Venue: Webcast - Remote Meeting. View directions
Contact: Jacqueline Kramer 0161 474 2978
No. | Item | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2024 were approved as a correct record. |
|||||
Declarations of Interest Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they have in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillors and officers were invited to declare any interests which they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.
The following interest was declared:-
Personal
|
|||||
TfGM Presentation Representatives of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) to give a presentation about their role and working with Stockport. Additional documents: Minutes: A representative of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) gave a presentation about their role and working with Stockport.
The following comments were made/ issues raised:-
· Members asked what the main unanticipated challenges had been since the inception of Bee Network and whether those challenges were one off, particular to schemes or within categories. · In response, it was stated that one of the main tasks had been prioritisation, determining ranking within the scheme and distributing the investment. Some Local Authorities had higher needs while others had a greater capacity to deliver. It was reported that Stockport had one of the highest allocations of the Mayor’s Challenge Fund. · Covid had resulted in a two year delay, affecting supply chains and the opportunity to interact, build team capacity within GM and with councils. There had also been an increase in inflation which had affected the design process. · Challenges on a gross scale included the large amounts of money involved in the scheme, which was now at £300 million. Huge amounts of work had gone into a range of schemes and whilst they were not perfect, TfGM was of the view that they had done as good a job as possible. · Smaller scale challenges included a learning process about tests and guidance. TfGM had created a single document for local design standards in 2021. Those standards did not represent a gold standard, but were minimum requirements aimed at providing minimum viable standards. · It was also reported that challenges existed where proposed schemes were required to meet pre-existing plans and react to reality. · Members asked what challenges TfGM had faced in terms of consultations, whether they had achieved a fair and accurate picture of residents’ and users’ views of schemes and how TfGM had ameliorated identified issues. · In response it was stated that consultations involving the coproduction approach had generally been more successful. The most effective consultations were those where Local Authorities had engaged directly with residents, for example by knocking on doors and hosting workshop. These exercises had built consensus, rather than imposing schemes upon residents. · Members asked whether some of the major Bee Network schemes had become a distraction from the walk, cycle aims. · In response it was stated that in 2022 Dame Sarah Storey had joined TfGM and instigated a refreshed mission, introducing three foundations and six priorities: The foundations were Accessibility, Behaviour Change, Communicating and Engagement; and the six priorities were Infrastructure delivery, Home to school, Hire cycle, Integration of Public Transport, Road Danger Reduction and Access to Everyone. · It was further reported that the Active Travel Mission had been developed which linked to the broader scope of the scheme. Rather than slowing active travel, the rate of delivery had in fact accelerated since 2022. · TfGM had delivered segregated active travel schemes and had created 120 kilometres of active travel routes. It was expected that 137 kilometres of active travel routes would be in place by the end of 2025 and 180 kilometres by the end of 2027. The rate of delivery was accelerating whilst the rate of investment remained stable £35 to 40 million per year. · Members asked, in light of the 16 per cent increase in private car ownership in Greater Manchester in the past ten years and the fact that TfGM was almost halfway through its Net Zero target, how success was measured. · In response it was stated that there were four key measures including an annual travel diary for which the second annual report was due to be published in January 2025. · Other measures included whether more people were walking or wheeling than previously, whether they felt safer and encouraged to travel in alternative ways. It was reported that actual and perceived safety was biggest pre-determinant of how people were likely to behave and it was noted that women often felt vulnerable in an urban environment. · It was also thought that in ten years the levels of ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|||||
Cycle Route Site Visit Members and officers to discuss the Cycle Route Site Visit on 8 November 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: Members and officers discussed the Cycle Route Site Visit on 8 November 2024.
The following comments were made/ issues raised:
· Members thanked officers for attending the cycle route site visit and expressed that they had found it very useful. · The scheme was bold in terms of its length and location; it was the gold standard for cycle schemes and members expressed a desire to see further such schemes across the borough. · The cycle route alongside a main thoroughfare was important both for safety and accessibility. During the site visit, members had observed the route being used for leisure and work and by school children and mobility scooter users. · The tiger crossings had each been individually designed and in so doing had made the best use of the space available. · The route was tree-lined and represented an important feature of the borough. Work on the cycle route had ensured as little disruption to trees as possible, with trees sharing the route or routes going around trees. · Obstructions to the cycle route had been observed during the site visit, including cars and delivery vans parked across it. However, TROs were advertised which would enable enforcement for obstructions. · Consideration had been given to placing bollards or double yellow lines to prevent vehicles from obstructing the cycle path, although the council was reluctant to impose such measures because of the impact on local residents. · It was also reported that the police resource for the enforcement for TROs was in short supply; the council had considered options employed by other local authorities such as operation Park Safe in Cheshire. · As an authority, GM was seeking London-like powers to deal with parking on pavements. Those powers were out for consultation with the Government and remained unresolved to date. · The cycle site visit had taken place on bin collection day; post-collected bins had created some obstructions however this was an issue for those walking, wheeling and cycling across the borough. · The importance of cycle-path maintenance was apparent. Whilst flexi-pave did not provide a comfortable riding surface, it had been used on this route for its permeability for trees and it was equestrian friendly. · Due to fallen leaves, there were some areas where the cycle lane was not discernible. The solar stud lighting was hidden and, as a result, members requested that the safety and lighting of the cycle route be considered. · Dips in the cycle path to accommodate driveways had impacted on the comfort of the path for cyclists and impeded the route. Members had welcomed the explanation of options investigated and noted that it was important to consider the risks of localised flooding. Members had also welcomed ongoing attempts to secure funding to replace the ramps. · Members commented on the controlled parallel crossing at the Five Ways junction and felt it worked well. A resident had commented that the raised kerbs were a trip hazard. · It was noted that the filter lane had been removed when the cycle lane had been installed. Members commented that it was important to consider the effect of the cycle lane on all groups of users. · The site visit included an observation of the sinusoidal speed humps on Mill Road. The difficulty of maintaining these humps was evident and it was reported that they were expensive and easily damaged. · It was also reported that sinusoidal humps were loud and disruptive for local residents; members suggested that no further such humps should be installed. · In response it was stated that it was important for the council to try and test new technology in real world conditions.
RESOLVED – (1) That the comments and information resulting from the cycle site visit discussion be noted.
(2) That joint officer/member cycle-based site visits be employed for future cycling schemes.
|
|||||
Scheme Approval Process To consider a report of the Director of Place Management.
The report outlines the process involved in the delivery of new and improved infrastructure, with a focus on cycling projects.
The Scrutiny Panel is recommended to note the report.
Officer contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or email sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk
Additional documents: Minutes: A representative of the Director of Place Management submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) outlining the process involved in the delivery of new and improved infrastructure, with a focus on cycling projects.
The following comments were made/ issues raised:-
· Members commented on the importance of early strategy, design guidelines and minimum base levels in the scheme approval and consultation process. · It was noted that Stockport, GM and national strategies did not necessarily align with the views of residents. · In response to a question about the approach to consultation, co-production and inclusion of the resident and member voice, it was reported that, depending on the scheme, the council did not always have the funding for that level of consultation. · For longer routes and 20 mph zones, neighbourhood transportation plans were undertaken and further consultation was planned for schemes which were further along. Members suggested that it would be useful to revisit consultation on schemes every few years. · In response it was stated that it was hoped that further consultation would be undertaken as part of the local plan and transport strategy. · It was reported that TfGM had reviewed schemes which had already been through a lot of development. Conversations were being undertaken with local authorities about a strategic network approach to scheme approval.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
|
|||||
Consultation Policy and Example Report To consider a report of the Director of Place Management.
The report outlines the consultation policy and process for highways and transportation schemes.
The Scrutiny Panel is recommended to note the report.
Officer contact: Jamie Birtles at jamie.birtles@stockport.gov.uk or Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or email sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk
Additional documents:
Minutes: A representative of the Director of Place Management submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) outlining the consultation policy and process for highways and transportation schemes.
The following comments were made/ issues raised:-
· Members noted that for consultations on highway schemes, in general, there were certain groups who engaged in consultation and others that the council struggled to engage with. A focus on consultation with all groups was required in order to support residents and ensure that all voices were heard. · It was reported that various channels were used to encourage more residents to engage in consultation. Those included exhibitions which allowed residents to comment on proposed schemes. Officers worked during evenings and weekends and social media was also used to allow residents to engage in consultations. · It was further reported that officers spoke to local members very early in process as they had key information about which groups should be consulted. · It was important to consider the language used as part of consultations and who the scheme was designed to represent and protect. For example, many residents had no access to a car and were reliant on public transport. Air quality and the ambition to change society and encourage more healthy and active lifestyles was an important consideration. · Members suggested that a diversity of viewpoints was vital, such as those who used electric bikes or Ubers to commute to work. · Members also suggested that it was important to report back to residents on the outcomes of consultations and how they had impacted on schemes to ensure future engagement.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted. |
|||||
20mph Review and Policy Outcome To consider a report of the Director of Place Management.
The report sets out the proposed approach to the council’s commitment to roll out 20mph zones.
The Scrutiny Panel is recommended to note the report.
Officer contact: Jamie Birtles at jamie.birtles@stockport.gov.uk or Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or email sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk
Additional documents: Minutes: A representative of the Director of Place Management submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the proposed approach to the council’s commitment to roll out 20mph zones.
The following comments were made/ issues raised:-
· It was reported that approximately 30 per cent of residential roads had 20 mph speed restrictions within the borough. · The current policy was that, where the average speed on a residential road was less than 24 mph, a 20 mph speed limit could be imposed without traffic calming measures. For residential roads with average speeds over 20 mph, there was a need to explore appropriate funding avenues to install traffic calming measures. · It was important to have local buy-in to make 20 mph speed restrictions work, and it was also important to frame consultations around road safety. · Driving was a privilege, not a right and road users had a greater degree of responsibility when driving a car. · Two traffic counts on roads with 20 mph speed restrictions with and without traffic calming measures had recently been carried out and both were well under the threshold for speeding.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
|
|||||
Reports and Topics for the Next Meeting The Panel is invited to request reports and suggest topics for the next meeting of the Scrutiny Review.
Officer contact: Jacqueline Kramer on 0161 474 2978 or email jacqueline.kramer@stockport.gov.uk Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel was invited to request reports and suggest topics for the next meeting of the Scrutiny Review.
· Engagement with outside stakeholders involving a request for evidence from Walk Ride Stockport and other local cycling groups. · Representatives from local cycling groups to be invited to the next meeting for a question and answer session.
RESOLVED – That local cycling groups be requested to provide evidence and invited to the next meeting of this Scrutiny Review.
|