Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Leader welcomed the vast number of members of public who filled the public gallery and apologised for the volume of paperwork that had been circulated to Members, which he appreciated was a difficult undertaking.  He took this opportunity to thank Officers for their hard work. 

 

Given that a number of seminars had been organised for the benefit of Members over the preceding months, it was proposed that the item would follow the normal format of debate.  Officers were in attendance to assist with answering any questions of a technical nature and would note any issues raised.

 

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was being abolished and Cheltenham Borough Council would be the decision maker in determining long term development needs of the Borough, and it would need to get this right, which would be no easy task. 

 

Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Gloucester had agreed to work together and prepare a single core strategy covering the entirety of each of the three areas. 

Colleagues would be aware that Tewksbury Borough Council was the first to consider the document on the 26 October and it had been approved for consultation purposes. Gloucester City would be considering the document on the 24 November and it was hoped that all three authorities would then be in a position to move forward. 

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had undergone a consultation process and Cheltenham had duly submitted a number of responses.  Consultation on the ‘Preferred Option’ would conclude in early summer 2013 and all feedback from the consultation and clarity on the NPPF would enable conclusions to be formed. 

 

He talked through the recommendations, providing some context and explanation for each.

 

Councillor Whyborn proposed an amendment (for insertion after recommendation 4 and subsequent recommendations be renumbered accordingly), copies of which were circulated to members;

 

5. This Council does not necessarily endorse development on any of the specific sites named in the document “Developing a preferred option”;

 

He felt that, whilst it could be considered to be a statement of the obvious, it was important given that a number of sites had been named in the document by Officers and the Council had previously taken a view on some and not on others. 

 

Councillor Thornton reserved her right to speak as the seconder of the amendment. 

 

Councillor Jordan accepted the amendment and invited questions on the substantive motion before it was debated. 

 

The Leader, in response to questions from members emphasised the fact that there had been a genuine attempt by Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) to calculate the population in 20 years, using the ages of the current population, the proportion of inward migration from within the UK and outside and projecting forward to a potential population.  Admittedly, there was a risk of generating more demand with no specific solution to affordability - Cheltenham was a highly popular place to live and none of the scenarios would solve this issue.  To deal with the high demand for housing in the Lake District it was now necessary to have lived in the area for a period of time before being eligible for affordable housing and this was a radical approach that could be considered for Cheltenham.

 

The following responses were given by the Strategic Land Use Manager;

 

• The projections contained within the document were principally based on the population projections and the Gloucestershire Affordability Model, with two approaches, looking back and looking forward to the future. 
• The document did not answer all questions and there was still work to be done to align some of the detail.  There were still gaps in the evidence base and this would be addressed between now and Summer 2012.
• At the start of the process there had been 3 themes to sustainability; climate change, economy and stronger communities and following initial public and stakeholder consultation it was apparent that the balance needed to favour economic sustainability.  The document used a body of evidence to inform future levels of economic growth including; projections commissioned from Cambridge Econometrics, together with the Local Economic Assessment prepared by Gloucestershire County Council and forecasting by the Gloucestershire Affordability Model which used a percentage of 2.3%. This was one variable that could be changed in the Gloucestershire Affordability model and further testing will be undertaken. 
• Growth for Cheltenham was split - 75% from our indigenous population (people already living in Cheltenham housing stock) and 25% migration.  The numbers were similar for Gloucester, with a 60% / 40% split the other way in Tewkesbury. 
• To say that the greenbelt was sacrosanct was difficult given the tightly drawn greenbelt in Cheltenham but as much urban capacity had been identified wherever possible. The strategic allocations identified in the consultation document were all informed by the extensive evidence base.
• The weight of the JCS was limited at this early stage; however, this would change as time went on, though ultimately, any decision would remain in the hands of the appropriate decision maker at any given time.
• Even at an early stage, a range of alternative options were looked at and a key part of the evidence base was an assessment of broad locations and sustainability appraisal. Early assessment included options such as a new settlement.
• Flooding is a key part of the JCS evidence base, information used included assessment undertaken through Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 1 and 2.
• Building would increase demand, but it was important to remember that Cheltenham had a significant backlog of need.
• Statistics relating to births and deaths were matched in terms of residency through GP records.
• The University is an important stakeholder and they were engaged in early stages of consultation.  They remain an important stakeholder for housing given that multiple-occupation was an issue for Cheltenham.  The next stage of the consultation process would aim to address this.
• Specific statistical information was possible as a result of the Gloucestershire Affordability Model but these were only predictions and would need to be tested.
• Villages had been consulted on a number of levels.  Parish Councils, specifically, had been asked directly in 2010 if they wanted development and would be asked again.  Specific consultation is being arranged to target rural parishes.  One option being developed within the JCS is the linking of settlements supported by development which can act as ‘hubs’ to deliver improved levels of infrastructure and employment, this will be tested through consultation.
• Some greenfield sites had been named in the document but not at the exclusion of brownfield sites, which had also been named. All sites identified as urban capacity are included within the strategic land availability assessment reports; these reports will be available alongside the consultation document.  In addition a housing background paper is being prepared, this will set out details on sites and the methodology adopted in reaching the housing requirements.

 

The Leader noted that the population growth documents were large documents and therefore it was not always possible to provide members with hard copies, however, they were available on the JCS website.  He stressed that all resulting figures were dependent on the variables put in.

 

Councillor Smith acknowledged the hard work of the Joint Core Strategy Team, which he had no doubt, would be an example of best practice in the future, however, he proposed 2 amendments on behalf of his Group, seconded by Councillor Regan;

 

Recommendation 1 be amended to read, ‘ that Council defers the decision to approve the JCS documentation for consultation to the next Council meeting by which time the consultation documents will be ready for scrutiny and approval by members.’

 

Recommendation 2 be amended to read, ‘the Council supports scenario A as the only option contained in the consultation papers that will protect the town of Cheltenham, it’s fields and green spaces from over development and the only option that offers hope that the town may retain its unique character.’

 

His main reason for proposing that the consultation be deferred was that no actual public consultation document had been put before members for consideration and therefore members had no indication as to what questions the public would be asked to answer.  In his opinion there was no intellectual narrative held from start to finish, housing figures were based on economic figures and vice versa and as such all relied upon each other and therefore offered the same answer.  Some evidence base and documentation was missing and he queried how members could endorse an incomplete document.  The second amendment was intended to demonstrate leadership; scenario A delivered what the residents wanted, protection of the greenbelt and if members couldn’t support this then they were failing the people of Cheltenham. 

 

Officers had presented scenario A as unsound and the suggestion was that it had been included to placate the public rather than as a practical option.  He considered that recommendation 4 was nonsense as it provided no steer in terms of the preferred option in relation to the Council’s greenbelt aspirations. 

 

He was also concerned that the document had overtones of ageism, with the suggestion that under 30 was good and over 60 was bad.  An ageing population was a reality for Cheltenham and this needed to be embraced rather than being masked. 

 

The document lacked infrastructure content and a complete exclusion of other issues.  The more ‘radical views’ referenced by the Leader offered no particular logic, if people couldn’t afford to live in Cheltenham in the first instance, how would they ever be in a position to be eligible for affordable housing. 

 

In response to the amendments, the Leader was unwilling to agree to defer consultation but was happy to agree a mechanism by which the document be signed off and suggested that the meeting be adjourned so that the matter could be discussed.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:50pm.

 

Members returned at 4:12pm.

 

Councillor Smith confirmed that changes to his amendment had been discussed, but they resulted in a watered down version which he had been unable to agree to. 

 

In response the Leader advised that he had resisted the first amendment, though he accepted the importance of members seeing the public documentation.  The second amendment, specifying scenario A, implied predetermination of the outcome prior to the public consultation.  He proposed that he could support the amendment with the addition of “the Council currently supports a variation of scenario A” and invited legal advice.

 

The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer accepted that scenario A might be considered by Members to be an attractive proposition given the many unanswered questions.  There was however, clear advice in the report suggesting that scenario A was not sound and to go ahead with such a plan could result in additional pressures from developers for sites to come forward to address any housing supply shortfall.  This was not to say that developers couldn’t apply such pressures at present, but clear advice had been provided by the Planning Officers as to the difficulties with scenario A. 

 

Members invited further advice from the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer, as to the resulting legal position of the Council in terms of planning decisions and the future of the JCS, were it to agree the amendment and opt for scenario A.   

 

She informed members that whilst the advice from Officers was that scenario A was not a sound basis on which to go out to consultation based on the evidence that had been accumulated, this was a member decision.  The Local Plan was the development plan and if it were not capable of delivering sufficient land it would be subject to additional pressures.  She assured members that they were not bound to pass exactly the same resolution at this stage of the process as their partner authorities.  As the development of the JCS progresses there would come a stage when the decisions of the partner authorities will need to come together. 

 

The Strategic Land Use Manager made clear that scenario A offered a capped level of development based on urban availability and was not evidence based.    In planning terms this was an unsound basis for the JCS.

 

Members speaking in support of the amendments proposed by Councillor Smith expressed their hope that all members would support them.  They welcomed the protection afforded to the greenbelt by scenario A and echoed the concerns that members had not yet had sight of the questions that would be put to the public as part of the consultation on the JCS.

 

Those members that voiced their inability to support the amendments did so in defence of open consultation, which was non-prescriptive, invited comments on the scenarios that had been set out in the document and enabled the public to suggest other scenarios.  The results of the consultation would inform the current figures and ultimately, give weight to the JCS, but this was not to say that these Members were any less committed to protecting Cheltenham and the greenbelt surrounding it. 

 

Far from suggesting that there was no opportunity to consult, Councillor Smith, in summing up, stated that this was the last opportunity for Members to comment on all scenarios, given that the next stage would be consultation on one option, not withstanding this, it was the last opportunity for Cheltenham to demonstrate leadership.

 

He considered that his amendment had been carefully worded and proposed that it would be a sad day if Council members couldn’t support it.  

 

The Leader stressed that this was not members only chance to respond but simply a process by which to reach a sensible conclusion.  The document would be amended in readiness for the public consultation.  

 

The amendments proposed by Councillor Smith were put to the vote. 

 

The amendment to recommendation 1 was LOST.

Voting: 8 For, 23 Against, 1 Abstention

 

The amendment to recommendation 2 was LOST.

Voting: 8 For, 22 Against, 2 Abstentions

 

The Leader reiterated his earlier comments, that rather than accept the second amendment he would propose the following amendments;

 

Recommendation 5 be amended to read ‘This Council does not necessarily endorse development of any of the specific sites named in the document “Developing the preferred option”.  This Council is currently minded to support a variation of Scenario A as the only option contained in the consultation papers that will protect the town of Cheltenham, its fields and green spaces from over development and the only option that offers hope that the town may retain its unique character’

 

Recommendation 10 be amended to include Group Leaders rather than just the Leader.

 

A Councillor thanked the Leader for the amendment to recommendation 10 and the inclusion of Group Leaders but felt that with the exception of the “weasel” wording ‘currently’ and ‘variation’ from recommendation 5 would ultimately result in the amendment tabled by Councillor Smith. 

 

In response, another Councillor refuted that this was “weasel” wording.  The character of Cheltenham relied upon the rural fringe of the town, of which a large proportion was not within its boundaries.  It was in Members interest to keep the JCS on track, as were it to fail they would have no say on what happened to these surrounding areas.  Indeed it could be very difficult to reach agreement across the three authorities but Cheltenham would run the risk of becoming a fortress. 

 

The Leader confirmed his ability to agree the amendment as the proposer of the original motion, stressing that at this stage, this was merely an expression of an opinion before the consultation and demonstrated a willingness to listen to the outcome of the consultation.

 

A number of Members voiced concerns about the document in its current form.  These largely centred on the refuted assumptions for growth set out in the document, the risk posed to the greenbelt surrounding and green spaces within Cheltenham and any resulting urban sprawl which participants in the debate were staunchly against.  Members were nervous that the public would perceive that the outcome was predetermined before the consultation.     

 

Other comments included;

 

• Scenarios B & D lacked intrinsic logic; they were simply alternatives to scenario C, 10% lower and higher.
• The development maps from the previous JCS public consultation, showed peoples preference for regeneration of brownfield sites rather than building on the Greenbelt. 
• The Council’s achievements through Cheltenham Borough Homes demonstrated that the policy of urban regeneration was working and defensible.
• The focus should be quality of life not quantity in Cheltenham, in order that it retained its prosperity and character.  Rather than housing led economic growth the focus should be providing homes for the indigenous population and their children and an integral part of this would be the correct combination of housing.
• People understood the need for housing but were unwilling to sacrifice the Greenbelt and green spaces.  There are 14 Greenbelts in England, of which, Cheltenham had 1 and the document placed far too much significance on this and the green spaces in Cheltenham and failed to identify other areas within the boundaries. 
• The development of 1650 homes in Leckhampton would destroy all natural soak-away in an area that was devastated by floods in 2007.  It was also hard to comprehend how the excess traffic from the proposed development would impact the narrow A46, which was already congested.
• There was risk of a coalition of urban sprawl with Gloucester and Tewkesbury and we needed the JCS to tie these surrounding authorities into agreement to avoid this.
• The assumptions within the document intimated that each home would accommodate 1.23 people.  Based on these figures developers were not likely to build what people wanted and therefore the document would compound problems rather than solving them.  3-4 bedroom homes would accommodate more people and even attract more people to the town. 
• Some of the brownfield sites in Cheltenham were small parcels of land spread across the town and this should be made clear to residents when offered as an alternative to greenfield sites.

 

Councillor Smith, on behalf of the Conservative Group, confirmed that they would not be supporting the document for the purpose of public consultation as their concerns that the document was not sufficiently robust or sustainable had not been allayed.  The document resembled too closely the RSS which Councillors had been fighting against for almost three years.  He hoped that the points raised by members would be taken on board. 

 

The Leader thanked members for their contribution.  Members had made some valuable points, though he did not agree that it was at all sensible to defer the consultation.  The documentation would be amended for public consultation and he made particular reference to the suggestion by Councillor Bickerton that a simplified questionnaire be developed, though there would be other members of the public that would prefer more detail and he hoped that all requirements could be satisfied. 

 

As it stood, the recommendations would see the continuation of the JCS whilst reaffirming the Council priorities and he hoped that all members could support the substantive recommendations. 

 

Upon a vote it was

 

RESOLVED that;

 

1.      Council approve publication of the draft “Developing the Preferred Options Consultation Document”, set out in Appendix 1, for the purpose of consultation;

Voting: 23 For, 8 Against

 

2.      Council notes that the officer recommendation is that of the 4 illustrative scenarios presented Scenario B would best meet the assumed development needs of the Joint Core Strategy area for the first 10 years of the plan period to 2021;

Voting: 23 For, 8 Against

 

3.      Council notes that Scenario A is the only one that would protect the current green belt;

Voting: Unanimous

 

4.      Council confirms its intention to protect green belt and open countryside around Cheltenham;

Voting: Unanimous

 

5.      This Council does not necessarily endorse development of any of the specific sites named in the document “Developing the preferred option”.  This Council is currently minded to support a variation of Scenario A as the only option contained in the consultation papers that will protect the town of Cheltenham, its fields and green spaces from over development and the only option that offers hope that the town may retain its unique character;

Voting: 23 For, 8 Abstentions

 

6.      During the consultation stage (December 2011 – February 2012) further assessment of scenarios is undertaken for Cheltenham and reported back to Council alongside responses received to the 4 scenarios set out in the consultation document by the communities of Cheltenham and wider stakeholders;

Voting: Unanimous

 

7.      Council requests that the further work includes testing more radical approaches to defining affordability which help meet local housing need;

Voting: 30 For, 1 Abstention

 

8.      Appendix 2: Response Report on consultation carried out to date (October 2011) is published as part of the consultation exercise;

Voting: 23 For, 7 Against, 1 Abstention

 

9.      Appendix 3: The Sustainability Appraisal is published as part of the consultation exercise;

Voting: 23 For, 8 Abstentions

 

10.Authority be delegated to the Director of commissioning in consultation with the Group Leaders to make any necessary minor revisions to the draft document prior to publication taking account of any issues arising from consideration if the document by Tewkesbury Borough Council and Gloucester City Council.

Voting: 30 For, 1 Abstentions