Agenda item

The Leader proposed to take the scrutiny report under this section, before taking the Cabinet Member response (shown as the ‘officer advice note’ at page 25 of the pack) under Section 5 (Reports from Cabinet Members and/or Officers) and that this would be presented by the Cabinet Member Development and Safety. 

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (O&S), Councillor Harman, explained that he had called-in the decision following a request from Councillor Flynn, the first call-in he had undertaken in his time as Chair.  The call-in meeting was held on the 12 June 2017 and the debate was set out in the minutes of that meeting (Appendix 1 of the O&S report).  In summary the Committee felt that there were inconsistencies in the way in which Cabinet had dealt with the Springbank and West Cheltenham applications and they hoped that if the Springbank decision was to be rescinded, there would be an opportunity for both groups to reach a more appropriate solution, which would bring the communities together.  He noted that all but one member, who had chosen to abstain, had supported this recommendation and whilst the process had been followed, it had been divisive and the spirit of what was trying to be achieved, had been lost.  He hoped that Cabinet would reconsider their original decision and help to re-join these communities.  

A number of Cabinet Members queried the assertion by the O&S Committee that there was inconsistency in the way that Cabinet had dealt with the applications for Springbank and West Cheltenham and asked for examples.  The Chairman referred members to the draft minutes of the meeting, which many of them had attended, and which summarised the debate and conclusions of the committee.  

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety concluded that rather than there being an issue with the process or the decision on the Springbank application itself, the issue for Overview and Scrutiny was that Cabinet had not taken account of the wider implications.  Councillor Harman considered this tobe a fair assessment.  The Cabinet Member went on to accept that the conflict between the two parts of this community was unfortunate but the problem Cabinet faced was that the group behind the Springbank application had been asked if they would consider withdrawing their application and had declined to do so.  Cabinet were being asked to reject the Springbank application in consideration of wider issues but could only base their decision on what was before them, which was a valid application and therein lay the problem.  

It was suggested, by the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles, that in effect what the O&S Committee were asking Cabinet to do, was punish Springbank as a result of West Cheltenham not having revised their original application or reapplied after their first application was refused.  Cabinet had expressed concerns on the 6 December 2016, 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 applicants were asked to reconsider their application and the decision was deferred until the 13 December.  The West Cheltenham application was not revised and it was therefore refused.  

The Chairman of the O&S Committee accepted that the call-in related to the Springbank decision but noted the letter of objection, dated the 8 May 2017, from Charmian Sheppard, on behalf of the West Cheltenham Forum. 

There were no further questions.