The Chair of the Committee left the Chamber at 7.05pm

The Vice-Chair of the Committee started by advising those present of the call-in procedure.

Each representative was given the opportunity to present their call-in, during which the below was highlighted:

·       It was felt the consultation was not carried out appropriately missing several areas which would be affected by the withdrawal of the bus services, including Purfleet, South Stifford and West Thurrock.

·       When the discussion of withdrawing funds for the bus services in Fobbing, it was raised that the Ward Member was able to secure a 12 month grace period. It was queried why the same was not offered for other bus services.

·       The withdrawal of the bus services would cause a negative impact on local residents’ lives, leaving many of them without access to health facilities and local amenities.

·       It was felt funding was available through Section 106 funds, which had been used previously to maintain the bus service in East Tilbury.

·       By withdrawing the services within areas such as East Tilbury, Horndon on the Hill, Bulphan and Purfleet, the borough’s vulnerable residents would be put at risk.

The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Highways was given the opportunity to address the Committee, during which he advised:

·       The decision to withdraw the bus services was not taken lightly and was a difficult decision to come to.

·       The consultation was undertaken for 12 weeks, finishing in October 2022, Officers reviewed the data for several months before the Cabinet decision was reached in March 2023.

·       The bus services offered were not statutory or council services, so the decision to withdraw the services was balanced against the interest of the local taxpayer.

·       Looking at the results from the consultation it was evident the bus services were not being used to their full capacity.

·       When the report was previously presented to the Planning, Transport and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Members of the Committee praised the consultation, which when undertaken went above and beyond standard practice by having paper copies available on the buses with pre-paid envelopes, as well as online and at key amenity sites.

·       Section 106 funding was looked at as an option as were other funding streams, however it was noted that this type of funding had caveats attached to it which meant the council did not have a free hand to spend the funds on certain projects.

The Committee asked the Portfolio Holder to respond to the case that due regard for individuals and communities served by Thurrock were not considered when Cabinet made their decision. The Portfolio Holder stated the decision was not one taken lightly and the decision had considered not only the consultation responses but also the statistical analysis of service usage presented in the original report. An equality impact assessment had been completed and considered as part of the decision, which the portfolio holder felt was balanced, informed and appropriate.

While summarising their cases, the representatives of the call-ins asked that the decision be referred back to Cabinet and for the bus services to be reinstated.

Following the debate and questions on the call-ins, Members voted on the call-ins as follows:

·       Councillor Watson’s Call-in: No Further Action be taken on the basis of a) Due regard for individuals and communities served by Thurrock and c) Due consultation in line with the council’s consultation strategy. (passed 3 votes against 2)

·       Resident call-ins: No Further Action be taken on the basis of a) Due regard for individuals and communities served by Thurrock(passed 3 votes against 2)

·       Welcom Forum Call-in: No Further Action be taken on the basis of a) Due regard for individuals and communities served by Thurrock (passed 3 votes against 2)

In accordance with Chapter 1, Part 2, Article 3 of the Constitution the Vice Chair accepted a question from a resident. The Question posed was:

Residents in outlying villages in Thurrock rely on buses to access health services, for shopping and to remain part of society. These services are essential, as was highlighted in the council's feedback following the bus users consultation. It is the council’s responsibility to consider the needs of all their residents.  If the decision to axe these buses is taken, how do councillors perceive their constituents will access vital services?

The Vice Chair agreed to include the question in the report for Cabinet to acknowledge and respond to through their debate.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning, Transport and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee decide to take no further action.

The Chair of the Committee returned to the Chamber at 7.55pm