APPENDIX 16
Memorandum submitted by Newark and Sherwood
District Council
Newark and Sherwood District Council supports
the early implementation of the proposed A46(T) Newark to Widmerpool
Improvement—a "dualling" proposal which, the Council
believes, would address a wide range of existing safety and congestion
issues—in a way which would support important planning and
economic development objectives for Newark and Sherwood District,
without compromising the area's environment.
The proposed A46(T) Improvement is identified
in the published Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands
(RSS 8) (March 2005) as a "Regional Transport Investment
Priority"—with a "committed" status and an
indicative "timetable for implementation" of 2006-11:
the "lead organisation" identified is the Highways Agency,
and the "delivery mechanism" identified is the "Targeted
Programme of Trunk Road Improvements (>£5 million)".
However, published (East Midlands) Regional
Funding Allocation Advice to Government (January 2006) includes
advice relating to a "proposed transport investment package",
which was developed with the help of consultants. EMRA and emda
endorsed the consultant's Draft Advice (with minor wording changes),
the overall effects of which—if accepted by Government—would
be to postpone the start of the proposed A46(T) Improvement, require
its phasing, and ensure that alternative approaches to delivery
were urgently explored (...including alternative and more cost-effective
engineering solutions, and the potential for alternative (Government)
funding and "approaches"). EMRA now intends to use its
"best endeavours" to secure alternative funding from
the Government for the scheme. Needless to say, Newark and Sherwood
District Council is dismayed at the prospect of further delays.
It is, frankly, of little consolation to the
District Council that the Highways Agency now intends to hold
a Public Inquiry into the Improvement proposals.
Given the anticipated cost of the proposed Improvement,
the District Council's preference is for priority funding arrangements
to be secured at a national level. Notwithstanding, there are
other funding streams, including funding for LTP measures, which
present opportunities for "added-value" in the context
of the proposed scheme. It is equally possible that such funding
could help to improve the scheme's viability. The District Council
urges the Inquiry to consider the scope for the general application
of that sort of option.
In conclusion: The District Council does not
apologise for responding in this focused way to the announcement
of the Inquiry. It goes without saying that the Council is anxious
to promote the early implementation of the proposed A46(T) Improvement—by
all available means. However, it is possible that LTP funding
streams could help to improve the viability of this and similar
schemes for which priority funding at national level seems to
be a sensible option. The Council urges the Inquiry to reflect
on that option and make Recommendations which would help to secure
the early implementation of priority schemes like the A46(T) Improvement.
27 April 2006
| 
