Issue - meetings

The recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 28th February 2017 were considered at Council on that date.

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 1st March 2017

·         Council Response to Local Transport Plan No 4 Consultation

·         Council Response to Solihull Local Plan Review

·         Council Response to Worcestershire County Council Minerals Plan

There were no recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 22nd March 2017.

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 5th April 2017

·         ICT Infrastructure Proposals (the background Appendix to the Cabinet report is confidential)

·         Shared Services Business Case for Customer Access and Financial Support (the background papers to this item are confidential)

(The background papers to the recommendations are contained at the back of the Council Agenda)

Council Response to Local Transport Plan No 4 Consultation

The recommendations from the Cabinet in relation to this Council’s response to the Worcestershire County Council’s Local Transport Plan No 4 (LTP4) were proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. J. May.

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Denaro referred to a number of recent meetings and workshops which had taken place involving Members and officers from this Council and from the County Council. It had been made clear at these sessions that this Council felt very strongly there was much more to be done to address the very serious transport issues within Bromsgrove. 

Councillor Denaro referred specifically to the Council’s response to the LTP4 consultation which focused on the lack of long term vision and strategy for the District. Whilst a series of ad hoc schemes were proposed these did not in themselves provide a coherent transport strategy. Policy BR1 (Bromsgrove Transport Strategy) was felt to be too limited in what it was trying to achieve. Indications had been received from WCC that there could be an alteration in the wording of BR1 to allow for the production of a more overarching and longer term strategy which would consider all modes of transport and would clearly be a key element in the future development of the District.

Councillor Denaro also referred to the opportunity for the Strategy to be seen as an opportunity for transport considerations to more strongly influence the decisions on where all future forms of development should take place. The Strategy should play a positive role in addressing the deficiencies in infrastructure rather than merely mitigating the impact of future development.

Councillor Denaro raised the need for the development of an evidenced based investment strategy which could be used to secure the necessary infrastructure funding. This strategy needed to be robust and flexible so that it could meet the requirements of a range of central and local government funding regimes over the lifetime of the Plan. The Strategy needed to be fully integrated with other similar strategies being developed in neighbouring areas.

Councillor Denaro referred to the work being undertaken by this Council’s Consultants Mott Macdonald in relation to Highways matters, in particular it had been concluded that the existing Barham model was not fit to determine detailed traffic implications. A new approach had been agreed using established methods of traffic assessment. Following the forthcoming elections it was intended to hold early discussions with WCC in order to determine a more permanent way forward.   

During the debate the actions which had been taken in engaging Mott MacDonald and in responding to LTP4 issues were welcomed by Members as good examples of addressing problems which were recognised as being crucial to the future of the District and of great concern to residents. 

The view was expressed that whilst it was clear that the Barham model was not fit for purpose, this also applied to LTP4 and Policy BR1 as a whole and that as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109