Agenda item

Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, Councillor Tim Harman.

An officer advice note on the options available to Cabinet

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety felt that it was unfortunate that a dispute had arisen between two communities.  However, Cabinet could only assess applications against the national legislation and local guidance and he was mindful that the call-in related to the Springbank application and not the West Cheltenham application.  It was accepted, by all, that the Springbank application was valid and that the decision had been taken properly and not in conflict with any other application, as no more had been received.  In view of this, he considered it to be unreasonably punitive to refuse the Springbank application and therefore recommended that approval of the Springbank application be restated.  

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services explained that Cabinet were obliged to deal with applications as they arrived and not in a preferred order. Whilst he understood the views of those that had supported the call-in and those that called for the application to be refused, essentially the request was that Cabinet refuse a valid application in order to consider wider issues; when no further application had been received from West Cheltenham.  He suggested that the Springbank application should be approved and all parties asked to consider options for modifying boundaries in the future.  

The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles sought advice from the Head of Law on three points. Firstly, the Head of Law explained that the authority must determine the Springbank application by the 27 June 2017 (tomorrow) and that if this deadline was not met, the authority must designate all of the area applied for.  Secondly, he repeated the advice that he had given at the last meeting (16 May) that the Regulations were detailed technical requirements which planning officers had considered and were clearly satisfied with in bringing this and the original report to Cabinet for decision.  Members should be satisfied that they had been provided with sufficient facts and information, including the officer advice and report, to enable them to reach a balanced and reasoned decision on the recommendations before them.  Were Cabinet to refuse the application at this stage, the authority would be vulnerable to challenge. Thirdly, the Head of Law said that a further neighbourhood plan application could not be made in respect of an area already designated but that there could be liaison between adjoining areas; he suggested that the planning officers address this point.

In response to the query raised by the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles, the Development Manager confirmed that the Planning Practice Guidance stated that a local planning authority could amend the boundary of a neighbourhood area after it had been designated only if responding to an application for a neighbourhood area to be designated.  He gave further explanation that were a further application to be submitted by West Cheltenham, that the boundaries could not overlap with Springbank boundaries but could be adjacent to them and that it would be possible for a number of neighbourhood areas to work together to develop a joint plan.  

The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment stressed that debate of the West Cheltenham application had been deferred and the applicants asked to make revisions.  When no revisions were made, Cabinet were forced to make a decision and duly refused it, which was an appropriate decision and one which was not called-in.  Cabinet subsequently considered the Springbank application and in receipt of clear written and verbal advice from the planning officers and the Head of Law, approved the application.  He suggested that for Cabinet to now refuse that application would result in the council being open to challenge and this was not an acceptable option.  He also had concerns about the message that such a decision would send to Springbank and any potential future applicants.  Whilst he found the current situation regrettable, he had been reassured by the officer advice that approving the Springbank application did not preclude others from submitting an application and would be supporting the recommendation for approval.  

The Leader highlighted the minimal powers Cabinet possessed in relation to these applications, which were limited to receiving applications and approving or refusing them.  The original legislation was based on parish wards and Cheltenham was split between parished and non-parished areas, which made the process less than simple.  Though he understood the request from O&S for Cabinet to try and resolve this issue, multiple attempts had been made to do this earlier in the year, following the decision to reject the West Cheltenham application on the 13 December 2016, but to no avail, and he was therefore unclear as to what the Committee expected Cabinet to do.  In the absence of an alternative he proposed that the recommendation to approve the Springbank application be accepted and if the communities wished to have discussions and put forward an alternative, Cabinet would be happy to consider this in the future.  

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services took the opportunity to pay tribute to those that had been working behind the scenes to try and bring this issue to a sensible conclusion and, in view of the advice from the Development Manager, he looked forward to welcoming future applications from other groups. 

In closing, the Cabinet Member Development and Safety thanked his fellow Cabinet Members for their support.  He acknowledged that one of the issues in relation to this matter, was the lack of government guidance and rules and in recognition of this he had agreed local guidance which he had hoped would assist communities when putting together an application.  He felt that it was important that Cabinet approved the Springbank application as it demonstrated the authority’s commitment and support for the neighbourhood planning process.

Upon a vote it was (unanimously)

RESOLVED THAT

1. the designation of the Springbank Neighbourhood Forum area (the current Springbank Ward) be approved for the purpose of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan

2. the designation of the Springbank Neighbourhood Forum be approved as a neighbourhood forum .