Agenda item

Report of the Leader

Having declared an interest earlier in the meeting, Councillor Ryder and Councillor Harman left the meeting for this item and the following agenda item.

The Leader introduced the report and explained that the Joint Core Strategy had been prepared jointly over nine years between Gloucester City Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council and provided the vision and planning framework to meet the development needs of the area between 2011 and 2031. He reported that Gloucester City Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council had now adopted the strategy. He added that work would continue as there would immediately be a review as regards housing supply for Gloucester and Tewkesbury and collectively for all three authorities an immediate retail review.

The Leader reminded Members that also in progress was the Cheltenham Plan which was now potentially at pre-submission stage and which would be considered by Council that evening. He highlighted the momentum at Government level for the JCS with the Secretary of State rejecting a call in request from the Tewkesbury MP within 48 hours of receiving it.

The Leader highlighted the following key points:

·         The JCS assessed the general housing need for the area which was essential to provide affordable housing for the future.

·         In respect of the AONB and the green belt he welcomed the proactive involvement of local communities in putting forward green space requests which had now been incorporated into the JCS however he did note that the Inspector had not used the same opportunity to include mention of the West Cheltenham green space which was equally important for that area.

·         The JCS would ensure that adequate infrastructure would be in place and made reference to the £22m growth deal for the cyberpark which illustrated Government’s enthusiasm for the scheme. He highlighted that all were keen to see improvements at Junction 10 of the M5 before 2031 and Government would be lobbied to ensure central funding was available.

In terms of the recommendations he highlighted that the Inspector had examined the proposed plan for its soundness and if the main modifications were not accepted there would be no JCS. He referred to the recommendations relating to the Memorandums of Agreement with Tewkesbury Borough Council regarding the delivery of housing at land at Farm Lane and Uckington.

Finally, he gave thanks to all those who had been involved in the long and arduous process in developing the JCS including officers, Members and residents of Cheltenham who had added value in contributing to the process.

The following questions were raised and responses given:

·         If the JCS was not accepted by Council then developers would in theory have a ‘free for all’ in relation to planning

·         There was a need to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply

·         It had taken some time, along with the whole JCS process, to agree that a Memorandum of Understanding with regard to the houses on Farm Lane would be put in place on adoption of the JCS allocating the 377 houses to Cheltenham’s 5 year housing supply figure.

In the debate that ensued the following points were raised by Members:

·         The JCS had proven to be an excellent example of Councillors working collaboratively across the county for the benefit of Gloucestershire.

·         Members recognised that it was hugely important to have clear guidelines to avoid an uncoordinated approach to development which would pose the greatest threat to the natural environment.

·         Whilst in some Members’ eyes the JCS was not perfect it did address key issues with a plan for affordable housing going forward, a driver for economic growth and a degree of protection for the AONB.

·         Members wished to put on record their thanks to everyone involved in the development of the JCS and particular thanks were given to those local communities and groups who had been proactive in drawing up the green space strategies for areas such as Swindon Village and Leckhampton which would provide those areas with the protection they deserved.

Councillor Nelson proposed the following amendment (changes in bold):

The Council is asked to: (1) ADOPT the adoption version of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy at Appendix 2 to this report as part of the Borough Council’s statutory development plan, less for para 4.6.21 in SD5 Green Belt (“ A small change has been made to the Green Belt boundary in the area of the Reddings to provide a more appropriate boundary after an implemented permission at Grovefield Way.”) which should be removed and only reviewed after the site is fully developed

In proposing the amendment Councillor Nelson made the following points:

·         Only part of the site at Grovefield Way has an implemented permission (BMW) yet the rest of the site does not. There was a current planning application to be considered that week seeking permission for a mixed business and retail onto the site yet current permission is limited to B1 office space.  He believed that taking the full site out of the green belt now was not the intention as this was potentially premature and could influence the debate on the application. Whilst Planning Committee Members could not declare an opinion on an application there should be sympathy towards development suitable for the green belt environment.

·         The retail use of the current application may also be premature as the JCS partner authorities were due to undertake an analysis of retail.

·         Many residents felt that traffic was already out of control in that part of the town. The Park and Ride car park was regularly full due to use by GCHQ/BMW employees alongside normal users of the service. There were also issues with parking around GCHQ, the Reddings and Benhall

·         If Members were nervous they should leave the full site in the green belt. If his amendment was too controversial for officers and threatened the soundness of the JCS he would be happy to see the BMW proportion of the site removed from the green belt with the rest remaining in the green belt until it was built out.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Mason. He stated that he was acting on residents’ behalf.

Members debated the amendment and the following points were raised:

·         Outline permission had been given for development on that site within the last 4 years

·         Clarity was sought on how the wording of the JCS was interpreted by officers-did this this mean that the area would stay as green belt until a suitable sympathetic development comes forward for consideration by Planning Committee ?

Phil Stephenson, Development Manager -Strategy said this did not constitute a minor amendment but was one of substance. He emphasised that the plan could not be adopted without the inclusion of all the modifications recommended by the Inspector. Changing the green belt at Grovefield Way was part of the main modifications at MM54 and shown on the green belt map. Representations had been made at the time to the Inspector and considered by her and included in the main report and the schedule of main modifications. Account therefore had to be taken of this which represented what the Inspector said had to be changed in order to make the plan sound.  He highlighted that planning applications were entirely separate and had to be considered on their own merits. Finally he highlighted that if the main modifications were not accepted as written the council could leave itself open to legal challenge.

Members expressed concern about being left open to legal challenge.

In responding to the debate Cllr Nelson acknowledged that this was not a black and white issue but was the last opportunity to ensure the plan was right particularly in view of the current planning application. He expressed his support for the JCS which he did not wish to make unsound by this amendment but thought it was a question of interpretation in terms of what the Inspector had written.

The Leader understood the concerns expressed but could not support the amendment. He highlighted the need to maintain a sustainable boundary which could be defended until the end of the plan period.

Upon a vote on the amendment was LOST.

Voting:  For 2, Against 27 and abstentions 4.

The debate on the substantive motion ensued and the following points were made:

·         Members paid tribute to the work of officers and the Inspector in terms of the support for the application for local green space in Swindon Village and it was important to ensure that the indicative proposals were reflected within the Cheltenham Plan. This had proved to be an excellent process in terms of community involvement and engagement.

·         Thanks were given to the Leader and all officers involved in formulating the JCS

·         The JCS represented a pragmatic, responsible view for the greater growth of the town with sound, core principles

·         The policy on flood risk management was welcomed and reference was made to the overarching principle that all new developments should seek an overall reduction in flood risk.

·         It was regrettable that there was no mention in the JCS of the Springbank residents’ input into the inquiry. However, their work was recognised by Members and they had achieved a good result.

In summing up the Leader thanked all Members for their comments. This had been a long and difficult process and the levers available to control the process were limited. The lack of mention in the Inspector’s report of Springbank green space was somewhat odd but this aspect would be taken on board in the local plan.

RESOLVED (unanimously) THAT

(1)  the adoption version of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy at Appendix 2 to this report be adopted as part of the Borough Council’s statutory development plan

(2)  the amendments (maps and text) to the adopted policies map as set out in the modified and new maps within Appendix 3 to this report be adopted

(3)  authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, in collaboration with Tewkesbury Borough and Gloucester City Councils to make minor spelling, grammatical, cross-referencing or typographical errors and presentational changes (including the addition of a Foreword) to the Joint Core Strategy and accompanying policies maps prior to publication

(4)  the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of Cheltenham Borough Council, be authorised to progress and sign a Memorandum of Agreement with Tewkesbury Borough Council in respect of the delivery of housing at Farm Lane, Leckhampton in Tewkesbury Borough to meet the housing needs of Cheltenham Borough;

(5)  the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of Cheltenham Borough Council, be authorised to progress and sign a Memorandum of Agreement with Tewkesbury Borough Council in respect of the delivery of housing at land to the South of Tewkesbury Road, Uckington as within Tewkesbury Borough to meet the housing needs of Cheltenham Borough.