Agenda item

An update on the outcome of the pilot project to run a shuttle bus service from the city centre to Five Rivers during 2016/17, and to consider whether or not the shuttle service should continue, as detailed in the attached report.

Karen Linaker gave an update on the outcome of the pilot project to run a shuttle bus service from the city centre to Five Rivers during 2016/17, and to consider whether or not the shuttle service should continue, as detailed in the attached report.

The Chairman introduced Margaret Wilmott, who read the following statement on behalf of Pam Rouquett:

I think Area Board councillors will already have seen Pam Rouquette’s paper, suggesting a change to the scheduled bus services such that Five Rivers is provided with a regular bus service via a stop on Ashley Road.  This has various benefits when compared to the service originally looked at and ruled out, covered in para 3.4 of the Shuttle Bus report.  The stop on Ashley Road would be within 400 yards of Five Rivers, and there is a pleasant flat traffic free route along the River Avon to reach the building.

Green Travel options to Five Rivers have not been promoted or developed as they should have been.  Although cycle parking stands have been increased from 38 to 64 the COGS group have been counting cycles parked there on weekday mornings, up to 4 times a month since 2012. Average bicycles parked there on a weekday morning was 6 in 2012, 7 in 2013 and 6 in 2015, 7 in 2016 after the opening of the extension.  So there has been no measurable increase in cycling despite the increase in floor area and people based at Five Rivers. Given this is being called a ‘Health and Wellbeing Centre’ this seems a particularly poor outcome.

There is no point dwelling on what is now water under the bridge.  However the failure to develop and implement a proper Green Travel Plan when this development ticked all the criteria for such a plan suggests that far from leading by example in this area Wiltshire Council have lagged far behind.  The aim to encourage a shift to active travel modes and public transport is stated in numerous Council policy documents – for example Local Transport Plan 3, the Salisbury Transport Strategy, the Salisbury Bus Quality Partnership agreement and the Air Quality Management Plan.

This isn’t necessarily a matter of money, there needs to be collaborative working with others and some joined up thinking. Salisbury Reds for example would be willing partners in any scheme to increase bus patronage since their business depends on this.

There also needs to be a full evaluation of the money which might be available to develop bus services and bus infrastructure.  The Salisbury Transport Study committed the Council to steps which would encourage walking, cycling and public transport use and money was allocated in the 2009/10 preferred option to help provide scheduled bus services. While funding is an issue, money has been collected from developments around Salisbury to put towards the STS – e.g. £846K is being paid in respect of the Erskine Barracks development. When I last asked about this in Nov 2015 £282K had already been paid, doubtless more has now been received – what is this being spent on? What could it be spent on?

I would like to ask the Area Board if they would consider the following:

-          Working with WC Public Transport Unit and Salisbury Reds with some urgency to fully consider and cost all possible options for providing a scheduled bus service to serve Five Rivers

-          To establish how much S106 money, and other funding, is now available for the Salisbury Transport Strategy and whether some of this can be used to improve the bus services in the city as per the commitments in the original strategy. (I am aware this may form part of the long-promised but much delayed ‘Salisbury Transport Strategy refresh, however it would seem relevant for the Area Board to establish what funding is currently available as soon as possible).

It seems apparent that a community transport service is unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of getting people to Five Rivers when they want to go, and I feel resources should instead be directed towards getting a proper scheduled bus service established. 

The Chairman noted that it was a good idea that the Board asked questions about funds available and how they were to be used.

It was recognised that the community bus service was not viable in its current form. Whether it was appropriate for the Board to be fulfilling planning conditions with the limited funds it had available was questionable.

It was suggested that a period of 3 months grace be given to the ceasing of the service.

Questions:

·         Cllr Dean - 4 years ago, when Bourne Hill was being repopulated with the restructure, Wiltshire Council produced Green travel plans for the occupants. If you want smarter travel choices, you must publish these plans to make people aware that they exist.

The Board should discuss the developers contributions, to improve the transparency of what was going on. Cllr Dean agreed to take those points away and ask those questions from Margaret.

·         It is highly unlikely that the Board or Wiltshire Council would want to pay for a bus service. But it would be useful to have a dialog with Salisbury Reds as to what was available.

·         We do not know what the impact of withdrawing the service would be on the current users. The service should be funded for a further 2 or 3 months to allow information to be gathered, before making a decision.

·         The Campus was a project of the council corporately and not of the Board, so funding the planning conditions should lie with the council.

·         The only funds available for this would be from the Health & Wellbeing budget, could we have some indication of what would be required to continue for 2 months?

·         Karen Linaker - I do not think the current service had become a pattern that would be missed. With regards to how much would it cost, Wessex Community Action were currently running the service for us. Approximately no more than £500 for 2 months.

·         The Campus was not a Board application; it was Wiltshire Council. Who would fund the shuttle if we stopped? Any review would look at what could be cut and not what could be added. It was bad that the Board was having to look at this.

·         The HWB budget only had £4,200 for the rest of the year. The proposal could be put to the members who may decide they did not support the funding.

Karen noted that the CEM had delegated powers to allocate funding in-between meetings. She would liaise with the HWB to ascertain whether there was support for this.

Decision

The Salisbury Area Board agreed to allocate up to £500 from the HWB budgetto continue the service for a further 2 months, with the conditions

·         That theHWB Group be invited to consider the proposal for funding and be invited to make a recommendation. The CEM in consultation with the Chairman will then finalise the funding decision under delegate powers.

·         Respond to the future bus service consultation to ask Salisbury Reds to consider providing a bus service to/from the Campus. 

Action: Cllr Dean will take forward the questions relating to developer contributions.