« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 15: Implementation
15.1 The consultation asked:
Q55: What issues should be considered in implementing the NTS following its publication later in 2006?
In total, 92 respondents (29%) addressed this question.
A range of issues to be considered in implementing the NTS after publication was identified. The three most commonly identified ones are listed below.
15.1.1 Integration with Other Plans and Bodies
A common theme was that consideration should be given to how the NTS fits with development planning, and structure and local plans. It was recommended that the NTS be reflected in the strategies of the Regional Transport Partnerships ( LA, RTP). Consultees also stressed the need for appropriate partners to be brought on board in implementing the strategy, for example, Regional Transport Partnerships, the business sector and local communities.
15.1.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
Many respondents urged that an appropriate evaluation framework be established in order to enable regular monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of the strategy.
15.1.3 Proofing the Strategy
A recurring theme was that the strategy should be equality proofed, although several consultees requested more details on how this would be carried out. Other calls were made for "rural proofing" the NTS ( LA, CTG) and submitting it to a social inclusion audit (Oth PB), environmental assessment ( EB/ ST) or other impact assessment (Rep Org). One view was that young people should be considered in the implementation of the NTS (Oth PB).
15.1.4 Other Comments
A few respondents advocated the development of an implementation strategy ( LA, LA, RTP, RTP). Others called for the need to identify the main priorities to take forward ( LA, LA, Pub, CTG, Bus) perhaps with some "quick wins" amongst them ( LA). The need to move forward promptly from strategy to action was emphasised with a few consultees stressing the need to avoid " paralysis by analysis" ( LA, EC). Others urged that project lead-in times should be short ( LA, Bus) in order to maintain credibility (Tr Op). One consultee recommended that bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum (Pub).
A common response was to advocate that the NTS set out clear lines of responsibility and accountability for taking forward action. A delivery plan was called for ( LA) with a clear timetable ( LA, Rep Org, CTG) and an outline of appropriate funding streams to support projects ( LA, LA, CTG, Bus, Tr Op, EC). It was stressed that investment was key to successful delivery (Rep Org, Rep Org) and should be safeguarded ( LA). One respondent stated that the focus should be on the key priorities and the NTS should not be sidetracked into funding only large projects ( LA).
It was considered that part of the implementation process would involve awareness raising of the NTS and its role ( LA, LA).
Finally, a few respondents argued that the nature of implementation depended largely on the outcome of the consultation exercise (Pub, Oth PB), with some advocating further consultation once firmer plans are available (Rep Org, EB/ ST, Oth PB).
« Previous | Contents | Next »