Local politicians respond to Clean Air Cheltenham’s action plan

29 June 2021

• the whole town becomes a zero-emissions zone by 2030
• a green bus revolution – much more frequent, all-electric public transport
• new park and rides
• building gold-standard segregated cycleways to make it safe for more people to cycle
• a 20mph speed limit in most areas of the town.

We asked Max Wilkinson, the Borough Council Cabinet member responsible for climate change and air quality for his response. We also sent the report to Alex Chalk, MP for Cheltenham. We have printed their responses below. We feel that both responses could be described as generally supportive…. but careful to avoid any specific commitments.

We don’t think their responses reflect the urgency of the climate emergency, or the dangers of air pollution… Neither appears willing to endorse the unarguable requirement for the town to become a zero-emissions zone. But judge for yourself. We will continue to press for concrete action, and develop further the ideas contained in the Action Plan.

Response from Max Wilkinson

“Thank you for the opportunity to set out the approach being taken to air quality in Cheltenham.  It’s right that local people and campaign groups scrutinise the process and I’m pleased that is happening. Equally, it’s important that the right questions are asked to the right organisations at the right time, and that responsibilities are clear.  Openness, transparency and clarity are important part of the democratic system.

Many people might assume that the process for producing an Air Quality Action Plan is simple and the Borough Council can do it alone.  They might think that:

• Cheltenham Borough Council produces a plan.
• Cheltenham Borough Council has significant powers over the policies needed to implement the plan.
• The plan is implemented by Cheltenham Borough Council.
• The air quality gets better.

However, the reality is not so straightforward.  Cheltenham Borough Council is responsible for monitoring air quality within the borough and for producing a formal Air Quality Action Plan for areas that exceed maximum levels of pollution, as defined in law.  Producing such a plan and submitting it to DEFRA, as set out in the legislation, is within the gift of the council.  However, the policy measures required to tackle air quality are the shared responsibility of the Borough Council, the County Council and the Westminster government.  The Borough Council is responsible for air quality monitoring, but has extremely limited statutory powers itself to improve air quality.  That’s why the Borough Council believes it is important to involve the County Council, the NHS, businesses and others in the plan.  That includes community groups like Clean Air Cheltenham and I’m pleased a representative was able to join the meeting earlier this year.  I was also pleased to receive the group’s subsequent proposals.

There are two key elements to our current work.  The first is the statutory part that we must address, as set out in the legislation.  The second covers the rest of our activities.  National legislation informs the statutory element of any Air Quality Action Plan.  That means that the plan must make proposals to deal with any breaches of the maximum level of pollution, averaged out across the year. The relevant measurement where Cheltenham has in the past showed breaches across town is that of Nitrogen Dioxide.  The maximum level is an average monthly reading of 40 microgram per cubic metre. When the monitoring data informing the Air Quality Action Plan was last assessed, there were a small number of monitors showing breaches around the junction of the High Street and Tewkesbury Road, with the Royal Mail depot part of the zone.  This area must therefore form our Air Quality Management Area, as set out in legislation.  Our Air Quality Action Plan document must at the very least deal with that – the first bit.  However, because we believe a borough wide approach is necessary, we are putting together a plan that covers the wider borough too – the second bit.  This is an approach that goes beyond the statutory requirement.  It will take more time and cost more money, but we believe it is worthwhile and the only appropriate course of action in light of the climate emergency that has been declared.  While Cheltenham’s air quality is nowhere near as bad as the air that contributed to the death of Ella Kissi-Debra, there is no safe level of air pollution and we must do what we can to improve things.

The studies show that the majority of poor air quality in Cheltenham comes from transport emissions – with private cars accounting for the vast majority of that.  This is why it is vital that Cheltenham Borough Council does not produce its plan in isolation, but that it works with the transport authority: Gloucestershire County Council.  This is particularly relevant to Clean Air Cheltenham’s submission to the process.  Most of Clean Air Cheltenham’s proposals relate to transport infrastructure.  Naturally, the Borough Council is in favour of low carbon transport and active travel.  This includes more bicycle lanes, a shift away from car journeys for short trips and people-friendly neighbourhoods.  These aims are set out in the Borough Council’s Connecting Cheltenham report, which was submitted to the County Council as part of the recent Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan consultation.  It is notable that some people who should know better, including our Member of Parliament, would like to shift the responsibility for delivering transport infrastructure to the Borough Council.  He refers to this as a ‘sterile’ argument.  I suppose sometimes facts can be boring.  We can only assume this is a politically motivated tactic being used to bamboozle people into blaming his political opponents, rather than his own team.  I’m not sure that will get us anywhere in our shared aims of promoting walking and cycling to clean our air.  The extent of the Borough Council’s ability to directly look after cycle routes is limited to the Honeybourne Line and paths through our parks – like Cox’s Meadow.

As regular readers of my social media will know, I would be delighted if Cheltenham Borough Council had the powers and money to implement transport schemes, but it does not.  To achieve its aims the Borough Council will need to work with the County Council on formal proposals.  This is because County Council holds the powers and resources to implement sustainable and active travel infrastructure schemes.  Such transport schemes might also include the 20mph speed limit proposal that Clean Air Cheltenham is backing.  The Borough Council’s position on this has been clear for several years: Cheltenham is in favour of 20mph speed limits as a borough-wide default, with only a few key arterial routes remaining 30mph.  This position was clarified after a Borough-led public consultation in 2017 and the results were shared with the County Council.  Most recently, the Borough Council has again passed a motion in support of lower speed limits.  The County Council is due to scrutinise the potential for a County-wide approach to 20mph speed limits at an unknown future date.  While that commitment is welcome, we hope scrutiny and a subsequent proposal will come sooner rather than later.

While the lines of responsibility for different local actions are clear, we also need to know where the money comes from.  At the moment, any significant new money for the sustainable and active transport schemes needed to help us shift journeys out of cars and clean our air will primarily come from the government (the Department for Transport).  There will be some contributions from developers via the planning system, but those will not match the scale of investment needed.  While more and more money is being put aside and that is welcome, the UK still spends a lot less public money on active travel schemes, per head of population, than other nations.  People may have read that ‘hundreds of millions of pounds’ is available to local transport authorities like the County Council.  However, in reality, to get any of that money local authorities have to take part in a complex bidding process where there are inevitably losers.  Cheltenham Borough Council is supporting the County Council’s efforts to bid for this funding and our Connecting Cheltenham report proves we have a vision.  I am pleased to have written a recent letter of support for a funding bid by the County Council.

There are some things that the Borough Council can directly influence and I will continue to advocate for those.  We will implement more thorough and dynamic air quality monitoring across the borough, including schools.  We have already begun this work.  The suggestion that a smaller formal Air Quality Management Area means a more relaxed approach to air quality monitoring is not correct.  We are hoping to soon announce better bicycle parking measures, including secure spaces for residents, shoppers and commuters.  We are investigating a new tree strategy for the borough, focusing on canopy cover rather than blunt targets.  I am due to meet school leaders to discuss the promotion of active travel on the school run, rather than car use. The Cheltenham Zero Partnership, funded by the Borough Council and run by Vision 21, will help lead the discussion to produce a consensus around cleaner air.

Local people and clean air campaigners should rest assured that the aims set out in the Clean Air Cheltenham plan are aligned with those that the Borough Council would like to see realised in the town.  It has been suggested that I, as the Borough Council cabinet member, should make ‘specific commitments’ to implement the schemes within Clean Air Cheltenham action plan.  I understand where this request comes from and I have a lot of sympathy with people who make that request.  If it were within my gift to make commitments and implement transport infrastructure schemes, I would certainly be making firm commitments  However, as I have stated above, the Borough Council is not the transport authority so I am unable to do that. 

What I can do is assure Clean Air Cheltenham and other people in the Borough who read this that the Air Quality Action Plan document will include a comprehensive and borough-wide approach, as well as dealing with the new Air Quality Management Area.  Key partners, including the County Council and the NHS, are also appraised of the development of the document and they will be asked for their input and support.

As the cabinet member charged with air quality matters, I could have taken the approach of defaulting to the statutory Air Quality Action Plan, covering only the relatively small area showing a breach of the maximum levels.  Alternatively, I could have asked for a report that included a borough-wide approach but failed to properly engage key partners like the County Council and the NHS in the discussion.  I believe both of those options are inferior to the one we have chosen.  The chosen approach will take a bit longer and it will mean more work with partners who can help us on the way, but I believe it will be worth it.”

Response from Alex Chalk, MP.

“I have read the plan you’ve submitted to CBC with care. It’s a really impressive piece of work, if I may say so – a thought-provoking and valuable contribution to this pressing challenge. I want to acknowledge the huge amount of care, thought and research that has clearly gone into producing it.

I also am a strong believer in active travel. Like you, I suspect, I have been an advocate for this long before it was fashionable! Perhaps more important than mere advocacy, I have lived my life accordingly. Cycling has my principal mode of transport for more than two decades. I am also the first Cheltenham MP to travel to the overwhelming majority of appointments by bike.

You won’t be surprised to know that I can’t agree with all of your report – but no worthwhile vision statement of this nature can expect to be free from all controversy! Good for you for testing the boundaries. But I don’t agree, for example, with the proposal to reduce council car parking spaces or increase parking prices for example – because I recognise that there will be those (not least people with disabilities or mothers with children and shopping) for whom the car is necessary. I wouldn’t want to see them discriminated against.

Where I believe this work can add most value is in focusing attention onto the development of a proper cycling network across Cheltenham. The recent CBC report was (in my respectful opinion) a missed opportunity to advance this discussion. There was precious little by way of substantive proposal amongst the copious imagery. When it comes to the ‘cross-town spine’ which your report proposes, it would have been helpful to see proposals in the ‘Connecting Cheltenham’ report to develop this worthwhile aspiration.

When it comes to active travel, there are two principles which guide my approach:

• Perfect is the enemy of good
• Carrot is better than stick

What I mean by the former is this: we need to see what we can do now to increase the number of people on bikes. That likely means an incremental approach, rather than pinning hopes on a grand project which may be some years away. There is plenty that we could do in the near term to make a very difference. This ranges from improving signage (there’s a sign at the end of the Lower High Street which directs cyclists into the path of oncoming buses!) to cycleway segregation measures. Why not look at a shared cycle-pedestrian lane (with paint line to segregate) on the south side of Oriel Road, so that cyclists travelling east from the Prom into Rodney Road don’t need to dismount in order to reach the Bath Road? That would cost relatively little, and would make an incremental difference. Why not look at some of the cost-effective schemes considered elsewhere in the UK?

Forgive me for repeating this point, but you’ll recall that the Government has in the past funded so-called CCAGs (Cycling City Ambition Grant cities) like Bristol and Manchester, which have devised a wide range of cycling-promoting schemes. If I ran Cheltenham Council I would be instructing my officials to make contact with their colleagues in those authorities (say in Cambridge, which is flat like Cheltenham) to establish which schemes work best and could most readily be applied to Cheltenham. Only recently, I travelled to Birmingham where I cycled across the city. There they have adopted innovative, cycle-friendly, schemes which separate bikes from the traffic. I think we could roll those out, or a variant of them, in Cheltenham. Not all segregation schemes require London Embankment-style concrete and tarmac. You can use so-called ‘armadilloes’ for example. Now, I know there is the sterile argument about Highways being run by GCC; but equally CBC has in the past produced a Cheltenham Transport Plan which it invited GCC to implement. There were positive features of that plan incidentally – making Albion Street two-way for example.

On the second point, I think we need to encourage people out of cars, not bully them. We need to show that it is easier, cheaper and more convenient.

Post-COVID the Government has announced massive further investment in cycling and walking infrastructure. This investment package includes plans to make cycling safer with new “mini-Holland” schemes. Mini-Holland schemes should be focused principally on making residential areas safer to walk, cycle and play in, while maintaining the vehicle access people need to get around. Such low-traffic neighbourhoods would work well in Cheltenham.”