Local transport plans - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 330

hardened transport campaigners. To overcome these difficulties authorities normally
produced a summary version of their LTP for consumption by the general public.
However this cannot begin to get into the details of the proposed programme (many of
which do not appear in the full LTP anyway). Exercises in consultation over particular
proposals or particular areas therefore normally proceed as separate exercises from
the LTP. Likewise authorities typically establish specialist forums of stakeholders and
interest group representatives on particular topics (e.g. cycling or freight) and prepare
separate strategies which are subsequently summarised and referred to as ancillary
documents in LTPs.
Following the submission of LTP2s a completely different regime was established
which reflected the Government's conversion to the principles of reducing the
administrative reporting burden on local authorities and to devolving responsibility.
In the 2006 settlement Ministers decided to allocate funding for the 'integrated
transport' block (programmes of minor capital schemes) for the whole of the period to
2010/11, with no performance assessment or financial adjustment in the intervening
years. (Transport indicators continued to be monitored and figure in the Best Value
performance assessment of local authorities generally, as with all their other activities.)
Ministers also announced that in place of the previous Annual Progress Reports there
would be a single mid-term review in 2008 (DfT 2007e).
Lifting the requirement for standardised assessment across authorities and removing
the threat (or enticement) of funding adjustments enabled a more constructive
approach to be taken to the form of the 2008 Progress Reports (Box 20.1).
These features are elaborated upon in published guidance (DfT 2007d). Annex 1
contains an optional checklist on content whilst Annexes 2 and 3 contain information
on authorities' obligation to report in connection with their Network Management
Duty (14.4) and Air Quality Management Plans (14.8). The Department 'hoped' that
authorities would be able to submit their reports by December 2008.
For the future the Department commissioned Atkins Transport Planning (which
had monitored the LTP process thus far) to study options for its development. The
consultants concluded:
The case for change to the LTP model is finely balanced and largely related to
the overall objectives which local transport is expected to support. The current
process is accepted and supported by a wider range of stakeholders with few calls
for a fundamentally different approach. In addition it seems sufficiently flexible to
accommodate new policy initiatives and reforms to Local Government. However
there is a case for at least some incremental changes to provide solutions to
barriers experienced to date, embed local transport within wider corporate and
community agendas and reflect emerging opportunities.
(Atkins Transport Planning 2007b Executive Summary)
The Government has responded by proposing governance reforms, particularly
in the metropolitan areas and in amending the statutory requirements for LTP
preparation. These are now enacted in the Transport Act 2008. Detailed implications
for future LTPs are explained in DfT 2008h.
Each local transport authority will be required to develop policies 'for the promotion
and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport to, from and
within their areas'. An LTP is redefined as one or more documents containing local
transport policies plus proposals for implementing these policies. The requirement for a