Purpose

To approve the Sustainable Transport Strategy
and the submission of the three year
Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 2025/26 to 2027/28 to Transport for
London (TfL).

Decision

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

i) 
The Sustainable Transport Strategy 2024-2038, as included in
Appendix 1.

 

ii) 
The draft Local Implementation Plan programme of schemes and
interventions to be delivered by the Highways and Sustainable
Transport team with a combination of TfL funding and Council
capital funding in 2025/26 to 2027/28 (collectively referred to as
the LBN Active and Sustainable Capital Travel Programme [AST]), 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 schemes listed under
the LIP and AST programmes;

· 
consider any consultation responses arising out of consultation on
the schemes;

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

· 
implement the schemes with the inclusion of such non-material
programme amendments as are considered necessary.

 

iv) 
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 (ii) to (iv) 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 spending submissions were not done.

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. As noted above, the guidance from TfL includes a
prescriptive list of what schemes are eligible for funding.

c) 
With regards to the Active and Sustainable Travel 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. This over-reliance on TfL could potentially cause
further delivery delays.

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.