Agenda item

Report of the Cycling and Walking scrutiny task group, to be presented by Councillor Max Wilkinson as Chairman of the task group (see recommendations)

Councillor Wilkinson, Chairman of the scrutiny task group, introduced the report, as circulated with the agenda. He felt that there were legitimate reasons for the review, given the need to reduce congestion and improve air quality within the borough. National and internationally renowned experts including John Mallows of Cheltenham & Tewkesbury Cycling Campaign and Bronwen Thornton of Walk21 were co-opted onto the group, which held a series of meetings and heard evidence from a range of people including Officers from Cheltenham Borough and Gloucestershire County Councils. Members of the group also organised a seminar on 20’s plenty (a national campaign to reduce speed in urban areas) and undertook a site visit to Bristol to witness, first hand, examples of good practice in cycling infrastructure and promotion. He accepted that none of the recommendations alone would solve the issues facing cycling and walking but felt that collectively they would go some way. He took this opportunity to thank Tess Beck, who had recently left Democratic Services, for her hard work and enthusiasm throughout the review.

Councillor Wilkinson, along with the Townscape Manager, gave the following responses to member questions;

· All members of the task group agreed that it was not ideal for cyclists and pedestrians to share footpaths but opinion was split about whether cyclists should be permitted on the Promenade and high street in Cheltenham. Councillor Wilkinson's opinion was that both were wide enough to not pose the same problem as cycling on pavements, provided cyclists were responsible.

· The Townscape manager felt that the problem with high street was that there were a number of regimes; some areas permitted vehicles, cycles or neither and some even permitted buses and his general feeling was that there was a need for some consistency. As part of the considerations of the Cheltenham Transport Plan, thought would be given to what to include about cycling. Those that argued that cycling should be permitted throughout did so on the grounds that there would always be someone that would break the rules but that the majority would not.

· The Transport Plan proposed that the regime for buses would remain unchanged except for a possible route across the front of Boots, which would equate to a length of 5-10 metres only. There was a lot of evidence that the more that you segregated drivers from their surroundings, with railing for example, the faster they would drive and railings severely disadvantaged pedestrians.

· The argument for ‘no helmets’ was a view that was held strongly by cycling groups, in an effort to normalise cycling and make it a more attractive proposition to a broader range of people. The task group were not suggesting that cyclists should be advised not to wear helmets but rather that any promotional images should feature cyclists without helmets rather than presenting a stereotypical image of cyclists wearing helmets and hi-vis clothing.

· Evidence suggested that lower speed limits reduced congestion and it was a fact that the impact of a collision at 20mph was far reduced than a collision at 30mph. The recommendation of the task group was that an assessment of the appetite for a 20mph limit across the town should be sought from residents and advice from Officers had been that it was far easier to apply for a Traffic Regulation Order for a default 20mph limit and then exclude main routes from it, rather than to apply for a number of smaller areas.

· The task group did not approach the Police for their view on a 20mph speed limit because enforcement was not a pertinent issue. Most motorists abide by speed limits, which means any new limit would likely be successful due to compliance rather than enforcement.

· A Disability Group was established, which included a group from Birmingham who represented guide dog users, to consider the layout of new street designs.  It was that group that recommended the 60mm. There had been an argument that flush curbs would better aid those with mobility issues but 60mm was favoured by those with visual impairments. It was accepted that the colour differential between the gutter and the kerb had not been as markedly different as the sample that was agreed with the group, but had been built exactly as agreed.

· It was true that people would be more inclined to walk or cycle in more attractive areas but it was important to note GCC would approach function before form.

Whilst members of the committee commended the report which they felt had captured the enthusiasm and hard work of the task group, some members had concerns about some of the recommendations. Members were uneasy that cycling should be permitted on the Promenade and High Street. These two areas were the main thoroughfare for shoppers and increased footfall was an ambition which seemed in conflict with allowing cycling throughout. The recommendation which concerned members the most was the recommendation for 20mph limits across the borough. Concerns included; cost, there would be a cost associated with the TRO needed to implement this and that cost would need to be funded by GCC and there was query about whether they had the budget to do this; the task group had used Bristol as an example of where the 20mph limits had been imposed, but it had cost £2.2m to implement and some members disputed the claim that it had been successful having experienced it themselves or having researched public opinion. The committee acknowledged that there were areas in Cheltenham that would welcomed and benefit from a 20mph speed limit but queried the blanket approach being suggested by the task group. Members were also apprehensive about cyclists being encouraged not to wear a helmet.

Councillor Wilkinson reminded members that the group was not encouraging cyclists not to wear a helmet, the issue was restricted to presentation of cycling in promotional materials rather than advice. He added that whilst the debate had focussed on 20mph limits and cycling in the Promenade, there were in fact 12 recommendations , which if all enacted, would increase the mental and physical health of Cheltenham and its residents and hoped that the committee would endorse the task group recommendations to enable further consideration by Cabinet.

The Chairman reiterated that despite some of the concerns raised by the committee, the hard work of the task group was evident and thanked members and those that had supported them for their efforts. He asked that the views of the committee be shared with Cabinet in November.

Upon a vote it unanimously

RESOLVED that the recommendations as set out in Appendix 2 of the covering report be agreed and forwarded to Cabinet for consideration;

i.      Rec 1: Identify opportunities for improving cycle route permeability and cycle parking in areas outside the town centre.  A lot of work has been done on removing barriers within the town centre and most of these proposals have been included in the Cheltenham Transport Plan.  There is still work to be done outside the centre. 

                                  i.    Cheltenham Borough Council should endorse Cheltenham & Tewkesbury Cycling Campaign’s wish list for improvements to Cheltenham’s cycle network.  Once agreed, the authority should put aside funds each year to pay for the items suggested, or proactively identify and bid for funds to pay for the suggestions and encourage the County Council to do the same. These could be added to a costed wish list of improvements, which could then be added to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 123 lists or included in funding bids.  

                                 ii.    An equivalent exercise should be undertaken for walking.  Councillors should work with residents and walking experts to draw up a wish list of improvements for residents.  Locations should be identified for benches and funding identified for maintenance.

ii.    Rec 2: Gloucestershire County Council should investigate and engage with Cheltenham residents in order to promote a borough wide 20mph default speed limit to make the environment safer and more attractive to walkers and cyclists.  A default speed limit does not mean that all roads will have a 20mph limit.  Selected roads will have a higher speed limit, and a few may have an even lower limit.  The Council should also investigate the possibility of securing additional funding for this from public health budgets.

iii.   Rec 3: Gloucestershire County Council should undertake an assessment aimed at removing guard rails, which are a key barrier to walking and encourage faster vehicle speeds.

iv.   Rec 4: Benches should be strategically positioned along routes to allow people to rest – on inclines, at attractive view points, at nodal points on the street and transport network (bus stops in particular.  Benches are an important part of any walking strategy, for elderly and disabled people in particular.  They need to be well maintained and comfortable.

v.    Rec 5: Cheltenham Borough Council should work with the Cheltenham Trust and Gloucestershire County Council to promote cycling and walking within Cheltenham, especially once Thinktravel loses its LSTF funding in 2016.

                                  i.    Images of cycling and walking in Cheltenham Borough Council and Cheltenham Trust promotional material should depict them as attractive and normal activities for everybody.

                                 ii.    The Cheltenham.gov.uk page: Walking in Cheltenham should be improved to promote walking within the borough.

                                iii.    Cheltenham Borough Council should work with Cheltenham Trust to create maps of walking routes within the town.

vi.   Rec 6: The needs of walkers and cyclists should be considered before other road users when making policy and planning decisions, and their needs should be considered at the start of any major planning project.  

                                  i.    At the start of any major project when the equality impact statement is carried out, the needs of cyclists and walkers should be considered (as two separate categories). 

                                 ii.    Cycling and walking are not the same mode and their needs should be considered separately in all policies and plans.

                                iii.    The planning hierarchy of transport modes adopted by the JCS should also be adopted by the Cheltenham Plan and applied to planning and policy decisions.

                               iv.    Increased cycling provision should not be at the expense of walkers.  Ideally cycle provision should not be on the footway.  Where traffic speeds make it necessary, good quality segregation should be provided for bikes on the highway.

                                v.    If people are to be encouraged to walk, pedestrians need to have an at least equal level of service as other methods of transport and positive provision of space and safe crossing points.  Their needs should be considered in the design of all public space including car parks.

                               vi.    Walking is a particularly important mode of transport for some groups of people such as those with visual impairment or other disabilities. The needs of these groups should be considered in planning and policy decisions.

                              vii.    The Cheltenham Plan will consider the inclusion of separate walking and cycling policies.

vii.  Rec 7: A cycling and walking working group should be created to provide input into projects.  This could operate in a similar way to the access working group with Wilf Tomaney as the facilitator.

viii.Rec 8: Cheltenham Borough Council should endorse the Gloucestershire County Council Cycling Strategy and draw up its own walking strategy. The Gloucestershire County Council Cycling Strategy is likely to be adopted this municipal year.  Cheltenham Borough Council could resolve to endorse it and take on some of its recommendations.  There is no equivalent County Council strategy for walking, which strengthens the case for CBC producing its own walking strategy.

ix.   Rec 9: Cheltenham Borough Council should select a cycling and walking champion from its members.  This member could represent CBC on the GCC Cycle Forum.

x.    Rec 10: Cheltenham Borough Council should lead by example by devising and implementing its own green staff travel plan.

xi.   Rec 11: Cheltenham Borough Council should consider the introduction of Car Free Sundays. This would involve the shutting of defined town centre streets to traffic one Sunday per month to allow for community events, following the example of successful schemes elsewhere.

xii.  Rec 12: Cheltenham Borough Council should push for a more collaborative approach on street design, working across disciplines and departments and also across councils (County and Borough).