Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The purpose of this report is to request the Panel to review the decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Transport on 24 October 2024 in respect of item 7 on that agenda 'PHVs in Bus Lanes'.  A copy of the Decision Notice for the meeting is attached as Appendix 3 to this report.

 

Councillors George Madgwick, Emily Strudwick, Chris Dike, Graham Heaney and Benedict Swann have asked that the decision be called in for scrutiny on the basis that they believe that the decision may have been taken without adequate information or based upon inaccurate or incorrect information.

 

The Lead Call-in Member is Councillor George Madgwick. The cabinet member is Councillor Peter Candlish, Cabinet Member for Transport.

 

The decision today is for the panel to determine whether the Cabinet Member's decision has been taken without adequate information.

 

If the panel is satisfied that the decision was taken with adequate and accurate information being supplied to enable the cabinet member to reach his decision, then no further action is required and the matter ends here.

 

If the panel is not satisfied on these grounds, the panel may refer the matter back to the decision maker for reconsideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns that are to be addressed in conjunction with the original matter.

 

A report by the City Solicitor is attached with the following documents as appendices:

 

Appendix 1 - Call in Request (redacted)

 

Appendix 2 - Supporting information submitted in respect of the Call in.

 

Appendix 3 - Decision Notice for 24 October 2024 Cabinet Member for Transport decision meeting

 

Appendix 4 - 'PHV's in Bus Lanes report considered by the Cabinet Member for Transport on 24 October 2024

 

Appendix 5 - Call in procedure guidance

 

The relevant members and officers will be in attendance.

 

RECOMMENDED that the Scrutiny Management Panel is requested to consider the evidence and decide whether to resolve that either:

 

(i)      no action should be taken in respect of the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Transport on 24 October 2024.  The decision will then be effective immediately; or

 

(ii)    the matter should be referred back to the decision maker for reconsideration, the panel setting out in writing the nature of its concerns that are to be addressed in conjunction with the original matter.

The Chair explained that five members of the Council, Councillors George Madgwick, Emily Strudwick, Chris Dike, Graham Heaney and Benedict Swann had asked for the decision taken by Cabinet Member for Transport on 24 October 2024 in respect of item 7 on that agenda PHVs in Bus Lanes' to be called in for scrutiny.

 

The call-in request had been made on two grounds:

 

·       They believed that the decision may have been based on inaccurate or incorrect information; and

·       They believed that the decision may have been taken without adequate information.

 

The Chair advised that If the panel was satisfied that the cabinet member had adequate, correct and accurate information to make his decision, then no further action was required and the decision would be effective immediately.

 

If the panel was not satisfied on these grounds, the panel may refer the matter back to the cabinet member for reconsideration, setting out the nature of its concerns that are to be addressed in conjunction with the original matter.

 

Cllr George Madgwick, the lead call-in member, outlined the reasons for the call-in (set out in full on the Call-in form at Appendices 1 and 2.)

 

In particular he detailed the following:

 

Para 8.2 of the report stated that 'There is no clear evidence demonstrating the benefits of expanding the PHV trial to further bus lanes, either from the Portsmouth trial or from other local authorities that have allowed PHVs in some bus lanes, such as in Southampton and Brighton.'  This was inaccurate, as previous reports had clearly stated that the targets of the trial had been successful.

 

The Integrated Impact Assessment stated that no business case existed to back up the extension of the trial, however this was untrue as the PHV trade had on multiple occasions stated that there would be a business case to benefit them by extending the scheme.  In addition the IAA for the 30 January 2024 report had stated that there had been environmental and climate change benefits to approving the trial.  However, without any reasoning foir the change, the IAA attached to the 24 October 2024 report stated the opposite in that there would be no environmental or climate change benefits. The fact that the IIA had not included these pieces of information meant that it was inadequate.

 

Paragraph 8.3 detailed that there would be significant costs with no budget.

 

Paragraph 8.4 stated that the projects existed which were more closely aligned to strategic objectives, however the report failed to identify what these were.

 

He believed that the report had failed to provide sufficient evidence to allow the cabinet member to make his decision.  In particular. he referenced:

 

·       The previous report considered on 30 January 2024 which had confirmed the implementation of the current arrangements following a trial, had not detailed any confusion amongst highways users as to which bus lanes PHVs could use.  However, at para 8.6 of the 24 October 2024 report the likelihood for confusion had been detailed as a consideration, without any evidence to substantiate this concern.

 

·       In contrast to the 30 January 2024 report, the 24 October 2024 report had detailed safety concerns, but no grounds for these had been provided.  Appendix B of the report had detailed accidents over the previous six years, however the trial and subsequent approval of the existing scheme had only taken place over the past two years.  The relevance of including this data was questioned, as it did not provide an accurate comparison.

 

·       Keeping to the theme of safety, paragraph 5.3 of the report highlighted four 'near misses'.  Only one of these had been relevant, which was felt to be misleading.

 

·       Paragraph 4.1 of the report confirmed that a detailed Road Safety Audit had been carried out all bus lanes.  However, this information had not been contained in or appended to the report.  This was in contrast to the report considered on 30 January 2024, which had confirmed that no issues had been identified.

 

·       Costs with no identified budget had been detailed as a reason for not approving an extension to the scheme, however no detailed breakdown of the costs had been given.  The cost figures had also changed over time from £100k, to £180k and then finally £300k.  Some of the costs identified had related to signage and camera installation, which was not believed to be necessary as other local authorities who had introduced similar schemes had not required additional signage to be installed.

 

·       Paragraph 7 of the report contained stakeholder feedback; however, this had been incomplete due to there being no feedback included from the bus companies.  The failure to include this information had been a cause for the report to be deemed incomplete.

 

The councillors who had signed the call-in requests believed that the reports considered on 30 January 2024 and 24 October 2024 conflicted with each other on a number of points and that sufficient cost or legal breakdowns had not been included within the 24 October 2024 report.  The report had therefore been insufficient, and it was felt that this had put the cabinet member in a difficult position when making his decision.

 

The panel had no questions for Cllr Madgwick, the lead call-in councillor.

 

Cllr Peter Candlish, Cabinet Member for Transport gave his response.

 

Cllr Candlish explained that he had considered the whole transport mix within the city without favour when making his decision.  When making his decision he did so using a frame and considered elements including:

 

·       What can we do in law and what precedents existed?

·       What was the national guidance?

·       Consideration of local circumstances.

 

He had considered the local circumstances and what the impact would be on the overall flow of traffic.  He had also kept in mind the key points of any road safety issues, the costs to the council, the funding available and the overall value for money of the scheme.

 

He believed that he had adequate and correct information on which to base his decision upon. He had considered all options, read the officer report, researched other relevant information and spoken to all stakeholders.  He had not refused to consider the suggestions made during the meeting to defer the matter.  He had considered this but he had judged that he had enough evidence on which to base a sound decision.

 

At the end of the meeting when he had provided his reasoning prior to making his decision he had spoken slowly, as he had been considering all that had he read in advance, all that he had heard at the meeting and had been forming his decision.

 

In response to there being no feedback from the bus companies he explained that the bus companies had made deputations at the meeting, along with a representative from the Portsmouth Cycle Forum.

 

Turning to the reasons given for the call-in request, Cllr Candlish spoke on each in turn.  The call-in councillors had titled these as per the paragraph numbers in the 24 October 2024 report, which are also used below.

 

Para 8.2 was in respect of there being no clear evidence demonstrating the benefits of expanding the scheme.  Cllr Candlish confirmed that a hard evidence base was quite limited. The hard evidence available provided no clear argument either to extend the scheme or not and could be interpreted in different ways. Assertions that PHV drivers might be more inclined to register within the city should the scheme be extended was a view rather than fact, although this was likely to contribute to their decision.  However, he did not believe that this was the primary factor for PHV drivers to be licensed in other areas, such as Wolverhampton.  Cost for example, along with less stringent requirements on the age of their vehicle. These were however licensing considerations rather than transport matters.

 

Any benefit to PHV operators was one consideration, there were however a number of other considerations.  The 12 million bus passenger journeys in the city  could be viewed as a bigger consideration to the efficiency of the transport network in the city.  All of this was however speculative given the lack of hard evidence.

 

Para 8.3 referred to the significant costs of extending the scheme, with no approved budget identified.  Cllr Candlish believed that all projects with significant expenditure attached to them required compelling and positive evidence in order to commit public funds and he did not believe that the proposal to extend the scheme did.

 

Para 8.4 stated that there were projects which were more closely aligned with the strategic objectives and policies of the Portsmouth Transport Strategy.  He believed that this was true. Cllr Candlish had challenged officers about the proposal and funding had been identified as a key issue.  He was not convinced that spending money to extend the PHVs in bus lanes scheme was one of the highest priorities, particularly given the financial stresses on the council.

 

Para 8.5 stated that allowing taxis to use bus lanes can significantly increase traffic flows, thereby acting as a deterrent to cycling whilst also increasing the risk of conflict.  Cllr Candlish explained that the Department for Transport's own recommendations had been cited within the report.  It was very hard to quantify the deterrent to cyclists, however bus lanes did afford a degree of protection to cyclists and in making his decision he had looked at the impact on all transport methods.  In respect of the RSA's he explained that there had been no further issues identified and that they were only usually included when they identified a significant impact. RSA's included within previous reports had identified issues in respect of PHVs in bus lanes, but as no new issues had been identified he hadn't felt the need for redundant information to be attached to the 24 October 2024 report.

 

Para 8.6 referred to the extension of the scheme having the potential to cause confusion among all road users.  Cllr Candlish believed that this was also very hard to measure, however a lot of money had been spent on signage and communication during the trial for the five existing roads forming the scheme as it had been deemed necessary to do so.

 

Whilst no data existed to support either argument, it was his judgement that extending the scheme to allow PHVs to use 50% of bus lanes increased the risk of confusion.  PHVs looked like regular cars and with more vehicles using more bus lanes he believed that it was more likely for some road users to become confused. 

 

In respect of the additional report flaws alleged, Cllr Candlish explained:

 

·       Whilst accidents had been infrequent, they had been serious. He did not believe that data collected over such a short time period was sufficient on which to base a sound decision and therefore he had taken the precautionary option and given little weight to this evidence when deciding not to extend the scheme.

 

·       He accepted that the cost breakdown had not been included within the report, however most reports did not contain this level of detail. Regardless of whether the costs had been £300k or £250k, he confirmed that he would have taken the same decision.  He had seen the breakdown of costs and had not felt it essential that it be included within the report.  In respect of staff time, stating that staff were employed anyway to administer the scheme assumed that there was a lot of spare capacity within the team.  This was not the case and the extension of the scheme would either require staff to stop other work or additional funding found to employ additional staff.

 

·       Cllr Candlish believed the question posed about why enforcement cameras were now needed was a fair challenge, as historically these had not been used and were expensive. He understood why they hadn't been needed previously, however with the increase in the number of vehicles in bus lanes he felt that their implementation would be relevant and had therefore been included within the costs of extending the scheme.

 

·       Stakeholder engagement with the bus companies had been undertaken, although this information had come in after the report had been finalised.  He had however spoken to the bus companies directly and knew their position on the matter.  They had also attended the meeting in order to make a deputation.

 

·       In respect of para 3.8 of the report relating to the council being responsible to the Traffic Commissioner on actions taken which negatively impacted bus times, he confirmed that this information was accurate and had been a key consideration.

 

The panel asked questions in respect of the historical context of the principle of PHV's in bus lanes within the city and whether there had been a policy change between January 2024 and October 2024.

 

In reply, Cllr Candlish did not believe that there had ever been an explicit policy on the matter.  The council had an overarching transport strategy and the trial for PHVs in five bus lanes had been made permanent because the alternative would have been to undo the work and lose the investment made.  A benefit of making the trial scheme permanent was that it allows better safety information to be gathered over a longer period of time to inform any future decisions

 

In respect of views previously aired to the PHV trade, he had attended a Licensing meeting earlier in the year and at that point had been optimistic to find evidence to back up a decision to extend the scheme.  However, the more he had investigated he had not found sufficient evidence to support an extension of the scheme at this time.  He had not ruled out expanding the scheme in the future, but at the present time there was no evidence to show that overall traffic flow would be improved, there was insufficient safety data and there was no funding in order to deliver the scheme.

In response to further questions from the panel, Cllr Candlish:

 

·       Confirmed that the costings of £300,675 contained within the report were accurate and up to date.

 

·       Confirmed that he believed that officers had approached the PHV trade, bus companies and the cycle forum, however no evidence had been provided to substantiate any benefits or negatives that the current scheme had realised.  This further added to the fact that there was currently little supporting evidence on which to base a decision to extend the scheme. 

 

·       Explained that all reports had stated that signage would need changing.  The details of the signage would be part of the implementation phase, however he believed that it would be important that signage is to prevent any confusion amongst road users.

 

·       Confirmed that he had seen a broad financial breakdown of the extension of the scheme by heading in advance of the meeting, which he had interrogated. The costs seemed appropriate, and he reiterated that reports did not always contain a full financial breakdown.  In this instance he did not deem it necessary to include this information within the report.

 

·       In respect of the short trial period, additional evidence from other local authorities had been sought, however there had not been a great response and some information received had been conflicting.  He did not feel that this gave a sufficient evidence base on which to make a decision on what was best for Portsmouth.  For example, Portsmouth was more reliant on buses than on any other form of transport apart from private cars and he gave a greater weight to the local circumstances in Portsmouth rather than those of other cities.

 

·       The number of PHV operators who may choose to register their vehicle in Portsmouth if the scheme was extended would be speculative.  However, in his view he felt that other factors such as vehicle requirements and the cost of obtaining a licence would have more of a bearing on where PHV operators chose to licence their vehicles.

 

There being no further questions, Cllr Madgwick summed up the case on behalf of the call-in councillors. In doing so he stressed the importance of the call-in being upheld even if only one instance of incorrect or inadequate information was identified.  RSA's for example existed, but had not been included within the report and that the cabinet member had admitted that he had not seen an itemised breakdown of costings and only headings.

 

Cllr Candlish, the cabinet member, summed up his response to the call-in.

 

Cllr Candlish advised that RSA's were not always published within reports and sometimes not all information was available.  The question was whether he had made a reasonable decision and whether the information he had based his decision upon had been adequate and correct.

 

In respect of the costs, headline figures were often used to base a decision upon and he did not believe it credible that every last penny should be looked at.  He relied upon information from officers and had interrogated that information to his satisfaction.

 

Key factors in making his decision had been road safety, the funding available and making a decision which represented best value to the tax payer.  He believed that he had sufficient information in order to do this.

 

His decision had been to let the five previously agreed roads continue and leave the matter of extending the scheme open for future consideration should he deem it a high priority at that time.

 

He needed a positive reason to spend tax payers money and he had not found enough evidence to spend money on extending the current scheme.  He maintained that the decision that he had taken had been balanced and well reasoned.

 

Members of the panel made the following comments:

 

·       Decisions were often taken with only headline budget figures, and it was highlighted that £5m of spending on shore power had been agreed by Full Council based upon a budget line of one sentence as part of the budget.  It was therefore unreasonable to request a full financial breakdown for a proposal such as this.

 

·       Concern was raised about the reasons for not proceeding being based upon accident data which had raised no serious issues, no significant impact either way in respect of journey times, no changes predicted in respect of air quality and no detrimental impacts having been identified in relation to the existing scheme.  However, the report had stated that no positive benefits had been identified, however this had not been the previous benchmark.

 

·       The cost figures had changed and it was felt that this information was unclear and had been inaccurate within the report.

 

·       The DfT information in respect of users of bus lanes was a guidance note and not law, yet had been used as evidence in respect of determining that there was the potential for confusion amongst road users. 

 

·       It was believed that the evidence base did not provide strong enough grounds on which to decide not to expand the scheme.

 

·       Evidence from neighbouring authorities in respect of any negative or positive impacts on accidents and air quality should be sought.

 

·       It was believed that no report was perfect, however there had been adequate information for the decision taken, which had been to keep the existing scheme and keep options open for future expansion should this be a priority and a greater evidence base built up of a longer period of time support it.

 

·       The recommendations within the report did not mention the possibility of the matter being considered at a later date and therefore work would not be undertaken to gather further evidence to inform a future decision.

 

·       It was believed that section 8 of the report did not contain sufficient evidence to inform a decision either way.  This was in contrast to the detailed reports considered in respect of the VOI scooter scheme.

 

·       When a request had been made at the meeting for a breakdown of the £300k costs no sufficient answers had been given.  The breakdown which had been seen by the cabinet member had not been shared and therefore based upon the evidence presented at the meeting the financial information had been inadequate. 

 

·       The scheme had not been included within the budget and no funding was available, therefore it was logical that the scheme would not be extended at this time.  Whilst the council wanted to support PHVs in the city, the extension of the scheme would require appropriate signage and the associated costs incurred to provide this.

 

The panel voted on whether to uphold the reasons for the call-in.

 

Following a vote, four councillors voted not to uphold the call-in and five councillors voted to uphold the call-in.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Management Panel, having considered the evidence, agreed that the below reasons for the call-in are upheld:

·       believed that the decision may have been based on inaccurate or incorrect information; and

·       believed that the decision may have been taken without adequate information.

 

The Scrutiny Management Panel therefore referred the matter back to the Cabinet Member for Transport for reconsideration.  In doing so, the Cabinet Member to specifically address the below concerns identified by the panel in conjunction with the original matter:

 

1.    To include where possible the findings that have been received from other Local Transport Authorities, particularly Southampton City Council on how they operate their bus lanes and if this includes PHVs. If so, what are their learnings and feedback.

 

2.    Include a breakdown of the cost to introduce the further 11 bus lanes.

 

3.    Highlight the distinction between the 5 bus lanes that were included in the trial with the decision taken in January 2024, and the decision required in this paper for the additional 11 bus lanes.

 

4.    Include further information about the strategy prioritisation against the Local Transport Plan 4.

 

5.    Expand on the public and stakeholder consultation that had been undertaken, including what has been outlined and referenced in previous reports.