Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Colin Hay.

Councillors Garnham and McKinlay declared a personal interest in that they were representatives on the Cheltenham Development Task Force.

Councillor Driver declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 15-exempt minutes as a board member of CBH.

To consider under Council procedure rule 16.1 a request from Mr A Lilywhite to record the meeting

The Chief Executive explained that Mr Adam Lillywhite had requested that an audio recording be made of the Council meeting and that this request required Council approval. Government guidance was for councils to accede to such requests where possible in the interests of accessibility and accountability. He noted that many councils already webcast or audio record their meetings. He then explained that arrangements were in place to record this meeting and this would be made available.

The Chief Executive then suggested that if Members would like to consider the feasibility of putting such arrangements in place for future meetings, a scrutiny task group could look further into the issue of recording and webcasting meetings. There would have to be some assessment of cost and resources, public availability after the meeting, archiving and storage, implications for the written minutes and constitutional changes.

Members unanimously supported this proposal. The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny agreed that this would be discussed at the O&S meeting on 25 November.

7 October 2013

Councillor Driver wished to record that she would be abstaining from the approval of the minutes as she did not believe they were an accurate reflection of what happened.

Councillor Garnham wished to record his dissatisfaction that the public minute of agenda item 14 did not record the reason why the item was being brought to Council as an exempt urgent item. He clarified that he had requested that this item be brought to Council as a letter had been received from the Cabinet Office to the effect that within 24 hours Cheltenham Borough Council’s access to the Public Service Network (PSN) risked being switched off. He understood that the reason why the item was discussed in exempt session was due to the serious threat to CBC’s IT systems.

Councillor Smith asked for an update on the PSN situation as the minutes noted that Councillors would be notified by email and no such communication had been received. In response the Chief Executive explained that CBC was still awaiting confirmation of compliance from the Cabinet Office.

The Leader of the Council invited Councillor Garnham to propose an amendment to the minutes. Councillor Garnham proposed the following amendment to the minutes “Councillor Garnham had brought this as an urgent item to Council because of the urgent nature of the content of the letter from the Cabinet Office dated 19 September 2013 in which it was made clear that Cheltenham Borough Council’s access to the PSN network could be switched off within 24 hours of the date of the Council meeting.”

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

RESOLVED THAT (with 4 abstentions)

The minutes (as amended) of the meeting held on 7 October, be approved and signed as a correct record.

The Mayor thanked everyone, Councillors and the public, who had attended the Remembrance Day service on 10 November.

The Mayor then announced that this week was Interfaith week and urged Members to get involved in related events.

The Leader notified Councillors that Councillor Holliday had been appointed to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 12 November and must relate to the business for which this meeting was convened

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 12 November and must relate to the business for which this meeting was convened

None.

A debate on a petition received on 23 August 2013 (deferred from 7 October meeting)

Mr Adam Lillywhite was invited to address Council. He explained that he was representing a group of residents who understood the implications of closing Boots Corner. The group questioned the economic drivers as they believed that much of the claimed benefit would be negated by the predictable outcome.  In their view, traffic would not simply ‘disappear’ without major implications for the town, the modelling was negligent and the plan failed to understand or mitigate its own impact.  More sensitive economic, environmental and social solutions existed and needed exploring.

Mr Lillywhite explained that factor analysis showed that the four shortest alternate routes on average more than doubled journey length and complexity. This meant that twice as many cars, congestion, pollution and danger to the public, all of which would be moved out of the purpose built one way system to car lined narrow residential streets where the impact would be far greater. The model used did not include the 26% increase in households (outlined in the JCS) or allow for a vast new supermarket generating 1000 plus extra journeys an hour around the town centre at busy times.

Mr Lillywhite believed that the principle stakeholders had not been involved in this plan and early efforts to engage in the process had been rebuffed.  The refusal to discuss issues meant that potentially crucial options remained unexplored. He also stated that the pre-determination of this decision was clear from letters, and an early meeting with the local MP and the re-location of traders so that work could commence.  This pre-determination had driven the optimistic bias of the consultation which did not identify negative impact, used inadequate maps, and exaggerated the benefit. The leaflet misled respondents and left them unable to make an informed and reasoned judgement as legally required by the Gunnings principle.  Given the ambiguity of the response options and interpretation, given that ‘Closure’ was not mentioned on the entire response form, residents therefore believed that this could not be considered a mandate.  Two and half times as many people have explicitly requested that Boot Corner remains open, not closed.

Mr Lillywhite made reference to Protocol 1 of the Human rights act which states, “that a person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes not only the home but also the surroundings.” He believed that this had been totally ignored.

In summing up Mr Lillywhite said that the failure to appropriately weigh the aforementioned risks had led the petitioners to believe that, like the electorate, Councillors have not been made fully aware of the consequences of closing Boots Corner. He believed there were better alternatives such as shared space and timed options which would achieve the desired outcome without the economic, environmental and social costs. He therefore urged the Council to implement smarter choices and seek alternatives to the closure of Boots Corner.

Councillor McKinlay thanked Mr Lillywhite for his petition which he welcomed as this was an important issue and it was right that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Cabinet Member Built Environment

Councillor McKinlay, Cabinet Member Built Environment, introduced the report on the Cheltenham Transport Plan consultation.  He told Members that the current one way system had been built around an 18^th century townscape and it was never going to work effectively.  He reminded Members that the proposals to review the traffic flows in Cheltenham had a long history starting back in 2001 with the Latham Report, public consultation in 2007, followed by consultation on Civic Pride and the traffic management plan in 2008. 

The key elements of the plan included two way travel down some current one way systems, redesigning 13 junctions and the removal of 5 sets of traffic lights in addition to the closure of Boots Corner to through traffic.  The current traffic management system was a barrier to the town, and the proposals would help increase the attractiveness of the town centre and bolster the town’s economy.  Traffic volumes would decrease in certain areas and this would assist with air quality.  The proposals would also assist the access to town centre car parking, and the improved safety measures would assist in encouraging more cycling and walking.

He drew attention to appendix A of the report which set out the details of the consultation exercise undertaken, and to the wide range of concerns which had been identified by the public, and which were set out on pages 27-48 of the agenda pack.  He was pleased with the level of response and that the public had engaged with the process.

The proposals would address a number of long standing existing problems with traffic movements around the town and also address the predicted increase in traffic over the coming years.  Tourism and commerce would be boosted by the proposals and it would encourage a more sustainable transport system.  He believed it was good for town and the people of Cheltenham and he wished to recommend it to Council.

The Cabinet Member referred Members to the amended resolutions that had been circulated at the start of the meeting and proposed the following recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Jordan.

That Council

i)                    Considers the Cheltenham Transport Plan Consultation Report produced on behalf of GCC for CBC, along with the initial suggestions for dealing with the concerns raised; and

ii)                  Confirms its support for the Cheltenham Transport Plan and recommends that Cabinet requests that GCC undertakes the enabling statutory Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process to facilitate delivery of the Cheltenham Transport Plan

iii)                Cabinet be recommended, subject to the outcome of the TRO process, to request GCC to either:

a)     progress the delivery of the Cheltenham Transport Plan, and monitor it for an evaluation period of several months, with a view to identifying any appropriate mitigation measures, using the £100 000 LSTF monies specifically allocated for this purpose; or

b)     reconsider the options for delivering or otherwise the Cheltenham Transport Plan in liaison with CBC and the Cheltenham Development Taskforce

The Mayor then asked Members for any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

There were none.

There were none.

None.

The Council is recommended to approve the following resolution:-

“That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining agenda items as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3; Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular

person (including the authority holding that information)

Paragraph 5; Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings

Exempt Minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2013

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2013 were approved and signed as a correct record.