Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Commission Minutes

Mr. A. Fowler referred to minute 67 and updated the Commission on recent changes to the rail service from Hull with the Hull to Manchester service now running half hourly services and Hull Trains receiving firm rights for its 7 direct daily services between Hull and London until the end of 2014.  A Member commented on the inflexibility of the Hull Trains Ticket System and the need for the ticket to be able to be used between Rail Operators.
 

Mr. K. Ryley, Chief Executive, declared a personal interest in minute 78 insofar as he was the Clerk to the Humber Bridge Board.

Councillor J. Fareham declared a personal interest in minute 78 insofar as he was a member of the Humber Bridge Board.

 

URGENT ITEM - Following advice sought from the Acting Monitoring Officer, the Chair agreed to consider the report "Protecting Hull (and the Surrounding East Riding Area) From Future Flooding" as an urgent item given the importance of this to the work of the Commission.

Mr. K. Ryley, Chief Executive attended the meeting and updated Members on progress in establishing a new Strategic Multi-Agency Body to better co-ordinate the management of Hull's Flood Defences.

Members were informed that:

1. Hull's new Strategic Flood Partnership, comprising of senior representatives from Hull City Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, The Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water, had met twice with its third meeting due to take place in February, 2009.  It would continue to meet quarterly thereafter;
2. this partnership was set up to ensure that the agencies worked collaboratively in the future, planned long term investment and had a comprehensive understanding of water flow in the area;
3. outside London, Hull was the most vulnerable City with regard to flood risk and, although various studies had been done in the past, there was no complete picture of the local rivers, water courses and drainage for the City and surrounding areas which would be required to plan future investments;
4. the partnership had started work on commissioning a major research study on Water Management Issues.  Investment of £30m from the partners for flood improvement works and flood defence measures had been agreed and would be carried out by 2010;
5. the key issues were to agree the level of further investment beyond 2010 to improve resilience of the City's Drainage System, agree how quickly improvements could be carried out and agree which agency would fund the works;
6. the Fire Service and Harbour Master were partners of the Multi-Agency Flood Forum which deal with operational matters relating to flooding in the area but, as they did not contribute financially to Flood Defence Works, were not part of the Strategic Flood Partnership;
7. involvement of land owners was more significant in the East Riding area and there would be a number of land owners with an obligation to carry out maintenance on the land they owned to assist with drainage of surface water;
8. the Strategic Flood Partnership would ensure that residents were informed of their responsibilities as the drainage system in Hull was tied into the water system;
9. the merits in dredging the River Hull would be explored through the Strategic Flood Partnership;
10. the Environment Agency was looking at the local drains e.g. Barmston Drain, although this did not overtop in 2007.  They had closed one sluice inlet into the River Hull which ensured that the other sluice would self-clean and would not affect water flow in this area;
11. £50,000 was available to the City Council to produce Surface Water Management Plans for Hull;
12. the major research study to be commissioned by the new partnership would outline and prioritise the level of investment needed over the next 10-15 years.  The study would have a contained scope so that there would be enough information to guide investment in future flood defence measures;
13. other factors to take into account were the height of the water table, which was high presently, and raised rail and roadways as these affected water flow in the Hull and East Riding area;
14. historically there had been many water courses and dikes that had been filled in or blocked off and re-establishment of some of these would be important to future plans for water management;
15. Yorkshire Water had committed to improving the pumping capacity and, although it would always be needed, mechanical means of removing excess water from the area should not solely be relied upon .  Yorkshire Water had produced a report for the Regulator (OFWAT) and the public and had demonstrated they were increasing pumping capacity through additional investment, and
16. the partnership would lobby for Government funding via The Environment Agency for flood defences and funds would be needed for research over and above this.  It was important to ensure Government acknowledged Hull's importance as a Port and that investment be made in protecting this industry.

Members raised issues on:

1. the use of old maps and documents held by the Council showing water courses, drains and dikes that were no longer in existence including the publication "Draining of the Hull Valley" to assist with reinstating water courses to help with the City's drainage and highlight areas that were prone to flooding;
2. availability of funding streams for the work necessary for the future in ensuring that land owners and residents were aware of their responsibilities;
3. work carried out to block off a sluice into the River Hull and the need to dredge the river as more water would enter it once dikes and drains were cleared;
4. uncertainty around the status of some drains in the City, whether they had been culverted or filled in and who was responsible for their upkeep;
5. agreement with the creation of aqua greens and the need to recreate the dikes and ditches that had previously been filled in;
6. concerns about the high water level in Holderness Drain, the reliance on mechanical pumping to remove excess water from the City and the need for competent management of all water drainage systems;
7. problems with Setting Dyke Drain which had overtopped prior to the June, 2007, floods, and
8. Yorkshire Water's report to OFWAT, its regulator, following the June, 2007, floods.

 

Mr. J. Bennett, Principal Economic Research and Policy Officer, North Lincolnshire Council attended the meeting and provided an outline of the research into the impact into the Humber Bridge Tolls, the procurement process, the findings of the Impact Assessment and further work to be commissioned.  Mr. K. Ryley, Chief Executive, was also in attendance for this item.

Members were informed that:

1. research into the impact of Tolls was commissioned in 2003 with a report published in 2004;
2. the Humber Forum was focused on the national economic situation and the Humber Bridge Tolls issue formed part of the City Region agenda;
3. the Unitary Leaders Group agreed the Terms of Reference and funding for the research on 17th January, 2008, with North Lincolnshire leading on the Project;
4. the procurement process started on 20th February, 2008, and the contract was awarded on 10 June, 2008, at a cost ceiling of £60,000;
5. the aim of the research was to quantify the impact the Bridge Tolls were having on the performance and future potential of the Humber Economy; consider the wider social and environmental impacts of the Tolls (e.g. access to Healthcare) and to identity the potential positive benefits of a significant reduction in the Bridge Tolls;
6. Colin Buchanan and Partners were appointed to carry out the research.  They had consulted with local people and business; health service providers, education, bus companies; received surveys from the Chamber of Commerce and FSB; undertaken focus groups with Job Centre Plus clients and carried out economic and retail modelling;
7. a different methodology was developed to ensure the outcome of the research would stand up to scrutiny at local and Government levels and the research methodology was accepted by the Department of Transport;
8. the research took into consideration the scenarios of (a) total abolition of the Humber Bridge Tolls and (b) a reduction of the Humber Bridge Tolls to £1.00 per car.  These scenarios would result in a total City Regional benefit of £580m for the "£1 Toll" option and £1.1 billion for the "no Toll" option (2009-32);
9. the research findings showed that the City Region was not able to fulfil its full potential, that an abolition of, or reduction of the Humber Bridge Tolls would lead to economic benefit over the next 25 years, the labour market catchment areas would be increased, retail spend leaking out of the Humber would be reduced and the Port and Distribution Industries would benefit;
10. 80% of users of the Humber Bridge were from Hull and the Humber Ports City Region area;
11. agglomeration was the relationship with economic activity and density and travel time was calculated at £6.48 for each hour spent travelling;
12. data on Hull residents' travel to work patterns showed that they mainly worked on the north side of the Humber and data for residents on the south side of the Humber showed they mainly worked on the South Bank presently;
13. removal of the Tolls would lead to more residents on the South Bank travelling to Hull to work and, as land had been put aside on the South Bank for redevelopment and house prices were lower, could result in  a population drift form Hull and the surrounding areas to the South Bank;
14. the social and environmental impacts of the Humber Bridge Tolls was more of an issue for those living on the South Bank e.g. access to health services, leisure, recreation and tourism, and land usage problems;
15. because of a lack of transport model for the future it was difficult to predict further environmental impact as a result of reducing or removing the Bridge Tolls;
16. the research findings were presented to Councils and Local Partners of the 7th October, 2008, and further work was commissioned to look at the tax take for the Treasury on the £1.1 billion and £580 million along with the likelihood of debt repayment by 2032;
17. the net impacts to the Treasury in £m for 2009-35 discounted to 2008 values for Toll elimination and Tolls reduction scenarios showed £290m for the status quo and £120m for Toll elimination and Toll reduction;
18. the Toll Elimination Option would require the Government to take on maintenance of the Bridge and with the Toll reduction option, the tax take would be less and maintenance would be covered by the £1 Toll.  An increase in traffic would not cause an increase in maintenance costs;
19. it was predicted that the debt on the Humber Bridge (£170m) would be repaid by 2035, although this would be affected by interest rates;
20. the Unitary Leaders Group, on 8th January, 2009, agreed that Toll abolition was the preferred option and;
21. a Public Enquiry was to be held on the 3rd March 2009, to consider the proposal to increase Bridge Tolls that had recently been announced.

Mr. K. Ryley, Chief Executive informed the Commission that

1. regardless of the outcome of the research, the Humber Bridge Board was constrained and legally bound to maintain the Bridge and repay the debt at the present time although it was aware that there was growing opposition to Tolls;
2. because of the method of funding the Humber Bridge and, as part of the debt repayment agreement, the Board was required to maintain an income stream to repay the debt with inflation and the Board had requested an increase in Tolls recently on this basis;
3. any proposals to change the loan agreement would have to be taken up with the Treasury, not the Department of Transport.  The Treasury received £20m per year from Bridge income.  Maintenance of the Bridge of £10m was funded from income from Tolls.  Therefore the Treasury would be required to write-off £30m per year if the "No Tolls" option was pursued;
4. a meeting between the Bridge Board and Government had been requested but was not agreed to whilst the study was on-going.  The debt on opening of the Bridge was high due to the level of interest applicable at the time (circa 17%) and increased construction costs as a consequence of building difficulties.  Further, the interest charged by the Government was compound interest.  Despite the Government reducing the interest level and changing it to simple interest and suspending a portion of the debt it still remained at a significant level.  The debt remaining was considerably higher than the amount originally borrowed to construct the Bridge;
5. the categories for Tolls were due for revision as, the original Tolls were set assuming there would be more use by HGV's but now cars formed the majority of traffic using the Bridge;
6. it was acknowledged that there would be benefits to reducing or abolishing the Tolls i.e. for access to Healthcare.  House prices were lower on the South Bank and the removal of Tolls would open up employment opportunities to residents of the South Bank;
7. the interest rate was set at 5% presently for the loan and Government would be asked to review this in the light of the current lower interest rates generally, and
8. it was believed that the three Hull MP's supported a reduction or removal of Bridge Tolls.

Members raised issues on:

1. the reduction or removal of Tolls on the Humber Bridge being a local one that would not necessarily be of interest to the national economy and therefore not a priority for Government;
2. the advantage for those living on the South Bank needing to use healthcare facilities on the north side should Tolls be reduced or abolished;
3. the Haulage Association being able to provide information on usage by HGV's, should this be needed to enforce the business case to Government for the debt to be removed;
4. the view that the present level of charges, i.e. £2.70 per car each way, was high and the £1 Toll would encourage more use from residents on both sides of the Humber;
5. whether the consultants had challenged the modelling used in the study and the subsequent outcomes;
6. Hull, as the leading Authority with regard to the Humber Bridge, picked up the majority of the precept for this, and
7. the view that Hull's retail trade would probably not benefit significantly from a reduction or abolition of Tolls and concerns about how realistic the figures were that the Bridge Toll review was based on.

 

Mr. R. Kingdom, Project Manager, Regional Development Service, Mr. T. Howard, Director of Economic Development, Hull Forward and Ms. R. Field, Business Development Sector Manager, Hull Forward attended the meeting and presented an update on the Renewable Energy Sector Demand Study which had been due to Cabinet on 23rd February, 2009, but had been delayed until at least 27th May, 2009, as Hull Forward were not in a position to recommend a course of action or further funding.

Members were informed that:

1. businesses in the renewable sector were being looked at with a view to investigating the potential of this sector as part of Hull Forward's Priority Projects Work Stream;
2. the information provided did not include any ongoing work that was being undertaken within the Council.  The Renewable Energy Manager and his team were looking at renewables from the perspective of the Council being a user of energy and may be involved in initiatives in the future;
3. Hull Forward's Business Plan (0038/08) would be considered by Cabinet on 23rd February, 2009, and would then lead to proposals to move the Renewable Energy Sector Project forward;
4. a baseline of information for the City was needed to ensure that the City could support Regeneration Projects and so that an approach could be made to Yorkshire Forward for funding.  This information was now available;
5. a prototype for energy generation by water had been installed on the South Bank of the River Humber, with assistance from South Bank companies.  The University's Marine Renewable Research Group was working with a local consortium, Neptune Renewable Energy Limited, on a device that would convert tidal power into energy for the North Bank of the Humber;
6. in the current economic climate regeneration that would result in jobs to address skill shortages, e.g. engineers, marine related jobs, should be a priority along with business development work;
7. it was acknowledged that some aspects of the Hull Forward Business Plan may be delayed although the Renewable Project would be a priority for Hull Forward;
8. two renewable energy plants were being constructed in the area, one being the Drax Bio-Mass Plan and the other at the Saltend site;
9. it would be challenging to reach a set of opportunities to bring about economic regeneration for the City and in the present climate, Hull Forward would be looking to produce a prioritised list.

Members raised issues on:

1. the Humber becoming a Centre of Excellence for Tidal and Wave Energy and Hull University's involvement in this through the prototype they were developing;
2. the view that Hull Forward had received delegated funding but had not delivered the regeneration that the City Council had expected to date and the need for assurance that work was planned and would produce results in the future to regenerate the City;
3. the need to include Hull University and its key role and contribution to projects in the "next steps";
4. the creation of Call Centres, that would result in jobs for "unskilled" labour and the need to pursue outward investment and improve marketing through the Redevelopment Agency, and
5. the Planning Committee's invitation to Mr. J. Holmes, Chief Executive of Hull Forward to attend the Committee to discuss future regeneration opportunities for the City.

 

The Scrutiny Officer submitted for further action a referral from the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee of 22nd December, 2008, minute 104 (b) that requested that this Commission receive an updated report, giving the latest options and costings available to the City Council, on the proposed Scrutiny Enquiry into Renewable Energy to enable it to decide if it wished to undertake the review.
 

The Scrutiny Officer presented for discussion the Commission's Work Programme for 2008/09.  Discussion was held on the items that officers had requested be slipped to future meetings due to them awaiting information from external bodies, i.e. the Energy Trust and Government and whether the Commission wished to scrutinise the impact of the closure of Walton Street Park and Ride.

Members requested that items remain in the Work Programme as previously agreed as they did not wish to see these priorities delayed.

 

The Scrutiny Officer submitted for possible inclusion in the Commission's Work Programme, new entries in the Forward Plan.