Agenda item

1.

Question from LEGLAG to the Leader, Councillor  Jordan

Is the Council aware that the draft JCS documents “Developing the Preferred Option Consultation Document” and the draft sustainability assessment that comes with it contain (so far as we can see) no reference whatever to the Petition submitted to Cheltenham Borough Council (and to Tewkesbury Borough Council) earlier this year by LEGLAG, and passed unanimously by CBC for consideration by the JCS Officers (and also passed by TBC in the same way)?

(for information only) The Petition wording was as follows:-

PETITION:  "LeckhamptonCountryPark" To Cheltenham Borough Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council:

We the undersigned urge the above Councils to allocate (in their Joint Core Strategy or another relevant appropriate planning policy or document) a designated area to the South of Cheltenham at Leckhampton and Shurdington (including the land formerly known as the LeckhamptonWhite Land) that shall be protected from inappropriate large scale development.

This area of land is of high local community interest due to its attractiveness, views in and out of the AONB and the contribution it makes to the setting of Cheltenham. We also highly value its easy accessibility for informal recreation, local food production, wildlife, environmental and ecological interest. Although some of the land is now in Shurdington, we suggest that this designated area may for convenience (at the Councils' discretion) now be known as:  LECKHAMPTON COUNTRY PARK

Response from the Leader

The issues raised in the petition have been considered by the JCS team in putting together the scenarios outlined in the “Developing the Preferred Option Consultation Document”. However, this needed to be considered against the wider evidence base of the JCS; conclusions drawn which have led to the 4 scenarios set out in the consultation document.

Cheltenham Borough Council takes the issues raised in the petition very seriously and the resolution I am proposing to Council this afternoon restates the intention to protect Green Belt and open countryside around Cheltenham. Assuming the 3 Councils confirm agreement to start the consultation, the issues raised in the petition will no doubt feature in the feedback from LEGLAG and others.

2.

Question from LEGLAG to the Leader, Councillor Jordan

Is the Council further aware that in three of the four scenarios proposed in the draft JCS document (including their recommended scenario B) the land referred to in our petition has been allocated no fewer that 1650 houses as part of what are called in the document “Strategic Allocations”, 350 more than were allocated in this area under the defunct South West Regional Spatial Strategy?

This is not apparent in the maps supplied in the document, where it appears that 1300 houses are allocated here (the same as in the SWRSS), but the extra 350 come from houses allocated by Tewkesbury Borough Council in their Local Plan of 2006 on land South of Farm Lane, Leckhampton.

Response from the Leader

The 350 houses south of Farm Lane, Leckhampton, as well as 250 homes on the old M&G sports ground, are included in the figures in Scenario A as they are already in the Tewkesbury Local Plan. The 1300 houses mentioned are the extra houses that form part of the other Scenarios.  The capacity of 1300 together with 350 at Farm Lane will all be subject to scrutiny via the consultation process.

It is important that this is made clear in the consultation documentation as it is no doubt something that people will wish to comment on.

Supplementary question by Kit Braunholtz on behalf of LEGLAG

The maps were misleading, would the public consultation document clearly identify housing in each area?

Response from the Leader

The consultation documentation would make this clear. 

3.

Question from LEGLAG to the Leader, Councillor Jordan

Is the Council also aware that LEGLAG considers that not only should the maps be amended to show the true extent of the strategic allocations in this area, but also that the entire area should in any case be removed from the list of “Strategic Allocations” because such an allocation is totally inconsistent with the petition CBC approved unanimously?

Response from the Leader

I am keen to make sure that when the document is prepared for the planned consultation all the issues are clearly presented as I hope as many members of the public as possible will take part.  At this stage of the plan however it is not appropriate to place detailed boundaries as this is still subject to debate through the consultation.  It is at the Preferred Option stage of the JCS that detailed boundaries will be identified.

I would encourage LEGLAG to express their views about “Strategic Allocations” during the consultation.

4.

Question from Helen Wells, Chair, Save the Countryside to the Leader, Councillor Jordan

Does the Council agree that, given the prediction of 45,200 extra people in the JCS area in 20 years’ time, the housing total of 36,850 arrived at by the end of Phase 2 of Scenario B is suspect?

Subtracting one from the other it suggests that only 8,350 (18.5%), of the additional population will be in shared accommodation, the other houses presumably being occupied by 28,500 inmigrant singleton divorcees and old people if the trend is to be believed.  Would, say, the conventional 2.5 sharing not be more likely, meaning that the population increase number divided by 2.5 would indicate how many houses would be needed, namely 18,080 dwellings by 2031 and thus just over the much maligned Scenario A totals? 

Looking at Phase 1 for Scenario B and assuming a steady increase in the population, there would be a predicted 22,600 extra people by 2021 (half the 45,200 increase). Scenario B plans for 29,500 houses by this time – in other words, 1.3 houses for each person!

Does the Council agree that the JCS statistics need to be revisited?

Response from the Leader

All the population and household projections will form part of the planned consultation and will be open to challenge along with all the rest of the evidence base. 

The calculation of extra housing numbers is not based purely on the projected rise in population. The analysis from which the household projections are drawn is the Housing Trend Analysis and Population and Household Projections – Gloucestershire County Council (May 2011).  This report shows that overall provision of new houses in the JCS area have been in pace with the number of household formations since 1991. 

The calculation between additional people within the population and number of new households forming is not as simple as a direct mathematical calculation.  Household formation takes account of differing household size, levels of vacancies, second homes and concealed households together with migration. In past assessments calculations have been made based upon average number of persons per households; however this is no longer the used convention giving the differing sizes in households in recent years and projected levels of single person households arising from the ageing population together with separated families etc.  The increases in household formation have therefore led to falling average household size, in part attributable to the change that over the period of the JCS – up to 2031 more than 1 in 5 of all households in the JCS area will consist of an elderly single person.

As appropriately highlighted within the question, migration plays a part in new household formation, in Cheltenham the Housing Trend Analysis and Population and Household Projections report sets out that in Cheltenham 75% of new households are formed from the indigenous population, with 25% attributable to net migration; this is similar for Gloucester, but less so for Tewkesbury with a higher percentage of 58% of new households attributable to net migration.  It should be noted that migrants are not necessarily from outside the County, but are movers between districts from within Gloucestershire.

The housing review evidence base upon which the JCS has been informed will not provide a 100% accurate answer.   Projections only trend forward what has happened in the past and many factors that can't be accounted for in a statistical model can affect the way our populations change. Population and household projections are therefore only one set of indicators of population change, and should be used together with other information and policy considerations where appropriate.  This is why the evidence base for the JCS is extensive and includes tools such as the Gloucestershire Affordability Model.

Supplementary question from Helen Wells

It still appears that, at the end of Scenario B, 4 out of every 5 homes will be occupied by single people which seems very unlikely to us and should be checked.

As should the JCS GAM (Gloucestershire Affordability Model) which states that Scenario A will result in housing market failure, a mass exodus of the working population and over-crowding.  Does the Council agree with this computer prediction of doom, or do you instead believe that Scenario A could, with a little adjustment, meet our future housing requirements for an increased population with least possible damage to the countryside?

Response from the Leader

The figures on which these assumptions were based were important and would be subject to scrutiny.  Alternative options would also be considered.

5.

Question from Alice Ross, Secretary, Save the Countryside to the Leader, Councillor Jordan

The JCS Team has had prepared an ‘evidence base’ comprising a large number of documents. Does the council agree that at least one very important document is missing – namely, an assessment of existing housing potential.

Before saying that we need thousands of new build properties in the Green Belt or on green field sites, should the Team not have established

how many empty homes there are,

how many empty flats above retail properties,

how many second homes,

how many commercial rental properties,

how many properties for sale are in vacant possession 

Should this evidence not be available before decisions to build new housing?

Response from the Leader

Maximising the use of existing housing stock along with use of brown field sites will be vital in assessing future housing needs. Figures for numbers of empty homes and second homes are included in these calculations.  A housing background paper is currently being prepared by the JCS team, this will set out and explain the methodology used in determining dwelling numbers.

Supplementary question from Alice Ross

Should the housing background paper you mentioned not have formed part of the evidence base before the ‘Preferred Options’ consultation paper was issued, do you think there are flaws in the evidence base and should this be open to challenge throughout the consultation?

Response from the Leader

The consultation documentation was evolving and would be added to accordingly.  There was a vital need for scrutiny throughout the process.

6.

Question from Barry Simon, Swindon Village Society to the Leader, Councillor Jordan

Despite the public’s objections in the preliminary consultation to the SWRSS-imposed ‘sustainable urban extensions’, does not the JCS Team appear to have ignored the community’s wishes and to be proposing large scale development of almost exactly the same numbers and in the same former RSS ‘Areas of Search’, much of it in the Green Belt.

Can the Council confirm whether this is the JCS Team’s free choice of action or whether they are responding to pressure from developers and/or landowners who have had plans on hold for the land in question since RSS days?

Response from the Leader

I understand the concerns about possible urban extensions. The Council will take decisions based on what is best for Cheltenham rather than what suits developers. The resolution I am proposing to Council this afternoon restates the intention to protect Green Belt and open countryside around Cheltenham

With the SWRSS being abolished the JCS for Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury starts from scratch in trying among other things to balance local housing need against protecting the Green Belt and countryside. Hence the “Developing the Preferred Option Consultation Document” presents a range of options. Feedback on these and indeed any alternative suggestions will be welcome during the planned consultation.

The JCS team have identified a vision and strategic objectives together with 4 possible Scenarios for accommodating the JCS areas development needs together with a suite of strategic development management policies.  These have been developed by drawing upon the wide JCS evidence base together with the engagement to date with stakeholders and members of the public.  Developers are part of the stakeholder community and appropriate liaison has taken place, this however has not resulted in pressure being applied by the development industry.  Such pressure would be wholly inappropriate.

Supplementary question from Barry Simon

There is still concern that Scenarios B, C and D show such similarities to the South West Regional Spatial Strategy.  Can we assume that the same inflated GDP growth figure of 3.2% was used?

Response from the Leader

No, the same GDP growth figure was not used, this had been started from scratch.