Agenda item

Joint Core Strategy Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury

Report of the Chief Executive

(please note the Mayor intends to take item 14 after Member questions due to public interest in this matter)

Minutes:

The Mayor explained that the Leader would introduce the report and there would then be the opportunity for members to ask questions. In response to a question from a member, the Head of Legal Services confirmed that members had the right to ask the Chief Executive any questions as the author of the report.

In his introduction, the Leader referred to the long and useful debate that had taken place at Council on 24 September. Council had agreed the seven resolutions previously agreed by representatives of all three councils at the JCS joint member steering group and in addition had agreed three other resolutions which highlighted issues for Cheltenham. At the time he had been satisfied that these three resolutions clarified but did not contradict the seven. He agreed that there had been some confusion since the joint member steering group had met. Going away from that meeting, he had not envisaged that these seven resolutions couldn’t be added to and he apologised for any confusion with regard to Tewkesbury and Gloucester City if they had not gone away with this same understanding.

He reported that he had had a useful meeting last week with the three leaders of the councils to understand their respective positions and as a result they had all reaffirmed their commitment to making the JCS work. In addition they had all signed up to the important piece of work regarding economic growth. His aim would be to follow this with an early meeting of the Chief Executives, the Leaders and the officers leading the JCS process across the three councils.

He felt that it was important that certain issues such as household size were referred to the Council’s JCS and Planning Liaison Overview and Scrutiny Working Group to examine the facts and opinions and give their views.

In conclusion, he emphasised that the most important thing was for the JCS to continue working across the three councils and the report before members set out how the JCS would be progressed to the Preferred Options stage.

The Mayor invited questions on the report which are set out below together with the responses:

Could the Chief Executive give his assurance that the additional piece of work set out in recommendation 4 could be completed in the timescales set out for the JCS which were already extremely tight? Would the newly formed working group be sufficiently qualified to deal with the complex situation they were being asked to investigate?

§ The Chief Executive responded that the officers’ view was that yes they could be achieved in the timescales but they would need the willingness on the part of members to support the process. He suggested that there should be an early review of the terms of reference, the membership and the mode of operation of the working group to ensure the matter could be progressed as quickly as possible.

It appeared from the Planning Inspector’s website that many councils had submitted JCS documents for periods of less than 20 years and in some cases even 10 years. Should the council be giving themselves more flexibility by following this example?

§ The Interim Strategic Land Use Manager responded that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set out a minimum of 15 years and it was then discretionary if a council wished to increase this period. He pointed out that the JCS would be reviewed at five year intervals and therefore this should provide the council with adequate flexibility. In his view 20 years was the appropriate period.

As public confidence in the JCS process seemed to be currently very low, should this be reflected in the risk assessment?

§ The Chief Executive agreed that this should be added.

If some of the contentious issues that members had raised could not be resolved before the final document needed approval, what was Plan B?

§ The Chief Executive said there was no Plan B. The JCS had to be progressed with the support of the members so that it was sound from an officer’s point of view but was also something that members could support from a political stance. In his view there had been a democratic deficit in the process up to now and the Leader had some ideas on how members could be brought more into the process. In that way he hoped that by the time it got to the Preferred Options stage, it would be something that members could sign up to. The alternative of reverting to a process for Cheltenham alone, would potentially involve repeating consultation and recreating the evidence base and would overall delay the adoption of a sound Local Plan for Cheltenham.

How did the Duty to Co-operate influence the situation where one of the partner councils might want to build close to another’s boundary. Would that council have the right to veto any development proposals?

§ The Interim Strategic Land Use Manager said that the duty to co-operate worked both ways but a council did not have the power of veto outside of its boundaries although they could object if there were sound planning reasons.

Could the Chief Executive outline the governance process and how the O&S member working group would report back progress?

§ The Chief Executive said it was his understanding that O&S were happy to take on this piece of work and he referred to his earlier comment regarding the terms of reference and membership of this group. He also highlighted that it would be important for the group to consider what meetings would be held in public or private and how they would share information.

§ The Head of Legal Services added that greater flexibility had been built into the new scrutiny arrangements regarding the reporting of recommendations. These would be reported initially to the O&S Committee and then on to Council or another body as the O&S committee decided.

§ In response to a question, the Interim Strategic Land Use Manager confirmed that five days of the Planning Advisory Service’s time and resources had already been allocated to further the work referred to in paragraph 1.6 .4 on page 6 of the report.

Did working in partnership on the JCS give the council more options?

§ The Leader responded that in his view it was better to work with three councils as without partnership working the council would have very little control over what happened in surrounding land outside the borough.

A member suggested that Council were being asked to make a very difficult decision. He asked for confirmation that the situation with Gloucester City was as reported and that they would pull out of the JCS if council did not pass the resolutions set out in the report?

§ The Chief Executive responded that it was not a difficult decision from an officer’s point of view. Although the three additional resolutions passed by Council appeared to be innocuous paragraphs, the problem had been not with the wording but in the general messages they had sent to JCS partners. Our partners had been concerned that Cheltenham might be causing unnecessary delays to the process or affecting the soundness of the plan. If members were of the view that those additional resolutions merely clarified points then it seemed sensible to drop them in order to keep Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough councils on board.

A member asked the age of the local plans for Tewkesbury and Gloucester City?

§ The Interim Strategic Land Use Manager indicated that Tewksbury’s plan was of a similar age as Cheltenham’s and Gloucester City’s local plan dated back to the 1980s.

The Mayor invited debate on the resolutions in the report which were proposed by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Whyborn.

A member expressed concern that the Leader had not apologised for misleading Council about the impact of the amendments which had been passed at the last meeting and requested an apology for threatening the JCS process, putting Cheltenham at the hands of developers and necessitating a further debate today.

As chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Duncan Smith indicated that he was very happy to use the working group to support the process. As the next meeting of the O&S committee was not till 26 November, he suggested that any member who was interested in joining this working group should advise Democratic Services by the end of this week. He would then, in consultation with his vice chair, Councillor Sudbury agree the membership of the working group. He suggested that in order to meet the timescales, the group would need to be flexible and able to make both daytime and evening meetings and members would need to take that into consideration before putting themselves forward.

Councillor Smith proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Chard.

Insert an additional resolution 5.

i. Note that this Council does not want to see undeveloped green and white land in Leckhampton zoned for housing

ii. Refers the matter to the O&S JCS working group to examine how this may be reflected in the final JCS

In proposing the motion, Councillor Smith said that there were a large number of Leckhampton residents who were furious about the proposed development between the Shurdington Road and Leckhampton Road.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Chard said that it was important to address the concerns of local residents and build this into the O&S process.

Other members expressed concern that the amendment could actually make Leckhampton more vulnerable by appearing to prejudice future options. It could also risk Tewkesbury Borough Council withdrawing from the JCS if they favoured development at this location.

The Chief Executive advised against adding a further resolution which may again risk offending our partners. The council could still engage in further discussions with concerned residents and there was no reason why the O&S working group could not encompass this request in its terms of reference and/or make any specific recommendations which could then be discussed with partners.

Councillor Smith when asked by the Mayor, said he could support the approach of including it in the remit of the O&S working group but only if the amendment was to fall.

Other members spoke against the amendments and questioned Councillor Smith’s motives for raising it. Having criticised the Leader for supporting amendments which put the JCS partnership at risk and confusing supply and demand, this amendment seemed to do the same thing. If Leckhampton was to be specifically mentioned then this raised the question why other sites should not be protected in this way. It was important to protect all areas from unsustainable development and it was not helpful to single out Leckhampton in a JCS document at this stage.

The council’s focus for development should be on promoting growth and reducing unemployment by considering the location of potential business parks.

Asked to advise on a potential predetermination issue, the Head of Legal Services clarified that the question related to pre-determination of planning policy as opposed to planning applications. He said that the process for development of planning policy must be objectively based and advised that if there were indications that a planning authority had allocated a particular area for development or protection too early in the process this could be used as a matter of argument against the Council. However this was only a general response to a general query and he could not be more specific at this stage.

The Interim Strategic Land Use Manager added that in formulating the JCS, the council must demonstrate that it had considered all alternatives and if the land was taken out of consideration too early the council could be at risk of the plan being considered unsound. He advised that the preferred option stage was the time to consider sites and until then the council should follow due process.

Another member spoke in support of the amendment by saying that Leckhampton was a special case because it was very much an immediate issue and therefore there was justification for making an exception. The referral to O&S was unlikely to change anything.

In his summing up for the amendment, Councillor Smith said he had promised local residents he would raise it and it was a serious issue for council’s consideration.

In responding to the amendment, Councillor Jordan said that in resisting the amendment he was not suggesting that Leckhampton was unimportant but passing the amendment would add unnecessary risk to the JCS process and he was satisfied that the matter could be looked at by the O&S working group.

Upon a vote the amendment was LOST.

Voting: For 7, Against 21 with 4 abstentions.

Returning to the debate on the substantive motion, a member suggested that members should consider the recommendations in the report alongside the risks. The risks of the JCS partnership collapsing if the recommendations were not passed should be assessed against the risk of the council being seen to accept the housing figure in the NLP report if they were. He was concerned that by appearing to concede to the housing figure this could weaken the council’s position on any subsequent appeals. Another member supported this assessment and again questioned the assumptions made in the NLP report which were the basis of the 28,500 demand figure for housing. However if the JCS partnership fell apart, the consequences for Cheltenham were not good and potentially Cheltenham would have no control over what other councils wanted to build around Cheltenham’s borders. One member likened the decision to a Hobson’s choice. Another member said they were bitterly disappointed by the other two councils’ reaction to the amendments but were very supportive of recommendation 4 which allowed the JCS working group to make a contribution and study the figures in more depth.

A member emphasised the need to work in partnership with the other councils as it was very clear that even the minimum projections for housing demand could not be satisfied with the land that was currently available in Cheltenham.

Another member reinforced the need to progress the JCS work quickly in order to support the 11,000 people across the three councils who were now registered with Gloucestershire Homeseekers.

In his summing up, the Leader did not consider that he had misled Council and therefore an apology was not appropriate. He had already apologised for the confusion to other JCS members. He emphasised to members that the JCS was never going to be a risk-free process and he concurred with the member who had described the decision as a balance of risks. The 28,500 figure for housing demand was not something that the Council had signed up to. It was factually true that household size had reduced marginally over the last 10 years but it was the future projections that were important and needed to be verified. He urged members to support the recommendations in the report.

Upon 7 members standing in their seats it was agreed that a recorded vote would be taken.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that:-

1. It be noted that the seven recommendations set out in the report to Council of 24th September, 2012, have now been accepted by all three JCS authorities;

(Voting: Councillors Barnes, Bickerton, Britter, Chard, Coleman, Driver, Fisher, Fletcher, Flynn, Godwin, Hall, Harman, C. Hay, R. Hay, Hibbert, Jeffries, Jordan, Massey, McCloskey, McKinlay, McLain, Prince, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Smith, Stewart, Sudbury, Teakle, Thornton, Walklett, Whyborn and Williams FOR)

2. It be noted that the additional paragraphs 4, 5 and 10, added at the Council meeting on 24th September, 2012, will be adequately addressed by the original seven report recommendations, or by the ongoing JCS programme, or by the proposal at recommendation 4 below;

(Voting: Councillors Barnes, Britter, Chard, Coleman, Driver, Fletcher, Flynn, Godwin, Hall, Harman, C. Hay, R. Hay, Hibbert, Jeffries, Jordan, McCloskey, McKinlay, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Smith, Stewart, Thornton, Walklett, and Whyborn FOR / Councillors Bickerton, Fisher, Massey, McLain, Prince and Teakle AGAINST / Councillor Sudbury and Williams ABSTEINED)

3. Resolutions 4, 5, and 10 relating to the Council’s decisions on “Housing Needs Assessment Report“ of 24th September 2012 be withdrawn and the remaining paragraphs renumbered to reflect the original seven recommendations standing alone; and

The task of evaluating alternative methods of assessing household formation rates over the plan period, feeding conclusions and recommendations into the JCS “Preferred Option” process for consideration by the three JCS Councils be referred to the Council’s ‘JCS and Planning Liaison Overview and Scrutiny Working Group’

Supporting documents:

2012_10_15_COU_JCS, item 14. PDF 139 KB