Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Election results > Document library > Issue
29 Environmental Improvement Programme - 2022/23 Project Applications PDF 816 KB
Councillors will review the projects received noting that the decisions will be taken by the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces in January 2023.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee
received a report from the Project Leader regarding the Environmental
Improvement Programme (EIP). The report outlined the newly submitted schemes for 2022/23.
Members were reminded that following requests and queries
from members across various areas, a spreadsheet had been sent in advance of
the meeting to assist in prioritising local area Environmental Improvement
Programme project requests.
After publication of the EIP paper, Officers had an
opportunity to consider these projects in more detail with input from a broader
officer group, with the outcome that some of the ratings had altered slightly
from those published which could be viewed at the link below:
It was noted that the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development would ultimately make the
decision on which environmental improvement projects would be taken forward.
In response to Members’ questions the Programme
Leader (John Richards) said the following:
i.
It was important to focus on alternative funding
streams which might strengthen certain programme of works; EIP funding could
then be moved to other projects.
ii.
There had been requests for play equipment which
was not eligible for EIP funding and might be more appropriately funded through
S106 funding.
iii.
The street tree canopy project funded through
the EU was nearing conclusion though it was intended that other sources of
funding might be available in the future and therefore tree related projects
within the EIP bids might be more appropriately funded through the any
continued tree canopy programme.
iv.
There is a capital budget for street trees
spread over four years. The first year has been delivered and officers have
been working with the Council’s Arboricultural Team to identify areas / streets
in the city which would be benefit from additional tree planting.
v.
The majority of the
projects placed for the Committee’s consideration were deliverable but not all
in one year.
vi.
Noted members strong support for the tree
protection project at the end of the Skaters Meadow; replacing the use of old
telegraphs poles with deadwood of tree trunks and branches to improve
biodiversity. Project rated lower as external stakeholders would have to give
their agreement regarding works because of the uncertainties in land
ownership.
vii.
Programme Leader had not been aware of the
preliminary work that had been undertaken with officers, businesses, and an
architect regarding the bins on Christ Pieces and that match funding also
applied to this project.
viii.
A suitable/agreeable position for the notice
boards in each ward would have to be found and then permission sought to
install, it was unclear who would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep
of information in the boards, and this was essential to establish before any
implementation.
ix.
For the Midsummer Common path scheme, it was
felt that signage would be beneficial to remind the public that the pathways
were shared between pedestrians and cyclists. This project is considered a
pilot scheme.
x.
Would question whether the issue of parking on
the Woodlark Estate was caused by residents or commuters from outside the area,
however the local councillor confirmed that they were largely service vehicles
for deliveries, tradesmen etc.
xi.
. The views of residents is
split, some believe that the verges should be only be restored to grass and
others are supportive of wildflower planting to deter parking.
xii.
Noted the comment that the priority for Newham
Ward should be Skaters Meadows over Lammas Land and the Community Notice Boards
which had been suggested by residents.
xiii.
Noted the statement that the Midsummer Common
paths had been suggested by residents.
xiv.
Noted the comment that the Norwich Street could
be referred to as a strategic EIP project.
xv.
Noted the suggestion that (WC14) Lammas Land is
incorporated in the Lammas Land Management Plan.
xvi.
Noted that all greens rated projects should be
considered and the noticeboards (WC9) funded, if possible, through reserve or
strategic EIP funding. That the
green/amber projects WC2 Biodiversity in Woodlark area, WC13 bins on Gough Way
and WC16 Christ’s Pieces provision for bin improvements are also considered priority
projects for funding.
The Project Officer
stated that the comments made by the Committee regarding the order of projects
would be considered and re-proposed to committee members for final comment
before reporting to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development for their final
decision. Approved Projects would be
taken forward when resources allow, likely during 2023, subject to delivery
resource available and local consultation.