Local transport plans - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 340

schemes in the LTP1 period which authorities had taken longer than expected to
deliver. The Department was likely to receive many more proposals than it could
support. Hence:
The Department advises local authorities seeking to develop major schemes to
concentrate their efforts on major scheme proposals that look likely to offer the
best overall value for money according to NATA criteria - especially those that
look likely to meet the priorities set out by Regional Planning Bodies in RTSs.
Authorities may still decide to include weaker schemes as proposals in their LTPs
but the Department recommends strongly that they instead consider carefully
how they might deliver the benefits of such schemes through other means -
through alternative funding sources, or perhaps through a combination of smaller
block-funded schemes and revenue funded programmes.
(DfT 2004c Part 4 para 27)
Because of doubts over funding greater emphasis was placed in the LTP2 guidance
compared with the first round in treating major schemes as potential additions to the
rest of an authority's programme However they were to be summarised in a separate
section of the plan, with information showing how the main block-funded programme
would be affected if the major scheme were approved and delivered and what additional
progress could be expected towards LTP objectives and targets within the four 'shared
priority' areas.
Further details on the appraisal and approval processes applied to major schemes
are given in Chapters 21 and 22.
20.9 Local Transport Planning in London, Wales and Scotland
London
The local transport planning work undertaken by London Boroughs and the City
of London Corporation is similar in kind to unitary councils in the rest of England.
However the policy status of the plans they produce is quite different. These councils
do not have the same degree of discretion to formulate their own policies within
an overarching national and regional framework. Rather their strategic role is to
contribute directly to implementing the policies of the London Mayor as set out in his
Transport Strategy and in particular to fulfilment of its statutory targets. This difference
is reflected in the naming of their plans as Local Implementation Plans (LIP).
The different policy relationship is also evident in the arrangements for progress
reporting and funding allocation. London Boroughs do not liaise with the Government
Regional Office but with the Mayor and TfL. The total amount of LIP funding likely
to be available each year is set out in TfL's five-year Investment Programme. Unlike
the rest of England LIP funding includes elements of revenue support although, like
LTPs, their main focus is on capital expenditure. Also unlike the rest of England the
borough's plans are overlaid by a number of programme areas on which TfL itself takes
lead responsibility, e.g. the capital's strategic road network, congestion charging, bus
and Underground services and planning for the 2012 Olympic Games.
Until 2006/07 financial assistance was given annually in response to bids made in
Borough Spending Plans. Thereafter allocations to each borough were to be determined
in response to the LIP and to subsequent Annual Progress Reports. (There are also a