AT A MEETING of the SOLENT TRANSPORT STRATEGY PANEL held on Thursday 2 June 2005 in the Council Chamber, Hampshire County Council Offices, The Castle, Winchester.

PRESENT:

Hampshire County Council

Councillors: T.G. Knight (Chairman); A.G. Dowden; P.R. Edgar; R.H. Price; D. Wright.

Also in attendance: Councillor L.T. Dunsdon.

East Hampshire District Council

Councillor M. Ashton.

Eastleigh Borough Council

Councillors: D.J. Airey; G.G. Olson; A.M. Winstanley.

Fareham Borough Council

Councillors: J.V. Bryant; P.J. Davies; A. Mandry.

Gosport Borough Council

Councillors: I. Binfield; P.C. Langdon; D.G. Smith.

Havant Borough Council

Councillor N.J. Tarrant.

New Forest District Council

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

Winchester City Council

Councillor P. Clohosey.

1. DECLARATIONS 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. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2005 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

3. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

There were no Chairman's communications

4. DEPUTATIONS

There were no deputations.

5. LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN UPDATE

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 5 in the Minute Book) outlining the progress and timetable, vision, structure, programme and targets associated with the Local Transport Plan (LTP).

Members highlighted the need for the LTP to achieve practical outcomes, regardless of the Government's targets and requirements. It was however acknowledged that the County Council would have to produce a good Plan which adhered to the Government's guidelines in order to ensure that adequate funding was available to implement the desired improvement schemes. The Plan would nevertheless emphasis the needs of Hampshire within the context of the Government's criteria.

The issue of access to the Gosport peninsula was considered to be central to the Plan for the Solent area. It was hoped that the Department for Transport would respond to the revised Light Rapid Transit (LRT) bid by the end of July. Should the bid be successful, further complimentary schemes would be programmed, some of which would be funded from significant developer contributions already held by the County Council. Members emphasised the benefits of guided buses, which it was confirmed were being considered as a partial solution to the access problems of Gosport in the event that the LRT bid was unsuccessful. However past feasibility studies had suggested that they were a less desirable option compared to the LRT.

The overview of the LTP timetable contained within the report was welcomed. It was agreed that a consultation timetable should be produced and distributed to District Councils so that they could effectively contribute to the process after submission of the interim document.

Further discussion was had on the importance of adequately funding the Safer Routes to Schools programme, encouraging ferry links and integrating public transport timetables.

RESOLVED:


(i) That the report be noted.

(ii) That an LTP consultation timetable be produces and distributed to District Councils.

6. LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN SCHEMES ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 6 in the Minute Book) providing feedback on consultation regarding the proposed methodology for the assessment and prioritisation of potential LTP schemes.

Members suggested that the `assessment checklist' should be further amended to show that improvements to public transport benefited all of the suggested assessment headings (annex 1 of appendix 2 to the report). Amendments to the framework relating to health facilities were welcomed. It was considered that high priority should be given to health issues in the consideration of schemes and deliverability should not be over emphasised at the expense of some necessary but more costly schemes.

It was stressed that the assessment framework would be used as a tool to prioritise schemes and would not become a `straightjacket'; the Executive Member for Environment would make the final decision in each case. This would allow for improved transparency. Each decision would continue to be made and justified at public Decision Days by the Executive Member. Members requested that a schedule be prepared, once the final LTP programme had been decided, setting out reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of all schemes that had been considered.

RESOLVED:

(i) That the comments received on the proposed scheme assessment framework, as set out in appendix one to the report, be noted and endorsed.

(ii) That the Executive Members for Environment be advised that the assessment framework, as set out in appendix two to the report, should be

adopted for the prioritisation of schemes.

7. DRAFT AREA STRATEGY LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN SECTIONS

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 7 in the Minute Book) including the draft text being prepared for the Area Strategy sections of the provisional LTP.

In the course of a detailed debate the following schemes and issues were discussed:

(i) The Southampton Airport hub

(ii) The proposed Chickenhall Link Road

(iii) Access to Whiteley

(iv) Totton Town Centre

(v) Delme Roundabout, Fareham

(vi) The Quay Street flyover

(vii) Stricter parking standards

(viii) The Fareham Interchange

Officers confirmed that information relating to specific schemes, such as those mentioned above, would be included in later drafts of the Plan. A number of issues were also raised regarding access to Gosport, it was felt that these could best be dealt with at the Gosport Peninsula Access Panel.

It was noted that reference to the Ministry of Defence relocating from Gosport (page 5 of the report) was incorrect and would be amended in future versions of the Plan.

RESOLVED:

That the Executive Members for Environment be advised of those issues raised by the Panel regarding the appendix to the report.

8. FEEDBACK ON LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN.

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 8 in the Minute Book) summarising the outputs from various seminars and workshops with key LTP stakeholders.

Specific attention was paid to the need to protect those areas of countryside surrounding, but not protected by, the New Forest National Park. The view was also expressed that in addition to improving safety and accessibility as reported, the proposed pedestrian bridge for Flexford Road would also help reduce congestion in the area.

RESOLVED:

That the key themes and comments set out in the report and accompanying appendices be noted.

9. POSSIBLE 2006/07 PROGRAMME

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 9 in the Minute Book) providing a list of potential schemes for the area strategy programme together with the indicative county-wide programme. Members highlighted several minor errors in appendix one to the report regarding the routes taken by services being considered for Quality Bus Partnerships.

Members noted that the County Council would continue to investigate `bus cardreaders' and concessionary fares as part of the county wide programme, however this would be closely monitored in light of recent Government announcements regarding free travel.

RESOLVED:

(i) That it be noted that the overall cost of the possible pool of county-wide and area strategy schemes listed in the report exceeds the actual level of funding likely to be allocated by Central Government, but that this is necessary in order to ensure adequate forward planning.

(ii) That it be noted that the actual programme will be subject to the level of funding yet to be confirmed by Central Government

(iii) That the list of possible area strategy schemes contained within the report be endorsed.

10. HAMBLE LANE/PORTSMOUTH ROAD JUNCTION

The Panel considered the report of the Director for Environment (Item 10 in the Minute Book) relating to possible options for the Hamble Lane/Portsmouth Road Junction. It was reported that survey work on the junction had been commissioned, the results of which would be reported back to the Panel at the earliest opportunity.

RESOLVED:

(i) That the report be noted.

(ii) That, following a comprehensive study into the traffic volumes and flows affecting the junction, a report of the Director of Environment on further possible options for the Portsmouth Road/Hamble Lane junction be received by the Panel.

11. UTILISATION OF DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS - HARDLEY AREA

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 11 in the Minute Book) summarising the views of Fawley Parish Council with regard the utilisation of developer contributions associated with the development of Harrier Way, and suggesting a potential way forward.

At the invitation of the Chairman, and with the concurrence of the Panel, Councillor Mrs McEvoy (Chairman of Fawley Parish Council) and Mr Anderson (Clerk to Fawley Parish Council) addressed the Panel. It was their belief that a Hardley to Hythe cycleway had been proposed at the Roads and Development Sub-Committee on 15 January 2001, but that this recommendation was amended to ensure that the contribution was spent entirely within the Parish area. Councillor Mrs McEvoy suggested a cycleway between Fawley and Holbury as an appropriate alternative use of the funds.

It was however noted that the minutes of the sub-committee had recorded that the contribution should be used for a `local scheme' and had stipulated no further restrictions regarding the areas in which the contributions should be used. These minutes had subsequently been confirmed as a correct record by the Roads and Development Sub-Committee.

Following several questions regarding the costs associated with implementing cycle routes, it was decided that further consultation was required on this issue. It was therefore agreed to convene a meeting constituted by Fawley Parish Council, the County Council (including the Local Member) and New Forest District Council, so that this issue could be considered in more depth.

RESOLVED:

That a meeting between Fawley Parish Council (represented by the Parish Council Chairman and Clerk), New Forest District Council (represented by Councillor F.R. Harrison and Councillor R.J. Neath), and the County Council (including the local Member) be held in the offices of Fawley Parish Council to further discuss the issues raised in the report.