Purpose

Authority required to promote a Side Roads
Order under the Highways Act 1980 to secure consent from the
Secretary of State for Transport. The Order is required for the
alterations and improvements to the existing highway and public
rights of way network to support the delivery of the Somer Valley
Enterprise Zone.

Decision

(1) 
To authorise the making of a Side Roads Order (SRO) pursuant to
sections 14 and 125 of the Highways Act 1980 to secure authority
for the SRO Works (as defined at para 5.8 of the report) which are
required to enable implementation of the Highway Works (as defined
at para 5.5 of the report).
 
(2) 
To authorise the making of a Traffic Regulation Order(s) (TRO)
pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 to enable the TRO
Measures which are required to govern the use of the highways
network required to accommodate the Somer Valley Enterprise Zone (SVEZ).
 
(3) 
To authorise all necessary steps to be taken to secure the making,
confirmation and implementation of the SRO and any TROs including
the publication and service of all notices, requisitions for
information, statement of reasons and the preparation and
presentation of the Council’s case at any public inquiry
required to secure confirmation of the SRO by the Secretary of
State for Transport.
 
(4) 
To note and give due regard in determining whether or not to authorise the promotion of the SRO
and any TROs, the public sector equality duty contained in section
149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“PSED”) and the
requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, as detailed further in
section 11 of the report.
 
(5) 
To delegate authority to the Executive Director of Sustainable
Communities to (i) approve any changes
to the SRO Works and (ii) make any necessary amendments to the SRO
which may be required to enable the delivery of the Highway Works,
including as detailed design of the SVEZ progresses.
 
(6) 
To delegate authority to the Executive Director of Sustainable
Communities to authorise the final requirements of the TRO(s) which
are required to facilitate the delivery of the SVEZ.
 
(7) 
To authorise the instruction of the SVEZ Project Team and its legal
advisers, Burges Salmon LLP, to prepare and serve such
documentation as may be required for the SRO and any TRO(s).
 
(8) 
To note the ongoing progress which has been made towards the
acquisition of land required to develop the SVEZ Scheme and the
previous decisions outlined in the report.

Reasons for the decision

Whilst the Local Development Order (LDO)
removes the need for planning permission in relation to the
authorised works it does not remove the need to obtain other
statutory consents and as such an SRO and any TRO(s) are
needed.
 
The use of an SRO allows for a single
consenting process.  This will increase
efficiency, provide a comprehensive overview of all necessary
works, ensure independent scrutiny from the Secretary of State for
Transport and is expected to improve public awareness and
engagement with the process.
 
The SRO serves as a mechanism to support the
LDO and the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and does not change the
scheme which has already been approved by Cabinet by authorising
the LDO and CPO.
 
The SRO is required to authorise the Highway
Works, and more specifically following alterations and improvements
to the existing highway and public rights of way network.
 
A TRO(s) will be required to govern any
necessary changes to the use of the existing highway and new
highways elements.

Alternative options considered

The options available to the
Council and the decision to deliver the SVEZ (at a project level)
are explored in further detail in Decision E3557.
 
The Council must secure all
necessary highways orders and consents to authorise the Highways
Works (though one means or other) to deliver the SVEZ. Failure to
address these consents at an early stage could result in an
impediment to the CPO, increasing the risk that the CPO is not
confirmed by the Secretary of State.
 
Proceeding with an SRO is
considered by the Council to be the most efficient and expeditious
ways to deliver the SVEZ. As explained in relation to risk
mitigation, the alternative is the promotion of a range of
connected orders and consents which carries more risk and would be
less efficient.