Public Document Pack
Meeting Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee
Date/Time Thursday 24 January 2002 at 2:00 pm
Location Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Officer to contact Ms. J. Bailey (Tel: 0116 265 6225)
E-Mail [email protected]
Membership
Mr. D. R. Bown CC (Chairman) Mr. D. C. Bill CC Mr. P. D. Boult TD, CC Mrs. C. E. Brock CC Mr. B. Chapman AE, CC Mr. R. Fraser CC Mr. A. M. Kershaw CC Mr. O. D. Lucas CC Mr. C. H. G. MacLeod CC Mr. S. H. Preston CC Lt. Col. P. A. Roffey DL, CC
AGENDA
Item Report by Marked
1. Minutes of the meeting held on 20 December, 2001. A
2. Questions asked by electors under Standing Order 35.
3. Questions asked by Members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
4. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda.
5. Declarations of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on this agenda.
6. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
7. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36. B
To consider the following petition:
Petition presented by Mr. E.F. White CC, signed by
______C O U N T Y H A L L • G L E N F I E L D • L E I C E S T E R • L E 3 8 R A_____ T E L E P H O N E: 0116 232 3232 • F A X: 0116 265 6260 • M I N I C O M: 0116 265 6160 e.mail: [email protected]
2
413 local residents concerning the Earl Shilton bypass – the terms detailed in the paper marked ‘B’ on the agenda.
Reports back on petitions presented previously.
8. Petition: Burton on the Wolds, Melton Road: Objection to Acting Director of C zebra pedestrian crossing proposal. Planning and Transportation
Referrals from the Cabinet.
9. Revised Estimate 2000/01 and Revenue Budget 2002/03. County Treasurer D and Acting Director of Planning and Transportation
10. Capital Programme 2002/03 to 2004/05. County Treasurer E and Acting Director of Planning and Transportation
Other Items
11. Multi Modal Study: M1 Corridor - Consultation Report on F Draft Preferred Package
Document Pack Page 1 Agenda Item 1
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee held at County Hall, Glenfield on Thursday 20 December 2001.
PRESENT
Mr. D. R. Bown CC (Chairman)
Mr. D. C. Bill CC Mr. P. D. Boult TD, CC Mr. A. M. Kershaw CC Mr. O. D. Lucas CC Mr. C. H. G. MacLeod CC Mr. G. H. Perkins JP, CC Mrs. A. C. M. Pullen CC Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC Lt. Col. P. A. Roffey DL, CC
Also in attendance
Mr. S.J. Galton CC (for minute 72) Mr. C. Rayner - Director of Operations, Leicester City Football Club (for minute 76).
66. Minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2001. The minutes of the Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee held on 29 October 2001 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.
67. Questions asked by electors under Standing Order 35. The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been asked under Standing Order 35.
68. Questions asked by Members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been asked under Standing Orders 7(3) and 7(5).
69. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda.
There were no urgent items for consideration.
Document Pack Page 2
70. Declarations of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on the agenda.
The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.
No declarations were made.
71. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
There were no declarations made under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
72. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36: Tilton on the Hill, School Playing Field
Mr. A. Woods, a member of the public, presented a petition, signed by 204 local residents, in the following terms:-
“To keep our school playing field at Tilton on the Hill as a playing field and to keep the old school building as a community centre.”
Mr. Woods spoke about the background to the petition, and explained that there was widespread support in the village to retain the existing playing field.
Mr. S.J. Galton CC, the local member, said that whilst he was aware that negotiations were ongoing concerning an alternative recreation site, it should be noted that people wished to keep the existing facility. (The Committee noted that disposal of the school building was a separate issue, not being in the County Council’s ownership).
The Committee was advised that as a result of the Cabinet decision on 28 August an alternative playing field site had been proposed, and was under investigation. Should the County Council wish to dispose of the existing playing field consent might be required from both the DfES and DLTR. In the meantime arrangements for the continued use of the playing field by the village would continue.
RESOLVED:
(a) That the Director of Property and the Acting Director of Planning and Transportation be asked to report to a future meeting of the Committee on the matter, in accordance with Standing Order 36(5); and
(b) That the petitioners be informed accordingly.
Document Pack Page 3
73. Petition: Bottesford, Grantham Road - requesting measures to reduce traffic speeds.
The Committee considered a report of the Acting Director of Planning and Transportation on the outcome of investigations into a petition presented to the Committee on 30 August 2001. A copy of the report, marked ‘A’, is filed with these minutes.
Mrs. C. Bird, a local resident, and Mr. J.B. Rhodes CC, the local member, both spoke on the need for traffic calming measures. Mr. Rhodes said that he was satisfied with the proposals, and noted that the ability to enforce speed restrictions was a prime consideration.
RESOLVED:
(a) That it be noted that a 40mph speed limit could be extended to cover the housing development adjacent to Grantham Road;
(b) That it be noted that a further extension of a 40mph speed limit between the area of housing and the junction with the A52 on Grantham Road would not be in keeping with national guidelines and was unlikely to be enforceable;
(c) That it be noted that traffic signs and lining measures (such as the triangular ‘teeth’ markings) could be introduced to encourage a reduction in vehicle speeds;
(d) That it be noted that any new measures would be monitored to ascertain the impact on traffic speeds and accident rates; and
(e) That the petitioners be informed accordingly.
74. Petition: A607 Croxton Kerrial - to implement 30 mph speed restrictions. The Committee considered a report of the Acting Director of Planning and Transportation on the outcome of investigations into a petition presented to the Committee on 5 April 2001. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.
Mr. J.B. Rhodes CC, the local member, expressed his support for the proposals.
The Acting Director confirmed that when the schedule of traffic calming works for the next financial year had been finalised it would be circulated to all councillors as a Members’ Information item.
RESOLVED:
(a) That it be noted that the existing traffic calming scheme on A607 could be upgraded by introducing a physical traffic calming scheme, together with reductions in the existing 40mph speed limit to 30mph in the village;
(b) That it be noted that until details of a physical traffic calming scheme were finalised and included in the programme it would not be Document Pack Page 4
appropriate to begin reducing speed limits, as that alone would not achieve any significant speed reductions;
(c) That it be noted that the scheme was currently on the reserve list of works for the next financial year;
(d) That the petitioners be informed accordingly; and
(e) That it be noted that changes in national policy and funding might facilitate installation of speed cameras in the future, and therefore that a report on speed cameras, in conjunction with or as an alternative to other traffic calming measures, should be the subject of a further report to the Committee.
75. Survey: B582 Victoria Road, Whetstone - to implement right turn bans. The Committee considered a report of the Acting Director of Planning and Transportation on the outcome of investigations requested by the Committee in August 2001 into a survey asking for right turn bans on the B582 junction. A copy of the report, marked, ‘C’ is filed with these minutes. Two letters from local traders concerning traffic calming (received on 19 December) were circulated to members of the committee, and copies are filed with the minutes.
Mrs. Skeemer, a member of the public, spoke on behalf of local residents attending the meeting. She said that traffic calming throughout the village was needed, and that vehicle speeds tended to be slower in the centre, but was happy with the proposals and hoped they would be implemented at the earliest opportunity. Mrs. A.C.M. Pullen CC, the local member, also expressed support for the proposals.
The Acting Director said that the style and details of the traffic calming measures would be developed in consultation with the local community.
RESOLVED:
(a) That the objections to proposed right-turn bans from Enderby Road which had been submitted by local councils and by the Chief Constable (who was responsible for enforcing restrictions) be noted;
(b) That it be noted that a right turn ban into Enderby Road would be unlikely to significantly alter the situation (concerns about vehicle speeds would remain), and would also have a detrimental effect on buses, in that it would cut off the village centre from bus services towards Leicester, and therefore it was not appropriate to continue with that prohibition;
(c) That it be noted that removal of waiting restrictions (which had existed before completion of the Blaby bypass) could be beneficial in that it might help local trade, and parked vehicles would reduce the speed and volume of through-traffic;
(d) That it be noted that roads through Whetstone village centre had been Document Pack Page 5
reassessed for the introduction of more extensive traffic calming measures and that this request was currently ranked 5th out of 79 in an area preparation pool of similar sites awaiting funding;
(e) That it be noted that as the revocation of Traffic Regulation Orders required the same process as introducing them, it would be appropriate for changes to waiting restrictions and speed limits to be made in conjunction with traffic calming works and the associated Traffic Regulation Orders;
(f) That it be noted that the route between East Avenue and Albert Court could be closed to through traffic, and that this could be dealt with independently of the other measures; and
(e) That the petitioners be informed accordingly.
Document Pack Page 6
76. Request for use of County Hall Car Park for Leicester City Football Club Park and Ride Scheme.
The Committee considered a report of the Director of Property concerning a recent request from Leicester City Football Club (LCFC) for use of the County Hall site to provide a Park and Ride location for its new stadium and the decision of the Cabinet thereon. A copy of the report, marked ‘D’, is filed with these minutes.
The Chairman welcomed Mr. Charles Rayner, Director of Operations at LCFC, who had kindly agreed to attend the meeting to explain more about the Club’s request and to respond to questions from members.
During the discussion between members of the Committee and Mr. Rayner the following points/comments were made:-
• Mr. Rayner said that the LCFC was committed to consulting fully with local people, and appreciated that there had been concerns at the time of the 1998 application.
• In the light of the requirement for 2 Park and Ride sites to be in place by August 2002, alternatives were being sought. The Club could opt to run more than the required 2 sites; and spread the total number of car parking spaces over several. Mr. Rayner said that it had been envisaged that the County Hall site would be used by people living locally in Glenfield and in the north-west of the County, not a large number.
• The Director of Property confirmed that in 1998 LCFC had requested 500 car parking spaces, but were currently asking for 150-200.
• Matches on weekday evenings were expected to be relatively few in number, and not resulting in traffic at Park and Ride sites much later than 9.30-10.00pm. Perhaps an area of the car park furthest from the residential areas would be satisfactory. Alternatively, other Park and Ride sites might be used on weekday evenings, and County Hall only at weekends.
• Mr. Rayner confirmed that a traffic survey would be carried out if the Club’s request was likely to gain approval. Should the County Hall site be used the Club would be happy to review the situation, say 12 months later.
• Members commented that the County Council had a commitment to supporting Park and Ride facilities and reducing the amount of traffic travelling into Leicester.
• Members commented that LCFC was supported by people throughout the County and considered that the County Council should make a positive contribution towards the establishment of the new stadium.
• Members noted that the decision of the Cabinet on 6 November, whilst not encouraging, was not an absolute refusal of the request.
RESOLVED: Document Pack Page 7
(a) That the report be noted; in particular that:
(i) The current proposal put forward by LCFC was for the use of a number of spaces, in the region of 150-200 during the football season, primarily on Saturday afternoons;
(ii) An earlier proposal, put forward in October 1998 for the use of up to 500 spaces, had not been opposed by the County Council;
(iii) LCFC would make arrangements for staffing the site and meeting the costs of ensuring the site was cleaned up after use and of other additional costs, such as lighting, as appropriate;
(iv) The report of the Director of Property referred to the site being used for football supporters on approximately 22 occasions in a season, 8 of which would be mid-week/evening fixtures; the representative of LCFC present at the Committee had stated that its use for mid-week fixtures could be substantially reduced;
(v) The County Hall site had capacity for approximately 1,000 cars and was used on Saturday under existing arrangements for the purposes of a Park and Ride scheme, which attracted, on average, 150 cars per week. There was nothing to stop football supporters using the existing scheme and capacity was available to allow further expansion of the existing arrangements;
(vi) Residents in the local area might have greater objection to the use of the site in the evenings; however, it was proposed that there would be limited use of the site for mid-week fixtures;
(vii) LCFC was prepared to review arrangements after an initial period of, say, 12 months;
(viii) LCFC no longer proposed to hold public meetings in the Glenfield area in light of the current position of the Cabinet not to support the proposal;
(b) That the following representation be made to the Cabinet:
‘That mindful of the support stated in both the Leicestershire and Central Leicestershire Transport Plans for provision of Park and Ride schemes, and bearing in mind that a Park and Ride scheme is already in operation at the County Hall car park, the Cabinet be asked to reconsider its decision made on 6 November 2001’; and
(c) That the issue be discussed further at a future meeting of the Committee, and that a representative of the local Parish Council, and the lead Cabinet Member be invited to attend that meeting.
77. The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. The Committee considered a report of the Acting Director of Planning and Document Pack Page 8
Transportation concerning implications of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund for the County. A copy of the report, marked ‘E’, is filed with these minutes.
The Committee commented on various aspects of the report, including the following:
• That the major aggregate-producing counties in England (of which Leicestershire was one) should benefit proportionately from the Fund; receiving a percentage relative to what went in from the Levy - not a lesser sum allocated by means of a national bidding process.
• A number of members of the Committee were concerned that the revenue generated for the Government from the Levy should be used for the purposes of reducing the environmental impact of aggregates extraction and not as a source of income for other unrelated purposes.
• The Government proposed channelling the funding through agencies such as English Nature and the Countryside Agency, with local authorities ‘closely involved’. The Committee considered that local authorities should have a far greater level of involvement, running local projects.
• Although the Government wished to encourage greater use of recycled aggregates, this was currently in conflict with building regulation specifications.
RESOLVED:
(a) That the report be noted; and
(b) That a further report to be brought to the Committee concerning the operation of the Sustainability Fund, and the resource implications for the County Council as a user of aggregates.
78. Half Year Progress against Best Value Targets and Commitments. The Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and the County Treasurer summarising progress against Performance Indicator targets and other commitments made in the Best Value Performance Plan for 2001/2002. A copy of the report, marked ‘F’, is filed with these minutes.
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted.
79. Date of next meeting. RESOLVED:
That the next meeting be held on Thursday 24 January 2002 at 2.00 p.m.
Document Pack Page 9
2.00 p.m. - 4.25 p.m. 20 December 2001 CHAIRMAN
Document Pack Page 10 Document Pack Page 11 Agenda Item 7
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, 24TH JANUARY 2002
PETITION FROM THE EARL SHILTON BYPASS RESIDENTS ACTION GROUP
1. To consider a petition containing 413 signatures of people who are concerned that the proposed Earl Shilton Bypass will adversely affect them in some way. The petitioners are:-
a) Demanding that any proposals for the Earl Shilton bypass (as of now and as amended in response to public consultation or for other reasons) must be subject to another public inquiry before planning permission for the bypass is sought.
b) Requesting a breakdown of the £8m costs of the bypass as estimated for the current plan and insist on firm assurances that the County Council will not seek to sacrifice environmental promises or make agreements with developers to stay within its budget.
c) Demanding assurances that there will be no development on green field sites along the bypass route unless included in local plans drawn up with the usual public consultation.
d) Of the view that the proposals as of October 2001 will create unacceptable traffic and road safety risks in particular in Wilkinson Lane, Station Road and adjacent residential streets, and is also likely to create rat runs in certain areas.
e) Questioning whether the bypass will ever meet its declared objective – as stated by the County Council – of leading to improvements to Earl Shilton town centre when any such improvement is dependent on commercial investment.
The Group is asking for an urgent response to Items (a); (b) and (c) above and asking for Items (d) and (e) to be drawn to the attention of the County Council.
Document Pack Page 12
2. The Chairman of the Action Group has, in a separate letter, indicated that whilst the Action Group appreciates that the bypass is needed to reduce the amount of traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles, through Earl Shilton with the aim of making the village a safer and more pleasant place to live, work and shops, it:
a) believes that a large number of residents are extremely unhappy about the proposed design;
b) considers that the current plan would be significantly detrimental to the lives of many hundreds of families at the southern end of Earl Shilton and in Elmesthorpe who would be directly affected by the construction;
c) believes the Bypass Action Group, which campaigned so hard for the road, is at one with it in seeking to minimise the road’s impact on properties and lives;
d) requests a “true bypass” with no junctions except where it has to join the A47 at either side of Earl Shilton;
e) considers the road should be in a cutting as originally promised and both Elmesthorpe Lane and Station Road/Wilkinson Lane should be bridged – any junctions would lead to intolerable noise and pollution as vehicles accelerate and slow, and that would exacerbated by standing traffic at peak times;
f) considers that the road is intolerably and unnecessarily close to properties, particularly in The Crescent, Elmesthorpe;
g) is of the view that because of the substantial changes that have been made since the original proposals went through we must insist that there be a public enquiry BEFORE planning permission for the bypass is sought in Spring 2002;
h) expects the County Council to honour its promises and commitments to residents or to reopen the debate about the route.
H:\WORD\CTTESEC\Jenny\pesc\miscusefulpescstuff\EarlShiltonbypasspetition.doc Document Pack Page 13 Agenda Item 8
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
24TH JANUARY 2002
PETITION: BURTON ON THE WOLDS, MELTON ROAD
OBJECTION TO ZEBRA PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROPOSAL
REPORT OF THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
Purpose of Report
1. To report the outcome of investigations following receipt of a petition presented by Mr A.M.Kershaw CC objecting to the installation of a zebra pedestrian crossing and removal of a refuge island on Melton Road, Burton on the Wolds.
Previous decisions
2. On 22nd May 2001 Cabinet approved an allocation in the 2001/02 Transportation Capital Programme for an improvement scheme at Burton on the Wolds which would assist in implementing the County Lorry Strategy.
3. At its meeting on 30th August 2001, the Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee resolved to ask the Acting Director of Planning and Transportation to report back on the above petition at a future meeting.
Background
4. Burton on the Wolds is situated on the B676 linking Loughborough with the A46 (Trunk Road) at Six Hills and then to Melton Mowbray. It is predominantly a residential settlement although some commercial premises are based within the village. The B676 passes through the centre of the village and in November 1995 the introduction of weight restrictions on the surrounding road network designated the continued use of the B676 as a route for heavy goods vehicles. In November 1999 the traffic flow was measured in the village centre as approximately 4,500 vehicles per day. There have been no recorded personal injury accidents in the village centre in the last 5 years.
1
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\1\2\AI00003218\BurtonontheWoldsreportonpetition00.doc Document Pack Page 14
5. Following a letter from the Parish Council in November 2000 which highlighted the dangers to pedestrians where HGVs are overrunning the narrow footway in the village centre, a scheme to provide a zebra crossing on the B676 at this location was put forward for public consultation as shown in Appendix A. As a consequence, a public meeting was held in August 2001 to discuss the concerns of the residents.
6. At its meeting on 30th August 2001, Scrutiny Committee received a petition signed by 392 residents of Burton on the Wolds. The petitioners state that implementation of the proposed scheme will:
a) have pedestrians, especially children, waiting in very dangerous places to cross the road; b) remove the pedestrian refuge that provides a place of safety when crossing the road; and c) increase the possibility of accidents on and near the roundabout as heavy goods vehicles mount or straddle it in order to ease their line round the corner on Melton Road and the corner on Loughborough Road.
Outcome of Consultations
7. The original scheme was designed to make conditions safer for pedestrians and to make it easier for drivers to avoid overrunning the footway at this location. However, the strength of feeling expressed at the meeting together with the petition has prompted alternative proposals to be drawn up which address their concerns. 8. The alternative scheme, as shown in Appendix B, retains the existing pedestrian refuge and crossing point. The provision of a footway build- out with 2 heavy duty bollards and guard rail should give additional pedestrian protection and prevent vehicles overrunning the footway in this vicinity. 9. This scheme has the full support of the local County Councillor Mr A M Kershaw and was also given full approval by the Parish Council at its meeting on 8th January 2002. 10. The detail drawings of the alternative scheme have been made available for inspection by residents through the Parish Council and to date no adverse comments have been received.
Resource Implications
11. The overall cost of the alternative scheme including design and supervision is estimated to be approximately £20,000. This cost estimate is within the original approved allocation. This will be found from the County Lorry Strategy within the Capital Programme.
2
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\1\2\AI00003218\BurtonontheWoldsreportonpetition00.doc Document Pack Page 15
12. The County Treasurer has been consulted on the Resource Implications section of this report.
Equal Opportunities Implications
13. Preventing large goods vehicles from overriding the footway will be beneficial to vulnerable road users.
Background Papers
2001/2 Transportation Capital Programme report to Cabinet May 2001 Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee, Item 26. 30th August 2001.
Circulation under Sensitive Issues Procedure
Mr A.M Kershaw – 17th January 2002
Officer to Contact
Mr S Kuziara -0116 265 7093 [email protected]
3
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\1\2\AI00003218\BurtonontheWoldsreportonpetition00.doc Document Pack Page 16 APPENDIX A
LOCATION PLAN
B676
6 B67
Dwg. No. 5.5TC/56N/App1 DEPARTMENT OF Burton on the Wolds, Proposed Zebra PLANNING & Crossing TRANSPORTATION Scheme Layout North
4
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\1\2\AI00003218\BurtonontheWoldsreportonpetition00.doc Document Pack Page 17 APPENDIX B
ã Crown copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Use of this image is limited to viewing online and printing one copy. Leicestershire County Council. LA076724
DEPARTMENT OF SCN0420/01 PLANNING & Burton on the Wolds TRANSPORTATION Revised Scheme Proposal North
5
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\1\2\AI00003218\BurtonontheWoldsreportonpetition00.doc Document Pack Page 18 Document Pack Page 19 Agenda Item 9
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 24TH JANUARY 2002
JOINT REPORT OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REVISED ESTIMATE 2001/02 AND REVENUE BUDGET 2002/03
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report provides information on the revised estimate for 2001/02 and the proposed revenue budget for 2002/03.
BACKGROUND
2. The County Treasurer presented background to the budget and the provisional Revenue Support Grant Settlement to Members on the 12th December. All Members have been circulated with details of the 2002/03 budget proposals. Reports are being presented to the relevant Scrutiny Committees and to the Scrutiny Commission. Cabinet will consider the comments of the scrutiny process at its meeting on 12th February before recommending a budget to the County Council on 20th February.
REVISED ESTIMATE 2001/02
3. A revised estimate has been produced which takes account of changes in circumstances since the original budget was compiled. These inevitably arise principally as a result of changes in demand for and costs of services. The Cabinet has been kept informed of the budget position with regular budget monitoring reports. The reports considered by Cabinet on 10TH July and 13th November were also presented to Finance Scrutiny Committee and circulated to all members of the Council.
4. At the July meeting Cabinet agreed to cash limit the provision for pay and prices and in November, a projected overspend for the County Council of £1.65 million was forecast. Transport, Road and Planning and Waste accounted for just over £660,000 of this overspend. At the 20th November meeting the Cabinet approved savings of £1.48 million in order to contain the anticipated overspend. The included £250,000 for
1 Document Pack Page 20
Transportation, Roads and Planning; Waste Management was not required to make any savings.
5. The original budget has been revised to include inflation, transfers and virements resulting in an updated budget. Full details of the various movements are shown in Appendix A.
6. The table below shows the anticipated year end expenditure (revised estimate) against the updated budget for Transportation, Roads and Planning and Waste Management.
Table One – Revised Estimate 2001/02
Transportation, Waste Roads & Management Planning £ £ Updated Budget 29,287,210 11,135,100 Revised Estimate 29,488,700 11,141,740 Net over/(under) spend 201,490 6,640
Transportation, Roads and Planning
7. The November budget monitoring report forecast Transportation, Road and Planning to overspend by £450,000. Savings of £250,000 were agreed by the Cabinet in relation to income from the introduction of new regulations that allow the Council to charge utilities for delays in works on highways (£220,000) and staff vacancies (£30,000). It is anticipated that these will be achieved and the overspend will reduce to £201,000. The two main areas of overspend, that are offset by the savings, are set out below :
• Additional costs of £150,000 due to Hinckley and Bosworth District Council no longer wishing to continue with the Highways Agency Agreement;
• Higher staff costs totalling £275,000 mainly due recruitment and retention costs associated with the increased capital programme.
Waste Management
8. Waste Management is reporting a small estimated overspend of £6,640. This is significantly better than anticipated in November when it was estimated that there would be an overspend of £214,000. Savings due to staff vacancies, increased general income and slippage in recycling initiative schemes have offset the increased costs of disposal.
2 Document Pack Page 21
PROPOSED REVENUE BUDGETS 2002/03
Background
9. The only service covered by a specific SSA within this report is highways maintenance. In 2001/2 the highways maintenance budget is at SSA. This compares to an average spend of 12% below SSA for other County Councils. Highways maintenance expenditure per head of population is above the average of all counties.
10. The 2002/3 provisional settlement increased the SSA by 3.2%. This compares to an average increase for counties of 2.7%. This relatively low increase, presumably reflects the additional capital resources made available for road and bridge maintenance. In 2002/03 these continue at the level for 2001/2 which were a three fold increase over 2000/1.
11. The proposed revenue budgets are summarised in table two below. Starting with the 2001/02 revenue budgets this shows the key changes made to establish the proposed budgets. All figures are at November 2001 prices.
Table Two – Summary Proposed Budgets 2002/03
Transportation, Waste Roads and Management Planning £ £ 2001/02 Original Budget 28,420,620 10,980,150 Inflation to Nov 2001 1,084,680 383,170 Full year effect of previous (40,000) 65,000 years growth and savings Other changes 176,980 250 2002/03 Volume Standstill Appendix B 29,642,280 11,428,570
Add: Proposed Growth Appendix C 710,000 1,055,000 Less: Proposed Savings Appendix C 380,000 0 2002/03 Proposed Budget 29,972,280 12,483,570 (at Nov 2001 prices)
12. An inflation contingency to provide an allowance for inflation to outturn prices based on 3% for other pay awards and 2.5% for prices for all services is held centrally.
13. The key factors impacting on the budgets are set out below. A detailed analysis of the budgets is shown in the relevant supporting appendices.
3 Document Pack Page 22
Transportation, Roads and Planning
14. Other changes totalling £176,980 primarily relate to the incorporation of the additional costs approved for the current year (referred to in paragraph above) offset by an increase in estimated income from the DLO and charging utilities.
15. The budget includes growth of £710,000 and savings of £380,000.
16. The main areas of growth are:
• Staffing and associated costs of £180,000 relating to the affects of legislation, the impact of the cessation of the North West Leicestershire highways agency from the 1st April 2002 and loss of joint arrangement income;
• Additional costs of £85,000 are expected due to the implementation of new responsibilities and duties arising out of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. There will be additional costs in future years;
• Public Transport growth mainly relates to the increasing costs of replacing existing bus contracts (£110,000) and the implementation of the Public Transport Review (£80,000). The Public Transport Review is intended to be cost neutral in the long term. It is anticipated the additional costs will be offset by the Strategic Rail Authority taking over responsibility for the Ivanhoe Line subsidy;
• Within the Highways budget the introduction of the Aggregates Levy is expected to increase contract prices by £170,000. An increase in the number of streetlights and signals require an additional £50,000 towards the maintenance costs.
17. The main savings are:
• Savings of £60,000 have been identified relating to traffic management and monitoring and increased developer income;
• A reduction in Environment Management schemes and staffing is expected to produce savings of £100,000;
• The funding of Lorry Controls and Structural Maintenance from the Capital Programme will reduce the revenue budget by £220,000.
18. A revised concessionary travel scheme is to be introduced in 2002/3. No savings have been included in the proposed budget in the expectation that they will be offset by the increased redemption of tokens prior to the introduction of the new scheme. Some of this additional cost will fall in 2001/02.
4 Document Pack Page 23
Waste Management
19. The volume standstill budget reflects the full year effect of growth and savings of £65,000. This includes £75,000 associated with the increased costs from the closure of Enderby Landfill site and a reduction of £10,000 for the one off costs associated with a new computer system at Whetstone Transfer Station.
20. The growth on waste management is £1,055,000 and the main areas are:
• The impact of new legislation on the disposal of fridges and freezers is estimated to be £300,000 because of the uncertainty surrounding this issue. Some expenditure will be incurred in the current year and the costs, offset by any additional Government funding which becomes available, will need to be contained within the County Council's overall budget;
• The Landfill Tax will increase by £1 per tonne. This is forecast to cost £345,000 for disposal and recycling credits;
• Waste tonnage is forecast to increase by 2%. This is estimated to increase disposal and haulage costs by £260,000. Waste tonnage is difficult to predict given that it is influenced by many factors such as weather and economic climate;
• The additional costs required due to the closure of landfill sites. A new landfill site to open at weekends £50,000 and compensation to districts for increased tipping costs £30,000;
• The development of a waste disposal strategy in partnership with districts requires £20,000 for employing consultants and £50,000 for increasing the recycling capacity. There will be significant financial consequences arising from the implementation of the waste strategy. No attempt has been made to quantify them at this stage but they will be major considerations in terms of future years budget processes.
RECOMMENDATION
21. Members are requested to consider the report and any response to the 2001/2 revised estimate and 2002/3 revenue budget they may wish to make to Cabinet.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS
22. None.
5 Document Pack Page 24
BACKGROUND PAPERS
23. Revenue Budget 2001/02 - Report to Cabinet on 20th November 2001 and Revenue Budget 2001/02 – Report to Cabinet 31st July 2001.
MEMBERS ADVISED UNDER SENSITIVE ISSUES PROCEDURES
24. None.
OFFICERS TO CONTACT
Pat Sartoris telephone (0116) 265 7642 Henry Merritt telephone (0116) 265 7008
Jan 2002 Scrutiny - Planning & Environment - Revenue
6 Document Pack Page 25 Agenda Item 9 APPENDIX C
Waste Management 2002/03 2003/04 Ongoing Growth £000 £000 £000
Disposal of Fridges & Abandoned Vehicles 300 300 300 Landfill Tax 325 325 325 Recycling Credits 20 20 20 Increase in Waste Tonnage - Landfill 150 150 150 Increase in Waste Tonnage - Haulage 110 110 110 Weekend Emptying of CA Sites - Additional Cost 50 50 50 Tipping Away Fees 30 0 0 Waste Disposal Strategy Development / Additional Recycling 70 (Full Year Cost to be Determined) 1,055 955 955 Document Pack Page 26 Document Pack Page 27 Agenda Item 10
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 24TH JANUARY 2002
JOINT REPORT OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2002/3 TO 2004/5
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report provides information on the proposed capital programme for 2002/3 to 2004/5 for the activities relating to this Committee.
BACKGROUND
2. Reports detailing the capital programme are being considered by each Scrutiny Committee. In addition, the Finance Scrutiny Committee will consider any resource issues arising from the funding of the programme.
3. The Cabinet will consider the results of the Scrutiny process at its meeting on 12th February 2002 prior to consideration of the Capital Programme by Council on 20th February 2002.
CAPITAL PROGRAMME
4. The proposed capital programme for 2002/03 has been split into two main areas:
a) The main programme for Transport is financed by government resources and is set out in Appendix A.
b) The programme to be financed from 'discretionary' resources includes Transport, Waste Management and Environmental Management and is set out in Appendix B.
5. The table below sets out the resources made available by the Government for Transport, figures for 2001/02 are also given. These resources reflect the Local Transport Plan settlement.
1 Document Pack Page 28
TRANSPORTATION MAIN PROGRAMME
6. The table below sets out the resources made available by Government.
2002/03 2001/02 £000 £000
Annual Capital Guideline 12,184 2,619 Supplementary Credit Approval - 12,918 Transport Supplementary Grant 685 1,620 Other __563 ______Total 13,432 17,157
7. The 2002/03 programme will be increased by £1.134m for resources brought forward as a result of slippage arising in 2001/02, to provide a total programme of £14.566m.
8. The decrease in resources compared with 2001/02 reflects progress in the construction of the Ashby by pass.
9. The programme presented is based upon block allocations notified in the LTP settlement. A detailed programme of individual projects to be undertaken from within the various blocks is being compiled and will be subject to approval by the Cabinet.
10. With the introduction of the Single Capital Pot (SCP), where funding is by one year BCA the current flexibility provided by the issue of 2 year SCA is being withdrawn. This further underlines the need to deliver the approved programme in each particular year.
11. The funding agreed by DLTR for the Ashby bypass is currently approximately £0.6m less than the projected cost. Further discussions between GOEM and the Director of Planning And Transportation are to be held in order to approve the extra costs associated with delays caused by the foot and mouth disease and additional earthwork costs.
12. Funding for the proposed bypasses of Rearsby and Earl Shilton remains as provisionally accepted subject to completion of the relevant statutory notices. Scheme costs remain as originally estimated. Further consideration will be given by GOEM to the County and City, "Leicester West" Transport scheme in the light of further investigations to be undertaken.
2 Document Pack Page 29
DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMMES
13. The discretionary resources allocated for the three services are set out below, together with resources brought forward for 2001/02. These are compared with the equivalent allocation for 2001/02.
Waste Environmental Transport Management Management £000 £000 £000
Capital Receipts/Single Capital Pot Discretionary Element 350 150 80
Resources b/fwd - 5
2001/02 400 15 95
14. This is the first year of the Single Capital Pot (SCP). The majority (95%) of resources are still given according to needs and these fund the Transportation main programme as described above. A small part (5%) of the SCP, referred to as the discretionary element, has been allocated by regional government offices following an assessment of service plans and councils' capital strategies and asset management plans. The discretionary allocation also takes into account the needs allocation so that two authorities with the same assessments will get discretionary resources in line with their needs allocations.
15. The allocation to the County Council of the 5% element of the SCP is £267,000, the lowest of all English Counties. This partly reflects the needs allocation. The Capital Strategy and Asset Management Plan were deemed satisfactory. However, the service delivery assessment score for Transportation, which gets a high weighting, was below average.
16. The Director of Planning and Transportation has been discussing with the Government Office the issues that need to be tackled in order to improve the Transport assessment.
Transportation
17. Priority for discretionary resources has been given to areas for which the LTP settlement does not make specific allowance, such as land compensation claims arising from previously completed schemes, street lighting and flood alleviation.
18. It is expected there will be specific provision for street lighting replacements in the 2003/04 LTP settlement.
3 Document Pack Page 30
Waste Management
19. Priority has been given to the replacement of a civic amenity site in either Loughborough or Sileby to improve the level of service to the public and significantly improve recycling. The replacement of these sites is a priority within the County Council's Medium Term Strategy. Provision has been made for preparation costs of a possible Private Finance Initiative Project to cover the significant capital investment likely to be needed to implement the Waste Management Strategy.
Environmental Management
20. Capital funding has been allocated to community and environmental projects to improve life in towns and villages in Leicestershire. This investment will attract additional funding from other sources and will support voluntary efforts by local people, involving work with other agencies.
21. Provision has been made to continue the private street works scheme at Poplar Avenue, Moira which commenced in 2001/02.
Future Programmes
22. The draft programmes for 2003/04 and 2004/05 are shown in these Appendices? for planning and design purposes and will be reviewed in the light of available resources.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS
23. No specific implications.
RECOMMENDATION
24. The Committee is requested to consider the report and any response they may wish to make to the Cabinet.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
25. None.
MEMBERS ADVISED UNDER SENSITIVE ISSUES PROCEDURE
26. None.
OFFICERS TO CONTACT
Pat Sartoris telephone (0116) 265 7642 Henry Merritt telephone (0116) 265 7008
Jan 2002 Scrutiny - Planning & Environment - Capital
4 Document PackPage31 TRANSPORTATION 2002/03 - 2004/05 CAPITAL PROGRAMME APPENDIX A
2002/03 NEW STARTS - BASIC PROGRAMME
APPROVAL SCHEME DETAILS 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 TOTAL REVENUE COSTS-FULL YEAR (OUTTURN) (EXC. DEBT CHARGES) PRICES ONGOING ONE OFF £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 1,134 Commitments from Earlier Years Leics Integrated Transport Block 1,108 1,108 Central Leics Integrated Transport Block Other Projects 26 26
2002/03 STARTS
MAJOR SCHEMES 8,374 Ashby Bypass 1,248 100 4 1,352
MINOR SCHEMES 2,836 Leics Integrated Transport Block 2,836 2,836 2,560 Central Leics Integrated Transport Block 2,560 2,560 6,788 Maintenance 6,788 6,788
21,692 14,566 100 4 14,670 Agenda Item10 Document Pack Page 32 Document PackPage33
TRANSPORTATION 2002/03 - 2004/05 CAPITAL PROGRAMME APP. B
TRANSPORTATION - PROGRAMME FUNDED FROM DISCRETIONARY RESOURCES
APPROVAL SCHEME DETAILS 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 TOTAL REVENUE COSTS-FULL YEAR (OUTTURN) (EXC. DEBT CHARGES) PRICES ONGOING ONE OFF £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000
2002/03 STARTS
70 Land Acquisitions, Accommodation Works 70 70 Noise Insulation and Property Dept Fees. 280 Street Lighting - Replace plastic coated steel 280 280 lighting columns
350 350 350
2003/04 STARTS
70 Land Acquisitions, Accommodation Works 70 70 and Property Dept Fees. 230 Street Lighting - Replace lighting columns / 230 230 Agenda Item10 Flood Alleviation
300 300 300
2004/05 STARTS
70 Land Acquisitions, Accommodation Works 70 70 Noise Insulation and Property Dept Fees. 230 Street Lighting - Replace lighting columns / 230 230 Flood Alleviation
300 300 300
Document PackPage34 Document PackPage35
ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTIVE AND CULTURAL SERVICES 2002/03 - 2004/05 CAPITAL APP. PROGRAMME B
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT - PROGRAMME FUNDED FROM DISCRETIONARY RESOURCES
APPROVAL SCHEME DETAILS 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 TOTAL REVENUE COSTS-FULL YEAR (OUTTURN) (EXC. DEBT CHARGES) PRICES ONGOING ONE OFF £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000
2002/03 STARTS
5 Commitments from Earlier Years 5 5 92 Poplar Avenue, Moira (Private Street Works) 21 48 8 77 1 40 Village Hall Grants 40 40 19 County Towns/ Rural Centres 19 19
156 85 48 8141 1
2003/04 STARTS
Commitments - Poplar Avenue, Moira (PSW) 48 48 35 Village Hall Grants 35 35 17 County Towns / Rural Centres 17 17
52 100 100
2004/05 STARTS
Commitments - Poplar Avenue, Moira (PSW) 8 8 40 Village Hall Grants 40 40 20 County Towns / Rural Centres 20 20 10 Land Reclamation Programme 10 10 10 Rights of Way Signing 10 10 12 Sustainable Developments projects 12 12
92 100 100
Document PackPage36 Document PackPage37
ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTIVE AND CULTURAL SERVICES 2002/03 - 2004/05 CAPITAL APP. PROGRAMME B
WASTE MANAGEMENT - PROGRAMME FUNDED FROM DISCRETIONARY RESOURCES
APPROVAL SCHEME DETAILS 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 TOTAL REVENUE COSTS-FULL YEAR (OUTTURN) (EXC. DEBT CHARGES) PRICES ONGOING ONE OFF £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000
2002/03 STARTS
50 PFI bid - Preparation costs 50 50 100 Loughborough/Sileby Civic Amenity Site 100 100
150 150 150
2003/04 STARTS
500 Loughborough/Sileby Civic Amenity Site 500 500
500 500 500
2004/05 STARTS To be determined from the Waste Strategy 0 0
00
Document Pack Page 38 Document Pack Page 39 Agenda Item 11
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
24TH JANUARY 2002
MULTI - MODAL STUDY - M1 CORRIDOR CONSULTATION REPORT ON DRAFT PREFERRED PACKAGE
REPORT OF THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
Purpose of Report
1. To inform the Committee of the consultation report received from consultants W.S. Atkins acting on behalf of the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) on the draft preferred package for the M1 Corridor and the suggested County Council response, set out in paragraph 56 of this report, as recommended for approval by Cabinet at its meeting on 22nd January.
2. A formal response is needed to enable the County Council's views to be taken into account in finalising the preferred strategy to be recommended by the team of consultants completing the multi-modal study.
3. The consultation report was received on 28th December 2001 and invites a formal response by 25th January 2002. It will be acceptable for the County Council's response to be sent shortly after this date. An interim response will be sent following Cabinet on 22nd January and a final response following Cabinet on 5th February. The Cabinet decision following its meeting on 22nd January will be reported verbally to the Scrutiny Committee.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
4. An initial response to a consultation report on strategy development was approved by Cabinet at its meeting on 6th February 2001.
5. Recent progress and consultation on the study was the subject of the Members' Information item of 21st September 2001.
6. The aims of the Multi-Modal Study and the basis for selecting a preferred strategy are well related both to the County Council's Medium Term Corporate Strategy and to the objectives of the Local Transport Plans. However, the full impact of the proposals has not yet been assessed by the study and this raises a number of concerns.
1 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 40
Background
7. The multi-modal study started in December 1999, and covers the M1 corridor from the south of Leicester and junction 21 to the north of Chesterfield and junction 30. The aim of the study is to find a way of tackling congestion on the M1 and meet development and travel needs up to 2021. Within the M1 corridor, a separate and more local multi-modal study also started in December 1999, and is concentrated on the A453 corridor between M1 junction 24 and Nottingham.
8. From the surveys of traffic movements, it was apparent early on in the study that congestion problems on the M1 are not just caused by excess north/south movements in the corridor. There are a number of longer distance east/west movements which use sections of the M1, as well as many local journeys using the M1 for relatively short distances.
9. A consultation report on strategy development was the subject of a report to Cabinet on 6th February 2001. In the very short time available the response was limited to comments on possible transport measures in Leicestershire.
10. After the above consultation, many further potential transport measures were identified within the study team or suggested by the wide range of interested organisations and individuals. The long list of measures was grouped into four strategy packages with different combinations of public transport development, road improvements and travel management measures. The packages were then tested for their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the study
11. With the elimination of the least feasible measures, the four strategy packages were reduced to two composite packages for further evaluation and public consultation. The two composite packages reflected the fact that congestion on the M1 can be attributed to both long distance traffic and also more local traffic. During peak periods, the latter category of traffic includes the increasing use of the M1 for driving to work. Package 1 was aimed at tackling the longer distance movements, and Package 2 approached the problem by focussing on the more local journeys.
12. The testing of the two composite packages, and the results of extensive recent public consultation, provide the basis for the draft preferred package proposed in the consultation report.
13. The stated purpose of the consultation report is to:-
• advise consultees of the draft preferred package of measures which the consultants are continuing more fully to test and appraise; • seek views on the draft strategy and package; and • invite views on proposals for a behaviour change strategy for the area. Public Consultation
14. The start of the public consultation period was marked by an event for MPs and Members of local authorities on 12th September 2001. This was arranged by the DTLR at the Government Office for the East Midlands. On 19th November a similar event was held at County Hall for all Members of the County Council.
2 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 41
15. During the public consultation period, the main source of information was Issue 3 of the News Update leaflet, a copy of which was circulated to all Members together with the Members' Information Item of 21st September 2001. The News Update leaflet contained a questionnaire for return by post. Views were also received in correspondence from a number of organisations and individual people.
16. Public exhibitions, attended by 1800 visitors, were held for two days in eight different locations including Leicester, Loughborough and Kegworth. This gave people the opportunity to find out more about the options being considered by the study and to express views directly to members of the study team.
17. From the questionnaire returns, correspondence and visitors to the public exhibitions, a wide range of views has been obtained. However, this self selecting sample, does not give a representative basis for gauging the levels of support for the different transport options under consideration. To gain this additional insight, a large household survey took place in parallel with the public exhibitions with 500 interviews in each of eight areas mainly corresponding to the locations of the public exhibitions. This provided a proper random sample of 4000 households.
18. The results of the household survey show a broad consensus that congestion is a serious problem needing to be tackled and that public transport needs to be improved, although there was disagreement on how effective this would be on its own. Most respondents accept that a combination of measures is required involving a mix of:-
• Public transport improvements • Road improvements • Travel awareness and behaviour change The exceptions are the 7% of respondents who see road improvements as largely sufficient and the 5% who are opposed to road building.
19. The biggest split in opinion is on the issue of road user charging. However the findings indicate that although most people oppose the idea as an infringement of their freedom, and yet another tax on car drivers, about 60% of respondents seemed prepared to accept some road user charging in exchange for reduced levels of congestion. The analysis goes into some detail on this particular issue and also the various preferences for improving the motorway. Whilst there are many combinations of view, the weight of opinion appears to lie in favour of major improvements to the motorway.
Overall Strategy
20. The following broad conclusions have been drawn from the consultation report leading to an overall strategy as set out below.
21. Overall within the study area, the Government’s forecasts indicate traffic growth of 23% over the next 20 years. Without increasing motorway capacity, traffic flows on the M1 are predicted to increase by on average 35%.
3 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 42
22. From the early testing of a package of maximum public transport investments, the reduction in road traffic was a marginal 5% although this was matched by a 30% increase in the use of public transport. This means that if the aim is to reduce traffic to any greater extent, more would have to be done, over and above the initiatives that it has been possible to test during the study.
23. The existing travel pattern is dominated by journeys which are difficult to make by existing public transport. It will take very many years to put in place better public transport and begin to encourage a travel pattern that is less dependent on car journeys via the M1. This could require additional charging for car use or substantial travel behaviour change.
24. In the meantime the consultation report concludes that there will be unavoidable traffic growth which will use less safe local roads unless the motorway is upgraded to relieve existing congestion and accommodate the extra traffic. The overall strategy therefore consists of:-
• Targeted improvements to public transport; • Major upgrading of the M1 to dual 4 or dual 5 lanes in width; • A comprehensive travel behaviour change strategy; • Further testing of methods of road user charging and consideration of stricter control of parking availability across the region as well as workplace parking charges in the three cities.
25. The main proposals amount to a total capital investment of £2,600m over the next 20 years, excluding the £600m of freight measures in the Strategic Rail Authority’s 10 Year Plan. Other rail freight proposals together with public transport amount to 73% of the £2,600m total with road improvements accounting for the remaining 27%. A high proportion of the proposed public transport investment is in light rail.
26. As the motorway has a number of inclines along sections within the study area, slow moving lorries can cause congestion. Following the widening as proposed, present regulations would allow slow lorries in all but the outside lane with continuing congestion. In the consultation report it is suggested that a recommendation should be made to Government to consider the introduction of legislation to limit lorries to two lanes on motorways which have been built or widened to more than three lanes.
27. The draft preferred package (see Appendix A) contains the complete list of the main proposals and also certain options being tested for possible inclusion in the final package. Where relevant, the list of proposals includes an indication of construction costs. The proposals affecting Leicestershire are highlighted in bold and described below. A diagram showing road and rail routes is given in Appendix B.
4 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 43
Proposals in Leicestershire
Rail Improvements
28. The package proposes major improvements to the rail network including:
By 2006:- • New services on existing railway lines which will give faster and more direct services from Leicester and Loughborough to the North West, Sheffield and Birmingham (IR5, IR8 & IU2); • Opening of the Castle Donington freight line to passenger traffic to provide a faster route between Birmingham and Nottingham for existing trains and including a station at Castle Donington with a bus link to the airport (NR8); • Various line speed and capacity improvements throughout the study area including a new and faster track layout at Leicester station (NR14); By 2011:- • New longer distance and regional services via the Castle Donington Line which depend on other new infrastructure outside Leicestershire (IR3 & IU1); • Opening of the Ivanhoe line from Ashby to Leicester with a through service to Derby and Matlock (UT4 & NR1); By 2016:- • Ivanhoe service from Coalville to Leicester, Loughborough and through to Nottingham using the Great Central route north of Loughborough with new railway construction to the south and east of Nottingham (UT2 & NR3); • Service from Leicester to Nottingham, Mansfield and Worksop via Great Central route north of Loughborough (UT5 & NR3).
29. As well as the above main proposals in the package, the following options are currently subject to further tests for possible implementation by 2016:
• Re-routing of the new 2006 Birmingham to Sheffield train service (IU2 test alternative) to make use of the Great Central route and above new railway construction in 2016 between Loughborough and Nottingham (NR3); • Opening of the test track for a new high speed service from Nottingham to Melton Mowbray, Corby and London (this would also require the part of the above new railway construction around the east of Nottingham) (NR4 & IR7); • The Central Railway freight line (FR4).
30. The proposals up to 2006 would generally make more efficient use of existing infrastructure including the Castle Donington line which is used occasionally by passenger trains as a diversionary route. Beyond 2006, the main proposals and test options involve major construction costs and/or revenue support. The consultation report does not identify the funding arrangements that would need to be put in place to deliver these schemes.
5 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 44
Road Passenger Transport
31. The main proposed investment is a light rail line by 2011 from Blaby through Leicester to Syston and East Goscote (LR5b&c). An important feature of this cross city line would be the interchanges between trams and trains at Blaby and Syston stations where there would also be park and ride. The consultation report explains that the route has only been tested at a strategic level, and that there is insufficient information on local travel to fully predict how many people would use the services.
32. The other road passenger transport proposals in Leicestershire are new bus services by 2006 to provide better links in the network and better access to East Midlands Airport from local towns and places near the M1 in the north of the corridor (BC5, BC6 & BC7).
Motorway Improvements
33. By 2006 modest works are proposed at M1 Junction 21 (MW1) to address the safety and congestion problems which have been evident since the opening of the A46 Leicester Western Bypass in late 1995. With an indicated cost of only £0.5m, the scheme would introduce new lane markings and gantry signs to improve the southbound diverge and northbound merge movements between the main carriageway and slip roads north of the junction 21. The proposal also includes modest widening at the junction 21 roundabout to increase traffic capacity.
34. By 2011 it is proposed to construct free flowing link roads between the M69 and the M1 north of junction 21 (MW8). The scheme includes widening of the M1 from dual 4 to dual 5 lane over the short distance between the link roads and junction 21A. The connections with the M69 would be of a similar standard to the existing links between the M1 south and A46 at junction 21A and between the M1 north and A42 at junction 23A. This proposal will give long term relief to junction 21, but will have implications for the motorway service area which have yet to be identified.
35. By 2011 improvements are also proposed for the M1 between junction 23A and junction 25 (MW11). These would involve slip roads alterations, a flyover at junction 24 and motorway widening from dual 3 to dual 5 lane between junction 24A and junction 25 where existing congestion is a serious problem.
36. By 2016 motorway widening from dual 3 to dual 4 lane is proposed between junction 21A and junction 23A with capacity improvements at the roundabouts at junction 22 and junction 23 (MW15a).
37. As well as the above main proposals in the package, there is a test alternative to the 2011 motorway improvements between junction 23A and junction 25. This is the previous Highways Agency proposal (MW13) which included more free flowing connecting roads, the complete elimination of the roundabout at junction 24, the A6 Kegworth bypass and the same motorway widening from dual 3 to dual 5 lane between junction 24A and junction 25 as in the above MW11 main proposal.
6 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 45
Strategic Roads
38. By 2006 at M1 junction 24, a short link is proposed between the A453 south entry and A50 exit from the roundabout (SR4). This would give an interim increase in capacity on the A453 south arm of the roundabout prior to the more major motorway main proposal (MW11) in 2011, or test alternative (MW13), for improving the junction as a whole.
39. The only other main proposal for strategic roads in Leicestershire is completion of the A6 Kegworth Bypass by 2006. The consultation report indicates that the bypass could be constructed in advance of the motorway improvements (MW11 or MW13) and thus deliver early benefits to the community in Kegworth.
40. As well as the above main proposals in the package, the following options are currently subject to further tests for possible implementation by 2011:
• A453 dualling between junction 24 and Nottingham subject to proposals from the separate A453 multi-modal study (SR7b); • New dual 2 lane carriageway road linking linking the A50 at junction 24A and the A46 at its junction with the A606 at Widmerpool (SR13); • A606 complementary measures to go with SR13 which would selectively upgrade the A606 including bypasses of Melton Mowbray and Oakham with small scale improvements elsewhere (SR17b).
41. Apart from the main strategic road proposals and test options in Leicestershire, the main proposals in Nottinghamshire include by 2011 a new bridge over the River Trent east of Nottingham (SR12). The effect will be to increase traffic on the A46 between Nottingham and Leicester. The consultation report describes the dual carriageway A46 trunk road through Leicestershire as being the only significantly under-utilised major road in the study area.
Transport Change
42. The transport change measures are intended to apply throughout the study area including Leicestershire. The main proposals are all for 2006 and include: • Widespread adoption of workplace and school travel plans (TC3); • Travel behaviour change strategy involving a comprehensive marketing approach to discourage car travel (TC8) (a summary of this strategy is included at Appendix B since views have been particularly sought on this aspect of the draft preferred package); • Integrated through ticketing for public transport (TC9).
43. As well as the above main proposals in the package, the following options are currently subject to further tests:
By 2006:- • Stringent car parking controls with workplace charging; • Reduced public transport fares.
By 2011
7 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 46
• Area wide road user charging with dual 4 instead of dual 5 lane motorway widening;
By 2016:- • Congestion charging in the three cities Nottingham, Leicester and Derby.
44. The consultation report does not propose motorway tolling in isolation as this would produce a large shift of traffic to other roads resulting in undesirable impacts on the wider network in terms of congestion, environmental pollution and road safety. It is therefore being incorporated into the testing of area wide road user charging.
Comments on Proposals
General
45. The consultation report contains little information on the various impacts of the proposals. Such information will only become available in the final study report expected at the end of February 2002. When this final report is received by the Regional Planning Body, there will be further consultation and deliberations before recommendations are made to the Secretary of State for Transport.
46. The consultation report makes clear that all the proposals in the draft preferred package will be subject to detailed appraisals to determine value for money and other attributes, including a range of environmental impacts. Some proposals may fail these tests and not be included in the final study recommendations.
47. The overall strategy and the proposals in the main package will have only a marginal impact on traffic growth. However, by 2021, initial test results have indicated that the package as envisaged would lead to a significant improvement in travel conditions on the motorway and other roads.
Rail
48. The main rail improvement proposals are all based on former passenger railway lines within Leicestershire and can be expected to have relatively modest environmental impacts. Provided they meet the criteria of value for money, the impacts would be expected to be almost entirely positive. The main concern regards funding and the ability of the railway industry to deliver the improvements and hence whether the proposals can be considered realistic. The final Consultant’s report should also reflect the impact of the Strategic Rail Authority’s recently announced Strategic Plan. Without much more information being made available it is not possible to comment on the test option for the Central Railway Proposal.
Road Passenger Transport
49. The road passenger transport proposals are likely to have limited impact with the exception of the light rail line through Leicester. The consultation report makes clear that this proposal cannot be appraised in much detail and it is likely that any scheme would require a much more detailed feasibility study if further progress is to be made. Neither is there any mention in the report as to how this proposal would be funded and whether it may be necessary to introduce a charging mechanism to contribute to its cost.
8 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 47
Motorway
50. The motorway improvements can all be appraised with approximate alignments and predictions of traffic flow. This should allow the environmental impacts to be spelt out in the final study report. Whilst the motorway between junction 21A and junction 23A includes the least busy sections of the M1, the consultation report predicts over 40% growth without widening but up to 70% growth with the dual 4 lane widening as proposed. For the section between junction 23 and 23A the report refers to possible consideration of widening to dual 5 lane
51. The consultation report gives some initial indications of increased traffic flows on roads leading to the motorway but the full implications will only emerge with the detailed appraisals. It is of particular concern that the report does not spell out the consequences of not widening the Motorway. Until all this further information becomes available, it is difficult to reach a view on the acceptability of the proposals.
Strategic Roads
52. The strategic road schemes in the main package would both appear to be positive in terms of impact. The priority being given to the Kegworth Bypass will enable early environmental benefits to be achieved. However, the strategic road test options raise many issues to be addressed if the schemes are added to the final package. In particular the impact of additional traffic on the A606 would be of concern at sensitive locations not subject to bypasses.
53. The consultation report highlights the opportunity for more north-south traffic to use the A46 through Leicestershire. Whilst much of the A46 could accommodate more traffic, it is clear that the Leicester Western Bypass part of the route will not have the scope to handle more traffic in 2021 without very significant improvements to its capacity.
Transport Change
54. The transport change proposals are probably the most difficult to judge in terms of their impact. The main package does not include any road user charging or workplace parking levies. The behaviour change strategy can only be regarded as experimental at this stage as there are no existing schemes elsewhere in the country to give any indication of its effectiveness. Whilst the aims of strategy make great sense, there must be doubts about the extent to which traffic growth can be reduced in this way.
55. The transport change test options mainly consist of unpopular methods of charging motorists for using their cars. The impacts of these should be tested and fully described if added to the package in the final report.
9 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 48
Suggested Response
56. The County Council supports the consideration of a wide range of transport proposals but is concerned that very little information has been made available in the consultation report regarding the impact of the various proposals. Based on the information currently available and the minimal time allowed for response, the County Council’s views are as follows:-
(a) Given the current national transport policy, which seeks greater use of public transport to tackle congestion, it is disappointing that the study has found such measures not to be a solution and that extensive motorway widening still appears necessary.
(b) The railway proposals are supported but there are doubts as to how they would be funded and whether they are deliverable, given the problems on the railways which may not be overcome for very many years. It is therefore difficult at present to regard the proposals as realistic. In this respect the consultant’s final report should clarify how the Strategic Rail Authority’s Strategic Plan will aid their delivery.
(c) The light rail proposal in Central Leicestershire could significantly tackle congestion and improve travel choice. However, much more work will be required after the study is complete to determine whether the proposal is feasible and realistic and to identify how it might be funded.
(d) At M1 junction 21 the existing safety and congestion problems require the low cost scheme (MW1) to be implemented by the Highways Agency as a matter of urgency, and not to be subject to further delay while the findings of the multi- modal study go through the decision making process.
(e) Whilst It is clearly preferable for traffic growth to be concentrated on the M1, rather than less safe local roads, it is difficult to support the motorway improvements until the traffic and environmental impacts have been fully identified and the consequences of not widening the motorway have been spelt out.
(f) The main strategic road proposals in Leicestershire are both strongly supported. The positive approach and priority being given to Kegworth Bypass is particularly welcome.
(g) The strategic road test options in Leicestershire raise a number issues and would require careful consideration if included in the final package. The impact of additional traffic on the A606 would be of particular concern at sensitive locations not subject to bypasses.
(h) The consultation report highlights the opportunity for more north-south traffic to use the A46 through Leicestershire. Whilst much of the A46 could accommodate more traffic, it is clear that the Leicester Western Bypass part of the route will not have the scope to handle more traffic in 2021 without very significant improvements to its capacity.
10 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 49
(i) The main transport change proposals are supported but the effectiveness of the behaviour change strategy can only be a matter of speculation with the lack of any working schemes on which to base predictions of outcome. There are significant doubts that the behaviour change strategy will have a material impact on traffic growth.
(j) The County Council welcomes the current exclusion from the main package of stringent parking controls, workplace parking levies, area wide road user charging and urban congestion charging. The County Council will oppose the introduction of these as a means of reducing traffic demand in any location which would have a detrimental effect upon Leicestershire people. Of particular concern is the possibility of stringent car parking controls and workplace parking charges by 2006 which would be prior to the introduction of most of the improvements to public transport.
Resource Implications
57. There are no specific resource implications for the County Council raised at this stage of the multi-modal study. However, some of the proposals in the draft preferred package could in the future be implemented by the County Council either alone or in partnership with others. The method of funding these proposals will require further consideration and discussion with DTLR.
58. The County Treasurer has been consulted on the Resource Implications section of this report.
Equal Opportunities Implications
59. There are no equal opportunities implications raised in the consultation report.
Conclusion
60. The M1 Corridor Multi-modal study has nearly reached a conclusion although much of the information on the proposals will only emerge as part of the final study report in February 2002. After this report has reached the Regional Planning Body, there should be further opportunities to influence the strategy in Leicestershire with the benefit of much more information on the impacts of the proposals. In the meantime the comments in paragraph 56 of this report are intended to be an appropriate response to the formal consultation at this stage of the study.
Officers to Contact
Steve Marsh Telephone - 0116 265 7182 Douglas Reid Telephone - 0116 265 7103
Background Papers
Report to Cabinet - 6th February 2000 Members' Information Item - 21st September2001 M1 Multi-Modal Study News Update leaflet - Issue 3 Autumn 2001 Consultation report on draft preferred package - December 2001
11 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 50
Circulation under Sensitive Issues Procedure.
A copy of the report to Cabinet has been circulated to all Members under the Members' Information Service.
List of Appendices
Appendix A Table of proposals in Draft Preferred Package Appendix B Diagram of road and rail routes Appendix C Outline of proposed behaviour change strategy
12 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 51
APPENDIX A
DRAFT PREFERRED PACKAGE – MAIN PROPOSALS AND TEST OPTIONS
Ref Cost Main Test Code Description of Proposal £m
RAIL – NEW SERVICES (IR/IU/US) – NEW INFRASTRUCTURE (NR) – FREIGHT (FR) IR2 S Coast/SW-B’ham-Derby-Nottm-Sheffield-West Yorks (then IR3 after 2011) 2006 - IR3 S Coast/SW-B’ham-Castle Donington-Nottm-W Yorks (needs NR8+NR13) 2011 - IR5 North West-Stoke-Uttoxeter-Derby-Leicester 2006 - IR6 North West-Buxton-Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (needs NR12) 2011 - IR7 Nottingham-Melton Mowbray-Corby-London St Pancras (needs NR4) 2016 - IR8 Sheffield-Chesterfield-Trowell-EM Parkway-Leicester-London 2006 - IU1 B’ham-Burton-Castle Donington-Nottingham-Trowell-Mansfield- 2011 - Bolsover-Staveley-Chesterfied (needs NR5+NR8) IU2 B’ham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell-Alfreton- 2006 2016 - Chesterfield-Sheffield (test alternative via GC line needs NR3) IU4 Manchester Airport-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham-Trowell Parkway-Mansfied 2006 - UT1 Belper-Derby-Nottingham 2006 - UT2 Coalville-Leicester-Loughborough-Ruddington-Nottingham-Beeston- 2016 - Loughborough-Leicester- Coalville (needs NR1+NR3) UT3 Rotherham-Sheffield-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham (needs NR5) 2011 - UT4 Ashby-Leicester-Loughborough-Derby-Matlock (needs NR1) 2011 - UT5 Leicester-Loughborough-Ruddington-Nottingham-Mansfield-Worksop 2016 - (needs NR3) UT6 Alfreton-Nottingham-Bingham 2006 - NR1 Reopening Ashby to Leicester line with chord at Knighton Junction 2011 35.0 NR3 Loughborough to Nottingham using Great Central line to Ruddington 2016 139.0 and new construction via Tollerton with new rail bridge over River Trent NR4 Melton Mowbray to Nottingham reopening test track line to Tollerton and 2016 79.0 new construction including new rail bridge over River Trent NR3/4 Combined cost - sharing new construction from Tollerton to Nottingham 154.0 NR5 Reopening Mansfield to Chesterfield line via Clowne and Staveley 2011 29.0 NR6 Reopening Pye Bridge to Kirkby line 2006 6.0 NR8 Reopening Castle Donington line to passengers and new station at 2006 9.0 Castle Donington to be served by bus link to EM Airport NR12 Reopening Matlock to Buxton line 2011 76.0 NR13 Newark Chord connecting line from Nottingham to East Coast Main Line north 2011 13.0 NR14 Rail network speed and capacity improvements – various proposals 2006 441.0 including new and faster track layout at Leicester station NR15 Improved accessibility to rail stations 2006 50.0? FR0 Strategic Rail Authority freight strategy improvements (current plans) 2011 600.0 FR1 Intermodal rail freight terminal (location not specific) 2011 10.0 FR2 Loading gauge improvements - including costs of FR3 2016 40.0 FR3 Rail freight links to Humber ports (cost included in FR2) 2016 - FR4 Central Railway proposal – Leicester to Sheffield section of route 2016 155.0
13 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 52
Ref Cost Description of Proposal Main Test Code £m
ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT – LIGHT RAIL (LR) – BUS SERVICES (BC) LR1 Current NET (Nottingham light rail) proposed extensions to Beeston, Clifton 2006 397.0 and West Bridgford with enhancements LR2 Net line 1 extension from Hucknall to Mansfied 2011 238.0 LR3 NET to Trowell Parkway / Ilkeston North / Cotmanhay 2011 146.0 LR4a NET to Gamston 2011 37.0 LR4b NET to Gedling 2011 35.0 LR4c NET to Cotgrave 2011 139.0 LR5b Leicester north LRT to Syston/East Goscote 2011 170.0 LR5c Leicester south LRT to Blaby 2011 126.0 BC1 Bus priority on major routes 2006 10.0? BC4 Derby-Alfreton-Mansfield-Bolsover-Chesterfield 2006 - BC5 Derby-Melbourne-East Midlands Airport-Shepshed-Loughborough 2006 - BC6 Leicester-Coalville-Shepshed-Loughborough 2006 - BC7 Dronfield-Chesterfield-Clay Cross-Alfreton-Ripley-Heanor-Ilkeston- 2006 - Trowell-East Midlands Airport (via M1) BC8 Derby shuttle bus linking Derby South Parkway through Sinfin to Derby 2006 - station, City centre and Spondon station
STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE (PR) PR3a Trowell Parkway (served by NET light rail proposal LR3) – requires new road 2006 9.8 connection from M1 service area including M1 overbridge PR3b M1 Junction 26 at Nuthall (served by extension of NET line 1) 2011 19.0 PR3c M1 Junction 25 (served by extended NET line to Beeston in LR1) 2011 in LR1 PR5 Markham Employment Growth Zone (MEGZ) served by heavy rail US7+NR5 2016 in NR5
MOTORWAY IMPROVEMENTS (MW) MW1 Junction 21 – lane reallocation and roundabout widening 2006 0.5 MW2 Junction 26 – widened northbound exit slip road 2006 0.2 MW3 Junction 28 – roundabout and approach road widening 2006 2.0 MW3a Junction 29 – A617 flyover and roundabout capacity improvement 2006 7.2 MW5 New Junction 29a (approved scheme – funds committed) 2011 - MW8 Free-flow link roads between M1 north and M69 with widening from 2011 23.5 dual 4 to dual 5 lanes between link roads and Junction 21A MW9 The Highway Agency scheme for free-flow links at Junction 28 2011 15.4 MW10 Link roads between M1 north and A610 to relieve Junction 26 2006 6.8 MW11 Junction 23A to 25 intermediate scheme with widening to dual 5 lanes 2011 64.0 between Junction 24A and Junction 25 (MW13 is an alternative) MW12a Junction 25 to 27 widening to dual 5 lanes (including Junction 25 and 26 2011 176.0 improvements) but with dual 4 lanes through junctions and also between Junctions 26 and the new Junction 26A introduced with MW10 MW13 The Highways Agency scheme for Junction 23A to 25 including 2011 107.0 widening to dual 5 lanes between Junction 24A and Junction 25 MW15a Junction 21A to 23A widening to dual 4 lanes with Junction 22 and 23 2016 171.0 capacity improvements MW15b Junction 27 to 30 widening to dual 4 lanes with climbing lanes added on 2011 185.0 uphill carriageways between Junction 27 and 29
14 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc Document Pack Page 53
Ref Cost Description of Proposal Main Test Code £m
STRATEGIC ROADS (SR) SR1 Local Authority Local Transport Plan proposals for 2006 (not committed) 2006 - SR2 Local Authority longer term proposals 2011 - SR4 Short free-flow link between A453 south entry and A50 exit from 2006 0.2 Junction 24 roundabout SR5 A6 Kegworth Bypass (also included within MW13) 2006 8.4 SR7a A453 minor improvement from Crusader junction to University entrance 2006 1.0 SR7b A453 dualling subject to proposals from A453 multi-modal study with 2011 - omission of SR13 and SR17b SR12 New crossing of River Trent east of Nottingham with associated link roads 2011 22.7 SR13 New dual 2 lane carriageway road linking the A50 at Junction 24a with 2011 94.9 the A46 at its junction with the A606 at Widmerpool SR17b A606 complementary measures to go with SR13. Upgrade A606 2011 26.7 including bypasses of Melton Mowbray and Oakham SR18 A617 Glapwell Bypass dual 2 lane carriageway 2006 13.5 SR19 A1 Upgrading to dual 3 lane motorway between Peterborough and Blyth 2011 1,390 (possible alternative to MW 15a)
TRANSPORT CHANGE (TC) TC1 Stringent car parking controls with workplace charging 2006 - TC2 Congestion charging for road users in the three cities 2016 - TC3 Widespread adoption of workplace and school travel plans 2006 - TC5a Area wide road user charging with dual 4 lane instead of 5 lane 2011 - widening TC7 Water freight: inland port at Colwick on River Trent east of Nottingham 2006 10.0 TC8 Travel behaviour change strategy 2006 - TC9 Integrated through ticketing for public transport 2006 - TC9a Reduced public transport fares 2006 -
15 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\8\2\AI00003281\MultiModalStudyM1corridorreport00.doc
Document Pack Page 54 APPENDIX B
J26
M1 NOTTINGHAM DERBY J25
J24A J24 KEGWORTH J23A MELTON MOWBRAY ASHBY DE-LA LOUGHBOROUGH ZOUCH J23
M1 J22
J21A LEICESTER
J21
M69 M1
Key
Passenger Railway - Existing Passenger Railway - Proposed or Test Option Motorway with Junction Numbers Other Strategic Roads New Strategic Road - Proposed or Test Option
ã Crown copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Use of this image is limited to viewing online and printing one copy. Leicestershire County Council. LA076724
DEPARTMENT OF DIAGRAM OF ROAD AND PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION RAIL ROUTES North
Document Pack Page 55
APPENDIX C
OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BEHAVIOUR CHANGE STRATEGY
Awareness Raising 1. This first stage in the process would be to promote a widespread general understanding of problems affecting travel in the East Midlands, ways of dealing with the problems and the encouragement of the individual to effect changes which will be helpful in this context.
2. A communications strategy would inform people of progress with transport improvements in the adopted package and include positive public relations work relating to the improvements progressively achieved during the life of the plan up to 2021.
Changing Travel Behaviour 3. The strategy would include activities to change behaviour based on existing opportunities, such as more cycling or public transport use, and the choices which will arise with implementation of the planned package of measures. Activities might include:-
• Personalised journey planning techniques for travel other than by car; • Demonstration projects involving community action or alternative lifestyle approaches to car ownership and use; • Sponsoring ways of changing lifestyle to reduce or stop the need to travel.
4. The activities would be targeted at the following times of life when people naturally think about their travel needs and possible alternatives:-
• The beginning of secondary school; • Transfer to sixth form/FE college or University; • Starting a first job; • Moving home; • Moving to a different workplace; • Children being born, and their departure from home.
Strategy Management 5. From the multi-modal study so far there is no obvious organisation or body of people to manage the above activities. There will also be a need to co-ordinate and monitor the process in conjunction with the many stakeholder organisations involved such as the Strategic Rail Authority, Highways Agency, local transport authorities and public transport operators. There will need to be a person or group of people able to provide the leadership and put the strategy into effect.
Integration with the Package 6. The behaviour change activities will need to be closely integrated with the implementation of the proposals in the adopted package. The programme of schemes will involve major investment and a wide range of organisations whose staff and procedures will differ in experience and capability. Guidance will be needed to gain maximum benefit. For example, there will be a number of key interchanges where good travel awareness and reliability of services will be essential if the full benefits of integration are to achieved.
Document Pack Page 56