materials. This is:
Rear of 216-226 Grane Road : Jubilee Road To Side 226 Grane Road
Please note that some areas have seen new cobblestones laid, and large numbers of cobblestones that had been surfaced over in the past have been uncovered and re-laid in public areas.
There have been no compensation claims associated with these cobblestones.
|
| Attachments |
None
|
List of 'C' roads in Lancashire
| Reference | 787.755 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 20/10/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
I would be content with any records listing or otherwise identifying 'C' class roads in Lancashire, for example, a list of all unclassified roads maintained by Lancashire CC together with their designations (C or otherwise).
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 11th October 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Please see the attached document in response to your request.
|
| Attachments | C Roads in Lancashire (excel) |
Traffic count for Preston Road, Lytham
| Reference | 787.777 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 25/10/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Do you have any statistics for the amount of road traffic on Preston Road between McDonalds and the saltcotes roundabout?
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your emails of 7 July and 20 October, in which you request the disclosure of traffic census information, we are now in a position to respond. Please accept our apologies for the delay; our office was only made aware of your requests on 21 October.
Please find attached figures from the most recent traffic survey that was conducted on Preston Road in May 2008. The attachments show daily traffic volume (both directions) over a period of 10 days. The survey was conducted on Preston Road between Oswald Road and Meadow Lane.
|
| Attachments |
Week 1 (pdf)
Week 2 (pdf)
|
Potholes in Lancashire
| Reference | 787.737 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 02/11/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
How many potholes are there currently in Lancashire on roads maintained by the authority?
Can this be broken down into district (Preston, Lancaster etc)
How many potholes have been repaired by the authority in the past year?
How much has the council spent on repairing potholes in the past year?
|
| Response |
Further to your email dated 4 October 2010 we are now in a position to respond.
How many potholes are there currently in Lancashire on roads maintained by the authority?
The position is constantly being updated so we are unable to give an exact figure, however, in average terms, Lancashire has a backlog of approximately 2,900 but this excludes any potholes deemed dangerous which are filled within 24 hours. The yearly figure of potholes is 22,000.
Can this be broken down into district (Preston, Lancaster etc)
As our information is constantly being updated as the work progresses, we are unable to give exact figures for each district. We can however, give approximate percentages to reflect the amount of potholes in districts.
Lancaster 8%
Wyre 8%
Fylde 2%
Preston 16%
South Ribble 6%
West Lancashire 4%
Chorley 4%
Ribble Valley 8%
Hyndburn 9%
Burnley 2%
Pendle 11%
Rossendale 22%
How many potholes have been repaired by the authority in the past year?
21,000 in the last 12 months
How much has the council spent on repairing potholes in the past year?
Approximately £1 million has been spent on filling potholes in the past 12 months. We are unable to give an exact figure as the highway teams undertake additional highway work, as well as repairing potholes.
|
| Attachments | None |
Road Salt: Ordering, usage, etc
| Reference | 787.794 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 15/11/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for your email dates 25 October 2010, in which you request disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act; we are now in a position to respond.
1. How much road salt has been ordered for this winter period (2010-11) in tonnes? How much road salt was ordered for last year’s winter period (2009-10) in tonnes? Please state the provider that was used in each winter period.
LCC has a salt stock management contract with Salt Union. This means that salt stocks are refilled to predefined levels prior to the start of the season. Restocking then takes place in-season within predefined min/max levels. LCC ordered 25,000 tonnes from Salt Union for summer restock prior to winter 2010/11. In 2009/10, 18,500 tonnes was stockpiled by the beginning of October.
2. When was the order for this winter period’s (2010-11) road salt placed?
LCC confirmed delivery requirements in April 2010.
3. Has all of this winter period’s (2010-11) road salt been delivered?
The 25,000 tonnes has been delivered.
4. How much did the council spend on purchasing road salt on an emergency basis for the last winter period (2009-10)? Please break this figure down by supplier (if the supplier was an overseas organisation, please state the country in which they are based).
LCC did not purchase any salt on an emergency basis for the reasons set out in the response to Q1. Whilst Salt Union was not able to meet our salt stock management requirements, LCC received salt supplies from Salt Union as recommended by the Salt Cell. The cost of the salt per tonne for delivery in 2009/10 was determined in April 2009 based on the 2008/9 tender price plus inflation.
5. How much road salt did the council have to supply to the Highways Agency and/or Transport for London for the last winter period (2009-10) on an emergency basis?
LCC did not supply any salt to the Highways Agency or Transport for London on an emergency basis and was not asked to do so. |
| Attachments |
None
|
Winter gritting
| Reference | 787.902 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 09/12/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
Please disclose how many days worth of grit and salt your council has in reserve for use on roads and pavements this winter.
Please include both the amount of grit and salt (it's weight) and the number of days worth of grit and salt you have.
|
| Response |
Access to Information under the Freedom of Information (2000)
Thank you for your email dated 30 November 2010, in which you request disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act; we are now in a position to respond.
Please disclose how many days worth of grit and salt your council has in reserve for use on roads and pavements this winter.
From the 25,000 tonnes of salt delivered in advance for 2010/11 winter, the estimated County Reserve at 6 December 2010 is now 20,100 tonnes.
Please include both the amount of grit and salt (it's weight) and the number of days worth of grit and salt you have.
One treatment of the Priority Road Network uses 300 tonnes of salt using an average of 15g per square metre spread rate. Therefore 25,000 / 300 tonnes at the beginning of winter = 83 days, assuming only one treatment per day on the priority road network. The reserve of 20,100 / 300 tonnes = 67 days. |
| Attachments |
None
|
Potholes in East Lancashire and resulting trips/falls
| Reference | 787.856 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date Responded | 14/12/2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Request |
1. The amount spent by Lancashire County Council in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 on repairing potholes in the district areas of Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale, Ribble Valley and Hyndburn.
2. The amount paid out to people who have been victims of trips or falls as a result of potholes covering the same time period and in the same areas.
3. The number of complaints made to the council about potholes on streets covering the same time period and in the same areas.
4. The number of potholes waiting to be repaired in these areas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email, we are now in a position to respond to your enquiry regarding repairing potholes. We have answered each point of your enquiry below.
Q1 Please find below the revenue budget allocations used to fund the response teams that fill potholes. The costs are covered mainly from the Patching budget and supplemented from the footways budget.
For 2010/11 there was also Capital funding available specifically to deal with pothole repairs following the severe winter of 2009/10
Q2
Notes
Q3
Q4 All complaints about potholes identified in the table above were responded to and made safe or repaired.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Attachments |
None
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gritting on A680 Edenfield to Rochdale
| Reference | 787.959 |
|---|---|
| Date Responded | 26/01/2010 |
| Response Type |
Full disclosure
|
| Request |
The A680 is a primary route and should be gritted; this is not happening. Under the freedom of information act, please evidence how much, where and when grit has been spread - because it is not evident.
|
| Response |
Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email dated 23rd December 2010, in which you request the disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Please find attached the information requested. I have been informed that the gritter on route E22 will only grit in the direction of Rochdale as the spread covers the full width of the road – on the return from the Rochdale Boundary the gritter will not be gritting.
|
| Attachments |
Gritting (excel)
|