Agenda item

A debate on a petition received on 13 December 2010.

The Deputy Mayor reminded members of the procedure for dealing with petitions.  She welcomed Kit Braunholtz, the petition organiser, to the meeting and invited him to present the petition.

In his statement, Kit Braunholtz thanked the Mayor for receiving the petition outside the Municipal Offices prior to the Council meeting on 13 December 2011 and thanked Council for considering it at this meeting. The petition had been organised with two objectives in mind:

• To make the public aware of the potential development on the land they were trying to protect. A consortium of developers had already announced their intention to submit an application for 1300 homes on this land.
• To make the councillors and officers aware of the strength of opposition to any development and the 1200 signatures on the petition was an indication of this.

He indicated that he had brought a map to illustrate the area. He stressed that the area was very attractive and an asset to Cheltenham. He read out a summary of the conclusion of the Inspectors Report 2005. In the report the inspector had considered the area of land in question and had concluded that it was not suitable for large-scale development.

In summary he emphasised that in signing the petition, it was not an expression of NIMBYism but people were expressing their genuine desire to preserve the rural character of an important piece of land.

The Deputy Mayor invited the Leader to make a statement.

The Leader said that it had always been council’s policy to protect its rural areas from large-scale development and this policy would continue.  This council was working with Gloucester City and Tewkesbury councils on the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and how to protect valued land would be a key issue for discussion. He advised members that if an area was designated as a country park, unlike a National Park, it had no protection in planning terms.  However the land would be subject to existing planning policies which would offer some protection. He added that it was unlikely that the council would have the necessary funds for compulsory purchase of the land.

Councillor Jordan proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Councillor Ian Bickerton, seconded by Councillor Walklett, proposed an amendment requesting

“officers provide a point of contact in the JCS Team to provide direction and technical assistance to LEGLAG in the context of the new localism directives and options for longer term protection of the Leckhampton green land which are clearly of special community interest.”

In proposing the amendment he  informed members that four inspectors had previously rejected large scale developments on Leckhampton white land and he quoted Inspector David Asher as saying, “development of the objection site would materially harm the rural character and appearance of the area, and the important contribution that this makes to  the  landscape within the site and when seen  from  the AONB, the rural character up to the edge of the town which would be lost if development were to take place” (CBC Local Plan Second Review to 2011 Inspector’s Report).

Councillor Bickerton reminded members of discussions at the recent JCS seminar regarding the complex issues of sustainability, housing needs and encroachments on the green belt. The Localism Bill now been added to the debate.  LEGLAG were putting forward a community lead solution, important to the wider community as expressed by the LEGLAG petition and needed officer support.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Walklett fully supported the aims of LEGLAG. He recognised that the area in question was a much loved site and it needed the council’s protection.

The proposer indicated that he would be happy to accept the amendment given the wording suggested in the advice note circulated to members. The Leader emphasised that the council would be providing an opportunity for all local groups to get involved with the JCS process.

Councillor Garnham expressed concern that if the council were to agree this amendment, it may suggest that LEGLAG was being treated differently to other groups. He proposed that the words “and any other group, landowner or developer” be inserted after the word LEGLAG. This would ensure that the process was open and transparent.

The proposer indicated that he was happy to accept this amendment.

In response to a question from a member, the Leader confirmed that Tewkesbury Borough Council were aware of the petition.

Upon a vote the motion as amended was agreed.

Resolved that:

1. Officers are requested to consider the issues raised by the petition as part of the developing options process for the Joint Core Strategy as set out in paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11 of this report.
2. An officer point of contact should be provided to enable LEGLAG and any other group, landowner or developer, to obtain information and guidance to aid understanding of the relevant procedures and processes in respect of the Joint Core Strategy and for creation of a country park.

Voting: For 31 with 3 Abstentions.