Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay, introduced the report regarding the release of reserve funds for the Cheltenham Transport Plan (CTP). The report recommended the release of funds to implement temporary and mitigation works related to the Cheltenham Transport Plan. Implementation was about to commence using a phased programme, which differed significantly from the single phase implementation previously envisaged. He explained that funding was from two tranches:

·         £100,000 from unallocated capital receipts was to be available for use immediately the implementation of phase 1 commenced; and

·         £50,000 from Civic Pride reserve (approved as part of the 2014/15 Budget Setting Report – 14^th February 2014 - specifically for mitigation) was to be available for use when phase 4 (works at Boots Corner) commences.

He referred to the amended recommendations which had been circulated to Members before the start of the meeting. The changes addressed some of the concerns expressed by Members and the public in their questions in that the £50K from the Civic Pride reserve would now be held until phase 4 commenced.   This would ensure that there would be funding available for any mitigating issues as a result of the works at Boots Corner.

He emphasised that in passing the resolutions, Council would be allocating funds already included in the budget. There was an immediate need to progress with phase 1 due to the agreement with John Lewis. He emphasised that the council would not necessarily be spending all the money allocated but it would be there if required to carry out mitigation work for any unforeseen issues.

The Mayor invited Members to ask questions of the Cabinet Member.

• Would the local ward councillors be fully engaged in discussions on any mitigation issues?
• The traffic officers at GCC would not necessarily consult with the Cabinet Member but he would pass on any advice he was given to local ward councillors. He suggested that if there were knock-on effects in Oriel Road or St Lukes, which GCC hadn’t addressed as part of their mitigation measures, then this could be a case for using some of the additional funding allocated in this resolution today for mitigation measures.
• Was the Cabinet Member confident that the funding referred to in the report would cover all the necessary mitigation work across the town and would this include mitigation work beyond the ring road?
• The Cabinet Member was confident that it would be sufficient and emphasised that £50K was being held back for phase 4. The funds of £100K that GCC had allocated for mitigation work would be confined to where the TROs were taking place whereas the CBC funds could be allocated in areas beyond this where there were knock-on impacts.
• Asked to consider the hypothetical situation where the funds the Council had allocated were insufficient, the Cabinet Member suggested that something would have gone seriously wrong if the council was to get to that point. The Cabinet Member Finance added that the success of the CTP was so significant to the future of Cheltenham that his successor would have to ensure that a solution could be found bringing back a report to this Council seeking additional funding if necessary.
• Could the wards affected include Pittville as certainly Clarence Square could be one area that could be adversely affected.
• The Cabinet Member agreed to add this to the list. He advised that the funds could be released anywhere that they were needed but the four wards specifically mentioned had designated TROs.
• Could the process for assessing the impact of each phase be clarified?
• The Cabinet Member advised that the process would be carried out by GCC and they would be making the decisions. In carrying out this assessment it would be short-term and looking for any showstoppers whereas CBC would be considering the more longer-term impacts.
• The timetable suggests a three-month period between phases. Can the Cabinet Member confirm that the timetable would allow full testing between phases and had the timetable being reassessed in view of the slippage.
• The Cabinet Member confirmed that GCC were confident in the timetable even with the slippage and that they could achieve the 2017 completion date.
• Had the Cabinet Member specifically asked GCC to be involved in the process or have they refused to have a dialogue with him?
• The CTP has been progressing for the last 10 years and this council has worked closely with GCC at all stages to ensure an appropriate scheme for Cheltenham. GCC had submitted the funding bid to government and was now the responsible authority for the implementation. Although the Cabinet Member would have preferred that responsibility to be with the borough council it was a false idea to suggest that the council was washing its hands of it.
• Can the Cabinet Member guarantee that no organisation from this town will try to interfere in GCC's decisions on the success or otherwise of the schemes?
• Any organisation was free to make representations and express their views to the county council so he was not in a position to make that guarantee nor would he want to be in a position to do so.

In the debate that followed two Members from College Ward indicated that they would be planning to abstain from the vote. Whilst supporting the additional funds for the mitigation work, they did not support the proposals in the CTP which they felt would increase traffic through the communities they represented. They were concerned that the mitigation work would not be sufficient to diminish the impact on their residents, particularly if other wards may be competing for the money.

A Member highlighted that in January 2015, they had proposed an amendment to the CTP to do all the schemes on an experimental basis but they had been advised that this was too expensive. They had proposed additional funds for mitigation and were pleased that this had been accepted at the time and they welcomed the additional funding that was now being proposed. They felt that the council had a responsibility to reflect the views of residents in the many wards across town who were really worried about the potential blight to their homes. It was important to listen to these residents and try and address their concerns as the schemes progressed.

A Member stressed that in his view recommendation 3 did not set out to exclude ward councillors and residents but reflected the democratic process that had to be followed in making any decisions.

Councillor Adam Lillywhite proposed an amendment which was seconded by Councillor Stennett to add the following additional recommendation:

4. During the assessment period for each completed construction phase of the CTP request the Highways Authority to report on it and the contents of the next phase to full Council for their agreement to continue.

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Lillywhite reminded Members of the reasons why he was opposed to the CTP. He felt there must be controls in the implementation of the schemes going forward and a proper democratic process should be followed. If Members were to vote for this amendment he believed it would reinstate public confidence that the council still had a voice and some influence.

The Mayor asked for advice from officers on the legality of the amendment. The Head of Law advised that the council could make such a request to the county council but they could not insist upon it.

Members speaking against the amendment felt that it was an ineffective, toothless resolution. The evaluations of each scheme were already included in the plans and they had been assured by GCC that the Cabinet Member would have access to these evaluations. It was dangerous for this council to try and micromanage the implementation and was not a good use of CBC resources. Other Members also highlighted the impracticability of trying to arrange Council meetings to fit in with the implementation timetable and this could cause unnecessary delays. Another Member suggested that a better way would be for Overview and Scrutiny to set up a review process as they could invite residents to give their views and could request officers from GCC to attend and answer questions.

Some Members were concerned that there could be a liability for consequential damages if this council were to insist on changes to the CTP and this could pose financial risks for the Council.  The Chief Executive advised Members that should this situation arise, officers would be able to give clear advice to Members on any potential liabilities. There may be some liabilities but officers could not give hypothetical advice at this stage.

A number of Members supported the thinking behind the amendment and welcomed the opportunity for another layer of scrutiny and public engagement. There were many uncertainties around the traffic schemes and it was important that the council received reports on progress and had the opportunity to express its views to the GCC. There was concern that similar amendments for progress updates had been requested before but Members were not aware that anything had been happening. Despite requests to GCC, some ward Members felt disenfranchised and that they had not been specifically consulted or kept informed by GCC. They agreed that it would send a message of support to residents that their views would be listened to and would make the process more open and accountable. The amendment was fundamentally about improving communications and giving the GCC an opportunity to demonstrate that they were listening to Cheltenham concerns. 

The Chief Executive was asked to advise on the procedural implications of passing such an amendment. He advised that if the recommendations were approved, then he would approach GCC to make the request as firmly as possible and agree dates when progress could be reported back to this Council. If these dates were not compatible with the timetable of Council meetings then special meetings would have to be arranged. If the GCC did not agree to the request, the Council would have no comeback. He emphasised that the council could make requests to GCC for alterations to a particular scheme but the cost liabilities would have to be carefully considered at the time.

Councillors Stennett as seconder of the amendment, suggested that a lot of people in the town were very worried about the scheme which represented a big and very important step for the town and the more information the council could get the better.

In his summing up, Councillor Lillywhite said there were facilities for break points in the contracts and he was confident that the assessment phases could be fitted in with the timetable of Council meetings. The process must be transparent and there must be a democratic process for giving their responses to the county council. He concluded that Members in the chamber would be accountable for the scheme if there was a problem so this check and balance was essential.

In responding to the amendment, Councillor McKinlay was concerned that passing the amendment would give a message to the GCC that the borough council had reservations about the scheme. He did not disagree that the county council should be asked to report back regularly on the scheme but he proposed that the final phrase of the amendment “to full Council for their agreement to continue” should be deleted.

Councillor Lillywhite was not happy to accept this amendment and therefore there was a vote on the amendment. This was LOST.

Voting (For 12, Against 21 and 3 abstentions).

The debate then moved back to the substantive motion.

Councillor Rawson as seconder of the motion, emphasised that the CTP was not just about Boots Corner and he emphasised the importance of the scheme to the town. The changes to Albion Street were very important for the John Lewis development. The council must ensure the appropriate mitigation takes place and passing these resolutions would ensure that the necessary funds could be released at the appropriate time.

A the request of Councillor Babbage, the Cabinet Member Development and Safety indicated that he would be happy to add a recommendation 4 requesting that the highways authority supply regular updates to himself and he would be able to pass those updates to Members via e-mail or to overview and scrutiny if preferred.

Upon a vote the motion with this additional recommendation  was CARRIED.

Voting (For 34 with 2 abstentions)

RESOLVED THAT

In order to fund works in support of the Cheltenham Transport Plan during its implementation and trials,:

1. £100,000 be allocated from unallocated capital receipts towards works that may be necessary to assist implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan, in keeping with the phased approach agreed by the County Council and in close cooperation with Gloucestershire Highways;
2. The future appropriation of £50,000 from the Civic Pride reserve which has previously been approved for mitigation work associated with the implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan be agreed ; this funding to be reserved for use during and after the final stage of implementation at Boots Corner  and spent in close cooperation with the County Council and Gloucestershire Highways; and
3. It be noted that decisions regarding the spending on individual elements of the project will be delegated to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety in consultation with the Managing Director Place and Economic Development and the Managing Director of the Cheltenham Development Task Force.
4. During the assessment period for each completed construction phase of the CTP, the Highways Authority be requested to report on it and the contents of the next phase.