Agenda Item 5

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The in-depth scrutiny review of Road Infrastructure and Housing Growth has taken place and the review group is ready to report.

1.2. The purpose of this report is for the review group to present the findings of the review to the Select Committee for endorsement, prior to the review report being made public and the recommendations being communicated to the relevant decision makers.

2. Contextual Information

2.1. The Environment and Transportation Select Committee identified their chosen topic for an in-depth scrutiny review in 2008, and tasked a review group to be set up to undertake the work.

2.2. The review group began work in November 2008 with the intention of reporting back to the Select Committee in July 2009. The purpose of the review was to make transparent the ways in which road infrastructure needs and development proposals are predicted and planned for, and whether this could be improved.

2.3. The key questions the review group considered were:

· In the light of population growth, how are Hampshire County Council and key partners assessing the needs for, and building development proposals for, road infrastructure across the country ?

· Could the current process be improved by means of a mechanism to prioritise schemes in the developmental phase, ensuring that the wider network can cope, and, if so, what would such a mechanism be like ?

· What role do County Councillors, acting for the Highways and Transport Authority, play in contributing to and influencing road infrastructure developments, and how might this evolve ?

3. Conclusions

3.1. The full review report describes the work undertaken through the scrutiny review of Road Infrastructure and Housing Growth; it contains the conclusions and recommendations arrived at by the review group members, based on the wide ranging evidence they considered.

3.2. The intention is that, following endorsement by the Select Committee, the recommendations be communicated to the relevant decision makers, requesting their responses within the customary timescale. The review group members have offered to consider those responses with a view to making suggestions about which elements the Select Committee might choose to follow up through the Select Committee Work Programme.

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

1. Equalities Impact Assessment:

1.1. The scrutiny review report will not compromise the County Council's policy on race and equality.

2. Impact on Crime and Disorder:

2.1. None

3. Climate Change:

3.1. How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint / energy consumption?

N/A

a) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

N/A

Hampshire County Council

Environment and Transportation Select Committee

20.5.09

Report of the Road Infrastructure and Housing Growth scrutiny review

May 2009

Table of Contents

Section Page

Foreword 4

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 9

Terms of Reference 9

Review Organisation 9

Background:

- National context 10

- Regional context 14

- Hampshire context 15

Findings of the Review:

- Road infrastructure needs assessment and building of

development proposals 17

- Improving prioritisation 23

- The role of County Councillors and how this might

evolve 26

Conclusions 33

Recommendations 35

Appendices:

Appendix One: Those contributing to the review

Appendix Two: Programme for the oral evidence meeting in public

Appendix Three: Background documents

Appendix Four: County Councillor questionnaire

Further information regarding this report can be obtained from:

Review Officers: Philippa Smart and Marie Mannveille

Tel. 01962 847336/845018

e-mail: philippa.smart@hants.gov.uk

marie.mannveille@hants.gov.uk

Reports that have been submitted to Council can be downloaded from: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-committees.htm

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING GROWTH SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

May 2009

Foreword

By Councillor Sharyn Wheale, Chairman of the scrutiny review group

The importance of roads in Hampshire has long been recognised, by elected Members and the public alike. Our shared interest is in ensuring that the right infrastructure is in place for the movement of people, goods and services across the county. In addition, because of the location in Hampshire of air and sea gateways providing strategic points of entry through to the rest of the country, the county's roads assume a greater importance for the part they play in supporting their share of that onward movement.

To this end, Hampshire County Council has worked with partner agencies and the public over the years to respond to the road related priorities identified in the Local Transport Plan 2006 - 2011, as well as those that support the development of the Hampshire economy. Through the current Local Area Agreement, key transport indicators are being worked to by partners, aiming to improve congestion and to give road maintenance a high priority.

However, the strength of feeling for further consideration of roads, particularly in relation to the planned increase in housing, as outlined in the South East Plan, has persisted. Accordingly, Hampshire County Council's Environment and Transportation Select Committee welcomed the opportunity to include this topic in its work programme for 2008/09. I am most grateful for the interest and commitment of the review group members, and for the support to the review from the Scrutiny Officers.

I hope that the review group deliberations will be accepted as a contribution to identifying the right steps for the future.

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING GROWTH SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

Executive Summary

Background

1.1 This scrutiny review, which was set up as part of the Environment and

Transportation Select Committee work programme, ran from November 2008 to May 2009.

1.2 The scrutiny was carried out against a background of economic recession. The national economy was affected by the twin pressures of a credit crunch, restricting the supply of finance, and a squeeze on disposable incomes, resulting from high and growing energy and food prices. Keynesian solutions were being pursued by the government, involving a cash injection into the economy, higher short term public spending, but with the anticipation of significant public sector spending cut backs for the future

1.3 The purpose of the review was to make transparent the ways in which road infrastructure needs and development proposals are predicted and planned for, and whether this could be improved.

1.4 The review group set its objectives through posing three questions:

· In the light of population growth, how are Hampshire County Council and key partners assessing the needs for, and building development proposals for, road infrastructure across the county ?

· Could the current process be improved by the means of a mechanism to prioritise schemes in the developmental phase, ensuring that the wider network can cope, and, if so, what would such a mechanism be like ?

· What role do County Councillors, acting for the Highways and Transport Authority, play in contributing to and influencing road infrastructure developments, and how might this evolve ?

Conclusions

1.5 With regard to how the needs and developments for road infrastructure are predicted and planned for:

1.5.1 The changes in the planning legislation that replaced the County Structure

Plan with the South East Plan and Local Development Frameworks meant that while the role of the county, as the Highway Authority, continued in place, the relationship of the Authority to partners changed. A new pattern of relationships is emerging, but more from pragmatic necessity than through a planned approach. The review group believes that this is an opportunity for the County Council to strengthen its county-wide role in relationship to transport assessments, particularly in respect of road infrastructure requirements

1.5.2 The county needs to continue to work at being ahead of the game if it wants to be successful in accessing the different funding streams for road related schemes identified through the planning process. A review of the resourcing of this process is called for.

1.6 With regard to whether the current process for assessing needs and building development proposals could be improved, the following conclusions have been arrived at:

1.6.1 The changes to the way major road related schemes used to be prioritised, and the new way of tailoring scheme development to priorities associated with funding sources, have been considerable. The new arrangements require elected Members, officers, and other partner organisations to be more versatile in anticipating and seizing opportunities where they arise. Although there is less control over what is prioritised county-wide, there is transparency about what could be prioritised by others, whether by region or from other funding streams, built into the shaping of bids.

1.6.2 The review group supports the trend to broader sub-regional approaches to prioritising transport, and hence road related developments; this makes sense as well in relation to housing and business growth. However, the leadership role played by the county as a highways authority needs to be supported by a commitment to resourcing by other partners as well.

1.6.3 Although prioritisation is less in the gift of the county than in the past, there is a continuing need to ensure that the formulation of particular proposals and bids are undertaken with priority road user groups, in particular the emergency services.

1.7 With regard to how the County Councillor role might evolve, the following conclusions have been arrived at:

· All elected Members would benefit from briefings to update their knowledge of the current transport policy and funding context.

· Members wish to be kept informed by the Highways Agency of plans in their area regarding the strategic road network.

· Links for non-executive members to partnership bodies like Transport

for South Hampshire could be improved.

· Members wish to be consulted more regarding schemes affecting their local area.

· All elected Members would like to have the opportunity to provide input at the stage of developing bids for funding

1.7.1 Members have a dual role of input to areas such as road infrastructure planning; in relation to their local area representational role, and their role representing the County as a whole bearing in mind sub-regional issues. Ideally members involvement in road infrastructure would contribute:

"...an understanding of the county wide context whilst allowing for the development of a greater understanding of the needs and priorities of local communities" (Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council)

1.8 Taking the above conclusions together, the review group members have arrived at the following recommendations:

Recommendations

A That Hampshire County Council, district and borough councils, and the Highways Agency establish a Transport Group to act as a county-wide forum for transport policy and planning issues, and to provide co-ordination to locally initiated transport assessments

B In order to be proactive in meeting the county's needs, that Hampshire County Council reviews the adequacy of officer time and flexibility given to the drafting of potential bids in readiness for submission to external funding sources

C That Hampshire County Council considers sharing and developing its transport planning and modelling expertise with relevant partners, including looking to increase investment in transport modelling through exploring cost sharing

D That Hampshire County Council reviews its approach to securing section 106 developer financial contributions to ensure that the benefit to the community is maximised, to improve transparency, and to improve monitoring of the impact of payments

E That Hampshire County Council considers, with partners, how to resource additional sub-regional approaches to transport planning, including roads, with a view to developing organisational structures that can make the most of funding opportunities

F That Hampshire County Council and district/borough councils review their relationship with the emergency services as high priority road users to be consulted at key stages of planning and scheme development work

G That the Environment Department undertakes:-

a) further consideration of how to keep the wider membership abreast of road related developments, changes to funding arrangements, transport policy developments and related issues, and to consider the member briefing day programme as a potential mechanism for doing so.

b) a planned approach to Member engagement in the development of the new Local Transport Plan

H That the Executive Member for Environment works with the Chairman of the Environment & Transportation Select Committee to seek more proactive Hampshire County Council engagement with the Highways Agency through Overview and Scrutiny e.g. the Highways Agency to attend the Environment & Transportation Select Committee annually.

I That the Highways Agency works on more frequent sharing of information with local Members about their schemes in Hampshire, with consideration of using existing groups, such as the Hampshire Action Teams, and local transport forums, to achieve this.

J That Hampshire County Council considers a review of arrangements for Member engagement in Transport for South Hampshire, and connections between the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire scrutiny committee and the Hampshire County Council Environment &Transportation Select Committee.

K That the Environment Department works on more consistent communication between HCC local highway managers and local County Council Members regarding schemes in their areas.

L That the Environment Department considers better ways to ensure County Councillors are made aware of officer communications with local District Councillors about matters in their area

M That the Environment Department seeks to ensure that earlier, and consistent knowledge of future transport/highways related decisions to be taken by the Executive Member be communicated to relevant local members.

N That the Environment Department develops improved Member involvement in relation to larger schemes e.g. SDA developments and Eco Towns, that fall into or affect their area.

O That the Environment Department considers facilitating greater Member involvement in developing the policy background for external funding bids, focusing on the political rather than the technical aspects e.g. whether to submit a bid, how to reflect the needs of the whole county in bids etc

P That the Environment Department undertakes consideration of how Members might be involved in future Department for Transport consultations on possible schemes on the national and international networks

1. Introduction

1. 1 At the July 2008 meeting of the Environment and Transportation Select

Committee, road infrastructure and housing growth was adopted as a

subject for scrutiny review.

1.2 The choice of the review topic was influenced by the government's proposed changes to the draft South East Plan announced in 2008, relating to increases in the house-building figures, and a removal of the conditionality of development on the provision of infrastructure.

2. Terms of Reference

2.1 Purpose:

To consider how the needs, development costs, phasing and procurement of road infrastructure requirements to support housing growth up to 2026 are predicted and planned for in Hampshire.

2.2 The review group set its objectives through posing three questions:

· In the light of population growth, how are Hampshire County Council and key partners assessing the needs for, and building development proposals for, road infrastructure across the county ?

· Could the current process be improved by the means of a mechanism to prioritise schemes in the developmental phase, ensuring that the wider network can cope, and, if so, what would such a mechanism be like ?

· What role do County Councillors, acting for the Highways and Transport Authority, play in contributing to and influencing road infrastructure developments, and how might this evolve ?

3. Review Organisation

3.1 Cllr Sharyn Wheale agreed to lead the scrutiny review group. The full

membership was:

· Anne Edwards (Bedhampton and Leigh Park)

· Geoff Hockley (Fareham Titchfield)

· Keith House (Hamble)

· Sam Payne (Petersfield Butser)

· Prof. John Preston (Expert member, University of Southampton)

· Marilyn Tucker, (Tadley and Baughurst)

· Sharyn Wheale, Chairman, (Fleet)

3.2 The review group held its first meeting on the 18 November 2008, where it agreed the project plan for the review, received initial background information and began work on identifying key stakeholders.

3.3 The evidence was received in a select committee style review, which included evidence gathering through:

· invitations to stakeholders to contribute written views

· a day long meeting in public in Winchester to receive oral evidence from invited witnesses

· questionnaire survey and focus group for County Councillors

A full list of those who have contributed to this process is shown in Appendix One. The programme for the oral evidence meeting in public is attached as Appendix Two. The format for the questionnaire circulated to county councillors is attached as Appendix Four.

In addition, the chairman of the review and supporting officers observed a meeting of the Hampshire Action Team in Basingstoke & Deane where Highways Agency officers spoke on matters of local interest.

Information about the review, including evidence received, was made available to the public on the Hampshire County Council review webpage -

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-committees/environment-transportation/etroadinfrastructure.htm

3.4 Unless stated otherwise, references to Hampshire in this document refer to the administrative area of Hampshire County Council.

4. Background

4.1 National context

Economy

4.1.1 The review took place within the context of an economic recession. The national economy was affected by the twin pressures of a credit crunch, restricting the supply of finance, and a squeeze on disposable incomes, resulting from high and growing energy and food prices. Keynesian solutions were being pursued by the government, involving a cash injection into the economy, higher short term public spending, but with the anticipation of significant public sector spending cut backs for the future.

Transport

4.1.2 National transport policy, including roads, has been set out in the Department for Transport document 'Delivering a Sustainable Transport System' published in 2008. The document lists five goals for transport policy:

· tackling climate change

· supporting economic growth

· promoting equality of opportunity

· contributing to better safety, security and health

· improving quality of life

4.1.3 To back this policy, and to respond to the government view that decades of under-investment have diminished the quality of the country's transport infrastructure¹, there is 2.25% per annum transport spending growth in real terms through to 2018-19. For example, over the six years to 2014, the government plan to invest up to £6 billion in major improvements to the strategic roads network: motorways and trunk roads.

4.1.4 With regard to roads, the current ideology is summarised as `focusing less on tarmac and more on the capacity and ability of existing networks to handle people and goods'. <sup>2</sup> This is in contrast to policy in the 1990s when the white paper, `Roads to Prosperity' promised 500 road schemes in response to a demand-growth forecast of 142% by 2025.

4.1.5 While it is recognised that further expansion of the road network will be necessary in some places, this sits alongside a greater emphasis on practical ways of getting the most out of existing road capacity, as recommended by Eddington.³ There is also the need to balance the competing rights of non-car users to enjoy a safe and clean environment against the delivery of a good service for road users.

4.1.6 With more than 80% of all delay caused by congestion occurring in cities, and traffic levels growing fastest on motorways, these have become the two most urgent national priorities. These priorities sit comfortably with the economic priorities for long term transport policy, as recommended by Eddington, of growing and congested urban areas and their catchments, key inter-urban corridors, and key international gateways.

4.1.7 Table 1 shows changes in passenger travel modes between 1952 and 2007. The dramatic growth in the car's market share (measured in passenger-kilometres) has impacted greatly on the demands made on roads during that period.

4.1.8 However, since the 1990s there have been some positive changes in transport trends:

- transport demand is still growing, but the rate of growth has decelerated relative to growth in GDP

- rail travel, including rail freight, has grown faster than road travel (kms)

- a recognition that the basic connectivity of our transport network is good

- a recognition that while congestion does exist, we cannot just build ourselves out of it

There have also been many less encouraging trends:

- Road traffic has increased

- declining bus patronage - outside London (although the concessionary travel scheme for the elderly and disabled has resulted in increases amongst those market segments)

- Cycled kms have declined

- Road freight has increased

- Average car occupancy has decreased

- Average traffic speeds have decreased (due to congestion)

- Car ownership has increased

- Vehicle kms travelled by car has continued to increase

4.1.9 The chart below shows the trends in traffic since 1980 and the forecasts for 2008-2025. Although traffic levels are forecast to decline slightly up to 2010, as a result of the recession, strong growth is then expected to resume.

Note 1980 = 100. Source: Historic traffic data is from DfT (2008); forecasts from National Transport Model

Source: Road Transport Forecasts for England 2008. Dept. for Transport

Traffic has been growing year on year, with the exception of the early 1990s recession and the current recession⁵. The long-run traffic forecasts are for this growth to continue, but at a rate more comparable to that of the 1990s rather than the faster rate prior to that.

Total traffic is forecast to grow by 32% by 2025, compared to 2003; car traffic growth follows the total traffic trend, largely because it accounted for 80% of total traffic in 2003 and is forecast to broadly maintain its share over the next twenty or so years (up 30%). Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) are forecast to increase most rapidly (up 63%), and the Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) increase (14%) is less than that of cars.

Key drivers of traffic growth identified by the Department for Transport are changes in income, employment, population and falling running or travel costs, as a result of fuel economy improvements:

- rising incomes are associated closely with increasing car ownership, and

explain over 60% of the forecast growth in traffic

- employed people tend to make more trips and travel further; in a thriving

economy, people travel more and businesses move more goods

- population is assumed to rise by 8% between 2003 and 2025; offsetting this

growth is the increasing proportion of over 65 year olds, who make fewer

and shorter distance trips

- falling fuel costs per kilometre account for around 15% of forecast traffic

growth

4.1.10 An indication of the extent of the recession is that new car sales in the UK fell by almost 29% in the first four months of 2009 compared to 2008, whilst UK car production was down by 56% over the same period. In May 2009 the Government introduced a vehicle scrappage scheme in which those trading in vehicles that were 10 years or older would get a discount on new cars of £2,000. A similar scheme in Germany led to a 40% increase in sales, which would return sales levels back to those of a year ago. However, the UK scheme is limited to one year and only has funds of £600M associated with it, whereas the German scheme is backed by funding of over £4,400M. However, interventions of this type may mean the impacts of the recession on traffic are indeed temporary.

Housing

4.1.11 National housing policy is predicated on everyone having the opportunity of a decent home at a price they can afford, in sustainable communities where they want to live and work.

4.1.12 The government plans an increase of 3 million new houses by 2020. High demand for housing, lack of supply, and consequent problems of affordability have become an issues for many parts of the country. The aim of national housing policy is to achieve a better balance between housing supply and demand through increasing the supply - both market and affordable - through a series of programmes to address market failure, such as eco towns, growth points and growth areas.

4.2 Regional context

4.2.1 The South East Plan, not yet finalised at the time of this report being produced, will provide a strategic development framework for the south east region for the period 2006 to 2026, setting out the direction the region needs to take, and the scale of changes required to sustain a high quality of life across the region.

4.2.2 The summer of 2008 witnessed a sharp slowdown in business activity in the

South East; unemployment was rising.

`Increasingly, the evidence shows that the downturn affecting the UK and South East economies could be more pronounced and longer lasting than anticipated'.

SEEDA. The Regional Economic Strategy 2006-2016. Annual Monitoring Report October 2008

4.2.3 The Regional Economic Strategy (RES), covering the period 2006-2012,

identifies three main objectives critical to the economic prosperity of the south

east:

· Global competitiveness

· Smart growth

· Sustainable prosperity

4.2.4 In trying to deal with the problems of transport infrastructure, the RES

identifies a series of regional hubs where improved integration of the transport infrastructure and services can support urban regeneration and higher economic activity. A similar strategy is proposed at the Hampshire level with a second tier of sub-regional hubs performing a similar function on a smaller and more localised scale.

4.2.5 The hubs, and the spokes connecting them, form the focal point for transport

investment within the sub region. Amongst the key transport hubs that are also economic `gateways' are Southampton Port and International Airport, Farnborough Business Airport, and Portsmouth Continental Port.

The provision is for infrastructure funds that are managed at a sub regional

level, sensitive to locally determined priorities.

4.2.6 The government's housing requirement and distribution for Hampshire in the Plan was made known in July 2008, revising figures proposed in July 2007 by the panel of planning inspectors who conducted the Examination in Public of the original draft Plan, submitted to government by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in 2006. (see section 4.3.15 below)

4.3 Hampshire context

Economy

4.3.1 Hampshire county is generally seen to be relatively prosperous. However, its recent performance has been noted as lagging behind others in the south east region, with south Hampshire in particular identified as under-performing.

4.3.2 The leaders of the eleven district and borough councils in Hampshire set themselves an aspirational growth rate of 3.5% by 2026, conditional on investment in transport, skills and water.

4.3.3 The economic geography of the county is characterised by two growth areas - Basingstoke, and the Partnership for South Hampshire (PUSH) area; these areas are seen as having the elements for growth in place, but also needing reinforcing by selective infrastructure investment as a stimulus to further growth.

4.3.4 Clearly, the current economic recession is having an impact on achieving the rate of growth identified, although it has been reported that Hampshire is faring better than other parts of the South East. For example, a key target in the Hampshire Community Strategy relating to employment skills and business support had been frozen at the time of writing this report.

Transport

4.3.5 Hampshire County Council as Highways Authority, outlined its strategy for managing, developing and investing in roads in its Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (LTP). The vision of the plan is to `enhance quality of life and economic prosperity by connecting people, communities, employment, goods, services and amenities'.

4.3.6 This overarching transport strategy is based on a concept of `reduce, manage and invest'. This principal underpins strategies for tackling existing and future transport challenges in the county. It should be noted that this is not a sequential approach, with investment often being required to develop `reduce' and `manage' strategies.

4.3.7 Separate strategies have been produced within the LTP for 4 geographical areas in Hampshire, recognising their different transport needs and problems, they are: Solent, New Forest, Central Hampshire and North Hampshire. The LTP is based on `a thorough and ongoing analysis of local transport problems and opportunities that affect Hampshire'. The LTP balances the need to travel versus protecting the environment and aims to `preserve the character of Hampshire while allowing the county to grow and develop economically'.

4.3.8 Hampshire covers over 3,680 square km, over 500,000 households and a road network of over 9,500km.

4.3.9 Within the LTP, the strategic road network in Hampshire is described as the National Primary Route Network (which comprises trunk roads administered by the Department for Transport and other National Primary Routes administered by the County Council) and other strategic roads considered of `more than local importance'(administered by the County Council).⁶

4.3.10 It is indicated in the LTP that the County Council will be reviewing what is considered the Hampshire `strategic road network'. This review will be used to assist in the identification and prioritisation of road improvements. It is noted that there is a `need for the County Council to review its strategic road network to provide clear policy guidance to aid long term investment and spatial strategy planning'.

4.3.11 Key issues for Hampshire's Strategic Road Network identified in 2006 when the LTP was written included:

-Forecast traffic growth resulting from planned development e.g. South East

Plan

-Increasing congestion on the road network e.g. A3 Hindhead, M3, M27

-Impact of tourist traffic e.g. Winchester, Lyndhurst

-Problems at A33/A339 junction near Basingstoke

Looking to 2026 it is noted:

`Hampshire's [existing] road and public transport networks will not be adequate to meet the growing needs of residents and visitors.'. Indeed, `congestion ....is predicted to grow to severe levels on nearly all Hampshire's major roads by 2026'. LTP chp.4, para.4.3

It is stressed that:

`the long term strategy is not based on the premise of simply building more road capacity to absorb the increase in travel demand. This approach has been shown to be unsustainable and to generate additional traffic. Some new roads will certainly be needed, particularly to access new developments and to enable strategic traffic to bypass sensitive communities. It is also important to better manage existing roads and to make journeys more reliable. This could require investment in junction improvements. LTP chp.4, para. 4.26

Two important elements identified are to provide better alternatives (improved public transport) and reduce the need to travel and length of journeys (through smarter working, better information, more sustainable land use).

4.3.12 The Highways Agency is responsible for the operation and stewardship of the strategic road network in Hampshire. These roads include the M27 and M3 Motorways, as well as the A3, A3M, parts of the A27, A31, A34, A36 and A303 trunk roads.

4.3.13 The primary functions of the Highways Agency are to manage traffic, tackle congestion, provide information to road users and improve safety and journey time reliability, whilst respecting and minimising the adverse impact on the environment.

4.3.14 To plan for the future maintenance, operation and improvement of the network, the Agency liaises with Government Offices for the Regions, regional development agencies, local authorities and the public in the decision making process.

Housing

4.3.15 The government's housing requirement and distribution for Hampshire, as outlined in the draft South East Plan, are as follows:

Proposed minimum net additional dwelling requirements in Hampshire: 2006 - 2026

NB. The South East Plan was finalised while this report was being drafted. The review group is aware that figures for Winchester were reduced.

4.3.16 Naturally, districts vary in household projections; while all of Hampshire's districts will witness an increase in the number of households in the future, Basingstoke and Deane will experience the highest increase.

4.3.17 Predictions through to 2026 show that single person households will continue to increase, reaching 36% in 2026 compared to 20% in 1981. The proportion of married and cohabiting couples will continue to decline, although not as dramatically as in the years between 1981 and 2001.

5. Findings of the Review Group

5.1 Road infrastructure needs assessment and building of development proposals.

5.1.1 The review posed the question of : `In the light of population growth, how is Hampshire County Council and key partners assessing the needs for, and building development proposals for, road infrastructure across the county ?'

5.1.2 Written and oral evidence received provided information to the review about needs assessment and proposals development from a variety of stakeholders, including local authorities, other statutory agencies, and the business sector. Salient aspects identified by the review group from background research as well as from evidence received are:

5.1.3 There is a concern that there is a road infrastructure deficit in the county, even before any additional planned housing growth takes place. Because of its location, Hampshire plays an important role in national travel movements. This includes long-distance movements from the ports and airports, as well as journeys between the South West and South East regions.

The Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2006 - 2011 refers to growing levels of congestion on both the strategic and local road and rail networks. While the traffic growth was higher on the motorways and trunk roads than on local roads, growth on local roads had averaged just over 1% in the five years preceding the start of the plan.

` The motorways and trunk roads have generally had more spare capacity than the local road network and have accommodated a greater share of traffic growth. This increased growth, mostly comprised of people making relatively short journeys, is a principal cause of congestion now starting to affect motorways in Hampshire but more particularly on the access roads and junctions serving them.' Hampshire Local transport Plan 2006 - 2011. para 3.55

This concern about the ability of roads to cope with current traffic was reflected in written evidence received from a number of stakeholders:

` It is clear from the evidence that the New Forest National Park is already experiencing significant problems of capacity and congestion on the road network with current levels of housing density and road infrastructure.'. The New Forest National Park

` Even without planned growth and new development, investment is required

to provide more capacity on both strategic and urban road networks'. Hampshire County Council

Hampshire County Council's analysis of current congestion hotspots identifies the section of the M27 between junctions 7 and 5, and 8 to 12 as experiencing the worst delay in the morning peak period, and junctions on the M27 and the M3 for the evening peak period.

The most congested non motorway routes in the county are on the Gosport peninsula.

5.1.4 There are factors other than housing growth, in particular business growth and planned increases for development land, that are impacting on road infrastructure requirements now, and will continue to do so in future.

To manage transport problems in Hampshire, the county policy is one of: reduce - manage - and invest. Wherever possible, problems should be tackled or reduced, for example, cutting back on the need for unnecessary journeys. Transport should also be managed to make best use of what is currently in place and available. Investment is a means to creating additional travel capacity, but unlikely to be a first resort.

In addition to the reduce - manage - invest philosophy, there is recognition in the LTP that transport problems can often be tackled by non transport means.

`For example, congestion can be reduced by land use policies that reduce the need to travel long distances to find work. Accessibility can be improved by providing services and facilities locally'. Hampshire LTP. Para 2.57

The planned increases for employment land contained in the South East Plan mean that the growth that is expected will make demands on the road and transport networks over and above that generated by population increase alone.

Business approaches to `reducing and managing' can include an increasing use and reliance on Information Technology, remote and temporary working centres, concentrating work bases in strategic locations, and flexible work patterns.

The review group received evidence from the Economic Development Office (EDO) of the County Council which works to support Hampshire's economic competitiveness and prosperity:

`The health of the county's economy and the aspirations for the growth of the sub-regional economy in South Hampshire and Basingstoke as a `Diamond for Growth' will inevitably depend on the ability of its road infrastructure to meet the business needs of the area's firms and of those companies wishing to expand or relocate'. EDO.

5.1.5 Consideration of roads is undertaken in the wider context of consideration of transport needs in the county; such an integrated transport approach, it is argued, is essential given the inter-relationship between the different modes of transport, and the goal of improving quality of life in Hampshire through connecting people, communities, employment, goods, services and amenities, as outlined in the Local Transport Plan.

The review heard from a number of district and borough councils about their approach to drawing up a transport assessment for their areas, within the context of their Local Development Frameworks (LDF). Such assessments seek to understand the impacts of developments on the highway network, identify interventions needed to manage those impacts, and ultimately to list infrastructure improvements and associated costs. At the time of the review, local authorities in Hampshire were at different stages of development with their assessments.

In South Hampshire local highway authorities were working in conjunction with each other within the Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) partnership, together with transport providers and other key agencies, to arrive at a common transport strategy.

An issue raised by more than one local authority was the respective roles of a highway authority and a district council under the current planning system. As local planning authority, the district holds the responsibility to plan for the area through the LDF. Part of the test of an LDF's soundness concerns its attention to transport, and yet the responsibility for highways rests with the county and unitary authorities, as well as the Highways Agency. Although partnership working across the two tiers of local authorities was referred to, at the same time, concerns were expressed by district and borough councils that an undue burden was falling on them in terms of time and money spent on multiple, and potentially overlapping, assessment studies.

`There is, therefore, a real danger that much of the considerable effort and cost being expended on these studies will be wasted......the highways authorities need to accept their responsibilities in this area and provide the strategic direction which is needed'. Winchester City Council

Evidence received from Leicestershire County Council described the role of a

county-wide Transport Group, led by the county council transport planning managers, that co-ordinates the efforts of the different local districts in assessing transport need. The aim, through the group, is to arrive at as consistent a picture as possible across the county, and to ensure that respective evidence bases are comparable.

5.1.6 The impression gained by the review group members is that the current approach to assessment and development across the county is a patchwork of initiatives, ranging from strategic Highway Authority and Highways Agency activity, the sub-regional co-ordinated approach as in South Hampshire, and more localised initiatives around Strategic Development Areas such as Fareham and Hedge End, and the proposed eco town at Whitehill/Bordon.

This patchwork reflects the complexity of the county, of the shared and sometimes overlapping responsibilities of key agencies in respect of transport, housing and economic development.

5.1.7 The sources of funding for major road schemes are complex, and heavily influence which proposals are developed. The review group became aware of the variety of funding streams, such as the Community Infrastructure Fund and the New Growth Point funding, each with their own eligibility criteria. Competition is intrinsic to this scenario, and submission deadlines for bids vary and can often be tight.

The Regional Funding Allocation, which is available for schemes promoted by Highways Authorities and the Highways Agency, is also available on a competitive basis; while there have been successful bids for Hampshire, such as that for enabling strategic development in Portsmouth and South East Hampshire in the 2006 round, there has been considerable work on other schemes that has not resulted in any gain. However, in March 2009 £20M funding was secured from the Community Infrastructure Fund to develop the first phase of the Gosport Bus Rapid Transit Scheme, with a target completion date of March 2011.

Evidence from Hampshire County Council and Transport for South Hampshire indicated that the combined budgets of these funding streams do not add up to the cost of the schemes as set out in the `Towards Delivery. Transport for South Hampshire Statement' (2008), where a figure of £2.65 billion worth of investment was given to deliver new transport infrastructure.

In addition, the Highways Agency obtains some funding for work on strategic schemes on Strategic National Corridors directly from the Department for Transport. For example, over the next ten to fifteen years there may be funding for hard shoulder running on the M3 (Junctions 9 to 14) and the M27 (Junctions 4 to 11). ⁷

The work that is required to put together the evidence base to support a bid to one of the funding streams is considerable. The impression the review have arrived at from the evidence provided, both internal and external to Hampshire, is that resourcing this particular activity has had to become a higher priority than it used to be.

5.1.8 The importance of sound evidence bases was emphasised by more than one contributor, together with the possibility of shared costs across the range of stakeholders.

The review heard how Leicestershire County Council had set up a transport modelling project board two to three years ago, including District Council representatives, and an investment of approximately £6-7m. This had produced assessments in each housing and employment growth area of the impact of that growth on transport. These county transport models have been made available to Districts and to developers, for a small fee.

Developers contributing to the oral evidence session advised the review group members not to underestimate what developers can provide, by way of contributions. This extends to a willingness to contribute to traffic modelling.

5.1.9 The Highways Agency was described as taking a robust line in protecting its road network. The absence of direct written or verbal evidence to the review by the Highways Agency itself did not allow this view to be directly tested (see para. 5.3.8).

Observation of a Hampshire Action Team meeting at which Highways Agency staff were the invited speakers, together with background research, allowed the review to understand that the Agency works to deliver its part of national transport policy, and seeks to work in partnership with planning and highways authorities in Hampshire, and economic and transport partnerships such as Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) and Transport for South Hampshire.

5.1.10 The current economic climate is impacting on housing and business growth. The review heard concerns from Basingstoke and Deane Hampshire Action Team about securing adequate developer contributions in the near future. This concern was echoed by other sources.

`In recent years significant developer contributions towards highway infrastructure improvements and maintenance have been made as well as other planning gain e.g. affordable housing. The onset of the economic downturn and its impact on the development industry will undoubtedly affect the future stream of contributions.' HCC Economic Development Office.

With the current financial crisis we are seeing a clear lack of funding via s.106 and other sources of developer funding leading to a slowdown and cancellation of local authority funded developments in deprived areas and lack of funding for the up-skilling of the workforce to address the question of low level qualifications.' Hampshire Economic Partnership

Comments

a) The changes in the planning legislation that replaced the County Structure

Plan with the South East Plan and Local Development Frameworks meant that while the role of the county, as the Highway Authority, continued in place, the relationship of the Authority to partners changed. A new pattern of relationships is emerging, but more from pragmatic necessity than through a planned approach. The review group would like to see the county looking to strengthen its county-wide role in relationship to transport assessments, particularly in respect of road infrastructure requirements

b) The county needs to continue to work at being ahead of the game if it wants to be successful in accessing the different funding streams for road related schemes identified through the planning process. A review of the resourcing to this process is called for.

Recommended actions:

That Hampshire County Council, district and borough councils, and the Highways Agency establish a Transport Group to act as a county-wide forum for transport policy and planning issues, and to provide co-ordination to locally initiated transport assessments

In order to be proactive in meeting the county's needs, that Hampshire County Council reviews the adequacy of officer time and flexibility given to the drafting of potential bids in readiness for submission to external funding sources

That Hampshire County Council considers sharing and developing its transport planning and modelling expertise with relevant partners, including looking to increase investment in transport modelling through exploring cost sharing

That Hampshire County Council reviews its approach to securing section 106 developer financial contributions to ensure that the benefit to the community is maximised, to improve transparency, and to improve monitoring of the impact of payments

5.2 Improving prioritisation

5.2.1 The question considered by the review group was, with regard to how needs are assessed and development proposals built, `Could the current process be improved by means of a mechanism to prioritise schemes in the development phase, ensuring the wider network can cope, and, if so, what would such a mechanism be like?'

5.2.2 From written and oral evidence, and background research, it is apparent that prioritisation exists at a number of different levels and in different contexts:

a) In order to access regional funding, a clear prioritisation process and associated criteria exist, and bids need to be shaped up with reference to these:

o Value for money

o Deliverability

o Policy compatibility

b) To access any of the other national funding streams, bids need to be

shaped to meet the priorities inherent to those streams. For example, the joint Department for Transport/Communities and Local Government Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) prioritises transport schemes that link the provision of transport infrastructure to the delivery of housing in designated Growth Areas and Growth Points.

When assessing bids for the CIF, a key priority is the extent to which a scheme directly supports a strategic fit with housing and the wider social and economic benefits:

o new, including affordable, homes, that are fully dependent on the scheme

o commercial development that is dependent on the scheme

o wider economic benefits that are drawn to the locality as a result of development

c) Within one district, there is work between county and borough on compiling a master list of transport infrastructure schemes, and deriving a method to relate schemes and developer contributions.

`This process is currently progressing and it is considered that such a system will provide significant improvements in expediting the funding and implementation of transport schemes. It is therefore important for County and Borough Council officers and members to be able to support this master list and allow the more efficient allocation of contributions, scheme preparation, prioritisation and implementation, recognising local needs and priorities'. Eastleigh Borough Council

d) To support the link between housing and population growth and the location of sites and development land, a Large Site Assessment Study of employment land in Hampshire has helped to rank the development potential of each site from the point of view of its market attractiveness and site quality. This work was carried out by the public and private sectors working together in the Hampshire Economic Partnership in 2006.

5.2.3 At the same time, the review received clear messages of concern about aspects of prioritisation:

`Our concern is to the lack of any criteria to prioritise one scheme over another, or developments in one area of the county over another. Our further concern is that with the Whitehill Bordon Opportunity example, there is little flexibility to bring forward important schemes that are generated outside the scope of a long term strategic context'. East Hampshire District Council

`Where there is concern is the cumulative effect of growth from other areas (and the effect of our growth in other areas)....it would seem that a more strategic model could be developed that would also provide a more robust response to the Highways Agency on the impact of growth on the motorway and trunk road network'. Rushmoor Borough Council

Oral evidence from the ambulance service, suggested that there were not strong links between the highways authority and this emergency service as a consultee in planning for roads.

Although the review had invited evidence in relation to large scale road infrastructure, some responses focused on smaller scale developments, seeing scope for improvements in linking local needs assessment, such as that outlined by Bransgore Parish Council in their Community Plan, and the prioritisation of such schemes at the next level. Another suggestion by Hart District Council was for a single district version of a Hampshire Action Team to be arranged, to consider local priorities.

5.2.4 Suggestions were made about principles that should underpin an improved approach to prioritisation. These included such ideas:

- as the `betterment of the community' (Botley Parish Council)

- the avoidance of negative impacts on the environment (New Forest National Park)

- targeting investment to where delivery of developments is likely to be most significantly inhibited by lack of investment and focus (Basingstoke Borough Council)

- a more robust response to the Highways Agency (Rushmoor Borough Council)

- an integrated transport approach to support best use of all types of transport modes including roads (Government Office of the South East)

5.2.5 It was acknowledged by most, however, that in the light of the current funding arrangements, no county-wide prioritisation mechanism exists, nor would one necessarily make sense. In the light of this scenario what has impressed the review group most has been the trend to more sub-regional work, along the lines of Transport for South Hampshire, that lends itself to prioritising across districts and other authorities, together with the Highways Agency, as the way forward.

`The County Council, working closely with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) has recently established a Joint Strategy Group which will begin to develop a transport strategy for Basingstoke and take forward schemes included in the RFA [Regional Funding Allocation]and updated in 2008 through the RFA refresh'. Hampshire County Council/Transport for South Hampshire

Evidence from East Hampshire District Council referred to a possible sub regional transport study across areas affecting Hampshire, Surrey and East Hampshire District.

Evidence from Dorset County Council supported the idea of a mechanism and that it should address cross-boundary connectivity.

In a similar vein:

`It would seem vital for the growth implications of the PUSH area and Dorset Multi Area Agreement Authorities to be considered jointly...' New Forest National Park

5.2.6 Officers from Leicestershire County Council were invited to the oral evidence day as an example of comparator authority good practice in relation to road infrastructure planning. While Hampshire County Council officers acknowledged that they can learn from that county's experience of transport policy development and implementation, the Leicestershire officers indicated that the South Hampshire partnership way of working was something they would like to learn from.

5.2.7 With regard to the TfSH model, concerns were expressed by the TfSH Project Director that the current level of resourcing would be a critical factor in rolling out that model to other parts of the county.

There was an acknowledgement, as well, that there was room for improvement in the accountability of the decision making in such partnerships, in respect of being more proactive in drawing district and borough attention to proposals in the making that affect their areas.

Comments

a) The changes to the way major road related schemes used to be prioritised, and the new way of tailoring scheme development to priorities associated with funding sources, have been considerable. The new arrangements require officers, and the organisations they work for, to be more versatile in anticipating and seizing opportunities where they arise. While they have less control over what is prioritised county-wide, there is transparency about what could be prioritised by others, whether by region or from other funding streams, built into the shaping of bids.

b) The review group supports the trend to broader sub-regional approaches to prioritising transport, and hence road related developments; this makes sense as well in relation to housing and business growth. However, the leadership role played by the county as a highways authority needs to be matched by a commitment to resourcing by other partners as well.

c) Although prioritisation is less in the gift of the county than in the past, there is a continuing need to ensure that the shaping up of particular proposals and bids are undertaken with priority road user groups, in particular the emergency services.

Recommended actions:

That Hampshire County Council considers, with partners, how to resource additional sub-regional approaches to transport planning, including roads, with a view to developing organisational structures that can make the most of funding opportunities

That Hampshire County Council and district/borough councils review their relationship with the emergency services as high priority road users to be consulted at key stages of planning and scheme development work

5.3 The role of County Councillors and how this might evolve

5.3.1 The third question that the scrutiny review group members posed at the outset

of the review was:

What role do County Councillors, acting for the Highways and Transport Authority, play in contributing to and influencing road infrastructure developments, and how might this evolve ?

5.3.2 Evidence was received about this question in various ways; some stakeholders responded to this question in their written evidence, witnesses invited to provide oral evidence were questioned about member involvement where appropriate, a questionnaire was issued to all Hampshire County Councillors, a focus group with members was held, and a Highways Agency presentation to a Hampshire Action Team meeting was observed.

5.3.3 The questionnaire was sent to all County Council members, to help identify members existing level of knowledge and involvement in road infrastructure planning, their appetite for further involvement, and their suggestions for how this might operate. There was a good response to the questionnaire, with 55% returned. Members were invited via the questionnaire to indicate if they would be prepared to attend a focus group on the subject. A focus group was held with 9 members, at which the issues raised in the questionnaire and through the other evidence gathered by the review in relation to member involvement, were explored in more detail.

5.3.4 Members of the review group were also able to attend a meeting convened by the Hampshire Action Team for Basingstoke and Deane, at which officers from the Highways Agency gave a presentation to local members about their operations in the Basingstoke area. This gave an insight to an example of Highways Agency interaction with Hampshire County Councillors.

Members' knowledge of road infrastructure planning processes

5.3.5 From the evidence received, existing member knowledge and understanding of Road Infrastructure planning would appear to be varied, with an implication that this is a knowledge gap for a significant proportion of members. For example, 44% of members who responded to the questionnaire indicated they would like to know more about this area of work. Comments by members at the Hampshire Action Team meeting in Basingstoke also indicated a lack of awareness regarding processes by which road infrastructure is planned and funded. For example, a question was asked regarding the budget the Highways Agency has for M3 improvements, which indicates a lack of understanding that the majority of strategic schemes are funded through the Regional Transport Board.

5.3.6 Responses to the questionnaire by members indicated frustration regarding road schemes in their area and regarding the infrastructure planning system in general. The following are examples of comments received:

"...hoping to achieve infrastructure in place as the need becomes `on stream' rather than chaos of development before infrastructure"

"you have not asked the all-important first question...`what is the existing perceived infrastructure deficit?' The council should then consider how the existing deficit could be addressed"

"too often S106 money is taken and used for schemes that do not alleviate problems made worse by the new development"

5.3.7 Greater understanding of the ways in which funding can be sought for potential road schemes may help members appreciate the constraints within which road infrastructure planning operates, which would help explain to members why it is not always possible to provide the road infrastructure they would like to see. The new Local Transport Plan, required to be produced by 2011, is an early opportunity to put improved consultation with Members into practice.

Recommended actions:

That the Environment Department undertakes:-

a) further consideration of how to keep the wider membership abreast of road related developments, changes to funding arrangements, transport policy developments and related issues, and to consider the member briefing day programme as a potential mechanism for doing so.

b) a planned approach to Member engagement in the development of the new Local Transport Plan

Highways Agency involvement with local members

5.3.8 Concern was expressed regarding the extent of Highways Agency interaction with Members. The Highways Agency was written to by the review group, as a key stakeholder involved in road infrastructure in relation to the strategic road network in Hampshire, and invited to provide evidence in relation to the review topic. However, the request was politely declined:

"Thank you for this invitation. Unfortunately on this occasion the Highways Agency is unable to take part in this review. This is because the subject matter is very close to issues related to Regional Spatial Strategy and as the Government is currently considering responses to the recent consultation on these matters it would be inappropriate for us to attend"

5.3.9 Members of the review group were disappointed that the Highways Agency declined to take part in this scrutiny process. This issue was brought up in the member focus group, and members suggested that more effort be made by Hampshire County Council in future to engage the Highways Agency in the scrutiny process.

Recommended action:

That the Executive Member for Environment works with the Chairman of the Environment & Transportation Select Committee to seek more proactive Hampshire County Council engagement with the Highways Agency through Overview and Scrutiny e.g. the Highways Agency to attend the Environment & Transportation Select Committee annually.

5.3.10 As part of this review, members of the review group observed a meeting convened by the Basingstoke & Deane Hampshire Action Team at which officers from the Highways Agency presented to local members regarding their work on the major roads in the HAT area. The review group understands this is the first time a meeting of this type has taken place. It was clear the members in attendance appreciated the opportunity to ask the representatives from the Highways Agency questions regarding issues in their area such as road noise and congestion hot spots. It was evident that the Highways Agency had been working with officers from Hampshire County Council on the preparatory stages of projects, however members expressed frustration that plans were not shared with local members until a late stage.

5.3.11 The review group endorses the approach taken by the Basingstoke & Deane Hampshire Action Team, as a valuable mechanism for the Highways Agency to share information with local members regarding plans in their area. The review group suggests meetings of this kind should become a more regular event, and that this model could be used in either other Hampshire Action Teams, or in local transport forums.

Recommended action:

That the Highways Agency works on more frequent sharing of information with local Members about their schemes in Hampshire, with consideration of using existing groups, such as the Hampshire Action Teams, and local transport forums, to achieve this.

Sub-regional partnership working member involvement

5.3.12 The review group learned that in the arena of road infrastructure, funding decisions are often taken at a sub-regional level, and therefore that effective partnership working among local authorities in a region is important in order to secure funding for major schemes. Evidence provided by elected member stakeholders indicated that Transport for South Hampshire and the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire are widely recognised as effective partnership mechanisms:

"I attend all the TfSH Joint Committee Meetings - necessarily as an observer. I am therefore very aware of how the three Authorities are working together (most effectively) to address the sub-regional transportation needs of the PUSH area" (New Forest District Council portfolio holder for Planning & Transportation)

5.3.13 However, concern was expressed by members at the focus group regarding the extent to which discussions held at TfSH and PUSH were communicated to the wider membership. For example, a member whose ward falls within the PUSH area indicated that they only became aware of plans in South Hampshire as a result of their membership of the relevant district council, and that this information was not shared with them as a local county member.

5.3.14 The HCC member representation on TfSH is the Executive Member for Environment. The HCC representation on PUSH is a Cabinet member. PUSH also has its own scrutiny committee. HCC has one non-executive member representative on this committee. However, the extent to which other members who represent areas within South Hampshire are informed of what goes on at these partnership bodies is unclear, and evidence from members taking part in the focus group indicates this is varied. It is also unclear at present how the PUSH scrutiny committee relates to the Environment & Transportation Select Committee.

5.3.15 One way to improve on connecting these partnership bodies to the wider county council non-executive members would be to appoint a non-executive member to sit on Transport for South Hampshire as an observer, and for both this member and the HCC member on the PUSH scrutiny committee to also be a member of the Environment and Transportation Select Committee. Thought could also be given to the extent to which TfSH and PUSH plans and reports are shared with the relevant HAT/s.

Recommended action:

That Hampshire County Council considers a review of arrangements for Member engagement in Transport for South Hampshire, and connections between the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire scrutiny committee and the Hampshire County Council Environment & Transportation Select Committee.

5.3.16 Various stakeholders suggested it would be of benefit to establish partnership bodies in the north of the county along similar lines to TfSH and PUSH, in order to assist this growth area in accessing regional funding.

"The role of the Blackwater Valley Network will be important for both County and District Councillors in seeking a seamless programme of improvement, irrespective of administrative or operational boundaries to respond to the road infrastructure requirements." (Rushmoor Borough Council)

"We would welcome the continuation of cross-border dialogue between the two authorities, and with Basingstoke and Deane, with regard to cross-border transport and development issues" (West Berkshire Council)

As noted in 5.2.4 above, the review understands that the first steps towards such activity are underway. The review supports this work, and would suggest that where such partnership bodies are developed, that it will be important for member engagement (including non-executive members) to be incorporated effectively.

Members' local representational role

5.3.17 Through the questionnaire, members were invited to comment on their experiences of major road infrastructure schemes. Many of the comments received were regarding schemes in the members' local area. Members consistently highlighted the value they can bring to scheme planning due to their knowledge and understanding of the local area.

"Members' local knowledge is essential in providing the link between their public and officers."

"Members frequently realise the impact on local roads more than Highways who appear to be numbers driven"

5.3.18 Frustration was evident from members that in many cases their input was not invited until a late stage, by which time there was little opportunity for amending the scheme. A clear majority of those responding to the questionnaire (88%) indicated they would like to have greater member involvement in the planning of major road infrastructure, and a similarly high number were of the view that members should be involved at the stage of preparing schemes for funding bids (85%). Other stakeholders also highlighted the relevance of members' representational role in relation to road infrastructure planning:

"Councillors... are ideally placed to proactively listen to the community and business interests to ensure that policy decisions reflect the real world issues facing the transport user" (HCC Economic Development Office)

5.3.19 Member involvement in schemes in their area was discussed at the focus group. It was suggested that officers working on schemes automatically alert the relevant local members at an early stage of planning. It was discussed that the extent to which this took place at present appeared to be patchy. It may be of benefit for officers to be reminded of the need to include local county members, and be provided with resources to assist with this (e.g. ward maps, a standard notification template etc).

Recommended action:

That the Environment Department works on more consistent communication between HCC local highway managers and local County Council Members regarding schemes in their areas.

5.3.20 The point was also raised at the focus group that in some cases, district councillors approach county council officers directly regarding issues in their local area, and the county council member is not involved, and may end up finding out about it through a constituent. It was indicated that County Officers should automatically copy in the local county member when corresponding with district councillors.

Recommended action:

That the Environment Department considers better ways to ensure County Councillors are made aware of officer communications with local District Councillors about matters in their area

5.3.21 It was also discussed at the focus group that transport/highways related decisions to be taken by the Executive Member are intended to be communicated to the relevant local members for comment in advance of the decision day. It was suggested that this may not be taking place consistently, and that when it does, it should be early enough to give the local member a chance to make a considered contribution. It is understood that the planned decisions programme is designed to facilitate earlier and more user friendly member awareness of upcoming decisions, and given the evidence received, the review group supports this development.

Recommended action:

That the Environment Department seeks to ensure that earlier, and consistent knowledge of future transport/highways related decisions to be taken by the Executive Member be communicated to relevant local members.

5.3.22 Members indicated at the focus group that communication regarding small local schemes was often good, for example through the HAT Highways meetings. However, members commented that in relation to more strategic plans that came under their area, for example the proposed eco-town, they were not involved. Members feel that as plans of this nature are on a large scale, involving significant numbers of residential or employment growth, they are likely to have a significant impact on the existing surrounding community. In their role of representing the interests of those communities, members feel they have a duty to reflect the needs of their constituents in any plans the County Council develops. While plans of this sort are strategic in scope, they are inevitably tied to a locality, and therefore it is reasonable to expect the local member to wish to be kept informed of developments, and to act as a conduit for any associated local concerns arising.

Recommended action:

That the Environment Department develops improved Member involvement in relation to larger schemes e.g. SDA developments and Eco Towns, that fall into or affect their area.

Members Strategic County Wide Role

5.3.23 The review group has learnt that large road infrastructure schemes need to be planned and developed on a strategic, county wide scale, and to take account of regional funding criteria. At a member level, responsibility to consider schemes at a County level lies with the Executive Member for Environment. However, it is apparent that the wider membership would like the opportunity to provide input to discussions at this strategic level. As noted in 5.3.18, 85% of members responding to the questionnaire indicated they saw a role for non-executive members in influencing which schemes bids are developed for. Some of the business based stakeholders emphasised the need for members to take a strategic view:

"Councillors need to become more strategic and less parochial, they need to look at the bigger picture and how that reflects on the ability of both the County and Sub-Region to develop economically...They need to be more proactive with the agencies of government such as SEEDA and GOSE as this is one way to access the necessary capital funding" (Hampshire Economic Partnership)

This focus on members' ability to provide strategic direction and assist with lobbying for funding was echoed by other stakeholders:

"Members' role is more in terms of providing the resources and the direction needed to ensure that the Highway Authority fulfils its strategic transport responsibilities. This will help officers undertake their technical work and identify the improvements needed. Once this has been done there is an important role for Councillors in promoting and lobbying for funding and resources to implement schemes" (Winchester City Council)

Recommended action:

That the Environment Department considers facilitating greater Member involvement in developing the policy background for external funding bids, focusing on the political rather than the technical aspects e.g. whether to submit a bid, how to reflect the needs of the whole county in bids etc

5.3.23 Another example of road infrastructure planning at the strategic level is the plans of the Department for Transport regarding the strategic road network nationwide. It was indicated at the HAT meeting review members attended, by the Highways Agency officers present, that the DfT would be consulting local authorities regarding their future plans.

Recommended action:

That the Environment Department undertakes consideration of how Members might be involved in future Dept. for Transport consultations on possible schemes on the national and international networks

6 Conclusions

6.1 The key questions the review sought answers to were:

· In the light of population growth, how are Hampshire County Council and key partners assessing the needs for, and building development proposals for, road infrastructure across the county ?

· Could the current process be improved by the means of a mechanism to prioritise schemes in the developmental phase, ensuring that the wider network can cope, and, if so, what would such a mechanism be like ?

· What role do County Councillors, acting for the Highways and Transport Authority, play in contributing to and influencing road infrastructure developments, and how might this evolve ?

6.2 With regard to how the needs and developments for road infrastructure are

predicted and planned for:

6.2.1 The changes in the planning legislation that replaced the County Structure

Plan with the South East Plan and Local Development Frameworks meant that while the role of the county, as the Highway Authority, continued in place, the relationship of the Authority to partners changed. A new pattern of relationships is emerging, but more from pragmatic necessity than through a planned approach. The review group believes that this is an opportunity for the County Council to strengthen its county-wide role in relationship to transport assessments, particularly in respect of road infrastructure requirements

6.2.3 The county needs to continue to work at being ahead of the game if it wants to be successful in accessing the different funding streams for road related schemes identified through the planning process. A review of the resourcing to this process is called for.

6.3 With regard to whether the current process for assessing needs and building development proposals could be improved, the following conclusions have been arrived at:

6.3.1 The changes to the way major road related schemes used to be prioritised, and the new way of tailoring scheme development to priorities associated with funding sources, have been considerable. The new arrangements require elected Members, officers, and other partner organisations to be more versatile in anticipating and seizing opportunities where they arise. Although there is less control over what is prioritised county-wide, there is transparency about what could be prioritised by others, whether by region or from other funding streams, built into the shaping of bids.

6.3.2 The review group supports the trend to broader sub-regional approaches to prioritising transport, and hence road related developments; this makes sense as well in relation to housing and business growth. However, the leadership role played by the county as a highways authority needs to be matched by a commitment to resourcing by other partners as well.

6.3.3 Although prioritisation is less in the gift of the county than in the past, there is a continuing need to ensure that the formulation of particular proposals and bids are undertaken with priority road user groups, in particular the emergency services.

6.4 With regard to how the County Councillor role might evolve, the following conclusions have been arrived at:

· All elected Members would benefit from briefings to update their knowledge of the current transport policy and funding context.

· Members wish to be kept informed by the Highways Agency of plans in their area regarding the strategic road network.

· Links for non-executive members to partnership bodies like Transport

for South Hampshire could be improved.

· Members wish to be consulted more regarding schemes affecting their local area.

· Members would like to have the opportunity to provide input at the stage

of developing bids for funding

Members have a dual role of input to areas such as road infrastructure planning; in relation to their local area representational role, and their role representing the County as a whole bearing in mind sub-regional issues. Ideally members' involvement in road infrastructure would contribute:

"...an understanding of the county wide context whilst allowing for the development of a greater understanding of the needs and priorities of local communities" (Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council)

6.5 Taking the above conclusions together, the review group members have arrived at the following recommendations:

A That Hampshire County Council, district and borough councils, and the Highways Agency establish a Transport Group to act as a county-wide forum for transport policy and planning issues, and to provide co-ordination to locally initiated transport assessments

B In order to be proactive in meeting the county's needs, that Hampshire County Council reviews the adequacy of officer time and flexibility given to the drafting of potential bids in readiness for submission to external funding sources

C That Hampshire County Council considers sharing and developing its transport planning and modelling expertise with relevant partners, including looking to increase investment in transport modelling through exploring cost sharing

D That Hampshire County Council reviews its approach to securing section 106 developer financial contributions to ensure that the benefit to the community is maximised, to improve transparency, and to improve monitoring of the impact of payments

E That Hampshire County Council considers, with partners, how to resource additional sub-regional approaches to transport planning, including roads, with a view to developing organisational structures that can make the most of funding opportunities

F That Hampshire County Council and district/borough councils review their relationship with the emergency services as high priority road users to be consulted at key stages of planning and scheme development work

G That the Environment Department undertakes:-

a) further consideration of how to keep the wider membership abreast of road related developments, changes to funding arrangements, transport policy developments and related issues, and to consider the member briefing day programme as a potential mechanism for doing so.

b) a planned approach to Member engagement in the development of the new Local Transport Plan

H That the Executive Member for Environment works with the Chairman of the Environment & Transportation Select Committee to seek more proactive Hampshire County Council engagement with the Highways Agency through Overview and Scrutiny e.g. the Highways Agency to attend the Environment & Transportation Select Committee annually.

I That the Highways Agency works on more frequent sharing of information with local Members about their schemes in Hampshire, with consideration of using existing groups, such as the Hampshire Action Teams, and local transport forums, to achieve this.

J That Hampshire County Council considers a review of arrangements for Member engagement in Transport for South Hampshire, and connections between the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire scrutiny committee and the Hampshire County Council Environment &Transportation Select Committee.

K That the Environment Department works on more consistent communication between HCC local highway managers and local County Council Members regarding schemes in their areas.

L That the Environment Department considers better ways to ensure County Councillors are made aware of officer communications with local District Councillors about matters in their area

M That the Environment Department seeks to ensure that earlier, and consistent knowledge of future transport/highways related decisions to be taken by the Executive Member be communicated to relevant local members.

N That the Environment Department develops improved Member involvement in relation to larger schemes eg. SDA developments and Eco Towns, that fall into or affect their area.

O That the Environment Department considers facilitating greater Member involvement in developing the policy background for external funding bids, focusing on the political rather than the technical aspects e.g. whether to submit a bid, how to reflect the needs of the whole county in bids etc

P That the Environment Department undertakes consideration of how Members might be involved in future Dept. for Transport consultations on possible schemes on the national and international networks

Appendix One - Those contributing to the Review

Appendix Two - Programme for oral evidence meeting in public

Appendix Three - Background Documents

Appendix Four - County Councillor questionnaire

Appendix One: Those Responding to the Review

Councillors who responded to the Questionnaire:

Bailey, Charlotte

Banks, Patricia

Beagley, Ian

Broadhurst, Alan

Bryant, John

Buckley, Ann

Byrom, Eunice

Carew, Adam

Chapman, Keith

Chegwyn, Peter

Clarke, Nigel

Collett, Adrian

Cooper, Mark

Dash, Brian

Devereux, Patricia

Dickens, Phrynette

Edgar, Peter

Frankum, Jane

Gale, Ted

Glen, Jonathan

Gurden, Brian

Harrison, David

Hindson, Felicity

Hockley, Geoffrey

House, Keith

Kemp-Gee, Mark

Kimber, Roger

Kirk, David

Knight, Tim

Leversha, Carol

Mason, Peter

Maxwell, John

McIntosh, Robin

Perry, Roy

Peskett, Pamela

Porter, Jackie

Price, Roger

Reid, Stephen

Rice, Alan

Simpson, David

Woodward, Sean

Wright, Dennis

Appendix Two: Programme for the oral evidence meeting in public

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING GROWTH SCRUTINY REVIEW

Select Committee Meeting, Wednesday 4 March 2009

The Council Chamber, Castle Avenue, Winchester. 10.30 am to 4.30 pm

Agenda

Appendix Three: Background Documents

Appendix Four: Member Questionnaire

Road Infrastructure and Housing Growth Review: Questionnaire for Members

Introduction to the Review

The Environment & Transportation Select Committee has launched a scrutiny review regarding how the needs, development costs, phasing and procurement of road infrastructure required to support housing growth up to 2026 are being predicted and planned for in Hampshire. As part of this review, consideration is being given to what role County Councillors play in contributing to and influencing developments in this area of work.

You are invited to respond to the following questions, in order to assist the review group in coming to a view regarding any existing mechanisms for Member input to the development of road infrastructure, and how this may evolve in future. The review group will provide recommendations to the Executive and relevant bodies based on its findings. For further information about the review please see this website:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-committees/environment-transportation/etroadinfrastructure.htm

Questions

Please note, the review group is aware Members can influence local decisions regarding small road schemes through the Hampshire Action Teams. However, this questionnaire is regarding larger schemes at the strategic/county wide and sub regional level.

Please answer the following questions (please circle or delete as appropriate):

1) To what extent do you feel you understand the processes by which road improvements and new infrastructure are prioritised and implemented at county level? (please circle or delete as appropriate)

Very well Reasonably Well Would Like To Know More

2) Would you like to have greater member involvement in the planning of major road infrastructure changes at a county wide level ?

Yes / No

3) What would your preference be for Member involvement at a county wide level, through : (note the options are not mutually exclusive)

a) Member's local representational role Yes / No

b) Member's strategic scrutiny role Yes / No

4) When new housing or commercial developments are built it is important that the road infrastructure can support any additional pressures. This requires different agencies/authorities to work together. In your experience how well does the relationship work in relation to major schemes between:

a) district authorities (planning authorities) and the County Council (highways authority)?

Very well Reasonably Could Be Better

b) the Highways Agency and the County Council

Very well Reasonably Could Be Better

c) please give examples where a and/or b has worked well (if applicable)

d) please give examples where a and/or b could have been better (if applicable)

5) Plans for new major road infrastructure need to be worked up in order to bid for external funding, this can be costly and bids may not be successful.

a) Do you see a role for non-executive Members in influencing which schemes bids are developed for?

Yes / No

b) how do you think Member involvement at this stage could operate?

6) Do you have any other comments about the way road infrastructure is planned in relation to housing growth in Hampshire?

7) would you be interested in taking part in a Member focus group in March as part of this scrutiny review, to explore these issues further?

Yes / No

Name:

Thank you for your participation in this review.