Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Meetings ...

Communities Overview & Scrutiny

Committee

Date: Wednesday, 23 September 2020 Time: 2.00 pm Venue: Virtual Meeting

Membership Councillor Clare Golby (Chair) Councillor Dave Shilton (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jenny Fradgley Councillor Seb Gran Councillor John Holland Councillor Andy Jenns Councillor Keith Kondakor Councillor Andy Sargeant Councillor Bhagwant Singh Pandher Councillor Andrew Wright Items on the agenda: -

1. General

(1) Apologies

(2) Member's Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-pecuniary Interests

(3) Chair's Announcements

(4) Minutes of Previous Meeting 5 - 14

(i) Minutes of the meeting on 17 June 2020 (ii) Minutes of the meeting on 23 July 2020 (Election of Chair and Vice-Chair)

2. Public Speaking

3. Questions to Portfolio Holder

15 - 16

(1) Economic Development Update

17 - 22

Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee Wednesday, 23 September 2020

4. Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

23 - 44

5. Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report

45 - 248

6. One Organisational Plan Quarterly Progress Report

249 - 256

7. Quarter 1 Performance Progress Report

257 - 264

8. Communities OSC Work Programme

265 - 268

9. Urgent Items

Monica Fogarty Chief Executive

Warwickshire County Council Shire Hall, Warwick

Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee Wednesday, 23 September 2020

To download papers for this meeting scan here with your camera

Disclaimers

Webcasting and permission to be filmed Please note that this meeting will be filmed for live broadcast on the internet and can be viewed on line at warwickshire.public-i.tv. Generally, the public gallery is not filmed, but by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area you are consenting to being filmed. All recording will be undertaken in accordance with the Council's Standing Orders.

Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests Members are required to register their disclosable pecuniary interests within 28 days of their election of appointment to the Council. A member attending a meeting where a matter arises in which s/he has a disclosable pecuniary interest must (unless s/he has a dispensation): • Declare the interest if s/he has not already registered it • Not participate in any discussion or vote • Must leave the meeting room until the matter has been dealt with • Give written notice of any unregistered interest to the Monitoring Officer within 28 days of the meeting Non-pecuniary interests must still be declared in accordance with the Code of Conduct. These should be declared at the commencement of the meeting The public reports referred to are available on the Warwickshire Web https://democracy.warwickshire.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1

Public Speaking Any member of the public who is resident or working in Warwickshire, or who is in receipt of services from the Council, may speak at the meeting for up to three minutes on any matter within the remit of the Committee. This can be in the form of a statement or a question. If you wish to speak please notify Democratic Services in writing at least two working days before the meeting. You should give your name and address and the subject upon which you wish to speak. Full details of the public speaking scheme are set out in the Council’s Standing Orders.

https://democracy.warwickshire.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1

This page is intentionally left blank

Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee

Wednesday, 17 June 2020

Minutes Attendance Committee Members Councillor Alan Cockburn (Chair) Councillor Dave Shilton (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jenny Fradgley Councillor John Holland Councillor Andy Jenns Councillor Keith Kondakor Councillor Caroline Phillips Councillor Andrew Wright Portfolio Holders Councillor Peter Butlin (Portfolio Holder for Finance and Property) Councillor Jeff Clarke (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning) Councillor Andy Crump (Portfolio Holder for Fire & Community Safety) Councillor Kam Kaur (Portfolio Holder for Customer and Transformation) Councillor Izzi Seccombe (Leader of the Council) Councillor Heather Timms (Portfolio Holder for Environment, Heritage & Culture) Officers David Ayton-Hill, Assistant Director - Communities Isabelle Moorhouse, Trainee Democratic Services Officer Mark Ryder, Strategic Director for Communities Scott Tompkins, Assistant Director for Environment Services Louise Richardson, Policy Lead Sushma Soni, Corporate Policy Lead Gereint Stoneman, Strategy and Commissioning Manager (Corporate Policy) Other Members Present Councillor Mark Cargill Councillor Jerry Roodhouse (Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group) External Speakers Malcolm Holmes (Executive Director, West Midlands Railway Executive) Francis Thomas (Head of Corporate Affairs, West Midlands Trains) Jonny Wiseman (Customer Experience Director, West Midlands Trains)

Page 1 of 7 Agenda Item 1(4)

Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee 17.06.20

1. General

(1) Apologies None.


None.

(3) Chair's Announcements

None.

(4) Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes of the 12 February 2020 were approved as a true record, subject to the following

amendments; Councillor Keith Kondakor raised whether streetlights being left on in windy weather conditions was what was stated in the meeting.

2. Public Speaking There were none. 3. Questions to Portfolio Holder Following concerns raised by Councillor Keith Kondakor regarding the lack of road allocation in Nuneaton and Bedworth and the effects of Covid-19, Councillor Jeff Clarke (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning) stated that Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council had been consulted with and temporary measures have been implemented. Councillor Clarke continued that if more permanent measures were requested, then these requests could be made, or the delegated councillor budget could be used. He concluded that £6 million will be spent by Warwickshire County Council on highway and cycling safety schemes. Following a supplementary from Councillor Kondakor, Councillor Clarke stated measures will be implemented on the ring road in Bedworth and temporary schemes are being utilised to ensure the correct schemes are enforced. Councillors Jenny Fradgley and Dave Shilton expressed gratitude to the Highways and Engineering Teams for their work in Stratford Upon Avon and Kenilworth respectively. Councillor Fradgley added that she requested an update on how the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) are working on smaller projects and asked how government funding is being used in Warwickshire. Councillor Izzi Seccombe (Leader of the Council) clarified that the government asked the council to provide short-term safe spaces in town centres, but some town centres are more pedestrianised then others. All the district and borough councils have been involved but the systems implemented were short-term solutions to improve the economy. Mark Ryder (Strategic Director for Communities) added that his team and the LEP are looking at projects that could obtain extra government funding, like the cycling schemes but it is nationally

Page 2 of 7


competitive. Warwickshire County Council had demonstrated to the DfT (Department for Transport) that the allocated money was spent appropriately but the allocated money is less than the cycle schemes so this will negatively affect the council budget. Mark Ryder concluded that they are still finalising permanent cycle schemes, but city centres are more likely to be prioritised by the government then smaller town centres; it was agreed that updates will be provided on the cycle scheme bids. In response to Councillor Caroline Phillips, Councillor Clarke reiterated that the schemes implemented in Nuneaton are government led temporary schemes and different measures would need to be implemented for a cycling scheme. Councillor Kondakor asked for updates on the electric bus scheme. 4. West Midlands Railway Executive and West Midlands Trains Malcom Holmes (Executive Director, West Midlands Railway Executive) explained that the West Midlands Rail Executive (WMRE) are a partnership of local authorities across the West Midlands, including Warwickshire County Council, and the De Facto rail authority for the region. The WMRE works with the DfT and they manage the contract for rail services and undertake rail strategy work in the West Midlands. Since March 2020, passenger numbers have plummeted on trains which have been consistent with government guidance to avoid public transport. This had risen slightly when shops reopened, and they are currently operating 70% of the timetables to maximise social distancing with an aim to increase this to 80% in July 2020. Malcom Holmes continued that they had established a coordination group with Network Rail in the region which led the rail response to Covid-19. The rail industry have calculated their capacity in order to enforce social distancing and have slightly reduced trains on the Coventry line in Warwickshire; they have been in contact with Chiltern regarding the lack of trains through Warwick. The West Midlands Railway services are running as normal on the Leamington Spa to Coventry and Nuneaton line. Social distancing measures have been administered across West Midland stations, when passengers are at a higher capacity there could be delays due to social distancing. The WMRE have been working with Midlands Connect on a project called Birmingham Airport Connectivity which will connect the Thames Valley, Oxford and Leamington Spa to Newcastle via Coventry and Birmingham Airport. Midlands Connect are working on a business case to double some of the existing single line section on the route between Leamington and Coventry, but this will not allow an improvement to the local service for Kenilworth without full doubling of the route. Therefore, further work had been commissioned between Midlands Connect, the DfT and Network Rail to assess the benefits of running a second local rail service which supports the full doubling of the route. Malcom Holmes stated that phase one of HS2 (High Speed Railway) has recently been given the formal ‘notice to proceed’ by government, and that a revised HS2 business case had been published which showed in most scenarios, it will have a positive value for money. Malcom Holmes expressed the WMRE concerns about the business case as it did not refer to northbound services in Phase 2A after the initial route going northwards. He continued that there will be huge benefits for the West Midlands being connected to the north and Scotland, but there is a risk that this

Page 3 of 7


service will not be provided through HS2 infrastructure until the completion of Phase 2B. The National Infrastructure Commission is undertaking a review into HS2 Phase 2B and WMRE had stressed the importance of an early direct service introduction northbound in its response. Malcom Holmes concluded that the West Midlands Rail Investment Strategy was published in January 2019; however, due to the long term economic and commuting impact of Covid-19, this had led to a need to undertake a review, and this work is underway.

Following a question from Councillor Kondakor, Malcom Holmes agreed to query about the work

progress on ‘KNUCKLE 3.1’, which will provide direct services again between Coventry and

Nuneaton. The WMRE are in discussion with the DfT in regard to having more responsibility for the

cross-country services that operate in Birmingham, Nuneaton, Leicester and Stanstead rail

corridors. Since these services are run by Cross-Country and run outside the area WMRE cover,

they have insufficient capacity and higher fares; therefore, WMRE are proposing that this route is

operated by the local train operator. He concluded that train timetables post-HS2 are still being

reviewed and finalised. Councillor Kondakor and Malcom Holmes discussed the line north of

Coventry being electrified.

In response to Councillor Shilton, Malcom Holmes reiterated that Covid-19 had impacted West Midlands Trains’ efforts to increase the number of train crew to avoid cancellations and disruption that was experienced during autumn 2019, they have a contractually committal remedial plan with the DfT to improve performance. He added that providing extra carriages depends on route demand and would be unlikely in the short term. Malcolm Holmes concurred with to Councillor John Holland, that Warwickshire should maximise local rail services to benefit the region but the line needs expanding and improving. The WMRE are working on rail schemes that would benefit Warwickshire and the Warwickshire’s Rail Strategy influences the West Midlands Rail Investment Strategy review. Councillor Peter Butlin (Portfolio Holder for Finance and Property) informed the committee that the West Midlands Economic Development Board are developing plans for economic regeneration post-Covid-19 and the new railway strategies should aid this. In response to Councillor Clarke, Malcom Holmes stated that Warwickshire is one of the most rail proactive West Midland authorities and agreed to support where possible with longer-term aspirations for northbound services from Nuneaton and other developments. Following a question raised by the Chair, Malcom Holmes stated that it is anticipated that the line through Kenilworth station would still be fully doubled track in the future. Jonny Wiseman (Customer Experience Director, West Midlands Trains) introduced himself to the committee. He stated that the Covid-19 crisis allowed West Midlands Trains (WMT) to run an effective timetable, enabling them to see what can be achieved in future. WMT negotiated with their stakeholders and WMRE to ensure timetables meet demand and capacity. Since opening, Kenilworth station’s footfall and ticket sales increased annually but Covid-19 halted this; social distancing measures and protective screens have been implemented. Regionally, a reduced timetable was implemented in April 2020, but this had been expanded since. A significant number of WMT colleagues were self-isolating but this has reduced, allowing WMT to implement their timetables. Jonny Wiseman continued that cleaning and the cleaning staff have been increased; face mask posters, social distancing measures and floor markings have been implemented in

Page 4 of 7


stations. Jonny Wiseman concluded that they will be providing face masks from the 6th July when their timetables are increased. Francis Thomas (Head of Corporate Affairs, West Midlands Trains) informed the committee that WMT have worked with West Midland based authorities and transport operators to raise public awareness of what WMT are doing and provide consistency; this included 220 media appearances. WMT stakeholders have been updated with newsletters which is available to the public. Francis Thomas continued that they had attended other council meetings and provided virtual briefings to spread awareness and extend their messages reach. Commuters have been encouraged to travel at quieter periods and only when necessary; testimonials from frontline staff have been used too. Francis Thomas concluded that social distancing would be a problem at 20% of the normal capacity and WMT are encouraging commuters to buy and obtain refunds for their tickets online. The Chair thanked all the speakers for attending the meeting. 5. WCC Covid Recovery Approach

Mark Ryder introduced the item. The paper built onto the Covid-19 recovery report that was

presented at June’s Cabinet meeting and set out the direction for recovery. Mark Ryder continued

that recovery is at various spatial levels and everything is interlinked; for example, public transport

being affected and effecting the wider economy. The recovery phase was split into three stages: a

foundation stage which included improving council services and helping local businesses, a

consolidation and acceleration phase. Mark Ryder concluded that Cabinet agreed four themes of

the recovery approach: Place, Economy & Climate, Community and Voluntary Sector, Health,

wellbeing and social care and the Organisation, including the reinstating of services.

It was clarified that the four working groups will produce a report for Cabinet in September. Councillor Holland suggested setting targets for performance indicators. In response to Councillor Kondakor, David Ayton-Hill (Assistant Director – Communities) stated that tourism was flagged as a key sector of work in order to help local businesses, whose trade relies on tourism, to continue. Local businesses are being informed on how to market to and accommodate for domestic tourists, especially in rural areas which are likely to have more tourists. Coventry have altered their City of Culture plans so their programme will run from April 2021 until March 2022. This change is being reviewed to it could feedback into Warwickshire’s tourism sector. Resolved: That the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1. Receives the County Council’s approach to Covid-19 Recovery, as set out in the attached Cabinet report.

2. Commented on the specific issues relevant to the remit of this Committee that should be considered in the development of the Recovery Plan which is due to be submitted to Cabinet in September.

Page 5 of 7


(1) Economic Development Update

In response to the Chair, David Ayton-Hill stated that Warwickshire County Council are set to receive £800 million in government economic recovery grant payments, but this will be withdrawn in future when businesses return to normal. The Council will help businesses to return to normal before funding is withdrawn. The update was noted by the committee.

6. School Safety Zones and Routes Concluding Report

Councillor Fradgely introduced the item and thanked all the officers involved on the TFG. In the last School Safety Zones meeting, members agreed there was more work to do in regard to educating children and parents on walking to school rather than being driven. Councillor Fradgley concluded that due to the Council’s climate change agenda and the Covid-19 crisis, the new TFG as recommended in the report, would be beneficial now. Councillors Kondakor and Holland stated that a slower speed limit needs to be implemented around all schools. Councillor Philips informed the committee that if enough 20mph signs are erected in an area then PCSO’s (Police Community Support Officers) will enforce them. Councillor Kondakor added that economic and housing growth in Warwickshire have made roads a barrier for cyclists and pedestrians. Councillor Andy Crump (Portfolio Holder for Fire and Community Safety) stated that the Road Safety team were reminding parents to slow down around schools and there have been a list of programmes carried out, but peer pressure is also needed. He concluded that there is a need to carry out programmes that encourage walking. Resolved:

That the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1) Notes the developments carried out by officers as part of the School Safety Zones Task Force since April 2015

2) Agrees that a Task and Finish Group be established to explore education-based ways of encouraging more children to walk / scooter / cycle in safety to their schools and report on costed options to inform the refreshed MTFS (Medium Term Finance Strategy).

7. Communities OSC Work Programme Councillor Kondakor queried if electric buses could be incorporated into the bus provision item coming to September’s committee. Resolved That the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes the work programme

Page 6 of 7


8. Urgent Items None. 9. Reports Containing Confidential or Exempt Information Resolved That members of the public be excluded from the meeting for the items below on the grounds that their presence would involve the disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended. 10. Exempt Minutes for 12 February 2020 Resolved The exempt minutes of the 12 February 2020 meeting were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chair. The meeting rose at 15:45

…………………………. Chair

Page 7 of 7


Thursday, 23 July 2020

Minutes Attendance Committee Members Councillor Dave Shilton Councillor Jenny Fradgley Councillor Clare Golby Councillor Seb Gran Councillor John Holland Councillor Andy Jenns Councillor Keith Kondakor Councillor Andy Sargeant Councillor Bhagwant Singh Pandher Councillor Andrew Wright 1. General

(1) Apologies None.


None.

2. Election of Chair Councillor Dave Shilton proposed that Councillor Clare Golby be Chair of the Committee. This was seconded by Councillor Andy Jenns. Councillor Keith Kondakor proposed that Councillor Seb Gran be Chair of the Committee. There was no seconder. Resolved That Councillor Clare Golby be elected Chair of Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 3. Election of Vice Chair Councillor Clare Golby proposed that Councillor Dave Shilton be Vice Chair of the Committee and was seconded by Councillor Andy Wright.

Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 2


There were no other nominations. Resolved That Councillor Dave Shilton be elected Vice Chair of the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

…………………………. Chair

Page 2 of 2

Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee

23 September 2020

Questions to Cabinet and Portfolio Holders

Recommendation

That the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee considers the forthcoming Cabinet and Portfolio Holder decisions relevant to its remit, asking questions and considering areas for further scrutiny, where appropriate.

1.0 Cabinet and Portfolio Holder Decisions

1.1 The decisions relevant to the remit of the Committee are listed below. Members are encouraged to seek updates on decisions and identify topics for pre-decision scrutiny. They are also encouraged to submit questions to Democratic Services two working days before the meeting, in order that an informed response may be given. The responsible Portfolio Holders have been invited to the meeting to answer questions from the Committee.

1.2 The list was last updated from the Forward Plan on 24 August 2020.

Decision Title Description Date Decision Maker

Home to School Transport Policy

Recommendation to Cabinet following public consultation on the proposed change to the definition of a pupil's qualifying school

10 September 2020

Cabinet

Place Shaping – Update paper

n/a 10 September 2020

Cabinet

On-street parking management changes

Revised proposals for on-street parking management in the light of consultation feedback and the impacts of Covid-19

8 October 2020

Cabinet

Local Transport Plan Refresh

Proposed project to develop a new Local Transport Plan to reflect the latest drivers and priorities for Warwickshire

8 October 2020

Cabinet

Transforming Nuneaton (Highway Improvements) CIF Bid

CIF bid for highway improvements 13 October 2020

County Council

(Exempt) Transforming Nuneaton - Vicarage Street Development Site.

A report concerning a site linked to the regeneration of Nuneaton town centre.

12 November 2020

Cabinet

Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 3

2.0 Background Papers

None

Name Contact details

Report Author Isabelle Moorhouse [email protected]

Assistant Director

Sarah Duxbury

Page 2 of 2

mailto:[email protected]

Communities O&S – September 2020

Economic Development Update

The following briefing note provides an update to the Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee on recent economic development activity in Warwickshire. It covers work undertaken by County Council officers and partners across a range of services and areas as well as other key pieces of relevant news and information.

Warwickshire County Council

Significant work continues on economic recovery planning and a range of initiatives to support businesses and the economy. Cabinet have now approved allocations of £608,418 from the Place Shaping and Capital Feasibility Investment Fund to support the next phase of the economic recovery in Warwickshire and the Council’s Covid-19 Recovery Plan. The projects are: o Survive, Sustain, Grow

The funding will be used for an intensive business survival programme for businesses most affected by Covid-19. Specialist advisors will work with business owners on a bespoke, 1:1 basis to review the business and its financial position, explore diversification and growth options, and to help them develop an action plan. The programme will focus on sectors most affected by Covid-19 (retail, tourism, hospitality & leisure, and manufacturing). It will be complemented by existing/ new finance support including new CIF retail and Covid-19 recovery grants.

o Art Challenge for Economic Recovery The project aims to enliven and provide creative ways to support safe movement, social distancing and community confidence around our town centres and outdoor spaces, to encourage shoppers and visitors back to the high street and to support active travel. The project will also create linkages with initiatives being delivered as part of Coventry City of Culture, strengthening Warwickshire’s contribution to 2021 and to the celebration of art and culture in public spaces. Creative place curators will be commissioned to deliver a £194,000 Government capital grant, through the Coventry & Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership, for art and culture based public realm regeneration in the north of the county as well as to deliver art interventions elsewhere across the county.

o Employee Assistance for Economic Recovery

This project focusses on a Mental Health and Wellbeing support offer to independent micro high street businesses, through expanding the WCC Employee Assistance Provision. It will provide a paid for support mechanism which allows for staff from these businesses to access counselling and other resources which would not normally be available to them.

Page 1 of 6 Agenda Item 3(1)

o Marketing and Promotion for Economic Recovery The funding is to support an enhanced marketing campaign to promote Warwickshire as an open and safe tourism destination, to include support for existing Destination Management Organisation activity, additional targeted collective marketing, and support for small independent tourism businesses. The focus will be on promoting rural tourism to relevant domestic markets. It will require a coordinator, a commissioned consultant, to steer and deliver the work, liaising with multiple local, regional and national partners.

o Tech Challenge for Economic Recovery The funds will be used on the two winning ideas from a competition to encourage projects and ideas to come forward that can help support the retail and cultural sectors with solutions to the challenges they face. The aim is to encourage businesses to adapt to the Covid-19 crisis, ensuring jobs are retained, whilst adopting a more digital approach and increasing skills levels and confidence of introducing digital capabilities into their business.

These projects are the first investments from the £4 million earmarked by Cabinet to support the immediate economic recovery phase.

Coventry and Warwickshire Reinvestment Trust has now allocated loans worth £1.56 million to 15 small businesses in Warwickshire as part of the Government (CBILS) Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme. CWRT – a not-for-profit, FCA accredited finance provider – are among the approved lenders for the CBILS alongside all the major banks. WCC moved quickly in March to agree a loan to CWRT to allow it to support small businesses unable to secure loans from mainstream lenders. WCC’s £1 million loan was followed by a further £750,000 from NBBC, RBC and WDC. The CWRT loans have so far safeguarded 217 jobs across Warwickshire and they are expected to support the creation of at least 44 new jobs as the economy recovers.

WCC has launched a new £250,000 Retail and Hospitality Recovery and Investment Grant Fund to support the retail and hospitality sectors in the county. Small businesses in these sectors could apply for grants of between £2,000 to £7,500 to put towards the costs of capital investments. This could be refurbishing or refitting property to increase footfall, creating an online sales presence, investing in dedicated IT and computer software or the purchase of minor equipment. 192 applications worth £1,090,194 were submitted in Round 1 which closed on 11th September 2020. It is expected that there will be further opportunities to apply later in the year. This grant scheme is funded through previous allocations from the Capital Investment Fund to the wider small capital grants programme for business, and a further extension of £750,000 to this programme to provide additional support was approved by Cabinet in September.

WCC has launched a further phase of its Digital Training Programme for Retailers. It is open to all “bricks and mortar” retail and hospitality businesses to help reach and connect customers through online and social media tools. Covid-19 has shown that now customers are online more than ever before and the

Page 2 of 6

https://business.warwickshire.gov.uk/wsmb-edition-may-13/news-in-brief/Coronavirus%20Business%20Interruption%20Loan%20Scheme

workshops will help retailers embrace digital trends to grow their business. Interest has been very strong, highlighting the important role that digital platforms will play in the recovery of the retail sector. It is delivered by Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with Stories Marketing: https://www.cw-chamber.co.uk/business-support/towncentres/

Covid Secure in the Workplace – WCC and its local authority partners are continuing to advise businesses on how they can operate safely in light of updated guidance from Government. This includes practical guidance and webinars where businesses can hear from a panel of experts from Public Health, Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Community Safety, Fire and Rescue and Warwickshire Police. https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/coronavirusbacktoworkguidance

“Buy Local” PPE campaign – WCC is encouraging local businesses to source

their personal protective equipment from local suppliers. The ‘Find it in CW’ portal

and CW Chamber Recovery Hub both list businesses based in the area that

supply PPE. The message is part of the wider campaign encouraging us all to

“Buy and Eat Local”.

The Coventry and Warwickshire Duplex Investment Fund – which provides a combined loan and grant to businesses towards the costs of capital investments – has supported a further Warwickshire business. Duplex has now provided loans worth £359,848 to six businesses in Warwickshire across a range of sectors. The investments have safeguarded 30 jobs and are expected to create a further 21.5 jobs. Duplex is funded by a £1 million loan from WCC’s Capital Investment Fund as well as by funding from Coventry City Council, the Government’s Growth Deal and Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership. One of the first businesses supported by Duplex, XPD Print Limited in Offchurch, was featured in the press in August: https://www.cwlep.com/news/investment-and-expansion-warwickshire-printing-business.

WCC’s Small Capital Grants Programme – which provides grants to small businesses with growth plans – has supported a further three businesses. The three grants worth £43,128 are expected to create 5.5 jobs. The programme has now provided grants worth over £1.68 million to 91 businesses, unlocking over £3.35 million of private sector investment and creating 172 new jobs across the county. A luxury chocolate maker based in Leamington, Cenu Cacao, and an exhibition and display specialist based in Harbury, Kaleidoscope Displays Ltd (K Display), were the latest grant recipients to feature in Warwickshire Means Business in August: https://business.warwickshire.gov.uk/august-27-2020/news-in-brief/luxury-chocolate-shop-opens-its-doors-in-leamington https://business.warwickshire.gov.uk/august-27-2020/news-in-brief/warwickshire-exhibition-specialists-growing-their-services

Page 3 of 6

https://www.cw-chamber.co.uk/business-support/towncentres/

https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/coronavirusbacktoworkguidance

https://www.cwlep.com/news/investment-and-expansion-warwickshire-printing-business

https://www.cwlep.com/news/investment-and-expansion-warwickshire-printing-business

https://business.warwickshire.gov.uk/august-27-2020/news-in-brief/luxury-chocolate-shop-opens-its-doors-in-leamington

https://business.warwickshire.gov.uk/august-27-2020/news-in-brief/luxury-chocolate-shop-opens-its-doors-in-leamington

https://business.warwickshire.gov.uk/august-27-2020/news-in-brief/warwickshire-exhibition-specialists-growing-their-services

https://business.warwickshire.gov.uk/august-27-2020/news-in-brief/warwickshire-exhibition-specialists-growing-their-services

Kickstart – Government has launched the new Kickstart scheme which will create hundreds of thousands of new, fully subsidised jobs for young people across the country. The scheme will create six month placements open to those aged 16-24 who are claiming Universal Credit and at risk of long-term unemployment. There will also be extra funding to support young people to build their experience and to help them move into sustained employment after they have completed their Kickstart-funded job. Employers will receive funding for 100% of the relevant National Minimum Wage for 25 hours a week, plus associated employer National Insurance contributions and employer minimum auto-enrolment pension contributions. DWP are now accepting applications from employers and groups of employer. The first placements are likely to be available from November. WCC officers are working with DWP and other partners (WMCA, CCC, Chamber of Commerce) to co-ordinate promotion of the scheme in Warwickshire and to encourage and to support employers to participate. We are also considering what role WCC should play as an employer in our own right.

Redundancy support – WCC officers are working with DWP and other partners (CWLEP Growth Hub, Chamber of Commerce, CCC, etc) to develop, promote and implement a joined-up approach to redundancies across Warwickshire including support packages for both businesses and employees. We are also developing a new “staff sharing model” to help businesses avoid job loss and address skills shortages.

Digital careers offer – We are supporting secondary schools and colleges to adapt their careers work to digital content, and to create a “Future Careers Digital Market Place” (films for use in careers talks and a forum for digital careers events and interactive employer engagement). A pilot programme is being supported by the Skills for Employment programme and it is hoped that a further allocation from the Place Shaping and Capital Feasibility Fund will allow a significant expansion to the activity.

Coventry & Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership / CWLEP Growth Hub

The Coventry & Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (CWLEP) has been with Government to promote and facilitate the new Getting Building Fund. The CWLEP undertook a call for projects, and considered 21 projects totalling £21.6m before negotiating and agreeing which projects in Warwickshire would be funded. Eight projects, which are now undergoing detailed assessment by the CWLEP ahead of any grant offer letters being sent, have been successful in securing funding totalling £8.1m, including four from Warwickshire County Council. The four WCC projects are:

o the Warwickshire Cycle Links project which will deliver 7km of new or improved cycle routes (£1.9m)

o the Warwickshire Green Recovery Project which will invest in EV charging point infrastructure (£350k)

o the North Warwickshire and Nuneaton Arts Challenge Fund (£195k), and o Holly Walk Digital Creative Office Space in Leamington (£500k)

Page 4 of 6

The other projects supported are: workspace for creative businesses in the Co-op Building in Nuneaton; funding to support the development of a retirement village in Rugby; investment in Stratford College to enhance training delivery; and new waterside pathways and parking in Stratford to create a new route into the town centre.

CWLEP Growth Hub – WCC continues to work closely with CWLEP Growth Hub, Chamber of Commerce, the FSB, our District & Borough Councils and other partners to co-ordinate and provide support to local businesses. It is estimated that the partners have supported 3,000 businesses since 1st March 2020. Growth Hubs have also been administering new ERDF specialist grants on behalf of Government. CWLEP Growth Hub had an allocation of £312,000 from the new £20 million scheme and a further £188,000 from a £10 million Kick-starting Tourism Package specifically for tourism businesses. Small and medium sized enterprises were able to apply for small grants towards the costs of specialist professional advice such as HR, legal or financial expertise, adopting new technology and online systems, and purchasing minor equipment. The scheme – which was expected to support 200 businesses across Coventry and Warwickshire – was opened for applications on 24th August 2020. It had to close on 26th August due to the overwhelming demand. Applications are now being assessed and the CWLEP Growth Hub has confirmed that the grants will be allocated on a “first come first served” basis.

The CWLEP are working on a Reset Strategic Framework, which seeks to review, update and expand the existing Strategic Economic Plan for the Coventry & Warwickshire area and set the key priorities and opportunities for growth and investment in the sub-region in a post-Covid economy. The plan will be important in shaping potential future investment programmes from Government, and will provide a clear set of jointly agreed strategic priorities across the private and public sector to support economic recovery and growth.

The CWLEP, working with CCC and WCC, are creating a “Golden Book” (a pitch document for inward investment) for a “Gigafactory”. Gigafactory is a term coined by the Tesla company to describe their factory in Nevada, because it was designed to produce batteries with ‘gigawatt-hours’ of storage capacity. It has since been used to describe any large facility for the production of batteries, and sometimes vehicles on the same site, in excess of 1m sqft. By way of illustration, the largest factory building in Warwickshire is BMW’s engine plant at Hams Hall, which is 1m sqft, and constructed in 2000. The most recent building of that scale locally is Euro Car Parts at Birch Coppice, which is 778,000sqft and was completed in 2015. Department for International Trade (DIT) states that the Gigafactory investment will bring investment of £1bn - £1.8bn and 3000 new jobs. There are five potential locations for a Gigafactory in Coventry & Warwickshire:

o J9 M42 Strategic Employment Site (IM Properties) o MIRA Technology Park – Southern Manufacturing Sector (HORIBA-MIRA) o Coventry Airport Site (CCC/ Rigby Group) o Segro Park Coventry Gateway (formerly known as Coventry &

Warwickshire Gateway) - SEGRO

Page 5 of 6

o Gaydon Employment Hub, Stratford-on-Avon (Gaydon employment land extension) – CEG/ Bird Group

Business News

Lotus Cars has announced that it is to establish a new advanced technology centre on the University of Warwick’s Wellesbourne campus. The centre will also be home to a new headquarters for the company’s engineering consultancy.

Page 6 of 6

Coventry & Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership

Presentation to Warwickshire County Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee

23 September 2020

Paula DeasCWLEP Deputy Chief Executive

Page 1 of 21

Agenda Item

4

Martin Yardley – Chief ExecutivePaula Deas – Deputy Chief ExecutiveKate Hughes – Head of Strategy & EngagementCraig Humphrey – Growth Hub MDIain Patrick – Company SecretaryNicky Cox – Office ManagerApril Wickens – Executive Assistant Stacy O’Connor – Digital Creative LeadGemma Gathercole – Productivity & Skills ExecAndy Davis - Strategy & Analytics ExecNic Erskine – Exec Director C&W Place &

Champions

Cllr Izzi Seccombe: Leader, Warwickshire County CouncilCllr George Duggins: Leader, Coventry City CouncilNick Abell: Chair, CWLEP; Chairman Wright HassallCllr David Wright: Leader, North Warks Borough CouncilCllr Julie Jackson: Leader, Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council Cllr Andrew Day: Leader, Warwick District CouncilCllr Sebastian Lowe: Leader, Rugby Borough CouncilCllr Tony Jefferson: Leader, Stratford on Avon District CouncilCllr Stuart Bray: Leader, Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council

CHAIRNick Abell

Jonathan Browning: Cllr Jim O’Boyle: Cabinet Member, Coventry City CouncilJess Jeetly: Founder, Jeetly Fashion Cllr Peter Butlin: Deputy Leader, Warwickshire County CouncilSean Farnell: Partner, Burgis & Bullock (Chamber/FSB Rep.) Cllr David Wright: Leader, North Warks Borough Council Parveen Rai: Director, Rai Property Investments Cllr Julie Jackson: Leader, Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough CouncilSarah Windrum: CEO, Emerald Group Cllr Jill Simpson-Vince: Cabinet Member, Rugby Borough Council Nick Spencer: Director, Jaguar Land Rover Cllr Andrew Day: Leader, Warwick District CouncilZamurad Hussain: MD, HBT Communications Cllr Tony Jefferson: Leader, Stratford on Avon District CouncilMarion Plant: CEO, North Warks & South Leics College Cllr David Bill: Deputy Leader, Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Helen Peters: CEO, Shakespeare’s England (observer status)Tony Minhas: MD, Foleshill Metal Finishing Ltd

Prof John Latham: Vice-Chancellor, Coventry UniversityProf Stuart Croft: Vice-Chancellor, University of Warwick TBC: FE College Principals: (observer status)

C&W Growth Hub Ltd

Growth Hub

Subsidiary Board

Finance & Governance

Board Wider Executive GroupPaula Deas Deputy Chief Executive, CWLEPMartin Yardley Chief Executive, CWLEPBarry Hastie Section 151 Officer, CCCMonica Fogarty Chief Executive, WCCSteve Maxey Chief Executive, NWBC Mannie Ketley Executive Director, RBCChris Elliott Chief Executive, WDCDavid Buckland Executive Director, SDCBrent Davis Managing Director, N&BBCBill Cullen Chief Executive, H&BBCCraig Humphrey MD, C&W Growth HubIain Patrick Company Secretary, CWLEPClive Winters Associate Pro-VC, Coventry UniversityKate Hughes Head of Strategy & Engagement,

CWLEPStacy O’Connor Digital Creative Lead, CWLEPGemma Gathercole Productivity & Skills Executive, CWLEPAndy Davis Strategy & Analytics Executive, CWLEP

Planning & Housing

S M E Group International

Productivity & Skills

Culture & Tourism

Transport & Infrastructure

Digital & Creative

Sean Farnell (Int’mChair)John LathamCllr Tony JeffersonParveen RaiZamurad Hussain (Int’m)

Martyn Hollingsworth (Chair)Martin YardleyMonica FogartyBrian Colquhoun

Les Ratcliffe (Chair)David Shortland

Programme Delivery Board

Nick Abell (Chair)Zamurad HussainTony Minhas

Coventry & Warwickshire, Hinckley & Bosworth Joint Committee

Coventry & Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership Board - Transition

CWLEP Board Directors Members of• WMCA Board – Nick Abell (Interim Chair)• Strategic Economic Development Board – Nick Abell• Audit & Standards Committee - Sean Farnell• Scrutiny Committee - Sarah Windrum• WM5G board - John Latham• Investment Board - Nick Abell, Tony Jefferson• Housing and Land Delivery Board - Peter Butlin/Bill Blincoe• Regional Skills Advisory Board - Marion Plant

Infra-Structure – Power

CWLEP Executive &Secretariat

Nick AbellMartin Yardley/Paula Deas

Sean FarnellCraig Humphrey

Sarah WindrumStacy O’Connor

Helen PetersSteve Maxey/Kate Hughes

Peter ButlinMartin Yardley/Bill Blincoe

Stuart Croft/Marion PlantGemma Gathercole

Jim O’BoyleMark Ryder

C&W HS2

Working Group

Business Festival

C&W Place Board

C&W Champions

Ltd

Growth Hub Business Solutions

Ltd

Page 2 of 21

• LEPs established to drive the government's growth agenda at local level, to support growth in jobs and productivity and also local economic resilience - to withstand both local and global economic shocks in future.

• We work in collaboration with our private and public partners and local anchor institutions and in the context of regional and national organisations and their own strategies.

• Our aim is to deliver innovative and sustainable interventions and activities, to provide the support and drive growth that will complement and add value to the existing programmes and plans of others where there exist.

Our role

CW Economic Reset Taskforce

and Business Groups

Transport & Infrastructure

Planning & Housing

Culture & Tourism

Digital & Creative

Productivity & Skills

SME

International

CW Champions

Page 3 of 21

A46 STANKS ISLAND

FUNDED BY LOCAL GROWTH FUND

ALLOCATION

THROUGH COVENTRY AND

WARWICKSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE

PARTNERSHIP

A452 EUROPA WAY CORRIDOR

COMMONWEALTH GAMES 2022

ROYAL LEAMINGTON SPA

WARWICKSHIRE COLLEGE STEM

TRANSFORMING NUNEATON

TRIDENT APPRENTICESHIP CENTRE

ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY –

COSTUME WORKSHOP

SHAKESPEARE’S HENLEY STREET

£43.5M

GROWTH DEAL FUNDINGSECURED

AND ALLOCATED FOR WARWICKSHIRE

EXPECTED BY THE END OF THE PROGRAMME

TO CREATE…

1,352NEW JOBS AND

APPRENTICESHIPS

3,962NEW HOMES

18.54KM

NEWLY BUILT AND

RESURFACED ROAD

CONSTRUCTION CENTRE

LEAMINGTON

WARWICK ARTS CENTRE

3,139INDIRECT JOBS

11,312M2

COMMERCIAL SPACE

2,427M2

NEW SKILLS SPACE

……………………………………………………………….…….

……………………………………………………………….…….

……………………………………………………………………..

Page 5 of 21


ALLOCATION



PARTNERSHIP

£4.1MGROWTH DEAL FUNDING ALLOCATED

TOWARDS A46 STANKS ISLAND

The A46 Stanks Island will…

ADDRESS SERIOUS CONGESTION ON THE A46

STRATEGIC ROAD NETWORK BY CARRYING OUT

HIGHWAYS WORKS THAT WILL IMPROVE TRAFFIC

CIRCULATION DURING PEAK PERIODS, ADDRESS

TRAFFIC QUEUES ON THE A46 SLIP ROADS AND

PREPARE FOR FUTURE PREDICTED TRAFFIC INCREASES

……………………………………………………………….…….

CONTRIBUTE TO WARWICKSHIRE’S COMMITMENT TO

REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS THROUGH

SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL OPTIONS

……………………………………………………………………..

A46 Stanks Island

……………………………………………………………………..

IMPROVE WARWICKSHIRE’S TRANSPORT

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENHANCE WARWICKSHIRE’S

ATTRACTIVENESS AS A PLACE TO INVEST

“These works will do a lot to ease transport pressures on Stanks

Island and the Birmingham Road corridor in Warwick and

commuters will see a huge improvement once they are finished.

The works will also make it possible to cycle or walk into Warwick

from the surrounding areas contributing to Warwickshire’s

commitment to increasing opportunities for sustainable travel and

reduced carbon emissions.”

- Councillor Jeff Clarke, WCC, Transport and Planning

Page 6 of 21


ALLOCATION



PARTNERSHIP


TOWARDS EUROPA WAY CORRIDOR

EUROPA WAY CORRIDOR WILL:

……………………………………………………………….…….

IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND REDUCE JOURNEY

TIMES, BENEFITTING COMMUTERS AND BUSINESSES

AND MAKING THE REGION A MORE ATTRACTIVE

PLACE TO LIVE, WORK AND INVEST IN

……………………………………………………………………..

A452 Europa Way Corridor

……………………………………………………………………..

CONTRIBUTE TO THE REDUCTION OF LOCAL CARBON

EMISSIONS BY PROVIDING EASIER ACCESS TO

SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL OPTIONS LIKE CYCLING AND

WALKING

"This area is key to Warwickshire's economy and it needs a robust

transport infrastructure if we are to attract and retain businesses

and the employment they bring. The transport improvements

around Europa Way will benefit both residents and businesses by

reducing congestion and journey times, while the sustainable

travel improvements will give people a greater range of travel

options.”

- Councillor Jeff Clarke, WCC, Transport and Planning

CONTRIBUTE TO THOUSANDS OF NEW HOMES, A

NEW SCHOOL, OPEN SPACES, AND COMMUNITY

FACILITIES TO ENSURE FUTURE SUSTAINABLE

GROWTH IN THE REGION

Page 7 of 21


ALLOCATION



PARTNERSHIP


TOWARDS TRANSFORMING NUNEATON

Transforming Nuneaton will:

……………………………………………………………….…….

DRIVE INVESTMENT (UP TO £50M) AND CREATE

NEW JOBS (UP TO 400) AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

LOCAL PEOPLE

……………………………………………………………………..

Transforming Nuneaton

……………………………………………………………………..

“In partnership with Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council,

Warwickshire County Council, through its many roles including

land owner, investor, highway and strategic transport planning

authority, is proud to be driving change in this great town.

Nuneaton has so much to offer and working together with all

stakeholders in the town our vision is to fully maximise that offer

to make Nuneaton a great place to live and work in and visit."

- Catherine Marks, Programme Manager

DELIVER THE TRANSFORMATION OF NUNEATON

TOWN CENTRE, BY IMPLEMENTING MIXED-USE

REGENERATION FOR BOOSTING ECONOMIC GROWTH

CREATE A BETTER, DIVERSE AND SUSTAINABLE

OFFER FOR LOCAL PEOPLE IN TERMS OF RETAIL,

LEISURE AND EMPLOYMENT RESULTING IN NEW

BUSINESSES INVESTING IN THE TOWN)

Page 8 of 21


ALLOCATION



PARTNERSHIP


TOWARDS CWG 2022 AT ROYAL

LEAMINGTON SPA

CWG 2022 at Royal Leamington Spa

will…

……………………………………………………………….…….

……………………………………………………………………..

Commonwealth Games 2022

at Royal Leamington Spa

……………………………………………………………………..

“The Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games will put Royal

Leamington Spa on the global stage with thousands of spectators

arriving at the town’s railway station. The funding will also

enhance the existing bowling greens and buildings within Victoria

Park to provide world class facilities for players, officials and

visitors alike.”

- Nick Abell, Chair, Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise

Partnership

MAKE ESSENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BOWLS VENUE

SERVICES - POWER, SEWAGE, DATA, SECURITY ON

SITE TO ENABLE A SUCCESSFUL CG BOWLS AND PARA

BOWLS COMPETITION

REDEVELOP LEAMINGTON SPA’S RAIL STATION

FORECOURT AND STATION UNDERPASS AS PART OF

A SUITE OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BOOST

INFRASTRUCTURE IN ROYAL LEAMINGTON SPA

AHEAD THE BIRMINGHAM 2022 COMMONWEALTH

GAMES.

ATTRACT FURTHER INVESTMENT AND REAPEAT

VISITORS TO THE REGION THROUGH A POSITIVE

COMMONWEALTH GAMES 2022 LEGACY

Page 9 of 21

Coventry & Warwickshire’s economy – pre-CovidWhere we were in March 2020……..

• Over the previous decade CW economy had grown at a rate unsurpassed by any other LEP area in the country

• Economic growth, measured by total GVA and productivity, both grew by 45%

• Manufacturing, showed outstanding performance as the fastest growing sector in the country, growing over 110% over the decade

• CW employment rate stood at 75.9%, and grew by 5.4% since 2014, faster than growth seen in the WMCA area (4.2%) and England (3.8%)

• Unemployment rate of 3.8%, was lower than the regional (5.1%) and national rates (4.1%)

• Average workplace earnings in 2018 were £30,2713, having grown 12.6% since 2014. This growth was higher than any of the other LEP areas

• CW held a top 10 growth position since 2014 (15.5%) amongst all LEP areas on proportion of people aged 16-64 with an NVQ Level 4 or above, at 38.2%

Page 10 of 21

CW Local Economy - Economic recovery planning timeline

1. Crisis Response

2. Foundation (initial recovery)

3. Consolidation

4. Acceleration

Immediate financial support (grants, CBILs, Job Retention, etc.)

Automatic stabilisers (Universal Credit)

Local advice & signposting

Support businesses to safely re-open

Confidence to residents and employees

Changes to public realm

Identifying local need and developing targeted support

Evaluating impact of initial employment support measures

Realignment/repurposing of local business support

Start-up, growth, new business opportunity areas

Targeted and appropriate finance support for businesses

Kickstarting and accelerating development

Employment support and reskilling

New growth opportunities

Productivity, innovation, technology

Mental Health & Wellbeing

Exploiting changing behaviours and preferences

Inward Investment

Place-shaping

Low carbon/Green recovery

5G

Completed

UnderwayMay to August

June 2020 to Spring 2021?

2021 onwards?

Local Lockdowns

FoundationConsolidation

Acceleration

Future outbreaks or local lockdowns will result in having to go back to revisit elements of earlier phases

• There are overlaps between the phases

• Need to find the balance between health and wealth

Page 11 of 21

Economic Reset Objectives - “One Coventry & Warwickshire”

Fundamental reset of the

economy

Re-imagination of productivity. Embedded

approaches to workforce health

& wellbeing

CW as the safest place to live, work, invest, study, and

enjoy

Every business as a new business

Build on existing sector strengths

Longer term priorities, and

pipeline of projects, for future

investment and funding

A green and sustainable reset

and recovery

Recalibrated priorities for

capital infrastructure and revenue/enabling

support

Page 12 of 21

CWLEP Economic Reset Strategic Pillars

Good jobs & levelling-up

opportunities

Leading innovation

Green sustainable

future

Bold approaches

to enterprise

Re-imagining our

communities, forging global connections

Transforming infrastructure

These will: • Frame our strategy and priorities, build on strengths but also identify vulnerabilities and barriers we

need to address • Shape our funding ‘asks’ to government, also with and via the WMCA and Midlands Engine• Recognise continued uncertainty as we live with COVID-19, anticipate a new framework for devolution,

future fiscal events and prepare for exit from the EU and new international trading regimes.

Page 13 of 21

What levers and influence can we use, and when?

• Direct to government: e.g. MHCLG, BEIS, HMT and No. 10

• Through the national LEP Network

• Through the Mayor and WMCA

• Collaboration with influencers/funders and partnership working e.g. through Growth

Hub architecture, trade bodies, BRO’s and local authorities

Milestones and policy landscape:

Other Interim Funding Announcements

GBF AnnouncementPotential Departmental Announcements, e.g.

Project BIRCH

Devolution White Paper

Spending Review & Budget

Brexit/Post Transition

Page 14 of 21

1. Future Funding

• Getting Building Fund - call in June inviting proposals

• Key criteria from Government: i) Job Creation; ii) Green Recovery

• Announcements made in August 2020

• Warwickshire awarded £8.1m

• Projects to be completed in 18 months

Next Steps – our ask to you:

• Developing our Project Pipeline, working with partners

• Encouraging project ideas and development of Full Business Cases

Page 15 of 21

GETTING BUILDING FUND via

COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE LOCAL

ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP

Catalyst Nuneaton

Town Centre Supports the creation of

jobs by providing flexible,

character office/workspace

to accommodate and

support new and innovative

micro and SME businesses

Warwickshire cycle

links project

New and improved cycle

routes delivered county

wide

North Warwickshire and

Nuneaton Arts Challenge

FundFund to engage local artists to

create innovative new experiences

Warwickshire Green Recovery

projectPackage of measures to encourage uptake

of electric mobility by Warwickshire

residents through expansion of on-street

charging points and a trial of E-car Clubs

Holly Walk Digital

Creative Office SpaceRenovation of WCC office in

need of significant repair and

refurbishment to create much

needed new employment space

for the growing gaming and

digital creative sector

Caldecott Square,

RugbyReturn a site back into use

by creating a high-quality

vibrant retirement scheme

Stratford Upon Avon

College Culture, Media &

Construction AssetsNew curriculum to upskills local

residents in vulnerable sectors

Stratford upon Avon

Riverside Green Corridor

Improve biodiversity, reduce traffic

impact, encourage more walking /

cycling, provide recreation space

and zero-emission gateways into

the town

£8.1M

GETTING BUILDING SECURED

AND ALLOCATED FOR

WARWICKSHIRE

EXPECTED TO CREATE…

310NEW JOBS

4700INDIRECT JOBS

569NEW LEARNERS

ASSISTED

435BUSINESSES

ASSISTED

Page 16 of 21

2. Strong Business Engagement

Page 17 of 21

CWLEP Growth Hub

Warwickshire Businesses:New Engagements 2019/20 1275New Engagements 2020/21 720 (to date)

Intensive Assists 2019/20 385Intensive Assists 2020/21 435 (to date)(figures rounded)

Warwickshire Business - Grant Referrals values2019/20 145 worth £3,500,0002020/21 340 worth £1,100,000(figures rounded)

https://www.cwgrowthhub.co.uk/case-studies

Across Coventry & Warwickshire the Growth Hub has supported 2,980 businesses since 1st March and has had substantive discussions with 1,082 businesses

Page 18 of 21

https://www.cwgrowthhub.co.uk/case-studies

3. Careers and Skills

Page 19 of 21

UK Battery Industrialisation Centre (UKBIC) and Gigafactory

• 18,000m2 facility

• £126m investment

• 100 new jobs

• Supporting OEMs and suppliers

• Regional skills base

• Opened March 2020

• UK automotive battery supplychain, worth £5bn pa by 2035

• CWLEP representation on Board

Page 20 of 21

Where next?

• Reset of the economy whilst we live with Covid-19 – a One Coventry & Warwickshire approach

• White paper on Devolution expected (sometime!) – what will it bring in terms of powers and funding?

• Levelling up agenda – how we do this in Coventry & Warwickshire

• Comprehensive Spending Review – helping deliver our priorities

• Delivery … delivery … delivery in the final year of Local Growth Fund

• Increasing already strong role in strategic projects including City of Culture, Gigafactory, Commonwealth Games, Transforming Nuneaton

Page 21 of 21

1


Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report

23 September 2020

Recommendation(s)

1. To note the key findings of the Bus Services Motion Report produced by The TAS Partnership Ltd investigating the items in the Bus Services Motion endorsed by full Council on 17 December 2020

2. To note the proposed Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule consisting of

measures aimed at delivering improvements to the bus services and supporting infrastructure, which The TAS Partnership Ltd has presented in the report following consultation with bus operators, County Council officers, Borough and District officers, Department for Transport and employers

1. Background 1.1 At its meeting on 17 December 2019 the County Council agreed a Motion that

the Strategic Director (Communities) takes a report to Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee responding to the following five objectives:

1. Clarifies and prioritises the Authority’s powers and key objectives in relation to bus provision to enable more consistent and effective negotiations with bus operators. This should include investigating multi-operator ticketing, bus priority measures and improved bus information.

2. Analyses the success of Section 106 developer contributions which have been used to pump prime new bus routes over the last 10 years in Warwickshire and investigates alternative frameworks to incentivise long term successful routes around new developments if necessary.

3. Fully scopes the use of Advanced Quality and Enhanced Partnership schemes as set out in the Transport Act 2000 and Bus Services Act 2017, including engagement with operators and sets a date no later than December 2020 to assess whether implementation of the AQ or EP schemes are necessary to achieve the Authority’s key objectives.

4. Considers and assesses the resources required to successfully deliver the Council’s key objectives recognising that any strategy or objectives that emerge from this process must be fully costed before they can be presented to Cabinet and all sources of funding identified.

5. Considers the call by the “Campaign for Better Transport” report called “The Future of the Bus”

1.2 County Council Officers commissioned The TAS Partnership Ltd, a transport

consultancy specialising in public transport policy and provision, to investigate and review the five objectives and produce an independent report founded on a strong and clear evidence base.


2

1.3 The TAS Partnership Ltd sought to provide the required support in three distinct

ways:

Consulting with stakeholders including bus operators, WCC officers, Borough and District Councils officers, Transport for West Midlands, the Department for Transport and local employers over what they think WCC is doing well currently, how it can improve and how best to encourage greater bus use;

Researching best practice examples of where bus patronage has increased and how; and

Outlining current powers and funding WCC has available to help encourage greater bus use.

2. Findings

2.1 The key findings detailed in the independent report are as follows: a) Review of WCC’s powers and key objectives in relation to bus provision to

enable more consistent and effective negotiations with bus operators: The report confirms that the County Council has powers to specify and tender contracted bus services and making de Minimis payments (i.e. paying a bus operator to run a small contract without carrying out a tender exercise) where appropriate, set concessionary fare reimbursement rate and discretionary elements. The County Council also provides and maintains on-street bus stop infrastructure and bus information, e.g. bus shelters, bus priority measures and real time information. The County Council can implement changes to road layout or limit highway access to support bus punctuality and reduce bus journey times. The County Council can object to planning applications on the grounds of detrimental impact on the bus network and lead the process of introducing a bus partnership and/or multi-operator ticketing scheme.

From consultation with bus operators the following views were expressed:

There is best practice regarding the provision of bus priority measures demonstrated by other local authorities, which the County Council could learn from;

All town centres should see some level of pro-bus measures with Stratford-upon-Avon particularly highlighted as an area of need;

Enforcement cameras covering bus priority measures, e.g. bus lanes, were deemed useful;

There is good practice in the provision of roadside publicity demonstrated in some areas, e.g. Warwick and Leamington, which could be introduced to all towns in the county;

The County Council could think about the efficient deployment of Section 106 resources when planning bus routes in order to avoid duplication, particularly regarding services running into Warwickshire which are subsidised by neighbouring local authorities; and

Page 2 of 21

3

The issue of compliance regarding tendered services was discussed with one operator who felt the County Council was not tough enough to deter or root out poor quality operators which give the industry a bad name.

The County Council could take steps to deliver schemes focused on or including bus priority measures, e.g. traffic signals, bus gates and bus lanes. Other steps include improvements to bus information, the delivery of a multi operator bus ticket in the lead up to the Commonwealth Games in 2022 considering some of the events will be in Warwickshire and filling gaps in the Warwickshire Bus Network, e.g. further services calling at Birmingham International Airport/NEC.

b) Success of S106 contributions which have been used to pump prime new

bus routes over the last 10 years in Warwickshire: When Section 106 funding securing the operation of a bus route is due to expire, an assessment of the bus route is undertaken by WCC considering patronage and revenue. In some cases, the bus operator is prepared to continue with the existing route on a commercial basis either at the existing frequency or at a reduced level of service. In other cases, the route is tendered as it stands, at a reduced level or incorporated within an existing contract subsidised by the County Council. In cases where patronage is very low, then Demand Responsive Transport or Flexibus services may be adapted to serve the development.

County Council officers provided The TAS Partnership Ltd with a list of 35 routes which receive or had received S106 funding allocated by the County Council to fund their operation serving development sites. These were divided into six different categories as follows:

I. Newly S106 Funded Routes (2):

Both new routes contracted to the County Council funded via S106 developer contributions should commence operation around September 2020.

II. Routes still S106 Funded by Original Development (7):

There are seven developments in Meon Vale, Weddington, Galley Common, Wellesbourne, Polesworth, Kineton and Newton still provided with bus services operated under contract to the County Council funded via the original developer contribution.

III. Routes still S106 funded but not by the original development (11):

The TAS Partnership Ltd commended the WCC Passenger Transport Team for being able to use new S106 developer contribution resources to continue the development of a bus service when the original developer contribution funding source has expired.

IV. No longer S106 funded and reduced in provision (4):

There are four previously S106 funded bus routes operated under contract to the County Council, which have seen a reduction in service

Page 3 of 21

4

provision. Three of the routes are still operated under contract to the County Council, and thus, receive some level of subsidy which highlights that even at a reduced provision the bus services are still not commercially viable. The other is operated commercially by the bus operator.

V. No longer S106 funded and running at the same frequency (8):

Encouragingly, there are eight bus routes which are no longer funded via a S106 developer contribution but still provide the same level of service to the relevant site. Five of these routes are operated on a commercial basis by the bus operator. The other three are operated under contract to the County Council.

VI. No longer S106 funded and increased in provision (3): Three routes have seen an increase in service provision since the S106 developer contribution funding support expired. Two of these routes are still operated under contract to the County Council. The other is operated commercially by the bus operator. The list of the Section 106 developer contribution funded bus services under the different categories is presented in Table 1 at Appendix A of this report.

The report states that there appears to be little correlation between the size of the site and the likelihood of Section 106 funding being a success. It appears that there are other factors at work instead. However, the sites which are no longer S106 funded and have seen the service provision reduced appear to have been over-provided for in the first place. The report cites examples of Best Practice around the UK for kickstarting a bus service using Section 106 developer contribution funding and ensuring buses are at the heart of any new development, which could be adopted by the County Council going forward. These are as follows: Ensure that the Developer has actively incorporates bus provision into the design and delivery of the development as follows:

Physical Highway Design:

Ensure main arterial road within the development is no less than 6.5 metres wide excluding parked cars, straight and kept clear of parked cars either through designated parking not included in the carriageway width or parking restrictions;

Ensure that the bus stops are where people want to be, i.e. no more than 400metres distance walk from local amenities and dwellings;

Ensure pedestrian access to the bus stop is of good quality including footpaths being provided on either side of main arterial road and side roads; and

Bus stops to be provided with a bus shelter even if this is only on side of the road heading towards the town centre.

Page 4 of 21

5

Internal Road Configuration: The configuration of the internal road should be based around what the bus will do and allow the maximum coverage of the site in the most efficient manner between the entry and exit points of the bus route. This means the developer should have research on the route being either:

The diversion of a current route into the site – this means the entry and exit points are pre-set;

The extension of an existing bus route onto the site – this means the entry point should be as close to the current terminus as possible; or

A new route – this will be focused on linking the site to the nearby large traffic generators such as the town centre, a railway station or a retail park. The entry and exit points should therefore be determined by where the route is likely to go outside of the site. If these are different from the approved Highway Authority locations, bus only roads should be used;

Where a bus friendly route would disrupt the cul-de-sac design or where two developments adjoin, there should be provision for bus only sections of road, in order to avoid costly and time-consuming double running; and

If a bus route is terminating within a development a one-way loop route may allow the greatest coverage of the site.

Marketing the Bus Service: In order to generate patronage of the bus service the occupiers of the development need awareness of its existence and benefits. This means that advertising the service to new residents is key. The report states that far too many Developers ignore the local bus service when they market their properties. The report referred to the Barratt Homes website for Warwick Gates, which fails to mention the bus service running every 15 minutes close to the site. Site plans published on Developers (and supporting parties) websites should include the location of bus stops so that potential residents can see how close they are to the house they are interested in, and how to access the service if they become residents. Welcome Packs: Promotional material for the local bus service should be included in the Welcome Pack received by residents and businesses when moving into a new development. This should include a copy of the bus timetable and a sales promotion, e.g. discounted season tickets and competitions. Bus Stops: The bus stops and complementary infrastructure such as shelters, seating, lighting and information provision play a significant part in the marketing and attractiveness of the service. Making the bus stop feel

Page 5 of 21

6

like part of the development, with attractive shelters, detailed and frequently updated information and branded flags offers security and comfort, drawing people to the service. Ongoing Marketing: Continuous promotion of the bus service supported by branding of the bus to raise awareness and position favourably in the minds of residents. The report highlighted locations where buses serve a development incorporating specific branding relevant to the location, e.g. Newcastle Great Park and Cambridge Guided Busway. Use of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): The report highlights that CIL funding can be used to help bus services as follows:

Improve general road capacity or a junction to reduce congestion;

Provide bus priority measures along the route that the bus serving the site will use;

Build footways with appropriate lighting from the development to nearby bus stops;

Build a new road or upgrade an existing one to act as a bypass – by creating a suitable alternative route for through traffic a town centre could be made more bus friendly.

Demand Responsive Transport (DRT): The County Council to investigate using DRT to serve a new residential development where either:

The size of the development does not justify a fixed bus route; or

There is no obvious single traffic generator meaning a simple fixed bus route would not cater for most of the travel demand.

The report noted that DRT should not be used as a way of providing a bus service to serve a new area just to allow the Developer not to have to make the site suitable for a standard bus. The report presented a case study focused on the Arriva Click DRT service in Leicester, which provides a residential development with access to Leicester City Centre, employment at Foss Park, two universities and retail amenities.

c) Use of Advanced Quality or Enhanced Partnership:

The basic principles of the three bus partnership types available to local authorities following the Bus Services Act 2017 are as follows:

Voluntary Partnership;

Advanced Quality Partnership; and

Enhanced Partnership. In addition to this we also include franchising to complete the coverage of the Bus Service Act 2017. I. Voluntary Partnership:

Page 6 of 21

7

Voluntary Partnerships were one of the two types of partnerships (along with Statutory Quality Partnerships - SQPs) allowed under the Transport Act 2000 and are simple to create and have substantial flexibility. They work best where an authority already has a positive relationship with the local operator and can deliver good results in terms of service improvements and increased passenger numbers, e.g. the Service 55 (Nuneaton – Bedworth) Quality Bus Corridor (QBC) involving the County Council and Stagecoach Midlands delivered passenger growth of 59% between the period 2006-07 to 2009-10. II. Advanced Quality Partnership: In the Bus Services Act 2017 Advanced Quality Partnership (AQP) automatically replaced existing Statutory Quality Partnership set up using the Transport Act 2000. AQPs provide more flexibility than SQPs in that Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) are no longer required to provide facilities such as a new bus station or bus lanes as their contribution to the AQP, instead they can now undertake a wider range of measures as part of the partnership which indirectly improve bus services e.g. building a new road to reduce congestion at a key junction. There is no longer an obligation on LTAs to provide any measures at all. However, bus operators are unlikely to sign up to an AQP unless there was a significant investment in infrastructure. Conversely, the range of requirements that can be imposed on bus operators through an AQP has increased to include:

The specification of smart ticketing as part of any multi-operator scheme;

How bus services are marketed; and

How information on fares and ticketing is distributed. AQPs can be introduced in a relatively short timeframe of around 18 weeks, subject to bus operators not having any objections. The implementation timescale will then be based on what is included in the AQP and how it is proposed to be introduced. For example, if all operators are required to run their whole fleet as Euro V compliant, that will need a longer period than if only 50% need to be compliant for the partnership to commence. III. Enhanced Partnership: Enhanced Partnership (EP) is a halfway house between an AQP and Franchising. EP applies to a defined area and do not necessarily have to have boundaries coterminous with LTA boundaries. An EP gives the LTA(s) the ability to take over the service registration function of the Traffic Commissioner for a set area, e.g. all bus services which enter the Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth urban areas. A plan for the EP would be created jointly by the LTA(s) involved and any bus operator interested in the planned scheme. Once created the EP Plan would be put out to public consultation and include the Competition and Markets Authority as a consultee. Not all bus operators have to be in

Page 7 of 21

8

favour for the EP to proceed, however, all have to be invited to contribute to the plan and a yet to be defined proportion of affected operators has to agree with the scheme before it can go ahead. Although the bus operators will be able to continue in business under an EP their commercial freedom is significantly curtailed. The process of creating an EP starts with the local authority issuing a Notice of Intention and Invitation to Participate. Even if an operator within the EP area does not wish to be involved at the start, they need to be kept abreast of progress in case they wish to participate at a later stage or object to the scheme. There is no defined timescale for implementing an EP. It depends on the agreements between operators and the local authority. An EP is not designed to specify routes and frequencies for every single bus service. However, it does have several functions around this:

Specifying service change dates;

Specifying a different service change notice period if desired;

Agreeing common branding or livery if required;

Co-ordinating service timetables on joint corridors or at interchange points; and

Specifying minimum frequencies on corridors or key routes at different times of day.

An EP has more ability to influence fares than a VP or AQP. This is because an EP can set the specific types of ticket that should be made available on certain routes, corridors or in certain areas. This includes:

Design and agreement on a fare scheme to apply in the EP area;

Types of ticket such as through, multi-operator and multi-journey ticketing and pay-as-you-go capping;

Specific tickets for defined social or economic groups, such as young people or job seekers; and

Ticket types for different times of day, e.g. peaks or evenings. Implementing an EP would enable the County Council to bring together bus operators and local authorities to develop a coordinated approach towards improving bus travel in Warwickshire. Transport for West Midlands are in the process of implementing an EPs involving their (A34 / A45) SPRINT corridors in advance of the 2022 Commonwealth Games.

IV. Franchising The Bus Services Act 2017 provides Mayoral Combined Authorities with the powers to implement bus franchising in their area, akin to the system operated by Transport for London. Other Local Transport Authorities (LTA) can also apply to Government for access to the same powers, where decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis. The LTA would need to submit an assessment of the proposed franchising scheme, i.e. a business case, carry out consultation, arrange the transition of staff and implementation including the operation of a service permit scheme. During the decision-making process The Secretary of State would consider

Page 8 of 21

9

whether the LTA could provide a relatively high level of investment certainty for the bus industry and determine whether the LTA has clear aspirations which will benefit passengers, a sensible plan in place and the right attributes to make franchising a success. Franchising requires a substantial level of capital and revenue costs to be borne by the County Council over and above existing budgets. Therefore, County Council officers do not endorse franchising due to the following considerations:

The increased people and financial resource pressures required to set up a franchising arrangement and monitor performance; and

The lack of experience and expertise within the County Council regarding managing and monitoring commercial bus operations.

V. Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule: The report put forward a proposed Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule consisting of a range of initiatives aimed at delivering improvements to the bus services and supporting infrastructure in Warwickshire, which is presented in Table 2 at Appendix B of this report. The Schedule includes a proposed Warwick – Leamington – Coventry Advanced or Enhanced Partnership, which would chiefly build upon the Service X17 Punctuality Improvement Voluntary Partnership already in place between the County Council and Stagecoach Midlands and would be expanded to include the Leamington to Warwick University section of Services 11, U1 and U2 and the Warwick to Coventry section of service X18. This would therefore need to be a partnership between WCC, Stagecoach, National Express West Midlands and Transport for West Midlands. It is suggested that the proposal be based on an EP like the one covering the A45 SPRINT corridor being delivered by Transport for West Midlands.

d) Resources required to successfully deliver the Council’s key objectives:

In order to deliver a better bus service which will attract people out of their cars WCC will require more money. This can be broken down into two streams:

I. Capital Budget - in order to provide both the bus priority needed and to improve the quality of certain bus stops and interchanges; and

II. Revenue Budget - the current budget will need expanding even if it is just to act as a kick-start fund in order to:

Maintain infrastructure;

Introduce new bus routes, in consultation with County Council officers and bus operators these include but are not limited to;

o Improved bus links to Birmingham International Airport/NEC;

o Banbury - Gaydon – Southam – Coventry; o Stratford-upon-Avon – Wellesbourne – Gaydon –

Southam – Daventry; o Nuneaton – Magna Park – Lutterworth or Rugby; and o Atherstone or Polesworth – Coleshill – Birmingham

International; o Provision of further Demand Responsive Transport

services; and

Page 9 of 21

10

o Provision of further Park and Ride services.

Increase service frequency both on tendered services and via deminimis on commercial services;

Reduce fares on tendered services; and

Promote bus services through effective marketing communications.

The report concludes that the biggest area of future need for the County Council regarding resources is the reinstatement of a capital budget. This is because without it WCC cannot effectively work in partnership with operators as it will not be able to deliver its side of the agreement.

Besides bus priority measures, funding is needed for investment in technology. The current Real Time Information (RTI) system does not actually show buses in real time and is only available at a limited number of locations. The County Council should support the fitting of audio-visual next stop equipment to buses if there is a central government fund to apply to. Personnel wise there is currently a recruitment process for a new member of the Transport Planning Team whose role will be to focus on buses to support the Principal Transport Planner. A key focus will be to explore opportunities for funding, develop proposals for more bus priority measures, improved RTI, and a multi-operator ticketing scheme ideally as part of a partnership with bus operators. The report recommends further investigation regarding potential shared resources with other local authorities. For example, the report highlighted that Transport for West Midlands is currently developing the "One App" which will act as a one stop shop for information about Public Transport in the area. There was confidence that this could be another area for potential collaboration with the possibility of extending the app’s reach into Warwickshire. Transport for West Midlands current arrangement with the County Council regarding managing the data relayed on the 13 RTI displays in Warwickshire and overseeing their operation and repairing faults with the data, could allow for the provision of extra displays at stops and bus stations in Warwickshire. Transport for West Midlands referred to an active working group in Coventry looking at Bus Priority during discussions with TAS Partnership Ltd. The working group is looking at improving the general provision of bus priority measures in Coventry for existing bus services and corridors. With the Commonwealth Games in 2022 forthcoming, TAS Partnership Ltd note that the Games held in Glasgow during 2014 featured dedicated Park and Ride services supported by temporary bus priority measures including temporary bus lanes and bus only roads. The organisers of the Commonwealth Games 2022 would be responsible for identifying similar bus priority measures to support the event and not Transport for West Midlands unless specifically invited to do so. Notwithstanding, Transport for West Midlands has no resources committed solely towards providing bus priority measures for the Commonwealth Games at present. Transport for West Midlands will

Page 10 of 21

11

be consulting with Stagecoach Midlands regarding resources needed for providing bus services during the Games and are interested in working with the County Council in ensuring that the overall public transport network is fit for purpose.

e) Considers the call by the “Campaign for Better Transport” report called “The Future of the Bus”:

Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) published its ‘The Future of the Bus’ report in September 2019. The headline point of the report is that due to changing financial circumstances more communities are becoming isolated due to the withdrawal of public transport. This leads to:

A poor living environment;

An increase in people suffering from loneliness;

An increase in the cost of living due to the need to use the car more and even own an extra car;

Closure of retail, leisure and even health facilities as demand falls due to poor access for non-car owners; and

In rural areas bus use has declined by more than 10% over ten years.

The Future of Bus report claims that bus fares have risen by 60% between 2009 and 2019. However, the TAS National Fares Survey 2019 found that the average single fare over three miles has risen by 42% since 2009 whilst the average weekly fare (used by commuters) had increased by 31% since 2009. The Consumer Price Index only increased by around 4% over the period. The Future of Bus report also stated that only 6.2% of buses on the UK’s roads are low emission. However, this is from the Government’s ‘Road to Zero’ report published in July 2018, based then on historic data, and thus, will not consider the influx of new vehicles since this period. The crux of the Future of Bus report is to call for a National Bus Strategy which should:

Increase usage of bus services nationwide;

Improve integration between public transport modes;

Set a strategy for introducing zero emission buses; and

Improve services via technology. To ensure these aims are met the Future of Bus report calls for a continuous funding stream at both local and national levels. Regarding local funding, the Future of Bus report suggests that the Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG), concessionary travel budget, NHS patient transport, school transport and social service transport funding are combined into one revenue stream. This would be alongside a capital fund. Each local authority should have to draw up a ‘Bus Investment Plan’ which sets out how and where the money will be spent. The report proposes reducing fares through:

Page 11 of 21

12

A standard fare discount level for under 19s either commercially or part funded (especially if free travel is offered);

Compelling operators to join a Smart Ticketing scheme;

Introduce a Mobility Credit scheme for drivers willing to drive less or trade in their car; and

Trial of some low fare areas (or even free travel areas) with either national or local government funding towards it.

However, regarding the Smart Ticketing proposal, TAS Partnership Ltd advised in their report that bus operators often refuse to join due to costs, particularly if smartcards are involved and if they were compelled to participate, they may withdraw their marginally profitable commercial bus services.

The Future of Bus report recognises that there is a high cost to providing a comprehensive bus network in rural areas and acknowledges that any attempt to improve service provision may require Kickstart funding from central government.

The TAS Partnership Ltd commented that The Future of Bus report is quite vague on what should happen in rural areas, e.g. the text hints at having a franchised type of network of rural contracted services using a single brand and with a multi-operator ticketing scheme. A franchise appears to be an expensive and bureaucratic way to achieve this. If nearly all rural services are funded by the LTA it is perfectly feasible for contracts to specify branding and acceptance of multi-operator tickets without the need for a franchise. A rural franchise would also automatically block any operator-led initiatives.

3. Impact of COVID-19 on Bus Patronage

3.1 Bus operators in Warwickshire are facing unprecedented challenges in the post COVID-19 environment. The lockdown, coupled with the closure of many high street shops, has resulted in fewer workers and shoppers needing to make journeys. Patronage and revenue generation have substantially decreased for bus services in Warwickshire over recent months since the pandemic arose.

3.2 The Government has introduced a COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant

(CBSSG) in April 2020 which is an England-wide(outside of London) funding mechanism to ensure that sufficient bus services continue to operate in the right places, and at the right times of day, during the COVID-19 outbreak to meet expected demand whilst maintaining appropriate patronage levels. Local transport authorities and bus operators both receive CBSSG payments. The CBSSG is designed to provide additional funding on top of continued payments from the public sector to bus operators (such as BSOG, concessionary travel reimbursement, home to school transport and tendered service contract payments) at pre-pandemic levels. All bus operators who receive the grant will be expected to make available sufficient capacity to run up to 50% of scheduled commercial mileage and to engage with the relevant local transport authorities

Page 12 of 21

13

to determine what bus services should be operated, when and on which routes. The CBSSG is designed to meet the costs of making this capacity available.

3.3 The report states that economic recovery strategies need to look beyond just the bus and at the wider economic plan to ensure that new health, employment, retail and leisured facilities are not built on greenfield sites but closer to existing higher frequency bus routes.

3.4 The impact of on plans going forward is that there will need to be emphasis on rebuilding trust and consumer confidence in using bus services. Improving the quality of bus operations and services in order to remain attractive will also be important, e.g. embracing technological innovation and digitalisation to deliver improvements to on the Warwickshire bus network. It may also be necessary to focus on delivering initiatives involving a smaller level of capacity in the first instance, e.g. Demand Responsive Transport. Impact Assessments will need to be undertaken as part of the planning process in order to avoid rebound effects from demand control and management measures, e.g. high passenger density.

3.5 The report states that another way of helping people gain confidence in using the bus is through volunteer Bus Buddies – these are people who make a first journey with someone new to buses to help guide them through the process.

4. Next Steps

4.1 If Communities OSC endorse the recommendations in this report officers will undertake the following next steps:

A. Further refresh the Bus Strategy as part of the update of the Warwickshire Local Transport Plan to include matters arising from the Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report

B. Further develop the measures in the Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule presented in the Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report for consideration

C. Take a report to Cabinet seeking endorsement of the Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule

5. Financial Implications

5.1 Work to further develop the Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule and investigate use of potential shared resources with Transport for West Midlands to be met using existing budgets held within WCC Transport Planning.

5.2 Work to further refresh the Bus Strategy in the updated Warwickshire Local Transport Plan including consultation to be met using existing budgets held within WCC Transport Planning.

5.3 A call on the Capital Investment Fund to fund delivery of some of the measures in the Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule.

Page 13 of 21

14

6. Environmental Implications 6.1 At a meeting of the full council on Thursday 25 July 2019, Warwickshire County

Council (WCC) has unanimously declared a climate change emergency. As an outcome of this declaration County Council Officers in collaboration with the District and Borough councils, will develop proposals for a carbon neutral action plan for WCC to be considered by Cabinet. The Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report supports and reinforces the County Council’s to move towards carbon neutrality and some of the measures in the Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule can be considered for inclusion in the carbon neutral action plan.

6.2 Increasing bus patronage to pre COVID-19 levels and beyond would contribute

to reducing the number of car journeys on the local highway network, reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality by reducing the level of Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations in Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) across Warwickshire. A standard 5 door car with 4 passengers in it produces twice as much CO2 emissions per passenger km compared to a fully laden bus according to research by Unilink in 2019. In addition, buses are an inherently clean way to travel, e.g. a fully loaded double decker bus can take up to 75 cars off the road hence reducing congestion and improving the environment.

Appendices Appendix A: Table 1 - List of the 35 Section 106 Developer Contribution Funded

Bus Services under the Different Categories Appendix B: Table 2 - Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule

Background Papers 1. Bus Services Motion Report - Warwickshire County Council (The TAS

Partnership Ltd, July 2020) 2. WCC Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Warwickshire Bus Services

Motion

Name Contact Information

Report Author Nigel Whyte [email protected]

Assistant Director David Ayton-Hill [email protected]

Lead Director Strategic Director for Communities

[email protected]

Lead Member Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning

[email protected]

The report was circulated to the following members prior to publication: Local Member(s): NONE. Other Members: Cllr Heather Timms (Portfolio Holder for Environment and Heritage & Culture), Councillors Clare Golby, Dave Shilton, John Holland, Jenny Fradgley and Keith Kondakor

Page 14 of 21

15

Page 15 of 21

16

Appendix A Table 1: List of the 35 Section 106 Developer Contribution Funded Bus

Services under the Different Categories A) Category: Newly S106 Funded Routes (2)

Development Location

Estimated Current

Number of Dwellings

Bus Service Serving Site

Frequency Future Improvements

Campden Road, Shipston-on-Stour

130

51 Every Two Hours

None (491 dwellings upon

completion)

Lighthorne Heath 20 77 and 77A Hourly Service frequency to be increased to every 30 mins

upon further development of site (3,000 dwellings upon

completion)

B) Category: Routes still S106 funded by original development (7)


Number of Dwellings


Original Provision Current Frequency

Long Marston, Meon Vale

550 1,2 & 3 Increased frequency & diversion

Service Nos. 1,2 & 3

Every 30 mins

Nuneaton, Weddington Road /

Lower Farm

414 1 & 2 Extended Service 1 & 2 Every 15 mins

Galley Common, Plough Hill Road

300 18 & 19 Increased Frequency Services 17 & 18

Every 30 mins

Wellesbourne, The Grange

350 15 Service 15 Diverted & Increased Frequency

Every 30 mins

Polesworth, Grendon Road

St Leonards

143 65 Service 65 Diverted & extended to hospitals

Hourly

Kineton, Southam Road

115 77/77A New Sunday Service 77 & 78

Hourly

Newton, Newton Lane

40 X84 Certain Journeys Diverted Service 9

3 Journeys per Day

Page 16 of 21

17

C) Category: Routes still S106 funded but not by the original development (11)

Development Location Number of

Dwellings

Bus Service Serving

Site

Original Provision Original Frequency

Current Frequency

Long Itchington, Leamington Road

150 664 Service 664 Diverted Every 2 Hours

Every 2 Hours

Southam, Northfield Road Tesco

Retail 64 New Services from surrounding villages

N/A 1 per day

Rugby, Coton Park East 310 1 & 2 New Service D1/D2 Every 30 mins

Every 30 mins

Rugby, Leicester Road Gateway

1,300 1 & 2 New Service D1/D2 Every 30 mins

Every 30 mins

Southam, Coventry Road

165 664 & 665

Payment towards Services 664/665

Hourly Hourly

Southam, Banbury Road 236 664 Payment towards Services 664/665

Hourly Every 2 Hours

Bishops Tachbrook, Grove Farm

412 U1 Service U1 extended Every 15 mins

Every 15 mins

Warwick, Lower Heathcote Farm

935 U1 Service U1 extended Every 15 mins

Every 15 mins

Long Itchington, Stockton Road

225 664 Payment towards Service 664

Every 2 Hours

Every 2 Hours

Southam, Daventry Road

535 665 Payment towards Services 664/665

Hourly Every 2 Hours

Wharf Farm, Crick Road 380 D1 & D2 New service D1/D2 Every 30 mins

Every 30 mins

Page 17 of 21

18

D) Category: No longer S106 funded and reduced in provision (4)


Number of Dwellings

Bus Service Serving

Site

Original Provision

Original Frequency

Current Frequency

Subsidised by WCC

Stratford Bridgetown, Trinity Mead

112 4 New service 222

Introduced (Now 4)

Every 20 mins

Every 30 mins

Part

South West Warwick, Chase

Meadow

282 15 (& 16) Service 68 (Now 15)

Every 30 mins

Hourly No

King Edward Hospital, Hatton

108 16 Service 68 (Now 16)

Every 30 mins

Every 2 Hours

Yes

Hams Hall, Sainsbury’s

Commercial X70 New extensive network of services

4 journeys per hour

4 journeys per day

Yes

E) Category: No longer S106 funded and running at the same frequency (8)


Number of Dwellings


Original Provision

Current Frequency

Subsidised by WCC

Tilemans Lane, Shipston

80 3A New Service 480 Shipston to

Banbury

5 journeys per day

Yes

Walsingham Drive, Nuneaton

300 79 Service 79 Diverted

Every 2 Hours

Yes

Exhall, Blackhorse

Road

Commercial 78 Service 78 Diverted

Hourly Yes

Emscote Lawn / Portobello, Warwick

286 X17 Increased frequency on

Emscote Road X17

Every 20 mins

No

Bishopton / Toll House, Stratford

500 X20 Increased frequency X20

Hourly No

Wolston Business Park

Commercial 86 Increased frequency 86

Every 30 mins

No

Back Lane, Long Lawford

208 86 Service 86 diverted

Every 30 mins

No

Birch Coppice Commercial 766 New Service 766

Two Hours No

Page 18 of 21

19

F) Category: No longer S106 funded and increased in provision (3)


Number of Dwellings

Bus Service Serving

Site

Original Provision

Original Frequency

Current Frequency

Subsidised by WCC

Sydenham, Green Farm

40 67/67A Extended Service 67

Every 30 mins

Every 15 mins

Part

Spa Park, Leamington Spa

Commercial U1 Additional Journeys on Service 665

Additional Journeys

Every 15 mins

Part

Rugby College 131 4 New Service D1/D2

Every 30 mins

Every 15 mins

No

Page 19 of 21

20

Appendix B

Table 2 - Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule

Item Measure Projected Cost of

Delivery Forecasted Completion

1

How to use the Bus Information Guide: Design and printing a Guide encouraging people to use bus services and to help increase confidence in travelling by bus.

£0.010m June 2021

2

Better Roadside Publicity:

Significantly Improved Roadside Paper Based Bus Information;

Enhanced Standalone Roadside Timetable Software;

Launch of 100 no. Desirable Solar Panelled Digital Roadside Information; and

Maintenance and Upkeep Costs during period.

£ 0.568m December 2021

3

Planning Policy Guidance: Collaboration with Borough/District Councils and bus operators to create a set of guidelines for large new developments in Warwickshire, ensuring they are bus-friendly early in the design process.

£0.025m December 2020

4

Annual ‘Warwickshire’ Bus Conference: Involving bus operators, local authorities and the public sector organisations across Warwickshire to discuss bus issues and actions to resolve concerns.

£0.030m November 2021

5

New Bus Links to Birmingham International Airport / NEC / UK Central

Launch of new bus services and/or extension of existing services

£1.310 million (over 5 years)

March 2022

6

Warwick – Leamington - Coventry Corridor Enhanced Partnership:

Bus operators provide improved vehicles and the County Council provides supporting infrastructure including bus priority measures, real time information and multi-operator bus ticketing.

WCC Contribution:

£3.150m March 2022

7

Introduce a Countywide Multi-Operator Day Ticket

Launch and operation of bus ticket encompassing all bus services in Warwickshire

£0.200m March 2022

Page 20 of 21

21

8

Southbound bus stop on Leicester Road (A426) opposite Elliott's Field Retail Park in Rugby Provision of an elongated bus lay-by holding two full-length buses and a high-quality bus shelter.

£0.492m March 2022

9

Expansion of DRT Provision and Technology

Launch of further demand responsive bus services with journeys bookable via mobile app, internet or telephone.

£2.000m March 2022

10

Provision of Park and Ride in Leamington for the Commonwealth Games

Launch of a temporary Park and Ride service reducing the number of car journeys into Leamington Town Centre, with potential to be made permanent.

£0.800m March 2022

Total Projected Cost £8.585million

Page 21 of 21

Bus Service Motion Support

Warwickshire County Council 30290C July 20 Final

Page 1 of 169Page 1 of 169

Quality Assurance

Document Management

Document Title Bus Service Motion Support

Name of File 30290 REP Bus Service Motion Support.docx

Last Revision Saved On 21/07/2020 16:18:00

Version V1 V2 V3 Final

Prepared by MM/JP/JA/JG MM/JP/JA/JG/SH MM/JP/JA/JG/SH MM et al

Checked by SH SW SW SW

Approved by SH SH SH SW

Issue Date 20/03/2020 22/04/2020 6/5/2020 21/7/2020

Copyright

The contents of this document are © copyright The TAS Partnership Limited, with the exceptions set out below. Reproduction in any form, in part or in whole, is expressly forbidden without the written consent of a Director of The TAS Partnership Limited.

Cartography derived from Ordnance Survey mapping is reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HMSO under licence number WL6576 and is © Crown Copyright – all rights reserved.

Other Crown Copyright material, including census data and mapping, policy guidance and official reports,

is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under licence number C02W0002869.

The TAS Partnership Limited retains all right, title and interest, including copyright, in or to any of its trademarks, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how including or arising out of this document, or used in connection with the preparation of this document. No licence under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

The TAS Partnership Limited regards the daily and hourly rates that are charged to clients, and the terms of engagement under which any projects are undertaken, as trade secrets, and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The TAS Partnership Limited often uses commercially or personally sensitive data provided under

confidentiality agreements by third parties to inform projects, and disclosure of this information could constitute an actionable breach of confidence. This detailed content is therefore likely to be exempt from disclosure under the Act.

Consequently, The TAS Partnership Limited will expect to be consulted before any content of this document is released under a Freedom of Information request.

Guildhall House

59-61 Guildhall Street

Preston PR1 3NU

Telephone: 01772 204988

[email protected]

www.taspartnership.co.uk

Page 2 of 169

http://www.taspartnership.co.uk/

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 20

Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Contents ▪ 1

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................ 7

1 Introduction and Objectives ............................................................ 13

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 13

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................. 13

1.3 Our Approach ........................................................................................ 14

1.4 Effects of Coronavirus on the Bus Industry ................................................ 14

2 Engagement with Operators ............................................................ 17

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 17

2.2 Role of the Council ................................................................................. 17

2.3 Existing Network .................................................................................... 17

2.4 Partnerships and Ticketing ...................................................................... 18

2.5 Concessions .......................................................................................... 18

2.6 Encouraging Bus Use including Section 106 Funding ................................... 19

2.7 Vehicle Investment ................................................................................ 19

2.8 Summary .............................................................................................. 20

2.9 Feedback from Consultation Round Two .................................................... 20

3 Consultation with WCC Officers ........................................................ 23

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 23

3.2 The Current Situation ............................................................................. 23

3.3 Future Requirements – Resources ............................................................ 24

3.4 Future Requirements – Infrastructure ....................................................... 24

3.5 Future Requirements – Ticketing ............................................................. 25

3.6 Summary .............................................................................................. 25

4 Stakeholder Consultation ................................................................ 27

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 27

4.2 DfT Funding .......................................................................................... 27

4.3 Multi-Operator Ticketing ......................................................................... 27

4.4 Shared Resources between Authorities ..................................................... 27

Page 3 of 169



4.5 Commonwealth Games ........................................................................... 28

4.6 Gaps in the Current Bus Network ............................................................. 28

4.7 Serving New Developments ..................................................................... 29

4.8 Car Parking ........................................................................................... 29

4.9 Other Comments ................................................................................... 30

4.10 Summary ........................................................................................... 30

5 Initiatives to Encourage Bus Use ...................................................... 31

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 31

5.2 Lower or Simpler Fares ........................................................................... 31

5.3 Multi-Operator Ticketing ......................................................................... 32

5.4 Higher Quality Vehicles ........................................................................... 33

5.5 Branding and Marketing .......................................................................... 33

5.6 Simplified Network or Higher Frequency Services ....................................... 36

5.7 Bus Priority ........................................................................................... 36

5.8 Increasing the Cost of Motoring ............................................................... 41

5.9 Case Study – Brighton ............................................................................ 42

5.10 Case Study – Harrogate ....................................................................... 44

5.11 Case Study – Nottingham City Transport ................................................ 44

5.12 Summary ........................................................................................... 45

6 Analysis of the Concessionary Travel Market ..................................... 47

6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 47

6.2 Analysis of 2018/19 Data ........................................................................ 48

6.3 Options for Development ........................................................................ 50

6.4 Concessionary Scheme Recommendations ................................................ 51

7 Gaps in the Network ...................................................................... 53

7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 53

7.2 Locations .............................................................................................. 53

7.3 Links to Railway Stations ........................................................................ 55

7.4 Park and Ride ........................................................................................ 56

7.5 Access to Hospitals ................................................................................ 58

7.6 Community Transport ............................................................................. 59

7.7 Summary .............................................................................................. 61

Page 4 of 169



8 Information Provision ..................................................................... 63

8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 63

8.2 Current Online Provision for Warwickshire ................................................. 63

8.3 Journey Planner Comparison ................................................................... 67

8.4 Current Physical Provision in Warwickshire ................................................ 72

8.5 Best Practice Examples – Online .............................................................. 76

8.6 Best Practice Examples – Physical Information .......................................... 77

8.7 Summary .............................................................................................. 84

9 Section 106 Funding In Warwickshire ............................................... 85

9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 85

9.2 Newly S106 Funded Routes ..................................................................... 85

9.3 Routes Still S106 Funded – Original Development ...................................... 85

9.4 Routes still S106 Funded – not Original Development ................................. 86

9.5 No Longer S106 Funded – Reduced Provision ............................................ 87

9.6 No Longer S106 Funded –Same Provision ................................................. 88

9.7 No Longer S106 Funded – Increased Provision .......................................... 88

9.8 Correlation between Site Size and S106 Success ....................................... 89

10 Section 106 Funding - Best Practice ................................................. 91

10.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 91

10.2 The Design of the Development ............................................................ 91

10.3 What Can Warwickshire County Council Do? ........................................... 93

10.4 Marketing the Service .......................................................................... 93

10.5 Case Studies ....................................................................................... 96

10.6 Summary ........................................................................................... 97

11 Other Options ................................................................................ 99

11.1 Use of CIL .......................................................................................... 99

11.2 Demand Responsive Transport .............................................................. 99

11.3 Case Studies ..................................................................................... 102

11.4 Summary ......................................................................................... 105

12 Types of Bus Partnerships ............................................................. 107

12.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 107

Page 5 of 169



12.2 Voluntary Partnerships ....................................................................... 107

12.3 Advanced Quality Partnerships ............................................................ 108

12.4 Enhanced Partnerships ....................................................................... 109

12.5 Franchising ....................................................................................... 111

12.6 Summary ......................................................................................... 113

13 Partnership Best Practice .............................................................. 115

13.1 Guidance .......................................................................................... 115

13.2 Case Study – West Midlands Bus Alliance ............................................. 117

13.3 Case Study – Merseyside.................................................................... 119

13.4 Case Study – Scottish Borders ............................................................ 119

13.5 Case Study – Hertfordshire ................................................................. 119

13.6 Summary ......................................................................................... 120

14 Open Data and Bus Conference ..................................................... 121

14.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 121

14.2 Open Data ........................................................................................ 121

14.3 Warwickshire Bus Conference ............................................................. 121

14.4 Summary ......................................................................................... 122

15 What Resources does WCC Need? .................................................. 123

15.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 123

15.2 More Funding .................................................................................... 123

15.3 Partnership Officer ............................................................................ 123

15.4 Summary ......................................................................................... 123

16 Bus Strategies ............................................................................. 125

16.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 125

16.2 The Future of the Bus Report .............................................................. 125

16.3 Warwickshire County Council Plan 2020 – 2025 .................................... 126

16.4 Warwickshire Draft Bus Strategy 2019 – 2034 ...................................... 128

16.5 Summary ......................................................................................... 128

17 Current and Future Government Funding ........................................ 131

17.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 131

17.2 Current Funding – Better Bus.............................................................. 131

Page 6 of 169



17.3 Future Funding ................................................................................. 132

17.4 National Bus Strategy ........................................................................ 132

17.5 Summary ......................................................................................... 133

18 Quick Wins for 2020 – 2022 Plan ................................................... 135

18.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 135

18.2 How to Use the Bus – Information Guide .............................................. 135

18.3 Better Roadside Publicity .................................................................... 136

18.4 Planning Guidance ............................................................................. 136

18.5 Warwickshire Bus Conference ............................................................. 137

18.6 New Bus Links to Birmingham International Airport, NEC (UK Central) ..... 137

18.7 Warwick – Leamington – Coventry Advanced or Enhanced Partnership ..... 138

18.8 Countywide Multi-Operator Ticket ........................................................ 139

18.9 Improved Bus Stop at Elliott's Field Retail Park, Rugby........................... 139

18.10 Expansion of DRT Provision and Technology ....................................... 140

18.11 Park and Ride in Leamington for Commonwealth Games ...................... 140

19 Longer Term Plans 2022 Onwards .................................................. 141

19.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 141

19.2 Expansion of Partnerships .................................................................. 141

19.3 Expansion of Park and Ride Provision ................................................... 142

19.4 New Routes ...................................................................................... 143

Appendix A: Operator Engagement Questions .......................................... 145

Appendix B: Community Transport in Warwickshire .................................. 149

Appendix C: Multi-Operator Ticketing ..................................................... 161

Page 7 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 7

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 The TAS Partnership Ltd was appointed by Warwickshire County Council (WCC)

to produce a report to support the development of the Bus Service Motion

which was passed unanimously by WCC members in December 2019.

1.2 The underlying message of this report is that WCC needs to commit more

funding to supporting bus services and infrastructure if it is to be successful in

its aim of encouraging greater bus use. This includes investing in its staff.

2. Impact of COVID-19

2.1 The impact of COVID-19 on medium to long-term use of public transport is

still unknown. Different studies provide different results, some suggest 90% of

former bus passengers returning, another says 50% will work from home

compared to pre-lockdown, while it has been reported that 60% of those

returning to work will avoid public transport.

2.2 It is likely that closer working between WCC and bus operators will be needed

in order to allow the resources available to be deployed where they are

needed the most. WCC may need to be prepared to provide more short term

de Minimis funding in order to bridge the gap between the end of or reduction

in government funding and the return to commercial viability of the core

network.

3. Powers and Key Objectives of WCC

3.1 Warwickshire as a shire county acts as both the Transport and Highways

Authority but crucially is not the Planning Authority or the authority

responsible for off-street parking. This means that WCC already has the

powers to:

Set the concessionary fare reimbursement rate and discretionary elements

(such as companion passes and pre-09:30 validity);

Specify and tender the supported bus network, including making de Minimis

payments where seen fit (and within the legal parameters including a

maximum of 25% of the supported service budget);

Maintain bus stop infrastructure and provide public transport information

(although this can be done by Parish Councils on WCC’s behalf);

Introduce changes to road layouts and limit access where it sees fit;

Page 9 of 169



Object to planning applications on the grounds of impact on the highway

network, although ultimately decisions are made by the District Councils;

and

Lead the process of introducing a bus partnership and or multi-operator

ticketing schemes.

3.2 However the Council does not have the power to:

Set car parking charges except for on-street sites; or

Introduce bus franchising without permission from the Sectary of State as it

is not a Mayoral Combined Authority.

3.3 The WCC Transport Team should be proud that the operators hold it in high

esteem. The areas the operators identified for improvement are:

More bus priority; and

Better roadside information.

3.4 Overall there was support from operators for exploring partnerships and multi-

operator ticketing. The changing economic climate means that if WCC wants

better Real Time Information, modern ticketing and cleaner buses it is going to

need to contribute funding towards new ticket machines and new or upgraded

vehicles. Similarly, chief on the list of priorities for WCC Officers was more bus

priority, improved RTI and a multi-operator ticketing scheme ideally as part of

a partnership with bus operators.

3.5 There are a number of long cross-boundary bus routes which can fill in the

small number of gaps within Warwickshire's existing bus network. Links to

Birmingham International for the NEC seem the largest gap at the moment

given the proposed UK Central development and HS2 station there.

3.6 Park and Ride services can definitely play a part in encouraging modal shift;

however this needs to be done in tandem with a change in town centre

parking policy from the district councils. Park and Ride schemes can also help

to provide better access to hospitals by public transport.

3.7 Whilst information provided by WCC online is very good, the journey planner –

including its disconnection from the rest of the public transport information –

needs some improvement. Roadside publicity is also an area which should be

improved to help irregular travellers ‘find their feet’ and we understand this is

in process.

Page 10 of 169



4. Section 106 Funding and Best Practice

4.1 WCC officers provided us with a list of 35 bus routes which receive or had

received S106 funding. These can be divided into six different categories,

which are:

Newly S106 funded routes (2);

Routes still S106 funded by original development (7);

Routes still S106 funded but not by the original development (11);

No longer S106 funded and reduced in provision (4);

No longer S106 funded and running at the same frequency (8); and

No longer S106 funded and increased in provision (3).

4.2 There appears to be little correlation between the size of the site and the

likelihood of Section 106 funding being a success. It appears that there are

other factors at work instead. However the sites which are no longer S106

funded and have seen the service provision reduced appear to have been over

provided for in the first place.

4.3 In order to have a chance of being successful, bus services to new

developments need to be considered as part of the heart of the development.

This means that there needs to be:

Research undertaken as part of the site planning to identify which existing

route(s) can be diverted or extended into the site. If there are none

suitable, consider where any new services would link to.

Suitably located access points to the development - bus only access if needs

be;

Suitable width internal roads for the bus to use - again bus only if required;

Attractively located and facilitated bus stops;

A service from day one of occupancy; and

Marketing for the services both at the start of occupancy and ongoing.

4.4 WCC should investigate using DRT services to serve a new housing estate

where either:

The size of the development does not justify a fixed bus route; or

There is no obvious single traffic generator meaning a simple fixed bus

route would not cater for the majority of travel demand.

Page 11 of 169



4.5 However it should be noted that DRT should not be used as a way of providing

a service to a new estate just to allow the developer not to have to make the

site suitable for a standard bus. Whilst a DRT service provides an attractive

door-to-door offer it cannot replace the turn up and go nature and

reassuringly fixed route of a traditional bus service.

5. Partnerships

5.1 There are three types of partnerships which offer different scope for size and

party involvement – these being Voluntary, Advanced and Enhanced. The one

which is chosen by WCC and operators will depend on a number of different

factors including:

Relationship (and trust) between operator(s) and local authority;

Geographical size of the partnership; and

The actual content of a partnership desired by the parties.

5.2 A Voluntary Partnership (as the name suggest) is one which has no legally

binding agreement so works solely on trust between partners. Advanced

Partnerships tend to focus on one particular corridor or urban area whilst

Enhanced Partnerships cover a wider geographical area with scope for

localised agreements. The latter also has more stakeholder involvement along

with additional scope for unified branding.

5.3 The partnerships in the West Midlands, Merseyside and Hertfordshire are good

examples of how well operators and the transport authority can work together.

Partnerships take time to be developed and to see results, so patience from all

parties is key. The working relationship between the parties also needs to be

good in order to gain the most benefits, if one does not trust the other then it

is hard for the crucial yet riskier parts to be taken forward.

6. Bus Strategies and Future Funding

6.1 Whilst the 'Future of the Bus' report has some valid points and good ideas,

such as compelling local authorities to publish a bus investment plan, it also

contains some of the usual misconceptions about bus services. A more

integrated network between modes is wonderful on paper but does not take

into account the issues faced by bus operators when rail operators change

their timetables, or indeed the case in Warwickshire where bus and rail

compete over key corridors. Work carried out by TAS in Wales in 2020 in fact

showed that bus passengers do not place bus/rail integration high on their list

of priorities. In addition, diverting buses to serve railway stations can lengthen

bus journeys or divert them away from major traffic objectives.

6.2 The two WCC publications (Council Plan 2020 – 2025 and Draft Bus Strategy

2019 – 2034) reflect the challenges faced by bus operators in the pre-COVID-

19 environment. Desired travel destinations are more spread out than they

Page 12 of 169



once were making conventional bus networks less efficient in moving people

around. This is coupled with the closure of many high street shops resulting in

fewer workers and shoppers. Strategies need to look beyond just the bus and

at the wider economic plan to ensure that new health, employment, retail and

leisured facilities are not built on greenfield sites but closer to existing higher

frequency bus routes. There is an increasing desire for limitations on traffic in

town centres and the Post COVID-19 era seems to likely to lead to continued

pressure for more pedestrian and cycle space.

6.3 Despite pledges from the government, the future funding available for bus

services still seems unclear. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on bus

patronage and government finances hasn’t helped this. For some time now

available additional finance has been channelled through challenge funding

with varying degrees of success. There is some justification in saying that

these have often favoured those who submit the best quality bids rather than

the most deserving areas.

7. Quick Wins and Post-2022 Projects

7.1 There are ten areas which could provide a quick win, these are:

‘How to use the bus’ information;

Better roadside publicity;

Planning policy guidance;

A Warwickshire bus conference;

New bus links to Birmingham International / UK Central;

Warwick - Leamington - Coventry corridor Partnership including RTI, bus

priority measures and multi-operator ticketing;

Introduce a countywide Multi-operator day ticket;

Full implementation of a new southbound bus stop on Leicester Road (A426)

dual carriageway opposite Elliott's Field Retail Park, Rugby;

Expansion of DRT provision and technology; and

Provision of Park and Ride for Leamington for the Commonwealth Games.

7.2 This excludes the current work in Nuneaton around the town centre

regeneration and a potential new bus station.

7.3 Beyond 2022 the main proposed areas to focus on are:

Expansion of Partnerships to:

Page 13 of 169



Coventry – Bedworth – Nuneaton – Atherstone Corridor;

Rugby; and

Stratford-upon-Avon;

Expansion of Park and Ride provision to other towns in Warwickshire; and

Four new cross-county links.

Page 14 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Introduction and Objectives ▪ 13

1Introduction and Objectives 1

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The TAS Partnership Ltd was appointed by Warwickshire County Council (WCC)

to produce a report to support the development of the Bus Service Motion

which was passed unanimously by WCC members in December 2019. The Bus

Service Motion was a follow on from the declaration of a climate Emergency.

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 The objective of the Bus Services Motion is to request that the Strategic

Director Communities takes a report to Communities Overview and Scrutiny

Committee that:

1. Clarifies and prioritises the Authority’s powers and key objectives in relation

to bus provision to enable more consistent and effective negotiations with bus

operators. This should include investigating multi-operator ticketing, bus

priority measures and improved bus information.

2. Analyses the success of s.106 contributions which have been used to pump

prime new bus routes over the last 10 years in Warwickshire and investigates

alternative frameworks to incentivise long term successful routes around new

developments if necessary.

3. Fully scopes the use of Advanced Quality and Enhanced Partnership

schemes as set out in the Transport Act 2000 and Bus Services Act 2017,

including engagement with operators and sets a date no later than December

2020 to assess whether implementation of the AQ or EP schemes are

necessary to achieve the Authority’s key objectives.

4. Considers and assesses the resources required to successfully deliver the

Council’s key objectives recognising that any strategy or objectives that

emerge from this process must be fully costed before they can be presented to

Cabinet and all sources of funding identified.

5. Considers the call by the “Campaign for Better Transport” report called “The

Future of the Bus”

Page 15 of 169



1.3 Our Approach

1.3.1 We have sought to provide support in three distinct ways:

a) Consultation with stakeholders including bus operators, WCC officers,

district councils and local employers over what they think WCC is doing

well currently, how it can improve and how best to encourage greater bus

use;

b) Researching best practice examples of where bus patronage has increased

and how; and

c) Outlining current powers and funding WCC has available to help encourage

greater bus use.

1.4 Effects of Coronavirus on the Bus Industry

1.4.1 The collapse in public transport usage during the Coronavirus crisis is well-

documented. The loss of revenue has been partly counteracted by a number of

government instructions and measures:

a) The instruction to local authorities to continue to pay concessionary

reimbursement at ‘normal’ levels;

b) The instruction to continue payment of contracts whether operated or not;

c) Inclusion of bus operator staff in the furlough scheme; and

d) Emergency funding to cover operating losses (unlike the rail industry, this

does not allow any profit margin).

1.4.2 While at the beginning of the crisis during lockdown, limits on all but essential

travel was logical, the government’s approach to public transport remains

largely to not use it, in direct contrast to its advice as other parts of the

economy have reopened – ‘Shop for Britain’ or ‘Work out to help out’. The

message to avoid public transport has been almost too effective and may have

caused significant damage in the longer term.

1.4.3 One notable effect of the crisis has been de facto partnership working, with

much mutual acceptance of tickets between operators and close cooperation

between operators and local authorities, each using their own skills and

knowledge. It would be a great shame if these efforts by the operators were

rewarded by franchising ‘through the back door’ on political rather than

practical grounds.

1.4.4 The impact of the loss of patronage during the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic

is unclear, however there is a number of potential consequences which should

be considered as they are likely to have an effect on the feasibility of meeting

the aims of the Bus Service Motion:

Page 16 of 169



a) Funding announced by the DfT could be cancelled or delayed in order to

provide or continue the rescue fund for bus operators;

b) Patronage might never recover as the way of life changes. This could be in

one or a number of areas:

Those currently working from home decide to stay that way, if only part

of the time;

Shops and businesses that have shut never reopen;

Confidence in being in close proximity to others continues to be

diminished;

The significant student markets will be uncertain depending upon their

reliance on overseas students, who may not return for a number of

years;

The support network for the elderly is retained reducing their trips out by

bus. Change in behaviour by concessionary passholders will lead to

reassessment of reimbursement rates. If all passholders are only making

essential trips, then reimbursement should be 100% and so on.

c) Reduced patronage must ultimately mean reduced service which would see

the oldest vehicles withdrawn ahead of time or a significant lessening of

investment in new vehicles.

d) General traffic on the road may decrease if more people remain working

from home reducing the need for bus priority in some locations, or there

might be more road traffic if the switch to cars accelerates and becomes

permanent, causing more congestion and, of course, leaving the local

authority with air quality and emissions issues to address.

e) Having had low traffic or traffic free periods and commensurate reductions

in pollution, a return to congested, polluted streets might be considered

totally unacceptable and therefore there will be greater public support for

measures which restrict traffic. This should work in public transport’s

favour.

f) There will be pressure on Local Authorities to fill in the gaps following

reduced service provision;

g) There has undoubtedly been an increase in walking and cycling during the

pandemic. It remains to be seen if this becomes a long-term trend

particularly once colder, wetter weather settles in. Increased traffic

volumes might also deter some of those who have been cycling due to

perception (or indeed reality) of poor safety.

Page 17 of 169



h) The ownership structure of the bus industry could change – some

companies might weather the storm better than others meaning smaller

independents could be bought out by bigger groups or cease trading or one

or more of the big groups might struggle. In the extreme the bus industry

could be nationalised to survive, as has effectively happened to the

railway. The government may therefore seek to return it to the private

sector via some sort of franchising route.

Page 18 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Engagement with Operators ▪ 17

2Engagement with Operators 2

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 All major operators in Warwickshire were contacted regarding partaking in the

consultation exercise. Of these A&M Group, Arriva, Diamond Buses, Johnson’s,

National Express West Midlands and Stagecoach participated in the exercise.

Travel De Courcey were also approached but did not take part. A full list of

questions covered is included in Appendix A: Operator Engagement Questions,

this chapter covers most of the responses apart from the questions about

Open Data and the Bus Summit which are included in 14.1 and 14.3

respectively.

2.2 Role of the Council

2.2.1 There was consensus that in general WCC is very good at communicating with

operators. It is felt that the transport team understands the issues that

operators face and is able to relay information easily. It was felt that WCC

uses its supported bus budget well and has managed to maintain a decent

network of supported routes.

2.2.2 It was felt that Warwickshire lags behind other areas in provision of bus

priority measures. This is especially key in the Leamington and Warwick area

but all town centres should see some level of pro-bus measures, Stratford-

upon-Avon was pointed out as particularly lacking. Enforcement cameras

would also be useful.

2.2.3 The provision of roadside publicity, Real Time Information (RTI) and the

quality of bus stations and interchanges is mixed across the county. There is a

view that the major focus is on the Warwick and Leamington areas with other

locations coming second.

2.2.4 There was a view that WCC doesn’t think beyond its own boundaries when

planning bus routes at times. An example was given of a Section 106 (S106)

funded service which mirrored a cross-boundary service for most of its route.

2.2.5 The issue of compliance with regard to tendered services was discussed with

one operator. It felt that it was not tough enough to deter or root out poor

quality operators which give the industry a bad name.

2.3 Existing Network

2.3.1 Most operators felt that the current network was sufficient to cater for existing

demand. The only obvious gap highlighted was the absence a link to

Birmingham International from the Warwick and Leamington area.

Page 19 of 169



2.3.2 There was a general consensus that the railway stations that had a ‘poor’ level

of service were ones at which the rail service directly competed with the bus

service. In addition to that it was pointed out that the road network around

both Kenilworth and Bermuda Park stations made serving these stations

difficult and inefficient. One operator felt that it was WCC’s responsibility to

ensure railway stations and hospitals are well connected.

2.4 Partnerships and Ticketing

2.4.1 Stagecoach is the only operator with experience of partnership involvement

with WCC although others are involved in the West Midlands. This is mainly in

the form of the X17 Punctuality Improvement Partnership.

2.4.2 Five of the operators were open to exploring the idea of a partnership, either

Advanced or Enhanced, further with WCC. However three operators expressed

the need for significant infrastructure investment from WCC in return for any

improvements from operators.

2.4.3 Again five operators were willing to enter further discussions around a multi-

operator ticketing scheme. There was a desire from one operator for it to be a

WCC led scheme. Another pointed out that Smartcard Technology was old hat

and that any multi-operator ticket scheme needs to be compatible with apps

and even contactless capping. There was a concern around cost to small

operators of having compatible systems but that these were needed to ensure

all operators had the latest technology – WCC should seek to help fund this

upgrade.

2.4.4 Most of the operators already undertake periodic fares promotions which have

generally seen some additional traffic but not a large influx of extra

passengers. One operator suggested that these could be co-ordinated in a

single area as a first step. Another operator stated that it felt that fares in the

more rural areas were already too low in regards to sustainability of the

services. There was a suggestion that those passengers receiving certain

benefits should be entitled to reduced fares.

2.5 Concessions

2.5.1 The general feeling was that the reimbursement level was acceptable by most

operators. However one pointed out that it receives £1.26 in reimbursement

for a £4 adult fare which is unsustainable from a commercial perspective.

There was no real idea of further expansion of the scheme, indeed one

operator felt that the scheme should be run on the statutory times rather than

the current enhanced times.

2.5.2 There were mixed views on introducing a discounted fares scheme for young

people. Stagecoach has recently amended its ticket categories so that there is

a standard discount for all under 19s. One operator felt that all young people

Page 20 of 169



in full time education should receive free travel given that ‘rich’ pensioners do.

Five operators were open to further discussions whilst the sixth felt that from

experience elsewhere it wasn’t worth progressing.

2.6 Encouraging Bus Use including Section 106 Funding

2.6.1 There was concern from a number of operators that people won’t use the bus

because they are not confident about how to use it. A guide showing how easy

it is to get information and use a bus might have a significant impact. One

operator felt that there needed to be better advertising from both operators

and the council to encourage bus use.

2.6.2 There was also a consensus that bus networks need to be simple to

understand with services running reliably at attractive frequencies and prices.

The provision of bus priorities should help to make services more reliable and

reduce journey times. Higher quality vehicles can help a service stand out but

often technology progresses meaning they don’t stay ‘special’ for long.

2.6.3 Using the car needs to be made less attractive to motorists, at least for the

final part of a journey if not all of it. This will rely on town centre car parking

costs being increased.

2.6.4 S106 appears to have had mixed results. It was pointed out that some

developments have limited or no access for buses immediately putting them at

a disadvantage. Roads are either too narrow or become blocked by parked

cars making it difficult for buses to navigate the area.

2.6.5 Arriva operates a service in Buckinghamshire that was designed into the new

development from the start. It links the houses to the railway station and has

a higher frequency at times that London commuters would be using it. This

has seen the service become successful with the developer, council and Arriva

having regular progress meetings. Stagecoach has tried free ticket offers

which have generally provided mixed results with an average of 10% take up

– again a lot is dependent on the convenience of the service to the residents.

2.7 Vehicle Investment

2.7.1 Warwickshire’s fleet profile reflects it being an area of mixed bus demand. The

majority of services use vehicles cascaded from elsewhere within the

respective operating groups. Both National Express and Stagecoach have

recently introduced new vehicles to their University of Warwick services and

these are the only ones within the county with next stop audio-visual

announcement equipment.

2.7.2 Introducing Euro 6 vehicles onto contracted services would put tender prices

up, whilst introducing them on commercial services might negatively impact

on marginal routes. Funding for Zero Emission buses would need to cover

Page 21 of 169



more of the cost of the vehicle than the DfT does now, as the operator in

practice pays 125% of the price of a normal diesel vehicle. However two

operators are already investing in Euro 6 vehicles or upgrades and would be

willing to run electric buses if they were cheaper to buy. One of those has

recently had experience with an electric bus and found it attractive to use but

was put off by the cost of infrastructure (£90k to upgrade its depot electricity

supply) and has already been adversely affected by battery end of life issues

with hybrid buses.

2.7.3 One operator felt that electric buses are currently more polluting than a Euro 6

vehicle when considering whole life vehicle emissions. This is because the

battery is generally assembled in China using rare metals and then shipped

across the world. There is no current method of safely disposing of the

batteries which tend to only last part of the overall vehicle life.

2.8 Summary

2.8.1 The WCC Transport Team should be proud that the operators hold it in high

esteem. The areas for improvement are unsurprisingly:

More bus priority; and

Better roadside information.

2.8.2 Overall there was support for exploring partnerships and multi-operator

ticketing. The changing economic climate means that if WCC wants better Real

Time information, modern ticketing and cleaner buses it is going to have to

contribute funding towards new ticket machines and new or upgraded

vehicles.

2.9 Feedback from Consultation Round Two

2.9.1 The operators were given an opportunity to comment in the partnership and

multi-operator ticketing proposals in chapters 18 and 19. The main points

raised are:

Multi-operator ticketing:

Concern that with one dominant operator, having a ‘revenue lies where it

falls’ set up would be unfair;

Overall support for the revenue pool and reimbursement method;

A methodology would have to be proposed before some operators would

sign up to any scheme;

The price of the multi-operator ticket has to be at a premium over an

operator only day ticket to ensure viability for operators.

Page 22 of 169



Warwick – Leamington – Coventry Partnership:

Desire for clearly deliverable, measurable before and after targets to

noticeably improve punctuality, reliability and a reduction in journey

times;

Needs to be set up right to ensure future partnerships fit in, preference

seems to be for Advanced or Voluntary Partnership set up countywide

with a spate of ‘corridor agreements’.

Bedworth and Atherstone Corridor Partnership(s):

Desire from one operator for an additional Nuneaton – Hinckley –

Leicester partnership in collaboration with Leicestershire County Council.

Rugby Partnership:

Concern about the effect on services using Newbold Road to access the

town if general traffic was to be diverted away from Mill Road / Murray

Road. The low bridge under the railway here forces some services away

from the Station, to the detriment of passengers;

However if a suitable location for a bus station did not come forward then

the improvement of Station Approach (Railway Terrace) as a ‘bus only’

through route past the station frontage should still go ahead;

Improved railway station interchange should not come at the cost of

access to town centre and retail parks.

Page 23 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Consultation with WCC Officers ▪ 23

3Consultation with WCC Officers 3

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Consultation with Council Officers was undertaken by phone on Wednesday 4th

March 2020.

3.2 The Current Situation

Resources

3.2.1 The following resources are currently available to WCC officers for the

provision of bus services:

Revenue Support Budget;

Developer Contribution – mainly Section 106;

Bus Service Operator Grant funding for tendered services;

Concessionary Fares funding,

Both from government to reimburse operators and from tendered

services;

Farebox revenue from tendered services;

Car park revenue from Stratford-upon-Avon Park and Ride site;

Flexibility of Home to School budget; and

Members’ delegated budget.

Successes

3.2.2 The officers believe that they have been successful in using S106 funding, the

Home to School budget and members’ delegated budgets in an effective

manner to maintain a significant supported bus network. Certainly compared

to some neighbouring authorities the supported bus network is still

comprehensive.

3.2.3 The officers do their part in the Warwickshire area having a higher than

average customer satisfaction rating. They feel that the provision of good print

and web information alongside a strong social media presence helps keep

people informed. Where there is a customer complaint, there is a dedicated

team with a fast turnover for complaints, they also have a clear triage process

for complaints so they are handled correctly.

Page 25 of 169



Relationships

3.2.4 The officers believe that they have a very good relationship with bus

operators. Other stakeholder relationships have occasionally been tricky in the

past but all have improved.

3.3 Future Requirements – Resources

3.3.1 The biggest area of future need with regard to resources is the reinstatement

of a capital budget. This is because without it WCC cannot effectively work in

partnership with operators as it will not be able to deliver its side of the

agreement.

3.3.2 Besides bus priority measures, funding is needed for investment in technology.

The current Real Time Information (RTI) system does not actually show buses

in real time and is only available at a limited number of locations. The council

should support the fitting of audio-visual next stop equipment to buses as long

as there is a central government fund to apply to.

3.3.3 Personnel wise there is currently a recruitment process for a new member of

the Strategy Team whose role will be to focus on buses to support the

Principal Transport Planner. Until now the team has perhaps been more rail-

focussed.

3.4 Future Requirements – Infrastructure

Bus Priority Measures

3.4.1 Effective Bus Priority measures are seen by the officers as key to encouraging

more people to use the bus in Warwickshire. The main focus at present is on

the Warwick and Leamington areas and Nuneaton. The X17 Punctuality

Improvement Partnership with Stagecoach needs council investment in bus

priority if it is to succeed. It may be feasible in time for the Commonwealth

Games if the council is supportive of it and thus able to get things done

quickly.

3.4.2 Nuneaton bus priority is part of the Nuneaton Regeneration project. Other

locations will require looking at especially Stratford and Rugby, however there

are no definite plans for these towns yet.

Other Infrastructure

3.4.3 One idea for future infrastructure is the creation of “On Street Bus Stations”.

These would mainly be bus only sections of road with the feeling of a

pedestrianised area. There would be additional bus stops with shelters along

with comprehensive information provision. The two leading locations are Upper

Page 26 of 169



Parade, Leamington and Bridge Street, Stratford where most services serving

the respective towns already pass through.

3.4.4 Part of the proposed Nuneaton scheme to move the bus station to be at the

railway station, is to let buses pass through the centre of Nuneaton. This

would ensure that passengers visiting the town centre don’t have to trek

across to / from the railway station.

3.4.5 Longer term there is the desire to create new bus stations in Stratford and

Rugby. The latter location has some short term infrastructure improvements

needed, specifically the upgrade of the southbound bus stop on the A426

Leicester Road at Elliott’s Field. Whilst the northbound stop has a layby and

shelter, the southbound stop is just a flag on pole due to a dispute with the

landowner.

3.4.6 There is currently only one Park and Ride site in Warwickshire at Stratford

Parkway. There is a desire for more sites, with possible locations including:

On the A46;

South Leamington;

West Warwick; and

The new Rugby Parkway Station.

3.5 Future Requirements – Ticketing

3.5.1 There has been a long held ambition to have a multi-operator ticketing

scheme in Warwickshire. The extension of the current West Midlands scheme

has been ruled out due to opposition from certain operators. WCC is keen to

establish a Smartcard based ticketing system with a possible Mobile App

extension before the Commonwealth Games to support travel to events. It is

likely that a day ticket will be the best place to start. The ability for the ticket

to be loaded onto a Swift Smartcard [and presumably a StagecoachSmart

smartcard too] was noted as essential.

3.6 Summary

3.6.1 WCC Officers in general have the same view as bus operators. They see

themselves as successful in their current role but feel more could be done if

resources were available. Chief on the list is more bus priority, improved RTI

and a multi-operator ticketing scheme ideally as part of a partnership with bus

operators.

Page 27 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Stakeholder Consultation ▪ 27

4Stakeholder Consultation 4

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section covers our engagement with external stakeholders which were:

The five district councils;

WCC Highways department;

Transport for the West Midlands (TfWM);

The Department for Transport (DfT) – despite our best efforts, this was not

undertaken due to staff absence and workload at the DfT; and

Local Employers – despite an extended deadline, only four employers took

part in the consultation.

4.2 DfT Funding

4.2.1 It is understood that Coventry Council would apply for the Electric Bus Town

fund and met with operators at the end of March. The key issue will be cross-

boundary services and the suitability of electric vehicles for long, high-mileage

services such as X17.

4.3 Multi-Operator Ticketing

4.3.1 There was support from TfWM with regard to a Warwickshire Multi-Operator

scheme which would allow cross-boundary travel into the West Midlands area.

This is especially as it is known that some operators do not feel they get a fair

deal from the nBus Scheme. The Swift Card should be able to be used by

passengers to store Warwickshire products as well as TfWM’s.

4.4 Shared Resources between Authorities

4.4.1 TfWM is currently developing the "One App" which will act as a one stop shop

for information about Public Transport in the area. There was confidence that

this could be another area for potential collaboration with the possibility of

extending the app’s reach into Warwickshire.

4.4.2 TfWM's current arrangement with WCC regarding Real Time Information

should allow for the provision of extra displays at stops and stations. Going

forward as part of the West Midlands Bus Alliance, TfWM could potentially be

the data processor for bus registrations in its area instead of the Traffic

Commissioner which has an impact on how data for the RTI is sourced.

Page 29 of 169



4.4.3 WCC’s Highways Department acts as a business unit, this means that if it does

not have the internal resources for dealing with things such as design and

construction of bus priority measures it is able to outsource the work to a third

party. Similarly if the experience is not there then it is able to call on other

Local Authorities for help.

4.5 Commonwealth Games

4.5.1 There is an active working group in Coventry looking at Bus Priority, however

there are no resources committed purely to the Commonwealth Games at the

moment. TfWM will be consulting with Stagecoach regarding resources needed

for providing services during the Games. It is interested in working with WCC

in ensuring that the overall public transport network is fit for purpose.

4.6 Gaps in the Current Bus Network

4.6.1 Enhancing rural links was a consistent theme. North Warwickshire currently

has frequent services around the boundaries but limited provision across the

borough. A link into Hams Hall and Birmingham International from the North

of the borough was seen as a need, especially with the forthcoming HS2

station. There is also a need for improved provision of evening and Sunday

services to encourage people to leave their car at home. There is currently

high demand for taxis in North Warwickshire.

4.6.2 Within Rugby it was felt that the local services are not at a high enough

frequency to encourage modal shift from cars, however there was an

understanding that these services are hampered by congestion. Park and Ride

was highlighted as interesting, but it has never been consulted on with

members as the focus for the development of Park and Ride sites has been

mainly in the Warwick District area.

4.6.3 Warwick District pointed out the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for the

whole county which highlights areas poorly served by bus but with high levels

of social isolation.

4.6.4 TfWM could not identify any significant gaps in the cross-boundary network. A

piece of work began in 2017 surrounding the Bus Services Act, which is

currently assessing the Bus Alliance, Partnerships and Franchising.

4.6.5 Journey times to Warwick from Kenilworth and Coventry are inflated by the

routes going via Leamington Spa first. This means that it can be more

attractive to drive even if there is a through bus service.

4.6.6 All four employers who responded were based in out of town business parks

(Abbey Park, Birch Coppice, MIRA and Stoneleigh Park) which had either a

limited or no bus service. MIRA has the best provision but still, due to the

limited destinations served, fewer than 10% of the workforce used the bus. All

Page 30 of 169



four employers wished to see an improved public transport provision with

services running at the right time to the right places. Only one employer saw

cheaper fares as an immediate incentive to getting more employees to use the

bus.

4.7 Serving New Developments

4.7.1 There was enthusiasm to ensure that any new housing development was

suitably served by buses. It was pointed out that even if a development is

under the initial threshold of around 100 houses, many go on to form part of a

larger development in the long run and therefore internal roads need to be

suitable for buses, council service vehicles and emergency vehicles from the

start.

4.7.2 Rugby has two large new housing developments, one to the north and the

other to the south, which RDC is seeking to link with a BRT style service.

4.7.3 North Warwickshire has two large employment sites in the shape of Birch

Coppice and Hams Hall, which have had mixed success in S106 funding use.

The new MIRA site currently doesn’t have a service proposed that connects it

to the North Warwickshire area, which is felt to be a mistake.

4.7.4 WCC’s Highways Department acts as an advisory service with the plans for

new developments already drawn up by the developer’s own consultants. This

seems to limit the ability to reshape plans where they may not aid efficient

provision of a bus service.

4.8 Car Parking

4.8.1 Changes to Car Parking policy and parking charges are contentious issues.

North Warwickshire currently (as a policy) does not charge for parking as

there are limited bus services across the largely rural district. Before it can

start using parking charges to disincentivise motorists a more comprehensive

network needs to be in place first. Meanwhile Stratford District Council has a

healthy revenue stream from tourists using the town centre car parks in

Stratford-upon-Avon, moving those tourists onto Park and Ride services would

therefore reduce the council’s income.

4.8.2 The overall feeling is that there needs to be a trade-off between increasing car

parking costs and/or reducing car parking provision and reducing the price of

public transport or increasing service provision.

4.8.3 As stated in 4.6.6, all four employers who responded to the consultation were

based in out of town business parks. Three of the four had ample onsite

parking, whilst the fourth based at Stoneleigh Park had access to communal

parking which was significantly reduced when the showground was in use.

Only one of the four employers backed the principle of a parking levy but with

Page 31 of 169



the caveat of a vastly improved public transport provision and that it only

applied to urban areas.

4.9 Other Comments

4.9.1 There is a general trade-off that needs to be made in provision of road space.

The historic town centres tend not to have to space for bus lanes to be added

onto the normal highway. There are also issues of creating more pedestrian

crossings and cycle lanes which have impacts on bus services by introducing

more delay points and reducing road space.

4.10 Summary

4.10.1 The main view of external stakeholders appears to be that before motorists

can be persuaded out of their cars by high parking charges and longer journey

times, the bus network needs to be made more attractive through shorter

journey times and more frequent service provision.

Page 32 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Initiatives to Encourage Bus Use ▪ 31

5Initiatives to Encourage Bus Use 5

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This chapter looks at the various methods which bus operators and local

authorities can use to encourage greater bus use and discourage motorists

from using their cars. There is also a number of case studies covering areas

which have seen an increase in patronage through the adoption of one or

more of these initiatives.

5.2 Lower or Simpler Fares

5.2.1 There are a number of different ways to encourage bus use through lower or

simpler fares. These include:

a) A general fares reduction – all products are reduced by a given percentage

meaning that they are all cheaper but there is no change in value of buying

one product over another;

b) Targeted fares reduction by product – a single product or product group

such as day or weekly tickets are specifically reduced in price. This can be

done to enable return tickets to be withdrawn as a day is now cheaper

than two singles or to encourage part time workers to still buy a weekly

ticket as it is cheaper than buying three or four day tickets;

c) Targeted fares reduction by location – there may be a specific route or

area where demand appears supressed by price. The fares reduction may

therefore by a localised version of a) or b) or it could be achieved by the

introduction of a new ticket range such as a ‘RouteRider’ or a flat fare zone

for travel anywhere in an urban area (e.g. £1.50 for any single journey in

Warwick and Leamington Spa);

d) Complete fares restructure – it might be decided that the existing fares

structure is no longer fit for purpose and a complete overhaul is required.

This might involve replacing distance based fares in urban areas with zonal

fares (or vice versa) and/or changing the range of multi-journey tickets to

cover current travel patterns.

Employer Discount Schemes

5.2.2 One way to encourage commuters to use the bus is to offer discounted season

tickets. Both Blackpool Transport1 and Transdev2 have recently launched travel

or commuter clubs. Once an Employer has signed up its employees can buy

season tickets through them at a discounted rate or are able to buy longer

1 https://www.blackpooltransport.com/travel-club 2 https://www.transdevbus.co.uk/blackburn/get-10-commuter-club

Page 33 of 169



period tickets which are not available to the general public. The Transdev

scheme also involves the employer receiving tailored bus service information

for distribution to staff.

5.3 Multi-Operator Ticketing

5.3.1 Where there is more than one bus operator in an area a barrier to people

using a bus can be the need to buy more than one ticket for a two stage

journey. By providing a ticket that can be bought on one operator’s service

and used on another, both operators are assisting in making buses more

attractive. However the ticket has to be well advertised, easy to buy and

perceived as value for money. A premium is normally applied to the price

compared to a single operator product in order for it to be a commercially

viable product and to reflect its validity on more services.

5.3.2 The Oxford SmartZone and Swindon TravelPass tickets are promoted as the

standard multi-journey ticket within those locations despite the operators

providing their own single operator products (as necessitated by Competition

law). These products have been traditionally available on Smartcard with

paper products for longer period tickets being phased out. However with the

growth in use of Apps it is felt that Smartcards are ‘behind the times’,

especially given their associated cost of production and back office processing.

Both locations are now working towards providing the multi-operator ticket on

the mobile platform as well as increasing use of QR codes on paper tickets.

New Technology

5.3.3 Contactless capping is currently seen as the ultimate goal in ticketing

technology development. The ability to tap-on and tap-off a bus with your

daily and weekly fare capped based on the number of operators used and the

areas travelled in. However this is quite difficult to implement at the moment

due to different forms of contactless technology and difficulties in apportioning

revenue. There are also issues around the willingness of banks to keep their

transaction costs low given how complex the system can get. For example a

system needs to be able to work out the cheapest deal for a traveller if in a

week they have:

Spend four days travelling between Kenilworth and Leamington Spa on a

mixture of Stagecoach service X17 and National Express service 11;

Travelled to Nuneaton one day using Stagecoach X17 and 48 and National

Express service 20; and

Travelled to Stratford-upon-Avon one day on Stagecoach X17 and X18.

5.3.4 Should the fare be capped at:

a) A weekly Warwickshire wide multi-operator ticket price?

Page 34 of 169



b) Four Coventry – Leamington Multi-operator day tickets, a Warwickshire

wide multi operator day ticket and a Stagecoach day ticket? Or

c) A Coventry – Leamington multi-operator operator week, a Coventry –

Nuneaton multi-operator day and a Leamington Spa – Stratford return

ticket?

5.3.5 Further information is provided in Appendix C: Multi-Operator Ticketing. Any

Warwickshire scheme should be able to avoid some expense in the creation of

a new physical smartcard with associated expensive back office by using the

ITSO3 compatibility of Swift and Stagecoach Smart and thus their associated

back office systems. The downside to this is the likelihood that TfWM and

Stagecoach will charge the Warwickshire multi-operator scheme(s) an

administration fee for use of their systems.

5.4 Higher Quality Vehicles

5.4.1 This is an area of improvement that is often focused on customer perception,

rather than engineering or environmental factors. In the late 1990s and early

2000s it was the introduction of low floor buses that was seen as a marked

improvement. Over the last 10 years it has been the introduction of Wi-Fi, USB

charging ports and even seats around tables that have been used as the

marketing point. Stagecoach Gold and Arriva’s Max and Sapphire brandings

were introduced to help distinguish the routes with more modern and higher

quality vehicles. However these brands are being phased out as the ‘standard’

bus now often comes with these features.

5.4.2 The Keighley Bus Company has reported a 7% rise in patronage on its Leeds –

Keighley service since the introduction of new vehicles a year earlier. These

were fitted with the latest on-bus technology and replaced a rather mixed bag

of fairly new and older vehicles with basic interiors.

5.5 Branding and Marketing

5.5.1 As mentioned in 5.4.1 a service can be sold on the basis of being a higher

quality service. But there are also other ways of selling a service in order to

make it stand out. Branding that appeals directly to the target customer, or

engenders a sense of ownership and identity as well as targeted marketing

campaigns that build the brand can be incredibly useful if done properly.

5.5.2 Operators such as Go North East brand their high-frequency and key

interurban services to help them stand out from both their own services and

their competitors, Figure A shows a bus branded in Citylink livery for service

58 – sister service 57 also uses the same livery as they share a common

corridor between Newcastle and Heworth.

3 https://www.itso.org.uk/

Page 35 of 169



Figure A: Go North East Citylink 58 Branding

5.5.3 Other operators such as First West of England and Nottingham City Transport

use coloured branding to help distinguish buses on specific routes or corridors.

Figure B shows a First West of England bus with an orange front wedge used

for services 1 and 2 as well as Metrobus route M1 branded vehicles which have

a pink relief to their Metrobus grey livery.

Figure B: First West of England and Metrobus Branding

5.5.4 Stagecoach itself has undertaken some route branding – Figure C shows a bus

in the old corporate livery with X18 branding on top, whilst Figure D shows a

specialist livery used to market buses in the Lake District.

5.5.5 It should be noted that the success of such branding is proven to work (if

implemented properly) for a route or corridor but not across a whole network.

Page 36 of 169



Figure C: Stagecoach Route X18 Branding (©paulburr73)

Figure D: Stagecoach Lakes Branding

Page 37 of 169



5.6 Simplified Network or Higher Frequency Services

5.6.1 Operators have looked to simplify their networks to help make it easier to

understand where buses go and to help customers have the same confidence

in bus services that they do in public transport with fixed infrastructure, such

as rail. A consequence of this has often been the replacement of multiple low

frequency services with one single high frequency route. Stagecoach East

Midlands has undertaken a number of network reviews in its larger urban

areas using the ‘Simplibus’ brand. This has seen services renumbered

sequentially starting at 1.

5.6.2 In February 2017 Stagecoach South East introduced its ‘Little and Often’

network to Ashford. This saw 30 Mercedes Sprinter Minibuses costing £3m

introduced on four town routes with some services increased from every 20

minutes to every 5 minutes. These minibuses were replaced in June 2018 as

45% of passengers found them too small. Two of the four routes retained a

‘turn-up-and-go’ (at least every 10 minutes) frequency (with an additional

route being added to the brand) with larger vehicles introduced as they had

seen a 35% increase in patronage, over half of which came from car users.

The other two routes were not as successful and saw their frequency reduced

to better match demand.

5.7 Bus Priority

5.7.1 Bus Priority can take many forms and can be used for many reasons. At its

simplest it is a way of making bus services more reliable by removing services

from the impacts of congestion, at the other extreme it encourages people out

of the car by making the driving route more circuitous, time consuming and

expensive than that of the bus.

Traffic Light Phasing

5.7.2 This is perhaps the cheapest way of improving the reliability and

attractiveness of bus services. The traffic lights stay on green for longer on the

main road the buses use or the sequence might be staggered to allow right

turning traffic to flow more freely. A newer and more advanced system sees

buses fitted with transponders, which interact with the traffic lights. As they

approach the traffic lights they either stay on green until the bus has passed

or speed up the cycle for the bus to get a green phase sooner4.

Bus Priority Lights

5.7.3 These tend to be linked to either a stretch of bus lane or a bus stop, in order

to allow the bus to re-enter the main traffic flow more easily. These can also

4 https://www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/traffic-light-technology-improving-journeys-for-liverpool-city-region-bus-users/

Page 38 of 169



be used at busy junctions to allow buses to take priority. Figure E shows an

example from Cardiff which allows buses to take priority at a busy junction.

Figure E: Bus Priority Lights – Advanced Junction Lights Cardiff

Bus Lane

5.7.4 Here one of the lanes on a road open to all traffic is restricted for use by buses

only or buses along with certain other vehicles such as taxis. Bus lanes can be

used to by-pass congestion hot spots or purposely reduce road space for

motorists either in the peak only or all day. Contraflow bus lanes are often

used to provide bus services with a short cut in one direction only as used on

Leicester Street in Bedworth, Figure F shows use of both with traffic and

contraflow bus lanes in Reading.

5.7.5 Using cameras to enforce bus lanes has been controversial. Whilst it is

necessary to prevent bus lanes being abused by motorists trying to jump the

queue or take a short cut, the associated signage has to be clear. Politically

bus lane cameras can be seen simply as revenue-generating ‘cash cows’ by

the pro-motoring lobby.

Page 39 of 169



Figure F: Bus Lane and Contraflow Bus Lane – Reading

Bus Gate

5.7.6 This is a short section of road linking two other roads together which only

buses can use. They are especially useful for linking two parts of a new

development together whilst avoiding the creation of a ‘rat run’ as shown in

Figure G with a new development to the south of Gloucester. This one is an

open road protected by cameras, others use either raising bollards or a

movable barrier to prevent misuse.

Page 40 of 169



Figure G: Bus Gate – Gloucester

Bus Only Road

5.7.7 This is a stretch of road which is solely for use by buses or buses and other

restricted vehicles. Figure H shows the bus only stretch of road past the front

of Nottingham Railway Station which is the simplest of bus only roads to

introduce i.e. the conversion of an existing road.

5.7.8 Figure I shows the Cambridge Guided Busway which is at the other extreme –

this is a purpose built bus only road, buses are fitted with guide wheels which

not only allows them to use the guideway (vehicles not fitted cannot physically

use it) but also means that the bus steers itself on guided sections. Other

similar purpose-built bus only roads use standard tarmac as illustrated in

Figure J, this road in Swansea allows buses to bypass a busy road junction.

Page 41 of 169



Figure H: Bus Only Road – Nottingham Railway Station

Figure I: Bus Only Road – Cambridge Guided Busway (©Roger French)

Page 42 of 169



Figure J: Bus Only Road – Swansea

5.8 Increasing the Cost of Motoring

5.8.1 Sometimes in order to get people out of their cars and onto public transport

there needs to be a disincentive as well as an incentive. As well as making a

motorist’s journey less convenient through the introduction of bus priority

measures (see 5.7) there are ways to make the car journey more expensive

thus giving a more level playing field with bus fares. The four main ways of

doing this are:

a) Increase the cost of parking in urban areas where there are suitable

alternative bus services including park and ride;

b) Introduce a Workplace Parking Levy – this can apply to all employers in a

certain area (i.e. where there is a suitable alternative form of transport)

and is an annual charge per parking space imposed on the employer;

Page 43 of 169



c) Introduce a Congestion Charge – Durham and London are the only two

cities currently with a congestion charge, here motorists are charged to

drive into a designated area;

d) Introduce an Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) – Larger urban areas are

introducing LEZs or ULEZs as a way of tackling their air quality problems,

however they are quite mixed with only a handful actually applying to cars

as well as commercial vehicles. Given the government’s recent push to

encourage electric vehicles a ULEZ is not guaranteed to solve congestion

issues in the medium to long term.

5.9 Case Study – Brighton5

5.9.1 Go-Ahead owned Brighton & Hove Bus Company has seen growth in bus

passenger journeys by an average of 5% per annum consistently over more

than twenty years. The key to achieving consistent growth in bus passenger

journeys is effective partnership working between the bus company and local

authority. There’s no formal document outlining the terms of the partnership

just a short report to an appropriate Council committee outlining commitments

made by both parties. The partnership works on the basis of trust and

confidence - both parties use their best endeavours to deliver their respective

commitments.

5.9.2 It’s helped by the bus company being managed by a locally based Managing

Director dedicated to the area and being active in the local community

including business groups and community organisations. It would not be an

exaggeration to say the bus company is embedded into the community it

serves and buses are part of the fabric of the city.

5.9.3 The bus company is committed to enhancing frequencies of the network of bus

routes in the city. Timetables are modified on two key dates each year; around

Easter time and just prior to the University academic year commencing in

September. Each change incorporates an enhancement to at least one route

as well as a myriad of minor timing alterations to reflect changes in demand.

5.9.4 After many years of step-by-step improvements, the bus network achieved a

turn-up-and-go frequency of a bus at least every ten minutes for 80% of

passengers. Obviously frequencies are reduced at times of lower demand

(very early mornings, evenings and on Sundays) but enhancements also

included the introduction of timetables running all night on some key routes.

The city having two universities and a large student population, including an

influx of language students in the summer, provides an excellent market for

intensive bus services.

5.9.5 The second commitment from the bus company is to provide value for money

fares and simple to understand ticketing. During the early 2000s, the fare

5 Curtesy of Roger French, former Managing Director of Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company

Page 44 of 169



system was simplified across the city with a flat £1 fare which led to a

significant increase in ridership during the period this applied. After that

period, emphasis was placed on encouraging passengers to purchase tickets in

advance of travel providing extra value. In recent years this policy has been

pursued through the extensive facility of paying by smartcard or smartphone

and more recently by contactless including capping of fares at a daily and

weekly rate.

5.9.6 Third commitment is regular investment in new buses to take advantage of

the latest technology for the environment as well as comfort and facilities for

passengers. In years past this included converting the fleet to low floor access

as quickly as possible and more recently the provision of USB sockets and wifi

as well as improvements in the comfort and layout of seating and space for

those with accessibility needs. Improved engine and exhaust emissions, hybrid

and electric propulsion have also been embraced. Brighton and Hove was the

first operator to employ hybrid vehicles which run wholly in electric mode in

the city centre.

5.9.7 Fourth commitment is a passion for delivering the very best customer service.

Ensuring that every customer is given the best possible journey experience

and if there are any shortcomings these are immediately corrected with an

apology and recompense. Access to locally based staff overseeing telephone,

email and social media channels has been key.

5.9.8 The fifth commitment is to produce and distribute excellent information and

marketing material and commit resources to promote bus travel so potential

customers are attracted to give it a try. Creating the desire to use buses is a

fundamental part of that all-important culture of bus use in the city.

5.9.9 The City Council has committed to introducing effective bus priority measures

including bus lanes and smooth passage through junctions and congestion

hotspots. These have been introduced in stages over many years along with a

strategy to encourage cycling.

5.9.10 The second commitment from the City Council is to introduce an effective

controlled parking regime together with its enforcement. Brighton & Hove was

one of the first councils to decriminalise on-street parking and it has also

consistently increased the cost of parking both on street and at car parks it

manages.

5.9.11 A third commitment is to oversee and support the introduction of a real time

information system. This includes high profile displays at bus stops throughout

the city as well as at key stops in the city centre. The bus company also

commits resources to keep this system up to date and has worked with App

developers to make the information available online and on smartphones.

Page 45 of 169



5.9.12 A fourth commitment is to provide a Park and Ride operation but this has not

been possible due to the logistics of finding a suitable location in a

topographically constrained city.

5.9.13 Overall the provision of bus priority measures and attitude towards parking

have encouraged the bus company to positively invest on a regular basis in

enhanced frequencies, value for money prices, new buses and excellence in

marketing and customer service.

5.10 Case Study – Harrogate

5.10.1 Transdev’s Harrogate Bus Company operation brands Harrogate as a Low

Emission Town, thanks to a combination of electric vehicles on local services

and Euro 6 standard new and retro-fitted vehicles on interurban routes. As

part of this, service 24 from Harrogate to Pateley Bridge was converted to

partial electric operation. Of the eight return journeys on a Monday – Friday

half of them are worked by an electric bus. Two of the four remaining journeys

need a larger vehicle as they run at school times, this bus is then used to fill in

in the early afternoon whilst the electric vehicle is recharged.

5.10.2 Service 24 has three return journeys on a Sunday which are operated under

contract to the Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company as Pateley

Bridge is a tourist destination on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales. The funding

for the Sunday services is provided by North Yorkshire County Council, Pateley

Bridge Town Council, Nidderdale Chamber of Trade and Harrogate Water

Brands (producer of Harrogate Spring Water).

5.10.3 Harrogate Water Brands also stepped in to fund free travel on the four town

routes in Harrogate in August 2019 following the end of Transdev’s ‘Sunday

Freeway’ trial. This had seen a 70% increase in patronage but could not be

funded commercially in the long term.

5.10.4 Harrogate Bus Company also operates flagship service 36 between Ripon,

Harrogate and Leeds. Despite competition from the railway between Harrogate

and Leeds there has been a continued investment in new vehicles with

innovative features such as being early adopters of Wi-Fi and phone charging

cradles, a constant marketing campaign and a gradual increase in frequency

from every 30 minutes in 2003 to every 10 minutes in 2019.

5.11 Case Study – Nottingham City Transport

5.11.1 Nottingham City Transport (NCT) is a multi-award winning Operator which is

82% council owned and 18% by Transdev. NCT carries 75 million passengers

a year. Nottingham has the highest bus usage per head outside London by a

significant margin.

Page 46 of 169



5.11.2 NCT believes that the high bus use per head compared to other major cities

may be partly down to the high standard of buses as the average age of the

fleet is only 4.5 years old. NCT’s fleet became 100% low floor in 2009 and

100% PSVAR compliant in 2012. It has the largest gas bus fleet in the country

receiving Green Bus funding for the first thirty gas buses and filling station.

The remaining ninety buses were self-funded but government grant was

obtained to extend the filling station to 200 vehicle capacity. The gas supply

uses 250 bar pressure so gives the same range as a diesel bus in an urban

environment but not enough capacity for all day running on its interurban

routes which will remain diesel for the foreseeable futures.

5.11.3 In 2011 NCT caused a stir in the industry when it replaced ageing double

decks on four half-hourly frequency routes with brand new midi-buses,

increasing the frequency on each route to every 15 minutes and creating two

co-ordinated 7/8 minute frequency corridors. The strategy was successful with

larger single deck vehicles needing to be purchased for these routes only two

years later.

5.11.4 Its strong relationship and a working understanding with the pro-public

transport Nottingham City Council benefits it significantly. In 1999 there were

only 400m of bus lanes in Nottingham, now these extend 26km but there are

still issues with congestion. Nottingham City Council owns the majority of city

centre car parks and looks to make the cost of parking higher than using

public transport. Four hours parking costs more than a £6 group rider ticket.

5.11.5 A Contactless capping system is being developed alongside Nottingham City

Council and the NET light rail system. NCT is also amending some services to

take over parts of a number of supported routes commercially thus helping the

council save money. Most notably the two Park and Ride sites have had their

dedicated services replaced with diversions to NCT local routes. The changes

to the Park and Ride services alone are estimated to save the council £0.5m

per year.

5.11.6 Nottingham is also the only place at the moment to fully implement a work

place parking levy. Funds from this has helped improve Public Transport

infrastructure, notably the tram system. However NCT feels that the Work

Place Parky levy has had little impact on its passenger numbers as work to

improve bus services happened before its introduction.

5.12 Summary

5.12.1 Whilst there are many different facets to encouraging bus use and modal shift,

it all comes down to the mantra of an attractive product at an attractive price,

available at a convenient time. This means that there should be an element of

making the use of cars unattractive or less attractive in respect of price and

journey time by comparison to using the bus.

Page 47 of 169



Page 48 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Analysis of the Concessionary Travel Market ▪ 47

6Analysis of the Concessionary Travel

Market

6

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 As part of our work for WCC on measures to promote bus travel, we have

reviewed local implementation of the English National Concessionary Travel

Scheme (ENCTS), which mandates free off-peak travel for elderly and disabled

people on registered local bus services at specified times.

6.1.2 In addition to analysis of a supplied copy of the Year-End Report 2018/2019

for the Warwickshire Countywide Concessionary Fares Scheme (“the

Scheme”), our conclusions are also based on guidance and statistics published

by the Department for Transport (DfT), research and our extensive,

accumulated knowledge of the principles, practice and impacts of

concessionary travel. Over the last 25 years, we have provided advice on

concessionary fares to over 70 local or national authorities and more than 20

bus operators.

6.1.3 The Scheme is currently administered on behalf of WCC by MCL Transport

Consultants Ltd, which has applied its standard approach to producing the

Scheme definition and reimbursement arrangements. We have examined

these for 2019/20 (retrieved from the WCC website). Unusually, no default

revenue reimbursement rate6 is specified in the Scheme, stating simply that a

single rate will be determined for each operator using defined fares data and

the ‘Discount Factor’ methodology of the DfT Reimbursement Calculator.

However, default additional cost rates are shown as follows, in each case per

generated journey:

Marginal Operating Costs = 7.5 pence

Administration Costs = 0.2 pence

Marginal Capacity Costs = 10.0 pence

6.1.4 The Scheme additionally allows free travel for Warwickshire passholders on

weekday journeys starting 09:00-09:30 and between 23:01 and 24:00 and

validity is extended to IndieGo community transport and Flexibus services.

However, no concession is offered to companions who assist disabled people

to use bus services.

6.1.5 We understand that reimbursement is applied to those community transport

(CT) services which are included in the Scheme at a rate of 80% of revenue

forgone. As a matter of principle, it is inappropriate for such services to have a

‘standard’ reimbursement rate applied. This is because the standard

6 i.e. the proportion of full fare which is regarded as revenue forgone, equivalent to the proportion of all concessionary journeys which have not been ‘generated’ by the reduction in fare to zero

Page 49 of 169



assessment of reimbursement assumes that the operator will benefit from

generated journeys and will have (or will be able to provide) the capacity to

accommodate them. In this case, for the CT operator to break even, the rate

assumes that it carries 25% more passengers than it would with no

concession.

6.1.6 This assumption is not appropriate for CT, the supply of which is usually

determined by the amount of funding the operator receives – whether in grant

form or through a Service Level Agreement (SLA) – from the local transport

authority. Moreover, supply and demand for CT are rarely in equilibrium, even

without free concessionary travel, so it is rarely possible to attribute the cause

of any increase in patronage to the existence of the concessionary scheme.

The end result is that the operator will be worse off – in contravention of the

statutory objective for reimbursement – and the overall supply of CT services

may be lower than it otherwise would be.

6.2 Analysis of 2018/19 Data

6.2.1 The data provided in the annual report exhibit a negative trend. Over the

period 2014/15 to 2018/19, concessionary bus trips under the Scheme fell by

18.7% to 4.66 million. Nevertheless, comparison with DfT statistics7 shows

that this is not unusual – only one of 72 authorities registered an increase

over this period and the average loss was over 14%. Data from most English

authorities showed a drop in total journeys of 2.1% from 2017/18, compared

with 3.1% in Warwickshire.

6.2.2 The Scheme report ascribed these losses to a mixture of the increase in age of

eligibility for the ENCTS pass and poor weather. The latter certainly shows

some linkage – March in 2018 was the coldest since 19628 and patronage fell

dramatically compared with 2017. There is sound academic evidence of

positive correlation between ambient temperature and concessionary travel.

6.2.3 However, the slower pace of accession9 to the minimum eligible age for ENCTS

which took effect from April 2016 seems to have influenced trip making less

significantly and we believe this may have been overstated as a cause of trip

decline. The fact that bus mileage in the county has fallen by nearly 10% over

the same five years appears more significant, especially as that on tendered

services (which tend to carry disproportionately more passholders) has fallen

by nearly 60%. Concessionary trips have also fallen less than journeys by

other passengers; total bus passenger trips fell by 26% over the same

period10.

7 Table Bus0823, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus08-concessionary-travel 8 See https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/interesting/2018/snow-and-low-temperatures-february-to-march-2018---met-office.pdf 9 From 50% of the cohort to 25% each year 10 Table Bus0109a, ibid.

Page 50 of 169

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus08-concessionary-travel

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/interesting/2018/snow-and-low-temperatures-february-to-march-2018---met-office.pdf

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/interesting/2018/snow-and-low-temperatures-february-to-march-2018---met-office.pdf



6.2.4 The amount spent on reimbursement saw little change from the previous year,

reflecting increased adult fare levels. However, the revenue reimbursement

rate and absolute level of payments to operators are very low in the Scheme.

The average amount paid to operators was 99.9 pence per passenger trip,

including additional costs – an effective reimbursement rate of just 43.6%

against the average fare forgone of £2.29, while the revenue reimbursement

rate (without additional costs) averaged just 37.5%. This is one of the lowest

rates in England and acts as a disincentive for operators to cater for

concessionary passholders or to develop and promote services which are

attractive to them.

6.2.5 It is true that both the major local operator, Stagecoach, and Johnson’s

Coaches receive a higher effective rate because each receives further

additional cost payments “outside the Scheme”, although agreed with the

Scheme’s administrator. Assuming that the average fare and reimbursement

rates for Stagecoach are close to the mean for all operators11, this means that

its effective reimbursement rate is in the region of 56%. This is much closer to

the typical value for ENCTS across England and suggests that the rate paid to

smaller operators (typically those providing tendered services and carrying a

higher proportion of concessionaires) may be inappropriately low. We believe

this is primarily a failure of the methodology recommended by the DfT, rather

than a defect in WCC procedures.

6.2.6 The overall take-up rate for the Scheme (at around 74% of the estimated

eligible population) is similar to those in many other shire counties and

significantly higher than some of WCC’s neighbours.

6.2.7 However, a feature of the WCC Scheme is the low proportion of passes issued

on grounds of disability. This may be marginally influenced by issuing policy, if

all people qualified on grounds of age receive an age-related pass irrespective

of any disability they may also have. Nonetheless, 4.5% is an unusually small

proportion of passholders to qualify on grounds of disability – our experience

is that a proportion of eight to twelve per cent is the norm. This seems

unlikely to be explained by lower incidence of disabilities in the local

population – the prevalence of disability12 in the West Midlands (18.9% in

201813) is not very different from the average for England.

6.2.8 We believe that part of the explanation for this low take-up among disabled

people may lie in the absence of two features which are common in other

areas;

concessionary travel for a ‘necessary companion’, and

the extension of general validity to include morning peak travel.

11 Reasonable assumptions, since Stagecoach represents about 82% of all concessionary travel 12 As defined in the Equality Act 2010 13 See https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/datasets/prevalenceandemployment

Page 51 of 169

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/datasets/prevalenceandemployment

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/datasets/prevalenceandemployment



6.2.9 Groups who would benefit from these currently have little incentive to acquire

an ENCTS pass and either extension should encourage uptake.

6.3 Options for Development

6.3.1 Introducing companion eligibility or morning peak validity for disabled

passholders would increase the utility of the Scheme to different segments of

the disabled travel market: the first by facilitating bus use by more severely

disabled people who need the physical assistance or psychological reassurance

of a carer to travel by bus; the second by enabling use of the pass by those in

employment to travel to work. Obviously, each would also incur additional

reimbursement cost, but this is likely to be modest.

6.3.2 There would also be further potential implications for each proposal, viz:

Companion eligibility is a locally negotiated enhancement which lies outside

the national scheme. Therefore, there is no entitlement to recognition of

free companion travel outside the ‘home’ area where the pass was issued.

This would limit its utility, especially in a county like Warwickshire which is

so dependent on its metropolitan neighbours for many of its services. It

would therefore be necessary to negotiate acceptance of companion passes

with TfWM and other neighbouring authorities, which might require some

compensation or reciprocal acceptance.

Validity of disabled passes during the morning peak might lead operators to

claim that the reimbursement calculation is incorrect, particularly in respect

of additional costs. However, experience elsewhere is that pre-0930 validity

for disabled passholders only does not impose additional demands on

capacity and it has generally been possible to negotiate acceptance with no

effect on reimbursement rates. This would, obviously, be easier if aligned

with a sympathetic review of reimbursement in general.

6.3.3 A general review of concessionary reimbursement opens wider possibilities for

change. Apart from the existing variations in reimbursement rates for specific

operators or CT services, it would be possible to introduce varied rates for

different categories of service. For example, these might distinguish between:

urban or town services;

interurban services; and

rural services.

6.3.4 Experience has shown clear evidence that trip generation has been highest on

interurban services, notably those with scenic or tourist potential. However, as

it is now twelve years since ENCTS was introduced, quantifying typical

generation is problematical; even if robust historical data were available,

Page 52 of 169



changes in services and travel patterns may be such that appropriate

comparisons are extremely difficult.

6.3.5 What would not be possible is to differentiate reimbursement rates between

services on any basis which is not objective and justifiable by variation in the

characteristics of the services concerned. For example, applying a preferential

reimbursement rate to services operating under a quality partnership would

not be acceptable and would be open to legal challenge. The statutory

objective as stated in the 1986 Regulations is that “operators both individually

and in the aggregate are financially no better and no worse off”. Combined

with the requirement14 that reimbursement must reflect actual revenue

forgone or additional costs incurred, this effectively prohibits favourable

treatment of particular services or operators.

6.4 Concessionary Scheme Recommendations

6.4.1 We recommend a review of the reimbursement arrangements to ensure that

the statutory objective that operators should be ‘no better and no worse off’ is

fully met and that the resultant payment rates encourage operators to cater

positively for this market.

a) This does not necessarily require abandoning the DfT reimbursement

model, but may imply adopting a more flexible and sympathetic approach

to operators’ interests in matters of discretion.

b) Special consideration should be given to reimbursement rates for

community transport operations, which need to start from a position of

justifying any reduction from 100% reimbursement. This approach may

also be appropriate for some very infrequent rural services (as envisaged

in the DfT guidance15), which may entail departing from a single rate for

each operator.

6.4.2 We recommend exploration of two further opportunities to develop the

concessionary travel market in Warwickshire:

a) Consider adding companion travel for qualifying disabled people, to

broaden the potential market and encourage more people at the margin of

practical bus use to expand their travel options. This may also relieve some

pressure on community transport and non-emergency patient transport

operations.

14 derived from Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 15 ‘Concessionary travel for older and disabled people: guidance on reimbursing bus operators (England)’ (DfT, Nov 2019), paras. 3.19 to 3.22

Page 53 of 169



b) Consider allowing the use of ‘disabled’ passes prior to 0900 on weekdays,

either free or at a nominal flat fare. This would increase the attractiveness

of the Scheme to working disabled people, encouraging pass take-up and

use at all times, and supporting them in their employment choices.

6.4.3 These recommendations would entail additional costs and would not of

themselves guarantee significant increases in patronage. However, the cost

increases would be small in respect of the disabled pass proposals of perhaps

two to four per cent in total, while the larger, more variable increase from

reviewing general reimbursement rates may be partially offset by reductions in

secured service costs.

Page 54 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Gaps in the Network ▪ 53

7Gaps in the Network 7

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This section looks at where there appear to be gaps in the bus network,

railway stations which are currently underserved by bus services and the

contribution Community Transport plays in filling in some of the gaps.

7.1.2 Identifying a ‘gap’ does not necessarily suggest a total lack of service, but

could be where the frequency is seen as inadequate to fulfil all journey

purposes.

7.1.3 It also includes some suggestions of how these gaps could be filled (there will,

of course, be other solutions) and some of these proposals will go into the

forward plans, but as yet, none is a concrete proposal. All will, of necessity,

come at a cost.

7.2 Locations

Kingsbury

7.2.1 Kingsbury’s main services are two hourly routes from Tamworth (though not a

coordinated 30 minute frequency) one of which terminates in Kingsbury (16)

and one of which runs to Hurley (15). There is currently no regular link south

from Kingsbury beyond the once a day X16 to and from Birmingham and

Stagecoach 766 which diverts once a day through Kingsbury. The best solution

would be to extend service 16 from Mill Crescent to Birmingham International

via Coleshill Parkway station.

7.2.2 East and West links from Kingsbury are available by changing in Tamworth.

Southam

7.2.3 Southam’s major bus links are to Leamington Spa and Rugby. There is a

Thursday only Flexibus and a Saturday only Stagecoach service to Banbury. A

route from Banbury to Coventry running via Gaydon (including the British

Motor Museum and Jaguar Land Rover), Bishop’s Ichington, Southam and

Ryton-on-Dunsmore (including Prologis Park) would provide new work, leisure

and tourism links.

Warwick to Birmingham International

7.2.4 Birmingham Airport, International railway station and the NEC complex are big

employers, attractors of visitors and transport hubs. The only link from the

Warwick and Leamington area is the hourly Bournemouth to Manchester Cross

Country train which calls at Leamington Spa and Birmingham International

stations. For maximum tourist potential a replacement for service 16 between

Page 55 of 169



Warwick and Kenilworth (which passes the castles at both locations) could run

hourly from Warwick Bus Station and extend beyond Kenilworth to

Birmingham International via the A452.

7.2.5 A Warwick to Birmingham International route has been tried in the past but

was not a commercial success. One possible reason was that operating hours

were too limited.

Atherstone and Polesworth – Birmingham International

7.2.6 There is currently a lack of frequent north to south links across North

Warwickshire. With the continued development around Birmingham

International a link from Atherstone and Polesworth is desired by the district

council. In order to serve some of the intermediate settlements the link is

likely to be fulfilled by two separate routes. The one from Atherstone could run

via Ansley, New Arley and Fillingley. The route from Polesworth could run via

Dordon, Birch Coppice, Wood End and Hurley before reaching Hams Hall,

Coleshill Parkway and Coleshill. This could alternatively run via Kingsbury

instead of Hurley, as a substitute to an extension of service 16 (7.2.1).

Nuneaton – Magna Park

7.2.7 The large distribution centre at Magna Park is currently only served by the X84

from Rugby. Introducing a direct bus service from Nuneaton should help open

up employment opportunities. The route could be extended to either Rugby or

Lutterworth providing more direct journey opportunities. There is currently no

regular direct bus between Nuneaton and Rugby whilst the train service only

runs once an hour.

Stratford-upon-Avon

7.2.8 There are currently limited links eastwards from Stratford-upon-Avon and

Wellesbourne. A route that runs to Gaydon would provide both employment

and tourist links. This could be further extended to Southam and Daventry

creating a new link across the south east corner of Warwickshire.

7.2.9 Despite the tourist attractions in Stratford-upon-Avon there are only limited

links to Birmingham International. Currently the best way is to catch the train

from International to New Street, walk to Moor Street and catch a train to

Stratford-upon-Avon. Service 75 between Sutton Coldfield and Birmingham

International is proposed to be extended on to Solihull. The service would be

designed to connect with Johnson’s X20 from Stratford-upon-Avon at Solihull

providing a link between this area of Warwickshire and Birmingham

International.

Page 56 of 169



7.3 Links to Railway Stations

Warwick Parkway

7.3.1 Warwick Parkway Station is served by more of Chiltern Railway’s London to

Birmingham trains than Warwick Station. However the only bus route to serve

the station is Stagecoach’s infrequent service 16. Not only is the service

approximately every two hours but it takes a long way round to get to

Warwick town centre. The current timetable is not designed to connect with

any trains.

7.3.2 A single bus could easily shuttle back and forth between Warwick Bus Station,

Warwick Parkway and Hatton Park providing connections from Warwick into

the xx:16 departure to London and xx:33 arrival from London. However most

of the Stratford-upon-Avon and Birmingham Moor Street to Leamington Spa

‘stopping’ services which call at Warwick are already timed to connect with the

fast London trains at Leamington Spa.

Bermuda Park Station and Bermuda Village

7.3.3 The current local road network makes serving Bermuda Park Railway Station

and Bermuda Village almost impossible by bus as the Bermuda Bridge over the

A444 cannot be accessed by vehicles and both destinations are situated on a

cul-de-sac. However, the County Council is implementing ‘Bermuda

Connectivity’ which is a major highway scheme focused on the improvement

and opening of an existing bridge to all road users and complementary

measures to mitigate the impact on the local highway network. The Scheme

will create an additional 1.3 miles of highway link between West Nuneaton and

Griff Roundabout and will enhance highway connectivity between Bermuda

Park Railway Station and Bermuda Village.

7.3.4 The scheme is expected to open in 2021-22 and will make it possible for either

a standalone service or an extension of service 65 to run from George Eliot

Hospital to Walsingham Drive via St George’s Way and St David’s Way. If the

vehicle was the appropriate size it could even be extended to loop around

Water Lily Way, Wisteria Way and Carnation Way.

7.3.5 In alignment with the above, the following will be included in a forthcoming

'Confirmation of Intention' regarding use of an additional £500k of funding

towards supporting bus services in 2020-21:

Extending a subsidised bus service to call at Bermuda Park Rail Station via

Bermuda Bridge; and

This would require a request to the DfT to delay discharge of funding until

2021-22 pending delivery of Bermuda Connectivity.

Page 57 of 169



Kenilworth

7.3.6 Access to Kenilworth Railway Station for most bus routes that also seek to

serve the town centre is hampered by the road layout to the south of the

station. At the same time much of the town to the east of the railway is

relatively poorly served by bus services except for those roads served by the

X17. There may be some merit in improving the frequency of the 539 at the

Kenilworth end.

7.3.7 As part of the continued expansion of new housing developments in Kenilworth

there is a desire for a town bus service. This is suggested to run at least every

thirty minutes all day. Being limited to the town it would not suffer the

competition issues that the main bus routes through Kenilworth currently do.

Lapworth

7.3.8 Most of the railway stations in the west of the county on the lines out of

Birmingham Moor Street are poorly served by bus due the dispersed nature of

the communities they serve. Providing public transport to these stations would

be more appropriate and efficient if undertaken by some form of DRT

operation.

7.3.9 Lapworth station sits between the two National Trust properties of Packwood

House and Baddesley Clinton. Given the proximity of the two sites it might be

worth approaching the National Trust regarding running a bus service between

the two sites which would also serve Lapworth Railway Station. This would

hopefully encourage more people to access them by train and encourage those

who have come by car to park at one site and use the bus to access the other.

7.3.10 Lapworth is due to be covered in both the new UBUS and Warwick Rural DRT

schemes. These should include Lapworth Railway Station and the two National

Trust properties within their range of pick up points and destinations.

7.4 Park and Ride

7.4.1 There is currently only one Park and Ride site in Warwickshire (excluding

Warwick Parkway Railway Station) at Stratford Parkway which provides both

bus and rail links into Stratford-upon-Avon. Historically there was a second

Park and Ride site at the Waitrose store to the south of Stratford but this no

longer operates.

Warwick and Leamington Spa

7.4.2 It is understandable that the current investigation into Park and Ride sites is

focussed on Warwick and Leamington Spa. The three biggest Park and Ride

operations in England are around the historic cities of Cambridge, Oxford and

York. Here there are multiple sites around the radius of the cities, generally

along the main roads in, allowing easy use for anyone approaching from any

Page 58 of 169



direction. The city centres have restricted road space, bus priority measures

and high car parking charges which deter motorists from driving in.

7.4.3 York’s Park and Ride network acts additionally as a local bus service on the

main corridors as well as serving locations such as York Designer Outlet, whilst

Oxford has additional services from Park and Ride sites to the John Radcliffe

Hospital avoiding the city centre. Warwick Hospital and Technology Park are

both locations which could provide additional traffic for a Park and Ride service

along with tourists and shoppers accessing the town centre.

Stratford-upon-Avon

7.4.4 As noted in 7.4.1 there is currently only one official Park and Ride site for

Stratford-upon-Avon whilst 7.4.2 shows that to be successful there needs to

be multiple sites. The major issue in Stratford is that the cost of parking in the

centre is too low compared to using the Park and Ride. Table 1 sets out a

comparison of Stratford-upon-Avon against Cambridge, Durham, Oxford, Truro

and York.

Table 1: Comparison of Park and Ride and Car Parking Costs

Location Park & Ride 3 Hours Parking 6 Hours Parking

Stratford-upon-Avon £5 peak, £3 off peak

(2 children free)*

£3.00 £6.00

Cambridge £3 (3 children free) From £4.40 From £10.50

Durham £2 (all U16s free) From £2.40 From £4.80

Oxford £6.80 (2 Adults & 3 U16s)* £5.00 £11.00

Truro £4 (2 Adults & 4 U16s) £4.60 £8.20

York £3.30 (3 U17s free) £6.90 £13.00

*Includes cost of parking at P&R site

Nuneaton and Rugby

7.4.5 These towns do not have the same tourist markets as Stratford-upon-Avon

and Warwick, so it is difficult to justify a dedicated park and ride service.

However they do still have significant traffic generators such as shopping

centres, hospitals and railway stations all of which warrant an investigation

into the best locations for park and ride car parks. These could be served by

the diversion or extension of existing services and would have to be of a

frequency high enough (i.e. at least every 20 minutes single or combined) to

be attractive for users.

Page 59 of 169



7.5 Access to Hospitals

University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire

7.5.1 This hospital is already directly served by buses from Nuneaton via

Bucklingham (74) and Bedworth (78/78A) and from Rugby via Brinklow (585)

although the latter service has a large gap in the afternoon timetable.

7.5.2 However those travelling from Kenilworth, Leamington and Warwick currently

have to change in Coventry, often having to change from a Stagecoach bus to

a National Express bus. There are therefore two possible solutions, one is to

extend service X17 beyond Coventry Bus Station to serve the hospital, which

might also encourage greater use of the War Memorial Park and Ride site. The

other is to provide a bus ticket add on for use on National Express services 9

and 9A or include the 9 and 9A in any Warwickshire multi-operator ticketing

scheme. The 9 and 9A run every 15 minutes to the hospital from the bus

station taking around 20 minutes.

Warwick Hospital & St Michaels Hospital

7.5.3 These hospitals are currently served by Stagecoach X17 which runs every 20

minutes and provides direct links from parts of Leamington and Kenilworth.

Indirect links are made through changing at Leamington Parade or Warwick

Bus Station. Given that service 15 currently only provides an hourly service

through the Chase Meadows estate there could be scope to extend the second

bus an hour between Stratford and Wellesbourne to Warwick Hospital

providing a direct link from Stratford-upon-Avon, Wellesbourne, Barford and

Chase Meadows. This would additionally create a direct link between those

settlements and Warwick Railway Station and even be extended to Hathaway

Drive in Woodloes Park and on to IBM and the new houses on Haywood Road

which are currently by-passed by service 1.

7.5.4 Additionally any Park and Ride service introduced could provide links to the

hospital, either running via it and Warwick Railway Station if in the north, or

cross town if in the south or west.

Hospital of St Cross, Rugby

7.5.5 This hospital is rather poorly served by bus and in some respects this is down

to its location. Services coming in from the south of Rugby follow the A426,

which has a high concentration of residences, rather than using the sparsely

populated Barby Road to pass the hospital. The bus stops at Wentworth Road

on the A426 are set back in laybys and have shelters, all that is needed is

some wayfinding signs to direct people along the footpath by Sow Brook

(North) to reach the hospital.

7.5.6 The only two bus routes to the hospital itself are low in frequency, service 11

operates four times a day whilst the 585 is hourly for part of the day but has

gaps in service too. The best way to improve the service to the hospital would

Page 60 of 169



be by extending Stagecoach’s services 1 & 2 – in theory this should just

involve a minor tweak to the timetable as during the middle of the day the bus

appears to sit at Rugby North Street for 19 minutes and a round trip to the

hospital should take about 20 minutes.

George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton

7.5.7 This is a well-served hospital, those passengers from the few areas without a

direct link are able to easily change in Nuneaton for a connecting service with

either Arriva or Stagecoach.

Stratford Hospital

7.5.8 Although not directly served by bus, it is located close to the railway station

and its associated bus stops. However there does not appear to be a direct

walking route between the two locations and providing such a link would be

the best solution.

7.6 Community Transport

7.6.1 The availability of Community Transport (CT) and Demand Responsive

Transport (DRT) in Warwickshire is relatively comprehensive, with a network

of routed buses, dial-a-ride and volunteer car schemes, provided by both the

voluntary sector and commercial operators. The branded ‘Flexi-Bus’, ‘Indigo’

and ‘UBUS’ services are flexibly routed services that can also accommodate

passengers with disabilities (e.g. wheelchair users) through door to door

provision. Full details of the CT and DRT network is provided in Appendix B:

Community Transport in Warwickshire.

7.6.2 An issue that is identified is that the majority of these door-to-door and semi-

scheduled bus services offer limited time coverage because they are designed

to dovetail around school contracts. This prevents travel at certain times of the

day (namely the ‘school peaks’ in the early morning and mid-afternoon).

However, it is recognised that the ‘Flexi-Bus’, ‘Indigo’ and ‘UBUS’ services

have been subsidised on the basis of ‘smart’ procurement by Warwickshire

County Council, being bundled with Home to School contracts and create

significant capacity at marginal cost.

7.6.3 The needs of the majority of the users of a traditional Dial-a-Ride service can

be met between 9.30am and 2.30pm but set against this, of course, is that

potential users outside these times are not served. Hence the otherwise

extensive collective network of flexible and community bus routes offered by

Flexi-Bus, Hedgehog Community Bus, Shipston Link, IndieGo and UBUS do not

enable commuter journeys for rural dwellers because of the timetable

limitations. IndieGo in Coleshill does allow morning journeys to Coleshill

Parkway Station and should be available for evening returns. It is reported

that this timetable is designed to meet “key shift change times” at Hams Hall.

Page 61 of 169



7.6.4 Table 2 below provides a basic assessment of the geographical coverage of the

CT & DRT provision (including car schemes) based on operational zones and

routes with reference to the key centres of population. Warwick is the district

with the weakest coverage, especially given the urban area comprising

Leamington Spa, Whitnash and Warwick itself. Coverage in all areas is limited

at school times, evenings and weekends, the latter two periods rarely having

any extensive coverage in the CT sector elsewhere.

7.6.5 We note that there is little use made of the taxi or private hire sector in CT or

DRT provision apart from some elements of UBUS provided by Clarkes of

Shipston.

Table 2: Comparison of Levels of CT and DRT by Warwickshire District

District Main Centres of

Population

No or Very

Limited CT /

DRT

Coverage

Moderate

Level of CT /

DRT

Coverage

High Level

of CT / DRT

Coverage

North Warwickshire Atherstone

Coleshill

Hartshill

Kingsbury

Polesworth

Nuneaton & Bedworth Bedworth

Nuneaton

Rugby Rugby

Stratford-upon-Avon Alcester

Shipston-on-Stour

Southam

Stratford-upon-Avon

Warwick Kenilworth

Leamington Spa

Whitnash

Warwick

7.6.6 It has been proposed to further develop the UBUS service on expiry of its

current contract in June 2020 and an opportunity has been identified to

expand service coverage in the Stratford District by transferring resource from

Flexi-Bus. This is seen to present some challenges due to the need to continue

to provide services for residents who are currently reliant upon Flexi-Bus and

using concessionary passes, which are not currently accepted on UBUS.

7.6.7 Additional capacity will extend the service until 19:00, although the proposed

operation is still wrapped around the school contract, which therefore excludes

Page 62 of 169



trips between 14:30 and 16:30 during term time. Outside of school term time

the service still starts at 09:30. This is seen to be a ‘cost-neutral’ change and

would enable trips later in the day, answering some of the limitations of the

earlier configuration. Usage between 18:00 and 19:00 should be monitored

carefully, however, as demand may not warrant its continuation.

7.6.8 The switch from the timetabled Flexi-Bus model to the pre-booked UBUS

approach will need some consideration. Experience elsewhere has suggested

that the transition can be difficult and Flexi-Bus passengers may not see UBUS

as a suitable like-for-like replacement, with the need to pre-book imposing a

barrier to use for some.

7.6.9 The proposal emphasises the need for the new UBUS services to accept

concessionary passes and states: “All vehicles will therefore need to be

registered as a local bus service and operated with an ‘O’ Licence or section 22

community bus permit to be eligible for the scheme.” If the current operators

are to remain, Warwickshire Rural Community Council and Clarke’s, then the

switch to ‘O’ Licence may not be straightforward. In the case of the former

operator, there is no restriction, in principle, preventing the concessionary

fares scheme being extended to a s19 Permit operator.

7.7 Summary

7.7.1 There are a number of long cross-boundary routes which can fill in the small

number of gaps within Warwickshire’s existing bus network. Links to

Birmingham International for the NEC seem the largest gap at the moment

given the proposed UK Central development and HS2 station there.

7.7.2 Park and Ride services can definitely play a part in encouraging modal shift,

however this needs to be done in tandem with a change in town centre

parking policy from the district councils. Park and Ride schemes can also help

to provide better access to hospitals by public transport.

7.7.3 The new UBUS contract will need careful monitoring to see how successful it is

both in respect of the replacement of scheduled services with DRT and the

extension of operating hours.

Page 63 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Information Provision ▪ 63

8Information Provision 8

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This section looks at the current level of bus service information provided in

Warwickshire along with examples from elsewhere showing ways in which the

presentation of information could be improved.

8.2 Current Online Provision for Warwickshire

8.2.1 As part of the project we were interested in finding out what information the

Council and Local Bus Operators provide about ticketing, disruptions, service

changes and other information such as timetables and how to use the bus.

Below is a summary for the Council and every major Operator in the area. We

will consider information displayed on their Websites and information posted

on Twitter and other social media.

Warwickshire County Council

8.2.2 Warwickshire CC has a separate webpage for Public Transport which can be

accessed from the main menu (https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/buses ).

Should you know your destination and route there is a search bar feature

which allows the user to see all of the timetables for that destination or route.

There is also detailed information on both permanent and temporary timetable

changes and the effect it will have on the service it concerns.

8.2.3 Warwickshire deserves much credit for its website content as many other local

authorities have information on concessionary fares but otherwise simply

redirect queries to Traveline, despite its shortcomings (see 8.3.7 et. seq.)

8.2.4 The Council has a dedicated twitter page @WCCBusServices which covers

School and Public Transport information from 08:00 until 16:30 every

weekday. The feed includes any service updates, disruptions and any other

relevant information that may affect journeys.

8.2.5 As well as this the Website provides links to the following:

Information on free bus travel for eligible passengers and the ability to

apply for a pass;

Bus Route Maps;

School Transport;

Community Transport;

Medical Appointment transport information;

Page 65 of 169

https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/buses



Journey Planner;

Links to Operators’ Websites;

Park and Ride and

Car Share arrangements

Johnson’s

8.2.6 Johnson’s provides both Coach and Bus travel and similarly to the Council it

has a dedicated page for buses (https://www.johnsonscoaches.co.uk/buses ).

From the "Buses" page it is possible to access the following information:

Timetables;

Fares;

Bus Service updates (which at the time of writing contains its statement on

COVID-19 only);

Links to various ticket types;

Information on School Services;

Lost Property;

Contract Bus information;

Route Map and

Link to its Twitter feed

8.2.7 There didn't appear to be a Journey Planning tool or a link to the council's

website which could make it difficult for anyone new to the area.

8.2.8 On Johnson’s Twitter page @Johnsonstraffic its team updates the feed daily

from 05:00 until 19:00 and contains live service changes, disruptions including

heavy traffic and road closures and anything else that could impact upon a

passenger's journey.

Stagecoach

8.2.9 The Stagecoach website can provide area specific information by changing the

location at the top of the page. This does not affect the Journey Planner as the

user has the ability to search anywhere within the whole Stagecoach network

regardless of their location.

8.2.10 However it does help with tickets as it makes the page location specific which

is useful. However the timetable page remains blank unless you know the bus

number, this may be hard for someone new to an area.

Page 66 of 169

https://www.johnsonscoaches.co.uk/buses



8.2.11 Information on the website includes:

Timetables;

Tickets;

Fares;

Journey Planner;

Network Maps and

Service Updates;

8.2.12 Stagecoach has dedicated Twitter pages which cover all of the regions within

its network. Stagecoach Midlands (@StagecoachMids) covers Warwickshire

and similarly to both Johnson’s and the Council provides specific updates

affecting passenger journeys within the area. Stagecoach Midlands is active on

Twitter on weekdays 07:00 until 19:00 and at weekends 09:00 until 17:00.

Travel De Courcey

8.2.13 Similarly to Johnson’s, Travel de Courcey provides both Coach and Bus

services. As a local service for Coventry and the Midlands the information is

relevant without the need to change location. Travel de Courcey's website has

the following information:

Timetables;

Tickets;

Fares;

Journey Planner;

Network Maps and

Service Updates

8.2.14 Travel de Courcey does have a twitter page (@DecourceyTravel) however it

has posted fewer than ten Tweets and this therefore suggest it is not

habitually active on social media to provide live alerts.

National Express

8.2.15 Like Stagecoach the National Express website can provide area specific

information, accessed by changing the location at the top of the page. Its

dedicated page for Coventry provides the following location specific

information:

Timetables;

Page 67 of 169



Tickets;

Fares;

Journey Planner and

Network Maps

8.2.16 National Express has a specific twitter feed for Coventry Services

(@NXC_Alerts) which is primarily used to provide updates on disruptions.

Arriva

8.2.17 Arriva has region specific pages and provides the same basic level of

information as the other Operators. However Arriva does also have a real time

information feature which allows you to "track your bus in real time". This

feature allows you to select a bus you wish to follow in any part of Arriva's

Network.

8.2.18 The basic level of information on the website includes:

Track your bus;

Timetables;

Tickets;

Fares;

Journey Planner and

Network Maps

8.2.19 Arriva's Twitter page for the area (@arrivamidlandsE) has a dedicated team

that answers customer queries from 09:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday only.

The Twitter feed provides updates on disruptions and changes to services,

marketing campaigns, for example ‘Everybody's Journey’ and other

information including ticket offers.

Summary

8.2.20 Table 3 below compares the features and information available on WCC and

operator websites. As can be seen most operators provide all the features

passengers need.

Page 68 of 169



Table 3: Comparison of Features across Websites

Feature Warwickshire

CC

Johnsons Stagecoach Arriva Travel De

Courcey

National

Express

Service Disruptions

/ changes

√ √ √ √ √ √

Timetables √ √ √ √ √ √

Journey Planning √ X √ √ √ √

Network Maps √ √ √ √ √ √

Ticket Types X √ √ √ √ √

Fares X √ √ √ √ √

8.3 Journey Planner Comparison

8.3.1 Online journey planners are now seen as the go to resource for those wishing

to make an unfamiliar journey by public transport. However, not all are user

friendly and some almost need the user to know the answer before they can

enter the detail. In order to assess the usability of WCC's own journey planner

it was compared against two others, these being:

Travelwest; and

Traveline.

WCC Journey Planner (Google Maps)

8.3.2 Warwickshire County Council's journey planner wasn't the easiest to locate as

it is placed in the "Active Travel" section of the authority’s website, found

under a sub directory of ‘Social Care and Health’ rather than being under

Public Transport or Roads and Services. It is fair to assume that if someone

was looking for a journey planner they would be more likely to look under the

Public Transport section than Health and Social Care. The link to

Warwickshire's Journey Planner can be found here:

https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/activetravel

8.3.3 Even if the potential user knows where to look for the journey planner, which

option do they use to find out information about the bus? As Figure K shows

the only thing that hints at being able to find out about buses is the picture of

a bus over the ‘Public Transport and Road Safety’ tab – this takes you to

another page which contains a link to WCC’s own bus information page. Cycle,

walking, rail and even electric cars are given more prominence on this website

than buses.

Page 69 of 169

https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/activetravel



Figure K: Active Travel Home Page

8.3.4 The journey planner link takes the user directly to Google Maps so this

comparison is effectively going to explore what options Google Maps gives the

user when selecting the "Transit" option.

Travelwest

8.3.5 Travelwest is the name for the joint transport body covering the former Avon

county area. This is included as a comparator as it part of an ‘information all in

one place’ website. As part of its wide ranging website which covers all modes

of transport it offer a Journey Planning facility:

https://travelwest.info/bus/timetables-and-journey-planning

8.3.6 The journey planner is also available on the home screen of the website (see

Figure R) making it much more integrated with the other public transport

information that WCC’s. Travelwest’s journey planner works in a similar way to

Google Maps in that the user simply puts in the point to point locations of their

journey and it will offer a range of journey options.

Traveline

8.3.7 Traveline is a nationwide agency which provides public transport information

on a regional level. Its national Journey Planner can be accessed at:

https://www.traveline.info/

8.3.8 Note that the journey planning software on Traveline varies by region and

therefore different formats apply. If a potential user searches for ‘Traveline

Warwickshire’ he or she is taken to:

Page 70 of 169

https://travelwest.info/bus/timetables-and-journey-planning

https://www.traveline.info/



http://www.travelinemidlands.co.uk

8.3.9 Similarly to the other examples chosen this is a simple point to point planner,

however there are some key differences which allow for further customisation

of the user's journey. For both Travelwest and Google Maps it is possible to

select various options which affect the route such as "less walking" or a

preference in mode. Traveline appears to go one step further particularly for

those who have a preference on how far and how fast they can walk.

8.3.10 Traveline offers a feature which the user can increase or decrease the

maximum distance walked over the route which will then affect the route

offered. As well as affecting the way in which the journey is planned, Traveline

also has a feature where the user can select "slow", "medium" or "fast"

walking speed. This affects the estimated time taken for the walking part of

the route, however there is no indication of how fast each of these options is.

8.3.11 Two journeys that cross Warwickshire were used for the test. The first journey

selected started at Market Place in Warwick to Little Park Street in the centre

of Coventry and then a second trip was chosen from Newton Road in Bedworth

to Albert Street in Rugby. Both journeys were based on the passenger

travelling at 12:00 on 8th April. It is also worth noting that journeys are

affected by the special timetables during current health pandemic which

should be reflected in the results. All results are based on the Journey

Planners’ default settings for transit mode or equivalent.

Journey 1 – Market Place, Warwick to Little Park Street, Coventry

8.3.12 Google offers a number of different options all of which contain more than one

mode of transport. The fastest journey starts at 12:33 and takes 55 minutes

with five legs, shown below with their allocated journey time:

Walk to the Bus stop (2 Minutes)

Bus 15 to Leamington Spa (19 minutes)

Walk Railway Stations stop to Leamington Spa Railway Station (2 Minutes)

Train Leamington Spa to Coventry (16 minutes)

Walk to Coventry Railway Station to Little Park Street (11 minutes)

8.3.13 Travelwest offers three journeys, two of which use Public Transport and one

which involves walking all the way. The Public Transport routes involve fewer

stages than the ones suggested by Google Maps.

8.3.14 The quickest journey starts at 12:17 takes 52 Minutes and has the following

stages shown below with their allocated journey time:

Walk to the Bus stop (2 minutes)

Page 71 of 169

http://www.travelinemidlands.co.uk/



X18 to Coventry Quadrant (44 minutes 30 stops)

Walk Coventry Quadrant to Little Park Street (5 minutes)

8.3.15 The second journey starts at 12:23, takes 1 hour and 6 minutes and requires

the following stages:

Walk to Warwick Railway Station (19 minutes)

Train Warwick to Leamington Spa Railway Station (4 minutes 1 stop)

15 minute transfer time

Train from Leamington Spa Railway Station to Coventry Railway Station (16

minutes 2 stops)

Walk Coventry Railway Station to Little Park Street (12 minutes)

8.3.16 Traveline offers four options, with the longest taking 1 hour and 12 minutes.

The quickest journey is similar to the one offered by Travelwest, however

Traveline estimates the journey at only 45 minutes instead of 52 minutes, this

is mostly due to the fact that the bus element of the journey is six minutes

quicker:

Walk to the Bus stop (2 minutes)

X18 to Coventry Quadrant (38 minutes)

Walk Coventry Quadrant to Little Park Street (4 minutes)

8.3.17 The longest journey in this case is the same as the above but using the X17

instead of the X18. The predicted time on the X17 for this journey is one hour

and one minute.

Journey 2 – Newton Road, Bedworth to Albert Street, Rugby

8.3.18 Similarly to the shorter trip above there are no direct links offered by Google

Maps between Bedworth and Rugby. The quickest trip starts at 12:39, lasts 1

hour and 45 minutes and requires the passenger to make the following stages:

Walk to Mill Street (8 minutes)

20 from Mill Street to Coventry Bus Station (26 minutes 28 stops)

585A Coventry to Rugby (59 minutes 44 stops)

Walk Rugby Town Centre to Albert street (4 minutes)

8.3.19 For this journey Travelwest offers three options which can be made by public

transport. The key difference here is that even the quickest trip requires

Page 72 of 169



significantly more walking than Google Maps’ suggestions. The below trip

takes 1 hour and 11 minutes:

Walk to Bedworth Railway Station (20 minutes)

Train Bedworth to Coventry Railway Station (13 minutes 2 stop)

Train Coventry to Rugby Railway Station (10 minutes 1 stop)

Walk Rugby Railway Station to Albert Street (16 minutes)

8.3.20 The quickest journey option offered by Traveline is the same as the one

offered by Travelwest, involving mostly rail travel with walking. The other

feasible journey takes one hour and 15 minutes and has the following stages:

Walk to Mill street (16 minutes)

48 Bus to Nuneaton Bus Station (15 minutes)

Walk Nuneaton Bus Station to Nuneaton Station Railway Station (6

minutes)

Train Nuneaton to Rugby (15 minutes)

Walk Rugby Railway Station to Albert Street (14 minutes).

Summary

8.3.21 The WCC Journey Planner via Google Maps is not the simplest to use. It

defaults to the user wanting to travel now and it isn’t straightforward to

change when to travel. It often does not default to the transit option, meaning

driving could be subliminally promoted to a user who is not familiar with public

transport.

8.3.22 The Travelwest journey planner is more complex at first but is fairly easy to

understand. Although usability is probably the same as Google Maps it has the

edge by being a specifically public transport focused journey planner.

8.3.23 The Traveline journey planner is the best of the three. It is simple to use and

the results page is clear and easy to understand, the other two are dominated

by the map making journey details cramped in a sidebar. The only thing that

lets down Traveline is that when the user enters the start and end point no

drop down list of options appears, potentially making the user uncertain of

having the correct description – it is only once the user has pressed the “Let’s

Go” button does it seek to match the start and end points with its database.

8.3.24 It should also be noted that each Traveline region also has its own journey

planner and these vary in quality. For example the Traveline South West

journey planner has a best guess at the locations entered by the user who

then has to re-enter them to correct them (e.g. Gaydon, Warwickshire was

Page 73 of 169



reset to be Warwick by the journey planner). Traveline Midlands16 meanwhile

has a more reassuring interface which feels simpler to use and is probably

better than the main Traveline site.

8.3.25 Importantly, however, none of the existing journey planners include fare

details, so decisions such as ‘which trip is cheapest’ are not possible.

8.4 Current Physical Provision in Warwickshire

Bus Stops

8.4.1 The level of information at bus stops seems poor. The only thing that let down

the bus stop at Warwick Railway Station was the timetable display case

(Figure L). Whilst the council cannot be held responsible for the graffiti, the

size of the departure list is rather small compared to the display case.

Figure L: Warwick Station Bus Stop Timetable Display

8.4.2 Warwick Bus Station’s information seemed very limited. There was a helpful

‘where to catch your bus’ map (Figure M) but no real information beyond that.

It was really put to shame by what was provided at Warwick Railway Station

(8.4.6).

16 http://www.travelinemidlands.co.uk/wmtis/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en&timeOffset=15

Page 74 of 169



Figure M: Warwick Bus Station Information

Information Points and Printed Material

8.4.3 The Tourist Information Centre in Warwick was well stocked with leaflets for

local bus services and the Warwickshire Public Transport Map (Figure N). It is

very positive that this map is still produced as many local authorities have

stopped producing any printed material.

8.4.4 The map itself is very good with both a county-wide map and separate urban

area plans. The list of bus services with operator and daytime frequency is

adequate and probably the best which could be accommodated given the

limited space available.

8.4.5 Timetables are generally produced by the operator, some of which come with

a route map whilst others do not. The main problem for the customer is that,

in order to get an idea of what the service provision in an area is they often

have to pick up multiple timetables which provide different levels of

information in different formats. This underlines the importance of the county

route map.

Page 75 of 169



Figure N: Information at Warwick Tourist Information Centre

Wayfinding

8.4.6 Wayfinding is an area that could be significantly improved. Arriving at Warwick

Railway Station there is a good level of well-presented public transport

information (Figure O), a well sign posted route to the nearest bus stops

(Figure P) and a well labelled bus shelter for the interchange aspect (Figure

Q). However within Warwick town centre itself none of the signposts show

directions to the bus station.

Figure O: Information at Warwick Railway Station

Page 76 of 169



Figure P: Wayfinding at Warwick Railway Station

Figure Q: Interchange Advertisement on Bus Stop

Page 77 of 169



8.5 Best Practice Examples – Online

Hertfordshire Intalink

8.5.1 The Hertfordshire Intalink website (https://www.intalink.org.uk/) is a

dedicated website for public transport information within Hertfordshire. Most of

the information is similar to the Warwickshire website but as a stand-alone

entity. The Intalink brand is used to encompass all public transport provision

in Hertfordshire meaning that people are as likely to go to this website as to

an individual operator’s website – this makes multi-operator and multi-modal

travel more accessible and attractive. The only other real difference is the

inclusion of ticketing information but this relates only to multi-operator tickets

and not operators’ individual tickets.

Travelwest

8.5.2 Travelwest is the transport information arm of the West of England Combined

Authority. It is not the simplest of websites to use but as can be seen from

(Figure R) there is a wide range of modes covered not just bus and rail. Again

having it all in one place with easy enough navigation between modes.

Figure R: Travelwest Home Page

8.5.3 Under Bus > Tickets & Travelcards > Operators Fares there is a table which

has the headings:

Service [No.]

Route

Operator

Page 78 of 169

https://www.intalink.org.uk/



Phone Number

Email

Website [General]

Fares [Weblink or ‘Contact Operator’]

8.6 Best Practice Examples – Physical Information

Roadside Publicity

8.6.1 There are numerous ways of displaying bus information at bus stops (often

referred to as roadside publicity). TfWM produce larger bus stop information

panels including average journey times from the stop to key points on the

route (Figure S). Meanwhile Lincolnshire County Council generally prints the

whole timetable on the bus stop along with contact information (Figure T). In

Southampton operators provide their own roadside information which looks

attractive and shows departure times alongside a route diagram (Figure U).

8.6.2 There is a trade-off between departure lists and full timetables, related to the

number of departures, the length of routes and available space. There is no

reason why an information display should not contain both – perhaps

departure lists for local services and full timetables for interurban services.

Preferences are also subjective, but fundamentally, waiting passengers want

to know what time the bus is due here more than they need to know what

time it gets there.

8.6.3 Any information should be as clear as possible and printed in colours which are

less likely to fade and which show clearly when it is dark. If we look at the

Southampton example in Figure U it shows both positives and negatives. It is

presented in a clear, large typeface, but when in darkness, how easy is it to

distinguish between the three shades of blue?

8.6.4 The West Midlands example (Figure S) is framed in red, which is very prone to

fading. It also perfectly illustrates one of the shortcomings of departure lists –

around half of the times are accompanied by smaller letters denoting codes

indicating that something is ‘different’. Note also that it does not commit to

either twelve or twenty-four hour clock. Thus the first departure after ‘3pm’ is

at ‘1502’!

Page 79 of 169



Figure S: Bus Stop Departures Display – TfWM (©Roger French)

Page 80 of 169



Figure T: Bus Stop Timetable Display – Lincolnshire (©Roger French)

Page 81 of 169



Figure U: Bus Stop Timetable Display – Southampton (©Roger French)

Printed Timetables

8.6.5 There is a growing trend amongst both operators and transport authorities to

no longer produce printed material. However printed publicity can add that

extra level of attractiveness, usability and comfort when done right that

cannot be guaranteed by online material. Figure V and Figure W below show a

sample of the map, times and fares information included in a typical Transdev

timetable leaflet. Journey planners deal with one-off specifics and are not

Page 82 of 169



comprehensive in the way that a timetable and map can be. Although both of

the latter can usually be downloaded at home or onto a phone, issues of

printing and of scale arise.

Figure V: Transdev Timetable Leaflet Map

Page 83 of 169



Figure W: Transdev Timetable Times and Fares

Booklets

8.6.6 Some operators and local authorities put together a booklet containing

comprehensive timetables for a specific area or region. This means that

instead of having to trawl through racks of timetables to find what’s relevant,

passengers can just pick up the area booklet safe in the knowledge that it will

contain all the timetables they might need along with a map or two and that it

will show them what other services are available in the area.

8.6.7 Derbyshire County Council produces three area guides costing £2.50 each17,

Stagecoach Merseyside and South Lancashire provides area timetable books

free whilst First Kernow produces a free timetable booklet for the whole of its

Cornish network (Figure X) which includes services run by other operators.

Nottingham City Transport produces a network map with service summaries

on the reverse (Figure Y). Both First Eastern Counties and Stagecoach

Cumbria and North Lancashire produce comprehensive full colour guides with

route maps and guides to tourist attractions.

17 https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport-roads/public-transport/timetables/bus-timetable-publications/bus-timetable-publications.aspx

Page 84 of 169



Figure X: Stagecoach and First Timetable Booklets

Page 85 of 169



Figure Y: Nottingham City Transport Service Summary

8.7 Summary

8.7.1 Whilst information provided by WCC online is very good, the journey planner –

including its disconnection from the rest of the public transport information –

needs some improvement. The roadside publicity is also an area which should

be improved to help irregular travellers ‘find their feet’.

Page 86 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Section 106 Funding In Warwickshire ▪ 85

9Section 106 Funding In Warwickshire 9

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This section looks at Section 106 (S106) funded bus services within

Warwickshire. WCC officers provided us with a list of 35 bus routes which

receive or had received S106 funding. These can be divided into six different

categories, which are:

a) Newly S106 funded routes (2);

b) Routes still S106 funded by original development (7);

c) Routes still S106 funded but not by the original development (11);

d) No longer S106 funded and reduced in provision (4);

e) No longer S106 funded and running at the same frequency (8); and

f) No longer S106 funded and increased in provision (3).

9.2 Newly S106 Funded Routes

9.2.1 Both of the new S106 funding streams should come into play in July 2020.

One is for a two-hourly bus route along Campden Road in Shipston, where

there are two additional new developments but it is unclear if there will be

extra funding to increase the frequency at a later date. The second lot of S106

funding is for amending the frequency of services 77 and 77A between

Leamington and Lighthorne Heath to a standard hourly timetable rather than

being roughly once an hour with some variation. This should be increased to

half-hourly at a later phase of the development.

9.3 Routes Still S106 Funded – Original Development

9.3.1 The seven locations still proving S106 support are shown in Table 4 below. As

can be seen with a number of locations the service in question has been

changed.

Page 87 of 169



Table 4: Ongoing S106 Funding

Location Number of

Dwellings

Current

Service(s)

Original Provision Current

Frequency (mins)

Long Marston, Meon Vale 550 Stratford

1,2 & 3

Increased frequency &

diversion Services 1,2 & 3

30

Nuneaton, Weddington

Road/Lower Farm

414 Nuneaton

1 & 2

Extended Service 1 & 2 15

Galley Common, Plough

Hill Road

300 18 & 19 Increased Frequency

Services 17 & 18

30

Wellesbourne, The

Grange

350 Warwick

15

Service 15 Diverted &

Increased Frequency

30

Polesworth, Grendon

Road St Leonards

143 65 Service 65 Diverted &

extended to hospitals

60

Kineton, Southam Road 115 77/77A New Sunday Service 77 &

78

60

Newton, Newton Lane 40 X84 Certain Journeys Diverted

Service 9

3 Journeys per

Day

9.4 Routes still S106 Funded – not Original Development

9.4.1 The size of this category is perhaps credit to the public transport team at WCC

in the way that it is able to use new S106 funding sources to continue the

development of a service when the original funding has run out. These are

shown in Table 5 below. As can be seen three out of the eleven locations have

seen a reduction in frequency with the new funding compared to the original

requirements whilst the remaining eight sites have seen the service provision

maintained.

Page 88 of 169



Table 5: Renewed S106 Funding (Frequency in minutes)

Location Number of

Dwellings

Current

Service(s)

Original Provision Original

Frequency

Current

Frequency

Long Itchington,

Leamington Road

150 664 Service 664 Diverted 120 120

Southam, Northfield

Road Tesco

Retail 64 New Services from

surrounding villages

N/A 1 per day

Rugby, Coton Park

East

310 1 & 2 New Service D1/D2 30 30

Rugby, Leicester

Road Gateway

1,300 1 & 2 New Service D1/D2 30 30

Southam, Coventry

Road

165 664 & 665 Payment towards

Services 664/665

60 60

Southam, Banbury

Road

236 664 Payment towards

Services 664/665

60 120

Bishops Tachbrook,

Grove Farm

412 U1 Service U1 extended 15 15

Warwick, Lower

Heathcote Farm

935 U1 Service U1 extended 15 15

Long Itchington,

Stockton Road


Service 664

120 120

Southam, Daventry

Road


Services 664/665

60 120

Wharf Farm, Crick

Road

380 D1 & D2 New service D1/D2 30 30

9.5 No Longer S106 Funded – Reduced Provision

9.5.1 There are four previously S106 funded schemes which have seen a reduction

in service provision, as shown in Table 6. Three of the routes still receive some

level of subsidy which indicates that even at a reduced provision the services

are still not commercially viable.

Table 6: No S106 Reduced Provision

Location Number of Dwellings

Current Service(s)

Original Provision Original Frequency

Current Frequency

Subsidy?

Stratford

Bridgetown, Trinity

Mead

112 Stratford 4 New service 222

Introduced (Now 4)

20 30 Part

South West Warwick,

Chase Meadow

282 Warwick 15

(& 16)

Service 68 (Now

15)

30 60 No

King Edward

Hospital, Hatton

108 Warwick 16 New service 68

(Now 16)

30 120 Yes

Hams Hall,

Sainsbury’s

Employ-

ment

X70 New extensive

network of services

4 per Hour 4 per day Yes

Page 89 of 169



9.6 No Longer S106 Funded –Same Provision

9.6.1 Encouragingly there are eight routes which are no longer receiving S106

funding but still provide the same level of service to the relevant site. As

shown in Table 7 five of these are provided without subsidy.

Table 7: Sites no Longer S106 Funded but Same Provision

Location Number of Dwellings

Current Service(s)

Original Provision Current Frequency

Subsidy?

Tilemans Lane,

Shipston

80 3A New service 480 from

Shipston to Banbury

5 journeys

per day

Yes

Walsingham Drive,

Nuneaton

300 79 Service 79 Diverted 120 Yes

Exhall, Blackhorse

Road

Employment 78 Service 78 Diverted 60 Yes

Emscote Lawn /

Portobello, Warwick

286 X17 Increased frequency on

Emscote Road X17

20 No

Bishopton / Toll

House, Stratford

500 X20 Increased frequency

X20

60 No

Wolston Business Park Employment 86 Increased frequency 86 30 No

Back Lane, Long

Lawford

208 86 Service 86 diverted 30 No

Birch Coppice Employment 766 New Service 766 120 No

9.7 No Longer S106 Funded – Increased Provision

9.7.1 Three locations have seen an increase in service provision since the end of

S106 funding support. As shown in Table 8 they differ in regards to receiving

on going subsidy from WCC, the financial support for the 67 covers the cost of

the increased frequency.

Table 8: Sites no Longer S106 Funded Provision Increased

Location Number of

Dwellings

Current

Service(s)

Original

Provision

Original

Frequency

Current

Frequency

Subsidy?

Sydenham,

Green Farm

40? 67/67A Extended

service 67

30 15 Part

Spa Park,

Leamington Spa

Employ-

ment

U1 Additional

Journeys 665

Additional

Journeys

15 Part

Rugby College 131 4 New Service

D1/D2

30 15 No

Page 90 of 169



9.8 Correlation between Site Size and S106 Success

9.8.1 There appears to be little correlation between the size of the site and the

likelihood of Section 106 funding being a success. It appears that there are

other factors at work instead. However the sites which are no longer S106

funded and have seen the service provision reduced appear to have been over

provided for in the first place.

9.8.2 There seems to be no clear link between the size of the site and the frequency

of the service funded by S106. For example the S106 funding from the 286

dwellings at Emscote Lawn, Warwick was used to increase service X17 to

every 20 minutes past the site, whilst the funds from 300 dwellings at

Walsingham Drive, Nuneaton was used to divert a two hourly services into the

site. The latter appears to be an under provision of service compared to the

former and indeed other sites which have fewer dwellings but a more frequent

bus service.

9.8.3 The relationship is probably more practical than a direct link between size of

development and bus use. Which services can be provided or diverted at least

cost? Plus, of course, the nature of the development will reflect the

demographics and the likelihood of its residents being bus users.

Page 91 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Section 106 Funding - Best Practice ▪ 91

10Section 106 Funding - Best Practice 10

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 This chapter looks not only at the best practice for kick starting a bus service

using section 106 funding but also how to ensure buses are at the heart of any

new development.

10.2 The Design of the Development

Introduction

10.2.1 Ensuring that a new development is bus friendly is vital to giving the bus

service(s) which serves the development the best chance of becoming

commercially sustainable. Two key documents have been released in recent

years highlighting this need, these are:

a) Stagecoach Group’s guide to Bus Services & New Residential Developments

(2017)18; and

b) Chartered Institute for Highways and Transportation guide to Buses in

Urban Developments (2018)19.

10.2.2 The first thing to deal with is to ensure that the developer has actively

designed bus provision into the design of the development. This design fits

into two categories, the physical highway design and the internal road

configuration.

Physical Highway Design

10.2.3 The crux of the matter is ensuring that the roads along a designated bus route

are actually suitable for a bus to pass along and crucially for two buses to

safely pass each other if required. This means that the carriageway should be:

No less than 6.5m wide;

Kept clear of parked cars, either through designated parking not included in

the carriageway width or parking restrictions; and

As straight as possible, avoiding unnecessary wiggles.

10.2.4 The wiggles designed into a spine route through a development are often to

deter speeding, this can be done just as effectively through other measures

such as speed humps or chicanes which should be designed with the safe

passage of buses in mind.

18 https://www.stagecoach.com/~/media/Files/S/Stagecoach-Group/Attachments/pdf/bus-services-and-new-residential-developments.pdf 19 https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/4459/buses_ua_tp_full_version_v5.pdf

Page 93 of 169



10.2.5 Bus stops should be clearly marked on the road with enough room free of

parked cars either side for a bus to be able to pull up in line with the kerb to

allow easy access. There should be a section of raised kerb at the stop to allow

this more easily.

Pedestrian Access

10.2.6 Bus stops should be located near to where people actually want to be. This

means all ‘local amenities’ and houses should be no more than 400m walk

from a bus stop. Although ideally the main bus route should pass through the

houses, developers often like to create a ‘village feel’ with houses in cul-de-

sacs off the main spine road. To account for this there should be well lit

walkways between the residential areas and main road in appropriate places

and the spine road should have footpaths all the way along. Bus stops should

ideally have a shelter even if this is only on the ‘towards town’ side of the

road.

Internal Road Configuration

10.2.7 The configuration of the internal road should be based around what the bus

will actually do and allow the maximum coverage of the site in the most

efficient manner between the entry and exit points of the bus route. This

means the developer should have research on the route being either:

a) The diversion of a current route into the site – this means the entry and

exit points are pre-set;

b) The extension of an existing bus route onto the site – this means the entry

point should be as close to the current terminus as possible; or

c) A brand new route – this will be focused on linking the site to the nearby

large traffic generators such as the town centre, a railway station or a

retail park. The entry and exit points should therefore be determined by

where the route is likely to go outside of the site. If these are different

from the approved Highway authority locations, bus only roads should be

used.

10.2.8 Where a bus friendly route would disrupt the cul-de-sac design or where two

developments adjoin, there should be provision for bus only sections of road.

This is to avoid costly and time consuming double running.

10.2.9 If a bus route is terminating in a development then a one way loop may allow

the greatest coverage of the site. This is acceptable as long as it:

a) Isn’t a significant proportion of the route meaning long journey times for

those on the extreme ends of the loop; or

b) Preventing journeys either to or from amenities within the development.

Page 94 of 169



10.2.10 If it is either of these, then buses should alternate clockwise and anti-

clockwise around the loop, but these automatically confuse and reduce

frequency.

10.3 What Can Warwickshire County Council Do?

10.3.1 In a Shire County there is a separation of powers and responsibilities for

transport access to new developments. Whilst the County Council is the

highways and local transport authority, the district is the planning authority.

Warwickshire should therefore, jointly with the districts, draw up an approved

set of design guidelines for new housing developments to ensure that they are

sustainable transport friendly.

10.4 Marketing the Service

10.4.1 In order to generate passengers for the bus people need to know it is there,

where it goes, when it goes and how to use it. This means that advertising the

service to new residents is key.

The Development’s Website

10.4.2 Far too many developers ignore public transport links, particularly bus

services, when they market their houses. Property brochures mentioning

‘Good Transport Links’ generally meaning you can easily drive to the nearby

motorway or railway station. Figure Z shows the Barratt Homes website for

Warwick Gates which fails to mention the bus service running every 15

minutes close to the site.

10.4.3 Site plans published on developers (and supporting parties) websites should

include the location of bus stops so that potential residents can see how close

they are to the house they are interested in, and how to access the service if

they become residents.

Page 95 of 169



Figure Z: Warwick Gates Information

Welcome Pack

10.4.4 When a resident moves in to a new development they generally receive a

welcome pack. Within it should be a copy of the bus timetable (in an attractive

and easy to understand format) and some form of incentive to use the service

such as a free four-week ticket.

Bus Stops

10.4.5 The bus stops and complementary infrastructure such as shelters, seating,

lighting and information provision play a significant part in the marketing and

attractiveness of the service.

10.4.6 If the stop consists of nothing more than a plain flag on a pole in an exposed

and unlit location, with no information or assurance a bus will ever come, the

service is considerably less appealing, even when incentives such as free

travel are offered.

10.4.7 Making the bus stop feel like part of the development, with attractive shelters,

detailed and frequently updated information and branded flags offers security

and comfort, drawing people to the service, rather than acting as a deterrent.

It also engenders a feeling of ownership towards the service, allowing

residents to feel it is ‘their bus’ which encourages use. Being able to have

physical marketing like a poster in clear view that advertises the service,

saying something like “Into Leamington Spa every 15 minutes” serves as a

constant reminder and adds an extra sense of purpose and attractiveness.

Ongoing Marketing

10.4.8 Simply telling new residents about the new service on day one of their

occupancy is insufficient. If they are part of the first phase the bus service

might not be at its optimum level, so every time the timetable changes a copy

should be provided to each household. Additionally, the likelihood of the bus

Page 96 of 169



service becoming the mode of choice when a resident’s usual form of transport

fails (car breaks down) is significantly reduced, if awareness is not raised

reasonably frequently.

10.4.9 The best way to keep the bus in people’s consciousness is to make it the

central point of the development. Having a clearly marketed bus only route

through the development, highlighting the time and speed benefits, helps it

stand apart. The Installation of, or provision of access to, Real Time departure

screens in every home means that people can easily tell when the next service

is without having to know which app or website to look at and provides an

overall marketing boost by being able to promote the development as an

exceptionally ‘green’ estate.

Branding the Bus

10.4.10 In some locations the buses that serve the development have actually

received specific branding to advertise that. Figure AA below illustrates a Go

North East Quaylink bus which advertises not only the route and frequency but

the fact that it serves the large Great Park development to the north of

Newcastle.

Figure AA: Newcastle Great Park Branding

Page 97 of 169



Working Together

10.4.11 There should be an impetus on the operator, developer and council(s) to work

together to market the bus service. This means that any change to the service

should be consulted on and highway and other maintenance works planned to

cause least disruption to the bus service as possible.

10.5 Case Studies

North Kent Fastrack

10.5.1 Fastrack started operating in 2006 providing a service linking the new Bridge

development in Dartford to the town centre and Bluewater shopping centre

and Northfleet Railway Station. The service uses a bus only road through the

development with the developer funding a bus-only bridge over the M25.

10.5.2 Fastrack has since expanded to link other developments into Dartford,

Bluewater, Ebbsfleet International station and Gravesend. The routes use a

mixture of bus-only links and on-road bus priority.

10.5.3 Fastrack will be key to the forthcoming 15,000 home development at Ebbsfleet

as well as a new development next to Bluewater. Arriva is currently contracted

to run the service which still receives some developer contribution. The bus

fleet is renewed every few years to ensure that they are up to the latest

standard in regards to emissions and on board features. A Volvo electric

vehicle was trialled on Fastrack a few years ago but no order has been

forthcoming.

Cambridge Guided Busway

10.5.4 The Cambridge Guided Busway is formed of a network of sections of guided

busway to the north, south and west of Cambridge. The main route is along

the former railway line from St Ives into Cambridge which runs past

Cambridge Science Park. A number of Park and Ride sites was built along the

route. The Busway has seen a constant increase in patronage, the most recent

changes in 2020 have seen the introduction of 12 high capacity double deck

buses and peak time frequencies of every 5 minutes. Between 2017 and 2018

patronage rose by a further 6%.

10.5.5 The Busway has been a catalyst for new developments around the Greater

Cambridge area which have been bus friendly. 3,450 homes have been built

as part of the Southern Fringe Development around Trumpington. Nearly

£2.6m of S106 funding went towards building the guided busway which runs

through the heart of the development, with a further £250k in revenue

support20.

20 https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Cambridge-Southern-Fringe.pdf

Page 98 of 169



10.5.6 Northstowe is an in progress development to the North West of Cambridge on

the former airfield site with the aim of building 10,000 homes. When the

Busway was built provision was made for a spur into the development which is

also served by City service 5. The development website has a dedicated travel

page21.

10.6 Summary

10.6.1 One of the principal difficulties with new developments is that different tiers of

local authorities deal with planning (Districts) and public transport (Counties).

Only in unitary authorities is it the same body.

10.6.2 In order to have a chance of being successful, bus services to new

developments need to be considered as part of the heart of the development.

This means that there needs to be:

Research undertaken as part of the site planning to identify which existing

route(s) can be diverted or extended into the site. If there are none

suitable, consider where any new services would link to.

Suitably located access points to the development – bus only access if

needs be;

Suitable width internal roads for the bus to use – again bus only if required;

Attractively located and facilitated bus stops;

A service from day one of occupancy; and

Marketing for the services both at the start of occupancy and ongoing.

21 https://www.northstowe.com/travel

Page 99 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Other Options ▪ 99

11Other Options 11

11.1 Use of CIL

11.1.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a fund that developers pay into

but which the council can use to fund schemes which are not directly

connected to the development. Generally, however, this involves upgrading

road infrastructure around the development.

11.1.2 There are a number of ways that CIL can therefore help bus services:

a) Improve general road capacity or a junction to reduce congestion – this

helps bus services indirectly;

b) Provide bus priority measures along the route that the bus serving the site

will use – this is the same as a) but is focused solely on helping buses

(although it might help cyclists too);

c) Build footways with appropriate lighting from the development to nearby

bus stops;

d) Build a new road or upgrade an existing one to act as a by-pass – although

on the face of it creating a by-pass might not encourage people out of their

car and on to buses it can act as a catalyst for improvements elsewhere.

By creating a suitable alternative route for through traffic a town centre

could be made more bus friendly and only inconvenience motorists who

are driving into the town centre rather than those who need to pass

through.

11.2 Demand Responsive Transport

11.2.1 New developments (both housing and trading) in locations that fall well

outside the current passenger transport network present a range of challenges

for transport planners. Car dependency by those who live and / or work in new

development areas tends to be high, as most development sites are located in

suburban fringes or rural areas and this creates an uncertainty as to the

viability of a bus route.

11.2.2 Residential development that includes ‘social’ or ‘affordable’ housing, may be

seeking to attract residents who are not car owners and who would require an

alternative means of travel. Where the development is of substantial scale,

and where there is an easily identified directional flow (to access amenities

etc.), local bus operators can be invited to pilot services with an expectation of

commercial viability, potentially with initial support. S106 funds might be

available for this purpose.

Page 101 of 169



11.2.3 Where services have been proved to be commercially unviable, where

commercial bus operators (for whatever reason) are unwilling or not able to

extend services to new areas, or where new developments are of such smaller

scale to suggest that a bus service would never be sustainable, then

unconventional services (CT & DRT) can potentially have a role to play.

11.2.4 However, unlike the commercial market, existing voluntary sector transport

providers are more locally focussed and cannot be assumed to have either the

capacity or the willingness to develop new services. However, experience

elsewhere has indicated that if there is no existing CT operator with whom to

collaborate, it is possible for WCC to start up a new CT operation in

partnership with a local community development agency. Alternatively the

impetus can often come from the community itself, seeking to solve a

collective transport problem. Parish Councils have also been active more

recently in both funding and operating community buses, including those to

service commuters, including school pupils.

11.2.5 CT or DRT approaches to meeting the needs of new development locations

would generally be considered if one or more of the following common causal

factors can be identified (to a greater or lesser degree) in the specific

developments in question:

fully self-sustaining (commercial) bus services have been estimated or

proven to be limited or non-existent;

bus service trials have been mostly subsidised and subsequently either

withdrawn or under threat due to local authority spending restrictions;

many residents in new developments live some distance from any

established bus route;

the age demographic of a particular development (e.g. retirement villages)

suggests an ageing population who may be faced with the prospect of no

longer being able to drive a car;

essential services have been centralised, requiring longer journeys to access

supermarkets and – especially – health care locations.

11.2.6 Some s22 operators do run regular commuter bus services; in practice these

have usually been services that link specific outlying residential areas to a

railway station or bus stop on an arterial route from where passengers

commute into town, but there is nothing to stop a standard commuter bus

service from being operated linking residential areas directly with centres.

Community Buses could well be organised on a co-operative or mutual basis.

11.2.7 The probable critical need for travel from new housing developments will be

peak time links to and from schools, colleges and places of employment. This

cannot be serviced using the existing model of CT or DRT in Warwickshire

Page 102 of 169



where off-peak middle-of-day capacity is available on the back of Home to

School contracts.

11.2.8 Using CT or DRT for workforce travel to trading estates is possible if done

collectively (i.e. a number of people travelling from the same place at the

same time), and can be useful for shift work that may start or end outside of

bus timetabled hours. The economic viability depends on numbers travelling

and whether the employer is willing to subsidise journeys. It is possible for

employers to co-ordinate lift sharing or collective use of taxis, or even to

contract buses or coaches to meet such need.

11.2.9 The traditional ‘core’ role for CT is providing essential door-to-door journeys

on a pre-booked basis for those with a mobility impairment (generally older

people) for whom other modes of transport are difficult or non-existent. Given

the extent of the Flexi-Bus network it would be likely that this approach could

be adapted to cover any new developments. If this is not viable, then a

volunteer car scheme may be feasible if the local authorities are able to cover

the volunteer’s expenses.

11.2.10 DRT is almost always run on a pre-booked basis and whilst this works well

enough for some trips it does not often find favour with daily commuters.

These services can be better configured as s22 community buses with

timetabled stops. The cost base for a s22 operation is generally only lower

than a commercial subsidy if volunteer drivers are used. Passengers also

benefit from being able to use concessions. Some community buses are

entirely operationally self-supporting and the role of the local authority may be

to provide capital or a vehicle.

11.2.11 Overall, new developments need to be subject to specific localised transport

feasibility and impact planning which should take account of:

existing passenger transport links;

likely levels of car ownership;

overall provision of access (walking, cycling routes);

scale of development;

environmental impact of various modes of travel and likely volumes;

s106 fund availability, and

ability of local transport providers to respond to new areas of need.

11.2.12 Community transport or DRT options may have a part to play in provision for

new development areas but should not be seen as a low-cost backstop if

commercial services prove unsustainable. It is prudent for planning authorities

to consult with transport operators (both commercial and non-commercial) at

Page 103 of 169



an early stage in the process and for an holistic overview of transport and

mobility needs of new communities to be taken.

11.3 Case Studies

New Lubbesthorpe, Leicester

11.3.1 New Lubbesthorpe is a brand new community located to the west of Leicester

with a mixture of housing and employment sites. In April 2019 it was

announced that the Section 106 money would be used to fund an Arriva Click

DRT service rather than a conventional bus service. The service is available via

the Arriva Click App and runs 06:00 – 23:00 every day. It is operated using 15

seat wheelchair accessible minibuses.

11.3.2 One of the reasons the DRT service was chosen was due to the spread out

nature of the destinations. Figure BB below shows the area covered including

shopping, education and employment opportunities at Foss Park, Leicester city

centre and both universities. Onward travel connections can be made at both

Leicester Railway Station and Narborough Railway Station, along with the two

bus stations within Leicester itself.

Page 104 of 169



Figure BB: Arriva Click Leicester Map

Camden Shoppa

11.3.3 In 1989 Camden Borough Council stipulated that the new Sainsbury’s store

should be fully accessible including transport to the store. This led to

Sainsbury’s agreeing to fund a Wheelchair accessible minibus and five years of

funding for a Dial-a-Ride service. The funding was up to £73k per year which

today is worth around £197k a year.

Preston Community Transport

11.3.4 In December 2015 Persimmon Homes was given permission to build 112

homes on D’Urton Lane in Broughton at the north side of Preston in an area

between the M6 and M55 Motorways. New housing was required to meet the

government targets set for Preston City Council and this is one of a number of

developments to the north of Preston, around the M55. D’Urton Lane was

previously a quite narrow rural ‘rat run’ (see Figure CC) enabling drivers to go

from the newer industrial zone to the north east of Preston to join the A6

north of the M55 Motorway.

Page 105 of 169



Figure CC: Narrowness of D’Urton Lane

11.3.5 However, because of serious congestion on the A6 through Broughton village,

a Broughton by-pass was planned (now James Towers Way) and as a result,

D’Urton Lane was diverted further northwards to join the bypass, rather than

the A6, with some access restrictions and a permanent closure to through

traffic around where it passes under the M55 Motorway. The effect of this was

to make it impossible to serve the development with a conventional bus

service. As shown in Figure DD, the red circle indicates the new development.

Figure DD: Location of New Development on D’Urton Lane

11.3.6 This made it difficult to extract any s106 Planning Gain contribution from the

developer towards public passenger transport services because of the

Page 106 of 169



requirement that any contribution towards community benefit must be

material to the planning consideration for the development in question.

11.3.7 However, it was recognised that community transport services, including social

car schemes and services run under Permits issued under section 19 Transport

Act 1985 for older people and people with disabilities do qualify as ‘public

passenger transport services’ under s63(10) of the 1985 Act. Consequently,

recognising that the development would be geographically isolated and could

attract residents with or who might develop mobility difficulties, a decision was

made to require a contribution towards Preston Community Transport’s

additional operating costs. PCT is supported by Preston City Council, the

planning authority, and receives public transport funding from Lancashire

County Council under a contract to provide a mix of community transport

services in the Greater Preston area.

11.3.8 The agreement was for £30,000, to be paid in three tranches of £10,000

subject to occupation. PCT is leafleting the development and making it clear in

publicity that its core dial-a-ride and car schemes services have been

extended to cover it. It would be fair to say that there was little science behind

the financial calculations and that PCT has found it a challenge to be seen as

associated with the development. PCT is, however, discussing with the

planning staff a more structured approach to future developments which are

too small or too awkward to be served by a bus service. It is particularly

interested in the model where some form of Community Trust is established as

part of the development as this would enable a longer-term relationship to be

established.

11.4 Summary

11.4.1 WCC should investigate using DRT services to serve a new housing estate

where either:

a) The size of the development does not justify a fixed bus route; or

b) There is no obvious single traffic generator meaning a simple fixed bus

route would not cater for the majority of travel demand.

11.4.2 However it should be noted that DRT should not be used as a way of providing

a service to a new estate just to allow the developer not to have to make the

site suitable for a standard bus. Whilst a DRT service provides an attractive

door-to-door offer it cannot replace the turn up and go nature and

reassuringly fixed route of a traditional bus service.

Page 107 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Types of Bus Partnerships ▪ 107

12Types of Bus Partnerships 12

12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 This section sets out the basic principles of the three bus partnership types

available to local authorities following the Bus Services Act 2017. The three

are:

a) Voluntary Partnership;

b) Advanced Quality Partnership; and

c) Enhanced Partnership.

12.1.2 In addition to this we also include franchising to complete the coverage of the

Bus Service Act 2017.

12.1.3 All partnerships benefit from the combination of local authority and operator,

where for local authorities capital expenditure is easier to justify while revenue

spending is subject to severe restraint while the opposite is true for operators.

12.2 Voluntary Partnerships

12.2.1 Voluntary Partnerships (VPs) were one of the two types of partnerships (along

with Statutory Quality Partnerships) allowed under the Transport Act 2000.

VPs are simple to create and have substantial flexibility. They work best where

an authority already has a positive relationship with the local operator(s), and

can deliver good results in terms of service improvements and increased

passenger numbers.

12.2.2 However, the voluntary nature of the agreement makes withdrawal a relatively

easy matter and enforcement of stated commitments difficult, relying on

reputational damage and any contractual commitments. Thus the local

authority can find itself short of funds to fulfil a commitment or change policy,

while an operator can transfer dedicated vehicles elsewhere or make a

significant service change.

12.2.3 If a partnership is voluntary, there is no way to prevent a non-participating

operator from providing services on a particular corridor, provided that it

complies with the standards contained in national legislation. Where it is

desired to co-ordinate the services of more than one operator, a Qualifying

Agreement is required. VPs tend to be focussed on one particular corridor or

infrastructure enhancement but can be area-wide - as in Sheffield, for

example.

12.2.4 With all types of Partnerships the infrastructure is usually paid for by the local

authority whilst the bus operator covers the cost of improved vehicles, service

Page 109 of 169



levels, etc. Government grants such as the Low Emission Bus Fund are often

available.

Implementation Process and Timescale

12.2.5 There is no time limit set for VPs and the timescales involved can be designed

in order for the parties to fulfil, or start to fulfil, their obligations.

Service, Network and Fare Changes

12.2.6 This all depends on the content of the VP. If the partnership is focussed on the

age and / or quality of the vehicles, operators will still be free to make

changes to their own services, networks and fares. However the partnership

may include one or more of the following:

Restriction on the number of standard services changes a year – e.g. four

standard service change dates per year;

but this is one of the most regular casualties with local authorities

changing contracts on a ‘non-approved’ date, and operators making other

changes (usually to improve reliability);

Set times of operation and minimum frequency of specific routes;

The ability of the local authority to react and feedback on a proposed

service change or request specific changes to commercial services; and

Agreement about ticket types available.

12.2.7 Note that fare levels are not included, these can only be agreed separately if

they satisfy the terms of the Ticketing Block Exemption or meet the necessary

competition test under a ‘Qualifying Agreement’.

12.2.8 Despite the identified shortcomings, there is little under the more formal

partnerships that cannot be achieved on a voluntary basis, plus, of course,

there is much more flexibility. The most successful voluntary partnerships

function at two levels – senior bus company managers and senior council

officers or executives agree principles and strategy, while local managers and

council officers deal with the detailed aspects.

12.3 Advanced Quality Partnerships

12.3.1 In the Bus Services Act 2017 Advanced Quality Partnerships (AQPs)

automatically replaced existing Statutory Quality Partnerships set up using the

Transport Act 2000. There is a trade-off of benefits and sacrifices between an

existing Statutory Quality Partnership and an AQP. This being that Local

Transport Authorities (LTAs) are no longer required to provide facilities such as

a new bus station or bus lanes as their contribution to the AQP, but they can

now undertake a wider range of measures as part of the partnership which

Page 110 of 169



indirectly improve bus services e.g. building a new road to reduce congestion

at a key junction. Note the change in wording from ‘must’ to ‘can’ implicit in

this. There is no longer any obligation on LTAs to do anything at all.

12.3.2 Although WCC no longer needs to provide facilities as part of the AQP, it is

clear from the operator consultation, that they would only sign up to an AQP if

there was a significant investment in infrastructure.

12.3.3 Conversely, the range of requirements that can be imposed on operators has

increased to include:

The specification of smart ticketing as part of any multi-operator scheme;

How bus services are marketed; and

How information on fares and ticketing is distributed.


12.3.4 An AQP in England can take as little as eighteen weeks between publication of

the notice of intention and the confirmation of the final scheme. This includes

four weeks for operators to object and a 13-week public consultation period. If

an operator’s objection is upheld by the Traffic Commissioner then the process

is delayed until the LTA can prove it has addressed the issue. The actual

implementation timescale will then be based on what is included in the AQP

and how it is proposed to be introduced. For example, if all operators have to

have their whole fleet as minimum Euro V compliant, that will need a longer

period than if only 50% has to be compliant for the partnership to commence.

12.4 Enhanced Partnerships

12.4.1 Enhanced Partnerships (EPs) are a halfway house between an AQP and

franchising. Note that EPs apply to a defined area and do not necessarily have

to have boundaries coterminous with LTA boundaries.

12.4.2 An EP gives the LTA(s) the ability to take over the service registration function

of the Traffic Commissioner for a set area, e.g. all services which enter the

Warwick and Leamington area, which again does not have to be coterminous

with an LTA boundary.

12.4.3 A plan for the EP would be created jointly by the LTA(s) involved and any bus

operator interested in the planned scheme. Once created the EP Plan would be

put out to public consultation and include the Competition and Markets

Authority as a consultee. Not all bus operators have to be in favour for the EP

to proceed, however all have to be invited to contribute to the plan and a yet

to be defined proportion of affected operators has to agree with the scheme

before it can go ahead.

Page 111 of 169



12.4.4 There is no doubt, however, that although the operators will be able to

continue in business under an EP their commercial freedom is significantly

curtailed.


12.4.5 The process of creating an EP starts with the local authority issuing a Notice of

Intention and Invitation to Participate. Even if an operator within the area the

EP will apply to does not wish to be involved at the start, it has to be kept

informed of progress in case it wishes to participate later on or, of course,

object to the scheme.

12.4.6 There is no defined timescale for implementing an EP; it depends on the

agreements between operators and the local authority. The Partnership Board

is responsible for agreeing the content of the two key documents required to

form an EP, these being:

a) An EP Plan – this sets out the high level view of the EP: area covered,

current situation, timescales, objectives of the EP and interaction with

neighbouring authorities; and

b) An EP Scheme – although repeating some of the EP Plan, this gives the

detailed specification of what is required by the operators and the local

authority including details of vehicle specification, fare types, service levels

and infrastructure provision.

12.4.7 Operators should be given at least 28 days to object following the publication

of the documents. The EP can proceed to the public consultation stage as long

as more than half of operators representing more than 75% of scheduled

mileage agree to the scheme.

Service, Network and Fare Changes

12.4.8 An EP is not designed to specify routes and frequencies for every single

service, however it does have a number of functions around this:

Specifying service change dates;

Specifying a different service change notice period if desired;

Agreeing common branding or livery if required;

Co-ordinating service timetables on joint corridors or at interchange points;

and

Specifying minimum frequencies on corridors or key routes at different

times of day.

Page 112 of 169



12.4.9 An EP has more ability to influence fares than a VP or AQP. This is because an

EP can set the specific types of ticket that should be made available on certain

routes, corridors or in certain areas. This includes:

Design and agreement on a fare scheme to apply in the EP area;

Types of ticket such as through, multi-operator and multi-journey ticketing

and pay-as-you-go capping;

Specific tickets for defined social or economic groups, such as 16-25 year

olds or job seekers; and

Ticket types for different times of day, e.g. peaks or evenings.

12.4.10 To comply with competition law, the EP can only set the prices of multi-

operator tickets, either absolutely or as a cap. Operators are able to object to

the Competition & Markets Authority if they feel that the price set is not

commercially viable or gives certain operators a commercial advantage.

12.5 Franchising

12.5.1 This is of course not a partnership and would require a lot of funding from the

local authority, but can be used as a guide in setting up a partnership on the

basis of “This is what we’d do with a franchise, how can you, as an operator,

meet some of these ambitions in a partnership?”

12.5.2 Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Bus Services Act 2017 is the

ability for a Combined Authority with an elected Mayor to set up a franchising

scheme in a much less bureaucratic way than the similar Quality Contract

Schemes enabled by the Transport Act 2000. Note (importantly) that the Act

also repealed the QC legislation which applied to all local authorities.

12.5.3 Other types of LTA (singly or jointly) can apply to set up a franchise system,

but it will proceed only if consent is given by the Secretary of State and the

LTA must be able to prove that:

A franchise scheme would be the only way to improve bus services within

the affected area;

The proposed scheme will be affordable and offer value for money using HM

Treasury’s ‘Green Book’ process; and

The aims of the proposed scheme are achievable.

The associated Statutory Instruments from DfT are carefully worded but

clearly set against franchise applications from smaller authorities.

12.5.4 A franchise does not require operator consent and, the Act says, the affected

operators are not entitled to compensation for the loss in business, although

Page 113 of 169



this is certain to result in a legal challenge. All services which operate for a

majority of their route within the franchising area will automatically become

part of the scheme. It is possible, however, that services which operate

substantially outside the area could be included in the franchise. There is no

satisfactory answer to how cross-boundary services are handled under

franchising. It remains an ongoing issue at the boundaries of Transport for

London’s network.

12.5.5 Operators which run services into the scheme area which are not counted as

being of a majority in that area are required to apply for a licence to continue

to operate into the franchise zone. This licence could restrict the level of

service or stopping pattern within the scheme area. Potentially this has a

major effect on services outside the franchised area. If, for example, the

Coventry network was franchised, the impact on cross-boundary operations

into Warwickshire could have very negative effects. Conversely, some services

originating in Coventry and crossing the boundary could be included in the

franchise. Fares and service levels in Leamington and Warwick might be

decided by the West Midlands Mayor.

12.5.6 The LTA would have the power to set out:

Route, frequency and operating hours of each service;

Fares, ticketing products and method of payment;

Minimum Vehicle requirements including:

Vehicle age, environmental credentials and on-board features such as Wi-

Fi and next stop announcements; and

How the scheme is managed, e.g.:

How large each contract is – individual routes, areas, depots or even the

entire scheme as one contract and

How long a contract lasts for – this has to be a maximum of seven years.

Treating Contracted Services as a Franchise

12.5.7 A number of shire counties have tendered their entire supported network as

either one package or a number of inter-related packages. The most recent is

Cornwall where Go-Ahead’s Go Cornwall operation took over the entire

tendered public service network on 29th March, mainly from incumbent

operator First Kernow. Go-Ahead has experience of this previously when its

Damory operation took over Dorset County Council’s tendered bus network. In

both cases it sub-contracted a number of routes to other operators. In Dorset

this involved Community Transport operations.

Page 114 of 169



12.5.8 The main advantage of treating a tendered network in this way is the ability to

launch the network as a whole allowing for:

A planned co-ordinated network from day one;

The use of a brand or sub brand across all routes;

A reduced number of operators to deal with – even if it subcontracts the

LTA still only deals with the one operator;

Multi-journey tickets valid across all contracted services without having to

set up a multi-operator ticketing scheme; and

Fare levels and frequencies can be set to attract passengers rather than

awarding contracts on a strict monetary basis.

12.5.9 The disadvantages include:

An over-reliance on the one operator, if that contractor fails the LTA has a

major problem (as with ATG in West Midlands, Veolia in Powys);

Interaction with the commercial network is dependent on the willingness of

commercial operators – this may reduce if the operators feel the LTA is

trying to undermine them with low fares, overlapping services etc.;

The ‘block’ contract introduces a second operator on a service which is

partly commercial (with associated ticketing issues) where the main

incumbent operator might be the most cost effective.

Failure to accompany the change with multi-operator tickets so that the

‘network’ is effectively split;

Publicity and information can be totally split between commercial and

tendered services – the LTA effectively ignores the commercial network

while the commercial operator fails to publicise tendered journeys etc.;

The network is open to political interference – always a view that someone

else is getting a better deal; and

Requires a commitment from the LTA to invest the money with limited

revenue return, if it is more expensive than expected or funding is cut,

where does the extra money or savings come from?

12.6 Summary

12.6.1 The three types of partnerships offer different scope for size and party

involvement. The one which is chosen will depend on a number of different

factors including:

Page 115 of 169



Relationship (and trust) between operator(s) and local authority;

Geographical size of the partnership; and

The actual content of a partnership desired by the parties.

Page 116 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Partnership Best Practice ▪ 115

13Partnership Best Practice 13

13.1 Guidance

13.1.1 The premise of the best practice guidance TAS wrote for the DfT is that

“partnership working can, indeed, help to mitigate the negative impacts of

reduced public finance.” Aspects of productive partnerships are summarised as

follows:

Operators and transport authorities should be recognised as natural

partners and play an equal part in maintaining effective bus services – both

parties should recognise the wider strategic links of bus services to

economic and social development;

A key shared objective of partners is to grow the bus market in the face of

car usage – this largely relies upon maintaining satisfaction levels among

existing passengers, improving services to attract new users and ensuring

wider understanding of the bus network, routes and fares etc.;

An effective partnership requires clear understanding of objectives and

tangible outputs, how to achieve these, how to measure them and how and

when success can be judged. A general aspiration towards improvement is

less beneficial than a plan which defines weaknesses and shortcomings and

then details implementation measures to deal with them, with defined

timescales, delivery means and responsible bodies;

A partnership must base its actions on a clear understanding of what local

people want from their bus service – it must, therefore, develop effective

means of engagement and consultation with the customer;

Quality and service standards should be agreed around vehicles, frequency

and service timings, fares, driver training, ticketing options and information

systems;

The strengths and limitations of the partnership arrangements should be

understood and especially the different status of the voluntary partnership

and statutory partnership;

A range of challenges to partnership working can be overcome by creating a

robust partnership and making it work (which should not be

underestimated) and delivering the practical measures which will achieve

the agreed outputs. The guidance includes a number of principles aimed at

sustaining the effectiveness of the partnership;

Information is emphasised as a vital strategic tool – a partnership needs to

collect useful data (whilst being aware of commercial sensitivities and

competition law restrictions);

Page 117 of 169



Both main operators have agreed to share patronage data as part of the

review and this could be an ongoing agreement to share patronage

information at service level.

There needs to be an means of assessing success – fundamentally this

should involve measurable outcomes relating to:

Economic situation (local, regional and national)

Patronage, performance and affordability of bus network as evidenced by

customer satisfaction levels;

Scale of investment in the bus network and its impact on service quality,

journey performance, vehicle quality and emissions;

Marketing and public information;

A partnership should focus its actions on component parts, typically defining

areas of improvement across promotional activities, place and environment,

the bus ‘product’ and the price;

It is recognised that the size, focus and scale of objectives of partnerships

will vary and be determined by local conditions and needs;

Partnerships should be aware of Competition Law and the limitations this

might impose, although the restrictions imposed are far less draconian than

is often thought;

Good communications with all parties is recognised as essential for a

successful partnership – this applies on many levels including frequency of

meetings (formal and informal), consultation with wider stakeholders,

communicating objectives and actions. Public consultation is critical to the

setting up and ongoing of the partnership and the need to keep passenger

needs at the centre of activities.

13.1.2 The guidance concludes with a short list of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’, as follows:

“DO:

Make communication a core and regular activity for the partnership, both

internally and externally.

Aim to gain maximum benefit from all communications and don’t treat it as

a box-ticking exercise.

Consult widely, proportionately and positively on all relevant proposals,

using appropriate and non-discriminatory channels.

Apply branding on a case-by-case basis and tailor it to the needs of the

local area, community and partnership to be most effective.

Page 118 of 169



Use a light-touch approach for internal branding and identity amongst

stakeholders.

DON’T:

Let poor communication spoil a good partnership.

Assume that communicating with one part of a large organisation will be

sufficient – it may require an approach at several levels.

Create partnership branding for the sake of it, if it makes no difference to

the customer and does not enhance the services in any way.

Confuse the internal identity of the partnership with the outward, public-

facing brand.”

13.2 Case Study – West Midlands Bus Alliance

13.2.1 The 2015 West Midlands Bus Alliance was developed with the idea of bringing

together influence from different areas including bus operators, the police,

CPT, councils and the government. The West Midlands has recently reported a

growth in bus patronage of around eight million trips per year.

National Express

13.2.2 National Express is the largest operator within the partnership and therefore

proposes most of the network changes required. Larger network changes

involve TfWM consultation and public consultation at least seventy days before

the intended change. This may also be the case involving fares but the

representative from National Express was unsure.

13.2.3 Positives of the scheme for National Express include the reduction in areas of

conflict as it feels that all parties are heading in the same direction towards

common goals. The customer is often positioned at the forefront of these

common goals which ultimately is the best way to improve customer

satisfaction. It was also noted that there is a good working relationship

between all parties.

13.2.4 Negatives include the feeling that TfWM can get nervous of change which

slows the process down and this can occasionally cause tension. It is felt that

TfWM don’t like doing consultations jointly with National Express partly

because of this. There is also a feeling that Buses aren’t usually a priority for

TfWM – TfWM invested in the extension of the tram network which of course

has impacts on the bus network and its patronage and there is an emphasis on

rail services.

Page 119 of 169



West Midlands Combined Authority/TfWM

13.2.5 TfWM tries to collaborate with other members of the partnership when it

comes to funding and attempts have been made previously to secure funding

from the DFT for vehicles. TfWM also charges operators for Bus Station and

roadside information provision at a cost to the operators of £2.2 million per

year, although there is a 12 month break from these charges if the operators

use this to retrofit vehicles to improve emissions standards. Currently there is

no joint marketing budget but this is something it wants to achieve in the

future.

13.2.6 TfWM occasionally suggests Network changes and currently it has one in the

pipeline. However changes are usually operator led, these proposals are

discussed with TfWM which acts as a mediator should it need to. “Larger”

operator-led changes are usually led by National Express in a joint

consultation seventy days before the proposed change.

13.2.7 Similarly to other partnerships we have covered, one of the positives is that

there is a general feeling that the partnership will continue after the initial

agreement expires. TfWM is confident that all parties will want to continue in

2020 after expiry of the five year agreement. TfWM also noted the positivity of

having partners from a number of different backgrounds and industries in the

partnership which can provide different views and perspectives.

13.2.8 Decreasing patronage is a national issue but TfWM had a goal to increase

patronage by 5% which unfortunately it didn’t meet. The main negative of

having a goal-based model can be that the scheme could be seen as a failure

if it doesn’t meet the goals and undermined as a result.

Future Regime at TfWM

13.2.9 Currently, TfWM is wholly supportive of its Bus Alliance and shows no apparent

appetite for franchising. However, as has happened in Merseyside, this could

change in the longer term. If the Mayoral policy changes to favour franchising

WCC could expect to see a souring of relationships between operators and

TfWM which would impact on cross-border relationships.

13.2.10 If West Midlands does adopt franchising in the longer term then the impact

upon cross-boundary services will be significant, with restrictions on services

crossing into West Midlands from Warwickshire and the distinct likelihood that

some services franchised by TfWM will cross into Warwickshire. A further

possibility is that TfWM might franchise some route sections only within its

own boundary, leaving Warwickshire to replace the other sections.

Page 120 of 169



13.3 Case Study – Merseyside

13.3.1 The Merseyside Bus Alliance is a partnership formed in 2016 born out of good

working relationships which already existed in the region. The partnership is

made up of Merseytravel, Arriva, Cumfy Bus and Stagecoach.

13.3.2 The partnership brings together common goals and standards which each

party adheres to. The partnership works collaboratively when it comes to

funding and there is an understanding that the amount pledged expected from

each member for joint tasks such as marketing is reflected in their market

share. Operators also fund things that will have benefits for the whole

partnership which may include the maintenance of ticket machines.

13.3.3 Any changes to the Network are fully consulted with members of the

partnership and the public if it’s a “major” change. Meetings are also held

monthly to discuss a number of subjects which include marketing and how to

tackle traffic congestion. One of the key positives of this partnership is that

the everyday working relationship works well as there is a real sense of

synergy throughout the partnership.

13.3.4 The partnership took twelve months to put together, a length of time which

presented an immediate negative. Similar to other major cities in the UK

Liverpool has areas which are highly congested which presents a major issue.

The PTE feels like it has little control over congestion and that little funding

goes into combating it.

13.4 Case Study – Scottish Borders

13.4.1 This is a new partnership between Scottish Borders Council and bus operator

Borders Buses (part of the West Coast Motors group). The bus operator will

take over the five core subsidised routes in the Borders network, the aim

being to move these to a near commercial footing over time. In return the

council will invest the approximately £4m saved into improving infrastructure

including RTI and bus priority measures.

13.5 Case Study – Hertfordshire

13.5.1 Hertfordshire has long been a beacon authority when it comes to encouraging

public transport use. The Intalink Partnership between the county council, bus

and rail operators and district councils has been providing public transport

information alongside a range of multi-operator and multi-modal ticketing for

some years. Hertfordshire is the first LTA to implement an Enhanced

Partnership. The new Enhanced Partnership will allow this work to expand into

infrastructure, service planning and delivery.

Page 121 of 169



13.5.2 The associated Intalink Bus Strategy published in September 2019 outlines the

following key aims:

a) Prioritising bus services in traffic – this will be done by identifying

bottlenecks, creating a long term package of measures and increasing

awareness and support around roadworks;

b) Improving the image of bus travel – this will involve specifying minimum

performance and vehicle standards, developing a sustained marketing plan

and creating a common Intalink brand which will be prominent but not

overshadow existing corporate brands;

c) Upgrading bus infrastructure – currently only 21% of stops in Hertfordshire

have Kassel kerbs whilst 33% have shelters. Infrastructure will be

upgraded on a corridor by corridor basis alongside operator lead

enhancements.

d) Closer integration of the bus network – this will involve building on the

existing multi-operator range to enhance it, providing greater co-operation

between bus and rail operators and increased co-ordination on publicity;

and

e) Smarter use of data and information – this will involve expanding the

provision of RTI at bus stops, upgrading the Intalink website and app,

collaborative working between parties in planning for new developments

and piloting new emerging technologies such as Mobility as a Service.

13.6 Summary

13.6.1 Partnerships take time to be developed and to see results, so patience from all

parties is key. The working relationship between the parties also needs to be

good in order to gain the most benefits, if one does not trust the other then it

is hard for the crucial yet riskier parts to be taken forward.

Page 122 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Open Data and Bus Conference ▪ 121

14Open Data and Bus Conference 14

14.1 Introduction

14.1.1 As part of our remit we were asked to find out what bus operators in

Warwickshire were doing regarding Open Data and their opinion on how WCC

could get involved. There was also a desire to hold a bus conference and thus

we asked operators for their opinion on this and how it should be structured.

14.2 Open Data

14.2.1 Four of the operators consulted were dealing with the Open Data process at

group level so had limited information beyond what they have supplied

internally. The fifth is in the process of submitting its data.

14.2.2 It was felt in general that it was best to leave the development of apps to third

parties but that WCC could buy into the technology from these companies.

14.2.3 One operator felt that an area in which WCC should be looking for open data

although not as part of the DfT scheme is with patronage figures. WCC should

mandate in its contract for tendered services that operators have to share

patronage data with the council as part of the monitoring process.

14.3 Warwickshire Bus Conference

14.3.1 Four of the five operators consulted were in support of a Warwickshire Bus

Conference. There was a general consensus that it should be by invitation only

with county highways, the district councils and national passenger groups

(e.g. Bus Users UK) invited alongside the WCC transport team and bus

operators. One operator did point out that passengers as the service users

shouldn’t be ignored.

14.3.2 It was suggested that the event should take place once WCC’s budget had

been finalised so that the transport team could present its plans for the

coming financial year. In return operators would present their plans for the

year to come (as far as can be allowed under competition law and commercial

confidentiality). Other areas for discussion could include:

Forthcoming major roadworks;

Medium to long term highway developments;

Forthcoming new housing developments; and

Congestion hotspots and other highways issues.

Page 123 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Open Data and Bus Conference ▪ 122

14.4 Summary

14.4.1 Operators are on the whole supportive of a Warwickshire Bus Conference but

feel that WCC should stay out of Open Bus Data for now.

Page 124 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ What Resources does WCC Need? ▪ 123

15What Resources does WCC Need? 15

15.1 Introduction

15.1.1 This section looks at the key areas that require more resources for WCC in

order to help achieve the aim of increase bus patronage. This covers funding

for infrastructure, funding for new supported services and a new position of

employment within the Transport Team.

15.2 More Funding

15.2.1 Put simply, in order to deliver a better bus service which will attract people out

of their cars WCC will require more money. This can be broken down into two

streams:

a) Capital Budget – in order to provide both the bus priority needed and to

improve the quality of certain bus stops and interchanges; and

b) Revenue Budget – the current budget will need expanding even if it is just

to act as a kick-start fund in order to:

Maintain infrastructure;

Introduce new routes;

Increase frequencies both on tendered services and via deminimis on

commercial services; and

Reduce the fares on tendered services.

15.3 Partnership Officer

15.3.1 This can start out as an extension of someone’s existing role but if WCC

wishes to have partnerships which cover much of the county it will probably

require a dedicated member of staff. The main role of the Partnership Officer

would be to act as a central point of contact liaising with operators, council

officers from different departments and other stakeholders. They would also

undertake the monitoring element of the partnership and report to the

relevant WCC Officers and Members regarding the performance of the

partnership(s).

15.4 Summary

15.4.1 WCC needs to commit more funding to supporting bus services and

infrastructure if it is to be successful in its aim of encouraging greater bus use.

Page 125 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Bus Strategies ▪ 125

16Bus Strategies 16

16.1 Introduction

16.1.1 This section looks at a number of strategies published by WCC and other

groups on the future of bus services.

16.2 The Future of the Bus Report

16.2.1 Campaign for Better Transport (C4BT) published its ‘The Future of the Bus’

report in September 2019.

Key Points

16.2.2 The headline point of the report is that due to changing financial

circumstances more communities are becoming isolated due to the withdrawal

of public transport. This leads to:

A poorer living environment;

An increase in people suffering from loneliness;

An increase in the cost of living due to the need to use the car more and

even own an extra car;

Closure of retail, leisure and even health facilities as demand falls due to

poor access for non-car owners and

In rural areas bus use has declined by more than 10% over ten years.

16.2.3 C4BT claims that bus fares have risen by 60% between 2009 and 2019,

however the TAS National Fares Survey 2019 found that the average single

fare over three miles has risen by 42% since 2009 whilst the average weekly

fare (used by commuters) had only increased by 31% since 2009. CPI only

increased by around 4% over the period.

16.2.4 The report states that only 6.2% of buses on the UK’s roads are low emission,

however this is from the government’s ‘Road to Zero’ report published in July

2018, based then on historic data, and thus will not take into account the

influx of new vehicles since then.

Proposals

16.2.5 The crux of the report is to call for a National Bus Strategy which should:

a) Increase usage of bus services nationwide;

b) Improve integration between public transport modes;

Page 127 of 169



c) Set a strategy for introducing zero emission buses; and

d) Improve services via technology

16.2.6 To insure these aims are met the report calls for a continuous funding stream

at both local and national levels. With regard to local funding the report

suggests that the Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG), concessionary travel

budget, NHS patient transport, school transport and social service transport

funding are combined into one revenue stream. This would be alongside a

capital fund. Each local authority should have to draw up a ‘Bus Investment

Plan’ which sets out how and where the money will be spent.

16.2.7 The report proposes reducing fares through:

A standard fare discount level for under 19s either commercially or part

funded (especially if free travel is offered);

Compelling operators to join a Smart Ticketing scheme,

Operators often refuse to join due to costs, particularly if smartcards are

involved. If they were compelled to participate they may withdraw more

marginal services;

Introduce a Mobility Credit scheme for drivers willing to drive less or trade

in their car;

Trial of some low fare areas (or even free travel areas) with either national

or local government funding towards it.

16.2.8 The report recognises that there is a high cost to providing a comprehensive

bus network in rural areas and acknowledges that any attempt to improve

service provision may require Kickstart funding from central government.

16.2.9 The report is quite vague on what should happen in rural areas. The text hints

at having a franchised type of network of rural contracted services using a

single brand and with a multi-operator ticketing scheme. A franchise appears

to be an expensive and bureaucratic way to achieve this. If nearly all rural

services are funded by the LTA it is perfectly feasible for contracts to specify

branding and acceptance of multi-operator tickets without the need for a

franchise. A rural franchise would also automatically block any operator-led

initiatives.

16.3 Warwickshire County Council Plan 2020 – 2025

16.3.1 This report, which has been out to consultation, touches on public transport in

general. The aim by 2025 is to have a transport network that is fit for purpose

including the reduction in journey times on the highways network, yet it is

unclear how this is to be achieved. However by reducing the number of cars

Page 128 of 169



on the road those who still need to use their own vehicle should have a less

congested journey.

16.3.2 There is a focus on encouraging people to use sustainable transport methods

by making it easier to do so and to change between modes. This is also part of

the plan to tackle climate change and increase the use of electric vehicles.

Consultation Responses

16.3.3 The responses to the consultation on the Warwickshire County Council Plan

regarding public transport can be broken down into six categories:

a) The desire for easier to access and clearer information regarding bus times

and fares;

b) A desire for cheaper fares, especially for groups and multi-modal journeys;

c) Support for bus priority including making Leamington Parade bus only;

d) The lack of direct or indeed any bus service, mainly focused on:

Access to hospitals;

Cross Rugby links;

Better and more frequent provision in rural areas; and

Better connections to railway stations; but

No mention of evening and Sunday service levels.

e) Reducing the overall Carbon Footprint of transport in Warwickshire

through:

Introduction of electric buses;

Creating Park and Ride sites; and

Increasing service provision to be more attractive.

f) Increase the use of public transport by schoolchildren by:

Reintroducing bus passes; and

Providing a more comprehensive network of school bus services.

Page 129 of 169



16.4 Warwickshire Draft Bus Strategy 2019 – 2034

16.4.1 This strategy rightly identifies the significant challenges to reversing the

decline in bus patronage, these being:

a) Congestion, especially in urban areas;

b) High car ownership;

c) Rise in online shopping and the decline of the high street;

d) Shift to other forms of transport such as rail and Uber; and

e) Reduction in Local Authority funding.

16.4.2 The aims of the strategy are to improve the reach of the bus network and the

attractiveness of bus services through reduced journey times, higher quality

vehicles and new technology.

16.4.3 It is positive that the strategies set out for each area are based around a

continued investment in bus priority and working with developers to ensure

that new housing developments have bus services integrated into them.

16.4.4 The focus on the introduction of cross-town BRT services in Rugby is

particularly interesting. Although it does not go into much detail regarding the

bus / rail interchange at Rugby station or the location of bus priorities, in the

author’s opinion the locations such as the road link under Rugby station and

the town centre bus stops might be candidates for bus, taxi and emergency

service access only. The most appropriate site for the Rugby Bus Station

would be on the current Stagecoach depot site next to the railway station.

16.5 Summary

16.5.1 Whilst the ‘Future of the Bus’ report has some valid points and good ideas,

such as compelling local authorities to publish a bus investment plan, it also

contains some of the usual misconceptions about bus services. A more

integrated network between modes is wonderful on paper but does not take

into account the issues faced by bus operators when rail operators change

their timetables, or indeed the case in Warwickshire where bus and rail

compete over key corridors. Work carried out by TAS in Wales in 2020 in fact

showed that bus passengers do not place bus/rail integration high on their list

of priorities. In addition, diverting buses to serve railway stations can lengthen

bus journeys or divert them away from major traffic objectives.

16.5.2 The two WCC publications reflect the challenges faced by bus operators in the

pre-Covid 19 environment. Desired travel destinations are more spread out

than they once were making conventional bus networks less efficient in

moving people around. This is coupled with the closure of many high street

Page 130 of 169



shops resulting in fewer workers and shoppers. Strategies need to look beyond

just the bus and at the wider economic plan to ensure that new health,

employment, retail and leisured facilities are not built on green field sites but

closer to existing higher frequency bus routes. There is an increasing desire

for limitations on traffic in town centres and the Post Covid-19 era seems to

likely to lead to pressure for more pedestrian and cycle space.

Page 131 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Current and Future Government Funding ▪ 131

17Current and Future Government Funding 17

17.1 Introduction

17.1.1 Due to circumstances beyond our control the hoped for consultation with the

Department for Transport (DfT) has not happened. This section instead takes

a quick look at what we know so far from various Government

announcements.

17.2 Current Funding – Better Bus

17.2.1 In September 2019 the Government announced over £220m would be made

available for improving local bus services, this included:

£70m to pilot Superbus areas where there is extensive bus priority and or a

low fare zone;

£50m for the creation of the first All Electric Bus Towns;

£30m (notably as a one-off payment) divided between English Local

Authorities for improving existing or reinstating lost tendered services –

Warwickshire was allocated £500k; and

£20m Rural Mobility Fund to support a pilot of Demand Responsive

Transport schemes in rural and suburban areas.

Effect of COVID-19

17.2.2 COVID-19 has already had an impact on the Better Bus funds. The Superbus

competition has been paused indefinitely, whilst the £30m for Local Authorities

is expected to be spent on funding the revenue shortfall on existing supported

services rather than enhancing the network as originally intended.

Electric Bus Towns

17.2.3 Bids for these were put back to June 2020. The DfT is expecting the £50m to

cover two or three pilot areas. These are expected to be towns or small cities

with a mainly insular network with very few interurban services. This is

because all buses operating on registered local bus services (which will include

school services open to the general public) have to be operated using fully

electric vehicles or hybrids which are capable of running on electric only for

part of the journey. In view of this limitation we expect to see a number of

bids that are not fully compliant.

17.2.4 The urban areas chosen must also have a current air quality problem which

should be improved both through the use of electric vehicles and the reduction

in cars on the road. The latter is hoped to be achieved through additional

Page 133 of 169



supporting measures such as bus priority and parking restrictions which the

Local Authority has to commit to as part of the Electric Bus Town bid.

Rural Mobility Fund

17.2.5 This funding aims to cover a number of schemes which will introduce App-

based DRT services to a specific area. This can either be the replacement of a

conventional bus service or an area which currently has poor public transport

links. Bids are restricted to rural or suburban areas.

Hydrogen Bus Town

17.2.6 This was an add-on scheme announced in June 2020 for which bids are in

progress. The principles are the same as those applying to electric bus towns,

although the amount of funding available remains to be settled. Hydrogen

could expand the number of potential bidders significantly as the range offered

by buses powered by Hydrogen is significantly greater.

17.3 Future Funding

17.3.1 In February 2020 the Government pledged an extra £5bn of extra funding for

bus services and cycling. On the bus side it has been hinted that this could

involve funding for an extra 4,000 zero emission vehicles and an expansion of

the Superbus scheme which would include:

Increasing service frequencies especially in the evenings and at weekends;

Reducing and simplifying bus fares; and

Increasing the provision of bus priority measures.

17.3.2 This funding was expected to align with publication of the National Bus

Strategy (see below) around the time of the Autumn Statement. It remains to

be seen whether this funding survives a post-COVID-19 spending review.

17.4 National Bus Strategy

17.4.1 The promise of a National Bus Strategy was announced alongside the Better

Bus funding and seems to incorporate the bus side of the extra £5bn in

17.3.1. However beyond that there has been very little information provided

with regard to what it will include. The only concrete announcement was that

the Strategy would cover a review of existing funding streams for buses

(mainly Bus Service Operators Grant) to provide a long term funding

guarantee.

17.4.2 From informal discussions between TAS and DfT officials it is understood that

the National Bus Strategy will be developed by the DfT itself based on policies

already announced by the Government.

Page 134 of 169



17.5 Summary

17.5.1 Despite pledges from the government the future funding available for bus

services still seems unclear. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on bus

patronage and government finances hasn’t helped this. For some time now

available additional finance has been channelled through challenge funding

with varying degrees of success, while grants for ongoing revenue funding

have been significantly cut back.

17.5.2 There is some justification in saying that challenge fund awards have often

favoured those who submit the best quality bids rather than the most

deserving areas. As examples, there were some high-profile ambitious Rural

Bus Challenge bids which were not sustainable in the longer term and it must

be questionable in relation to Electric Bus Towns if the best environmental

impact is achieved by dedicating expensive electric buses to school runs.

Page 135 of 169

of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Quick Wins for 2020 – 2022 Plan ▪ 135

18Quick Wins for 2020 – 2022 Plan 18

18.1 Introduction

18.1.1 There are ten areas which could provide a quick win, these are:

a) ‘How to use the bus’ information;

b) Better Roadside Publicity;

c) Planning policy guidance;

d) A bus conference;

e) New bus links to Birmingham International;

f) Warwick – Leamington - Coventry Corridor Partnership including RTI, bus

priority measures and multi-operator ticketing;

g) Countywide Multi-operator Day Ticket;

h) Provision of improved Southbound Bus Stop on A426 Leicester Road o/s

Elliott's Field Retail Park in Rugby;

i) Expansion of DRT provision and technology; and

j) Provision of Park and Ride for Leamington for the Commonwealth Games.

18.1.2 This excludes the current work in Nuneaton around the town centre

regeneration and potential new bus station.

18.2 How to Use the Bus – Information Guide

18.2.1 Before more people can start using the bus regularly they need to know how

to use it. If they haven’t used the bus in a long time they may not be

confident. In partnership with the operators WCC should therefore produce a

‘How to use the bus’ guide both online and in printed form. The printed version

could be used as part of a pack of information for new residents at housing

developments, as well being available at libraries etc.

18.2.2 As an example, Travelwest, the public transport information site for the West

of England area, has a ‘how to use the bus’ webpage22, although it is perhaps

rather hidden away instead of being on the main home page, while North

Yorkshire County Council has produced a similar guide for 6th Form students

and Arriva has general guidance on its website23.

22 https://travelwest.info/bus/services-information/catching-the-bus 23 https://www.arrivabus.co.uk/travel-help-and-accessibility/how-to-catch-the-bus/

Page 137 of 169

https://travelwest.info/bus/services-information/catching-the-bus

https://www.arrivabus.co.uk/travel-help-and-accessibility/how-to-catch-the-bus/



18.2.3 Another way of helping people gain confidence in using the bus is through

volunteer Bus Buddies – these are people who make a first journey with

someone new to buses to help guide them through the process. There may

additionally need to be a push to get passengers back on buses when COVID-

19 related social distancing is over.

18.3 Better Roadside Publicity

18.3.1 As covered in 8.4.1, the timetable information provided at bus stops could be

better. WCC should agree with operators who should be responsible for

producing the information and what it should look like. Although under the

Transport Act 1985 it is the local authority’s responsibility some have passed

this onto operators (whilst in other areas operators have had to step in as the

local authority seeks to cut costs).

18.3.2 WCC have recently upgraded their relevant software to be able to produce a

new style of roadside timetable information. It is also compatible with

‘Paperless’ digital timetable screens which could be installed at some bus stops

in the future.

18.4 Planning Guidance

18.4.1 As covered in 10.3.1 WCC should work with the district councils and consult

with operators and developers in creating a set of guidelines for large new

developments in Warwickshire. This would set out the process for ensuring

that the development is bus friendly by specifying:

a) How bus routes are identified;

b) How the internal road layout and placing of properties should be

determined;

c) What facilities should be provided;

d) How the new service should be introduced; and

e) How new residents should be informed of and encouraged to use the

service.

18.4.2 WCC is currently preparing a design guide which covers points b) and c) as

well as point a) to some extent. It is recommended that the guide be

enhanced to:

Cover the points d) and e) above as well as expanding on point a);

Emphasise that the Spine Road should be of suitable width excluding road

space likely to be taken up by parked cars where there are no parking

restrictions; and

Page 138 of 169



Encourage the use of bus only link roads (with appropriate priority

measures) where:

The Spine Road does not match the ideal bus route through the site; or

Adjacent sites are not going to be connected by the spine road to avoid

the creation of rat runs etc.

18.5 Warwickshire Bus Conference

18.5.1 Given the level of support from the larger operators WCC should look to hold

its first bus conference by December 2020. Alongside WCC public transport

officers and bus operators, members of highways, district council planning

officers, representatives of nationally recognised bus users groups and a

representative from Transport for West Midlands should be invited.

18.5.2 The topic for the first conference should be on WCC’s actions around the Bus

Motion and preparing for the Commonwealth Games 2022. If timed right it

could also be used to launch the Leamington / Warwick – Coventry Advanced /

Enhanced Partnership (see 18.7).

18.6 New Bus Links to Birmingham International Airport, NEC (UK Central)

18.6.1 The NEC is one of the key venues for the Commonwealth Games 2022 and the

surrounding area will become ‘UK Central’ with the arrival of HS2. As covered

in 7.2.4 the only current direct link between the NEC, Birmingham Airport and

the Leamington and Warwick area is the hourly (often crowded) Cross Country

Trains service. Given the desire to replace the western end of Warwick service

16 with a DRT service, the northern end could be incorporated into a new

Warwick – Kenilworth – Birmingham International bus route. It is likely that a

journey along the full route would take just over an hour, requiring three

buses to operate the service.

18.6.2 The second route which should be implemented within the next two years is

between Tamworth and Birmingham International via Kingsbury and Coleshill

Parkway. This will require an extra two vehicles if running as an extension of

the current service 16.

18.6.3 Service 75 between Sutton Coldfield and Birmingham International is proposed

to be enhanced to provide a link into Hams Hall and an extension on to

Solihull. The service would be designed to connect with Johnson’s X20 from

Stratford-upon-Avon at Solihull providing a link between this area of

Warwickshire and Birmingham International.

18.6.4 These routes should be advertised as airport links (and later HS2 / UK Central

links) with vehicles fitted with luggage racks suitable for airport traffic.

Page 139 of 169



18.7 Warwick – Leamington – Coventry Advanced or

Enhanced Partnership

18.7.1 This would chiefly build on the proposed X17 Punctuality Improvement

Partnership but would be expanded to include the Leamington to Warwick

University section of services 11, U1 and U2 and the Warwick to Coventry

section of service X18. This would therefore need to be a partnership between

WCC, Stagecoach, National Express West Midlands and Transport for West

Midlands (TfWM).

18.7.2 From the operators this could involve:

New or upgraded buses on X17 and X18 to match the standard of vehicles

on the 11, U1 and U2;

An increase in frequency on either:

The X17 to every 15 minutes creating a co-ordinated 7/8 minute

frequency with service 11 between Kenilworth and Leamington Spa, or

The X18 to every 20 minutes between Coventry and Warwick to give a

co-ordinated 10 minute headway with the X17 at appropriate locations.

Participation in a multi-operator ticketing scheme for that corridor which

could also be valid on other Stagecoach services between Leamington and

Warwick.

18.7.3 From WCC, with appropriate support from TfWM where needed, this would

involve:

Bus priority measures along the X17 route and some of the X18 route;

Improvement to Warwick Bus Station including improved wayfinding, at

stop RTI displays and a real time information board showing all departures;

Creation of a bus hub with improved information including RTI at

Leamington, Upper Parade (including a bus only road) and at Kenilworth,

Clock;

Provision of RTI at other key stops and interchange points;

Production of a timetable booklet covering all routes in the partnership in

one handy guide.

18.7.4 Warwick University is part of the Midlands Future Mobility Zone with a focus on

driverless vehicles serving the campus. This should not be at the expense of

bus services.

18.7.5 It is best for WCC and the operators to decide which type of partnership will

be best. An Enhanced Partnership could be a better option if all operators are

Page 140 of 169



on-board as it would be a county wide umbrella partnership board at first

covering just the Warwick – Coventry corridor but allowing future local

partnerships to be introduced quicker.

18.8 Countywide Multi-Operator Ticket

18.8.1 The partnership in 18.7 and future local partnerships (covered in 19.2) will all

have local multi-operator tickets or ticketing agreements. This should deal

with the needs of most passengers on regular journeys. However it is

recognised that for leisure purposes a countywide day ticket with some cross-

border acceptance would be beneficial.

18.8.2 The easiest method of provision is for all operators to accept the ticket with

operators keeping the revenue from sales on their vehicles or via their apps.

Given the dominance of Stagecoach across the county this might not be

acceptable to all operators.

18.8.3 The more complicated method is for the revenue taken by operators to be paid

into a pool to be redistributed based on usage data. This is more equal in

terms of reflecting use but still not in terms of distance travelled. For example

if the ticket was £6 and people made an average of 4 journeys on it then each

journey would only be worth £1.50, even if one leg is from Coventry to

Stratford-upon-Avon on the X18 and another is within Stratford on the 1. Note

that the Competition and Markets Authority rejects any method of

reimbursement based on revenue forgone, but does allow weightings to reflect

longer or shorter trips. There is also the cost to both the operators and council

of staff time and / or a third party used for calculating the correct pool

redistribution.

18.9 Improved Bus Stop at Elliott's Field Retail Park, Rugby

18.9.1 Full implementation of a new southbound bus stop on Leicester Road (A426)

dual carriageway opposite Elliott's Field Retail Park and nearby to Junction One

Retail Park and Tesco Superstore, including provision of an elongated bus lay-

by holding two full-length buses and a high-quality bus shelter.

18.9.2 Section 106 developer contributions totalling £79k have already been secured

to deliver the initiative. However, progression of the scheme to completion of

detailed design has identified that further funding is required to cover:

Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings to secure the land required

to accommodate the elongated lay-by, after the landowner (St James Place

UK Ltd) reneged on entering into a Land Dedication Agreement and

withdrew from negotiations with the County Council; and

Service diversion and protection costs.

Page 141 of 169



18.9.3 In the interim, a bus stop pole has been erected at the location due to

Stagecoach Midlands and Arriva Midlands taking a decision no longer to pull

into the Tesco superstore due to delays caused by traffic accessing the site for

shopping. However, this has caused safety concerns exacerbating the need for

full extent of works at the bus stop to be implemented..

18.10 Expansion of DRT Provision and Technology

18.10.1 Warwickshire as a rural county has both its small settlements and key

destinations spread over a wide area. This makes the provision of a standard

bus service to parts of the county a trade-off between a regular service to one

or two locations or a number of infrequent links to a variety of locations. The

first does not provide the coverage of service required whilst the second does

not provide the level of service to be attractive to most people.

18.10.2 DRT services come into their own in this instance by generally allowing people

to travel to where they want to when they want to. Experience since the very

earliest experiments in the late 1970s shows that DRT services will never be

commercially viable but can offer value for money in terms of subsidy per trip.

18.10.3 With the rise of the Mobile App based DRT service a new generation of people

will be attracted to access the service. However the traditional phone based

booking option still needs to be available to those who do not have a

smartphone or are not technologically savvy.

18.10.4 The expansion of UBUS and the forthcoming DRT scheme for the area west of

Warwick will be useful trials for a larger roll out to areas such as North

Warwickshire where bus services are infrequent and destinations varied.

18.11 Park and Ride in Leamington for Commonwealth Games

18.11.1 Studies are already underway for Park and Ride sites for Warwick and

Leamington Spa. It should be simple to set up two or three Park and Ride sites

for use for the Commonwealth Games allowing spectators to make at least

part of their journey by public transport. These sites should be designed for

potential use after the games too although the bus service to the site is likely

to change.

Page 142 of 169


Bus Service Motion Support ▪ Longer Term Plans 2022 Onwards ▪ 141

19Longer Term Plans 2022 Onwards 19

19.1 Introduction

19.1.1 This section looks at areas for improvement beyond 2022.

19.2 Expansion of Partnerships

19.2.1 It is recommended that to ensure a local focus and a sustainable use of

resources, WCC establishes local partnerships with operators rather than

seeking a county wide one. The order in which the partnerships are listed

below is alphabetical and not a reflection of any advised chronological order.

Bedworth and Atherstone Corridors

19.2.2 The Coventry – Bedworth – Nuneaton corridor is the other major corridor after

Coventry – Kenilworth – Leamington Spa which sees multiple operators

serving it. Given the regeneration work being undertaken in Nuneaton it is

logical for this partnership to be set up alongside. Working with operators

there is a chance to identify locations for bus priority measures, which would

cover key routes into Nuneaton from all directions and not just from the south.

19.2.3 One simple change could happen earlier which is to amend the Leicester

Street / George Street Ringway junction in Bedworth to give buses priority.

19.2.4 Given that there are currently three major operators on this corridor and

around Nuneaton a multi-operator ticket is a must. This could be as simple as

allowing use of one operator’s return, day and / or period ticket on another’s

service, or it could involve a new ticket type.

19.2.5 It would makes sense to have a phase two of this partnership extending it to

cover the Nuneaton – Atherstone – Tamworth corridor. Depending on the

views of operators involved this might involve a separate multi-operator

ticketing arrangement or an expansion of the Bedworth corridor scheme.

Rugby

19.2.6 This is a growing town with the benefit of direct rail links to Birmingham and

London. The railway line does however act as something of a barrier, with the

station in a no-man’s land between the traditional town centre to the south

and the new retail and leisure developments to the north.

19.2.7 The partnership would ideally fit in with the creation of the proposed North-

South BRT route, which would require significant bus priority measures to be

successful. Radical measures could be investigated such as making parts of

the town centre and the road under the railway station bus only.

Page 143 of 169



19.2.8 Stagecoach’s current depot could be referred to as historic and based on

experience elsewhere it is possible that a new depot would be needed to

support any investment in ultra-low or zero emission vehicles. It would be a

good idea for this to form part of the partnership, Rugby District Council could

support Stagecoach in the locating and purchase or lease of an appropriate

new site with the existing depot becoming the site of a new bus interchange

which would provide direct connections with the railway station next door.

19.2.9 Rugby is served by a number of operators on both local and interurban routes

making a multi-operator ticketing scheme a worthwhile part of the

partnership.

Stratford-upon-Avon

19.2.10 This might be the smallest of the partnerships being centred around the

creation of a bus hub on Bridge Street. Unfortunately the opportunity has been

lost for the creation of a bus station on the land between the railway station

and the hospital.

19.2.11 Local services are again in the hands of a number of operators so a multi-

operator ticketing scheme would be desired. Very few of these services are

‘town’ services so the ability to introduce electric vehicles might be limited.

19.3 Expansion of Park and Ride Provision

19.3.1 As covered in 7.4 many successful Park and Ride schemes are based on

multiple sites. If commitment is forthcoming from Stratford District Council to

increase the cost of parking within the town centre then further Park and Ride

sites should be explored. The simplest one would be to reopen the site at

Stratford Waitrose with the existing Park and Ride service extended to it.

There could be a third site set up at Stratford-upon-Avon Race Course for use

on non-race days with Stagecoach service X18 diverting into the site and

some other services perhaps extended to the racecourse to give an attractive

service level.

19.3.2 If changes are made to the roads in Rugby town centre to give greater bus

priority then it may be harder for motorists to access Rugby town centre and

railway station. For those travelling from rural areas which have a sparse bus

service a number of pocket park and ride sites might need to be created.

These would be located on the key roads into the town served by services with

at least a 20 minute frequency.

19.3.3 Nuneaton may not have many suitable sites for a Park and Ride, however

there should still be some investigation. With the provision of a bus service to

Bermuda Park and the increase in frequency of the Coventry – Nuneaton train

service to half-hourly a site around the station would perhaps make the most

sense. A site on the A5 between the two A47 junctions could be used for

Hinckley too.

Page 144 of 169



Interaction with new Railway Stations

19.3.4 Three new stations are proposed in Warwickshire which could double as park

and ride and bus hubs. Nuneaton Parkway is proposed on the Birmingham to

Leicester line near the A5. Galley Common on the west side of Nuneaton could

intercept traffic from the B4112 heading for Nuneaton. A new station is also

proposed between Coventry and Kenilworth, this would require a bus link

between the station and the University of Warwick but would also act as a

Parkway station being accessible from both the A429 and A46.

19.4 New Routes

19.4.1 Although these could be introduced by 2022, in order for resources to be

focused on Quick Wins associated with the Commonwealth Games it is better

to look to 2023 to introduce a wider number of new routes on Warwickshire.

These include but are not limited to:

Banbury – Gaydon – Southam – Coventry;

Stratford-upon-Avon – Wellesbourne – Gaydon – Southam – Daventry;

Nuneaton – Magna Park – Lutterworth or Rugby; and

Atherstone or Polesworth – Coleshill – Birmingham International.

Page 145 of 169

of 169


Appendix A: Operator Engagement Questions ▪ 145

Appendix A: Operator Engagement Questions

Page 147 of 169

of 169



Operator Consultation Questions

1. What do you feel Warwickshire County Council (WCC) does well in relation to

bus services?

2. Are you involved in any Voluntary Quality Partnerships with WCC? If so what

are they and how well do you feel each party is meeting its commitments?

3. Where do you think that WCC can improve its support for bus services? Are

there any particular places in which bus priority is essential to help make bus

more attractive?

4. Are there any gaps in the current network that you feel should be filled but

might require council support, even if just as a kick start? Do you see any merit

in better links to railway stations especially those not currently well served by

buses? [Kenilworth and Bermuda]

5. Do you have any views on Advanced and Enhanced Partnerships? Would you be

willing to enter into one or either of these with WCC?

6. Would you be willing to enter into a multi-operator ticketing scheme for part of

or all of Warwickshire? Do you feel there are any barriers to overcome if it is to

be implemented? What about cross-boundary services?

7. Would you be willing be part of a ‘fares promotion’ to encourage bus use

through cheaper fares? If so what do you think it should look like?

8. Are you currently or have you been operating a service using Section 106

funding in Warwickshire? How successfully has it / have they been? Are we able

to get any data regarding passenger numbers? Do you think more could be

done with S106 funding to encourage bus use from new developments?

9. What do you feel are the best ways to encourage greater bus use? Are there

any examples you can provide of this in practice?

10. Do you feel that the current ENCTS re-imbursement rate and process is fair to

you? Are there any enhancements that you think would be beneficial (currently

09:00 – 23:59)?

11. Do you think that there should be a discount scheme for young persons? If so

what do you think it should look like?

12. Would you support an annual Warwickshire Bus Conference? If so, do you think

it should be by invite only (operators, council(s) and passenger groups) or open

to the general public?

13. How are you preparing for the government’s Open Data scheme? Is there

anywhere you feel that WCC could help or should be involved?

Page 149 of 169



14. How are you currently seeking to reduce your impact on the climate as an

operator? Have you any plans for reducing the overall emissions level from your

fleet? Would you be prepared to run electric buses? How would you require

support for low / zero emissions buses?

Page 150 of 169


Appendix B: Community Transport in Warwickshire ▪ 149

Appendix B: Community Transport in Warwickshire

Page 151 of 169

of 169



1. Community Transport Provision within Warwickshire

1.1 The table below provides operational details of the various Community

Transport and Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) that are either based in

Warwickshire or operate services into the county.

Table 9: Community Transport & DRT Operations in Warwickshire

Operator & Funding Service Name & Details Area & Times Covered

A&M Group

https://www.flexi-

bus.co.uk/

Warwickshire County

Council financially

support a network of

services throughout the

county that operate to a

timetable but can deviate

from the route to pick up

people with mobility

issues.

Based in Harbury.

Flexi-Bus

Eligibility: general, but mobility

impaired users are registered.

Mode: PSV, registered flexible

routes. The vehicles are fully

accessible and can carry up to

two wheelchairs. Some have

passenger assistants and all are

currently operated by A&M.

door to door pick-ups are pre

booked.

Cost: Various fare tables.

Concessionary passes are

accepted for travel.

Flexi-bus services cover areas of

the County not served by

commercial services and operate

anything from once a week to six

days a week. All of these services

operate between 0915 & 1445

and each vehicle operates a

school contract.

B1 Bedworth / Dalton Rd /

Bedworth. Monday to Saturday

0910-1505.

B2 Bedworth / Coalpit Fields /


0920-1442.

B3 Bedworth / Trenance Rd /


0935-1500.

9 Lime Tree-Bilton-Woodlands-

Rokeby-Clifton. Monday to

Saturday 0738-1853.

11 Rugby Woodlands St Cross

Hospital Abbotts Farm. Monday

to Saturday 0907-1442.

69 Weston under Weatherley -

Leamington Spa. Monday to

Saturday 0918-1448.

201 St Nicholas Park Drive –

Nuneaton. Wednesdays 1040-

1310.

203 Princethorpe -

Grandborough – Rugby.

Mondays 0925-1245.

209 Princethorpe Hill top -

Rugby – Elliot’s Field.

Wednesdays and Fridays 1045-

1444.

210 Rugby - Wolvey – Hinckley.

Mondays 1020-1414

Page 153 of 169

https://www.flexi-bus.co.uk/

https://www.flexi-bus.co.uk/




211 Willey - Churchover –

Rugby. Tuesdays 1055-1415.

212 Bidford - Stratford upon

Avon. Tuesdays & Fridays 0930-

1422.

213 Rugby - Withybrook –

Bedworth. Tuesdays 0910-1314.

214 Priors Hardwick - Flecknoe -

Rugby – Elliot’s Field.

Wednesdays 0925-1240.

216 Coleshill – Tamworth.

Thursdays 0915-1335.

218 Binley Woods – Morrison’s –

Tesco. Fridays 1100-1310.

220 Nuneaton – Hinckley.

Wednesdays 1025-1325

223 Lea Marston – Solihull.

Mondays 0920-1320.

224 No Man’s Heath –

Tamworth. Thursdays 1015-

1235.

232 Coleshill – Nuneaton.

Wednesdays & Fridays 1020-

1420.

233 Solihull – Kenilworth

Mondays & Thursdays 1025-

1357.

241 Rugby - Burton Hastings –

Nuneaton. Wednesdays 0910-

1335.

496 Napton - Southam -

Bishops Itch – Banbury.


497 Radford Semele – Banbury.


504 Stratford - Old Town -

Saffron Meadow. Monday to

Friday 0922-1200.

505 Wellesbourne - Hampton

Lucy – Stratford. Monday to

Friday 1000-1332

510 Henley in Arden -

Leamington Spa. Wednesdays &

Saturdays 0855-1316.

511 Rowington- Leamington

Spa. Wednesdays 1052-1332.

Page 154 of 169




512 Stratford upon Avon –

Redditch. Mondays 0930-1420

513 Norton Lindsey - Claverdon

– Solihull. Monday 0925-1244.

514 Hatton Green - Lapworth –

Solihull. Mondays & Saturdays

1010-1453.

517 Wootton Wawen -

Earlswood – Redditch. Monday


519 Redditch - Earlswood –

Solihull. Monday, Thursday &

Saturday 1030-1347.

520 Lapworth - Claverdon -

Stratford upon Avon. Tuesdays

& Fridays 0940-1309

521 Hatton Green - Norton

Lindsey – Stratford. Tuesdays

1050-1406.

538 Princethorpe -

Hunningham-Leamington Spa.

Fridays 0925-1302.

735 Coleshill - Ansley -

Coventry Pool Meadow. Monday


Beeline Community

Transport

http://www.beelinect.org

.uk/

Partly funded by

Warwickshire County

Council. Beeline is one of

five members of

Warwickshire Voluntary

Transport Partnership.

Based in Atherstone.

Eligibility: Residents of North

Warwickshire who are unable to

use public or private transport

either through sickness or

disability or because the bus

service does not meet your

needs. Also open to people who

do not live in North

Warwickshire but who are

registered with a North

Warwickshire GP

Mode: Volunteer Car Scheme

Cost: 45p per mile from the

driver’s home to their

destination and return, plus a

£2 booking fee

North Warwickshire residents to

hospitals, clinics and other

essential health services such as

doctors’ surgeries, chiropodists,

dentists and opticians.

Clarkes of Shipston

https://www.clarkesofshi

pstononstour.co.uk/hom

e

Based in Shipston-on-

Stour

UBUS

See entry below under

Warwickshire Rural Community

Council for full details.

See entry below under

Warwickshire Rural Community

Council for full details.

Harbury Energy

Initiative

Harbury e-Wheels 15 mile radius of Harbury.

Page 155 of 169

http://www.beelinect.org.uk/

http://www.beelinect.org.uk/

https://www.clarkesofshipstononstour.co.uk/home






http://www.harburyener

gy.co.uk/harbury-e-

wheels/

“We need to fund raise

over £10,000 a year to

keep e-wheels rolling…

We are staffed entirely

by 24 volunteers

(coordinators, drivers,

board members) and we

work with local social

agencies: Surgeries and

hospitals, Children’s

Centres, Citizens Advice,

AgeUK, Churches, Local

Councils, etc.”

Based in Harbury.

Eligibility: referrals of families

and individuals who are

prevented from reaching

important, sometimes vital

appointments for financial or

physical reasons.


using 2 electric vehicles

supplied by Electric Zoo.

Cost: free to users.

Lilbourne Community

Minibus

https://www.northampto

nshire.gov.uk/councilser

vices/children-families-

education/SEND/local-

offer/transport/3232-

community-minibus-

scheme-lilbourne

Based in Lilbourne,

Northamptonshire

Eligibility: general

Mode: s22 Community Bus

Cost: staged fare table,

concessions accepted.

Warwickshire coverage:

Service L1 Lilbourne - Rugby –

Elliot’s Field Retail Park service

Monday, Wednesday, Friday &

Saturday.

Service L2 Stanford - Clay Coton

– Yelvertoft - Rugby service

Monday, Wednesday, Friday &

Saturday

Service L3 Lilbourne - Rugby

Wednesday, Friday & Saturday

North Cotswold

Community Bus

Association

http://hedgehogbus.org/

Based in Chipping

Campden,

Gloucestershire.

Hedgehog Community Bus





Warwickshire coverage:

Service H3A Tuesdays -

Mickleton - Campden – Stratford

(9.30-10.40am). Stratford –

Campden – Mickleton (12.30-

13.39pm)

Service H3B Wednesdays -




13.29pm)

Service H3C Fridays - Mickleton

- Campden – Stratford (9.30-

10.17am). Stratford – Campden

– Mickleton (12.30-13.16pm)

Service H3E Saturdays -




13.39pm)

Page 156 of 169

http://www.harburyenergy.co.uk/harbury-e-wheels/



https://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/children-families-education/SEND/local-offer/transport/3232-community-minibus-scheme-lilbourne







http://hedgehogbus.org/




Shipston Link

http://shipstonlink.co.uk

/

Two 16 seat minibuses,

also available for private

hire.

Grant aid from

Warwickshire County

Council but not under

contract.

Based at Shipston-on-

Stour.

Shipston Link Community

Minibus





Service S1 Tuesdays - Shipston,

Tredington, Halford, Ettington,

Halford, Tredington, Shipston

(8.55-11.40am)

Service S2 Wednesdays -

Shipston, Tysoe, Oxhill,

Whatcote, Idlicote, Honington,

Shipston (8.55-11.59am)

Service S3 Wednesdays -

Shipston, Burmington, Wolford

Fields, Cherington, Sutton Under

Brailes, Stourton, Whichford,

Long Compton, Chipping Norton

(8.55-11.59am)


Tredington, Armscote,

Blackwell, Ilmington, Shipston

(9.30-12.15am)

Service S5 Thursday - Barton

On The Heath, Little Compton,

Long Compton, Whichford,

Cherington, Stourton, Sutton

Under Brailes, Brailes, Banbury

(9.20-13.07am)


Stretton On Fosse, Todenham,

Moreton In Marsh, Shipston

(10.10-12.55am)

Service S7 Fridays - Shipston,

Wolford Fields, Long Compton,

Whichford, Cherington,

Stourton, Sutton Under Brailes,

Brailes, Shipston (8.55-

12.00am)

Service S8 Fridays -

Burmington, Little Wolford,

Great Wolford, Todenham,

Stretton On Fosse, Shipston

(9.50-12.49)

Service S9 Tuesdays – Shipston

Town Service (2.00-16.05pm)

Service S10 – Whichford-

Cherington - Stourton - Sutton

Under Brailes - Brailes -

Shipston - Ilmington -

Admington -Lower Quinton -

Clifford Chambers - Stratford -

Stratford Tesco (9.00-13.06pm)

South Staffordshire

Coach Hire

IndieGo Coleshill

Eligibility: general, pre-

registered.

Monday to Friday, to and from

Coleshill and Hams Hall at key

shift change times and Coleshill

Page 157 of 169

http://shipstonlink.co.uk/

http://shipstonlink.co.uk/




https://www.warwickshir

e.gov.uk/indiego

WCC funded Dial-a-Ride

Scheme

Based in Tamworth.

Mode: PSV, registered flexible

route with accessible vehicle.

Pick up at bus stops, or can be

door to door for those who are

mobility impaired. School

contract is operated PM only.

Cost: Flat fare single adult £3,

return £5. Concessions

accepted.

Parkway station along with

numerous villages around

Coleshill.

Hams Hall and Coleshill Parkway

Station. To arrive at Hams Hall

for 5.45am, 1.45pm and

9.45pm. To arrive at Coleshill

Parkway Station for 5.55am,

1.55pm and 9.55pm.

Coleshill Parkway Station and

Hams Hall. To Depart from

Coleshill Parkway Station at

around 6.05am, 2.05pm and

10.05pm. To depart from Hams

Hall at around 6.15am, 2.15pm

and 10.15pm.

Service is available to be booked

from the following communities:

Bodymoor Heath, Curdworth,

Furnace End, Gilson, Hurley,

Hurley Common, Kingsbury, Lea

Marston, Marston, Nether

Whitacre, Over Whitacre,

Piccadilly, Shustoke, Whitacre

Heath, Wood End

Service can be booked for travel

to/from Hams Hall, Coleshill

Parkway Station, Coleshill High

Street, Coleshill Medical Centre

and Coleshill Morrison’s on a

demand-responsive basis

between:7am to 1pm and

3.45pm to 9pm. Service is

available to be booked from the

following communities: as service

above but also including

Maxstoke, Packington &

Shawbury.

Southam Community

Minibus

https://www.southam.co

.uk/community/communi

ty-transport/

Based in Southam.

Eligibility: non-profit

organisations in Southam &

surrounding areas

Mode: s19 Group Travel, 16-

seater minibus

Cost: Not Known

Southam & surrounding areas.

Southam Town Council

https://www.southam.co

.uk/directory/all/southa

m-town-council-

volunteer-drivers-

service/

Based in Southam.

Volunteer Drivers Service

Eligibility: Residents of

Southam, Napton, Bishops

Itchington and Priors Marston

who are unable to use public or

private transport either through

sickness or disability to meet

medical appointments.

Residents of Southam, Napton,

Bishops Itchington and Priors

Marston

Page 158 of 169

https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/indiego


https://www.southam.co.uk/community/community-transport/



https://www.southam.co.uk/directory/all/southam-town-council-volunteer-drivers-service/









Cost: 45p per mile, concessions

accepted in Southam & Napton

T J Travel

https://www.warwickshir

e.gov.uk/indiego

WCC funded flexible bus

scheme.

Based in Polesworth.

IndieGo Atherstone

Eligibility: general, pre-

registered.

Mode: PSV, pre-booked DRT

accessible bus. Registered

flexible service. Pick up at bus

stops, or can be door to door

for those who are mobility

impaired.

Cost: Flat fare single adult £3,

return £5. Concessions

accepted.

To and from Atherstone, along

with numerous villages around

the Atherstone area

Service A1 - To arrive in

Atherstone for 9.45am. From

Kingsbury, Piccadilly, Wood End,

Hurley Common and Hurley.

Return from Atherstone at

12.20pm.



Shuttington, Seckington,

Newton Regis, Austrey and

Warton. Return from Atherstone

at 1.20pm.



Ansley, Gun Hill, New Arley and

Old Arley. Return from

Atherstone at 2.20pm.

The Villager

http://www.villagerbus.c

om/

Supported by WCC.

Based in Stow-on-the-

Wold

Villager Community Bus





V8 Friday - Oddington - Little

Compton - Chipping Norton

(9.50am-12.32pm)

Voluntary Action

Stratford-upon-Avon

(VASA)

https://www.vasa.org.uk

/services/community-

transport/

Annual Report 2019:

received during the year

a £35,000 multiyear

grant from Stratford

Town Trust, enabling us

to look at the long term

future of Community

Transport.

“VASA is the largest

community transport

provider in the county,

and one of the largest

nationally. We have over

3,500 registered clients.

In 2018/19 we

Community Transport

Eligibility: residents of Stratford

District who have “a genuine

need for transport” to medical

appointments at hospitals, GP

surgeries, chiropodists,

opticians and dentists or to

groups and activities


Cost: 45p per mile and a £3

admin fee. Concessions not

accepted.

Stratford on Avon, Warwick,

Leamington Spa, Kenilworth,

Southam, Alcester, Studley,

Wellesbourne, Shipston on Stour

and the surrounding villages.

Page 159 of 169



http://www.villagerbus.com/

http://www.villagerbus.com/

https://www.vasa.org.uk/services/community-transport/






completed over 19,000

journeys. This Invaluable

service is provided by

over 180 community

volunteers. Transport

costs: £152,126.”

Some grant funding from

Warwickshire County

Council.

Based in Stratford Upon

Avon.

Volunteer Friends

https://volunteerfriends.

org.uk/community-

transport-services/

Two minibuses.

Medicar is funded by

WCC.

Based in Bulkington and

providing services in

Nuneaton and Bedworth

District.

Medicar Transport Service

Eligibility: medically related

journeys only for those who not

able to use public transport

because of ill-health (short or

long term), caring

responsibilities, old age or

disability.


Cost: 45p per mile plus £2

administration charge per

return journey. Concessions not

accepted.

Residents of Nuneaton and

Bedworth District for medically

related social journeys, such as

visits to hospitals or day care

centres.

Supported Shopping Service

Eligibility: People who want to

do their own shopping and have

a wide variety of choice, but

find it difficult to go shopping on

their own because of ill-health

(short or long term), old age or

disability.

Mode: s19 pre-booked

accessible minibus, volunteer

driver and assistant.

Cost: £8 per return trip.

Concessions not accepted.


Bedworth District to Asda in

Nuneaton. Wednesdays & Fridays

only.

On Wednesdays – Bulkington,

Stockingford, Camp Hill and

Central Nuneaton

On Fridays – Bulkington, St

Nicolas Park, Weddington and

Central Nuneaton

Social Transport

Eligibility: people living in the

Borough of Nuneaton &

Bedworth who need to make

social related journeys and are

not able to use public transport,

because of ill health (short or

long term) old age or disability,

and are 65+



Bedworth District for social

related journeys.

Page 160 of 169

https://volunteerfriends.org.uk/community-transport-services/








return journey.

Minibus Hire


organisations in Nuneaton and

Bedworth

Mode: s19 accessible minibus,

volunteer driver or self-drive

with MiDAS

Cost: Not known.

Community organisations in

Nuneaton and Bedworth District

Warwickshire

Community &

Voluntary Action

https://www.wcava.org.

uk/transport-scheme and

https://www.facebook.co

m/RugbyTransportWCAV

A

Based in Atherstone.

Rugby Transport Service

Eligibility: any age, rurally

isolated, mobility impaired

Journeys to health and social

care related appointments only.




return journey.

Rugby Borough and surrounding

areas. Hospitals served include

Coventry and Warwickshire and

elsewhere (e.g. London,

Nottingham)

Warwickshire Rural

Community Council (CT

services branded Back &

4th)

https://www.wrccrural.or

g.uk/services/back-

4th/shoppa-hoppa/

and


g.uk/services/back-

4th/rugby-dial-a-ride/

and


g.uk/services/back-

4th/community-group/

Annual report 2019:

WRCC Back & 4th

delivered 17,298

individual passenger

journeys to community

groups and individuals

during the year - a 15%

increase on the previous

year. The project

delivered MiDAS training

to 15 people and started

to offer a dial-a-Ride

service in the rural areas

Rugby Dial-a-Ride



Mode: s22 minibus with paid

drivers, also undertakes a

school contract.


Concessions are accepted.

Rural areas of Rugby Borough.

There are five zones of operation

A Monday, B Tuesday, C

Wednesday, D Thursday and E

Friday.

Pick up

from

zoned

areas

10-

11am,

pick up

from

Rugby

for

returns

1-2pm

Shoppa-Hoppa



Mode: s19 pre-booked

accessible minibus with

volunteer driver. Volunteer

assistants also available.


Concessions not accepted.

Leamington, Warwick or the

surrounding villages to local

supermarkets.

Mondays only between 9.30 and

2pm.

Page 161 of 169

https://www.wcava.org.uk/transport-scheme

https://www.wcava.org.uk/transport-scheme

https://www.facebook.com/RugbyTransportWCAVA



https://www.wrccrural.org.uk/services/back-4th/shoppa-hoppa/



https://www.wrccrural.org.uk/services/back-4th/rugby-dial-a-ride/



https://www.wrccrural.org.uk/services/back-4th/community-group/






of Rugby Borough in

March 2019.

No funding support for

CT services. However,

Annual report does

mention a s22

Community Bus fund of £

6,644. Not clear which

service this is.

UBUS service is

supported by Stratford

District Council,

Warwickshire County

Council and Stratford

Town Trust.

Based in Warwick.

Community Group Hire


organisations in Warwickshire

Mode: s19 accessible minibus,

volunteer driver or self-drive

with MiDAS

Cost: £25 (half day) or £50 (full

day) + £0.50 per mile.

Vehicle can be booked Monday to

Sunday. Half day bookings

available in term times between

9.45am and 2pm.

UBUS

Eligibility: residents of Stratford

upon Avon district of any age,

who cannot access public

transport because of mobility

problems or other issues or live

in an isolated location with no,

or infrequent levels of, public

transport

Mode: 2 x s19, pre-booked

accessible buses with paid

drivers + 2 x Private Hire by

Clarkes. Pick up at bus stops, or

can be door to door for those

who are mobility impaired. 4

vehicles are used, covering one

zone each. These vehicles also

operate school contracts. The

bookings facility is contracted to

Lincolnshire County Council.

Concessionary passes are not

valid.

Cost: Single Journey: £2.90 or

£3.60. Return Journey: £5.80

or £7.20.

Service is available weekdays,

between about 9.30am and

2.30pm.

West Zone – Monday, Tuesday,

Wednesday Thursday & Friday -

Alcester, Bidford, Henley,

Studley & Surrounding area

East Zone – Monday,

Wednesday & Friday - Harbury,

Kineton, Southam, Wellesbourne

& Surrounding area

South Zone – Tuesday,

Wednesday & Thursday - Long

Compton, Lower Quinton,

Shipston, Tysoe & Surrounding

area

Stratford upon Avon Zone -

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday

Thursday & Friday - including

Alveston, Luddington, Old

Stratford & Tiddington

Additional travel is offered from

Southam and surrounding areas

to Leamington on Mondays / to

and from Southam on Tuesdays

and Thursdays.

Page 162 of 169


Appendix C: Multi-Operator Ticketing ▪ 161

Appendix C: Multi-Operator Ticketing

Page 163 of 169

of 169



1. Introduction

1.1 The current legal provision for ticketing schemes has limitations, chiefly that

only local authorities or consortia of local authorities may set up statutory

schemes and prices can only be set by agreement with operators.

Subsequently the Competition and Markets Authority suggested a pricing

formula. The legislation does however allow the consortia to pursue

participation by rail (or even light rail) operations. It should also be

remembered that the competition authorities came down very firmly in favour

of multi-operator tickets in its 2011 investigation, provided that these tickets

follow the rules of the Ticketing Block Exemption. Neither of these restrictions,

of course, applies to voluntary multi-operator schemes.

1.2 The vast majority of successful multi-operator and multi-modal tickets are run

as voluntary schemes which follow the guidance laid down by the competition

authorities, particularly with regard to pricing and revenue distribution. The

majority of these established voluntary schemes have functioned successfully

for many years without the need for any expensive new technology, although

some, such as West Yorkshire's 'M-Card', have now moved onto a smart

platform. ALL of the English and Scottish Metropolitan areas also have well-

established multi-modal tickets. The exception is Manchester, where TfGM

excludes its own Metrolink trams from the main multi-modal range.

1.3 There are frequent calls for an 'Oyster' card for almost anywhere. It is

important that a fixation with technology does not override the usefulness of

multi-operator products. Set-up, software and back-office costs can outweigh

any potential benefit and need to meet their own business case criteria. The

National Audit Office's recent criticism of the SEFT smartcard system which

swallowed around £40 million of public funding in development costs without

having a robust business case or producing a significantly attractive and useful

product is a case in point.

1.4 Fundamentally we must consider what the passenger wants from a ticketing

range. Passengers using multiple operators simply want a ticket that suits

them at a worthwhile price and care not whether it's paper, smartcard or

something on their phone.

1.5 Crucially we must not lose sight of the fact that these are a minority of bus

users with the majority of passengers making a single trip on a single

operator. They need easy access to ticketing products and this means the

ability to buy on the bus. New ticket types and ranges must exist in response

to passenger demand rather than ideology. Progress would be easier by

testing the market rather than committing significant investment to a product

which may see limited use.

Page 165 of 169



2. Types of Scheme Governance

2.1 There are two types of multi-operator schemes: voluntary and statutory.

A voluntary scheme is one set up jointly by the bus operators with or

without the local authority. It is up to the individual operator as to whether

it participates or not. However all operators in the relevant area should

have the opportunity to partake in the scheme.

A statutory scheme is one which is set up by the local authority and all

operators in the relevant area must partake in the scheme. Outside the

former Passenger Transport Executive areas, statutory schemes tend to be

part of a partnership arrangement, but even so are quite rare.

Advanced Ticketing Schemes

2.2 The Bus Services Act 2017 amended section 134 of the Transport Act 2000 to

include a new type of ticketing scheme. This allows a Local Transport Authority

LTA) of a consortia of LTAs to introduce a multi-operator and multi-modal

ticketing scheme. Although realistically designed to allow new Combined

Authorities to introduce PTE type ticketing schemes it is open to all English

LTAs and does not have to be applied to the whole authority area or indeed

open to all passenger types.

2.3 The LTA(s) must provide a minimum of three months notice of the intention to

create a scheme before the proposed start date. Before the scheme can be

introduced, the LTA(s) must consult with:

All operators (bus, rail, light rail and community transport) within the

proposed scheme’s area;

Local passenger groups;

Relevant authorities including neighbouring LTAs, district councils and

National Park authorities;

The Passenger’s Council;

The Competition and Markets Authority; and

The local Traffic Commissioner.

2.4 If a rail or light rail operator is to be affected the scheme can only progress

with that operator’s permission (the same restrictions do not seem to apply in

regard of bus operators) and with notice given to the Secretary of State.

Page 166 of 169



3. Types of Ticketing Schemes

3.1 There are four main types of ticketing schemes, these are:

Multi-operator Travelcards – This is where there is a specific multi-operator

product such as the Oxford SmartZone period tickets and the n-bus in the

West Midlands. The suggested method for setting the price is:

Average Fare (for services or area) x Estimated Ticket Usage x Multi-

journey Discount Factor;

Multi-operator individual tickets – This is where operators agree to accept a

selection of each other’s products on their services such as in Scunthorpe;

Through Tickets – This is where a ticket can be bought from one operator

that can be used for a second stage of a journey on another operator’s

service such as to reach a hospital or business park; and

Add-ons – This is where a multi-operator function is added on to a standard

product for a premium price, for example Oxford SmartZone can be added

onto Stagecoach and Thames Travel wider area period tickets and more

generally the PlusBus scheme.

4. Scheme Agreement

4.1 No matter what governance and ticketing scheme is used there must be a

scheme agreement in place. This principally sets out the following:

Who is involved in the scheme;

The geographical area and services covered;

What tickets are involved in the scheme;

How revenue is apportioned; and

How the scheme meets the Block Exemption requirements.

5. Revenue Apportionment

5.1 There are two ways revenue from multi-operator products can be apportioned.

The simplest method is for the revenue to remain where it lies and is

standard for individual ticket schemes and day ticket products of Travelcard

schemes. The major benefit is that there is no need for administration costs

however it only works if there is a fair distribution of purchase and use

amongst operators. Where there is an imbalance in flows such as one

operator having high sales and another high usage due to locations of traffic

generators then this is not a satisfactory method to use.

Page 167 of 169



Pooling of revenue is a more complicated method, especially where the

scheme involves add-ons, however it is generally the more equitable. The

Scheme Agreement would set out the frequency of apportionment (e.g.

monthly or quarterly) and the methodology. Operators would report the

revenue received for sales of and usage of products within the scheme for

that period. The total revenue for that period is then divided by the total

number of trips which gives a price per trip. This is then applied to each

operator to give a revenue due per operator, the revenue actually take by

the operator is deducted from the revenue owed to give an actual figure for

money owed or owing – only this money is actually transferred between

operators either directly or via the scheme administrators.

Table 10 gives an example of how it works, this is at its simplest and avoids

such additional cost pools as scheme administration and Smartcard costs. If

this is a voluntary scheme then its success hinges on Operator C being

willing and able to pay out over half its revenue from the scheme every

time. If Operator C were to decide that it doesn’t benefit from the scheme

and so withdraws then the attractiveness of it to passengers may diminish.

There can be a weighting applied if, for example, one operator provides

longer interurban services and the second shorter town services, but no

revenue pool must be reallocated on the basis of revenue forgone.

Table 10: Example Revenue Pool

Operator A Operator B Operator C Total

Actual Revenue £20,000 £17,500 £10,250

Actual Trips 45,050 40,200 9,750

Total Revenue 41.9% 36.6% 21.5% £47,750

Total Trips 47.7% 42.3% 10.3% 95,000

Revenue per Trip £0.503

Calculated Revenue £22,643.55 £20,205.79 £4,900.66

Revenue Owed £2,643.55 £2,705.79 £-5,349.34

6. Block Exemption – CMA Guidance24

“To minimise the burden on the parties to agreements, under the CA98 the

Secretary of State may make a ‘block’ exemption order that exempts from the

Chapter I Prohibition any agreements that fall within particular categories of

agreement which the CMA considers are likely to satisfy the conditions in

section 9(1) [of the Competition Act 1998]. This allows companies to have

confidence that their agreement is legal under Chapter I Prohibition, without

needing to self-assess against the section 9(1) criteria.

24 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/553470/cma53-public-transport-ticketing-schemes-block-exemption-guidance.pdf

Page 168 of 169



An agreement that falls within a category specified in the block exemption

(and that does not breach any of the conditions specified in the block

exemption) will not be prohibited under the Chapter I Prohibition and is

enforceable by the parties to the agreement…. [T]he parties to the agreement

need to satisfy themselves that the agreement meets the conditions set out in

the block exemption and be in a position to prove that the agreement is block

exempted. Where an agreement has as its object or effect an appreciable

restriction of competition but does not fall within the terms of the block

exemption, consideration will need to be given to one of the following:

Does it satisfy the conditions in section 9(1) so as to be individually

exempted?

Should it be amended so as to bring it within the terms of the block

exemption?

Does it fall within an exclusion under other legislation?”

CA98 Article 9(1)25

“An agreement is exempt from the Chapter I prohibition if it—

(a) contributes to—

(i) improving production or distribution, or

(ii) promoting technical or economic progress,

while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit;

(b) does not—

(i) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not

indispensable to the attainment of those objectives; or

(ii) afford the undertakings concerned the possibility of eliminating

competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.”

25 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/9

Page 169 of 169

1

Warwickshire County Council Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) Form

The purpose of an EIA is to ensure WCC is as inclusive as possible, both as a service deliverer and as an employer. It also

demonstrates our compliance with Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).

This document is a planning tool, designed to help you improve programmes of work by considering the implications for different

groups of people. A guidance document is available here.

Please note that, once approved, this document will be made public, unless you have indicated that it contains sensitive information.

Please ensure that the form is clear and easy to understand. If you would like any support or advice on completing this document,

please contact the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) team on 01926 412370 or [email protected]

Service / policy / strategy / practice / plan being assessed Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report

Business Unit / Service Area Transport Planning

Is this a new or existing service / policy / strategy /

practice / plan? If an existing service / policy / strategy /

practice / plan please state date of last assessment

New

EIA Review team – list of members Nigel Whyte, Keira Rounsley

Do any other Business Units / Service Areas need to be

included?

WCC Passenger Transport Team

Does this EIA contain personal and / or sensitive

information?

No

Are any of the outcomes from this assessment likely to

result in complaints from existing services users,

members of the public and / or employees?

No

Page 1 of 12

Page 1 of 12

https://warwickshiregovuk.sharepoint.com/SitePages/Equality-Impact-Assessments.aspx


2

1. Please explain the background to your proposed activity and the reasons for it.

At its meeting on 17 December 2019 the County Council agreed a Motion that the Strategic Director (Communities) takes a report to Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee responding to the following five objectives:


2. Analyses the success of Section 106 developer contributions which have been used to pump prime new bus routes over the last 10 years in Warwickshire and investigates alternative frameworks to incentivise long term successful routes around new developments if necessary.

3. Fully scopes the use of Advanced Quality and Enhanced Partnership schemes as set out in the Transport Act 2000 and Bus Services Act 2017, including engagement with operators and sets a date no later than December 2020 to assess whether implementation of the AQ or EP schemes are necessary to achieve the Authority’s key objectives.


5. Considers the call by the “Campaign for Better Transport” report called “The Future of the Bus” WCC Transport Planning commissioned The TAS Partnership Ltd (a transport consultancy specializing in public transport provision) to investigate the item raised in the Motion and produce an independent report.

2. Please outline your proposed activity including a summary of the main actions.

The proposed activities to be undertaken by WCC Transport Planning are listed as follows: A. Relay the key findings in the independent report produced by The TAS Partnership to WCC Communities Overview and

Scrutiny Committee at their meeting on 23 September 2020 B. WCC Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee to note the key findings of the Bus Services Motion Report

produced by The TAS Partnership Ltd investigating the items in the Bus Services Motion endorsed by full Council on 17 December 2020

Page 2 of 12

3

C. WCC Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee to note the proposed Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule consisting of measures aimed at delivering improvements to the bus services and supporting infrastructure, which The TAS Partnership Ltd has presented in the report following consultation with bus operators, County Council officers, Borough and District officers, Department for Transport and employers

D. WCC Transport Planning to further develop the initiatives and schemes in the proposed Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule and present to WCC Cabinet for endorsement to carry out further development work, e.g. development of a Business Case, which would act as the driver for obtaining capital funding to secure implementation

Note: The proposed Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule is focused on delivering the following bus improvement initiatives and schemes:

How to use the bus information guide;

Better roadside publicity;

Planning policy guidance;

Annual Warwickshire Bus Conference;

New Bus Links to Birmingham International Airport / NEC / UK Central;

Warwick – Leamington - Coventry Corridor Enhanced Partnership;

Introduce a Countywide Multi-Operator Day Ticket;

Improvement to southbound bus stop on Leicester Road (A426) opposite Elliott's Field Retail Park in Rugby;

Expansion of DRT Provision and Technology; and

Provision of Park and Ride in Leamington for the Commonwealth Games.

3. Who is this going to impact and how? (customers, service users, public and staff)

It is good practice to seek the views of your stakeholders and for these to influence your proposed activity. Please list anything

you have already found out. If you still need to talk to stakeholders, include this as an ‘action’ at the end of your EIA. Note that

in some cases, there is a duty to consult, see more.

Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report does not intend to single out a group characteristic within Warwickshire. Notwithstanding, all groups with protected characteristics would benefit, including individuals with a mobility and/or visual disability, the elderly who may not be able to travel by private car and people carrying children.

Page 3 of 12

https://warwickshiregovuk.sharepoint.com/SitePages/Consultation,-engagement-and-survey-resources.aspx

4

Consultation: Consultation has already been carried out with bus operators and employers (workforce of 50+ employees) who actively participated into shaping the Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report produced by The TAS Partnership. Officers of all 5 Borough / District Councils in Warwickshire were also consulted.

I. How did they do this?

The TAS Partnership Ltd issued a questionnaire to bus operators and employers regarding local bus services;

The TAS Partnership Ltd engaged key officers at Borough / District Councils; and

The TAS Partnership Ltd reviewed responses regarding bus services issued by residents to the County Council as part of the major WCC consultations regarding the Council Plan and Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs).

II. What did this tell you?

Some residents require access to employment, services and amenities which are currently not being met by public transport;

There are gaps in the Warwickshire Bus Network which need to be filled particularly in rural areas, and hence, the expansion of flexible Demand Responsive Transport services in Warwickshire is key in satisfying this travel demand in a cost-effective manner;

There is customer dissatisfaction regarding the level of bus fares particularly during off-peak periods;

The need to make bus timetables easier to read and encourage enhanced quality of information;

The need for provision of bus priority measures to support local bus services to operate when levels of traffic congestion on the local highway network are increasing;

The need for bus services to support improvements to the local environment, e.g. carbon reduction;

The importance of school transport to provide children with access to education and curtailing parents from driving their children to school, eligibility criteria for free school transport was also a key issue.

4. Please analyse the potential impact of your proposed activity against the protected characteristics.

N.B Think about what actions you might take to mitigate / remove the negative impacts and maximize on the positive ones.

This will form part of your action plan at question 7.

Page 4 of 12

5

What information do you have? What information do

you still need to get?

Positive impacts Negative impacts

Age

The bus is a key form of

transport for elderly people.

Accessibility enhancements at bus stops to ease the boarding and alighting of

buses will need to be considered. In addition,

information, including the bus information guide, will need to

be accessible.

Audio information on bus, i.e. next stop confirmation.

Further enhance use of

mobile apps to obtain bus information and on route location details frequently

used by younger people, e.g. students

Reduced bus journey times and environmental benefits.

Improvements to school transport provision will be

considered.

Further market research aimed at identifying the needs and wants of bus

passengers in Warwickshire will be carried out to support further development of the

Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule.

Disability Consider

Physical disabilities

Sensory impairments

Neurodiverse conditions (e.g. dyslexia)

It is recognised that the term disability is a broad one and

includes people with physical, sensory or cognitive

impairments. Many people

Accessibility enhancements at some bus stops to ease

the boarding and alighting of buses will need to be

considered.


passengers in Warwickshire will be carried out to support

Page 5 of 12

6

Mental health conditions (e.g. depression)

Medical conditions (e.g. diabetes)

with disabilities have mobility impairments, and some are wheelchair users. Disability

can affect locomotion, seeing, hearing, reaching, stretching,

dexterity, and cognitive functions, but these categories are not

exhaustive, or mutually exclusive; many disabled people, particularly older

people, have more than one impairment.

Audio information on bus, i.e.

next stop confirmation.


Provision of bus priority measures to reduce journey times and enhance schedule adherence will be considered.

Audio information at bus stops where possible to

support the visually impaired.

further development of the Bus Services Motion

Enhancement Schedule.

Gender Reassignment

No impacts identified. To be monitored and reviewed.

Improvements to bus services in terms of

frequency, ticketing, fares and vehicle specification.




Marriage and Civil Partnership







Pregnancy and Maternity


Accessibility enhancements at bus some stops to ease

Further market research aimed at identifying the

Page 6 of 12

7

the boarding and alighting of buses will need to be

considered.

Enhanced customer satisfaction of bus services,

e.g. improved fleet and comfortability.

Provision of bus priority

measures to reduce journey times and enhance schedule adherence will be considered.

needs and wants of bus passengers in Warwickshire will be carried out to support further development of the


Race

Where appropriate information will be provided in plain English to make it more accessible and in the relevant

alternative language, depending on the

demographic of the area.

Provide information at the bus stop or on bus in relevant

alternative language, depending on the

demographic of the area.





Page 7 of 12

8

Religion or Belief






Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule

Sex







Sexual Orientation






Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule

5. What could the impact of your proposed activity be on other vulnerable groups e.g. deprivation, looked after

children, carers?

Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report is expected to contribute towards improving population health and is not anticipated to have any adverse impact on population health.

Page 8 of 12

9

Guidance on how to travel by bus in adherence to COVID-19 public health requirements on public transport is openly available on the websites of bus operators, the County Council and Government. Cards for residents who are unable to follow COVID-19 public health requirements on public transport, e.g. due to health and/or mobility issues, are being distributed by bus operators and the County Council as below:

6. How does / could your proposed activity fulfil the three aims of PSED, giving due regard to:

the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation

creating equality of opportunity between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not

fostering good relationships between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not

The proposed activities fulfil the three aims of Public Sector Equality Duty as follows: I. The Elimination of Discrimination, Harassment and Victimisation: Further investment in the Warwickshire Bus Network would promote social inclusion and support reduction in crime by visibly increasing the numbers of people on the streetscape, and therefore, criminal activity is likely to decrease in such open and society conscious environment.

Page 9 of 12

10

II. Creating Equality of Opportunity between those who Share a Protected Characteristic and those who do not: Warwickshire Bus Services Motion Report is the driver towards providing residents, specifically individuals with a disability and the elderly who may not have access to their own private car, with further improved public transport provision enabling access employment, services and facilities. This would promote social inclusion, improve health (e.g. walking to and from a bus stop), tackle loneliness which can result in reduced feelings of isolation that may impact their mental health. Improving the Warwickshire Bus Network would encourage people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low. III. Fostering Good Relationships between those who share a Protected Characteristic and those who do not Further investment in the Warwickshire Bus Network would enable people to travel together safely, and thus, enhance social cohesion and community spirit. This would have tangible benefits regarding reduction the number of cars on the local highway network, reducing traffic congestion and improving the local environment, e.g. air quality. Increasing and/or encouraging the use of local bus services is also key in promoting social inclusion and combating loneliness, e.g. talking to other passengers on the bus and creating / maintaining friendships. Encouraging residents to undertake further physical exercise, i.e. walk to the bus stop and to destinations when departing the bus which provides health benefits.

7. Actions – what do you need to do next?

Consider:

Who else do you need to talk to? Do you need to engage or consult?

How you will ensure your activity is clearly communicated

Whether you could mitigate any negative impacts for protected groups

Whether you could do more to fulfil the aims of PSED

Anything else you can think of!

Page 10 of 12

11

Action Timescale Name of person responsible

Undertake further market research aimed at identifying the needs and wants of bus passengers in Warwickshire to support of further development of the Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule

12 months Nigel Whyte (WCC Transport Planning) designated as Project Manager

Monitor progression of the Bus Services Motion Enhancement Schedule including potential reporting to WCC Cabinet, development of a Business Case and implementation


Undertake Analysis of Impact: Review the proposed launch of a Warwickshire multi operator bus ticket in lead up to the Commonwealth Games 2022, in acknowledgement some of the events will be held in the county. This will review will include assessing whether the introduction of the multi-day operator ticket provides savings for passengers. This could positively impact poorer communities.


Page 11 of 12

12

8. Sign off.

Name of person/s completing EIA Nigel Whyte and Keira Rounsley

Name and signature of Assistant Director

David Ayton-Hill

Date Thursday 20 August 2020

Date of next review and name of person/s responsible

Monday 21 August 2023. Nigel Whyte (WCC Transport Planning)

Page 12 of 12

1


One Organisational Plan Quarterly Progress Report

23 September 2020

Recommendation 1. That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

Considers and comments on the progress of the delivery of the One Organisational Plan 2020 for the period as contained in the report.

1. Executive Summary 1.1 The One Organisational Plan (OOP) Year-end Performance Report for the

period April 1st 2019 to March 31st 2020 was considered and approved by Cabinet on 9th July 2020. The report provides an overview of progress of the key elements of the OOP, specifically in relation to performance against Key Business Measures (KBMs), strategic risks and workforce management. A separate Financial Monitoring report for the period covering both the revenue and capital budgets, reserves and delivery of the savings plan was presented and considered at the Cabinet meeting held in June 2020.

1.2 This report draws on information extracted from both Cabinet reports to provide this Committee with information relevant to its remit.

2. One Organisational Plan 2020: Strategic Context and Performance Commentary

2.1 The OOP 2020 Plan aims to achieve two high level Outcomes:

● Warwickshire’s communities and individuals are supported to be safe, healthy and independent; and,

● Warwickshire’s economy is vibrant and supported by the right jobs, training, skills and infrastructure.

Progress to achieve these outcomes is assessed against 64 KBMs.

Outcome No. of KBMs

Warwickshire’s communities and individuals are supported to be safe, healthy and independent

23

Warwickshire’s economy is vibrant and supported by the right jobs, training, skills and infrastructure

12


2

In addition, to demonstrate OOP delivery by ensuring that WCC makes the best use of its resources, a total of 29 KBMs are monitored.

As the Organisation continues to transform, this is the first full year performance report that will be reported against the new Commissioning Intentions Performance Framework. The new measures included in the Framework provide a sharpened focus on performance linked to the Organisation’s priorities. Detailed performance has been visualised utilising the functionality of the newly implemented Microsoft Power BI system.

2.2 Of the 64 KBMs, 11 are in the remit of this Overview and Scrutiny Committee. At the yearend position, 55% (6) of KBMs have achieved target while 27% (3) of KBMs have not achieved the yearend target. The other two KBM’s; Gross Value Added (GVA) per employee as a % of the UK average is reported in arrears and No. of journeys on public transport services supported by WCC do not have a target.

Chart 1 below summarises KBM performance by outcome for the remit of this Committee.

Chart 1

2.3 Of the 45% (5) KBMs achieving target there are 3 measures where performance is of particular note which are:

● % of household waste reused, recycled and composted, which is ahead of

target even though Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council have started charging for green waste which has resulted in less recycled waste from them;

● Total waste (kg) per household, which is currently ahead of target, charging for green waste collection in Nuneaton Borough Council has reduced the amount composted from that council. However, increases in green waste across the other District and Borough Councils has mitigated the county wide impact; and,

Page 2 of 8

https://democratic.warwickshire.gov.uk/cmis5/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=EmZqYbFOHspDhq4%2bk3SqCfffwwA37UoO%2fXTHPrUIk7EhUAtfX54gSA%3d%3d&rUzwRPf%2bZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3d%3d=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2fLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3d%3d&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&kCx1AnS9%2fpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2bAJvYtyA%3d%3d=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&FgPlIEJYlotS%2bYGoBi5olA%3d%3d=NHdURQburHA%3d&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3d


2

● No. of properties better protected from flooding, after 3 significant floods events during November 2019, January 2020 and February 2020 WCC were still able to better protect 76 properties through jetting works and enforcement procedures undertaken by WCC and associated contractors.

Measure Remedial Action

Cost (£) of SEND Home to School transport provision

Growth in pupil numbers and delays in building work intended to increase capacity in Warwickshire's own in County specialist provision, has meant the service has been unable to reduce numbers in Out County provision as planned. Long term plans continue to provide more in county provision and reduce travel costs.

Rate of total recorded crime per 1000 population

Whilst the crime rate per thousand population remains within target, there is a renewed focus on serious violence, which although low compared to other most similar authorities, did see a rise in 2019/20. The Safer Warwickshire Serious Organised Crime Joint Action Group, has been refreshed and is taking a lead on this area. The Safer Warwickshire Serious Organised Crime Joint Action Group, has been refreshed and is taking a lead on this area.

To support this, each Community Safety Partnership (CSP) area has completed its Strategic assessment and has set priorities to address the local trends in each area through a multiagency action plan. These action plans alongside the monthly partnership problem solving meetings will identify trends and implement actions to address concern areas as quickly as possible. Analysts from the Police and the CSP’s will monitor the trends and provide analytical products that will assist in identifying the most appropriate actions to address trends.

The Safer Warwickshire Officer pilot is currently being developed which will also contribute to this agenda. The proposal is for an Officer in the north and in the south of the county who will work to deliver the agreed SWPB objectives.

Page 3 of 8

2

2.4 The full set of KBM’s form the basis of the 2020/21 performance framework and

therefore a forecast of performance projection for the next reporting period is included in this report. As targets have yet to be agreed the projection is based on measure owners current understanding of forecast performance levels. Chart 2 below illustrates the considered forecast performance projection over the forthcoming reporting period.

Chart 2

No. of people killed or seriously injured on our roads

WCC prioritises funding to those locations and interventions that will have maximum in terms of casualty reduction. Approval has been given for investment in to 3 casualty reduction schemes and a pilot implementation of average speed cameras: - Casualty reduction road improvement project at the junction of the A439 and Hatton Bank Lane. Signalised junction casualty reduction scheme at the Green Man Crossroads, Coleshill. Part fund the Portabello Crossroads Signalisation casualty reduction scheme. There has also been a commitment of investment to provide new safe cycling facilities between Kenilworth to Leamington, Hinckley and Nuneaton & Nuneaton and Coventry. WCC has reinvigorated the Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership and established a Strategic Partnership Board. This will provide greater oversight and strategic direction for the road safety partnership working between WCC Road Safety, Fire & Rescue and Warwickshire Police and other partners. A road safety partnership coordinator post has been funded by WCC and will provide support to partners across the shared road safety activities.

Page 4 of 8

2

Of the 11 KBM’s, 45% (5) are projected to remain on target over the next reporting period. The table below highlights the 3 KBM’s, including remedial action being taken, where performance is projected to remain underperforming and static;

The table below highlights the 1 KBM, including remedial action being taken, where performance is projected to remain underperforming and decline;

Measure Remedial Action

% biodiversity net gain in Warwickshire

The Habitat Biodiversity Audit continues to map urban area in more detail through satellite imagery thereby lower value habitat is being added to the total area covered in Warwickshire. Therefore, a decline is anticipated with no remedial action. However, the annual decline equivalent to 2208 hectares is high and an averaged decline of 1439 hectares is of concern. This may be due to uncertainties of post Brexit agricultural payment schemes and a shift to greater production in the interim, Further analysis would be required to determine which habitat is being lost.

2.5 Comprehensive performance reporting is now enabled through the following

link to the Communities OSC Year End Performance Report.

The Communities Year End Exception Dashboard contains details of those measures that are of significant note where good performance or areas of concern need to be highlighted.

There is a further dashboard split by the 2 high level Outcomes Communities OSC Year End Full Dashboard which provides a summary of performance for all KBM’s within the remit of this Committee.

3. Financial Commentary – relevant finance information taken

from Cabinet report

3.1 Revenue Budget

3.1.1 The Council has set the following performance threshold in relation to revenue

spend: a tolerance has been set of zero overspend and no more than a 2%

underspend. The following table shows the forecast position for the Services

concerned.

2019/20

Budget

£'000

2019/20

Outturn

'000

Revenue Variance

£'000 %

Retained

Reserves

£'000

Financial

Standing

£'000

Communities 23,262 23,615 353

1.52% (2,269) (1,916)

Page 5 of 8

https://app.powerbi.com/groups/68922b78-73a2-4a9f-bff4-01a5baa06be0/dashboards/910ee524-8e5e-4848-b715-325da815dfc5

https://app.powerbi.com/groups/68922b78-73a2-4a9f-bff4-01a5baa06be0/reports/dffde7e2-00cd-44f5-95c9-525ac8c11cd0

https://app.powerbi.com/groups/me/apps/65c17fd8-8087-4fc0-8be8-7be4370c3fcf/dashboards/910ee524-8e5e-4848-b715-325da815dfc5?ctid=88b0aa06-5927-4bbb-a893-89cc2713ac82

2

Throughout the year, the Service faced a loss of income as a result of the delays in the implementation of changes to parking management. The Service worked to pro-actively mitigate this impact through managing spend elsewhere, but the overall overspend was largely driven by the gap in this unrealised income as well as other pressures such as legal and insurance fees being greater than budgeted.

Environment Services 24,335 21,963 (2,372)

-9.75% 1,314 (1,058)

The net underspend was caused by an underspend in Highways and Transport, offset by an overspend in Gypsy and Traveller Services and a shortfall in the anticipated traded income from County Fleet Management. The underspend in Highways and Transport was driven by four factors: A mild winter resulting in less gritting of roads; substantial income recovery from utility operator enforcement; Covid-19 lockdown resulting in lack of ability to complete planned Quarter 4 spend; and concessionary fares underspend due to lack of take up.

3.2. Delivery of the 2017-20 Savings Plan

3.2.1. The savings targets and forecast outturn for the Business Units concerned are shown in the table below.

3.3 Capital Programme

3.3.1. The table below shows the approved capital budget for the business units and

any slippage into future years.

2019/20 Target

£'000

2019/20 Actual

to Date

£'000

2019/20 Outturn

£'000

Communities 1,141 773 773

Shortfall £0.368 million relating to the introduction of a new charging schedule for parking permits. This

has been delayed while a public consultation takes place. This has impacted on year 1 savings and

depending on the outcome of the consultation may impact on year.

Environment Services 605 580 580

Shortfall £0.025 million. This relates to the move to Hawkes Point from Montague Road. This is in question because it relied on increased income being made from the installation of an MOT test facility at the new site. The move to Hawkes point has been delayed and Environment Services are now also funding the installation.

Page 6 of 8

2

Approved

budget

for all

current

and

future

years

(£'000)

Slippage

from

2019/20

into

Future

Years

£'000

Slippage

from

2019/20

into

Future

Years

(%)

Current

quarter -

new

approved

funding /

schemes

(£'000)

Newly

resourced

spend

included

in

slippage

figures

(£'000)

All

Current

and

Future

Years

Forecas

t

(£'000)

Communities 42,543 (3,158) -19 31,248 79 73,870

The main reason for the movement was delays in area delegated schemes of £1.875m, Members are

involved in plans for the reorganisation of this area and have already contributed their requirements and

suggestions. There was also a delay of £0.572m on the Temple Hill Wolvey casualty reduction scheme

and an additional £0.239m on other casualty reduction projects. Delays to projects at design stage meant

the construction start date was moved to later in the year and then Covid-19 delayed that further. Casualty

reduction schemes were otherwise delayed due to poor weather in February. The Bermuda Connectivity

Scheme also suffered delays around sign-off (£0.237m). This was caused by technical approval delays

impacting on design finalisation, combined with issues with the land negotiations which resulted in

significant re-profiling being required to the project milestones with procurement and construction now

expected to be during 20020-21.

Environment Services 151,292 (17,237) -29 17,911 (749) 168,454

The A46 Stoneleigh junction scheme accounted for £1.650m of the total movement, where procurement

was delayed partly due to Covid-19 and partly due to the need for additional strategic modelling

requirements to support the business case. Issues with HS2 resulted in a need to liaise on design and

review work with HS2 consultants. There were also delays in annual maintenance projects, with funds

being rolled forward into the new financial year (£0.958m). Gypsy and Travellers projects were delayed as

funding planned for caravan refurbishments did not take place as a result of staffing issues within the

team. The project will be progressed in 2020-21. Street lighting maintenance was delayed because a large

road junction scheme that included planned cabling and street lighting works has not yet gone ahead;

other delays to planned works were caused by the extreme wet weather and the Covid-19 lockdown. For

highways maintenance staffing restructures in the team meant communications between WCC and

Balfour between January and March were sub optimal. In addition to this extreme wet weather caused

delays on some schemes.

4. Supporting Papers

4.1 A copy of the full report and supporting documents that went to Cabinet on the 9th July is available via the following link and in each of the Group Rooms.

Page 7 of 8

https://democracy.warwickshire.gov.uk/documents/s7024/One%20Organisational%20Plan%20Progress%20Report%20and%20Appendix.pdf

2

5. Environmental Implications None

6. Background Papers None

Authors: Vanessa Belton, Delivery Lead Business Intelligence Performance, Planning and Quality; [email protected] Christopher McNally, Performance and Improvement Service Lead; [email protected]

Assistant Directors David Ayton-Hill, Assistant Director Communities; [email protected]

Scott Tompkins, Assistant Director Environment Services; [email protected]

Strategic Director Mark Ryder, Strategic Director for Communities; [email protected]

Portfolio Holders Cllr J Clarke, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Transport & Planning; [email protected]

Cllr A Crump, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Fire & Community Safety; [email protected]

Cllr I Seccombe, Leader & Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth; [email protected]

Cllr H Timms, Cabinet Portfolio for Environment & Heritage & Culture; [email protected]

Page 8 of 8










1


23rd September 2020

Council Plan 2020 – 2025 Quarterly Progress Report Period under review: April 2020 to June 2020

Recommendation

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

(i) Considers and comments on the progress of the delivery of the Council Plan 2020 - 2025 for the period as contained in the report.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Council Plan Quarter 1 Performance Report for the period April 1st, 2020 to June 30th, 2020 was considered and approved by Cabinet on 10th September 2020. The report provides an overview of progress of the key elements of the Council Plan, specifically in relation to performance against Key Business Measures (KBMs), strategic risks and workforce management. A separate Financial Monitoring report for the period covering both the revenue and capital budgets, reserves and delivery of the savings plan was presented and considered at the same September Cabinet meeting.

1.2. This report draws on information extracted from both Cabinet reports to provide this Committee

with information relevant to its remit.

2. Council Plan 2020 - 2025: Strategic Context and Performance Commentary

2.1 The Council Plan 2020 – 2025 aims to achieve two high level Outcomes:

● Warwickshire’s communities and individuals are supported to be safe, healthy and independent; and,

● Warwickshire’s economy is vibrant and supported by the right jobs, training, skills and infrastructure.

Progress to achieve these outcomes is assessed against 64 KBMs.

Outcome No. of KBMs

Warwickshire’s communities and individuals are supported to be safe, healthy and independent

23


12

In addition, to demonstrate OOP delivery by ensuring that WCC makes the best use of its resources, a total of 29 KBMs are monitored.


2

As the Organisation continues to transform the Commissioning Intentions Performance Framework was developed and implemented in October 2019 providing a sharpened focus on performance linked to the Organisation’s priorities. As part of this transformation several changes to measures were proposed for Cabinet to agree to ensure that the Framework remains fit for purpose and supports delivery of the priorities. The subsequent revised Commissioning Intentions Performance Framework which will be reported on from Quarter 2 can be accessed using this link.

Detailed performance for Quarter 1 for all current KBMs has been visualised utilising the

functionality of the Microsoft Power BI system.

2.2 At Quarter 1 there has been an improvement in overall performance against the full framework compared to the 2019/20 year-end position. Several measures, however, have been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and as a consequence there is little or no sign of improvement in these areas. These are fully detailed in 2.5.

2.3 Of the 64 KBMs, 11 are in the remit of this Overview and Scrutiny Committee. At Quarter 1, 6 of the 11 KBM’s are being reported. 67% (4) of reportable KBMs are On Track and 33% (2) KBMs are Not on Track. In comparison at year-end position where 9 KBM’s were being reported with 55% (5) KBM’s being On Track while 45% (4) KBMs were Not on Track.

Chart 1 below summarises KBM status by quarter since the introduction of the Commissioning Intentions Framework.

Chart 1

5 KBMs are unavailable for reporting at this quarter. 4 are not available as they are annual measures and reported in arrears:

% of Warwickshire road network meeting specified condition because;

No. of journeys on public transport services supported by WCC;

% biodiversity net gain in Warwickshire; and,

6

5

4

1

4

2

4

2

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Quarter 3 2019/20

Quarter 4 2019/20

Quarter 1 2020/21

Communities OSC KBM Status

On Track Not on Track Not Available

Page 2 of 8



https://teams.microsoft.com/l/file/89F83989-AC93-4BAC-B5B1-54C77CE22543?tenantId=88b0aa06-5927-4bbb-a893-89cc2713ac82&fileType=pptx&objectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwarwickshiregovuk.sharepoint.com%2Fsites%2FPerformanceandBusinessImprovementTeam%2FShared%20Documents%2FGeneral%2FPerformance%20Reports%2FCorporate%20202021%2FCabinet%20and%20CB%2F2021%20Commissioning%20Intentions%20Performance%20Framework.pptx&baseUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwarwickshiregovuk.sharepoint.com%2Fsites%2FPerformanceandBusinessImprovementTeam&serviceName=teams&threadId=19:[email protected]&groupId=767b6ee9-73d6-491d-8f01-2e8745eb4c25

3

Gross Value Added (GVA) per employee as a % of the England average.

No. of properties better protected from flooding is not available as because of the Covid-19 pandemic DEFRA took the decision nationally that Property Flood Resilience (PFR) schemes should be halted due to the close contact to residents when at their properties.

2.4 Of the 67% (4) KBM’s achieving target there are 3 measures where performance is of note:

● % of household waste reused, recycled and composted. Household waste is down 6000 tonnes compared to last year and has helped improve the recycling % forecast to 52%. Largely due to less waste being brought into the Household Waste Recycling Centre sites and some suspended services from the districts in April due to Covid-19;

● Total waste (kg) per household. Household waste is down almost 6000 tonnes compared to last year, equivalent of 20kg per household. This is due to the effects of Covid-19 and a booking system having been put in place at the Household Waste Recycling Centres; and,

● Rate of total recorded crime per 1000 population. This indicator is currently on target. During the Covid-19 period Warwickshire has experienced a variation to the normal crime types, with reductions in acquisitive crime and violence with injury, but increased in environmental Antisocial Behaviour (ASB), connected to fly tipping. There have been increases in Domestic Abuse violence without injury and hate crime incidents, however figures had reduced in the late 2019 and early 2020, this is an indication of increased confidence to report Hate Crime and Domestic Abuse.

2.5 The 2 KBMs that are Not on Track at Quarter 1 are included in Table 1 below and details the

current performance narrative, improvement activity and explanation of projected trajectory:


Cost (£) of SEND Home to School transport provision

Current performance narrative: There is currently a £236,772 overspend which is due to a budgeted shortfall on the demand led statutory service.

Improvement activity: SEND Transport is part of the SEND and Inclusion Change Programme. The next several months baselining and application of the Transport policy will be scrutinised in detail. Figures to support findings will be shared once the Transport project is up and running. The Transport Project will help reduce costs moving forward as the SEND Change Programme's vision of children remaining in their local schools will put less pressure on the expensive out of county SEND transport costs. Explanation of the projection trajectory: Not on Track - declining This is a cumulative figure that will increase as the year progresses. There will be less Home to School transport over Quarter 2 because it covers the summer holidays. However the impact of Covid-19 on transport has potential to be significant for Children and Young People with special educational needs. The financial impact of social distancing and remaining in bubbles will require additional school transport arrangements. Transport and the costs associated are a significant concern to this area of the budget.

% of residents in Warwickshire aged 16 - 64 who are in employment, compared to the England average

Page 3 of 8

4

Current performance narrative: Latest data is from Jan – Mar 2020 (this measure is reported 3 months in arrears) with the employment rate currently standing at 81.3%, 0.6% higher than in Oct - Dec 2019. In contrast, England has only seen a 0.2% increase over the same period. Warwickshire's employment rate is currently 5.1% higher than the national rates. Warwickshire has seen overall growth from 77.7% in 2015/16 to 81.3%. Unemployment and employment figures are only up to Mar 2020 so WCC won't know the impacts of Covid-19 until later in the year. Job vacancy and claimant count data is reported more frequently which shows Warwickshire has had a 117% growth in the number of people on the claimant count from March 2020-June 2020 compared to England which has seen 110% growth. Warwickshire has experienced a slightly larger reduction in job vacancies compared with England. From this WCC can determine that Warwickshire is experiencing more of a challenge compared to the national figure. 3.6% of Warwickshire’s total 16+ population are currently on the claimant count as of May 2020, yet 4.9% of England’s are, 1.3% more than Warwickshire, compared with only 0.6% in March 2020.

Improvement activity (if appropriate): WCC already works with the Department for Work and Pensions, Education and Skills Funding Agency, Big Lottery and other funders as well as their contracted providers to co-ordinate and promote employment and skills support programmes in Warwickshire.

WCC is now working with DWP to look at how these programmes can be scaled up to meet the expected increase in demand. WCC IS also working with DWP, the CWLEP Growth Hub, Coventry City Council, Chamber and other partners to develop a co-ordinated sub-regional approach to responding to redundancies.

WCC is working with partners to look at addressing emerging gaps in support most notably for young people via the Skills for Employment programme and potentially via WCC’s new Place Shaping Fund which includes an allocation to support economic recovery. Explanation of the projection trajectory: Not on Track-static WCC expect to maintain a gap of around 6% as the employment rate settles at around 80% for Warwickshire. However, the target is likely to be revised as a result of the Covid-19 crisis, the full impact of which will not be fully known until the end of July. As this is a measure that compares itself to the England average it is difficult to determine at this stage how Warwickshire will perform. Since 15/16 Warwickshire has performed above the England average, it is too early to identify whether the industries that helped Warwickshire maintain this above average figure are greatly affected negatively by Covid-19.

Table 1

The Covid-19 pandemic has adversely impacted on both of these measures and the improvement activity has not seen the expected result due to extra pressures and demand of the pandemic on services. Improvement activity needs time to embed and positive results to be realised

All other measures have stayed static in their performance or have made improvements across the quarters. Notably, Rate of total recorded crime per 1000 population has moved to being On Track at Quarter 1 from Not Being On Track at year-end.

2.6 Chart 2 below illustrates the considered forecast performance projection over the forthcoming

reporting period compared to projection at previous quarters.

Page 4 of 8

5

Chart 2

Of the 11 KBM’s, 5 KBM’s have a forecast performance projection for the forthcoming reporting period, the other 6 are annual measures so it is not appropriate to project performance at this time. 80%of the measures that have forecast performance projection have a status of being On Track and remaining static. There are 24 KBMs have a forecast of being Not on Track and are expected to remain Not on Track during the next Quarter and these have been fully detailed in 2.5.

2.7 Comprehensive performance reporting is now enabled through Communities OSC Quarter 1 2020/21 Full Dashboard which provides a summary of performance for all KBM’s within the remit of this Committee.

The Communities OSC Quarter 1 2020/21 Exception Dashboard contains details of those measures that are of significant note where good performance or areas of concern need to be highlighted Warwickshire’s Communities Exception Dashboard

Warwickshire’s Economy Exception Dashboard

6

1

5

3

4

1

1

1

4

2

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

On Track Not on Track NotApplicable



Quarter 3 19/20 Quarter 4 19/20 Quarter 1 20/21

Performance Projection Status for Forthcoming Reporting Period

Improving Static Declining Not Applicable

Page 5 of 8

https://app.powerbi.com/groups/me/apps/c4d037d9-9b8e-41de-87c2-7524a6f6e267/reports/0ea8e3e2-bcc2-4bb2-a677-4ecd793eabcb/ReportSection0df4af59249e2b390d8b?ctid=88b0aa06-5927-4bbb-a893-89cc2713ac82

https://app.powerbi.com/groups/me/apps/c4d037d9-9b8e-41de-87c2-7524a6f6e267/dashboards/74623b9f-d9f0-4929-ad71-ce4d98198ad2?noSignUpCheck=1

https://app.powerbi.com/groups/me/apps/c4d037d9-9b8e-41de-87c2-7524a6f6e267/dashboards/dc73a93c-247e-498d-910b-00cb7e991407?noSignUpCheck=1

6

3. Financial Commentary – relevant finance information taken from Cabinet

report

3.1 Revenue Budget

3.1.1 The Council has set the following performance threshold in relation to revenue spend: a

tolerance has been set of zero overspend and no more than a 2% underspend. The following

table shows the forecast position for the Services concerned.

2020/21

Budget

£'000

2020/21

Outturn

'000

Revenue Variance

£'000 %

Retained

Reserves

£'000

Financial

Standing

£'000

Communities 21,885 27,422 5,537

25.30% 5,537

£4.806m loss of income in relation to Covid split between: £3.361m Parking Services, £0.594m County Parks, £0.443m rental income through Business Centres, £0.240m from Waste Services and £0.168m from Speed awareness courses;

Additionally, there is expenditure of £0.236m as a result of Covid for the re-allocation of road space in town centres and equipment, £0.200m for employee costs which cannot be charged to capital projects as a result of Covid;

Within Economy & Skills there is a £0.130m overspend for which funding is set aside in the European Match Funding and Rural Growth Network reserves.

Environment

Services 26,083 28,540

2,457

9.42% 2,457

The vast majority of this overspend is related to Covid-19 pressures consisting of:

the risk of additional costs relating to emergency Highways maintenance and compensation payment for Highways contracts (£1m);

the requirement to reallocate roadspace and carry out works in town centres and to enable social distancing and (1.040m);

There is a Covid-19 related pressure as a result of additional payments being made within Transport Delivery to voluntary organisations so that operations could continue during Covid-19 This overspend is partially offset by an underspend in planning delivery due to staff vacancies.

3.2. Delivery of the Savings Plan

3.2.1. The savings targets and forecast outturn for the Services concerned are shown in the table below.

2020/21 Target

£'000

2020/21 Actual

to Date

£'000

2020/21 Forecast

£'000

Page 6 of 8

7

Communities 0 0 0

Environment Services 200 200

3.3 Capital Programme

3.3.1. The table below shows the approved capital budget for the Services and any slippage into

future years.

Approved

budget for

all current

and future

years

(£'000)

Slippage

from

2020/21

into

Future

Years

£'000

Slippage

from

2020/21

into Future

Years

(%)

Current

quarter -

new

approved

funding /

schemes

(£'000)

Newly

resourced

spend

included in

slippage

figures

(£'000)

All

Current

and

Future

Years

Forecast

(£'000)

Communities 27,138 20,477 24.12% (114) 27,024

Area delegated projects (£2.224m). A report went to Cabinet on the 11th June 2020

proposing changes to the operation of area delegated schemes in order to facilitate the use

of funds in year.

Bermuda connectivity (£3.899m) delay has been caused by the protracted time taken for

detailed design to receive technical approval and to secure parcels of land required to

deliver the scheme. Consequently, the procurement of the construction contract will not

commence until Qtr2 of 2020-21 with construction works earmarked to commence in Qtr3

of 2020-21.

Leamington to Kenilworth cycle route (£0.5m) where delays to project progress have been

caused by COVID-19 and uncertainty surrounding land acquisitions. The progress of the

scheme will be reviewed by project managers in detail by Q2 to come up with a new

delivery plan.

Environment

Services 79,975 93,729 18.73% 28,736 108,711

£8.510m relates to S278 projects. The time frame for undertaking these is reviewed based

on progress around each development.

A3400 Birmingham road Stratford upon Avon (£3.090m). The construction works are now

expected to start in the last quarter of 2020/21 and finish in 2021/22. This is due to design

phase delays including drainage and utilities.

Page 7 of 8

8

A452 Myton Road and Shires Retail park roundabouts (£2.361m). This project funded from

S106 funds has been delayed due to Covid-19. The final design is still to be completed with

construction to follow in 2021-22.

The remaining £1.02m relates to a number of projects, please see the annex for details.

4. Supporting Papers

4.1 A copy of the full report and supporting documents that went to Cabinet on the 10th September is available via the committee system.

5. Environmental Implications

None

6. Background Papers

None

Authors: Vanessa Belton, Delivery Lead Business Intelligence Performance, Planning and Quality; [email protected] Christopher McNally, Performance and Improvement Service Lead; [email protected]

Assistant Directors David Ayton-Hill, Assistant Director Communities; [email protected]

Scott Tompkins, Assistant Director Environment Services; [email protected]

Strategic Director Mark Ryder, Strategic Director for Communities; [email protected]

Portfolio Holders Cllr J Clarke, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Transport & Planning; [email protected]

Cllr A Crump, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Fire & Community Safety; [email protected]

Cllr I Seccombe, Leader & Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth; [email protected]

Cllr H Timms, Cabinet Portfolio for Environment & Heritage & Culture; [email protected]

Page 8 of 8










Date of next report Item Report detail

Standing items

Questions to Cabinet Portfolio Holders

The Committee may put questions to the Cabinet Portfolio Holders on issues within their remit. The report will set out the forthcoming items listed in the Council’s published Forward Plan relevant to the Committee.

Economic Development Update

To receive an update on economic development in Warwickshire. This has expanded from the previous Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (CWLEP) update at the request of the Chair and Spokespersons.

To be a briefing note to be sent to the Committee Members rather than an agenda item (allowing members to raise any issue/ ask questions at the Committee should they wish).

23 September 2020 Improvement of Bus Provision


2. Analyses the success of s.106 contributions which have been used to pump prime new bus routes over the last 10 years in Warwickshire and investigates alternative frameworks to incentivise long term successful routes around new developments if necessary.

3. Fully scopes the use of Advanced Quality and Enhanced Partnership schemes as set out in the Transport Act 2000 and Bus Services Act 2017, including engagement with operators and sets a date no later than December 2020 to assess whether 3 of 4 implementation of the AQ or EP schemes are necessary to achieve the Authority’s key objectives.


5. Considers the call by the “Campaign for Better Transport” report called “The Future of the Bus”

Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Work Programme

Page 1 of 3

Agenda Item

8

6. Communities OSC to discuss the findings of the report and to bring forward recommendations to Cabinet.

23 September 2020 Local Enterprise Partnerships Update

How effective are LEPs in delivering a geographically balanced level of investment across Warwickshire? Members suggested that there was scope for improved monitoring of the CWLEP and a request was made for projected completion dates and project targets to be included in future Economic Development Updates.

23 September 2020 One Organisational Plan Quarterly Progress Report

Period under review: April 2019 to March 2020

23 September 2020 Quarter 1 Performance Progress Report

Quarter 1 Performance Progress Report

18 November 2020 Air Quality Monitor Report

To provide the findings of the air quality monitors worn around Warwickshire

18 November 2020 Air Quality Monitoring To provide and update on air quality monitoring since the TFG recommendations in 2018

18 November 2020 School Safety Education TFG

A report on the education-based ways of encouraging more children to walk / scooter / cycle in safety to their schools and report on costed options to inform the refreshed MTFS (Medium Term Finance Strategy), for the MTFP in 2021/22.

18 November 2020 Mid-Term Organisational Plan Progress Report

Mid-Year Performance Progress Report

17 February 2021 Road Space Allocation review

A review of the ‘Road Space Allocation’ including what has been done and lessons learnt/improvements that could be made. This will include the discussions regarding the 20mph zones in Warwickshire.

17 February 2021 Covid-19 People Counters

Information from the town centre people counters set up to monitor numbers during the Covid-19 period

17 February 2021 ‘Nuckle’ Line update Update on the Nuckle line which is run by Coventry City Council

Page 2 of 3

Items for future work programming and review

Item Description

Planning

HS2 grants To monitor the level of income from HS2 to seek reassurance that WCC is being fully reimbursed.

Capital programme How managed/ overall picture of schemes (Note Resources & Fire and Rescue are also getting regular update on capital slippage).

West Midland Railway To review the new system West Midlands Railway have implemented in Warwickshire

Economy

Local Enterprise Partnerships

How effective are LEPs in delivering a geographically balanced level of investment across Warwickshire? Members suggested that there was scope for improved monitoring of the CWLEP and a request was made for projected completion dates and project targets to be included in future Economic Development Updates.

Strategic Investment To monitor WCCs investment in priority road safety schemes across Warwickshire targeted at reducing the numbers killed or seriously injured on our roads. This includes monitoring investment in local highways priorities, spending on LED streetlights and investment in safer routes to schools.

Sub National Transport Body Update when appropriate

Community Cohesion

Impact of OOP 2020 To consider the impact of OOP 2020 on first responder response times, specifically in relation to road traffic collisions.

KSIs and Speed Limits To review the Council’s speed limit and speed camera policies.

Waste Management Review For when the Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy for England in published in 2021

Population statistics To review to population growth in Warwickshire in relation to housing developments (briefing note)

Sustainable Transport

Air Quality Progress on Recommendations

To consider progress on those recommendations agreed by Cabinet that require further action/outcomes (including information from personal monitors and progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance).

The Clean Air Act To consider the policy and implications of the new Government proposals.

Page 3 of 3

Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Meetings ...

Documents

Transcript of Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Meetings ...