MINUTES of a meeting of the PEAK PARK TRANSPORT FORUM held at County Hall, Matlock on 15 December 2003
A Chymera and Councillor T Bristowe
Mr J Grey and Ms E Wallace
Councillors J Bull, W Burrows and B Taylor, Mr M Smith and Ms Y Peach
Councillor J Brown and P Johnston
Mr M Padget
Councillor J Sutcliffe and Mr G Willerton
Ms A Ashe, Mr A Brown and P Stubbs
Mr C Bell
Mr J Prince
Councillor B Mathers
Mr P Calverley and Councillor R Oldham
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor T Critchlow (Peak District National Park Authority), Mr M Crompton (Peak District National Park Authority), Highways Agency, C Jenkins (Countryside Agency), Councillor B Lucas (Derbyshire County Council), Councillor L Richardson (Peak District National Park Authority) and Councillor B Wilson (Peak District National Park Authority)
28/03 MINUTES RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Peak Park Transport Forum held on 1 September 2003 be received.
29/03 MATTERS ARISING – (a) A628 Progress Report (Minute No 18/03 refers) It was stated that the results of the traffic model to test the impact of imposing traffic restraint were not available at present. It was hoped that these could be presented to the next meeting of the Forum.
(b) Ministerial Visit (Minute No 21/03 refers) A letter had not yet been sent to the Minister as results were awaited on the proposed Matlock to Buxton scheme. It was anticipated that a letter would be sent to the Minister shortly.
(c) Derby-Manchester Railway: Feasibility Study of Re-opening the Matlock to Buxton/Chinley Section (Minute No 23/03 refers) It had been hoped that a report on the viability of the project and recommendations for the preferred option would be available at this meeting. It was now expected that a report would be available in February.
(d) Public Transport Partnership Working – Update (Minute No 27/03 refers) It was reported that, from early summer 2004, an enhanced bus service would be introduced in the Peak District.
30/03 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – (a) Anne Robinson, Council for the Protection of Rural England Anne Robinson, representing the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) presented her comments to the Forum on the proposals for the A57/628/616. The CPRE was campaigning for sustainable transport in the Peak District.
Ms Robinson had two main concerns regarding the proposals for the by-pass. The first issue related to the economic impact assessment. She stated that the Highways Agency had not undertaken the necessary report for this aspect, and she urged the Peak Park Transport Forum to put pressure on the Highways Agency to ensure the economic impact assessment was carried out.
Ms Robinson’s second concern related to the environmental impact assessment, which the Countryside Agency had suggested should cover the whole area, not just the infrastructure. The assessment by the Highways Agency covered only the area between the M67 and Townhead Farm. She asked that the Peak Park Transport Forum request the Highways Agency to carry out an environmental impact assessment for the whole area.
Members of the Forum felt that the Highways Agency had undertaken everything that was necessary within legal requirements. However, officers would consider the comments put forward by Ms Robinson and would discuss them with the Highways Agency.
It was also agreed that officers would determine exactly which assessments were being carried out by the Highways Agency and would let Forum members know.
(b) Julian Newton, Translink A presentation was given by Julian Newton of Translink, which discussed the possibility of re-opening the Woodhead railway line, and creating a “rolling highway along the Pennines” for HGVs.
Mr Newton highlighted the main problems with the A616/628 in its current state, and argued why a bypass would not be beneficial, as it would create more of the same problems.
The reasons for proposing to have a rolling highway were detailed. Mr Newton stated that this would mean that the existing infrastructure would be used, including the bridges and tunnels along the route. Existing technology would also be used. There would be little impact on the environment, fewer road accidents, transport times would be reduced, and there would be little impact on the environment, as there would be less traffic congestion, air pollution and noise pollution. He also said that the scheme would enhance the prosperity of the area.
Mr Newton explained that the proposal would be profitable, as it would under cut the current cost. He estimated that, without subsidy, the earnings would be £6 – 9m per annum.
Members of the Forum were very divided as to the proposal. Many opposed the proposal as an alternative to the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass. There were, however, many questions that needed to be answered. It was felt that there needed to be proper officer consideration given to the issue. Mr Newton asked members to contact him if they had any questions about the proposal. His details were as follows:
Mr J Newton
C/o 9 Meadowbank
Hollingworth
Via Hyde
Cheshire
SK14 8JW
Email – jbnewton_5@hotmail.com
Tel – 01457 762425/07813 025799
31/03 UPDATING THE BUSINESS PLAN It was agreed at the last meeting of the Forum that a revised version of the Business Plan should be presented. At its meeting on 11 November 2003, the Officer Working Group agreed to present a revised set of Action Statements to update Business Plan proposals. The intention was for these to be revised for presentation at each meeting of the Forum to allow a constant check on progress.
The Officer Working Group also discussed the main text of the Business Plan. Particular attention was paid to the relationship between the South Pennines strategy and the Local Transport Plan. It was reported that the South Pennines strategy was moving into its implementation phase and was becoming closely aligned with the programmes of partner transport authorities.
Second Local Transport Plan’s were due to be submitted in 2005, and consultation drafts were expected in 2004. It was therefore suggested that a complete redraft of the SPITS Business Plan should follow the same time scale. Consultation for both would then take place at the same time, and partner authorities in SPITS could incorporate the relevant elements of the Business Plan into their Local Transport Plan documents.
RESOLVED that (1) the PPTF approve the updated Action Statements which form Appendix 1; and
(2) the PPTF approve the suggested programme for updating the Business Plan and its incorporation into the LTP process.
32/03 FINANCE AND STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS Funding was in place for the financial year 2004/05. However, funding from the Countryside Agency would end in March 2004, and therefore, alternative sources of funding and staffing arrangements needed to be considered.
Four potential options for staffing arrangements were detailed. However, only one appeared to be viable. This option was to retain the existing staffing arrangements and request increased contributions from SPITS partner organisations.
It was stated that an increase in contributions would produce an increase in uncommitted funds and would allow for contributions to new projects and unforeseen cost increases. However, regular increases to contributions would not be sustainable in the long term unless external funding was secured. It was felt that an agreement to annually increasing contributions would be unrealistic, and it was therefore proposed that a higher fixed annual payment of £1600 be agreed. External funding could then be sought over the next year.
RESOLVED that (1) individual shares should rise to £1600 (from £1400) to bring contributions into line with inflation;
(2) staffing be retained at its present level;
(3) the Project Officer devote a proportion of his time over the next 12 months to securing external funding for SPITS;
(4) a report on the financial situation be made to the Forum every six months; and
(5) each funding partner seeks the necessary increase in funding from their respective authority/agency and reports back to the Forum at the next meeting.
33/03 A628 PROGRESS REPORT The developments of this scheme since the last meeting of the Forum were reported. At the beginning of November, relevant Highway Authorities, the Peak District National Park Authority and SPITS met with the Highways Agency to discuss the further work that needed to be undertaken to establish future traffic patterns.
A meeting between the Highways Agency, appropriate Highway Authorities and the Peak District National Park Authority had taken place on 11 December 2003. It was reported that, at this meeting, discussions had taken place on Selected and Limited Safety Improvements.
The Forum would be kept informed of further progress.
RESOLVED that the current state of progress in the development of proposals for the A628 be noted.
34/03 SPITS TRAFFIC RESTRAINT STUDY PROGRESS REPORT In October 2003, the consultants (FaberMaunsell) reported to the SPITS Traffic Restraint Sub Group that an examination of policy restraints had been completed and that traffic data had been collected. The routes to be studied had been agreed, and the findings of the route audits were currently being drawn up.
The Highways Agency had met with the Peak District National Park Authority, SPITS, FaberMaunsell and Highway Authorities to discuss the A628 Mottram-Hollingworth-Tintwistle scheme.
£50,000 had been allocated from SPITS funds towards the study. This had been supplemented by a contribution of £15,000 from the Government Office for the East Midlands. The price quoted for the study was £57,135.
RESOLVED that progress be noted by the Forum.
35/03 EUROPEAN FUNDING BID RURAL AND URBAN LINKAGES This bid had been due to be submitted on 1 October 2003, but the lead partner in Germany had decided not to proceed at the last minute. This was welcomed as it allowed more time to strengthen the bid. The bid would now be submitted to the next round of funding, the deadline for which was 1 April 2004.
RESOLVED that (1) the Forum notes the continuation of the project and maintains support where necessary for this project; and
(2) the SPITS Project Officer keeps the PPTF informed of progress.
36/03 RAIL UPDATE (A8531) Members were made aware of communications between the Project Officer and a variety of companies regarding rail provision.
RESOLVED that this activity be noted by the Forum.
37/03 DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS The dates of meetings for 2004 were as follows:-
Monday, 26 April 2004
Monday, 12 July 2004
Monday, 18 October 2004
Monday, 24 January 2005
The meetings would all be held in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Matlock at 2.00pm