Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and reminded Members that the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was the strategic planning document being prepared jointly by Gloucester City, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Borough Councils to provide a framework for meeting the development needs of the area over the plan period from 2011 to 2031. He explained that in June this year the Councils met to note the Interim Report of the Inspector, and the key points for change she identified through it. An overview of her findings was presented to that meeting and the initial response of the Councils to that report agreed. Following this meeting public hearings were held in July and the Inspector’s Note of Recommendations made at the hearing session on 21 July.

 

The focus of this meeting, and Council meetings at Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils, was to consider the proposed main modifications to the June 2014 Pre-Submission JCS which represented the changes the JCS Councils consider make the plan sound and capable of adoption. These modifications would then be made available for public consultation and form part of the emerging plan policies for the purposes of development management. Public consultation would be undertaken for an eight week period expected to begin in November. The Inspector would receive the full responses to this consultation and consider them in January 2017. The Leader explained that the Inspector had already confirmed that further hearings on the main modifications would take place after the public consultation which was expected in February 2017.  The three Councils would then meet to formally adopt the Joint Core Strategy in the summer 2017.

 

The Leader then highlighted the following changes which were proposed through the main modifications:

·         Transport data - the evidence available indicated that the modifications were achievable. The data, produced by Gloucestershire County Council via its contractor Amey, dated from 2008, however would be updated when new data was released in the New Year. The Leader highlighted that for the first time reference had been made to Junction 10 of the M5 as a mitigating factor which was something that all parties agreed was needed for the local area.

·         Link road to the West of Cheltenham - proper connections were required and further work would be undertaken to focus on the detail of this.

·         Overall housing requirement of 35 175 dwellings between 2011 and 2031 including a 5% uplift to boost affordable housing delivery and flexibility in housing supply. Whilst officers presented evidence to question the justification of the 5% uplift to help deliver the required number of affordable homes, the Inspector strongly believed that this was based on evidence and national planning policy and guidance. This was therefore considered a matter of soundness and should be included in the proposed modifications.

·         The North West Cheltenham Strategic Allocation was reduced in capacity to 4,285 dwellings as part of the main modifications to allow for local green space in Swindon Village now shown on the indicative maps.

·         The Leckhampton Strategic Allocation was removed from the JCS as a strategic site and will now be dealt with in the Cheltenham Plan.

·         Leckhampton Farm Lane Planning Permission has been accorded to Cheltenham Borough Council’s housing numbers (377 dwellings). The Inspector was minded that the allocation of the Farm Lane site was not sound in the JCS but had noted that there was an extant planning permission and that this could be accorded to Cheltenham supply figures, should Tewkesbury Borough Council and Cheltenham Borough Council agree. The planning permission was currently subject to legal challenge.

·         A 1,100 dwelling and 45 ha employment land strategic allocation at West Cheltenham (Phase 1) was introduced into the Plan through the Main Modifications. The key was to see the inclusion of local green space and transport properly considered and this would be subject to consultation and examination in public.

·         West Cheltenham Safeguarded Land (phase 2) remained within the Plan. The Inspector in her note of recommendations identified that the bar had been reached in demonstrating exceptional circumstances for the removal of this land from the Green Belt, to be safeguarded for future development of the West Cheltenham area in a future Plan review.

·         Other changes included the inclusion of the Twigworth strategic allocation and the removal of North Churchdown. The Fiddington strategic allocation was potentially a reserve site. Existing transport infrastructure issues and requirements would be assessed before future release of the latter site should the position be progressed by the Inspector through the next stage of the examination.

 

The Mayor invited Members to ask questions on the report.

 

·         Local green space in Swindon Village - a Member was concerned that whilst this had been accepted in the JCS examination and agreed by all Members at July Council a live planning application showed disregard for this. The Director of Planning explained that there were two issues. Firstly there had been agreement of green space through the JCS examination and with the local community and the Inspector. The Cheltenham Plan would provide the detail on how the local green space would be defined, particularly in terms of a defined boundary. Secondly, there was currently a live planning application for public consultation in the area and officers had been alerted to the disconnect between that application and the JCS. Officers would therefore be emphasising with the applicant that there would need to be an extremely good reason to divert from what had been agreed through the JCS. She highlighted that once the JCS proposed main modifications were agreed, the JCS gains greater weight as a planning document, this is relevantto the negotiation of the live planning application. She believed it was vital to concentrate on the detail of the JCS and ensure that the JCS and planning application were reading each other correctly. The Member concerned wished to record the community’s disagreement with the green space identified in the current planning application. The Director of Planning reiterated that the broad area of local green space had been agreed in the context of the strategic allocation in Swindon Village and the Cheltenham Plan would determine its defined boundary. If the developer could not accept this then it would ultimately be Planning Committee to consider the application in the context of the development plan.

·         Green Belt - concern was expressed that the Green Belt was under threat. Officers were referred to the Table SP2a : sources of housing supply in the JCS area and asked how many commitments had been developed and whether it did not pose a threat to the Green Belt if it was a significant number. He also asked whether the windfall allowance was genuine or estimated. In response the Leader explained that Cheltenham was now permitted to include Farm Lane in its figure,. With reference to the table the Director of Planning confirmed that the 377 figure had been included within the Cheltenham commitments figure. She reported that all commitments had been reviewed together with potential lapse rates. The windfall allowance was based on assumptions made on a ward by ward basis, the details of which are set out in the housing background papers previously published. With regard to the Cheltenham Plan the Senior Planning Policy Officer stated that taken into account were the indicative figures of 200 at Leckhampton, 200 in West/north West area i.e. around Arle Nurseries.. Urban extensions at Cheltenham  - all are accorded to the housing supply figure for Cheltenham.

·         5 % Affordable housing - a Member questioned how this would be delivered and made reference to the Housing and Planning Act whereby in his view all affordable housing had been redesigned as starter homes. He asked whether there had been a better understanding of this in subsequent discussions. The Leader replied by saying the JCS Councils had challenged the Inspector as to how it could be achieved. The Director of Planning informed that at the JCS examination four sessions had been held on this issue and the legal opinion was that it was a question of soundness.  It remained uncertain however as to how in reality this translated into affordable housing on the ground.  Officers have strongly challenged the Inspector on this issue.

·         A Member took exception to the late inclusion of West Cheltenham and questioned what the exceptional circumstances were for the removal of this land from the Green Belt. He referred to the map which had no resemblance to what residents thought the green space would look like. He strongly believed that residents should have the same input as other residents and asked what the next steps were. The Leader said that exceptional circumstances were where the requirement for housing was such that this justified the removal of the green belt. He stated that this was a proposal and would be subject to a consultation process so it was important that a proactive approach be taken. There was a reasonable guarantee that local green space would be followed and Cheltenham Borough Council had undertaken green space reviews and this information had previously been relied upon by the Inspector and with a positive outcome. It was important that all communities were treated equally. The Director of Planning added that in terms of exceptional circumstances there was a depth of information on the JCS website including the AMEC report.  All Green Belt in the Gloucester/Cheltenham area continue to meet the objectives of green belt designataion, but this needs to be overlaid with other constratints/evidence, in particular the Objective Assessment of Need. Inspector Ord’s view was that exceptional circumstances did exist and the bar had been reached in the West Cheltenham area. Severn Trent was working with the council on measures which when undertaken would release parts of the site for development. A priority for this proposed allocation was ensuring effective master planning of phase 1 and phase 2 and represented a future growth direction for the town. In terms of the rest of the process she said that should the three Councils agree to the main modifications a public consultation would take place in November/December, the results of which the Inspector had a duty to have due regard to. Individual representations from the West of Cheltenham would have a right to be heard and there would be a hearing which would give those concerned the opportunity to express their views. Following this a final JCS report would be produced which the JCS Councils would need to consider. Should the recommendations not be accepted there would be no plan.  She informed that JCS officers had recently met with regard to the consultation process and it was clear that there were communities, such as in Springbank, which had not had the opportunity to input into the process. There would therefore be focussed consultations in the West of Cheltenham and officers would work with ward councillors on this. She emphasised that this was a statutory process and accepted the frustrations with the plan; the council could not intervene but could support communities. The Senior Planning Policy officer added that the examination would give those in the West of Cheltenham the opportunity to look at Local Green Space. Since the 30 June Council meeting Gloucestershire Rural Community Council (GRCC) had been commissioned to undertake work in the West of Cheltenham. There had also been discussions with the West of Cheltenham Partnership and ward Members. During the Local Green Space study communities had been asked to identify local green space and three areas had been identified as preferred options but were too small for the scope of this plan.

·         Neighbourhood planning - confirmation was sought as to whether neighbourhood planning would dovetail in with the Cheltenham Plan and whether there was funding available for new groups to cover work on major concerns regarding local green space. The Leader said neighbourhood planning was definitely a good thing and the council had received funding which gave it the capacity to assist neighbourhood groups. The issue was whether to concentrate efforts on the JCS examination or progress neighbourhood planning. The Senior Planning Policy officer informed Members that work was ongoing on the Engaging Communities project in cooperation with the GRCC regarding the aspirations of creating neighbourhood areas around the Plan.

·         Local Green Space - The Director of Planning clarified that the JCS was a joint team approach between the three councils. Local Green Space was defined in the JCS and planning applications would have to have due regard to this in the JCS where defined.

·         Policy INF4 River Severn potential as Regional Park - in response to a question the Senior Planning Policy Officer explained that there were further opportunities to develop a regional park to enhance wildlife and the countryside in this area and further discussions were required before this could be taken forward.

·         Tewkesbury sites close to Cheltenham boundary and allocations - the Senior Planning Policy Officer explained that there would be another sites consultation early in the new year. The sources of supply were coming from the sites allocation in the JCS and the Memorandum of Understanding between the JCS partners. He gave the example of the 377 Farm Lane site which had been allocated to Cheltenham via the Memorandum.

 

At the start of the debate the following amendment was proposed by Councillor Nelson and seconded by Councillor Seacome.

 

To add a fourth recommendation

“The traffic implications of building 35,175 houses in the JCS area by 2031 remain to be fully assessed and tested by an up to date transport model.  The last public consultation for the next stage of the JCS, due to be started in November, should be delayed until the new 2031 developments and the associated traffic mitigation measures have been tested and validated by the 2013 Central Severn Vale Saturn model (not expected before Feb 2017).”

 

In proposing the motion, Councillor Nelson suggested that if the JCS plan remains as it is then all the traffic consultation would have been completed before the revised traffic modelling was available.  Many transport measures in the JCS had not been fully thought through and assessed. In Leckhampton one of the reasons the application had been rejected on appeal was because of the severe traffic problems it would cause. The Inspector had also referred to them as severe however GCC had originally advised there were no significant issues for the site regarding transport. He no longer had full confidence in the GCC approach and a delay of three months was needed for a thorough review. He was aware that other areas affected by the JCS proposals would welcome a delay for other reasons. He felt sure that the other two councils could be persuaded to agree to the delay and this short delay would be better than later regret for the decisions made on the JCS today.

 

Other Members spoke in support of the amendment and thought Council should not be expected to make a decision on the JCS which could affect the borough’s long-term future without a fully integrated plan. The Inspector had torn the Cheltenham JCS plan to pieces and what she had now put back was significantly different and therefore needed time for Members to assimilate all the information before making any further decisions. There was also an issue of fairness to members of the public affected by the latest changes who needed longer to formulate their opinions and prepare their case before the start of the consultation. There was a risk that the situation in Leckhampton could be replicated in other areas and therefore the latest traffic modelling information was essential. Projects tended to go wrong when assessments were made based on out of date data.

 

Speaking against the amendment a Member supported Councillor Nelson's lack of confidence in the GCC approach. They emphasised that agreeing the recommendations today was not the final stage as Council was being asked to agree a proposal for further public consultation. Although the transport modelling had been based on 2008 data and needed some updating, it still provided a good indication of the current situation. The revised traffic modelling was expected in February 2017 and this could inform the JCS in time for the next stage of consultation. The risk of delaying the process for three months was not justified and it would be better for the public to have the opportunity to express their concerns now. A delay until February would simply reduce the overall time available for public consultation.

 

Other Members agreed that the pressure should be kept on GCC to deliver the revised transport modelling and a delay in the JCS could provide an opportunity for a delay in the delivery of this. 

 

Another advantage of supporting the recommendations today would be to add considerable weight to the JCS as an emerging plan which would could provide valuable defence against planning applications which did not conform with the JCS. The emerging JCS also provided a measure of protection to the Green Spaces in the borough, particularly at Swindon Village and in Prestbury.  Without this there could be a spate of unsuitable planning applications and this was too high a risk. Members must have confidence that the Inspector would not make decision on the soundness of the plan before she had all the information she needed.

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Seacome thought that a short delay until all the information was available was likely to provide a better result in the long run.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Nelson appreciated that all Members wanted the best results for Cheltenham. It would be too late at the next vote at Council to make any substantive changes to the JCS and many members of the public had not had the opportunity to comment on transport issues to the Inspector. He felt that one of the weaknesses of the inspection process was that Inspector Ord had not gone into detail on the transport modelling to date.  He felt there was a lot to learn from the updated traffic model once it was available.

 

He acknowledged that the emerging JCS would have some weight but it was not absolute and although he acknowledged there was a slight risk in delaying the JCS process there was a much greater risk of making wrong decisions with insufficient data and without this delay the process would be undemocratic and would not be following due diligence.

 

Councillor Jordan, as proposer of the main motion, responded to the amendment. A delay until the traffic modelling data was planned to be available in February 2017 would in fact be a four-month delay and there would be no guarantee that it would be delivered on time. The revised traffic modelling had been based on 2013 rather than 2008 data but he did not feel there had been significant changes during that period. The JCS was a strategic plan and mitigating factors could be added as it moved forward. More importantly there was a significant risk that the whole JCS process could collapse if Cheltenham were not to agree the recommendations today.

 

Upon a vote the amendment was LOST.

Voting (For:8, Against:25)

 

Councillor Jeffries proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Clucas.

 

Add a fourth recommendation:

 

“Conduct an urgent review of the Local Green Space Strategy in relation to the West Cheltenham emerging Strategic Allocation.”

 

Councillor Jordan indicated that he was happy to accept the amendment but also highlighted that such a review was already in progress.

 

In the debate that followed on the substantive motion Members made the following points:

 

• Assurance would be needed from both Government and Gloucestershire County Highways that money would be spent upfront on the necessary transport infrastructure to support the JCS. Funding interventions from developers would also be needed to address mitigation measures and make the infrastructure viable.
• It was important to get the Local Green Space right before developers get to build anything. There have been some poor planning decisions by previous generations and this was the one opportunity to get it right for the future.
• The Ward Councillor for Springbank felt the revised JCS was a catastrophe for his ward and his residents felt locked out of the process. The proposals had come out of the blue and he felt that there were other more suitable locations for employment land and 1100 houses. Whilst acknowledging that there were additional hearings planned he suspected they would offer little time for local residents to make their views known to the Inspector. There was a mountain of additional information on the JCS website and the changes had happened so fast that people have not had the time to assimilate them and his residents needed more support in understanding the information. He felt Swindon Village and Leckhampton had ground down the Inspector and without telling residents the proposed development site had now been moved to a beautiful area of Springbank. For that reason he could not support the recommendations.
• The JCS was a strategic document which sets out how requirements for the area would be met. Each site identified in the master plan would go through a proper planning process before any development went ahead. Whilst accepting that the plans did disadvantage some areas, it was inevitable that some of the Green Belt had to be taken away in order to meet housing needs.
• Refusal of the JCS tonight could result in piecemeal applications resulting in inappropriate developments. If developers don't comply with the emerging JCS then there would be grounds for turning down applications.
• It was important to approve the JCS and go out to consultation and then bring forward objections and arguments to the Inspector who had demonstrated that she was prepared to listen and change her views.
• A Member made the point that they felt they had to agree to the recommendations in order to be able to defend inappropriate applications even though they felt there were real problems with the JCS. They proposed that they should seek to get the best deal for West Cheltenham with proper affordable housing, green spaces and car parking and feed their views through to the Inspector.
• A Member raised questions about the assessments of housing need as they still felt the numbers were too high and questioned how they had been calculated. The Inspector was also constrained by the process by which the DCLG projections were made. They also questioned the basis on which the Inspector was recommending a 5% uplift in housing and thought this may not be necessary.
• The NPPF also refers to sustainable communities and the local Green space strategy would help residents realise their life aspirations. The developers view of sustainability could often be based on what is good for them rather than the community. They must present their views on sustainability to the Inspector and they were confident she would listen.  Inspector Ord had carried out a very thorough process to date and each area would be able to put their case to her.
• There was a real need to consider employment in the area and attract high skilled jobs as well as improved social housing and green space.
• A member stressed that new houses were needed to meet population needs and new jobs, particularly for young people and therefore they supported the JCS and proposed developments and they should not let parochial disputes get in the way.
• The existing housing stock was inadequate to meet current needs and so new social housing was needed now and not in 10 years time.
• A Member was concerned about the impact that the JCS proposals would have on residential streets in St Paul's and local residents must be engaged meaningfully in the process and he would encourage officers to work with residents and help them to engage. 
• Members all wanted Cheltenham to be commercially prosperous, sustainable, environmentally safe and a pleasant place to live and it was important to do what was best for the whole town rather than be too parochial.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Jordan thanked Members for their comments. He emphasised that the aim was for a sustainable plan which balanced the need for more housing against the environmental impact and its implementation supported by effective mitigation measures. Putting the appropriate infrastructure in place was critical and although he couldn't commit to Government funding there would be opportunities to bid for it. It was absolutely right that residents in Springbank could have their say and the council would support them through the process. He was confident that the Inspector would listen to their views. He acknowledged there was a lot of information and he would ask officers to make it as clear as possible to aid understanding.  He recognised the need for affordable housing and the council was ensuring that this was considered upfront in every application.  In conclusion he accepted that the JCS was not perfect but considerable hard work had been put in to get to this stage and in to getting the document as good as it could be. The public and Members could all have their say in the next stage of the process.

 

Upon a vote the recommendations were CARRIED

RESOLVED THAT COUNCIL

 

 1) approve for public consultation the proposed main modifications to the June 2014 Pre-Submission Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy as set out in Appendix 1 to this report (including proposed modifications to the Proposals Map and Key Diagram) as those it endorses and considers necessary to make the JCS sound.

 

(2) delegate authority to the Chief Executive of Tewkesbury Borough Council, the Corporate Director of Services and Neighbourhoods of Gloucester City Council and the Director of Planning of Cheltenham Borough Council in consultation with the relevant Leaders of each those Councils to make minor changes to the proposed main modifications and proposed modifications to the Proposals Map and Key Diagram) in terms of formatting, presentation and accuracy, including any minor changes arising from the consideration of the proposed modifications by each of the Joint Core Strategy councils, prior to publication for consultation purposes.

 

(3) Agree that the “additional layout for appendix a1,”the City of Gloucester Proposed Primary Shopping Area, Primary Frontage and Secondary Frontage” and the “Superseded Development Plan Policies on Adoption of the JCS” and the “Addendum for Council-Primary frontages” documents be incorporated into the proposed main modifications to the June 2014 Pre-Submission Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy as set out in Appendix 1 to this report (including proposed modifications to the Proposals Map and Key Diagram) as those it endorses and considers necessary to make the JCS sound.

 

(4) Conduct an urgent review of the Local Green Space Strategy in relation to the West Cheltenham emerging Strategic Allocation.

 

 

Voting:  For: 32, Against 1, Abstentions 1