Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Regulatory Services setting out a proposal by Watford Borough Council to extend the existing Beryl Bike scheme into Croxley Green.

The report’s recommendations are that the Committee: Agree –

1.     Agree that the Council enter arrangements to deliver a pilot e-bike scheme working with Watford Borough Council and Beryl Bikes at a capital cost of £45,000.

2.     Delegate authority on final sites within the areas outlined in the report to the Head of Regulatory Services in consultation with the Lead Member for General Public Services and Ward Councillors.

3.     Delegate authority for approving and entering all required contractual arrangements to implement the pilot e-bike scheme to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member for General Public Services.

4.     Agree that Officers pursue a future CIL application for the capital monies.

5.     That public access to Appendix 2: Part 2 be denied until the scheme is implemented. 

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Regulatory Services setting out a proposal by Watford Borough Council (WBC) to extend the existing Beryl Bike scheme into Croxley Green.

Alison Scott, Director of Finance, introduced the report.

In the subsequent discussion, the following point arose.

a)    When the scheme had started, WBC had been required to put up capital funding to purchase the bikes. Accordingly, the capital costs were for the purchase of e-bikes and a relatively small amount for marking out bays for the e-bikes.

b)    The e-bikes were deemed to be revenue neutral as the cost to use the bikes covered the running costs of the scheme. If, at the end of the pilot scheme, the Council did not wish to proceed with the project, the Council then had the option of selling the e-bikes back to Beryl or keeping the e-bikes.

c)    There was evidence that there was demand for the bikes in Croxley and, if the scheme was extended, then bikes could be taken from other areas and left in Croxley without the user incurring a penalty for not returning the bike. If the pilot scheme was successful, consideration could be given to extending the scheme to other areas.

d)    Regarding costs, the Council was joining an established scheme with an established ridership. Demand for the scheme to be extended to Croxley was evidenced by the number of bikes that were taken from elsewhere and left in Croxley Green, the users preferring to pay the £10 fine for not returning the bikes.

The Council had been informed by WBC and Beryl that e-bikes, unlike ordinary pedal bikes, were self-funding. In turn, WBC and Beryl had been informed that the Council had no revenue funding available for this project, only capital funding.

e)    Regarding the operation of the scheme and potential costs to (HCC) and WBC in operating and managing the scheme, it was noted that the newer bikes had GPS tracking and there were virtual docking stations. Consequently, whenever there had been issues with bikes being left in the wrong place, WBC reported that Beryl had been quick to respond to addressing these issues and that fines were issued for bikes which had been abandoned.

f)      The effect of taking e-bikes from one area to another meant that docking stations for e-bikes could have both WBC and Three Rivers District Council (TRDC) e-bikes at those docking stations.

g)    It would be helpful if Members could be given advance notice on how the traffic markings for the e-bikes were to be laid out at each location. Also, there was the potential of people using the e-bikes to commute from Croxley station, along Mill Lane and across Croxley Common Moor.

h)    Beryl were committed to checking docking stations throughout the day to ensure there was an even distribution of bikes across the docking stations, and to collect abandoned bikes. In addition, the bikes were collected in the evening for recharging.

i)      As this was a pilot, the stands and markings for the e-bikes would be minimal in nature until such time as the pilot project was completed. Thereafter, it was possible that more substantial stands might be provided.

j)      Electric scooters did not form part of the pilot project and TRDC was not one of Transport for London (TfL) trial areas for e-scooters. At present, the committee was being asked to agree, in principle, to the pilot project and the precise locations for the e-bikes had yet to be decided in discussions with landowners and residents.

k)    It was proposed that Byewaters be included within the pilot scheme.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Chair stated that she did not want to go into the detail of the scheme as all that was being sought at this stage was approval to the scheme in principle. Therefore, she proposed that the Committee move to the recommendations set out in the report.

It was RESOLVED (unanimously): That the Committee:

1.    Agree that the Council enter arrangements to deliver a pilot e-bike scheme working with Watford Borough Council and Beryl Bikes at a capital cost of £45,000.

2.    Delegate authority on final sites within the areas outlined in the report to the Head of Regulatory Services in consultation with the Lead Member for General Public Services and Ward Councillors.

3.    Delegate authority for approving and entering all required contractual arrangements to implement the pilot e-bike scheme to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member for General Public Services.

4.    Agree that Officers pursue a future CIL [Community Infrastructure Levy] application for the capital monies.

5.    That public access to Appendix 2: Part 2 [of the report], be denied until the scheme was implemented.