Agenda item

A debate on a petition received under the Council’s petition scheme

A member asked for guidance on behalf of members of the Planning committee in participating in the debate bearing in mind that a planning application for the Leckhampton site had been submitted.

In response the Head of Legal Services, advised Members that they may be wearing several hats in relation to this matter.  Firstly as a member of Council they were considering this petition, secondly all Members were formally involved in approving the JCS as a member of Council and thirdly some members would be dealing with the planning application for this land as a member of the Planning committee. It was common practice for members of a local authority to wear more than one hat and therefore he saw no impediment which would prevent any member from participating in the debate on this petition. What was important was that members recognised their respective role in each of these processes and kept an open mind as they moved from one process to another. On that basis a member could participate in the debate on the petition and still take part in a future debate at Council on the JCS as well as dealing with a planning application at Planning Committee in respect of this land.

The chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor Coleman, stressed that he was very capable of keeping an open mind. He was concerned that the advice just given appeared to contradict legal advice that the developers for this site could not attend a recent member seminar as this could prejudice future decisions on the application.

The Head of Legal Services explained the difference in status between the petition debate and the recent member presentation (which had been in private) and said that the subject of developer presentations was being taken forward as part of the current review of the Authority’s planning code of conduct. He stressed that it was a personal decision for all members as to whether to participate in the petition debate and he repeated his advice that it would not be necessary for any member of Planning Committee to exclude themselves from this debate simply because of their involvement in the impending decision on the planning application for the land.

Other members of the Planning committee felt the guidance was not clear and on that basis Councillors Coleman, Fisher, Jeffries and Fletcher left the meeting. 

The petitioner, Chris Nelson, introduced the petition.

He stated that the petition had received over a thousand signatures and it had been relatively easy to get people to sign it. He was confident that with a bit more time he could easily have got the support from 80% of residents in the Leckhampton ward, i.e. at least 4 000 people. The most significant concerns of residents were the traffic problems that the developments would cause in Shurdington and Church Road. A 40% increase in housing numbers in the ward would have a significant impact on the local infrastructure and compromise business and local traffic in the area.

He referred to the recent debate at Budget Council and he highlighted the comments made by members about their pride in the town and excellent work being done on new projects such as the Wilson. He questioned how this vision for Cheltenham’s future would be affected if an extra 10,000 new homes were built in the town’s remaining green spaces. Whilst accepting the need for a housing strategy and more affordable homes, the North West of Cheltenham, in the proposed Elms Park development, was a much more sustainable location from a traffic point of view. Failure to accept the demands of this petition would risk losing the unique character of Cheltenham creating a cramped environment with a distinct lack of green space. On that basis he urged members to listen to the comments made by the MP Martin Horwood, the conservative contender, Alex Chalk, the CPRE, the Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce, Estate Agents, LEGLAG, local parish councils, the local pig farming family and the individual objections on the JCS website and support the petition.

The Mayor invited the Leader, CouncillorSteve Jordan to introduce his report.

The Leader thanked all those who had organised and signed the petition and he understood their concerns.  He explained that the council was obliged to comply with the national planning policy framework (NPPF) which required the council to assess housing needs.  This process had resulted in an assessment for 33,200 and new homes across the JCS area. In his personal view this figure was too high and his administration would be trying to influence the administration of the other two councils to reduce this figure as any new evidence became available. He entirely supported looking at brown field sites first but there was only a limited capacity in Cheltenham and the council was constrained by the NPPF. He reminded members that the JCS was a partnership and therefore he couldn't support unilaterally removing any potential development land from that process. However he would support officers doing further work regarding this land at this stage and coming back to Council in April with further advice for Members.

Regarding the traffic concerns raised by the petitioner, he considered these were entirely reasonable and the council was awaiting the results of further work by Highways at the county. If the results were not satisfactory then the development would not be allowed.

He referred to the recommendation in his report which was seconded by Councillor Rawson.  He acknowledged the amendment proposed by Councillor Chard which had been circulated to Members at the start of this item and indicated that he was happy to accept the amendment. On that basis the following became the substantive motion.

‘’This Council directs that the JCS Team reconsider the status of Leckhampton and Up Hatherley as strategic sites within the JCS and explores the possibility of withdrawing these locations from the Strategy and report back to Council in April.’’

In speaking for the amendment members made the following points:

• There had been over a thousand objections from local residents regarding these two sites and in relation to the planning application for Leckhampton there had already been over 600 objections with only five letters of support. This was an indication that these were the two most unpopular sites in the JCS and 50% of opposition related to these two sites. It would be misguided to ignore such strong public opinion backed up by some very strong reasons and would be a failure of local democracy risking future engagement with people in the south of Cheltenham.
• There was evidence that the development at Leckhampton would be a major risk to traffic flow on a highways network which was already close to capacity and had a high accident rate.
• Development on the Leckhampton Site would remove any flood protection which these fields offered to the surrounding area and destroy valuable farmland. The balancing ponds proposed by officers were not felt to be sufficient to alleviate this risk.
• Residents in the South West of Cheltenham would not accept houses being built in the green belt and Up Hatherley had originally been intended as a Green Belt boundary and also provided separation between Gloucester and Cheltenham. The prospect of 800 homes adjacent to Up Hatherley Way was horrendous to most people in the area. Once the green belt was destroyed it could never be restored.
• The need for more housing particularly in respect of young people and affordable housing was recognized but that new developments must have the right housing mix and be in the right location. There was evidence to suggest that South Cheltenham was the wrong place.
• A ward member wished it put on record that he suggested that the Chargrove land should be removed from the JCS.
• A ward member representing Swindon Village thought the motion was an entirely sensible approach but felt the council should be encouraging residents across Cheltenham to be united in working together to get the overall housing numbers in the JCS reduced rather than encouraging particular groups to get their areas removed.
• A member added a note of caution that the developments referred to in the motion were partly on Tewkesbury Borough Council land so the removal of these sites was not entirely a decision for this council.
• A member of the JCS Planning and Liaison scrutiny group expressed his disappointment that the amendment he proposed at Council on 5 September 2013 to remove these sites had not been accepted and consequently six months had been wasted
• A member urged the Leader to make it clear to the Leaders of the two other councils in the JCS partnership that he wanted to remove these areas from the JCS. 

Councillor Chard, as proposer of the amendment, was delighted with the support from members of Council.

In his summing up, CouncillorJordan thanked members for their comments.  In responding to the points made during the debate, he confirmed that his aim was to reduce housing numbers in the JCS and he hoped this would open up the possibilities for removing some sites. If this was the case he would be happy for all sites to be reconsidered. He noted that the two sites referred to in the amendment crossed into Tewkesbury borough and he acknowledged the need for him to work with the administrations in Gloucester and Tewkesbury and seek to persuade them if Cheltenham felt there was a need to change.

A recorded vote having been requested, upon a vote the recommendations in the report were all CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT

This Council directs that the JCS Team reconsider the status of Leckhampton and Up Hatherley as strategic sites within the JCS and explores the possibility of withdrawing these locations from the Strategy and report back to Council in April.

Voting For 23: Councillors Bickerton, Britter, Chard, Flynn, Godwin, Hall, R Hay, C Hay, Jordan, Massey, McCloskey, McKinlay, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Seacome, Smith, Stewart, Sudbury, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn

Against  0  

No Abstentions