Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

1.1. To consider a grant of £13,342 for Winchester Area Community Action to assist in the costs of managing and operating the Winchester Community Transport Scheme.

2) Issues Covered in Report:

2.1. Background and funding history for community transport schemes.

2.2. Grant request from Winchester Area Community Action.

2.3. Outline of options.

2.4. Longer term funding.

3) Recommendation:

3.1. That a grant of £13,342 be awarded to Winchester Area Community Action to assist in the costs of managing and operating the Winchester Community Transport Scheme.

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

1.1. To consider a grant of £13,538 for Winchester Area Community Action to assist in the costs of managing and operating the Winchester Community Transport Scheme.

2) Contextual Information:

2.1. The arrangements for supporting district-wide community transport schemes were agreed by the Executive Member for Environment on 9 October 2007. The schemes currently covered by these arrangements include Basingstoke, Eastleigh, East Hampshire, Fareham, Hart, Havant, New Forest and Test Valley. With the exception of the Basingstoke scheme, which is being competitively tendered, all the schemes above are supported through single tender contracts.

2.2. These community transport schemes provide a pool of wheelchair accessible mini-buses, available for hire by local voluntary and community groups. The contribution made by the County Council, and in some cases other funding partners, usually represents the cost of the staffing and associated administration costs necessary to oversee the operation of a fleet of mini-buses, ensures that mini-buses are properly maintained, and enables recruitment and training of mini-bus drivers. The running costs of these mini-buses are recovered through hire charges to user groups.

2.3. This support has always been seen as a way of building capacity in the voluntary and community sector so that affordable transport is available to local groups. Building capacity within a single organisation, which can make good use of its mini-buses by hiring to a range of groups, has also been seen as a more efficient and effective use of public money as opposed to providing individual grants to organisations to purchase their own mini-buses, many of which will be little used.

2.4. Currently, the County Council does not directly support the staffing and administration costs of the district-wide community transport schemes in Gosport and Winchester. The reasons for this are largely historical. It was intended that a similar arrangement for these schemes could be considered once the community transport competitive tendering process had been completed and the full impact on the community transport budget known.

3) Grant Application from Winchester Area Community Action

3.1. A grant application form has been received from Winchester Area Community Action which organises and manages the Winchester Community Transport Scheme. This shows that staffing and administration costs for 2008/09 are estimated at £18,656. Winchester City Council currently provides annual support of some £3,271 towards the costs of organising and managing the scheme and a further contribution of £3,043 is expected to be made from the income from the minibus hire charges. The balance of £12,342 is now requested from the County Council as a grant.

3.2. Winchester Area Community Action operates three mini-buses and one small wheelchair accessible vehicle. The mini-buses are available for groups to use across the Winchester District and the smaller vehicle available for individuals to use. Most groups comprise older people and disabled people. The primary objective of the scheme is to provide the means by which community groups and individuals can access otherwise unreachable local services and amenities and improve people's independence and quality of life.

3.3. During the last year the vehicles have been used by 70 different community groups and 420 mini-bus hires have taken place. Over 8,900 passenger trips have been provided and some 13,500 miles covered by the vehicles. Most of this transport is provided using volunteer drivers. This equates to a subsidy per passenger trip of £1.75. Based on outturn figures from schemes for 2007/08 this compares favourably with other similar schemes - East Hampshire (£1.90), New Forest (£2.37) and Test Valley (£1.86).

3.4. In the past the scheme has received a number of vehicle grants from the County Council, the more recent of these for a mini-bus and a smaller vehicle which have been based in the southern parishes of the district, where there is a well-documented need for transport.

4) Outline of Options:

4.1. Option 1: Support the grant application

a) Risk Assessment: This will enable the scheme to cover its full costs in the current financial year and continue to provide affordable transport to user groups in the future. Continued funding may be sought, reducing the funding available for other community transport activities.

4.2. Option 2: Not support the grant application

a) Risk Assessment: Not awarding a grant would leave the scheme with a shortfall in its finances for this financial year and could in the longer term affect their viability or increase the cost of the transport beyond the reach of some user groups. It may also result in mini-bus resources which have been funded not being utilised to their full potential.

4.3 Option 3: Charges to Mini-bus Hirers increased

b) Whilst hire charges to mini-bus hirers could be raised the impact of this could not be applied retrospectively to the current financial year. This may also make this transport unaffordable for some community groups in the longer term.

5) Option Analysis/Comparison:

5.1. Option 1 is seen as the preferred option. This would see a grant of £12,342 being made available by the County Council for this financial year only. This will maintain the scheme's current level of operation and ensure that affordable transport continues to be provided to community groups in the district which are meeting the needs of older and disabled people. It will also ensure that mini-buses which have previously been funded through grants from the County Council will be utilised, protecting this investment. The grant can be funded from the Community Transport Budget.

6) Conclusions:

6.1. The community transport scheme operated by Winchester Area Community Action is one of only two district-wide schemes in Hampshire which does not receive ongoing financial support from the County Council.

6.2. A grant application has been received towards the costs of managing and operating the scheme for the 2008/09 financial year. Supporting the one year grant application will enable the scheme to remain financially viable and continue to provide much needed affordable transport to local community groups. It will also ensure that mini-buses which the County Council has previously funded, can be utilised.

6.3. The feasibility of providing longer term funding for this scheme will be investigated once the second stage of the community transport competitive tendering process had been completed and the full impact on the community transport budget known.

7) Recommendation:

7.1. Please see the Executive Summary for the recommendation.

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

COMPREHENSIVE RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

1) Equalities Impact Assessment:

a) It is considered that the actions will not have any detrimental impact on equalities or race discrimination. The recommended option will maintain accessibility to older and disabled people in the Winchester district.

2) Impact on Crime and Disorder:

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

3) Climate Change:

a) How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint/energy consumption?

· The group transport opportunities provided by the scheme may reduce the number of car journeys made.

b) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

· There is no impact from this decision.

1947Rpt/611/KI