Transport Policy

I have to admit that I do not know just how important this will be to our interest in the lack of buses.  You can read the full document by downloading it from this link Assessment and Priority Policy for Public Transport Services in Lancashire Dec 2016.

Alternatively, the following is a precis kindly produced by the Lancaster Bus Users Group:

“Lancashire County Council’s funding difficulties have led to a large number of cuts to supported bus services in the current financial year and projections for future years paint a similarly depressing picture. It’s no secret that in many areas the council sees the future for public transport consisting of community transport, parish buses and even car sharing schemes. But a revised policy for supported bus services suggests that there may still be a role for the conventional local bus.
The County Council’s new “Assessment & Priority Policy for Public Transport Services in Lancashire”, adopted in December 2016 sets out a two-part process for bus services that require financial support from the council.
Step 1:  Service Need Assessment Process
The first step is to determine whether there has been a “failure of the market” where no commercial bus operator is running a service or where a commercial service has been withdrawn. This process has five stages  which can be summarised as
i)  Are there any alternative services available to people either to the same destination or to alternative comparable destinations and will provision of a supported service by the council undermine any comparable commercial services by diverting passengers away from them. If none of the above applies then the process moves on to stage ii)
ii) In the absence of the proposed service will the needs of the communities affected still be met. The “needs” in question will differ from area to area and are defined in the council’s “needs profile” for each of the 34 “neighbourhood areas” that Lancashire is now divided into.  If these needs are not being met then on to stage iii)
iii) What will be the impact of the loss of a service on existing users?  There are three considerations here:  a) Does the council have a statutory duty to provide transport for any existing users? (This is generally restricted to schoolchildren attending provided schools over the maximum walking distance away); b) Will any users be denied access to key services? (Basically Employment, Medical services and shopping)  and c) Are any users “particularly reliant” on the bus service (i.e. elderly people, young people, people with disabilities or those living in areas of high social-deprivation and low car-ownership).  If this stage is passed, it’s on to stage iv)
iv)  This stage asks “Is the service “value for money?”  This is calculated by taking the cost of running the service, deducting all the income from fares, concessionary passes, season tickets etc and then dividing the result by the number of passengers travelling to calculate a “cost-per-passenger-journey.  If this figure works out at £5 or less then the service is considered to have passed the test.
v)  Step five requires a decision to be taken about whether the local circumstances (taking into account the previous four steps) show that a service is required.  If this is the case then we move on to Step 2
Step 2:  Service Provision Priority Process
This stage is required because the County Council recognises that its financial position is such that it is unlikely to be able to fund all the services that make it through Step 1 and it will need to prioritise them. The priorities taken into consideration are:
a) What is the purpose of passengers’ journeys? (In declining order of priority these are Employment, Medical/Welfare, Shopping, Education and Leisure). Education may seem a low priority here, but schoolchildren to whom the council has a legal duty to provide transport are taken into account separately).
b) Does the service serve at least one of the 34 Neighbourhood Centres determined by the council?
c) Does the service pass through one of the council’s “Air Quality Management Zones” and could thus be seen as contributing to improved air quality. (A curious one, as the bus services concerned likely to be used to relatively small numbers of people, most of whom will not have access to cars so the effects on air quality are likely to be marginal)
d) Priority is to be given to services running at least five days a week. (A priority that appears to discriminate against rural areas where many potential users would be happy to see buses one or two days a week rather than none at all).
e) What alternatives are available. (This appears to duplicate stage i) in the Assessment Process (above).
f) Priority is to be given to services carrying larger numbers of holders of Concessionary Bus Passes on the grounds that they are less likely to have access to alternatives. (This is encouraging and it should stop passholders feeling in any way “guilty” that by using their passes they are undermining their bus service, whereas in practice they will be doing the opposite).
g) Usage.  The more people that use the service and the lower the cost-per-passenger the higher the priority. This ensures that the available funding benefits the maximum number of 
passengers.
And Finally. . . 
Even when a service has passed successfully through all the above it will still have to be evaluated against the alternatives with a bus service seemingly a bit of a last resort!  The council will consider whether a service can be provided by other means (such as community transport, Parish Bus Schemes, taxis, car clubs or even car sharing schemes.
It will, sensibly, search for alternative funding sources such as District or Parish Council contributions or payments from developers under “section 106” (although if Lancaster’s service 18 is anything to go by don’t hold your breath!)
It will look to see if the need can be met by diverting an existing service (although one would have thought that this might have been done at the start of the process!) and if more services qualify for funding than is funding is available for they can be placed on a reserve list until such funding becomes available.
The good news is that the council sees a value in maintaining stability in its supported bus network and it has recently announced that it is extending all existing contracts until the end of March 2018. Furthermore, all the Lancaster area services supported by the council are, according to published figures, well within the £5 per passenger journey criterion.”

Public Phonebox

We need to be aware that the phone box is already scheduled for removal and I am not sure that the PC is aware of the threat or if it is, it is not clear what action they propose to take.

Much of the discussion has been based on the premise that people can use their mobile phone, fine for those that have one and are fortunate enough to be able to get a signal.

Dragons Head Application

At a meeting of the City Council Planning Committee on 09 January 2017 the Planning Department Officials presented a ten page report on the Planning Application made by Simon Nutter in respect of the Dragons Head.

You can read all ten pages at this link: Planning Report

In a preamble to the report the following comment is made: This form of development would normally be dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation. However, a request has been made by Councillor Peter Williamson for the application to be reported to the Planning Committee. The reasons for the request relates to: the proximity to recently approved dwellings; the access has been used for many years by the public house; and issues raised by the Authority in relation to design.”  The “Scheme of Delegation” referred to is one in which the Planning Committee do not consider the Application themselves but leave it to the Officers of the Council to make the decision for them.  Peter’s timely intervention has brought the matter before Committee who, I understand are planning to make a site visit.  In fact 7 members of the Committee voted against the site visit and 7 in favour.  The motion was carried by the Chairmans casting vote.

 In my view, there are a number of dubious observations made in the Departments report.  I list a few below and would be interested in any observations which villagers would like to comment upon.

  1. The site is located within a small rural settlement with very limited services and as such is not considered to be sustainable in terms of its location. It is not considered that a sufficient and robust justification has been put forward to justify four new dwellings in this unsustainable location and it is likely that the proposal could have a detrimental impact on the viability and vitality of the pub business which it proposes to support.
  2. As a result of increased traffic movements and poor visibility at the site’s entrance, the application has failed to demonstrate that it will benefit from a safe access point onto the public highway.
  3. County Highways – Oppose: The proposal will result in an increase in peak hour traffic movements and the development has not demonstrated that it will benefit from a safe access point onto the public highway.
  4. Neighbour Representations:
    1. No evidence that the works will contribute to the re-opening of the public house and post office;
      • The following representation was made by Patricia Barber: “I am sure the majority of people in the village really want the pub to be renovated, as do I as the site has been an eyesore for a number of years. However, taking that plans for the pub are not included in this application, is there any guarantee that this will take place?”
      • The following representation was made by Rob Mackereth: “I feel the village has been held to ransom by the pub being closed until the planning has been approved and agreed. The pub is an essential ‘heart’ to the village, this is even more crucial now with the lack of any public transport outside of school hours. The village needs reassurance that the pub will reopen.”
    2. Impact on neighbouring property from existing smoking shelter; (There is no documentary evidence that any representation was made on this aspect of the application [JK])
  5. Principle of the development
    • Core Strategy Policy SC1 requires new development to be as sustainable as possible, in particular it should be convenient to walk, cycle and travel by public transport and homes, workplaces shops, schools, health centres, recreation, leisure and community facilities.
    • DM20 sets out that proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by private car, and maximise the opportunities for the use of walking, cycling and public transport.
    • DM42 lists settlements where new housing will be supported and indicates that proposals for new homes in isolated locations will not be supported unless clear benefits of development outweigh the dis-benefits. The application is not located within one of the settlements, the nearest of these being Arkholme
    • DM42 also speaks on when rural developments will be supported. The report observes: Whittington is a small and relatively linear settlement, with development predominantly following the main roads through the village. It has a church and village hall and a public house, which is currently closed. There has previously been a more frequent bus service through the village, however there currently only appears to be one bus service from Kirkby Lonsdale to Whittington, continuing through to Lancaster, which is only on school days. Therefore someone living in this location would be wholly reliant on private transport. There are also currently no shops in the village, although one has been proposed as part of another housing scheme to redevelop a farm complex within the village. The submission sets out that one would be proposed in the re-opened public house, although it does not form part of the current scheme. The site is therefore not in a location where new residential development would usually be supported as it is not considered to be sustainable.
    • The submission explains that the proposal will help to maintain the existing vitality of the local community through the refurbishment and reopening of the Dragon’s Head. There have been no details provided with the submission in how it would enable the public house to be reopened (for example the need for and costs of any refurbishment required that the dwellings might contribute towards). It would need to be fully demonstrated through robust evidence that the level of development proposed was required to bring the public house back into use. There are also no assurances that the development would lead to the reopening of the pub and, if anything, it is likely to lead to the business being less viable with the loss of the beer garden. It would normally be expected that this would be maintained, and possibly enhanced, as it would be a key attraction to a rural village pub.
    • The submission sets out that the applicant’s expertise in the leisure industry, having owned and managed a number of cafes and licenced facilities, and illustrates that serious intention to bring the pub business back into use. It also states that the proposals clearly include the construction of a car park for the pub and the applicant would accept a condition that the car park is completed prior to the occupation of the houses and that bringing the car park closer to the pub will make it more usable, particularly for disabled customers. A statement has also been provided by the applicant to show how he would run the public house. In addition to setting out that it is the intention to operate a bed and breakfast, this sets out that the sitting-out area would be moved to the front and that he never used the rear garden when he visited the pub many years ago. The plans do not show this, and it is still considered that an enhanced area at the rear would benefit the business and provide an area away from the road, which would be particularly beneficial for families. The application does not give any certainty that the development would lead to the re-opening of the public house, even if the car park is extended, or is required to allow for this.
    • In addition, within the preapplication advice, it was set out that the need for housing in Whittington should be justified with a robust, well evidenced local housing need assessment. The resubmission refers to the one carried out for a development which was approved in the village earlier in the year at Whittington Farm for 18 houses, although does not go into this in detail. It is not clear that this development would meet an identified housing need, particularly in conjunction with the approved development. This decision has also been referred to by the agent. However, each application must be determined on its own merits. The approved scheme provided some very clear benefits which weighed in favour of the development. These were: the provision of a village shop and tea room within a converted barn; delivery of market and affordable housing; enhancements to the Conservation Area; utilisation of brownfield land and the provision of open space.
    • Highways Authority recommend that the application be refused on the grounds that the development has not demonstrated that it will benefit from a safe access point onto the public highway, and that the development will result in an increase in peak hour traffic movements.
  6. Conclusions
    1. The site is located within a location which is considered to be unsustainable. Although the reopening of the public house would help to maintain the vitality of the settlement, this is not actually provided through the proposal. There is no certainty that the scheme will result in this and it also removes the associated beer garden which could adversely impact on the viability and vitality of the public house. In addition, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development is required to bring the public house back into use and there has been no robust justification put forward as to how the proposal would provide for local housing needs. Part of the scheme does propose the conversion of a traditional building however, it is not considered that it would improve the setting of the building and would likely result in harm to the non-designated heritage asset and potentially the Conservation Area. It is not therefore, considered that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm. It is noted that a recent scheme for residential units has been granted in Whittington. However, this proposed to replace agricultural buildings and there were other clear benefits of the scheme which outweighed the unsustainable location. In addition to the above, it is not considered that the proposal provides a safe means of access or delivers high quality design.

John Keegan

The Village Blog