Agenda item

As a Cheltenham resident I am very concerned about the effects of geo-engineering on the wildlife, soils, water and air pollution levels in Cheltenham. 

It seems that this has not been considered in any of your documents about mitigating climate change.

It is my opinion that geo-engineering is the single biggest cause of man-made climate change and far exceeds any other contributory factors.

I have provided scientific evidence of this, alongside hundreds of weather modification patents.

https://climateviewer.com/2014/03/24/geoengineering-weather-modification-patents/

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/883115/geoengineering-position-statement.pdf

Can you please advise if any steps are being taken by the council to mitigate the effects of geo-engineering in Cheltenham and whether it will be properly taken into account in your climate policies?

Cabinet Member response

Cheltenham Borough Council has a stated aspiration to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless of cause, to reach net zero emissions by 2030 at a local level, supported by the climate Emergency Action Plan.  Wider causal global macro environmental factors fall beyond our realistic scope.

Geo-engineering describes a set of technologies which encompass both Greenhouse Gas Removal and Solar Radiation Management which are designed to remove rather than increase greenhouse gas emissions, as per the government document you provided as an attachment above.

Our pathway does not specifically refer to either greenhouse gas removal technologies or solar radiation management. Our priority is to address greenhouse gas emissions at a local level, with particular focus on the council’s carbon emissions. Solar radiation management would not be considered, given these technologies require very large-scale intervention. The only greenhouse gas removal technologies we would likely implement, at our level, would be tree planting or other localised nature-based solutions.

Supplementary question

Governments around the world are facilitating deliberate stratospheric aerosol injections that are destroying lifestyles and eco-systems.  Carbon dioxide is essential for life and does not cause climate change.  Why not come clean about the real cause of man-made climate change instead of blaming it on peoples’ cars?

Cabinet Member response:

If you provide evidence for the claims you are making, I will respond in writing.

ii.  Question from Mr Steven Thomas to Cabinet Member for Cyber, Regeneration and Commercial Income, Councillor Mike Collins

I am very concerned about the transparency and openness of the Golden Valley development.  Of particular note is the lack of consultation with the public.  Supposedly a consultation was carried out at the Gloscol Campus and a visit to the centre on a wet winter’s day. Assuming that you are not a resident at the Gloscol Campus or were not in the town centre in January, then you would not  have known about eh Golden Valley Development or had an opportunity to give you opinion.

I only know about the development because I have started taking an interest in the council’s business but I would say that the large majority of Cheltenham residents have absolutely no idea about what is going on there.

Alongside NetZero and 5G, this yet another example of where the general public are being given no say in areas of huge significance, and is simply not acceptable.

Can you please advise why all Cheltenham Residents were not advised and consulted for their feedback on the Golden Valley development before the decision was taken.

Cabinet Member response

I would like to thank Mr Thomas for his question.

Since submission of your question, we have now responded to your freedom of Information request that highlights the extensive consultation exercise the council has undertaken on our development proposals for Golden Valley.  Ahead of our public consultation days, we targeted 7,500 local homes with a leaflet drop and made all of the information available on our website.  Additionally, a number of stakeholder engagement sessions were undertaken with key organisations and over 350 people were reached through the town centre ‘pod’.

There were multiple opportunities for residents of the town to stay involved in the project and comment on the proposals develops, not least through the formal planning process.

It is not clear from your questions which ‘decision’ you are concerned about, but you may wish to consult the Council’s website for information on decisions that have been made.

Supplementary question

Golden Valley Development is a major change for Cheltenham residents and will affect everyone.  The leaflets say 350 new homes are to be built , whereas the website says 1000 homes – this is contradictory.  Not everyone might want a smart district cyber hub which facilitates the government’s agenda in Cheltenham.  All residents should have been consulted.  Why weren’t all households notified and given the opportunity to make representations before the green light was given?

Cabinet Member response:

The 350 new homes referred to on the leaflet only represent part of the site, not the whole development.

I am happy with the consultation undertaken so far.  As part of the response to your FOI request, you have received a comprehensive statement of community involvement, compiled by CBC’s consultant HGH.  This highlights four social value stakeholder engagements sessions, based on community, culture, economy and environment, where interested groups were invited to take part and ask questions. 

7,500 homes received two leaflets, highlighting two public consultation events at GlosCol, which were attended by 130 people, many leaving feedback.  A further 29 left feedback online, and 350 people attended two sessions at the pod on the Strand, also leaving feedback.  There have also been 2,300 visits to the project website, with feedback left.  The Golden Valley Development website provides a huge amount of information; there is information on the CBC website, and there have been articles in the press, including Gloucestershire Live, Punchline, and the BBC. In addition all CBC’s and our development partner’s social media platforms include articles and information about the project so far.  I am more than happy with the level of public engagement so far.

Going forward, as stated in my written response, there will be multiple opportunities for residents to provide feedback and comments.

The statement of community involvement makes it clear that CBC has fulfilled its requirement to engage appropriately with local communities at the pre-app state and been fully compliant with its responsibilities.