Agenda and draft minutes

To receive the notes of the meeting held on 11 August 2021

The notes of the meeting held on 11 August 2021 were received by the Group.

To receive an Officer response to the initial list of questions from the Group, with further questions and answers

The Senior Projects Engineer and the Head of Strategic Planning joined the meeting to answer questions from the Group.

1.         How much ownership of the LCWIP process did HDC's officers have, and how much was delegated to WSP?

            WSP produced the first draft document in consultation with HDC. The final document was produced by HDC in consultation with WSP and the Public.

2.         How much influence did WSCC Highways have on the LCWIP process, and how?

WSCC had no influence over the process, however they formed the LCWIP Group Partnership between Borough and District Councils across the county.

3.         We understand that WSP is prioritising routes across the county to take forward for funding, using a multi-criteria assessment tool – what schemes has Horsham put forward, and how were these selected?

            WSP had produced a draft list of schemes taken from different LCWIPs across the county that they felt were most likely to receive funding. This draft list would then be discussed at the next meeting of the LCWIP Group Partnership to form a final list. This final list would then be sent to WSCC to apply for a capability fund (for scheme design only, not implementation).

            The draft list would be circulated to Members of the Task & Finish Group.

4.         Looking forward, how will Horsham promote its schemes within this WSCC process and ensure best possible chance of funding?

            The promotion of schemes will be decided on a case-by-case basis as funding is received. The more easily deliverable schemes would be more likely to receive funding and would be put forward first.

5.         What active travel projects does Horsham hope to achieve from the LCWIP and otherwise and over what timescales?

            HDC had put forward an initial six schemes but would need to wait for the next LCWIP Group Partnership meeting to formalise a timescale.

6.         What does ‘success’ look like for us?

The production and adoption of the LCWIP would be considered the first success for HDC. Funding for and implementation of as many schemes from the LCWIP as possible would be a measure for success going forward.

7.         What is the ongoing work programme?

HDC would be seeking funding for schemes whenever possible and continue to work with WSCC to implement as many schemes as possible.

8.         What are the constraints: political, financial, technical expertise, reliance on outside bodies?

The main constraint for HDC would be funding as there would be no set budget for LCWIP schemes.

9.         Given what officers now know about the LCWIP process and the new guidance, what, if anything, would they change?

New standards (LTN 1/20) have come into effect after the production of the LCWIP. The LCWIP would undergo continuous review and would be amended when necessary to adhere to any new standards.

10.       What do officers see as the main funding sources for significant NMU infrastructure outside of new developments, and who should be exploring these sources?

The LCWIP would mainly be funded by CIL, S106, active transport grants and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Group agreed to invite the Head of Transport and Network Operations from WSCC Highways to the next meeting to be interviewed.

The Group agreed to attend a public speech from the London Cycling Campaign, hosted by the Horsham District Cycle Forum on 21 September 2021.

The Group agreed to not visit Waltham Forest but instead to visit the sites of the six schemes put forward from the HDC LCWIP.

The Group agreed to wait for a confirmation from the Head of Transport and Network Operations from WSCC Highways before deciding on a date for the next meeting.