Oxford delayed service charges claim
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
OXFORDSHIRE County Council is largely to blame for the delays in bringing about bus service alterations in the county (Oxford's rural services in danger CM July 23), according to Mr Peter Lutman, Oxford-South Midlands' traffic manager.
By delaying and failing to provide useful information from a review of transport needs in the county and then objecting to the whole of the bus undertaking's proposals, the county council unnecessarily delayed matters and then withdrew its objections, a CM reporter was told this week.
The county council is also accused of looking at the passenger transport problem piecemeal by Mr B. M. M. Barratt, planning manager for Midland Red, and by considering rural services almost in isolation, even of looking at the wrong piece.
Mr Lutman explained that the City of Oxford, in collaboration with Midland Red and the county and district councils, had begun to recast services in the county as early as 1974 and for this purpose had sectionalised its area into six parts. It had been asked to delay the proposals for the north-western section till the county council had completed its own review of the transport needs of that part of the county.
However, no meaningful information has yet been made available as a result of the review.
During the intervening two years, the services in the other four areas had been recast and it had been found possible to improve many services while still making a saving in resources. The new services had been accepted, and in some cases even acclaimed, by the district councils.
Unable to wait any longer for useful information from the county council's review, the undertaking shaped and put forward proposals for the rest of the area designed to save four or five City of Oxford vehicles and about 10 staff. It was then that the county council objected, together with some independents, forcing a public inquiry.
Both the South Eastern and the East Midlands Traffic Commissioners were involved and a date in May was fixed for the hearing. Unfortunately, the deputy commissioner con cerned fell ill and it was not possible to persuade any of the other deputies to attend. Deputies are all local authority nominees and all were involved in local council elections.
It was, therefore, hardly fair to blame the licensing system for the delay. In any case, the county council had objected to the undertaking's proposals which were based on a subsidy and then, after asking for the scheme to be recast assuming that no subsidy was possible, had accepted the second set of proposals.
Moreover, during the public inquiry which took place in June, the Traffic Commissioners had expressed the view that any further delay would not be in the public interest and had granted the bus company a dispensation to bring in about 90 per cent of the proposals. The remaining 10 per cent referred to that part of the proposals objected to by two independents.