Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the GOSPORT PENINSULA ACCESS PANEL held on

Friday 16 December 2005 at the Civic Offices, Fareham.

PRESENT:

1. APOLOGIES

No apologies for absence had been received.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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 the debate, declare their interest and, having regard 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. No such declarations were made.

3. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 20 January 2005 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

4. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

The Chairman reported that he had recently received a letter from

Councillor A. Bentley concerning options for public transport following the decision of the Government not to fund the proposed Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth tram. There was a need to discuss options for mass rapid public

transport between Gosport, Fareham, Havant and Portsmouth and the next steps in improving access to the Peninsula.

District Council lead representatives confirmed that they were in receipt of a similar letter. The need for a co-ordinated approach between the County Council, and Fareham and Gosport Borough Councils was emphasised, and further liaison on this issue would take place shortly.

5. FEEDBACK FROM THE MEMBERS' INFORMAL WORKSHOP

The Director of Environment reported on feedback from the workshop session on 4 March 2005 which had discussed in detail a list of transport problems and issues on the Peninsula. The results had been used to inform further development work on the Local Transport Plan (LTP), and additional comments were now sought.

The general consensus was that most of the detailed matters raised by District Councils had already been fed into the Local Transport Plan process although there was discussion on the role of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) in addressing the transport infrastructure deficit and strategic transport issues. The Director of Environment reported that the County Council had submitted to PUSH a detailed paper on the infrastructure requirement of the area, including the particular problems of the Gosport Peninsula. In addition there was now a new procedure for dealing with major transport schemes through a Regional Transport Board set up by the Government; this would involve a bidding process and clearly there were opportunities here for progressing schemes to benefit the Peninsula.

6. UPDATE ON LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT

The Director of Environment provided details of a letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Environment dated

29 November 2005 declining to support the scheme promoters' request to reinstate the South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT) proposal in its revised form, on grounds of cost. Apart from the decision itself, the officers had been extremely disappointed that the demonstrable benefits of the scheme had not been mentioned, and were seeking further information from Government on the reasons for rejection. The Panel reiterated its grave concern at the decision.

The County Treasurer reported that the Department of Transport had confirmed that it would be prepared to contribute to the abortive capital costs incurred by the promoters in accordance with the arrangements agreed in March 2001 but would not meet any further liabilities incurred after the date of this notification. Nonetheless the officers were pursuing the possibility of claiming for the interest lost as a result of the abortive exercise.

In noting the position, the Panel stressed the importance of maintaining momentum with other schemes which, although linked to the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) proposals, could proceed independently and still be of significant benefit to the area. The officers confirmed that, guided by the Panel as appropriate over priorities, schemes in this category would planned accordingly.

7. POTENTIAL LAND USE PLANNING IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM THE LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT DECISION

The officers drew attention to the high level of net out-commuting from Gosport and whilst it was possible to develop transport solutions to a certain extent, the scale of the problem in the future would require an approach on a broader, land use planning, front. Members' initial ideas were sought and among those suggested for investigation as appropriate were (inter alia) the use of the former Gosport railway track, only a small part of which had been built on; improvements to Fareham Rail Station and the immediate area to enhance its value as a transport hub for both Fareham and Gosport; and the possibility of a northern relief road for Fareham.

8. SOUTH EAST PLAN UPDATE

It was agreed that there were no fresh matters requiring consideration under this item, all having been dealt with under the preceding minutes.

9. LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN UPDATE AND SCHEMES

The Panel noted details of the recent Government announcement of the 2006/07 Local Transport Settlement both for the whole of England (outside London) and for Hampshire in particular following submission of the draft Local Transport Plan.. In summary, £62m had been allocated for integrated transport in Hampshire over 5 years but with a chance to win additional "reward" funding. Work would now take place with a view to putting forward individual schemes for inclusion in the final version of the plan which would then again be submitted to Government. The sum of £4m had been earmarked for improving access to Gosport. As mentioned under Minute 6 the officers were continuing to develop whatever improvements were possible notwithstanding the Government's decision on LRT.

The officers then outlined various ongoing schemes as follows (inter alia)

i) A32 Corridor - Quay Street Junction

Early discussions with Tescos regarding partnership arrangements over the Quay Street Junction scheme were proceeding satisfactorily. Details of the scheme could not be disclosed for confidentiality reasons.

ii) A32 Corridor - Mill Road Roundabout and Salterns Lane

Junctions

Options for junction improvements were being pursued in conjunction

with the Quay Street junction investigations. The effectiveness of the

Quay Street junction improvements will be directly effected by these

two junctions.

iii) Newgate Lane - Speedfields and Longfield Avenue Roundabouts

Various possible options for junction improvements were being pursued and current indications were that a signalled priority junction arrangement would be most appropriate.

iv) Newgate Lane - Peel Common Roundabout

Options for junction improvements will be pursued.

v) Delme Arms Roundabout

A study was currently taking place at this location in the light of a recent serious accident. The initial focus will be on improving pedestrian safety.

vi) West Street, Fareham

A vision for the West Street area of Fareham was being developed which included bus priority measure linking the rail station and the Town Centre.

vii) A27 Corridor

Traffic Management and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)

improvement options were being investigated.

viii) A32 Corridor - Use by buses

A review was currently taking place over bus priority measures that could be taken forward along the Corridor. The need for a `Quality Bus Partnership' approach had been identified.

The officers also answered a range of detailed Member questions.

10. ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT MEETING

RESOLVED:

That the next meeting of the Panel be held at Fareham on a date to be notified in late February.