To seek the views of the general overview and scrutiny committee on the council’s local transport plan (2016-2031) in order to inform cabinet’s recommendation to Council.

The chairman apologised that a report showing feedback from initial responses to the local transport plan consultation had been received at short notice.

 

The assistant director, commissioning introduced the report explaining that the Local Transport plan (LTP) was subject to an ongoing consultation and that the committee’s comments were also sought. It was explained that the report included in a supplement to the agenda summarised initial responses to the LTP consultation for which 150 responses had been received before the report was produced.

 

The key points of the LTP were explained:

-          Having had a number of interim transport plans in recent years, this LTP was to be coterminous with the core strategy by being in place for the period 2016-2031.

-          The document was a continuation of current strategies - encouraging growth through provision of new road schemes, sustainable transport, improving road safety, and maintaining an asset based strategy for road and highway maintenance and repair.

-          The report identified five key areas:

o   Economic growth

o   Maintaining a high quality transport network

o   Sustainable transport

o   Safe travel

-          The LTP identifies policies for specific areas such as low emission vehicles and other areas of study.

-          The aim of the LTP is to develop a strategy with £10 million in capital as well as £8 million revenue for maintenance. There would also be additional capital funding for transport packages which include new road schemes

-          Many growth policies within the LTP link with strategies for growth in the core strategy.

-          The LTP contains plans for each of the market towns in Herefordshire.

-          Provision of a core bus network has been included as it was shown to be a key priority for members of the public and key users.

Results of the initial feedback from the LTP consultation were summarised:

-          Responses had so far identified priority areas including rural access.

-          Priority areas for spending had been identified in maintenance of highways.

-          Maintaining a bus network had also been identified as a priority.

-          As consultation was ongoing and a high number of responses were expected by the end of the consultation period analysis on initial responses could only go into so much depth.

It was described that in accordance with department for transport guidance, it was important that the LTP remain a living strategy which could be adapted going forward.

 

The chairman thanked officers for their presentation and asked members of the committee for comment.

 

A member of the committee asked officers to elaborate on some answers to questions from members of the public.

-          Regarding Question 4, answer point D, it was queried why the cost of major schemes had not been included in the LTP consultation as these would be of significant public interest. In response the assistant director of commissioning explained that major schemes would be subject to separate bidding processes, as such it would be unrealistic to ask for comment until these had been commissioned properly. It was explained that the business case for major schemes would be investigated on a case by case basis as they progressed.

 

-          It was also asked how the LTP could be considered a ‘balanced’ strategy if the investment in major schemes outweighed the money invested in sustainable transport packages. In response the assistant director, commissioning explained that the term balance had been used not in terms of expenditure but in the effect of particular schemes in meeting the plan’s objectives. Additionally, it was explained that in order to implement sustainable transport schemes it was a prerequisite to make improvements to infrastructure to alleviate the demand for unsustainable transport in many cases.

 

-          In regard to question 5 from a member of the public it was queried why an environmental impact assessment for areas north of the river wye had not been included. In response it was stated that the answer provided to question 5 from members of the public provided a sufficient response to this question.

 

The availability of documentation regarding major spend involved in the LTP for the consultation was discussed. It was agreed that an explanatory note would be added to the survey questionnaire.

 

The chairman queried how representative the current responses to the LTP consultation were considered to be. It was clarified that as only 154 responses had been received at the time of creating the report, the interim responses were not considered representative of the whole authority. Additionally, as previous consultations on related areas had had high response rates, the LTP consultation was expected to receive a similar level of response by the end of consultation.

 

It was noted that the LTP had been informed by the responses to a number of other consultations which had taken place previously. For example it was noted that a bus network consultation which had received 1800 responses had been considered.

 

A member of the committee asked to what extent the LTP had changed from previous iterations. Officers explained that crucial differences included that the new LTP was a longer term strategy for growth and was coterminous with the core strategy. Key items such as sustainable transport had largely remained unchanged since previous iterations of the plan.

 

There was discussion of park and ride schemes included in the report. It was explained that in response to previous consultations park and ride schemes had been considered very strongly. It was explained by officers that a previous scheme based around three large park and ride sites had been determined, through modelling and other work, to not deliver desired outcomes. As a result, the new LTP proposed a scheme based around 10 small sites as part of a ‘micro’ park and choose scheme.

 

A member of the committee queried what level of response would be needed for drastic changes to be made to the LTP. In response officers stated that were substantial numbers of responses received asking for specific changes this would be considered. However it was explained that as much of the LTP had been developed from previous consultations, officers were confident in the plan.

 

A member of the committee asked if there were elements of the consultation which might cause concern for the developers of the plan. In response officers explained that in previous consultations responses heavily focussed on certain issues instead of providing a comprehensive response. Additionally it was noted that in previous consultations there had been a polarisation of views concerning major developments such as roads. It was noted that often these responses were local in nature.

 

The vice chair noted that there was currently a low rate of response to the LTP consultation from parish councils. It was proposed that this could be due to much of the LTP being Hereford centric and as such many may feel that it is not directly affect them. A number of members of the committee noted the Hereford centric nature of the report and that this had also been raised with previous iterations of the LTP.

-          In response it was acknowledged that much of the LTP and consultation focussed on developments around Hereford. However it was noted that significant proportions of the spending identified in the LTP were for highway maintenance across the whole authority including rural areas.

-          It was also highlighted that there were a number of regular consultations of more relevance to rural areas, notably the Balfour Beattie annual report which can be effective in responding to local issues. The assistant director, commissioning clarified that while much of the report focussed on Hereford, the policy guidelines would be used for the whole authority, not only Hereford.

There was discussion of parish councils subsidising transport schemes such as public transport.

-          The cabinet member, infrastructure noted that in very rural areas maintaining a sustainable bus network was not realistic, however in rural areas in the hinterland of urban areas this was more practical.

-          The example of Fownhope parish council was provided as a case where this had been a success. The chair requested that the monitoring officer provide a briefing note on the legal implications of a parish council subsidising transport in this way for member’s information.

 

A member of the committee commended the extension of the consultation period but noted that the LTP consultation had only been made available online and that this was not inclusive. It was also noted that it was in a difficult format for organisations such as parish councils to respond to. In response this was acknowledged and it was stated that written responses or a request for information in alternate formats by organisations would be welcomed were these forwarded.

 

A member of the committee expressed disappointment that there was limited discussion of rail networks within the LTP acknowledging that this is complicated due to private management of the rail networks. In response it was noted that while there was discussion of passenger transport in the LTP this was an area which could potentially be improved upon.

 

A number of members of the committee suggested locations for new railway stations on current lines in Herefordshire.

 

A member of the committee commended the inclusion of choose how you move schemes in the LTP and hoped that this could be expanded to include the whole authority.

 

A member of the committee proposed that the maps used in the LTP be extended to include the M50 south of the county boundary. It was expressed that while outside of Herefordshire it is significant to the transport behaviours in Herefordshire. It was agreed that maps used in the report would be adjusted accordingly.

 

There was discussion of an east west pinch point in Herefordshire road networks. A committee member queried why this had not been discussed in the LTP. In response the assistant director of commissioning explained that the route structure referred to in the LTP reflected that associated with key infrastructure projects identified in the corporate plan. As a result it would be inappropriate to refer to another route structure which had not been reviewed through the same scrutiny process. It was also noted that the consultation included a specific item of relevance to this and responses in this area were welcomed.

 

There was discussion of the frequency of reviews for the LTP. It was explained that previous LTPs had been reviewed once every five years and that this was in accordance with department for transport guidance. The chairman queried if this was still too long a timeframe. In response it was explained that due to a number of interim local transport plans produced in recent years there was a view that a longer term review schedule would allow for more time to better implement the LTP and would allow for better informed reviews.

 

A member of the committee suggested that work be done to improve awareness of transport options in Herefordshire using technology. It was noted that engagement with the public is being done through technology noting how the LTP consultation was available online.

 

A member of the committee noted that there had been an informative briefing on the LTP held by officers in the past year and noted that this had made the issues very easy to understand. However it was explained that the consultation in its current form, and the accompanying documents were at times complex and technical. It was asked if simplified consultations more accessible for members of the public and alternate formats for different organisations be considered.

 

A member of the committee made a number of comments regarding correspondence which had been received by members concerning the LTP from the Herefordshire Transport Alliance:

-          It was reiterated that given poor broadband provision in areas of Herefordshire the online only nature of the consultation was not inclusive. The cabinet member, infrastructure contended that this had been exaggerated, however there were areas of the authority where access to the internet was an issue.

-          There were concerns over the technical nature of the language used in the LTP. In response it was explained that in matters such as transport, many of the respondents have special interest in the issues raised. As a result, the consultation has been designed to properly accommodate the nature of these responses.

-          Concern was raised over the level of commitment in the LTP to major infrastructure projects which were yet to be fully agreed.

The assistant director, commissioning, explained that much of the LTP consultation had been designed so that all reference documents would be available to members of the public to allow for well-informed responses and so as not to withhold any information.

 

After discussion of a question from a member of the public the committee proposed a recommendation to cabinet that “LTP4 be amended to include the objective “and reduce congestion and increase accessibility by less polluting and healthier forms of transport than the private car.” The recommendation was carried.

 

The cabinet member for infrastructure noted that due to the geography of the authority private car use would remain high. It was contended that significant reductions in emissions would come from technological improvements in vehicles instead of behavioural changes and transport choices in Herefordshire.

A member of the committee queried the strategic environmental assessment in regard to road developments in Leominster. It was asked that a system of rolling reviews be provided in regard to monitoring these developments. The chairman requested that a written response be provided.

 

A member of the committee requested that it be recommended to cabinet that the LTP be periodically reviewed in accordance with Department for Transport guidance.

 

The Cabinet member for infrastructure discussed the need to periodically review the LTP as it was a living document. It was noted that were major projects, such as the creation of a university in Hereford to go ahead there would be a need to review and update the LTP accordingly. It was explained that a five year schedule was recommended by the department for transport and that practically, this allowed for implementation of the LTP on a long term basis.

 

A subsequent recommendation to cabinet was carried that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) be subject to a review every five years in accordance with Department for Transport guidance

 

Resolved that:

 

The following recommendations be put to cabinet regarding the Local Transport Plan:

 

A)     A recommendation be made that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) be subject to a review every five years in accordance with Department for Transport guidance

 

B)      LTP4 Vision to be amended to include the objective “and reduce congestion and increase accessibility by less polluting and healthier forms of transport than the private car.”