The Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel met to discuss the Streetscape Design Guide, performance and budget monitoring, and the work programme for the coming year. The panel discussed the Streetscape Design Guide at length, and agreed that the Cabinet Member should ensure that the design code for Wychavon is matched up with the Streetscape Design Guide. The panel also requested further information on training for public rights of way, and data on planning applications.

Streetscape Design Guide

The panel discussed the Streetscape Design Guide (SDG), a document that provides guidance and requirements for anyone proposing development that will impact the highway and transport infrastructure. Emily Barker, Head of Planning and Transport Planning, explained that the current guide dates from 2018 and needs updating to reflect changes in legislation and national guidance, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024, Local Transport Note 1/20, and the Environment Act 2021.

The aims of the SDG are to make streets accessible, safe, and practical for all users, contribute to attractive places with high-quality design, enhance local areas, and contribute to green space and biodiversity. The guide covers a range of topics, including access, layout, connectivity, road space allocation, parking provision, trees and landscaping, street lighting, active travel, passenger transport, drainage, and adoption requirements.

The draft SDG was approved by the Cabinet in October 2024 for public consultation, which took place over 12 weeks. The consultation involved online surveys and workshops for developers, planners, architects, and the public. Key themes that emerged from the consultation included biodiversity, green infrastructure, safety, active travel, and viability.

Following the consultation, some amendments were made to the SDG to provide emphasis and greater clarity. These included clarification on street hierarchy and design requirements, visibility splays¹, active travel requirements, street lighting design guidance, parking requirements, highway verge management, biodiversity net gain², and costs incurred in approving designs and proposals from developers.

The decision to adopt the SDG is delegated to the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Highways and Transport, Councillor Karl Perks, and the Strategic Director for Economy and Infrastructure, Rachel Hill, subject to there being no substantive changes from the consultation. The document will be published on the Worcestershire County Council website in separate chapters in PDF format.

Councillor Perks said that the ethos of his party is family, community, country, and that the SDG aligns with this by putting the community into new developments and taking consideration of greenery, biodiversity, and ease of transport links. He also noted that the level of returns from the public consultation was too low, and that councillors have a responsibility to ensure that consultations reach the people of the county.

Councillor Anthony Upton asked if the SDG is mandatory, and Emily Barker clarified that it is not, but that it puts the council in a stronger position to negotiate with developers and ensure that designs are suitable in terms of visual impact, safety, and future maintenance.

Councillor Emma Kearsey raised concerns about how the SDG would align with Wychavon's design code, which is more prescriptive than a design guide. Emily Barker responded that there had been extensive work with Wychavon to ensure that the SDG meets the needs of Wychavon's design code, and that tweaks had been made to both documents to ensure they align. She offered to double-check with officers at Wychavon and resolve any outstanding issues.

Councillor Linda Robinson asked if the document is still a draft, and Emily Barker confirmed that it is a draft final document, subject to Councillor Perks going through it. She also clarified that it will only ever be guidance, but that it has material weight in planning terms.

Councillor Matt Jenkins raised concerns about the document being out of date due to the changing climate, and asked how the council can ensure that the design of streetscapes helps to meet the council's net zero target. Emily Barker responded that the SDG includes provision for pedestrians and cyclists, active travel, street trees, enhancements for biodiversity, and sustainable drainage. Councillor Perks clarified that his party does not stand with net zero, but that he is pushing for better infrastructure across the county.

Councillor Jenkins also questioned the difference in parking space requirements for primary and secondary schools versus further and higher education, and Emily Barker agreed to take that away and review it.

Councillor Bill Hopkins asked about section 106 monies³, and Emily Barker explained that they are derived from developers to offset the impact of development and are generally taken for infrastructure.

Councillor Perks was asked what mechanisms are in place to ensure that developers comply with the SDG, and Emily Barker responded that highways are a statutory consultee on planning applications, and that the highways development management team reviews applications to ensure compliance with the SDG. If a developer is putting forward schemes that do not comply, the council will object to the development.

Councillor Jenkins asked how the EV charging infrastructure strategy will plug into the SDG, and Emily Barker responded that the SDG is primarily focused on future development, whereas the EV charging infrastructure strategy will be primarily about existing development.

Councillor Jenkins also asked about the broad support for 20mph speed limits, and Councillor Perks responded that there will be no changes unless they are backed by data.

Councillor Natalie McVey asked how the council balances planting trees and green spaces on a green field site that has been taken away to build on, and Councillor Perks responded that that relationship exists at the district level, as planning is given by the district, not the county.

Councillor McVey also asked about the roads on Malvern Vale, which have not yet been adopted by the county council, and Emily Barker responded that she would follow that up with the section 278/3018 team.

Councillor Robinson asked how the SDG matches up with the Equality Act, and Emily Barker responded that she would take that away and come back with an answer.

Councillor Robinson also asked about the use of mirrors, and Emily Barker responded that the council does not allow them on new development, as they are always a suboptimal solution.

Performance and Budget Monitoring

The panel received an update on performance and financial information for services relating to the environment. Dave Corbett, Performance Lead in the Performance Services Team, presented the performance summary, which covers indicators from the directorate-level scorecard. He noted that the report is also replicated on the Worcestershire County Council website as a Power BI report.

Corbett highlighted areas of success, including planned highways inspections completed on time, outstanding public enquiries, and household waste reused, recycled, or composted. He also noted areas of challenge, including the condition of highways and footways, outstanding public rights of way reports, and household waste collected.

Sarah MacDonald, Senior Finance Business Partner for Environment, Economy and Corporate, presented the draft year-end budget monitoring information for 2024/25. She reported that the council had a net overspend of £6.2 million on a £433.4 million net budget, after using £7.9 million of budgeted reserves. The overspend was in demand-led areas such as adult social care, children's social care, and home-to-school transport. She also noted that £38.4 million of savings were targeted in year, with 72% of them being fully achieved.

Councillor Matthew Jones asked how the council will be able to deliver value for money without compromising quality or safety, given pressure on reserves. Councillor Perks responded that the majority of services within his portfolio are funded through ring-fenced monies, and that there will be no shortfall in services or safety.

Councillor Emma Kearsey asked Councillor Perks to confirm that his priorities will be as residents' priorities, as per the previous administration. Councillor Perks responded that the aim of the council is to deliver the best possible service within the agreed financial position, and that the goal is not to move backwards.

Councillor Jenkins asked how much of the highways budget is spent on maintenance, and Rachel Hill responded that she would have to take that away and look at percentages, but that the majority of maintenance is capital funded by the DFT grant.

Councillor Jenkins also asked about the implementation of food waste collection, and Rachel Hill responded that the collection of food waste is the responsibility of the district councils, and that the council will dispose of the waste.

Councillor Jenkins asked about public rights of way, and Rachel Hill responded that it is a lengthy process with some resource challenges, and that the programme is constantly under review and prioritised.

Councillor Kearsey asked about the number of planning applications where highways have been a statutory consultee, and the time frames that they have responded within. Dave Corbett responded that he would look at the data and include that in the report for the future.

Councillor Robinson asked when a public enquiry is defined as being complete, and Dave Corbett responded that it is when it has been ticked off in the system as being complete. Councillor Robinson asked how the council checks that the work has been done, and Rachel Hill responded that there is a wide inspection regime on the highways, but that there is not a team that goes around checking afterwards to ensure that the works have been done.

Work Programme

The panel discussed its work programme for 2025/26 and agreed to prioritise flood risk management for October, given the overdue report and growing public concern about drainage. They also discussed the need for an update on active travel, the local transport plan, section 38 agreements, section 106 agreements, the Worcestershire Street Scape Design Guide, the waste management service contract, the Environment Act 2021, the Net Zero Carbon Plan, Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans, the Worcestershire Environment Improvement Plan, and the progress of the recommendations from the Developer-Funded Highways Infrastructure and S278 Technical Approval Scrutiny.

Councillor Perks declared an interest as he works for National Highways, and left the room while the panel discussed whether to invite National Highways to a future meeting. The panel agreed to keep the item on the agenda.

Councillor Jenkins suggested a food strategy for the county, and Councillor Kearsey agreed that this links into the planning point, as the loss of best and most versatile land has big impacts on food production.

Councillor Jones suggested scrutinising the bronze growth route enhancement plan, and Councillor Kearsey responded that infrastructure in general should be scrutinised, but not particular schemes.

Councillor Jones also suggested scrutinising the council's policy on traffic speeds, and Councillor Jenkins responded that a member advisory group has been set up to review speed limits, and that this could be scrutinised once it has gone through that committee.

Councillor Jones suggested an update from officers on climate change, and Councillor Jenkins responded that there is already a net zero plan on the work programme.

Councillor Robinson suggested scrutinising section 38 agreements and the adoption of roads, as there are estates that have been waiting to be adopted for four years.