Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Decision approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: December 3, 2024

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).

Content: 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.