Venue: Council Chamber
Contact: Susie Blood
The Director of Regeneration submitted a report the purpose of which was to ask the Executive Member for Regeneration to approve and adopt the draft Local Implementation Plan (LIP) into a formal Council policy document; and, acknowledge the broad satisfaction (of responses) of the draft LIP following the conclusion of public consultation.
Under the devolved powers of the Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA), there was an expectation that each Local Authority within the region produced a LIP, in line with the Strategic Transport Plan (STP) produced by TVCA.
The LIP provided the local context and content as to how the local Highway Authority (Middlesbrough Council) would deliver local transport priorities and initiatives to ensure delivery of the overarching objectives of the STP.
The draft LIP was approved for public consultation as per Executive on 16/2/2021. The public consultation survey and draft versions of the LIP were live from Monday 26th July until 3rd September.
During this period, 25 responses to the questionnaire were submitted. Broadly, the consultation feedback was supportive of the LIP.
The report provided a summary of the survey responses;
Most people were supportive of the six headline transport objectives (68% Agree/Strongly Agree)
Responses indicated that the targets set were realistic (40%), ambitious (16%) or neutral (12%)
· 44% of responses did not agree with the hierarchy of need, whereas 56% of responses agreed/strongly agreed, or were neutral, with the proposed hierarchy.
· Concerns were raised over the hierarchy of need relating to private cars being at the bottom of the priority list.
· 68% of responses had not heard of the Councils transport planning tools.
· Generally, responses were supportive of making improvements for pedestrians, cyclists, bus, rail and private vehicles.
Largely, the responses received were positive and in support of the LIP document. The hierarchy of need proposals however did not follow this trend (44% strongly disagreed/disagreed).
The proposal of a hierarchy of need did not mean that the Council would not make improvements for private vehicles. Instead, it reflected the requirement to assess the needs of other transport modes, whilst designing and investing in transport improvements.
Other potential options/decisions included:
Not approving the LIP. This had been discounted, as it had been developed following guidance of corporate and strategic objectives and in addition to broad support from the public consultation exercise for the document.
Approve the draft LIP with alterations following public consultation. This had been discounted as the responses from the consultation process were largely positive and the concerns raised are mitigated.
That the Executive Member approves and adopts the draft LIP into a formal Council policy document and acknowledges the broad satisfaction (of responses) of the draft LIP following the conclusion of public consultation.
The decision was supported for the following reasons:
1. The Council was required to produce a strategy document to identify how it will improve its transport network. The LIP has been produced by the Transport & Infrastructure team, under the guidance of TVCA’s STP and both the Mayor’s ... view the full minutes text for item 21/5
The Director of Regeneration submitted a report the purpose of which was to ask the Executive Member for Regeneration to approve the proposals to work in partnership with Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) and contractors EB Chargers to install electric vehicle charging points within Middlesbrough Council operated Car Parks.
The report outlined that Middlesbrough Council was working with TVCA and the four other neighbouring authorities to develop a suite of infrastructure improvements and policy, to ensure consistency for provision across the region.
TVCA had identified an allocation of funding within its Transforming Cites Fund allocation to support the delivery of publicly accessible EV charging points. As part of this programme, TVCA undertook a tender exercise to appoint a preferential supplier to work with. There were a number of differing methods to delivering EV Charging Points (EVCP) ranging from fully funded/maintained at Authority’s expense, to fully operated/installed and managed by a private company.
The report advised that EB Charging provided the most competitive tender model. Their business model worked on the basis of charging end users for the volume of energy that is used during a charging session. As part of the arrangements, TVCA had negotiated a share of the profit, which would be invested back in to the regional programme to deliver further infrastructure improvements.
The net cost to the Council was nil and it benefited from the installation of infrastructure at no cost to the authority, with all associated maintenance and administration costs being borne upon EB Charging. A legal agreement between the organisations established the requirements and expectations from all parties. There were no restrictions to the minimum number of chargers to be installed, or that EB was a sole provider of EVCP in Middlesbrough; enabling the Council to enter into similar arrangements with other providers at any time in the future.
Other potential decisions and why those have not been recommended:
Do nothing. This was not recommended, as the Council needed to provide EVCP facilities aligned with increasing demand across its own workforce and any other electric vehicle using its network. Doing nothing would not help the Council to realise the benefits of EV uptake.
Invest the Council’s own resources in to the provision of EVCP. The cost assessment to provide the proposed infrastructure improvements was £230k. This required a significant capital investment that was currently not budgeted for. This approach exposed an element of risk to the authority if uptake was not sufficient to make a return on the investment. This proposed approach may be profitable to EB/TVCA, but this would be monitored, and the Council has opportunities to invest in its own charging facilities at any time.
The Council undertakes its own “procurement exercise” and appoints a similar contract of its own. This had been dismissed, as under the current arrangements, TVCA have been able to benefit from economies of scale due to being able to provide a regional market opportunity. If the Council was to undertake a ... view the full minutes text for item 21/6