Cabinet Member for Environment
Decision:
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the joint Councils’ draft LCWIP and Sustainable Transport vision be endorsed.
1.2 That the completion of the final documentation be delegated to the Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Travel.
REASON FOR DECISION
Endorsement is recommended so that the LCWIP can be supported and utilised as recommended by National Government guidance. The Sustainable Travel Vision will be used to inform the public about our key values, aims, ambitions and narrative around Sustainable Travel. The LCWIP will also be made public, but the key functions of this document are to inform SCC Highways and our own planning directorate of our active travel infrastructure ambitions, in order to capture opportunity for delivery.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
Option 1 – To endorse these strategical documents
Option 2 – To decide not to endorse these strategical documents
Any Declarations of Interests Declared:Councillor Osborne declared a non-pecuniary interest in her role as the Council’s representative on the Gainsborough House Society.
Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes:
106.1 The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Travel, Councillor Malvisi to introduce the report.
106.2 Councillor Malvisi provided an overview of the report and thanked the officers for their work.
106.3 Councillor Malvisi proposed the recommendations in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Barrett.
106.4 Councillor Arthey queried how the BMSDC Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) tied in with Suffolk County Council (SCC) CLWIP.
106.5 The Sustainable Travel Officer responded to this query and additional questions from Councill Arthey by detailing that SCC had encouraged all boroughs and districts to produce an LCWIP, which could be merged together to supersede the SCC LCWIP and that SCC did not have any say in the individual LCWIPs. In terms of funding the highway projects it was likely that SCC did not have the funding and might submit Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) bids to enable the projects to go ahead. Further that funding would be collaborative between Government funding and other funding streams such as CIL.
106.6 In response to further questions from Councillor Ward, the Sustainable Travel Officer explained that there was a complex delivery process and that this could involve providing a steer to SCC on some projects. However, some projects could be provided by Babergh District Council, such as cycling storage and locker facilities in villages to encourage visitors.
106.7 Councillor Busby and Councillor Holt queried the method of prioritisation of the projects and how the LCWIP list of schemes would be brought forward for funding and implementation.
106.8 The Assistant Director for Environment and Commercial Partnerships explained that a cross party group would be looking at the list of schemes before SCC would evaluate and determine which schemes could be progressed, depending on the available funding. The list of schemes would be continually updated.
106.9 In a response to Councillor Dawson’s question relating to the short-, medium- and long-term projects, the Sustainable Travel officer detailed the scoring criteria and methodology provided by the Government and advised that it had been slightly adjusted to provide scoring for rural areas.
106.10 Councillor Barrett referenced the identified projects list and queried whether some universally acknowledge unsuitable projects could be removed.
106.11 The Assistant Director for Environment and Commercial Partnerships stated there were currently a number of consultations being undertaken and that projects would remain on the list until they have been concluded.
106.12 Members continued to pose questions to the Officers including the Gainsborough Walk, the unfair disproportion of the locations in relation to deliverability, inclusion of the level of costs in the infrastructure maps, Government funding and respective fund matching by the Council and consideration of issues around getting safe routes to schools in relation to the LCWIP.
106.13 Councillor Busby withdrew his seconding of the proposed recommendations as he was not satisfied that the scheme included all the proposed projects listed in the LCWIP.
106.14 Councillor Ward seconded the recommendations as detailed in the report.
106.15 The Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Travel stated that Cabinet was endorsing the LCWPI Strategy and not agreeing the list of schemes in the document.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the joint Councils’ draft LCWIP and Sustainable Transport vision be endorsed.
1.2 That the completion of the final documentation be delegated to the Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Travel.
REASON FOR DECISION
Endorsement is recommended so that the LCWIP can be supported and utilised as recommended by National Government guidance. The Sustainable Travel Vision will be used to inform the public about our key values, aims, ambitions and narrative around Sustainable Travel. The LCWIP will also be made public, but the key functions of this document are to inform SCC Highways and our own planning directorate of our active travel infrastructure ambitions, in order to capture opportunity for delivery.
Supporting documents: