Issue - meetings

Report of the Leader

The Leader introduced the item by highlighting some key points.  The process to date had been a long and complicated one but without a Local Plan the Council would be indefensible against a development free for all.  As such it was in the best interest of the Council to get a Local Plan in place and working with Tewkesbury and Gloucester would ultimately benefit all three authorities. 

There was still some important work to be done with regard to household sizes and economic growth.  He felt that this was an important point in the process with work towards a preferred option emerging in Spring 2013 after taking into account social and economic figures.

Consultation on a range of options had taken place between December 2011 and February 2012 and he thanked the thousands of residents that had responded. He reminded members that this was not simply a referendum and although they would endeavour to incorporate the views of local people, the end result must be sound and open to inspection.   

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) emerged in March 2012 and there was a need to fully understand its implications.  Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) were appointed after a tender process to assist with reviewing the JCS evidence so far and objectively assessing the need for housing.

The NLP report was circulated only two weeks ago and members had been invited to attend a presentation.  The Joint Member Steering Group had then agreed the seven draft resolves and a covering report produced by Officers which offered their advice.  The Leader was now proposing amendments to the resolutions (copies of which had been circulated throughout the chamber and public gallery).  He explained that these amendments addressed local concerns for Cheltenham and that the other authorities may have their own similar concerns. He explained each resolution in turn;

1.            Historically population projections had been calculated by Gloucestershire County Council but given recent staff reductions there was no longer capacity for them to continue to do this.  NLP advocated the use of Department for Communities and Local Government and the Office of National Statistics data in forming the methodology.

2.            He took issue with some of NLP’s dismissals of consultation responses but stressed that at this stage Council was only being asked to ‘note’ this commentary and advice.  No evidence had yet been presented to back up the conclusions.

3.            He considered the population projection to be the least disputed figure given that the projection spanned a 20 year period but he felt that it was also fair to say that the dwellings figure (28,500) was not without controversy. 

4.            Added by the Leader this recommendation aimed to address concerns about the estimated household size where different methods of calculation produced conflicting results and for which there was evidence to suggest that the trend in household size was broadly static.

5.            Added by the Leader this recommendation would form part of the debate about where the economy was heading and he did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10