PEAK PARK TRANSPORT FORUM
SOUTH PENNINE INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY

REPORT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORKSHOP
Bakewell Agricultural Business Centre, 2nd May 2002

1. Introduction
The workshop was attended by 52 delegates from local authorities, special interest groups and other agencies (see Appendix 4). The day was chaired by Adrian Brown, a member of the Peak District National Park Authority (Chair of Policy).

Workshop delegates were split into four discussion groups. The aim of the morning session was to review the Action Plan and come to a consensus about where it needs to be changed. The afternoon session picked out main points in response to four key questions relating to the way ahead for SPITS. The reports back from the groups are detailed in the appendix to this summary. Adrian Brown expressed his thanks for the very constructive discussions that had taken place.

All information from the workshop will be submitted to the Peak Park Transport Forum in June and the material will be used to update the Business Plan.

2. Summary of Main Issues Raised
It should be noted that this summary reflects the many and varied discussions that took place during the Workshop and some of the issues are contradictory.

Role of SPITS
· No change needed to the SPITS Objectives but its long term vision should be complemented with short term targets
· The Strategy should be reviewed in the light of changes in transport policy & new traffic data coming on stream
· Are new Actions required?
· Should the PPTF through SPITS be an implementer or an influencer?
· SPITS should be a lobbying organisation not necessarily an implementing body. It draws together many views and ideas and is a very effective talking shop.
· SPITS should have its own delivery mechanism and directly instigate and promote particular policies to produce more results on the ground including:
o local transport issues
o access charging & tourist traffic
o introduction of green travel plans
o alternative energy sources
o car clubs/car sharing
o parking polices
o park & ride
o rural hubs/bus interchanges
o travel reduction
o inter regional ticketing
o rural road hierarchy coordination
· Very good at high level strategic issues but lacks means to transfer its polices to action on the ground.
· The SPITS remit should not just be TransPennine issues; it should take in tourist, recreational (including multi destination), local and travel to work issues.
· Place more emphasis on non-motorised transport

Future Developments
§ Worries about the effects of the Planning Green Paper reducing the opportunities for public involvement.
§ SPITS should be a pilot for sustainable transport development ideas.
§ It should be wholly visionary and holistic and not just focus on major road schemes.
§ SPITS should be more dynamic seeking a reduction in traffic not a reduction of traffic growth.
§ Move towards a focus on "soft" measures rather than concentrating on engineering solutions.
§ SPITS should press case for travel reduction & travel awareness policies in "none transport" strategies e.g. district leisure centre provision & health centres.
§ SPITS should investigate a bottom up approach looking at travel behaviour

Partnership Working Mechanisms
· Work well and the consensus across partners is a major achievement but they have to be seen to work and there is a need for a more clear mechanism for reporting back to consultees.
· No mechanism exists for involving the public in transport planning policy decisions at regional level

Policy Integration
· Is the PPTF through SPITS trying to influence too widely?
· SPITS has been successfully integrated into almost all the RPGs but the RPGs themselves are too fragmented.
· SPITS needs close involvement & coordination with:
o Regional Transport Strategies (RTS),
o Regional Planning Guidances (RPG)
o Local Transport Plans (LTPs)
o Refranchising issues
o Rural White paper
o Planning Green paper
o Regional Economic Strategy
o Regional Environmental Strategy
o Regional Cultural Strategy

Participation/communication
§ Need clearer definition of what SPITS is, what it does and what is going on
§ Should SPITS be getting directly involved with the public? Or,
§ Should the PPTF partner organisations disseminate SPITS information through existing mechanisms for examples LTP Consultations, Community Fora?
§ Market SPITS with publicity material aimed at decision makers at national, regional and local level.
§ Should not presume people know about SPITS and what it stands for.
§ Make greater use of the website, newsletters & leaflets.
§ Embark on further public consultation

SPITS & the Rural Transport Partnerships (RTPs)
§ SPITS is a good cross RTP boundary conduit.
§ Need clearer definition of their respective roles.
§ RTPs should be better integrated into SPITS mechanisms & meetings concentrating on local delivery but feeding into SPITS.
§ Establish clear relationships and mechanisms to ensure that local actions that implement SPITS polices are carried out by the RTPs.
§ RTPS & SPITS should come together to facilitate access to grants as part of the establishment of a one-stop shop to enable easier access to grants for rural schemes.
§ Jointly develop models of good practice e.g. tourist traffic & bus routes.
§ Both should seek to raise awareness of existing public transport
§ RTP's should be the local consultation & local delivery mechanism.
§ SPITS can influence the RTPs but RTPs will not necessarily carry out SPITS policies.


Local Transport Plans (LTPs)
§ SPITS involvement in LTPs should be through the Officer Working Group (OWG)
§ SPITS should ensure that LTPs are not seen as mainly concentrating on highway issues
§ Lobby LTP authorities for delivery of SPITS projects & proposals
§ LTPs should include, directly refer to & prioritise projects and policies that implement SPITS & include Performance Indicators on achievement of SPITS aims.
§ SPITS should be the mechanism for joined up schemes across LTP boundaries
§ LTP APRs should include a section monitoring progress against SPITS targets
§ Lobby LTP authorities for inclusion of projects/policies in LTP2

3. Interim Observations

SPITS is seen in a very positive light; but a distinction emerges as to the role of SPITS. Should it be a strategic overarching organisation or should it get involved on the ground in local issues?

4. What Happens Next?

Following comments from the attendees at the Workshop, this report will be considered by the SPITS Officers Working Group and then at the meeting of the Peak Park Transport Forum on Monday 24 June 2002. As part of the review and amendment of the SPITS Business Plan 2000/2015 this report will be considered by SPITS staff, the SPITS Officer Working Group. Proposals for changes and amendments to the Business Plan will be reported to a future meeting of the Peak Park Transport Forum.

APPENDIX 1

SPITS Public Participation Workshop
Tuesday 2 May 2002
Results from the Working Groups

As part of the Workshop, attendees were divided into four groups in the morning and afternoon and asked to consider questions about SPITS. The groups then reported back to the workshop their many, varied and sometime contradictory discussions and they are detailed below:

SESSION 1 - REVIEW OF ACTION PLAN

Questions the Groups were asked to address

1. Are the Partnership Working Mechanisms working?

2. How successful has SPITS been in integrating into policies e.g. Regional Planning Guidance(s), Regional Transport Strategies, Local Plans?
3. Has it had/will it have any effect?

4. How could the participation/communication elements of SPITS be improved?

Many thanks to Martin Smith for his marvellous note taking.

Report back from group 1
· Should SPITS be an implementer or influencer.
· Interim targets needed, better targets, short term targets, plus necessary structures put in place to achieve these.
· Worry about lack of action on the ground
· Worry about lack of understanding of SPITS
· Public involvement; what are we trying to achieve? Where is the PUBLIC involvement? Do people, politicians understand what SPITS wants?

Report back from group 2
· Is SPITS working? Difficult to decide. More to do on public consultation front. No mechanism exists for involving the public at the regional transport planning level. Is this a role for SPITS?
· How successful is SPITS at influencing policy? Fringe to all regions and to most authorities involved. Are we trying to influence too many policies?
· We need to disseminate information. We shouldn't presume people know about SPITS and what it stands for.
· We should be talking about other issues than just cross-Pennine
· We need to establish clear relationships with the RTP's

Report back from group 3
· What is SPITS and whom does it influence? Difficult to decide. Need to consider how we lobby agencies.
· We should be more dynamic, seeking a reduction of traffic, not a reduction of growth in traffic.
· We should be trying to influence national policy to be more dynamic
· Integration (land-use/transportation and modal integration) should be the main theme.

Report back from group 4
· User groups have very little opportunity to influence policy at regional level. SPITS could assist.
· SPITS draws together many views and ideas
· Suggest greater use of the web site, newsletters, leaflets etc to get SPITS message across.
· SPITS has been successful in integrating into RPG, but still fragmented.
· Feeling that contributions from interest groups not seriously considered.
· Worry that Planning Green Paper proposals will adversely affect public involvement.

Open forum
· Worry about Planning Green Paper cutting down on public involvement. What has SPITS involvement been in Green Paper. 31000 representations so far to government. (Paul Gibbons)
· Worry that SPITS is/will be seen as a talking shop with nothing getting done. (Jeremy Clegg)
· SPITS is very good at high level strategic issues. Work on the ground is not so obvious. Should be involved in local issues including bus services, fares etc. Need to be involved in tourist traffic issues, not just cross-Park. (Jacque Bevan)
· Too much concentration on engineering as the way out of problems. Should be a focus on "soft" measures. (Anne Robinson)
· The SPITS officers should produce a position paper outlining what SPITS wants to see achieved. (Jeremy Clegg)
· The Matlock-Buxton railway closure was strenuously opposed by the Peak Park and its re-opening should now be supported as a vital means of achieving National Park management. (Lawrence Knighton)
· Derbyshire is committed to undertaking the Derby-Manchester (Matlock-Buxton) re-opening feasibility study and has secured £800k towards this. Members need to know what impact SPITS policies will have on people's lives and how can people influence what is in SPITS. What are the policies and projects that meet people's needs? (Eric Swain)
· SPITS should be the test bed for sustainable transport development ideas. It should be wholly visionary and not focus on major road schemes (Rachel Reeves, CNP)

End Session 1

SESSION 2 - THE WAY AHEAD

The Groups were asked to examine four topic areas:

· What elements of SPITS need further development in the light of changes since 1999?

· How should the Rural Transport Partnerships & SPITS interact?

· How to implement SPITS through the Local Transport Plan process?

· Are there any other issues/elements that SPITS should address?

Report back from group 1
· No changes needed to objectives.
· Need to closely associate with RTS/RPG/LTP. Much more involvement needed and co-ordination required. MWS was suggested!
· Involvement with LTPs should be through the OWG. The quiet lanes project was seen as a good start.
· SPITS mechanisms have to be seen to work and there is a need to report back to consultees.
· SPITS should have its own delivery mechanism.
· SPITS should become like a rural PTE
· SPITS should investigate access charging and tourist traffic
· SPITS should champion the introduction of green travel plans.

Report back from group 2
· More results need on the ground.
· There should be a bottom up approach looking at travel behaviour.
· SPITS should fit in with public preference.
· SPITS should investigate parking policy and park/ride.
· The SPITS strategy should be updated using new traffic data.
· RTP's and SPITS should come together to facilitate access to grants.
· A one-stop shop should be established to enable easier access to grants for rural schemes. Not necessarily SPITS, but SPITS should initiate this.
· The RTP's should be better integrated into the SPITS mechanisms and meetings.
· LTPs should include prioritised SPITS projects (or at least SPITS related projects).
· SPITS should be the mechanism to "join-up" schemes across LTP boundaries.
· SPITS should investigate;
i) alternative transport energy sources, and alternative transport modes.
ii) car clubs/car sharing
iii) Public transport at the local level, including fares and accessibility
iv) rural hubs (bus interchanges)
v) Road tolls

Report back from group 3
· SPITS should be involved in national and regional policy changes, including refranchising issues, the rural white paper, planning green paper, regional economic strategy, regional environmental strategy and cultural strategies.
· The SPITS strategy needs to be reviewed in the light of changes in transport policy and new data coming on stream. Are new actions required?
· More emphasis needed on visitor traffic
· More emphasis needed on local issues
· SPITS role is to lobby, not necessarily implement.
· We need to market SPITS, with publicity material aimed at decision makers at national regional and local level.
· SPITS and RTP's should seek to raise awareness of existing public transport facilities. There needs to be clear definition of roles between RTP's and SPITS, but SPITS is a good cross-boundary channel.
· SPITS/RTP's should develop models of good practice especially with regard to tourist traffic.
· We should be lobbying the LTP authorities for delivery of SPITS projects and policies.
· We should begin lobbying LTP authorities for inclusion of projects/policies in LTP2
· APR's should include a section monitoring progress against SPITS targets
· SPITS should place greater emphasis on none motorised transport
· SPITS should be closely involved in RTS reviews.
· SPITS should be pressing the case for travel reduction and travel awareness policies in other "none transport" strategies, e.g. district recreation centres, health centres.
· SPITS long term targets are not ambitious enough. We should be seeking to reduce travel demand.
· We should have a long term vision with complementary short term targets.

Report back from group 4
· SPITS needs to define who we are, what we do and what is going on. We should embark on further public consultation and give out much more information.
· SPITS should be the rural road hierarchy co-ordinator
· We should promote "softer" measures, including rural versions of safe routes to school.
· We need to cater for the full range of journey types, including multi-destination trips so often found with recreational traffic.
· SPITS should be involved in co-ordinating cross boundary, inter-regional ticketing.
· The RTP's should focus on local delivery and feed into SPITS strategy.
· We consider that the establishment of consensus across the SPITS partners is a major achievement. This needs to be carried forward into LTP delivery, to ensure that LTPs are not seen as merely concentrating on highway issues.

APPENDIX 2

Flip Chart Records

These are notes taken directly from the workshop's flip chart sheets. The notes have not been subject to interpretation. They constitute a record of the day, and are the 'raw' material from which the body of the report has been developed.

Group 1 Morning Session
Achievements
· Regional issues - cannot be dealt with by only one authority - SPITS comes into its own.
· SPITS is successful at exerting influence as opposed to direct action on the ground.
· SPITS has good mechanisms in place.

Targets
· LTP ultimately responsible for action, influenced by SPITS as well as finance, government policy, etc. SPITS itself is 'toothless' but is a good body for conveying influence. This could be improved.
· The business plan should have its targets clearly staged.
· Co-ordinate e.g. traffic restraint since not with the Police (will only deal with accident black spots) and HA waiting for the A628, not want 'flood'.
· UDV - Road charging scheme - is it part of SPITS? Why not?
· Gives the opportunity for inter-regional issues. The Peak Park being only a fringe issue for the surrounding regions.

Public Involvement?
· SPITS is made up of many public bodies and hence there is no need for direct consultation/liaison with the public.
(Peter Stubbs)

Group 2 Morning Session
Partnership Working Mechanisms
· SPITS is about delivering on the ground
· LAs involved in sub-groups - this is working
· Wider than this? Police, YHA etc
· LA transport planners - Can get less done than it appears - main issue is to make sure strategies are included in all relevant plans, but to actually get this done takes much more involvement of others - dependant upon this.
· Getting access to data that everyone will agree on (projections of the various options).
· Peak District National Park has few transport powers itself, which is why the setting up of Peak Park Transport Forum was essential - raising profile in terms of policies
· Maintenance of the Forum over 5/6 years is a considerable achievement - keeping communication going.
· How do we make SPITS policies work when, for e.g. public transport operators are in some cases doubling their fares - Bus Working Group is working on these areas. Countryside Agency may be able to fund some relevant projects - The network is essentially a private one, SPITS and the buses sub group is advancing as far as it can.
· Funding through RBC - restrictions on certain projects - i.e. other restrictions, out of the working mechanisms' power.
· Is it a good idea to just talk to bus service providers? What about other options - community transport, etc
Integration
· RWP target - increasing by 30% the proportion of the population living within an hourly bus service
· Bus sub-group submitted an RBC bid based on this that was rejected.

SPITS - Cross Park (original objective)
· Include North South strategies as well
· Internal traffic issues, not just cross-park
· One car in 30 is cross park therefore there is a need to concentrate on all users
· Widespread lack of understanding of SPITS, both with official bodies and the public too.
- Widen spread of information?
- Getting away from detail, and going to macro-level

Integrating into Policies
· Confusion on RPG!
· Lack of interest, as well as lack of awareness.
· In some areas, don't even get a mention of SPITS.
· Insular
· SPITS - successful in integrating into policies, but too many polices to have to integrate into.
· Other regions are beginning to understand the problems in the area. Policy is an accepted one at a broad level.
· North West - didn't even recognise inter-regionality of SPITS.
· Inter-regionality of TRANSPORT.
· Public consultation - no mechanisms at the moment for the public to influence policy at a regional level
· Gulf between how public think RPG will affect the traffic through their village
· Public consultation is right - up to a point
· Huge difference between public consultation and public participation
· People want to know what is happening on the ground, not necessarily interested in policy
· Takes time between an idea and it actually being implemented
· Highways Agency - accident reduction trial work has been done - but in small villages, this can be obtrusive - balance between safety and tidying up.
· Issues being brought forward and preventing wrong decisions being made through SPITS bringing various bodies together.
· Without SPITS, PTEs would have very little to do with issues in the Peak Park.
· SPITS has existed at a time when Public Transport has been in a state of decline - the level of service that continues is as a result of SPITS.
· Structure and infrastructure is good, but will it actually achieve what it set out to achieve?

Communication
· Information needs to be disseminated from those that set within SPITS, its sub groups, etc
· Policy should cascade down to look at more local issues? - Review of terms of reference.
· Not just cross-park transport. Peak Park being used for many different reasons, and this needs to be recognised
· SPITS running in parallel to other partnerships, etc - not duplicating work
· But if the relevant people are not on working groups, their messages may not get across.
· Can't look at cross-park in isolation
· How much are interest groups, particularly parish and district councils being consulted
· Concentration on public services, but the general public will never give up their cars (distinct markets - weekday & weekend). Do we need to look at an alternative that IS NOT public transport? Attitude issue! Door - door.
· What's being done to stop the lorries?
· Parking
· Need to give better travel choices.
(Lisa Atkinson)

Group 3 Morning Session
There was a discussion on trunk roads about scaling down the network to a core network that would be managed by the Highways Agency

How do we bring in bodies that do not have transport in their remit? RDAs are seen to have a lot of money in their budgets, regard transport as important to their regions' economies and yet they have no formal remit in respect of transport. The RDAs are reviewing their Regional Economic Strategies and this will say things about transport.

The SRA is seen as having its own agenda (the Strategic Plan) so how effective is it to lobby for improvements such as upgrading the Trans-Pennine line?

There was a comment that a lot of everyday items are delivered in lorries etc that are perceived as being only partly full. Also, why cannot common items be sourced locally? Bottled water was an example.

We discussed the problems of school trips and that often they are part of more complex sets of trips. There appear to be some "traditional" examples where the man of the house takes the car to work and leaves it in the works car park while the female partner is left trying to get children to school etc. Overall we are trying to reduce the number and length of motorised journeys.
(Roger Anderson)

Group 4 Morning Session
Are the partnership working mechanisms working?
· We had a number of user groups on the seminar group and they felt that they have a limited opportunity to become involved.
· We reviewed the organisation of SPITS - Forum and Working Groups and concluded that SPITS is very often about drawing together initiatives being pursued by different organisations - e.g. Highways agency, Railtrack.
· Big meetings like the Forum do not allow active participation
· Mailshots/Web page will be helpful to alert user groups to the processes involved in developing projects that are part of SPITS initiatives so that the can feed into them.

How successful has SPITS been in integrating into RPGs, Local Plans etc?
· Mechanisms exist but they are thought to be fragmented and difficult to understand and there is some need to provide wider understanding of these and overcome the disappointment that contributions from interest groups are not seriously considered.
· Some members of the group expressed fears that local representation would be diminished given the prospect of the planning green paper.
(Barry Holt)

Group 1 Afternoon Session
· Further development due to changes since 1999 * - especially
RTP
LTPs
RTS RPG *
10yr plan *
TPI - HA *
· Partnership Working Mechanisms
· Be seen to work
· Links to Local Transport e.g. Stanage
· Greater transparency i.e.
www
newsletter
explain what SPITS does and is
what goes on in subgroup meetings
raise awareness of SPITS
· Info to all local residents? Is this needed?
· Partnership not recognised by the wider public. DOES IT MATTER?
· Reassure "Informed" public - PC, TC, DC
· Representatives from these organisations should report back to SPITS
· More involvement with RTS, RPG
· Provide info and monitoring

RTPs and SPITS interact how?

e.g. RTP 1999 - no contact with SPITS, however there are many members of the RTP steering committee who are members e.g. Staffs, CC, Derby CC, PP, CA, DA, HA etc
Plethora of organisations - co-ordination required - Martin Smith?
RTPs deliver SPITS objectives

Implement SPITS through LTPs
· PDNPA working to Derbyshire CC NOT SPITS
· SPITS dialogue to LTP Officers
· SPITS officer to check/feed into LA financial bids through LTPs
· Quiet Lanes ? Could be a useful project for SPITS to push? Low priority to HA.

Other issues for SPITS
· Delivery mechanism - funding bids (= to RTS which has no delivery mechanism)
· PDNPA to bid for funds
· Name 'SPITS' - keep
· PTE Rural areas
· Overlaps/Edges
· Access Charging - Sustainable Tourism
· Management of Car Parking
(Anne Robinson)
Group 2 Afternoon Session
What elements need further development?
· Results "on the ground"
· "Bottom up" approach to some of the strategies to give more flexibility
· Look carefully at travel behaviour. Can/should strategies fit in with known public preference but with sustainability?
· Revisit car parking policies and Park & Ride
· Continual update of strategy in light of new data

Rural Transport Partnership
· Facilitate easier access to Transport based grants (e.g. Parish Transport Grants etc)
· Make sure all partnerships are part of and integrated into SPITS meetings
· Clear communications are needed between RTPs and SPITS and Countryside Agency Regions.

LTPs and SPITS
· Very important that SPITS is recognised on all LTPs.
Has already achieved this on nearly all LTPs
NOW! Want a priority given to SPITS schemes
· SPITS should be used to join up LTPs for schemes.

How could the participation/communication elements of SPITS be improved?
· Look at other 'alternative' forms of transport (using alternative energy e.g. electric cars/buses)
· Car clubs and car sharing schemes
· Involvement in public transport - cost, accessibility, a network that works
· Road tolls - should we or shouldn't we?
(Jaqui Bevan)

Group 3 Afternoon Session
Areas for development
· Review in light of changes in policy in Transport and other areas. E.g. Rural White Paper, Rail Re-Franchising.
· Review progress against aims and actions. Are new actions required? Are existing ones still appropriate? E.g. more emphasis on visitor management needed. Tie in with local needs.
· SPITS role is to lobby/influence to get integration. Marketing SPITS to decision makers.

RTPs and SPITS
· RTPs need to raise awareness of services available.
· Need clear definition of roles.
· SPITS could act as channel for information exchange e.g. good practice, co-ordinating between RTPs.
· RTPs are rural, but most visitors are from urban areas. SPITS could help to integrate rural and urban, for visitor management.

LTPs and SPITS
· Lobbying for delivery of SPITS through LTPs; maintaining profile. Building towards review in 2005.
· LTP reporting should include progress against SPITS targets.

Other Issues
· Non-motorised transport.
· Regional Transport Strategies to be reviewed by end 2003.
· Getting transport issues and travel reduction into other policy documents. E.g. recreation, land-use planning.
· Demand responsive transport provision.
· Regional Economic Strategy Review.
· Regional Environmental/Cultural Strategies.
· Short term targets - Long term vision.
(Jo Taylor)

Group 4 Afternoon Session
What elements need further development?
· Monitoring, delivery and feedback
Development of Rural Road hierarchy (DTLR) - Promote!
Co-ordination with delivery organisations across area
Facilitate debate
· Clearing-House for information
· Continue/Increase influence on other bodies
· Promote softer answers
· Travel awareness plans - disseminate information
· School/Company travel plans - Safe routes to school!
· Ensure full range of journey types catered for (e.g. tourist/multi destination as will as point to point)
· Promote Inter-ticketing
· Act as catalyst to promote RTP objectives and formation - assist local agencies e.g. Parish Councils
· Why Derbyshire has 5 RTP: Nottinghamshire has only 1? Those in Derbyshire stem from pre-existing local organisations e.g. Hope Valley CRP.
· RTP need to feed back into SPITS either through OWG or subject groups
· RTP about delivery - SPITS is strategic
· Other local actors may be better placed to promote individual RTP with SPITS as context and policy framework
· Consequences of SPITS for LTP in the centre (e.g. Derbyshire Dales) may be different to those at the periphery (e.g. Greater Manchester) - how to make sure this is reflected in other LTP
· SPITS as broad partnership - when so many different authorities can reach a common view, this is a powerful voice!
· SPITS has promoted a common policy for incorporation into members' LTPs
· Implementation?
· Through existing cross boundary liaison mechanisms
· LTP Major Bids DO NOT have to be big road schemes - e.g. and area treatment involving Green ways and Quiet Lanes might be a major scheme
· Monitoring and co-ordinating feedback to user groups
· Other issues
· More local issues?
· Wish to influence E?W and N?S
· Matlock to Buxton (Derby to Manchester)
(Peter Johnston)

APPENDIX 3

Table 2 PRIORITY FRAMEWORK - taken from Business Plan

APPENDIX 4
Attendees