The Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the Transport Investment Programme and the Work Programme. Key discussions focused on the approach to developing future transport investment priorities, the refresh of the Local Transport Plan Delivery Plan, and the progress of the committee's work programme.

Transport Investment Programme

The committee reviewed the approach to developing future transport investment priorities, which are in support of the Mayor's Local Transport Plan. The refresh of the 2027-2032 section of the Local Transport Plan Delivery Plan and the development of a Transport for City Regions Investment Framework were discussed. This framework aims to maximise the benefits of devolved transport funding secured through the Integrated Settlement.

Councillor Greg Stone raised concerns about the process for prioritising projects within large programmes, noting that while over-programming is natural, the process for deciding which projects proceed and which are dropped is unclear. He likened the Local Transport Plan (LTP) to a Christmas Letter to Santa, with many desired items but uncertainty about delivery. Jonathan Bailes, Assistant Director of Transport Programmes and Investment Planning, explained that the pipeline of projects, valued at approximately £3.3 billion over five years, is not intended to prioritise schemes against each other but rather to bring together transport improvements that collectively deliver the vision of the LTP and align with regional and local authority priorities. Schemes progress through a business case and assurance process, which determines their deliverability and value for money.

Councillor Stone also inquired about the overall budget and how transport spending changes over time. Jonathan Bailes detailed the breakdown of the £1.85 billion Transport for City Regions (TCR) funding, noting that £1.71 billion is new capital funding, £73 million is revenue funding, and £58.4 million relates to legacy metropolitan rail grant commitments. He also outlined statutory responsibilities for highways and metro maintenance, which amount to approximately £450 million and £250 million over five years, respectively, leaving £1.1 to £1.2 billion for new capital investment in enhancement schemes. Torben Hughes, Director of Transport, simplified this by stating that around 60% of the integrated settlement over the next couple of years will be allocated to transport capital.

Councillor Robert Pattison raised concerns about residents in areas like Penshaw and Shiny Road feeling missed out of the loop regarding transport plans, particularly in relation to the Metro to Washington scheme and potential road closures in South Hilton. Torben Hughes assured that the Metro to Washington scheme is likely to be included in the delivery pipeline and that engagement with residents is ongoing. He also clarified that while the Metro to Washington scheme passes through the top end of Penshaw, the wider Leamside South project, which involves reopening the Leamside line, would go through Penshaw and include a proposed station there.

Councillor Heidi Wildhirt questioned whether the committee was being asked to comment on the process of the refresh or the actual components of it, expressing confusion about why the report was being brought forward if local authorities' views were not yet finalised. Jonathan Bailes explained that the refreshed delivery pipeline is a collaborative document and that some authorities were still progressing their pipeline schemes through their own governance processes. He stated that circulating a draft document could lead to changes and that it was more appropriate to allow those processes to conclude before presenting a single, coherent pipeline through the formal cabinet process. He added that the November deadline for Cabinet consideration was driven by an obligation to government to produce a delivery plan for the integrated settlement.

Councillor Greg Stone raised concerns about the progress of on-street Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, referencing previous unsuccessful regional procurements. The officer acknowledged that the original intention to use a regional framework for the LEVI grant was not possible due to the nature of concession contracts. A different approach is now being evaluated, involving close collaboration with all seven local authorities. While acknowledging that progress is slower than desired, the focus remains on ensuring value for money and securing the best possible contracts to deliver EV charge points.

Councillor Stephen Flower expressed strong reservations about the £14 million proposed cycle path in Seaton Sluice, stating that local residents, the majority of whom are elderly and do not use social media, were largely unaware of the proposal and that over 90% of respondents in a local survey did not want it. He questioned the extent of public consultation and whether negative feedback was being considered. Torben Hughes clarified that the 16,000 responses to the Local Transport Plan (LTP) consultation were for the plan itself, not individual schemes. He stated that individual schemes, such as the Blythe to St. Mary's cycle scheme in Seaton Sluice, are the responsibility of the local authority (Northumberland County Council in this case) for consultation and engagement. Jonathan Bailes added that the scheme was approved by Cabinet as it was viewed as delivering positive value for money and aligning with the LTP strategy, but acknowledged that local opposition would need to be addressed by Northumberland County Council.

Councillor Heidi Wildhirt questioned the balance of investment between major public transport and active travel projects versus strategic road capacity, congestion reduction, and maintenance backlogs. She highlighted the £900 million cost of the Metro extension to Washington and the hours residents spend in traffic. Torben Hughes suggested this would be a good topic for discussion with Councillor Ferguson, the Cabinet Member for Transport, and reiterated that the LTP guides investment decisions, favouring sustainable transport choices. He acknowledged that roads need investment but stated that most schemes coming forward favour sustainable travel. Jonathan Bailes added that the pipeline does not deprioritise road investment, with a significant proportion of the Transport for City Regions programme allocated to the road network, including maintenance, resilience, and safety improvements. He emphasised a holistic approach, assessing business cases based on problem-solving and public value for money.

Councillor Jamie Driscoll asked about the Mayor's election commitments for free public transport for under-18s and those on means-tested benefits, inquiring if these were included in the refreshed pipeline, costed, and which funding pot would pay for them. The officer stated that this would need to be taken away and answered in writing. While the Mayor's fares scheme for under-22s is operational, free travel for under-18s and other groups is being looked at, subject to budget deliberations. A costing is currently being worked on.

Councillor Stephen Flower raised concerns about the lack of links to Durham in the transport plans, particularly regarding the Leamside Line and the Washington Metro connection. He highlighted that 43% of the North East population relies on public transport. Jonathan Bailes confirmed close working with Durham County Council to ensure the pipeline reflects their priorities, including public transport and highways improvements. He also stressed the importance of the visitor economy and how transport investments support access to destinations like Durham City.

Councillor Craig Heathcote raised concerns about the difficulty in understanding the numbers and the split between capital and revenue funding, suggesting a need for a more digestible roadmap for the public and the committee. Jonathan Bailes acknowledged the complexity and stated that numbers would be circulated. He also mentioned a quarterly reporting process to Cabinet on revenue and capital expenditure. Torben Hughes explained that revenue funding is for capacity building and scheme development, and that a proposal to convert 10% of capital funding to revenue use would be put to Cabinet to support bus services and fares. Jonathan Bailes clarified that the 10% would be taken from the £1.7 billion capital funding, resulting in approximately £170 million for revenue interventions.

Councillor Richard Vardy questioned the thought process behind investing in current EV charging technology, given its evolving nature and the risk of obsolescence. The officer explained that the public sector's role is to provide certainty and encourage the transition to EVs, particularly in areas where the private sector may not invest. They are working with commercial partners to ensure fair revenue sharing and are considering contract lengths and the potential for suppliers to renew equipment. The aim is to balance supporting market growth with the ability to evolve as the technology does.

The committee also reviewed its work programme, noting progress on establishing working groups for child poverty and energy generation and supply. They discussed the process for scrutinising Cabinet decisions and the need for a formal feedback mechanism on recommendations made by the committee. The next meeting was scheduled for 8 December 2026 in Morpeth.

Work Programme

The committee reviewed its work programme for 2026/27, which includes mission reviews, cross-cutting/strategic enabler reviews, pre-decision scrutiny, performance monitoring, and temporary working groups. A working group on energy generation and supply is being established, with ten members expressing interest and Councillor Craig Heathcote willing to act as a lead member. Terms of reference for this group will be presented at the next meeting. The committee also noted the importance of considering the UK Government's plans for devolution in shaping its future work programme. Councillor Greg Stone expressed a preference for the committee to begin consideration of Bus Reform proposals in October rather than February 2027.

The committee also discussed a procedural observation regarding recommendations made to Cabinet. Councillor Greg Stone highlighted that while a recommendation was included in a Cabinet report, it was not discussed or debated, and therefore not part of Cabinet's recommended actions. He suggested a mechanism for ensuring feedback on recommendations, such as the Chair attending Cabinet meetings to present them. The Senior Governance Officer confirmed that a response to the specific recommendation would be provided and that future recommendations would be handled in accordance with the MSA's constitution and overview and scrutiny committee procedure rules. The possibility of embedding a formal feedback process into Cabinet discussions was also raised.

The next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for 8 December 2026 in Morpeth.