Contact: Iain Reeve, ext 5189 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That, subject to the consultation currently under way with the Transport Strategy Area Panels, the existing Transport Strategy Areas should be rationalised from ten to four areas, and better aligned with the range of sub-regional and other corporate policy developments. This would be complemented by greater emphasis on delivery and implementation at district council/ Local Strategic Partnership level.

(ii) That 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.

(iii) That more work is needed to define the areas and their roles and responsibilities in relation to district councils, Local Strategic Partnerships and Highway Management Advisory Panels.

(iv) That Cabinet agrees to the principle behind this rationalisation into four areas and that further work should be undertaken to refine the details.

2. Reason

2.1 The development of the authority's next Local Transport Plan, the Regional Transport Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy suggests that the large number of strategies is not in line with emerging national and regional policies. The size of the existing strategies is also not consistent with the increasing emphasis on local decision making through Local Strategic Partnerships. Resources could be deployed more effectively from a rationalised structure with fewer Area Strategies.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Retaining the existing arrangements for Area Transport Strategy Panels and dealing separately with Spatial Strategy matters. Increasing the number of strategies to align more closely with district council and Local Strategic Partnership boundaries.

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 T K Thornber

Contact: Iain Reeve, ext 5189 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Hampshire's overall transport strategy is set out in its Local Transport Plan (LTP). Given the size of the authority, the LTP is divided into ten Area Transport Strategies. These Area Transport Strategies are managed by a series of established Area Transport Strategy Panels which determine the priorities and programmes for each strategy area.

1.2 This report considers this arrangement. It recommends that the ten areas should be rationalised into four larger areas. These would cover North East Hampshire, Mid Hampshire, South West Hampshire and the Solent Transport area. This approach would be complemented by a strengthening of local involvement at district level through Local Strategic Partnerships and Highway Management Advisory Panels. The existing Area Transport Strategy Panels are being asked for their views.

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 the attached plan, 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 As part of the LTP regime, each Area Transport Strategy has its own comprehensive set of objectives and targets. This has led to the LTP containing over 140 performance targets; more than nearly any other local transport authority. The need to monitor these targets has placed considerable resource demands on the authority.

2.4 The early Area Transportation Strategy Panels considered area strategies and priorities as well as discussing specific schemes. Specific schemes that have passed Project Appraisal stage are now dealt with at Highway Management Advisory Panel level.

3. Need for Change

3.1 The existing system of Area Transport Strategies has worked reasonably well. The thoroughness of the approach was instrumental in the authority's good LTP assessment of "well above average". The Panels have been generally successful in reviewing the strategies and capital programmes. Although progress varies, the authority is on course to meet several of the strategies' key objectives.

3.2 As the authority is now beginning the process of preparing its next full LTP, it is a sensible time to review the arrangements of Area Transport Strategies. There are a number of developments which suggest that the area transport strategy is a valuable approach, but that the number of strategies within it should be rationalised.

3.3 As noted above, it is relatively time-consuming and costly to maintain ten separate area strategies. The cost of administering and monitoring these strategies diverts resources that could be used on transport implementation projects. Hampshire appears to be dividing its area into smaller strategic units than almost any other local transport authority in England. The area strategies seem to be smaller than they need to be to meet the Government's official guidance on LTPs. The Government has asked local authorities to consider ways in which transport strategies can be considered at a more strategic level than before, including through the use of joint LTPs between neighbouring authorities.

3.4 Although there is no ideal, the size and boundaries of the existing areas also do not equate particularly well to existing travel patterns. Following the Solent Transport model, larger strategic areas would seem to be more effective in bringing together appropriate transport problems and solutions.

3.5 The Area Transport Strategies also do not align well with individual district councils and Local Strategic Partnerships. Because of this, it seems sensible to have a clear demarcation between Community Strategies at district council level and a smaller number of area transport strategies.

4. Regional Spatial and Transport Planning

4.1 Developments in regional spatial and transport planning also suggest that there is a strong case for rationalising the number of area transport strategies. The draft Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) has now been considered at Public Examination. A revised draft is expected before the end of the year. The draft RTS identifies a number of strategic areas that should be considered for transport planning purposes.

4.2 Although the precise boundaries are not established, the draft RTS identifies the Solent Transport Area and the Blackwater Valley as strategic areas. Northern parts of the county may also form a part of a strategic area under consideration for the Thames Valley, following a recommendation in the Thames Valley Multi Modal Study for a strategic implementation mechanism. The Bournemouth-Poole area has also been identified as a strategic area.

4.3 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.

4.4 The Solent Transport initiative has been identified by the draft RTS as a possible model for strategic transport planning across the region. The Government has also shown considerable interest in the initiative, which may influence the next official guidance on LTPs. The Hampshire element of Solent Transport 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 (HEP), the business community. The HEP 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.

4.5 Work is proceeding on developing a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which will complement the RTS. The Regional Assembly is consciously seeking to ensuring that the development of strategic areas within the RTS aligns well with the emerging sub-regions for the RSS.

4.6 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.

5. Greater Local Involvement

5.1 It is important that a rationalisation of area transport strategies should complement the development of Community Strategies and the increasing importance of Highway Management Advisory Panels. Community Strategies at district council level will play an increasing part in County Council service delivery planning.

5.2 The proposed rationalisation will mean that the revised area transport strategies will be able to concentrate more on strategic issues, with implementation and delivery being considered more at the district councils and LSP level. At the moment, the ten area transport strategies are complemented by specific action plans covering individual areas, including specific towns. It is envisaged that this approach would be continued and strengthened under these proposals.

5.3 The proposals would also allow for a strengthening of the Highway Management Advisory Panels. These Panels are based on district council areas. They meet on a six-monthly basis and look at present year's capital programme delivery as well as 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.

6. Administrative Arrangements for Joint Panels

6.1 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.

6.2 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.

6.3 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.

6.4 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, and review priorities and achievements against a range of targets such as LTP, Comprehensive Performance Assessment and other performance indicators. The new Panels would also consider integration of transport with other policy areas, especially spatial planning. It may be possible to expand their role in the context of Agenda item 9 in relation to sub- regional planning Member arrangements.

6.5 The Panels are a fundamental part in the process of delivering the LTP and Hampshire's strategy approach has been recognised nationally. The new Panel arrangements will need to be developed in the context 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.

6.6 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.

6.7 There are likely to be proportionality issues associated with the rationalisation and the Chief Executive will need to advise on these when the details are finalised.

7. Recommended Strategy Areas

7.1 Four broad areas are recommended:

(i) North East Hampshire;

(ii) Mid Hampshire;

(iii) Solent Transport Area; and

(iv) South West Hampshire.

7.2 Precise boundaries would be established if the principle of rationalisation is agreed. Regardless of the boundaries chosen, there will need to be considerable coordination and cross-boundary working between the different areas. Travel patterns do not respect administrative boundaries.

7.3 The County Council has an acknowledged track record of planning strategically and delivering high quality services locally - recognised in the CPA Award of `Excellent' status.

Recommendations

1. That, subject to the consultation currently under way with the Transport Strategy Area Panels, the existing Transport Strategy Areas should be rationalised from ten to four areas, and better aligned with other corporate policy developments. This would be complemented by greater emphasis on delivery and implementation at district council/Local Strategic Partnership level.

2. That 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.

3. That more work is needed to define the areas and their roles and responsibilities in relation to district councils, Local Strategic Partnerships and Highway Management Advisory Panels.

4. That Cabinet agrees to the principle behind this rationalisation into four areas and that further work should be undertaken to refine the details.

8345/IR