Agenda item

1.

Question from Gary Eagger to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Can you provide a summary of the process which you will go through to consider and approve or decline Elizabeth Ord's recommendations?”

Response from the Leader

The JCS councils have made no decisions in regards to modifications to the plan and this will be informed by the stage 4 JCS examination hearings scheduled 6 July, informed by the debate arising from council meetings scheduled 28^th and 30^th June. All the findings in the interim report are without prejudice to the Inspectors ultimate conclusions and will be reviewed in context of:

• upcoming stage 4 hearings where the JCS authorities will set out the consequences of the recommendations as agreed at Council meetings, and
• public consultation responses should the JCS authorities make main modifications to the plan in September

Further Council meetings are scheduled in September to agree any main modifications to the plan.  Communities and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comments on the modifications through the consultation process that follows. Responses will then be collated by the JCS Authorities and passed to the Inspector for her consideration.  At that stage the Inspector will consider objections to the modifications and make a decision whether any further information, hearings or revisions are required before concluding her Examination and submitting her Final Report to the JCS Authorities.

Finally, the JCS Authorities will have a further decision to take as to whether they are happy to proceed on the basis of the Inspector’s Final Report and adopt the JCS as their plan. If they choose not to then the JCS would not be adopted and wouldn’t represent planning policy.

In a supplementary question, Mr Eagger, referred to statements from Brandon Lewis, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning for the Department for Communities and Local Government, where he had said that Green Belt boundaries should only be changed under exceptional circumstances and with local support. What consultation has taken place with local residents in this case?

The Leader advised that this was the Inspector’s view and not the council's plan. In his view there were limitations in the process the inspector was following and his personal aim would be to maximise the involvement of local residents in the process. He confirmed that the council would do all it could to involve the public in the JCS process going forward.

2.

Question from Alex Randall to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan (not present)

First of all, I appreciate the effort that has gone into the Joint Core Strategy and the need to progress to a conclusion.  I was though surprised to read in the Preliminary report that a number of Prestbury green belt areas have been proposed to lose their status in favour of development.  In particular, the inspector commentary in paras 127 onwards suggests this was primarily based on a site visit, rather than based on balanced evidence or fair assessment. Will the council promise that a fair hearing, with supporting evidence, will take place over the Summer to review the green belt status of the proposed areas prior to any final decisions?

Background to Question

Having looked at the government website, and having lived in Prestbury for the last few years, my personal assessment is that the greenbelt areas serve two of the five purposes outlined in the policy on the gov.uk website.  These are:

- To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

- To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

In particular, I would like to focus on the Prestbury conservation area which includes many listed buildings.  Development of these areas which are adjacent to the Prestbury conservation area will spoil the setting and the infrastructure within the conservation area will not cope.  Evidence of this: 

- Listed buildings form part of or border the greenbelt areas;

- A frequently used path links Prestbury church to Southam through the countryside as an extension to the conservation area;

- The roads through the conservation area already carry restrictions on usage by cars;

- The area struggles to cope with flooding - noting a major flood alleviation scheme goes through one of these greenbelt areas.

Part of one of the greenbelt areas, along with the grade II listed "Hayes", form part of the setting underneath Cleeve Common (AONB).  Together, they form a distinct beautiful gateway to Prestbury and Cheltenham via the Southam Road. The corner of Mill Street and Southam Road form the entrance to the conservation area.

Response from the Leader

Please see also the above answer to question one regarding the JCS’ ongoing process.

Inspector Ord has evaluated detailed Green Belt evidence submitted by the Councils and through independent studies, but has reached different conclusions from those of the JCS authorities regarding the sensitivity of the Green Belt in this location. It is within the Inspector’s remit to suggest modifications to a plan which in her view would make it sound. Should the Councils choose to proceed with amendments to the Green Belt in accordance with the recommendations, then this would be through full statutory consultation as part of the Main Modifications consultation. Communities and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to make responses at that time, which would then be collated by the JCS Authorities and passed to the Inspector for her consideration.  At that stage the Inspector will consider objections to the modifications and make a decision whether any further information, hearings or revisions are required before concluding her Examination and submitting her Final Report to the JCS Authorities.

I understand the concerns about the Inspector’s decision to propose new sites to be removed from the Green Belt late in the JCS process. So I will be proposing in the later debate that the Council assists in progressing a Local Green Space review for these areas.  

3.

Question from Harriet Ward to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Can you please provide details of the expected population increase, including the percentage increase from the current position, that you anticipate will result from accepting Elizabeth Ord's recommendations to build an additional 450 to 500 houses on Green Belt land in Prestbury village.

Response from the Leader

The Inspector’s report identifies an increased Objectively Assessed Need figure for the JCS authorities, based on population and household projections and economic uplift. The inspector finds that the housing requirement for Cheltenham Borough as a whole is therefore increased to 10,851 dwellings (which represent an increase of +1,751 from the 9,100 dwellings set out in the Pre Submission Joint Core Strategy). This proposed increase will be the subject of further challenge before the JCS in finalised.   

While this is a rise in the OAN for the Borough as a whole, the Inspector’s report also recommends that housing numbers should be redistributed. In the Interim Report the Inspector has deemed that there is additional potential housing capacity in the north of Cheltenham. This includes areas around Prestbury. Whilst the Inspector recommends the removal of particular areas from the Green Belt to be undertaken through the JCS, any allocation would be for the Cheltenham Plan to consider.

Because these areas are not to be allocated through the JCS, only a very rough estimate can be given regarding how much the population of the area would increase if development were to take place. Based on an average household size of 2.3 persons per dwelling, an increase of 500 houses would equate to around 1,150 people. However, these numbers do not take into account factors such as house type or the density, design or layout of any potential scheme, which would be likely to affect the number of residents.

In a supplementary question Ms Ward asked if the Inspector’s recommendations were accepted, had any detailed consideration being given to the additional school places that would be required in the village?

In response the Leader advised that this detailed consideration had not been completed at this stage. If the recommendation for moving the Green Belt was accepted as part of the JCS, then it would be for the Local Plan to determine if those sites were appropriate for housing and if yes then infrastructure needs such as education would be considered at that point.

4.

Question from Terry Dicks to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

The Joint Core Strategy normally concerns itself only with development of 450 houses plus. All the sites recommended by Elizabeth Ord for release from Green Belt and subsequent development are owned by different people, making this a proposal for multi-site locations with none reaching the 450 criteria. Is it therefore within her remit to group together sites in this way to be included in the Joint Core Strategy?

Response from the Leader

The JCS is a strategic plan which has determined strategic scale to be of 450/500 houses or greater. The Inspector’s interim report agrees that the JCS should not allocate sites for less than 450 dwellings. However, the inspector has also reviewed the Green Belt in the JCS area and recommends alterations. Although the JCS authorities have presented evidence regarding the sensitivity of the Green Belt to the north of the Borough, the Inspector has examined this evidence and taken a contrary view.

In her view, the exceptional circumstances test is met for releasing Green Belt in some of these areas, and by doing so would create capacity for development, especially that which could come forward early in the plan period. Whilst the Inspector recommends the removal of particular areas from the Green Belt to be undertaken through the JCS, any allocation would be for the Cheltenham Plan to consider. To help inform this process, I will be proposing in the later debate that the Council assists in progressing a Local Green Space review for these areas.  

See also the above answers to questions 2 and 3.

In a suppmentary question Mr Dicks said that in her report Elizabeth Ord made reference at paragraph 132 to "developer evidence" which suggests "some of the sites could be progressed immediately". The willingness or otherwise of a developer to proceed should be entirely irrelevant to a decision about Green Belt.

Having clearly consulted with developers, but not local residents, how can you reassure me that Elizabeth Ord is not demonstrating predetermination in the recommendations she makes?

In response the Leader advised that considering developer evidence is a relevant part of the process for the Inspector. The council had an obligation to provide a 5 year supply of land for housing and therefore there was ongoing discussion with developers about how quickly sites could be brought into development.

5.

Question from Terry Dicks to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

The Governments National Planning Policy Framework says the Green Belt’s number one purpose is ‘to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas’. How does the recommendation support this?

Response from the Leader

National Planning Policy Framework identifies the ‘fundamental aim’ of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

 The NPPF cites that the Green Belt serves five purposes:

? to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

? to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

? to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

? to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

? to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Through the Joint Core Strategy the authorities have sought to alter green belt boundaries at urban extensions to allow for the sustainable development of Cheltenham and Gloucester (Tewkesbury’s strategic allocations around Tewkesbury town are not within the Green Belt). In doing so the Green Belt has to be comprehensively reviewed, and the authorities have presented two detailed studies on the Green Belt in the Cheltenham area.

The NPPF requires that when reviewing the Green Belt:

‘…local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.’

The JCS Inspector has considered the studies and evidence presented to her over the course of the examination, but has come to an alternative interpretation of this evidence to that of the JCS authorities. She has examined whether exceptional circumstances are met to release each of the areas of the Green Belt in her report; based on the sensitivity of the Green Belt in that location, the ability to create a defensible green belt boundary and the value of releasing the site in relation to housing need.

In a supplementary question, Mr Dicks commented that many of the Inspector’s conclusions appeared subjective. The answer to my question supports this by use of the phrase ‘alternative interpretation’.  If these proposals are accepted, there will be no green belt boundary left; defensible or otherwise. Can you therefore explain what is meant by defensible in this case, as I don’t understand how a ‘defensible green belt boundary’ can be created if it is erasedcompletely?

In response the Leader advised that generally features such as a river or a road or some other similar firm reference could be defended as a future boundary for the Green Belt. He could not see how this applied to Prestbury at this stage.

6.

Question from Patrick Durkan to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Elizabeth Ord's report makes reference to the proposed Green Belt sites in Prestbury to be released as being "sustainable", what does sustainable mean in this context?

Response from the Leader

The Inspector’s role is to examine whether the JCS is “sound”, based on four tests. These tests set out that the plan should seek to meet requirements for delivery of housing and infrastructure in line with national policy. If the Inspector has identified that needs are not being met, then she has the power to examine and recommend alternative sites and locations where the need could be delivered; taking into account the evidence she has heard on the social, environmental and economic principles of sustainability. After having evaluated evidence on these principles and requirements the inspector writes:

‘The removal of Leckhampton as a strategic allocation and the reduction of housing numbers at North West Cheltenham leaves Cheltenham with a need to find alternative housing capacity. The newly proposed strategic allocation of West Cheltenham will go part way to doing this, although a deficit still remains. In my judgement there is additional potential capacity in non-strategic Green Belt sites, which could significantly increase Cheltenham’s district capacity and which could be allocated in the emerging Cheltenham Local Plan. Releasing these areas of Green Belt now within the JCS would facilitate these sites coming forward and contributing to Cheltenham’s five year housing land supply. Following this approach should also enable Cheltenham’s housing requirements for the Plan period to be met in full’

Beyond quoting the Inspector’s report I am not in a position to further explain her thinking. 

In a supplementary question, Mr Durkan commented that as part of the JCS process the main sites being considered for development in Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Gloucester which formed part of the Examination in Public were subject to thorough review in relation to sustainability. Can you please share with me or let me know where I can find the detailed traffic studies which have been carried out to assess the impact on Prestbury's Village lanes which confirm that the infrastructure of the village is indeed sustainable and can cope with the addition of 500 dwellings?

The Leader advised that the traffic impact of the orginal JCS submitted to the Inspector for examination was reviewed by the county council. The county council planned to review this in the autumn when new data would be available and this would now include an assessment of the traffic impact of any new areas now being proposed for the JCS.

7.

Question from Question from Robert Douglas to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

The entire JCS team has spent over 5 years developing the planning strategy for the region. How is it possible for the inspector to come forward with a very different allocation of sites in such a comparatively short time frame, involving sites that had not previously been scrutinised at all?

Response from the Leader

Please see also the above response to questions 1, 4 and 6.

The discussion on the Green Belt around Cheltenham within the examination have been detailed and over a number of months. The Inspector has heard evidence on the sensitivity of the Green Belt through the Councils’ submissions as part of matters 7 and 9 (Green Belt and Omission Sites) and through detailed analysis in Exam documents 142 (the Councils’ Green Belt Paper) and 196 (Green Belt Update Paper). The councils have also given evidence over a number of days of hearings on the topic, alongside legal counsel. Whilst this evidence has been presented to the Inspector and she has heard evidence from both the Council and objectors to the plan; her reading of this evidence has led her to her findings in her Interim Report, which differ from those reached by the JCS authorities during the development of the Plan and our view expressed in detail at examination. However, this is the Inspector’s judgement to make through her consideration of the Plan, after having heard all the evidence presented to her on this matter. The interim findings set out in at this stage are not her Final Report, and therefore responses on the Main Modifications will be an important opportunity for further evidence and views to be presented by the community. I am keen to ensure there is a proper chance for views to be expressed although the JCS process is largely in the hands of the Inspector.

In a supplementary question, Mr Douglas said that given the fact that the JCS team has spent around 5years developing its plans and given the recent policy statement on the Green Belt by the Secretary of State,  how can the Inspector possibly justify removing white land from the plans and then proceed to introduce Green Belt land?

The Leader commented that this was an entirely fair question but one for the Inspector.

8.

Question from Question from Robert Douglas to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Green Belt land in Prestbury has suddenly appeared, without consultation, in the possible JCS sites due to recommendations from the inspector. However, the elected representative of Prestbury has been forbidden to speak at the JCS examination in public meetings on 6th and 7th July. How can this be justified?

Response from the Leader

Please see also the answer given above to question 1. 

I share the concerns expressed and although the Councils have discussed this matter with the inspectorate, the exam hearings on the 6^th and 7^th of July cover specific matters with only a limited number of participants. Currently the modifications to the Green Belt around Prestbury are not part of the Plan, and will only become so if they are integrated into the Main Modifications Draft. Council meetings are scheduled in September to agree any main modifications to the plan.  Communities and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comments on the modifications through the consultation process that follows. Responses will then be collated by the JCS Authorities and passed to the Inspector for her consideration. 

At that stage the Inspector will consider objections to the modifications and make a decision whether any further information, hearings or revisions are required before concluding her Examination and submitting her Final Report to the JCS Authorities.

In a supplementary question, Mr Douglas commented that the answer to question 8, and also to my question 7, imply that the council has complete knowledge of the powers, authorities and scope of the Inspector. I have had correspondence with the DCLG and they have been strangely reluctant to provide me with information about the exact nature of the authority of Inspectors. It would be helpful if the council could provide details of the scope and authority of the Inspector, in order that we may fully understand why the council believes it has to roll over whenever it is threatened with any element of the JCS plan being found unsound. 

The Leader advised that if the council were to leave the JCS prcoess, they would have to start from scratch on their own. The Council would be taking a view in September regarding whether the revised JCS proposals were acceptable. He was disappointed that Members could not communicate directly with the Inspector outside the open sessions of the enquiry or have the opportunity to question her views? 

9.

Question from Margaret Randall to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan (not present)

There is housing demand in excess of supply for over a decade and there will be for many years to come.  I consider this to be the "norm" unless central government makes significant changes to policies.  Therefore, I don't consider the current situation as exceptional circumstances.  In addition, in the preliminary report, I cannot find any references to brownfield sites as well, such as Premiere Products which is up for sale.  While I accept the JCS must proceed, could I please ask the council to challenge the preliminary report by questioning if circumstances are truly exceptional and why brownfield sites are not considered.  Will the council and JCS do this?

Response from the Leader

Please see also the answer given above to question 6 regarding exceptional circumstances.

The JCS authorities have taken into account the ‘urban capacity’ of both Cheltenham and Gloucester when calculating the remaining need for development and before considering the need for urban extensions and strategic allocations. This includes all brownfield and greenfield land which is considered able to come forward within the Borough boundaries. The Inspector factors this into her calculations of need as part of her Report, and has offset this against the overall requirement.

10.

Question from Peter Weir to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

As a local resident of Prestbury, I am seriously concerned about the recent news regarding the green belt areas in the village being recommended to change status and be used for building additional houses. 

Can you explain exactly what the exceptional circumstances are that Elizabeth Ord refers to in her report?

Response from the Leader

I understand the concerns and please see the answer given above to question 6.

In a supplementary question, Mr Weir suggested that the Minister for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis, has been clear to his MPs that housing shortage alone should not be used as a reason to redraw Green Belt boundaries. What justification is there for Prestbury to be treated in a way which contravenes his stated approach and the government’s policy?

The Leader reiterated that the JCS could not satisfy all the housing requirements without using some element of Green Belt so that does require potential sites to be looked at. The open question here is whether Green Belt sites in Prestbury should be added.

11.

Question from County Councillor Iain Dobie to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Does Cheltenham intend to approve the building of 200 new houses in Leckhampton within its Town Plan?

Response from the Leader

The Inspector’s interim report makes it clear that she does not find that an allocation of strategic scale (i.e. greater than 450/500 houses) is appropriate at Leckhampton in the JCS, but considers that a smaller allocation may be appropriate within the Cheltenham Plan. The Inspector finds the proposed Farm Lane development of 377 houses unsound which is in line with this Council’s view however since the application has already been approved by Tewkesbury we do need to clarify the status of that site.    

The Inspector’s view is that development at Leckhampton is a matter for the emerging Cheltenham Plan to consider and no decisions have been made as yet. The Preferred Option consultation for the Cheltenham Plan, which will further review the principle of allocation in this area, is scheduled for September this year. While I would broadly support the Inspector’s view the Council decision on accepting corresponding modifications to the JCS will take place in September. There are also ongoing legal challenges regarding planning decisions on this site still to be decided.

12

Question from County Councillor Iain Dobie to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

If the answer to the previous question is yes, what primary school provision would be made out of developers contributions for the children of those 200 houses (plus additional housing developments already in train) - will the plan for a new primary school in Leckhampton funded by new housing be revived?

Response from the Leader

Please see also the response to question 11 above. Whilst school provision needs to be reviewed as part of the Cheltenham Plan, and that plan needs to review the most efficient and comprehensive use of the site; it is clear that a scheme of 200 houses alone would not fund a new primary school at Leckhampton. Conversations are progressing with the County Council on this issue.