Agenda item

The questions submitted by Members, Councillors and guests were discussed.

The transport organisations provided written responses that were also considered by the Committee. As well as the written responses provided, the transport representatives, local amenity groups, members and guests advised as follows:

The Chair outlined the 2 bus related questions received that were addressed to Stagecoach and Transport for London and were submitted by Councillor Hilary Moore (Labour), representing the Grove Park ward.

Question 1: Councillor Moore expanded on her question and discussed the negative impacts on residents who had to use a temporary 261 bus stop that was placed on Burnt Ash Road, parallel in location to the 261 bus stop on Baring Road that was out of use due to Thames Water works. Councillor Moore noted the negative travel impacts experienced by service users using the temporary route, particularly for those with mobility issues. Members were informed by Councillor Moore that in some instances, due to accessibility concerns, some services users had discontinued their use of the 261 route.

Councillor Moore informed Members that the information circulated by Thames Water to local residents regarding the water works and the expected impact on the 261 bus route was scant and inaccurate.

Council Moore advised the Committee that the temporary bus route was not workable and suggested a ‘hail and ride’ service would be more appropriate.

The Members were advised by Councillor Moore since future Thames Water works were possible, adequate consultation between the service provider, LBL and residents should be in place, when alternative temporary routes were to be planned.

Councillor Krupski acknowledged Councillor Moore’s concerns and advised that they were noted. Councillor Moore was assured by Councillor Krupski that when Thames Water works resumed in the future, LBL would be more proactive in engaging with TfL and ensuring adequate numbers of temporary bus stops were installed along the 261 route.

Councillor Krupski enquired if TfL would be able to install a ‘hail and ride’ service along the 261 route, in the instance that in the future Thames Water recommence works along Baring Road.

The TfL representative (Representative) advised Councillor Moore that he was not in a position to comment on the temporary 261 bus route in place during the Thames Work works and he would relay her comments back to the TfL bus operations team.

The Representative acknowledged the concerns raised with regard to consultation and engagement with the local community, regarding the 261 bus route service changes and advised he would relay the concerns back to the TfL bus operations team.

The Representative also advised that he was not in a position to comment on the possibility of ‘hail and ride’ services and would refer the suggestion back to his TfL bus operations team for response.

The Stagecoach representative (Representative) acknowledged Councillor Moores concerns and assured the Committee lessons were learned and that in partnership with TfL both organisations would investigate how best to accommodate 261 service users, going forward whenever works were underway.

No further comments or questions were presented to the Committee, with regard to route 273.

Question 2: The Chair detailed 2 questions received that were addressed to Southern Rail and Transport for London, that were submitted by the Telegraph Hill Society. The Chair advised the Committee where the responses could be found on the meeting’s agenda.

The Telegraph Society (Representative) addressed the Committee and provided examples of the negative impact on service users, noting in particular service users with disabilities.

The Representative stated that it was not clear to him why bus drivers were comfortable with passengers on the bus they operated when it was in motion, but uncomfortable with passengers on the bus, when it was stationary.

Members were advised by the Representative that further investigation revealed the service providers’ company stance allowed bus drivers the choice to keep passengers outside of the bus they operated, when it was not in service.

The Representative suggested the service providers should have policy that provided that passengers be allowed by bus drivers to sit on buses that were getting ready to go into service, unless the bus driver could provide a specific reason why a passenger should not allowed onto the bus prior to it going into service.

The TfL representative (Representative) advised he was not in a position to provide a comment and noted the concerns raised by the Telegraph Society regarding vulnerable service users.

The Representative advised that he was not in a position to comment on the policy in relation to the situation described by the Telegraph Society. However, the Representative assured the Telegraph Society and the Committee that the concerns raised would be brought back to the TfL bus operations team for response.

No comment or questions were presented to Committee with regard to the 2^nd question submitted to the Committee by the Telegraph Society.

The Chair advised Members that the Committee had also received a set of questions from a member of the public, which were added to the agenda.

Members were advised by the Chair that the questions were resubmitted because the scheduled June 2022 PTLC meeting, that had been cancelled.

The Chair outlined the details of the resubmitted questions. The Chair

The Chair sought guidance from the Lead Officer as to whether they should take the questions to the relevant transport organisations for response.

The Lead Officer present advised that he would take the questions to the relevant transport organisation and report back to Committee on the progress of the relevant transport organisation resolving the issues raised by the questions.

The member of public (Guest) who re-submitted the questions intended for consideration at the cancelled PTLC June 2022 meeting addressed the Committee.

The Guest stated that they were pleased to witness the PTLC meeting taking place and stressed the importance that the meetings be held more frequently than they had been in the past.

The Guest noted the next PTLC meeting was scheduled for December 2022 and enquired when the questions for transport organisations should be submitted.

The Chair and Members confirmed that questions should be submitted to transport organisations 3 weeks prior to the scheduled PTLC meeting.

Councillor Krupski advised that the meetings should be scheduled for the municipal year and transport organisations made aware of the meetings, in order to increase the likelihood of attendance.

Councillor Krupski advised of her disappointment that Network Rail had not attended and noted the historically poor record of Network Rail attendance to PTLC meeting and offered to write to transport organisations to stress the importance of their physical attendance to the scheduled PTLC meetings.

The Guest also requested that representatives who can provide answers to policy questions and concerns that are raised, be invited to the PTLC going forward, as it was disappointing to hear from representatives who were not able to make statements on behalf of their organisations.

No comment or questions were received by the Guest from the Committee or others in attendance.

Councillor Paschoud suggested that LBL could seek to compare its records with other London borough councils, to ascertain whether they had experienced a better participation history with Network Rail at their committee meetings equivalent to LBLs PTLC committee meetings.

Councillor Krupski advised Councillor Paschoud she would consult with her technical colleagues who could investigate.

The Chair instructed the Lead Officer to do follow up research on the success rate other LB councils had experienced of Network Rail attending their equivalent PTLC meetings.

The Lead Officer acknowledged that Councillor Krupski would follow up on the matter with her peers and the Lead Officer would follow up with their peer officers in the industry.

A representative from a Blackheath Society sub-committee (Representative) addressed the Committee.

The Representative described a LB Greenwich event that he had attended and noted that the managing director for Southeastern had attended.

The Committee were informed by the Representative that the meeting was attended by the public, who were able to express their views.

The Representative advised Members that the concerns raised were not just regulated to the Blackheath service changes, but also two other railway line routes that ran through areas such as Dartford, Woolwich and Bexleyheath.

The Representative described the consultation, leafletting and regulatory procedures that would be conducted by the society.

Members were informed of proposals that were of concern to the society that were due to take place in December 2022.

The Representative discussed the issue of timetables and the obligations of the transport organisations to ensure they were published in good time.

The Representative advised that it would be important to have a public meeting that involved Southeastern and TfL, as this would encourage other transport organisations to attend.

The Sydenham Society (Representative) addressed Members and discussed the Transport Strategy and Local Implementation Plan (Plan).

The Representative advised the Committee that the Plan was not fit for purpose and gave a number of examples to illustrate his viewpoint.

The Committee were advised by the Representative that the goals set out in the Plan were no longer workable under the current circumstances.

The Representative informed the Committee that the Plan needed to be rewritten to suit the current economic climate.

The Chair moved the meeting into the next item and enquired if there were any comments to those put forward by the Sydenham Society with regard to the Transport Strategy and Local Implementation Plan (Plan).