To adopt the local transport plan (2016-2031).

Council was asked to adopt the local transport plan (LTP) (2016-2031).

Councillor PD Price, cabinet member – infrastructure presented the report.  He commented on:

·        The purpose of the Local Transport Plan and its importance, including its role in the direction of resources and attraction of additional funds.

·        Key points about the Plan, including: its co-ordination with the core strategy and support of the strategy for economic growth – including new homes and jobs; its proposals for key enabling infrastructure required for housing and growth and employment land development; and its proposals and policies for the market towns and wider rural area.

·        How the Plan had been finalised including a summary of improvements resulting from consultation.

In the debate the following principal points were made:

·        There was significant congestion on the A465 Belmont road to the detriment of local residents. It was important to provide a link between the A465 and the A49 joining to the Rotherwas Relief Road via a new bridge.  Any road infrastructure needed to be supported by Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).  An assurance was sought that the South Wye transport package would deliver improvements supported by TROs.

The cabinet member – infrastructure gave an assurance that the intention was to secure improvement and deliver sustainable travel in the location and obtain the necessary funding.  However, provision of sustainable travel in the City was dependent on removing freight and through traffic from the City.

·        The cabinet support member – business development highlighted the concerns businesses had about traffic congestion and the support of the business community for a Hereford Bypass and City link road. 

The cabinet member – infrastructure commented that he was aware of that support.  Growth in Herefordshire was dependent on providing supporting infrastructure.

·        In relation to securing the provision of a 5 year housing land supply the cabinet member – infrastructure commented that the provision of road infrastructure would enable the Council to develop its strategic housing sites and secure a 5 year housing land supply within a reasonable timescale.

·        Insufficient account had been taken of the large reduction in traffic in the City during school holiday times.  Sustainable travel to schools should be given greater weight in the LTP.

The cabinet member –infrastructure commented that he had sought to encourage the education sector to consider sustainable travel options.  The provision of infrastructure to move traffic outside the city centre would free up space for sustainable travel measures in the City.

·        The importance of maintaining the existing highway network should not be overlooked.  The cabinet member – infrastructure commented in response that the council would continue to maintain the existing network.  An asset management tool was being used to prioritise maintenance and it also provided a good evidence base for seeking additional funding from government if resources became available.

·        The cabinet member – transport and roads acknowledged concerns about the TRO process and the wish to speed it up.  He commented that a policy of packaging TROs was being developed within the City.  It was also proposed to work with parish councils and local ward members to develop a consensus about what traffic measures were required and prioritise those measures.  In response to a suggestion that yellow lines be provided at every junction he commented that this was not a solution. Regard had to be had to Department of Transport guidance.

·        A question was asked about providing a river crossing to link Rotherwas to the Ledbury Road.  The Cabinet Member – infrastructure commented that the Core Strategy and LTP supported a bypass west of the A49 with an extension to the Worcester Road after 2027.  Whilst he acknowledged there were demands for an eastern bypass, this had no priority and funding in current plans.

·        It was suggested that the southern link road would simply move traffic from the A465 to the A49.   Statistics showed it would bring a 13% reduction in traffic on the A465 but a 15% increase in traffic on the A49. 

The cabinet member – infrastructure commented that achieving sustainable travel in the City would mean moving traffic onto the A49.  However, the southern link road was the first phase of a bypass linking to the western relief road.

·        The provision of road infrastructure was critical to the sustainable future of the County and the provision of jobs, along with the provision of Broadband.

·        Concern was expressed about the management of freight traffic and its impact on rural villages exacerbated by the increasing size and length of HGVs.  This would need further consideration in future planning.

·        A view was expressed that the city link road would simply lead to increased congestion.

·        A member asserted that an eastern bypass allied to a dual carriageway link to the M50 was the best option for achieving the successful development of the Enterprise Zone.  The western bypass was opposed by the County’s MPs and businesses.  There was technical advice that an eastern route was deliverable and affordable, costing far less than a western route.  The cabinet member – infrastructure responded that he did not agree.  He added that Highways England had no interest in considering a dual carriageway from Rotherwas to the M50.  However, there were discussions as to whether the A465 should be retrunked within the County. The administration’s infrastructure plans had to be submitted through the Marches Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).  Funding had currently been secured to support those plans and could not be re-allocated to other schemes.  If the council did not proceed that funding would be lost.

·        The cabinet member- economy and corporate services expressed his disappointment that opposition to the administration’s plans had delayed the development of infrastructure that would have supported new houses and new jobs which in turn would have generated income from council tax and business rates.  By 2019/20 Council funding would be reliant on income from those two sources.  Any further delays in providing the infrastructure to support growth would impair the Council’s ability to deliver essential services.

·        Because of financial pressures community transport organisations would be needed to transport people to park and share locations.  However, unless funding improved, organisations such as Bromyard Community Transport would no longer exist.

·        A number of members expressed the view that, given the years of discussion about a bypass, efforts should be made to proceed with the current road infrastructure plans with all speed.

·        Whilst the plans for the City were important, account should be taken of the need to bear in mind the requirements of the County as a whole, including rural areas and businesses.

·        A statement was read on behalf of Councillor Bartlett as Green Group leader.  In summary  this raised the following principal points:

·        The LTP offered nothing innovative.  It was devoted to a single growth model, where road building was seen as the driver of economic growth.  This was alien to Herefordshire with no regard to the County’s strengths. The Plan was also almost wholly focused on the City.  The County needed dedicated enterprise, business growth, good housing and infrastructure, but delivered in a sustainable and county wide way

·        The Plan did not take account of the Government’s Public Health briefing that set out the benefits of active travel and the need for a rebalancing of the travel system.

·        There was a mistaken belief that disproportionate investment in the City and Rotherwas enterprise zone would benefit the rest of the county. Only some 254 net jobs out of a potential 4,000 target had so far been created, despite investment to date of some £10m.  It was questioned whether this was better value for money than other options such as supporting rural enterprise.

·        The southern link road was now being advanced as a solution that would enable the Enterprise Zone to succeed.  However, the road would be detrimental to the countryside, which in itself was a major driver of economic, social and environmental sustainable growth.

·        Tourism did not receive a specific mention in a single LTP policy. However, according to the Marches LEP, overnight tourist and day visitor spending, produced more than £1 billion for the local economy a year’.

·        Air pollution, the cost of repairing local roads as a result of use by large lorries such as those serving the intensive poultry industry and the economic and environmental costs of highly polluted water courses were also concerns.

·        The cabinet member – transport and roads agreed to look into a concern expressed by a Member about a lack of signage to a number of locations when approaching the City Centre.

·        Councillor Powers, speaking as IOC Group Leader, commented that he did not consider that meeting had the will to consider any more detailed evidence and argument.  He expressed the hope that the administration had therefore taken account of his Group’s response to the LTP consultation.  That response had outlined a plethora of 21^st century solutions to the County’s transport problems.  IOC was not opposed to growth and infrastructure development provided that the need was properly evidenced, cost effective and supported by a sound business case.  There were many examples across the Country where road building had not provided a solution to traffic congestion.

·        Attention was drawn to the submission to the LTP consultation by Gloucestershire County Council.  It was suggested insufficient account had been taken of this response and its comments on freight movements.  

·        The map at page 60 of the agenda papers appeared to identify a new road for Ledbury, but there was no text in the document that related to it.  The Cabinet member – infrastructure agreed to seek clarification.

·        In contrast to the previous LTP the document contained no quantified targets to enable progress to be evaluated.  The cabinet member – infrastructure stated that targets would be built into the Plan.

·        A member commented on the provision and cost of bus travel and the implications for congestion, given planned housing growth, in the City, with the attendant complications of pollution and adverse effect on quality of life.

·        The cabinet member- transport and roads invited Councillor Kenyon as mayor of Hereford to join him in promoting walking to work and walking to school.  Councillor Kenyon indicated he would be willing to participate.

·        The cabinet member – infrastructure concluded the debate by stating that if the Council wished to continue to deliver services into the future it should follow the approach advocated in the LTP which would secure income for the benefit of the County.

·        A Member sought clarification on the treatment of two recommendations by the General Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which it was understood had been accepted by the executive but did not appear to be reflected in the text of the LTP.  The cabinet member – infrastructure responded that it was his understanding that these were reflected in the Plan and he would ensure that this was the case.

Councillor Price proposed the motion which was seconded by Councillor AW Johnson.

There were 38 votes in favour of the motion, 5 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:       That the local transport plan strategy (at appendix 1 to the report) and policy (at appendix 2 to the report) be adopted.