Local Transport Plan for Kent 2006-11

3.1 There have been three fundamental influences upon the evolution of the strategy for transport in Kent:-

• Engagement with the wider community, partners, and Kent’s neighbours
• The priorities for transport shared between central and local government
• The assessment of the impact of the strategy upon the environment, a process known as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

3.2 When KCC began to consider how best to engage the community and Kent's partners on the second LTP in early 2004 it was abundantly clear that a great deal of information had already been gathered about community views on transport and its overall importance. This information had been gathered from work throughout Kent on the Community Strategies (2000-4), Local Strategic Partnerships (2002-5), the Kent PSAs (2001-4), and local transportation strategies (less than 12 months old in three of Kent’s four principal urban areas). In addition to this, comprehensive public opinion work had been undertaken for the first LTP itself in June 2000 with MORI, and subsequently annually through the County’s annual tracker surveys with the Kent Residents Panel. This recognition of existing opinion is the first influence which the community had upon this LTP. Whilst the County Council was prepared to re-frame an entirely new set of objectives, a review of the existing groundswell of opinion showed that the approach in LTP1 still had validity, and could be refined to reflect a number of priorities for the community which have re-emerged over the LTP1 time frame. These are :-

• Clean streets, road and pavement repairs, reduced traffic congestion and better public transport are all amongst the top ten concerns for a better quality of life for Kent residents
• There is deep concern about road maintenance. 50% of residents are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with this because they feel that there are too many potholes and the condition of the roads is generally poor.
• Residents consider congestion to be a problem in their local area and consider it to be worse in Kent than in other places. Those surveyed think that this congestion is largely confined to certain times of the day, such as the ‘school run’. Respondents consider strategies that tackle traffic demand and inappropriate parking are more likely to be successful in reducing the problems of congestion

3.3 The Area Strategic Partnerships in Kent  (Thames Gateway, Channel Corridor, West & East Kent) reflect four sub-areas of the County which have homogeneity and identity in land use and transport planning terms. Transport sub groups exist in these ASPs, drawing in partners and dealing with transport issues across boundaries. To respect and build upon the existing methods of working with  partners it was therefore decided to adopt these ASP sub-areas as the building blocks for developing the community involvement process and as the fundamental sub-divisions for action in the Plan. In the spring of 2004, stakeholder meetings were therefore held in each of the four ASP areas primarily to gather views on how appropriate the strategic approach of nine proposed themes based on the first LTP would be in each locality. Over 500 people were invited from the wider Kent community and attendees discussed the proposed LTP themes and their degree of relevance in each area. This was the second way in which community opinion influenced LTP2, through the adoption of the different policy emphases given by the community for each sub-area of the County.  These are shown in Table 3.1.

Figure 3.1 LTP Conference November 2004

Open large scaleable image in Popup

Table 3.1 Theme Emphasis Across Sub-Areas

Area	Themes
West Kent	Accessibility & Social Inclusion
	Integration
	Environment
	UK Connections/ Keeping Kent Moving
ThamesGateway	Accessibility & Social Inclusion
	Sustainable Regeneration
	Demand Management
	Environment
East Kent	Accessibility & Social Inclusion
	Sustainable Regeneration
	Environment
Channel Corridor	UK Connections & UK Gateway
	Demand Management
	Accessibility & Social Inclusion
	Sustainable Regeneration

3.4 A host of more detailed issues were identified which, together with the themes, cascaded into the driving of policy and scheme formulation through partnership working with District Council colleagues under the auspices of Kent’s Joint Transportation Boards. This was the third major influence of the community engagement process upon the policies and actions within this LTP. Examples of this include the emphasis given to solving the school run problem, which is now reflected in the Smarter Choices programme; the call for more demand management, now reflected in the larger number of bus priority schemes in the ITS programmes; and the call for more support for Park & Ride, now shown through the ITS programmes for Tunbridge Wells and Canterbury.

3.5 Having gathered these views about the guiding principles and themes for the LTP the next step taken was to develop a document which set out some alternative strategies for achieving them, and use it as a basis for a second stage of community engagement. This was the “Local Transport Plan for Kent 2006-11 Policy Choices and Issues” document (Figure 3.2) launched along with the LTP2 website at a one-day LTP conference on 15 November 2004.

Figure 3.2 LTP Policy Choices & Issues November 2004

Open large scaleable image in Popup

3.6 Speakers from the Government Office, Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), transport operators and “best practice” authorities gave their views and over 200 people attended from throughout the community. A questionnaire based around alternative ways of achieving the objectives was distributed with the document to attendees and to every public library and Parish Council office in the County. Over 500 paper copies were distributed and an interactive version of the questionnaire was placed upon the website. The results are summarised in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Relative Importance of Themes

Open large scaleable image in Popup

3.7 In terms of ways to achieve the LTP2 objectives, it was clear that there was support (or strong support) for a number of specific approaches which have all subsequently been reflected in LTP2, including, as examples:-

• Promoting better accessibility through support for socially necessary bus services, investment and the lobbying of transport providers
• Managing demand through development control, better management of the network and car parking
• Working to protect the environment through the promotion of alternative means of transport and better integration
• Lobbying for better strategic connections to the UK and Europe

3.8 Whilst these messages shaped the formative stages of developing the Provisional LTP,  it was clear that a detailed and continuing dialogue with the community would be need to be established as the process evolved toward this, the "final" LTP. To this end, the County Council established an external stakeholder panel representing partners and the community to shape the continuing development of the Plan. Three focus groups working alongside this panel representing specific “hard to reach groups” (the old, young & ethnic minorities) were recruited. These Focus Groups were spread geographically across the County, meeting in Gravesend (B&EM); Ashford (over 65's) & Canterbury (under 25's).  The stakeholder panel and the focus groups first met in July 2005 to consider the implications and detail of the strategy set out in the Provisional Plan. The stakeholder panel considered the (then) nine LTP objectives and thirty-nine potential activities which KCC could undertake to ‘deliver’ them. The Panel was asked to rate the importance of each of these activities in enhancing the quality of life and prosperity for people living in Kent. The Panel felt the  most important “activities” were :-

• Lobbying others and applying political and officer pressure on organisations like the Highways Agency or Strategic Rail Authority for improvements for Kent – being Kent’s “voice” or champion.
• Working in partnership – like the Quality Bus Partnership in Maidstone, Thanet and Canterbury – where the County Council & bus operator work together to provide complementary improvements.
• Encouraging alternatives to reduce the impact of transport – more to encourage bus use, cycling & walking.

3.9 The Focus Groups considered what it is like travelling around Kent, identified key areas for improvement to transport and discussed the implications of the nine LTP2 Objectives. Key messages (with the resulting actions in italics) were :-

• Those relying on public transport have a more negative view of their accessibility to jobs and services than those with a car (Measuring perceptions of accessibility will be needed & are as important as actual improvements)
• Whilst respondents would like to see improvements to transport services they do not feel that improvements should be funded by increasing Council Tax (KCC fully respects this & has supported all the costs within the LTP whilst adding its own investment from within existing resources)
• Overall concerns exist amongst respondents about the future of transportation. An increasing population in the County and cheaper cars may combine to create congestion problems. At the moment there are few if any incentives for people to use public transport in preference to their own cars (Incentives to use public transport which KCC can directly influence such as better information, journey times, punctuality & safety are critical to the success of the Plan. Proposals are included in the five-year programme for integrated transport)
• Transport links with the rest of the UK could be improved in respondents’ views (Hence the policies, proposals & lobbying embodied in the UK Connections & UK Gateway objectives)
• When asked what it would take for respondents to use their cars less, typical responses included: cheaper fares, easier access onto buses, better coverage of destinations and times, clear information about what buses are running where and decent waiting areas. The convenience of the car still outweighs the cost of parking and the prospect of being held up in traffic congestion. (As third point above)
• Parents taking children to schools in cars is seen as a major contributor to road congestion problems and respondents notice how much easier it is to travel around during school holiday periods. (Although this has as much to do with parents not making journeys to work in school holidays, the point is embodied in the comprehensive work under way with Kent schools by a team of 5 dedicated members of staff to promote Travel Plans)

3.10 Further consultation with the community & partners on the Provisional Plan took the form of:-

• Sending out over 500 copies of the Plan directly to  to every County Member and District Member with a transportation responsibility, stakeholders, partners and neighbours.
• Staff presenting and debating the Plan to public and private sector stakeholders including the NHS, Kent Police and Kent's Joint Transportation Boards
• Placing a copy "on deposit" in every public library
• Setting up the LTP website with an on-line consultation facility
• Holding a second round of the external stakeholder and focus group meetings in Canterbury, Gravesend and Ashford in December 2005.

3.11 In summary, the December findings were :-

3.12 The focus groups (residents):-

• Expressed the same views on improving public transport as the stakeholders, both in terms of incentives and centrality to the other shared priorities
• Saw the car as essential for travelling in Kent
• Saw the absence of an alternative as the main barrier to discouraging car use

3.13 A resource allocation exercise was undertaken which explored with each group how they would invest incremental amounts of money (£20m; £5m; £1m) across the shared priorities. Whilst hypothetical, the results were accompanied by a substantial debate and good degree of understanding by residents of the causal relationships between the shared priorities. Residents understood and supported the need to prioritise investment according to outcomes closely related to the objectives of the Plan. The most interesting results came when priorities had to be decided around £1m, as this polarised the choices made.  These are shown below in Figure 3.4 below. The results of this exercise were reported to the stakeholder group and the combined influence of these views upon the LTP is described in paragraph 3.17 overleaf. 

Figure 3.4 Focus Groups Resource Allocation Exercise (£1m)

Open large scaleable image in Popup

3.14 Stakeholders (mainly partners)....

• Were generally supportive of the Plan but were concerned about the possibility of KCC not being able to fund the borrowing & revenue involved. (This message was delivered directly to the Cabinet Member & was instrumental in the eventual decision to provide revenue & borrowing support for the Plan's investment programmes)
• Saw a need to encourage people to want to use public transport by provision of a reliable, efficient, integrated network). (This is fully acknowledged in all the public transport policies & strategies of this LTP and the business plans of Kent's public transport operator partners, & is central to its success)
• Saw KCC's lack of regulatory powers in transport as a major issue in delivering the Plan
• Saw better public transport as the key to addressing the shared priorities (Schemes to deliver this form a substantial part of the integrated programme to invest the planning guideline monies)

3.15 At the December meeting stakeholder  views were gathered upon the approach within the Provisional Plan, then the group held a detailed discussion around the relationships between the shared priorities and how these should influence resource allocation in the investment areas of major schemes, integrated transport and maintenance. The group concluded that better public transport was the singe most important priority and the key area to achieving the long term vision for transport in Kent. By direct causal impact the improvement of public transport also reduces congestion and pollution and helps improve road safety. This relationship is explained in Figure 3.5 below.

Figure 3.5 Causal Relationships Between Shared Priorities

Open large scaleable image in Popup

3.16 Having established these causal relationships, the group found it easier to express how the LTP should put the strategy for transport in Kent into practice through prioritising investment. In summary the group concluded:-

• Major LTP schemes should be delivering better sustainable transport
• Maintenance schemes should be "adding value" when implemented (e.g. installing cycle lanes at the same time as carriageway reconditioning) and the potential to achieve this should be a factor in determining the priority of a particular scheme.
• Prioritisation of investment in integrated transport should be based upon the causal relationships between the shared priorities identified by the residents and stakeholder groups. This was expressed in a final funding allocation exercise which produced the results sown in Figure 3.6 below:-

Figure 3.6 Stakeholder Group Integrated Transport Investment Priorities

Open large scaleable image in Popup

3.17 The views expressed in the focus and stakeholder groups concerning the prioritisation of investment were fundamental influences in the  formulation of Kent's Budget Allocation Model (BAM) and  the prioritisation methodology (PIPKIN). The shared priorities form the cornerstone of  Kent's approach to the allocation of resources described in more detail in Chapter 10 in "value for money". Similarly, the principle of "added value" is embodied in Kent's budget model for allocation of maintenance resources. More detail of this is given in Chapter 8 under asset management and in Appendix 3 (Transport Asset Management Plan).

3.18 The most significant change from  the strategic approach taken within the Provisional LTP to this, the final version, has been the adoption of a tenth objective and policy on health. This was driven by a clear message from partners and the public response to the Provisional Plan and reflects the fundamental impact transport can have upon public health, both directly and indirectly. 

3.19 The County Council recognises that cross boundary issues with neighbouring authorities are a key consideration in the future development of Kent's transport priorities and infrastructure. In preparation for LTP2, the County Council has held discussions with neighbouring authorities to explore cross boundary issues and identify specific points and actions around which long term liaison can be based. This approach will promote a co-ordinated approach which will address cross boundary issues and inform the development of the County Council's policies and scheme programme. Figure 3.7 shows the transport authorities bordering Kent.

Figure 3.7 Transport authorities adjacent to Kent

Open large scaleable image in Popup

3.20 The following tables summarise the principal issues, actions and timescales identified for each local authority area:

3.21 As outlined in paragraph 1.12, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a “systematic process of identifying and addressing the environmental consequences of plans and programmes”. In 2004, the Government confirmed that the SEA process will apply to the second round of Local Transport Plans. KCC has commissioned Scott Wilson and Levett-Therivel to assist in this work. The SEA is part of the planning and appraisal process rather than a separate exercise and will deliver sustainable outcomes which are central to this LTP's objectives. The SEA/SA is also seen as “a key test of our claims that the Garden of England is safe in our hands”. A five-stage process has been used to ensure this test is as rigorous as possible.

3.22 Stage A in the SA process involved establishing the framework for undertaking the appraisal and the evidence base which would inform the identification and evaluation of the LTP’s impacts. The outputs from Stage A are documented in a Scoping Report, which was subject to stakeholder consultation.

3.23 Stage B in the SA process involved three assessments. Firstly, the (then) LTP’s nine themes were assessed to determine their compatibility with sustainable development principles – this assessment is documented in Appendix 8. This assessment led to a series of changes in emphasis and wording. Secondly, an appraisal was undertaken of the sustainability of various strategic options for the LTP including options relating to demand management, major transport schemes and budgetary allocations. The findings of the options appraisal were presented to the Informal Member Group (IMG), an all-party group of Members who provide direction and support to Council officers and advise the relevant Cabinet Member. Finally, an appraisal was undertaken of the provisional LTP as a whole. This involved appraising:-

• the LTP’s policies (e.g. on road safety, walking and cycling);
• the major transport schemes promoted in the LTP (e.g. East Kent Access); and
• the LTP’s Integrated Transport Programme and Maintenance Programme.

3.24 Stage C in the SA process involved preparing a final report on the SA of the LTP. This documented the appraisal process undertaken and the principal appraisal findings. The report included the IMG’s response to the findings of the options appraisal.

3.25 Stage D of the SA process involved consulting the public on the provisional LTP itself as well as the final report on the SA. A significant number of comments were received including several on the SA report.

3.26 Stage E of the SA process involved finalising the way in which implementation of the LTP will be monitored. Plan monitoring will be based on a series of indicators and these include several indicators designed to monitor the significant economic, social and environmental impacts of the LTP identified through the SA process. Following Stage E, KCC and the consultants prepared a formal statement setting out how the SA process had influenced the content of the LTP; how responses to consultation had been taken into account; and precisely how the LTP would be monitored.

3.27 In summary, the single most important impact of the SEA process upon this LTP and its underpinning strategy was an increased emphasis on the option for “Promoting Alternatives” – in other words a more proactive approach to demand management was adopted.  This followed substantial debate with external partners and was tested (and endorsed by) the LTP stakeholder panel and focus groups.

3.28 Figure 3.8 summarises the strategy evolution process.