Agenda item

Motion A

 

Proposed by Councillor Whyborn

Seconded by Councillor Clucas

 

1) In the light of recent published StageCoach data showing modal shift from private to public transport, and also greater emphasis on cycling and walking, now would seem the right time to be exploring further potential for public transport usage.

 

2) It is essential for Cheltenham to have attractive, safe, and practical facilities to encourage use of buses and coaches. For too long, the people of Cheltenham and the surrounding area have put up with very poor public transport connectively, and very poor facilities when waiting for buses and coaches. This is in marked contrast to other towns and cities in the UK and beyond, where money has been invested and facilities are good. Four main nodal points exist for bus and coach termination and the walk between some is more than enough to deter usage, for many.

 

3) The size and location of any central transport hub should take into account how the road and public transport networks, and the public realm, are likely to develop. Good connectivity to the rail station and key locations, such as the hospital, P&R, and main workplaces, should inform the plans, as should access to any prospective rapid transport link to Gloucester and beyond.

 

4) Recognising that CBC is neither a transport operator nor a transport authority, but IS very much a place shaping agency:

 

it is recommended that CBC officers and the Cabinet Member work with all the relevant agencies to study and determine the appropriate size, scope, and location of a properly equipped transport hub for Cheltenham, and how good connectivity can be delivered. This is particularly timely given the GCC Local Transport plan review currently being initiated.

 

 

In proposing the motion, Councillor Whyborn explained that there were two main strands, the first was for better transport facilities in Cheltenham to ensure the facilities were attractive, safe and practical. He noted that the Royal Well bus station was just a shack and not in keeping with a town like Cheltenham and that residents had complained about the lack of a coffee shop and minimal toilet facilities which was a marked contrast to other towns and cities. The second strand was improving the transport routes to better connect the town, including improving the connection between the Prom, the High Street and Pittville Street which at present were inadequate and acted as a deterrent. He acknowledged that bus usage was up, however, noted that the majority of trips were for leisure and not users travelling to work and that the percentage of those using the bus service within the borough were no higher than those coming from outside the borough.  The objective was not to just improve the bus connections but also the coaches, cycling and walking facilities to and from train station and other key locations. He suggested locating Shopmobility nearer to the bus interchange and providing high quality and smaller facilities for coaches and longer distance buses with local buses stopping nearby.

 

Councillor Whyborn acknowledged that it would require working in consensus with Stagecoach, Systra and the County Council in order to fashion the right interchanges and develop a more holistic approach to the transport network. One of the key objective was to join up Kingsditch with the train station, hospital and other key areas.

He stressed that a proper study was required in order to determine the correct size, scope and location of a transport hub. He advised that the LEP had never had a  proposal for a bus interchange in Cheltenham, however, they would gladly evaluate one if it was received. It was also important to get it on the public agenda with the relevant bodies and determine where the best access point to the town centre would be.

He stressed the importance of building on recent improvements in modal shift and that the future development of Cheltenham should not be restricted by poor transport links. Furthermore, the wider improvements in air quality and environment should be considered.

Finally, Councillor Whyborn emphasised the holistic approach which was required and the need to get this right first time. All sites should be considered before committing sites to other uses.

Councillor Babbage wished to propose a friendly amendment to the motion, this was seconded by Councillor Harman and read as follows:

In addition for CBC Officers and the Cabinet Member to work with the LEP and explore other funding streams to provide financing where appropriate.

 

He explained that he was fully supportive of the motion but it would be even better if t a transport hub could be fully or partially funded. He highlighted that Gloucester had received £6.5 million of funding towards their £7.5 million scheme. 

The amendment was accepted by Councillor Whyborn.

In the debate that followed Members made the following comments:

·         They welcomed the motion and agreed they needed to talk more about sustainable transport as a whole, including further discussions about a cycling hub. There was also the wider issue of improving the park and ride service, particularly given the increase in parking in residential areas.

·         Members acknowledged that the location of the railway station was one of the greatest problems regarding the transport network and it was important to first determine what sites would work best and provide the best connectivity to the train station.

·         One of the key elements of the CTP was modal shift and altering the town centre to make it much more effective and functional.

·         It was established that there were 4 key bus nodes – Pittville Street, High Street, The Promenade and Royal Well and that the development to the rear of Municipal Office was an extremely important piece of work.

·         Members acknowledged that traffic would not be reduced unless there was a viable alternative for the public and concerns were raised about the cost of buses in the town.

·         One Member noted that there were not many viable options for the location of the transport hub outside of Royal Well and reasoned that Royal Well was reasonably well positioned with regards to its proximity to the town centre. 

·         It was further noted that modal shift could have an impact on the council’s finances as it would effectively reduce car park usage. However, if fewer car parks were required then this space could potentially be used for a transport hub.

·         One Member stressed the importance of working with partners to establish where people were commuting from in order to promote more sustainable modes of transport.

·         Cheltenham had again been awarded its purple flag status in recognition of its night time economy and they needed to ensure that people were able to safely travel home after a night out. 

·         A central transport hub was potentially not the solution as they also needed to factor in the North West extension and wider areas.

·         How the requirements of the public with regards to public transport would evolve in 20 and 30 years time also needed to be considered.

Councillor Hobley formally proposed that Council move to the vote, this was seconded by Councillor Wilkinson.

Motion carried to proceed to the vote

22 For

11 Against

In summing up Councillor Whyborn thanked colleagues for their support. He reiterated that he was not advocating that the bus station be moved out of Royal Well but a study should be conducted to determine the best location. He acknowledged that improved cycling and walking facilities were also necessary. He was mindful that they needed to be realistic about what was economically viable given Cheltenham’s size and welcomed the introduction of payment in the park and ride car park to deter usage for non park and ride users. He also suggested the installation of secondary interchange points in suburban areas such as Coronation Square in order to improve routes all across the town.

A point of order was raised by Councillor Babbage that the constitution required that there should only be a move to the vote only if the Mayor considered that the item had been sufficiently discussed. The Mayor clarified that this had not been the case and invited Councillor Clucas to formally second the motion.

In seconding the motion Councillor Clucas stressed the importance of addressing the transport system given that we are dealing with an 18^th Century layout in a 21^st Century world. She noted that the town had expanded considerably and as such they need to act now to ensure the town did not become gridlocked. She suggested funding could be obtained from bus companies in order to put the social value back in to areas they serve. She highlighted that those with mobility problems have issues walking between locations and stressed the importance of better connecting the key nodes identified. Furthermore, buses on the Promenade particularly during race week were causing considerable damage to the paving.

The motion,as amended, was unanimously passed.

 

Motion B

 

Proposed by Councillor Wilkinson

Seconded by Councillor Boyes

 

Council notes that:

Cheltenham has a history of welcoming refugees who have contributed to and shaped our town.

Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees, working with GARAS, has done our town proud by showing compassion to the refugee families who have made their homes here.

Cheltenham Borough Council has made a significant pledge of housing up to 100 refugee families over the four-year resettlement period, subject to logistical challenges.

Cheltenham Borough Council has recently entered into a collaborative arrangement with UKVI in their sourcing of private rented accommodation for households seeking asylum, with an estimate that 25 asylum seekers will benefit each year from the arrangement.

Council therefore recommends that the authority:

Seeks to follow the guidelines set out by the City of Sanctuary initiative and recognise the work done by Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees to adopt the title of Town of Sanctuary, effective immediately. This will include learning from best practice in existing Cities of Sanctuary.

In doing so, the authority seeks to take practical steps to welcome and include refugees in local activities and will seek ways of supporting refugees wherever it can.

To achieve this, the authority will deepen its work with Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees to build new links between CWR and the council’s local partners. This will include asking council departments, the council’s partners and other local organisations to support and provide inclusive and accessible activities.

Further, the authority commits to supporting activities that promote the education and training of refugees, enabling them to better integrate into the town and play an active role in the success of our local economy and creating sustainable communities.

 

As proposer of the motion Councillor Wilkinson gave a brief overview of the situation. He thanked all those in the public gallery for attending. He noted that they had ambitious goals with regards to refugees and explained that the intention of the motion was to formalise the work they were currently doing and their plans for the future.

 

He informed Council that he and a number of Councillors had attended the annual meeting for refugees which had highlighted the level of support and schemes already available to refugees. He noted that the University of Gloucestershire offered a scholarship to a refugee which allowed them to study, gain a qualification and ultimately contribute to the local economy. He further acknowledged that Cheltenham Borough Council had made a pledge to house up to 100 refugee families over the four-year resettlement period. The key was ensuring that refugees were fully integrated in to the town, were able to play a pivotal role in the community and had access to services, education and training in order to be able to live safe lives.

 

Councillor Wilkinson acknowledged that much more could be done including taking part in local events, working with partners to put on extra services and providing additional funding to facilitate English lessons for refugees. It was also imperative that they worked closely with the ‘Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees’ organisation to determine what more could be done.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor Boyes highlighted the importance of taking action particularly given the increase in hate crime targeted at refugees. She welcomed the Council’s intervention to provide housing for up to 100 refugee families, however, felt that as a country we should still be taking in more refugees. She noted that the Immigration Act 2016 (‘the Dubs Amendment’) which pledged to relocate and support unaccompanied refugee children from Europe was abandoned after only 350 children had reached safety. She thanked local charities for all their support and stressed the importance of integrating refugees in order to build stable, sustainable communities.

 

In the debate that followed, Members made the following comments:

 

·           The issue was more pertinent than ever given the rise in xenophobia and hate crime

·           It was extremely important to ensure than refugees had access to education in order to improve their English language skills as lack of communication is a key to barrier to integration.

·           Government and trans national corporations had a duty to establish the causes of refugees being forced to flee their home country, including dealing with issues of poverty, war, famine and climate change.

·           One Member highlighted that as one of the wealthiest economies in the world it was appalling what they were currently doing to deal with the refugee crisis.

·           The residents and local organisations who have welcomed refugees were testament to Cheltenham and Members thanked them for their support.

·           It was established that there was a bursary fund for refugees and all were encouraged to donate to the worthy cause. https://www.justgiving.com/campaigns/charity/ug/sanctuaryscholarship

·           One Member questioned the Cabinet Member on how many refugees had already been housed in Cheltenham and what the predictions were for the future. The Cabinet Member Housing advised that he did not have theses figures to hand but he would be happy to share them with colleagues and the press.

·           The Cabinet Member Housing wished to place on record his thanks to Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees for all the work they had done to date and further welcomed the guidelines set out by the City of Sanctuary initiative.

·           One Member stressed the importance of government allowing refugees to work in this country and hoped this  message would be taken back to government by colleagues.

·           It was suggested that the topic be put back on the agenda for a years time to update on progress to date plans going forward.

·           One Member acknowledged that the council should be mindful of the resource implications and needed to ensure that the necessary resource was in place to deliver on their promises.

 

In summing up Councillor Wilkinson thanked Members for their support and agreed it  was essential that the proposals be supported by concrete actions. He noted that under a cross party bill introduced in parliament, refugees would have the right to work three months after arriving in the UK. He hoped this would soon be enacted in law.

 

The motion was unanimously passed.