Minutes:
The Council considered Local Transport Plan 4. The details were set out in the report.
In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:
· The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure introduced the report. He commented that LTP4 was a statutory document which provided the strategic overview of the Council's vision for transport infrastructure in the county up to 2031. The outcome of the extensive consultation exercise had been included in the report. He apologised for the late availability of the Health Impact Assessment
· It was important that LTP4 was embedded in other strategic documents including the Corporate Plan and the Strategic Economic Plan. LTP3 had successfully provided the basis for the development of a number of important transport schemes. Significant revisions to LTP4 had been made following consultation with partners and the views of Scrutiny had been noted. A thriving local economy was dependent on efficient transport infrastructure and it was hoped that LTP4 would be successful in drawing down vital resources from the Government
· The Chairman of OSPB thanked the Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure, officers, scrutiny members and district and parish councils for their contribution to the scrutiny process. The Board had agreed comments on the draft which included suggested changes be made to LTP4 and Council should consider that request. An amendment was being proposed purely as a procedural means of including the recommendations of the Board in the Plan.
An amendment was moved by Mr C J Bloore and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski that LTP 4 be amended to include the comments from the Board:
· The County Council lobbies District Councils where appropriate and if necessary for the establishment of low emission zones, and
· 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.
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the proposed amendment represented a change to the draft plan and therefore Council, if it so wished, could adopt it as an amendment to the Plan.
Those in favour of the amendment made the following comments:
· When closures occurred on the M5 and M42, motorists should be notified of alternative routes. In the long term it was necessary to provide suitable bypass infrastructure to ease congestion in Bromsgrove
· District councils had an important role in the reduction of air pollution. This Council should consider the introduction of low emission zones for certain areas of the county
· Congestion in certain parts of Worcester was particularly heavy and this had impacted upon the level of air pollution. The local bus company had blatantly responded to the congestion difficulties by producing a contra-flow bus service along Canterbury Road, Worcester. The Council needed to put forward a stronger response to congestion issues
· The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure had stated that 40,000 people a year were dying from the impact of air pollution and yet LTP4 said very little about how low emission zones would be introduced
· External studies had demonstrated that the dualling of the A38 would only be as effective as at its narrowest point and would move congestion from one part on the A38 to another. Bypasses were not part of the Council's transport strategy and therefore the proposed amendment was legitimate
· To vote against this amendment would be ignoring the views of members of Scrutiny. Members who had voted for the changes to LTP4 at OSPB were now being asked to vote against them
· The need for a bypass for Bromsgrove had been recognised for a number of years and Council now had the opportunity to include it in the Plan
· The Chairman of the OSPB indicated that Board members had been given the chance to comment on the submission to Council and no comments had been received suggesting the wording of the OSPB comments was inaccurate. It had been made clear that the purpose of the Board meeting had been to make recommendations to Council and the Board's comments had been circulated accordingly.
Those against the amendment made the following comments:
· There were sufficient hooks within LTP4 for each of the points raised in the OSPB recommendation to be addressed in the future therefore the amendment was unnecessary
· Air quality was a matter for district councils in consultation with the relevant authorities. The County Council would only input when required
· The County Council had a bold and ambitious plan for the A38. LTP3 had successfully drawn down £7.5m of funding from the Government and the Council was working with the Birmingham and Solihull LEP to find additional funding therefore there was no need for specific reference to a bypass in LTP4
· Concerns were expressed as to whether the circulated comments were accurate. The Chairman of the Economy and Environment Panel commented that he believed the OSPB had not agreed to the A38 bypass being specifically included in LTP4. The Board had asked for more help from Highways England to resolve the congestion issues associated with the A38 and he had agreed to meet representatives of Highway England accordingly
· The closure of the M5 and M42 also had an impact on residents living to the south of the county
· The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure suggested that the proposed amendment confused the issues associated with temporary closure of the M5 and M42 and the inadequate and out of date information provided by Highways England with the provision of a permanent solution for the congestion issues by the creation of a bypass for the A38. He refuted the suggestion that he had stated that 40,000 people were dying from air pollution when he had actually stated that the impact of air pollution would result in people on average dying 3 weeks earlier than expected. The Council had not yet received details of requisite house building and funding proposals to support the inclusion of the Bromsgrove Bypass in the Plan.
On a named vote the amendment was lost.
Those voting in favour were:
Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall (14)
Those voting against were:
Mrs A T Hingley, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos, Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr B Clayton, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr C B Taylor, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (37)
Those in favour of the substantive motion made the following comments:
· It was hoped that the South Worcestershire Transport Strategy would include proposals for a replacement bridge at Eckington
· LTP4 was an aspirational document rather than an action plan. It was anticipated that the Plan would evolve over time and therefore it needed to be flexible to be able to adapt to changes in circumstances and address the huge transport challenges facing the county. The Council was investing in highways infrastructure to address this challenge, including investment in other modes of transport
· The Plan would benefit other parts of Worcestershire and therefore it was unjustifiable to reject the Plan on the based on unresolved issues in Bromsgrove
· The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure commented that the Council would be supporting district councils with the production of their local plans (which were different from the strategies listed in Appendix B of LTP4). The Council was already funding projects to tackle congestion and thereby improve air pollution. It was not possible to provide a timescale for the Strategies at this stage. The key driver was the provision of housing at district level. The Council would then respond by providing the appropriate transport infrastructure.
Those against the substantive motion made the following comments:
· Bromsgrove District Council had previously agreed that it had no confidence in LTP4 and had called upon the County Council to reopen the consultation process. The data underlying the Plan was flawed and all the assumptions were wrong. It was said that certain members were voting in contradiction to views expressed at the Bromsgrove District Council
· There were some excellent aspects to the Plan but the views of the public and Bromsgrove District Council had been ignored in relation to the Bromsgrove Bypass. There were no credible plans for addressing traffic congestion issues in Bromsgrove
· It was queried what support would be given to district councils to develop local area-based strategies, whether these strategies would include measures to tackle congestion, reduce air pollution and increase public transport use and details of the timescale for these strategies.
RESOLVED that the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) 2018 – 2031 for Worcestershire be adopted as part of the Council's Policy Framework.