Minutes:
Mrs Boden spoke in opposition to the withdrawal of the number 4 bus service which had provided a crucial link for Fulflood residents. She emphasised that the steep hills in the area made it very difficult for anyone with mobility issues to access the alternative bus services along the Romsey Road or Stockbridge Road. This had resulted in residents having to pay for taxis instead. She advised that a petition had been submitted to Danny Chambers, MP and requested that Stagecoach reinstate a regular service on the route (for example, twice per day) with a smaller bus.
Councillor Westwood thanked Mrs Boden for her comments and outlined the action the council was undertaking, included contacting Hampshire County Council (HCC) regarding the potential for the route to be classed as socially necessary and also the possible alternative use of community transport providers.
Councillor Westwood welcomed James O’Neill, Commercial Director for Stagecoach South to the meeting who provided an update on the latest position regarding Winchester bus services. He advised that HCC had also been invited to attend but unfortunately no officer had been available. However, HCC had agreed to a joint meeting with the city council, Stagecoach and the Cabinet Member and the discussions of the Forum would be passed to this joint meeting.
James O’Neill provided an update which included details of the following:
a) In the Winchester area, Stagecoach ran just under 50 vehicles, employed approximately 150 staff, and carried around two and a half million passengers annually. He noted that most of the buses operated on a commercial basis without subsidy.
b) During COVID, the government had provided temporary funding to assist the network's recovery but most of those funding streams had now stopped.
c) Winchester was experiencing the slowest recovery of commercial passengers of all Stagecoach South's regions. While student numbers remained relatively strong, other routes, particularly the Park and Ride, were carrying far fewer passengers than before.
d) Specific government-funded schemes had been used to add journeys to service 66 to Romsey, service 64, and to create a new hourly service to Andover, which included a new Sunday service. The expectation was that this "kickstart funding" would help operators create commercially viable services within two to three years.
e) He acknowledged the significant funding pressures faced by local transport authorities like HCC and as part of the HCC’s 2025 savings programme, contracts for some services Stagecoach ran (specifically the 61 and 46 routes) ended in August and were not renewed.
f) Regarding the number 4 service, he explained its revenue only covered approximately 75% of its running costs and despite efforts to attract passengers through fare caps and promotions, it remained significantly unprofitable.
g) The number 7 service was altered to provide two journeys a day for Teg Down and four journeys a day for Sparsholt village. A separate, more frequent service to Sparsholt College on college days was continued.
h) He outlined the process for making these commercial changes, stating that Stagecoach must give 10 weeks' notice to the local authority. For this service change, which started on 1 September, HCC was notified in June, giving them a four-week window to review the plan and decide whether to provide funding.
The committee proceeded to ask questions and comment on the following matters which were responded to by James O’Neill:
a) Whether account had been taken of the time of the year and corresponding weather and temperature fluctuations influencing bus usage?
b) The frequency of consultation between Stagecoach and HCC, and whether Stagecoach would suggest to the HCC that bus services be subsidised in response to customer pressure regarding routes that were no longer deemed commercially viable.
c) The possibility of new bus routes, for example along Chilbolton Avenue where substantial development had occurred but no bus service previously had existed, especially following the withdrawal of the number four service.
d) Concern about the current consultation process for changes to bus services, specifically the number 4 route, with the view that placing notices on bus stops seemed inadequate, and suggesting that earlier communication might have encouraged more usage. There was concern about the lack of direct communication with ward councillors regarding service cuts and the possibility of providing residents with more advanced notice and improved communication regarding future bus service changes.
e) Whether there would be scope for installing a bus stop for the improved 69 service between Winchester and Fareham to serve the Winchester Sports and Leisure Park?
f) The commercial reality of operating smaller buses compared to full-sized buses.
g) Did Stagecoach have any specific proactive requests for the Council, particularly concerning support for new developments and accelerating service establishment.
h) The extent of damage caused to bus services by disruption from roadworks and whether the council, potentially in collaboration with the HCC, could assist in mitigating the impact of roadworks, for instance, by raising awareness or supporting service recovery.
i) Whether it would be feasible to introduce a less frequent service for the Fulflood area, similar in frequency to the Number 7 that serviced Teg Down, possibly by adapting an existing route.
j) Whether Stagecoach had information regarding the known social impact of bus services, particularly concerning their importance in enabling independence, school access, and their potential link to long-term social care costs. Whether HCC requested information regarding the social value and impact of bus service cuts when making decisions.
k) Further clarification was sought on the source of information used by HCC for impact assessments.
l) The possibility of establishing a consistent schedule for the number 7 bus service throughout the day to avoid customer confusion and minimise duplication with the number 3 bus service, thereby enhancing commercial viability.
m) Whether any other bus services were currently under review for commercial viability, so that customers could be informed.
n) Whether any pricing structures would better encourage fare-paying passengers, particularly families, to use buses instead of cars?
o) Whether there were any specific actions that could be taken by the council, despite not being the transport authority, to help improve the success of bus services in the city.
At the conclusion of debate, the forum thanked James O’Neill for attending the meeting to provide an informative update on the latest position.
RESOLVED:
That the update be received, and the comments raised by the committee, as summarised above, be noted.