Agenda item

1.

Question from Kit Braunholtz to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Is the Council aware that the average household size in the JCS area was 2.346 in 2001 and was 2.341 in 2011 using figures published by the Office of National Statistics and calculations supplied to me by Councillor IanBickerton?

Response from Leader

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) state in a recent report using the same source data as Councillor Bickerton that household size for 2001 was 2.3 and for 2011 was 2.29. Hence both set of figures indicate a slight fall.

In a supplementary question, he asked whether the Council was further aware that the figure of 28,500 extra houses in the JCS area (in 2031 compared with 2011) quoted by NLP implies that the average household size in 2031 will be approximately 2.22 as opposed to the average household size of 2.33 in 2031 obtained by linear projection from the actual figures of the last 10 years; and in the light of this discrepancy, will the Council carefully investigate different ways of obtaining projections (i.e. educated guesses) of what the housing requirement will actually be?  And in view of the large differences between projections of the housing requirement obtained by different methods, will the Council consider adopting a sensible strategy of using a figure towards the lower end of the range to begin with, and increasing this figure later if necessary in the light of circumstances?

In response the Leader confirmed that the report to Council was recommending that these issues are looked at and the role of the JCS  working group would be to examine the figures and report back.

2.

Question from Kit Braunholtz to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Does the Council realise that if the population of the JCS area increases (as the JCS team assumes it will) by 44,700 from 2011 to 2031, and if the average household size were to be  2.331 people per household in 2031 , (which is what one would obtain by projecting linearly forward the local trend in average household size over the past ten years), then the number of extra houses needed by 2031 would be approximately 19,900? (This figure is slightly higher than the figure previously quoted of 18,600 which was calculated using the national average of 2.4 for household sizes instead of the slightly lower local ones.)

Response from Leader

While this is true, members have been advised by officers that making projections based on short-termtrend data is not a sound basis on which to assess future housing needs.

It is important to assess the evidence as to what the future trend is likely to be rather than just assume the current situation will continue. The report to be discussed by Council later recommends that the JCS and Planning Liaison Overview and Scrutiny Working Group reviews this evidence.    

3.

Questions from Gerry Potter to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

It was quoted in the Cheltenham Echo of Monday 8^th October “figures have revealed the number of new jobs in Cheltenham and Tewkesbury boroughs and Gloucester City increased by only 5,000 in 20 years” - the leader of Cheltenham Borough Council also stating the same.

However, the figures from the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) suggest 27,000 jobs will be needed in the next 20 years, which would mean an increase of 600 per cent.  At a recent meeting of Tewkesbury Borough Council it was also stated “that the number of jobs needed could be between 15,500 and 27,000, depending on two different projections made by separate groups of analysts”.  Even if the lower amount turns out to be correct, it would mean the three areas would still need to generate more than three times the number of jobs created in the last 20 years.

Where will these jobs come from given that there are a considerable number of unemployed people in Gloucestershire, with unemployment rising in September?. The predicted growth that everyone expects, and the assumption on which housing requirements have been based, may not happen for at least a decade or two.  Surely an informed economic view, and much more information, is needed before any land is committed for building homes on. 

If one thing has been learnt from the work which has been done as part of the Joint Core Strategy, it must be that future housing needs cannot be looked at in isolation.  It begs the question: Can we employ the increased population we are planning homes for - in these tough economic times, it's hard for even the most optimistic among us to consider this feasible ? 

Do we need to swallow up large parts of the borough to accommodate growth that might not happen ?

Response from the Leader

I agree that future housing needs cannot be looked at in isolation and also that the development plan must be internally consistent in respect of the level of economic growth and the level of new housing provision.

The joint core strategy must be in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) otherwise there will be no prospect of the plan being found sound at examination. The NPPF requires that local authorities plan positively for growth, including housing to meet objectively assessed needs.

Taken together, these matters are reflected in Resolution 6 agreed at the Council meeting on 24^th September which states:

Agree that “objectively assessed need” for the JCS area should be based upon local job projections and the alignment of housing and employment provision.  Also to agree that in preparing the JCS Preferred Option document, further work will be carried out to understand the level of economic growth assumed in the demographic, Cambridge Econometrics and Experian Business Strategies Ltd projections and work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to establish the level of economic growth for the JCS area during the period up to 2031 and the potential implications that this may have on the level of housing required.

Officers are now working closely with the Local Enterprise Partnership in pursuance of this objective.