Issue - meetings

Cabinet Member: Environment

Forward Plan Ref: 2018/016

Contact: John Disley, Policy Strategy Manager Tel: 07767 006742

Report by Strategic Director for Communities (CA9).

At the end of 2017, the Department for Transport published consultation proposals for the Creation of a Major Road Network (MRN) for England.  A link to the consultation document is included in the report. 

The proposed MRN would complement the existing Strategic Road Network (SRN, which in Oxfordshire comprises the M40 and A34), with a similar approach to be taken to funding and programming upgrades/improvements to the major roads proposed to be included.  Unlike the SRN, the management and control of the MRN would remain with the County Council. 

The consultation is seeking views on three main areas: how to define the Major Road Network; the investment planning process, and eligibility and assessment criteria.  The purpose of this report is to set out what is proposed, and identify what the main considerations and issues are for Oxfordshire, both in terms of an overall strategic view and for each of these three areas.  A proposed response to the consultation questions is included as an annex to the report.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree the proposed responses to the consultation questions, set out in annex 1 to this report.

Recommendation agreed.

At the end of 2017, the Department for Transport published consultation proposals for the Creation of a Major Road Network (MRN) for England. 

The proposed MRN would complement the existing Strategic Road Network (SRN, which in Oxfordshire comprises the M40 and A34), with a similar approach to be taken to funding and programming upgrades/improvements to the major roads proposed to be included.  Unlike the SRN, the management and control of the MRN would remain with the County Council. 

The purpose of the report before Cabinet was to set out what is proposed, and identify what the main considerations and issues are for Oxfordshire.  A proposed response to the consultation questions was included as an annex to the report.

Councillor John Sanders, Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment, supported the draft response but indicated that the MRN needed to be supported by additional funding from Government. Councillor Hudspeth, Leader of the County Council explained that funding was being delivered by a number of routes including the HIF funding and the Housing and Growth Deal.

Councillor Constance, Cabinet Member for Environment introduced the contents of the report and moved the recommendations. John Disley, Policy Strategy Manager, highlighted that the consultation did not include all the roads it should, including the A44 and that there was a need to be mindful of future development. This was reflected in the draft response. He noted that Cherwell District Council was also suggesting the inclusion of the A44. Members were advised that reference in the report to the A429 (paragraph 15) should be read as the A329. This was correct in the draft response.

During discussion Cabinet supported the response and in particular the inclusion of the additional roads including the A44. It was pointed out that with regard to paragraph 15 and the response to Question 2 traffic flows could change dramatically but the timing was vague. The Cabinet was advised that the consultation was largely based on the current network with a proposed five year cycle. Asked whether the B4009 could be included John Disley stated that although possible the B classification was a difficulty. However this could change in the future and he would want to see the opportunity to review what was included. Asked about timescales John Disley responded that although he expected fairly swift progress it had to be recognised that this was a consultation and government would need to reflect on the responses received. Cabinet highlighted the importance of air quality and in noting the role of congestion in adding to air pollution agreed that they would not wish to see investment to improve air quality not succeed because it did not meet headline investment criteria on congestion.

John Disley undertook to ensure that the particular points raised by Members would be drawn to the attention of the Department for Transport.

RESOLVED:                        to agree the proposed responses to the consultation questions, set out in annex 1 to this report.