Agenda Pack 1 of 170

Agenda

AGENDA for a meeting of the ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL in COMMITTEE ROOM B at County Hall, Hertford on FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 at 2:00PM ______

MEMBERS OF THE PANEL (12) (Quorum 3)

D A Ashley (Chairman), D J Barnard, S Bedford, S J Boulton, R C Deering, S J Featherstone, N A Hollinghurst, A K Khan, G McAndrew, N A Quinton (substituting for A S B Walkington), A Stevenson (Vice-Chairman), J A West

Meetings of the Cabinet Panel are open to the public (this includes the press) and attendance is welcomed. However, there may be occasions when the public are excluded from the meeting for particular items of business. Any such items are taken at the end of the public part of the meeting and are listed under “Part II (‘closed’) agenda”.

The Committee Room B is fitted with an audio system to assist those with hearing impairment. Anyone who wishes to use this should contact main (front) reception.

Members are reminded that all equalities implications and equalities impact assessments undertaken in relation to any matter on this agenda must be rigorously considered prior to any decision being reached on that matter.

Members are reminded that: (1) if they consider that they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting they must declare that interest and must not participate in or vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been granted by the Standards Committee; (2) if they consider that they have a Declarable Interest (as defined in paragraph 5.3 of the Code of Conduct for Members) in any matter to be considered at the meeting they must declare the existence and nature of that interest but they can speak and vote on the matter

Agenda Pack 1 of 170

1 PART I (PUBLIC) AGENDA

1 MEMBERSHIP AND REMIT OF THE PANEL

To note the membership of the Panel as stated above, and the remit which is as follows:

The responsibilities of the Executive Member for Environment, Planning & Transport are - Hertfordshire’s built and natural environment; countryside management; Lead Flood Authority; environmental intelligence; rights of way; climate change (excluding County Council estate and operations); leading for the County Council on the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Panel; strategic planning; waste planning; minerals planning; airport policy: Local Transport Plan; leading for the County Council on the Local Transport Board; passenger transport: leading the county council on its service use of passenger transport; leading for the County Council on the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority.

2. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2017 (attached).

3. PUBLIC PETITIONS

The opportunity for any member of the public, being resident in or a registered local government elector of Hertfordshire to present a petition relating to a matter with which the Council is concerned, and is relevant to the remit of this Cabinet Panel, containing 100 or more signatures of residents or business ratepayers of Hertfordshire.

Notification of intent to present a petition must have been given to the Chief Legal Officer at least 20 clear days before the meeting where an item relating to the subject matter of the petition does not appear in the agenda, or at least 5 clear days where the item is the subject of a report already on the agenda.

[Members of the public who are considering raising an issue of concern via a petition are advised to contact their local member of the Council. The Council's arrangements for the receipt of petitions are set out in Annex 22 - Petitions Scheme of the Constitution.]

If you have any queries about the procedure please contact Stephanie Tarrant, by telephone on (01992 555481) or by e-mail to [email protected]

No requests to present petitions on matters not contained on this agenda have been received

4. ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE MONITOR

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Agenda Pack 2 of 170

2 5. NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROJECT, “SLOW THE FLOW” IN HERTFORDSHIRE 2017/18 TO 2020/21

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

6. HERTFORDSHIRE BUILDING FUTURES – UPDATE REPORT

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

7. BUS SERVICES ACT 2017 Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

8. PLANNING AND GROWTH IN HERTFORDSHIRE

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

9. TRANSPORT VISION 2016 PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT AND LTP4 PROJECT UPDATE

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

10. NATIONAL AIR QUALITY PLAN

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment / Director of Public Health

11. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CONSULTATION - UK AIRSPACE POLICY: A FRAMEWORK FOR BALANCED DECISIONS ON THE DESIGN AND USE OF AIRSPACE

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

12. WASTE LOCAL PLAN – WAY AHEAD PAPER

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

13. OTHER PART I BUSINESS

Such Part I (public) business which, if the Chairman agrees, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration.

PART II (‘CLOSED’) AGENDA

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

There are no items of Part II business on this agenda. If Part II business is notified the Chairman will move:-

“That under Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item/s of business on the grounds that it/they involve/s the likely disclosureAgenda of exempt Pack 3 inform of 170ation as defined in paragraph/s

3 . of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the said Act and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”

If you require further information about this agenda please contact Stephanie Tarrant, Democratic Services, telephone number (01992) 555481 or email [email protected].

Agenda documents are also available on the internet at: https://cmis.hertsdirect.org/hertfordshire/Calendarofcouncilmeetings.aspx.

KATHRYN PETTITT CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER

Agenda Pack 4 of 170

4 Minutes

To: All Members of the From: Legal, Democratic & Statutory Services Environment, Planning and Ask for: Stephanie Tarrant Transport Cabinet Panel, Chief Ext: 25481 Executive, Chief Officers, All officers named for ‘actions’

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL, 29 MARCH 2017

ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS OF THE PANEL

D Andrews (Vice Chairman), D A Ashley (Chairman), D J Barnard. N Bell, H K Crofton, N A Hollinghurst, R Sangster, R H Smith, S J Taylor, A S B Walkington

Upon consideration of the agenda for the Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel meeting on 29 March 2017 as circulated, copy annexed, conclusions were reached and are recorded below:

Note: No Declarations of interest were made.

PART I (‘OPEN’) BUSINESS ACTION 1. MINUTES

1.1 The Minutes of the Cabinet Panel meeting held on 1 February 2017 were agreed.

2. PUBLIC PETITIONS

2.1 There were no public petitions.

3. HERTFORDSHIRE HEALTH WALKS UPDATE [Officer Contact: Tony Bradford, Head of Countryside Management Service, (Tel 01992 556028)]

3.1 Members received a report which provided an update on the Health Walks Programme in Hertfordshire.

3.2 It was highlighted that Hertfordshire’s health walk programme was the country’s largest volunteer lead programme and that over the past year further analysis had been undertaken to establish the performance of the walks. Members noted the health and wellbeing benefits, as well as the social interaction, provided by the walks. The walks were targeted at those who were inactive or suffering from one or more long-term healthAgenda issue Pack or living 5 of in170 a deprived area.

3.3 Members heard that data was collected at the start of each walk and was used to report on outputs. There were 58 walks per week which attracted more than 50,000 attendees in 2016/17, with some walks attracting over 100 people. Members were informed that over the past six months a survey had been conducted with health walk participants and that the breakdown of responses were given within the report.

3.4 Members queried how the scheme was the largest in the country when Hampshire’s health walks had more attendees. It was clarified that Hertfordshire’s health walks had more trained leaders and more walks available. It was believed that this year’s attendance figures would be higher than Hampshire’s.

3.5 The list of health conditions considered was discussed and Members noted that BMI was not used as a measure. It was advised that BMI was a tricky metric that not many people would be able to report. Public Health had been very clear on the questions to be asked in the questionnaire. It was noted that mental health was also not listed as a condition and Members heard that the walks main aim was to improve physical activity but it had been noted that participants also acknowledged the social and mental health benefits accrued.

3.6 In response to a Member question on what GP’s were actively doing to refer patients to the scheme, Members heard that health walks were predominately promoted by other health specialists within local clinics and that 40% of health walks started within 500m of a GP surgery. Members heard that promotional material was available within local GP surgeries and that the information was refreshed every four months.

3.7 In discussion around young people being encouraged to join the walks, Members heard that the walks were designed for people aged 40+ who were most likely to benefit from this type of exercise. It was noted that according to a study by the Local Government Information Unit, for every £1 spent on a good quality health walk, it saved the NHS between £4 and £7.

3.8 Members discussed publicising health walks through children’s centres to increase equality and to also help target areas of social deprivation and issues of equality. Members heard that more efforts would continue to be made to develop walks closer to deprived areas and that the split in CMS volunteers was almost gender equal and in participants were fairly representative of local areas.

3.9 Members discussed whether there were any issues in managing such a high volume of volunteers and it was noted that it was a challenge as there was only the equivalent of two full time officers managing them. It was acknowledged that where volunteers were willing and had transferrable skills that could assist with health walks i.e. admin, those skills wereAgenda utilised. Pack 6 of 170 2

3.10 The logistics of the walks were discussed and members heard that even though up to 100 people were participating in a walk, the group become dispersed with a leader at the front and back.

3.11 Members queried if the walks were used to publicise other issues and it was advised that 100 of the health walk leaders were now also trained as Dementia Friends. Members also heard that participants had preferred to walk to events rather than drive, so work had been undertaken with East Herts Council to better utilise green areas as active travel links in the area.

Conclusions:

3.12 The Cabinet Panel noted the content of the report.

3.13 The Cabinet Panel thanked officers and volunteers for making the Health Walks Programme the most successful in the country.

4. RAIL ISSUES UPDATE [Trevor Mason, Team Leader – Rail Strategy and Liaison, Environment, (Tel: 01992 556117)]

4.1 Members reviewed a brief report and were given a presentation on the rail issues affecting Hertfordshire. A copy of the report and presentation can be viewed here: Rail Issues Update

4.2 Members acknowledged that a number of decisions would be brought to the Panel over the next few months with major schemes being implemented up until 2036. It was noted that passenger numbers in Hertfordshire had increased by 28% over the past 5 years with a large amount of new trains expected over the next 3 years and a number of forthcoming consultations.

4.3 In response to concerns around the planned expansion at Stansted Airport and how quickly the rail network would be able to accommodate additional passenger numbers, Members heard that the solution to increasing trains to Stansted would be via Crossrail 2. Members noted that the service had asked for a meeting with Essex County Council and Uttlesford District Council to discuss local infrastructure issues.

4.4 Members queried if there was any continued question mark over the closure of Welwyn North Station and heard that network rail anticipated that with digital signalling the capacity could be managed over the next 20/30 years without having any implication on the station.

4.5 The Cabinet Panel discussed the rail freight terminal and the impact it had on Midland Main Line. It was noted that the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) 2018 timetable made allowance for future freight trains. However, any works required to enlarge the tunnel at Elstree could cause major disruption..Agenda Pack 7 of 170 3

4.6 Members discussed whether new stations had been considered, with the suggestion of a station to be based at the south of St Albans and in London Colney. Members acknowledged the implications of new stations, in that train journey times would increase and that they were very expensive and a long-term planning process. Members heard that three areas which had been considered for new stations/routes were Stevenage South, Turnford as part of Crossrail 2 and for Theobalds Park on the Southbury loop.

The Cabinet Panel discussed the ongoing dispute over the 4.7 Metropolitan Line extension and the vast increase in planned costs. It was noted that the LEP had invested around £86 million and were heavily committed but that the Department for Transport (Dft) were not willing to increase their contribution. Members heard that a letter had been written to Transport Minister and the Mayor of London and that ongoing lobbying would need to continue.

4.8 Sustainable access to stations was discussed and it was noted that franchises generally had a commitment to produce local travel plans. Members heard that GTR had a programme that covered nine stations in Hertfordshire and that Greater Anglia was setting up a process to manage sustainable travel, however both did not appear to fund any suggestions made in the plans. It was noted that it had been made clear that the Council did not have a large amount of money to develop plans.

4.9 Members noted the success of the Watford to St Albans Abbey line and the ongoing need to increase frequency, which was to be discussed with the new franchise later this year, following the June 2017 announcement of the successful bidder.

4.10 The Harpenden crossover was acknowledged, in that where the fast and slow lines swapped over at the south of Harpenden, two lines were blocked and discussions had taken place around increasing the capacity on these routes. No details or timescales are available for this scheme.

4.11 Members acknowledged the GTR franchise plans for changes to train services from Welwyn Garden City to Peterborough and Cambridge and heard that GTR had followed the process set out in Team Leader the Regional Franchise Agreement by holding a public consultation – Rail Strategy and and that there was a further consultation due in May 2017. The Liaison, process was to be clarified with Legal Services and it was noted that Environment the proposed changes would have a significant impact on travel destinations.

4.12 Conclusion:

The Cabinet Panel noted the issues raised in the presentation.

KATHRYN PETTITT CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER Agenda Pack CHAIRMAN 8 of 170 4

Agenda Item No.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 4 FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00 PM

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE MONITOR

Report of the Chief Executive & Director of Environment

Author: Simon Aries, Assistant Director Transport, Waste & Environmental Management (Tel: 01992 555255)

Jan Hayes-Griffin, Assistant Director Planning & Economy (Tel: 01992 555203)

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Environment, Planning & Transport

1. Purpose of report

1.1 To allow the Panel to review the performance of Environment, Planning and Transport for the fourth quarter of this year (January - March 2017) against the Environment Department Service Plan 2016-2020 including key performance indicators, major projects, contracts and identified risks.

2. Summary

2.1 The Cabinet Panel receives a suite of Annual Performance Reports including:

• Local Transport Plan (LTP) – Annual Performance Report (APR) (Q3 or Q4 depending on external data from Government and other sources). • TD APR – Traffic and Data Annual Performance Report

3. Recommendation

3.1 The Cabinet Panel is invited to note the report and comment on the performance monitor for Quarter 4 2016-17.

4. Strategic Performance Indicators, Contracts and Projects

4.1 % of bus stops with comprehensive and up-to-date information

Agenda Pack 9 of 170 1 % of bus stops with comprehensive and up-to-date information 100 90 80 70 60 50 40

Percentage (%) 30 20 10 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 15/16 15/16 15/16 15/16 16/17 16/17 16/17 16/17 Herts 92.50 92.50 92.50 92.30 92.40 92.20 92.10 91.70 Target 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00

4.1.1 Total number of Marked Hertfordshire Stops - 4306 Total number of Marked Hertfordshire Stops with Display Panels -3945

4.1.2 In Q4, performance dropped slightly to 91.7%. This is due to a number of additional bus stops having been installed during the quarter, and there is an element of "catch-up" in providing the information infrastructure on these stops. The number of stops with information has remained static. In general, the service is continually aiming to install information where it is not present, though opportunities to do so on those stops that remain are limited due to physical constraints.

4.2 Hertfordshire Health Walks

4.2.1 Hertfordshire Health Walks (HHW) is a countywide initiative of free, volunteer led walks and is coordinated by Countryside Management Service (CMS). HHW promotes walking and encourages more people (all ages, backgrounds and abilities) to get outdoors, get more active and reap the benefits.

The target levels for ‘Walks Participation’ and ‘Walks Led’ were set at the start of the financial year. They are notably lower in the quarters where the autumn and winter months fall as past experience has shown that walk leaders and the walkers themselves are reluctant to lead or participate in walks when daylight is shorter during this period.

4.2.2 Walks Participation

Agenda Pack 10 of 170 2 Attendance on walks 16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

No. of Participants 4000

2000

0 Q1 16/17 Q2 16/17 Q3 16/17 Q4 16/17 Actual 13097 13448 14042 13757 Target 12000 12000 10500 10500

CMS achieved a very good outcome for Q4 with 13,757 attendances on the Health Walks. Whilst this exceeds their target of 10,500, the focus is on health outcomes rather than absolute participation figures. Walks are therefore targeted to locations and participants where they will have most impact.

4.2.3 Walks Led

Walks Led 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 No. of Walks 300 200 100 0 Q1 16/17 Q2 16/17 Q3 16/17 Q4 16/17 Actual 755 781 758 904 Target 665 685 685 665

Agenda Pack 11 of 170 3 For Q4, 904 Health walks were delivered against a target of 665. This increase over the target (set at the beginning of the year) followed external investment in a project to increase walks and participation in the 3 Rivers/Watford and St Albans areas.

4.3 Countryside Management Service (CMS) Volunteer Participation

4.3.1 Countryside Management Service engages volunteers in all aspects of its activity through a variety of opportunities. Volunteers lead Health Walks, deliver environmental improvements in and improve access through green space including Hertfordshire’s Rights of Way and lead guided walks that raise awareness of the local environment. CMS has been awarded the national Investing in Volunteers Standard for its work supporting volunteers.

4.3.2 Volunteer Hours

Volunteer Participation in hours 12000

10000

8000

6000

4000 Numberof hours 2000

0 Q1 16/17 Q2 16/17 Q3 16/17 Q4 16/17 Conservation Vols 5098 4397 5686 5774 Health walks 3398 3515 3411 4068 Target 7500 7500 7500 7500

There were 4,068 and 5,774 volunteering hours committed to the Health Walks and conservation volunteering respectively. Conservation volunteering numbers were up by 88 on the previous quarter. The increase in hours committed to HHW in the past 2 quarters followed a recruitment drive in the late summer as a part of the project activity referred to in 2.13.2 above. Thus, a total of 9,842 volunteering hours in this quarter which surpassed the target 7,500 hours.

4.4 Project Income Secured from Sources External to the CMS

4.4.1 Countryside Management Service prepares plans that set out how green space is to be enhanced for people and for wildlife. These plans are used to engage local communities in decision making as well as Agenda Pack 12 of 170 4 forming the basis to recruit external funding to enable the actions set out within. External funding is also secured to expand coverage of Hertfordshire Health Walks and enable volunteering activity in the environment. To date £559,070 has been secured from external sources this year to enable the delivery of these land management plans and other CMS activity.

4.5 The Service aim to deal with and resolve a minimum of 75% of reports received about the rights of way (RoW) network within a year.

RoW Reports Resolved 900 800 700 600 500 400

No. of Reports 300 200 100 0 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Q1 16/17 Q2 16/17 Q4 16/17 New 524 313 364 393 291 359 Resolved 482 290 826 297 556 552 Target 393 235 273 295 218 269

4.5.1 Performance this quarter is high at 153.8% (552 reports resolved and 359 new reports received) as officers have resolved many dangerous, hung-up and fallen tree reports resulting from storm damage. Despite this the team have still managed to resolve a high number of cases (both new and from the older backlog), resulting in a high output this quarter. The outcome of this indicator is that customers' reports are responded to and resolved according to the County Council policy & priorities, to keep the RoW network in a useable and above all safe condition.

4.6 The number of decisions & orders made and public inquiries held for definitive map cases each year.

Agenda Pack 13 of 170 5 No. of Definitive Map Cases Processed 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Number of cases 10 5 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 15/16 15/16 15/16 15/16 16/17 16/17 16/17 16/17 Herts 5.0 12.0 23.0 39.0 14.0 28.0 36.0 45.0 Target 12.00 24.00 35.00 47.00 12.00 24.00 35.00 47.00

4.6.1 96% of cases were completed or 45 out of the target of 47. This is a good result for the year, as reflected in the graph and compared to last year, especially given the number and scale of the external influences that this team experience.

4.6.2 National, regional and best comparator data puts Hertfordshire at 7th highest (out of the 80 Local Authorities which responded) for number of cases processed.

4.7 The timeliness of decisions for all County Matter planning applications

% of Planning Applications Decided within a 13 Week Period 120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 15/16 15/16 15/16 15/16 16/17 16/17 16/17 16/17 Herts 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Target 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 50%

4.7.1 In Q4, the service’s performance was 100% or 3 out of 3 against a national target of 50%. All three applications were determined under a Agenda Pack 14 of 170 6 written extension of time, due to the committee cycles over the festive period and the resultant impact on the lead in time for the preparation of reports, and that one of the applications was subject to re- consultation as additional information was submitted.

4.8 Proportion of applications for new mineral workings on designated minerals site

Proportion of applications for new mineral workings on designated minerals site 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Herts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0% 0% 66% Target 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

4.8.1 The County Council received five minerals planning applications during 2016 (calendar year). Of these sites, three were within or incorporated Preferred Areas; there are only three Preferred Areas within the current adopted Minerals Local Plan, (adopted March 2007). The County Council refused the application at Pynesfield (submitted in 2015), which was an expansion into a new area for an existing adjacent extraction within the Buckinghamshire boundary. Planning permission was subsequently granted on appeal, on the basis that the water network could be adequately protected and that the high quality mineral asset was at risk of sterilisation from the construction of HS2.

4.9 Proportion of applications for new waste facilities on designated waste sites

Agenda Pack 15 of 170 7 Proportion of applications for new waste facilities on designated waste sites 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Herts 9% 28% 0% 60% 0% Target 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

4.9.1 The county council received a total of 17 waste planning applications in 2016. Of these, fourteen of the applications were for the extension or variation of existing waste facilities. There were three applications for new waste facilities; land raising at Dog Kennel Farm, Harpenden Common Golf Course and an energy from waste facility at Ratty's Land. None of these sites are on designated waste sites. The application at Dog Kennel Farm was refused, the application at Harpenden Common Golf Course was approved and a decision has not yet been taken in respect of Ratty's Lane.

5. Risks

5.1 Environment, Planning and Transport has 1 corporate level risk and it is as follows:

5.2 Tree Health (Risk ENV0142)

5.2.1 Due to the threat of an increasing number of tree pests and diseases, in particular the imminent threat from Ash Dieback, there is a risk of a significant number of trees being affected which may result in significant unplanned costs, potential dangers to the public and/or service users, impacts on the landscape and loss of biodiversity.

5.2.2 The risk to Hertfordshire’s trees from Chalara and other tree health issues is likely to be long-term. With Controls progressing well and more known about the spread of the disease it is felt that the Impact of the risk in any one year can be reduced to (4) Medium. The Likelihood of the tree health issues having an impact in the county remains (5) High. As such the current score for the Tree Health Risk in any one year is (20) Medium.

6. Financial Implications

Agenda Pack 16 of 170 8 6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.

7. Internal Audit

7.1 There were no internal audits in Q4.

8. Equalities Implications

8.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equality implications of the decision that they are making.

8.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EQiA) produced by officers.

8.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the County Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

8.4 No equality implications have been identified in relation to this report although Panel will not make a decision in respect of its contents.

Background Information None.

Agenda Pack 17 of 170 9

Agenda Item HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL No.

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM 5

NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROJECT, “SLOW THE FLOW” IN HERTFORDSHIRE 2017/18 TO 2020/21

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author: John Rumble, Head of Environmental Resource Planning, Tel: 01992 556296 (x26296)

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Environment, Planning and Transport.

Local Members: Nick Hollinghurst, Tring David Williams, Harpenden North East Annie Brewster, Harpenden Rural Theresa Heritage, Harpenden South West

1. Purpose of report

1.1. To advise the Cabinet Panel of a new flood risk management project being undertaken by the County Council to address surface water flooding using natural flood management (NFM 1) techniques.

2. Summary

2.1 The CountC council has secured £250k of funding from the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) to explore the opportunities presented by NFM techniques to reduce the instances and impact of surface water flooding in the county. This 3 year project running from 2017 to 2020 will use two pilot study areas, Long Marston and Harpenden to test and evaluate the effectiveness of NFM in reducing flood risk.

2.2 This project will also include a link up with an academic institution, Cranfield University, to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of NFM in mitigating surface water flood risk with a view to determining how useful this approach will be across the wider Hertfordshire area.

3. Recommendation

3.1 That the Cabinet Panel notes the content of the report.

1 NFM is defined as the alteration, restoration or use of landscape features as a novel way of employing natural processes to reduce or delay flood risk. Agenda Pack 18 of 170

4. Background

4.1 Following the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the county council became the designated Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Hertfordshire. This statutory role conferred upon the county council the responsibility to manage flood risk arising from surface water and groundwater sources. Flood risk management arising from main rivers remained with the Environment Agency. The statutory duties and responsibilities that come with the LLFA designation relate to improving the local understanding and management of flood risk in in the county and include:

• The production and implementation of a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. • The development and maintenance of a register of significant flood risk assets. • A requirement to investigate flooding incidents that the LLFA is aware of to the extent that is necessary. These are referred to as section 19 investigations as this is the clause in the 2010 act that requires them to be undertaken.

4.2 Managing flood risk from surface water in Hertfordshire is challenging due to the dispersed nature of the flooding that occurs. Although overall a significant number of properties are at risk in the county these are spread over a large number of locations and relatively few properties are impacted in each instance of flooding. The most recent significant flooding events in the county occurred in June and September 2016 with 165 properties flooded internally across 77 separate residential streets. Flooding at these properties has been confirmed by questionnaire responses received from residents following these flood events. They may not represent the full extent of flooding across the county on these dates as some residents will not have responded or may have chosen not to report the flooding to the LLFA.

4.3 The “Slow the Flow” project has arisen because it has proved difficult to identify conventional flood risk management measures that can be implemented to reduce surface water flood risk in a cost beneficial and affordable way. This project will identify opportunities where NFM may be able to play a role in reducing surface water flood risk to residential and commercial properties in the county. The overall aim is to reduce the numbers of properties affected or to reduce the scale and frequency of events arising from surface water flooding.

4.4 The project is supported by the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (TRFCC) with £250k funding over three years beginning in 2017/18.

Agenda Pack 19 of 170 5. The NFM project in Hertfordshire

5.1 To look at how NFM will work in Hertfordshire, two pilot areas have been selected. Firstly, Long Marston in Dacorum, a predominantly rural catchment with an impact from both river flooding surface water runoff and Harpenden, in the district of St Albans, to explore how NFM could be implemented within an urban area to manage surface water runoff. Both of these locations have a history of flooding and have suffered from flooding incidents between 2013 and 2016. Both locations have completed section 19 flood investigations and these provide useful background data on why flooding has occurred in the two pilot areas.

5.2 Long Marston in Dacorum suffered flooding on the 7th February 2014 with internal damage to one commercial and at least five residential properties. The flooding also impacted on access to the village making the main road, Tring Road/Station Road, impassable. Chapel Lane was also impassable and the Fire Brigade attended to assist with pumping flood water away. There are accounts of flooding in Long Marston dating back to 1978 when reports suggest flooding was up to three foot deep in places. Each time similar locations have flooded along Tring Road, Station Road and Chapel Lane. The results of flood modelling in Long Marston have indicated that there is potential to reduce the risk of flooding to approximately 20 properties within the village. This modelling takes account of the impact that climate change could have on future flooding events and looks at the potential for flooding up to a 1 in 100 year rainfall event.

5.3 Harpenden has experienced flooding in a number of locations in the town over a long period. In June and July 2014 three intense rainfall events occurred, causing excessive surface water runoff and reported flooding to two commercial properties in Station Road and a residential property in Southdown Road. There was also flooding to the high street and several surrounding roads. In July 2015, a high energy storm resulted in 55mm of rain falling over a two hour period. The subsequent surface water run-off caused flooding to a number of properties including one in Leyton Road. In addition some properties which were previously flooded in 2014 suffered repeat internal flooding. Flood modelling carried out in 2013 has shown that there is potential to reduce the risk of flooding to approximately 20 to 30 properties within Harpenden. As for Long Marston this modelling takes account of the impact that climate change could have on future flooding events a and looks at those properties that would be impacted up to the 1 in 100 year rainfall event.

5.4 The project is a pilot for this approach and will include a detailed monitoring and evaluation programme to determine the appropriateness of natural flood management techniques to help manage surface water flood risk in Hertfordshire. This monitoring and evaluation is part of the requirements of the funding from the Thames RFCC and discussions are taking place for Cranfield University to Agenda Pack 20 of 170 provide the research expertise for this part of the project. Cranfield University has been selected as the County Council’s flood risk management team and they already have well established links with the institution and have research expertise in this field.

5.5 The project has six distinct objectives which are as follows:

1. To look at the range of natural flood management techniques and, through the use of pilot areas, determine their appropriateness to manage surface water flood risk in Hertfordshire. 2. To deliver a reduction in surface water flood risk in two pilot areas, Long Marston and Harpenden. 3. To work with land owners and public sector partners to secure their commitment to natural flood management and explore the implementation mechanisms and barriers to determine the feasibility of widespread adoption of this approach. 4. To develop and deliver an evaluation programme for natural flood management in Hertfordshire to ascertain its suitability for widespread application in the delivery of surface water flood mitigation. 5. To develop and explore how surface water catchments should be assessed to determine if natural flood management techniques are suitable for the management of surface water flows. 6. To develop within strategic partners the knowledge and expertise to specify and deliver NFM interventions on behalf of the county council in the future.

5.6 The NFM project will involve a diverse range of partners both internal and external to the county council. Key internal partners for both pilot project areas will be Hertfordshire Highways and the Countryside Management Service. External partners will include; the Environment Agency; Cranfield University (for the monitoring and evaluation programme); Thames RFCC and landowning representative bodies such as the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) and the National Farmers Union (NFU). Appropriate local partners for the two pilot study areas will also be invited to participate including the district authorities, the relevant town and parish councils, local residents and landowners.

5.7 The project will evaluate what NFM opportunities exist in the pilot areas and how they could contribute to reducing the risk of flooding from surface water. The objective will then be to secure the implementation of selected measures through discussion with local residents and landowners to ensure that they can be managed and maintained for their lifetime.

5.8 Within the two pilot areas, the project will monitor the implementation of any NFM measures deployed to determine their effectiveness and to ascertain why they are effective in that local catchment in reducing flood risk from surface water. The resulting evaluation methodology Agenda Pack 21 of 170 will be used to assess other locations in the county to determine which might be receptive to NFM as a means of reducing flood risk from surface water. Where projects which are already underway in the county and are utilising NFM measures the opportunity to include these in the evaluation will be considered.

6. Expected Project Outcomes

6.1 The outcomes from the NFM project will be twofold; firstly the direct benefit to the two pilot areas of Long Marston and Harpenden in relation to reduced flood risk to properties. Secondly, the learning from the project for the application of NFM as a means to address surface water flooding issues within Hertfordshire. This second outcome is to be shared with the Thames RFCC so that it can be applied, by them, to the wider Thames region.

6.2 There are also expected to be benefits to the natural environment arising from the implementation of NFM proposals within the pilot areas as many of the interventions commonly employed to slow surface water flow replicate naturally occurring and manmade features that provide habitat for biodiversity. Ponds, woody debris formed into porous dams and even long grass may be employed as NFM mechanisms. With specialist advice incorporated in the design stage all are likely to add diversity to the local environment that will be attractive to a range of native plants and creatures.

6.3 Specific outcomes are expected to be:

• A reduction in the numbers of properties at flood risk in Long Marston and Harpenden. • Direct benefit to infrastructure in the pilot areas, including roads, as a result of reduced local flood risk. • Additional benefits from implemented NFM projects on land management, biodiversity and ecology. • An increased knowledge and capability within the County Council to specify and deliver NFM projects to reduce flood risk to property. • A number of demonstration projects of NFM methods applied to appropriate locations across the county. • A tested evaluation tool to be applied to other catchments in the county to determine the appropriateness of NFM methods to reducing flood risk. • A report to the Thames RFCC on the outcomes from the “Slow the Flow” project in Hertfordshire.

7. Monitoring and Evaluation

Agenda Pack 22 of 170 7.1 The monitoring an evaluation of this project is a requirement of the funding provided by the Thames RFCC. The County Council is in discussion with Cranfield University to secure its involvement in the project in order to devise, set-up and implement a monitoring framework to address all of the monitoring and evaluation requirements. As a minimum, these will need to address the key questions set by the Thames RFCC for the pilot projects to answer which are as follows:

• What difference can natural flood management measures make within Hertfordshire and the wider Thames catchment? • How can the County Council best work with and support local communities to empower them to deliver and maintain natural flood management measures as part managing current and future flood risk? • What recommendations could the County Council make for future farm funding regimes (compliance, support and incentives) for farmers and rural landowners to secure integrated flood risk management and other wider benefits as part of a wider sustainable farmland approach?

8. Financial Implications

8.1. The County Council has been allocated £250k of funding from the Thames RFCC to be split over a 3 year period, 2017/18 to 2019/20. Funding will come into the County Council in three payments, £50k in 2017/18, £100K in 2018/19 and £100k in 2019/20. In addition, the County Council has allocated £90k for this project from the flood risk management budget that is allocated to support projects where the County Council is in receipt of Thames RFCC funding. This funding will be split over four years 2017/18 to 2020/21 and will give a total project budget of £340k. The funding from the County Council is spread over a 4 year period, one-year longer than that from the Thames RFCC, to enable the learning derived from this project to be locally disseminated within the County Council and to partners bodies and to ensure that communities in the two pilot areas are properly supported to take on responsibility for ongoing management and maintenance of any implemented NFM projects.

8.2. As NFM projects are identified it is anticipated that additional funding may be secured from a variety of sources. It is not possible to identify the source or value of this additional funding at the outset of the project, but it is anticipated that it could be for measures such as ongoing farm payments for flood risk management activity on landholdings or for river management measures which could be secured from local landowners, the Environment Agency or other partners.

Agenda Pack 23 of 170 9. Equalities Implications

9.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking

9.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

9.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

9.4 No EqIA was undertaken in relation to this matter as no equality implications have been identified in relation to this report.

Background Information

Hertfordshire County Council, Flood Investigation Report - Long Marston, Hertfordshire. November 2014. Technical Assessment Report to support Section 19 Flood Investigation - Long Marston, Hertfordshire, September 2014. Hertfordshire County Council, Flood Investigation Report – Leyton Road, Harpenden. July 2016.

Agenda Pack 24 of 170 Agenda Item No.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT 6 CABINET PANEL FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM

HERTFORDSHIRE BUILDING FUTURES – UPDATE REPORT

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author: Rachael Donovan, Natural, Historic and Built Environment Advisory Team Leader, Tel: 01992 556294 (ext. 26294)

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Environment, Planning and Transport.

1. Purpose of report

1.1. To update the Panel on the Hertfordshire Building Futures initiative and seek views on ways the initiative could further support the planning process to deliver growth in the county that is sustainable and of a high design quality.

2. Summary

2.1 Building Futures is a long standing partnership initiative, begun in 2007, involving nine Hertfordshire local authorities 1, including and led by the county council. The initiative was set up to help Hertfordshire’s local planning authorities (LPAs) secure the delivery of high quality, sustainable development in their area. Its target audience not only includes planners in assessing development schemes, but local councillors involved in determining development proposals and developers, architects and agents in developing schemes.

2.2 The initiative includes an on-line resource which provides a lth of good practice guidance on sustainable design and construction matters. It also includes a biennial Awards event, set up in 2009 to recognise exemplar development in the county.

2.3 In 2011 the Hertfordshire Design Review Panel (HDRP) was set up to support the Building Futures Partnership and provide independent review of the design and sustainability merits of development proposals. This addition to the initiative has shifted the focus away from developing new technical guidance (albeit to keep the information

1 Hertfordshire County Council, Dacorum Borough Council, East Herts Council, Hertsmere Borough Council, North Hertfordshire District Council, St Albans District Council, Three Rivers District Council, Watford Council and Welwyn Hatfield Council.

Agenda Pack 25 of 170 1

up to date and relevant), to offering direct support to partner organisations.

2.4 Annual review meetings with partner authorities have continued to confirm their on-going commitment (including financial) to the Building Futures initiative. In addition they have identified the need to promote the HDRP more widely, particularly with the development industry. Major sites coming through the Local Plan process have been highlighted as potentially benefiting from using the HDRP. The 2017/18 work programme therefore includes activities aimed at promoting and supporting sustainable growth and are presented in Section 6 of this report.

3. Recommendation

3.1 To note the report and reaffirm the county council’s support for the initiative.

4. Background

4.1 Beginning in 2007, the Building Futures initiative, led by Hertfordshire County Council, sought to drive forward the delivery of innovative sustainable construction and design in Hertfordshire. Nine local authorities continue to subscribe financially to the initiative, with the County Council providing a project lead/management and administration role.

4.2 The Building Futures initiative provides three main resources:

• Sustainable Design Toolkit & technical modules • The Building Futures Awards • The Hertfordshire Design Review Panel (HDRP)

To view the online resource, please visit http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/buildingfutures/

Interactive Sustainable Design Toolkit & technical modules

4.3 The interactive toolkit was developed in collaboration with Hertfordshire local authorities, with invaluable help and support from individuals, groups and organisations including the Building Research Establishment (BRE), the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), the Herts and Beds Constructing Excellence Network, the University of Hertfordshire and members of the HDRP.

4.4 Using a virtual townscape, users of the toolkit can choose one of six development types, from house extensions to large scale mixed use development, to navigate a wealth of sustainable design guidance on

Agenda Pack 26 of 170 2

issues such as drainage, climate change and creating liveable places, in a visual and engaging way.

4.5 The toolkit aids decision making on sustainable design at the initial concept, pre-planning and planning application stages, using open questions and best practice guidance, therefore acting as a prompt for design teams and decision- makers alike.

4.6 The guidance contained in the toolkit can also be found in a series of technical modules, which are currently being reviewed and updated. They cover air, climate change adaptation, design, energy and climate change, landscape and biodiversity, materials, noise, safety, waste, water and retrofitting existing buildings.

Building Futures Awards

4.7 The biennial Building Futures Awards scheme was established in 2009 to celebrate and recognise projects that demonstrate innovation, creativity and design quality. The Awards also offer an opportunity for development professionals to come together to share best practice and experiences in achieving exemplar development in Hertfordshire.

4.8 There are four award categories Design Excellence, Most Sustainable Construction, Retrofit for the Future, and Project of the Year. The Headline Sponsor for the 2015 Awards was Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden. The Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) sponsored the ‘Project of the Year’ award category, The Green Triangle sponsored the ‘Most Sustainable Construction’ award category, Salus Approved Inspectors sponsored the ‘Design Excellence’ category and Willmott Dixon sponsored the ‘Retrofit for the Future’ category.

4.9 Since 2009 fourteen projects have been awarded overall winners, with many more either commended or highly commended. Only one Special Award has been given, in 2011 for the Lee Valley White Water Centre in Waltham Cross.

4.10 Preparatory work for the next Awards has started with potential sponsors currently being approached.

Hertfordshire Design Review Panel (HDRP)

4.11 In 2011 the HDRP was set up in response to a need, identified by Hertfordshire LPAs, for independent design expertise to assist in the scrutiny of development proposals. This is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which encourages the use of design review at the local level.

4.12 The HDRP consists of panel members drawn from a range of built environment professions including architecture, urban design, master planning, planning, landscape, sustainability, transport, ecology,

Agenda Pack 27 of 170 3

historic environment and engineering. Panel members can offer advice on schemes of various scales, types and contexts.

4.13 The Panel offers both design review and enabling support (see paragraph 4.15). These services are available to anyone who is looking to bring forward a planning application, and provides potential planning applicants with expert advice on how to improve their plans. Applicants who use this service have to pay a fee.

4.14 Design review involves a Panel Chair plus 2-4 other Panel members offering observations and recommendations to assist with achieving a good design solution for a site, and is an advisory process. The developer/ design team and the LPA are fully involved in the design review process, which includes a site visit, presentations and Q&A session, followed by a closed session to conclude the Panel’s views and structure the design review report. The report is issued within 10 working days of the design review meeting.

4.15 Alternatively, a LPA may request support from a Panel member(s) on a design/technical matter during the course of their statutory planning activities. This is referred to as enabling support and is increasingly used by LPAs.

4.16 The HDRP is highly regarded and increasingly used by the LPAs across the county. However more promotional work is needed to encourage LPAs to mainstream design review into all stages of development and regeneration programmes and projects coming forward in Hertfordshire via the plan making process.

5. Partner feedback

5.1 Annual review meetings take place with each of the partners to review the work programme and to seek feedback. These meetings for 2017/18 have taken place, with all existing partners reconfirming their commitment to the Building Futures initiative.

5.2 There have been a number of recurring themes from these meetings, they cover:

• Subscribing partners value the initiative, however they recognise they could be using the HDRP more, and promoting it internally and with applicants. • The LPAs need reminding that HDRP members can be used to provide more flexible and tailored, one-on-one support/ advice. • All partners recognise the increasing value of using the HDRP for independent, expert advice on larger, more complex development schemes coming forward in their area, and recognise the help that individual Panel members can provide, particularly around masterplanning.

Agenda Pack 28 of 170 4

6. Next Steps

6.1 Building Futures has three resources in place (sustainability toolkit/technical modules, Awards and the HDRP) to help support partner authorities in their statutory planning responsibilities. A clear message from the annual review meetings is that there is room for improving the accessibility and promotion of the HDRP in particular. The 2017/18 work programme therefore includes activities to address this particular issue.

Promotion of the Design Review Service

6.2 The Building Futures website is currently being refreshed with attention given to its user friendliness. To help promote the HDRP it is proposed that partner websites include summary information on the HDRP, with a link to further information available on the Building Futures website. A number of partners have already agreed to do this. Literature will also be produced for development management teams to use/distribute to applicants.

6.3 Offers have also been made to partner authorities for a ‘meet a panel member’ informal session to find out more about the service.

Design Surgeries, Review and Support

6.4 HDRP members can be used to provide training and support to policy/ development management teams. Topics that could be explored include planning and tall buildings, understanding viability, master planning and design skills.

6.5 Improvements to the functionality of the Building Futures website are already taking place and will include making the HDRP members more accessible to LPAs via the website.

6.6 Additional HDRP services being explored include: • A formal design review with LPA officers only. • A formal design review with the developer (not the design team) and LPA officers only (this can be quicker and avoids designers' defensiveness if poor design is the issue). • A post formal review - a Design Workshop session to help the design team implement the review recommendations.

6.7 To support skills development, the initiative is helping to facilitate access to training. For 2017/18 the initiative is working with Urban Design London to access their training programme with its focus on Good Growth, Healthy Streets and Informed Design. The County Council, Watford, Welwyn Hatfield, Dacorum, North Hertfordshire and East Herts Councils have all agreed to contribute to this programme.

Agenda Pack 29 of 170 5

Publication of case study material

6.8 Valuable case study material arising from the Award winning schemes, and those schemes subject to formal design review and subsequently built, will be published and shared on the Building Futures website.

Design Tours

6.9 Following the above, known developments in the County that have demonstrated innovation, creativity and design quality, will be highlighted, with lessons learnt from the design teams shared with both officers and councillors via annual design tours. In 2016 members of the Hertfordshire Infrastructure Planning Partnership (HIPP) visited the 2015 Award winning schemes, this type of tour could be repeated for the next Award winning schemes.

7. Financial Implications

7.1 All partners subscribe to Building Futures at an annual cost of £2,500, with the county council providing the staff resource to lead and deliver the initiative. The Natural, Historic and Built Environment (NHBE) Advisory Team Leader has overall project management responsibility for the initiative, with officers’ assigned key tasks/projects.

7.2 Subscriptions contribute to the work programme activities including web hosting and maintenance costs, the technical revisions to the toolkit and topic modules and the award programme.

7.3 The HDRP generates income from administration and management fees. These fees are in line with the NHBE Advisory Team’s charging policy for pre-application and planning application advice. An independent panel review can cost between £2,400 and £7,000 excluding VAT depending on the size and complexity of the scheme. These costs are usually born by the developer. In exceptional circumstances the LPA may agree to pay for this service.

7.4 The 2015 Awards brought in £12,000 sponsorship money, plus income from award entry fees and tickets to the Award Ceremony. The 2018 Awards has a sponsorship target of securing £20,000, plus £12,000 from award entry fees and tickets to the Ceremony. This income of £32,000 will cover all costs (awards judges, trophies, ceremony, PR/event management), except officer time. During the early preparatory stages officer time can amount to four days per month, increasing to 0.8 FTE in the two months prior to the Award Ceremony.

8. Equalities Implications

Agenda Pack 30 of 170 6

8.4 No equality implications have been identified in relation to this report.

Background Information http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/buildingfutures/

Agenda Pack 31 of 170 7

Agenda Item No.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 7

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL

FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM

BUS SERVICES ACT 2017

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author: Matt Lale, Passenger Transport Manager Tel: (019920 588633)

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley (Environment, Planning & Transport)

1 Purpose of report

1.1 The purpose of the report is to update and inform the Panel of the Bus Services Act 2017 which received Royal Assent on the 27 April 2017.

2 Summary

2.1 Following the devolution deals signed with Greater Manchester and Cornwall in which the Government committed to providing those authorities with the powers necessary to franchise their bus services, the Government has introduced the Bus Services Act 2017 (“the Act”) to amongst other things facilitate similar approaches elsewhere if the Secretary of State consents.

2.2 The Act will provide the option for combined authority areas with or without directly elected Mayors (or, if the Secretary of State so provides in regulations, other suitable governance arrangements) to be responsible for the running of their local bus services. The Government describes the main benefits of the Act as;

o Providing the option to franchise bus services to areas willing to strengthen their governance with a directly elected Mayor. o Supporting a thriving local bus market with the passenger at its centre. o Allowing cities to promote an integrated transport system, supporting the growth and development of their areas.

2.3 Regulations and Statutory guidance, which will provide detail as to how the Act is to be implemented, have not yet been published.

3 Recommendation

3.1 The Cabinet Panel is invited to note the report.

Agenda Pack 32 of 170 1

4 Background

4.1 The Transport Act 1985 deregulated the bus market outside London. Under the current system, any bus operator can register a service that it chooses to operate on a commercial basis, but all ‘local’ bus services – defined as those with stopping places less than 15 miles apart – must have their route and timetable registered with the Traffic Commissioner. Under s63 of the Transport Act, the County Council has a duty “to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as the Council consider it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within the county which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose.”

4.2 The above duty is not an absolute one, but requires the County Council, having identified the public transport requirements that would not otherwise be met, to secure what is appropriate. In deciding what is “appropriate” the County Council is entitled to take its financial position into account.

4.3 Bus services are recognised as supporting the social and economic development of an area and can be an integral part of the local public transport system. They have featured as a key element of many current Devolution deals.

4.4 In 2015-16, there were approximately 38 million bus passenger journeys made in Hertfordshire alone each year which, by some margin, is the highest number recorded over the last 5 years. Passenger transport, of which buses are a key component, is recognised as an enabler to help facilitate economic and demographic growth and feature prominently in the emerging Local Transport Plan 4 and the Growth Vision for Hertfordshire.

4.5 The three main elements of the Act are:

o Franchising o Partnership o Open Data and Ticketing

4.6 The new legislation makes it possible for certain Local Transport Authorities to franchise networks of bus services. Franchising would allow bus services to be provided in the same way as they are in London, and the same way that national rail services are provided. It would give Local Transport Authorities the powers to plan, develop and regulate bus services, for example, offering passengers simpler, integrated Oyster-style ticketing and guarantees on service quality.

4.7 The Act aims to remove barriers to improving services and providing simpler fares in areas which do not wish to move to a franchise model or cannot do

Agenda Pack 33 of 170 2 so because they do not meet the specified requirements (for example because they do not have a directly elected Mayor).

5 Franchising/Devolution proposals

5.1 The Government has reversed a Lords amendment which would have opened up franchising powers (automatically) to all local authorities. As the Act stands, non-mayoral authorities will need to meet certain criteria in order to obtain powers to franchise from the Secretary of State.

5.2 s4 of the Act requires franchising authorities to assess their proposed franchising schemes by producing a business case and consulting on it. There are several key principles which are likely to inform the approach to implementing franchising. The Government consulted on the regulations and guidance which won’t be officially defined until after the election. The consultation on franchising elements has come from the Department for Transport (DfT) below:

• The authority must be able to show their high-level plans to make bus services better for passengers. Authorities should be able to clearly show how they intend to use franchising to deliver better services, for example by integrating bus services with wider public transport services, increasing services or their frequencies, by lowering fares or introducing more effective or comprehensive ticketing systems.

• The authority must be able to demonstrate that they have effective governance arrangements in place - moving to franchising will have implications for passengers, bus operators and the local authority itself. The decision-making and accountability arrangements need to be transparent to local people, and authorities seeking consent from the Secretary of State will need to set out how this will be achieved.

• The authority must be able to demonstrate that franchising can be put into practice effectively across the geography of the area.

• The authority must be able to demonstrate that they have the capability and resources to deliver franchising.

• The authority must be able to demonstrate that they have the capability and resources to deliver franchising for example, a clear explanation of the long-term level of funding that the authority would commit to the development of, transition to, implementation of and management of a franchising scheme were it was decided to implement one.

5.3 Part of the local devolution process is a discussion between central and local Government about the strength and appropriateness of the governance arrangements a local area is proposing. There are arguments to be made for ensuring that authorities wishing to franchise their bus services have control over, and commit to using, the wider policy levers and local infrastructure that

Agenda Pack 34 of 170 3 are needed to deliver a successful bus network, for example control of a key route network of local roads, or responsibility for parking policies.

5.4 The current positon in Hertfordshire is that at both district and county level there is no appetite or ambition to progress a formal devolution ‘deal’.

6 Partnership

The Act promotes two types of partnerships:

6.1 Advanced Quality Partnership Schemes

6.1.1 ‘Advanced Quality Partnerships’ replace the current Quality Partnership Scheme and can be based on measures taken by local authorities such as parking or traffic management policies as well as providing bus lanes. This broadens the requirements that can be placed on operators to include the marketing of bus services and publication of ticket offers and fares to passengers.

6.1.2 Subject to the publication of Regulations and statutory guidance, it is anticipated that Advanced Quality Partnership’s will be available where the Local Transport Authority is satisfied they will:

o Contribute to implementing local transport policies and

o Improve service quality or

o Reduce/limit congestion, noise or air pollution or

o Increase or prevent decline in patronage.

6.2 Enhanced Partnership Plans and Schemes

6.2.1 The Act has created a new type of partnership called an ‘Enhanced Partnership’. The core principles are that: o The partnership proposals can cover the whole or part of Hertfordshire as well as working more closely with districts. o The partnership proposals must receive majority support from bus operators who would be affected by the proposals. The authority will have the legal responsibility for anything that is agreed within the partnership. For example new ticket initiatives. o The partnership proposals can set standards that some or all local bus services must meet. These can include the timing or frequency of services, vehicle standards and ticketing products to be accepted. 6.2.2 Subject to publication of Regulations and statutory guidance, it is anticipated that Enhanced Partnerships Plans will be available where the Local Transport Authority is satisfied they will: Agenda Pack 35 of 170 4 o Contribute to the implementation of its local transport policies and bring benefits to passengers by improving services and/or reducing or limiting traffic congestion, noise or air pollution 6.3 There are powers in the Act for taking on some of the Traffic Commissioners responsibilities. Registration powers can or are, in particular cases, required to transfer to the Local Authority under the enhanced partnership provisions in the Act. These powers are to allow the registration, variation and cancellation (including for poor performance) of registered local bus services that operate wholly within the geographical area of the scheme. The use of these powers is also subject to appeal by the bus operators to the Traffic Commissioner.

6.4 Within Hertfordshire there already exists a form of Enhanced Partnership through the Intalink Partnership. Formed in 1999 it was set up to address the responsibilities and obligations placed on local authorities under the Transport Act 2000. In this partnership the County Council and all ten districts and borough councils have come together with the bus and train operators to form a transport forum, to promote passenger transport across the county.

6.5 The partnership facilitates a more integrated and consistent approach to passenger transport publicity, information and multi-operator ticket products across the county through a single Intalink branding.

6.6 In 2016, the partnership was relaunched as the Intalink Quality Partnership with a revised structure and absorbing the functions of the previous Quality Network Partnership initiatives that covered Watford, Hemel and more prominently St Albans. These initiatives focussed on areas such as; ticketing, fares, publicity, planning and infrastructure. The aim has been bringing together these existing partnerships into a single Intalink Quality Partnership provides the opportunity to explore a further range of service improvements will be facilitated. For example, delivering better frequency of timing of services, joint participation in ticketing schemes to make them easier for passengers to access and understand, as well as looking at the infrastructure on the roads in terms of bus priority and traffic signalling.

7 Open Data and Ticketing

7.1 s18 of the Act includes power for the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the release of open data. This will enable data from all operators being made available so that it can be viewed, re-used and redistributed by anyone. This will cover data on routes, timetables, punctuality and fares. All operators of local bus services will be required to release the requested information and allow any other organisation to use, develop and/or promote without seeking prior permission. This will give technology suppliers better ways of developing and providing more reliable and accessible information to all passengers.

7.2 It’s understood that the intention is to phase in these new requirements. Registration data (that the operator has to submit to register a new or altered service i.e. timetable information, routing, type of vehicle) is anticipated to be

Agenda Pack 36 of 170 5 required by the end of 2017 and fares and punctuality data being added in stages up to 2020.

7.3 Currently national datasets for routes and timetable information held by Traveline (the national journey planning database) are often taken from paper based systems and are subject to validation issues.

7.4 Information on fares is often hard to find in advance with no national dataset accessible for comparable bus fares. The Act would address this and offers the scope to enable more accurate door to door journey data planning to develop.

8 Potential Opportunities

8.1 Until the detail of the secondary legislation and guidance is announced (which will not be issued until several months post the 2017 general election) it is unclear how and on what conditions franchising could be applied in Hertfordshire. Franchising is more likely to be readily considered by major cities. In Hertfordshire there are no major cities or single dominant major conurbations but rather a spread of towns. An initial examination of the larger towns such as Stevenage, Watford and Hemel Hempstead for instance could be considered as possible pilots to examine the benefits of a franchise approach, assuming regulations are made that would enable the County Council to become a franchising authority. Other areas where franchising could be looked at would be cross boundary corridors for example Lea Valley (Hertford to Waltham Cross) including parts of West Essex, working with Transport for London. Existing towns which have emerging housing growth plans could also be considered.

8.2 Adding main corridors of services and less profitable services together could be a way of batching franchised areas together. Smaller operators may be adversely affected by this as it could squeeze them out of the market due to ability of larger operators having the resources to bid for franchises.

8.3 The commercial operators have raised concerns that franchising could remove their commercial incentives and responsibility to develop the network which would present risks for local authorities. If announced that an authority is going to franchise services, any operator knowing they are at risk of losing routes may be discouraged from investing in new vehicles, premises, equipment etc. This could create a transitional period (allowing time for network design, tendering and contract award) where the quality of services may decline. Furthermore it is unknown what legal challenges bus operators might lodge if franchising was devolved to Local Authorities due to loss of control over their assets and commercial freedoms.

8.4 Hertfordshire currently has a large commercial network with only a very small proportion of loss making services receiving County Council support (approximately 6%). Operators may react to what they would see as an unnecessary development negatively which in turn could impact on pricing or the appetite to bid. If an operator who ran rural services lost them due to

Agenda Pack 37 of 170 6 franchising this may contribute to them closing depots. This could result in a reduction in market competition which would impact on price of future tenders.

8.5 Smart and mobile ticketing is one area where franchising could make a real positive difference in that it would offer the ability to implement countywide multi-operator schemes with significant passenger benefits such as simplicity of ticketing and fares. This has already started with making Savercards (a Hertfordshire specific concessionary discount scheme for young people aged 11-18) smart cards as well as UNO, Metroline and Red Rose introducing mobile ticketing.

9 Financial Implications

9.1 At this early stage there are no immediate financial implications for the County Council, however, if the County Council were to explore opportunities with franchising there would be some investment required to establish the governance arrangements and delivery mechanisms.

10 Equalities issues

10.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.

10.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

10.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

10.4 No EqIA was undertaken in relation to this matter.

11 Conclusion

11.1 The Bus Services Act 2017 provides a strong basis in which to build and enhance Hertfordshire’s ‘Intalink Quality Partnership’ and make the partnership stronger by moving it into an Enhanced Partnership as it covers much of what the act is offering. The Intalink Quality Partnership has bus

Agenda Pack 38 of 170 7 operators, rail operators and district councils already on board. With the Intalink Partnership in place and the new powers from the Bus Service Act it gives Hertfordshire more opportunities to make a difference for the general public in providing a better quality of service and better frequency of services down main corridors by bus priority, traffic signalling and emission standards.

11.2 The franchising proposals contained within the Act are controversial and would be a step change in how bus services are planned and delivered with significant control and responsibility in the domain of local authorities. Unsurprisingly the commercial bus sector is very concerned about the loss of control and has voiced its intentions to mount legal challenges.

11.3 As and when the secondary legislation and guidance is published, officers will bring a further report to Panel with a more in-depth analysis of the various emerging options and what approach may be best suited to Hertfordshire.

Background Information

Bus Services Act 2017

Agenda Pack 39 of 170 8 Agenda Item No. HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 8 FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM

PLANNING AND GROWTH IN HERTFORDSHIRE

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author: Paul Donovan, Team Leader Strategic Land Use (Tel: 01992 556289)

Executive Member: Cllr Derrick Ashley

1. Purpose of report

1.1 To update the Panel on:

• The growth and spatial strategies contained within the ten Hertfordshire Local Plans and other significant growth/regeneration initiatives, their infrastructure implications and likely costs. • The implications for the County Council’s services/functions of the new coverage of Local Plans. • How the County Council engages in growth/regeneration initiatives. • The Review of the London Plan and recent wider South East political liaison arrangements. • Recommendations of a number of Commissions that have relatively recently reported, potentially having significant implications for Hertfordshire. • Recent and ongoing work of the Leaders/Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership in relation to how Hertfordshire should best respond to both internal and external growth pressures. • Recent Government publications including the Housing White Paper

2. Summary

2.1 Hertfordshire is at a key point stage in setting out its proposals for longer term growth of the County – the individual local plans of the borough and district councils are at a stage where there is now nearly complete updated Local Plan coverage. Cumulatively these plans provide for 91,000 new homes and 92,000 new jobs up to 2031, and a forecast 20% increase in traffic. The Local Enterprise Partnership has also reviewed its growth strategy, though we already know the broad direction of that strategy.

2.2 Whilst the collection of new Local Plans for Hertfordshire do not fundamentally ‘change’ the County – the things that make Hertfordshire what it is are essentially maintained – the future settlement hierarchy is broadly as it currently exists and there remains a commitment to the protection afforded to the spaces between settlements and the wider countryside generally. Nevertheless, the growth agenda is substantial and there have been some significant challenges in the journey to where we are now. One of theAgenda most obvious Pack 40of ofthese 170 is the sheer scale of new Page 1 of 26

strategic greenfield/Green Belt growth locations/sites that are required over the coming decades and the growth/regeneration challenges facing some of our settlements. A key issue for the future is whether the current spatial distribution of growth is sustainable in the longer term or whether new garden settlements/villages might be needed.

2.3 The new collection of Local Plans have considerable implications for the County Council as a service and infrastructure provider. Some of the key generic concerns have related to the lack of coordinated timeframes of local plans, the tendency for growth levels and distribution to change during the course of Plan preparation, differences in opinion relating to the level of service/infrastructure implication intelligence required to inform decision-making, the lack of recognition amongst some authorities that as a strategic infrastructure provider the County Council has to take into account wider than individual local authority growth – i.e. the collective impacts of growth on services and infrastructure. The more common specific issues tend to relate to securing commitment to provision of additional school capacity and ensuring that the impacts upon the highway network are identified and a suitable package of mitigation measures developed.

2.4 The costs of infrastructure for growth up to 2031 are estimated to amount to some £4-5bn – the equivalent of £50k for each new home. Funding for this will need to come from a range of different sources and we will need to look at innovative approaches. It will also require us to work closely with the Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) in negotiations with developers, and develop joint arrangements on S106/ Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)/other funding mechanisms.

2.5 There are already strong signals that the Local Plans will need to be continually refreshed to address the ongoing growth agenda (economic and demographic) – both from within and external to Hertfordshire. There are a range of external contextual processes which potentially have significant implications for the County – including the commencement of a review of the London Plan, new political engagement processes for the wider South East, the findings of a variety of Commissions, the major growth and expansion of the two international airports either side of the County. The recently published Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’ will serve to reinforce and accelerate the growth pressures that are on the horizon.

2.6 There is an emerging debate amongst the Hertfordshire authorities about how they can work better together to bring forward growth in a way that is in a wider interest than individual local authorities, which maximises the benefits that can be secured from growth and ensures that any strategic implications can be fully accounted for, particularly in relation to infrastructure provision and securing delivery funding.

3. Recommendations

3.1 That the Panel notes the:

Agenda Pack 41 of 170 Page 2 of 26

• Main growth and strategy messages from the new collection of Hertfordshire Local Plans. • Implications of these Local Plans for County Council’s services/functions. • Implications of these Local Plans for Traffic and Transport in the County and the need to promote a more sustainable approach to travel in future. • The likely costs of infrastructure up to 2031 that will need funding by new innovative approaches and partnership arrangements. • Emerging review of the London Plan and the wider South East political liaison arrangements. • Findings of various Commissions whose recommendations potential have implications for Hertfordshire. • The nature of the County Council’s engagement with the range of growth/regeneration process. • Need for ongoing active involvement of the County Council in the delivery of Local Plans and key projects. • Ongoing work of the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership/Leaders Group in relation to how Hertfordshire might move forward and operate in a better way in dealing with growth challenges it faces and how infrastructure can be funded.

3.2 Panel is asked to take stock and reflect upon the scale of the ongoing and likely future implications for Hertfordshire and the County Council and offer any views on the ongoing work of the Leaders/Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership in relation to how Hertfordshire should best respond to both internal and external growth pressures.

4. Hertfordshire Local Plans – complete coverage

4.1 With the imminent publication of the last batch of Local Plans the Hertfordshire boroughs/districts have now effectively laid out how they see Hertfordshire growing in the coming 15-20 years and how that should be distributed. Some of the main components of the growth strategy include:

• An indicative level of housing growth of 4,546 dwellings per annum. This compares to an annualised housing growth figure for Hertfordshire within the now redundant East of England Plan of around 4,200 per annum. It equates to an indicative housing growth figure of 91,000 dwellings for any given 20 year period (a frequently used future-looking timeframe), compared to the East of England 20-year total of 83,200 dwellings. • A proposed level of affordable housing provision consistently in the range 30-40%. • Broadly the same settlement and retail hierarchy for the County as has been maintained for some decades – there are no proposals to elevate or demote settlements from their traditional status. • A new set of strategic ‘locations/sites’ across the County, almost all of which currently involve active dialogue with developers, including:

- Bishops Stortford North – 2,500 homes between 2017 and 2033. Agenda Pack 42 of 170 Page 3 of 26

- Bishops Stortford South – residential-led mixed use development to accommodate 750 new homes by 2027. - Land North and East of Ware – mixed use development site to accommodate 1,000 homes by 2033 (with potentially a further 500 beyond that). - Gilston Garden Town area – 10,000 homes, with 3,000 by 2033. - Land East of Stevenage – 600 homes by 2022. - Land East of Welwyn Garden City (Birchall Garden Suburb) – 2,500 homes. - Brookfield – comprehensively planned garden suburb encompassing retail, civic and leisure centre, a business campus and Brookfield Garden Village. Brookfield will be home to 5,000 people. Comprised of two separate but integrated neighbourhoods. - Brookfield Riverside (incorporating existing Brookfield Centre and Brookfield Retail Park) and Brookfield Garden Village. - Cheshunt Lakeside – new mixed use urban village to accommodate 1,000 homes. - Rosedale Park – new suburban parkland communities to accommodate 700 homes. - High Leigh Garden Village – mixed use development incorporating 500+ homes. - Park Plaza (North and West)Strategic Employment Site/Business Campus – 100,000 sq mtrs floorspace. - East Hemel Hempstead (North and South) – 2,500 homes (St Albans) - North West Harpenden – 500 dwellings - East St Albans (Oaklands) – 1,000 dwellings. - North of Baldock – 2,800 homes. - North of Letchworth – 900 homes. - North of Stevenage (Graveley) – 900 homes. - East of Hitchin – 700 homes. - North East of Great Ashby – 600 homes. - East of Luton – 2,100 homes. - North East of Welwyn Garden City – residential mixed use for 725 homes. - South East of Welwyn Garden City – residential mixed use, 1,200 homes - Broadwater Road West – residential mixed use, 1,000 homes. - North West Hatfield – residential-led mixed use, 1,650 homes. - New Village at Symondshyde, North West of Hatfield for 1,130 homes over the Plan period - Watford Junction Special Policy Area – high density mixed use scheme including a major transport interchange, with 1,500 homes and 1,350-2,350 jobs. - Watford Health Campus – mixed use scheme with new hospital, up to 1000 homes, employment, new primary school, 1,000-1,900 new jobs. - Western Gateway SPA – area focussed on Watford Business Park – additional employment and wider mix of uses including supermarket, primary school, 300 homes, 700-2,000 additional jobs. - Elstree Way Corridor – 813 homes. - West Hemel Hempstead – 900 homes. Agenda Pack 43 of 170 Page 4 of 26

- East Hemel Hempstead – 1,000 homes. - Hemel Hempstead Town Centre – 1,800 homes. - Safeguarding land to the West of the A1(M) at Stevenage for up to 3,100 dwellings in the period beyond 2026 subject to a future review of this Plan; - Reference to new settlement options within North Hertfordshire that can provide additional housing supply in the period after 2026.

4.2 As well as having a spread of strategic locations across the County, a significant message from the new Local Plans is the concentration of growth along the A414 corridor, from Hemel Hempstead, through St Albans, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City and onward through East Herts to Harlow. Two of the proposed standalone new settlements within the County (Gilston to the North of Harlow and the new village at Symondshyde) lie within this corridor.

4.3 The scale and distribution of growth emerging from Hertfordshire’s ten Local Plans is supplemented by the ‘Hertfordshire Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) – Perfectly Placed for Business’, prepared by the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership. The Plan identifies three growth areas within which there is a focus to grow Hertfordshire’s science and technology based assets (bioscience and pharma and film/tv/digital) and the new Towns within them – referencing Hemel Hempstead, South Oxhey, Stevenage, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City. The SEP sees two ‘game changers’ as being the need to increase the scale of housing delivery and investment in infrastructure.

Agenda Pack 44 of 170 Page 5 of 26

4.4 The Strategic Economic Plan has recently been refreshed to cover the period 2016-2030. Amongst the main (spatial) messages are the need to:

- Continue to support the three growth areas as engines of growth, all of which must be fully harnessed; - Develop an East-West corridor along the A414; - Continuing support for Watford, Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead, but with new priorities in Hatfield, Broxbourne and Bishops Stortford. - Develop a longer term aspiration for a new “spatial blueprint” for Hertfordshire.

4.5 On the whole the County Council has engaged constructively with boroughs/districts as they prepare their Local Plans. Some of the more generic concerns experienced by the County Council in attempting to identify the implications of the growth being brought forward on its services/functions have been:

• The lack of coordinated timeframes of local plans, even where there are clearly strong strategic relationships between adjoining authorities. • The tendency for growth levels and distribution to change during the course of Plan preparation, with these only being fixed late in the Plan production process. • Differences in views relating to the level of service/infrastructure implication intelligence required to inform decision-making. • The lack of recognition amongst some authorities that as a strategic infrastructure provider, the County Council has to take into account wider than individual local authority growth – i.e. the collective impacts of growth on services and infrastructure.

4.6 Some of the more specific issues and areas of concern are outlined in the following paragraphs. These generally relate to securing commitment to provision of additional school capacity and ensuring that the impacts upon the highway network are identified and a suitable package of mitigation measures developed. Occasionally there has also been a requirement to seek to ensure borough and district local plans adequately support the County Council’s aspirations and policies within its Minerals and Waste Local Plans. The County Council has had to maintain objections to some emerging Plans and articulate soundness issues to inform independent Examinations. As Districts begin their reviews of their Local Plans, it will be important for the County Council, particularly as both Highways and Education authority to be engaged early in these processes.

4.7 As a landowner the County Council has promoted a number of sites for residential development, including Baldock North (2800 dwellings), Greater Brookfield (1500 dwellings), land south of London Colney (500 dwellings), plus a number of smaller sites in several Districts. County Council officers continue to consider and make use of opportunities for promotion of County Council land at appropriate points in the plan making process. Some of these sites could be promoted as ‘exemplar’ developments, incorporating the very best practice in terms of sustainable development. Agenda Pack 45 of 170 Page 6 of 26

Education

4.8 Officers are involved in an ongoing dialogue with all the districts in the plan making process, since education infrastructure in particular is a significant aspect of sustainable developments and this is generally recognised. Local Plans therefore usually do make some provision for schools, although it is not always sufficient. Officers engage with the districts early, endeavouring to look at the impact of development and policies therein and find solutions in the timeframes which are set by the LPAs. This can however be difficult, when the LPAs do not ‘fix’ their housing numbers until late on in the process or do not agree on the mechanisms by which infrastructure provision is to be made.

4.9 The review of education demand is an ongoing process which generally culminates in reports to Cabinet, usually early on in the new year. For the last 7 years Cabinet has received reports setting out a programme of proposals for expansion of existing and new schools across the county. The process also involves consideration of the Education Funding Agency programme for free schools.

4.10 Broxbourne : There are no significant issues at large other than the need to identify a suitable and deliverable secondary school for the longer term. Identifying a suitable site alongside Broxbourne Borough Council is in hand.

4.11 Dacorum : There are no significant issues at large in Dacorum, since school sites have been identified as requested in all parts of the borough (including the town centre and Berkhamsted). The County Council is keen to work with Dacorum Borough Council and St Alans City and District Council on the strategic allocation for East Hemel Hempstead. Work is beginning on a review of the local plan and the County Council is involved in discussions around growth.

4.12 East Herts: There are a number of concerns of both a minor and larger scale in relation to the current draft plan. The minor issues can probably be dealt with via modifications to the plan. The main issues are ensuring there are enough school places within Gilston and the identification of a suitable site for a first school to serve Buntingford as the one allocated in the plan is not seen as deliverable. Discussions and technical work is currently underway to try and resolve this with landowners and the LPA; another significant concern is the allocation of land in the local plan at Hadham Road, Bishops Stortford for open space, which conflicts with an extant planning application for residential development, made by the County Council as part of the overall Bishops Stortford North (BSN) strategy. Capital receipts from residential allocations are required to support funding of schools at BSN. The County Council has lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate and objected to the local plan for soundness reasons.

Agenda Pack 46 of 170 Page 7 of 26

4.13 Hertsmere : Generally, provisions are made for education within the local plan. Hertsmere Borough Council wish to identify an alternative to the school site allocated in their Elstree Way Corridor Action Plan and discussions are ongoing. If further growth is planned it is likely that more school places will be required. The County Council is now trying to engage with officers on the initial stages of their local plan review (Call for Sites).

4.14 North Herts: The County Council has a significant concern with the failure of the district to identify a secondary school to the north of Stevenage to serve development in three districts (North Herts/Stevenage/East Herts). The plan also needs to be amended to better reflect infrastructure needs for schools at North Letchworth and North Baldock. The County Council has objected to the most recent local plan on duty to co-operate and soundness reasons.

4.15 St Albans: Issues generally relate to education; for a number of years through consultations on the Strategic Local Plan (SLP) and Detailed Local Plan (DLP), the County Council has identified a need for several primary schools, depending on identification of locations of growth. Moreover there is requirement for two additional secondary schools to serve Harpenden and St Albans. Representations objecting to the draft DLP were made in December 2016, since this plan has failed to address these needs. Concerns around soundness exist in relation to the SLP too. The plan will need to identify locations for Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC’s) to serve the district and to try and secure a new library location in the town centre.

4.16 Stevenage: The current plan generally raises no particular issues. The County Council must watch the emergent town centre regeneration proposals carefully to ensure sufficient provision for primary education in Central Stevenage is made.

4.17 Three Rivers: The County Council secured two secondary and two primary school sites via the recent local plan process and both of the secondary schools are now being delivered. If further growth is planned it is likely that more school places will be required. Engagement is now taking place on the initial stages of the local plan review.

4.18 Watford: Demand for school places has been very high over the last few years and sites have been identified as part of the larger developments in the borough via the recent local plan process as well as other routes such as free schools and via planning applications (eg Watford Health Campus). Further growth will inevitably require consideration of how more school places can be provided.

4.19 Welwyn Hatfield: Discussions continue in relation to the wording of policy to ensure that secondary school capacity is secured and that sufficient sites for primary provision are made.

Transport

Agenda Pack 47 of 170 Page 8 of 26

4.20 There are a number of Major Committed Projects affecting Hertfordshire which are predominantly associated with historic and ongoing pressures on the network, as follows:

• A120 Little Hadham Bypass • A1(M) Junctions 6 -8 Smart Motorway scheme • M25 Junction 25 • M11 Junction 7a (New Junction) • Croxley Rail Link • A602 improvements between Stevenage and Ware • M1 – A5 link

4.21 The process of preparation of Local Plans in the County and the technical work undertaken by the County Council and boroughs/districts has reconfirmed or identified new hotspots/Junctions with capacity constraints/Issues which need to be overcome.

A10

• Role of A10 from M25 to Hertford (Is it to remain part of the HCC primary network when considered in the context of wider transport pressures) • A10/B198 Lieutenant Ellis Way/A121 Winston Churchill Way Roundabout (Park Plaza) • A10/Church Lane Junction • A10/ College Road Junction • A10/London Road roundabout Buntingford

A414

• A414/A405/Watling Street Roundabout (Park Street Roundabout) • A414/A1081/ High Street (London Colney Roundabout) • A414 Colney Heath Long-about • A414 strategic intervention at Hertford • A414/A1170/B1502/ High Street Roundabout (Amwell Roundabout) • A414 Eastwick Road/ Fifth Avenue Junction at Harlow • A414 Second Stort Crossing linking Gilston to Harlow • Consideration of if/when A414 northern link to M11 is required • A414 Breakspear Way j/w Green Lane (off J8 M1) Hemel Hempstead potential major junction realignment, full signalisation and new slip road to M1 Northbound. Would be considered alongside M1 J8 upgrades to support growth. • Role of A414 Breakspear Way to A41 junction in Two Waters Hemel Hempstead. Potential to achieve step change with provision of improved passenger transport, cycle and ped facilities between Town Centre, Rail Station and Maylands.

A1(M)

Agenda Pack 48 of 170 Page 9 of 26

• A1(M) Junction 3 – consideration of dualling Comet Way and optimising signalling (Needs to be considered as art of wider A414 strategy) • A1(M) Junction 4 – In relation to the operation of the Jack Oldings Roundabout, the Oldings East roundabout and A1001, collectively known as the ‘Oldings Triangle’ (Needs to be considered as art of wider A414 strategy) • Operation of the local network in the vicinity of A1(M) Junction 6 • A1(M) Junction 7 – works associated with Glaxo • A1(M) Junction 8 – This junction acts as a gateway into/out of Stevenage to/from North Herts and the A1(M). Increasing the location is put under pressure leading to rerouting of traffic to less appropriate routes. • A1(M) Junction 9 – in particular the A505 between the Baldock Bypass and Junction 9

• M1 Junction 8 – upgrades to support proposed growth vs future growth pressures (also needs to be considered in the context of the A414 strategy and potential wide strategic context)

Other

• Baldock - New Link Road connecting North Baldock development to A507 North Road to B656 Royston Road (effectively the A505) • Baldock – Southern link road linking A507 Clothal Road/Wallington Road / South Road to B656 Royston Road • Hitchin – various junctions in Hitchin coming under pressure • Role of A405 in the context of the A414 Strategy • Ware – New distributer road linking A1170 to B1004 • Stevenage – Lytton Way redesign (Town Centre) – close Lytton Way between Swingate and Six Hills Way to traffic except buses

4.22 In addition to supporting borough/district Local Plans the County Council is also refreshing its strategic response to the implications of the emerging growth strategy on the Hertfordshire transport network. This has three core strands to it:

• COMET – a new countywide transportation model into which background travel growth and the growth proposed within Local Plans is inputted to identify stress points on the network and explore and test different types on mitigation measures. The outputs from modelling input directly into Local Plans and their accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plans (IDPs) and into the revision of the Local Transport plan.

• The preparation of a rolling programme of Growth and Transport Plans for sub-regions of the County where the transportation implications of growth are particularly acute, with a view to developing solutions and apportioning delivery responsibility.

Agenda Pack 49 of 170 Page 10 of 26

• Development of the County’s Transport Vision and Local Transport Plan (LTP4). As well as dealing with all matters relating to transport (making the network more suitable for modes other than the car, a step change in cycling in larger urban areas, facilitating and supporting shared mobility, enhanced public transport connectivity between towns through bus priority, etc), the LTP review process has already identified a number of policy options that can be directly attributable to the new growth and spatial strategy, including the need for Growth and Transport Plans and major transport schemes, amongst which are: - Access Improvements to East Hemel Hempstead - Hertford Bypass and Sustainable Travel Town - A414 Corridor Junction Capacity Upgrades - major improvements to junctions along the A414 over the next 15 years

4.23 Following the public consultation on the emerging policy directions and the proposed major transport schemes, which took place from October to December 2016, it is the intention to publish for public consultation a full draft of LTP in the autumn, with a view to finally adopting the Plan in Spring 2018.

4.24 The projected 20% increase in traffic levels that could result from future growth is unsustainable, and there is an emerging realisation we cannot ‘build our way’ out of traffic congestion. The emerging LTP is therefore proposing a shift in policy direction to secure modal shift away from the private car, to more cycling and public transport journeys and ‘Sustainable Travel Towns’. As part of this shift we will need stronger ‘sticks’ in terms of demand management e.g. parking control and charging and engage with District LPAs to implement such policies as part of their local plans.

5. Growth and Regeneration Governance Arrangements

5.1 There are parts of the County that are subject to specific initiatives designed to address regeneration issues or to promote growth. These include:

Cooperation for Sustainable Development Board – Garden Town Status for Great Harlow

5.2 The Co-operation for Sustainable Development Board is a political grouping which exists to support Local Plan making and delivery for sustainable communities across geographical and administrative boundaries in West Essex, and East Hertfordshire. It does this by identifying and managing spatial planning issues that impact on more than one local planning area. The County Council is represented on the Board and supporting officer mechanisms.

5.3 The scale of growth currently being brought forward by the four core authorities (East Herts, Harlow, Epping Forest and Uttlesford) is 46,000 homes in the period 2011-2033. The four authorities application to Government for ‘Garden Town’’ status (Harlow and Gilston Garden Town) was recently approved and should provide the platform for Government Agenda Pack 50 of 170 Page 11 of 26

support for the growth aspirations of Harlow and bringing forward the Gilston proposal in East Herts (10,000 homes).

5.4 That success brings delivery enabling funding and support from the Homes and Communities Agency, including through their Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS), Government help to broker solutions to unblock issues, access to Government housing funding streams, financial flexibilities to improve viability and cashflow, planning freedoms and support for establishing delivery vehicles.

5.5 Discussions are already underway between the local authorities on appropriate governance and delivery arrangements for Greater Harlow, to which the County Council is party. Getting the right education and transport infrastructure in place will be key issues for the County Council.

London Stansted Cambridge Consortium

5.6 The London Stansted Cambridge Consortium (LSCC) was formed in June 2013 as a strategic partnership of public and private organisations covering the area North from the Royal Docks, Tech City, the City Fringe, Kings Cross, and the Olympic Park, up through the Lee Valley, the M11, A1 and A10 road, the East Coast and West Anglia Mainline rail corridors to Stevenage, Harlow and Stansted, and through to Cambridge and Peterborough. The County Council is a member of the Consortium, as are Broxbourne and Stevenage Borough and East Hertfordshire District. The Consortium is a partnership of organisations which has a shared understanding of the economic potential of the corridor and the need to promote it and maximise the benefits of it.

5.7 The Consortium’s main aim is ‘to seek economic growth, higher employment rates, providing places for people and business while preserving the quality and character of the corridor’ . In 2015 the LSCC set up the London Stansted Cambridge Growth Commission chaired by Sir Harvey McGrath, to ‘provide independent analysis and advice to raise the global economic potential of the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor and make recommendations on how to achieve transformational change’.

Hertfordshire Enterprise Zone

5.8 The Hertfordshire Enviro-Tech Enterprise Zone (promoted by the LEP, Dacorum Borough Council and the City and District of St Albans) was approved by Government in September 2015. It aims to support and develop the existing enviro-tech sector in West Hertfordshire and attract more businesses to the area. The multi-site zone covers Maylands Business Park, Hemel Hempstead, and land in Dacorum Borough, west of Green Lane and underused land and buildings at the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and Rothamsted Research. It is expected to deliver thousands of jobs, attract hundreds of new businesses and help unlock key development sites. The County Council is represented on the board and sub-Boards. The Zone went live in April 2017.

The ‘A414 Group’ Agenda Pack 51 of 170 Page 12 of 26

5.9 Roughly 60% of all the new growth planned in Hertfordshire sits along or close to the A414 from Hemel Hempstead in the West to Harlow in the East. The ‘A414 Group’ is a political grouping instigated by the County Council of local authorities along the A414 including Harlow and Essex. The purpose of the Group is to collectively coordinate the scale of growth currently being brought forward along the A414 both within and adjoining Hertfordshire.

5.10 The Group has agreed its Terms of Reference and a draft Memorandum of Understanding and is now looking into more specific work required – including the production of a transport strategy, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Funding Strategy for the whole corridor. As set out earlier in this paper, there are significant highway improvements being considered along the corridor including the need for possible bypasses for Hertford and Gilston.

Settlement-based Growth/Regeneration Initiatives

5.11 There are a number of towns in the County where there are political and officer collaborations to bring about substantive and/or regeneration agendas. The County Council is represented on these groups.

• Stevenage First - Stevenage First is a partnership of the Hertfordshire LEP, Stevenage Borough Council, Hertfordshire County Council and Hertfordshire Chamber of Commerce. It has created an ambitious framework for a major regeneration of the centre of Stevenage over the next 20 years.

• Hatfield 2030+ is a partnership (Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield Town Council, Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership, Goodman Business Parks, Oaklands College, Welwyn Hatfield Housing Trust, Gascoyne Cecil Estates, Hertfordshire County Council, Finesse Leisure, Welwyn Hatfield Chamber of Commerce, The Galleria) whose aim is to bring together the community and key stakeholders to develop shared priorities to attract and target public and private sector investment for the next 20 years and beyond. A Hatfield 2030+ New Town Renewal Framework has been produced which sets out the aspirations of the town and development initiatives to 2030 and beyond.

• Ambition Broxbourne - is the economic growth initiative for Broxbourne supported by a partnership of organisations whose aim is to support innovation, enterprise and entrepreneurship in the Borough.

• Bishops Stortford Town Centre – a partnership led by East Herts District Council, with the County Council, the Town Council and the LEP which has been established to lead on regeneration issues in the town.

Agenda Pack 52 of 170 Page 13 of 26

5.12 In addition to these, as Local Plans move forward to implementation, there will be a new range of partnership arrangements, with their own governance arrangements and joint working mechanisms. As significant strategic locations/sites come forward, there are likely to be accompanied by designated project management/masterplanning teams – one already exists, for example, for land east of Welwyn Garden City (Birchall Garden Suburb). As a key infrastructure and service provider the County Council will be a key partner in these new arrangements.

5.13 The County Council is represented on the more significant of the growth/regeneration initiatives that exist within and adjoining the County with a view to ensuring the County Council’s interests are secured – these being primarily related to education and transport provision, but not exclusively so. However looking forward, should other growth locations start to move to implementation stages, this will require the County Council to consider how its input to these initiatives is resourced.

6. Infrastructure and Infrastructure Funding

6.1 The current consultation by Government on its Industrial Strategy recognised the failure of the country to properly plan and provide for the infrastructure the country needs to support growth and the economy; an historic lack of clear long-term thinking in the Government’s approach to national infrastructure strategy; the disjointed provision of infrastructure and a legacy of underinvestment. An absence of a clear national strategy has been compounded by the lack of joined-up policies to meet local needs, poor coordination between central and local government, the lack of strong infrastructure institutions such as Transport for London outside the capital, lower levels of infrastructure investment outside London (particularly transport funding) holding back other towns, cities and areas.

6.2 The collective infrastructure requirements of the ten emerging Local Plans in the County are in large part set out in their Infrastructure Delivery Plans which accompany them. The total cost of infrastructure needed in Hertfordshire to support growth up to 2031 is likely to be in the region of £4-5bn. This is roughly equivalent to £50,000 per new dwelling. It will be critical therefore to ensure the public sector is robust and ‘joined up’ in its negotiations with developers to secure appropriate S106 contributions and in the management of CIL across the county.

6.3 A typical Infrastructure Delivery Plan accompanying a Local Plan, for example, will refer to a wide range of potential funding sources/streams (including contributions from developers through the Community Infrastructure Levy and legal agreements – though these only amount to a relatively small proportion of the total ‘need’) in the hope that these can be tapped into to cover the portfolio of infrastructure that is assessed as being required. There are very often repeated references to ‘funding unknown’ or ‘funding not secured’ and this reflects the reality that when planning over such a long time horizon (15-20 years+) it is impossible to have 100% upfront certainty.

Agenda Pack 53 of 170 Page 14 of 26

6.4 There will be an increasing necessity to explore more innovative mechanisms to forward fund infrastructure and to lobby/bid for national sources of funding. There has already been an initial discussion by the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership at which it was agreed to seek specialist support to kick-start a debate about the potential infrastructure-funding options available and whether and the extent to which any of these would be suitable in the Hertfordshire context. This process will shadow the work being undertaken by the authorities on how they may need to work together in the future to deliver the future growth agenda for the County – how to fund infrastructure being a very significant element of that. The need for an overarching Strategic Infrastructure Plan for Hertfordshire is currently being considered in order to provide a clear narrative to Government, partners and the development industry of the infrastructure needs and costs of future growth, and to form the basis for bidding to Government for national funding.

7. Planning in Hertfordshire

7.1 There remains concerns that current arrangements for spatial and infrastructure planning may not serve Hertfordshire well given the future scale and complexities of the growth agenda and Government expectations of local authorities in terms of how they should work together.

7.2 The Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership (HIPP) is a political grouping of all District/Borough Local Planning Authorities, the County Council and the LEP. Chaired by Councillor Mandy Perkins Executive Member for Planning and Housing at Welwyn Hatfield (with Derrick Ashley Hertfordshire County Council, Executive Member for Environment Planning and Transport as Vice Chair) it meets frequently to consider the progress on plan making across the county, and other strategic planning matters including infrastructure, changes to planning policy and legislation, and the emerging growth pressures/implications from across our borders. It undertakes joint work and has recently commissioned specialist studies in Development Viability and Infrastructure Funding, Water and Utilities.

7.3 The style of HIPP is collaborative in recognition of the role of the District and Boroughs as the LPA’s in terms of plan making, and the roles of the County Council as Highways Authority, critical service provider e.g. Education, and in having a strategic overview of wider planning issues affecting Hertfordshire and the region. The Group recognises the need to work together in order to develop ‘proper’ sustainable communities of the right quality and with the right infrastructure in place, and to safeguard Hertfordshire’s strategic interests in the wider south east.

7.4 Planning - both spatial and infrastructure planning - in Hertfordshire is complex. With major environmental constraints e.g. Green Belt, high levels of traffic, proximity to London, housing pressures - the development of the current wave of Local Plans has been lengthy, and controversial. It is not helped by the current plan making system which is complex and ever changing. Districts and Boroughs have a ‘Duty to co-operate’ (DTC) on plan making and this has often been difficult. Whether LPA’s have met Agenda Pack 54 of 170 Page 15 of 26

their DTC requirement and whether their plans are sound are being tested at Examination in Public (EIPs) currently. This complexity and the scale of the growth challenge for the LPA’s looks set to continue.

7.5 As part of the countywide discussions on Devolution/Collaboration, the Hertfordshire Leaders Group have asked HIPP to consider options for better joint working on Planning and Infrastructure in recognition that the growth agenda is ever increasing at the same time as we want to safeguard and protect Hertfordshire’s unique quality of life and environment.

7.6 HIPP have set up a small sub group to lead this work and are looking at

- Improved joint working to deliver the current round of Local Plans up to 2031 (led by Councillor Perkins) e.g. joint working on CIL/S106, Masterplanning, Design Standards. - Options for joint working mechanisms beyond 2031 to secure a more strategic approach to plan making and infrastructure planning in the longer term (led by Councillor Ashley).

Both strands of work are due to report back to the Leaders Group in September.

7.7 All the signs appear to be showing that unless Hertfordshire embraces a more collaborative and strategic approach to growth it will either be forced upon it or it will become more and more challenging for local authorities to deal with their growth requirements separately in an individual way and it will lose out to other areas where greater coordination facilitates the identification of and commitment to strategic issues such as key pieces of infrastructure. From a County Council perspective, a more strategic approach to planning for growth and the infrastructure required to support it is essential.

8. The London Plan

8.1 With a new Mayor now in place, a full review of the London Plan has more formally commenced and will gather pace. The anticipated programme for the London Plan Review is as follows:

• Summer 2017 - London Plan consultation draft • Mid 2018 - Earliest Examination in Public • 2019/20 - Latest new London Plan publication

8.2 There are a range of commentators for a wider South East approach to delivery of the projected growth needs of the Capital, including potential exportation of London housing growth to the wider South East, identification of growth corridors (two of the five coordination/growth areas/corridors in the existing London Plan impact upon Hertfordshire), coordinated Green Belt reviews within and beyond the Capital, relocation of industry out of London to wider south East to free-up land in London for housing, identification of new settlements and major urban extensions in locations with good access to the capital, etc. Agenda Pack 55 of 170 Page 16 of 26

8.3 The County Council is represented on the wider South East political liaison arrangements established over recent years. This is the main mechanisms through which the County Council progress on the London Plan. As yet the Mayor has not been particularly forthcoming on the wider South East implications of his growth strategy for the Capital, though he is being pressed by authorities beyond London to be clearer about his intentions. The position at this stage is therefore to keep a watching brief through the wider South East member and officer arrangements set out in Section 7.

9. Political co-operation across the wider South East on cross-border strategic issues and East of England Infrastructure and Growth Group

9.1 With the abolition of regional assemblies in 2012, liaison at a regionally strategic level effectively ceased. In recent years, in the build up to the full review of the London Plan there has been an ongoing and escalating process of engagement between the Greater London Authority (GLA)/Mayor of London and local authorities in the wider South East. There have been three wider South East political summits drawing on politicians from London and the East and South East of England - the first to agree the principle that the Mayor/GLA and local authorities in the East and South East do indeed need to work together on strategic matters, the second to agree what form future political arrangements should take (the creation of a Wider South East Political Steering Group) and the third held in December 2016 having a focus on the impending review of the London Plan. Hertfordshire councils, including the County Council, were represented at the Summit.

9.2 The Wider South East Political Steering Group (PSG) is now in existence, meeting 2-3 times per year, with a rotating chair, and comprised of:

• Five members representing the East of England, nominated by the East of England Local Government Association (EELGA) • Five members representing the South East of England nominated by South East England Councils (SEEC) • Five members representing London nominated jointly by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Councils.

9.3 The purpose of the PSG is to initiate, steer and agree strategic collaboration activities across the Wider South East (defined as East of England, South East of England and London).

9.4 Cllr Linda Haysey, Leader of East Hertfordshire District Council and Cllr John Garner, Deputy Leader of Stevenage Borough Council are members of the PSG. PSG is supported by a Wider South East Officer Working Group. The nominated Hertfordshire representative is an officer from East Hertfordshire District Council (with the Hertfordshire Planning Coordinator and Hertfordshire County Council as substitutes).

Agenda Pack 56 of 170 Page 17 of 26

9.5 The PSG is current focussing on barriers to housing delivery and priorities for wider South East infrastructure.

9.6 To help ensure that the East of England inputs effectively into new wider South East political arrangements the East of England Assembly of Council Leaders has established an Infrastructure and Growth Group (chaired by the chair of the East of England LGA, or his/her named representative. The Group is advised on policy and technical issues and the development of the WSE Work Programme by:

• Lead Chief Executives (John Wood, Hertfordshire County Council and Russell Williams, Ipswich Borough Council) nominated for this purpose by the East of England Chief Executives Forum. • The Chair of the East of England Strategic Spatial Planning Officers Group (drawing on officers from across the region and overseen by the Lead Chief Executives). Hertfordshire has three potential attendees to this group – one from East Hertfordshire District Council and the County Council and the Hertfordshire Planning Coordinator.

9.7 All matters relating to the proceedings of wider South East political and officer meetings are reported to the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership (HIPP) and the Hertfordshire Planning Group (officers).

10. National and Regional Commissions affecting Hertfordshire

10.1 Over the last twelve months a number of Commissions of various guises have been instigated and have either reported or are in the process of doing so that have potential implications for Hertfordshire. The reports of the Commissions are available in the Members’ Room, with some of the more relevant findings and recommendations summarised below.

The Outer London Commission (OLC)

10.2 Concurrent with the development of wider South East political liaison arrangements the previous Mayor of London commissioned the Outer London Commission to investigate and advise on the following three issues to inform, amongst other matters, the preparation of the new London Plan:

• Coordinating Strategic Policy and Infrastructure Investment Across the wider South East • Removing the Barriers to Housing Delivery • Accommodating London’s Growth

10.3 The OLC published (known as its 5th, 6th and 7th reports) reports into these three issues in March 2016. The 7th Report is of most relevance to Hertfordshire within the context of a projected rapidly growing City and the potential role of the wider South East in playing a role in delivery of that growth. Paragraph 5.6 of the report sets out the Commission’s recommendations in terms of inter-regional co-ordination of growth and include: Agenda Pack 57 of 170 Page 18 of 26

• Exportation of growth from London. • Identification of growth corridors (two of the five coordination/growth areas/corridors in the existing London Plan impact upon Hertfordshire). • Co-ordinated Green Belt reviews within and beyond the Capital. • Relocation of industry out of London to wider South East to free-up land in London for housing. • New settlements and major urban extensions in locations with good access to the capital.

The National Infrastructure Commission and Crossrail 2 Commission

10.4 The National Infrastructure Commission was set up by Government in 2015 to look at the UK’s future needs for nationally significant infrastructure, help to maintain UK’s competitiveness amongst the G20 nations and provide greater certainty for investors by taking a long term approach to the major investment decisions facing the country. It is expected to soon become a permanent executive agency. Amongst its work already has been a review of the strategic case for additional large scale transport infrastructure for London, with a particular focus for a North East-South West Crossrail 2 rail connection.

10.5 The Crossrail 2 Growth Commission was established by the former Mayor in July 2015 and set the task of helping ensure that opportunities for regeneration, house building and job creation made possible by the new railway can be developed to their full potential

10.6 The findings and recommendations of both commissions are wide-ranging, but some of the main messages include:

• There is a strong case for Crossrail 2. • Crossrail 2 could unlock 200,000 new homes and support 200,000 new jobs, but that growth could potentially be even greater still - but policy changes will need to be made to realise benefits of this scale • There is a need to develop a strategy to unlock significant housing growth. • Recognising that significant opportunities exist outside the Greater London boundary given that ‘75,000 of the 200,000 homes potentially unlocked by Crossrail 2 are outside Greater London into Surrey and Hertfordshire’ . • In order to bring the optimum benefits of Crossrail 2 there will need to be a comprehensive policy response across the tiers of government and public services - involving bringing forward higher housing densities and releases of Green Belt land, local authorities developing joint or complementary local plans. • The establishment of one or more development corporations to lead the masterplanning and delivery of new housing and urban realm provision, powers to combine plan making, land assembly and consenting.

Agenda Pack 58 of 170 Page 19 of 26

• The changes to approach required should be proactively considered in the forthcoming review of the London Plan and reviews of other planning frameworks for the South East. • A more co-ordinated approach across the wider route and connecting areas would ensure that local authorities who benefit from Crossrail 2 make a fair contribution and cannot ‘opt out’ of growth. • If there were a coordinated approach to the Green Belt around Harlow and infrastructure constraints could be overcome, Harlow’s attraction as an employment hub and location for housing growth would be improved.

The London Stansted Cambridge Commission

10.7 In December 2015 the LSCC set up the London Stansted Cambridge Growth Commission Growth to ‘provide independent analysis and advice to raise the global economic potential of the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor and make recommendations on how to achieve transformational change’ . The Commission issued its final report in which it sets out a ‘20-year vision for the Corridor that would see it become one of the top “knowledge regions” in the world, competing alongside Silicon Valley, Boston’s high-tech / life science cluster, Greater Munich, Øresund in Scandinavia, and emerging regions in Asia.’ . The Commission finds that establishing Europe’s answer to Silicon Valley in Eastern England would create at least 10 new ‘unicorns’ (new firms reaching valuations above US $1 billion) and generate 400,000 additional jobs between 2016-2036.

10.8 Some of the key recommendations of the Commission include:

• New powers and financial vehicles are required to deliver infrastructure, transport and housing, including devolving of powers to enable the use of private finance and local tax and consideration of the case for a Corridor Transport Authority. • The production of a joint public-private economic development strategy for London Stansted Airport and its surrounding area, with the aim of developing the Airport zone as a growth node in the Corridor. • Deepening the partnership with London with a view to developing a deeper shared understanding of the challenges and potential responses.

10.9 The LSCC Board have considered their response to the Commission’s report and are committed to promoting the corridor’s economic potential and securing the necessary improvements to road and rail infrastructure to unlock growth particularly around Harlow and Stansted.

National Infrastructure Commission – Cambridge - Milton Keynes - Oxford corridor

10.10 In March 2016, the National Infrastructure Commission was asked to consider how to maximise the potential of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes- Oxford corridor as a single, knowledge-intensive cluster that competes on Agenda Pack 59 of 170 Page 20 of 26

a global stage, protecting the area’s high quality environment, and securing the homes and jobs that the area needs.

10.11 The Commission’s central finding set out in its Interim Report is that a lack of sufficient and suitable housing presents a fundamental risk to the success of this area. Without a joined-up plan for housing, jobs and infrastructure across the corridor, it will be left behind its international competitors .’This means local authorities working in partnership, and with national government, to plan places, homes and transport together. Current governance mechanisms are not sufficient to deliver the step-change in strategic leadership and collaboration needed’. By providing the foundations for such a strategy, new East-West transport links present a once in a generation opportunity to secure the area’s future success.

10.12 This interim report makes practical recommendations to that end:

• Government should go ahead with East West Rail’s initial phase, a new link cutting journey times by more than half on the route from Oxford to Bedford and Milton Keynes, ensuring it is delivered before 2024; and it should invest in developing as soon as possible detailed plans for both the next phase of East West Rail (which would complete the link to Cambridge) and for a new Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. • Plans for these major new transport links should be drawn up with the specific intention of securing the tens of thousands of new homes this area needs. • Local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships, key government departments and national delivery agencies, should work together to develop a strategic vision (an integrated strategic plan) for housing, jobs and infrastructure across the corridor, new and expanded settlements, as well as proposals for the joint governance arrangements (e.g. joint committees, combined authorities, sub- national transport bodies, or the creation of unitary authorities).

10.13 In the second phase of this study, the National Infrastructure Commission will work with local and national government, and other stakeholders, to put this strategy in place. Some technical work within the corridor has started with East Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire districts and Stevenage Borough, but to date there has been no engagement with Hertfordshire in terms of how the Commission sees parts of the county contributing to the corridor, if at all.

10.14 A number of the recommendations of the various Commissions point to very significant and sensitive implications for Hertfordshire in the event they were to be implemented. At this stage, however, there is very little by way of indication as to whether and how these recommendations are to be taken forward. At this stage the County Council’s approach is to maintain a watching brief and engage with any proposals to move forward on recommendations as they emerge. The recommendations of the various Commissions will also be integrated into the ongoing consideration by Leaders (with the assistance of the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Agenda Pack 60 of 170 Page 21 of 26

Planning Partnership) of how Hertfordshire should respond to the ongoing and likely scale of future growth pressures facing the County.

11. Aviation

11.1 Both the airports to the West and East of the County are experiencing rapid growth in throughput and have ambitious development and growth plans.

London Luton

11.2 In 2012, London Luton Airport received planning permission to move from its level of operations at that time of about 12mppa to 18mppa, which it was expected to reach in the mid/late 2020s. A major investment programme is already in place to build out the planning consent and growth since 2012 has been substantive and moved to 14.5mppa. The Airport recorded a 18.7% increase in passenger numbers in October compared to the same period the previous year. Over 1.3 million passengers travelled through the airport in October alone. The airport expects to reach its new planning throughput cap of 18mppa within the next 3-4 years, rather than mid to late 2020s.

11.3 London Luton Airport Limited is planning to put in place a £200 million 24- hour light rail link between Luton Airport Parkway station and the airport terminal with a view to achieving a transformation in the number of passengers using public transport to access the airport.

11.4 The Luton Enterprise Zone is also focussed on the airport and three other linked sites (Stirling Park, Century Park and Airport Business Park) with a view to creating over 7,200 jobs.

11.5 The County Council has two Member representatives on the Consultative Committee and its sub-committees.

London Stansted

11.6 London Stansted Airport has a current limit on its planning permission of 35mppa and 264,000 Air Transport Movements (ATMs). The approved masterplan (Sustainable Development Plan) for the Airport provides the platform to maximise the use of the existing single runway which is believed to have capacity of between 40-45mppa (requiring incremental development of aircraft apron capacity, expansion of the existing terminal building, and the development of an additional satellite building). Utilising that capacity would require a planning application to vary the throughput condition(s) on the existing consent.

11.7 August 2016 saw the busiest month at the airport for nine years, with 2.5 million passengers passing through. The annual throughput at the airport now stands at 24mppa.

11.8 A planning application has recently been submitted for a new £130 million arrivals building to facilitate growth in throughput to the existing 35mppa Agenda Pack 61 of 170 Page 22 of 26

planning consent. However, it is also designed to ensure the airport could make full use of its single runway and serve around 43mppa and the owners have indicated that a further planning application will be submitted later this year to lift the current cap on passenger numbers.

11.9 The County Council is represented on the Consultative Committee and its sub-committees.

Heathrow

11.10 In October 2016, the Government announced its support for a new runway at Heathrow – the first full length runway in the South-East since the Second World War. The scheme will be taken forward in the form of a draft ‘National policy statement’ (NPS) for consultation during 2017. Up to 77,000 additional local jobs are expected to be created over the next 14 years and the decision will inevitably bring with it wider growth pressures, including housing and infrastructure provision. The Heathrow decision will almost certainly bring western Hertfordshire into the sphere of influence of this major infrastructure scheme - the technical evidence behind and the assessment of the Heathrow options included the wider influence of the proposals (employment growth, housing need, etc) and encompassed local authorities immediately abutting the western border.

London Airspace Management Programme

11.11 Much of the debate about a shortage in capacity for aviation in the UK centres on runway infrastructure. However, airspace is also a major factor because of its effect on the overall efficiency of the aviation sector and the environment.

11.12 The London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP) is one of two major UK terminal airspace re-design programmes and is seen as a once in a lifetime opportunity to modernise the London Terminal Control Region airspace.

11.13 The decision on the location of the new runway in the South East is critical to the LAMP airspace redesign and so the LAMP process has stalled whilst that decision was awaited. Now it has been made Government has confirmed that the wider programme of airspace modernisation will now move forward and will have will have significant and generally positive implications for the aircraft-related noise in Hertfordshire, but there are always winners and losers involved in flightpath change and processes tend to be controversial and sensitive with communities.

Implications for the County Council

11.14 The main implications for Hertfordshire of growth at Luton and Stansted airports relate to increasing demand for housing and employment provision, increasing pressures on the transportation network and noise impacts. There are no plans to increase growth beyond the currently authorised throughput cap at Luton. Stansted’s intention to come forward with a planning application to raise throughput from the currently permitted Agenda Pack 62 of 170 Page 23 of 26

35mppa to maximum use of existing single runway (circa 43mppa) (Panel has already received a briefing from the Airport relating to its growth proposals) will raise implications for the transport network – M11 Junction 8, A120 particularly, West Anglian Main Line. Officers are engaged technically with the Airport and with Essex County Council in advance of the application. At this stage the additional pressures the additional growth of the airport will place on the network and ways to mitigate these are not yet known.

11.15 In terms of airspace redesign over the coming years, there will be substantial implications for Hertfordshire in terms of aircraft-related noise impacts, but these will not be known until specific redesign proposals emerge. The County Council is well placed to keep a watching brief on the redesign process, particularly given its membership of the Airport Consultation Committees, but there may be a need to look at establishing a Joint Aviation Committee for Hertfordshire to ensure effective input to the planning processes and to safeguard Hertfordshire interests.

12. Other significant Planning issues

The Neighbourhood Planning Bill

12.1 The emerging Neighbourhood Planning Bill (NPB) contains a number of proposals potentially having implications for how local plans are prepared. The current version of the bill contains powers for the Secretary of State to direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare joint Local Plans. It also contains default powers for County Councils who could be invited by the Secretary of State to prepare or revise a Local Plan if s/he thinks that a borough/district council are failing in their local plan responsibilities.

The Housing White Paper

12.2 At the time of writing the Government has just published its Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’, with some of the most significant proposals including:

- Intention to consult on a new standard methodology for calculating ‘objectively assessed need’, and encourage councils to plan on this basis. - A major shake-up of the government’s Starter Homes initiative – scrapping its mandatory requirement of 20 per cent Starter Homes on all developments over a certain size and enabling local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of Starter Homes. - Intention to consult on introducing a fee for making a planning appeal. - A new housing delivery test - if delivery of housing falls below 85 per cent of the housing requirement, authorities would in addition be expected to plan for a 20 per cent buffer on their five-year land supply. - Local authorities will be able to increase fees by 20 per cent from July 2017 if they commit to invest the additional fee income in their planning department.

Agenda Pack 63 of 170 Page 24 of 26

- Intention to respond to a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and make an announcement at Autumn Budget 2017. - Encourage "more active use of compulsory purchase powers to promote development on stalled sites for housing" as part of a raft of measures to ensure that planning permissions are built out. - Amend and add to national policy to make clear that "authorities should amend green belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options". Where land is removed from the green belt, local policies should require the impact to be offset by compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining green belt land. - Legislation to follow to allow "locally accountable" New Town Development Corporations to be set up, enabling local areas to use them as the delivery vehicle for garden communities if they wish to - The Homes and Communities Agency will be relaunched as "Homes England", with a renewed purpose - the ambition to get more homes for communities across all housing tenures, put in infrastructure to unlock housing capacity and attract small builders and new players to diversify the market on a sustainable basis. - Encourage higher densities. It proposes to amend the NPPF to make it clear that plans and individual development proposals should make efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities and address the particular scope for higher-density housing in urban locations that are well served by public transport that provide scope to build over low-density uses or where buildings can be extended upwards by using the ‘airspace’ above them. - To enable spatial development strategies, which would be produced by combined authorities or elected mayors, to allocate strategic sites. - The contribution from brownfield and surplus public sector land should be maximised, to support the regeneration of our cities, towns and villages, to support economic growth and to limit the pressure on the countryside.

12.3 Should the proposals within the NPB come into force there would be significant implications (political and technical) for the County Council were it to be invited and if it were to accept an invitation from the Secretary of State to prepare a Local Plan for a borough/district in the County. Whilst the Bill is expected to become legislation in 2017, it is hoped that progress on Local Plans within Hertfordshire by boroughs/districts will be such that the Secretary of State would not wish to intervene. It will be necessary to keep this under review, however, should any issues emerge with local plans as they are reviewed by boroughs and districts. Were the Secretary of State to direct any Hertfordshire local authorities to prepare Joint Local Plans this would be consistent with the benefits that would accrue to planning for the County Council’s services and infrastructure from a more strategic approach.

12.4 The implications of the Housing White Paper will be assessed over the coming months. The main thrust of the White Paper is clearly to provide an improved range of tools and mechanisms to increase the amount and speed of housing delivered. The main strategic message from the White

Agenda Pack 64 of 170 Page 25 of 26

Paper in terms of this report to Panel is that it serves to simply reinforce and accelerate the growth pressures that are on the horizon.

13. Financial Implications

13.1 As is set out in the main body of this report, the financial implications of the levels of growth outlined will be very significant for the County Council and all other infrastructure providers in the County. There are, however, no financial implications relating directly to this report.

14 . Equality

14.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.

14.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

14.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

14.4 This report requires no decision and is for information only. There are no equality implications arising from this report.

Background Information

Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’

Agenda Pack 65 of 170 Page 26 of 26

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda Item No. ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM 9

TRANSPORT VISION 2016 PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT AND LTP4 PROJECT UPDATE

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author:- James Povey, Team Leader Transport Policy and Growth (Tel: 01992 556798)

Executive Member:- Derrick Ashley (Environment, Planning & Transport)

1. Purpose of report

1.1 To inform members of the feedback received from the 2016 Transport Vision Public Consultation (Appendix A) exercise and update them on the Transport Vision project which will generate a new Local Transport Plan (LTP4) for the county.

2. Summary

2.1 Since 2014 the Transport Policy team has been developing a new Local Transport Plan (LTP4) for Hertfordshire which will outline a new spatial transport vision for the county. A three month public consultation commenced in September 2016 on the emerging content of this new LTP4. A report has been compiled on the feedback received from this consultation. Members are invited to review and comment on the feedback received and the officer response to how this will shape the final LTP. The final LTP strategy is being drafted for a further round of public consultation in advance of its adoption in early 2018.

2.2 This report also provides members with an update on the work that has been undertaken on the LTP content since the 2016 public consultation exercise, and the current timetable for the adoption of the new plan. At their meeting in September the Panel will be able to comment on the draft LTP Strategy in advance of Cabinet being requested to approve it for consultation.

Agenda Pack 66 of 170 1 3. Recommendation/s

3.1 It is requested that Panel endorses the Transport Vision 2050 Autumn 2016 Consultation Report which will form part of the evidence base to the LTP4.

3.2 Members are advised to note that a member briefing on the proposed LTP4 will be held at County Hall on 27 July 2017.

4. Background

4.1 The Local Transport Plan is the countywide transport strategy, and forms part of the county council’s policy framework. In 2014 the Highways and Waste Management Cabinet Panel endorsed a proposal to update the current Local Transport Plan to develop a new spatial transport vision for the county.

4.2 Work on the new transport vision and LTP4 has so far included: • Transport Vision Stage 1 report . Outlined future visions for the county, challenges and opportunities, and the role of transport in supporting a future positive vision for the county. This report was subject to stakeholder engagement in 2014. • Transport Vision Stage 2 report . Provided a greater understanding of how transport can support local economic growth, considered the interaction of land use and transport planning, outlined broad packages of transport interventions both for the local plan period up to 2031 and for spatial scenarios in the longer term. This report was subject to stakeholder engagement in late 2015. • Transport Vision 2050 Public consultation on a new LTP for Hertfordshire. This included a proposed set of LTP objectives and principles, a number of policy options for consideration, and a preferred package of major transport schemes that had emerged from technical work undertaken. This was subject to public consultation September 2016.

4.3 In addition to the above reports the LTP evidence base includes a number of other reports which have informed their content, such as on the selection of major schemes. This includes evidence taken from COMET which is the new countywide multimodal transport model.

Transport Vision Public Consultation

4.4 At their meeting on 30 June 2016 the Environment, Planning and Transport Panel received a draft of the Transport Vision 2050 public consultation material. The Panel recommended this to Cabinet who approved the commencement of the public consultation at their meeting of 19 September 2016. Agenda Pack 67 of 170 2

4.5 1,243 responses were received on the Transport Vision 2050 consultation. It should be noted that 539 of these were an identical response from people with an interest in the future of the Abbey rail line between Watford and St Albans. The consultation report is included as an appendix to this report.

4.6 A number of broad issues emerged from the analysis of responses received. The extract from the consultation report is included below with a County Council officer response against each issue, explaining how this will be addressed in the final LTP Strategy.

Broad Issue Raised County Council Officer Response 1. Is the Vision outlined In addition to the updated/refined content of the sufficiently ambitious? consultation material, the draft strategy will Both in terms of being include the full range of County Council enough to address the transport policies, planned major development challenges (notably sites (plus associated transport mitigation) and growth) and deliver its likely/planned transport improvements. This will aims (notably modal provide a fuller picture of the transport strategy shift). and hopefully give greater reassurance that it is sufficient to address the challenges identified and deliver the LTP objectives. Further development of LTP content concerning future housing growth scenarios, drivers of future change (such as technology) and demand management also offer the potential to convey a more ambitious future Vision considered capable of addressing the challenges and objectives. 2. Lack of content on The Vision Stage 2 report growth post 2031. LTP (https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/media- should be informing this library/documents/about-the- debate and looking at council/consultations/tv-stage-2-technical- implications of differing report.pdf ) considered three broad land use growth options, and how planning scenarios post 2031. The LTP Strategy it can align with a will build on this work to feature a more detailed sustainable transport commentary on how the Strategy system. supports/aligns with these, and the relative pros and cons of various growth scenarios for the county’s transport system. 3. Inadequate The LTP will include an updated consideration consideration shown of of the future ‘drivers of change’ and what these changes to future travel could mean for Hertfordshire. It will consider behaviour (i.e. what this could mean for future travel supply technology). and demand, and appraise how the strategy aligns with various feasible future scenarios. It will highlight how key elements of the strategy can be made more adaptable to future changes. 4. Position on East West This issue will be made more prominent in the

Agenda Pack 68 of 170 3 Broad Issue Raised County Council Officer Response links in north half of LTP Strategy. The Strategy will feature more county (M1-Luton- detail on primary movement corridors in the Stevenage-M11- county such as this East-West route, and as Stansted), and part of this will identify current transport identifying schemes to problems and future opportunities. In doing this address the challenges. there will be greater clarity on the County Council position concerning East-West transport improvements.

5. Designations of The Full LTP Strategy and its policies will make Primary Urban Centres, it clear that improvements to sustainable travel Sustainable Travel are supported across the county, and not just Towns and cycling step restricted to the largest towns. change towns should be However the LTP is likely to encourage a extended to cover other focussing of some effort and resource to (smaller) towns. achieving a step change in sustainable travel behaviour in a small number of places. Town size and hence potential to deliver larger increases in walking, cycling and public transport has to be a factor in this. However, the County Council accept other factors should also be considered. These other factors could include areas where other investment/regeneration is taking place, and potentially where there is support to better manage car use demand such as through car parking policies.

The Primary Urban Centres designation aims to identify those towns that are of greatest importance to the local economy, and give some focus to which towns would benefit from being better connected (agglomeration potential). 6. Some support for There are some districts where there is an more Demand apparent openness to entertain demand Management and management approaches that could encompass understanding it will be greater controls on parking supply, cost and needed to fund and workplace parking levies. achieve modal shift but The LTP will provide an updated County Council implementation requires position on the approach to demand care. management. 7. Further development There was general support for the East-West of Bus Rapid Transit mass passenger transit concept, however there (BRT) scheme needed, was a strong view that plans for the Abbey Line Agenda Pack 69 of 170 4 Broad Issue Raised County Council Officer Response both in terms of its should be explored separately from the scheme coverage/ destinations that would link Hemel Hempstead to Hertford. served and The case for bus rapid transit is likely to be reconsideration on different for the two sections, given the existing whether it should be bus heavy rail provision on the Abbey Line. based or rail based, The case for extending the East-West scheme particularly on the to link with the West Anglia Mainline should also Abbey Line. be considered. The County Council are considering how the passenger transit proposal will be taken forward, and the LTP4 will provide a steer on further development of this. The short to medium term plan (later running, improved service frequencies) for the Abbey Line as stated in our current Rail Strategy will remain. 8. Electric Vehicle policy Agreed. The LTP will provide an updated policy needed to support position on Electric Vehicle support/provision. uptake in Hertfordshire.

9. More Air Quality Agreed. LTP4 Strategy will include more attention required. information on the nature of the Air Quality issue in Hertfordshire and clarify the policy position on this.

10. Extensions to scope The Priority Bus Network map outlined reflected of Priority Bus and the existing commercially run core inter-urban Traffic Management bus network in the county. The County Council Networks, with other consider it prudent to focus any infrastructure roads and locations investment on bus routes with a more certain suggested. future. Bus priority measures should be considered where deemed necessary along these routes to strengthen/optimise the county interurban bus network. It is accepted that parts of the commercial intra- urban bus network would also benefit from bus priority measures. Specific locations/schemes will be identified by the future updated Bus Strategy and Growth and Transport Plans. The Policy will be better explained in the final LTP, and its coverage of both inter and intra- urban commercial routes will be made clear.

The Priority Traffic Management Network will be better defined as part of a new LTP4 Network Management Strategy. The LTP4 Strategy will better explain the policy, and its coverage is

Agenda Pack 70 of 170 5 Broad Issue Raised County Council Officer Response likely to change slightly as part of the corridor analysis work being undertaken. 11. Major Scheme As part of the LTP Major Scheme selection a suggestions long list of schemes was considered. Some of • A414 Amwell junction the schemes suggested were on this list but did • Hitchin bypass not progress to be included in the preferred • Standon/Puckeridge package of strategic interventions. bypass • North Harlow bypass Decisions on a number of the schemes can only • Rail links to Buntingford be taken when there is further clarity on growth • Road improvements A10 locations beyond 2031, and hence what East south of Royston & West transport improvements can be justified Buntingford and deemed viable. • A602 long term improvements A number of schemes lack sufficient evidence regarding their benefit and feasibility to support • Stevenage South Station their inclusion in the strategy at this stage but • Park Plaza Station • could be considered in the development of Rail reinstatement future LTP supporting strategies (Growth & Hertford North-Hertford Transport Plans etc.) or as mitigation for the East impacts on new development. • Bus Rapid Transit Luton Airport-Luton- A North Harlow bypass was alluded to in the Hitchin/Stevenage consultation material as ‘Highway Capacity • Rapid transit on Nickey increases associated with Harlow growth’. The Line and Lea Valley line LTP Strategy will provide an up to date position on this potential scheme.

12. Airport Growth LTP4 will include greater detail on airport needs greater focus and growth, implications and aspirations when policy coverage. presenting policies concerned with airports. This will include consideration of Airport Surface Access Strategies. 13. Plans for corridors LTP4 will include a high level commentary on A1, A10, A41, A414, how key movement corridors in the county and issues will be resolved objectives for investment in these. and growth delivered. 14. More emphasis on This will be more evident when the full range of partnership/cross LTP4 policies are outlined. border working. 15. East West Rail and Consideration of this will be included in the Oxford-Cambridge LTP4 strategy. Expressway opportunities need to be explained. 16. More detail desired Presentation of full strategy including policies, on proposals and lack of major development sites (plus associated coverage of issues such transport mitigation) and likely/planned transport

Agenda Pack 71 of 170 6 Broad Issue Raised County Council Officer Response as rural accessibility, improvements should address these concerns. safety etc. 17. Greater coverage on Greater coverage and emphasis of intra-urban intra-urban movements. transport improvements will be in LTP4 as part of the presentation of policies and the full approach. Growth and Transport Plans will also cover this in greater detail. 18. Address The emerging LTP4 will represent a blended contradictions in the strategic approach of highway, public transport strategy. and sustainable transport solutions. Factors • Not building our way out such as the county’s growth pattern to 2031, its of trouble vs Hertford existing high levels of car ownership and use, Bypass, East Hemel and the challenges outlined in the Transport Hempstead & A414 Vision consultation material underpin the view junctions major schemes. that such an approach is the right one for the • Support for interurban county. traffic movement vs In addition to this the timescales of scheme emphasis on sustainable delivery (such as the BRT proposal) mean that travel in towns. some highway solutions will have to be • BRT proposals on same implemented ahead of other schemes to corridor as Highway address rising travel demand. upgrades The full range of LTP policies should better explain how some of the apparent contradictions are not incompatible. 19. Funding the strategy The LTP Strategy will feature more information delivery. on how the Strategy will be delivered and the funding sources for this. Future LTP4 Implementation Plans will include more specific programmes or work based on the funding available. 20. More reference This should be more apparent when all the needed to and explicit policies are presented in the LTP4 Strategy, and support required to more detail will be provided in the Strategy on support delivery of known growth planned to 2031 within and planned housing outside the county. growth, including outside the county, including working in partnership with districts and neighbouring LAs. 21. Scepticism on This was not a view expressed by key emphasis on public stakeholders but did emerge from some of the transport and cycling, responses from the general public. and that we should just cater for car use with The LTP Strategy will build on the challenges more capacity and faster and opportunities and objectives presented in journey times. the Transport Vision consultation material to further strengthen the case against such an Agenda Pack 72 of 170 7 Broad Issue Raised County Council Officer Response approach, and why the blended approach presented is the most appropriate. 22. More focus needed The full presentation of the LTP Strategy and on other towns policies, including commentaries on key (Hertford, Bishop’s movement corridors in the county will give Stortford, Hitchin) greater coverage of other areas in the county. Growth and Transport Plans and other supporting strategies which will follow the drafting of the new strategy will provide further local detail on how the LTP Strategy will be delivered countywide.

LTP project update and next steps

4.7 Since the public consultation work to develop the content of the new LTP has been focussed on three areas: • A thorough review of existing LTP3 policy. • Analysis of key corridors in the county and identification of strategy narrative for these. • Assessment of strategy against future Hertfordshire transport scenarios.

4.8 This activity has been informed by public consultation feedback and is supporting the drafting of the final LTP Strategy. Panel members will have the chance to review the full draft Strategy at their meeting on 7 th September 2017, where they will be asked to recommend this to Cabinet to approve commencement of public consultation. In advance of this there will be a briefing session for members at County Hall on 27 th July 2017, where they will have the opportunity to find out more about the LTP4 content.

4.9 Public consultation will run for three months. The Strategy will be accompanied by a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Habitats Regulation Assessment and Equalities Impact Assessment. These assessments have informed the LTP Strategy throughout its development, and were included alongside the previous Vision 2050 public consultation and Vision Stage 2 stakeholder engagement.

4.10 Depending on the responses received during the public consultation the earliest the LTP Strategy could be formally agreed by Full Council will be when it meets in March 2018.

5. Equality Implications

5.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.

Agenda Pack 73 of 170 8 5.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

5.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

5.4 No EqIA was undertaken in relation to this matter.

Background Information

Transport Vision Stage 1 report Transport Vision Stage 2 report Transport Vision 2050 Public consultation Transport vision 2050 autumn 2016 consultation report – attached at Appendix A

Agenda Pack 74 of 170 9

APPENDIX A

TRANSPORT VISION 2050 AUTUMN 2016 CONSULTATION REPORT

April 2017

Environment 0300 123 4047 www.hertfordshire.gov.uk

Agenda Pack 75 of 170 CONTENTS Page

1 Introduction 2

2 Communications 2

2.1 Audience 2 2.2 Communication Methods 3 2.3 Media Strategy 3

3 Summary of Consultation Comments with HCC Recommendations 4

4 Public Consultation Feedback 9

4.1 Consultation Responses 9 4.2 Survey Responses & Place of Residence 9

5 Summary of Survey Question Responses 11

5.1 Challenges & Opportunities 11 5.2 LTP Objectives & Principles 12

5.2.1 Suggestions for New Objectives 13 5.2.2 Comments on the Proposed Principles 14

5.3 Transport Vision Policy Options 14

5.3.1 Transport User Hierarchy 15 5.3.2 Step Change in Cycling 16 5.3.3 Shared Mobility 17 5.3.4 Enhanced PT Connectivity Through Bus Priority 18 5.3.5 Priority Traffic Management Network 18 5.3.6 Growth & Transport Plans 19

5.4 Major Scheme Proposals 20 5.5 Delivering the Strategy & Achieving Modal Shift 23 5.6 Other General Comments 25

6 Young People Feedback 27

7 Impact Assessments 28

Appendix 1 Consultation Respondents 30 Appendix 2 Summary of Key Stakeholders Full Responses 32 Appendix 3 Abbey Line Response 45

Agenda Pack 76 of 170 Page 1 TRANSPORT VISION 2050 - AUTUMN 2016 CONSULTATION REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents a summary of feedback from the Transport Vision Public Engagement in Autumn 2016, and explains how it will inform the LTP4 strategy finalisation in 2017.

The Transport Vision 2016 Public Consultation ran from 23 September 2016 to 14 December 2016 and received 1,243 responses. The purpose of the consultation was to gather views on the proposed strategic transport objectives and principles as well as proposed policy options and major schemes. Views were also sought on how the County Council could achieve modal shift and increased investment in sustainable transport provision.

Three impact assessments were undertaken on the proposed objectives and principles, policy options and major projects, a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Equalities Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment. Further detail on these assessments can be found in Section 7.

2 COMMUNICATIONS

A communications strategy and action plan was developed to support and promote the Transport Vision 2050 consultation effectively and efficiently through internal and external communications. The aim was to raise awareness of the consultation and encourage participation to achieve a positive number of completed online consultation survey responses.

The communications strategy sought to identify and engage with the correct stakeholders groups, to explain the challenges we face in Hertfordshire over the next 35 years and show residents and stakeholders that we are committed to provide a transport network that keeps residents and commuters moving and continues to allow economic growth.

2.1 Audience

Overall promotion of the consultation was to a wide range of audiences including the local population and transport users. The communication strategy aimed to identify suitable stakeholder groups who could offer valuable feedback to the content of the Transport Vision, with particular attention paid to identifying and contacting key stakeholders who’s views on the proposals were of particular interest. These key stakeholders are listed below:

Key Stakeholders • District and Borough Councils • MPs • Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership • Local airport operators • National Transport Organisations (i.e. Highways England, Network Rail) • Neighbouring Local Authorities • Business Groups and Organisations • HCC Public Health Team

Agenda Pack 77 of 170 Page 2 • Environmental Bodies

2.2 Communication Methods

Several methods of communication were used for specific target audiences. Additional effort was put into encouraging a response from the key stakeholders and included, for example, arranging individual meetings with District and Borough Councils. As well as meetings, the following communication methods were also used;

• Magazine advertisements • External newsletter updates • Magazine articles • Social media • Internal newsletter updates • Networking and promotional • Individual promotional emails activities targeting particular stakeholders • Easy read version of consultation • Posters displayed in libraries document across Hertfordshire • Press releases

Further effort was placed in ensuring engagement with local businesses, and included an article submission to the Biz4Biz Insight magazine. Tailored emails were sent out via the Hertfordshire Chamber of Commerce, the Hertfordshire LEP and Hemel Hempstead Business Ambassadors Groups contacts list. A presentation was also taken to the LEP Strategic Infrastructure Board. The Transport Vision Consultation was also promoted at two business networking events and at the Hertfordshire Assembly.

Promoting and engaging with young people was also important in ensuring their perspective on the Transport Vision. Workshops were set up at youth groups where attendees discussed the Transport Vision content and completed surveys. A presentation was also sent to the Youth Parliament for dissemination to its members.

2.3 Media Strategy

Raising awareness of the consultation was a key aim of the communications plan. Working with the HCC Communications Team a media strategy was developed to promote the consultation and seek to increase survey responses particularly from the local public. The local media were involved which resulted in several newspaper articles being published, to draw attention to the online consultation survey. Regular updates were also posted on to social media websites Twitter and Facebook, as well as a news story on the homepage of the HCC website for the whole consultation period. Infographics and text were posted to social media sites frequently and were carefully monitored to gauge responses and reactions, this enabled the County Council to tailor further posts in response to what was being discussed and therefore obtain maximum engagement.

Agenda Pack 78 of 170 Page 3 3 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS WITH HCC RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table summarises the key messages from the engagement feedback, and how this will be factored into the development of the Local Transport Plan. More detailed consultation comments can be found in Section 5, and a summary of the full consultation responses from the Key Stakeholders can be found in Appendix 2.

Broad Issue Raised HCC Officer Response 1. Is the Vision outlined In addition to the updated/refined content of the sufficiently ambitious? consultation material, the draft strategy will include the Both in terms of being full range of HCC transport policies, planned major enough to address the development sites (plus associated transport challenges (notably mitigation) and likely/planned transport improvements. growth) and deliver its This will provide a fuller picture of the transport aims (notably modal strategy and hopefully give greater reassurance that it shift). is sufficient to address the challenges identified and deliver the LTP objectives. Further development of LTP content concerning future housing growth scenarios, drivers of future change (such as technology) and demand management also offer the potential to convey a more ambitious future Vision considered capable of addressing the challenges and objectives. 2. Lack of content on The Vision Stage 2 report growth post 2031. LTP (https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/media- should be informing this library/documents/about-the-council/consultations/tv- debate and looking at stage-2-technical-report.pdf ) considered three broad implications of differing land use planning scenarios post 2031. The LTP growth options, and how Strategy will build on this work to feature a more it can align with a detailed commentary on how the Strategy sustainable transport supports/aligns with these, and the relative pros and system. cons of various growth scenarios for the county’s transport system. 3. Inadequate The LTP will include an updated consideration of the consideration shown of future ‘drivers of change’ and what these could mean changes to future travel for Hertfordshire. It will consider what this could mean behaviour (i.e. for future travel supply and demand, and appraise technology). how the strategy aligns with various feasible future scenarios. It will highlight how key elements of the strategy can be made more adaptable to future changes. 4. Position on East West This issue will be made more prominent in the LTP links in north half of Strategy. The Strategy will feature more detail on county (M1-Luton- primary movement corridors in the county such as this Stevenage-M11- east west route, and as part of this will identify current Stansted), and transport problems and future opportunities. In doing identifying schemes to this there will be greater clarity on the HCC position address the challenges. concerning east-west transport improvements.

Agenda Pack 79 of 170 Page 4 Broad Issue Raised HCC Officer Response 5. Designations of The Full LTP Strategy and its policies will make it Primary Urban Centres, clear that improvements to sustainable travel are Sustainable Travel supported across the county, and not just restricted to Towns and cycling step the largest towns. change towns should be However the LTP is likely to encourage a focussing of extended to cover other some effort and resource to achieving a step change (smaller) towns. in sustainable travel behaviour in a small number of places. Town size and hence potential to deliver larger increases in walking, cycling and public transport has to be a factor in this. However, we accept other factors should also be considered. These other factors could include areas where other investment/regeneration is taking place, and potentially where there is support to better manage car use demand such as through car parking policies.

The Primary Urban Centres designation aims to identify those towns that are of greatest importance to the local economy, and give some focus to which towns would benefit from being better connected (agglomeration potential). 6. Some support for There are some districts where there is an apparent more Demand openness to entertain demand management Management and approaches that could encompass greater controls on understanding it will be parking supply, cost and workplace parking levies. needed to fund and The LTP will provide an updated HCC position on the achieve modal shift but approach to demand management. implementation requires care. 7. Further development There was general support for the East-West mass of Bus Rapid Transit passenger transit concept, however there was a (BRT) scheme needed, strong view that plans for the Abbey Line should be both in terms of its explored separately from the scheme that would link coverage/ destinations Hemel Hempstead to Hertford. The case for bus rapid served and transit is likely to be different for the two sections, reconsideration on given the existing heavy rail provision on the Abbey whether it should be bus Line. based or rail based, The case for extending the east-west scheme to link particularly on the Abbey with the West Anglia Mainline should also be Line. considered. We are considering how the passenger transit proposal will be taken forward, and the LTP4 will provide a steer on further development of this. The short to medium term plan (later running, improved service frequencies) for the Abbey Line as stated in our current Rail Strategy will remain. 8. Electric Vehicle policy Agreed. The LTP will provide an updated policy needed to support position on Electric Vehicle support/provision. uptake in Hertfordshire.

Agenda Pack 80 of 170 Page 5 Broad Issue Raised HCC Officer Response 9. More Air Quality Agreed. LTP4 Strategy will include more information attention required. on the nature of the Air Quality issue in Hertfordshire and clarify the policy position on this.

10. Extensions to scope The Priority Bus Network map outlined reflected the of Priority Bus and existing commercially run core inter-urban bus Traffic Management network in the county. We consider it prudent to focus Networks, with other any infrastructure investment on bus routes with a roads and locations more certain future. suggested. Bus priority measures should be considered where deemed necessary along these routes to strengthen/optimise the county interurban bus network. It is accepted that parts of the commercial intra-urban bus network would also benefit from bus priority measures. Specific locations/schemes will be identified by the future updated Bus Strategy and Growth and Transport Plans. The Policy will be better explained in the final LTP, and its coverage of both inter and intra-urban commercial routes will be made clear.

The Priority Traffic Management Network will be better defined as part of a new LTP4 Network Management Strategy. The LTP4 Strategy will better explain the policy, and its coverage is likely to change slightly as part of the corridor analysis work being undertaken. 11. Major Scheme As part of the LTP Major Scheme selection a long list suggestions of schemes was considered. Some of the schemes • A414 Amwell junction suggested were on this list but did not progress to be • Hitchin bypass included in the preferred package of strategic • Standon/Puckeridge bypass interventions. • North Harlow bypass • Rail links to Buntingford Decisions on a number of the schemes can only be • Road improvements A10 taken when there is further clarity on growth locations south of Royston & beyond 2031, and hence what east west transport Buntingford improvements can be justified and deemed viable. • A602 long term improvements A number of schemes lack sufficient evidence • Stevenage South Station regarding their benefit and feasibility to support their • Park Plaza Station • inclusion in the strategy at this stage but could be Rail reinstatement Hertford considered in the development of future LTP North-Hertford East supporting strategies (Growth & Transport Plans etc.) • Bus Rapid Transit Luton Airport-Luton- or as mitigation for the impacts on new development. Hitchin/Stevenage • Rapid transit on Nickey Line A North Harlow bypass was alluded to in the and Lea Valley line consultation material as ‘Highway Capacity increases associated with Harlow growth’. The LTP Strategy will provide an up to date position on this potential scheme.

Agenda Pack 81 of 170 Page 6 Broad Issue Raised HCC Officer Response 12. Airport Growth needs LTP4 will include greater detail on airport growth, greater focus and policy implications and aspirations when presenting policies coverage. concerned with airports. This will include consideration of Airport Surface Access Strategies. 13. Plans for corridors LTP4 will include a high level commentary on key A1, A10, A41, A414, how movement corridors in the county and objectives for issues will be resolved investment in these. and growth delivered. 14. More emphasis on This will be more evident when the full range of LTP4 partnership/cross border policies are outlined. working. 15. East West Rail and Consideration of this will be included in the LTP4 Oxford-Cambridge strategy. Expressway opportunities need to be explained. 16. More detail desired Presentation of full strategy including policies, major on proposals and lack of development sites (plus associated transport coverage of issues such mitigation) and likely/planned transport improvements as rural accessibility, should address these concerns. safety etc. 17. Greater coverage on Greater coverage and emphasis of intra-urban intra-urban movements. transport improvements will be in LTP4 as part of the presentation of policies and the full approach. Growth and Transport Plans will also cover this in greater detail. 18. Address The emerging LTP4 will represent a blended strategic contradictions in the approach of highway, public transport and sustainable strategy. transport solutions. Factors such as the county’s • Not building our way out of growth pattern to 2031, its existing high levels of car trouble vs Hertford Bypass, ownership and use, and the challenges outlined in the East Hemel Hempstead & Transport Vision consultation material underpin the A414 junctions major view that such an approach is the right one for the schemes. county. • Support for interurban traffic In addition to this the timescales of scheme delivery movement vs emphasis on (such as the BRT proposal) mean that some highway sustainable travel in towns. • solutions will have to be implemented ahead of other BRT proposals on same schemes to address rising travel demand. corridor as Highway The full range of LTP policies should better explain upgrades how some of the apparent contradictions are not incompatible. 19. Funding the strategy The LTP Strategy will feature more information on delivery. how the Strategy will be delivered and the funding sources for this. Future LTP4 Implementation Plans will include more specific programmes or work based on the funding available. 20. More reference This should be more apparent when all the policies needed to and explicit are presented in the LTP4 Strategy, and more detail support required to will be provided in the Strategy on known growth support delivery of planned to 2031 within and outside the county. planned housing growth, Agenda Pack 82 of 170 Page 7 Broad Issue Raised HCC Officer Response including outside the county, including working in partnership with districts and neighbouring LAs. 21. Scepticism on This was not a view expressed by key stakeholders emphasis on public but did emerge from some of the responses from the transport and cycling, general public. and that we should just cater for car use with The LTP Strategy will build on the challenges and more capacity and faster opportunities and objectives presented in the journey times. Transport Vision consultation material to further strengthen the case against such an approach, and why the blended approach presented is the most appropriate. 22. More focus needed The full presentation of the LTP Strategy and policies, on other towns (Hertford, including commentaries on key movement corridors in Bishop’s Stortford, the county will give greater coverage of other areas in Hitchin) the county. Growth and Transport Plans and other supporting strategies which will follow the drafting of the new strategy will provide further local detail on how the LTP Strategy will be delivered countywide.

Agenda Pack 83 of 170 Page 8 4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK

The communications strategy was successful in obtaining a sound number of responses, which will inform further development of the Transport Vision work and the drafting of the LTP4 Strategy.

4.1 Consultation Responses

During the 12 week consultation period 607 substantive responses were received to the survey. In addition to this:

• 587 written responses were received. This included 539 separate versions of an identical response concerning the Abbey Line – see Appendix 3. • 16 key stakeholder responses were received – see Appendix 2 for summaries of these. • 33 Easy Read responses were received (29 from young people in the areas of Welwyn Hatfield, Watford and Three Rivers. These have been summarised separately in Section 6. (4 easy read responses were from the general public these comments were added to the full survey responses).

4.2 Survey Responses and Place of Residence

560 (92%) of survey responses were from people responding as an individual. 47 (8%) responses were received on behalf of a group (see Appendix 1 for the list of groups we received responses from).

Agenda Pack 84 of 170 Page 9 Major scheme proposals for Hertford, Hemel Hempstead, and St Albans (Abbey Line) resulted in a significant number (59%) of responses from residents of St Albans, Dacorum and East Herts.

Age of Respondents

0% 2%

11% 23% Under 18 18-24

18% 25-34 35-44 45-54

24% 55-64 65+ 22%

Nearly half of all survey responses were from the over 55’s. An absence of any responses from under 18 year olds, justifies the additional activity undertaken to engage with HCC Youth Connections service and the Youth Parliament and elicit some views via the Easy Read version of the survey from young people.

Agenda Pack 85 of 170 Page 10 5 SUMMARY OF SURVEY QUESTION RESPONSES

The consultation document laid out the challenges and opportunities that Hertfordshire will face over the next 35 years, a set of 9 objectives grouped into 3 key themes, and 4 principles which will guide the strategy in delivering the objectives.

Many of the existing LTP3 policies will remain but there are some areas of activity which will need to play a stronger role in future years, therefore the consultation document presented 6 new policy options. The draft LTP4 will need to include a number of new major projects for delivery over the short, medium and long term, therefore the consultation report presented a preferred package of 5 major schemes.

An electronic consultation questionnaire was compiled with specific survey questions to gauge views on all of the above. A broad summary of the consultation responses for each of these consultation questions can be found in the sections below.

5.1 Challenges & Opportunities

Survey Question: Are there any other challenges and opportunities we should take into account in our future plans?

• 63% of survey respondents answered yes to this question and suggested or identified other challenges and opportunities. • 18% did not feel there were any others, and 19% responded that they did not know.

Overall from the analysis of comments made in response to this question we have concluded that no additional high level challenges and opportunities have been suggested that don’t already feature in the Vision consultation report, or in the more detailed evidence base that this summarises.

Two of the broad strategic challenges the Vision identified was of ‘Existing transport deficiencies and a future network struggling to cope’ and ‘Unprecedented Housing Growth & Economic Development’, and many of the responses received are largely captured by these. Specific issues raised included:

• Congestion on key routes and in urban areas was a common issue with the most popular suggestions in response being some form of road capacity increase, as well as removal of blockages caused by on-street car parking and deliveries. • Unsustainable levels of growth proposed that should be resisted and inadequate infrastructure for this. Concern that growth is going in before necessary infrastructure. A view that transport infrastructure is already at capacity and growth cannot be accommodated. • Need high quality cycling infrastructure such as full segregated lanes, and tackling safety concerns. • Need to encourage more walking by making it safe and resolving conflicts with traffic (better crossing provision) and cyclists, having well maintained paths and footways, having greater levels of pedestrian priority/ pedestrianisation. • Better integration of modes such as between bus and rail, improved multimodal interchanges at bus and rail stations, and allowing bicycles on buses. Agenda Pack 86 of 170 Page 11 • Accessibility, in particular rural accessibility, and concerns with bus subsidy reductions, calls for funding to extend bus hours of operation, need for better bus frequencies and express buses, and the need to support community transport to fill gaps in network. • A large number of responses called for the future transport strategy to tackle the issue of bus fares, most of which were perceived by respondents to be too high to make the mode attractive. • A few responses also called for a challenge to be included on emissions from buses, with an opportunity to use electric or green technology fleets. • Rail service problems including overcrowded trains, inadequate car parking at certain rail stations, fare prices. • Need good transport links with nearby airports. • Maintenance of existing infrastructure and potholes. • Areas of poor air quality. • Traffic speeds and the need for more 20 mph zones. • East West movement difficulties, particularly by public transport.

The County Council’s Public Health Team’s view was that health could be more strongly referenced as a standalone challenge and opportunity, and also that it should be considered as a ‘driver of change’ given transports role in reducing obesity/active travel, and providing access to healthcare.

Essex County Council highlighted the opportunities presented by growth at Harlow and Stanstead with employment opportunities providing the chance for the county to be less reliant/focussed on London.

Hertsmere BC highlighted that their growth could be significantly higher than currently assumed in the Vision, and that the Vision must be flexible to accommodate unplanned growth, even in the period to 2031. The LTP may need to deal with the potential requirement for additional development in locations less conducive to sustainable modes of travel.

5.2 LTP Objectives and Principles

Survey Question: Do you agree with the LTP Objectives and Principles identified?

The percentage of survey respondents who agreed/did not support or did not know mirrored the percentages to the Challenges and Opportunities question.

• 63% of survey respondents agreed with the LTP Objectives and Principles presented. • 18% did not support them, with a further 19% responding that they did not know.

Whilst supportive of the objectives and principles a number of comments were concerned that perhaps they were not strong enough, and were fairly obvious statements to make and hard to refute.

Comments suggested that we need to better define what we mean by sustainable transport, and distinguish this from economic and environmental sustainability.

Agenda Pack 87 of 170 Page 12 It was felt that ‘Objectives could be more radical’, and give greater importance to sustainable travel and modal shift. Others felt the objectives and principles were not deliverable/ practical and did not reflect reality of car use in the county.

5.2.1 Suggestions for New Objectives

The following shows a number of suggested additional or alternative objectives provided by consultees in response to this consultation question, but most of these are considered to be elements of approaches to deliver the objectives that have already been identified and not new Objectives:

• Supporting delivery of technology solutions such as electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles. • Tackling congestion. • Reducing the need to travel. • Improving journey times. • Improving school travel. • Better travel planning. • Increasing/ improving walking and cycling. • Better access to leisure interests. • Addressing air quality and other forms of transport pollution.

These will be features of the LTP Strategy but are not considered ends/outcomes in themselves. For example, part of the approach to the objective to “Enhance journey reliability and network resilience across Hertfordshire” would be to minimise and/or better manage congestion.

The following includes further suggestions received for new objectives:

- “Maintaining and improving quality of life for residents” was a suggested objective. This is quite a vague statement, and it is felt that this is already reflected in the Transport Vision for Hertfordshire presented in the consultation document and supported in transport terms by the objectives that have been outlined.

- Demand management such as park and rides, congestion charging and work place parking levies were also mentioned and identified as warranting investigation.

- Another suggestion worthy of consideration was for an objective concerned with “Enhanced connectivity within major towns as they expand to accommodate additional housing and jobs”. Intra-urban connectivity is not an explicit Transport Vision objective, whereas interurban connectivity is. It will however be a feature of approaches to deliver most of the objectives. For example connectivity to other towns is aided by improved first mile/last mile connectivity within towns to public transport interchanges/hub, the quality and vitality of town centres is supported by intra-urban connectivity improvements, as are objectives to improve accessibility. The County Council therefore consider an additional intra-urban connectivity objective to be unnecessary.

Agenda Pack 88 of 170 Page 13 - Hertsmere BC suggested two additional objectives. One around the need to “support the creation of sustainable communities to meet future growth needs” and one to avoid disadvantaging other areas could be to “enhance connectivity between centres and improved links into this system from remote areas”. The role of transport to support the delivery of growth is accepted but felt to be adequately covered by the principle for “integration of land use and transport planning”. The LTP Strategy will expand on how it is supporting the delivery of growth in the county, and consider growth beyond that which is included in the current suite of Local Plans. With regards to connectivity to more remote areas, we would consider some of the accessibility objectives to adequately address this. The connectivity objectives under the Prosperity theme stem from evidence on the benefits to economic growth associated with agglomeration effects. These effects are less strong/obvious with respect to better connections between large towns and smaller towns/peripheral areas.

5.2.2 Comments on the Proposed Principles

The following points were made on the four proposed Principles:

- A concern was raised that the Cost Effectiveness Delivery & Maintenance principle sounds as though the focus on projects and schemes will be the cheapest option rather than those which will deliver the best value in the longer term. We do not agree with this assertion.

- East Herts DC suggested historic environments will likely require a higher quality approach than other less sensitive locations. We consider cost effective to be suitable wording, and the objective to “preserve the character and quality of the Hertfordshire Environment” highlights the need to consider and minimise any negative impact on historic settings.

- A valid point made regarding the principle to apply and adopt new technology, was that this should also encompass current technology. This is accepted and will be made clearer in the final strategy.

- Another suggestion was for the modal shift principle to include a “shift towards low emission vehicles would also be beneficial to health and the environment and all practicable measures to encourage this should be taken”. Whilst encouraging the take-up of low emission vehicles is accepted as a feature of the strategy to contribute to a number of objectives, its benefit is not considered as widespread as an overall mode shift and increase in active travel, given it would still contribute to congestion and potentially impact the quality of the urban realm, and hence does not warrant being made a principle of our strategy delivery.

5.3 Transport Vision Policy Options

For each of the five new LTP policy options presented, people were asked whether they supported them. Results are shown below, with comments received on each policy summarised in the following sections. All the proposals were supported by the majority of people responding to the survey. It should be noted that in the following sections summarising comments received, those people who didn’t support the options were more likely to comment, hence the critical tone.

Agenda Pack 89 of 170 Page 14 Policy Option Support 80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0% Support Don’t Support 20.0% Don’t Know 10.0%

0.0%

5.3.1 Transport User Hierarchy

Most of the comments received suggested minor refinements to the hierarchy, and the order of hierarchy presented. These included suggestions that:

• Buses/public transport should be at the top of the hierarchy or at least above cycling given more journeys are amenable to public transport. • Powered two wheelers inclusion on the hierarchy should be reconsidered given their environmental impact and poor safety record. • The hierarchy needs to incorporate driverless cars. • There should be optimisation of the use of non-polluting vehicles. • There should be recognition of car sharing in the hierarchy. • The needs of other groups including people with mobility issues, school travel and community transport.

There was some scepticism that it would be enforced/delivered in practice, and there was a valid point made that how it would work in practice requires more detail. Dacorum BC emphasised that this needed to step up from previous aspirational objectives. There was also uncertainty over whether it applied to new or existing infrastructure [For clarification it should apply to both].

There was some push back from car users, and that cars and cyclists don’t mix, and that cars are often essential for a weekly food shop. Agenda Pack 90 of 170 Page 15

Other respondents were more supportive and that being forced to use a car for local travel should be the exception rather than as now, ‘the rule’. One consultee noted that in Copenhagen this has led to a huge improvement to the urban environment and the level of obesity.

Another consultee pointed out that ‘there is too much silo making around schemes i.e. large major projects do not take the opportunity to improve sustainable modes’. The hierarchy would aim to address this.

Other comments included 20mph speed limits being introduced in urban areas and more done to encourage walking and cycling.

There was a warning from some respondents that if application of the hierarchy was to the detriment of car use access, improvements to alternative modes must be in place in advance, and that this must not result in making life difficult for people and/or them taking their business to other rival towns.

5.3.2 Step Change in Cycling

The following themes were evident in the response to the question on the proposed cycling policy:

• Good practice examples highlighted from elsewhere including Peterborough, Chelmsford, Nottingham, Oxford and Holland. • Calls for an increase in high quality segregated cycle lanes, and that tokenistic improvements will not be enough. • There was quite a strong call for more inter-urban cycling (linking urban areas) which is in slight contrast to the focus of cycling within the proposed future transport strategy, which focuses more on intra-urban cycling within the largest towns in the county. Also calls for a policy focus to be on smaller towns too. • Need to tackle safety fears caused by mixing with traffic, lack of cyclist priority at junctions. Also that, cyclists on pavements can be a danger to pedestrians. • Streetscape design, barriers and junctions resulting in stop-start conditions can put off cyclists. • Maintenance of cycle paths and roads – potholes, overgrown greenery, disrepair. • Lack of cycle parking, secure parking and/or shelters such as at workplaces, towns and rail stations. As well as lack of showers at workplaces. • Must promote the health benefits of cycling, and the need for publicity, training and behaviour change initiatives to change travel behaviour and cycling uptake. • Problem of cars parking on footways/cycleways and blocking cyclists. • Schools should encourage cycling, and bike hire schemes should be considered. • Electric bikes could play a role.

Some concerns raised said that this policy would worsen conditions for traffic and cause congestion. Also that cycling is a minority activity and should not be prioritised over general traffic flow. Also criticism this policy only benefits those able to cycle and not the elderly.

Agenda Pack 91 of 170 Page 16 A number of District/Borough Councils made a case for other smaller towns or groups of towns to be the subject of this policy (examples include Broxbourne, Berkhamsted, Tring, Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock). These should not be ruled out, but the policy focus on larger towns was intended to give some priority to towns where the infrastructure investment could be expected to deliver a greater return in terms of cycling use/mode shift. To achieve a step change in cycling in some areas it is important that limited resource is not spread too thinly, and that where it is invested there will be a good return on this investment. Other LTP policies will make it clear cycling improvements and promotion will be encouraged across the county, and that opportunities should be taken to improve provision (such as at new developments).

5.3.3 Shared Mobility

Whilst there was general support for the concept most of the comments received concerned scepticism of the contribution it could make, the barriers to it in the county, and possible incentives required to make it work. Factors limiting its contribution included:

• People are unwilling to compromise on their journey time, destination and share a vehicle. • Not practical in rural areas and potentially a lot of hassle. • Cycling use would need to significantly increase in the county to make bike share schemes work. • The car pool project in Maylands Avenue hasn’t been used.

Obstacles cited included:

• Shift patterns and complexity of travel behaviour to meet needs of family/children. • Personal security concerns, particularly for women. • Culturally people are less inclined to share their vehicle with strangers. • Insurance cover issues. • Lack of support from workplaces/employers. • Lack of incentive. • Lack of technology (e.g. smartphones) and use among some people such as elderly.

Suggested incentives and ways the County Council could support this initiative:

• Free/priority parking for car sharers if it can be enforced. • The Council run a registration scheme and DBS checks. • Tax/business rates incentive to local employers who encourage and monitor lift sharing. • Use of Workplace Parking Levy and planning system to support car share parking. • Require it to be a feature of travel plans and also supported by new development/ included in Local Plans and planning applications.

Agenda Pack 92 of 170 Page 17 Good examples referenced included the electric car share scheme at the University of Hertfordshire, and car clubs in Watford. Also suggestions it could work well at schools and train stations.

5.3.4 Enhanced Public Transport Connectivity through Bus Priority

Responses to this proposed policy included:

• Bus priority is not enough and more investment is needed in bus reliability, frequency and affordability to achieve increased patronage. • Bus lanes create congestion. Bus priority should be new infrastructure and not taken from other road users. • Ensuring bus services cross county boundaries/Local Authority areas to other regional centres was also highlighted as a challenge/opportunity. • A few responses centred on opportunities for ensuring buses provide a better all- round service such as comfy seats and Wi-Fi. Also that buses can help facilitate night time economy if they run later into the day, and should serve rail stations better. • Another suggestion for an opportunity within the future transport strategy is to utilise the Buses Bill to give the Council more power over operators, through increased use of Quality Contracts or Quality Partnerships. Linked with this were views that the council should exert more influence on service patterns, and fares. • Park and ride should be considered. • Taxis should be considered as public transport. Similarly that motorbikes and cycles should be allowed to use bus lanes as in London’s Red Routes. • Greener buses required. • Need to integrate smart ticketing with bus and rail operators. • Questioning the necessity for bus priority investment between towns already served by rail.

A number of respondents seemed to confuse the Bus Priority Network (which was based on the interurban routes which do not receive a subsidy) outlined in the consultation document with the entire bus network. Hence there were a number of suggested amendments or additions to the draft priority bus network map included in the consultation document. Many suggestions were based on anecdotal evidence and localised issues. A number of new routes/towns were put forward and linking key urban centres was identified as a priority for a good bus network. Priority within urban areas was highlighted as well as between towns. It was also suggested that all hospitals should be served.

5.3.5 Priority Traffic Management Network

The following themes were evident in comments on this policy proposal:

• Scepticism of the impact and benefit of traffic management technology investment – from current experience of existing VMS messages and its

Agenda Pack 93 of 170 Page 18 perceived lack of value, a feeling that current capabilities are insufficiently utilised/making a difference. • Concern at the risk associated with public sector IT investment/procurement projects – value for money, risk of redundant/superseded IT. • Suggested additions on the coverage of the draft network of routes, with other key A Roads identified and other routes thought to be used as (unofficial) motorway diversion routes. • More should be done to coordinate traffic lights and link with Highways England and other neighbouring Local Authorities. • Should just widen roads rather than use technology. • More investment should be used in reducing the number of people who drive rather than investing heavily in traffic management. • Focus should be on providing better information to people’s own devices (radio, mobile phones, sat navs etc.) rather than on VMS. • Intelligent technologies can have a detrimental effect or indirect effect through their usage on the historic environment, along with cumulative effects.

5.3.6 Growth &Transport Plans

The need for local transport strategies was broadly supported with the following themes evident in comments:

• Plans must integrate with other plans/be developed in partnership with other authorities – other county plans/strategies, District/Borough Local Plans, neighbourhood plans, adjacent authorities, public health team. • Plan development must include consultation and involvement by local groups and district, parish and town councils. • Clarity desired on areas that would be covered by a Growth and Transport Plan, and what would it mean for areas not covered. • Some concern that there are too many ‘plans’ and not enough/fast enough delivery. • Support for plans focussed on areas of growth where resources will be to deliver improvements. • Need to avoid repeat of Urban Transport Plans that were an unfunded wish list of schemes.

Agenda Pack 94 of 170 Page 19 5.4 Major Scheme Proposals

For each of five major scheme proposals outlined, people were asked whether they agreed or disagree in principle with the scheme being included in the new strategy. Results are shown below.

Overall the scheme proposals were well supported. The East Hemel Hempstead and Hertford schemes received a number of ‘neither support or don’t support’ and this is likely to be because their geographic impact would be less, resulting in fewer respondents having a strong opinion on them. The BRT proposal received the highest number of negative responses (20% did not support it), however 65% of respondents did support the scheme. Much of the negative response stemmed from resistance to converting the Abbey Line from rail to BRT. There were strong feelings expressed towards the Hertford bypass proposals both for and against. There was a lot of support for the scheme (as well as many non-committal answers) but also some significant concerns raised by those opposed to a largescale road scheme.

Similar to the policy options comments, those people who didn’t support the schemes were more likely to comment, hence the critical tone in the following summaries.

Agenda Pack 95 of 170 Page 20

Below is a summary of comments received on each proposal:

Sustainable Travel Towns

• More detail is required on what the proposal is and what new infrastructure is needed to make it work/changes to existing infrastructure. • Link Sustainable Travel Town measures to the amount of parking provided at new development. • Better facilities for sustainable modes are required in towns to make Sustainable Travel Town proposals work. • Alternative travel choices need to be in place first before parking restraints are considered. • Schemes will cost more than £5-10m to achieve – put more money into Sustainable Travel Town’s. • Why isn’t Bishop’s Stortford a Sustainable Travel Town? Also calls for other towns such as Letchworth Garden City, Baldock, Hertford, Ware, Royston, Welwyn GC, Hatfield, Harpenden as well as ‘other smaller urban areas’. • Do not take space away from cars.

Access Improvements to East Hemel Hempstead

• Will become very necessary if house building in this area occurs. • This should be paid for by developers. • Seems to be a short term solution. • Does not accord with the user hierarchy. • Needs supplementary sustainable modes – e.g. cycling lanes etc. • Hemel Hempstead should be better served by Public Transport. • The area has a number of designated heritage assets which could be affected.

Hertford bypass and Sustainable Travel Town

• Must be a priority, and there is too much traffic in Hertford. • Would improve quality of life for residents (noise, traffic etc.). • Would have significant public realm benefits. • Sustainable Travel Town at Hertford should not be conditional on a huge bypass scheme. • Money would be better spent elsewhere. • School traffic is the biggest problem in Hertford – the bypass won’t solve this. • Would damage countryside and town character. • Environmental impact huge – natural environment and historic. (There are a number of registered parks, gardens and scheduled monuments within and outside of Hertford). • More detail on routing needed to make proper assessment. • Reduce travel demand rather than cater for more. • Disproportionate cost for such a small town - spend elsewhere on bigger towns. Agenda Pack 96 of 170 Page 21

A414 Corridor Junction Capacity Upgrades

• London Colney junction should replicate Gallows Corner junction in Romford (i.e. A414 to be fully grade separated), Hamburger junction doesn’t appear to be an improvement. • Should reduce car usage to tackle capacity constraints. This contradicts other parts of the strategy stating we cannot build our way out of trouble and modal shift aims. Put money into sustainable modes. • Scheme will encourage more people to drive. • Must be Public Transport improvements first, or alongside these. • Must be parallel sustainable travel routes to these upgrades. • Designs must consider natural and historic and built environment (there are a number of designated heritage assets along the proposed route). • A414 is a barrier to active modes – needs addressing especially in terms of crossing provision.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) The concept of a quality east west public transport system broadly along the A414 corridor seemed well supported. There were some comments that additional destinations should be served, particularly east of Hertford, and that we should consider a rail solution rather than bus. A summary of key points include:

• Other destinations which were suggested to be served by the scheme included Berkhamsted, Tring, Harpenden, Harlow, Ware, Bishop’s Stortford, Welwyn Garden City. • Explore Light Rail instead. • Herts Orbital Transit idea ( http://www.connectedcities.co.uk/case- studies/hertfordshire/hot ). • BRT should be a priority and brought forward as soon as possible. • Interchanges need to be good. • BRT scheme should permit bikes to be carried. • Would cause worsening congestion if it replaces capacity for cars. • Should be zero emission vehicles. • There are a number of designated heritage assets along the proposed route which could be affected.

Given the scale of response from people with an interest in the Abbey Line, we have included a copy of the letter we received 539 copies of in Appendix 3. From this and other comments received the main concerns with the proposal to replace the Abbey Line rail service with bus can be summarised as:

• Buses not as favourable/attractive as trains, not as comfortable, and perceived as inferior, so likely to be less used. • BRT more noisy than trains.

Agenda Pack 97 of 170 Page 22 • BRT environmentally more damaging, with regard to engine emissions and tyre particle matter, as well as construction requirement for significant quantities of concrete. • Other BRT schemes were cited as suffering from delivery problems, as well as service and quality failings. • Trains are safer and more reliable. • Loss of network benefits, and the route being seen as a feeder into the wider rail network. Trains can offer freight options. • More can be done to turn the Abbey Line into a better commercial offering, including a passing loop to improve service frequencies, and use of new rolling stock and rail technology. This can be delivered at lower cost than the BRT conversion. • Unrecorded ticketless travel is undermining business case for rail improvements. • The east-west link between St Albans Abbey and St Albans City needs careful consideration – it needs to be faster than changing in London when you consider linking to mainline services.

Other Scheme ideas A number of scheme ideas were put forward in the general comments question. These are summarised below:

• Bypass scheme for Hitchin and road links from North Herts and Stevenage to Luton. • A1(M) improvements (specifically around Stevenage). • M1 and M25 improvements. • Safe crossings over the A505 for pedestrians and cyclists to link Royston with the A10 cycle path to Cambridge. • Junction improvement for Radlett rail freight interchange. • Jack Oldings junction improvements. • General call for a largescale pedestrian/cycle major scheme (non-specific). • Town centre improvements in numerous locations. • Improvements to a number of pedestrian and cycle facilities in numerous Herts towns.

5.5 Delivering the Strategy and Achieving Modal Shift

At the end of the Transport Vision consultation material people were asked the following:

‘Limiting future levels of traffic growth and improving walking, cycling and public transport provision will be very hard to achieve without policies which encourage less car use and help to enhance provision of and investment in more sustainable modes. What policies should Hertfordshire consider adopting to achieve this? (please explain your response)’

Recognising that improvements in walking, cycling and public transport provision alone are unlikely to be enough to encourage people with a viable alternative out of

Agenda Pack 98 of 170 Page 23 their cars, this question was seeking policy suggestions that encouraged drivers to consider their travel options and ideally also raise funding to invest in better travel options. Unfortunately the bulk of responses received suggested numerous sustainable travel improvements as the solution, with no means provided on how this could be funded or encourage car users to reassess their travel options. Suggestions that did included the following methods:

Car Parking Fewer or more expensive car parking, particularly in town centres to encourage less car use in urban areas. There was also a common theme to implement more park and rides schemes. Whilst the reduction of parking was generally considered better, this was not the case for parking at train stations, with several responses indicating better and more provision of car parking at train stations will increase the use of trains as a sustainable mode as it will encourage people not to use a car for longer distances.

Street Parking More needs to be done to discourage second car ownership such as by limiting parking permits to one per household or charging more of a premium for permits for additional vehicles. A wider issue was concerning the safety for pedestrians trying to traverse pavements which are blocked by parked cars.

Pedestrianised Town Centres Some respondents believed that more should be done to tackle traffic in urban areas especially town centres where certain areas should be pedestrianised and made more appealing to visit.

Road Charging/levies, Car taxes Several comments suggested that Hertfordshire should implement road user charging as a way of discouraging car use and raise capital for sustainable travel modes for example with congestion charging areas. Other suggestions for car user charging included a transport Tax such as for owning multiple cars, toll roads, penalties for using larger and less efficient vehicles and lobbying to central Government to raise fuel duty.

Workplace Parking Levy Recognising the contribution of car based commuting and the problems associated with providing work place parking, there were a number of suggestions for a work place parking levy scheme particularly for major employers who supply large numbers of parking spaces with the proceeds to be reinvested in public transport.

A number of other suggestions/issues were also raised these included:

- Some suggestions for car free weekends and car free towns, as well as suggestion to increase council tax to spend on public transport.

- A minority of responses were opposed to the question, and that investment in non-car modes is not worthwhile and that the focus should be on catering for car use given alternatives are not realistic or practical, and car use is essential in Hertfordshire. Also that elderly people and those with mobility issues rely on car use, and technology will soon make car use more efficient and sustainable.

Agenda Pack 99 of 170 Page 24 - Among key stakeholder responses there were some districts where there is an apparent openness to entertain demand management approaches that could encompass greater controls on parking supply, cost and workplace parking levies. Stevenage, Broxbourne, Welwyn Hatfield, Dacorum, Hertsmere were open to varying extents. This was also supported by the LEP and Public Health. The LEP agree that some form of demand management is required to achieve a change in travel behaviour and providing additional resources to invest in transport is important. The LEP also believe that congestion charging is the only realistic option long term as part of a national scheme. In the short to medium term they believe that parking restraints should be considered in key urban areas and that that a work place parking levy could be considered to fund other transport schemes.

5.6 Other General Comments

A number of other general comments were made in the final online survey question, and these have been summarised below:

Schools A popular response related to the issues caused by school traffic, with suggestions that changes in educational and transport policy could reduce the need of parents taking their children to school by private car. There were also suggestions of free public transport travel for school children like in London, to encourage bus use and also, a change in school allocation policies to encourage walking to schools. A change in school timings for a later start time was also suggested so not to cross over with general peak commuting times. To alleviate school run congestion it was suggested that there be more school minibuses, and improvements to the schedule and routing of bus services.

Travel plans Some responses said more should be done to develop travel plans, particularly for schools and also more stringent business travel planning. Given travel conditions are better during holidays, more should be done on school traffic and workplace traffic focussed on more flexible hours of operation/working.

Land Use Planning Comments mentioned better land use planning to ensure developments are planned with sustainable transport options as a priority and in areas where transport can cope. Developers should work jointly with local authorities, ensuring confidence in transport assessments and plans. In terms of policy, it was suggested that developers be required to deliver sustainable travel options to the nearest town for new developments. See Connected Cities - www.connectedcities.co.uk/vision-2050/travel

Freight A number of freight issues were raised. It was felt that a change of approach for freight and deliveries was needed with restricted access and better control of their road use. Freight/LGVs/HGVs were not covered enough in the consultation draft, and these types of vehicles cause significant congestion. One suggestion included limiting deliveries in key areas before 8am and after 6pm.

Safety

Agenda Pack 100 of 170 Page 25 A number of suggestions were made with regards to safety and encouraging more cycling: - Reducing speed limits, to make roads more equal in relation to speeds for cars and cyclists, encouraging a safer environment for cycling. - More and visible police traffic law enforcement for offending drivers particularly in urban areas, promoting safer driving which could lead to more people being encouraged to cycle.

Maintenance General comments with regards to maintenance are summarised below:

• Road conditions should be better maintained. • Ensure bikes are considered in maintenance programmes for roads. • Roadside verges should be better maintained.

Air Quality General comments with regards to Air Quality are summarised below:

• Mentions decreasing pollution but doesn’t give details on how technology and LEV’s can be promoted to help this. • None of major schemes have an air quality focus. • Quality of life of residents not considered. • Public health from air quality should be a priority.

Accessibility General comments with regards to accessibility are summarised below:

• Must consider less able groups (elderly, young, disabled, rural etc.). • Access to small towns and villages as important as to big towns. • Access to educational facilities and schools the key issue for accessibility in LTP4.

Behavioural Change General comments with regards to behavioural change in LTP4 are summarised below:

• Won’t achieve anything without behavioural change. • Requirement to ‘nudge’ people towards behavioural change. • Lots of small changes can be helpful. • Incentivise behavioural change. • Technology will help behavioural change.

One final suggestion was the use of technology to enable citizen enforcement e.g. for activities such as illegal parking.

Agenda Pack 101 of 170 Page 26 6 YOUNG PEOPLE FEEDBACK

An easy-read version of the Transport Vision Consultation draft was developed primarily for those with learning difficulties, who would like to comment on the Transport Vision consultation. This easy-read document was also sent out to a number of youth groups/organisations, as the Youth Connections Service advised that young people would be more likely to respond to this simplified version of the consultation material.

In total, 29 individual responses were received from young people (from 3 districts: Welwyn Hatfield/Watford/Three Rivers). The following shows a summary of the responses to the consultation questions. (It should be noted that any comparisons made below with the main online consultation survey, should be considered with caution as the sample size for young people is considerably smaller.)

Any Other Challenges/Opportunities The comments concentrated on two main issues: • Cost/reliability/ease of use of public transport. • More cycle lanes are needed.

Do you agree with the Objectives/Principles? A large majority (79%) agreed with the objectives presented in the easy-read version.

Support for 6 Policy Proposals The highest percentage support from young people was for the Bus Connectivity policy proposal, 89% of the 29 young people who responded thought buses were very important, compared to only 73% of consultees in the main online consultation.

Young people also showed a greater support for the Transport User Hierarchy (76%), Traffic Management (69%) and Growth and Transport Plans (82%) proposed new policies, compared to the main online consultation.

Shared mobility was the least favoured policy proposal with only 55% of young people supporting this policy.

Support for Major Projects Support for the Major Projects was broadly similar across the 5 projects (on average around 72%). Young people appeared to show a greater support for the ‘Access Improvements to East Hemel Hempstead’ scheme, and the ‘Hertford Bypass’ scheme compared to the main online consultation.

Other Comments There were 2 recurring themes under this question: • Better technology on public transport i.e. chargers, TV, music • Free travel cards for young people i.e. to school

Agenda Pack 102 of 170 Page 27 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Three impact assessments were undertaken to particularly look at the impacts of the new Objectives and Principles, the 6 new policy areas and the 5 proposed major projects.

Strategic Environmental Assessment This statutory assessment (EU Directive 2001/42/EC) is being undertaken on the Transport Vision 2050 to see if its delivery is likely to have a significant effect upon the environment. Previous SEA assessments on the development of the Transport Vision 2050 have assessed the Short and Medium Term Transport Packages (option development) which was consulted upon in Autumn 2015.

A further SEA Interim Assessment was carried out as a result of the 6 new policy options and 5 major projects proposed within in the Autumn 2016 Transport Vision consultation document. This Interim Assessment was included with the other Transport Vision Consultation material that was put on the County Council’s website.

Consultees were asked to concentrate any comments around the following questions: • Are there any environmental, social or economic issues (positive or negative) that have not been considered in the assessments of the Policies or Major Schemes? • Are there any comments in the assessment tables that you disagree with? • Do you have any comments on the recommendations made in the assessment tables in Appendices 1 - 11?

Three Environmental Bodies (Environment Agency, Historic England, and Natural England) must be contacted for any SEA consultation. Comments were only received from Historic England specifically on the impacts of the policy options and the major project proposals. No comments were received on the content of the SEA Interim Assessment.

Equalities Impact Assessment The Equality Act 2010 requires the County Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the following protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The Transport Vision 2050 process has been the subject of an ongoing equalities impact assessment. An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) was undertaken on the Transport Vision Consultation Draft to assess the impacts of the new policy options and the proposed major projects on the protected characteristics listed above.

This EqIA identified that an easy-read version of the consultation material should be produced for those less able to read long technical documents (responses to this easy- read document can be found in Section 6).

The Equalities Impact Assessment was included with the other Transport Vision Consultation material that was put on the County Council’s website in Autumn 2016.

Only one comment was received on the content of this EqIA, from Broxbourne Borough Council, which stated that neither the Transport Vision or the EqIA had addressed levels of childhood obesity in the county. Page three of the EqIA does refer to high levels of obesity – ‘ IMD mapping shows where the most vulnerable groups are likely to be, this coincides largely with where there are higher than Agenda Pack 103 of 170 Page 28 average obesity levels in children’. The County Council is aware of above average levels of childhood obesity particularly in certain areas including Waltham Cross. This issue is identified in the current Active Travel Strategy and there have been efforts by Public Health to target projects to these areas. Habitats Regulation Assessment The initial Habitats Regulation Assessment screening was undertaken by LUC (a consultancy that specialises in impact assessments) back in 2015 on the emerging Transport Vision work to identify any potential effects on one or more of the designated European ‘Natura 2000’ sites, including Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

The County Council in 2016 commissioned LUC to add a further chapter to this screening report to determine the impacts of this next stage of Transport Vision development, and assess the impacts of the new set of objectives and principles, the policy options and the major projects.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment was included with the other Transport Vision Consultation material that was put on the County Council’s website in Autumn 2016. No comments were received on this updated HRA Screening Report.

Agenda Pack 104 of 170 Page 29 APPENDIX 1 – CONSULTATION GROUP RESPONDENTS AND KEY STAKEHOLDER RESPONDENTS

Online Survey Group Responses APTU - Association of Public Transport Users Bishop's Stortford Climate Group BMR Motorcycles LTD ConnectedCities (www.ConnectedCities.co.uk) Cyber-Duck Electric Blue Ltd Grand Union Investments Ltd Herts and Middx Wildlife Trust Hertfordshire Gardens Trust Hitchin Forum North Herts Bus User Group - NHBUG Potters Bar and St. Albans Transport (bus) User Group Ramblers Association St Albans Cycle Campaign (STACC) The Canal & River Trust The Harpenden Society [Transport Group] Tring Bus Users Group Vectos Transport Planning on behalf of Places for People Vectos Transport Planning WelHat Cycling Abbots Langley Parish Council Aldenham Parish Council Ashwell Parish Council Buntingford Town Council Datchworth Parish Council Essendon Parish Council London Colney Parish Council Redbourn Parish Council Sandridge Parish Council Stanstead Abbotts Parish Council Ware Town Council Watford Rural Parish Council Woolmer Green Parish Council Matthews Haulage Ltd Cassiobury Residents' Association, Watford Old Hatfield Residents' Association Mill Hill Residents Association The Aboyne Residents Association, St Albans Pitstone Parish Council in Buckinghamshire North Hertfordshire District Council - Env. Protection and Housing Team

Agenda Pack 105 of 170 Page 30 Written Group Responses Key Stakeholder Responses Aston Parish Council Herts LEP Colney Heath PC Broxbourne BC Hertford Town Council Dacorum BC London Colney Parish Council East Herts DC Royston Town Council Hertsmere BC St Stephen PC North Herts DC Wymondley Parish Council St Albans DC Abbey Line Community Rail Stevenage BC Partnership Aboyne Residents Association Watford BC A Safer A507 Welwyn Hatfield DC CycleHerts HCC Public Health Dacorum Environment forum Mark Prisk MP Elstree and Borehamwood Residents Association Highways England London Luton Airport Operation Ltd & Gascoyne Cecil Estates London Luton Airport Ltd Herts WithOut Waste Buckinghamshire CC Hitchin Rail Users Group Essex CC JMP on behalf of CEG (Commercial Luton Borough Council Estates Group) NLP on behalf of CEG (Commercial Historic England Estates Group) Potters Bar and St Albans Transport Users Group Ptamigan Ware Ltd Rail Future St Albans Civic Society Transition Hertford

Agenda Pack 106 of 170 Page 31 APPENDIX 2 – SUMMARY OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS FULL RESPONSES

Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership

• Support the longer term outlook of the Vision, the recognition of constrained future transport investment, the Transport User Hierarchy principle, the schemes proposed although there should be a greater range than the limited number shown, the focus on the A414 corridor and the LRT/BRT potential. • Sustainable Travel Towns proposal welcome, but a comparison to Oxford which demonstrates the kind of modes shares to aspire to, suggests more focus required in the vision on intra-urban bus provision and stronger demand management . • Agree that without some form of demand management changes in travel behaviour will be very hard to achieve, and its role in providing additional resource is important. Congestion pricing is only likely to be a realistic option for the longer term as part of a national scheme. In the short to medium term we believe that parking restraint should be considered in key urban areas and that a workplace parking levy could be considered as a means to funding other transport schemes. • Little consideration of issues and opportunities in the 15-20 years beyond the known land use planning period, and misses an opportunity to guide longer- term land use options , particularly given its 2050 Vision timeframe. New settlement potential challenges/ opportunities should be explored. • Vision is too focussed on existing behaviour/issues potentially leading to ‘more of the same’, and not enough explicit consideration of a range of medium/long term factors such as changes in behaviour, smart technology and need to tackle climate change. • Lifestyle changes of younger people highlighted and evidence of lower levels of car ownership, shared mobility and use of technology. • Tensions identified between proposals : sustainable travel towns and investment in better interurban traffic movement, a focus on inter-urban bus than intra-urban, LRT/BRT proposals along same corridor as road proposals, • Need for LRT/BRT to scheme to consider links beyond the county to Harlow and Stansted (including Bishops Stortford). • More explicit linkages desired between vision and the SEP priorities (1.Science, technology and Creative Industries. 2. External connections. 3. Reinvigorating our places. 4. Foundations for Growth).) • Insufficient regard to east west movements Luton-Stevenage-Cambridge . Also to East-West Rail and Oxford-Cambridge Expressway opportunities. • More clarity desired on A10 role which is recognised as not having the same status as other north-south corridors in the county. • Vision could be clearer on overall funding requirements over the next 15 years and what additional local funding mechanisms may be required (car parking, user charging and workplace parking levies referred to). How would major scheme funding decision be prioritised if funding was limited? • Vision should be more explicit on future changes (land use changes, transport supply/technology including autonomous vehicles and demand responsive passenger transport, travel behaviour, infrastructure funding, climate change) to travel behaviour and need and explain how proposals could deal with these or adapt/flex to them.

Agenda Pack 107 of 170 Page 32 HCC Public Health

• Would like to see stronger references to health in the Vision, Challenges and Opportunities. • Would like more detail on how Transport User Hierarchy and Step Change in Cycling policies will be implemented and whether apply to new development only or retrospectively to existing places/infrastructure. • Shared mobility to be accessible to all to support Vision’s emphasis on inclusivity. • Concern that Bus Priorities alone will be insufficient to meet accessibility and inclusivity aims, and policy only focussed on certain parts of the county. Purpose of this policy needs to be clearer. • Joint work with public health team urged on Growth and Transport Plan development. • Other towns should be considered for Sustainable Travel Town status (Welwyn/Hatfield, Letchworth/Baldock/Hitchin). • East Hemel Hempstead Access scheme does not seem to recognise air quality issue here. • Workplace Parking Levy, parking restraint in some town centres and behavioural change initiatives should all be included in the strategy. • Electric vehicle policy needed, with role of planning authorities outlined. • LTP should also encourage adoption of air quality planning guidance by Local Planning Authorities. • More attention needed on air quality and transports large contribution to this. • Limited coverage of north and eastern parts of the county. Bishops Stortford not a Sustainable Travel Town, and along with Hertford not a Primary Urban Centre. Priority Bus Network does not serve Bishops Stortford, Royston and Buntingford. • No proposals for rural accessibility despite an acknowledged challenge.

Highways England (provided via the online survey)

• Highway network technology advances which could be included under this driver of change could include smart parking sensors, ITS upgrades, smart road material that ingest pollutants, and use of drones for structures inspections are a few examples of the technologies that will increase efficiency of highway network. • Given Vision reliance on achieving modal shift it would be useful to establish what levels of modal shift are needed, how these will be implemented and most importantly what monitoring structure will be put in place to ensure this important part of the strategy is being achieved. • Supportive of cycling step change policy but consider it equally important to support/ promote cycling generally (in rural areas, leisure cycling). • HE would like to investigate other strategic cycle crossings of the Strategic Road Network and how we can improve user choices through more convenient interchange between modes such as park and ride and park and cycle facilities. • HE are keen to continue working with HCC and the LEP to find a solution to the growth at East Hemel Hempstead . • Best policy to achieve modal shift in future would be for HCC to publicly lead by example, by implementing a Travel Plan that gets staff, councillors, visitors and suppliers to choose sustainable travel options where the journey is suitable. • Current and likely future transport improvements figure should include ‘J21a improvements (for Radlett Strategic Rail Freight Interchange).

Agenda Pack 108 of 170 Page 33 • Figure 3 - Current transport network problems and issues, should include ‘M1 congestion at Junction 5’.

London Luton Airport Operations Limited (Terence O Rourke Ltd) London Luton Airport Ltd (Atkins on behalf of the company).

• Highlighted Luton Airport’s (LLA) contribution to local economy and local accessibility/connectivity. Planning approval to take operating capacity up to 18mppa as early as 2020 referenced, as well as 2015 Oxford Economic report finding that airport contributes £732m to local economy and sustains 16,000 jobs. • LLA would like to see stronger focus on East-West connectivity . Given coverage to 2050 Vision should look to connect M1 to the A1m in the vicinity of Stevenage via Luton Airport. New access road being built to serve Century Park via New Airport Way whilst intended to serve this development, could present an opportunity in this respect and should be explored. We would also encourage HCC to consider how east-west rail links might be improved. • Notwithstanding recent decision on Heathrow third runway that 2003 Aviation in SE England White Paper identified Luton as having potential to serve 30 mppa. Should this come about at any time in the future East-West connectivity improvements will become a critical consideration. • LLAL and LLAOL lobbying for additional Midland Mainline trains to stop at Luton parkway will have advantages for Hertfordshire residents and businesses, increasing connectivity to the midlands without needing to go into London. In longer term LLAL would want to work with HCC on broader issues such as capacity for train services and on improving quality and reliability of the offer. • LLA transit system from the Airport parkway station aims to increase passenger rail mode share from 19% to over 30% by 2031. • Vision needs more reference to Luton Airports growth, and needs to build on our Surface Access Strategy (currently being updated) to enhance PT connectivity to the airport, particularly from key conurbations and transport hubs in Hertfordshire and beyond. • Some concern that user hierarchy could worsen traffic congestion on key roads to LLA through reduced investment. Seek reassurance that LTP policy impact will be regularly monitored so they can be adjusted if necessary. • Improved bus connectivity between towns broadly supported but feel improved bus service frequencies is likely to be as important if not more in encouraging increase PT use. Again, opportunity to build on LLA surface access strategy, in improving PT access to airport and for local communities along key corridors. • Priority Traffic Management Network broadly supported but request key road links to LLA are given appropriate priority for investment.

Mark Prisk MP

• Having been approached by the Bishop’s Stortford Climate Group and other local representatives I would like to support inclusion of Bishop’s Stortford as a Sustainable Travel Town.

Broxbourne Borough Council

• Draft Transport Vision 2050 fails to support Broxbourne in its efforts to maximise economic prosperity through preparation of a transport strategy, nor does it help with the delivery of the County Council’s own strategic interests. Would like recognition of Broxbourne BCs commitment to a multi-modal approach Agenda Pack 109 of 170 Page 34 to address with tangible support to address issues– increasing travel demand; increasing congestion; north-south movements; east-west severance; and four tracking the West Anglia Mainline as a precursor to CR2. • An integrated approach to all modes is not clear from the Vision. • The high, and increasing, level of transport demand along the north/south corridors is not in any way addressed within the Vision document (i.e. A10, 4 tracking and Crossrail 2). • The urban areas within the Borough of Broxbourne together have significant potential to be considered a single ‘ sustainable travel town’ , and justification given for this. • Broxbourne Council’s draft Walking and Cycling Strategy identifies a network of cycle corridors across the Borough, linking residential areas with major traffic generators. This will require “a significant increase in current funding levels for cycling” as stated by Vision. • Restrictions on car use are more effective in achieving modal shift than the provision of improved alternatives. Car parking should be given a full section within the 2050 Vision, and LTP needs to establish a vision and best practice that can be taken forward by local planning authorities in accordance with their local circumstances. • Little reference in the Vision to improving the cost competiveness of non-car transport modes , an issue identified in Hertfordshire County Council’s Rail Strategy and by the Intalink Steering Group. • More support and content needed on rail schemes within the county as this will help promoters in their efforts to access funding from a variety of sources. Challenges and opportunities from scheme such as Crossrail 2 and West Anglia Mainline must be outlined. • Stansted express trains do not stop at Broxbourne. Would like support for a stop in the Vision, as well as a commitment to joint working towards a greater level of improvements to the line. • There is also no mention of the Southbury Loop rail line - Support in the Vision for improvements to the line - such as an increase in train frequency, and a new rail halt at the Park Plaza site . • Support the bus priority network but it is quite limited in its extent . Broxbourne, through its forthcoming transport strategy, aspires to have bus priority along an east-west axis. Absence of a strategic approach to the multiplicity of bus services operating in the County is a concern. • Extend the Bus Rapid Transit Network (Scheme MS5) to Broxbourne. • Need greater emphasis on vision for A10 , its relationship with the A414 and reassurance funding will be available for improvements given the growth planned here where there is existing congestion. • Although there is mention of driverless cars (page 20), there is little consideration given to how new technologies could change the use of road space over the coming decades. • The urban area of Broxbourne should be treated as a whole, and prioritised as a focus for a future Growth and Transport Plan , linked to Sustainable Travel Town initiatives. • Broxbourne has the highest levels of childhood obesity in Hertfordshire. It is unfortunate that the EqIA (and therefore the Transport Vision document) does not address this in any way.

Agenda Pack 110 of 170 Page 35 Dacorum Borough Council

• Should be greater recognition of role of A41 and congestion issues on it now and in future. • Opportunities for concentrating/intensifying growth at rail stations (Hemel and Tring cited) in the county should be acknowledged. • Clarity desired on what are the international gateways and regional centres outside the county in delivering better connectivity, and why Tring and Berkhamsted are not considered Primary Urban Centres, and also benefit from the cycling step change policy, and Berkhamsted as a Sustainable Travel Town. • Clarity desired on the cost benefit of the outlined approach for greater investment in bus and sustainable modes compared to an approach catering for car use. • User Hierarchy supported but would stress this needs to ‘step up’ from previous aspirational (LTP) objectives. Does it apply to new or existing infrastructure - if so would it for example reallocate road space from cars to other modes? • Development of towns and villages to sustain more local facilities to reduce need to travel, in partnership with HCC, seen by the district as fundamental. • Support bus priority policy, and could see value in application in Hemel Hempstead between station, town and Maylands, coupled with intermodal interchange at Maylands/M1 for coach services, rapid shuttle buses and bike hire. Noted such links to/from Maylands and Luton Airport do not feature on priority bus network map presented. Intermodal interchange with bus/coach Aylesbury-Watford near J20 M25 also suggested. • Emphasis and improvements to intra-urban bus services suggested. • Clarity desired on how SW Herts Growth and Transport Plan considers cross border issues (e.g. Aylesbury and Chesham) and think it should include this. • Parking controls and standards should be considered for demand management .

East Hertfordshire District Council

• Little coverage of rural issues and potential access solutions, whether by community transport schemes, hub-and-spoke principles, or other initiatives. • ‘Cost Effective Delivery & Maintenance’ principle should recognise the fact that that historic environments are likely require a higher quality approach than other less sensitive locations. • In lessening commuter traffic priority (i.e. in User Hierarchy) HCC should be mindful that alternative sustainable travel options must be in place in order to achieve modal switch, in particular for rural commuters. • Step Change in Cycling policy should include larger market towns to be considered. • ‘Possible Priority Bus Network’ illustrated should be extended to cover routes along the A10/A120 from Hertford to Bishop’s Stortford/Stansted Airport. • Priority Traffic Management Network: Fig. 8 which illustrates a possible Traffic Management Network, should be amended to show where Highways England Diversion Routes overlap the Primary Distributor Network. • Growth and Transport Plans : a suitable mechanism should also be introduced alongside this policy to ensure that sustainable transport opportunities and connectivity are improved in rural areas. • Sustainable Travel Towns : Concern that implementation of such initiatives will be limited to the largest conurbations in the county. Should include flexibility to allow for potential roll-out to further suitable settlements, as appropriate.

Agenda Pack 111 of 170 Page 36 • Hertford Bypass and Sustainable Travel Town : encourages early implementation, every effort should be made to ensure that the environmental cost of its provision is minimised, irrespective of whether this would result in a more expensive scheme. • A414 future corridor improvements’ should be amended to illustrate both the need for junction improvements at the Amwell roundabout and the likely need for a Harlow northern link road from the A414 to the yet to be constructed new junction 7a on the M11 to the north of Harlow. • BRT should be extended beyond Hertford to link via the A10 and A120 to include both Bishop’s Stortford and Stansted Airport. Should also be extended to include route between Hertford and Gilston Area/Harlow. • East Herts Council strongly urges HCC to also make provision for a bypass for Standon/Puckeridge. • Demand Management / ‘Stick’ approaches cannot be seen as a ‘one size fits all’ approach across the county. A flexible approach should therefore be adopted in respect of any measures proposed, with greater potential in larger towns. • Overall lack of an effective transport strategy for East Herts to support the necessary economic growth and housing development required in the A10/M11 corridor which responds to its dispersed settlement pattern. • Omission of long term A602 solution which includes mitigation of conditions at Hooks Cross. Also absence of measures at Buntingford to facilitate growth. • Recognition required of future impact that Stansted Airport has on Hertfordshire’s transport infrastructure and should plan to accommodate for significantly increased related traffic movements as part of the overall strategy. As well as capitalise on economic potential. • HCC urged to consider more creative solutions in the longer term to reduce private vehicular movements and that such considerations could potentially include such initiatives as a north-south rail or guided bus link for settlements in the northeast of the county (e.g. Buntingford, Standon/Puckeridge etc.) that could link to previously used infrastructure e.g. by partly utilising previous track- beds along lines discontinued by the Beeching cuts, etc.

Hertsmere Borough Council

• Disappointment that a “dynamic, integrated strategy with a clear delivery plan” does not flow from the challenges and objectives outlined, with limited content likely to address issues local to Hertsmere (congestion hotspots, partnership working with HE and NR, integration of modes at existing transport interchanges). Delivery and funding of schemes (role of CIL and S106) lacking. • Caution urged on assuming a growth pattern even in the medium term of reinforced settlement pattern and urban extensions, given housing and commercial need is likely to be higher than currently planned, growth demand (as in Hertsmere) may be outside LEP growth areas, and there is a case for new settlements. How will strategy adapt to growth uncertainties ? • An objective to “support the creation of sustainable communities to meet future growth needs” should be considered. • Poor image on public transport in the county should be acknowledged as effects current usage and mode shift aims. • Enhanced connectivity between Primary Urban Centres supported but concern this could be to the detriment of other areas, and not fit future growth patterns.

Agenda Pack 112 of 170 Page 37 • Where application of user hierarchy could negatively impact on car users in towns, adequate/improved sustainable mode provision must be in place before or in tandem with such changes. • Aims for a step change in cycling , with associated improvements in provision and support, should apply beyond large urban areas. Developer contributions can support provision. Facilities for recreational cycling important too. • Guidance would be welcomed on what should be sought via Local Plan and Development Management process regarding Cycling provision, Shared Mobility support and car clubs, electric car charge points. • Concern at public transport connectivity being focussed in links between large towns. Should be more support for better linking other settlements less well served currently into existing interchanges. Would like a commitment to improve reliability and connectivity/ integration of bus services as soon as possible. • Have low emission zones been considered? • Clarity desired on how Growth and Transport plans will integrate with development of policies and allocations in Local Plans. • Concern at no major schemes benefitting Hertsmere, and lack of consideration of impact of Strategic Rail Freight Interchange at Radlett, greater clarity desired on how major scheme package was arrived at, delivery/implementation mechanisms. • Suggested smaller towns are included in sustainable travel towns project too. • Demand management and mode shift policies such as congestion and road charging, smart bus lanes and park and ride should be investigated.

North Hertfordshire District Council

• Fails to address or accommodate the housing growth in “North Hertfordshire’s Proposed submission Local Plan”. Ignores the impact of the districts growth and that of its surrounding neighbours, i.e. particularly growth within Central Bedfordshire and Luton and the likely impact on local transport networks running east to west from Luton through Hitchin to Stevenage, notably the A505 and A602 corridor. • The LEP / SEP identify both the A10/M11 and A1 (M ) as key growth areas/ corridors. However there appears to be little focus on the challenges that this corridor will face. • Greater focus needed on combined population of the contiguous towns of Hitchin, Letchworth, and Baldock and the considerable flows between Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin and Stevenage and the pressure on road network at these locations. • The 2011 Census average distance travelled to work shows that North Herts Residents travel the furthest (12.1 miles to work). Therefore these commuting patterns show there is a need for a rethink travel initiatives within the district as well as cross boundary movements into and from neighbouring authorities. • Recognition needs to be made to working in partnership with adjoining boroughs/districts in terms of addressing increasing growth pressures and associated transport impacts across boundaries. • Some reference to the inclusion of improving rural accessibility to local centres as one of the objectives. • Transport User Hierarchy Policy should clearly evidence, the reasoning behind the logic of mode shift as forecasts show that traffic is set to increase. • Greater emphasis in the Step Change in Cycling policy for the more urban/rural districts such as North Hertfordshire, including cycle hire. Agenda Pack 113 of 170 Page 38 • Public Transport Connectivity policy should take into account new bus routes and priority bus network with adjoining authorities, Fig 7 is inward looking. Any policy should include a bus priority network/ routes in Royston. • Priority Traffic Management Network does not recognise current east/west congestion issues through Hitchin from Luton to Stevenage, as indicated in Fig 3 under challenges, and this route should be included. Noted that south-western Hitchin A602 / A505 bypass , which was included on the long-listed options, is not being pursued, and should be reconsidered. • Great concern at the apparent lack of a policy in considering growth beyond the next 15 years . At the strategic level there are currently no policies or transport schemes that address current or future levels of population and housing growth. major schemes could be critical to unlocking new directions of growth and or new settlement options in the north of the County were schemes such as the A120 continuation to Stevenage, A507 Buntingford –Baldock upgrade and /or the A505 link pursued. • HCC need to be giving consideration to other potential schemes as part of this LTP associated with the proposed growth to the north of the county and therefore need to be actively working with the districts, neighbouring authorities, Highways England, key stakeholders and other service providers. • A Sustainable Travel Town should also be considered for Hitchin / Letchworth / Baldock. • A major scheme at the A10 south of Royston should be considered. • Impacts of the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway on North Herts should be identified.

St Albans City & District Council

• Would like to see more information on funding and developer funding for transport improvements. • Strategy seems focussed on disincentives for car drivers rather than incentives for other forms of transport. Increased parking charges will be detrimental to local economy. • Rail Freight terminal and its traffic impact does not appear to have been given appropriate consideration. • Scepticism at future traffic growth forecasts given experience of recent years, growth in train use, increase in cycle parking, future ageing population. • Further consideration required on A414 junction upgrade plans, and disproportionate cost of Jack Oldings scheme. Junctions improvement plans should be joined up and not approached piecemeal. What impact will BRT scheme have on road capacity? • Abbey Line should remain as heavy rail with funding for passing loop, and link loop direct to Euston should be reconsidered. Case for BRT/rail should consider Watford-St Albans link separate from Hemel-Hertford, given existing rail infrastructure. Nicky Line and Lea Valley should be considered for rapid transport. • Technology advancements in electric vehicles, electric scooters/bikes, autonomous cars should be considered. More EV charging points should be considered. • Airport expansion at both Luton and Stansted must be taken into account, and issues in Harpenden/B653 arising from this.

Agenda Pack 114 of 170 Page 39 Stevenage Borough Council

• Critical of HCC’s reliance on transport models , and that they should be one input into the formulation of a mobility strategy that also embraces broader concepts of mobility such as virtual mobility. • Vision range of measures may be new to Hertfordshire but unremarkable by UK standards. They could readily be portrayed as ‘anti-car’ and so the County Council must commit more strongly to securing public support for this package. • More radical proposals in the Vision were widely accepted 30 years ago (bus priority, reallocating road space, restricting car parking) and there is a lack of recognition of modern trends (e-working, autonomous vehicles, congestion charging, workplace parking levies). Vision is not ambitious enough to facilitate modal shift, and lacks desire to move away from a traditional road-building or capacity-enhancing solutions. • Despite being a principle it is not clear where ‘integration of land-use and transport planning’ features in the strategy. Consideration of land use planning post 2031 and new settlements lacking. Same criticism stands for the other principles. • Council welcomes the opportunity to work with HCC to make Stevenage an exemplar of modal shift. Reinvigorating the cycling provision, bus priority and reallocation of road space will be essential in this. Accepts case for on and off- street parking control playing a role , but implications of this to users needs to be fully understood. • Vision needs more rail content , including planned and desired improvements. • Contradiction in Vision of dismissing more road building as an option but proposing a Hertford Bypass . Alternative option suggested of reinstating rail line between Hertford’s 2 stations to improve connectivity from Stevenage to Cheshunt/Stansted. • Bus replacement services from May 2018 between Stevenage-Hertford North is deplored and undermines role of Stevenage as a hub station, as well as encouraging more traffic particularly on A602. • A heavy rail link between Luton Airport and Stevenage should be explored. Coupled with the reinstatement of the link between Hertford’s stations and north facing chord at Rye House would enable a link between Luton and Stansted Airports. • Vision should commit to further development of a Stevenage South Station on the Hertford Branch line. • Support for shared mobility policy and SBC has already initiated lift-sharing schemes as part of Green Travel Plans, a town centre Boris-bike style cycle hire scheme and electric car club, and seeks to develop these further with S106 agreements. HCC support would be welcome. • Strong support for priority bus network concept, which can support better bus connections between Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock. • Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock should be an early Growth and Transport Plan , encompassing high-specification bus links, and Vision should also recognise potential for a new settlement post 2026 on eastern side of this triangle.

Agenda Pack 115 of 170 Page 40 Watford Borough Council

• Detail and benefits of the Met Line Extension are highlighted, as well as development being delivered near the new Cassiobridge station, and the capacity issues identified in and around Watford Junction station. • Value and benefit of park and ride options critiqued, although potential for a scheme to serve Watford Football Club on match days highlighted. • Evidence considered to suggest bus priority schemes have mixed success where implemented elsewhere, but could be effective. • A review suggested on level of evening bus services in Watford town centre, undertaken jointly with the borough council, HCC and bus operators, as well as discussions with bus operators on bus layovers on the High Street. • Suggestions provided on town centre cycling infrastructure improvements, a bike hire club, walking & cycling signage. • Pros and cons of car clubs and suitability to Watford considered, with overall conclusion they could have a role. • Caution urged on the impact car clubs may have on overall levels of car use with some studies suggesting reductions in car travel by car owning households who may use it to reduce their car ownership level being off-set by non-car owning households increasing their car use. MLX, improved bus services and better cycling provision could reduce the need for car clubs in Watford. But overall potential of car clubs recognised, particularly given technology and its younger London commuter population. • Notable uptake of Electric Vehicles in Watford highlighted (1/3 of county total registered in borough), and suggested more charge points provided perhaps as part of new development and accommodated in lampposts. More public rapid charge points recommended . • Further work/discussions are required on whether a BRT solution is appropriate for the Abbey Line or improvements should be made to the rail line.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

• Has the potential for reduced travel and need for transport infrastructure due to technology enabling home working been recognised in the Vision? • Consider the need for an objective around enhancing intra-urban connectivity particularly by non-car modes for the entirety of their journeys. • Integration of land use and transport planning supported but concerted effort on all sides will be required ensuring local planning authority, highways development control, public transport and sustainable travel all aligned to the LTP, which itself is responsive to Local Plan proposals. • Importance of A1(M) and A414 intersections to local housing growth and economy stressed, and would like to see further details on timing, structure and content of any Growth and Transport Plan for the area. • Serious concern at why Welwyn/Hatfield not included as a Sustainable Travel Town , when it is identified as a Primary Urban Centre. Recognise need to focus resource for meaningful impact but concern other areas could be starved of funding for sustainable travel measures. Level of housing growth in Welwyn/Hatfield compared to St Albans used to make case, as well as synergy with Hatfield 2030+ renewal project, and the BRT proposal. • Support Hertford Bypass proposal, subject to a solution being found to A1m J4 so congestion not transferred further along A414, and concerns over sustainable

Agenda Pack 116 of 170 Page 41 travel town status being addressed given allocation of East Herts growth at Birchall Garden Suburb east of WGC. • A414 junction upgrades major scheme strongly supported, and importance of finding a long term solution to problems to congestion at Jack Oldings/J4 area stressed. • Strong support for BRT proposal, which should complement Hatfield 2030+ initiatives and link Hatfield and WGC. • Broad agreement that improved sustainable travel provision will not be sufficient to achieve mode shift, but that any demand management measures such as parking restrain must be carefully thought through and balanced with progress towards genuinely sustainable solutions. • Short to medium term measures to address congestion should remain a priority alongside an encouragement toward modal shift, given key schemes such as the BRT could be subject to implementation delay.

Buckinghamshire County Council

• Connectivity to regional centres and Primary Urban Centres perhaps restricts the opportunities of improved connections to areas with more dispersed economic opportunities such as Bucks where there is the highest proportion of smaller companies in England, with several specialist business clusters (such as motorsport at Silverstone, media at Pinewood). • BRT scheme could benefit bus services between Aylesbury-Tring-Hemel-Watford and would be welcomed. • Request the HCC include support in strategy for BCC Local Growth Fund Bid ‘Greenways to Growth’ which seeks to turn towpaths focussed on the Grand Union Canal into transport corridors (Aylesbury-Tring-Wendover) • Key to LTP success will be cooperation between neighbouring authorities such as Bucks, and via mechanisms such as England’s Economic Heartland Strategic Alliance. Plan should fully consider cross border issues, schemes and mechanisms. • Cross border solutions/activity include Technology and data driven solutions like the OneTransport consortium both councils participate in, Community led solutions such as community transport, and key transport infrastructure/opportunities serving a cross border catchment such as Tring Station. • Linked with this would be more explicit support for the National Infrastructure Commissions work on Oxford-Cambridge Corridor .

Essex County Council

• Stansted Airport and the growth of Harlow can provide foci for growth in the east of Herts. • Suggest that Harlow is added to the list of Primary Urban Centres. • Unclear how the Transport User hierarchy will work in practice to produce the levels of modal shift identified in Transport Vision 2050. • Step change in cycling: The Essex Cycling Strategy has just been updated. • Efforts should be made to work with current and future bus and rail operators to introduce integrated smart ticketing to support seamless multimodal end to end journeys. • ECC notes that Bishop Stortford is not included on the proposed bus network ; we would suggest Hertfordshire looks at options to improve access to Agenda Pack 117 of 170 Page 42 Bishops Stortford from the west and considers working with Essex to improve bus access to Harlow and Stansted Airport. • Important that appropriate bus priority is provided on key corridors within the main urban centres to further cement the commitment to sustainable forms of travel within urban centres. • Any Local Growth and Transport Plan for East Hertfordshire is likely to require close coordination with Essex County Council and consideration of Harlow growth. • Sustainable Travel Town scheme provide little information on the scale of the task, in terms of planned growth, % modal shift expected between modes, or the actual investment required to deliver this. Based upon experience in Essex the proposed cost for each package looks optimistic. Sustainable travel towns have in the past delivered about 10% modal shift from the car to sustainable modes; it is not clear from the Vision whether this is in line with the requirement in Hertfordshire or whether something more challenging is required. • Consideration should be given to extending the proposed BRT route to link directly to Bishop’s Stortford and indeed onto Stansted Airport. • More information should be provided on the scale of local growth and the levels of modal shift necessary to deliver the Vision. • ECC would wish to see further analysis of issues in East Herts adjacent to Harlow.

Luton Borough Council

• Consultation report figure 2 makes no reference to HE’s proposals to upgrade the A1 north of Hertfordshire or the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway proposal. • The six LEP submission (including Herts LEP) to the National infrastructure Commission on Oxford-Cambridge corridor highlighted journey to work area overlap for Stevenage & Luton, and East West Rail central section evidence demonstrated strong connection between Luton, Luton Airport and main towns in north and central Herts . • Aforementioned schemes present opportunity to improve connectivity between Luton and north Hertfordshire towns. We feel the Vision emphasis on more sustainable travel and reduced limited road capacity improvements is at expense of improving road and rail connectivity, particularly east-west routes . • Of the Highways England corridor options presented for the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, Luton favours the southern corridor option, south of Milton Keynes and on an upgraded A418 and A505 corridor in Bucks/Beds would enhance east- west connectivity to Luton, its airport and North Herts. • Regarding the HE study of the A1 LBC has no strong view as to whether the rout upgrade north of Hertfordshire is achieved on-line or off-line but supports the concept of improved east-west connectivity where routes intersect the A1, and in particular LBC is seeking improvements to the A602 between the A1m and Luton Airport. • LBC is keen to work with HCC, as well as Stevenage Borough and North Hertfordshire District to review the opportunities for a Bus Rapid Transit route between Luton and Hitchin/Stevenage . Given our experience working on the Luton Dunstable Busway we are keen to work with HCC to promote this connection, and assist development of the Vision BRT proposal .

Agenda Pack 118 of 170 Page 43 Historic England

• HE welcome the objective to preserve the character and quality of the Hertfordshire environment. • Do not have preferred policy options, but when assessing policy options , consideration should be given to Hertfordshire’s rich historic environment . • What may seem like small impacts, like the intelligent technologies identified in policy option 5 , can have detrimental effects or indirect effects through their usage on the historic environment. • There also are cumulative considerations. • Major project proposals 2-5 could impact on a number of designated heritage assets , depending on what proposals are brought forward for each scheme. • HE Recommended a number of advice publications for use when considering heritage assets, including: Good Practice advice in planning, advice notes for local plans, Sustainability Appraisals and Strategic Environmental Assessments, publications for streetscape improvements.

Agenda Pack 119 of 170 Page 44 APPENDIX 3 – ABBEY LINE RESPONSE

Dear Cllr Ashley,

I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposals for closing the Abbey Line and turning it into a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, as set out in the Transport Vision 2050.

Closing existing rail lines and converting them to BRT is a bad idea for five reasons:

• environmental impact • passenger comfort and perception • loss of network benefits • reliability • cost

It is widely acknowledged that given a choice, people see rail / light rail as a superior mode to bus, and would be more encouraged to switch to rail should the service be enhanced.

Removing the line from the rail system means that people would see it as ‘just another bus route’, rather than as a feeder to the rest of the rail network.

Bus usage has been on a steady downward trend outside London since 1986 whilst rail usage is at record high levels. HCC themselves have cut many bus services in recent years whilst rail usage continues to expand relentlessly across the UK.

On the environmental impact, the rolling resistance of a rubber-tyred bus on a concrete track is significantly higher than the steel wheels of a train on steel rails. Furthermore, diesel buses have to carry around their own power unit, with a consequent penalty in weight and hence fuel consumption, whereas electric rail vehicles are zero emissions at the point of use. Diesel buses also have a serious impact on local air quality.

The consequences of pouring thousands of tonnes of concrete to create the guideways in itself is a CO2-intensive activity, additionally noting that doing so through Bricket Wood would be within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

On reliability and cost, a ‘pioneering’ scheme on the old Cambridge to St Ives railway line suffered severe delays, cost overruns and quality failings – which are still being addressed.

To make the service more attractive and boost ridership, the case for installing a ‘passing loop’ and bringing in a second train to operate a higher frequency shuttle should be revisited.

A thorough review of new and innovative rail technologies and operating methods such as the Warwick Manufacturing Group’s ‘Very Light Rail’ concept vehicle and Vivarail’s ‘D-train’ should be undertaken to examine the opportunities for operational cost reductions without having to invest vast sums of money in new infrastructure. Additionally the cost of leasing ex-BR electric rolling stock is known to be falling considerably, so this too should be considered. Agenda Pack 120 of 170 Page 45

Similarly, contractors other than Network Rail should be asked to price for the passing loop and signalling required, as Network Rail have consistently failed to rise to the challenge of the ‘Community Rail’ concept – which was supposed to apply standards more suitable to branch lines and rural lines in the delivery of cost-effective infrastructure enhancements.

Whilst the Hertfordshire Rail Strategy, published last July, dismisses the passing loop as, “unlikely to be considered by funders as a priority, as it would require provision of two train sets and train crew in place of the current one, making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case”, no such business case has ever been presented for public scrutiny, and in any case it is thought to be severely undermined by a high level of usage going unrecorded because of ticketless travel on the branch. This issue has recently been acknowledged by the Department for Transport’s very own figures (up to 37% journeys being made without a valid ticket).

In summary, I urge you to withdraw the damaging and costly BRT proposals and retain the Abbey Line as a rail route. Innovative and cost-efficient rail-based solutions to enhance the service frequency and optimise running costs exist and these should be pursued. I further urge you to work with the Abbey Flyer Users’ Group in the pursuit of these aims, as they have considerable expertise in the matter.

Agenda Pack 121 of 170 Page 46 Agenda Item No HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 10

FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM

NATIONAL AIR QUALITY PLAN

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment / Director of Public Health

Author: Trevor Mason (Tel: 01992 556117)

Executive Members: Derrick Ashley, Executive Member for Environment, Planning & Transport Richard Roberts, Executive Member for Public Health, Prevention & Performance

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an overview of local transport-related air quality issues in light of the publication of the Government’s draft National Air Quality Plan.

2. Summary

2.1 The draft National Air Quality Plan was published on 5 May 2017. The plan focusses on nitrogen dioxide emissions, for which transport is the main source.

2.2 Whilst overall responsibility for air quality rests with the districts, the county council has a statutory responsibility to respond to air pollution resulting from road traffic.

2.3 Air pollution has a significant adverse impact on human health.

3. Recommendation

3.1 To agree the next steps set out in section 12.1

4. Background

4.1 The Government’s draft National Air Quality Plan was published jointly by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for Transport (DfT) on 5 May 2017. Consultation on this document was open until 15 June, with the final strategy due to be published by 31 July 2017.

Agenda Pack 122 of 170 4.2 The plan has been published as a result of nitrogen dioxide level exceeding legal limits in several areas of the country.

5. The National Air Quality Plan

5.1 The Government consultation is entitled “Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities”, reflecting the fact that nitrogen dioxide is “the only statutory air quality obligation that the UK is currently failing to meet”. The consultation does not, therefore, cover other air pollutants which are harmful to health, such as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

5.2 The consultation document notes that “road transport is responsible for some 80% of nitrous oxide concentrations at roadside”, and thus the focus for action is on transport-related activities.

5.3 Within the transport sector, the biggest source is diesel powered vehicles. And although the average emissions per vehicle is much higher for heavy goods vehicles and buses, the number of vehicles on the road means that the biggest contributor to overall pollution is the diesel car.

5.4 Whilst the draft strategy sets out a range of current and potential national initiatives, such as a possible diesel scrappage scheme, the consultation document states that success will “rely on the development of comprehensive Clean Air Zone plans by the local authorities in each of the English towns and cities where action is needed”.

5.5 A consultation response from the county council was agreed through the Executive Member and submitted by the deadline of 15 June.

6. Local Authority Air Quality Responsibilities

6.1 Local authorities are required under the Environment Act 1995 to review and assess local air quality in accordance with the Local Air Quality Management guidance.

6.2 In two tier authorities this responsibility falls on the district councils. However, the County Council, as highway authority, has a statutory duty to respond where pollution levels exceed statutory limits due to traffic emissions.

6.3 The County Council has an agreed protocol with the districts on how it responds to transport-relation air quality issues, and is an active member of the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Air Quality Group.

Agenda Pack 123 of 170 6.4 The responsibility for responding to air quality issues is split between Public Health and the Highway, Transport, Access & Road Safety and Spatial Planning & Economy units within Environment.

7. Air Quality in Hertfordshire

7.1 Air pollution has a direct impact on human health, and is especially harmful for children with asthma and older people with heart and respiratory diseases.

7.2 The main pollutants in Hertfordshire are nitrous oxides and particulate matter (fine particles which are measured as PM 10 or the much smaller PM 2.5 ). Modelled estimates published by Public Health England suggest that 514 premature deaths in people aged over 25 years occur per year in Hertfordshire.

7.3 Where air pollution exceeds statutory limits in the proximity of residential properties, the local authorities are required to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and to develop an action plan for reducing pollution.

7.4 There are currently 31 AQMAs within Hertfordshire, spread across 8 of the 10 districts, as set out in Appendix 1.

8. Implications for the County Council of the National Plan

8.1 The Air Quality Plan may have implications for the County Council resulting from specific geographic issues and from national initiatives.

8.2 On geographic issues, the draft plan identifies areas which are predicted to exceed nitrogen dioxide legal limits, and hence where there is an expectation from Government that the Local Authority will implement a Clean Air Zone. The only area identified in Hertfordshire is Broxbourne. However, the modelled levels fall back within legal limits by 2018, and therefore it is not clear whether a Clean Air Zone will be required.

8.3 Details of Clean Air Zones are shown in Appendix 2.

8.4 The national measures to support the plan (specific to transport) are as follows:

• Supporting uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles • Tighter vehicle emissions standards • Supporting public information and buying choices

Agenda Pack 124 of 170 • Supporting uptake of alternatively fuelled vans • Exploring the appropriate tax treatment for diesel vehicles • Call for evidence on updating the existing HGV Road User Levy

None of these measures has a specific impact on Hertfordshire, but several relate to the proposed policies and strategies included in the forthcoming Local Transport Plan 4.

9. The County Council Air Quality Initiatives

9.1 The County Council undertakes a range of activities that support improvements in air quality, as set out in Appendix 3. In addition, the County Council publishes two plans which are significant for air quality – the Local Transport Plan and the Air Quality Strategic Plan.

(a) Local Transport Plan 4

9.2 A new statutory Local Transport Plan for Hertfordshire is currently being developed, with public consultation due to be held in Autumn 2017 and the final document expected to be adopted in Spring 2018. The Transport Vision consultation in late 2016 indicated emerging content that could help deliver a reduction in air pollution:

• Step change in cycling • Sustainable Travel Towns • Greater support for buses through increased bus priority • Traffic management investment to improve flow of traffic on key routes • Greater consideration on the needs of sustainable transport in all transport schemes and strategies • Greater facilitation of shared mobility options (car clubs, lift share, bike clubs) • Improved passenger transport between towns along the A414 corridor.

9.3 The emerging LTP4 is placing a lot of emphasis on the need for behaviour change and modal shift, and that improvements in sustainable transport options are unlikely on their own to be effective at achieving this. The current emerging local strategic response to reducing air pollution can be summarised as:

• Managing the flow of traffic to reduce congestion • Encouraging behaviour change and reducing car use • Supporting government and private sector led efforts to increase adoption of low emission

Agenda Pack 125 of 170 (b) Air Quality Strategic Plan

9.4 The County Council has an approved Air Quality Strategic Plan which, led by Public Health, was developed in partnership in 2014. The primary aim of the air quality strategic plan is to protect public health from harm associated with air pollution, through adherence to regulatory frameworks for air quality, development of actions to mitigate poor air quality and access to public health advice about air pollution for vulnerable residents.

9.5 The Plan’s strategic objectives were to:

• improve local knowledge of air quality through a ‘network’ of monitoring sites. • use evidence of effective actions to improve air quality, including evaluation of air quality plans from Local Authorities with ‘beacon’ status for air quality and Public Health England expertise, to inform action planning in Hertfordshire. • provide a county-wide Air Alert system for vulnerable residents which is based upon air quality data from as local a level as possible, and also includes appropriate advice regarding how to protect against the ill effects of air pollution. • ensure a partnership approach to improving air quality and reducing harm that involves local authorities, transport planners, highways engineers, Met Office, health and social care commissioners and relevant 3rd sector partnerships such as the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Herts Sustainability Forum. • evaluate and report on local interventions. • create the framework for a positive feedback loop that would constantly improve the monitoring strategies, targets and planned interventions.

9.6 This plan will need to be reviewed and expanded in light of the National Air Quality Plan and the new Local Transport Plan.

10. Air Quality Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)

10.1 It is recognised that information on air quality in Hertfordshire is not complete, and that the data that is availability is not fully shared between all of the relevant parties. To help address this, Public Health has commissioned a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for air quality, a step recognised in the Defra 2016 LAQM Policy Guidance as good practice. This is currently being drafted, and is expected to be available in late summer 2017.

11. Other Air Quality Issues

11.1 The Mayor of London has recently consulted on a proposed Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which contained detailed statutory proposals for

Agenda Pack 126 of 170 bringing forward the introduction of the central London ULEZ, to 8 April 2019 (nearly 18 months earlier than previously suggested).

11.2 The ULEZ will cover the same area as the existing Congestion Charging Zone, will apply 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year and requires all vehicles that do not meet a NOx emission standard to pay a daily charge to drive within the zone (in addition to any congestion charge that already apply).

11.3 Previous proposals for the ULEZ scheme set emission standards for NOx emissions. The latest consultation also proposed to strengthen the emissions standard to cover Particulate Matter (PM) emissions from diesel vehicles.

11.4 The introduction of the new London ULEZ is expected to have minimal impacts on Hertfordshire as it only covers the existing central London Congestion Zone. However, consultation on proposals to expand the London ULEZ boundary beyond central London is expected in Autumn 2017 with the publication of the Mayor’s new Transport Strategy.

12. Next Steps

12.1 It is proposed that the next steps are:

• Ensure that air quality issues are fully considered in the development of Local Transport Plan 4; • Provide an overview of transport-related air quality issues to the Public Health Panel; • Respond to TfL consultation in Autumn 2017 on expanding the ULEZ; • Review the county council’s activities on air quality once the results of the JSNA are known.

13. Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

14. Equalities Implications 14.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.

Agenda Pack 127 of 170 14.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

14.4 No EqIA was undertaken in relation to this matter. There are no implications for any persons with protected characteristics.

Background Information

“Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities – A consultation” – Defra / DfT May 2017

“Improving air quality in the UK: tacking nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities – Draft UK Air Quality Plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide” – Defra / DfT May 2017

Agenda Pack 128 of 170 Appendix 1 Air Quality Management Areas in Hertfordshire

Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) are declared by the district / borough councils where air quality exceeds statutory limits in the proximity of residential properties. The AQMAs currently declared in Hertfordshire are:

Local Authority Road Town Broxbourne Borough Council Arlington Crescent Waltham Cross Broxbourne Borough Council Teresa Gardens Waltham Cross Broxbourne Borough Council Tyle Kilne Cottage Crews Hill Broxbourne Borough Council Eleanor Cross Road / Monarchs Way Waltham Cross Broxbourne Borough Council Monarchs Way / Winston Churchill Way Waltham Cross Broxbourne Borough Council Waltham Cross Dacorum Borough Council London Road Apsley Dacorum Borough Council Lawn Lane Hemel Hempstead Dacorum Borough Council High Street Northchurch East Hertfordshire District Council Hockerill Bishop's Stortford East Hertfordshire District council A414 Hertford East Hertfordshire District Council London Rd/ Cambridge Rd Sawbridgeworth Hertsmere Borough Council Barnet Road Potters Bar Hertsmere Borough Council Charleston Paddocks South Mimms Hertsmere Borough Council Blanche Lane South Mimms Hertsmere Borough Council Hartspring Lane Hertsmere Hertsmere Borough Council Watling Street/High Street Elstree Hertsmere Borough Council High Street Potters Bar North Hertfordshire District Council Stevenage Road Hitchin St Albans District Council Peahen St Albans St Albans District Council Hemel Hempstead Road St Albans St Albans District Council Frogmore St Albans Three Rivers District Council River Chess Chorleywood2 Three Rivers District Council Chandlers Lane2 Chandlers Cross2 Three Rivers District Council M25 Kings Langley Three Rivers District Council River Chess1 Chorleywood1 Three Rivers District Council Chandlers Lane1 Chandlers Cross1 Watford Borough Council St Albans Road Watford Watford Borough Council Vicarage Road/Farraline Ro Watford Watford Borough Council Horseshoe Lane Watford Watford Borough Council Watford Watford Borough Council Watford Watford Borough Council Watford Watford Borough Council Watford

Agenda Pack 129 of 170 Appendix 2 Clean Air Zones

Extract from “Clean Air Zone Framework - Principles for setting up Clean Air Zones in England” Defra / DfT ( May 2017)

What is a Clean Air Zone?

A Clean Air Zone defines an area where targeted action is taken to improve air quality and resources are prioritised and coordinated in order to shape the urban environment in a way that delivers improved health benefits and supports economic growth.

Clean Air Zones aim to address all sources of pollution, including nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, and reduce public exposure to them using a range of measures tailored to the particular location.

Within a Clean Air Zone there is also a particular focus on measures to accelerate the transition to a low emission economy. This will ensure improvements are ongoing and sustainable, support future development and decouple local growth from air pollution.

Clean Air Zones bring together local measures to deliver immediate action to improve air quality and health with support for cities to grow while delivering sustained reductions in pollution and a transition to a low emission economy . Where there are the most persistent pollution problems, this is supported by restrictions to encourage only the cleanest vehicles to operate in the city.

Clean Air Zones fall into two categories: • Non-charging Clean Air Zones – These are defined geographic areas used as a focus for action to improve air quality. This action can take a range of forms including, but not limited to, those set out in Section 2 but does not include the use of charge based access restrictions.

• Charging Clean Air Zones – These are zones where, in addition to the above, vehicle owners are required to pay a charge to enter, or move within, a zone if they are driving a vehicle that does not meet the particular standard for their vehicle type in that zone. Clean Air Zone proposals are not required to include a charging zone.

Agenda Pack 130 of 170 Appendix 3 Current Hertfordshire County Council Air Quality Actions

Activity Description HCC Input Other Partners Clean Air Day East Herts promotional activity to support Environment East Herts National Clean Air Day in June, with a view to • Spatial Planning & Economy Other Districts developing longer-term activities. The County • Transport Access & Road Safety Council is working in partnership with East Herts. Public Health

Resources • Communications Anti -idling campaign Countywide programme to discourage car engine Environment Schools idling outside schools. • Transport Access & Road Safety

Air Quality Project 3 year project working in areas of poor air quality Environment Living Streets with primary and secondary schools, Higher • Transport Access & Road Safety Education establishments and workplaces with the aim of reducing car use and to use cleaner and greener routes to access education, training and work. Air quality data will be collected. Funded by DfT Access fund. Air Alerts Countywide system to alert vulnerable residents Public Health to poor air quality episodes. Air Quality concerns Responses to district Local Plan consultations and Public Health planning applications. Herts & Beds Air Quality Forum The County Council input to district -le d air quality Environment Districts monitoring group. • Spatial Planning & Economy

Public Health

Air Quality Joint Strategic Needs Compilation and assessment of air quality data, Public Health Assessment (JSNA) with improved sharing between relevant parties.

Agenda Pack 131 of 170 Air Quality Policy Review of air quality and related policies in Local Environment Transport Plan 4 currently under development. • Spatial Planning & Economy • Highways

Public Health

AQMA declarations Formulation of statutory County Council response Environment Districts to district-declared AQMAs. • Spatial Planning & Economy • Transport Access & Road Safety • Highways

Public Health

Air Quality data and protocol Provision of transport data to support district -led Environment Districts work on air quality assessment. • Highways • Spatial Planning & Economy

Publication of air quality locations Information on transport -related Air Quality Environment Districts on TDDR Management Areas published in annual • Highways Transport and Traffic Data Report. Growth and Transport Plans Inclusion of air quality data as part of evidence Environment packs which support the development of Growth • Highways and Transport Plans. • Spatial Planning & Economy

Public Health

Air quality funding bids Supporting districts to develop bids to Environment Districts Government for transport-related air quality • Spatial Planning & Economy funding. • Highways

Agenda Pack 132 of 170 Agenda Item No.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT 11 CABINET PANEL FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CONSULTATION - UK AIRSPACE POLICY: A FRAMEWORK FOR BALANCED DECISIONS ON THE DESIGN AND USE OF AIRSPACE

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author: Paul Donovan, Team Leader Strategic Land Use (Tel: 01992 556289)

Executive Member: Cllr Derrick Ashley

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform Panel of a recent consultation by the Department for Transport ‘UK Airspace Policy: A framework for balanced decisions on the design and use of airspace’ and the County Council’s response.

2. Summary

2.1 The way airspace (the part of the atmosphere within which aircraft fly) is managed in the UK is based on arrangements which are almost 50 years old and are now considered to be both inefficient and ineffective, leading to unnecessary delays for passengers and excessive impacts on the environment and those living near airports. Change is needed to enable the UK to keep pace with the rest of the world in exploiting the newest technology and meeting demand.

2.2 The consultation proposes a framework to facilitate airspace modernisation, which includes establishing an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise, the need to consider and choose between flightpath route options, introducing compensation for airspace change proposals, greater clarity on the roles and responsibilities of Government and other accountable agencies, greater transparency, greater recognition of the adverse impacts of aviation noise and the need to use multiple metrics to asses those impacts.

2.3 The County Council has responded to and broadly welcomes the proposals set out in the consultation.

Agenda Pack 133 of 170 3. Recommendations

3.1 That the Panel note the report and the County Council’s response.

4. The UK Airspace Policy Consultation

4.1 In the consultation document Government recognises that the aviation industry is a positive force for the UK’s economy. It commits to reviewing its range of aviation policies, including the overarching strategy for the sector, over the coming months to ensure the industry and the country is in the best position to respond to future challenges, and make the most of a range of opportunities.

4.2 The way in which airspace is managed is seen as a vital part of the overall strategy - balancing growth in its use with effective management of the local impacts around airports – in particular noise. As the way airspace is managed is based on arrangements which are almost 50 years old, it can be both inefficient and ineffective, leading to unnecessary delays for passengers and excessive impacts on the environment and those living near our airports. The Government states that change is needed to enable the UK to keep pace with the rest of the world in exploiting the newest technology and meeting demand.

4.3 If no action is taken to modernise airspace, passenger delays are forecast to increase sharply as traffic levels increase. Analysis commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) and carried out by NATS (the UK’s main provider of air traffic control services) predicts total short notice cancellations to increase to 8,000 per year and delays from air traffic management to rise to 4.4 million minutes by 2030, equivalent to 3,100 days of delays. This is 50 times the delays seen in 2015, leading to increased noise on the ground, and increased carbon emissions per flight through wasted fuel.

4.4 Government believes that taking action now can bring real improvements for: • passengers – reduced delays; • the environment – reduced emissions; and • local communities most affected by aircraft noise – reduced need for stacking and quicker climbing aircraft.

4.5 Government also recognises that changing flightpaths is not easy and acknowledges that the policy framework needs improvement so that communities can have confidence that the impacts of aviation are being properly taken into account when airspace use is changed, and in the way noise is managed in day-to-day operations.

4.6 The purpose of the proposals within the consultation document is to ensure that the correct framework is in place to allow airspace modernisation. The proposals include:

Agenda Pack 134 of 170 • establishing an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) to make sure noise impacts are properly and transparently considered; • greater clarity on the role and responsibilities of Government and other accountable bodies; • providing industry with ways to assess noise impacts and choose between route options to help them manage change more effectively; • bringing compensation policy for airspace changes in line with policy on changes to aviation infrastructure; and • offering greater flexibility to three of London’s major airports, so that they can adapt their noise management to the needs of their local communities, as other airports across the UK already can.

4.7 In introducing these proposals the Government’s aim is to deliver: • greater clarity and transparency in decision making and the way noise is managed; • improvements in the evidence used to inform how airspace decisions are made, particularly on the noise impacts; • greater focus on industry and communities working together to find ways to manage noise which work best for local circumstances; • clarity and consistency in who makes airspace decisions, and why; • greater certainty for industry that the airspace change framework provides what they need to deliver beneficial change; and • ambitious noise management outside of airspace change, taking advantage of the latest technological developments.

4.8 The consultation document and the proposals within it are summarised in the attached Executive Summary (Appendix A).

5. The County Council response to the consultation

5.1 The County Council’s response to the consultation is attached (Appendix B), a draft of which was shared with relevant boroughs/districts for comment – East Hertfordshire, North Hertfordshire, Stevenage, Dacorum and St Albans (those with a greater interest in aviation as a consequence of proximity to either London Luton or London Stansted airports). The responses by those boroughs/districts, where made, are also attached for information (Appendices C-E).

5.2 The County Council’s response is broadly supportive of the proposed framework within which airspace change will be brought forward, particularly for: • a call-in role for the Secretary of State to intervene in airspace change proposals of most significance (national); • the greater transparency and scrutiny proposed for all airspace change proposals; • the creation of an ICCAN – to act as an independent body to support upcoming airspace changes, to ensure noise impacts are properly and transparently considered;

Agenda Pack 135 of 170 • the recognition that there is a greater sensitivity to aviation noise than has historically been the case/recognised and that this needs to be properly accounted for in the assessment of and decisions upon airspace change proposals; • the need to use multiple metrics of aviation noise in considering adverse impacts; • the requirement to explore multiple route options in developing airspace change proposals; • the incorporation of airspace changes into existing compensation policy so that policy would be the same for all changes which affect noise impacts, regardless of whether they are a result of infrastructure change or airspace change.

5.3 The response also highlights a numbers of issues/concerns, including:

• the proposed threshold for Secretary of State call-in for an airspace change proposal (could lead to a change in noise distribution resulting in a 10,000 net increase in the number of people subjected to a noise level of at least 54 dB LAeq 16hr as well as having an identified adverse impact on health and quality of life) should be revisited; • lack of clarity on proposed arrangements for suitable change process/policy on Tier 2 and 3 airspace change; • lack of clarity and guidance on how compensation for airspace change should be taken forward and the lack of role for the ICCAN in compensation arrangements; • the limitations on the powers of the ICCAN compared to those envisaged by the Airports Commission and the need for it to report to Government on a number of issues – for example, on industry noise management performance and the overall performance of competent authorities.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no financial implications.

7. Equality Implications

7.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.

7.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

7.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality Agenda Pack 136 of 170 of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

7.4 No EqIA was undertaken in relation to this matter.

Background information:

UK Airspace Policy: A framework for balanced decisions: on the design and use of airspace. Moving Britain Ahead. Department for Transport. February 2017.

UK Airspace Policy Consultation Executive Summary attached at Appendix A Responses to the consultation are attached at appendices B-E

Agenda Pack 137 of 170

Executive Summary UK Airspace Policy Consultation

Moving Britain Ahead

Agenda Pack 138 of 170 January 2017

The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.

Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General enquiries: https://forms.dft.gov.uk

You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]

Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Agenda Pack 139 of 170

Introduction

1 The Aviation industry is a major contributor to the UK economy. It connects us to people and markets all across the world and shows that Britain is open for business. 2 While our aviation sector is a success story, supporting thousands of jobs and delivering billions of pounds in economic benefits, we need to take action to meet the continuing growth in demand for air travel. Not only is there a need for additional airport capacity in the south east to support this growth, but our airspace arrangements, which date back nearly fifty years, are also in need of modernisation. 3 Our current airspace system is inefficient and means passengers face longer journeys and delays as airspace becomes more congested. This will only get worse - it is expected that by 2030 there will be 3,100 days’ worth of delays – 50 times the amount seen in 2015, along with 8,000 cancellations a year1. Inefficient airspace arrangements also means more emissions from longer journeys and prevents improvements being made that could reduce noise for communities around airports, for example by removing the need for holding stacks for aircraft unable to land and making better use of new technologies which allows aircraft to better avoid overflying populated areas. 4 To maintain the UK’s status as one of the world’s most important aviation hubs, we therefore need to take action to update our airspace arrangements. This will also help us to deliver sustainable growth of the aviation sector by ensuring environmental considerations are at the heart of how the sector operates, building on last year’s ground-breaking international agreement to tackle carbon emissions from aviation. 5 But decisions which change flightpaths are not easy. Even those that reduce noise for most people will not do so for all, and some may experience more noise than before. We need a policy framework which ensures that when these difficult decisions are made they take account of communities’ views, are based on robust evidence and consider local circumstances. 6 As a crucial part of developing our new aviation strategy over the coming months, this consultation is designed to ensure there we have the correct framework in place to allow this modernisation of our airspace, to deliver benefits to passengers, the economy and local communities. 7 We are therefore bringing forward proposals designed to balance the interests of all involved and build trust in how noise is handled. Our proposals aim to delivers:  Greater clarity and transparency in decision making and the way noise is managed;  Improvements in the evidence used to inform how airspace decisions are made, particularly on the noise impacts;  Greater focus on industry and communities working together to find ways to manage noise which work best for local circumstances;  Clarity and consistency in who makes airspace decisions, and why;  Greater certainty for industry that the airspace change framework provides what they need to deliver beneficial change; and

Agenda Pack 140 of 170 1 Department for Transport, 2015, Upgrading UK Airspace: Strategic Rationale

 Ambitious noise management outside of airspace change, taking advantage of the latest technological developments. 8 Our proposals build on the best practice which is already being demonstrated at many airports across the UK, and the changes to the airspace change process which the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is making. 9 Everyone will have their part to play in making reforms to how airspace is managed a success, including airports, airlines, air navigation service providers, local authorities, community representatives and the CAA. Our proposals create clear and appropriate roles, and a system which can support the UK in maximising the benefits of aviation.

Summary of Proposals

Changes to Airspace 10 Chapter 4 of our consultation document makes various proposals about who should make decisions on different types (or tiers) of airspace changes.  For Tier 1 changes, which are changes to the permanent structure of UK airspace that are already covered by the CAA’s formal airspace change process, we propose that the Secretary of State should have a call-in function. This would mean that when airspace changes meet one or more specified criteria, the Secretary of State could make the final decision.  Tier 2 changes, are planned and permanent changes to Air-Traffic Control’s day- to-day operational procedures that currently fall outside of the CAA’s airspace change process. We propose that when these are expected to cause a certain level of noise, air navigation service providers should engage with local communities and the CAA should assess the proposal against various factors before deciding whether to approve it. The CAA would be responsible for establishing a suitable and proportionate process for these changes, including on the nature and level of consultation that is required.  Tier 3 covers changes to operations, which may or may not be planned, such as changes in the number of type of aircraft using a particular route or shifts over time in how aircraft follow a particular route. We propose that the CAA puts in place a suitable process for industry to follow. This should be a light-touch approach and set out expectations on transparency and engagement with communities, including on potential ways to mitigate adverse impacts. Compensation 11 Chapter 4 also sets out proposals to update the compensation policy for airspace changes.  We propose that those experiencing changes in noise as a result of changes to airspace should in future expect the same compensation as that associated with new infrastructure (such as a new runway).  Currently, to be eligible for financial assistance towards insulation, a property must be within an eligible noise contour (63dB LAeq or above) and have experienced a minimum 3dB change. We propose to remove this second requirement so that any property within that contour should be considered in the same way. Agenda Pack 141 of 170

 We also propose to update our policy to encourage airports to consider compensation for significantly increased overflight even if properties do not fall inside the eligible average noise contours. These decisions should be based on the local circumstances and economics of the change proposal.  Our current compensation policy says that those who live within the highest noise contours (69dB LAeq or higher) should receive assistance with the costs of moving. We propose to include a requirement of an offer of full insulation to be paid for by the airport for homes within this contour, where the home owners do not want to move. Making Airspace Change Decisions Transparently 12 Chapter 5 of our consultation deals with how noise should be factored into airspace changes.  To ensure airspace decisions are made transparently and that communities understand why a particular option has been chosen, we propose that sponsors of an airspace change should be required to carry out an options analysis as part of the airspace change process.  We propose that decisions on how aircraft noise is best distributed should be informed by local circumstances and consideration of different options. Consideration should include the pros and cons of concentrating traffic on single routes, which normally reduce the number of people overflown, versus the use of multiple routes which can provide greater relief or respite from noise.  Alongside noise impacts, assessment should also consider the impacts on carbon and air quality and explain how these have been balanced in line with the Government’s environmental objectives with respect to air navigation. 13 Chapter 5 also deals with how noise impacts on people, including those on health and quality of life, should be assessed. We also discuss how these impacts should be used to inform decisions on airspace changes, in order to deliver our overall policy on aviation noise ‘to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise, as part of a policy of sharing benefits of noise reduction between industry and communities in support of sustainable development’.  The Government currently recognises an average noise level of 57dB LAeq as marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. We recognise that there are people exposed to noise levels lower than this who consider themselves annoyed and people exposed to higher levels of noise who do not. We propose to clarify that our overall aviation noise policy should be understood to limit and, where possible reduce the number of people experiencing adverse effects from aircraft noise, not the number of people within a specific noise contour.  So that the adverse effects from aviation noise can be properly assessed, we propose these should be measured using the Department for Transport’s webTAG tool2.

2 WebTAG can provide a monetised value for the impact of changes in noise exposure, based on Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). More information can be found at: : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-tag-unit-a3-environmental-impact- appraisal-december-2015 Agenda Pack 142 of 170

 We also propose that other metrics which measure the frequency and pattern of aircraft communities may be exposed to should also inform decisions and to help communities understand the impact of proposed changes. Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise 14 Chapter 6 of our consultation document sets out our proposals for an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) to support upcoming airspace changes. ICCAN would aim to build trust between industry and communities and make sure noise impacts are properly and transparently considered.  We propose that ICCAN’s functions should be to: ─ Advise on airspace change, providing assurance that noise has been considered and mitigated where possible. ─ Advise on planning decisions and ongoing noise management. ─ Promote and publish best practice guidance ─ Review or commission research to present new evidence. ─ Monitor noise measurements and how these are reported, to build trust and improve transparency and credibility.  We also explore options for structure and governance and funding of ICCAN to ensure its credibility and put forward our lead option for it to be established as an independent body attached to the Civil Aviation Authority. Ongoing Noise Management 15 Chapter 7 details our proposals for how noise should be managed at all airports. We want decisions on noise to be made locally where possible, with the Government's involvement focussed only on strategic decisions.  We believe that operating restrictions should be agreed through the planning system where possible and propose that: ─ For operating restrictions associated with strategically significant decisions: The Secretary of State would be the competent authority for all operating restrictions delivered through the planning process in the case of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), as well as any local planning decisions that are called-in by or appealed to the Secretary of State. ─ For all other planning-related operating restrictions: The local authority deciding on a planning application would be the competent authority.  For those occasions when operating restrictions may be brought forward by an airport outside of the planning process, such as resulting from Noise Action Plans or similar processes, we propose that the CAA would be the competent authority for approving any such restrictions. 16 We also propose to allow the designated airports; Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, to manage noise in a way that best reflects the issues faced by their local communities.  We propose that the noise controls (other than operating restrictions) currently set by the Government, such as departure noise limits, continuous descent approaches and noise-preferential routes, are transferred to the airports. This would be consistent with other airports and would see Government’s involvement Agenda Pack 143 of 170

focussed on strategic decision making. Local decisions could be informed by ICCAN best practice in future.  To provide greater transparency to communities about where and how often aircraft are actually flying, and to make it easier to see changes over time, we are proposing that the designated airports should publish data on their departure routes and track keeping performance. We also intend to encourage all major UK airports to publish similar data in the interests of transparency where practicable. The exact information published should be determined by the airports, in consultation with local communities.

Conclusions

17 The Government's aim is to ensure that the airspace policy framework is up to the challenges ahead in modernising airspace and delivering the new northwest runway at Heathrow. 18 The diagram below illustrates our intended framework for airspace. It shows that ongoing noise management and locally significant planning decisions should be taken at the local level, informed by engagement with all stakeholders, including communities. We expect industry to continuously seek improvements in its noise performance where practicable, to engage with communities, and to consider noise when delivering airspace modernisation. 19 Airspace change decisions must be taken by the CAA, as it has the expertise to ensure that decisions prioritise safety while balancing all of the factors that must be taken into account, including local views. There will also be some occasions when it is appropriate for the Government to take the decision. Some airport planning decisions, including Heathrow expansion, are clearly significant for the whole of the UK. As the Government has responsibility for whether such Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) go ahead, it is also right that Government ensures that communities are properly protected during such developments. There will be other decisions in the airspace change process which could have significant impacts on the environment or the UK's wider interests and Government also has a role in balancing these complex and competing priorities. We have therefore developed clear criteria for when decisions go beyond those which are best made through the local or regulator processes and require Government to intervene. 20 The new Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) will improve the foundations of decision making by facilitating more effective engagement and accessible communication of noise impacts and management options. This improved dialogue will feed into decisions not only at a local level, but through the CAA and Government alike. ICCAN will also drive improvements in the standards of ongoing noise management, providing best practice so that decisions on noise controls can be made based on the latest information and options available. 21 Our consultation set out our view on how decisions on airspace and noise should be made, and by whom. The changes proposed would ensure that decisions can be made which better support the effective management of airspace and the noise impacts which its use can create. These proposals aim to strike a balance between the benefits of a thriving aviation sector for passengers and the economy with its impacts on local communities and the environment.

Agenda Pack 144 of 170

7 Locally significant decisions and ongoing noise management The UK’s independent regulator ndustry communities and their of airspace representaties work together to he AA balances the interests of all manage noise informed by local parties in deliering their functions and circumstances and with the obectie ensures that decisions they oersee to share the benefits of improements are in line with oernment policy to aircraft technology ets processes for airspace ngoing engagement and change transparency including engagement with communities Assesses change proposals on operational changes which and makes decisions to accept affect noise or reect them Nationally significant decisions eelops and consults on oise ubmits calledin airspace he oernment sets the national Action Plans and implements them changes to the ecretary of tate policy and decides on issues that with its conclusion on the proposal Agrees noise controls including are nationally or enironmentally certain operating restrictions for significant ets epectations for industry nonPs engagement with communities on Approes noise related operating operational changes which affect onitors and enforces noise restrictions for ationally noise controls ignificant nfrastructure Proects Ps an adise that action should be dentifies optionsgoals for taken if it is deemed that key airspace changes and makes Assesses calledin airspace factors eg noise and efficiency proposals informed by local change proposals and makes are not being appropriately circumstances and engagement decisions to accept or reect them balanced in ongoing noise and in accordance with the Approes oise Action Plans management AAs processes

Government Civil Aviation Authority Industry, Communities, Local Authorities, Airport Consultative Committees

Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise

nables effectie decision making at all leels by assuring noise information and improing how communities can engage with proposals ries improement in noise management standards through best practice guidance Adises airspace change sponsors about noise management options esponds to airspace change consultations Promotes the use of best practice eg noise operating procedures or noise enelopes ackstop role in conciliation of highleel disputes Adises industry on how noise information and concepts can be communicated accessibly

The decision making system Agenda Pack 145 of 170

8 Further information

22 This executive summary of our consultation documents provides an overview of our proposals and the improvements we expect them to deliver. A more detailed analysis of our proposals, along with further information on the consultation process and how you can respond to our proposals, is available in our full consultation document. 23 The consultation period began on 2nd February and will run until 25th May 2017. Please ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date. 24 Alongside this consultation, we are also consulting on revised Air Navigation Guidance. The aim of this is to enable those who would like to understand how our policies would be implemented the opportunity to see draft guidance. Respondents to the consultation will be able to provide feedback on the draft guidance as well as the high level policies should they wish. 25 Further supporting information for our consultation is also available online.

Agenda Pack 146 of 170

9 UK AIRSPACE POLICY CONSULTATION Department for Transport Spatial Planning and the Economy Environment Department Hertfordshire County Council County Hall Hertford Hertfordshire SG13 8DN

Paul Donovan

01992 556289

[email protected]

25th May 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

UK Airspace Policy: A framework for balanced decisions: on the design and use of airspace: Moving Britain Ahead

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above consultation.

Particularly relevant background

The 2015 Helios ‘Independent review of the CAA’s Airspace Change Process’ (CAP1356), amongst a range of other matters, concluded:

‘………..We have identified a number of particular observations on the process and also some factors that sit outside it, as discussed below:  There is a lack of transparency in the process, particularly regarding the CAA’s activities. The lack of transparency has created suspicion amongst some stakeholders who are not confident their interests are well represented and it inadequately reflects their work that the CAA already undertakes. This is the single most important observation, as the lack of visibility hinders trust and effective relationships.  The consultation process is viewed with great suspicion by some consultees who perceive the change sponsor as ‘judge and jury’ in dealing with the consultation responses. There is a potential conflict of interest here that the CAA needs to ensure is seen to be managed.  The regulation of airspace changes is a different type of regulation to many other CAA tasks. Most CAA regulatory activities focus on economic or safety matters. These generally (but not exclusively) involve large organisations and members of the public are not usually significantly involved in providing

Agenda Pack 147 of 170 submissions to regulatory decisions. The revised AC process will require greater engagement of the CAA with stakeholders and communities.  The time to undertake an AC can be long and uncertain, with the more complex changes taking several years. For sponsors, this increases the risk and cost of airspace changes. For consultees it increases the uncertainty around change.  Some elements of Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725, Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process, are not sufficiently precise for the needs of the AC process. This can lead to consistency variations in the approaches to ACPs, which is not desirable. Additional requirements documents and guidance material are needed to make the process clearer and more consistent.  Our view is that there is insufficient information on the Government’s strategic priorities for airspace policy, for example relative priorities of economic activities vs noise vs environment vs non-commercial aviation activities. The primary noise metrics in the process are now widely challenged and, for example, do not provide a good measure of respite  Stakeholders view the AC process as part of the wider relationship between the aviation industry and themselves. Stakeholders, particularly communities, do not necessarily make the distinction between regulations, the AC process, the remit of the CAA, and why some changes in aircraft operations are outside the AC process. Factors external to the AC process can therefore reduce confidence in the AC process. We identified the following external factors as relevant:  the fact that aircraft paths can be significantly altered outwith the AC process;  the lack of an independent team to investigate noise complaints;  the treatment of airspace trials;  the approach to other irritants, such as the ‘A320 whine’;  the lack of an aviation noise strategy; and  the compensation framework.  Unlike other planning processes, there is no appeal mechanism available aside from a Judicial Review; which is expensive and therefore not available to all stakeholders……………

Helios recommended a range of key changes to the AC process to address these concerns (as set out in CAP1356). In its ‘Consultation on proposals for a revised airspace change process CAP1389’ the CAA recognised the need for substantive change and is currently consulting on proposed revised Draft airspace design guidance (CAP1520) which seeks to make improvements to the airspace change process.

The Final Report of the Airports Commission found the following:

‘Independent aviation noise authority

14.94 In its Interim Report, the Commission recommended the establishment of an independent body, with a duty to provide statutory advice to the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority on issues related to aircraft noise. It recommended the Government and the CAA publish their reasoning in any cases where the decisions Agenda Pack 148 of 170 diverged from the advice provided by the body, and set out a series of specific functions which the body might carry out (see box below).

14.95 Responses to the Commission’s consultation underline that there is still a need for such a body, in particular to help address the considerable lack of trust that remains between communities close to the UK’s airports and the airports themselves.

14.96 The CAA carries out a number of functions targeted at ensuring aircraft noise is taken into account, not only within the airspace change process, but also within planning applications, and aims to improve the transparency associated with monitoring and reporting aircraft noise. However, as the Interim Report highlighted, there are still real issues to resolve around the manner in which communities are engaged in processes which impact aircraft noise (most notably the airspace change process), and in holding those involved in these processes to proper account.

………………………………

14.98 The Commission therefore reaffirms its recommendation that an independent aviation noise authority should be established. The noise authority should be given statutory consultee status and a formal role in monitoring and quality assuring all processes and functions which have an impact on aircraft noise, and in advising central and local Government and the CAA on such issues.’

The emerging strategic context

The County Council generally welcomes Government recognition within this consultation of the need for a step change in the way aviation growth is to be managed. However, it would have been helpful if this had been brought forward within the context of revised national aviation policy – particularly any revisions to its key environmental objectives - which will not be available until next year.

The significance of CAP1520 in addressing many of the concerns of stakeholders and communities in the airspace change process should not be underestimated. It is surprising the consultation process does not cross-reference to CAP1356, CAP1389, and most significantly the CAP1520 consultation.

Hertfordshire

Hertfordshire sits between two of the country’s largest airports – London Luton and London Stansted. Like the other London airports, both have seen substantial growth in recent years which is set to continue. The County Council regularly hears concerns amongst its communities that very much reflect the findings of the CAP1356. These issues have been particularly acute with regard to the recent planning permission to grow London Luton Airport and the adverse consequences of the introduction of RNAV procedures there. There is a mistrust in and concerns about the competency of responsible agencies, a lack of transparency, inadequate consultation with communities, a lack of independence in decision-making, inadequacy of noise controls and monitoring, a feeling that legitimate community concerns are not being heard, and so on.

Agenda Pack 149 of 170

As growth continues there is an environmental imperative to ensure that the environmental improvements that can be secured through airspace modernisation are brought forward for communities as reasonably practicable as it is to do so. A key part of that modernisation is to reignite the London Airspace Management Programme as a matter of urgency and the Government should use all appropriate powers to ensure that process progresses as quickly as possible.

Questions on Chapter 4 - Changes to Airspace

Q1a. Please provide your views on the proposed call-in function for the Secretary of State in tier 1 airspace changes and the process which is proposed, including the criteria for the call-in and the details provided in the draft Air Navigation Guidance.

The County Council is very much supportive of the introduction of a call-in function for the Secretary of State and appreciates that Government will want to restrict its involvement to strategic cases.

However, the County Council is of the view that the threshold for the environmental call-in criterion (could lead to a change in noise distribution resulting in a 10,000 net increase in the number of people subjected to a noise level of at least 54 dB LAeq 16hr as well as having an identified adverse impact on health and quality of life) should be revisited.

 an increase of 10,000 people adversely affected by airspace change proposals seems far too high for Government intervention given its overarching core policy on noise. In contrast, in the planning arena the criteria for the potential for the SoS to call in a proposal could include matters such as a development raising significant architectural and urban design issues or where a local planning authority is minded to approve, for example, a proposal for development on a playing field, it must give the SoS the opportunity to call the proposal in.  54 dB LAeq 16hr – given the acknowledgement within the consultation document of the need for the employment of multiple metrics (including regarding 51 dB LAeq 16hr as the LOAEL for daytime noise, a LOAEL of 45 dB Lnight being set for assessing the impact of aviation noise during the night, the use of CAA’s metric for overflights, N65 daytime and N60 night time metrics should also be used), the use of a single metric does not seem appropriate. Also much broader interpretation and assessment of impact is required.  it would be very difficult to ascertain whether the proposal would have an ‘identified’ impact on health and quality of life. This bar is set too high.

A more generic noise-focussed criteria drafted on a similar basis to the other two criteria might read:

‘It could lead to a substantive increase in the number of people subject to adverse (both health and quality of life) impacts of noise.’

Agenda Pack 150 of 170

This would enable the SoS to make a judgement based on the circumstances of individual proposals.

However, the County Council considers that there should be a greater degree of balance within the criteria to the three strands of sustainable development. The first criterion introduces the issue of national strategic significance. The second introduces economic (and in doing so social) impacts. The third environmental criterion relates simply to noise. Whilst noise is indeed a matter of paramount concern in relation to the environmental consequences of airspace change, there are of course other environmental implications that should also feature in decision- making – air quality impacts upon protected environmental assets and human health, for example, or impact upon the tranquillity of and visual intrusion upon designated assets, such as AONBs. A broader remit of an environmental criterion would facilitate a more balanced sustainability assessment by the SoS of both the positive and negative impacts of a proposed change. Such a criterion might read:

‘The proposal could have a significant impact (positive or negative) on the environment and human health.’

A major thrust of the consultation is to increase transparency within the airspace change process. Paragraph 6.5 of the Air Navigation Guidance states:

‘6.5………A called-in proposal will not be subject to a full public enquiry after being called in. This is because the proposal would already have been subject to the requirements of the CAA’s airspace change process, which includes detailed requirements to consult widely and appropriately’.

But the same consultation principles apply to planning applications which are called in by the SoS and yet these are subject to public inquiry. The SoS is to be ‘….supported in his decision-making by a senior DfT official………….’. The County Council appreciates that there will be extensive public consultation relating to an airspace change proposal, but is concerned to ensure that all individuals and stakeholders have the opportunity to have their views rehearsed and heard independently in public. Where a change is of such significance as to require Government intervention, the opportunity for independent scrutiny would appear to be even more compelling.

The current CAA CAP1520 consultation states:

‘Public Evidence Session (Level 1 only)

207. Assuming the proposal has proceeded past the initial CAA assessment towards a CAA decision, for Level 1 airspace change proposals the CAA will offer to convene a Public Evidence Session (not for other Levels). Assuming there is sufficient interest to justify holding one, the CAA will organise and publicise it. The session will take place no sooner than four weeks after publication of the formal proposal on the online portal.

208. The Public Evidence Session gives the sole opportunity for stakeholders other than the change sponsor to provide the CAA decisionmaker with their views on the

Agenda Pack 151 of 170 airspace change proposal directly, in a public forum and in addition to the opportunities to provide their views at earlier stages in the process through the portal. The purpose of the Public Evidence Session (chaired either by a CAA employee outside the Airspace Regulation team, or by a professional independent facilitator) is for the CAA to listen. We may ask questions, but only if we do not understand what a stakeholder or representative is saying. There will be no opportunity for opposing parties to challenge the submissions made by other groups.’

It is not entirely clear from this consultation document and the accompanying Air Navigation Guidance whether the proposed CAP1520 Public Evidence Session (PES) (chaired either by a CAA employee outside the Airspace Regulation team, or by a professional independent facilitator) will have been held in advance of and to inform a SoS decision. It would appear from the CAP1520 consultation that this would be the case and the County Council is supportive of this. If it remains the case that the SoS is to be ‘….supported in his decision-making by a senior DfT official………….’, that official should be an integral part of the PES proceedings. It may even be preferable for the SoS to appoint his/her own independent chair of a PES for a called-in proposal, in a similar way to public inquiries in the planning system.

Q1b. Please provide your views on the proposal that Tier 2 airspace changes should be subject to a suitable change process overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority, including the Draft Air Navigation Guidance and any evidence on costs and benefits.

The County Council is supportive of the principle to improve the transparency of processes involving changes to vectoring practices which may affect the level of noise communities are subjected to. However, neither the consultation document, accompanying Air Navigation Guidance, CAP1520 or CAP1522 ‘Draft airspace design guidance Annex 2: Tier 2 airspace change’, clarify what such a process might entail - the process is to be devised by the CAA at some future date (though CAP1522 does commit to a future consultation on draft guidance for a Tier 2 airspace change process).

If, as the consultation document acknowledges, Tier 2 changes can in certain instances bring about similar environmental effects to Tier 1 changes, consideration should be given to the extent to which processes for Tier 1 changes can be transposed to Tier 2 changes, including a role for SoS call-in.

Q1c. Please tell us your views on the proposal that Tier 3 airspace changes should be subject to a suitable policy on transparency, engagement and consideration of mitigations as set out by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The County Council is supportive of the principle to improve the transparency, engagement and consideration of mitigations involved in Tier 3 changes which may affect the level of noise communities are subjected to. However, neither the consultation document or the accompanying Air Navigation Guidance clarify what such a process might entail - the process is to be devised by the CAA at some future date. There is no commitment to further consultation on any CAA proposed policy/process.

Agenda Pack 152 of 170

Q1d. Please tell us your views on the airspace change compensation proposals.

The proposal to incorporate airspace changes into existing compensation policy so that policy would be the same for all changes which affect noise impacts regardless of whether they are a result of infrastructure change or a tier 1 or 2 airspace change is welcomed. However, as these changes only relate to 63 dB LAeq and above and the consultation document accepts that there are not usually many people close enough to the airport to be affected by it, its impact upon the provision of compensation to communities detrimentally impacted by aircraft noise is likely to be very limited.

The County Council welcomes the recognition from Government that compensation for impacts further away from the airport may also be appropriate. However, the onus is on airspace change sponsors ‘to take a flexible approach to compensation, working with communities to establish a fair balance between the economic and environmental impacts of a change’. Whilst there will be opportunities for competent bodies to play a balancing role in introducing local compensation arrangements, it is disappointing that the responsibilities of ICCAN are not proposed to include a substantive role in the compensation process. There is a need for suitable national guidance on how to go about assessing the need for compensation (not just a simple noise metric or metrics) and the different types of compensation that should be considered (not simply insulation) – and there is a need for a competent body to oversee individual processes.

Questions on Chapter 5 -Making Transparent Airspace Decisions

Q2a. Please provide your views on the proposals to require options analysis in airspace change processes as appropriate, including details provided in the Draft Air Navigation Guidance.

The County Council supports the use of options analysis – both in terms of the technical ability to explore and assess different viable models and the opportunities it provides for community engagement.

The consultation document and accompanying Air Navigation Guidance do not appear to raise the issue of potential irreversibility – in that change of some sort may well be a necessity, rather than an opportunity to be explored and possibly discounted. As CAP1520 states:

‘142. With the post-implementation review (Stage 7) in mind, the change sponsor must make clear to stakeholders in the consultation documents the extent to which the proposed airspace change, once implemented, is reversible if it does not achieve the objectives it is designed to achieve. Changes that accommodate mandatory new technology or which have strong interdependencies may be very difficult or even impossible to reverse. Therefore where an airspace change has not achieved its objectives, the solution may need to be a redesign rather than reversion to the pre- airspace-change position.’

Agenda Pack 153 of 170

Government recognition of/position on this may be appropriate.

Q2b. Please provide your views on the proposal for assessing the impacts of noise, including on health and quality of life. Please provide any comments on the proposed metrics and process, including details provided in the Draft Air Navigation Guidance.

The Council welcomes the acknowledgement that use of the 57dB LAeq contour as representing the onset of significant community annoyance is outdated, although continued use of the contour as part of noise analysis should continue for benchmarking purposes.

The County Council supports the use of multiple metrics in the assessment of noise and believes the role of ICCAN to be critical in advising on how these should be tailored/customised to individual circumstances. Its research and best/better practice role will also be fundamental to moving forward.

Questions on Chapter 6 - Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise

Q3a. Please provide your views on the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise’s proposed functions.

The Airspace Change consultation positively responds to the Airports Commission recommendation that there needs to be an independent body on aviation noise. The County Council welcomes its success criteria and the proposed role and function of ICCAN and its creation should be viewed as a significant step forward. However, it is disappointing that its role and likely impact fall short of expectations of it by the Airports Commission. For example, it has:  no statutory role (for example, local planning authorities might choose not to seek the advice of the Commission upon receipt of a planning application, nor seek its advice in imposing suitable controls within any forthcoming planning consent).  no responsibility for advising on noise compensation schemes;  no mediation role between airports and their local communities in disputes relating to noise monitoring, the functioning of airports’ advisory committees, and airports’ compliance with their noise action plans and, where appropriate, advise the CAA in respect of potential breaches of noise regulations;  no powers to intervene and require organisations to review and amend guidelines (and fine where necessary), powers which allow it access to the relevant operations of the CAA, airports and others in the aviation industry, ensuring that it can monitor those operations and report to the public on whether they have been carried out in accordance with the relevant statutory processes or guidance, and in a fair and transparent manner.

There are a number of significant proposals coming forward in the immediate future which are going to have very substantive noise implications for communities. To ensure the Commission performs a satisfactory role in these a 5 year review of its function is too distant. It would be preferable for its remit and functions to be subject to a rolling review to ensure it is fit-for-purpose to properly inform and contribute to the challenging processes and decisions ahead. Agenda Pack 154 of 170

Consideration should be given to whether it would be appropriate for ICCAN to periodically report to Government on performance of all competent authorities in the management of noise.

Q3b. Please provide your views on the analysis and options for the structure and governance of ICCAN given in Chapter 6, and the lead option that the Government has set out to ensure ICCAN’s credibility.

Whilst the proposed structure, governance and powers of ICCAN do not match up to the expectations of the Airports Commission, there is an imperative to have it in place in good time to contribute to a range of substantive upcoming processes - Heathrow’s proposed third runway and forthcoming LAMP processes being obvious examples. Whilst the County Council’s preference would be for ICCAN to be an entirely separate entity from CAA with greater powers, under these circumstances the arrangements appear to be a reasonable way forward, subject to ongoing review.

Questions on Chapter 7 - Ongoing Noise Management

Q4a. Please provide your views on the proposal that the competent authority to assure application of the balanced approach to the adoption of operating restrictions as airports in England should be as set out in Chapter 7 on Ongoing Noise Management and further information at Annex F. Q4b. Please provide your views on the proposal that responsibility for noise controls (other than noise-related operating restrictions) at the designated airports should be as set out in Chapter 7 on Ongoing Noise Management.

The arrangements appear appropriate, but much will depend upon the performance of competent agencies and robust leadership and support from ICCAN. For other controls (including operating procedures) outside the planning process there needs to be another competent authority in addition to airports – perhaps the CAA.

Government should consider whether it would be appropriate for ICCAN to periodically report to Government on the performance of competent authorities in applying the balanced approach.

Q4c. Please provide your views on the proposal that designated airports should publish details of aircraft tracks and performance. Please include any comments on the kind of information to be published and any evidence on the costs or benefits.

The publication proposal is supported and the material to be published should be wide ranging and applied to all airports. Guidance should be published and consulted upon, for example, track keeping, CDA achievement; vertical performance against agreed arrival/departure procedures, ATMs total and by route, runway and day/night; noise levels including peaks, bands and trends by day and night; noise violations by number, aircraft and airline; fleet mix; noise footprints, climb performance, and so on.

Agenda Pack 155 of 170

Q4d. Please provide your views on whether industry is sufficiently incentivised to adopt current best practice in noise management, taking into account Chapter 7 on Ongoing Noise Management, and the role of the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise in driving up standards in noise management across the aviation sector.

The strategic guidance provided by Government in this consultation (and the accompanying Air Navigation Guidance), the separate CAA consultation on CAP1520 and the creation and role of ICCAN should be a substantive incentive to industry that a step change in management of noise is expected of it. Much will depend, however, on the industry’s performance in practice, the performance of the competent authorities and the extent to which ICCAN is able to act as a force for change (particularly given the powers of ICCAN are not as robust as expected by the Aviation Commission).

Government should consider whether it would be appropriate for ICCAN to periodically report to Government on industry performance.

Questions on the Draft Air Navigation Guidance

Q5. Please provide any comments on the Draft Air navigation Guidance published alongside this consultation.

The main purpose of this document is to provide statutory guidance to the CAA on environmental objectives relating to CAA’s air navigation functions. The County Council considers the consultation may be premature or the Guidance may at least need to be revisited to take account of revised Government national aviation policy which is expected to emerge over the next twelve months. There will need to be a debate, for example, on whether an objective to ‘limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise…..’ remains appropriate where there is a clear imperative to drive down the impact of aviation noise as the sector grows.

Given the definition of ‘significantly affected by aircraft noise’ has and will continue to change, consideration should be given to whether it is necessary to use specific noise level metrics and levels (51dbLAeq16hr or 45dB Lnight) within its environmental priorities. Any appropriate metrics and levels of ‘significance’ could be set by ICCAN and change over time.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Donovan Environment Department Hertfordshire County Council

Agenda Pack 156 of 170

Essential Reference Paper ‘C’

Response of East Herts Council to UK Airspace Policy: A Framework for Balanced Decisions on the Design and Use of Airspace Consultation, Department for Transport, February 2017

East Herts Council broadly welcomes the principle of airspace modernisation and generally supports the use of technological advances to reduce the impact of aviation on local communities and the environment.

For Tier 2 proposals, as there is currently no scrutiny of vectoring changes, this aspect is supported, along with the proposal that the CAA should have responsibility for that role.

However, there are a number of areas within the consultation document where further clarity is required or where there is currently an absence of guidance which the Council considers necessary to be addressed prior to the adoption of the strategy. These include:

1. A definition of ‘significant/significantly’ should be provided in order that there is no ambiguity for those parties assessing and/or providing mitigation to address impacts.

2. Linked to point 1, as an example, where there is a 3db increase or above it is proposed that the airspace change sponsor should consider both impact and compensation. However, the parameters for this have not been set and there appears to be no body identified to determine who should be awarded compensation where applicable. If the CAA is to be the determining body, then further guidance should be provided in this respect.

3. Currently, there appear to be no night time metrics linked to the compensation proposals. As it is not inconceivable that different people could potentially be affected to those impacted by daytime hours operations, measures should be included to ensure that all affected parties should be compensated.

Agenda Pack 157 of 170 4. In terms of implementation of compensation schemes, it is important that the polluter should pay at onset of annoyance and that there should be no artificial trigger points related to numbers of movements, etc, beyond that.

5. In terms of ICCAN’s role in increasing trust in processes and decisions as an independent arm of the CAA, it is vital that for credibility purposes this body should be nationally and not industry funded.

6. It should be made clearer whether ICCAN’s role will be purely advisory or whether there will be any adjudicatory role.

7. Appropriate local authorities already have considerable expertise in the aviation field and it is considered that ICCAN could draw on this knowledge base to feed into any developing best practice guidance issued. Consultation from the information gathering stage would be supported to make best use of such expertise and this approach should be incorporated into policy.

8. Regarding ongoing noise management and the implementation of European Regulations around noise operating restrictions, it should be ensured that the competent noise body should be the same body that makes planning decisions i.e. either the relevant local authority or the Planning Inspectorate.

9. It should be recognised that noise impact generated by aviation is not solely restricted to aircraft, but also by other modes of ground transport for servicing purposes in addition to passengers and employees travelling to and from airports. Such noise impacts, e.g. from access routes utilised, may have a detrimental impact on local communities and this should be reflected in policy.

10. If designated airports (including Stansted) are to have more control to tailor their operations to local circumstances then it is important that issues around the ability of local authorities to

Agenda Pack 158 of 170 respond to such responsibilities are recognised. This not only affects governance matters, but also in terms of ensuring that adequate resources are directed to local authorities to allow them to be able to manage the technical demands made of them and to enable informed responses to noise consultations in a timely manner. Therefore, it is suggested that a premium should be applied to airport applications in order to support such technical roles at a local authority level.

Agenda Pack 159 of 170 Planning & Building Control My ref: DfT/05/17 Please ask for: J Woof Telephone: 01727 866100 E-mail: [email protected] Date: 25 May 2017

Freepost UK AIRSPACE POLICY CONSULTATION

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Reforming policy on the design and use of UK airspace and Heathrow expansion: draft Airports National Policy Statement consultations February 2017

Thank you for consulting St Albans City and District Council (SACDC) on reforming policy on the design and use of UK airspace and the Heathrow expansion: draft Airports National Policy Statement.

Aircraft noise has recently become a very major issue for St Albans District residents who have been particularly affected over the past few years by the introduction of RNAV at London Luton Airport (LLA) as well as a 50% increase in air traffic departing over the District in just a two year timeframe (2013-2015). This is exacerbated by the low height restrictions imposed by other airspace users.

SACDC does not have technical expertise in airspace changes but is supportive of proposals which seek to reduce the effect of aircraft noise disturbance on its local residents. Although the airport is located out of SACDC’s administrative area and this Council does not have a role in controlling airport operations or flight paths, our residents are very interested in these issues. Evidence for this includes a public meeting of the Planning, Resources and Housing Scrutiny Committee held 17 May 2017 which had approximately 90 public attendees (minutes can be found at http://stalbans.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=518&MId=8367&Ver= 4), and the establishment of a number of residents groups opposed to the increase in noise.

SACDC supports the modernisation of the UK’s airspace structure to reduce the impact on those affected by aircraft noise. LLA is located to the north of St Albans District with both its easterly and westerly departure routes flying over St Albans District.

In response to the consultations SACDC makes the following points:

• It is necessary for airspace modernisation to be accompanied by a process that enables quicker changes to be made. LLA is seeking to provide improvements for affected residents, including looking at increasing the climb height of aircraft quicker on departure, developing an additional route and providing respite routes. The process to bring these mitigation measures into effect however takes years and provides no opportunity for short-term solutions for affected communities. Agenda Pack 160 of 170 • SACDC supports changes to the UK’s airspace which allow departures from LLA to climb quicker to reduce noise impacts on communities under, or near to, the flightpath. Flights from LLA are currently held down at Brookmans Park and are further affected by the Bovingdon Stack for Heathrow. Any airspace changes and expansion of Heathrow should provide opportunities for improvements in relation to noise at other regional airports.

• It is proposed that the Government’s involvement will be focussed where there are strategic decisions to be made and that the Secretary of State (SofS) will only be appointed the competent authority for operating restrictions associated with strategically significant decisions. In all other planning-related operating restrictions the local planning authority would be appointed the competent authority. It is important that local authorities in the vicinity of the airport, not just the local authority whose area the airport is in, have input into noise matters as the noise impacts of airports extend beyond the district boundaries.

• The Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) should be available to provide guidance to communities, as well as local authorities, and should be able to mediate between airports and communities. This will be key to the ICCAN succeeding in improving relationships, particularly where a local authority is a majority stakeholder in the ownership of the airport, such as at LLA. SADC is supportive of the ICCAN being nationally funded, not funded by the industry.

We trust that the comments above will be of assistance.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor Alec Campbell Leader St Albans City and District Council

Agenda Pack 161 of 170 Agenda Pack 162 of 170 Agenda Pack 163 of 170 Agenda Item HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL No ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 12 FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM

WASTE LOCAL PLAN – WAY AHEAD PAPER

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author: Gemma Nicholson, Planning Officer Tel: (01992) 556732

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley (Environment, Planning & Transport)

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The purpose of this report is to set out the main issues which need to be addressed in reviewing the Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan. These issues will need to be subject to public consultation to inform the review of the Plan.

2. Summary

2.1. In order for the Waste Local Plan review to commence it is important to establish the basis for the review. This paper outlines national and local waste planning policy, planning for waste at a local level and indicates the reasons why the adopted Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan needs to be reviewed.

2.2. The proposed way ahead set out in this paper consists of producing a single local plan and conducting an initial consultation to seek views and opinions of stakeholders that will inform the Draft Plan.

3. Recommendation

3.1. That the Panel notes the Proposed Way forward for the Waste Local Plan review as detailed in this report.

4. Background

4.1. Planning for waste in Hertfordshire is guided by national policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW).

Agenda Pack 164 of 170 1 4.2. The County Council as Waste Planning Authority has a statutory responsibility to produce a Waste Local Plan for the county. The adopted Waste Local Plan comprises the Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies document (adopted November 2012) and the Waste Site Allocations document (adopted July 2014). The Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies document sets out the strategic, spatial element of the Waste Local Plan and contains development management policies against which waste planning applications for waste management in the county can be assessed. The Waste Site Allocations document identifies allocated sites and Employment Land Areas of Search (ELAS) with potential for delivering waste management facilities to meet the need for additional waste management capacity in the county.

4.3 The adopted Waste Local Plan relates to the whole of Hertfordshire and covers the period 2011 – 2026.

5. Requirements and the need to review the adopted Waste Local Plan

5.1. The Minerals and Waste Development Scheme was presented to the Environment, Planning and Transport and subsequent Cabinet and County Council in November 2016 and was adopted as the timetable to follow.

5.2. There are a number of reasons why the County Council is required to review the existing Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan. The main reasons are to ensure that the waste planning policy framework in the county remains up to date, reflects the most recent policy and guidance, takes account of new information and changing circumstances and so that appropriate guidance can be given to waste operators and the general public as to where future waste development should take place. In addition the Waste Site Allocations document (2014), which forms part of the Waste Local Plan states that ‘the plan will be reviewed in full every five years and a partial review may be undertaken sooner than that if required’.

5.3. The review of the plan must follow the prescribed stages of plan production as set out in relevant planning Acts and the appropriate regulations; the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

5.4. The review of the Waste Local Plan will need to include a strategic element for waste planning in Hertfordshire, development management policies by which waste planning applications will be judged and a policies map. The main issues which need to be reviewed during the early stages of plan production and which would be subject to initial consultation to inform the draft plan include:

Agenda Pack 165 of 170 2

Single Local Plan In line with national policy a single local approach plan document is recommended. The national planning practice guidance states ‘the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the Government’s preferred approach is for each local planning authority to prepare a single Local Plan for its area. While additional Local Plans can be produced, for example a separate site allocations document or Area Action Plan, there should be a clear justification for doing so’ (Local Plans Guidance - Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 12-012-20140306: Revision date 06 03 2014)1. This is the approach that is proposed to be followed. Plan period In line with paragraph 157 of the NPPF which states ‘Local Plan should be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15-year time horizon, take account of longer term requirements, and be kept up to date’ plans should cover a minimum of 15 year period. This is a question to be included as part of the initial consultation stage. Waste Arisings A waste capacity study will be undertaken to determine the level of additional waste management provision in the Plan. Questions will be included in the Initial Consultation as to the appropriateness of the methodology and its findings as a basis for the required provisions of the Plan. Hertfordshire’s Vision and These would need to be developed prior to Objectives for waste initial consultation and consulted upon as planning part of the initial consultation stage. Hertfordshire’s These would need to be developed prior to Sustainability Objectives initial consultation stage and would be for waste planning developed by external consultants appointed to undertake the Sustainability Appraisal. These also require consultation and could be included as part of the initial consultation stage. The need to identify The adopted Waste Local Plan identifies specific sites for waste areas of search, allocated sites and employment land areas of search to meet the need for additional waste management capacity in the county. Section 4 of the

1 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-plans--2 Agenda Pack 166 of 170 3 NPPW states that ‘Waste planning authorities should identify, in their Local Plans, sites and/or areas for new or enhanced waste management facilities in appropriate locations’. Limited waste development has been brought forward on the allocated waste sites, and as such it is recommended that the County Council takes a different approach with the identification of areas for waste management facilities in the review of the Plan. This approach would be included as part of the initial consultation with clear rational provided. However, if following the initial consultation, it is decided to identify specific sites, a methodology would need to be developed and consulted upon, in addition to carrying out a call for sites exercise. This process would be sequential and would follow the initial consultation stage. Review of the Employment This process would involve the review of Land Areas of Search the existing Employment Land Areas of Search identified in the Waste Site Allocations document, to ascertain if there has been an encroachment from non- waste development. This could be completed by County Council officers in collaboration with district and borough council officers. This could be a valid question to include at the initial consultation stage as to whether in the future employment land (B2/B8 uses) should be identified as having potential for waste sites. The safeguarding of The adopted Waste Local Plan safeguards existing waste sites permitted waste sites to ensure that suitable sites are not lost to other developments. To continue with this approach is a question to be included at the initial consultation stage. Policies used to determine A review of the adopted policies would be applications undertaken by a County Council officer. A question to be included as part of the initial consultation stage would be based on what policies are needed in the new Waste Local Plan.

Agenda Pack 167 of 170 4 6. Waste Arisings and Capacity Study

6.1. A key part of the technical evidence base supporting the review of the Waste Local Plan will be a waste capacity study. The study will comprise an investigation into the existing capacity of waste management facilities in Hertfordshire and will also look to determine the total quantity of waste produced in the county and how this is due to change in the future. By comparing the existing capacity with the projected waste arisings, the County Council will be able to determine whether there is a need to plan for additional waste facilities through the Plan production process.

6.2. There are multiple sources of waste data that can be used to determine future waste arisings but the quality of data has been historically poor due to issues of incomplete coverage and varied interpretations of waste types. To reduce the uncertainty that poor data causes, the County Council will work alongside other members of the East of England Waste Technical Advisory Board (EoEWTAB) to produce a jointly-agreed methodology that can be used by waste planning authorities across the region. The EoEWTAB is a non-statutory advisory body made up of public and private sector bodies offering strategic guidance and joint working opportunities for waste planning in the region. Several member-authorities of the EoEWTAB are beginning to review their adopted Waste Local Plans and a jointly-agreed approach to determine waste arisings will ensure an increased level of robustness in the methodologies used across the region.

6.3. Once the methodology has been agreed, the County Council will undertake the study independently to determine whether there is a need for additional waste management provision in the emerging Waste Local Plan.

7. Stakeholders in the Waste Local Plan

7.1. There are many stakeholders in the waste planning process; the waste industry, local residents, land owners, conservation groups, the general public, district and borough councils, statutory bodies and adjoining waste planning authorities. In line with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) the County Council will undertake a number of formal and informal consultations and engagement exercises throughout its Waste Local Plan review.

7.2. The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) states that Waste Planning Authorities should ‘work collaboratively in groups with other waste planning authorities, and in two-tier areas with district authorities, through the statutory duty to cooperate, to provide a suitable network of facilities to deliver sustainable waste management’.

7.3. The County Council works closely with the district and borough councils and adjoining Waste Planning Authorities under the Duty to Co-operate

Agenda Pack 168 of 170 5 to ensure that waste planning issues are taken into account through plan making and decision taking.

8. Next Steps

8.1. Reviewing an adopted plan is a lengthy, technical process which can take a number of years to progress. Plan production will incorporate public consultation at several stages. These consultations will be undertaken in line with the County Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

8.2. As set out in the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme, the key milestones for plan production are as shown below. The timeline shows the initial evidence base work to be undertaken through 2017 – 2019. It is anticipated that within this time informal engagement events, at least one stage of public consultation and if required a call for sites would be undertaken. Following this, it is the intention that the Draft Waste Local Plan consultation would be undertaken in summer 2019 and subsequent plan making stages following this. The key milestones are considered to be realistic and achievable, barring unforeseen circumstances.

Milestone Adopted MWDS 2016 Tim eline

Initial stages including 2017 -2019 evidence gathering, initial consultation and call for sites (if required) Draft WLP Plan consultation August – October 2019 (Public Engagement) Publication of Proposed August – October 2020 Submission (Public Participation) Submission to the Secretary November/December 2020 of State Possible Examination and 2021 Adoption of the Waste Local Plan

8.3. As stated in the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme, there is a level of technical work that needs to be undertaken to support the plan production. It is considered appropriate to appoint external consultants to undertake independent assessments for: • Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment) for every stage of the review • Habitats Regulation Assessment • Strategic Flood Risk Assessment • Waste Capacity Study

Agenda Pack 169 of 170 6

8.4. The appointment of external consultants will ensure impartiality.

9. Financial Implications

9.1. Plan production is the normal business of the Minerals and Waste Policy Team and the cost of plan production can be covered by existing budgets. The predicted costs for the Waste Local Plan review are set out in the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (adopted November 2016). The budget for the next three years has been based on previous plan production costs.

10. Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)

10.1. When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered, the equality implications of the decision that they are making.

10.2. Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

10.3. The Equality Act 2010 requires the County Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

10.4. An EqIA has not been carried out on this occasion, however, during the Waste Local Plan review, each stage of plan production will be subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment. If the EqIA concludes that potential equality impacts may arise during stakeholder events and consultations a range of reasonable mitigations to minimise the potential impacts will be proposed.

Background Information

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW).

Agenda Pack 170 of 170 7