Agenda item

1.

Question from Mr Kit Braunholtz to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

Are Councillors and Officers aware that the urban extension at Leckhampton proposed in the draft JCS lies immediately adjacent to the Cotswold AONB boundary, and will therefore inevitably have a damaging impact on the Cotswold AONB setting, particularly so as it lies immediately below Leckhampton Hill with its renowned views?    Are they further aware that this is contrary to Policy S7 on page 65 of the draft JCS which states that  "Development proposals in and adjacent to the Cotswold AONB  will be required to conserve and enhance its landscape and scenic beauty"?   And are they still further aware that at least three Planning Inspectors who have previously considered possible large-scale development on this land have recommended against such development largely because of the effect it would have on the landscape and views?

Response from Cabinet Member

The Council is well aware of the sensitivity of the location of this proposed urban extension. It will ensure that the JCS takes full account of that sensitivity as it moves forward towards adoption.  The council does not accept the contention that the proposed urban extension is contrary to draft policy S7, rather it should help to ensure that any future development in this location carefully considers potential impacts on the setting of the AONB, including key views.  Policy A6 sets out development requirements for this urban extension and in so doing acknowledges the need for proposals to have regard to landscape sensitivity including taking account of flood risk and providing for a sizeable green landscape buffer is proposed along the eastern and southern edge of development.  Policy A6 states that higher density development should be focused in areas of lower landscape sensitivity. It also protects accessible green corridors adjacent to Hatherley Brook and footpaths to the southern part of the site. The policies of the plan need to be read together. 

In relation to landscape and visual impact, the JCS also contains policy S6 which seeks to guard against detrimental effects and ensure that new landscape planting can be used to reduce impacts and enhance the existing landscape. With applications for major development of this sort the developer will need to do a specific assessment of landscape and visual impact drawing upon a recent assessment carried out around the urban fringe.

Whilst the council is aware the observations of planning inspectors commenting upon past proposals in this area, it notes that such opinions do not have the effect of binding precedent on any future decisions particularly where they pre-date the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

These policies in combination contain a robust approach to addressing possible landscape impacts of development at Leckhampton, particularly in relation to the AONB. Clearly these issues, in particular the size and location of green buffers will form a key part of the planned consultation on which public feedback will be welcome.

In a supplementary question, Mr Braunholtz asked if the mitigating actions referred to in the answer could not be put in place would the council turn down any planning applications for this land?

The Leader responded that this was a useful point which would be noted and responded to as part of the consultation.

2.

Question from Mrs Elizabeth Barker to Leader of the Council, Councillor Steve Jordan

There has been an increase in population for Gloucestershire in the ten years to 2011 of 5.7% (Gloucestershire population 597,000 in 2011); verified by Office of National Statistics and reported by South West Observatory.

However, a very large increase of 24.3% in housing is proposed by the JCS at 33,200, (Gloucester housing stock 50,363, Cheltenham 33,200 and Tewkesbury 35,126, with a total of 136,418, for JCS area in the plan period to 2031, or approximately 12% growth in housing over ten years.

Why are Cheltenham Borough Council officers pushing for more than double the housing needed for our current population growth, given that the district household size has flat lined, (Gloucester 2.38, Cheltenham 2.2 and Tewkesbury 2.3), following a long term trend as reported by the Department of Communities and Local Government in their April 2013 report.

Response from Cabinet Member

Cheltenham Borough Council undertook an independent peer review of household formation rates overseen by a member scrutiny task group.  The conclusions of this work have informed the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) which establishes the housing need for the JCS. Details are set out in the report undertaken by consultants Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research.  Assumptions are made within this work about population growth including levels of household formation, unemployment, economic activity and commuting.

The OAN for the JCS does not assume that the past household growth rate will remain constant, but that over the plan period there will be some return to previous trends where younger and older people form separate households and that the economy, to some degree recovers.

The consultants’ report is available for scrutiny on the JCS website www.gct-jcs.org

The plan is based upon a detailed evidence base, reflects Government policy and is presented within the context of delivering a sound plan to a future public examination.

Clearly there are concerns about whether the OAN is too high and the methodology for the calculation will be a key subject of the planned consultation.

3.

Question from Ms Margaret White to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

In the previous JCS Public Consultation, the majority of the public and organisations who submitted a response were in favour of scenario A, with a housing target of 16,200.

How can the JCS justify doubling the numbers?   Can the Council please give a breakdown of exactly how the housing target is calculated; which ONS population projection is used, and the average household size for each of the three districts?

Please can the actual numbers with references be provided.

Response from Cabinet Member

A key change since the previous consultation is the implementation of the   National Planning Policy Framework and its requirement to meet the objectively assessed development need.  Scenario A showed the likely housing numbers deliverable within existing urban boundaries rather than how need would be met. The background to Policy SP1 sets out the context of the previous public consultation. The comments received in respect of scenario A have been balanced against the wider JCS evidence base, the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and in the context of bringing forward a sound plan.

Detail of the calculation is set out in report prepared by consultants Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research (see response to question 2). 

In a supplementary question, Ms White indicated that the ONS had only intended their figures to be used on a temporary basis. If this was the case why was the council using incorrect figures and basing its projections on a 2 year period rather than 10 years.

In response the Leader advised that the figures would be scrutinised thoroughly during the next phase and the public would be informed of the outcome.

4.

Question from Ms Margaret White to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

Given the election pledges by the Lib/Dem in May 2012, does the proposed JCS demonstrate a change of policy for the Liberal Democrat Party and should the public have been given notice for May 2013 before policy implementation?

For reference, extract from the Liberal Democrat Manifesto for Cheltenham, March 2012.

“We want an economically successful town that provides jobs for all – but not one which sacrifices its environmental quality by sprawling beyond its current boundaries and into the Green Belt.  We need housing for local people – we need to be careful to control the amount of “market” housing available, so that we avoid sucking in people in significant numbers from the rest of the UK and Europe.”

And the first major aims in the future – March 2012:

“1. To resist urban sprawl while securing new development, economic growth and jobs – and sufficient units of social housing for local people – targeted on “brownland” sites within the existing urban area while continuing to protect significant urban green spaces including gardens.”

Response from Cabinet Member

This is not the plan that any of us wanted to see. Certainly in the Liberal Democrats we wanted to be able to manage population growth in the Cheltenham area and therefore protect the Green Belt. For a while the Government’s localism agenda gave us reason to hope we could do that.

However, the publication of the final version of the National Planning Policy Framework dashed those hopes. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF mandates councils to “prepare Local Plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, and with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other economic changes."

Paragraph 28 says plans must "meet household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change".

The upshot of this is that we have to prepare plans which don’t manage population growth, demographic change and economic growth. They simply respond to projections of what these changes will be.

Liberal Democrats are committed as far as possible to developing brownfield sites first. However, the Planning Minister Nick Boles has recently confirmed that, in the Government’s view, meeting the assessed need takes priority over protecting the Green Belt.

We need to bear in mind that the JCS has to go through an examination by planning inspectors and will not be accepted unless it meets the Government’s policy requirements.  It would therefore appear inevitable that some areas will need to be removed from Green Belt to allow for planned urban extensions.  The JCS limits the loss to 15 per cent of the total Green Belt in the period up to 2031 and a further 4 per cent thereafter. It retains a substantial buffer of green land between Cheltenham and Gloucester in the west and Cheltenham and Bishops Cleeve in the north.  It is deeply regrettable that there should be any loss of Green Belt, but we have to recognise that the NPPF limits our freedom of action.      

5.

Question from Mr David Pitts to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

Can Cheltenham Borough Council please provide the number of affordable homes and the number of social homes factored into the JCS Housing targets?

Response from Cabinet Member

This will be set out in Strategic Housing Market Assessment, still to be finalised.  The intention is that this will be published in time for the proposed public consultation starting on 15^th October 2013 and the findings will be incorporated into the pre submission version of the JCS. 

6.

Question from Mr David Pitts to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

We do need affordable apartments/flats for first time buyers. What efforts have the local Council taken to bring back into occupancy the empty flats above shops in the town? How many of them are there? The Haines & Strange project development is an excellent example of town development and has been put forward for a CPRE award.

Response from Cabinet Member 

It is entirely true that affordability is a big issue in Cheltenham and market forces are unlikely the ever resolve this. Cheltenham’s popularity as a location means new housing is likely to attract new people to the area rather than resolve affordability issues for local people. In addition to developing the affordability policy in the JCS, possible policy interventions to tackle the issue along the lines suggested will be considered in the Cheltenham Plan.

7.

Question from Mr Barry Simon to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

Has the Joint Core Strategy used Office of National Statistics long term forecasts of population growth throughout in calculating anticipated population increase in the JCS area?

Response from Cabinet Member

The baseline for the JCS calculations is the interim 2011-based subnational population projections for England.

In a supplementary question Mr Simon asked why the JCS was using a statistical basis that ONS themselves had stated was not suitable for this purpose.

The Leader indicated that the council had taken expert advice but they would be happy to review this aspect as part of the consultation and include a response in the final document.

8.

Question from Mr Pat Alexander to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

According to page 23 of the document, Gloucestershire Local Transport plan 2011-2026, between 15,000 & 20,000 vehicles flow along the A46 highway on average every day. This is evidenced by regular tailbacks over 1 mile in length entering the outskirts of Cheltenham during morning & evening commuting periods. The direct result of these traffic flows is that the levels of Nitrogen Dioxide in Shurdington Road have breached National limits during March 2011.   Bath Road and Hatherley Way are also known to produce similar results according the Council spreadsheet "NO2_data___2012".

On page 45 of this document, the principles and policies of the LTP include the following requirement:

P5d "The County will comply with any statutory duty it may have in future in
respect of air or noise pollution resulting from traffic on the highway authority
network."

P5e "Through the planning process, developers and scheme promoters will be
required to undertake assessments to determine if their development or 
scheme will be subject to or create poor air quality or noise in excess of the
thresholds as advised by Government and to commit to mitigating those
effects."

Therefore, in the interests of the health of local residents, are the Councillors minded to reject the JCS plans on the basis that, should there be 1,802 new dwellings built in the environs of this section of the A46, air pollution levels are inevitably going to breach National targets? 

Response from Cabinet Member

The Local Transport Plan requires developers to assess the impact of their proposals in terms of air quality and noise, and to mitigate any anticipated effects. There is no evidence (a) that atmospheric pollution from development in this area will breach national thresholds or (b) that any atmospheric pollution potentially arising that may breach national thresholds cannot be mitigated.

Any concerns can be raised during the proposed consultation.

In a supplementary question Mr Alexander asked what mitigating actions would be required of developers to try and reduce the air pollution levels to below national limits.

The Leader advised that he was not able to answer this question at this time but would be happy to provide a detailed response as part of the consultation process if not before.

9.

Question from Ms Alice Ross to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

How on earth is any meaningful conclusion as to the feasibility of the JCS proposals to be reached by the public and by Councillors alike if, as I see from paragraph 2.8 of the document under discussion, that the critical sections on Infrastructure and Transport Modelling have not yet been completed?

Response from Cabinet Member

It is accepted that there still exists gaps in the evidence base, this is being addressed. The intension is to publish the Infrastructure Development Plan before the start of the proposed consultation on 15^th October 2013. Any amendments needed will be incorporated into the pre submission version of the JCS. 

Detailed transport modelling has yet to be carried out. However there has been ongoing engagement with Gloucestershire Highways. This engagement has both informed the transport policies of the draft JCS together with the policies on strategic allocations and urban extensions.

While the draft JCS document is as complete as currently possible, the proposed consultation in October/November 2013 is non-statutory. There will be statutory consultation on the ‘final’ version of the JCS once it is published in March 2014. 

In a supplementary question, Ms Ross asked when exactly would the infrastructure and transport modelling documents be available to the public, not to mention other missing links such as the sustainability and viability appraisals and health impact assessment, and should these not have formed the basis of any proposals rather than being tacked on as an afterthought?  

The Leader indicated that all the figures would be reviewed as these documents became available.

10.

Question from Mrs Jacky Potter to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

If analysis by the Highway Authority of the highway consequences of the proposed Strategic sites at Leckhampton, Shurdington and Brockworth, all of which lie on, or close to, the A46 Shurdington Road shows that unacceptably high congestion and/or air pollution will result at one or more points on the A46, which seems highly likely, will some or all of these proposed sites be removed from the strategy, as being undeliverable?  (see Policy D3 (p117) of the draft JCS).

Response from Cabinet Member

Having regard to the answer provided to question 8, this will depend upon the feasibility – in environmental as well as financial terms - of any measures that may be required to mitigate impacts that may be identified.  As set out in my answer to question 9, there has been ongoing engagement with Gloucestershire Highways.

11.

Question from Mrs Jacky Potter to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

The public perception is that developers are targeting greenfield sites first to maximise profits, with large, well advanced applications for the NW Cheltenham Greenbelt and Leckhampton. The real concern is that this JCS emerging evidence of >24% growth in housing (33,200), voted through for public consultation by all three councils, combined with named strategic sites, will enable applicants to push through unsustainable planning applications. Can CBC give assurances that these planning applications will be sensibly phased, divided into manageable projects, that time is given for the vital sustainability work and that planning committees are fully briefed on the JCS Policy.

Response from Cabinet Member

Whilst it is a matter for developers to submit proposals as and when they see fit, the JCS will set out the phasing of major development sites it proposes. 

The JCS is subject to Sustainability Appraisal and any major development proposals will be required to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.Members dealing with planning applications will be fully briefed on JCS policies within the context of any future planning applications.

12. 

Question from Mrs Helen Wells to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

The NPPF Section 9, Protecting the Green Belt Land, clearly states that the Green Belt is to PREVENT URBAN SPRAWL, and to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, and that planning authorities should promote development towards urban areas, inside the Green Belt boundaries.

Why is this authority proposing to build a huge development, for  5,000 homes, to the north west of Cheltenham ,on prime agricultural land, which in itself is the equivalent to a new town the size of Tewkesbury, without any support infra-structure in place, which makes it totally unsustainable?

Response from Cabinet Member

The general approach of the planning system is, where possible, to protect land within the Green Belt from development.  That is indeed the fundamental approach taken by the JCS.  However, where insufficient developable land exists outside the Green Belt to meet identified need the National Planning Policy Framework acknowledges that adjustments to the Green Belt boundary may be made through the development plan so that need can be met by carefully considered release of land.  It will be essential that the proposed development at North West Cheltenham takes place with the required level and quality of supporting infrastructure coming forward in synchronisation with development of the area.  The Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which it is intended to published before 15th October 2013, will set out the details.

13.

Question from Councillor Dr Adrian Mears to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

This question relates to a key issue that was raised by Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council in its submission to the JCS consultation in February 2012 but which has not been included in list of key issues in paragraph 1.9 of the Report of the Leader on the JCS motion.

The draft JCS assumes a future demography and housing need for Cheltenham that includes a high net inward migration of people in the over-60 and over-75 age groups, encouraged by the high level of house building that is proposed. Although the whole of the UK is facing the difficult challenge of how to support its ageing population, the JCS with the amount of house building it proposes will make the problem substantially more serious for Cheltenham, creating an increasing deficit between the growing cost of supporting the ageing population and the reducing income from central government for social care and healthcare. Many older residents will struggle as public and private pensions and investments are ravaged by inflation and by low annuity rates. Cheltenham could then fall into a vicious spiral in which growing poverty and worsening services and infrastructure make the town less attractive for investment, for employers and for people of high ability.

Is Cheltenham Borough Council concerned about this danger from the JCS proposals, and if so, what will the Borough Council do to address it?

Response from Cabinet Member

It is not necessarily the case that in-migrants in the age range cited will be encouraged by the level of house building proposed in the JCS.  It is equally or perhaps more likely that migrants in this age-range are attracted to existing property due to their generally higher level of affluence in comparison with other cohorts.  This is a factor taken into account in objectively assessing the need for housing in the JCS area.  Whilst your concerns are noted, it is very important moreover to acknowledge that the planning system is unable to control migration in any age-range, from within the UK or from abroad. The aim is to publish the Strategic Housing Market Assessment by 15^th October and then this issue will be further reviewed.  

In a supplementary question Dr Mears asked was it not the case that the NPPF mandated the council to build only what was needed to meet objective needs, and not inflated needs, and then to keep a flexible reserve in case events turn out differently?

The Leader advised that the council would be taking expert advice on the figures and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment would be a key document to review.

14.

Question from Councillor Dr Adrian Mears to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

As is mentioned in paragraph 1.10 of the Leader's Report on the JCS, Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council has submitted a neighbourhood planning concept plan and local green space application to Cheltenham Borough Council for green field land in Leckhampton that is a potential strategic site for development. This concept plan and local green space application has also been submitted to Tewkesbury Borough Council by Shurdington Parish Council. Among other evidence, it contains detailed modelling of the morning traffic queue into Cheltenham on the A46. The modelling is based on a large number of traffic surveys conducted by the parish council and has been independently verified by a traffic consultant. It shows that housing development of the scale and type currently being proposed in Leckhampton and at Brockworth would together cause the morning A46 traffic queue to extend down to and along the A417 and probably onto the M5 at junction 11A. This does not include any additional development that might be proposed on the green belt between Chargrove Lane and Up Hatherley Way. The proposed development on the Leckhampton land alone would cause the queue to extend over 5 km, as far as the A417. The time it would take to commute into Cheltenham would impose a great economic cost and would make it hard for people living south of the A417 to work in Cheltenham.

How then can large scale development south of Cheltenham possibly be sustainable?

Response from Cabinet Member

Please refer to the answers to questions 8, 9 and 10. 

Warden Hill and Leckhampton Parish Council have received a response from the Council in regard to the application for a Local Green Space designation.  The Parish Council cannot, through the document prepared, legally apply for Local Green Space designation. However, the Parish Council have been advised that the report prepared will be reviewed and taken into account as a consultation response to the draft JCS.

The council has not had sight of the traffic modelling evidence cited, but will be undertaking its own traffic modelling work shortly.  Engagement has been ongoing with Gloucestershire Highways.

In a supplementary question, Dr Mears asked whether the council needed to have much better information now on the traffic problems and potential solutions before it can agree to large-scale development on Cheltenham's south side?

In response the Leader agreed that further analysis needed to be done on this issue but advised that they were not yet at the end of the process.

15.

Question from Helen Wells to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

What action is this Council taking to ensure development takes place on all available brown field sites before considering planning applications on green belt land? 

Response from Cabinet Member

Draft Policy C1 implies that brownfield development will take precedence over development on previously undeveloped land.  However, it should be noted that not all brownfield sites are suitable for development and that once the JCS is adopted none of the urban extension sites will be in the Green Belt. 

In considering sites it is also important that the Council has regard and acts upon the guidance on the need for a 5 year housing land supply, set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.  Applying the approach as suggested will make Cheltenham extremely vulnerable to not having a 5 year supply of housing and therefore at risk from speculative development.

While the Council is keen to ensure development of brownfield sites, it cannot refuse to consider planning applications relating to Green Belt land on the basis that brownfield sites may be available.  The council will apply the policies of the development plan and National Planning Policy Framework in considering such applications.  It will be a matter for applicants to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances justifying their proposals for development on Green Belt land. 

In a supplementary question Helen Wells asked why the council was not encouraging or enforcing brownfield development first when the NPPF core planning principles chapter, paragraph 17 point 8, says that the local authority must encourage the effective use of land by the re-use of land that has previously been developed i.e brownfield land.

In response the Leader advised that the council would be encouraging the use of brownfield sites first. However this type of development was sometimes more difficult and may not be sufficient to match the housing need.

16.

Question from Charlie Watson on behalf of Gloucestershire CPRE to the Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

Policy C.3 refers to the provision of Affordable housing.

The draft Strategy currently proposes making provision to meet a housing need of 33,200, comprising both market and ‘affordable’ homes – the latter being defined in paragraph 4.124. However, nowhere in the Consultation draft is information provided on the proportion of the new homes total required to meet each type of housing.  Additionally, Policy C3 is silent on the actual percentage of affordable homes that needs to be provided on the proposed strategic sites.  So:-

What proportion of the proposed total housing requirement has the Strategy assumed for the provision of social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing in reaching its conclusion that 33,200 homes are required to meet housing needs?

Response from Cabinet Member

Please refer to the answer to question 5.  This is accepted as a key issue and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment will set out the proportion of affordable homes – see draft policy C3. 

17.

Question from Charlie Watson on behalf of Gloucestershire CPRE to the Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

How has the Strategy determined that the proportion of ‘affordable’ homes can viably be delivered during the plan period in order to demonstrate that the plan will be ‘sound’ and not merely likely, by default, to allow substitution of additional market homes to meet the overall target number?

Response from Cabinet Member

I share the concern raised and seeking to provide sufficient affordable housing is a key element of the JCS. However, the question conflates need and supply.   On the basis of need identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, the JCS will seek to deliver as much as it can without compromising the viability of development having regard to the requirement simultaneously to bring forward other infrastructure on and off site.  In reality this will differ from site to site according to material considerations. This approach is reflected in the wording of JCS draft policy C3.

18.

Question from Gerry Potter to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

On page 108 of the draft JCS document ‘Housing’ is shown from the A46 Shurdington Road to Leckhampton Farm Court and on what is known as SD2 (the Tewkesbury White Land).  The owners of the pig field at Farm Lane, on the Leckhampton land, have made it very clear that they do not wish to sell that land and, as far as we are aware, Gloucestershire County Council have not made any commitment to sell their land for development.  Why is the map on page 108 showing these areas to be included in the strategic site and can you please explain the latest situation regarding the GCC land?

There are also two Town and Village Green applications, and an NPPF Local Green Space application on the Leckhampton and Shurdington lands.  Can the Council please comment on the deliverability of this strategic site.

Response from Cabinet Member

Engagement with landowners is ongoing.  Please see response to question 14 in regard to the application of a Local Green Space designation.  Evidence and engagement to date indicates that the urban extension allocated at policy A6 is deliverable.

In a supplementary question Mr Potter asked why the results of a recent Green Belt review had not been taken into account when designating this land for potential housing?

In response the Leader advised that it was a difficult process and there may be a necessity to take some land out of the Green Belt.

19.

Question from Gerry Potter to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

On page 65 para 4.72 of the draft JCS document it states:  “Development close to, but outside, the AONB boundary has the potential to have a detrimental impact on its setting through, for example, impacting on key views into and out of the AONB or impacting on landscape character in and around the AONB boundary.  Applications in the setting of the AONB must fully consider any potential impacts”.  Will “any potential impacts” be strongly considered when making decisions on strategic sites very close to the AONB?

Response from Cabinet Member

Please see response to question 1.  Impacts upon the AONB will be fully considered in accordance with draft policy S7.

20.

Question from Mr Kit Braunholtz to Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

I understand that the JCS Officers are now using the ONS "Interim" Ten Year Population Projection (published November 2012), replacing the verified long-term ONS projection published in March 2012. Given that, the ONS has warned that this interim dataset could overestimate the birth rates and secondly, the new projection gives a large overestimate of the natural increase in population (births minus deaths), reference the recent county demographics Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 9th May 2013, this work showed the annual natural population increase in Gloucestershire was 511 per year to 2011, measured by the 2011 census. The JCS projection estimates a natural increase of population for Gloucester, Tewkesbury & Cheltenham at 960/yr, 160/yr and 610/yr respectively, a total of 1730 per year which is over three times the actual measured rate.

Could the Council please say why this interim projection is being used for the JCS?

Response from Cabinet Member

The OAN of the JCS is based upon the Interim 2011-based subnational population projections for England. They are the latest official local authority level projections and as such need to be taken into account as part of the evidence base used in determining the housing requirement.  

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment is currently in draft form and does not form the baseline of the projections of the JCS. The aim is to publish the SHMA before the proposed consultation starts on 15^th October 2013 and will be will be taken into account in developing the final JCS document for submission in 2014.

In a supplementary question Mr Braunholtz asked whether the council was aware that the ONS were shocked that the council was using their projections in this way?

In response the Leader advised that he couldn’t comment on a conversation he wasn't aware of but further analysis of the figures would be a key part of the consultation.

21.

Question from Derek Gott to the Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

Can the public have a guarantee from Cheltenham Borough Council that the JCS still maintains a brownfield first policy and any development on the greenbelt or open countryside will be phased late into the programme and be contingent on the ‘return to trend’ on the district household formation, economic growth and job creation.

Response from Cabinet Member

Please see response to question 15.

The JCS has as one of its strategic objectives “making the best use of previously developed land”, and the housing policy supports in principle residential and economic development that comes forward on brownfield sites, so long as it meets other sustainability criteria. It is important to note however that some brownfield sites can be rich in biodiversity and so care must be taken when redevelopment is considered.

22.

Question from Derek Gott to the Leader of the Council, CouncillorSteve Jordan

Social Housing is provided in Cheltenham by Cheltenham Borough Homes (CBH), some 5000 in number and very well managed, can the Council please provide information and comment on how Cheltenham Borough Homes have been consulted and involved in the JCS in order to meet the assessed need for affordable and social housing to 2031.

Response from Cabinet Member

As part of the positive relationship between Cheltenham Borough Council and Cheltenham Borough Homes, there is ongoing involvement and consultation opportunities for a range of strategic issues including the JCS and the Cheltenham Plan. Once the Strategic Housing Market Assessment is finalised CBH will be approached for further discussion.  CBH is already involved in development of the Cheltenham Plan through its Officer Working Group which will take forward JCS proposals within the borough. In addition there is regular discussion between CBC and CBH at senior officer, Board and Cabinet level. CBH have both an interest and a role in the future provision of social housing in Cheltenham with a clear intention to continue to provide excellent services on behalf of the people and communities in Cheltenham.