Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fall within the remit of this Committee including a summary of the response sent to the petition organisers by officers. Two petitions have been referred to the Committee for consideration at this meeting.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which advised the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fell within the remit of the Committee, including a summary of the responses sent to the petition organisers by officers.

Two petitions had been referred to the Committee for consideration.

The first petition referral related to the condition of the access road at the rear of Granville Road, Gillingham. It was requested that the Council make long-lasting repairs to the surface of this road and improve the drainage to prevent flooding.

The lead petitioner was invited to speak to explain why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee and made the following points:

·       Circa 20/30 years ago, residents paid an annual maintenance fee to the Council. This arrangement had since terminated, and the area had fallen into disrepair. There were now concerns over accessibility, safety, and incidences of anti-social behaviour.

·       An independent engineer’s report had been commissioned by the lead petitioner which costed the works to flatten the track and improve drainage at circa £50-60,000.

The petitioner was pleased to report that the Council had agreed to a course of action since the report had been published. The Strategic Lead Front Line Services subsequently confirmed that in addition to carrying out option 4 (raise the footpath) as set out at paragraph 5.2.4 in the report, capacity within existing budgets would be utilised to carry out option 2 (regrade the track and fill/surface with compacted stone) this financial year. The Strategic Lead, Front Line Services undertook to meet with the lead petitioner to co-design the resolution.

In discussing the petition, the following responses were made to comments from Members:

·       Involvement of Ward Councillors – recognising the variety of opinions among residents over action to be taken in this area, it was requested that ward councillors be involved along with the lead petitioner to discuss the design of the resolution.

·       Criteria for remedial works on unadopted highway – it was explained to the Committee that remedial works on unadopted highways were considered on a case-by-case basis. To provide more clarity, a briefing note was requested setting out the criteria which needed to be met.

The second petition referral concerned trees on Gillingham Green at the rear of Layfield Road. It was requested that the Council carry out urgent maintenance on the trees, reduce them in height and remove overhanging branches.

The lead petitioner was invited to speak to explain why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee and made the following points:

·       Whilst the environmental and health and wellbeing benefits of the trees were acknowledged, it was explained that as the trees were overgrown, there were concerns over safety. Owing, also, to a reduction in natural surveillance, concerns had been expressed around incidences of anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping in the alleyway.

·       The trees blocked out light and caused issues in the summer months with pollen. Residents could not open their windows or put washing out.

·       Concern was expressed around the lack of regular tree maintenance and inconsistency of tree maintenance within the area.

In response, the Head of Regulatory and Environmental Services explained to the Committee that concerns needed to be balanced with the considerable benefits that the trees brought to the community and the environment. The trees had been assessed by a specialist who concluded that a significant reduction in their size would be detrimental to the trees long-term health and would not significantly increase light in adjacent gardens. However, an application would be made to seek permission to lift the lower branches and clear regrowth at the base. Permission was required as the trees grew within a conservation area. This would be undertaken in conjunction with residents.

In discussing the petition, the concerns of the lead petitioner were echoed, and reassurance was sought that routine maintenance would be carried out on the trees. Clarity was also sought on the height of proposed branch removal.

In response, the Committee was advised that maintenance of these trees would be added to the greenspaces programme. With regards to specifics around the level of branch and regrowth removal, a specialist would be appointed and to the extent feasible and within any permission granted, the wishes of residents would be accommodated.

The lead petitioner confirmed that this action was satisfactory, but he requested timely action.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    noted the petition responses and appropriate officer action in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report,

b)    noted the petition referral requests in paragraph 5 and the Director of Place and Deputy Chief Executive’s responses, and

c)    requested two briefing notes:

§  criteria for remedial works on unadopted highway

§  criteria for tree maintenance.