36 Guildford Borough LCWIP Report Endorsement PDF 337 KB
Additional documents:
Decision:
1. The Executive endorsed the LCWIP Report subject to clarification of the detail in respect of the proposal for the inclusion of CWZ18 (Station Parade, East Horsley) with proposals for CWZ29 (Bishopsmead Parade); and subject to confirmation of the deadline for the inclusion of any new sites to Phase 1 for which local funding could be available.
2. That the Joint Strategic Director Economy, Planning and Place be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor with portfolio responsibility for Planning Policy, to make such minor alterations to improve the clarity of the LCWIP as they may deem necessary.
Reason(s):
1. Endorsement would enable SCC as the Local Transport Authority to adopt the report through their democratic process by showing Borough ‘buy-in’ to the report.
2. To enable SCC to access DfT funding and other funding streams for active travel infrastructure development.
3. To endorse the report would align with the Council’s corporate objectives and planning policy on transport, climate change and air quality.
4. The endorsement would give greater planning weight to the LCWIP Report at planning determination and provide an updated borough-wide network plan for walking & cycling.
5. To enable minor alterations to be made to the LCWIP should they be necessary prior to publication.
6. The Executive considered the questions raised by Councillor Catherine Young required clarification.
Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:
Do not endorse the LCWIP Report. This may delay the potential for future investment in walking and cycling.
Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:
None.
Minutes:
The LCWIP Report was the first stage in the process to provide an improved strategic, evidence-based basis to future investment in active travel in the Borough.
The Executive noted that the draft LCWIP was an SCC document and endorsement was sought from the GBC Executive prior to adoption. GBC had contributed £20,000 to the scheme but no additional funding was sought. There had been no statutory consultation but the document had been discussed extensively at local level to produce a comprehensive document. It was intended the Highways authority would take forward the concept designs set out in the report to feasibility stage at which time funding would be sought.
Councillor Catherine Young was in attendance and expressed concern in respect of the proposals for East Horsley and queried the potential to add further locally funded sites to the Phase 1 document. Although the Executive would prefer to receive member questions in advance of the meeting, it was content to take forward those queries to SCC for clarification. Consequently, the Executive,
RESOLVED:
1. To endorse the LCWIP Report subject to clarification of the detail in respect of the proposal for the inclusion of CWZ18 (Station Parade, East Horsley) with proposals for CWZ29 (Bishopsmead Parade); and subject to confirmation of the deadline for the inclusion of any new sites to Phase 1 for which local funding could be available.
2. That the Joint Strategic Director Economy, Planning and Place be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor with portfolio responsibility for Planning Policy, to make such minor alterations to improve the clarity of the LCWIP as they may deem necessary.
Reason(s):
1. Endorsement would enable SCC as the Local Transport Authority to adopt the report through their democratic process by showing Borough ‘buy-in’ to the report.
2. To enable SCC to access DfT funding and other funding streams for active travel infrastructure development.
3. To endorse the report would align with the Council’s corporate objectives and planning policy on transport, climate change and air quality.
4. The endorsement would give greater planning weight to the LCWIP Report at planning determination and provide an updated borough-wide network plan for walking & cycling.
5. To enable minor alterations to be made to the LCWIP should they be necessary prior to publication.
6. The Executive considered the questions raised by Councillor Catherine Young required clarification.