PUBLIC QUESTIONS CABINET MEETING – 22 July...

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

CABINET MEETING – 22 July 2015

1. Questioners Name: Mrs Maggie Rayner Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith

Item 5 - Cheltenham Transportation Plan

The trial earlier this year of a single line of traffic down the busy section of the Bath Road from the High Street was such a hindrance that it did not even complete its full term of trial due to the number of complaints made and the traffic tail-backs that were caused. In view of this failure – on one of the most important access points to the town – why is the plan still being considered in whole or in part?

(I am not a NIMBY – I am a pedestrian resident and want to see a properly integrated, whole town plan which considers the needs of residents, vehicles and businesses equally.)

The Bath Road Trial provided a number of learning points for the Council and this has been noted in the Cabinet report and listed as one of the reasons why a phased implementation approach is now being recommended.

2. Questioners Name: Mr Carl Friessner-Day Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


In 2008 GCC stopped the closure of Boots Corner predominantly due to the traffic and impact around St James Square. In this recent manifestation known as the ‘Cheltenham Transport Plan’, it has been argued that the change of Oriel Rd will help serve to offer relief on the volume of traffic directed to St James, by directing cars more readily to car parks across the town. However, the traffic model shows that there is little difference in the DO SOMETHING/DO NOTHING model figures for cars driving up Rodney Rd and accessing the car parks.

Could the Committee therefore clarify the ‘value for money’ in spending on these changes as they appear not to achieve the goals stated or alternatively does the committee confirm that cars will take this route matching the stated objectives and that the model is therefore wrong?

The changes proposed to the inner ring road will offer easier access to car parks and are part of the overall package of measures that help prepare Cheltenham's network for future anticipated, and move toward removing some traffic from the High Street improving the connectivity of the town centre for pedestrians and providing further economic growth opportunities.

Although the modelling work is showing similar traffic flows on Rodney Road, it may be that some of that traffic is not travelling around the entire ring road but utilising only a short section of it because of the increased access provided by the two way working.

3. Questioners Name: Mr Carl Friessner-Day Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


The funds for the LSTF for the regeneration of Cheltenham leading to job creation as a result of Boots Corner changes appear to have been obtained under false pretences, although we do await clarification from CBC in this matter and look forward to this information. In the CBC Risk Register of 09/01/2012 it clearly states that Brewery 2 was feasible without the closure of Boots Corner, yet in a letter from the CEO to the Department of Transport dated 21/02/2012 it is unambiguously stated that “the final decision for Brewery 2 rests on the implementation of Boots Corner Scheme. We appreciate that investment by the Council is looked upon favourable by other investors however CBC has stated clearly that without one, the other would definitely not happen. This clearly has not been the case as Brewery 2 has gone ahead and with job creation of Brewery 2 being one of the main arguments behind the CTP, this needs further consideration. Clarification has been requested from CBC on this matter, however until this is received clearly it would be wrong ethically for GCC to move forward with the trial closure of Boots Corner and other changes enabling the CTP?

The issues surrounding Brewery 2 are for Cheltenham Borough Council to respond to. The Cabinet is considering the recommendations from the Traffic Regulations Committee with regard to the TROs and the consultation on the TROs.

The committee made it clear that they were looking specifically at the impact of the proposed TROs on the road network and did not take any of the financial benefits of the scheme into account in their deliberations.

4. Questioners Name: Mr Ken Pollock Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


As GCC has produced Mr Tompkin’s report far too late, (and during JCS Examination), for proper consideration before the public questions deadline, I wish my February questions to be answered as they stand, but request that the respondent takes sensible account of any changed circumstances, and does not evade by quibbling.

This comment relates to questions 4, 5 and 6

No. The rules on prejudicial interests are very clear and do not apply in this case. All relevant interests have been declared as appropriate and none are prejudicial.

Considering:

(1) the involvement of Vernon Smith and Will Windsor-Clive in the CDTF (Cheltenham Development Task Force), the "promoter" of the CTP, and

(2) that they (with Nigel Riglar) made the Decision to refuse the requests for a Public Inquiry (selecting instead a TR Committee hearing), thereby avoiding any independent assessment report on the much challenged traffic 'modelling', upon which CTP depends for all viability and credibility,

Do they agree that this amounts to a prejudicial interest in them now furthering final Cabinet approval for the implementation as Permanent of the contested CTP TROs, and will they therefore withdraw from Item 5's discussion and any vote, (which for transparency does need to be a recorded vote)?

5. Questioners Name: Mr Ken Pollock Respondent: Cllr Mark Hawthorne


To the Leader

Considering:

(1) the many documented defects (notably:

(A) Equalities Due Regard Statement, created far too late to be legally valid, signed off by Vernon Smith on 28th January;

(B) a skimpy spreadsheet on GCC/CBC Risks, produced after the TRO Committee hearing, too late to be critiqued for the CBC Full Council decision;

(C) the non-answering by officers of numerous modelling and Network queries/challenges);

Officers have advised me that the County Council has followed all relevant procedural rules in bringing this paper to Cabinet. The recommendation is to use a phased approach, which will allow for the scrutiny of individual elements of the scheme that Mr Pollock suggests.

(D) the TR Committee's wholly inadequate performance for such a major scheme, (e.g. poor photocopying of 1500 Responses pages, and their late distribution; ruthless guillotining/truncating of major Objectors' presentations; non-local councillors clearly unfamiliar with Cheltenham streets referred to; pre-decision discussion held in private, and for a mere ten minutes; failure to produce a written report on their reasoning; ambiguous definition of trialling the Boots Corner "element", subsequently restricted by Scott Tompkins, who has admitted being "biased" towards implementation);

(2) that accordingly (at CBC Full Council's decision on 26th January) CTP lost all cross-party support from Cheltenham;

(3) that GCC has stated that it has already secured the relevant £600,000 of LSTF funding; and

(4) that the draft implementation timetable has now slipped to late 2015 (after Martin Horwood MP's re-election chance) for starting the first major works (the three Oriel Road and Imperial Square junctions, which will be unaffordable to reverse if/when they cripple Cheltenham's major east-west flow route into St. George's Road),

Will Cabinet use this newly available 6+ months (before needing to confirm these TROs as Permanent) to re-examine properly all the above deficiencies and further consider the options for scheduling the implementation of the CTP elements in an incremental fashion, subservient to the primary objective of closing and redesigning Boots Corner which now awaits a Trial (which ought to include trialling some arrangement thereof as a shared-space "square")?

6. Questioners Name: Mr Ken Pollock Respondent: Cllr Mark Hawthorne


To the Leader

Considering: During the TRO Committee meeting on the 15th January, the question of the cost of part or full reversal of the scheme was raised and who would pay, and one of the GCC Members stated “there was no money”! However it was stated at the CBC Full Council meeting on 26-1-15 that the County Council would have to bear all the costs of part or full reversal.

Cheltenham residents are therefore extremely concerned that the TRO Committee’s decision to implement all of the TRO road changes permanently, before trialling the closure of Boots Corner, could mean that any unacceptable traffic chaos in Cheltenham will remain unrectified for a very long time, due to GCC’s inability to provide sufficient funding to pay for the reversal, especially in the light of the forthcoming severe budget cuts.

Therefore, do you think it is a wise decision to implement all of the elements of the CTP on a Permanent basis, and at a considerable cost, before completing the trial of the Boots Corner road closure, when the actual closure of the road itself would cost virtually nothing by comparison ?

These questions will be further substantiated in documents sent to Cabinet members shortly.

Part of the reasoning for moving to a phased implementation approach is to ensure that sufficient funding is available for the delivery of each element of the scheme and that funding is also available to adjust, change or reverse schemes to ensure efficient working of the network. Funding for their implementation and for any changes required after implementation will be the responsibility of the County Council.

Decisions about increased need for funding will be subject to the normal capital programme approval process. It is not possible to trial the changes to the inner-ring road as the costs of a trial are exceptionally high and would be confusing to drivers as they would not work in the same way as the permanent scheme.

Officers are confident that the inner-ring road changes can be adopted using an incremental approach safely and adjusted as required to ensure they work and are bedded in before any further changes to Boot's Corner are progressed.

7. Questioners Name: Mr Peter Sayers Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


What power does the Cabinet have to stop these Traffic Order changes being forced through when the Majority political party forcing them through clearly has no mandate from the town, the first official TRO consultations showing over 70% opposition raising

The Cabinet are considering the Traffic Regulation Orders under their powers as the Highways Authority as provided through the Highways Act. We’re certainly well aware of strong voices opposing the original scheme, just as we are strong voices in support of it.

to over 90% by the end of the second. There is unilateral cross party opposition to the changes, with even some of the Members of the Majority Party whose wards are affected, voting against it.

The only support CBC can claim is from an unofficial consultation which deceived the public with the promise of an undeliverable public Square. The Pedestrian Crossing cannot be moved or removed and the bus lane, an integral feature of the scheme, cannot pass directly over the top of it. The Consultation paid insufficient regard to the impact of the traffic dispersal of the scheme upon the residents of the town and did not clearly identify the areas impacted. This data is still not available in an intelligible or digestible format for the residents, yet they are aware of the implications and are firmly against it.

Are you able to stop this scheme that is clearly detrimental to the towns’ Traffic network circulation, capacity and resilience? If not, who will be responsible for the cost of its reversion and under what condition and what criteria are to be used to determine that the scheme has failed?

That’s why we’re looking at a phased approach that allows for changes to be brought in gradually, and for modifications to be made if something doesn’t work. The County Council will be responsible for the costs of any revision.

8. Questioners Name: Mr Peter Sayers Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


What is the point of two-waying Oriel Road and the North side of Imperial Square. There are already alternate routes to this that could be signed and one that could be implemented with far less disruption. Across Montpellier Terrace or Imperial Sq South and Vittoria Walk, and reversing the flow on Imperial Lane. What is more, real time signage of car space availability would identify the car parks with space available and save wasted journeys.Or is the intent of this scheme purely to severely restrict the capacity of this key section of the ring road and so reduce the flow at Boots Corner and make any future decision to close it more palatable, once these and other restrictions on the Ring Road have been unconditionally enforced?

The proposed changes to the inner ring road are designed to improve access to car parks, and provide alternative routes around the town centre thus avoiding the need to travel through Boot's Corner.

Restricting traffic and reducing capacity on the inner ring road is part of the overall aim of the Cheltenham Transport Plan as it encourages modal shift and allows better pedestrian access on the High Street. During the final design stages of the inner ring road, changes efforts will be made to ensure the most efficient designs are achieved to avoid unnecessary traffic congestion.

9. Questioners Name: Louise Rayner Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


I am a resident of Clarence Road, Cheltenham, GL52 2AU.

I have been following the controversial, and in my opinion, extremely ill conceived Boots corner closure proposals with both interest and increasing alarm for some time.

When this issue was first raised, I understand that all of the proposed traffic changes were introduced, consulted on and recommended to Cheltenham residents as an indivisible package of proposals.

Now that the Boots Corner closure is no longer recommended by the County Traffic Officer, and the Town Council have chosen not to pursue this closure in the immediate future, the proposals are restated to be divisible. This would seem to undermine the original intention of the Traffic Regulation Order Committee.

However, in my view, even the reduced plans that are now being proposed will lead to a creeping degradation of the ring road, which in turn will have an extremely negative impact upon Cheltenham’s town centre, its traffic flows and its attractiveness to shoppers, businesses and visitors.

I therefore write to ask the following questions at the meeting on the 22nd July:

Question 1: You now seek to separate out the various traffic elements, implementing change in phases, when, at the start of the Traffic Regulation Order it was stated categorically that the various elements were to be considered as a whole. How can this process now be lawful when your approach to the Traffic Orders that remain has altered so dramatically from the original indivisible package of proposals?

Boots Corner has not been excluded from this proposal – it will be progressed when and if the other parts of the Cheltenham Transport Plan have been completed. This will allow a clearer understanding of the impact of those changes in reaching a decision on Boot’s Corner and ensure that there is sufficient funding available to progress that part of the scheme.



Question 2: By the Traffic Officer’s own admission, no traffic count data (existing or commissioned) was available explicitly for the Monsoon Avenue/ Clarence Square (South) junction at the time when the Cheltenham Town Centre Paramics traffic model was prepared. Given that there has clearly been no modelling on the impact that the closure of the various elements would have upon this aforementioned area, how can the Public or TRO Committee properly consider the implications of the changes that you are now proposing?

The modelling work was validated and gave a sufficient picture of traffic growth and the impact on almost every road in the town centre. A phased implementation approach is now recommended which will allow for better assessment of the impact of the changes of a longer period of time. Sufficient information was available for the TRO Committee to consider the plan and for the Cabinet to now consider the recommended phased approach.



Question 3: When are the feasibility trials of the various planned changes going to take place, and for how long? If the feasibility trials are not going to be carried out, please provide an explanation as to how the feasibility of these remaining proposals is to be tested?

Should Cabinet give approval for the phased approach then officers will begin the work of finalising the designs for each element of the inner ring road changes before planning their construction. Once constructed officers will assess over a period of time the performance of the schemes and make adjustments or changes as required before moving on to develop the next phase of schemes.

12. Questioners Name: Dr Liz Rolls Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


I have been concerned about the lack of support in the respective consultations to which the Cheltenham Transport Plan has been subjected, and in my question to the meeting of the 4th February 2015, I cited a number of consultation figures that indicated a lack of majority support, including a considerable reduction amongst Cheltenham Borough Councillors. I asked that the Cabinet ensure that there was sufficient support for it to go ahead.

We’re certainly aware of strong voices both for and against these proposals. That’s why we’ve looking at a phased approach, so that we can try to address the concerns raised by all sides in this discussion. It’s worth noting that consultations are not referendums – they help inform decisions, but don’t determine them.

In this most recent Cheltenham Transport Plan Traffic Regulation Orders, Section 8 gives details of the feedback of the two consultations. Invalid responses - the general enquiries and those who responded ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to the proposals - have been excluded.

In consultation 1, 159 of the 208 responses objected to the plan indicating an objection rate of 76%.

In consultation 2, as well as the invalid responses, 33 respondents appear to have had their response dismissed because they responded to the first consultation.

Having left these and the invalid responses aside, we are left with 115 responses of which 108 objected to the plan indicating an objection rate of an astonishing 94%. Even if all the 33 were included, the objection rate would still be 73%.

Having reviewed the results, does the Cabinet consider that so little support - at best 25% and at worst 6% - is sufficient for these proposals to go ahead?



Can the Cabinet explain on what grounds those who responded to the first consultation have been excluded from having their vote counted in the second (as indicated in section 8)?

The Cabinet report makes reference to the outcomes from the first consultation in the background section of the report. Section 8 looks specifically at the feedback from the two statutory consultation periods that were subsequently considered by the Traffic Regulation Order Committee. No consultation feedback has been excluded from consideration.



I have been concerned about the lack of the lack of information that has been made to residents about some aspects of the plan,

A traffic signalled junction is planned for the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction.

and this is reflected in my Question 2 to the meeting of the 4th February 2015.

Whilst some further information has been forthcoming, there are still significant gaps.

Following the unsuccessful trial of the traffic changes on the Bath Road (from two-lanes to one) that resulted in traffic congestion, traffic backing up the London Road, an increased use of smaller residential side roads, and increased dangers to pedestrians, can the Cabinet explain, as it is still not clear, how the Bath Road/Oriel Rd junction will be managed for cars, cyclists and pedestrians?

Should Cabinet give approval for the Traffic Regulation Orders then consider further design work will be undertaken on each element of the inner ring road changes including how this traffic signalled junction will operate.

15. Questioners Name: Mrs Mary Nelson Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


I wish to have the three questions I submitted for the February Cabinet meeting re-submitted to the above meeting.

My questions are still applicable and require answers because GCC Cabinet and the supporting officer's report for the 22nd July Cabinet CTP decision are still relying and dependent upon the original CBC CTP Public Consultation and most importantly upon the 18th November 2013 CBC Extraordinary Full Council CTP Key Decision meeting, in addition to the recommendation of the TRO Committee of the 15th January 2015 to progress the CTP.

Furthermore the 26th January 2015 CBC Extraordinary Full Council decision to support the recommendations of the TRO Committee was made before the very late and altered Equality Due Regard Statement which was only published two days later, on the 28th January, and just a few days before the aborted CTP Cabinet decision of the 4th February.

The latest DR statement of 28th January was inappropriately made to read as if backdated (pre-dated even), the underlying Key CBC CTP Full Council Decision of the 18th November 2013, for which

The Traffic Regulations Committee was clear that the primary objection to the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders was around the perceived negative affects of dispersing traffic from Boots Corner to other roads.

To test this, the committee recommended that the Boot Corner closure only go forward as a trial scheme. A trial scheme will not alter the current bus routes and will predominately be set up to understand the impact of the dispersed traffic. If the trail was successful and the Traffic Regulations Committee either made the TROs permanent or considered a further trial period then officers would begin to look at testing other scenarios including the possibility of altering the bus movements at Boots Corner.

However, during the consultation it became clear that there were considerable concerns about vulnerable pedestrians crossing at Boots Corner and officers gave assurance that the Boots Corner pedestrian crossing would be retained.

Before any changes to the bus routing could be considered officers would need to investigate a design which catered for the safe passage of pedestrians. The changes to the bus routing would not be implemented

no evidence was provided covering Equality/Due Regard issues or even any mention made thereof.

Therefore my questions concerning Equality Impact/Due Regard are still applicable and relevant.

In addition I wish to submit some further questions concerning the Cabinet meeting CTP Report. As this was only published yesterday evening it has allowed very little time for public questions.

Considering Cabinet will be making a Key Decision which will significantly affect the town of Cheltenham for years to come, and be extremely expensive to reverse, the late publication of this report does not conform with the requirement for a 28 day notice period for all supporting documents for Key decisions, and this is a particularly important consideration during the summer holiday period, as some people affected by the decision may be denied the opportunity of submitting public questions due to being away.

Original Question

On 15 January 2015 the TRO committee permitted a new bus lane in front of Boots shop, which passes straight through the existing busy pedestrian area at Boots Corner, yet this new bus route was not shown on any of the 150 CTP TRO Public Notices placed around Cheltenham Town centre. If this was not illegal, it was certainly misleading and deceptive for the public.

In a public question submitted to the 26-1-15 CBC Extraordinary Full Council meeting, I asked the Cabinet Member responsible, Cllr. McKinlay, whether he agreed that it was imperative that this new bus lane was trialled, as part of the “Boots Corner 10 month Trial”, as the promised and much publicised new public square at Boots cannot be implemented without it.

He relied that buses would not use this new route, and would continue to go around Imperial Circus, thus avoiding answering the question, and he asked for confirmation from Lead Traffic Officer, Scott Tompkins.

unless it could be done safely and the designs passed by independent safety auditors. This represents a staged approach which is the only prudent and practical way to implementing the scheme so that safety can be assured.

This is the decision-making meeting, and there is a full equality assessment to support this item.

Mr. Tompkins said that “the new bus lane is not a change – it’s the same as what is there now” (an unclear and unsatisfactory statement, which also avoiding answering my question).

Cheltenham’s’ residents were not properly informed of this new bus lane, as it was only stated in the text of the TRO and not shown in the map provided. Therefore do you agree that:

1. GCC have failed to address the serious safety implications and associated Equality issues (affecting older people, as well as the impaired) which would result from this new bus route (which intersects at right angles with the existing bus lane in a very busy pedestrian area), which they are required to do before and at the time the decision was taken by the TRO Committee to permit it, as is required by the Equality Act 2010

and

2. The statement made by Mr. Tompkins at the CBC Full Council lacked the required transparency, because he avoided acknowledging in his answer that the new bus lane had been permitted because it is imperative for a new public Shared Space at Boots Corner.

(My question required an honest answer from Scott Tompkins in the context of such an important Decision Meeting, where there was reference to the safety and Equality issues of the proposed Boots Corner Shared Space in the councillor’s own speeches, following the public questions.)



At the 11th hour, on the 28th January 2015, another, altered and expanded CTP Due Regard Statement appeared on GCC’s website dated 28th January 2015.

Due Regard Statements are ‘living’ documents and are updated to reflect changes in the proposals, consultation feedback and other considerations during the decision making process.

This new DRS has been produced too late to be considered by the 7 hour long CTP TRO Committee Meeting held in Cheltenham Town Hall, and too late to be considered by councillors at the Extraordinary CBC CTP Full Council Meeting held on the 26th January 2015, and appears to have been re-published merely to safeguard the final step in the decision process – GCC Cabinet’s final ratification.

The late publication of this revised document does not therefore comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

Comparisons with the earlier DRS produced for the Second TRO Consultation indicate that some of the additional information and alterations appear to have been made in direct response to the objections I raised in my TRO 2 response document, which focused almost entirely on Public Realm & Equality Compliance issues, including my concern over CBC’s first CTP Full Council Decision Meeting on 18-11-13.

Therefore do you not agree that:

1. this very late , amended and expanded 4th DRS attempting to retrospectively cover CBC’s first CTP Decision on the 18-11-13, (when no Equality information or EIA (of 25-6-13) was made available to Full Council), has been published too late to properly inform the decision makers, including both the TRO Committee and CBC Full Council on 26-1-15, and thereby fails to comply with the PSDR and Equality impact considerations as required by the Equality Act 2010, and

2. as the GCC Cabinet decision to agree to implement the recommendations of the TRO Committee for the Cheltenham Transport Plan is stated to be a Key Decision, the last minute publication of a much revised CTP DRS, just one week before the Cabinet Decision meeting takes place, is unacceptable and does not provide the 28 days advance publication required for documents relating to that Key Decision?

The Due Regard Statement was updated following the completion of the Traffic Regulation Committee’s hearing on the 15th January to take into account concerns about air quality that were expressed during public comment and the recommendation by the committee that the Boots Corner element of the Traffic Regulation Order be experimental.

This update occurred in preparation for the issue to potentially be considered by Cabinet in February, so that Cabinet could consider the most up-to-date equality considerations when making their decision about the traffic regulation orders. Likewise a further update has been made to the Due Regard Statement ahead of this Cabinet meeting to reflect the change to a phased approach. Should the scheme be approved by Cabinet the Due Regard Statement may be further updated as issues emerge during the final design and stage two safety audit process.

A full EIA will be considered by Cabinet today in coming to its decision.



Cheltenham Borough Council has made two important decisions regarding the CTP: on 18th November 2013 and on 26th January 2015.

Both Councils claim to have had a close working partnership throughout the process of the development of the CTP.

Which Council was responsible for ensuring that all the existing and relevant information relating to Equality and PSDR for the CTP was put before CBC councillors for both of those decision meetings - was it GCC or CBC, and if it was CBC can GCC confirm that all the necessary Equality information, including the 3 CTP Due Regard Statements (and the first EIA) was provided to CBC officers before those meetings making it clear that it was a legal requirement that councillors consider the Equality information, bearing in mind that no mention was made in either of Mr. Redman’s CBC Reports for those meetings of the EIA/DRS, or even of the requirement to consider the Equality impacts/PSDR of the CTP at both meetings?

Consideration of equalities by Cheltenham Borough Council in its decision making processes is a matter for Cheltenham Borough Council.

Cabinet is considering the recommendations of the Traffic Regulations Committee. When making its recommendation the committee ensured that its equality duties were met by reviewing a comprehensive Due Regard Statement. The Cabinet in further considering the committee’s recommendations will be considering equality in its decision and an up-to-date Due Regard Statement has been provided for the Cabinet.

18. Questioners Name: Anne Brookes Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


The recommendation of the Traffic Regulation Committee to make an experimental order for restricting the traffic through 'Boots corner' clearly showed concern about the impact of the Cheltenham Transport Plan. Albeit approval was given to make permanent orders for the network changes, these include the bus lane across Boots corner (Schedule 1 – from Pittville Street to Bennington Street in a westerly direction) and is the ONLY element of the plan which can deliver the public realm improvements promised to the public or deliver the (spurious) claims for the economic benefits.

The LSTF bid contained a large package of sustainable transport improvements in both Gloucester and Cheltenham. The Boot's Corner scheme was only one element of the bid. The recommendation Cabinet are considering for a phased approach does not move away from the aims of the Cheltenham Transport Plan or the LSTF.

In view of the shift of emphasis, now, to the junction and network changes, with no certainty that the restrictions at Boots corner will ever be forwarded, how can the aims and criteria of the LSTF be met by the junction changes alone?



When GCC agreed to make a second tranche bid to the LSTF, the elected members did so only if assurances were given by CBC of the economic benefit of the Cheltenham Transport Plan, as the guidance following the unsuccessful first bid identified this failure. This assurance was given by Andrew North, Chief Executive of CBC, by linking the progress and investment in Brewery 2 directly with the closing of Boots corner. This was known to be false from CBC documents, (now confirmed as development almost complete) and GCC are compromised by the fact that this was an opportune 'punt' to finance the long held desire of CBC to close Boots corner.

As the County Council are responsible for the Cheltenham Transport Plan, both financially and reputationally, and have not shown support for the closure of Boots corner prior to getting the LSTF monies, (because of the traffic problems), are the Cabinet confident that the permanent orders should be made for the junction changes, particularly in view of the officers' recommendation to do further modelling, when officers were happy to totally rely on the previous model to implement the whole scheme, until the TRO Committee recommended an experimental order for Boots corner?

The LSTF bid was based around a range transport improvements in both Cheltenham and Gloucester. The proposed works continue to comply fully with the LSTF criteria.



As removal of traffic from Boots corner was always the focus and reason for the CTP can you please confirm that the junction and network changes were never proposed on their own and were primarily to enable the closure of Boots corner and justify the traffic and transport management reasons for the junction changes?

Changes to Boot's Corner has always been one of several key changes proposed by the Cheltenham Transport Plan; however, the changes to the inner ring road were both an enabler of the Boot's Corner and also deliver their own individual benefits in improving access to the town. This was highlight at the TRO Committee.

All of the schemes are linked and the successful delivery of the inner ring road schemes in a phased approach will allow for Boots Corner to be progressed through an experimental order.



It is the responsibility of GCC as Traffic Authority, BEFORE making TROs to balance their power to restrict or prohibit the traffic against their duty to secure expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic (including pedestrians) and against the effects of the TROs. The Cabinet must be sure that this has already been done before agreeing to these TROs.

As the junction and network changes proposed will introduce more complex junctions with right turns, and therefore 'waiting' congestion, and more conflict between vehicles and cyclists and pedestrians, there is no evidence that any effects have been properly considered.

Can you please provide details of where the effects of these TROs have been balanced against the authority's powers and duties and where this is documented?

Considerable evidence was produced during the two statutory consultation periods including significant traffic modelling work. The Cabinet report also makes it clear that further modelling work at junctions and traffic signals may be required to progress the final designs of the inner ring road changes.



It would appear that although officers have repeatedly insisted that it was impossible to separate the closure of Boots corner from the junction and network changes, because they were inter-dependent, they are now asking you to agree to do just that.

It is incredible that although officers continually expressed confidence in the whole scheme, and the modelling, that it now appears that further modelling will be required, and possibly extra funds above the LSTF monies will be necessary, to implement just a small part of the Cheltenham Transport Plan.

As this clearly shows that no proper consideration of the viability, impacts, or the practical implementation of the entire scheme had previously been undertaken, are members of the Cabinet content to agree to the expenditure for these junction changes, and the 'tweaking' when the primary objective to close Boots corner to most traffic to enable public realm improvements is in doubt?

The primary objective of the Cheltenham Transport Plan is to improve access to the town, which is exactly what these proposals will do. Boots Corner will only be progressed if other parts of the scheme have been successfully implemented.



The Cabinet are aware of the considerable opposition to the Cheltenham Transport Plan, and contrary to the report by Scott Tompkins, this was not confined to the closure of Boots corner. The detailed objections to the scheme had safety worries about the proposed 'shared space' and the dispersal of traffic to adjacent, mostly residential areas, but also expressed many concerns about severing the one-way ring road. Introducing bits of 2-way into the road network will cause considerable and deliberate bottlenecks and congestion for no significant or understandable benefit.

Although there were some concerns raised about two-way working on Oriel Road, it is consistent and fair to summarise the consultation feedback received during the statutory consultations and the debate at the Traffic Regulation Order Committee meeting as mainly focusing on the impact of the Boot's Corner changes. The vast majority of written consultation submissions were focused on Boot’s Corner.

Can you please confirm that it is not true to say that there was little objection to the network and junction changes and identify the benefit of the 2-way and junction changes to the traffic flow across the whole network?



The report refers to the 'trial' of the Bath Road narrowing, which proved to cause considerable traffic congestion and outcry, and if the junction changes are implemented at the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction, it will be necessary for the Bath Road to be one lane by the time it reaches this junction. The 'trial' in Bath Road gave a clear illustration of the impact on traffic flow, yet this will proceed.

As this will introduce conditions diametrically opposed to the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, how can the County Council fulfil this duty as Traffic Authority and what is the point of any trail if the outcomes are ignored?


A traffic signalled junction is planned for the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction. Should Cabinet give approval for the Traffic Regulation Orders then consider further design work will be undertaken on each element of the inner ring road changes including how this traffic signalled junction will operate?

25. Questioners Name: Christine Saunders Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


I have read the report and I am disappointed that concerns regarding increased traffic in key areas such as St. Luke’s and College Road, pollution and quality of life have not been satisfactorily addressed. Although I am pleased that some sense has prevailed in that the closure of Boots Corner has been deferred, the question of making Oriel Road two way is still very disturbing. Northbound traffic can still use Boots Corner as the most direct route whilst Westbound traffic will now have the opportunity to divert from The Promenade into Oriel Road to join a new junction at Bath Road and thence find its way through St. Lukes into College Road.

The Bath Road Trial provided a number of learning points for the Council and this has been noted in the Cabinet report and listed as one of the reasons why a phased implementation approach is now being recommended. A traffic signalled junction is planned for the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction.


The idea of making Oriel Road two way is strange in that the recent unsuccessful trial in the Strand/Bath Rd had to be abandoned since it caused complete chaos and was curtailed due to public opposition. It would seem that the current proposal would require the same single lane restriction in order to accommodate the flow of traffic at the junction of Bath Rd with Oriel Rd.

As a result of the change to the junction of Oriel Rd with Bath Road it is inevitable that traffic flow will slow down and ultimately back up into the Strand/ London Road (as it did in the failed Bath Road trial) and also along the Bath Road in the direction of the Shurdington Rd.

There are also considerable concerns with regard to the changes to the Oriel Road junctions with The Promenade and, in particular, the Bath Road with respect to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists negotiating what will be an extremely busy junction with traffic approaching from all sides.

Can you explain how this junction will be managed for the safety of all and how 2 lanes in Bath Road can converge into one to negotiate this junction?



The Report states that there will be a trial period for each phase during which time it is hoped that traffic will settle into alternative routes and then the plan to close Boots Corner will be resurrected BUT, if it is, then we are back to square 1 with 20,000 vehicles going through Boots Corner daily having to “disperse” through residential areas.

Can you now answer a question that has been on everyone’s lips “where will the traffic go” and how would the increased traffic in the two/three main alternative routes, eg College Road be managed?

Changes to Boots’ Corner will only go ahead when other elements of the plan have been successfully implemented, and if there is sufficient budget. Issues such as dispersal will clearly be an important part of any future discussion.



Can the Council guarantee that there will be enough funding for the reversal of failed changes and mitigation in the event of the scheme exceeding the funding available as laid out in Item 3 “Risk Assessment” of the report

The recommendation to Cabinet is for a phased approach in part because it allows for greater control of spending and reduces the risk that funding will run out before necessary adjustments or changes to the scheme are made.

28. Questioners Name: David Saunders Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


£600K has been estimated as the cost of implementing the CTP, but now we can see the extent of the road narrowing in Lower Bath Road, (quite ridiculous, as evidenced by the failure of the recent trial) with several extensive build-outs of the pavement and a new puffin crossing required. It is clear that this road alone will require a very substantial chunk of that money.

£600K estimate is most likely far too low, therefore can you confirm that GCC will be paying all of the implementation costs when they exceed that figure?

Yes.



Can you confirm that there will be no loss of on-street parking in St. Lukes/College Road as a result of the proposed changes?

I don’t believe so on the current proposals – although there is still detailed design work to be done if this proposal is agreed.



I find it extremely difficult to envisage how the proposed changes to the inner ring road network will provide any benefit to the town, indeed it seems to me that the opposite will be the case.

Can you therefore provide specific instances of how and where it is expected that benefits will accrue, particularly in respect of the Oriel/Bath road changes?

Please see the answers to questions 8 and 24

31. Questioners Name: Michael Ratcliffe: Chief Executive of Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce

Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Is Cabinet aware that the proposed and wholly unexpected delay in implementing the Boots Corner element of the Cheltenham Transport Plan has been received very negatively by the Cheltenham retail, business and investment community?

Given the uncertainty this creates has Cabinet assessed the risk to both current and future private investment in central Cheltenham currently in excess of £100m? And the consequent impact upon the County given Cheltenham’s roles in driving the local economy?

Frankly, as Mr Radcliffe will perceive from the volume of public questions on this issue, if the closure of Boot’s Corner is as important to his members as he believes, it is disappointing that they have failed to make the case for those changes to the public in Cheltenham. Indeed, question 41 suggests that not all of Mr Radcliffe’s own members agree with his stance.

What we are proposing is a fair and sensible phased approach that will allow the Cheltenham Transport Plan to be implemented sensibly and within budget. The sudden implementation of major changes, in my view, would be much more likely to cause significant disruption to traffic – which would itself be a risk to businesses in Cheltenham.

32. Questioners Name: John Firth Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


If a decision is taken to go ahead with the inner ring road changes, will the council please ensure that success/failure criteria includes impact on nearby residential streets with the traffic volumes in those streets measured AND the results PUBLISHED at reasonable frequency (Monthly) before and after the road changes and during any efforts at mitigation. Please ensure that any more than a 5% traffic increase in the narrow residential streets like St Luke’s Road and College Road is categorised as failure, and remedial action taken.

A before/after traffic study will be undertaken and published at an appropriate time before consideration of changes to Boot’s Corner.

33. Questioners Name: John Firth Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Will the council please ensure that success/failure criteria includes improvements in the levels of oxides of nitrogen throughout the affected areas, (especially residential streets with their static

populations), the levels are measured AND PUBLISHED at reasonable frequency before and after the road changes and after any efforts at mitigation, so that impact of the change is visible and ensure that remedial action is taken if the road changes have a detrimental effect on air quality.

The criteria has not yet been fully developed, but is likely to include some assessment of the impact on air quality.

34. Questioners Name: Daphne Simon Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith

Please note: I wish you to register my objection to implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan.

I live in Bath Parade, which is a small residential road linking College Road to Bath Road.

We are certainly aware of strong voices arguing both for and against these proposals. That’s we’ve tried to balance both views, by taking a proportionate, phased approach.

I thus can write with personal knowledge of the impact on this area when a small part of the scheme was trialled earlier this year in the Bath Road. Fortunately common sense prevailed, and the trial was abandoned, mainly because of the knock on effect on surrounding roads.

This area of Cheltenham is already suffering from dangerous levels of pollution from vehicles.

How can an increase in this be justified and at the same time Cheltenham try to become a "greener" town.

Please think again, and scrap the whole Scheme

35. Questioners Name: Carl Reading Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


The statement of 'The proposed scheme is in line with the County’s LTP3 policy objectives to promote sustainable travel by commuters.. Can this statement be explained as I can see no changes to encourage activities such as cycling, e.g. new cycle lanes - and my view is that the extra complexity of the inner Town road network will make cycling more dangerous. Although there are minor changes to bus lanes, there is no evidence that this will improve bus services or that more people will start to use the existing services. I can understand that for some travellers, there will be easier access to car parks, although at the expense of others but how does this help with regards to sustainable travel?

The Cheltenham Transport Plan includes more than just the proposed changes implemented by the Traffic Regulation Orders being considered by Cabinet. The proposals also allow cycling through the pedestrianised areas of the High Street and are designed to encourage modal shift. Details of the entire plan can be found on the Council’s website and on Cheltenham Borough Council’s website.



The report talks about 'In addition, a trial scheme on Bath Road was also undertaken in January to test some proposed safety

The Bath Road Trial provided a number of learning points for the Council and this has been noted in the Cabinet report and listed as one of the reasons why a phased implementation approach is now being

improvements and lane restrictions.' however it neglects to then state what the dire consequences were. To my understanding, the original planned changes to Bath Road and Oriel Road will be more severe in their impact than the January trial. If I may quote from the Gloucestershire Echo where it reported on 'Calls to end Bath Road highways trial early after a week of traffic chaos'. Can you please explain how traffic flow will operate at the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction. If Oriel road is two way at this T junction, traffic going South down the Bath Road that wants to go towards the Town Hall will have to stop and make a 90% turn. This is already a narrow space - how will it cope with lorries and coaches and is this not going to add to traffic congestion and cause road accidents? How can this be ‘tweaked’ to make it workable and why does the Bath Road not appear on the implementation plan schedule?

recommended. A traffic signalled junction is planned for the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction.




Has any specific modelling been done of this set of proposed changes (i.e without any change to Boots corner?) and in the sequence being proposed. If not, how can any confidence be given to that hope that there will be an improvement in air quality - one of the key aims.

The modelling work previously undertaken looked specially at the entire Cheltenham Transport Plan package and gave officers confidence to move forward with progressing the Traffic Regulation Orders required to implement the plan. Should any further modelling work be required this is likely to be junction and traffic signal specific modelling work in order to assist with the final design stages of the schemes and not to prove the overall value of the changes.



Do you agree that without a definite change at Boots corner, there is no change to 'the High Street shopping experience', hence a key aim of the work has a great chance of failure.

No, I do not. Changes to the inner ring road will help enhance the High Street by providing easier access to car parks and helping to reduce overall traffic.

39. Questioners Name: Alan McDougall Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


The TROC committee and Cabinet could well mislead their prospective audience by acting on the Commissioner's reports where the essence of the ‘Plan’ is to greatly restrict the traffic flow in and around the town centre on the pretext that it is good for business etc. One of the benefits of the current road scheme is that it allows both visitors and business people alike to eyeball the town and get a feel for Cheltenham's great presence and environment. There is nothing worse for these visitors than being forced beyond their intended destination into a no man's abyss or traffic maelstrom. The real cost in this scheme is a severe reduction in the capacity and resilience of Cheltenham's traffic network thereby exacerbating and creating many issues of congestion, danger and pollution around the town.

The Bath Road traffic failed to such an extent that it had to be withdrawn early due to public outrage at the lack of clarity and good measure of the plan. This trial only affected traffic in one direction of the Bath Road, whereas the now proposed junction change takes this traffic plus all of the Northbound traffic through the town on the A46.

In just another example of many, the Westbound Junction of Oriel Road and Rodney Road, it is planned that the number of lanes be halved at the same time as increasing the phases on the lights sequence from two to four. The most likely outcome will lead to the time that traffic can pass through the junction being halved, thereby vastly restricting the flow.

It would further seem that the existing and functioning oneway system of the town is therefore being intentionally crippled for no other reason than to implement this phase of the scheme without trial, thus permanently restricting the volume of traffic that would be entering Boot's Corner. This would then lead to the reintroduction of this part of the plan by default.

The benefits of the Cheltenham Transport Plan are highlighted on both the Council’s website and Cheltenham Borough Council’s website. The Traffic Regulation Orders were subject to a pre-consultation and two extended statutory public consultations prior to going to a public Traffic Regulation Order Committee. Cheltenham Borough Council has twice voted (full Council) to support the scheme.

The Cabinet is being asked to consider a phased implementation approach to a scheme which has under gone considerable democratic approval processes. The scheme has been adapted and changed taking on board significant amounts of the public consultation received. I have confidence that moving forward with this scheme through a phased approach is the right thing to do.

Passing these proposals as presented or further altered in such a fashion could enable public realm schemes, may of which may be unworkable, and also not publicly consulted on to remain undefined despite repeated requests for them to be so. As the County Council presiding over this Traffic Authority you have a duty of care for the traffic network capacity and resilience in Cheltenham.

You have been made fully aware of the issues this plan creates and the level of objection to it. Why then are you still considering the enablement of this scheme, which is so crippling to the town, at the request of a political majority when the rest of the town and political parties are so firmly opposed to it?

40. Questioners Name: Alan McDougall Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


The presentation of evidence being made by Commissioner's reports to the TROC committee and Cabinet appears to contradict the original remit of the scheme in that it is a total and inclusive plan. The rules have now been changed by the separating out, and the cherry-picking of, parts of the scheme, thus making alterations that cannot be agreed through major public consultation.

The 'Plan' itself appears to be based on traffic flow monitoring evidence of a period around 2007-2009 and has no up to date information attached to it.

Clearly what appears to be happening is that the 'Real' plan is unfolding piecemeal and as such part of the intended greater plan is to 'regenerate' and relocate the commercial centre of Cheltenham, with CBC vacating the Municipal Buildings and the relocation of the bus node from Royal Well to North Place. The relocation of the latter is now on hold due to an earlier catastrophic lack of joined up thinking. Therefore the considerations being made from the current 'Plan' set before you will become even more fragmented and unworkable.

The Traffic Regulation Orders were subject to a pre-consultation and two extended statutory public consultations prior to going to a public Traffic Regulation Order Committee. Cheltenham Borough Council has twice voted (full Council) to support the scheme. The Cabinet is being asked to consider a phased implementation approach to a scheme which has under gone considerable democratic approval processes. The scheme has been adapted and changed taking on board significant amounts of the public consultation received.

The additional obvious practise of picking and reanalysing small areas of the plan are for political agreement, achieved by stealth, to enact another unknown 'great' plan without public consultation.

It is difficult to understand why CBC and GCC appears not to have fully managed, considered and documented meetings with major developers and other interested third parties over such a key central commercial development scheme that would have obvious and greater impact on traffic issues for Cheltenham. In fact these would be greater than the current tabled proposal, which by defaulting on sharing this knowledge would make this scheme as presented, totally redundant.

If both Councils have not included this major retail development in the scheme, then they have failed in measures of due diligence. Then again engaging with information mostly available to an informed Public regarding the development of North Place leading to its own failure, when apparently CBC, The Task Force and other aligned parties were not so informed.

Why then is consideration being given to a scheme, whether in part or whole, and when the entire plan is suspect, thus enabling the crippling of the town's traffic system when public opinion is and political parties are so firmly opposed to it and why are decisions being made without full democratic public consultation?

41. Questioners Name: Peter Christensen: Cheltenham Hospitality Association


I was present at the meeting at the Cheltenham Town Hall during the consultation process at which time I presented objections to the plan, as did the vast majority of speakers at that meeting. I noted that a statement has been made that the Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce is fully in favor of this Plan. I sit on the Council of the Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce as the Tourism Representative and I am not in favour and many others are not, so I would like to see the Evidence that all members of the Chamber

We are certainly aware of strong voices arguing both for and against these proposals. That’s we’ve tried to balance both views, by taking a proportionate, phased approach.

of Commerce are in favour.

I have asked the Chamber of Commerce for the evidence to show support, but I have not received any. Consequently I believe there may be a misrepresentation of the facts.

Perhaps the Cabinet can provide this evidence? I would hope that I am correct in presuming that no members of the ‘Task Force’ will be involved in any voting at Cabinet regarding this issue. I also have the role of Chairman of the Cheltenham Hospitality Association and can confirm that we are not in favour of the Plan and certainly not in favour of the closing of Boots Corner with all the disruption that will entail, including making navigating around Cheltenham and parking even more difficult than it already is for visitors and residents alike. It seems to me that the majority of people consulted are not in favour of this plan and that it is quite clear from the representations during the consultation process that the plan is not supported.

42. Questioners Name: Carl Friessner-Day Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Throughout the process of the Cheltenham Transport Plan, Cheltenham Borough Council has repeatedly contradicted itself on a number of issues. Many of our Councillors have recently argued against the Joint Core Strategy due to the impact on infrastructure inclusive of concerns over traffic, yet they fail to acknowledge that the ‘same traffic’ would then have a knock on effect on the figures presented in the current modelling in the Atkins report; their justification being the model accounts for only AGREED PLANNING to 2016 and already has accounted for population growth, which is very different from housing increase. Whilst we acknowledge the Paramics Modelling is the market standard tool and acceptable under normal conditions, the validity of the numbers produced and disappearing cars, not only have been

Any future modelling would use the best available information as to expected traffic patterns.

question by ourselves, but were a major concern to the TRO Committee.

Given the EXTRA ORDINARY perfect storm approaching of the JCS building and that the model is only appropriate in normal scenarios of population growth, would this Council give reassurance that any future modelling done to look at impact will not just include population growth, but actually include the additional vehicles that would come with any accelerated building which would increase vehicles above and beyond a standard population growth scenery?

43. Questioners Name: Carl Freissner-Day Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Recent legal events involving NO2 emissions in the UK and the Court action brought about by Client Earth, no longer gives the UK any excuse for not meeting agreed levels. The pending fines bear the risk of being made a Council issue as under localisation the Council has ownership for the AQMA and as a result their failings.

The TRO Committee have questioned the validity of the environmental claims of the Cheltenham Transport Plan suggesting that in their opinion at best the benefits are balanced by the disbenefits, and at worst more. With this in mind if this Council had to formulate a new Cheltenham Transport Plan to ensure that Cheltenham best met its AQMA obligations, on the evidence provided to the TRO Committee, would Boots Corner be part of this plan or would there be a better solution to solving our pollution problem?

I can’t speculate on the impact of NO2 emissions of unspecified speculative future plans. Cheltenham Borough Council is responsible for air quality management in Cheltenham and questions on it are best addressed to them.

44. Questioners Name: Mike Evans Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


The Cheltenham Transport Plan report contains many misrepresentations of the real picture.

With respect, the Commissioners reports to the TROC and Cabinet are a disgraceful misrepresentation of the real picture. No comment is made of the unanimous cross-party opposition to the scheme, or the fact that even the members of the supporting party that represented the most affected wards voted against it.

The reports repeatedly over-state the support and unsubstantiated claimed benefit of the scheme which has been generated at great expense and thanks to the perseverance of the Borough Council and promoting body for the scheme.

At the same time it either ignores, undermines or understates the failings of the plan and dismisses opposition, whilst persistently refusing to give a true picture of the impact of the changes to the residents of the town as a whole. Nor does it answer the questions raised in the original consultations and by the TROC.

The report states there was little opposition to the ring road changes, although there was to Boot’s Corner, yet fails to tell us what the opposition was or why it was raised.

Of particular significance is that the elements of the scheme were loudly declared as being indivisible, inseparable, unified until the TROC meeting, when suddenly it was claimed the scheme could work without one or more of the previously essential parts. Clearly it was easier to outline the fault with the most ludicrous elements of the scheme so as not to jeopardise the remainder.

There is no mention of the indivisibility of the scheme in the Cabinet Report. Even the results of the formal consultations identifying the opposition are pushed to the tail end of the report in favour of the initial informal consultation that suggested far more

I am well aware of the opposition to the Cheltenham Transport Plan proposals from many in Cheltenham – just as I am aware of strongly held views supporting it. In taking a phased approach, the County is trying to do its best to reconcile those two approaches.

I would disagree with your points about the Cabinet report being misleading. It is a balanced report which tries to honestly summarise and assess the consultation responses and views expressed during the Traffic Regulation Order Committee hearing.

One of the key objectives of the Cheltenham Transport Plan is to encourage modal shift. This is a key aim to assist with combating significant anticipated traffic growth. Without any plan in place air quality in the town centre is predicted to worsen. The plan seeks to balance changes to improve overall air quality, but there has always been a recognition that this change will mean a worsening situation at some junctions.

modest qualified support. This result was achieved by totally underplaying the disadvantages whilst promising undeliverable options as public realm enhancement.

Furthermore, at the Junction of Fairview Road and Winchcombe Street the NO2 levels are already in exceedance, at 105% of the statutory European levels. The traffic at this junction is set to increase by 117% under the proposed plan.

Yet the report to the TRO Committee states: ‘Should the scheme proposals be accepted it is possible that air quality levels may slightly deteriorate at two of the other locations identified as currently being in exceedance. A regime of pre- and post- scheme monitoring is already in place. Funding is set aside to address issues should they be realised.’

Will you please seek justification for this statement and identify the other areas of the report where impacts of proposed changes and exceedences are similarly misrepresented?

45. Questioners Name: Mike Evans Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Let us review, please, how residents’ Human Rights are considered.

The Report to the TRO Committee states: Article 1 of the First Protocol is a qualified right. It protects one’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property. The article refers to ‘possessions’, which has a wider meaning than just land and property interests. It should also be noted that the article refers to ‘enjoyment’ of possessions; it does not guarantee the right to live in a pleasant environment.

The modelling work shows how traffic disperses across the network based on a worse case scenario at 2026 including significant future traffic growth. In almost all cases this work does not indicate significant increases in traffic volumes beyond the anticipated growth that would occur if no plan was put in place. Certainly none of the predicted traffic increases are predicted to have severe impact. It is recognized that the overall plan does increase traffic in some areas and this has always been a controversial issue, particularly for the residents that live in those areas, which is why a phased implementation plan is being proposed so that the impacts of changes can be fully understood and schemes adjusted or mitigation measures considered.

Increases or decreases to environmental pollution or excessive noise will not necessarily amount to a breach of this article. If there are significant detrimental effects on the value of property then the proprietor may be able to claim some form of compensation. This is not anticipated to be the case for this Cheltenham Traffic Plan proposal. The modelling does not show there to be detrimental impacts on properties by increased congestion or pollution and therefore increased noise and damage to health i.e. more HGVs, more queuing traffic. It is not the intention of the Council to apply to make any compulsory purchases of property or assess areas for compensation, it is not anticipated that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on properties or property prices or health.

So why does the modelling not suggest any significant increases?

Perhaps it is the artificial capping of the traffic volumes on particular roads in the modelling that is hiding any major increases that enables GCC not to anticipate any detrimental effect. These certainly were not the conclusions of Julie Girling MEP of the GCC and their modelling in 2008!

Also the new modelling, post-Girling, does not account for the additional journey lengths and times caused by attempts being made by a vehicle to complete a journey when it determines that its original intended route is not available as a result of congestion. The busier it is, the more of these additional journeys will be made. And they are not counted by the model used. A comment made by a CBC councillor at the Full Council meeting in January 2015 was: “If I had a house in College Road (Cheltenham) then I would be putting it on the market by now.” As Members of this Cabinet, given the paucity of the modelling to date and the lengths to which CBC and the Traffic Authority have gone to mask the understanding of the traffic increases, do you really believe there will not be sufficient loss of amenity for individuals, communities and pressure groups not to consider taking out individual legal proceedings, or worse still, a class action. I suspect none of us wants to see that.

46. Questioners Name: Mary Nelson Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Why has the CTP not included, or made any allowance for, the huge JCS traffic growth that is clearly anticipated, when it has been known for the last few years that housing growth was necessary, and especially for the last two years that it would be on a significantly large scale i.e. c. 10,000 new houses for Cheltenham? (There has been a 7 month long interval this year from January to July when some further CTP modelling could have been carried out to incorporate some estimated JCS traffic growth.)

The Council is currently updating it's SATURN model to include JCS growth, the work on this project has been on-going for the last year and the model validation has not been completed yet, so it has not been possible to carry out any updated modelling work nor do officers consider it necessary given the considerable growth that was accommodated in the 2026 modelling work that was provided to the Traffic Regulation Order Committee. Any future modelling work if required will utilise the updated model taking into consideration all of the JCS growth.



On the 10th July 2015 a new JCS document entitled ‘Cheltenham, Gloucester & Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Transport Mitigation Summary Report’ (dated 10th July 2015) appeared as a JCS Examination document to be included as part of the JCS Evidence documents. I have been told by the JCS Programme Officer that the JCS Inspector reluctantly accepted this document as late evidence for the JCS Matter 8 sessions covering the Strategic Site Allocations, including the large urban extensions at North West Cheltenham and Leckhampton. This document can be viewed in the Examination document library as EXAM 84.

However this document reveals for the very first time that one of the JCS transport mitigation measures proposed for Cheltenham is for the Lower High Street to become a “Bus lane only inbound entry into Cheltenham”.

A phased implementation approach will provide the opportunity for the JCS and any other emerging issues to be full considered before progressing schemes to final design stages.

The massive Cheltenham North West JCS urban extension of almost 5,000 houses, two new schools, a health centre, a retail centre, a nursing home and various other ancillary development amounts to a new settlement the size of a small ‘new town’ or large village. (These terms have been used by the developers themselves at the EiP.) It will result in a huge increase in traffic on the Tewkesbury Road (A4019).

In addition a further mitigation strategy is for new Park and Ride to be sited close to the North West urban extension (at Uckington).This will necessitate a bus lane all the way along Tewkesbury Road from the new Park & Ride, becoming bus-only through the Lower High Street to where it meets the junction with Ambrose St. This new bus lane will be imperative to avoid the bus queuing on the busy A4019. In addition there is great dependence upon ‘model shift’ as an additional justifying JCS mitigation measure.

However EXAM 84 also states that the new Park & Ride at Uckington is predicted to reduce traffic journeys by only 5%, so will contribute an insignificant reduction considering the traffic consequences from this massive urban extension.

Does the Cabinet know and understand what effect this new bus lane entry into Cheltenham along the Tewkesbury Road plus the restriction to buses only in the Lower High Street will have on the traffic modelling that underpins the CTP, and does Cabinet not think that the CTP and the JCS Transport Mitigation Strategy need to be coordinated and take account of each other, and therefore a hold should be put upon any agreement to implement any phases of the CTP until the JCS Examination in Public has completed and we have the Inspector’s report on transport viability and sustainability for Cheltenham’s two large urban extensions?

Reducing Cheltenham’s two-lane Inner Ring Road to one lane in places, with the ultimate aim of closing the inner ring completely at Boots Corner, may well not be compatible with the increased traffic resulting from the JCS development, and until these two major plans can be assessed together any final CTP decisions and expenditure should be put on hold.

In addition a much need wets and north-west ‘Outer Ring Road’ has not been included in the JCS plan submitted.

Note: I have submitted statements on transport issues for JCS Matter 8, which includes transport for Strategic Site allocations, but Transport itself is due to be examined in the autumn. I intend to include my CTP questions nos. 1 and 2 and their answers, as part of my submission to the forthcoming JCS Transport session(s), as I have already mentioned that all these major plans overlap and need to be co-ordinated, otherwise they undermine public trust and confidence in master planning the future for Cheltenham.



Does the Cabinet agree that the CTP proposals/TROs consulted upon in the Second TRO Consultation and put before the TRO Committee for their decision on the 15th January 2015, contained an unacceptable and serious Safety/Equality Due Regard conflict - namely that the TRO Committee were being asked to recommend to permit a new bus lane to pass in front of Boots shop and continue down the Lower High Street, yet this new bus route crossed directly through the pedestrian crossing and therefore necessitated its removal, which was clearly stated in all the CTP documentation as being “retained”, and thereby in so doing the TRO Committee overlooked and failed to acknowledge the serious Safety/Equality Due Regard issues involved in this obvious clash, and which the accompanying CTP Equality Due Regard Statement also failed to either acknowledge and address?

As your answer to the above question is almost certain to be “No, you do not agree”, please would you state why you don’t agree and why GCC allowed this obvious and dangerous contradiction to go before the TRO Committee (i.e. to approve a new bus lane which clashed with the crossing) .

It was made clear at the Traffic Regulation Order Committee hearing that any scheme at Boot's Corner would need to go through a final design stage and be subject to safety audit. Officers also stated that when the decision to continue to include a pedestrian crossing to meet the needs of vulnerable users was made it was recognized that this would have implications on the design of the layout Boot's Corner and may mean that bus movements would need to continue as they currently do. These details would need to be worked out during the final design stages.

The decision to retain the pedestrian crossing was a direct result of the Council listening to feedback from the consultations and considering its equality duties. The final design will retain a crossing and will take into account the safety of all users.

The public could not be relied upon to notice this contradiction because no map or plan was provided to show the new bus lane, it was only listed in the “technical” text of the TRO’s.

In addition the Committee’s decision was to:

a) To adopt the Boots Corner element of the Traffic Regulation Orders on an experimental basis and that this be implemented as soon as practicable and be reviewed 10 months from implementation by this committee

b) To support all other aspects of the Traffic Regulations Orders

The TRO Committee’s decision was unacceptably unclear, because if they did mean to include putting the bus lane into operation “on an experimental basis as soon as practicable”, this would mean that they completely avoided acknowledging and addressing the very obvious safety and Equality risks of the bus lane clashing with the busiest pedestrian crossing in Gloucestershire.

On the other hand, if the Committee meant trialling only the inner ring road closure at Boots Corner, and not the bus lane, then they were not concerned about trialling the bus lane at all (with the safety implications inherent in it), and the second statement of their decision “To support all the other aspects of the TROS’s“ meant they were happy to permit the new bus lane without acknowledging or addressing the fact that its implementation meant certain removal of the crossing.

Whichever way their decision is interpreted, the safety implications of the new bus lane clashing with the existing pedestrian crossing failed to be addressed either by the Equality Due Regard Statement available to them or by the decision that they made.

Therefore the TRO Committee’s recommendation decision of the 15th January 2015 was unsound, and merely compounds the earlier CBC 18-11-13 and 26-01-15 Full Council CTP decisions, which were also unsound, because, as I have pointed out to GCC on a number of occasions, those decisions also failed to address this key CTP Safety/Equality Due Regard issue pertaining to the new bus lane’s clash with the pedestrian crossing. However the Boots Corner element, which has always been the key driver of the CTP, is only being deferred at the present time, as is made clear in the officer’s report.

49. Questioners Name: Bob Martin Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Please explain what has changed since the Traffic Regulations

Order Committee approved the Cheltenham Transport Plan on the 15th Jan 2015 including implementing the plans for Boots Boot Corner on an experimental trial basis?

A significant range of issues have changed in that period. In February Cabinet asked officers to provide more details on an implementation plan and the subsequent investigation into this has in part led to the recommendation that a phased implementation plan be taken forward.

The TRO committee’s role is to advise – not to make a final decision.



In the Report to the Traffic Regulations Order Committee the Lead Commissioner – Highway Authority - stated that ‘Many of the proposed alterations are inter-dependent in that they can only be introduced as a complete package in order for them to work as intended’. He further stated that ‘The TRO’s being considered by the Committee are interdependent in that one cannot be implemented without the others in place. The proposed changes include changing the one way system and restricting vehicle traffic at Boots Corner.

Boots Corner has not been excluded from this proposal – it will be progressed at a later date once the implementation of other parts of the Cheltenham Transport Plan has been completed if they prove successful. This will allow a clearer understanding of the impact of those changes in reaching a decision on Boot’s Corner and ensure that there is sufficient funding available to progress that part of the scheme.

Neither change could be implemented on it’s own. It is therefore difficult to envision how the committee could choose the option to implement only a portion of the scheme that is less restrictive’ Could he therefore explain why he is now recommending implementing only part of the scheme i.e. excluding Boots Corner?



Is Cabinet aware of the depth of feeling within the business community in Cheltenham at the proposal to defer the changes at Boots Corner and that a large number of town centre retail businesses together with major investors, the Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce and the bus operator are urging Councillors to approve the Cheltenham Transport Plan in its entirety in accordance with the Traffic Regulations Order Committee on the 15th January 2015 and the Cheltenham Borough Council on the 26th January 2015?

We certainly are, just as we are aware of the very strong feelings from others opposing all aspects of the scheme. This proposal attempts to balance both those viewpoints in a fair and sensible way.

52. Questioners Name: Derek Plumb Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith


Over the past 24 months Traffic Authority Officers have received requests for data that has not been produced. Much of this data could have been very easily supplied but was not. Can you please ensure the following base data is made available for full consideration before any decision is made by this Cabinet.

Night-time traffic flows through residential areas, such as All Saints Road, where the houses front directly onto this narrow street on both sides. This data should be available from even the most simple of traffic counters. Houses fronting directly onto the road will no longer be able to leave their bedroom windows open at night.

I have assurances that officers provided all of the available information and have responded to all inquiries about data. Specifically officers have assured me that they have responded regarding inquires about night time traffic. Approximately 25% of the traffic travelling through Boot’s Corner does so between the hours of 7pm and 7am and less than 10% travels between 11pm and 7am. Considering that if Boot’s Corner were to be closed this small amount of traffic would disperse over a number of roads the impact is not anticipated to be significant and would not impact on night time noise levels.

Peak Hour spread, what is the extent to which these will expand on the main routes and what are considered to be the main routes?

‘Capacity-capped’ streets, these are the remaining routes in the network which when cars attempt to pass down them are considered to be ‘full’ by the modeling.

So the vehicle either queues or searches for another route generating increased traffic, but not it seems counting as a vehicle in that street so that traffic volumes appear much lower in the modeling than they actually are. None of these streets are identified. Again suspicions on All Saints Rd which shows an increase of just 6% of traffic yet it seems one of the most likely roads where the volume of cars trying to use it could well triple, Yet this information was withheld from residents.

Overall dispersal of traffic, At every stage officers were requested to supply a simple single map of the town which graphically gave an idea of how the traffic would disperse, however there was a refusal to supply this instead they insisted on concentrating on individual roads and areas so that it was not possible for respondents to get an overall idea of the dispersal.

A clear map identifying the dispersal routes for the traffic is required before a decision can be made on this and before it can be approved.

A clear map of traffic dispersal, showing anticipated traffic levels on almost every town centre road was provided as part of the Traffic Regulation Order Committee report. The map shows anticipated traffic levels on a worst case scenario at 2026 with considerable future traffic growth. Officers also assure me that they have responded to inquires on this issue and on the issue of capacity capping in the modelling work. The modelling work uses capacity capping in order to estimate the number of vehicles that would no longer use the route but would choose routes wider afield to avoid the town centre routes. This is standard practice for this type of modelling work and was validated by the consultants that undertook the work.

53. Questioners Name: Cllr Adam Lillywhite (Cheltenham Borough Councillor)



Given the absence of a model or trial of the traffic restrictions intended to be imposed on Oriel Rd in its current form, and the failure of the Bath Rd scheme which had to be terminated early due to public revolt, even though,


· The reduction in flow capacity was considerably less.· It had lower traffic volumes · Not responsible for the flow of the A46 Northbound

under what conditions would it be considered the traffic restrictions in Oriel Rd to have failed and be backed out rather than just tweaked.

If it is a failure, as was the case of the Bath rd scheme, what provision is there to back it out once it has been permanently implemented? Is this a wise position or should some simple capacity trials be performed to assess the likely impact, simply a single lane of traffic. With allowable flow times as would be pertinent to this junction which now has four phases.

A traffic signalled junction is planned for the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction. Should Cabinet give approval for the Traffic Regulation Orders then consider further design work will be undertaken on each element of the inner ring road changes including how this traffic signalled junction will operate.




Benefit of Oriel Rd Works

The benefit of the two waying of Imperial square is questionable given the alternate routes and the option of reversing the flow in Imperial Lane, It would be far more effective to signpost the existing routes, preferably with real time signs stating how many parking spaces are left, This would eliminate many journeys. If possible it is even more difficult to comprehend the benefit of the Two-waying of Oriel rd Between Regents strt and Bath Rd, can you please enlighten us why this is being performed?

The changes to Oriel Road are part of the overall Cheltenham Transport Plan would enable both easier access to car parks and additional traffic movements to the east of the inner ring road avoiding the use of Boot’s Corner and the northern half of the ring road. The completion of the inner ring road changes will allow further options for Boot’s Corner to be considered and the phased approach will allow for assessment of how the individual elements of the ring road changes are impacting on Boot’s Corner.

A traffic signalled junction is planned for the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction. Should Cabinet give approval for the Traffic Regulation Orders then consider further design work will be undertaken on each element of the inner ring road changes including how this traffic signalled junction will operate.




Air Quality,

Air quality management, Why does the plan only refer to areas of the core zone from which it is anticipated to ban or severely restrict traffic, when the fact is that the AQMA, is the whole urban area of Cheltenham, and this is likely to see an overall net gain due to extended journeys and queuing?

Why is it that the greatest detriment seems to be to the least privileged areas, where in many cases the house front directly onto the carriageway with no gardens, Townsend street, St George Street, All Saints Rd and Princess Elizabeth Way. Due to the late availability of the Commissioners report it has not been possible to fully understand or comprehend the nature of these changes as should have occurred. This response is ambiguous in the Officers report.

Tackling Climate Change

Carbon Emissions Implications? Positive

Vulnerable to climate change? No

Does this mean the officer is agreeing that Carbon emissions increase? If so then it is accepted. If not I do not believe that this can be claimed as overall they may reduce vehicles by modal shift, initial target 11%, but the number on the road at any one time will be increased due to the journeys being so much longer and slower given the road speeds and additional queuing. Also the journeys not undertaken at peak time will still occur but will necessarily be far longer. There are too many such essential journeys being made in and around the town to possibly make any such unsubstantiated claim. The greatest likelihood is that this will be detrimental to Climate change.

The modelling work clearly showed that without the Cheltenham Transport Plan being implemented that anticipated traffic growth would result in worsening congestion and air quality issues. The plan encourages modal shift and without the plan in place it is difficult to see how significant modal shift will occur. The changes will increase journey lengths for some trips and will decrease journey lengths for others. Some of those with increased journey times may be encouraged to use a different mode of transport and this is a key element of the plan.

The Cabinet are confident that officers have assessed the impact of the proposed changes on air quality to the best of their ability and understand that the implementation of the plan will result in improved air quality in some locations and the potential for worsening air quality in other locations, but that without the plan being implemented the long term prospect is for a worsening air quality across the entire area.

It is not possible to claim this and given that the funding for this is through the LSTF it is therefore not applicable as this scheme contravenes its' fundamental principal, greener transport, this committee is therefore not in a position to agree to forward this scheme without contravening the conditions of the funding.

Can the Cabinet please confirm that they are considering the AQMA area, which is the whole area that is supposed to benefit under the LSTF scheme or is it just a small area in the Town centre near Boots Corner that may benefit, as outlined in the documentation that is supposing that Boots Corner Closes.




Permanent Change without Trial or Modelling,

We have to get any alterations right before they are made permanent, currently there is no stated mechanism or allocated funding for reversing this change, the impact is likely to be far greater than that of the Lower Bath rd trial, which recently had to be abandoned, this also impacts all the traffic travelling North on the A46.

Modelling so far has proven inadequate for the Traffic Regulation Order Committee, given the failure of the Traffic Authority to produce sufficient detail. This coupled with the TA’s inability to produce a viable means of trialling Boots Corner in the six months since it was requested, has brought us to this dangerous and unenviable position.

Being asked to accept the first phase of the section by section deconstruction of Cheltenham sole ring road which ensures that circulation through Boots Corner is greatly reduced by the time that it comes to re-considering it.

The Bath Road Trial provided a number of learning points for the Council and this has been noted in the Cabinet report and listed as one of the reasons why a phased implementation approach is now being recommended. A traffic signalled junction is planned for the Bath Road/Oriel Road junction.

Should Cabinet give approval for the Traffic Regulation Orders then consider further design work will be undertaken on each element of the inner ring road changes including how this traffic signalled junction will operate. The final cost estimates of the individual elements of the scheme are currently being reviewed in light of the fact that the original cost estimates are now more than two years old and to determine what impact a phased implementation may have on the design work. The County Council is responsible for all costs associated with the highway works and any costs associated with adjusting or reversing schemes. The phased implementation approach will assist in controlling costs.

In the light of the recent abandonment of the Lower Bath rd traffic flow restrictions, are you prepared to approve permanent changes in the absence of valid modelling and without any trial? How much would the changes to Oriel rd cost including the junction changes with Bath Rd, Rodney Rd/Regent Street and the Promenade?

Who would be financially liable for backing them out and how much would this cost?

What would have to happen in order for them to be backed out?

57. Questioners Name: Cllr Adam Lillywhite (Cheltenham Borough Council)



Modelling

Traffic modelling, In 2008 Julie Girling the now MEP, threw this out for the GCC Cabinet due to too greater increase in volume of traffic in certain areas, namely St James caused by the ‘dispersed’ traffic from the road restrictions. In 2009 modelling re-commenced with a different model, one that does not identify this increased desire to use a route, It only defines the number of cars which the TA believe could actually pass down the road rather than are trying to get down it.

As such the figures you see on the roads are ‘capped’ according to road width. This masks the dispersal routes which traffic is attempting to use and the congestion which was not acceptable in 2008 from the previous modeling magically disappears, on paper.

Consider how the following increases are presented to the general public, a road currently taking say 1000 cars, which has a considered capacity of 1040, if a proposed road closure means that twice as many cars are trying to use it, say 2000.

Your interpretation of the modelling work is incorrect and you are comparing previous high level SATURN modelling work with the detailed PARMICS modelling that was done to assess the Cheltenham Transport Plan. The figures you have chosen to present are misleading.

I am happy to ask officers to provide a detailed explanation of any of the modelling data; I am aware that they have provided such detailed responses a number of times during the traffic regulation order consultations.

The original model would have displayed this 100% increase and immediately highlighted this change, however, the new model would show this as a 4% increase, fairly insignificant and give no idea of the other vehicles attempting to use it or the congestion created by their re-routing. Yet no explanation of this has been offered to the public.

Despite there being no attempt to explain this to the general public, when these ‘anomolies’ have been highlighted for explanation, due to the ‘vanishing’ of vehicles from the maps, the names of these capped roads have been requested, yet there has been a refusal to supply them over the last two years. Why is the public not being made aware of the impacts, and in the case of the complete rework of this complex key decision not being given sufficient time or information to consider and question its impact in the main holiday period?

58. Questioners Name: Cllr Adam Lillywhite (Cheltenham Borough Council)



GCC Duty of Care

Reading this document it reminds me of the futility of the scheme and the problems it is likely to create. I compare it with a medical practitioner that is about to chop off the legs of a perfectly healthy individual, for superficial cosmetic reasons. The practitioner is fully aware that using prosthetics the individual will have great difficulty in walking again and will never be able to run, but he is trying to persuade the patient that a few tweaks of mitigation will improve things, in the full knowledge that the patients capacity for exercise is reduced by around 75%. It is the responsibility of GCC as Traffic Authority, BEFORE making TROs to balance their power to restrict or prohibit the traffic against their duty to secure expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic (including pedestrians) and against the effects of the TROs.

This is why a phased implementation approach has been recommended allowing for more time to consider the impact of each phase and adjust, tweak or reverse to ensure efficient movement of traffic and ultimately to consider again options for Boot’s Corner at a later date once the implementation of other parts of the Cheltenham Transport Plan has been completed.

This will allow a clearer understanding of the impact of those changes in reaching a decision on Boot’s Corner and ensure the Council’s duties and responsibilities are met.

The Cabinet must be sure that this has already been done before agreeing to these TROs.

Given the increased volume of traffic and frustration of drivers around the town centre and throughout the rest of the town, with realistically just one currently exceptionally untroubled and safe rd being closed. The increased pollution and difficulty for pedestrians to cross the contra flow roads as well as cyclists to ride along them, I do not believe their duty to secure expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic (including pedestrians) has been balanced against the effects of the TROs.

Can you please confirm that this is done and if for the balance to be tipped that Boots Corner has to be closed. 59. Questioners Name: Cllr Adam Lillywhite (Cheltenham

Borough Council)Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith

Item 5 - Cheltenham Transportation Plan No Mandate from the Town

Can the Cabinet confirm that they are happy with the ‘mandate’ that has been received from CBC, given that there is unanimous opposition to the scheme from all Parties in the Cheltenham Borough Council except the Liberal Democrats, of which two voted against, as they were aware of the damage likely to be caused by the scheme in their Ward which would be heavily affected.It should be noted that both Formal TRO consultations are firmly against the scheme, with those expressing opinions rising from 76% to 94% against the scheme by end of the second consultation.

Whilst the Lib Dem majority prefers to quote the 72% returned in an informal vote which concentrated on what would look best in Boots Corner: trees, fountains or a performance space, it should be noted that no consideration was made for the displaced traffic, and three of the four multiple-choice options were in favour of the

Gloucestershire County Council has the legal responsibility and the electoral mandate to make decisions about transport in this county. Of course Cabinet is aware of the strong voices for and against the Cheltenham Transport Plan – which is why we are taking a phased approach – mindful both of those campaigners like Cllr Lillywhite who have forcefully made the case against it, and also those who have been equally forceful in favour of it.

scheme!

This response was matched by a formal petition against the scheme as well as the consultation.

The informal consultation was taken from a starting-point of very low awareness by the general public. At that time, the only information they had was supplied in the consultation, and this was strongly slanted towards the scheme. As the public have become aware, there has been a dramatic and conclusive swing of opinion against the scheme. It would now seem that there are few in the town outside of the Senior officers and LD Councillors, and then, not all of them, who still support it.

With further regard to the Informal vote, I attach an Email which outlines the deficiencies in the consultation and the failure of the officers to record my comments at the consultation. This was sent to Richard Cornell on 3/7/2013. Re-reading this, it is easy to see how the suggested levels of support were attained. Dear Mr Cornell,

It was good to meet you last night and establish contact. I am writing to confirm our conversation and express my gravest concerns with regard to this consultation process and the closure of Boots Corner in general. I will forward you my concerns over the traffic scheme separately, to enable you to address the process issues before it is too late. Last night you stated that we were early in the consultation process and that the views of the residents were required to understand where the problems are and are likely to be, so that the scheme could be adjusted accordingly.

I and many other attendees expressed the concern that this scheme appeared to already be determined and that this process was simply paying lip service to regulations.Principal concerns are.

There is no clear or means of registering opposition to the scheme,The format of the questionnaire is such that there is nowhere that you can pass comment on the scheme without the danger of it being categorised as “qualified support’. The questionnaire on the other hand seeks alternative uses and suggestions for the area. This would appear to be very misleading particularly given the use of the ‘qualified support’ categorisation in previous consultations by the CBC. Both you and Jeremy Williamson stating that on the consultation return form an objection would simply be a tick in the ‘No’ box in Q1 and leaving Q2 blank, there are no such clear instructions. Not sufficient given that this is meant to be an exercise in collecting opinion.

No record was made of views or opinions. Many valid objections were made yesterday, yet none were written down or captured, there was no mechanism available for registering your objection on the night, can you please send me a list of the objections that were raised last night and what record has been made of the high level of opposition to the scheme that was witnessed.

Impacted residents not receiving consultation forms.

I outlined that I lived on a road that would see an increase of traffic yet have not received a consultation form, can you please ensure that all residents likely to be effected by the scheme have been contacted.

I was also shocked and would like noted Jeremy Williamson’s personal attack on myself and my past and current profession when I outlined the use of the ‘Qualified support’ categorisation in the North Place and Portland street Car park consultation and the apparent failure of the St Margarets’ rd traffic scheme and its non-implementation. This is not what is expected from Council employees at a public consultation.

If you decide to continue with this process you please ensure that the principal concerns are addressed before further events. I look forward to hearing from you and receiving the list of the issues raised last night. Yours sincerely It is needless to say that I did not receive a list of the objections that were supposed to have been recorded, so is it surprising, the suggested outcome of the informal consultation was in favour. All responses to this Email Chain are available on request.

Given the Outright aggression displayed by Mr Williamson at the St Lukes ‘consultation’ and the warnings made to members of the public at the Regent Arcade Consultation that if they approached or spoke to other members of the public with regard to the scheme that they would be removed by Security guards who were overshadowing them I am not surprised that CBC are attempting to claim the result that they are.

You must ask yourselves as Members of GCC Cabinet if you wish to condone this type of ‘democracy’ with your strategic partners, who are clearly extremely frustrated at their failure to garner support from the town despite extensive media and Task Force initiatives to do so. The town is not interested.What can you do to protect the residents of this town from this entrenched political ambition that only serves to reduce the network capacity and resilience of the town?

60. Questioners Name: Ken Pollock Respondent: Cllr Vernon Smith

Item 5 - Cheltenham Transportation Plan You have been sent my map showing the harm to Cheltenham's 'distributor road network' if the Inner Ring were cut. You are now proposing to 'strangle' its flow, permanently.

The Council is fully aware of its responsibilities and duties and to the potential of legal challenges to decisions.

Oriel Road constricts in width where it joins Imperial Square North. If one lane is taken for contra-flow (and the Rodney Road junction will then need four traffic-light phases, adding a pedestrian phase, instead of the current two), the tail-backs into Bath Road (both northwards and southwards) will be catastrophic, (far worse than your 'Bath Road Trial' which barely survived a week).

As you are solely responsible for Cheltenham's traffic viability, do you realise that the scale and spread of untrialled 'Permanent' harm across Cheltenham (especially to the major east-to-west flow, e.g. from Charlton Kings to Alstone), combined with the half-truths and misrepresentation of objections in the officer's report, plus the lack of fully independent scrutiny of this heavily contested, town-transforming scheme, can warrant legal challenge from several areas, (even for irresponsible waste of public funds following the inevitable reversals) ?

Creating an extra access to the carparks off Rodney Road is simply INSUFFICIENT justification for crippling flow permanently on Cheltenham's sole Ring Road when there is now no certainty that the Inner Ring can ever be cut at Boots Corner.

61. Questioners Name: Ken Pollock


For circulation, Cheltenham has only its well-tested two-lane clockwise 'Inner Ring', which is also the indispensable hub of the town's 'A-road network'.

Whilst Albion Street may not be quite as heavily loaded as Oriel Road, it also needs to remain two-lane clockwise for efficient flow, especially as the adjacent overloaded 'Northern Relief Road' is not a viable or linked "alternative".

Therefore, when your "Phase-1" in Albion Street fails in whole or in part, will that be the end for this CTP nonsense?

A phased implementation approach has been recommended allowing for more time to consider the impact of each phase and adjust, tweak or reverse to ensure efficient movement of traffic.

It is helpful to the reader to retain my careful underlining and emboldening of words.

Mr Pollock referred to his previously submitted document 'Wrecking InnerRing' (pdf, with maps), which he felt contradicted Mr. Tompkin's shameful claim: "there was only minor concerns expressed about the inner-ring changes".

Date post:	11-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doannga
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

PUBLIC QUESTIONS CABINET MEETING – 22 July...

Documents