Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Wilkinson to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

What assessment is being made of the impact on the housing market and on communities due to the increase in Airbnb rentals?

Response from Cabinet Member

It is unclear at present what impact, if any, Airbnb rentals are having specifically on the local housing market and on our communities.

Airbnb is in effect a lodgings agency that specialises in facilitating access to short term B and B accommodation. As such it is likely to have more impact on the Hospitality sector then the Housing sector. As a result the activities of Airbnb fall outside of the Housing Licensing regime.

What is clear is that private rents have increased significantly in Cheltenham in recent years, with the result that many low income households are being priced out of the private rented market.

The upward pressure on private rents suggests that demand for private rented accommodation is exceeding supply. This is likely to be attributable to a number of factors, such as high house prices, which is resulting in many more households remaining within the private rented sector for longer.

The council will be looking to jointly commission with other districts across the county a new Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), once the government have provided further clarity about the methodology that needs to be followed by local authorities when commissioning this type of work. Included within the SHMA will be an assessment of the need for private rented accommodation.

It is envisaged that specific issues and pressure points, such as any potential impact Airbnb rentals are having on the local housing market, could well be identified then.    

2.

Question from Councillor Mason to the Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor Rowena Hay

When is the Borough Council scheduled to move into Delta House?

Response from Cabinet Member

Work is ongoing to develop the relocation strategy which is responding to a changing landscape.

The council is undergoing significant transformation in the way in which staff work and has created agile workspace and promoting flexible working which is reducing the space needs and is informing the strategy for the relocation from the Municipal Offices.

The council has been activity working with other public sector agencies on the potential of a public sector hub to serve residents.

Options for relocation into alternative accommodation either temporarily or permanently are kept under continuous. As yet, due to the shortage of suitable offices, no viable option has been identified. As such, should this position not change, the council will relocate to Delta Place in 2024.

3.

Question from Councillor Harman to the Cabinet Member Housing, Councillor Peter Jeffries

Gloucester City Council has recently announced a 35 per cent reduction in the number of rough sleepers. Understanding fully that this is only one part of a complex and very human issue, can the Cabinet Member confirm what progress is being made in Cheltenham on this issue

Response from Cabinet Member

Nationally rough sleeping has increased by 15%, figures for the South West show an overall increase of 8%, For Gloucestershire numbers in the Forest of Dean and Stroud areas stayed the same, Tewkesbury figures increased, and Cotswold, Gloucester and Cheltenham areas went down.

There has been a 28.5% reduction in rough sleeping across the county (the numbers across the county were 42 in 2016 and 30 in 2017). This is based on the rough sleeper count undertaken on 1st Nov last year, which noted a reduction in those people existing on our streets by 12 over a 12-month period.

Cheltenham also noted a reduction, from 11 to 9 – 19% over the same period. These estimates were based on a street count by P3 of known hotspots for rough sleepers and were combined with other rough sleepers known or believed by agencies to be sleeping rough on that night.

These local outcomes suggest that the county-wide commissioning of assertive outreach services to reduce rough sleeping is beginning to have positive effects. It should be noted however that these rough sleeper counts are based on a snapshot in time, so the actual number of rough sleepers will vary throughout the year. It should also be noted that rough sleepers can move from one local authority area to another, so a better understanding of the overall picture would be provided by looking at the combined outcomes of local authorities, rather than looking at the outcomes of each local authority in isolation.

This year I volunteered and accompanied the P3 outreach team when they undertook the count in Cheltenham, it was enlightening to witness first-hand the process by which these estimates are produced and interaction with rough sleepers. Meeting people who were existing on our streets was extremely humbling, especially given the range and complexities of some of the individual needs and circumstances. Our continued commitment to help and support rough sleepers in Cheltenham with our partners is paramount, as you rightly point out this is a “very human issue”.   

4.

Question from Councillor Walklett to the Chair of the Licensing Committee, Councillor David Willingham

Woody's Henrietta St car park

On 12th January 2017 Licensing Committee members agreed the following:

RESOLVED THAT, no further action be taken in relation to Mr Adrian Wood t/a Woody’s Fruit & Veg street trading consent and that he continue to work with officers to reduce risk.

However one of the outstanding issues (or risks) was the sighting of bicycle racks which restricted access and caused difficulty in erecting stalls. Unfortunately the bicycle racks are still in place and apart from a visit by Licensing Dept during Summer 2017 little appears to have been done to either remove or re-site them. I would ask that Licensing confirm their commitment to fulfilling the Committee members’ resolution with a published timeline for necessary action.

Response from Cabinet Member

I would like to thank Cllr Walklett for raising this matter.  Having a vibrant economy in the Lower High Street area and promoting independent retailers are aspirations that I am sure both he and I share.  The Licensing Committee of 12th January 2017 was also of that opinion when it decided not to follow the officer recommendation, which was to revoke the licence, but agreed to continue the licence while requiring the applicant worked with the council to reduce the risk.

There are clearly a number of complex competing issues, including the provision of a safe, long-term street trading location for Woody’s, the provision of adequate cycle parking in that part of town, as well as the safety of pedestrians accessing the car park and those shopping at Woody’s.

Whilst there may be some risk, the primary entrance to the car park should be from the A4019 Swindon Road, and if someone is not able to drive slowly across a pavement and past a very visible fruit and veg stall without hitting a pedestrian, people might question whether they ought to be driving at all.

The primary role of the Licensing Committee in this matter was to determine whether they felt this was an acceptable location for street trading, which it was deemed to be.  The prioritisation and delivery of the requested changes is not within the direct remit of either licensing officers or the Licensing Committee.  I understand that within the Borough Council, the responsibility for delivering the changes requested by the Licensing Committee falls between Townscape, Property Services, Car Parks and Legal Services, and that the changes may require planning permission as well as some level of approval from Gloucestershire County Council in its role as Highways Authority.

Although, this matter is now not primarily one for the Licensing Committee, I am more than happy to work with the St Paul’s councillors, the applicant and the council to try to find a safe, mutually agreeable and long-term solution. 

In a supplementary question Councillor Walklett stated that after a straightforward licensing decision 13 months ago, clearly very little action had taken place on this matter and he asked the Chair of Licensing Committee whether he considered that a senior leadership role in the Council should now be taking ownership of the problem.

The Chair advised that this was not primarily a licensing matter however he was more than happy to champion the action required.  He confirmed that he had raised it at a senior level of management in the council in the interests of seeking a low-cost and expedient solution.  There were some issues which officers needed to investigate and he had suggested an on-site meeting with Ward councillors and relevant councillors to find a solution that is acceptable to them all and also works for Woody’s.

5.

Question from Councillor Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Please share what was learnt from the traffic experienced through the CTP works in Cheltenham over the Xmas period and outline how this information was captured and informed the decision to implement further phases?

Response from Cabinet Member

My understanding is that traffic is monitored by Gloucestershire County Council as the Highways Authority over 26 monitoring points across the town not simply through areas that have been subject to change through the phased implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan.

Modifications were made to the signal crossing at the Rodney Road / Oriel Road / Imperial Square junction in November 2017, following reports and an investigation into intermittent queueing. No further issues or concerns have been raised to the Highway Authority since the introduction of the modifications.

In a supplementary question Councillor Lillywhite asked why phase 3 of the CTP had been performed when clearly the issues of phase 2 into  the Regent Arcade had not been resolved, over Xmas frequently queuing back up Bath Road and into the High street,  there appears to be a refusal even to acknowledge that they still exist, you are the person that claimed ”my fingerprints are all over this scheme” who is responsible for allowing the progression to phase 3 and why are these problems not being addressed first, as specified to the TRO committee?

The Cabinet Member acknowledged that Councillor Lillywhite could blame him if he needed someone to blame but he did not agree with the assertion made.  He acknowledged there had been problems in Oriel Road in November and there had been traffic issues in the lead up to Christmas however these were not unique at this time of year and he did not accept this was an ongoing problem.

6.

Question from CouncillorQuestion from Councillor Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

The fundamentals principle of the CTP is that visitors and residents travelling by car have such a poor experience that the next time they visit, they will opt for a different mode of transport. How is data being collected to determine the ones that would rather stay in their car and visit somewhere else?

Response from Cabinet Member

I don’t agree with the premise so it is difficult to respond.

Census data shows that around 50% of trips to work are less than 3 miles. This category represents around 30% of trips undertaken on the network, showing there are huge opportunities for modal shift.

The Cheltenham Transport Plan is simply encouraging alternatives other than car into the very heart of the town (for those who have a choice), given that more people travel by bus than private vehicle for this journey and that the changes to date have also encouraged cycling.

If a car borne visitor arrives and can access a car park without entering the previous labyrinthine one way system and can then leave I am perplexed as to why they would drive to a different destination, unless of course they were looking for a very different offer to that available in Cheltenham.

In a supplementary question Councillor Lillywhite said that he was particularly concerned with the ongoing viability of Cavendish House, a regional store, and the ability of out of town shoppers to access it via the Regent Arcade car park. He  believed it would disastrous to lose this key store from the town centre and he asked how would the access impacts on this store, recently seen before Xmas, after Xmas and into the New Year, be monitored through the trial?

The Cabinet Member advised that the traffic monitoring put in place monitored the movement of traffic and not footfall into shops. Cavendish House may be struggling in the current retail climate but he did not believe that the ongoing viability of Cavendish House would be affected by the implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan as this had not been replicated by other businesses in the town centre.

7.

Question from Councillor Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Please explain why the contraflow on Clarence Street and Parade has been dropped from phase 3 of the CTP and will it be attempted (on a reversible "trial" basis) in Phase 4?

Response from Cabinet Member 

Given the commitment to phase the introduction of the Cheltenham Transport Plan I believe that the highways authority has taken every opportunity to review each stage and have adjusted their delivery accordingly.

The initial extent / concept for Phase 3 included returning two-way traffic to Clarence Street and Clarence Parade. Detailed consideration and analysis of the extent of the changes for Phase 3 was undertaken during the second half of 2017.  However, further investigation of various infrastructure configurations demonstrated that changes on Clarence Street and Clarence Parade were unlikely to be successful without the closure of Boots Corner.

Subsequently, phase 3 of the Cheltenham Transport Plan was revised to pause the changes to Clarence Street and Clarence Parade. Clarence Street and Clarence Parade will remain one-way during the trial, as they would require significant construction works which may need to be reversed if the trial is not successful.

Clarence Street and Clarence Parade are planned to be returned to two-way operation if the Boots Corner closure is made permanent following the experimental traffic regulation order.

In a supplementary question Councillor Lillywhite stated that many of the elements of the CTP were  not in place, such as the bus lane directly across the front of Boots into the Lower High Street, the banning of private vehicles on Pittville Street or the mandatory pedestrian crossing that that they cannot determine where to put, even recent media releases state, “Council bosses stressed that any work carried out might be different to that suggested in those illustrations.”  Can you please confirm that these changes will be implemented prior to any trial of Phase 4 to ensure the public are fully aware of what is being considered? Or are these elements that are now excluded from the scheme?

The Cabinet Member advised that to the best of his knowledge nothing had been excluded from the scheme and the order of work was determined by the county council as it implemented Phase 4. Clearly there were certain aspects which were dependent on the closure of Boots Corner, for example they could not implement a bus lane in the lower High Street before Boots Corner was closed.

8.

Question from Councillor Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

It is now being claimed by a number of studies that the ‘stop/start’ nature of congested and queuing traffic emits up to four times more pollutants than when passing through at a steady speed.  Can you please explain why traffic is intentionally being ‘dispersed’ into residential areas on longer, more congested stop/start journeys, increasing pollution where the residents are captive, as opposed to allowing it to flow more cleanly and freely past a transient, visiting, voluntary population on the present, far shorter journey through the town centre. 

Response from Cabinet Member

Again I am not sure to which studies, or the funding / bias of their authors, the question refers to. My understanding is that car manufacturers have introduced stop-start technology as an aid to reducing pollution not increasing it. Councillor Lillywhite should stop trying to scare residents with predictions of congestion and air quality issues in residential streets.

The principles of the CTP were agreed by the GCC Traffic Regulation Order committee in 2015 and endorsed by GCC cabinet and this council.

The modelling work undertaken for the scheme shows traffic dispersing across the whole network with no significant increases in congestion on residential streets or increased air pollution issues. Removing the traffic from the town centre also removes air pollution issues on the High Street. 

My understanding is that the results of the modelling have been borne out by the GCC traffic monitoring, which to date has identified no dispersal of traffic from the phased implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan. Equally that is why phase 4 is an experimental order, to allow monitoring across the town to understand if any impacts occur.

In a supplementary question Councillor Lillywhite commented that, given the initial consultation on Boots Corner, it is astounding that you mention a funding bias!  It is questionable if the wealth of the developers who are supposedly insisting on the closure of Boots corner will be increased, yet the health of the residents and school children is already being impaired, please justify this trade off in the light of an estimated 40,000 premature deaths last year in the UK due to pollution, primarily from traffic. Please do not try and claim, yet again, that the increased traffic does not exist given the recent letter from a resident objecting to the increased traffic and pollution, particularly on Pittville Circus.

The Cabinet Member advised that the evidence to date suggested a significant reduction in pollution as a result of the implementation of phases 1 and 2, mainly as cars no longer have to drive round the inner ring road and clearly there would be a further reduction in the town centre once Phase 4 was completed as there will no longer be traffic flowing through the centre of town. The traffic modelling already carried out did not predict an increased impact of pollution in outlying areas of the town and if any was detected there was a fund which could finance any mitigating actions required.    

9.

Question from Councillor Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

In the CBC Air Quality Annual Status Report dated June 2017, it states the following:  "the Council is now considering revoking the current borough-wide AQMA in favour of a much smaller linear route across the north of the town centre, which has consistently given poor air quality results". There must be no doubt over the impact of the conscious decision made by the Liberal Democrat majority on this Council to increase the pollution from each vehicle and move it into more vulnerable residential areas on longer journeys. What is the status of this consideration and why are we decreasing instead of increasing the area of our monitoring to understand this fundamental change? 

Response from Cabinet Member

Please identify in the minutes of Council where a conscious decision to increase the pollution from each vehicle was passed.

I do not believe that the proposal to change the AQMA area has any impact upon the extent of air quality monitoring, simply that the challenges remain in a focussed area and thereby it is disingenuous to suggest that it is a borough wide problem as it is clearly not the case.

The County Council and the Borough Council are working together throughout the trial period and will be monitoring air quality and traffic flows on both town centre and residential streets to be able access the impact of the scheme. Assessment with real data is key and not un-evidenced guess work.

In a supplementary question Councillor Lillywhite said that, the TRO committee had been assured that the impacts of the changes of each phase would be monitored, yet now it seems there is an intention to reduce the environmental monitoring, excluding three of the five areas of NO2 exceedance in the town, one of which is predicted to see over a 100% increase in traffic, why does there appear to be an intention to fail to undertake this necessary evaluation of the scheme? Particularly why other areas of the town are likely to receive considerably more traffic?

The Cabinet Member advised that the overall monitoring areas had been reduced but not in the sense that any key areas had been cut out but only to exclude areas of the town where there was not likely to be a problem. If Councillor Lillywhite could supply him with the details of the areas which were not included which may have a potential problem with air quality he would provide him a written response within two weeks as requested.

10.

Question from Councillor Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

What steps are being taken to ensure up to date accident statistics are available without a six month delay in registering them so that decisions made on the CTP are better informed?

Response from Cabinet Member

Recording and reporting data from personal injury collisions on the highway network is undertaken by the police. The County Council, Police and Borough Council will monitor the accident statistics during the trial. 

Each phase of the CTP has undergone independent road safety audits during design and after construction, to review the scheme and identify any opportunities for improvement.

In a supplementary question Councillor Lillywhite referred to Appendix A of the TRO Committee recommendation which specifies that junctions works to the Royal Well Road and Crescent Terrace are dependent on restrictions at Boots corner. Yet without these necessary works for this consent, these changes have taken place, Taxi drivers have complained in the press of the danger of this change and there has been at least one accident involving a stagecoach bus. What action is to be taken in the light of this?

The Cabinet Member advised that the impact of Phase 3 was currently being evaluated by Gloucestershire County Council and the results will be reported in due course. He clarified that the works performed by the county traffic team had in fact been run in front of and agreed by the TRO committee to ensure that they would be effective and appropriate, and if Councillor Lillywhite had any concerns with this he should raise them with the relevant county council officers.

11.

Question from Councillor Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Why is it now necessary to signpost Evesham and Winchcombe from the town centre along a route that you are determined to close, yet when an explanation of signposting was previously requested it was claimed that traffic will ‘disperse’ or  ‘find its own way’?

Response from Cabinet Member

Simply because on a phased implementation plan, that currently is the route; Boots Corner remains open to through traffic. When the phase 4 experimental traffic order is implemented I believe that there will be a parallel exercise to amend signing as required

In a supplementary question Councillor Lillywhite rephrased his original question. When putting this scheme to the public there was a refusal to identify alternate routes, yet now it is considered necessary to signpost the route even though it has not changed! Where in Cheltenham could you conceivably signpost and route the traffic to "Evesham and Winchcombe", Surely not through the overloaded College Road into High Street bottleneck, nor through the Gloucester Road into Tewkesbury Road jam-up. As the person whose fingerprints are all over this scheme, why do you refuse to acknowledge these implications?

The Cabinet Member was happy to acknowlege the implication that once Boots Corner was closed you could not put traffic through it.  At the moment there was a route through so it was signposted and when the route ceases to be there it will not be signposted and alternative routes will then be signposted from further out of town. That was in the hands of the County Council at this stage but he would certainly expect that signposting to be in place prior to the closure of Boots corner.

12.

Question from Councillor Ryder to the Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman 

Given the sensitive matter of the cremators being down at this present time (13/2/18) at the Crematorium, do you envisage that the two cremators will be repairable to a sufficient standard that will support our clients, the Funeral Homes over the next 15 month or so, until the New Crematorium is in use? 

Response from Cabinet Member

Cllr Ryder will be aware of the longstanding issues with our cremators at the Bouncers Lane site, which were installed by a company which went into liquidation before the contract was completed. In common with 11 other local authorities that had equipment provided by the same company, we have experienced recurring problems with the unreliability of the plant and higher than expected maintenance costs. The issues with the current plant are one of the primary reasons for the construction of the new crematorium, which is due to be completed in Spring 2019.

Our maintenance contractor ATI, who are a major player in the cremation industry, is currently undertaking works to the existing cremators which we anticipate will allow our ability to cremate at the site to be reinstated.

I will be providing a verbal update on the current situation to Council.