The Council received three questions from the members of the public, all relating to cycling/cycleways in the Borough. The responses to the three questions had been published in the supplementary agenda for the meeting.
In relation to Question 1, the questioner (Tina Walker) was present in the meeting, and asked the following supplementary question:
“Would it be possible for cyclists to be involved in the planning process before a decision was made about whether or not a planning application impacting on cycling/cycleways was suitable?”
The Portfolio Holder for Environment & Regeneration considered this to be a very reasonable request. He felt that it would be possible for cycling representatives to meet with SBC Planning Officers as soon as a relevant planning application was submitted as part of the consultation process, in order to discuss pertinent cycling/cycleway issues.
In relation to Question 2, the questioner (Richard Briers) had been unable to attend the meeting, but had submitted the following supplementary question, which was read out by the Chief Executive:
“In respect of the cycleways at the Costco entrances, would it be possible for the layout and signals to be improved for cycling and other active travel?”
The Portfolio Holder for Environment & Regeneration replied that when the Costco planning application was considered, the views of the Highway Authority were paramount in reaching the decision. Priority was, in fact, given to cyclists when they pressed the button on the traffic light columns. At present there were no plans in place to change this method, which had been developed to support staff entering and exiting the site at different times, and thereby to alleviate potential queueing conditions inside the site or on the highway. If UK Cycling had any alternative suggestions then they should submit these to the Highway Authority (Hertfordshire County Council).
The Portfolio Holder for Environment & Regeneration asked officers to provide Mr Briers with a written response to his supplementary question.
There was no supplementary question relating to Question 3.