Residents started to call me at the beginning of the week to enquire about the stopping of bus 16, a route that picks up many of our most vulnerable and aged.
I knew nothing about this and didn't believe it at first so I called Ipswich Buses myself where it was confirmed that it would indeed be ceased sometime in July, as an estimate.
I was incensed to learn it was for financially reasons as I know other routes are less popular but it is because most of the users are old aged pensioners and so the income on this service is challenging.
The first question I have to ask is why Councillor Smart, Transport portfolio holder, or his colleagues, some of whom are on the board at Ipswich Buses, did not think to send out a letter to residents, or to me for that matter to keep me advised?
I have started up a petition to ensure that no private company takes over this route - as we know what will happen to the service if they do - and to ask Ipswich Buses to change their mind & work with Ipswich Borough Council to find the funds.
Labour councillors are now upset that I have sent out a leaflet to the residents on the relevant route in Stoke Park, because they say they are sorting it out. however I would like to point some things out to them.
1) the petition is for IB to keep the route, no other solution will do
2) to ensure that IBC consider funding the route for IB, NOT a private company
3) It is my duty, especially as I am the only Tory councillor in the SW Ipswich, to hold the Labour group/the administration to account and that is what I am doing.
The residents are queueing up at my door, telephone and my e-mail. Most of them have checked for themselves with IB and have been advised that the cessation is going ahead.
THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Some of the residents have not been into town for ages because the route has been suspended due to roadworks. Some can just about make it to the bus-stop but will not be able to walk the distance to an alternative stop in Fountains road, although this will be an option for younger people.
Our old should be the most valued in our society and whether it's from face to face chatter or my leaflet, it has upset a few of them - but they deserve to know what's going on and if Labour had cared about it enough in the first place, they would have already done that job for me.
If you use this bus to come to Stoke Park and have not had the petition leaflet through your door then please feel free to contact me below with your comments.
As a councilor it is right that you inform the residents as to what is happening within our ward and issues that effect them. You are totally within your rights to distribute a leaflet and I have no issue with that. What I do have issue with is the leaflet is factually incorrect and causing unnecessary distress amongst our residents.
ReplyDeleteLabour are not axing the No 16 bus service, Ipswich Buses are De-registering the service which is not the same and does not mean the service will cease.
As Ipswich Buses no longer intend to run the service on a commercial basis there is a legal process they have to follow. They have to notify VOSA (Dept for Transport) of their intention to cease running these COMMERCIALLY.
Ipswich Borough Council are able to enter into a agreement with Ipswich Buses to continue to run these services with financial support if required.
Ipswich Borough Council has a budget which purpose is to support local bus services.
The No 16 will continue to run, I understand your desire to stand up for the residents and I'm sure that was your intention. This is the kind of issue we as ward councilors should be working together to ensure that all the correct information is fed back to our residents hence why when I received my first e-mail from a resident on the subject I included you in the response.
But it appears you have chose to turn this into some kind of political football, instead of informing your leaflet has lead to causing distress which if it had included the correct information could of been avoided. As a result and I'm sure wholly unintended effect I have had an elderly resident call me in tears at the prospect of losing her bus service which the reality of it is that it is not going to happen .
You really need to direct this at SCC, as they are the authority responsible for funding non-commercially viable bus routes (IBC do part fund one, but that's very rare).
ReplyDeleteGiven the legislation around bus deregulation, would either authority really be allowed to insist that Ipswich Buses be given the contract? I'm sure First would have something to say about that.
Thanks for both responses. Firstly Glen, thankyou for your usual thoughtful way of responding, I always appreciate it. I have no doubt the no 16 will continue in some way but this is the problem - Ipswich Buses are talking about finding funding to operate a reduced service. I and the residents do not want this for many reasons that are too numerous to go here. Using jargon like deregistering does not make this any better, It still means that IB are planning to cease the route and it appears an alternative has not been secured yet. As I wrote on your blog, the communication that has come out of IB has not been good. all staff should be saying the same message and all the residents that contacted me were just told by drivers etc that the route would stop. There was no mention of an endeavour to save it and I can't afford to take the chance that the alternative will be suitable. The voice of the people need to be heard in a vulnerable area like this and that is why I have invited them to the full council where the PH Phil Smart will be able to update them. I am doing my job, as you say.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Ipswich Borough have money to subsidise this so that's the route I want to take and so I am fighting for teh continuation of this service by IB or for funds to be found elsewhere. if it could be jointly between SCC and IBC then great.
If we cant provide and have some routes that lose money being subsidised by those routes that do make money, then we might as well make the whole thing pivate. At least then I will not feel that only the labour voting areas will have priority. I dont like Labour having control of the buses but if they must, then I will hold them to account. simple as that.
Regarding the public not being informed, I'm not sure how Ipswich Buses are expected to do this. Do we expect them to send a letter to every household along a route to tell them a service is to stop operating? That would be fairly expensive, and sending the letters to every single household on the route would be pointless - I live on it, but have never used it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about your comments about Labour voting areas having priority. Firstly both Bridge and Stoke Park are Labour voting areas. And secondly, Stoke Park is a marginal ward, so one would think that a party would be keener to provide services in a ward that they wanted to win rather than assumed they'd win (Kevin Algar frequently comments that Labour neglect their safe wards for instance).
Hi again. No, i dont expect them to write but I do expect Labour councillors on teh board to do a leaflet to tell ppl whats going on. i also expect Ipswich buses to put notifications on their website and for them to tell their staff what the message is eg drivers all saying the same thing and giving full details. In this case the passengers were just told ' this route is stopping for financial reasons' hence me getting lots of calls. The area that is badly affected in Stoke Park consists of mainly Tory voters and that is why I feel quite aggrieved about this. This wouldn't have happened in a Labour stronghold area but no fear, I am looking into that very thing. because several people have made the same point throughout all the conversations I've had re route 16. Labour neglect their safe wards in campaigning but they look after them when it comes to services, even prioritising them in my opinion.
DeleteYou have it there - the 4 (62) in Bixley went through similar problems, but Labour areas never do.
ReplyDeleteNadia - the bus board also includes a Lib Dem Cllr and people from outside politics - I am sure the Bus Company will put up posters once everything is confirmed.
ReplyDeleteThanks Alasdair - yes I believe there is a lib dem but she is not a councillor for this area or any of the areas affected, whereas I believe that there is a labour councillor who represents the Stoke Park area and also counc smart who is portfolio for Transport and should be leading this. I know such things are easy with hindsight but it would've saved a lot of people hearing second or even third and fourth hand. the bus company gave permission to the staff to tell people on that day, which is why I think they could've done a better job and, yes, I accept this is all IB fault, not just labour board members. IB should have a communications policy for such things - perhaps put it on the agenda for next board meeting?
ReplyDeleteCarol Ruffles
ReplyDeleteI am so amazed that the bus company are planning to cut this essential service for so many elderly and frail customers. There are a great number of buses that service the Chantry area and only one Number 15 bus for stoke park every 20 minutes. I very much support any pressure that can be brought to bear on the people who may have influence on this decision.
Just got off the phone to David Ellesmere, who confirmed that the service will continue despite deregulation.
ReplyDeleteThis means that if no private operator takes the service on, then the service will be subsidised or revert to being run by Ipswich Buses.
As an aside, apparently, the opposition on IBC's council voted against subsidising the service, but the labour majority won the vote.....
any further comments Cllr Cenci - which way did you vote?
You have not been given the whole truth. When this was put forward it was part of a whole budget and we put forward an alternative budget rather than vote for theirs. It was not a stand alone item. Furthermore the 150k set aside was assumed to be for a pension shortfall, not for subsidising. It was clarified only after we submitted an alternative budget. Would never vote against subsidy.
ReplyDeleteWe wait to see if the service will be resumed.
Cllr Cenci, it appears the minutes from council meeting 26th September mention a £140,000 set aside, and the questions and replies to question 4 appear to make it very clear the subsidies are not for pension shortfall. The minutes are here :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ipswich.gov.uk/downloads/Council_Questions__-_26_September_2012.pdf
1) Would you be prepared to clarify your position further?
2) When did the vote take place, and are there further minutes of relevance ?
I thought I had made it clear but let me explain further. By the time the question was actually answered by the labour group, it was a moot point. The budget was not rejected just for that reason. We rejected their budget for several reasons, as you would expect, we are different parties, to submit our own. This included the 140k for subsidisng the buses but at the time we put together our own version, we thought it was for a pension shortfall. It all happened on the same evening - I do believe we tried to find out beforehand (although not me personally so not sure what the conversations were) and it was not forthcoming from Labour. However this still does not take away the fact that we were unhappy with other parts of their budget. The vote for bus subsidy was not a stand alone vote, In fact the budget is taken as a whole. I voted against their budget because I wanted to vote for our alternative budget. The council meeting will have the full minutes and it will be under the paper pertaining to the budget for the year. Labour are being disingenuous to state it as a vote against subsidy.
ReplyDeleteAlso Labour are very good at using the Ipswich Buses to electioneer, often stating, as Cllr Ross did to me this week, that only THEY can be trusted to run the bus services. Well then its a bit rich, when I hold them to account, to suddenly state that its nothing to do with them. This is how they operate. They kept me in the dark, being the only Tory councillor in the whole of SW this is easy for them to do. I reacted to the residents, not the other way round. I had several call me, email me etc.to say the bus company was stopping the service, and immediately I sprang to action. I called them myself and they confirmed. I am now hearing conflicting reports, some labour cllrs are saying it will be a private company and some say it will be IB. I am not taking any chances with this. The residents needs to show their voice and I intend to help them. i represent them and this is my job. If labour now want to say that they do not run the buses, I will remember that in future and so should they. this was no a political thing. I have done several surveys on the Windfarm and not once did I mention labour even though they are all for it and I am the only one against it. I do what's best for an outcome, not what's best for me. I hope that's all loud and clear now! Check the council minutes for the budget paper and you will see there was no vote for the bus subsidy, just the budget in its entirety.
Anonymous, the relevant budget decision was in February 2012. The clarification on bus subsidies rather than the black hole in their pension funds came, as you say, in September 2012.
ReplyDeleteIt is perfectly possible to vote against a budget - which included a higher level of council tax than the Tories were pledged to support - but to accept that you lost the vote and that some of the elements in the budget are now available to provide services.
Well of course, we always lose the vote now as we are totally outnumbered so its even more important to stick together, as Labour do. And of course some of their budget is not disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteI am purely making a clarification that at no time did I vote against a bus subsidy. Tories do not have that power at the moment - we are not in administration. it is unfair to cherry pick bits of the budget that work. Our budget could also have worked and we can always find money from reserves if we'd needed to - something that was built up brilliantly under our administration but which will disappear under this one probably.
Thank you for your clarification on the vote, Cllr Cenci. It is possible that I misheard Cllr Ellesmere regarding the exact phrasing of the point on voting for the subsidy as part of the budget.
ReplyDeleteI now understand how you knew nothing about it, as the meeting minutes are only published online, Carnall only raised it last September and just how incensed you must have been nine months later ;-)
I doubt very much you misheard Cllr Ellesmere. And I am not incensed by anything that was said 9 months ago, apart from the fact cllr Smart didn't really answer the question. I am only incensed at the cutting of route 16 by IPswich Buses, which I only heard about last week! The relevance of sept council meeting is exactly Zero, niende, nada.
ReplyDelete1) Yes, but it's not being cut, the route is merely being considered for outsourcing, right? And if no-one bids for the tender, or however you wish to phrase it, it will still by run by Ipswich Buses... or not ?
ReplyDelete2) And you raised the issue of pension funds, which you now admit is a complete red herring, and this was the £150k you mentioned (in fact £140k, put aside for funding, should it prove necessary). Or have I misunderstood?
But in 2) i only mentioned it because I was answering your accusation that I voted against subsidy, otherwise it wouldnt be part of my communication at all! As you have seen this was not true. I have made that clear. It is a moot point because even if you took away that element, I still would have voted against their budget.
ReplyDelete1) no it is not certain of anything. It could end up being a reduced service, as pointed out to me by Ipswich Buses. It might end up not going down the sme roads for instance. It is not resolved yet and I await to see exactly who, when, what, and with whose funds
By the way. Take a look at Ipswich Spy's post on it today and tell me that I should trust the labour administration. They refused to help out on another stopped route and then blamed SCC for withdrawing the routes, when in fact they solved the problem with a hybrid idea albeit, not perfect.
ReplyDeleteThanks Cllr Cenci - perhaps I could see a copy of the petition, which may be a little clearer on what your objections are, given that the service is not ending? Or perhaps, pending further information, you're petitioning against no discernible change, and it's the status quo you object to?
ReplyDeletePerhaps I could pop round and get one? Is there any time when the queues are not too large?
So, what is the petition about exactly, given that the service is to continue one way or another? And when is a good time to pick up the details of exactly what the petition is about (I hate queueing)?
ReplyDeleteThe petition is to save the service and keep it as it is, ie not reduced, not given to private firm, route not changed. When the leaflet was delivered, we had all been informed that the service was being stopped. We know a little more now but we still do not know outcome. I intend to carry on collecting the signatures to submit to IBC until we do. You can pick one up from my house. If I am not there, I will leave some outside on my step with a pen. You can sign it and pop through door. I will be in and out all day but probably here this morning!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAll this fuss and political implication!. At the end of the day, as a user of the 16 I looked on the Ipswich Bus website and found a response to a worried user asking about the 16, it clearly said that they (IBL) could not afford to run the service in its present form and confirmed their intention to cease running, however it did say that they continued dialogue with IBC/SCC. I therefore cannot see how one can be accused of scaremongering when IBL clearly confirmed their intentions. It was quite right to set up a petition which has no doubt raised the priority of this issue. My only other comment is that a number of IBL drivers have expressed their surprise at the 16 being earmarked for withdrawal as the service 2 to Nacton area via Derby Road has far less passengers and has not been mentioned?
ReplyDeleteThank you yes and it's because of the petition that IB have retracted their decision and are going to do a reduced service. I am still fighting to retain the current timetable so watch this space.
Delete