Return to Agenda

ITEM EX5

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 informal consultation. In a report to the Executive on the 4 September 2002 comments were made which were fed back to SEERA on the Strategy. The RTS was then revised and submitted to the Secretary of State for formal consultation. This report provides some background to the Strategy and makes recommendations on the County Council’s response to the consultation.

Background

2. The RTS forms, with the Spatial Strategy (also published by SEERA), part of the guidance published under the Government’s ‘Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) 9 – South East of England’. 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) (download as .doc file). 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 redrafting of the RTS which is the subject of this report. Following consideration of any representations made, an Examination in Public (due to commence on the 21 July 2003) will be held prior to adoption as part of regional guidance. Depending upon the key matters which the panel wishes to consider, the County Council may be invited to participate at the Examination.
3. To set the RTS in context, it aims to provide:
   
   

1. regional priorities for transport investments across all modes;
2. a strategic steer on the role and future development of railways, airports, ports and inland waterways (both passenger and freight);
3. guidance on the measures to increase transport choice, including better integration;
4. public transport accessibility criteria for regionally or sub-regionally significant levels of types of development, including guidance on location of new development and the provision of new transport services or infrastructure;
5. advice on the approach to be taken to standards for the provision of off-street car parking;
6. guidance on and a strategic context for demand management measures such as road user charging.
   
   
4. In meeting these requirements the Strategy provides a long-term regional framework for the development of transport policies and proposals set out within Structure Plans, the development and implementation of Local Transport Plans and the development of investment plans and programmes of transport operators.
5. 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. Of particular interest to Oxfordshire is that its Local Transport Plan will have to accord with the RTS.

Previous Consultation

6. The report to the Executive on 4 September 2002 formed the County Council’s comments to SEERA on the draft RTS. Annex B attached to this report sets out how SEERA have addressed these issues. However, there remain a number of areas of concern; which will form the focus of the remainder of this report.

Overall Comments

7. The current version of the RTS is clearer and easier to read and comprehend as the policies and the supporting statements have been separated into two documents. Many of the areas which caused confusion and concern in the earlier version, have been clarified. Virtually all the policies and approaches highlighted within the document are in line with current policies and proposals in the Structure Plan and Local Transport Plan. These include support for the promotion of East West Rail and the relocation of Oxford Station. It is particularly pleasing to see that the Oxford Transport Strategy has been singled out as a case study of Best Practice. However, the following issues remain of particular concern.

Charging

8. Policy T12 states : ‘Local transport authorities should make appropriate use of the powers available under the Transport Act 2000 to introduce new charging initiatives where they consider these are required in order to support delivery of the regional spatial and transport policy frameworks.’
9. 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, a group of roads or area-wide. The LTP contains no proposals for charging and the issue is unlikely to be considered until the next plan period (2006-2011).
10. Whilst the RTS does now acknowledge that only local traffic authorities have the powers to introduce charging schemes, it seems that the RTS is attempting to impose a regional justification, and even duty on local authorities, to introduce road user charging when the national legislation does not, at present, allow for this. The wording in the policy, however, is confusing, as it seems initially to require local authorities to introduce charging but then gives the discretion to the local authorities to consider the regional justification for it.
11. The Transport Act states: "A local charging scheme may only be made if it appears desirable for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies in the charging authority’s local transport plan". It is now and will undoubtedly remain a requirement for local transport plans to be set in the context of the regional planning and transport frameworks. Any charging scheme pursued by an authority to achieve its LTP policies would therefore, by definition, also acknowledge the regional guidance.
12. Paradoxically, conclusions from a number of recent Multi Modal Studies, including Orbit, South Coast and Thames Valley, have suggested road user charging that would require cross boundary working to such an extent that a regional, or at least sub-regional, context would be necessary. The Act does make reference to joint charging schemes and therefore recognises that more than one local authority can make a charging scheme. It says nothing, however, about a regional perspective in justifying a scheme.
13. As it seems that the RTS is seeking to resolve this failing in national legislation, I would advise responding to the Secretary of State’s consultation by suggesting that the RTS should replace policy T12 with an advocacy policy on charging to ensure that the regional context and justification for it is recognised by a change to national legislation in due course.

Responsibilities for Parking and Planning

14. Policy T13 states ; ‘Development plans and/or Local Transport Plans should:

1. adopt maximum parking levels of parking provision for non-residential developments, linked to an integrated programme of public transport improvements, that are between 30% and 100% of the maximum level of provision set out in PPG13;
2. include policies and proposals for the management of the total parking stock within transport hubs that are consistent with these limits;
3. apply guidance set out in PPG3 on residential parking standards flexibly, reflecting local circumstances.’

15. Policy T14 states ; ‘Local transport authorities should ensure that their Local Transport Plans submitted to Government in 2005:

1. identify those major travel generating developments, both existing and proposed, for which travel plans should be developed;
2. require all major travel generating developments to have a travel plan agreed and implemented by 2010;
3. include proposals to trail transport planning advice centres for the transport hubs where they offer the potential to add value.’

16. Both these policies impose requirements on Development Plans and LTPs that might contradict, or otherwise prove inconsistent with, national guidance, either through PPG12 or the guidance on the next round of LTPs (2006-11). The principle here relates to the relative weight of the RTS, as part of regional guidance, in determining the content of these plans. Policies like these would potentially lead to confusion and conflict, although it is accepted that the RTS can say little without implying some sort of obligation on plans that are also influenced by other guidance. At its most extreme, this may for example disadvantage South East authorities over transport authorities in other regions in their bid to secure Government funding commitments in the 2006-11 period. Clarity should be sought on this issue or alternatively a policy that included wording of a more advocacy nature would be preferable.
17. Policy T13 rightly recognises that there is a role for local planning authorities, through the application of their (local) development plan policies, in limiting the creation of new private parking stock. However, the development plans themselves will not, at least in a two tier local government structure such as in Oxfordshire, contain the integrated programme of public transport improvements to which the RTS wishes this parking control to be linked. There is therefore an implication that parking control policies in development plans will mesh neatly with LTP strategies for improving public transport in a given location, when, for various reasons, this may not prove to be the case.
18. Policy T13 misses the opportunity to recognise the respective roles of district and highway authorities in non-unitary areas in the overall supply and management (including charging) of public and private, on and off-street parking. The relationships here are complex yet critical to effective reduction in traffic congestion
19. Policy T14 raises difficulties on both the above counts, i.e. the requirements imposed on LTPs outside specific Government guidance and the failure to understand the different roles of local planning and highway authorities in two tier structures. There is also an issue here of legality where it is suggested that major travel generating developments, both existing and proposed, are required to produce and implement travel plans. Such an obligation imposed on existing developments would probably be ultra vires and it would only be through a legitimate and justified planning agreement that such a requirement could be imposed on new development.

Multi Modal Studies

20. A number of Multi Modal Studies (MMS) have been or are being carried out in the South East. The ones of most relevance to Oxfordshire are the Thames Valley MMS, ORBIT (M25 MMS), and the proposed North of Southampton MMS (following the A34 corridor). Annex E to this report gives an update on the current situation of these studies in relation to their impact on the county.
21. Proposals put forward by the studies will have consequences outside the area of the authorities who will be responsible for their implementation. Collaboration across boundaries of responsibility will therefore be essential. The breakdown on cross Thames co-operation apparent in the TVMMS process is most disappointing and we are working to address this.

Investment Framework

22. The Strategy contains an investment framework for the region as a whole. Annex D (download as .doc file)contains the projects in the Western policy area including Oxfordshire. Of particular note is the commitment to works at the Chieveley Interchange at the A34/M4 junction just outside of the county. The Oxford Station relocation is also included in the framework, as are outputs from the A34 MMS. East West Rail is also identified in the framework under the Milton Keynes policy section.

Financial and Staff Implications

23. The RTS is likely to have an impact on the amount of resources that the County Council receives through the Local Transport Plan process. The comments made above have taken this into account, particularly where it is considered that the requirements placed on south east authorities by the RTS may put us at a disadvantage in comparison to authorities elsewhere in the country. There will be a requirement to assist SEERA in the monitoring of the RTS, however this section of the strategy is still under development. There may be some minor costs associated with this, however it is likely that any agreed monitoring framework will rely mainly on data which the County Council already holds. There will be a requirement for officer input into the North of Southampton MMS. At the moment it is unclear how much will be required, but it is considered likely that these could be met from within existing resources.
24. It should be noted that the County Council may be called by the Secretary of State to give evidence at the Examination in Public. If this is the case additional resources will have to be found to undertake this work.

Conclusion

25. The strategy as a whole is balanced and largely in accord with existing land use and Local Transport Plan polices. There are a number of individual issues which have been highlighted in this report which are cause for concern, and I believe should form the basis of the County Council’s comments to the Secretary of State. Annex C to this report contains the proforma which we are requested to use to submit comments on. The policies within the RTS will impact upon the review of the Structure Plan, the Transport Networks Review and the next Local Transport Plan. A close eye is being kept on the developing strategy to minimise any potential disruption that this may cause.

RECOMMENDATIONS

26. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. agree that the report and Annex C form the basis of a written response to the Secretary of State on the draft Regional Transport Strategy; and
2. note the updated position on Multi Modal Studies.

EDDIE LUCK
Assistant Director of Environmental Services (Transport Development)

Contact Officer: Andy Barton Tel: Oxford 810461

Peter Mann Tel: Oxford 815479

13 March 2003

Return to TOP