Agenda item

To consider the Pokesdown Railway Station Improvement Cabinet Report scheduled for consideration on 24 November 2021:

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport, supported by the Section151 Officer, presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Portfolio Holder and Officers responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

·       On the matter of funding, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that this would be a tripartite agreement between BCP Council, South Western Rail (SWR) and Network Rail (NR), with the Council paying up to a maximum of £2.6million. SWR and NR would pay a combined £3.1million toward the final cost. NR had entered the funding agreement as a voluntary partner as their investment would see an enhancement to their own asset. Members heard that the matter of the public subsidy had been well explored and that this was an appropriate way of using the future’s fund.

·       The Portfolio Holder was not aware of any other contractual obligations, similar to what was agreed with Pokesdown Station, within the franchise agreements of other BCP area stations.

·       The Department for Transport (DFT) would not allow any additional spending above contractual requirements by rail companies.

·       On the matter of footfall, Members heard that 350,000 people enter and exit Pokesdown Station throughout a normal year.

·       The matter was at the outline business case and was awaiting approval by the DFT, subject to any requirements they may have.

·       On the matter of financial liability, the Section 151 Officer explained that if one of the other parties were to go bankrupt, the expectation would be for the contractual obligations, in this case the funding contribution and construction of the lifts, to transfer to whoever subsequently takes up the responsibility. If this was not fulfilled or if the asset was not maintained in future, the Council would look to recover the sums that it had invested through this arrangement.

·       Network Rail (NR) are not a revenue-based organisation and their job is to provide infrastructure to the railway industry. South West Rail (SWR) have a responsibility for the station itself. NR do not have an obligation under the existing franchise contract to provide the £1.5million of funding. NR’s investment is to ensure the safety and structural integrity of the bridge that connects the two lifts. However, the Council successfully negotiated for any surplus funds from NR’s £1.5million investment to be put toward the other elements of the station enhancements.

·       The lifts element of the project provides the greatest risk and detailed costings still need to be clarified and agreed. The hope is that once the detailed costings are finalised, the financial risk of the lifts element would reduce.

·       On the suggestion of a loan of funds from the Council to SWR for the purposes of this project, the Section 151 confirmed that this option had not been explored.

·       Several Members raised concerned over SWR seeming to avoid the commitments of their franchise agreement. The Board discussed the use of taxpayer money for this project and the Portfolio Holder agreed that SWR had seemingly avoided their commitment to funding these works and acknowledged that this was not optimal for the Council.

·       Clarity was provided on the wording within the report, specifically relating to points 25, 26 and 37 and it was acknowledged that reference should be to ‘lifts’ plural, rather than the stated ‘lift’ singular. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that this would be amended to read accurately.

·       On start times for the project, the Board were told that the earliest start for initial works to commence would be the end of 2022/ start of 2023. The estimated delivery programme timeline would then be 18 months.

Following discussion, the Chairman acknowledged the need for the enhancements to be made but raised concern over the business case for the project, stating that there was no quantifiable detail on the human need nor financial justification for the infrastructure improvements contained within the business case. The Chairman also highlighted that there had not been a clear answer as to why the obligation on the private company had not been fulfilled.  

Following the Chairman’s summary, a motion was proposed by Councillor V Slade and seconded by Councillor C Rigby that an additional recommendation should be made to the Cabinet report. It was then RESOLVED: That funding options with the Dorset LEP, in terms of infrastructure funding, are considered and failing that that BCP Council fully investigates the option of a long-term loan to SWR before committing to making this funding allocation.

Voting: For – 9, Against – 3, Abstained – 0

Following this, a motion was proposed by Councillor S Bartlett and seconded by Councillor L Dedman that an additional recommendation should be made to the Cabinet report. It was then RESOLVED: That cabinet do not proceed with recommendations in the report.

Voting: For – 8, Against – 5, Abstained – 0

The Chairman thanked Board Members and Officers for their contributions.