Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Panel Members Mr A D Kent and Ms R Vale.  Relevant Cabinet Members with Responsibility had been invited, but also sent Apologies.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by email indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 2 October 2017).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/email address below.

None.

To follow.

This Item was deferred until the next meeting.

Attending for this Item were County Council Officers:

Andy Baker, Transport Planning Manager

Martin Rowe, Transport Strategy Team Leader

Matthew Fung, Public Health Consultant

In addition County Cycling Group Representatives had been invited to the meeting to participate in the discussion.

By way of introduction, the Chairman explained that during the previous Administration and as part of the consultation process, the Panel had discussed the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) at its January 2017 meeting.  At the time, the Panel had made some comments in relation to cycling.

It was reported that LTP4 was now being finalised and was due to be presented to Cabinet in November 2017. 

In the ensuing discussion, the following main points were raised:

·         Safety of cyclists on the A46 near Evesham was a particular concern for Panel Members in the previous discussion and Members sought an update.  It was explained that this project was jointly managed by Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire County Councils who were jointly seeking extra funding from Central Government to address concerns.  There was a risk that cycling might be prohibited along the A46 in future in which case alternative provision would be needed and Officers were working to ensure Worcestershire's needs were met.  However, work being undertaken now on a "whole corridor" study would take time to come to fruition

·         When a category of road was upgraded, for example to an expressway, the cycleway was completed at the same time, as per current Government guidance

·         There had been a lack of consistent funding from Central Government for cycling, however, the 'Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy' published by the Department for Transport was a positive development in policy

·         Members queried how proposals in the strategic LTP4 were achieved.  It was suggested that some positive initiatives contained in past plans had failed to come to fruition.  Officers explained that major funding could be inconsistent and time limited.  The Plan was also a positive document as it was committing the Council to progress Active Travel Corridors in and through the County

·         It was noted that cycling nationally was worth around £2.9billion to the British economy and in Worcestershire it boosted the local economy by around £5million

·         One Member noted that the County Council did not specifically identify any budget for cycling, however, funding bids were submitted throughout the financial year.  One recent example was given for the Bromsgrove area, which was identified by Officers as being the most poorly provided area in Worcestershire

·         Feasibility studies were undertaken to ensure that future projects were 'shovel ready' if and when funding bids were successful.  There was suggestion that studies did build hopes and everyone agreed that could be case.  Officers felt it was beneficial to prepare schemes as funding opportunities often came with tight deadlines and it would be unfortunate to pass over an opportunity

·         In response to a query about Section 106 money, Officers agreed that they could be more rigorous in their funding requests

·         Members asked for detail on how much funding was currently  ...  view the full minutes text for item 276.

Ian Bamforth, the Council's Highways Operations and Public Rights of Way Manager was asked to provide an update following the recommendations made by the Footways Scrutiny Task Group in early 2017. 

In the discussion, Members highlighted the following main points:

·         Core funding for improving footways had increased by £6m

·         Recommendations in relation to the involvement of County Councillors in improvement works was highlighted as working very well, to the extent that £104,000 was available in each Division, with half of that sum being available for earmarking by the Councillor themselves

·         Questions arose around the differing geographical size of each Division and the length of damaged footways in each.  It was suggested that Members could obtain Division specific information if required

·         Preventative maintenance was vital to longevity, such as siding out footways which had become overgrown

·         As budgets had previously been targeted at Highways works, it was likely that many Footways would need full depth reconstruction, due to their degradation.  Engineers continued to assess each project individually and as the general standard of footways improved over time it was likely that the work would move more towards preventative maintenance

·         Concern was raised over the number of once new Housing Estates and the likelihood that all footways would need treatment at the same time

·         One Member highlighted the success of a honeycomb structure in a grass verge and the benefits of that to their local community greenspace.  It was suggested that that approach was not always feasible, but could be achieved if practical

·         Another Member expressed the view that achieving a level of below 25% of footways requiring treatment was not true, to be informed that the figure was Countywide, not specifically in each Division.  To achieve this figure, the number of crews would need to be increased

·         Members asked about progress with the Guidance on Well Managed Highways Infrastructure referred to under recommendation 2 of the Review recommendations.  Officers responded that they were working with regional colleagues on this to meet the October 2018 deadline.  Panel members asked that they receive a further report about this prior to implementation

·         In response to a query from a Member about the approach to retaining urban trees when work was carried out on the footway, it was reported that each case was managed on its merits and trees were retained where possible

·         Fines were imposed on Utility companies who damaged footways and did not undertake repairs.  However, Officers did work closely with companies to try and ensure least disruption.  Recent examples included Fibre Broadband rollout

·         Weed spraying, undertaken by District Councils, had changed over time due to the regulations surrounding the use of ingredients

·         When asked whether the Council achieved good value for money, it was reported that it did, but there were also other ways of working.  Members expressed the view that the £6m core funding was welcome but should be used most effectively

·         Members felt that the £104,000 Division allocation was used very quickly if surfaces were degraded and many residents continued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 277.

Current version enclosed for consideration.

No further Items were added to the Work Plan.