MINUTES of a meeting of the PEAK PARK TRANSPORT FORUM held at County Hall, Matlock on 3 February 2003.

Present:

Barnsley MBC

Ms A Beddoes and Councillor J Bristowe

Cheshire County Council

Mr J Gray

Countryside Agency

Ms L Atkinson

Derbyshire County Council

Councillors L S Bennett, J Bull, W Burrows, E H Swain, and D B Taylor, Ms Y Peach, Mr J Seymour and Mr M Smith

Derbyshire Dales District Council

Mr M Hase

GMPTE/PTA

Councillor J P Brown

High Peak Borough Council

Councillor C Bisknell

Highways Agency

Mr K Maylard (Leeds) and Mr A Withington (Manchester)

Kirklees MC

Mr M Padgett

Macclesfield Borough Council

Mr R Cramer and Councillor H Gaddum

Peak District National Park Authority

Mrs A Ashe, Mr A Brown, Councillor Mrs C Crowther, Mr W Kirkham and Mr P Stubbs

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

Mr J Prince

SYPTA

Councillor B Mathers

Tameside MBC

Mr R Anderson, Mr P Calverley and Councillor P Joinson

Also in attendance were Ms A Robinson and G Wild (CPRE).

Apologies for Absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Mrs J N Bevan (Derbyshire County Council), Ms B Hilditch (Peak District National Park Authority), Councillor Oldham CBE (Tameside MBC), Cllr D Payne (Kirklees MBC), Mr J Stewart (English Nature), Councillor E Wallace (Cheshire County Council)

1/03 ELECTION OF CHAIR RESOLVED that Councillor E H Swain be appointed Chair of the Forum.

(Councillor Swain in the Chair)

2/03 APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIR RESOLVED that Mr A Brown (Peak District National Park Authority) be appointed Vice Chair of the Forum.

3/03 MINUTES RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Peak Park Transport Forum held on 21 January 2002 be received.

4/03 BUSINESS PLAN PROGRESS REPORT The progress of implementing the Business Plan from January 2002 to present was reported. This included partnership working, integrating transport - policies, information and monitoring, participation/communication, and integrated transport planning - projects.

It was reported that a public participation workshop had taken place in May 2002, and the findings were being appraised for a review of the Business Plan. It was anticipated that the revised Business Plan, including operation and outcome targets, would be ready for presentation at the next meeting of the Forum.

RESOLVED to note the report.

5/03 HIGHWAYS AGENCY PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A57/628/616 It was reported that the purpose of the report was to suggest a response to the three regional planning bodies and to suggest further work to achieve SPITS objectives. It was reported that in order to progress further work on traffic and environmental issues, the Highways Agency needed to ensure that the scheme was included in the Targeted Programme of Improvements.

A special meeting had taken place on 12 December 2002, where relevant members received a presentation from the Highways Agency. The recommendation made at this meeting was that 'the Highways Agency's proposals should be supported', subject to certain conditions. Members were also informed of the suggested course of action proposed by the Officer Working Group, one of which was that the Forum should seek a meeting with the Minister for Transport to stress certain issues.

Letters were tabled from Tameside MBC and English Nature, both of whom were members of the Forum. These were considered in the subsequent discussion.

Officers from the Peak District National Park Authority stated that they supported the scheme. However, if support was forwarded, a request was made that this be conditional to allow for further investigations. It was also suggested that the work should include a commitment to environmental issues and mitigation measures.

Officers also reported that the Vice Chair had received letters from CPRE, the Council for National Parks and United Utilities. The first two were suggesting the need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the scheme, whilst United Utilities was suggesting an alternative route on the south side of Longendale. Replies had been sent advising that the matters raised were issues for the Highways Agency and pointing out that there were divergences of view as to the need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment for individual schemes. The EU Directive 2001/42/EC, which required SEA's did not come into force until 2004.

RESOLVED that (1) the three regional planning bodies should be informed that the Forum wishes to see the Highway Agency's proposals for the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass and the associated selective and limited improvements to the A628, as set out in section 2 of the report, included in the Targeted Programme of truck road improvements;

(2) the Forum should be party with the Highways Agency in a thorough investigation of the restraint issues prior to submission of draft line orders;

(3) the Forum joins with the Highways Agency in detailed investigation of the environmental and safety issues along the whole of the trunk road corridor and associated affected local roads;

(4) the Forum commissions its own study into the most appropriate traffic restraint measures for the paralleling local roads with the intention of introducing these measures through the Local Transport Plan system in conjunction with the construction of the trunk road scheme; and

(5) a meeting be sought with the Minister for Transport to stress:

· the need for an integrated approach to the problems of the Woodhead route and associated roads;
· the importance of progressing work on the Mottram-Tintwistle by-pass and the selective and limited improvements elsewhere on the route;
· the need for the improvements to Trans-Pennine rail routes and services as part of delivering South Pennines Integrated Transport Strategy objectives.

6/03 FINANCE AND STAFFING ISSUES It was reported that estimates had been made of financial commitment for 2003/04, and the contributions from Forum partners for 2003/04 and beyond. It was noted that, based on the remaining commitments for 2002/03, there was likely to be a carry over of approximately £70,000.

Included in the estimates for 2003/04 were Project Officer and Project Assistant staff costs and technical and administrative support. Also included was the external funding from the Countryside Agency. There was sufficient funding to support the Project Officer's post full time until 31 March 2004, and to allow the extension of the Project Assistant's part time post until 31 March 2004.

It was proposed that:
· project staff be permitted to work occasional extra hours, subject to the agreement of the Officer Working Group and within the constraints of the budget;
· authority should continue to be given to the Officer Working Group, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Forum, to approve a programme of work and subsequent expenditure up to a maximum of £10,000 per project;
· up to £50,000 be allocated for further study into Traffic Restraint and Mitigation measures in connection with the Highway Agency's proposal for the A57/A628/A616.

Members of the Forum were asked to consider an extension of their funding commitment to 2006 in order to maximise external funding opportunities. Although this was agreed in principle, it was felt that emphasis needed to be placed on the commitments being made as far forward as budgetary forecasting would allow.

RESOLVED that (1) the partners in the Forum be asked to request from their respective authorities, agencies or companies a funding commitment to the Peak Park Transport Forum until 31 March 2006 or as far forward as budgetary forecasting will allow (if they have not already so);

(2) the Forum approves a subscription level for 2003/04, as set out in the report;

(3) the Forum approves the extension of the SPITS Project Assistant's contract until 31 March 2004;

(4) the Forum permits the SPITS project staff to work occasional extra hours as the work dictates, within the constraints of the budget;

(5) the Forum delegates authority to the Officer Working Group, acting in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Forum to approve a programme of work and subsequent expenditure up to a maximum of £10,000 per project;

(6) the Forum approves the 2003 Spending Programme as set out in the Appendix to the report, including up to £50,000 for further study into Traffic Restraint and Mitigation measures in connection with the Highway Agency's proposal for the A57/A628/A616.

7/03 REGIONAL TRANSPORT STRATEGIES Members were informed that, following the North West Freight Committee meeting on 26 September 2002, a North Regional Freight Strategy had been developed and circulated for comment. The deadline for a response was 28 February 2003. It was reported that the Strategy inadequately developed rail opportunities, which was a key element of the SPITS Business Plan.

Members agreed that the North West Freight Advisory Group should be advised that the proposals would do little to further SPITS objectives and that the Advisory Group should be challenging the limited level of investment proposed by the Strategic Rail Authority.

Members also agreed that authority should be given to the Officer Working Group, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Forum, to make the necessary representations to the North West and other regional transport strategies.

RESOLVED that (1) the PPTF makes representations to the North West Freight Advisory Group to amend its strategy to better reflect SPITS objectives and encourage a wider use of rail for transporting freight;

(2) authority be delegated to the Chair and Vice Chair of the PPTF to approve any other responses to Regional Freight Strategies that may be required.

8/03 QUIET LANES: PROGRESS REPORT Members were informed of the current progress of the proposed schemes in the SPITS area. It was reported, however, that a difficulty had arisen, in so much as the Countryside Agency would not fund any new schemes until a report had been received on the Kent and Norfolk pilot projects. It was suggested that an urgent meeting take place with the Countryside Agency to clarify the position with regard to SPITS continuing to undertake consultation on quiet lane schemes. Assuming the consultation could continue, it was proposed to undertake initial consultations with parishes in the SPITS area.

The cost of any initial consultations could be funded from the SPITS budget, but funding of implementation would require an allocation from the budgets of Highway Authorities, District Councils and the National Park Authority. The SPITS Project Officer would be asked to investigate alternative external funding.

In discussion, it was made clear that Derbyshire County Council regarded quiet lane projects as a lower priority than other elements of the Local Transport Plan programme, for example, highway and footway maintenance, safety schemes, traffic management and public transport projects, where there was still a backlog of investment requirements after many years of low capital allocations.

RESOLVED that (1) the partners in the Peak Park Transport Forum:
· continue to progress quiet lane schemes in their areas; and
· consider an allocation of funding from their respective Authorities to introduce quiet lane measures;

(2) there should be an urgent meeting with the Countryside Agency to clarify the position with regard to the South Pennines Integrated Transport Strategy continuing to undertake consultation on quiet lane schemes;

(3) initial consultations with parishes in the South Pennines Integrated Transport Strategy area should be carried out by the South Pennines Integrated Transport Strategy project officer, but that detailed discussions and consultations leading to implementation should then be the responsibility of the relevant local Highway Authority;

(4) the South Pennines Integrated Transport Strategy project officer should be asked to investigate alternative external funding sources in order to progress these initiatives; and

(5) a report be made to the next meeting of the Forum on progress on these schemes.

9/03 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM ISSUES Members were informed of new and proposed joint developments relating to public transport provision and marketing in the Peak District and to seek approval for match funding for a temporary contract post of Sustainable Transport Marketing Officer. A bid was being prepared for submission to the Countryside Agency for grant aid to fund this post to the end of March 2005.

The Countryside Agency representative stated that, as yet, there was no committed funding for 2003/04, but there was still an amount available in the current year. She emphasised that any bids would need to be submitted as soon as possible to have funding approved.

RESOLVED that (1) working under the umbrella of the South Pennines Integrated Transport Strategy, and through its Marketing Sub-Group, officers continue to develop a joint marketing strategy for sustainable transport in the 'Greater Peak District' area;

(2) the bid for Countryside Agency funding for the post of Sustainable Transport Marketing Officer and the development of a sustainable transport marketing strategy be supported and a total of £15,000 match funding be sought from the Peak District National Park Authority (33%), Derbyshire County Council (33%), and other neighbouring transport authorities (33% pro-rata);

(3) it be noted that further match funding will be required to support any new marketing campaigns so developed, and that this will be reported to this Forum at a later date;

(4) the Sunday and Bank Holiday Monday bus network of contract services be reviewed and any necessary modifications for 2004 be reported to a future meeting of this Forum;

(5) in order to maintain stability of public transport provision, the need to retain the existing overall bus subsidy budget for the Sunday and Bank Holiday network be noted and considered by the relevant authorities.

10/03 DERBY MANCHESTER RAILWAY RE-OPENING: FEASIBILITY STUDY PROGRESS It was reported that progress had been made on the study. The main activities were the preparation of an inception report which provided a more detailed outline of the work programme; review of previous reports and studies; the collection of survey data; and initial meetings with key stakeholders. The first meeting of the Project Reference Group was held on 11 December 2002.

RESOLVED to note the current state of progress with the feasibility study.

11/03 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION It was felt that there should be an opportunity for public participation at meetings of the Peak Park Transport Forum. The session would be for a maximum of 30 minutes at the start of the meeting, and items would need to be related to the agenda. The items for discussion would be confirmed before the meeting.

Members agreed that this was an excellent idea, but publicising the meeting and the public session was vital. Also, a period of days would need to be agreed as the time for questions to be submitted.

It was confirmed that references to 'the agenda' meant the agenda of the particular meeting, not the overall agenda of the PPTF. Local Authority members of the Forum were asked to publicise the Forum meetings in the same manner as they publicised their own meetings. Other means of publicising the meetings would be considered by the Officer Working Group.

RESOLVED that the Forum adopt the following procedure:

· to introduce a public participation session at each meeting
· to limit each public participation session to a maximum of 30 minutes at the start of the meeting, enabling up to 3 items for discussion
· matters for discussion in the public participation session must be related to the agenda
· members of the public intending to raise issues need to confirm attendance and items for discussion to enable a structured meeting to take place.

12/03 DATE OF NEXT MEETING It was agreed that the Peak Park Transport Forum should meet more regularly, and it was felt that four meetings a year would be suitable.

The next meeting of the Peak Park Transport Forum would be held in approximately three months, on a date to be advised.