Summary of comments and responses July 2005 Summary of Comments and Responses Summary of Comments and Responses for the Draft LTP 2 Introduction Cumbria County Council issued the Draft LTP 2 for consultation between the 11th January and the 11th March 2005 and 159 responses were subsequently received. Comments came from a range of individuals, parish councils, organisations and statutory bodies. Among the key stakeholders who responded were the six District Councils, the two national park authorities, government agencies, transport providers and regeneration bodies. The comments have been distributed to the ATAG’s allowing them to also pass on their comments on the comments and the proposed draft responses. Summary A summary of the key issues that have been raised by the respondents, together with draft responses are listed below. These reflect issues that have been raised by more than one respondent and that have potential significant implications for the Plan. Strategy Section 1: Area Transport Plans are poorly related to the rest of the LTP. They do not relate to the Core Objectives and the headings under ‘overall approach’ do not refer to the ‘shared priorities’. Public transport should be addressed in the Core Objectives. Draft Response: Each Area Plan will have a more substantial introduction to make these connections. The Shared Priorities will be referenced throughout the document using colour coding. Public transport is one of the measures that can help to address ‘accessibility’ and congestion. More explicit reference will be made to its role in the final plan. 2: Reducing the need to travel is a key national policy and should be a Core Objective. Draft Response: The current guidance directs LTP 2 to address the ‘shared priorities’ for transport as well as local priorities. Reducing the need to travel is implicit in increasing the sustainability of developments (Structure Plan Policy ST3). The Plan will cross-refer to the accessibility plan to cover this issue more comprehensively. 3: Issue of climate change and air pollution not addressed. Should be a Core Objective. Draft Response: Agreed. The issue will be addressed in a new section on environmental issues in the strategy section of the final version. The Core Objectives will be strengthened to reflect this. Draft LTP 2 1 Summary of Comments and Responses 4: The Plan does not reflect issues across the whole of the County, especially rural areas compared to urban areas. Draft Response: There has been no geographical bias in the preparation of LTP 2. The Plan simply addresses the issues identified and meets objectives and targets. There will be a stronger section on rural matters in the strategy section to identify the difference in approach. 5: Increase reference to importance of integrating transport. Draft Response: Greater emphasis will be given to developing an integrated transport network. The Accessibility Planning work now underway will assist in this. Core Objective 1 will be amended accordingly. 6: Lack of reference to environmental issues and required Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Draft Response: The Plans ‘Vision’ will be amended so it refers to also improving the quality of the built and natural environment. There will be an additional environment section in the strategy. The Council is carrying out the SEA and reference will be made in the provisional Plan to the process. The findings of the SEA will be contained in a separate document to be distributed with the final plan in 2006. 7: Reference to local air quality concerns required. Draft Response: Reference will be included to reflect the present position in Carlisle and Kendal regarding Air Quality Management Areas. 8: Need to identify how schemes are prioritised. Draft Response: The Council’s mechanism for prioritisation will be contained in a technical paper supporting the LTP. Safety Section 9: No reference to speed reduction in Core Objectives. Need to consider introduction of speed limits in many settlements. Draft Response: Speed reduction can play an important role in improving safety. The Plan will be amended to refer to the role speed limits can play in reducing accidents. Proposals will be considered on their individual merits. Public Transport Section 10: Lack of reference to the role of rail, and the need to improve Furness/Cumbrian Coast/Windermere lines in particular. Draft Response: Greater reference to rail issues will be included in the Plan as greater clarity has emerged from new franchise holders and the SRA/DfT. 11: Absence of promotion and development of public transport services into the National Park. Draft Response: Acknowledged. Specific reference will now be incorporated. Draft LTP 2 2 Summary of Comments and Responses Highway Network Management Section 12: Need to address the issue of lack of funding for maintenance of road, cycle and PROW network. Draft Response: Maintenance is a high priority in Cumbria and greater emphasis will be given to the issue with the importance of the Asset Management Plan’s role in maintenance highlighted and Targets included as per other chapters. Regarding maintenance and cycling, reference will be made to the proposed action of the Cycling Development Action Plan to produce a maintenance regime. Maintenance of PROW will be prioritised on a needs basis. The Plan will make reference to limited funding available for PROW (and cycling) network to limit expectations. 13: Poor road maintenance will increase casualties. Draft Response: Current evidence does not link maintenance to the issues of road casualties and community safety. Cycling Section 14: Make reference to Cycle Tourism Strategy. Draft Response: Agreed. Appropriate reference will be made to it. Walking Section 15: Not sufficient evidence that ROWIP is being developed as an integral part of the LTP. Draft Response: The Countryside Access Plan is the first part of the ROWIP. A new section will be included in the final draft to cover this issue. Area Transport Plans Section 16: Indicators vary between Transport Plan Areas. Draft Response: They reflect the key issues identified as most important in each area. General Comments 17: The document is difficult to navigate. Draft Response: A contents page and glossary will be added to the final version. Schemes 18: No reference to the 3 Rivers Strategy. Draft Response: 3 Rivers Strategy to be referred to in the Countryside Access Chapter. Draft LTP 2 3 Summary of Comments and Responses 19: The Kendal Northern Relief Road should be omitted. Draft Response: There will be scope for these detailed representations on the proposal to be fully considered further along the required statutory process for road schemes. 20: The key schemes identified omit schemes seen as essential by consultees. Draft Response: A list of key schemes were identified during the Plan development, each of which will be considered against the Councils mechanism for prioritising schemes before being included in any programme. All schemes and measures proposed will be considered and prioritised. A completed list of all of the comments that the Council received and the draft responses to these comments can be found in the Appendix. Draft LTP 2 4 LTP2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION JAN-MAR 2005 Policy Policy Respondent Chap Para Ques Comments Response Area Number Cumbria Fire & 0 Q1 Agree Noted Rescue Service 0 Q2 Safety; targets do not indicate any timescales Provisional Plan will contain timescales 0 Q3 Safety; key area not covered is intervention following an accident Plans of the emergency services will - can reduce deaths/severity of injury I.e. rescue helicopters, cover these issues paramedics, basic scheme doctors. 0 Q4 None 0 Q5 Good Noted 0 Change to Fire & Rescue Service Agreed.Amend para.3.7 by adding 'Fire'&'Rescue' Langwathby PC 3 7 Q1 Agree Noted 0 Q2 Agree Noted 0 Q3 Agree Noted 0 Q4 Eden Area (para 15) ;key scheme is improving access to Key schemes identified through the southbound platform Langwathby Station consultation process will need to come forward through the Councils mechanisms for prioritisation before being considered in any future programme. 0 Q5 Plans commencement year is unclear ;cover states 2006 whilst Noted. Amend pages to '2006-2012' each page is 2007-2012. to be consistent with cover Cumbria 3 Targets - stretched or actual; need for actual figures Agreed Constabulary 3 2 Need to ensure full involvement of PCT's Noted 3 3 Replace 'injuries' with 'road traffic collisions' ,latter that needs to Agreed.Amend para 3.3 as proposed be prevented. 3 10 Is there confidence over the success of Respect; waitng Detailed evaluation is awaited evaluation of Barrow phase? 3 Need a section on Enforcement as detailed Agreed.After para 3.10 add section on 'enforcement' as detailed Cumbria 2 24 Refers to the mortality rate & not general casualty level Noted Constabulary 3 Targets need to be more clearly defined - should follow the Noted CRCRP target or include an additional target. 3 1 Need explanation to show meaning of trend lines Agreed Add annotation to three trend lines in Fig 1 3 2 Include other agencies not part of CRCRP Noted 3 3 Why no reference to evaluation; publicity not usually separate Reference to evaluation will be issue included in the Plan 3 4 Participation should only take place where issue is relevant to Para 3.4 already states that national the Cumbria area campaigns need to be 'relevant' to locality 3 S Duplication in list of policies Agreed Delete Policies S16 and S17 3 10 Re-word as Respect programme for Carlisle not yet planned i.e. Agreed Amend para 3.10 by intend to extend schemes to Carlisle area. including 'it is intended to extend the scheme to Carlisle' after Cumbria and ……..' 5 4 Should include major schemes to be completed within Reference is not required as these are trunk road schemes 5 timescale of LTP i.e.