19th

October 2012

Dear

RE: OBJECTIONS OF GLEN PARVA PARISH COUNCIL TO THE PROPOSED A426 LEICESTER ROAD BUS

CORRIDOR PROJECT

I am writing to you on behalf of Glen Parva Parish Council concerning the above matter.

The Parish Council are of the opinion that The A426 Bus Corridor Project is a prime example of a solution

looking for a need and is considered a waste of tax payers’ money at a time of austerity, cuts in public

services and redundancies is totally inappropriate.

I would like to inform you therefore that the Parish Council objects strongly to the proposed bus corridor

and I enclose a copy of the Parish Council’s Report detailing its objections for your information.

Glen Parva Parish Council’s objections to Leicestershire County Council’s A426 Bus Corridor Project are

presented in the two parts. The first part of the report focuses on Glen Parva Parish Council’s objections to

the A426 Bus Corridor Project (Part 1) and the second part centres on Leicestershire County Council’s

unreasonably short, inadequate and unhelpful Consultation Process, (Part 2).

Glen Parva Parish Council and the local community have identified that the benefits of The Project are far

outweighed by the negative impact and effect The Project will have on the community, the environment

and the quality of life for the people living in Glen Parva; turning what is considered to be a pleasant,

popular and safe residential area with wide footpaths; grass verges; mature trees and hedges into an

unsafe, urban thoroughfare blighted by more closed board fencing, street furniture, traffic lights,

enforcement cameras and narrow footpaths that will put children in danger.

A brief summary of objections include:

• Bus fare pricing and services

• Long term impact of road works on bus passenger numbers

• Domino effect of traffic issues and congestion elsewhere in Leicester impacting on A426

• Failure to connect all modes of public transport

• Disturbance costs

• Implications of the large proposed housing and business developments

• Safety of children and other pedestrians put at risk due to the narrowing of footpaths

• Narrowing of lane widths

• Rat runs

• Quality of life for Glen Parva residents will suffer

• Enforcement cameras

• Siting of bus stops

• Business case predicated on out of date data and information

• A Waste of tax payers’ money

• Loss of residential street scene and impact on local community

Appendix J

• Poor consultation by Leicestershire County Council with the Parish Council and the local

community.

It would be appreciated if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter and report and provide me with your

comments concerning the proposals.

Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs J Small

Mrs J Small

Parish Council Manager

Copies to:

Mr D Cameron – Prime Minister

Mr S Burns -Minster of State for Transport

Director of Environment &Transportation, Leicestershire County Council

Mr C Wardle -Leicestershire County Council –Environment & Transportation Department

Mr L Quincey -Leicestershire County Council – Environment & Transportation

Mr T Kirk -Leicestershire County Council –Environment & Transportation Department

Mr S Chohan Leicestershire County Council –Environment & Transportation Department

Ms L Stinson -Leicestershire County Council –Environment & Transportation Department

Mr A D Bailey – County Councillor

Mrs L Pendleton – Lead Member of Highways & Transportation

Mr N Rushton – Leader of the County Council

Mr A Robathan, MP

Mr G L Welsh – Blaby District Councillor

Mrs B Welsh – Blaby District Councillor

Mrs C Merrill – Blaby District Councillor

Editorial - Leicester Mercury

Tom Mack – Leicester Mercury

The Blaby Courier

Mrs V Cleaver – Leicester City Councillor – Eyres Monsell Ward

Mr A Clarke – Leicester City Councillor – Aylestone Ward

Mr N Porter – Leicester City Councillor – Aylestone Ward

Mr P Soulsby – Mayor of Leicester

Chief Executive – Leicestershire County Council

Chief Executive – Leicester City Council

East Midlands Today

Central News

BBC Radio Leicester

Arriva

First Bus

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 1 of 13

THE OBJECTIONS OF GLEN PARVA PARISH COUNCIL TO THE PROPOSED A426 LEICESTER

ROAD BUS CORRIDOR PROJECT

Objections collated and prepared on behalf of GPPC by: Richard Johnson, GPPC Parish Councillor Date: 19 October 2012

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 2 of 13

CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. PART 1. Objections to the A426 Bus Corridor Project

3.2 Section 1. Objections to LCC’s perceived benefits of

the project

3.3 Wider Concerns and Objections 4. PART 2. Objections to the A426 Bus Corridor Project

Consultation Process

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 3 of 13

THE OBJECTIONS OF GLEN PARVA PARISH COUNCIL TO THE PROPOSED A426 LEICESTER ROAD BUS CORRIDOR PROJECT

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The A426 Bus Corridor Project (The Project) is a prime example of a solution looking for a need.

1.2. Leicestershire County Council (LCC) state that bus passengers will enjoy a total time saving of five minutes bus journey time between Leicester city centre and Lutterworth; but GPPC are of the opinion that both LCC and the Department of Transport have failed to date to give sufficient scrutiny to justify wasting £4.7 Million tax payers’ money at a time of austerity, when essential services are being cut and employees are being made redundant.

1.3. The Project Bid has been built around a simplistic assumption that ‘Increased bus patronage as a result of the journey time improvements, quality improvements, information provision and marketing’ will be achieved; even though by LCC’s own admission the impact of other roadwork projects (South Wigston) have resulted in Arriva actually cutting bus services along the A426 by 50% in response to bus patronage that fell to a commercially unviable level. The bus service has not reverted back to the number of buses per hour that it was prior to the roadworks, presumably because it remains unviable.

1.4. Unlike LCC and their project partners, Glen Parva Parish Council (GPPC) and the local community have identified that the benefits of The Project are far outweighed by the negative impact and effect The Project will have on the community, the environment and the quality of life for the people living in Glen Parva. Turning what is considered to be a pleasant, popular and safe residential area with wide footpaths; grass verges; mature trees and hedges into an unsafe, urban thoroughfare blighted by more closed board fencing, street furniture, traffic lights, enforcement cameras and narrow footpaths that will put children in danger.

1.5. In 2005/2006, written assurance was given by the LCC’s Assistant Director of Highways &

Transportation that there would be no loss of footpaths or grass verges in the implementation of any such bus corridor scheme. The proposed scheme is therefore a clear breach of promise and trust from LCC.

1.6. The Project in its assertions has relied upon both out of date and incomparable metrics and information such as the 2001 Census and other road projects. LCC didn’t however undertake any meaningful customer insight activity; if they had they would know that the main barrier to bus patronage was not due to a lack of bus lanes but the COST of bus fares.

1.7. GPPC also takes serious issue with LCC’s approach to the consultation process or rather perceived lack of adequate consultation. In LCC’s Bid Document even they identify that ‘Public consultation required in short timescale’ is a risk for the Project.

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 4 of 13

2. Introduction 2.1. Whilst traffic congestion is a feature of most cities in the UK today, the default solution

shouldn’t be more Bus Lanes. Local Authorities should instead engage and work with the local community and other road users to develop informed, appropriate long term solutions for the benefit of the community and other road users.

2.2. Unfortunately Leicestershire County Council (LCC) have shied away from engaging with

the local community and Glen Parva Parish Council in any meaningful way; as a consequence emotions are starting to run high and opposition to the Project intensifies as the local community become increasingly aware and informed about the implications of The Project and the negative effect it will have upon the local community and other road users in and around Glen Parva.

2.3. To enable LCC and other stakeholders to gain an insight into the level of opposition to The

Project both a paper petition and e-petition, using LCC’s website have been set up. Ironically, petitioners are the very people LCC naively believe will just switch to using the rather limited bus service once the project is completed.

2.4. Currently at what are considered peak traffic times, children using school buses to travel to

South Wigston School and elsewhere manage to arrive on time without the aid of bus lanes.

2.5. GPPC are of the opinion that LCC have failed to provide a robust business case for The

Project; they have failed at even a basic level to undertake a satisfactory impact assessment of the Project on the local community, the environment and other road users in the short, medium and long term.

2.6. GPPC are of the opinion that both LCC and the Department of Transport have failed to date

to give The Project sufficient scrutiny to justify it going ahead and wasting £4.7 Million of tax payers’ money in the current climate.

2.7. GPPC’s objections to LCC’s A426 Bus Corridor Project are presented in two parts. The first

part focuses on GPPC’s objections to the A426 Bus Corridor Project (Part 1) and the second part centres on LCC’s unreasonably short, inadequate and unhelpful Consultation Process, (Part 2).

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 5 of 13

3. PART 1. Objections to the A426 Bus Corridor Project 3.1. Part 1 has been divided into the following two sections:

3.1.1. Section 1. This section outlines GPPC’s objections in response to the claims made by LCC about the alleged benefits of the proposed A426 Bus Corridor Project as stated in both the bid document and the consultation document.

3.1.2. Section 2.

This section outlines GPPC’s objections to the proposed A426 Bus Corridor Project in relations to wider considerations and issues that the bid document and consultation document have failed to take account of and/or adequately address should the project go ahead. Within Section 2 GPPC also notes potential solutions to addressing specific need and/or issue without having to adopt LCC’s default position implementing bus lanes.

3.2. Section 1. Objections to LCC’s perceived benefits of the project

3.2.1. The table below outlines GPPC’s objections and counter claims against LCC’s perceived benefits for The Project as stated in both the bid document and the consultation document:

LCC claim the project will achieve: The following Objections are made by GPPC in

response to LCC’s claims:

1. Reduced and more predictable journey times and improved reliability for buses.

1. Even after a 50% reduction by Arriva in the number of buses, the existing service currently fails to run to timetable even during off peak periods when there is light traffic on the A426.

2. Increased bus patronage as a result of the journey time improvements, quality improvements, information provision and marketing.

2. LCC provide no evidence and customer insight to support this statement. Their statistical data is spurious as it is based on totally out-of-date 2001 census data.

3. The petition signed by the local community and objecting to the scheme also states they will not use buses when the scheme is completed any more than they do now.

4. An increase in take up is unlikely as bus services do not link up with other forms of public transport. Eg. It is a 15-20 minute walk from the nearest bus stop to Leicester Railway Station.

3. Reduced congestion as a result of the junction improvements and mode shift to public transport.

5. The petition illustrates that any significant shift to public transport is highly unlikely.

6. Longer queues of traffic moving at a lower speed limit of 30mph will cause increased congestion; will result in longer car journey times and increase vehicle pollution levels.

7. New pedestrian crossings will lead to greater congestion as traffic flow is interrupted by crossing

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 6 of 13

light changes.

8. Bus gates will also interrupt traffic flow and stop traffic moving.

9. Junction improvements at the Soar Valley Way and Middleton Street junctions and the widening of Glenhills Boulevard would negate the need for bus lanes.

4. Reductions in carbon emissions as a result of the reduced congestion.

10. The scheme will INCREASE not decrease CO² emissions

11. Vehicles will be forever stop-starting and sitting stationary at one set of traffic lights or another.

12. Car Journeys that can currently be driven non-stop in either direction on Leicester Road will be highly unlikely to occur.

5. Benefits to the businesses of better journey time reliability for both employees and delivery vehicles.

13. Employees who use buses know how buses operate now and plan accordingly.

14. Delivery vehicles will be stuck in the traffic queues as they cannot use bus lanes.

6. Improved access to work and training.

15. Access to work will only apply to people who work on or near to the A426.

16. People who work and train elsewhere will be severely delayed.

7. Improved pedestrian crossing points

17. No evidence is provided that existing pedestrian crossings are unsafe.

18. Additional crossing points will lead to further delays for road users and result in more congestion.

8. Proposed speed limit reduction between a point just south of the (A563) Soar Valley Way junction and a point just south of the Woodbank junction to improve safety for all road users along that section of the A426

19. Children, pedestrians and road users will be put in danger as footpaths reduced to 1.8 metres wide.

20. Home owners who have to use the existing verges and footpaths as refuges to turn their vehicles around and join traffic safely from driveways will have to reverse illegally into traffic from their driveways. They may also have difficultly seeing pedestrians on dark mornings/evenings.

21. The width of the carriage ways in both directions of the road will be much narrower

9. Improvements for cyclists – bus lanes will enable safer cycle use along the A426

22. Cyclists find it quicker and safer to use the nationally recognised SUSTRANS route along the Great Central Way to get into the city centre as it avoids traffic lights and the steep gradients on the A426.

23. Existing pavement widths also enable safe cycling.

24. The existing width of the road also allows for the safe overtaking of cyclists.

25. Cyclists and motorcyclists will be put in danger when trying to turn right as the carriageways will be narrower on both sides.

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 7 of 13

10. Safety improvements at junctions – the scheme would also be addressing one of the City Council’s high priority accident sites at the Soar Valley Way (A563)/ Lutterworth Road (A426) junction

26. This junction is not locally known as an accident black spot, unlike the junction at A596 Soar Valley Way and the B4114 near Sainsbury’s that is considered to be an accident black spot.

11. Better emergency vehicle access 27. This is likely to be worse as emergency vehicles currently and regularly drive up the centre of the road but they won’t be able to do that as the hatching will no longer exist. So if there are buses in the bus lane and queuing traffic in both directions emergency vehicles could be stuck in traffic. Or if they use the bus lane they may not be able to rejoin the main carriage way again due to traffic.

3.3 Section 2. Wider Concerns and Objections

3.3.1 Within Section 2 GPPC’s wider concerns and objections to the proposed A426

Bus Corridor Project are presented. It is the opinion of GPPC that these wider considerations and issues have either failed to be taken into account or adequately addressed in the Project Bid Document and the Consultation Document. Within this section GPPC have also noted potential solutions that will help address specific needs and/or issues without having to adopt LCC’s default position implementing bus lanes.

3.3.2 Bus Fare Pricing and Services

i. Through current engagement with the local community, (something LCC has failed to do as part of developing their bid); GPPC is finding that the major barrier to using buses isn’t a lack of bus lanes or even the frequency of existing bus services but PRICING. At a time when the costs of motoring are forever increasing people are naturally looking to alternatives modes of transport, buses being the main one. However, the prices are currently prohibitive particularly for a family. For example a trip into the city centre and back for a family of four would cost in access of £10.00 making it cheaper and more convenient to travel by car. Addressing this issue could potentially lead to an increase in bus usage and a reduction in car usage without the need for bus lanes.

ii. The 73 bus service in Glen Parva has recently been completely withdrawn, leaving many elderly residents without a bus service and who live 800metres from a bus stop. This is contrary to the County Council’s Transport Policy. The replacement DRT service offered by the County Council has also been withdrawn.

iii. Solution – Attractive, competitive and reduced bus fare pricing

iv. Arriva should be investing in improved bus quality, electronic ticketing and customer care without the need for a Government subsidy.

v. Bus fares should be reduced in order to encourage greater usage. It is currently £4 for a day ticket compared with £3.50 for a Park and Ride ticket.

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 8 of 13

vi. The Park and Ride facility at Enderby is under used; this lack of use needs to be investigated as to why that is and the use of this facility should be encouraged instead of this proposed Project.

3.3.3. Long term impact of roadworks on bus passenger numbers

i. The Bid Document states (page 4) ‘that a series of major roadworks in South

Wigston have led to a demonstrable reduction in usage on Arriva’s key services on the corridor: the resultant loss of revenue has forced the company to halve the frequency of service 85 from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes.’ GPPC considers it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that if approved The Project which would expect to start in January 2013 and not be finished until the end of March 2014; Arriva will suffer yet another ‘demonstrable reduction in passenger usage’ that may make the bus corridor commercially unviable as people move away from using buses all together.

ii. Arriva have not to date reinstated the frequency of the 85 service to one every 15 minutes; could be because passenger numbers have either never recovered or that the current service reflects passenger demand.

iii. Solution – Improved roadwork planning and co-ordination

3.3.4. The domino effect of traffic issues and congestion elsewhere in Leicester impacting on the A426 i. The traffic congestion on the A426 Leicester Road/Lutterworth Road is more

often than not as a result of roadworks, congestion and incidents elsewhere on the road network; the road itself has a good safety record. The main pinch points that have a domino effect on the A426 are at the Fosse Park Shopping Centre; the A ring road; Fox Hunter roundabout and the M1/M69 junctions.

ii. Solution – Improved traffic flow management and traffic light signal

sequencing.

3.3.5. Failure to connect all modes of public transport and provide the bus services people want i. The project fails to address the need to connect bus services and all other

modes of public transport in a cost effective and time saving way for users.

ii. There are no direct bus services between Wigston and Enderby from Glen Parva.

iii. Bus services using the A426 do not link up with the railway station. At certain times of day it can take almost as long to walk from the nearest bus stop to the railway station as it does to drive from Glen Parva to the railway station.

iv. LCC’s £9.2 Million Enderby Park and Ride Project provides an expensive example of LCC’s failure to provide the bus services people actually want to use and how they fail to link public transport with locations where the travelling public want to go to; such as on match days this Park and Ride does not go to either of Leicester’s stadiums, leading to both home and away supporters using their cars causing congestion in the city centre as there is no adequate stadium parking.

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 9 of 13

v. The Birstall Park and Ride that opened in July 2012, at a cost of £5.25 Million run jointly by the Leicester City Council and LCC has according to the Leicester Mercury only 185 cars a day using a facility that can accommodate a 1,000 cars. Rather that believing that the problem is “once people are in their cosy cars they're a little bit reluctant to stop off and get on to another form of transport." (Alan Meredith, deputy chairman of Travel Watch East, 12 June 12, ‘This is Leicestershire), the problem may be the bus services don’t actually take people to where they need to go.

vi. LCC need to understand that increasingly more and more people in the 21st Century do not work in the place they live. Unlike bus services, at all times of day, at the Soar Valley traffic lights more traffic either turns left or right than actually goes straight ahead into the city, either ahead along the A453 in the direction of Junction 21 m1/69 or in the direction of the A6.

vii. Solution – Integrated Transport Strategy that listens to the travelling

public and is sympathetic to and accepts car usage as a necessity for many citizens.

3.3.6. Disturbance Costs

i. Disturbance costs appear not to have been factored into the life of the project

such as: Bus delays; traffic congestion; delays and costs to business and commuters; an increase in the level of CO2 emissions; the impact on the environment and the cost to homeowners in terms of distress, inconvenience and the negative effects on house prices in Glen Parva.

3.3.7. Implications of the large proposed housing and business developments

i. The project fails to address the implications of the large proposed housing

developments in Whetstone; Countesthorpe; Blaby and Lubbesthorpe and the increase in traffic that will arise as a result of these developments.

ii. The project fails to take account of the proposed Food and Drink Cluster at Enderby by Everards Brewery and the future implications for Fosse Park.

3.3.8. Safety of Children and other pedestrians put at risk due to narrowing of

Footpaths i. The existing wide pavements and verges help make walking on what is a

major road safer. The Project will put the safety of school children walking to and from local schools and to and from the bus stops along Leicester Road extremely unsafe and this is considered a major cause for concern for parents.

3.3.9. Narrowing of lane widths i. The proposed narrowing of traffic lane widths will impact badly on all road

users; large haulage vehicles will struggle to negotiate and pass by other haulage vehicles. Car users will be very close to traffic passing in the opposite direction and as vehicles struggle to make turn offs to other roads, incidents are likely to dramatically increase which will lead to traffic congestion and potential gridlock.

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 10 of 13

3.3.10. Rat Runs

i. Whenever traffic congestion occurs on the A426 Leicester Road and Lutterworth Road as a result of the ‘domino effect’ described in 2.3.4, road users take to using Dorothy Avenue, Greendale Road, Amanda Road, Ruston Drive and Gilmorton Avenue as a ‘Rat Run’. Accordingly, road users also use ‘Rat Runs’ starting at Red House Road, Grange Drive and Hillsborough Road. GPPC believe that these roads will be severely negatively impacted by the Project both during its implementation and long after.

3.3.11. The quality of life for Glen Parva residents will suffer

i. The Project benefits are far outweighed by the negative impact and affect it will have on the community, the environment and the quality of life for the residents of Glen Parva. It will turn what is considered to be a pleasant, popular and safe residential area with wide footpaths; grass verges; mature trees and hedges into an unsafe, urban thoroughfare blighted by more closed board fencing, street furniture, traffic lights, enforcement cameras and narrow footpaths that will put children in danger.

ii. GPPC has worked hard over the years to develop a community identity

and spirit that will become divided by the proposed road changes, damaging links with the Little Glen Road area of the Parish and resulting in a detrimental and negative effect on the local community.

iii. As footpaths will be narrowed, noise and pollution will increase for residents living along and adjacent to the A426 as the road will be situated nearer to their properties.

iv. There will be a loss of privacy to residential properties on Leicester Road

due to the narrowing of the footpaths.

3.3.12. Enforcement Cameras

i. Bus lanes along Aylestone Road and other routes throughout Leicester are not in operation currently on a 24/7 basis, but are in operation at peak times. If The Project is completed they will be operational 24/7, which appears to be unnecessary especially as road users will be fined for using the bus lanes.

ii. The Project will be considered to be nothing more than another way of extracting cash out of hard pressed motorists and have very little to do with improving the quality of life for the residents of Glen Parva and other road users.

3.3.13. Siting of Bus Stops

i. The relocation of bus stops will also affect properties on Leicester Road

and may lead to increases in litter, vandalism, graffiti and anti-social behaviour.

3.3.14. Business case predicated on out of date data and information

i. LCC need to recognise that increasingly more and more people in the 21st

Century do not work in the place they live and the economic environment

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 11 of 13

being what it is leads to people travelling significant distances to get to their place of work. Therefore LCC’s reliance on Census data from 2001 is seriously flawed.

ii. Unlike bus services that travel along the A426 at the Soar Valley traffic lights increasingly more and more traffic either turns left or right onto the A453 going in either the direction of Junction 21 m1/69 or in the direction of the A6 than goes straight ahead into the city centre.

3.3.15. A waste of Tax Payers Money

i. LCC state that bus passengers will enjoy a total time saving of five minutes

bus journey time between Leicester city centre and Lutterworth; GPPC consider spending £4.7 Million on a project nobody wants is hardly a good use of tax payers’ money particularly as there is no defined payback period for the project. The Project is entirely inappropriate at a time of austerity; when essential services are being cut and employees being made redundant.

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 12 of 13

4. PART 2. Objections to the A426 Bus Corridor Project Consultation Process

4.1 Inadequate Consultation with stakeholders

4.1.1 GPPC also takes serious issue with LCC’s approach to the consultation process or rather perceived lack of adequate consultation. In LCC’s Bid Document even they identify that ‘Public consultation required in short timescale’ is a risk for the project.

4.2 LCC’s consultation and engagement with GPPC

4.2.1 GPPC first contacted LCC Officers on 27 April 2012 to attend a Parish Council meeting on 18 June 2012, which LCC declined.

4.2.2 LCC Officers were initially only prepared to meet 3-4 Parish Councillors.

4.2.3 LCC Officers would only meet with all Parish Councillors in a closed meeting.

4.2.4 LCC Officers who attended the closed Council meeting stated to GPPC Parish Councillors that the Project was a ‘done deal’, making a mockery of the consultation process.

4.2.5 LCC Officers refused to attend a public meeting of the Parish Council, despite repeated invitations to do so.

4.3 LCC’s consultation and engagement with the local community

4.3.1 Consultation Document and Reply Postcard – It is considered that there was insufficient space available for a full and comprehensive reply.

4.3.2 On-line reply facilities – It is considered that being limited to 100 words is

insufficient space for a full and comprehensive reply. 4.3.3 LCC have sent letters to certain residents on the A426 to discuss alterations to

their drives, hedges, trees, etc, even though the consultation period had only just started. Giving the impression to residents and others that lip service is being paid to the consultation process.

4.3.4 Parish Councillors and Glen Parva residents who have approach other Parish

residents about The Project have found that they are completely unaware of The Project an when they are informed they object to the Project.

4.4 LCC exhibition on 6 October 2012

4.4.1 Arriva was represented by a bus driver at the exhibition. It would have been more appropriate and helpful if a Senior Manager from Arriva was present who could speak with some authority about how Arriva will improve bus services along the A426

4.4.2 Glen Parva residents have complained to GPPC that LCC staff were telling them that The Project was a ‘done deal’ that the Project would go ahead irrespective of any objections.

4.5 e-petition

Appendix J

GPPC’s Objections to LCC A426 Bus Corridor Project Page 13 of 13

4.5.1 A GPPC Parish Councillor registered an e-petition on 15 October 2012. He contacted LCC on 17 October 12 having not heard from LCC. An LCC Officer returned his call later that afternoon. Another Officer also emailed him on afternoon of 17 October 12 with suggested amendments for the e-petition. The Parish Councillor took these on board and made further amendments that evening and emailed those back to the Officer at 0.23hrs on 18 October 2012. The Parish Councillor also contacted LCC Officers again on 18 October 12 to inform Officers of the changes and asking when the e-petition would go-live. T the time of closing this report (11.00am, Friday 19 October 2012), the e-petition is still not live. GPPC object to the amount of time it is taking to get the e-petition live and consider it unreasonable of LCC not to have had this e-petition launched within this timeframe.

Appendix J