Agenda item

a)    Joint Report of Corporate Director Regeneration and Economic Development and Assistant Chief Executive

b)    Presentation by Principal Policy Officer and Sustainable Travel Officer, Regeneration and Economic Development

The Committee considered a report of the Assistant Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Regeneration and Economic Development which provided Members with an overview of the strategic cycle routes within County Durham (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

On the 4 April 2016 Members visited strategic cycle routes at Newton Aycliffe, along the A167 and in Durham City. The visit provided members with the opportunity to view completed successful cycling schemes, proposal for developing new schemes and locations where conflicting demands put pressure on design and development of cycling schemes.

Members received a presentation from the Principal Policy Officer and Sustainable Travel Officer that focused on the Policy context; Cycling Strategy and Action Plan; Cycling Network Planning process; Cycling infrastructure improvements; issues and challenges and the next steps (for copy of presentation, see file of minutes).

Members were advised that cycling had grown in popularity thanks to the success of the GB Olympic Cycling Team, Tour de Yorkshire and closer to home the Pear Izumi Tour Series. The benefits of cycling were highlighted too, which included reduced pollution and a healthier population.

Councillor May welcomed the cycle routes which were used by cyclists, but was also concerned for the safety of cyclists as some cycle routes were dark and enquired if there were any plans to install lighting and CCTV cameras which would deter would be thieves. During the winter months some cycling routes would not be used due to freezing weather conditions, the Member asked if the routes were included as part of the winter maintenance programme as there was a drive to get more people cycling.

The Sustainable Travel Officer responded that they had done a lot of work on clearing overgrown vegetation from cycling routes and the railway paths. People using these routes had indicated they felt safe when the routes are well maintained and well cared for and the routes had a good reputation. She advised Members that the Council would not be able to light the railways paths due to costs and there was an environmental impact too in relation to energy consumption. Cyclists chose to use well-lit routes during the winter when it is darker and the days were shorter. The Travel Planning Team were currently looking at a programme to count the usage and the survey equipment used would be cameras. They were developing winter maintenance actions within the strategy using a hierarchy of routes. In the snow people still used the cycle routes and some cyclists preferred the routes not to be gritted due to damage to the cycles.

The Chairman indicated that the Quality Network Principles covered the issues.

Councillor Armstrong commented that any works were dependent on funding, some of which was from the combined authority and were alternative arrangements in place if the combined authority was not established.

The Spatial Policy Officer agreed that getting access to the Local Growth Fund would be at a greater level of risk if Durham were not part of the Combined Authority.

Councillor Milburn referred to works which had been carried out at Stanley to improve the signage on the cycle routes and asked if they had spoken to Stanley AAP and Stanley Town Council as she would not like to see two lots of money spent on signage.

The Sustainable Travel Officer responded that they had looked at signage and cycle parking.

Councillor Stradling welcomed the work done on the cycle routes but had received some complaints in relation to motorcycles and quad bikes using the cycle routes and what plans were in place to combat inappropriate use.

The Sustainable Travel Officer responded that they were restricted in what they could do as barriers would stop other legitimate users such as mobility scooters using the cycle routes. They had put signage up along the Locomotion Way which set out who should be using the cycle route but this was ignored by some people.

Councillor Clare referred to the cycle route along the A167 where the lights had been removed and if routes needed lighting there was a clash as it was being removed as a saving initiative.

The Principal Policy Officer responded that they would consider the issue of street lighting and how its importance could be referenced in the transport policy of the County Durham Plan.

Councillor Hall suggested that solar panelled street lights which were aimed at pedestrians and lasted 25 to 30 years could be a solution and they would become the responsibility of the parish council could be considered as part of the strategy.

Councillor Liversidge referred to the cycle routes in his ward which were owned by third parties, the land was subject to flooding and a boardwalk that had been erected over twenty years ago was now in disrepair. He had also received complaints about the surface of the cycle route and the pier had collapsed the Member asked what the policy was for repairs when the land was not owned by Durham County Council.

The Sustainable Travel Officer responded that generally the railway paths were not on private land. Their team did not have revenue they only had capital monies but they were trying to establish a system to formalise the status.

Councillor Liversidge responded that the surface on some routes had not been touched in 20 years and the plants which had been planted at that time were now overgrown and looked unsightly and were encroaching onto the cycle path.

The Sustainable Travel Officer responded that it was proposed that there was a bypass around the boardwalk which would open up around 10 miles of railway path for horses.

Councillor Clare asked how they were going to maintain the cycle routes if they had no revenue and did not own some of the land.

The Sustainable Travel Officer responded that although Sustainable Transport would not maintain the cycle routes, other team carry out maintenance i.e. highways, countryside and public rights of way. In general, the strategy is to carry out works to improve existing routes and not create new routes.

Councillor Hall referred to new developments and asked if the team got involved in the creation of cycle paths at this stage rather than later.

The Principal Policy Officer responded that they were consulted on new developments via the planning process but developers weren’t obliged to provide funding for new strategic cycling routes, particularly those routes outside the development site boundary. Under Section 106 rules, planning officers can only ask for funding for infrastructure required to make that development site acceptable in planning terms. Unless that individual application would be refused without the infrastructure, officers can’t request developers to provide funding for it. Sometimes the paths were narrower than they would like but it had to be balanced to meet everyone’s needs.

Councillor Holland referred to the conflicting agendas in separating traffic from cyclists and gave an example of the Netherlands where cycling routes were designed to make cycling safe and popular. He added that there was a dedicated cycle path along the A167 at Neville’s Cross, but it stops at the roundabout at the top of South Road and was never continued. There was a need to provide safety education to cyclists to be safe and wear a helmet and appropriate footwear but cyclists too had a responsibility as they were responsible for their own safety.

The Sustainable Travel Officer responded that education was part of the strategy.

The Chairman thanked officers for a very informative presentation.

Resolved: That the contents of the report and presentation be noted.