APPENDIX 14
Memorandum submitted by Tees Valley Joint
Stategy Unit
THE IMPACT OF THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY OPERATION
OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES IN THE TEES VALLEY ON ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
THE TEES
VALLEY JOINT
STRATEGY UNIT
The Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit is an organisation
set up by Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland
and Stockton on Tees Borough Councils to carry out strategic planning,
economic strategy and transport strategy development in the Tees
Valley. The Unit has to deal with the Highways Agency in carrying
out its functions.
THE PROBLEM
The Department of Transport requires local authorities
to refer to the Highways Agency any application where there is
a material increase in road traffic on a trunk road. Our concern
is that it is taking over a year to deal with these applications
and is also delaying projects by asking applicants to carry out
unnecessary work. One recent application has taken over a year
to resolve and another is taking even longer. Both are major development
projects in the Tees Valley and the delays in obtaining approval
from the Highways Agency delays projects and discourages private
sector investment in one of the poorest economically performing
areas of the UK.
THE STATUTORY
BACKGROUND
Local authorities are required to refer to the
Highways Agency any application where there is a material increase
in road traffic on a trunk road ie an increase in turning movements
at a junction in the order of 5% or an increase of 5% in traffic
using any link of the junction.
In cases where there is an increase in traffic
on trunk roads the developer has to provide a transport assessment.
These assessments have to assess the impact of both development
related traffic and background related traffic will have on the
trunk road network, at opening year and 15 years after opening
when applying the appropriate growth rate, traffic conditions
are predicted to be at their worst. Where the assessed traffic
flows exceed the capacity of the trunk roads concerned at any
time within that 15 year period the Agency will normally direct
that a condition be attached to any planning permission that may
be granted specifying the improvements to the highway required.
These works will be of a sufficient standard to accommodate all
traffic 15 years after the development opens.
The circular specifies four examples where the
improvements to achieve the required standard will not be appropriate.
They are:
— Where the scale of the improvement
would be out of balance with the capacity provided on adjacent
sections of the trunk road network;
— Cases in which the improvements would
be more extensive than the Agency itself would promote given local
circumstances;
— Cases where improvements affect lower
standard and in particular all purpose trunk roads;
— Cases which fall within areas granted
Objective 1 status and which contribute to objective 1 aims.
THE EXAMPLES
Two key development sites in the Tees Valley
are Victoria Harbour Hartlepool and Durham Tees Valley Airport.
Approval of planning applications for these two major projects
has been significantly delayed because of lack of progress with
the Highways Agency.
Example 1: Victoria Harbour Hartlepool
The Victoria Harbour project in Hartlepool is
a major regional regeneration project promoted by an urban regeneration
company, Tees Valley Regeneration and a major landowner PD Ports
to regenerate a large area of Hartlepool to achieve over 20 years
up to 3,500 residential units, 60,000 sq metres of commercial
and mixed use accommodation, 20,000 sq metres of retail including
speciality retail, retail warehousing, and convenience retail,
34,000 sq metres of community space including a new primary school
and 6,000 sq metres of commercial use. An outline planning application
was submitted to Hartlepool Borough Council in June 2004. Between
January 2005 and December 2005, Tees Valley Regeneration were
in lengthy discussions with the Highways Agency due to their concerns
over the impact of the development on the trunk road network,
in particular the A179/A19 junction and the A689/A19 junction
(both of which are five miles away from the site). Whilst progress
was initially very slow, in December a package of improvements
costing £2 million has been agreed and Hartlepool Borough
Council were able to approve the outline planning application
for this important scheme subject to a Section 106 Agreement on
19 December.
The concern is the 18 months it takes to negotiate
a solution with the Highways Agency. This length of time is unacceptable
and creates major programming problems with public sector funders
and frustrations for private sector funders.
Example 2: Durham Tees Valley Airport
Durham Tees Valley Airport submitted two applications
in December 2004 to Darlington Borough Council for a new airport
terminal and for a business park. The Highways Agency did not
make any request for studies or further information until June
2005. The applicants have tried to accommodate the Agency's requests
but have been asked for information which they considered to be
unreasonable. For example:
(a) despite the fact that development will
begin in 2007-08, the Highways Agency have insisted that the traffic
projections commence from 2015 when all development would be completed
for a further 15 years to 2030. Normally the 15 year period would
be 2007 to 2022.
(b) despite a ministerial announcement that
the Long Newton Interchange on the A66 is to be put out to tender
for construction to commence in 2006, the Highways Agency want
the applicants to undertake an exercise to show the traffic impact
without the Long Newton Interchange being built. The applicants
consider this work to be unnecessary given the committed nature
of the scheme.
Consequently one year on from the planning application
being submitted the applicant has no prospect of an early decision
from the Highways Agency. As a result the much needed expansion
of the airport through private sector investment of £56 million
and the creation of 1,800 jobs are in danger of being lost.
THE ISSUE
The problem in the Tees Valley is that the trunk
road network ie the A66 and A19 is at or close to capacity and
therefore the Highways Agency are asking for expensive detailed
studies which take a great deal of time or money. As a result
of the lack of public sector resources for trunk road improvements,
the Agency wants either:
(a) the developer to pay for major road
improvements instead of the public sector to improve the capacity
of the trunk road network to serve major developments; or
(b) the developer to pay for improvements
to the local road network or traffic management solutions to control
flows to the trunk road network.
Part of the problem is the lack of resources
available from the Department for Transport to invest in the trunk
road network and hence the need to find other resources to carry
out the improvements. Whilst in the long term the Regional Funding
Allocation process may result in greater priority being given
to trunk road projects, the Agency tries to find someone else
to pay. Most of the schemes in the Tees Valley are being promoted
by the public sector through Tees Valley Regeneration, One NorthEast
or local authority support. In a poorly economic performing area
like the Tees Valley, there is not enough added development value
in a scheme to pay for major off site infrastructure works to
the trunk road network such as grade separated junctions or extra
lanes. The delays in consideration of projects means that developers
are put off investing in major schemes in the NE of England and
could therefore transfer much needed investment elsewhere because
of these difficulties.
It is Government policy to reduce regional disparities
between the north and the south. The Tees Valley has a low GDP
and is accepted as being in need of regeneration. The DfT development
control policy as operated by the Highways Agency is making it
difficult for the area to fulfil its full economic potential and
is effectively putting off development by requiring over elaborate
transport models and delaying developments which the local community
and the rest of Government (Treasury, ODPM, DTI) are trying to
tackle. It shows a lack of joined up Government. It also sends
negative feedback to those private sector developers interested
in developing in the area.
I should add this problem is not unique to the
Tees Valley. There are similar concerns around the A1 western
bypass in Gateshead, the A63 in Hull, the M62 in Yorkshire/Lancashire
and M6/M62/M56 in Warrington and Cheshire.
HOW SHOULD
THE MATTER
BE RESOLVED
The key actions are:
(a) for more common sense to enter into
the Highways Agency requests for information;
(b) the Department for Transport to review
its criteria on development next to trunk roads;
(c) for each trunk road the Agency to develop
a memorandum of understanding with the local authorities setting
out what development can be allocated and the measures likely
to be required. In addition a series of studies to be agreed to
deal with potential problem areas. Studies should be paid for
from Department for Transport resources;
(d) Regional Transport Boards be asked to
prioritise improvements to trunk roads to enable major developments
to go ahead when deciding on priorities; and
(e) the Agency to operate a more developer
friendly approach which encourages development to take place,
not to hinder it.
9 January 2006
| 
