Agenda item

1.

Question from Graham Bealeto Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles, Councillor Flo Clucas

I wish to raise a question regarding the recent loss of Erasmus+ as I am concerned that the its replacement, the Turing scheme will not be a sufficient in scope or depth and will likely impact the prosperity of young people in the area; plus my own two daughters who would likely make use of such a scheme.

My question therefore: Can you confirm if the Turing Scheme will enable the wide range of activities presently covered by Erasmus+ including youth exchanges, primary and secondary school links, vocational education, lifelong learning projects aimed at encouraging strong relationships with our nearest neighbours in Europe? If the Turing Scheme is not a sufficient replacement, will the council agree to apply pressure on the government to rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme at a later date?

Response from Cabinet Member

The loss of the Erasmus+ scheme is a devastating blow for students. Providing as it did away for UK students to learn in an international context with fees paid and assistance for living expenses, it gave a huge opportunity to take in more than the academic experience. Paying for UK students to study overseas was one aspect; the other was bringing European students to study in the UK. The transfer of experience was unique and beneficial for both the outgoing and incoming student, for the universities, local communities and for the countries concerned too.

The Turing scheme, which we are told is to be a worldwide scheme for the best universities, rather than European focussed, has a promised funding profile of £100m. It will give the 35000 or so students who are accepted, some £3000 to pay for tuition fees and living expenses. For students from less well off households, it will not be nearly enough to pay tuition fees, never mind living costs.

As the full extent of the Turing scheme is not yet known, I cannot confirm that it will have the same range of activities or opportunities that Erasmus does. Indeed, Prof Mary Beard amongst others has expressed her concern about the loss of Erasmus.

The questioner asks if we will work to rejoin the Erasmus + scheme if the Turing scheme is not a sufficient replacement. While the question is addressed to the Cabinet member, I would hope that the Council as a whole, would answer is an unequivocal ‘yes’. 

2.

Question from Emma Nelson to Cabinet Member Economy and Development, Councillor Victoria Atherstone

National planning policy requires local authorities to have sufficient sites ready for development to meet their housing need for the next 5 years. 

I understand that if an authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, then national planning policy and a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” comes to the fore over local considerations. This might make it difficult for a local authority to refuse planning applications when it might otherwise do so.  

What was the 5-year supply of land for housing in Cheltenham Borough for each of the last 4 years up to April 2021?  

Response from Cabinet Member

Upon adoption of the JCS in December 2017, the Council could demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of 5.6 years. At the end of 2018 the supply was 4.6 years. In December 2019 the supply was 3.7 years. It currently remains at around 3.7 years.

Supplementary Question

Given that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and the current level is just 3.7 years, how will the Council protect us from unscrupulous developers, such as Redrow with their latest bid to put 42 homes in Leckhampton, from proceeding under the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” clause; such development will destroy more valued landscape and further exacerbate traffic and flooding issues; after all, we don’t want to experience the flooding of 2007 again! 

Response from Cabinet Member

We recognise that a major reason for delays in housing developments coming forward relates to concerns about infrastructure, particularly relating to transport.  The Council is actively engaged with the various relevant parties, such as the County Council and Highways England to ensure that issues are resolved, although we are not controlling authority.  In another way the Council has taken a direct lead in promoting the Golden Valley development scheme, including the preparation of a supplementary planning document to seek to smooth process of development.  At the same time we are vigorously defending the decisions of the Planning Committee at appeal.   The Council also took action last year to ensure the adoption of its Local Plan.  Having a recently adopted, up to date, local plan is helpful in ensuring support for our decisions from the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State).  In fact, a recent case which went to the Court of Appeal (known as the Gladman cases) has emphasised that where a council lacks the required five-year housing land supply, this may tilt the balance in favour of proposed residential schemes, but does not render grants of planning permission automatic.  It is estimated that the shortfall in housing supply amounts to 800 dwelling units.  However, before approval of any planning application the developer would have to produce relevant information and proposals to ensure that any risk of flooding is dealt with. 

3.

Question from Emma Nelson to Cabinet Member Economy and Development, Councillor Victoria Atherstone

How will the recent loss of the 200 homes planned development for the Portland Street Car Park impact the CBC’s 5-year housing land supply, how many years has this housing development been stalled and when will it be relaunched? 

Response from Cabinet Member

No formal planning application has been submitted for this site so we had been cautious about including this site in our housing trajectory. The site was originally allocated in 2006, and a planning permission was granted in 2012 which has now lapsed.  There is no current planning application for this site.  The land is in private ownership and the current intentions of the landowner are dealt with in another question. However, as a council we remain committed to building affordable homes, both working with CBH on our own pledge to build 500 new affordable homes as well as by working with others.

Supplementary Question

It is good to hear your commitment to building 500 affordable homes, but how many homes need to be built to restore the 5-year housing land supply needed to protect us from unsustainable developments which, together with climate change, may mean the dreadful floods of 2007 are not a thing of the past; and finally, how many people are currently on the waiting list for a home? 

Response from Cabinet Member

The Council has responded to a consultation called Planning for the Future and Cheltenham is in a good position to achieve those housing delivery targets.

As of 23/02/2021, 2286 households were currently on Cheltenham Borough Council’s Housing Register (i.e. waiting list) for a (rented) affordable home.