Agenda item

1.    At the chairman’s request, the committee were provided with a copy of a document which detailed the services impacted by the proposed decision on a cost per passenger journey basis.

2.    Mr Brazier gave an overview of the proposed decision to withdraw funding support from 39 supported bus services. He summarised bus operations in the UK, including subsidisation and explained that KCC had no obligation to subsidise or operate bus services. He addressed the wider budget context which the proposed decision was set within, which included a need to make savings from non-statutory services. Bus usage following the end of the pandemic was raised, it was noted that usage stood at around 70% of the pre-pandemic level, which coupled with rising fuel and staffing cost pressures had made services uneconomic. Members were reminded of the public consultation undertaken in connection to the proposed decision, with it highlighted that the Kent Karrier service would not be affected by the proposal. An explanation of Bus Service Improvement Plan funding requirements was given with it explained that existing bus subsidies could not be funded. He addressed and acknowledged the negative impact the proposed decision would have on residents, including increased journeys and air quality.

3.    Mr Rayner moved and Mrs Hudson seconded an amendment to the motion to add the wording “subject to the correction of information relating to the S4 bus service.”

4.    Members voted on the amendment. The amendment passed.

5.    Mr Lewis moved and Ms Dawkins seconded a motion “that the Cabinet Committee recommend that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport seek further legal advice and delay the decision until it is advised that the decision would not be liable to a judicial review.”

6.    Mr Brazier confirmed that legal advice had been received in relation to the proposed decision and related public consultation, with assurance given that the proposal was legal.

7.    Members voted on the motion. The motion was lost.

8.    Mrs Hudson spoke on the public benefit of bus services, the role they played tackling social isolation in rural communities and the possible carbon impact of the proposal.

9.    Mrs Hudson moved and Mr Rayner seconded a motion “that the Cabinet Committee recommend that the 502 bus service be removed from the proposed decision.”

10.Mr Rayner stated that traffic outside schools would increase to the extent that road safety would worsen, due to an increase in car journeys necessitated by a withdrawal in the 502 service.

11.Mr Baldock moved and Mr Lewis seconded an amendment to the motion to add the 332, 662, 664, 666 and 954 bus services.

12.Mr Brazier replied, noting that it would not be possible to fund the suggested arrangements within the agreed budget.

13.Members voted on the amendment. The amendment was lost.

14.Members voted on the motion. The motion was lost.

15.Mr Baldock asked that the decision be reconsidered subject to further analysis of the anticipated impact on the Children, Young People and Education directorate budget. Mr Lightowler noted that the assessment of services had been shared with Children, Young People and Education.

16.In response to a question from Mr Chittenden on whether the withdrawal of unsubsidised services by commercial operators had been factored into the proposed decision, Mr Lightowler confirmed that Public Transport were aware of the withdrawals.

17.Ms Dawkins asked that the Cabinet Member lobby government to expand the Bus Service Improvement Plan funding criteria, to include service subsidisation.

18.Mr Brazier confirmed, following a further question from Ms Dawkins, that alternative government funding streams had been explored with none allowing the funding of bus subsidisation within their criteria.

19.Mr Hills commented that savings from non-statutory services were essential to help safeguard the Council’s statutory services, which were experiencing rising costs.

20.Mr Baker asked that the committee be consulted on future proposals of a similar nature as part of the budget consultation process.

21.The chairman moved the substantive motion “that the Cabinet Committee endorse the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport on the proposed decision to withdraw funding support from 39 supported bus services as shown at Appendix C, subject to the correction of information relating to the S4 bus service.”

22.Members voted on the motion. The motion passed. The votes cast were as follows:

For:

Mr N Baker, Mr T Bond, Mr N Collor, Mr D Crow-Brown, Mr M Dendor, Mr T Hills, Mr S Holden, Mr A Sandhu MBE, Mr D Watkins and Mr A Weatherhead

Against:

Mr M Baldock, Mr I Chittenden, Ms M Dawkins and Mr B Lewis

Abstain:

Mrs S Hudson

RESOLVED to endorse the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport on the proposed decision to withdraw funding support from 39 supported bus services as shown at Appendix C, subject to the correction of information relating to the S4 bus service.