Agenda item

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 28 January 2020.

(Any questions must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services by, not later than, 10.00am on the working day immediately preceding the date of the meeting).

58.1           The following questions had been received from Councillor Jordan to the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Gore, but were taken as read without discussion.

Question 1:

Following a protracted dispute between a traveller family and Gloucestershire County Council/Tewkesbury Borough Council, have Gloucestershire County Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council agreed on a strategy to solve this problem?

Answer 1:

                  The individual circumstances of this case are complex and had involved both Tewkesbury Borough Council and Gloucestershire County Council and a number of Parish Councils in the Borough which had been required to use their powers.  Discussions had involved both the planning and housing advice service to seek suitable alternative solutions. The County Council was also doing what it could to ensure a place could be found for the family.

                  Question 2:

                  This issue, although complex, highlights the fact that the site allocation for travellers does not seem to be fit for purpose. What does Tewkesbury Borough Council propose doing to address that need?

                  Answer 2:

                  The adopted Joint Core Strategy set out the established needs for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the Borough between 2016 and 2031. With planning permissions already granted since 2016, and the site allocations proposed in the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan, the full Joint Core Strategy needs for those who met the government’s definition of a traveller had been satisfied, as required by the national Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. Nevertheless, demand for additional pitches from individuals/families may occur in the plan period, outside of the identified need in the Joint Core Strategy. However, the Joint Core Strategy provided a criteria-based policy under which additional sites may be considered, through the planning application process, providing they were in accordance with the plan's policies.

                  It was recognised that, county-wide, there was likely to be an additional need for separate public/affordable pitch provision, and how any public provision would be delivered and maintained. This issue was being explored jointly with the six Gloucestershire local authorities and the County Council and the need for any sites would be considered through the ongoing review of the Joint Core Strategy.

58.2           The Mayor invited supplementary questions and the Member asked the following:

                  Question 1:

                  Do Tewkesbury Borough Council and Gloucestershire County Council have an action plan/timetable for the actions identified in question and answer 1 above?

                  Answer 1:

                  It is difficult to provide a timetable due to the need to work with other authorities but more detailed information can be circulated following the meeting.

                  Question 2:

                  With regard to answer 2 above, whilst I am aware of the table of need identified for sites in the Tewkesbury Borough plan, I am unaware of the actual sites identified; could the locations of the suggested sites be emailed to all Councillors. 

                  Answer 2:

                  The locations of the sites will be emailed to all Members.

58.3           The following questions were received from Councillor Ockelton to the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Gore, but were taken as read without discussion.

Question 1:

Would the Lead Member for Built Environment please confirm the current January 2020 housing land supply for the authority and confirm the housing trajectory for the next two years?

Answer 1:

The five year housing land supply for the Borough was 4.33 years (for the period) 2019/20 to 2023/24). This was as set out in the latest Housing Land Supply Position Statement (August 2019).

This position statement also provided the housing trajectory for the next five years. This only includes those sites granted planning permission as of 1 April 2019 and did not include the emerging Borough Plan sites.

The five year supply position would be recalculated following completion of the housing monitoring for 2019/20 which would start from 1 April 2020.

Question 2:

What is our Plan B if the Borough Local Plan Examination Inspector asks us to find more sites for housing?

Answer 2:

If an Inspector considered that there was a need to allocate further housing sites then it was likely that the examination would be suspended and the Council would be requested to consider what sites might be suitable and available for allocation.

To do this we may draw on sites that had been submitted through the last consultation period as being available for allocation. We may also refer to the sites that had been submitted to our Assessment of Land Availability.

Question 3:

Why was the A38/A40 Link Road, not pursued at the Innsworth appeal?

Answer 3:

No link road was proposed by the Appellant for the Innsworth scheme. Highways England and Gloucestershire County Council, as the respective highway authorities, assessed the proposals at application and appeal stage and at no point indicated that such a link road would be necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development.

Question 4:

As the Joint Core Strategy is an equal partnership, how has Gloucester City managed to come up with brownfield sites for almost 1,000 houses as part of the recently published Gloucester City Plan. Can the Leader of the Council, Lead Member for Built Environment or Chief Executive provide assurances that further strategic scale development WILL NOT be sought at Twigworth, Innsworth, Longford, Churchdown, Brockworth or Down Hatherley in terms of the duty to co-operate with Gloucester City Council which clearly have more than adequate brownfield sites?

Answer 4:

The adopted Joint Core Strategy already made allowance for Gloucester allocating housing sites within its City Plan. Therefore, the sites within the recent City Plan consultation were already accounted for within the Joint Core Strategy supply and were not additional homes. It was not the role of the Joint Core Strategy to allocate smaller, non-strategic sites within the city and was always intended for the City Plan.

In the Joint Core Strategy, Gloucester’s supply consisted of sites already built since 2011, those that already had planning permission, an allowance for small-scale windfall sites and capacity for sites to be brought forward in the City Plan. Even with these sources of supply, Gloucester could still not meet its needs and therefore strategic allocations on the edge of city, within Tewkesbury Borough, were required.

The Joint Core Strategy Review would need to consider again the needs of Gloucester beyond the current plan period (to 2031). In developing the plan, all reasonable alternatives had to be considered to determine the most sustainable approach to meet these needs. At this early stage of plan-making Officers were not in a position to state where that future development would be located or indeed rule out any particular areas.  

58.4              The Mayor invited supplementary questions and the Member asked the following:

Question 1:

Can a detailed trajectory, a full list of housing sites, the number of properties and timescale for delivery be emailed to all Members?

Answer 1:

The five-year housing land supply is available on the website and can be emailed to all Members following the meeting.

Question 2:

Will Officers go back to Highways England and Gloucestershire County Council and insist that the vital A38/A40 link road was reinstated in its Road Investment Strategy (RIS 2)?

Answer 2:

The planning applications had been granted on appeal without the link road and neither Highways England nor Gloucestershire Highways had insisted on its inclusion. Given the planning status of the sites, it would be difficult to provide the link now so at this stage Officers could not promise it could be reinstated.

Question 3:

According to the Minutes of the Council meeting in October 2016, Gloucester City Council’s capacity needed to be explored and it was felt that work needed to be done on that before the plan came back to the Council, this information had not come back to Council for its consideration – why not?

Answer 3:

Issues relating to Gloucester City Council’s supply had been discussed throughout the life of the Joint Core Strategy and debated at the examination in public. Officers could not comment on the detail of the particular Minutes at this time but the sites had always been intended for the Gloucester City Plan not the Joint Core Strategy.