STRATEGIC PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE				8  June 2021
Cycle Parking Infrastructure
Final Decision-Maker		Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee
Lead Head of Service		Rob Jarman
Lead Officer and Report Author		Rob Jarman and James Lehane
Classification		Public
Wards affected		All
Executive Summary
In 2020 Sustrans were commissioned to analyse cycle infrastructure in the Borough to make best use of a specific financial allocation of monies. Their report forms Appendix 1. The recommendations and report itself were shared with councillors at two workshops held on 14 May 2021 and feedback informs this report (Appendix 2). It is recommended that the more immediately achievable measures are prioritised and delivered collaboratively with the relevant partners, a table of the potential projects and costs forms Appendix 3.
Purpose of Report   Decision and to note.
This report makes the following recommendations to this Committee:
1.   That the recommendations in the Sustrans report are noted. 2.   That the remaining £54,000 budget is released from reserves for this project. 3.   That schemes are prioritised and delivered in partnership with the relevant organisations / landowners: ·         Sheffield stands in local centres, village centres and the Town Centre. ·         A cycle hub at Maidstone Hospital. ·         Cycle lockers at Barming, Beltring, Harrietsham & Hollingbourne railway stations together with the two Park and Ride sites at Mote Park and Allington. ·         Non-standard & disabled cycle parking at Bearsted, East Farleigh, Harrietsham, Headcorn, Hollingbourne, Maidstone East, Marden & Staplehurst rail stations.
Timetable
Meeting			Date
Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee			8 June 2021

Cycle Parking Infrastructure

1.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

 

 

Issue	Implications	Sign-off
Impact on Corporate Priorities	The four Strategic Plan objectives are:   ·         Embracing Growth and Enabling Infrastructure ·         Safe, Clean and Green ·         Homes and Communities ·         A Thriving Place   ·         Accepting the recommendations will materially improve the Council’s ability to achieve the objective of ‘enabling infrastructure’ in that cycling infrastructure would be delivered.	Rob Jarman
Cross Cutting Objectives	The four cross-cutting objectives are:   ·         Heritage is Respected ·         Health Inequalities are Addressed and Reduced ·         Deprivation and Social Mobility is Improved ·         Biodiversity and Environmental Sustainability is respected   The report recommendations supports the achievements of the health inequalities and environmental cross cutting objectives by the direct provision of cycling infrastructure.	Rob Jarman
Risk Management	Already covered in the risk section	Rob Jarman
Financial	·         The proposals set out in the recommendation are all within already approved budgetary headings and so need no new funding for implementation. ·         Accepting the recommendations will demand new spending of £48,975.00.  We plan to fund that spending as set out in section 3 [preferred alternative].	[Section 151 Officer & Finance Team]
Staffing	We will need access to extra expertise to deliver the recommendations, as set out in section 3.	Rob Jarman
Legal	There are no specific legal implications associated with this report.    Legal Services will work with officers to ensure that any contractors used will comply with the Borough Council’s guidelines.  Any necessary agreements or contracts entered into must be in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules.  Agreements and contracts should be in a form approved by the Legal Services Manager and should identify key activities and outputs so that performance can be can be properly and regularly monitored.   Section 106 planning obligation agreements provide a mechanism for collecting contributions from developers through the planning process.  Section 106 contributions may only be used for the purpose specified in the agreement.    ·	Russell Fitzpatrick (MKLS (Planning))
Privacy and Data Protection	·         Accepting the recommendations will increase the volume of data held by the Council.  We will hold that data in line with our retention schedules. ·         We recognise the recommendations will impact what personal information the Council processes and so have completed a separate data privacy impact assessment [at reference].	Policy and Information Team
Equalities	·         We recognise the recommendations may have varying impacts on different communities within Maidstone.  Therefore, we have completed a separate equalities impact assessment [at reference]. ·         The recommendations do not propose a change in service therefore will not require an equalities impact assessment	[Policy & Information Manager]
Public Health	·         We recognise that the recommendations will have a positive impact on population health or that of individuals. ·         We recognise that the recommendations will not negatively impact on population health or that of individuals. ·         We recognise the recommendations may have varying impacts on the health of the population or individuals within Maidstone. Therefore we have completed a separate health impact assessment. ·         In accepting the recommendations the Council would be fulfilling the requirements of the Health Inequalities Plan	[Public Health Officer]
Crime and Disorder	These measures are in part designed to reduce and discourage theft.	Rob Jarman
Procurement	On accepting the recommendations, the Council will then follow procurement exercises for delivery of cycle parking and associated infrastructure.  We will complete those exercises in line with financial procedure rules.	Rob Jarman

 

 

2.        INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1     Sustrans (A national walking and cycling charity, custodians of the National Cycle Network)) were commissioned in April 2020 to provide research and analysis of the most suitable locations for new cycle parking and recommend the types of parking. This Council has £54,000 to spend on cycle parking and related cycle infrastructure out of an original £60,000 from business rates retention pilot funding (the study cost £6,000) and it is recommended that this money is spent on that recommended by Sustrans but that it is prioritised.

 

2.2     The report looked at the following areas as the most suitable locations for cycle parking and the appropriate types of cycle parking required. These locations were:

 

·         Transport hubs

·         High density areas of the town of Maidstone

·         Local and village centres

·         Town Centre

·         Maidstone Hospital

 

2.3     The report did not analyse cycle parking provision at schools nor higher education establishments.

 

2.4     It is important to note that the cost of all the potential parking measures adds up to more than £54,000 taking into account project management and maintenance costs. Possibly there are land control/acquisition costs in addition to this.

 

2.5     Two councillor workshops were held on 14 May  with some councillors attending both the ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ workshops. The main comments are set out in Appendix 2.

Councillors were asked for prioritisation of each of the parking areas but were also conscious of the need to deliver schemes sooner rather than later.

 

2.5.1   Cycle parking at railway stations: Certain members welcomed this but only locker type parking and some wanted CCTV. The actual surveillance of this would come at a cost (as would the enforcement) and it is not clear who would be responsible, so no CCTV has been factored in. Secondly, s106 monies are potentially available for certain station improvements so there needs to be use of these s106 monies before utilising the £54,000 business rates retention funding. Lastly, cycle hub parking has been installed recently at Maidstone East railway station. Members did not object to the proposal to add non-standard cycle parking for use by cyclists with adapted cycles, they would also enable parking of cargo cycles.

 

2.5.2   Local centres and the town centre: There was support for increasing cycle parking in these locations, although concern was raised regarding security in the town centre. There was, however, an assumption that the sites were public land so the parties involved would be minimal. These locations are therefore a high priority for delivery.

 

2.5.3   Schools and further education: There was support amongst councillors, however the Sustrans report did not analyse this because there is a long-established audit of cycle parking at schools by KCC.

 

2.5.4   Cycle hangars in densely built up streets: This was the least favoured option because there was concern about residents ‘losing’ on street parking spaces. However, there is a local CIL ‘pot’ and councillors and/or groups can come forward to bid for this money.

 

2.5.5   Hospital: the provision of a cycle hub was supported.

 

2.6     If 20% project management and installation costs are factored in (together with general administration and contingency), this would leave £54,000 minus £10,800 leaving £44,200 maximum spend. So, taking account of maintenance and minimising the number of partners etc the prioritisation of spend based on actual deliverability is advocated as:

 

1.    Local and village centres together with Maidstone Urban Area  as the top priority locations.

 

2.    Second priority would be Maidstone Hospital.

 

3. Transport hubs, namely, railway stations without s106 monies available for cycle lockers and disabled cycle parking, so Barming, Bearsted, Beltring, East Farleigh, Harrietsham, Headcorn, Hollingbourne, Marden and Staplehurst rail stations along with Maidstone East and West in the town centre and, secondly, park and ride sites at Mote Park and Allington.

2.7     Taking this potential prioritisation into account this would result in the monies being spent as per appendix 3.

 

2.8     If members were agreeable to this prioritisation then there would need to be a procurement exercise and work done on land ownership and control.

 

2.9     The funding for this project is from the Business Rates Retention fund and the project is currently on hold. In order to progress with the recommendations in this report, the remaining £54,000 from the original £60,000 budget would need to be released from reserves.

 

3.        AVAILABLE OPTIONS

3.1     Option 1: spend the monies as recommended by Sustrans with prioritisation as per the above. 

 

3.2     Option 2: do nothing so the monies are not spent on cycle parking infrastructure.

 

3.3     Option 3: spend monies on different priorities to those advocated above.

 

4.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

4.1     Option 1 is recommended. The Sustrans report identified opportunities across the district to enhance cycle parking provision and that list has been refined to include only the more deliverable schemes, with Member support.

4.2     It is recommended that security and deliverability are prioritised.

 

 

5.       RISK

5.1   The risks associated with this proposal, including the risks if the Council does not act as recommended, have been considered in line with the Council’s Risk Management Framework. These are covered in the report.  We are satisfied that the risks associated are within the Council’s risk appetite and will be managed as per the Policy.

 

 

 

6.       CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

6.1    The Sustrans report was made available to Members and two workshop sessions were held on Friday the 14^th of May 2021. Members have also been invited to provide their recommendations directly with the project officer. A detailed summary of Member’s recommendations is included at Appendix 2.

 

 

7.       NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

 

7.1     If these recommendations are agreed, the following actions would be undertaken:

 

·           Engagement with delivery partners (Southeastern Rail, KCC, etc.) to identify and agree project management and delivery responsibilities.

·           Detailed identification of proposals (positioning of cycle parking, prioritisation for trial locker locations, etc.), carried out with delivery partners.

·           Communication and consultation as appropriate of detailed plans and delivery schedule.

·           Reporting to the next SPI committee on the progress and timeline for delivery.

 

 

 

 

8.        REPORT APPENDICES

 

 

9.        BACKGROUND PAPERS

        None