Agenda item

Report of the Leader

Before the main debate the Mayor invited members to ask questions on the report. These questions would then be answered by the Leader or the Head of Planning, Tracey Crews.  The questions and responses are detailed below.

 

·        What would be the council's response to any planning applications from developers between now and the establishment of the JCS? Did the emerging document have weight or could the council defer considering any applications?

o       The Head of Planning advised that the council would still be obliged to accept and consider any planning applications. She referred members to paragraph 1.7 in the Leader's report and paragraph 1.8 in the JCS appendix. The draft JCS would be accorded status as a material consideration in any planning applications but its weight would be limited as the JCS was not yet at a statutory consultation stage.

·        Would the decision to choose the mid term of the range of household formation rates (28,500 to 37,400) be reviewed during the consultation period?

o       This decision and all the statistics used as part of the evidence base would be open to challenge during the consultation phase.

·        Regarding the amended recommendation 3, if there were any subsequent reductions in housing allocations would these be taken from strategic sites rather than other sites.

o       The allocation target for Cheltenham was in the order of 10,000 until 2031 and the Leader’s personal view was that if this figure could be reduced then this would be achieved by taking out one of the urban extensions. 

·        Would the projections in this document be revised when the new ONS figures were available in the Spring?

o       The Leader could not comment on the other councils but his personal view was that the projections should always be based on the latest information.

·        Referring to the key risks set out in the Leader’s covering report, could any more factual evidence be provided to inform members of the consequences of not accepting this JCS document?

o       The council was dealing with new legislation and therefore it was difficult to give a more definitive answer.The Leader’s personal view was that if the council did not accept the document then this could create a worse situation not a better one.

o       The Head of Planning added that if Council did not agree the JCS, then with no direction of travel, this would give the opportunity for any application to be submitted in the context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  The council would have to look positively at each application. The council needed to be mindful of the specific guidance given by the government minister to the three councils at a meeting earlier that week. 

·        The penultimate paragraph on page 28 refers to “an increased risk of speculative planning applications” – in Cheltenham’s case, isn’t this because we do not have an up-to-date Local Plan?

o       The Head of Planning advised that Cheltenham had agreed to enter collaborative working via the JCS and it was through this plan that housing requirements and strategic allocations needed to be made.  The council therefore needs to progress the JCS as quickly as possible in order to control speculative planning applications.

·        Reference the third paragraph on page 38 “In the absence of a 5 year supply of housing land”, what weight should councillors give to this statement when a joint letter dated 22nd November 2012 to the developer of the Kidnappers/Farm Lane proposed development stated that “CBC does not consider that it has under-delivered in the provision of housing and that it has a shortfall of 315 housing when compared against the Draft RSS requirements, and considers it has met its housing requirements under the Gloucestershire Structure Plan.”

·        With the permissions granted since November 2012 to the present day, would it be wrong for councillors and the general public to believe that even the shortfall of 315 houses would have been met by now?

o       The Head of Planning advised that the draft RSS (proposed changes) currently referred to a need for 8100 homes within the borough boundary – this figure excludes the urban extensions outside the administrative area of Cheltenham. currently we were working with a five-year land supply as set out in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). Once the JCS was in place this would replace the RSS. 

o       The Head of Planning advised council that we should not confuse housing requirements of the RSS with that of the JCS; the JCS provides a new baseline starting from 2011 and ending 2031. The JCS now identified 10,000 new homes for Cheltenham which the strategy would deliver through development within the urban area together with urban extensions.  Given that 3 of the urban extensions were wholly or in part within Tewkesbury Borough, Tewkesbury would be helping to facilitate Cheltenham’s housing needs.

·        The recent Briefing Note informs us that “In the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan, Cheltenham’s housing supply continues to be monitored against the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy figure of 8,100 dwellings between 2006 and 2026 (This equates to 405 dwellings per year). The JCS minute reported that during the period June 2006 and April 2013, 4,400 dwellings had been constructed or planning permissions granted, which equates to 628 dwellings per year, or 52 per month. If the same pattern continues to 2031 (JCS 20 year period) something like 11,311 dwellings will be constructed. Can you tell me where the proposal for 10,000 dwellings for the Cheltenham area fits into the equation? What is the housing requirement figure after the deductions and how do the two periods of time fit together?

o       The Head of Planning referred members to Policy SP2 on page 29 of the JCS document and highlighted that the 10,000 new homes requirement included all completions and commitments since 2011, commitments together with a windfall figure – windfalls are those sites which come forward which cannot be anticipated.  Cheltenham has a firm history of such sites being delivered and as such the JCS had made an assumption of 54 per year.  

·        How, where and when would the consultation events take place referred to on page 7 of the document?

o       A timetable of consultation events would be produced in due course. The publication of the document today provided the public with a head start and more time to read and digest the information before these took place.

·        What are the population projections for 2031 for each of the three districts in the JCS area?

o       The Head of Planning advised that the JCS was currently based upon interim population projections from ONS figures for a 10 year period from 2011-2021 and not a two-year period as was suggested in one of the earlier public questions. Long-term projections were expected in Spring 2014 and the DCLG had already published new guidance on their website on the strategy for dealing with the new projected figures. The council will continue to use the latest population projections and revise them as new information becomes available from ONS. These could be circulated when available.

·        What consideration had been given to the senior schools infrastructure needed to support families in the wider Leckhampton area if the development went ahead?

o       The strategic planning unit at the county council had already done some work and had not raised any specific concerns at this stage however this was an area for further detailed work. The infrastructure delivery plan would be made available on the website as soon as it was completed.

·        Will a computer generated traffic simulation be available during the public consultation?

o       The Head of Planning advised that the JCS councils had commissioned traffic modelling through the County Council to consider both individual sites and corridors between sites. This was technically detailed work and a user-friendly simulation would not be available during this stage of public consultation. However this could be considered for the next stage.

·        How would the Neighbourhood Plan produced by Leckhampton and Warden Hill Parish Council be inputted into the JCS or the Local Plan process?  

o       This would provide a useful input to the consultation stage of the JCS. The Head of Planning advised that the quickest route for the Parish Council would be to deal with the information set out in the Neighbourhood Plan as part of the JCS process.

·        How likely was it that there would be changes to the JCS document?

o       The Leader advised that it was a genuine consultation. The document was not the final version and they would be prepared to make changes where necessary.

·        Why was the Green Belt movement around the racecourse necessary as it was not a strategic site?

o       The Leader advised that the changes were recommended as a minor tidy up to avoid any confusion in the future regarding this area as there had been some in the past.

·        In a briefing to the Conservative Members, the Chief Executive had reassured members that safeguarded areas would be protected from housing or economic development but that it would still be possible to build a road through them. Could this result in a new distribution road west of Hester's Way and Springbank?

o       The Head of Planning advised that this had not been raised by county council officers or by county council members at the JCS Program Board and therefore was not being considered at this time. If a proposal did come forward it would require planning consent outside of the JCS process.

·        Given the dependencies on so many other documents still to be published would it be wise to amend the resolutions being considered today to make them contingent on these results.

o       The Leader advised that this was an informal consultation. They could have waited until all the missing information was in place but that would have denied the public this extra opportunity to comment on the JCS at this stage. He would be reluctant to amend the resolutions as they had been agreed across the three councils.

·        If the vast majority of the public reject the JCS proposals what would be the next step?

o       The Leader stressed that the public consultation was not a referendum. There was an imperative for the council to have a JCS in plan to demonstrate needs and how they intended to meet those needs and a decision would be made on that basis.

 

The Council adjourned for tea from 15.45 until 16.10 pm.

 

The Leader introduced the report on the draft Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy for public consultation. The report summarised the draft JCS and sought Council approval to publish the document for public consultation.  He thanked officers for their hard work in bringing together the evidence and members for their contributions at the member working group and seminars. He explained that the document before members represented a non statutory consultation with the statutory consultation on the final JCS to be issued in the Spring 2014. He informed members that Tewkesbury BC had approved the document, with Gloucester City due to consider it on 12 September.

 

The Leader highlighted the difficult balances to be addressed. Firstly, the JCS had to address housing shortages whilst protecting the AONB and the Green Belt. Secondly, there was a need for a sound plan and this was dictated by the National Planning Policy framework which had been introduced since the last Council debate on the JCS. This required councils to objectively assess the need for development (whilst allowing for migration and economic growth) and to demonstrate how to meet that need. Whilst expert advice had been sought there were still queries. The Inspector would determine whether the JCS was sound and it would not be implemented if it was not. Thirdly, he highlighted the joint working of the three Councils which was, in his view, a sensible approach. He recognised that each council had different priorities but it would be a high risk strategy for Cheltenham to approach this on its own.

 

The Leader acknowledged that there were some gaps in the documentation to complete the evidence. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which covered the whole of Gloucestershire and which was needed to develop the policy for affordable housing should be published imminently. Affordable housing was vital to address the local need. The Infrastructure Development Plan was being worked on county wide and would be made available before the start of the statutory consultation. This would help introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which was needed to fund the work needed. Finally, a viability study was being commissioned which would determine what could be funded.

 

In terms of priorities, the Leader highlighted the brownfield first policy. Whilst this could not be enforced, it could be proactively encouraged. It was assumed that there would be 4400 new houses in urban Cheltenham which included those already built and approved, potential sites and windfall opportunities. The SHMA was undertaking further work with regard to what could be achieved. The infrastructure for phased development of new extensions would be put in place as that happened. The progress of the JCS would be reviewed every 5 years.

 

The Leader emphasised the following concerns :

• Objectively Assessed Need - this was an important part of the consultation and additional work had been undertaken to get the best estimate. There was a query about whether the latest data had been used and this would be reviewed during the consultation. In terms of the demographic estimate this was 28,500 homes across the whole JCS area; the higher economic projection was 37,400 homes. The recommendation of 33,200 homes assumed a “return to trend” of household formation. This must be a sound figure.
• Traffic - there was a need to ensure this was properly included and it was recognised that there was more work to be done.
• Sites - most sites would be urban extensions around Cheltenham and Gloucester although there could be strategic sites. The Cheltenham target was 10,000 and the current allocation was 10,850; given the sensitivities it was important that this did not mean overprovision and the final consultation should take this on board.
• Cheltenham countryside - it was inevitable that this could not be totally preserved if need was to be met but the proposals still meant that 100 % of the AONB and 80 % of the Green Belt would be protected.
• Ministerial visit - Nick Boles, Planning Minister had welcomed the joint working between the three councils and had highlighted that Objectively Assessed Need took priority over the Green Belt. He would support the 5 year supply if one council had a temporary issue.

 

The Leader then referred members to the recommendations. He believed it was important to give the public a say and highlighted that there would be further consultation next spring. He pointed out the additional recommendation 3 which were designed to address any concerns about possible overprovision in Cheltenham and to some extent in Tewkesbury and allowed future adjustments to be made. He was pleased that all three councils had been able to support the addition of this recommendation.

 

He concluded by encouraging members to support the document going out for public consultation even if they had personal doubts. The consultation would enable the document to be scrutinised and for opinions and views to be put forward and considered. The alternative, if the document was not agreed, was to open the door to speculative development. He acknowledged that it was a very difficult decision for all members but it was his personal view that a better solution would be achieved by all three councils working together.

 

A member acknowledged the hard work of officers and the JCS member steering group but could not accept the proposed number of homes required for the borough. He feared that there could be oversupply of housing which would jeopardise the Green Belt which should only be taken in exceptional circumstances. He believed that delaying the JCS with the consequence of speculative development was a risk worth taking.

 

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

 

An additional recommendation 4.

 

That the document to be submitted to a public consultation be amended to remove site A6 Leckhampton and site A7 Up Hatherley as identified sites for development.

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Smith first wished to thank the officers across all three authorities for the work they had done in getting the JCS to this stage. He felt the Leader had given too many excuses and this document should not have been brought forward to Council for approval if it was not fit for purpose and the Leader had reservations. It was clear to him that people in Cheltenham did not want this housing and these proposals would not keep Cheltenham special and unique.

 

A member spoke in support of the amendment. They were deeply concerned about the potential traffic congestion in Leckhampton. They referred to a recent traffic report from a highways officer who commented that the traffic network was already broken and could not be corrected through mitigating actions. The parish councils of Leckhampton and Warden Hill and Shurdington had produced new evidence on this issue.  It was essential that further modelling was done before any developments could be considered and therefore Leckhampton should be taken out at this stage.

 

Another member was concerned about the 800 houses proposed for Up Hatherley on Green Belt land which had come as a shock to local residents. They had already received 30 letters of objections from local residents. Further concern was expressed about flooding risks from development on the white land at Leckhampton.

 

Another member spoke against the amendment. It was important for the administration to take some responsibility and the proposed amendment reneged on the tentative levels of the agreement that had already been achieved. The NPPF established a new growth-driven concept of planning which meant that the plan had to respond to projections of what population growth, demographic change and economic growth would be. He reported that the Planning minister who had met the three Council leaders had said that it was not acceptable to fail to provide for Objectively Assessed Needed on the basis of the existence of the Green Belt.  The member believed that if the council did not have a plan then it would be totally at the mercy of developers; it was therefore imperative that a JCS and a Local Plan was in place to protect neighbourhoods.

 

Another member was concerned that to pass this amendment would effectively be a resignation from the JCS process and would not protect the land at Up Hatherley.   The site is within Tewkesbury Borough, they would be likely to continue the JCS process and allocate the housing figures to their needs rather than Cheltenham’s. This in turn would result in a shortfall of 2000 properties for Cheltenham which would have to be found elsewhere in the town. He considered the amendment was at best naïve and at worst dishonest and would result in development by appeal. Any plan would be declared as unsound by the Inspector if it ignored expert evidence on population growth and had not considered all applications sites.

 

Other members spoke against the amendment. One member stated that elected representatives had to be responsible but this amendment was an attempt to derail the JCS process which was irresponsible. If adopted it would fail to give a contribution from Cheltenham to the JCS. Another member talked of honesty in the process and members needed to recognise that the housing need had to be filled. Concern was expressed by another member that if this amendment was supported it could lead to other developments which would impact on communities to a greater degree. This amendment was not the solution. Some members viewed the amendment as parochial and disingenuous and there were no alternatives. If the JCS was not adopted there would be planning by appeal. Cheltenham would be vulnerable and there would be more encroachment on to the green belt.

 

A member supported the amendment and expressed his disappointment that Up Hatherley had been included in the proposals at the eleventh hour. He expressed concern about the proposals to develop in the green belt and referred to the reducing gap between Gloucester and Cheltenham. He had become increasingly disenchanted with the JCS process as it had advanced despite recognising its progress at the outset. Another member believed it was inappropriate to send the proposals out for consultation prior to receiving and considering the Saturn modelling. The infrastructure in these particular areas was already at its limit in his view. It was recognised that difficult decisions needed to be made but all information should be made available to have an informed debate.

 

Councillor Chard said he had no hesitation in seconding the amendment. He had promised residents that there would be no development on Leckhampton and he intended to keep to his promises .

 

In his summing up, the proposer of the amendment, Councillor Smith, said that he had been promising to protect the Green Belt for over 10 years and this was a matter of personal integrity.

 

Councillor Jordan, in responding to the amendment, said that passing the amendment would destroy the JCS agreement which would result in the risk of development in Leckhampton being increased not decreased. The government had made it very clear that if the council failed to have plans in place to meet needs then they would have no credibility.

 

Upon a vote the amendment was LOST.

Voting: For 9, Against 19 with 6 Abstentions.

 

Councillor Bickerton proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Godwin:

 

He proposed an additional recommendation 4 that

 

JCS sites and housing targets are contingent on;

·        Updated and verified ONS population projections

·        final Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

·        Saturn traffic modelling for all sites

·        consideration of input from Parish councils in the form of Neighbourhood Planning documents, NPPF Local Green Space applications and existing Town and Village Green Applications

·        the council has a policy of brown field sites first in the consideration of planning applications

 

In proposing the amendment Councillor Bickerton considered it was a light touch to the document which would make the resolutions contingent on having the data available. He had been informed by the ONS that the population projections were interim projections only and thus only valid for 2 years. He therefore believed that these statistics needed to be right to ensure that the evidence base was there before sites were being proposed on the Green Belt.  In seconding the amendment, Councillor Godwin emphasised that it would be foolish not to take heed of the expert’s advice.

 

Some members recognised that these were valid points which should be taken on board prior to the final JCS document being submitted to the Minister. In respect of the brownfield first policy it was noted that brownfield land no longer had the same mandatory force in the NPPF.

 

In response to statements by members, the Head of Planning said that the revised ONS data would be reconsidered once it became available, the traffic modelling data would be fed in to the statutory consultation, input from the Parish Councils would be considered as part of the consultation and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment would be available imminently.

 

A member made a statement that in the absence of key evidence the JCS consultation, if approved, could be open to judicial review as it was a flawed process. In response, the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer confirmed that the document before Members was a voluntary stage consultation. Account would be taken of all the evidence gathered in this process together with objections raised. The Council was expected to act reasonably and conduct a statutory consultation in due course and, provided this was undertaken on sound grounds, the JCS would be considered to be a fair process.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Bickerton, said that he understood the need to keep the JCS process going and the amendment he was proposing was light touch only and simply requested more work to be done. He considered it

represented due diligence in the council's handling of its JCS.

 

In responding to the amendment, Councillor Jordan was sympathetic but could not support the amendment as they could lose control of the process if it was made contingent on other factors. 

 

Upon a vote the amendment was LOST.

Voting: For 8, Against 20 with 5 Abstentions.

 

Councillor Prince proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Stennett.

 

He proposed an additional recommendation 4

To keep the existing Green Belt boundary around Cheltenham Racecourse.

 

In proposing this amendment, Councillor Prince referred to the Hunting Butts planning application and highlighted that the inspector had emphasised the open aspect of the racecourse which needed to be protected.

 

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Stennett stressed that this area was not a strategic site and was an important area to preserve.

 

A member highlighted the AERC Green Belt review undertaken in March 2007 which had recommended that the Green Belt surrounding the racecourse should be maintained. The racecourse played a vital role in Cheltenham.

In response to comments the Head of Planning highlighted that this was purely a “tidying up exercise” and the NPPF stated that amendments could only be made to the greenbelt at a strategic point of plan making, i.e. in this case the JCS.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Prince again questioned why this small parcel of land had been included in the JCS. It may appear insignificant but it could lead to development around the whole perimeter of the racecourse as there would be no basis on which to refuse planning applications once the site was outside of the Green Belt.

 

Councillor Jordan said he had no strong views but still felt it was a relatively minor change and the professional opinion was that the Green Belt boundary needed to be clearer in this area. He suggested that the JCS was put out to consultation and it would be possible to take out that area depending on the feedback.

 

Responding to a request for further clarification, The Head of Planning advised that the boundary change had been made as it had been inconsistent and had been compromised in the past.

 

Upon a vote the amendment was LOST.

Voting: For 10, Against 19 with 3 Abstentions.

 

As there were no further amendments, the Mayor invited members to debate the substantive motion.

 

A member highlighted that at every stage of the JCS to date Councillors had questioned the methodology which was being used. The estimated housing requirement of 33,400 was complex and in his view the key point was that the requirement could not be predicted with confidence. The common sense approach would be to proceed with caution and if estimates were too low more development could take place. Whilst he agreed that having a strategy was preferable to not having a strategy, he was of the opinion that the consultation proposals were far removed from what the residents of Cheltenham wanted. He believed that the views of local residents on previous options documents had been ignored and the current document before members served no practical purpose. He would therefore be voting against the draft as a matter of conscience.

 

A member expressed their concern with regard to the over-reliance and emphasis on urban extensions into the Green Belt, as opposed to medium sized new settlements. They questioned the proposed housing figures which in his mind were a disingenuous assumption, mid-way between the Cambridge expert’s top figure of 37,400 and his demographic only figure of 28,500. He believed that the figure to be chosen within that range was a question of one’s view on the levels of future economic recovery, and the extent to which household formations would revert to previous trends. He paid tribute to the hard work of officers but expressed disappointment that the reports had not always reflected members’ intentions, the latest example being not putting green buffers between new and existing housing. He highlighted the importance of revisiting data sets used for calculating demographic projections during the consultation.  He believed that the Cheltenham housing allocation should be no more than 10,000 and the reduction should come from the strategic sites. There was no mention in the document to a commitment to a minimum quantum or percentage in relation to affordable housing, nor to data with regard to infrastructure. There was also no commitment to the proportions of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed properties in the context of housing density size and mix.

 

A member highlighted that the consultation would be an opportunity for debate and challenge but this had to be meaningful.

 

A member expressed his concern about the removal of land from the Green Belt and the lack of evidence of employment growth. In his view the Council would have no control over development in the long term. He believed this did not constitute a viable proposal in view of the absence of all the elements, including vital infrastructure plans.

 

A member made reference to the Green Belt reviews which had been undertaken by AERC and AMEC and which stated that land should only be taken from the Green Belt in very exceptional circumstances. He believed that the proposals outlined in the consultation document ignored established fact. Green belt land must have a defensible boundary, a principle which was supported by the NPPF, in order to prevent urban sprawl and keep land permanently open. AMEC had suggested that the land at Leckhampton should be clarified as Green Belt land because of its openness and importance to Cheltenham as a town. He expressed that he would be voting against the proposals.

 

A member highlighted that Council needed the full facts in order to make a decision. He had no confidence in the proposals for consultation as they currently stood and would be voting against them.

 

A member paid tribute to the good work which had been completed by officers on employment land to date. It was important that the JCS was approved so that a local plan could be adopted which would address current issues of concern. He highlighted that the JCS would be reviewed every five years and the figures would be under constant review. If a plan was in place then development could be planned for; evidence would be required for the numbers to be changed as endorsed by the Minister.

 

A member recognised the consequences of rejecting the proposals but could not support them. They felt that an informed decision could not be made without all the available evidence. Working with Tewkesbury BC and Gloucester City had been a difficult process and they felt that Cheltenham was being disempowered. They highlighted the need for community space and more green infrastructure and also believed that objectively assessed need should be driven by a bottom up approach.

 

The Mayor advised members that Council had been in session for over four hours. Upon a vote, members voted to continue the meeting.

 

A member emphasised the chronic shortage of affordable housing in Cheltenham. 10,000 people were in inappropriate housing across the JCS area. The choice was between planned and unplanned development and the impact of this on the quality of life of residents. He highlighted the importance of maintaining green buffers between settlements.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Jordan, acknowledged the general feeling that the assessment needs set out in the JCS may be too high.  The public consultation was not a referendum but did provide an opportunity to challenge the evidence base and the council would continue to do that. He agreed that the green buffers referred to in the debate were crucial for the quality of life of residents and that would be further explored during the consultation.  He agreed that there were missing elements of infrastructure funding but this funding could only be secured through following the JCS process. The community infrastructure levy would only be payable if the council had a robust plan in place. In conclusion he highlighted that having debated the report in detail it was now a key moment for members to make their decision.  In his view the best thing for Cheltenham was to maintain the JCS process and the team effort between three councils. The worst outcome would be for this joint working to break up.

 

Upon 7 members standing in their seats, a recorded vote was requested and agreed.

 

Upon a vote it was resolved that

1.                  The draft Joint Core Strategy be approved for public consultation

 

2.                  Authority be delegated to the Chief Executives in consultation with the Lead Member and the JCS Member Steering Group, to make any necessary minor amendments as considered appropriate by the three JCS Councils prior to publication.

 

3.                  The JCS Authorities note that, through housing allocations and expected supply across the plan period, the Draft Joint Core Strategy meets the needs of the three authorities as a whole.

 

However, taken individually the needs of each authority are not exactly matched with the supply of homes the Joint Core Strategy is expected to deliver for each area.

 

Following consultation and taking account of additional evidence produced during this period, housing and employment allocations will be reviewed to improve this relationship between need and supply for each area.

 

Voting:
For; 20 - Councillors Barnes, Britter, Coleman, Driver, Fletcher, Flynn, Harman, Colin Hay, Rowena Hay, Jeffries, Jordan, McCloskey, McKinlay, Rawson, Reid, Seacome, Stewart, Thornton, Walklett, and Wheeler.

Against; 13 – Councillors Bickerton, Chard, Fisher, Godwin, Hibbert, Massey, Prince, Regan, Smith, Stennett, Sudbury, Wall, and Whyborn.

Abstentions; 1 – Councillor Hall