Notification of Schemes and Works affecting the Strategic Road Network and Greater London Authority roads

Transcription

1 Surface Transport Notification of Schemes and Works affecting the Strategic Road Network and Greater London Authority roads MAYOR OF LONDON

2 Notifications Contents Purpose of guidance 4 PART A Background to Notifications 5 1. Greater London Authority Act The Traffic Management Act PART B Transport for London (TfL) General Guidance for Notifications 6 3. Guidance structure 6 4. Legislative background to Notifications 6 5. HA 1980 and RTRA 1984 powers requiring Notification 7 6. Notifications of Schemes and Works 7 7. Information requirements for Notifications 8 8. Early contact with TfL 8 Scheme Notifications 8 9. Schemes requiring Notification Interactions with LIP or BSP processes Notifications concerning s.9 RTRA 1984 Traffic Orders Notifications for proposals involving traffic signals Traffic/Transport modelling 10 Works Notifications Temporary disruptions arising from highway authority works Works requiring Notification Notifications concerning s.14 (1) RTRA 1984 Traffic Orders Notifications concerning s.16 RTRA 1984 Traffic Orders 12 Other Matters Development and planning applications Notification assessment procedure Effect of Notification on other statutory processes TfL assistance with Notifications under s.301a HA 1980 and s.121b RTRA Application of Guidance 13 Annexes Annex 1 - Draft direction by Mayor of london 14 Annex 2 - TfL points of contact 15 Annex 3 - Network Management Group 16 3

3 Guidance Purpose of guidance The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (GLA Act 1999) and the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) introduce provisions, at s.301a of the Highways Act 1980 (HA 1980) and s.121b of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984), relating to statutory notice requirements where a London Borough Council (LBC) exercises powers which affect a road for which another traffic authority is responsible. The purpose of this Guidance is to set out a practical way of satisfying these statutory Notification requirements, which is not excessively demanding while still providing appropriate levels of information that satisfy the intent behind the requirements. Part A provides the background against which the Notification requirements and the Guidance are set. Part B provides detailed Guidance from Transport for London (TfL) on how the Notification requirements can be satisfied. 4

4 Notifications Part A Background to Notifications Greater London Authority Act London s institutional and legislative framework recognises 34 autonomous local highway (and traffic) authorities. These are TfL (London s strategic transport authority) and 33 London borough councils (LBCs) including the Corporation of London. TfL and the 33 LBCs are required to have due regard to the Mayor s Transport Strategy when they promote changes to their respective roads. 1.2 Arrangements were brought into effect by provisions in the GLA Act 1999 that require a LBC to notify TfL and neighbouring LBCs where a proposal affects, or might affect, traffic operations on a GLA road or a road in a neighbouring LBC s area. In general terms it is for the promoting authority to determine the impacts of its proposal, against its reasoning for the promotion of the proposal, in deciding whether or not to proceed with the introduction of the proposal. In so doing, a LBC should seek to ensure as far as practicable that measures which mitigate adverse impacts are included in the proposal. In that way it is hoped that TfL or a neighbouring LBC would have no or less reason to object to the proposal, or to be able to withdraw an objection already submitted to it. If an objection has been made by TfL (or a neighbouring LBC in the case of a road which is not a GLA Road) and has not been withdrawn then the promoting LBC can put its proposal to the GLA, who may give consent after considering the objection. The GLA may hold a public inquiry before making a decision. TfL is keen to ensure that issues are resolved by co-operation and discussion and that referral to the GLA, whilst an option, is very much one of last resort. The Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) 2.1 The TMA introduces a new class of Strategic Roads for London where LBCs retain highway and traffic authority responsibilities, but for which TfL has oversight. The oversight arrangements operate in a similar way to those that apply to GLA roads, and require a LBC to notify TfL if its proposal (including a proposal to undertake works such as maintenance) would be likely to affect traffic operations on a strategic road in its own area or to notify both TfL and neighbouring LBCs if such a proposal might affect traffic operations on a strategic road or any other road in a neighbouring LBC s area. Again, in the event of an outstanding objection by TfL and/or by a neighbouring LBC, the promoting LBC has the opportunity of seeking a decision from the GLA, which may hold a public inquiry. 2.2 The TMA also places a statutory Network Management Duty (NMD) on local traffic authorities (LTAs). In London the LTAs are TfL and the 33 LBCs. The NMD will be overseen by a Traffic Manager appointed by each LTA. The role of a LTA s Traffic Manager is to seek to ensure that the LTA has the processes and arrangements in place to fulfil the LTA s NMD requirements. It is envisaged that a LBC s Traffic Manager will have an interest similar to TfL, and to TfL s own Traffic Manager, with regard to the safeguarding of the operation of strategic roads. A LBC s Traffic Manager is, therefore, likely to need the same sort of information as will be required by TfL or a neighbouring LBC in a Notification, if the LBC s Traffic Manager is to gain a full understanding of the LBC s proposal, the problem it aims to address and the impact of the proposal on network operations. 5

5 Guidance Part B TfL General Guidance for Notifications Guidance structure 3.1 This Guidance aims to set out clearly the situation where Notifications apply, the circumstances that require Notification (and the ones that do not) and the information required so that the Notification can be dealt with meaningfully when it is given. Consequently, this Guidance includes: The legislative background to Notifications; The HA 1980 and RTRA 1984 powers requiring Notification (and a Mayor s Direction dispensing with some Notification requirements) Advice on types of schemes or works likely to require Notification Information requirements for Notifications Details of how to deal with unusual Notification situations (e.g. s.9 RTRA 1984 powers, development-led proposals, etc) Proposals involving traffic signals An indication of how TfL will use the information provided in Notifications TfL contact points A process flow chart for Notifications. Legislative background to Notifications 4.1 The Notification requirements under s.301a of the HA 1980 and under s.121b of the RTRA 1984 were introduced by : s.266 and s.291 of the GLA Act 1999 in relation to GLA roads and roads in another London borough area, and s.62 and s.63 of the TMA in relation to Strategic Roads (as designated by s.60 of the TMA). 4.2 Notification to TfL is required under s.301a of the HA 1980 and/or s.121b of the RTRA 1984 when a LBC promotes a scheme or works requiring the use of the HA 1980 and/or the RTRA 1984 powers and which will affect, or be likely to affect traffic operations on: a) a GLA road; b) a strategic road; c) a road in another London borough which is neither a GLA road nor a strategic road. 4.3 In some of the above circumstances a LBC is required to advise neighbouring LBCs as well as TfL of their proposals. Table 1 indicates to whom a Notification should be made and which organisation is responsible for approval of/objection to a Notification. In all of the Notification situations, TfL or a neighbouring LBC have a period of one calendar month (from receipt of the Notification) to make an objection. If an objection has been made to a Notification then the LBC should not proceed with that proposal unless the objection is subsequently withdrawn or unless the GLA gives its consent to the proposal after consideration of the objection. 6

6 Notifications Table 1 - Notifications and Responsibilities Use of HA 1980 and/or RTRA 1984 powers by a LBC which will, or be likely to, affect traffic operations on: a1) A GLA Road in the LBC s own area a2) A GLA Road in another LBC s area b1) A Strategic Road in the LBC s own area b2) A Strategic Road in another LBC s area c) A road in another LBC area which is neither a GLA nor a Strategic Road. Organisation to be notified TfL TfL/relevant LBC TfL TfL/relevant LBC TfL/relevant LBC Organisation responsible for approval/objection TfL TfL TfL TfL/relevant LBC Relevant LBC 4.4 LBCs should note that these guidelines refer only to TfL s requirements when a Notification to TfL is needed. It is for LBCs to decide the extent and nature of information exchanged between themselves in cases where a LBC gives notice to only another LBC. HA 1980 and RTRA 1984 powers requiring Notification 5.1 The provisions in s.301a of the HA 1980 and s.121b of the RTRA 1984 require the exercise of any power under these two Acts to be notified if it affects or is likely to affect roads to which the Notification applies. 5.2 TfL considers this to be onerous. It is intended that the Mayor will use powers of direction available to him in s.301a and s.121b to reduce the number of powers that are notifiable by LBCs. TfL proposes the introduction of streamlined procedures to reduce the demands that have been placed on LBCs by the legislation in relation to Notifications. A draft dispensation direction by the Mayor stipulating the HA 1980 and RTRA 1984 powers that are notifiable is at Annex 1. To save confusion, the dispensation direction will apply across all the Notification situations set out in Table 1 above. TfL will monitor the Notification arrangements in the light of experience and will advise the Mayor if any amendment to the direction or the issue of any new direction is considered appropriate to further streamline processes. TfL will consult with the LBCs in this regard. Notifications of Schemes and Works 6.1 It is envisaged that many schemes will require two Notifications; one to consider the permanent or long term effects of the scheme, and one to consider the shorter term affects of works associated with implementing a scheme. Maintenance works will generally require one works Notification only. 6.2 TfL does not wish to unduly burden LBCs and so, in addition to the direction set out above, TfL also proposes to limit Notifications to those schemes or works that are likely to have a substantial impact on the network. More advice and information is given in sections 9.1 and 15.1 below regarding the classification of schemes and works. 7

7 Guidance 6.3 Where works may take place over a period exceeding six months they should be treated as a scheme for the purposes of Notification and the information to be provided. Information requirements for Notifications 7.1 Where Notification is required, information must be sufficient to allow TfL to understand the intent and impacts of the LBC s proposed scheme or works. However, the level of information required needs to match the scale of impact of a particular scheme or works; more comprehensive information is required for more substantial proposals where detail and quantification may be required to understand fully the impacts and benefits. 7.2 The expectation is that LBCs for their own purposes will have available a range of technical information and analysis consistent with the complexities of a particular proposal. It is not envisaged that information would be needed in excess of that required to enable a LBC s own Traffic Manager to understand the reasons for and the impact of a scheme or works, in order to ensure compliance with the LBC s NMD. Early contact with TfL 8.1 It is for LBCs to decide at what stage to send formal Notification to TfL. Many proposals will require statutory procedures and public consultation and formal Notification may need to be sent to TfL when proposals are at an advanced stage. Further, if a Notification is formally submitted to TfL too early, essential information may not be available and this could prevent TfL from being able to understand the impact and make a decision on it. Nevertheless, LBCs may find it helpful to discuss their proposals informally with TfL at an early stage, as this could avoid abortive work and unnecessary delay Scheme Notifications Schemes requiring Notification 9.1 TfL does not intend that all schemes affecting the SRN or TLRN should be notifiable. Many schemes, including road maintenance, do not substantially affect the operation of the network on a permanent basis. In these cases scheme Notification would be unduly onerous and would mis-direct scarce resources away from considering schemes that would substantially impact on the operation of the network, and therefore need careful consideration. To assist LBCs TfL has produced supplementary information to this guidance giving examples of different types of schemes and the likelihood that they will require Notification 9.2 An early contact with TfL by LBCs is particularly recommended when Notification is likely to be needed for large or complex schemes. This will allow TfL to gain a full understanding of the scheme and agree, with the LBC, mitigation requirements and the information that will be needed when the formal Notification is submitted. Annex 2 provides information about contact points at TfL. 9.3 Conversely, in many circumstances the impacts of LBC proposals may be small in scale or particularly localised. Notification may still be required because of the particular powers that are to be used. Again, LBCs are recommended to make an early contact with TfL to discuss the LBC s proposal and agree with TfL the information requirements for the Notification, appropriate to the scale of its impact. 8

8 Notifications TfL is keen to streamline procedures as much as possible, and will aim to deal with all Notifications efficiently and with minimum information requirements whenever possible. 9.4 An online form has been designed for LBCs to use to provide the information regarding their Notifications. Interactions with LIP or BSP processes 10.1 Where Notifications relate to proposals that are being progressed through the LIP or BSP processes, the LIP reference number or BSP scheme code should be quoted on the Notification, and relevant documentation provided. This will be particularly important if this documentation can supplement the standard Notification information and thereby provide a better understanding of the impact of the proposal. Notifications concerning s.9 RTRA 1984 Traffic Orders 11.1 The use of s.9 RTRA powers to introduce a scheme can have a significant impact on network operations during the experimental period and will require Notification The nature of schemes to be introduced by s.9 (experimental) RTRA 1984 orders means that the proposal may change during the course of the experiment, as may the impact. LBCs should, therefore, keep TfL informed of any changes that are proposed to a s.9 experimental scheme that has received Notification approval, particularly if it is the LBC s intention that the experimental scheme eventually moves to permanency. During these discussions, the LBC and TfL can agree whether or not a new Notification is needed when the scheme moves from a s.9 experimental status to s.6 permanent status. TfL s intention is that if the experimental scheme has not changed substantially during the course of the experiment, and the scheme moving to permanency is essentially the same as that in the approved Notification, then minimum information requirements will apply and an exchange will be sufficient If there have been more substantive changes to the scheme during the course of the s.9 experiment, the assumption is that the LBC will have discussed these with TfL. This again will mean that it should be relatively easy to agree a suitable way of dealing with a Notification when the experimental scheme moves to permanency. However, if the discussions between the LBC and TfL do not take place, there is a danger that the experimental scheme that was notified and approved may have changed substantially during the course of the experiment, as may the impacts. In this case and before the scheme moves to permanency a new Notification will be needed reflecting the changed impacts. TfL s decision on the new Notification would have to be based on the information relating to the changed impacts and could not be significantly influenced by the earlier approval when the experiment commenced. Notifications for proposals involving traffic signals 12.1 TfL is the Traffic Authority for all London s roads in relation to traffic signal installations and the operation of London s Traffic Signal Control System. A LBC proposal on any road that involves a new traffic signal installation or modification of an existing installation must be discussed with TfL s Traffic Signal Group. The Traffic Signal Group will work closely with the LBC in properly considering their proposal with the intention of identifying a traffic 9

9 Guidance signal scheme that satisfies the LBC s aspirations, or it will make it clear why it believes a scheme should not proceed. However, TfL s Traffic Signal Group will also need to consider how any proposed changes fit in with the overall operation of London s Traffic Signal Control System and TfL s NMD TfL s Traffic Signal Group will prepare a Traffic Signals Supplementary Report which will be given to the LBC for consideration. If the LBC wishes to proceed with the proposal, the report can form the basis of any required Notification to TfL. LBCs will not need to submit the report, as this would already be available to TfL, but would simply refer to it this in their Notification. The report will contain a unique reference number which can be quoted in a LBC Notification Development-led traffic signal proposals should be handled as above. However, it is important that discussion and decisions about the appropriateness of traffic signals and the details of any traffic signal installations are agreed before requirements are included in planning conditions, or any HA 1980 agreements are made which involve traffic signals. Traffic/Transport modelling 13.1 Modelling is one of the most important tools in the development and assessment of a scheme. Consequently it is recommended that modelling be undertaken for all schemes subject to Notification unless the nature/scope of the scheme is such that analysis can be undertaken in a simpler manner. Modelling should be consistent with the Urban Traffic Control (UTC) Modelling Guidelines, which include details on which modelling packages are appropriate for the type of scheme/works. It is important, when undertaking the modelling, that consideration is given to the reliability of traffic counts, mode impacts (e.g. impacts on buses) and impacts on adjacent area (e.g. any queuing to near-by intersection). For large-scale schemes it is important to take into consideration the impacts on the surrounding network and any possible re-distribution of traffic. In these circumstances strategic modelling may be appropriate. It is recommended that LBCs work closely with TfL s UTC team for guidance and assessment of the modelling, as it will be reviewing the modelling of any proposal referred to the Network Management Group (NMG). Ultimately, it is up to LBCs to decide whether a proposal requires modelling, what to model and which model to use. However, TfL s UTC is able to provide this advice if necessary. Works Notifications Temporary disruptions arising from highway authority works 14.1 Short-term works on the highway, associated with scheme construction or maintenance, can be extremely disruptive to network operations. Different works taking place in close proximity can lead to even higher levels of congestion because of interaction. TfL or a neighbouring LBC might need to object to a LBC proposing to undertake works on a road at a time when that road is already providing a diversion route because of works or events elsewhere. It will be vital in these 10

10 Notifications circumstances that a Notification takes account of other works in the vicinity, and the interaction these might have on the proposed works which are the subject of the Notification, and on the operation of neighbouring LBC s roads and GLA roads and strategic roads. Traffic Managers discharging their NMD would also seek to ensure that similar safeguards are in place The nature and quantity of short term works on the highway associated with scheme construction or infrastructure maintenance demands that a system is available that allows the Notification requirements for these works to be dealt with efficiently and speedily. It is envisaged that LondonWorks will eventually provide the communication process for many of these sorts of works, and will facilitate Notifications through the proposed permit functionality in LondonWorks. The proposed permit functionality in LondonWorks will not be operative prior to Spring 2006, which is likely to be the earliest that LBC systems become TMA compliant and are able to send data to LondonWorks. Updated Notification Guidance will be provided at that time. Works requiring Notification 15.1 As with schemes, TfL does not intend that all works affecting the SRN or TLRN should be notifiable. The draft Code of Practice on Co-ordination: Volume 1 Permit and Notice Procedures categorises works into programmed, major, standard (less than 4 days duration), standard (4 to 10 days duration), minor and immediate. TfL intends to use this categorisation in considering whether Notification is required. The first three categories require some advanced Notification of work under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and within the proposed new permit regime will also have a permit in principle recorded in local registers. These works are also likely to have a substantial impact on the operation of the network. It is therefore proposed that only works falling into these higher categories are notified, apart from a few exceptions. In this way Notification at an early planning stage should reduce actual permitting of these works to a co-ordination exercise and avoid duplication with the permit process To assist LBCs, TfL has produced supplementary information to this Guidance giving examples of different types of works and the likelihood that they will require Notification For situations where a Notification is required in relation to works associated with the introduction of a BSP supported scheme, early communication with TfL is recommended. This will enable discussion to take place about the information required, the detail needed and whether this information is already available through the BSP bi-monthly reporting process It is not anticipated that many works will require traffic/transport modelling. However it is recommended that modelling be undertaken where works include temporary modifications to traffic signals that could significantly impact on the performance of the network An online form has been designed for LBCs to use to provide the information regarding their Notifications. 11

11 Guidance Notifications concerning s.14 (1) RTRA 1984 Traffic Orders 16.1 The proposed use of s.14 (temporary) RTRA 1984, order powers will be notifiable in line with sections 3 to 8 of this Guidance if the use of these powers creates a substantial impact on the operation of GLA Roads and Strategic Roads. Early discussion with TfL is highly recommended because of the speed that can apply to the preparation of s.14 orders Whilst the Notification legislation described in this Guidance applies predominantly to the LBC s own highways and traffic schemes and works it should be noted that LBCs are likely to use, on occasions, notifiable powers to support utility works, for example where utility works require a section 14 order to be made If LBCs have any doubt about whether a Notification is required to a proposal involving a proposed use of s.14 powers, they are advised to contact TfL (using the contact points in Annex 2) to discuss it. Notifications concerning s.16 RTRA 1984 Traffic Orders 17.1 Section 16 (special events) RTRA 1984 orders are used to support special events on highways. These are generally of short duration, but can be particularly disruptive to network operations while the event is in progress. The use of s.16 order powers will be notifiable in line with section 7 of this Guidance. Other Matters Development and planning applications 18.1 Planning applications can include proposals that result in permanent changes to the road network, as well as impacting on the operation of the network during the construction of the development. While LBCs, acting as Local Planning Authorities, are not required to consult TfL on planning applications affecting the SRN, they will be required to notify TfL at a later stage where highway works result from the approved application that substantially affect the performance of the road network. In order to avoid a planning application being approved without appropriate comment from TfL, it is suggested that TfL is contacted prior to planning approval being given in those instances where significant changes are proposed that will impact on the SRN. In these cases it is recommended that the developer or consultant be required to submit the core information to the LBC, so that they can forward this information to TfL for comment In those instances where there are substantial changes made to the road network there may be the need to create S106 and S278 agreements and it would be prudent for TfL to have sight of the proposals prior to approvals and then such agreements being created. Notification assessment procedure 19.1 TfL has already established a Network Management Group (NMG). NMG currently focuses its attention on schemes developed by TfL for introduction on the TLRN, to ensure an efficient and balanced scheme design that incorporates any necessary and practical mitigation measures. TfL also 12

12 Notifications operates an internal Notification system with information requirements for the operational divisions of TfL, similar to those contained in this Guidance. TfL s own Notifications are submitted to NMG, which assesses proposals and formally approves or rejects. NMG therefore provides oversight and safeguarding with regard to TfL s own proposals TfL will use NMG, and the robust supporting processes in place, as the vehicle for assessing Notifications from LBCs to TfL under the requirements of s.301a of the HA 1980 and s.121b of the RTRA The NMG will eventually provide support to TfL s Traffic Manager. The NMG s oversight role of LBC Notifications will be facilitated once LBCs have their own Traffic Managers in post, as they can provide a single point of contact with NMG. In fulfilling the LBC s NMD, the LBC s Traffic Manager will need a similar level of information and comfort prior to a scheme proceeding, as would the NMG in the Notification relating to that scheme. Thus, it is unlikely that any Notification information requirements are going to be significantly different to that needed by the LBC s own Traffic Manager A brief statement about how the NMG operates is given in Annex 3. Effect of Notification on other statutory processes 20.1 LBCs should note that approval or non-objection by TfL to a Notification, or the exclusion for Notification by reason of a direction of the Mayor, only relates to section 301A of the HA 1980 and section 121B of the RTRA Approval to the exercise of powers in respect of section 301A of the HA 1980 or section 121B of the RTRA 1984 should not be considered as an approval or indication of possible approval by the Secretary of State, the Mayor or TfL in respect of any other legislative provision, or to their support in any way for the proposals. For example, LBCs should note that exemptions, approvals or nonobjections to proposals do not in any way imply that such proposals will be approved for funding by the Mayor, nor that consent will necessarily be given in a case where Part II of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies. Also, Notification does not relieve LBCs of any other duty on them to notify the Secretary of State, the Mayor, TfL or neighbouring local authorities of proposals for statutory or other purposes. It should also be noted that approval by TfL in principle to the funding of a scheme does not obviate the need for Notification. Such funding approval also does not imply approval of subsequent Notifications concerned with the detail of the design to ensure that impacts are appropriate and manageable. TfL assistance with Notifications under s.301a HA 1980 and s.121b RTRA If a LBC has any queries in relation to Notifications under the above statutory provisions, they should be directed in the first instance to the appropriate contact point in TfL shown in the contact list in Annex 2. Application of Guidance 22.1 The legislative requirements relating to Notification under the provisions of s.301a of the HA 1980 and of s.121b of the RTRA 1984 are extant. TfL proposes that the streamlined procedures set out in this Guidance should apply from 1 June Further Guidance will be issued in relation to the Notification of works when LBC systems are TMA compliant and LondonWorks is fully operational. 13

13 Guidance Annex 1 - Draft direction by Mayor of London (Dispensation of Requirements under Section 301A(2) and (3) of the Highways Act 1980 and Section 121B(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) The Mayor of London in exercise of his powers under section 301A(9) of the Highways Act 1980 and section 121B(9) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 hereby makes the following direction:- A Notification under Section 301A(2) and (3) of the Highways Act 1980 and Section 121B(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to Transport for London shall only be required where London Borough Councils intend exercising powers identified in the following schedule: SCHEDULE Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Provision Purpose Conferring Power Section 6 Permanent orders Section 9 Experimental orders Section 14 Temporary orders Section 16 Orders relating to special events Section 19 Orders regulating use of highways by Public Service Vehicles Section 23 Establish, alter, remove pedestrian crossings Part IV Parking places Part V Traffic signs Highways Act 1980 Provision Purpose Conferring Power Section 14 Orders in respect of roads that cross or join trunk or classified roads Section 24 Construction of new highways Section 64 Construction and maintenance of works in the carriageway Section 65 Cycle tracks Section 66 Works safeguarding persons using a highway Section 68 Refuges Section 69 Subways Section 70 Footbridges over highways Section 72 Widening of highways Section 75 Variation of widths of carriageways and footways Section 76 Levelling of highways Section 77 Alteration of levels of highways Section 78 Cutting off of corners Section 90A/G Road humps and traffic calming 14

14 Notifications Annex 2 - TfL points of contact * (for s.301a HA 1980 or s.121b RTRA 1984 Notification issues) London Borough Councils: Barking & Dagenham, Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Enfield, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Redbridge, Newham, Richmond Upon Thames, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest Network Assurance Engineer (North) NAxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx London Borough Councils: Camden, City of London - IRR, (Hackney & Tower Hamlets), Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Wandsworth, Westminster London Borough Councils: Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Greenwich, Kingston Upon Thames, Merton, Sutton, (including Blackwall/Rotherhithe tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry) Network Assurance Engineer (South) NAxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx For general enquiries: Tel: (020) Network Assurance Engineer (Central) NAxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx * To be reviewed in April

15 Guidance Annex 3 - Network Management Group (NMG) Introduction The Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) places a Network Management Duty (NMD) on local traffic authorities with the objective to secure the expeditious movement of traffic, which includes pedestrians. Local traffic authorities are required to make appropriate arrangements for planning and for carrying out action in the performance of the NMD. Transport for London (TfL) is London s strategic transport authority and is traffic and highway authority for GLA roads. TfL is also the traffic authority for all London s roads in relation to London s Traffic Signal Control System. TfL is obliged properly to consider a borough traffic signal request and to explain its reasons, if it believes a scheme should not proceed. In so doing, TfL has to consider its overall NMD as set out in the TMA. The above provides TfL with considerable responsibility in relation to the operation of the capital s roads. TfL must exercise this responsibility effectively and sensitively, ensuring that an appropriate balance in provision is made for the legitimate competing demands on London s main roads. TfL has established the NMG with a view to the delivery of this objective. Functions of NMG NMG will focus on proposals developed by TfL to ensure quality schemes which are efficient and balanced, and that any necessary and practical mitigation measures are incorporated. NMG will also be reviewing traffic signal schemes requested by boroughs for introduction on borough roads. Section 74A of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 (RTRA 1984) anticipates such scrutiny by TfL and TMA demands it. NMG s remit has been expanded to support other responsibilities placed on TfL in relation to London s roads, such as TfL s oversight responsibility on the new Strategic Roads (designated by provisions in the TMA). NMG membership NMG is a small group of senior officers which meets regularly to consider proposals with a light touch, given that scheme promoters should already have struck the proper balance of priorities and included necessary mitigation. Facilitating NMG The aim for proposal assessment is maximum efficiency, minimum bureaucracy and transparent decisionmaking. The use of appropriate processes and of a NMG Secretariat will facilitate assessment and decisionmaking. NMG s information requirements will reflect the scope of the proposal. The aim is for the promoting authority to liase and discuss proposals with the relevant contact in Annex 2, so that the appropriate levels of information relevant to particular proposals can be provided to NMG, a meaningful assessment and view of the proposal can be taken and a robust decision made. Transparency It is essential that the key deliberations of the NMG are balanced and are transparent. The chair of the NMG will ensure this. 16

16 Notifications 17

17 Guidance Notes 18

18 Notifications Notes 19

19 For further information: Website: or Address: Directorate of Road Network Performance Transport for London Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL Published March 2005