Scrutiny Board – ( Transforming Services) Session Three ;24 November 2005 Subject The Procedures and Consultation Arrangements which Bus Companies are required to follow when they wish to Change Bus Timetables or Bus Routes. Inquiry subject to Terms of Reference adopted by the Board on Thursday 29 September 2005 Introduction On behalf of Scholes Residents we thank the Chair, Councillor Grahame, and the Scrutiny Board for inviting us to submit evidence to this Inquiry. As a time saving measure the written submission has been prepared by Mr George Hall on behalf of the Deputation to Leeds City Council and the “Residents Working Group” of Scholes Village who have led the effort for a review, and attended the Public meetings to discuss this issue. The last Public Meeting attended by 228 residents provided the mandate for us to address this inquiry . Should members require clarification or questions answered we will endeavour to respond. Our community recognise and thank the Council, its Executive Board particularly Councillor Andrew Carter. We also appreciate the interest of lead members or the Labour Group, Councillors Gruen and Lyons also the Office of the Traffic Commissioner which has been most helpful. Our greatest and special thanks are reserved for our Leeds City Council Ward Members Councillors Castle, Shelbrooke and Proctor for their continued support and encouragement. -------------------------------------------------- The object of our attendance at this inquiry is to be constructive, within the terms of reference. It is clear that the wider “Bus Industry” implications were addressed by the Parliamentary Select Committee which has significant import. We ask the Scrutiny Board to consider the conclusions and recommendations of the select committee which are apprehended. We have to hand a file of information to substantiate other assertions which are made in our evidence. Consideration was given to providing this as an appendix; however advice was to provide this in written form to members requesting the data. We will provide a background to the problems that have and still exist locally. The problems caused by the lack of consultation and perceived areas of responsibility, if not accountability. These include all sections of Local Government including our Parish Council the Bus Industry and its operators First Group (Leeds). The Scholes Community is not unique; in experiencing Public Transport difficulties. The Transport issues and particularly “Bus Problems” are well documented in the local press. Members here and of the larger City council will have received complaints from constituents. It is our earnest desire to ensure that you have the information which allows conclusions to be reached and recommendations to provide guidance which should follow, from our experiences, in future Page 1
The Scrutiny Board already have the report of the Director of Development dated the 21 September 2005 which included notes provided by Metro. With your permission I would ask that the following factual errors need to be corrected The Director of Development report . • Paragraph 3.2 states a number of Public Meetings have been held regarding this matter …. The Fact is two Public meetings have been held, the second of which was not attended by Metro, First or our Parish Council • Paragraph 3.3. The working group have no knowledge of the survey the operator proposes to conduct. What is meant by “to review the position once it has become established” ?. We are now almost five months into the new service, how much longer is needed? • The Scrutiny Board may show concern and note Paragraph 4.1 then ask why no consultations were conducted as a result of the Deputation to council. As a minimum we would have expected the report to include the views of our Ward Councillors. In this regard we welcome the latest six monthly report of Councillor Shelbrooke, up to May 2005, who states ”I continue to work for a regular Bus Service for my constituents” • Paragraph 7.2 of The Directors report states that a number of issues remain unresolved, which is correct, however to the best of our knowledge all dialogue with Metro and The Bus Operator has ceased and no further meetings are planned with us. Indeed an invitation to both the Passenger Transport Authority and the Passenger Transport Executive to attend our second public meeting was accepted then only to be rejected three hours before the meeting. Metro Notes-Appendix. As contained in Scrutiny Board Agenda 29 September 2005 • In the background notes provided by Metro they indicate that the Public meeting which Metro and First did attend was held at “Barwick” This is not correct, the meeting was at Scholes and more that 200 people attended that meeting This is important as Barwick residents were not invited to be present,for reasons best known to others The issue regarding a link service with Scholes is considered necessary by some residents of Barwick as indeed it is to Scholes village. There has been no Consultation with Barwick . Metro notes also indicates the claim by First” that the increased journey time would result in complaints” from Barwick residents Can this statement be justified? In view of the lack of consultation on this issue: We can only surmise that the personal view of one Barwick Ward Parish Councillor, attending a “focus group meeting is the basis of such a claim, hardly conclusive ! • The Links to Seacroft and Crossgates are hourly in both directions, which we see as requiring improvement offering a 30 minute service; indeed this could be done even with the existing service. We have made suggestions that remain practical and in our view sensible. • Metro states links to St James Hospital and Barwick “can be made”. This is not disputed. Two Buses would be required and therefore two fares within a half mile or so distance. It is fair to question if the use of two buses is a responsible argument? After all we can get to London or Blackpool by using two buses or even the bus and the rail network, again two fares would be required. Metro are on record as stating that “above rate of inflation fares lead to a reduction in patronage”. We would argue that requiring two services and the associated fare charge does much the same furthermore encourages private car use. Page 2
The Factual Background – relating to Consultation 1) Neither Metro nor First notified or consulted Barwick in Elmet and Scholes Parish Council or Residents of Scholes prior to the Service/Timetable Changes of the 30 Jan 2005. The authority for this statement is substantiated by residents approaching the Parish Council, who basically said “they had no knowledge of the service changes”. Residents were told any action must be taken by them individually .This caused great concern, it may be said anger, and the relationship between the Parish Council and its parishioners remains “Severely” damaged. 2) Ward members were approached and letters sent to them, primarily in view of the above. It is understood that Ward Councillors had not been formally notified by Metro or First. With the assistance of our City Councillors and letters from myself our Parish Council were encouraged to call a public meeting which Metro and the Bus Operator agreed to attend. 3) The First Public Meeting held 22 March 2005 in Scholes Manor House More than 200 residents were told by the First Bus Operator that the decision to make frequency changes were for commercial reasons, essentially profit motivated. The Commercial Director gave reasons for commercial viability was to replace the ageing bus fleet and provide “low floor “buses. Members are respectfully invited to consider this considering the Margin of Profit made from the WYPTE area. 17% is the figure quoted at Paragraph 4.4 of section 4 in the Bus Strategy consultation documents. It is noted in the “select committee report that, outside London 30% of operator income is from the public purse, these being from the Bus Service Operators Grant;Concessionary Fares Compensation and payments for tendered services . Are we receiving Best service value? The Metro Spokesperson effectively pointed to deregulation and the Transport Act 2000, which many of those attending failed to understand, Effectively Metro said “sorry there is nothing we can do”. It is not unreasonable to question if this was consultation, it was certainly communication albeit poor which was not well received by any of those present 4) Resulting from the above Public meeting, a “focus group” consisting of Metro,First Bus,Barwick-in Elmet and Scholes Parish Council and Cllr Castle attended a further meeting at Scholes Manor House on the 3 May. Only three Parishioners were invited to attend. The number Parishioners were later, reluctantly, increased to five, although six actually attended as one arrived uninvited as a protest. There was the considerable displeasure of the whole community at the lack of “bus user” residents being invited to represent their views.It has to be said that the five village delegates left the “focus group meeting feeling that they had been “talked at” rather than spoken to by the Bus Operators team .It may be helpful if some communication skill training and politeness was applied in future. Page 3
Recommend
More recommend
