Agenda and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of the business on the agenda.

Members were asked to declare any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests which they may have in respect of business on the agenda.  No additional interests were declared.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered to speak can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Tuesday 17 May 2016.  Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Please note this meeting may be filmed and webcast or audio recorded and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission.  The broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts  or,if sound recorded, this will be uploaded onto the Council’s website following the meeting.

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/6453/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_council_meetingspdf

It was reported that there had been seven registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

John Bibby stated that he was a member of the York Bus Forum and was opposed to the reductions in the subsidised bus service budget for the following reasons:

·        He did not believe that the cuts were necessary. The total amounted to £400,000 and was a small amount. The proposals were short sighted and accountancy led. 

·        The proposed cuts were vicious and discriminatory and would impact on the most needy and those without their own transport.  Members’ attention was drawn to the health, educational and social impact of the proposals.

·        The consultation that had taken place had been rushed and unfit for purpose.

·        The Bus Forum was currently developing long term policies to improve local transport and it called upon the Council to not proceed with the proposed cuts.

The Chair stated that Members of the committee had also received written representation from Mr Bibby on behalf of the Bus Forum.

Mrs Linda Nelson stated that she supported the comments made on behalf of the York Bus Forum.  She explained some of the impacts of the removal of bus subsidies, particularly on the elderly and on children travelling to school.  She stated that Dial a Ride was not a suitable alternative.  Mrs Nelson drew particular attention to the impact of changes to the Number 20 service.

Mr Graham Collett stated that the proposed cuts amounted to a saving of only 0.3% of the council’s budget and therefore would hardly be noticeable.  There was no justification for the cuts to be implemented and no evidence to justify the proposed actions.  Mr Collett requested that the Committee advised the Executive Member to reject the proposals and await the outcome of legislation on bus services.

Mr Ron Healey drew particular attention to the impact of the proposed reduction in subsidy to route 20.  He stated that a more strategic view needed to be taken. The focus should be on alternatives to car travel and tackling emissions on a city-wide basis.  It was important to take time to develop the options, given that legislation on buses was expected.

Mr Derek Paterson spoke on behalf of Rawcliffe Parish Council. He stated that the Parish Council had not been consulted on the proposals as the timing of the parish council meeting had not provided an opportunity for the proposals to be discussed.  Rawcliffe residents had raised issues in respect of bus travel for a number of years.  Mr Paterson expressed concern at the use of the word “significant” in the report, as the responses were not statistically significant in number.  He urged that a statistically significant survey be undertaken.

Mr Toby Hart expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on social and economic inclusion.  He stated that the consultation had not included visitors to the city.  The proposals would make bus travel less competitive.  Mr Hart requested that, in the immediate and longer term, consideration  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2015.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2015 be approved as a correct record and then signed by the Chair.

This report provides background to the pre-decision call-in of the Delivery of Reductions in the Subsidised Bus Service Budget.  It sets out the reasons for the call-in and invites the Committee to consider what feedback, if any, it may wish to make under the agreed pre-decision call-in arrangements.

Members received a report which provided background to the pre-decision call-in of the Delivery of Reductions in the Subsidised Bus Service Budget.  The report set out the reasons for the call-in and invited the Committee to consider what feedback, if any, it may wish to make. 

In accordance with the arrangements for pre-decision scrutiny call-in, three Members (Councillors D’Agorne, Craghill and Kramm) had called in the intended decision in relation to the Delivery of Reductions in the Subsidised Bus Service Budget for the following reason:

“The impact that this is likely to have on bus service provision across the city and potential to undermine the sustainable transport strategy as set out in the Local Plan Transport Plan 3 means that changes should be subject to cross party scrutiny before Executive Member approval.  Depending on the outcome of the consultation consideration may also need to be given to alternative strategies to more cost effectively provide evening and weekend services in the affected areas. (This might include Dial a Ride, council minibus services etc)”

Councillor Kramm spoke on behalf of the Call-in Members.  He stated that the impact of the changes would undermine the sustainability of the transport strategy as set out in LPT Plan 3.  He expressed concern at the lack of consultation that had taken place and stated that evening and Sunday services were essential and not a luxury, particularly as the NHS and other services sought to provide a seven day a week offer.  Councillor Kramm stated that the Park and Ride Service offered only a very limited service in the evenings.  He also drew attention to issues in respect of air pollution and congestion and stated that people should be encouraged to use public transport.  Consideration should be given to seeking sponsorship for some of the services.  The aim should be to have the best bus services for residents and thereby encourage more people to use them.

Members noted that the decisions on the delivery of reductions in the subsidised bus service budget were scheduled to take place at a Decision Session on 2 June 2016.

The Executive Member for Transport and Planning stated that £350k of savings to this budget had to be made over the next two years.  This was not a situation that the Council would wish to be in.  The bus services were privately operated and run for the shareholders.  They received a subsidy from the Council but the routes that were potentially under threat were those which were not used by a sufficient number of people. 70% of the costs of the service were for the costs of the driver and hence the use of smaller size vehicles would not make a significant difference in costs.  The Executive Member stated that the Council had not reduced bus subsidies for several years.  No one had come forward with costed alternatives.  Decisions had yet to be made on when and how the reductions would be made.  The budgetary situation meant that this issue had to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.