|
132
|
Oxfordshire
County Council
|
1: The RTS
makes some incorrect assumptions, i.e. there is little recognition
of the different roles and responsibilities of the authorities in
a two tier structure in relation to the development plan and to
on and off street parking.
2: Disappointing that A34 MMS is not mentioned in the main section
of the RTS, or map 1.1.
3: The role of Mobility Management Plans is not clear.
4: Objection
to naming the western policy area as having the potential for charging.
5: The powers to introduce road user charging with the Highway Authority
not the regional body.
6: There is no definition of major travel intensive developments
in T19.
7: The Assembly must consider the RTS's of adjacent regions.
|
1: The final
document will reflect the split in responsibilities in other areas.
2: The final
document makes references to the A34 MMS.
3: The final
document provides clarification.
4: This is
being looked at in the Thames Valley MMS this will go out for consultation
once the draft final report is published. Reference to Reading as
a pilot area will be removed.
5: Noted
6: The definition
of what constitutes a travel intensive development is at the discretion
of the LA, and is dependent on a number of factors.
7: The Regional
Assembly has close contact with adjoining regions.
|