Agenda item - Transport Report - additional information

Agenda item

Transport Report - additional information

The attached report has been provided for Members’ information and will form part of the wider evidence base for the Transport Report which is currently being prepared.

 

 

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the item and explained that the matter had been discussed at Worcestershire County Council (WCC). It was agreed that County Councillor K. Pollock, Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure and Karen Hanchett, WCC Highways who were in attendance, be invited to join the discussion. Representatives from Whitford Vale Voice were also welcomed to the meeting.

 

Ruth Bamford, Head of Planning and Regeneration introduced the report by the retained Highways Consultants, Mott MacDonald. The report had been produced in response to the request from the Board to examine the study undertaken by JMP who were commissioned by WCC to examine the need for a Western Distributor/Bypass. The JMP report had concluded that the case for investing in the scheme was ‘uncertain and not capable of being substantiated in the current circumstance.’ The report undertaken by Mott MacDonald had not concluded if the bypass was needed or not but that there were gaps in the JMP report evidence.

 

The Chairman emphasised the need for the Board not to refer to individual planning applications when discussing the matter.

 

County Councillor Pollock referred to the delay between the JMP report which was completed in November 2015 and the Mott McDonald report. He did not agree with the conclusions in the Mott McDonald report and highlighted that in the interim the Local Plan and the County Council’s Transport Plan had been agreed.

 

The Chairman referred to concerns that had been raised in 2016. There had been a consistent view that the review had been flawed as it had not taken the right approach or used the correct methodology and the document had been relied on to make decisions and LTP4 had not been supported, with constant and ongoing debate taking place regarding the matter.

 

In response to Members’ queries, it was confirmed that Mike Dunphy, Strategic Planning Manager was working on a further report on behalf of the Board, which may take several more months to complete.

 

Members’ referred to the Local Plan which had been adopted, taking into consideration the information available and expressed concern that it would be irresponsible to ignore the Mott McDonald report. It was felt that the District Plan should be based on valid information and any conflicting evidence needed to be addressed.

 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified that the Local Plan had been adopted and the key was to ensure that the appropriate highways mitigation was in place. It was important to thoroughly understand the infrastructure as part of that work.

 

A Member referred to a scenario where by a new development had been agreed despite public concerns about the impact on the highway. In that case, the Member felt that WCC Highways had accepted, without question, the views of consultants which it was understood had been paid for by the developer to consider the mitigation required. The Chairman clarified that the JMP report had been funded by WCC and County Councillor Pollock confirmed that the JMP report was nothing to do with developers.

 

The Chairman suggested that the Strategic Planning Manager be asked to undertake the additional work recommended in the Mott McDonald report where possible. It was felt that the traffic model for Bromsgrove could not be relied upon and the evidence base for a Western Relief Road was called into question. It was acknowledged that some of the additional work would need to be commissioned.

 

Councillor C. B.Taylor, Portfolio Holder for Planning Services and Strategic Housing, commented that the issue should not be examined in isolation and suggested that the whole infrastructure needed to be considered.

 

The Chairman referred to the Barham report and explained that evidence from WCC had called the need for the Western Relief road into question but the evidence was not clear as to whether the road was needed or not. It was queried why the report had not examined local traffic congestion issues or look beyond 2023. It was important to understand the problem to develop the right solutions and to consider the options and costs.

 

County Councillor K. Pollock. Advised that there had been mass consultation on the LTP4 and a large number of differing views had been received and WCC had revised LTP4 as a result of that consultation.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning Services and Strategic Housing suggested that the Mott McDonald report should be shared with JMP, and that JMP be asked for their views on the report.

 

It was confirmed by Ms. Hanchett that the report had not been passed to JMP. WCC was however preparing information to feed into the report being written by the District’s Strategic Planning Manager, on behalf of the Board.

 

In the course of the discussion Members commented that;

·         The County Council had adopted the JMP report.

·         The evidence and facts were unclear.

·         Residents were raising concerns about continued log jammed traffic throughout the town.

·         The Board should await the report of the Strategic Planning Manager and consider all options.

·         The Chairman suggested that the Strategic Planning Manager should cover in his report the issues raised in the Mott McDonald report.

 

County Councillor Pollock expressed his sympathy for the local District Councillors and residents who experienced traffic issues. He referred to the Highways England M5 motorway project at junctions 1 and 2 and that there had been little regard for the impact on local areas when traffic had been diverted off the motorway. £3-4 million would be invested to improve Active Transport and there would be improvement to the A38.

 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified that the Strategic Planning Manager was not a highways engineer. It had been suggested that the research was encompassed as part of the review plan and it was queried if the Board would not prefer a more holistic approach.

 

The Chairman referred to the fact that he had written to WCC in the early noughties around highways issues and that the JMP report had been produced many years later. There now needed to be a full report to answer the concerns raised by everyone. It needed to be established if public opinion reflected highways evidence and if any proposed projects could be affordable. It also needed to be clear if the concerns that Mott McDonald had raised were correct or not.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning Services and Strategic Housing again suggested that the report should be sent back to JMP and that they be asked to rectify the report that they produced and consider if the information was correct or not.

 

The Chairman reiterated that there needed to be an answer to the question of a relief road. It was suggested that JMP be asked to put together a new report responding to the questions raised.

 

RESOLVED that the Board note the Mott MacDonald report which will form part of the evidence base of the report on Transport issues to be shared with the Board at a later date.

Supporting documents: