To update the Committee on the progress made in preparing the third Local Transport Plan (LTP) and invite the Committee to provide their comments on the emerging strategy.

The Committee received an update on progress made in preparing the third Local Transport Plan (LTP) and were invited to comment on the emerging strategy.

A number of written questions concerning the LTP3 had been received before the meeting from Mrs E Morawiecka. The questions and the written response have been appended to these minutes.

The Transportation Manager presented his report which set out: the history to the LTP and its importance to the County; the consultation undertaken in developing the emerging strategy; the significant funding pressures in the next few years around highway and transport services.

He also gave a presentation summarising the development of the LTP, current understanding of future funding and the timetable for adopting the strategy. Committee Members had previously received a copy of the draft LTP.

On scrutinising the report the Committee noted the following principal points:

• Data for anticipated traffic growth in the City had been derived from various surveys and this had been modelled using the SATURN (Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Networks) system which in turn had been fed into the Local Development Framework model.  Growth indicated in the LDF, and following consultation with the planning section, had been used to assess traffic growth in the rural areas.  Statistics on traffic growth in Leominster had been based on work undertaken by a potential developer. The intention was to mitigate national trends/behaviours for increased local journeys.
• Statistics on fuel price/use used government projections within the SATURN system and were used as an industry standard.
• It was agreed that a number of aspirational elements in the LTP, particularly concerning rural roads and road maintenance, would need to be redrafted to provide greater focus.  Funding issues will become an important issue especially in view of reduced government funding.
• Questioned whether the funding for the relief road could instead be used to fund improved sustainable transport (bus and cycle/walk ways) the Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) responded that the relief road was not a stand alone option.  If the County wanted economic growth then a relief road and integrated transport would be needed and this had been endorsed by government ministers.  He also pointed out that support to bus services was revenue funding and constructing a relief road would be capital funding.
• With an aging population it was questioned whether the traditional public transport service would be adequate in the long term.  Questions were also raised regarding the 20% reduction in bus operator subsidy. The Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) responded that the LTP sought to ensure that a reasonable level of service was provided to the rural communities and pointed out that the subsidy reduction was due to government cuts. The Council were discussing the implications with operators. To maintain the current subsidy level would require support from Council resources.
• The Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) reported that he would also be discussing the resources situation with community transport operators.
• Comment was made that the LTP lacked any sense of how initiatives would be prioritised.  The Assistant Director Highways Transport and Community Services responded that this would be difficult to do in view of the current funding uncertainties.
• Questioned on how improvements to cycleways/footways were anticipated, the Committee noted that in the current financial circumstances resources may need to go to their maintenance, rather than the provision of new routes.
• Questioned how the relief road accorded with the Council’s Green Infrastructure Plans as, according to the relief road route diagram in the LTP, it severed a number of green routes to the West of the City.   The Committee noted that the diagram in the draft LTP was a conceptual route.  Various measures would be taken as part of any major development to protect the green routes.
• Following a public question regarding whether ‘smart bus services’, park and ride and sustainable measures had been considered instead of the relief road the Assistant Director Highways, Transport and Community Services reported that improved public transport and other measures were included in the LTP.  However, improving public transport in and around the City was dependent on improving traffic movement which would be facilitated by the proposed relief road.
• Questioned about whether statements or evidence contained in various reports undertaken or commissioned in the last few years had been taken into account, e.g. the Natural England report 2010, the Sustainable Communities Director responded that, depending on the report author’s stance, some reports could appear contradictory with others, however, all evidence had been taken in to account.

RESOLVED: That where appropriate the comments made during the course of discussion be used by officers to inform the further drafting of the Local Transport Plan (LTP3).