To consider Notices of Motion.

Council considered the three Notices of Motion that had been received.

Notice of Motion one – Rail Link to Rotherwas

The Leader moved an amendment which was seconded by Councillor GJ Powell.

The amendment was as follows:

“The proposals submitted by the Independent Group, comprising a re-instated rail link to Rotherwas with passenger station and rail freight facility, are not currently supported by a business case.

The Council is due to discuss these proposals at a meeting of key stakeholders in October. The key stakeholders invited to this meeting include train operating companies, Network Rail, the Managing Director of the Hereford Enterprise Zone and the scheme promoters.

The Council agrees to review the merits of progressing an appraisal of the business case for these proposals following the meeting with the key stakeholders, having regard to the level of support.”

The Leader stated that his Group did not oppose the development of rail facilities.  Public transport proposals that relieved congestion and benefitted the environment were to be welcomed and merited consideration.  However, the original motion would involve expending £600k to undertake a feasibility study and the estimated cost of completing the rail facility was at least £10m.  There was no business case and it was irresponsible to commit to such expenditure without business support.

A high level feasibility study could be produced for £10k which would show whether further expenditure was justified.  The meeting on 7 October with key stakeholders would inform such a study.  Council should await the outcome of that meeting and the high level feasibility study, if in the light of the meeting that was considered worthwhile to undertake one, and then consider how it wished to progress.

In debate the following principal points were made:

·         It was contended that the estimated costs quoted by the Leader were out of date.  The project was deliverable at a fraction of those costs.

·         Councillor GJ Powell commented that, when he had been Cabinet Member with responsibility for transport, the proposer and seconder of the original motion had requested him to explore the possibility of a rail link in March 2012.  He had been keen to establish whether there was evidence of demand and whether such a proposal would be affordable and sustainable.  Because of the cost of a feasibility study a high level business study had been undertaken.  The Jacobs report had been produced in 2012.  The findings were that the infrastructure costs would be £10.7m, with an annual revenue subsidy of £2.5m equating to £15.78 per passenger.  Network Rail Wales had considered the capital estimates to be low. Given the cost of the development plan proposed in the original motion, evidence should be obtained from stakeholders to establish if the position had changed since the 2012 Jacobs report before proceeding.

·         The matter had been under discussion since 2012.  There should be no further delay. 

·         It was confirmed that the Enterprise Board had agreed to protect the land at Rotherwas for a rail development if that were proved to be feasible.

·         The Local Enterprise Partnership’s (LEP) support for the scheme was required if it were to progress.  More evidence would need to obtained before that support could be sought and the LEP could endorse any submission for funding to the Government. The national focus was currently on connectivity with the High Speed Rail project.  A strong case would be needed for any other development.

·         The infrastructure bids to the LEP should have included a rail facility at Rotherwas as a priority.

·         It was disappointing given the emphasis on the need for a business case for this project that Councillors had not been provided with the latest submissions in relation to the draft Core Strategy and had not seen any infrastructure delivery plan.

·         A rail link had used to exist to Rotherwas and, with the development of the Enterprise Zone, reconsideration of a rail link proposal was surely merited.

·         The original motion did not commit the Council to the project. It sought support not finance. In response to this it was reiterated that a development plan as proposed in the motion would cost £600k.

·         The Council needed to demonstrate its commitment to the proposal in principle and to progressing it soon.  This would help to generate evidence for the business case.

·         The Local Transport Plan identified projects in Leominster and Ross as priorities for which support had been sought through the Local Enterprise Partnership not rail.  If rail were now to be prioritised a business case was required.

·         London Midland had indicated that it would support a rail facility at Rotherwas because it would generate extra revenue.  It would not require extra trains.  The Council would not have to provide a subsidy.  Network Rail would be responsible for the track.  In response to this assertion the view was expressed that the letter from London Midland contained a number of caveats and could not be considered to represent a commitment to support a proposal.

·         The local Chamber of Commerce had discussed a rail link some 5-6 years ago and there had not been support for it.

·         The nature of the businesses in the Rotherwas Enterprise Zone did not require a rail facility.  There had been no requests from businesses located there for a rail link.

In conclusion the Leader stated that the amendment was not opposing a development; it was simply requesting that any decision should await the meeting with stakeholders on 7 October.

The amendment was defeated with 23 votes in favour of it and 26 votes against it.

In debating the original motion the following principal points were made:

·         Councillor Matthews proposed the motion.  He stated that a business plan could be prepared for £200k.  The population of Hereford was due to increase, putting pressure on the highway network.  The railway would provide an environmentally sustainable mode of transport and reduce pressure on roads in the City, not least on the two bridges.  It would provide a valuable link to the enterprise zone and help economic growth.  Businesses and local MPs were supportive.  The proposal would be consistent with the LTP key objectives as set out at paragraph 1.1 of the Strategic Overview: reducing congestion in Hereford City and increasing accessibility by less polluting and healthier forms of transport than the private car.

Preparations needed to be made now to cope with the transport demands that would be generated by housing development and the proposed University.

·         Councillor Bridges commented that the letter from London Midland had clearly indicated support for the proposal.  The development would extend employment opportunities at Rotherwas to people in Worcestershire and Shropshire.  It would encourage visitors to the City.  It was cost effective and sustainable.  Rail development in Pembrokeshire was bringing growth to the local economy. Permitting retail units at Rotherwas would similarly generate revenue.  London Midland had found that local rail use was rising 10% year on year and was predicted to rise by 59% in the next 10 years.  Network Rail and the operator would meet the running costs.

A motion that the question be now put was carried.

The original motion was carried with 29 votes in favour of it, 18 against it and four abstentions.

RESOLVED:  that the executive take urgent and positive action, by working with the appropriate rail authorities and other interested bodies, to produce a development plan to deliver these improvements. This plan and an associated funding proposal should be placed before the council at the earliest opportunity so that it can be progressed through the Local Enterprise Partnership and government funding routes with the minimum of delay.

Notice of Motion 2 – Fairer Funding For Schools

Councillor JW Millar, Cabinet Member Young People and Children’s Wellbeing, proposed the motion.  He noted that Council had previously approved a motion in favour of fairer revenue funding.  This motion related to the need for fairer capital funding. 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: to press government for fairer funding for Herefordshireschools.

Notice of Motion 3 – Hospital Car Parking

Councillor GJ Powell, Cabinet Member – Health and Wellbeing proposed the motion which was seconded by Councillor KS Guthrie.

It was stated that the contractor was neither taking account of local conditions, nor setting charges that were reasonable for the area.  New guidance had been issued that stated that NHS organisations were responsible for the actions of private contractors who ran car parks on their behalf.  The local NHS should be urged to apply the new parking principles as quickly as possible.

It was noted that the Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee had made representations on the matter.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That it be requested that the NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles as published by the government on 23rd August 2014  be applied in Herefordshire.