Agenda and minutes

Apologies have been received from Councillor Paul McLain.

Apologies had been received from Councillors Holliday, Lansley, McLain and Williams.

Councillor Chard declared an interest as a member of Leckhampton and Warden Hill Parish Council.

Councillors Coleman, Fisher, Harman, Colin Hay, Prince, Sudbury and Wheeler all declared interests as members of Gloucestershire County Council and indicated that they had been granted dispensations from the Standards Committee to participate and vote in the meeting.

Councillors Fletcher and Stennett declared an interest as directors of Gloucestershire Airport if it should come up during the debate.

Councillor Garnham declared a pecuniary interest as he had a commercial relationship with Hunter Page Planning Ltd, Cheltenham who were the planning agents for the site identified as Policy A4 - North Brockworth Urban Extension and his company, Mediation in Planning Ltd, was paid by the owners of this particular site.

Councillor McLain had declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the GCC Executive and therefore had absented himself from the meeting.  

Councillor Regan declared an interest as a member of Leckhampton and Warden Hill Parish Council.

Councillor Ryder declared a potential pecuniary interest in the Leckhampton White Land and therefore would leave the chamber for the rest of the meeting.

Councillor Sudbury declared an interest as a member of LEGLAG.

Councillor Whyborn declared an interest in matters relating to Leckhampton as the Cabinet Member responsible for sustainability.

22 July 2013

The minutes of the last meeting held on 22 July were agreed as a correct record subject to Councillor Driver wishing it recorded that she could not agree the minutes because they included additional information regarding a response provided after the Council meeting in relation to Member Questions.

The Mayor welcomed the public to the meeting and explained how she would be running the meeting.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on the fourth working day before the date of the meeting and must be directly related to the business for which this meeting was convened.  

These must be received no later than 12 noon on the fourth working day before the date of the meeting and must be directly related to the business for which this meeting was convened.  

There were no member questions.

None

Report of the Leader

Before the main debate the Mayor invited members to ask questions on the report. These questions would then be answered by the Leader or the Head of Planning, Tracey Crews.  The questions and responses are detailed below.

·        What would be the council's response to any planning applications from developers between now and the establishment of the JCS? Did the emerging document have weight or could the council defer considering any applications?

o       The Head of Planning advised that the council would still be obliged to accept and consider any planning applications. She referred members to paragraph 1.7 in the Leader's report and paragraph 1.8 in the JCS appendix. The draft JCS would be accorded status as a material consideration in any planning applications but its weight would be limited as the JCS was not yet at a statutory consultation stage.

·        Would the decision to choose the mid term of the range of household formation rates (28,500 to 37,400) be reviewed during the consultation period?

o       This decision and all the statistics used as part of the evidence base would be open to challenge during the consultation phase.

·        Regarding the amended recommendation 3, if there were any subsequent reductions in housing allocations would these be taken from strategic sites rather than other sites.

o       The allocation target for Cheltenham was in the order of 10,000 until 2031 and the Leader’s personal view was that if this figure could be reduced then this would be achieved by taking out one of the urban extensions. 

·        Would the projections in this document be revised when the new ONS figures were available in the Spring?

o       The Leader could not comment on the other councils but his personal view was that the projections should always be based on the latest information.

·        Referring to the key risks set out in the Leader’s covering report, could any more factual evidence be provided to inform members of the consequences of not accepting this JCS document?

o       The council was dealing with new legislation and therefore it was difficult to give a more definitive answer.The Leader’s personal view was that if the council did not accept the document then this could create a worse situation not a better one.

o       The Head of Planning added that if Council did not agree the JCS, then with no direction of travel, this would give the opportunity for any application to be submitted in the context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  The council would have to look positively at each application. The council needed to be mindful of the specific guidance given by the government minister to the three councils at a meeting earlier that week. 

·        The penultimate paragraph on page 28 refers to “an increased risk of speculative planning applications” – in Cheltenham’s case, isn’t this because we do not have an up-to-date Local Plan?

o       The Head of Planning advised that Cheltenham had agreed to enter collaborative working via the JCS and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

No such items.