Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Deputy Chair of Council, Councillor Klara Sudbury took the Chair for this agenda item.

 

The Leader introduced his report regarding the Inspector’s interim report on the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy. The report explained that the JCS was the strategic planning document being prepared jointly by Gloucester City, Cheltenham Borough and Tewkesbury Borough Councils to provide a framework for meeting the development needs of the area over the plan period from 2011 to 2031.

The report summarised the Inspector’s Interim Report, received on 31st May 2016, following the extensive examination of the JCS that had taken place since its submission to the Secretary of State in November 2014. The Interim Report made recommendations on main modifications to the JCS on issues that had not been resolved during the examination to date. In general it did not cover proposed main modifications that had already been discussed and proposed through the hearing sessions.

The report set out the proposed response to enable further discussion on the consequences of the Interim Report. The main body of this report was contained in Appendix A, with the recommended JCS response set out at section 4 of this appendix. This would allow JCS officers to set out the specific consequences and key points arising from the Inspector’s recommendations. The report therefore sought Council approval to accept this proposed response and present these to the Inspector at further hearing sessions to take place on 6th and 7th July 2016.

 

He was confident that the joint working between Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury was still the right approach in the long term for this area. He thanked all the contributors to the Inspector’s process which had taken a lot longer than expected. He was concerned that the JCS was “morphing” into the Inspector’s plan rather than the three council’s own plan developed over a long period of time.

 

He referred to Appendix A which set out the three councils’ responses to the Inspector's report and talked through each of the issues in detail.

 

Finally he referred to the additional bullet point in the recommendations which had been circulated in Members’ places. The additional point “welcomed the Inspector's use of the Local Green Space review in Swindon Village and Leckhampton and requests a similar review be urgently undertaken in areas in West and North Cheltenham which she is now suggesting should be taken out of Green Belt.  

 

The Deputy-Mayor invited Members to ask questions on the report and these were responded to by the Leader with support from the Director of Planning, Tracey Crews, where appropriate.

 

• Would the Leader agree that the people of Prestbury had been let down by the attack on the Green Belt?
  - The Leader responded that this was a fair point regarding any area which had now come into the equation.
• A Member referred to the Leckhampton SD2 development for 377 houses which had been found to be unsound on appeal. If the Judicial Review was won by Leglag and the decision referred back to Tewkesbury Borough Council Planning Committee, would this council write to TBC stating their view that it was unsound to build on the SD2 site given the Inspector’s views.
  - The council had raised their objections to the development in the first place and given the Inspector’s view that it was unsound, he would be happy to take that suggestion on board.
• How would the council ensure that Cheltenham gets the right mix of houses in new developments and not 4/5 bedroom houses in place of affordable housing. What powers does the council have as the planning authority to refuse sites with an appropriate mix?
  - The Strategic Housing Market Assessment assesses housing need and converts that to a housing mix that is required for Cheltenham. Once established any planning applications for developments would be assessed against it. The council would be aiming for a 35% target for affordable housing in urban extensions and a 40% target elsewhere.  This flows from the viability work undertaken to support CIL and highlights the high infrastructure demands of large sites.
• The JCS has identified a number of sites to be taken out of the Green Belt in north-west Cheltenham. Proposals for those sites would not be known at this stage because that is part of the Local Plan but officers will have already made assumptions on the number of houses that could be built on these sites. Could the Leader clarify the process?
  - The exact process was still to be determined but the Member was correct in his assumption that sites defined as non-strategic would be an issue for the Local Plan and not the JCS. In September Council would have the final package for debate.
• If the Judicial Review (JR) for SD2 is not determined before September 2016, would that put the plans for the JCS in disarray?
  - The Leader referred this question to the Director of Planning, Tracey Crews. She advised that the outcome of the JR result in a further public inquiry and the Inspector could not wait for a result. She acknowledged it was an unknown and a risk for the JCS and Members would be fully informed of the current position when they came back in September to consider the JCS recommendations.
• A Member referred to the ‘Florence convention’ which required the council to carry out a full public consultation regarding any proposed developments which could change the nature of the local landscape. Would that be done in this case?
  - The Director of Planning advised that the council would consult on any proposed main modifications to the JCS. There was a specific requirement on local authorities to consult in these circumstances and indeed the Member had raised this point with the Inspector at the examination and it had been taken on board. The officer confirmed that SD15 was the relevant policy regarding health and environmental quality and would facilitate what the Member required.
• Could the Leader assure Members that the necessary consultation with neighbouring local authorities referred to in the Inspector’s report would not cause delay in finalising the JCS and Local Plan which were critical tools in avoiding inappropriate development.
  - The Leader advised that discussions had already taken place with Stroud and Wychavon and would evolve over time so he was confident that these would not cause undue delay to the process.
• Can the Leader reassure members that the new boundaries proposed for the Green Belt in the northern parts of the town would be consistent with the DCLG guidance that the boundaries should follow physical features in the landscape?
  - The Leader acknowledged the importance of defensible boundaries for the Green Belt. He also pointed out that even if the Green Belt boundaries are moved as part of the JCS, those areas could still be protected within the scope of the proposed local Green Space reviews.
• How can the council ensure that the social housing needs for people in Cheltenham would be met and in particular a sufficient supply of houses would be available for rent for those who could not afford to buy?
  - The Leader acknowledged that the government’s new definition of Affordable Housing did not necessarily resolve the problem nor did the Inspector’s 5% uplift on housing numbers.
• Is the National Policy on affordable housing being considered and how could the views of residents in Springbank ward be taken into account if the local Ward Councillor had been refused permission by the Inspector to represent their views at the hearing on 6/7 July?
  - The Leader sympathised with this view. He would do everything he could to try and make sure people have their say as part of the Local Green Space review.  The officer added that officers have been lobbying the Inspector regarding their concerns that the process was inadequate in terms of facilitating direct conversations with the Inspector. Officers shared the views expressed that the real needs for affordable Housing would not be met by the current proposals and she advised that a new policy on affordable housing was currently being developed and will be available by September which would assist in the process.
• How would the infrastructure costs for the North West be funded? Would this be from county council funds or Community Infrastructure Levy?
  - The Leader could not answer this question at this point as it was an ongoing conversation. The officer added that Section 106 funding or CIL funding, once it was introduced, would be relevant.
• Does the 5 year plan for housing take into account planning permissions already granted?
  - The officer confirmed that the 5 year supply does take account of both committed and potential developments coming up in the Local Plan and revised figures will be available in September. 
• Will a transport infrastructure plan be available in the autumn and can we ensure that local roads in residential areas will not be adversely affected by new developments?
  - The Leader advised that the county council was currently debating the revised Local Transport Plan and in the autumn the county council would be doing a revised traffic analysis for the JCS. He assured the Member that he would enable the maximum input from local residents in any consultation.  In the meantime the Inspector would be working with the traffic analysis previously done but clearly it was important that the analysis was updated to reflect the potential new sites in the JCS.
• Is there a Plan B if the Council decides to reject the JCS in September?
  - The Leader confirmed that there was no plan B and the only alternative was for the council to start from scratch on its own.
• The assessment of housing needs was very much based on economic growth targets. If that growth is no longer relevant can housing numbers be reduced?
  - The Leader acknowledged the uncertainty following the referendum result and the difficulty of making economic predictions. The officer added that the Inspector had gone for the middle line in terms of economic growth but acknowledged that a recession could have a real impact on the figures.
• What could the council do to ensure that affordable type housing could not be abused by unscrupulous landlords who would buy up the property and then try and cram as many rooms as possible into the property resulting in unsuitable accommodation?
  - The Leader outlined the survey work that the council was planning to undertake on houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). The officer advised that this had come up at a recent Planning Committee and the committee had been advised that this particular issue would be dealt with as part of the Local Plan.
• A  Member was concerned about local school provision following removal of the Leckhampton sites.  Local communities needed some certainty on whether school places will be made available.
  - the Director of Planning advised that recommendations at Leckhampton have an impact on levels of infrastructure.  A new primary school will not be delivered by a site of 200 new houses.  Officers are working with GCC colleagues to consider the impact on primary and secondary school places.

 

In the debate that followed the following points were raised by Members:

 

A Member wished to put on record his thanks to the Council and officers for the consideration of Leckhampton in the preparation of this plan. There were three unanimous votes of support, important wording added into the JCS resolutions and the 31 July 2014 Planning Committee left all Members feeling inspired.

 

Members believed that a strong message should be sent to the Inspector with regard to the inclusion in the plan of the removal of green belt land in Prestbury. It was important to protect the remaining green belt at all costs. The responsibility of changing the green belt was not in the gift of the Inspector but lay with the local planning authority via the preparation of the local plan. The inclusion of the Prestbury green belt had never been in the original draft JCS and had never been consulted upon nor scrutinised in great detail. As such local residents had been disenfranchised and there were also clear inconsistencies in terms of consultation when compared with consultation undertaken with residents in Leckhampton and Up Hatherley. It was also noted that Prestbury Parish Council had been denied its opportunity to speak at the hearings. A public consultation mechanism was therefore vital. Some Members questioned whether the Inspector’s impartiality in the assessment of the soundness of sites had now been compromised.

 

Some Members highlighted the irreparable damage the inclusion of green belt land could have on Prestbury’s character which would impact negatively on future generations. In this respect there were inconsistencies between that of Leckhampton and Swindon Village and that of Prestbury particularly in respect of landscape and sensitive views and heritage. These impacts were detrimental to Prestbury but had not been addressed by the Inspector. Officers were advised to consider the objections the council had submitted to the Mill Lane application when presenting Members’ views at the July hearings. Prestbury had a distinctive village character in a semi-rural setting and development would fundamentally change it.

 

Members also highlighted the inconsistencies in terms of the inclusion of green belt land in Prestbury and the impact on infrastructure. More detailed work should be undertaken with regard to impact on roads, access to school places and doctors surgeries.

 

One Member suggested that the inclusion of Prestbury could be phased to the second half of the JCS period, once the JCS had formally been reviewed at its first 5 year point.

 

Members believed it was important to review the Housing Need numbers in the light of the Brexit Referendum result. There was current insecurity in the market with the economic outlook uncertain. The Council however had a responsibility to plan for Cheltenham’s future with a strategic plan for the next 20 years and plans for sustainable economic growth in the town. It was important to highlight that the town was ‘open for business’ and that companies attracted to the borough could be accommodated. Members fully supported proposals for a cyber hub and high tech growth in the west of the town.

 

The uplifts were in the views of some members resulting in the direct consequence of the removal of additional areas of the green belt. Officers were requested to take a robust approach at the July hearings to challenge the uplifts which some members regarded as ‘arbitrary figures’.  They believed there was no justification for the high percentage uplift in affordable housing and they questioned how this would be achieved. A Member believed CBH was capable of producing a proactive plan to deliver such homes without building on the valuable green belt around Prestbury.

 

Members recognised the housing crisis in the town with the current waiting list standing at 2600 with many residents in unsuitable, unsustainable accommodation and facing an uncertain future. It was vital that the JCS was in place so that the Cheltenham Local Plan could be finalised and these issues tackled. Members questioned how affordable and social housing derived from this uplift could be achieved particularly in the light of changes in government legislation.

 

Members placed particular emphasis on the style and sustainability of future developments. Good quality estates which included green space creating that ‘open feel’ would preserve the character of the town and develop sustainable communities.

 

A Member believed that the 377 units earmarked at Farm Lane should, if delivered, be allocated to Cheltenham. Members argued that the level of development currently being delivered wasn’t because permissions weren’t granted but rather that the development industry had failed to implement consents granted as there was no compulsion to do so. The application of a 20 % NPPF buffer was viewed as unfair.

 

The inclusion of greenbelt land in Springbank in the Plan was not unexpected but a Member questioned why, just because of the lower quality of the land, it had to be developed. The area had its own unique issues, for example a reduction in the bus service but due to its late inclusion, residents had not been democratically involved in the plan and it was important to protect the quality of life of all residents.

 

Members highlighted the need for a plan demonstrated by the high degree of cross party consensus over recent times. It was important that the plan belonged to the town, rather than the Inspector. Decisions should be made in full knowledge of the facts and full public consultation. Members supported the proposal to undertake local green space reviews in the West and North of the town as the Inspector had used these reviews when considering sites in Leckhampton and Swindon Village and Members believed these would assist in designing sustainable developments.

 

The Director Planning advised that a strategic overview of comments from this meeting would be drafted to inform the July hearings of the Inspector. The comments would be categorised under the headings as set out in Appendix A of the Council report and would be supplemented by the minutes of the meeting.

 

She summarised the main points raised under the following headings:

 

A - Housing Numbers

·         Housing need must now be assessed in light of the result of Brexit.  The decision raises new uncertainties for the economy.

·         The uplifts as described in the recommendations are undefined, but have a direct consequence on the removal of additional areas of the green belt.  Officers are tasked to present a case at the July hearings to seek removal of the uplifts.

·         There is no clear justification for the 5% affordable housing uplift.  Whilst recognising the need to respond to housing needs, including homelessness and young people, there is no way to ensure that new homes derived from this uplift will be affordable.

·         If uplifts remain, they should slip to the second half of the plan period.  We can then take stock at a review point and reflect upon the Brexit outcomes.

·         The JCS has come a long way, but the recommendations open up uncertainty.  It is a very different plan than that agreed by the JCS Councils.

·         It is important that Cheltenham grows, but that it grows in the right way.  Key to this is the importance of open spaces and reflecting the character of Cheltenham.

·         The level of development currently being delivered isn't because we haven't approved enough sites, we have, but the development industry has failed to implement consents granted.  Application of a 20% NPPF buffer is unfair.

B - Employment Land

·         Cheltenham is open for business and it is important that land is available.  However there are huge uncertainties around the future of the economy.  The plan needs to be flexible and respond to Brexit.

·         Support for cyber hub and high tech growth.

C - Strategic Allocation / Green Belt Removal

·         The JCS has been carefully drafted in respect of proposals in the green belt.  Remaining green belt needs to be protected at all costs.  The Inspector's recommendations are not transparent and at North Cheltenham fail to deliver a strategic site.

·         The responsibility of identifying non strategic sites is that of the local planning authority through local plan preparation.  By proposing further changes to the green belt the Inspector has compromised decisions that should be taken at a very local level.

·         There has been selective use of evidence in regards defining exceptional circumstances.  Officers are tasked with the reinstatement of these green belt areas through the July hearings.

·         Consideration should be given to the phasing of the release of land within strategic allocations.  Too much emphasis has been given to statements made by developers that sites will be delivered.

·         Concerns regarding West Cheltenham.  Just because it is defined as a lower quality green belt doesn't mean we have to build on it.  We need a grown up discussion on the best way forward.

·         There was much debate in respect of Prestbury including:

o   redrawing of green belt boundary would significantly change the character of the area.

o   There are inconsistencies in the report between that of Leckhampton and Swindon Village and that of Prestbury, particularly in respect of landscape and sensitive views and impact of development on heritage.  These impacts are equally detrimental to Prestbury but not addressed by the Inspector's report.  Officers are directed to present recent objections to the Mill Lane application made to Tewkesbury Borough Council  to the July hearings.

o   Prestbury has a distinctive character, development would fundamentally change a semi rural village.

D - Reserve Sites Policy / Local Green Space / Safeguarded Land

·         Account needs to be taken of additional work proposed by Cheltenham Borough Council to undertake assessment of Local Green Space in those areas previously not undertaken (North Cheltenham and West Cheltenham).  See additional recommendation noted on opening page of this summary.

·         Phase 2 West Cheltenham - we need a grown up debate about the future and best planning of this area.  Deleting phase 2 is arbitrary, the strategic allocation needs to be properly master planned.

·         Cheltenham Borough Council agreed the following motion; "That this Council, mindful of Inspector Ord's Interim Findings in relation to the JCS, welcomes the specific finding that the case for a Local Green Space in Swindon Village, which conserves the historic setting for the village, has been made.  Council also welcomes the fact that the finding will be further recognised and developed through the Cheltenham Plan."

E - Infrastructure

·         There are inconsistencies in the Inspectors recommendation report.  at Leckhampton the Inspector has looked at the cumulative affect of transport, but this is not the case for development in the pipeline or new sites arising from the recommendation report.

·         As well as high level infrastructure issues, officers are directed to inform the Inspector of local issues e.g. Prestbury will no longer have a doctors surgery and impact of issues around access to school places.

·         Recommendations raise concerns regarding appropriate school places.

F - Trajectories

·         377 units at Farm Lane - If this site is delivered these figures should be allocated to Cheltenham.  Officers are directed to seek clarity.

·         Consideration should be given to the phasing of strategic sites.

·         If the numbers remain, due to uncertainty these should be pushed to the back of the plan period.

 

 

General Comments

·         The JCS should not determine policy that is more appropriately dealt with at the local plan level.

·         Great care has been given to ensure that the JCS is evidence based strategic plan.  New sites recommended for Cheltenham are neither strategic nor been subject to rigorous examination of evidence.

·         Local communities should be given full opportunity to set out their views in the same depth as those within the submitted JCS.  Communities related to new sites identified by the Inspector's report do not have the same opportunities to engage.  There is a democratic deficit - communities have been dealt a raw deal.

·         We need a plan, but a plan that works for Cheltenham.  we need to own the JCS, but we might not be able to achieve this due to lack of engagement and depth of public airing as the previous proposals in the submitted plan.

·         Decisions we make today should not make the situation worse for future generations.

 

In response to the debate the Leader believed it was right to protect the green belt. There was broad acceptance with the JCS that housing need would go some way to being met. It was however inevitable that some homes would have to be built in the Green Belt as it was not realistic to avoid it entirely. He acknowledged that there was a real issue as to whether Prestbury had been fairly treated.

 

In terms of the uplift in affordable housing he highlighted that a generation required housing. In terms of the economic uplift he acknowledged the difficult economic projection in the light of recent events but the aim should be for something that is likely rather than excessive. The authority had failed in previous years in terms of the penalty as sites had been approved which developers had not built out.

 

The JCS was indeed a planned process and it was important that there were green and open estates and all residents had the right to input into the process.

 

Upon a vote it was

 

RESOLVED (unanimously) THAT

 

1.    the Interim Report of the Inspector be noted.

 

2.    it be agreed that the JCS officers attend the July hearings to discuss the Interim Report and the recommended way forward with the Inspector, identifying specific consequences and key points arising from the findings to the Inspector as detailed (within Appendix A-section 4) and expressed through the June 2016 Council meetings on this report;

 

3.    it be agreed that a summary of comments made by Members at the Council meetings held by the JCS Authorities be passed to the JCS Inspector for consideration.

 

4.    the Inspector’s use of the Local Green Space review in Swindon Village and Leckhampton be welcomed and that it be requested that a similar review be urgently undertaken in areas in West and North Cheltenham which she is now suggesting should be taken out of green belt.