Agenda item

Report by Assistant Director Highways Transport and Planning.

The Committee are asked to preview the proposed response to the consultation.

23.1     Mr Hemmings, Transport Policy and Planning Manager, introduced the report by informing the Committee that the County Council was part of the Transport for South East (TfSE), a sub-national transport body.  The report is the County Council’s draft response to the latest consultation by TfSE on the Draft Strategic Investment Plan (SIP).  The SIP is a 30-year investment plan underpinned by a set of technical exercises and evaluations.  A presentation on the item was shared and a copy is appended to the minutes. 

23.2     Members of the Committee then asked questions and a summary of those comments, questions and answers follows.

23.3     It was felt that better public transport would be a key to help reaching zero carbon targets, however increased fares were making the option unaffordable for many people. Officers confirmed work was being done to find funding for fare subsidies.

23.4     Members asked how the SIP was taking in to account the dramatic increases in costs over the last few years?  Officers confirmed that the estimates contained in the SIP were recently updated.

23.5     A Member stated that maintenance costs for highways were high and were likely to be unaffordable going forward and this would be of concern to residents across the county.  Officers reported that they believed the costs may have been overestimated by TfSE and had indicated this to them.

23.6     Concerns were raised about the high aspirations and vagueness in the SIP and officers reported that the SIP is high-level long-term regional proposal to enable the Council, other planning authorities and stakeholders to plan for the investments that will give the outcomes desired.  The County Council’s 15-year transport plan and a series of 5-year plans for road and rail will also mesh with the SIP.  The TfSE would present a voice to Government advising how they should in future invest to gain greater influence on investment programmes by speaking with one voice for the region. 

23.7     TfSE had made assumptions about the scale of investment in active travel across the region.  The scale of ambition in the SIP exceeds current spending and future maintenance would be unaffordable so investments would need to be prioritised.  This had been highlighted to TfSE, who had been asked to apply consistency.  TfSE’s influence on the Government for funding of multi-modal routes could be invaluable.

23.8     Members raised concerns on whether local planning could undermine some of the ambition in the SIP e.g. the impact of a second runway at Gatwick Airport and new roads serving new developments.  Officers reported that the TfSE approach is different to local plan and strategic transport type studies.  It is not a specific set of proposals but a model to understand the connection between economy and the transport model e.g. how an investment in transport could lead to economic growth.   The County Council works closely with local planning authorities to give transport guidance, considering if there is a better way to introduce a development to give a more sustainable infrastructure.  If developments could be located properly this could reduce the need for travel and provide more sustainable land use.

23.9     Members highlighted concerns of their residents on congestion points, and questioned the deliverability of projects, particularly the A27 and A29, and asked that the also A27 be included.

23.10  Members asked how the recent change in working patterns had been taken into account, and whether the new mobility patterns e.g. the use of e-bikes and e-scooters would help reduce vehicle trips?  Officers reported that work patterns had not been considered and Government legislation was still needed on the use of e-scooters before there could be the opportunity of using active travel options.

23.11  Members highlighted that the overall funding capability needed to ensure transport system resilience to climatic events, e.g. flooding, heated railway lines, land shrinkage.  Officers reported that assumptions had been made at an early stage including climate change and the resilience of network corridors. 

23.12  Officers informed members that the consultation responses had been given through an online platform and that two weeks previously over 500 different responses had been received.  A breakdown of responders was not available but was expected by the end of October.

23.13  Resolved – That the Committee:

1.   Thanked officers for guiding the Committee through the report and answering questions.

2.   Acknowledged concern about the ongoing costs of public transport and how that contributes to public transport perhaps being prohibitive to members of the public.  They would welcome officers looking at how public transport could be made a more attractive option to use.

3.   Expressed concerns about aspirations within the SIP, around mitigating pinch points on busy highways within the county e.g. on the A27 and A29.

4.   Expressed concerns around the vagueness and aspirations of the SIP and now understood how the SIP could influence the Government in the longer term. Remained concerned about the influence of future local planning decisions, and wished to understand who takes the initiative.

5.   Raised concerns about the vehicle fleet, especially in relation to decarbonisation, and about the deliverability of the aspirations of the SIP.

6.   Wished that on page 24 of the agenda papers, in the first bullet highlighting the need to safeguard strategic active travel routes from interdiction by incremental development, second bullet point, that concerns about maintenance costs be extended to all highway assets, not just active travel, and that the third bullet point be extended to include Chichester as well as the Worthing/Lancing area.

7.   Wished to ensure the alignment between the SIP and shorter-term local plans and development management processes.

8.   Highlighted the risk to overall funding capability of the need to ensure transport systems are resilient to climate change and the need to maintain the existing network.