Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and explained that the proposed main modifications to the JCS formulated following the July 2016 hearings were agreed at the October 2016 Council meetings by Gloucester City and Cheltenham Borough Councils. However the proposed main modifications were not agreed by Tewkesbury Borough Council (TBC) and officers there had been requested by Members to bring back to their Council a proposal which did not include Twigworth as part of the Innsworth/Twigworth strategic allocation. He reminded Members that the Planning Inspector’s stated position was that not including Twigworth may give rise to soundness issues.

The Leader reported that TBC had received specialist flooding advice which had shown there were no planning reasons to support the exclusion of the Twigworth Strategic Allocation from the Main Modifications. At their meeting on 31 January Tewkesbury Borough Council endorsed the proposed main modifications with some changes, including the reduction of the allocation at Twigworth to 995 and the inclusion of a revised flooding policy which all councils could benefit from. He also highlighted the fact that as the MOD would not be releasing their site at Ashchurch for at least 10 years the recommendation was to entirely remove Ashchurch from the proposals. Tewkesbury would now have a housing allocation shortfall and as a result there would be a review of other alternatives. The JCS was however now back on track and there would be a full 6 week public consultation followed by an examination in public with hearings expected late spring/early summer following which the final report would be submitted to the three Councils for formal endorsement and implementation.

Finally, the Leader emphasised the importance of keeping the JCS on track in terms of providing a plan for Cheltenham in the future. He highlighted the fact that West Cheltenham would have the opportunity to input into the process during the public consultation and the examination in public. It was important to have the JCS in place before planning applications were submitted.

The Development Manager-Strategy was invited to address Council. He informed Members that two of the PMM’s (the list of proposed main modifications to the plan) would need minor changes as follows :

• PMM0134 and PPM0135 refer to appendices 2A (maps) and Appendix 3 (superseded policies) respectively. The correct references for this meeting should be: Appendix 1A (maps) and Appendix 2 (superseded policies) respectively.
• PMM084 to paragraph 5.3.2 (in the Background to Policy INF3) is changed at the start to read “The Environment Agency is working with Gloucester City Council, the Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board …”

The following questions were raised and responses given :

• Swindon Village Local Green Space - a Member sought assurance from officers that when considering planning applications in this area they would take account of what the Inspector had said regarding green space. In response the Development Manager-Strategy said that the Local Green Space in Swindon village had been included in the proposed main modifications and would constitute part of the emerging formal plan if the proposed main modifications were agreed today.Therefore it would be a material consideration in any planning application.
• A Member commented on the Judicial review SD2 site for the 377 houses Redrow development at Leckhampton which looked like it would go ahead. He asked what progress had been made with the Memorandum of Understanding between Cheltenham and Tewkesbury to ensure the 377 houses were scored against the Cheltenham 5 year housing supply in line with the Inspectors examination and would reduce pressure on other areas. The Development Manager-Strategy reported that the Memorandum of Understanding had now been written and was with Tewkesbury Borough Council for sign off, in line with the Inspector’s findings and was not expected to be controversial. The Leader added that the Cheltenham  Plan went out for consultation on 6 February for a six week period which would overlap with JCS consultation.
• A Member expressed concern regarding the modelling and mitigations which were being used to support and build 10,000 plus new homes in Cheltenham. He asked that the consultation on the JCS be delayed by a few weeks to allow for the new traffic modelling data to become available. In response the Leader said that awaiting the data would not require a delay to the progress of the JCS because the provisional work has been made available based on 2008 data. It was hoped that the new data would be made available in advance of the examination in public.

In concluding the debate the Leader thanked Members for their support for the JCS and for the forthcoming public consultation and examination in public.

RESOLVED THAT

(1)  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  be approved for public consultation (including proposed modifications to the Proposals Map and Key Diagram) as those it endorses and considers necessary to make the JCS sound

(2)  authority be delegated to the Director of Planning of Cheltenham Borough Council in consultation with the Leader of Cheltenham Borough Council 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

(Voting : For 35, Against 0, Abstention 1)