Return to Agenda
ITEM TD6
TRANSPORT
DECISIONS COMMITTEE –
19 JULY 2007
CAPITAL PROGRAMME –
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPER
FUNDED SCHEMES
Report by Head of Transport
Introduction
1.
This report seeks agreement to the addition
of a number of priority schemes to the capital programme in Abingdon, Banbury
and Carterton. The schemes would be funded using
developer contributions that are currently held in general accounts for the
implementation of transport schemes in these towns. These would be fully
developer funded and designed up and consulted on in the usual way.
Background
2.
Section 106
agreements are negotiated with developers to mitigate the impacts of
development. A number of existing
Section 106 agreements have resulted in contributions towards general transport
improvements within the town in question, or towards ‘Integrated Transport
Strategy (ITS) schemes’ where such strategies have been agreed. Where there is the opportunity to prioritise
these schemes developer funding should be used to support the objectives of the
Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the capital programme shows that it is used to
supplement Supported Capital Expenditure (SCE) schemes wherever possible. In some towns there are currently no SCE
funded schemes although there are a number of transport measures yet to be
implemented and general developer monies held. Officers have therefore been assessing and prioritising these schemes
against LTP and other objectives in order to recommend use of the general
developer funding accounts to good effect.
3.
Consideration has
been given to whether the general funds should top up the contributions held
towards specific schemes or be used to implement other agreed, but outstanding,
measures within the town. In trying to prioritise
schemes, use was made of an assessment framework that looks at how well
measures would meet LTP objectives, as well as considering the recommendations
that came out of previous work such as the Transport Networks Review (TNR);
locally identified priorities and fit with schemes that have already been
implemented.
4.
This is part of a
rolling programme of work to look at all the developer funding accounts and the
outstanding schemes. This will need to
be reviewed on an annual basis to supplement the Supported Capital Expenditure
programme. In some towns there are major
infrastructure decisions awaited or current transport reviews that may affect
use of the general developer funds for the specific towns. Officers have
therefore focused on carrying out evaluations on towns where this is not the
case (ie Abingdon, Banbury and Carterton so far). However, they will continue to
look at other areas as soon as it is practical to do so. The further completion of the ITS measures in
particular will help to mitigate the cumulative impacts of the various
developments from which the contributions have been received.
5.
Abingdon –
at the time of the assessment there was about £30,000 in the general ITS pot
for Abingdon. It was established that
this could not be used to top up the monies identified for specific schemes as
all of these were either about to be used to support SCE schemes, or needed to
be passed on to maintenance or the Area Office for specific reasons. The ITS schemes that have not yet been
implemented were therefore considered, including those elements further
developed by the Public Transport Development team. There are other “secured” monies which may be
received as and when developments proceed, but the flexibility of application
provided in the current S106 agreements enables the following priority schemes
to be considered for implementation:
(a)
Secondary cycle
network – a lot of resource has already been spent on implementing the primary
network, as identified through the ITS work. It would seem good use of this general ITS developer money to complete
this network with the secondary elements (mainly lining and signing work). This would go some way to meeting
accessibility and road safety objectives.
(b)
Secure and/or covered cycle stands – this would
sit well with the above work, and could also contribute to street environment
objectives.
(c)
Cothill weight limit signs – this would be minimal cost and
would complete the other work that has already been put in on the ground in the
village as part of the ITS.
(d)
Support the Public Transport Development
programme of works – further consideration would be required on this.
6.
Since this
assessment further money has come in to the general Abingdon developer funded
pot (currently around £38k) and, as mentioned above, there will be another
review of these towns to meet the timetable for preparing the 2008/09 capital
programme. Schemes to be considered
further could include proposals emerging from the town centre review,
Drayton Road
bus lane (depending on the outcome of current investigations)
or topping up the Public Transport Development schemes in Abingdon.
7.
Banbury –
the amount of money held and available in the general ITS developer funded pot
is only around £14,500. There are a
number of monies earmarked for specific schemes which need topping up from
elsewhere, but either there are issues holding up the delivery of the schemes,
for instance individually they require more than £14,500 or a problem has been
identified that it is considered needs addressing now.
8.
In Banbury there
are some lower level problems that are listed in the LTP but for which the ITS did not deliver detailed solutions. In addition recent development decisions have
increased the urgency for review of areas identified as issues through the
ITS. The priorities are seen as:
(a)
High Street/George Street
junction – identified as a congestion problem within
the LTP;
(b)
Broughton Road
cycle and pedestrian facilities – to tie in with
current plans to review parking arrangements and to deal with problems with
access to the college at the lower end of the road;
(c)
Bus stops and
other infrastructure required in connection with the new health facility at
Broughton Road/South Bar junction - this would also give an opportunity to
assess cycle route continuity at the junction which has previously been
identified as a problem;
(d)
Swan Close Road
– the need for pedestrian phases at the traffic
controlled junction was discussed during the ITS.
9.
There are other
‘problems’ listed in the LTP within Banbury, namely congestion on
Ermont Way
and street environment issues in Market Place. The
Ermont Way
issues require a major review, outside the scope of
the available money and the Market Place issues could be covered by the
District Council’s desire to look at
Parsons Street
.
10.
It is considered
that the
Broughton
Road
cycle
and pedestrian facilities are in most urgent need of an answer. Planned development and the review of parking
arrangements has raised this up the list since the ITS was concluded. There are considerable
amounts of further monies secured, but not all guaranteed, and the other
problems and outstanding ITS schemes can be considered once further funds have
arrived.
11.
Carterton – there is no ITS identified for Carterton but there is a considerable amount of developer funded money held that is not
tied to specific schemes, with the wording being along the lines of “Carterton and its links with trunk and principal roads” or
“Carterton transport/highway infrastructure”. At the time of the assessment this general
pot amounted to over £120,000. There is
also money held for the
Black Bourton Road
closure (the experimental order expired on
25 May 2007
and the County Council has until next May to make it
permanent).
12.
Officers looked
at County Council policies and strategies, including the LTP and TNR, as well
as schemes identified within the Local Plan, by the Carterton Fast Forward Group and by the local TAC, in order to prioritise schemes that
could utilise this general pot of money. The scheme that was identified as the priority was online improvements
to the B4477 from the new link road,
Monahan Way
, up to the A40, which would clearly meet the
requirements of the S106 agreements that refer to “links with trunk and
principal roads”. Consideration could be
given in association with this as to whether the road should be reclassified as
an A road as recommended in the TNR.
13.
This scheme
probably would not need all of the monies potentially available, and further
consideration will be given to other schemes, which could include support for
Public Transport Development schemes in the area or cycle scheme
proposals.
The Schemes to be Added to the Capital Programme
14.
With each of
these proposals further work is needed to clarify the final schemes. In Abingdon the first step should be to
assess what would be needed to complete the
secondary cycle network identified by Halcrow in
their 2001 final report on AbITS. Initial investigations have been undertaken
in the past but work is required to determine whether the routes identified
need amendment, particularly in terms of routes to schools. Key locations for secure cycle parking need
to be identified. All the improvements
will need to be itemised and costed this year and if
they are estimated to exceed the available funding then a prioritised list will
come back to a future CMD meeting. Halcrow assessed the cost of the secondary network as being
about £30k but this was without detailed examination. If the funding is there then the opportunity
could be taken to complete the Cothill scheme with
the weight limit signs.
15.
In Banbury
assessment work is needed this year in order to identify what can or cannot be
implemented along
Broughton
Road
in
terms of pedestrian and cyclist facilities next year.
16.
In Carterton, assessment work is needed in 2007/08 to identify
what online improvements are needed along the B4477 and could be implemented
next year.
Public Consultation
17.
Public
consultation will be carried out as appropriate on individual schemes, but it
is unclear at this stage what will be required until specific schemes have been
identified. In Abingdon there will be
discussion with local members and cycle groups in terms of identifying
secondary cycle routes and secure parking.
How the Schemes Support LTP Objectives and Other
Objectives
18.
In Banbury, pedestrian and cyclist
facilities along
Broughton Road
would contribute to access and road safety objectives within the LTP. Although the
High
Street/George Street
congestion
problem is identified within the LTP it is felt that parking considerations and
other pressures along
Broughton Road
make this a more urgent consideration. The Abingdon secondary cycle network and secure parking places would
contribute to accessibility and safety objectives. On-line improvements along the B4477 from Carterton up to the A40 would be in line with
recommendations from the TNR. All the
schemes proposed would help to mitigate the impacts of development and relate
back to the terms identified within the S106 agreements.
Financial and Staff
Implications
19.
These respective schemes are to be fully
financed from the general funds of developer contributions money already held
in respect of Abingdon, Banbury and Carterton.
20.
All work associated with the development of the programme and detailed
assessment of the proposed schemes can be accommodated within Oxfordshire
County Council existing resources including County Council staff working for
Oxfordshire Highways.
RECOMMENDATIONS
21.
The Committee is RECOMMENDED to authorise
the addition of the following developer funded schemes for inclusion in the
capital programme for development this year and implementation over 2007/08 and
2008/09:
(a)
Abingdon secondary cycle network;
(b)
Abingdon secure cycle parking facilities;
(c)
Cothill,
Abingdon weight limit signs;
(d)
identification of pedestrian and cyclist
facilities along
Broughton Road
,
Banbury; and
(e)
on-line improvements to the B4477 from
Monahan
Way/Minster Road
roundabout, Carterton to the A40.
STEVE HOWELL
Head of Transport
Environment & Economy
Background papers: Nil
Contact Officer: Jacqui Cox, Tel: (01865)
815713
July 2007
Return to TOP