Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Corporate Director (Place) and Deputy Chief Executive.

The report details the type of temporary street closures that the council do or could provide to the public. These different closures all have a range of benefits but are not without their problems. This report identifies the different opportunities and the issues related to them.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to consider and comment on the report, and use the discussion as the basis for determining the scope of the work of the Review Panel.

Officer contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or email sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

Sue Stevenson (Head of Highways and Transportation, Stockport Council) attended the meeting and submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the type of temporary street closures that the Council did or could provide to the public. The report identified the benefits and potential problems associated with each type of closure and the different opportunities and the issues related to them.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         It was commented that anecdotally the requirement for organisers to have public liability insurance had been seen as a barrier to a wider take-up of these type of temporary street closures.

·         Clarity was requested on why public liability insurance was a requirement for active street/ play street/ school street schemes, but not for closures associated with, for example, street parties.  In response, it was stated that this was due to the level of risk associated with ongoing or recurring street closures which was more limited for one-off events such as street parties.

·         The requirement for public liability insurance had been imposed to protect those residents operating the scheme as well as the Council’s position.

·         It was suggested that the costs associated with obtaining public liability insurance was not prohibitive and should not, in of itself, dissuade residents from operating a scheme.

·         It would be useful to understand how such schemes operated elsewhere in the country and what had worked well.

·         It was noted that local authorities in London had the power to enforce Moving Traffic Contraventions which mean they had additional powers to enforce the imposition of street closures associated with active street/ play street/ school street schemes.

·         A discussion took place in relation to the difference between an active street and an active neighbourhood and it was clarified that active neighbourhoods were broader schemes that would include a more comprehensive and wider treatment for the locality aimed at prioritising walking and cycling within that defined community.

·         Two active communities schemes were currently being developed in the Heatons and Romiley areas of the borough as part of a funding package obtained through the Mayor’s Challenge Fund. A further smaller-scale trial was taking place in the Cheadle Heath area by TfGM.  A further School Street pilot was being run in the Cheadle area as part of the Cheadle Town Fund scheme.

·         A number of Walk Ride groups in the Borough were keen to develop projects elsewhere in the borough.

·         It was important for the Panel to gain an understanding of why the uptake of active street/ play street/ school street schemes was lower in Stockport than in other comparable authorities.

·         It was acknowledged that Stockport was considered progressive when it first launched its policy for these schemes, but it was now opportune to review whether the existing policy remained appropriate as other authorities had subsequently developed their own schemes and practices and understanding had evolved.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.