Contact: David McKibbin, ext 5301 email: [email protected]

With the concurrence of the Chairman of the Environment Policy Review Committee under Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, this matter is included on the agenda to allow the Committee an early opportunity to comment on the issues outlined in the report prior to further consultation.

1. Summary

1.1 Area Transport Strategies are the basis for delivering the integrated transport element of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) in Hampshire. A series of established Area Transportation Strategy Panels determine priorities and programmes for each strategy area.

1.2 There are, however, current issues that affect the efficient delivery of transport policies and strategies which, together with several relevant external factors, make it timely to review the current arrangements.

1.3 Comments are sought on the issues outlined in this report, which will guide the consultation with the district councils at the next round of Panel meetings.

2. Background

2.1 Area Transport Strategies have been the basis of transport planning in Hampshire since the mid-1990s. The ten areas, shown on Plan A attached to this report, were formed as urban and rural transport packages at a time when Government funding for integrated transport was largely focused on such package areas. Each of the strategy areas is administered by a Panel of District and County Council Members, which considers the strategy area objectives and proposed programmes which are then put forward to the Executive Member for Environment for decision. The Panels meet twice a year in the spring and autumn.

2.2 Some of the strategy areas are based on journey-to-work areas while others are based on the former highways maintenance island agencies. Some relate to district council boundaries and area strategies which pre-date local government reorganisation. They originally included the two cities of Portsmouth and Southampton.

2.3 The LTP regime has developed and, in addition to meeting financial spend targets, demands for monitoring progress in meeting all strategy area targets has placed a considerable burden on the authority.

2.4 The early Area Transportation Strategy Panels considered area strategies and priorities as well as discussing specific schemes. The latter level of detail is now dealt with at Highway Advisory Panel level, for schemes which have passed Project Appraisal stage, as noted below.

3. Discussion

3.1 To determine the best way forward for implementing transport policy for Hampshire it is sensible to look at how this may best work alongside other corporate initiatives and external issues in the future.

3.2 Community Strategies are emerging through Local Strategic Partnerships based on district council areas. Both the district and the county community strategies are still developing but will play an important role in County Council service delivery planning. The district strategies cannot deal with strategic matters but should be guided by broader considerations and should inform programmes and priorities.

3.3 Highway Management Advisory Panels, which are based on district council areas meet on a six-monthly basis and look at present year's capital programme delivery as well local maintenance and traffic management matters. These Panels advise the Executive Member and provide an opportunity for more district council Members to have direct contact with County Council staff and Members.

3.4 The draft Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) has now been through the Examination in Public process and the final document publication is expected before the end of the year. The RTS identifies particular areas of the county for special consideration.

3.5 The Blackwater Valley (including parts of Surrey and Berkshire) is identified as a special area and is being examined as such. A precise boundary has not been determined, as any one boundary would not deal adequately with all of the specific transport issues under consideration for that sub-region.

3.6 South Hampshire (including Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight) is another such area. The Hampshire element is essentially an amalgamation of the existing South West and South East strategy areas. The County Council has, in recent years, made good progress in bringing together all the interested transport stakeholders in the South Hampshire sub-region under the Solent Transport partnership. Signatories include the Unitary Authorities, Government and regional agencies, private operators and, largely through the Hampshire Economic Partnership, the business community and the partnership is also working to integrate land use strategies alongside those for transport. The importance of South Hampshire as an entity in transport, planning and economic terms is growing. Government is particularly interested in the Solent Transport initiative and is looking to the partnership to help it shape future national guidance for LTPs.

3.7 Work is proceeding on developing a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which will complement the RTS. The areas under consideration align well with the sub-regions for the RTS which reinforces the opportunity for any new arrangements to also consider spatial strategy matters, as discussed below.

3.8 Integrating spatial strategy with transport strategy has long been recognised by successive Governments and by the County Council as important to maximise the effectiveness of policies and the delivery of programmes. Having spatial strategy and transport strategy considered by the same County/District Council Panels would fit well with integration of these disciplines and also for integration arrangements between County and District Council government.

3.9 National Park designation will probably be introduced for the New Forest and possibly for the South Downs. The New Forest can and is recognised as requiring different treatment from the rest of rural Hampshire in transport and spatial strategy terms; the differentiation for the South Downs is less obvious, but is still helpful in area strategy terms.

4. Administrative Arrangements for Joint Panels

4.1 Any new arrangements will need to recognise the Executive Member arrangements now in place and must be efficient, to make best use of both County and District Council staff resources. They will also need to be implemented in the context of Cabinet discussions related to the County Council's capacity to plan strategically and engage locally.

4.2 Existing Area Transportation Strategy Panels are led by the Executive Member for Environment and include representation by district council and County Council Members. The existing arrangements have the advantage of dealing with all debate at one level of meetings. They are an established mechanism that involves joint working but one that requires considerable officer and Member resource to work well.

4.3 Informal discussions with District Council representatives indicate that some districts would prefer to move to more regular joint meetings between respective Executive Members, rather than continuing existing Panel arrangements, leaving each Authority with the responsibility to obtain views and disseminate information within its own organisation.

4.4 The role of Area Transportation Strategy Panels and any subsequent arrangements should be to set medium-term strategies and share views on priorities within such strategies. This would influence the capital programme and the Panels should then monitor progress of delivery,

reviewing priorities and achievements against a range of targets such as LTP, Comprehensive Performance Assessment and other performance indicators.

4.5 The Panels are a fundamental part in the process of delivering the LTP and Hampshire's strategy approach has been recognised nationally. This has undoubtedly contributed to relatively high levels of funding allocation. Any new Panel arrangements will, nevertheless, need to be developed in the contexts of:

(i) Community Strategies and local strategic partnerships;

(ii) Current Cabinet considerations surrounding the need for the County Council to engage with stakeholders and the community at a more local level across a range of services and issues; and

(iii) Regional Spatial Strategy/Local Development Frameworks.

4.6 Consideration of any proposals for future working of any new arrangements following consultation would, therefore, need to be the subject of Cabinet consideration in the light of corporate issues mentioned above.

5. Options for Strategy Areas

5.1 The existing strategy area boundaries are shown on the attached plan and, for the reasons set out earlier, there are pressures to rationalise the large number of areas. Existing Panels are well-established and, although they are an effective mechanism for joint working, that effectiveness is not dependent on existing area boundaries. When the Panels were first established they considered specific project issues but that level of detail is now dealt with by the Highway Management Advisory Panels.

5.2 This paper does not propose specific new boundaries but seeks general views on how the process may more effectively be taken forward in the light of the issues discussed in this report, including the particular relevance of these issues to the corporate agenda for community engagement being developed by the Cabinet.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Existing Transport Strategy Areas should be rationalised to fewer areas, and better aligned with the range of sub-regional and other corporate policy developments.

6.2 New Area Strategy Panels should consider a wider agenda to better integrate transport and spatial planning matters, and the administration of the Panels should be efficient and consider the new executive arrangements that have been introduced since Panels were first established.

Recommendation

That this Committee offers comments on:

(i) the way forward for Area Strategy Panels, based on the issues in sections three and four, that can be considered before further consultation;

(ii) alternative administrative arrangements for the Area Transportation Strategy Panels; and

(iii) the proposal for a wider agenda for the Area Transportation Strategy Panels.

8167/DMcK