Agenda item

This report for the 2020/21 LTP Capital Programme has been developed to:

i)             Seek approval for the LTP 2020/21 Capital allocation of £3,078,000 of Integrated Transport Block funding and £3,725,000 of Highway Maintenance funding.

ii)            Seek approval for the indicative 2021/22 and 2022/23 Highways Maintenance Programmes as set out in Appendix B

iii)           Note the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership (DLEP) Funding allocation of £11,908,588 to deliver the DLEP approved programme (with confirmation on allocations for a number of additional schemes listed to be determined in early 2020).

iv)           Note the inclusion of £1,000,000 of National Productive Investment Funding (NPIF) towards the Wallisdown Crossroads scheme

v)            Seek approval for the drawing down of £597,000 of Developer Contributions into the programme to support the delivery of those schemes listed in Appendix A

vi)           Note the allocation of 2020/21 LTP funding (combined total of £1,328,000) as a local contribution towards the SE Dorset City Regions Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) programme (note TCF elements are subject to a decision on funding award in early 2020).

vii)          Note the allocation of 2020/21 LTP Highway Maintenance funding includes within the structural maintenance rows (total value £2,835,000) a local contribution towards the Council’s Challenge Fund Tranche 2B bid of £525,000.

viii)        Note the allocations for 2020/21 and 2021/22 LTP Highway Maintenance funding includes within the Bridges and Structures rows (total value of £600,000 and £690,000 respectively) a local contribution towards the Dorset Council led Challenge Fund Expression of Interest for funding to construct a new bridge (including improved pedestrian and cycle facilities) at Longham (over the Stour) of £300,000 in each year.

The DLEP and Capital Programme Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'J' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation the LTP included:

• The Wallisdown crossroads was a difficult area to manage due to the ability for cars to park on shop forecourts and also the fact that it was a major bus route which did not have a dedicated layby for it to pull into allowing passengers to board and alight, which led to regular and significant congestion and proved to be one of the key problems road users experienced when navigating east-west. It was important that great thought was given to this arterial road on the network and how best the problems could be remedied.
• It was disappointing that the trees would be lost as part of the work to be undertaken at the Boundary Road roundabout, but this was necessary as it was a fatal injury blackspot, and at least they would be replanted. The layout was also not ideal but it was acknowledged that it was not possible to redesign at this late stage as this would incur significant costs.
• There was a need to address problems in the Highcliffe area, which had several sections of the A337 that were very dangerous due to the volume of traffic that it handled. The Parish Council in Highcliffe and Walkford would be keen to assist highways officers in identifying resolutions.
• It was Important that this body wasn’t used for pushing ward issues as its main purpose was to be advising on the decision to be made from a BCP council-wide point of view.
• Realtime info for buses needs to be properly delivered.
• Cabinet were seeking to introduce a sub-committee which would look at local centres and the issues that they faced, it was intended that this would work as a place audit.

Officers responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

• A report would be provided to the next meeting of TAG which would set out the proposed enhancements for the Boundary Road roundabout.
• Bus companies did not like laybys due to the difficulty faced by drivers when trying to re-join the main carriageway, which proved to be a challenge for tackling congestion.
• The Safer routes to schools line would include was funded part funded by the Council and part funded by the TCF Scheme on a 50/50 basis.
• It would be inadvisable to recommend any changes to the figures quoted within the appendices because it would undermine the strategic bid for the Transforming Cities Fund.
• The figure of £185k for bus facilities would largely be spent on the provision and upgrading of bus shelters and real time information boards, although this would primarily be focussed within the Christchurch area due to the historic underfunding of its bus infrastructure.
• There were multiple lines referring to shelters and RTI, the TCF would fund these on routes within identified corridors, whereas the ‘Bus Facilities’ line would focus on other routes.
• There was some funding coming from the South East Dorset Contribution Scheme which pre-dated CIL, its purpose was to top up travel planning activity with capital improvements. The council was actively trying to work with partners such as businesses and schools to develop travel plans and would invite them to bid for funding to make improvements. It was hoped that over time this project would grow and expand, although over the years, there had been varying degrees of success for the predecessor councils and so the Council needed to be challenging schools and business to expand on this programme, which in turn, was hoped would change behaviours of residents and businesses.
• The Council’s pothole funding allocation for 2020/21 financial year from DfT had not been announced yet. The three-year programme for the structural maintenance area detailed several resurfacing activities, these activities were aimed at preventing potholes. Structural maintenance area amount of funding was calculated by DfT based on several elements, including the length of network, number of structures etc. Part of the award was an ‘Incentive Fund’ element and the amount allocated to authorities for this portion of structural maintenance fund was determined by how well DfT considers the highway authority manages the maintenance of its network. BCP was classed as a Band 3 authority, which was the highest level. Officers would report the final funding amount that BCP Council will receive once it is in receipt of the letter from the DfT at a later TAG meeting as part of a monitoring report.
• There were ways to apply for additional funding from the Government to undertake larger scale maintenance projects such as the Challenge Fund.
• Bus RTI equipment had been updated recently and should be more reliable but any issues experienced should be reported to transportation officers and the bus companies to address. Issues could be experienced if the bus lost contact with the equipment.

• Quite often, residents believed that potholes hadn’t been infilled/repaired adequately, however there was a process that meant that potholes were generally inspected once they had reported and they were then temporarily infilled with cold lay asphalt to prevent any risks of trips and falls. The potholes were then permanently infilled permanently at a later date, when they were batched together, the purpose being to ensure that the costs were cheaper and the permanent repairs were of a higher quality.