Agenda item

1.

Question from Mrs Maggie Rayner to the Leader/Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay (in attendance)

Following the consultation meeting in St. Luke’s Hall regarding proposed traffic flow changes I would like to put the following question to the Cheltenham Borough Council:

May I have a copy of the alternatives considered when drawing up the plans to alter traffic flows around central Cheltenham?

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay

The Cheltenham Transport Plan project is a joint project of the Borough and County Councils and is a development of the Borough Council’s adopted Civic Pride proposals. Plans to address traffic as part of the project have been through a number of iterations, including early versions for 2007 which form part of the adopted Civic Pride SPD which is available of the Council’s website – these were consulted on in 2007 and 2008.

The version which was agreed to go to consultation is version 7 which has had a thorough traffic modelling study. Previously superseded layouts which were considered/modelled can be made available upon request from the Gloucestershire Highways.

In a supplementary question, Mrs Rayner asked why these alternative plans had not been on display at the consultation meeting.

The Cabinet Member responded that they were not on display at that meeting as they were not the proposals that were being consulted on at that time. Alternatives looked at earlier in the process may have been ruled out as being unviable and the purpose of the consultation was to consult on the latest thinking and to inform the next stage of the process.

2.

Question from Jan Walters to the Cabinet Member Built Environment, Councillor Andrew McKinlay (not present)

Why were local voters not made aware of the Task Force activities and given opportunities to get involved at the design stage, rather than being presented with a proposal which has not been properly thought through and is detrimental to the quality of life for many residents as well as schools and hospitals? 

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay

The Task Force activities are directed through its Board. The Board meets in public every three months in the Municipal Offices. Its members include councillors from Borough and County, a community representative and members of the local business community. In accordance with normal local government protocol, there are parts of the meeting where confidential items are considered – these are normally, though not always, matters of commercial confidence. The Task Force has a website and Facebook page and produces a regular newsletter to publicise its activities which are available to the public - access details are available from the Task Force’s Managing Director.

The Task Force was set up to deliver the Borough’s adopted Civic Pride proposals. In addition to a series of early public engagements (in 2000), Civic Pride went through 2 major consultations:

o          In late 2006 information was gathered regarding early ideas, with feedback in July 2007 where emerging plans and proposals were available for comment, these included traffic proposals.

o          In March to April 2008 the adoption of the Civic Pride SPD went through a statutory consultation process, this included details of traffic plans and public realm designs.

The work undertaken since and in advance of the latest consultation, is founded in the ideas which were the subject of these earlier consultations and which were generally supported.

The intention during this time was to work up proposals to get them to a stage where further consultation could take place – the stage we are currently at. During the design work detailed modelling took place with a variety of proposals trialled to attempt to refine or address concerns – including concerns from St Luke’s residents which were effectively raised during and following the earlier consultations.

The consultation currently underway is part of the design stage and amendments will be made prior to the statutory Traffic Regulation Order process.

3.

Question from Bob Hughes to the Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay (in attendance)                                  

With reference to the proposed traffic changes using cash from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund bid, may we have a copy of the risk assessment carried out on the impact of the traffic changes on residential neighbourhoods like St Luke's and College Road area, and particularly the hospital Accident and Emergency access?

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay

I am informed by our Gloucestershire Highways colleagues that the procedure in terms of risk assessment is as follows.

“Prior to being able to perform a meaningful assessment of risk it is important to understand what the potential hazards are along with the likelihood and consequence of that event occurring.

One of the main functions of the consultation process is to obtain better understanding of what residents interpretations of the hazards are in addition to our own. An assessment of these risks along with appropriate mitigation, where required, will then follow “

In a supplementary question, Mr Hughes asked whether there would be a further opportunity for him to access the risk assessment and raise any concerns for his local residents.

In response the Cabinet Member said that his instinct would be to say that there would be such opportunities but he could not speak for his county council colleagues. As a formal consultation process was currently in progress, he  suggested Mr Hughes should direct his question to his colleagues at the county council.

4.

Question from John Firth to the Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay (may attend)

The Cheltenham Transport Plans proposal is presented in a leaflet “selling” the traffic changes and the Boots Corner closure.

As the Cheltenham Transport Plans Tell us your View form has a strong yes bias allowing almost any answer to be taken as support, how will the council interpret the results to ensure a fair representation of the wishes of Cheltenham residents?"

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay

The Cheltenham Transport Plan leaflet explains, in outline, the proposals. I do not agree that “almost any answer” can be taken as support.

There are only two substantive questions; only one of which relates to the traffic management proposals

“Do you support the package of measures contained in the Cheltenham Transport Plan?”.

There are three tick boxes for responses:

“Yes”, “Yes - with reservations” and “No” and a box for free text identified for “…comments or reservations…”.  

The second question seeks opinions on public realm “themes“ for Boots Corner – 4 ideas are shown; there is a tick box for each and another marked “none of these” plus a space for comments.

The questions and leaflet were drawn up with specialist advice and I would consider that they invite a range of responses in an open ended manner.

There are additional questions about the respondent to allow the Council’s to build a profile of respondents in order to understand the extent to which equality issues are accounted for.

With regard to the question of interpretation, I understand that tick boxes will be totalled – clearly identifying the level of support or otherwise; free text will be reproduced and a response will be available.

5.

Question from John Firth to the Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay (may attend)

How many cars/day currently use St Lukes Road and College Road and

how many cars/day are predicted to use St Lukes Road and College Road

after the proposed closure of Boots Corner before the Smart Choices reduction?"

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment, Andrew McKinlay

Whole-day traffic data is available only in the base model (for the year 2010). We have requested it to be sent from the modellers – it will be passed to Mr Firth when it is available. Other than that, the data is modelled only as a peak hour extrapolation of the base data (08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00).

The Smarter Choices Package is integral to the whole project. The model included assumptions about the impact of Smarter Choices and modelling without these measures for the consulted scheme would not have provided an accurate representation. A model showing the proposed scheme before smarter choices has not therefore been undertaken.

As peak hour data, the currently published information represents a worst case scenario. This is the data published on the County Council website. The figures are:

St Luke’s Road  08:00 – 09:00        

    Base date (2010)                                          = 250 vehicle per hour

    Design date (2026) without CTP project      = 266 vehicle per hour (+16)

    Design date (2026) with CTP project           = 305 vehicle per hour (+39)

St Luke’s Road  17:00 – 18:00        

    Base date (2010)                                          = 198 vehicle per hour

    Design date (2026) without CTP project      = 194 vehicle per hour (-4)

    Design date (2026) with CTP project           = 177 vehicle per hour (-17)

College Road  08:00 – 09:00        

    Base date (2010)                                          = 735 vehicle per hour

    Design date (2026) without CTP project      = 786 vehicle per hour (+51)

    Design date (2026) with CTP project           = 889 vehicle per hour (+103)

College Road  17:00 – 18:00         

    Base date (2010)                                          = 740 vehicle per hour

    Design date (2026) without CTP project      = 751 vehicle per hour (+11)

    Design date (2026) with CTP project           = 783 vehicle per hour (+31)