To recommend to Council that the Local Development Scheme for Tewkesbury Borough be adopted as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, to take immediate effect and that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare the Local Development Scheme for publication, correcting any minor errors such as spelling, grammar, typographical and formatting changes that do not affect its substantive content. 

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that:

i)                 the Local Development Scheme for Tewkesbury Borough (Appendix 1) be ADOPTED and takes immediate effect; and

ii)                authority be delegated to the Associate Director for Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for the Built Environment, to prepare the Local Development Scheme for publication correcting any minor errors such as spelling, grammar, typological and formatting changes that do not affect its substantive content.

17.1           The report of the Interim Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 7-15, asked Members to recommend to Council that the Local Development Scheme for Tewkesbury Borough, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be adopted and take immediate effect; and that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare the Local Development Scheme for publication, correcting any minor errors such as spelling, grammar, typological and formatting changes that do not affect its substantive content.

17.2           In proposing the report recommendation, the Lead Member for Built Environment advised that all local planning authorities were required to prepare and keep up to date a Local Development Scheme (LDS).  The LDS set out what development plan documents the Council was intending to prepare in the coming three year period and the proposed timetable for doing so.  It was, therefore, an important way for communities and developers to keep track of progress on plan-making.  As Members would be aware, local plans were vital in setting a vision for growth, co-ordinating infrastructure and protecting the environment and there were real consequences of not having an up-to-date plan under the National Planning Policy Framework.  It was vitally important that the Council update, or replace, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) as quickly as possible given that it was already overdue.  She advised that Tewkesbury Borough Council already had an LDS which was adopted around 15 months ago and set out a commitment to prepare a Joint Strategic Plan with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils to replace the Joint Core Strategy which was adopted in 2017; however, it had been recognised for some time that it was necessary to re-think the approach and resources required to replace the Joint Core Strategy – discussions over many months had recognised that the cycle of preparing strategic plans followed by district local plans, each of which was subject to independent examination by the government, was both costly and time-consuming.  On that basis, the report was proposing a revised LDS setting out a new way of approaching the task with the three councils moving to collaboratively preparing a single plan containing both strategic and non-strategic policies.  This would have several advantages, as set out in the report; principally, it was the most effective way of discharging the statutory duty to co-operate as well as saving time and money in terms of being able to hold a single public examination.  The Lead Member indicated that she was instinctively cautious about the approach and she was sure Members would agree it was vital that policies governing approaches to development in Tewkesbury town and the borough’s beautiful villages and rural areas should remain the discretion of Tewkesbury Borough Council and not get lost amongst a wider more general plan; however, that same principle was also important to Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils and she was reassured that Tewkesbury Borough Council’s “sovereignty” to draw up district or locality based policies could be underwritten through a formal partnership agreement.  Although it would technically be a single plan, the three authorities would only come together to reach joint agreement on strategic matters where it was necessary to do so, primarily on housing and economic growth strategies.  There was a clear understanding that no Council would seek to fetter the work of the other authorities and, for all practical purposes, there would be three plans with one examination; Tewkesbury Borough Council would also retain complete discretion for preparing any Supplementary Planning Documents and other local guidance thought necessary, as would Parish Councils with respect to preparing Neighbourhood Development Plans.  The proposed LDS at Appendix 1 to the report, taken together with the next item on the Agenda concerning resources, set out a realistic and ambitious project programme for preparing a plan and it was proposed that, following confirmation of the approach, initial public consultation on growth and policy options should take place in the autumn of 2023, as set out in the document.  The Lead Member was mindful of the huge uncertainties around the government’s various proposed reforms to the planning system, and plan-making in particular; however, she felt that Tewkesbury Borough Council could not afford to wait and must press on without delay.  She was pleased to report that the Planning Advisory Service had agreed to offer advice and support to the three councils and act as a conduit with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as they navigated the coming months; she felt this was recognition from afar of how important joined-up planning was to the Gloucestershire area and beyond. 

17.3           The proposal was seconded and the Chair invited questions.  A Member sought clarification as to whether Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils were able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and the Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that Cheltenham Borough Council did not and he was unsure as to Gloucester City Council’s position as it was currently in the process of updating its figures; notwithstanding this, the question around housing land supply was a separate issue in terms of the report before Members.  Another Member drew attention to Page No. 9, Paragraph 2.4 of the report which stated that the Strategic Local Plan (SLP) would include locally specific policies which would be locality-based policies intended to address important area/community specific issues of concern only to individual councils and he asked how that would be achieved in practice, for instance, in terms of consultation.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager explained that any plan prepared would be subject to statutory consultation; if there were particular local issues that Tewkesbury Borough Council wanted included in the plan which required targeted consultation with community groups in a particular locality, it was entirely open to the authority to undertake this alongside general consultation on strategic issues – if the Council felt it was necessary to supplement the consultation for its own purposes, it would retain full discretion for doing so.  The Chair indicated that, although he had previously been a Member of the Executive Committee, he had known little about the joint advisory group until he had become Leader and he had asked for broader communication going forward.  He was confident this was the right approach but recognised the importance of knowledge amongst the wider Membership.

17.4           During the debate which ensued, a Member recognised the need for the LDS and understood the case being put forward but he remained concerned about working with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils based on the outcome of the Joint Core Strategy in terms of Tewkesbury Borough Council’s inability to maintain a five year housing land supply.  He felt Tewkesbury Borough was the poor relation, despite providing the land for the other authorities, with residents continually asking why the Council did not have a five year housing land supply and the authority being unable to defend appeals resulting in housing being “dumped” on it.  He could not see how this would be any better than the JCS.  The Lead Member for Built Environment shared the concerns relating to the five year housing land supply but felt that the longer a decision was delayed, the worse things would get.  In her view, it was vital to learn lessons from the past and she provided assurance that nobody was going into the process blind or not thinking about how to improve on the previous situation.  The Chair indicated that he had raised similar points himself and shared the view that Tewkesbury Borough had not faired well from the JCS, albeit that it had been well-intentioned at the time, taking the vast majority of development.  He had spoken to Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Council at length to set out how Tewkesbury Borough Council wanted it to work and all three authorities needed to be satisfied with what was in the plan in order for it to go ahead; he stressed it was not the case that Tewkesbury Borough would meet the five year housing land supply for them and it came down to the duty to co-operate which would be required with or without a joint plan.  In terms of a joint approach, other areas, including Stroud and Cotswold District Councils, also had a duty to co-operate with Tewkesbury Borough Council, and, as set out in the report, there were a lot of other merits.  Members were right to have concerns, and they were legitimate; however, he felt the briefings that had been held so far had given an opportunity for them to put forward their concerns which had been listened to by Officers and taken on board during the process.  The Member indicated that his view was very much ‘Tewkesbury first’ and whilst there was a duty to co-operate, there was not a duty to agree so he felt it was a question of who was able to secure the housing land supply first – all three authorities wanted to have one but Tewkesbury Borough needed its fair share.  He questioned whether Tewkesbury Borough Council would stick to the timeline if the other two authorities failed to agree.  The Chair indicated that the broad principle was that, by working together, the Council was able to insist on some things as part of the agreement in a way that it could not otherwise do.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager confirmed that the Member was correct in saying that the duty to co-operate was not a duty to agree but, in presenting a plan, it was necessary to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate that there were no other options which could have been put forward to meet any unmet needs of other authorities.  There were questions which Officers and Members would need to grapple with but it was better to work with the authorities with which Tewkesbury Borough was inextricably linked in terms of housing and functionality – people may live in Tewkesbury Borough but work or shop in Gloucester or Cheltenham, or vice-versa.  In his view this was by far the best approach in terms of resolving difficult questions as the plan could only proceed if all three parties agreed – there was no situation whereby one of the authorities could be outvoted.

17.5           A Member was happy to support the proposal, primarily because he could see no alternative given the geography of the borough and the way its residents lived their lives in terms of using services etc.  Notwithstanding this, his support was based on the assurance that Tewkesbury Borough Council would be an equal partner as he shared the view expressed by another Member that, historically, it had been a poor relation and he wanted all Members to be regularly updated as to how the plan was proceeding.  In response, the Chief Executive advised that he was the Senior Responsible Officer for the programme which sat with Tewkesbury Borough Council and the fact that the borough had more land resource put it in a strong position.  The Planning Advisory Service had suggested that, in terms of the amount of growth in the borough and management of further growth, it would be necessary to look at other options, for instance, brownfilling, rather than solely strategic allocations bolted onto existing developments.  In terms of Member involvement, he indicated that, subject to the decision in relation to the next Agenda Item, the Council would be resourced to deliver a better functioning programme.

17.6           A Member indicated that the reality was that Tewkesbury Borough had more land, albeit a significant amount flooded, and it had a legal obligation to co-operate with other authorities.  She felt that strong relationships with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils were paramount and that it was necessary to be more creative to ensure they were using every inch of land within their own boundaries.  She agreed with the points raised regarding the need for greater communication, both to Members and residents, particularly in terms of the duty to co-operate which was often not understood.  She pointed out that the Planning Policy Reference Panel meetings could be attended by any Member but this opportunity had rarely been taken up in the past.  The Lead Member for Built Environment indicated that she was acutely aware of the need for good communications and pointed out that Regulation 18 would be delivered in October, should this approach be approved, which would require consultation with communities on options for a variety of sites – it would be up to Members to ensure that was carried out thoroughly.  The Chair reminded Members there was a statutory requirement for the Council to have a development plan; Tewkesbury Borough Council’s had been out of date since 2017 so it was vital to address this as soon as possible.  A Member assumed that, once adopted, it would supersede the Tewkesbury Borough Plan which covered the period to 2031 and he raised concern that a lot of work had been done by the Planning Policy Reference Panel to ensure important policies were included, for instance, policies which ensured that the villages within the borough would remain vibrant, so he asked if those would be re-looked at and potentially removed with new ones created.  The Chair indicated that his understanding was that there would be an overarching strategic plan with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan beneath it.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that there was an opportunity in moving to a single plan to include or update any policies which required modernisation.  The Tewkesbury Borough Plan would not automatically expire but it would be up to the Council to replace the policies with new ones in order for them to continue to have materiality and weight, provided they were consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Chief Executive confirmed that any discussion on local policies would be for Tewkesbury Borough Council – the SLP would be supported by three “pillars” i.e. the local plans for each authority, provided that they conformed with national policy.  Similarly, in terms of the hierarchy, any Neighbourhood Development Plans would need to conform with local and national policies.  The Chair pointed out that Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils may want something different to Tewkesbury Borough Council and this would give all three authorities the flexibility to be able to achieve that.  The Lead Member for Built Environment explained that an agreement had been reached with Officers that, once the basic foundations had been agreed at the Council meeting later in the month, the Planning Policy Reference Panel would be resumed and that would be the correct way for Members to feed into the process, if they so wished.

17.7           Upon being put to the vote, it was