Agenda item

High Street and Boots Corner Public Realm Concept Design - Project Initiation Document

Review the PID for this project and decide if and how scrutiny is undertaken

Minutes:

The Chair reminded members that the purpose of this item is to discuss and agree appropriate scrutiny arrangements for this project rather than examining the detail of the project.

 

Ken Dale, the council’s Townscape Manager, explained that the objective of the project – which builds upon the first phase of works recently completed in the High Street (east) - is to recommend a concept design and costs for Boots Corner and vicinity and the High Street from Rodney Road to Winchcombe Street.  

 

Mr Dale updated members that the original plan had been to focus on improving the Strand and Cambray Place, however, since summer 2018, there has been a central government moratorium on the introduction of new ‘shared space’ schemes as a result of concerns about accessibility.  Previous discussions indicated that Gloucestershire County Council’s view was that this moratorium applies to changes to the Strand and Cambray Place. However they are now reviewing their opinion as the area is already shared space. Mr Dale also advised that as the transport trial is being extended, any actual works around Boots Corner will be delayed. He is hopeful that the moratorium issue will be resolved in the next few weeks, allowing the project to determine which areas should be designed first.

 

Mr Dale also noted that works can only proceed as and when the source of funds is agreed.

 

As mentioned earlier in the meeting, Councillor Willingham’s question relates to this item; he has requested that this project is fully mindful of the planned review of street trading as the street trading policy and townscape need to be aligned.  This was fully acknowledged by Mr Dale who confirmed that liaison with the street trading review will be included in the scope of the project.

 

Members raised the following points and questions:

 

·         It would be very helpful for Gloucestershire County Council to provide  timescales for the resolution of their interpretation of the ‘shared space’ moratorium – Mr Dale reported that latest information is that Gloucestershire County Council are trying to resolve this in the next few weeks, particularly given that the moratorium covers new design rather than existing ‘shared space’, which the Strand and Cambray Place most probably are.

·         Important that the project scope involves consultation with Insight Gloucestershire and other disabled groups to ensure their views and needs are taken in to account, particularly their concerns about ‘shared space’ areas.  Mr Dale confirmed that the stakeholder group for this project will represent all interested parties as detailed in the project initiation document but to let him know if any other groups need to be represented.

·         Suggestion that a scrutiny task group be set up and that a representative from this committee sit on the project board.

·         Fully supportive that this phase should focus on Cambray Place and the ‘Strand’ area of the High Street.

·         Is it necessary to use external consultants? In response, Mr Dale advised that Gloucestershire County Council provides some support but that they don’t have the capacity to provide the expertise required.

·         Confirmation that wherever possible locally procured materials are used and that the planting will contribute towards biodiversity. Mr Dale confirmed that wherever possible local materials would be used, taking in to account procurement requirements.   Biodiversity will be the priority for the planting schemes.

·         The need to take in to account potential events space

 

The role of overview and scrutiny was discussed, with the following outcomes:

 

·         An interim report be brought back to overview and scrutiny following the stakeholder group consultation at a date to be determined

·         It was proposed, and seconded, that a ward member representative should be part of the stakeholder group – this was unanimously agreed.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: