Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Economy and Infrastructure, the Transport, Planning and Commissioning Manager and the Transport Strategy Officer were in attendance for the discussion on the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4).

LTP 4 was part of the Council's Policy Framework and as such was required to be considered by Scrutiny and agreed by Council. The Plan was considered by Cabinet on 2 November 2017 and would be considered by Council at its meeting on 9 November 2017.  The Board's views would be considered as part of this discussion.

From December 2016 to March 2017, the draft LTP4 was subject to an extensive public consultation exercise.  As part of the consultation, the draft LTP4 was considered by the Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 20 January 2017 and the comments made by the Panel were fed into the process.

By way of introduction, the CMR advised the Board that he was content with the LTP4, which would run from 2018 to 2031. It was a strategic document which detailed the county's transport aspirations not all of which would necessarily be achievable.

It was felt that it was the right time to review the previous plan LTP3 as technology had moved on, funding streams had changed and to ensure that it was in sync with local plans. LTP4 focused on three main areas: travel technology, capacity enhancements and travel choice.

There had been a good response rate to the Consultation.  Every response had been considered, responded to and the responses were published in the Plan. Where appropriate, the Plan was amended to reflect the comments.

During the discussion, the main aspects of the Plan discussed by the Board were:

·       The District Council Plans and how the County Council would look at the relevant transport modifications after the Plans were agreed albeit there was an acknowledgement that there was significant overlap between the infrastructure and the delivery plans

·       The Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel considered the Plan in January 2017 and the Panel Chairman, reported that questions raised by the Panel relating to cycling had been answered.  However, the challenge for the Council was about delivering the schemes outlined in the Plan, especially for cycling where much of the finance was reliant on external grant bids

·       The role of the A38 across the county as a "relief" road for the M5 had led to inconvenience and distress for many residents when the M5 had been closed or been operating with restrictions for a long time.  Panel members were concerned whether the Plan contained appropriate infrastructure provision in areas such as Bromsgrove to deal more appropriately with traffic from the M5.  It was also suggested that Highways England could be more proactive in the information provided to local residents about planned work and associated closures. Arising from this discussion, the Board asked the Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel to examine the role of, and the County Council's relationship with, Highways England

·       It was noted that the Government had announced funding for roads which were important elements for infrastructure but were not currently identified as strategic. In Worcestershire the A449 and A456 would be examples of these.  The Board asked that members were alerted when the Consultation on this was launched

·       Lack of access to services in rural areas and whether the Plan offered enough support for delivering improvements, especially for projects like cycleways and bus services

·       Whether the Plan acknowledged the impact of pollution on communities and contained enough detail to enable this to be tackled.  It was noted that District Councils were responsible for dealing with air quality.  Arising from this discussion the Board suggested that District Councils should be lobbied where appropriate and necessary to establish low emission zones

·       The effectiveness of the consultation process for the Plan.  The Board heard examples of where changes had been made to the Plan as a result of comments received.  Members considered the process had worked well and commended the officers for answering every point made during the consultation in a transparent way.  As a result of this the Board agreed to undertake a short review of the consultation process used to learn about and share good practice.

The Chairman thanked the CMR and Officers for their attendance at the meeting to outline the process, contents and purpose of the Plan and answer questions.

The Board made the following comments for consideration by Council:

1.         The Board supported LTP4.  In doing so it acknowledged that as a strategic plan it didn't contain detailed work programmes. The Board urged Councillors to use the "hooks" in the Plan to drive and support infrastructure improvements in their divisions.

2.         The Board recommended that the County Council lobbied District Councils where appropriate and if necessary for the establishment of low emission zones.

3.         There should be procedures in place to ensure the opportunity for bus services to be available to connect communities, particularly in rural areas. 

4.         Due to the impact on local communities when the M5 and/or M42 are closed, the provision of suitable bypass infrastructure should be included in the Plan.

5.         The potential future opportunity to use government funds for major, de-trunked roads should be kept under review and all members notified when consultation on the proposals was launched.