Agenda item

Councillor Jan Matecki (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning) explained that the report followed consideration by Overview and Scrutiny and the Cabinet.  During the consultation process for the Plan, key themes had emerged which were set out at paragraph 1.10 of the report.  More detail on individual transport interventions in the form of annual action plans and monitoring plans would flow from LTP4 and provide the link from strategy and policy into action on the ground.  Councillor Richard Baxter-Payne seconded the proposals and reserved his right to speak.

Amendment – Green Group

Councillor Jonathan Chilvers proposed an amendment to the motion, with the addition of the words in bold and underlined below which it was intended would provide a greater steer on the travel hierarchy:

That Council adopts the Local Transport Plan for Warwickshire (LTP4) at Appendix A which supersedes and replaces the existing Plan (LTP3), and will adopt the guiding principles of the Transport Hierarchy set out in LTP4 within the Council’s Design Guide and project lifecycle documents to embed and demonstrate the application of those principles across our transport infrastructure projects.

Councillor Drew seconded the amendment and reserved her right to speak.

Councillor Matecki accepted the amendment as friendly.

Debate

Councillor John Holland welcomed the amendment and, reflecting on the process of creating a Local Transport Plan, he considered that the content had to be translated into action.  To illustrate this point, he shared his experience of introducing an Air Quality Management Zone Order which had not yet been completed.

Councillor Jenny Fradgeley welcomed the user-friendly document but considered that it was pitched at a high level and more power, guidance and direction was needed.  She welcomed the inclusion of active travel but considered that more ambition was required with appropriate guidance to ensure action could take place.

Councillor Sarah Millar also welcomed the amendment and any reflections on proposed rail ticket office closures. 

Councillor Kate Rolfe also commented on the pleasant presentation of the Plan but queried where the funding to fulfil its aspirations would be found.  She did not consider that there was sufficient emphasis on infrastructure to support development and that the draft should have included more detail.

Councillor Sarah Feeney commented on problems regarding car parking and the need to support people living in deprived areas which were likely to become low emission zones. She also commented that the use of average speed cameras was lamentably absent from the Plan.

Councillor Tim Sinclair noted that the document was more aptly considered as a strategy document than a plan.  Whilst it needed to be a useful document, there had to be a flexibility to allow for change, and provide a balance with the environment, wellbeing, economy and place.  In his view, it would be a useful strategy document to provide effective implementation plans.

Councillor Clare Golby lamented the low level of consultation responses which she did not consider sufficient to inform a strategy. She highlighted experiences from the division she represented including the A5 partnership, HGV use and funding for the Bermuda bridge project. 

Councillor Jerry Roodhouse echoed comments about the low level of consultation response.  Whilst this was a high level strategic document, he expressed concerns regarding the base line evidence.

Councillor Peter Butlin noted that this was a strategy document that was required by legislation.  He considered that it was important not to introduce punitive measures on the community and this document would allow the community to be engaged in future proposals. He pointed out that the Warwickshire economy depended on good connectivity links and that rural communities had little choice in travel options but that strategic policy could help deliver services.

Councillor Sarah Boad considered that the Plan lacked substance, particularly citing the section relating to the public transport network for the future.  In support of this view, she commented on the unreliability of the bus network and lamented the increasing need for individuals to have access to the internet/smartphones to pay for car parking and rail travel.

Councillor Jeff Clarke explained that as Chair of the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee he understood that the document presented was a strategic one.  He also provided insight into the need for more people to use bus services if they were to continue.  He noted that the different districts and boroughs in Warwickshire had different needs and, whilst he broadly supported the Plan, he would like to see those local needs being met in the future developments.

Councillor Jack Kennaugh echoed previous concerns raised by Councillors Golby and Roodhouse.  He noted that motorists were at the bottom of the hierarchy system, but considered that the economy was driven forward on the roads which were at capacity and required investment.  He also supported the view that different areas in the county had different needs and whilst support for cycling routes may be suitable in some areas, greater emphasis on the needs of private motor vehicles was needed in others. 

Councillor Tracey Drew thanked Members for an interesting debate and repeated her previous comments regarding the Lias Line.  Noting regional and national statistics on the use of public transport for travel to work and emissions, she considered that there was an urgent need for serious and meaningful change which gave residents active travel choices that would reduce car travel, resulting in fewer traffic jams, fewer new roads being built and fewer emissions.

Councillor Richard Baxter-Payne recognised that each Councillor had a different view of what was best suited for their division but he considered that the Plan would allow those views to be put forward in order to shape priorities.  He considered that people needed to be educated and encouraged to leave their cars at home rather than be forced to do so and, in his view, this Plan supported that.

Councillor Jan Matecki also emphasised that the Plan allowed each area to set its own priorities.  Despite being new into the role of Portfolio Holder, he had thoroughly considered the Plan and he urged councillors to read it in context.  It was not the role of the Council to tell people how to travel, but to provide safe alternatives and give communities opportunity to set their own priorities.  He commented on the increasing use of electric vehicles and the need to provide cycle routes for those who wanted them. In relation to criticism on the consultation, he pointed out that the Citizens Panel represented all areas and had opportunity to guide the plans. 

Vote

A vote on the motion took place which was carried by a majority.

Resolved

That Council adopts the Local Transport Plan for Warwickshire (LTP4) at Appendix A which supersedes and replaces the existing Plan (LTP3), and will adopt the guiding principles of the Transport Hierarchy set out in LTP4 within the Council’s Design Guide and project lifecycle documents to embed and demonstrate the application of those principles across our transport infrastructure projects.