Environment Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Local Government Association

Introduction

1. Access to services is affected by a range of factors including geography, income, the availability and accessibility of transport, technology, education and advice and other cultural and social factors. Some of these are supply side issues and others affect the demand for services.

2. For the system to deliver good outcomes for people we need decisions to be taken by communities and their local representatives, who have a sound knowledge of the local context and issues and the commitment to co-designing public services and the accompanying transport systems.

3. Over many years local authorities and local partners have worked to improve access to services by their local communities. These have included:

3.1Step changes in the use of technology so that most services are now accessible on line;

3.2The development of single point access to services provided by a range of agencies (the one-stop-shop);

3.3Peripatetic delivery of services where that has been appropriate and cost effective;

3.4A move to extended hours services.

4. These and other initiatives, often supported by central government, have led to much higher levels of satisfaction with outcomes over the last 10 years.

5. The reductions in funds available for public services have led local authorities and their partners to renew their efforts to find synergies in the delivery of public services which both save money and lead to better outcomes.

6. Within this mix of approaches to improving access to services transport policies have a significant role to play.

Key Points

7. It is essential that government support the franchising of bus services by those local authorities who would like this option. We need to see the financial incentives applied to partnership working through the Better Bus Area initiative extended to the Quality Contract approach.

8. We need to rethink how we use public subsidy of bus services. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on the public subsidy of bus services and need both greater control of transport funding and greater flexibility on how this funding is used.

9. It is essential that break points, or some other means of allowing for renegotiating, are included in rail contracts to enable local authorities to benefit from devolution of transport decision-making.

10. Future funding for sustainable transport is uncertain. However, as evidence gathers of its role as a preventative measure, there is certainly a case for government departments, from transport to health, to consider how best to build on the success that has already been achieved.

11. The LGA believes that insufficient regard is given, within Department for Transport (DfT) assessment processes, to wider social (including accessibility) and economic benefits. The methods currently in use for transport scheme evaluation should be reviewed. The LGA would be happy to work with the DfT on this.

LGA Responses to Specific Inquiry Questions

How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (ie whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

12. The government’s relationship to public transport, in terms of regulation and funding, varies across the modes. In terms of buses, government:

12.1sets a broad framework for a deregulated market;

12.2provides dedicated funding to operators in the form of Bus Service Operator’s Grant (BSOG), which is essentially a fuel subsidy that applies to all routes including those which are profitable;

12.3funding to local authorities for the development of partnership working (Better Bus Areas); and

12.4funding to local authorities to pay for the national concessionary fare scheme.

13. In contrast, the government acts as the franchisor for rail services, setting the minimum service standards and the processes for determining rail fare increases.

14. Although different in their approach, both of these models of governance have operated to the exclusion of local authorities and the communities they serve. This has meant that it has been difficult for local authorities to develop integrated local transport systems which meet the variety of local needs.

15. It remains to be seen whether the recent move by the DfT to devolve some responsibilities for transport decision-making to the local level will provide opportunities for local authorities to improve the effectiveness of public transport. However, to date the devolution has not gone far enough or fast enough. In particular devolution ought to enable councils to bring together different transport funding streams and use them flexibly. There is little to suggest yet that this outcome will be delivered.

16. The vast majority of local public transport journeys are undertaken by bus. The LGA has long argued that the deregulated bus sector, which receives around 60% of its income from public funds, leads to inefficient on-street competition and does not adequately meet the wider economic and social needs of businesses and local communities.

17. Currently local authorities pay to provide additional and/or extended services which are needed by communities but which are not sufficiently profitable for commercial operators. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that reduced council budgets have led to a significant reduction in these local authority funded services. This situation is only likely to get worse in the remainder of this spending period and into the next.

18. Franchising by local authorities provides an opportunity to use reducing public funding to best effect. Quality Contracts have been a legislated route to suspend deregulation in a local year since 2000. However, although there has been an appetite by some local authorities to pursue this approach it has remained elusive, partly because of the objections of commercial providers, but also because of DfT ambivalence.

19. It is essential that franchising of bus services by local authorities who want this option is supported by government. We need to see the financial incentives that are being applied to partnership working through the Better Bus Area initiative extended to the Quality Contract approach.

20. This approach also needs to be accompanied with a rethink on how we use public subsidy of bus services. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on the public subsidy of bus services and need both greater control of transport funding and greater flexibility on how this funding is used.

21. Rail has a smaller impact on access to public services in terms of journey numbers, but the regional network does have a significant impact, particularly on radial routes into urban areas. The DfT is moving forward with proposals to devolve some franchising responsibilities to local authorities and this is to be welcomed.

22. However, the current timetable for rail franchising renewals, which will see all franchises re-let by 2015, has made it difficult for many local authorities (the Northern Rail Franchise is an exception) to fully engage. A lack of transparency over the cost of running the regional rail network has not helped. The decision by DfT to extend the franchising period to 15 years will make it very difficult for most local authorities to exercise any real influence over the majority of rail services unless the contracts between the government and rail providers have break points. It is essential that break points, or some other means of allowing for renegotiating, are included in rail contracts to enable local authorities to benefit from devolution of transport decision-making.

23. The government has invested in sustainable transport. Around £600 million has been provided through the Local Sustainable Transport and the Green Travel funds. The bids that have come forward from local authorities have all contained a significant amount of focus on active travel through the provision of new infrastructure and promotional activity. There is evidence to show that active travel, walking and cycling, reduce the demand for health services and also can aid reductions in congestion. By creating better alternative transport options these schemes can also improve access to public services.

24. Future funding for sustainable transport is uncertain. However, as evidence gathers of its role and impact as a preventative measure, there is certainly a case for government departments, from transport to health, to consider how best to build on the success that has already been achieved.

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

25. The physical location of public service provision together with the mechanisms for delivering services will impact on access to those services.

26. The final National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) replaces Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) with a promoting sustainable transport section. It also includes a core principle that requires local authorities to “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”. Transport Statements and Transport Assessments are still required for development that generate significant amounts of movements, although what a significant amount of movement constitutes is not defined (paragraphs 34–45). Travel Plans are also still included (paragraph 36). Specific parking standards have been removed with local authorities encouraged to consider the accessibility, type, mix, use, availability of public transport, levels of car ownership, alongside the overall need to reduce use of high emission vehicles if setting local parking standards (paragraphs 39–40).

27. In practice sustainable transport is one of a number of principles within the NPPF which at times will compete. There will be examples where the location of new housing, business sites and public services, does not reflect current public transport infrastructure. There remains a very strong presumption in favour of growth within the NPPF (Paragraph 32 of the NPPF makes it clear that the Government does not wish to see transport concerns used to unreasonably frustrate needed new development) and it is not yet clear what impact this will have on future decisions. However, it remains necessary for councils to demonstrate that the transport implications of development set out in local plans are understood, and that proposed mitigation measures are credible, sustainable and deliverable. Local authorities will therefore work closely with their partners to understand accessibility issues and to seek to address these. As stated above, these attempts are made more difficult by the lack of local control over the commercial bus network which operates on a for profit basis rather than to meet social need.

28. To overcome some of these challenges a “total transport” approach is being promoted by a number of local authorities and their partners. This approach seeks to use the transport assets across the public sector more effectively to deliver greater efficiencies and better outcomes for communities.

29. Public services including health and education are aware of the need to develop their service delivery plans in consultation with local authorities and in regard of local transport plans and wider planning policy. For example the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has produced guidance for NHS bodies on this issue.

30. This approach works to varying degrees and is affected by a mis-match of governance arrangements, which means that decisions are not always taken at the same geographical level and also by different service priorities.

31. For instance, the impact of decisions to amend the location of public services in rural areas can have a significant impact on communities if not considered locally. Such a case was demonstrated in the last round of post office closures, when public transport proved unable to deal with delivering communities to alternative branches.

32. The solution must be greater local partnership working and an environment in which decisions can be taken locally.

Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

33. Local transport plans are a legislative requirement. Many Local Transport Authorities have published the third iteration of these plans within the last year. There are many examples where the plans have been effective in supporting the delivery measures aimed at improving sustainability and accessibility. These measures have included active travel initiatives, the provision of bus priority lanes and many more.

34. Local transport plans need to be developed in concert with other core planning policies. When this works well transport plans can be developed within a broader planning environment which is sensitive to the importance of transport to economic growth and better social outcomes. Greater Manchester is an example where planning policies have promoted city centre and town centre development which are historically more accessible.

35. It is in the interests of local authorities to understand and respond to accessibility issues. They do this within a broad policy framework which is adequate. The issue in this instance is not with the national policy framework, but that, as stated above, local authorities have limited influence on key aspects of the transport network.

How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

36. There are a range of measures related to accessibility, which can be grouped in “access”, “threshold” and “continuous” categories. The measures are useful for understanding and presenting different elements of transport accessibility. It is not evident, that a single measure would ever be appropriate.1

37. Local authorities already use a range of measures to understand accessibility at the local level and to develop priorities that are set out in Local Transport Plans.

38. In terms of support, the LGA, through its Planning Advisory Service (PAS), is supporting local planning authorities in their efforts to put robust, well-evidenced local plans in place. For example, our recently launched Local Plan checklist is designed to help local authorities to assess the content of their new or emerging plan against requirements in the NPPF, for policies that facilitate and maximise sustainable transport solutions.

39. The LGA is concerned with the approach the DfT currently uses to evaluate infrastructure schemes and which could linger on in a devolved system. As it stands significant weight is given to the reduction of journey times as the key measure of value for money. In our view insufficient regard is given, within DfT assessment processes to wider social (including accessibility) and economic benefits and the methods currently in use should be reviewed. We would be happy to work with the DfT on this.

7 September 2012