Agenda item

1.

Question from Mr Ken Pollock to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

The developer Pre-Submission responses reveal that Hayden has been re-evaluated (as was scheduled) and been declared substantially available now for development within the JCS period, and this less prominent area of greenfield (far less sensitive than inspector-commended Leckhampton) also has the potential to create a section of Cheltenham's much-needed 'Outer Ring Road' to relieve overloaded Princess Elizabeth Way.

Considering that the officers' conclusion in their 'Interim Response Report' (disclosed yesterday) is that no further amendment is warranted to the JCS (other than minor "textual corrections"),

Why has information such as (but not only) Hayden's emergence been concealed, and been withheld from consideration by Cheltenham's elected representatives (including MSG members) during this most critical final period?

Response from the Leader

Both Severn Trent and their agents made representations in regard to the land to the west of Cheltenham at Hayden for this last round of consultation and on the previous draft JCS. Hayden sewage treatment works is the main treatment works for Cheltenham and is a significant constraint to the development of the area.

The current Cheltenham Plan identifies a development exclusion zone surrounding the works due to the impact of odour from the site. There has been no change to this position.  Severn Trent and their Agents are undertaking ongoing technical work to examine the extent of odour impact from the works and consider whether further mitigation measures could be enacted that would reduce the Development Exclusion Zone. This work will then need to be evaluated by the Councils’ environmental health team along with DEFRA and the Environment Agency, where appropriate. Since this work has not been done yet it is right to retain the Development Exclusion Zone as it currently stands, and therefore no further amendment to the JCS is warranted at this time.

We need to plan both for our current needs and those into the future, and therefore the opportunity to safeguard this area to the west of Cheltenham for future development will allow sufficient work to be done to ensure that any development here will be of a high quality that offers the opportunity for a good quality of life for residents. If work is completed and reviewed on the impact of odours or changes to the plant in the future, then this will be taken into account when the JCS is reviewed.

There was a large response to the JCS pre-submission publication with representations from over 2,800 individuals, groups and companies. Scanning these in, entering details onto a database for the Planning Inspector’s use and then reading them has taken some time. We have made them available as soon as we were able, along with an interim summary of the main issues raised. We have done this before we are required to do so, before submission.

In a supplementary question Mr Pollock asked the following :

Considering that further information has just become available for non-GreenBelt sites on the east and west sides of Gloucester, which would relieve the pressure for high-population-growth Gloucester to be pushing housing numbers into and across the Green Belt towards Cheltenham, objectors believe many more major disclosures, very relevant to Cheltenham's JCS predicament, have been withheld from due consideration, by the unjust and manipulative officer blackout of the consultation Responses.  Specifically, have lead councillors looked at the new evidence for Brookthorpe, as well as for Highnam and Mitton (north of Tewkesbury)?

In response the Leader stated that proper process had been followed and therefore refuted suggestions that there had been a conspiracy. In terms of detail he confirmed that the whole area had been examined. He was happy to look at the particular places mentioned and undertook to provide a written answer to the supplementary question.

2.

Question from Mr Ken Pollock to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Considering that it is upon Cheltenham's rural periphery (not around Gloucester's) that the largest total area of countryside is planned for development (or "Safeguarding" for development), and considering that most of the Objections (still a huge number, even at this late stage) originate from Cheltenham residents and businessses, shouldn't  Cheltenham's greater sensitivity have already resulted in its political leaders insisting on some significant change following the massive well-documented Response, and will this occur now (following the release of the Reponse evidence)?

Response from the Leader

There was a significant change to the draft JCS when following the previous consultation the Objectively Assessed Need for housing was reduced from 33200 across the JCS area to 30500 and the Chargrove site was completely removed as a proposed development site.

The recent consultation on the Pre-Submission JCS is about whether the plan is sound and initial analysis of the feedback is that there is no reason to think it is not. Other than minor amendments, changes to the JCS will only be made before examination if there is a significant change in the evidence informing the JCS.

In a supplementary question Mr Pollock asked the following :

Considering that Cheltenham's rural setting is currently set to lose THREE chunks of GreenBelt/greenfield, (namely the three major incursions at: Cheltenham NorthWest, Cheltenham West (Hayden) and Leckhampton),

does the Leader agree that ONE (or at most two) Urban Extensions is more than enough (a) to suffice and (b) to be coped with in terms of viably delivering infrastructure and minimising the loss of peripheral countryside amenity ?

Infrastructure delivery (secondary school and roads) will be more likely to be viable if much of the relatively small Leckhampton site is added to the NorthWest urban extension.

In response the Leader of the Council said that in terms of safeguarding areas there would not be the potential to develop until formal decisions had been taken. He undertook to provide a fuller response to Mr Pollock.