The following items have been raised by a member of the public: -
i) Main Street Humberstone – 20mph Campaign
Support is sought to the current campaign to impose a 20mph speed limit on a length of Main Street, Humberstone.
ii) Heavy Good Vehicles Operators Licences
It is requested that it be made a requirement that local people be notified of all new applications submitted for Heavy Goods Vehicle Operators Licences affecting this area.
iii) School Waiting Lists
In view of the fact that several local schools are full, and parents are being advised to ‘Home Teach’ until vacancies become available, the City Council be asked what was being planned to do to ease the situation, bearing in mind that further new properties are being built in the Hamilton area.
Minutes:
The following items were raised by the public and the responses are summarised as follows: -
i) 20mph zone – Main Street Humberstone
It was stated that residents had been pleading for four years to make Main Street a 20mph zone. Several other local roads had since been given 20mph speed limits and 120 streets across the City were now 20mph streets. Main Street, Humberstone had blind bends, two chicanes and passed by two schools. It was questioned whether the City Council were waiting for a fatal accident before taking further action.
The Chair stated that herself and fellow Ward Councillors had been fighting for 20mph zones in this area for a long while but this was now part of the wider City Council debate of 20mph zones across the whole City. Unfortunately accident statistics were utilised in determining the priority for implementing such traffic measures.
ii) Heavy Goods Vehicles – Operator’s Licences
It was stated that, under present legislation, only respective landowners, or people owning properties that might be affected by HGV Operations in question, were able to comment on applications for HGV Operator’s licences. A similar system to that applicable to Planning Applications was required whereby residents living in the vicinity of the application site would be able to comment and make objections.
The Chair stated that this area of work was dealt with by the Vehicle and Operator’s Services Agency (VOSA), a Government Agency. To suggest changes to the processes followed would require contact with the Government and this would be taken up with the local M.P.
The Chair stated that regarding the recent issues around a scaffolding company that started operating from a local car park, action was quickly instigated by local ward Councillors to get the company moved from the car park.
iii) School Waiting Lists
It was stated that in view of the fact that several local schools were full, and parents were being advised to ‘Home Teach’ until vacancies became available, the City Council were asked what was being planned to ease the situation, bearing in mind that further new properties were planned for the Hamilton area.
The Chair stated that a response had been received from the Cabinet Lead member responsible for schools and this was read out as follows:-
“Thank you for your enquiry regarding the admission of pupils and provision of school places within the Hamilton area.
Officers can confirm that parents are not advised to ‘Home Teach’ children if they do not receive an offer for a school place of their preference.
Parents may make applications for schools that are full, and in these situations the pupils are placed on the waiting list for the school until a place becomes available. A letter is sent to parents and the admissions service work with parents to find a school with a place available as near to their home as possible.
The City Council is aware of proposals for Housing development in Hamilton as part of our Pupil Place Planning Strategy; a number of proposals are being developed for the provision of additional school places in the area. Consultations are currently on-going with schools, governors, diocesan partners and members on options for supply of more places and as these are developed in more detail I will ask officers to keep the Community Meeting informed of their progress.”
Supplementary Question
“If a parent was not able to get a child into a school before they were four years old, would the parents face prosecution.”
It was stated that a response would be sought.
A member of the public stated that Hamilton lacked community space although there were a lot of play areas for children. It was apparent that S.106 monies from developers were not always spent in the area of the planning application.
In response it was stated that there was a lack of community facilities in Hamilton and S.106 monies from developers were not always spent in the area where the respective development was taking place. A large proportion of the land on which Hamilton was built had been owned by the Hamilton Trust and they had applied for the relevant permissions, there was a need to check back to the original plans to ascertain whether there had subsequently been changes of use.
It was reported that Charnwood Borough Council had received a planning application to develop a site at Heritage Way. Councillor Patel stated that members were aware of this application as it was also due to be considered by the City Council as permission was required from the City Council because access to the development was across City Council land. The more support that could be given to oppose the application would be welcomed.
RESOLVED:
that the information be noted.