Agenda item

A debate on a petition received on the 26 March 2012

Agenda item 5 (public questions) was taken just prior to this item as all the questions that had been received related to this matter.

The Mayor referred members to the process for dealing with petitions at Council which had been circulated with the agenda.  He invited Mr Rastelli, as petition organiser, to present the petition;

“We the undersigned are very much against the current preliminary proposal which would see up to 88 allotments on part of Weavers Field.  The Council say that only 3.1 acres of the 8.1 acre field would be turned into allotments – however this does not take into account the creation of a large car park area in order to cope with a significant number of vehicles.  This area is the only open green space in this locality and the preliminary proposal is not acceptable”.

Mr Rastelli outlined the scale of objection to the proposal and why. He explained that Weavers Field was a space frequented by hundreds of people each week and highly valued by those that used it for walking, playing and socialising.  The field and hill were also popular with those with an interest in birds and wildlife as it supported a number of wild birds and a variety of other wild life including bats and slow worms.  The proposals would prevent access for the general public to the majority of the field, serving only a comparatively small minority and prevent access for the vast majority. 

Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council whose responsibility it was to provide allotments in this area had expressed, in writing, their wish that this area remain a public amenity.  The neighbouring Parish Council, Up Hatherley, had also put in writing this same message.

The Friends of Weaver’s Field had applied to have this space recognised as a Village Green and were urging the Cabinet Member Sustainability to listen to the people of Warden Hill and withdraw the proposal. 

The full statement given by Mr Rastelli is attached at Appendix 1. 

The Mayor invited questions from members regarding the background report produced by officers.

As a point of clarification, Councillor Stennett queried the position of Planning Committee members making statements on this issue given that they may have to consider a future planning application.  The Monitoring Officer reassured Planning Committee members that this was not a prejudicial matter and involvement in the debate would not prejudice them against any future planning application, though any such application should be approached with an open mind.

A number of members requested that the figures relating to the cost of the proposal be made available, questioning the logic behind undertaking consultation on a proposal that hadn’t been properly costed.  When members were told that these figures were not available, Councillor Smith moved a procedural motion calling for a 15 minute adjournment of the meeting in order that these figures could be provided.  This motion was lost (Voting: (FOR) 12, (AGAINST) 18).

The Cabinet Member Sustainability explained that the decision had been taken to consult on the initial proposals before putting costs together, the plans had not been expensive to produce and officers were confident that the proposal would be deliverable given that there was no cost associated with purchasing the land.  £500k had been set aside from the sale of the Midwinter site, though a full costing would be compiled and assessed before anything was taken forward.  Whilst he was unable to present any outline figures these were available and he was happy to make them available to members on another day.

A member commented on the suggestion that the council had put forward the proposal for Weavers Field in response to a statutory duty to provide allotments and highlighted Paragraph 9 sub-paragraph (1) of Schedule 29 of the Local Government Act 1972 which states “If there is a Town or Parish Council in a particular area, then the responsibility for allotments within the boundaries of that town or parish lies with them. The District Council, in this case, has no powers to act in any manner over allotments”.  In view of this, any allotments on Weavers Field would in fact be private allotments rather than statutory as was the implication and the question was posed would they count toward the statutory obligations for allotment provision. 

The Cabinet Member Sustainability responded by acknowledging that the location of Weavers Field was within a Parish Council but elaborating that because of its location it would draw in people from neighbouring wards including Up Hatherley and would therefore significantly contribute to the council’s obligations for allotments. 

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

The Cabinet Member Sustainability firstly thanked Mr Rastelli for his articulation of the concerns of the petitioners and officers for their work today, including the background report circulated with the agenda.

As Cabinet Member he had to consider not only the demands of people on the waiting lists for allotments but also the concerns raised by the general public who feared that a much loved public amenity would be lost.  The Council had a statutory duty to satisfy demands for allotments and the majority of these were needed in the South of Cheltenham, where land was scarce.  Attempts were being made to negotiate sites in the Leckhampton area and where very little council owned land existed in this area, other options were being explored, including the purchase and/or long term lease of land, which was made difficult by the fact that land owners tended to want to hold on to land in this area or offer very short leases in the hope that it would become valuable for housing.  Some of the alternative options were not considered particularly attractive or cost-effective for the taxpayers of Cheltenham. 

He felt it would be easy for him to simply withdraw the proposal given the level of objection but considered that this would be unfair for the people who have been on the allotment waiting list for some years and could in fact provoke a legal challenge.  He noted the petitioners words and suggested that as it were the case that the preliminary proposal was not acceptable he proposed to sit down with Mrs Rastelli, representatives of the petitioners and/or ward members and discuss compromise schemes which would address some of the concerns whilst still delivering a number of allotments. 

It was important to note that the decision on how to assess the objections received was a decision for Cabinet, in addition to which there would be a requirement to table any proposal with the Planning Committee. 

He proposed the following resolution;

1)        That the Cabinet Member and officers seek a discussion with representatives of the petitioners and with ward councillor with a view to improving amenity value of the scheme and that;

2)        Revised proposals are brought to Cabinet which take this into account.

 The Cabinet Members full statement is attached at Appendix 2.

The Leader of the Councillor confirmed that he would second the proposal put forward by the Cabinet Member Sustainability. 

Councillor Regan thanked the Cabinet Member Corporate Services for his offer to discuss the issue with representatives of the petitioners, suggesting that she would represent those that had signed the petition and many more. 

A number of members, including Councillor Teakle, urged the Cabinet Member Sustainability to recognise the value of Weavers Field as a habitat and a space enjoyed by many for a variety of reasons.  The invitation for further discussion with the representatives of the petitioners and ward members was welcomed.  Councillor Teakle also stressed that the scheme as it stood was completely unacceptable as 88 allotments would cover the most attractive and scenic open space for walking.  She wondered if it would be possible in the proposed discussions to look at amending the scheme (perhaps with fewer allotments on a less scenic area with reduced car parking spaces) in a way that might be more acceptable to all parties. 

However, some members felt that given the overwhelming opposition to these proposals from Parish Councils, over 1000 residents who signed the petition, Borough Councillors and the local MP, they should be withdrawn and alternative sites considered.  These members acknowledged that the allotment issue was an emotive one and questioned why supporters of the proposal were not present at the meeting.  Some of these members voiced their concerns that the Cabinet Member Sustainability would take forward these proposals regardless and was closed to any alternatives. 

Councillor Prince left the meeting at 3.35pm.

In response to concerns raised by members regarding the lack of legal and financial implications within the report produced by Officers, the Mayor explained that this was simply a background report in relation to the petition rather than a report as part of any decision relating to the Weavers Field proposal.  Such a report would include full implications when it was considered by Cabinet. 

As seconder, the Leader could not support calls for the Weavers Field proposal to be withdrawn completely at this stage.  Consultation on the initial proposal had been undertaken but there was more detail still to be worked through, which included any costings.  He emphasized the difficultly that faced the council, allotments had to be situated somewhere, though this did not at all invalidate the concerns that had been raised in the petition or through the course of the debate today. 

In closing, the Cabinet Member Sustainability admitted that the threat of legal challenge had always been there and that the weight placed on this would be decided at a later date.  He assured members that at this stage nothing had been ruled out but that a determining factor would be the availability of other suitable sites.  He was interested to hear about alternative sites and invited people to share with him the details of other sites along with details of who owned the land so that they could be considered further.  He gave assurances that if a suitable site was identified he would have no qualms about withdrawing the Weavers Field proposal. 

Councillor Harman demanded a recorded vote and six other members were in support.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that:-

1. the Cabinet Member and Officers seek a discussion with representatives of the petitioners and with ward councillors with a view to improving amenity value of the scheme;

2. Revised proposals are brought to Cabinet which take this into account.

Voting:

(FOR: 23) Councillors Barnes, Britter, Coleman, Fisher, Flynn, C. Hay, R. Hay, Holliday, Jeffries, Jordan, Lansley, Massey, McCloskey, McKinlay, Rawson, Reid, Stewart, Sudbury, Teakle, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn and Williams

(AGAINST: 12) Councillors Bickerton, Chard, Driver, Garnham, Hall, Harman, McLain, Regan, Seacome, Smith, Stennett and Wall

The meeting was adjourned at 4.15pm for tea.