AT A MEETING of the SOLENT TRANSPORT STRATEGY PANEL held on Monday 8 March 2004 in the Council Chamber, Hampshire County Council Offices, The Castle, Winchester.

PRESENT:

Hampshire County Council

Councillors: K.B. Estlin (Chairman); C.R.H. Davidovitz; A.G. Dowden; T.G. Knight; P. Luffman; Jenny Wride.

East Hampshire District Council

Councillors: J.M. Ashton; Mrs D.K. Denston

Eastleigh Borough Council

Councillors: D. Airey; K. House; G.G. Olson; A.M. Winstanley

Fareham Borough Council

Councillors: P. Davies; Mrs R.A. Godrich

Gosport Borough Council

Councillors: Mrs I.E. Binfield; P.R. Edgar; K.J.P. Searle; M.G. Russell

Havant Borough Council

Councillors: T.P. Hart; S.J. Marshall; N.J. Tarrant

New Forest District Council

Councillors: F.R. Harrison; R.J. Neath

Test Valley Borough Council

Councillors: J. Hall; C. Lewis

Winchester City Council

Councillors: J. Beveridge; B. Hatch

1. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should, normally at the time of debate declare their interest, and having regards to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

2. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

There were no matters arising under this item.

3. DEPUTATIONS

There were no deputations.

4. THE ROLES OF THE NEW PANELS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 4 in the Minute Book) setting out the terms of reference and scope of the new Area Transport Panels and their relationship with other relevant panels, in particular the Highway and Transport Advisory Panels.

Officers reported that four new Area Transport Strategy Panels had been established to replace the ten Transportation Strategy Panels. The new Panels would focus on broad spatial and transport strategies for their respective areas. It was also noted that the Highway Management Advisory Panels had been renamed Highway and Transport Advisory Panels and their remit had been extended to include all works programmed within the current financial year.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

5. REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGIES

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 5 in the Minute Book) outlining the new framework of regional and sub-regional spatial strategies, the progress being made on the preparation of strategies relating to Hampshire, and the progress on the Regional Transport Strategy and other regionally important transport studies and strategies.

Members were informed that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was expected to be enacted by Parliament during 2004. This would result in Regional Planning Guidance, Structure Plans and Local Plans being replaced by Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS's), prepared by Regional Assemblies, and Local Development Frameworks (LDF's) prepared by Unitary and District Councils.

Particular reference was made to the Eastern Dorset/South Hampshire/Isle of Wight Sub-Regional Study, which would be used by SEERA when determining whether the area required a sub-regional strategy. Following Members questions it was reported that the Solent Transport Strategy Panel and all other relevant panels and authorities would be kept informed of developments in connection with the sub-regional study. Local stakeholders and Local Strategic Partnerships were also being kept informed.

Further explanation was given concerning the draft Regional Transport Strategy, in particular it was noted that the final revised version was due to be published by the end of March and there would follow an eight week consultation period.

Members welcomed the objectives of the Route Management Strategies, particularly their focus on congestion and the implications of new developments. However there was a general consensus that the Highways Agency offered little assistance in connecting local networks with the national system. It was felt that they could be doing more to support schemes such as Route Management Strategies. Members were informed that the Highways Agency was represented on the Solent Transport Partnership and it was therefore hoped that these schemes would receive their support.

RESOLVED:

That the Executive Member for Environment be advised to use the report as a background document in the preparation of the next Local Transport Plan.

6. LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN AND TRANSPORT STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 6 in the Minute Book) summarising the intended development of transport strategies for the four new areas in tandem with the next Hampshire Local Transport Plan.

Members were informed that paragraph 7.9 and 8.3 of the report was incorrect and therefore should be disregarded.

Following an `excellent' rating in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment, Hampshire County Council was not required to submit a Local Transport Plan (LTP) for 2005, it had nevertheless been agreed that it would be useful to produce one.

Although the Government had not yet produced any guidance it was reported that the LTP would almost certainly need to take into account the following:

· accessibility to services,

· Strategic Environment Assessments,

· all bids for schemes costing in excess of £5 million,

· targets and monitoring.

The Government was also likely to encourage LTP's to include Area Transport Strategies, the drafting of which would be strongly influenced by the Transport Strategy Panels.

Members welcomed the proposed emphasis on integrated transport and attempts to encourage alternatives to the car. It was proposed that congestion could be significantly reduced by encouraging fewer parents to use cars for the `school run'. Officers reported that the School Travel Programme had had some success in this area.

Following Members questions the Chairman confirmed that Hampshire County Council had resubmitted their bid to the Government for the Light Rapid Transit scheme. While waiting for a response the County Council would not be investigating alternative proposals. Further proposals would be considered once the Governments decision had been received.

RESOLVED:

That the approach and timetable of developing strategies for the newly established transport strategy areas be endorsed.

7. POLICY AND STRATEGY UPDATE

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (Item 7 in the Minute Book) setting out the progress made on a number of studies and schemes being undertaken in the Solent Transport Strategy area.

As a member of the Cyclists Touring Club, Councillor J.M. Ashton expressed an interest in that section of this item that related to the A3 Bus Priority Corridor.

Members discussed the eight schemes as set out in the report paying particular attention to:

(i) Solent Transport - Moving Ahead - It was reported that the South Hampshire Rapid Transit Network was a priority scheme and it was hoped that potential extensions to the scheme would be considered by the Solent Transport Strategy Panel. Members were also informed of the launch of the Solent Travel Card which would be valid on all bus routes within the Solent region. The new Travel Card could be purchased before a journey and it was hoped that this would lead to a more efficient bus service. It was also reported that the scheme could, in the future, be extended to other forms of public transport such as trains and ferries. Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council had jointly invested £10,000 for the marketing of the Travel Card, all other costs would be covered by the Bus companies involved in the scheme.

(ii) Major Highway Schemes - Officers gave a brief overview of the five schemes in the Solent Transport Area to be provisionally included in the Major Scheme Programme. Comments focused on

· the Chickenhall Lane Link Road, which Members felt needed to be progressed as quickly as possible;

· the Stubbington bypass, over which concerns were expressed in relation to the bypass potentially resulting in increased development in the area.

· and the proposed Botley bypass which could potentially lead to increased problems at either end of the bypass.

(iii) Cango - Members discussion centred on the Leigh Park scheme which had proved the least successful of the implemented Cango schemes. The Chairman informed Members that he would be undertaking a review of this scheme and the reasons for its disappointing performance. The County Council would continue to establish new Cango schemes where appropriate as well as investigating other innovative ways of encouraging the use of public transport.

(iv) Whiteley and Segensworth - This would be the subject of future reports to the Panel as the scheme progressed. However it was noted that, at least in the short term, it would not be possible to build Whiteley Way due to the implications of legal rulings (i.e. the Batchelor Case).

(v) A32 Fareham and Gosport - The Chairman informed Members of Gosport Borough Council that should they want further discussions on this specific scheme then they could speak to him outside the meeting. It was suggested that Gosport Borough Council, as well as all other District Councils, might like to establish regular Executive Member level meetings to deal with difficult issues such as this. Similar meetings had already proven very successful with several District Councils.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted and the progress to date be endorsed.

8. CAPITAL PROGRAMME

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 8 in the Minute Book) setting out the finalised Capital Programme for 2004/05, the draft programme for 2005/06 and the preparation pool of schemes to be considered beyond 2005/06, focusing particularly on the Solent area.

Members were asked to highlight any errors or omissions in the 2004/05 and 2005/06 Capital Programme bearing in mind that the Panel would have a further opportunity to influence the 2005/06 programme at the Autumn meeting. Members highlighted the following areas of concern:

· the deferral of the Valley Park to Hiltingbury and Rownhams cycleways to the 2005/06 programme;

· cycle provision in the Horndean area;

· the study by Gosport Borough Council into decriminalised parking;

· the effect of the Totton Town Centre scheme on traffic travelling through Totton from west to east;

· whether the funding of the Eastleigh Quality Bus Partnership, Derby Road/ Passfield Avenue, was to be funded externally or through the Local Transport Plan.

The Chairman acknowledged concerns raised over several cycleways but added that over 10 percent of the Capital Programme was already allocated to the cycle network.

RESOLVED:

That the Capital Programme for 2004/05 be noted and that the Capital Programme for 2005/06 be endorsed.

9. MINUTES

a) The minutes of the South East Hampshire Transportation Panel held on 15 October 2003 were noted.

Matters arising:

Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth (minute no. 30)

There was a general consensus that further studies and consultation were required as it was felt that the transportation links in the area were not sufficient to support this development. Hampshire County Council were in consultation with Portsmouth City Council regarding this matter and the City Council would be made aware of the Panels concerns.

b) The minutes of the South West Hampshire Transportation Panel held on 4 November 2003 were noted subject to Councillor Mrs M.D. Holding of New Forest District Council being added to the list of those present at the meeting.