Agenda item

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor McKinlay

Seconded by: Councillor Sudbury

 

"Council notes with concern the recent proposal from the Highways Agency to alter the junction of the A417 at the Air Ballon roundabout to prevent traffic from Cirencester turning right towards Seven Springs.

 

Council resolves:-

 

To make formal representations to the Highways Agency raising amongst others the following concerns:-

 

a) The potential for a significant increase in traffic on the A46 Shurdington Road caused by traffic being diverted away from  Seven Springs.

b) The increase in time and distance for many drivers in trying to access the A40 and Leckhampton Road.

c) The increase in traffic congestion at Birdlip Hill.

d) The increase in air pollution associated with the increased traffic congestion on Birdlip Hill and the Shurdington Road.

e) The increase in "Rat Running" that will occur on the county lanes between the A417 and the Cirencester Road.

 

Council further believes that:-

 

a) The current proposals will do little to improve the widely acknowledged congestion problems that exist on the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Air Balloon.

 

b) That the Highways Agency should withdraw the current proposal, and develop a comprehensive plan to tackle traffic congestion at this location.

 

c) That no scheme be introduced until full public consultation is undertaken."

 

Motion B

Proposed by: Councillor Whyborn

Seconded by: Councillor Bickerton

"This Council notes and applauds the stance taken by Stroud District Council concerning Planning application 12/0008/STMAJW to site an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility for residual waste treatment at Javelin Park, Haresfield, Glos. The County Council’s case for the waste incinerator is essentially that its perceived benefits outweigh the Planning objections which have been made, and this case is opposed by Stroud. This Council supports Stroud District Council in its assessment that the rationale for the proposed EfW facility for residual waste treatment is deeply flawed, mainly because of its process capacity, making it surplus to need. Council notes that the process is inflexible, and inferior to alternative technologies.

 

This council considers that numerous matters of controversy which are in the public domain will make it difficult for Gloucestershire County Council to be confidently perceived by the public as an independent arbiter of the said Planning application.

 

Cheltenham Borough Council therefore calls upon the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in Planning application 12/0008/STMAJW, Residual Waste Treatment Facility, for all of the reasons detailed by Stroud District Council in their letter dated 19th December 2012."

 

Motion C

Proposed by: Councillor Garnham

Seconded by: Councillor Driver

 

“This year, as in all recent years, there is tremendous pressure upon our budget and we must look at every penny of tax payers money that we spend.  We should examine every single opportunity to save money, protect services and make the council as efficient as possible. 

 

The Government is reducing the costs of democracy and the County Council is cutting back on the number of Councillors and it is now time for Cheltenham Borough Council to examine ways of cutting the cost of running the town. 

 

Therefore we request Cabinet to recommend moving to a four yearly cycle of Borough Council elections as soon as possible.  We also call on the Cabinet to explore how a reduction of councillors can be achieved. In the interests of the Cheltenham tax payers and for the good governance of the town we ask that a report be brought back to Council in March outlining the issues, challenges and timelines of achieving both changes.”

 

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor McKinlay

Seconded by: Councillor Sudbury

 

"Council notes with concern the recent proposal from the Highways Agency to alter the junction of the A417 at the Air Ballon roundabout to prevent traffic from Cirencester turning right towards Seven Springs.

 

Council resolves:-

 

To make formal representations to the Highways Agency raising amongst others the following concerns:-

 

a) The potential for a significant increase in traffic on the A46 Shurdington Road caused by traffic being diverted away from  Seven Springs.

b) The increase in time and distance for many drivers in trying to access the A40 and Leckhampton Road.

c) The increase in traffic congestion at Birdlip Hill.

d) The increase in air pollution associated with the increased traffic congestion on Birdlip Hill and the Shurdington Road.

e) The increase in "Rat Running" that will occur on the county lanes between the A417 and the Cirencester Road.

 

Council further believes that:-

 

a) The current proposals will do little to improve the widely acknowledged congestion problems that exist on the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Air Balloon.

 

b) That the Highways Agency should withdraw the current proposal, and develop a comprehensive plan to tackle traffic congestion at this location.

 

c) That no scheme be introduced until full public consultation is undertaken."

 

In proposing the motion, Councillor McKinlay talked through his concerns set out in the motion and questioned whether the solution offered by the Highways Agency would actually work in practice. He considered it would only make a marginal difference to the traffic flow at the roundabout but once it had been put in place this junction would go to the bottom of the priority list because the Highways Agency would be able to say that they had taken some action.

 

All members who spoke supported the motion and endorsed Councillor McKinlay's concerns. Members indicated that parish councils were extremely dismayed by the plans and did not believe that the Highways Agency had considered the views of local residents. There was a need to do a proper consultation and to look at all alternative designs for the roundabout. There were concerns that residents across Cheltenham would be affected by the resulting traffic flows.

 

A member wished to place on record, members thanks to the county council and their officers for the robust and speedy way they had reacted to the proposals and insisted on proper consultation.

 

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Chard and seconded by Councillor Harman that Council should amend the resolve and add a further resolve as below (in Italics):

 

To make formal representations to the relevant Government Minister and Highways Agency raising amongst others the following concerns:-

 

d) the Leader arranges a cross-party delegation to lobby the relevant Government Minister, Norman Baker, when he visits Cheltenham on the 20th of February 2013 and encourage him to intervene to halt the Highways Agency’s proposals.  

 

This was accepted by the proposer and upon a vote the motion as amended was agreed unanimously.

 

Motion B

Proposed by: Councillor Whyborn

Seconded by: Councillor Bickerton

"This Council notes and applauds the stance taken by Stroud District Council concerning Planning application 12/0008/STMAJW to site an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility for residual waste treatment at Javelin Park, Haresfield, Glos. The County Council’s case for the waste incinerator is essentially that its perceived benefits outweigh the Planning objections which have been made, and this case is opposed by Stroud. This Council supports Stroud District Council in its assessment that the rationale for the proposed EfW facility for residual waste treatment is deeply flawed, mainly because of its process capacity, making it surplus to need. Council notes that the process is inflexible, and inferior to alternative technologies.

 

This council considers that numerous matters of controversy which are in the public domain will make it difficult for Gloucestershire County Council to be confidently perceived by the public as an independent arbiter of the said Planning application.

 

Cheltenham Borough Council therefore calls upon the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in Planning application 12/0008/STMAJW, Residual Waste Treatment Facility, for all of the reasons detailed by Stroud District Council in their letter dated 19th December 2012."

 

Proposing the motion, Councillor Whyborn suggested that the county council may have become backed into a corner on this issue and felt trapped by the previous decisions they had made going back as far as 2007 when it had first said publicly that the county should have an incinerator. The collapse of the PFI deal had provided one of many opportunities to open up the debate again.  In addition new technology had emerged which could have prompted the county council to reconsider their proposals but this had not happened.  The county council continued to claim that the benefits of the incinerator plant outweighed the planning harm that would be caused by placing this incinerator on the edge of an area of outstanding national beauty.  He was concerned that the secrecy surrounding the development precluded any proper evaluation of the scheme and therefore he supported the position adopted by Stroud District Council which was to refer the matter to the Secretary of State.

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Bickerton referred to a recent report by a government inspector who considered that there were deficiencies in the future plans for incinerators as a disposal method and other alternatives should be considered. Councillor Bickerton advised that he had recently asked a number of public questions at a meeting of Bristol City Council and as a result he now had detailed information about an identically sized plant at Avonmouth which was a mechanical biological solution with the potential to save £200 million on the proposed county council one. He also referred to the latest medical research which indicated that incinerators of this type presented a real danger to public health for people living close to the chimney. For this reason the Health Protection Agency had commissioned scientists at Imperial College to do their own research on this matter and were urging councils to allow time for the results of this research to be published. Councillor Bickerton suggested that the county council should have no shame in revisiting their decision in the light of this latest medical and scientific research.

 

Speaking against the motion, a member advised that the Health Protection Agency had recently made it crystal clear that the proposed incinerator scheme was safe.  They had indeed commissioned research but this was to reassure anyone who still had concerns. The industry responsible for the incinerators had taken steps to put in place stringent standards for emissions and as a result an incinerator of this type would produce the equivalent energy waste of a garden bonfire. The advantage of the scheme was that it would considerably reduce the waste from landfill and would achieve a range of savings and benefits. With regard to the comparison with the facility at Avonmouth, he pointed out that the waste from this plant was shipped to Holland for incineration and then sent to landfill and so he challenged the environmental advantages claimed. Another member referred to recent reports which confirmed that the proposed incinerator would comply with European legislation on emissions.  He said that a number of call-ins at the county council had thrown out the secrecy argument that Councillor Whyborn had referred to.

 

Other members speaking for the motion raised their concerns that communities living in the vicinity of such incinerators could be poisoned by dioxins. There was no safe scenario for disposing of dioxins so they would build up in the air and in human bodies. It was the high temperatures of the incinerator that would cause these dioxins to be produced and they disputed that the emissions from the incinerator were comparable with a garden bonfire as it would not reach the same high temperatures. Another member suggested that if the county council were so confident of their position, they should be happy to have it tested by the Secretary of State.

 

Another member challenged the argument regarding dioxins. No one was denying the impact of dioxins but the current research was based on the level of dioxins arising from industry in the 1950’s – 70’s and there was no logical statistical rationale for applying these results to the output from this modern plant.  The county council were very conscious of the need to protect the public health and therefore had carried out very thorough checks of all the facts.  He acknowledged that some people had concerns that the incinerator would have surplus capacity as recycling targets in the county increased.  He said there would not be a surplus as the county would have more than enough waste to fill it.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Whyborn, repeated his concerns that there needed to be a lot more work on the health issues before there could be any certainty. By the 2020/2030s he expected that the average recycling rate would be in excess of 80% and therefore the residual waste from Gloucestershire would not provide sufficient capacity to make the incinerator viable and therefore waste would need to be brought in from outside the county. The county should relook at the alternative technology available and he urged members to support the motion.

 

Upon seven members standing in their seats a recorded vote was requested:

 

Upon a vote the motion was CARRIED.

 

Voting For 22: Councillors Barnes, Bickerton, Britter, Coleman, Fisher, Flynn, R Hay, C Hay, Jeffries, Jordan, Massey, McCloskey, McKinlay, Rawson, Reid, Stewart, Sudbury, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn and Williams

 

Against 11: Councillors Chard, Driver, Fletcher, Graham, Hall, Harman, McLain, Regan, Seacome, Smith, and Wall. 

 

Motion C

Proposed by: Councillor Garnham

Seconded by: Councillor Driver

 

“This year, as in all recent years, there is tremendous pressure upon our budget and we must look at every penny of tax payers money that we spend.  We should examine every single opportunity to save money, protect services and make the council as efficient as possible. 

 

The Government is reducing the costs of democracy and the County Council is cutting back on the number of Councillors and it is now time for Cheltenham Borough Council to examine ways of cutting the cost of running the town. 

 

Therefore we request Cabinet to recommend moving to a four yearly cycle of Borough Council elections as soon as possible.  We also call on the Cabinet to explore how a reduction of councillors can be achieved. In the interests of the Cheltenham tax payers and for the good governance of the town we ask that a report be brought back to Council in March outlining the issues, challenges and timelines of achieving both changes.”

In proposing the motion, Councillor Garnham thought it was important to look at the cost of democracy. In a response to a previous member’s question about the potential savings from moving to four yearly elections, the Cabinet Member had suggested that the resulting saving of £25,000 per year was relatively small. Councillor Garnham disputed this and highlighted that nationally and at county level 4-yearly elections were the norm.

 

Councillor Driver wished it to be noted that she had been misquoted earlier in the budget speech by the Cabinet Member Finance. The half a million pound of savings she had referred to in her recent press column combined savings from four yearly elections, cutting the number of councillors by 50% and having a smaller Cabinet. 

 

Council Walklett as the Cabinet Member responsible for democracy referred members to appendix 8 of the budget papers which indicated Cabinet's intention to set up a cross party working group to look at the options for democracy including reducing the number of councillors and all related issues. He suggested that he could support the motion if the wording was changed to request Cabinet to ‘consider’ rather than ‘recommend’ which would not prejudice the findings of the cross party working group.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Jordan and accepted by the proposer.

 

A member spoke in support of moving to four yearly elections saying that it would strengthen democracy by giving the administration an opportunity of a clear four-year run to deliver their policy and demonstrate their capability to the electorate. It would also give officers a period of stability in between elections. He rejected the argument that the cost of by-elections would increase as there had been only three bi-elections in the last 10 years.

 

Another member suggested that there was likely to be more bi-elections if there was a move to 4 yearly elections. They suggested that the starting point for any review should be an open question on what kind of democracy was wanted in the town and then look at what needed to be put in place to support this. He highlighted that the boundary commission would be unlikely to consider reducing the number of councillors to less than 30. A boundary review would be an essential part of the process and it would take at least 12 months to be put on the list for review and then a further 18 months for the review to be carried out. Therefore changes to the election arrangements could not be implemented before 2016 at the earliest.

 

Upon a vote on the motion was carried unanimously.