Agenda item
Public Questions
These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 9 October 2018.
Minutes:
|
1. |
Question from Malcolm Rogers to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Why have you felt it necessary to go on public media, and indicate to the public, that you are not bothered about taxi drivers losing their livelihoods? By saying it’s their choice to buy a £30,000 Wheelchair vehicle or get out of the trade?
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The Council’s Taxi and Private Hire Car policy was adopted in March 2018 by Cabinet and supported later in the same month by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny committee.
For clarity the policy in relation wheelchair accessible vehicles is as follows:-
By 2021 all Taxis will be required to be Wheelchair accessible and only wheelchair accessible vehicles will be licenced as Taxis by Cheltenham Borough Council from that date.
Taxi Drivers have been given three years to adjust to the change to help minimise the potential impact on their businesses.
There are two basic options available to a current Taxi driver. 1) Change their existing saloon vehicles for a Wheel chair accessible vehicle (which cost from £10,000 upwards) 2) Retain their existing car and operate under a Private Hire Car licence, until such time as they wish to replace it
As you can see the new policy neither forces Taxi Drivers to pay £30,000 for a new car, nor threatens their livelihoods.
In a supplementary question Mr Rogers explained that he had purchased a Hackney Carriage taxi plate from an existing licence owner and had considered this his pension fund. However, following the introduction of the new policy the sale value had dropped from £20,000 to £0. Alongside the policy to comply with the wheelchair accessible vehicle policy he queried whether this was fair on taxi drivers or any small business?
The Cabinet Member explained that encouraging wheelchair accessible vehicles had been in place since 1988. The sale of taxi plates was a grey area which had never been condoned by the council and the purchase of one had been done at the drivers own risk.
|
|
2. |
Question from Malcolm Rogers to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Have you undertaken a survey, at each rank to see how many wheelchair users are actually using the ranks? And how many elderly and infirm users cannot safely use these wheelchair cars?
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
No. The policy has been developed in response to national legislation and guidance, plus consultation with disability groups.
The requirement for the council to undertake a substantive unmet demand survey in relation to the policy decision is not strictly necessary.
Notwithstanding, Cabinet remains of the view that the council needs to be proactive in improving accessibility standards for the travelling public in Cheltenham. Grandfather rights have caused a stagnation of growth of accessibility standards. Cabinet is of the view that Government have been clear that local councils need to be proactive in improving accessibility standards.
Through consultation the council have looked at various options giving consideration to the representations made to the council. Given the complexities of the issues involved, the council is considering a wide range of views and evidence in coming to its policy conclusions and would not wish to limit itself to a single piece of evidence.
Further consultation is being undertaken with disability groups to inform the policy implementation moving forward.
In a supplementary question Mr Rogers queried why, in his opinion, the Council were discriminating against the elderly and infirm as this demographic far outweighed the number of wheelchair users in the town, yet they were unable to safely use the wheelchair accessible vehicles.
The Cabinet Member explained that in its recommendations following the 2017 consultation, the Government acknowledged that low slung vehicles were not suitable for the majority and wheelchair accessible vehicles were much more functional. As such, he strongly disagreed with Mr Roger’s notion that the Council were discriminating against the elderly and infirm.
|
|
3. |
Question from Edward Cassell to Cabinet Member, Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Have the Cabinet identified a specific gap/demand in provision for wheelchair users which isn’t currently being met? If so what analysis has been undertaken of what is actually needed? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
See answer to Question 2 above.
In a supplementary question Mr Cassell questioned whether the Cabinet had identified a gap in the provision for wheelchair accessible vehicles in the town.
The Cabinet Member reiterated that whilst no statutory testing had been conducted various other forms of consultation had taken place.
|
|
4. |
Question from Edward Cassell to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
When the all WAV taxi and private hire policy was voted in, the date of '2021' was given. When was this arbitrary date added to the taxi policy, and therefore when was it open to consultation. |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The 2021 deadline was set based on Government guidelines that indicate that three years is an appropriate transition period to introduce WAV Taxis. The decision was made in March 2018 thus 2021.
In a supplementary question Mr Cassell queried whether the Cabinet taken in to account the needs of elderly residents who were physically unable to access WAV’s?
The Cabinet Member explained that the Government Research had suggested that WAV’s vehicles were suitable for the majority and in instances where they were not appropriate public hire vehicles could be used.
|
|
5. |
Question from Derrick Sorrell to Cabinet Member Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Which part of the "Equalities Act 2010" refers to, 'changing all Taxis to Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles' |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The Equalities Act 2010 does not refer to all Taxis having to be changed to Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles.
However, 160 -165 of the Equalities Act 2010 does refer to the requirement that all Taxis comply with Disability Access Standards. Unfortunately there is no statutorily approved Disability Standard for Taxis, and as a result Councils across the country have adopted the Wheelchair Accessibility Standard to ensure compliance.
In a supplementary question Mr Sorrell reported that under the Equalities Act 2010, no reference had been made to the necessity for all taxis to be wheelchair accessible and therefore queried why the Council were doing it?
The Cabinet Member reiterated the point that they had a duty to ensure all taxis comply with the Disability Access Standards under the Equalities Act 2010, and as there was no statutorily definition of Disability Standard for Taxis they had defaulted to the Wheelchair Accessibility Standards for which there was a definition.
|
|
6. |
Question from Derrick Sorrell to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
At the Overview and Scrutiny meeting Councillor McKinlay referred to all taxis in Scotland being wheelchair accessible, to whom did he get this information from or where did he get this information? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
I do not recall saying that all Taxis in Scotland were Wheelchair Accessible. I do recall saying that all Taxis in London were 100% Wheelchair Accessible.
I include below the full minute of my testimony to the Overview and Scrutiny, for information.
“Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay
What are your thoughts on the policy?
The Cabinet Member explained the process followed leading up to the decision by Cabinet on 6 March 2018 to adopt the revised policy. The details of the working group as well as consultation and feedback was set out in the Cabinet report which had been circulated. The results of the consultation were set out in detail in Appendix 4 of the Cabinet report.
He went on to highlight the 6 main elements of the new policy and in particular he highlighted the reasons for changing the grandfather rights which were fully set out in the report.
In 1988 the council had passed a policy that required all taxis to support the disabled. However the taxi drivers with the grandfather rights had continued to use saloon cars which were not accessible by disabled people and therefore not fit for purpose.
Disability access was less well-defined so a requirement for wheelchair accessibility would ensure the vehicle could be accessed by everybody. Currently the proportion of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) in the fleet provided a one in five chance that a vehicle in the taxi rank would be suitable for a wheelchair user which he stated he considered discriminatory and therefore unacceptable.
He emphasized that it was the council's policy and not the taxi drivers that was discriminatory. It would be easier to implement the government's requirement for 100% disability access and guide dog accessibility if taxis were required to be 100% wheelchair accessible.
He referred to a report produced by the Department for Transport in August 2017 entitled Accessibility Action Plan Consultation saying it gave a clear indication of government thinking on this matter. In the forward by the Government Minister at the time the Minister said “My ambition is to ensure that people with physical and hidden disabilities have the same access to transport and opportunities to travel as everyone else….. this government is committed to improving disabled people's access to transport. As we set out in our 2017 manifesto, we believe that where you live, shop, go out, travel or park your car should not be determined by your disability.”
The report provided statistics that 7% of children, 18% of people of working age and 44% of pensionable age had some sort of disability. The report went on to detail the significant progress that had been made with buses (94%) and as of 2015 over 58% of taxis were accessible and this included all London taxis.
He referred to section 3.8 of the report which highlighted the need for all vehicles designated as wheelchair accessible by the licensing authority to comply with the specific requirements preventing passengers who use assistance dogs or wheelchairs from being refused carriage or charged extra for their journey. He stated this presented a loophole if the licensing authority did not designate any vehicles as wheelchair accessible as then the legislation would not apply. Furthermore under the Equality Act 2010, taxi drivers must make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to access those services. He stated that clearly 78% of taxis in Cheltenham were not conforming to this requirement.
His conclusion was that the government view was clear in that disability discrimination in public transport was unacceptable and local authorities must use their powers to rectify the situation.
How would you respond to some of the issues raised in the letter of representation from the National Association?
The Cabinet Member did not believe he had broken any law and he could prove this was the case. He pointed out that many local authorities had adopted similar policies and every challenge had failed particularly because much of the information referred to in the letter was out of date.
He disputed the allegation that there had been confusion in the consultation document and it had been absolutely clear on the options being put forward. It had been stated in the document that if drivers did not want to swap their vehicle before 2021 they could still operate as a private hire vehicle after that date should they wish.
The representation had made various references to the Equality Act 2010 part of which stated that the parts of this Act were not capable of being introduced. The Cabinet Member disputed this and stated that the government consultation in 2017 demonstrated that the government believed the act was enforceable.
Regarding the financial impact on taxi drivers, the Cabinet Member pointed out that the role of the council as the licensing authority was to ensure public safety and not to secure the income of local taxi drivers. He felt this argument had been overplayed in the representation as drivers could continue to operate with their own vehicles as private hire. Regarding the practice of selling license plates on the grey market, this had no basis in law because the plates belonged to the licensing authority and not to the driver.
The Cabinet Member suggested that the two legal cases referred to in the representation related to cases which preceded the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 and were taken in lower courts. He referred to a more relevant case heard in January 2011 brought against Stratford-upon-Avon District Council on the grounds of insufficient consultation. The Court of Appeal had judged in this case that although Cabinet did not have all the information, the Licensing Committee had had access to it before recommending the policy to Cabinet. The court also made a judgement on appropriate levels of consultation with disabled groups which the Cabinet Member considered knocked a lot of holes in the arguments made in the letter of representation relating to this call-in.
The representation referred to the cost of a new Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV) being in the region of £36K. The Cabinet Member outlined his own research which found that a wheelchair compliant vehicle such as a Peugeot Horizon could be purchased new for £16K and a 3 year-old vehicle for £10K and on Auto Trader he had found 26 suitable silver vehicles on sale earlier that day. He also referred to a response from a taxi driver in the consultation who had suggested that a WAV could be acquired for £2-3 K and therefore would be flooding the taxi market. The taxi drivers could not have it both ways and the Cabinet Member maintained that WAVs were no more expensive.
In conclusion he did not consider that the arguments in the letter of representation held much water and this was evidenced by the fact that at least 60 councils across the country had introduced similar policies to the one that this Cabinet had approved.
The Chair invited questions from Members to the Cabinet Member.
In conclusion the Cabinet member disputed the suggestion that the policy was introducing anything outrageous or unusual and he considered it was the right way forward.”
In a supplementary question Mr Sorrell questioned where the Cabinet Member had got the information from when he had said that ‘all taxis in Scotland were wheelchair accessible vehicles'?
The Cabinet Member did not recall saying such a statement and confirmed that this was not the case. He reported that Aberdeen were in the process of debating on a policy to make all taxis wheelchair accessible. He advised that the majority of cities and larger towns had such 100 %policies and the situation in Scotland was similar to that of England.
|
|
7. |
Question from Robert Cowie to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Should a subsidy, reduced licence or grant be available for drivers to run the wheelchair accessible cars needed to meet local need rather than the draconian approach being taken? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
No.
In a supplementary question Mr Cowie questioned the empathy of the Cabinet Member for taxi drivers and financial hardship they would experience from the policy and said this local policy decision went against the Liberal Democrats party statement on inequality.
In response, the Cabinet Member explained that the policy was in line with the vast majority of towns and cities in the country and that drivers had the option to operate under a Private Hire Car licence if they did not wish to change their vehicle. |
|
8. |
Question from Robert Cowie to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
When the future of the taxi industry is concerned with ULEV why did Councillor McKinlay ignore the findings of the working group tasked to consult on a new Taxi and Private hire policy, which consisted of Councillors, Stakeholders, and Drivers. |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The findings of the Working Group were included as one of the submissions considered in developing the new policy, and was referenced in the report considered by Cabinet in March 2018.
In a supplementary question Mr Cowie queried why the Council were favouring diesel taxis that conform to an outdated emissions standard(euro 5) just to allow the policy to proceed? He stated that the policy was preventing them from working in the other boroughs in the county due to the emission standards required.
The Cabinet member advised that they were actively encouraging low use and electrical vehicles and were adopting the European standards on air quality. |
|
9. |
Question from Hannah Wright to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Earlier this year, Gloucester City Council banned the release of balloons and sky lanterns from council-owned land.
Sky lanterns and balloons have caused wildlife and livestock deaths, and fires including that which destroyed over 50 caravans near Tewkesbury in 2013, and 'the largest fire West Midlands had seen' at a recycling plant in 2013.
Will the council consider joining over 80 other councils in England and Wales, in banning the release of sky lanterns from Cheltenham parks?
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
Cheltenham Borough Council banned the release of balloons and sky lanterns from council-owned land in 2010. The following information is displayed on the council website: ‘Release of sky lanterns and balloons: We have a duty of care to ensure the safety of visitors and the local community. In the interest of safety and protecting the surrounding environment, the launching of ‘Sky Lanterns’, or items of a similar nature, from council-owned land and premises is not permitted’.
I would be keen to support a legislative move to restrict the sale and/or use of these items to prevent or mitigate their use on private land as well. |
|
10. |
Question from Carl Williams to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
People across the town still have no idea why boots corner is closed and you give no real explanation. Please explain? Has the town had an increased pollution rate since the closure? Yes Is there more congestion? Yes Is footfall in shops down? Yes Are people staying away because of our road system? Yes Do the emergency services support the closure and increased traffic in other areas? No (I have spoken to many emergency services people and all do not understand it) Is the boots corner pedestrianised? No buses and taxis still travel through ( these vehicles are the highest pollutants) Have you made alternative routes or altered the road system to cope? No Have you reduced the amount of available parking for disabled people? Yes and no provision near the centre of town
The majority of the people in this town are fed up with this scheme. This development in a very old town centre has not been thought through, if you want to pedestrianise the roads you must - provide alternative routes capable of taking the increase in traffic - alter the road system to cope - stop ALL traffic through the centre including buses and taxis
This system is causing mayhem, closing businesses and making people lose their jobs. |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The Cheltenham Transport Plan has been discussed for several decades. Its purpose being to cut the severance of the High Street at Boots Corner of several thousand vehicle movements per day. Town centres are under pressure as never before as a result of global changes such as the rise of internet shopping and this Council has responded by encouraging the maintenance of the vibrancy for which Cheltenham is known. A host of changes have been supported in the town centre (such as new employment, housing, leisure, retail and food offers) and including changes to the road system and encouraging people (where they can) to change their transport patterns by promoting walking, cycling and public service vehicles.
Earlier data showed that most of the traffic passing through Boots Corner was local (within 3 miles of the vehicle registered address) so it is difficult to see how that was adding to the economic performance of the town, merely providing a route right through the heart of the town.
The data on traffic movements and has yet to be released by colleagues at County highways but it would not be surprising for traffic flows overall to fall as individuals re-appraise their journeys and seek alternatives; this phenomenon has occurred elsewhere. Pollution data needs to be measured over a year to meet DEFRA requirements so again it is too early to tell. However, with traffic levels falling by more than 80% through Boots corner the air quality in the town centre is set to improve. Stagecoach has also made a significant investment in low emissions vehicles so it is wrong to say that buses and taxis are the highest polluters.
The town has been markedly busy with the Literature Festival and the imminent opening of John Lewis will only add to that. So the suggestion that people are staying away is not borne out. In fact I am advised that footfall at the Brewery is up significantly.
I am unaware of any issues from emergency services which are in any case exempt under the traffic regulations so can still pass through Boots Corner.
The area cannot be fully pedestrianised as the majority of people in the town centre are brought in by bus and unfortunately due to the historic nature of the town centre the buses need to get in and back out. Additionally, full pedestrianisation would prohibit servicing of the buildings in and around Boots Corner, working against the rationale to support the local economy.
Motorists now have easier access to car parks so it is wrong to say that this change is stopping people from coming to the town centre, it is designed to have the opposite affect by making the town centre experience that much more attractive by removing vehicle movements that didn’t need to be there.
Adjustments have been made to the centre at earlier phases and should the scheme become permanent, there will no doubt be other changes necessary to respond to changes alerted to the County Council.
Consultation with various representative groups resulted in more not less blue badge bays being introduced prior to the trial starting; all of which are in the town centre.
Essentially Cheltenham is late to make such changes to its road network – they have already been implemented in Bath, Oxford, Worcester and Gloucester – so the trial is not radical and by its very nature is seeking feedback and I encourage you to respond https://gloucestershire-consult.objective.co.uk/public/trp/phase4/phase4
|
|
11. |
Question from Melissa Ramplin to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
The anti-fur organisation Respect for Animals has contacted every council in the country and rated them according to their policy on selling real fur. Is the portfolio holder aware of the rating given to Cheltenham Borough Council? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
Yes.
For information is it at: http://www.respectforanimals.org/fur-free-markets/the-fur-free-markets-database/listing/cheltenham-borough-council
|
|
12. |
Question from Melissa Ramplin to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
What is the Council’s position on the sale of imported real fur on Council land, given that fur farming (which accounts for over 85% of real fur) and the trap most commonly used to kill wild animals for fur has been banned in the UK for some time? |
|
|
Response from |
|
|
The council actively discourages the sale of real fur on any markets it has responsibility for.
In a supplementary question Miss Ramplin queried how the Council actively discourages the sale of real fur and how effective does the Cabinet Member feel these efforts are?
The Cabinet Member explained that they frequently have discussions with traders to discourage the sale of real fur, however, acknowledged that there was a tendency for traders to pass off real fur as fake fur.
|
|
13. |
Question from Peter Sayers to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
There were two consultations held before the Boots Corner closure trial was imposed. Both rejected the closure. What weight will be placed on any citizens and business owners objections to the trial against the need to develop the rear of the Municipal Offices? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The Cheltenham Transport Plan has been under discussion for many years. It was included in the local plan in 2008 following 3 major consultation exercises which showed strong support with about two thirds of residents in favour of the improvements to the town centre including closing Boots Corner to through traffic.
This is why CBC requested that GCC as highways authority consider the changes to the road network. GCC in turn conducted a further consultation as part of the road traffic order process. This resulted in a phased approach with a trial at Boots Corner. This would suggest that concerns were listened to and that feedback from the current trial will equally be considered.
Whilst there exists a CBC adopted urban design framework for Royal Well and the Municipal Offices, there is currently no scheme to develop the rear of the Municipal Offices.
In a supplementary question Mr Sayers reported that recent statistics from a consultation on the Boots Corner closure show that 72% of people objected to the plan in the consultation and 94% were opposed to the scheme. He queried what action would be taken if a similar number of objections were received this time?
The Cabinet Member disputed the statistics Mr Sayers was reporting on and stated that he was unaware of the survey he was referring to. He advised that 3 consultations had taken place since 2008 which showed that two thirds of people were in favour of the scheme. He reiterated that this was not a consultation but a trial to see where the flow of traffic would divert to and to identify what measures could be taken to make the scheme more effective. They were welcoming feedback from the public was welcomed and work was ongoing to mitigate any issues arising.
|
|
14. |
Question from Peter Sayers to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
The risk to residents and visitors to the town due to many thousands of vehicles now diverting into residential streets need quantifying. There are a number of recent large scale studies that indicate the risks from particulate and gas pollution. For example: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/cir.0b013e3181dbece1) which found among other threats to health, that 'Exposure to PM <2.5 ?m in diameter (PM2.5) over a few hours to weeks can trigger cardiovascular disease–related mortality and nonfatal events'. Another example: Short-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and daily mortality in London, UK (https://www.nature.com/articles/jes201565) It appears from the recent research that particulate and gas pollution risks are higher than previously assumed. For a scheme of this size with so many vehicles involved, mobile comprehensive gas and particulate monitors before and during the trial should have been put in place and relocated as the traffic 'finds its way'. Can the Council explain why this has only been partially implemented in a few fixed locations and how the criteria to judge the success or otherwise of the Boots Corner trial will be evaluated without comprehensive data that would reassure all concerned? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
I welcome the wider debate and note the studies identified. Whilst taking different approaches both support the basis for which the original Local Sustainable Transport funding was secured, namely to encourage alternative travel methods, notably walking, cycling and public service provision, and thereby reduce the polluting effects of travel. In the case of Cheltenham the added bonus was an opportunity to reduce the severance at Boots Corner and hopefully sustain the performance and vibrancy of the High Street/Town centre.
Since securing that funding via GCC, we also welcome national measures to reduce individual sources of pollutants such as Euro 6 compliant diesel engines. Initial indications from the traffic data collected since the trial was implemented in June is that most of the traffic that used to use Boots Corner has spread over other routes or has found alternative wider-afield routes. Simply put a significant percentage of journeys through Boots Corner were ‘through’ journeys and motorists have found better ways to make these journeys including some switching to public transport. This data has followed what the original transport modelling work indicated that the impact on other routes would not be significant or significantly increase the air quality issues. This will be evaluated as part of the trial and a full report presented to the GCC TRO Committee before any decision is made to if the trial is to become permanent.
In a supplementary question Mr Sayers noted the alarming results from recent studies in to the harmful effects of pollution. He queried why more money had not been spent on robust monitoring measures instead of the temporary fixtures which had been placed around the town.
The Cabinet Member acknowledged that air pollution was an extremely important topic and noted the results of the recent studies. He advised that during a trial conducted by Gloucestershire County Council 27 stations across the town were monitoring levels of air pollution. Separate to that the Borough Council also undertook air pollution monitoring. Cheltenham had 3 hotspot areas where the pollution levels exceeded the national air quality limits.. However, following the completion of phase 1 and phase 2 of the transport plan 2 out of 3 of these areas no longer exceeded the national air quality limits. He reiterated that initial indications show that the majority of traffic that used to use Boots Corner had either found alternative wider-afield routes or opted to use public transport/cycle. It was important to note that the purpose of the transport plan was to reduce air pollution across the whole town not just around Boots corner and initial indications showed that the impact on other routes had not been significant with regards to air quality issues. Pollution levels across the town were actually reducing as a result of CBC policies. |
|
15. |
Question from Christine Nicholls to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
In light of the fact that market stalls are becoming a key place for real fur to be sold (particularly as cheap fur bobble hats) and recent national coverage of real fur being sold at markets as fake, what steps has the council taken to ensure such scandals do not afflict market places in Cheltenham? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The council actively discourages the sale of real fur on any markets it has responsibility for.
The up and coming street trading policy review and consultation will include proposals relating to the sale of fur and these will be subject to public consultation. |
|
16. |
Question from Christine Nicholls to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
What steps has the Council taken to find out whether stallholders will be selling real fur at this year’s Christmas Markets taking place on Cheltenham Borough Council run land? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
For the avoidance of doubt, Cheltenham Borough Council as a district authority, does not own the highway on which the Christmas Market operates.
The council has been in communication with the market operator and has expressed the need to avoid the sale of real fur. The council’s policy does not at present expressly prohibit the sale of fur.
However, our current street trading policy is being reviewed and we will shortly launch a consultation on a revised policy. There are a number of issues that we are currently looking at as part of the policy review, including, the sale of real fur. |
|
17. |
Question from Sophie Nicholls to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Will the upcoming review of Cheltenham Borough Council’s licensing policy take a fur free markets policy into account? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
As stated in answer to Qu 16, it is an issue that is being taken into account yes.
The policy will be subject to public consultation which is the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the revised trading policy. |
|
18. |
Question from Sophie Nicholls to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Will the upcoming review of Cheltenham Borough Council’s licensing policy seek the input of NGOs about the highly contentious issue of real fur being sold at Cheltenham markets? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The policy will be subject to public consultation which is the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the revised trading policy. As a public consultation, there will be opportunity for all, including NGOs, to get involved. |
|
19. |
Question from Gilly Whittingham to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Are you aware of any market stalls that both 1) sell real fur and 2) either currently operate on Cheltenham Borough Council run land or are planning to over the Christmas period? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
We are not aware of any no. |
|
20. |
Question from Gilly Whittingham to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
What steps has the council taken to develop a policy relating to the sale of real fur on council land? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The sale of real fur is an issue that is being considered as part of the current policy review. The policy will be subject to public consultation which is the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the revised trading policy |
|
21. |
Question from Jane Foster to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
The TRO Committee promised the residents of this town that traffic would be monitored so that impact could be assessed. Given the absence of traffic counters in key residential areas like Bath Rd, College Road, St George’s St (only NO2 monitor), Hewlett Rd, All Saints Rd, Montpellier Terrace, etc, how will this council get a complete picture of the traffic shift in the town, and what will they do going forward to ensure a full and complete set of data is presented in order to make valid decisions around the Boots Corner trial? This is vital and no valid assessment of impact can be made without it. |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
Gloucestershire County Council colleagues have a network of 27 traffic monitoring points which formed the baseline prior to any phases being implemented and is designed to give robust and sufficient data in order to evaluate the trial. Clearly for consistency sake these monitoring points have remained the same and the data has been evaluated after each phase to identify impact. The full set of monitoring points is listed below.
Monson Ave Clarence Square All Saints Road Fairview Road Bayshill Road College Road St Georges St High Street St James Square Imperial Square Southern Arm Montpellier Spa Road Poole Way St. Johns Ave High Street London Road St. George Road Imperial Sq Northern Arm Ambrose St Rodney Road Albion Street Gloucester Pl Winchcombe St North North Place Clarence Street St. George Pl Royal Well Road Winchcombe St South
|
|
22. |
Question from Simon Firkins to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|
It is proposed to implement CIL in January 2019, at a rate of £200 per square metre for sites between 11 and 449 units. This will be harmful to small and medium sized builders who focus on these often brownfield sites with higher abnormal development costs; and unlike national homebuilders on strategic, greenfield sites smaller builders do not benefit from huge economies of scale.
Please consider a review of CIL leading a lower CIL charge for non-strategic schemes, and to introduce a zonal system which properly reflects the clear difference in values across the Borough?
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
As set out in the papers of Agenda item 9 of today’s meeting, the CIL charge, including non-strategic schemes has been consulted upon and examined by an Independent Inspector.
The CIL examination considered detailed evidence on viability and land values, both that presented by the JCS councils and the development industry. The CIL charge before us today reflects examiners recommendations. On this basis I do not support a review.
In a supplementary question Mr Firkin’s queried whether it would be possible to reduce the threshold for sites between 11 and 100 units due to the detrimental effect the CIL implementation would have on small and medium sized businesses.
The Cabinet Member advised that the CIL had already been developed, advertised and consulted on, if they were to make any amendments at this stage they would be back to square 1. |
|
23. |
Question from Simon Firkins to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|
In the event that a review of the charging rate and a zonal system is not taken forward, will the council please agree to a far more appropriate lead in time for the implementation of CIL? This will allow all those involved in the process to plan properly for its implementation and provide the resources to ‘clear the decks’ of current and pending proposals; and give the opportunity for dialogue and training for all those that might be involved with and influenced by CIL and its implementation.
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The Council’s approach to CIL has been in the public domain since 2015 and as such the development industry has been aware of the council’s intention to implement a CIL charge.
CIL is not a new charge and has been in legislation for a number of years, with many authorities already with an adopted charge. Within the context of the legislation we could set an earlier commencement date, however, we have chosen to recommend the 1st January 2019.
In a supplementary question Mr Firkins felt that more consideration should be given to small local developers who should be given sufficient time to prepare for the implementation.
The Leader explained that whilst they were sympathetic to small local developers the JCS was in place and therefore there could be no delay in implementation of CIL. |
Supporting documents:
PDF 141 KB