Issue - meetings

Report of the Leader

The Leader welcomed the vast number of members of public who filled the public gallery and apologised for the volume of paperwork that had been circulated to Members, which he appreciated was a difficult undertaking.  He took this opportunity to thank Officers for their hard work. 

Given that a number of seminars had been organised for the benefit of Members over the preceding months, it was proposed that the item would follow the normal format of debate.  Officers were in attendance to assist with answering any questions of a technical nature and would note any issues raised.

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was being abolished and Cheltenham Borough Council would be the decision maker in determining long term development needs of the Borough, and it would need to get this right, which would be no easy task. 

Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Gloucester had agreed to work together and prepare a single core strategy covering the entirety of each of the three areas. 

Colleagues would be aware that Tewksbury Borough Council was the first to consider the document on the 26 October and it had been approved for consultation purposes. Gloucester City would be considering the document on the 24 November and it was hoped that all three authorities would then be in a position to move forward. 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had undergone a consultation process and Cheltenham had duly submitted a number of responses.  Consultation on the ‘Preferred Option’ would conclude in early summer 2013 and all feedback from the consultation and clarity on the NPPF would enable conclusions to be formed. 

He talked through the recommendations, providing some context and explanation for each.

Councillor Whyborn proposed an amendment (for insertion after recommendation 4 and subsequent recommendations be renumbered accordingly), copies of which were circulated to members;

5. This Council does not necessarily endorse development on any of the specific sites named in the document “Developing a preferred option”;

He felt that, whilst it could be considered to be a statement of the obvious, it was important given that a number of sites had been named in the document by Officers and the Council had previously taken a view on some and not on others. 

Councillor Thornton reserved her right to speak as the seconder of the amendment. 

Councillor Jordan accepted the amendment and invited questions on the substantive motion before it was debated. 

The Leader, in response to questions from members emphasised the fact that there had been a genuine attempt by Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) to calculate the population in 20 years, using the ages of the current population, the proportion of inward migration from within the UK and outside and projecting forward to a potential population.  Admittedly, there was a risk of generating more demand with no specific solution to affordability - Cheltenham was a highly popular place to live and none of the scenarios would solve this issue.  To deal with the high demand for housing in the Lake District it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9