Issue - meetings

Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, Councillor Tim Harman.

An officer advice note on the options available to Cabinet

RESOLVED THAT

1.    the designation of the Springbank Neighbourhood Forum area (the current Springbank Ward) be approved for the purpose of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

2.    the designation of the Springbank Neighbourhood Forum be approved as a neighbourhood forum as defined by the Localism Act 2011.

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety felt that it was unfortunate that a dispute had arisen between two communities.  However, Cabinet could only assess applications against the national legislation and local guidance and he was mindful that the call-in related to the Springbank application and not the West Cheltenham application.  It was accepted, by all, that the Springbank application was valid and that the decision had been taken properly and not in conflict with any other application, as no more had been received.  In view of this, he considered it to be unreasonably punitive to refuse the Springbank application and therefore recommended that approval of the Springbank application be restated.  

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services explained that Cabinet were obliged to deal with applications as they arrived and not in a preferred order. Whilst he understood the views of those that had supported the call-in and those that called for the application to be refused, essentially the request was that Cabinet refuse a valid application in order to consider wider issues; when no further application had been received from West Cheltenham.  He suggested that the Springbank application should be approved and all parties asked to consider options for modifying boundaries in the future.  

The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles sought advice from the Head of Law on three points. Firstly, the Head of Law explained that the authority must determine the Springbank application by the 27 June 2017 (tomorrow) and that if this deadline was not met, the authority must designate all of the area applied for.  Secondly, he repeated the advice that he had given at the last meeting (16 May) that the Regulations were detailed technical requirements which planning officers had considered and were clearly satisfied with in bringing this and the original report to Cabinet for decision.  Members should be satisfied that they had been provided with sufficient facts and information, including the officer advice and report, to enable them to reach a balanced and reasoned decision on the recommendations before them.  Were Cabinet to refuse the application at this stage, the authority would be vulnerable to challenge. Thirdly, the Head of Law said that a further neighbourhood plan application could not be made in respect of an area already designated but that there could be liaison between adjoining areas; he suggested that the planning officers address this point.

In response to the query raised by the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles, the Development Manager confirmed that the Planning Practice Guidance stated that a local planning authority could amend the boundary of a neighbourhood area after it had been designated only if responding to an application for a neighbourhood area to be designated.  He gave further explanation that were a further application to be submitted by West Cheltenham, that the boundaries could not overlap with Springbank boundaries but could be adjacent to them and that it would be possible for a number of neighbourhood areas to work together to develop a joint plan.  

The Cabinet Member Clean and Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

Consideration of a call-in request regarding a decision made at Cabinet on 16 May 2016

·         Introduction by the Chair

·         Councillor Wendy Flynn to speak on the call-in request

·         Questions to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

·         Questions to the Development Manager, Phil Stephenson and the Director of Planning, Tracey Crews

·         Conclusions and agree recommendations     

The Chairman explained that he had called-in the decision to designate a Neighbourhood Area and Neighbourhood Forum in the current Springbank Ward, following a request from Councillor Wendy Flynn and advice from Officers and Members.  The process for dealing with the call-in was summarised on the agenda and possible options for the committee were set out in paragraph 4.1 of the discussion paper. He invited Councillor Flynn to address the committee. 

Councillor Flynn thanked the Chairman for agreeing to call-in the decision, which she had committed to doing in her letter of objection, were the Springbank application approved.  Whilst she acknowledged that it was the Springbank decision that had been called in, she wished to discuss the West Cheltenham application, which she felt would provide some context to the issue.

Between February and July 2016 the West Cheltenham Forum held four meetings and agreed the group membership, constitution, boundaries and application.  The group used wards as a starting point, namely the four wards of West Cheltenham (St Peters, St Marks, Hester's Way, Springbank and surrounding areas) and finally agreed the boundary which formed part of the application which was submitted in July.  After a six week consultation period in September, there were no objections.  The application was scheduled for determination by Cabinet on the 6 December 2016, with Officers recommending approval, but the decision was deferred as Cabinet had some concerns.  On the 13 December the application went before Cabinet again.   Officers were still recommending approval but had included three options which aimed to address the concerns that had been expressed by Cabinet.  Cabinet rejected the application based on it reducing community cohesion.  Comments made by Cabinet included the fact that only part of the West Cheltenham strategic allocation was included and that the area was too big.  She noted that the Springbank area designation also included part of the strategic allocation and that the decision was at odds with the Cheltenham Masterplan Briefing which considered the four wards in question, as one area with much in common.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that a council must be satisfied that a Neighbourhood Forum is established with the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic and environmental well-being of an area that consists of or includes the neighbourhood area concerned.  Councillor Flynn queried whether this was indeed the case based on the majority of the consultation comments; none of which, with the exception of that from Councillor Jeffries, referenced a neighbourhood plan.  She suggested that members of the Springbank Forum had been entirely drawn from members of the West Cheltenham Greenbelt Group and as consequence, were almost entirely concentrated along the greenbelt area rather than, as prescribed in the regulations, from different places in the neighbourhood area and from different sections of the community in that area.  The report that went to Cabinet on the 16 May stated that “The area proposed to be designated does not include any organisation currently seeking to be designated” but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

RESOLVED THAT

1.       the designation of the Springbank Neighbourhood Forum area (the current Springbank Ward) be approved for the purpose of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

2.       the designation of the Springbank Neighbourhood Forum be approved as neighbourhood forum as defined by the Localism Act 2011.

The Cabinet Member Housing, Councillor Jeffries left the room for this item and therefore did not participate in the debate.

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety introduced the updated report which had been circulated prior to the meeting regarding an application which had been received to designate a neighbourhood plan area for Springbank and designate the Springbank Neighbourhood Forum as the neighbourhood forum for that area. He reported that the application had been assessed against the requirements set out in the legislation and was considered to meet the requirements to enable designation of the neighbourhood area and of the neighbourhood forum. The Council’s Neighbourhood Planning Protocol had been used to guide officers in assessing the application.

The Cabinet Member explained that this was the second application the Borough had received to designate a neighbourhood forum in the west of Cheltenham. The first application had been rejected by Cabinet as the submitted forum application had been made for an area which was not considered appropriate as a neighbourhood area. This was because the area cut across ward boundaries and included a number of separate communities, which would reduce community cohesion. Secondly, because the area applied for was not agreed as constituting an appropriate area, the membership of the applied for forum could not be found to comply with Section 61F(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 part (c); having a membership of “a minimum of 21 individuals each of whom lives in the neighbourhood area concerned”

Given the objections to the current application, the Cabinet Member Development and Safety explained that this application complied with the Regulations as outlined in paragraph 4.3 of the report. He then drew Members’ attention to the supplementary documentation which had been circulated in advance of the meeting highlighting paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the report stating that officers had considered the representations received and saw no planning reason to object to the applications.

The Cabinet Member emphasised that the current application differed from the previous application in several key ways. Firstly, it has been submitted by a different organisation (Springbank Neighbourhood Forum). Secondly, the current application area followed the boundary of the Springbank ward whereas the previous application included Springbank ward as well as Hesters Way ward and the majority of St. Mark’s and St. Peter’s wards.

The Cabinet Member sought the advice from the Head of Law in terms of whether due process had been followed in terms of the Regulations and constitutional requirements. The Head of Law explained that in terms of the Regulations, these were detailed technical requirements which the planning officers would have considered and were clearly satisfied with in bringing the report to Cabinet for decision. With regard to the council’s constitution he drew Members’ attention to the general principles of decision making which were followed at the council;  Members should be satisfied that they had been provided with sufficient facts and information, including the officer advice and report, to enable them to reach a balanced and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6