Agenda item

To consider the decisions made by the Executive Member for Transport and Planning at a Decision Session held on 9 June 2016 in relation to the above item, which has been called in by Councillors Flinders, Looker and D Myers in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Policy and Scrutiny Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decisions of the Executive Member for Transport and Planning.

Members received a report which asked them to consider a decision made by the Executive Member for Transport and Planning on 9 June 2016 in respect of the Better Bus Area Fund – Clarence Street Bus Improvement Scheme.

Details of the Executive Member’s decision were attached at Annex A to the report and the original report to the Executive Member Decision Session on 9 June 2016, attached at Annex B.

In accordance with the arrangements for post decision scrutiny call-in, three Members (Councillors Flinders, Looker and D Myers) had called in the decision for the following reasons:

“(i)     The proposed scheme has involved no consultation

          with Guildhall’s ward councillors;

(ii)          The scheme commits significant public funds for very little change to the status quo, representing poor value for money;

(iii)        The revised scheme draws on two separate funding streams designed specifically to improve bus services; this scheme’s measures will make no improvements to bus services in the short to medium term, if at all; and

(iv)        The scheme provides no knock on benefits for motorists or cyclists following the removal of the extended two lane approach to the junction, the removal of the separate signalling for left turns into Lord Mayor’s Walk and the removal of the cycle lane and cyclist waiting area at the top of Clarence Street.”

Councillor Looker spoke on behalf of the Call-in Members.  She stated that the issues at this bottleneck junction had been ongoing for a long time and hence she was hopeful that a scheme would go forward.  She detailed the concerns of the call in Members regarding the proposals, as outlined in the reasons they had submitted.

Members questioned Councillor Looker in respect of issues raised in the reasons for the call in, including clarifying the situation regarding consultation that had taken place with Ward Members and residents on the new scheme and on the previous proposals.

The Executive Member for Planning and Transport spoke in response to the points made for the call-in of the decision.  He stated that he had understood that consultation had taken place on the original scheme.  He gave details of the proposed scheme and explained why it had been necessary to modify the original proposals because of issues in respect of the underground cabling that had been identified and which would have been costly to address as well as causing significant disruption.  The Executive Member stated that the proposed scheme was the best option with the funding that was available and that the bus companies were satisfied with the scheme.

The Executive Member was questioned about aspects of the scheme, including the signal phasing and the extent to which bus services would be improved. Members also queried whether the scheme provided value for money or whether the funding would be better spent elsewhere.  The Executive Member stated that he did believe that the scheme provided value for money and that the benefits of the revised scheme were in line with those of the original scheme.  The funding had to be used to improve bus services.

Officers stated that it was disappointing that it had not been possible to progress the original scheme because of the issues that had been identified, including the problems regarding the utilities.  They also clarified the position in respect of the funding for the scheme and how this could be used.  Details were given of the consultation that had taken place, including those through the Quality Bus Partnership.  At the request of Members, officers also clarified the differences between the original scheme and the amended scheme including the loss of the proposed central cycle lane.

Members considered the following options:

Option 1:    To decide that there are no grounds to make specific

recommendations to the Executive in respect of the report

Option 2:    To make specific recommendations to the Executive on

the report, in light of the reasons given for the post decision call-in. 

Following further questions and debate the options were considered and put to the vote and it was:

Resolved:           That Option 1 be approved and the decision of the Executive Member for Transport and Planning be confirmed.

Reason:              To enable the called-in matter to be dealt with efficiently and in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution.