OPENING STATEMENT TO THE PUBLIC EXAMINATION INTO THE DRAFT SOUTH EAST REGIONAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY

To be given by Mike Gwilliam, Director of Planning and Transport,
South East England Regional Assembly

May I formally welcome the Panel to the South East, and in particular to Reading, a microcosm of the good and bad dimensions of transport in the region! I look forward to a stimulating debate over the next five days. This Public Examination has before it a revision of the transport element of current Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (Chapter 9 of RPG9). This review of the Regional Transport Strategy is a partial review of RPG9; the time horizon for the RTS is therefore the same as for RPG9, 2016.

The fact that it is a partial review means that the suite of policies in RPG9 dealing with such issues as the environment, housing distribution, sub-regional priorities, to name but three, continue to be relevant. The primary focus of this draft RTS is to identify the transport requirements necessary to support delivery of RPG9. Although we know the Panel appreciates the significance of this, we mention it here as some of the submissions to the Panel from participants at this Examination appear to us to suggest additions to the policy framework that are in fact already covered adequately elsewhere in RPG9; in our view this is likely to become particularly evident when we get to the debate on rural areas.

The importance of our transport system needs emphasis:

• It is the largest English region, with a regional economy that has a GDP of the order of £140bn;
  
  
• As the international gateway between the UK and the rest of the world, as well as being the gateway for the international business community to the rest of Europe – via Heathrow and Gatwick;
  
  
• We have the busiest commercial ferry port in North West Europe, access to the only fixed link between UK and continental Europe and the second largest deep-sea container port in the UK.

We have sought to set out a regional framework that allows us to begin to meet needs better. It must have the support of the region’s stakeholders and it must have the commitment of Government to support its delivery. The MORI survey shows that the draft RTS has such support from the region’s stakeholders. Our residents understand that tackling the crises that faces our transport system is something that will involve difficult choices, but they understand that, to coin a phrase from the Secretary of State for Transport himself, doing nothing is not an option. But our survey also shows a crisis of confidence.

There have been too many new initiatives, too many grand new plans, too many promises never delivered. There have been too many plans and not sufficient commitment to delivery. The MORI survey undertaken for the draft RTS showed that transport, and congestion in particular is almost on a par with crime as being THE key issue for residents, but the belief in Government’s ability to improve the situation is lacking.

Quite simple measures can help increase confidence, for example ensuring that individuals have the information available that allows them to consider the alternatives. There is a growing body of evidence that shows how the targeting of travel planning and advice to the needs of the individual can have a positive and long lasting effect on the individual’s travel choices. A key feature of the Mobility Management framework is therefore the development of travel planning and advice centres that can build upon the success of travel plans.

However better quality travel planning and advice will not remove the need for further substantial and sustained investment in our transport system. The list of transport requirements set out in the draft RTS is extensive and we make no apologies for that. It is a reflection of the scale of the pressures facing our transport system and the need to redress years of under investment in what is a key asset for the region and for UK plc. The scale of investment set out represents some 1.2% of the region’s GDP, a figure not inconsistent with the average level of investment made across continental Europe. For it is with the continent that we must compare ourselves. In a global economy our competitors are not other parts of the UK but invariably other regions elsewhere in North West Europe. The vision for the RTS encapsulates all of this by setting our goal as having a transport system that matches the best in North West Europe.

The Regional Assembly is already working with others to turn the words set out in the draft RTS into reality. The Regional Co-ordination Group provides a forum in which the Assembly, SEEDA and the Government Office can work with the delivery agencies to ensure that the key transport investments are progressed.

But recent events have revealed a fundamental problem: the credibility of the process. We have recently received the Government’s decision on four key Multi-Modal Studies covering the region. The Regional Planning Committee have asked me to advise you of their grave concerns about that announcement.

Although these announcements contain positive news on specific schemes, their overall message is also depressing. The decisions focus on road investments with little commitment to public transport improvements. They also largely ignore the revenue implications of projects such as bus network improvements. They do not reflect the balanced approach to investment recommended by all the Studies. This imbalance is graphically illustrated by the Minister’s rejection of most of the South Coast Multi-Modal Study proposals. It is no exaggeration to say that the clear majority of the Assembly members feel angry and betrayed. In the words of the Assembly Chairman, "the Secretary of State has got it completely wrong". The lack of investment for the South Coast threatens to undermine both regeneration programmes and the new development being pressed on the area by the Deputy Prime Minister. This unjust decision even calls into question the value of regional transport planning, the Multi-Modal Study process and the very credibility of RPG9 itself. It deepens, rather than reduces, the crisis of confidence that I referred to earlier. The Assembly Planning Committee has recommended the full Assembly to take up these issues immediately with Ministers, and I have been asked to pursue them with my colleagues at this Public Examination. We will therefore wish to comment on these difficult issues at appropriate stages in the Public Examination process, and especially following the Assembly’s full debate this Wednesday.

Contact

Lesley van Dijk, PR Executive - 01483 555223

Alex Butlin, PR Executive - 01483 555221

Notes to editors:

1. The Regional Assembly is the “voluntary regional chamber” for the South East. It was established in January 1999 to give a representative voice to the South East region which covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East and West Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, and Surrey.
2. The Assembly is made up of 111 members including elected councillors nominated by the region’s local authorities and 37 representatives from other sectors of the community (including business, trades unions, education, housing, health, sports, culture, tourism, faith groups, environmental, community and voluntary organisations).
3. The Assembly has three areas of core business:
1. It is the representative voice of the South East, engaging and representing its member organisations and, through them, the wider public.
2. The Assembly has a specific role under the Regional Development Agencies' Act 1998 to ensure the accountability of the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) to the region.
3. The Assembly has been the Regional Planning Body for the South East since April 2001. It has responsibility for proposing strategic planning and transport policies to Government.

Last updated: 21 August 2007