Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

1.1. To consider continued funding for the Yelabus service in Yateley.

2) Issues Covered in Report:

2.1. Background and funding history.

2.2. Consideration of Hart and Rushmoor Hampshire Action Team (HAT) submission.

2.3. Options for the future.

2.4. Proposes a course of action to allow time for a smooth transition to sustainable funding.

3) Recommendation:

3.1. That funding of £11,500 be provided on a tapered basis for Yelabus for 2009, subject to match funding from Hart District Council and/or town and parish councils, and satisfactory negotiation of agreed milestones with Yelabus.

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

1.1. To consider options to support community transport in Hart with regard to continued funding for the Yelabus service in Yateley.

2) Contextual Information:

2.1. Yelabus is an established organisation providing minibuses for groups in Yateley and is well regarded locally. Yelabus received substantial Lottery granting from 2000-06 enabling the use of paid drivers without recovering the cost of these from hirers. Other schemes in Hampshire use volunteer drivers or charge a premium to recover the extra cost of providing a paid driver.

2.2. Since 2006 the County Council and Hart District Council have provided grants to enable Yelabus to make the transition to working as other schemes do with greater use of volunteers or full recovery of paid driver costs. Further funding was agreed on that basis for 2008. The HAT supported this approach.

2.3. Although moves have been made to get Yelabus on a sustainable basis, the HAT is concerned that this will not be achieved within the agreed period and in its latest submission is seeking funding for a further three years to ensure continued operation.

3) HAT Submission:

3.1. In its submission dated September 2008 Hart and Rushmoor HAT make the following recommendation:

a) To provide Yelabus with an extension of funding to allow more time to fulfil the conditions of the grant and to pursue alternative options.

b) To provide a full coherent community transport plan for the Hart area which identifies all of the current provision and where the gaps are.

c) To give the Hart and Rushmoor transport forum a more participatory role in working with local communities/groups to identify transport needs and possible solutions to these.

d) To capitalise on the offer of a stakeholder group of HAT members who are willing to work on community transport issues.

3.2. The HAT submission notes that on 8 January 2008 an earlier HAT submission to the Executive Member supported an extension of County Council funding to Yelabus which was agreed at the Executive Member for Environment Decision Day on 22 January 2008.

3.3. The funding was agreed for a 12 month period on the condition that Yelabus tried to recruit volunteers to replace paid drivers and/or reviewed its charging policy to recoup the costs of having paid drivers (or a combination of both).

3.4. A representative of Yelabus attended the HAT meeting on 24 July 2008 and expressed concern that the future of Yelabus was uncertain beyond December 2008 when the current funding expires. This was set out in a letter to the Executive Member dated 31 July 2008, and in response to the reply of 7 August provided further information in a letter of 16 August 2008.

4) Overview:

4.1. Yelabus provides minibuses for groups in Yateley which catered for 5,000 passenger trips in the first five months of 2008.

4.2. Yelabus uses paid drivers but does not recoup the extra cost of this from hirers, unlike other such schemes across Hampshire.

4.3. Grants were made in 2006/07 of £14,062 from the County Council matched by Hart District Council on the understanding that Yelabus would make the transition to operating on the same basis as other schemes in the county, whereby hirers provide their own volunteer drivers or meet the extra cost of using a paid driver.

4.4. In January 2008 a final tapered grant totalling £11,500, again matched by Hart District Council, was agreed to allow the transition to sustainable operation by the end of 2008, ie where the cost of trips are met by the hirers. In addition, a separate grant of £63,619 was approved for the cost of a replacement vehicle to remove this burden from Yelabus.

4.5. A letter dated 31 July 2008 from Yelabus sought a further extension of funding.

4.6. Hart District Council has confirmed that it will be making a payment of £5,000 to Yelabus.

5) Background:

5.1. Yelabus was set up in 1990 using volunteer drivers but lottery grants between 2000 and 2006 of £172,814 revenue and £24,000 capital, with a further £10,000 capital from Hampshire, led to the use of paid drivers without recovering the extra cost of these from hirers. It is this distinction which puts Yelabus at odds with all other such schemes in Hampshire and leads to the demand for subsidy funding which is not provided on schemes elsewhere in the county.

5.2. Community Transport Group Hire schemes across Hampshire are very successful with 290,000 passenger trips in 2007/08, mainly using volunteer drivers. Where this is not the case, driver costs are recovered from the hirer. One scheme makes significant use of paid drivers, Havant, and provided over 50,000 passenger trips in 2007/08.

5.3. Yelabus provides minibuses for groups in Yateley which catered for 5,000 passenger trips in the first five months of 2008

5.4. In 2006, with lottery funding coming to an end, Yelabus approached the County Council and Hart District Council for funding. Starting in 2006, a series of grants have been provided to Yelabus by the County Council, the District Council and Yateley Town Council to allow a move to a sustainable operation without subsidy as applies elsewhere in the county. In addition, meetings were brokered between Yelabus and Rushmoor Voluntary Services (RVS) to allow closer integration of Yelabus activities with the similar work done by RVS. Yelabus has sought to remain independent although a closer working relationship with RVS, or even a combined scheme for the area, could result in a more cost effective service and better value for the funders.

6) Current situation:

6.1. Yelabus has now introduced a higher rate for journeys where a paid driver is provided, but this was not until April 2008 and then only for long distance journeys which account for only 14% of trips.

6.2. To aid volunteer recruitment now and in the future the County Council has provided a grant for six drivers to receive immediate training from RVS and for two members of Yelabus staff to undergo the MiDAS Driver Assessor Training course to become driver assessor trainers (DATs).

6.3. A working group of Rushmoor Voluntary Services, Hart Voluntary Action and the County Council has been formed to undertake a minibus driver recruitment campaign which started in September after the summer period.

6.4. A meeting has taken place with RVS, Yelabus and the County Council to discuss joint working. This led to the working group on recruitment. Sharing MiDAS training information and the possible sharing of a back-up vehicle were also discussed. Yelabus was not open to RVS undertaking any of the administration of Yelabus on its behalf.

7) Outline of Options:

7.1. The current funding arrangement with Yelabus comes to an end on 31 December 2008. There would seem to be a number of ways in which the County Council could respond to the Yelabus funding situation beyond this period:

7.2. Option 1: That funding of £11,500 is provided on a tapered basis for 2009, subject to matching funding from Hart District Council and/or town and parish councils and satisfactory negotiation of agreed milestones with Yelabus.

a) Risk Assessment: Funding may lead to claims of unfairness and demands for similar funding from other CT schemes.

7.3. Option 2: Provide no further funding for Yelabus.

a) Risk Assessment: There would be uncertainty for users and a potential loss of service until alternative facilities were fully in place.

7.4 Option 3: Match any contribution which Hart District Council is willing to make to Yelabus for a further period of up to 12 months from 1 January 2009.

a) Risk Assessment: This option carries a risk if the funds provided by the two councils are insufficient to bridge the financial gap which Yelabus has for maintaining its service.

7.5 Option 4: Extend the County Council's current level of funding. This would provide six months' support to enable the required transition to take place.

a) Risk Assessment: If a matching contribution was not forthcoming from Hart District Council then some shortfall in the Yelabus operating costs may result.

8) Option Analysis / Comparison:

8.1. Option 1 is seen as the preferred option. This would see a sum of up to £11,500 being made available by the County Council for 2009 only, subject to match funding from Hart District Council and/or other local councils and satisfactory negotiation of agreed milestones with Yelabus to:

a) extend the revised charges introduced in April 2008 to other categories of hire;

b) allow work to continue to bring together the services operated by Yelabus and Rushmoor Voluntary Services; and;

c) allow the current volunteer recruitment campaign to take effect.

8.2. The required funding is available from existing Community Transport budgets, tapering would allow the bulk of payment to fall in 2008/09 which would suit the budget situation.

9) Conclusion:

9.1. Only as proper hire rates for paid drivers are extended to more categories of hire will hirers provide the level of volunteer drivers seen elsewhere in Hampshire. Although progress since 2006 has been very slow, some progress has been made.

9.2. The Yelabus model is different to that elsewhere in Hampshire which could lead to claims of unfairness from other schemes where similar funding for driver costs is not provided. Allowing for this, Yelabus is valued locally and therefore help with transition to sustainable funding should be continued for 2009 only and should be dependent on agreed milestones with the scheme.

9.3. Security of funding, if provided with agreed milestones, would provide an extended period to enable a smooth transition to take place. It is proposed that funding, if provided, should be for 2009 only and be provided on a partnership basis with Hart District Council.

10) Recommendation:

Please see the Executive Summary for the recommendation.

1818Rpt/397/PS

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

Equalities Impact Assessment

It is considered that the actions outlined above should not have any detrimental impact on equalities or race discrimination, and the recommended option will maintain accessibility for vulnerable users in the Yateley area.

Impact on Crime and Disorder

The provisions of the Act have no impact on this proposal.