Agenda item

A debate on a petition received on 23 August 2013 (deferred from 7 October meeting)

Mr Adam Lillywhite was invited to address Council. He explained that he was representing a group of residents who understood the implications of closing Boots Corner. The group questioned the economic drivers as they believed that much of the claimed benefit would be negated by the predictable outcome.  In their view, traffic would not simply ‘disappear’ without major implications for the town, the modelling was negligent and the plan failed to understand or mitigate its own impact.  More sensitive economic, environmental and social solutions existed and needed exploring.

Mr Lillywhite explained that factor analysis showed that the four shortest alternate routes on average more than doubled journey length and complexity. This meant that twice as many cars, congestion, pollution and danger to the public, all of which would be moved out of the purpose built one way system to car lined narrow residential streets where the impact would be far greater. The model used did not include the 26% increase in households (outlined in the JCS) or allow for a vast new supermarket generating 1000 plus extra journeys an hour around the town centre at busy times.

Mr Lillywhite believed that the principle stakeholders had not been involved in this plan and early efforts to engage in the process had been rebuffed.  The refusal to discuss issues meant that potentially crucial options remained unexplored. He also stated that the pre-determination of this decision was clear from letters, and an early meeting with the local MP and the re-location of traders so that work could commence.  This pre-determination had driven the optimistic bias of the consultation which did not identify negative impact, used inadequate maps, and exaggerated the benefit. The leaflet misled respondents and left them unable to make an informed and reasoned judgement as legally required by the Gunnings principle.  Given the ambiguity of the response options and interpretation, given that ‘Closure’ was not mentioned on the entire response form, residents therefore believed that this could not be considered a mandate.  Two and half times as many people have explicitly requested that Boot Corner remains open, not closed.

Mr Lillywhite made reference to Protocol 1 of the Human rights act which states, “that a person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes not only the home but also the surroundings.” He believed that this had been totally ignored.

In summing up Mr Lillywhite said that the failure to appropriately weigh the aforementioned risks had led the petitioners to believe that, like the electorate, Councillors have not been made fully aware of the consequences of closing Boots Corner. He believed there were better alternatives such as shared space and timed options which would achieve the desired outcome without the economic, environmental and social costs. He therefore urged the Council to implement smarter choices and seek alternatives to the closure of Boots Corner.

Councillor McKinlay thanked Mr Lillywhite for his petition which he welcomed as this was an important issue and it was right that concerns had been brought to the attention of the Council. He did however take issue with the claim that the Council did not have a mandate. He clarified that this was a consultation not a referendum and the inference from the petitioners was that they had a better feel for public opinion than the consultation. He acknowledged the considerable work that had been undertaken to collect signatures for the petition which was not an easy exercise. In terms of fact the written petition had received 910 signatures and 217 by email giving a total of 1127. He used this data to match data from the GCC consultation to see how it compared. 813 petitioners were from Cheltenham and he plotted these against the map in Appendix B. There were 226 from the east, 178 from the south (91 of whom resided in St Lukes/College Road), 162 in the West, 41 in the North and 72 in central Cheltenham. 84 signatories were not located. When comparing these figures to GCC there were 293 from the east, 111 from the south, 137 from the west, 58 from the north and 72 from central with 161 not known. This totalled 832. This suggested that those in St Luke’s who had signed the petition had not responded to the consultation. If both sets of data were compared the number of respondents were identical and the respondents were the same with the exception of the south. In conclusion therefore there was a high percentage response to the petition and the same people had responded to the consultation. The petition and the consultation were therefore similar although at least a third of the petitioners did not respond to the consultation and say no.

Councillor Garnham proposed two additional recommendations to the resolution. These were seconded by Councillor Smith.

1)     Irrespective of the outcome of agenda item 10 this council establishes a liaison group with the residents of St Luke’s to address present traffic issues and future concerns in relation to the Cheltenham Transport Plan

2)     That £50 000 of New Homes Bonus be allocated for spending on any mitigation works arising out of the implementation, if it occurs, of the Cheltenham Transport Plan. This money would be in addition to GCC’s £100 000.

In proposing the amendment Councillor Garnham acknowledged the valued views of the residents of St Luke’s. The petition had raised awareness of the issues. The Council had to ensure it was listening to the views that had been expressed and a working group involving local residents and disabled groups in the town should address many of the fears. He made reference to the £100 000 which had been allocated for mitigation measures which he felt was insufficient bearing in mind the cost of implementation. The amendment proposed that New Homes Bonus money was used for its true purpose, i.e. to mitigate against the effects of extra development and in this case traffic.

In discussing the amendment Members paid tribute to the hard work of residents who had put together the petition. Concern was expressed that residents felt they had been ignored throughout the process. It was therefore high time to talk to residents prior to the implementation of the scheme and the proposed amendment to incorporate the views of residents was welcomed. Some Members recognised the impact the Cheltenham Transport Plan would have on residents in the St Luke’s area and that the displacement of traffic in to the St Paul’s and other areas in the town was also of concern. A Member commented that it was essential to sort out the congestion in St Margaret’s Road, in conjunction with the traffic scheme and this had been referred to in the consultation report. If traffic couldn’t flow freely into and through St Margaret’s Road then this would displace traffic into other areas. Other members concurred with this view. It was important that the proposed liaison group could include interested parties from other areas of the town. It was suggested that the hospital be included in the proposed liaison group as major employers with high numbers of patient visitors.

The Leader clarified that the £100 000 already allocated for mitigation measures came from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. He acknowledged the need to work with residents.

As seconder of the amendment Councillor Smith had hoped that there would be an apology from the Cabinet Member to residents that their concerns had not been listened to. It was now time to rebuild and reengage constructively with residents.

On being put to the vote it was :

RESOLVED THAT

1. the concerns of certain sections of the public be noted and that these be considered within the context of the Cheltenham Transport Plan Consultation Report.

2. Irrespective of the outcome of Agenda Item 10 a liaison group with the residents of St Luke’s be established to address present traffic issues and future concerns in relation to the Cheltenham Transport Plan

3. £50 000 of New Homes Bonus be allocated for spending on any mitigation works arising out of the implementation, if it occurs, of the Cheltenham Transport Plan. This money would be in addition to the £100 000 from Gloucestershire Council

Voting : For : 33, Against : 1, Abstentions : 4