Agenda item

To approve the use of £135,000 of reserves within 2016/17 to further support the Joint Core Strategy.

That the use of £135,000 of reserves within 2016/17 be APPROVED to further support the Joint Core Strategy. 

78.1           The report of the Development Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 29-31, asked Members to approve the use of £135,000 of reserves within 2016/17 to further support the Joint Core Strategy.

78.2           Members were advised that the Council was well aware of the protracted length of time that the examination of the Joint Core Strategy was taking and the fact that the Council had been supporting the whole process with finance and staff resources since 2008. Each of the three Joint Core Strategy authorities (Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury) had been putting £60,000 into a budget on an annual basis since that time. However, since the examination was taking significantly longer than had initially been anticipated and was requiring more and more work, that funding was no longer adequate. The examination was now reaching stage three which covered major issues such as flooding, transport modelling etc. and following that would move into the main modifications phase, further consultation and examination of those modifications; along with this there would also be costs associated with the Community Infrastructure Levy work which ran alongside the Joint Core Strategy. The known/anticipated costs were £435,000 but it was felt prudent to add another £50,000 per authority to cover the length of the examination and the additional costs which were likely to be incurred.

78.3           In addition to the costs outlined above, the Inspector had also now released a preliminary findings report which was resulting in additional work but it was anticipated that the additional funding would also cover the costs of that work. The Joint Core Strategy was legally inescapable and Officers had to do the work required by the Inspector so it was hoped that Members would support the additional funding. Members were concerned at the length of time that the examination was taking and expressed their frustration at the costs that had to be borne by the Council even though it was not the Council’s fault that the process was so lengthy and costly. One Member questioned why New Homes Bonus funding could not be used rather than uncommitted reserves. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive indicated that she understood the frustrations and Officers had had conversations with the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate which had resulted in a noticeable change in the speed of the Inspector. In terms of where the additional funding would come from, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager indicated that the primary reason for using uncommitted reserves was that Officers did not have the figure for New Homes Bonus at the time of writing the report; largely it did not really make a difference which of the two routes the funding came from and he hoped the surplus at year end would top back up the reserves for further support for the Joint Core Strategy and other services.

78.4           Members agreed that the whole situation with the Joint Core Strategy was frustrating, particularly as the Council appeared to have no choice but to continue paying for the examination for as long as it lasted. It felt like the Planning Inspectorate was out of sync with the rest of government in terms of the fact that there was a drive to build more homes but this was not possible until the examination on the core strategy was complete. In response to a query regarding the thoughts of the other Joint Core Strategy authorities, the Development Services Group Manager explained that Gloucester City Council had already taken the issue to its Members and Cheltenham Borough Council was about to. She was not anticipating any problems although she expected similar comments to be made by those Members regarding the speed of the examination and the frustrations with the process. In terms of the costs, a Member questioned what had been spent on the Joint Core Strategy since 2008; who paid the bills directly; how much the Inspector had cost to date; and what her daily/hourly rate was. In response, the Development Services Group Manager advised that the overall cost to date had been approximately £480,000 per authority, however, she was not sure of any extra added in over that time since 2008. All of the invoicing was done through Cheltenham Borough Council but the Project Manager was a joint manager and all three Councils were involved in the governance at every level. The cost of the Inspector was unknown but the Deputy Chief Executive undertook to find out those costs. The Member indicated that she would like an analysis of the money spent by each Council to date, how much the examination was costing the Council and a comparison to other joint strategies so that letters could be written to the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State to tell them how much the process was costing the Council.

78.5           Accordingly, it was