Agenda item

Report of the Cheltenham Spa Railway Station scrutiny task group, to be presented by Councillor Roger Whyborn as Chairman of the task group (see recommendations)

Councillor Whyborn introduced the STG report as circulated with the agenda.  He had considered it a privilege to Chair the group as well as being some of the most interesting work he had undertaken in his time as a councillor.  He felt it was important to highlight some key events between September 2014 and July 2015, by which time the group had concluded its review, before talking through the recommendations.  First Great Western (FGW) were awarded an extension of 3.5 years  to the London service franchise by the Department for Transport (DfT) and as such the ambition for the task group to better understand the franchise renewal process was superseded by events.  Then in late 2014, the Western Route Study, published by Network Rail, which included proposals for an enhanced train service from Cheltenham to London; it was subsequently announced that there would be an hourly service to Paddington from Cheltenham in 2017/18 and a longer term objective for journey times to Paddington of below 2 hours.  The task group devised a motion which was considered and passed by Council in December 2014 and was duly submitted as a response to the consultation.  The task group met with representatives from Network Rail and FGW in March 2015 and were able to press upon them the perceived priorities for Cheltenham’s train service and the station itself. 

In descending order he offered a brief explanation to each of the recommendations of the task group.  The group accepted that not everything could be categorised as a priority and with this in mind had devised recommendation 3, which set out a number of matters which the group felt it was important were kept in mind in future.  The group acknowledged with concern, that a consequence of increased services to London would be an increased pressure on the rail network and the need to terminate additional trains at Cheltenham, putting significant pressure on the single siding.  It was important to note that Network Rail had, for the first time, recognised that there was an issue at Cheltenham.  The task group supported the proposal for 2 bay platforms, not as the only solution, but as the only solution that had been developed at this time.  Recommendation 1 identified the major issues and some of the limitations of Cheltenham Station. Passenger numbers had doubled since the 1990’s and once they exceeded 2 million the station would be put into another Category and this would pose issues, especially to non-able bodied passengers.  He referred members to Appendix 2 of the STG report, a letter from Clare Perry MP at the DfT.  He stressed that though this could easily be perceived as a case of ‘job done’, it should be noted that whilst a significant programme of investment and improvements was planned, not all allocation of monies was complete and therefore there were no guarantees as to if; how; or indeed when the improvements would happen.  He suggested that the reference to devolution would have been more detailed had the report been drafted and finalised more recently, but the report itself did suggest that the County should lobby for powers similar to those given to Transport for London.  Stagecoach were a business and therefore ran services largely on commercial merits only, but the task group were of the opinion that this did not necessarily result in a service that met the needs of everyone.  It was clear that first tier authorities had regular discussions with transport providers and the group felt that second tier authorities needed to be represented to ensure that local issues were taken into account. 

In response to a question from a member of the committee, Councillor Whyborn explained that as part of a conventional structure CBC were not responsible for transport, but as part of a combined authority we would be in a position to help shape transport services across the county and he viewed this as a paramount for the county as part of the devolution bid. 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Whyborn for his attendance and for the work of the task group on this issue.  He was also keen that communication with residents living near the train station was maintained so that they were kept informed of what was happening.  The committee were reminded that a follow-up would be scheduled for 12 months and that the Managing Director of the Cheltenham Development Task Force had been asked to keep O&S informed of any developments. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the recommendations as set out in the Scrutiny Task Group report be agreed and Cabinet be recommended to:

1.    Authorise the Managing Director of the Cheltenham Task force in conjunction with the Leader of the Council to undertake the following tasks and to report progress to O&S in 12 months’ time;

·         To proactively lobby the relevant parties for all improvements in Phase 1A and 1B as listed in the table at 5.1.3 of the task group report.

·         Being mindful of devolution, particularly the integration of transport, to continue dialogue with Gloucestershire County Council, Local Economic Partnership and others; in particular to pursue all possible opportunities to improve public transport links to/from Cheltenham Spa station. 

·         Publicise Smartcard and PlusBus opportunities in the area.

·         In view of the fact that some funding levels and finalised proposals for all of the improvements to the station have not yet been announced, to keep O&S informed of any developments.

2.    Note that whilst the service improvements announced by FGW are to be welcomed, it should be acknowledged, with concern, that a consequence of the increased services to London will be increased pressure on the rail network in the need to terminate additional trains.  Thus Phase 2 will be even more necessary than it is a present.

3.    To note the other relevant matters raised;

·         On the north/south route, though train services are fairly frequent, there is concern that lack of route capacity may stifle traffic, and hence modal shift to rail in the future, with too high a proportion of traffic going by road.

·         The rolling stock on some local services, particularly operated by Arrive trains, if life-expired, and should be a factor when this franchise is renewed.

·         The train service to Worcester remains poor and is not addressed by the recent proposals.

·         The potential for future improvements through both electrification and re-signalling on the Bristol-Birmingham line is to be welcomed.