Issue - decisions

Public Question

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

 

Mr Lucas-Smith raised the following points:

      i.          Generally supported the recommendations.

    ii.          Asked that car parking spaces for disabled people in the Guildhall and Jesus Lane areas should not be replaced by bike racks.

 iii.          Expressed disappointment that cycle parking was not proposed for Kings Parade.

  iv.          Requested a strategic review of cycle parking for the east area of the city, specifically Romsey.

 

The Project Delivery & Environment Manager responded that cycle parking was not proposed for Kings Parade as objections had been received via consultation, so the proposal was withdrawn as the objections could be overcome.

 

Matter for Decision

The project aims to provide one thousand additional secure cycle parking spaces in the heart of the city centre. This is planned to be achieved through the provision of:

·       Localised on-street cycle parking throughout the city centre where space allows and the demand for cycle parking is high.

·       Introduction of a third undercover secure cycle park, similar to those at Park St and Grand Arcade car parks.

 

The Officer’s report provided an appraisal of the remaining on-street proposals for the project. Feasibility work is currently underway to look at the options for a third undercover secure cycle park.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

Financial recommendation

       i.          Approved the commencement of the on-street cycle parking proposals detailed in this report, the funding for which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan. The total estimated cost of these on-street proposals is £115,000 funded from the City Centre Cycle Parking Project capital allocation SC549.

 

Procurement recommendations

     ii.          Approved the carrying out and completion of the procurement of the construction of the proposed cycle parking locations in accordance with the detailed drawings in Appendix B and C of this report relating to Peas Hill, Guildhall St, Jesus Lane, St Mary’s St and East Road.

   iii.          Procurement subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

·       The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

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 Delivery & Environment Manager.

 

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

       i.          Civil enforcement officers had recorded that only seven of nine disabled parking spaces were used in Jesus Lane, therefore bike parking was proposed in the area which would lead eight disabled parking spaces available.

     ii.          The new Peas Hill street layout design aimed to mitigate the impact of illegal parking of disabled parking spaces by separating loading and parking areas. The design should also be an improvement on the current street layout eg more pavement space would be available in front of the café.

   iii.          A variety of bike racks would be available across the city.

   iv.          Undertook to clarify with County Council Highways Officers then advise Members why disabled parking spaces were not available in Guildhall Street. It was suggested that they may impact on traffic flow.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee endorsed recommendations (i), (ii) relating to Peas Hill, Guildhall St, St Mary’s St and East Road and (iii) unanimously.

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (ii) relating to Jesus Lane by 4 votes to 0.

 

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.