Agenda item

Presentation by Jeremy Williamson (Cheltenham Development Task Force)

Jeremy Williamson from the Cheltenham Development Task Force talked through some slides (Appendix 2) which he hoped members would find useful in explaining the current situation with regard to the Cheltenham Spa Railway Station and the vision for the future.

He explained that there had been no major upgrades to the station for some 60 years.  The station had a restricted up and down, uni-directional two track layout; one track north, one track south and no way of crossing between.  This restrictive layout caused major delays in the event of a train failure and meant that the entire network had to close for 7 minutes to allow terminating services to cross the line.  As an indication of scale, there were 94 Cross Country train services daily and in addition to this, terminating services and freight trains and 1,812,624 passenger journeys were recorded in 2011/12. 

The LEP Strategic economic Plan notes that there is: - Limited direct train services to London; High car dependence; High levels of commuting within the County.  The formation of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Board created an opportunity for third parties to identify and submit bids towards localised priorities and this resulted in the development of a bid with the following components:- two new platforms that would accommodate the future anticipated passenger growth and critically improve performance by separating terminating from through trains (They would also be designed to cater for the Intercity express trains to be introduced in 2017);  a completely new hub layout with a proper bus interchange, cycle facilities and a 2 story car park (to help alleviate parking issues); new passenger facilities within a new concourse.  Members were shown a virtual tour of what the changes would achieve, which he felt reflected upgrades which had been undertaken to a number of stations. 

An initial bid for £3.3m of the anticipated £20m spend, was secured from the Gloucestershire Local Transport Board.  However, Network Rail and First Great Western subsequently felt that the additional bay platforms could not be delivered within control period 5 (a railway operating financial structure) so this element was deleted and a new bid submitted.  The revised bid for £1.95m of an estimated £10m spend was submitted and whilst it scored highly, only £1.1m was awarded initially and after further negotiation with GLTB this was raised to c£1.5m.  The rail industry has secured funding from Access for All and the National Stations Improvement Programme and whilst it is hoped to be worth £2-3m, these sums had not yet been confirmed.  A further bid had been made, with the support of Sustrans from the Department for Transport Cycle-Rail initiative, which would assist delivery of the connection of the Honeybourne Line southwards to Lansdown.  This would immediately open up cycle connectivity to the south and an interface with the 10 minute X94 Stagecoach service.  This would also align with another ambition/bidding process to create a 4 mile Cheltenham-Bishops Cleeve cycle route.  The LEP Growth Fund round 2 (or top-up) recently called for projects so a bid was submitted for £10m to fund the bay platforms.  This was never expected to be successful as it did not meet the delivery criteria in terms of timescale and it was inevitably unsuccesful, but it was felt important to note future potential, as an important County wide project; Cheltenham is by far the busiest station in the County.  First Great Western would be awarded the franchise in the new year and this would hold their position for a further 3.5 years.  The LTP3 was out for consultation and it was noted that it mentioned rail in great detail compared to earlier versions  The publication of the Western Route Survey also supported many of the ambitions for Cheltenhamand actually acknowledged the capacity issue posed by Cheltenham., .  

The proposals fruition would allow for door to door journeys, growth and ultimately, an improved customer experience.

Jeremy Williamson gave the following response to member questions;

·         IEP trains formed part of the proposal for the wider Western network.  These trains were longer, quieter and the engines were located underneath, which allowed for more passengers. 

·         The GLTB had devised a complex scoring system and the initial bid had ranked third.  The amended bid was resubmitted and this was ranked at fifth.  The assumption had been that this would secure the total sum of the bid (£1.95m) however, the GLTB announced that bids ranked at fourth, fifth and sixth would instead be given £1.1m each.  After interventions and lobbying the offer was revised to £1.5m.

·         The GLTB members include two County councillors, one LEP and one district council representative.  The LEP member had abstained from the vote.

·         Consideration was given to the relocation of the station at an early stage and was soon discounted.  The land, to the North of Cheltenham, was not owned by Network Rail, had already been earmarked for development and was still outside of the town centre.

·         He did not agree that the option being proposed would be more expensive as a result of the cut.  By using the existing typography, it would be hidden by the cutting.

Asked if and how a scrutiny task group could support or benefit the process, Jeremy suggested that it could help form the boroughs formal response to the LTP3 and Western Route Study. 

The Chairman thanked Jeremy for his attendance.