Julian Heubeck, Public Transport Co-ordinator, Leicester City Council and representatives from Thurmaston Bus, operators of the 52 Bus service, will be attending the meeting to discuss the provision of local bus services.
Minutes:
Julian Heubeck, Public Transport Co-ordinator attended the meeting and stated that due to complaints received, and for operational reasons, it had ben decided to route the Bus Service 52 away from Danbury Gardens. The decision had not been taken lightly although Thurmaston Bus had stated that a number of their buses had sustained bodywork damage due to the high kerbs on a number of the unadopted roads in the immediate area and also had experienced difficulties in negotiating numerous parked vehicles.
Councillor Mugglestone stated that when the service had first been suggested the City Council had approached First/Arriva who had declined to operate a service around the Danbury Gardens area. Thurmaston Bus were then approached and agreed to run a service, No. 52, but since this had been operating a number of complaints had been received. Thurmaston Bus were also being targeted by First who were re-routing their 21/21A service to compete with Thurmaston Bus 52 route in the Belgrave and Northfields areas. Thurmaston Bus were therefore amending their route in these areas.
Carl, representing Thurmaston Bus, stated that the width of the estate roads, and the sheer number of parked cars had led to the reluctant decision to pull the 52 from the Danbury Gardens area, together with the results of a recent survey whereby over 7 particular trips round Danbury gardens only one passenger was picked up. A review of the need would be undertaken in one year.
A resident of Danbury Gardens stated that they had recently waited for the 52 and two buses had not turned up. Carl responded by saying that drivers regularly experienced late running on various parts of the route and this had a ‘knock-on’ effect for the rest of the day. Several drivers had been reprimanded for cutting out parts of the route to make up time, this was not allowed. Any complaints about Thurmaston Bus services or drivers should be referred to the head office where an assurance was given that any issues would be rectified. Thurmaston Bus felt that to operate a service to Danbury Gardens under the current road conditions was dangerous.
A number of residents of Danbury Gardens expressed a view that they were being punished, because without a bus service they would become ‘prisoners’, unable to get to local facilities. The ‘Dial-a-Ride’ service did operate, but often during the day time there were no spaces left. A lot of residents of Danbury Gardens came to the home on the understanding that a local bus service was available.
Councillor Mugglestone stated that the roads in the vicinity of Danbury Gardens were not of a standard to be accepted by the City Council for adoption. The developers were required to bring the roads up to the required standard as part of their planning permission but, in the meantime, they were just required to provide access to the completed properties. To fully complete the estate and bring all the roads up to a required standard this could take another couple of years. As soon as the roads were of a suitable standard the City Council would adopt them and then traffic regulations could be applied to control the parking of cars, but until then there was not much else the City Council could do.
A resident stated that previously the Community meeting had funded, for a limited period, a taxi service for residents on part of Netherhall estate when the 38 bus service had been cut back. Councillor Potter confirmed that this had been the case but the Community Meeting could no longer afford such a provision. The City Council had no control over the provision of bus services locally but would consult with local bus service providers.
A resident made reference to the City Council’s own Disability Equalities Action Plan which stated that barriers to highways and transport by disabled people would be improved by the Council. It was stated that the City Council could only ask for a bus service to be provided as they had no power to require services to be provided, although subsidies could be provided in certain circumstances.
A member of the public stated that she had been a lead petitioner requesting action be taken in Ivychurch Crescent following an accident involving children, vehicles and peoples properties This action had received the support of Councillors Potter and Shah. Prior to the petition being collected, action had been taken to block several roads in the immediate area as a protest. Councillor Shah had then taken the petition, with 1600 signatures, to the Cabinet Lead member. This eventually resulted in £175,000 being allocated by the City Council to provide various speed reduction measures in Ivychurch Crescent, Keyham Lane and Netherhall Road. Contact had been made with an officer of the City Council the previous Monday and he was about to put a report forward suggesting that road humps be provided in the streets referred to above, together with a pedestrian refuge on Netherhall Road. This was proof that the City council did listen to genuine concerns.
Carl, representing Thurmaston Bus stated that he had listened to the various comments made at the meeting and had taken the opportunity to speak with a Director of Thurmaston Bus. The result of the discussions was that Thurmaston Bus would look to provide at least one bus every 2 hours to Danbury Gardens.
Thurmaston Bus were thanked for their actions to review the continued provision of a bus service to Danbury Gardens.