Contact your Parish Council

Name of Review: Railways

What are the objectives and desired outcomes of the review

• Look at quality of rolling stock on Maidstone services.
• Look at the quality of stations and car parking facilities.
• Look into whether commuters travel out of Maidstone to access rail services from a location offering more efficient services, in particular rural stations in the Borough.
• Identify reasons for service cuts.
• Identify to what extent there are problems with the service, and to what extent there is an issue with perception.
• Provide evidence to support lobbying.

What equality issues will need to be considered as part of the review – giving consideration to the 6 strands:

Age Gender Race  Sexual orientation Faith  Disability

• Accessibility and suitability of rail services for disabled residents, the elderly and people with young children.

Which witnesses are required?

• Cabinet Member for Environment.
• Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy.
• Councillor Malcolm Robertson, Member Transport Champion for the Council
• South Eastern Trains
• “Keep Our Trains” campaign group (www.keepourtrains.com)
• MPs
• Nigel Whitburn, Community Development Manager, Actions with Communities in Rural Kent.

Other ways to seek evidence? E.g. site visits, involving members of the public, consultation. *

• Responses to the Kent Messenger “Trains: Maidstone Deserves Better” campaign
• Take a return train journey between Maidstone and London and speak with service users.
• Consider any Census data that may provide evidence as to how many people travel on the rail services.
• Investigate the capacity of car parks at local stations and whether and at what time they become full.
• Investigate levels of fares from X station into Central London.

What information/training is needed?

• Usage statistics for services to be cut.

Suggested time for review and report completion date

2-3 months

How does the review link to council priorities?

A place to achieve, prosper and thrive.

How does this item deliver CfPS effective scrutiny principles?

1            Provides ‘critical friend’ challenge to executive policy-makers and decision-makers

2            Enables the voice and concerns of the public

3            Is carried out by ‘independent minded governors’ who lead and own the scrutiny role

4            Drives improvement in public services

2 – Response to public concern over service cuts.

4 – Lobby provider to improve service.

Any co-optees or expert witnesses?