Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Fonseca and Valand.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed on the agenda.

Members were asked to disclose any pecuniary or other interests they may have in the business to be discussed on the agenda.

Councillor Malik declared an interest in agenda item 6, Community Renewal Fund, in that he worked for an organisation which was part of one of the Consortium which had been successful in the funding program.

Councillor Porter declared an interest in agenda items 7 and 8 that he was not in favour of bus lanes but believed he should not be excluded from any debate in terms of the agenda items.

Councillor Joel declared an interest in agenda item 6, Community Renewal Fund, in that she knew Zinthiya Ganeshpanchan from Zinthiya Trust who was present at the meeting, having worked with her previously around domestic violence.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, these interests were not considered so significant that they were likely to prejudice the Councillor’s judgement of the public interest. The Members were not, therefore required to withdraw from the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 15 December 2021 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as correct record.

Councillor Porter stated he should be recorded as being in attendance at the last meeting of the Economic Development, Transportation and Climate Emergency held on 15 December 2021.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of Economic Development, Transportation and Climate Emergency held on 15 December 2021 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the amendment above.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any questions, representations and statements of case received in accordance with Council procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no questions, representations or statements of case had been received in accordance with Council procedures.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any petitions received in accordance with Council procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

The Director for Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submits a report updating the Commission on the successful applications to the Community Renewal Fund.

Members of the Commission are recommended to note the report and pass any comments to the Director for Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment.

The Director for Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submitted a report which updated the Commission on the successful application to the Community Renewal Fund. Members of the Commission were recommended to note the report and make any comments to the Director for Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment should they wish to.

Councillor Myers, Assistant City Mayor for Jobs, Skills, Policy Delivery and Communications, introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the following information:

·         Para 3.12 – 3.14 gave a wider context to how brilliantly Leicester had done in securing all five bids and the amount of money it had attracted. It was testimony to the good work done by the Council to turn around a very complicated process quickly, and to exercise good judgement across the 29 projects submitted.

·         He thanked the City of Leicester and the organisations that had contributed to that process and come up with compelling projects.

·         The projects will benefit the city with some vitally important work.

Mike Dalzell, Director Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment noted the range of projects supported allowed for a focus on businesses, communities and individuals. He noted feedback from East Midlands Chamber of Commerce, one of the project partners, that the city was by far the most advanced of the local authority areas in the region. The council had agreed contracts with the government, individual contracts with each project, had agreed payment mechanisms and first payments had been sent.

It was reported that Government had been looking for innovative projects and they could help guide what the future UK Shared Prosperity Fund was going to look like. Given the good collaboration between the various projects, there was real enthusiasm for lessons to be learned and new approaches to be tried. There was an important evaluation thread throughout, and it was hoped that by the end of the projects in June there would be concrete suggestions and ideas on what could happen next.

Zinthiya Ganeshpanchan, CEO for Zinthiya Trust, who is leading the She Inspires Business Playbox partnership, was invited to address the meeting and noted:

·         Their project partnership consisted of five not for profit organisations, providing business start-up support as well as employment support to women primarily from ethnic minority communities who had been impacted by the pandemic and post-pandemic.

·         Carbon emissions were an important focus for the start-up business support being delivered as part of the project.

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and were responded to as follows:

·         It was noted that in paragraph 5.1 in the report that £59,000 would be used to cover the cost of the council acting as accountable body for the CRF programme to ensure the five projects were adhering to the regulations of the funding, progress reports were made to government, evaluations were being undertaken etc. The money would come into the Council’s Economic Regeneration service budget to fund contract officers working on the programme.

·         It was asked how success would be measured. It was noted the council team  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report to the Commission to consider unresolved objections to The Leicester Traffic Regulation (Bus Lane and Bus Gates) (Groby Road) (Amendment) Order (No. 8) 2019. Members were asked to give views to the Director to be taken into account when reaching a decision on whether or not to implement the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and install the bus lane.

John Dowson, Major Transport Projects Manager, presented the report and drew Members’ attention to the following:

·         There were a number of popular buses that frequently used Groby Road, in particular Arriva 26, 27 29 services and University Hospitals Leicester bus services.

·         Delays varied during peak periods for buses but could be up to eight or nine minutes. With the installation of a bus lane, it would allow buses to bypass queues, making them more reliable and consistent and provide assurance to passengers.

·         The proposal had been advertised and objections had been received. There was concern from a resident about access to their property. It was explained that it was permissible to drive short distances in the bus lane for access.

·         Objections had been received from Ward Councillors Bhatia, Cassidy and Waddington, who had raised concerns with the length of the bus lane, impact on residents, and the linkage and timing of the bus scheme with the Five-Ways junction scheme. Discussions had been held with the Councillors concerned.

·         The Council had submitted a strong business case for the bus lane, and the Government had agreed to fund the work through its National Productivity Investment Fund.

Councillor Bhatia was invited to elaborate on objections he had made on behalf of residents, and made the following points:

·         He was not in objection to the bus lane as such but believed there was a cumulative impact of several issues and he wanted all issues to be taken into account.

·         He believed the 24 hours, seven days a week operation of the lane could not be justified based on the frequency of the buses at off peak times and residents could benefit from use of the lane off-peak.

·         The Five-Ways junction works proposed the removal of the right-turn into Blackbird Road from Woodgate and could force traffic to continue straight to turn right onto Medina Road from Groby Road. This could cause queueing problems on Groby Road if drivers had to wait behind those turning right into Medina Road.

·         There was proposed to be a new school entrance on Garland Crescent. Account should be taken on effects on the filter lane to turn right into Garland Crescent and this would need extending and may have an impact if traffic were queueing back up Groby Road.

The officer noted the concern around the 24/7 hours for the bus lane. It was reported that EDT Scrutiny Commission in 2015 had examined bus lanes at a policy level and had felt it appropriate where possible for bus lanes to be 24/7 on the grounds it that gave greater clarity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The Director Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report to the Commission to consider unresolved objections to the Leicester City Council (Melton Road A607, Leicester) (24 Hour Bus Lanes) Traffic Regulation Order 2021. Members were asked to give views to the Director to be taken into account when reaching a decision on whether or not to implement the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and install the bus lanes.

Steve Richards, Senior Project Manager, presented the report and drew Members’ attention to the following:

·         As part of the Transforming Cities Programme the Council had advertised the proposal to extend the existing bus lanes on Melton Road towards Lanesborough Road, and from Lanesborough Road to Troon Way junction. The proposal was to improve bus journey times during busy periods. The Council had received six objections, and in summary were around operating the bus lanes 24/7, congestion concerns, potential impact on air quality,  U turn opportunities along the road, and the impact of larger vehicles having to turn into the bus lane in order to make a U turn.

·         To address some of those concerns the scope of the scheme had been extended to improve the U turn facility at Oakland Avenue, which would enable more vehicles to wait and not obstruct through traffic.

·         The scheme had been designed so the capacity of the signal junction at the Troon Way / Watermead Way junction was capacity neutral, i.e. it would not have an effect on the number of vehicles that would be able to travel through the junction at any one time.

·         The objectors had been offered an opportunity to talk about their reasons for objection, but the offer was only taken up by one person, who took the opportunity to reiterate their views on why it was not appropriate to introduce the bus lane on that stretch of the road.

Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions which were responded to as follows:

·         The main delays for buses were during the relevant peak hours, inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. However, it was noted that Melton Road was a busy road throughout the day and traffic trends had changed in recent times, with an extended period of high traffic movement from midday around the city through to the early evening peak. Therefore the buses would be able to bypass any queuing traffic generated on Melton Road.

·         In terms of passenger numbers, reference was previous experience of the Aylestone Road bus lane had seen an increase in 13% passenger use as a result of the introduction of the bus lane, and it was anticipated that there would be a similar increase in passenger numbers on the proposed Melton Road given the residential development to the north of Melton Road with Rushey Mead and Thurmaston village, etc..

·         The current U turn facility was considered to be substandard. The proposal was to improve the reservoir for the right turn to enable turning vehicles to move out of the way of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The Director for Planning, Development and Transportation delivers a presentation updating the Commission on the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) schemes.

Members of the Commission are recommended to note the presentation and pass any comments to the Director for Planning, Development and Transportation.

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a presentation to update the Commission on the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) updates. Members of the Commission were recommended to note the presentation and make any comments to the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation of they so wished.

Steve Richards, Senior Project Manager, delivered the presentation, and provided an update on the Braunstone Gate and Parker Drive / Beaumont Leys Lane schemes:

·         For Braunstone Gate, it was a progression of the Covid Scheme introduced in 2020. The idea was to improve the footways to make it a more attractive environment and safer route, particularly for cyclists, by reducing through traffic movement.

·         There had been some challenges with bus companies and officers were working to find a solution that would allow the proposal to be taken further forward.

·         Next steps would include consultation with businesses in January / February 2022. A meeting had previously been held with some businesses earlier and feedback received would be reviewed and considered.

·         It was proposed to start on site in May, with City Highways constructing the scheme.

·         Artist impressions were provided to give Members an idea of the scheme being aimed for. There was also potential for a possible scheme being introduced for the evening which would close the central part of the street to vehicle movements to allow the food and beverage businesses to expand out into the street and create an environment where people felt safe and wanted to spend time in.

·         Access to Braunstone Gate from the leisure centre would be restricted to bus only to encourage walking and cycling links from the West End to the city centre. The plan showed the scheme in more detail.

·         For the Parker Drive / Beaumont Leys Lane scheme, the intention was to improved pedestrian cycling along Blackbird Road.

·         There were various constraints on different parts of the project, as there were lots of mature trees on the two corridors which were being kept, and a shared facility was being provided.

·         The section on Parker Driver had a very wide footway which would provide a segregated facility, and the junction with Somerset Avenue would be improved to reduce the crossing distances for pedestrians and cyclists.

·         Construction would take place between April to December 2022 by City Highways. The budget estimate was just under £1million and would provide a link to a number of TCF schemes, namely the A50, Anstey Lane South, Buckminster Road, the A6 and Beaumont Walk.

·         The report contained a number of photos and images of plans to highlight the proposed improvements. Ward Councillors had also been provided with information for their review and comment on the scheme.

·         Consultation with external stakeholders and Ward Councillors would start towards the end of January and February 2022, with the intention of being on site Spring 2022.

Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions and information was provided as follows:

·         It was queried how residents would access Bede Street, what vehicles would be allowed on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The Deputy Director of Finance submitted a report the purpose of which was to describe the City Mayor’s draft budget for 2022/23. The Commission was recommended to consider and comment on the City Development and Neighbourhoods Element of the budget. The Commission’s comments would be forwarded to the Overview Select Committee as part of its consideration of the report before presentation to the meeting of Council on 23^rd February 2022.

Amy Oliver, Head of Finance, presented the report. It was noted the revenue budget looked at the day to day running costs of the Council, and cost of individual divisions, and as had been for a number of years, was focused around the decade of austerity the Council had experienced, the current pandemic that had affected some of the budget reviews that would have taken place, and the current social care funding crisis.

Members were asked to note the budget presented showed a funding gap for the next financial year and the years after, which was forecast to rise to £50million for 2023/24. For 2022/23 the budget gap would be met from reserves, but for 2023/24 the project gap could no longer be managed by the Reserve Strategy. The report talked about a budget review to try and bridge the gap.

Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions, and the following responses were given:

·         It had been reported across the country that as a result of Brexit and the pandemic that a large number of people had left the country. It was asked that, in terms of Leicester’s population and the money received from Council Tax, had the Council seen a decline in the tax received from vacant properties? The meeting was informed that Council Tax was based on the properties rather than the number of people living in the city, and there were also various discounts given for example single people households that would impact on the Council Tax due.. It was further noted that if a property became vacant then the owner continued to be liable for Council Tax after the first month.

·         Members were informed the Council Tax base had increased slightly for the past financial year which was helping the Council’s budget. New builds were also adding to the tax base, for example, schemes such as Ashton Green.

·         Members referred to section 4.23 in the report, and the £4.3million income shortfall in City Development and Neighbourhoods. It was reported that the shortfall was being met with Government grant received to support the authority though Covid.

The Chair thanked the officer for the report.

AGREED:

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    Information on Council Tax changes per population be provided to Members.

The Deputy Director of Finance submitted a report the purpose of which was to provide information to the Commission on the draft Capital Programme for 2022/23. The Commission was recommended to consider the report and comment on report. The Commission’s comments would be forwarded to the Overview Select Committee as part of its consideration of the report before presentation to the meeting of Council on 23^rd February 2022.

Amy Oliver, Head of Finance, presented the report.

The Chair asked that at section 3.19(c) in the report, it mentioned £250,000 had been set aside for festive decorations, and as reported was a higher than usual amount. It was noted the authority was given money to help with the impact of Covid, and it was identified that some of the schemes, such as improving the decorations, would help with the regeneration of the city and assist with economic recovery, so rather than the £50,000 as usual for the annual programme, additional money had been invested upfront, and would help upgrade decorations around the city, and they would be more environmentally friendly.

The Chair thanked the officer for the report.

AGREED:

1.    That the report be noted.

For Members’ consideration, the work programme for the Commission is attached.

The work programme was noted.

HGV Training initiatives to be added to the work programme. Officers to explore and promote to under-represented communities. The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation to pursue with officers and to share information on initiatives.

Members were asked to note the Special Meeting of the Commission on 24^th February 2022 to discuss the Workplace Parking Levy.

There being no other items of urgent business, the meeting closed at 7.46pm.