Agenda item

Members agree the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) attached at Appendix A is agreed and adopted.

To agree that this in a fit state now to be presented to county

LCWIP is a strategic approach to planning, improve routes for people, walking cycling or wheeling or other modes of transport, can apply for national funding, project run jointly, following adoption goes to HCC for adoption, any changes will be have to undertake a feasibility study. document has been amended on the public consultation, routes have been updated, revisions have been approved by committee in November 2024.

Councillor Chris Mitchell proposed an amendment to the LCWIP, Seconded by Councillor Nelmes

 “The final feasibility for route 2 to include consideration of using quieter roads and a full local consultation”

Some members emphasized that consistent and careful wording would be helpful throughout the document. And felt it was legitimate to add a comment that the finer details will be addressed at a later stage.

Officers stated that every route would be part of a future feasibility study, and the routes must align with the guidance within the LCWIP, especially the principle of directness. It may not be possible to consider every alternative route but any consultation during the feasibility stage will be open to all. Officers suggested a caveat to the amendment that officers proceed with careful wording as these routes have been consulted on with the public already, they have already gone through a heavy inspection.

Some members sought clarification on whether the technical work carried out by Hertfordshire County Council, beyond just the design stage, would also be subject to consultation, particularly on roads that have already been consulted on. Officers responded that the LCWIP is a dynamic evolving policy that is reviewed every 4 to 5 years, major changes to routes should not be made solely during the feasibility stage without further public consultation. Small amendments however could be accommodated within the feasibility study.

Officers further clarified that the document outlines priority routes which have already undergone multiple review stages, these routes are intended to provide the most direct paths from point A to B. A detailed feasibility study will still be undertaken but fundamental changes to routes are not anticipated at this stage.

With the amendment to the amendment to apply to all areas of the LCWIP not just Route 2. The amendment was put to the vote and carried by general assent.

A concern was raised by Councillor Edwards regarding the suitability of the proposed route for a priority cycle route W17. Some members were unhappy to designate the route as a priority due to the potential consequences. Which included the implementation of cycling interventions could result in either a one way system or a dedicated cycling route which could lead to bottlenecks, slower car journeys and discourage pedestrians. With this in mind Councillor Edwards raised an amendment to the LCWIP, seconded by Councillor Cooper.

“To remove route W17 from the LCWIP.”

Officers clarified that if the route was removed from the plan now, it would not proceed to the feasibility study, meaning there would be no opportunity to address the concerns. There is no current proposal for a one way system with Three Rivers on this route. If the route were removed, the council would lose leverage for securing developer contributions which are essential for funding and developing cycling infrastructure. Without an approved route, there is no design phase and without design, there is no justification to seek developer funding.

Officers further noted that the Route W17 had not objections lodged against it. The route was also a key connector between Watford and Dacorum.

Some members felt that developer contributions needed more scrutiny. Concerns had been raised about developers using the cycle route as a material consideration in planning application. It was argued that this could be harmful to the area and not in the public interest, even if perceived as a benefit.

The amendment was put to the vote and with 4 votes For, 7 Against and 1 Abstention, the amendment fell.

Councillor Reed proposed an amendment to the LCWIP, seconded by Councillor Cooper

“To remove routes 8 and 14 from the LCWIP

Concerns were raised for both Route 8 and 14, with route 8 received 96 comments against following consultation and 101 against route 14. There had been developments in the area since the initial consultation, and the conversations currently happening were disconnected from the prior discussions with the public.

Further concerns were raised by some members in regard to Route 8 having significant issues, particularly with a narrower section where cycling provisions would overlap with pedestrian pathways. The concern was raised that this could result in a de facto closure of the pavement which is not supported as it would limit pedestrian access. Concerns were also raised about narrowing lanes in sections of the roads that frequently accommodate large vehicles which would not be feasible. The lack of subsequent public consultation was highlighted; there has been no return to the community for updated feedback after the original consultation.

Issues were raised with Route 14, particularly school access and being a part of the local plan with substantial development scheduled. The route also passed through a quiet lane with limited traffic and there was concern that restricting this road would restrict access to leisure facilities and schools.

Other members expressed strong disagreement with removing the routes, emphasising that removing the routes would prevent scrutiny and further feasibility study and limite the possibility of finding workable solutions. The Parish Council and residents’ association had previously supported the extension of one of the routes. It was noted that objections to the routes may have been influenced by local political campaigns.

A further concern was raised in regard to developer planning gain, as developers may claim planning gain if the routes are included in the LCWIP and secure funding however if the routes are removed, the developer obligations or contributions related to the routes would be lost, which could result in missed opportunities for the development of infrastructure.

Councillor Reed called for a recorded vote with Councillor Cooper and Edwards in favour. The amendment was put to the vote:

For: Councillors Cooper, Edwards, Reed and Fraser

Against: Councillors Rainbow, Price, Lloyd, Drury, Khiroya and Nelmes

Abstain: Councillors King and Mitchell

With 4 votes for, 6 against and 2 abstentions, the amendment fell.

Councillor Fraser raised an additional amendment to the LCWIP, seconded by Councillor Cooper:

“To remove the part of route 2 between the High Street and Solomon’s Hill from the LCWIP.”

Some members expressed concern on the feasibility of amending Route 2 due to the unstable nature of the path including stairs and steep drops which cannot be expanded upon.

The amendment was put to the vote with 4 votes For, 6 Against and 2 Abstentions, the amendment fell.

Councillor Edwards raised a further amendment to the LCWIP, seconded by Councillor Cooper

“To add to the LCWIP a new Priority Walking Area in Abbots Langley, including pedestrian improvements that would not affect vehicular traffic at:

- Tibbs Hill Road, including but not limited to a signalised crossing

- Tibbs Hill Road to Bedmond

- Existing footpaths connecting Tibbs Hill Road to Langley Road, Marlin Square, and the Crescent

- The Crescent and Breakspeare Close, connecting these existing footpaths to Abbots Langley High Street

- Langley Road and the existing footpaths to Wadham Road and Berkeley Close via Trowley Rise

- Abbots Langley High Street, including but not limited to pavement improvements from Hannover Gardens and Breakspeare Place to the village centre, and a pedestrian crossing near Vine House

- Gallows Hill Lane, including but not limited to improvements to bench provision

- Gallows Hill to Station Road, replacing or in addition to footpath under the railway arch

For illustrative purposes, this would cover:

Typical interventions would include:

- Increasing the width of footways

- Public realm improvements, including:

o Prioritised repairs to footways

o Insetting of footpaths away from roads

o Continuous level footways

o Raised tables

- Provision of high-quality street furniture and provision of benches

- Improving of pedestrian facilities at traffic signal junctions, including:

o Additional pedestrian crossings

o Reduction in crossing distances

o Adding pedestrian railings

o Changing ‘staggered’ to ‘straight across’ pedestrian crossings.

- Street lighting improvements

- Decluttering and maintenance

- Dropped kerbs and tactile paving.

- Wayfinding

- Measures to assist with access to/by other modes – i.e. bus stops, stations, disabled parking.”

Some members noted the positives of the LCWIP such as the encouragement of pedestrians within the district, particularly in Carpenders Park and Chorleywood. However it was noted that a priority walking route for Abbotts Langley had not been drafted, which could be a missed opportunity.

Members were reminded that the LCWIP at its current stage had gone through numerous rounds of scrutiny and any substantial amendments may have to be assessed as a review once the plan had been made but work to routes within Abbotts Langley could be undertaken separately to the LCWIP.

Councillor Edwards called for a recorded vote which was supported by Councillors Cooper and Fraser.

For: Councillors Cooper, Edwards, Reed and Fraser

Against: Councillors Rainbow, Price, Lloyd, Drury, Khiroya and Nelmes

Abstain: Councillors King and Mitchell

With the amendment put to the vote with 4 votes For, 6 Against and 2 Abstentions the amendment fell.

The Vice-Chair called for a vote on the substantive motion, seconded by Councillor Price, with 8 votes For and 4 votes Against, the substantive motion was carried.