Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE held at The Castle, Winchester on 25 October 2006

PRESENT:

p Councillor P.R.C. Hutcheson (Chairman)

p Councillor Mrs P. M. Devereux (Vice-Chairman)

Also in attendance : Councillors Mrs A. Buckley and M. J. Kendal -

Executive Member for Environment.

Officers in attendance:

Stuart Jarvis - Deputy Director of Environment.

Peter Shelley - Passenger Transport Strategy Officer, Environment Department.

Ejner Knudsen - Assistant County Treasurer.

Emma Gordon - Scrutiny Officer, Chief Executive's Department.

Barbara Beardwell - Solicitor, Chief Executive's Department.

Lindsey Hawke-Davies - Chief Executive's Department.

6. PROCEDURAL ITEMS

(a) Apologies

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Keith House and

Sam Payne.

(b) Declaration 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 the debate declare their interest, and

having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12

of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the

meeting whilst the matter was discussed. No such interests were declared on

this occasion.

7. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

There were no Chairman's Communications.

8. ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION

Passenger Transport Review and Re-tendering - Havant

The Committee considered reports comprising the decision reached by the

Executive Member for Environment on 10 October 2006, the report of the

Director of Environment, further information on Service 22 and the slides

presented to the Havant Area Review meeting on 17 July 2006. Copies of all

these documents are set out as Item 2 in the Minute Book. The Chairman

explained the call-in procedure as set out in Part 3:D, Paragraph 1.16 of the

Constitution. It was reported that the decision had been called in for review

by Councillors Keith House, A. S. Carew, Sam Payne and David Simpson.

The meeting had accordingly been arranged within the timescales specified

in the Constitution. The reason given for the call-in was that Councillor

Kendal's decision did not take account of potential funding from Section

106 agreements to maintain or replace Service 22. The Chairman went on to

explain that if, following review, the decision was found to be in accord with

the County Council's policy framework, it could still be acted upon but that

a Part 2 report would be made to the next County Council meeting for

debate. If however, it was not in accord with the policy framework, then the

issue was referred to full County Council for decision.

The Director of Environment reported that he did not have any further

information to add to the report.

Councillor Kendal advised that he had not received any representations

about Service 22 prior to his decision day on 10 October and since the

decision some further negotiation had achieved a revision to the proposals

for Service 27, for which the timetable had been revised with the loss of one

journey, the rest of the timetable had remained unchanged. In amplification

he explained how difficult the decision on the Havant review had been but

he was confident that overall his decision was in the best interests of the

residents in the area. It represented effective use of resources since even

though a large proportion of the area was served by Service 22 it was also

served by other routes and to maintain service 22 would duplicate resources

with an unnecessary additional expenditure of £73,000.

Members supporting the call in, including Councillor Mrs Buckley as local

Member, considered that there was a need for Service 22. Among the

arguments they put forward were the third highest density of population in

the County, low level of car ownership; good usage of and high dependency

on bus services; being the most deprived area in the County; with the highest

number of pensioners; no railway station; difficulty getting to work and to

Queen Alexandra Hospital, Highbury and Portsmouth Colleges.

They then considered views expressed by Councillor Mrs Buckley as local

Member who circulated a map which showed the new housing developments

in the area with the corresponding number of new houses.

Members noted that Section 106 funding was potentially available to support

infrastructure such as bus shelters from some of the developments but not

directly held for the provision of bus services through subsidy. Members

were advised that a proposal was in accordance with the terms of each

particular Section 106 agreement it would not be possible to use the funds

obtained from such an agreement. The Chief Executive advised that she was

unable to comment further at the meeting about funding for passenger

transport provisions from these particular legal agreements. Councillors

Carew and Simpson urged the retention of Service 22 as it was good value

for money and felt that the decision to cut the service was premature. They

suggested that the service be funded from Section 106 funding for the next

2 years and asked Councillor Kendal to reconsider his decision in the light of

the views expressed above.

Other members spoke in support of Councillor Kendal's decision and

stressed the need for the County Council to take a strategic view. They

agreed with him that the County Council could not justify investing in

Service 22 when the passenger numbers did not justify the commercial

viability of the service and there were adequate alternative services in the

area. To continue with Service 22 in these circumstances would not be in the

best interests of the community as a whole.

In reply to the debate, Councillor Kendal explained that he had listened

very carefully to all the views expressed by Members. He recognised the

distress felt by the residents in Havant at the loss of Service 22 but felt that

the area was adequately served by bus services and regrettably he considered

that he had not heard any reasons strong enough to persuade him to change

his mind.

Committee Members finally considered whether the decision might be in

any way contrary to the County Council's policy framework, for example in

the area of environmental or community policies, but were unable to

establish that the decision contradicted overall County Council policy. The

decision, could therefore, be acted upon but the circumstances and the

divergent views expressed would be reported to the next meeting of the

County Council.