The Active Travel Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and ask questions, and these included:

·         Considered the response to the consultation was poor and urged Members to ensure they made their residents aware of such consultations;

·         referred to the Sheppey CWR route 7 Sheerness to Leysdown and asked which land segments had secured landowner agreements?;

·         how many of the route sections did not meet the criteria of the cycle infrastructure design?  As this was required in order to secure funding from Active Travel England;

·         the document should be included within the Council’s Local Plan;

·         route CWR2 Cromwell Road to Marine Parade, Sheerness highlighted the need for a pedestrian crossing at that point;

·         had amendments proposed by Parish Councils been included in the LCWIP?;

·         needed to ensure that schools were prioritised to ensure they had safe walking and cycling routes;

·         at the SLRG route at Minster it suggested removing the railings along Scrapsgate Road.  Hoped that suitable infrastructure would be installed to prevent motorbikes accessing the route;

·         a Member Briefing on the process of Section 106 developer contributions and how Members could have an input was needed;

·         the route CWR4 Halfway to Sheerness should be a ‘quick win’, as it linked to the Halfway and West Minster cycle route;

·         referred to route CWR5 and route CWR8 and considered it would make a nice circular route;

·         referred to route CWR7 and considered the route to Southsea Avenue which was not the best route as it was an unmade road; and

·         should require developers to provide a substantial financial contribution to the scheme.

In response, the Active Travel Officer said that the response to the consultation was really positive.  It had attracted higher levels of support than other similar documents across the county.  SLRG route 7 was very long and would be expensive to put in, therefore it needed to be delivered section by section.  Some funding from Active Travel England had been secured to look at phases.  She reported that feasibility studies on each of the routes had been undertaken, and there were many levels of design.  More detailed design had already been undertaken on some routes such as The Broadway, Minster and Grove Park, Sittingbourne.  It was possible that some areas might not be possible. 

A visiting Member who was a trustee of SLRG explained that most of route 7 would need to be on private land to ensure it was not on the main road.  He said that discussions were ongoing with Swale Borough Council (SBC) and developers that owned land on some of the route.  He thanked the Active Travel Officer for all her hard work on the plan and considered that the response to the consultation was encouraging.

The Active Travel Officer confirmed that she was liaising with planning policy officers about the inclusion of the LCWIP in the Council’s Local Plan.  The Head of Environment & Leisure advised that once adopted the LCWIP would become part of the evidence base for the Local Plan alongside other documents like open space strategy, sports facilities strategy etc.

The Active Travel Officer confirmed that Minster Parish Council had responded, she could prepare a ‘You said, we did’ document for Members.

In response to a question from a Member about Section 106 funding, the Head of Environment & Leisure said that currently the Council did not have an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which made it harder to request developer contributions.   An IDP would be produced once the Council’s Local Plan had been agreed.  The Active Travel Officer explained that once a route was at the detailed design level, Active Travel England guidelines required that stakeholder engagement be undertaken as part of the consultation process, and it was at that point Members could have input into developer contributions.

Councillor Jayes proposed the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Nundy. 

Resolved:

(1)  That the amended LDWIP be adopted and published on the Council’s website.

The ‘You said, we did’ document referred to above has been published on the Council’s website and can be viewed here: https://services.swale.gov.uk/assets/Active%20Travel/LCWIP%20consultation%20feedback%20changes%20AA.pdf