Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Crime and Disorder Select Committee Minutes

Date:
Thursday, 30th July, 2015
Time:
2.30pm
Place:
Ground Floor Committee Room, Town Hall, High Street, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 1AU
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Paul Baker(Chairman), Cllr David Wilburn(Vice-Chairman), Cllr Paul Rowling, Cllr Norma Stephenson O.B.E, Cllr Matthew Vickers, Cllr Mrs Sylvia Walmsley, Cllr Julia Whitehill, Cllr Barry Woodhouse
Officers:
Mike Chicken (Economic Growth and Development Services Division), Graham Birtle, Jenna McDonald (LDS)
Apologies for absence:
Cllr Ken Dixon
Item Description Decision
Public
CD
6/15
EVACUATION PROCEDURE
The evacuation procedure was noted.
CD
7/15
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
CD
8/15
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 JUNE 2015
AGREED that the minutes be approved.
CD
9/15
SCRUTINY REVIEW OF RIVER TEES CROSSING
INFRASTRUCTURE

AGREED:

1. The scope and project plan

2. That the information be noted.

3. That the recommendations be agreed.
CD
10/15
WORK PROGRAMME
AGREED that the Work Programme be noted by Members.
CD
11/15
CHAIR'S UPDATE
The Chair provided no update.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
CD
8/15
Consideration was given to the draft minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2015.
CD
9/15
The Committee was presented with a draft scope and project plan for this review which was agreed before receiving evidence from the Highways, Transport and Environment Manager, Development and Neighbourhood Services.

Following on from work carried out to paint and repair Newport Bridge, the Committee was provided with a report that highlighted the context to the management of bridges and structures across the Borough. The report also identified areas for improvement.

Members were provided with a Bridges and Structures presentation which highlighted the following information:

- There were 539 structures across the Borough, 372 of which were under the ownership of Stockton Borough Council (SBC). 167 structures were privately owned by organisations such as Network Rail and Auto-link. It was heard that the Local Highway Authority had a statutory duty to maintain these structures.

- The Committee was provided with photographic images of bridges, culverts, foot bridges and subways located across the Borough along with images displaying defects.

- Members were informed that common problems included; water and salt penetration, corrosion, loose bricks, cracks and flooding.

- It was important that gas pipes and other services were protected when carrying out maintenance work on structures.

- Painting of bridges and structures was often high in cost due to not only the products being applied but also for the preparation such as scaffolding, accessing platforms and organising road closures. It was highlighted that while work was being carried out on Newport Bridge, the road remained open and a crash deck was built to protect vehicles from paint and debris.

- Concerns were raised around the Teesside Park flyover. It was heard that when work by the Teesside Development Corporation began on the flyover, a deadline for completion was in place and work was carried out quickly which now required a remedy.

Members raised the following points/questions:

- If SBC managed maintenance work effectively, why were some bridges/structures in the mentioned state? It was highlighted that while SBC did monitor and manage maintenance work, if the structure was not a hazard and therefore caused no danger, money would not be spent at that particular time.

- How sure were SBC that the Teesside Park flyover would not subside? Members heard that there were no guarantees and although a Radar Survey was carried out which did not identify any voids, it was difficult to gain a true reflection through a layer of Tarmac. Monitoring would take place focusing on how much the road moved in the future and the road would eventually have to be re-built, although the current fix had a life of around 20 years.

- With reference to salt penetration, it was asked whether SBC would consider a defreeze chemical as an alternative to ensure that the road was not damaged. Members were informed that this could be an alternative option and work was currently pursuing in this field.

- Members asked whether the Government took any responsibility for the maintenance of bridges and structures. It was highlighted that the Government took no responsibility for structures which SBC had adopted.

The Committee noted the recommendations detailed within the report.
CD
10/15
Members noted the following information:

- A representative from Cleveland Police would attend a Committee Overview Meeting in order to highlight and discuss crime figures

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction