Winchester City Borough Council Health and Environment Policy Committee Meeting

RESOLVED:

That, Councillor Clear be appointed Vice-Chairperson for the 2022/23 municipal year.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Warwick and Councillor Tippett-Cooper with Councillor Williams as standing deputy member.

There were no declarations made at the meeting

The Chairperson announced that he would like the committee to conduct its business within a period of two hours wherever possible. 

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 2 March 2022 be approved and adopted, subject to responses regarding carbon offsetting being provided in due course.

RESOLVED:

That the timetable of meetings for 2022/23 be agreed, as set out on the agenda.

Ian Tait, Councillor Wallace, Phil Gagg (WinACC - Transport and Planning Action Group) and Chris Gillham (Winchester Friends of the Earth) spoke under public participation regarding report HEP018. In addition, Councillor Wallace also spoke regarding HEP027. Their comments are summarised under the relevant minute below.

The committee made a request for the Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) and Youth Provision item to be brought forward on the work programme from 6 December 2022 to 22 September 2022. In response, the Corporate Head of Economy and Community advised she would feedback if this was possible in due course.

RESOLVED:

            That, the work programme for 2022/23 be noted.

Councillor Wallace addressed the Committee and in summary he raised the following matters:

He suggested that the carbon neutrality action plan be made a standing item on the agenda as the plan was in the early stages of development so this would allow the opportunity to review the plan each quarter as it progressed.  He considered that the actions were reasonable, but the impact was not clear so it was difficult to identify if the council was on track with achieving its net zero ambitions and referred to the retrofit programme as an example.

Councillor Wallace stated that the work of WSP was a starting point but would not address all outstanding questions surrounding emission reductions and that these needed to increase pace considerably with additional work by the council before a credible plan could be formulated to achieve the council’s net zero goals. He referred to the negligible change to greenhouse gas emissions following the removal of the impact of the electricity decarbonisation and carbon savings achieved had been offset by an increase in population.

In conclusion, Councillor Wallace considered that more ambitious plans were required with a focus on where the biggest impacts could be made and emphasised the importance of ensuring the whole council was engaged in the process to increase percentages (i.e. all areas of purchasing and procurement).

Councillor Learney introduced the report which provided a review of progress over the last year against the council’s Winchester District Carbon Neutrality Action Plan 2020-2030. The Service Lead: Communities and Wellbeing set out the proposed priority actions which would form the focus of the council’s efforts during 2022/23.

The Chairperson welcomed to the meeting Katherine Maxwell, Bevan Jones and Milimer Morgado, representatives from WSP who provided a virtual presentation regarding the work being carried out with the council to develop a carbon neutrality roadmap as a key document to guide progress for future years in order to achieve the council’s goals for the district. A copy of the presentation was circulated as a supplement to the agenda pack for the meeting.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report, in summary, questions on the following matters were raised which were responded to by the Cabinet Member and other relevant officers present:

(i)          WSP experience of working with other local authorities to achieve    carbon reductions.

(ii)        Procedure for stakeholder engagement and communication with Parish     Council’s throughout the district.

(iii)      Recruitment to job vacancies.

(iv)      Ability to deliver to the timescales advised.

During debate, members expressed concern regarding the timeline but supported the formation of a road map to engage with all stakeholders including parishes, to guide and manage the process going forward and welcomed progress updates at future meetings of the committee.

RESOLVED:

                        That the report and presentation be received and the comments       raised by the committee, as summarised above, be noted.

Ian Tait addressed the committee and in summary raised the following matters:

Referred to previous suggestions he had made regarding city bridge and outlined why a pedestrian footbridge in this area would improve air quality and pedestrian usage. He reported that following a meeting with Historic England and Hampshire Highways the foundation of the bridge was considered to be a scheduled ancient monument which would prevent this as an important element of the movement strategy to reduce city centre traffic.

Councillor Wallace addressed the committee and in summary raised the following matters:

Referred to data indicating that up to 60% of greenhouse emissions in the Winchester district were produced by transport and that a 10% reduction in car use was required in Hampshire between 2019 and 2030. He suggested that a fourth element be added to the movement strategy vision to decarbonise transport and considered that the council needed to focus on activities where the biggest impact could be made quickly and provided examples of this. 

Phil Gagg, WinACC Transport and Planning Action Group addressed the Committee and in summary raised the following matters:

Welcomed the determination to start putting structure on reducing carbon emissions in Winchester but considered the report did not deliver and failed to address climate change as it appeared to have misjudged what respondent’s wishes and therefore priorities in the strategy had been structured in an incorrect order with the least popular placed as the first priority. In conclusion, he stated that the Movement Strategy needed to align with the Local Transport Plan (LTP) 4 with further work required to achieve this.

Chris Gilham (Friends of the Earth) addressed the Committee and in summary raised the following matters:

Suggested that principle actions and expenditure on the plan to date were likely to increase emissions and the report on the movement study consultations were disappointing with no mention of serious commentary and analysis made. Therefore, he considered that the movement strategy had lost its way and failed in its objective with increases in traffic and incoherent relationship between the movement strategy and the carbon neutrality action plan and questioned when a sustainable transport plan would be achieved for Winchester.

Councillor Learney introduced the report which provided an update on the Winchester Movement Strategy following public engagement carried out between December 2021 and February 2022 and on Hampshire County Council’s LTP 4, which was working towards reducing transport carbon emissions. Councillor Learney reported that she would request Hampshire County Council (HCC) to have regard to the urgency of the climate emergency, more so than was sought by the county council’s 2050 target. However, it was recognised that the movement strategy was an area where both councils were required to work in partnership.

The Chairperson welcomed Geoff Hobbs, Principal Transport Planner from Hampshire County Council to the meeting whom, together with the Head of Programme gave a presentation which set out the engagement carried out on the Winchester Movement Strategy, the responses, key proposals and priority schemes and outlined the LTP 4. It had been agreed that comments of the committee could be submitted for inclusion in the process despite the deadline having closed.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report, in summary, questions on the following matters were raised which were responded to by the Cabinet Member and other relevant officers present:

(i)            The development of district wide initiatives and opportunities.

(ii)          LTP4 wider travel options – bus service subsidies and rural mobility hubs.

(iii)         Department for Transport (DfT) funding.

(iv)         Electric Bus Trial – provided by Stagecoach.

(v)          Viable alternatives to driving – coherent cycle networks, key corridors to connect market towns to villages, bus gates and priority measures.

(vi)         Reduction and consistency of speed limits for safer roads – HCC reviewing the approach to 20mph zones.

(vii)        Parking charges, availability and use of parking income.

(viii)       One way system changes and road space reallocation to reduce congestion.

(ix)         Engagement with schools to encourage cycling.

RESOLVED:

                        That the progress of the city of Winchester Movement Strategy         and the results of the recent public engagement be received and noted.

Councillor Power introduced the report which outlined the council’s programme of community and voluntary sector grants made up from a series of funds. The programme was funded by from the General Fund and the Winchester Town Forum account which, due to pressures on the council’s financial position, had led to planned reductions to the community grants budget over the coming years. The importance of funded services was recognised and the report set out alternative funding streams, the approach that had been adopted by other local authorities and highlighted three options of models for consideration by the committee.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report, in summary, questions on the following matters were raised which were responded to by the Cabinet Member and other relevant officers present:

(i)        The UK shared prosperity fund – this was not accounted for in the   paper and would be explored as a separate matter.

(ii)        Officer resourcing pressures, particularly with the community             contribution             Westminster model option.

(iii)       Ethical concerns surrounding gambling with the community lottery   option.

(iv)       Consistency of income.

During debate, members expressed concern that with the current cost of living crisis and residents were struggling financially, this was not the correct time to pursue the matter.

RESOLVED:

1.    That officers be thanked for their informative report which set out the benefits of the three schemes;

2.    That none of the three schemes, set out in the report, be supported at this time; and

3.    That further consideration be given to reviewing the Westminister and Bath schemes in the report as an option in twelve months’ time, in consultation with the Cabinet Member.