Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director, Regeneration and Local Services – Sustainable Transport Manager and Traffic Management Section Manager, Regeneration and Local Services.

The Chairman introduced the Sustainable Transport Manager, Andy Leadbeater and the Traffic Management Section Manager, Dave Lewin who were in attendance to give an update as the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) (for copy see file of minutes).

The Sustainable Transport Manager reminded Members that initially LTPs were for durations of 5 years, however the Transport Act (2008) removed this requirement and the latest update was LTP3, approved by Cabinet in March 2011, and introduced in April 2011.  Councillors recalled that the role of LTP3 was to set out a transport strategy and delivery plan to support the economic growth of the County with the Department for Transport (DfT) setting out within their National Transport Goals challenges/objectives the overarching national priorities, and LTP3 being a local interpretation to align with our DCC priorities.

The Committee noted that there were a number of priorities, under the five national transport goals, as set out on page 26 of the report pack, and it was added that an additional goal had been included with the six areas as follows: a stronger economy through regeneration; reducing our carbon output; safer and healthier travel; better accessibility to services; improving the quality of life and a healthier natural environment; and maintaining the transport asset.  It was explained that the priorities were aligned to the Council strategies including the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Regeneration Statement (RS) and the County Durham Plan (CDP) core strategy and prioritised in line with those.  It was noted that the main priority was supporting the economy and the 36 policies set out under the six areas were set out at Appendix 4.  Members noted that the core programme had five delivery areas: sustainable travel; economic/transport corridors; whole-town approach; revenue support; and maintaining the transport asset and the split by budget heads was set out at Appendix 2 to the report.

The Sustainable Transport Manager noted that major schemes could be funded in a number of ways: developer contributions; DfT funding bids; the DCC Capital Programme; and the NECA, Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) and LGF. 

The Committee learned that there were a number of DCC activities, including areas such as Road Safety, and supported by the LSTF including encouraging walking and cycling.  Members noted LTP Capital Funding provided by the DfT was via two blocks, an Integrated Transport Block (ITB) and a Maintenance Block.  It was added that at the start of LTP3 the ITB allocation was significantly reduced and while Government increased the overall transport funding nationally this was effectively “top-sliced” to allow for the formation of the LGF scheme Local Authorities could bid into.  Councillors noted other funding outside of LTP was required for schemes such as new roundabouts or bus stations, and that the Council’s Capital Programme had funded improvements at Sunderland Bridge Roundabout, SCOOT and Northlands Roundabout.  It was added that the Council had been awarded Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) funding to introduce further electric vehicle charging points at County Council offices.  Members noted Local Pinch Point Funding from the DfT and success in securing this for schemes to reduce congestion at A1(M) Junction 63 and Picktree Lane Roundabouts at Chester-le-Street.

The Traffic Management Section Manager referred Members to Appendix 2 and explained that schemes that had been delivered had included sustainable transport, with community transport, for example minibuses being provided in East Durham.  It was explained that other elements included contributions from Local Members in terms of bus infrastructure such as bus stops and bus priority in order to make bus travel an attractive choice for commuting and travelling.  Councillors were reminded of the work in terms of Road Casualty Reduction, looking at Police data to highlight areas where there maybe issues.  It was explained that a road fatality had an associated financial cost of around £1.8 million and that the works to try and prevent accidents and fatalities included: schemes at the A167 Pity Me Roundabout; signage and road markings at Forest-in-Teesdale following road resurfacing; and signage on the C12 west of Pittington.  It was added that there were 13 Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIP) schemes for 2016/17.

The Committee were informed of the work in terms of Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC), with the installation of 9 variable message boards, the majority on the main approaches into Durham City, which provide useful driver information, most recently highlighting works being carried out to Leazes Bowl in the City. 

It was added that there would be improvements to the car park management system in Durham and further cameras installed at Bishop Auckland in being able to understand issues with traffic, assessing the impact of Kynren.  It was noted that cameras in Durham City Centre could allow drivers to be able to look at live images in terms of journey planning.  Councillors noted issues of demand management, with the use of Traffic Regulation Orders where appropriate in response to new signage, road markings and other issues.  Members noted another area of work included encouraging walking and cycling, linking to the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Cycling Strategy and County Durham Plan. 

Members were informed as regards local accessibility, with staff having come together from Neighbourhood Service into the new Regeneration and Local Services Directorate, and the recent works to improve the economic/transport corridors including: A167 Sunderland Bridge Roundabout; A167/A693 Northlands Roundabout improvements; and the A693 Pelton/Perkinsville Junction Improvements.

The Traffic Management Section Manager reminded Members of the Whole-Town Approach, focusing on the 12 main settlements within the County, in line with the RS ambition for “vibrant and successful towns”.  Associated works included: CCTV for Bishop Auckland and Peterlee Bus Station; subway upgrades; motorcycling parking “wave and pay machines”; access to Kynren; and a pedestrian refuge at Bishop Auckland for Glaxosmithkline staff.  It was reiterated as per the additional goal added by DCC, there was ongoing works to maintain the transport asset, including Highways, Bridge and Streetlight maintenance.

The Sustainable Transport Manager noted there was a variety of work ongoing in terms of LTP3 and noted issues for the future such as the NECA and changes to the Authority’s legal status as a Local Transport Authority with the NECA manifesto being out for public consultation and Local Authority colleagues working to develop a new Transport Strategy for the next financial year.  The Sustainable Transport Manager concluded by noting that Internal Audit had looked at the management of risk in terms of the Integrated Transport Block and had given a rating of “substantial assurance”.

The Chairman thanked the Officers for their report and asked Members for their questions.

Councillor J Armstrong expressed concerns as regards funding and costs associated with the Metro and commented that members need to receive regular updates on the work being undertaken by NECA in relation to transport and any implications for County. Councillor J Armstrong added that smart ticketing was a good idea, working in London and should be a good idea for Durham.  The Chairman added that he had attended NECA earlier in the week and noted discussions as regards the replacement of the Metro rolling stock, at an estimated cost of £1 billion. 

Councillor A Batey noted the works in terms of congestion improvement in urban areas, however it was added that accessibility in the rural areas was important to ensure our rural communities were not isolated, noting bus routes to High Handenhold being lost.  The Sustainable Transport Manager explained that Officers were very conscious of the issues in terms of NECA and the Metro and that the smart ticketing was part of a regional initiative which includes the “pop-card”.  It was added that he would look into the issues in terms of any loss of provision of bus service and noted that the Council and NECA worked hard to ensure access to services.

Mr T Batson noted strategies often tended to be high-level documents and that there needed to be engagement with our local communities, especially rural areas, to be able to see how those strategies affect the people in County Durham.  The Chairman noted that  care needs to be taken as regards how strategies/policies impact in our rural communities, such as street-lighting changes, to ensure those communities are not isolated and to ensure social-cohesion.

The Sustainable Transport Manager noted that congestion was an urban issue, however rural infrastructure was important to enable accessibility to services, though accepting the pressures on income/revenue streams associated, such as bus sustainability.

Councillor J Clare noted the example of Newton Aycliffe in terms of a growing town, which has transport issues, what was done in terms of works to improve traffic and pedestrianised areas and did colleagues working on the LTP speak to those working on Regeneration Plans to make sure works were integrated and met people’s needs.

The Community Economic Development Manager, Wendy Benson noted that Officers worked well together and linked in terms of issues when looking at Masterplans for the main settlements.

Councillor D Hall asked, in terms of sustainable transport, how performance was measured in respect of subsidised services noting in his area there appeared to be no coordination between Arriva and Go North East in terms of the services provided and wondered whether putting the services back together under one public operator may be beneficial.

The Sustainable Transport Manager noted that the services were provided by private operators on a commercial basis and therefore operators would make decisions on services based upon commercial factors and then the Council would look to fill in any gaps in service provision, where they considered it socially necessary and financial budgets will allow, by inviting operators to tender for a service.  While operators already providing services in an area would be the preferred solution, other operators may be successful in the tender process and this is a reason why some areas may have multiple operator providing services.  It was highlighted that there would be significant risks in terms of any Local Authority which would take services back into public operation.  Councillor D Hall noted within the LTP there were strategic priorities in terms of accessibility, communities and low carbon, with some difficult work in terms of removal of streetlights, and asked how was performance measured and when was it evaluated in terms of effectiveness.  The Sustainable Transport Manager noted any issues in terms of any unique situations would be addressed, with Councillor J Armstrong suggesting that the Council’s Public Transport Network Manager, Simon Day may have more information in this regard.

Councillor E Adam noted he felt there was contradiction in the policy in terms of reducing carbon and healthier lifestyles while focusing on employment and growth, more people representing more CO₂.  Councillor E Adam asked whether industry should be encouraged to move to more rural areas to secure investment in those communities.  The Chairman noted it was a similar situation in terms of street lighting, where energy reduction was a goal, however, balanced against the needs of communities; it was an issue of how policies were applied.

Councillor J Clare added that there is a relationship between Regeneration and LTP and that policies and strategies need to be formulated and developed taking into account this relationship.  

Resolved:   

That the report be noted.