Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
The Committee received a report from the
Senior Engineer regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The
report outlined progress of existing schemes and possible further scheme
allocations for 2016/17.
Existing Schemes: Progress
The Senior Engineer referred to progress on
approved schemes as set out in his report.
New Schemes That Require Decisions
In the absence of any new scheme
applications from the latest invitation round, Members considered a number of
suggestions put forward in 2014-15.
Members of the public made the following
comments in response to the report:
i.
Requested Project S6 Red
Cross Lane dropped kerb be deferred as it would lead to pedestrian/cycle conflict.
Asked for project details to be revised then brought back later in the year.
ii.
Funding had been
allocated to various verge projects, but they were once again back in a poor
state of repair. There seemed little point in allocating funding to other verge
projects.
iii.
Asked for EIP funded
noticeboards to be erected where people gathered, so the boards would be
noticed eg at bus stops and the Co-op on Hills Road.
In response to Members’ questions the Senior
Engineer answered:
i.
EIP was refocused in 2015
on smaller projects that fell outside the normal work of the City Council and
County Council, but could be delivered by the City Council. Projects had been
delayed in the past where there were dependencies on partner organisations.
ii.
EIP was now separate from Local
Highways Improvement funding. EIP could top up areas that needed improvement outside
of core highways responsibilities and functions, but it should not replace
funding for normal responsibilities eg s106 from the planning process.
iii.
Local Highways Improvement
funding was the responsibility of the County Council. EIP was the responsibility of the
City Council.
Members requested a
change to the recommendations. Councillor Ashton formally proposed the 2016/17
allocation be equally split between the three South Area wards for Ward
Councilors to nominate which projects should receive funding.
The Senior Engineer
said that funding could be nominated off-line, but it needed to be formally
allocated (eg at a meeting) by the South Area Committee.
This
amendment was agreed (unanimously).
Following discussion, Members resolved (unanimously):
i.
Noted the utilisation of £4,500 of remaining South
Area EIP funding to the provision and maintenance of 26 hanging baskets along
Cherry Hinton High Street during 2015-16.
ii.
Trumpington Ward Councillors to consider off-line
the allocation of additional funding (up to £10,000) towards the existing
committed scheme to improve street trees in Bateman Street.
iii.
To allocate funding from the 2014-15 programme
year, and additional funding available for 2016-17, to S3 and S6 on the list of
previously proposed projects in Appendix A of the Officer’s report. Subject to:
· S3 to consider a
planted area instead of a post or bollard.
· S6 specifications
to be re-worked.
· S1, S2, S4, S5 and
S7 projects not to receive funding.
iv.
Not to progress with an outstanding commitment to
introduce controls on verge parking in Mowbray Road and Fendon Road. Funding to
be reallocated to a different ward project(s).
v.
Discounted remaining
funding allocations set out in recommendations on P101 of the Officer’s report.
The 2016/17 allocation would be equally
split between the three South Area wards for Ward Councilors to nominate which
projects should receive funding. Funding would be allocated by the South Area
Committee in future. Subject to the schemes being deliverable, obtaining
consents necessary, positive consultation where required and final approval by
Ward Councillors.
vi.
Noted the progress of existing schemes listed in
Appendix C of this report.
vii.
To consider a second EIP application invitation
round during 2016-17 to utilise any funding uncommitted from the present round
plus any savings arising from the delivery of previously committed schemes.