Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport

 

21 March 2023

Report of the Assistant Director for Environment, Transport and Planning

 

Active Travel Programme Update

 

Summary

 

1.        This report provides an update on the progress of the Active Travel Programme and asks the Executive Member to note this update.

 

2.        An update on the recent Active Travel Fund Tranche 4 funding bid submission to Active Travel England is also included within this report, and the Executive Member is asked to note this update.

 

3.        This report also provides a Project Outline document defining the “A19 Active Travel Phase 1” scheme and asks for a decision from the Executive Member to approve this Project Outline.

 

4.        Additionally, this report provides a summary of a recent consultation undertaken on the Riverside Path (Jubilee Terrace – Scarborough Bridge) scheme and seeks a decision to approve the proposed next steps for the scheme.

Recommendations

 

This section should set out clearly the author’s recommendation for a particular option and the reasons why.

5.        The Executive is asked to:

1)   Note the update on the progress of the Active Travel Programme contained within this report.

Reason: To provide information to the public and the Member on the current status of the Active Travel Programme.

2)   Note the update contained within this report covering the recent ATF4 bid submission.

 

Reason: To provide information to the public regarding the request for funding submitted to Active Travel England.

 

3)   Approve the “A19 Phase 1 Interventions” Project Outline (Option 1).

It should be noted that a decision on the implementation of the crossing is not being sought at this time. A further public decision on the proposals will be presented after feasibility work has been completed.

Reason: To agree the scope of the project, to ensure it is aligned with stakeholder expectations.

4)   Note the results of the Riverside Path Consultation, the initial feasibility work undertaken by Aecom and the current funding gap.

Reason: To understand the options for improving the route and the priorities for the local residents.

5)   Approve the progression of Option 2 to deliver the scheme on a phased basis commencing with the higher priority affordable items (lighting & CCTV) and undertake further development work within the current budget.

 

Reason: Progressing with Phase 1 of the path upgrade (lighting and CCTV) allows progress to be made on-site whilst further work is undertaken on the feasibility of the full scheme.

 

Active Travel Programme Update

 

Background

 

6.        This section contains an update on the progress of the Active Travel Programme.

7.        A summary of the progress of all schemes within the programme can be found as Annex C to this report. Additional information on key projects is highlighted below.

Consultation

 

8.        Each individual scheme within the programme is subject to its own consultation process. An indication of the status of consultations for each scheme can be found in Annex C.

Analysis

 

Wheldrake / Heslington Active Travel Path Update

 

9.        In the November 2022 Executive Session (Background Paper 2), the Wheldrake / Heslington Active Travel Path scheme was paused pending further funding. There was however a decision to:

“Officers are now instructed to enter discussions with landowners and bring to a member decision session.”

10.    This instruction has been carried out and letters have been sent to relevant landowners to start these discussions.

11.    At the time of writing, a response has been received from one of the landowners. The details of this confidential communication cannot be shared in this report, however the broad substance of the response was that the landowner was open to further discussion on the detail of the scheme.

12.    As noted elsewhere within this report, this scheme has formed part of CYC’s recent bid to Active Travel England for funding support to undertake development work. Should this request for funding be successful, the scheme will be progressed and feasibility work will be resumed. Discussion with land owners will continue.

 

A19 Shipton Road Active Travel Corridor Scheme

13.    In the November 2022 Executive Session (Background Paper 2), the A19 Shipton Road Active Travel Corridor scheme was split into 2 phases.

14.    The first phase of works relates to smaller scale interventions identified by the local community and is named “A19 Shipton Road Phase 1 Interventions” on the programme.

15.    This report seeks approval for the scope of this scheme, and this information can be found in the project outline document attached as Annex E.

16.    The second phase of the scheme relates to the full corridor works and retains the same objectives and scope as previously identified. This phase of the works has been paused pending further funding.

17.    Feasibility work has been completed on the full corridor scheme, however consultation cannot start until funding is identified to progress the scheme.

 

City Centre North South Cycle Route

18.    In the November 2022 Executive Meeting a decision was made to confirm funding for this scheme as part of the Phase 1 works, and to award a contract for the progression of feasibility and design work.

19.    This contract has now been awarded and the feasibility work has begun. It is expected that the first stage of this feasibility work will be ready for a public consultation in June 2023.

20.    A separate ward scheme is also underway to consider improvements to pedestrian routes at the Aldwark / Ogleforth junction. A raised table at the junction has been considered, however a road safety audit has indicated that this is not a viable solution. Alternative solutions are currently being explored.

City Centre Cycle Parking Improvements

 

21.    A Cycle Parking Design Standard has been created to inform the principles on which the scheme design should be based. This design standard is currently part of a targeted consultation process that is due to complete by March 27th 2023. This consultation is also seeking input on proposed locations for new cycle parking infrastructure.

22.    This feedback will be taken into account during the ongoing feasibility work that is due to be completed in April 2023.

23.    Following the completion of this feasibility work, a full public consultation will be undertaken on specific proposals. The current aim is to carry out this consultation in June 2023, followed by a public decision in approximately August 2023.

 

Active Travel Fund Tranche 4 Bid

 

Background

24.    On the 6th of February 2023 Active Travel England (ATE) invited Local Authorities to submit bids for funding support as part of the ‘Active Travel Fund Tranche 4’ opportunity. The letter received from ATE is attached as Annex A to this report.

25.    The deadline for submissions of bids to this fund was the 24th of February 2023.

26.    Prior to the official announcement of the funding opportunity on the 6th of February, ATE confidentially contacted Local Authorities with advanced notice of the intention to announce the fund, providing sufficient information to start formulating a bid. This initial communication was sent to Local Authorities on the 10th of January 2023 and has been followed up by further briefings and Q&A sessions from ATE.

27.    Unfortunately, the timescales provided were not sufficient to allow an opportunity for a public consultation or a public decision to be made on the content of the bid, or indeed on the choice of schemes to be included within the bid.

28.    This report summarises the content of the bid that was submitted to ATE on 24th February; lays out the rationale for the choice of schemes that were included; and covers the implications for York’s Active Travel Programme.

29.    The submitted bid can be found in Annex B. A summary of the scheme contained and omitted from the bid can be found in Annex D.

Consultation

 

30.    The timescales available to submit a bid for funding did not allow an opportunity to undertake a public consultation.

31.    The bid was created by officers in consultation with the Executive Member for Transport and was supported by the Leader of the Council.

 

Analysis

 

32.    In the November 2022 Executive Meeting (Background Paper 2), a decision was made to prioritise the Active Travel Programme into 2 phases. Phase 1 projects were assigned sufficient funding to proceed, whereas those projects prioritised as Phase 2 were paused pending further funding. It was highlighted that future funding opportunities would likely become available from ATE and other sources.

33.    It should be noted that this current funding opportunity is not seen as the only available potential source of funding for Phase 2 schemes. If a Phase 2 scheme was not included within this bid, alternative funding opportunities will still be explored.

34.    The ‘indicative allocation’ for York is £367,698, with Local Authorities encouraged to bid for more than this amount, up to 300% of this value, which is £1,103,094. The total amount of all schemes contained with our bid exceeds this amount, at £2,961,000. This was a deliberate choice and reflects the level of ambition that is present on matters of Active Travel, including a desire to improve York’s self-assessment level. Despite this approach, there is still a practical upper limit on the amount that York can realistically bid for, and therefore it is not sensible to include a bid for every potential active travel scheme currently identified.

Rationale for deciding which schemes to include in the bid

35.    There was a requirement within the bid to differentiate between schemes that are ‘for construction’, and those that are ‘for development’, with construction-ready schemes being more likely to attract funding. As such, the primary factor that determined if a scheme should be included within the bid was an evaluation of how well progressed the scheme was, and therefore how deliverable the scheme was likely to be.

36.    Another primary factor that was considered when deciding which schemes to include in the bid was the specific eligibility criteria identified by ATE. For example, schemes that were identified as scoring well on specific LTN 1/20 assessment were more likely to be successful and were therefore prioritised within the bid.

37.    York’s draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) was also considered when determining which schemes to include within the bid. Ideally those schemes listed within the LCWIP should be prioritised, however this consideration was taken into account with reference to the need to bid for construction-ready schemes.

38.    Attention was also given to the guidance provided by ATE in the bid invitation letter (Annex A), specifically ‘Table 1 – Types of scheme proportionate to local authority capability levels’ and ‘Table 2 – Examples of the sort of schemes that are more / less likely to attract funding’.

Schemes included within the bid

39.    People Streets at Ostman Road – This scheme is currently ‘shelf-ready’ in terms of deliverability. Feasibility work has been completed, consultation has been completed, a public decision has been obtained on the solution to be implemented, and the commissioning of detailed design is underway. The only significant barrier to delivery currently present is the absence of sufficient funding to construct the scheme.

40.    All relevant details of this scheme can be found in Background Paper 3.

41.    Manor Lane / Shipton Road – This scheme has completed Feasibility work and is due to go through public consultation and public decision. Feasibility work indicates that this scheme is likely to be readily deliverable with few significant obstacles likely to emerge.

42.    The current budget assigned to this scheme is only sufficient to deliver approximately half of the scheme, hence the opportunity to apply for additional government support to delivery the full benefits.

43.    A full description of the proposed scheme can found in Background Paper 1. The aforementioned Feasibility report will be released as part of the upcoming consultation and public decision process.

44.    Jubilee Terrace to Scarborough Bridge Riverside Path – Due to the fact that a significant amount of feasibility work has already been undertaken, this scheme is a good fit for construction funding support.

45.    It is noted that the funding required to deliver this scheme is significant, and in excess of the ‘indicative value’ assigned to CYC by ATE for ATF4 support.

46.    Tang Hall Lane / Foss Islands Path – Similarly, this scheme has progressed through feasibility work and there is a certain level of confidence that the scheme is deliverable on the ground.

47.    A consultation and decision session is still due to be undertaken, and this will be able to progress if sufficient funding support is obtained.

48.    Development Bids – 5 schemes were included within the bid for ‘development’ support. This means that funding was sought to undertake feasibility work for the scheme, but not for full construction.

49.    These 5 schemes include ‘Haxby to Strensall Village Active Travel Route’, ‘Wheldrake / Heslington Path’, ‘Acomb Road Scheme’, ‘Fulford Road / Frederick House’ and ‘Monkgate Roundabout’

50.    Details of all the bid submissions can be found within the bid itself, at Annex B.

A19 Phase 1 Active Travel Scheme

 

Background

 

51.    In the November 2022 Executive Meeting (Background Paper 2) a decision was made to split the ‘A19 Shipton Road Cycle Route’ scheme into 2 phases. The first phase, ‘A19 Shipton Road Phase 1 Interventions’ was assigned £100k of funding.

52.    This report proposes a scope of works for this scheme and asks for a decision to approve the Project Outline document found in Annex E to this report.

53.    This decision will ensure that officers are progressing a scheme that aligns with the Executive Members expectations.

 

Consultation

 

54.    The Project Outline was created in consultation with the Executive Member and input from Councillor Smalley. Councillor Smalley’s comments on the attached document were in support of the proposals. He indicated that it fits what had been discussed with local residents, and agreed with a suggestion to future proof the crossing so that it can be turned into a Toucan in the future if needed.

55.    The Project Outline was then circulated to Councillors for the Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward, and Parish Councillors for the Clifton Without Parish Council and Rawcliffe Parish Council.

56.    Feedback from Parish Councillor Hagon indicated that “Nearly everyone wanted the junction - very few said it wasn’t needed”.

57.    Further feedback from Councillor Hagon indicated that there was some debate within the community about the preferred location of the crossing, either north or south of the Fylingdale Avenue junction.

58.    Comments supporting locating the crossing to the north of the junction included:
- “School children will use it more and dog walker too if it’s there”
- “It won’t be directly in front of residential property”
- “It will help cars exit Fylingdale Avenue, slowing down speeding traffic”
- “if to the south, it will be harder to turn right out of Fylingdale Avenue, and it will be near the bus stop which might cause accidents as cars try to overtake stationary buses”

59.    Comments supporting locating the crossing to the south of the junction included:
- “The bus stop to town and Aldi are that way, so it will be used more by putting it there”
- “The footpath to the north is too narrow”

60.    Other comments included “How far will the crossing be from the junction”, “A speed reduction on Shipton Road would affect my opinion” and “what about a mini roundabout on the junction to slow traffic down?”

61.    It should be noted that a decision on the location of the crossing is not being sought at this time. A further public decision on the proposals will be presented after feasibility work has been completed.

62.    A public consultation was not undertaken on this project outline, however a public consultation will be undertaken when preliminary design work has been completed.

 

Analysis

 

63.    This project aims to improve pedestrian access across the A19 Shipton Road for people travelling between Fylingdale Avenue and Northolme Drive in both directions.

64.    The nearby residential streets, hospital and other local amenities are located on each side of the A19, resulting in a pedestrian desire line across this main arterial route.

65.    Provision of a standalone signalised pedestrian crossing over the A19 will improve safety, convenience and amenity of the pedestrian route at this location.

66.    Primary risks to the scheme involve the requirement to divert utilities, which could significantly impact scheme costs. This will be considered during the feasibility stage to effectively manage this risk.

67.    It is unlikely that the scheme described within the Project Outline will score highly against any of the assessment criteria within LTN 1/20. This is due to the fact that the scheme does not contain any cycling infrastructure. This scheme is primarily intended to serve pedestrian use, as described within the scheme objectives.

68.    Although this is not a cycling scheme, walking is a mode of active travel, and pedestrians are at the top of the Road User Hierarchy. This scheme can therefore be considered a valid use of active travel.

 

Riverside Path (Jubilee Terrace – Scarborough Bridge)

 

Background

 

69.    The riverside path is a key route on the pedestrian and cycle network connecting the west of the city from Jubilee Terrace to the city centre and the Scarborough Bridge river crossing.

70.    Following an initial feasibility review a public consultation exercise was undertaken in December 2022 and January 2023 to seek feedback from local residents and users of the riverside path to understand their priorities for any improvements.

71.    The feasibility study has identified that a scheme to deliver the aspirations of the community would cost approx. £2.39m including contingency and risk allowances. A bid for additional funding has been submitted to Active Travel England however an announcement is pending. An option for delivering the highest priority improvements in the short term is presented in the report.

72.    Upgrades to the cycle and walking network in the local area will be made as part of the York Central development, including the introduction of alternative high-quality routes unaffected by river flooding. However, the importance of the existing riverside route to residents and cyclists will remain for residents in the area. The council has acquired the land and set aside £600K to make improvements to the path.

73.    Consultants were commissioned in 2022 to undertake a feasibility study and assist with a public consultation exercise. Key areas for consideration include improved lighting, CCTV, seating, security, widening or segregating the path, reducing the impact of flooding and surfacing.

74.    The initial work has identified a number of potential improvements which have been estimated to have a total cost of £2.39m. This estimate includes significant contingency allowances, for example for flood compensation storage, within the estimates but it is clear that the current allocation is insufficient to deliver the full aspirations of the local community. A bid for £1.758m has recently been submitted to Active Travel England to enable the full scheme to be delivered.

 

Consultation

 

75.    Following initial feasibility work a public consultation exercise was undertaken in December 2022 and January 2023 to seek feedback from local residents and users of the riverside path to understand their priorities, concerns about the existing path and gather feedback on potential options for path improvements. The feedback received will help shape a detailed design and inform a planning application for the scheme when funding is secured.

76.    The consultation began on Friday 2 December 2022 and concluded at 11:59pm on Sunday 8 January 2023. Members of the public and stakeholders were asked to submit their comments online at www.york.gov.uk/RiversidePath, or via email or post. There were also two public drop-in events, where attendees could fill out and submit hard copy response forms. These took place at St. Barnabas Church (Jubilee Terrace, Leeman Rd, York, YO26 4YZ) on the dates and times shown below:

a.   Saturday 10 December, 10:30am to 3:30pm.

b.   Tuesday 13 December, 12:30pm to 7pm.

77.    The consultation information used on the website and at the exhibitions is attached at Annex F.

78.    Between 30 and 40 people attended the exhibitions on each day. A total of 444 consultation responses were received. This is made up of 441 responses via the online or hard copy response form, and three detailed response emails. Five hard copy response forms were received after the close of the consultation. They are not included in the analysis in the consultation report, but have been read and considered by the project team.

79.    The consultation report contains a breakdown of the responses, including quantitative and qualitative data identifying common themes. It also includes a brief summary of the type of respondent, including their stated use of the path, frequency of use, as well as other demographic data.

 

Summary of Consultation Responses

80.    The detailed results of the consultation are included in the Consultation Report in Annex F. A summary of the key items is included in the following paragraphs.

81.    The responses were fairly evenly split across people who identified as male or female and people who cycled and walked. Approx. 20% of the respondents indicated that they had a mental or physical disability.

82.    The path is used for a variety of purposes with getting to work and leisure being the highest responses. 83% of the respondents indicated that they strongly support the plans to improve the path.

83.    There were a variety of areas identified as needing improvement with lighting, usability during flood events, the condition of the path and the availability of space for different users being identified by the most respondents.

84.    Nearly 100 respondents identified other areas needing improvement with the most common themes being maintenance, the underpass under Scarborough Br and the provision of benches and resting places.

85.    When asked to identify their top three priorities lighting, providing more space for pedestrians and cyclists on the existing route, and raising the path to reduce impact of flooding came out the highest.





86.    The results were different between genders and disabled users but the highest 3 priorities remained the same. However more female and gender-neutral respondents identified CCTV/security as a higher priority than male respondents. More male respondents identified raising the path as a higher priority than female respondents.

87.    Widening of the path had generally higher positive support (214) compared to the separate path (132) but with some respondents identifying concerns about conflict between users and impact on trees. 75 respondents identified a clear preference for the separate path option.

88.    When asked for whether there were any other items which should be considered maintenance was the most common followed by improvements to the Scarborough Br underpass and flood signage.

 

Feasibility Study - Summary

89.    Aecom were commissioned to undertake a feasibility study investigating potential improvements to the Riverside Path. The feasibility report is attached as Annex G and it includes drawings.

90.    The feasibility study had the following objectives which were to be reviewed following the consultation phase:

a.   Improved Lighting

b.   Improved Security – CCTV / Lighting

c.   Improved Environment – Including review of NR fence

d.   Improved Accessibility – Barrier upgrade

e.   Improved Drainage – Surface water drainage

f.     Improved Removal of Flood Water / Silt – Drainage / Warping

g.   Increased availability of the route (Jubilee Terrace to Scarborough Br / Post Office Lane) during hight river levels.

h.   Increased capacity (Width / Layout?) – Consideration of widening existing route or separating peds / cyclists entirely (eg changing existing route to be for cyclists only and providing dedicated pedestrian route closer to the river bank)

i.     Delivery without closing the route

j.     Improved Management of Pedestrian / Cyclist conflicts at Scarborough Bridge arch. Realignment, signage, barrier arrangements etc.

91.    There are two main character areas of the path

a.   Jubilee Terrace – 150m length of single carriageway cul-de-sac

b.   Cinder Lane Foot / Cycle Path – 600m length of approx. 3m segregated path.

92.    There are a number of issues and constraints along the path:

a.   Flooding at Low Point – route affected on an average of approx. 10 days a year

b.   High number of users – over 1000 cyclists and 1500 pedestrians using the route on a daily basis.

c.   Inconsistent lighting

d.   Lack of CCTV

e.   Lack of seating / rest areas

f.     Tree line close to the existing path, which could restrict opportunities to widen the path in some locations.

g.   Poor alignment at the Scarborough Bridge underpass and narrow arch.

93.    A Cycle Level of Service Assessment (CLoS) was undertaken for the path assessing the route for five key requirements (cohesion, directness, safety, comfort and attractiveness). The path has been split into two sections for the assessment (on carriageway (1A) and off road (1B)).

94.    In summary, the existing sections fail to meet the 70% or above threshold specified within the CLoS Audit criteria. Section 1A scores are lower due to lack of continuity, markings / signage and high levels of kerbside activity. Whereas Section 1B scores are lower due to lack of sufficient width for cyclists, poor lighting and surface quality, with the results as follows:

a.   Section 1A: 54%

b.   Section 1B: 68%

95.    A number of key constraints and risks were identified during the feasibility stage which will require further work during the detailed design stage:

a.   Potential impact on flood storage

b.   Potential impact on trees of path widening

c.   Potential impact on Network Rail Fence

 

Feasibility Options

 

Section A – Jubilee Terrace

96.    Proposals within Section A - Jubilee Terrace were identical in either option, with the aims of reducing vehicle dominance through reduction and formalisation of parking, increased conspicuity of the cycle route through signage and road markings strategy, additional wayfinding / flood level signage, speed reduction measures and improved pedestrian crossing facilities.

 

Section B – Cinder Lane Path

97.    Proposals in Section B – Cinder Lane Path followed two approaches as depicted below:

a.   Approach 1 – Widening the existing shared use path

b.   Approach 2 – Provision of a separate path over a section of the route

 

 



98.    Other specific measures identified during the concept / feasibility design process included:

a.   Upgrade existing lighting or install new lighting where required (including under Scarborough Bridge)

b.   Reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at Scarborough Bridge underpass

c.   Install additional low level bollard lighting on a footpath if this approach is taken forward

d.   Install CCTV in key locations along the path

e.   Raise path level at localised low points (on both sides of Scarborough Bridge)

f.     Provide better advance warning systems to let people know when sections of the route are likely to be flooded

g.   Additional seating / benches along the path

h.   Improved pedestrian crossings to / from St Barnabas Primary School

i.     Introduce Traffic Regulation Orders to reduce parking space availability on Jubilee Terrace and reconsider reallocation of road space.

99.    A Cycle Level of Service Assessment (CLoS) was undertaken on the options indicating that the assessment would be above the threshold for both approaches:

a.   Section 1A – 70%

b.   Section 1B – Approach 1: 88%

c.   Section 1B – Approach 2: 92%

 

100.Initial work has been undertaken to understand the options and costs of raising the low section of the path to reduce the number of times a year it is affected by flooding. If the path was raised to a similar level to the Scarborough Bridge underpass then the impact of the flooding could be reduced from approx. 9 days to approx. 3 days a year (based upon the last 10 years of river level data). However, there is the potential need, subject to Environment Agency approval, for flood storage to be provided in the area to compensate for the removal of flood storage volume where the path is raised. Further hydraulic modelling and discussion with the Environment Agency is required before the extent of flood compensation is confirmed.

 

Cost Estimate

101.Budget cost estimates have been prepared for the approaches identified in the feasibility report.

Element

and Potential Phase 

Riverside Path (Scarborough Br to Jubilee Terrace)
Indicative Cost Estimates

Cost Estimate

(inc uplifts & 25% risk)

 

Feasibility Study/Surveys etc.

£50,000

 

 

1

Whole route Street lighting

£121,000

 

Supplementary CCTV

£81,000

 

Sub Total 1

£202,000

2

Raising of low point (either side of Scarborough Bridge)* approx 250m length, including reconstruction of NR fence (~275m)**

£683,000

 

Estimated cost of compensatory flood storage (tbc) ***

£277,000

 

Sub Total 2

£960,000

3

Widening of the existing shared use path (west of Element 1)* approx.400m length including reconstruction of remaining NR fence (~125m)

£752,000

 

Estimated cost of compensatory flood storage (tbc) ***

£270,000

 

Sub Total 3

£1,022,000

4

Jubilee Terrace Area

£154,000

 

Sub Total 4

£154,000

 

GRAND TOTAL Approx. (Sub Totals 1-4 and assuming widening of existing path)

£2,388,000

 

Analysis

 

102.There is insufficient funding to deliver the full community ambition for the path improvements: Funding available £600k, Cost Estimate approx. £2,390k. Two of the higher priority items, raising and widening of the path, are not affordable within the current budgets. The following options have been considered to progress the project. Note: A bid for additional funding has been submitted to Active Travel England which if received in full would enable the full scheme to be implemented.

103.There is strong support for improvements to the Riverside Path to enhance the link between the Leeman Rd island community and the city centre/Scarborough Bridge.

104.Option 2 delivering the scheme on a phased basis would enable the higher priority affordable items to be delivered in 23/24 as a first phase subject to planning and approvals with the remainder progressed when funding is available. The consultation identified improved lighting as one of the highest priorities for the route followed by raising the path and widening the path. CCTV coverage was also supported by a significant proportion of respondents. It is proposed that these elements of the scheme would be delivered in line with the priorities identified if funding was not available to deliver the full scheme. Subject to detailed design and consideration of the impact on trees it is proposed to progress a widened path scheme. If funding becomes available to deliver the full scheme a further report will be presented to the Executive Member to gain approval for the layout prior to progressing to implementation. There is a risk that delivering elements of the overall scheme independently will result in additional costs and potential abortive work if the full scheme is delivered at a later date. The design of early phases will be future proofed as much as possible to minimise these risks.

105.Option 3 would enable the cost of the scheme to be more accurately established which would help with the submission of future bids for funding. However, this option would not meet the aspirations of the community for improvements and would mean some of the affordable elements would not be delivered and existing funding allocations would not be used for any immediate benefit for the residents in the area.

106.Option 4 would not make use of existing funding allocations and not meet the aspirations of residents in the area.

107.Option 2 is therefore recommended to be progressed.

 

Options

 

108.Option 1 – Approve the “A19 Phase 1 Interventions” Project Outline attached to this report as Annex E.

 

109.Option 2 – Riverside Path – Deliver the scheme on a phased basis progressing the higher priority improvements that can be afforded within the budget available as phase 1 and developing further phases for delivery when funding is identified.  (Recommended)

Option 2 (costing up to £550k) using the existing funding would enable, Phase 1 to be progressed. In this option The lighting would be improved following detailed assessment and the provision of CCTV would be investigated and delivered if affordable and permitted. It would also include further development work to be undertaken to provide more certainty for the flooding and tree impacts costs. In addition, some of the lower cost elements identified in the consultation, such as improved signing, would also be investigated and delivered. It would not be proposed to deliver the changes to the Jubilee Terrace section in this option as it was identified as the lowest priority in the consultation.

Opportunities for further funding to deliver the raising and / or widening would also be investigated.

 

110.Option 3 – Riverside Path – Undertake further design work but delay the delivery of any improvements until sufficient funding was identified to deliver some or all of the scheme.

This option (costing approximately £50k) would enable further design work to be undertaken to provide more cost certainty, particularly for the flood compensation element. This would potentially reduce the funding ask for the scheme. However this option would not deliver any improvements to the area in the short term.

 

111.Option 4 – Riverside Path – Do Nothing

This option would terminate the scheme at this stage recognising that the funding was insufficient to deliver the full enhancement for the area.

 

Council Plan

 

112.    Delivery of the Active Travel Programme supports the key Council Objective of “Getting Around Sustainably” and “Good health and wellbeing”.

113.    The Riverside Path proposals relate well to many of the Council’s key core outcomes, as set out in the Council Plan 2019-23 and the Local Transport Plan.

a.   An open and effective council: listening to residents to ensure it delivers the services they want and works in partnership with local communities.

b.   A greener and cleaner city: providing improved links to promote sustainable travel

c.   Good health and wellbeing: promotion of cycling and walking to improve health and wellbeing of residents

 

Implications

 

·           Financial

The recommended options outlined in the report are within the allocated capital budgets. The capital budget for the riverside path is £600k and element 1 can be delivered within this budget. Further funding will need to be identified to deliver the other elements. The A19 Phase 1 Interventions project scope is within the £100k budget allocated for this scheme phase.

·           Human Resources (HR)

There are no Human Resources implications

·         Equalities

The Council needs to take into account the Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it in the exercise of a public authority’s functions).

 

An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out and is annexed to this report at Annex H.
    

·           Legal

 

Procurement

Any proposed works and services will need to be commissioned via a compliant procurement process under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and the council’s Contract Procedure Rules. The Commercial Procurement team will need to be consulted alongside Legal Services, and the Insurance team so appropriate documents, contracts and processes can be completed. A procurement strategy will be completed to determine the best route to market and to ensure the council is achieving value for money whilst delivering the contract.

 

Grant funding

Legal Services will carry out a review of any proposed grant funding arrangements and in respect of the UK Subsidy Control Rules (previously State aid) to confirm whether any mitigating actions need to be taken prior to entering into the arrangements.

 

CCTV

Officers will need to consider the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations 2018, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Protection of Freedoms Act when deciding where to position CCTV cameras.

 

·           Crime and Disorder

The aim of the recommended option for the Riverside Path scheme is to improve the safety of local residents, particularly at night.
        

·           Information Technology (IT)
The Riverside Path scheme will involve connection to the council’s CCTV network which will be delivered through existing supply contracts in consultation with the Head of IT.
 

·           Property
There are no Property implications

 

Risk Management

 

114. The Active Travel Programme is managed in line with the Corporate Risk Management Strategy and each individual project is subject to risk management in line with appropriate project management methodologies.

 

115. ‘The A19 Phase 1 Interventions’ scheme is currently funded from Active Travel England sourced funding. The Project Outline proposed as part of this report describes a project that does not match the commitments made to Active Travel England.

 

116. There is a risk that Active Travel England will not support the proposed scheme and deem that is not in line with their expectations of what their funding would contribute towards.

 

117. The implications, should this risk cause materialise, is a potential reduction in future funding support.

 

118. Contact has been made with ATE to attempt to discuss and address this concern, however this discussion has not yet happened.

 

119. The key risks for the Riverside Path relate to resolving the funding gap and the extent of the flood compensation requirements. In mitigation Option 2 proposes to phase the project to match the funding available and undertake further work to confirm the requirements for flood compensation storage prior to implementation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Details

 

Authors:

 

Chief Officer Responsible for the report:

 

Christian Wood

Smart Transport Programme Manager

01904 551 652

 

Tony Clarke

York Central Lead

01904 551 641

James Gilchrist

Director of Environment, Transport and Planning

 

Report Approved

√

Date

[10/03/2023]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specialist Implications Officer(s) 

 

Financial:                                                  Legal:

Patrick Looker                                           Cathryn Moore

Finance Manager                                      Corporate Business Partner (Legal)

01904 551 633                                         01904 552 487

 

Wards Affected: 

All

Y

 

 

 

All

 

For further information please contact the author of the report

 

 

Background Papers:

 

Background Paper 1 – February 2022 Executive Member Decision Session - https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=738&MId=12734&Ver=4 (Item 48)

Background Paper 2 – November 2022 Executive Meeting Report - https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=13292&Ver=4 (Item 49)

 

Background Paper 3 – November 2022 Executive Member Decision Session Report (Item 37) - https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=738&MId=13551&Ver=4

Background Paper 4 – July 2022 Executive Member Decision Session – https://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=62826#mgDocuments

 

Annexes

 

Annex A – ATF4 Bid Invitation Letter

Annex B – Active Travel Fund Tranche 4 Bid

Annex C – Active Travel Programme Summary

Annex D – ATF4 Bid Scheme Summary

Annex E – Project Outline – A19 Shipton Road Phase 1 Interventions

Annex F – Riverside Path Consultation Report

Annex G – Riverside Path Feasibility Report

Annex H – Equalities Impact Assessment

 

 

List of Abbreviations Used in this Report

 

ATE – Active Travel England

DfT – Department for Transport

CYC – City of York Council

ATF4 – Active Travel Fund Tranche 4

LCWIP – Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan

NR – Network Rail