Agenda item

A debate on a petition received on the 10 August 2011

The Mayor referred members to Appendix 1 which set out the process for dealing with petitions at Council.  She invited Councillor Hibbert, as petition organiser, to present the petition;

“We the undersigned petition Cheltenham Borough Council as follows: We wish the protection you have afforded Starvehall Farm and the recreation land adjacent to Prestbury Parish Council playing field in the local plan that ends in 2011 be included in the new Local Development Framework currently being developed”.

In her statement, Councillor Hibbert attributed the fact that the petition had in excess of 1700 signature,s to it being a vital open space to the communities which it separated, Oakley, Pittville and Prestbury.

In 2006, the Council found sufficient reason to afford the site protection, which the community were calling for again.  She had attended a number of seminars recently at which it had been suggested that the number of new homes needed was being drastically exaggerated in the context of the economic climate. 

In summary, she asked that Council consider whether housing needs could be met without surrendering Starvehall Farm and Playing Fields, taking account of the fact that local Schools were at full capacity and the NHS and Police resources were stretched in this area already.  She welcomed the Officers comments on the environmental implications. 

In response to a question from another member, the Leader confirmed that matters had progressed since the report was compiled and as such the issue would now be considered by the Planning Committee at their meeting on the 17 November.

The Mayor invited the Leader as the Cabinet Member whose portfolio was most relevant to the petition to speak on the subject of the petition. 

The Leader understood the concerns of those that had organised and signed the petition.  This was an important site but stressed Council could not assume the role of the Planning Committee.

In respect of the land at Starvehall Farm, no designation of this area was made by the Local Plan which had a plan end date of 2011.  He reminded members that all plan policies would be retained until replaced by the current Local Development Framework arrangements or its prospective successor. 

He agreed with the issue raised about housing numbers and emphasised the difficulty associated with projecting needs 20 years in advance and he hoped that numbers would be included in the consultation as they would be key to the entire process. 

The Leader hoped that colleagues would support the resolution set out in the report.

In response to a question, the Leader reiterated that all plan policies would be retained until replaced by the current Local Development Framework arrangements or its prospective successor.  Cheltenham was however, in a stronger position than other areas to have its Local Plan upheld given that it was fairly modern (2006).  A sentiment reaffirmed by a recent planning review which had commented that the Council had a good Local Plan. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that officers consider the issues raised by the petition as part of the Local Development Framework or the new Cheltenham Local Plan.