Agenda item

In attendance for this Item were:

John Hobbs, Director of Economy and Infrastructure

Cllr Alan Amos, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways

Cllr Tony Miller, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Environment

The Director of Economy and Infrastructure introduced the report which set out the response to COVID-19 for Economy and Environmental Services, including highways, major infrastructure projects, transport, the COVID-19 Emergency Active Travel Fund, waste and wider recovery work.

He explained how the response to COVID-19 worked from the outset. There were two contexts, that of the Local Response Forum (LRF) which was the West Mercia area and the one Worcestershire Chief Executives model. While the geography of the West Mercia was well aligned in terms of flooding events, this was less so in terms of the effects of COVID-19. In LRF terms, the area had been at a response phase since November 2019, following flooding events and then COVID-19. The Director was the Gold lead for the Council and the One Worcestershire Chief Executives Group.

In terms of the LRF the roles and ways of working of the different organisations, including Health, Fire etc were already in place and well placed to respond. The role of the One Worcestershire Chief Executives Group was focused on local communities, for example how to deal with issues like distribution of food to the shielded cohort. Within the Council itself, the Director chaired the Council’s response to this, making sure nothing fell through the gaps – the E&I Directorate was well placed to do this because of its emergency planning experience and also the fact that much of the Directorate’s work decreased during COVID-19, whereas other Directorates’ work had stepped up. Examples of issues involved included planning for mortuary capacity and increasing numbers of funerals and moving into the recovery phase the issues included opening up the economy, reopening recycling centres and public transport provision.

During the discussion which took place, the following main points were made:

·         The Vice-Chairman referred to the COVID-19 Emergency Active Travel Fund and the new statutory guidance from the Government in response to COVID-19 which, stated that cycling had increased by up to 70% according to a national travel survey and was also referred to by the public participants. Whilst welcoming the Fund, he was very disappointed by the Council’s bid and felt that the proposals ignored cycling provision for short journeys. He asked for a response on why the Council’s response to the Emergency Active Travel Fund did not appear to meet the Government’s aims, something which the public participants had also queried.

·         The Director explained that it was about giving choice without disadvantaging any mode of transport, therefore the focus of the Directorate’s bid had been to refer back to the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and to build on what the evidence showed. Officers were not aware of cyclists being impeded around Worcester City but he was receptive to hearing about any instances, and believed the current approach struck a good balance.

·         The Vice-Chairman also asked why the recent proposal to install a bike rack for several bikes outside Worcester Museum at the expense of a car park space, had been rejected? The Director undertook to check this.

·         Panel members expressed gratitude to the Directorate leadership team for how it had dealt with the challenges of both flooding and then COVID-19.

·         A Panel member reiterated a query raised by one of the public participants about Bewdley bridge and whether a specific approach was needed to towns and villages to enable safe social distancing of cyclists and walkers? The Director advised that he was aware of issues in Bewdley, which as the Highways Authority was part of the Council’s remit, however he advocated a light touch approach to keeping people safe, since he was wary of putting in measures which may create other problems, when often allowing common sense to prevail would work.

·         Cllr Clayton referred to problems with streetlighting in Redditch, which he asked to be looked at by the Panel at a future meeting.

·         A Panel member pointed out that different solutions would be needed for different areas. He had worked closely with Cllr Amos, the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Highways, to enable shops to use outside space, but he flagged up the need to do more to open up the economy. Acknowledging this point, Director advised that the Council would not be charging businesses to sell on the street during 2020 and that street markets were once again taking place. 

·         A Panel member highlighted the growing popularity of e-scooters and a bid from Redditch to be an e-scooter trial area and asked whether the Council was looking at likely demand and how to respond? The Director advised that there was a dialogue around e-scooters and such electronic products were of interest although he had a slight concern that the interest may be transient and required a fairly flat geography – health and safety and the culture around accidents also needed consideration. Acknowledging these points, the Panel member pointed out that factors such as Worcestershire residents commuting to places such as Solihull, congestion charges in Birmingham and the cheapness of e-scooters were likely to change people’s behaviour; it was important that the Council was ready to respond to demand. The Director reassured the Panel that Officers were open minded and it would be interesting to see how e-scooters developed, including the possibility that manufacturers may invent models which overcome current licensing issues.

·         Referring to the Director’s earlier explanation of the Council’s direction regarding cycling being to create choice without disadvantaging any particular mode of transport, a Panel member highlighted the need to recognise that cycling had been underfunded by the Council for many years. Whilst more people were cycling on quieter roads during COVID-19, he was concerned that they would stop once roads became business, therefore he did not feel the balance of choice was right yet. The Director alluded to the fact that such prioritisations were the prerogative of the relevant Administration rather than the responsibility of Officers, however he suggested that there was a difference between support for cycling in countries such as Germany compared to this country, which was an important factor in achieving modal shift, and the weather was another factor. He observed that cycling had increased but suggested this was greater in the leisure sector. A previous project ‘Choose how you move’ had been successful in addressing the need and work did continue but with the caveat of what people were prepared to do.

·         The Panel member acknowledged the Director’s points, however was not in agreement and asked the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Highways who was present, whether there were any restrictions to Officers regarding the bid to the COVID-19 Active Travel Fund bid? The CMR reassured the Panel that he intended to provide a comprehensive response to all the questions asked.

·         Cllr Jenkins expressed the view that the Council’s bid did not fit the criteria and was concerned the Council would therefore lose out on funds. He reiterated concerns about historical low investment and the statistics quoted. He acknowledged the point about weather but pointed out that people did cycle and that there were areas where cycling worked really well, for example Cambridge.

·         The Director advised that the amount of funding for the Council from the COVID-19 Active Travel Fund was not yet confirmed, although he was hopeful for success – the Panel would be kept informed and the detail of the bid would be circulated. The Director explained the aim was to build in permanent solutions rather than temporary ones and the best evidence for that was to look at the Local Transport Plan 4 and how it could be used.

·         A Panel member highlighted an area of confusion regarding infrastructure, for example Malvern District Council had considered measures to aid social distancing on the high street in Malvern where narrow pavements caused pinch-points and were under one metre wide in places. Temporary measures such as temporary use of parking bays had been suggested however the County Council had said these could not be supported, with the result that the District Council, Town Council and traders felt they had not been listened to, and clarification on the objection was sought. The Director advised that such pinch-points had been raised through the One Worcestershire forum, however the Council was concerned about measures creating other problems and had therefore advocated a light touch approach, however where no other reasonable options were available, some encroachment could be considered, and this was something the Highways Liaison Engineers were aware of. The Panel member pointed out that the feedback he had received indicated that such measures were categorically not allowed. In response the Director would ensure the approach was clear to Officers and reassured the Panel that the Highways Liaison Engineers would look at areas where residents felt some extra space was needed. The Director also agreed to ask the Highways Liaison Engineers for some information and photos to illustrate the work and approach taken during COVID-19.

·         It was confirmed that all recycling centres had reopened with the exception of Kidderminster due to staffing problems, therefore hours in other locations had been extended.

·         When asked how bus companies were coping with reduced numbers of passengers, the Director advised that there was real difficulty, and it was hoped services could resume to normal levels. Regarding personal protective equipment, the Director advised that the requirement was for passengers to cover their face, not necessarily to wear a mask.

·         A Panel member sought reassurance that for phase 2 of the Emergency Active Travel Fund bid, public involvement and visibility would be highlighted, and the Director advised that phase 2 had not yet been submitted (whereas phase 1 had needed a prompt response) and councillors could certainly inform the public about their wishes.

·         Comment was invited from the CMR for Highways, who said that he had  listened to what people had said and would respond shortly. He thanked the members of the public for their contribution, reassured them that he had listened and encouraged them to come to him with any further questions. He viewed the situation as being about everyone involved (cyclists and motorists), although he acknowledged there were different opinions about the percentages involved, which could be discussed.

In summing up, the Chairman concluded that the Directorate’s response to COVID-19 had been very professional and the Panel looked forward to hearing how services were restored.

 The following information was requested:

·         Clarification on the reason for the rejection of a bike rack outside Worcester Museum

·         Further information about demand and the impact of e-scooters

·         Web-link to the Council’s bid to the COVID-19 Emergency Active Travel Fund to show how funds for phase 1 would be used and confirmation of the funding awarded to the Council

·         Highways Liaison Engineers would be asked to provide information/photos to illustrate examples of work during COVID-19 to facilitate social distancing

·         The Cabinet Member for Highways undertook to provide a response to the questions raised about cycling by the members of the public and by the Panel.