Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision 

The report sought the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety’s support for work to enable the existing temporary barrier apparatus to remain in place from July 2021, whilst a more suited longer-term solution is developed.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

 

i.               Noted the outcomes of public and stakeholder engagement and consultation, and behavioural monitoring, on the interim scheme introduced from January 2020;

ii.             Noted the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on every-day life and visitor numbers to the city, and the limitations on undertaking a fully comprehensive evaluation of the scheme’s effects, through 2020;

iii.            Supported a request to Cambridgeshire County Council for Traffic Regulation Orders to become permanent, enabling the existing controls and a fuller appraisal of their effects to continue beyond 13th July 2021;

iv.           Requested that officers continue to investigate and develop a more sympathetic and suited longer-term solution that addresses the primary limitations of the existing interim scheme and aligns with parallel work with partner organisations and groups to better manage access to the city-centre.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Public Realm Engineering & Project Delivery Team Leader.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.               Noted that more people disagreed that the barrier improved safety and the environment. The current barrier needed to be replaced with something better. Expressed concern that the committee were being asked to make a restriction permanent and that the current barrier’s location may not be the most suitable permanent location. Questioned why the County Council as Highway Authority were not leading on this project.

ii.             Noted that a minority of consultation responses felt that the barrier provided safety and environmental improvements. Noted that work could be done to see if the barrier could be located somewhere else, but a barrier needed to be present to protect the public.  Noted that the visual impact was not good and a longer-term solution was needed. Disabled drivers needed to be considered.

iii.            Noted that the threat of terrorism needed to be taken seriously but also noted the impact the control would have on the architecture in the area.

iv.           Noted that cyclists felt the barrier made them feel less safe.

v.             Noted at section 6.9 of the officer’s report that there was little change in the personal injury reports. Also noted that 2020 was an unusual year and the respondents to the consultation may not reflect those if it was undertaken in more usual times.

 

In response the Public Realm Engineering & Project Delivery Team Leader said the following:

i.               The interim scheme had shown potential benefits of the barrier controls. Noted the consultation responses provided mixed views on the barrier. It was hoped that the negative features of the temporary barrier could be addressed in any replacement scheme which came forward.

ii.             Temporary and experimental orders had a maximum duration of 18 months this being considered a reasonable period to be able to test the benefits of the controls. After 18 months the controls are removed or made permanent.

iii.            The County Council were a party to the discussions and were supportive of bringing the controls forward. The City Council would lead on the introduction of controls because the City Council understood the city’s needs more than the County Council.

iv.           The number of personal injury accidents did fluctuate, and it was better to judge this based on 3-5 year period. Personal injuries in the area were running at 1-2 per year. Noted in 2019 there were 4 cases. The County Council did not have any personal injury cases recorded however was aware from a consultation response that there had been a cycling conflict incident. It seemed that the personal injury rates were similar to the rates before the temporary barrier was put in place.

 

The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety commented:

        i.              Work was in place for a new barrier location, the current location was not fixed.

      ii.               Kings Parade was identified as a high-risk area.

    iii.               Work was on-going and the public would be consulted on the final design to ensure that it suited the city and the historic core.

 

The Committee voted on recommendations 2.1 (i), (ii) and (iv) these were endorsed unanimously.

 

The Committee voted on recommendation 2.1 (iii) this was endorsed 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.