Agenda item

Public Questions

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Wednesday 12 October

Minutes:

1.

Question from Adrian Kingsbury to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

Within the NPPF Section 83, there are clear criteria for the function of Greenbelt and it clearly states that Greenbelt may only be revised under ‘exceptional circumstances’.

 

Upon review of the HM Planning Inspectors Preliminary Report, it is stated within Sections 5 & 6 that such ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been demonstrated, yet the report does not define what such circumstances are. The Inspector’s Interim Report made no further justification other than refer back to the previous report.

 

However the Preliminary Report does state in Section 69, that “The AMEC GB Assessment of September 201165 considers all the Cheltenham and Gloucester GB land at a high level against the five purposes of including land in the GB66. It does not consider sustainability or landscape issues, but is purely an assessment against the purposes and function of GBs. I am satisfied that the methodology used is appropriate and that the report is robust.”

 

It continues in Section 110 that “According to the AMEC report, this cluster is critical to preventing the sprawl of Cheltenham and, towards the south, the merger of Cheltenham and Gloucester117. The segments to the south are NE1 and NE2. NE4 is further north. Nonetheless, the report specifically says that this segment makes a significant contribution to the land separating Cheltenham and Innsworth118, thereby playing an important role in the separation of

Cheltenham and Gloucester.

 

With such clear expert guidance can you therefore please detail the criteria and the assessment of how the Inspector determines that there are now exceptional circumstances for release of the Greenbelt identified as West Cheltenham despite the contrary comment within the preliminary report?  

 

 

Response from the Leader

 

During the examination detailed evidence was heard over a number of sessions on both the Green Belt sensitivity of the site and the potential for development which would meet both economic and housing needs at West Cheltenham. The agendas for these sessions, and the documents produced in relation to them are available on the JCS examination webpage, particularly JCS Green Belt papers EXAM 142 and EXAM 196.

 

In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the value of the Green Belt must be balanced against the need to positively seek opportunities to meet development needs in our area. These opportunities should accord with the JCS spatial strategy and national policy. In assessing these needs it has been established that our need exceeds the urban capacity of Cheltenham to accommodate this growth without causing substantial harm to the character of the town. Further information on this can be found in the JCS Matter 7 statement on Green Belt on the JCS website.

 

The JCS authorities have considered strategic allocation options at West Cheltenham through the plan making process since the Broad Locations report in 2011, and allocation options were considered in 2013. Whilst the Pre Submission Plan identified the land for safeguarding for future development, the Hayden Sewage Treatment plant which forms part of the site and emits odour curtailed further development of the allocation at that time. Severn Trent is now working with the Council on measures to improve odour emissions, which when undertaken will release parts of the site for development. The latest statement of common ground outlining these measures and the emerging masterplan for the area is at EXAM 198 and a priority for this proposed allocation is ensuring effective master planning of phase 1 and a future phase 2.

 

The JCS inspector heard this evidence over the course of the examination. In December 2015 the inspector published EXAM 146 which contained the ‘Inspector’s Preliminary Findings on Green Belt Release, Spatial Strategy and Strategic Allocations ‘ pargraph 113.

 

“Taking account of housing and employment needs overall, including GCHQ’s requirements, and my reservations on certain other potential strategic allocations, it seems to me that the Cheltenham part of this proposed safeguarded area might be suitable for allocation. Views are sought from the JCS and other participants on the potential for allocating land in this area."

 

After hearing further evidence on the emerging allocation at paragraph 126 of EXAM232 the Inspector’s interim findings she writes:

 

“An additional employment led site at West Cheltenham has been agreed for allocation by the JCS team, who suggest it is also suitable for about 500 dwellings, albeit the developers have put forward a figure of 750. This is in a sustainable location on the edge of Cheltenham and, for the reasons given in my Preliminary Findings, I recommend this site for allocation in the JCS. Allocating this site for 500 dwellings would reduce the remaining unmet requirement to 1,039 (1,539 – 500).”

 

After further hearings, in her most recent communication, the Inspector’s “Note of Recommendations made at the hearing session on 21 July 2016” she writes:

 

West Cheltenham Safeguarded Land Part of this area has already been recommended as a strategic allocation and I do not propose re-visiting those discussions. It is the remainder of the area proposed for safeguarding that I have re-considered. This proposed safeguarded land makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt according to the AMEC report. Consequently, there is a very high bar to overcome in demonstrating exceptional circumstances.

However, in my judgement this bar has been reached for reasons which include the following: there would be a major benefit in Severn Trent Water removing the Hayden Sewage Works from the area, resulting in significantly improved living and working conditions; it would result in a co-ordinated development in two phases, preventing further piecemeal development in the area; it would provide a strong Green Belt boundary; there would be significant contributions to infrastructure, including schools.

 

Consequently, I find that exceptional circumstances exist for the release of this land from the Green Belt and, therefore, its safeguarding is sound. Furthermore, the JCS team might wish to consider exploring the possibilities of phase one being expanded and additional housing being provided in this area during the Plan period.”

 

The JCS team have considered this in light of the statement of common ground, and work on the capacity of the site for employment and housing purposes, and maximising the sustainable utilisation of the area. Through this work, the main modifications plan has been prepared, identifying at least 45ha of employment land and 1,100 new homes for the area between the plan’s adoption and 2031.

 

If the Main Modifications are approved by the three councils they will be subject to public consultation and then to Examination in Public.

 

In a supplementary question Mr Kingsbury said he was disappointed that there had been no definition given in the Leader’s response for exceptional circumstances and asked him to detail what they were in this case?

 

The Leader said he could not add anything to his response. Guidance was provided but the final decision on what was exceptional was down to the Inspector.

 

2.

Question from Carol Kingsbury to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

Can the Council confirm if any studies have been carried out during the creation of the JCS:-

a. Pertaining to the wildlife in the area of Greenbelt identified as West Cheltenham, and if so where is the report lodged for public review?

b. Pertaining to the toxicology of the soil due to the earlier practice by Severn Trent (and/or its predecessor) of the disposal of treated human waste within the area of Greenbelt identified as West Cheltenham?

 

 

Response from the Leader

 

 

 

Exam 198, the Statement of Common Ground for land at Hayden, identifies the current evidence base which has been developed for the site so far. Biodiversity effects have been assessed through the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal in 2014 and updated in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report which is part of the associated documents with this report available on the JCS website.

Detailed contaminated land work will need to be undertaken as part of any proposal regarding the strategic allocation, in accordance with JCS policy SD15.

 

In a supplementary question Mrs Kingsbury referred to the AMEC report of September 2011 and its references to the land at West Cheltenham and its significant contribution to safeguarding the countryside and checking urban sprawl. She asked why and how can the JCS Councils and the Inspector justify and recommend that this area can be removed from the Green Belt at this late stage.

 

In response the Leader advised that the Green Belt review had determined that all sites in the Green Belt served some useful purpose however the evidence shows that more land is needed for employment land and to meet housing requirements. Therefore it has to be questioned whether there are exceptional circumstances which would allow development in these areas.  After assessing all the evidence the Inspector has concluded that those circumstances do apply in this case.

 

3.

Question from Peter and Margaret Holt (a resident of Springbank) to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

High Rise Buildings - The constraints around this side of Cheltenham are daunting, particularly the traffic issues, housing and employment building distribution.  What is proposed now will create more jobs and the consequent housing and roads trapped between the hills and the motorway.  The planners are clearly very professional and pragmatic officers – one example and a very important one is that they advise tall commercial units to be on lower ground and closer to the main road arteries.  They also advise open spaces.  What has been proposed in the vision statement is the very opposite, namely: ‘Proposing building high rise industrial units on the top of prominent greenbelt land, blocking out the western light, views and pastures for miles around.  If we can see the Malverns and the Forest of Dean, they can see us.  The industrial units on the high ground will standout like solar panels in Dubai.’

Why not build high rise next to the motorway – it can also act as a noise barrier and closer access?

 

What makes you ignore your planner’s advice regarding building prominence?

 

 

Response from the Leader

 

The vision statement contained within the statement of common ground identifies broad principles of placemaking, but is not equivalent to a detailed masterplan. Detailed master planning for the West Cheltenham area as a whole is an explicit requirement of JCS Policy SA1, and development of the site will not be approved without it.

 

The placemaking principles in the statement of common ground include ensuring that development relates well to the topography of the land “The buildings on the higher ground to the north-east will be restricted to typical residential heights whilst taller commercial buildings would be located to the southeast on lower ground” but does not set out specifics of building heights and density, which will all need to be agreed as part of the master planning process of the site.

 

The JCS detailed design policy (Policy SD5) identifies principles for architectural design in regard to layout and scale, and these will need to be integrated into any future proposal.

 

In a supplementary question Mr Holt said that the main contention for residents in this area was high rise steel clad buildings in close proximity to housing and the suggestion that they would be located on the lower ground did not address their concerns. He added that the public questioners had only received the responses to the questions just before the meeting and therefore had had inadequate time to assimilate the responses and formulate their supplementary questions.

 

In response the Leader advised that it was very early days for the West Cheltenham site and there was a lot more work to do before any approvals are given.

 

On the issue of the timing of public questions he indicated that the deadline for submitting public and the questions had been put back some time ago to allow an additional day after the agenda had been published for Members and the Public to draft their questions.  Lead Members had been given the shortest practical time to turn around their responses to the questions and it was a question of balance.

 

The Mayor confirmed that the responses to public and member questions for this meeting had been published on the website at midday earlier that day and all public questioners had received a personal e-mail with all the responses attached immediately after this publication.

 

4.

Question from Peter and Margaret Holt to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

Despite the hysteria concerning the development of Springbank, I have on my deeds that a ‘road of convenience’ may well traverse from south to north, west of my house.  A natural, logical, forward planning requirement.  So we have been expecting this since this house was built in 1968.  I also cannot be such a hypocrite to object to houses being built in front of us as my house was built in front of somebody else.  However over the passage of time, the authorities, politics, planners and circumstances have proved that they have missed the boat and boxed themselves into a corner.  We are now (in my opinion) in the situation of where the JCS is forced to play pass the parcel with the additional pressures of governmental changed attitudes on the ‘greenbelt’ issue and the financing of housing and employment.  

 

To add to these pressures, are the changed attitudes to the environment and the need for increased security requirements.  This is where I, as a 73 year old ex professional engineer, take a strong issue with the proposals.  There are alternatives.  The cyber security / science park does NOT have to be built on a Cheltenham greenbelt or even in the Cheltenham boundary.  By building next to and from the M5 motorway towards Cheltenham, more people can share the remaining (I hope) greenbelt from either side, i.e. a greenbelt corridor! Tewkesbury seems to have all the greenbelts. What are you leaving as Cheltenham’s legacy – traffic jams, terrible traffic infrastructure, frustration, unrest and then just an ordinary industrial town.

 

What happens when Cheltenham runs out of greenbelt space, when you finally develop the ONLY greenbelt around the west side of Cheltenham (or even the whole of Cheltenham)?

 

 

Response from the Leader

 

Please see also answer to question 1. The development proposed in the Main Modifications is sufficient to meet Cheltenham’s needs for the plan period, with areas safeguarded for development well beyond 2031 at West Cheltenham and North West Cheltenham. These locations have been chosen to reduce the potential for the coalescence of Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, whilst preserving the openness and integrity of the remaining designation.

 

Any release of additional Green Belt land will require exceptional circumstances, and can only be done through the review of the Plan. By identifying safeguarded areas in the plan, the JCS ensures that future growth well beyond the plan period can be sustainably accommodated to allow the town to grow whilst preserving its character and surroundings.

 

If the Main Modifications are approved by the three councils they will be subject to public consultation and then to Examination in Public.

 

Mr Holt indicated that he did not accept the answer and he had had insufficient time to assimilate the response provided by the Leader. He suggested the JCS was being railroaded through.

 

The Leader did not accept that the JCS was being rushed. It was a long process and there was still a long way to go before the endpoint particularly in terms of public consultation.

 

5.

This question has been withdrawn

 

 

 

6.

Question from Mary Nelson to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan (plans to attend)

 

The following statement is made in the ‘Emerging JCS Transport Strategy’ which was only published on the JCS ‘New Evidence’ website 24 hours before the deadline for public questions.

 

“When the 2013 Central Severn Vale SATURN model is available later in the year it will be used to refine the list of schemes outlined in the emerging strategy.   Only once this work has been completed will the strategic and local highway authorities be able to fully consider the transport impacts of the JCS and its supporting Transport Strategy and to determine if their respective policy requirements are likely to be satisfied.”

 

It is now clear that Councillors’ will be making their decision on the final JCS Strategic Allocations without adequate and credible up-to-date traffic modelling evidence.  Likewise the public have been denied the opportunity to submit informed and relevant public questions regarding the key issue of transport infrastructure to this decision meeting.

 

The 2013 CSV Saturn modelling was stated to the JCS Inspector to be available in April 2016 for the Transport hearing sessions.  It failed to materialise in April, and was then stated to be available in October 2016.  It is still missing.

 

When is the 2013 traffic modelling going to be available and will you confirm that it will be published in time for the start of thepublic consultation on the Main Modifications? 

 

 

Response from the Leader

 

The updated 2013 CSV model is expected to be available later this year. However, additional work using this model will not be available prior to the Main Modifications consultation.

 

The latest round of modelling has tested all sites presented in the Main Modifications plan with a package of mitigation (the ‘DS5’ model run) on the existing 2008 model. Although the final package of mitigation needs to be refined using the 2013 model, the DS5 scenario provides us with enough information to confirm that the strategic allocations are deliverable and that there are transport measures that can be implemented to mitigate their impacts. This transport evidence is publicly available and will support the JCS consultation.

 

In her Interim Report, the JCS inspector states: (para 195 – 197)

 

"With respect to transport, there have been wide spread concerns that the transport modelling, based on the Central Severn Vale SATURN strategic highways 2008 base year model is outdated and not fit for purpose. Whilst I understand that the model has been refined to make it as robust and up to date as possible, Gloucestershire County Council and Highways England have commented that further refinement work needs to be done.

 

Nonetheless, I note Atkin’s evidence that the model was peer reviewed in 2012 and found to be generally fit for purpose. Whilst the 2008 model contains weaknesses, it is currently the best information available. There were no objections to its use at the March hearing session from Highways England or Gloucestershire County Council.

 

Although Highways England and Gloucestershire County Council are working on a 2013 based update, it is not expected until later on in the year and, even then, model runs will have to be undertaken to make refinements to the mitigation packages and transport strategy. Waiting for this updated evidence would cause undue delay to the JCS, which in the public interest needs to progress. Therefore, I do not recommend delaying progress to await the 2013 based model.”

 

Mrs Nelson asked the following supplementary question: 

 

The JCS Inspector has recommended that the Fiddington site be included in the JCS Main Modifications and allocated for 900 houses, but in Paragraph 2.1 of the Report for this meeting the JCS officers explain that Fiddington has not been included as a JCS strategic allocation.  The reason stated is as follows:

 

“The evidence to support this decision is rooted in the on?going transport modelling work.  Mitigation options relating to the transport issues on the A46 and M5 Jct 9 have been tested and these raise deliverability concerns with this allocation”.

 

Due to this uncertainty, it is not considered appropriate to allocate the site through the JCS at this time and to reconsider options for development through future plan review when more is known about the infrastructure needs of the A46.”

 

Why has the Fiddington site been omitted for reasons rooted in the on-going transport modelling and mitigation options, when there clearly remains great uncertainty and much public concern regarding transport infrastructure and mitigation for the North West Cheltenham site, which is to provide 4,250 houses, almost 5 times the number of houses at Fiddington, and additionally a large amount of employment land?

 

The Leader advised that the situation with the Fiddington site was different and the reason it had been removed was that the proposed traffic changes to the A46 would have the A46 running straight through the middle of the site.

 

7.

Question from Mary Nelson to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

In the same ‘Emerging JCS Transport Strategy’ document it states the following in Appendix A:

 

“Lower High Street (Cheltenham) – bus only routes inbound, reallocation of existing highway space for inbound bus lane.”

 

This means that all traffic, except buses, approaching the Lower High Street from the Tewkesbury Road (A4019) will either have to turn right into Gloucester Road, or left up Townsend Street or, (if able to proceed under the railway bridge) will be forced left onto the already congested Northern Relief Road.  

 

With a total of more than 5,300 new houses planned on land on either side of the Tewkesbury Road, plus major Employment sites included, can you explain why this planned entry closure into Cheltenham for all traffic except buses will not end up in gridlock around Cheltenham town centre, and be a major deterrent to people shopping and visiting the town, resulting in a severe adverse impact on Cheltenham’s economy?

 

 

Response from the Leader

A number of measures have been tested throughout the extensive transport modelling work that has been undertaken over the last few years. It is an iterative process with different scenarios, containing different mitigation measures, being tested along the way. The DS5 scenario is the last culmination of this work. However, it is not the final package of mitigation measures and further refinement is required once the updated 2013 CSV model is available.  Therefore, individual measures such as those described above will be re-assessed to confirm their impact to the wider transport network.

 

Mrs Nelson asked the following supplementary question:

 

Phase 2 of the Cheltenham Transport Plan is to commence in early January, and the CTP is aiming to close Cheltenham’s Inner Ring road through the centre of town via Boots Corner.  This will displace much traffic out into the Gloucester Road - Tewkesbury Road (A4109) junction, and also onto the already congested Princess Elizabeth Way.

 

As the inner ring is a major and important north to south route through the town, and also a designated freight route, has the Cheltenham Transport Plan been included in the DS5 Saturn 2008 traffic modelling, upon which the officers are basing their assertion that all of the Cheltenham JCS development can be mitigated against, and can the Leader confirm that an implemented CTP will be included in the revised 2013 Saturn modelling which is due to start in December?

 

In response the Leader advised that the traffic modelling for the CTP had been done separately. His understanding was that it would be included but he would need to check the technical detail with officers and would then confirm his response in writing to Mrs Nelson[CT1] .

 

8.

Question from Ken Pollock to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan (plans to attend)

 

The summary diagram on page 5 of the 'Emerging JCS Transport Strategy - October 2016' document shows that Cheltenham is now to get both a Western Bypass AND a NorthWest Bypass (linking from the A4019 to the A435 at Bishops Cleeve), major routes which were obviously essential from the very first JCS stage, but which dysfunctional GCC Highways has hitherto declined to specify or acknowledge.

Accordingly, the developer of the Cheltenham-NorthWest urban extension has never planned for any such link route through that whole area (of 4,000+ houses).

 

Will Cheltenham Councillors urge that this road infrastructure (essential for the most massive JCS urban extension) be unambiguously required by/in the Main Mods text (Policy A5) prior to the forthcoming public consultation?

 

Response from the Leader

 

The latest round of modelling has tested all sites presented in the Main Modifications plan with a package of mitigation (the ‘DS5’ model run) on the existing 2008 model. This has included some significant infrastructure improvements around the west Cheltenham area. However, while this latest modelling provides us with the information that the strategic allocations are deliverable, once the updated 2013 model is available then further testing is required to refine the mitigation package. Therefore, at this stage it is difficult to provide a policy requirement when we don’t know the exact level of improvements that may be needed. Nevertheless, the JCS transport policy and the individual site policies put a requirement on sites that their traffic impact must be mitigated.

 

This is high level modelling work, which demonstrates that there are no ‘showstoppers’ to delivery of the strategic allocations, but identifying the right scheme and the most efficient and cost effective layouts will be a more detailed process which will come as part of the master planning and applications work for these sites as they come forward.

 

Mr Pollock raised the following supplementary question:

 

Contrary to the above answer, there are no "significant" road "infrastructure improvements" specified for Cheltenham North West , for a development which is so huge that its strategic "masterplanning" needs to be more than just "high level" concepts, awaiting credible detail (called "refinement").

 

Therefore, can Cheltenham Councillors request that the  JCS team of officer "colleagues" provides much more detail of the major road infrastructure items (not traffic-lights tinkering) around NorthWest Cheltenham, and that they do so before the start of the Consultation?

 

Otherwise the Inspectorate can be persuaded to revise its 'blind eye' to inadequate transport evidence, on grounds of natural justice and demonstrating genuine deliverability, which therefore warrants a brief delay for that evidence.  A brief delay is no risk to Cheltenham.

 

In response the Leader advised that he couldn't support any further delay to the process and the Inspector was satisfied with the process. The traffic issues would be reviewed as part of the process going forward once the updated 2013 model was available.

 

9.

Question from Ken Pollock to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

The DS5 Modelling is grounded upon both the M5 Junction 10 'all movements' upgrade and the A417 Missing Link having been carried out.  However it is quite possible that neither of these will be completed within the next 10 years, and the Junction 10 upgrade may not happen at all, if Highways England decides that it will impede motorway flow (due to the Cheltenham Western bypass not being built early enough).

 

In a Matter 5 Statement provided to the JCS Examination in June last year GFirst LEP stated (page 3 para 1.4):

“At the present time the current evidence indicates that even if the A5 (North West Cheltenham) allocation were to progress from plan to implementation there would still be insufficient traffic demand to warrant an all ways junction at Junction 10.”

 

The proposed net increase at West Cheltenham (of 600 houses, i.e. 1100 minus 500) may not change that J10 'demand' calculation, given that West Cheltenham comes with its own integral distributor road linking to the A40, Golden Valley Bypass and Junction 11.

 

Therefore will Saturn CSV 2013 modelling be published to show the traffic implications without these two upgrades for the years 2026 and 2031?

                                     

 

Response from the Leader

 

The specific scenarios that will be tested through the updated 2013 model have not yet been agreed.

 

Mr Pollock asked the following supplementary question:

The JCS Inspector has appreciated and defended special Cheltenham's environmental constraint very creditably, and has effectively 'pushed' Tewkesbury (and Gloucester) housing away from Cheltenham's limited available periphery, reminding them that those Districts both have non-Green Belt sites available adjacent to their centres of population.

 

Cheltenham, in these Main Mods, is delivering its target of nearly 11,000 houses, yet the other two Districts are proposing not to. In particular, Tewkesbury's proposed shortfall of 730 houses should not be tolerated, especially in the context of the current risk that Tewkesbury BC will now progress (as it did at Leckhampton) an application outside the JCS for 700 houses (plus other land uses) at Up Hatherley (Chargrove Lane), adjacent to the severely trafficked and unwidenable Shurdington Road (A46).

 

Should Cheltenham follow the Inspector's lead, and cease to let Cheltenham be imposed upon (out-voted) in this JCS "trio" of Districts ?

 

In response the Leader advised that it was not a question of Cheltenham being out voted as the JCS was being developed in partnership with the other two councils.

 

10.

Question from Dr D J Coppard to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

We live at the junction of Old Gloucester Rd and Hayden Lane, at the bottom of the hill proposed for development. Water levels are already high - near surface level all year round. In winter the defensive ditches are near full and the under road culverts are high.

TODAY (OCTOBER ) THE WATER LEVEL IN OUR WELL IS JUST 90CM BELOW GROUND LEVEL.

 

How can you possibly build on this flood plain and who will be responsible when our properties flood and what will happen to the run off water from the roofs, hard surfaces, roads, and parking areas of the proposed business park and housing?

 

Response from the Leader

 

Flooding is clearly an important issue, JCS Policy INF3 “Flood Risk Management” requires new development to where possible contribute to a reduction in existing flood risk and incorporate suitable sustainable drainage systems to manage surface water drainage, ensuring the flood risk is not increased either on site or elsewhere. This is detailed and exacting policy written in collaboration with the Environment Agency. New development will need to meet these requirements as well as national standards and guidance to gain approval.

 

Mr Coppard raised the following supplementary question:

 

The Environment Agency flood hazard maps show that some areas to the west of the proposed W Cheltenham development area, within the proposed zone 2 in particular, prone to regular surface water flooding. I live in this area and fields flood each Winter.

 

The Inspector's report suggests that only the general flood zone category for the region has been considered, not the impact of increased surface water runoff caused by new development onto areas already prone to surface water flooding.

 

Could we please hear what real investigations have been done into flood risks and who is ultimately accountable for mitigating this risk?

 

In response the Leader advised that when a particular site is put forward for development, the applicant would have to supply details of how flood risks and surface water drainage would be addressed and these would be fully assessed before any approvals were given.

 

11.

Question from Dr D J Coppard to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

This is a huge plan with great impact and I am concerned it is being bulldozed through?   This plan for West of Cheltenham abutting Old Gloucester Rd is being rushed through without due diligence.  The area has gone from Green Belt to plans for a business park and 2,000 + homes in just two years.  In the rush not to miss out on the New Homes Bonus this development will be a fragmented free for all for greedy developers with no responsibility for the supporting infrastructure and long term environmental impacts.

 

This is a large life-changing development for the surrounding area.

 

Who will be accountable for the irreversible impact on place and people when the ambitious have moved on?

 

 

Response from the Leader

 

Given the length of time is has taken to develop the JCS it is difficult to believe it is being rushed. However it is true that modifications have been introduced in order to achieve a sound plan. If these Main Modifications are approved by the three councils they will be subject to public consultation and then to Examination in Public.

 

Please also see answer to question 4. Part of the value of the development of strategic allocations is the ability to gain substantial high quality ‘hard’, social and green infrastructure planned into the development and released alongside the build out of the schemes. Policy INF 4, 5 and 7 create requirements for delivery of each of these types of infrastructure, and there is currently ongoing work to study and develop the social and community cohesion and structures needed within these new urban extensions as they are built.

 

Mr Coppard asked the following supplementary question: 

 

We are all agreed that the formulation of the JCS has indeed been a long process and has allowed for substantial consultation. But the speed with which this significant new amendment is being pushed through at this late stage is denying the right to any form of proper consultation and is undermining due democratic process. I'd like to illustrate this with two examples.

 

Firstly, because there were no local objections raised in the original draft JCS - where no real plans were proposed for the area beyond future review in 2020 - residents and their representation have been locked out of subsequent discussion, even after the plans have dramatically changed - how many contributions from the Springbank community did you receive? I doubt any. A change in plan should reopen the process so that communities have the same opportunity to respond as other communities have had when the draft JCS was first published.

 

Secondly, the information that is now being rushed out is at best, extremely difficult to follow, and at worst, contradictory in nature such that no one really seems to know what is being proposed. 

For example,  details of Phase 1 and Phase 2 were presented in Examination document 198, published in February. However the new map presenting Indicative Site Layout 11 - i.e West Cheltenham - published this October in the amended JCS presents both different boundaries to phase 1, with an expansion into the north west area between Old Gloucester road and Hayden,  and presents different land use, with this changing from green infrastructure to housing.

 

So either communication is either very poor, or the process is moving ahead so quickly that there is a lack of internal clarity on what is being proposed. One is, I believe a function of the other and I do believe this is being rushed through far too quickly.

 

So my question is simply this: How can these inconsistencies, lack of clarity, combined with a statement from the Inspector that she will not revisit discussions, support any fair consultation process?

 

In response the Leader acknowledged that new potential sites have come in late in the day and the council had raised concerns with the Inspector about the process, but it was a national process which the JCS councils had to follow. He also accepted that the JCS was currently not a perfect document and a lot more work needs to be done.  If all three Councils agree to the recommendations, the JCS in its current form will go out to public consultation and the Inspector has promised an examination in public of the main modifications. 

 

12.

Question from Tess Beck to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

The North West Cheltenham development will create a significant amount of vehicular traffic, most of which is predicted to be seeking to access Cheltenham for work and recreation.  The Tewkesbury Road (A4019) is heavily trafficked and congested with many drivers avoiding it by rat running through residential areas on Swindon Road and St Paul's Road. This already causes major problems for the communities living along these roads; noise; dirt; poor air quality; poor pedestrian environment. The junction of St Paul's Road and Swindon Road is already identified in the report as being congested at peak hours. However, in the evidence submitted, it seems no mitigation is planned for these roads.

How will Cheltenham Borough Council ensure that the St Paul's and Elmfield communities are protected from the impact of the extra traffic generated by the NW Cheltenham development? 

 

Response from the Leader

 

A number of measures have been tested throughout the extensive transport modelling work that has been undertaken over the last few years. It is an iterative process with different scenarios, containing different mitigation measures, being tested along the way. The DS5 scenario is the last culmination of this work and contains a number of measures that have been identified in response to the North West Cheltenham allocations. However, it is not the final package of mitigation measures and further refinement is required once the updated 2013 CSV model is available.  Therefore, if evidence suggests that further mitigation is required then this can be assessed. 

13.

Question from Tess Beck to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

 

Swindon Road through Elmfield and St Paul's Road are not suitable for heavy vehicles due to the various weight limits and height limits on the bridges. But with a significant reduction in traffic, this could be a cycle route to the town centre and the Honeybourne Line.

 

Will Gloucestershire Highways and Cheltenham Borough Council be considering modal filtering and other traffic reduction measures along this route to improve cycle access from Swindon Village/ NW Cheltenham to Cheltenham town centre?

 

Response from the Leader

 

These measures can be assessed to determine what the most sustainable and efficient solution will be. This will be done as part of the detailed assessment of transport needs which will come as part of the master planning of strategic allocations and with further work on the local transport network alongside the County Council through the local transport plan, We are currently at the high level modelling stage, while specific solutions such as this would need to be looked at in a more detailed context at the applications level, when considering the needs of the area as a whole in response to specific development proposals.

 


 [CT1]Ros – this has been actioned, did you want to include a summary of the response provided here?  Cllr Jordan has a copy of the final letter provided to Mrs Nelson.

Supporting documents: