Agenda item

Five members of the public had registered to make a statement to the Panel. Three of these were general statements and two were relating to items on the agenda for the meeting.

Mr George Bailey addressed the Panel on behalf of the Radstock Public Transport Group, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

The Halcrow Report on the Frome – Radstock Branch is easily dissected, but today I will study only one particular aspect. The Capital Costs show a range of costs headed Track Infrastructure, Signalling, Station Costs and finally Project Management & Contingency. The first three total about £14m, which is probably inflated but the last is £27m.

I am sure that this Authority would not countenance any quotation for internal work where Management and Contingency constitutes 2/3 of the estimated costs so why permit such a statement in this document? Having developed Project Plans in the distant past, I know that presenting an outline with overheads of such magnitude to a Divisional Director would have earned me a rapid exit.

This Report cannot be approved with such a glaring fault in its structure and should be re-worked with more care.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist asked if he was able to say how much he thought the costs should be.

Mr Bailey replied that the group were working on some cost components but felt that a figure of £7.5m was more reasonable assuming the proposal involved high speed rail. He added that the existing track could be used and that Halcrow had allowed for full possession of the line and to work on the track at night and at weekends. This he said would simply inflict further costs.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney proposed that his comments be passed to the relevant Cabinet Member and Council officer.

Mr Bailey replied that he was due to meet Councillor Roger Symonds, Cabinet Member for Transport on Tuesday 31^st July.

The Chairman on behalf of the Panel thanked him for his statement.

Lin Patterson addressed the Panel on behalf of the Save our 6-7 Buses Campaign, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

The 6-7 bus route runs in north east Bath, over 3 wards with approximately 9,000 residents, which is around 10% of the population of the city. B&NES’ statistics show a slightly larger elderly population here than in other areas of Bath.

As you may know, starting in May 2010, our grass-roots campaign succeeded in reversing an ill-advised attempt to re-route the bus service which dismembered the two halves of our very hilly community. But with the reconnection of the route, First Bus removed two of the five buses travelling the circuit and we were left with half the former frequency, plummeting from 20 minutes to 40. That resulting 40 minute gap between buses caused overcrowding and full buses which left people behind at bus stops in freezing weather. So the vigorous campaign continued, and with the advent of the new Council in May 2011 a subsidy was granted for one additional bus, creating the compromise of a 30 minute frequency.

We have it on good authority that in the budget now being planned for after March 2013 the Council intend to withdraw the funding to this route.

We have sought to alert the public and gauge their level of commitment to this issue and have received over 150 feedback forms in the last two weeks, many from frail, elderly or disabled people who depend on the 30 minute service.

We would like to hear where you stand on this matter.

Councillor Geoff Ward commented that he wished to commend the campaign.

Councillor Douglas Nicol commented that he felt that the service should be retained.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney suggested the Panel should receive a report on all subsidised bus services and that the campaigners should address a meeting of the Cabinet.

The Chairman on behalf of the Panel thanked her for her statement and commented that she would discuss the matter with Councillor Roger Symonds, Cabinet Member for Transport.

Mr David Redgewell on behalf of the South West Transport Network addressed the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

Radstock is on the cusp of attaining the public transport connections it deserves. We call upon B&NES to actively pursue the following projects:

• Radstock – Frome Railway: The Halcrow Study for the WEP recognises services from Radstock to Frome, Westbury, or Bristol/Severn Beach (for cross regional journeys – common in e.g. Greater Manchester). An additional route, which has recently received a grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, the improved TransWilts rail service (Westbury – Swindon via Melksham), is a great step forward in realising the potential of a neglected railway for sustainable transport connections to work & leisure.  We believe this service should be extended to Frome & Radstock also.

We are still concerned that the WEP is not functioning as the sole Greater Bristol Authority. We would like to remind B&NES that there is a Duty of Co-operation for Local Authorities, and the required set-up of a Stakeholder Relations Forum, under the Localism Act.

Consultants (of WS Atkins, Halcrow Fox Rail & Steer Davies Gleave) must be cast-aside in favour of dedicated public rail & ‘bus Officers/Directors. They do not have the appropriate relationship with the local area to be effective, and are unnecessarily costly.

We would like to know the date of the next meeting of the Joint Executive Transport Committee to discuss the proposed Transport Board, which should oversee the development of three bodies, managing rail, ‘bus, and ferry operations respectively. The rail body must work with the neighbouring Authorities of Gloucestershire, Swindon, Wiltshire, Somerset & Dorset on Greater Bristol Sub-Regional services, in a similar manner to the collaborations of the Welsh Government (with Shropshire, Herefordshire, Cheshire, Gloucestershire), and Centro (Birmingham) (with Shropshire, Staffordshire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire).

We would like to know if action has been taken to restore WEP Scrutiny, and the next Housing & Planning Board meetings. If we do not witness the re-instatement of adequate Scrutiny by the end of July 2012, South West Transport Network & the Transport Unions (RMT, TSSA, ASLEF, Unite) will raise the matter with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney commented that he felt there was a lack of West of England items on the Panel’s workplan and suggested that the Chairman discuss with officers some of the broader issues that could be debated.

The Chairman on behalf of the Panel thanked him for his statement and commented that she would endeavour to have a discussion with officers over the coming month.