Agenda item

A report updating the Executive in relation to the public realm improvement work undertaken to date and seeking its view on the preferred option for officers to pursue was before the Board for consideration.

A supporting presentation was given by the Project Manager which gave the background to the project and explained the partnership approach; achievements to date; the focus area of the study; consultation; results of the online survey; highway issues; options to improve Chapel Street, Castle Street east and west, and Swan Lane; place-making and information; existing bollards and barriers; proposed pedestrian safety gates; costed options comparison; programme based on option 1; risk and issues; and next steps.

At its meeting on 8 April 2019, the Executive had agreed to proceed with a public engagement exercise for Guildford town centre public realm improvements from which high-level feasibility design options were developed.  This report considered the outcome of this work and detailed the two available options.  The scheme focused on delivering public realm improvements to Chapel Street, Castle Street, Swan Lane, to pedestrian safety by upgrading existing facilities and introducing new vehicle restrictions to the High Street, and to signage and wayfinding to better connect the historic town centre and promote businesses and the cultural offer of Guildford.

The total budget available was £1.3 million which comprised £1.248 million approved capital budget, £49,300 of revenue budget and a £10,000 contribution from Experience Guildford.  Swan Lane was brought within the scope due to the offer of a financial contribution from a group of Swan Lane landlords.

The Council’s principal design consultants had developed a range of costed options, based on a feasibility study and informed by the consultation with residents, businesses, visitors, councillors and council officers.  The two options presented consisted of a core scheme (option 1) that included Chapel Street, Castle Street and Swan Lane and addressed the core elements of road surface treatments, street lighting, traffic control interventions but excluded architectural lighting, signage and wayfinding enhancements and could be delivered within budget at a cost of £1.3 million.  The second option was an enhanced scheme which would significantly improve the ‘look and feel’ of the public realm through integration of architectural lighting, street furniture, wayfinding, signage and a major transformation of Tunsgate junction with a large raised table that replicated the lost historic ‘square’.  This option would cost £1.67 million, requiring additional funding of £367,000 through a virement from the capital contingency fund.  Officers proposed that the full capital cost of the project was funded from the New Homes Bonus (NHB) reserve, in line with the NHB policy approved by Council in February 2016.  Funding the scheme from the NHB reserve would mitigate any on-going borrowing costs on the Council’s general fund revenue account from this scheme.  It was noted that both costed options included pedestrian safety barriers for the High Street including a new gated access for the west end of the High Street.

The report recommended that the Executive agreed that officers proceed with the detailed designs and construction relating to option 2, that up to £367,000 be vired from the Capital Contingency Fund and that the full capital cost of option 2 be funded from the Council’s NHB Reserve.  The reason for the recommendations was to support the Council’s strategic priority of increasing Guildford town centre’s economic success, increasing accessibility and improving links between the High Street and Cultural Quarter.

Arising from related discussion and questions, the following points were made:

·                  Depictions of the improvement options, including the proposed bollards, in visual format were welcomed.

·                  The inclusion of Swan Lane in any options was welcomed and it was felt that the proposed treatment of Chapel and Castle Streets was positive.

·                  A safety audit of all scheme options would be undertaken and cobbles would be reused where possible.

·                  In response to a suggestion that Surrey County Council as local highway authority should make a financial contribution towards the improvement work, the Board was advised that this was unlikely as the standard of the proposal was significantly higher than general maintenance work for which the County Council was statutorily responsible.  However, the County Council may provide some stone paving setts.

·                  In addition to the three improvement funding options of use of the NHB reserve, retained business rates or borrowing, use of crowdfunding was suggested and the Board was advised that consideration was currently being given to the establishment of a wider Council crowdfunding platform.

·                  Market testing had taken place prior to the appointment of consultants and the costs reflected the complex nature of the works above and below ground and the need for contingencies.

·                  Concerns in relation to costs, particularly in relation to the Castle Street Square raised table, and highway safety, mainly associated with traffic speed and loss of traffic islands, and the severity of the proposed gates were raised.  The use of traffic calming measures was suggested as one solution.  Although the highway authority did not hold any speed data for the Castle Street junction, it had reviewed it with a view to solving traffic issues and had approved the design for the corner in Castle Street.  A traffic regulation order could be pursued at the detailed design stage.

·                  It was noted that the plan on page 59 of the agenda depicted the gate opening in the wrong direction.

·                  The consultation exercise in relation to the improvement project was appreciated and it was noted that further consultation would take place once firmer proposals had been agreed by the Executive.

·                  Some planting was included in the options and consideration could be given to supplementing this.

·                  Accessibility should take account of older and vulnerable people.

·                  Measures, such as public artwork, to improve the appearance of buildings in Swan Lane were welcomed.

·                  Consistency in street furniture design to reflect the historic nature of the High Street Conservation Area would be pursued.

·                  Measures to mitigate the impact of restaurant delivery vehicles in part of Castle Street were being discussed.  It was noted that there was a trend of moving towards centralised multi-brand out of town kitchens which would resolve this issue.

Having indicated its support for option 2 of the improvement project, the Board agreed that the recommendations to the Executive contained in the report should be modified to read as follows to address its views and concerns:

That the Executive:

1.               Approves option 2 and agrees to progress to detailed design and construction.

2.               Approves for officers to proceed with the detailed designs for the preferred option.

3.               Approves that the full capital cost of the preferred option is funded from the Council’s New Homes Bonus Reserve, subject to recommendation 4.

4.               Explores further funding options for the improvement project.

5.               Gives further consideration to road layout and design at the junction of South Hill, Sydenham Road and Castle Street to reduce traffic speeds and ease crossing by pedestrians.