Cheshire East Council is proposing to reduce the number of roads that get gritted each winter, including several of the main routes in Alderley Edge.
The routes currently treated by the Council date back to the days of Cheshire County Council and at present, the Council treats around 1120km of the 2700km network (41%).
The Council has carried out a risk assessment process, which has identified 995km out of 2700km (37%) highway network as requiring routine winter treatment.
As a result, the proposal to be considered by the Cabinet on Tuesday, 4th February is for 103km of previously untreated roads to be added to the network. 892 km of previously treated roads remaining on the network and 230km of previously treated roads removed from the treated network.
Amongst the roads to be removed are Chorley Hall Lane, Mottram Road, Heyes Lane and Trafford Road in Alderley Edge.
Where roads are removed from the treated network, a grit bin risk assessment will be undertaken to ascertain if a grit bin is required.
Considering the risks of implementing these changes the report states "The removal of some roads from the winter treatment network could increase the risk of accidents on the network; however, the risk assessment process adopted should mean this is a manageable risk.
"The removal of some of the rural roads may make access to some rural businesses and communities difficult during snow and icing conditions; however, the proposed assessment of the removed roads for a grit bin could help to mitigate this."
The Council also has cross boundary agreements where roads in other council's areas are treated in return for the treatment of roads in Cheshire East to deliver route efficiencies. The Council presently treats 58km of other councils' roads with 19km of the CEC network treated in return. These cross boundary routes will be reviewed and dialog has begun with the neighbouring authorities to discuss changes.
Cheshire East is also proposing to amend the current frequency of safety inspections so that 843km of the most heavily trafficked roads in the Borough receive an increase in inspection frequency and 516km of lesser used routes receiving a lower inspection frequency. Under the proposals, the roads considered most important would receive inspections every month, whereas under the existing arrangements this is undertaken every two months.
Another proposal being considered is revising the response times for the repair of defects. The current code of practice, aims to address the most dangerous actionable defects within 1.5 hours and less dangerous actionable defects within 5 days. The proposal is to address emergency defects in 1 hour during the working day and 1.5 hours outside of working hours; however, defects that pose a lesser risk to the traveling public will be repaired between 2 and 20 working days from the point of identification by an inspector.
Additionally the Council is proposing to change the approach to road defects from intervention levels to investigatory levels. Under the current approach defects are actioned at the specific intervention level: 50mm for potholes, 100mm for carriageway edge deterioration, 25mm cycle-path or footpath defect and 50mm for cycle lane defects. Under the proposed approach defects are risk assessed at the investigatory level to determine the risk they pose to the public: 40mm for potholes, 80mm for carriageway edge deterioration, 20mm cycle-path or footpath defect and 20mm for cycle lane defects.
What do you think about the above proposals? Share your views via the comment box below.
Maps showing proposals
Green - road to remain on route.
Orange - road to be removed.
Blue - road to be added.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
They probably think everyone in Alderley Edge drives Range Rovers but what about us poor saps whose wife has got the Range Rover and the husband is left to pootle around in his Ferrari?
This is an important route out of the village to local shops, doctors, chemists, public transport etc.
What do we pay our council tax for?
Bill Pilkington
Anyone any idea how we would get up Trafford Road to Macc. Road? Coming down does bear thinking about.
As for that water run off from the fields just north of Heyes Lane bridge that sounds like a head on crash waiting to happen.
I wouldn't put my name to the risk assessment someone in EC wrote.
The proposed Removal of Mottram Road shows a complete misunderstanding of how important this route is. The main link for Mottram St Andrew residents to get to the facilities in Alderley Edge, medical, retail, banking and recreational. This proposal must be opposed as this arterial route must be kept open and safe throughout the winter.
Seriously though, Cheshire East Highways is unfit for purpose. They should be disbanded and the operation privatised.
When CE send out a man in a van to take a look to see if a hole is 40mm deep, then many days later, send two more men in vans to fill the 40mm hole but leave the two adjacent 30 mm holes! Then to return a couple of weeks later when 30mm deep becomes 40mm.
Any private business operating in such a fashion would soon go out of business.
Not gritting some of the roads ? Where do these idiots get these goofy ideas from ?
I just despair as to what type of people are making these stupid council decisions.
Thank you for your comments on this issue, many of which reflect my own thoughts. When the proposals were shown to council members back in the autumn, I submitted a number of objections setting out why our local roads should not be removed from the winter service programme; however, I do understand that Cheshire East Highways is in a no-win position.
The Dept for Transport requires that the local highways network is managed using a prescribed assessment; this assessment takes into account issues such as the category of road, volume of traffic, types of vehicle, history of accidents, connectivity with principal routes etc. The proposed changes are based on the results of this assessment.
Over the last 5 years, the Dept for Transport has awarded c.£12m each year to Cheshire East Council for the borough's highways network; however, the continuation of this funding is dependent on the council introducing the above assessment criteria to its management and maintenance of our local roads.
Unfortunately, the choice before us therefore is this: accept reductions in the winter service programme in order to retain the existing level of funding for road maintenance (temporary repairs, patching, resurfacing etc); or continue to grit all the roads that are currently covered, recognising that this will mean (even) less government funding for road repairs.
I would like to clarify that the proposal is to remove certain roads from the regular gritting programme, but this does not mean that they will not be gritted in the event of extreme weather conditions. I hope this helps everyone to understand why the proposal is being made. I don't like it any more than you do, but there is no easy alternative option.
Kind regards,
Craig
Maybe the "prescribed assessment" is flawed then.
So C/E have had 60 m in the last five years, on top of the normal highways budget, it would make interesting reading has to how it was spent.
I would like to make a number of observations on your statement.
1. You say you objected to your own policy change isn't this slightly hypocritical as you have responsibility for strategic transport therefore it was your decision to start this folly.
2. You say the Dept for Transport has given £12million for the maintenance of the roads yet the current state of roads would indicate that this has been mismanaged
3. Reading the report it makes no mention that roads which you are taking off will be gritted in extreme weather but does say that we might get a grit bin if we pass the test for eligibility (dont hold your breath)
4. I am sure the government will not take money away from the council for putting residents lives at risk.
If you have any level of decency you will vote against this ludicrous policy.
Craig, the idea that we have to make sacrifices from the "Winter Service Programme" in order to sustain funds for road repair is actually insulting. You will be well aware that the roads around Wilmslow and Alderley Edge are currently in a dangerous state of repair with widespread broken surfaces and potholes (craters) commonplace. In addition the painted central lines and "Slow" & "Stop" markings in many places are illegible - the stretch of London Road from its junction with Heyes Lane, through the village, continuing into Congleton Road to the junction with Artists Lane / Welsh Row (and beyond) is a good example.
So now CE Council want to tinker some more and add lack of traction to broken roads?
Am I alone in having doubts about the promises of investment in "The Northern Powerhouse" or "The Engine of the North" or "Connectivity" when all around us infrastructure is crumbling?
The number of times I’ve reported about road markings that just are not there any more and this is going back over 5 years ago and still nothing done. How much money is being spent on these kitchen caddy bins for waste food??? Not heard 1 person yet say they want one! Put that money into something that’s really needed!!
Thank you for your observations. Taking them point by point, firstly the proposed changes fall under the responsibility of the Highways & Waste portfolio, rather than Strategic Transport & Infrastructure; however, that is largely irrelevant as the changes are being forced upon us anyway.
I think we all recognise that the condition of our local roads both could and should be better; however, an assessment by the Strategic Highways Team has concluded that £17m needs to be invested annually, simply to retain the existing condition of our roads; anything less is just managing their continual decline. The funding level provided to Cheshire East by the Dept for Transport has been £5m short of this for each of the last five years.
The Well Managed Highways Protocol (referenced in the report) makes it clear that future DfT funding allocations will continue to be linked to councils’ ability to demonstrate that they have complied with the assessment criteria set out in that protocol. The risk associated with failing to do so is therefore that Cheshire East would receive an even lower level of funding than the (inadequate) £12m it currently gets.
Many residents are also unaware that approximately two-thirds of Cheshire East’s budget is spent on supporting vulnerable adults and looked-after children. These are statutory services for which the demand is growing, yet financial support from central government has not kept pace. The other one-third has to cover everything else the council is responsible for, so I can assure you that this is not a case of mismanagement; rather one of increasingly being asked and expected to do more with less.
As a final point, it is perhaps also worth making the point that for every £1.00 Cheshire East raises in business rates, only 30p remains within the borough, with the remaining 70p going directly to Westminster for redistribution to other areas (for example, Liverpool gets to keep £1.30 for every £1.00 collected).
I hope this is helpful and I would like to assure you that I both understand and share your annoyance, but on this particular occasion I feel it is misdirected.
Kind regards,
Craig
If ANYONE can alter the direction of some of the less-than-helpful Cheshire East Councillors, YOU can. Thank you.
A recording of the debate can be listened to at:
https://bit.ly/2OsNTLZ
The nett spend on CE roads is being vigorously cut and the condition of the roads is deteriorating quickly - we are faced with driving on increasingly dangerous roads.
Whilst CE Council tell us that this is due to budget cuts inflicted by Central Government, the stated policy of the new Government is to increase investment in Northern infrastructure.
Letters to Esther McVey will (I'm quite sure) solicit the reassurance we all desire.