Agenda item

The Leader introduced the item and explained that it was being taken as urgent due to the legal period in which a response to the application needed to be provided by the council. The Cabinet Member Development and Safety introduced the update report from the Director of Planning and One Legal which had been circulated in advance of the meeting. He referred to the debate held at the 6 December meeting of Cabinet and the concerns expressed relating to that part of the proposed neighbourhood area between the existing urban area and the Borough boundary at the west of Cheltenham. The issues being that the proposed neighbourhood area would bisect the existing ward boundaries and the emerging West Cheltenham Strategic Allocation as proposed by the emerging JCS main modifications. The Cabinet Member highlighted that on the basis of the regulations Cabinet must make a decision to either refuse the application or approve it. To inform Cabinet, officers had agreed to contact Tewkesbury Borough Council and the relevant parish councils and their response was that Tewkesbury BC and the parishes were currently looking into the issue and would be submitting their own plans in due course. Concern had also been expressed that the proposed neighbourhood area would cover only part of the Strategic Allocation and urged Cheltenham BC to defer making a decision. However, as outlined in the report, a further deferment was not an option.

In terms of tonight’s decision the Cabinet Member Development and Safety explained that the concerns expressed last week remained and believed that the application was premature and the proposals were not sufficiently formed to take forward. He expressed his full support for the neighbourhood planning process yet regretfully the application could not be supported as it currently stood and therefore proposed that the application be rejected on the basis that the allocation of West Cheltenham in the main modifications of the JCS had not yet been adopted and the neighbourhood area proposed was only part of the strategy. The Cabinet Member emphasised that if Cabinet chose to reject then nothing precluded the applicant from bringing back an application at a future date. However, if it was accepted in its current form then there could be no certainty of alternative proposals coming forward in the future.

Members expressed their reluctance in not being able to approve the application at the current time but this was due to circumstance and timing. They fully supported the neighbourhood planning process and believed it would be sensible to have something in place as soon as practical.

The Planning Policy Team Leader clarified that there were two separate decisions to be taken. He highlighted that if there was approval for a neighbourhood forum there would have to be a neighbourhood area. His professional advice was that the application met the basic criteria for being a neighbourhood forum, having for example at least 21 members who live or work within the area proposed and a written constitution. He advised that the neighbourhood forum could be accepted by Cabinet but the area could be refused if this did not represent an appropriate area due to the concerns expressed concerning ward and allocation boundaries. Cabinet was empowered to designate a smaller area that that applied for if it considered it appropriate to do so. If Cabinet took the view that it did not recognise the neighbourhood forum this should be on the grounds that the application for the forum was not valid. In response the Leader said it was not possible to agree the forum for that area as it did not represent an appropriate or recognised neighbourhood area. Utilising ward boundaries would be an appropriate starting point for neighbourhood planning. If Cabinet chose to reject both the application for the forum and the area then clear reasons should be stipulated.

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety stated that it was impossible, in his view, to move forward due to the lack of clarity and thus maintained that the application should be rejected on both points. Members supported this approach and said that it was important to get neighbourhood planning right and for those particularly in West Cheltenham the JCS represented a difficult plan. However Members emphasised their support for the neighbourhood planning process.

The Leader added that the council should be proactive in continuing to work with the people in the area concerned and Tewkesbury BC as well as ward councillors, to support the creation of a designated forum and area.

RESOLVED THAT

1.    The designation of the West Cheltenham Neighbourhood Forum area for the purpose of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan be rejected

2.    The designation of the West Cheltenham Neighbourhood Forum as neighbourhood forum for that area be rejected.

3.    It be noted that Cabinet is very keen to continue a dialogue on this, to support the creation of a forum and area.