Agenda item

MOTION A – 20 m.p.h. speed limits

Proposed by Councillor Whyborn, seconded by Councillor Flynn

 

Cheltenham Borough Council notes that many councils across the country, of various party political control, have implemented or are now implementing 20mph speed limits over wide areas without traffic calming. Over 14 million people now live in areas, where 20 mph has become the default speed limit in residential and urban streets, except for arterial roads.

 

Council recognises that 20 mph limits have the potential to promote increased road safety, particularly for young and elderly pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to enable active and sustainable travel. Nationally Public health and other bodies such as NICE, Public Health England, the LGA and the WHO all support such a policy. It is described as the most cost-effective way to improve health equality by tackling inactivity, obesity and isolation, whilst also being child, disability, elderly and dementia friendly.

 

Council notes that the report of the Cycling and Walking Scrutiny Group includes recommendations to "initiate a review to assess the appetite for a 20 mile speed limit across town from residents, businesses, and visitors”, and also notes the County Council report “Draft Local Transport Plan Policy Document PD 2 (Cycle)” in which implementation of a 20 mph zones programme are described as an operational priority.

 

Council requests that Cabinet consider the recommendations of Overview and Scrutiny committee of 26th Oct 2015 regarding Cycling and Walking, and include provision for a consultation exercise in the 2016/17 corporate work plan to establish where there is appetite for 20 mile per hour limits in Cheltenham and that the Council use its best endeavours in conjunction with Gloucestershire County Council to work towards trials in suitable areas where public support exists.

 

 

In proposing the motion Councillor Whyborn made the following points about why a 20 mph limit was needed in residential streets:

 

·         Residents frequently complained about speeding but what they really meant is they wanted lower and safer speeds than currently in force so that they can have safer streets for children and adults

 

·         Research showed that impacts at 20 mph were rarely fatal whilst impacts at 40mph were nearly always fatal and 30 mph usually serious

 

·         NICE, Public Health England, LGA and WHO all supported the health benefits through reduced car travel and better air quality

 

·         The Cycling and Walking STG had asked for a public consultation on attitude to a 20 mph limit; the latest GCC Local transport Plan Policy made the point that implementation of 20 mph speed limits was an operational policy

 

·         The UK has a worse record for deaths and accidents of children and the elderly than most of Europe where 19mph urban speed limits are common.

 

·         20mph speed limits have been successful in 40 areas

 

 

Councillor Whyborn emphasised the following points:

·         it was not about physical traffic calming measures such as road humps,but rather about 20 mph over reasonably wide areas of urban streets hence implementation involving mainly signage.

·         the benefits and idea is that of mutual respect of one community for another when driving.

·         It was important to exclude arterial roads. It should be possible for everybody to be within 1/3^rd miles driving to a 30mph road.

·         There would be a very limited increase in journey time because so much urban driving was stopping and accelerating

 

He believed it was important to raise the profile of this issue and implement it over significant areas. It was important to follow on the work of the Scrutiny Task Group, who had identified 20mph as a key component in getting people out of their cars to more sustainable means of travel on urban journeys.

 

Cllr Whyborn highlighted that it was of paramount importance that there was community consultation and buy in. There was funding available now for SW Cheltenham from the ASDA S106 money and funding would also be available in St Pauls due to the Boots Corner scheme. Depending on the results of consultation other sources of funding would be sought.

 

Councillor Harman, as chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, said the committee had endorsed the recommendations of the scrutiny task group but they had some concerns about a blanket 20 m.p.h speed limit across the borough. He considered it would be better to identify site-specific areas where there was an appetite from local residents. The other concern was whether there would be sufficient enforcement.

In the debate that followed several members referred to the consultation with local residents. A member said there must be a meaningful questionnaire and suggested that 50% of local residents should be in favour of it. Other members felt that a majority of respondents in a particular area should be in favour of implementing a 20 m.p.h. limit. It was important that consulting with local residents was seen as a consultation and it was not a referendum but clearly the council would not want to proceed without public support. To support the consultation, a member suggested that organisations and people in support of the scheme should help the council to promote the benefits by providing suitable information.

A Member who had experience of trying to get a 20 m.p.h speed limit introduced into two designated areas in Prestbury, highlighted the costs and problems raised by GCC in response to the request, even though it had been supported by local residents. This was six years ago and he questioned whether there would be any appetite from the county council in taking this forward.

Another member felt they should challenge the GCC as such a scheme should not be very costly to implement.

As well as support from local residents, members highlighted that support from local police and the Police and Crime Commissioner was also essential. Members also raised the issue of enforcement and felt the council would need to work closely with both the police and GCC to enforce the limits. Another member suggested that in other authorities the police had given local residents cameras to help in monitoring any speed limits.

Other members suggested that the council should be aiming for behavioural change as well as regulatory change and any enforcement must be supported by education. There would always be those who exceed speed limits but the history of seat belts was a good example of where regulation had led to a change in attitude from the public. One member felt that such a speed limit was not a route for getting people out of their cars and it should not be viewed as such.

Members spoke about the improved safety in residential areas that would result from 20 m.p.h limit and there was clear evidence that survival rates for children in road traffic accidents were significantly higher when the limit was reduced from 30 to 20 m.p.h.

Many members felt a blanket speed limit across the borough would be counter-productive although it was acknowledged that a townwide scheme would be cheaper to implement. However there was consistent support for such a speed limit in smaller, designated areas where it was supported by local residents. 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Flynn highlighted that Councillors received many complaints about speeding in residential areas but often this was a perception rather than fact with people fearing for their children's safety and also concerns about environmental issues. She was in favour of asking local residents what they want.

The advantages of reducing speed should be stressed to drivers. Air quality would be improved, they would have more time to react to any incident and a 20 m.p.h speed limit may make drivers think twice about taking a short cut through residential areas. The cost to the motorist may be just a few seconds added to their journey time.

In his summing up, Councillor Whyborn responded to some of the points that have been raised during debate. He acknowledged that police response had been mixed to date and there would be limited police resources for enforcement in residential areas. Following the introduction of any speed limit, drivers would be slowed down by those who were observing the speed limit. He thought that modal shift could result. Stagecoach were reporting that bus travel was up in Cheltenham and cycling was also increasing so there was evidence to suggest that people were moving away from their cars already.

In terms of the public consultation, a target of 50% in favour may be unlikely but it was important that the majority of residents were in support.He accepted that Members felt that the blanket speed limit was impractical but he counselled caution if the areas designated were too small. He was also of the view that a 20 m.p.h should not only apply in the vicinity of schools but also on the routes to schools.

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

Voting: For 35 with 1 abstention.

MOTION B – Mental Health Challenge

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Savage and seconded by Councillor Harman:

 

As a Council we have a responsibility to work to reduce inequalities in mental health, tackle discrimination on the ground of mental health and work to support positive mental health in our community.

 

This Council will work with local partners to support people with mental health needs, particularly in areas such as housing, community safety and employment. 

 

This Council resolves to sign the Local Authorities' Mental Health Challenge run collaboratively by the Centre for Mental Health, Mental Health Foundation, Mental Health Providers Forum, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, Young Minds and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Councillor Savage spoke as the proposer of the motion. He said that as local politicians they were all well aware of, and frequently discussed the many challenges at local and at national level. These include building a cohesive society with shared values and aspirations, growing the local economy and providing jobs for young people and meeting the challenge of providing affordable housing whilst protecting the environment: He felt that Mental Health, was one problem which politicians and the public have historically shyed away from discussing and it was historically at the very bottom of the political and health agenda. However it was an area which gave them as local politicians the opportunity to establish consensus and make a positive difference in peoples’ lives.

 

Having worked as Health Care Assistant in a Psychiatric Hospital, and in his daily work as a doctor, he said mental health was a challenge which he was well aware of.  Shocking statistics were plentiful; the Office for National Statistics recorded nearly 6000 suicides in the UK in 2012, a figure almost certain to be an underestimation. Suicide was the leading cause of death in men under 35 in the UK ahead of cancer, heart disease and trauma. 23% of the adult population, and 10% of children and adolescents, would experience some kind of mental health problem in the course of a year, with depression and anxiety accounting for up to 20% of GP consultations. 

 

He advised that much progress has been made in recent years to change attitudes, both in government and in wider society. Indeed, the Coalition Government had significant achievements initiating both a change in attitudes and a change in policy, rightly setting out to reach parity of esteem between physical and mental wellbeing. Norman Lamb and Andrew Lansley's 2011 strategy "No Health without Mental Health" not only outlined a vision of how better outcomes could be achieved for people with mental health problems, but demonstrated an example of cross-party working on this issue which councillors here would do well to emulate.

 

The Local Government Mental Health Challenge had been set up by leading mental health charities, including Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, the Centre for Mental Health, the Mental Health Foundation, Young Minds, and was endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians and GPs.

 

The designation of an Officer with responsibility for mental health issues, and an elected member as Mental Health Champion, aims to help, guide, and advise local councillors on mental health issues. It aims to give councillors the support they need to ensure decisions they make and council services consider people with mental health problems. 

 

It would also provide a link to expertise, training and development for councillors, aiding them in their day-to-day casework to be aware of mental health issues and to be in a position to play a positive role in the mental health of the community.  

 

The motion was an opportunity for Members to signal their commitment to support those most in need in the community, and he commended it to the Council.

 

The Mayor referred to an amendment proposed by Councillor Coleman and seconded by Councillor R.Hay which had been circulated to all members and read as follows.

 

As a Council we have a responsibility to work to reduce inequalities in mental health, tackle discrimination on the ground of mental health and work to support positive mental health in our community.

 

(INSERT) This Council acknowledges the significant work that our Officers and partner organisations have done to meet this responsibility.

 

This Council will (INSERT) 'continue to' work with local partners to support people with mental health needs, particularly in areas such as housing and community safety.

 

(CHANGE PARAGRAPH)

 

This Council:

 

1, resolves to sign the Local Authorities' Mental Health Challenge run collaboratively by the Centre for Mental Health, Mental Health Foundation, Mental Health Providers Forum, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, YoungMinds and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

 

2, will, as suggested in the Mental Health Challenge, nominate a Member (Cllr Dan Murch) and an Officer (Tracy Brown) to be Mental Health Champions.

 

3, notes with dismay the reports that Gloucestershire County Council are proposing a cut of £250,000 from the Mental Health budget and asks the Leader of the Council to write to the County asking them to reverse this decision.

 

The proposer indicated that the amendment was not acceptable in its current form as he considered that all Members should have the opportunity to propose a Member Champion and could not accept the wording in 3. Therefore the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 5.40 pm to facilitate the Members concerned coming to some agreement on the wording.

 

The meeting reconvened at 5.55 p.m.

 

Councillor Coleman advised that the amendment now proposed the following.

 

As a Council we have a responsibility to work to reduce inequalities in mental health, tackle discrimination on the ground of mental health and work to support positive mental health in our community.

 

(INSERT) This Council acknowledges the significant work that our Officers and partner organisations have done to meet this responsibility.

 

This Council will (INSERT) 'continue to' work with local partners to support people with mental health needs, particularly in areas such as housing and community safety.

 

(CHANGE PARAGRAPH)

 

This Council:

 

1, resolves to sign the Local Authorities' Mental Health Challenge run collaboratively by the Centre for Mental Health, Mental Health Foundation, Mental Health Providers Forum, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, YoungMinds and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

 

2, will, as suggested in the Mental Health Challenge, nominate two  Members (Cllr Dan Murch and Councillor Louis Savage)) and an Officer (Tracy Brown) to be Mental Health Champions.

 

3, notes the proposed reduction of £290,000 in the Gloucestershire County Council budget and asks the Leader of the Council to make representations to the County Council as part of the budget consultation process.

 

This amendment was agreed by the proposer and therefore became the substantive motion.

 

In speaking for the motion, Councillor Coleman highlighted that one in four people now suffer from mental health at some point in their lives and one in ten children. This statistic of one in four was comparable with those for cancer. Although people were now happier to talk about cancer, mental health issues still remained a taboo subject although they could be just as life limiting. He also had experience of prisoners who had an even higher rate of mental health issues, closer to nine out of ten. He felt that there was a lot that the borough council could do to address some of these issues and he was delighted to have cross party representation as Mental Health Champions to support the skilled officers already in place. It was important to send a message to the county council regarding the need for their continuing financial support.

 

In the debate that followed all members showed their support for the motion. Many members spoke about their own personal experiences and with friends or family members who had suffered from mental health difficulties. They acknowledged that it was still sometimes difficult for people to talk about mental health issues particularly in the workplace. There was still prejudice and discrimination against people who had experienced mental health difficulties and it was important to stress to employers that such people are still capable of taking on responsible and valuable roles. Employers should demonstrate the same flexibility with accommodating staff with mental problems as they would with physical problems such as a broken leg.

 

In the medical profession, social prescribing by doctors was now possible, but there were still too much emphasis on dealing with mental health problems through drugs. Talking therapies were also very important in helping people in their recovery but often there were long waiting lists in surgeries which meant that it was not available when needed. This was one area where partnership working could help and the council should also be seeking the backing of the Health and Well-being Board

 

A  member suggested that the local authority could play a very valuable role and there were very skilled officers in the council's community engagement team who could support any initiatives. Members had heard a lot in the presentation earlier about the valuable work that was being done by the partnerships in this area. A member requested that “employment” was added to paragraph 3 and this was accepted by the proposer. 

 

A Member suggested that the starting point should be in-house and the council should ensure that all its employees were properly supported. Another Member challenged the Members themselves to behave better towards each other and be aware that their comments could sometimes be quite hurtful and upsetting.

 

A Member highlighted that austerity cuts could cause people to struggle financially and this could have a real impact on people’s mental health. Familes could also be affected if children were not getting the support they needed for any mental health problems. For this reason it was important to send a strong message to the county council and to the government regarding the impact of policy decisions on the community. Another member deplored the funding cuts to day centres which served a vital role in the community.

 

A Member concluded the debate by outlining their 25 years’ experience with the Samaritans organisation. Many of the people he had talked to had problems trying to find their place in the community and they often rang because they were not getting the support that they needed. Society as a whole needed to have more empathy with people with mental illness and fundamentally change our approach.

 

In his summing up Councillor Savage thanked members for their support for the motion and commented that it had been a very moving and worthwhile debate. He stressed that the original wording of his motion and his introduction were deliberately apolitical, and the wording of the motion was itself taken directly from Local Government Mental Health Challenge.

 

Upon a vote on motion was carried unanimously.

 

 

 

MOTION C - Right to buy and the forced sell off of Council housing

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Wilkinson, seconded by Councillor Jeffries:

 

This Council notes:

·         the Government’s proposal to extend the Right to Buy to Housing Association tenants, to be paid for by a forced sell off of the most expensive Council Housing stock;

·         with alarm the shortage of affordable rented homes in Cheltenham with 2,500 households on our council’s housing waiting list and is very concerned that the Housing and Planning Bill risks making matters worse.

·         the LGA “First 100 Days” campaign which highlighted there are 1.7 million households on waiting lists for affordable housing across England and that more than 3.4 million adults between 20 and 34 live with their parents.

Council opposes the forced sell off of council housing to pay for this plan and is concerned that the Government also:

·         Fails to address the situation for many local authorities which no longer have any housing stock to sell as they have transferred theirs to housing associations;

·         Fails to address the situation in areas of high housing demand, like Cheltenham, where there are often few suitable sites to build replacement social housing stock;

·         Fails to recognise that this means housing associations will simply be trying to catch up with replacing homes rather than building affordable housing to give more people homes they need

Council notes that even the Mayor of London has said he did not want to see councils “deprived at a rapid rate of their housing stock” if more homes were not being built to replace them.

 

Council also regrets the following decisions of the Government that will reduce the amount of good quality social housing for rent to local families:

·         The decision that the focus on building “affordable homes” is on homes to buy for £250,000, a price unaffordable for most families trying to get on the property ladder, rather than affordable homes to rent.

·         That a tax will be imposed by the Government on the rents of council tenants to fund discounts for housing association tenants who are rich enough to buy their properties. Taxing families on the lowest incomes to fund discounts for people who may well be much better off.

·         The cuts to section 106 payments from developers which will see fewer social housing properties offered to residents in the town from new builds.

 

These actions will mean that there is less money for the provision of new social rented properties and less money available to provide services to tenants such as repairs, estate services, youth clubs or play centres that significantly improve the life of families.

 

Council resolves:

• to work with other neighbouring authorities to oppose the current government proposals to force councils to sell off high value stock (or any equivalent charge based on estimates of high value stock);
• to write to Alex Chalk MP asking him to support the Council’s position; to speak up in parliament for more social housing and to push for a genuine “one for one” replacement but not at the cost of losing more council housing.

 

In introducing his motion Cllr Wilkinson said that having a secure place to live was one of the most important aspects of a person's life and it was crucial that the state took its housing role seriously. He explained that the primary form of tenancy now was rented accommodation, either private or social which was why it was vital that any new initiatives in this area were pursued with great caution as reckless decisions had the potential to cause a great deal of harm to some of the most vulnerable people in society. He believed that the Government's changes to right to buy,paid for from high value disposals of from council homes, would prove to be reckless and put the social housing sector at grave risk. He said the government would force councils to sell high value council housing which locally in Cheltenham amounted to around 120 properties and the government would extend the right to buy to all housing associations, partly funded by the sale of council properties. The government was shifting the new build affordable housing focus away from homes to rent and towards starter homes worth up to £250,000. What all this meant in practice was a huge decrease in the number of homes available for people in need of the social housing safety net.

 

Cllr Wilkinson said that Shelter estimated that by 2021 the UK would have lost out on around 180,000 homes. There were fewer socially rented properties for those in need and around 40% of these were being rented privately at anything up to seven times the level of social rents. He explained that locally there were 4,514 homes run by Cheltenham Borough Homes and it was estimated that a further 2,435 houses were owned by housing associations. Each one of these was fulfilling a vital function for a household in need. More than 2,500 people were on the housing waiting list and this would only increase.

 

The following points were raised by Members in the debate :

 

·         Many Members were disgraced that the Right to Buy Scheme had led to the depletion of the Council’s housing stock by nearly one half due to the fact that housing stock which had been sold had not systematically been replaced;

·         replacing housing stock was vital to ensure that employment was supported in the town; a member referred to a recent Town and Country Planning Association report which highlighted that housing and jobs were essential to the community yet people were being ‘priced out’ of property, there was little new social housing, and the housing market could not keep pace with demand and against the backdrop of an increasing population;

·         the transfer of social housing to private housing providers had led to increased rents funded by central government via housing benefit; housing associations should reduce rents

·         it was crucial to work together to prevent the total abolition of social housing over time which would be the net effect of government policy if it continued in this way

·         the risk of an unstoppable wave of homelessness existed as properties were not available for people to live in; homelessness and mental illness went hand in hand so this represented a great deal of insecurity for the community

·         The council should redouble its efforts to provide additional affordable housing for people of the town and it was important that the MP voiced the concerns of the council in Parliament

·         A member mentioned that if housing associations cut rents then they would have toreduce their offer to developers leading potentially to non-viable sites; the Government strategy had created more private rented housing and he gave the example of one quarter of properties in the St Pauls development being private rented accommodation; this represented a counterproductive approach

·         Shorthold tenancies did not provide securityfor the tenant and this situation would worsen as government implemented its new mechanism regarding council housing which would see tenants subject to maximum five years a tenant

·         One member explained that he could not support the wording of the motion because as drafted it criticised the council’s policy to sell off its most expensive housing in order to fund council built houses for social rent. He gave the example of the sale of properties in Ledmore Road which was used to fund the redevelopment of St Pauls; he believed that certain aspects had not been covered in the motion but hoped that the council comes forward with a robust plan and strategy by taking a proactive stance in what we do

 

In summing up the debate Cllr Wilkinson said the council had a responsibility to provide social housing and it was currently unable to meet the affordable homes need in the town. This insecurity needed to be addressed as elsewhere in the country it was having an effect on employment.

 

 

Upon 7 members standing in their seats a recorded vote was requested and this was CARRIED

RESOLVED THAT the motion be approved.

Voting For 22: Councillors Barnes, Britter, Clucas, Coleman, Fisher, Flynn, C Hay, R Hay, Holliday, Jeffries, Jordan, McKinlay, Murch, Rawson, Reid, Stennett, Sudbury, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson and Williams

 

Abstentions 10: Councillors Babbage, Chard, Fletcher, Harman, Nelson, Regan, Ryder, Savage, Seacome, Smith