Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Built Environment

Councillor McKinlay, Cabinet Member Built Environment, introduced the report on the Cheltenham Transport Plan consultation.  He told Members that the current one way system had been built around an 18^th century townscape and it was never going to work effectively.  He reminded Members that the proposals to review the traffic flows in Cheltenham had a long history starting back in 2001 with the Latham Report, public consultation in 2007, followed by consultation on Civic Pride and the traffic management plan in 2008. 

 

The key elements of the plan included two way travel down some current one way systems, redesigning 13 junctions and the removal of 5 sets of traffic lights in addition to the closure of Boots Corner to through traffic.  The current traffic management system was a barrier to the town, and the proposals would help increase the attractiveness of the town centre and bolster the town’s economy.  Traffic volumes would decrease in certain areas and this would assist with air quality.  The proposals would also assist the access to town centre car parking, and the improved safety measures would assist in encouraging more cycling and walking.

 

He drew attention to appendix A of the report which set out the details of the consultation exercise undertaken, and to the wide range of concerns which had been identified by the public, and which were set out on pages 27-48 of the agenda pack.  He was pleased with the level of response and that the public had engaged with the process.

 

The proposals would address a number of long standing existing problems with traffic movements around the town and also address the predicted increase in traffic over the coming years.  Tourism and commerce would be boosted by the proposals and it would encourage a more sustainable transport system.  He believed it was good for town and the people of Cheltenham and he wished to recommend it to Council.

 

The Cabinet Member referred Members to the amended resolutions that had been circulated at the start of the meeting and proposed the following recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Jordan.

 

That Council

 

i)                    Considers the Cheltenham Transport Plan Consultation Report produced on behalf of GCC for CBC, along with the initial suggestions for dealing with the concerns raised; and

ii)                  Confirms its support for the Cheltenham Transport Plan and recommends that Cabinet requests that GCC undertakes the enabling statutory Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process to facilitate delivery of the Cheltenham Transport Plan

iii)                Cabinet be recommended, subject to the outcome of the TRO process, to request GCC to either:

a)     progress the delivery of the Cheltenham Transport Plan, and monitor it for an evaluation period of several months, with a view to identifying any appropriate mitigation measures, using the £100 000 LSTF monies specifically allocated for this purpose; or

 

b)     reconsider the options for delivering or otherwise the Cheltenham Transport Plan in liaison with CBC and the Cheltenham Development Taskforce

 

The Mayor then asked Members for any questions on the report before moving into the main debate and Richard Cornell, LSTF Programme Manager,Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) was asked to support the Cabinet lead on any technical issues.  The following responses were given:

• The area for the traffic modelling had extended to Gloucester Road in the west, Old Bath Road and Hales Road in the East, PittvillePark to the north, and the A40/Suffolk Road, Thirlestaine Road in the south.
• In response to a question as to what measures would be in place to encourage walking and cycling, and what evidence there was that the traffic problems would be solved for the next 15 years, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that there was no perfect solution.  However he said that changes to signage, bus and cycle priority routes plus a package of measures to change behaviours would all improve the current traffic situation and that the programme as it developed would be flexible to ensure that improvements were successful.
• The £150k which was set aside for mitigating actions would be used to create a package of measures, some to be implemented (if practical and appropriate and following consultation) ahead of any changes and some afterwards once the full effects were known.  It was acknowledged that consultation with residents could commence in advance of the scheme to ensure there was resident engagement.
• The concerns of Stagecoach were noted but the impact of buses crossing the pedestrian area had been researched and other towns and cities have such operation without any safety issues.  Indeed the current High Street already works on this basis.
• The contribution that community transport makes to the elderly and disabled is valued and discussions are already taking place with such operators regarding dropping off points.  Consideration was also being given as to how they could access the area closed to vehicles and reassurance was given to Members that these discussions were ongoing.
• In response to a question as to whether there were alternative proposals and concerns that if the proposed changes were ineffective then over future years further changes would have to be made, it was noted that there were no alternative proposals and that the modelling demonstrated that the proposals would work.  The funding from central government runs until March 2015 and would be lost if not taken up.
• The Head of Legal Services confirmed that he had given legal advice on the wording of the recommendations so that they took account of executive functions and decisions.  However he said that this did not prevent the Cabinet from liaising with and referring matters to Council prior to them making a decision.
• Clarification was given that the only buses and cycles would be able to go through Boots Corner during the core hours i.e. during the working day and that outside of these core hours, hackney carriages and delivery vehicles would be permitted.  It was unlikely that private hire vehicles would be permitted due to practicalities of them being unregistered.
• It was noted that useful meetings had been held with disabled groups to discuss the plans and that in future GCC needed to attend.
• In response as to why the Council had been requested to debate the matter by GCC, and whether this was a sign that they were unhappy with the proposals, confirmation was given that the GCC had been involved in the preparation of the Local Sustainable Transport Funding (LSTF) bid, that they had worked with CBC and the Cheltenham Development Task Force (CDTF) by providing advice and looking at the impacts of the scheme and that they had also worked with the council to develop the final proposals.  Under the spirit of localism the decision as to whether to proceed rested with the borough council.  The scheme had been initiated by CBC, and GCC were partners within the CDTF and have a statutory role for highways, and it was acknowledged that the scheme was not being imposed by GCC.

 

 

As there were no further questions the Mayor moved to the substantive debate.

 

Several Members made reference to the improvements that two way traffic would make to the town.  There was recognition by many Members who spoke that the current one way system was not effective.  It was noted that the road was a barrier and often difficult for car users to understand how to access parts of the town. 

 

Concern was expressed about the impact of the proposals on air quality given that in some parts of the town levels were already near to EU limits.  A Member reminded that the council had over the last few decades encouraged people to live in the town centre. It now had a thriving town centre population who would now be impacted from noxious fumes given the redistribution of traffic to residential streets.  Another Member noted that the proposals should reduce air pollution in some of these known hotspots.

 

Several Members expressed their concerns about the public consultation exercise and the validity of the results.  Others welcomed the participation by the public and the issues that they had raised and felt that overall there was public support.  A few Members felt that there had been conflicting messages and they still felt that they and the public did not understand fully what was being proposed. Moving forward there needed to be better communication and engagement.  A Member felt that the delay in consultation until after the elections in May, had caused confusion for some residents but could understand GCC’s reasons for delaying the consultation.  One Member felt that nothing in the plan had changed following the consultation. 

 

Some Members questioned whether the scheme could be introduced on a phased or trial basis to assess the impacts before the scheme was finalised.  There were also some comments and concerns about the length of time assigned to evaluating the schemes and implementing the mitigating actions.  It was noted that the £150k allocated for mitigation should assist in dealing with any issues which arose and that residents should be engaged at an early stage.  It was agreed that there needed to be a clear timescale for reviewing the scheme once implemented and taking remedial and mitigating actions.

 

The benefits of the scheme were debated, including the improvements to the environment around Boots Corner for pedestrians.  It was also recognised that some journeys would be shorter whilst others may take longer, but taking out traffic lights and improving junctions would improve journey times.  The proposals also included a package of measures to get residents to change their travelling habits which was recognised by a Member when supporting the scheme. 

 

Although most Members were supportive of the scheme and felt that it had many positive aspects many stated that they had reservations and would want the concerns that they raised to be considered as the scheme was implemented.  One Member stated that although they wanted to see the town improve they recognised the deep disquiet from residents and rather than have a scheme predicated on opportunistic funding they wanted to see more due diligence undertaken on the proposals before it was taken forward. 

 

Several Members talked about the once in a generation opportunity and also reminded Members of previous changes to the road system (which at the time had been controversial) but which had improved the town such as removing vehicles from parts of the Promenade and the High Street.  It was also noted that the proposals put forward this evening had arisen from an evolutionary process starting back in 2001.  A Member said that it was one of the most important decisions that the Council would take and that they needed to be bold and have the vision to improve the town.  Other Members said that the town needed to keep pace with other towns across the country and if nothing was done then the traffic congestion would increase.  A Member felt that by looking back to the past one could see the opportunity for the future by returning the town centre back to the elegant avenues of the past.

 

There was recognition that the removal of the pelican crossing by the bus station may cause difficulties for the elderly and disabled.  Many Members held the general view that the project team should think carefully about the impacts on the elderly, disabled and parents with prams when implementing the scheme. 

 

Councillor Lansley indicated that he would be abstaining when it came to the vote due to many of the concerns already raised by Members such as communication, engagement and impacts on the town, and although supportive in principle the scheme should not be introduced at any cost.  As Councillor for a ward which would be impacted by the proposals he felt that the Council should take time to reflect on the consultation and consider amending the proposals.

 

Two members strongly advocated the provision of a bus station as part of the package, and hoped that this could be achieved. There were also concerns expressed by some about the safety of cycling within the town centre.  Some Members also mentioned their concern that unless implemented carefully there may be safety issues for pedestrians if buses were still using the area at Boots Corner. 

 

One Member made reference to the car parking charges and that other towns did not have such high charges.

 

The validity of the traffic modelling was questioned as it made assumptions about the way in which drivers behave and also only covered the main town centre area.  Members were reminded that traffic modelling was only a prediction and had failed in the past and a Member gave an example from their own ward where traffic flows were not as predicted once the new Battledown development was completed.

 

Many Members made reference to the benefits that the scheme would bring to the economy of Cheltenham, although one Member felt that this was overstated as the dispersed traffic may impact unfavourably on businesses outside of the core town centre.  Others spoke of the difficulties that would arise if the council did nothing and the potential for the town to stagnate and not move forward.  The town was attractive and the plans would enhance this and make Cheltenham an attractive place to visit, shop and work which benefits the overall economy.

 

One Member stated that his reservations about the proposals did not mean that he lacked vision or did not care about the town, but was using his own judgement and beliefs to protect the residents from the consequences of a scheme which if implemented would impact on generations to come.

 

The proposals included enhancements to the physical environment and a Member requested that it was important that whatever was put in place was able to be maintained effectively, for example being able to replace broken paving slabs.

 

A few Members questioned whether there was any plan B, as they had reservations about the proposals, and also made reference to the need to go further in looking at the opportunity for an outer ring road.  They felt that with the increasing traffic and development proposed through the JCS process that the scheme may not be sufficient and they were unsure as to how traffic volumes would disperse around the town.

 

The Traffic Regulation Order was a GCC responsibility but it was noted that it would come back to Cabinet before finalising.  It was felt that there needed to be some engagement with Members.

 

Councillor Chard proposed an amendment that the TRO should come back formally to Council.  This was seconded by Councillor Driver.

 

There was some concern as to what message this might give to GCC as they were looking for a clear steer from the Council as to their support for the scheme. A member said that GCC’s legal responsibilities with regards to TRO’s should be recognised and the Head of Legal Services confirmed that GCC had ultimate responsibility for local transport planning and TROs.

 

Following a ten minute recess the Cabinet Member Built Environment proposed to revise recommendation (iii) to include “subject to consultation with Council” and Councillor Chard who had proposed the original amendment agreed to it being withdrawn.

 

In summing up the debate Councillor Mckinlay said that many of the concerns raised by Members were similar to those raised in the consultation listed on pages 27-48 which also listed the mitigating actions.  He recognised that some Members may not agree with the proposed solutions but he was confident that the matters had been addressed.  He was happy to consult with Council colleagues at appropriate stages and also to engage with residents, and explore with them appropriate mitigating actions. He had listened carefully to all of the comments that had been made by those in favour of the scheme and those against.  He advised that there is no Plan B and that if Members could not see the advantage of the proposals then they should vote against it, but he believed that it was a 1 in 25 years opportunity to do something and the only chance to address the traffic issues impacting on the town.

 

 

RESOLVED THAT

 

Having considered the “Cheltenham Transport Plan Consultation Report” produced on behalf of GCC for CBC, along with the initial suggestions for dealing with the concerns raised:

 

i)        the Cheltenham Transport Plan be supported and Cabinet be recommended to request GCC to undertake the enabling statutory Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process to facilitate delivery of the Cheltenham Transport Plan

 

ii)Cabinet be recommended, after consultation with Council, and subject to the outcome of the TRO process, to request GCC to either:

 

a)     progress the delivery of the Cheltenham Transport Plan, and monitor it for an evaluation period of several months, with a view to identifying any appropriate mitigation measures, using the £100 000 LSTF monies specifically allocated for this purpose; or

 

b)     reconsider the options for delivering or otherwise the Cheltenham Transport Plan in liaison with CBC and the Cheltenham Development Taskforce

 

 

Voting : For : 26, Against: 9; Abstentions: 3