Archived decisions

Contact: Andrew Wilson, ext 6921 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out the consultation process carried out subsequent to the decision by the Executive Member for Environment: South Hampshire and Resource Management on 26 July 2005 to change a number of Hampshire's subsidised bus services in order to manage the cost pressures on the 2005/06 bus subsidy budget. The report also gives details of the comments received, offers of funding received and alternative proposals put forward by bus operators.

2. Background

2.1 In order to manage the 2005/06 cost pressures on the bus subsidy budget, on 26 July 2005 the Executive Member for Environment: South Hampshire and Resource Management agreed to maintain those subsidised services requiring a subsidy of £2.50 per passenger journey or less, and to maintain the better performing Sunday and evening services, all of which have a subsidy per passenger figure of below £2.00. This resulted in a list of services that would be either withdrawn or subject to a reduced frequency.

3. The Consultation Process

3.1 Notification was sent to all District Councils informing them of the proposed changes in their areas, inviting their comments and asking if they would provide funding for the services in question.

3.2 Notification was sent to 60 Parish Councils informing them of the changes to services in their District Council area, and inviting them to comment on the proposals.

3.3 Notification was sent to relevant bus operators that the contracts were to be terminated or reduced from 2 October 2005. The bus operators were also invited to comment on the proposals, state the savings that would be made, and asked if they would be willing to operate any of the services on a commercial basis.

3.4 Neighbouring local authorities were also informed of the proposals where appropriate.

4. Consultation Responses

4.1 The District Council responses are summarised below:

(i) Eastleigh Borough Council. Offer of funding received for some services- see paragraph 9.2 for details.

(ii) Hart District Council. No offer of funding currently received. The time allowed for consultation was totally inadequate. The response formally requested sufficient time to consider the matter and consider whether funding would be appropriate. Without this extension Hart District Council may seek to scrutinise the decision.

(iii) New Forest District Council. No offer of funding received. Disappointment was expressed that a number of the reductions in the New Forest area are below the £2.50 threshold and carry significant numbers of passengers, mentioning specifically the 121, X71 and 56 services. The question was raised why the £2.50 maximum subsidy per passenger journey had not been updated since 1986. The question was raised that as fewer people live in rural areas than in urban areas, the subsidy per passenger criteria disadvantages the rural population. It was suggested that a rural `weighting' could redress this situation.

(iv) Rushmoor Borough Council. No offer of funding received and disappointment was expressed that a service in the Borough would be removed.

(v) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council expressed concern at the short period allowed for a response. It will explore opportunities for funding, but further time is required. During the recent re-tendering of the Basingstoke subsidised network (towards which the Borough Council currently contributes £107,000 per annum), these proposed withdrawals and reductions were not mentioned. (This was due to evening and Sunday service contracts being considered post Basingstoke tender negotiations.) The Borough Council also stated that the Basingstoke bus network is one of the fastest growing in the country and should be supported. It is not equitable that rising tender prices elsewhere in the county should penalise successful bus networks elsewhere. The economic prosperity of Basingstoke could be damaged by the withdrawal of services. The Borough Council will review its support of public and community transport services over the coming months.

(vi) East Hampshire District Council. No offer of funding received. A meeting was requested to discuss one service reduction.

(vii) Havant Borough Council. No offer of funding received, although concern expressed over the withdrawal of certain journeys.

(viii) Winchester City Council. No offer of funding received. Concern expressed at the short period of consultation, and consequently a full response has not been possible. Various requests for alternatives are proposed, that would mainly retain a lower level of service, but all require subsidy, even at a reduced amount.

(ix) Test Valley Borough Council. At the time of writing the Borough Council was seeking to find funding to retain some services. Negotiations will continue and if funding is available Environment Department staff will liaise with operators to secure the services concerned.

(x) Fareham Borough Council. No response received at the time of writing.

(xi) Gosport Borough Council. No response received at the time of writing.

5. Response to Consultation by Operators

5.1 Stagecoach has requested that services 1 and 5 in Winchester are not subject to reductions, due to the routes being subject to Quality Bus Partnership agreements (introduced in September 2003) and part of the MIRACLES project. Stagecoach has also requested that the reductions are deferred until 30 October (the end of school half-term week) to coincide with other service changes that it will be carrying out. This would mean less disruption to passengers.

5.2 Stagecoach also submitted an alternative package of service reductions. These proposals have been taken account of in consideration of the recommended proposals. To summarise Stagecoach's alternative proposal, service 7 would be retained (Basingstoke-Black Dam evenings), along with a 30 minute frequency on the QBP routes 1 and 5 on Monday to Saturday evenings in Winchester, but completely removes the subsidised service 22 between Leigh Park and Portsmouth, which has a subsidy per passenger figure of well below £2.50. The proposal would also mean the withdrawal of service 69 between Winchester and Fareham on Sundays, and Monday to Saturday evenings, both of which again are below the £2.50 maximum subsidy per passenger figure. However, no consultation has been carried out for these proposals and it is therefore not recommended that any new services are added to the list of reductions at this time.

5.3 The Stagecoach proposal indicates that the saving from the withdrawal of the Monday to Saturday evening journeys on service 7 (Basingstoke-Black Dam) will only save the County Council £1,940 annually against an estimated saving of £10,000. This is due to the service being operated as part of a combination contract, and by the same bus as another service in Basingstoke, and the bus would in effect sit in the bus station when previously it would have operated service 7.

6. Responses to Consultation from Parish Councils

6.1 Copies of the full responses received from parish councils are available for inspection. In summary, parishes are very concerned about losing vital transport links for their communities, particularly in rural areas, and many people who rely on public transport to get to everyday services will be left isolated with no other means of transport. Suggestions were made regarding the possible use of smaller vehicles to lower the cost, or whether Dial-a-Ride or Call & Go services may be able to replace conventional bus services that are not economical to support. Inevitably, any replacement service will require subsidy, but County Council officers could explore these options where possible.

7. Responses to Consultation by Members of the Public

7.1 Copies of the full responses received from members of the public are available for inspection. (To date in excess of 50 responses have been received.) In summary, the comments came from people who rely on public transport for commuting to work and from those who rely on buses to access everyday activities such as doctor appointments, shopping and leisure activities. Correspondents expressed disappointment that bus services are to be curtailed when a major strand of Government policy is to promote the use of public transport.

8. Effects of Consultation on Budget Savings

8.1 The value of the anticipated part year savings on the 2005/06 budget that would be achieved by implementing the proposals approved on 26 July is £186,000. However, a number of the potential savings were estimated because they form part of combination contracts where several services are within the same contract. Stagecoach has reported that the actual savings for 2005/06 on the services it operates would be £9,813 less than estimated. Wilts and Dorset has reported that the actual savings will be in the order of £7,000 less a year. This will leave a shortfall of approximately £17,000 for 2005/06. At the time of writing, the other operators' services will realise the anticipated savings.

8.2 If Stagecoach's request (see paragraph 5.1) to implement the changes to its services on 30 October rather than on 2 October be agreed, approximately one month of savings will be lost. This would represent a further shortfall of approximately £13,100 on savings for the 2005/06 budget. This option is therefore not recommended.

8.3 It is suggested that service 7 (Basingstoke-Black Dam) is retained at a cost of £1,940, along with all evening journeys on the Quality Bus Partnership routes services 1 and 5 in Winchester for the time being. However, removing these cuts from the proposed list will reduce the amount of budget savings in 2005/06. Service 1 in Winchester would have saved approximately £8,850 (part year) and service 5 would have saved approximately £3,400 (part year). The additional shortfall would have to be found from the overall Environment Services 2005/06 budget.

9. Overall Impact on 2005/06 and Future

9.1 The report of 26 July outlined the budget pressure for 2005/06 as £347,000 (£279,000 in a part year). The £279,000 was planned to be found by economies as follows:

£111,000 single services

£25,000 services within combination contracts

£50,000 Sunday and evening services

Sub Total £186,000

£93,000 Other Environment Services Budgets

Total £279,000

9.2 Following consultation with the Districts and Parishes and negotiation with Operators, the following changes are recommended:

CHANGES FROM REPORT OF 26 JULY 2005 TO EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT: SOUTH HAMPSHIRE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

9.3 The impact of the above changes, the additional funding offered by Eastleigh Borough Council and the actual operators' savings following negotiations is as follows:

Additional

Shortfall

Revised Savings Estimates £17,000

Service Retentions (funded by Hampshire County Council) £20,000

Total £37,000

9.4 The result of these changes to the report of 26 July is that the demand on the Environment Services Budget in 2005/06 increases from £93,000 to £130,000, an extra £37,000. This pressure would be met in 2006/07 as the full year effect of savings takes place. However, further cost pressures are expected to emerge in 2006/07.

10. Impact Assessments

10.1 The proposed service changes will have some adverse impact on the users of the services affected. However, there is no evidence that the changes will have a greater adverse impact on some sectors of the community compared to others.

Recommendation

That, in order to manage the 2005/06 cost pressures on the bus subsidy budget, the list of proposed service changes, as agreed by the Executive Member for Environment: South Hampshire and Resource Management on 26 July 2005, is confirmed, except for those shown in paragraph 9.2.

541A/AW