Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The report referred to Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority belief that the way local buses were run needed to change to improve the local bus system for communities that relied on it. The CPCA consultation document explained why the Combined Authority recommends bus franchising as the way to do this, based on its assessment of the Proposed Franchising Scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

      i.         Agreed Cambridge City Council’s response to the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority consultation on bus franchising.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Chief Executive, who then introduced the CPCA’s Executive Director of Place and Connectivity, Judith Barker. 

 

Councillor A Smith was also present as the City Council’s Transport Lead at the CPCA.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Director of Place and Connectivity, the Assistant Chief Executive and Councillor A Smith said the following:

      i.         The business case covered  a thirty-year period from 2023 to 2054 and highlighted funding made up for a medium level investment scenario, highlighting the  following:

a)        Under the franchising model the CPCA would receive the fare income (currently received by the bus operating companies) which would be a large part of the affordability.

b)        Assumed that Government grants would continue at current levels and not increase.

c)         Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council as the Highways Authorities paid a transport levy to the CPCA to undertake the role of the Strategic Transport Authority, which would continue.

d)        The forecast for the Mayoral precept would increase over the period.

    ii.          The business case assumed the mayoral precept of £12 in  the year 2023/24 rather than the £36 precept of 2024/25 due to the year the document was written. 

   iii.         Would highlight that some of the income discussed was less than certain, the Mayoral precept was set annually as part of the budget setting process, made in consideration of the spending requirements and the funding available.

  iv.         As part of the process of setting the business case a range of various funding options had been considered. However, had only included the options that offered the greatest income potential in the business plan.

    v.         If franchising were to go ahead, there would be a considerable amount of change to be made before the decision could be implemented. It had taken Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) three years from the Mayoral decision to the first phase of franchising to be applied.

  vi.         The CPCA would continue to work on the Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy alongside the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan; one of the issues to be addressed would be congestion.

 vii.         Several work streams had been identified before implementation such as the commercial and procurement strategy, customer service, ICT requirements, governance, staffing etc. All of which had to be resilient and the appropriate risk management in place.

viii.         It was important to ensure that the small and medium operators would be able to access the market.

  ix.         Believed that franchising offered greater control, with a possibility of cross subsidy from routes that had greater profit-making ability.

    x.         Needed to look at how the system worked as whole and the connectivity. With a better functional bus service, it could be assumed that more people would use public transport meaning fewer people would choose to use their cars.

  xi.         The CPCA Transport and Infrastructure Committee had met earlier today and discussed the Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy and the ongoing commitment to sustainable travel.

 xii.         The Council’s response had been drafted in a way that positively supported the proposals but given the complexity of the proposals it did not hold the Council accountable as there was a degree of risk and uncertainty.

xiii.         The CPCA was taking a slightly different approach to GMCA and to London Transport; London was governed by a different set of legislation but was following the 2017 Bus Services Act as GMCA had. However, the CPCA had a different business plan as GMCA had not only taken control of the bus routes but had purchased the buses and were contracting operators to deliver sections of their service splitting the area covered by the Combined Authority into three.

xiv.         The CPCA had a bus depot strategy which had identified the funding in the business case to run the depot but would contract the buses and the operations together.

xv.         The consultation would run to 20 November and would go through due process with the CPCA Board and then a Mayoral decision early 2025.

xvi.         Could not pre-determine the decision which was why implementation would take time as outlined there would be a large amount of work to be completed.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.