DOCSLIB.ORG

Meeting / Decision Maker: Cabinet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Meeting / Decision Maker: Cabinet MEETING / CABINET MEMBER: EDUCATION AND DECISION MAKER: INFRASTRUCTURE DATE: 17 JANUARY 2013 TITLE OF REPORT: Major Scheme Funding REPORT BY: Steve Burgess, Head of Transportation and Access CABINET SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FINAL CALL IN DATE: 22 MEMBER(S) ONLY JANUARY 2013 DATE DECISION MAY BE IMPLEMENTED: 23 JANUARY 2013 1. Classification Open 2. Key Decision This is not a key decision 3. Wards Affected County-wide 4. Purpose To advise Cabinet Member on government’s proposed changes to the major scheme funding programme and seek its agreement to the proposed governance arrangements outlined in this report to establish the Marches Local Transport Body. 5. Recommendation(s) THAT: The Cabinet Member a) “Agrees to the establishment of a Marches Local Transport Body. b) Authorise the Assistant Director Law, Governance and Resilience to finalise the terms of a joint committee as indicated in the report. c) Authorise the Director of Places and Communities to conclude arrangements with the Department of Transport, including the identification of an accountable body.” Further information on the subject of this report is available from Steve Burgess on Tel: (01432) 26 0968 J:\TEMPLATES\Current templates\_Formal Report Template 3Oct12.doc 6. Key Points Summary • Government consulted on the devolution of its major scheme funding programme for the next spending round period (2015-2019) earlier in 2012, signalling its intention to devolve the programme to ‘local transport bodies’. The consultation also indicated the likely move away from a bidding approach to a formula based allocation of the programme. • Herefordshire Council and the Marches LEP responded directly to the consultation. The two responses broadly welcomed the consultation proposals but raised concerns that a formula approach might reduce the level funding available to large rural areas such as that covered by the Marches. Copies of the responses are available as background papers. • Government has now published the results of the consultation and proposed next steps, confirming key elements of the consultation proposals. These include: o The need to formally establish ‘Local Transport Bodies’ based on the existing Local Enterprise Partnership geographies which will be responsible for allocating and managing the devolved major scheme funds. These, as a minimum will need to comprise the relevant local transport authorities, but may also comprise LEP representation subject to local decision. o The devolved funding will be allocated through a formula based on population size. This replaces the current allocation system which is based on appraisal of individual scheme business cases. The national programme for current spending period (2010 to 2014) is c£1.5B. Government has promised to provide indicative funding outlines for LTB areas later in October. It is anticipated for the Marches area that this will be in the region of £20M. • Guidance issued November 2012 requires the 3 transport authorities in the Marches area to confirm the following: o Details of the ‘Assurance Framework’ for the Marches Local Transport Body. This will need to clarify the local approach to governance, financial management, accountability and testing value for money. Government needs confirmation of these arrangements by the end of February 2013. o A provisional list of prioritised schemes which will need to be submitted to DfT by July 2013. Whilst these schemes will not be required to have been subject to a full major scheme business case assessment, DfT will require an assessment of economic and environmental impact and deliverability. • Whilst the devolution of the programme to local transport bodies is likely to result in savings for central government as it no longer needs to administer, manage and appraise major transport scheme proposals it does not propose to provide any additional funding to assist the local transport bodies which will be required to take over these tasks. In view of the relatively low level of funding which the Marches is due to receive as a result of a population based formula, the resourcing of the local transport body will be key issue for the Marches local transport authorities. 7. Alternative Options There are alternative options around the composition of the Local Transport Body (LTB). Formal Report Template DRAFT 3Oct12 Herefordshire and the Marches Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) confirmed a preference during the original consultation which was that the LTB would comprise of the 3 local transport authorities with the Marches LEP being represented in an advisory capacity. The outcome of the consultation appears to allow for this arrangement to proceed, however, other options are available including the LEP having a formal voting role on the LTB or leading the LTB. Given the existing consensus amongst the Marches transport authorities and the LEP there is no justification to review this position. 8. Reasons for Recommendations To ensure that the Marches local transport authorities can continue to access funding to improve transport facilities in the area and support economic growth and sustainable development. 9. Introduction and Background The major scheme funding programme has been in place for many years and provides funding direct to local authorities for transport schemes over £5M. Government manages the programme centrally and has established a detailed process for appraisal which is set out in a web based appraisal tool called WebTAG. Typically, this programme has funded highway schemes and larger sustainable transport schemes such as new bus stations. Whilst focused on transport, the major scheme programme is separate to the local transport plan capital grant and is also separate to the Highways Agency’s capital funding. Herefordshire Council has never secured funding through this programme. Whilst it sought funding for the Rotherwas Access Road, the major scheme business case was eventually rejected by DfT and it was subsequently funded as a regeneration scheme with funding from Advantage West Midlands. Whilst securing major scheme funding can provide an area with significant external investment, the process of securing the funds is extremely resource intensive and lengthy. For smaller projects (nearer the £5M minimum threshold) or for authorities such as Herefordshire Council with limited resource/capacity, the nature of the major scheme process has proved something of a deterrent in itself. 10. Key Considerations Key Tasks Resulting from the ‘Devolving local major transport schemes: Next steps’ paper The government published ‘Guidance on Local Transport Bodies’ in November, 2012 confirming the outcome of a consultation earlier in 2012 and proposals for devolving its major scheme programme from 2015. The authorities will need to provide assurance by the end of February 2013 on governance, democratic accountability, financial management and value for money. By July 2013 they will be required to submit a provisional list of prioritised schemes which will have been subject to at least a high level appraisal and agreed by the LTB. Proposed Governance for the Marches Local Transport Body Herefordshire Council and the Marches LEP responded to the original consultation and were in agreement that the LTB should be comprised of the 3 local transport authorities. The LEP would have an advisory role in relation to the LTB and hence would not have Formal Report Template DRAFT 3Oct12 formal decision making powers. As was evidenced by the responses to the consultation, there were concerns that the future administration of the fund would need to remain subject to democratic accountability. The LEP has not finalised its own governance arrangements to the extent that any representative can be lawfully mandated to respond to funding proposals on its behalf. Some kind of corporate vehicle is perhaps the most suitable solution. Equally, for the LTB some authorities (outside of the Marches area) have proposed a corporate structure. This would potentially allow full participation for the LEP’s representative as a voting decision maker rather than a consultee/observer. The corporate structure would also potentially admit bodies such as Network Rail. However, it is suggested that at this stage a joint cabinet committee would be the most appropriate solution. This proposal has been discussed and agreed at officer level with officers of Shropshire and Telford Councils. It is proposed that the committee would: a. comprise 6 cabinet members, 2 from each authority one of which would be responsible for transport strategy and/or infrastructure. This committee would be empowered to determine the funding priorities in relation to the devolved major scheme funding programme. Over time and subject to further devolution of powers from central government, it may take on additional functions; b. invite appropriate representation from the Marches Local Enterprise Partnership to inform its decision making. At present the LEP does not have a clear constitution and this would limit its role to advisory and would preclude any voting rights. This could be reviewed if the status of the LEP changed; c. be serviced by appropriate legal/governance officials. Further consideration will be required to asses the resourcing implications of this new activity and whether or not the function might rotate between the 3 authorities or if pooled resources would assist one authority maintaining the role over a longer period; and d. be serviced by a formal technical officer group which would be established to fulfil
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Executive Board Meeting 10Am, Friday 23Rd March 2012
    Executive Board Meeting 10am, Friday 23 rd March 2012 Nottingham City Council AGENDA 1. Apologies 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Minutes of the Executive Board Meeting 16 TH December 2011 4. Financial Report 2011-12 5. EMC Priorities – Business Plan 2012-13 6. EMC Budget 2012-13 7. EMC Membership 2012/13 (Verbal Report) 8. Welfare Reform 9. Transport Investment a) Midland Main Line Upgrade & Electrification b) Local Transport Bodies Consultation 10. Regional Growth Fund and BIS Update (Verbal Report) 11. Affordable Housing Provision 12. Judicial Review and DEFRA Consultation on the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 13. Board Reports a) East Midlands Improvement & Efficiency Partnership b) Strategic Migration Board c) Regional Employers Board 14. Report of the EMC Management Group (discussion to be chaired by Cllr Jon Collins) Item 3 EAST MIDLANDS COUNCILS EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 TH DECEMBER 2011 AT LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Present: Cllr David Parsons CBE (Chair) – Leicestershire County Council Cllr Jon Collins (Vice-Chair) – Nottingham City Council Cllr Neil Clarke (Vice Chair) – Rushcliffe Borough Council Cllr Ernie White – Blaby District Council Cllr Chris Millar – Daventry District Council Cllr Andrew Lewer – Derbyshire County Council Cllr Lewis Rose OBE – Derbyshire Dales District Council Cllr Martin Hill OBE – Lincolnshire County Council Cllr Kay Cutts – Nottinghamshire County Council Cllr Roger Begy OBE – Rutland County Council Cllr Linda Neal – South Kesteven District Council Cllr Robert
    [Show full text]
  • Worcestershire Local Transport Board Framework
    Worcestershire Local Transport Board Assurance Framework February 2013 Find out more online: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/transport www.wlep.org.uk Worcestershire Local Transport Body Assurance Framework 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 2. Purpose, Structure and Operating Principles 2 2.1 Name 2 2.2 Geography 2 2.3 Membership 2 2.4 Status and Role of Accountable Body 3 2.5 Conflicts of Interest 4 2.6 Gifts and Hospitality 4 2.7 Audit and Scrutiny 5 2.8 Strategic Objectives and Purpose 5 2.9 Support and Administration Arrangements 5 2.10 Working Arrangements and Meeting Frequency 6 2.11 Transparency and Local Engagement 6 2.12 Complaints and Whistle Blowing 6 3. Prioritisation of Schemes 7 3.1 Introduction 7 3.2 Prioritisation Process 7 3.3 Scheme Eligibility 8 4. Programme Management and Investment Decisions 10 4.1 Scheme Assessment and Approval 10 4.2 Programme Entry 10 4.3 Conditional Approval 10 4.4 Full Approval 10 4.5 The Transport Business Case 11 4.6 Strategic Case 11 4.7 Economic Case 11 4.8 Financial Case 11 4.9 Commercial Case 11 4.10 Management Case 12 4.11 Value for Money 12 4.12 External Views on Business Cases 12 4.13 Release of Funding, Cost Control and Approval Conditions 13 Appendix A -Articles of Constitution, Financial Regulations, Guide to Worcestershire County Council Constitution, Members' Code of Conduct, Procedural Standing Orders Appendix B - LTP3 Policy List, The Worcestershire SAF Summary, Worcestershire County Council Scheme Appraisal Framework: User Guide 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The Department for Transport has announced its intention to devolve funding for local major transport schemes to Local Transport Bodies (LTBs) from 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport for the North a Blueprint for Devolving and Integrating Transport Powers in England
    REPORT TRANSPORT FOR THE NORTH A BLUEPRINT FOR DEVOLVING AND INTEGRATING TRANSPORT POWERS IN ENGLAND Ed Cox and Luke Raikes March 2015 © IPPR North 2015 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR NORTH IPPR North is IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England. supported by With its head office in Manchester and representatives in Newcastle, IPPR North’s research, together with our stimulating and varied events programme, seeks to produce innovative policy ideas for fair, democratic and sustainable communities across the North of England. IPPR North specialises in regional economics, localism and community policy. Our approach is collaborative and we benefit from extensive sub-national networks, regional associates, and a strong track record of engaging with policymakers at regional, sub-regional and local levels. IPPR North 2nd Floor, 3 Hardman Square Spinningfields, Manchester M3 3EB T: +44 (0)161 457 0535 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org/north Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in March 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors only. NEW IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................1 Background: the rationale and development of Transport for the North .................. 1 Purpose, objectives and vision ............................................................................... 1 Timetable and blueprint for development ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Local Transport Body
    APPENDIX B Solent Local Transport Body Assurance Framework Draft v-1 CONTENTS Assurance Framework Signatories 3 Introduction 4 Part 1: Purpose Structure and Operating Principles 5 1.1 Name 5 1.2 Geography 5 1.3 Membership 5 1.4 Review 6 1.5 Voting Arrangements 6 1.6 Conflicts of Interest 6 1.7 Gifts and Hospitality 6 1.8 Status and Role of Accountable Body 6 1.9 Audit and Scrutiny 7 1.10 Strategic Objectives and Purpose 7 1.11 Support and Administration 7 Agreements 1.12 Working Arrangements and Meeting 7 Frequency 1.13 Transparency and Engagement 8 1.14 Complaints and Whistleblowing 8 Part 2: Prioritisation 9 2.1 Prioritisation 9 2.2 Scheme Eligibility 13 Part 3: Programme Management and Investment 14 Decisions 3.1 Scheme Assessment and Approval 14 3.2 Approval Regime 14 3.3 The Transport Business Case 15 3.4 Value for Money 15 3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 16 3.6 External Views on Business Cases 16 3.7 Release of Funding, Cost Control and 16 Approval Conditions 3.8 Programme and Risk Management 16 Appendix A Agreement Relating to the Solent Local 17 Transport Body Appendix B Solent LTB Boundary Proposal Letter 45 2 ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK SIGNATORIES Cllr. Mel Kendall Cllr. Jason Fazackarley Executive Member for Environment and Executive Member for Traffic and Transport & Deputy Leader of the Council Transportation Cllr. Edward Giles Russell Kew Executive Member for Procurement, Fire, Director Highways and Transport Cllr. Asa Thorpe Executive Member for Environment and Transport 3 INTRODUCTION This draft Assurance Framework sets out the arrangements that will be put in place to provide assurance that the Solent Local Transport Body (LTB) will operate in accordance with the Guidance for Local Transport Bodies, published by the Department for Transport (DfT) on 23rd November 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Local Transport Body Transport Investment Priorities Within Indicative Funding Envelope
    Solent Local Transport Body Transport Investment Priorities Within Indicative Funding Envelope July 2013 1 Contents Section Number Section Title Page Number 1 Introduction 3 2 Assessment 5 3 Transport Investment Priorities 8 4 Inter-LTB Transport Investment 9 Appendix 1 10 2 Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Background The Solent Local Transport Body (LTB) is a voluntary partnership between the four Local Transport Authorities of Hampshire County Council, Isle of Wight Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council, the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) covering the area shown in Map 1, below. This boundary is coterminous with that of the Solent LEP and Transport for South Hampshire & Isle of Wight (TfSHIoW). Map 1: Solent LTB Area The LTB builds upon the existing structure of partnership working on strategic transport matters within the area, as provided by TfSHIoW. The LTB also includes the Solent LEP, which brings together the private and public sectors to set the economic strategy and priorities to realise sustainable economic growth and private sector investment in the Solent area, and PUSH, which brings together the local authorities of the area to facilitate the strategic planning functions necessary to support growth. In addition to the full (voting) members, the LTB has a range of Associate Members, including public transport operators, the ports and airport, local planning authorities and economic partnerships. The TfSHIoW Transport Delivery Plan (TDP), published in February this year, sets out the transport investment priorities for the Solent area. The TDP represents the output of a significant workstream that followed the DfT WebTAG process for identifying transport solutions that support sustainable economic growth in the Solent area.
    [Show full text]
  • Hampshire Local Transport Plan
    Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2031 www.hants.gov.uk Hampshire Local Transport Plan Foreword i Part A: Long-term LTP Strategy 2011-2031 Chapter 1: The Transport Vision 1 Chapter 2: Transport Priorities 12 Chapter 3: The Hampshire Context 21 Chapter 4: Monitoring and review 38 Chapter 5: Transport Strategy for North Hampshire 45 Chapter 6: Transport Strategy for Central Hampshire and The New Forest 53 Chapter 7: South Hampshire Joint Strategy 62 Part B: Three-year Implementation Plan 2011/12 to 2013/14 Chapter 8: Implementation Plan 81 Glossary 93 For a copy of this publication in another language or format (e.g. large print or audio) please contact Hantsdirect on 0845 603 5633 or [email protected] Foreword We are pleased to introduce Hampshire County Council’s new Local Transport Plan (LTP). It is intended to be a succinct and readable document written in two parts: a 20-year Strategy, which sets out a long-term vision for how the transport network of Hampshire will be developed over the next 20 years, and clearly articulates how the LTP will contribute to achieving progress on the County Council’s corporate priorities; and a three-year Implementation Plan. A number of major issues face Hampshire in the years ahead. We must support the sustainable growth and competitiveness of the Hampshire economy and sustain the high quality of life enjoyed by current and future Hampshire residents, while responding to challenges like climate change. In its plans to address these issues, the County Council plays an important role in ensuring that transport and travel in Hampshire is safe, efficient and reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Approval of the Governance and Operation of the Coast to Capital
    Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Ref HT06(13/14) Approval of the Governance and operation of the Key Decision: Coast to Capital Local Transport Body Yes July 2013 Part I Report by Executive Director Communities Electoral Commissioning and Strategic Planning Manager Division(s): All Executive Summary The County Council seeks to establish a Local Transport Body for the Coast to Capital area along with Surrey County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council and Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership. It will be known as the Coast to Capital Transport Body (the LTB) and it will decide priorities and manage a programme of investment in local major transport schemes in the Coast to Capital area (including West Sussex) from 2015 onwards. This report includes details of the proposed governance and decision-making arrangements, scheme assessment and administration for the LTB. Recommendations 1) To enter into formal arrangements with Surrey County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council and Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership to establish the Coast to Capital Transport Body (the LTB) to administer devolved funding for local major transport schemes, through an agreement approved and signed by the Head of Law and Governance; 2) To approve that the County Council assumes the role of accountable body for the LTB as outlined in paragraph 1.4; and 3) To approve the arrangements for governance, scheme assessment, decision-making and administration of the LTB summarised in Appendix A, subject to the satisfactory resolution of issues as described in paragraph 2.4 – 2.5. 1. Introduction 1.1 In November 2012, the Department for Transport (DfT) published its intention to devolve decision-making on local major transport schemes to newly created Local Transport Bodies based on the geographical areas covered by the Local Enterprise Partnerships.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport for South Hampshire Business Plan 2011 – 2013 Mid-Term Review 2012
    Transport for South Hampshire Business Plan 2011 – 2013 Mid-term review 2012 June 2011 – May 2013 Contents 1 Introduction Page 3 2 Background Pages 4 – 7 3 Strategic Direction Page 8 – 9 4 Governance & Partnerships Pages 10 – 11 5 Finance Pages 12 6 Work Programme 2011 – 2013 Pages 13 – 17 7 Resources and Working Arrangements Page 18 8 Risk Register Pages 19 – 20 TfSH Business Plan 2011-13 2 Mid-term update 1. Introduction from the Chairman Councillor Melville Kendal Chairman of the TfSH Joint Committee This TfSH Business Plan provides a mid-term update to the 2011-13 Business Plan that we published last year. It sets out how key priorities for the South Hampshire area, as identified by the Solent LEP, the South Hampshire Joint Local Transport Plan Strategy and PUSH will be delivered through a Work Programme. When this third Business Plan was published last year, we noted that it was written within a significantly changed context, and as we update this plan mid-term, change continues. Since taking office two years ago, the coalition Government has set out its agenda on public sector funding, local governance and transport policy through a series of statements, policy documents and funding decisions. These policy shifts are having a significant impact across the local government sector and more widely. We have adapted well to the changed context and seized opportunities for delivering improved transport outcomes for South Hampshire, as and when they have arisen. The past 12 months have been successful: We have been awarded £4.5m of DfT funding following a successful bid to the Better Bus Area Fund, and are one of just 13 areas short-listed within the large project package category of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Economic Plan 2014 Annexes
    APPENDICES AND TRANSPORT ANNEX Coast to Capital Strategic Economic Plan March 2014 Appendices and Transport Annex This document contains the Appendices and Transport Annex for the Coast to Capital Strategic Economic Plan. The main document can be found at www.coast2capital.gov.uk Contents APPENDIX 1: GROWTH DEAL SUMMARY SHEET ...................................................................................................................... 2 APPENDIX 2: BURGESS HILL ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 APPENDIX 3: CROYDON ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX 4: HEART OF THE GATWICK DIAMOND .............................................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX 5: EAST SURREY M25 CORRIDOR ......................................................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX 6: BRIGHTON AND HOVE .......................................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX 7: COASTAL CORRIDOR ............................................................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX 8: ENTERPRISE AT BOGNOR REGIS ENTERPRISE ZONE ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford, Milton Keynes, Cambridge Northampton Growth Corridor
    Oxford, Milton National Infrastructure Keynes, Cambridge Commission Northampton Growth Corridor Strategy Assessment Report Our ref: 23142501 November 2017 Client ref: CCCC17A41 Oxford, Milton Keynes, National Infrastructure Cambridge Commission Northampton Growth Corridor Strategy Assessment Report Our ref: 23142501 November 2017 Client ref: CCCC17A41 Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave National Infrastructure Commission 28-32 Upper Ground 5th Floor, 11 Philpot Lane London SE1 9PD London EC3M 8UD +44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for National Infrastructure Commission. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made. Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Cambridge .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Future of Mobility: Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures Technical Annexes
    Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures: Technical Annex Future of Mobility: Evidence Review Foresight, Government Office for Science Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures: Technical Annex Professor Alf Baird (Independent) Dr Lucy Budd (Loughborough University) Professor Oliver Carsten (University of Leeds) Professor Iain Docherty (University of Glasgow) Nigel Foster (Fore Consulting) Professor Greg Marsden (University of Leeds) Professor Chris Nash (University of Leeds) Dr John Nellthorp (University of Leeds) Emma Roberts (Fore Consulting) Dr Phillip Wheat (University of Leeds) Professor Peter White (University of Westminster) Dr Tony Whiteing (University of Leeds) January 2019 This report has an information cut off date of May 2018. This review has been commissioned as part of the UK government’s Foresight Future of Mobility project. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of any government or organisation. This document is not a statement of government policy. 1 Table of Contents Method Statement.................................................................................................................. 7 Scope and Boundaries .......................................................................................................... 7 1. MODES .................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Domestic aviation .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Local Transport Body
    Solent Local Transport Body Assurance Framework CONTENTS Assurance Framework Signatories 3 Statement of Principles 4 Contact Details 5 Introduction 6 Part 1: Purpose, Structure and Operating Principles 7 1.1 Name 7 1.2 Geography 7 1.3 Membership 7 1.4 Review 8 1.5 Voting Arrangements 8 1.6 Conflicts of Interest 8 1.7 Gifts and Hospitality 9 1.8 Status and Role of Accountable Body 9 1.9 Audit and Scrutiny 9 1.10 Strategic Objectives and Purpose 9 1.11 Support and Administration Agreements 10 1.12 Working Arrangements and Meeting Frequency 10 1.13 Transparency and Engagement 10 1.14 Complaints and Whistleblowing 11 Part 2: Prioritisation 12 2.1 Prioritisation Overview 12 2.2 Scheme Eligibility 16 2.3 Prioritisation Methodology 17 Part 3: Programme Management and Investment Decisions 21 To be completed following discussion with the Department for Transport Appendix A Agreement Relating to the Solent Local Transport Body 22 Appendix B Solent LTB Boundary Proposal Letter 56 2 ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK SIGNATORIES Cllr. Jason Fazackarley Cllr. Seán Woodward Executive Member for Traffic and Executive Member for Economy, Transport Transportation and Environment Cllr. Ian Stephens Russell Kew Executive Member for Procurement, Fire, Solent LEP Director and Infrastructure Lead Highways and Transport and Leader of the Council Cllr. Jacqui Rayment Cllr. Tony Briggs Executive Member for Environment and Acting for an on behalf of the Partnership Transport for Urban South Hampshire 3 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE The Solent Local Transport Body will prioritise its allocation from the devolved major transport scheme funding stream on transport investments that have no identified funding source and that deliver measurable and significant economic benefits to the Solent economy in terms of growth in employment or that safeguard employment, drive new residential and employment development, or an increase in GVA.
    [Show full text]