Following a request for scrutiny of this matter from the ward councillor, a representative of South West Rail is invited to provide an update to the Board on the progress of agreed work at Pokesdown Station. The O&S Board is requested to consider this matter and make recommendations as appropriate.
Councillors invited to attend for this item: Councillor Andy Jones, Ward Councillor raising the request for scrutiny; Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure.
Minutes:
As all public statements, questions and petitions received for this meeting were in relation to this agenda item the Board agreed that they should be taken at the start of this item. It was noted that there would be no response made to the statements as the issues would be dealt with in the ensuing discussion. There would also not be a response to the public question from the Boards the question related directly to issues which were within the remit of South Western Railway - SWR and would also be dealt with in the ensuing discussion. The petition was received by the Board and it was agreed to pass it on to SWR for their consideration.
The Chairman invited the Ward Councillor who raised the issue to introduce the issues to the Board. It was explained that there had been numerous demonstrations at the station as it was currently completely impossible for those with accessibility issues to access the station. As part of the 2017 franchise agreement there was provision for lifts to be installed by 31 December 2019. It was noted that to date there appeared to be very little progress on this and the ward Councillor advised that it had become increasingly difficult to get responses from SWR. The ward Councillor requested to know the date of commencement for the build programme and when it was expected to finish.
Two representatives of SWR attended the meeting and provided answers to the Board’s enquiries. The following issues were discussed:
· It was explained that relatively early on in the new franchise a new report on the status of the lift shafts was commissioned. It was found that there had been some degradation as access could not be gained to the lift shaft through the existing doors. A second survey in January 2019 ascertained that the old lift gear was still in place at the top of the lift towers. It needed to be determined whether this was in a stable condition in order to allow any further access and in order to do this a safe way to access this part of the lift shaft needed to be found. A way to access this had been agreed in principle and a contractor had been instructed to undertake this work, which was expected to be completed towards the end of August. Network Rail then needed to approve the safety system of the work.
· Although the original deadline was December 2019 this had been extended by two months due to a two-month delay in signing the franchise agreement. However, it was confirmed that it was unlikely that the lift would be installed before the end of 2020. If everything proceeded according to plan the likely date for completion would be end of September 2020.
· The Chairman asked what the implications were for not fulfilling a contractual agreement. The Board were informed that there were many obligations under the bid and franchise system and in the case of those that would not meet the contractual deadline the franchise partner would normally approach the Department for Transport to explain the individual agreements with a proposal for an alternative solution and it would be up to the DfT to make a determination on what to do. It was noted that there were hundreds of committed obligations and a number of which may be altered. It was noted that this project was currently being reported with a red RAG status. Queries were raised regarding due diligence on the part of SWR and the unsafe lift shafts. However, it was confirmed that two previous surveys did not uncover any major concerns and therefore the lift project was put into the franchise as deliverable.
· A Board member questioned who had responsibility for the lifts at Pokesdown and why Network Rail wasn’t responsible. It was noted that it was written into the SWR franchise and they would be using experienced rail contractors to complete the works. Network Rail had a responsibility for the maintenance of stations, but as the lifts had not been in operation for many years this did not fall under their maintenance obligations. There were some queries raised with regards to the lack of basic maintenance making the lift shafts unsafe.
· A Board member asked if any alternative measures could be put in place temporarily to allow access to the platform. It was confirmed that this was not possible but that people with specific mobility requirements could access a taxi to take them to an alternative station. SWR confirmed they would do all they could to arrange taxi transportation, but the more notice received of this requirement the better.
· Members raised concerns that in the response provided from South Western Railway there was no mention of the customer experience and no apology for the delay. Then representatives assured the Board that they and the company were totally committed to its obligations and the customer experience in delivering projects.
· A Councillor asked about signage at the station and how members of the public were made aware of the alternative access arrangements with the provision of taxis. SWR undertook to place signage at the station.
The Board placed on record its disappointment that greater progress had not been made with regards to the installation of lifts, it understood the reasons behind the delay but was concerned that no information was being provided to the public. The Chairman requested that SWR keep the Board update on progress. The Portfolio Holder agreed that he would pursue the issue.
RESOLVED that:
(a) the Portfolio Holder, on behalf of the residents of the BCP conurbation and especially the 80,000 residents with accessibility issues, be asked to the Minister for Transport to express the Councils concern that residents had been let down and that the Council were disgusted at how the conurbation had been treated in this matter.
Note: The wording for the letter was to be agreed between the Portfolio Holder, Board Chairman and Board Members.
(b) That this issue be monitored as part of the Board’s Forward Plan.
Voting: Unanimous
A recorded vote was requested on this issue.
For: Cllr P Broadhead, Cllr M Haines, Cllr M Anderson, B Dove; Cllr M Earl, Cllr G Farquhar, L Fear, M Iyengar, P Hilliard; D Kelsey, R Lawton, R Maidment,