Agenda item

To enable the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to make a recommendation to the Combined Authority Board on the proposed bus franchising scheme.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous)

A.    To note the completion of the bus reform consultation process, its extent and the responses received

B.    To note the contents of the Westco Consultation Report at Appendix 2

C.   To recommend to the Combined Authority Board that it approves the contents of the CPCA Consultation Response Report at Appendix 3

D.   To recommend to the Mayor that he makes a franchising scheme as set out at Appendix 5, complying with all associated statutory requirements.

Judith Barker, Executive Director Transport and Connectivity provided an overview of the bus reform consultation report and introduced the following team members to address questions from the Committee:

·       Andrew Highfield, Assistant Director Public Transport Services,

·       Richard Jeremy, Bus Reform Programme Manager

·       Robe Emery, Assistant Director of Finance

·       Ed Coleman, Head of Communications, Engagement and Public Affairs

At this point, the Chair highlighted to the Committee that as the decision to make a franchising scheme was a Mayoral one, the Mayor would not take any part in the discussion. In response, the Mayor acknowledged the extensive effort and engagement involved in the process and reiterated his role in listening and ensuring no predetermination. He thanked all contributors, including the public, for their input, highlighting the importance of achieving the right outcome for residents across the region.

The Chair opened the floor for questions and comments and during discussion the following points were noted:

a)    Members noted that with 63% of consultation respondents supporting franchising, and only 12% opposed, strong public approval had been demonstrated.

b)    Members reiterated the significance of franchising as a transformative opportunity for the region, and emphasised the importance of financial stability, rural connectivity, and sustainable implementation strategies

c)     Members underlined the need for improved connectivity in rural areas and asked about future plans for the network. 

d)    If a decision was made in favour of franchising in early 2025, then the first services would be scheduled to go live towards the end of 2027 which was in line with the experience of Greater Manchester Combined Authority, who made a decision early in 2021 and went live with the first tranche of services in September 2023.

e)    Councillors asked for more information on the funding streams for franchising beyond the mayoral precept. Officers clarified that the mayoral precept and transport levy were relied on within the financial modelling, as they were the funding sources directly within the control of the Combined Authority.  This satisfied the independent auditor’s checks.  However, several other funding sources (e.g., government grants, reallocation of capital funds, and potential changes to the use of existing taxation  taxation changes[AS1] ) were also available. It was further clarified that it was legally prohibited to borrow funds to meet ongoing revenue franchising costs.

f)      The creation of a reserve fund was included in the financial model, with the level benchmarked against other CA areas either franchised or developing their proposals. This had been approved by the Board in the Medium-Term Financial Plan to buffer against potential financial downturns, irrespective of franchising or enhanced partnership decisions.

g)    It was noted that within the proposals there were plans to relocate and enhance bus depots in Peterborough and Cambridge to support the opportunities for all operators to tender for services and in the future, to enable electric vehicle adoption.

h)    Current demand levels were used as a baseline for modelling and Department for Transport (DfT) guidelines informed the projections for increased service levels and reliability benefits, under both franchising and enhanced partnership options.

i)      The importance of focus groups in capturing rural perspectives and the necessity of ongoing stakeholder engagement, utilising the consultation data already captured, was emphasised.

j)      Councillors highlighted the challenges faced by rural residents, citing past experiences with abrupt loss of bus routes, and felt that the commercial nature of the current system often conflicted with public service needs.

k)     Franchising carried risks but the current system and enhanced partnership also involved significant risk and franchising offered stronger control and greater potential for long-term benefits.

l)      Officers confirmed that Enhanced Partnership involved negotiation with existing operators, and would particularly require the agreement of larger operators, and lacked guaranteed benefits without mutual agreement, whilst franchising, by contrast, provided the public sector with greater control over planning and delivery.

RESOLVED:

On being proposed by Cllr Ellis, and seconded by Cllr Shailer, representing the two Highways authorities (Peterborough City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council), the Committee unanimously resolved to:

a)    Note the completion of the bus reform consultation process, its extent and the responses received

b)    Note the contents of the Westco Consultation Report at Appendix 2

c)     Recommend to the Combined Authority Board that it approves the contents of the CPCA Consultation Response Report at Appendix 3

d)    Recommend to the Mayor that he makes a franchising scheme as set out at Appendix 5, complying with all associated statutory requirements.

A recorded vote had been proposed by the Chair and unanimously agreed by the Committee. Mayor Dr Nik Johnson was present to listen to the debate but did not vote to avoid predetermination The voting was therefore recorded as follows:

---o0o---

The Chair proposed a change to the running order so that item 9 the East West Rail Consultation Update and item 12 the Royston to Granta Park Strategic Transport Study would be heard next. This was unanimously approved by the Committee. The minutes are laid out in the published running order but the number shown in brackets shows the order in which the items were heard at the meeting.

---o0o---