Agenda item

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from Mr J Preston, Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the Essex Local Transport Plan 3 Consultation.

 

Every local highway authority, in this case the County Council, must produce a Local Transport Plan (LTP) for its area. This plan covered a period of 15 years. The LTP was intended to identify what the highway authority wanted to achieve by investing in transport over the next 15 years, and explain how this would help to achieve sustainable economic growth in the county. The consultation document split the County into four areas, the district was part of the West Essex area.

 

The consultation document listed five outcomes that the plan must deliver:

 

(a)   Provide reliable connectivity for international gateways to support sustainable economic growth, regeneration and wellbeing.

(b)   Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve air quality through lifestyle changes, innovation and technology.

(c)   Improving safety on the transport network and enhancing and promoting a safe travelling environment.

(d)   Maintain all transport assets to an appropriate standard and maximise network availability and resilience.

(e)   Provide sustainable access and travel choice for Essex residents helping create sustainable communities.

 

The consultation ran from December 2010 to 11 February 2011, but it had not been possible to report to an earlier Panel meeting. Officer level comments were therefore sent to meet the deadline, on the understanding that further Member comments would follow. The consultation took the form of a questionnaire, which was designed to encourage responses from members of the public, as well as local authorities and other relevant organisations. There were 22 questions, several of which were aimed solely at individuals, and so were not appropriate for the Council to respond to. Officers opted to respond to 5 of these. They were as follows:

 

Question 5

 

What approach should be taken to achieve the five outcomes? Three options were given, but in each case there would be similar expenditure on safety and maintenance:

 

Option 1         Investing in growth. Spending would be focused on improving transport connections within and between the main towns where investment was likely to have the greatest benefit to the economy.

Option 2         A better place to live. Spending would be spread more evenly across the county and all the outcomes with the aim of making Essex a better place to live and work by improving access to work, education and leisure activities.

Option 3         A low carbon future. Spending would be focused on providing travel choice and encouraging less car use to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Officer Response

 

It was felt that Option 2 was preferred, but with reservations. As resources were going to be very restrictive for the foreseeable future, there was the likelihood that, spending would veer towards the promotion of economic growth and away from environmental objectives and projects or carbon reduction.

 

Question 8

 

What sections of the highway network maintained by the County Council should be the priority? There were 8 options given, and the top 3 were requested using numbers 1 to 3.

 

Option 1         Main roads between towns

Option 2         Minor roads between towns and villages

Option 3         Local roads in residential areas

Option 4         Pedestrian pavements (alongside roads)

Option 5         Public footpaths

Option 6         Cycleways

Option 7         Street lighting

Option 8         Street furniture

 

Officer Response

 

Priority 1        Main roads between towns;

Priority 2        Minor roads between towns and villages; and

Priority 3        Pedestrian pavements (alongside roads)

 

Question 9

 

Are there any issues of concern about the rail or trunk road network?

 

Officer Response

 

Issues of concern:

 

(a)   Capacity of J7 of the M11

(b)   Need for new junction (7A) on M11 between Harlow and Sawbridgeworth

(c)   Impact on local road network when either or both motorways were affected by accidents or other delays

(d)   Linked issue of frequency of messaging signs on the local road network

(e)   Timetable/feasibility of Network Rail’s plans to remove all level crossing facilities on the Liverpool Street line, of particular concern was what this meant for Roydon. A bridge over the railway line was probably impossible, and the only alternative appeared to be a bypass with significant implications for impact on the Green Belt

(f)     Implications of increased frequency of Stansted Express trains on frequency of local services which served local and easily accessible stations

(g)   Capacity of rail network at rush hour

(h)   Capacity of the Central Line and associated car parks

(i)      Very final decision on the future of the Epping to Ongar section of the Central Line

(j)      Distant possibility of extension of Central Line to Harlow

 

Question 12

 

Priorities for West Essex, to select three from the following seven:

 

(a)        Improving the attractiveness of bus services to and within Harlow through packages of improvements to facilities for buses at the busiest sites.

(b)        Improving bus and all public transport links to and between the West Essex Centres.

(c)        Supporting regeneration initiatives within Harlow and local centres by improving the attractiveness of streets and public spaces.

(d)        Supporting housing and employment growth and regeneration initiatives in Harlow and the local centres by providing transport access to development sites which encouraged low carbon and low congestion travel choices.

(e)        Improving access to Harlow from the M11, particularly to improve journey time reliability.

(f)         Improving access to Stansted Airport by low carbon forms of transport.

(g)        Upgrading and improving cycling and walking networks in Harlow to encourage greater use.

 

Officer Response

 

Priority 1 (2) above adding “and key public facilities such as hospitals” after “centres.”

Priority 2 (3)

Priority 3 (4)

 

In general there was concern about the emphasis on Harlow’s issues. The districts of Epping Forest and Uttlesford demanded more detailed analysis and understanding. No mention was made of other centres, such as Waltham Abbey, which had much poorer public transport services.

 

Other priorities (not in any specific order).

 

(i)      Freight strategy for the county

(ii)    Car parking in the towns/villages served by the Central Line

(iii)   Congestion in the south of the district

(iv)  Traffic issues associated with two regeneration schemes – The Broadway, Loughton and St. John’s Road, Epping

(v)    NOx pollution of Epping Forest

(vi)  Lack of easily accessible information about community transport – particular problem for the elderly

(vii)Future for business aviation at North Weald Airfield

(viii)                       Lack of bridleway networks

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the responses made to the Essex Local Transport Plan 3 Consultation be noted.