Agenda item

To consider the attached scrutiny registrations forms for possible inclusion in the overview and scrutiny work plan

-       Urban Gulls

-       Cheltenham Transport Plan

-       Events

-       Consultation

Scrutiny registration forms for four suggested topics had been circulated with the agenda and these were discussed in detail by the committee.

Urban Gulls

Councillor Sudbury presented the scrutiny registration form which she had submitted on behalf of Councillors Barrell and Harman. She along with the other councillors had received many e-mails on this issue in the lead up to elections in May. The Urban Gulls Forum had been useful and this suggested task group did not set out to replace it, however the task group could bring all the evidence together in a more formal way and make an evidence-based request for more investment.

Councillor Barrell supported the proposal and suggested that the issue of gull proofing for new builds should also be considered in planning.  

A Member added that local residents have suggested specific schemes in Bath and Hereford which they would like the council to look a. He acknowledged that they may be more expensive options than the current ones adopted by the council. There had also been problems with gulls at the Lido intimidating children eating food. Another Member raised the issue of food waste from fast food premises and suggested the task group look at the council powers for street litter control and the public health issues associated with bird mess.

A Member stated that a better focus for scrutiny would be to challenge why the Urban Gulls Forum was not working effectively and why the forum was not coming up with recommendations for the Executive to consider.

Councillor Sudbury advised that the former had been going for many years and did not have the right structure going forward and she felt it had gone as far as it could go. It was now Chaired by Councillor Harman but it only met twice a year. The Chair of O&S added his opinion from the 3 meetings he had attended that the forum was largely a talking shop and had no real authority and he thought an evidence-based review would be appropriate.

The managing director place and growth advised that it was an important issue for Cheltenham but there were only a limited number of options for dealing with the problem and additional budget may be required for other solutions. He flagged that a scrutiny task group would require officer support so it was important that the scope was carefully defined.

The Chair in his summing up noted that if there were budget implications any recommendations would need to come forward within the timescales for the budget process. The task group would need to review what had already been done and the evidence had already been collected.

RESOLVED that

i)             a scrutiny task group should be set up

ii)            the proposers of the scrutiny task group work with the MD Place and Growth to define potential terms of reference for the task group

Cheltenham Transport Plan

Councillor Sudbury introduced the scrutiny registration form which she was proposing should scrutinise phases 1-3 of the Cheltenham Transport Plan and to provide overview and scrutiny of Phase 4, the Boots Corner Experimental TRO with the outcomes as set out on the form. She felt it was the biggest change that had happened in Cheltenham town centre for some time and scrutiny to date had not been as good as it could be. She felt scrutiny involvement at this stage would improve democracy, enhance member engagement and potentially improve accessibility for all residents.

The Chair invited comments from the MD Place and Growth.  He referred to the comments and suggestions made by the director of planning in the officer implications section of the form. The approach recommended would provide a way of Members reviewing progress but without any risk of interrupting the TRO process. The information on the outcomes of phases 1-3 was already available and it was just a matter of finding a suitable format in which to present it to Members.

In response to a question about whether the council had sufficient baseline data to monitor changes going forward, the officer advised that traffic models had been set up based on existing traffic flow and real-time monitoring would be taking place. Officers could bring this information back to Members but it was important to allow a reasonable length of time for traffic flow to level out after any significant changes and it would be a matter of judgement what constituted success or failure. A Member commented data should also be collected on numbers of car drivers shifting to journeys on foot or bicycle and another member suggested shifts to public transport should be monitored as well.

A Member challenged the value of evaluating phases one to three which were not doing the job they were intended to do until phase 4 had been fully implemented.

The proposer of the topic, Councillor Sudbury, challenged whether phases 1-3 could be considered a success and gave examples of long waits for pedestrians crossing by the Swallow Bakery and difficulties with the exits from the Regent arcade car park. She felt it was important to scrutinise the process that had been followed in a level of detail which would not be possible in a meeting of this type.

Upon a vote the Members

RESOLVED THAT

i)             a scrutiny task group would not be set up at this time

ii)            The MD Place and Growth would arrange for officers from the county council to give a presentation to this committee within 2 months on the implementation of Phases 1-3, an update on findings from the monitoring data and resultant changes made to enable the trial of phase 4. 

iii)           Scrutiny Committee to receive an update report on monitoring against an agreed timeline, enabling Committee to engage directly with officers on potential modifications/interventions during the course of the trial.

iv)          Officers to provide a regular update to O&S on future progress and timescales thereafter

v)            Scrutiny to receive a review of the TRO consultation responses and undertake a review of the Cheltenham Transport Plan as a whole (phases 1 – 4) and for GCC to consider this as formal evidence ahead of a decision being made on the outcome of the trial.

Events Impact and Consultation

Councillor Willingham as the proposer of the Events Impact scrutiny topic presented the registration form. Whilst he considered a variety of events were great for boosting the economy of the town there were issues about consultation beyond the licensing of an event. Local people needed to have their say earlier in the process especially where the event was being held on council owned parkland. There had been concerns expressed about the noise at the Jazz Festival and residents felt there was nothing they could do to challenge this and ensure some action was taken.

Another Member was primarily concerned with the way the licensing process took place where it was down to the applicant to publicise notices ahead of their event to alert local residents. There was a risk that they would do as little as possible resulting in minimal consultation and if the ward councillor was not made aware of the event they could not assist in raising awareness with local residents. Once a licence had been granted it could not be easily withdrawn without a catalogue of evidence and he cited a recent example of the license issued to the Cheltenham Football Club for the recent Steps concert which now provide a license for live music seven days a week until 11.30 pm.

Another Member felt the parks should provide areas of quiet relaxation for local residents to enjoy. They had been particularly concerned at the plans for the Chilli Festival to be held in Sandford Park where no licence had been needed and therefore there had been no consultation with residents and ward councillors in adjoining wards. There must be a balance in the Place strategy, whilst encouraging events this should not be at the expense of residents paying the price locally.

The Chair highlighted the Jazz Festival where there had been many meetings where residents had produced evidence that noise had exceeded national guidelines. He emphasised that residents were not saying that the town should not have festivals but there was a question as to whether the council should be allowing its land to be used when they are aware that national guidelines are being broken.

On the wider topic of consultation, a Member suggested that typically responders to consultation would be male and over 50 and it was important to try and consult with people who were not currently talking to the council.

Members concluded that they needed to be more aware of the events consultation process and would welcome more information at this committee.

The MD Place and Growth referred to the officer comments in the implications section of the report and the suggestion that the evolving events project could review the process and develop engagement proposals which could then be reviewed with overview and scrutiny.

The strategy and engagement manager advised the committee that the council had a number of documents which may be of interest to the committee in pursuing the second scrutiny topic suggested by Councillor Baker namely:

1.    the council's consultation strategy produced in 2004

2.    the statement of community involvement

3.    caselaw around consultation

4.    recently issued consultation guidelines from government

He added that there was always more scope for wider consultation but this had to be balanced with officer capacity.

RESOLVED THAT

iii)           the various documents suggested by the strategy and engagement manager should be circulated to members of the committee

iv)          the report of the scrutiny task group that had looked at the events would be circulated and the committee to receive an update report at a future meeting on existing mechanisms for moderating and mitigating the impact of events (including noise) and whether these are being utilised in the most effective way possible

v)            that the Commercial Expansion of Events Infrastructure (Events) project process improvements and engagement proposals continue to be developed by officers and shared with Scrutiny, for feedback, prior to being put forward to Cabinet for approval

vi)           the committee could then decide its next steps if any further work is needed. 

.