Agenda and minutes

Councillors Clucas and Sudbury.

Councillor Fletcher:  personal – has organised events for the Chamber of Commerce (which has objected to the proposal).

Councillor Baker:   made a representation on the JCS some time ago, before becoming a councillor, but does not consider this a personal or prejudicial interest.

Councillor Coleman:  asked for advice – there is a very large number of representations, all of which are published with names removed.  Having lived in Cheltenham and specifically Leckhampton for many years, is bound to know some of the objectors – but how does he know if he does or not, and what should he do when considering whether or not he has a personal or prejudicial interest?

CL, in response:

-          as has been advised previously, where there is a close association with an objector, Members need to consider their position, but if unaware of any such association, he or she is not in a position to make this judgement.

CC:  is not aware, therefore has no declaration of interest to make.

There were none.

GB:  the committee is fully aware of the emotion generated and the elevated feelings arising from this application, from the many letters and emails demonstrating the strength of opposition and the crowded public gallery.  We are now at the point of making a decision and the level of apprehension is palpable.  Asks for an uninhibited debate – members of the public are requested not to applaud, cheer etc, and to allow Members to speak.  Much care and thought has gone into who should be allowed to speak publicly on this application, and therefore the public are requested to maintain a dignified silence when listening to the debate.  Speakers must be sure to stick to their allotted time slots.

[Five minutes allowed for Members to read blue updates.]

CH explained that this is an outline application, with all matters other than access reserved for the full application, including appearance, landscaping, lay-out and scale.  The applicant has provided a masterplan, parameter plans and illustrative lay-outs to elaborate on the indicative lay-out in terms of land use, housing density, access and movement, green infrastructure, public open space and phasing.  Under the pre-submission JCS, the application site forms part of the strategic allocation SA1, which allows for up to 1141 dwellings.  The principle is well-advanced and the role of Planning Committee today is not to consider that issue.  Members are required to consider the application before them on its merits and technical considerations.  There are national requirements for planning applications to be considered within specific time scales, which mean it is not possible to defer a decision on this scheme any further without the risk of an appeal.  The merits of the scheme, the development plan, the Local Plan, and the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development should all be taken into account.

Extra officers have been invited to the meeting to assist Members in their decision-making:  Philip Stephenson (policy and technical matters), Wilf Tomaney (urban design, landscaping and lay-out issues), Paul Scott (air pollution), Sandra Donaldson (education), and Mark Power and Michael  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

There were none.