Agenda item

The Committee will receive a report outlining the early stages of the LTP5 development including its outline and objectives as well cross-portfolio working.

Contributors:

Cllr Steve Broadbent, Cabinet Member for Transport

Ian Thompson, Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability

Steve Bambrick, Service Director for Planning & Environment

Hannah Joyce, Head of Transport Strategy & Funding

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Councillor Steven Broadbent, introduced the item by advising that this was an interim report on the emerging Local Transport Plan 5 (LTP5) and the approach the Council was taking. The LTP5 was being developed alongside the new Buckinghamshire Local Plan and would need to include specific policies on local transport such as carbon emissions, road safety, highway maintenance and management, and active travel. LTP5 was also required in order to secure funding from Department for Transport (DfT) towards capital schemes. Further guidance on plan formulation was expected from DfT shortly. A consultation exercise had led to a number of changes to the wording of the objectives; the detail of which was included in the report.

Members considered the report and noted the following in their discussion:

·       LTP5 would align with the Council’s ambition to be net zero by 2050. Best practice on emission reduction would be sought as part of the Council’s work with England’s Economic Heartland.

·       A key theme of LTP5 would be to offer transport alternatives to cars in order to reduce delays, connect economies and boost businesses and productivity. As part of this, the Council was part of a DfT trial in e-scooter usage which was scheduled to end in May 2024. Use of private e-scooters was illegal on the Council’s Highways network so any future plans would be subject to Government legislation. Other work included investment into greenways and cycleways, and also demand response travel which had recently been expanded in High Wycombe to include Flackwell Heath.

·       A city-style ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) would not be suitable in Buckinghamshire.

·       The Transport Strategy aimed to improve traffic flow along with funding bids for improvement projects (e.g. linked gyratory traffic lights) however temporary traffic lights from utility works did cause issues on the network. The link road projects around Aylesbury would also reduce through-traffic flow.

·       Concerns regarding the impact of development on traffic in Buckinghamshire would be picked up in the emerging Local Plan, as well as at a local level with development planning applications and their associated traffic plans. The Council made funding representations to DfT regarding the growth in the county and the transport infrastructure required to support it.

·       The Council had an enhanced partnership with bus operators through its Bus Service Improvement Plan however bus service providers operated privately. Proposed changes to routes would be published in advance by operators and the Council did make representations and suggestions on improving connections but ultimately had no control over business decisions.

·       One Member noted that Thames Valley Police had not responded to residents that had reported concerns within the police’s responsibility. The Cabinet Member advised that the Council’s moving traffic offense powers alleviated some police resource pressure.

·       Future consultation would involve engagement with all Community Boards and Members. Work at universities also aimed to increase the diversity in responses as well as improve youth engagement.

·       The LTP5 would also link with the Council’s emerging Local Cycling, Walking and Infrastructure Plan which had identified key routes between the county’s settlements.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for the report and welcomed a future update on LTP5’s development coming to the Committee.