To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Mr P Sell

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

No substitutions were made.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

It was explained by the monitoring officer that were a member of the committee a school governor this would not constitute a pecuniary interest in item 7 home to school transport.

There were no declarations of interest

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2015.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

RESOLVED:      That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2015 be approved as a correct record.

To consider suggestions from the public on issues the committee could scrutinise in the future.

Further correspondence has been received from Mr McKay and this is attached for consideration by the committee.

(There will be no discussion of the issue at the time when the matter is raised.  Consideration will be given to whether it should form part of the committee’s work programme when compared with other competing priorities.)

The chairman thanks Mr McKay for his continued interest in the work of scrutiny. It was noted that two briefing notes had already been produced on related matters and as a result the chairman was arranging a meeting between Mr McKay and relevant officers to better address his concerns.

To note questions received from the public and the items to which they relate.

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a scrutiny committee meeting subject to the question being directly relevant to an item listed on the agenda below.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than 4.00 PM on Thursday 14 January 2016 to sam.tweedale@herefordshire.gov.uk)

The chairman noted the large number of questions which had been received from members of the public and thanked them for their interest. It was explained that due to the high volume of questions from the public supplementary questions would not be allowed. The chairman hoped that all members of the public were satisfied with the responses received.

To receive an update on the impact of the revised education transport policy which became effective from September 2015.

The chairman introduced the item noting that implementation of the policy had been deferred for a year in order to allow schools and families affected to make alternate arrangements. It was also noted that the policy had had a diverse impact with rural areas adversely affected, particularly those in border areas. A comment was made that Herefordshire imports more students than it exports to other local authorities. However it was stated that the exporting of students is a controversial idea.

The head of educational development introduced the report acknowledging that it was a difficult procedure to change and implement a policy such as home to school transport.

It was explained that previous scrutiny decisions had supported changing policy in the interest of financial savings by providing the statutory minimum in service provision. Additionally the general overview and scrutiny committee had in 2014 recommended the delay in implementation of the home to school transport policy in order to allow parents to make alternative arrangements. The impact of the policy was demonstrated by the continued interest from members of the public. However it was for good reasons that the council was providing the statutory minimum service.

It was stated that the main reason for policy change was the necessity of cost saving and that it was right that this policy be periodically reviewed. It was explained that even though the policy had been in place for a short time, only since September 2015, effective modelling had already been completed.

The admissions and transport policy manager summarised key information from the appendix of the report. This included:

-          Since the autumn term 2015 there had been a reduction in the number of entitled riders and the number of children entitled to free transport.

-          There had not been a reduction in the choice of popular schools which had been a concern for many when the policy was first proposed.

-          There had not been a reduction in the number of students going outside of Herefordshire for education.

-          Herefordshire remained a net importer of students, people still wanted to send their children to Herefordshire for education.

-          Only 45.5% of those parents potentially entitled to free school transport had actually stated a first preference for their nearest school.

The chairman thanked officers for their presentation and asked members of the committee for comment.

A member of the committee queried whether actual savings made so far through the scheme had met with projected figures. The admissions and transport policy manager explained that figures showed that over £70,000 would be saved through the policy, by way of increased parental contributions and that it had also been identified by a review of transport routes to schools an additional £50,000 could be saved. Consequently, implementation over five years was estimated to lead to savings well in excess of the original estimate of £250,000. Given the successes that had already been achieved in the first year of implementation the financial savings achieved were promising.

A member of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

To seek the views of the general overview and scrutiny committee on the council’s local transport plan (2016-2031) in order to inform cabinet’s recommendation to Council.

The chairman apologised that a report showing feedback from initial responses to the local transport plan consultation had been received at short notice.

The assistant director, commissioning introduced the report explaining that the Local Transport plan (LTP) was subject to an ongoing consultation and that the committee’s comments were also sought. It was explained that the report included in a supplement to the agenda summarised initial responses to the LTP consultation for which 150 responses had been received before the report was produced.

The key points of the LTP were explained:

-          Having had a number of interim transport plans in recent years, this LTP was to be coterminous with the core strategy by being in place for the period 2016-2031.

-          The document was a continuation of current strategies - encouraging growth through provision of new road schemes, sustainable transport, improving road safety, and maintaining an asset based strategy for road and highway maintenance and repair.

-          The report identified five key areas:

o   Economic growth

o   Maintaining a high quality transport network

o   Sustainable transport

o   Safe travel

-          The LTP identifies policies for specific areas such as low emission vehicles and other areas of study.

-          The aim of the LTP is to develop a strategy with £10 million in capital as well as £8 million revenue for maintenance. There would also be additional capital funding for transport packages which include new road schemes

-          Many growth policies within the LTP link with strategies for growth in the core strategy.

-          The LTP contains plans for each of the market towns in Herefordshire.

-          Provision of a core bus network has been included as it was shown to be a key priority for members of the public and key users.

Results of the initial feedback from the LTP consultation were summarised:

-          Responses had so far identified priority areas including rural access.

-          Priority areas for spending had been identified in maintenance of highways.

-          Maintaining a bus network had also been identified as a priority.

-          As consultation was ongoing and a high number of responses were expected by the end of the consultation period analysis on initial responses could only go into so much depth.

It was described that in accordance with department for transport guidance, it was important that the LTP remain a living strategy which could be adapted going forward.

The chairman thanked officers for their presentation and asked members of the committee for comment.

A member of the committee asked officers to elaborate on some answers to questions from members of the public.

-          Regarding Question 4, answer point D, it was queried why the cost of major schemes had not been included in the LTP consultation as these would be of significant public interest. In response the assistant director of commissioning explained that major schemes would be subject to separate bidding processes, as such it would be unrealistic to ask for comment until these had been commissioned properly. It was explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To consider the committee’s work programme and to approve task and finish group scoping statements.

Due to time constraints this item was deferred to the next meeting of the general overview and scrutiny committee at 19 January 2016, 2pm.