In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the meeting on any matter relevant to the work of the body in question. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman or person presiding will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers. Members of the public are not required to give notice to use this facility. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours’ notice is encouraged.
Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.
Minutes:
David Reeves, Managing Director of D&G Bus Ltd., spoke in relation to the Supported Local Bus Service Review and specifically the decision by the Council not to re-tender unaffected services which he felt was unacceptable on the basis that some operators would benefit from the decision not to re-tender unaffected services. He felt that all services included in the Supported Bus Service Review should be put out to competitive tenders. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Communication, as the Cabinet member now responsible for the review, replied that it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage as it was not possible to say which services would need to be retendered until the matter had been considered by Cabinet later in the meeting.
Carol Jones was concerned at the proposed withdrawal of the weekday evening bus service 6E from Brookhouse to Leighton Hospital. She said that this service was crucial to people’s health and wellbeing and that there were cost-effective alternatives which would allow the service to continue. She also criticised the way in which the public consultation had been carried out.
Andrew Needham of CPRE Cheshire commented that the figures quoted in the Government’s consultation document on the options for the Crewe HS2 Hub and the Council’s response were not BCR (benefits to costs ratio) but rather net transport benefits. In order to work out BCR it was necessary to know the capital cost. In this respect he commented that Scenario 3 as outlined in the document would require a new Junction at Wimboldsley/Stanthorne/Minshul Vernon, the capital cost of which was not known but could be as much as £1bn. Accordingly he believed it was quite possible that Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would have a better benefits to cost ratio. Mr Needham also referred to a recent public meeting at which Esther McVey MP appeared to question the need for HS2. The Chairman undertook to provide a written reply.
Jonathan Parry of Middlewich Town Council had submitted a question which had been received after the deadline for questions. In view of the weight of business before Cabinet and the lateness of the question, the Chairman was not minded to accept the question. However, as the question had been asked and answered on a number of previous occasions, the Chairman undertook to provide Councillor Parry with a written response.
Sinead Wheeler referred to the bus consultation report considered by the Environment and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 23rd October 2017. The report had been circulated to follow and members had only one working day’s time in which to read the 264 page document which would have a serious impact on the lives of thousands of residents. She commented that the report contained numerous anomalies and contradictions and that the proposals would result in many people losing their bus links to employment, health and social support. She called on Cabinet to defer a decision on the bus consultation report as she felt that the process leading to its consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been wholly unsatisfactory. She also commented on an unrelated matter concerning a payment of £2.4M to ANSA and asserted that this had been a write-off and not a loan.
Terry Price of Twemlow Parish Council expressed concern at the withdrawal of the 319 bus service (Sandbach – Holmes Chapel – Goostrey), with an alternative service to Twemlow between 11.00 am and 3.00 pm which was an excessively long period of time for some pensioners. In addition, people in Twemlow, Goostrey, Cranage and the surrounding area would be unable to visit the doctors surgery.
Mike Blomeley of Holmes Chapel Parish Council, whilst welcoming the continuation of the 42 bus service, stressed the need for evening services to be maintained, particularly for hospital appointments, and felt that leaving this to the tendering process was unsatisfactory. He was disappointed with the decision to withdraw the 319 service which he said was a vital service for isolated communities and particularly elderly residents who would be denied access to essential services.
Hazel Faddes commented that following the supported bus service review, a number of bus routes with relatively low numbers of passengers and which had attracted a relatively small number of responses during the consultation process were now being retained whilst a number of other routes with many more passengers and which had attracted a significantly larger number of consultation responses were being reduced and retendered. She felt that this was unfair and questioned the reasoning behind it.
The Chairman thanked all the speakers for attending the meeting.