Agenda item

To note the contents of the report and comment or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste.

Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport) and Robert Clarke (Commissioning Programme Manager) were in attendance for this item

1.    Mr M Whiting (Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste) introduced the report which set out the proposed pilots that were due to implemented from early June 2019 and commended the work of the officers involved.

2.    Mr Clarke informed the Committee that the main objective of the ‘Big Bus Conversation’ was to evaluate whether alternative transport models could be delivered using a more cost effective and efficient approach compared to the current subsidised services. In October 2018, five preferred pilot schemes were identified, and full business cases had been prepared for each of those. Mr Clarke provided details of the proposed changes, the consultation outcomes, the allocated cost for each of the pilots and recommendations for changes that were provisionally planned for implementation from early June 2019.

3.    Mrs Dean (Member for Malling Central) attended the meeting and raised the following points: -

(a)  The recommendations for the West Malling bus service brought improved service delivery for residents through increased frequency. Mrs Dean commended officers for having carried out the pre-consultation with county Members which resulted to a change in the options available which were more preferable.

(b)  Asked that the consultation document be condensed into a more practical and readable size.

(c)   Asked that future public exhibitions be more inclusive. Mrs Dean commented on the lack of materials available to the public and the way in which the public accessed the consultation documents. Those that tended to use the service were of an aging population who were not IT literate and it would have been more appropriate to have had officers in attendance who could have sat with those members of the public to explain the consultation and provide hard-copy forms.

(d)  Those who attended the consultation were advised that they could vote for the status quo which meant that a majority of those present did not express a preference to the two alternative options provided. Mrs Dean asked that clarity be provided in future consultations to avoid confusion and ensure full participation.

(e)  The necessity for a bus service to be provided between Laybourne Chase and West Malling station was becoming a pressing matter as a significant number of children from West Malling were being allocated schools in Laybourne Chase with no means of getting there. Mrs Dean sought clarification from officers regarding the S106 developer contributions and the ability to accommodate a bus service from West Malling to Laybourne Chase.

4.    The officers responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following: -

(a)  Mr Lightowler addressed the query regarding the necessity to provide a bus service between West Malling and Laybourne Chase and said that the condition placed on the developer, Taylor Wimpey, by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council was that at a given point in the development process, they would fund a bus service to Laybourne Chase, or, provide a diversion through existing bus services. Mr Lightowler confirmed that no sum was set aside to fund the service and no sum was passed to Kent County Council to enact the S106 developer contribution. There was a trial carried out by Arriva and Nu-Venture to assess whether they could divert an existing service, however, results of the trial confirmed that the current road network could not accommodate a 2.55m wide bus. Mr Lightowler informed Members that he could not comment on who agreed to the development, however, if Kent County Council was approached to serve the development, a smaller vehicle would be required.

(b)  In response to the comment made around the preferred options for the West Malling service, Mr Lightowler confirmed that there was no mandate to withdraw the service 58. The objective of the pilot was to provide alternative service options that could be voted on, however, if the public did not prefer either of those options they could choose to vote on the existing service.

(c)   Mr Clarke confirmed that bus passes would continue to be accepted on the piloted services.

(d)  In response to queries regarding potential new bus operators in Kent, Mr Lightowler said that it would be discriminatory to remove an operator, such as Nu-venture who provided a high level of service, from their contract in order to carry out a pilot, to then revert back to using that same operator. With regard to Arriva, they had agreed to joint the pilot to stimulate growth and demand. Both operators had worked in close liaison with the project team and had made significant contributions to ensure the pilots worked. Mr Lightowler assured the Committee that he regularly attended conferences across the UK and informed perspective operators of the potential opportunities, however, other operators were yet to show interest.

5.    RESOLVED that report be noted.