APPENDIX 7
Memorandum submitted by Southend-on-Sea
Borough Council (Unitary Authority)
SUMMARY
The evidence set out below is based upon the
experience of Southend on Sea Borough Council and is documented
in letters, emails and transport documents. It primarily relates
to the application of the "formula" for LTPs and sets
out serious concerns over the ability to deliver Thames Gateway
growth and regeneration targets due to an annual reduction in
funding.
EVIDENCE
The final report of the former Transport Select
Committee suggested that a future Committee might wish to consider
whether local authorities should have greater powers to raise
their own resources to fund local transport infrastructure. This
consideration will be part of our inquiry.
The Committee wishes to examine a range of issues.
IN TERMS
OF LOCAL
TRANSPORT FUNDING:
Have the local transport capital settlements met
what was expected and allowed delivery of the planned projects?
What have been the impacts on major transport schemes, and smaller
schemes? Have the full allocations been spent as planned? How
have cost increases been settled?
Generally the Integrated Transport and Maintenance
projects have been delivered as planned and cost divergences reported.
In terms of the Major Scheme, a case for further funding has been
put to DfT for consideration. The decision on this has been protracted
and further costs incurred. Overall, despite good performance
in respect of the Major Scheme, the "scoring" of this
through the APR process has been questionable and has affected
the "scoring" of the APR, which in turn has led to a
reduction in funding. There is no appeal on this decision and
is considered to be too subjective. We have no ability to challenge
these decisions which are key to future funding and delivery of
targets of the Government Sustainable Communities plan.
Is the formulaic funding approach the most suitable
method for allocating transport investment? What has been the
impact of the performance-related component?
This has resulted in a net 5% reduction despite
producing a good APR—this will have a serious effect on
future delivery in a "growth area". The primary objective
and priority for Thames Gateway South Essex at both national and
regional level is to achieve employment-led regeneration and growth,
including a requirement for Southend to achieve 13,000 net additional
jobs over the period 2001 to 2021 in addition to 6,000 additional
dwellings. Improved transport and accessibility will be fundamental
to this regeneration and growth, and to achieving the jobs required
to both improve existing jobs/worker imbalances and to ensure
that there is a proper employment provision and economic growth
to match housing and population growth (and achieve sustainable
growth).
The following comments were raised at the time
of the consultation on the formula, but none were taken into account.
These remain significant issues unresolved by the formula allocation.
Inaccuracy of population data for Southend
The ONS estimate that the residential population
of Southend in mid-2001 was 160,300, based on the 2001 Census,
while the population registered with GPs in the borough suggests
a population of 177,000. This discrepancy impacts on the bus patronage,
congestion, and accessibility components of the formula (influencing
over 50% of the calculation), and has a negative impact on Southend's
calculated allocation.
The ODPM population figures used by DfT for
2003 do not appear to reflect the 1,200 additional houses built
between 2001 and 2003. ODPM figures suggest that the population
in Southend increased by only 30 between 2001 and 2003 (from 160,270
to 160,300). The daytime population figures must also reflect
the day visitors to Southend (over six million per annum) as a
key tourist destination resort and the effect of Southend as a
new University Town. Other factors include the proximity to London
for the 2012 Olympics and the development of London Southend Airport
as a regional airport.
No account taken of growth in jobs in formula
No account appears to have been taken of the
growth in jobs in the formula and the likely increase in levels
of commuting:
1. Bus patronage levels are factored
by projected residential population growth, but no account is
taken of the increase in bus patronage which is likely to occur
in addition to this, due to the increase in the number of jobs
in the borough.
2. Similarly, the population projections
in the congestion component only considers the growth in residential
population, and not any additional growth in the daytime population
related to job growth.
This is very important in Southend, particularly
in relation to public transport funding allocations. 9,750 additional
jobs are predicted for Southend between 2001 and 2016 (giving
a growth factor of 1.15, ie 73,004 divided by 63,254), compared
with 4,400 extra houses (giving a growth factor of 1.06, ie 75,378
divided by 70,978).
The current formula does not fully reflect Southend's
status as a Growth Area
This issue is in part related to the issue above,
in that the allocation of Growth Area funding only reflects the
expected increase in housing, and does not account for the associated
increase in employment.
In addition, the fact that Southend receives
less funding under the current formula allocation, suggests that
the formula does not fully reflect the importance of the Growth
Areas, and the need for adequate funding to deliver the transport
improvements needed to produce sustainable communities. Of the
13 local authorities in the growth areas, 10 will receive a greater
allocation and three will receive less. Of those three, two are
unitaries (Southend and Luton) and one is a county (Cambridgeshire).
The proposed planning guideline has now created
a significant imbalance between investment in and between the
TGSE "hubs" of Thurrock, Basildon and Southend. The
Thurrock allocation has increased from £1.4 million to £3.977
million (including £2 million from Dartford tolling). The
Essex allocation has increased from £12.61 million to £15.111
million.
The importance in gaining support from the TGSE
Partnership and Transport Board will be essential in putting forward
a strong case for reconsideration of the allocation. Kent, and
East London (the latter through funding from the Mayor of London)
have all received significant increases in transport funding which
may lead to skewed transport investment.
Potential solutions include increasing the allocation
for the Growth Areas to above £6.7 million per year, or increasing
the level of funding available through the Community Infrastructure
Fund, which is currently inadequate and too short term. There
is no indication whatsoever as to how the £6.7 million allocation
has been arrived at.
LTP2 sets out a package of measures that support
regeneration and sustainability. The Strategic Environmental Assessment
for both the Local Development Framework and the LTP2 will be
influenced by a reduction in the delivery of new transport infrastructure,
which is a key concern. This is particularly relevant to the new
developments at Shoeburyness, where accessibility problems have
been clearly set out in the London to Southend Study undertaken
in accordance with the Government's request in RPG9.
The formula does not reflect Southend's status
as a regeneration area, within the South Essex Thames Gateway—a
key regeneration area in England
Regeneration is currently reflected within the
Accessibility component, however, population, deprivation and
car ownership only account for 15% of the formula (suggesting
that deprivation and car ownership account for a smaller proportion
of the formula). Southend has a similar pattern of numbers of
low car ownership per head of population combined with high deprivation
as both Peterborough and Luton and substantially more than Thurrock.
There are also significant commuting patterns
as a "peninsula town" with journeys to work both in
and out of the Borough of some 46,000 daily trips. This is not
taken into account within the formula as the only assessment in
relation to congestion is population and how urban an area is.
The DfT state that there are practical data problems that prevent
them taking into account actual congestion measurements at local
authority level. This does not reflect local circumstances. The
importance of regeneration is also reflected through specific
funding for Objective One areas. However, there is no funding
for Objective 2 (NB Southend has Objective 2 currently until 2006).
The current formula, results in a significant
imbalance in funding across the Thames Gateway area, with Essex,
Thurrock, and Southend receiving a reduction. This risks a skewed
transport development across the regeneration area. It conflicts
entirely with Policy TGSE3 in the East of England Plan, which
emphasises the need for a "step-change" in the provision
of transportation infrastructure as a precondition for achieving
regeneration and additional development. Without other significant
funding sources the only source of funding for transport infrastructure
would be the LTP2. A reduction in LTP2 allocation also affects
the ability to link with match-funding.
Potential solutions include (i) increasing the
weighting applied to the Accessibility component, (ii) extending
(and increasing) the funding for Objective 1 areas to Objective
2.
No account has been taken of relevant transport
studies or traffic growth predictions. The London to Southend
Movement Study (LOTS) illustrated that:
— significant parts of the existing
road and rail infrastructure are at capacity;
— if current travel patterns continue,
the existing road and public transport networks have insufficient
capacity to cater of any substantial growth;
— to retain the existing infrastructure
and cater for substantial growth, a significant modal would be
required from the car to public transport of up to 50%;
— a "step change" in transport
provision is required combining both highway and public transport
improvements;
— complimentary land-use planning and
transport policies; and
— a programme of investment to 2021
of £1.6 billion is required.
This demonstrates the relevance of considering
the TGSE are as a "whole" rather than Southend, Thurrock
and elements of Essex.
No account is taken of future traffic growth in
the Road Safety component
The Road Safety component does not take into
account the impact that traffic growth in some authorities will
have on casualties, ie authorities which are predicting an increase
in vehicle-kms will need to spend more than those authorities
predicting reduced vehicle-kms to achieve the same percentage
reduction in accidents. It may be possible to use road traffic
forcast data to obtain do-nothing traffic growth figures for each
authority, which could then be incorporated into the formula.
The formula should take account of the importance
of rail and air passengers in a local authority
The LTP is tasked with improving access to rail
stations, Southend Airport and integrating rail with other modes
of transport. It should therefore be reflected in the formula.
In Southend, rail is seen as an important part of the urban transport
system (both "metro" style and London commuting, and
plays an important part in managing traffic levels and reducing
congestion. Southend's LTP2, therefore places considerable emphasis
on improving integration between all modes. The airport development
plan must also be taken into account.
The DfT report states that the inclusion of
rail services was included in the formula, but rejected due to
major data confidentiality issues.
Do local authorities have adequate powers to raise
resources to fund local transport infrastructure? What other powers
could be useful?
At present there are minimal powers to raise
funding directly for transport that is "ring fenced".
TIF envisages local charging, but will prove expensive and difficult
to manage in unitaries.
Has the balance between revenue funding and capital
funding for transport proposals been appropriate? How well have
the different funding streams from the Department for Transport
and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supported local transport
projects? Are transport services successful in securing sufficient
revenue funding?
There is a tremendous gap between capital and
revenue funding that is causing great concern. There is a tendency
to delay capital funding on expensive infrastructure projects
especially those with long term costs such as intelligent transport
systems (which do have the scope to deliver significant benefits.
New housing developments that improve the public realm may, in
future, have to be maintained privately at no expense to the public
purse. There is a desire to improve the quality of life through
better design, but this includes potential higher maintenance
costs. The preparation of Asset Management Plans is a step forward,
but these are costly to produce without extra funding to cover
this.
How efficient is the bidding and scheme preparation
stage? What could be done to avoid local authorities wasting significant
resources on preparing and designing transport schemes which do
not get approval?
Clear guidance on the funding allocation is
required. In terms of TGSE the case has been made for substantial
investment in infrastructure to see a "step change"
in terms of transport provision, but as yet no decisions have
been made on the RFA. The preparatory costs for some Major Schemes
will be prohibitive, but are vital for regeneration and growth.
TIF seems to be moving towards locations outside of regeneration
areas. There appears to be little dialogue between ODPM and DfT
on this issue.
IN TERMS
OF LOCAL
TRANSPORT PLANNING:
Were the administrative process and timetable
for delivering Local Transport Plans appropriate? How helpful
was the guidance from the Department for Transport? How did the
second round of Local Transport Plans learn from the first, and
how could the process be further improved?
The guidance was useful and generally clear.
The opportunity for dialogue and better feedback needs to be improved
and less a case of simply "scoring points". Genuine
feedback and discussion is brief and, given the importance of
the decisions, should be more encompassing and thoughtful.
How well have the Local Transport Plans delivered
better access to jobs and services, improved public transport,
and reduced problems of congestion, pollution and safety? To what
extent has the Government's Transport Strategy fed into the second
round Local Transport Plans?
The focus for the Southend LTP is very much
about improving accessibility and stimulating regeneration. The
LTP is set out in terms of the shared national priorities and
also sets out local priorities too. A substantial funding gap
is obvious and feeds back to the over reliance on the formula
allocation, which has reduced the allocation in a "Growth
Area".
How effective is the Local Transport Plan performance
management regime? Do the Annual Progress Reports give the necessary
transparency and rigour in assessing performance?
Overall the APRs have benefits and disbenefits—the
format has evolved and the future Delovery Reports seem to be
a natural development and provide a reasonable mechanism for reporting.
Early dialogue and discussion with DfT must continue.
How successful is the balance between infrastructure
projects and travel planning initiatives?
This has been taken forward through the SBC
"Smarter Choices" programme and will see an improvement
in linking infrastructure with travel planning. There is scope
for improvement in this area and will be promoted strongly.
CONCLUSION
The linkages between transport planning, growth
and regeneration are obvious at local and national level. But
there are serious funding issues that cannot be resolved by a
formulaic approach that reduces the Integrated Transport Block
Allocation on a year by year basis. For a unitary, the proposed
10% contribution towards Major Scheme development costs may prove
prohibitive. The three authorities of Essex, Southend and Thurrock
are taking this forward through a "transport board".
This is supported by the Government Office but required significant
support from DfT.
25 April 2006
| 
