To recommend to Council that a virement of £120,000 from the local pay review budget to the new Planning Partnership base budget be approved and the new Planning Policy Officer post (included in the 2023/24 budget as a growth item) be moved to the Planning Partnership budget (ca. £40,000). 

 That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

i.                 that a virement of £120,000 from the local pay review budget to the Planning Partnership base budget is approved; and

ii.                the new Planning Policy Officer post (included in the 2023-24 budget as a growth item) be moved to the Planning Partnership budget (ca. £40,000).

18.1           The report of the Planning Policy Manager and Associate Director: Finance, circulated at Pages No. 16-19, asked Members to agree an increased financial contribution to the new Planning Partnership in order to ensure sufficient resources were available to prepare a sound development plan for the borough.  Members were asked to recommend to Council that a virement of £120,000 from the local pay review budget to the Planning Partnership base budget be approved and that the new Planning Policy Officer post (included in the 2023/24 budget as a growth item) be moved to the Planning Partnership budget (ca. £40,000).

18.2          In proposing the report recommendation, the Lead Member for Built Environment advised that the Planning Partnership between Gloucester City, Cheltenham Borough and Tewkesbury Borough Councils had existed since 2008/09 and, since that date, all partner councils had contributed £60,000 per annum.  This had been regularly topped-up with one-off amounts due to the true cost of delivering the Joint Core Strategy.  As such, this report intended to ensure accurate budgeting for the full cost of preparing a development plan for the borough.  As she had mentioned in the previous Agenda Item, it was vital that plans were kept up-to-date; however, this was not easy and the replacement of the Joint Core Strategy was already overdue.  In particular, all local plans were tested by a government inspector to assess whether the duty to co-operate had been complied with, especially where housing needs arising in tightly constrained urban areas needed to be met in part in adjoining rural areas; to ensure the plan was based on robust evidence including assessment of alternative strategy options; and that the plan had been subject to statutory stages of public consultation.  Following a review in 2022 looking at the resources needed to produce the next joint and local plan, Deloitte LLP worked out that each district council would need to contribute £220,000 per annum going forwards.  Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils had already agreed the increased budgetary contribution and Tewkesbury Borough Council needed to do the same in order to ensure the partnership continued in the future.  The additional £160,000 per annum would be comprised of two parts; the new Planning Policy Officer post agreed in the 2023/24 budget would now transfer to the Joint Core Strategy budget, and the remaining £120,000 would be taken from the budget set aside to meet the outcomes of the local pay review – this review was complete and the balance of £126,425 was no longer required to fund further pay increases.  Making provision for sufficient funding at this early stage in the process would ensure the programme was fully resourced and fit for purpose. 

18.3           The proposal was seconded and the Chair invited questions.  A Member queried whether consideration was given to population when determining the appropriate contribution for each authority as Tewkesbury Borough had a lower population than the other two authority areas.  In response, the Chair indicated that certain elements of the preparation of the plan had a fixed cost regardless of the size of the borough, for instance, the Inspector’s cost.  The Chief Executive advised that a lot of the work Tewkesbury Borough Council would be jointly funding came at a reduced cost; if it was producing its own separate plan that would be more costly for geographical reasons such as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, flood zones etc. – the cost of an urban plan was generally less than a rural one.  There would be savings associated with a single examination as opposed to four separate ones and the cost benefit to Tewkesbury Borough Council was likely to be greater than for the other authorities regardless of population.  The Executive Director: Resources and S151 explained, in terms of the discussions about the contribution, the Planning Partnership would be a true partnership with equal partners and the duty to co-operate meant that the financial contribution should be equal.  The partnership had been in place for 15 years and, during that time, there had been pushback from partners about the size of Tewkesbury Borough Council’s contribution with a view that it should be paying more on the basis of the Council Tax and New Homes Bonus funding which had generally benefitted Tewkesbury Borough; however, Tewkesbury Borough Council was required to cover the considerable cost of services to those new properties so Officers had pushed back and all partners had agreed that equal funding was the best way forward.

18.4           A Member queried why this had been included as a separate Agenda Item given that is was intrinsically linked to the previous item and the Lead Member for Built Environment indicated that this was a different issue relating purely to the funding of the plan which should be kept separate so Members were clear what they were voting on.  The Chief Executive advised that it was a discrete requirement for the Council to have a Local Development Scheme (LDS) whereas this report was about how that would be funded and the two issues needed to be considered separately, albeit they could have appeared in a different order on the Agenda.  All three authorities were referring the same LDS paper to their respective Committees and all needed to reach the same agreement; had Tewkesbury Borough Council produced one report inclusive of financial resources, it could have resulted in a different decision to the other two authorities and prevented a single LDS from progressing.

18.5           As no Member wished to debate, the motion was taken to the vote and