Agenda item

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposals to use the current Socially Necessary Bus Service (SNBS) funding criteria to assess the future delivery of services and the timetable to go out to public consultation.

Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) and Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1. Mr Balfour introduced the report for Members which detailed proposals to utilise the current SNBS criteria to identify potential savings, necessary owing to target savings of £4million in this area between 2018 and 2020.  The proposals covered two elements of SNBS.  Firstly the need to consult the public about the use of the KCC criteria to determine subsidised  bus route and secondly to consult and then review those routes currently subsidised, to assess the continued need for those services and to identify potential savings;.  It was crucial that the view of the public, users, and other stakeholders were sought on both matters.
   
   
2. The Committee, Mr Balfour clarified, would be asked following consideration of the report, to endorse the proposal to consult publicly on those matters previously set out.  He acknowledged that at this stage the full details of all subsidised routes and timetables was not available but assured members that all of this information would be available as part of the consultation in order that those responding to it had all of the relevant information when making their comments
   
   
3. He further emphasised that no decision on services would be taken before the consultation and that the committee was asked only to consider the virtue of  consulting on these matters to assure that aby decisions in the future were properly informed and that the council’s non-statutory spending was put to the best use.
   
   
4. Finally, Mr Balfour assured members that work had begun to secure alternatives to subsidised bus routes, including community transport initiatives and that, as always, any reduction in services would be mitigated as fully as possible.

5. Roger Wilkin (Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste) advised Members that although contemplation of service reductions was never welcome, due to current financial pressures it was necessary.  It was therefore crucial that the potential impact of such reductions was understood and work undertaken to assess how they would be mitigated. The consultation would reveal whether the criteria adopted in the past were still relevant and would provide the correct template against which decisions would be taken in the future.

6. Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) said that the consultation would also provide operators with an opportunity to put forward alternative proposals of mitigation if contracts were likely to be withdrawn.

7. The matter was opened discussion; the following comments were made and responses from officers and the Cabinet Member received to questions put:

7. 1. Some committee members argued that other people may be disadvantaged by reductions in subsidies and subsequent withdrawal of services who had not been identified as part of the equality impact assessment.  There may also be impacts for workers, school children and  health service users for example and wider economic and environmental impacts that should also be considered. 
      
      
   2. That officers from the Public Transport Team had met with representatives of Arriva regarding the ‘Click Service’ but it currently did not appear to be as appropriate as the Total Transport Project detailed within the report.  The Total Transport Project was a feasibility study founded on the concept of demand responsive transport which was written by KCC for the Department for Transport (DfT). It considered combining existing paid for services which may have some capacity, such as education transport or non-emergency NHS transport to deliver improved transport methods for communities whilst also delivering necessary cost savings. A report had been submitted to the DfT and a pilot area identified; the Total Transport Officer continued to work with partners to identify further funding and the outcome of the DFT bid was awaited.
      
      
   3. Mr Lightowler, confirmed that the information presented to the committee would be complete for the consultation with the public but that the report and appendices should give members a feel for the potential consequences of applying the criteria to achieve the required savings.  He further confirmed that once the complete data set was completed it would be sent to Members for review before it went out to public consultation. The document was developed in line with Kent County Councils Public Consultation Guidance and the method for communicating with stakeholders was under development, and would include the best way to ensure rural communities were included.  The Cabinet Member confirmed on this matter that the people concerned or potentially affected would be consulted in an appropriate manner that allowed all of those who wished to participate to do so
      
      
   4. That a full Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) was to be completed and reviewed by the Equalities Team as part of the consultation process.
      
      
   5. A member of the committee argued that the council had a duty to identify services that were ‘socially necessary’ and it would be disingenuous to suggest that the intention of the 1985 Act was to only identify them and not address their delivery.   The crucial matter to be considered was the proposed budget cut that was necessitating the proposals before the committee.
      
      
   6. That approval by the full council of the 2018-19 budget in February would not negate the usefulness of the consultation and the decisions for which the executive was responsible would not be taken until the implications of the consultations responses had been fully considered.
      
      
   7. A Member expressed concern that members had not been involved in the production of the material on which the council would consult and that the information which had been put to the committee was not complete enough to be useful.    He argued that the consultation should not begin until a report with full details including the detailed equality impact assessment had been received by the E&T committee for consideration.  In response to this comment officers confirmed that the EQiA would be completed and would form part of the consultation documents.  The Cabinet Committee would have a chance in the future to consider that document.
      
      
   8.  The wording of the proposed decision concerned some members of the committee.  It was suggested that the inclusion of the words “proposed withdrawal of services” was misleading and that it was likely to cause unnecessary worry for some residents.
      
      
   9. A request was made by a member of the committee that any subsidised routes that benefitted from developer contributions should not be included in the consultation as they did not have a financial impact for the council.
      
      
8. The Chairman invited Mr Bowles to speak. He said that he welcomed the report along with the proposal to go out to public consultation and understood that savings needed to be made however the following points were made:

(i)    the information provided within the appendix was not user friendly.

(ii)   there needed to be meetings in the areas where it was necessary to ensure full community participation.

(iii)  That it was unfortunate that the information put forward to the committee was not only incomplete but had not had the benefit of being influenced by Members who should have driven the consultation.  Officers and the Cabinet Member needed to ensure that other elected members had the tools that they needed to make sensible and useful input.

9. The Chairman invited Mrs Hamilton to speak. She said that she welcomed the recommendation for forward planning to mitigate any reduction in traditional services. It was important that as part of this planning work the Council recognised the needs of different areas and in particular the danger of perpetuating or increasing isolation in more rural areas. She described consultation which had taken place in her own parish by Arriva and the comprehensive nature of the work they undertook with local residents. Mrs Hamilton said that she would be grateful for guidance on managing public concerns and expectations now and going forward with the consultation.

10. Mr Wilkin said that report was transparent and showed all the contracts that were at risk if the criteria was to be adopted. All information was clearly set out to enable communities to respond properly to the consultation. It was crucial that Members understood that they were being asked, to make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposal to undertake public consultation on the criteria to be used to deliver the MTFP saving and the impact of the contract withdrawals.

11. In response to Members suggestion that the recommendation be re-worded,  and following further debate Barbara Cooper clarified that the Members advice to the Cabinet Member for Planning Highways Transport and Waste was that his decision be revised to read as follows:

“The Cabinet Committee is asked to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste on the proposal to use the current SNBS funding criteria to assess the future level of subsidy and the timetable to go out to public consultation starting 17 January 2018 on the possible reduction of subsidies which may impact on the delivery of bus services”

12. The amended recommendation was put to the vote

Carried (12 votes for, 4 votes against)

Mr A Hook, Mr M Whybrow, Mr R Bird and Mr B Lewis asked

 that their votes against the recommendation be minuted.

13. It was RESOLVED that the Cabinet Committee recommend to the Cabinet Member that his decision should reflect the wording set out in 11.

[Mr Balfour, Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste, confirmed that a Cross-Party Working Group would be established. Added by agreement at the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee on 31 January 2018 under minute item 59]