Agenda item

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

26.1     The Team Manager, Strategic Economic Infrastructure introduced the report. He outlined that in response to the recommendations of the Scrutiny Review, limited funding was made available for the provision of dropped kerbs up until 2010. After that time, no dedicated funding was available and dropped kerbs requests were unlikely to be funded through the capital programme due to the prioritisation process.  This has resulted in fewer dropped kerb schemes reaching fruition. Where possible, requests for dropped kerbs are delivered through Local Transport Plan (LTP) project work, Section 106 Planning agreement works, or through the Community Match programme.

26.2     The Team Manager, Strategic Economic Infrastructure explained that there is no agreed policy for prioritising requests for dropped kerbs. This is because there has been no dedicated funding for their provision since 2010.  It is proposed to address this situation through the development of the Walking and Cycling Strategy and associated policies. The Strategy work involves undertaking an audit and then developing the draft Strategy for consultation in the summer of 2018.

26.3     The Committee discussed the current situation regarding funding and the provision of dropped kerbs. It asked for further information on the number of requests and the cost of providing dropped kerbs. The Team Manager, Strategic Economic Infrastructure responded that approximately 1,500 dropped kerb requests had been received since 2010, and each dropped kerb costs around £2,000 to install. Each request is assessed initially, so the department can see if the dropped kerb can be installed if an opportunity to fund it arises.

26.4     The Committee asked the Assistant Director, Economy to provide an estimate of how many of the 1,500 requests for dropped kerbs are outstanding. The Assistant Director, Economy agreed to give the Committee an idea of how many of 1,500 requests have been met and those that have been assessed as not appropriate.

Funding for dropped kerbs

26.5     The Committee considered that there should be an identified budget for the provision of dropped kerbs.  It also noted that the Community Match scheme did not provide an opportunity for funding dropped kerbs in areas where there are no Parish or Town councils, or where the Borough or District council is unable to provide match funding. The Committee asked if funding could be provided from parking surpluses or other revenue or capital budgets.

26.6     The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) outlined that since 2010 over £20 million had been taken out of the department’s budget as savings, and there are competing priorities for the funding that is available. If the department were to deliver all the outstanding requests for dropped kerbs, the money for this would have an impact on service delivery elsewhere. It should be noted that the strategic transport budget is already heavily over- subscribed.

26.7     The Assistant Director, Economy acknowledged that the Community Match scheme may not be an approach that can be followed everywhere, but there may be other sources of funding that could be examined. The Assistant Director Operations explained that some of the parking surplus is being used to fund concessionary fares and there are other demands that will draw on the parking surplus (e.g. the programme to replace parking meters). So it may not be possible to use this as a source for funding dropped kerbs.

26.8     The Committee asked if the Walking and Cycling Strategy is the proper place to deal with the provision of dropped kerbs. The Assistant Director, Economy responded that the future work on the Strategy may provide an opportunity to fund some dropped kerb requests through the LTP and other funding sources. It will be necessary to use a range of funding sources to address the provision of dropped kerbs.

Protecting dropped kerbs

26.9     The Committee noted the problems with protecting dropped kerbs from obstructions and suggested using white lines as an alternative to double yellow lines, as they are simpler to implement (e.g. white line ‘H’ bars). The Team Manager, Strategic Economic Infrastructure explained that there is a cyclical process for reviewing double yellow and white lines on a 12-18 month cycle as part of Traffic Regulation Order reviews. Any reported problems with double yellow lines (missing or requiring extension), will be dealt with as part of one of these regular reviews.

Summary comments

26.10   The Committee noted that there had been around 1,500 requests for dropped kerbs since 2010. Although funding for dropped kerb requests came from a number of sources, it appears that such requests are not being treated as priorities. The Committee considered that there is evidence of an unmet need and such needs require to be addressed to enable the County Council to meet its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act. The Committee agreed that ideally there should be an identified budget for dropped kerb provision and a prioritisation process for requests. The Committee understood that the work on the Walking & Cycling Strategy aimed to address these issues.

26.11   Committee RESOLVED to have a further report in six months time to see how the Walking and Cycling Strategy work has addressed these issues.