Issue - meetings

Appendix attached, report to follow

Public Question

A member of the public asked a question as set out below.

 

Mr Lucas-Smith raised the following points:

      i.          Welcomed continuation of the programme.

    ii.          Referred to environmental and equality benefits.

 iii.          Requested proper protected space for cyclists, not shared use.

  iv.          Asked where £394,000 was spent on Newmarket Road.

 

The Project Manager responded that the funding was spent on various improvements to Newmarket Road, such as the pedestrian crossing.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report advised Environment Scrutiny Committee of the principal achievements of the Joint Cycleways Capital Programme since its inception in 2002, its extension to 2014-15 in 2011, and consideration of further extending the programme beyond 2014-15.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

       i.          Noted the progress and achievements to date of the Cycleways Capital Programme (PR007).

     ii.          Agreed to consider an annual funding allocation to match that currently provided by the County Council each year, to be considered in the Budget Setting Report to extend the programme.

   iii.          Subject to the outcome of the capital bid recommendation (ii above), a report would be brought back to Environment Scrutiny Committee setting out how the extended Cycleways Joint Capital Programme is proposed to be managed.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Project Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Project Manager said the following:

       i.          The County Council was the statutory authority responsible for highway maintenance, but the City Council could add value by adding funding to the shared programme. There were no guarantees that the County Council would fund the joint cycleways programme in future, but cycle facilities were viewed favourably as part of the programme.

     ii.          The County Council funded highway and open space work. Highways Agency priorities were periodically reviewed, but some areas were not current priorities, such as Park Street.

 

The Committee felt the joint cycleways programme enabled the City Council to influence the County Council agenda.

 

The Executive Councillor said funding had reduced from £250k to £50k. Park Street could be included in recommendation (iii) after other options had been reviewed as other areas need work done sooner.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.