Agenda item

·         To include presentation from Gloucestershire County Council Officers

 

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

Scott Tompkins, Lead Commissioner of the Highways Authority gave a presentation to Members, this included an update on the feedback to date on the scheme, an overview of the traffic flow monitoring and an update on the phase 4 monitoring. He further advised Members of the proposed revisions to the trial and the predicted timeline for the next steps. Rupert Cox, Managing Director of Stagecoach West also gave a short presentation on the impacts of the Cheltenham transport plan on the bus services and ran through the significant positive impacts of the scheme. The presentation is appended to the minutes for reference.

 

The following responses were offered to Members questions:

 

·           Cheltenham is well contained in comparison to other towns and cities with census data suggesting around 70% of journeys taken in Cheltenham are less than 2km. This is in contrast to neighbouring Gloucester which has a lot of out commuting.

·           Transport modelling conducted at the outset of the scheme highlighted that the majority of journeys around Boots corner were through journeys and not people accessing the town centre.

·           The evidence to date shows that in a  number of roads in Cheltenham the traffic levels have fallen since the closure of Boots corner, however, in order to determine whether fewer people were using cars overall they would need to analyse the traffic levels over a longer period of time.

·           Following a query regarding the predicted timescale for the traffic signal improvements on the Tewkesbury/Swindon Road junction, Mr Tompkins advised that the funding had been approved in the last month for the signal work and the feasibility study had already been completed. They, therefore, planned to take it to the design phase in the next year and hoped to deliver the scheme by late 2020.

·           He confirmed that delivery vehicles could only access the area highlighted in red on the map before 10am and after 6pm which is outside of the core hours.

·           The legal requirement for the experimental traffic regulation order is 18 months in length, when that comes to end they have the option to make the elements trialled permanent, abandon them or trial another experimental order.

·           Ideally, GCC would have liked to put the mitigation measures in place before Gold Cup but this would not be physically possible given the timescale, he confirmed that the trail would still be in place during Gold Cup week and so they would still capture the impact on the other roads during this time.

·           Mr Cox advised that they had purchased a number of new vehicles and due to the Euro 6 level of emissions on those vehicles they were seeing great environmental improvements, particularly in the Benhall area. The increased growth would also enable them to make improvements to the bus network.

·           The highways authority were currently looking at the signage and how they direct people in and out of the town. They were also discussing the potential for using VMS signs which would indicate the number of parking spaces available in car parks.

·           Whilst they had already tweaked the signalling on St George’s Road, they acknowledged that this route was an area which needed further mitigation measures. St George’s Road and Tewkesbury Road were the routes of greatest concern to them due to the increased congestion.

·           They were aware that there were several days when the enforcement camera wasn’t working as it had been vandalised.

·           Analysis of the current data highlighted that some roads had seen on average a 25%-30% increase in traffic flow and an even greater increase during peak times. It was acknowledged that the scheme was a trade off between the positive benefits of modal shift, increase in public transport usage and other reduction in the severance on the high street compared with the negative consequences of increased traffic on some routes. It was noted that Cheltenham was bucking the downward trend in terms of the reduction in high street shops at a time when many other towns were struggling and noted that cities such as Oxford and Bath had also made difficult decisions to take traffic out of the town centre.

·           Mr Tompkins confirmed that 376 representations had been received during the formal consultation period and 422 general inquiries, he advised that all formal representations would be published when they went back to the TRO committee. He acknowledged that there had been issues with the website, but suggested anyone who had concerns as to whether their representation had been received should make contact with the highways authority.

·           Mr Cox advised that there were a number of pinch points on the bus network where buses were frequently held up and explained that they were continuing to work with GCC to resolve these issues.

·           Mr Tompkins confirmed that Ringway Infrastructure Services were taking over from Amey as GCC’s highway maintenance contractor. Amey were committed to completing the works raised before the contract was up on the 1^st April. GCC were still committed to delivering the mitigation measures and would use outside contractors if necessary.

·           Mr Cox confirmed that if the buses on Tewkesbury Road could be speeded up due to the proposed mitigation measures then the link C service could be reinstated.

·           Data is currently being collected in support of the West Cheltenham Development and Cyber Park schemes and will be going into the feasibility design stages very quickly. They were also collecting a lot of counter data for the wider Cheltenham area.

·           They had already made tweaks to the traffic signals on Gloucester/Tewkesbury road junction, however, they acknowledged that more needed to be done including the introduction of MOVA and other traffic control units, changes to curb alignments and lanes. However, as this would involve major construction work it would need to be designed properly and tested against the transport model and other planned works.

·           There isn’t enough funding in the current plans to create whole new roads and  so they needed to work within the existing infrastructure, as such, modal shift was critical given the anticipated traffic growth. Mr Tompkins advised that they had been looking at bus lanes and bus priority as a potential solution to increased traffic predicted around West Cheltenham.

·           Regarding mitigation measures on Rodney Road, Mr Tompkins explained that they wouldn’t usually go to the extreme of closing road unless there was a safety issue and they were, therefore, looking at lower impact and lower cost measures first.

·           Mr Cox confirmed that they attributed the improvements in journey speeds to the Racecourse during the November meet to the closure of Boots Corner as that had been the only major change in the last few years. He explained that reliability and punctuality are key to bus users and they can only guarantee reliable services if the road network is not blocked by indiscriminate parking or deliveries. He confirmed that all of the core town centre services had directly benefitted from less traffic.

·           Following concerns raised about the problems the street furniture caused to the Everyman during the pantomime season, GCC confirmed that they would be happy to engage directly with the Everyman and explained that should the scheme be made permanent the street scene would require design work with input from local businesses and users of the town centre.

 

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety endorsed the recommendations of the Cheltenham transport plan update report. He felt it important to first clarify that this was a Borough Council promoted scheme where the highways authority were acting as the agent.  The report highlighted that the trial had overall had a positive impact and successfully achieved its objectives in terms of modal shift, reduction of traffic in the town centre, improved connectivity and increased footfall. He further acknowledged the positive economic impact on the town centre and felt there had been no significant issues with regards to air quality. He advised that phase 4 of the CTP had cut traffic around Boots Corner by 85% whilst having a limited impact on the highways network. He reported that pedestrian footfall had increased by over 200% and cycling had experienced a similar increase, whilst wheelchair access had also increased by over 70%.

 

Councillor McKinlay emphasised that the information available in the report predates the opening of John Lewis and therefore felt that claims that the increase in footfall in the town was as a result of that were incorrect.  He advised that since 2011 when the funding for the CTP was obtained from Central Government, 531 additional jobs in the town centre had been created, including an additional 200 at John Lewis. He attributed this increased investment to the Council’s commitment to deliver the CTP. He further noted the retention of existing retail outlets in Cheltenham including that of Next and House of Fraser.

 

He felt that the success of the CTP was clear from a range of indicators, including the increased connectivity in the town centre, the reduction in car usage and increase in use of public transport, cycling and walking, the major boost to the economy as well as the increase in the environmental standards in town centre including improvements to the air quality and increased investment in green infrastructure. In contrast, he perceived the issues experienced to be small scale and localised and noted that plans were being put in place to address these. He encouraged Council to adopt the recommendations in the report to give a clear message to GCC that Cheltenham were happy to proceed with the CTP. 

 

Councillor Stennett requested that a vote be taken on each of the recommendations individually.

 

The Leader noted that when they had opted to pedestrianise the Promenade in 1988 a similar number of objections had been received, however, now it would be unimaginable to have traffic through that route. He emphasised that this was not the final decision today but a key point in the scheme to determine whether they wished to progress with the proposed amendments. He was fully supportive of the amendments which he believed would enhance the scheme and also welcomed the promise to review the Gloucester/Tewkesbury Road corridor. He reiterated that the CTP was in line with County Council policy and national government policy and that extensive modelling had been done over a long period of time. He was pleased to see that they were creating modal shift as evidenced by Mr Cox’s presentation.

 

In the debate that followed, Members noted the following:

 

·           The worrying increase in the number of cars around the town centre with government figures predicting a 51% increase in vehicles on roads between now and 2050. They therefore recognised the need for modal shift, particularly given  the increase in housing predicted. Members also acknowledged that getting rid of traffic through the town centre would enable CBC to move forward with the place strategy.

·           Members wished to thank all of the highways authority officers, Rupert Cox and the GCC Cabinet Member for all their hard work to date on the scheme. 

·           They stressed that it was a trial and if it was decided that is wasn’t the best thing for the people of Cheltenham then it would not be made permanent. Trialling it allowed them the opportunity to gauge concerns and try to address them in order to give the scheme the best possible chance of success.

·           Members acknowledged that there had been negative consequences as the result of the scheme and welcomed the mitigation measures which they agreed would alleviate some members of the publics concerns. Largely by improving  deliveries to the street traders on Clarence Street and Clarence Parade, the traffic light rescheduling on the Gloucester/Tewkesbury Road. They reasoned that a lot of residents concerns i.e. around traffic light synchronisation could be easily rectified. Members also noted that the issues around St George’s Street had been there for years and saw this as an opportunity to rectify them.

·           The reduction in footfall in the Regent Arcade could be as a result of the closure of BHS, the largest retailer in the arcade.

·           A Member wished to remind residents that there is a process for getting their views across and they should make representations to the appropriate body as well as raise concerns with their ward Councillor not through online protests.

·           Councillor Sudbury wished to place on record that the reason she had voted for phase 4 of Cheltenham Transport Plan was because it was a trial and she had campaigned hard for it to be a trail not a permanent change.

·           Other Members, however, explained that they couldn’t support the continuation of the trial without more comprehensive traffic modelling being done. They also noted that as buses and taxes were still allowed to use the route it was far from becoming pedestrianised. Members further cited reasons of increased traffic congestion and pollution, longer journey times, safety concerns and the negative impact on small and large retailers as reasons why they would not support the continuation of the trial. Whilst they acknowledged steps were being taken to address the concerns of some residents they felt that there was still a large number who would be disadvantaged and felt that mitigation measures such as  light synchronisation had high costs and a knock-on effect on other roads.

·           Other Members agreed that the pollution issue had simply been shifted to other residential streets and traffic had been displaced. Rat runs had also been created, particularly around Rodney Road.

·           Following a question from a Member the Legal officer confirmed that the decision to not have a public debate was only taken as part of the previous item on the agenda, it was therefore not completely off the table.

 

Members also made several recommendations, including:

 

·           The possibility of holding a public meeting following the TRO committee meeting when more data would be available, County Council officers could be available to answer residents questions.

·           Exploring what other cities such as Bath had done whereby certain streets were closed off during the core shopping hours but remain open the rest  of the time.

 

A recorded vote having been requested and supported by Members. Each recommendation as outlined in the transport plan update report was put to the vote.

 

Vote on recommendation a) to note and support the positive economic and environmental impact of the CTP set out in Appendix 2

 

FOR (26) Cllrs Atherstone, Baker, Barrell, Boyes, Britter, Brownsteen, Clucas, Coleman, Collins, Dobie, Fisher, Harvey, Hay, Hegenbarth, Holliday, Horwood, Jeffries, Jordan, McKinlay, Parsons, Payne, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson, Williams, Willingham

 

AGAINST (7) Cllrs Babbage, Cooke, Harman, Mason, Savage, Seacome, Stennett

 

ABSTENTION (1) Cllr Sudbury

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Vote on recommendation b) to note the Gloucestershire County Council Lead Cabinet Member Briefing findings and recommendations (Appendix c) to extend the CTP trial for a further period with mitigation measures; and

 

FOR (27) Cllrs Atherstone, Baker, Barrell, Boyes, Britter, Brownsteen, Clucas, Coleman, Collins, Dobie, Fisher, Harvey, Hay, Hegenbarth, Holliday, Horwood, Jeffries, Jordan, McKinlay, Parsons, Payne, Sudbury, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson, Williams, Willingham

 

ABSTENTIONS (7) Cllrs Babbage, Cooke, Harman, Mason, Savage, Seacome, Stennett

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Vote on recommendation c) to recommend that Cabinet agrees to the extension of the CTP trial.

 

FOR (26) Cllrs Atherstone, Baker, Barrell, Boyes, Britter, Brownsteen, Clucas, Coleman, Collins, Dobie, Fisher, Harvey, Hay, Hegenbarth, Holliday, Horwood, Jeffries, Jordan, McKinlay, Parsons, Payne, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson, Williams, Willingham

 

AGAINST (8) Cllrs Babbage, Cooke, Harman, Mason, Savage, Seacome, Stennett, Sudbury

 

The recommendation was approved.