Agenda item

Motion A

Council calls

-       on Gloucestershire County Council to adopt a proactive - rather than reactive - approach to allocating funding for road crossings. Putting preventing harm from happening in the first place at the heart of funding policy by assessing need based on which roads currently lack accessible safe designated crossing points in addition to the number of collisions and accidents;

-       for the convention of a cross-council meeting between senior highways officers and the relevant cabinet member (Vernon Smith) and Cheltenham Borough and County Councillors in wards with particular road crossing concerns (WARDS) to develop a working plan for delivering the additional road crossings Cheltenham needs by year-end 2024;

-       on Gloucestershire County Council Cabinet Member for Highways (Vernon Smith) to meet with local representatives from communities particularly impacted by missing road crossings in Cheltenham, including the blind and partially sighted, wheelchair and mobility aid users, and parent groups to understand the impact of underfunding this vital community infrastructure.

In proposing the motion, Cllr. Lewis noted that in her time as a councillor she had spoken to lots of families with young children, many of whom had concerns about road safety. Children needed to be able to walk to school safely, and this required designated crossings. The council had to put pressure on GCC to act. Current points-based system does not work, requires areas to have a certain number of accidents before they get the funding they need. Acknowledged funding limitations, but the price of not providing adequate road crossings is far greater. The town should be built around the needs of residents and pedestrians rather than cars. The problem was not one of attitude, but of resource allocation. Saving lives was not a political issue, and she hoped there would be cross-party support for this motion.

In seconding the motion, Cllr. Horwood highlighted the absurdity of the need for multiple accidents in a particular area before funding was allocated towards making it safer. This was closely linked to the planning process, with new developments continually springing up in dangerous areas, and he suggested that the council needed to take a more strategic approach in relation to new developments. He said the motion made a number of clear and reasonable calls to action, adding that the Council must support safe walking and cycling wherever it can, which also supports its climate goals.

In debate, several Members congratulated Cllr Lewis on bringing this major issue and important motion before Council, and said they fully supported it.  They gave examples within their wards of places where safe crossings were badly needed, particularly for elderly residents, schoolchildren, and special needs students, but without accident statistics, there did not appear to be any funding from the County.  They said the present system doesn’t take new developments into account, and residents’ views and experiences should be listened to, including the frequently-reported ‘near misses’ as well as actual accidents.

Members made the following points:

-       as the council tries to encourage cycling and walking, road safety was essential;

-       the lack of a comprehensive road safety policy at GCC was a disgrace, and there should at least be a mechanism to record and respond to residents’ concerns, such as a road safety forum;

-       Highways Local allowances given to county councillors for road safety measures were not adequate, and every councillor and resident knew of an unsafe crossing;  the problem needed to be addressed at every level, not just GCC;

-       the council has a duty under the Equalities Act to protect vulnerable people and make their lives simple and enjoyable, but we live in a country where car movement is prioritised over the movement of people;

-       funds were not always allocated in a logical way and sometimes crossings ended up where they were not needed;

-       the issue had been raised many times by many councillors over the years, but little progress had been made. 

One Member asked that, when an issue was not within the statutory functions of the council, an officer report could be provided to offer apolitical advice on dealing with it.  He also asked the motions be published further in advance of the meeting to allow Members to review the issues properly.  The Leader said she considered this motion to be more concerned with the safety issue than a specific question about facts and figures, and suggested the Member’s request could be considered by the Constitution Working Group.

Some Members, whilst supporting the spirit of the motion, felt that the Council should avoid simplistic arguments about complicated issues.  Whilst acknowledging public safety as a key concern for all councillors, they did not consider it was only a question of funding -  Highways had a limited pool of funds, its officers regularly met with residents to discuss issues in detail, and there could be complications due to road layout, utilities etc.

One Member suggested Overview and Scrutiny as the appropriate place for the issue to be carried forward, and suggested an amended motion, with the preamble and the first bullet point removed. This was put to a vote and rejected by Members.

Supporters of the proposed amendment agreed that there were many ways to improve road safety and that the County must be held to account, but considered that their amended focussed on the mechanisms involved rather than politicking.  They could not support the substantive motion as it stood because of what they considered to be its sensationalist and politicised language, and said cross-party work was needed to figure out the best solutions for the town as a whole.

Members were invited to vote on the following amendment, proposed by Cllr Babbage and seconded by Cllr Harman:

-       to remove the preamble and the first bullet point.

The proposed amendment was rejected.

Cllr Lewis thanked colleagues for their contributions, and said it was disappointing that this was not a cross-party motion on which all Members could agree as she had hoped. She looked forward to taking the motion to the GCC cabinet member, emphasising that it was not a political statement but an effort to represent and protect residents.  She said the County Council had sufficient funding but did not use it effectively.

The Deputy Mayor then moved to the vote on the substantive motion.  This was as follows:

26 in support

7 abstentions

The motion was carried.

Motion B

Council notes:

-       That the opportunity to impose a ‘sewage tax’, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, of 16% of water companies’ pre-tax profits, was missed.

-       That Cheltenham’s MP has told local residents that the practice of sewage dumping happens in the River Chelt.

Council calls for:

-       An end to the dumping of sewage in rivers, including the River Chelt.

-       The introduction of a ‘sewage tax’ as outlined above to encourage water companies to end the practice of the dumping of sewage in rivers.

Council instructs:

An appropriate cabinet member to write to the MP for Cheltenham to ask him, as a Minister in the Government:

-        To support the introduction of a sewage tax on water companies

-        To explain why he did not vote for the Duke of Wellington’s original amendment to the Environment Bill

In proposing the motion, Cllr Wilkinson said that rivers and streams should be clean, the home to plants and animals, not depositories for sewage, but unfortunately, this is the case – while water companies are making billions of pounds in profit every year, they retain the right to put untreated sewage into rivers.  The issue has recently made the news, with Duke of Wellington’s attempt to introduce an amendment to the Environment Act to end the practice.  Unfortunately, the Government whips intervened, and proactively stopped the amendment from being supported.  The issue remains a concern for all, and is happening in our area, with sewage discharged into the River Chelt. 

He said the motion reflected the importance that this council placed on the environment, and continued the trend of the borough using its voice to call for better, ask questions, influence future government policy, and prevent future mistakes.  It may prompt a future policy with a clear set of targets rather than the current loose wording, and use the tax system to tax the profits of water companies, encouraging them to take the issue more seriously.

He hoped Members would recognise that this was not a political motion, and vote in support to ensure Cheltenham’s voice was heard, and all rivers across the country would benefit.  He could see no reason not to support the motion.  

In seconding the motion, Cllr Willingham said one of the combined sewer outfalls that polluted the River Chelt was in St Peter’s ward, just upstream of St Peter’s Park, where children and dogs played in the water, making this a particularly important issue for the people he represented. As county councillor, he was part of the Restore Our Rivers task group, looking at the problem across the county.  He provided details of what water companies were allowed to discharge into rivers, which made disgusting reading. He said Cllr Wilkinson’s motion demanded that government take the matter seriously, and put a tax on the practice to ensure that it wasn’t in the interest of water companies or shareholders to continue this practice.

One Member said that the Duke of Wellington’s amendment was well-meaning but wouldn’t have worked, which is why it wasn’t supported by Government.  Everyone wanted to see an end to the dumping of sewage, but while he could not support the motion, he could vote for the objective if it was put forward in a rational way. 

In debate, Members made the following points:

-       Cllr Wilkinson should be under no illusion that this is a political issue, as shown clearly by history: the government owned the water authorities, neglected them, privatised them, set up PLCs with all debts written off, and gave them £1b to clean up their act – but they haven’t.  CEOs are paid huge salaries, and their responsibility is to the board of directors; water authorities make enormous profits and it is cheaper to pay fines for dumping sewage than to change the system.  We have the most polluted watercourses in Europe, yet the government recently voted to allow more sewage to be discharged into them than in previous years;

-       rivers play a vital role in shaping communities as well as eco-systems – for activities, sports and games – and the health and well-being of people using them is a major consideration and concern.     

In summing up, Cllr Wilkinson confirmed Cllr Willingham’s concerns for his ward, which he raised as soon as the Duke of Wellington’s amendment was voted down.  He repeated that it was a shame the Environment Bill didn’t include a measure to stop sewage from being dumped, and even the LibDems’ simple suggestion that the number of animal deaths in watercourses be monitored was voted down by Conservative MPs in Parliament.  He agreed that money was at the heart of the issue, and in spite of the market failure and clear need for government intervention, this was not forthcoming. He also shared concerns for those people engaging in leisure pursuits in polluted rivers and watercourses,

The Deputy Mayor moved to the vote on the motion.  This was as follows:

26 in support

7 abstentions

The motion was carried.