AT A MEETING of the SOUTH HAMPSHIRE RAPID TRANSIT PROCUREMENT JOINT PANEL held at The Castle, Winchester on

Monday 8 November 2004.

PRESENT:

Hampshire County Council

Councillors: K. B. Estlin (Chairman); T.G. Knight; D. F. Wright.

Portsmouth City Council:

Councillors: A. Bentley; J. Patey; A. H. Storey; G. Vernon-Jackson.

44. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should, normally at the time of debate declare their interest, and having regards to the circumstances described in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

45. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2004 were confirmed as a correct

record and signed by the Chairman.

46. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

There were no Chairman's communications.

47. DEPUTATIONS

There were no deputations.

48. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED:

That, by virtue of paragraphs 7 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following items.

49. SOUTH HAMPSHIRE RAPID TRANSIT - 1 PROGRESS REPORT

The Panel considered the confidential report of the Director of Environment

(Hampshire County Council) and the City Engineer (Portsmouth City Council)

(item 6 in the Minute Book) advising the Panel of the events that had taken

place since 22 July 2004 when the Secretary of State announced that he was not

able to approve the Promoters revised funding submission for the South

Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT-1) project. The report invited Members of the

Panel to comment on the approach to be taken in negotiating a revised funding

proposal for a revised scheme to be submitted to Ministers mid November 2004.

The SHRT-1 Project Director expanded on the report paying particular attention

to the advice given by Government officials recommending that further work be

undertaken to re-examine the project in the context of the Government's new

transport policy agenda and to look at different procurement options to get cost

down. Preliminary options to revise the procurement to return to Government

with a funding requirement would reduce the additional costs to justify the

SHRT-1 project. Further discussion centred on the project scope and the

benefits of accessibility for transport users between Gosport, Fareham and

Portsmouth with the commitment to provide a much needed transport solution.

Members noted that the Government was favouring bus services over light rail

where this provided a more cost-effective solution.

RESOLVED:

(i) During the course of the ensuing discussions, Members' supported the

scheme and the need for a solution to severe traffic congestion in south

Hampshire by re-examining the options to present a stronger case to

Government for investment to deliver improvements to the transport

infrastructure.

(ii) Members agreed that a joint Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth

City Council press release should be published at the same time as the

revised submission to Government confirming both Authorities continued

commitment to the South Hampshire Rapid Transit Scheme and

consideration of the wider improved infrastructure requirements.

50. SCOPE OF WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN THE RE EXAMINATION

OF THE PROJECT

The Panel considered the confidential report of the Director of Environment

(Hampshire County Council) and the City Engineer (Portsmouth City Council)

(item 7 in the Minute Book) on the re examination of the implications of the

Government's new Transport Policy White Paper `The Future of Transport on

the South Hampshire Rapid Transit-1 scheme.

In amplifying the report, the SHRT-1 Project Director reported on the work

required to be undertaken in the re examination of the project with the

Promoters.

The Project Director reported that the Department for Transport had been

advised of the scope of the work recommended to be undertaken in the re-

examination of the project and had been invited to contribute to the cost of this

work (estimated to be £300k). Consent had been sought for the Promoter's costs

to be funded through the LTP process. No response has been received to date.

Members agreed the work should proceed as set out and instructed Council

officers to determine how this work would be funded.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

51. REVIEW OF THE PROCUREMENT OPTIONS

The Panel considered the confidential report of the Director of Environment

(Hampshire County Council) and City Engineer (Portsmouth City Council)

(item 8 in the Minute Book) identifying three different procurement options

and changes to project scope intended to reduce the funding requirement and

that was also in keeping with the themes of the Government's new transport

policy.

The Panel received a presentation which introduced the principal costs of a

modified procurement. Members noted that the evaluation of the modified

procurement suggested project costs could be reduced significantly, to a level

which would support a strong case for funding to be reinstated. It was also

noted that the reduced cost was the product of further scope changes, combined

with the Promoters taking more risk during the operating phase of the project.

The Project Director advised that a robust assessment of risk and risk

management opportunities would now be undertaken and the results reported to

support a Members decision on the acceptability of these risks.

In discussions, Members commented on the approach in future negotiations with

Department of Transport officials which would lead to a revised submission to

Ministers in due course. Members noted that following the Government

decision to withdraw the funding pending a review of procurement options, the

County Council needed to pursue a twin track approach and examine all means

of improving access to the Gosport peninsula. The Executive Member for

Environment at his Decision Day on 9 November would consider a decision to

broaden the responsibilities of the Light Rapid Transit Development Panel by

disbanding it and replacing it with the Gosport Peninsula Access Panel and a

Part I report to the County Council meeting on 25 November would recommend

that the Terms of Reference be amended accordingly.

RESOLVED

That the 3 options as set out in the report be endorsed for further consideration

in the Councils negotiations with Government leading to a submission to

Ministers in due course.

5mM14504