Below are details relating to recent and current petitions received by us.

Petitions received in 2021/22

Petition regarding The Lodge Farm Playing Fields

Lead Petioner: Mr Peter Arme

Number of Signatures: 223

Date Submiited: 14.09.2021

Response:

Petitions received in 2020/21

Petition regarding New Cemetery

Lead Petitioner: Councillor Morgan

Number of Signatures: 60

Date Submitted: 26.04.2021

Response:

Petition: Improvements to Footpath Adjacent to the New Cemetery, Nanpantan  Thank you for your recent petition which was submitted to Council on 26th April 2021.  The condition of the footpath is likely to improve as a result of the development of the new cemetery, which is due to start construction in June 2021. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. As part of the new cemetery construction, land drainage is being installed to help drain the surface water more effectively. At the moment there is no drainage meaning that the surface water runs towards to lowest point of the site (the location of the footpath). 

2. The point where the footpath enters the field is currently used as an access for farm vehicles. A new access for farm vehicles will be constructed away from the footpath. Surface improvements to the footpath are not currently included in the specification for the construction of the new cemetery, however, I will investigate the option of upgrading the surface with our contractors. If improvements can be made without a significant impact on the project’s budget or timescales, I will ask for this to be included as part of the development.  

Petition regarding keeping the public toilets on Biggin Street open

Lead Petitioner: Councillors J.Bradshaw & Draycott

Number of Signatures: 335

Date Submitted: 23.02.2021

Response:

“The closure would be a disaster for residents, the community, and our town of Loughborough”

We know that public toilets are extremely important to residents and visitors of any town and in Loughborough and we are extremely proud to have award-winning facilities in Market Place. We are also aware from customer consultation undertaken that the public value toilets that are constantly staffed, to ensure a high level of cleanliness and hygiene is maintained and that the toilets remain in good working order.

The decision to close Biggin Street toilets was not taken lightly and was part of a review of services  undertaken in order to identify areas where savings could be made as part of the Council’s budget setting exercise.

A great deal of thought and consideration was given prior to this decision. It was apparent very early on that if we wanted to continue to provide award-winning, clean and safe toilets for the people of Loughborough and further afield we would need to continue to provide a supervised toilet service. We also considered the proximity of the Market Place toilets, situated just 250 meters from the Biggin Street toilets, and that the Market Place toilets boast a family room in addition to the male, female and disabled facilities that are also available at Biggin Street.

Even though the number of people using the town’s public toilets has been in constant decline over the past few years and income targets have not been met, it  was important to officers that this did not affect the standard of service offered and that customers could continue to enjoy access to town centre toilets 7 days a week.

In conclusion to the above statement in bold the proposal to close Biggin Street has allowed for the Market Place facilities to continue to operate 7 days a week and we are confident that by continuing to provide a quality service at Market Place toilets the closure of Biggin Street toilets  will not be a disaster for residents, the community or the town of Loughborough.

There are also a number of other toilet facilities in the town centre - in cafes, restaurants, pubs, bars, and supermarkets (Tesco and Sainsburys); as well as in the Museum, and the Carillon Court shopping centre; Changing Places toilets in the library and Loughborough Leisure Centre (with adjacent parking); and there is another public toilet in Queens Park that is normally open during Park opening times.

“Even in these difficult times, not having a facility to use would be awful”

Biggin Street toilets have been closed for almost 12 months since March 2020 and before this they were only open 3 days a week. Usage of Biggin Street toilets has also declined over the years due to the number of cafes and other establishments in the area. Overall the usage of the town centre public toilets had dropped by 25% prior to the onset of COVID in 2020.  

The Market Street toilets are still available to the public and are favoured and used more than Biggin Street toilets. Several facts are pertinent in the context of the decision to close Biggin Street toilets in preference to reducing the hours of Market Street toilets, in summary:

  • Use of the Biggin Street toilet by the public had diminished significantly prior to the pandemic and income levels through use were down, thereby putting pressure on the Council’s budgets and the future sustainability of the service.
  • Officers considered closure of the Market Street toilets in place of the Biggin Street toilets. This would have had an increased negative impact on the provision (elimination of family rooms and a more significant quantity reduction) and was thus discounted.
  • A full Equality Impact Assessment was undertaken with findings that there was no negative impact due to more extensive facilities being available 250m away.

In conclusion to the above statement in bold, a quality facility will still be available 7 days a week within 250 metres of Biggin Street toilets.

“…the only other toilet in Market Place would be too busy and not safe”

Due to the general decline in footfall over the last 5 years, the Market Place facilities are not used by as many people as they once were and have enough facilities to take on the capacity from Biggin Street. These facilities are staffed during operating hours and COVID safety measures are in place to ensure the safety of both the public and staff. These facilities include:

Normal times:

2 men’s cubicles / 3 urinals

4 ladies cubicles 

Family room: 1 toilet

Disabled: 1 toilet

  • Monday - 9am - 5.30pm
  • Tuesday - 9am -5.30pm
  • Wednesday - 9am - 5.30pm
  • Thursday - 8.30am - 5.30pm
  • Friday - 9am - 5.30pm
  • Saturday - 8.30am - 5.30pm
  • Sunday - 9am - 5.30pm

1 men’s cubicle / 2 men’s urinal

2 ladies cubicles

Family room: 1 toilet

Disabled: 1 toilet

  • Monday and Tuesday - closed
  • Wednesday - 9am - 5.30pm
  • Thursday - 8.30am - 5.30pm
  • Friday - 9am - 4.30pm
  • Saturday - 8.30am - 5.30pm
  • Sunday - closed

The closure of Biggin Street toilets will deliver a saving of £20,000 a year and has been in consideration since September 2020. An initial “option for change” (which lays out the business case) was provided to the Senior Management Team which evidenced the diminished use of the affected toilets and highlighted that Town Centre provision of public toilets would continue with no decrease in type or quality.

This Option for Change was considered by the Chief Executive and Strategic Directors (SLT) before presentation to Cabinet member’s Briefing for initial consideration on 5 November

Petitions received in 2019/20

Petition regarding the trees at Staveley Court

Lead Petitioner: Staveley Court Residents

Number of Signatures: 58

Date Submitted: 06.07.2020

Response: 

Charnwood Borough Council’s green spaces team, responsible for carrying out tree surveys in the borough, has made a full inspection of the trees at Staveley Court. The team’s findings can be summarised thus:

1. All the trees are in good health with the possible exception of T1. Nothing observed gave rise to any safety concerns.

2. There appears to be the level of clearance required for vehicles to move safely, therefore no crown lifting is required.

3. T1 (Norway maple), exhibits some minor crown dieback, the recommendation being that we should consider pollarding this tree.

4. T2 (Norway maple) is healthy but starting to have an effect on dwellings. Rather than prune back from windows etc, the recommendation being that we should consider pollarding this tree.

5. Other than tree T2 in (4) above, it is considered that the trees are sufficiently distanced from dwellings so not to deprive residents of any appreciable light into their homes and so no pruning, lifting or reduction is recommended or deemed necessary.

These recommendations will be considered by the tenancy and estate management team in the landlord services department, which manages Staveley Court, in conjunction with other calls on its limited budget for non-essential and non-urgent tree works. Should we decide to carry out these recommendations we will place an order with our contractor to do the work.

Petition regarding the issues with improvement works at Staveley Court

Lead Petitioner: Staveley Court Residents

Number of Signatures: 15

Date Submitted: 01.02.2020

Response: 

Further to the petition dated 1st February 2020, on 24th February officers from the Councils Asset Team met with the group of residents who had raised concerns following the work carried out at Staveley Court.  An action plan has been implemented, and whilst some items have been completed successfully, there are several issues that remain outstanding.

To this end, we have contacted our contractor and highlighted the areas that require further work.  A number of repair orders have also been raised for the Council’s in-house repairs team to complete.

The Council would like to apologise for any frustration and inconvenience caused to tenants during the work, and have appointed Emily Conway as a single point of contact for residents within the Asset Management Team who will oversee the delivery of the remaining work items.

Petition regarding the climate strike seeking action on climate change by government and local authorities.

Lead Petitioner: Cllr Emma Ward

Number of Signatures: 57

Date Submitted: 04.11.2019

Response: 

I am writing in response to your petition dated 4th November 2019 on action to be taken on climate change by government and local authorities.

The Council is pro-active in this context and strongly support the global, national and local imperative to mitigate the effects of climate change. Addressing climate change is one of the key challenges facing Charnwood today. Ensuring that the Borough fully contributes to local efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change is a priority for the Council.

The Council identifies ‘taking action to protect the environment for future generations’ as a key commitment of its Corporate Plan and has adopted a Climate Change Strategy, a Carbon Management Plan, a Zero Waste Strategy and a Green Spaces Strategy towards this aim.  The Council has an in-house Environmental Management System to manage legal compliance with environmental regulations and environmental impact arising from its activities and operations. 

On 24th June 2019, Charnwood Borough Council declared its ambition to be a carbon neutral organisation by 2030.  it will seek to directly reduce emissions related to its own operations as well as identifying opportunities for offsetting emissions, for example, by tree planting.  The Council also wants to work with residents, businesses and other public bodies across the borough and region to deliver this ambitious goal through all relevant technologies, strategies and plans and encourage others to consider how they can make a difference to the environment.

Carbon emissions from activities in Charnwood fell by 26% between 2005 and 2015, consistent with UK reductions of 28% over the same period, despite an increase in population.  The Council has reduced the impact of its own operations on climate change by developing and implementing a Carbon Management Plan (2015) which aimed to reduce carbon emissions by 15% by 2020.  In February 2019 the Council reported a 32% decrease in emissions reducing its carbon footprint from 2,133 tCO2e in 2012/13 to 1,436 tCO2e in 2017/18.

The Council has published a draft Local Plan for consultation which includes policies to secure the development and use of land for mitigation of, and adaptation to, the effects of climate change.  A full Sustainability Appraisal of the draft Local Plan has also been undertaken. The draft Local Plan is out for consultation until Monday 16th December 2019 and comments are welcomed which will be taken into account in reviewing the plan. 

The Council is not complacent about the scale of change that will be required to address climate change but is taking positive actions across the full range of its activities.  A new carbon neutral plan is being prepared looking at options to achieve a carbon neutral organisation by 2030 and it has committed to planting 100,000 new trees in 4 years. The Council will be looking at ways to work with the wider community to achieve this goal.

Petition regarding keeping the CCTV cameras on Flat 32, Offranville Close, showing 4 views of communal areas.

Lead Petitioner: Local Resident

Number of Signatures: 27

Date Submitted: 05.09.2019

Response: 

Following receipt of your letter dated 5th September 2019 which included a petition regarding the CCTV camera you have erected, I have spoken to the Council’s Legal Services Team regarding the location of your camera.

I regret to inform you that Charnwood Borough Council cannot grant permission for your CCTV camera to remain in situ if it continues to be connected therefore I must request that the cameras are disconnected with immediate effect. The Council cannot allow permission due to the location of the CCTV which would constitute unauthorised surveillance of members of the public and others.

You are welcome to leave the cameras in situ as a deterrent from further anti-social behaviour or fly tipping as referenced within your letter however they must not be connected and recording.

I understand that there are concerns from the community about anti-social behaviour and fly tipping. Please be reassured that Charnwood Borough Council take these matters seriously. If residents are experiencing anti-social behaviour or witness fly tipping they can report this by calling the contact centre on 01509 634666 or via email at contactcentre@charnwood.gov.uk. Any reports will be investigated and where appropriate action will be taken in line with our incremental approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Petition regarding Bulky Waste Charges

Lead Petitioner: Cllr Julie Bradshaw

Number of Signatures: 

Date Submitted: 02.09.2019

Response: 51

The Council approved the 2019/20 budget at its meeting of 21st February 2019. The budget stated that the Council would increase its income by £30k through the implementation of bulky waste charges from October 2019.

In order to facilitate this, a report was presented at the Cabinet meeting of the 4th July 2019. The meeting approved the introduction of a £20 charge (for up to 3 items) from 7th October 2019, with a review taking place 6 months after implementation. This review will take place soon after April 2020. An Exceptional Hardship Scheme for residents who could not afford the charge was approved at the same meeting.

The report did receive additional elected member scrutiny prior to the decision being made. The approvals made by the Cabinet in July were not called in.

When looking at the range of charging options available, officers found that recent national research had shown no correlation between the charging policy of the local council and the level of fly-tipping in the area.

Once the charging scheme has been in operation for 6 months, a review will be conducted in accordance with the decision made by Cabinet.

If you have any further questions please contact me.

Petition regarding repairs to the surface of Jubilee Walk

Lead Petitioner: Cllr C. Radford and Cllr J. Tassell

Number of Signatures: 218

Date Submitted: 02.09.2019

Response:

Jubilee Walk is a fantastic resource for local residents who want a traffic free walking/cycling route through Shepshed. I am aware that the walk goes from Charnwood Road to Tickow Lane, however, Charnwood Borough Council does not own the whole length of the walk between those two roads. A significant proportion is owned by a 3rd party, who have agreed to provide public access under an agreement with the Council. This is probably where some confusion has arisen. 

Having recently walked along the route, I agree that the surface would benefit from some repairs and that the access from Tickow Lane needs improving. Unfortunately, I do not have the financial resources to undertake the major work this financial year. I will be requesting that the money is made available to undertake the work next year. If there are any small improvements that can be made in the short-term, I will look into getting these completed as soon as possible. 

Unfortunately, the walk does not have any formal drainage in place and this would not be feasible to install. During periods of heavy rain the path will continue to experience issues with surface water, especially in locations where the path has steep sided banks on either side.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Petition regarding the noise generated by car racing activities on the airfield

Lead Petitioner: Wymeswold Parish Council

Number of Signatures: 81

Date Submitted: 02.09.2019

Response:

As you may be aware, both my Team and the Planning Team have invested a significant amount of time and resources over the years that the business has been operating, to respond to and investigate complaints against the airfield activities. We have also worked with the Operators, Everyman Racing, to ensure there have been reduced noise emissions from their activities.

The following agreed noise mitigation measures have been implemented by Everyman Racing over recent years:

  • Resurfacing the circuit;
  • Imposing a speed restriction at the southern end of the circuit;
  • Earth bunds extended around southern end of the circuit;
  • Reducing tyre squeal on vehicles by promoting appropriate driving techniques;
  • Removal of the chicane at the southern end of the circuit;
  • Fitting alternative lower noise exhausts to vehicles;
  • Curtailment of motor cycle events;
  • Installation of a permanent sound level meter on straight to monitor compliance with drive-by limit and flag vehicles exceeding;
  • Additional monitoring point at Wymeswold end of track to red flag any vehicles over the drive by limit or causing tyre squeal;
  • All vehicles accompanied by Everyman Instructor;
  • Use of reduced noise tyres;
  • Telephone complaint number for residents to report incidents- 07515427705;
  • Fewer event days than previously operated on site.

Before any further mitigation measures can be formally required by the Council,  the level of noise generated from the site would need to be assessed as likely to cause a statutory nuisance, under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

A nuisance assessment must consider a number of criteria including relevant guidance to determine the significance of the noise impact, use professional judgement to balance the needs of residents against a legitimate business operation and consider the statutory defence available to the operator to ensure ‘best practicable means’ have been used to minimise disturbance.

As you are aware, in response to a complaint from Wymeswold Parish Council, earlier this year my Team undertook an extensive acoustic assessment of all events held between 5 June and 22 July 2019 in order to determine the existence of nuisance.  As part of this assessment, the characterisation of the events and acoustic data collection at residential properties was conducted under the direction of Wymeswold Parish Council.

Results obtained were assessed in accordance with relevant guidance and it was considered, that whilst on occasions the noise was clearly audible beyond the source site, the noise levels generated by the events in question would not amount to nuisance at nearby noise sensitive properties in Wymeswold. The impact is heavily influenced by the weather conditions and likely to be exacerbated by regional prevailing winds. The impact is also most apparent on Saturdays with a probable greater intensity of supercar use which coincides with an increased use of residential outdoor gardens.  Whilst the noise is likely at times to be of annoyance and a distraction, the impact is not considered by the nature or frequency of events, to amount to a significant and material interference with use or enjoyment of residential properties in Wymeswold. In conclusion my officers are of the opinion that the noise impact does not amount to a statutory nuisance and it would, therefore, not be appropriate for further action to be instigated.  

The full report and findings were presented by the investigating officer at the Parish Council meeting on the 2 September 2019. A copy of the detailed acoustic report is also attached for your information.

In view of the above and the results of the recent acoustic assessment the Council is unable to require further mitigation measures by Everyman Racing. You as the Parish Council may, however, wish to contact them informally on the strength of the recent petition to try to negotiate further improvements.

I trust the above clarifies the current situation.  I would however reassure you that should the situation substantially change or noise levels increase we will of course investigate residents’ complaints.  These should be made by contacting this office on 01509 634636 or email: env.health@charnwood.gov.uk.

Petition regarding noxious fumes on Earls Way Industrial Estate

Lead Petitioner: Local Residents

Number of Signatures: 171

Date Submitted: 02.09.2019

Response:

As you may be aware, two fabric finishing operations carried out at industrial units on Earls Way, Thurmaston have been the subject of community nuisance complaints for some time. In early 2016, the existence of statutory nuisance at nearby residential properties was established. This prompted the service of a statutory abatement notice on one operator, City Screen Printers Ltd. The abatement notice required the operator to prevent the recurrence of nuisance by adopting all reasonable process controls to minimise odour impacts at nearby properties.

Since 2016, the situation has remained under continuous review, with residents being advised to report odour problems as they arise to the Environmental Protection Team  for investigation. Regular contact has also been maintained with the operators to impress the ongoing importance of minimising odour emissions.

Over the past six months the Environmental Protection Team has undertaken more than 30 reactive (generally within an hour of receipt of an odour report) and proactive assessment visits.  These assessments have confirmed the continuance of sporadic and isolated odour events however the existence of significant and persistent odour nuisance in breach of the existing abatement notice or attributable to the second operator, has not been established.

In summary and on the basis of the investigation undertaken over the past six months,  the Council is unable to instigate statutory nuisance proceedings, against either operator at this time. 

However given the potential for nuisance, we will continue to investigate residents’ concerns and review possible improvements with the operators as incidents occur. Any persons experiencing odour problems are therefore encouraged to contact the Environmental Protection Team directly on 01509 634636 / env.Health@charnwood.gov.uk or via https://vof.charnwood.gov.uk/form/auto/eh_report_pollution

Petition regarding trees at Staveley Court, Loughborough

Lead Petitioner: Local Resident

Number of Signatures: 37

Date Submitted: 09.05.2019

Response:

The council carries out a survey of a proportion of trees on housing-owned land each year. Following a survey of trees at a location a further survey is carried out approximately five years later. The last survey of the trees at Staveley Court was carried out in October 2015. Any work carried out to trees is in line with the council’s tree policy.

Following receipt of the petition a site visit was conducted on 22 May 2019 with the tenancy and estate management officer, senior green spaces officer and residents in order to assess the trees.

An assessment of the trees identified some trees which required pollarding, crown lift and the felling of a tree. This work was carried out on Monday 10 June 2019.

The lead petitioner has been advised of the outcome. 

Petitions received in 2018/19

Petition regarding consultation on expansion of cemetery provision in Loughborough and inclusion of Shelthorpe Golf Course as an option

Lead Petitioner:  Local Resident

Number of Signatures:  538

Date Submitted:  21.09.2018

Response:

The Council have investigated a number of possibilities and identified three viable options within its ownership which could provide burial space for many years to come. Local residents were consulted over the selection of a potential new cemeterysite from the list of viable options. These options were:

  • Shelthorpe Golf Course
  • Land at Nanpantan
  • Recreation land at Allendale Road

The results of the consultation formed part of the final recommendations to Cabinet on 18th October, 2018 to assist them with the selection of a preferred site. The petition involving 538 signatories relating to Shelthorpe Golf Course was also  highlighted in the report to Cabinet.

 At the meeting Cabinet approved the selection of land at Nanpantan as the preferred option to be taken forwards as a new cemetery site. Further investigations will now take place at Nanpantan to secure the site as a future cemetery.

Petitions received in 2017/18

Petition for a Secure Dog Park

Lead Petitioner:  Cllr. J. Bradshaw

Number of Signatures:  94

Date Submitted:  30.04.2018

Response:

There are currently no plans to develop any dog parks as part of the Council’s capital programme which runs to 2020/21. Research by officers has uncovered mixed views around  the development of dog parks with the Kennel Club making the following comments on their website. 

“Dog parks are usually found in countries such as America, where 'dogs on lead' is the default position and so dogs are only allowed off the lead in designated areas. The opposite is the case in the UK and the Kennel Club opposes the general concept of dog parks as they are usually very small areas and a symptom of very extensive restrictions on dogs. 

Dog parks concentrate urine and barking in a small area so they are hard and costly to manage and often unpopular with those nearby. Furthermore, whilst an extensive number of parks would have to be developed if they were to be accessible to all, without the need to drive to them, they could still never be an adequate substitute for the countryside and urban green space, as dogs accompany people on around half of all visits to such areas. 

Enclosing all dog owners in a small area is not beneficial and the Kennel Club would prefer to see dog owners and non-dog owners sharing public spaces responsibly, whilst ensuring that any restrictions being introduced are done on a proportionate and fair basis. 

The Kennel Club believes that developing dogs parks will not benefit dogs, dog owners nor the general public because:

•People walk less in dog parks, reducing the human health benefits from dog walking. They tend to stand around and chat instead, rather than go for a walk.

•With fewer people in wider green space, antisocial behaviour is more likely to occur due to the lack of routine informal surveillance by dog walkers at all times of day and year.

•Concentrating lots of dogs in one small area can increase the frequency of dog attacks as there is no space to get away and diffuse the situation.

•Just one poorly trained dog can render a whole dog park unusable to everyone else.” 

Source: https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/media-centre/issue-statements/dog-parks/

Petition against Excessive Mountsorrel Parish Precept 2018-19

Lead Petitioner:   Mrs Susan Holyoake 

Number of Signatures:    664

Date Submitted:    19.04.2018

Response:

The Borough Council has received a number of representations regarding the increase in the precept levied by Mountsorrel Parish Council for 2018/19.  However, it is a fundamental principle of the organisation of local government that while there are different tiers (county, district or borough, and parish) one tier is not accountable for or responsible to another.  As a result the Borough Council has no power to intervene in the budget or precept of another local authority in the Borough.

The Localism Act 2011 to which you refer does include provisions for local referendums to be held if proposed increases in Council Tax by principal authorities (the Borough, the County, the Police or Fire Authority but not parish councils) are above certain thresholds deemed to be excessive.  The Government did make some proposals to extend those referendum requirements to larger parish councils but these have not been implemented.  There are, therefore, at present no limits on the ability of parish councils to increase their parish precept.

The Local Government Act 2003 gives the Borough Council the ability to hold an advisory referendum on matters of local importance.  As the term implies these referendums are only consultative.  Were the Borough Council to incur the time and expense costs of a referendum all that it could do in this case would be to forward the results to Mountsorrel Parish Council for information.  On that basis it is not appropriate for the Borough Council to hold an advisory referendum.  This conclusion has been reached in part because there is a local alternative which residents of Mountsorrel could adopt if they wished to do so.  This is to hold a parish meeting and parish poll and brief details of the process for doing so are advised. 

Petition to Oppose LCC's proposal to close the Cobden Street Sure Statrt Centre, hastings Ward, Loughborough

Lead Petitioner:   Cllr. M. Draycott

Response:

The petition will be presented to the meeting of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 5 March 2018.  The meeting starts at 1.30pm.  

Meetings of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee are open to the public, and you are very welcome to attend to present the petition.  The petition will be considered as part of the agenda item on the Early Help Review as this will allow members to discuss it in the context of the review.

Petition to object to proposed change of boundary of the Rothley Primrose Hill Estate

Lead Petitioner:    Jayesh Keshav

Number of Signatures:   121

Date Submitted:  22.01.2018

Response: 

The above petition was submitted by Councillor Page at the Charnwood Borough Council meeting held on Monday 22nd January 2018, and he also read out the petition and explained how many of the Primrose Hill residents had signed it.

At that meeting, Councillors also considered a final report on the proposals arising from the community governance review, which included a recommendation to amend the relevant parish boundaries to move the Primrose Hill development from Rothley into Mountsorrel.

During the debate on that proposal, Councillor Page made further reference to the petition, so Councillors were aware of it in reaching their decision.

The final decision made at the meeting was that the parish boundary should be amended as was recommended. The reason for that decision is to correct an anomalous parish boundary issue which has been created by the new Primrose Hill development, which appears to be a natural extension to the settlement of Mountsorrel, by creating a strong boundary reflecting the area of separation between the settlements

of Mountsorrel and Rothley, and to facilitate effective and convenient local government.

Petition to Stop CBC building a Cemetery on recreation field at Allendale Road

Lead Petitioner:   Cllr. David Hayes

Number of signatures: 342

Date Submitted: 06.11.2017

Response:

An additional meeting of the Scrutiny Management Board will be held on Tuesday, 14th November 2017 at 6.00pm at Woodgate Chambers.  The meeting is for the purpose of considering the call-in of the Cabinet decision set out in Cabinet Minute 41 (19th October 2017), Future Cemetery Provision for Loughborough.  The Scrutiny Management Board can decide to:

•        support the decision, which can then be implemented immediately or

•        send the decision back with its comments to the decision taker (i.e. Cabinet) who    

          will then take a final decision

At that meeting reference will be made to submission of the petition to Council on 6 November. 

Petition to Apply protection to the status of Loughborough Market Place by enforcing the law that prohibits things such as public entertainment etc. that have not been authorized by the Council from taking place within 6 and 2 third miles of Loughborough Market Place and apply the conditions for authorizing these events that are defined in the petition

Lead Petitioner:  Mr Jonathan Hayes

Number of signatures: 255

Date Submitted: 17.10.2017

Response:

Whilst Charnwood Borough Council is responsible for delivery of the Loughborough Market, your Petition lacks particularity with regard to which festival(s) have impacted in the way described.  All requests to host an event within the area of Loughborough Market will be considered on an application by application basis by the relevant Council department.  Please note in the event that disorder is occasioned by a festival, the police do have powers should they be satisfied that an offence has been committed. 

 I am satisfied having considered your Petition that the 6 and ⅔rd mile prohibition, as contained within the Markets Charter, does not apply based on the information as contained within the Petition.

Petition against the service charge on freehold properties in Cedar Walk, Birstall

Lead Petitioner:  Ms Sadna Dan / Cllr Renata Jones

Number of signatures: 69

Date Submitted: 04.09.2017

Developers of new estates are required to provide elements of critical infrastructure that are needed to support the communities that are going to live in the houses provided.

This is covered in an agreement between the Council and the developers called a section 106 agreement. Section 106 is the relevant section of the Town and Country

Planning Act that refers to the provision of facilities for residents. Developers can either provide the necessary facilities within the development, at their own cost, or provide funding to public bodies to deliver facilities “off-site”.

Where open spaces/sports pitches are provided within the development, the developer can choose to transfer the ownership and/or maintenance of the open spaces/pitches to a management trust/company. Where this happens, residents are usually charged a management/service charge to cover the costs associated with maintaining the area.  Developers are under no legal obligation to transfer the land to the Council or other public body. The requirement for residents to pay a management/service charge should be flagged to the new owners by their solicitor as part of the conveyancing process.

Petition regarding ASB Long Meadow Way, Birstall

Lead petitioner: Councillor Iain Bentley

Number of sugnatures: 15

Date submitted: 26.06.2017

I have this morning liaised with my Head of Service Julie Robinson with a view to progressing this matter. Our initial assessment is that this case fits the criteria for a Community Trigger and I am proposing that it is this course of action that we will follow. A Community Trigger forms a part of the legal powers implemented by the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014. Once a trigger is activated, it places a statutory duty upon the Council to undertake a review of the service a complainant has received in respect of their case.

From the papers I have started to review, I believe that the case has reached the threshold for the activation of a Community Trigger. This would result in myself conducting a full review of the case and ultimately chairing a meeting with key stakeholders involved in the case. This course of action, under the banner of a Community Trigger, will provide a professional and accountable process for the complainant.

I have appointed my colleague Sarah Fisher as a point of contact for the Community Trigger and she is undertaking the process of pulling together all the necessary papers for my assessment. I have also attached a brief summary of the process which hopefully will assist yourself and the complainant.

Tim MCCabe

Petition regarding school/student parking on Gracedieu Road, Loughborough, Leics

Lead petitioner: Councillor Ted Parton/ Councillor Julie Bradshaw MBE

Number of signatures: 73

Date submitted: 24.04.2017

Gracedieu Road is a residential road; it is a fairly wide road with wide graced verges and space is available for on street parking. There are currently no parking restrictions on Gracedieu Road 

The County Council receives many requests for a wide variety of road safety measures; therefore, all requests that are received have to be considered against set criteria based on an evidence led appraisal. This is to ensure that resources are employed in the most cost efficient and robust manner as possible. At present the County Council’s resources around road safety are being directed at remedial works at high risk locations, which have evidence of a poor accident history, with the worst recorded personal injury accident records which are reported to us by the Police. 

The data available to Leicestershire County Council shows that there has only been one recorded accident in the last five years. This was not classified as a fatal or serious accident.

Current parking levels show that for the majority of parking on Gracedieu Road is by residents and not by non-residents. Kerb space is restricted as many residents have dropped kerb frontages to allow for off-street parking. 

The close proximity of several schools exacerbate any parking concerns during the morning and afternoon, however this problem is only for short periods of the day and is experienced throughout the county. 

In 2011 Leicestershire shire County Council proposed measures to restrict parking of non-residents as part of the West Loughborough Parking Strategy which included Gracedieu Road. It was overwhelmingly rejected by residents. This included 83 objections from residents of Gracedieu Road (approximately 70 percent) stating that their concerns were that this would negatively affect them personally, the cost of the scheme and that the proposals were excessive. The current petition includes 17 signatures that previously objected. 

The implementation of a prohibition of waiting restriction can be a complete prohibition (double yellow line) or a prohibition at certain times (single yellow line). Double yellow lines assist with preventing vehicles from parking on-street, these are generally implemented where safety to all road users are compromised and to aid with the flow of traffic to prevent congestion (particularly in areas where traffic volumes are high). Single yellow lines are introduced to remove vehicles at certain times and days of the week. Such a restriction could remove on street parking during the day time. Evidence shows that this restriction is likely to cause a displacement of parked vehicles to areas where there are no restrictions. 

It should be noted that many residents find the introduction of yellow lines outside their property unsightly. Concerns have also been raised over the desirability of a property where parking is restricted outside and if it affects the value of the property. Single and double yellow line restrictions do not solely apply to the road; they apply to the highway, this includes footpaths, verges and driveways (within the highway). 

A restricted parking zone operates in the same way as a single or double yellow line, however only entry signs are placed at each entrance to the zone. No lines are placed on the ground. 

A residents’ parking scheme is designed to remove long term parking and give residents a greater opportunity to park close to their home. A residents parking scheme, where possible is introduced using entry signs only, to reduce the visual impact of the scheme and to reduce ongoing maintenance. The current residents parking policy allows a household only two parking permits. A permit currently costs £50 per annum. Residents’ visitors would require visitors’ permits which currently cost £10 per book and contain 10 daily permits. A maximum of 2 books may be purchased per month.

A residents’ parking scheme is usually implemented under the following circumstances:-

  1.   i.     Residents are unable to park because at least 40% of available kerb space is occupied by non-residents during the working day, usually commuters near a town centre or factory premises, who should be using alternative parking that is provided.
  2.  ii.     At least 50% of the properties affected have no off-street parking allocation.

   3. iii.     There is sufficient on-street space to accommodate all vehicles owned by residents who wish to participate in the scheme. 

A Residents parking scheme would need to gain significant support from both local residents and the wider community. This is due to the impact previous residents parking schemes have had on surrounding streets. It is therefore implemented on a larger zonal basis consisting of several streets.

It must be noted that Leicestershire County Council will not consider the implementation of restrictions at an isolated location in a residential area, such as one road, as this only transfer the problem to adjacent areas.

Gracedieu Road does not meet the criteria set for the introduction of residents parking. Evidence has shown that where there is sufficient off-street parking available very few people take advantage of a residents’ permit.

83 residents rejected proposed parking restrictions in 2011 with little no change to the environment.

If the parking is causing an obstruction or a hazard then the Police do have powers to ticket such vehicles and should be reported.
With the evidence available any parking restrictions cannot be justified at this current time.

Residents experiencing difficulties exiting their driveways in the first instance should apply for a protective entrance marking; which an advisory road marking that denotes where there is an access that needs to be kept clear. As the marking is designed to benefit a private individual there is a charge for getting the marking put down. This can be applied for through Customer Services.

I appreciate that this may not be the outcome that you desire, however I hope that the above provides adequate explanation for our decision.

Last updated: Thu 16th September, 2021 @ 15:21