Archived decisions

Contact: John Buckett, ext 6599

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the indicative programmes for the Integrated Transport Capital Programme for 2004/05 and 2005/06 set out in Appendices B1 and B2 be approved for inclusion in the 2003 Annual Progress Report, and that they form the basis of consultation with Area Transportation Panels and others.

(ii) That reports be prepared for the Environment Policy Review Committee and Area Transportation Panels to allow them to consider priorities for inclusion in the Integrated Transport programmes from 2004/05.

2. Reason

2.1 The Annual Progress Report (APR) on the Local Transport Plan (LTP) is required to be submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) by 31 July 2003. Although the County Council is exempt from the APR and LTP processes because of its `Excellence' status, it is proposed that an APR is submitted so that the DfT can assess performance and award resources on the basis of that assessment.

2.2 An ongoing transport capital programme is required for the APR.

2.3 On 14 January 2003 the Executive Member for Environment requested that all LTP funded schemes not included in the 2002/03 or 2003/04 Capital Programme should be reassessed. This assessment has now been carried out and has been used in drawing up indicative programmes for 2004/05 and 2005/06. It is proposed that these indicative programmes are considered by the Environment Policy Review Committee (PRC) and Area Transportation Panels, taking into account both the details of the assessment of each scheme and the overall content of the programme in relation to the County Council's LTP and corporate and PSA objectives.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Consultation with Area Strategy Panels and Members prior to drawing up the draft programmes has not been pursued because of the APR deadline, although officers of District Councils have been informed of the process involved (to differing degrees) and given assurances there would be full consultation on priorities in the autumn. Another alternative is not to complete an APR but this could jeopardise the County Council's chances of securing increased resources.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Background

Overall Funding Position

7.1 At present the County Council has indicative allocations only on the likely funding available from Government in 2004/05 and 2005/06. These suggest that it is reasonable for planning purposes to prepare new starts programmes at a level of £12 million for 2004/05 (for LTP funding) and £13 million in 05/06. It must be stressed, however, that the level of the programme cannot be finalised until the resources for 2004/05 are known through the DfT settlement letter in December. It may still then be necessary to amend the programme at short notice in January but consideration of the priorities by the Environment PRC and Area Transportation Panels will help inform any decisions that may need to be made at that time.

7.2 There are some additional demands and uncertainties that will need to be taken into account.

7.3 Government funding support for the A3 corridor as a separate scheme is still in doubt. It may yet be necessary to hold back spending on part of the 2003/04 programme. If this is the case, then there would be an additional commitment carried forward into 2004/05 which would affect the 2004/05 and subsequent programme levels.

7.4 There needs to be provision made within each year's spending plan to repay Government advances assisting early years' expenditure on the South Hampshire Rapid Transit scheme (approximately £2 million per year), and a long term provision towards financing the project.

7.5 The draft programmes prepared below cannot be confirmed, even after consideration/amendment of Area Transportation Panels and others, because of the resource level uncertainty, and this finalisation can only be carried out when resources are confirmed in the settlement letter from the Government in December. Proposals will then be prepared for a firm 2004/05 programme and provisional programmes for 2005/06 and beyond and submitted to the Environment PRC and the Executive Member for Environment in January 2004.

7.6 The period beyond 2005/06 falls in the next five year LTP period, with funding even more uncertain. However it would be helpful, in terms of scheme preparation, if Panels could indicate their priorities for 2006/07 and 2007/08. This would be consistent with the County Council's new four year capital programme to be approved in March 2004.

8. Proposed Indicative Programmes 2004/05 and 2005/06

8.1 These indicative programmes have been prepared following an officers' scheme assessment exercise against LTP objectives. Extra priority has been given to schemes which support the County Council's PSA targets. The two PSA targets directly in the Integrated Transport field are:

(i) Casualty Reduction - a 40% reduction in fatal and serious casualties in Hampshire by 2010 from a 1994-98 base, together with a further reduction through the early application of safety cameras; and

(ii) Bus Use - increase in bus use from 2000 levels by 10% by 2010, with improvements in punctuality and reliability.

8.2 The casualty reduction programme is principally advanced through the low-cost safety programme of small schemes, and this sub-programme is `protected' with a minimum annual provision of £1 million.

8.3 Bus use is being promoted through both improved facilities and individualised marketing. Priority is being proposed in the new programmes for projects which support this target, from larger bus priority projects to information and facilities at stops, most often through Bus Quality Partnership programmes.

8.4 The new programmes have been drawn up almost entirely from schemes previously approved by Panels, the most prominent exceptions being proposals for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement which are considered high priority by District Councils. A summary table (Appendix B3) shows where the schemes deferred to the `pool' in January are now accommodated in the indicative programme (ie in 2004/05, 2005/06 or for consideration for priority from 2006/07).

9. Consultation Process

9.1 It is proposed that the indicative programmes are considered by the Environment PRC and Area Transportation Panels in the autumn. At that time the full details of the assessment exercise and analyses of the contents of the indicative programmes would be provided so that the background to the proposals and any consequences of amendments could be properly considered.

9.2 It is further proposed that the Panels consider their top (typically three) priorities for schemes not accommodated in 2004/05 or 2005/06 for inclusion in a pool of schemes for early development for future years' programmes.

9.3 Following the DfT's settlement letter in December it will be necessary to confirm the 2004/05 programme in January. There may be changes required at that time, subject to the resource position, but any decisions made will be informed by the views of the Environment PRC and Area Transportation Strategy Panels.

8055/JWB