Return to Agenda

ITEM EX8

REGIONAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY

Introduction

1. In June 2002 the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) published a draft revised Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) "From Crisis to Cutting Edge" for consultation, a copy of which is in the Members’ Resource Centre. This will form part of guidance to local authorities on how their transport and land use policies should assist in addressing the priorities within the region. This report includes the comments of the Director of Environmental Services on the consultation draft, and recommends that these form the basis of the County Council’s response to the consultation.

Background

2. The RTS forms part of the guidance published under the Government’s ‘Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) 9 – South East of England’, the remaining part of the guidance being made up of the Spatial Strategy, also produced by SEERA. (The area covered by SEERA runs from Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire in the north down to Hampshire in the south and across to Kent in the east (see Annex A).) The latest version of adopted RPG9 including a chapter on the RTS was published in March 2001. However, due to issues of consistency with national guidance, the Secretary of State requested that SEERA undertake an early review of the RTS. This review has led to the consultation draft RTS which is the subject of this report.
3. The importance of the RTS should not be underestimated. The Regional White Paper ‘Your Region Your Choice’ and the Planning Green Paper ‘Delivering Fundamental Change’ clearly set out that the Spatial Strategies and Regional Transport Strategies published by the Regional Assemblies are likely to gain statutory status as soon as parliamentary time allows. In addition, if current proposals for reform of the Structure Plan process, including the introduction of new Local Development Frameworks, go ahead, then the RTS will have an increasingly important role to play in the direction and funding for transport projects in the future and these plans will have to accord with the RTS.

Overall Comments

4. On the whole, the RTS is an easy and accessible document to read bearing in mind the complex nature of the subject. There are numerous difficulties in devising a single strategy which covers an area as diverse and varied as the South East, from the pressured Thames Valley, the importance of international links in and around London and the ports in the south, through to the large investments necessary in the Thames Gateway to enable redevelopment and regeneration. The vast majority of the policies within the document are in line with current County Council policies in the Structure Plan and Local Transport Plan (LTP), including supporting the East West Rail initiative.
5. However, there are a number of areas of the strategy which appear to contain policies which are of concern. There are also a number of generalisations about the applicability of the policies and measures that are being promoted. For example, Policy T21 contains a proposition that Local Transport Plans should ‘use Freight Quality Partnerships as the most appropriate mechanism for promoting vitality of urban and rural areas by securing more efficient distribution of goods, whilst protecting the local environment and amenity’. While this is undoubtedly true in some areas, the use and effectiveness of such partnerships is still under investigation, and their general effectiveness is not proven. A number of more minor points are listed in Annex B to this report. The remainder of the report will focus upon those issues which I feel have the greatest potential impact on the County Council and the county at large.

A34 Multi Modal Study (MMS)

6. Multi Modal Studies (MMS) were set up in the Government’s Transport White Paper of 1998 ‘A New Deal for Transport – Better for Everyone’. The aim of the MMS is to investigate area-wide strategic transport problems on or with all modes of transport and to seek solutions to those problems. Five studies were due to be undertaken within the SEERA area, four of which are already underway. The outstanding study is that for the A34 north of Southampton. The commissioning and undertaking of the studies originally fell to GOSE, however this has now been passed to SEERA. The A34 MMS is of paramount importance to planning transport provision in the County due to the wide and varied roles of the road from the very local, through the regional up to the trans European. The treatment of the A34 corridor will have consequences for the County’s Transport Networks Review and for the long term transport strategies for Abingdon and Didcot.
7. It is very disappointing that the A34 MMS is not mentioned in the main section of the RTS on such studies (Para 1.5) nor is it shown on map 1.1 which shows the MMS areas although it is mentioned on a few occasions throughout the remainder of the document (such as para 6.37). It would appear that SEERA is not taking the issues surrounding the A34 MMS as seriously as they could, and I fear that it may possibly be overlooked. This could have potentially serious impacts on the wider transport implications for the county, and reduce the opportunities which would otherwise be forthcoming by working even more closely with all the agencies involved in developing a MMS.

Mobility Management Plans

8. Mobility Management Plans (MMP) are new documents which have been developed by SEERA and are set out for the first time in this strategy. The concept appears to be aimed at ensuring ‘an integrated approach to managing the demands for movement that aims to adjust, over time, people’s patterns of travel in a way that ultimately gives greater choice in the mode of travel available for their journey’ (para 7.8). However, the concept of MMPs is confused within the document: policies T1, T6 and T15 illustrate how a MMP appears to be taking on the role of a Transport Networks Review at the County level, an Integrated Transport Strategy at the town level, and a Transport Impact Assessment at the local level. It is very unclear what SEERA considers the actual role of MMPs to be. At the very least we would expect an annex explaining exactly what SEERA means by a MMP, what it should contain and the exact relationship with the LTP.
9. Of potentially greater concern is the confusion and inconsistency that may arise should the RTS gain statutory status and these issues are not addressed in the Government’s guidance on the next round of full LTP (2006-2011). This could leave authorities with the issue of choosing to follow either national or regional guidance. Due to the potential impacts that MMPs may have, I would suggest that, if SEERA believes that there is a need for this type of assessment, it should be lobbying the Department for Transport for its inclusion in the next round of full Guidance to LTPs so as to ensure conformity and clarity. Otherwise the RTS is potentially placing an extra burden on authorities within the South East, and affecting our competitiveness with other regions. It would be more appropriate for such policies to request that the Department for Transport include MMPs in their guidance on LTPs.

Charging

10. The ability for local authorities to introduce congestion charging was contained in the Transport Act 2000. This included options to apply charges on a single road or group of roads or area wide. Whilst the LTP contains no proposals for charging and the issue is unlikely to be considered until the next plan period (2006-2011), the RTS covers the period up to 2016. SEERA has taken the view that in the period up to 2016 it may be necessary to introduce charging and has developed policy on this. This in itself is a controversial position to take and its is unclear on what basis this conclusion has been reached. However, I have the most concern regarding paragraph 7.40 which states: ‘a preliminary assessment of the characteristics of the region suggests that parts of the Western Policy Area, and in particular within the Thames Valley, might be the most appropriate area to focus upon’. This gives me great concern on a number of points. Firstly the process of preliminary assessment has not been made clear or been consulted upon. Secondly, the area which may benefit from a charging regime may change over the lifetime of the RTS, therefore it would seem prudent not to name an area. Thirdly the powers to introduce such a charging scheme lie with the local highway authorities involved and not with the regional body. This is to ensure that the introduction of a local charging scheme is linked to the development and operation of schemes to satisfy unmet local transport needs. I consider it inappropriate that such a suggestion should be made in a regional document unless and until agreement has been reached with the appropriate highway authorities on both the principle of charging and the related policies and proposals which would be funded through any charges.
11. Possibly the most concerning issue is that the consultation strategy in the RTS contains a statement that SEERA will come to a view regarding charging and include this with the full RTS submitted to the Secretary of State without further consultation. This comment is also included in a number of other policy areas (paras 7.23 on Mobility Management Plans, 8.12 Freight, 14.15 Targets and Monitoring). I consider that, given that in each case the strategy is dealing with complex and potentially controversial issues, this lack of consultation on the final policies is unacceptable.

Tiers and Finance

12. The document as a whole has a large number of issues relating to different tiers of government, and SEERA appear to have overlooked the fact that the vast majority of the area is subject to two tier administration. A number of policies contain the statement ‘… local transport plans and/or development plans…’. This is bound to cause a great deal of confusion between the responsibilities and impacts that the RTS will have upon LTPs, the Structure Plans and District Local Plans. The role of the RTS and each authority/plan needs to be made explicit in the document to ensure that there are no areas of ambiguity of role once the Strategy is adopted. It is unlikely that such a lack of precision would be considered acceptable in a Structure or Local Plan.
13. Finally, attention also needs to be brought to the potential impacts that policies may have on revenue as well as capital spending. A number of policies have direct requirements to set up facilities which this Council currently does not support. A typical example is presented by policy T15 which calls for the setting up of ‘an integrated and comprehensive travel planning advice centre’. The revenue implications of establishing and running such a facility could be high. The strategy needs to clearly make the case at the beginning of the document that to achieve some elements of the RTS there is a need for greater revenue commitments than at present, and that without these there are a number of policies and proposals which are likely not to be implemented. Whilst these issues are mentioned in the strategy (paras 9.16-9.20) and by Policy T22, I believe that this issue needs to be given increased prominence in the strategy and that where appropriate, policies likely to have revenue consequences should include a relevant caveat.

Conclusion

14. In conclusion, the strategy as a whole is balanced and reflects the majority of the policies contained in both the Structure Plan and LTP. There are a number of individual issues I have highlighted in this report which raise concern and which, I believe should form the basis of the Council’s comments to SEERA on the strategy. In particular SEERA should be requested to consult upon any amendments to the Strategy prior to submission to the Secretary of State so as to ensure that authorities are able to comment on any changes or updates to the document.

RECOMMENDATIONS

15. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. agree to the report forming the basis of a written response to SEERA on the draft Regional Transport Strategy, with particular emphasis on the points on the A34, Mobility Management Plans, Congestion Charging and Finance; and
2. request that SEERA holds a further consultation on any changes to the Strategy prior to submission to the Secretary of State.

David Young
Director of Environmental Services

Background Papers Nil

Contact Officer Peter Mann Tel Oxford 815479, Andy Barton Tel Oxford 810461

August 2002

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

 Return to TOP