POLICY COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting	Policy Commission for Economy, Tourism, Regeneration and Transport
Ref	E.PC.12/07/06
Date	12 July 2006
Time	18.00 hours
Place	Committee Room 1, County Hall, Newport
Purpose of meeting	Formal Public Meeting
Attendance	Commission	Cllrs George Brown (Commissioner), Henry Adams, Jonathan Fitzgerald-Bond, Ivan Bulwer, Charles Hancock, John Hobart, Lora Peacey-Wilcox
	Cabinet
	Cabinet Secretariat	Cllrs David Pugh, Alan Wells
	Other Councillors	Cllrs Bill Burt, Mike Cunningham, Arthur Taylor
	Officers	Ms Andrea Lisseter, O&S Team Ms April West, O&S Team Mr Dave Moore, Principal Planning Officer
	Stake holders	Tim Cuthbert - MVA Kevin Ratnasingham - MVA
	Apologies
Agenda Items
1. To agree the notes of the previous meeting	1.1 The notes of the meeting held on 14 June 2006 were agreed.
2. To invite Members to declare any interest they might have in the matters on the agenda	2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3. To receive a presentation from MVA on the Island Ports Sustainability Study E1/06	The Commissioner stressed that the Commission’s task in all projects was to examine the elements of prospective policies and to take evidence from stakeholders prior to making recommendations to the Cabinet. The Commissioner emphasised that Commissions were not decision making bodies. 3.1 The Lead Member on the enquiry reiterated the contents of the scoping document which set out the remit of the project. The project was due to be completed by June 2007. 3.2 The Lead Officer on the enquiry introduced Tim Cuthbert and Kevin Ratnasingam from MVA who presented the findings of a study they had undertaken for the Isle of Wight Council to support the Isle of Wight Local Development Framework Core Strategy. 3.3 The study addressed the following with regard to cross Solent travel; cross Solent links, demands for travel, freight movement, analysis of fares, travel growth predictions, capacity issues and port operations including onward transport links. 3.4 The study looked into capacity issues regarding ferries for the year 2010 and 2020. The study showed that ferry capacity should meet the future demand by foot passengers. However, the vehicle ferry figures showed there was likely to be a peak hour problem with capacity by 2010. By 2020 there was also likely to be a more frequent capacity problem, particularly on the East Cowes to Southampton route. This was due to vessel size, a longer journey time than other routes and a less frequent service. 3.5 Solutions to capacity issues could be resolved by increasing the supply by improving port operations and access to ferry terminals and increasing vessel capacity. There were no limitations on vessel size except on the Yarmouth to Lymington route. Capacity issues could also be addressed by managing the demand by encouraging cheaper off peak travel, changing the attitudes of accommodation providers regarding Saturday to Saturday change over days, introducing off-terminal vehicle holding areas for freight to free up space in the immediate port area, and facilitating inter-ticketing where ferry companies accept each others tickets at peak times. Inter-ticketing could result in information signs being displayed on the approach to ports to divert people when ferries are full. Cooperative working can avoid the need for more infrastructure. 3.6 Options for berthing and marshalling were considered. Double berthing would involve one ferry loading while another ferry unloads which could speed up the loading and unloading process. A twin deck marshalling yard would enable two levels of the ferry to be loaded at the same time although this could be controversial due to environmental sensitivities. 3.7 The problems at East Cowes ferry terminal were due to vehicle entry and loading and unloading being constrained within the same area. This lead to congestion at the mini roundabout. MVA understood that the work to be undertaken by SEEDA on the regeneration of the area would look at port traffic management, increasing the capacity of the vehicle holding area and improving the entrance and exit capacity, and reducing local congestion. Real time information could be considered as an option. 3.8 One problem at the Cowes passenger ferry terminal was the misuse of the public transport lay-by. This could be improved by enforcement and a drop off/pick up area away from the High Street. The needs of the commuter also needed to be addressed by improving the entrance and exit capacity, providing facilities for walkers, cyclists and those arriving by bus, providing seating at the bus stop and encouraging park and sail alternatives. There was also a need for real time information. Queues to and from the Cowes floating bridge were also causing congestion. 3.9 The Ryde passenger ferry terminal had scope to optimise the existing parking layout, provide facilities for cyclists, and promote rail as alternative means of travelling to the terminal. There was also a need to provide real time information. 3.10 The main problem at the Fishbourne ferry terminal was the traffic queues backing up to Fishbourne Lane which required occasional Police intervention during peak months. There was scope for improving capacity by moving the ferry ticket office, and providing an overspill vehicle holding area. Removing freight from the area could free up space for cars at peak times. There was limited scope at Fishbourne Lane as it served a local residential community. The issues to be addressed included changing the way people behave on the way to the port and making changes at the port itself. There was also a need for real time information. Twin deck marshalling would be difficult at Fishbourne due to environment sensitivities and interfering with the local community. Double berthing would be a more favourable option. An improved ramp could also be put in place. 3.11 There was insufficient capacity at Yarmouth ferry terminal with queues occurring during peak periods. A pedestrian crossing from the Yarmouth terminal to the public car park was needed. Real time information was also needed to address congestion. Provision for a trailer park at Yarmouth should be considered. 3.12 Passenger ferry terminals were well served by public transport but car ferry terminals were not. 3.13 Island Line was a good service but could be promoted to visitors to the Island as an alternative method of transport to the bay area. There was also scope to expand the existing rail system. Old railway lines could be used. 3.14 There was an existing Quality Transport Partnership on the Island but a Freight Quality Partnership should be considered which could influence transport infrastructure development from a freight perspective. An example of a Freight Quality Partnership was in West London. Information could be found at www.westlondonfqp.com. 3.15 Demand for cross Solent travel was expected to grow in the future due to increased economic activity associated with the emerging Island Plan, housing growth on the Island, and the ongoing popularity of the Island as a tourist destination. 3.16 The Commission would ask the ferry companies for their feedback on the document as the enquiry progressed. 3.17 It was suggested that ferry company websites should allow customers to choose to travel on peak or off peak. 3.18 The report by MVA could be amended at a later date in accordance with the findings of the ports enquiry. 3.19 The report from MVA would be available on the Council’s website following the meeting.
Action required	None