Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel
17 January 2008
ECONOMIC REGENERATION AND TRANSPORT SCRUTINY PANEL
A meeting of the Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel was held on 17
January 2008.
PRESENT: Councillor Ismail (Chair), Councillors Hobson, Mawston, Purvis, Rehman, Rostron
OFFICIALS: B Glover, I MacGregor, S White, T Moody, K Parks, E Williamson
**ALSO IN ATTENDANCE R Lowes, Executive Member for Transport
**PRESENT BY INVITATION: R Mallon
**DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS
No Declarations of Interest were made by Members at this point of the meeting
**MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2007 were submitted and approved as a
correct record
REVIEW OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT – PURPOSE OF MEETING – REPORT OF THE SCRUTINY
SUPPORT OFFICER
The Scrutiny Support Officer presented a report detailing the purpose of the meeting. The Mayor
had been invited to discuss his views on public transport and inform the Panel of the details
regarding the debates that took place across the town with members of the public.
The Head of Transport and Design Services had been invited to present details to the Panel of
the major bus bid.
REPORT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT – DISCUSSION WITH THE MAYOR OF MIDDLESBROUGH
The Mayor presented to the Panel a report of his findings whilst in discussion with the public.
The Mayor noted that public transport was a large subject and there was no common consensus
from the Government. Crime was an easier subject to tackle, and the problems around transport
were far reaching. There was increasing dialogue to get people to use cars less because of the
prevalence of global warming. Priorities would need to be addressed from the short too longterm.
When the Mayor held his public discussions he noted that people were split on the issue of
having an East Middlesbrough bypass. Priority for the public was not more buses, but arriving on
time; being cheap and clean. People used cars because they wanted their private space, and
encouraging people to use public transport would be difficult.
Middlesbrough’s road network was fragile; as commuters relied on the ring road and the A66,
any accident would hold everyone up. Many of the employees of Middlesbrough lived outside the
area and added to the congestion problem. On idea suggested was to build school drop off
points further away from congested areas.
The Mayor commented that the train station had improved greatly over the last year.
More publicity was needed to inform the public of the improvements to the train service going
from Nunthorpe.
The Mayor expressed that there needed to be more consultation between bus operators and the
Council regarding the schedule and routes of buses. He noted that if there were more
encouragement for younger persons to use buses, then the patronage would improve.
106736706
1
Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel
17 January 2008
A Member expressed the view that the East Middlesbrough Bypass was the only hope for a
short-term solution to the congestion problems. Comment was made that the Park and Ride
scheme would be good to kick start the process.
The Mayor commented that analysis of the proposed Park and Ride scheme was needed, to
determine if it would have a significant affect on the congestion problem.
The Mayor noted that he intended to act as a mystery shopper within the next 2-3 weeks to
sample the bus service, as he hadn’t taken a bus in a considerable time.
A Member commented that a key problem was that people were not sure if their bus would turn
up at the bus stop. A question went to the Council as to what stage it was at in applying real-time
bus signs at bus stops. It was noted that there were currently 3 signs in operation on Grange
Road and Linthorpe Village. 14 more were ordered and would be operational by mid 2008.
Further signs were to follow at key stops in line with the bid.
It was noted that Arriva had agreed to commit to two buses per hour in evenings up to 11.30pm.
A Member commented that this was positive news, as many people in east Middlesbrough relied
on the bus service in the evenings for work. A question was posed to see if the bus timetable
could be quarter to and quarter past the hour, to correspond with people leaving work. It was
noted that this would be a consideration when finalising the timetable.
NOTED
TEES VALLEY BUS NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Ian MacGregor from the Tees Valley Joint Strategy unit presented a report to review the Tees
Valley Bus Network. The review concluded with the following improvements to deliver: 



A simple hierarchical, integrated network offering a high frequency, competitive, quality
alternative to the car
A focus on the whole journey concept with infrastructure investment supported by the
elimination of the softer barriers to bus use
Improved accessibility and competitiveness for the Tees Valley City Region
A stable sustainable commercial network supporting and generating patronage increases
and investment in all routes, including feeder services.
The Bus Network would be moving forward by significant improvement in bus services through
the Bus Network Improvements major scheme. This would bring all partners together to secure
quality services over a defined period of time. The total cost of improvements was just over 40
million and work was due to start on site in summer 2008.
The Joint Strategy unit’s (JSU) role was to provide strategic transport planning support for the
five authorities. The JSU took the lead in co-ordinating Tees Valley responses to Government
consultations on transport operations. It provided representation of regional and national public
transport organisations and advice on major strategic planning applications in relation to
transport. The JSU managed the Tees Valley Bus Network Review in 2004.
It was reported that the high frequency buses didn’t need a schedule, as they came every 10
minutes.
The other components of the scheme were: 






Pedestrian facilities en route to stops
New bus interchanges
Quality vehicles with low floors and reduced emissions
Better and more co-ordinated information
Consistent branding
Revised and simplified ticketing
Better integration with the rail network
2
Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel

17 January 2008
New partnership and agreements with bus operators
The Local Authority’s Commitments and Responsibilities were: 



Introduce bus priority measures on the quality corridors
Enforce these measures, and decriminalised parking
Upgrade and maintain bus stop and station facilities
Facilitate reduced bus journey times and improved punctuality and reliability.
The JSU’s responsibilities were to: 

Co-ordinate the Partnership and draw in possible funds
Lead on the development of complimentary measures such as information, marketing,
branding and ticketing.
It was noted that the partnership protocol’s overall objective was to develop a better and more
sustainable bus service for the people of the Tees Valley.
The heads of term’s agreement had the following bus operator commitments to quality corridors:







Provide at least minimum service frequencies, with no subsidy after 18 months, and
reduced journey times
Limit service changes to no more than two per year
Use high quality easy access buses with low emissions
Meet demanding punctuality and reliable targets
Link fares increases to an agreed mechanism
Meet high standards for all staff training, vehicle cleanliness and customer service across
the partnership area
Work innovatively with the local authorities to ensure the whole network was sustainable in
the long-term
In relation to real-time information it was noted that there were currently 3 signs in operation on
Grange Road and Linthorpe Village. 14 more were ordered and would be operational by mid
2008. Further signs were to follow at key stops in line with the bid.
The bus priority was to be commissioned at 6 town centre junctions in 2008, and expansion to all
signalised junctions in line with the bid.
It was reported that extending real-time benefited all stops by:






Linking text messaging service to real-time, by mid 2008
Linking traveline to real-time, by mid 2008
Developing a website in 2008
Feeding real-time information to the signs in Middlesbrough Bus Station
Facilitating the participation of small operators
Requiring major operators to equip their buses to feed real-time data as part of the bid
NOTED
** EXCLUSION – PRESS – PUBLIC
ORDERED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item on the
grounds that, if present, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in
Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and that the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
106736706
3
Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel
17 January 2008
CANNON PARK MASTERPLAN – REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION
The Head of Planning and Regeneration Programmes presented a report of the Cannon Park
masterplan. It was noted that the Plan was designed to create a new retail quarter for
Middlesbrough town centre that would meet the need for new retail development and allow the
town centre to grow and fulfil its strategic role as the centre of the Tees Valley City Region. The
masterplan provided a framework for investment, promoted high quality design, and it would
allow for the creation of a new urban boulevard approach to the town centre along Newport
Road.
An Improvement in the environmental quality and public realm would help to create a major
gateway appropriate to its location at the western approach into Middlesbrough. A statement of
arrival would be created to the centre of Middlesbrough that would allow the strategic aspirations
of the overall regeneration of the town to be achieved.
Cannon Park was currently a mixed-use employment and comparison retail estate at a
significant gateway location on the western edge of the town centre. It was bounded by the A66,
Hartington Road and Newport Road. There were several vacant and underused properties within
Cannon Park and in some places there was poor environmental quality. There had been little
recent investment, despite its location adjacent to the town centre. The overall impression of the
area was that it needed a major face-lift; which was compounded by its high visual prominence
at a strategic gateway.
The Council had been working with consultants to produce the masterplan and with development
interests and landowners to ensure a co-ordinated approach and to take the scheme forward.
Although the Council was the major landowner in the area, there were several other owners, as
well as 39 Council owned business units.
Members expressed their approval of the project and noted that the masterplan would be
positive for the local area and Middlesbrough as a whole.
NOTED
4