Agenda item

Motion A

Proposed by:                      Councillor Sudbury

Seconded by:         Councillor McCloskey

This Council notes with concern the County Councils proposals to cut £2 million from the £5 million budget for subsidised bus services. Bus journeys provide a vital public service, helping to prevent social isolation for the elderly and the vulnerable; allowing people to access essential healthcare services, employment, and leisure and shopping opportunities. Encouraging people to travel by bus also helps reduce congestion. We therefore believe the effective use of public subsidy for bus services is an appropriate use of public money.

 

Specifically, we are concerned that the current proposals could and should have been the subject of better consultation, with more meetings in Cheltenham giving more detail on the cuts proposed and changes considered.

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Whilst understanding the financial pressures facing local authorities, urges the county to listen to the residents of Cheltenham who are concerned about cuts to their valued bus services.

 

2. Recognising the high turnout at a recent public meeting in Charlton Kings about the threat to the P & Q service, appeals to the County Council to extend the consultation period and hold more public information sessions in the town with a view to protecting those subsidised services that are most valuable to local people. 

 

Motion B

Proposed by:                      Councillor P McLain

Seconded by:         Councillor Godwin

It is now two years since the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Garden Land and Infill Sites was published and a first review of the document should be undertaken. 

 

Parts of the SPD are out-of-date- and as a result of changes introduced by Planning Policy Statement (PPS3).  There are also differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of parts of the document from all sources, which indicates that the time has come for the SPD to be reviewed and updated. 

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Propose that members of the original working group, plus replacements and additions where required, should be reconvened as soon as possible with the aim of reporting back to the Council meeting on October 10^th 2011.

 

Motion C

Proposed by:                      Councillor Smith

Seconded by:         Councillor Stennett

The Cheltenham Borough Local Plan (second review) was adopted in July 2006 and covers the period 1991 to 2011.  Plan policies have been saved and will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF).

 

Important changes have occurred to core policies and proposals as a result of central government changes contained in Planning Policy Statement (PPS3).  Whilst these changes have affected housing development policies, other changes have occurred, or they have become outdated. 

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Propose that a third review of the Local Plan policies as a matter of urgency should be undertaken before final acceptance of the LDF. 

 

Motion D

Proposed by:                      Councillor Godwin

Seconded by:         Councillor Wall

The present system of dealing with planning appeals appears to be flawed.  Whether a planning application is refused by the committee, or as a result of an officer’s delegated recommendation to refuse and the applicant goes to appeal, we believe a substantial statement should be made in writing to the Planning Inspectorate. 

 

The statement should set out all of the reasons given for the refusal and carried out professionally.  The present system of sending a copy of the case officer’s report to committee, plus a copy of the minutes to the Inspectorate is inadequate. 

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Propose that a time-limited review of the Council’s approach to planning appeals, through a member group, or an officer report to the next Council meeting, should be undertaken. 

 

2. Ask that officers consider the re-employment of a qualified Appeals Officer.

 

Motion E

Proposed by:                      Councillor Wheeldon

Seconded by:         Councillor Bickerton

With Cheltenham Borough Council’s electricity contract due to be renewed shortly and in order to reach our CO2 reduction target of a 30% reduction by 2015, purchasing zero carbon electricity from a green energy provider should be considered. 

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Recommends that purchasing zero carbon electricity from a green energy provider be a major consideration when choosing the new supplier.

 

Motion A

Councillor Sudbury, seconded by Councillor McCloskey, proposed the following motion.

“This Council notes with concern the County Councils proposals to cut £2 million from the £5 million budget for subsidised bus services. Bus journeys provide a vital public service, helping to prevent social isolation for the elderly and the vulnerable; allowing people to access essential healthcare services, employment, and leisure and shopping opportunities. Encouraging people to travel by bus also helps reduce congestion. We therefore believe the effective use of public subsidy for bus services is an appropriate use of public money.

 

Specifically, we are concerned that the current proposals could and should have been the subject of better consultation, with more meetings in Cheltenham giving more detail on the cuts proposed and changes considered.

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Whilst understanding the financial pressures facing local authorities, urges the county to listen to the residents of Cheltenham who are concerned about cuts to their valued bus services.

 

2. Recognising the high turnout at a recent public meeting in Charlton Kings about the threat to the P & Q service, appeals to the County Council to extend the consultation period and hold more public information sessions in the town with a view to protecting those subsidised services that are most valuable to local people.  “

 

As proposer of the motion, Councillor Sudbury, emphasised the value of the bus services to local people for retail, leisure and employment. She felt that local people had been left unclear about the exact nature of the proposals. The low attendance of 10 people at the meeting arranged as part of the County Council consultation at Charlton Kings contrasted with the 300 plus people who attended the event organised by the local parish council. This was an example of the failure of the consultation organised by the County Council and there was a need for more face-to-face events so people could have their say on the proposals.   

 

Other members disagreed that the consultation had been ineffective and said there had been extensive coverage in the local media. They could not support the motion as it appeared to focus on Charlton Kings whereas local bus services were an issue across the town. They cited examples where the county was proposing to reduce services which were not well used and therefore uneconomic and other services which were being increased to respond to residents needs. As the   consultation had now closed the second part of the motion was inappropriate.

 

Councillor McClain, speaking as the County Council Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Vulnerable Families explained that the County Council were aiming to redesign the bus services by providing a hub of town centre services with links to the rural bus services forming the spokes. The key priorities were to provide transport to get people to hospital, schools and to work. This would be achieved by asking bus companies to take on more, to change the service or to provide flexible transport alternatives. If £2 million pounds was not saved from this budget then it would have to be found else where in the county’s budget. He was surprised that Councillor Sudbury as a County Council member had not taken the opportunity to raise the issue at a recent County Council meeting or with the county overview and scrutiny committee.  He also pointed out that this Council’s Cabinet had approved the scrapping of the grant for Charlton Kings community transport as part of the budget proposals.  The reason given was that it was not the most effective use of public money and similar tough decisions had to be taken at county level. 

 

In supporting the motion members emphasised that the amendment was not disputing that savings were needed but focused on the inadequate consultation. The motion to Charlton Kings purely as an example of where the consultation had been ineffective,

 

Councillor Barnes, as seconder of the motion, felt that it was appropriate to discuss County Council matters in this chamber when they affected Cheltenham. Frequently it was the young, vulnerable and elderly who are most affected by these types of cuts and the consultation had not been effective.

 

In her summing up, Councillor Sudbury felt that some members had missed the point of motion and emphasised that she had only been using Charlton Kings as an example of inadequate consultation.

 

Upon a separate vote on each part of the motion they were both CARRIED.

Voting on part 1): For 23, Against 0 with 3 abstentions.

Voting on part 2): For 22, Against 8 with 4 abstentions.

 

 

Motion B

Councillor Smith seconded by Councillor Godwin proposed the following motion.

“It is now two years since the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on GardenLand and Infill Sites was published and a first review of the document should be undertaken. 

 

Parts of the SPD are out-of-date- and as a result of changes introduced by Planning Policy Statement (PPS3).  There are also differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of parts of the document from all sources, which indicates that the time has come for the SPD to be reviewed and updated. 

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Propose that members of the original working group, plus replacements and additions where required, should be reconvened as soon as possible with the aim of reporting back to the Council meeting on October 10^th 2011. “

 

As proposer  of the motion, Councillor Smith, considered that the aspirations of the SPD were not being delivered and it was not working effectively. Therefore it was appropriate to review the SPD and ensure it was still fit for purpose. The results of the government’s National Planning Policy Framework were expected in July and the SPD could be reviewed in the light of experience over the last two years and the proposed national framework.

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Godwin, indicated some areas where the SPD was out of date and cited pages 5, 6, 9 and 12 as examples. The document was important and this had been acknowledged by Planning Inspectors who had referred to it as part of any appeals process. A recent meeting had been held with officers to discuss this issue but members attending did not consider it had been a very effective meeting and therefore the working group should be reconvened to address this important issue.

 

In supporting the motion, members felt that the problems stemmed from different interpretations of the document by officers and members and there were a few paragraphs that needed reviewing.  There appeared to continue to be doubts and confusions whenever garden developments were discussed at Planning Committee.

 

Speaking against the motion, the Leader said that feedback on the SPD he had received was that it was working well and proving useful. The National Planning Policy Framework related to all SPDs and planning documents and therefore its publication did not justify the setting up of this working group. This would be reviewed as part of the JCS work.

 

The Cabinet Member Built Environment did not recognize the SPD as being fatally flawed or that the Planning Committee was making unsound decisions. He was concerned that members should consider rewriting the SPD after only two years. 

 

Councillor Jordan, seconded by Councillor Webster, proposed an amendment to delete paragraph 2 of the motion and amend paragraph 3 as follows:

 

“ Council requests that Planning Committee reviews the implementation of the SPD and reports back to Council if it feels any changes are necessary.”

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Jordan, considered this was an appropriate matter for the Planning Committee to review.

 

Speaking against the amendment, Councillor Smith, considered that the Planning Committee on the 21 July was too far away and the JCS would need some input on this matter earlier. He suggested that it would be useful to have some non-Planning Committee members on the working group to add some balance.

 

 

The Head of Legal Services advised members that if the amendment was carried there may be issues arising for Planning Committee if members were minded to change the SPD and then the same set of members subsequently made decisions based on the SPD which they had determined should change. Therefore, a working group approach including some non Planning Committee members may be a better option. Also, formulation of planning policy was generally an Executive matter where Cabinet formulates proposals for Council approval and he suggested that Cabinet should have some role to play in any review that was carried out.

In his summing up, Councillor Smith expressed his concern about any working group comprising only members of the Planning Committee and he felt, with reference to the legal advice, that a wider working group approach would result in a stronger planning framework.

 

Upon a vote on the amendment was CARRIED and this became the substantive motion.

Voting: For 19, Against 13 with 0 abstentions.

Councillor Godwin, made it clear that he had not said that the SPD was ‘fatally flawed’ but had suggested that it needed clarification in several places.

Councillor Smith hoped that Cabinet could put aside some money to support this review. The SPD was currently a useful document for officers when vetting applications but currently not so useful for the public or for members. He hopes the chair of Planning Committee could pull together some work on this before the next Planning Committee meeting. 

 

Upon a vote the motion as amended was CARRIED unanimously.

 

Motion C

Councillor McClain seconded by Councillor Stennett proposed the following motion.

“The Cheltenham Borough Local Plan (second review) was adopted in July 2006 and covers the period 1991 to 2011.  Plan policies have been saved and will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF).

 

Important changes have occurred to core policies and proposals as a result of central government changes contained in Planning Policy Statement (PPS3).  Whilst these changes have affected housing development policies, other changes have occurred, or they have become outdated. 

 

Therefore this Council
 

1. Propose that a third review of the Local Plan policies as a matter of urgency should be undertaken before final acceptance of the LDF” 
   
   

As proposer of the motion, Councillor McClain sought advice on the statutory process for reviewing planning policy. The legal position was that that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning At 1990 dealing with the preparation of local plans had been repealed.  Therefore it was not possible to have a third review of the Cheltenham Local Plan and the only way to change the policies was via the LDF Process.

 

Having considered the position, Councillor McLain decided to withdraw rather than amend his motion and would consider reframing it for a future meeting

Councillor Jordan referred members to the Cabinet report of the 19 April 2011 which set out a timetable for the review of SPDs.

 

 

Motion D

Councillor Godwin seconded by Councillor Wall proposed the following motion.

“The present system of dealing with planning appeals appears to be flawed.  Whether a planning application is refused by the committee, or as a result of an officer’s delegated recommendation to refuse and the applicant goes to appeal, we believe a substantial statement should be made in writing to the Planning Inspectorate. 

 

The statement should set out all of the reasons given for the refusal and carried out professionally.  The present system of sending a copy of the case officer’s report to committee, plus a copy of the minutes to the Inspectorate is inadequate. 

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Propose that a time-limited review of the Council’s approach to planning appeals, through a member group, or an officer report to the next Council meeting, should be undertaken. 

 

2. Ask that officers consider the re-employment of a qualified Appeals Officer.” “” 
   
   

As proposer of the motion, Councillor Godwin, said that the public were not impressed with the council’s record at appeals and their poor showing at inquiries and he cited several examples. Sometimes consultants had been engaged to prepare the appeals who had little knowledge of the background. Planning Inspectors had also complained about the lack of information presented in supporting the council’s appeals. There was currently no requirement for a separately articulated case on behalf the council which fully represented the position of the Planning Committee, planning officers and the council as a whole. A more professional and consistent approach was needed.

 

In supporting the motion members welcomed the comments made by Councillor Godwin. Councillor Fletcher suggested that the biggest mistake had been the deletion of the planning officer appeals post. Other members suggested that losing the officer was a false economy especially when consultants were being used. There was a lack of evidence on whether outcomes would have been different and this was where a time-limited review could help.

 

As the meeting had been in session for over four hours, the Mayor confirmed that members wished to continue.

 

Speaking against the motion, the Cabinet Member Built Environment thought the motion was a nonsense. There had been no specialist appeals officer since 2008 and performance had improved since then with 66% of appeals being won. A consultant had been used on two appeals only in the last year and in both cases there had been particular reasons. The current commissioning exercise looking at Built Environment would also be looking at this area.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Godwin, referred to the statistics he had been maintaining on planning appeals since 1991 and he considered that the appeals officer was a key factor in their likely success. He was also concerned that in some cases the relevant planning officer had been too busy to deal with the appeal and another officer had been appointed to carry out this work.

 

Upon a vote on the motion was LOST

Voting: For 13, Against 19.

 

Motion E

Councillor Wheeldon seconded by Councillor Bickerton proposed the following motion.

“With Cheltenham Borough Council’s electricity contract due to be renewed shortly and in order to reach our CO2 reduction target of a 30% reduction by 2015, purchasing zero carbon electricity from a green energy provider should be considered. 

 

Therefore this Council;

 

1. Recommends that purchasing zero carbon electricity from a green energy provider be a major consideration when choosing the new supplier. “
   
   

As proposer of the motion, Councillor Wheeldon, said that the contract renewal provided the opportunity to reduce the council’s energy consumption and meet its target on CO2 emissions in the next 12 months. The cost implication should be relatively small.  

 

As seconder of the motion, Councillor Bickerton, said that the cost of coal and gas were likely to increase but the cost of renewable energy would fall, therefore the motion was a sensible approach.

Upon a vote on the motion was CARRIED unanimously.