Contact: Iain Reeve, ext 5301 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That Cabinet recommends the County Council to approve the Local Transport Plan 2006-11.

1.2 The Executive Member for Environment: South Hampshire and Resource Management recommends the proposals.

1.3 On 18 January 2006 the Environment Policy Review Committee considered the proposals. Members' comments will be reported orally at the meeting.

1.4 On 19 January 2006 the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage and the Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committee considered the proposals. Members' comments will be reported orally at the meeting.

2. Reason

2.1 This decision supports Aims 1 to 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities; Stewardship of the Environment; Achieving Economic Prosperity; Building Strong and Safe Communities; and Improving Services) which are all covered by the Local Transport Plan.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 The County Council is not obliged to submit a Local Transport Plan (LTP) to the Government. Along with other local authorities awarded four stars under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) system, the County Council could elect instead to submit summary information about the proposed capital programme, measures and targets. This course of action is not recommended as it would prevent the County Council from being eligible for reward funding from the Government of up to £12.35 million over the next five years. It is also considered that the publication of the LTP is beneficial for informing Hampshire's residents and stakeholders about the County Council's transport policies and programmes.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member 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

747Decn/IR

Contact: Iain Reeve, ext 5301 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This paper seeks agreement to recommend to Council the full Local Transport Plan (LTP), which has to be submitted to the Government by the end of March 2006. The full LTP builds on the Provisional LTP, which was approved by Council and published in July 2005.

1.2 Local transport authorities are required to produce LTPs every five years, in accordance with formal guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT). Each LTP includes:

(i) an overall vision for transport, set within the wider corporate strategies of the County Council as well as national and regional transport policies and guidelines;

(ii) an analysis of transport problems and opportunities;

(iii) a long-term strategy for transport;

(iv) short- to medium-term strategies. The Government currently requires these to be directed towards congestion, safety, accessibility and air quality;

(v) a capital and revenue programme for transport improvements and maintenance for the next five years from 2006-07 to 2010-11; and

(vi) a set of objectives and targets.

1.3 LTPs are assessed by the Government in order to determine performance scores and the size of capital allocations to be made to each authority. The results of these assessments are generally announced in the December following the submission of the LTP or the Annual Progress Report. The Government's assessment of the full LTPs is expected to be published in December 2006.

1.4 Copies of the latest draft version of the full LTP will be placed in the Members' rooms. Additional copies are available from:

The Transport Policy Section

Environment Department

Room 434, Ashburton Court West

The Castle, Winchester

SO23 8UD

01962 846932

[email protected]

2. Provisional LTP

2.1 Hampshire County Council's Provisional LTP was submitted to the Government in July 2005. Its overall vision is of a transport strategy that:

"Enhances quality of life and economic prosperity by connecting people, communities, employment, goods, services and amenities."

2.2 The Provisional LTP contains strategies to improve accessibility, tackle congestion, reduce road casualties and improve air quality in areas where traffic is a significant causal factor. The overall approach taken is to "reduce, manage and invest". This is a sequential hierarchy of approaches, with clear similarities to "reduce, re-use, recycle".

2.3 The Provisional LTP contains a thorough analysis of existing transport problems and opportunities. It sets out emerging long-term strategies to 2026, both for the county as a whole and for selected areas of the county. The LTP also contains five year strategies describing in more detail the actions that will be taken between 2006 and 2011. These strategies cover the Government's four priority areas of congestion, safety, accessibility and air quality, as well as four area strategies dealing with the New Forest, Solent, Central Hampshire and North Hampshire strategy areas. In line with the Government's guidance, the Provisional LTP also included an indicative capital programme and a suite of performance targets and objectives.

3. Government Assessment of Provisional LTP

3.1 The Government's assessment of all authorities' Provisional LTPs was published on 14 December 2005. LTPs were ranked as either "very promising", "promising" or "needing substantial further work". Hampshire County Council's LTP was assessed as "promising" and was close to being marked as "very promising". As only 16 LTPs were assessed as "very promising", this suggests that the County Council's LTP was ranked among the top 20 LTPs in England.

3.2 The Government's decision letter said:

"It is a very sound plan, consistently and comprehensively linking wider policy aims with the proposed strategy and objectives."

3.3 The assessment found that there were no weak areas in the LTP, although it did highlight areas for further improvement. In particular, the Government wanted to see more information about buses and measures to tackle problems of poor air quality. The Government also wanted to see a clearer link between problems, options, solutions and outcomes. The Provisional LTP was praised for:

(i) the strength of the analysis and evidence base;

(ii) the "reduce, manage, invest" approach;

(iii) the approach to accessibility and town access plans;

(iv) the four area strategies;

(v) the involvement of residents, stakeholders and partners, including the relationship of the LTP to Local Strategic Partnerships and their community strategies; and

(vi) the Solent Transport Partnership and strategy.

3.4 The Government's announcement on the Provisional LTP also included the capital allocations that have been made for the full LTP. A capital allocation of £14.601 million has been made for maintenance spending in 2006-07. The allocations for integrated transport (ie excluding maintenance) are:

3.5 The 2006-07 allocation is now fixed. The allocations for 2007-08 to 2010-11 could be increased by reward funding of up to 25%. The amount of reward funding would only be known in the December settlement preceding each financial year. It is also possible for allocations to be reduced for poor performance, although the Government has said that this does not apply to authorities with the highest CPA ratings, such as Hampshire County Council.

3.6 According to the Government's guidance, the full LTP has to be based on the "planning guideline" total of £62.741 million. The LTP should also explain how the County Council would use additional reward funding of up to a further £12.359 million. This represents potential reward funding of 25% in each of the four years of the LTP period after 2006-07. Whilst additional reward funding can reasonably be expected, it is very unlikely that the full 25% will be awarded every year to anyone.

4. Proposed Capital Programme

4.1 The Government required the Provisional LTP to be based on a five year budget of £69.5 million for integrated transport (ie excluding maintenance and major schemes costing more than £5 million each). The actual amount provided by the decision letter is some £6.8 million less than this, although the settlement could be boosted by reward funding.

4.2 The Provisional LTP proposed the following broad programme to distribute this level of resources:

4.3 These allocations must now be refined to take into account:

(i) improved information about the cost and benefits of capital measures;

(ii) the lower total allocation provided by the settlement letter;

(iii) the Government's decision on the South Hampshire Rapid Transit scheme;

(iv) consultation responses on individual schemes, especially the views of District Councils; and

(v) the emerging scale and distribution of development proposed in the South East Plan.

4.4 The proposed capital programme, shown below, recommends two levels of allocation. The "core" programme is designed to meet statutory duties, targets already agreed (including Local PSA targets) and commitments that have already been made. The minimum allocations add up to the "planning guideline" figure of £62.741 million. If accepted, the main text of the LTP would contain only these allocations.

4.5 The "reserve" allocations exemplify the programmes that could be funded using up to the £12.359 million that could potentially be received as reward for performance. These schemes and programmes would be described in a separate section of LTP. The Government is expected to announce the levels of reward funding annually, in respect of the following financial year (or possibly the next two years). This would then allow schemes from this list to be entered into the capital programme.

4.6 It is considered to be very unlikely that the County Council would receive the full £12.359 million that is theoretically possible as reward funding. It is not yet clear whether the Government will make reward funding available at 25%. It would also be challenging to meet the Government's fairly arbitrary criteria for achieving consistently high LTP and APR scores.

4.7 At these levels of funding, it has not been possible to fund all of the schemes and programmes that would be desirable or which have been identified through the consultation process. Such schemes and programmes could be funded through developer contributions, deferred to the third LTP period (2011 to 2016) or come forward if other schemes are removed from the LTP2 capital programme or receive developer funding.

4.8 The proposed capital programme for the full LTP is:

The spending profile for the "core" programme is set out in the attached appendix.

5. Rationale for the Proposed Capital Programme

5.1 The allocations recommended above have been calculated to meet agreed targets and statutory duties:

(i) The £13.530 million proposed for casualty reduction is the minimum required for the County Council to meet its road safety targets under LTP2 and LPSA2. In particular, it would enable recent encouraging results in reduced casualty numbers to be sustained throughout the period of LTP2.

(ii) The £5.875 million proposed for quality bus partnerships and bus infrastructure is needed to achieve BVPI targets on bus patronage, bus punctuality and passenger satisfaction. This includes a number of small interchange schemes at railway and bus stations, as well as specific improvements to Alencon Link interchange (£350,000), Hythe Bus/ferry interchange (£500,000) and Andover Bus station (£300,000). These measures are designed to improve the quality of bus journeys and so help to increase bus patronage, improve accessibility and reduce congestion. A further £980,000 is needed for the County Council's obligations under bus information, to meet the costs of Traveline.

(iii) The £9.635 million proposed for accessibility will enable action to be taken to tackle problems of poor air quality in designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA), as well as tackling other accessibility problems. This includes a significant element of schemes committed from LTP1.

5.2 In each case, it would be desirable to increase these allocations. However, this could only be achieved by removing funding from other priorities. It is considered that the programme represents a reasonable balance across a range of policy areas and priorities.

5.3 The remaining allocations were assessed by the extent to which they met policy objectives in the LTP. A brief description of each allocation follows.

5.4 An allocation of £5 million is proposed for safer routes to schools, with up to a further £1 million if full reward funding is available. Without the reward funding element, this would equate to £1 million per year. This would support all schools having travel plans in place by 2010.

5.5 An allocation of £4 million is proposed for improving access to Gosport. This is intended to fund improvements that would be needed regardless of decisions on alternatives to light rail. It includes improvements to a number of junctions on the A32, including Quay Street roundabout and Newgate Lane roundabout. This allocation would also be increased by external funding. The objective of these schemes would be to improve journey time reliability and to tackle problems of poor air quality.

5.6 A further £2.9 million is proposed for other capacity improvements. This would include the A340 and A339 junctions at Basingstoke plus a further £1 million for smaller scale schemes. An additional £1 million is suggested if full reward funding becomes available. It should be noted that there are a large number of reserve schemes that could be funded under this category if resources were made available. As with the Access to Gosport schemes, these would help to improve journey-time reliability.

5.7 The £5.3 million proposed for the Winchester Park and Ride scheme would help to meet objectives to tackle congestion, improve air quality and increase bus patronage. As this scheme is now estimated to cost more than £5 million, it may be possible to secure major scheme funding. If successful, this would mean that its costs would be met over and above the mainstream LTP funds and that £5.3 million would be available for redistribution within the LTP programme. It is proposed to investigate this funding route. However, as major scheme funding is uncertain, the scheme should be retained in the capital programme at this stage. This allocation includes £1 million for limited bus priority measures. More extensive bus priority measures could cost a further £1.5 million, which is considered unaffordable at this time. It may be possible to increase the bus priority measures at a later date, for example if the scheme is funded as a major scheme or if it attracts funds from LTP3 or developer contributions.

5.8 It is proposed to allocate £3.7 million to pedestrian crossings and severance under the main capital programme. This would fund a range of small scale improvements across the county and replacement of the Havant Railway bridge (£2.2 million) and the Archers Road footbridge (£1.5 million). Although these two footbridges are relatively expensive in terms of the number of people using them, they are very important for maintaining pedestrian access and reducing severance, particularly for cyclists and people with mobility impairments. Some of the costs of these two schemes are predicted to fall outside the LTP2 period (2006-07 to 2010-11) and would therefore be a commitment on the LTP3 budget (2011-12 to 2015-16).

5.9 The proposed capital programme includes an allocation of £900,000 towards works associated with the statutory Rights of Way Improvement Plan, which for the first time forms part of the LTP. Up to £500,000 is proposed if full reward funding becomes available. This figure includes funding for improvements, identified through public consultation, which will provide for recreational active travel (walking and cycling) and will result in benefits to health, indirectly aid the rural economy and contribute to overall LTP objectives.

5.10 The community transport allocation of £950,000 would largely be used for the routine and necessary replacement of vehicles. A total of £180,000 is proposed for personal security and community safety initiatives. These objectives will also be served through measures in the accessibility programme.

5.11 A total of £1.91 million is proposed for innovation and monitoring. This would allow for continuation and extension of the modelling work currently being undertaken in Solent, Winchester and Basingstoke. It would also fund innovative approaches, such as accessibility auditing.

5.12 An allocation of £1 million is proposed for the development of major schemes, including considering alternative approaches to access to the Gosport peninsula. Some of these costs could be reclaimed from the Government if the schemes are subsequently successful in attracting funding.

5.13 It is proposed to allocate £530,000 for environmental schemes, including schemes developed from the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

5.14 An allocation of £2.45 million is proposed for minor schemes and village initiatives. This includes local traffic management schemes and, although these schemes are quite small, they are rooted in community interests and can be effective at tackling localised problems.

5.15 A provisional allocation of £3.9 million is proposed for street lighting column replacement, rising to a maximum of £5 million if full reward funding is received. This allocation will need to be reviewed following the outcome of a proposed PFI bid to fund column replacement.

6. Impact of the Proposed Capital Programme

6.1 At the "recommended" level of funding, this capital programme would:

(i) meet a large proportion of the identified district council priorities;

(ii) provide sufficient resources to meet LPSA2 casualty reduction targets;

(iii) offer a realistic chance of maintaining bus patronage at current levels (the stated LTP target);

(iv) tackle air quality problems at each of the declared air quality management areas;

(v) provide funding for measures to tackle congestion and to improve accessibility (especially in Gosport);

(vi) provide funds to develop major scheme bids, including possible alternatives to light rail; and

(vii) meet stated LTP targets and objectives.

7. Major Schemes

7.1 At this stage it is not proposed to make a formal bid for a major scheme under the LTP. None of the schemes under development are yet ready to be submitted under the Government's stringent assessment processes. There also appears to be little scope for new schemes to be funded in the first half of the LTP period. The Government has recently decided that the A3 Hindhead scheme is a scheme of "regional" rather than "national" importance. This means that it should be funded from the regional major schemes allocation, leaving very little room for other schemes.

7.2 Officers are developing a potential major scheme bid for the Chickenhall Lane link road. It has not been possible to complete this because of uncertainties about the level and location of development in the South East Plan, the Airport Masterplan, the release of land in the former Alstom works and the extent of third party contributions. As this information becomes available the prospects for a major scheme bid improve, although the Government Office for the South East has repeatedly advised that the scheme is not seen as a transport funding priority and is therefore unlikely to win LTP funding.

7.3 Officers will also develop major scheme bids for the Winchester Park and Ride and for schemes featured on the list of critical infrastructure needed for the South East Plan. It is proposed that the draft LTP should include holding statements on the Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth light rail scheme, pending decisions on the future of the scheme or possible alternatives. The LTP makes clear that infrastructure improvements are needed to tackle the substantial transport problems currently being experienced on the Fareham-Gosport peninsula.

7.4 A number of other major scheme are being developed for implementation on a longer timescale. This would include Stubbington Bypass, Botley Bypass and capacity enhancements to the A33 between Basingstoke and Reading.

8. Further Development of the LTP

8.1 In general, it is considered that the Provisional LTP does not need radical revision. The majority of the consultation responses supported the overall policy framework. Responses from partner organisations and district councils have also generally supported the policies of the LTP.

8.2 The Government's comments in the formal decision letter largely concentrated on minor issues of presentation. On the whole, the Government wanted to see more information in the LTP rather than suggesting that the LTP needed to be amended.

8.3 The decision letter did express the opinion that the LTP was not ambitious in its approach to demand management. Although not made explicit, this appears to reflect the Government's current enthusiasm for local authorities to introduce road user charging and the DfT's limited funds for infrastructure improvements. However, the Government has not yet produced substantial evidence on the negative impact of road user charging on social exclusion, quality of life and economic performance. It is therefore proposed that the LTP should continue its evidence-based approach and that it should not offer any further commitments other than to consider the impact of financial demand management measures.

8.4 The Government's decision letter also expressed the opinion that some of the LTP's targets did not appear to be ambitious, especially for road safety and bus patronage. It is not clear on what evidence, if any, this assertion was based. Unless the Government can demonstrate why the suggested targets are not ambitious, it is recommended that they be retained for the full LTP. It should be noted that future reward funding depends on the County Council achieving its LTP targets, so there is nothing to be gained from setting unrealistic targets.

8.5 It is therefore proposed that the full LTP should not be substantially changed from the Provisional LTP, except where new information is available or has changed.

9. Full Accessibility Strategy

9.1 The Provisional LTP included a framework accessibility strategy, but did not include finalised details of the full strategy. This was largely due to the late arrival of the Government's guidance and the software for auditing accessibility, known as Accession.

9.2 A full accessibility strategy is now proposed for inclusion in the full LTP. This is described in more detail in the draft LTP available in the Members' rooms and is summarised here.

9.3 Analysis has demonstrated that barriers to accessibility can take several different forms. The Government's narrow definition considers how quickly people can access a small range of services by theoretical public transport connections. The Provisional LTP also highlights the importance of information about public transport services and the design of those services. The location of facilities can also play an important role in hindering or aiding access. There are also physical barriers to accessibility within towns and villages, such as poorly designed footways, inadequate signs and severance caused by roads, railways and rivers.

9.4 The Provisional LTP therefore recommended a wider definition of accessibility than the Government and a range of measures to tackle assessed problems of poor accessibility. Many of these measures would be tested and developed in three pilot areas:

(i) access to healthcare in the New Forest;

(ii) access to post offices in Basingstoke and Deane district; and

(iii) access to a wide range of facilities from Whitehill and Bordon.

9.5 It is now proposed to add a fourth pilot area: access to healthcare in Winchester and Andover. This arose from discussions with the NHS trust which was consulting on revisions to healthcare provision in the Winchester and Andover hospitals. These revisions would change the hospitals that patients needed to travel to, and would require some people to travel from the wider Andover area to Winchester hospital. The County Council's accessibility software and toolkit of measures can help to assess and ameliorate the impact of these changes.

9.6 The full accessibility strategy would be based on a new concept of access plans. Over a rolling programme, each settlement of a significant size would develop an access plan in conjunction with more general local strategies, such as Local Development Documents and Community Strategies. The precise nature and content of access plans would depend on the particular needs of the settlement. Access plans could be developed for towns, wider geographical areas or routes.

9.7 The first stage of the process would be to gather information on relative accessibility (and related problems) from a range of sources:

(i) Accession audits - by districts and across a range of services;

(ii) Analysis of national census data to help determine population profile and travel need;

(iii) Assessment of the travel choices available and inventories of the facilities and services available;

(iv) Community Street Audits;

(v) Assessment of physical barriers to accessibility, including severance, quality of walking/cycling environment, needs of people with mobility impairment and adequacy of signs;

(vi) Consultation and other ad hoc information about accessibility problems;

(vii) Outcomes from pilots and other existing exercises; and

(viii) Other factors to be taken into account, including AQMA, congestion problems, safety issues and likely development impacts.

9.8 Following these audits, the County Council would then work with local stakeholders, district councils, local strategic partnerships, employers, residents' groups, transport providers and service providers. This group would produce an access plan made up of one or more of the following elements:

(i) long term strategy;

(ii) physical accessibility;

(iii) coordinated travel planning;

(iv) passenger transport;

(v) information;

(vi) traffic management;

(vii) safety; and

(viii) Air Quality Action Plan.

9.9 The number of elements included within each access plan would depend on the nature of the settlement, area or route and the extent of any problems. For example, a small settlement that is unlikely to experience long-term change may not need a long-term strategy. An area or settlement without an AQMA would not need an Air Quality Action Plan.

9.10 The size and extent of these plans would also be determined by need. At its most basic, a long-term strategy could include a map of intended schemes and development areas together with a timescale and brief implementation plan. Many route plans could be handled by the LTP's planned route hierarchy.

9.11 The timetable for producing access plans would also be determined by a prioritisation process. More urgent plans would be produced first. The LTP will contain a timetable for producing action plans.

9.12 The County Council will produce policy guides explaining how each of these strategy elements should be developed and what they should contain. For relatively small areas, it may be possible for the County Council to develop "DIY kits" to enable district and parish councils to carry out their own assessments with minimal or no assistance from the County Council.

9.13 Some of these strategies already exist in different forms. It would be possible to draw them together within the framework provided by the LTP.

9.14 A brief description of the different elements of access plans follows:

(i) Long term strategies (previously known as "transport master-plans"). These would be strategies and action plans, typically looking at future developments over the next 20 years (although longer or shorter periods could be applied in individual cases). These strategies would be mainly applied to settlements, areas or routes that were likely to experience significant change during the period. For example, a town would be the subject of a master-plan if it was likely to need a major scheme in the next 20 years, or was to be the subject of substantial development. Likely candidates for settlements include Winchester and Basingstoke. The South East Plan strategies for North Hampshire and Solent already fulfil many of the requirements of a long-term transport strategy. A further strategy will be required for the Fareham-Gosport peninsula to address the major transport problems and the recent decision on funding for LRT.

(ii) Physical accessibility strategy. This includes action to tackle walking and cycling severance within settlements (eg footbridges over railway lines, improved pedestrian road crossings, footways in rural areas), improve the walking environment, provide facilities for the mobility impaired, improve signage, etc.

(iii) Coordinated travel planning strategy. This combines analysis and actions from neighbouring travel plans for schools, workplaces and key destinations.

(iv) Passenger transport strategy. This strategy covers all modes of passenger transport, including bus, rail, ferry, taxi, demand-responsive transport and community transport. The strategy would include coverage of bus routes as well as accessibility to rail stations and ferries.

(v) Information strategy. This strategy would assess the provision of information through a range of sources, including:

(a) Real-time;

(b) signs and other static information;

(c) telephone and internet; and

(d) written (timetables, community level journey planning).

This strategy would also include behavioural change messages and training programmes.

(vi) Traffic management strategy. A strategy considering the operation of the roads network within a given settlement, area or route.

(vii) Safety strategy. A strategy detailing general and specific safety problems.

(viii) Air Quality Action Plan (if appropriate)

(ix) Other local issues. This could include non-transport issues such as opening hours, the location of facilities and the design of non-transport services.

9.15 It is proposed that the LTP would include a list of the settlements, areas and routes scheduled to have access plans and the timetable for producing them. This list will be updated regularly.

9.16 With a county the size of Hampshire, it will take some time to prepare access plans for all relevant areas. A rolling programme is therefore proposed, starting with the pilot schemes already identified and making use of existing plans and strategies.

9.17 The programme of measures for the LTP period has been developed in advance of this programme. It includes urgent schemes identified by the prioritisation process (such as access to Gosport and some severance schemes). The programme also includes a recommended allocation of £7.5 million to fund the development of access plans and implement measures. A programme will be developed and kept under review as the work progresses. A set of criteria will be developed to prioritise the towns for inclusion in the Access Plan programme. This will include an assessment of relative need, air quality management issues and links to the market town programme.

9.18 Separate accessibility targets could be developed for each area, settlement and route. These targets could apply to the county as a whole or to specified areas of the county. They could include:

(i) public perception of accessibility;

(ii) time taken to travel to key services; and

(iii) proportion of the population (whole population or disadvantaged) that has very poor or no accessibility.

10. Congestion

10.1 Officers have carried out an assessment of congestion problems in Hampshire, to prioritise congestion relieving schemes. Each congestion hotspot has been assessed against the following factors:

(i) perceived levels of congestion;

(ii) traffic flows and demand;

(iii) location (urban centre, town centre, route);

(iv) level of commuting/seasonality;

(v) air quality, including whether an AQMA has been declared;

(vi) accessibility;

(vii) possible impact of development, including SDAs and Major Development Areas;

(viii) the `hubs and spokes' strategy; and

(ix) impact on/access to public transport.

10.2 A new methodology has been devised to develop solutions to congestion hotspots. The methodology uses the concept of "reduce, manage and invest" to assess the most appropriate solutions to congestion problems, under a six step process:

(i) identify areas of congestion;

(ii) categorise and prioritise according to severity;

(iii) assess each priority against the following criteria:

(a) nature of problem;

(b) possible "reduce" measures;

(c) possible "management" measures; and

(d) possible "investment" measures;

(iv) develop schemes and interventions;

(v) assess priority of schemes against the shared priorities and budget headings;

(vi) identify capital programme and need for major schemes.

10.3 The following congestion schemes are proposed for the LTP2 capital programme:

Access to Gosport

Basingstoke junctions (A340 and A339)

Witherbed Lane, Segensworth

Other smaller scale capacity improvements.

10.4 The Government has clarified that congestion targets are not needed for the County Council's LTP.

11. Safety

11.1 A revised road safety strategy has been developed for the LTP, in line with the LPSA2 agreement and proposed allocation of £14 million over the LTP period. This answers the concern from the Government's decision letter that the targets for casualty reduction could be more stretching.

11.2 The Government has recently announced that safety camera partnerships will no longer use netted-off revenue to fund safety camera operations after 2006/07. Instead, they will be funded from £110 million nationally added to LTP allocations, with flexibility for this also to be used for other road safety initiatives. These funds will be allocated to authorities according to their safety records, using the safety element of the LTP funding formula. Further guidance on this is expected shortly.

12. Air Quality

12.1 The draft full LTP includes more information on the development of Air Quality Action Plans to address problems of poor air quality where an Air Quality Management Area has been declared. Although air quality monitoring is a district council function, traffic is a primary causal factor in many instances. The County Council therefore works closely with district councils on the development and agreement of Air Quality Action Plans.

12.2 Air quality problems can be very difficult to tackle. Innovative measures, such as the MIRACLES project, can help to reduce car use and increase the proportion of vehicles using less-polluting fuels. Adjustments to traffic signals and traffic management measures, such as HGV restrictions, can also help. In most instances, the Air Quality Action Plan is likely to include a package of measures following the "reduce, manage and invest" principles of the LTP.

12.3 As most of Hampshire's AQMAs have been declared quite recently, it is not yet clear what measures would need to be introduced to reduce the levels of pollutants to within Government guidelines. Where the proposed packages of measures have been developed for an AQMA, these are described in more detail in the LTP.

13. Other Changes to the LTP

13.1 The draft full LTP also includes more information on each of the four area strategies. For the Solent and North Hampshire area, this includes revised long-term strategies based on the submissions to the South East Plan.

13.2 The LTP also includes a commentary on the consultation activities undertaken and the comments received, including the outcome of the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

13.3 The LTP has been amended to update references to the Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth light rail scheme, following the Government's recent decision not to fund the scheme. The text refers to the need to address congestion and accessibility problems on the Fareham-Gosport peninsula and that a revised strategy is being developed.

13.4 The LTP includes revised policy annexes on passenger transport, intelligent transport systems (ITS) and smarter choices. These are updated versions of policy documents endorsed by the Environment Policy Review Committee since the draft LTP was approved.

13.5 In addition, a large number of smaller changes have been made to the draft for the following reasons, to:

(i) reflect developments that have taken place since the Provisional LTP was published;

(ii) include more information on the process of developing the LTP, including the progress on the pilot projects;

(iii) correct typing mistakes and factual inaccuracies;

(iv) address the largely presentational points raised by the Government's decision letter and to take account of developments in Government Guidance.

14. Process for Producing Full LTP

14.1 The draft full LTP in the Members' rooms is based on the same policy framework as the Provisional LTP. The majority of the text is unchanged from the version that was submitted to the Government in July.

14.2 It is proposed that the draft should continue to be updated in the coming weeks, especially to address concerns raised by the Government in its formal decision letter. After 23 January there will be no further changes to the LTP except those required by Cabinet.

14.3 As a statutory "core document" the full LTP is required to be agreed by the full Council. It is proposed that this agreement should be sought at the meeting on 22 February.

15. Impact Assessments

15.1 The bid will not compromise the County Council's policy on race and equalities.

Recommendation

That Cabinet recommends the County Council to approve the Local Transport Plan 2006-11.

747Rpt/IR