Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

The Cabinet Member Councillor Andrew McKinlay introduced the report which has been circulated with the agenda. The report explained that in November 2013, Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) committed to further consider the Cheltenham Transport Plan (CTP) once the recommendations of Gloucestershire County Council’s (GCC’s) Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Committee had been received. The TRO Committee met on 15 January 2015.

The Cabinet Member reminded members that they were here to debate the Council’s response to the TRO committee decision of the 15 January and not to re-examine every aspect of the proposals again. He wanted to put on record his thanks to the TRO committee for their time and diligence in considering the Cheltenham Transport Plan. Council’s role today was to advise GCC of their view on how the Cheltenham Transport Plan should proceed in light of the TRO committee decision. He referred members to the minutes of the TRO committee which had been circulated to all Members. These confirmed that the TRO had approved all aspects of the Traffic Regulation Orders it considered as permanent schemes with the exception of the closure of Boots Corner to traffic which the committee made temporary for 18 months, with a review after 10 months.

 

He reminded members that the debate about the Cheltenham Transport Structure had been going on for over 70 years.  The current one-way system solution was adopted in the 1960s and had never been satisfactory.  In reality a 1960s traffic solution had been grafted onto a Regency Road Network and as a result, consultation had found little support for continuing with the status quo. There had been a long public debate and consultation on how best to address the issues and the current process had started in 2000. GCC believes that the Cheltenham Transport Plan can assist in delivering a long-term sustainable future for the town. He acknowledged that some people were sceptical about the impact of the plan on neighbourhoods and had questioned the accuracy of some of the evidence used. In a scheme of this complexity it was inevitable that some adjustments would be required and these would be addressed by the county council as they were identified. In the case of the Boots Corner TRO there would be a specific review after 10 months.

 

The Cabinet Member went on to address a number of specific concerns which had been raised:

 

Equality Impact Assessment - this document had been prepared by GCC in partnership with this council and relevant groups had been consulted.

 

Risk Assessment – to date the risks considered by CBC have been high-level since no decision have been taken to implement the scheme.  Detailed risks would emerge from finalised designs and would be subject to safety audits by the GCC Highways Team.

 

Bath Road - a safety trial is currently underway following two fatal accidents with the aim of reducing speeds and increasing safety.

 

Reversal costs - these were covered in the letter from Scott Tompkins, Lead Commissioner Highway Authority, GCC, to the Leader.  For clarity the costs of reversing the scheme at Boots Corner were low as major works would not begin until the TRO is made permanent.

Boots Corner experiment - this was no impediment to progress as it was always intended that there would be a review prior to making the scheme permanent.

 

In conclusion he encouraged members to consider the debate today to be about the town's future as a whole including the economy, its attractiveness of visitors, businesses and investors and for its citizens. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and he warned that if Council did not support it they could be condemning Cheltenham to decades of increasing traffic chaos with a transport system that was widely acknowledged as not being fit for purpose.

 

He therefore moved the resolution

 

"This council supports the recommendations of the Gloucestershire County Council Transport Regulation Order Committee of 15 January 2015 and asks the Chief Executive to convey this support to Gloucestershire County Council and request that they progress the delivery of  the Cheltenham Transport Plan.”

 

Councillor Tim Harman reminded members that he now spoke as the new Group Leader of the Conservative party and he thanked Councillor Duncan Smith for his excellent work in this role.

 

Councillor Harman proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Babbage.

 

1. That all changes under the Cheltenham Transport Plan TRO should be experimental, not just Boots Corner
2. That the county council is requested to provide clear, quantifiable success/failure criteria set out in advance, including regard to:

• safety, number of accidents
• pollution levels generally, AQMA areas
• journey times on certain routes in particular
• number of vehicles on a range of roads

 

3. That the county council is requested to provide bi- monthly updates on progress and assessments of the scheme
4. that mitigation funding is increased to £300,000.

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Harman felt the meeting so far had posed more questions than answers. Although he welcomed the TRO committee’s decision to make the Boots Corner TRO experimental he felt that all TROs in the scheme should be experimental. They had already been advised that under current plans if the rest of the scheme didn’t work it couldn't be reversed and if this was the case they would be failing in their duty to residents. He reminded members that the mitigation funding had been increased by Council at a previous meeting in response to an amendment from former Councillor Rob Garnham. This increase was to be funded from the New Homes Bonus and how to pay for a further increase would be something that needed to be discussed with the county council. However he pointed out that the council had received a large capital receipt for North Place which could be used to make some contribution.

 

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Babbage, had fundamental concerns about the transport plan that was being proposed for Cheltenham and he could only support it if all the TROs were experimental. He raised concerns about particular streets which would suffer increased traffic flow and named Sanford Street, Trafalgar Street and Hales Road. He was also concerned that the flow of traffic from Rodney Road into Winchcombe Street would become the new Boots Corner.

 

A Member raised a point of order and asked for clarification on the information that they had been given earlier in the meeting that any attempt by this council to  amend any of the TRO  recommendations would be likely to result in the recommendation to the GCC Cabinet being negated.

 

ST advised that as a GCC officer he could only speak in terms of the advice that he would give to his Cabinet Member in this situation and could not comment on the legal/constitutional issues.  He advised members that experimental traffic schemes were expensive to implement and could cause anger and confusion with drivers and would be unlikely to provide members with the type of trial they were looking for. He emphasised that the changes to the inner ring-road were not irreversible and needed to be given time to bed in and he reassured members that if any safety concerns were identified they would be addressed. The cost of a two-week trial at St Margaret's Road had been in the order of £30,000 as the equipment had to be hired and checked daily. Thus the costs of making the whole scheme temporary would be very high and he would recommend that if that level of funding was available it would be better placed being put into mitigation measures.

The Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor Rawson,  suggested that amendment 2.would be welcomed and was not controversial and county council officers had already offered to provide a quarterly update as requested in 3. He was concerned about the arbitrary doubling of the mitigation funding and felt that the council was already  committed to working with the county council to find the necessary funds to make the new system work. The council should not risk the scheme being pulled by agreeing the amendment. The traffic measures being proposed were sensible and would make the roads in Cheltenham safer and increase traffic capacity.

 

Another member was concerned that  the implications of the amendment were uncosted and the likely reaction of the county council was unknown.

 

Another member speaking against the amendment,  highlighted the risk of doing nothing and if there was no plan B returning to a blank sheet of paper. Doing nothing would result in Cheltenham becoming more gridlocked as traffic increases and risk damaging the economy of the town and its attractiveness as a shopping centre.

 

Several members described the amendment as a ‘wrecking’ amendment which would result in no scheme happening. They considered the benefits of the scheme had already been set out in great detail and issues had been addressed in the risk assessment. They reminded members that Council had the opportunity to express their views at the meeting in November 2013 and there had been cross-party support for the recommendations at that stage.  The consultation showed that most of the residents of Cheltenham supported the scheme for its economic and environmental benefits and its support for businesses. The Chamber of Commerce and businesses also supported the scheme. The Council’s decision today should be a straight yes or no to the scheme.

 

Another member whilst wholeheartedly supporting the closure of Boots Corner could not support the amendment as they felt the whole scheme of trying to get more traffic on fewer roads would not work.

 

A member felt that an experimental scheme would not be an accurate provider of traffic data.  Another member agreed that the whole traffic scheme would probably be too big and too complicated to trial so that could be a reason to vote against the amendment. A member reminded Council that an experimental option for Boots Corner had been put forward following concerns raised and it may be that if the council passed this amendment other feasible options for trials could appear. They also highlighted that 94% of people who expressed an opinion on the proposals were against so this was not a mandate for change.

 

In responding to the debate, the proposer assured members that this was not a wrecking motion. He understood that there were financial implications but he asked Council to consider the costs of getting the whole scheme wrong.

 

Before the vote, Councillor McKinlay indicated that he was happy to accept points 2. and .3 of the amendment into the substantive motion. Having heard the response from GCC officers he could not support 1. and he felt the fixing of a figure in 4. was premature, particularly as the Cabinet Member Finance had already assured Council that mitigation funding would be found where necessary to make the scheme work.

 

A vote on each part of the amendment requested and the  voting was as followed:

 

1)    Voting For 14, Against 22, Abstentions 2

2)    Voting For 35, Against 2, Abstentions 1

3)    Voting For 35, Against 2, Abstentions 1

4)    Voting For 11, Against 23, Abstentions 4

Parts 2 and 3 were incorporated in the original resolution proposed by Councillor McKinlay and this became the substantive motion as follows.

 

1. This Council supports the recommendations of the Gloucestershire County Council Transport Regulation Order Committee of the 15 January 2015

 

2. Requests the  Chief Executive of the Council to convey this support to Gloucestershire County Council and request that they progress the delivery of the Cheltenham Transport Plan subject to the following being provided by the County Council

 

i) clear, quantifiable success/failure criteria set out in advance, including
 

 

ii) Quarterly updates on progress and assessment of the scheme

 

 

Speaking against the motion, members made the following comments:

·         The scheme as presented was simply moving the traffic from one inner ring road to another and with fewer roads and increasing levels of traffic it would create a series of bottlenecks and possibly a new boy racer route. The correct solution was to look at developments and mitigations which would substantially reduce the volume of traffic coming into the town centre.

·         The North West distributor road should be revisited as an option.

·         The plans for the pedestrian scheme at Boots Corner was flawed by the inclusion of access for taxis, buses and cyclists. There was scepticism over whether the idyllic pictures of Boots Corner would actually be delivered in reality. The trial of Boots Corner was not a proper trial unless it included bus traffic as well. One member estimated that there could be as many as 60 to 70 buses per hour passing through this area. Boots Corner could not be compared to the shared area in the lower High Street where there was much more delineation between the road and the pavement.

·         There were still concerns that the scheme at Boots Corner permitted Hackney Carriages but not private hire vehicles and this was seen as discriminatory to many people, including the elderly, who would have to pay higher fares for the longer routes that private hire vehicles would have to travel.

·         There were concerns and sympathy for residents in St Lukes, College Road and the Sandford Park area who may suffer serious traffic problems as a result of the scheme.

·         A member was personally committed to making the town a better place to live in and even though it had taken a very long time to get to this stage that was not a good reason for implementing a solution which would not work for Cheltenham residents.

·         Previously the council had encouraged people to live in the town centre but the scheme would positively discourage people by pushing cars down residential streets causing a denigration of their standard of living with increased traffic and fumes. 

·         Concerns were expressed about the lack of work that had been done to quantify the risks both social, economic, safety and environmental that remained in the scheme.

·         There has been a failure to respond to the public and member questions which had not been answered satisfactorily at this meeting. It was important to spend more time getting the scheme right and address concerns.

·         Many cities were looking to reverse pedestrianisation

·         Other routes such as Princess Elizabeth Way had not been included in the modelling but would be adversely impacted.

·         To date many members and the public did not have confidence in the scheme as there were still too many imponderables. Members were disappointed by the lack of clarity in this debate and answers to questions.

·         The consultation appeared to show that only corporate bodies were in favour of the scheme and the council must listen to the views of the people of Cheltenham. The silent majority may not have responded to the consultation if they felt their view wouldn't be listened to. There was no mandate for the scheme from residents of the town and most people in the town were probably unaware of it.

·         Councillor Mason wished to put on record his request to the Cabinet Member for measurable outcomes to be made fully available to the public within the next three days.

·         The current traffic trial in Bath Road did not seem to be a success and it had already raised a safety issue for pedestrians crossing by the Playhouse.  A more simple way of improving safety was to put in a speed camera. 

·         There had been an emphasis on modal shift but there was nothing in the plan to evidence that and cycling had not been featured much in the debate. 

·         There were concerns that the £150K would provide insufficient funds for the mitigation necessary and the impact on schools also needs to be included.

Speaking in support of the substantive motion, Members made the following comments.

·         The scheme as presented was a good first step in getting traffic out of the town centre.

·         The suggestion of a North West bypass was an odd solution from members who favoured protecting the green belt

·         Similar schemes adopted in other towns such as Oxford and Cardiff worked well.

·         Cheltenham had a series of wide one-way routes which could easily accommodate two-way traffic.

·         Cheltenham is currently famous for its traffic problems and the scheme set out to address that. There had already been extensive informal consultation on the scheme and the council must not lose this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address a long-standing problem. If nothing was done then there would be gridlock before 2026 hence doing nothing was not an option.

·         The transport improvements to Cheltenham were a key domino which would kick off further improvements, for example reducing traffic adjacent to Royal Well would allow improvements to that area. Increased footfall could be attracted to areas of the town like St Mary's churchyard and the Brewery 2 development which were important to the town's economy and to the town's communities in terms of generating jobs. The only alternative was a plan B. which would need to knock down buildings and change the very nature of the town.

·         The scheme would also encourage and enable people to use more sustainable transport such as cycling and walking which would benefit their health and well-being. They noted that the new scheme created at least 12 new routes for cyclists.

·         Concerns had been expressed that buses would be allowed through Boots Corner. Buses must be able to access the town centre and if not at Boots Corner it would be somewhere else in the town centre.

·         The shared scheme in the lower High Street seemed to work well with no problems.

·         Members expressed confidence in the officers to deliver the scheme and their ability to implement the necessary mitigation measures.

·         Traffic flow and air quality must be monitored during the implementation

·         Change is always challenging for some people and there would probably have been similar reactions when pedestrianising the Promenade for example. There was regret if some people suffered as a result of the scheme but mitigations would be put in place.

 

In summing up, Councillor McKinlay was disappointed that members in the chamber had focussed on finding reasons for not making a decision. In his view the scheme was the culmination of 13 years of work and lots of information had been provided during that time. If the scheme is adopted there was major benefits to the economy and the environment but he acknowledged that it needed bravery to take such a decision. He regretted that there was no magical alternative and therefore he urged members to support the recommendations of the TRO committee.

 

Upon 7 Members standing in their seats, a recorded vote was requested and agreed.

 

Upon a vote the motion was CARRIED.
For; 21 – Councillors Baker, Britter, Clucas, Coleman, Fisher, Flynn , Colin Hay, Rowena Hay, Holliday, Jeffries, Jordan, McKinlay, Murch, Reid, Rawson, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson and Williams.

 

Against; 17;- Councillors Babbage, Barnes, Chard, Fletcher, Harman, Lansley, Lillywhite, Mason, Nelson, Payne, Prince, Regan, Ryder, Seacome, Smith, Stennett, and Sudbury.

Abstentions; 0