To seek the views of the Environment and Sustainability Scrutiny Committee on the draft Local Cycling Walking and Wheeling Infrastructure Plan, prior to its consideration by Cabinet.

The Chair took the report on the Local Cycling Walking and Wheeling Infrastructure Plan as read and opened the item up for debate. The key points of discussion included:

1.     Members asked what activities and users were meant to be included within the term “wheeling”, noting it might not be widely understood. Officers responded that it reflected national LCWIP terminology and broadly referred to the use of wheeled mobility devices such as wheelchairs and mobility scooters, with acknowledgement that further explanation could be added to the plan for clarity.

2.     Members asked how accessibility for disabled users would be addressed and whether the council risked legal challenge if infrastructure did not accommodate wheeled users, and officers explained that each scheme would undergo equality and environmental impact assessments and that, where full accommodation was not possible, the council would document constraints and consider mitigation, with proper equality consideration forming part of the justification for design decisions.

3.     Members sought clarification on how schemes would be prioritised within the LCWIP and whether those supporting multiple forms of active travel would be favoured, and officers advised that prioritisation used a range of criteria and that schemes benefiting walking, cycling and wheeling were likely to score more highly

4.     Members asked whether projects funded through different sources would need to support all active travel modes, and officers explained that Active Travel England–funded schemes were expected to support walking, cycling and wheeling, while council?funded schemes were strongly encouraged to adopt inclusive design though requirements could vary by project type.

5.     Members questioned whether including reference to the Hereford bypass might be misleading given long?term delivery timescales, and officers clarified that the LCWIP functioned as a flexible, reviewable planning document and that the reference simply identified a possible future opportunity for active travel infrastructure rather than a near?term commitment.

6.     Members asked whether the structure and content of the LCWIP could affect the council’s ambition to achieve Active Travel England Level 2 status, and officers confirmed the authority was currently Level 1, that achieving Level 2 remained a priority for funding opportunities, and that adopting the LCWIP and maintaining engagement with inspectors would support progress.

7.     Members queried the use of a 10 km threshold for analysis and whether it would limit route consideration beyond that distance, and officers explained that the threshold followed national guidance for modelling likely cycling journeys but did not prevent the inclusion of additional routes where locally justified.

8.     Members asked whether the LCWIP contained enough detail for councillors and communities to understand which routes had been included, and officers stated that the document provided a strategic framework and that future updates and scheme development could be shaped through further engagement.

9.     Members asked how councillors would be involved in future LCWIP reviews, and officers said the plan would be periodically updated and that opportunities for member engagement could be built into review processes.

10.  Members asked whether the plan placed too much emphasis on cycling relative to walking and wheeling, and officers advised that the plan followed the national user?hierarchy prioritising pedestrians, with wheeled mobility users considered within that category and therefore appropriately prioritised.

At the conclusion of the debate the committee discussed and agreed the following recommendations to the Executive.

That:

1.     Define “wheeling” clearly and ensure compliance with the definition (including Equality Act considerations) in all projects in the plan.

2.     Ensure the LTP (Local Transport Plan) objectives are at the front of the LCWWIP.

3.     Work with ATE (Active Travel England) to use the Department for Transport audit/prioritization methodology to give more weighting to safety and perceived safety when selecting routes and projects outside Hereford City.

4.     Reintroduce a dedicated capital program line for crossings, dropped curbs, and other safety/cohesion measures, rather than relying solely on ATE or Section 106 funding.

5.     Integrate and make best use of the extensive public rights of way network in upgrades and route choices, including first/last-mile links to public transport.

6.     Ensure alignment across the suite of transport strategies (LCWWIP, bus strategies, etc.) and with active travel projects already in delivery; cross check against market town movement studies.

7.     Balance the plan content and investment between walking, wheeling, and cycling, avoiding an emphasis on cycling infrastructure alone.