Purpose

The report seeks Cabinet approval for the TfL Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Annual Spending Submission (ASS) and LBN Active and Sustainable Travel (AST) capital programmes for 2024/25

Decision

Decision:

For the reasons set out in the report and its appendices Cabinet RESOLVED to Agree:

i)  The draft LIP programme of schemes and interventions to be delivered by the Highways and Sustainable Transport team with TfL funding in 2024/25, as set out in Appendix 1.

ii)  The draft AST programme of schemes and interventions to be delivered by the Highways and Sustainable Transport team with Council capital funding in 2024/25, as set out in Appendix 2.

iii)  To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Environment and Sustainable Transport, in consultation with the Lead Member for Environment and Sustainable Transport to:

·  commence public consultation on the individual LIP and/or AST schemes;

·  consider any consultation responses arising out of consultation on the LIP and/or AST schemes;

·  make such non material programme amendments to the LIP and/or AST schemes as are considered necessary, taking account of the results of the public consultation (where undertaken); and

·  implement the LIP and/or AST schemes with the inclusion of such non-material programme amendments as are considered necessary.

iv)  That in the event that the Corporate Director of Environment and Sustainable Transport, in consultation with the Lead Member for Environment and Sustainable Transport consider that a material programme amendment to the LIP and/or AST schemes is necessary, that material amendment will be reported back to Cabinet for further consideration with the remaining parts of the LIP and/or AST schemes proceeding in line with (i) to (iii) above.

Alternatives Considered

a)  With regards to the LIP, the alternative would be to not submit a spending plan to TfL and to lose a substantial element of the Council’s funding for highways and sustainable transport interventions. We would also be in breach of the terms of the GLA Act 2000 if a spending submission were not submitted.

b)  An alternative programme could have been devised and submitted, but would run the two-fold risk of either not meeting TfL guidelines for scheme submissions or not delivering on the Council’s own priorities.

c)  With regards to the new capital programme, the alternative would have been to not supplement the funding available for active and sustainable travel and to continue to work with just the TfL annual allocation instead. However, it was already apparent that the pace of delivery would be unsatisfactory with just TfL funding alone.

d)  In addition, the recent TfL funding hiatus demonstrated the vulnerability of funding for active and sustainable travel interventions, and this over-reliance on TfL could potentially cause further delivery delays – as it has done for the past two years.

e)  Consequently, it was felt that some protection for our active and sustainable travel programme from fluctuations in TfL funding levels was needed so that firm future commitments over delivery can be made.

f)  In addition, the programme could have been devised completely differently, with a particular focus on a specific element in the programme in any single year, with the majority of allocated funding for that year directed to its delivery (see the discussion of this in Section 4.9 onwards).

g)  However, it was considered more beneficial and inclusive if a more balanced annual programme of capital funding across a range of projects and outcomes were proposed, as none of the significant outcomes that the programme is seeking to achieve would be delayed, and some progress could be shown year on year across all the intended programme outcomes.