Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the TRANSPORT FOR SOUTH HAMPSHIRE JOINT COMMITTEE

of HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL and PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL held at Southampton City Council, on

Friday 17 October 2008.

PRESENT:

44 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Natalie Chapman - Freight Transport Association, Neil Pearce - SEEDA, Jerry Clarke - Portsmouth Commercial Port and Councillor Keith Wood - Winchester City Council,.

45 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Kendal declared a personal interest as a user of the Redbridge and Millbrook Flyovers.

46 CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

Councillor Kendal reported that, in addition to the published agenda, the meeting would receive a presentation from Paul Robinson from the Highways Agency.

The Committee welcomed Councillor Matthew Dean, Cabinet Member for Planning and Sustainability at Southampton City Council, to his first meeting as a member of the Committee, and thanked Councillor Gavin Dick for his service in this role.

Councillor Kendal informed members that he had recently become aware of a maintenance problem with the bearings on the Redbridge and Millbrook Flyovers, the busiest route into Southampton. Due to the section of road in question not being a trunk road, the costly maintenance requirements were the responsibility of Southampton City Council, rather than the Highways Agency. Whilst some funding had been identified it was not sufficient to fully address these issues. He observed that through the close working of the agencies and authorities represented on the Committee, such anomalies might be addressed.

47 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 JULY 2008

The Minutes of the Joint Committee held on 15 July 2008 were confirmed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

48 PRESENTATION BY HIGHWAYS AGENCY - PAUL ROBINSON

The Committee received a presentation from Paul Robinson. He began by drawing Members' attention to the state of the network in the South East region, both at present, and projected to 2016. These projections showed significant future pressures on the network, particularly in the South Hampshire area.

A significant strand of work carried out by the Highways Agency was to reduce delays on the network. Delays could be broken down into three types: planned delays, such as major events; unplanned delays, such as road traffic incidents; and network capacity.

The measures taken to reduce unplanned delays had focussed on Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), as these were involved in a significant proportion of these incidents. Particularly highlighted was the multiagency approach that had been taken to reduce the number of "sideswipe" incidents involving left-hand drive HGVs.

Planned delays were being reduced by the development and implementation of temporary changes and diversions to reduce the impact of significant planned events on the road network, resulting in a halving of planned delays.

The majority of delays on the network resulted from capacity issues. A combination of approaches had been developed based on the concepts of: demand management, including improved spatial planning, travel plans and modal shift; greater network efficiency, which included several packages of intervention; and integrated demand management, which involved joint working with highway authorities to jointly manage capacity.

In response to questions, he confirmed that the Highways Agency was willing to work towards further integration with highway authorities, but that current cost issues had to be borne in mind. Joint working was being fostered within the Highways Agency, with closer cooperation between the planning and regulatory functions of the Agency.

The Chairman thanked Paul Robinson on behalf of the Committee for his interesting presentation.

49 TRANSPORT FOR SOUTH HAMPSHIRE RESPONSE TO THE SOUTH EAST PLAN

The Committee considered the report of the Southampton Director of Environment (Item 5 in the Minute Book) seeking approval to submit the Joint Committee's proposed comments on the Government's proposed modifications to the South East Plan.

Primarily, the comments were regarding minor textual changes, with the most significant issue being an objection to the deletion of Policy SH5, due to the potential result of an increase in the use of Greenfield sites, which would be less sustainable in transport terms.

RESOLVED:

That the Joint Committee submits the comments on the Government's proposed modifications to the South East Plan as set out in Appendix 1.

50 SOUTH HAMPSHIRE AGREEMENT - HIGHWAYS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

The Committee considered the report of the Hampshire Director of Environment (Item 6 in the Minute Book) seeking approval of the Memorandum of Understanding for Highways. The Memorandum was one of the first of its kind across the country, and set out and clarified the relationship for highways within South Hampshire, as well as establishing undertakings and protocols for the participant authorities and agencies.

The document created a framework for achieving a balanced approach towards the delivery of the sub-regional strategy and the management of the South Hampshire highway network,; a joint pilot to improve the operation of the local and national networks, including active traffic management on the M3 and M27; and the joint establishment of an evidence base, which would serve to maximise the data collected.

The Memorandum would be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continued to meet its required purpose.


RESOLVED:

That the Memorandum of Understanding for Highways, as part of the South Hampshire Multi Area Agreement, is approved.

51 TRANSPORT FOR SOUTH HAMPSHIRE FINANCIAL MATTERS - PERFORMANCE AND PROGRESS

The Committee considered the report of the Hampshire Director of Environment (Item 7 in the Minute Book) updating the Committee on a number of financial matters and seeking approval for the Transport for South Hampshire Project Director to authorise revenue and capital expenditure. Significant expenditure had been assigned to a number of studies (as listed in Appendix 1 of the Report), a further significant area of expenditure was the development of an evidence base, including data capture.

Members noted the ambitious number of capital funding bids set out in appendix 2 of the report. The Director of Partnership for Urban South Hampshire requested that the resolution gave specific approval to the bids set out in appendix 2 of the report, for the purposes of clarity with Partnership of Urban South Hampshire as to the grant position.


Members noted that the recommended power of approval to be granted to the Project Director was an interim measure prior to the adoption of Financial Protocols that mirrored those adopted by Partnership for Urban South Hampshire.

RESOLVED:

That the Joint Committee:

1. Notes the performance of the Revenue Budget for Transport for South Hampshire.

2. Notes the allocation by Partnership for Urban South Hampshire of £1.7 million New Growth Point funding towards the Transport for South Hampshire Capital Programme, and approves the individual allocations in Appendix 2 of the report.

3. Notes the performance against the approved Transport for South Hampshire Business Plan for 2007-2009.

4. Pending approval by the Joint Committee of Financial Protocols, gives approval for the Transport for South Hampshire Project Director to authorise revenue and capital expenditure provided this is within the approved budget allocations and project approvals, and has been certified as accurate and legitimate by the relevant commissioning officer.

5. Notes the appointment of an Auditor for Transport for South Hampshire.

52 BUS RAPID TRANSIT - SOUTH EAST HAMPSHIRE

The Committee considered the report of the Hampshire Director of Environment (Item 8 in the Minute Book) setting out details of the South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, and seeking approval to submit a Full Business Case to Government. The BRT project had been a major priority for Transport for South Hampshire, and would link several key communities and destinations through an incremental phased delivery, with the first phase to be constructed by 2011.

At the request of the Government, a Full Business Case for the project had been prepared for submission prior to the deadline of 31 October 2008.

The potential financial risks from Phase 1 of the BRT project had been estimated as £1.64 million, which would be borne by the `Lead Authority' should they arise. Hampshire County Council had been recommended as the `Lead Authority' for this stage of the project due to its status as Highway Authority for the location of this phase of the project.

At the time of the meeting, a public consultation exercise was underway, with positive reports from a good level of public engagement on the first day. It was agreed that a summary report of the complete consultation would be brought to a future meeting of the Joint Committee.

It was noted that the map included in appendix 1 of the report was an early version, and that the wider project is planned to include a direct link between Port Solent and Tipner.

RESOLVED:

1. That Transport for South Hampshire appoint Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority' on all aspects relating to the first phase (as described in the report) of the Bus Rapid Transit scheme.

2. That approval is given to submit a Full Business Case to the Department for Transport/Department for Communities and Local Government by 31 October 2008 for the first phase of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit Scheme along the disused railway corridor between Fareham and Gosport and recommends final approval by Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority'.

3. That, in accordance with Government guidance, Transport for South Hampshire agrees that any funding awarded will be paid to Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority' for the first phase of the Bus Rapid Transit Scheme.

53 MODELLING - EVIDENCE BASE

The Committee considered the report of the Hampshire Director of Environment (Item 9 in the Minute Book) summarising the current position and seeking approval to proceed with the development of the necessary evidence base. This consisted of a two stage process; the first stage was the development of the evidence base, the second was to share the information provided to ensure the usage of a single model, which would enable a consistent approach across partner organisations.

The Joint Committee agreed that, whilst the gathering of the data may cause the public some inconvenience, the benefits realised from gathering this data could not be understated. It was noted that the Police, as part of their involvement with the gathering of the data, would manage any problems that might arise with traffic flow.

RESOLVED:

1. That data collection for work to develop the evidence base required to access the transport impacts of proposed major development sites in South Hampshire be prioritised within the available resources earmarked in the 2008/09 budget to support the full assessment of such proposals, and identify transport infrastructure requirements.

2. That a partnership approach, including sharing of appropriate data, with other public and private sector organisations to minimise duplication of work is approved.

54 DATES FOR MEETINGS IN 2009

The following dates were agreed for future meetings of the Joint Committee:
Wednesdays 28^th January, 29^th April, 29^th July and 28^th October, subject to final confirmation.