To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Da Costa.

To receive any Declarations of Interest.

Councillor Sharma declared a personal interest in the item ‘ Arriva Click Demand Response’ as he worked for First Group.

To confirm the Part I Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2017.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2017 be approved, subject to the addition of the following wording to the item ‘Cycle Strategy’:

‘The Chairman agreed to open the membership of the Task and Finish Group to members of the public.’

To receive the above presentation.

Members received a presentation on Arriva Click Demand Responsive ‘Corner to Corner’ transport from Simon Mathieson, Business Development Manager at Arriva.

Mr Mathieson explained that Arriva had been piloting a ‘corner to corner’ demand responsive bus service in Sittingbourne, Kent since March 2017. The pilot had been successful and popular. Arriva had big ambitions to develop the service elsewhere and had recently ordered 35 more vehicles to enable this to happen. Members noted that Arriva was a pan-European transport company owned by Deustche Bahn since 2010. Arriva was aware that local authorities were facing cuts to budgets, increased demand for social transport, falling passenger numbers, increased congestion and concerns over air quality.

The demand responsive bus scheme helped to address some of the issues as it aggregated people travelling from multiple origins to multiple destinations in an efficient and convenient way. The automated system matched journeys and adjusted routes. There was no manual intervention required, but back office back up was available if needed.  Algorithms were used to ensure optimal routes were chosen within built–in parameters. In Sittingbourne routes were never more than 20% away from the direct route.  The 16-seater vehicles were high specification and could be configured in various ways. The vehicles used in Sittingbourne were 10 seater plus space for one wheelchair. The technology was able to teach itself demand patterns so an unbooked bus would be sent to the position nearest the next likely booking. The offer was a 20 minute window for collection; in Sittingbourne average waits were 10-11 minutes. Customers were able to book a ride via an app or by telephone or website. Journeys could be purchased via credit, on a pay as you go basis, or via a season ticket. Once booked, customers received details of the vehicle and driver who would pick them up, including a direct telephone number, along with journey details. Customers could cancel bookings before pick up at no cost. Mr Mathieson highlighted elements of the customer proposition including convenience, quality, accessibility, safety, shareability and excellent customer service.

Members noted that demand responsive services could be used in a number of environments including urban areas and also where services had traditionally been subsidised because of low demand. Members noted the growth in the Sittingbourne pilot, which was now achieving over 2000 rides per week. Via the usage of the app, Arriva was able to obtain instantaneous and very detailed data, which was used to improve the service and manage driver and vehicle resourcing. It was noted that the proportion of people using the service in Sittingbourne for their daily commute had reduced over time, with increased use for leisure, shopping and visiting friends and family. The data also showed that 30% of respondents had shifted from using their car. Therefore people previously not willing or able to use public transport were using the service.

Councillor Bicknell joined the meeting at 7.02pm.

Councillor Sharma commented that he had asked about on-demand buses at the UK Bus Summit four years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

To comment on the Cabinet report.

Members considered the Budget Preparation 2018/19 report that would be presented to Cabinet on 23 November 2017.

Mark Lampard, Finance Partner, explained that details of the budget were being presented earlier than usual to enable full scrutiny before the final Council approval in February. The September 2017 RPI figure of 3.9% had been utilised in most cases to increase fees and charges. There were a few exceptions when market benchmarks were higher or lower. The budget proposals included £4.1m of efficiencies and increased income. Council tax would increase by 1.95% alongside an Adult Social Care levy of 3%. £700,000 of revenues would be used to balance the budget.  Significant capital investment of £54m was planned including funding for regeneration-related projects such as £10m for temporary parking. The road resurfacing programme totalled just under £2m.

Councillor Beer commented that to keep people coming into the town centres, parking charges needed to be as low as possible He asked if comparisons had been undertaken with other towns including tourist attractions. The Executive Director confirmed that Windsor had been benchmarked with York and Bath; Maidenhead had been benchmarked with Reading, Bracknell, Slough and Wokingham.  Councillor Hunt commented that Reading had the Oracle and Bracknell had a new shopping centre. Maidenhead did not have this yet and therefore she felt parking prices should only be increased once the regeneration was complete. The Executive Director explained the benchmarking had been undertaken before the new centre in Bracknell had opened. Slough and Wokingham did not have large shopping centres compared to Reading.

The Chairman highlighted that charges had not been increased for a few years. 1 hour and 2 hour tickets were still free for residents with an Advantage Card. The council was also spending £1.3m on CCTV to ensure cars were safe and there were new parking machines in Windsor. The rate of inflation had been increasing and operating costs had risen. The Executive Director highlighted that eleven car parks in Windsor would have increased charges, compared to six in Maidenhead. 61% of the increases were in Windsor compared to 29% in Maidenhead.

Councillor Shelim commented that Windsor was in the  main used by tourists coming by coach therefore they did not use the car parks. He received lots of emails from business complaining their staff could not afford the parking charges. Windsor charges were already high compared to the rest of the borough. He understood the concessions for Advantage Card users but it was not fair for workers in Windsor and this could affect businesses.

The Executive Director commented that if the tariffs for both towns had been matched to the benchmarked figures, the increase would have been £3.1m. If the 3.9% figure was removed from the £750,000, the parking tariffs were still good in comparison. It was confirmed that the only factor considered in the benchmarking was parking tariffs, for example local house prices were not taken into account. Olu Odeniyi highlighted that Maidenhead had to compete with free parking at Taplow.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.